represents realistic possibilities; he redefined mimesis as the elaboration of an idea, a presumption, existing in the poet's mind. The poet thus assumes the almost divine personality of the creator; rather than making a mere duplication of the original, according to Aristotle, he should attempt to capture the essence of an idea and represent it by embodying everything in exemplary characters and actions. Plato's argument led him to believe that poetic mimesis was a force used by poets to mislead and deceive, underlining his claim which is overly dramatic with its warning to Homer's admirers that by accepting the "softened muse", they are accepting the emotions. in place of rationality and reason, but it was the Aristotolian view of mimesis that Sidney adopted in his defense as the basis for his view that poets "imitate both to teach and to delight, and delight to move" (11). metaphor of the 'talking picture', Sidney eloquently conveys that without them, poetry could without much difficulty descend into vitriolic diatribe or pointless entertainment; the appeal of vivid description on the imagination highlights the general notion, and Sidney draws on the Horatian view that things seen make more of an impression on the mind than those heard in his explanation that the metaphorical nature of poetry is not just part of its pleasure but also part of its power to move. Indeed, The Defense of Poesy is itself extremely metaphorical, and Sidney incorporates his "talking images" into the work as a means of illustrating his point. For example, he dramatizes the dispute between the figures of philosophy, history and poetry with rhetorical prosopopoeia: «Among whom the moral philosophers come forward as the main challengers» (13), setting it in a metaphorical courtroom environment to mimetically seal the image in the reader's mind while being 'tricked into taking the sugar pill'. It would be convenient, for study purposes, to be able to separate 'docere', 'delectare' and 'movere' into three individual categories to deal with them respectively, but Sidney offers the reader no such pleasure. The three “goals” are intertwined in their purpose and, more confusingly, their meaning; Sidney never gives us a completely lucid and logical explanation regarding the precise effect of each, but carries out his argument, despite apparent small hesitations, always basing it on the idea of mimesis. Clearly, the function of teaching knowledge is to 'elevate the mind from the prison of the body to enjoy its own divine essence' (13), but Sidney repeatedly emphasizes that poetry is rhetorical in its ability to transform people by not teaching what to think, but instead teaching them what to do. Aristotle argued that the "fruit" is not knowing, but doing: knowledge without action on it is useless. In dwelling on the steps towards virtue; "be imitated, and imitate both to delight and teach, and delight to push men to take hold of that goodness, which without joy they would flee as from a stranger, and teach to make them know that goodness by which they are moved. ." (11), Sidney emphasizes the meticulousness of his argument, exploiting the rhetorical climax to create the effect of a theoretical and systematic elaboration of a methodical series of events, each of which leads logically to the next. A specific illustrative literary example of mimesis appears in Shakespeare's Hamlet, when the protagonist takes on the role of the tragic playwright in 'The Mousetrap' and supports 'the aim of the play, the aim of which, both at the beginning and now, was and is, to hold nature as if the mirror were at the height: to show virtue its features, to despise its own image, and age itself and the body of time itsform and pressure' (Act 2, scene 2; 22 -24). Through the medium of drama, Hamlet presents the truth to his court as a "talking picture", to generate action, the "mirror" in a relatively short sequence mimetically reflects not only the crime scene but also embodies much more corruption in the court. Sidney's comparison of poetry to other disciplines encompasses much of his defense, punctuating the work rhetorically, each time returning to similar topics while challenging similar complaints, and in all of this drawing attention to the poet's skill in contrast to the others. He emphasizes the precepts of philosophy and the concrete, constrained nature of history, and laments that, while both may have knowledge to deliver, neither will be truly successful in delivering it since they do not apply the triple aim of rhetoric: "docere", "delectare, ' 'move.' Unlike poetry, neither imparts information using the Aristotolian 'figure forward' (mimesis) and since one must be 'moved to practice' by pleasure (22), they ultimately fail to 'conquer [the] mind' (23 ) When Sidney introduces his argument against philosophers (who teach in a way so obscure as to