This book analyzes Peter Barnes’ plays, The Ruling Class (1968), Leonardo’s Last Supper (1969), Noonday Demons (1969), and Dreaming (1969), as examples of modern Menippean satire. In contrast to formal verse satire, that is defined as a rhetorical attack upon a particular vice and includes praise for its opposite virtue in the midst of an argument, Menippean satire is difficult to define because of its protean structure. Therefore, whilst defining Menippean satire it is helpful to ask what Menippean satire ‘does’ instead of what Menippean satire ‘is’. Menippean satire is a mingling of prose and poetry in its simplest sense. In addition, it always desires to reject any sort of absolutes regarding norms, cultural, religious or philosophical dogmas by creating a carnivalesque atmosphere. Because Barnes has written about similar themes in Menippean satire form throughout his career his plays may be considered as examples of modern Menippean satire.

The literary history, as I conceive it, is an account of one strand, so to speak, in a very complex tissue: it is connected with the intellectual and social development; it represents movements of thought which may sometimes check and be sometimes propitious to the existing forms of art; it is the utterance of a class which may represent, or fail to represent, the main national movement; it is affected more or less directly by all manner of religious, political, social, and economical changes; and it is dependent upon the occurrence of individual genius for which we cannot even profess to account. I propose to take the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. I do not aim at originality: I take for granted the ordinary critical judgments upon the great writers of whom so much has been said by judges certainly more competent than myself, and shall recall the same facts both of ordinary history and of the history of thought. What I hope is, that by bringing familiar facts together I may be able to bring out the nature of the connection between them; and, little as I can say that will be at all new, to illustrate one point of view, which, as I believe, it is desirable that literary histories should take into account more distinctly than they have generally done.

There are, first of all, two kinds of authors: those who write for the subject’s sake, and those who write for writing’s sake. While the one have had thoughts or experiences which seem to them worth communicating, the others want money; and so they write, for money. Their thinking is part of the business of writing. They may be recognized by the way in which they spin out their thoughts to the greatest possible length; then, too, by the very nature of their thoughts, which are only half-true, perverse, forced, vacillating; again, by the aversion they generally show to saying anything straight out, so that they may seem other than they are. Hence their writing is deficient in clearness and definiteness, and it is not long before they betray that their only object in writing at all is to cover paper. This sometimes happens with the best authors; now and then, for example, with Lessing in his Dramaturgie, and even in many of Jean Paul’s romances. As soon as the reader perceives this, let him throw the book away; for time is precious. The truth is that when an author begins to write for the sake of covering paper, he is cheating the reader; because he writes under the pretext that he has something to say.