gravity, for inserting such amorous passions in an heroical subject; but [4421]Servius, his commentator, justly vindicates the poet’s worth, wisdom, and discretion in doing as he did.  Castalio would not have young men read the [4422] Canticles, because to his thinking it was too light and amorous a tract, a ballad of ballads, as our old English translation hath it.  He might as well forbid the reading of Genesis, because of the loves of Jacob and Rachael, the stories of Sichem and Dinah, Judah and Thamar; reject the Book of Numbers, for the fornications of the people of Israel with the Moabites; that of Judges for Samson and Dalilah’s embracings; that of the Kings, for David and Bersheba’s adulteries, the incest of Ammon and Thamar, Solomon’s concubines, &c.  The stories of Esther, Judith, Susanna, and many such.  Dicearchus, and some other, carp at Plato’s majesty, that he would vouchsafe to indite such love toys:  amongst the rest, for that dalliance with Agatho,

       “Suavia dans Agathoni, animam ipse in labra tenebam;
          Aegra etenim properans tanquam abitura fuit.”

For my part, saith [4423]Maximus Tyrius, a great Platonist himself, me non tantum admiratio habet, sed eliam stupor, I do not only admire, but stand amazed to read, that Plato and Socrates both should expel Homer from their city, because he writ of such light and wanton subjects, Quod Junonem cum Jove in Ida concumbentes inducit, ab immortali nube contectos, Vulcan’s net.  Mars and Venus’ fopperies before all the gods, because Apollo fled, when he was persecuted by Achilles, the [4424]gods were wounded and ran whining away, as Mars that roared louder than Stentor, and covered nine acres of ground with his fall; Vulcan was a summer’s day falling down from heaven, and in Lemnos Isle brake his leg, &c., with such ridiculous passages; when, as both Socrates and Plato, by his testimony, writ lighter themselves:  quid enim tam distat (as he follows it) quam amans a temperante, formarum admirator a demente, what can be more absurd than for grave philosophers to treat of such fooleries, to admire Autiloquus, Alcibiades, for their beauties as they did, to run after, to gaze, to dote on fair Phaedrus, delicate Agatho, young Lysis, fine Charmides, haeccine Philosophum decent?  Doth this become grave philosophers?  Thus peradventure Callias, Thrasimachus, Polus, Aristophanes, or some of his adversaries and emulators might object; but neither they nor [4425]Anytus and Melitus his bitter enemies, that condemned him for teaching Critias to tyrannise, his impiety for swearing by dogs and plain trees, for his juggling sophistry, &c., never so much as upbraided him with impure love, writing or speaking of that subject; and therefore without question, as he concludes, both Socrates and Plato in this are justly to be excused.  But suppose they had been a little overseen, should divine Plato be defamed? no, rather as he said of Cato’s