<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text><body><div type="edition" n="urn:cts:engLit:sidney.defence.perseus-eng1" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" xml:base="urn:cts:engLit:sidney.defence.perseus-eng1" n="20"><p resp="perseus">Lastly, if he make the song Booke, I put the learners hand to the Lute, and if he be the guide, I am the light. Then would he alleage you innumerable examples, confirming storie by stories, how much the wisest Senators and Princes, haue bene directed by the credit of Historie, as <name rend="italic">Brutus, Alphonsus</name> of <name rend="italic">Aragon</name>, (and who not if need be. ) At length, the long line of their disputation makes a point in this, that the one giueth the precept, &amp; the other the example. Now whom shall we find, since the question standeth for the highest forme in the schoole of learning to be moderator? Truly as mee seemeth, the Poet, and if not a moderator, euen the man that ought to carry the title from them both: &amp; much more from all other seruing sciences. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" xml:base="urn:cts:engLit:sidney.defence.perseus-eng1" n="21"><p resp="perseus">Therfore compare we the <name rend="italic">Poet</name> with the <name rend="italic">Historian</name>, &amp; with the morall <name rend="italic">Philosopher: </name> and if hee goe beyond them both, no other humaine skill can match him. For as for the diuine, with all reuerence it is euer to be excepted, not onely for hauing his scope as far beyond any of these, as Eternitie exceedeth a moment: but euen for passing ech of these in themselues. And for the <name rend="italic">Lawier, </name> though <foreign xml:lang="lat">Ius</foreign> be the daughter of <name rend="italic">Iustice</name>, the chiefe of vertues, yet because he seeks to make men good, rather <foreign xml:lang="lat">formidine poenae, </foreign> then <foreign xml:lang="lat">virtutis amore: </foreign> or to say righter, doth not endeuor to make men good, but that their euill hurt not others, hauing no care so he be a good citizen, how bad a man he be. Therfore as our wickednes maketh him necessarie, and necessitie maketh him honorable, so is he not in the deepest truth to stand in ranck with these, who al endeuour to take naughtinesse away, and plant goodnesse euen in the secretest cabinet of our soules: and these foure are all that any way deale in the consideration of mens manners, which being the supreme knowledge, they that best breed it, deserue the best commendation. The <name rend="italic">Philosopher</name> therefore, and the <name rend="italic">Historian</name>, are they which would win the goale, the one by precept, the other by example: but both, not hauing both, doo both halt. For the <name rend="italic">Philosopher</name> set- ting downe with thornie arguments, the bare rule, is so hard of vtterance, and so mistie to be conceiued, that one that hath no other guide but him, shall wade in him till he be old, before he shall finde sufficient cause to be honest. For his knowledge standeth so vpon the abstract and generall that happie is that man who may vnderstand him, and more happie, that can apply what he doth vnderstand. On the other side, the <name rend="italic">Historian</name> wanting the precept, is so tied, not to what should be, but to what is, to the particular truth of things, and not to the general reason of things, that his example draweth no necessarie consequence, and therefore a lesse fruitfull doctrine. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" xml:base="urn:cts:engLit:sidney.defence.perseus-eng1" n="22"><p resp="perseus">Now doth the peerlesse Poet performe both, for whatsoeuer the <name rend="italic">Philosopher</name> saith should be done, he giues a perfect picture of it by some one, by whom he presupposeth it was done, so as he coupleth the generall notion with the particuler example. A perfect picture I say, for hee yeeldeth to the powers of the minde an image of that whereof the <name rend="italic">Philosopher</name> bestoweth but a wordish description, which doth neither strike, pearce, nor possesse, the sight of the soule so much, as that other doth. For as in outward things to a man that had neuer seene an <name rend="italic">Elephant</name>, or a <name rend="italic">Rinoceros</name>, who should tell him most exquisitely all their shape, cullour, bignesse, and particuler marks, or of a gorgious pallace an <name rend="italic">Architecture</name>, who decla- ring the full bewties, might well make the hearer able to repeat as it were by roat all he had heard, yet should neuer satisfie his inward conceit, with being witnesse to it selfe of a true liuely knowledge: but the same man, assoon as he might see those beasts wel painted, or that house wel in modell, shuld straightwaies grow without need of any description to a iudicial comprehending of them, so no doubt the <name rend="italic">Philosopher</name> with his learned definitions, be it of vertues of vices, matters of publike policy or priuat gouernment, replenisheth the memorie with many infallible grounds of wisdom, which notwithstanding lie darke before the imaginatiue and iudging power, if they be not illuminated or figured forth by the speaking picture of <name rend="italic">Poesie</name>. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>