French are seldom guilty, because the thinness of
their Plots prevents them from it: but few Englishmen, except BEN.
JOHNSON, have ever made a Plot, with variety of Design in it, included in
twenty-four hours; which was altogether natural. For this reason, I prefer
the _Silent Woman_ before all other plays; I think, justly: as I do its
author, in judgement, above all other poets. Yet of the two, I think that
error the most pardonable, which, in too straight a compass, crowds
together many accidents: since it produces more variety, and consequently
more pleasure to the audience; and because the nearness of proportion
betwixt the imaginary and real time does speciously cover the compression
of the Accidents.

Thus I have endeavoured to answer the _meaning_ of his argument. For, as
he drew it, I humbly conceive, it was none. As will appear by his
Proposition, and the proof of it. His Proposition was this, _If strictly
and duly weighed, 'tis as impossible for one Stage to present two Rooms
or Houses, as two countries or kingdoms, &c_. And his Proof this, _For
all being impossible, they are none of them, nearest the Truth or Nature
of what they present_.

Here you see, instead of a Proof or Reason, there is only a _petitio
principii_. For, in plain words, his sense is this, "Two things are as
impossible as one another: because they are both equally impossible." But
he takes those two things to be _granted_ as impossible; which he ought to
have _proved_ such, before he had proceeded to prove them equally
impossible. He should have made out, first, that it was impossible for
one Stage to represent two Houses; and then have gone forward, to prove
that it was as equally impossible for a Stage to present two Houses, as
two Countries.

After all this, the very absurdity to which he would reduce me, is none
at all. For his only drives at this. That if his argument be true, I must
then acknowledge that there are degrees in impossibilities. Which I easily
grant him, without dispute. And if I mistake not, ARISTOTLE and the School
are of my opinion. For there are some things which are absolutely
impossible, and others which are only so, _ex parte_. As, 'tis absolutely
impossible for a thing _to be_ and _not to be_, at the same time: but, for
a stone to move naturally upward, is only impossible _ex parte materiae_;
but it is not impossible for the First Mover to alter the nature of it.

His last assault, like that of a Frenchman, is