I want to study Satire systematically

[dark desire]

Satire started with Aristophanes. So he will be indispensable. There must be others through the renaissance, enlightenment, victorian era, modern era and post modern era. I know a few names - Dryden, Pope, Swift, Wilde - but I am not so sure about them. I will get down to the theory of satires later. So who are the indispensable satirists in English (and other languages) literature?

I also had this thought that all post-modern work is satirical in that it satirizes the modern and pre-modern ethos. Thoughts?

[Charles Darnay]

Classical:

Start with Aristophanes as you say. There are quite a few satirists in Ancient Rome - Petronius, Apollonius &c.

Middle Ages:

Definitely look at the tradition of the carnivalesque, most notably in Rabelais - but you can find it in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Boccaccio's Decameron as well

17th and 18th century:

Look at Fielding. I think that Swift and Fielding together laid the groundwork for what we can call modern satire.

And Voltaire of course is wonderful as far a satire on Enlightenment goes.

Just some stuff to get you strated.

[PeterL]

If you want to study satire, then Swift would e an excellent teacher. You should look at his less known pieces in the Tatler and other periodicals. There are books on satire, and you might want to find one to learn what the techniques are. I took a course on Satire in collega, and I took a course on Swift. The Swift was much better at showing me how satire is put together.

You might look for [y]The Tattler[/i] in book form, because almost all of it was satire. Also look up Addison and Steele

You might also want to reread some Twain. Letters from the Earth nad A COnnecticut Yankee... are solid satire. Some of Poe's writing was satirical.

[OrphanPip]

Satire as a consciously executed genre originates with the Romans, although retroactively we can see pre-cursors in Greek literature. I believe, for the Greeks they didn't recognize cynical parodies, like those of Aristophenes as a distinct genre.

It is important to differentiate between Horatian and Juvenalian satire. Horatian satire is associated with a lighter, sympathetic criticism of a common folly. Juvenalian satire was usually directed cruelly at something that is viewed by the author as dangerous or evil, it is often not funny. 1984 could be described as a Juvenalian satire of mankind's tendency towards totalitarianism. It is a satire because it is meant to highlight a flaw with the intention of correcting it through ridicule or criticism.

Another important distinction to make is between satire and its constituent parts, like lampoon. Lampoon is mocking a specific target, like making fun of a fat person by exaggerating how fat they are. Lampoon can be part of satire, but it can also crop up in any number of comical forms. There is also the burlesque, which is a parody of form or genre. Fielding uses the burlesque in Joseph Andrews when he uses epic simile and other classical tropes to describe a fight with a dog.

It is important to make that distinction because not all lampoons or burlesque texts are satirical.

[The Comedian]

I'll just add a few relatively modern ones: Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arther's Court is just mean, vicious, hilarious, and intelligent satire all around, and well worth the read.

I always like satire where the narrator himself/herself is also the victim of satire (which is why I think so highly of Guliver's Travels). . .

[dark desire]

That is a great deal of information. It will take some time for me to explore this much. Thank you every one!

[Ser Nevarc]

Read Frank Palmeri's work on satire