What has been said of the unity of place, may easily be applied to
that of time: I grant it to be impossible, that the greater part of
time should be comprehended in the less, that twenty-four hours should
be crowded into three: But there is no necessity of that supposition;
for as _place_, so time relating to a play, is either imaginary
or real: The real is comprehended in those three hours, more or less,
in the space of which the play is represented; the imaginary is that
which is supposed to be taken up in the representation, as twenty-four
hours, more or less. Now, no man ever could suppose, that twenty-four
real hours could be included in the space of three; but where is
the absurdity of affirming, that the feigned business of twenty-four
imagined hours, may not more naturally be represented in the compass
of three real hours, than the like feigned business of twenty-four
years, in the same proportion of real time? For the proportions are
always real, and much nearer, by his permission, of twenty-four to
three, than of four thousand to it.
I am almost fearful of illustrating any thing by similitude, lest he
should confute it for an argument; yet I think the comparison of
a glass will discover very aptly the fallacy of his argument, both
concerning time and place.
Pages:
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302