The Defence of Poesie.
of Sir Thomas Moores Eutopia. I say the Way, because where Sir Thomas Moore erred, it was the fault of the man and not of the Poet: for that Way of patterning a Common-wealth, was most absolute though hee perchaunce hath not so absolutely performed it. For the question is, whether the fained Image of Poetrie, or the reguler instruction of Philosophie, hath the more force in teaching? Wherein if the Philosophers haue more rightly shewed themselues Philosophers then the Poets, haue atteined to the high toppe of their profession (as in truth Mediocribus esse poetis non Dii, non homines, non concessere columnæ,) it is (I say againe) not the fault of the Art, but that by fewe men that Art can be accomplished. Certainly euen our Sauiour Christ could as well haue giuen the morall common places of vncharitablenesse and humblenesse, as the diuine narration of Diues and Lazarus, or of disobedience and mercy, as that heauenly discourse of the lost childe and the gracious Father, but that his through searching wisedome, knew the estate of Diues burning in hell, and of Lazarus in Abrahams bosome, would more constantly as it were, inhabit both the memorie and iudgement. Truly for my selfe (mee seemes) I see before mine eyes, the lost childs disdainful prodigalitie, turned to enuy a Swines dinner: which by the learned Diuines are thought not Historical acts, but instructing Parables. For conclusion, I say the Philosopher teacheth, but he teacheth obscurely, so as the learned onely can vnderstand him, that is to say, he teacheth them that are alreadie taught. But the Poet is the food for the tendrest stomacks, the Poetis
