[31] Boileau, Art.  Poet. chant, 3.

[32] Reflexions sur la poet. p. 154.  Paris, 1684.
     [Transcriber’s note:  Although opening quotes are present (..."is a
     representation...) closing quotes appear to be missing.  It is
     therefore unclear where this quotation ends.]

[33] [Transcriber’s note:  “See note to preface to Shakespeare in this
     volume, page 103” in original.  Page 103 is the first page of the
     chapter; the only note on this page reads, “Dr. Johnson’s Preface
     first appeared in 1765.  Malone’s Shakespeare, i. 108. and Boswell’s
     Life of Johnson, i.”]

[34] See this subject treated with reference to Shakespeare in preface
     to Shakespeare, and notes.

[35] Ar.  Poet. v. 407.

[36] Moliere.

GENERAL CONCLUSION TO BRUMOY’S GREEK THEATRE.

1.  SUMMARY OF THE FOUR ARTICLES TREATED OF IN THIS DISCOURSE.

Thus I have given a faithful extract of the remains of Aristophanes.  That I have not shown them in their true form, I am not afraid that any body will complain.  I have given an account of every thing, as far as it was consistent with moral decency.  No pen, however cynical or heathenish, would venture to produce, in open day, the horrid passages which I have put out of sight; and, instead of regretting any part that I have suppressed, the very suppression will easily show to what degree the Athenians were infected with licentiousness of imagination, and corruption of principles.  If the taste of antiquity allows us to preserve what time and barbarity have hitherto spared, religion and virtue at least oblige us not to spread it before the eyes of mankind.  To end this work in an useful manner, let us examine, in a few words, the four particulars which are most striking in the eleven pieces of Aristophanes.

2.  CHARACTER OF ANCIENT COMEDY.

The first is the character of the ancient comedy, which has no likeness to any thing in nature.  Its genius is so wild and strange, that it scarce admits a definition.  In what class of comedy must we place it?  It appears, to me, to be a species of writing by itself.  If we had Phrynicus, Plato, Eupolis, Cratinus, Ameipsias, and so many other celebrated rivals of Aristophanes, of whom all that we can find are a few fragments scattered in Plutarch, Athenaeus, and Suidas, we might compare them with our poet, settle the general scheme, observe the minuter differences, and form a complete notion of their comick stage.  But, for want of all this, we can fix only on Aristophanes; and it is true that he may be, in some measure, sufficient to furnish a tolerable judgment of the old comedy; for, if we believe him, and who can be better credited? he was the most daring of all his brethren, the poets, who practised the same kind of writing.  Upon this supposition we may conclude, that the comedy of those