Review: On the Classification of Ironies

Reviewed Work(s): The Compass of Irony by D. C. Muecke; The Ironic Vision in Modern
Literature by Charles I. Glicksberg
Review by: Norman Knox
Source: Modern Philology, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Aug., 1972), pp. 53-62
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/436505
Accessed: 28-12-2016 19:26 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Modern Philology

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW ARTICLE

ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF IRONIES'

NORMAN KNOX 2

In the classification of ironies four variable one aspect. Too often these tags have led to
the kind of thinking that produced this
factors are significant: (1) the field of observa-
tion in which irony is noticed; (2) the degree question from one of my graduate students,
of conflict between appearance and reality,a high school English teacher: "What is the
ranging from the slightest of differences difference," to he asked, "between tragic irony
diametrical opposites; (3) an inherently and dramatic irony?" The answer is that
dramatic structure containing three roles- some irony is both dramatic and tragic, some
victim, audience, author; (4) the philosoph- one but not the other, and some neither.
ical-emotional aspect. In this last category, When I. A. Richards asserts that irony
the tragic and satiric aspects of irony are pleases because it evokes a balance of opposed
familiar. The term "comic irony" has usually impulses, he assumes that all irony is para-
been either used so vaguely as to be meaning- doxical. On the same assumption, several
less or has been synonymous with satiric recent critics have proved that such ironists
irony; it should be reserved for that aspect, as Swift, traditionally supposed to be satiric,
the reverse of the tragic, in which the appear-necessarily had minds as divided as our
ance of disaster resolves into the reality of own.
good fortune. In the irony that effects a The critics who like to invent "new" varie-
unique fusion of tragic and satiric feeling we ties of irony, largely and at random, have
have a fourth aspect, which may be called only added to our confusion. Empson's
"nihilistic." A fifth, the paradoxical, counter- double irony may employ a new adjective,
balances the tragic with the comic, or one but the kind of irony he means was isolated
limited point of view with another. This is the and analyzed at least 140 years ago. Better
irony that joins "both-and" to "neither-nor," results are likely to come if we start from an
refusing to resolve itself. orderly assessment of our accumulations, as
If all four of the factors listed above are Northrop Frye has shown. It is, for instance,
consistently taken into account, our super- an interesting fact that several of our old
ficially confused notions of irony can be ideas of irony seem to hang loose in regard to
brought into something like historical and one significant factor. Socrates' self-deprecia-
analytic order, as I have tried to show in an tion clearly satirizes his opponent, but what
article for Scribner's forthcoming Dictionarydoes it do to Socrates, who is the subject of
of the History of Ideas. Much of the confusiondiscussion ? When Swift says pleasant things
that now exists comes from taking a part forof an enemy, we know how to class his irony,
a whole, or the whole. Some traditional but when he says unpleasant things to a
terms, such as "verbal irony," "dramatic friend (things which then turn into flattery),
irony," "cosmic irony," isolate the field of what aspect of irony is that ? Thirlwall points
observation; others, such as "tragic irony," out that in Oedipus at Colonus the appearance
"satiric irony," "philosophical irony," isolateof misery resolves into the reality of triumph.
Is this tragic? One is led to the conclusion
1 The Compass of Irony. By D. C. Muecke. London: that our talk about irony, almost from the
Methuen & Co., 1969. Pp. xi + 276.
The Ironic Vision in Modern Literature. By Charles I. beginning, has implied one aspect that has
Glicksberg. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969. Pp. 268.
2 Deceased, February 8, 1971. never been brought into clear theoretical
[Modern Philology, August 1972] 53

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 54 NORMAN KNOX

focus-the comic Having established

aspect his definition, Muecke
defined in my
goes on to several
paragraph. In different waysobservations
it about
is thethe op
of both the tragicvictim
andof irony.
theHe makes a distinction aspec
satiric
it may appear in between anythefield "object" of irony,
of "what one is
observat
I remember correctly, ironical about," R.
and theB.victim, who may or
Sharpe (Ir
the Drama) considers and rejects the pos- may not be the object (p. 34). He points out
sibility of such comic irony; Glicksberg (p. 18) that the victim may be totally unaware of the
quotes a clear example from Of Human irony, or in some situations he may become
Bondage without noticing its comic aspect; aware of it without ceasing to be a victim. In
even Frye defines "comic irony" in the glos- self-disparaging irony like Socrates' there is a
sary of his Anatomy as chiefly satiric in "splitting of the ego" so that the ironist is his
reference. For a century now tragic irony has own "pseudo-victim." If Muecke had pur-
been analyzed repeatedly while comic irony sued the possible ways of distributing author,
has been virtually ignored. Does our pessi- victim, and audience, with further attention
mistic bias account for this? Whatever the to the fact that one "character" may play
answer, the comic aspect of irony couldmore be than one role at the same time, or, as
noticed, if one wished to notice it, as often the ironic drama unfolds, may shift from one
as the tragic. Someone should write a book role to another, or may even be missing, he
about it. could easily have given us a complete classi-
In The Compass of Irony, D. C. Muecke fication of the variations of this factor in
sets as one of two goals a valid classification irony. Instead of doing so, he drops this topic
of ironies, and he sees what the difficulties for the moment and then returns to it in
are. "I do not know," he says, "of any book connection with other factors. I have to
or article ... or of any European or American regard his decision as an error. Not only are
dictionary or encyclopaedia which presents a his observations now scattered unsystemati-
classification of irony one could regard as cally throughout the book, but his introduc-
adequate" (p. 40). Of the almost innumerable tion of this factor into his analysis of other
ironies that now have names, "some have factors causes serious confusion.
been named from the effect, others from the It confuses his analysis of the degrees of
medium, others again from the technique, orconflict between appearance and reality, to
the function, or the object, or the practitioner,take that factor next. His initial observation,
or the tone, or the attitude" (p. 4). It is timehowever, is intriguing and undoubtedly right.
we had "an accurate and systematic survey ofThe old notion that irony deals in contraries
the meanings of irony." If we had that, we will not do: the "opposition may take the
would "be able to see more quickly that suchform of contradiction, incongruity, or incom-
and such a passage or work combines two or patibility" (pp. 19-20). Moreover, a second
more techniques or forms of irony, or is onelement enters into our sense of the conflict:
the borderline between one technique or form how much "innocence" is felt by or imputed
and another, or combines ironical with non- to the victim. "Perhaps there is a rule here
ironical elements" (p. 41). which can be generally applied: to maintain
He starts out from an unexceptionable the same level of irony the degree of disparity
definition. Irony is a "double-layered or two-between the ironic opposites should be in
storey phenomenon" in which "there is inverse proportion to the degree of confident
always some kind of opposition between the unawareness felt by the victim or pretended
two levels" and "an element of 'innocence'; by the ironist. Or putting it another way, the
either a victim is confidently unaware of the irony may be made more striking either by
very possibility of there being an upper level stressing the ironic incongruity or by stressing
or point of view that invalidates his own, orthe ironic 'innocence'" (p. 32).
an ironist pretends not to be aware of it" It may well be that Muecke's Rule supplies
(pp. 19-20). about all that general theory can supply here.

