WHAT MAKES GREAT SATIRE?

It seems as though whenever and wherever democracy and freedom of speech thrives, satirical comedy blossoms. It is as if the two are unable to be separated, or as if one breeds the other. Either way, it appears that nothing resonates with humanity quite in the same manner as criticism through satire. It appeals to an inner yearning and craving found in free people, to challenge authority and hold the powerful to account, because as Marjolein’t Hart so eloquently puts it, humour can act as a ‘weapon for the weak.’ We rely on a select few talented writers and wordsmiths, to conjure language in such a manner that resonates with the ideas and opinions of the age. It can be argued that the ‘Father of Comedy’ did this better than anyone in Classical Athens, as even compared with his contemporary tragic playwrights, arguably none dealt with such volatile and pressing topics as often as the 5th century comedic playwright, Aristophanes. It appears to be the comedian’s duty to hold a mirror up to society and through their own venting of personal frustration, strike a chord with the many when questioning the order of things. This mantra has stood resolute throughout the past two millennia, as the democracies of our own time still shine with examples of great satire. In Britain’s case, one may look to Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge as the quintessential satirical character of his day, and one who shares striking similarities to Aristophanes’ own iconic caricatures of Cleon. Therefore, through their comparison and study, we may more acutely learn of the ingredients for great satire, as through each comedian’s ‘leading man,’ we can learn of their transmissible similarities in characteristics, performance and overarching message to help us better understand said ingredients. Moreover, it will allow us to analyse the effect that successful satire has on a society and if it truly is an agent of change, or merely an entertaining pastime.

It is important first however, to lay out some parameters for this case study. For the sake of simplicity, within this study, both Cleon and Alan will collectively be referred to as ‘main characters’ to more easily distinguish them from the others within their respective works, who will often be referred to as ‘side characters.’ That is not necessarily to say that, especially in Aristophanes’ case, these characters were always intended to be the main focus of their work, however within this study, these characters will always act as the focal point and thus will be referred to as such to prevent any cases where we could possibly get bogged down in such semantics. Moreover, this study will be focusing on the four plays of Aristophanes which feature Cleon most centrally and abundantly, with these of course being, Archarnians, Knights, Wasps and lastly, Peace. However, it is important to acknowledge that Cleon will rarely be appearing in many of these plays addressed as himself, instead being more subtly presented in different guises. This is because, as many historians agree, Aristophanes was subject to a lawsuit at the hands of Cleon after his lost play of 426 BC, Babylonians, was performed, which had featured Cleon by name. The official reason for this case was for disparaging the city of Athens in front of foreigners, however the obvious lambasting of Cleon within this play would lead one to believe the man felt it to be a personal slight on his honour. After this play therefore, Aristophanes would use more covert means of implementing Cleon throughout his work, renaming many characters with evident Cleon-like personas, most likely to save himself from any further legal disputes. It is important to recognise therefore, that unlike a character such as Partridge, Aristophanes’ ideas surrounding Cleon will appear in many different forms, sometimes as concrete caricatures such as the Paphlagon in Knights, or by his essence being translated through those who supposedly follow him, such as through Philocleon in Wasps. Whenever discussed on broader, all-encompassing terms within this essay however, we will refer to the collection of these caricatures as Cleon for the sake of simplicity.

ARISTOPHANES’ RELATIONSHIP WITH CLEON:

It is vital to acknowledge that the primary sources surrounding Cleon are problematic when attempting to gauge the true character of the man. Thucydides and Aristophanes, our only extensive sources on this topic, both despise Cleon for their own reasons, with Thucydides preferring his rival Pericles, promoting his principles and ideals extensively within his history of the Peloponnesian war. Aristophanes on the other hand, seems to despise sophistry and demagoguery in any form, using Cleon as the figurehead of this hatred. There agenda’s against Cleon often intertwined, as for example, Thucydides drew great attention to how Cleon was shot in the back at the Battle of Amphipolis, implying his cowardly retreat before death, while Aristophanes also emphasised Cleon’s cowardly nature within his plays, with his Cleon-esque caricature, the Paphlagon, fleeing from his aggressors in Knights. There are many scholars that are critical of Aristophanes’ attacks on Cleon’s character. Halliwell argues that while Aristophanes compares himself to Heracles, Cleon is transformed into ‘a monster of Gargantuan proportions’ and that this reduces Cleon to an unfair assembly of repellent characteristics. Thus in the process, any acute political allegory and criticisms are drowned under the sheer number of inaccurate and offensive details. For another example, Robson points out how in Knights, the Paphlagon is presented as the most ‘vicious counter-attack’ to Cleon, being ‘thinly disguised and grotesque.’ In this play, Aristophanes dreams of Cleon’s destruction and touts the benefits that this would bestow upon the city with the line:

Most pleasant will be the light of day for those who dwell here and those who come here should Cleon be destroyed.

Although as Konstan points out, Aristophanes claimed to have an anger like Heracles, which supposedly allowed him to take a stand against men such as Cleon without hiding behind ‘petty jibes,’ this statement from Knights could be used to encapsulate just how eagerly Aristophanes wished to destroy the reputation of Cleon, to a degree which could be considered unwarranted.

Furthermore, there has been much scholarly debate surrounding the origins of Cleon’s caricatures and how much truth we can derive from them. Robson points out that establishing ‘truth’ in a comics work is one of the key problems surrounding the political satire within Aristophanes, as the level of absurdity and hyperbole injected into the satire muddies the otherwise clear waters of fact. With this in mind, he also points out that the ‘no smoke without fire principle,’ could also hold some weight, suggesting that we are often minded to believe that allegations made in satirical works have ‘at least some basis in fact’ and that Cleon’s caricatures are a ‘heady mixture of reality, convention and invention’ and thus, need to be separated as such. Others such as Heath and Goldhill argue however, that there is no way to distinguish between the elements of caricature that hold truth from those that don’t, meaning that it is impossible to tell which criticisms being levied against Cleon are based in fact within Aristophanes’ work. Therefore, whether we can safely claim that Aristophanes’ plays compose a meaningful attack on Cleon is called into question when we factor in the potential extent of hyperbole. It is true that claims made against men like Cleon within comedy are often verified by external sources such as Thucydides, as discussed earlier, however it is still arguably unacademic and frankly, unfair to judge the true character of the man through the eyes of those who made no secret of despising him. Although it is important to ask questions of why exactly they did despise him, that is not the focus of this study. Instead, this study will be using the Aristophanic idea of Cleon. This being the characterisation of the man as a conniving and boorish megalomaniac, rather than the truth of the authentic man himself. It is the aim of this study to use this Aristophanic idea of Cleon to explain how he is used to create great satire, and how his features and characteristics align with our contemporary example of great satire found within the character of Alan Partridge.

WHO IS ALAN PARTRIDGE?

