This article aims at rethinking Plato's ambivalent attitude vis-à-vis the poets through the Parmenides. Is Plato unremittingly hostile aux poets? Does he obstinately banish them from his ideal city? In fact, Plato praises the poets, he blames them as well. So, his ambivalence over poetry needs to be explained. First, let's remind the fact that Plato's view on poetry, a fortiori the poets, remains unchanged from Ion, among first dialogues, until the Laws, the last one. All good poets, believes Plato, epic as well as lyric, compose their beautiful poems, being inspired and possessed by God. In other words, the poets are, so describes them Plato, light and winged and holy individuals, and there is no invention in them until they have been inspired and out of their senses. As long as they have not attained to this state, they are powerless, hence unable to utter any words. The Laws presents the same view: the poets speak the words of God and nature, for the poets are a divine race. So, by aid of Muses and Graces, they attain the truth (Laws: 682a). Now the question is: if the poets are a divine race, whence comes the ambivalence, characterizing Plato's attitude towards them? It seems to be inherent in poetry itself. That is why, Plato, criticizing Homer, distinguishes in his speech’s multiple levels of reality: admitting those he finds fitted to the education of young people and favorable to the law, omitting, but not rejecting, ambiguous or allegorical poems susceptible to lead astray the citizens, thereby causing damage to the city. That is why, the legislator is supposed not to allow the poets to say whatever they like. For this very reason that they would not know in which of their words, they go against the laws, to the hurt of the state (Laws: 719b). In fact, the poet is unable to distinguish what is appropriate to the city and what is not so. He simply utters what God inspires him, even if he contradicts himself. Hence, contrary to the legislator, the poet, like a fountain, allows to flow out freely whatever God inspires him. In other words, the poet narrates things as they are, drawing no distinction between good and bad. In fact, the poet is unable to distinguish what is appropriate to the city and what is not so.  For example, Zeus, according to Homer, is the author of all things that occur to men, good or evil: two casks lie at the threshold of Zeus, full of lots, one of good, the other of evil lots (Repubic:379c-d-Iliad: xxiv.527). Plato, in Republic, states the opposite of this belief and maintains that God is not omnipotent, but he is the cause of a few things only, and these things are all good, of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere. (Nevertheless, in book x, Plato states nearly the same opinion) But it is not the same for the legislator: he must not give two rules about the same thing (ibid.: 719b-c). Contrary to the poets, the legislator should make a clear distinction between good and bad, wrong and right or else he would be unable to enact laws. To put it otherwise, there is no city without law; while the poet, somehow, stands above law. Accordingly, he could neither be legislator, nor govern the city. Moreover, poets' obscure and allegorical speeches may mislead young people. These ambiguous or allegorical poems, being destined to be heard only by " a chosen few", id est the philosophers, or those who are supposed to govern the city, reappear, but in metaphysical terms, in Parmenides. In it, somehow, logos meeting muthos. But why Plato reveals these facts in Parmenides? This dialogue essentially describes dialectics, or the play of One and Many. In other words, the subject of Parmenides is Universe (to pan), as it contains all things, good and evil, sensible and intelligible spheres, and not only the sensible world as some commentators believe. For this very reason, Plato, here, has no concern regarding the constitution or the education of young people. So, he speaks freely about fundamental truths. In Parmenides, muthos appears to be on agreement with logos.