DUKE UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 FRIENDS OF 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 IXike University Press 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/wordironyitscont01knox 
 
THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 0 
 
THE WORD IRONY 
 
 M 
 
 AND ITS CONTEXT , 1500-1755 
 
 NORMAN KNOX 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 1 961 
 
© 1961, Duke University Press 
 
 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 60-13606 
 Cambridge University Press, London, N.W. /, England 
 
 Printed in the United States of America 
 by the Seeman Printery, Durham, N. C. 
 
mw 
 
 To Helen Davis Knox 
 
The publication of this book was 
 assisted by grants to the author 
 by the Graduate School of Duke Uni¬ 
 versity and the Carnegie Institute 
 of Technology and by funds from 
 the grant to Duke University Press 
 by the Ford Foundation. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 In the last century and a half the word irony has become one of 
 the most complex, ambiguous, and fascinating terms in the whole 
 arsenal of literary criticism and analysis, to say nothing of its popu¬ 
 larity in day-to-day speech. Cosmic irony, the popular irony of 
 Fate, dramatic irony, Socratic and Romantic irony, the ironies of 
 tension and paradox promulgated by the New Critics—we have 
 only to try cataloging these and the rest to realize how complex 
 are the meanings now available in this protean word; behind the 
 recent notoriety is a long, involved, and sometimes important ca¬ 
 reer which began in the age of Socrates. It is of some interest to 
 have the history of such a word. G. G. Sedgewick wrote the first 
 part of that history in a doctoral thesis presented at Harvard in 
 1913 when he traced the word from its first appearance in Aristoph¬ 
 anes through Classical and medieval Latin; in the present study 
 I attempt to continue his history by following the fortunes of the 
 English word from the early sixteenth through the middle of the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 I have had a second point of view in mind. Since it is not al¬ 
 ways easy to know what Renaissance and Augustan writers meant 
 when they used such terms as irony , a close study of them sharpens 
 our tools for understanding these periods. Consequently I have 
 pursued the uses of irony somewhat further than was necessary to 
 a general history of the word and have in addition explored the 
 meanings of banter and raillery , two other crucial words neither of 
 which has been carefully studied before and both of which were 
 intimately connected with irony. I had also hoped to survey two 
 other subjects: English classical criticism of the art of ironic writing; 
 the social and moral attitudes of the Augustans and their fore- 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 runners toward that whole range of discourse variously called satire, 
 ridicule, raillery, humor, irony, and banter. In the long history 
 of irony moral and social judgments have played an unusually 
 large role, and this was especially true in the English classical period. 
 However, only the first subject plays a part in this book. Although 
 I have collected materials for a study of the second, that will have 
 to wait upon another span of free time. 
 
 It may seem to the reader that I have cited evidence and quoted 
 it at inordinate length. I heartily sympathize, but determined on 
 such extensive documentation for several reasons. The materials 
 this study is based on are widely scattered in books and periodicals 
 of all sorts, many to be found only in certain of the great research 
 libraries; however, once found the bits of evidence are usually brief 
 enough to be quoted rather fully. Simply as a convenience to 
 scholars, then, full quotation and citation of sources seemed ad¬ 
 visable. Other considerations also demanded extensive quotation. 
 Although the central meanings of irony are not hard to substantiate, 
 there is some question as to whether irony really did convey cer¬ 
 tain peripheral meanings during the English classical period. Here 
 the evidence needs to be displayed in all its ambiguity and scantiness. 
 It is helpful, moreover, to see a number of passages illustrating each 
 meaning, for, as we all know, even within defined limits the sense 
 of a word adjusts itself, perceptibly but evasively, to a variety of 
 contexts. I have tried to allow the reader to sample for himself 
 the varieties of context to which each sense of irony adjusted itself. 
 And I have frequently supplied a generous portion of context: any¬ 
 one who has consulted the New English Dictionary knows how un¬ 
 satisfying many of the illustrative quotations there are because of 
 their brevity. Deprived of a covering definition, they would per¬ 
 mit various interpretations of the word at issue. 
 
 It is in Chapter II that I have assembled the mass of biblio¬ 
 graphical evidence on the meaning of irony and have attempted to 
 distinguish as precisely as I can among different senses of the word. 
 As in a dictionary, ten basic meanings and a number of subordinate 
 ones are numbered i through x with the subordinate meanings 
 listed i.A.i. and so on. In cross-references I indicate a section of 
 
PREFACE 
 
 IX 
 
 the Dictionary so: “Diet. i.A.i.” Under each heading in the Dic¬ 
 tionary certain materials follow in invariable order: a general defi¬ 
 nition and discussion; a list of Classical precedents, if any (arrived 
 at through G. G. Sedgewick’s studies, which should be consulted 
 for more comprehensive listings, both Classical and medieval); a 
 list of references to English texts. References to ambiguous pas¬ 
 sages are followed by a question mark in brackets. The English list 
 is broken at chronological intervals by quotations, sometimes fol¬ 
 lowed by explanatory comments if they seem useful. When the 
 list is taken up again it is preceded by the word “Also.” 
 
 For the meaning of such a term as irony there are of course 
 two types of evidence: the abstract definitions given by the period 
 itself, to be found in rhetorics, dictionaries, and casual explanations; 
 and the actual use of the word in contexts sufficiently concrete to de¬ 
 fine its immediate meaning. The Dictionary relies heavily on actual 
 use of the word: abstract definitions are notoriously ambiguous and 
 in the average rhetoric and dictionary unthinkingly derivative. For 
 this reason, and also because the stock definitions of the age were 
 themselves a factor which influenced the development of meaning, 
 I have chosen to consider them separately in a note preceding the 
 Dictionary. 
 
 Probably very few readers will want to pursue the meaning of 
 irony through so detailed and interrupted a discussion as the Dic¬ 
 tionary offers; even those who do may be grateful for a summary. 
 This Chapter I supplies, as well as a concentrated history of the 
 word’s meaning in Greek and in Classical and medieval Latin, and 
 a discussion of the variety of meanings current in our own day. 
 Chapter I, then, opens the book with a brief view of the whole his¬ 
 tory of irony which for some readers will be enough of that, for 
 others will be a helpful springboard into the Dictionary. 
 
 In the first two chapters it becomes evident that for the Eng¬ 
 lish classical age the central and dominant referent of irony was the 
 rhetorical device of attacking someone or something from behind— 
 or through—a mask of ostensible praise. In Chapter III I have 
 isolated a large number of such ironies, each of which was actually 
 called irony by someone writing during the period, and have at- 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 tempted to analyze the varieties of technique associated with the 
 word. In doing this I have tried not to read back into the eight¬ 
 eenth century our twentieth-century ironies developed in the atmos¬ 
 phere of subjective and individual psychology which began to per¬ 
 meate our world not long after the Augustans passed off the stage; 
 nor have I made any attempt to use the elaborate tools of stylistic 
 analysis which sometimes lead us now to say rather different things 
 about a literary work than the Augustans would have said. What 
 I have tried to do in disentangling the scheme of techniques as¬ 
 sociated with the word is to work from roughly the same point of 
 view that critics of the English classical age would have taken if 
 one had tackled the job, though none did. My purpose here is 
 twofold: to catalog these techniques; and to fill out the central 
 meaning of irony by analyzing the sorts of thing that were most 
 likely to rise to the top of people’s brains when the word was pre¬ 
 sented to them. 
 
 However, granting that certain techniques were evident in 
 writing called irony, to what degree did the sense of the word really 
 involve the technique? We should be very cautious in answering 
 this question. For instance, the “grave irony” of Cervantes and 
 Richard Owen Cambridge in presenting their burlesques was often 
 noticed by the Augustans. Both authors made conscious use of 
 what nowadays we would call dramatic irony. Are we to conclude, 
 therefore, that our sense of dramatic irony had already attached 
 itself to the word? Chapter IV is a discussion of English classical 
 criticism, both theoretical and practical, of the art of ironic writing 
 and it proceeds after the usual fashion of such essays; then, at the 
 end of the chapter, after reviewing certain developments detailed 
 in Chapters III and IV, I have tried to answer this question about 
 the meaning of the word. In Chapter V the meanings of raillery 
 and banter are explored and their relationships to irony suggested. 
 
 Errors of transcription have undoubtedly slipped unnoticed in¬ 
 to some quotations and references. I have tried to keep these to 
 a minimum and can only beg the reader’s tolerance of whatever 
 errors of this sort have stowed away successfully. The staff of the 
 Duke Press has been most helpful, and I am especially obliged to 
 
PREFACE 
 
 XI 
 
 Ashbel Brice, William Owens, and John Menapace for their ex¬ 
 pert handling of a difficult manuscript. 
 
 My thanks are due a number of libraries for their courteous 
 generosity in opening their collections to me and helping me use 
 them. The chief of these are the Houghton and Widener libraries 
 at Harvard, the Bodleian at Oxford and the British Museum, the 
 New York Public Library and the Columbia University Library, 
 the University of Pennsylvania Library, and the custodians of the 
 N.E.D. files at the University of Michigan. To Professors James 
 L. Clifford, E. L. McAdam, and Pauli F. Baum I am indebted for 
 their kind help in getting me started on this study; to Professor 
 Clifford I am also indebted for the initial impetus towards publica¬ 
 tion. Generous grants to the author from the Graduate School of 
 Duke University and from the Carnegie Institute of Technology, 
 and funds from the grant to the Duke University Press by the Ford 
 Foundation, have helped to make publication possible. Professor 
 Benjamin Boyce has, at considerable sacrifice of time and trouble, 
 read the manuscript at each of its stages and counseled me on its 
 revision, and Professor George Sherburn has also offered a number 
 of useful criticisms. That I either began or finished this work, how¬ 
 ever, is in large measure due to the unfailing aid and encouragement 
 of Professor W. H. Irving, to whom as teacher and friend, I am 
 above all deeply grateful. 
 
 Bibliographical Note. In the notes to the body of this study I 
 have given abbreviated references consisting of author’s name, short 
 title, and in parentheses either the date of the edition used if I 
 used an early edition, or the name of the editor, translator, or 
 series if I used a modern edition, translation, or reprint. Full data 
 can be found in the Bibliography. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 ONE. THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION 
 
 AND SUMMARY 3 
 
 i. The Classical background 3 
 
 ii. The English classical age 7 
 
 iii. Groundwork for the modern ironies 16 
 
 TWO. THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 24 
 
 i. The currency of irony during the English classical period 24 
 
 ii. Stock definitions of irony and related terms 30 
 
 TEE DICTIONARY 38 
 
 I. IRONY AS PRETENSE AND DECEPTION 38 
 
 I. A. Constant dissimulation 39 
 
 i.b. Self-depreciation in order to achieve a practical end 41 
 
 i.c. Falsely attributing some attitude or act to another 41 
 
 II. IRONY AS LIMITED DECEPTION 42 
 
 II. A. A temporary deception which tricks one’s interlocutor 
 
 into revealing the truth 42 
 
 II. b. Ambiguous language intended to conceal part of its 
 
 meaning from part of the audience 43 
 
 iii. BLAME-BY-PRAISE AND PRAISE-BY-BLAME 45 
 
 III. a. Irony of manner 45 
 
 iii. b. Limited discourse 55 
 
 m.B.i. Praise-by-blame 35 
 
 m.B.ii. Blame-by-praise 58 
 
 iv. IRONY AS SAYING THE CONTRARY OF WHAT ONE 
 
 MEANS FOR EMPHASIS, THE CONTRARY BEING 
 NEITHER FALSE PRAISE NOR FALSE BLAME 76 
 
 1 v.a. Pretending to omit what one is all the while asserting 77 
 
 iv. b. Using any kind of contrary expression 77 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 v. IRONY AS UNDERSTATEMENT 78 
 
 v.a. Denial of the contrary 79 
 
 v.B. Intimation 80 
 
 Vi. IRONY AS INDIRECTION 82 
 
 Vi.A. Statement of a corollary of one’s criticism without statement 
 
 of the criticism itself 82 
 
 VI. B. Meaningful refly to a submerged meaning of a remark 83 
 
 vii. IRONY AS THE GRAVE ELABORATION OF A FICTION 
 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CASUAL SATIRE OR AIMLESS 
 MYSTIFICATION 84 
 
 vni. IRONY AS ANY DISCOURSE NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN 
 
 SERIOUSLY 90 
 
 ix. IRONY AS ANY KIND OF DERISIVE ATTACK 90 
 
 x. DRAMATIC IRONY 92 
 
 THREE. THE METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE 
 
 ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 99 
 
 i. Socratic self-depreciation 99 
 
 ii. Direct fraise 104 
 
 iii. Simple concession 111 
 
 iv. Ironic advice 116 
 
 v. Ironic defense 119 
 
 vi. The fallacious argument 123 
 
 vii. Burlesque 125 
 
 viii. The fictitious character 1 3 5 
 
 FOUR. CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 141 
 
 i. The glaring light of contrary comparison 141 
 
 ii. The two strategies of irony 142 
 
 iii. Clues to meaning 146 
 
 iv. The question of clarity 154 
 
 v. The mask of gravity 162 
 
 vi. The virtue of consistency 173 
 
 vii. The question of length 177 
 
 viii. The new critical importance of irony 181 
 
 ix. The meaning of the word again 185 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 XV 
 
 FIVE. RAILLERY AND BANTER 187 
 
 i. Railing and Raillery 189 
 
 ii. Banter 208 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 222 
 
 INDEX 253 
 
THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
ONE 
 
 THE MEANING OF IRONY : INTRODUCTION 
 
 AND SUMMARY 
 
 i. The Classical background} 
 
 The ultimate force of Greek ecpwv may have been either “say¬ 
 ing” or “asking,” but when it first appears in Aristophanes and 
 Plato it seems to be “a sort of vulgar expression of reproach”— 
 Billingsgate—meaning “sly, mocking pretence and deception.” In 
 both Old (Aristophanes) and New (Philemon) Comedy the fox is 
 the symbol of the ironist. “Sly, smooth deceiver—that is his char¬ 
 acter.” The word is not found in Greek before the Peloponnesian 
 War and is never found in tragedy or the more serious poetry. 
 
 The central fact about the history of irony in Greek use is its 
 inseparability from Socrates’ personality and influence. But it is 
 essential to remember that neither Socrates nor his friends ever 
 used the word in a serious way to describe the Socratic method, and 
 that the idealizations of Socratic dialectic which modern writers 
 have embodied in “Socratic irony” were never attached to the word 
 irony in classical Greek and Latin. The dominant sense of eipwvsi'a 
 in Plato as well as Aristophanes was “mocking pretence and decep¬ 
 tion.” Nevertheless, since the modes of deception practiced by 
 Socrates were sarcastic praise and disingenuous self-depreciation, the 
 
 1 What follows, including the quoted passages for which no references are given, 
 is taken from G. G. Sedgewick’s “Dramatic Irony” (1913). The only available 
 copy of this dissertation is not permitted to leave the Harvard College Library, 
 but Mr. Sedgewick presented the main thread of the story, with the chief refer¬ 
 ences to Classical and medieval texts, in the first of his Alexander Lecturer for 
 I 934"3 5 (Of Irony , 1948). Although I have examined in translation many of 
 the major passages to which he refers, I am entirely indebted to Mr. Sedgewick’s 
 work for the generalizations here offered. 
 
4 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-175; 
 
 word was in Plato especially linked with these. Although there is 
 some possibility that even before its use by Plato eipwveia had empha¬ 
 sized the self-depreciating mode of deception, it was Aristotle in 
 the Ethics who hardened this sense into shape by his distinctions be¬ 
 tween the mean of Truth, the one extreme of Alazony or boastful 
 exaggeration, and the other of Eirony or self-depreciating conceal¬ 
 ment of one’s possessions and powers. Here for the first time irony 
 attains some semblance of dignity, perhaps through its use by Soc¬ 
 rates, insofar as Aristotle comments that if a man cannot tell the 
 precise truth, he exhibits better taste in depreciating than in exag¬ 
 gerating his virtues. But this is faint praise and the dominant 
 connotation of the word remains reproachful. In Demosthenes and 
 Theophrastus irony as deceptive self-depreciation takes another turn. 
 Here it is “a vicious dissimulation of one’s political and social 
 powers” for the purpose of escaping responsibility and shirking one’s 
 duty. Theophrastus’ character of the Ironist describes a man who 
 “never can be got to do anything, or to commit himself in speech 
 so that he is forced to take sides in an active discussion. This is 
 irony which has become a social vice.” 
 
 In his Rhetoric Aristotle had recommended irony as a rhetori¬ 
 cal weapon, although with some distaste, and the word had ap¬ 
 parently long been discussed by the rhetoricians before its meaning 
 in this context was defined, for the first time in extant literature, 
 by the Rhetoric to Alexander , now credited to Anaximenes of Lamp- 
 sacus, an historian of the fourth century b.c. To blame-by-praise 
 and to praise-by-blame—that is the essence of rhetorical irony. Soc¬ 
 rates’ way of exalting his opponent while depreciating himself 
 was, as Ariston explained, a mode of it. By the second century 
 b.c. irony had probably passed into common currency both in writing 
 and in speech. It was no longer a colloquialism or necessarily a 
 term of reproach. To the concept of irony the late Greeks and 
 the Romans added little. Although Socrates was constantly in 
 mind as they used the word and although they still felt in it over¬ 
 tones of pretense, mockery, and self-depreciation, all of these were 
 absorbed into the rhetorical strategy of “saying one and gyving to 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY : INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 5 
 
 understand the contrarye.” This definition was a constant attend¬ 
 ant upon later uses of the word. 
 
 It was in Cicero that irony first attained to a complete and posi¬ 
 tive dignity; he was flattered to be thought an ironist worthy of 
 Socrates’ company. 2 And it was also Cicero who, for the first time 
 in extant literature, distinguished between irony as a mere figure 
 of speech and as a pervasive habit of discourse. The word “dis¬ 
 course” should be emphasized here, for Cicero does not imply a 
 habit of thought or anything approaching a philosophic view, as is 
 clear in a passage often translated during the English Renaissance: 
 “Among the Greeks, history tells us, Socrates was fascinating and 
 witty, a genial conversationalist; he was what the Greeks call etptov 
 in every conversation, pretending to need information and pro¬ 
 fessing admiration for the wisdom of his companion.” 3 This dis¬ 
 tinction was made more exact by Quintilian, who, although he 
 names only two categories, the “trope” and the “schema,” in effect 
 distinguishes three categories of irony: (i) a brief figure of speech 
 embedded in a straightforward context (“trope”); (2) an entire 
 speech or case presented in language and a tone of voice which con¬ 
 flict with the true situation (“schema”); (3) a man’s whole life 
 (“schema”): “a man’s whole life may be coloured with irony , as 
 was the case with Socrates, who was called an ironist because he 
 assumed the role of an ignorant man lost in wonder at the wisdom of 
 others.” 4 Moreover, irony for Quintilian may act as an indication 
 and expression of that ethos “which is commended to our approval 
 by goodness more than aught else and is not merely calm and mild, 
 but in most cases ingratiating and courteous. . . .” 5 Thus Quintilian 
 comes very near to describing irony as “a habit of genuine thought 
 and conversation,” though it would be possible to avoid this implica¬ 
 tion. 6 
 
 2 The charm which Socratic irony had for Cicero and other Romans is discussed 
 in G. C. Fiske, “Plain Style in the Scipionic Circle” (1919) and Mary A. Grant, 
 Ancient Theories of the Laughable (1924). 
 
 3 Cicero De officiis I. 30. 
 
 4 Quintilian Institutio IX. ii. 44-33. 
 
 5 Ibid., VI. ii. 9-16. 
 
 0 Although I am not at all qualified to speak on the subject, it does seem to me 
 that Mr. Sedgewick pushes Quintilian’s conception of irony as an admirable habit 
 of thought a little too far. 
 
6 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 In the fifteen centuries between Quintilian’s death and the first 
 appearance of irony in English little that was new happened to the 
 word. The rhetorical definition of it as saying one thing and mean¬ 
 ing the contrary—blame-through-praise or vice versa—was passed on 
 from one rhetorician to another: Alexander Numenius (second cen¬ 
 tury), Aquila Romanus (third century), Julius Rufinianus (prob¬ 
 ably third century), Phoebammon ( ca . 400), Tiberius Rhetor, Mar- 
 tinanus Capella (fifth century), Zonatus (fifth century), Isidorus 
 (600-636), Bede, Gregorius the Corinthian ( ca . 1150). These 
 rhetoricians often occupied themselves with distinguishing the minor 
 varieties of rhetorical irony. Chleuasmus “is a speech which makes 
 an attack under cover of a smile.” Mykterismus “is a mocking 
 speech accompanied by a breathing through the nostrils.” Sarcasm 
 “is to show the teeth.” Bede noted seven species of irony out of 
 many. Several of the rhetoricians classified irony under allegory, 
 which can of course be defined abstractly in terms almost identical 
 with those used for irony. Quintilian had so classified it, Cocondrius 
 named two sorts of allegory, irony and enigma, and Bede stated 
 the connection. 
 
 The Aristotelian concept of irony as genuinely deceptive self¬ 
 depreciation did “not often exist in ‘a pure state’ outside of Aristotle 
 and his school: its presence is usually as vaguely felt in later litera¬ 
 ture as it was in Greek literature before Aristotle.” However, it 
 seems to play a part in certain uses of the word by Cicero, Plutarch, 
 Lucian, Philostratus, Justin Martyr, Themistius (the Byzantine rhet¬ 
 orician of the fourth century), Suidas, and a rhetorician quoted in 
 Bekker’s Anecdota Graeca. That irony of political and social self¬ 
 depreciation noted by Demosthenes and Theophrastus apparently 
 disappeared. 
 
 The early Greek sense of “cunning deceit,” “vulgar, mocking 
 pretence” clung to the word in that it sometimes expressed a greater 
 disapprobation than we feel in it today. Aristotle’s praise was half¬ 
 hearted at best, Themistius thought irony evil, Cicero “knew per¬ 
 fectly well that an stptov was generally a person whom one shouldn’t 
 know,” in Quintilian “irony seemed to carry with it grave and rea¬ 
 sonable cause of offence,” Plutarch used the word to express dis- 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 7 
 
 approval, the general attitude of Dionysius of Halicarnassus to¬ 
 ward ironists was hostile, Stobaeus (fifth century) thought irony 
 vulgar, Pollux ( fl . 180 a.d.) called the ironist a “babbler,” and 
 Hesychius of Alexandria (fifth century), Photius, and Suidas ex¬ 
 pressed similar attitudes. But such disapprobation was not the 
 dominant attitude. “Not late in ancient times men began to look 
 upon irony as we look on it today: as a name and a method that 
 carry no reproach save in being misused.” 
 
 ii. The English classical age 
 
 At the beginning of the sixteenth century an educated English¬ 
 man could encounter Latin ironia in Quintilian and the medieval 
 rhetoricians and lexicographers. The Latin word was, so far as we 
 now know, first translated into English as “yronye” in Thordynary 
 of Crysten men, 150X But throughout the century the Latin or 
 French form of the word was as likely to turn up in an English 
 context as the English form, and although an occasional author 
 ostentatiously aired the word, it is fair to say that it remained esoteric 
 and technical. As the first half of the seventeenth century pro¬ 
 gressed irony became a more readily available English word. In 
 1615, for instance, appeared a book entitled Essayes and Characters 
 Ironicall, and Instructive. But the word, though now available, 
 continued to be a bit of “refined and elegant speech” rather than 
 commonly current. During the Restoration it might have achieved 
 wider currency than it did had not raillery been imported from the 
 Continent, for raillery became the popular and easy word for refer¬ 
 ring to the spate of controversial mockery that flowed from the 
 printing presses 7 while irony remained relatively technical. It was 
 perhaps Defoe’s specific defense of his Shortest Way with the Dis¬ 
 senters as “ironic” that began the process which was to bring the 
 word down from its pedestal, for this “irony” of his became a foot¬ 
 ball for the various answerers to his explanation. But it was not 
 until the decade of the 1720’s, after the clear-cut ironies of Defoe 
 and Swift and the constant, obtrusive ironies of controversial pam- 
 
 7 See pp. 189-208 below. 
 
8 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 phlets and periodicals, that irony became common in the literary and 
 general discourse of the day. During this decade Thomas Gordon, 
 the “Essay on Gibing,” the Craftsman, Orator Henley, the Dunciad, 
 and Anthony Collins all paid emphatic attention to irony by name 
 and thus made the word familiar to readers of popular literature. 8 
 
 In view of the relative unimportance of the word irony during 
 most of our period, it need not surprise us that there were no major 
 developments comparable to those Sedgewick has traced through 
 Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Demosthenes, and the Rhetoric to 
 Alexander, or those which remain to be traced in the nineteenth 
 and twentieth centuries. The contribution of the English classical 
 period was to introduce certain Classical concepts of irony into the 
 main stream of English literary culture and to develop these older 
 concepts in small ways. As it happened, the great achievements 
 in the use of irony by English ironists of the Restoration and Augus¬ 
 tan periods were precisely in that mode encompassed by the tradi¬ 
 tional concept of irony as a verbal device of blame-through-praise. 
 This fact stimulated the elaboration of that concept but it did not 
 stimulate anyone to extend irony into startlingly new realms. 
 
 Nor were the developments that did occur primarily the work 
 of “great” authors, as Mr. Sedgewick seems to say they were in the 
 Classical ages or as to some extent they have been in the last 170 
 years. So far as the English classical period is concerned, develop¬ 
 ments grew out of the circumstances and spirit of the age, and they 
 were often defined by little men voicing common thoughts. Thus 
 in the history of irony’s meaning John Hoskins was more important 
 than Ben Jonson; in criticism of the art of irony Thomas Gordon 
 was more important than John Dryden. 9 This is not to say that 
 no major authors of the period contributed at all to the history of 
 the concept of irony. Gabriel Harvey seems to have had a wide 
 acquaintance with the tradition of ironic writing from Aristophanes 
 to Sir Thomas More and a real admiration for the fine art of the 
 thing. 10 Francis Bacon had some interesting things to say about 
 
 8 For a more detailed discussion of the currency of irony, see pp. 24-30 below. 
 
 * See pp. 24-30 below for evidence indicative of the relatively minor role 
 played by most of this period’s “great” authors in developing the meaning of 
 irony. 
 
 10 Diet. I.A, m.B.i, iII.B.ii. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY-. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 9 
 
 the philosophical method and the irony of Plato and his master, 
 Socrates, comments which indicate the limits of the concept of 
 Socratic irony in Bacon’s time. 11 Shaftesbury, inspired by his theo¬ 
 ries of good taste and good humor and by an abiding esteem for 
 Socrates, may well have been one of the few men during our pe¬ 
 riod to view irony so named with independent originality. 12 More 
 than any other English author Jonathan Swift elaborated and gave 
 importance to the concept of irony as praise through seeming blame, 
 and he also focused attention on the grave manner which came to 
 be closely associated with irony. 13 Although both Pope and Swift 
 used irony primarily to mean blame-by-praise and praise-by-blame, 
 their lively perceptions led them to extend the word to other devices 
 as well, devices not strictly definable as blame-by-praise. 14 Although 
 Fielding’s contributions as a critic of the art of irony were con¬ 
 siderable, his use of the word itself was conventional. It is evident, 
 then, that the history of irony during our period was not a dialogue 
 among great authors. 
 
 Formal definitions, however, were important during our period 
 because the word was not, until late, in frequent and easy use. Not 
 being sure of it, people went to the definitions of the rhetorics and 
 dictionaries for instruction. When these were misapplied, as they 
 easily could be, irony found itself being used in strange ways. Never¬ 
 theless, in spite of a considerable loss of interest in rhetoric after 
 the Restoration, these stock definitions were by and large the start¬ 
 ing points for thought about irony until well into the eighteenth 
 century. After all, what else was there? It was only in the early 
 eighteenth century, when ironic writing had become a popular and 
 clear-cut mode, that people were impelled by such writing to pur¬ 
 sue the concept of irony somewhat further than its conventional 
 formulations. 
 
 There were four of these. By far the most popular was the 
 formula that irony is “saying the contrary of what one means.” 
 Derived from Cicero, Quintilian, and the medieval rhetoricians, 
 
 11 Diet. m.B.i, Ul.B.ii. 
 
 12 Diet. 11. B, 111 .A, m.B.ii. 
 
 13 Diet. m.B.i. 
 
 14 Diet. m.B.ii, iv.b, v.b, vii. 
 
10 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 this definition appeared regularly from Thordynary of Crysten men 
 to Dr. Johnson. A much less popular formulation, although it 
 turned up occasionally from Miles Coverdale to John Lawson, was 
 that irony is “saying something other than one means.” Cicero 
 had distinguished this irony as different from the first, because it 
 does not say “the exact reverse of what you mean” but only some¬ 
 thing “different.” Although this distinction was noted in one or two 
 English versions of the formula, it was more often ignored. The 
 third stock definition, less stereotyped in phrasing and more useful 
 than the first two, had been stated by Quintilian as “to censure with 
 counterfeited praise and praise under a pretence of blame.” Though 
 not stated as frequently as the first formula, this definition was used 
 by a number of writers from Thomas Wilson to the Earl of Chester¬ 
 field. Finally, the English defined the word as meaning any kind 
 of “mocking or scoffing,” regardless of the rhetorical structure. 
 Although Cicero and Quintilian had described irony as one type of 
 jest, they had not extended the word’s reference in this wholesale 
 way. But the definition seems to have reflected actual usage, as 
 we shall see. 15 
 
 In the rhetorics of the Renaissance especially, three words were 
 closely related to irony. Antifhrasis was used as a synonym, with 
 no distinguishing difference. Sarcasm was also considered to be 
 very near in meaning to irony , with the difference that it referred 
 less definitely to a specific rhetorical method. The emphasis of 
 sarcasm was felt to be on the “bitterness” of feeling displayed by a 
 verbal attack, and generally speaking, this distinction continued in 
 actual use into the eighteenth century. As we saw above, Quintilian 
 and some of the medieval rhetoricians classified irony as a type of 
 allegory. This connection continued in three Renaissance rhetorics— 
 Sherry’s, Fraunce’s, and Puttenham’s. The association was based 
 on the observation that both irony and allegory say something dif¬ 
 ferent from what they mean. In the seventeenth century the con¬ 
 nection fell into disuse. However in the Augustan age a number 
 of writers—Thomas Gordon, Pope, the Publick Register , Allan 
 Ramsay—pointed out the allegorical methods involved in certain 
 treatises that were also ironical, and the irony involved in certain 
 
 15 For a more detailed discussion of stock definitions, see pp. 30-37 below. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 
 
 11 
 
 allegories. But none of these men identified irony and allegory as 
 variations of the same method, and Ephraim Chambers’ Cyclopaedia 
 for 1778-88 pointed out the all-important difference: “allegory im¬ 
 ports a similitude between the thing spoken and intended; irony a 
 contrariety between them.” 16 
 
 When we turn to actual use of the word irony in contexts suf¬ 
 ficiently explicit to limit its meaning, we find that the situation was 
 somewhat more complicated than the abstract formulas indicated, 
 and that certain developments, relatively minor in nature, did oc¬ 
 cur during these 250 years. 
 
 Although it was certainly not common or conventional, the sense 
 of deception which had been attached to the word in Aristophanes, 
 Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Theophrastus and which con¬ 
 tinued as an overtone in some medieval writers, also cropped up 
 during the English classical period. The instances of such use be¬ 
 fore 1640 can all be explained as Classical reminiscences of the kind 
 we might expect to find during this period of self-conscious recovery 
 of the Classical heritage. Thus Thordynary of Crysten men, which 
 contains the earliest appearance of irony as an English word, trans¬ 
 lates into Christian terms the Aristotelian doctrine of the two ex¬ 
 tremes which depart from the mean of truth: the lies of boasting, 
 called “jactaunce,” and the lies of self-depreciation, called “yronye.” 17 
 Near the end of the century there is in several of Gabriel Harvey’s 
 uses of irony the distinct sense of genuinely deceptive speech and 
 action, clearly derived from his acquaintance with Classical usage. 18 
 In his Christian Morals Sir Thomas Browne uses irony to mean 
 “constant dissimulation,” and one suspects that he chose the word to 
 display his erudition, for in his day dissimulation was the natural 
 and common word to use here. 19 
 
 The relationship of irony and dissimulation was actually rather 
 complicated. When Greek irony had been adopted into Latin it 
 had not always been transferred as ironia; it had frequently, as in 
 Cicero, been called dissimulatio. Consequently several Renaissance 
 
 16 For a more detailed discussion of words related to Irony see pp. 35-37, i35n. 
 below. 
 
 17 Diet. 1.6. 
 
 18 Diet. 1.A. 
 
 19 Diet. 1 .a. 
 
12 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-!755 
 
 handbooks, notably Thomas Wilson’s Rhetorique and Hoby’s Cour¬ 
 tier , discussed the various devices of rhetorical irony under the 
 term dissimulation —without any notion of conveying the sense of 
 actual and complete deception. At the same time, since English 
 irony did not customarily retain the Classical sense of deception, 
 English translators often preferred other words to translate Greek 
 eipwveia when it was meant to convey this sense, and dissimulation 
 was a natural English synonym which they often chose to use. 
 This rather confusing situation cleared up after the early seventeenth 
 century. Thereafter dissimulation was rarely used to name the 
 ironic devices of verbal attack but continued to be an available sub¬ 
 stitute for irony as real deception. 20 
 
 The sense of deception in irony did not, however, totally dis¬ 
 appear with the Renaissance. Two uses of irony as at least limited 
 deception, dated 1640 and 1696, can probably be dismissed as obtuse 
 or disingenuous misapplications of a stock definition to suit an argu¬ 
 ment. 21 But in the Augustan age there was a very real sense of 
 the trickiness involved in much of the controversy and pamphlet 
 warfare of the time. It seemed to some people that the rigor of 
 battle and the rigor of the laws led a few ironists to use less than 
 honest irony 5 that is, the insincere praise of the ironists was not 
 really meant to be seen through at all, or not, at least, by those 
 who could harm the ironist. Thus irony once more attached to it¬ 
 self upon occasion the overtone of actual deception, though this 
 usage was not frequent. 22 
 
 By far the most frequently used meaning of irony was, during 
 the English classical period as during the preceding eighteen or 
 nineteen centuries, “censure through counterfeited praise.” This 
 meaning was attached to the word upon its first appearance in Eng¬ 
 lish, and thereafter, according to my sampling, two out of every 
 three appearances of irony utilized it. So dominant was this sense 
 that people sometimes assumed that if a device was referred to as 
 irony it must necessarily be blame-by-praise, although it might in 
 actuality be something else. 23 The stock definitions always linked 
 
 20 Diet. 1. 
 
 21 Diet. 11.A and ii.b. 
 
 22 Diet. i.C and ii.b. 
 
 23 Diet. m.B.ii. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 13 
 
 blame-by-praise with “praise through counterfeited blame,” but this 
 sense was much less frequently invoked in actual use of the word. 
 Only after Swift and his group had made praise-through-blame a 
 pervasive and delightful mode of letter-writing and conversation 
 did this sense gain importance, and it is worth adding that only in 
 this sense did irony achieve a positively warm and agreeable con¬ 
 notation. 24 
 
 To blame-by-praise, then, was the central and dominant mean¬ 
 ing of irony. But it was not the only meaning. No doubt there 
 are a number of ways by which a word can widen its area of 
 reference, but two of them were especially important to the history 
 of irony. First of all, the irony of blame-by-praise has a feeling, an 
 atmosphere, which is characteristic. It sometimes happened that 
 people felt this efFect and called the device which elicited it irony , 
 although analysis shows that the device was not blame-by-praise. 
 Second, we have seen that the most popular definitions of irony 
 were not “blame by praise” and “praise by blame” but were more 
 abstract: “saying the contrary” or “saying something different.” 
 Such definitions could lead a writer to call a thing irony which was 
 not blame-through-praise. These factors came into play especially 
 when the rhetoricians, beginning with Cicero and Quintilian, set out 
 to illustrate and classify various rhetorical devices. 
 
 Thus the device sometimes called fraeteritio or negatio was 
 called irony in the rhetorics of Quintilian, Abraham Fraunce, John 
 Smith, Hobbes, and Anthony Blackwall. By negatio we refuse to 
 say what in fact we are saying: “I will not call him a thief, I will 
 not name all the safes he has cracked.” And of course this refusal 
 is the “contrary” of what we mean. Moreover, Quintilian and at 
 least a few writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries used 
 irony to refer to certain other logical contraries than this, as when 
 Pope commented on Swift’s setting out “to praise the Court, or 
 magnify Mankind.” It is only fair to add that a number of the 
 uses of irony to name such contrary speech which is not blame-by¬ 
 praise do have a tenuous connection with blame-by-praise. Pope 
 was attributing to Swift an attitude of approbation rather than one 
 
 24 
 
 Diet. in.B.i. 
 
14 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 of disapprobation, and negatio sometimes refuses to blame. But 
 since not all the instances I have collected can produce even a ten¬ 
 uous relationship to blame-through-praise, it seems reasonable to 
 consider this sense of irony , i.e., the employment of contraries other 
 than those of praise and blame in saying the opposite of what one 
 means, an established, though minor, meaning of the word. 25 
 
 Cicero and Quintilian both exercised a good deal of ingenuity 
 in discussing and classifying jests. One of the obvious characteristics 
 of many jests is indirection, which produces surprise5 indirection is 
 also an invariable characteristic of the irony of blame-by-praise. It 
 may have been this likeness of effect, this working by implication 
 rather than by direct statement, which led Cicero and Quintilian to 
 connect two types of jest with irony. One is the statement of a 
 corollary of one’s criticism without statement of the criticism itself. 
 Thus Afer replied to Didius Gallus, who after making great effort 
 to secure an appointment complained on getting it that he had been 
 forced into accepting, “Well, then, do something for your country’s 
 sake.” 26 The second type is the meaningful reply to a submerged 
 meaning of some remark. For instance, when a witness asserted 
 that the accused had attempted to wound him in the thighs, Gaius 
 Caesar replied, “What else could he have done, when you had a 
 helmet and breastplate?” 27 Like the irony of blame-by-praise, these 
 tactics are indirect attack, but they are not blame-by-praise. Al¬ 
 though English rhetoricians did not use general terms with any 
 great consistency in referring to jests, some did classify such in¬ 
 direct verbal attack under irony, and there are one or two instances 
 in casual writing during our period of the same extension of mean¬ 
 ing. 28 
 
 With the exception of the irony of manner, which we will re¬ 
 turn to shortly, we have now surveyed the fortunes during the 
 English classical period of the various meanings that first appeared 
 in the Classical use of our word. But the English were not un¬ 
 original during this period, although their first contribution may be 
 
 25 Diet. iv. 
 
 '"Quintilian Institutio VI. iii. 68. 
 
 " 7 Ibid.., VI. iii. 89-92. 
 
 28 Diet. vi. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY : INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 15 
 
 considered somewhat unfortunate. We have already observed that 
 one of the stock definitions for irony throughout the English classi¬ 
 cal period was “mockery, derision,” 29 and this definition seems to 
 have reflected actual usage. It is not difficult to understand how, 
 in the Renaissance at least, the name of a particular kind of derision 
 could be used loosely to refer to any kind of derision, especially 
 since irony was not a very familiar term and the period had a 
 cavalier attitude toward words. Perhaps this usage would have 
 died out in the Restoration and Augustan periods had it not been 
 for the tremendous quantity of blame-by-praise irony that was pub¬ 
 lished. Much of this was very complicated stuff and no one could 
 be blamed for not trying to distinguish in every case between blame- 
 by-praise derision and other kinds, especially since blame-by-praise 
 probably was the dominant mode. Consequently one occasionally 
 encounters in the early eighteenth century as well as in the six¬ 
 teenth and seventeenth the general use of irony to mean simply 
 derision, mockery, ridicule of any sort. 30 
 
 The second innovation made by the English was to use irony for 
 the sort of understatement we are familiar with in Anglo-Saxon 
 literature. In the rhetorics of the English classical period such 
 understatement was discussed regularly under the names litotes and 
 meiosis. However, at the end of the sixteenth century John Hos¬ 
 kins, apparently for the first time, called it irony., and in this de¬ 
 velopment we see once more the feeling of the thing together with 
 the ambiguity of stock definitions leading to an extension of mean¬ 
 ing. Just as all blame-by-praise irony works by indirection and im¬ 
 plication, so too can understatement work by “Intimation” and “dis¬ 
 sembling,” as Hoskins comments. It says something different from 
 what it means and leaves the intended meaning “to our under¬ 
 standing.” Moreover, understatement often has somewhat the effect 
 of blame-by-praise or praise-by-blame. Thus, to say of a man that 
 he is “no notorious malefactor,” meaning he is just short of being 
 that, has the surface effect of defending him. Or to say of an 
 Atlas “Milo had but a slender strength” has the surface effect 
 of minimizing his strength when in actuality we go on to praise it. 
 
 29 See p. 34 below. 
 
 30 Diet. IX. 
 
l6 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Some such factors as these led Hoskins on to illustrate under irony 
 the kind of understatement which in fact uses a method quite dif¬ 
 ferent from blame-by-praise, for to say “Titormus had a reasonable 
 good arm” when we mean that he had a remarkably strong one is 
 not to blame him but to understate his capacity. Thomas Blount 
 and John Smith, as we know, copied from Hoskins, and thereafter 
 understatement seems to have been an available meaning of irony, 
 as it is today. 31 
 
 The chief contributions of the early eighteenth century seem to 
 have grown out of the nature of its satiric literature. We have al¬ 
 ready noted that a great deal of this satire was blame-by-praise irony, 
 much of it employing very complicated techniques. We have only 
 to think of the Tale of a Tub, the History of John Bull, the 
 Scriblerus papers, Gulliver’s Travels, and Jonathan Wild to realize 
 how prominent was the technique of using a fictional structure of 
 some sort to elaborate, or to serve as the vehicle of, an irony. 
 Such fictions were not meant to be taken seriously even as fiction, 
 and readers of the Augustan age became quite sophisticated about 
 such things. They were exceedingly conscious that almost any 
 pamphlet or periodical they happened to pick up might proceed very 
 gravely to pull their leg, usually with the intention of satirizing 
 someone or something and often by means of a simulated appro¬ 
 bation of it. Considering the vague and cavalier way in which 
 such terms as irony, ridicule, raillery, and banter were popularly 
 used under the impact of such literature, we need not be surprised 
 that the Augustans sometimes extended irony to mean any kind of 
 discourse not meant to be taken seriously, or any gravely elaborated 
 fiction the purpose of which was to mystify or satirize—whether 
 through blame-by-praise or some more direct method. 32 
 
 iii. Groundwork for the modern ironies 
 
 But what of those ironies which have become catchwords in the 
 last 170 years? During the English classical period did no one 
 
 31 Diet. v. 
 
 32 Diet, vii and vm. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY I 7 
 
 use irony to mean the irony of Fate? dramatic irony? the irony of 
 philosophic detachment? Before we can settle this point it is crucial 
 to arrive at working definitions of these modern ironies. David 
 Worcester’s dissection of contemporary meanings is a good starting 
 point. He arrives at a definition of the irony of manner through 
 analysis of the individual manners exhibited by the eiron of Greek 
 comedy, Socrates, Chaucer, ingenu satire of the eighteenth century, 
 and of the twentieth. 33 The eiron of Greek comedy “is the close¬ 
 mouthed Yankee who has no objection to being thought a fool. He 
 will even encourage his detractors by speaking in a thick dialect, 
 tugging his forelock obsequiously, or otherwise depreciating him¬ 
 self.” 34 
 
 The whole personality of Socrates is a complex and sophisti¬ 
 cated analogy to this rather simple character-type of comedy. In 
 argument and philosophical inquiry that personality expresses it¬ 
 self by feigning ignorance and asking disingenuous questions under 
 a mask of sympathetic approval. “As in jiujitsu, the expert presses 
 gently and the victim ties himself into knots.” 35 But more than 
 this, Socrates was able to encompass the most diverse contradictions 
 without faltering. He could take both philosophers and street- 
 corner loafers seriously; he was at home in aristocratic society or 
 in the marketplace. He hid mystical ideas beneath ugliness and 
 buffoonery; he claimed to be the most ignorant and was declared 
 by the oracle to be the wisest man in Greece. He could treat the 
 most serious and the most comic matters in the same breath. 
 
 Chaucer exploited the manner in his own way. In his poems 
 he appears “bashful and a little weak in the head” and is “all 
 anxiety to please,” 36 with ready sympathy for another man’s point 
 of view. Literary powers he makes no claim at all to—he is merely 
 the stenographer, the translator, the harmless drudge. Too, he is 
 a somewhat lonely figure in the band of pilgrims, “in the company 
 but not quite of it, observant of every nuance despite his downcast 
 eyes ... he preserves his own detachment instead of wooing the 
 
 33 David Worcester, Art of Satire (1940), pp. 90-108. 
 
 34 Ibid., p. 92. 
 
 35 Ibid., p. 94. 
 
 36 Ibid., p. 95. 
 
l8 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1753 
 
 regard of anyone.” This, says Worcester, “is the very bearing of 
 the ironical observer”; 3 ' Chaucer’s “ironical manner . . . diffuses an 
 air of genial skepticism and penetrating humor through his major 
 writings.” 38 
 
 In the voyages imaginaires of the eighteenth century the irony 
 of manner received a new incarnation in the “simple soul” who 
 relates his adventures, “a plain, matter-of-fact sort of man, a close 
 observer of detail, but no critic of higher principles and no philos¬ 
 opher.” 39 The twentieth century has given the manner a further twist: 
 
 Theodore Gumbril in Antic Hay, Walter Bidlake in Point Counter 
 Point, by Aldous Huxley; Paul Pennyfeather in Decline and Fall, Adam 
 Fenwick-Symes in Vile Bodies, by Evelyn Waugh—all follow a common 
 pattern. They are gray, subdued observers in a world of startling events 
 and startling people. . . . Through their wondering eyes we have a 
 kaleidoscopic vision of a violent, chaotic, and purposeless civilization. 
 
 There is something new and striking in this development of the ingenu 
 theme. Older writers used irony as a means of lending force to their 
 creative beliefs. The Socratic irony takes wing into the Platonic myth. 
 Swift’s writings constitute an inverted evangel of reason. Behind Vol¬ 
 taire’s icy grin is the burning resolve, “ Ecrasez I’infame!” But the 
 irony of the modern hero serves no ulterior purpose and reveals no 
 creative thought. It is irony for its own sake; a manner worn as a 
 protective garment by a dissociated and neurotic personality. 
 
 . . . this sort of irony turned back on itself is the natural vehicle for 
 the writer who wishes to jar our civilization into the realization of its 
 own frustration and spiritual chaos . 40 
 
 Our guide now turns to dramatic irony and the irony of Fate. 
 Relying on their “knowledge of life,” their assumption that in a 
 particular situation certain facts and principles are dependable guides, 
 men proceed to act on them in the expectation that foreseeable and 
 desirable results will follow. Regrettably, what follows is often 
 exactly the consequence they did not foresee and least desire. They 
 can perhaps then look back to see that certain facts would have 
 forewarned them if they had not been blind, oblivious of the preg- 
 
 37 Ibid., p. 98. 
 
 "''Ibid., p. 1 o 1. 
 
 ""ibid., p. 103. 
 
 40 Ibid., pp. 106-8. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 19 
 
 nant omens. Now, their eyes open, they see that they were de¬ 
 ceived—by Fate? Just as a conceited fop may after being deceived 
 by ironical encomiums on his beauty see through the disingenuous 
 praise, just as an innocent reader may after being deceived by 
 Socrates’ self-depreciation and mock sympathy penetrate his real 
 intention, so in everyday life a man may feel that some omniscient 
 Fate has been cleverly misleading him toward an unexpected event. 
 He calls this “the irony of Fate.” 
 
 When the irony of Fate occurs in a piece of literary art two 
 other factors are usually part of it. First, the omens of the final 
 event can be controlled by the author. He may, if he likes, use 
 soothsayers, prodigies, and portents; he may use the equivocations 
 of oracles 5 he may use double-edged language of any sort. Al¬ 
 though the characters in the play are blind to any underlying 
 significance in these omens, the audience understands it—as the 
 characters too will eventually understand it. Thus, just as in the 
 Modest Proposal we follow Swift’s real meaning as he says one 
 thing and means another, so we follow the omens of a play which 
 mean one thing to the characters caught up in it and mean another 
 to us, the audience. Here we have dramatic irony , also sometimes 
 called tragic and Sophoclean irony. 
 
 In dramatic irony, the ringmaster disappears. There is no signpost, 
 not even a misleading one, to inform the spectators that irony is present. 
 All the work of detection and interpretation is left to them. There is 
 no obligation to explore beneath the surface level of the narrative. As 
 a result, everyone who does so is translated into a ringmaster on his own 
 account. To detect for oneself the freakish operations of chance in hu¬ 
 man life, the opportunities missed by a hair, the warnings ignored, the 
 prayers that, granted, bring destruction, is to be the omniscient author, 
 to look down from a great height, and to feel a complete detachment 
 from human affairs . 41 
 
 Such detachment is what produces the highly complex irony of, 
 for instance, Aldous Huxley as he juxtaposes human passion and 
 biological determinism, the emotional content of music and the 
 mechanics of sound, sentimentalism and behaviorism, rationality and 
 irrationality. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 119-20. 
 
 41 
 
20 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Romantic irony, says Mr. Worcester, is simply a vague historical 
 term which can be reduced to the two meanings already distin¬ 
 guished: 
 
 What Schlegel admired was dramatic irony, in which the author sup¬ 
 presses his own personality and arranges his materials in such a way that 
 every spectator is his own ironic observer. Although the author is in¬ 
 scrutable, he is revealed in the choice and juxtaposition of materials. 
 What Tieck practised was irony of manner, bolstered up by the traditional 
 tricks of burlesque. . . . Tieck’s fictitious personality, constantly intruding 
 in his work, is reminiscent of Sterne, Cervantes, Fielding, and Byron, 
 though less finished than any of these . 42 
 
 Mr. Worcester, then, would like to reduce the terms for modern 
 concepts of irony to two, or possibly three: irony of manner; dramatic 
 irony; and the irony of Fate where dramatic irony is inappropriate. 
 It is only fair to warn the reader that Mr. Sedgewick breaks down 
 this complex of ideas in a somewhat different way and uses different 
 names. Thus he limits Socratic irony to Socrates’ dialectical meth¬ 
 od. 43 Isolating that element of detached observation which plays a 
 part in Worcester’s irony of manner and dramatic irony, Sedgewick 
 calls it the irony of detachment or spiritual freedom. “By this we 
 mean the attitude of mind held by a philosophic observer when he 
 abstracts himself from the contradictions of life and views them 
 all impartially, himself perhaps included in the ironic vision.” 44 
 Romantic irony, Mr. Sedgewick goes on to say, is a form of this 
 irony of detachment. 45 Dramatic irony he defines in much the 
 same way as does Worcester, except that he does not include under 
 it the concept of spiritual detachment. There is no disagreement 
 over the irony of Fate. For further observations on the meanings 
 of irony as they have developed over the past 170 years the reader 
 may turn to A. R. Thompson, J. A. K. Thomson, F. McD. C. 
 Turner, and the commentators listed by Haakon Chevalier. 46 
 
 42 Ibid., pp. 125-26. 
 
 43 G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony (1948), pp. 12-13. 
 
 44 Ibid., p. 13. 
 
 45 Ibid., pp. 14-18. 
 
 46 A. R. Thompson, The Dry Mock (1948) ; J. A. K. Thomson, Irony (1927) ; 
 F. McD. C. Turner, Irony in English Literature (1926); H. M. Chevalier, The 
 Ironic Temper (1932). 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 
 
 21 
 
 “I am confident,” says Mr. Sedgewick, “that Socratic irony con¬ 
 tains the germs of all the newer ironies which have so afflicted the 
 literature of the last century.” 47 It is certainly true that modern 
 minds have found at least four distinct ironies in the life of Socrates. 
 There was first of all his repeated use of the limited figure of speech 
 which we have called blame-by-praise and praise-by-blame. There 
 was, second, Socrates’ elaboration of this figure into his dialectical 
 method, a novel and fruitful technique for puncturing sham and 
 pursuing truth. It is this dialectical method which Mr. Sedgewick 
 means by Socratic irony. Third, there was Socrates’ whole way of 
 life, his deepening of self-depreciation and mocking sympathy into 
 a pervasive manner of action toward people and ideas and events. 
 This Mr. Worcester calls the irony of manner. And finally, there 
 was Socrates’ genius at encompassing the most diverse elements in 
 harmonious thought. In this Mr. Worcester finds what Sedge¬ 
 wick calls the irony of detachment. 
 
 So far as I have been able to discover, no one during the 
 English classical period used the word irony to refer to a dialectical 
 method, either Socrates’ or anyone else’s, 48 and no one found in 
 Socrates the irony of detachment. It is, I think, fair to say that 
 most people during this period thought of Socrates’ irony as simply 
 a famous example of mixing blame-by-praise and praise-by-blame 
 in an extraordinarily effective figure of speech. We have already 
 noted that Ariston and Cicero and Quintilian had so described it, 
 so that from the beginning of the English classical period people 
 would have been familiar with the idea. 49 
 
 But we observed above, in our survey of Classical notions of 
 irony, that Cicero and especially Quintilian had also distinguished 
 between irony as a figure of speech and irony as a pervasive man¬ 
 ner, a manner which in the life of Socrates permeated all his actions 
 and words. Quintilian’s observations were of course available to 
 English thought from the beginning of our period, and it is cer¬ 
 tainly true that the English were aware not only that Socrates used 
 irony as a figure of speech but also that he used this figure con- 
 
 47 G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony (1948), p. 13. 
 
 48 Diet. Ill.B.ii n. 5. 
 
 49 Diet. m.B.i and Ill.B.ii. 
 
22 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 stantly. But there is a difference between the repeated use of a 
 verbal device and the extension of the principle of that device 
 through the creation of a whole personality, and in English classical 
 references to Socrates’ constant use of irony it is usually impossible 
 to discern whether the irony of manner is implied or not: certain 
 references and translations during the Renaissance and later may 
 imply it. In Shaftesbury, however, I think we do find the word 
 irony used to name a manner, inspired by Socrates, that is very 
 near our own conception. So far, then, Sedgewick is right; what¬ 
 ever notion of our irony of manner there was in the English classi¬ 
 cal period stemmed from Socrates. There is, however, the star¬ 
 tling exception of Fulke Greville, who used “Ironia” to name the 
 irony of manner which an author may assume throughout the whole 
 of one of his works. Greville’s use of irony does not seem to be 
 directly inspired by Socrates, although it is reminiscent of the Classi¬ 
 cal notions of self-depreciation. 50 
 
 The case of dramatic irony is even more ambiguous. In Thomas 
 Nashe I have unearthed two contexts and in Robert Burton one 
 context in which irony appears, seemingly, to mean dramatic irony 
 as Worcester defines it. Whether this meaning was consciously 
 intended or was accidental, whether as Nashe and Burton were 
 playing with words in their exuberant Renaissance way the word 
 irony accidentally exploded, I have no way of determining. 51 What 
 does seem clear is that people did not notice the explosions, for 
 I have found no later uses of irony which invoke this sense of the 
 word in a clear-cut fashion. On the other hand, certain mid¬ 
 eighteenth-century developments in the methods and criticism of 
 blame-by-praise irony do seem to indicate how a sense of dramatic 
 irony evolved. These developments are discussed in Chapters IV 
 and V below, where we find that in the second quarter of the eight¬ 
 eenth century irony began to be used rather frequently to name 
 the ironic approval of an author in presenting fictitious characters 
 and situations, characters and situations which an audience discovers 
 to be ridiculous through interpretation of the dramatic situation it- 
 
 60 Diet. III.A. 
 
 61 Diet. x. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 23 
 
 self rather than through ironic comments made by the author in 
 his own person. Although I do not myself think that mid-century 
 writers used the word irony to mean any more than the ironic ap¬ 
 proval of the authors of such fictions, it is not hard to see how 
 frequent association of the word with such dramatic constructs might 
 lead to the extension of meaning we are looking for. 52 
 
 52 See pp. 185-86 below. 
 
TWO 
 
 THE MEANING OF IRONY : 
 THE DICTIONARY 
 
 i. The currency of irony during the English classical feriod 
 
 By the mid-eighteenth century irony as an English word had 
 passed through three stages. (i) During the sixteenth century the 
 term was seldom used except in technical works and by an occasional 
 author airing his erudition. The English classical rhetorics and dic¬ 
 tionaries sometimes specify the French ironie as mediator in bring¬ 
 ing the Latin ironia into English 1 —as does Skeat 2 —but in the 
 linguistic travail of sixteenth-century England it was often doubt¬ 
 ful that irony was naturalized; the Latin or another form was as 
 likely to turn up in an English context as the English. (2) In the 
 seventeenth century the English form was customarv and capable 
 of natural use in an erudite context, but it was by no means a part 
 of popular speech or even of general literary discourse. (3) In the 
 first decades of the eighteenth century irony began to appear, 
 though not widely, in general literary discourse; then between 1720 
 and 1730 it settled into literary discussion and general speech as 
 one of the conventional terms of literary reference. The reason for 
 this final development is evident. The clear-cut ironies of Defoe 
 and later of Swift and the constant, obtrusive ironies in contro¬ 
 versial pamphlets and periodicals were matters of daily talk from 
 
 1 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), p. 45; “Ironical, Ironique, F. of Ironicus, L. 
 of ’Etpcovtoo;, Gr .”— Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1724); 
 “Irony (of ironia, L. of eipwo, G. a dissembler)” — Benjamin Martin, Lingua 
 
 Britannica Reformata (1749); “Irony, n.s. ironie, Fr. i spoivsia” — Johnson, Dic¬ 
 tionary (1755-56); “Irony ironie , F. of ironia , L. of etpwvsta, Gr.”—Bailey, 
 Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1766). 
 