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF IRONIES 55
In describing a particular instance the kinds of situations
of irony, a we see as ironic
normal sense of proportion and andsome experi-about the observer's
also, therefore,
ence of life and literature should do the rest. sense of irony, his attitudes, and responses"
Nevertheless, Muecke does attempt a broad (p. 43).
classification "according to the degree to This basic distinction leads to a classifica-
which the real meaning is concealed" (p. 53): tion of four "modes" of irony "according to
"In Overt Irony the victim or the reader or the kind of relationship between the ironist
both are meant to see the ironist's real mean- and the irony" (p. 53). (1) In Impersonal
ing at once" (p. 54); in Covert irony there is a irony "though we hear the voice of the ironist
delayed reaction; in Private irony the author himself, we are more or less unaware of him
is the sole audience to his own irony. But this as a person" (p. 61). Muecke analyzes some
classification is not based on Muecke's Rule; twenty strategies, such as blame by praise,
it is based on the relationship among author, pretended agreement, innuendo, internal con-
audience, and victim. Muecke seems to think tradiction, understatement, and parody, a
that there is an exact correlation between the catalog that should be of use to practical
two so that the author-victim-audience factor critics. (2) In Self-disparaging irony "the
simply gives us a convenient way of cataloging ironist brings himself on stage.., .in the
the degree factor. Not so. One man's Overt character of an ignorant, credulous, earnest,
irony is another's Covert, as every teacher or over-enthusiastic person"-Socrates,
knows. By classifying degree in this way Chaucer. Such irony is semidramatized but
Muecke has not provided an objective scale, "we are still aware of the ironist behind the
and he has shifted the ground of his classifica- mask." (3) In Ing6nu irony the ironist
tion, which should be precisely those two "withdraws even further and uses, as his
elements of the ironic structure singled out by mouthpiece only, an ing6nu who nonetheless
his own rule. sees what the clever ones are blind to, or
The classification to which Muecke gives cannot be brought to comprehend their
most attention is based on the field of obser- sophistries"-Uncle Toby, Huck Finn. (4) In
vation, a term which may be understood in Dramatized irony "the ironist will withdraw
completely.... It is no more... than the
two senses. The less significant one, for theory
though not for history, denotes simply anpresentation in drama or fiction of such ironic
area of knowledge-literature, the visual arts, situations or events as we may find in life"
music, physics, psychology, ethics, and so on. (pp. 62-63).
Muecke digs for irony in these fields more There are a number of objections to be
thoroughly than any other ironologist I can made to this scheme, most of which arise
from Muecke's confusion of the author-
think of, with interesting results. The theoret-
ically more important sense of the term victim-audience factor with the field of obser-
denotes the structural elements in which an vation. In Dramatized irony the ironist does
ironic conflict is observed. The two basic not, surely, "withdraw completely," though
classes here are Verbal irony, and to use he often does "present" his irony without
Muecke's term, which is as good as any of aovert comment. But so, usually, does the
dozen others, Situational irony. "Verbal ironyVerbal ironist, the tone of whose voice is
implies an ironist, someone consciously and likely to be cool and impartial as he presents
intentionally employing a technique. Situa- a fallacious argument or an ambiguity. It is
tional irony does not imply an ironist but true that he sometimes raises his voice, as in
merely 'a condition of affairs' or 'outcome ofparody, but so does the dramatizing ironist
events' which.. . is seen and felt to be when he cuts away all flesh to reveal the bone
ironic" (p. 42). Therefore, "talking of about
an ironic event. What, then, is the differ-
Verbal irony means talking about the ence between Verbal and Dramatized irony ?
ironist's techniques and strategies. Talking Do we not hear a voice, and only a voice, in
about Situational irony means talking about both?

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 56 NORMAN KNOX

In the classes of Self-disparaging and Either we need two classes here, or we must
Ingenu irony Muecke has at least three take author, audience, and victim into ac-
different types of character: Chaucer, who count in all irony. Although it is historically
presents himself as a fictional character who crucial that in the Romantic period men
is modest and deferential; the self-disparaging began to see themselves as audience-victims
Socrates, who is presented as a fictional of an inhuman irony, so far as theory is con-
character by Plato; the ingenu, a fictional cerned the "observer's sense of irony, his
character who is disparaged by others. The attitudes, and responses" have always been
distinction Muecke needs here is the familiar important. The fate of Defoe's Shortest Way
one between characters who disparage them- is a familiar case in point. On the other hand,
selves and characters who are viewed dis- we virtually always think of irony as having
paragingly by others. It is not significant, an author, even in real life, as our names for
theoretically, that a self-disparaging fictional such irony reveal: Irony of Fate, Irony of
character is named Chaucer. This device God, Irony of Things, etc. Not to think of an
simply brings the artistic skill of the poem
author here is the exception rather than the
into the field of observation. The parallel rule. Yet Muecke finds this "strange" (p. 42),
element in Ingenu irony is whatever itand is that
tries to get rid of superhuman authors
convinces us the ingenu has good sense, and
wherever he can. Such hardheaded empiri-
this is very seldom our prior knowledge cismthat
in a theorist of the imagination is
the ingenu is the author's mouthpiece. Our
puzzling.
discovery that the ingenu does have good All of these difficulties disappear and a
sense is what tells us he is the author's mouth- number of doors open if we simply put the
piece. But does not all irony contain some author-victim-audience factor aside, in an
element which reveals the author's real independent classification, and focus our
opinion ? The important question, it attention seems tosolely on the field of observation,
me, is not whether the author bringswhich is what is really being classified. In
himself
on stage, for he always does that, but what
verbal irony the ironic conflict has something
materials he uses to do so-a paragraph of to do with one meaning of a specific set of
sincere recommendations as in the Modest words. Such irony is almost impossible to
Proposal, a fictional character named Soc- translate without changing or losing the
rates, Chaucer, Huck Finn, or a sequence of irony. It might be useful to divide this class
events, as in Oedipus. The "relationship of into verbal irony in which both sides of the
the ironist to his irony" in all these cases is conflict are contained in the same words-
far more constant than Muecke wishes to see. double entendre-and verbal irony in which
In the larger categories of this classifica-the meaning of a specific set of words comes
tion, Muecke's confusion of the field of into conflict with some element of the
observation with the author-victim-audience "world," either the imagined world evoked
relationship again causes trouble. It produces by a work of art, or the actual world. In non-
a very odd class, for instance, in Dramatized verbal or situational irony, the ironic conflict
irony. If we are to find an essential differenceis observed entirely at the world level. It can
between an author using ironic techniques be translated fairly easily. We might divide
and an audience-victim observing ironic this class according to whether the ironic
situations, how is it that Dramatized irony,conflict is observed primarily in (1) ideas, (2)
in which a human author carefully arrangescharacters, (3) situations and events. I am not
the facts (consider the ironic situations in at all certain that this subclassification is
MacFlecknoe, The Dunciad, Joseph Andrews), either complete or the most useful, but surely
exhibits so little difference from "such ironic it is more useful than Muecke's. For instance,
situations or events as we may find in life," it might lead us to recognize that there are
where, according to Muecke, only the sense character types other than the familiar ing.nu
of irony in the audience-victim is important ? the self-disparaging Socrates. Glicksberg
and

