This article examines the tertium comparationis of Plato's critique of poetry and Zbigniew Herbert's reflections about the mission and message of art. Plato banishes poetry from his ideal city, but the ban is not total. There are some kinds of poetry that would be allowed to flourish, though what they are is left to guess. The 'good' poetry is defined only by negation, in discussions of the defects of even the most highly regarded compositions like Homer's epics. Be that as it may, let us ask a speculative question about poems that could actually pass Plato's test of excellence? Could, perhaps, Herbert's poetry be the obverse of Plato's negative examples, their counterpart, like them made of words, the material of poetry? Answered in the positive, the question becomes a proposition in need of proof. This is done by examining Plato's key concerns – the relation of art to truth, the paideic function of poetry, and the primacy of ethics over aesthetics. Practically in every respect Herbert appears to follow Plato and be at odds with the Avant-garde. Given Herbert's high moral seriousness, one would be tempted to ask another speculative question: Would he follow Plato in banishing the poets from the ideal polis?