 2 W. W. Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary (1882). 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 
 
 25 
 
 the City through Covent Garden, St. James’s, Westminster and out 
 to Twickenham; the word had to be taken off its pedestal to deal 
 with this pervasive thing. 
 
 But at the beginning of the sixteenth century only the best 
 educated were acquainted with it. J. A. K. Thomson remarks that 
 “the word was hardly in use in Latin, and in English not in use 
 at all.” 3 It was, however, available in the medieval rhetoricians 
 and lexicographers, 4 and in Quintilian, whose influence dominated 
 educational circles. 5 The English form “yronye” appeared, so far 
 as we know at present, for the first time in Thordynary of Crysten 
 men , 1502. 6 In Whytinton’s 1534 translation of Cicero’s De of- 
 ficiis I.30, Socrates was “a symuler whom the grekes call irona.”" 1 
 In Wylkinson’s 1547 translation of Aristotle’s Ethics the word is 
 not used at all: in II. vii the opposite of the boaster is “called 
 humble”; 8 in IV. iii the ironical self-depreciation which the magnan¬ 
 imous man may use in speaking to common people becomes simply 
 “thynges of mirthe”; 0 and in IV. vii. 1-17 the opposite of the 
 boaster “dispraiseth himself”: “the humble ma dispraiseth himself 
 to fly strife & busines as did Socrates to have quiete life.” 10 Wylkin- 
 son evidently does not understand Aristotle’s notion of the ironical 
 man nor does the English word occur to him as an equivalent. In 
 1548 John Hooper categorizes one of Moses’ remarks as “ ironice ” 41 
 and in his 1553 translation of De officiis 1 .30, Grimalde uses the 
 Greek word but not the English equivalent. 12 Huloet’s Dictionarie 
 of 1572 does not list irony P Not once in his translation of Plutarch 
 does Thomas North see fit to use irony in a context in which 
 
 3 J. A. K. Thomson, “Erasmus in England” (1930-31), pp. 73-74. 
 
 4 G. G. Sedgewick, “Dramatic Irony” (1913), pp. 172-89, 192-94. 
 
 5 J. W. H. Atkins, Renascence Criticism (1947), p. 40. 
 
 9 Thordynary of Crysten men (1506), Part IV, sec. xxii. 
 
 7 Roberte Whytinton, Tullyes Offyces (1534), sig. Gi r . 
 
 8 John Wylkinson, Ethiques of Aristotle (1547), sig. C2 rsv . 
 
 9 Ibid., sig. E 2 v -E 3 r . 
 
 10 Ibid., sig. E5 v -E 6 v . 
 
 11 John Hooper, Early Writings (Parker Soc.), p. 420. 
 
 12 Nicolas Grimalde, Ciceroes duties (1558), fol. 47T 
 
 13 Richard Huloet, Dictionarie (1572). Cooper’s Latin-English dictionary 
 lists Ironia, illustrating it with five allusions to Cicero and one to Terence. Thomas 
 Cooper, Thesaurus (1578). 
 
26 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Plutarch had used the Greek word. 14 Baret’s Alvearie of 1580 trans¬ 
 lates Cicero’s noma with “mocking, or dissimuling” but not with 
 irony}'' In the English rhetorics of the second half of the century 
 this figure of speech was usually listed as ironia . 16 “Ironice” appears 
 again in Danett’s Comines, 1596. 17 Perceval’s Dictionarie neither 
 in 1599 nor in 1623 gives irony in the English-Spanish section, 
 although ironia appears in the Spanish-English section. 18 
 
 This negative evidence illustrates the degree to which in the 
 sixteenth century ironia was not yet at home in the English lan¬ 
 guage, but the English word was used at times, though almost 
 always with some tentativeness or ostentation. This is not entirely 
 gone in Jonson’s Cynthia}s Revels (1601): 
 
 “. . . the whole Court shall take it selfe abusde 
 By our ironicall confederacie .” 19 
 
 In 1615, however, John Stephens felt safe in calling the second 
 edition of his book Essayes and Characters Ironicall, and Instruc¬ 
 tive, 20 and Brinsley’s 1616 translation of De officiis I. 30 makes an 
 indicative advance over earlier versions: Socrates was “an Eironist 
 in al his speech, whom the Grecians named ecpwva. . . .” 21 The 
 status of our word at this time is nicely settled by Henry Cockeram. 
 His The English Dictionarie: or, An Interpreter of hard English 
 Words. . ., 1623, includes both “ Ironically ” and “ Ironie .” 22 In the 
 1626 edition he explains the two parts of the lexicon: 
 
 The first book hath the choisest words themselves now in use, where¬ 
 with our Language is inriched & become so copious, to which words the 
 common sense is annexed. The second Booke contains the vulgar words, 
 which whensoever any desirous of a more curious explanation by a more 
 refined and elegant speech shall look into, he shall there receive the 
 exact & ample word to expresse the same. . . , 2,1 
 
 14 North, Plutarch (1595), pp. 197, 290, 461, 559-60, 688, 849, 948, 1019. 
 
 15 John Baret, Alvearie (1580). 
 
 10 Warren Taylor, Tudor Rhetoric (1937), pp. 35-36. It is of course true 
 that most of the figures were given their Latin names in the rhetorics of this time. 
 
 ''Thomas Danett, Comines (Whibley), p. 200. 
 
 18 Richard Perceval, Dictionarie (1599) and (1623). 
 
 10 Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), IV, 130-32. 
 
 '"John Stephens, Essayes and Characters Ironicall (1615), title page. 
 
 21 John Brinsley, Tallies Offices (1631), p. 221. 
 
 22 Henry Cockeram, English Dictionarie (Tinker). 
 
 23 Ibid. (1626), “A Premonition from the Author to the Reader.” Robert 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 
 
 27 
 
 “ Ironie ” and “Ironically ” are honored with a place in the first 
 book, and in the second, “ Ironically ” is offered as the elegant 
 equivalent of “Mockingly .” There is no change in the 1639 edi¬ 
 tion. 24 Neither Francis Hickes in translating Lucian’s True His¬ 
 tory II. 17 25 nor Thomas Heywood in translating Lucian’s Di¬ 
 alogues of the Dead XX. 5 26 chose to use irony where Lucian had 
 used the Greek word, but in translating Lucian’s Literary Promethe¬ 
 us i 27 Jasper Mayne did. John Bulwer’s Chirologia (1644) and 
 Pathomyotomia (1649), 28 two rather pretentious discourses on the 
 gestures which should accompany effective speech, use “ironie” and 
 “ironicall” to describe the various gestures of this type. John 
 Smith’s Rhetorique of 1657 uses both ironia and irony , but the 
 English form appears far more often. 29 In his 1680 edition of 
 De officiis L’Estrange translates I. 30 not with irony but with 
 “Innocent Raillery ,” 30 an example of how raillery became at this 
 time the popular word while irony remained esoteric. The same 
 preference for raillery is evident throughout Ferrand Spence’s trans¬ 
 lation of Lucian (1684-85) 31 but in the Fisher 22, the True History 
 II. 17, and Demonax 6 Spence does use irony where Lucian had. 32 
 Dryden’s Lucian also uses irony in Fisher 22 and Demonax 6, 33 and 
 Dryden’s Plutarch uses “Ironical” in Pomfey 30 34 as the English 
 equivalent for the Greek word. A convincing indication of how 
 limited was the use of our word in this period is that in all his 
 critical efforts of various kinds—essays, discourses, lives, prologues 
 
 Cawdry’s A Table Alphabetical! conteyning and. teaching the true writing, and 
 understanding of hard usuall English wordes, borrowed from the Hebrew, Greeke, 
 Latine, or French, etc. With the interpretation thereof by plaine English words. . . . 
 1604, had included '■'■ironie, (g) a mocking speech.” 
 
 24 Ibid. (1639). 
 
 25 Francis Hickes, Lucian (1634), p. 135. 
 
 26 Thomas Heywood, Lucian (1637), p. 137. 
 
 27 Jasper Mayne, Lucian (1663), p. 1. 
 
 28 John Bulwer, Chirologia and Chironomia (1644), frontispiece, pp. 79-80, 
 95, 170, 177-78, 181-83, 183, 189. Pathomyotomia (1649), PP- 64-65. 
 
 29 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), pp. 45-48, 74-76, 77, 77-79, 79-80, 165, 
 203-4. 
 
 30 Roger L’Estrange, Tally’s Offices (1681), p. 53. 
 
 31 Ferrand Spence, Lucian (1684-85), I, sig. A7 V , Cp, D8 r , p. 7; III, 44. 
 
 32 Ibid., II, 31-32, 208; III, 44. 
 
 33 Dryden, Lucian (1710-11), III, 358; IV, 130. 
 
 34 Dryden, Plutarch (1683-86), IV, 140. 
 
28 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 and epilogues—Dryden uses it only once, in his Life of Lucian; 
 and in the collection of John Dennis’ critical essays made by E. N. 
 Hooker, it appears in a likely context only once. 
 
 The route by which irony entered general use is evident in 
 The Fox with his Fire-brand Unkennell'd and Insnared: Or, a Short 
 Answer to Mr. Daniel Foe's Shortest Way with the Dissenters. As 
 also to his Brief Explanation of the same (London: 1703). Defoe 
 had explained that the Shortest Way was an irony, and the author 
 of this pamphlet replies: 
 
 To be short and brief with him: It is granted him that he is a very 
 Ironical Gentleman all over: That he has a very Ironical Name, but 
 is still more Knave than Fool: That he has a very Ironical Style, but 
 what abounds with more Malice than Wit: But that he is free from 
 any seditious Design, is such an Irony, that it must move Laughter more 
 than Attention or Belief, and make a Jest of himself and the Govern¬ 
 ment together; at this rate of Explanation, Mrs. Cellier's Meal-Tub, 
 Fitz Harris's Libel, Robert Young's Flower-Rot-Association, and Fuller's 
 Shams upon the Parliament, and some of our best Ministers of State, 
 were all Ironies too. . . , 35 
 
 The pamphlet continues in this vein, belaboring Defoe’s defense of 
 irony from all sides at once. It is probably accurate to say, how¬ 
 ever, that not until the decade 1720-30 did irony finally become a 
 word one was likely to meet periodically, if not frequently, in the 
 polite—and impolite—conversation and general literature of the 
 day. Early in the decade Thomas Gordon wrote his essay “Of 
 Libels,” in which he specifies at length the rules to be followed by 
 “all Ironical Defamers.” 36 The Art of Railing, 1723, offers a 
 nearly verbatim reprint of Gordon’s essay, 3 ' and the hostile “Essay 
 on Gibing” refers knowingly to the irony of Socrates and of the 
 Bible. 38 During the years 1727-30 the Craftsman 39 carried on a 
 
 15 The Fox with his Fire-brand Unkennell’d (1703), pp. 3-4. 
 
 M FI amourist II (1725), pp. 96-105. 
 
 37 This pamphlet of 27 pages consists of a history of railing (pp. 1-11), Gor¬ 
 don’s essay presented without acknowledgment and with the change of only a 
 few words (pp. 11 -1 8), and a sample of political railing (pp. 19-27). It is possi¬ 
 ble that Gordon wrote the whole pamphlet, lifting material from himself. It was 
 summarized in the Free Briton for July 22, 1731, and excerpts from this summary 
 appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine, I (1731), 296-97. 
 
 38 “An Essay on Gibing” (1727), pp. 5-10. 
 
 39 Craftsman (1731), I, 102-4, 106 (No. 18, Feb. 7, 1727); II, 172-74 (No. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 29 
 
 running attack against the injustice of the government’s “inter¬ 
 preting” perfectly innocent statements as libelous ironies and in¬ 
 nuendoes. The Craftsman 1 s attack is sometimes straightforward but 
 more often tongue-in-cheek, and the word Irony appears regularly. 
 The essay for February 7, 1727, explains just what irony is and how 
 it operates. In 1729 Orator Henley defended irony by name, along 
 with other ways of jesting, in An Oration on Grave Conundrums , 
 and Serious Buffoons. . . , 40 and half a dozen of the notes added to 
 the 1729 edition of the Dunciad comment on the author’s irony} 1 
 In the same year appeared the longest and most elaborate defense 
 of irony made during this period, Anthony Collins’ A Discourse 
 concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing. 42 This 77-page contro¬ 
 versial pamphlet is entirely derivative in thought, consisting largely 
 of multitudinous displays of irony and ridicule used by people of 
 reputation from Socrates and Christ to Shaftesbury and Swift, but 
 its wide-ranging and exhaustive use of examples, the representative 
 nature of its arguments, and the emphasis of its orientation make 
 it a milestone in the history of general concern over irony. The 
 word itself appears on nearly every page. The year 1729, then, 
 looks like a turning point. From the beginning of the Gentleman 1 s 
 Magazine the word appears in its pages. 43 The Preface to Select 
 Getters taken from Fog’s Weekly Journal , 1732, remarks: “It 
 will be observ’d that many of them are written in an ironical and 
 ludicrous Style. . . .” The Promoter for March 23, 1736 (No. 144) 
 complains that the Grub-street Journal had not maintained through¬ 
 out its career the “ironical Transversion of Censure” with which 
 it had started, and the Grub-street for April 14, 1737, answered 
 this criticism with a short dissertation on the merits and short¬ 
 comings of irony. In the March 26, 1748 (No. 17) issue of the 
 Jacobite’s Journal Fielding makes a similar explanation of why he 
 has stopped using a strictly ironic method of writing the paper. 
 
 68, Oct. 21, 1727) ; V, 210 fE. (No. 179, Dec. 6, 1729), 232-34 (No. 182, Dec. 27, 
 1729); VII, 94-95 (No. 226, Oct. 31, 1730). 
 
 40 John Henley, Oration on Grave Conundrums (1729), pp. 1-4. 
 
 41 Pope, Dunciad, (Sutherland), pp. 62-63, IT 9> 186-91, 201-6. 
 
 4a Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729). 
 
 43 Gentleman's Magazine, I (March, 1731), 107; III (June, 1733), 282-83; X 
 (Nov., 1740), 547-48; XV (April, 1745)) 207-8. 
 
THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 3 ° 
 
 Smollett uses some form of the word irony eight times in Peregrine 
 Pickle, not a particularly esoteric work . 44 Such appearances of the 
 word in the popular literature of the time indicate that it had finally 
 achieved general currency . 45 
 
 ii. Stock definitions of irony and related terms 
 
 Before the late eighteenth century little attempt was made to 
 carry the explicit definition of irony beyond the type of the dictionary 
 entry and the traditional rhetorical classifications; within this scope 
 certain stock definitions, used by Quintilian and Cicero in their dis¬ 
 cussions of verbal irony, were passed down from dictionary to dic¬ 
 tionary and from rhetoric to rhetoric and turned up in the unsys¬ 
 tematic explanations of more casual writers. By far the most popular 
 of these stock formulations was that irony means saying the con¬ 
 trary , or opposite, of. what one means. This had first appeared in 
 the Rhetoric to Alexander, moved on through Cicero, Quintilian, 
 and the medieval rhetoricians , 1 and then settled down in English . 2 
 
 44 Smollett, Peregrine Pickle , I, 43-44, 204; II, 38, 68, 253; III, 31; IV, 101, 
 109-10. 
 
 46 Nevertheless Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia (1741, 1743), lists the four 
 principal tropes as “the metaphora, metonymia, synecdoche and ironia;” not until 
 the 1778-88 edition were the names of these tropes Anglicized. But John Oldmixon, 
 Logick and Rhetorick (1728) had discussed irony without once using the Latin 
 form of the word, and Leonard Welsted, Longinus (1727), pp. 77-78, had used 
 irony quite naturally as the English equivalent of the Greek word. In his trans¬ 
 lations of Quintilian and of Cicero’s De Oratore and Academica , all published at 
 mid-century, William Guthrie uses irony as the equivalent of the Latin term 
 wherever it seems appropriate. William Guthrie, Cicero De Oratore (1822), 
 pp. 197-200, 287; Quinctilianus His Institutes (1756), I, 229; II, 29-30, 56, 62, 
 235!!., 249, 279-80, 286; Morals of Cicero (1744), p. 377. 
 
 'Sedgewick, “Dramatic Irony” (1913), pp. 192-94. Cicero On Oratory II. 
 67 ff. Quintilian Institutio VIII. vi. 54-58; IX. ii. 44-53. 
 
 2 Thordynary of Crysten men (1506), Part IV, sec. xxii. Thomas More, Works 
 (1557)) chap, v, p. 939. Hoby, Courtier (Everyman), pp. 159-61. Abraham 
 Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. vi. Puttenham, Arte of Eng¬ 
 lish Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91. Peacham, Garden of Eloquence 
 (1593), pp. 35-36. Florio, Worlde of Wordes (1598) and (1611). Richard 
 Perceval, Dictionarie (1599). John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style 
 (Hudson), pp. 29-30. John Bullokar, English Expositor (1621). Henry Cockeram, 
 English Dictionarie (Tinker). William Whately, Prototypes (1640), Book III, 
 chap xxxix, p. 21. Thomas Fuller, The Holy State (1642), pp. 73-74. John 
 Bulwer, Chirologia and Chironomia (1644), pp. 181-83. Thomas Blount, Aca- 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 
 
 3 1 
 
 It was usually stated baldly and without qualification. Dr. Johnson 
 gives: “A mode of speech in which the meaning is contrary to the 
 words.” 3 The Earl of Chesterfield tells his son: “This is a figure 
 of speech called Irony- which is saying directly the contrary of what 
 you mean. . . .” 4 Several of the early dictionaries and rhetorics offer 
 “saying black is white” as an illustration, which cannot have been 
 very illuminating to the uninstructed. 5 * * Their situation is made fun 
 of by Middleton and Rowley, who use a tailor’s rhetoric as repre¬ 
 sentative of the learning of “Mechanick Rabbles” of the age: 
 
 By his Needle he understands Ironia , 
 
 That with one eye lookes two wayes at once: G 
 
 and Sir Thomas Browne points out a fallacy which arises from over¬ 
 awareness of this device: “The circle of this fallacy is very large; 
 and herein may be comprised all Ironical mistakes, for intended 
 expressions receiving inverted significations. . . .”' One distinction is 
 recorded, however, in a few dictionaries: “a figure in speaking, when 
 one means contrary to the signification of the word, or when a man 
 reasoneth contrary to what he thinks, to mock him, whom he argues 
 with. . . .” 8 
 
 A second, considerably less popular, formula was that Irony 
 
 demie of Eloquence (1654.), pp. 25-26. John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), PP- 45 - 
 48, 74-76. Hobbes, The Art of Rhetoric (Molesworth), p. 517. John Prideaux, 
 Sacred Eloquence (1659), PP- 12-14. Edward Phillips, New World of Words 
 (1662) and (1706). Robert Ferguson, The Interest of Reason in Religion (1675), 
 pp. 299-300. Art of Speaking (1708), pp. 63, 305-11. George Granville, Un¬ 
 natural Flights in Poetry (Spingarn), p. 296. Edward Cocker, English Dictionary 
 (1704). John Harris, Lexicon Technicum '( * I * 7 ° 4 )- Bailey, Universal Etymo¬ 
 logical English Dictionary (1724),(1733),(1745),(1757),(1766),(1790). Bailey, 
 Universal Etymological English Dictionary II (1727). Bailey, Dictionarium Britan- 
 nicum (1730). Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 176- 
 79. John Oldmixon, Logick and Rhetorick (1728), pp. 21-28. J. K., New Eng¬ 
 lish Dictionary (1731). Thomas Dyche, New English Dictionary (1765). Pocket 
 Dictionary (1753). World (Chalmers), XXVII, 277-79 (No. 104, Dec. 26, 1754). 
 Warren Taylor, Tudor Rhetoric (1937), pp. 35-36. 
 
 ! J°knson, Dictionary (1755-56). 
 
 1 Chesterfield, Letters to His Son (Strachey-Calthrop) , I, 36. 
 
 "John Bullokar, English Expositor (1621) and (1719). Henry Cockeram, 
 
 English Dictionarie (Tinker), (1626) and (1639). John Smith, Rhetorique 
 
 (1657), p. 45. 
 
 "Middleton and Rowley, World tost at Tennis (1620), sig. C v -C2 r . 
 
 7 Thomas Browne, Works (Sayle), Pseudodoxia Epidemica, Book I, chap. iv. 
 
 8 Thomas Blount, Glossographia (1656). See also: Thomas Elyot, Bibliotheca 
 
 (1552). Thomas Cooper, Thesaurus (1578). Benjamin Martin, Lingua Britan- 
 nica Reformata (1749). Robert Ainsworth, Thesaurus (1751). 
 
THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 32 
 
 means saying something other than one means? People were not 
 always sure whether this was only a more general way of saying 
 the same thing or the definition of another kind of irony. Cicero 
 had said: 
 
 Ironical dissimulation has also an agreeable effect, when you say some¬ 
 thing different from what you think; not after the manner to which I 
 alluded before, when you say the exact reverse of what you mean, as 
 Crassus said to Lamia, but when through the whole course of a speech 
 you are seriously jocose, your thoughts being different from your 
 words. . . . 10 
 
 Hoby’s Courtier offers a modern version of this passage 11 and Pri- 
 deaux seems to recognize the difference in a footnote to “ Iroma”\ 
 
 Simulatio , Because we speak one thing, and mean another. ... It is like¬ 
 wise called by Tully, Inversio, a turning upside down of a thing, or 
 contrary to the right form. A proper tearm to expresse this Trope where 
 the contrary is meant to what is said. . . . 12 
 
 Quintilian, however, had used this formula as another way of stating 
 the first one, 13 and some of the dictionaries and rhetorics give it as 
 their only definition of irony, apparently assuming that no difference 
 is involved. It is this abstract formula which George Daniel has 
 in mind as he describes the cloud of arrows that descended upon the 
 French cavalry at Agincourt, and how the English archer aimed: 
 
 Yet here: (and ’tis the Ironie of warre 
 Where Arrowes forme the Argument;) he best 
 Acquitts himselfe, who doth a Horse praefer 
 To his proud Rider; and the object, Beast 
 Transfformes Philosophy but yet the Rule 
 Makes out, to Act, on the more Passive Soule . 11 
 
 8 The formula is stated in: Cicero Academica II. 15 and On Oratory III. 53. 
 Quintilian Institutio VI. ii. 15-16. Miles Coverdale, Remains (Parker Soc.), II, 
 333. Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 134-56. Richard Sherry, 
 Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxiii, xxvi. John Marbeck, Notes and Common-places 
 (1581), p. 560. Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186- 
 91. Edward Cocker, English Dictionary (1724). Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia 
 (1741, 1743) and (1778-88). Benjamin Martin, Bibliotheca Technologica (1737), 
 pp. 178-80. John Lawson, Lectures Concerning Oratory (1760), pp. 257-68. 
 
 10 Cicero On Oratory II. 67. 
 
 11 Hoby, Courtier (Everyman), pp. 159-61. 
 
 12 John Prideaux, Sacred Eloquence (1659), PP- See also John Smith, 
 
 Rhetorique (1657), PP- 45-48. 
 
 13 Quintilian Institutio VIII. vi. 54-58. 
 
 14 George Daniel, Poems (Grosart), IV, 149-50 (“Trinarchodia,” stanza 198). 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 
 
 33 
 
 The clever archer aims at something other than he means to hit. 
 
 The third stock formula, used ordinarily to clear up the vague¬ 
 ness of the other two, was not only the most instructive but also 
 the most variable in phrase. Quintilian had stated it in its persistent 
 form: “It is permissible to censure with counterfeited praise and 
 praise under a pretence of blame.” 15 The seventeenth century en¬ 
 livened it. Irony is “calling that foule which is faire, or that sweete 
 which is sowre,” 16 irony “expresseth a thing by contrary, by show of 
 exhortation when indeed it dehorteth,” 17 “An Irony is a nipping 
 jeast, or a speech that hath the honey of pleasantness in its mouth, 
 and a sting of rebuke in its taile.” 18 Other more subdued versions 
 appear occasionally throughout our period. 19 Giving the name of 
 a virtue to a vice or of a vice to a virtue was a frequently offered 
 subformula which seems to account for Fielding’s peculiarly me¬ 
 chanical use of irony in the following passage: 
 
 By Wisdom here, I mean that Wisdom of this World, which St. 
 Paul expressly tells us is Folly; that Wisdom of the Wise, which, as we 
 read both in Isaiah and in the Corinthians, is threatned with Destruc¬ 
 tion: Lastly, I here intend that Wisdom in the Abundance of which, as 
 the Preacher tells us, there is much of Grief; which, if true, would be 
 alone sufficient to evince the extreme Folly of those who covet and 
 pursue such Wisdom. 
 
 But tho’ the Scriptures in the Places above cited, and in many others 
 do very severely treat this Character of worldly or mock Wisdom, they 
 have not, I think, very fully described it, unless perhaps Solomon hath 
 done this ironically under the Name of Folly. An Opinion to which I 
 am much inclined; and indeed what is said in the loth Chapter of Ec¬ 
 clesiastes of the great Exaltation of a Fool, must be understood of a 
 Fool in Repute, and such is the Wise Man here pointed at. 
 
 In the same Manner, the best Writers among the Heathens have 
 obscurely and ironically characterised this Wisdom. What is a covetous 
 
 ls Quintilian Institutio VIII. vi. 54-58. 
 
 10 John Marbeck, Notes and Common-places (1581), p. 560. 
 
 17 John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style (Hudson), pp. 29-30. Thomas 
 Blount, Academie of Eloquence (1654), pp. 25-26, repeats this phrase. 
 
 18 Edward Reyner, Government of the Tongue (1658), pp. 223-27. 
 
 19 Cicero On Oratory II. 67. Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 
 134-56. Edward Phillips, New World of Words (1706). Bailey, Dictionarium 
 Britannicum (1730). Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia (1741, 1743) and (1778- 
 88). Memoirs of Grub-street (1737), I, viii-x. Chesterfield, Letters to His Son 
 (Strachey-Calthrop), I, 36. 
 
34 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Man ? says Horace, he is both a Fool and a Madman. Now Avarice is 
 the very highest Perfection and as it were Quintessence of this Kind of 
 Wisdom . 20 
 
 At times, in the process of assimilating ironia , the English seem 
 to have slipped into giving the word a more general definition than 
 it had traditionally had. Both Cicero and Quintilian had discussed 
 irony as a particular type of jest, and the function of the device was 
 given as derision; it is not surprising then that some of the rhetorics 
 and dictionaries extended the word’s reference to any mock or scoff, 
 regardless of rhetorical structure: 
 
 Now is ironia as much to say as a mockage, derision, or meaning of 
 another thing, than is expressed in the words . 21 
 
 ironie , (g) a mocking spaech . 22 
 Ironically. Spoken scoffingly. 
 
 Ironie. Speaking by contraries, saying black is white . 23 
 
 Ironia is taken for dissimulation, whereby one thing is thought and 
 another spoken; it signifies also taunting speeches, or a speaking by con- 
 
 • 24 
 
 tranes. . . . 
 
 Ironical, (Greek) spoken in mockery, or by that figure called Irony, 
 which is a speaking contrary to what a man means by way of bitter 
 gibing or scoffing . 25 
 
 Ironie ... a speaking by contraries or mockingly . 26 
 Ironia, a scoffe or flout. . . . 2 ‘ 
 
 Ironia ... a mock or scoffe, also a trope . 28 
 ironical, spoken by way of Railery. 
 
 rallery, a close or secret Jibe, pleasant drolling, or playing upon another 
 in discourse . 29 
 
 20 Fielding, Covent-Gar den Journal (Jensen, 1915), II, 126. 
 
 21 Miles Coverdale, Remains (Parker Soc.), II, 333. 
 
 22 Robert Cavvdry, A Table Alfhabeticall (MLA facs.). 
 
 23 Henry Cockeram, English Dictionarie (Tinker). Edward Cocker, English 
 Dictionary (1704) gives the same kind of entries. 
 
 24 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), pp. 45-48. See also Puttenham, Arte of 
 English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 154-55, 186-91; and Warren Taylor, 
 Tudor Rhetoric (1937), pp. 35-36. 
 
 25 Edward Phillips, New World of Words (1662). 
 
 20 Elisha Coles, English Dictionary (1676). 
 
 27 Angel Day, English Secretorie (1595), Part II, pp. 79-80. 
 
 28 Francis Holyoke, Dictionarium (1627). 
 
 20 B. N. Defoe, Comfleat English Dictionary (1735). 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 
 
 35 
 
 Although after the Restoration such distinctions were pretty 
 much ignored as being pedantry, Renaissance rhetoric involved irony 
 in its complex classifications of rhetorical terms. In these irony 
 was ordinarily classed as a trope, along with metonymy, metaphor, 
 and synecdoche, and tropes were also divided into those consisting 
 of a single word and those consisting of a sequence of words. 
 
 A Trope or turning is when a word is turned from his naturall significa¬ 
 tion, to some other. . . . The excellencie of tropes is then most apparant, 
 when either manie be fitlie included in one word, or one so continued 
 in manie, as that with what thing it begin, with the same it also end. . . . 30 
 
 There be two kindes of tropes. The first coteineth Metonymia , the 
 chage of name: and Ironia , a scoffing or jesting speach. The second 
 comprehendeth a Metafhore and Synecdoche . 31 
 
 Irony was also occasionally classed as a figure—a term the meaning 
 of which varied with the rhetorician using it 32 —but without any 
 change in the status of irony. Within this framework a number of 
 connections were made between irony and other rhetorical devices. 
 The “ancient flirtation between rhetorical irony and allegory” 33 con¬ 
 tinued through Sherry, 34 Fraunce, 35 and Puttenham, but the pair 
 went pretty much their own ways thereafter. Puttenham explains 
 the relationship: 
 
 . . . Allegoria , which is when we speake one thing and thinke another, 
 and that our wordes and our meanings meete not. . . . Of this figure . . . 
 we will speake first as of the chief ringleader and captaine of all other 
 figures. . . . 36 
 
 30 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. i. 
 
 31 Ibid., Book I, chap. ii. See also: Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. 
 xxiii. Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), p. x. Thomas Granger, Divine 
 Logike (1620), p. 175. John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), pp. 45-48. Hobbes, The 
 Art of Rhetoric (Molesworth), p. 515. John Prideaux, Sacred Eloquence (1659), 
 pp. 12-14. Art of Speaking (1708), p. 62. Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to 
 the Classics (1728), pp. 148 ff., 176-79. 
 
 32 See: Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 137-38, 142- 
 43, 154-55, 158-60. Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, 
 chaps, i and xxvii. Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), p. 1. Anthony Black- 
 wall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), p. 148. The convolutions of rhetoric 
 during this period may be explored in W. P. Sandford, English Theories of Public 
 A ddress (1931). 
 
 33 G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony (1948), p. 6. 
 
 34 Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi. 
 
 35 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chaps, i and vi. 
 
 30 Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91. See also 
 PP- 154 - 55 - 
 
36 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Puttenham lists enigma, proverb, irony, sarcasm, asteismus, mic- 
 terismus, antiphrasis, and charientismus as “souldiers to the figure 
 allegoria.” In the rhetorics of the time sarcasm , “a nipping taunt,” 
 “a bitter kind of derision,” was sometimes classified separately from 
 irony, 37 sometimes said to be “neer to an Irony, but that it’s some¬ 
 what more bitter,” 38 and sometimes listed as a subtype of irony. 39 
 Like allegory, antiphrasis was defined in the same words as irony. 
 “a forme of speech which by a word exprest doth signifie the con¬ 
 trary,” 40 but unlike allegory, antiphrasis in actual use referred to 
 the same strategy as irony did, although John Smith accepted this 
 distinction: “ Antifhrasis and this [ irony\ are of very nigh affinity, 
 only differing in this, that Antiphrasis consists in the contrary sense 
 of a word, and Ironia of a sentence.” 41 Asteismus, “whan a thyng 
 is polished with some mery conceit,” micterismus, “a counterfayted 
 laughter,” and charientismus, “when thinges that be hardely spoken, 
 be mollifyed with pleasaunte woordes” 42 were three other devices 
 which frequently turned up in the company of irony, and Sherry, 
 Smith, and Prideaux classify them as subtypes of irony. 43 Preteri- 
 tion, “when you say you let passe that which notwithstanding you 
 touch at full,” 44 was also sometimes classed as a type of irony. 40 In¬ 
 deed, the rhetoricians played something of a shell game with these 
 terms— irony, sarcasm, antiphrasis, asteismus, micterismus, and char¬ 
 ientismus —for an illustration used in one guidebook under irony 
 was likely to turn up in another under sarcasm and in another under 
 antiphrasis. The differences among these terms were not significant, 
 
 27 Ibid. See also Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 37-38. 
 
 38 Thomas Hall, The Schools Guarded (1655), pp. 163-70. John Smith, 
 Rhetorique (1657), pp. 79-80. Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia (1728), (1741, 
 1743), under “Sarcasm.” 
 
 30 Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi. John Prideaux, Sacred Elo¬ 
 quence (1659), pp. 12-14. 
 
 40 Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 24-25. 
 
 41 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), pp. 45-48. 
 
 42 Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi. 
 
 13 Ibid. John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), PP- 77-79- John Prideaux, Sacred 
 Eloquence (1659), PP- 12-14. Prideaux adds three other subtypes: chleuasmus, 
 diasyrmus, and exutenismus. 
 
 44 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), p. 165. 
 
 45 Ibid. Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. vi. 
 Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 195-98. 
 
THE MEANING OF IRONY: THE DICTIONARY 
 
 37 
 
 but the difference between allegory and irony was so considerable 
 that the association based on identity of abstract definition fell into 
 disuse. 46 
 
 40 In the 1778-88 edition of Ephraim Chambers’ Cyclopaedia this distinction, 
 which had not appeared in earlier editions, was added to the article on “allegory”: 
 “Scaliger considers allegory as one part, or side, of a comparison. It differs from 
 irony , in that allegory imports a similitude between the thing spoken and intended; 
 irony a contrariety between them.” 
 
THE DICTIONARY 
 
 i. IRONY AS PRETENSE AND DECEPTION 
 
 This earliest Greek sense of the word, which persisted in vary¬ 
 ing forms and degrees in both Greek and Latin, was not carried 
 over into common English usage. In translations dissimulation, 
 or occasionally hypocrisy, was substituted for irony 1 in this sense 
 (dissimulation could also be substituted for irony in the sense of 
 blame by seeming praise, 2 as it had been in Latin). I have, how- 
 
 . . very often the signification of a Greek Term translated word for word, is 
 quite another thing in our Language; for example, Irony which with us is a raillery 
 in conversation or Rhetorical Trope; with Theophrastus it signifies somewhat be¬ 
 tween cheating and dissembling. . . .” 
 
 —Bruyere, Manners of the Age (1699), 
 “Prefatory Discourse.” 
 
 Dissimulation was substituted for the Greek irony in the following translations, 
 except where otherwise noted: 
 
 Aristophanes Clouds 449: Thomas Stanley, History of Philosophy (1655-62), 
 Part III, p. 76 (another substitute); Lewis Theobald, Clouds (1715), p. 25 
 (another substitute). 
 
 Aristotle Rhetoric II.V.11-12: Hobbes, A Briefe of the Arte of Rhetoric 
 (1637?)) pp. 82-83; Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1686), p. 102. 
 
 Aristotle Ethics II.vii.12: John Wylkinson, Ethiques of Aristotle (1547), sig. 
 C 2 r 6- T (another substitute). 
 
 Demosthenes First Philippic 7: Thomas Wilson, Demosthenes (1570), p. 35 
 (another substitute); Demosthenes (1702) (another substitute). 
 
 Theophrastus Characters (Loeb), pp. 41-43: Bruyere, Manners of the Age 
 (1699), sig. Hh 7 r & v ; Eustace Budgell, Theophrastus (1714), p. 5; Henry Gaily, 
 Theophrastus (1725), p. 120; John Healey, Theophrastus (1616), p. 4 (“Cavil¬ 
 ling”). 
 
 Plutarch Lives , “Demetrius” 18, “Agis” 19, “Pompey” 30: North, Plutarch 
 (1595), pp. 948, 849 (“hypocrisy”), 688; Dryden, Plutarch (1683-86), IV, 264. 
 
 Lucian True History II.17: True History from the Greek (1744), p. 65 
 (“hypocrisy”). 
 
 See also John Baret, Alvearie (1580), “dissimuling.” 
 
 2 Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 184-85. Hoby, Courtier 
 (Everyman), pp. 159-61. Edward Phillips, Neva World of Words (1706), under 
 “Dissimulatio.” 
 
THE DICTIONARY: i, i.a 
 
 39 
 
 ever, encountered several English passages in which irony is used 
 to mean genuine and thorough deception of some sort. 
 
 i.a. Constant dissimulation 
 
 This differs from most of the other ironies (Diet, hi through x) 
 in that actual deception, not indirect satire, is intended. 
 
 Gabriel Harvey, Works (Grosart), II, 294-318: 
 
 He would either wisely hold his peace: or smoothly flatter me to my 
 face: or suerly pay-home with a witnesse: but commonly in a corner, or 
 in a maze, where the Autour might be uncertaine, or his packing intricate, 
 or his purpose some way excusable. No man could beare a heavy injury 
 more lightly: or forbeare a learned adversary more cunningly: or bourde 
 a wilfull frend more dryly: or circumvent a daungerous foe more co¬ 
 vertly: or countermine the deepest underminer more suttelly: or lullaby 
 the circumspectest Argus more sweetly: or transforme himselfe into all 
 shapes more deftly: or play any part more kindly. He had . . .such an 
 inextricable sophistry, as might teach an Agathocles to hypocrise pro¬ 
 foundly, or a Hieron to tyrannise learnedly .... nothing but his fact 
 discovered his drift; & not the Beginning, but the End was the interpreter 
 of his meaning. 
 
 He could speake by contraries, as queintly as Socrates; and do by con¬ 
 traries, as shrewdly as Tiberius. . . . 
 
 Stephen Gardiners Fox, or Macchiavels Fox, are too-young Cubbes, to 
 compare with him; that would seeme any thing, rather than a Fox, and 
 be a Fox rather then any thing else. 
 
 . . . his curses, [were] like the blessinges of those witches in Aphrica, 
 that forspoke, what they praysed, and destroyed, what they wished to 
 be saved. 
 
 I have seene spannels, mungrels, libbards, antelops; scorpions, snakes, 
 cockatrices, vipers, and many other Serpents in sugar-worke: but to this 
 day never saw such a standing-dish of Sugar-worke, as that sweet-tongued 
 Doctor; that spake pleasingly, whatsoever he thought; and was other- 
 whiles a fayre Prognostication of fowle weather. Such an autenticall 
 Irony engrosed, as all Oratory cannot eftsoones counterpane. Smooth 
 voyces do well in most societies; and go currently away in many reckn- 
 ings, when rowgh-hewne words do but lay blockes in their own way. 
 He found it in a thousand experiences; and was the precisest practitioner 
 of that soft, and tame Rhetorique, that ever I knew in my dealings. 
 
40 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 . . . if ever any were Hypocrisy incarnate, it was he. . . . 
 
 I twice, or thrise tryed him to his face, somewhat sawcily, and smartly: 
 but the Picture of Socrates, or the Image of S. Andrew, not so un- 
 mooveable. . . . 
 
 It is not the threatener, but the underminer, that worketh the mischief: 
 not the open assault, but the privy surprize, that terrifieth the old 
 souldiour. . . . [Cf. Aristotle Rhetoric II.v.li-12.] 
 
 Gabriel Harvey, Marginalia (Moore Smith), p. 138: 
 
 Pestilens Ironia. magae laudant arbores, animalia, pueros, puellas: 
 eademqwtf necant occulte. 
 
 Also: Gabriel Harvey, Marginalia (Moore Smith), pp. 139-40, 143. 
 In his character of Dr. Perne quoted at some length here Harvey 
 implies that the Doctor sometimes used verbal irony (“bourde a 
 wilfull frend ... dryly”), but Harvey’s chief complaint is quite 
 simply that Perne was a hypocrite and dissembler. The significant 
 fact is that Harvey tends to define Perne’s hypocrisy in terms of 
 blame-by-praise. Perne spoke “by contraries”; his curses “forspoke, 
 what they praised” 5 he was “a standing-dish of Sugar-worke.” We 
 know that Harvey claimed a wide Classical knowledge 3 and in the 
 character quoted there are traces of Aristophanes’ “foxy deceit” 
 ( Clouds 449) and of Aristotle’s and Theophrastus’ self-depreciator 
 (Aristotle Rhetoric II.v.n-12; Theophrastus Characters [Loeb], 
 pp. 41-43). What Harvey seems to have done, then, is to formu¬ 
 late the Classical sense of deception in terms of rhetorical blame-bv- 
 praise, so that Perne’s “autenticall Irony” is insincere praise that is 
 actually meant to deceive and thereby hide' evil intentions. Several 
 notes in the Marginalia use irony in the same way. 
 
 Thomas Browne, Christian Morals (1716), Part III, sec. 20, pp. 
 108-9: 
 
 Though the World be Histrionical, and most Men live Ironically, yet be 
 thou what thou singly art, and personate only thy self. Swim smoothly 
 in the stream of thy Nature, and live but one Man. To single Hearts 
 doubling is discruciating: such tempers must sweat to dissemble, and 
 prove but hypocritical Hypocrites. Simulation must be short: Men do 
 not easily continue a counterfeiting Life, or dissemble unto Death. He 
 
 3 See pp. 62-63 below. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: i.a-i.c 
 
 41 
 
 who counterfeited!, acts a part, and is as it were out of himself: which, 
 if long, proves so ircksome, that Men are glad to pull of their Vizards, 
 and resume themselves again; no practice being able to naturalize such 
 unnaturals, or make a Man rest content not to be himself. 
 
 Browne uses irony here to mean simply lifelong deceit and hypocrisy. 
 Since by his time dissimulation would have been a much more natural 
 word to use, we may suppose that Browne chose “Ironically” for its 
 esoteric connotation, the word probably suggesting itself to him by 
 reason of its early Greek sense of foxy deceit and Theophrastus’ use 
 of it to name his character of the dissembler. 
 
 i.b. Self-depreciation in order to achieve a practical end 
 
 Classical Precedents: Aristotle Ethics IV.vii.1-17. Demosthenes 
 First Philippic 7. Theophrastus Characters (Loeb), pp. 41-43. 
 Plutarch Lives, “Pompey” 30. 
 
 Thordynary of Crysten men (1506), Part IV, sec. xxii: 
 
 Also a man fyndeth another maner of lyenge the whiche may be called 
 jactaunce & is comytted in spekynge or ymagenynge of hymselfe more 
 grete thynges than there is of godnes of nobles of prowesse or of vertues 
 and after the grevousnes of the cyrcustaunces it is oftentymes mortall 
 synne. Also to saye of hym selfe ony thynge of his feblenesses & neces- 
 sytes or of his synnes or to take bestymentes of abjeccyon to the ende 
 that a man be renowmed & reputed humble abjecte & grete thynge in 
 merytes & devocyons before god the which thynge is not suche as a man 
 it sheweth that may be mortall synne and such synne is named yronye 
 not that the whiche is of grammare by the whiche a man sayth one 
 & gyveth to understande the contrarye. . . . 
 
 Also: Dryden, Plutarch (1683-86), IV, 140. 
 
 i.c. Falsely attributing some attitude or act to another 
 
 The Fox with his Fire-brand UnkennelPd (1703), pp. 3-4: 
 
 Mr. Foe ’’s Ironical Vein has only this for Its Vindication, which must 
 make it too the greater Jest, That those Knights of the Post only de¬ 
 sign’d their Libels and Associations for the Pockets of particular Per¬ 
 sons; but Mr. Foe, with a Shorter Way indeed, paums his upon the 
 whole Government and Constitution at once; and very Ironically dresses 
 up the Church and State in the Lions and Bears Skin, and such Ironical 
 
42 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Figures as are not to be found in the Tropes of our Modern Rhetorick, 
 but a barbarous Irony that was much practised by the Old Romans on 
 the Primitive Christians, the better to bring their Dogs to worry them. 
 
 Also: Ibid., pp. 21, 23. The anonymous author here is saying that 
 the ironical exaggerations of Defoe’s Shortest Way with the Dis¬ 
 senters were not meant to act as the satiric vehicle of a “contrary” 
 and supposedly genuine meaning; they were meant to be taken 
 at face value and believed. Thus the Shortest Way was a pack of 
 lies and libels knowingly foisted upon the public, and this was a kind 
 of irony different from most rhetorical irony. (Cf. Diet, ii.b, Shaftes¬ 
 bury.) 
 
 11. IRONY AS LIMITED DECEPTION 
 
 ii.a. A temporary deception which tricks one’s interlocutor 
 into revealing the truth 
 
 This sense differs from Diet. 1 in that the deception lasts only 
 long enough to produce the desired effect, but it differs from verbal 
 irony (Diet, iii.b, iv through vm) in that the result is produced by 
 the deception and not by seeing through an apparent deception. 
 
 William Whately, Prototypes (1640), Book III, chap, xxxix, p. 21: 
 
 [While Joseph rules in Egypt his brothers come to him for food; Joseph 
 imprisons them, binds Reuben, hides his cup in Benjamin’s sack and 
 then accuses them of theft. Finally melted by Judah’s oration, Joseph 
 reveals himself. All this, says Whately, Joseph did “to bring them to 
 thorough repentance for their sin.”] 
 
 Againe, it may seeme to be lawfull by the example of Joseph in way 
 of probation and tryall, to counterfeit discontent, and to lay grievous 
 things to the charge of men, and presse them as if they were guilty, 
 though one know the contrary: I still say, if it be done by way of 
 tryall, so that at last it be made manifest, that it was meerely in tryall, 
 and that which would seeme a lye, if it were affirmed expressely and 
 not with reference to such an end, being said to such an end is not a 
 lye, because it is indeed not an affirming, but a seeming to affirme for a 
 time. So Salomon seemed angry, and commanded to divide the child 
 betwixt the two wrangling harlots that came before him, our Saviour 
 
THE DICTIONARY: i.c-ii.b 
 
 43 
 
 made as if he would have gone further, when the Disciples had him in 
 with them at Emmaus. So if a Judge seeing great probability, and in 
 a manner certainty of the guiltinesse of an offendour, shall affirme some¬ 
 thing to him, to draw a confession from him, as for example, that some 
 companion of his hath confest it, and that it is in vaine for him any 
 longer to deny, or that he was seene at such time in such a place, by 
 such and such, when indeed these things were not so, but somewhat 
 equivalent to them, was true, viz. Arguments convincing their guiltinesse, 
 even as much as these things would, though not to make them confesse. 
 I say such courses taken by way of probation and tryall, and finding out 
 guiltiness, are not to be esteemed lyes, because here the meaning is to 
 be taken according to the present show of words. These be but a kind 
 of ironicall carryage, no more lies than an irony, that by affirming one 
 thing in such and such a manner and gesture, doth affirme the quite 
 contrary. 
 
 This unusual use of the word is obviously the product of overstrained 
 rationalizing. 
 
 ii. b. Ambiguous language intended to conceal fart of its meaning 
 
 from fart of the audience 
 
 This sense differs from Diet, i in that the underlying meaning is 
 intended to be perceived by certain of the audience, even if only by 
 the ironist as his own audience. It differs from the verbal ironies 
 (Diet, iii.b, iv through vm) not only in the actual deception in¬ 
 volved, but also in the motive, which is not so much rhetorical effec¬ 
 tiveness attained through the use of certain verbal devices as it is 
 the urge to self-expression through any kind of ambiguity which will 
 pass the censor. 
 
 Christopher Ness, History of the Old and New Testament (1696), 
 I, 234: 
 
 [Ness is discussing Jacob’s answer to Isaac, “I am Esau.”] Some say, 
 that Jacob neither lyed, nor sinned in what he said. . . . They say that 
 his Speech to Isaac, if expounded in the best sense, is no Lye, but an 
 Irony . . . which is a witty way of speaking words, that in a strict ac¬ 
 ceptation sounds not true, yet importeth some great truth when taken 
 by the right handle. . . . Thus Jacob’s Speech importeth, that he was 
 the Person to whom the Blessing (which Isaac was to pronounce) be- 
 
44 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 longeth, for Esau had resign’d it to him by the sale of his Birthright; 
 which purchase gave Jacob a civil right to the Blessing. 
 
 Irony here is very close to allegory. 
 
 Craftsman (1731), VII, 94-95 (No. 226, Oct. 31, 1730): 
 
 [Caleb is giving examples of the way his historical essays are ridiculously 
 forced into parallels of modern events.] 
 
 I often wonder that the weekly Advocates for Power have never 
 insisted on two famous Instances of Court Prosecutions in the Reign of 
 Edward IV to justify their ironical Constructions. One is that of a 
 poor Grocer, who was hang’d in that Reign, for saying that He would 
 make his Son Heir of the Crown; alluding, either innocently, or for 
 the Sake only of a little Pun upon the Times, to his own House, which 
 bore the sign of the Crown. The other Instance was of a Gentleman, 
 who was condemn’d as a Traytor, upon the following Account. The 
 King having kill’d a favourite white Deer in his Park, He was so much 
 griev’d at his Loss, that he suffer’d himself to wish, in a Transport of 
 Passion, that the Horns of the Deer were in the Belly of Him, who 
 advis'd the King to do it. This was interpreted, by the state Casuists of 
 those Times, into a Design of compassing the Death of the King; for, 
 said They, the King kill’d the Deer without any Body’s Advice; from 
 whence it follow’d that the Gentleman wish'd the DeePs Horns in the 
 King's own Belly; innuendo, He had an Intention of murthering the 
 King, which is high Treason; and He was executed accordingly. 
 
 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (1714), I, 71-72: 
 
 If Men are forbid to speak their minds seriously on certain Subjects, 
 they will do it ironically. If they are forbid to speak at all upon such 
 Subjects, or if they find it really dangerous to do so; they will then 
 redouble their Disguise, involve themselves in Mysteriousness, and talk 
 so as hardly to be understood, or at least not plainly interpreted, by 
 those who are dispos’d to do ’em a mischief. And thus Raillery is brought 
 more in fashion, and runs into an Extreme. 
 
 Although the above passage is far from unequivocal, Shaftesbury 
 seems to be following a tendency of his time to apply the word loosely 
 to all kinds of derisive attack (Diet, ix) with the emphasis in this 
 context on the deceptive function of some kinds. For a full discus¬ 
 sion of Shaftesbury’s use of irony see Diet, iii.a below. 
 
 Also: Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony 
 0729 ), PP- 23-26. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: ii.b, iii.a 
 
 45 
 
 iii. BLAME-BY-PRAISE AND PRAISE-BY-BLAME 
 iii.a. Irony of manner 
 
 The irony of manner may be the manner of an author in a work 
 of art or the pervasive manner of a man in his relations with other 
 men. In this sense irony refers to an expression of personality, a 
 manner of speech and action which conveys to the observer a distinct 
 image of character. That character is one of great modesty and 
 self-effacement joined to sympathetic admiration of others, and as 
 such represents the principles of praise-by-blame and blame-by-praise 
 projected through the whole image of a personality. This sense 
 differs from that irony of detachment which is one component of 
 dramatic irony (Diet, x) in that it is an expression of an attitude 
 rather than the attitude itself. It differs from the verbal ironies 
 of blame-by-praise and praise-by-blame (Diet, iii.b) in that it is not 
 a limited device. During the English classical period some refer¬ 
 ences to Socrates’ constant use of irony seem to imply an awareness 
 of the irony of manner. 
 
 Classical Precedents: Plato Symposium 216 de [?], 2i8<i [?]. 
 Cicero Brutus 85-87. Cicero Academica II. 15j II.74 [?]. Cicero 
 De officiis 1 .30. Quintilian Institutio IX.11. 44-53. 
 
 Roberte Whytinton, Tullyes offyees (1534), sig. Gi r . 
 
 Gabriel Harvey, Marginalia (Moore Smith), p. 155: 
 
 A continual Ironist, like Socrates, Sanazarius, & owr Sir Thomas 
 More: suer in the sweetist, & finist kinde. 
 
 Fulke Greville, Sidney (1652), pp. 174-77: 
 
 ... to come particularly to that Treatise intitled: The Decimation of 
 Monarchy. Let me beg leave of the favourable Reader, to bestow a 
 few lines more in the story of this Changling, then I have done in the 
 rest; and yet to use no more serious authority then the rule of Diogenes, 
 which was, to hang the Posie where there is most need. 
 
 . . . when I had in mine own case well weigh’d the tendernesse of that 
 great subject, and consequently, the nice path I was to walke in between 
 two extremities; but especially the danger, by treading aside, to cast 
 scandall upon the sacred foundations of Monarchy; together with the 
 fate of many Metaphysicall Phormio’s before me, who had lost them- 
 
46 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 selves in teaching Kings, and Princes, how to governe their People: 
 then did this new prospect dazzle mine eyes, and suspend my travell for 
 a time. 
 
 But the familiar self-love, which is more or lesse born in every man, 
 to live, and dye with him, presently moved me to take this Bear-whelp 
 up againe and licke it. Wherein I, rowsing my selfe under the banner 
 of this flattery, went about (as a fond mother) to put on richer gar¬ 
 ments, in hope to adorne them. But while these clothes were in mak¬ 
 ing, I perceived that cost would but draw more curious eyes to observe 
 deformities. So that from these checks a new counsell rose up in me, 
 to take away all opinion of seriousnesse from these perplexed pedegrees; 
 and to this end carelessly cast them into that hypocriticall figure Ironia, 
 wherein men commonly (to keep above their workes) seeme to make 
 toies of the utmost they can doe. 
 
 And yet againe, in that confusing mist, when I beheld this grave 
 subject (which should draw reverence and attention) to bee overspangled 
 with lightnesse, I forced in examples of the Roman gravity, and great- 
 nesse, the harsh severity of the Lacedemonian Government; the riches 
 of the Athenian learning, wit, and industry; and like a man that plaies 
 divers parts upon severall hints, left all the indigested crudities, equally 
 applied to Kings, or Tyrants: whereas in every cleere judgement, the 
 right line had beene sufficient enough to discover the crooked; if the 
 image of it could have proved credible to men. 
 
 Here, for the first time so far as I know, irony refers not to the 
 habitual manner of a famous jester but to the image of his own 
 personality which an author chooses to project throughout the whole 
 of one of his works. The manner Greville seems to be thinking 
 of is a sort of jesting self-depreciation not unlike Chaucer’s or 
 Socrates’. What can have inspired Greville to this use of irony ? 
 It may be that he had in mind that modesty which Aristotle had 
 called understatement and grudgingly admitted to be more grace¬ 
 ful than boasting, which Theophrastus and Demosthenes had de¬ 
 scribed as a hypocritical method of evading responsibility, and which 
 Cicero had liked because it marked a man as free from conceit. All 
 these Classical notions about irony were available to Greville, his 
 motives include modesty and the avoidance of responsibility, and 
 his choice of “hypocriticall” to modify u .Ironia ” may have been sug¬ 
 gested by Theophrastus’ character of the Eiron, in the seventeenth 
 century called a dissembler or hvpocrite. If this was the course of 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.a 
 
 47 
 
 Greville’s thinking, he did in fact, by applying a Classical sense of 
 the word to the literary manner of an author, define one aspect of 
 the irony of manner which has become prominent in twentieth-cen¬ 
 tury criticism. 
 
 Thomas Stanley, History of Philosophy (1655-62), Part III, pp. 
 
 5 - 6 : 
 
 . . . he [Socrates] taught onely by Irony and Induction', the first Quin¬ 
 tilian defines an absolute dissimulation of the will more apparent then 
 confest, so as in that y the words are different from the words , in this y 
 the sense from the speech , whilest the whole confirmation of the cause, 
 even the whole life seems to carry an Irony , such was the life of Socrates, 
 who was for that reason called £tpwv; that is y one that personates an un¬ 
 learned man y and is an admirer of others as wise. In this Irony (saith 
 Cicero) and dissimulation he far exceeded all men in pleasantnesse &■ 
 Urbanity . . . ; He detracted from himself in dispute, and attributed more 
 to those hee meant to confute y so that when he said , or thought another 
 thing , he freely used that dissimulation which the Greeks call Irony, 
 which Annius also saith, was in Africanus. 
 
 Rapin, Comparison of Plato and Aristotle (1673), p. 17: 
 
 His [Socrates’] Conversation was always very pleasant; for he had a 
 wonderful art of putting vizards upon things, and divertising people with 
 their own reproof; in which the Irony which was so familiar and nat¬ 
 ural to him, stood him in excellent stead, especially against the Sophists, 
 whom he loved to render ridiculous; for they were a sort of people, as 
 himself used to say, of a depraved pallate in all things. The ignorance 
 he affected with them, was a mark of the scorn he put upon them; for 
 when he treated with reasonable men, he changed his manner of con¬ 
 verse; he transformed himself as it were into their humour, to enter 
 better into their conceptions. 
 
 Shaftesbury. The most illuminating context in which Shaftes¬ 
 bury uses the word irony is a part of his Regimenf that very per¬ 
 sonal work in which he puts aside the affectations of his public mis¬ 
 sion and speaks with intense directness. We can enter that context 
 through this admonition: 
 
 ... go to those simple but Divine operations, those simplicities of nature 
 which for want of simplicity are so little felt. . . . Only a right disposition 
 is wanting, and simplicity to judge of these simplicities, these only beauties, 
 truths, excellences. What is the rest but grotesque? what is atheism but 
 
 ‘Shaftesbury, Life, Letters, Regimen (Rand). 
 
