on 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 have
proceeded from the exactness of his Judgement.

_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
this 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 only what is made by people's
taste, which distinguishes one of them from the other: that is so
manifest an error, that I need lose no time to contradict it.

Were there neither Judge, Taste, or 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 the one: Satire, of the
other.

I have but briefly touched upon these things; because, whatever his words
are, I can scarce[ly] imagine that _he who is always concerned for the
true honour of Reason, and would have no spurious issue fathered upon
her_ [p. 578], should mean anything so absurd, as to affirm _that there
is no difference between Comedy and Tragedy, but what is made by taste
only_: unless he would have us understand the Comedies of my Lord L. [?];
where the First Act should be _Potages_, the Second, _Fricasses &c._, and
the Fifth, a _chere entiere_ of women.

I rather guess, he means that betwixt one Comedy or Tragedy and another;
there is no other difference but what is made by the liking or disliking
of the audience. This is, indeed, a less error than the former; but yet
it is a great one.

The liking or disliking of the people gives the Play the _denomination_
of "good" or "bad"; but does not really make or constitute it such. To
please the people ought to be the Poet's aim [pp. 513, 582, 584]; because
Plays are made for their delight: but it does not follow, that they are
always pleased with good plays; or that the plays which please them, are
always good.

The Humour of the people is now