His reason is,because poesy dealeth with [Greek text],that is to say,with the universal consideration,and the history [Greek text],the particular."Now,"saith he,"the universal weighs what is fit to be said or done,either in likelihood or necessity;which the poesy considereth in his imposed names;and the particular only marks,whether Alcibiades did,or suffered,this or that:"thus far Aristotle.{35}Which reason of his,as all his,is most full of reason.For,indeed,if the question were,whether it were better to have a particular act truly or falsely set down?there is no doubt which is to be chosen,no more than whether you had rather have Vespasian's picture right as he was,or,at the painter's pleasure,nothing resembling?But if the question be,for your own use and learning,whether it be better to have it set down as it should be,or as it was?then,certainly,is more doctrinable the feigned Cyrus in Xenophon,than the true Cyrus in Justin;{36}and the feigned AEneas in Virgil,than the right AEneas in Dares Phrygius;{37}as to a lady that desired to fashion her countenance to the best grace,a painter should more benefit her,to portrait a most sweet face,writing Canidia upon it,than to paint Canidia as she was,who,Horace sweareth,was full ill-favoured.If the poet do his part aright,he will show you in Tantalus,Atreus,and such like,nothing that is not to be shunned;in Cyrus,AEneas,Ulysses,each thing to be followed;where the historian,bound to tell things as things were,cannot be liberal,without he will be poetical,of a perfect pattern;but,as in Alexander,or Scipio himself,show doings,some to be liked,some to be misliked;and then how will you discern what to follow,but by your own discretion,which you had,without reading Q.Curtius?{38}And whereas,a man may say,though in universal consideration of doctrine,the poet prevaileth,yet that the history,in his saying such a thing was done,doth warrant a man more in that he shall follow;the answer is manifest:that if he stand upon that WAS,as if he should argue,because it rained yesterday therefore it should rain to-day;then,indeed,hath it some advantage to a gross conceit.But if he know an example only enforms a conjectured likelihood,and so go by reason,the poet doth so far exceed him,as he is to frame his example to that which is most reasonable,be it in warlike,politic,or private matters;where the historian in his bare WAS hath many times that which we call fortune to overrule the best wisdom.Many times he must tell events whereof he can yield no cause;or if he do,it must be poetically.
For,that a feigned example bath as much force to teach as a true example (for as for to move,it is clear,since the feigned may be tuned to the highest key of passion),let us take one example wherein an historian and a poet did concur.Herodotus and Justin do both testify,that Zopyrus,King Darius's faithful servant,seeing his master long resisted by the rebellious Babylonians,feigned himself in extreme disgrace of his King;for verifying of which he caused his own nose and ears to be cut off,and so flying to the Babylonians,was received;and,for his known valour,so far credited,that he did find means to deliver them over to Darius.
Much-like matters doth Livy record of Tarquinius and his son.
Xenophon excellently feigned such another stratagem,performed by Abradatus in Cyrus's behalf.Now would I fain know,if occasion be presented unto you to serve your prince by such an honest dissimulation,why do you not as well learn it of Xenophon's fiction as of the other's verity?and,truly,so much the better,as you shall save your nose by the bargain;for Abradatus did not counterfeit so far.So,then,the best of the historians is subject to the poet;for,whatsoever action or faction,whatsoever counsel,policy,or war stratagem the historian is bound to recite,that may the poet,if he list,with his imitation,make his own,beautifying it both for farther teaching,and more delighting,as it please him:
having all,from Dante's heaven to his hell,under the authority of his pen.Which if I be asked,What poets have done so?as I might well name some,so yet,say I,and say again,I speak of the art,and not of the artificer.
Now,to that which commonly is attributed to the praise of history,in respect of the notable learning which is got by marking the success,as though therein a man should see virtue exalted,and vice punished:truly,that commendation is peculiar to poetry,and far off from history;for,indeed,poetry ever sets virtue so out in her best colours,making fortune her well-waiting handmaid,that one must needs be enamoured of her.Well may you see Ulysses in a storm,and in other hard plights;but they are but exercises of patience and magnanimity,to make them shine the more in the near following prosperity.And,on the contrary part,if evil men come to the stage,they ever go out (as the tragedy writer answered to one that misliked the show of such persons)so manacled,as they little animate folks to follow them.But history being captive to the truth of a foolish world,in many times a terror from well-doing,and an encouragement to unbridled wickedness.For see we not valiant Miltiades rot in his fetters?the just Phocion and the accomplished Socrates put to death like traitors?the cruel Severus live prosperously?the excellent Severus miserably murdered?Sylla and Marius dying in their beds?Pompey and Cicero slain then when they would have thought exile a happiness?See we not virtuous Cato driven to kill himself,and rebel Caesar so advanced,that his name yet,after sixteen hundred years,lasteth in the highest honour?
