have chosen to attribute to him different stimuli
from those of other writers. Nonetheless, the sati-
rist is a writer. His being a writer may be inconven-
ient for theorists, or in somewhat bad taste, but
there it is. He may be working the other side of
the street from the poet, for instance, but he re-
sembles the poet in many ways. It is only fair that
a satirist be examined primarily as a writer.

The ancient theory of "creative inspiration" is
supported to some extent in the psychology-con-
scious twentieth century not only by philosophers
and mystics but by three fairly eminent psycho-
analysts. According to Dr. Jung, "Art is a kind of
innate drive that seizes a human being and makes
him its instrument. The artist is not a person en-
dowed with free will, who seeks his own end, but
one who allows art to realize its purpose through
him. . . . As an artist he is 'man' in a higher
sense -- he is 'collective man' -- one who carries
and shapes the unconscious psychic life of man-
kind."

Dr. Otto Rank, representing another coterie, is
in essential agreement. "Creation is itself an ex-
perience of the artist, perhaps the most intense
possible for him or for mankind in general. . . .
Even in spite of a clear original conception, the
work turns during production into something
other than the artist had originally planned."

A spokesman for a third clique, Dr. S. Freud,
wrote, "Wit shows in a most pronounced man-
ner the character of an involuntary 'inspira-
tion' or a sudden flash of thought. A moment

-4-