For indeed if the question were, whether it were better to haue a particular act truly or falsly set downe, there is no doubt which is to be chosen, no more then whether you had rather haue Vespacians Picture right as he was, or at the Painters pleasure nothing resembling. But if the question be for your owne vse and learning, whether it be better to haue it set downe as it should be, or as it was ; then certainly is more doctrinable, the fained Cyrus in Xenophon, then the true Cyrus in Iustin: and the fained Aeneas in Virgill, then the right Aeneas in Dares Phrigius: as to a Ladie that desired to fashion her countenance to the best grace: a Painter shuld more benefite her to pourtrait a most sweete face, writing Canidia vppon it, then to paint Canidia as shee was, who Horace sweareth was full ill fauoured. If the Poet do his part aright, he wil shew you in Tantalus Atreus, and such like, nothing that is not to be shunned; in Cyrus, Aeneas, Vlisses, each thing to be followed: where the Historian bound to tell things as things were, cannot be liberall, without hee will be Poeticall of a perfect patterne, but as in Alexander, or Scipio himselfe, shew doings, some to be liked, some to be misliked; and then how wil you discerne what to follow, but by your own discretion which you had without reading Q. Curtius. And whereas a man may say, though in vniuersall consideration of doctrine, the Poet preuaileth, yet that the Historie in his saying such a thing was done, doth warrant a man more in that he shall follow. The answere is manifest, that if he stand vpon that was, as if he should argue, because it rained yesterday, therfore it should raine to day, then indeede hath it some aduantage to a grosse conceit. But if hee knowe an example onely enformes a coniectured likelihood, and so goe by reason, the Poet doth so farre exceed him, as hee is to frame his example to that which is most reasonable, be it in warlike, politike, or priuate matters, where the Historian in his bare, was, hath many times that which we call fortune, to ouerrule the best wisedome. Manie times he must tell euents, whereof he can yeeld no cause, or if he do, it must be poetically.

For that a fained example hath as much force to teach, as a true example (for as for to mooue, it is cleare, since the fained may be tuned to the highest key of passion) let vs take one example wherein an Historian and a Poet did concurre. Herodotus and Iustin doth both testifie, that Zopirus, King Darius faithfull seruant, seeing his maister long resisted by the rebellious Babilonians, fained himselfe in extreame disgrace of his King, for verifying of which, he caused his owne nose and eares to be cut off, and so flying to the Babylonians was receiued, and for his knowne valure so farre creadited, that hee did finde meanes to deliuer them ouer to Darius. Much like matter doth Liuy record of Tarquinius, and his sonne. Xenophon excellently faineth such an other Stratageme, performed by Abradates in Cyrus behalfe. Now would I faine knowe, if occasion be presented vnto you, to serue your Prince by such an honest dissimulation, why you do not as well learne it of Xenophons fiction, as of the others veritie: and truly so much the better, as you shall saue your nose by the bargaine. For Abradates did not coun- terfeyt so farre.

So then the best of the Historian is subiect to the Poet, for whatsoeuer action or faction, whatsoeuer counsaile, pollicie, or warre, stratageme, the Historian is bounde to recite, that may the Poet if hee list with his imitation make his owne ; bewtifying it both for further teaching, and more delighting as it please him: hauing all from Dante his heuen to his hell, vnder the authority of his pen. Which if I be asked what Poets haue don for as I might wel name some, so yet say I, and say again, I speake of the Art and not of the Artificer.

Now to that which commonly is attributed to the praise of Historie, in respect of the notable learning, is got by marking the successe, as though therein a man shuld see vertue exalted, & vice punished: truly that commendation is peculier to Poetrie, and farre off from Historie ; for indeed Poetrie euer sets vertue so out in her best cullours, making fortune her well-wayting handmayd, that one must needs be enamoured of her. Well may you see Vlisses in a storme and in other hard plights, but they are but exercises of patience & magnanimitie, to make them shine the more in the neare following prosperitie. And of the contrary part, if euill men come to the stage, they euer goe out (as the Tragedie writer answered to one that misliked the shew of such persons) so manicled as they litle animate folkes to follow them. But the Historie beeing captiued to the trueth of a foolish world, is many times a terror from well-doing, and an encouragement to vnbrideled wickednes. For see we not valiant Milciades rot in his fetters ? The iust Phocion and the accomplished Socrates, put to death like Traytors? The cruell Seuerus, liue prosperously? The excellent Seuerus miserably murthered? Sylla and Marius dying in their beds? Pompey and Cicero slain then when they wold haue thought exile happinesse? See we not vertuous Cato driuen to kill himselfe, and Rebell Cæsar so aduanced, that his name yet after 1600 yeares lasteth in the highest honor? And marke but euen Cæsars owne words of the forenamed Sylla, (who in that onely, did honestly to put downe his dishonest Tyrannie) Litteras nesciuit: as if want of learning caused him to doo well. He ment it not by Poetrie, which not content with earthly plagues, deuiseth new punishments in hell for Tyrants: nor yet by Philosophy, which teacheth Occidentos esse, but no doubt by skill in History, for that indeed can affoord you Cipselus, Periander, Phalaris, Dionisius, and I know not how many more of the same kennell, that speed well inough in their abhominable iniustice of vsurpation.

I conclude therfore that he excelleth historie, not onely in furnishing the minde with knowledge, but in setting it forward to that which deserues to be called and accounted good: which setting forward and mouing to well doing, indeed setteth the Lawrell Crowne vpon the Poets as victorious, not onely of the Historian, but ouer the Philosopher, howsoeuer in teaching it may be questionable. For suppose it be granted, that which I suppose with great reason may be denied, that the Philosopher in respect of his methodical proceeding, teach more perfectly then the Poet, yet do I thinke, that no man is so much philophilosothos, as to compare the Philosopher in moouing with the Poet. And that moouing is of a higher degree then teaching, it may by this appeare, that it is well nigh both the cause and effect of teaching. For who will be taught, if hee be not mooued with desire to be taught? And what so much good doth that teaching bring foorth, (I speake still of morall doctrine) as that it mooueth one to do that which it doth teach.