First,truly,a man might maliciously object that Plato,being a philosopher,was a natural enemy of poets.For,indeed,after the philosophers had picked out of the sweet mysteries of poetry the right discerning of true points of knowledge,they forthwith,putting it in method,and making a school of art of that which the poets did only teach by a divine delightfulness,beginning to spurn at their guides,like ungrateful apprentices,were not content to set up shop for themselves,but sought by all means to discredit their masters;which,by the force of delight being barred them,the less they could overthrow them,the more they hated them.For,indeed,they found for Homer seven cities strove who should have him for their citizen,where many cities banished philosophers as not fit members to live among them.For only repeating certain of Euripides'verses many Athenians had their lives saved of the Syracusans,where the Athenians themselves thought many of the philosophers unworthy to live.Certain poets,as Simonides and Pindar,had so prevailed with Hiero the First,that of a tyrant they made him a just king;where Plato could do so little with Dionysius that he himself,of a philosopher,was made a slave.But who should do thus,I confess,should requite the objections raised against poets with like cavillations against philosophers;as likewise one should do that should bid one read Phaedrus or Symposium in Plato,or the discourse of Love in Plutarch,and see whether any poet do authorise abominable filthiness as they do.
Again,a man might ask,out of what Commonwealth Plato doth banish them?In sooth,thence where he himself alloweth community of women.So,as belike this banishment grew not for effeminate wantonness,since little should poetical sonnets be hurtful,when a man might have what woman he listed.But I honour philosophical instructions,and bless the wits which bred them,so as they be not abused,which is likewise stretched to poetry.Saint Paul himself sets a watchword upon philosophy,indeed upon the abuse.So doth Plato upon the abuse,not upon poetry.Plato found fault that the poets of his time filled the world with wrong opinions of the gods,making light tales of that unspotted essence,and therefore would not have the youth depraved with such opinions.Herein may much be said;let this suffice:the poets did not induce such opinions,but did imitate those opinions already induced.For all the Greek stories can well testify that the very religion of that time stood upon many and many-fashioned gods;not taught so by poets,but followed according to their nature of imitation.Who list may read in Plutarch the discourses of Isis and Osiris,of the cause why oracles ceased,of the Divine providence,and see whether the theology of that nation stood not upon such dreams,which the poets indeed superstitiously observed;and truly,since they had not the light of Christ,did much better in it than the philosophers,who,shaking off superstition,brought in atheism.
Plato,therefore,whose authority I had much rather justly construe than unjustly resist,meant not in general of poets,in those words of which Julius Scaliger saith,"qua authoritate,barbari quidam atque insipidi,abuti velint ad poetas e republica exigendos {71}:"but only meant to drive out those wrong opinions of the Deity,whereof now,without farther law,Christianity hath taken away all the hurtful belief,perchance as he thought nourished by then esteemed poets.And a man need go no farther than to Plato himself to know his meaning;who,in his dialogue called "Ion,"{72}giveth high,and rightly,divine commendation unto poetry.So as Plato,banishing the abuse,not the thing,not banishing it,but giving due honour to it,shall be our patron,and not our adversary.For,indeed,I had much rather,since truly I may do it,show their mistaking of Plato,under whose lion's skin they would make an ass-like braying against poesy,than go about to overthrow his authority;whom,the wiser a man is,the more just cause he shall find to have in admiration;especially since he attributeth unto poesy more than myself do,namely,to be a very inspiring of a divine force,far above man's wit,as in the fore-named dialogue is apparent.
Of the other side,who would show the honours have been by the best sort of judgments granted them,a whole sea of examples would present themselves;Alexanders,Caesars,Scipios,all favourers of poets;Laelius,called the Roman Socrates,himself a poet;so as part of Heautontimeroumenos,in Terence,was supposed to be made by him.And even the Greek Socrates,whom Apollo confirmed to be the only wise man,is said to have spent part of his old time in putting AEsop's Fables into verse;and,therefore,full evil should it become his scholar Plato to put such words in his master's mouth against poets.But what needs more?Aristotle writes the "Art of Poesy;"and why,if it should not be written?Plutarch teacheth the use to be gathered of them;and how,if they should not be read?
And who reads Plutarch's either history or philosophy,shall find he trimmeth both their garments with guards {73}of poesy.