Moving to Cleon’s modern counterpart in this study, Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has become a British institution, being at the forefront of the public’s collective psyche for the last three decades. Alan is a fictional television presenter, documentary maker, radio disk jockey, after-dinner speaker, podcaster, the list goes on. With this in mind, he is one of the most beloved and longest standing comedic characters of the last thirty years of British comedy, with this largely being achieved due to the writers’ constant reinvention of the character, morphing his persona to better fit with the topics of the day. Alan is a failure in life, whilst at the same time, sees himself as a modern day renaissance man trying his hand at many different creative endeavours, ignorantly believing himself to be successful in all of them. It is within this spectrum of ignorance that the true greatness of his satire shines through.

It will not be necessary to fully delve into each Alan Partridge project to explain why this body of work is so often touted as great satire. However, a brief summary of the character’s journey and the behind-the-scenes writing staff changes are required to give context as to why the character morphs in the manner in which he does. The character of Alan was originally created to act as the sports correspondent for the alternative satirical radio news program, On the Hour. Created alongside comedians such as Chris Morris, Armando Iannucci and Peter Baynham, Alan’s humour veered far more into the realms of absurdity and surrealism, however the foundations of the characters hapless and arrogant nature were laid in these early concepts. Up until works produced after 2010, Partridge was primarily written by Coogan, Iannucci and Baynham, under which the character achieved the height of its popularity, with prime-time BBC sitcoms such as I’m Alan Partridge. After this however, the character had a hiatus before its renaissance under the writing team of Coogan, with the new additions of Rob and Neil Gibbons. Here, Partridge output became far more prolific, including a feature film, two books, as well as many different parody chat and radio shows. The Alan written under the Gibbon's leadership, was far more subtle and dry, leaving out much of the slapstick nature of the character’s past, in favour of more experimental comedy, featuring longer-form irony and drier delivery. Alan’s character can therefore be separated between pre and post Gibbons eras, as although largely similar, the nuances and focuses of the character have shifted to coincide with the happenings of the time.

Much like Aristophanes, who was impeached after the production of Babylonians for tackling a controversy of his day, Coogan often dabbles with ideas of modern day ‘cancel culture,’ with Alan never shying away from the more divisive topics in popular discourse. Most notably in the Gibbons’ era, when it would have been quite tempting to make Alan boorishly opposed to modern leftist politics, a sort of Piers Morgan figure if you will, the creators instead chose to go the route of writing Alan as a man terrified to say the ‘wrong thing’, trying to give the appearance of being attuned with ‘woke’ principles, whilst utterly missing the point in the process. This arguably ingenious move has prevented the humour of Partridge from becoming controversial for controversies sake, or even from becoming an unintentional rallying cry for the very people it intends to satire. What this decision instead does is show an apt insight into both the modern pressures of cancel culture and moral absolutism, as well as what Alan has always demonstrated so masterfully, a complete ignorance on much of the world’s issues which many people share. In an interview given on BBC Breakfast in April 2022, whilst promoting Alan’s new live tour Stratagem, for example, where Alan attempts to navigate such contentious topics as gender identity or Black Lives Matter, Coogan revealed that he had been contemplating whether to ‘cancel him (Alan) half way through the show.’ Coogan and the Gibbons’ acute navigation of these polarising modern issues exemplifies exactly why Alan Partridge is seen as great satire, and demonstrates the commonality Coogan’s work shares with Aristophanes by taking on such controversial concepts within their comedy. It is for these reasons therefore, as to why it is appropriate to fully compare Partridge with Aristophanes’ caricatures of Cleon, so we may learn of the timeless ingredients of great satirical comedy.

DIFFERENCES IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SATIRE:

The last area that is vital to discuss before directly comparing these two comedic greats, is the differences between social and political satire and how Aristophanes and Coogan encapsulate both of these distinct types. Political satire, as its name suggests, focuses solely on the deriving of comedy out of politics, which has been an endeavour that is easier said than done for much of human history. Freedman argues that democracies create the only societies that provide their satirists with an array of opportunities to present their work, as satirists have no need to ‘bow down before the principle of lèse majesté’ and are free to take aim at the highest political powers. Granted, it is true that an underground satirical scene can take place under different regimes, but it is within the democracies that both Aristophanes and Coogan inhabit where great political satire could not only be practised, but actively encouraged by the masses.

With Aristophanes’ Clouds, the chorus, speaking on behalf of their writer, state a line that encapsulates Aristophanes’ supposed political principles when targeting Cleon. They state:

When Cleon was all powerful, I hit him in the stomach; but I didn’t have the audacity to trample on him again when he was down.

This line shows how Aristophanes claimed to have principles of a higher purpose than simply lambasting a politician he despised, but that he wanted his work to be seen as a check on the powerful. Henderson would refute the credibility of this statement, as he points out that after Cleon’s death, the attacks became explicit and he no longer used ‘emphasis as a hedge against accountability.’ Nevertheless, simply by claiming that he only targeted his satire at Cleon when he held political power, Aristophanes attempts to work well within the Athenian political climate of the time, which valued strict action and control over the overtly powerful, with militant use of practices such as ostracism, for example. However, despite this idealistic self-examination, the level of truth that can be derived from Aristophanes’ claim here is up for debate, as many would argue that Aristophanes continued his crusade against Cleon right up until his death, and that it was only his death and subsequent power shifts within Athens that changed his focus. Nevertheless, it is this doctrine that suggests an understanding of political responsibility which Aristophanes claims to adhere to. In modern terms, here Aristophanes is claiming to be ‘punching up’ within his comedy, showing the similarity this has with hotly contested modern debates surrounding where comedians should direct their ire. This is something that Coogan has always appeared conscious of whenever he has spoken publicly about his views regarding what is acceptable in a satirical comedy. As a proud member of the Labour party, Coogan now uses Partridge as a way to satirise the Conservatives, with a much greater focus on this appearing since their re-election into office in 2010. Thus, although Partridge content is often far more focused on social satire, elements of political satire have seeped through arguably once those in power no longer reflected Coogan’s personal politics, and thus in his eyes, needed to be held to account. Moreover, there has been such a steep rise in polarisation within modern British politics, that political and social satire have arguably begun to amalgamate into one, becoming almost indistinguishable in a world where every act seems to be a political act.

Social satire targets society and human nature on a much broader scale than political satire and it is hard to argue that Aristophanes avoids these areas within his work. Konstan claims that Aristophanes’ comedies are more overtly focused on addressing the social issues of his day. He points out that three plays are devoted to the ongoing war, while others are focused on contemporary issues such as Athenian litigiousness, dangerous philosophical doctrines and the rise of demagoguery. From the popularity of Aristophanes’ work, we can deduce that these were all hotly contested arenas within Athenian society. Aristophanes focuses his works upon these issues, making little attempt to hide his opinion on the morality of each and thus, uses his comedy as a way of presenting his personal opinions to the audience. Diehl states that satire is often thought of as a literary technique with a moral impetus, and this is agreed by satirical scholars such as Quintero, who himself states that satire needs a ‘sense of moral vocation and a concern for the public interest.’ With this in mind therefore, it appears that Aristophanes' work very much fits within these categories of social satire, inferring his opinions on contemporary issues and interweaving a moral teaching for his audience to hopefully resonate with. Coogan likewise has used Alan to share his views on aspects of modern British society, such as the idea of celebrity, standards of decency or even modern ‘wokeism,’ all through the lens of Britain's unique comedic style. Jennings describes British humour as ‘subtle, airy, real but elusive’ and although these are traits that differ quite significantly from the style found within Aristophanes’ Old Comedy, it achieves the same goal of shining a light on society, poking fun at certain aspects in an attempt to poke holes in the established norms of the time. Therefore, in these ways, both Aristophanes and Coogan dabble with aspects of both political and social satire in an ambitious blend that could be seen as a key ingredient of great satire.

A key question that must be asked with these thoughts in mind, is how much of a social and political impact did the satire of Aristophanes and Coogan have upon the society in which it satirised. In terms of a short term impact, Heath, for example, points out that Aristophanes won first prize for Knights, which as he aptly puts it, was ‘devoted to the virulent abuse of Cleon’ at the height of his political prestige. However, only a matter of weeks after the play's success, Cleon was elected Strategos once more, demonstrating how although the public clearly enjoyed the comedic value of these plays, the underlying message was clearly not one that they saw any merit in acting upon. Robson even suggests that the interwoven fact and fantasy within the caricature of Cleon may have even added to his appeal amongst the Athenian people, as he argues that it must have been gripping to see a confrontation between a leading playwright and leading politician played out in the exceedingly public domain of theatre. As for the long term effects of Aristophanes’ satire, Henderson points out that Cleon enjoyed a fully successful political career, earning the most prominent Athenian victory of the Peloponnesian war at Pylos and Sphacteria and was even remembered fondly long after his death, as ‘a champion of ordinary people.’ Thus, even with Aristophanes’ caricatures, Cleon’s later political legacy was preserved rather than tarnished. Therefore, one could make a strong case that the great satire of the time, was seen by most as an entertaining pastime, even a crucial way of tempering the power of the powerful, but was not the catalyst for social and political change that one may expect. As for the impact of British satire today, even with the large-scale success and popularity of Alan Partridge, combined with the focus later Partridge material places upon mocking the Conservative government and right-wing politics, this has not changed the reality that the Tories have held a majority in Parliament for well over a decade now. Although this comparison leaves out much of the individual factors affecting each societies situation, it can nevertheless be argued that much like the time of Aristophanes, the satire of Coogan’s work may hold an appeal with the majority of the public, whilst at the same time its underlying message and want for reform is not enough to impact social and political change on a substantial scale.

Now that we have fully explored the parameters of this study and the key scholarly debates surrounding these themes, we are now equipped to explore where and how these two works share similarities within their makeup. Thus, the next few chapters will be divided thematically, denoting key examples of where and how these two character’s personalities and surroundings match up, so that we may better understand the shared ingredients of great satire. Within the first two comparison chapters however, the Paphlagon of Knights will be highlighted over other Cleon caricatures, as it is within this character that we get the most direct personification of Cleon and one where his characteristics take centre stage within the play.

EMOTIONAL RESPONSES: COWARDICE AND ANGER

'Thinks I'm gonna take that like a big chicken?! I'm gonna have 'im for that! F******! wally! I know it sounds like I'm in shock, but I'm just angry!'

- Alan Partridge, 2022

This chapter explores the emotional performances of the main character within great satire, and how this is a vital ingredient in making the work entertaining for the audience, whilst also getting across the intended messages of that character’s behaviour. One of the biggest comparison points between Aristophanes’ Cleon and Coogan’s Partridge is their individual responses to adversity, as both have the tendency to react in equally comical ways, but with the through line of the two being predominantly cowardice and anger. They are often both presented as career cowards, always looking for a way to maximise their gain through minimal effort, and so when challenged by an exterior foe they often crumble under the strain. Cowardice and anger seem to often coincide within great satire, as when combined, these two emotions often create a character who appears out of their depth, left wanting, whilst at the same time still unyielding in an attempt to save face. In modern parlance, we would say that these men are suffering from the effects of a bruised ego and harbour strong traits of toxic masculinity, and there are numerous examples within these two bodies of work where cowardice and anger arise in various scenarios.

WHEN CHALLENGED BY A BIGGER, SCARIER OPPONENT:

A key area of similarity in how each character’s cowardice and anger is presented, is within scenarios where said characters are confronted with a large, threatening adversary. These opponents are often outside of Alan and Cleon’s usual bubble, of which will be discussed in a later chapter, and thus the fact that they do not bend to their will is immediately jarring for our main characters, provoking an emotionally volatile response. For example, in Knights, the Paphlagon is chased and beaten by the assembly, who have grown exacerbated with his populist antics, while he himself, pleads with the audience for aid in line 273 with:

Ouch! Ouch! Ah! Come on, folks! Citizens of Athens! Look! Look at the sort of wild beasts that are bashing me up!

Within this line, there is the perfect cocktail of cowardice and anger. At first glance, it is quite easy to see where this line presents the Paphlagon in a cowardly manner, as he makes no attempt to stand firm and engage his attackers, but merely runs around the stage crying for the aid of the audience, people he would not consider allies in ordinary circumstances. However, through his pleadings and ramblings, the last sentence shows a telling rage-filled disdain for his attackers. By referring to them as ‘wild beasts’ he obviously points to their savage attack against his person, but within the current context where he is fleeing for his life, this jibe is completely unnecessary to his survival. Therefore, this jibe could be seen as an example of him losing his temper during this attack, becoming emboldened for a fleeting second and trying to save some degree of face against all the odds.

Similarly, Alan has also had many situations where an adversary has threatened him. Recently, in From the Oasthouse, Alan is confronted by a fly-tipper who he had been attempting to pursue. Believing himself to be incognito, Alan is brash and confident until the man approaches his car, directly challenging Alan on why he was following him, before threatening him and then leaving, all while Alan meekly apologises in a shaken, distressed manner. Once the man is beyond earshot however, Alan begins lambasting him once more with the line:

Thinks I'm gonna take that like a big chicken?! I'm gonna have 'im for that! F***** wally! I know it sounds like I'm in shock, but I'm just angry!

Much like the Paphlagon therefore, Alan uses anger to try to save face in front of his audience, even despite the fact that he has been publicly humiliated and his cowardly nature has been exposed. Therefore, this cocktail of cowardice and anger is consistent across both works and is shown once the main character has been truly frightened by a threatening opponent.

WHEN PUSHING PEOPLE TOO FAR:

Continuing on from the last section, it can be seen that these altercations between our main characters and threatening opponents tend to arise once their obnoxious behaviour has tipped others beyond breaking point. Because of the satirical nature of these two characters they are constantly enraging those around them, so that the absurdity of their characteristics and ideologies can be appropriately conveyed to the audience. Thus, their cowardice is often revealed once they have finally pushed other characters to challenge them. For example, the Paphlagon’s cowardly behaviour discussed earlier, is arrived at only once his actions across Athenian politics has led others to believe violence to be the only solution. This level of fury is shown by the Chorus leader in lines 247-254 with:

Beat the bastard well and proper! Chase him all around!

Or again a few lines later with:

Liar! Bloody liar! Slippery sleazebag! Oh, the lengths this prick will go to, to screw us! Thinks we’re all senile old men!

