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. The strength of his reason depends on this,
that the less cannot comprehend the greater. I have already answered,
that we need not suppose it does; I say not that the less can
comprehend the greater, but only, that it may represent it. As in
a glass, or mirror, of half-a-yard diameter, a whole room, and many
persons in it, may be seen at once; not that it can comprehend that
room, or those persons, but that it represents them to the sight.

But the author of the "Duke of Lerma" is to be excused for his
declaring against the unity of time; for, if I be not much mistaken,
he is an interested person;--the time of that play taking up so many
years, as the favour of the Duke of Lerma continued; nay, the second
and third act including all the time of his prosperity, which was a
great part of the reign of Philip the Third: For in the beginning of
the second act he was not yet a favourite, and, before the end of
the third, was in disgrace. I say not this with the least design of
limiting the stage too servilely to twenty-four hours, however he be
pleased to tax me with dogmatising on that point, In my dialogue, as I
before hinted, several persons maintained their several opinions: One
of them, indeed, who supported the cause of the French poesy, said how
strict they were in that particular; but he who answered, in behalf of
our nation, was willing to give more latitude to the rule, and cites
the words of Corneille himself, complaining against the severity of
it, and observing, what beauties it banished from the stage, p. 44.
of my Essay. In few words, my own opinion is this, (and I willingly
submit it to my adversary, when he will please impartially to consider
it) that the imaginary