"However, he condemns not the satisfaction of others, but rather their
unnecessary understanding, who, like Sancho Panza's doctor, prescribe
too strictly to our appetites; for," says he, "in the difference of
tragedy and comedy, and of farce itself, there can be no determination
but by the taste, nor in the manner of their composure."
We shall see him now as great a critic as he was a poet; and the
reason why he excelled so much in poetry will be evident, for it will
appear to have proceeded from the exactness of his judgment. "In
the difference of tragedy, comedy, and farce itself, there can be no
determination but by the taste." I will not quarrel with the obscurity
of his phrase, though I justly might; but beg his pardon if I do
not rightly understand him. If he means that there is no essential
difference betwixt comedy, tragedy, and farce, but what is only made
by the people's taste, which distinguishes one of them from the other,
that is so manifest an error, that I need not lose time to contradict
it. Were there neither judge, taste, nor opinion in the world, yet
they would differ in their natures; for the action, character, and
language of tragedy, would still be great and high; that of comedy,
lower and more familiar. Admiration would be the delight of one, and
satire of the other.
Pages:
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290