Which Plato was real?

In our courses, there were many forefathers of criticism which their thoughts are varying. As one of them Plato defended that poetry should banish from society. Many of his contemporaries rejected his harsh defence on this topic but centuries later some puritan named Stephen Gosson brought his ideals to life. He used exact quotation from Plato to indicate how and why art should banish from society. But Sidney rejected this puritan's ideals, and told us actually Plato rejected the abuse of the poetry not the poetry itself! And this made me kind of uncomfortable, because we all knew Plato was a strong defender of censoring texts. Which Plato was real? Before I state my decision I must give information about Sidney. Sidney had very similar ideas with Horace. They both defended poetry must have a didactic aim also it must please our senses. One of their similarities was their thought on mimesis or as we call it today representation. As a renaissance man his passion in freedom was above all. So we could say that he doesn't like to bind by some censorship law which created by an ancient philosopher. That led us to a question, why this free man should defend a fascist? And that's not all, why scholars drew us a picture censoring fascist man? For an ultimate answer let's go down a bit further to Sydney's ideals. In his defence Sidney agreed with our funny puritan but he said our guy took Plato's ideals from wrong side. Stephen Gosson said that poetry is the source of all evil, and gave example from Plato. Because according to him they don't have a good purpose. In oppose, Sir Sidney indicates the power of poetry and its potential on human nature but added little something. For him, poetry was not evil, our thoughts and character make it evil and he says if a child is treated badly and he turns out

to be a murderer, is he responsible of his actions or the one who raised him? No actually he didn't say that but you got my point. Poets determine poetry's usefulness not the very existence of it. Our good guy Sidney was right from the beginning. Although he discarded positive sciences and told they are not useful like poetry he was a good guy as I said before. That was expectable in warm atmosphere of renaissance. And here is an answer to my question; I think Plato was a man like Sidney defended because we can't trust a religious movement's stray dog. Puritans were pathetic fools and liars. Maybe you don't agree with me but Plato was a good man and only defended poetry is dangerous in the hands of a buffoon.