bered with the pedantry of learning: it is true, the contrary was the opinion of our forefathers, which we of this age have devotion enough to receive from them on their own terms, and unexamined, but not sense enough to perceive it was a gross mistake in them. So Horace has told us:
"Scribendi recte sapere est & principium & fons,
Rem tibi Socraticæ poterunt ostendere chartæ."
But, to see the different casts of men's heads, some, not inferiour to that poet in understanding (if you will take their own word for it) do see no consequence in this rule, and are not ashamed to declare themselves of a contrary opinion. Do not many men write well in common account, who have nothing of that principle? Many are too wise to be poets, and others too much poets to be wise. Must a man, forsooth, be no less than a philosopher to be a poet, when it is plain that some of the greatest idiots of the age are our prettiest performers that way? And for this, I appeal to the judgment and observation of mankind. Sir Ph. Sidney's notable remark upon this nation, may not be improper to mention here. He says, "In our neighbour country Ireland, where true learning goes very bare, yet are their poets held in devout reverence;" which shows, that learning is no way necessary either to the making of a poet, or judging of him. And farther, to see the fate of things, notwithstanding our learning here is as bare as ever, yet are our poets not held, as formerly, in devout reverence; but are, perhaps, the most contemptible race of mortals now in this kingdom, which is no less to be wondered at, than lamented.