be indigestible to the uneducated - Sidney actually uses the metaphor of the "softer stomach" (18), indicative of the dynamism involved in absorbing. knowledge and acting on it, just as a stomach must actively absorb food) and historians (who merely 'act' (20)) it is clear that a much larger controversy is taking place than previously thought. Sidney is not simply defending poetry's place in the world, but is also asserting its place above other forms of learning; it is, he claims, 'the monarch' of the sciences (22). The defense of the poem as a literary work, albeit a piece of literary criticism, and keep in mind that the Philip Sidney defense is a literary rhetorical construct, designed solely to present an argument, and does not necessarily bear much resemblance to the Sidney author. This may explain a number of discrepancies and apparent contradictions in the work, which I will examine. Furthermore, perhaps more importantly, it serves to remind us that, as literature, it too functions on a mimetic level, indicating once again that the teaching, the delight and the moving that Sidney writes about in his Defense are also integrated into the main body of the work. , using it as an illustration of his theories. The story of Sidney, Wooton and Pugliano serves as an introduction and reason for Sidney's apology, and its parallel (the praise of horsemanship) also reinforces the 'talking picture' that is the entire Defense, as Sidney continues in his effort to define what the idea of poetry really is. The fact that we know that the defense is both judicial, in defense, and epideictic, in praise, rhetoric of the poem is significant as it is tempting to think that Sidney "might therefore be more intent on winning the argument than building a theory practicable literature". .' This need to convince the reader of poetry's ability to teach, delight, and move, rather than a strong belief in the subject matter itself, manifests itself in the overall style of the work. Sidney seems to perform a balancing act between formal oration and a desire to have fun with the reader. There is a sense in this tension that the colloquial style works to veil the didacticism of the work, giving the levity a studied touch, but the rather romantic interludes when Sidney expands on classical mythology and a series of witty ironies such as "this ink- my wasted toy" (53) denote a playfulness in the writer's approach as he treats us.

Topic > represents realistic possibilities; he redefined mimesis as the elaboration of an idea, a presumption, existing in the poet's mind. The poet thus assumes the almost divine personality of the creator; rather than making a mere duplication of the original, according to Aristotle, he should attempt to capture the essence of an idea and represent it by embodying everything in exemplary characters and actions. Plato's argument led him to believe that poetic mimesis was a force used by poets to mislead and deceive, underlining his claim which is overly dramatic with its warning to Homer's admirers that by accepting the "softened muse", they are accepting the emotions. in place of rationality and reason, but it was the Aristotolian view of mimesis that Sidney adopted in his defense as the basis for his view that poets "imitate both to teach and to delight, and delight to move" (11). metaphor of the 'talking picture', Sidney eloquently conveys that without them, poetry could without much difficulty descend into vitriolic diatribe or pointless entertainment; the appeal of vivid description on the imagination highlights the general notion, and Sidney draws on the Horatian view that things seen make more of an impression on the mind than those heard in his explanation that the metaphorical nature of poetry is not just part of its pleasure but also part of its power to move. Indeed, The Defense of Poesy is itself extremely metaphorical, and Sidney incorporates his "talking images" into the work as a means of illustrating his point. For example, he dramatizes the dispute between the figures of philosophy, history and poetry with rhetorical prosopopoeia: «Among whom the moral philosophers come forward as the main challengers» (13), setting it in a metaphorical courtroom environment to mimetically seal the image in the reader's mind while being 'tricked into taking the sugar pill'. It would be convenient, for study purposes, to be able to separate 'docere', 'delectare' and 'movere' into three individual categories to deal with them respectively, but Sidney offers the reader no such pleasure. The three “goals” are intertwined in their purpose and, more confusingly, their meaning; Sidney never gives us a completely lucid and logical explanation regarding the precise effect of each, but carries out his argument, despite apparent small hesitations, always basing it on the idea of mimesis. Clearly, the function of teaching knowledge is to 'elevate the mind from the prison of the body to enjoy its own divine essence' (13), but Sidney repeatedly emphasizes that poetry is rhetorical in its ability to transform people by not teaching what to think, but instead teaching them what to do. Aristotle argued that the "fruit" is not knowing, but doing: knowledge without action on it is useless. In dwelling on the steps towards virtue; "be imitated, and imitate both to delight and teach, and delight to push men to take hold of that goodness, which without joy they would flee as from a stranger, and teach to make them know that goodness by which they are moved. ." (11), Sidney emphasizes the meticulousness of his argument, exploiting the rhetorical climax to create the effect of a theoretical and systematic elaboration of a methodical series of events, each of which leads logically to the next. A specific illustrative literary example of mimesis appears in Shakespeare's Hamlet, when the protagonist takes on the role of the tragic playwright in 'The Mousetrap' and supports 'the aim of the play, the aim of which, both at the beginning and now, was and is, to hold nature as if the mirror were at the height: to show virtue its features, to despise its own image, and age itself and the body of time itsform and pressure' (Act 2, scene 2; 22 -24). Through the medium of drama, Hamlet presents the truth to his court as a "talking picture", to generate action, the "mirror" in a relatively short sequence mimetically reflects not only the crime scene but also embodies much more corruption in the court. Sidney's comparison of poetry to other disciplines encompasses much of his defense, punctuating the work rhetorically, each time returning to similar topics while challenging similar complaints, and in all of this drawing attention to the poet's skill in contrast to the others. He emphasizes the precepts of philosophy and the concrete, constrained nature of history, and laments that, while both may have knowledge to deliver, neither will be truly successful in delivering it since they do not apply the triple aim of rhetoric: "docere", "delectare, ' 'move.' Unlike poetry, neither imparts information using the Aristotolian 'figure forward' (mimesis) and since one must be 'moved to practice' by pleasure (22), they ultimately fail to 'conquer [the] mind' (23 ) When Sidney introduces his argument against philosophers (who teach in a way so obscure as to be indigestible to the uneducated - Sidney actually uses the metaphor of the "softer stomach" (18), indicative of the dynamism involved in absorbing. knowledge and acting on it, just as a stomach must actively absorb food) and historians (who merely 'act' (20)) it is clear that a much larger controversy is taking place than previously thought. Sidney is not simply defending poetry's place in the world, but is also asserting its place above other forms of learning; it is, he claims, 'the monarch' of the sciences (22). The defense of the poem as a literary work, albeit a piece of literary criticism, and keep in mind that the Philip Sidney defense is a literary rhetorical construct, designed solely to present an argument, and does not necessarily bear much resemblance to the Sidney author. This may explain a number of discrepancies and apparent contradictions in the work, which I will examine. Furthermore, perhaps more importantly, it serves to remind us that, as literature, it too functions on a mimetic level, indicating once again that the teaching, the delight and the moving that Sidney writes about in his Defense are also integrated into the main body of the work. , using it as an illustration of his theories. The story of Sidney, Wooton and Pugliano serves as an introduction and reason for Sidney's apology, and its parallel (the praise of horsemanship) also reinforces the 'talking picture' that is the entire Defense, as Sidney continues in his effort to define what the idea of poetry really is. The fact that we know that the defense is both judicial, in defense, and epideictic, in praise, rhetoric of the poem is significant as it is tempting to think that Sidney "might therefore be more intent on winning the argument than building a theory practicable literature". .' This need to convince the reader of poetry's ability to teach, delight, and move, rather than a strong belief in the subject matter itself, manifests itself in the overall style of the work. Sidney seems to perform a balancing act between formal oration and a desire to have fun with the reader. There is a sense in this tension that the colloquial style works to veil the didacticism of the work, giving the levity a studied touch, but the rather romantic interludes when Sidney expands on classical mythology and a series of witty ironies such as "this ink- my wasted toy" (53) denote a playfulness in the writer's approach as he treats us.