Here, the vitriol within these lines is apparent and aids in showing the level of desperation within the people of Athens. Aristophanes takes great care in presenting these men as decent, ordinary citizens earlier in the play, so that the gradual building of frustration, which has brought them to the point of these proclamations, can emphasise how insufferable the Paphlagon has been throughout. This in turn, creates great satire, as it is comedically engaging for the audience to see both these normally well-mannered men brought to near madness, as well as the main character receiving the retribution they deserve.

Much in the same way, Alan has brought usually mild-mannered, decent people to the point of violence and fury. In I’m Alan Partridge, Alan hosts a farewell party for the staff of the Linton Travel Tavern, a place he has lived for the last six months. However, during the party, the usually soft-spoken and kind receptionist, Susan, explodes into volcanic levels of rage, striking him across the face and screaming at him, as she has finally been pushed too far by Alan’s comments and behaviour. This is encapsulated within the line:

I’ll tell you what my problem is! Having to listen to your crap for the last six months! You’ve been in this hotel for 182 days you little sh**!

While this is happening, Alan is motionless, unable to make direct eye contact with Susan, before dismissing the entire situation and pretending it never occurred. Therefore, much like the Paphlagon, Alan also brings good people to contemptible behaviour, whilst accepting no personal responsibility and simply carrying on with his enraging habits.

WHEN USING BRIBERY AS AN ESCAPE:

There are examples of Alan and the Paphlagon both attempting to offer bribes to save themselves from danger, when their obnoxious actions have inevitably offended others to the point of retaliation. This is used as a comedic device playing on their cowardice, showing their inability to take responsibility for their actions and instead how they attempt to bargain their way out of uncomfortable situations. In Knights, the Paphlagon offers to buy the Sausage Seller’s silence, once it becomes apparent that his abilities of demagoguery could surpass his own and thus usurp his position as Demos’ favourite, seen in line 439 with:

Oi, you… you want one of them talents to shut your trap?

This line conveys a sense of desperation on the part of the Paphlagon, as for a character of such boorish arrogance, such an offer signposts a moment of acceptance and inner acknowledgement of his likely defeat. This would surely hurt the pride and bravado of the Paphlagon, but could also suggest that his outlandish behaviour is nothing but a front and that this is a moment of genuine sincerity seeping through the cloud of bluster. However, only a few lines later, the Paphlagon addresses this offer of money for silence, stating that he could not be bought off so easily with the line:

You can try and offer me all the bribes you want –silver, gold, anything, or you can even send your little mates around to pay me a visit if you want, but you’re not going to stop me from telling the Athenians all about your nasty deeds!

Here it is made obvious to the Paphlagon that there is no easy way out of this state of affairs and that his cowardly attempts to diffuse the situation would end in vain. It is within this apparent desperation in which the great satirical comedy shines through, as Aristophanes highlights the real Cleon’s cowardly nature, whilst also remaining within the confines of the play's own uniquely comical story.

As for Coogan’s work, Alan also attempts bribery in times of distress or desperation. This can be seen in the mockumentary Alan Partridge’s Scissored Isle, in which Alan attempts to seek redemption for some offensive comments made on air against working class people. Within this journey of vindication, Alan makes contact with an ‘inner city gang’ of teenagers, fully prepared wearing a stab vest and wielding a bag of cigarettes. Nevertheless, Alan approaches the gang, hands raised in submission, and throws the bag of enticements at a safe distance, calling it a ‘gesture of goodwill’ before stepping back and conversing in a hilariously apprehensive manner. Much like the Paphlagon, Alan believes these people are a threat to him and thus responds with bribery to win their favour. Fortunately for Alan, this strategy works far more successfully in this scenario as Alan is able to ingratiate himself within the gang, achieving the interview he intended. Another example of Alan using this same technique of bribery comes in I’m Alan Partridge, where Alan is staked out in a petrol station, whilst his old school bully, Phil Wiley, whom he has recently wronged, waits for him to emerge. Once Alan remembers he must to leave to do his radio show he exclaims:

If you let me go I will give you £200 in cash… or a check for £230!

Here once again, in a time of adversity, Alan resorts to cowardice through bribery and much like the Paphlagon, attempts to use his wealth and status to escape justice for his appalling behaviour. Therefore with this in mind, it can be seen that bribery is a common device used by both Aristophanes and Coogan when they wish to get across their main character’s cowardice and sense of entitlement in a comedic fashion.

PERSONALITY TRAITS: BRAVADO AND INTOLERANCE

'Got up, walked downstairs, straight downstairs. Had breakfast, didn't even wash my hands. 'Cause I'm a bloody bloke!'

- Alan Partridge, 1997

PRIDE: DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR

In this chapter, we will explore the similarities in the personality traits between Aristophanes’ Cleon and Coogan’s Partridge, which seem to emphasise bravado and intolerance above all others. This is most easily seen in combined fashion within their vast delusions of grandeur, as each man possesses an over-inflated ego that provides them a sense of unfounded entitlement and importance, which in turn, gives them the impetus to encroach on others. While he demonstrates the ego of a megalomaniac, shown in the line:

I’d like to know who in the world you compare me with! Me, I’ll polish off a plateful of hot tuna right now, wash it down with a pitcher of neat wine, and then screw the generals at Pylos!

The Paphlagon of Aristophanes’ Knights, nevertheless appears to be surprisingly self-aware of this inner entitlement, as shown when retorting the Sausage Seller with the line:

At least, I admit that I’m a crook. You don’t even do that!

It could be argued that this is Aristophanes directing his satirical message at a target unrelated to Cleon, as by having the Paphlagon speak in an upfront, even genuine manner here, he could easily be pointing to an underlying corruption in Athenian politics, unrelated to Cleon’s demagoguery, which has vexed him. Nevertheless, this line still achieves much in regards to the Paphlagon’s self-aware nature, which comically speaking, makes his usual delusions of grandeur that much more impactful and effective. This stands in stark contrast to the complete lack of self-awareness found in Partridge, such as in the Knowing Me, Knowing You radio show, where Alan reveals the humorous extent to his hubris in the line:

I'm Alan Partridge! I am Alan Partridge! I've won the essay writing competition, of that there's no doubt!

Here, the comedy lies within a small time chat show host having this level of self-delusion, however, it still achieves the same goal of Aristophanes, by having their central character exude great delusions of grandeur to dramatise and heighten the level of satire being evoked.

This same self-importance of these characters often results in paranoid ideas of conspiracy to explain away any unfortunate turn of events. In lines 488-490 of Wasps, Bdelycleon makes reference to this idea with:

No matter what issue is being talked about, whether it’s important or not, off you go turning it into a discussion about tyranny or conspiracy.

Here, he is referring to his father Philocleon’s tendency to believe that those who disagree with his judicial obsessions are people who wish to topple the democracy in a tyrannical fashion, demonstrating Philocleon’s belief that any criticism of his, or his patron Cleon’s antics are strictly un-Athenian. This belief that there are men pulling the strings to keep him down, in a vain attempt to justify personal failure, is a motif used fairly frequently in Partridge media. In the final episode of Knowing Me, Knowing You, when challenged by two guests on why the shows viewing figures have plummeted week on week, Alan gives the frustrated response:

Alright I admit it, there’s been some kind of conspiracy to deprive me of viewers.

