a sort of dramatic poetry, which gives a view of common and private life, recommends virtue, and exposes the vices and follies of mankind in an humorous and merry way. Scaliger defines comedy a dramatic poem, representing the benefits of life, whose event is fortunate and still familiar. Voetius defines it a dramatic poem, copying the actions of the principal citizens and common people in a familiar style, and not without mirth and raillery.

Critics are much divided about the nature of comedy. Aristotle calls it an imitation of the worst, or rather, of the lowest, class of persons, by way of ridicule. Mr Corneille finds fault with this, and maintains, that the actions of kings themselves may enter comedy, provided they be such as are not very momentous, unattended with any considerable danger. Mr Congreve seems pretty much of the same sentiment: but Mr Dacier is of a contrary opinion: he maintains, that comedy allows of nothing grave or serious, unless it be turned to ridicule; and that raillery and ridicule are its only proper and genuine marks. Thus different are critics on the nature of comedy: nor are they better agreed concerning the characteristic which distinguishes it from tragedy. Some distinguish it by the lowness of the subject; others by the ridiculous light it is set in. According to F. Bolso, comedy differs from tragedy in this, that the comic writer invents both the names of his persons, and the action which he pretends; whereas the tragic writers invent only the latter; the former they are to take from history.

Comedy has parts of quality and parts of quantity. Of the first kind there are four essential, the fable, the manners, the sentiments, and the diction; to which two are added, which only relate to the representation, viz. the music and decoration. See FABLE, MANNERS, &c.

The parts of quantity are also four. 1. The entrance. 2. The working up of the plot. 3. The full growth of the plot, or the counter-turn. 4. The discovery, or unravelling of the plot. These, in the language of the ancients, are called the protasis, epitasis, catafalos, and catastrophe. See the articles PROTASIS, EPITASIS, ACT, &c.

With regard to the various revolutions comedy has undergone, it is commonly distinguished into three kinds, viz. the ancient, the middle, and the new. The ancient comedy was sharp, satirical, and extremely abusive; even men of the first rank, if they were suspected of any criminal behaviour, whether the facts were true or false, were brought upon the stage without any disguise, called by their own names, and used as severely as possible. Thus in the comedy of the Clouds, Aristophanes brings Socrates in by name. Indeed this liberty of abuse was allowed chiefly to the chorus, and was most used during the democracy of the Athenians, especially in the time of the Peloponnesian war. But when the thirty tyrants had seized the government, the middle comedy commenced; for it being no longer safe for the poets to rail at people in authority, and openly to charge magistrates with crimes, they still continued to ridicule the follies, and expose the vices of particular persons under fictitious names; by which the persons were so well pointed out, that it was no difficult matter to know them. At length, however, they were obliged, in the reign of Alexander the Great, to represent even this license; and this reformation gave occasion to the new comedy, which only brought upon the stage feigned adventures and imaginary names.

This last kind alone was received among the Romans, who nevertheless made a new subdivision of it into ancient, middle, and new, according to the various periods of the commonwealth. Among the ancient comedies were reckoned those of Livius Andronicus; among the middle those of Pacuvius; and among the new ones, those of Terence. They likewise distinguished comedy according to the quality of the persons represented, and the dress they wore, into togatae, praetextae, trabeate, and tabernariae; which last agrees pretty nearly with our farces. Among us, comedy is distinguished from farce, as the former represents nature as she is; the other distorts and overcharges her. They both paint from the life, but with different views: the one to make nature known, the other to make her ridiculous.