Ubi ... nullos habitura triumphos.

If he had not told us, he had left the Muses; we might have half suspected it by that word, ubi, which does not any way belong to them, in that place.  The rest of the verse is indeed LUCAN’s:  but that ubi, I will answer for it, is his own.

Yet he has another reason for this disgust of Poesy.  For he says, immediately after, that the manner of Plays which are now in most esteem, is beyond his power to perform [p. 574].  To perform the manner of a thing, is new English to me.

However he condemns not the satisfaction 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.