Much like Bdelycleon therefore, Alan brushes away justifiable criticism in a comedically delusional manner, once again reinforcing the ideas of arrogance and bravado which great satirical main character’s exude.

VENGEANCE: QUICK TO INSULT AND RETALIATION

Both characters relish in the insulting of others and have a strong appetite for vengeance when they feel wronged. These are key ingredients to a great satirical character, as it is often the case that audiences appreciate conflict, abuse and offence to be far richer areas for humour than those of kindness and compassion. Thus, when their sizable egos feel threatened the main characters of great satire often resort to childish name-calling and diversionary tactics to re-establish their authority. For example, once his influence feels especially challenged by the Sausage Seller, the Paphlagon blurts out the insult:

You dirty snotbag!

Much in the same vain, on the Knowing Me, Knowing You radio show, when his intellect feels especially challenged by child prodigy Simon Fisher, Alan returns with the juvenile retort:

Well… have you got any pubic hair?!

Both men attempt to make their counterparts feel small in this moment, degrading them during a furious instance of inadequacy. They talk down to those around them to boost their own profile, as shown by the Paphlagon again with the line:

The boss doesn’t listen to the likes of you, you snagshit, whereas he listens to my every word. I can run rings around his little brain!

In Alan’s case, he has talked down to almost every individual he has ever interacted with, especially his guests on earlier chat shows, as well as his long suffering underlings, who shall be discussed in subsequent chapters.

Through it all however, a key character trait linked to this venomous edge is their vengeful nature, as whenever they have been unsuccessful in re-establishing their authority through these insults, they seem to dwell over past wrongdoings to the point of obsession. Once the Paphlagon has come to the realisation that the Sausage Seller will not simply give up lightly in the face of his abuse, he shows this obsessive element to his character in the line:

By the goddess Demeter! Let me die if I don’t destroy you once and for all! Let me die! Get rid of you from the face of this earth! Devour you whole!

This line shows the need to have a final victory as it were, implying that he no longer even values living itself if it means facing it in a world where he cannot have superiority over his rival. This same obsession to have the final victory is crucial to Alan’s character, with Alan’s painfully overused catch phrase within his auto-biography, Bouncing Back, being:

Needless to say, I had the last laugh.

Therefore, it can be said that insult, one-upmanship and vengeance more broadly are key character traits for a great satirical character, as it provides a dislikeable and yet in some way, pitiful element to their personality, which is vital in making them both comedically strong and thought provoking for the audience.

PEDANTRY: A ‘NEVER WRONG’ ATTITUDE

Another key trait that shines through in both our ancient and modern examples of great satire, is the main character’s inability to accept when they are in the wrong. In any given situation they will be resolute in their assertions that they are correct, or become overly pedantic, picking counterparts up on the slightest errors. In Knights, the Paphlagon freely admits, by his own admission, that he cannot be argued with in any rational debate with the line:

What the hell makes you think you’ve got any hope of arguing against someone like me?

This admission helps to present this character to the audience as someone who lacks any want for knowledge and one who detests the idea of nuance. This is a man who is set in his ways and will push his agenda forward in the vain belief that no one else could know better, or alternatively, as a devious man who realises that others could contribute, but fears that this would undermine his authority. This underlying message in turn perfectly encapsulates Aristophanes’ personal beliefs regarding Cleon’s demagoguery, as this caricature presents him as a stubborn populist who will shout down anyone who may challenge him. Partridge similarly embodies this stubborn, self-admiring nature consistently across all of his output. In Knowing Me, Knowing You, for example, Alan immediately shuts down any discussion around the idea that, much like everyone, underneath his clothes he is in fact naked. Instead, he embodies the comically British reservation and prudishness to simply reply, ‘No I’m not’ repeatedly until his guests drop the discussion. So it can be said, where Aristophanes uses the stubbornness of the Paphlagon to play on ideas of demagoguery in Athens, Coogan uses these same comical techniques to play upon ideas of British sensibilities and the aversion to discussing nudity and the human form.

Both characters also demonstrate examples of how they even attempt to establish their correctness retrospectively. Whenever others have proven their case effectively, aptly shutting down their arguments, they seem to require a way to look back upon these previous cases and ‘win’ the debate when it has already been resolved. For example, in this line from Knights, the Paphlagon states:

By Demeter, I wasn’t wrong! Not wrong at all! I knew what you were all up to straight from the start! I knew straight from the start how you had all glued and nailed this scheme together! I had it worked out all along!

This statement perfectly encapsulates this character trait, much in the same way as a scene from Welcome to the Places of My Life, in which Alan argues with a car salesman about whether the vehicle he is driving has a differential lock. After pedantically continuing to press the idea that this car has a differential lock, when the salesman had already asserted that it did not, Alan feels the need to add a voiceover to his documentary to clear up this confusion. Withinn it he comedically admits that the car did not have a differential lock after all, before ending with the line:

So in a sense, we were both right.

This final line gives the same comedic punch as the Paphlagon’s earlier rant, as both are pitifully attempting to cling onto the idea that their words hold truth, in the absence of any realistic evidence to prove this.

THE ARCHETYPES OF SUPPORTING CHARACTERS

‘My mother always said, "it's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.” She was neither’

- Alan Partridge, 2011

While reading through and analysing Aristophanes’ works, it becomes apparent that some of the archetypal side characters that are used often show striking resemblances to those used throughout the world of Partridge. These characters can play roles of varying importance in their respective works, with some being only mentioned in passing, however their role does not always require constant focus. They will have individual messages and meanings surrounding their character which the author is trying to communicate, however it can be argued that they are also used to reinforce the effectiveness of Cleon and Alan within their respective roles. It could even be said that not only are these supporting characters important, but that they are integral for the central character’s hapless and obnoxious nature to be fully realised, providing a crucial sounding board for the satire to shine through. Be it friend or foe, these supporting characters are a useful tool for a comedian to use when creating a multi-layered satirical character for their audience to resonate with. It is important to note however that in satirical comedy, it is far more common for the majority of side characters to act as foes, with only a select few acting in support of the main character’s antics. In this section therefore, we will explore four of the main supporting archetypes within the works of Aristophanes and Steve Coogan, so that we can ascertain what role these characters play, why they play said role and what this does to accentuate the performances of Cleon and Partridge.

THE ACCOMPLICE: KINDRED SPIRITS

One of the most highly referenced political figures in the works of Aristophanes, despite Cleon himself, was the Athenian demagogue Cleonymus. In fact, much of what we know of Cleonymus comes from what we can infer from the references within Aristophanes’ plays, as there is little else recorded of him, and therefore like Cleon, his characterisation throughout these plays should be treated with scepticism and scrutiny. It is known that he supposedly threw away his shield in battle, which Aristophanes draws attention to relentlessly. However, more crucially for this study, we know that he was a politician disliked by Aristophanes, and is presented as having a similar ideology and temperament to that of Cleon. It comes as no surprise then that Aristophanes never shied away from berating him within his work, with each of the Cleon-focused comedies referencing Cleonymus in some capacity. He is portrayed as a slimy, untrustworthy and corrupt figure whose dishonesty and sleaze could only be matched by his ally Cleon. Much like Cleonymus, ‘friends’ of Alan are often more ethereal, being referenced rather than seen outright on screen. This is often because Coogan and the Gibbons’ brothers like to poke fun at real-life figures in the media or politics, much in the same vein as Aristophanes, by making them friends of Alan within their canon. Men like television presenter Eamon Holmes, Conservative MP Grant Shapps or, as Alan describes him, Norfolk based ‘turkey baron’ Bernard Matthews are described in the Partridge books and podcasts as having a close personal relationship with Alan, meeting up regularly as equals and friends. Because of this, these men are being playfully mocked, as by having them associate and fraternising with a man like Alan Partridge, they are made to look as though they, like him, share questionable characteristics or dispositions. Moreover, from these ‘relationships’ we can also get a more vivid image of Alan’s values, as through the company he supposedly likes to keep, we can dive further into his personal life, which develops his own canonical character.

A common device used by both writers is an emphasis on the accomplices’ personal appearance for simpler jokes that require less development to land. Aristophanes devotes much of the focus of his Cleonymus references in Archarnians upon his weight, and this compares similarly to the multiple quips referencing Eamon Holmes’ size throughout Alan Partridge media. In lines 88-89 of Archarnians, the Herald proclaims:

I swear by Zeus, he served us up a bird three times the size of Cleonymus.

Here he uses the man as some kind of gauge for enormity, while more digs at Cleonymus’ appearance can be found in this line from Wasps, when a ‘hard face’ is noted as:

Identical, I reckon to Cleonymus!

By taking a prominent and polarising politician in Athens and denigrating them on a very superficial and shallow level, Aristophanes could be using these jokes as a way of keeping the audience entertained throughout the longer pieces of dialogue-heavy exposition within his plays. Coogan also uses this device, albeit with a sense of irony that is far more apparent to modern audiences, when writing weight-based jokes at TV presenter Eamon Holmes’ expense. In the TV special Welcome To The Places Of My Life, Alan claims:

A diet rich in Tracker Bars and Alivio means I’m able to lead the kind of physically active lifestyle that’s simply out of reach for many men my age, such as Eamon Holmes.

Another example of this comes in Mid Morning Matters, when Sidekick Simon remarks about how in Buddhist countries, being overweight was a sign of success and wellbeing before Alan points to Eamon Holmes as an example of this also being true in modern Britain. Much like Aristophanes therefore, Coogan and the writing team are using a prominent media figure’s appearance as a device for more jeering gags. This humour may seem quite simplistic for Coogan’s work, however its self-referential nature, along with the irony which often makes Alan the true butt of the joke, means that it still resonates effectively with a modern audience who are less susceptible to humour which body shames the target without any nuance. However, both Aristophanes with Cleonymus and Coogan with the personalities he genuinely dislikes, are collectively trying to convey the gluttony, greed and selfishness of these characters. Because of their ties and friendships, this then harks back to both Cleon and Alan as a constant subliminal reminder to the audience of their similar tendencies, adding another layer to the satirical nature of these main characters.

THE MAD FOOL: SUPER FANS

Within both men’s works, Aristophanes and Coogan like to present Cleon and Alan as having a frustratingly enigmatic personality to a select, idiotic few. Nowhere is this more clear than in the archetype of the mad fool. In Wasps, Aristophanes uses Philocleon to embody the sort of character that would be attracted to Cleon’s demagoguery. He is easily swayed, being quite obviously infatuated with the idea of Cleon’s judicial policies and will stop at nothing to defend him and bask in the contemptible rewards which Cleon has bestowed upon him. This is exemplified in lines 318 to 322 of Wasps, when Philocleon bemoans:

These men are watching me because I’m ever ready to go with you to the voting urns and cause some pain.

as his son attempts to free his father from the grip Cleon has upon him. In series one of I’m Alan Partridge, a character called Jed Maxwell makes an appearance and shares much of these same obsessive characteristics. He is absolutely obsessed with Alan and his career, with the true extent of his infatuation being revealed by the end of the episode, when his shrine-like secret room, covered head to toe in Alan Partridge posters and memorabilia, is stumbled upon. He states:

I'm just a fan, Alan, that's all. Your biggest fan. I'll show you something…

Before taking off his shirt to reveal a large tattoo of Alan’s face plastered on his chest and abdomen. What both these ‘mad fools’ so excellently demonstrate is the cult of personality which both Cleon and Alan possess, but which it is quite apparent, both writers believe they do not deserve. The absurdity of these characters hints at a frustration each creator has for their main characters' unquestionable influence on people. This again links back to the idea that these men are both artists venting their frustration on the believed flaws within his society. In Aristophanes’ case, through the mad fool archetype we see this frustration targeted at the heightening influence of demagogues on the democracy in late fifth century Athens, and as for Coogan, it appears to be focused on the obsession with celebrity in modern Britain and how its vapid nature can take hold of people despite a lack of merit or intrinsic meaning.

THE ACCESSORY: DISPOSABLE PAWNS

Another fascinating character archetype seen in both Aristophanes’ and Coogan’s work’s is the accessory, a long-suffering counterpart, who is put in the direct firing line of our main character and takes much of their physical and mental abuse. They find themselves in a situation where they are stuck interacting with their megalomaniac colleague, while said colleague attempts to do anything to stop their career and societal advancements. They often start as overly agreeable, easily swayed by others and often lack much in the way of assertiveness, getting pushed into situations beyond their design. In Aristophanes’ works, this archetype is best seen in Knights, as the humble Sausage Seller, vies with the Paphlagon for the approval of Demos, the very representation of the Athenian people. While the Sausage Seller does attempt to rebuke him, the Paphlagon belittles him and questions:

Just what makes you so sure you’re fit to speak against me?

As seen in line 342, where he is attempting to exert his authority over a man he perceives to be his lesser than himself. In Coogan’s works, there are numerous examples of side characters, such as Alan’s P.A. Lynne, his Ukrainian girlfriend Sonja or his Geordie friend Michael, being used within this archetype, as to Alan, they are all somewhat expendable. However, for a direct example, the character of Sidekick Simon is arguably the best to use here, fitting this archetype perfectly, with a very similar scenario to the Sausage Seller’s being played out in Mid Morning Matters. Once Simon has tricked Alan into revealing his true tax bracket to his listeners, off air Alan gives him a torrent of verbal abuse culminating in the line:

You are nothing! And I… am Alan Partridge.

Once again, we see that once our main character’s authority is challenged, they will do and say anything to keep their accessories subordinate in order to defend their status and ego. Simon, quietly listening to this abuse, does little to defend himself and so while the audience may be compelled to feel sorry for him in this situation, the character’s use as a sounding board for Alan’s comedic performance is exemplified within this scene.

It is important to note that the Sausage Seller has no prior ambition to gain the confidence of Demos over his slave the Paphlagon, but was simply passing by while others schemed on his behalf. Two other ‘slaves of Demos’, Demosthenes and Nicias, who were both important political figures in Athens at the time of performance, wished to take their rival the Paphlagon down and looked to a relative nobody to accomplish this. In reality, the message is clear. Aristophanes is suggesting that the standard of politician within Athens has become so utterly deplorable by demagogues such as Cleon, that even someone as untrained and naive as the Sausage Seller can compete and win the hearts of the people with relative ease. Within the story, the Sausage Seller becomes the equal of the Paphlagon and by his own words in the line:

Rival for your (Demos’) love, one who has long lusted for you and wanted to treat you right, like many other fine upstanding people.

Much like the result of this exposure to the Paphlagon, in the Partridge universe, Lynn’s characteristics have morphed alongside her relationship with Alan. Throughout her first appearances in I’m Alan Partridge series one and two, she is a meek, god-fearing baptist who is agreeable to the extent of parody. For example, after Alan proclaims:

No offence Lynn…

She interrupts him instantly to reply:

Oh, none taken!

This is even before Alan has had the chance to insult and degrade her. In more recent Alan-projects however, Lynn has become bolder and often challenges Alan when he insults her, showing how the time as Alan’s P.A. has created a more cut-throat side to her character. In This Time with Alan Partridge, she even begins to appear as a Lady Macbeth-like figure, whispering ideas of conspiracy in Alan’s ear and giving ruthless advice on how to get the better of others. In one episode, her eyes darting around deviously she states:

Fortune favours the bold… The time is upon us.

before scurrying off set. This comedic transition of temperament mirrors that of the Sausage Seller, as the writers of both these characters are arguably demonstrating that exposure to men such as the Paphlagon or Alan, leads those who would otherwise be pure of heart, down a path of corruption and sleaze.

THE CRITIC: RIGHTEOUS CHALLENGERS

The final archetype that will be discussed here is that of ‘the critic’, a character of superior intellect or moral virtue to that of Cleon or Alan, who is dumbfounded and immensely frustrated by their behaviour. They often confront the main character, pointing out their absurdities with complete disdain and it could even be said that the critic acts as a reasoned, moral centre for the audience to see themselves in. Alternatively, they could at some points even act as an incarnation of the writer, Aristophanes or Coogan, as they vent their frustrations back at their characters. As the antagonist of Philocleon for example, Bdelycleon, which roughly translates to loather of Cleon, acts as the critic in Wasps. He is constantly trying to show his father the errors in his love for the law courts and wishes to preferably do so without resorting to the shouting and slandering that has become commonplace within Athenian politics. This is shown in the line:

Right, then! Can we do this? Can we enter into a logical discussion and bring about a compromise without all this shouting and squealing?

When this does not work however, he plans a less sophisticated approach, by having a trial set up in which a hound is accused of stealing the house cheese, which surprisingly works in freeing Philocleon from his judicial obsession. As Konstan points out, ‘Bdelycleon sets the terms and Philocleon rises to the challenge.’ This is very similar to the Farmer’s Union representative, Peter Baxendale-Thomas in I’m Alan Partridge, who appears on Alan’s radio show to challenge him on some of his offensive comments made against farmers. While starting candidly, trying to allow Alan to dig out of, as he puts it, this ‘ugly hole’, his attempts to help Alan are not as successful as Bdelycleon’s. Once Alan resorts back to type and begins making more wild accusations like farmers allowing ‘pigs to smoke’, Peter begins insulting Alan, calling him a ‘complete cretin’ after indulging his fantasy of farmers ‘feeding beef-burgers to swans.’ After all else fails, Peter walks off the program midway to escape Alan’s absurd allegations. Therefore, despite their differing conclusions, both critics attempt to show the main character the error of their ways, expounding and explaining their frustrations in articulate fashion, however the ridiculousness of their opponent means that they succumb to their level of discourse, showing the contagiously toxic nature of Cleon and Alan’s personalities.

CONCLUSIONS:

‘I wish things had turned out differently but I’m glad they didn’t.’

- Alan Partridge, 2011

It appears that great satire has consistent ingredients that can be seen across both the work of Aristophanes and Steve Coogan. All of them seem to revolve around the characteristics of the main character, who holds the weight of the work’s satirical success upon their shoulders. There has been much scholarly argument and debate surrounding the reasonings behind Aristophanes’ harsh caricatures of Cleon, as well as much on how he encapsulates both social and political satire simultaneously within said caricatures. Many argue that it is impossible to know to what extent Cleon’s satirical lambasting lies within truth, however it is most likely that behind the over the top and fantastical satirical conventions that Aristophanes incorporates, there is still a healthy mixture of truth shrouded in hyperbole.

This cocktail of truth and convention is a key ingredient that has followed through from Aristophanes’ plays all the way to the works of Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge. Both Cleon’s caricatures and Partridge share the key personality traits of bravado and intolerance, making them insufferable, boorish and hilariously difficult to sympathise with. They also react to adversity in similar ways, mostly through cowardice and anger, which helps to present their comedically bravado-based personality as nothing more than a front hiding immaturity and insecurity. Among these key character tropes, both writers use comparable supporting characters who fit into the archetypes discussed earlier. All of these archetypes are useful in the study of great satirical comedy, as without them the intended oafishness of the main character has no barometer to measure against. By having comparable side characters, each with their own ideologies and agendas to decipher, they heighten the effectiveness of both Cleon and Alan’s satirical nature. The writers require these humorous interactions with a wide variety of people, be it a critic or accessory, who can be used as a moral centre for the audience to resonate with, or a mad fool or accomplice, who parrot the teachings of Cleon and Alan, showing how ridiculous their credibility truly is in the eyes of the writer. It seems great satirical characters are only as good as their dance partners. Finally, it is the combination of all of these key ingredients coming together that shows how great satirical comedy has remained consistent across time, and how its long lasting effectiveness has consistently resonated with audiences. Both Aristophanes and Steve Coogan can be seen as masters of their craft and come together to demonstrate how the same ingredients necessary for great satire in Classical Athens, are just as applicable today as they were over two-thousand years ago.

