[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 1964

The Satirist.

Arch Intern Med. 1964;114(5):709-710. doi:10.1001/archinte.1964.03860110179029

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

My first inclination was to compare Feinberg's analysis of the Satirist, his temperament, motivation, and influence with Gilbert Highet's The Anatomy of Satire, which was reviewed here (in vol 13, p 491, 1964) but the book is so very different that it is hard to make comparisons. Highet's was in essence an analysis of the whole problem of satire from its ancient beginnings in the Greek use of diatribe, parody, and distortion and with Latin derivations, tracing its development on through Erasmus and Chaucer to the contemporary scene. Feinberg's book is more like a mosaic made out of innumerable small bits taken from individual satirists or those who have written about them. But his patchwork achieves out of this a general design which gives a real idea of what satirists, particularly those of the modern period and idiom were trying to do, and are doing. Just leafing through the book

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×