Now then goe we to the most important imputations laid to the poore Poets, for ought I can yet learne, they are these. First that there beeing manie other more frutefull knowledges, a man might better spend his time in them, then in this. Secondly, that it is the mother of lyes. Thirdly, that it is the nurse of abuse, infecting vs with many pestilent desires, with a Sirens sweetnesse, drawing the minde to the Serpents taile of sinfull fansies ; and herein especially Comedies giue the largest field to eare, as Chawcer saith, how both in other nations and in ours, before Poets did soften vs, we were full of courage giuen to martial exercises, the pillers of manlike libertie, and not lulled a sleepe in shadie idlenes, with Poets pastimes. And lastly and chiefly, they cry out with open mouth as if they had ouershot Robin-hood, that Plato banished them out of his Commonwealth.

Truly this is much, if there be much truth in it. First to the first. That a man might better spend his time, is a reason indeed: but it doth as they say, but petere principium. For if it be, as I affirme, that no learning is so good, as that which teacheth and moueth to vertue, and that none can both teach and moue thereto so much as Poesie, then is the conclusion manifest ; that incke and paper cannot be to a more profitable purpose imployed. And certainly though a man should graunt their first assumption, it should follow (mee thinks) very vnwillingly, that good is not good, because better is better. But I still and vtterly deny, that there is sprung out of earth a more fruitfull knowledge. To the second therfore, that they should be the principall lyers, I answere Paradoxically, but truly, I think truly: that of all writers vnder the Sunne, the Poet is the least lyer: and though he wold, as a Poet can scarcely be a lyer. The Astronomer with his cousin the Geometrician, can hardly escape, when they take vpon them to measure the height of the starres. How often thinke you do the Phisitians lie, when they auerre things good for sicknesses, which afterwards send Charon a great number of soules drownd in a potion, before they come to his Ferrie? And no lesse of the rest, which take vpon them to affirme.

Now for the Poet, he nothing affirmeth, and therefore neuer lieth: for as I take it, to lie, is to affirme that to bee true, which is false. So as the other Artistes, and especially the Historian, affirming manie things, can in the clowdie knowledge of mankinde, hardly escape from manie lies. But the Poet as I said before, neuer affirmeth, the Poet neuer maketh any Circles about your imagination, to coniure you to beleeue for true, what he writeth: he citeth not authorities of other histories, but euen for his entrie, calleth the sweete Muses to inspire vnto him a good inuention. In troth, not laboring to tel you what is, or is not, but what should, or should not be. And therefore though he recount things not true, yet because he telleth them not for true, he lieth not: without we will say, that Nathan lied in his speech before alleaged to Dauid, which as a wicked man durst scarce say, so think I none so simple, wold say, that Esope lied, in the tales of his beasts: for who thinketh that Esope wrote it for actually true, were wel worthie to haue his name Cronicled among the beasts he writeth of. What childe is there, that comming to a play, and seeing Thebes written in great letters vpon an old doore, doth beleeue that it is Thebes? If then a man can arriue to the childes age, to know that the Poets persons and dooings, are but pictures, what should be, and not stories what haue bin, they will neuer giue the lie to things not Affirmatiuely, but Allegorically and figuratiuely written; and therefore as is historie looking for truth, they may go away full fraught with falshood.

So in Poesie, looking but for fiction, they shall vse the narration but as an imaginatiue groundplat of a profitable inuention. But hereto is replied, that the Poets giue names to men they write of, which argueth a conceit of an actual truth, and so not being true, prooueth a falshood . And dooth the Lawier lye, then when vnder the names of Iohn of the Stile, and Iohn of the Nokes, hee putteth his Case? But that is easily answered, their naming of men, is but to make their picture the more liuely, and not to build anie Historie. Painting men, they cannot leaue men namelesse: wee see, wee cannot plaie at Chestes, but that wee must giue names to our Chessemen ; and yet mee thinkes he were a verie partiall Champion of truth, that would say wee lyed, for giuing a peece of wood the reuerende title of a Bishop. The Poet nameth Cyrus and Aeneas, no other way, then to shewe what men of their fames, fortunes, and estates, should doo. Their third is, how much it abuseth mens wit, training it to wanton sinfulnesse, and lustfull loue. For indeed that is the principall if not onely abuse, I can heare alleadged. They say the Comedies rather teach then reprehend amorous conceits. They say the Lirick is larded with passionat Sonets, the Elegiack weeps the want of his mistresse, and that euen to the Heroical Cupid hath ambitiously climed. Alas Loue, I would thou couldest as wel defend thy selfe, as thou canst offend others: I would those on whom thou doest attend, could either put thee away, or yeeld good reason why they keepe thee. But grant loue of bewtie to be a beastly fault, although it be verie hard, since onely man and no beast hath that gift to discerne bewtie, graunt that louely name of loue to deserue all hatefull reproches, although euen some of my maisters the Philosophers spent a good deale of their Lampoyle in setting foorth the excellencie of it, graunt I say, what they will haue graunted, that not onelie loue, but lust, but vanitie, but if they list scurrilitie, possesse manie leaues of the Poets bookes, yet thinke I, when this is graunted, they will finde their sentence may with good manners put the last words foremost ; and not say, that Poetrie abuseth mans wit, but that mans wit abuseth Poetrie.

For I will not denie, but that mans wit may make Poesie, which should be εἰκαστική which some learned haue defined figuring foorth good things to be θαναστική which doth contrariwise infect the fancie with vnwoorthie obiects, as the Painter should giue to the eye either some excellent perspectiue, or some fine Picture fit for building or fortification, or containing in it some notable example, as Abraham sacrificing his sonne Isaack, Iudith killing Holofernes, Dauid fighting with Golias, may leaue those, and please an ill pleased eye with wanton shewes of better hidden matters. But what, shal the abuse of a thing, make the right vse odious? Nay truly though I yeeld, that Poesie may not onely be abused, but that being abused by the reason of his sweete charming force, it can do more hurt then anie other armie of words: yet shall it be so farre from concluding, that the abuse should giue reproach to the abused, that contrariwise, it is a good reason, that whatsoeuer being abused, doth most harme, being rightly vsed (and vpon the right vse, ech thing receiues his title) doth most good.