For the question is, whether
the feigned image of poetry, or the regular instruction of
philosophy, hath the more force in teaching. Wherein, if the
philosophers have more rightly showed themselves philosophers, than
the poets have attained to the high top of their profession, (as in
truth,
"Mediocribus esse poetis
Non Di, non homines, non concessere columnae," {33})
it is, I say again, not the fault of the art, but that by few men
that art can be accomplished. Certainly, even our Saviour Christ
could as well have given the moral common-places {34} of
uncharitableness and humbleness, as the divine narration of Dives
and Lazarus; or of disobedience and mercy, as the heavenly discourse
of the lost child and the gracious father; but that his thorough
searching wisdom knew the estate of Dives burning in hell, and of
Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, would more constantly, as it were,
inhabit both the memory and judgment. Truly, for myself (me seems),
I see before mine eyes the lost child's disdainful prodigality
turned to envy a swine's dinner; which, by the learned divines, are
thought not historical acts, but instructing parables.
For conclusion, I say the philosopher teacheth, but he teacheth
obscurely, so as the learned only can understand him; that is to
say, he teacheth them that are already taught. But the poet is the
food for the tenderest stomachs; the poet is, indeed, the right
popular philosopher.
Pages:
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48