The terms oftenest on the lips of satirists and historians of satire are Vice and Folly. But these fine large entities are taken at their face value and given a conventional interpretation. We are not enlightened as to what vice and folly are, and can define them only as those things which seem vicious and foolish to their several opponents. They also are among the bafflling subjectivities.
Juvenal's conclusion that it is hard not to write satire, from the premise that the number of fools is infinite, is said by Herford to be "the fundamental axiom of all satire." But as a matter of fact, it was Horace who took the fool for his province, while his sterner successor rather specialized on the knave. From then on there has been as little endeavor to disentangle the two strands as to define them.
One of the earliest English satirists[1] emphasised the knavery; and another[2] includes that and folly in the same indictment. Dryden,[3] inclined to the serious Juvenalian type, discriminates between positive and negative attitudes, but not between the two stock objects."This present Boke myght have been callyd nat inconvenyently the Satyr (that is to say) the reprehencion of foulysshnes. * * * For in lyke wyse as olde Poetes Satyriens repreved the synnes and ylnes of the peple at that tyme lyvynge; so and in lyke wyse this our Boke representeth unto the iyen of the redars the states and condicions of men."]