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF IRONIES 57

spends a good deal of time on tion" the (pp. 25-26).

Devil And with this excellent
as an
ironic character, and Muecke himself observation,points
Muecke drops the matter except
out, later in his book, the type of ironic for a few casual comments by the way and
character who sees the world from a detached one correlation, which I shall consider in a
and sophisticated point of view rather than moment. He does not explain his omission,
from the detached but unsophisticated stand- nor am I able to discover his reasoning from
his casual comments.
point of the ing6nu. And there is no reason to
make much of the separation between fictionThere are three possible positions on this
and fact. Hegel thought that the actual matter:

Socrates was the tool of world history, and a 1. Irony is a purely intellectual phenom-
number of modern minds have attempted enon which has no emotional effect. Although
quite consciously to live the ironic role of Muecke remarks that irony is "more intellec-
sophisticated detachment. tual" than some other literary phenomena, he
Muecke turns next to a classification of obviously does not think it purely so. He
ironic situations, whether in life or inpoints art. If
out that the audience's "sense of intel-
he meant to be systematic, he has not suc- lectual and emotional, or quasi-emotional,
ceeded. "Irony of Simple Incongruity"--a shock at the incongruity" of irony is "of the
palace sitting cheek by jowl with a hovel-is highest importance" (p. 29).
one technique of arranging the conflicting 2. All irony has the same effect, speaking
elements of irony. "Irony of Events," very largely, like comedy, or tragedy. At
"Dramatic Irony," and "Cosmic Irony" all times Muecke seems to take this position:
reside in the same field of observation, a "The concept of irony is also obscured by the
sequence of events, but in the first there is nofrequent and close conjunction of irony with
audience until the final truth is revealed; insatire and with such phenomena as the comic,
the second an audience perceives the ironic the grotesque, the humorous, and the absurd.
conflict before the victim does; in the thirdAs a result there is a tendency to define irony
we identify the author as God. "Irony of in terms of the qualities of these other
Self-betrayal" is a type of verbal irony in its things.... But irony is not essentially
satiric aspect. Muecke puts much the same related to satire, and when it is related in
type of verbal irony in its tragic aspect under practice it is a relationship of means to end;
"Dramatic Irony." "Irony of Dilemma" is and although irony is frequently found over-
based on that aspect I have called para- lapping with the absurd or the comic it may
doxical. Muecke's illustrations and incidental also be found overlapping with the tragic"
comments in this section are often interesting, (p. 5). Yet elsewhere Muecke speaks of
but his classification is the same old jumble. "ordinary satiric or comic irony," which is
We come, finally, to the fourth significant different from irony that "may be coloured
factor in irony, its philosophical-emotional by feelings of sentimentality, resignation or
aspect. Muecke makes a broad distinction despair, compassion or bitterness, scepticism,
between "corrective irony," in which "one nihilism, melancholy, or serenity" (p. 122).
term of the ironic duality is seen ... as effec- What do "overlapping" and "coloured by"
tively contradicting, invalidating, exposing, mean in these remarks ?
or ... modifying the other" (p. 23), and irony 3. Irony is not like comedy or tragedy. It is
that is primarily not corrective, though it may only a structural form, though a unique one,
be "heuristic." The latter is what I have that can be realized concretely in any of a
referred to above as the paradoxical aspect variety ofofmaterials, all of which, however,
irony. In corrective irony "psychic tension necessarilyis have some philosophical-emo-
generated but rapidly released"; in paradoxi- tional coloring-tragic, comic, satiric, absurd
cal irony "the psychic tension generated or nihilistic,
by paradoxical. This is the position
the ironic contradiction is not released or not I would myself take. The notion that all
entirely released by any element of resolu- irony has only one, unique effect arises largely

