The source of Sidneys The Defense of Poesy has always been a hot spot for scholars because of his direct quoting from Aristotle while seemingly in accordance with Plato. Whether the source is more likely to be Aristotle or Plato can only be determined through a delve into the underlying assumptions of Sidneys definition and classification of imitation， along with a comparison with those of Aristotle and Plato.

Both Sidneys The Defense of Poesy and Aristotles Poetics can be seen as the defenses of poetry. “Poesy， therefore， is an art of imitation， for so Aristotle termeth it in the word mimesis， that is to say， a representing， counterfeiting or figuring forth – to speak metaphorically， a speaking picture – with this end： to teach and delight.”（Leitch， 258） This is how Sidney related himself to Aristotle in his definition of Poetry. Indeed， his “teach and delight” theory can be traced in Aristotles proposition that “man…learns his first lessons through representation” and that “everyone delights in representation” （Leitch， 90）， which means both of them admit the entertaining and teaching effect of imitation. However， the phrase “delightful teaching” in other passages is reserved for discussion later.

When Aristotle mentions imitation， he means in most cases the imitation of “the action of men”. Tragedy， according to Aristotle， is imitation “not of human beings but of action and life.” （Leitch， 93） It is in action that all happiness and unhappiness lay and it is the origin and soul of tragedy， without which there would be no tragedy. That is why he put plot in the first place for plot is about action. However， Sidney links imitation metaphorically to “a speaking picture”. According to him， imitation is thus like a still picture， except that it also talks. For the picture， one may want to think about looking at it first before hearing it. It is nothing like Aristotles imitation of “action” which can make us think about the plot， sequences of incidents and so forth. So Sidney， whether consciously or unconsciously， misses the most important part of Aristotles definition of imitation. Given this， Sidney does not actually mean the same thing as Aristotle even though they use the same word.

Besides， Aristotle in his concept of imitation deals with many things， for example， the medium of imitation like songs and dictions. His imitation falls into six parts： plot， characters， diction， reasoning， spectacle and song. Sidney， instead of giving imitation a detailed classification， roughly talks about three approaches to it， “representing， counterfeiting， or figuring forth”. （Leitch， 258） He doesnt really concern about the same aspects of imitation as Aristotle does. In this regard， Sidney and Aristotle have respective emphases when speaking of imitation.

Besides Aristotle， Sidney refers to Plato several times. He admits that it is difficult to refute Platos argument against poetry for he respects his authority. Indeed， Sidney accords with this authority in many ways.

The center of Sidneys defense is that poetry excels science and history at the teaching of virtue. “The ending end of all earthly learning being virtuous action” （Leitch， 261）， therefore poets must always have the ethical effect considered. What distinguishes poetry from the other arts is “that feigning notable images of virtue， vices， or what else， with that delightful teaching， which must be the right describing note to know a poet by.” （Leitch， 260） If “to teach and delight” in the definition of imitation is the use of Aristotles idea， then the teaching of “virtue” here is more suggestive of Platos theory， because Plato lays great emphasis on the “goodness of character” （Leitch， 58）， which means poets should equip the character with “moral goodness and excellence” （Leitch， 58） so that the young people can take every opportunity to cultivate these qualities.

Sidney gives a very clear classification of three kinds of poetry. The first “imitate the unconceivable excellencies of God”， the second “deals with matters philosophical” and the third he calls “indeed right poets”. （Leitch， 259） Those of the first kind are not really poets， “the first and most noble sort may justly be termed vates”. These divine poets are denounced by Plato for they “filled the world with wrong opinions of the gods”. Sidney allows these poems only in that they cheer the merry and comfort the sorrowful. The second kind， the poet dealing with philosophical matters， “tak[ing] not the course of his own invention … only counterfeit faces as are set before [him]” （Leitch， 259）， is also denounced by Plato that it is three times removed from reality as Plato compares poets to the painter whose work is a copy of a copy. Plato banishes these poets and Sidney even doubts whether they deserve the name of poets.

What Sidney speaks highly of is the third kind， the right poet who imitates the ideal truth rather than actual facts and creates a “second nature” （Leitch， 258） which resembles Platos ultimate reality of the noumenal. According to Sidney， the imitative poet does not simply copy the natural world， but “doth grow in effect another nature， in making things either better than nature bringeth forth or， quite anew， forms such as never were in nature.” （Lietch， 257） The poet as maker， not being enclosed within his narrow gift， goes hand in hand with nature with his own wit， improving upon nature or producing new forms that have never been found in nature， which Sidney called a “golden” world. For Plato， likewise， the only poets he would admit to his Republic are those who strive to imitate the ideal world of ultimate noumenal reality， like what Sidney calls the “golden”， not the phenomenal world of appearances， which are only copies of reality， similar to what Sidney calls “brazen”. For the latter， Sidney terms “abuse”， which is the kind of poetry Plato really banishes.

The influence of Aristotle on Sidney seems to be so obvious because it is explicitly stated in his argument. However， he does not actually mean the same thing as Aristotle. In terms of Sidneys defense of Plato， the fact is that Sidney resembles Plato in his idea of poetrys evoking of virtue. Moreover， Sidneys threefold division of poetry also suggests his following of Plato. With all these considered， we can safely draw the conclusion that Sidneys The Defense of Poesy is a defense of Plato under the cloak of Aristotle.

References：

[1]Leitch，Vincent.The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.New York：W.W.Norton & Company Ltd.，2010.

作者簡介：魏新月（1991-），女，汉族，湖北人，重庆大学外国语学院研究生，英美文学。