{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019704433497536946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3023255813953485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Consuming Dish

Abstract In the seventeenth century, plays satirizing the representatives of law rose to prominence in England. This article, written in response to the article by Paul Raffield in this issue, concentrates on some questions about the telos of the genre. It emphasizes the circular structure of satire: satire criticizing the courts seems only capable of erecting another court that is subject to parallel flaws. Satire denigrates but also imitates jurisdiction, it might even be considered its secret accomplice despite the habitual idealizations of early modern theater, for many dramatists couldn’t help but supplement the powers that be. At best, satirical drama may be seen as a “compromise formation” between opposing forces in society, positing and undermining all of them simultaneously.