Irony In The Age Of Innocence
Exploring the Irony of The Age of Innocence Title In the aftermath of the First World War, Edith Wharton wrote the timeless novel The Age of Innocence, serving as a flashback to the period in which Wharton herself was raised. The Age of Innocence story takes place in upper-class New York society during the 1870s and highlights the distinctive social codes of the aristocratic class. Choosing the title The Age of Innocence to represent Wharton’s story is highly ironic due to the sinister characters who are able to succeed in this environment and the major characters of the novel who ironically interact with the theme of innocence. To a certain extent, the upper-class New York society of the 19th century represents an “age of innocence”. Wharton’s
…show more content…
society is characterized by the refusal to acknowledge the unpleasantness of its members and the exile of anyone who breaks social conventions, including taboos against certain forms of speech. Ellen corroborates this outlook to Archer in the following passage:
[Ellen] shook her head and sighed. ‘Oh, I know--I know! But on condition that they don't hear anything unpleasant. Aunt Welland put it in those very words when I tried. . . . Does no one want to know the truth here, Mr. Archer? The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend!’ (Wharton, pg.75)
As Ellen suggests, the family is unwilling to discuss Ellen’s failed marriage to Count Olenski despite its public support for her. The support is conditional on Ellen’s ability to ignore her past. This attitude is showcased by the family during Ellen’s attempt to divorce Count Olenski. When the family becomes aware of Ellen’s plans to pursue a divorce, the family is quick to condemn the action and overtly broadcasts its displeasure. From the perspective of the family, divorce serves as an unnecessary stain on Ellen’s reputation and a public acknowledgment of her failed marriage. More selfishly, the divorce would reflect poorly on the family. Ellen’s episode illustrates the inability of Wharton’s society to address circumstances which fall outside of traditional norms, like divorce from an estranged husband. The family’s ultimate response is no response: pretending the problem never existed. Countess Olenska’s farewell dinner serves as an example of how upper-class Gilded Age society deals with outsiders: permanent exile. Ellen’s failure to observe social conventions results in her forced send-off. As Newland recognizes:
[T]o all of them he and Madame Olenska were lovers… He guessed himself to have been, for months, the centre of countless silently observing eyes and patiently listening ears; he understood that, by means as yet unknown to him, the separation between himself and the partner of his guilt had been achieved, and that now the whole tribe had rallied about his wife on the tacit assumption that nobody knew anything, or had ever imagined anything (pg. 338) Newland is never openly accused of having a sexual relationship with Ellen. The family chooses to relocate Ellen to Europe instead of addressing the rumored affair between a married man and another woman. For Wharton’s society, exile rather than discussing with Newland and Ellen the extent of their relationship is the more rational decision. One of the ironic elements of The Age of Innocence title stems from the ability of sinister characters to abuse societal norms in order to gain acceptance. Julius Beaufort and Lawrence Lefferts provide examples of this observation. Julius Beaufort is a former British Banker with a tendency towards infidelity who is rumored to have left Europe after unsavory business dealings. However, Beaufort thrives in Wharton’s society by hosting extravagant balls and marrying into the honorable Dallas family. Beaufort utilizes his appearance of propriety and ability to conceal his past offenses to gain acceptance into society. The aristocratic society is forced to condemn Beaufort only after the unsavory details of his financial dealings manifest publicly. Beaufort proves the power of proper appearances over all other factors as integral to success in Wharton’s society. In the case of Lawrence Lefferts, the self-proclaimed expert on form in New York represents the hypocrisy and faulty moral ground on which Wharton’s society is based. At Ellen’s farewell dinner, Lefferts is quick to condemn the extra-marital affairs of Beaufort despite asking Newland to cover for his own affair at the same occasion. Ironically, Lefferts uses an event meant to prevent the potential adultery of Newland and Ellen to further his own extramarital relations. The character of Lawrence Lefferts shows the ability of Wharton’s society to accept an actual affair when hidden under a veneer of traditional social conventions. The fact that the central upholder of Old New York values is himself involved in a scandalous relationship exemplifies the faulty moral framework by which Wharton’s society functions. Both Julius Beaufort and Lawrence Lefferts are able to manipulate the aristocratic Gilded-Age-society’s predilection toward pleasant appearances to gain societal acceptance. Most importantly, the men are able to flourish despite their collective scandals. The interactions between Newland Archer, May Wellington Archer, and Ellen Olenska with the theme of innocence result in several ironic responses. In the case of May Welland Archer, the character perceived to be the most innocent in the Newland-led narration is recognized by the reader to have the most self-awareness by the end of the novel. According to this reading of the character, May is able to strategically outmaneuver Newland in every major episode of his relationship with Ellen. The first major episode showcasing May’s manipulative nature occurs after Newland confesses to being in love with Ellen. Following the confession, Ellen receives a telegram from May announcing her parents’ consent to an earlier wedding date. From a manipulative reading of May, Newland’s unannounced visit to Florida and insistence on moving up the marriage date signal Newland’s fear of being unfaithful to May during a long engagement. May responds to this fear by calling Newland’s bluff and moving up the marriage, trapping Newland in the relationship before he is able to become more intimate with Ellen. The second major episode occurs after May’s farewell dinner. Newland informs May of his intentions to travel to India or Japan in order to escape the upper class aristocracy. It is during this event that May reveals that she is with child, forcing Newland to stay with her in New York. May later admits to Newland that she prematurely announced her pregnancy to Ellen, an announcement which May strategically deployed to convince Ellen to return to Europe. The compassionate Ellen would never agree to have an affair with a married man whose wife is also pregnant. May takes advantage of this weakness. The third major episode of manipulation occurs posthumously outside Ellen’s apartment in Paris when Newland chooses not to visit Ellen.
This episode reveals the effect of decades of marriage to May Wellington. May successfully instills in Newland the social conventions of Old New York society, conventions which prevent a formerly married, middle-aged man from beginning a new life with or even visiting a former lover. The manipulative reading of May fits correctly with every major plot points of the novel. Ironically, May, the character perceived by the Newland-led narration to be the personification of innocence, is able to influence every major decision of Newland’s life through manipulative means. Conversely, the irony of Newland Archer’s relationship to innocence is the fact that the character that largely controls the narrative and appears to be in command of his environment is revealed to be the most naïve character in the novel. This becomes especially evident during Ellen’s farewell dinner when Newland finally realizes that Ellen’s return to Europe is the family’s solution to their rumored …show more content…
affair. Newland relationship with Ellen also highlights the innocence of his character. Throughout the relationship Newland unrealistically expects society to be accepting of their relationship and believes he can simply run away with Ellen. This situation set up one of the most powerful exchanges of the novel:
‘I want—I want somehow to get away with you into a world where words like that—categories like that—won't exist. Where we shall be simply two human beings who love each other, who are the whole of life to each other; and nothing else on earth will matter.’ She drew a deep sigh that ended in another laugh. ‘Oh, my dear—where is that country? Have you ever been there?’ she asked (pg. 293)
Interestingly, it is Ellen the bohemian rather than Archer the successful lawyer who must explain the true reality of the situation.
Ellen realizes early on that an affair cannot occur between Ellen and Newland without harming others, a sacrifice the compassionate Ellen is unable to make. Newland ironically is discovered to be the most innocent character of the novel: He is easily manipulated by May and her family and naively approaches his relationship to Ellen. Countess Ellen Olenska foolishly travels to New York in search of freedom only to realize that her freedom is singularly possible in Europe. Ellen’s desire to leave Europe and travel to New York stems from her need to escape her failed relationship with Count Olenski. Ironically, it is the upper-class New York society which is the least tolerant of her lifestyle choices. The society is critical of her decision to live as a single woman away from her husband and her inability to conform to traditional social etiquette. The narrator reflects on Ellen’s problem:
[Ellen] had grown tired of what people called ‘society’; New York was kind, it was almost oppressively hospitable; she should never forget the way in which it had welcomed her back; but after the first flush of novelty she had found herself, as she phrased it, too ‘different’ to care for the things it cared about (pg.
241)
Ellen realizes that she is too unconventional to survive in upper-class New York society because of her disinterest in the social rules and etiquette of the aristocracy. Ellen’s self-awareness results in her return to Europe and the restoration of her freedom. The title of the novel The Age of Innocence is highly ironic as a characterization of Wharton’s society and the major characters within the novel. The upper-class Old New York society of the 19th century places a strong emphasis on preserving the outward appearances of happiness and innocence while actively ignoring unpleasantness. These societal norms unintentionally allow sinister characters with outwardly proper appearances like Julius Beaufort and Lawrence Lefferts to flourish. Analyzing the interactions of the novel’s main characters with the theme of innocence also produces ironic results. May Wellington Archer utilizes her perceived innocence in order to manipulate Newland’s major life decisions. Conversely, Newland Archer is revealed by the end of the novel to be the most naïve character in terms of both his lack of awareness of how much influence the family has over his life and his approach to his relationship with Ellen. Countess Ellen Olenska begins the novel innocently believing she must journey to America in order to seek the freedom and acceptance only to ironically realize that the freedom she desired was in Europe the whole time.
