Introduction
Sidney puts contemporary poetry as well as dramas to scrutiny and he does not like the way both genres are treated by the writers as well as the public alike. He even goes on to state that the level of poetry in England is as low as the low reputation of quacks in Venice. Sidney gives a reason that because England was at that time in peace. Due to the absence of elevated themes like war, the poets are unable to create a masterpiece as old poets did. Sidney even criticizes tragedies and comedies which, we shall discuss in detail in upcoming paragraphs.
Comments on Contemporary Poetry
Sidney gives his views on lyrical poetry and asserts that lyrical poetry would be a great genre of poetry if it introduced the praise (and love) of God in it. But the common lyrical poetry abounds in the theme of love which arouses little to no pure emotions because of the cold artificiality in it. Sidney calls this a lamentable defect in poetry.
Sidney, then, comes to find faults in the style of poetry. He says that the English poets are in the habit of putting sugar and spice upon every dish. And they follow the Red Indians who not only wear rings in their noses but also thrust them in their lips that ultimately shows an orderless beauty. Sidney means that the poets use ornaments and embellishments wrongly in poetry. They draw metaphors from all sources like the stories of birds and beasts. They use strange words that are alien to the laymen in England. In short, poets run after false ostentation and pay no attention to correct their style of poetry.
Despite Sidney's devotion to the old poets, he admires Chaucer and his genius "Troilus and Cressida" yet he discovers some limitations in Chaucer's poetry. He praises the noble birth and noble mind that shows up in the lyrics of Earl of Surrey. He likes Spencer's Shepherd Calendar but still, he finds the language crude in it.
Comments on Contemporary Drama
Sidney asserts that English tragedies and comedies need to be criticized because they do not follow certain rules. He even goes on to state that these plays are neither right tragedies, nor right comedies because they mix up kings and clowns. The mixture of these events is not demanded by the subject matter but the playwrights stuff them at their own will. Due to such mingling, these plays lose their tragic as well as comic appeal. Sidney explains that writers in the past also mixed comedy with tragedy but with skill. He labels these plays as tragicomedies. According to him, a good tragedy is,
The ideal tragedy is an imitation of a noble action, in the representation of which it stirs, admiration and commiseration.
Then he moves on to comment on comedies. He says that comedies in that era only try to arouse laughter, not delight. He suggests that the primary motive of a comedy should be to spread delight. But English playwrights attempt to broadcast the feeling of delight through laughter and by depicting sinful deeds. Sidney asserts that comic characters should not display laughter through misery but through a fussy courtier or a proud traveller who has borrowed foreign dress and talk. He claims that comedies can be used as a vehicle of teaching to depict delight through instruction.
Limitations
It is very obvious from a surface reading of Sidney's commentary on the poetry as well as plays of that time that he was somewhat limited in his approach to analysing the said genres. For instance, in his analysis of Chaucer, he completely forgot to mention the defining work of Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales. Chaucer had himself claimed that Troilus and Cressida was a translation, not an original genius.
Sidney detested the mingling of comic elements in a tragedy but later, Shakespeare proved tragi-comedy a fruitful genre of English Literature. Dr. Johnson as well as Dryden defended tragi-comedy as an interesting invention. Sidney's claim of comedy for delight is also not true because laughter is the main function of a comedy. Also, the scenarios he mentions will make comedy limited.
Conclusion
Sidney's commentary on contemporary drama and poetry acknowledges the artistic value associated with it. But his adherence to classical values makes him unable to appreciate the future development of these prestigious genres.