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 58 NORMAN KNOX

from the emphasis much modern somethought. Muecke

modernthen pro- cr
put on the paradoxical ceeds to a correlation: aspect of iro
"General irony is not
emphasis supported by or
primarily corrective the argumen
normative; we are all
irony contains at least
in the same a isfleeting
hole and there no way of getting m
when we feel the out of paradoxical
it" (pp. 120-21). But this is playing
counte
ing of one point gamesof view
with "corrective," forby anothe
it now simply
argument is true enough, and since in means humanly correctible. Muecke's origi-
paradoxical irony this fleeting moment ex- nal definition of the term, quoted above, is
pands into the dominant effect, I see no broader; it would include the tragic, comic,
objection to saying that such irony is "pure satiric, and nihilistic aspects I have distin-
irony." That is, since the structure of ironyguished. If we stick with this first definition,
always contains a deceptive conflict betweenwe find that General irony may exhibit all
two points of view, an irony that goes on these aspects-it is not always noncorrective
deceiving and conflicting forever seems or paradoxical. Muecke quotes Hegel: "God
quintessentially ironic. At any rate, it is not lets men do as they please with their partic-
like anything else. But to turn this argument ular passions and interests; but the result is
around and say that tragic and satiric irony, the accomplishment of-not their plans but
for example, are not really tragic and satiric his, and these differ decidedly from the ends
but paradoxical, or that the fleeting para- primarily sought by those whom he employs"
doxical moment is all that is worth noticing (p. 134). As Muecke observes, this is General
in the irony, is to assume that in these two- irony, but since Hegel's view of the plans of
story buildings the elevator never comes to "god" was optimistic, the irony is ultimately
rest. Such an argument ignores our normal comic, not paradoxical. We might compare
way of thinking and talking about some the Christian paradox that one who loses life
ironies. We do, in fact, think of satiric irony gains life: when this is ironic (the element of
or tragic irony, not only of irony in satire orinnocence may be lacking), the irony is
irony in tragedy. Moreover, it closes off the ultimately paradoxical only if one values both
possibility of any clear or complete analysis lives equally; for the devout Christian the
of the different kinds of philosophical- superficial paradox resolves in comic irony.
emotional material which enter into irony. Heine's "Aristophanes of Heaven," on the
Muecke does not pursue such an analysis, an other hand, was satiric, and Muecke himself
omission that strikes me as regrettable. discusses the question whether General para-
It turns out to be damaging when he doxical irony must lead to nihilism. The con-
proceeds to correlate corrective and non- cept of tragic irony grew directly out of the
corrective (paradoxical) irony with General German Romantics' sense of General irony.
and Specific irony. Specific irony involves Nevertheless, there is a historical truth in
"single victims or victimizations, single ex- Muecke's correlation. When Friedrich
posures of aberrancy in a world otherwise Schlegel and his contemporaries began in-
moving on the right track, or at least in a venting new ironies, they did equate Gene
world whose own possible aberrancy was ... and paradoxical irony. But as time passed,
not in question"; General irony is "life itself General irony came to be seen as capable o
or any general aspect of life seen as funda- taking on all the other aspects as well.
mentally and inescapably an ironic state of Muecke's vagueness about these aspects pre-
affairs.... We are all victims" (pp. 119-20). vents him from grasping fully what happened
This distinction between two fields of obser- here.
vation is historically important, as Muecke I have given Muecke's theory of irony a
shows, for the extension of the concept of good deal of attention both because it con-
irony from Specific to General was one of the tains some acute observations and because I
chief inventions of the German Romantics, hoped a careful criticism of it would be use-
and a sense of General irony characterizes ful. I should point out, however, that Muecke

