"The Apology for Poetry" and "Faerie Queene"

Paper Summary:

This paper compares two pieces of literature, Sir Phillip Sydneys' "The Apology for Poetry" and Book I of Edmund Spenser's poem "The Faerie Queene", that assert that a piece of literature is not considered real poetry unless it teaches and that poetry should teach by delighting. The author closely analyzes the characterizations, tropes, descriptions, and scenery in both works. Concluding that both Sydney and Spenser are both great poets who realize that there is no need to apologize for poetry that not only teaches and makes one more virtuous, but also excites and delights.

From the Paper:

"How it delights the reader would depend on, of course, the poem itself. Since it cannot be determined if the piece of work is real poetry at its best until after it has been proven to teach, the criterion for real poetry is hard to define. Nevertheless, as aforementioned, Sydney claims there is one standard that it has to reach - the ability to teach. It is also made known to the reader that the author is of the opinion that by delighting an audience, the author of a poem can teach the reader. In order to actually ascertain the truth of this claim, one must first establish and accept a definition of delight. Looking up the word delight in the Collins English Dictionary, one would find the following entry: delight (di'lait) vb 1 (tr) to please greatly. 2 (intr; foll by in) to take great pleasure (in). 3 extreme pleasure or satisfaction; joy. 4 something that causes this (Collins English Dictionary, 415). Following from those given definitions, this paper will show how Book 1 of Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene is real poetry because it teaches by delighting."

More papers on "The Apology for Poetry" and "Faerie Queene":

• Analytical Essay # 39612 : "The Faerie Queene"
• Poem Review # 106814 : "Faerie Queene"
• Analytical Essay # 114190 : "Una's Place in "The Faerie Queene"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: