The modern interpretation of satire.
I.3.1. ‘Satire, in its literary aspect, may be defined as the expression …of the sense of
amusement or disgust excited by the ridiculous or unseemly, provided that humour is a
distinctly recognizable element, and that the utterance is invested with literary form’
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1962, vol 20, 6). Satire is thus rather difficult to define
succinctly, as humour may cover a number of different types including wit, irony,
burlesque, parody or the grotesque. ‘Without humour, satire is invective; without literary
form, it is mere clownish jeering’ (Ency. Brit., 1962, vol 20, 6). Satire has been generally
viewed as a negative genre which concentrates on the absence of good sense or
traditional values or put in another way, focuses on human vice and can make the world
appear grotesque (Kernan, 1965, 3). The form that this basic approach takes depends
upon what type of humour the author employs. Before discussing different types of
humour, we will take a brief look at some critics’ views on satire. Dryden’s essay on
satire entitled A Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire written in
1693, came to the conclusion that true satire, as distinct from lampoon, existed only
between the polarities of wit and morality (Kernan, 1965, 8). It may therefore be
surmised that castigating human vice is not, in itself, sufficient motivation for satire as we
understand it today, but that there must be a moral as well. ‘To dignify satire by rendering
it the instrument of morality…was a development