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF IRONIES 59
himself is quite as much interested in We
century. doing
have a number of books, like
an historical job as he is in theoretical
Muecke's,classi-
which consider these aspects in a
fication. He wishes to explain what German
very large and not very satisfactory way, and
Romantic irony was. Far too few weEnglish
have even more
andstudies of one or another
American students of literature realize that modern writer whose chief characteristic is
most of our "modern" conceptions of irony seen as irony-Jules Laforgue, Thomas
come from the German Romantics; in fact, Hardy, Anatole France, Thomas Mann, the
it could be said with rough truth that nothing
dramatists of the Absurd. Glicksberg sets out
basically new in general theory has appeared to pull all this together, which would be a
since Heine. One reason so few people know useful thing to do. Necessary equipment: a
this is that there is in English no clear,good theoretical compass, the skill to make
accurate, easily available explanation of theprecise discriminations among writers (as
central ideas advanced by Friedrich Schlegel A. E. Dyson does in The Crazy Fabric), and
and adopted by his followers. Wellek's his- some historical conscience. Glicksberg, in
tory is too elliptical for the uninitiated and
this book at least, has brought none of these
Immerwahr's excellent article is only partly to bear.
in English and limited in scope. Other EnglishThe only point on his compass is nihilistic
discussions are more or less misleading. I amirony, that fusion of laughter and pity
delighted to say that Muecke has at last aroused by the vision of mankind lost in a
supplied the kind of explanation we need. Heworld without meaning--"tragic farce," to
grasps the delicate balancing act Schlegel's use Ionesco's phrase. Glicksberg rings the
irony was, he gives a number of clear illus- changes on this familiar topic unmercifully.
trations, and although his speculations on History is reduced to such seriously mislead-
how the word "irony" got attached to ing generalizations as: "It is Schopenhauer
Schlegel's ideas are not very close to what who, together with Nietzsche, is chiefly
actually happened, he analyzes the intellec- responsible for the eruption of nihilism in the
tual background of those ideas with admir-twentieth century and the countermovement
able precision. We may regret that he has of ironic resignation or revolt it provoked"
nothing to say about Solger's concrete (p. 39). Critical discrimination gets no further
universal and Hegel's dialectic, but a more than plot summary and the familiar sweep of:
serious omission, for an introduction like "Hardy voices an irony that is never shrilly
this, is the one I have already pointed out: his
derisive or condemnatory but instinct with
pathos and compassion" (p. 99); Anatole
failure to give enough weight to the evolution
of Schlegel's paradoxical General irony into France has "a gentle, sophisticated blend of
Solger's tragic and Heine's nihilistic irony.irony and pity" (p. 116); "Shaw's irony ... is
Nevertheless, the second half of Muecke's an intellectual weapon of wit" (p. 178).
book is the best introduction to German In the realm of theory, it is only fair to say,
Romantic irony we now have in English, Glicksbergand does notice some of the problems
we should also be grateful for his bibliog- in his subject. He devotes considerable space
raphy, by far the fullest listing of workstoon a discussion of whether Sophocles' Oedipus
irony available. (I ought to note that the lives in a meaningless world or in one
entry "Ward, Hoover" should read "Hooker, governed by gods who know what they are
Ward.") doing. He concludes that where there is irony
At first glance, Charles I. Glicksberg's The in Sophocles there is also the sense of a
Ironic Vision in Modern Literature seems to meaningless world, but this irony is trans-
supply what Muecke's book lacks: a careful cended in a vision of gods who, "as the source
analysis and history of the paradoxical, of all that happens, good or bad, must be
tragic, and nihilistic aspects of irony which obeyed" (p. 29). Tragic irony, then, equals
descend from the German Romantics and Metaphysical irony, Glicksberg's term for
which have been so important to the last General irony founded on nihilism. Such

