Hymn LXXV. THE MUSES (part 4)

Besides this, it teaches the circuits of the soul, its immortality and various powers; explains to mortals many names of an incorporeal nature, and produces many probable Dogmata respecting corporeal substance. The Athenian guest (in Plato, lib. i. De Legibus) testifies, that the poetry of Theognis is of this kind, which, because it teaches and commends every virtue, is justly to be preferred to the poetry of Tyrtæus, which exhorts to fortitude alone. But Homer represents this species of poetry, when he describes the life of the soul, the different essences of her parts, the difference between the image and the usurping soul, the variety subsisting p. 211 in nature, the order of the elements of the universe, civil offices, and the like. But Homer himself, appears to have made Phemius the lyrist skilled in this kind of poetry, where Penelope says to him, lib. i. "Alluring arts thou know'st, and what of old "Of Gods and heroes, sacred bards have told." After the two superior kinds of poetry, that inspired by Fury, and the rational; it remains to speak of the imitative. This last kind of poetry, then, is far distant from the excellence of the others; since it employs imaginations, opinions, and the irrational senses; from whence it contracts many vices, especially in that part of it, which is called phantastic. For it greatly raises moderate affection, disturbs the hearers, and, together with words, various harmonies, and numbers, changes the affections of the soul. It shadows over the nature of things not such as they are, but such as they appear to vulgar inspection; and explains them not according to an exact knowledge, but from a delusive imagination. Besides this, it proposes as its end the delight of its auditors; and particularly regards that part of the soul, which is obnoxious to the passions of joy and grief. But it is subdivided into two other kinds, one of which is conjectural or assimilatory, and the other phantastic. The latter of these represents only the apparent imitation and similitude, not that which is true; and considers its end accomplished, if it produces in the hearers pleasure and delight, belonging to the phantasy alone. But the other does not so much study the gratification of the popular ear, as a proper imitation, that it may express the things themselves, and exhibit to the eyes an exquisite image of that, concerning which it treats, and may as near as possible, express the exemplars which it imitates. But Plato himself, under the person of the Eleatean guest p. 212 (in Sophista) describes the differences of each of these as follows. "I now appear to discern two species of imitation, one conjectural, or the art of assimilating, whose business is to fabricate an image emulous of its exemplar, as far as pertains to length, breadth, depth, and convenient colours. Theæt. Do not those who imitate something, perform this to the utmost of their ability? Guest. Not those who fashion or paint any great work. For if they bestowed on the resemblances the true commensuration of beautiful things, the superior members would appear less than is proper, and the inferior larger: because the one is beheld by us at a distance, the other near at hand. Theæt. Intirely so. Guest. Hence artists neglecting truth, do not accommodate to resemblances such commensurations as are really beautiful, but only such as appear so." From these words it is plain that Plato distinguishes each kind of imitation, not only in painting and statuary, but also in poetry; which he compares with those imitative arts.