to Reason: and in
that Analogy or Resemblance of Fiction to Truth consists the excellency
of the Play.

For what else concerns the Unity of PLACE; I have already given my
opinion of it in my _Essay_, that "there is a latitude to be allowed to
it, as several places in the same town or city; or places adjacent to
each other, in the same country; which may all be comprehended under the
larger denomination of One Place; yet, with this restriction, the nearer
and fewer those imaginary places are, the greater resemblance they will
have to Truth: and Reason which cannot _make_ them One, will be more
easily led to _suppose_ them so."

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 4000 to it.

I am almost fearful of illustrating _anything_ 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 mirror, of half a
yard [in] 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 t