society is characterized by the refusal to acknowledge the unpleasantness of its members and the exile of anyone who breaks social conventions, including taboos against certain forms of speech. Ellen corroborates this outlook to Archer in the following passage:
[Ellen] shook her head and sighed. ‘Oh, I know--I know! But on condition that they don't hear anything unpleasant. Aunt Welland put it in those very words when I tried. . . . Does no one want to know the truth here, Mr. Archer? The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend!’ (Wharton, pg.75)
As Ellen suggests, the family is unwilling to discuss Ellen’s failed marriage to Count Olenski despite its public support for her. The support is conditional on Ellen’s ability to ignore her past. This attitude is showcased by the family during Ellen’s attempt to divorce Count Olenski. When the family becomes aware of Ellen’s plans to pursue a divorce, the family is quick to condemn the action and overtly broadcasts its displeasure. From the perspective of the family, divorce serves as an unnecessary stain on Ellen’s reputation and a public acknowledgment of her failed marriage. More selfishly, the divorce would reflect poorly on the family. Ellen’s episode illustrates the inability of Wharton’s society to address circumstances which fall outside of traditional norms, like divorce from an estranged husband. The family’s ultimate response is no response: pretending the problem never existed. Countess Olenska’s farewell dinner serves as an example of how upper-class Gilded Age society deals with outsiders: permanent exile. Ellen’s failure to observe social conventions results in her forced send-off. As Newland recognizes:
[T]o all of them he and Madame Olenska were lovers… He guessed himself to have been, for months, the centre of countless silently observing eyes and patiently listening ears; he understood that, by means as yet unknown to him, the separation between himself and the partner of his guilt had been achieved, and that now the whole tribe had rallied about his wife on the tacit assumption that nobody knew anything, or had ever imagined anything (pg. 338) Newland is never openly accused of having a sexual relationship with Ellen. The family chooses to relocate Ellen to Europe instead of addressing the rumored affair between a married man and another woman. For Wharton’s society, exile rather than discussing with Newland and Ellen the extent of their relationship is the more rational decision. One of the ironic elements of The Age of Innocence title stems from the ability of sinister characters to abuse societal norms in order to gain acceptance. Julius Beaufort and Lawrence Lefferts provide examples of this observation. Julius Beaufort is a former British Banker with a tendency towards infidelity who is rumored to have left Europe after unsavory business dealings. However, Beaufort thrives in Wharton’s society by hosting extravagant balls and marrying into the honorable Dallas family. Beaufort utilizes his appearance of propriety and ability to conceal his past offenses to gain acceptance into society. The aristocratic society is forced to condemn Beaufort only after the unsavory details of his financial dealings manifest publicly. Beaufort proves the power of proper appearances over all other factors as integral to success in Wharton’s society. In the case of Lawrence Lefferts, the self-proclaimed expert on form in New York represents the hypocrisy and faulty moral ground on which Wharton’s society is based. At Ellen’s farewell dinner, Lefferts is quick to condemn the extra-marital affairs of Beaufort despite asking Newland to cover for his own affair at the same occasion. Ironically, Lefferts uses an event meant to prevent the potential adultery of Newland and Ellen to further his own extramarital relations. The character of Lawrence Lefferts shows the ability of Wharton’s society to accept an actual affair when hidden under a veneer of traditional social conventions. The fact that the central upholder of Old New York values is himself involved in a scandalous relationship exemplifies the faulty moral framework by which Wharton’s society functions. Both Julius Beaufort and Lawrence Lefferts are able to manipulate the aristocratic Gilded-Age-society’s predilection toward pleasant appearances to gain societal acceptance. Most importantly, the men are able to flourish despite their collective scandals. The interactions between Newland Archer, May Wellington Archer, and Ellen Olenska with the theme of innocence result in several ironic responses. In the case of May Welland Archer, the character perceived to be the most innocent in the Newland-led narration is recognized by the reader to have the most self-awareness by the end of the novel. According to this reading of the character, May is able to strategically outmaneuver Newland in every major episode of his relationship with Ellen. The first major episode showcasing May’s manipulative nature occurs after Newland confesses to being in love with Ellen. Following the confession, Ellen receives a telegram from May announcing her parents’ consent to an earlier wedding date. From a manipulative reading of May, Newland’s unannounced visit to Florida and insistence on moving up the marriage date signal Newland’s fear of being unfaithful to May during a long engagement. May responds to this fear by calling Newland’s bluff and moving up the marriage, trapping Newland in the relationship before he is able to become more intimate with Ellen. The second major episode occurs after May’s farewell dinner. Newland informs May of his intentions to travel to India or Japan in order to escape the upper class aristocracy. It is during this event that May reveals that she is with child, forcing Newland to stay with her in New York. May later admits to Newland that she prematurely announced her pregnancy to Ellen, an announcement which May strategically deployed to convince Ellen to return to Europe. The compassionate Ellen would never agree to have an affair with a married man whose wife is also pregnant. May takes advantage of this weakness. The third major episode of manipulation occurs posthumously outside Ellen’s apartment in Paris when Newland chooses not to visit Ellen.
