So that the ending end of all earthly learning being virtuous action,those skills that most serve to bring forth that have a most just title to be princes over all the rest;wherein,if we can show it rightly,the poet is worthy to have it before any other competitors.{26}
Among {27}whom principally to challenge it,step forth the moral philosophers;whom,methinks,I see coming toward me with a sullen gravity (as though they could not abide vice by daylight),rudely clothed,for to witness outwardly their contempt of outward things,with books in their hands against glory,whereto they set their names;sophistically speaking against subtlety,and angry with any man in whom they see the foul fault of anger.These men,casting largesses as they go,of definitions,divisions,and distinctions,with a scornful interrogative do soberly ask:Whether it be possible to find any path so ready to lead a man to virtue,as that which teacheth what virtue is;and teacheth it not only by delivering forth his very being,his causes and effects;but also by making known his enemy,vice,which must be destroyed;and his cumbersome servant,passion,which must be mastered,by showing the generalities that contain it,and the specialities that are derived from it;lastly,by plain setting down how it extends itself out of the limits of a man's own little world,to the government of families,and maintaining of public societies?
The historian {28}scarcely gives leisure to the moralist to say so much,but that he (laden with old mouse-eaten records,authorizing {29}himself,for the most part,upon other histories,whose greatest authorities are built upon the notable foundation of hearsay,having much ado to accord differing writers,and to pick truth out of partiality;better acquainted with a thousand years ago than with the present age,and yet better knowing how this world goes than how his own wit runs;curious for antiquities,and inquisitive of novelties,a wonder to young folks,and a tyrant in table-talk)denieth,in a great chafe,that any man for teaching of virtue and virtuous actions,is comparable to him.I am "Testis temporum,lux veritatis,vita memoriae,magistra vitae,nuncia vetustatis."{30}The philosopher,saith he,teacheth a disputative virtue,but I do an active;his virtue is excellent in the dangerless academy of Plato,but mine showeth forth her honourable face in the battles of Marathon,Pharsalia,Poictiers,and Agincourt:he teacheth virtue by certain abstract considerations;but I only bid you follow the footing of them that have gone before you:old-aged experience goeth beyond the fine-witted philosopher;but I give the experience of many ages.Lastly,if he make the song book,I put the learner's hand to the lute;and if he be the guide,I am the light.Then would he allege you innumerable examples,confirming story by stories,how much the wisest senators and princes have been directed by the credit of history,as Brutus,Alphonsus of Aragon (and who not?if need be).At length,the long line of their disputation makes a point in this,that the one giveth the precept,and the other the example.
Now {31}whom shall we find,since the question standeth for the highest form in the school of learning,to be moderator?Truly,as me seemeth,the poet;and if not a moderator,even the man that ought to carry the title from them both,and much more from all other serving sciences.Therefore compare we the poet with the historian,and with the moral philosopher;and if he go beyond them both,no other human skill can match him;for as for the Divine,with all reverence,he is ever to be excepted,not only for having his scope as far beyond any of these,as eternity exceedeth a moment,but even for passing each of these in themselves;and for the lawyer,though "Jus"be the daughter of Justice,the chief of virtues,yet because he seeks to make men good rather "formidine poenae"than "virtutis amore,"or,to say righter,doth not endeavour to make men good,but that their evil hurt not others,having no care,so he be a good citizen,how bad a man he be:
therefore,as our wickedness maketh him necessary,and necessity maketh him honourable,so is he not in the deepest truth to stand in rank with these,who all endeavour to take naughtiness away,and plant goodness even in the secretest cabinet of our souls.And these four are all that any way deal in the consideration of men's manners,which being the supreme knowledge,they that best breed it deserve the best commendation.
The philosopher,therefore,and the historian are they which would win the goal,the one by precept,the other by example;but both,not having both,do both halt.For the philosopher,setting down with thorny arguments the bare rule,is so hard of utterance,and so misty to be conceived,that one that hath no other guide but him shall wade in him until he be old,before he shall find sufficient cause to be honest.For his knowledge standeth so upon the abstract and general,that happy is that man who may understand him,and more happy that can apply what he doth understand.On the other side the historian,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 necessary consequence,and therefore a less fruitful doctrine.
