of Charles Palissot de Montenoy (1730-1814), though scurrilous and broadly farcical, had a great success. On the other hand, it was to a Philosophe that the invention of a new dramatic style was due, and still more the promulgation of certain ideas on dramatic criticism and construction, which, after being filtered through the German mind, were to return to France and to exercise the most powerful influence on its dramatic productions. This was Denis Diderot (1713-1784), the most fertile genius of the century, but also the least productive in finished and perfect work. His chief dramas, the _Fils naturel_ and the _Pere de famille_, are certainly not great successes; the shorter plays, _Est-il bon? est-il mechant?_ and _La Piece et le prologue_, are better. But it was his follower Michel Jean Sedaine (1719-1797) who, in _Le Philosophe sans le savoir_ and other pieces, produced the best examples of the bourgeois as opposed to the heroic drama. Diderot is sometimes credited or discredited with the invention of the _Comedie Larmoyante_, a title which indeed his own plays do not altogether refuse, but this special variety seems to be, in its invention, rather the property of Pierre Claude Nivelle de la Chaussee (1692-1754). Comedy sustained itself, and even gained ground towards the end of the century; the _Jeune Indienne_ of Nicolas Chamfort (1741-1794), if not quite worthy of its author's brilliant talent in other paths, is noteworthy, and so is the _Billet perdu_ of Joseph Francois Edouard de Corsembleu Desmahis (1722-1761), while at the extreme limit of our present period there appears the remarkable figure of Pierre Caron de Beaumarchais (1732-1799). The _Mariage de Figaro_ and the _Barbier de Seville_ are well known as having had attributed to them no mean place among the literary causes and forerunners of the Revolution. Their dramatic and literary value would itself have sufficed to obtain attention for them at any time, though there can be no doubt that their popularity was mainly due to their political appositeness. The most remarkable point about them, as about the school of comedy of which Congreve was the chief master in England at the beginning of the century, was the abuse and superfluity of wit in the dialogue, indiscriminately allotted to all characters alike. It is difficult to give particulars, but would be improper to omit all mention, of such dramatic or quasi-dramatic work as the libretti of operas, farces for performance at fairs and the like. French authors of the time from Le Sage downwards usually managed these with remarkable skill. J. J. Rousseau.