APPENDIX:

ARISTOPHANES’ SURVIVING WORKS:

YEAR OF PRODUCTION	TITLE
425 BC	Archarnians
424 BC	Knights
423 BC	Clouds
422 BC	Wasps
421 BC	Peace
414 BC	Birds
411 BC	Lysistrata
411 BC	Women Celebrating the Thesmophoria
405 BC	Frogs
392 BC	Assemblywomen
388 BC	Wealth

ALAN PARTRIDGE CHRONOLOGY:

YEAR OF RELEASE	TITLE	FORMAT
1991-92	On The Hour	Radio Series (BBC Radio 4)
1992-93	Knowing Me Knowing You with Alan Partridge	Radio Series (BBC Radio 4)
1994	The Day Today	TV Series (BBC Two)
1994	Knowing Me Knowing You with Alan Partridge	TV Series (BBC Two)
1994	Christmas Night with the Stars	TV Special
1995	Knowing Me Knowing Yule with Alan Partridge	TV Special (BBC Two)
1995	Alan Partridge’s Country Ramble	TV Special (BBC Two)
1995, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2011, 2017, 2019	Comic Relief	TV Fundraiser (BBC One)
1995	The Big Snog	TV Fundraiser (Channel 4)
1997, 2002	I’m Alan Partridge	TV Series (BBC Two)
1997	Election Night Armistice	TV Special (BBC Two)
1998	Stephen Fry’s “Live from the Lighthouse"	TV Fundraiser (Channel 4)
1998	Steve Coogan Live: The Man Who Thinks He’s It	Live Tour
2003	Anglian Lives: Alan Partridge	TV Interview Special (BBC Two)
2004	Teenage Cancer Trust concert	Charity Concert
2009	Steve Coogan Live: As Alan Partridge and Other Less Successful Characters	Live Tour
2011, 2016	Mid Morning Matters with Alan Partridge	TV Series (Sky Atlantic)
2011	Open Books with Martin Bryce	TV Special (Sky Atlantic)
2011	I, Partridge: We Need To Talk About Alan	Autobiography
2011	Alan Partridge: Welcome to the Places of My Life	TV Special (Sky Atlantic)
2013	Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa	Feature Film
2015	TFI Friday	Talk Show (Channel 4)
2016	Alan Partridge’s Scissored Isle	TV Special (Sky Atlantic)
2016	Sport Relief	TV Fundraiser (BBC One)
2016	Alan Partridge: Nomad	Autobiography
2017	Alan Partridge: Why, When, Where, How and Whom?	Documentary (BBC Two)
2019, 2021	This Time with Alan Partridge	TV Series (BBC One)
2020, 2022	From the Oasthouse: The Alan Partridge Podcast	Podcast (Audible)
2022	Alan Partridge Live – Stratagem	Live Tour

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

SECONDARY SCHOLARSHIP:

Alexander, R., 1984. ‘British Comedy and Humour: Social and Cultural Background,’ AAA: Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 9, no. 1, 63–83.

Anderson, C.A., 1989. ‘Themistocles and Cleon in Aristophanes’ Knights, 763ff,’ The American Journal of Philology 110, no. 1, 10–16.

Atkinson, J.E., 1992. ‘Curbing the Comedians: Cleon versus Aristophanes and Syracosius’ Decree,’ The Classical Quarterly 42, no. 1, 56–64.

Blumenthal, R., 2021. ‘If It Is Not Exaggeration, Can It Be Satire?: Social Media Aa Satire And Other Things.’ Computers & society 50, no. 3, 11.

Borthwick, E.K., 1969. ‘Cleon and the Spartiates in Aristophanes’ Knights,’ The Classical Quarterly 19, no. 2, 243–44.

Diehl, N., 2013. ‘Satire, Analogy, and Moral Philosophy,’ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 71, no. 4, 311–21.

Dorey, T. A., 1956. ‘Aristophanes and Cleon,’ Greece & Rome 3, no. 2, 132–39.

Edmunds, L., 1987. ‘The Aristophanic Cleon’s ‘Disturbance’ of Athens,’ The American Journal of Philology 108, no. 2, 233–63.

Freedman, L., 2012. ‘Wit as a Political Weapon: Satirists and Censors,’ Social Research 79, no. 1, 87–112.

Goldhill, S., 1990. ‘The Poet's Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature,’ Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 167-222.

Halliwell, S., 1984. ‘Aristophanic Satire,’ The Yearbook of English Studies 14, 6–20.

Halliwell, S., 1991. ‘Comic Satire and Freedom of Speech in Classical Athens,’ The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111, 48–70.

Harrington, C., 2021. ‘What is “Toxic Masculinity” and Why Does it Matter?’ Men and masculinities 24, no. 2, 345-352

Hart, M., 2007. ‘Humour and Social Protest: An Introduction,’ International Review of Social History 52, 1–20.

Heath, M. 1987. ‘Political Comedy in Aristophanes,’ Hypomnemata 87, 1-48.

Henderson, J., 2022. Three More Plays by Aristophanes - Staging Politics. Routledge: Routledge Press, 1-23.

Henkle, R.B., 1982. ‘The Social Dynamics of Comedy,’ The Sewanee Review 90, no. 2, 200–216.

Himes, S., and Thompson, J.K., 2007. ‘Fat Stigmatization in Television Shows and Movies: A Content Analysis,’ Obesity 15, 712-718.

Jennings, P., 1970. ‘British Humour,’ Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 118, no. 5164, 169–78.

Kingsbury, P., 2015. ‘Becoming Literate in Desire with Alan Partridge,’ Cultural Geographies 22, no. 2, 329–44.

Konstan, D., 1995. Greek Comedy and Ideology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-28.

Lintott, S. 2016. ‘Superiority in Humor Theory,’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74, no. 4, 347–58.

Lloyd, M., 2021. ‘Politeness and Impoliteness in Aristophanes,’ In Martin, G., Iurescia, F., Hof, S., & Sorrentino, G. (Eds.), Pragmatic Approaches to Drama: Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage, 213–233.

Long, J.A., Jeong, and M.S., Lavis, S., 2021. ‘Political Comedy as a Gateway to News Use, Internal Efficacy, and Participation: A Longitudinal Mediation Analysis,’ Human Communication Research 47, no. 2, 166–191.

Markiewicz, D., 1974. ‘Effects of Humor on Persuasion,’ Sociometry 37, no. 3, 407–22.

McGlew, J., 1996. “‘Everybody Wants to make a Speech’’: Cleon and Aristophanes on Politics and Fantasy,” Arethusa 29, no. 3, 339–61.

Olson, D.S., 2010. ‘Comedy, Politics, and Society,’ in Dobrov, G. W. (ed.), Brill's Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, 35-69.

Quintero, R., 2007. A Companion to Satire: Ancient and Modern. Oxford: Blackwell, 1-11.

Robson, J., 2005. “New Clothes, a New You: Clothing and Character in Aristophanes,” In L. Cleland, M. Harlow, L. Llewellyn-Jones (Eds.) The Clothed Body in the Ancient World, Oxbow Books, 65-74.

Robson, J., 2008. “Aristophanes, by C. Platter and B. Pütz,” The Classical Review 58, no. 2, 360–63.

Robson, J., 2009. Aristophanes: An Introduction. London: Duckworth.

Robson, J., 2012 “Transposing Aristophanes: The Theory and Practice of Translating Aristophanic Lyric,” Greece & Rome 59, no. 2, 214–44.

Romney, J., 2013. ‘Alan Partridge,’ Film Comment 49, 67-68.

Sommerstein, A. H., Halliwell, S., Henderson, J. and B. Zimmermann, 1993. ‘Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis,’ Levante Editori.

Sommerstein, A.H., 1996. ‘How to Avoid Being a Komoudomenos,’ Classical Quarterly 46, no. 2, 327-56.

Stow, H. L., 1942. ‘Aristophanes’ Influence upon Public Opinion,’ The Classical Journal 38, no. 2, 83–92.

Zumbrunnen, J., 2004. “Elite Domination and the Clever Citizen: Aristophanes’ ‘Acharnians’ and ‘Knights,’” Political Theory 32, no. 5, 656–77.