to have a particular act truly or falsely set down? there is no
doubt which is to be chosen, no more than whether you had rather
have Vespasian's picture right as he was, or, at the painter's
pleasure, nothing resembling? But if the question be, for your own
use and learning, whether it be better to have it set down as it
should be, or as it was? then, certainly, is more doctrinable the
feigned Cyrus in Xenophon, than the true Cyrus in Justin; {36} and
the feigned AEneas in Virgil, than the right AEneas in Dares
Phrygius; {37} as to a lady that desired to fashion her countenance
to the best grace, a painter should more benefit her, to portrait a
most sweet face, writing Canidia upon it, than to paint Canidia as
she was, who, Horace sweareth, was full ill-favoured. If the poet
do his part aright, he will show you in Tantalus, Atreus, and such
like, nothing that is not to be shunned; in Cyrus, AEneas, Ulysses,
each thing to be followed; where the historian, bound to tell things
as things were, cannot be liberal, without he will be poetical, of a
perfect pattern; but, as in Alexander, or Scipio himself, show
doings, some to be liked, some to be misliked; and then how will you
discern what to follow, but by your own discretion, which you had,
without reading Q. Curtius? {38} And whereas, a man may say, though
in universal consideration of doctrine, the poet prevaileth, yet
that the history, in his saying such a thing was done, doth warrant
a man more in that he shall follow; the answer is manifest: that if
he stand upon that WAS, as if he should argue, because it rained
yesterday therefore it should rain to-day; then, indeed, hath it
some advantage to a gross conceit. But if he know an example only
enforms a conjectured likelihood, and so go by reason, the poet doth
so far exceed him, as he is to frame his example to that which is
most reasonable, be it in warlike, politic, or private matters;
where the historian in his bare WAS hath many times that which we