These are the men with whom properly he
contends, and against "whom he will endeavour to make it evident, that
there is no such thing as what they all pretend."
His argument against the unities of place and time is this: "That 'tis
as impossible for one stage to present two rooms or houses truly,
as two countries or kingdoms; and as impossible that five hours or
twenty-four hours should be two hours, as that a thousand hours or
years should be less than what they are, or the greatest part of time
to be comprehended in the less: for all of them being impossible, they
are none of them nearest the truth, or nature of what they present;
for impossibilities are all equal, and admit of no degree."
This argument is so scattered into parts, that it can scarce be united
into a syllogism; yet, in obedience to him, _I will abbreviate_,
and comprehend as much of it as I can in few words, that my answer to
it may be more perspicuous. I conceive his meaning to be what follows,
as to the unity of place: (if I mistake, I beg his pardon, professing
it is not out of any design to play the _Argumentative Poet_.) If
one stage cannot properly present two rooms or houses, much less two
countries or kingdoms, then there can be no unity of place. But one
stage cannot properly perform this: therefore there can be no unity of
place.
Pages:
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298