Our not altogether adequate definition has been intentionally made broad that it may comprise any formal expression of the satiric spirit in verse. The verse-satire as thus described may select its material from every province of human activity: literature, society, politics, and morals. It may range in tone from half-tolerant raillery, as in the _Satires_ of Horace, to stern intolerant invective, as in the _Satires_ of Juvenal. Its method may be either direct or indirect: direct, as in the formal classical satire, in which the purpose is distinctly stated; indirect, or dramatic, as in the fable, where the same end is sought through a more subtle or less obvious channel. Finally it may appear in one of several specialized types, each with peculiar characteristics of its own: the so-called formal or classical satire, based on Latin, French, or Italian models, represented in English literature in the poetry of Hall, Oldham, and Pope; the mock-heroic, sometimes directly satiric as in Pope’s _Dunciad_, sometimes indirectly so, as in his _Rape of the Lock_; the epigram and lampoon, used by Prior and Swift; the political ballad or song, illustrated in the verse of Marvell and Charles Hanbury Williams; the satiric fable, borrowed by Yalden, Gay, Whitehead, and others from Æsop and La Fontaine; and the burlesque, with its two subdivisions--parody, used in Philips’ _Splendid Shilling_, which intentionally degrades the blank verse of Milton, and travesty, illustrated in Byron’s _Vision of Judgment_, which gives an inferior treatment to lofty material. It is hardly necessary to add that these types, with others of less significance, continually encroach upon each other, so that two or more are frequently mingled in one poem. The single feature common to them all, however, is the tendency to deride or assail; therefore, in spite of their many superficial differences, they are classed together because of their general tone of negation. A consideration of Byron’s satiric spirit as it is shown in his verse involves an investigation of the objects of his attack, whether individuals, classes, or institutions, and a discussion of the relation of his satire to contemporary life in literature, society, politics, and morals. It also necessitates a study of the forms which he adopted, the methods which he utilized, and the manner which he was inclined to assume. Something ought also to be said of his indebtedness to other satirists, Latin, English, and Italian, and of his place and influence in the evolution of English satire. Lastly, a summary is required of the peculiar characteristics which distinguish his satiric spirit and make his work distinctive or unique.