t, when his
writings are taken into view, we find him the only author from whom may
be drawn a just idea of the comedy of his age; and, farther, we find, in
his pieces, that he often makes attacks upon the tragick writers,
particularly upon the three chief, whose valuable remains we have had
under examination; and, what is yet worse, fell sometimes upon the
state, and upon the gods themselves.

2. THE CHIEF HEADS OF THIS DISCOURSE.

These considerations have determined me to follow, in my representation
of this writer, the same method which I have taken in several tragick
pieces, which is, that of giving an exact analysis, as far as the matter
would allow, from which I deduce four important systems. First, upon the
nature of the comedy of that age, without omitting that of Menander[4].
Secondly, upon the vices and government of the Athenians. Thirdly, upon
the notion we ought to entertain of Aristophanes, with respect to
Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Fourthly, upon the jest which he
makes upon the gods. These things will not be treated in order, as a
regular discourse seems to require, but will arise sometimes separately,
sometimes together, from the view of each particular comedy, and from
the reflections which this free manner of writing will allow. I shall
conclude with a short view of the whole, and so finish my design.

4. HISTORY OF COMEDY.

I shall not repeat here what Madame Dacier, and so many others before
her, have collected of all that can be known relating to the history of
comedy. Its beginnings are as obscure as those of tragedy, and there is
an appearance that we take these two words in a more extensive meaning:
they had both the same original; that is, they began among the festivals
of the vintage, and were not distinguished from one another, but by a
burlesque or serious chorus, which made all the soul, and all the body.
But, if we give these words a stricter sense, according to the notion
which has since been formed, comedy was produced after tragedy, and was,
in many respects, a sequel and imitation of the works of Eschylus. It
is, in reality, nothing more than an action set before the sight, by the
same artifice of representation. Nothing is different but the object,
which is merely ridicule. This original of true comedy will be easily
admitted, if we take the word of Horace, who must have known, better
than us, the true dates of dramatick works. This poet supports the
system, which I hav