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 NORMAN KNOX

irony is peculiarly modern,

a difference and, "M
of kind. The broad philosophical
irony mediates between stance of Friedrich Schlegel's
comedy paradoxical and
without ever reconciling them.
irony is both Yes and No-about everything. The
Euripides is important for
It is perhaps easiest to grasp thisour purp
attitude by
that it marks the first attempt to bring thinking of it historically as the halfway
together comedy and tragedy" (p. 33). In house between ultimate faith and ultimate
Glicksberg's sense of the term, then, tragic disillusionment. But it would be a mistake to
irony is both tragic and funny: laughter thatsuppose that such an attitude is no longer
"has a ghastly ring... is the universal possible for the "modern mind"-it can be
language of irony" (p. 35). Glicksberg arrives found in all sorts of not-so-long-ago places.
at this interesting point, of course, partlyMann by is certainly well known. Cleanth
making the same sort of mistake as critics Brooks's remarks about qualified truths,
who insist that all irony is really paradoxical. tentative commitment, victories won against
For him, all irony is really nihilistic. odds, and so on, are familiar to college
He naturally has trouble with paradoxical English teachers. This philosophical stance is
irony. Thomas Mann and some of his critics consonant with quite a wide range of tones,
have been clear on the subject, and Glicks- but one tone we should not expect to find is
berg quotes or paraphrases them at length. that of final defeat, which requires the broad
But no matter. He concludes his chapter on philosophical stance that says either, "Not
Mann: "While Mann is certainly no nihilist, Yes, No!" or, "Yes and Yes equal No
his skeptical approach is evident in Doctor because they cancel each other out." Such a
Faustus. He draws a portrait of the Devil as stance is not essentially paradoxical, for it
the agent of doubt and destruction, the em- settles on a final, negative truth. The paradox
bodiment of the negative principle that makes Glicksberg makes so much of, that nihilistic
his disciples suspect that nothing, including artists go on living and creating works of art,
themselves, is real, that nothing has value, not is paradoxical indeed, but it is clearly sub-
even the art which proclaims that nothing has ordinate to or submerged by the dominant
value. There is only-Nothing. But if that is note of defeat. Surely there is enough differ-
so-and Nothing is the mother of irony-- ence between saying, "Yes and No" and
why believe in the Devil?" (p. 214). Thus we saying primarily, "No" that we need separate
conclude with nihilistic irony once more, via classes here.
Mann's Devil, if not via his creator. And why Within the large class of ironies that resolve
not? Nihilistic irony is paradoxical too. Is it in defeat, is there not an enormous difference
not paradoxical that our modern nihilists, of tone between, say, Oedipus Rex and Wait-
who should, logically, commit suicide, do not ing for Godot? The difference seems to reside
do so but instead go on living, acting, talking, in the degree to which the work is dominated
writing? A very clear example of one of by satiric detachment or sympathetic involve-
Glicksberg's customary ways of dealing with ment. Which is not to say that there are no
a critical issue may be found on page 236: moments of satire in Oedipus or no moments
(top) "In Beckett's world, the possibility of of pity in Beckett, but that their dominant
pity is eliminated"; (middle) "His [Beckett's] tones are so different we need two classes,
heroes illustrate in a fashion that is both tragic irony and nihilistic irony.
pathetic and ironic the folly and futilityWhat of is the relationship between these two
doing anything." classes and the distinction between an irony
It seems worthwhile to point out that of an defeat that is unavoidable (Glicksberg's
ironologist should not ignore two principles: nihilism, Muecke's General irony in this
the relationship between the broad philosoph- aspect) and an irony of defeat that could have
ical stance of an author and the tone of his been avoided if the victim had attended to the
work is, within limits, variable; a difference laws of the universe (Muecke's Specific
of degree can become so great that it becomes irony)? Does nihilism make really tragic