This episode reveals the effect of decades of marriage to May Wellington. May successfully instills in Newland the social conventions of Old New York society, conventions which prevent a formerly married, middle-aged man from beginning a new life with or even visiting a former lover. The manipulative reading of May fits correctly with every major plot points of the novel. Ironically, May, the character perceived by the Newland-led narration to be the personification of innocence, is able to influence every major decision of Newland’s life through manipulative means. Conversely, the irony of Newland Archer’s relationship to innocence is the fact that the character that largely controls the narrative and appears to be in command of his environment is revealed to be the most naïve character in the novel. This becomes especially evident during Ellen’s farewell dinner when Newland finally realizes that Ellen’s return to Europe is the family’s solution to their rumored …show more content…
affair. Newland relationship with Ellen also highlights the innocence of his character. Throughout the relationship Newland unrealistically expects society to be accepting of their relationship and believes he can simply run away with Ellen. This situation set up one of the most powerful exchanges of the novel:
‘I want—I want somehow to get away with you into a world where words like that—categories like that—won't exist. Where we shall be simply two human beings who love each other, who are the whole of life to each other; and nothing else on earth will matter.’ She drew a deep sigh that ended in another laugh. ‘Oh, my dear—where is that country? Have you ever been there?’ she asked (pg. 293)
Interestingly, it is Ellen the bohemian rather than Archer the successful lawyer who must explain the true reality of the situation.
Ellen realizes early on that an affair cannot occur between Ellen and Newland without harming others, a sacrifice the compassionate Ellen is unable to make. Newland ironically is discovered to be the most innocent character of the novel: He is easily manipulated by May and her family and naively approaches his relationship to Ellen. Countess Ellen Olenska foolishly travels to New York in search of freedom only to realize that her freedom is singularly possible in Europe. Ellen’s desire to leave Europe and travel to New York stems from her need to escape her failed relationship with Count Olenski. Ironically, it is the upper-class New York society which is the least tolerant of her lifestyle choices. The society is critical of her decision to live as a single woman away from her husband and her inability to conform to traditional social etiquette. The narrator reflects on Ellen’s problem:
[Ellen] had grown tired of what people called ‘society’; New York was kind, it was almost oppressively hospitable; she should never forget the way in which it had welcomed her back; but after the first flush of novelty she had found herself, as she phrased it, too ‘different’ to care for the things it cared about (pg.
241)
Ellen realizes that she is too unconventional to survive in upper-class New York society because of her disinterest in the social rules and etiquette of the aristocracy. Ellen’s self-awareness results in her return to Europe and the restoration of her freedom. The title of the novel The Age of Innocence is highly ironic as a characterization of Wharton’s society and the major characters within the novel. The upper-class Old New York society of the 19th century places a strong emphasis on preserving the outward appearances of happiness and innocence while actively ignoring unpleasantness. These societal norms unintentionally allow sinister characters with outwardly proper appearances like Julius Beaufort and Lawrence Lefferts to flourish. Analyzing the interactions of the novel’s main characters with the theme of innocence also produces ironic results. May Wellington Archer utilizes her perceived innocence in order to manipulate Newland’s major life decisions. Conversely, Newland Archer is revealed by the end of the novel to be the most naïve character in terms of both his lack of awareness of how much influence the family has over his life and his approach to his relationship with Ellen. Countess Ellen Olenska begins the novel innocently believing she must journey to America in order to seek the freedom and acceptance only to ironically realize that the freedom she desired was in Europe the whole time.