SATIRE, though a form of literature familiar to everyone, is difficult
to define. Partaking variously of sarcasm, irony, ridicule, and
burlesque, it is exactly synonymous with no one of these.
Satire is primarily dependent on the motive of its writer. Unless
meant for satire, it is not the real thing; unconscious satire is a
contradiction of terms, or a mere figure of speech.
Secondarily, satire depends on the reader. What seems to us satire
to-day, may not seem so to-morrow. Or, what seems satire to a
pessimistic mind, may seem merely good-natured chaff to an optimist.
This, of course, refers to the subtler forms of satire. Many classic
satires are direct lampoons or broadsides which admit of only one
interpretation.
Literature numbers many satirists among its most honoured names; and
the best satires show intellect, education, and a keen appreciation of
human nature.
Nor is satire necessarily vindictive or spiteful. Often its best
examples show a kindly tolerance for the vice or folly in question,
and even hint a tacit acceptance of the conditions condemned. Again, in
the hands of a carping and unsympathetic critic, satire is used with
vitriolic effects on sins for which the writer has no mercy.
This lashing form of satire was doubtless the earliest type. The Greeks
show sardonic examples of it, but the Romans allowed a broader sense of
humour to soften the satirical sting.
Following and outstripping Lucilius, Horace is the acknowledged father
of satire, and was himself followed, and, in the opinion of some,
outstripped by Juvenal.
But the works of the ancient satirists are of interest mainly to
scholars, and cannot be included in a collection destined for a popular
audience. The present volume, therefore, is largely made up from the
products of more recent centuries.
From the times of Horace and Juvenal, down through the mediæval ages to
the present day, satires may be divided into the two classes founded
by the two great masters: the work of Horace’s followers marked by
humour and tolerance, that of Juvenal’s imitators by bitter invective.
On the one side, the years have arrayed such names as Chaucer, Swift,
Goldsmith, and Thackeray; on the other, Langland, Dryden, Pope, and
Burns.
A scholarly gentleman of our own day classifies satires in three main
divisions: those directed at society, those which ridicule political
conditions, and those aimed at individual characters.
These variations of the art of satire form a fascinating study, and to
one interested in the subject, this small collection of representative
satires can be merely a series of guide-posts.
It is the compiler’s regret that a great mass of material is
necessarily omitted for lack of space; other selections are discarded
because of their present untimeliness, which deprives them of their
intrinsic interest. But an endeavour has been made to represent the
greatest and best satiric writers, and also to include at least
extracts from the masterpieces of satire.
It is often asked why we have no satire at the present day. Many
answers have been given, but one reason is doubtless to be found in
the acceleration of the pace of life; fads and foibles follow one
another so quickly, that we have time neither to write nor read satiric
disquisitions upon them.
Another reason lies in the fact that we have achieved a broader and
more tolerant human outlook.
Again, the true satirist must be possessed of earnestness and
sincerity. And it is a question whether the mental atmosphere of the
twentieth century tends to stimulate and foster those qualities.
These explanations, however, seem to apply to American writers more
especially than to English.
The leisurely thinking Briton, with his more personal viewpoint, has
produced, and is even now producing, satires marked by strength,
honesty, and literary value.
But America is not entirely unrepresented. The work of James Russell
Lowell cannot suffer by comparison with that of any contemporary
English author; and, though now forgotten because dependent on local
and timely interest, many political satires written by Americans during
the early part of the nineteenth century show clever and ingenious work
founded on a comprehensive knowledge of the truth.
Yet, though the immediate present is not producing masterpieces of
satire, the lack is partially made up by the large quantity of really
meritorious work that is being done in a satirical vein. In this
country and in England are young and middle-aged writers who show
evidences of satiric power, which, though it does not make for fame and
glory, is yet not without its value.