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF IRONIES 61

irony impossible, as has been modified

saidour bysatiric
somedetachment. At the end
writers? Or, as Glicksberg says, is nihilism
of this spectrum is the fully tragic victim, the
the necessary foundation forhuman tragic being torn on
irony ? the
Is wheel of a coldly
Specific irony never tragic,ironic as Glicksberg
universe even though, in human terms,
says? Or is only Specific irony tragic, as he is entirely admirable and sympathetic. We
Muecke says ? may say here, then, that insofar as an irony
Once more the trouble arises from assum- exhibits a tragic or nihilistic aspect it is
ing that two significant factors are more accompanied by a vision of the universe as
interdependent than in fact they are. An necessarily hostile.
ironic universe-General irony-need not be But this is not the end of the matter. If it
altogether hostile to man. No doubt it is were, the assertions of Glicksberg, Muecke,
somewhat less satisfactory than a straight-and others would not be so contradictory.
forwardly benevolent one. Nevertheless, as IWe can all think of puzzling cases, like
have pointed out above, it is a historical factSophocles' Oedipus plays, in which genuinely
that at times a universe conceived as neces- tragic irony seems to coexist with a not
sarily ironic has also been conceived as entirely hostile universe. Trying to bend these
partially reflecting human values (paradoxical cases to fit is of little use. What is more useful,
irony) or as ultimately reflecting them (comic and closer to the facts, is to classify the sum
irony). It is not enough, then, to distinguish total of each such case as paradoxical irony,
between ironic and nonironic universes. We which rests on the vision of a rather mysteri-
must also distinguish among universes whose ous universe that is inevitably ironic but not
main tendency is (1) friendly to man, (2) either altogether hostile or altogether friendly
hostile to man, (3) both. When we do this, to man. It is a mixed bag. In such a universe
we find that an ironic universe may be any tragic irony really does exist, but it is counter-
of the three, but a nonironic, straightforward balanced by comic irony, as in Hamlet,
universe must be friendly to man, for as soon which ends with Fortinbras on the horizon,
as it exhibits hostility, a necessarily ironic or Sophocles' plays, which end with Oedipus
conflict arises between man's values (unless at Colonus. To put the matter in one familiar
he commits suicide) and the values of the way, man must fail, but something good
world he lives in. Irony that occurs in such acomes of the failure.
straightforwardly benevolent universe is ap- A remnant of this double vision is
parently what Muecke means by Specific contained in General comic irony, which c
irony. When a victim of such irony is ceives the universe as both ultimately be
defeated, he is so because he is wrong in avolent and necessarily ironic. That is, man
particular way: he has violated laws of the not defeated in the end, but he is deceive
universe which men find good, and he need along the way. Since the necessity of bein
not have done so-indeed, he should not dupe is in itself something of a minor trage
have done so. All Specific ironies of defeat, tragic irony does not totally disappear fr
then, are satiric. (There are also Specific General comic irony. It does, however, b
ironies of triumph-comic ironies.) come a subordinate moment, a mere way
When we turn to the opposite conception station on the road to ultimate triumph,
of the universe, the vision of it as both neces- whereas in paradoxical irony the tragic and
sarily ironic and totally hostile, our sense ofthe comic end in a stalemate. (In Specific
the victim of irony, now inevitably defeated,comic irony the subordinate moment of
changes. He may be as great a fool or villainironic defeat is satiric rather than tragic.)
as any victim of satiric irony ever was, but To return for a moment to Glicksberg.
we view him with some degree of fellow- Since he has collected a large number of late-
feeling, for, as Muecke rightly says, "we arenineteenth- and twentieth-century remarks
all in the same hole and there is no way of about irony and related topics, he might have
getting out of it." Something tragic has made some contribution to our knowledge of

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 62 NORMAN KNOX

the history of the impact. It idea of to irony

is far more useful recognize that sin
German Romantics. We know very little irony may take on a wide range of such
about that subject except in its broadest out-aspects, and attempt to discriminate among
lines. But again Glicksberg fails us. His them. In such a classification the decisive
materials are scattered with a lavish hand factors are the supposed nature of the
throughout the book, which containsuniverse, hun- the way in which the irony is or is
dreds of footnotes, but of an attempt at not resolved (that is, in triumph, in defeat,
tracing some historical pattern there is no or in paradox), and the degree of sympathetic
sign. And if his discussion of the German identification or satiric detachment elicited by
Romantics is representative, we cannot even the victim. (2) In describing a type of irony
trust his accuracy. An important quotation or a particular instance of it, we should get
from Solger is attributed to Schlegel (p. 7). beneath the familiar tags by taking into
The term "tragic irony" is said to come fromaccount, in every case, all four of the factors
Hegel (p. 7), who in fact got it from Solger I listed at the beginning of this article, no
and said so. two of which are sufficiently interdependent
I venture to conclude with two general that we can safely run them together. What
recommendations. (1) We should stop think- general theory should give us is a useful classi-
ing about irony as though it always has fication of each one of these four independent
essentially the same philosophical-emotional factors.

This content downloaded from 86.16.92.33 on Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:26:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms