d. Terence imitated him at Rome, and
obtained the preference over Plautus, though Caesar called him but a
demi-Menander, because he appears to want that spirit and vivacity which
he calls the vis comica. We are now weary of the manner of Menander and
Terence, and leave them for Moliere, who appears like a new star in a
new course. Who can answer, that in such an interval of time as has
passed between these four writers, there will not arise another author,
or another taste, that may bring Moliere, in his turn, into neglect?
Without going further, our neighbours, the English, think he wants force
and fire. Whether they are right, or no, is another question; all that I
mean to advance is, that we are to fix it as a conclusion, that comick
authors must grow obsolete with the modes of life, if we admit any one
age, or any one climate, for the sovereign rule of taste. But let us
talk with more exactness, and endeavour, by an exact analysis, to find
out what there is in comedy, whether of Aristophanes and Plautus, of
Menander and Terence, of Moliere and his rivals, which is never
obsolete, and must please all ages and all nations.

11. REMARKABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATE OF COMEDY, AND OTHER WORKS
OF GENIUS, WITH REGARD TO THEIR DURATION.

I now speak particularly of comedy; for we must observe that between
that and other works of literature, especially tragedy, there is an
essential difference, which the enemies of antiquity will not
understand, and which I shall endeavour palpably to show.

All works show the age in which they are produced; they carry its stamp
upon them; the manners of the times are impressed by indelible marks. If
it be allowed, that the best of past times were rude in comparison with
ours, the cause of the ancients is decided against them; and the want of
politeness, with which their works are charged, in our days, must be
generally confessed. History alone seems to claim exemption from this
accusation. Nobody will dare to say of Herodotus or Thucydides, of
Livius or Tacitus, that which has been said, without scruple, of Homer
and the ancient poets. The reason is, that history takes the nearest way
to its purpose, and gives the characters and practices of nations, be
they what they will; it has no dependance upon its subject, and offers
nothing to examination, but the art of the narrative. An history of
China, well written, would please a Frenchman, as well as one of France.
It is otherwise with m