48 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 nature-grotesque} Nature seen thus in masquerade, disfigured, charged, 
 as they say in painting, and after a kind of caricature? And how this 
 grotesque without} How but from the grotesque-work within} See 
 the effect of those masks, the buffoonery, drollery, and burlesque.— 
 Beware!— 5 
 
 Here is the mathematically beautiful universe of Plato and the En¬ 
 lightenment, a universe to be contemplated only by the steadfast 
 and simple mind undisturbed by the world’s mutability. By con¬ 
 trast, the frenetic mind which plays upon every passing wave of 
 appearances, of hopes and fears, exists not only in a world of gro- 
 tesquerie but also in a storm of fiercely restless joys. But there is 
 “another sort of joy which is soft, still, peaceable, serene,” 6 and to 
 achieve this joy the simple mind must avoid involvement— “the 
 excrescences and funguses of the mind, endeavour to cut wholly off, 
 much rather than the warts or corns from off thy body.” 7 And if 
 the baser temper will involve itself in passing delights and hopes 
 and fears? “Beware, then, and for safety’s sake apply contraries.... 
 Turn the edge the other way, present the point, and keep temper 
 aloof. Thwart, cross, perplex, and break it. .. .” 8 
 
 Thus at last hardly can any appearance arise, hardly can there be 
 any object ever so remote or foreign, but what the mind will accommo¬ 
 date to itself and turn to its own use. . . . This is just the reverse of 
 what happens to those who are grown into the thorough buffooning 
 habit. Everything that they see, be it ever so grave or serious, has a 
 ridiculous appearance, and whether they will or not becomes burlesque. . . . 
 The difference here is that, as that other glass crooks and distorts the 
 objects, so this continually straightens and redresses what is amiss, and 
 sets everything in its due light, so as to hinder all confusion. 9 
 
 Thus the steadfast, uninvolved mind sees all things from one clear 
 point of view which is neither comic nor tragic, whereas the involved 
 mind distorts the truth by seeing it from a too-serious or too-comic 
 viewpoint which Shaftesbury habitually thinks of in terms of buf¬ 
 foonery and burlesque. 
 
 B Ibid., p. 186. 
 
 6 Ibid., pp. 151-54. 
 
 7 Ibid., p. 164. 
 
 8 Ibid., pp. 196-97. 
 
 8 Ibid., pp. 171-72. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.a 
 
 49 
 
 In social intercourse there is for the Stoic a difficult problem, 
 especially for the eighteenth-century English gentleman Stoic. In 
 addition to combating his internal joy or concern over external 
 events, he must deny himself the revelation of this struggle to others. 
 To reveal to the world his “disordered false self” is to disgrace the 
 art which should make him happy and reveal his happiness to 
 others. 10 If, on the other hand, he maintains his self-control he 
 can achieve the ideal social carriage: 
 
 What can be an easier, happier part than to live disinterested and un¬ 
 concerned, as being loose from all those ties and little mean regards which 
 make us to depend so much on others? What can be more generous 
 and of a better feeling than to go through companies, conversations, and 
 affairs in the security and simplicity of mind? ... he who is secure as 
 to the great events and is concerned but for one thing (which if he 
 will himself, he need not miss), he, and he alone, is truly free; and with 
 respect to things within, is becoming, beautiful. He alone has every¬ 
 thing orderly, still, quiet; nothing boisterous, nothing disturbed; but 
 every motion, action, and expression decent, and such as is becoming 
 that more noble and far superior character of one who in another sense 
 is called well bred , with respect to a different discipline and breeding. 
 
 Imitation, gesture, and action in discourse; different tones of voice, 
 alterations of countenance, odd and humoursome turns of speech, phrase, 
 expressions;—all this is agreeable in company, and may set off a story, 
 help in an argument, or make anything to be felt which one would de¬ 
 sire should be so. But all this is utterly wrong, harsh, dissonant; out of 
 measure and tone. All that is vehement, impetuous, turbulent must 
 needs be so: as well as all that which in any degree borders upon mimicry, 
 buffoonery, drollery. 11 
 
 But there is a social problem to be faced: How is one to maintain 
 an inner gravity and equanimity, concealing the struggles that at¬ 
 tend it, and yet live in a society of men who grasp at passing joys 
 and delight in drollery and buffoonery? 
 
 Remember that sort of dissimulation which is consistent with true 
 simplicity: and besides the innocent and excellent dissimulation of the 
 kind which Socrates used, remember that other sort (not less his) which 
 hides what passes within, and accommodates our manners to those of 
 our friends and of people around us, as far as this with safety can be 
 
 xa Ibid., ff. 198-200. 
 
 11 Ibid., pp. 180-81. 
 
50 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 allowed. Remember, therefore, what countenance is to be shown even 
 then when all is grave and solemn within. 1 "' 
 
 If the first [Socrates] of the three great ones . . . involved himself 
 as he did, and in those times, how much more thou? and in these? If 
 the age then bore not a declaration, how much less now?—Then not 
 ripe: now rotten. 
 
 Remember, therefore, in manner and degree, the same involution, 
 shadow, curtain, the same soft irony; and strive to find a character in 
 this kind according to proportion both in respect of self and times. Seek 
 to find such a tenour as this, such a key, tone, voice, consistent with 
 true gravity and simplicity, though accompanied with humour and a kind 
 of raillery, agreeable with a divine pleasantry.—This is a harmony in¬ 
 deed! What can be sweeter, gentler, milder, more sociable, or more 
 humane? 13 
 
 No apologising; no show of inward work; no hint; no glance.—The 
 purple only. No earnest, clearings, &c., cares, mystery.—The honest 
 irony, jest. 
 
 Return, therefore, again, as above, and remember the involution, 
 the shadow, the veil, the curtain. 11 
 
 Is it possible to describe a circle around this manner of Shaftesbury’s? 
 It involves “gravity and a certain becoming reservedness,” 15 it may 
 even appear by contrast to be “dulness and stupidity.” 16 And yet 
 the attitude behind the manner cannot be really grave, for the only 
 really serious things, the internal things, are never revealed. What 
 are talked of are the external things, and these, in Shaftesbury’s 
 philosophy, cannot be taken seriously. Though he may a-pfear 
 grave in discourse, he is not really so—at least within the context 
 of that discourse. 17 
 
 . . . this simple and (in appearance) humhle, mean, insipid character; 
 this middle genius, partaking neither of hearty mirth nor seriousness. . . . 
 This, as difficult as it may seem, yet by attention and hearty application 
 may most easily he preserved, if on the one hand thou strenuously re¬ 
 sist what offers from the vulgar side and that facetious comic kind, 
 whatever it he of wit, jest, story, and the like; and if, on the other hand, 
 
 1 * Ibid., p. 182. 
 
 1:1 Ibid., pp. 192-94. 
 
 14 Ibid., p. 205. 
 
 16 Ibid., p. 183. 
 
 Ibid., p. 153. 
 
 7 Ibid., p. 194. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.a 
 
 51 
 
 thou as strenuously resist and abstain from that as ridiculous seriousness 
 and solemnity in these affairs, eager contention and striving in the con¬ 
 cerns of others, and for the reformation and conviction of others, 18 
 If at times this middle character may extend itself to a soft raillery, 
 it never indulges in buffoonery: 
 
 If there be, however, a facetiousness, a humour, a pleasantry of a right 
 kind, proportionable and always in season, just, even, and spread alike 
 through a whole character and life, sweet, gentle, mild, and withal con¬ 
 stant, irrefragable, never inwardly disturbed whatever outward economy 
 may require; if there be this thing, this true, innocent, excellent jest 
 and pleasantry; let this be the care, how to preserve this jest and keep 
 it the same; how never to be false to it; never to betray it, sacrifice it, 
 prostitute it; never basely to yield it up to that other vile and scurrilous 
 jest, most incompatible with it, its bane, destruction, and extinction. Let 
 there be no raillery of that sort, no drollery, no buffoonery, nor any¬ 
 thing that but borders upon it. . . . 
 
 Remember another character, another dignity, another humour, 
 pleasantry. The Socratic genius, this mirth, these jests, these turns, 
 and this simplicity. The chatter of the Roman comic poet and what he 
 borrowed hence, and from his Socratic masters. But for Aristophanes, 
 a Plautus, a modern play, modern wit, raillery, humour, away! 10 
 
 In the above quotation we have perhaps the soft pleasantry to 
 which the middle character may extend itself, but in another place 
 Shaftesbury gives us the core of it: “. . . therefore do thou seem in 
 earnest.” 20 And we have the description quoted above: “...this 
 simple and (in appearance) humble, mean, insipid character.” Thus 
 when Shaftesbury invokes the Socratic manner, “besides the in¬ 
 nocent and excellent dissimulation of the kind which Socrates used, 
 remember that other sort (not less his) which hides what passes 
 within, and accommodates our manners to those of our friends and 
 people around us,” we may with some assurance assume that the 
 first dissimulation is Socrates’ pose as a “humble, mean, insipid 
 character,” and the second his frequently but not always mocking 
 accommodation of his mind to the minds of those he discoursed 
 with. 
 
52 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 There seem to be three distinct ironies waiting to be plucked 
 out of the attitude and manner Shaftesbury describes. There is 
 first of all the simple verbal irony of blame-by-praise and praise-by¬ 
 blame (Diet, iii.b), a device which Socrates often used. In its 
 mildest form this verbal device is no doubt such a pleasantry and 
 jest as Shaftesbury’s manner may extend itself to, but in any virulent 
 form it would partake of the buffoonery he abhors. 
 
 The second irony inherent in Shaftesbury’s ideas would be that 
 pervasive irony of manner which is a fusion of modest self-abnega¬ 
 tion, a kind of gravity, and an apparent tolerance of all things 
 behind which hide reservations about all things. As Shaftesbury 
 theorizes about it, this manner becomes an elaborate flowering of 
 the traditional concept of verbal blame-by-praise and praise-by-blame. 
 The motive is to defend one’s soul against prying by the world, to 
 defend oneself from one’s own temporal interests and passions, and 
 yet to seem to live in accommodation with the society one belongs 
 to. It is a constant way of life which is not intended to issue in 
 verbal warfare; indeed the reservations beneath the tolerance are 
 hidden to all except the acutest observer, the general effect being 
 one of simple and true, though slightly peculiar, character. Never¬ 
 theless the simulations of modesty and tolerance are the subtlest of 
 parallels to ironic self-depreciation and blame-by-praise, and in 
 Shaftesbury’s repeated admonition to himself to react to social stimuli 
 in a contrary manner we find an echo of the traditional definition 
 of blame-by-praise. 
 
 Shaftesbury uses the word irony only twice in the Regimen , in 
 passages I have quoted above. His “honest irony” may refer only 
 to that best verbal irony of praise and blame (Diet, iii.b) which 
 Socrates used and Shaftesbury could approve. But his “soft irony” 
 brings the word very close indeed to the underlying manner he is 
 describing and thereby to the irony of manner as it has been thought 
 of in connection with Socrates. 
 
 The third irony inherent in Shaftesbury’s philosophy is Sedge- 
 wick’s irony of detachment or spiritual freedom. Although this 
 irony inheres in a philosophical attitude not unlike Shaftesbury’s de¬ 
 tachment from the “immediate changes and incessant eternal con- 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.a 
 
 53 
 
 versions, revolutions of the world,” 21 Shaftesbury does not seem 
 to connect the word to this attitude itself. He associates it only 
 with the unique manner which this attitude may underlie. 
 
 It is easiest to understand the range of Shaftesbury’s uses of 
 irony in his other writings as well as in the Regimen when we see 
 them in relation to a continuum which begins with the Socratic man¬ 
 ner described above, modulates into mild raillery, thence into gross 
 raillery, and ends in obscurity. Outside the Regimen Shaftesbury 
 comes nearest to describing the Socratic manner in “Soliloquy,” 
 where he describes Socrates as 
 
 a ferject Character-, yet, in some respects, so veil’d, and in a Cloud, 
 that to the unattentive Surveyor he seemed often to be very different 
 from what he really was: and this chiefly by reason of a certain exquisite 
 and refin’d Raillery which belong’d to his Manner, and by virtue of 
 which he cou’d treat the highest Subjects, and those of the commonest 
 Capacity both together, and render ’em explanatory of each other. So 
 that in this Genius of writing, there appear’d both the heroick and the 
 simfle , the tragick and the comick Vein . 22 
 
 Presumably such “exquisite and refin’d Raillery” was the “pleasant¬ 
 ry of a right kind, proportionable and always in season . . . sweet, 
 gentle, mild” which in the Regimen he feels is appropriate to 
 the middle character, the simple, steadfast mind. Unfortunately 
 
 To describe true Raillery wou’d be as hard a matter, and perhaps as 
 little to the purpose, as to define Good Breeding. None can understand 
 the Speculation, beside those who have the Practice. 23 
 
 Nevertheless, Shaftesbury’s notion of true raillery seems to involve 
 “a free and familiar style,” 24 a “random Miscellaneous Air” 25 in con¬ 
 trast to the “dogmaticalness of the schools,” 26 the “looking freely 
 into all subjects” 27 with sweet reasonableness and without passion, 
 the use of “parables, tales, or fables,” 26 a preference for indirection 
 
 “ 1 Ibid., pp. 192-94. 
 
 22 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (1714), I, 194-95. 
 
 23 Ibid., I, 65. Shaftesbury realized that such raillery was to be found only in 
 select company. See ibid., I, 47-48, 52-54. 
 
 “‘Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 51. 
 
 ■ 5 Ibid., II, 240. 
 
 “Ibid., I, 5 *- 54 - 
 
 27 Ibid. 
 
 " 8 Ibid., II, 283. Cf. ibid., pp. 217-37. 
 
54 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 rather than direct exposition, and finally, the softer forms of under¬ 
 statement, blame-by-praise, and other methods of “milder censure 
 and reproof.” 29 We hear the voice of Socrates very plainly in such 
 divine pleasantry. 
 
 Since not all men are either Socrates or even gentlemen, nor 
 are they free to speak as they like, much pleasantry passes over 
 into that buffoonery which distorts the truth and gives real pain 
 to its object, 30 that frenetic involvement which in the Regimen 
 Shaftesbury warns himself to avoid at all costs. He excludes most 
 of the greatest satirists—Aristophanes, Lucian, Cervantes, Swift— 
 when he is measuring by this ideal standard. But Shaftesbury’s 
 practical attitude toward the use of gross raillery is mixed: though 
 he deplores its grossness, he feels that under many circumstances 
 it is probably the most effective weapon available. 31 Even he is 
 driven to use it occasionally. 32 Under the head of such gross rail¬ 
 lery would come any except the gentlest and politest of gambits. 
 
 When raillery is carried to such an extreme of mystification that 
 the real meaning is obscure to all or most of the audience, it is “a 
 gross, immoral, and illiberal way of abuse.” 33 
 
 We saw above that in the Regimen the word irony occurs twice 
 in the immediate neighborhood of Shaftesbury’s true philosophic 
 manner; in this association he modified it with “honest” and “soft.” 
 He uses the word twice elsewhere (Diet. m.B.ii) to mean only 
 verbal blame-by-praise, both times distinguishing between good- 
 humored irony and gross, buffooning irony. In two other places 34 
 he uses the word without modification or distinction in the vicinity 
 of gross raillery, and once he uses it in relation to the obscurity of 
 meaning which carries raillery beyond the bounds of wit into abuse 
 (Diet. 11 .b). Thus irony for Shaftesbury is associated with a Socratic 
 
 29 Ibid., II, 217-37. 
 
 30 Ibid., I, 44-45, 47-48, 51. 
 
 31 Ibid., I, 21-22, 157-70. 
 
 32 Shaftesbury, Second Characters (Rand), p. 140. Shaftesbury, Life, Letters, 
 Regimen (Rand), pp. 504-5. 
 
 33 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), II, 295. 
 
 34 Ibid., I, 44-45. Shaftesbury, Life, Letters, Regimen (Rand), pp. 504-5. It 
 also appears in the Index to Characteristics (1714) and on page 365 of Rand’s 
 Life, Letters, Regimen. In none of these places does the context supply any definite 
 clue to the method of the irony, if any, Shaftesbury had in mind. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: hi.a-iii.b 
 
 55 
 
 irony of manner, the verbal device of blame-by-praise which can 
 produce either true or gross raillery, and certain kinds of verbal 
 deception or mystification which are gross abuse. The dominant 
 connotation of the word is for him pejorative, associating it as he 
 does primarily with the caustic controversial irony he dislikes. A 
 mitigating factor is the word’s traditional association with Socrates, 
 which leads him to extend it to Socrates’ pervasive manner, pre¬ 
 facing it with favorable adjectives. It is possible that the disparaging 
 connotation of the word prevents him from associating it more 
 definitely with Socrates’ manner. 
 
 Also: Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony 
 (1729), p. 46, quoted on p. 103 below. William Guthrie, Cicero 
 His Offices (1755), p. 61. William Guthrie, Quinctilianus His In¬ 
 stitutes (1756), II, 236ff. 
 
 in. b. Limited discourse 
 
 m.B.i. Praise-by-blame. First defined in the Rhetoric to Al¬ 
 exander , this sense of irony , as half the dichotomy praise-by-blame: 
 blame-by-praise, stood from its early formulation through the mid¬ 
 eighteenth century as the central meaning of the word. 35 Irony 
 sometimes referred to a fusion of the two approaches, as in “the 
 irony of Socrates.” As a separate entity, however, praise-by-blame 
 was a much less frequently invoked meaning than blame-by-praise. 
 
 The technique of praise under the pretense of blame was de¬ 
 veloped in obvious ways by the prose and verse satirists of late 
 Elizabethan times as part of their satiric arsenal. Later, under the 
 hands of the Scriblerus group and pre-eminently of Swift, taking 
 their lead from French letter writers, this irony became a pervasive 
 and delightful mode of letter writing, conversation, and jeux 
 d’esprit. The result was to give the word itself a wider area of ref¬ 
 erence in social intercourse and almost to give it a pleasant conno¬ 
 tation. But raillery was the more popular term for such playful 
 
 35 G. G. Sedgewick, “Dramatic Irony” (1913), pp. 127-29, 136-38, 143-44, 
 191-94. 
 
56 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 compliment and irony never lost its overtones of contention and 
 spite. 
 
 Classical Precedents: Rhetoric to Alexander. Quintilian Insti- 
 tutio VIILvi.54-58. 
 
 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. vi. 
 [Illustration under “Ironia”]: 
 
 Of Mopsa. 
 
 So that the pretie pig, laying her sweet burden about his necke; my 
 Dorus, sayd she, tell me these wonders. 
 
 Also: John Marbeck, Notes and Commonflaces (1581), p. 560. 
 Gabriel Harvey, Works (Grosart), II, 243-45: 
 
 . . . the Ironyes of Erasmus in his prayse of Folly; of Agrippa in his dis- 
 prayse of Sciences. . . 
 
 Also: Gabriel Harvey, Marginalia (Moore Smith), p. 143. 
 
 Bacon, Works (Spedding), III, 388: 
 
 . . . it was not without cause, that so many excellent philosophers became 
 Sceptics and Academics, and denied any certainty of knowledge or com¬ 
 prehension, and held opinion that the knowledge of man extended only 
 to appearances and probabilities. It is true that in Socrates it was sup¬ 
 posed to be but a form of irony, Scientiam dissimulando simulavit, [an 
 affectation of knowledge under pretence of ignorance: —editor’s trans.] 
 for he used to disable his knowledge, to the end to enhance his knowl¬ 
 edge. .. . [Cf. J. A. K. Thomson, “Erasmus in England” (1930-31), 
 pp. 73-74 n., and Johnson, Dictionary (1755-56) under “Ironically.”] 
 Also: Bacon, Works (Spedding), III, 293; IV, 68-69; VII, 158. 
 John Stephens, Satyrical Essayes (1615), pp. 1-5, and Essayes and 
 Characters Ironicall (1615), pp. 1-7, 29-30 (see discussion under 
 Diet. iu.B.ii). C. H. Spurgeon, Treasury of David (1885), p. 
 420, quoting “William Gurnall’s Funeral Sermon for Lady Mary 
 Vere, 1671.” Aristotle's Rhetoric (1686), p. 257 (the Rhetoric to 
 Alexander). Charles Leslie, Best Answer Ever was Made (1709), 
 p. 24. Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary II 
 (1727). Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum (1730). 
 
 Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VII, 412: 
 
 Dr. Swift much approves what I proposed, even to the very title, which 
 I design shall be, The Works of the Unlearned, published monthly, in 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 
 
 57 
 
 which whatever book appears that deserves praise, shall be depreciated 
 ironically, and in the same manner that modern critics take to under¬ 
 value works of value, and to commend the high productions of Grub- 
 street. 
 
 Also: Ibid., VII, 306-7, Warburton’s note. Pope, Works (1751), 
 VI, 192 (“Memoirs of . . . Scriblerus”). 
 
 Swift, Poems (Williams), I, 214-19: 
 
 Our Conversation to refine 
 True Humor must with Wit combine: 
 
 From both, we learn to Railly well; 
 
 Wherein French Writers most excell: 
 
 Voiture in various Lights displays 
 That Irony which turns to Praise, 
 
 His Genius first found out the Rule 
 For an obliging Ridicule: 
 
 He flatters with peculiar Air 
 
 The Brave, the Witty, and the Fair; 
 
 And Fools would fancy he intends 
 A Satyr where he most commends. 
 
 Swift, Correspondence (Ball), IV, 163-66: 
 
 [Lord Bathurst to Swift, Cirencester, Sept. 9, 1730:] 
 
 I receive so much pleasure in reading your letters, that, according to 
 the usual good-nature and justice of mankind, I can dispense with the 
 trouble I give you in reading mine. But if you grow obstinate, and 
 will not answer me, I will plague and pester you, and do all I can to 
 vex you. I will take your works to pieces, and show you that they are 
 all borrowed or stolen. Have you not stolen the sweetness of your 
 numbers from Dryden and Waller? Have not you borrowed thoughts 
 from Virgil and Horace? At least, I am sure I have seen something 
 like them in those books. And in your prose writings, which they make 
 such a noise about, they are only some little improvements upon the hu¬ 
 mour you have stolen from Miguel de Cervantes and Rabelais. Well, 
 but the style—a great matter indeed, for an Englishman to value him¬ 
 self upon, that he can write English; why, I write English too, but it 
 is in another style. 
 
 But I will not forget your political tracts. You may say, that you 
 have ventured your ears at one time, and your neck at another, for the 
 good of your country. Why, that other people have done in another 
 manner, upon less occasion, and are not at all proud of it. You have 
 overturned and supported Ministers; you have set kingdoms in a flame 
 by your pen. Pray, what is there in that, but having the knack of hit- 
 
58 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 ting the passions of mankind? With that alone, and a little knowledge 
 of ancient and modern history, and seeing a little farther into the inside 
 of things than the generality of men, you have made this bustle. There 
 is no wit in any of them: I have read them all over, and do not remem¬ 
 ber any of those pretty flowers, those just antitheses, which one meets 
 with so frequently in the French writers; none of those clever turns up¬ 
 on words, nor those apt quotations out of Latin authors, which the 
 writers of the last age among us abounded in; none of those pretty 
 similes, which some of our modern authors adorn their works with, that 
 are not only a little like the thing they would illustrate, but are also like 
 twenty other things. In short as often as I have read any of your tracts, 
 I have been so tired with them, that I have never been easy till I got to 
 the end of them. I have found my brain heated, my imagination fired, 
 just as if I was drunk. A pretty thing, indeed, for one of your gown 
 to value himself upon, that with sitting still an hour in his study, he has 
 often made three kingdoms drunk at once. 
 
 [Swift to Lord Bathurst, October, 1730:] 
 
 . . . I would give the best thing I ever was supposed to publish, in ex¬ 
 change to be author of your letters. I pretend to have been an im¬ 
 prover of irony on the subject of satire and praise, but I will surrender 
 up my title to your Lordship. 
 
 Also: Ibid., V, 269-71. Prompter, No. 144 (March 23, 1736). 
 Memoirs of Grub-street (1737), I, viii-x. William Guthrie, Quincti- 
 lianus His Institutes (1756), II, 235-36. Monthly Review , IX 
 (July, 1753), 67-68. Letitia Pilkington, Memoirs I and II (1749), 
 I, 59. Patrick Delaney, Observations upon Orrery’s Remarks 
 (1754), pp. 16-17. Deane Swift, Essay upon Swift (1755), pp. 135- 
 36 . 
 
 Johnson, Lives (Birkbeck-Hill), III, 60: 
 
 On all common occasions he [Swift] habitually affects a style of 
 arrogance, and dictates rather than persuades. This authoritative and 
 magisterial language he expected to be received as his peculiar mode of 
 jocularity; but he apparently flattered his own arrogance by an assumed 
 imperiousness, in which he was ironical only to the resentful, and to 
 the submissive sufficiently serious. 
 
 Johnson’s “ironical” above might also be taken as Diet, vm, “any 
 discourse not meant to be taken seriously.” 
 
 m.B.ii. Blame-by-praise. In nearly two-thirds of the passages 
 which I have collected for the years 1500-1755, irony denotes some 
 
THE DICTIONARY: ih.b 
 
 59 
 
 mode of blame-by-praise. The thing itself was also discussed in 
 the sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century handbooks under various 
 other names, particularly dissembling and antiphrasis , 36 The illu¬ 
 strative examples given by Cicero and Quintilian passed from one 
 sixteenth-century handbook to another, and a small group of scrip¬ 
 tural examples descended through seventeenth-century handbooks. 37 
 So familiar were these stock illustrations to his readers that Hobbes 
 could call the roll with confident brevity: 
 
 The mocking trope is, when one contrary is signified by another; as 
 God said, Man is like to one of us. So Christ saith, Sleep on\ and yet 
 by-and-by, Arise , let us go. So Paul saith, You are wise, and 1 am a 
 fool. 
 
 This trope is conceived either by the contrariety of the matter, or 
 the manner of utterance, or both. So Elijah said to the prophets of 
 Baal, Cry aloud, &c. So the jews said unto Christ, Hail, King of the 
 Jews . 58 
 
 As the most frequently used sense of irony, blame-by-praise 
 tended to dominate thought about the word’s meaning; consequently 
 it was sometimes assumed automatically that the word referred to 
 blame-by-praise in instances in which the actual reference, if care¬ 
 fully distinguished, utilized another sense of the word. For instance, 
 John Hoskins and his followers classed examples of understatement 
 under the irony of blame-by-praise (see Diet. v.b). Ordinarily, 
 however, irony as blame-by-praise referred to a limited piece of dis¬ 
 course or action which conveys a critical attack under the guise of 
 
 36 Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 121 (“diminishing-”), 134- 
 56 (“dissembling”), 184-85 (“Dissembling or close jesting”). Hoby, Courtier 
 (Everyman), pp. 159-62 (“dissimulation”). Guazzo, Civile Conversation (Tudor 
 Trans.), I, 68 (“Antiphrasis”), 82 (“mockerie”). Puttenham, Arte of English 
 Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91 (“drye mock,” “fleering frumpe” or 
 “Micterismus,” “broad floute” or “Antiphrasis”). Peacham, Garden of Eloquence 
 ( 1 593)5 PP- 2 4 _2 5 (“Antiphrasis”), 35-36 (he gives the Latin names “Dissimu- 
 latio,” “Irrisio,” “Illusio”). Angel Day, English Secretorie (1595), Part II, pp. 
 79-80 (“Antiphrasis”). Philemon Holland, Plutarch’s Morals (1603), p. 59 
 (“Mocker”), 433 (“mocke”), 474 (“mockerie”). Burton, Anatomy of Melan¬ 
 choly (1621), pp. 196-99 (“scoffing”). John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), pp. 79- 
 80 (“Sarcasme”). Art of Complaisance (1673), pp. 81-82 (“poisonous praises”). 
 
 37 John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style (Hudson), pp. 11-12, 29-30. 
 Thomas Blount, Academie of Eloquence (1654), pp. 5-6, 25-26. Thomas Hall, 
 The Schools Guarded (1655), pp. 163-70. John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), PP- 
 45-48. Edward Reyner, Government of the Tongue (1658), pp. 223-27. 
 
 38 Hobbes, The Art of Rhetoric (Molesworth), p. 517. 
 
6 o 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 ostensible praise. The ironist intends his audience to understand 
 his real intention—to be deceived only fleetingly—and the relation¬ 
 ship is of rebuker and rebuked, perhaps surrounded by amused on¬ 
 lookers. If the rebuked does not realize his predicament the reason 
 is not that he has not been offered the handle to it by the ironist, 
 but that he is ridiculously obtuse. Of course the ironist may count 
 on this density to make game for himself and the onlookers, but 
 deception for a practical purpose (Diet, i, n) is not his intent. This 
 irony differs from that of understatement in that its method is to 
 say something contradictory of its real meaning, rather than some¬ 
 what less than its real meaning (Diet, v), yet it cannot be defined 
 simply as stating an opposite, as was frequently done during our 
 period, because the elements involved are not any logical opposites 
 but can be only the opposites of praise and blame. However, irony 
 did sometimes refer to a statement of any logical opposite, thus 
 producing a distinct meaning (Diet. iv). But of course a complex 
 ironic structure often involved both understatement (Diet, v) and 
 the opposing of contrary terms (Diet, iv) within a dominant pat¬ 
 tern of blame-by-praise and thus encouraged casual reference to the 
 whole complex as blame-by-praise. 
 
 The irony of Socrates, which as we have seen has meant many 
 things to many people, was usually referred to during the English 
 classical period as simply the rhetorical device of blame-by-praise. 
 Although people were of course aware that Socrates used this device 
 repeatedly, there was no strong awareness of a pervasive ironic man¬ 
 ner (Diet, iii.a); Socrates’ irony like most irony was simply a verbal 
 device of blame-by-praise used either frequently or infrequently. 39 
 
 36 The extent to which the English classical period could resist thinking of 
 Socrates’ dialectical method, which is what Sedgewick offers as the meaning of 
 Socratic irony , as irony is well illustrated by James Geddes, who discusses Plato 
 for over 200 pages and perfectly describes his ironic handling of an opponent, yet 
 does not call this method ironic. 
 
 “Socrates, the better to oppose those Dogmatists, and beat down their presump¬ 
 tuous vanity, disputed with them often. He affirm’d nothing himself, but thoroughly 
 confuted their arguments. They pretended, they knew ever}' thing, he on the 
 other hand, said, he only knew that he was ignorant of every thing, and for this 
 was declared by the oracle, to be the wisest of men: not that he intended to con¬ 
 found, and destroy all truths human and divine.” 
 
 “It is pleasant to observe how Plato (or Socrates) defeats the Sophists by 
 their own weapons. Those mighty champions, who valued themselves on puzzling 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 6 I 
 
 The methods of blame-by-praise familiar to the English classi¬ 
 cal age are discussed in Chapter III below. 
 
 Classical Precedents: Plato Republic 337a. Plato Gorgias 489 de. 
 Aristotle Rhetoric III.xix.5. Cicero On Oratory II. 65, 67 ff. 
 Cicero Letters to Quintus III.iv.4. Cicero Brutus 85-87. Cicero 
 Academica II.15. Quintilian Institutio VI.ii.9-165 VUI.vi.54-585 
 IX.ii.44-53 5 IX.iii.29. Plutarch Lives, “Timoleon” 15. Plutarch 
 Moralia 44 d, 236c. Lucian A Literary Prometheus 15 Lexiphanes 
 15 Zeus Tragoedus 525 Anacharsus 17-18. 
 
 Thordynary of Crysten men (1506), Part IV, sec. xxii: 
 
 . . . suche synne is named yronye not that the whiche is of grammare 
 by the whiche a man sayth one & gyveth to understande the contrarye 
 for the maner & the purpose in the whiche a man speketh the wordes as 
 to saye alas that thou arte a good man or thynge semblable the whiche is 
 as moche to saye that he is nothynge worthe. . . . 
 
 Also: Thomas More, Works (1557), chap, v, p. 939. Thomas 
 More, Lucian (C. R. Thompson), pp. 24-27. Miles Coverdale, 
 Remains (Parker Soc.), II, 331, 333. John Hooper, Early Writ¬ 
 ings (Parker Soc.), p. 420. Thomas Cranmer, Answer unto . . . 
 Gardiner (1551), p. 69. John Philpott, Writings (Parker Soc.), 
 pp. 418-19. 
 
 every one else, and perplexing the clearest question, when engaged with him, are 
 soon sensible how unequal the match: at first, he deals with them gently, extols them 
 for their knowledge, and leads them on step by step: they seem mighty fond of one 
 who makes them such high compliments, and deign to inform him of every thing 
 they know. In the midst of their triumph, Socrates begs leave to ask a question or 
 two; desires them, in a few words to explain their meaning, and define some 
 expression, or term of art: this perhaps they chearfully do for once: the absurdity 
 of the definition is exposed; a second attempted; and found equally ridiculous; 
 then a third, just as bad as the former. By this time, the antagonist, if modest, 
 withdraws as softly as he can: but, if insolent and proud of his fame for eloquence, 
 he turns in a fury, accuses Socrates of sophistry, pedantry, dullness, and pours 
 forth all the ill-natured language he is master of. . . . A dialogue thus carried 
 on, and the justness of character all along preserved, becomes equally entertain¬ 
 ing to a man of taste, with the most facetious comedy. In such discourses Plato’s style 
 is natural, easy, often witty, and full of humour; his raillery exquisite, and such as 
 becomes a gentleman; his reasoning refin’d, and metaphysical: the ingenuity and good 
 humour of Socrates, his lively descriptions, frequent ironys, and just strokes of satyr, 
 when set in opposition to the intemperance of language, the passionate surly be¬ 
 haviour, clumsy wit, sour repartees, and personal invectives of his adversaries, 
 form an agreeable contrast, and wonderfully enliven the whole discourse.” 
 —James Geddes, Composition and Manner of Writing of the Antients (1748), 
 pp. 98-101. 
 
62 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi: 
 
 Ironia, dissimulacion. . . . His kinds be these. 
 
 Sarcasmus, a scorne of our enemye, and a nipping taunt. As the 
 Jewes said to Christ: now let him come down from the crosse, and save 
 hymselfe, that saved other. 
 
 Also: Thomas Cooper, Thesaurus ( 1578), under “Ironia.” Spenser, 
 Minor Poems (Selincourt), pp. 99 and 103: E. K.’s note on “Octo¬ 
 ber.” John Marbeck, Notes and Commonplaces (1581), p. 560. 
 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. vi. 
 Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91. 
 Thomas Nashe, Works (McKerrow), I, 306-7: 
 
 With the first and second leafe hee [Gabriel Harvey] plaies verie 
 pretilie, and in ordinarie termes of extenuating verdits Pierce Pennilesse 
 for a Grammer Schoole wit; saies his Margine is as deepelie learnd as 
 Fauste praecor gelida, that his Muse sobbeth and groneth verie fiteouslie, 
 bids him not cast himself headlong into the horrible gulph of desperation, 
 comes over him that hee is a creature of wonderfull hope , as his own in¬ 
 spired courage divinely suggesteth, wils him to inchaunt some magnificent 
 Mecenas, to honour himselfe in honouring him, with a hundred such grace- 
 wanting Ironies cutte out against the woll, that woulde jeopard the best 
 joint of Poetica licentia to procure laughter, when there crinckled crab¬ 
 bed countenance (the verie resemblance of a sodden dogges face) hath 
 sworne it woulde never consent thereunto. 
 
 Not the most exquisite thing that is, but the Cousel Table Asse, Rich¬ 
 ard Clarke, may so Carterly deride. 
 
 Everie Milke-maide can gird with, 1 st true? How saie you, lor 
 who would have thought it? Good Beare, bite not. A man is a man 
 though hee hath but a hose on his head. 
 
 Gabriel Harvey, Works (Grosart), II, 243-45: 
 
 The Ironyes of Socrates, Aristophanes, Epicharmus, Lucian, are but Car¬ 
 terly derisions', the Ironyes of Tully, Quintilian, Petrarch, Pontane, 
 Sanazarius, King Alphonsus, but the sory Jestes of the Counsell-table 
 Asse , Richard Clarke: the Ironyes of Erasmus in his prayse of Folly; 
 of Agrippa in his disprayse of Sciences: of Cardan in his Apology of Nero, 
 like Isocrates commendation of Busiris, or Lucians defence of Phalaris 
 the Tyrant, but Good Beare bite not: the Ironyes of Sir Thomas More 
 in his Utopia, Poemes, Letters, and other writings; or of any their Imita- 
 tours at occasion, but the girdes of every mdke-maide. They were silly 
 country fellowes that commended the Bald pate, the Feaver quartane; 
 the fly, the flea, the gnat, the sparrow, the wren, the goose, the asse; 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 
 
 6 3 
 
 flattery, hypocrisie, coosinage, bawdery, leachery, buggery, madnesse it- 
 selfe. What Dunse or Sorbonist cannot maintaine a Paradoxe? What 
 Pesant cannot say to a glorious Soldiour? Pulchre me hercule dictum, & 
 sapienter : or, Laute, lepide, nihil supra : or, Regem elegantem narras: 
 or, a man is a man, though he have but a hose upon his head: or so forth. 
 No such light payment Gabrieli , at Pierce Penniles, or Thomas Nashes 
 hand. They are rare, and dainty wittes, that can roundly call a man 
 Asse at every third word; and make not nice, to befoole him in good 
 sullen earnest, that can strangle the prowdest breath of their pennes, and 
 meaneth to borrow a sight of their giddiest braines, for a perfect Anatome 
 of Vanitie, and Folly. Though str 5 g drinke fumeth, & Aqua fortis fret- 
 teth; yet I will not exchaunge my Milke-maides Irony, for his Draff- 
 maides assery. 
 
 Also: Thomas Nashe, Works (McKerrow), III, 125-26. Gabriel 
 Harvey, Works (Grosart), II, 294-318. Gabriel Harvey, Margi¬ 
 nalia (Moore Smith), pp. 143 (description of Sanazarius), 153, 155. 
 Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 35-36. Angel Day, Eng¬ 
 lish Secretorie (1595), I, 44-45, no-11, 138; II, 45-47, 79. Thomas 
 Danett, Comines (Whibley), II, 200. Joseph Hall, Works (Tal- 
 boys), II, 71. Florio, World of Words (1611), under “Catalogo 
 d’ella gloria d’el mondo.” John Hoskins, Directions for Speech 
 and Style (Hudson), pp. 11-12, 29-30 (see below under Diet. v.b). 
 
 Bacon, Works (Spedding), IV, 68-69: 
 
 The school of Plato, on the other hand, introduced Acatalepsia, at 
 first in jest and irony, and in disdain of the older sophists, Protagoras, 
 Hippias, and the rest, who were of nothing else so much ashamed as of 
 seeming to doubt about anything. 
 
 Ibid., VI, 296-97: 
 
 . . . vain and supercilious arrogancy is justly derided in Plato, where he 
 brings in Hippias, a vaunting Sophist, disputing with Socrates, a true and 
 unfeigned inquisitor of truth; where, the discourse being touching beauty, 
 Socrates, after his loose and wandering manner of inductions, put first 
 an example of a fair virgin, then of a fair horse, then of a fair pot well 
 glazed. Whereat Hippias was offended, and said, “Were it not for 
 courtesy’s sake, I should be loth to dispute with one that did allege 
 such base and sordid instances.” Whereunto Socrates answered, “You 
 have reason, and it becomes you well, being a man so trim in your vest¬ 
 ments, and so fairly shod;” and so goes on in irony. [Cf. Ill, 332] 
 
64 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Also: Ibid., V, 72, and above under Diet. m.B.i. Bacon usually 
 thought of the term irony in connection with Socrates. He viewed 
 Socrates’ self-depreciation and his deferential manner as a reaction 
 against the arrogant self-confidence of the Sophists. By depreciating 
 his own knowledge, Socrates enhanced it in the minds of others; he 
 also forced comparison with the confident manner of his antagonist, 
 and with the addition of a little judicious but obviously misplaced 
 compliment, he could bring that antagonist tumbling down. 
 
 Thus Bacon’s central conception of the irony of Socrates was 
 of a verbal weapon mixing blame-by-praise (of the antagonist) with 
 praise-by-blame (of himself). Insofar as Bacon was thinking of 
 Socrates’ repeated use of this verbal device, he was using irony in a 
 sense related to the irony of manner (see Diet, iii.a), but his con¬ 
 ception of an ironic “manner” went no deeper than the repeated use 
 of the verbal device. Bacon was aware of Socrates’ dialectical meth¬ 
 od, as the above quotations indicate, but he does not call it irony; 
 he spoke of Plato as “a man of sublime wit (and one that surveyed 
 all things as from a lofty cliff) . . . ,” 40 but he does not call this 
 spiritual freedom irony. 
 
 Also: Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), III, 546; IV, 130-32. 
 John Manningham, Diary (Camden Soc.), p. 74. Philemon Hol¬ 
 land, Plutarch's Morals (1657), P- 5 2 6. Andrew Willet, Hexafla 
 in Genesin (1608), p. 377. 
 
 Edward Topsell, Four-Footed Beastes (1607), pp. 2-5: 
 
 . . . generally they [apes] are held for a subtill, ironicall, ridiculous and 
 unprofitable Beast. . . . 
 
 Moreover Apes are much given to imitation and derision, and they are 
 called Cercofes, because of their wicked crafts, deceipts, impostures and 
 flatteries. . . . Apes have beene taught to leape, singe, drive Wagons, 
 raigning and whipping the Horses very artificially, and are very capable 
 of all humaine actions. . . . 
 
 And as the body of an Ape is ridiculous by reason of an indecent likenesse 
 and imitation of man, so is his soule or spirit . . . following every action 
 he seeth done, even to his owne harme without discretion. 
 
 They are full of dissimulation, and imitation of man, they readiler folow 
 the evill then the good they see. 
 
 40 Bacon, Works (Spedding), IV, 360. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 
 
 65 
 
 The word “ironicall” here may mean any kind of derision an ape 
 might think of (Diet, ix), or more specifically the burlesque meth¬ 
 ods of mock praise. What is especially interesting about Topsell’s 
 use is that he applies the word to exclusively nonverbal actions. 
 A few years later John Bulwer’s treatises on gestures apply irony 
 to certain motions which are meaningful without the accompaniment 
 of words. 
 
 Also: Sandys, Relation of a Journey (1615), p. 83. William War¬ 
 ner, Albions England (1612), Book IX, chap, xxxv, pp. 238-39. 
 Samuel Purchas, Pilgrimage (1614), pp. 877-78. 
 
 John Stephens, Essayes and Characters Ironicall (1615), p. 29: 
 
 My labour I renew: but having seene 
 How ill dispos’d my former truth hath been 
 I grow a little wiser; and agree 
 To make an Essay prove an Ironie. 
 
 So far as I know this was the first time irony was used in the 
 title of an English book. Since Stephens presumably felt the word 
 fitted his book in some way it is important that we know how. 
 What is there in the book itself that would justify being called 
 “Ironicall”? Or was the crucial factor in his choice of words an 
 external one? 
 
 Essayes and Characters Ironicall , and Instructive. The second 
 impression . . . 16/5 was a revised edition of Satyrical Essayes Char¬ 
 acters and Others. Or Accurate and quick Descriptions , fitted to the 
 life of their Subjects . . . 161 5. In both editions there is a tantaliz¬ 
 ing connection with the early meaning of irony as hypocrisy and 
 deception (Diet. 1). Thus on the title page of Satyrical Essayes ap¬ 
 pears a sentence from Theophrastus’ character of the ironist: “It is 
 more necessary to guard against those of this disposition than against 
 serpents,” 41 two other mottoes emphasize the theme of dissimu¬ 
 lation and hypocrisy, and the book opens with “Three Satyricall 
 Essayes of Cowardlinesse”: 
 
 For who in Vertues troope was ever seene, 
 
 That did couragiously with mischiefes fight 
 Without the publicke name of hipocrite? 
 
 41 Translated by Benjamin Boyce, The Theophrastan Character in England to 
 1642, p. 227 n. 
 
66 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Vame-glorious, Mala-pert , Precise, Devout , 
 
 Be tearmes which threaten those that go about 
 To stand in opposition of our times 
 With true defiance, or Satyricke rimes. 
 
 Cowards they be, branded among the worst, 
 
 Who (through contempt of Atheisme) never durst 
 Crowd neere a great-Mans elbow, to suggest 
 Smooth tales with glosse, or Envy well addrest. 
 
 These be the noted cowards of our age; 
 
 Who be not able to instruct the Stage 
 With matter of new shamelesse impudence: 
 
 Who cannot almost laugh at innocence; 
 
 And purchase high preferment by the waies, 
 
 Which had bene horrible in Nero’s dayes. 
 
 They are the shamefull cowards, who contemne 
 Vices of State, or cannot flatter them; 
 
 Who can refuse advantage; or deny 
 Villanous courses, if they can espye 
 Some little purchase to inrich their chest, 
 
 Though they become uncomfortably blest. 42 
 
 In this first essay we see that Stephens is mimicking contemporary 
 corruption in its appropriation of moral sanction to itself while ap¬ 
 plying unfavorable epithets to good men; in the second essay he 
 makes a more direct attack on the “front” put up by these hypo¬ 
 crites, which is false, for behind it lurk evil, deceit, corruption. 
 Those whom the popular voice calls cowards are really courageous 
 men; the fine-appearing dissemblers are the real cowards, for they 
 are afraid to reveal their own natures. 43 What Stephens is attack¬ 
 ing, then, is that particular reversal of terms which is giving to a 
 virtue the name of a vice and the giving to a vice the name of a 
 virtue. This abstracted characteristic was one of the stock definitions 
 of blame-by-praise irony; 44 moreover, such hypocrisy might have 
 seemed to be the kind of irony described by Theophrastus. But the 
 allusion to Theophrastus actually leads to nothing; nowhere in his 
 book does Stephens apply the word irony to such hypocrisy. 
 
 On the other hand, passages like that quoted above do demon¬ 
 strate Stephens’ use of the irony of blame-by-praise. In mimicking 
 
 42 John Stephens, Satyrical Essayes (1615), pp. 1-5. 
 
 4,1 Ibid., p. 15. 
 
 44 See p. 33 above. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 
 
 6 ? 
 
 the attitude he attacks, Stephens works through simulated approba¬ 
 tion of it; in applying the hypocrites’ word “coward” to good men, 
 Stephens praises them under the guise of blaming them. His irony 
 is illustrated again in the passage below (“My labour I renew ...”) 
 when he mimics his critics (“Then what Profession shall I now 
 disgrace?”) and depreciates himself (“Alas I am too modest...”). 
 Stephens did in fact feel that “darke reproofe,” a conventional de¬ 
 scription of irony at this time, was the proper method of satire. 
 This is evident in his rejections of “extreame reproofe,” “Libell- 
 lashing measures,” “triviall spleane,” “cursing,” “long invectives,” 
 “bitter malice,” and “reviling phrase,” 45 and if Stephens’ irony does 
 not strike us as “milde reproofe” or even very “darke reproofe,” 
 we must remember that his own age would have compared it with 
 the “clamorous rayling” of which the invectives of Nashe and 
 Harvey were educated examples. 
 
 As one object of his satire in the first edition Stephens included 
 the character of “A common Player,” 46 an attack on actors com¬ 
 pounded of insulting description, libelous insinuation, and ironic 
 praise of, for instance, the Player’s “delicate quirkes against the 
 rich Cuckold.” A second object of Stephens’ attention was the law¬ 
 yers, attorneys, and clerks who crop up regularly throughout the 
 Satyrical Essayes for the good reason that Stephens himself was a 
 member of Lincoln’s Inn from Gloucestershire and associated with 
 inns-of-court men. 47 He attacks abuses of the law and of the pro¬ 
 fession with full satiric force, albeit with an occasional apology to 
 honest lawyers. 48 As a result of these attacks Stephens apparently 
 got into hot water with the actors and more importantly with his 
 friends the lawyers. There are a number of oblique references to 
 these difficulties, and one or two open ones. 49 Whatever forms the 
 trouble took, it produced a number of additions, deletions, and re¬ 
 visions in Stephens’ second edition. In the character “A common 
 
 ,c John Stephens, Essayes and. Characters Ironicall (1615), title page, pp. 18, 
 46, 71-72. 
 
 John Stephens, Satyrical Essayes (1615), pp. 244-49. 
 
 47 Benjamin Boyce, of. cit ., pp. 220-28. 
 
 48 John Stephens, Satyrical Essayes (1615), pp. 1-5, 11-14, 29, 244-49, 280- 
 83. John Stephens, Essayes and Characters Ironicall (1615), pp. 197, 333. 
 
 40 Benjamin Boyce, of. cit., p. 226. John Stephens, Essayes and Characters 
 Ironicall (1615), sig. A3 r -A8 v , pp. 6-7, 18, 20-22, 29-30, 295-301, 335-41, 352. 
 
68 
 
 THE WORD IROAY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Player” he made eleven changes, all but one aimed at exacerbating 
 rather than diminishing the offense. But his changes in the legal 
 satire followed a different line. In Essay I he added a long at¬ 
 tack on merchants, embedded in which is a reference to “true Divines 
 and honest Lawyers.” 50 Out of Essay II Stephens cut the whole 
 of the long attack on lawyers, substituting for it a brief attack on 
 “the brag Civilian” who thinks himself better than “any common 
 Lawyer.” 51 In Essay III the lawyer of an uncomplimentary pas¬ 
 sage is replaced by a scholar. 52 Essay IV is entirely new and its 
 title accurately represents its quite unironic message: “Essay the 
 fourth entituled Reproofe. Or a defence for common Law & Law¬ 
 yers mixt with reproofe against the Lawyers common Enemy.” 
 One can only conclude that a main purpose of these revisions was 
 mollification of Stephens’ friends in the legal profession. 
 
 Now let us turn again to the one passage other than the title in 
 which the word irony appears: 
 
 My labour I renew: but having seene, 
 
 How ill dispos’d my former truth hath been 
 I grow a little wiser; and agree 
 To make an Essay prove an Ironie. 
 
 Then what Profession shall I now disgrace? 
 
 Reproofe is thought to have no better face 
 Then Imfudence or Malice ; and is thought 
 To be a scandall by corruption wrought. 
 
 Tis true: a thriving knowledge hath by some 
 Who lack’d such happy wit, been thought a scum; 
 
 And, under shadow of reproofe, hath beene 
 Made an extreame derision to be seene: 
 
 Nay made a publike injury, to please 
 
 Them, who should punish the contempt; & squese 
 
 That shamefull envy, till it doth remaine, 
 
 As empty as the rugged Authors braine, 
 
 Alas I am too modest and obscure: 
 
 I shew in darke reproofe what is impure; 
 
 And therefore have beene blamed: but I will now 
 Speake with an open zeale; and disavow 
 The mincing tearmes of caution: if I fade 
 
 50 Ibid., pp. 1-7. 
 61 Ibid., pp. 7-19. 
 52 Ibid., p. 25. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 
 
 69 
 
 To speake my meaning, let me nere prevaile 
 To speake a righteous thought: And if I misse 
 Opinion of a tempered zeale in this, 
 
 I shall account it glory; for the thing, 
 
 Needs such a Poets vehemence to sing 
 
 Her hated tropheies, that will neither care 
 
 To purchase hate; nor will his knowledge spare: 
 
 Nay such a Poet that will be most glad, 
 
 In her defence to be accounted mad. 
 
 In her? in whose defence? thine (sacred Law) 
 
 Thine, whose provoking rarity doth draw 
 My soule unto thy rescue. 53 
 
 At first glance the opening four lines seem to say: since my first 
 edition went about things in the wrong way I am going to write 
 this new essay in a different style, the ironic style. The larger con¬ 
 text offers two contradictions to this reading. He has renamed the 
 whole book “Ironicall,” but if the first edition was not ironical he 
 has not made enough revisions to change its basic character. And 
 in this passage he asserts bitterly that since he has been blamed for 
 obscurity and dark reproof, he will now speak with open zeal. 
 Considering all the traditional meanings of irony, one finds it im¬ 
 possible to believe that the word could at this time mean “open¬ 
 ness.” We begin again. If Stephens meant “prove” in the sense of 
 “proving a will” or “proving a case,” as he very well might, he 
 was saying: since people misunderstood my first edition I will now 
 speak plainly in order to prove that what I said was ironic. 
 
 Perhaps we can recapitulate Stephens’ intentions in the following 
 way. A primary object of his satire—the hypocritical reversal of 
 moral terms—and his own tastes as a satirist led him, in his first 
 edition, to use a certain amount of rather elementary blame-by¬ 
 praise and praise-by-blame irony. Since this was not well received 
 in all quarters he set out to repair the damage in his second edition. 
 What better defense than to argue he had been misunderstood? 
 He could add and delete material to make his meaning clearer 
 (and show the essential goodness of his heart) and he could empha¬ 
 size the fact that the body of his satire was not to be taken literally, 
 at face value. It reproved indirectly and more gently than harsh 
 
 63 Ibid., pp. 29-30. 
 
70 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 invective would, but it had to be interpreted correctly—it some¬ 
 times said something different from what it really meant. And we 
 arrive at the word irony , perhaps brought especially to Stephens’ 
 attention by Theophrastus’ use of it in an older sense. This line of 
 reasoning seems all the more convincing when we compare the 
 new title with the title of the first edition: “Accurate and quick 
 Descriptions , fitted to the life of their Subjects .” Irony as Stephens 
 used it, then, seems to have meant “saying something different 
 from what one means,” especially blame-by-praise and praise-by¬ 
 blame (Diet, iii.b). 
 
 Also: John Brinsley, Tullies Offices (1631), p. 221 [?]. Fynes 
 Moryson, Itinerary (1617), p. 160. Thomas Granger, Divine Log- 
 ike (1620), pp. 381-82. Douay Bible (1635), Jeremiah 46:3-16. 
 Jasper Mayne, Lucian (1663), p. 1. John Dove, Atheism Defned 
 (1656), chap, vi, p. 88. William Whately, Prototypes (1640), 
 Book I, chap, xi, p. .147. Thomas Fuller, Two Sermons (1654), 
 pp. 2-4. 
 
 John Bulwer, Pathomyotomia (1649), PP- 64-65: 
 
 When we would mock, deride , contemne , disdaine , threaten or rebuke y 
 we use an ironicall motitation or wagging Nod by the flexion and reflection 
 of our Head in turnes in a quick succession, both which motions, peculiar 
 to the Head, are done in sequence by the Muscles of Assent and Demall 
 making as ’twere a mixt motion, and that emphatical and proper enough, 
 for an ironie, where the first action imports approbation, and the second 
 coming in the interim and immediately upon the nick of it before it is 
 fully done, by a contradictory motion compounds it into an ironie. 
 
 Also: John Bulwer, Chirologia and Chironomia (1644), pp. 181- 
 83 (see also Diet. ix). Stephen Marshall, Emanuel (1648), pp. 
 1, 7-8. Milton, Works (Columbia), XVII, 299-303; XVIII, 331. 
 Thomas Blount, Academie of Eloquence (1654), pp. 5-6, 25-26. 
 Thomas Hall, The Schools Guarded (1655), pp. 163-70. Cowley, 
 Poems (Waller), pp. 202-3, 204. John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), 
 pp.45-48, 74-76, 203-4. Hobbes, The Art of Rhetoric (Moles- 
 worth), pp. 515, 517. Edward Reyner, Government of the Tongue 
 (1658), pp. 223-27. Obadiah Walker, Art of Oratory (1659), P- 
 93. Daniel Pell, Nec inter Vivos (1659), PP- 407-8. Owen Fell- 
 tham, Resolves (1661), pp. 284-85. Edward Phillips, New World 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 7 I 
 
 of Words (1706), under “Irony.” Rapin, Comparison of Plato and 
 Aristotle (1673), p. 17. 
 
 Marvell, Rehearsal Transpos'd (1672), p. 129: 
 
 But that which I confess would vex me most, were I either an ill or a 
 well-meaning Zealot, would be, after all to hear him [Parker] (as he 
 frequently does) sneering at me in an ironical harangue, to perswade 
 me, forsooth, to take all patiently for Conscience-sake, and the good ex¬ 
 ample of Mankind: Nay, to wheedle one almost to make himself away 
 to save the Hangman a labour. It was indeed near that pass in the 
 Primitive times, and the tyred Magistrates ask’d them, whether they 
 had not Halters and Rivers and Precipices, if they were so greedy of 
 Suffering? But, by the good leave of your Insolence, we are not come 
 to that yet. 
 
 Also: Ibid ., pp. 123-24. Raillerie a la Mode (1673), pp. 36-40. 
 Richard Baxter, A Paraphrase on the New Testament (1701), Acts 
 23:5. Somers Tracts (1748), pp. 153-58. Art of Speaking (1708), 
 pp. 63, 305-11. Otway, Works (Summers), “Don Carlos,” Act II, 
 scene i. Guilletiere, Voyage to Athens (1676), p. 348. Thomas 
 Herbert, Travels (1677), PP- 364, 392. Allen Apsley, Order 
 and Disorder (1679), PP- 65-66. John Sergeant, Reason against 
 Raillery (1682), Preface C4 v -Di v . Aristotle's Rhetoric (1686), 
 pp. 212, 257. Hugh Macdonald, John Dry den: A Bibliography 
 ( 1 939), p. 215 n. Plutarch's Morals (1691), I, 520. Christopher 
 Ness, History of the Old and New Testament (1696), I, 234. 
 Bruyere, Manners of the Age (1699), p. 413. Tom Brown, Amuse¬ 
 ments and Letters (Hayward), p. 75. Dennis, Critical Works 
 (Hooker), II, 33-34. George Granville, Unnatural Flights in 
 Poetry (Spingarn), p. 296. Defoe, True-Born Englishman (Mor- 
 ley), p. 195. Defoe, Explanation of the Shortest Way (Trevelyan), 
 p. 56. The Fox with his Fire-brand Unkennell'd (1703), pp. 3-4, 
 5 [?], 6, 7) 16, 20 [?]. The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters .. . 
 Consider'd (1703), pp. 3, 16. John Harris, Lexicon Technicum 
 (1704), under “Irony.” Bellegarde, Reflexions upon Ridicule 
 (1717), I, GO, 179, 217, 221, 222; II, 47, 62, 149-50. Bayle, 
 Dictionary (1710), I, 324C. Bayle, Dictionary (1734-41), I, 648a; 
 IV, 408-9. Charles Leslie, Best Answer Ever was Made (1709), 
 
72 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 p. 24. White Kennett, A Panegyrick upon Folly (1709), pp. xiv- 
 xvi. 
 
 Shaftesbury, Life, Letters, Regimen (Rand), pp. 356-66: 
 
 It is very unnatural to Mons. Dacier to assign to Horace any religion at 
 all, after he has represented him as regardless of all religion or religious 
 rites of his country, as to make an open jest of it, and of all things sacred 
 in that pretended mock recantation of Epicureanism, Ode 34, Bk. I, 
 which, in Mons. Dacier’s sense, would be the poorest triumph and most 
 affected piece of profaneness in the world, considering the gravity of 
 the ode, and of all those its fellow odes in honour of the gods, and of 
 the religion then established. . . . There is a due proportion in irony 
 well known to all polite writers, especially Horace, who so well copied 
 that noted Socratic kind. Go but a little further with it, and strain it 
 beyond a certain just measure, and there is nothing so offensive, injurious, 
 hypocritical, bitter, and contrary to all true simplicity, honesty, or good 
 manners. And such would be Horace’s 34th Ode if Mons. Dacier’s 
 admired discovery were any discovery at all. 
 
 . . . it was actually a truth, and a sincere one in his mouth, that he had, 
 to his sorrow, “Parcus deorum cultor et infrequens,” by having fallen 
 from his first principles, with which he began the world; but that in proc¬ 
 ess of time, after having experienced all that pleasures and a Court with 
 looser morals and a more flattering philosophy could afford him, he 
 did at last “Retrorsum vela dare atque iterare cursus relictos.” Nor was 
 it necessary that Horace in such a recantation as this should treat re¬ 
 ligion any otherwise than according to the vulgar notions. It had been 
 ridiculous to philosophize profoundly in the ecstasy and rapture of an ode. 
 Enthusiasm could never be more becoming than here; and it is in this 
 spirit that this ode is written. 
 
 Shaftesbury, Second Characters (Rand), p. 170: 
 
 Inveigh here (but with modesty and socratic irony) against High 
 Church and Popish toleration and inquisition of that horrid representa¬ 
 tion (viz. crucifixion) and other saints adored in those agonies and made 
 altar-pieces, church-ornament and for rock closets. 
 
 What irony means for Shaftesbury here is simply the restricted 
 verbal device of blame-by-praise often used by Socrates. Shaftes¬ 
 bury’s taste required that he distinguish between the graceful irony 
 of Socrates and Horace, and such heavy-handed irony as Ode 34 
 would be if Dacier’s interpretation were correct. For a full dis¬ 
 cussion of Shaftesbury’s use of irony, see Diet, iii.a. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 
 
 73 
 
 Also: Spectator (G. G. Smith), No. 266 (Jan. 4, 1712)5 No. 438 
 (July 23, 1712). Myles Davies, Athenae Britannicae (1716), II, 
 388-90. Blackmore, Essays I (1716), p. 149. Blackmore, Essays 
 II (1717), pp. 252-53. Humourist II (1725), pp. 99-102, 103-4. 
 Art of Railing (1723), pp. 11-18. Bailey, Universal Etymological 
 English Dictionary II (1727), (1760), under “Irony.” Bailey, 
 Dictionarium Britannicum (1730), under “Irony.” 
 
 “Memoirs of . . . Scriblerus” in Pope, Works (1751), VI, 192: 
 
 In Politicks, his Writings are of a peculiar Cast, for the most part 
 Ironical, and the Drift of them often so delicate and refin’d as to be mis¬ 
 taken by the vulgar. He once went so far as to write a Persuasive to 
 people to eat their own Children, which was so little understood as to 
 be taken in ill part. He has often written against Liberty in the name of 
 Freeman and Algernoon Sydney , in vindication of the Measures of Spain 
 under that of Raleigh , and in praise of Corruption under those of Cato 
 and Publicola. 
 
 [“Ralph Freeman” and “Algernon Sidney” were pen names signed to 
 articles appearing at intervals in the Daily Gazetteer between . . . 1734 and 
 1738. . . . The reference is ironic, both writers strongly advocating lib¬ 
 erty. “Algernon Sidney,” of course, took his name from the famous advo¬ 
 cate of republican doctrines who . . . was beheaded for treason on Decem¬ 
 ber 7, 1683. 
 
 The name “Walter Raleigh” was signed to a series of letters appearing 
 in the Craftsman . . . during . . . 1728-29 in which Walpole’s pusillani¬ 
 mous policy toward the aggressions of Spain was severely attacked. 
 
 “Cato” was the name used by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon 
 in a famous series of letters in defense of Whig policies and the Walpole 
 regime, which appeared in the London Journal in 1721 and 1722. “Publi- 
 cola” was the name signed to another series appearing in the same journal 
 during . . . 1728 and 1729 in which Walpole was supported and the at¬ 
 tacks of the Craftsman , especially those signed by “Walter Raleigh,” were 
 answered. 
 
 —Charles Kerby-Miller, ed., Memoirs of 
 
 Scriblerus (New Haven, 1950), p. 348] 
 
 Also: Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VII, 41-42, 235 and 236 
 and 249, 358-59. Pope, Prose Works (Ault), p. 307. Pope, Dun- 
 dad (Sutherland), pp. 119, 186-91 (n. to 1 . 328). Pope, Iliad 
 (1756), IV, 36-38 (n. to 1 . 471)5 VI, Index of “Speeches or Ora¬ 
 tions” under “In the irony, or sarcasm”: see especially II, 56-585 
 IV, 119-22, 137, 232, 239-40. Swift, Letters to Ford (Nichol 
 Smith), p. 29 and Swift, Correspondence (Ball), II, 172-73. Swift, 
 Prose Works (Temple Scott), X, 371-725 XI, 360. Irony as blame- 
 
74 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 by-praise and vice versa seems to have been the central meaning of 
 the word for Pope and Swift although their use of it does extend to 
 several other senses, for which see Diet, iv.b, v.b, and vii. 
 
 Also: Gulliver Decypher'd (1726?), pp. 33-34. Anthony Black- 
 wall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 176-79, 195-98 (see 
 Diet, iv), 212. Anthony Blackwall, Sacred Classics Defended 
 (1727), pp. 254 and 256. Anthony Blackwall, Sacred Classics De¬ 
 fended II (1731), p. 81. “An Essay on Gibing” (1727), pp. 5-10. 
 Craftsman (1731), I, 102-6 (No. 18, Feb. 7, 1727)j II, 172-74 
 (No. 68, Oct. 21, 1727); V, 230-34 (No. 182, Dec. 27, 1729). Gul- 
 liveriana (1728), pp. 285-86. Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia 
 (1728), (1741, 1743), (1778-88), under “Irony.” John Oldmixon, 
 Logick and Rhetorick (1728), pp. 21-28 (see Diet. vm). John 
 Henley, Oration on Grave Conundrums (1729), p. 7. 
 
 A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing, in a Letter to 
 the Reverend Dr. Nathanael Marshall. London: 1729. 
 
 Although this pamphlet by Anthony Collins is significant because 
 of the unusual prominence it gives irony , the word is used through¬ 
 out in a loose and casual way. Collins seems to think of it as in¬ 
 terchangeable with banter , raillery , ridicule , drollery , satire , and 
 so on, so that frequently it has to be taken as meaning no more than 
 a derisive attack of some kind (Diet. ix). On occasion, however, 
 Collins uses irony alone and with emphasis to refer to a specific piece 
 of writing (he never formally defines the word). Usually the 
 referents turn out to be blame-by-praise of some sort, but see also 
 Diet, v and vii. See pp. 6 and Edward Stillingfleet, Works (1709), 
 II, 458-59; 10-13; 16-17; 22-23; 3 ° an d 10 (see also under Diet. 
 v.b); 45-46 and Francis Hare, Difficulties and Discouragements 
 (1716) and Francis Hare, New Defence of Bangor (1720); 47 and 
 D-n of W—r still the same (1720), pp. 5-6 (see also under Diet. 
 vii), 6-7, 8, 10, 14-15, 21-22, ioo-ioi ; 58-59 and Charles Leslie, 
 Salisbury's Proper Defence (1704); 61. 
 
 Also: Memoirs of Grub-street (1737), I, viii-x. Grub-street Jour¬ 
 nal , Nov. 26, 1730; April 8, 1731; June 28, 1733. Gentleman's 
 Magazine , I (March, 1731), 107; III (June, 1733), 282-83; X 
 (Nov., 1740), 547-48; XIV (Jan., 1744), 6-15; XV (April, 1745), 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iii.b 
 
 75 
 
 207-8j XXI (Oct., 1751), 456. Fog’s Weekly Journal , No. 239 
 (June 2, 1733). Promfter, No. 144 (March 23, 1736). Benjamin 
 Martin, Bibliotheca Technologica (1737), pp. 178-80. London 
 Journal , No. 938 (July 9, 1737). Friedrich Dedekind, Grobianus 
 ( 1 739 ), Dedication. Chesterfield, Letters to His Son (Strachey- 
 Calthrop), I, 36, 61. Fielding, Joseph Andrews (Mod. Lib.), pp. 
 21-22. Fielding, Works (Stephen), VII, 274-75. Fielding, Amelia 
 (Navarre Soc.), I, 183. Fielding, Jacobite’s Journal , No. 17 
 (March 26, 1748). Fielding, Plutus (1742), pp. 33, 55-57. Charles 
 Jarvis, Don Quixote (1742), I, vi-vii, 1055 H, 2 7 n. William 
 Guthrie, Cicero De Oratore (1822), pp. 197-200. William Guthrie, 
 Quinctilianus His Institutes (1756), II, 29-30, 235-36, 236 ff., 286. 
 Female S feet at or (17 55), IV, 122-23. 
 
 John G. Cooper, Socrates (1750), pp. 87-88: 
 
 . . . above all things, Socrates was most averse to assuming the Air or 
 Name of a Preceptor. Thus when Demonicus an Athenian brought his 
 Son Theages to be instructed in Wisdom, after having rallied him by 
 that beautiful Irony, which he used so often, upon the absurd Custom 
 of the Grecians of running after the Sophists, who profess’d to teach Wis¬ 
 dom, and having in the same Strain recommended Gorgias, Polus, and 
 others, “From among these, says he, you should chuse a Preceptor for 
 your Son; but to call me to that Office is by no means proper.” 
 
 Also: Ibid., p. 168 n. Monthly Review , I (July, 1749), 172; IV 
 (Feb., 1751), 302; V (July, 1751), 117-191 VII (Nov., 1752), 
 355 , 3571 (J u ly, 1753 ), 67-68. John Ozell, Don Quixote 
 (Mod. Lib.), p. 478 n. Letitia Pilkington, Memoirs III (1754), p. 
 73. John Brown, Essay on Satire (1770), p. 329 (Part II, 11 . 255- 
 68). Smollett, Peregrine Pickle (Shakespeare Head), I, 43-44, 
 2045 II, 38, 68, 2535 III, 31; IV, 101, 109-10. Christopher Smart, 
 Hilliad (Chambers), p. 45. Cambridge, Scribleriad (1752), pp. 
 iii-iv[?] 5 pp. xiii-xv and notes to Book II, 1 . 123 (p. 29), Book III, 
 1 . 11 (p. 45), Book III, 1 . 25 (p. 46), Book III, 1. 37 (p. 46), 
 Book III, 1 . 103. Orrery, Remarks on Swift (1752), pp. 262, 282- 
 85. John Lawson, Lectures Concerning Oratory (1760), pp. 257-68. 
 World (Chalmers), Table of Contents and No. 49 (Dec. 6, 1753), 
 XXVI, 262-685 Table of Contents and No. 89 (Sept. 12, 1754), 
 XXVII, 193-98. Allan Ramsay, Essay on Ridicule (1762), pp. 
 
THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 76 
 
 34-37. Deane Swift, Essay upon Swift (1755), pp. 135-36. Smol¬ 
 lett, Don Quixote (1755), II, 270, 376. Johnson, Dictionary 
 (1755-56), under “Irony,” “Ironical,” “Ironically,” “Sarcasm.” 
 Johnson, Lives (Birkbeck-Hill), III, 12. Joseph Warton, Essay on 
 Pope (1806), I, 163-64, 178-79; II, 111-12, 154, 234 n., 242, 341- 
 42. 
 
 iv. IRONY AS SAYING THE CONTRARY OF WHAT ONE MEANS 
 FOR EMPHASIS, THE CONTRARY BEING NEITHER 
 FALSE PRAISE NOR FALSE BLAME 
 
 Irorvy as “saying the opposite of what one means” nearly al¬ 
 ways reduced itself to blame-through-praise or vice versa. Occa¬ 
 sionally, however, the opposing element was not transparently false 
 praise or blame, but an assertion of some other kind that would 
 serve as effective contrast to the real meaning. But it is seldom 
 easy to eliminate the mock value judgment from statements called 
 ironic. 
 
 The difficulty can be illustrated through analysis of an example 
 of irony used by Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics 
 (1728), pp. 195-98: 
 
 Omission is when an Author pretends , that he conceals and omits 
 what he declares. 
 
 This Figure is related to the Irony. Tully in his first Oration against 
 Cataline points it at that Monster with a just Severity and Satire. 
 
 What? When upon the Death of your former Wife you had made 
 room in your House for a new Marriage, did not you enhance and con¬ 
 summate that Deed of Horror with another piece of Wickedness mon¬ 
 strous and incredible? Which I pass by, and am willing it should be 
 suppress’d in Silence. . . 
 
 Thus far Cicero is satisfied with the conventional denial of his real 
 intention, a denial likely to pique more interest than an impassioned 
 attack would. But nearly always in such willingness to pass over 
 a thing there is implied a deference which is in some sort praise. 
 In this passage Cicero goes on to make his mock praise explicit: 
 
 . . . lest it should be thought either that such an outragious Impiety cou’d 
 be committed in this City; or if committed, cou’d be carry’d off with 
 Impunity. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iv.a-iv.b 
 
 77 
 
 Thus this irony has become predominantly blame-through-praise 
 (Diet, iii.b) rather than conventional negation (Diet, iv.a), and in 
 most uses of irony in this way there is some sense of the opposition 
 between good and bad. 
 
 iv.a. Pretending to omit what one is all the while asserting 
 
 This was a conventional rhetorical device sometimes classified 
 as irony. 
 
 Classical Precedents: Quintilian Institutio IX.ii.44-53. 
 
 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap, vi: 
 
 There is also a kinde of Ironia called . . . Praeteritio in Latin, a kind 
 of preteded omitting or letting slip of that which indeed wee elegatly 
 note out in the verie shewe of praetermission, as when we say; I let 
 this passe; I passe it over with silence. Like unto this is that which is 
 called ... of the Latinists Negatio, a denial or refusall to speake, as, I 
 will not say that which I might, I will not call you, &c. when neverthe- 
 lesse we speake and tell al. 
 
 [Fraunce illustrates this device from, among others, Philip Sidney:] 
 
 Sir P. Syd. 2. of Musidorus. 
 
 To tell you what pitifull mishaps fell to the yong Prince of Macedon 
 his cosyn, I shoulde too much fill your eares with strange horrors: 
 neither will I stay upon those laboursom adventures, nor lothsom mis¬ 
 adventures, to which and through which his fortune and courage con¬ 
 ducted him: my speach hasteth it selfe to come to the point of all Musi¬ 
 dorus misfortunes. 
 
 Also: John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), P- x ^5- Hobbes, The Art 
 of Rhetoric (Molesworth), p. 517. 
 
 iv. b. Using any kind of contrary expression 
 
 This often involved using a pleasant or good name for an un¬ 
 pleasant or bad thing. 
 
 Classical Precedents: Quintilian Institutio Vll.vi. 54-58. 
 
 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), PP- 45 ‘ 48 ; 
 
78 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 English Examples of an Irony 
 
 .... So when the Persian army was at variance among themselves, 
 Philip of Macedon (their utter enemy) said, He would send his army 
 to make them friends. 
 
 Also: Charles Leslie, Best Answer Ever was Made (1709), p. 
 
 8 [?]. 
 
 Pope, Dunciad (Sutherland), pp. 62-63: 
 
 O thou! whatever Title please thine ear, 
 
 Dean, Drapier, Bickerstaff, or Gulliver! 
 
 Whether thou chuse Cervantes’ serious air, 
 
 Or laugh and shake in Rab’lais’ easy Chair, 
 
 Or praise the Court, or magnify Mankind, 
 
 Or thy griev’d Country’s copper chains unbind; 
 
 Or praise the Court , &c.] Ironice y alluding to Gulliver’s Representations 
 of both—. . . . 
 
 Also: Ibid., pp. 201-6, note beginning <( There is certainly nothing 
 in his style ” quoted on p. 86 below. 
 
 Swift, Correspondence (Ball), II, 323 : 
 
 If Mr. Bolton apprehends I do him a kindness, and will give me any 
 ironical thanks on that score, I shall either bear them or return them as 
 well as I am able. 
 
 Also: John Lawson, Lectures Concerning Oratory (1760), pp. 257- 
 
 68 . 
 
 v. IRONY AS UNDERSTATEMENT 
 
 The word understatement is here used to indicate a sense of 
 irony distinct from the verbal irony of self-depreciation. 54 What¬ 
 ever else Socrates’ pose of ignorance may be thought to have been, 
 it was at times a clever kind of mock praise for his antagonist. He 
 did not mean what he said; he meant nearly the opposite. Under¬ 
 statement does mean what it says, but it says only part of what it 
 means. Self-depreciation as a form of blame-by-praise (Diet. 111) 
 ostensibly leads in the wrong direction. Understatement leads in 
 the right direction but does not go far along the way. 
 
 64 Sedgewick uses the terms as roughly synonomous. See, for instance, G. G. 
 Sedgewick, “Dramatic Irony” (1913), pp. 72-73. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: iv.b-v.a 79 
 
 Despite a real difference in method, understatement and the 
 ironies of blame-by-praise and praise-by-blame frequently have a 
 like effect, perhaps because both work by implication, requiring the 
 audience to keep a sharp eye out for the whole or the hidden 
 meaning. The varieties of understatement were ensconced in six¬ 
 teenth-century rhetoric before John Hoskins wrote, but apparently 
 he was the first English rhetorician to identify litotes and meiosis 
 as ironic. By the early eighteenth century understatement seems to 
 have been accepted as a standard ironic device. 
 
 v.A. Denial of the contrary 
 
 This sense differs from Diet, hi and Diet, iv in that an idea con¬ 
 trary to or different from what is meant is not asserted but denied, 
 producing an effect of extreme restraint conveniently called under¬ 
 statement. In English rhetoric this device appeared regularly from 
 the sixteenth century into the eighteenth as litotes , 55 but beginning 
 with Hoskins some writers identified it as ironic. 
 
 John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style (Hudson), pp. 25- 
 26: 
 
 The fourth way of amplifying is by Intimation, that leaves the col¬ 
 lection of greatness to our understanding, by expressing some mark of 
 it. It exceedeth speech in silence, and makes our meaning more palpable 
 by a touch than by a direct handling. . . . This may be done with ironia, 
 or denial: 
 
 He was no notorious malefactor, but he had been twice on the pil¬ 
 lory and once burnt in the hand for trifling oversights. 
 
 What is denied here is not the opposite but the superlative. In the 
 phrase “trifling oversights” the second type of understatement (Diet. 
 v.b) is operating. 
 
 Thomas Blount, Academie of Eloquence (1645), p. 31: 
 
 . . . the former fashion of Diminution sometimes in Ironious sort goes 
 for Amplification, As speaking of a great personage, No mean man. . . . 
 
 65 Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), p. 184. Peacham, 
 Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 150-51. Angel Day, English Secretorie (1595), 
 Part II, pp. 84-85. Thomas Hall, The Schools Guarded (1655), pp. 163-70. 
 Art of Speaking (1708), p. 62. John Harris, Lexicon Technicum (1704) and 
 (1726) under “litotes.” Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum (1730) under “lito¬ 
 tes.” 
 
8o 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Also: John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), PP- 45-48. Edward Phil- 
 lips, New World of Words (1671), (1678), (1706). 
 
 Gentleman's Magazine, XIV (Jan., 1744), 9: 
 
 . . . it is, in my Opinion, no Faculty of great Use to Mankind, to pre¬ 
 pare palatable Poyson. . . . 
 
 Also: Ibid., p. 11. On page 14 of the same issue the speech in 
 which the above passage shines is excoriated as full of the “Lan¬ 
 guage ... of Irony and Burlesque.” 
 
 Francis Hare, New Defence of Bangor (1720), pp. 14-15: 
 
 Had his L-p meant this as a Reflection on Popish Countries only, 
 
 ’tis not to be imagined he would not have said so. 
 
 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), 
 p. 46, refers to the above pamphlet as ironic. The passage quoted 
 is not atypical. 
 
 v.b. Intimation 
 
 Assume a scale of comparison: 
 oldest older old young younger youngest 
 
 If the object under fire is youngest , ironies in and iv would ap¬ 
 proach it through oldest , older , or old , but irony of understatement 
 v.b approaches through young. This device was usually called 
 diminution or meiosis , 56 but beginning with Hoskins it was some¬ 
 times identified as ironic. 
 
 John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style (Hudson), pp. 29-30: 
 
 Here are figures that make a fair offer to set forth a matter better 
 than it is. 
 
 [He discusses hyperbole and correctio and then:] 
 
 There are two contrary ways to these former, and both lead to 
 amplification, but in dissembling sort. The first is Ironia , which ex- 
 presseth a thing by contrary, by show of exhortation when indeed it de- 
 horteth, as 
 
 Yet a while, sleep a while, fold thine arms a while, etc., and so shall 
 necessity overtake thee like a traveller, and poverty set upon thee like 
 an armed man. 
 
 50 Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 120-21. Peacham, Garden 
 of Eloquence (1593), pp. 168-69. Thomas Hall, The Schools Guarded (1655), 
 pp. 163-70. Hobbes, The Art of Rhetoric (Molesworth), p. 518. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: v.a, v.b 
 
 8l 
 
 Or as if a man should say: 
 
 It is simple credit that a diligent man shall come to, when he shall 
 stand before princes. 
 
 It was but small charge of idle money that the Egyptians bestowed 
 upon the erecting of a fyramis of brick, when the expense in onions and 
 garlic for workmen’s diet in the building of it came to above 238,000 
 pounds of money. 
 
 Milo had but a slender strength, that carried an ox a furlong on his 
 back and then killed him with his fist and ate him to his breakfast. 
 
 Titormus had a reasonable good arm, that could hold two bulls by 
 the tail, the one in one hand, the other in the other, and never be stirred 
 out of the place by their violent pulling. 
 
 Here small, slender , reasonable amplify as much as if you had said great, 
 exceeding , incredible. 
 
 Hoskins does not seem to be aware that his examples slide from illus¬ 
 trating one method to illustrating another, but there can be no 
 question that his last example exhibits an irony of understatement 
 quite different in method, if not in tone, from the blame-by-praise 
 irony of the first. Thomas Blount, Academic of Eloquence (1654), 
 pp. 25-26, repeats Hoskins verbatim, and John Smith, Rhetorique 
 (1657), PP- 45-48 repeats the “Milo had but a slender strength.. 
 example under “English Examples of an Irony.” 
 
 Pope, Iliad (1756), IV, 119-22: 
 
 The dropping head first tumbled to the plain. 
 
 So just the stroke, that yet the body stood 
 Erect, then roll’d along the sands in blood. 
 
 Here, proud Polydamas, here turn thy eyes! 
 
 (The tow’ring A fax loud-insulting cries) 
 
 Say, is this chief extended on the plain 
 A worthy vengeance for Prothaenor slain? 
 
 Mark well his port! his figure and his face 
 Nor speak him vulgar, nor of vulgar race; 
 
 Some lines, methinks, may make his lineage known, 
 
 AntenoP s brother, or perhaps his son. 
 
 He spake, and smil’d severe, for well he knew 
 The bleeding youth: Troy sadden’d at the view. 
 
 In Pope’s index “Speeches or Orations” the above is listed as “In 
 the irony, or sarcasm.” The ninth line illustrates understatement 
 v.a, and the next two lines, mockingly tentative—but not mislead- 
 
82 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 ing —about an obvious identification, show how v.b may be manipu¬ 
 lated. 
 
 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), 
 p. 10: 
 
 “Religion then, it seems, must be left to the Scholars and Gentlefolks, 
 and to them ’tis to be of no other use, but as a Subject of Disputation to 
 improve their Parts and Learning; but methinks the Vulgar might be 
 indulged a little of it now and then, upon Sundays and Holidays, instead 
 of Bull-baiting and Foot-ball.” 
 
 On page 30 Collins refers to the above as irony; the second clause 
 demonstrates mild understatement of the ironist’s own attitude. 
 
 On page 46 Collins refers to Francis Hare’s New Defence of 
 Bangor (1720) as ironic. In that pamphlet Hare indulges in under¬ 
 statement such as “. . . there is one very material thing, which he 
 seems to have forgot. . .” (p.8), and referring to something he thinks 
 quite contradictory and ridiculous as “very strange” (p. 7). This 
 type of wide-eyed understatement was common in the pamphlet 
 warfare of the time. 
 
 On page 47 Collins refers to the pamphlet D-n of W—r still 
 the same (1720) as ironic. One passage therein (p. 13) shows 
 how circumlocution may achieve the effect of understatement: 
 
 . . . ridiculous Questions are here ask’d, which only put one in Mind of 
 Something which is inseparable from the Disease of Cavilling. 
 
 vi. IRONY AS INDIRECTION 
 
 vi. a. Statement of a corollary of one > s criticism without statement 
 
 of the criticism itself 
 
 This sense is derived from a traditional type of satiric jest which 
 was sometimes identified as ironic, probably because, like under¬ 
 statement, it makes explicit only part of its meaning, the context 
 acting to complete the meaning for an alert audience. This strategy, 
 of course, falls easily under the definition “saying one thing and 
 meaning another.” 
 
THE DICTIONARY: v.b-vi.b 
 
 83 
 
 Classical Precedents: Cicero On Oratory II. 67$., Scaevola’s 
 jest. Quintilian Institutio VI.iii.68. Cf. Hoby, Courtier (Every¬ 
 man), pp. 159-61, 165, 166-67. 
 
 Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi: 
 
 Myctirismus [a kind of irony], a counterfayted laughter, but yet 
 suche one as may be perceyved. Persius. I care not, to be as Arcesilas is. 
 
 Also: Foxe, Monuments (1596), p. 329, col. 2. 
 
 Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91: 
 
 . . . by the figure Ironla, which we call the drye mock. . . . And as 
 Alfhonso king of Naples, said to one that profered to take his ring when 
 he washt before dinner, this will serve another well: meaning that the 
 Gentlema had another time take the, & because the king forgot to aske 
 for them, never restored his ring againe. 
 
 Also: John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), P- 77 - Fielding, Covent- 
 Garden Journal (Jensen), II, 1 14-15 [?]. William Guthrie, Cicero 
 De Oratore (1822), pp. 197-200, Scaevola’s jest. William Guthrie, 
 Quinetilianus His Institutes (1756), II, 56. 
 
 John Lawson, Lectures Concerning Oratory (1760), pp. 257-68: 
 
 Or lastly, Ironies are made to turn upon Subjects foreign, and are 
 improperly bitter; as in this of the Orator to Antony, 
 
 “In one Place you also aimed at Pleasantry; Good Gods how little 
 did it become you! In which you are faulty; for you might have de¬ 
 rived some Wit from your Wife , an ActressP 
 
 vi.b. Meaningful refly to a submerged meaning of a remark 
 
 Like vi.a this sense is derived from a traditional type of jest 
 analyzed and illustrated by Cicero and Quintilian. Through Cicero 57 
 particularly it entered English rhetoric, but Cicero’s designedly cas¬ 
 ual progression from one type of jest to another left terminology 
 vague, so that this one, although clearly identifiable, appears in 
 English under a variety of denominations. 58 For instance, in a 
 
 67 Cicero On Oratory II.67 ff. 
 
 68 Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), p. 139, and further on, the jests 
 of Maximus to Salinator and of Diogenes on wine (“dissembling”). Hoby, Courtier 
 (Everyman), p. 161, the jest of the Duke to the Captain who had lost Saint Leo. 
 North, Plutarch (1595), p. 461 (“Marius”), (“mock”). Puttenham, Arte of 
 English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91 (“asteismus” or the “civill jest”). 
 
84 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 note to Cicero’s discussion William Guthrie remarks: “The species 
 mentioned here is precisely what we in England call bulls .” 59 Never¬ 
 theless, Cicero had discussed this type of jest directly after irony, 
 and Quintilian calls an example of it irony. On occasion the Eng¬ 
 lish did likewise. 
 
 Classical Precedents: Quintilian Institutio VI.iii.89-92. Plutarch 
 Lives , “Marius” 24, “Lucullus” 27. Plutarch Moralia 199 ej. 
 
 Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91: 
 
 . . . by the figure Ironia, which we call the drye mock ... as it was said 
 by/a French king, to one that praide his reward, shewing how he had 
 beene cut in the face at a certain battell fought in his service: ye may see, 
 quoth the king, what it is to runne away & looke backwards. 
 
 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), PP* 77 ~ 79 : 
 
 Astismus ... a kind of civil jest without prejudice or anger. . . . 
 
 It is a kinde of an Irony consisting of a pleasant and harmlesse jest: 
 it is taken for any mirth or pleasant speech void of rusticall simplicity and 
 rudenesse. 
 
 2. The occasion of mirth may be taken from a fallacy in sophistry, 
 that is, when a saying is captiously taken and turned to another sense, 
 contrary or much different from the speakers meaning: as, 
 
 To one demanding of Diogenes what he would take for a knock up¬ 
 on his pate, he made this answer, that he would take an helmet. 
 
 Now he that made the demand, meant what hire, and not what 
 defence. 
 
 Also: William Guthrie, Quinctilianus His Institutes (1756), II, 62. 
 
 VII. IRONY AS THE GRAVE ELABORATION OF A FICTION FOR THE 
 PURPOSE OF CASUAL SATIRE OR AIMLESS MYSTIFICATION 
 
 This sense differs from blame-by-praise (Diet. m.B.ii) in that the 
 elaborated fiction is not in itself intended as blame-by-praise; it is 
 simply mystification, or the framework into which satire may be 
 built, or both. Although this sense is very close to irony as any 
 
 Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 33-35 (“asteismus”). Philemon Hol¬ 
 land, Plutarch's Morals (1603), p. 433 (“mock”). Plutarch's Morals (1691), 
 I, 281 (“jeering”). 
 
 58 William Guthrie, Cicero De Oratore (1822), pp. 197-200. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: vi.b, vii 
 
 85 
 
 discourse not meant to be taken seriously (Diet, vm), it seems to 
 have been independent in referring to an identifiable technique and 
 a more positive intention. The variety and pervasiveness of elabo¬ 
 rate ironies in the Augustan age, the fact that irony in sense vn 
 says “something other than it means,” and the similarity in surface 
 -structure and often motive to blame-by-praise—all these factors 
 probably produced this extension of meaning, which is synonymous 
 with some senses of banter. 
 
 Classical Precedents: Plato Apology 375 [?] (see comment on 
 Dacier translation below). 
 
 Dacier, Plato (1701), II, 41: 
 
 ... if / tell you that my silence would be disobedience to God, and 
 upon that account I cannot hold my peace; you will not believe me, 
 you’ll look upon the whole Story as a mysterious Irony. 
 
 The possible irony alluded to here by Socrates, though a mockery, 
 is not in his usual style. Socrates’ symbol, God, was a recurrent one 
 which stood in a constant and complicated relationship to him; it 
 was not an instrument of sarcastic praise. If his excuse was to be 
 construed as a mockery, it must have been as a sort of mystifying 
 fiction. And this seems to be how Andre Dacier or his English 
 translator took it: “you’ll look upon the whole story as a mysterious 
 Irony” 60 —a translation which probably reflects a consciousness of 
 like methods in Augustan writing more than an accurate understand¬ 
 ing of Plato. 
 
 Pope, Dunciad (Sutherland), pp. 201-6: 
 
 Preface prefix’d to the five imperfect Editions of the Dunciad, 
 printed at Dublin and London, in Octavo & Duod. 
 
 (a) The Publisher to the Reader 
 
 . . . every week for these two Months past, the town has been persecuted 
 with Pamphlets, Advertisements, Letters, and weekly Essays, not only 
 against the Wit and Writings, but against the Character and Person of 
 Mr. Po-pe. And that of all those men who have received pleasure from 
 his Writings (which by modest computation may be about a hundred 
 thousand in these Kingdoms of England and Ireland , not to mention 
 
 60 Cf. Plato his Afology of Socrates (1675), p. 60: “ye will not believe me, as 
 if dissembling the matter in jest.” The Loeb translation: “you will think I am 
 jesting and will not believe me.” 
 
86 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Jersey, Guernsey, the Orcades, those in the New world, and Foreigners 
 who have translated him into their languages) of all this number, not a 
 man hath stood up to say one word in his defence. 
 
 The only exception is the Author of the following Poem, who doubt¬ 
 less had either a better insight into the grounds of this clamour, or a 
 better opinion of Mr. Pope's integrity, join’d with a greater personal 
 love for him, than any other of his numerous friends and admirers. 
 
 Further, that he was in his peculiar intimacy, appears from the knowl¬ 
 edge he manifests of the most 'private Authors of all the anonymous 
 pieces against him, and from his having in this Poem attacked no man 
 living, who had not before printed or published some scandal against this 
 particular Gentlemen [jzc]. 
 
 How I became possest of it, is of no concern to the Reader; but 
 it would have been a wrong to him, had I detain’d this publication: 
 since those Names which are its chief ornaments die off daily so fast, as 
 must render it too soon unintelligible. If it provoke the Author to give 
 us a more perfect edition, I have my end. 
 
 Who he is, I cannot say, and (which is great pity) there is certainly 
 nothing in his style and manner of writing, which can distinguish, or dis¬ 
 cover him. For if it bears any resemblance to that of Mr. P. ’tis not 
 improbable but it might be done on purpose, with a view to have it pass 
 for his. But by the frequency of his allusions to Virgil, and a labor’d 
 (not to say affected ) shortness in imitation of him, I should think him 
 more an admirer of the Roman Poet than of the Grecian, and in that not 
 of the same taste with his Friend. 
 
 I have been well inform’d, that this work was the labour of full six 
 years of his life, and that he retired himself entirely from all the avoca¬ 
 tions and pleasures of the world, to attend diligently to its correction and 
 perfection; and six years more he intended to bestow upon it, as it should 
 seem by this verse of Statius, which was cited at the head of his manu¬ 
 script. 
 
 Oh mihi hissenos multum vigilata per annos, Duncial 
 
 Hence also we learn the true "Title of the Poem. . . . 
 
 About a hundred- thousand ] It is surprizing with what stupidity this Preface, 
 which is almost a continued Irony, was taken by these Authors. This passage 
 among others they understood to be serious.... [1729 note] 
 
 The Author of the following Poem , &c.] A very plain Irony, speaking of 
 Mr. Pope himself. [1729 note] 
 
 There is certainly nothing in his Style , &c.] This Irony had small effect in 
 concealing the Author. The Dunciad . .. had not been publish’d two days, 
 but the whole Town gave it to Mr. Pope. [1729 note] 
 
 The Labour of full six years, &c.] This also was honestly and seriously 
 believ’d by divers of the Gentlemen of the Dunciad. . . . [1729 note] 
 \Duncia] The same learned Prefacer took this word to be really in Statius. 
 [1729 note] 
 
THE DICTIONARY ; vii 
 
 8? 
 
 The first irony explicitly noted here {“About a hundred thousand ”) 
 has the sound of the much later Romantic ironist Tieck making fun 
 of his own efforts through exaggerated self-congratulation, 61 but 
 though such may have been Pope’s intention, it is likely that he 
 used the word “Irony” in reference to this particular passage to 
 mean only the opposite of literal (Diet. vm). 
 
 The “continued Irony” is the fiction of the innocent publisher 
 discussing an unknown poet and the circumstances of composition. 
 Pope uses this fiction to say certain things he could not say grace¬ 
 fully in his own person and to mount a few glancing attacks on his 
 enemies, but the fictional structure itself has no function other than 
 mystification, and the ironies explicitly pointed to in the notes are 
 not satiric shafts but simply false statements used to elaborate the 
 fiction. 
 
 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), 
 p. 47: 
 
 . . . he took the true and proper Method, by publishing an Answer to 
 the said Irony, compos’d in the same ironical Strain, intitled, The Dean 
 of Worcester still the same . . . Which Answer does, in my Opinion, as 
 much Honour to the Bishop, by its Excellency in the ironical Way. . . . 
 
 D-n of W—r still the same (1720), pp. 3-6: 
 
 It has been observ’d long ago, upon a like Occasion to the present, 
 that when Cardinals appear abroad without the Ensigns of their Dignity, 
 it is in order to avoid the Trouble of giving or receiving any Compli¬ 
 ments. But then it ought to be remark’d at the same time, that They 
 never give, nor receive, any Affronts or Rudenesses. There is some¬ 
 thing in this Manner of Appearing that is agreeable and innocent, with¬ 
 out being indecent. It avoids the Uneasiness of Ceremony to ones self, 
 without giving the Uneasiness of Rude Treatment to Others. But 
 some Spirits cannot be content with this Common Manner of being 
 incognito, in which a Man is allowed to pass as Unknown; and in which 
 he will be always respected as long as he preserves a Decorum, and does 
 not break in upon the Rules either of Society, or of Good Manners. 
 
 61 Selbstfarodie was one of the definitions of Romantic irony given by the 
 German Romantics themselves (see G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony [1948J, p. 15), and 
 it is certainly a frequent component of the irony of manner (Diet. in. a). Such 
 blame-by-praise irony as Pope’s here, turned back upon the author or mock-author, 
 was not infrequent in Augustan satiric and humorous writing. For another ex¬ 
 ample of the use of irony to name such self-mockery, see pp. 172-73 below. 
 
88 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 There is Another Sort of Mock-appearance, now too much in fashion. 
 It is this. Many have found that the Characters They are obliged to 
 sustain in their daily Appearance and ordinary Life, are too great a 
 Confinement to the Freedom of their Souls; that they chain up the nat¬ 
 ural Bent and Vigour of their Minds; and give too close a Restraint to 
 the Passions and Dispositions They feel within. And therefore, They 
 have invented a way of remedying so great an Evil. They have resolved, 
 at some certain times, to throw off these Common Appearances, which 
 are in truth the Restraints of a Real Disguise, in which They should 
 otherwise pass their whole Life; and assume Their own Real Characters 
 by way of a Disguise, which is indeed only Nominal. For the Real 
 Disguise is changed for the Seeming One; and the Seeming Disguise is 
 indeed the Real Man, whose Inside and Outside have by this means 
 only changed their Situation. 
 
 This succeeds very well with Those who have preserved their Ex¬ 
 ternal Characters or Persons uniformly in ordinary Life; and know 
 how to vary from Them, with Address, whenever they change the Ap¬ 
 pearance. But when an Unskilful Actor mixes himself in such a Scene; 
 not knowing himself enough to be sensible that He has, in his ordinary 
 Character, been exactly the same that He is now going to apear; noth¬ 
 ing is received and entertained with more Ridicule. As soon as He comes 
 upon the Stage, He betrays Himself. Either his Aukward Gate, or some 
 other Peculiarity in his Manner, makes him known. Or, if not, as soon 
 as He speaks, his Words reveal him. Perhaps the Rudeness of his Free¬ 
 doms, which He mistakes for Wit; Or the Affectation of Something 
 more than ordinary, which He mistakes for a Superiority of Genius; Or 
 some other Propriety, which He cannot separate from Himself, im¬ 
 mediately discover Him. The only Reason why He attempts to appear 
 in Disguise, is to display more freely the same Dispositions which He 
 has not been able to hide in his ordinary Habit. And He is treated ac¬ 
 cordingly. In such Assemblies, every One who enters is upon an Equality: 
 And He who uses Freedoms, must be content to accept them in return. 
 
 It is just thus in the Disguises of Writers. There are Those who 
 can assume a Character differing from their own in their ordinary Life, 
 and are able to keep up to it with Regularity' and Uniformity. There 
 are Those who assume One with the same View; but are not able to 
 stir a Step in it without shewing Themselves too plainly to be the very 
 reverse to what They would personate. And some chuse to imagine 
 themselves in Disguise, merely to give themselves a loose, and to shew 
 more of Themselves, and their own True Natural Tempers, than They 
 are willing to hope They do, in their ordinary' Persons. 
 
 There is no one, I confess, who had ever less Occasion, or less Temp¬ 
 tation, to take this Method than the D—n of W —r. He has shewn as 
 
THE DICTIONARY: vn 
 
 89 
 
 much C ontemft of the Bis ho f of Bangor; has treated him with as much 
 Rudeness, and as keen Reproach; whilst He calls Himself by his own 
 Name; and owns Himself to be Himself; as any one need wish to do. 
 And then for the display of his Learning and Criticism; there is still 
 less need of his going out of his proper ordinary Character. But I know 
 not what it is. He has judg’d this a very narrow Sphere of Action: And 
 has chosen Another, in which he seems to think the Licentiousness of 
 Words to be the True Freedom of Conversation. Here he hopes, He 
 may wanton in Abuse, in Misrepresentation, and in personal Reproaches, 
 entirely foreign to the Cause into which He has unfortunately thrust 
 Himself. 
 
 Also: Ibid., pp. 6-7. Here the fiction is not a dramatic situation 
 but a fabrication of motive within an elaborately forced context of 
 values. 
 
 Smollett, Don Quixote (1755), I, xv-xvi: 
 
 He has, upon other occasions, made severe remarks upon the scarcity 
 of patrons among the nobility of Spain, and even aimed the shafts of his 
 satire at the throne itself. In his dedication of the second part of Don 
 Quixote, to the count de Lemos, he proceeds in this ironical strain: “But, 
 no person expresses a greater desire of seeing my Don Quixote, than the 
 mighty emperor of China, who, about a month ago sent me a letter by 
 an express, desiring, or rather beseeching, me to supply him with a copy 
 of that performance, as he intended to build and endow a college for 
 teaching the Spanish language from my book, and was resolved to make 
 me rector or principal teacher.” I asked if his majesty had sent me any 
 thing towards defraying the charges; and, when he answered in the 
 negative, “Why then, friend, said I, you may return to China as soon 
 as you please; for my own part, I am not in a state of health to under¬ 
 take such a long journey; besides, I am not only weak in body, but still 
 weaker in purse, and so I am the emperor’s most humble servant. In 
 short, emperor for emperor, and monarch for monarch, to take one with 
 the other, and set the hare’s head against the goose giblets, there is the 
 noble count de Lemos, at Naples, who, without any rectorships, supports, 
 protects, and favours me to my heart’s content.” 
 
 This facetious paragraph certainly alludes to some unsubstantial prom¬ 
 ise he had received from the court. 
 
 Although this irony may be viewed as blame-by-praise through bur¬ 
 lesque exaggeration, the dominant intention seems to be to use the 
 fiction as a springboard for direct attack. 
 
90 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 viii. IRONY AS ANY DISCOURSE NOT MEANT 
 TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY 
 
 This sense was a peripheral extension of meaning which prob¬ 
 ably gained a foothold as the word became current and the thing 
 confusingly pervasive. Blame-by-praise, the commonest type of irony 
 in the Augustan age, always involved language not meant to be 
 taken at its face value, and a stock definition of the word was that 
 irony is “saying something other than one means” (see pp. 31-33 
 above). It was natural, though not very discriminating, for people 
 to use ironic loosely as antithetic to serious, direct, sincere, literal. 
 The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters ... Consider'd (1703), p. 5: 
 
 [The author of this pamphlet thought that if Defoe had meant the irony 
 of his Shortest-Way seriously he would only have been stating the truth; 
 Defoe’s defense that his pamphlet had been all irony was exasperating.] 
 
 Yet it is all a Banter, nothing but an Irony to the Minutest Syllable, 
 that Synagogues have been -put up at our Church-Doors is meer Illusion, 
 that Dissenters ran away with Places of Trust, and were chosen for Mag¬ 
 istrates and Governours, nothing but Fancy, and We have no manner of 
 Reason to look out for Posterity, and secure the Exercise of the True Re¬ 
 ligion, which we happily Enjoy under the best of Queens to succeeding 
 Ages. 
 
 Also: Ibid., pp. 15, 16, 18; The Fox with his Fire-brand Unken¬ 
 nelled (1703), pp. 6 [?], 23 [?]. John Oldmixon, Logick and 
 Rhetorick (1728), pp. 21-28 (there is an element of blame-by-praise 
 in Oldmixon’s use of irony in this passage, quoted on pp. 158-59 be¬ 
 low, but the dominant sense seems to be transparently unserious lan¬ 
 guage). Orrery, Remarks on Swift (1752), p. 262. Johnson, 
 Lives (Birkbeck Hill), III, 63-64, quoting Dr. Delany. 
 
 IX. IRONY AS ANY KIND OF DERISIVE ATTACK 
 
 This is also a peripheral extension of meaning, roughly synony¬ 
 mous with ridicule, mockery, and scoffing. It is present, side by 
 side with the traditional rhetorical sense, in some of the stock defini¬ 
 tions (see p. 34 above) and in actual use. 
 
THE DICTIONARY: vm, ix 
 
 91 
 
 A briefe examination (1566), sig. ***2: 
 
 . . . for want of matter, thorow your spirite of ironie, you must (as you 
 do to the Prince, the Counsayle, the Byshops, the learned men & wise) 
 geve also to the advertisementes theyr gyrde and nip. . . . 
 
 The example of this spirit of irony given two paragraphs later seems 
 to be straightforward derision. 
 
 Also: Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), pp. 20-27 [?] (see 
 
 Diet. x). 
 
 John Bulwer, Chirologia and Chironomia (1644), p. 183: 
 
 To locke the Thumbe betweene the next two Fingers, is an ironicall 
 vulgarisme of the Hand used by Plebeians when they are contumeli- 
 ously provoked thereunto, and see that they cannot prevaile by vieing 
 words, their spleene appealing to their Fingers for aid, who thus armed 
 for a dumbe retort, by this taunting gesture seem to say avant. This 
 position of the Fingers with the Ancients was called Higa, and the mod- 
 erne Spaniards by objecting the Hand formed to this reproachfull ex¬ 
 pression, imply as much as if they should say fadicavite, with us it is 
 usually their garbe who mocke little children. 
 
 Also: Ibid., pp. 170 [?], 177-78, 181-83 [?]. It should be noted 
 that Bulwer’s involved and ingenious analysis of the meaning of his 
 rhetorical gestures makes it difficult to know how he would have ex¬ 
 plained what seems obviously to be direct scoffing. 
 
 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), 
 p. 21: 
 
 . . . If it be a Fault in those reverend Divines, mention’d in the foregoing 
 Article, to use Irony, Drollery, Ridicule, and Satire, in any Case; or if 
 the Fault lies in an exorbitant Use thereof, or in any particular Species 
 of Drollery ... it is fit some Remedy should be employ’d for the Cure of 
 this Evil. 
 
 Ibid., p. 26: 
 
 IV. Let me here add, that I am apt to think, that when you draw 
 up your Law, you will find it so very difficult to settle the Point of 
 Decency in Writing, in respect to all the various kinds of Irony and Ridi¬ 
 cule, that you will be ready to lay aside your Project; . . . if our Law¬ 
 makers were, out of a rational Principle, disposed to give Liberty by Law 
 to a serious Opposition to publickly receiv’d Notions, they would not 
 think it of much Importance to make a Law about a Method of Irony. 
 
92 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Ibid., p, 30: 
 
 It will probably be a Motive with you to be against abolishing Drollery, 
 when you reflect that the Men of Irony, the Droles and Satirists, have 
 been and always will be very numerous on your side. . . . 
 
 Also: Ibid., passim, especially pp. 21-30, 54, 74, 77. Collins also 
 uses irony in the traditional rhetorical senses. Two tendencies can 
 be guessed from his use of the word: people were so conscious of the 
 spate of ironic writing that when they discussed any ridicule they 
 felt irony had to be mentioned; this awareness also led people to 
 extend the reference of irony to any writing of similar tone or intent, 
 regardless of rhetorical structure. 
 
 Also: “An Essay on Gibing” (1727), pp. 5-10 [?], 20 [?]. Gentle¬ 
 man’s Magazine (Jan., 1731), I, 12. 
 
 Female Spectator (1755), III, 319-20: 
 
 A genteel raillery, which cannot give offence, yet if play’d on a person of 
 wit, will make them asham’d of saying anything to incur it; and though 
 I am no friend to what they call banter, ridicule, or irony, in any other 
 case, yet when it is made use of to cure the faults of those persons we have 
 no authority to reprove, I think it highly laudable. 
 
 x. DRAMATIC IRONY 
 
 In a situation involving dramatic irony as that term is understood 
 by David Worcester, there are two characters. There is first of all 
 the “dupe,” who stubbornly pursues a course leading to disaster 
 while oblivious of warning signposts, if any. There is second the 
 “audience” (including a backward-looking dupe after disaster has 
 struck), which sees disaster approaching and interprets any sign¬ 
 posts properly. When dramatic irony is one component of a piece 
 of literary art, the author takes the same point of view as the au¬ 
 dience, he creating what it enjoys. When dramatic irony appears 
 in real life distinct from literature, the author may be called Fate, 
 and there may be no signposts. The irony in dramatic irony inheres 
 in the fact that the words, circumstances, or events which seem to the 
 dupe to be leading to a favorable conclusion produce an unfavorable 
 one. The frame of mind which leads an author to create dramatic 
 
THE DICTIONARY: ix, x 
 
 93 
 
 irony and which dramatic irony may produce in an audience is one of 
 philosophic detachment from the interests and involvements of life. 
 This frame of mind Sedgewick calls the irony of detachment. 
 
 Dramatic irony differs from the irony of manner (Diet. hi.a) in 
 that the irony of manner is a particular kind of behavior in the author 
 of the irony; whereas the author of dramatic irony is either totally 
 self-effacing or nonhuman. Dramatic irony differs from the verbal 
 ironies (Diet, iii.b, iv through ix) in two ways: the misleading factors 
 need not be verbal; there must be a dupe and an audience (where¬ 
 as the effect of verbal irony depends on the object’s not being duped 
 and no audience to his deception is necessary). Of course, though, 
 if a man is fooled by ironical encomiums the audience is free to 
 enjoy dramatic irony. It is highly questionable that anyone during 
 the English classical period consciously used the word irony to refer 
 to the dramatic situation defined above. The N.E.D. offers an 
 illustration, dated 1649, i n which irony seems to mean our irony of 
 Fate, but as Sedgewick remarks, “it is based on a complete mis¬ 
 understanding of the passage quoted.” 62 I have, however, encoun¬ 
 tered three passages which seem to suggest this sense of the word, 
 whether accidentally or not, and I discuss them below. 
 
 Thomas Nashe, “To the Gentleman Students” (G.G. Smith), pp. 
 309-10: 
 
 But the hunger of our unsatiate humorists, beeing such as it is, readie 
 to swallowe all draffe without indifference, that insinuates it selfe to their 
 senses under the name of delight, imployes oft times manie thred bare 
 witts to emptie their invention of their Apish devices, and talke most 
 superficiallie of Pollicie, as those that never ware gowne in the Universitie; 
 wherein they revive the olde saide Adage, Sus Minervam, & cause the 
 wiser to quippe them with A sinus ad Lyram. Would Gentlemen & riper 
 judgements admit my motion of moderation in a matter of follie, I wold 
 perswade them to phisicke their faculties of seeing & hearing, as the 
 Sabaeans doo their dulled senses with smelling; who (as Strabo reporteth), 
 over-cloyed with such odoriferous savours as the naturall encrease of their 
 Countrey (Balsamum, Amomum, with Myrrhe and Frankencense) sends 
 foorth, refresh their nosthrills with the unsavorie sent of the pitchie slime 
 that Eufhrates casts up, and the contagious fumes of Goates beardes 
 burnt; so woulde I have them, beeing surfetted unawares with the sweete 
 
 62 G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony (1948), p. 21. 
 
94 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 satietie of eloquence which the lavish of our copious Language maie pro¬ 
 cure, to use the remedie of contraries, and recreate their rebated witts 
 not, as they did, with the senting of slyme or Goates beardes burnt, but 
 with the over-seeing of that sublime dicendi genus , which walkes abroad 
 for wast paper in each serving mans pocket, and the otherwhile perusing 
 of our Gothamists barbarisme; so shoulde the opposite comparison of 
 Puritie expell the infection of absurditie, and their over-rackte Rhetorique 
 bee the Ironicall recreation of the Reader. 
 
 The element of blame-by-praise in the act of reading a piece of bad 
 writing in order to refresh one’s appreciation of good writing, and 
 the fillip to association in the phrase “the remedie of contraries,” 
 no doubt led Nashe to his use of the word “Ironicall” here. But 
 his use is—probably unintentionally—suggestive. Irony here re¬ 
 fers not to a verbal device but to the mental attitude of an audience 
 as it watches a fool labor for a good effect all the while the very 
 tools he is laboring with are producing a bad one. The effect of 
 this sight on the audience is to detach it from its allegiances and 
 reawaken its sense of proportion. 
 
 Thomas Nashe, Works (McKerrow), II, 246-50: 
 
 At the verie pointe of our enterance into Wittenberg, we were 
 spectators of a verie solemne scholasticall entertainment of the Duke of 
 Saxonie thether. 
 
 At the townes end met him the burgers and dunsticall incorporationers 
 of Wittenberg in their distinguished liveries, their distinguished liverie 
 faces, I meane, for they were most of them hot livered dronkards. . . . 
 
 A bursten belly inkhorne oratour called Vanderhulke, they pickt out 
 to present him with an oration, one that had a sulpherous big swolne 
 large face, like a Saracen, eyes lyke two kentish oysters, a mouth that 
 opened as wide every time he spake, as one of those old knit trap doores, 
 a beard as though it had ben made of a birds neast pluckt in peeces, 
 which consisteth of strawe, haire, and durt mixt together. He was ap¬ 
 parelled in blacke leather new licourd, & a short gowne without anie 
 gathering in the backe, faced before and behinde wu’th a boistrous beare 
 skin, and a red night-cap on his head. To this purport and effect was 
 this broccing duble beere oration. 
 
 Right noble Duke ( idea nobilis quasi no bilis, for you have no bile 
 or colar in you), know that our present incorporation of Wittenberg, by 
 me the tongue man of their thankfulnes, a townesman by birth, a free 
 Germane by nature, an oratour by arte, and a scrivener by education, 
 in all obedience & chastity, most bountifully bid you welcome to Witen- 
 
THE DICTIONARY: x 
 
 95 
 
 berg: welcome, sayd I? O orificiall rethorike, wipe thy everlasting 
 mouth, and affoord me a more Indian metaphor than that, for the brave 
 princely bloud of a Saxon. Oratorie, uncaske the bard hutch of thy 
 complements, and with the triumphantest troupe in thy treasurie doe tre- 
 wage unto him. What impotent speech with his eight partes may not 
 specifie, this unestimable gift, holding his peace, shall as it were (with 
 teares I speak it) do wherby as it may seeme or appeare to manifest or 
 declare, and yet it is, and yet it is not, and yet it may be a diminutive 
 oblation meritorious to your high pusilanimitie and indignitie. Why 
 should I goe gadding and fisgigging after firking flantado amfibologies? 
 wit is wit, and good will is good will. With all the wit I have, I here, 
 according to the premises, offer up unto you the cities generall good will, 
 which is a gilded Can, in manner and forme folowing, for you and the 
 heirs of your bodie lawfully begotten to drinke healths in. The scho- 
 lasticall squitter bookes clout you up cannopies and foot-clothes of verses. 
 We that are good fellowes, and live as merry as cup and can, will not 
 verse upon you as they doe, but must do as we can, and entertaine you 
 if it bee but with a plaine emptie Canne. He hath learning inough that 
 hath learnde to drinke to his first man. Mechanical! men they call us, and 
 not amisse, for most of us being Maechl , that is, cuckoldes and whoore- 
 masters, fetch our antiquitie from the temple of Maecha, where Mahomet 
 was hung up. Three partes of the worlde, America, Affrike, and Asia, 
 are of this our mechanike religion. Nero , when he crid, O quantus artifex 
 fereo , profest himselfe of our freedome, insomuch as Artifex is a citizen 
 or craftes man, as well as Carnifex a scholler or hangman. Passe on by 
 leave into the precincts of our abhomination. Bonie Duke, frolike in 
 our boure, and perswade thy selfe that even as garlike hath three prop¬ 
 erties, to make a man winke, drinke, and stinke, so we will winke on 
 thy imperfections, drinke to thy favorites, and al thy foes shall stinke be¬ 
 fore us. So be it. Farewell. 
 
 The Duke laught not a little at this ridiculous oration, but that verie 
 night as great an ironicall occasion was ministered, for he was bidden to 
 one of the chiefe schooles to a Comedie handled by scollers. Acolastus , 
 the prodigal child, was the name of it, which was so filthily acted, so 
 leathernly set forth, as would have moved laughter in Heraclitus. One, 
 as if he had been playning a clay floore, stampingly trode the stage so 
 harde with his feete that I thought verily he had resolved to do the Car¬ 
 penter that set it up some utter shame. Another flong his armes lyke 
 cudgels at a peare tree, insomuch as it was mightily dreaded that he 
 wold strike the candles that hung above their heades out of their sockettes, 
 and leave them all darke. Another did nothing but winke and make 
 faces. 
 
g 6 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Nashe’s “ironicall occasion” may be taken as parallel to “ridiculous 
 oration,” the word “ironicall” being simply a stylistic substitute for 
 “ridiculous.” But this was not a common extension of irony' s mean¬ 
 ing. What seems to have suggested it to Nashe is the nature of 
 the ridiculousness. In attempting to praise the Duke, Wittenberg’s 
 orator unwittingly insults him. The night’s entertainment too is so 
 bad as to be insulting. Again, in attempting to bring credit to 
 themselves through their welcoming speech and a play, the natives 
 behave so preposterously as unintentionally to burlesque themselves. 
 Today we might use “ironical” in this situation because under the 
 eye of an astute audience a labored effort has unintentionally pro¬ 
 duced exactly the result least desired, thus using the word to mean 
 the irony of Fate or dramatic irony. But Nashe may have used 
 “ironicall” only to mean that praise conveyed blame, unintentional 
 though this result was. 
 
 Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), pp. 2027: 
 
 Charon in Lucian, as hee wittily faines, was conducted by Mercurie 
 to such a place, where hee might see all the world at once, and after hee 
 had sufficiently vewed and looked about, Mercurie would needs know 
 of him, what he had observed, hee told him that hee saw a vast multi¬ 
 tude and a promiscuous, hee could discerne cities like so many Hives of 
 Bees , wherein every Bee had a sting , and they did naught else but sting 
 one another, some dominering like Hornets bigger then the rest, some 
 like filching wasps, others as Drones. Over their head were hovering a 
 confused company of perturbations, hope, feare, anger, avarice, ignorance, 
 &c and a multitude of diseases hanging over, which they still pulled on 
 their heads. Some were brawling, some fighting, riding, running, for toyes 
 and trifles, and such momentary things. In conclusion he condemned them 
 all, for madmen, fooles, idiots, asses. O stulti quanam haec est amentia? 
 O fools o madmen he exclaimes, insana studia, insani labores, tfr mad 
 indeavours, mad actions, mad, mad, mad. Heraclitus the Philosopher, 
 out of a serious meditation of mens actions fell a weeping, and with con- 
 tinuall teares bewailed their miseries, madnesse, and folly. Democritus 
 on the other side fel a laughing, their whole life to him seem’d so ridic¬ 
 ulous, and hee was so far caried with this Ironicall passion, that the 
 cittizens of Abdera tooke him to be mad, and sent therefore Embassa- 
 dours to Hippocrates the Physitian, that hee would exercise his skill upon 
 him. But the story is set down at large by Hippocrates himselfe, in his 
 Epistle to Damogetus. . . . 
 
THE DICTIONARY: x 
 
 97 
 
 Hippocrates asking the reason why he laughed: he told him at the vanities 
 and fopperies of the time. To see men so empty of all vertuous actions, 
 to hunt so farre after gold, having no end of ambition, to take such in¬ 
 finite paines for a little glory, and to be favored of men, to make such 
 deepe mines into the earth for gold, & many times to find nothing, with 
 losse of their lives and fortunes. Some to love dogges, others horses, 
 some to desire to be obeyed in many provinces and yet themselves will 
 knowe no obedience. Some to love their wives dearely at first, and 
 after a while to forsake and hate them, begetting children, with much 
 care and cost for their education, yet when they growe to mans estate, 
 to despise them, neglect and leave them naked to the worlds mercy. 
 Doe not these behaviours expresse their intolerable folly? . . . O wise 
 Hippocrates, I laugh at such things being done, but much more when 
 no good comes of them, and when they are done to so ill purpose. 
 
 O most worthy Hippocrates , you should not reprehend my laughing, 
 perceaving so many fooleries in men: for no man will mocke his owne 
 folly, but that which he seeth in another, and so they justly mocke one 
 another. 
 
 When Hippocrates heard these words, so readily uttered without pre¬ 
 meditation to declare the worlds vanity, full of ridiculous contrariety, hee 
 made answer that necessity compelled men to many such actions, and 
 diverse wills ensuing from divine permission, that we might not be idle, 
 being nothing is so odious to them as sloth and negligence. Besides men 
 cannot foresee future events, in this uncertainty of humane affaires, 
 they would not so marry, if they could foresee the causes of their dislike 
 and separation, or parents if they knew the houre of their childs death, so 
 tenderly provide for them: or an husbandman sowe, if he thought there 
 would be no increase; or a marchant adventure to sea, if hee foresawe 
 shipwracke; or be a magistrate, if presently to bee deposed. Alas, worthy 
 Democritus, every man hopes the best, and to that end he doth it, and 
 therefore no such cause to laughter. 
 
 Democritus hearing this excuse, laughed againe alowd, perceaving 
 he did not well understand what he had said concerning perturbations 
 and tranquillity of the minde. Insomuch, that if men would governe 
 their actions by discretion & providence, they would not declare them¬ 
 selves fooles, as now they doe, and he should have no such cause of 
 laughter, but, quoth he, they swel in this life as if they were im- 
 mortall, for want of understanding. It were enough to make the wise, 
 if they would but consider the mutability of this world, and how it 
 wheeles about, nothing firm and sure, he that is now above, tomorrow is 
 beneath, he that sate on this side to day, to morrow is hurled on the 
 other: and not considering these things they fall into many inconveniences 
 
98 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 and troubles, coveting thinges of no profit, and thirsting after them, tum¬ 
 bling headlong into many calamities. So that if men would attempt no 
 more then what they can beare, they should lead contented lives, & 
 learning to know themselves would limit their ambition. . . . Seeing men 
 are so fickle, so sottish, so intemperate, why should I not laugh at those 
 to whom folly seemes wisdome, and will not bee cured, and perceave it 
 not? 
 
 No doubt the key to “this Ironicall passion” lies in Democritus’ say¬ 
 ing “he should have no such cause of laughter, but.. . they swel 
 in this life as if they were immortall, for want of understanding.” 
 Seeing the self-absorbed, pompous folly of man, Democritus laughs, 
 as Socrates and Lucian and Erasmus had laughed. The fact that 
 they had been called ironists perhaps led Burton to apply the word 
 to the laughter of Democritus, although Democritus had only the 
 motive of an ironist—his discourse was straightforward and he 
 sought no audience. Since his only expression was derisive laughter, 
 Burton probably means by irony here only “mockery, derision” 
 (Diet. ix). Yet one wonders whether there was in Burton’s mind, 
 as there must have been in the minds of many of the Anatomy’s 
 modern readers, any application of the “Ironicall passion” of Democ¬ 
 ritus to his free play of mind over all the world and the ironies of 
 Fate which beset it. It is not impossible that the conjunction of 
 this attitude with the laughter which reminded Burton of ironical 
 laughter and thence perhaps of the ironist Socrates’ wide-ranging 
 detachment should produce such an extension of the word’s refer¬ 
 ence. But the scant evidence is not helpful. In the sixth edition 
 Burton added Socrates to the catalogue of authorities for the total 
 foolishness of man: 
 
 Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy (Dell), p. 37: 
 
 When Socrates had taken great pains to find out a wise man, and 
 to that purpose had consulted with philosophers, poets, artificers, he con¬ 
 cludes all men were fools; and though it procured him both anger and 
 much envy, yet in all companies he would openly profess it. 
 
 There is no hint here of anything more than agreement between 
 Socrates and Democritus that all men are fools, deserving of deri¬ 
 
 sion. 
 
THREE 
 
 THE METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE 
 ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 
 
 It would be difficult to believe that any technique o£ olame-by- 
 praise was not clearly understood by the great Augustan satirists. 
 Swift stands in undisputed pre-eminence as the virtuoso of the prose 
 irony of controversy; the poetic burlesques of Pope are the best in 
 the language 5 certain characters of Fielding fused irony and the 
 illusion of fiction in a way that permanently influenced both the 
 world of satire and the world of the novel. From our own age of 
 explicit, polite, and neutral prose we go to the Augustan masters to 
 learn how these other, more artful things were done. The great 
 Augustans too learned their techniques from masters and apprentices 
 who wrote long before them. Although these earlier ironies did 
 not attract to themselves the word irony so frequently as did those 
 of the Augustans, we do find that most, though apparently not 
 quite all, of the techniques developed during the Augustan age 
 had been associated with the word irony in Classical times and 
 during the Renaissance, limited though such recognition often was. 
 
 i. Socratic self-depreciation 
 
 As we have observed, 1 the method of blame-by-praise that has 
 been attached to the word irony for the longest time is that noto¬ 
 rious irony of Socrates, “who was called an ironist because he as¬ 
 sumed the role of an ignorant man lost in wonder at the wisdom 
 
 1 Pp. 3-6 above. 
 
100 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 of others.” 2 It should be noted that self-depreciation may function 
 in several ways. It may be joined to explicit praise of another 
 object and the audience be meant to reverse both judgments, thereby 
 elevating the ironist and depressing his object; or the explicit praise 
 may disappear, the audience being expected to find it implicit in 
 the comparison suggested by the ironist’s self-depreciation, both ex¬ 
 plicit and implicit judgments still to be reversed; or the ironist’s 
 self-depreciation may not be reversed to his credit at all, the au¬ 
 dience taking his modesty as nothing more than a device of the irony. 
 Thus the Rhetoric to Alexander 3 and Cicero 4 refer to instances of 
 ironic self-depreciation joined to ironic praise in which both judg¬ 
 ments are explicit and both are meant to be reversed by the au¬ 
 dience, but Lucian offers a delightful example of the completely 
 explicit pattern in which one feels that the self-depreciation of 
 the ironist is meant only as support for the undeserved praise, not 
 as enhancement of himself. 5 In speaking of “the employment of 
 irony in making apologies or asking questions” 6 Quintilian is think¬ 
 ing of the kinds of ironic self-depreciation which often only imply 
 ironic praise, and elsewhere he follows an example of the completely 
 explicit pattern with one which depends on implication: 
 
 It is also irony when . . . we concede to our opponents qualities which we 
 are unwilling that they should seem to possess. This is specially effec¬ 
 tive when we possess these qualities and they do not, as in the following 
 passage, 
 
 “Brand me as coward, Drances, since thy sword 
 Has slain such hosts of Trojans.” 
 
 A like result is produced by reversing this method when we pretend to 
 own to faults which are not ours or which even recoil upon the heads of 
 our opponents, as for example, 
 
 “ ’Twas I that led the Dardan gallant on 
 To storm the bridal bed of Sparta’s queen!”' 
 
 The earliest English association of self-depreciation with the 
 word irony that I have found is John Hooper’s (1548): 
 
 2 Quintilian Institutio IX. ii. 44-53. 
 
 3 Aristotle's Rhetoric (1686), p. 257. 
 
 4 Cicero Letters to Quintus III. iv. 4. Cicero Brutus 85-87. 
 
 3 Lucian Anacharsus 17-18. 
 
 6 Quintilian Institutio VI. ii. 15-16. 
 
 7 Ibid., IX. ii. 44-53. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 101 
 
 Here doth Moses speak ironice> and seemeth to deny the thing he would 
 affirm. As Aristotle or Cicero might say, when they have applied all 
 their labour, and done the best they can to make their scholars learned, 
 yet profiteth nothing, then depart out of the school, and say unto their 
 audience, “I never opened unto you the science that I taught you;”— 
 not that the fault was in them, but in the auditors that neglected their 
 diligence and doctrine. . . , 8 
 
 Cicero’s audience here is meant to reverse his self-depreciation by 
 recognizing that he has taught very well, but in addition the self¬ 
 depreciation acts as a pointer to his real opinion that the students 
 have not learned anything, so that his audience is led also to reverse 
 Cicero’s implied praise of his students’ attentiveness. Another type 
 of self-depreciation, the pose of innocent ignorance in the face of 
 an indisputable conclusion, is connected to irony by Angel Day, 
 who, after describing minutely a dishonest servant boy who would 
 obviously steal anything he could lay his hands on, comments: 
 “In the ende (by whose theft God knowes) the man had a chest 
 broken up, and a little coyne and plate stolne. . . .” 9 Day’s paren¬ 
 thesis implies that he cannot imagine the boy as a thief, but his 
 preparatory description is so obvious the audience automatically 
 takes Day’s remark as not very subtle irony. A far nicer use of 
 assumed innocence occurs in an irony pointed out by Richard Baxter: 
 St. Paul, reprimanded by the bystanders for reviling the high priest 
 Ananias, replies, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: 
 For it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy 
 people.” 10 Paul’s innocence here acts simply as the vehicle of un¬ 
 merited praise, praise which only someone sympathetic with Paul’s 
 view of the usurper Ananias would see to be ironic, for there is no 
 overt indication of his real opinion in the statement itself. The 
 very opposite of innocent ignorance is utilized in the “very majestic 
 Irony” which Anthony Blackwall attributes to Milton’s God upon 
 the revolt of Lucifer: 
 
 Son! Thou in whom my Glory I behold 
 In full Resplendence, Heir of all my Might, 
 
 s John Hooper, Early Writings (Parker Soc.), p. 420, 
 
 “Angel Day, English Secretorie (1595), Part I, pp. 44-45. 
 
 10 Richard Baxter, A Paraphrase on the New Testament (1701), Acts 23:5. 
 
102 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Nearly it now concerns Us to be sure 
 Of our Omnipotence! 11 
 
 Here the ironist first aggrandizes himself and then, assuming all 
 this glory, depreciates himself in relation to the object of his irony, 
 as though Lucifer were a respectable foe. John Smith gives an 
 example from the Bible which makes the whole pattern explicit 
 in its simplest form: “We are fools, ye are wise, we nothing, ye 
 all, &c.” 12 A subtler form of the complete pattern is explained by 
 Anthony Blackwall: St. Paul has been pleading his cause before 
 Agrippa, who finally answers: 
 
 You almost 'persuade me to become a Christian. 
 
 Some commentators make A grippal answer to be an irony and rid¬ 
 icule upon the apostle; as if he had said, Do you think me so weak as 
 easily to be persuaded out of the religion of my ancestors, or become your 
 proselyte by a short harangue , and a few words of insinuation? But this 
 is forced and unnatural, against the stream of the generality of the ablest 
 critics and commentators; and not very agreeable to the context. 13 
 
 In the delightful correspondence between Gay and the Duchess 
 of Queensberry in England, and Swift in Ireland, there occurs a 
 bit of playfully ironic self-depreciation which the Duchess carries 
 to an extreme of exaggeration. Gay and his Duchess have been 
 writing joint letters, many of them importuning Swift to visit Ames- 
 bury, which Swift has answered by making all sorts of impossible 
 conditions to be met before he will accept the invitation. His most 
 recent letter has rebuked the Duchess with mock severity for not 
 joining Gay in writing the last letter from Amesbury. The 
 Duchess’ answer is, in part: 
 
 Dear Sir, —Mr. Gay tells me I must write upon his line, for fear 
 of taking up too much room. It was his fault that I omitted my duty in 
 his last letter; for he never told me one word of writing to you till he 
 had sent away his letter. However, as a mark of my great humility, I 
 shall be ready and glad to ask your pardon upon my knees as soon as ever 
 you come, though not in fault. I own this is a little mean-spirited, which 
 I hope will not make a bad impression, considering you are the occasion. 
 I submit to all your conditions, so pray come; for I have not only prom- 
 
 11 Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 176-79. 
 
 12 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), pp. 45-48. See also Fvnes Moryson, Itenerary 
 (1617), p. 160. 
 
 13 Anthony Blackwall, Sacred Classics Defended II (1731), p. 81. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY I03 
 
 ised myself, but Mr. Gay also, the satisfaction to hear you talk as much 
 nonsense as you can possibly utter. 14 
 
 Swift answers: 
 
 . . . madam, understand one thing, that I take all your ironical civilities 
 in a literal sense. . . , 15 
 
 It is of course the Duchess’ exaggeration which turns her sincere 
 respect into playful irony of the sort Swift loved. 
 
 In “A Letter Written by the Reverend Mr. John Hales of 
 Eaton, to Arch-Bishop Laud, upon Occasion of his Tract concern¬ 
 ing Schism,” Anthony Collins thinks Hales “shews himself to have 
 been another Socrates, one of the greatest Masters of true Wit and 
 just Irony. . . .” 16 The following excerpt gives us a sample of 
 Hales’ style: 
 
 I have much marvelled, whence a Scribbled Paper, dropt from so worth¬ 
 less and inconsiderable a Hand as mine, should recover so much Strength, 
 as to be able to give Offence.. But I confess it to be most true, that 
 Bellum inchoant inertes, fortes finiunt; And a weak Hand often kindles 
 that Fire, which the Concourse of the whole Vicinity cannot quench. 
 If therefore any Fire can arise out of so poor a Spark, (which I can 
 hardly conceive,) I am my Self here at hand to pour on Water, to pre¬ 
 vent a farther Mischief. 
 
 Whosoever hath the Misfortune to read it, shall find in it, for Stile, some 
 things over-familiar and Sub-rustick; some things more -pleasant than 
 needed; some thing more Sour and Satyrical. For these, my Apology is 
 but this, that Your Grace would be pleased to take in consideration, first, 
 what the Liberty of a Letter might entice me to. Secondly, I am, by 
 Genius, Open and Uncantelous; and therefore some Pardon might be 
 afforded to harmless Freedom, and Gayety of Spirit, utterly devoid of 
 all Distemper and Malignity. 
 
 . . . whereas I did too plainly deliver my Self De Origine Dominii, and 
 denied it to be founded either in Nature or in Religion, I am very well 
 content to put off the decision of this point till Elias comes. In the mean 
 time, whether it be true or false, let it pass for my Mistake; for ’tis 
 but a point of mere Speculation, which we fall upon when we study 
 Aristotle’s Politicks; and in common Life and Use, hath no place at all. 
 For Authority is not wont to dispute; and it goes but lazily on, when it 
 must defend it self by Argument in the Schools. 17 
 
 14 Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VII, 236. 
 
 16 Ibid.., VII, 249. 
 
 16 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridictde and Irony (1729), p. 46. 
 
 17 Francis Hare, Diffiadties and Discouragements (1716), pp. 40-43. 
 
104 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Hales does achieve something very like the true Socratic tone; 
 moreover, he uses it not for a passing gibe but as a pose to be main¬ 
 tained through the whole course of his letter. Collins’ attention 
 to this pose as irony is indicative of the Augustans’ increasing critical 
 awareness of irony as something more than clever repartee. 
 
 ii. Direct praise 
 
 Because it is the simplest, no doubt, direct praise has been the 
 most frequently recognized method of ironic praise ever since Soc¬ 
 rates was called eiron when he employed it to supplement and 
 emphasize his subtler method of self-depreciation. 18 As we have 
 observed above, when self-depreciation is used as a method of blame- 
 by-praise the ironist often points up implied praise of his antagonist 
 by making an explicit statement of it. The Rhetoric to Alexander, 
 which includes the earliest extant formulation of blame-by-praise 
 irony, offers in illustration precisely this combination. 
 
 An Irony is, when we know one thing and dissemble another. We 
 must not say , that these men, who boast they have done us so much good , 
 have been the People that have done us all this mischeif. But when we 
 call things by contrary names, then thus. These good men were they 
 that did the mischeif to our Confederates; hut we wicked People, they 
 that did ’em all the kindness. 10 
 
 But direct ironic praise, “when anything disgraceful is designated 
 by an honourable term,” 20 has pursued most of its career apart from 
 Socratic self-depreciation. Cicero 21 and Quintilian 22 both recom¬ 
 mend it, and Plutarch 23 and Lucian 24 refer to instances of it as irony. 
 
 The earliest appearance of irony in English is accompanied by an 
 elementary example of direct praise, 25 and later (1533) Thomas 
 
 18 G. G. Sedgewick, “Dramatic Irony” (1913), pp. 92-93, and Plato Gorgias 
 489 de. 
 
 19 Aristotle's Rhetoric (1686), p. 257. The “Rhetoric to Alexander” is attributed 
 to Aristotle and included in the translation as Book IV. 
 
 211 Cicero On Oratory II. 67 ff. 
 
 21 Ibid. 
 
 22 Quintilian Institutio VIII. vi. 54-58; IX. ii. 44-53. 
 
 23 Plutarch Lives, “Timoleon” 1 5. Plutarch Moralia 44 d. 
 
 24 Lucian A Literary Prometheus 1; Lexiphanes 1. 
 
 26 See Diet. m.B.ii above. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 1 05 
 
 More explains how this method works: 
 
 But then that I cal them [heretics] again good names: this thing lo 
 thys good man rekeneth a veri mostrous maner, to make them both good 
 and badde. But thys is a monster lo of every mas making. For so call 
 not I theym alone, but the whole people to, in such maner of speaking 
 as every man useth, whe he calleth one self noughty lad, both a shreud 
 boy and a good sonne, the tone in y e proper simple spech, the tother by 
 the fygure of ironye or antiphrasis. And by a lyke maner fygure saint 
 Hierome against the olde heretike Vigilanti, calleth him somtime Vigilan- 
 tius, & somtyme agayne Dormitantius, and so he calleth that heretike 
 two contrarye names, as wel a I do these . 26 
 
 More is talking about the most elementary kind of direct ironic 
 praise, in which the ironist vents his real opinion quite openly and 
 then uses a sudden reversal of terms as rhetorical ornamentation. 
 By mid-century Thomas Wilson, inspired by Cicero and Quintilian, 
 was offering models for more extended and exaggerated though 
 far from subtle praise of an unworthy object, but he calls the meth¬ 
 od dissembling rather than irony , 27 as does Hoby . 28 Abraham 
 Fraunce, however, instances several ironies in Philip Sidney which 
 are both elaborated and polished, among them this one: 
 
 Sir Philif Sid. a continued Ironia between Pas and Nico. 
 
 Nico. Who doubts but Pas fine pipe againe will bring 
 The auncient praise to Arcade shepheards skill? 
 
 Pan is not dead, since Pas begins to sing. 
 
 Pas. Who evermore will love Apolloes quill, 
 
 Since Nico doth to sing so widely gape? 
 
 Nico his place farre better furnish will. 
 
 Nico. Was this not lie who for Cyringaes scape 
 
 Raging in woes, first Pastors taught to plaine? 
 
 Doo you not heare his voyce and see his shape? 
 
 Pas. This is not he, that failed her to gaine 
 
 Which made a bay, made bay a holy tree: 
 
 But this is one that doth his musicke staine . 20 
 
 Sidney sustains the ironic battle between Pas and Nico with a series 
 of flattering allusions, and the real attitudes of the two shepherds 
 
 28 Thomas More, Works (1557), “The debellacion of Salem and Byzance,” 
 chap, v, p. 939. Miles Coverdale repeats More’s illustration in Remains (Parker 
 Soc.), II, 333. 
 
 27 Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 134-56. 
 
 28 Hoby, Courtier (Everyman), pp. 159-61. 
 
 29 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. vi. 
 
106 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 are not at all blatant, although in the fifth line and the last Pas is 
 blunter than Nico, who reveals his irony only in the laughable 
 exaggeration of his praises. The sort of ironic allusion Sidney uses 
 here was later remarked upon by the Earl of Chesterfield: “it would 
 be a manifest irony to call a very ugly fellow an Adonis..., or 
 to call a cowardly fellow an Alexander, or an ignorant fellow Poly¬ 
 glot. .. .” 30 But allusion may be used not only to carry the ironic 
 praise but also to reveal the ironist’s real meaning, as it was in the 
 “Ironicall message” 31 sent July 6, 1714, from Bolingbroke in Lon¬ 
 don to Swift in Ireland through John Barber. 
 
 My Lord bid me tell you this morning, that he will write to you, and 
 let you know that as great a philosopher as you are, you have had the 
 pip; that the public affairs are carried on with the same zeal and quick 
 dispatch as when you was here; nay, that they are improved in several 
 particulars; that the same good understanding continues; that he hopes 
 the world will be better for your retirement; that your inimitable pen 
 was never more wanted than now; and more, which I cannot remem¬ 
 ber . 32 
 
 It is of course the standard of comparison Bolingbroke alludes to, 
 that stage of paralysis and cross-purposes at which the government 
 of Oxford and Bolingbroke had arrived, which furnishes clues to 
 the real import of the irony here. 
 
 Another means of varying direct praise was illustrated by Angel 
 Day: 
 
 Ironia, a scoffe or flout, as when we say, Alas good man , or to one 
 that hath set debate or contention, you have spun a fair threed or to him 
 that hath made a long speech to no purpose, you have brought foorth a 
 mightie molle-hil. ... 33 
 
 An amusing example of the metaphoric technique is labeled irony 
 by Smollett: 
 
 “She is ... a tight, good humoured sensible wench, who knows very well 
 how to box her compass; well trimmed aloft, and well sheathed alow, 
 with a good cargo under her hatches.” The commodore at first imagined 
 this commendation was ironical. . . . 34 
 
 30 Chesterfield, Letters to His Son (Strachey-Calthrop), I, 61. 
 
 31 Swift, Letters to Ford. (Nichol Smith), p. 29. 
 
 32 Swift, Correspondence (Ball), II, 172-73. 
 
 33 Angel Day, English Secretorie (1595), Part II, pp. 79-80. 
 
 34 Smollett, Peregrine Pickle (Shakespeare Head), II, 43-44.. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 10 J 
 
 Here the metaphors not only carry the ironic praise but also reveal 
 the ironist’s real meaning through his incongruous object of com¬ 
 parison. 
 
 The use of ambiguity in direct praise was illustrated nicely by 
 Plutarch: 
 
 Another, on going to Athens, saw that the Athenians were hawking 
 salt fish and dainties, collecting taxes, keeping public brothels, and fol¬ 
 lowing other unseemly pursuits, and holding none of them to be shame¬ 
 ful. When he returned to his own country, his fellow-citizens asked how 
 things were in Athens, and he said, “Everything fair and lovely,” 
 speaking ironically and conveying the idea that among the Athenians 
 everything is considered fair and lovely, and nothing shameful . 30 
 
 The ironic praise and the meant blame are both explicitly stated 
 in one and the same phrase. A popular piece of irony in the 
 English classical period makes use of two phases of meaning which, 
 although they are the sting on the whip, are only one part of the 
 whole irony. 
 
 Then, said the Lord, with holy ironie 
 Whence man the folly of his pride might see, 
 
 The earthy man like one of us is grown, 
 
 To whom, as God, both good and ill is known, 
 
 36 
 
 Here is the double sense “to know evil by observation” and “to 
 know evil by participation.” 
 
 Thomas Herbert pointed out an irony in which direct ironic 
 praise is conveyed through the efFect of its object on the ironist: 
 
 This Isle is hard to be ascended; not that the passage is craggy, but 
 that it is so Precipitous. The Sailors have an Ironick Proverb, The way 
 is such, as a man may chuse whether he will break his heart going up, 
 or his neck coming down. . . . 37 
 
 In the phrase “a man may chuse” the sailors praise the Isle for its 
 charity, but with a slight indirection, and they state their real views 
 immediately following. A similar way of putting direct praise in 
 
 35 Plutarch Moralia 23 6 c. 
 
 36 Allen Apsley, Order and Disorder (1679), pp. 65-66. See also Peacham, 
 Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 35-36; Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning 
 Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 22-23. 
 
 37 Thomas Herbert, Travels (1677), p. 392. Cf. Anthony Blackwall, Sacred 
 Classics Defended II (1731), p. 81. 
 
I 08 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 a slightly indirect way was discussed by both John Gilbert Cooper 38 
 and the Monthly: 
 
 Translation from the French of a Letter of Racine the younger, to his 
 brother, on his -poem on Religion, in which the saying of Socrates, in his 
 last minutes, of his owing a cock to Esculapius, is accounted for. 
 
 Socrates does not tell Crito to sacrifice a cock, but says simply, and with¬ 
 out more, “Crito, we owe a cock to Esculapius”. . . . Do not you plainly 
 discern that this is raillery? And that Plato, who supports his characters 
 with an Homerical exactness, makes him die, as he had lived, with irony 
 in his mouth? It was a proverbial saying, when any one who had escaped 
 a dangerous disorder, for another to tell him, that, for that bout, he owed 
 a cock to Esculapius. . . . This is all the mystery: Socrates meant with¬ 
 out doubt, It is now that we owe a fine cock to Esculapius; for I am 
 certainly got over all my ills. A thought too . . . perfectly conformable 
 to the idea he had of death . 39 
 
 There is no doubt that Socrates meant his remark as some sort of 
 praise for Esculapius; the problem is that he maintained his ironic 
 pose and left his real meaning to an audience’s understanding of 
 the whole situation. 
 
 The great difficulty of not stating one’s real views, of main¬ 
 taining ironic praise to the end, is evident in an irony pointed out 
 by William Gurnall: 
 
 That friar was . . . sound in his judgment in this point, who, preaching 
 at Rome one Lent, when some cardinals and many other great ones were 
 present, began his sermon thus abruptly and ironically. Saint Peter was 
 a fool, Saint Paul was a fool, and all the primitive Christians were fools; 
 for they thought the way to heaven was by prayers and tears, watchings 
 and fastings, severities of mortification, and denying the pomp and glory 
 of this world; whereas you here in Rome spend your time in balls and 
 masks, live in pomp and pride, lust and luxury, and yet count yourselves 
 good Christians, and hope to be saved; but at last you will prove the fools, 
 and they will be found to have been the wise men . 40 
 
 By the time he arrives at the point of bestowing his ironic praises the 
 unfortunate friar has lost his desire to be ironic and can only berate. 
 That art which is the very antithesis of such shilly-shallying is evi¬ 
 dent in a passage from Gulliver's Travels singled out by a com¬ 
 mentator on that book: 
 
 3S John G. Cooper, Socrates (1750), p. 186 n. 
 
 30 Monthly Review, I (July, 1749), 172. 
 
 40 C. H. Spurgeon, Treasury of David (1885), p. 420. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY log 
 
 As also Pages 108, 109, &c. where an Account is given of the Lords 
 and Commons, the Bishops and Judges; of which this is most remarkable, 
 viz. 
 
 THAT the first are the Ornament, &c. of the Kingdom—worthy 
 Followers of their renowned Ancestors, whose Honour had been the 
 Reward of their Virtue, from which their Posterity were never once 
 known to degenerate, &c. There are some who will needs have this 
 Passage to be Ironical but with what Grounds, we leave it to the Reader 
 to determine. 41 
 
 It is only the absolute thoroughness of the praise which in its im¬ 
 possible perfection gives the irony away, but of course the audience 
 must be on the ironist’s side. Otherwise he is met by a response 
 like that elicited from one of Defoe’s antagonists: a the Purest, 
 and most Flourishing Church in the World. They are his own 
 Words,.. . and must never pass for an Irony with Honest Men, 
 though his brief Explication affirms ’em for such with him. . . .” 42 
 
 In a pamphlet Collins called ironic 43 the author gives us a 
 rather different sort of direct ironic praise. The Dean has accused 
 the Bishop of being applauded by Nazarenus and Independent 
 Whig: 
 
 The D—n, I must acknowledge, has this peculiar Happiness in the 
 present Reproach, almost unknown to Him in Any other; viz. that he is 
 very secure from having it retorted upon Him; being One of those very 
 few Writers, whose Reputation in the Controversy now on Foot, No 
 Sort of Men Injure by their Applauses. 44 
 
 Instead of beating about the bush by praising the Dean because 
 everyone applauds him and then having to introduce his real opin¬ 
 ion in some fashion, the author goes directly to the point and praises 
 him for his failure. The extended use of this tack is illustrated in 
 the speech of a senator of Lilliput on the government’s methods of 
 regulating the gin traffic. 
 
 This Bill therefore appears to be designed only to thin the Ranks of 
 Mankind, and to disburthen the World, of the Multitudes that inhabit 
 it, and is perhaps the strongest Proof of political Sagacity that our new 
 Ministers have yet exhibited. They well know, my Lords, that they are 
 
 41 Gulliver Decypher'd (1726?), pp. 33-34. 
 
 42 The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters ... Consider’d (1703), p. 3. 
 
 43 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), p. 47. 
 
 44 D—n of W—r still the same (1720), pp. 100-101. 
 
IIO THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 universally detested, and that wherever a Lilliputian is destroyed, they 
 are freed from an Enemy; they have therefore opened the Flood-gates 
 of Gin upon the Nation, that when it is less numerous, it may be more 
 easily governed. 
 
 Other Ministers, my Lords, who had not attained to so great a 
 Knowledge in the Art of making War upon their Country, when they 
 found their Enemies clamerous and bold used to awe them with Prosecu¬ 
 tions and Penalties, or destroy them like Burglars with Prisons and with 
 Gibbets. But every Age, my Lords, produces some improvement, and 
 every Nation, however degenerate, gives both [nV] at some happy 
 Period of Time to Men of great and interprising Genius. It is our 
 Fortune to be Witnesses of a new Discovery in Politics, and may con¬ 
 gratulate ourselves upon being Contemporaries with those Men, who 
 have shewn that Hangmen and Halters are unnecessary in a State, and 
 that Ministers may escape the Reproach of destroying their Enemies, by 
 inciting them to destroy themselves. 45 
 
 Here the speaker, all the while he is exaggerating the government’s 
 viciousness, is praising that viciousness in terms of direct value judg¬ 
 ment. 
 
 No doubt the elaboration by Pope and Swift 46 of direct ironic 
 praise into extended and sustained pieces of satire encouraged the 
 popular recognition of the technique. It was also inescapable in 
 the controversial pamphlets and other occasional prose of the time. 
 Thus there was rather more awareness in the second quarter of the 
 eighteenth century than earlier, of the long piece of direct ironic 
 praise. Evidence of this awareness appears, among other places, in 
 “A Proposal humbly offered to the Senate of Great Lilliput,” in 
 the Gentleman’s Magazine for November, 1740: 
 
 What the Proposer has to offer . . . nearly concerns their own Interest, 
 and therefore will probably meet with a favourable Attention. It is 
 nothing less than the entire Demolition ... of what has been, and con¬ 
 tinues still to be a greater Thorn in their Sides, that ill-contriv’d Figure 
 of Rhetorick, called Irony (in plain English Sneer ) a mischievous Figure, 
 that has done more Damage to the honourable M—y and Senate, than 
 the Enemies of our Nation have sustain’d by 100 Men of War and 
 40000 hand Forces. . . . ’Tis by the Means of this Figure (ill betide 
 the first Inventer and the Propagaters of it! ) that the Views of Ministers 
 are exposed to the inconsiderate Multitude. If a few honest Members of 
 the House of Clinabs for their unsullied Fidelity and Attachment to the 
 
 46 Gentleman's Magazine , XIV (Jan., 1744.), 12. 
 
 46 Gulliver Decyfher'cL (1726?), pp. 33-34. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 
 
 I I I 
 
 M—ry, instead of promoting the Good of those that sent them thither, 
 are rewarded with a small Pension, or accept of a Place from him of 
 some Emolument to themselves, tho’ of no Manner of Use to the Pub- 
 lick: Why presently these Ironists let all the World know it by extolling 
 their Integrity, Disinterestedness, and Independency. If the Adminis¬ 
 tration squanders away the publick Money, and increases their own, 
 these Sneerers take Occasion to expose them, by magnifying their Frugali¬ 
 ty and good Oeconomy. If great Fleets are mann’d at Sea, which (for 
 strange Reasons of State) have done nothing; and if a large Body of 
 Land Forces have been kept up at a vast Expence, whose utmost Exploits 
 have been the Robbing of a Hen-roost, or stealing of a Sheep, or some 
 such Feats of War, this they ridicule by calling it a vigorous Prosecution 
 of the War. If a Legate be bamboozled and outwitted, effecting nothing 
 for Years together, they will blast him with their Sneering Commenda¬ 
 tions of his Sagacity, Penetration, and Address. 47 
 
 iii. Simfle concession 
 
 In its most blatant form the technique of ironic concession is 
 demonstrated perfectly by Sancho Panza. He and Don Quixote 
 having discovered that the dread noises heard during the night were 
 only six fulling-mill hammers, Sancho bursts into raucous laughter: 
 
 Four times he ceased, and four times he returned to his laughter with 
 the same impetuosity as at first. Whereat Don Quixote gave himself to 
 the devil, especially when he heard him say, by way of irony; ‘You 
 must know, friend Sancho, that I was born by the will of heaven in this 
 our age of iron, to revive in it the golden, or that of gold. I am he, 
 for whom are reserved dangers, great exploits, and valorous atchieve- 
 ments.’ And so he went on, repeating most or all of the expressions, 
 which Don Quixote had used at the first hearing those dreadful strokes. 48 
 
 Sancho’s method of praising the Don is not direct but is the sim¬ 
 ple parroting of the Don’s earlier statements, now ridiculous in a 
 changed situation. Occasionally an irony can be analyzed as both 
 direct praise and concession. If a fool thinks he is a fine fellow, to 
 call him a fine fellow is both to praise him directly for what he is 
 not and to concede a foolish point of view. This double action is 
 
 ;;x, 547-48. 
 
 48 Charles Jarvis, Don Quixote (1742), I, 105. Jarvis’ is the first English 
 translation to use irony in this passage; earlier ones, and the contemporary Wilmot 
 translation, used the usual rough synonyms. 
 
I 12 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 illustrated in a biblical irony used by Hall and Smith. Here it 
 is a slight exaggeration of the conceded opinion which reveals the 
 ironist’s real meaning: 
 
 Job 12.2. Thus he taunts at his false friends: No doubt but ye are 
 the people, and wisdome shall die with you: as if he had said, in your own 
 conceits there are none wise but your selves. No doubt but reason hath 
 left us, and is gone wholly unto you; yea wisdome is so tyed to your 
 persons, that her conversation and ruine depends upon yours. 49 
 
 Puttenham’s first example of “Ironia” gives us a direct value judg¬ 
 ment which is not reversible, however, but is concession: “as he 
 that said to a bragging Ruffian, that threatened he would kill and 
 slay, no doubt you are a good man of your hands. . . .” 30 And no 
 doubt he was. But by conceding the ruffian’s claim within a wider 
 context of values, the ironist has him beating the air. When the 
 ironist leaves the area of direct value judgment to concede an opin¬ 
 ion, argument, or point of view, the technique is of course easier 
 to distinguish. Although it may develop into the ironic defense, 
 or ironic advice, these will be considered distinct devices—“compli¬ 
 cated concession,” if one likes. 
 
 Quintilian notes the irony of concession and illustrates it, first 
 with a piece of ironic advice, second with simple concession in combi¬ 
 nation with self-depreciation, 51 and later Lucian calls a somewhat 
 exaggerated concession irony. 02 The earliest English reference to 
 concession as irony appears in Miles Coverdale about 1541. Before 
 being burned at the stake for heresy D. Barnes had made a “Pro¬ 
 testation” w r hich was answered by John Standish. In his answer 
 to Standish, Coverdale first quotes Barnes, then Standish, and then 
 makes his attack. 
 
 Barnes. 
 
 I am come hither to be burned as an heretic, and you shall hear my 
 belief; whereby ye shall perceive what erroneous opinions I hold. 
 
 Standish. 
 
 Mark here , how he useth ironia, etc. 
 
 48 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), PP- 45-48. See also Thomas Hall, The 
 Schools Guarded (1655), pp. 163-70. 
 
 60 Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91. 
 
 51 See p. 100 above. 
 
 62 Lucian Zeus Tragoedus 52. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 
 
 “3 
 
 Coverdale. 
 
 Ye confess that D. Barnes in his foresaid words doth use iroma ; . . . 
 it is evident, that when he said these words ... his meaning was, how 
 that the people should know, that he held no erroneous opinions, as it 
 appeareth by these his words following. 53 
 
 In his irony here Barnes concedes the total point of view of his 
 persecutors on why he has come to the stake, on what he will say, 
 on what his audience will understand by what he says. He does not 
 exaggerate their point of view nor underline the irony with verbal 
 posturings. He relies entirely on his statements that follow to re¬ 
 veal the ironic import of his opening concession. Stephen Gardiner 
 points out a similar concession in an attack made by Thomas 
 Cranmer. 54 A nice bit of concession from the Bible is adduced by 
 Thomas Granger: 
 
 Thus our Saviour Christ answereth the proude, covetous Hypocrites, 
 the Pharisees contemptibly reproaching him for keeping company with 
 Publicanes and sinners. 
 
 He answereth them, Vers. 12.13. The whole neede not the Phisitian, 
 but the sicke, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. 
 
 H ere hee confuteth, and reproveth their ignorance and their pride by 
 ironicall concession. 55 
 
 The phrase “ironical concession,” referring to ironic advice and de¬ 
 fense as well as to simple concession, seems to have become familiar 
 rhetorical terminology in the seventeenth century. 66 In relating 
 such contrary opinions, Obadiah Walker suggests, the ironist should 
 be sure “there is a sufficient prejudice of them,” and should intro¬ 
 duce them with an ironical “It is obvious” or “I believe” or “Unless 
 I err.” 57 But it is just such posturing that makes the following 
 passage of Augustan concession too obvious: 
 
 . . . ’tis easy to shew from almost every one of his L—p’s Books, that his 
 Adversaries are strange Creatures, Men of Avarice and Ambition, gov- 
 
 63 Miles Coverdale, Remains (Parker Soc.), II, 331, 333. 
 
 54 Thomas Cranmer, Answer unto .. .Gardiner (1551), p. 69. 
 
 65 Thomas Granger, Divine Logike (1620), pp. 381-82. 
 
 60 Ibid.-, Thomas Hall, The Schools Guarded (1655), pp. 163-70; John Smith, 
 Rhetorique (1657), PP- 203-4; Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics 
 (1728), pp. 207-8, 212, and Sacred Classics Defended (1727), pp. 254, 256. 
 
 57 Obadiah Walker, Art of Oratory (1659), P- 93 - 
 
I 14 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 erned by Interest and Passion, without Charity, Learning or Judgment; 
 which last Characters need no other Proof, than that they dare to differ 
 from him, which they never do, but at the same time they differ from 
 themselves, and run into perpetual Contradictions? 9, 
 
 A subtler manner is implied by Eliza Haywood in the Female Specta¬ 
 tor. The beautiful Sabina had an irrational prejudice against Welsh¬ 
 men so strong that she absolutely refused even to see the lovelorn 
 Luellin until his friend her brother interceded for him. Having 
 accomplished his intercession, her brother “took his leave, with 
 thanking her in an ironical way, though gravely, for the considera¬ 
 tion she testified to have for him, in resolving to use a Welchman 
 well, because he had a value for him.” 59 
 
 Another technique of pointing up an ironic concession is to 
 concede rather more than the immediate argument so that the ad¬ 
 ditional concession, by emphasizing the nature of the conceded thing 
 in a larger or more detailed or simply different context, acts to 
 underline its ridiculousness. An obvious form of this device was 
 illustrated by Richard Sherry: 
 
 Astysmus, whan a thyng is polished with some mery conceit, as Virgil 
 speaking of twoo foolishe Poetes, Mavius and Bavius sayde: He that hateth 
 not Bavius, lette hym love thy verses, O Mevi, joyne foxes, and mylke 
 he goates. 60 
 
 Here Virgil concedes the possibility of a certain pastime and then 
 goes on to concede the possibility of two other foolish pastimes, 
 which act as metaphoric expressions of his real opinion. Danett’s 
 Comines gives us a different type of extension: 
 
 After the K. had reposed himselfe a few daies at Pisa, he departed to 
 Florence, where they had declared unto him the great wrong he had 
 done their estate, by restoring the Pisans to libertie contrarie to his promise. 
 Those that were appointed to make answer heereunto excused the fact: 
 saying, that the King had not well understood with what conditions Pisa 
 
 58 Francis Hare, New Defence of Bangor (1720), pp. 64-65. This pamphlet 
 is referred to as ironic by Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and 
 Irony (1729), p. 46. 
 
 59 Female Spectator (1755), IV, 122-23. 
 
 "Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 11 5 
 
 was delivered unto him, neither understood he another treatie he made 
 with the Florentines:* 
 
 * This is Ironice spoken because the King- brake this second treatie also, men¬ 
 tioned in the very next chapter, notwithstanding that he understood it wel ynough. 
 
 That irony so often quoted during the sixteenth and seventeenth 
 centuries seems to be of the same nature: “As the Jewes said to 
 Christ: now let him come down from the crosse, and save hymselfe, 
 that saved other.” 62 And Anthony Collins offers us another in¬ 
 stance of this technique: 
 
 “On the Day of the Dissolution of the last Parliament of King James 
 the First ... at Dinner . . . His Majesty ask’d the Bishops, My Lords, 
 cannot I take my Subjects Money when I want it, without all this For¬ 
 mality in Parliament? The Bishop of Durham readily answer’d, God for¬ 
 bid, Sir, but you should; you are the Breath of our Nostrils. Whereupon 
 the King turn’d and said to the Bishop of Winchester, Well, my Lord, 
 what say you? Sir, replied the Bishop, I have no Skill to judge of Parlia- 
 metitary Cases. The King answer’d, No Put-offs, my Lord; answer 
 me presently. Then, Sir, said he, / think it is lawful for you to take my 
 Brother Neal’s Money, for he offers it. 6s 
 
 The method of concession can be made the ground of a sub¬ 
 stantial satire, although it of course tends toward complication. 
 John Stephens carried it to considerable length in Essay I of his 
 Essayes and Characters Ironicall^ by assuming throughout the false 
 point of view toward virtue held by his antagonists, but his con¬ 
 cession is so ostentatious and his real attitude so obvious that the 
 Essay seems as much a hostile description of the point of view as 
 a concession of it, yet as description it is nearly enough literal not 
 to be burlesque. Defoe’s The Shortest Way with the Dissenters 
 was irrevocably far more successful in using this extended technique, 
 and the word irony was widely associated with his pamphlet. 65 He 
 himself insisted that simple concession was what the entire pamphlet 
 was: “Thus a poor author has ventured to have all mankind call 
 him villain and traitor to his country and friends, for making other 
 people’s thoughts speak in his words.” 66 
 
 01 Thomas Danett, Comines (Whibley), II, 200. 
 
 02 Richard Sherry, Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi. 
 
 63 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), p. 26. 
 
 64 See Diet. m.B.ii, pp. 65-67 ff., above. 
 
 60 The Fox with his Fire-brand Unkennell’d (1703), The Shortest-Way with 
 the Dissenters .. .Consider'd (1703), and Defoe, Explanation of the Shortest Way 
 (Trevelyan), p. 57. 
 
 °° Ibid., p. 57- 
 
THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 I l6 
 
 iv. Ironic advice 
 
 This technique, which is fundamentally a dramatizing of simple 
 concession, is defined for us by Anthony Blackwall: 
 
 False and unmerited Praise lashes an Offender with double Severity, and 
 sets his Crimes in a glaring Light. A lively and agreeable kind of this 
 Trope is ironical Exhortation : By this when a Man has largely reckon’d 
 up the Inconveniencies and Mischiefs that attend any Practice or way of 
 Living, he concludes with feign’d Encouragement and Advice to act after 
 that Manner, and pursue that very Course of Life. 6 ' 
 
 Such irony as Blackwall recommends here is by its very nature 
 obvious, the ironical exhortation acting merely as a frame for what 
 the ironist really thinks. 
 
 An instance of ironic advice had been given by Quintilian 68 and 
 John Lawson repeats “this spirited Irony of Dido:” 
 
 Go follow Italy thro’ Tempests, haste, 
 
 Seek flying Kingdoms o’er the watry Waste. 69 
 
 The earliest English reference to ironic advice produces a rather 
 confused point of view in which statement of the actual “Incon¬ 
 veniencies and Mischiefs” hinders the “feign’d Encouragement.” 
 Catholic proscriptions connected with meat or drink are the object 
 of John Philpott’s attack: 
 
 . . . what else, I pray thee, do their decrees contain, than a certain new 
 Jewish fashion? Whom Paul for these words, and for that imitation, 
 ironeously doth scorn: “Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all 
 perish with the abusing [i.e., using\ of them, and are after the com¬ 
 mandments and doctrines of men; which things have the similitude of 
 wisdom in chosen holiness and humbleness in words only,” when indeed 
 they be mere madness and superstition.' 0 
 
 During the next two centuries a stock example of ironic advice was 
 Christ’s statement, “Sleepe on and take your rest. This saying 
 Christ speaketh in a contrary sense, meaning that trouble was nigh 
 at hand to waken them out of their securitie.”' 1 The rhetorics 
 of Peacham, Hoskins, Blount, Hall, and Smith all use it and it is 
 
 67 Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 176-79. 
 
 68 Quintilian Institutio IX. ii. 44-53. 
 
 69 John Lawson, Lectures Concerning Oratory (1760), pp. 257-68. 
 
 70 John Philpott, Writings (Parker Soc.), pp. 418-19. 
 
 71 Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 35-36. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY I I J 
 
 discussed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for October, 1751. 72 A 
 correspondent is puzzled by this passage in the account of Christ’s 
 passion, for when Christ returns from praying the first and second 
 times, he rebukes his disciples for sleeping, but the third time 
 
 he is made to act a part quite contrary to the former; to recommend to 
 them a profound and quiet rest: Sleef on now and take your rest. ... in 
 the next words he adds a quite contrary order; “Arise, let us be going: 
 behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.” What can this inconsistency 
 mean? . . . Does he speak ironically to his disciples in the first part, and 
 mean thus, “Sleep on now and take your rest if you can?” This cannot 
 be; an irony includes in it that laughing sneer, which was too light for 
 any part of our Saviour’s life, much more so, when his soul was sorrow¬ 
 ful unto death. 
 
 Solomon’s advice in Ecclesiastes 11:9, “Rejoice O young Man, and 
 let thy Heart chear thee in the Days of thy Youth.. .” 73 was an¬ 
 other popular illustration of irony. Such advice could upon occasion 
 rise to prophetic scope and fervor, as in Jeremiah’s prophecy to 
 Egypt that the King of Babylon would invade and lay it waste: 
 
 3. Prepare ye shield, & buckler, and goe forth to battel. 4. Yoke horses, 
 & mount ye horsemen: stand in helmets, furbish the speares, put on 
 coates of made. 5. What then? I saw them feareful, and turning their 
 backs, their valiants slaine: they fled in hast, neither looked they backe: 
 terrour on everie side, saith our Lord. 6. Let not the swift fly, nor the 
 strong thinke that he is safe: Toward the North by the river Euphrates 
 they were overcome, and fel downe. 7. Who is this that riseth up as a 
 floud: and as it were of rivers, so his streames doe swel? 8. Aegypt riseth 
 up like a floud, & the waves thereof shal be moved as rivers, & shall 
 say: Rysing up I wil cover the earth: I wil destroy citie, and the in¬ 
 habitants thereof. 9. Get ye up on horses, & in chariots, & let the valiants 
 come forth, AEthiopia, and the Lybians holding the shield, and the 
 Lydeans taking, and shooting arrowes. 10. And that day of our Lord 
 the God of hosts, is a day of revenge, that they may take vengeance of 
 his enemies: the sword shal devour, and be filled, and shal be drunken 
 with their bloud: for the victime of our Lord the God of hosts is in the 
 Land of the North by the river Euphrates. 11. Goe up into Galaad, & 
 take refine (c) 6 virgin the daughter of AEgypt: thou doest in vaine 
 multiplie medecines, there shal not be health to thee. 
 
 (c)AEgypt accounted it-self invincible: and so the Prophet ironiously calleth it 
 the virgin daughter, as in this whole passage he speaketh by the same figure ironia, 
 
 72 XXI, 456. 
 
 73 Blackmore, Essays I (1716), p. 149. 
 
I I 8 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-175; 
 
 willing them to doe those things which should nothing help nor profite the, as ap- 
 peareth by the next words: Thou doest in vaine multi-pHe medicines , or remedies , and 
 
 s 74 
 
 V. 5 . IO. 16. 
 
 All these pieces of advice are aimed directly at the persons whose 
 views are being ironically conceded. But the pattern can be varied. 
 Smollett describes the fluttering of hearts which Peregrine Pickle 
 excited among two groups of ladies at Bath, the youthful flirts and 
 the old-maid moralizers. 
 
 If our hero, in the long-room, chanced to quit one of the moralists, 
 with whom he had been engaged in conversation, he was immediately 
 accosted by a number of the opposite faction, who, with ironical smiles, 
 upbraiding him with cruelty to the poor lady he had left, exhorted him 
 to have compassion on her sufferings; and turning their eyes towards 
 the object of their intercession, broke forth into an universal peal of 
 laughter. 75 
 
 Here the moralizers’ views are ironically conceded by means of mock¬ 
 ing advice offered to Peregrine, and Pope notes a passage in the 
 Iliad in which Juno ironically concedes Jupiter’s omnipotence by 
 advising the other gods to submit. 76 
 
 Ironic advice sustained and elaborated into a substantial satire 
 was first clearly associated with the word irony in Swift’s latter days. 
 The “directions to servants” type of thing seems particularly to 
 have elicited use of the word. An editorial comment in the 1755 
 edition of Swift’s Works points with interest to the entertaining 
 irony of his Directions , 77 and Orrery comments with distaste that 
 Swift should have been “ironical upon useful subjects.” 78 The trans¬ 
 lation of Dedekind’s Grobianus published in 1739 is called “An 
 Ironical Poem” on the title page and dedicated to Swift, “Who 
 first Introduc’d into these Kingdoms... an Ironical Manner of 
 Writing.” The poem is, of course, parallel in technique to Swift’s 
 Directions, as the following sample demonstrates: 
 
 No Garters use; but let your whole Undress 
 The native Charms of Negligence confess. 
 
 74 Douay Bible (1635), Jeremiah 46: 3-16. A similar instance is analyzed 
 in Stephen Marshall, Emanuel (1648), pp. 1, 7-8. 
 
 75 Smollett, Peregrine Pickle (Shakespeare Head), II, 253. 
 
 76 Pope, Iliad (1756), VI, Index under “In the Irony, or sarcasm” and IV, 
 * 37 - 
 
 77 Swift, Prose Works (Temple Scott), XI, 360. 
 
 78 Orrery, Remarks on Swift (1752), pp. 282-85. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY II9 
 
 Let dangling Stockings, with becoming Air, 
 
 Leave to the Sight your brace of Mill-posts bare: 
 
 So shall each Girl admire thee to her Cost; 
 
 While thy blue Veins, and Muscles well-imbost, 
 
 And brawny Limbs, with Bristles overgrown, 
 
 Make the fond Maiden wish thee for her own. 79 
 
 The ironical cast of a rather different kind of advice, “a Persuasive 
 to people to eat their own Children,” is pointed out in the Memoirs 
 of Scriblerus. 80 
 
 Ironical exhortation need not be so obvious as Blackwall sug¬ 
 gested. Unless the advice is patently foolish, it is up to the ironist 
 how foolish it is made to appear. However, in most of the ironical 
 exhortations quoted above the ironists have made their real view 
 of the advice offered almost obtrusively explicit. 
 
 v. Ironic defense 
 
 J. A. K. Thomson points out that after Lucian had learned the 
 technique of comic irony from Plato he invented the “Ironical de¬ 
 fence” which became the “favourite and the deadliest weapon of 
 Swift,” 81 but Lucian himself does not use the word irony to refer 
 to any instances of this device. In the seventeenth century, how¬ 
 ever, a very popular biblical illustration of irony does employ it. 
 
 . . . elevating or extenuating of the objection is made by an acute Ironie; 
 or severe derision, including both a confutation, and a sharpe reproofe 
 of a wilfull, and proud adversarie. 
 
 Thus Elias answereth the Priests, and people of Baal, who held Baal 
 to be a God. For in seeming to consent to them irronically, he both 
 confuteth, and reproveth their madnesse. Eliah mocked them and saide, 
 cry aloud, for he is a God, either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he 
 is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. . . , 82 
 
 As Granger says, the irony begins with a concession, thrown into 
 the form of advice; it is in elaborating the concession that Elijah 
 
 70 Friedrich Dedekind, Grobianus (1739), p. vi. 
 
 80 Pope, Works (1751), VI, 192. 
 
 81 J. A. K. Thomson, Irony (1927), pp. 204-5. 
 
 8 " Thomas Granger, Divine Logike (1620), pp. 381-82. See also Thomas 
 Hall, The Schools Guarded (1655), pp. 163-70; John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), 
 pp. 45-48; Art of Sfeaking (1708), pp. 305-11; Blackmore, Essays I (1716), 
 p. 149. 
 
120 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 picks up the tools of ironic defense quite naturally in obedience to 
 the situation and the genius of the ironic impulse. What reveals 
 his intended meaning, of course, is the premise of the defense. 
 Gods are not supposed to be hindered from hearing prayers by 
 travel and conversation. Thus Elijah’s defense of Baal proceeds, 
 in actuality, by praising Baal’s hollow godship. Most ironic de¬ 
 fense does work in this way, although the simplest form of it, 
 straightforward rejection by the ironist of what he himself says and 
 really means, does not. This elementary ironic defense is utilized 
 by the Iago-like Rui Gomez of Otway’s Don Carlos. Has the 
 Queen been unfaithful with her own stepson? 
 
 R. Go. Good Heaven forbid that I should ever dare 
 To Question Virtue in a Queen so fair. 
 
 Though she her Eyes cast on her Glorious Sun, 
 
 Men oft see Treasures and yet covet none. 
 
 King. Think not to blind me with dark Ironies, 
 
 The Truth disguis’d in Obscure Contraries. 83 
 
 The numerous elaborations of ironic defense into substantial 
 satires for early eighteenth-century pamphlet warfare naturally at¬ 
 tracted attention to the fact that here was irony. Such awareness 
 is evident in a letter to the Grub-street Journal: 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Though you profess your selves Members of Grub-street , and ad¬ 
 vocates for that ancient Society, I have some reason to suspect that you 
 are false Brethren, and have a wicked design of exposing the Grubean 
 Art to contempt, under a specious pretence of defending it, by the modern 
 Jesuitical method of ironies and innuendos. 84 
 
 The ironical “Defence...” became almost a controversial genre. 
 In the Tale of a Tub Swift announced his intention of writing A 
 Modest Defence of the Proceedings of the Rabble in all Ages , and 
 Anthony Collins called attention to several pamphlets 85 of the sort. 
 Francis Hare’s New Defence of the Lord Bishop of BangoPs Ser¬ 
 mon . . . Considered as it is the Performance of a Man of Letters 
 
 83 Otway, Works (Summers), Act II, scene 1, pp. 89-90. A parallel use of 
 the technique occurs in Cambridge, Scribleriad (1752), Book III, note to line 11, 
 p. 45, called irony by Cambridge on pp. xiii-xv. 
 
 84 Grub-street Journal, Nov. 26, 1730. 
 
 85 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), p. 61, 
 and the pamphlets discussed below. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 
 
 121 
 
 (1720) “is an ingenious Irony he remarks. The groundplan is 
 laid down in the first few pages: 
 
 So many Pieces having been writ in Vindication of the Bishop of 
 Bangor s famous Sermon, that ’tis not easy to know so much as the 
 Names or Number of them; I have often wonder’d, that neither his 
 L—p nor any of his Friends have ever once pleaded, what, in my humble 
 Opinion, is the very best Defence that can be made for it; the great 
 Haste and Hurry, in which it was composed; of which there appear in 
 every part the most visible Marks, which plainly shew it not to be the 
 Result of his L—p’s maturer Judgment, but a Heap of loose, general 
 Thoughts, huddled up in a tumultary manner, and thrown together for 
 want of Time, without Art or Order. Sermons, in the Nature of them, 
 are not expected to be exact and labour’d Compositions, much less to be 
 just Discourses or complete Treatises, especially when upon difficult and 
 nice Subjects. 
 
 Hence it is that Preachers often perform in a manner much below them¬ 
 selves, as well as below the Subject they have undertaken. 
 
 And this appears to have been so much the Bishop of Bangor' s Case 
 in his late Sermon, so far as one can judge by the Composition it self, 
 compared with his L—p’s known Character; that I can truly say, I very 
 much expected his Lordship would have made this one part at least of his 
 Defence. . . . 
 
 . . . so much am I a Friend to the Liberty of the Understanding, and to 
 free Enquiries, and think so much Indulgence due to all ingenuous At¬ 
 tempts of that Kind, that I cannot deny my self the Pleasure of offering 
 to the World this new Argument in his L—p’s Defence, even against 
 his Will, and hope to convince others, if not himself, that when his 
 L—p composed this Sermon, which has given so much Offence, he 
 had a very good Right to this Plea, however he may have since forfeited 
 it. With this View I have reconsider’d his L—p’s Sermon, and find 
 my Sentiments just the same they were upon the first reading of it. 
 
 His Lordship having something extraordinary to offer about the 
 Nature of the Church, prepares his Hearers for it by a fomfous Introduc¬ 
 tion, which makes about a fourth part of the whole Sermon. 87 
 
 Unfortunately Hare proceeds with the kind of attack into which 
 his opening irony has already, by page 3, degenerated. Although 
 he picks up the main irony occasionally thereafter, it serves chiefly 
 as framework rather than vehicle. The same fault besets Charles 
 
 80 Ibid., p. 46. 
 
 87 Francis Hare, Ne<w Defence of Bangor (1720), pp. 3-5. 
 
122 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Leslie’s pamphlet published in 1704, the first page of which is quoted 
 by Collins: 
 
 The same Author attacks Bishop Burnet’s Speech upon the Bill against 
 Occasional Conformity, by a Pamphlet intitled, The Bishop of Salisbury** 
 proper Defence from a Speech cry’d about the Streets in his Name, and 
 said to have been spoken by him in the House of Lords upon the Bill 
 against Occasional Conformity; which is one perpetual Irony on the 
 Bishop, and gives the Author occasion to throw all manner of Satire and 
 Abuse on the Bishop. The beginning of this Pamphlet, which is as fol¬ 
 lows, will let the Reader into the full Knowledge of the Design of the 
 Irony, and the manner of Execution. 
 
 “The License of this Age and of the Press is so great, that no Rank 
 or Quality of Men is free from the Insults of loose and extravagant Wits. 
 
 “The good Bishop of Salisbury has had a plentiful Share in this sort 
 of Treatment: And now at last, some or other has presum’d to burlesque 
 his Lordship in printing a Speech for him, which none that knows his 
 Lordship can believe ever came from him. 
 
 “But because it may go down with others who are too apt to take 
 Slander upon trust, and that his Lordship has already been pelted with 
 several Answers to his Speech, I have presum’d to offer the following 
 Considerations, to clear his Lordship from the Suspicion of having vented 
 (in such an august Assembly) those crude and undigested Matters which 
 are set forth in that Speech, and which so highly reflect on his Lordship’s 
 self.” 
 
 He has taken the same Method of Irony to attack the said Bishop for 
 his Speech on the Trial of Sacheverel, and for a Sermon. . . , 88 
 
 Fog’s Weekly Journal for June 2, 1733, 89 made a great fuss about 
 “Mr. Walsingham’s Irony” in the Free Briton of a few weeks be¬ 
 fore. Walsingham had disliked a speech on the recent riots in the 
 City which the Lord Mayor had delivered to the Grand Jury. 
 Walsingham’s method in his paper is quite simple. He denies 
 that the Lord Mayor had made the speech because it is misleading 
 and contains an i( illegal and absurd Distinction.” 90 Such ironies as 
 these, popular as they were, are child’s play when set beside Swift’s 
 Argument against Abolishing Christianity , called ironic by Deane 
 Swift. 91 Swift’s Argument is extraordinarily intricate: it will be 
 said here only that he attacks the unscrupulous agnostics who sup- 
 
 8S Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 58-59. 
 
 89 No. 239. 
 
 00 London Magazine , II (June, 1733), [266-67]. 
 
 91 Deane Swift, Essay upon Swift (1755), pp. 135-36. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY I 23 
 
 ported the Establishment with the Gospel left out, by ostentatiously 
 defending their point of view in an exceedingly unwelcome way. 
 
 vi. The fallacious argument 
 
 A popular device among Augustan ironists was the patently false 
 enthymeme, which they used frequently to support the main de¬ 
 sign of advice, concession, defense, or direct praise. 92 The chief 
 function of this device was to introduce the ironist’s real sentiment 
 without breaking the ice—usually thin—of mock praise. The way 
 it operates is evident in an early illustration used by Abraham 
 Fraunce: 
 
 O notable affection, for the love of the father, to kill the wife, and 
 disinherite the children. O single minded modestie, to aspire to no lesse, 
 than to the princelie Diademe. 93 
 
 Here each argument offered ostensibly in support of the praise de¬ 
 stroys it, but insofar as the arguments are introduced as though they 
 were valid, they participate in the ironic pose. The device could 
 be carried to some length, as it was in the Gentleman’s Magazine 
 for January, 1744. A member of the Senate of Lilliput arose to 
 attack a bill for the sale and consumption of gin: 
 
 My Lords, 
 
 Though the noble Lord who has been pleased to incite us to an 
 unanimous Concurrence with himself and his Associates of the Ministry 
 in passing this excellent and wonder-working Bill, this Bill which is to 
 lessen the Consumption of Spirits, without lessening the Quantity which 
 is distilled, which is to restrain Drunkards from drinking, by setting their 
 favourite Liquor always before their Eyes, to conquer Habits by con¬ 
 tinuing them, and correct Vice by indulging it according to the lowest 
 Reckoning, for at least another Year. . . , 94 
 
 The ironist’s design here begins with direct praise, upon which he 
 elaborates with a sequence of concessions supported by obviously 
 
 92 An interesting analysis of the methods of ridiculously fallacious logic is made 
 by John M. Bullitt, Swift and Satire (1953), pp. 92-122. 
 
 93 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. vi. 
 
 94 XIV, 6-15. On p. 14 the Hurgo Yali says that this speech is full of “Irony 
 and Burlesque.” Cf. Francis Hare, New Defence of Bangor (1720), pp. 64-65— 
 Collins calls this pamphlet “An ingenious Irony.” 
 
124 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 fallacious and contradictory arguments each of which expresses his 
 real view of the facts. A simpler passage is explained by Fielding 
 in a note to his translation of Plutus : 
 
 Poverty. Well then, I proceed now to the Purity of Mens Man¬ 
 ners, and I shall convince you, that Good-Manners dwell entirely with 
 me; for all Abuse belongs to Riches. 
 
 Chrem. O certainly! for to steal, and to break open Houses, is, no 
 Doubt, a very mannerly thing. 
 
 Blefsid. Yes, by Jove: it must be certainly very reputable,* if the 
 Thief be obliged to conceal himself. 
 
 *. . . the Meaning, if it wants Explanation, is, that it must be a very reputable 
 Thing indeed, which a Man is obliged to hide himself for having done. We need 
 not observe that this is spoke ironically. 05 
 
 The difficulty of maintaining even as convenient an ironic pose as 
 fallacious argument is demonstrated in the following attack on the 
 first Earl of Shaftesbury, the author of which felt it necessary to 
 explain why his fallacious arguments were fallacious. 
 
 His Obedience to the Government is sufficiently evident, insomuch, 
 that That never chang’d, but He did: His endeavours for public Peace 
 are eminently notorious: For in the late Civil War (in spight of all Obliga¬ 
 tions of Honour and Loyalty to the contrary) he forsook the King, and 
 carry’d over his Regiment to the Parliament, on Purpose (as much as in 
 him lay) to weaken the Royal Cause, and by the Ruin of that, to bring 
 that War to an End, that no more Rebel Blood might be shed, though 
 the great Martyr’s Veins were drained afterwards without Mercy. 96 
 
 A famous irony contained in The History of John Bull conveys 
 mock praise through concession of an opposing opinion—i.e., that 
 a nation may dismiss its king at will—and supports this concession 
 with what at the time seemed an obviously fallacious argument by 
 analogy: as a wife may renounce her husband at will. Then the 
 ironist further complicates his irony by pretending to argue in the 
 opposite direction: i.e., that a wife may renounce her husband just 
 as a nation may dismiss its king. Allan Ramsay, writing early the 
 kind of analysis which was to become more common as the century 
 progressed, dissected this fallacious argument: 
 
 06 Fielding, Plutus (1742), pp. 55-57. Cf. Smollett, Peregrine Pickle (Shake¬ 
 speare Head), IV, 109-10. 
 
 06 Somers Tracts (1748), I, 153-54. The editor notes “The ironical Vein 
 which runs thro’ this Piece.” 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 
 
 125 
 
 This waggery has for title, Mrs. Bull’s vindication of the indefeasible 
 right of Cuckoldom incumbent ufon wives, in case of the tyranny, in¬ 
 fidelity, or insufficiency of their husband’s; being a full answer to the 
 Doctor’s sermon against Adultery. And it is introduced into that excel¬ 
 lent piece of allegorical humour, The History of John Bull, of which it 
 makes a part; as a wen makes a part of the fair body that is disgraced by 
 it. 
 
 To detect the fallacy of this pretended piece of Ridicule, let us fol¬ 
 low the advice of Aristotle, and reduce it to the formality of a syllogism 
 or two. As thus: First, the author ironically informs you, that 
 
 A wife is to her husband, what a nation is to its king: 
 
 Now, it being lawful for a nation to shake off its king whenever it is 
 displeased with him, and to take another in his room: 
 
 Ergo, it is lawful for a wife to renounce her husband, whenever he 
 incurs her displeasure, and to confer her favors upon anyone she 
 likes better. 
 
 To make this ironical syllogism serve the purpose of the party, the 
 faithful reader is charitably supposed to resolve it into the following. . . 
 
 It is contrary to all order and the common sense of mankind, that 
 a wife should, upon any occasion, think herself authorized to ab¬ 
 jure her fidelity to her husband. 
 
 And a nation being exactly to its king, what a wife is to her hus¬ 
 band: 
 
 Ergo, it is contrary to common sense to believe, that any failure in 
 a king can ever absolve his subjects from their allegiance. Quod 
 erat demonstrandum, 97 
 
 vii. Burlesque 
 
 In his English Burlesque Poetry, iyoo-iy^o, Richmond P. Bond 
 presents abundant evidence that the early eighteenth century ar¬ 
 rived at a critical conception of two burlesque techniques: “the first 
 represents mean Persons in the Accoutrements of Heroes, the other 
 describes great Persons acting and speaking like the basest among 
 the People. Don Quixote is an Instance of the first, and Lucian’s 
 Gods of the second.” 98 Imitation, then, and caricature, are the iden¬ 
 tifying characteristics of burlesque: “all distortions and exaggerations 
 
 07 Allan Ramsay, Essay on Ridicule (1762), pp. 34-37. 
 
 98 Addison in Spectator No. 249 (Dec. 15, 1711), quoted by Richmond P. 
 Bond, English Burlesque Poetry (1932), p. 40. 
 
126 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 whatever are within its proper province,” Fielding remarks." As 
 this popular formula was usually expressed, burlesque would seem 
 to have been limited to the imitation of character, but there are indi¬ 
 cations that the Augustans also included caricature of logical argu¬ 
 ment—the reductio ad absurdum —under the burlesque heading. 
 Their simplified scheme may be considered unhistorically, simply 
 as a critical tool, or it may be considered as an historical conception 
 of burlesque. Taking the latter view, we find that the word irony 
 and the words burlesque and mock-heroic and parody came into not 
 infrequent association in the second quarter of the eighteenth cen¬ 
 tury as Augustans gave explicit recognition to one of the tactics of 
 irony. But the word itself, in specific references, had before then 
 been associated with the techniques of burlesque understood simply 
 as methods of satiric attack. Nor is this surprising. When we re¬ 
 view the devices of irony already distinguished, we see that they 
 contain within themselves the potentials of burlesque. Direct praise 
 sometimes tempts the ironist to description. Simple concession is 
 already imitation; it is a brief step to exaggerated concession and 
 burlesque. Ironic advice, ironic defense, and the fallacious argu¬ 
 ment frequently work through exaggerated concession, advising, de¬ 
 fending and arguing by utilizing the objects’ own views exaggerated 
 to ridiculous extremes. Burlesque is, then, a quite natural flowering 
 of simpler methods of ironic praise. Its advantages for the ironist 
 are not hard to see. The imitation inherent in burlesque gives 
 him an opportunity to depict and explain what it is he is attacking, 
 and the exaggeration of burlesque forces the audience to grasp his 
 real meaning. 
 
 The way in which the burlesque of an idea functions was ex¬ 
 plained by John Dennis. After quoting the Spectator's praise of 
 Sidney’s panegyric on “the old Song of Piercy and Douglas,” Dennis 
 comments: 
 
 . . . instead of affirming that Sir Philip Sidney has gone too far, he pre¬ 
 tends to insinuate that he falls too short; for the Spectator vindicates the 
 very Expression of Chevy Chase , in which one thing, I must confess, he 
 does seem to me to come something near to a Jest, and to make a fine 
 ironical Ridicule upon Sir Philip Sidney } 00 
 
 99 Fielding, Josefh Andrews (Mod. Lib.), p. xxvi. 
 
 100 Dennis, Critical Works (Hooker), II, 33-34. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRMSE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 1 27 
 
 Not everyone would agree with Dennis’ reading of this passage, 
 but he does expose a popular method of irony. The technique of 
 accepting an opponent’s point of view and then, with apparent ap¬ 
 proval, of carrying it to a ridiculous extreme which forces the au¬ 
 dience to recognize the irony, was one of Swift’s favorites: 
 
 I do affirm, [says he, severely, but with exquisite irony indeed, in the 
 Dedication of the Tale of a Tub to Prince Posterity,] upon the word of 
 a sincere man, that there is now actually in being a certain poet, called 
 John Dryden , whose translation of Virgil was lately printed in a large 
 folio, well-bound, and, if diligent search were made, for aught I know, 
 is yet to be seen. 101 
 
 In A Modest Proposal 102 Swift uses both the fictitious character of 
 the projector and the objective tone of fallacious argument to convey 
 his ironic approval of a shocking exaggeration of English policy 
 toward Ireland. In An Argument against Abolishing Christianity 103 
 he uses the ironic defense to praise a somewhat less extreme exag¬ 
 geration of certain current ideas. 
 
 Anthony Collins calls attention to a pamphlet which is “wholly 
 an Irony ” and a fine one, executed with “Learning, Sense, and 
 Wit,” 104 Francis Hare’s The Difficulties and Discouragements Which 
 attend the Study of the Scriptures in the Way of Private Judg¬ 
 ment , first published in 1714. The pamphlet is ostensibly a letter 
 to a young clergyman in explanation of the rather startling advice 
 its author had offered. To begin with, the study of the Scriptures 
 is very difficult because you must understand the Old Testament, 
 the Apocryphal Books, Oriental languages, Greek, Latin, and Jew¬ 
 ish civilization. Second, even if you accomplish this understanding 
 it will do you no good, for Orthodox Faith is founded not on the 
 Scriptures but on the Catholic Tradition handed down from one 
 Bishop to another, and the early Fathers and Councils had a very 
 poor knowledge of the Scriptures. Nor is an understanding of this 
 Tradition difficult to come by, for the established Church is ortho¬ 
 dox in all essential points, which any noodlehead can find in the 
 
 101 Joseph Warton, Essay on Pope (1806), II, 242. 
 
 102 Diet. m.B.ii, p. 73, above. 
 
 103 Johnson, Lives (Birkbeck Hill), III, 12, speaks of this “happy and judicious 
 irony.” 
 
 104 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), p. 45. 
 
128 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Liturgy and Articles. Following this course is not only easy but 
 also safe. Moreover, it is accepted among Protestants that what¬ 
 ever is necessary to be believed is plainly and clearly revealed in 
 the Scriptures; therefore you have no reason to study the obscure 
 passages. Third, close study of the Scriptures will do a great deal 
 of harm to you and the public, for it is independent discoveries 
 which have caused all the disputes in the Church and destroyed its 
 peace. These discoveries may be wrong, and even if not wrong, 
 will be condemned because they are different or new. You your¬ 
 self will be judged a heretic: everyone will turn against you, you 
 will have no influence over your parishioners, you may even be ex¬ 
 communicated or imprisoned while your family starves. If you 
 observe the clergymen noted for learning, you will find they spent 
 their time on classical authors and any other pursuit rather than on 
 study of the Bible. Therefore, don’t, at all costs, study the Bible. 
 
 Throughout his argument Hare maintains his ironic innocence 
 very carefully, never falling into a frank statement of his real point 
 of view. (He saves that for an appended “Conclusion.”) His 
 method is simply to set down with ostensible approval a series of 
 ideas each of which had been seriously advanced by one group and 
 another, and then to draw from each the quite logical though ex¬ 
 treme conclusion which neither any of the groups nor his audience 
 could accept. 
 
 Some of the mid-century Augustans recognized, judging by their 
 casual comments, that such irony uses what is fundamentally a bur¬ 
 lesque method. We find this awareness in the Monthly Review for 
 July, 1753, 105 in a review of “The pernicious Effects of the Christian 
 Religion considered; and its nature froved to he subversive of the 
 common Good. To which is added , in the Conclusion, a brief , but 
 clear Vindication of Free-thinking.” 
 
 The author, in no very high-wrought irony, endeavours to ridicule 
 infidelity and free-thinking. His burlesque of the proposition, that ‘pri¬ 
 vate vices are public benefits,’ may be given as a specimen of his humour. 
 
 ‘Since private vices, says he, are found to be public benefits, Christianity, 
 which is the inveterate enemy of vice, is an enemy also to the public, that 
 would be benefited thereby. Thus, for instance, theft and robbery, those 
 IX, 67-68. 
 
 106 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY I 29 
 
 crimes for which so many suffer continually in a Christian nation; in an 
 entire community of free-thinkers, on the contrary, would be mightily en¬ 
 couraged and promoted. For, were all men honest, what a number of 
 smiths, carpenters, and other artificers, with their families, must starve, 
 as, upon this supposition, there would be no demand for locks, bolts, bars, 
 and doors, with the like useful contrivances to guard against the dishonest? 
 It would therefore be a good stroke in politics, if instead of transporting 
 malefactors to our colonies, we should send for them all back again: for 
 though some may think, that we have already thieves (and free-thinkers) 
 enough in the nation, to answer all the purposes of trade (and infidelity) 
 which is the chief glory of these kingdoms; yet we cannot, methinks, 
 encourage too much those useful members of society, though we should 
 exchange religion and honesty for them; since if private vices be really 
 and truly beneficial, the public will be most effectually served by pro¬ 
 moting their growth; and then we need proceed but one step farther, 
 that is, to hang up all the honest men for the good of their country. 
 
 Our author here has carried his opponents’ supposed premise to a 
 logical extreme all good men would prefer not to accept, but in a 
 pamphlet called irony by Collins, Francis Hare does not bother 
 with logical extensions. He simply exaggerates his opponent’s atti¬ 
 tude in a crass and obvious way: 
 
 Very tragical Effects are to be imputed to this Change of the Sense affixed 
 to certain Sounds: It has Invaded the most sacred and imfortant Subjects , 
 touches the very Vitals of all that is good , and is just going to take from 
 Mens Eyes the Boundaries of right and wrong. Direful Scene! Impend¬ 
 ing Danger! Ruin, certain Ruin! Here is the justest Cause for Resistance 
 in the World; it ought in Duty to be resisted with a more ofen and un¬ 
 disguised 'Leal . What room for Passive Obedience in so desperate a Case? 
 Who can be angry at his L—p’s resisting Zeal, when it is so very 
 necessary? When the very Vitals of all that is good are invaded, and pre¬ 
 served, if not now bravely defended. 306 
 
 Hare’s use of burlesque in reducing an idea to absurdity is childish 
 and gauche by comparison with that of the member of the Senate 
 of Lilliput who arose to attack the government’s methods of regu¬ 
 lating the gin traffic: 
 
 Thus, my Lords, they conceived, that they had reformed the com¬ 
 mon People without infringing the Pleasures of others, and applauded 
 the happy Contrivance by which Spirits were to be made dear only to 
 the Poor, while every Man who could afford to purchase two Gallons 
 
 100 Francis Hare, New Defence of Bangor (1720), p. 6. 
 
I30 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 was at Liberty to riot at his Ease, and over a full flowing Bumper look 
 down with Contempt upon his former Companions, now ruthlessly con¬ 
 demned to disconsolate Sobriety, or obliged to regale themselves with 
 Liquor which did no speedy Execution upon their Cares, but held them 
 for many tedious Hours in a languishing Possession of their Senses and 
 their Limbs. 
 
 If I, my Lords, might presume to recommend to our Ministers the 
 most probable Method of raising a large Sum for the Payment of the 
 Troops of the Electorate, I should, instead of the Tax and Lottery now 
 proposed, advise them to establish a certain Number of licensed Wheel¬ 
 barrows, on which the laudable Trade of Thimble and Button might be 
 carried on for the Support of the War, and Shoe-Boys might contribute 
 to the Defence of the House of Aurista , by raffling for Apples . 107 
 
 A few pages later an opponent of this senator of Lilliput excoriates 
 him for not being able to discuss a serious subject “in any other 
 Language than that of Irony and Burlesque.” 
 
 Low burlesque, as distinct from the burlesque of ideas, imitates 
 people instead of conceding arguments, and it degrades its people 
 by caricature downward of action and manners and social status, in¬ 
 stead of extending argument to a logical extreme. It is interesting 
 to observe how cleverly the author of the speech quoted imme¬ 
 diately above has used low burlesque to dramatize his reductio ad 
 absurdum. Having carried the government’s principles to an ex¬ 
 treme of caste distinction and selfish sybaritism, he proceeds to paint 
 a little picture after the manner of Hogarth, a picture in which 
 those who benefit by the government’s laws are drawn as maudlin 
 drunks around a table loaded with overflowing bumpers. Not con¬ 
 tent with this exaggeration, our author proceeds to an even more 
 absurd extreme and dramatizes it in a like manner. Such low bur¬ 
 lesque was a technique in itself occasionally associated with irony. 
 Angel Day gives us an illustration in which the attitude of an op¬ 
 ponent is caricatured in precisely this way: 
 
 You complaine that I have done you injurie, if I have, whie then doe 
 you not content your selfe to pursue the revengement thereof, either 
 with manlike or lawful extremitie? whie take you for a refuge these 
 canckred foolish upbraidings, womannish encountrings, unseemlie lyings, 
 & childish threatnings. If we follow the rule you begin, we must straight 
 waies be children, and then I must wrangle whie you stole awaie Toms 
 
 107 Gentleman's Magazine, XIV (Jan., 1744), 8, 11. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 131 
 
 bread & butter, and you must threaten if I tell of that, you wil then 
 complaine of me for eating up the firmetie that was kept for the childs 
 breakfast, or how I drunk up my grandams Ale & toste, or lickt bread 
 in the dripping pan, or some such like waightie causes . 108 
 
 The childish comparisons Day labels “Ironia.” So too the “in¬ 
 decent likenesse and imitation of man” which led Topsell to call 
 the ape “a subtill, ironicall, ridiculous and unprofitable Beast ” 109 
 could be only low burlesque. In even the most patently insulting 
 of low burlesques ironic praise is to be found in the very fact of 
 imitation, that highest of compliments. 
 
 In high burlesque the element of ironic praise is much more 
 strongly felt, for the elevated language of high burlesque keeps 
 constantly before the audience an atmosphere of admiration and 
 praise. Thus high burlesque is usually less blatantly antagonistic 
 than low. It is worth noting, however, that the manners and morals 
 depicted in high burlesques are often as thoroughly degraded by 
 caricature as are those depicted in low burlesque. And this exag¬ 
 geration need not surprise us, for unless his audience already shares 
 his contempt for his. characters the ironist must supply a picture 
 which will arouse that contempt. The only distinguishing characteris¬ 
 tic of high burlesque, then, is the elevated language in which it is 
 couched. 
 
 Such elevated diction was recommended to the ironist by Aris¬ 
 totle , 110 and Thomas Gordon offered similar advice to the Augustan 
 wits: 
 
 . . . The Ironical Stile may be of Service to you on the greatest Occa¬ 
 sions, and serve to ridicule the most solemn Things, and notorious Truths, 
 if you do but put some fantastical Expressions into the pompous Eulogium, 
 or print some ambiguous Words in significant Italick Characters . 111 
 
 The London Journal commented on the use of this style in the 
 mock-heroic: 
 
 108 Angel Day, English Secretorie (1595), Part II, pp. 45-47. 
 
 100 See Diet. m.B.ii, p. 64, above. 
 
 110 Aristotle Rhetoric III. vii. 11. See G. G. Sedgewick, “Dramatic Irony” 
 (1913), pp. 123-24. See also Theodore Goulston, Aristotelis de Rhetorica 
 (1619), p. 195; Hobbes, A Briefe of the Arte of Rhetorique (1637?), pp. 163- 
 64; Aristotle's Rhetoric (1686), pp. 182-83. 
 
 111 Humourist II (1725), pp. 99-102. 
 
132 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 To use Epithets, Metaphors, and Comparisons, in describing a Horse 
 Race, or relating what passed on a Bowling-Green, is, if I may use Mr. 
 Bays’s Expression, to transverse the Splendid Shilling , and to introduce a 
 kind of Miltonick Burlesque in Prose: If this be done ironically, it will 
 undoubtedly raise a Smile; if seriously, a Horse Laugh. . . , 112 
 
 Such appearances cheek by jowl of irony and mock-heroic or (high) 
 burlesque were common in the second quarter of the eighteenth 
 century , 113 and the Grub-street Journal gives us a conjunction of 
 irony and parody: 
 
 From the Pegasus in Grub-street. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Having lately read a collection of entertaining and agreeable poems, I 
 found a beautiful burlesque, or parody, of a very unmeaning copy of 
 verses, wrote by A. P—ps Esq; which I send you to publish in your 
 Journal. I do not doubt but the public will be pleased with the humorous 
 ridicule of such sort of poetical productions, as are only sound without 
 sense. 
 
 The Flea. Inscribed to Namby Pamby. 
 
 Little hind’rer of my rest, 
 
 Thus I tear thee from my breast: 
 
 Bosom traytor! pinching harm! 
 
 Wounding me, who kept thee warm! 
 
 Through my skin thou scatter’st pains, 
 
 Crimson’d o’er with circling stains. 
 
 Skipping mischief! swift as thought! 
 
 Sanguine insect—? art thou caught—! 
 
 Nought avail thy nimble springs, 
 
 Caus’d perhaps by viewless wings: 
 
 Those thy teeth that cheat our sight, 
 
 Cease their titillating bite: 
 
 I, from all thy vengeance freed, 
 
 Safe shall sleep, and cease to bleed. 
 
 Your humble servant, 
 
 Ironicus . 114 
 
 An early instance of the technique of high burlesque to which 
 the word irony was applied seems to occur in Ben Jonson’s Cynthia’s 
 Revells. A pack of foolish, affected courtiers having planned an 
 
 112 London Journal, No. 938 (July 9, 1737). 
 
 112 See chap. IV, pp. 166-71, below. 
 
 114 Grub-street Journal, June 28, 1733. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 133 
 
 evening of revels at which two of their group will meet in a chal¬ 
 lenge of courtship, demonstrating their skill in all the punctilios 
 of courtly behavior, Mercury and Crites decide to join the group 
 to mock it. Mercury challenges one of the courtiers and imitates 
 their affectations so well that they, unaware of the mockery, award 
 him the victory. Crites is impatient. He himself challenges a 
 courtier and imitates the manner with such exaggeration that the 
 whole group, now understanding the burlesque satire, disperses. 
 It is this project which Mercury and Crites discuss beforehand: 
 Mer . 
 
 It is our purpose, Crites, to correct, 
 
 And punish, with our laughter, this nights sport 
 Which our court-Dorr so heartily intend: 
 
 And by that worthy scorne, to make them know 
 How farre beneath the dignitie of man 
 Their serious, and most practis’d actions are. 
 
 Cri. I, but though Mercurie can warrant out 
 His under-takings, and make all things good, 
 
 Out of the powers of his divinitie , 
 
 Th’offence will be return’d with weight on me, 
 
 That am a creature so despisde, and poore; 
 
 When the whole Court shall take it selfe abusde 
 By our iromcall confederacies 15 
 
 It is perhaps not quite accurate to call the working out of this con¬ 
 federacy high burlesque, since no elevated language is involved. 
 Instead mock praise is implicit in the apparent approval with which 
 Mercury and Crites join in the proceedings. What turns their irony 
 into burlesque at all is that Crites, finding Mercury’s veritable imi¬ 
 tation too subtle for the audience, himself moves on to exaggerated 
 imitation—and thus reveals the real intent of their mockery. 
 
 Mercury and Crites were able, apparently, to maintain their 
 mask of approving participation to the end. The author of “A 
 modest Vindication of the Earl of Shaftesbury: In a Letter to a 
 Friend concerning his being Elected King of Poland” was not so 
 skilled. The editor of the Somers Tracts points out the “ironical 
 Vein which runs thro’ this Piece. . . .” ne The irony is no doubt 
 
 115 Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), IV, 130-32. 
 
 116 Somers Tracts (1748), I, 153. 
 
134 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 meant to consist in a pompous narrative style joined to low carica¬ 
 ture of Shaftesbury and his cohorts, and the author certainly man¬ 
 ages to supply low caricature. He does not, however, manage to 
 keep up the style but instead falls into vulgar language and blunt 
 statements of his real view. During the “late Inter-regnum in 
 Poland” he begins, “there had been many illustrious candidates 
 for election, Sobieski among them, since he had kept the Turk from 
 encroaching farther on the Polish frontier. After surveying all the 
 kingdoms of Europe, the Polish Diet settled on Shaftesbury. The 
 crown was sent over for him to try it on, narrowly escaped being 
 stolen, and was sent 
 
 back again by a trusty Messenger, concealed in the Hulk or Shell of a 
 Holland Cheese, taken asunder merely for that Purpose, and cemented 
 together again by an Art, fit for no Man to know, but a King presump¬ 
 tive of Poland. 
 
 All things thus prepared; his Election being carryed in the Diet so 
 unanimously and so nemine contradicente y that no Man to this Hour 
 ever heard of it but himself; it is not to be imagined how this little 
 Grigg was transported with the Thoughts of growing into a Leviathan; 
 he fancied himself the Picture before Hobb’s Commonwealth already; 
 nay, he stopt up his Tap (as I am told) on purpose that his Dropsy might 
 swell him big enough for his Majesty, and of a sudden grew so utter an 
 Enemy to all Republics and Antimonarchical Constitutions, that from 
 that Hour he premeditated, and laid the Foundation of a worse Speech, 
 than that famous one, which he uttered once in our English Senate, 
 entituled Delenda est Carthago . 111 
 
 Upon reflection the King-elect decided that the Great Turk must 
 not only be subdued but also converted, and not to the Catholic 
 but to the Protestant church, a step which involved converting the 
 Polish nation to Protestantism as well. He resolved therefore to 
 take a number of ministers to Poland with him, thirty of whom are 
 listed each one in this fashion: (< Jean Drydenurtzitz , Our Poet 
 Laureat, for writing Panegyrics upon Oliver Cromwel , and Libels 
 against his present Master King Charles II. of England.” 11 * Then 
 one night he had a vision of the Popish plot which led him to give 
 up the whole venture. 
 
 117 Ibid., I, 155. 
 
 118 Ibid., I, 157. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 135 
 
 The same double action of elevated language and low carica¬ 
 ture is evident through much of the Dunciad, and is explicitly noted 
 in a footnote to Book II, line 149 of the 1729 quarto: 
 
 Our good Poet, (by the whole cast of his work being obliged not to 
 take off the Irony) where he cou’d not show his Indignation, hath shewn 
 his Contempt as much as possible: having here drawn as vile a picture, 
 as could be represented in the colours of Epic poesy. Scriblerus . 119 
 
 The vileness of some of the pictures is not in doubt, nor Pope’s skill 
 in sustained elevation of language in painting them. The Daily 
 Journal of March 29, 1728, describes another irony of this kind: 
 
 Looking over the Discourse prefix’d to the Third Volume of Miscel¬ 
 lanies lately publish’d, I observ’d it to conclude with an ironical Project 
 for the Advancement of the Stage: . . . the ingenious Authors have, with 
 a good deal of labour’d Dulness, described a ridiculous Society, govern’d 
 by a Board of Six super-annuated Criticks, who are to meet in a 
 Privileged Place, for fear of Arrests; who are to be provided at the 
 Puhlick Ex-pence, with Diet-Drink, Spitting-Pots, and all other Neces¬ 
 saries of Life. . . . 
 
 viii. The fictitious character 
 
 A good many burlesques, as we have just now observed, work 
 through exaggerated imitation of real people who are familiar to 
 the ironist’s audience. When the ironist sets out on the satiric imi¬ 
 tation of a group of faceless people or a complex of nonhuman ideas, 
 he has before him the problem of giving his irony both focus and 
 interest. A popular solution to this problem in the Augustan age 
 was the fictitious character, the embodiment of all the qualities, 
 habits, and ideas the satirist was aiming at. Perhaps because the 
 ironist must work to create precisely the representative character he 
 wants, perhaps because the method itself verges on prose fiction, the 
 ironic character usually tended toward more subtlety, even when it 
 was used in high or low burlesque, than did burlesque of familiar 
 people and things. 121 
 
 119 Pope, Dunciad (Sutherland), p. 119. See also ibid., Book III, 11 . 315-28 
 and note. 
 
 120 Gulliveriana (1728), pp. 285-86. 
 
 121 The allegory was another much-noticed technique. Thomas Gordon in 
 
136 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 In 1615 George Sandys referred to the “ironicall personating 
 of a father following the exequies of his sonne, introducted by 
 Lucian. . . ,” 122 and the Praise of Folly furnished throughout the 
 English classical period one type of model for the use of the ficti¬ 
 tious character. Anthony Collins praised both the book and Erasmus, 
 noting his “pleasant and ironical manner.” 123 A complimentary 
 poem preceding Bishop Kennett’s translation sketches the design 
 nicely: 
 
 Satyr and Panegyrick, distant he, 
 
 Yet jointly here they both in one agree. 
 
 Folly by Irony’s commended here, 
 
 Sooth’d, that her Weakness may the more appear. 
 
 Thus Fools, who trick’d, in Red and Yellow shine, 
 
 Are made believe that they are wondrous fine, 
 
 When all’s a Plot t’expose them by design. 
 
 Though Folly Speaker be, and Argument, 
 
 Wit guides the Tongue, Wisdom’s the Lecture meant . 124 
 
 the Humourist II (1725), pp. 96-105, suggests it as an ancient and successful 
 mode of scandal. The “Ambiguity or double Entendre of a Fable” arouses 
 curiosity and gives the reader the satisfaction of solving a puzzle. It is easy to 
 turn a minister of state into a fox and the people into sheep. A less trite method 
 personifies the virtues, vices, and passions in such a way that they resemble great 
 men, Ambition resembling a famous minister of state, etc. He notes that “in 
 our own Country, Hudibras, Atalantis , and John Bull , are Instances” of allegory. 
 Gordon classifies the ironical mode, however, quite separately from allegory. 
 Pope remarks in “A Key to the Lock” (Pope, Prose Works [Ault], p. 182), 
 speaking of party writers, “it has been their Custom of late to vent their Political 
 Spleen in Allegory and Fable. If an honest believing Nation is to be made a 
 Jest of, we have a Story of John Bull and his Wife; if a Treasurer is to be 
 glanced at, an Ant with a <white Straw is introduced; if a Treaty of Commerce 
 is to be ridiculed, ’tis immediately metamorphosed into a Tale of Count Tariff .” 
 An anonymous critic in the Publick Register for Jan. 17, 1741 (No. 3), speaking 
 of Swift’s “Dedication to Prince Posterity points out that “He gives a Newness 
 to his Subject by Allegory. . . .” The subject to which Swift’s method gives 
 newness is sneering praise of his contemporaries, and thus allegory becomes sub¬ 
 servient to ironic panegyric, but the critic here does not identify the two methods 
 with each other in any way. Allan Ramsay calls John Bull an allegory and 
 notes an “ironical syllogism” which makes a part of it (see pp. 124-25 above), 
 but he does not equate the two methods either. Thus there was apparently no 
 identification of irony with allegory such as there had been in the sixteenth 
 century (see pp. 10-11 above). 
 
 122 Sandys, Relation of a Journey (1615), p. 83. 
 
 123 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 
 10-13. 
 
 12< White Kennett, A Panegyrick upon Folly (1709), pp. xiv-xvi. 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 137 
 
 Although in his Dedication to More, Erasmus remarks of his charac¬ 
 ter Folly that “having brought her in speaking, it was but fit that 
 I kept up the character of the person,” 125 it is only fair to say that 
 Folly is more a personified vice than a living character. Erasmus 
 uses her to focus his ironical arguments and leaves her at that. The 
 same observation can be made of Swift’s use of the ironical character, 
 although both he and Erasmus do maintain each character’s logical 
 point of view consistently. The Argument against Abolishing Chris¬ 
 tianity, for instance, is primarily an ironic defense supported by 
 fallacious argument. Although the defense is made by a fictitious 
 character who does project a distinct personality, he is not the cen¬ 
 ter of the audience’s attention. 126 Nor are the three heroes of the 
 Tale of a Tub, of which Swift himself observed “there generally 
 runs an Irony through the Thread of the whole Book,” 127 very 
 lively human creations. Nevertheless the Tale helped alert people 
 to this method of attack, as is evident in Allan Ramsay’s explana¬ 
 tion of it: 
 
 The Tale of the Tub, like Don Quixote, is of the argumentative kind of 
 Ridicule, whose business is to oppose false opinions; and operates by raising 
 up fictitious characters to act in familiar occurrences in life, upon prin¬ 
 ciples false and chimerical, and by representing the obvious consequences 
 of such a proceeding, convincing the reader of the falshood and absurdity 
 of such principles and opinions . 128 
 
 In a marginal note 129 Swift punctured an “irony” of fallacious argu¬ 
 ment in “ The Memoirs of a Preston Rebel. A Ludicrous Account 
 of the Principles of the N or thumb erland Insurgents, and the Causes 
 of their taking Arms, >} published in the Free-Holder for December 
 30, 1715. Although Swift does not refer irony to the device of the 
 fictitious character, the enthymeme he reverses is stated by the sup¬ 
 posed author of the piece, a Preston rebel Addison created as the 
 exaggerated representative of all those luckless reactionaries. Thirty 
 
 125 Erasmus, Folly (Allen), pp. 1-6. 
 
 126 John M. Bullitt, Swift and. Satire (1953), pp. 56-67, offers an interesting- 
 analysis of Swift’s “ironic masks,” the fictitious authors who are the vehicles of 
 many of his ironies. 
 
 127 Swift, Tale of a Tub (Davis), p. 4. 
 
 128 Allan Ramsay, Essay on Ridicule (1762), pp. 53-54 n. See also Publick 
 Register (Jan. 24, 1741), No. 4. 
 
 129 Swift, Prose Works (Temple Scott), X, 371-72. 
 
138 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 years later, after another uprising, Henry Fielding adopted a similar 
 character as the mainspring of his Jacobite's Journal. Squire Trott- 
 Plaid maintains himself through sixteen issues. Here is an example 
 of his style from the first: 
 
 To say the Truth, our Party hath been very unfairly accused of 
 having formerly concealed themselves from deep political Principles: 
 whereas those who know us thoroughly, must know we have not any 
 such Principles among us: For we scorn to regulate our Conduct by the 
 low Documents of Art and Science, like the Whigs; we are governed by 
 those higher and nobler Truths which Nature dictates alike to all Men, 
 and to all Ages; for which Reason very low Clowns, and young Chil¬ 
 dren, are as good and hearty Jacobites as the wisest among us: For it 
 may be said of our Party as it is of Poets; 
 
 Jacobita nascitur, non fit. 
 
 In Reality, the Party hath so long chose to lay dormant, and have 
 hitherto disavowed their Principles, from one or more of the following 
 Reasons: 
 
 First, many have been afraid to reveal their Opinions, not from the 
 Apprehension of Danger to their Persons, or of any Persecution on that 
 Account; for I scorn to lay more to the Charge of the Whigs than is 
 honestly their Due; but they have suspected that it might be some Ob¬ 
 jection to them in their Pursuit of Court-Favours, or Preferment, that 
 they were desirous of removing the present King and his Family, and 
 of placing another on the Throne in their stead. Moreover, they con¬ 
 ceived, and that without the Help of any deep Politics, that Outcries 
 against Ministers, on Pretence of their attempting to undermine the 
 Liberty of the Subject, would not come with so proper a Weight from 
 Men who profest the Tenets of indefeasible, hereditary Right, arbitrary 
 Power, and prostrate Non Resistance. Again, they apprehended that 
 Republicans, who are an artful kind of People, might decline any Union 
 with Men who wanted to exchange a limited for an absolute Monarch. 
 And lastly, that the Dissenters would be extremely timorous on account 
 of their Religion, and would rather chuse to tolerate a Church which 
 tolerates them, than to run the Venture of being extirpated by the Popish- 
 Christian Methods of Fire and Faggot . 130 
 
 In Number 17 Fielding threw off the impersonation: 
 
 In plain Fact, I am weary of personating a Character for which I 
 have so solemn a Contempt; nor do I believe that the elder Brutus was 
 more uneasy under that Idiot Appearance which he assumed for the 
 
 180 Fielding, Jacobite's Journal , No. 1 (Dec. 5, 1747). 
 
METHODS OF BLAME-BY-PRAISE ASSOCIATED WITH IRONY 139 
 
 Sake of his Country, than I have been in the Masque of Jacobitism, which 
 I have so long worn for the same amiable and honest Purpose; in order, 
 if possible, to laugh Men out of their Follies, and to make them ashamed 
 of owning or acting by Principles no less inconsistent with Common 
 Sense, than detrimental to the Society. 
 
 Here then I shall pull off the Masque, and openly avow that I John 
 Trott-Plaidy Esq; notwithstanding my Name, do, from my Heart, abhor 
 and despise all the Principles of a Jacobite, as being founded on certain 
 absurd, exploded Tenets, beneath the lowest Degree of a human Under¬ 
 standing. 
 
 Many Reasons, besides my great Abhorrence to this Character, have 
 urged me to lay it down for the future. 
 
 First, I have observed that tho’ Irony is. . . . m 
 
 Here, in the hands of an accomplished novelist, the fictitious char¬ 
 acter really comes alive, even though Fielding is using him for 
 exactly the same purpose as had Swift and Erasmus, to speak in 
 ridiculous form the opinions the ironist is attacking. But by giving 
 his characters a name and a place—Squire Trott-Plaid has a wife 
 and an ass—Fielding gives body to the ironic praise implied by his 
 approving presentation of these characters. 
 
 Fielding may very well have learned the usefulness of giving 
 life to his ironic character from Don Quixote , for in that burlesque 
 so real is the Don we nearly forget the asininity he represents— 
 or, to put it more accurately, we come very close to sympathizing 
 with his obsession. This can hardly be said of the hero of Cam¬ 
 bridge’s Scribleriad; nevertheless Cambridge does try to give Scrib- 
 lerus more life than Swift had given the heroes of the Tale. The 
 ironic aspect of such mock-heroics as Don Quixote and the Scribleriad 
 was recognized frequently toward the middle of the eighteenth 
 century, as we have noted before, and in the conjunction of these 
 two planets irony and burlesque we see the influences which could 
 lead to a realization of the role the ironic attitude might play in 
 prose fiction of a less openly satiric kind. Only Fielding, in our 
 period, seems to have speculated on this relationship. In his Pref¬ 
 ace to Sarah Fielding’s David Sim-ple, after classing the novel as 
 a comic epic poem along with Le Lutrin , the Dunciad , Butler and 
 Cervantes, he says of Sarah’s novel: 
 
 131 Ibid., No. 17 (March 26, 174.8). 
 
I40 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 This fable hath in it these three difficult ingredients, which will be 
 found on consideration to be always necessary to works of this kind, viz., 
 that the main end or scope be at once amiable, ridiculous, and natural. 
 
 If it be said that some of the comic performances I have above men¬ 
 tioned differ in the first of these, and set before us the odious instead 
 of the amiable; I answer, that is far from being one of their perfections; 
 and of this the authors themselves seem so sensible, that they endeavour 
 to deceive the reader by false glosses and colours, and by the help of 
 irony at least to represent the aim and design of their heroes in a favour¬ 
 able and agreeable light . 132 
 
 We note that Fielding is not now concerned with burlesque charac¬ 
 ter as an effective vehicle for satire. He is concerned with character 
 in itself, and the function of irony in the presentation of it; and 
 his remarks arise out of his thoughts about a novel. 
 
 182 Fielding, Works (Stephen), VII, 274-75. 
 
FOUR 
 
 CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 During the English classical period a good deal of social and 
 moral criticism concerned itself with that whole range of discourse 
 variously called satire, ridicule, raillery, humor, irony, and banter. 
 But the art of irony received far less critical attention. It is prob¬ 
 ably accurate to say that throughout our entire period there ap¬ 
 peared not a single full-dress, serious critical essay on the artistic 
 principles involved in irony considered by that name. The sort of 
 criticism we do find is casual and fleeting, at least until the second 
 quarter of the eighteenth century. Then a few people did stop to 
 pay more than perfunctory attention to this art which had been 
 practiced so well. Out of this practice were slowly evolved cer¬ 
 tain standards and principles which we now take for granted—they 
 seem utterly obvious. But we should remember that they were not 
 obvious then. 
 
 i. The glaring light of contrary comparison 
 
 The theory of “surprising incongruity” which has had a long 
 history in explanations of wit, humor, laughter, burlesque, and 
 ridicule, 1 not surprisingly also explained irony for the English class¬ 
 ical age on the few occasions when that device was theorized about by 
 name. Cicero had remarked that “dissimulation” “steals into the 
 minds of men in a peculiar manner,” 2 but he did not analyze the 
 source of its efficacy. Nor did Quintilian, being primarily attentive 
 
 1 See John W. Draper, “Theory of the Comic in Eighteenth-Century England” 
 ( 1 938), pp. 219-20; Richmond P. Bond, English Burlesque Poetry (1932), 'passim. 
 
 2 Cicero On Oratory III. 53. 
 
I 4 2 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 to the relation of an irony to its author rather than to its audience. 
 The theory which was to be accepted in the English classical period 
 was, so far as I have found, first expressed in English by Henry 
 Peacham: 3 
 
 The especiall use of this figure [ Antiphrasis] is to reprehend vice, and 
 mock folly: for by expressing a vertue, and signifying a vice, it striketh 
 the mind of the offender with the sharpe edge of contrarie comparison, 
 whereby he is compelled to see the great differece betweene what he is, 
 and what he ought to be, between what he hath done, and what he 
 ought to have done, and so by looking in the cleare glasse he may be 
 ashamed of his foule face, I meane his foule fact . 4 
 
 The idea cropped up again during the Restoration in the Art of 
 Speaking, translated from the French of the “Messieurs Du Port 
 Royal,” 5 and Anthony Blackwall, discussing irony for the early 
 eighteenth century, repeated the doctrine: 
 
 This Way of Expression has great Force in correcting Vice and 
 Hypocrisy, and dashing Vanity and Impudence out of Countenance. To 
 dress up a scandalous Wretch in all the Virtues and amiable Qualities 
 that are directly contrary to the vicious and ugly Dispositions which have 
 render’d him infamous, only makes him excessively ridiculous in those 
 Mock-Ornaments; and more effectually exposes him for a publick Mark 
 of Derision. False and unmerited Praise lashes an Offender with dou¬ 
 ble Severity, and sets his Crimes in a glaring Light . 6 
 
 ii. The two strategies of irony 
 
 In saying that irony dresses up a “scandalous Wretch in all the 
 Virtues ... that are directly contrary to the vicious .. . Dispositions 
 which have render’d him infamous” Blackwall was defining that 
 strategy of irony which praises an object for being what it is not. 
 This conception of the ironic method was expressed frequently dur¬ 
 ing the second quarter of the eighteenth century. 7 Perhaps the best 
 
 8 W. G. Crane says that the Garden of Eloquence was derived largely from John 
 Susenbrot’s Epitome troporum ac schematum. See Crane’s Wit and Rhetoric in the 
 Renaissance (Columbia Univ. Stud, in Eng. and Comp. Lit., 1957). 
 
 4 Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 24-25. 
 
 6 Art of Speaking (1708), pp. 305-11. 
 
 6 Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 176-79. 
 
 7 Craftsman (1731), I, 102-4 (No. 18, Feb. 7, 1727). Gentleman’s Magazine , 
 X (Nov., 1740), 547-48 (quoted on pp. 110-11 above); XV (April, 1745), 207-8. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 *43 
 
 statement of it was made by Thomas Gordon in his essay “Of 
 Libels,” a piece of ironic advice on how to “Bastinado great Men 
 with Prudence and Discretion.” Gordon recommends, along with 
 allegory, the historical parallel, and other modes of “Scandal,” the 
 ironical method: 
 
 Another Mode of Political Satire is the Ironical or Mock Panegyrick. 
 This too is of very ancient Date, but not so commonly used as it has been 
 of late. Several of the Roman and Grecian Orators made use of it in 
 their publick Harangues to the People. . . . 
 
 I need not quote any English Railers who have followed this Meth¬ 
 od; we have for this Year or two past abounded in this sort of State- 
 Panegyrick; I will therefore, under this Head, content myself with pre¬ 
 scribing a Rule or two proper to be observed by all Ironical Dejamers. 
 
 First, As there is no Man in the World, how good soever, who has 
 not some Faults; and as, on the other Hand, every Man, how bad 
 soever, has some Virtues; take a particular Care that you do not in any 
 of your Mock-Applauses, praise any one for good Qualities which he is 
 thought to fossess, but dwell entirely upon those which he is known to 
 want. By this Means you cannot fail of having your Grimace under¬ 
 stood, and raising the malignant Grin of your Readers. 
 
 The same Rule will hold, if you would lash the Times under any 
 King or Government whatsoever; if the Nation is engaged in a War, 
 extoll the general Peace and Tranquillity which reigns in it; if Money 
 or Provisions are scarce, thank God and the Government for the Plenty 
 which it enjoys; if any other Nation outwits it in a Treaty, commend 
 the Policy of its Ministers; or if they lose a Battel, cry up the Conduct 
 of its Generals. In short, whatever be the State of the Publick, always 
 make that the Subject of your Panegyrick which other People complain 
 of; for at all Seasons, and in all Governments, there will be Matter of 
 Complaint to those whose Constitution or Interest inclines them to be 
 discontented. 
 
 The Lying Mode, which is somewhat like the Ironical, and consists 
 (after having set forth the Blackness of Corruption, and the Punishment 
 which it deserves) in a positive Affirmation, that our present Ministers 
 are guilty of none of the Crimes before-mentioned; and in a solemn 
 Thanksgiving for our Happiness under a wise and honest Administra¬ 
 tion . * * 8 
 
 Memoirs of Grub-street (1737), I, viii-x. Chesterfield, Letters to His Son (Strachey- 
 
 Calthrop), I, 3 6, 61. 
 
 8 Humourist II (1725), 96-105. 
 
144 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 That the strategy of irony which Gordon describes should have 
 been uppermost in people’s minds is understandable when we re¬ 
 call the most popular stock definition of the rhetorics and diction¬ 
 aries: irony is saying the contrary, or opposite, of what one means. 
 Most of the illustrations of this definition were uncomplicated ex¬ 
 amples of praising an object for being what it was not. However, 
 when we consider certain of the tactics of irony popular in the 
 Augustan age and before, we realize that they did not, in fact, 
 praise an object for being what it was not; they praised it for being 
 what it really was. Thus ironic concession simply holds an op¬ 
 ponent’s views up to a clear light by echoing them with mock 
 approval. Ironic advice recommends that its object continue to 
 pursue precisely those foolish or vicious or vulgar courses it is al¬ 
 ready pursuing. The burlesque of ideas accepts its object’s point 
 of view and then, with apparent approval, carries it to a ridiculous 
 extreme; or as “low” burlesque, it accepts the character of its ob¬ 
 ject and then, with approval implied in the very fact of imitation, 
 degrades its object into caricature; or as “high” burlesque, it often 
 describes exaggeratedly degraded people and actions in elevated 
 language. This language and its associations keep constantly be¬ 
 fore the audience the atmosphere of praise, but like low burlesque 
 high burlesque too offers an exaggerated version of what the ob¬ 
 ject really is. In the fictitious character the ironist can represent 
 in summary and often exaggerated form what his object is, at the 
 same time projecting ironic approval through his role as creator of 
 that character. Even the direct value judgment can be used to say, 
 quite simply, that it is a fine thing to be a thief—not, it is a fine 
 thing to be so honest. 
 
 The difference between the two strategies of irony is, of course, 
 one of emphasis. The ironist who emphasizes what his object is 
 not takes it for granted that the audience already sympathizes with 
 his point of view, or he utilizes an obvious situation, or he scatters 
 clues to reveal his intended meaning. He may use metaphors, allu¬ 
 sions, self-depreciation which is meant to be transferred to the object 
 of comparison, or fallacious arguments as clues; or he may exag¬ 
 gerate his praise to such a degree of fulsomeness that his audience 
 must boggle at it. The other ironist chooses to emphasize the ter- 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 145 
 
 rible thing that his object really is, framing that picture in mock 
 praise of some kind. Thus the second strategy of irony does in¬ 
 deed bestow unmerited praise upon its object, but that praise is only 
 the frame for an accurate or exaggerated delineation of the object5 
 whereas the first strategy is primarily concerned with elaborating 
 unmerited praise. 9 
 
 The second strategy had of course been implicit in some of the 
 rhetorical discussions of irony and comments on individual ironies 
 from Cicero and Quintilian on, but the Restoration and Augustan 
 periods developed the idea into a minor doctrine, although they 
 never defined it quite so clearly as they did the first. The Art of 
 Sneaking noted that “by making every one speak according to the 
 principles he follows, thereby we make them their own Informers, 
 and publish whatever in them is either ridiculous or mean,” 10 and 
 Wolseley elaborated the same idea: 
 
 nothing requires less skill than to baffle and expose to universal Contempt 
 those slight and trivial Notions, which others, who seem given over to 
 believe a Lye , cry up for Master-pieces of Wit and Reason; to name 
 ’em for Arguments is to ridicule ’em, and but to state ’em right is to 
 confute ’em . 11 
 
 It was this perception that furnished Defoe with his defense of the 
 Shortest Way: 
 
 9 The underlying- relationships here can be put into the schematic form of 
 variations on an ironic proposition. Praise of what an object is not may take 
 these forms: 
 
 At This despicable person is a good man. 
 
 Az X is a good man. 
 
 A3 X is a paragon of virtue. 
 
 In the first the ironist puts into words both meant blame and ironic praise; in the 
 second, he utilizes nonverbal factors in the situation to supply the blame; in the 
 third he activates those nonverbal factors by exaggerating his praise. Praise of 
 the object for being what it is may take these forms: 
 
 Bi This (despicable) person is a bad man. 
 
 B2 This (despicable) person is X. 
 
 B3 This (unspeakably vicious) person is X. 
 
 Throughout B the subject is described with a sympathy which implies praise, but 
 the description itself depicts a despicable person. In B1 the meaning of the de¬ 
 scription is spelled out; in B2 the audience is expected to derive the meaning of 
 the description for itself; in 5 3 the description is exaggerated in such a way that 
 the audience cannot miss its import. 
 
 10 Art of Speaking (1708), p. 311. 
 
 11 Robert Wolseley, V alentinian (Spingarn), pp. 4-5. 
 
146 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 The paper has its immediate original from the virulent spirits of some 
 men who have thought fit to express themselves to the same effect in their 
 printed books, though not in words so plain, and at length, and by an 
 irony not unusual, stands as a fair answer to several books published in 
 this liberty of the press. . . . 
 
 The sermon preached at Oxford, ‘The New Association,’ ‘The Poeti¬ 
 cal Observator,’ with numberless others, have said the same thing, in 
 terms very little darker, and this book stands fair to let those gentlemen 
 know that what they design can no further take with mankind than as 
 their real meaning stands disguised by artifice of words; but that when 
 the persecution and destruction of the dissenters, the very thing they drive 
 at, is put into plain English, the whole nation will start at the notion, and 
 condemn the author to be hanged for his impudence . 12 
 
 A much blunter use of the second strategy was remarked by Sir 
 Richard Blackmore, who implored writers engaged in controversy 
 to “cease by ironical Compassion, insultingly to commiserate the 
 Weakness and Ignorance of the Opponent.. . .” 13 In the irony 
 Blackmore is thinking of here, mock sympathy and defense are used 
 to create an atmosphere of praise in which the most flatly insulting 
 direct value judgments are made. The ironist is in effect praising 
 his object for being a fool. The ironic advice of Grobianus; or the 
 Comfleat Booby. An Ironical Poem was explained by its English 
 translator: “the Author’s Design, is to laugh Men out of the Error 
 of their Ways; recommending most Virtues by a Representation of 
 the contrary Vices... .” 14 Such casual recognition of the second 
 strategy of irony was not uncommon. 
 
 iii. Clues to meaning 
 
 It is evident from the above discussion and our analyses in the 
 preceding chapter that one of the chief problems an ironist must 
 face up to is the extent to which he can count on his audience to 
 grasp his real meaning. Elis job is to put before his audience a 
 false point of view and to present it as though he really accepts it; 
 yet his audience must recognize both that the point of view is false 
 
 12 Defoe, Explanation of the Shortest Way (Trevelyan), p. 56. 
 
 12 Blackmore, Essays II (1717), pp. 252-53. 
 
 14 Friedrich Dedekind, Grobianus (1739), p. vi. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 H 7 
 
 and that he is not accepting but attacking. His problem is a the 
 double dissimulation, or dissembling of dissimulation, necessary in 
 this species of ridicule. . . .” 15 Unlike the criminal, he wants to get 
 caught. If he is not caught the object of his attack escapes unharmed 
 while the ironist remains the sole and sterile audience to his own 
 cleverness. Thus he must dissemble the fact that his praise is in¬ 
 sincere, but he must not dissemble so well that ultimately he de¬ 
 ceives anyone. As Swift complained in “Cadenus and Vanessa,” 
 
 . . . those who aim at Ridicule 
 Shou’d fix upon some certain Rule, 
 
 Which fairly hints they are in jest, 
 
 Else he must enter his Protest: 
 
 For, let a Man be ne’er so wise, 
 
 He may be caught with sober Lies. . . . 16 
 
 In the preceding chapter we noticed a number of the ways in which 
 an irony may reveal itself, and most of these ways were pointed out 
 in the critical comments of the English classical period. Three types 
 of clue by which an audience may discover an irony had been named 
 by Quintilian: 
 
 that class of allegory in which the meaning is contrary to that suggested 
 by the words, involves an element of irony, or, as our rhetoricians call it, 
 illusio. This is made evident to the understanding either by the delivery, 
 the character of the speaker or the nature of the subject. For if any one 
 of these three is out of keeping with the words, it at once becomes clear 
 that the intention of the speaker is other than what he actually says. 1 ' 
 
 This trichotomy, in complete or truncated form, was repeated auto¬ 
 matically by the rhetorics of the English classical age, 18 and we see 
 it at the back of Defoe’s mind in his Explanation of the Shortest 
 Way: 
 
 The Author professes he thought, when he wrote the book, he should 
 never need to come to an explanation, and wonders to find there should 
 be any reason for it. 
 
 15 World (Chalmers), XXVI, i-iv (Preface). 
 
 16 Swift, Poems (Williams), II, 707-8. 
 
 17 Quintilian Institutio VIII. vi. 54-58. 
 
 18 Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 184-85. Richard Sherry, 
 Rhetorike (1555), fol. xxvi. Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), 
 Book I, chap. vi. Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 35-36. John Smith, 
 Rhetorique (1657), pp. 45-48. Art of Speaking (1708), p. 63. Anthony Black- 
 wall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 176-79. Ephraim Chambers, Cyclo¬ 
 paedia (1728), Vol. II, “Irony.” 
 
148 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 If any man takes the pains seriously to reflect upon the contents, the 
 nature of the thing, and the manner of the style, it seems impossible to 
 imagine it should pass for anything but a banter upon the high-flying 
 churchmen . 19 
 
 In less automatic analyses of the kind of clue available to irony 
 one or another of Quintilian’s three kinds often achieved independ¬ 
 ent prominence. The “delivery” was always felt to be important. 
 Thus Abraham Fraunce, taking a sour view of the capacities of au¬ 
 diences, pointed out that 
 
 In the particular applying of the voyce to severall words, wee make tropes 
 that bee most excellent plainly appeare. For without this change of 
 voyce, neither anie Ironia y nor lively Metafhore can well bee discerned . 20 
 
 John Bulwer specified several gestures which were appropriate to 
 the ironist 21 and Nathan Bailey made delivery the most important 
 sign of an irony: “The chief Sign of this Trope is generally the 
 Tone of the Voice in pronouncing Ironies.” 22 The second kind 
 named by Quintilian, the “nature of the subject,” was given special 
 importance by the Augustans, thinking, as many of them in the 
 wake of Shaftesbury did, that the ridicule inheres in the object 
 rather than in the eye of the beholder so that it will not take but 
 will recoil on the satirist if the object is not really in itself ridiculous. 
 This point of view emphasized an obvious aspect of irony. Thus 
 as we have seen Thomas Gordon advised the ironist that if he 
 dwells entirely upon the good qualities which the object of his satire 
 “is known to want ” he cannot fail of having his “Grimace” under¬ 
 stood. 23 The Craftsman expressed the accepted theory in detail: 
 
 when a common Strumpet is extoll’d for her Chastity; a Debauchee for 
 his Temperance; or a corrupt Minister of State for his disinterested Love 
 of his Country; the Irony holds good, and every Body understands the 
 Author’s meaning as well as if it had been express’d in the plainest Terms. 
 But where would be the Irony , or the Satire , in calling Lncretia chaste, 
 Caesar valiant, or Cato just? —Would not the World believe such a Man 
 in earnest ; or laugh at his Folly and Imfotence ? —It could not therefore 
 
 19 Defoe, Explanation of the Shortest Way (Trevelyan), p. 55. 
 
 20 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book II, chap. i. 
 
 21 See pp. 70 above, 163 below. 
 
 22 Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary II (1727), “Irony.” 
 See also Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum (1730), “Irony”; Ephraim Chambers, 
 Cyclopaedia (1741, 1743), Vol. I, “Irony.” 
 
 23 See p. 143 above for full quotation. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 149 
 
 be my Design, in any of the preceding Papers, to asperse the present Ad¬ 
 ministration, in an ironical Manner, without being guilty of so great a 
 Weakness as to imagine, that I could impose Characters upon the World, 
 of which Those Gentlemen are a living and exemplary Confutation . 24 
 
 Both Gordon and the Craftsman take for granted that the ironist 
 can be sure of his audience’s attitude, but in more ticklish situations, 
 Obadiah Walker had warned, the ironist is warranted in “Relating 
 contrary opinions” only “when there is a sufficient prejudice of 
 them... .” 25 Chesterfield advised his son always to consider fairly 
 whether he deserved the compliments that were paid him, for if he 
 did not, the compliments were likely to be meant ironically. 26 The 
 Earl did not take into account, as our own age dazzled by the vision 
 of two sides to every question almost invariably would, the pos¬ 
 sibility that his son’s opinion of his own virtues might differ from 
 an antagonist’s. As the Craftsman remarked, “If a person, against 
 whom irony is level’d, is so arrogant and self-sufficient as to be per¬ 
 suaded that he is possessed of all the virtues and great good 
 qualities to which he is entirely a stranger, he will be, like the man 
 in the almanack, insensible of a smart, though all his beholders see 
 him stuck full of darts.” 27 “The character of the speaker,” third of 
 Quintilian’s kinds, did not achieve any emphasis in independent 
 criticism, although having experienced Butler and Marvell, the 
 Augustans were on constant lookout for drolls. 
 
 In his formal classification of clues to an irony Quintilian does 
 not call attention to internal inconsistency. In a later passage he 
 does: 
 
 Irony involving a figure does not differ from the irony which is a trope, 
 as far as its genus is concerned, since in both cases we understand some¬ 
 thing which is the opposite of what is actually said; on the other hand, 
 a careful consideration of the species of irony will soon reveal the fact 
 that they differ. In the first place, the trope is franker in its meaning, 
 and, despite the fact that it implies something other than it says, makes 
 no pretence about it. For the context as a rule is perfectly clear, as, for 
 example, in the following passage from the Catilinarian orations. “Re- 
 
 24 Craftsman (1731), I, 102-4. 
 
 26 Obadiah Walker, Art of Oratory (1659), p. 93. 
 
 26 Chesterfield, Letters to His Son (Strachey-Calthrop), I, 36 (XXIX, July 15, 
 1 7 3 9)• 
 
 27 Gentleman’s Magazine, XV (April, 1745), 207-8. 
 
150 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 jected by him, you migrated to your boon-companion, that excellent 
 gentleman Metellus.” In this case the irony lies in two words, and is 
 therefore a specially concise form of trope. But in the figurative form 
 of irony the speaker disguises his entire meaning, the disguise being ap¬ 
 parent rather than confessed. For in the trope the conflict is purely 
 verbal, while in the figure the meaning, and sometimes the whole aspect 
 of our case, conflicts with the language and the tone of voice 
 adopted. . . , 28 
 
 The sort of inconsistency which Quintilian notes first here, in which 
 the verbal context of the irony openly indicates how the irony is 
 to be taken, is recognized by John Smith’s Rhetorique in discussing 
 “Synchoresis” or “Concession”: 
 
 A figure when an argument is ironically or mockingly yeelded unto, 
 and then marred with a stinging retort upon the objector. 
 
 Here first you have an Ironical concession, but after this, a stinging 
 [but] which mars all . 29 
 
 Robert Ferguson seems to have internal inconsistency in mind when 
 he says that an irony “may be easily discerned either by the thing 
 it self which is spoken, or by some circumstance or other in the Ora¬ 
 tion.” 30 Swift’s Reasons... for re-pealing the Sacramental Test in 
 favour of the Catholics elicited a pertinent comment from Orrery: 
 
 The greatest art, and the keenest strokes of irony display themselves 
 throughout the whole composition: and the conclusion of it is drawn up 
 with a mixture of serious and ironical arguments that seem to defy all 
 kinds of refutation . 31 
 
 Unspecified by Quintilian, another type of clue within the context 
 of the irony itself is recognized by the Preface to Grobianus. As 
 the Preface points out, the poem ostensibly recommends the prac¬ 
 tices which in reality it is condemning. How is the audience to 
 know that these practices are vicious? The poem gives us, says the 
 Preface: “Vice depicted in her proper Colours,” “an exact Picture 
 of Iniquity and Imprudence”; “Here every Imprudence and In¬ 
 decency is set in the most conspicuous Light... .” Don Quixote , 
 
 28 Quintilian Institutio IX. ii. 44-53. 
 
 29 John Smith, Rhetorique (1657), pp. 203-4. 
 
 30 Robert Ferguson, The Interest of Reason in Religion (1675), pp. 299-300. 
 
 31 Orrery, Remarks on Swift (1752), p. 288. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 I 5 I 
 
 says the writer, does the same thing. 3 ' Grobianus uses ironic ad¬ 
 vice to convey a satiric picture which by its nature reveals the 
 irony; 33 Fielding’s Jacobite’s Journal uses the fictitious character: 
 
 it is impossible for any Man to unite the contradictory Doctrines of a 
 Protestant and a Jacobite, without being guilty of all the glaring and 
 monstrous Absurdities which I have endeavoured to assign to that motley 
 Character . 34 
 
 The object itself, then, if properly displayed, reveals its own ab¬ 
 surdity. A somewhat subtler instance of the same type of clue is 
 analyzed by Richard Owen Cambridge in discussing his Scribleriad: 
 
 By Irony is generally understood the saying one thing and meaning 
 another. Then how shall it be known whether a burlesque writer means 
 the thing he says or the contrary? This is only to be found by attention 
 and a comparison of passages. Let us endeavor to see this by an instance. 
 Scriblerus is promis’d the grand Elixir, it is frequently insinuated that 
 he is to possess this secret of transmuting metals and prolonging life, and 
 the work concludes without explaining directly that he is disappointed in 
 his expectations. But will it not appear that these expectations are iron¬ 
 ically given, when we find all preceding ones to have been so? For of all 
 the many prophecies delivered to him, the only one fulfill’d is that of 
 his being reduced to a state of Beggary in his pursuit of AlchymyA 
 
 In the Augustan period, as we have seen, burlesque stood in a 
 somewhat ambiguous but nonetheless important relation to irony. In 
 our discussion in the preceding chapter of the burlesque methods 
 of writing called irony in the English classical period, we have al¬ 
 ready observed the large part which exaggeration and caricature 
 played in conveying the ironist’s real meaning. Augustan criticism 
 was very much aware of this literary technique both in burlesque 
 and in writing that was not primarily burlesque. Shadwell, talking 
 about “wilde Romantic Tales,” complains that “they strein Love 
 and Honour to that Ridiculous height that it becomes Burlesque.” 30 
 Addison thinks that burlesque “ridicules Persons” “by drawing 
 them quite unlike themselves.” 37 Shaftesbury attacks the mental 
 
 12 Friedrich Dedekind, Grobianus (1739), pp. viii-xi. 
 
 33 Cf. Anthony Blackwall’s explanation of the method of ironic advice quoted 
 on p. 116 above. 
 
 31 Fielding-, Jacobite's Journal , No. 17 (March 26, 1748). 
 
 35 R. O. Cambridge, Scribleriad (1752), pp. xiii-xv. 
 
 36 Thomas Shadwell, Sullen Lovers (Spingarn), II, 150. 
 
 37 Quoted by Richmond P. Bond, English Burlesque Poetry (1932), p. 40. 
 
152 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 habit of buffoons because love of diversion leads them to distort and 
 travesty everything they see. 38 John Brown utilizes the same idea 
 to show—in Shaftesbury’s teeth—that ridicule succeeds against the 
 good, the true, and the beautiful precisely because it does depict 
 them falsely, “through the oblique Mediums of Ridicule... .” 39 
 Deane Swift attacks Orrery’s Remarks as one entire “burlesque up¬ 
 on Swift’s character, representing his life and writings in a thousand 
 caricaturas.” 40 But the conventional Augustan analyses of burlesque, 
 which Richmond P. Bond excerpts so thoroughly, never came to a 
 clear-cut decision as to exactly what is exaggerated. In applying 
 elevated praise to mean objects, does the mock-heroic exaggerate in 
 its mock praises or does it exaggerate the meanness of the object, or 
 both? Only Fielding seems to have attacked this problem head on. 
 He is not, as Mr. Bond rightly says, representative5 he is better than 
 that. Fielding tells us in the Preface to Joseph Andrews that he 
 has included certain “parodies or burlesque imitations.” 
 
 But though we have sometimes admitted this in our diction, we have 
 carefully excluded it from our sentiments and characters; for these it is 
 never properly introduced, unless in writings of the burlesque kind, which 
 this is not intended to be. 
 
 He goes on to argue that the comic, as distinguished from burlesque, 
 confines itself “strictly to nature.” 
 
 I have hinted this little concerning burlesque, because I have often 
 heard that name given to performances which have been truly of the 
 comic kind, from the author’s having sometimes admitted it in his dic¬ 
 tion only; . . . but surely, a certain drollery in stile, where characters 
 and sentiments are perfectly natural, no more constitutes the burlesque, 
 than an empty pomp and dignity of words, where everything else is mean 
 and low, can entitle any performance to the appellation of the true sub¬ 
 lime. 
 
 But to illustrate all this by another science, in which, perhaps, we shall 
 see the distinction more clearly and plainly, let us examine the works of 
 a comic history painter, with those performances which the Italians call 
 Caricatura, where we shall find the true excellence of the former to 
 exist in the exactest copying of nature; insomuch that a judicious eye in¬ 
 stantly rejects anything outre y any liberty which the painter hath taken 
 
 38 Shaftesbury, Life, Letters, Regimen (Rand), pp. 171-72. 
 
 30 John Brown, Essays on Characteristics (1751), pp. 56-57. 
 
 40 Deane Swift, Essay upon Swift (1755), pp. 70-72. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 J 53 
 
 with the features of that alma mater ; whereas in the Caricatura we allow 
 all license—its aim is to exhibit monsters, not men; and all distortions 
 and exaggerations whatever are within its proper province. 
 
 Now, what Caricatura is in painting, Burlesque is in writing; and 
 in the same manner the comic writer and painter correlate to each other . 41 
 
 High burlesque, Fielding is saying, is unjustified praise applied to 
 people and sentiments whose characteristics are distorted and exag¬ 
 gerated into caricature. This is a more precise description of most 
 high burlesque than the conventional criticism of the time was able 
 to furnish, but as Fielding admits, the word burlesque often refer¬ 
 red to writing that would not fall under his definition. 
 
 However, the quality of exaggeration as a clue to irony was 
 brought nearer to irony so called than through the link of burlesque. 
 To Quintilian’s trichotomy of clues, Anthony Blackwall added a 
 fourth: “the Exorbitance of the Commendations.” 42 A critique of 
 Female Taste in the Monthly Review for June, 1755, 43 evidences 
 a consciousness of the other type of exaggeration. Like that of 
 Grobianus, the satire of Female Taste consists in its ironical advice 
 to commit the very faults it sets out to reform. In one place the 
 poem suggests that in order to buy fine clothes a lady is justified in 
 selling her pictures, silver, jewels, wedding ring, and dishes. We 
 think, the Monthly remarks, “our author aggravates too much.” 
 
 Such an hyperbole must inconsistently suppose this vain lady to preserve 
 no state nor shew at home, to have nothing to eat off; as a very little 
 more exaggeration must render the dishes indeed superfluous, by sup¬ 
 posing her to have nothing to eat. 
 
 It is not exaggeration of praise, but caricature of the object of attack 
 which the critic is here noticing, and condemning an excess of. 
 Thomas Gordon had already outlined this ironic technique in his 
 essay “Of Libels” partially quoted above: 44 
 
 Secondly, if you find it necessary to banter any Publick Proceeding, 
 which is generally applauded, and reasonably set on Foot; never forget 
 in your ludicrous Approbation to give it another Turn, and insist upon 
 such Topicks as will create Jealousy in the Minds of Men, and disgust 
 them against those who undertake it. In case of a War, though ever 
 
 41 Fielding-, Joseph Andrews (Mod. Lib.), pp. xxiv-xxvii. 
 
 42 Anthony Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 176-79. 
 
 48 XII, 510. 
 
 44 See p. 143 above. 
 
154 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 so necessary or unavoidable, represent it as the Effect of a noble Spirit 
 that delights in Danger and Knight-Errantry, in quelling Foreign Ty¬ 
 rants, and freeing Foreign Nations, without any Selfish Regard to Dome- 
 stick Considerations. Extol the disinterested Merit of a Prince, who ex¬ 
 hausts his own Blood and Treasure in Defence of his unhappy Neigh¬ 
 bours, and the common Cause of Mankind. If Peace be negotiated, set 
 forth the Advantages of living in Ease, Indolence, and an heroick Con¬ 
 tempt of the Concerns of the World; magnify the Terms of Pacifica¬ 
 tion, and add to them Articles which were never proposed— In other 
 Cases you cannot fail of applying the same Rule . 45 
 
 The Augustan age, then, gave some critical notice to a number of 
 the ways in which their irony revealed itself: the tone of voice, the 
 validity of praise, the likely motives of the speaker, and any inter¬ 
 nal inconsistencies in what was said: an honest opinion set cheek-by¬ 
 jowl with an ironic one, the picture of a ridiculous object set in a 
 frame of ironic approval, suspiciously fulsome praises, caricature of 
 the thing being praised. 
 
 iv. The question of clarity 
 
 Recognition of the kinds of clue that could reveal an irony did 
 not mean that ironies were in fact always happily revealed. In 
 actual fact ironies were constantly misunderstood and misinterpreted. 
 Literary people were uncomfortably aware of this fact and their 
 awareness produced some interesting comments on the relation of 
 irony to various audiences. Henry Peacham, in his “Caution” con¬ 
 cerning “Mycterismus” “a privie kind of mocke ... yet not so privie 
 but that it may well be perceived,” had admonished his Elizabethan 
 readers that “it is not to be used to simple and ignorant persons, 
 which do want the capacitie & subtlety of wit to perceive it.” 46 A 
 hundred years later poor Defoe was wondering that there should 
 be any need to explain the irony of his Shortest Way, 47 and in the 
 last chapter of the Memoirs of Scriblerus Martin’s writings are de¬ 
 scribed as “for the most part Ironical, and the Drift of them often 
 so delicate and refin’d as to be mistaken by the vulgar.” 4 * 5 But 
 
 45 Humourist II (1725), pp. 96-105. 
 
 46 Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 38-39. 
 
 47 See p. 73 above. 
 
 48 See Diet. m.B.ii, pp. 147-48 above. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 155 
 
 Francis Hutcheson, discussing that incongruous association of great 
 and mean images which produces laughter, including the laughter 
 of burlesque, pointed out that differences between individuals, social 
 groups, time, and place all involve differences of opinion on what 
 is dignified and what is mean, so that there are wide variations in 
 what will cause laughter. 49 The problem is not only the obtuseness 
 of the vulgar. And this the Craftsman found to be true in respect 
 of political allegiance. During the years 1727-30 Caleb did some 
 loud complaining about the forced interpretation of his essays into 
 seditious libels. His tongue was in his cheek, and no doubt he 
 hoped to impede prosecution of his own paper by crying out against 
 the prosecution of innocent writers, but the essays illuminate the 
 political mind of the age, which expected to find a second meaning 
 under every period. In his issue of February 7, 1727, Caleb an¬ 
 nounced the heads of his best argument: 
 
 I design, in a short Time, to consider the Case of Irony and In¬ 
 nuendoes in a judicial Light; and how far a forced, distant, or inverted 
 Construction of any Sentence is consistent with common Equity and the 
 Liberties of this Nation, when a -plain, natural and obvious Meaning is 
 ready at Hand . 50 
 
 The Craftsman's complaint was about people who saw ironies where 
 there were none, but the main complaint continued to be about 
 people who couldn’t see an irony under their noses. Fielding gave 
 up the irony of his Jacobite's Journal, among other reasons, be¬ 
 cause “there is no kind of Humour so liable to be mistaken”; irony 
 was, consequently, “of all others, the most dangerous to the Writer. 
 An infinite Number of Readers have not the least Taste or Relish 
 for it, I believe I may say do not understand it... .” 51 The World 
 for Thursday, December 26, 1754, 52 discoursed briefly on this sub¬ 
 ject: 
 
 In writings of humour, figures are sometimes used of so delicate a 
 nature, that it shall often happen that some people will see things in a direct 
 contrary sense to what the author and the majority of readers understand 
 
 49 Francis Hutcheson, Reflections upon Laughter (1750), pp. 5-25. 
 
 50 Craftsman (1731), I, 106. 
 
 51 Fielding, Jacobite’s Journal , No. 17 (March 26, 1748). 
 
 52 World (Chalmers), XXVII, pp. 277-79 (No. 104). For additional com¬ 
 ments see Charles Jarvis, Don Quixote (1742), pp. vi-vii, and Monthly Review, IV 
 (April, 1751), 419. 
 
156 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 them. To such the most innocent irony may appear irreligion or wicked¬ 
 ness. But in the misapprehension of this figure, it is not always that the 
 reader is to blame. A great deal of irony may seem very clear to the 
 writer, which may not be so properly managed as to be safely trusted to 
 the various capacities and apprehensions of all sorts of readers. In such 
 cases the conductor of a paper will be liable to various kinds of censure, 
 though in reality nothing can be proved against him but want of judg¬ 
 ment. 
 
 The other side of the coin was that some ironists had no wish 
 to be understood. Burton, rambling on about “scoffers,” tells the 
 story of Leo Decimus the “scoffing Pofe ” and his co-conspirator 
 Bibiena, who persuaded Baraballius of Caieta that he was as good a 
 poet as Petrarch and so convinced the good man of his genius that 
 when his wiser friends told him of his folly he became very angry 
 with them. 53 Bellegarde warns his English readers against falling 
 into precisely this trap: 
 
 The custom of Flattery seems a Trade; or to say better, a Tribute we 
 give, to be repaid in the same Coin. ’Tis difficult to distinguish when 
 Commendation is sincere, and when Ironical. Our Prejudice for our 
 personal Merit, makes us think the Praises bestow’d in pure Comflaisance } 
 to be due to us. To be undeceiv’d, let us fancy our selves the Comedy 
 that is acted. As we make sport with others, on whom we lavish our 
 Incense in pure Flattery, and against our Conscience, we sneer aside the 
 Person we loudly extol and commend with an Emfhasis. By these 
 counterband Praises, we mean to excite the Compliments made to us 
 in pure Favour, and without Desert. Is not this a pleasant sort of Game? 
 Why are we so greedy after those insipid Flatteries, that only 'Wheedle 
 and Decoy us ? 54 
 
 But it was Shaftesbury, perhaps, who was most sensitive to the 
 abuse, not only in social conversation but in politics and intellectual 
 debate: 
 
 the natural free Spirits of ingenious Men, if imprison’d and controul’d, 
 will find out other ways of Motion to relieve themselves in their Con¬ 
 straint: and whether it be in Burlesque, Mimickry or Buffoonery, they 
 will be glad at any rate to vent themselves, and be reveng’d on their 
 C onstrainers , 55 
 
 5:5 Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy (1621), pp. 196-99. 
 
 64 Bellegarde, Reflexions ufon Ridicule (1717), II, 149-50. 
 
 65 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 50-51. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 *57 
 
 Men in these circumstances resort to speaking their minds “ironi¬ 
 cally,” if necessary involving themselves in “Mysteriousness” and 
 talking “so as hardly to be understood, or at least not plainly in¬ 
 terpreted, by those who are dispos’d to do ’em a mischief.” Such 
 irony is “the Corruption or wrong Use of Pleasantry and Hu¬ 
 mour.” 56 Elsewhere he objects to people who “go about industri¬ 
 ously to confound men, in a mysterious manner, and to make ad¬ 
 vantage or draw pleasure from that perplexity they are thrown into 
 by such uncertain talk. . . .” 57 
 
 Were there any critical standards in this realm of clarity? How 
 obvious should an irony be? There was first of all the standard 
 inherent in the problem itself and the complaints quoted above. As 
 Peacham said of mycterismus, “This figure must not be too obscure 
 and darke, for by that it may loose the vertue and use, if it be not 
 perceived. . . .” 58 At an interval in the performance of their “ ironi - 
 call confederacie” in Cynthia's Revells , Mercury tells Crites to have 
 patience, that he will mimic to the last detail the fantastic affecta¬ 
 tions of the courtiers, and Crites answers: “I, but you should doe 
 more charitably, to doe it more openly; that they might discover 
 themselves mockt in these monstrous affections.” 59 Shaftesbury, as 
 we have seen, objected severely to either political or social raillery 
 which deceived instead of informing its audience. The Gentleman's 
 Magazine for 1764, 60 quoting a translation of George Frederick 
 Meier’s Thoughts on Jesting., offers: 
 
 By a jest we imply much more than is expressed; we only give the hearer 
 an opportunity to think; and by starting a jocular conceit, force him to 
 make reflections himself, so as to conceive what was not expressed; but 
 this should be done so as instantly and forcibly to lead the mind to the 
 particular reflection intended. . . . 
 
 In addition to the standard that irony should be clear enough 
 to hit its audience, there was a tenuous connection between irony 
 and the doctrine that art should be true to nature. Irony was con- 
 
 68 ibid. 
 
 67 Ibid., I, 45. 
 
 58 Peacham, Garden of Eloquence (1593), pp. 38-39. 
 
 59 Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), IV, 147. See pp. 132-33 above for a 
 full description of the situation. 
 
 60 XXXIV (Supplement, 1764), 614. 
 
158 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 sidered one of the four primary tropes, 61 about which Ephraim 
 Chambers asserted that they “should always be clear; they are vi¬ 
 cious, if they be obscure, or too far fetched.” 62 Lansdowne’s Essay 
 upon Unnatural Flights in Poetry had gone to some poetic length 
 to say virtually the same thing: 
 
 But Poetry in Fiction takes delight, 
 
 And mounting up in Figures out of Sight, 
 
 Leaves Truth behind in her audacious flight; 
 
 Fables and Metaphors that always lie, 
 
 And rash Hyperboles, that soar so high, 
 
 And every Ornament of Verse, must die. 
 
 Mistake me not: No Figures I exclude, 
 
 And but forbid Intemperance, not Food; 
 
 As Veils transparent cover, but not hide, 
 
 Such metaphors appear, when right apply’d; 
 
 When, thro’ the phrase, we plainly see the sense, 
 
 Truth, when the meaning’s obvious, will dispense . 63 
 
 Both authors seem to be thinking of metaphor and the other two 
 tropes more than of irony, although this attitude toward truth had 
 its effect on judgments of individual ironies. Thus, under the in¬ 
 fluence of Father Bouhours and this point of view, Lansdowne 64 
 and John Oldmixon made a rather curious connection between irony 
 and hyperbole. Oldmixon writes in that medley of Bouhours and 
 himself called The Arts of Logick and Rhetorick: 
 
 The Irony is another Way of passing off an Hyferbole. When we 
 rally or banter we may say any Thing, but must be more upon our Guard 
 when we write seriously; as Balzac does when he says, He could get as 
 much Wine out of his Muscadines as would make half England drunk; 
 that his Vines froduce as much as ought to serve a whole Country; that 
 there are more Perfumes in his Chamber than in all Arabia Foelix, and 
 such a Flood of Orange and Jess amine W ater , that he and his Servants 
 are forced to swim for their Lives. Had he said this by Way of Banter, 
 it had been well enough; hut the Misfortune is he says it with a grave 
 Tone, and perhaps is the first Man that ever said a Thing so gravely, 
 that had so little Truth in it. Voiture never offends in this manner. 
 
 61 See p. 35 above. 
 
 62 Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopaedia (1741, 1743), Vol. II, “Trope.” 
 
 63 George Granville, Unnatural Flights in Poetry (Spingarn), pp. 292-93. 
 
 ** Ibid., p. 296. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 159 
 
 When he introduces the Hyperbole ’tis always by Way of Raillery: As in 
 this other Passage of the above-mentioned Letter to Cardinal de la Valette, 
 upon the Entertainment at la Barre. ... The Ball continued very pleas¬ 
 antly, till a great Noise without Doors drew all the Ladies to the Window, 
 where, at about a hundred Yards distance, so great a Number of arti¬ 
 ficial Fire-works issu'd out of a Wood, that it seem'd as if all the Branches 
 of the Trees were so many Rockets, that all the Stars were fallen from 
 the Skies, and the Sphere of Fire had taken Place of the middle Region of 
 the Air. These, my Lord, are three Hyperboles, which being rightly 
 appraised and reduced to the just Value of Things, can amount to no 
 more nor no less than three dozen of Rockets. The Conclusion is Banter 
 and Irony. Voiture did not think it seem’d was sufficient to warrant the 
 Wood of Rockets, the falling Stars and the Sphere of Fire, he turns it all 
 into Raillery, and brings off all well. . . . Falsehood it self becomes Truth 
 by the Help of an Irony, or what we call the Rule of Contraries. Thus 
 when we say of a scandalous lewd Woman, she is a very vertuous Per¬ 
 son, every one understands what is said, or rather what is not said. . . . 
 After all the best Guide we can follow is this admirable Saying of one 
 of the greatest Wits of our Age; 
 
 Nothing but Truth is lovely, nothing fair, 
 
 And nothing pleases us, but Truth is There; 
 
 Truth shou'd direct the Poet's fruitful Vein 
 
 In all Things, and e'en in the Fable reign. 
 
 ’Tis taken from Boileau, and is as well exprest by Lord Lansdown. . . . 
 These judicious Reflections are a strange Rebuke to those Writers and 
 Readers, who waste their Time about such Stuff as Robinson Cruso's, 
 Gullivers, &c. Dean Swift in all his Tales and Fables, has not shewn 
 that he is at all sensible of the Duty of an Author to have Truth always 
 in View, and to follow that unerring Guide. If he can work his Readers 
 Faces into a Grin he reaches the utmost of his Ambition; and if they 
 laugh, he has his noble Reward; tho’ like People that are tickled, they 
 would cry if they could, and are, or ought to be, in Pain when he pre¬ 
 tends to give them Pleasure . 65 
 
 In Oldmixon’s censure of Swift we see the truth-to-nature standard 
 rigidly applied to subtle and complicated irony. In the association 
 of irony and hyperbole there is a curious realignment of Aristotle’s 
 statement that elaborate, elevated diction is suitable to ironic speech, 66 
 for Oldmixon and Lansdowne force irony to act as a clarifying agent 
 to the hyperbole. Almost the only conclusion we can draw from 
 
 65 John Oldmixon, Logick and Rhetorick (1728), pp. 21-28. 
 
 96 Aristotle Rhetoric III. vii. 11. 
 
160 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Oldmixon’s various observations is that he approved nothing but 
 rather simple, obvious irony. 
 
 A third standard of judgment was concerned primarily with 
 the effectiveness of ridicule and burlesque, but applications of this 
 standard could not but affect the clarity of an irony as well. This 
 standard grew out of consideration of burlesque exaggeration and 
 distortion. Early in the century, speaking of mock-heroic poetry, 
 John Quincy said of his translation of Holdsworth’s Muscipula, 
 
 I have endeavoured the best I am able in this, to keep up to the Humour 
 and Turn of that Way of Writing, which I take principally to consist in 
 raising the Diction, and labouring the Poetry most, where the Matter is 
 lowest, and most proper for Ridicule. 6 ' 
 
 This notion that the more glaring the contrast the better the ridicule 
 was stated succinctly by the Craftsman: 
 
 The greater the Distance between the real and the affected Qualifica¬ 
 tions, the stronger is the Contrast, and the higher the Ridicule. The 
 Ass in the Lyon's Skin was much more ridiculous than He would have 
 been, if He had contented himself with assuming the kindred Appearance 
 of an Horsed 
 
 The same approach is pursued by a series of three essays in the 
 Publick Register early in 1741. When the mind is in a “State of 
 Ambiguity, upon any Object whatsoever appearing to be thrown out 
 of the Currency of the Species to which it properly belongs, and 
 is as it were passing into the direct contrary, so as not to be wholly 
 either” 69 we laugh. The “Objects of Humour” are the same as 
 those of laughter. 70 The author instances No. 144 of the Free¬ 
 holder as full of humor and quotes several incongruous incidents 
 there described, such as 
 
 a drunken Bishop, who reeled from one Side to the other, and was very 
 sweet upon an Indian Queen. 
 
 However, this Jarring in the Objects of Humour is not always 
 placed so full in View. It is frequently softned, and the Glare taken off, 
 by being thrown as it were at a Distance, and is rather suggested to the 
 Imagination by a Hint, than mark’d out by strong Lines. Of this Kind 
 is a Passage in the abovemention’d Paper, where our Fox-Hunter (con- 
 
 Quoted by Richmond P. Bond, English Burlesque Poetry (1932), p. 42. 
 
 68 Craftsman (1737), XI, 218-19. 
 
 66 Publick Register, No. 2, Jan. 10, 1741. 
 
 70 Ibid., No. 3, Jan. 17, 1741. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 161 
 
 eluding those whom he saw in Masquerade Habits to be Foreigners) con¬ 
 ceives a great Indignation against them, for pretending to laugh at an 
 English Country-Gentleman, for he had been the Object of some of their 
 Mirth. 
 
 We have here only a Glimpse of the Contrast, and it is upon Imagina¬ 
 tion bringing to View the Character of a Fox-Hunter, that we see his 
 assuming to himself, as an English Country-Gentleman, the Prerogative 
 of not being laugh’d at by Foreigners; it is the Strut of a little Man 
 stretching himself into the Class of Tallness, and is an extending of 
 Magna Charta somewhat beyond its natural Precincts. . . . Where the 
 Mind itself is thus employ’d in compleating the Sentiment, the Humour 
 is both delicate and pleasing, but often escapes a common, or indolent 
 Reader, whose Imagination requires a strong Glare to rouze it . 71 
 
 Speaking of Swift he says, “This Author has a most happy Talent 
 at Banter, or Ridicule, which is a very extensive Kind of Humour, 
 and is rendring an Object ludicrous, by attributing to it Qualities, 
 the Reverse to those it actually possesses.” Our critic here is un¬ 
 questionably discussing irony in the central Augustan sense, al¬ 
 though he calls it “banter.” He goes on to remark that “a plain 
 Banter” is too easy and insipid; “To render it therefore agreeable, 
 and to give a genuine Edge, it must be either sharpen’d by Wit, 
 or not appearing to be the End in View, must be shaded off, and 
 left to the Imagination to find out.” Thus in the “Dedication to 
 Prince Posterity” Swift wisely “makes his Banter indirect.” 72 
 
 Although the critic of the Publick Register preferred subtle to 
 obvious irony, the scattered opinions collected above suggest the 
 influences at work to produce a rather obvious standard of clarity: 
 the necessity of reaching a possibly obtuse audience, a sometimes 
 narrow-minded application of the truth-to-nature doctrine, the the¬ 
 ory that the best ridicule involves a glaring contrast. But these 
 pronouncements were scattered and there was no very positive ap¬ 
 plication of them to irony so named. On the other hand there 
 developed in the early eighteenth century a critical principle which 
 was very much a part of explicit thought about irony. Although 
 this principle grew out of a concern with the effectiveness of an 
 irony rather than its clarity, it inevitably involved clarity in its op- 
 
 71 Ibid. 
 
162 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 eration. It had to do with delivery, and can best be seen in rela¬ 
 tion to other, different standards of delivery. 
 
 v. The mask of gravity 
 
 The Renaissance tradition that the satirist should inveigh with 
 biting rage has been noticed sufficiently often. 73 Nor was this 
 critical standard limited to formal verse satire; Michael Drayton 
 memorialized Nashe, “though he a Proser were,” for being “Sharply 
 Satirick >> : 
 
 ... I surely thinke 
 
 Those words shall hardly be set downe with inke 
 Shall scorch and blast so as his could, where he 
 Would inflict vengeance. . . , 74 
 
 The “Poets vehemence,” 75 “That Rage, in which his Noble Vig¬ 
 our” 76 lies, issues in “the sharper wit of the bold satyre” 11 “In 
 harsh sarcasmes, dissonant and smart.” 78 This point of view re¬ 
 quired the satirist to charge at full tilt, waving his banner as he 
 came. It remained an available convention for satire in the Au¬ 
 gustan age, 79 but in that period a shrewder piece of advice, belong¬ 
 ing to the tradition of oratory rather than verse satire, gained 
 prominence. Quintilian had stated the central principle: 
 
 The ethos which I have in my mind and which I desiderate in an orator 
 is commended to our approval by goodness more than aught else and is 
 not merely calm and mild, but in most cases ingratiating and courteous 
 and such as to excite pleasure and affection in our hearers, while the 
 chief merit in its expression lies in making it seem that all that we say 
 derives directly from the nature of the facts and persons concerned and 
 in the revelation of the character of the orator in such a way that all may 
 
 * * SO 
 
 recognise it. 
 
 . . . closely dependent on ethos are the skilful exercise of feigned emotion 
 or the employment of irony in making apologies or asking questions, irony 
 
 "‘David Worcester, Art of Satire (1940), pp. 3-6,12. 
 
 '‘Michael Drayton, Epistle to Henry Reynolds (Spingarn), p. 137. 
 
 "■John Stephens, Essayes and Characters Ironicall (1615), pp. 29-30. 
 
 76 Dryden, Prologues and Epilogues (Gardner), p. 158. 
 
 7 ‘Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), IV, 323. 
 
 ,s Henry Hutton, Satyres (Percy Soc.), p. 10. 
 
 70 David Worcester, Art of Satire (1940), p. 12. 
 
 R0 Quintilian Institutio VI. ii. 13. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 163 
 
 being the term which is applied to words which mean something other 
 than they seem to express. From the same source springs also that more 
 powerful method of exciting hatred, when by a feigned submission to our 
 opponents we pass silent censure on their violence. For the very fact of 
 our yielding serves to demonstrate their insupportable arrogance, while 
 orators who have a passion for abuse or are given to affect freedom of 
 speech fail to realise that it is a far more effective course to make your 
 antagonist unpopular than to abuse him . 81 
 
 In the mid-seventeenth century John Bulwer was judging from this 
 standard when he criticized excessive use by the orator of an ironical 
 gesture: 
 
 Both the Indexes , with a countenance averse, directed to one side, 
 doe point out an ironicall intention. 
 
 This Action although it may with honesty enough be done by an 
 Oratour, yet to doe it often, and to charge them strongly and vehemently 
 against them that are present, as if he would dig out the eyes of his Audi¬ 
 tory . . . this is rather the garbe of those who rage and rave like madmen, 
 then of those who with understanding and moderation exercise the faculty 
 of the Hand in speaking . 82 
 
 The famous droll Andrew Marvell reproved Samuel Parker for his 
 railing; “in my poor opinion,” Marvell commented, “I never saw 
 a man thorow all his three Books in so high a Salivation.” 83 Mar¬ 
 vell’s own experience had been: 
 
 in my observation, if we meet with an Argument in the Streets, both 
 Men, Women and Boys, that are the Auditory, do usually give it on 
 the modester side, and conclude, that he that rails most has the least 
 reason . 84 
 
 Bayle’s Dictionary , 85 Shaftesbury, 86 and Blackmore 87 agreed on this 
 point. 
 
 During the Restoration and early eighteenth century, laughing 
 satire—ridicule and banter as distinct from raging satire or sweet 
 reason—gave a new tone to all sorts of literary forms. Hugh Mac- 
 
 81 Ibid., VI. ii. 15-16. 
 
 82 John Bulwer, Chirologia and Chironomia (1644), pp. 79-80. 
 
 83 Marvell, Rehearsal Transpros’d (1672), p. 170. 
 
 84 Ibid., p. 168. 
 
 86 Bayle, Dictionary (1734-38), I, 727 col. 1. See also Bayle, Dictionary (1734- 
 4 1 ), HI, 165b, 633b. 
 
 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), II, 222. 
 
 87 Blackmore, Essays II (1717), pp. 254-56. 
 
164 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 donald observes of the early Restoration period, “the spirit of banter 
 was in the air.” 88 The new tone of verse satire, of prose style, 89 
 of controversy 90 —in all it is plain enough. One result of this shift 
 of taste from satire to ridicule was that the theory of jests and 
 laughter became inextricably involved with the critical theory of 
 satire. Ben Jonson’s Discoveries had set these two in opposition to 
 each other: “The true Artificer” will be admired for “in inveighing, 
 what sharpenesse; in Jest, what urbanity hee uses.” 91 Now the new 
 fusion had to be rationalized. The sources of the critical theory 
 that was constructed, and the justifying precedents, were various— 
 French “raillery,” Attick “salt,” Roman “urbanity”—but for the 
 moment we are concerned only with the one aspect of that theory 
 which came to have an explicit and emphatic application to irony: 
 the manner of delivery. 
 
 We have seen above that in the criticism of oratorical and con¬ 
 troversial satire there was available the precept to dissimulate one’s 
 anger; in the theory of jesting there was available a similar sanc¬ 
 tion for the indifferent manner, and whereas in the criticism of 
 formal verse satire anger had been approved, critics of jesting had 
 never approved of buffoonery. The buffoonery of farce, the antic 
 grimaces and grotesque costumes of actors, had always been con¬ 
 sidered a low form of comedy, 92 and in conversational jesting such 
 antics were thought vulgar. Puttenham spoke for the view with 
 his usual pungency: 
 
 when we give a mocke with a scornefull countenance as in some smiling 
 sort looking aside or by drawing the lippe awry, or shrinking up the nose; 
 the Greeks called it Micterismus, we may terme it a fleering frumpe, as 
 he that said to one whose wordes he beleved not, no doubt Sir of that. 
 This fleering frumpe is one of the Courtly graces of hicke the scorner . e3 
 
 Also speaking of jests, the Art of Complaisance warned: “above all, 
 let us beware they be not accompanied with grimaces or disagree- 
 
 88 Hugh Macdonald, “Banter” (1947), pp. 26-27. 
 
 ** Ibid., pp. 21-22. 
 
 00 Ibid., p. 26. 
 
 01 Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), VIII, 588. 
 
 08 See, for instance, Dryden, Essays (Ker), I, 135-37; II, 132-33. John Old- 
 mixon, Logick and Rhetorick (1728), pp. 324-25, 355-56. 
 
 93 Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), pp. 186-91. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 165 
 
 able gestures, after the manner of Players, Mimicks, and Buf¬ 
 foons.” 94 Such advice was current in the Augustan age. 
 
 In contrast to buffoonery stood the manner of the gentleman. 
 Cicero had said that “dissimulation” is “extremely pleasing when it 
 is well managed, not in a vehement strain of language, but in a 
 conversational style. . . ,” 95 and in the Restoration and early eight¬ 
 eenth century the conversational style of the gentleman was one of 
 the things the literati thought a great deal of, especially in jesting 
 and raillery. Sprat derives the manner from Horace’s “way,” 
 which is 
 
 the very Original of true Raillery, and differs as much from some of the 
 other Latin Satyrs, as the pleasant reproofs of a Gentleman from the 
 severity of a School-master. I know some Men disapprove it, because the 
 Verse seems to be loose, and near to the plainness of common Dis¬ 
 course. . . . the same judgment should be made of Mens styles as of their 
 behaviour and carriage: wherein that is most courtly and hardest to be 
 imitated, which consists of a Natural easiness and unaffected Grace, 
 where nothing seems to be studied, yet everything is extraordinary . 06 
 
 Dryden pointed out that the wit of the writers of the preceding age 
 “was ill-bred and clownish” because they had not associated with 
 gentlemen. But under the influence of Charles II and his court 
 Restoration writers became “easy and pliant to each other in dis¬ 
 course.” 97 We see the influence of this ideal in John Hughes’ praise 
 of L’Estrange’s “Gaiety and seeming Negligence,” 98 and in James 
 Drake’s description of Tom Brown’s “careless gay Humour, and 
 negligent cheerful Wit.” 99 The “purest Source of . .. Pleasantry,” 
 said Dennis, “what the French call naivete , which is a charming 
 Simplicity, dictated by pure Nature, is almost always Original j For 
 there is something in it so easie, so free, so flowing and so natural, 
 as flies the restraint of a Copy.” 100 “The simple manner,” says 
 Shaftesbury, expresses “the effect of art under the appearance of 
 the greatest ease and negligence. And even when it assumes the 
 
 Ji Art of Complaisance (1673), pp. 41-42. 
 
 95 Cicero On Oratory III. 53. 
 
 96 Sprat, Cowley (Spingarn), pp. 136-37. 
 
 97 Dryden, Essays (Ker), I, 174-76. 
 
 98 John Hughes, Of Style (Durham), p. 84. 
 
 99 Tom Brown, Works (1720), I, prefatory materials. 
 
 100 Dennis, Critical Works (Hooker), II, 160-61. Cf. II, 282. 
 
1 66 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 censuring or reproving part, it does it in the most concealed and 
 gentle way.” 101 Oldmixon comments on “that Naivety . .. which 
 is the Charm in Voiture.” 102 Easy, negligent, careless, unstudied, 
 unaffected, natural, simple, naive, free, gay, graceful: this was the 
 manner of the gentleman in raillery. 
 
 Certain related precepts were offered by critics more interested 
 in results than in politesse. The Art of Complaisance pointed out 
 that a “facetious repartie ” is most effective when it appears to be 
 spontaneous, 103 and that 
 
 when we would rally, to excite laughter, ’tis best to speak in a cold and 
 serious manner, that the Company may be pleasantly surprised, in seeing 
 us serious in the midst of persons, who rend the air with laughters . 104 
 
 Ferrand Spence commented that Lucian “does things so privately 
 and underhand , that very often we cannot tell, whether he be in 
 Jest or Earnest ,” 105 and the Tatler for September 10, 1709, sug¬ 
 gested that 
 
 a certain insensibility in the countenance recommends a sentence of 
 humour and jest. . . . The jest is to be a thing unexpected; therefore 
 your undesigning manner is a beauty in expressions of mirth. . . . 106 
 
 Charles Rollin 107 and the Gentleman’s for 1764 108 repeated the idea. 
 
 We see, then, that the various sources of critical judgment had 
 supplied somewhat various standards for the delivery of satire and 
 jests, including irony. On the one hand was the tradition that 
 satire should rage and foam; on the other the rhetorician’s prac¬ 
 tical advice to make satire and argumentative attack appear to be 
 objective, impersonal. The old notion that irony may well re¬ 
 veal itself in the manner of delivery was circumscribed by the prej- 
 
 101 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 157-70. 
 
 102 Oldmixon, Logick and Rhetorick (1728), pp. 197-98. 
 
 103 Art of Complaisance (1673), p. 42. 
 
 104 Ibid., p. 59- 
 
 105 Ferrand Spence, Lucian (1684-85), I, sig. B7 T -B8 T . Cf. Fielding, Works 
 (Stephen), VI, 322-25. 
 
 loa Tatler (Aitken), II, 118 (No. 66). Aitken attributes this essay to Steele; 
 Temple Scott to Swift—see Swift, Prose Works (Temple Scott), IX, 18. See 
 also Tatler (Aitken), IV, 234-38 (No. 242, Oct. 26, 1710). 
 
 107 Charles Rollin, Teaching and Studying the Belles Lettres (1749), II, 261-62. 
 
 108 Gentleman's Magazine, XXXIV (Supplement, 1764), 615. See also Belle- 
 garde, Reflexions upon Ridicule (1717), I, 161; Christopher Smart, Midwife 
 (i 75 i- 53 )> HI, 49 - 53 - 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 167 
 
 udice against anything savoring of buffoonery, by idealizations of 
 the gentleman’s manner, and by the observation that the most effec¬ 
 tive raillery is spontaneous and to a considerable extent hidden to a 
 first glance. Out of this confusion the early eighteenth century 
 evolved a single and widely accepted principle by which the delivery 
 of an irony could be judged: mock-heroic and other varieties of 
 irony are most effective when hidden under a mask of seeming 
 gravity. 
 
 Gravity of manner in perpetrating an irony had always been, 
 of course, a natural potential of the method. Thinking of Socra¬ 
 tes’ verbal irony Cicero had said, as Thomas Stanley translated him, 
 “it is a very elegant, sweet and facete kind of speech, acute 
 with gravity, accommodated with Rhetorick words, and pleasant 
 speeches.” 109 The 1657 edition of Holland’s translation of Plutarch’s 
 Moralia describes a remark made “in good earnest and great gravity 
 (after the ironical manner).” 110 But the grave manner did not 
 crystallize into a critical concept until the first half of the eighteenth 
 century, when people became conscious of it under the dual impact 
 of Cervantes and the popularity of high burlesque, 111 and it was not 
 cemented to irony so called until nearly the middle of the century. 
 
 In 1693 a taste f° r th e manner of a gentleman had led Motteux 
 to prefer high burlesque to the low burlesque which had been popu¬ 
 lar during the Restoration. “Good sence and a Gentleman’s man¬ 
 ner,” he commented, “ought to be preserv’d, or Burlesque dwindles 
 to Buffoonry....” These are more easily preserved by high bur¬ 
 lesque, which “is also pleasant to the Reader by the Air of Gravity 
 and ridiculous Affectation, with which Trifles are related as mighty 
 matters.” 112 For his skill in this grave fooling John Philips was 
 memorialized by his friend “Rag” Smith: 
 
 Oh, various bard, you all our powers control, 
 
 You now disturb, and now divert the soul: 
 
 100 Thomas Stanley, History of Philosophy (1655-62), Part 3, pp. 5-6. 
 
 110 The passage is referred to page 526 of this edition by the files of the N.E.D. 
 preserved at the University of Michigan. 
 
 111 High burlesque—-mock-heroic and parody—did not come into fashion until 
 the turn of the century. See Richmond P. Bond, English Burlesque Poetry (1932), 
 pp. 21-23. 
 
 112 Gentleman’s Journal, Jan., 1692/93, p. 27. 
 
1 68 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Milton and Butler in thy Muse combine, 
 
 Above the last thy manly beauties shine; 
 
 For as I’ve seen, when rival wits contend, 
 
 One gayly charge, one gravely wise defend, 
 
 This on quick turns and points in vain relies, 
 
 This with a look demure, and steady eyes, 
 
 With dry rebukes, or sneering praise, replies: 
 
 So thy grave lines extort a juster smile, 
 
 Reach Butler’s fancy, but surpass his style; 
 
 He speaks Scarron’s low phrase in humble strains, 
 
 In thee the solemn air of great Cervantes reigns . 113 
 
 The “solemn air of great Cervantes” was to be a touchstone for 
 the next half-century, and by the second quarter of the century 
 mock gravity was an aspect of high burlesque which demanded con¬ 
 sideration. John Dennis found himself involved in some rather 
 nice distinctions on the subject when he set out to prove the Rafe 
 of the Lock inferior to the Lutrin. The latter, said Dennis, sup¬ 
 plies several ridiculous incidents of the kind which are the true 
 source of comic laughter, but “There is not so much as one , nor the 
 Shadow of one, in the Rafe of the Lock: Unless the Author’s 
 Friends will object here, That his ferfetual Gravity , after the 
 Promise of his Title, makes the whole Poem one continued Jest.” 
 In Boileau Dennis found mock-gravity a more positive virtue: 
 “Boileau calls his Lutrin an Heroick Poem , and he is so far from 
 raising an Exfectation of Laughter, either in the Title , or in the 
 Beginning of the Poem , that he tells Monsieur de Lamoignon , to 
 whom he addresses it, that ’tis a grave Subject , and must be read 
 with a grave Countenance.” 114 
 
 The Scriblerus circle were of course very much alive to the vir¬ 
 tues of mock solemnity. Arbuthnot wrote Swift on March 19, 
 1728/29, that he was occupied with a work which rose “to a very 
 solemn piece of burlesque,” 115 and we recall two famous character¬ 
 izations of Swift, Pope’s compliment in the Dunciad: 
 
 113 Edmund Smith, “A Poem to the Memory of Mr. John Philips” (Chalmers), 
 p. 205. 
 
 114 Dennis, Critical Works (Hooker), II, 329-31. 
 
 116 Arbuthnot, Works (Aitken), p. 126. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 169 
 
 Whether thou chuse Cervantes’ serious air, 
 
 Or laugh and shake in Rab’lais’ easy Chair , 116 
 
 and Swift’s characterization of himself: 
 
 His Vein, ironically grave, 
 
 Expos’d the Fool, and lash’d the Knave: 11 ' 
 
 Not unnaturally the literary output of the group alerted their wide 
 audience to this quality of manner. The Craftsman, tongue in cheek 
 as usual, complained about the frequent treatment of serious sub¬ 
 jects in a ludicrous manner, a practice introduced by Cervantes and 
 Rabelais: 
 
 I could give a Multitude of Instances; but I believe it will be sufficient to 
 mention only two Books lately publish’d; namely, Captain Gulliver’s 
 Voyages, and An Enquiry into the Reasons of the Conduct of Great- 
 Britain, &c. the last of which seems to be a servile Imitation of the other, 
 as that is of the French or Spanish Author before-mention’d, and might 
 be better entitled Don Quixote in Politicks; the Reflections of Panta- 
 gruel on the present State of Affairs; or Gulliver turn’d Statesman. 
 
 It is evident to every Reader of the meanest Capacity, that the Au¬ 
 thor of this curious Piece proceeds on the Model of those Writers, and 
 that his Design is to ridicule Statesmen and political Matters in the same 
 Manner that Cervantes exposes Books of Chivalry, or Captain Gulliver 
 the Writings of Travellers, by publishing a Collection of the most palpable 
 Falshoods, Absurdities, and Contradictions, in a grave and serious Man¬ 
 ner, with the same solemn Grimace and repeated Professions of Truth 
 and Simplicity } 18 
 
 After the late Twenties observations of the manner became com¬ 
 monplace. Discussing the techniques of mock-epic, Walter Harte 
 singled out the contribution of language: 
 
 The Language next: from hence new pleasure springs; 
 
 For Styles are dignify’d, as well as Things. 
 
 Tho’ Sense subsists, distinct from phrase or sound, 
 
 Yet Gravity conveys a surer wound. 
 
 The chymic secret which your pains wou’d find, 
 
 Breaks out, unsought for, in Cervantes’ mind; 
 
 And Quixot’ s wildness, like that King’s of old, 
 
 Turns all he touches, into Pomp and Gold. 
 
 118 Pope, Dunciad (Sutherland), pp. 62-63. See also Pope, Odyssey (1725- 
 26), V, 299-300. 
 
 117 Swift, Poems (Williams), II, 565. 
 
 118 Craftsman (1731), I, 79-81 (No. 14, Jan. 20, 1727). 
 
170 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Yet in this Pomp discretion must be had; 
 
 Tho’ grave , not stiff-, tho’ whimsical , not mad : 119 
 
 William Somervile, undertaking to prove that high burlesque is 
 preferable to low, quoted “Rag” Smith, Dacier, and Boileau’s state¬ 
 ment that whereas to recount “une chose grande en stile has" is un¬ 
 impressive, nothing is more ridiculous than to tell a comic story “en 
 Termes graves & serieux. ,n20 Richard Owen Cambridge arrived 
 at the same conclusion about the proper manner of high burlesque 
 through his rigid notion that good mock-heroic must imitate the true 
 heroic in every particular: 
 
 A Mock-Heroic poem should, in as many respects as possible, imitate 
 the True Heroic. The more particulars it copies from them, the more 
 perfect it will be. By the same rule it should admit as few things as 
 possible, which are not of the cast and color of the ancient Heroic poems. 
 The more of these it admits, the more imperfect will it be. It should, 
 throughout, be serious, because the originals are serious; therefore the 
 author should never be seen to laugh, but constantly wear that grave irony 
 which Cervantes only has inviolably preserv’d . 121 
 
 The reviewer for the Monthly was willing to go along with this 
 doctrine: 
 
 Our readers probably may not be unanimous in determining, whether 
 throughout a composition of this nature, that is really entertaining, its 
 uninterrupted mock gravity must be an essential and indispensable 
 point. . . : However, if Mr. Addison's pleasant criterion of true humour, 
 viz. That it looks grave itself, while it sets all others a laughing, pleases 
 from its justness, we must allow our author the merit of preserving his 
 grave irony with uninterrupted power of face. After the reader has 
 once contracted a settled intimacy with his hero’s character, he accom¬ 
 panies him thro’ his various adventures with continual emotions of pleas¬ 
 antry, which are now and then heighten’d into irrepressible paroxysms of 
 laughter; while the poet, thro’ the tenor of his work, seems, with a well- 
 assumed and persevering gravity, unconscious of the least joke . 122 
 
 The idea seems to have looked like current gospel to William Dodd, 
 author of A Day in Vacation at College. A Burlesque Poem: 
 
 110 Walter Harte, Essay on Satire (1730), pp. 11-13. This poem also appeared 
 in the Grub-street Journal for June 18, 1730. 
 
 120 William Somervile, The Chase (1749), pp. 109-13. 
 
 121 R. O. Cambridge, Scribleriad (1752), pp. iii-iv. 
 
 122 Monthly Review, V (July, 1751), 117-19. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 171 
 
 The learned Reader will observe how strictly the Writer of this Piece 
 has complied with the Opinions of the ingenious Author of the very 
 grave Scribleriad. He, in Imitation thereof, never deigning to let one 
 Smile intrude all the Way through; and in so doing, we hope People of 
 true and nicer Taste will confess he has hit upon the true Burlesque. 
 For in the Preface to that Poem saith the Writer,—‘In a Mock-heroic 
 Poem, the Author should never be seen to laugh, but constantly wear 
 that grave Irony, which Cervantes only has inviolably preserved .’ 123 
 
 In the light of this doctrine of gravity Motteux’s translation of Don 
 Quixote seemed all wrong. Charles Jarvis was severely critical of 
 Motteux’s low comic manner: 
 
 . . . nothing can be more foreign to the design of the author, whose princi¬ 
 pal and distinguishing character is, to preserve the face of gravity, generally 
 consistent throughout his whole work, suited to the solemnity of a Sfan- 
 iard , and wherein without doubt is placed the true spirit of its ridicule . 124 
 
 The Monthly , reviewing Smollett’s translation, made a like cen¬ 
 sure: 
 
 With regard to those translations from translations, published by Mot- 
 teux, and others, they deserve no farther mention; except to express our 
 wonder, that, under the burlesque veil, and farcical disguise, in which 
 they have envelloped the author, they have not been able totally to divest 
 him of his native dignity. . . , 125 
 
 The extent to which the idea had solidified by mid-century is illus¬ 
 trated in Joseph Warton’s praise of The Sflendid Shilling: “that 
 admirable copy of the solemn irony of Cervantes, who is the father 
 and unrivalled model of the true mock-heroic... .” 126 
 
 Although Cervantes was undoubtedly the dominant model of 
 grave irony, by mid-century the grave manner of Swift had achieved 
 nearly equal fame. Pope had suggested Cervantes as Swift’s mas¬ 
 ter, but Fielding demurred. It was Lucian, not Cervantes, who had 
 taught the great Dean, says Captain Booth in Amelia. 121 Whoever 
 his master may have been, his mock gravity had by mid-century en¬ 
 tered the stream of conventional literary observations. The Month¬ 
 ly y reviewing Female Taste , compared it to Swift: 
 
 123 William Dodd, A Day in Vacation (1751), p. 6 of Notes. 
 
 124 Charles Jarvis, Don Quixote (1742), pp. iv-v. 
 
 126 Monthly Review, XIII (Sept., 1755), 197. 
 
 420 Joseph Warton, Essay on Pope (1806), I, 242-43. 
 
 127 Fielding, Amelia (Navarre Soc.), II, 181-82. 
 
172 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 The principal merit and humour of this satire consists in its being a 
 pursuit of Dean Swift’s very droll directions to servants; which, with a 
 seeming gravity, and true comic spirit, constantly enjoins them to com¬ 
 mit the very faults, he would, by his peculiar manner, more effectually re¬ 
 mind them to reform . 128 
 
 Talking about Swift’s A -project for the advancement of religion , 
 and the reformation of manners , Orrery shows the power of this 
 stereotype of the Dean’s manner: 
 
 The author appears in earnest throughout the whole treatise, and the 
 dedication, or introduction, is in a strain of serious panegyric. . . . But as 
 the pamphlet is of the satirical kind, I am apt to imagine, that my friend 
 the Dean put a violence upon himself, in chusing to appear candidly 
 serious, rather than to smile under his usual mask of gravity. . . . methinks, 
 upon these occasions, I perceive him writing in shackles . 129 
 
 In the Preface to his unpublished Charliad Joseph Spence com¬ 
 pares Cervantes, Rabelais, and Swift, and now it is Swift rather than 
 Cervantes who is the exemplar of grave irony: 
 
 The Spanish Chief is for Natural Ridicule; the Frenchman puts on a 
 ridiculous Face, in things that are serious; and your countryman [Swift] 
 puts on a serious face, in things that are ridiculous. He is the last to 
 laugh at his own jest; and by that Method perhaps has excell’d both the 
 others . 130 
 
 An interesting application of the concept of grave irony appeared 
 in the theater section of the London Chronicle for 1757 or early 
 1758. The critic is discussing Barry’s portrayal of Richard III: 
 
 . . . the Humour of Richard, which never should take off the Mask, is with 
 him too free and open. Richard’s Pleasantry never rises to Mirth; it al¬ 
 ways proceeds from what the Poet calls the mala mentis gaudia, the wicked 
 Pleasures of the Mind; and it should therefore never become totally 
 jocund, but should ever be a mixed Emotion of Joy and Malice. Where 
 he jokes about his Score or two of Taylors, and finds himself a marvelous 
 proper Man, there should be no free Exultation, because his Mirth is 
 ironical, and he is still sensible of his own Deformity; and therefore he 
 should smile, and smile, and be a villain. This should hold all through, 
 except in the triumphant Self-Congratulations of Ambition . 131 
 
 128 Monthly Review, XII (June, 1755), 510. 
 
 128 Orrery, Remarks on Swift (1752), pp. 98-99. See also p. 262. 
 
 130 Quoted by Richmond P. Bond, English Burlesque Poetry (1932), p. 166 n. 
 
 131 Quoted by C. H. Gray, Theatrical Criticism in London to 2795 (1931), 
 pp. 138-39- 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 173 
 
 Although the notions of irony and the proper ironic manner ex¬ 
 pressed here are conventional for the time, the subjective orienta¬ 
 tion which the critic gives them is premonitory of later concepts of 
 irony. 
 
 vi. The virtue of consistency 
 
 With the critical adoption of an appropriate manner for irony 
 came critical recognition that whatever ironic pose is adopted must 
 be consistently maintained. Perhaps the worst aspect of run-of-the- 
 mill controversial irony in the Restoration and first years of the 
 eighteenth century had been its half-heartedness. Even when a 
 combatant found an effective ironic premise or mask he was likely 
 after a few pages to drop it for downright abuse. Shaftesbury 
 noted this failing with considerable acidity: 
 
 There cannot be a more preposterous sight than an executioner and 
 a merry-Andrew acting their part upon the same stage. Yet I am per¬ 
 suaded any one will find this to be the real picture of certain modern 
 zealots in their controversial writings. They are no more masters of 
 gravity than they are of good-humour. The first always runs into harsh 
 severity, and the latter into an awkward buffoonery. And thus between 
 anger and pleasure, zeal and drollery, their writing has much such a grace 
 as the play of humorsome children, who, at the same instant, are both 
 peevish and wanton, and can laugh and cry almost in one and the same 
 breath . 132 
 
 It was undoubtedly Swift who first saw the full force of the neces¬ 
 sity for sustaining an irony. Craik reports that when Skelton’s 
 anonymous Some Proposals for the Revival of Christianity (1736), 
 which was an imitation of Swift’s ironical style and had been as¬ 
 cribed to him, was brought Swift to examine he remarked, “The 
 author of this has not continued the irony to the end.” 133 He made 
 the same criticism of The Rights of the Christian Church: 
 
 This man hath somewhere heard, that it is a point of wit to advance 
 paradoxes, and the bolder the better. But the wit lies in maintaining them, 
 which he neglecteth, and formeth imaginary conclusions from them, as if 
 they were true and uncontested . 134 
 
 132 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 47-48. 
 
 133 Henry Craik, Life of Swift (1894), II, 165 n. 
 
 134 Swift, Prose Works (Temple Scott), III, 118. 
 
174 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 After some of his own relentless ironies had been published the 
 shilly-shallying of weaker ironists was all the more evident. Fog’s 
 Weekly Journal for Saturday, June 2, 1733 (No. 239), went to 
 work on one. There had recently occurred in the City certain 
 riots which had been made a matter for the Grand Jury. After the 
 Recorder had charged the Jury in rather pointed terms about these 
 riots, the Lord Mayor suggested the Jury distinguish between riots 
 and public rejoicings, which latter the recent congregation had been, 
 in his opinion. The Grand Jury thanked the Lord Mayor, but 
 Walsingham’s Free Briton for May 17 (No. 182) argued ironically 
 that the Lord Mayor could not possibly have said what he was re¬ 
 ported to have said. Fog’s commented on this essay at some length: 
 
 . . . when he [Walsingham] attempts that Figure called Irony he 
 seems to know himself, and the Strength of his own great Genius, for 
 a most excellent Critick has given us the following Definition of it: 
 
 Irony (says he) “is not a Work for groveling Pens; but extremely 
 difficult, even to the best. —It is certainly one of the most beautiful 
 Strokes of Rhetorick, and which requires a Master Hand to carry on, 
 and finish with any Success; but when a Bungler attempts it, he finds it 
 beyond his Skill, and his mishapen Work with this awkward polishing be¬ 
 comes intirely deformed, as the false Beauty of Paint upon a Lady’s 
 Face is less desirable than no Beauty at all, and the Pertness of a shallow 
 Fop more disagreeable than his Silence.” 
 
 But Mr. Walsingham’s Irony has a Delicacy in it peculiar to the 
 Man, and he is known by his Hand, as Hercules was by his Foot—he 
 begins his Paper with a Mock-Encomium upon mv Lord-Mayor, which 
 I shall not quote, but shall recommend it to be read by all those that may 
 want a Nap this warm Weather. . . . 
 
 I shall now produce some of those beautiful Strokes of Rhetorick 
 which my Author says are essential to this Way of Writing; in order 
 to it, I shall quote Word for Word what follows the Sentence before 
 repeated. 
 
 “Now to my Apprehension, with humble Submission I speak it, this 
 Intelligence cannot be true, it is either the Dream of mistaken People, or 
 the Forgery of some bad Body, who hath much Malice against his Lord- 
 ship, the aforesaid Grand Jury, their Friends, and their Cause into the 
 Bargain. Pray let us consider the Fact; here is an Inquest to be taken, 
 and the Lord Mayor, who hardly ever yet gave the Charge to the Grand 
 Jury, since the Old Bailey has been a Court of Oyer and Terminer , his 
 Lordship is made in this unusual Manner to give them a strict Charge, 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 175 
 
 a Charge. —To what Purpose? You shall see, it is to instruct them that 
 they carefully distinguish between Riots and publick Rejoycings, that 
 they may not present as Riots and Misdemeanours, such Acts of Joy and 
 Festivity as may have been celebrated on Account of some great Good 
 which hath lately been done. 
 
 “Can it be true then, that his Lordship could give such a Charge? 
 Certainly not, I think; first for that no great Good hath been done; Sec¬ 
 ondly, that there have been no Rejoycings for great Good, but rather, 
 as wise Men tell us, for great Mischief. Thirdly, because it must shew 
 his Lordship apprehended that such Rejoycings for great Good might 
 be presented by the Grand fury as riotous Proceedings: And lastly, be¬ 
 cause it must shew that his Lordship was in some kind of Panick lest 
 this identical Grand Jury actually should, as such Offences against the 
 Peace of the Crown, the Good of the City, and the Laws of the Land.” 
 
 I only quote this as a Specimen of fine Raillery and most ingenious 
 Satyr—his Apprehension with his humble Submission —his Dream of mis¬ 
 taken People , and Forgery of some bad- Body, and so on to the End, do 
 not only convey to you the ingenious Sentiment of an Author who thinks 
 finely, but you see they are convey’d in a most beautiful Stile. 
 
 The other Paragraph hath also its Beauties. He is there speaking of 
 the unfeigned Rejoycings made for the Suppression of the Excise-Bill. 
 You see how logically he draws his Consequences; no great Good hath 
 been done; therefore there have been no Rejoycings for great Good, but 
 rather for great Mischief. -—Indeed the Irony seems to be dropt here, 
 when he calls it a great Mischief; but it is taken up again the very next 
 Sentence, for there it is a great Good again; but perhaps in Irony a Man 
 may sometimes call a thing black, and sometimes white, and mean the 
 same thing, or mean nothing at all; and who knows but he might have 
 learnt this dodging Way of Reasoning from some Legerdemain Patron, 
 who might be a great Virtuoso at Cups and Balls— Here you have it, 
 and there you have it not. . . . 
 
 The paper concludes with several passages from Shaftesbury, in¬ 
 cluding the one quoted above. Although Fog’s criticism here is 
 not to be taken as necessarily valid, it is interesting to note the 
 standards of judgment to which the attack appeals: Walsingham’s 
 ironic panegyric is too heavy-handed and obvious; the style is that 
 of neither a gentleman nor an accomplished writer; the ironic pose 
 is not consistently maintained; and the whole thing is dull. 
 
 In the realm of mock-heroic, the virtue of consistency was re¬ 
 marked by Pope, Jarvis, and Cambridge, among others. A note 
 to the Dunciad points out, in reference to the pissing contest, that 
 
i 7 6 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 “Our good Poet, (by the whole cast of his work being obliged not 
 to take off the Irony) where he cou’d not show his Indignation, hath 
 shewn. .. .” 135 Charles Jarvis, in his Preface to Don Quixote , as¬ 
 serted that of all the kinds of satire, the ironical is 
 
 the most difficult to preserve in a work of length. Who is there but 
 observes our author’s admirable talent at it? However it must be con¬ 
 fessed, he has now and then broke in upon this scheme; which I am 
 persuaded he must have been forced to in compliance with the humour of 
 the age and country he wrote in, and not from any error of judgment . 136 
 
 The sharpness of eye with which Jarvis observed his author’s talent 
 is illustrated by his note to a passage in which the dialogue of 
 Sancho and Teresa is called an “impertinent discourse.” 
 
 So it is in the original {'im-pertmente:') but I suspect the irony is 
 here broke by the transcriber or printer, and not by the author himself, 
 and that it should be ( imfortante ) imfortant , which carries on the grave 
 ridicule of the history. 13 ' 
 
 Richard Owen Cambridge’s passion for consistency runs through all 
 his theory of the mock-heroic: the author must “never” laugh, he 
 must “constantly” sustain the grave irony which Cervantes had 
 “inviolably” preserved. 138 Commenting on his own Scribleriad, he 
 says, “To compleat the design of mock-gravity, the Author and Edi¬ 
 tors are represented full as great enthusiasts as the Hero; therefore, 
 as all things are supposed to appear to them in the same light as 
 they do to him, there are several things which they could not ex¬ 
 plain without laying aside their assumed character.” 139 Thus the 
 “Irony” of the poem is “observed as strictly in the notes as in the 
 text... .” 140 
 
 The standard of consistency was finally ensconced in John Law¬ 
 son’s lectures on rhetoric: 
 
 The Dangers attending this Figure [irony] are these three; one is ever 
 apt to break in upon it. Your real Sense is ready to burst out, and 
 mingle itself with the ironical, which makes an odd incoherent Mixture. 
 
 13D Pope, Dunciad (Sutherland), p. 119. 
 
 136 Charles Jarvis, Don Quixote (1742), pp. vi-vii. 
 
 131 Ibid., II, 27 n. Ozell repeats this note—John Ozell, Don Quixote (Mod. 
 Lib.), p. 478 n. 
 
 138 R. O. Cambridge, Scribleriad (1752), pp. iii-iv. 
 
 139 Ibid., pp. xv-xvi. 
 
 140 Ibid., pp. xiii-xv. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 I?? 
 
 This Fault in long continued Irony seemeth scarcely avoidable, since it 
 is laid to the Charge of Lucian, Cervantes, and Swift , the three great 
 Masters of this Figure. 
 
 Another Danger is, Ironies are often intermixed with serious Truths, 
 which is abrupt and hard: As in the latter of the two following Lines, 
 speaking of Dr. Swift, 
 
 Or thy griev’d Country’s Copper Chains unbind, 
 
 Or fraise the Court , or dignify Mankind. 
 
 All before and after the latter of these Lines are understood in their 
 literal Sense . 141 
 
 Recognition of the virtue was ordinary by mid-century. 142 
 
 vii. The question of length 
 
 In his seminal discussion Quintilian divided irony into three 
 types according to length: the trope, which extends to a few words 
 set in a non-ironic context; the figure that extends throughout an 
 entire speech 5 and the figure that extends through an entire life, 
 such as Socrates’. 143 Until the Augustan age, although this division 
 by length was an available idea 144 people usually thought of irony 
 as a brief, whiplash kind of thing—a nipping taunt. But the spate 
 of ironic essays, pamphlets, poems, and even whole books which 
 appeared from the Augustan presses called people’s attention to 
 irony as a device capable of sustained manipulation, 145 and Swift 
 pointed the fact out to them in his “Apology” prefixed to the 
 Tale of a Tub: 
 
 Another Thing to be observed is, that there generally runs an Irony 
 through the Thread of the whole Book, which the Men of Tast will 
 observe and distinguish, and which will render some Objections that have 
 been made, very weak and insignificant . 146 
 
 141 John Lawson, Lectures Concerning Oratory (1760), pp. 257-68. 
 
 142 Additional observations are to be found in Joseph Warton, Adventurer 
 Nos. 127, 133 (Augustan Soc.), pp. 195-96 (No. 133, Feb. 12, 1754); Deane 
 Swift, Essay upon Swift (1755), pp. 70-72, 135-36. 
 
 143 The passage is quoted above on p. 5. 
 
 144 Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 134-56. Abraham Fraunce, 
 Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chaps, i, ii, vi. Thomas Stanley, History of 
 Philosophy (1655-62), Part 3, pp. 5-6. 
 
 145 See Chapter III above. 
 
 140 Swift, Tale of a Tub (Davis), p. 4. 
 
178 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 Toward mid-century the utility of irony for the long haul became 
 a question of some critical interest. The Prompter for March 23, 
 1736 (No. 144), brought it up almost accidentally while pursuing 
 his criticism of the Grub-street Journal for not sustaining its ironic 
 pose: 
 
 I don’t know how it happens, that we Writers unwarily permit our¬ 
 selves to grow warm, in our Reasonings, and confound Things with 
 Persons. No Example ought to have Weight enough to mislead us 
 into so unfruitful a Practice: (I except Cases, where Personal Qualities 
 are the Subject we treat of) But, I judge with the Partiality Men are 
 apt to deceive themselves by, or the Gentlemen (whoever they are) at 
 the Head of the Grub-street Journal , have been oftnest to blame, in this 
 particular Error: tho’, if I conceive not a very wrong Notion of the 
 Scheme they might pursue with most Honour, and Interest, It is a Devia¬ 
 tion, of much worse Effect in Their Case, than in That of the Authors 
 of any other Paper, now publish’d among us. 
 
 What I mean, is, that, to allow the full Scope to the Humour of their 
 Title, One would expect an ironical Transversion of Censure; where 
 (to keep up the Resemblance they assume) as They shou’d never be¬ 
 stow Praise, but upon the Dull, and Ridiculous, so they should delicately, 
 and pretendedly, level the Seemings of their Satire, against Nothing but 
 Wit, and Good Judgment. 
 
 In a Plan, of this Turn, Nothing gravely malignant cou’d have 
 Place; and, consequently, Anger, and Invective, must be excluded. Sa¬ 
 tire smiling her Reproof into Favour even of the Party corrected, the 
 Gayety of the Manner wou’d serve, as a Veil, to the Malice, and afford 
 no Motives to Resentment. 
 
 I shall be better understood, if I borrow a Paragraph from our Great 
 Poet above-mentioned, as I find it in One of his Letters to a Friend, 
 among that beautiful Collection, not long since made publick. 
 
 “Dr. SWIFT (says he) much approves what I proposed, even to the 
 very Title; which I design shall be The Works of the Unlearned, pub¬ 
 lished Monthly, in which, whatever Book appears, that deserves Praise, 
 shall be depreciated ironically; and, in the same manner that modern 
 Critics take, to undervalue Works of Merit, and to commend the high 
 Productions of Grub-street .” 
 
 If This, as seems reasonable to believe, was the Hint, that gave Be¬ 
 ginning to the Grub-street Journal, I am sorry, for the Town’s Sake, 
 and the Paper’s, that It was not directly pursued: The Field it threw 
 open was the most copious, and fruitful, that cou’d well have been culti¬ 
 vated. —All, that Judgement, and Humour, and Satire, and Fancy, cou’d 
 have wish’d, they might have found, in this Scene. . . . 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 179 
 
 The Grub-street Journal rose to the bait on April 14: 
 
 . . . we had no occasion to confine our-selves to that Ironical Transversion 
 of Censure, which our late unsuccessful Brother The Prompter, in No. 
 144. represented as necessary ‘to keep up the Resemblance we had 
 assumed.’ Had we, according to his opinion, thought our-selves obliged 
 ‘never to bestow Praise, but upon the Dull, and Ridiculous, and al¬ 
 ways to level the Seemings of our Satire, against Nothing but Wit, and 
 Good Judgment;’ this, instead of ‘allowing the full Scope to the Humour 
 of our Title,’ would have restrained us within narrower limits, and hin¬ 
 dered us from pursueing so fully the end and design of it. How could 
 we have published the Letters of Correspondents, on so great a variety 
 of subjects written without any manner of Irony ? Would it have been 
 sufficient to introduce them always with an Ironical Preface ? Would not 
 the trouble and difficulty of this task have been very great; and the con¬ 
 tinual repetition of it, tedious and nauseous to the reader, as well as writer? 
 Whereas, consistently with our own Scheme, we might publish the com¬ 
 positions of others, and our own, on all kinds of subjects, and in whatever 
 manner written, whether serious and direct, or ludicrous and ironical. 
 To expose the follies and lesser faults of our Members, the latter way was 
 thought sufficient: but their crimes and greater enormities seemed plainly 
 to require the additional scourge of the former. Self conceited Ignorance 
 and Dullness, when alone, might have been kept perhaps within some 
 bounds by the sneering smiles of Ridicule; whereas nothing but the rug¬ 
 ged frowns of Severity would effectually restrain them, when associated 
 with Impudence, Immorality, and Irreligion. Thus, instead of the single 
 field of Irony, which our Brother surprizingly affirms to be ‘the most 
 copious, and fruitful, that cou’d well have been cultivated;’ there was 
 layed open by our Scheme a more spacious plain of double the extent, 
 for the literary exercises of grave, as well as airy authors. 14 ' 
 
 Rather surprisingly, Henry Fielding felt at one point that there 
 was some truth in the Grub-street point of view. In the Jacobite’s 
 Journal for March 26, 1748 (No. 17), he confessed, “I am weary 
 of personating a Character for which I have so solemn a Contempt”; 
 moreover, he continued, discussing irony as a literary method, “An 
 infinite Number of Readers . .. are apt to be tired, when it is car¬ 
 ried to any Degree of Length.” The Publick Register for January 
 17, 1741 (No. 3), had analyzed the problem more carefully, learn¬ 
 ing from Swift. In managing ironic praise, “a great Delicacy is 
 required to prevent it being trite, and consequently insipid ... as 
 
 147 Memoirs of Grub-street (1737), I, viii-x. 
 
180 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 nothing is more easy than a plain Banter, the Poignancy is wore off 
 in being handled by every one.” The solution is to enliven the 
 irony with wit and indirection. 
 
 The Dedication to Prince Posterity is throughout a Strain of Banter, 
 which would have been little more than insipid, had the Author only in 
 a sneering Manner attributed Wit, Parts, Politeness, and profound Erudi¬ 
 tion to his Cotemporaries; but he was too great a Master of his Weapon 
 to handle it in so common a Manner: He gives a Newness to his Subject 
 by Allegory, and makes his Banter indirect, by an Accusation against 
 Time, the Governor of Prince Posterity , who with an inveterate Malice, 
 he declares, devours all the Productions of that learned, witty, and polite 
 Age, intent only to keep his Highness in universal Ignorance of their 
 Studies. 
 
 Later in the same essay the author points out that 
 
 from an Ambiguity in Appearance we are taken into a Laugh, by a kind 
 of Surprize, which Ambiguity upon Reflection soon vanishes; for judg¬ 
 ment steps in, unmasks the Object, and knows it for what it really is. 
 This is the Reason that the same Object of Humour must not dwell long 
 upon the Imagination, but, to preserve the Humour, must be quickly 
 shifted for some other. Thus the solemn and grave Manner of treating 
 trivial Subjects, which is a Species of Humour, requires great Dexterity 
 to render it spirited, otherwise we shall soon separate the Subject from 
 the Manner, and, with the judicious Cervantes, quickly dismantle Sancho 
 of his Government Robes. 
 
 Peter Motteux had complained fifty years before that the reader 
 “soon grows weary” of mock heroics , 148 but the great model of the 
 form, Don Quixote, had patently not been found dull during the 
 intervening period, and Corbyn Morris suggested a reason: 
 
 The Humour appears, in the Representation of a Person in real Life, 
 fancying himself to be under the most solemn Obligations to attempt 
 hardy Atchievements; and upon this Whimsy immediately pursuing the 
 most romantic Adventures, with great Gravity, Importance, and Self- 
 sufficiency; To heighten your Mirth, the hardy Atchievements to be 
 accomplish’d by this Hero, are wittily contrasted by his own meagre 
 weak Figure, and the desperate Unfierceness of his Steed Rozinante; 
 —The Ridicule appears in the strange Absurdity of the Attempts, upon 
 which the Knight chuses to exercise his Prowess; Its Poignancy is highly 
 quicken’d, and consequently the Pleasure it gives you, by his miserable 
 Disasters, and the doleful Mortifications of all his Importance and Dig- 
 
 148 Gentleman's Journal, January, 1692/93, p. 27. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 181 
 
 nity; —But here, after the Knight, by diverting you in this manner, has 
 brought himself down to the lowest Mark, he rises again and forces your 
 Esteem, by his excellent Sense, Learning and Judgment, upon any Sub¬ 
 jects which are not ally’d to his Errantry; These continually act for the 
 Advancement of his Character; And with such Supports and Abilities 
 he always obtains your ready Attention, and never becomes heavy or 
 tedious . 149 
 
 viii. The new critical importance of irony 
 
 Interesting as some of the critical analyses of irony are, perhaps 
 the most significant development in the Augustan age was the eleva¬ 
 tion of irony to a place of importance in relation to other ways of 
 literary expression, an importance which entitled it to serious critical 
 consideration. That criticism should not have taken account of 
 irony, after Swift and Cervantes and the ironic pamphleteers of the 
 age, would surprise us. Yet the process was slow. In the Restora¬ 
 tion and early eighteenth century people grasped any terms that 
 were handy to describe this new way of writing— raillery, banter, 
 ridicule, humour, drolling , burlesque, irony, all were used loosely 
 and interchangeably. Then, as no doubt usually happens, people 
 began to straighten up the confusion, to analyze the thing and to 
 determine the reference of critical terms. Here irony had the ad¬ 
 vantage. In its long life in the rhetorics it had always referred to 
 a limited and identifiable verbal maneuver. Raillery, banter, ridi¬ 
 cule, humour had no such strong central references to readily iden¬ 
 tifiable techniques, they referred to the more general aspects of 
 motive, tone, effect. It was natural, then, that commentators and 
 critics faced with confusion should prefer irony to vaguer words 
 when irony was suitable. And of course it was eminently suitable 
 to a great deal of Augustan writing. Add to this that Swift had 
 carried irony in its most obtrusive forms to levels of unprecedented 
 effectiveness, and that much of the best writing of the age exhibited 
 irony in a multitude of forms—it would be highly surprising if 
 irony had not become by mid-century a method of more relative 
 critical import than it had had a hundred and fifty years earlier. 
 
 149 Corbyn Morris, True Standards of Wit (Augustan Soc.), pp. 38-39. 
 
I 82 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 This is of course not to say that irony was not admired by Renais¬ 
 sance critics. Thomas Wilson, following Cicero, said that by the 
 irony of blame-by-praise we may “even as well set out his noughti- 
 nesse this way, as though wee had in very deede uttered al his 
 naughtie conditions plainly ,” 100 and of the irony of understatement 
 Hoskins remarked: “It exceedeth speech in silence, and makes our 
 meaning more palpable by a touch than by a direct handling .” 151 
 But the thing was not of first importance, as Abraham Fraunce dis¬ 
 closes in an illuminating comparison: 
 
 Thus much for Tropes, whereof the most excellent is a Metafhore; 
 the next, lronia , then Metonymia; lastlie, Synecdoche: The most usuall 
 also is a Metafhore , then a Metonymia, next, Synecdoche, lastlie, lronia. 
 Metonymia, Metafhora, and Synecdoche oftentimes concurre together . 152 
 
 The trope irony was certainly more usual in the Augustan age. 
 Complaints that it was too common, that nothing was safe from 
 bantering wits, are familiar. But more than that, the versatility 
 and brilliance of the method were exhibited in a group of satiric 
 essays, poems, and prose fictions the like of which had not been 
 written before in English. Swift felt, at least so far as prose was 
 concerned, that he had led the way: 
 
 Arbuthnot is no more my Friend, 
 
 Who dares to Irony pretend; 
 
 Which I was born to introduce, 
 
 Refin’d it first, and shew’d its Use . 153 
 
 “I pretend,” he wrote to Bathurst, “to have been an improver of 
 irony on the subjects of satire and praise. .. .” 154 And in the con¬ 
 text of the sort of controversial irony which was coming off the 
 English presses when Swift began writing, his claim was modest. 
 An estimate of his impact on the age came grudgingly from an 
 antagonistic Whig pamphlet called An Essay upon the Taste and 
 Writings of the Present Times (1728): 
 
 loU Thomas Wilson, Rhetorique (G. H. Mair), pp. 134-56. 
 
 151 John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style (Hudson), pp. 25-26. See 
 also Puttenham, Arte of English Poesie (Willcock-Walker), p. 184; Anthony 
 Blackwall, Introduction to the Classics (1728), pp. 171-72. 
 
 152 Abraham Fraunce, Arcadian Rhetorike (1588), Book I, chap. xi. 
 
 163 Swift, Poems (Williams), II, 555. 
 
 154 Swift, Correspondence (Ball), IV, 166. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 I ^3 
 
 But of all those Tyrants that have, in any Age or Nation, made them¬ 
 selves dreadful by any of the various Parts of Ridicule, there was per¬ 
 haps never one that equall’d in Power our most facetious Countryman 
 Dr. i Swift. For by this one single Talent he has reign’d absolute in the 
 witty World for upwards of 30 Years. —He has open’d a Vein of 
 Humour, which in the most humorous Nation of the World was never 
 heard of before. 100 
 
 But Cervantes perhaps equally with Swift though in a different 
 mode impressed the age with the importance of irony, and Lucian 
 and Erasmus shone with a brighter light because of this new aware¬ 
 ness. The result was a critical respect for irony which began to 
 show up in occasional writings at about the same time the Essay 
 upon... Taste memorialized Swift’s power, in the late 1720’s. Dis¬ 
 cussing a current pamphlet Anthony Collins remarked: 
 
 Must not the fine Irony it self, and the Execution of it, with so much 
 Learning, Sense, and Wit, raise in you the highest Esteem and Admira¬ 
 tion of the Author. . . ? ... And can you think of a better Form of 
 
 Conveyance, or Vehicle for Matters of such universal Concern to all in¬ 
 telligent People . . . than his Method of Irony ? 156 
 
 Irony, says a gentleman quoted in Fog’s Weekly for June 2, 1733 
 (No. 239), “is certainly one of the most beautiful Strokes of Rhet- 
 orick....” “The ironical is the most agreeable, and perhaps the 
 strongest of all kinds of satire,” says Jarvis. 157 The Craftsman for 
 April 13, 1745, heads its essay, “Irony the keenest weapon of satire} 
 an example of ironical panegyric,” and begins thus: 
 
 Irony, in the hands of a man of fancy and judgment, is one of the 
 surest and most useful weapons with which satire can be arm’d against 
 vice and folly. 158 
 
 Even as he abandons the ironical character of his Jacobite’s Journal 
 Fielding admits the artistic value of the method: “... Irony is ca¬ 
 pable of furnishing the most exquisite Ridicule. .. .” 159 The Tale 
 of a Tub and Don Quixote, says Allan Ramsay, deal in argumenta- 
 ” 8 P P . 5_6 ‘ 
 
 15 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 45-46. 
 
 167 Charles Jarvis, Don Quixote (1742), pp. vi-vii. 
 
 168 Gentleman’s Magazine, XV (April, 1745), 207-8. 
 
 150 Fielding, Jacobite’s Journal, No. 17 (March 26, 1748). 
 
184 TH E WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 tive ridicule, which “is, of all the modes of Ridicule that ever were 
 found out, the fairest as well as the most diverting.” 160 Although 
 Deane Swift writes with more impetuosity than care, one of his 
 comments is indicative of what by mid-century it was possible to 
 say of irony: 
 
 The Argument against abolishing Christianity . . . is according to the 
 best of my judgment the most delicate, refined, compleat, unvaried piece 
 of irony, from the beginning to the end, that ever was written since the 
 creation of the world; and without dispute, if in the works of man there 
 can be supposed any such thing as real perfection, we must allow it to 
 consist in those amazing productions of wit and humour, which in all 
 probability can never be excelled by any effort of genius, and beyond 
 which it is impossible to frame any critical or distinct idea of the human 
 faculties. 161 
 
 Joseph Warton praised the “poignant ridicule, and attic elegance” 
 of Erasmus and remarked, “The irony of the Encomium on Folly 
 has never been excelled.” 162 And Dr. Johnson, in his Life of Pope, 
 speaks as admiringly as Deane Swift on the subject of another ironic 
 essay: 
 
 This year was printed in The Guardian the ironical comparison 
 between the Pastorals of Philips and Pope; a composition of artifice, 
 criticism, and literature, to which nothing equal will easily be found. 
 The superiority of Pope is so ingeniously dissembled, and the feeble lines 
 of Philips so skilfully preferred, that Steele, being deceived, was unwill¬ 
 ing to print the paper lest Pope should be offended. 163 
 
 Thus by mid-century the old rhetorical trope irony had become a 
 literary mode capable of the highest achievements and worthy of 
 serious critical attention. More than that, a small body of theory 
 had been evolved. It came not fully formed from the forehead of 
 an Aristotle but arose out of the nature of the thing and the trials 
 and errors of the Augustan ironists and their readers. And it found 
 expression not in a critical scheme but in the casual practical criticism 
 of the time. 
 
 160 Allan Ramsay, Essay on Ridicule (1762), pp. 53-54 n. 
 
 161 Deane Swift, Essay upon Swift (1755), pp. 135~3 6 - 
 
 182 Joseph Warton, Essay on Pope (1806), I, 178-79. 
 
 183 Johnson, Lives (Birkbeck Hill), III, 107. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE ART OF IRONY 
 
 l8 5 
 
 ix. The meaning of the word, again 
 
 In this chapter and the preceding one we have been observing 
 developments in the techniques and criticism of English classical 
 irony so called; did these have any significance for the future of the 
 word irony’s meaning? I think they did. We have just now ob¬ 
 served that irony so named became a literary mode of critical impor¬ 
 tance in the second quarter of the eighteenth century. This in itself, 
 by stimulating people to think about irony, would—and did—lead 
 to a deepening analysis of the concept as the century progressed. 
 
 But we have also observed several other developments. First, 
 people became increasingly conscious that irony could be the in¬ 
 forming principle of a fairly long piece of writing, and in such 
 writing they saw the necessity of sustaining both the ironic point 
 of view and the ironic mask to the end. Second, we have observed 
 that people became increasingly conscious in the second quarter of 
 the eighteenth century that an author could present in an ironic 
 way not only arguments and opinions but also—and most impor¬ 
 tant—characters and action. We have seen that this awareness 
 grew up especially around high burlesque and even, in Fielding’s 
 mind, 164 extended to the creation of character in the novel. Let us 
 take for example Richard Owen Cambridge’s notions, quoted above, 
 about the irony of his Scribleriad. The Author never laughs but 
 always seems to be serious; he wears constantly “that grave irony 
 which Cervantes only has inviolably preserv’d.” Both “Author and 
 Editors are represented full as great enthusiasts as the Hero; there¬ 
 fore ... all things are supposed to appear to them in the same light 
 as they do to him.” If this attitude in presenting the story is suc¬ 
 cessfully sustained, how is the audience to discover the irony? Cam¬ 
 bridge gives us a suggestion. Scriblerus is promised the grand elixir 
 he seeks and frequent statements in the poem insinuate that he will 
 succeed in possessing it. But the actual consequence of all his striv¬ 
 ing is—beggary. Thus we discover the irony, says Cambridge. 
 
 Is this not dramatic irony? Here we have the self-effacing au¬ 
 thor going quietly about his business of depicting blind characters 
 
 See pp. 139-40 above. 
 
 104 
 
I 86 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 foolishly pursuing courses which lead to the very reverse of their 
 expectations—and depicting them for all the world as though he 
 saw nothing wrong in their behavior. Here we have statements 
 which mean one thing to Scriblerus and quite another to Cambridge 
 and to us, the audience. It is true that Cambridge’s motive is that 
 of the satirist rather than of the philosophic observer, but we may 
 suppose an audience would generate a degree of philosophic de¬ 
 tachment out of watching the event of Scriblerus’ passionate fool¬ 
 ishness. 
 
 I think it is indeed accurate to say that Scriblerus and Don 
 Quixote and other fictional narratives which the mid-century Au- 
 gustans called irony do embody dramatic irony, and it is not hard 
 to see how the transferal of the word irony from relatively brief 
 ironic praise of an opinion or attitude or argument to the longer 
 burlesque, the fictional character, and the novel was inevitably 
 leading people to use irony to name that whole complex of ele¬ 
 ments in a fictional work which David Worcester has defined as drct- 
 matic irony. I do not think, however, that the mid-century Augustans 
 had reached the precipice at the end of this path. They were on 
 the verge, but the uses of irony I have collected seem to indicate 
 that at mid-century they still thought of irony in the main simply 
 as the technique of blame-through-praise used by an author in pre¬ 
 senting his fiction with mock approval. 
 
FIVE 
 
 RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 The word irony was not a key word during most of our period, 
 nor was it even widely current until the second quarter of the eight¬ 
 eenth century. But the verbal devices people usually meant when 
 they did use irony were current, were omnipresent, throughout the 
 Augustan age. Other words were used to name them, and these 
 words need to be sorted out. Unfortunately the task is far from 
 easy. “Some writers,” remarks John W. Draper, “use the comic, 
 the ludicrous, the ridiculous, wit, raillery, humour, and satire in a 
 loosely synonymous fashion. . . .” x It was the exceptional writer who 
 used any of these terms with precision. Anthony Collins, for instance, 
 in his Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony often seems to con¬ 
 sider all of them available for naming any kind of levity. His 
 usage was representative of run-of-the-mill authors of the age. But 
 distinctions were available and can be ferreted out. 
 
 Of satire , David Worcester points out that the “soul of the word 
 has shown a progressive change from a specific, narrow meaning to 
 an abstract, broad one.” 2 Just as satire itself developed from the 
 crabbedly conventional verse satires of Joseph Hall and Donne 
 through the freer verse satires of Dryden into the variety of prose 
 forms used by Swift and Addison and Mandeville, so the word it¬ 
 self widened its reference from the formal verse satire to any mode 
 of literature which displayed a certain motive and spirit. “More 
 than any other people, the English have associated virulence and 
 malevolence with the idea of satire,” 3 Worcester comments. Dry- 
 
 1 John W. Draper, “Theory of the Comic in Eighteenth-Century England” 
 (1938), p. 208. 
 
 2 David Worcester, Art of Satire (1940), p. 3. 
 
 3 Ibid.., p. 6. 
 
I 88 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 den, trying to define the meaning of satire at the end of the seven¬ 
 teenth century, supports this view: 
 
 in our modern languages we apply it only to invective poems, where 
 the very name of satire is formidable to those persons, who would ap¬ 
 pear to the world what they are not in themselves; for in English, to say 
 satire, is to mean reflection, as we use that word in the worst sense. . . . 4 
 
 It was probably this sense of the word which necessitated a stock 
 phrase of the Augustan age, “satire and ridicule.” Ridicule was felt 
 to indicate something less malevolent and lighter in tone than satire , 
 to depend on a real or imagined incongruity that had at least some¬ 
 thing of the comic in it. As we have seen, the word irony had not 
 yet developed either the philosophic or tragic senses which it carries 
 today. It still referred chiefly to certain devices useful for indirect 
 verbal attack. It was, then, most often a tool of satire or ridicule. 
 
 A third general term, humour , has been interestingly discussed 
 by E. N. Hooker. 5 He distinguishes three senses of the word in 
 the Restoration: (i) “a powerful individual inclination ... a singu¬ 
 larity with deep emotional roots”; 6 (2) “‘a fainter or weaker pas¬ 
 sion,’ ‘without any rule but the present whim’; it is ‘a toyish conceit,’ 
 or a ‘wilfull fansie’”; 7 (3) the “humour of the town,” that is, the 
 prevailing taste or fashion. Hooker argues that the early eight¬ 
 eenth century, under various influences, moved away from Restora¬ 
 tion disapproval of such aberrations from the norm toward approval 
 of them as admirable, or at least entertaining, individualism. What 
 was the relation of irony to humour ? Presumably either a fictitious 
 character or an author in his own person might display an ironic 
 humour; Congreve asserts that when a humorous character uses wit, 
 “the Manner of Wit should be adapted to the Humour. As, for 
 Instance, a Character of a Splenetick and Peevish Humour should 
 have a Satyrical Wit. A Jolly and Sanguine Humour should have 
 a Facetious Wit.” 8 When his contemporaries spoke of Swift’s “hu¬ 
 mour” or his “peculiar vein of humour” we assume they were think¬ 
 ing of that irony which was the distinctive characteristic of his writ- 
 
 * Dryden, Works (Scott-Saintsbury), XIII, 67. 
 
 6 E. N. Hooker, “Humour in the Age of Pope” (1947-48). 
 
 * Ibid., p. 363. 
 
 7 Ibid. 
 
 6 Congreve, Humour in Comedy (Spingarn), pp. 243-44. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 189 
 
 ing and his personal relations with others. But in this meaning of 
 humour there is no necessary extension to irony. In the earlier 
 eighteenth century a much looser sense of the word was available, 
 however, roughly encompassing any sort of clever, witty, or light 
 discourse, a sense which Congreve objected to. 9 He seems to have 
 felt that the underlying distinction between wit and humour was 
 the difference between intellect and character, but in practice this 
 was a difficult line to draw and not many Augustans were interested 
 in drawing it. Consequently humourous could often mean “witty.” 
 As one of the cleverest and wittiest devices of verbal communica¬ 
 tion, irony we may suppose was often included under humour thus 
 loosely conceived. 
 
 According to Richmond P. Bond’s investigation of burlesque as 
 it was used to refer to poetry, 10 the word first appeared in English 
 in the second half of the seventeenth century, when it was used 
 in the general sense of “drolish, merry, pleasant,” 11 and in a more 
 precise sense to refer to the travesties and Hudibrastics—the low 
 burlesque—popular in the Restoration. After 1700 the word be¬ 
 came more elastic. It could refer to (1) the octosyllabic doggerel 
 reminiscent of Butler as an isolated element3 (2) poems imitative 
 of Butler’s method; (3) “poems aiming at incongruous imita¬ 
 tion.” 12 In the third sense the word included the old low bur¬ 
 lesque and the new high burlesque: mock-heroics and parody. As 
 we have already observed, 13 both high and low burlesque, partic¬ 
 ularly the former, use the ironic method of blame-by-praise, and so 
 far as poetry is concerned the only sense of burlesque which would 
 almost never have a possible relevance for irony as the Augustans 
 conceived it would be that of the verse form. 
 
 i. Railing and Raillery 
 
 In the Augustan age the word raillery , which came nearer to 
 irony in meaning than any other general term with the possible ex- 
 
 9 Ibid. 
 
 10 Richmond P. Bond, English Burlesque Poetry (1932). 
 
 11 Ibid., p. 19. 
 
 13 Ibid., p. 20. 
 
 13 See pp. 12 5 ff. above. 
 
190 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 ception of banter , achieved wide popular currency. Consequently 
 people found it easier to use the handy raillery to name ironic dis¬ 
 course than to reach for the more precise but esoteric irony. They 
 often paired railing with raillery , and there was a degree of con¬ 
 fusion and interaction between the two. 
 
 Railing , which had been current since the sixteenth century, 
 seems to have had two basic meanings throughout the English class¬ 
 ical period. (In the following pages I discuss the various meanings 
 of railing , raillery , and banter under headings numbered (1), (2), 
 and so on. 14 So that my own use of these words will be unambiguous, 
 
 I have frequently indicated by number which meaning I am in¬ 
 voking, thus: raillery #2 or railing #1.) 
 
 (1) In one sense, the less frequent one, railing referred simply 
 to the act of verbal attack or criticism, without limits as to the meth¬ 
 od employed. In this sense it might involve the irony of Erasmus, 
 the ridicule of Aristophanes, discreet reproof, slanderous gossip, 
 the inspired rumors of politics. Its connotation was unpleasant, 
 even immoral. 15 
 
 (2) In its second and more common meaning railing referred 
 specifically to angry invective. Such invective could range from the 
 bluntest of vulgar name-calling to the artful rhetoric of Juvenal or 
 Shakespeare, but always the attack was felt to be a frontal assault, 
 the tone angry, the imputed faults serious and the effect on the ob¬ 
 ject painful. The connotation of the word was highly unfavorable 
 in this sense too, so that railing was usually thought of as vulgar 
 name-calling rather than as artfully witty invective. People who 
 liked the witty invective of, say, a particular satirist usually pre¬ 
 ferred not to call it railing; people who did not used the word as a 
 
 14 Several of the footnotes which follow list passages dating from the early 
 sixteenth to the mid-eighteenth century in which railing, raillery, or banter is clearly 
 used in one of the senses defined. There is no attempt to list all the appearances I 
 have noted of the two words. 
 
 16 Philip Sidney, A-pology for Poetry (G. G. Smith), pp. 181-82. Gabriel 
 Harvey, Works (Grosart), I, 164.; II, 201. Thomas Nashe, Works (McKerrow), 
 I, 283-84. Shakespeare, Twelfth. Night, I, v, 85 ff. Raillerie a la Mode (1673), 
 pp. 40-42. John Oldham, Works (1686), pp. 19-20. Tom Brown, Amusements 
 and Letters (Hayward), p. 42. Bayle, Dictionary (1710), II, 1264L. Humourist 
 
 II (1725), pp. 96-105. Art of Railing (1723), -passim. J. K., New English 
 Dictionary (1731), “rail.” Female Spectator (1755), IV, 110, 121. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 I 9 I 
 
 device of adverse criticism. 10 Thus Nashe denied Harvey’s accusa¬ 
 tion: 
 
 Sholding, thou saiest, is the language of shrewes, railing the stile of 
 rakehels; what concludst thou from thence? Do I scold? do I raile? 
 
 Scolding & railing is loud miscalling and reviling one another without 
 wit, speaking every thing a man knows by his neighbor, though it bee 
 never so contrary to all humanitie and good manners, and would make 
 the standers by almost perbrake to heare it. Such is thy invective against 
 Greene, where thou talkst of his lowsines, his surfeting, his beggerie, and 
 the mother of Infortunatus infirmities. If I scold, if I raile, I do but 
 cum ratione insanire; Tully, Ovid, all the olde Poets, A griff a, A retine, 
 and the rest are all scolds and railers, and by thy conclusion flat shrewes 
 and rakehels: for I doe no more than their examples do warrant mee . 17 
 
 Jonson rebelled against a similar accusation: 
 
 ... all your writing, is meere rayling. 
 
 Aut. Ha! If all the salt in the old comoedy 
 Should be so censur’d, or the sharper wit 
 Of the bold satyre, termed scolding rage, 
 
 What age could then compare with those, for buflfons? 
 
 What should be said of Aristophanes? 
 
 Persius? or Juvenal? whose names we now 
 So glorifie in schooles. . . , 18 
 
 This attitude was then and remained representative, but in both the 
 earlier period and the later the word was used at times to recognize 
 invective involving wit of a respectable order. At the end of 
 the seventeenth century, for instance, Dryden could remark: “Ju¬ 
 venal has railed more wittily than Horace has rallied. Horace 
 
 18 Thomas More, Works (1557), “The deballacion of Salem and Byzance,” 
 chap, v, p. 939. Roberte Whytinton, Tidlyes offyces (1534), sig Fy r . Gabriel 
 Harvey, Works (Grosart), II, 129. Thomas Nashe, Works (McKerrow), I, 195- 
 96, 324. Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, IV, i, 128-42; King Lear, II, ii, 12- 
 24. Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), V, 24. John Stephens, Essayes and 
 Characters Ironicall (1615), sig. A3 r -A4 r . Richard Flecknoe, Sixty-nine Enigmati¬ 
 cal Characters (Augustan Soc.), pp. 30-31. Dryden, Works (Scott-Saintsbury), 
 XIII, 37-38, 97-99, 100; Prologues and Epilogues (Gardner), pp. 78, 90. Isaac 
 Barrow, Works (1687), I, 227. John Sheffield, “An Essay upon Poetry” (Sping- 
 arn), p. 290. Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 11. Myles Davies, 
 Athenae Britannicae (1716), II, 163. Nathan Bailey, Universal Etymological 
 English Dictionary (1724), “rail.” Arbuthnot, Works (Aitken), p. 384. Pope, 
 Works (Elwin-Courthope), VII, 196, 446; Prose Works (Ault), p. 184. The 
 Bee, VII, 121 (No. 81, Sept. 7-14, 1734). 
 
 17 Thomas Nashe, Works (McKerrow), I, 324. 
 
 18 Jonson, Works (Herford-Simpson), IV, 323. 
 
192 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 means to make his readers laugh, but he is not sure of his experi¬ 
 ment. Juvenal always intends to move your indignation, and he 
 always brings about his purpose.” 19 If in the Augustan age the 
 onus attached to the word became slighter, it became only imper¬ 
 ceptibly slighter. 
 
 Although the word raillery was used loosely by the Augustans, 
 there seem to have been three substantial phases of its meaning. 
 
 (1) In one sense, perhaps the most frequent, it was more or less 
 equivalent to ridicule, with this difference, that whereas people felt 
 ridicule could refer to a supposedly objective reality apart from 
 words (our own ridiculous or ridiculousness ), they always thought 
 of raillery as a verbal act. The motive of raillery #i like that of 
 ridicule was contempt rather than the genuine or assumed hatred 
 of railing #2, and in contrast to the tone of angry passion character¬ 
 istic of railing #2—this was the most deeply felt difference—raillery 
 to some extent at least laughed at its object, even if only through 
 witty indirection or a light manner. On the other hand raillery 
 }i resembled railing #2 in aiming at real faults with the intent to 
 give real pain. Within these limits the contempt of the rallier 
 might range from hostile to friendly contempt, his technique from 
 coarse buffoonerv to the subtlest and cleverest of invention, his ob- 
 jects might range from serious vices to silly foibles, his effect from 
 the maximum to the minimum of pain: some raillery bludgeoned, 
 some cut, some only tickled; some was “low” or “gross,” some 
 “sharp” or “biting,” some “fine,” “pleasant” or “genteel.” 20 
 
 19 Dryden, Works (Scott-Saintsbury), XIII, ioo. 
 
 20 Sprat, Cowley (Spingarn), pp. 136-37; Royal Society (1667), pp. 413-19. 
 Raillerie a la mode (1673), passim . Edward Phillips, New World of Words 
 (1706), “satyrize.” Art of Speaking (1708), pp. 305-11. Dryden, Works (Scott- 
 Saintsbury), XIII, 59, 97-99, 100; Essays (Ker), I, 266; Lucian (1710-11), I, 
 38-48. John Oldham, Works (1686), sig. A2 r ' T . William Temple, “Of Poetry” 
 (Spingarn), pp. 101-2. Plutarch's Morals (1691), I, sig. A5 T -A6 r . Locke, 
 Concerning Education (Quick), pp. 121-23. William Wotton, Reflections upon 
 Ancient and Modern Learning (1697), p. no; A Defense of the Reflections 
 (1705), pp. 47-48. Tom Brown, Colloquies out of Erasmus (1699), “Life,” sig. 
 b5 v -b6 T . Dennis, Critical Works (Hooker), I, 432 n. Dacier, Plato (1701), I, 
 58-61. Bellegarde, Reflexions upon Ridicule (1717), I, “Advertisement,” 67-68, 
 88-89, 99, 126, 179; II, 14, 62, 117, 167. Tatler (Aitken), II, 59-61 (No. 57, 
 Aug. 20, 1709), 70-72 (No. 59, Aug. 25, 1709); IV, 124-26 (No. 219, Sept. 2, 
 1710), 221 (No. 239, Oct. 19, 1710), 234-38 (No. 242, Oct. 26, 1710). Bayle, 
 Dictionary (1734-38), II, 148 col. 1; IV, 137 col. b. Shaftesbury, Characteristics 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 193 
 
 Dryden’s famous description of “fine raillery,” because of its 
 relatively early date, influence, and precision, is worth quoting once 
 more: 
 
 Holyday says, “a perpetual grin, like that of Horace, rather angers than 
 amends a man.” I cannot give him up the manner of Horace in low 
 satire so easily. Let the chastisement of Juvenal be never so necessary 
 for his new kind of satire; let him declaim as wittily and sharply as he 
 pleases; yet still the nicest and most delicate touches of satire consist in 
 fine raillery. . . . How easy is it to call rogue and villain, and that wittily! 
 But how hard to make a man appear a fool, a blockhead, or a knave, 
 without using any of those opprobrious terms! To spare the grossness of 
 the names, and to do the thing yet more severely, is to draw a full face, 
 and to make the nose and cheeks stand out, and yet not to employ any 
 depth of shadowing. . . . Neither is it true, that this fineness of raillery 
 is offensive. A witty man is tickled while he is hurt in this manner, and 
 a fool feels it not. The occasion of an offence may possibly be given, 
 but he cannot take it. If it be granted, that in effect this way does more 
 mischief; that a man is secretly wounded, and though he be not sensible 
 himself, yet the malicious world will find it out for him; yet there is still 
 a vast difference betwixt the slovenly butchering of a man, and the 
 fineness of a stroke that separates the head from the body, and leaves it 
 standing in its place. ... I wish I could apply it to myself, if the reader 
 would be kind enough to think it belongs to me. The character of Zimri 
 in my “Absalom,” is, in my opinion, worth the whole poem: it is not 
 bloody, but it is ridiculous enough; and he, for whom it was intended, 
 was too witty to resent it as an injury. If I had railed, I might have 
 
 (Robertson), I, 21-22, 43-44, 47-48, 50-51, 85-86; II, 337-38, 354. Shaftes¬ 
 bury, Life, Letters, Regimen (Rand), pp. 504-5. Spectator (G. G. Smith), No. 
 266 (Jan. 4, 1712). Myles Davies, Athenae Britannicae (1716), I, 322-23. 
 Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VI, 164-65; VII, 134. Pope, Miscellanies 
 (1728), III, vii-x. Pope, Iliad (1756), II, 56-58 n.; IV, 36-38 n., 164-72 n., 
 232 n., 239-40 n. Swift, Tale of a Tub (Davis), pp. 2, 10; Poems (Williams), 
 I, 86-88, 214-19, 631, 634-38; Prose Works (Temple Scott), XI, 71; Correspond¬ 
 ence (Ball), IV, 328-31. “An Essay on Gibing” (1727), pp. 5-10, 16-22. Essay 
 upon the Taste and Writings of the Present Times (1728), p. 39. Anthony Col¬ 
 lins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 5-7, 38. J. K., New 
 English Dictionary (1731), “satyrize.” Gentleman's Magazine , III (July, 1733), 
 348; XII (Sept., 1742), 479-81. London Magazine, VII (Oct., 1738), 500-501. 
 Fog's Weekly Journal, No. 239 (June 2, 1733). The Bee, IV, 393 (No. 49, Jan. 
 26-Feb. 2, 1734). Fielding, Works (Stephen), VI, 322-25. Corbyn Morris, 
 True Standards of Wit (Augustan Soc.), pp. 6-7, 36-37. Female Spectator (1755), 
 III, 319-20; IV, 136-49. John G. Cooper, Socrates (1750), pp. 57-59 n., 87-88. 
 Monthly Review, IV (Jan., 1751), 223; V (June, 1751), 78-79; X (March, 
 1754), 193-96. John Ozell, Don Quixote (Mod. Lib.), pp. 24, 138. John 
 Brown, Essays on Characteristics (1751), pp. 41-43, 49-50, 53-54, 100-102. 
 
 World (Chalmers), XXVI, 67 (No. 14, April 5, 1753). 
 
194 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 suffered for it justly; but I managed my own work more happily, per¬ 
 haps more dexterously. I avoided the mention of great crimes, and ap¬ 
 plied myself to the representing of blindsides, and little extravagances; 
 to which, the wittier a man is, he is generally the more obnoxious. It 
 succeeded as I wished; the jest went round, and he was laughed at in 
 his turn who began the frolic . 21 
 
 For Dryden fine raillery involves the laughter arising from ridi¬ 
 cule, indirection, artistic finesse, and a concern with minor rather 
 than major failings. He does not deny that the object of fine 
 raillery is actually hurt—“severely” rebuked—but thinks a “witty” 
 man is sufficiently amused not to be offended. An even more 
 sensitive conscience in this regard was demonstrated by the Tatlev. 
 
 This is the true art of raillery, when a man turns another into rid¬ 
 icule, and shows at the same time he is in good humour, and not urged 
 by malice against the person he rallies. Obadiah Greenhat has hit this 
 very well: for to make an apology to Isaac Bickerstaff, an unknown 
 student and horary [ffc] historian, as well as astrologer, and with a 
 grave face to say, he speaks of him by the same rules with which he 
 would treat Homer or Plato, is to place him in company where he can¬ 
 not expect to make a figure; and makes him flatter himself, that it is 
 only being named with them which renders him most ridiculous . 22 
 
 All of Dryden’s specifications were met by Pope’s Rape of the Lock: 
 as Warton commented, “I hope it will not be thought an exag¬ 
 gerated panegyric to say that the Rape of the Lock is the best satire 
 extant;... in point of delicacy, elegance, and fine-turned raillery, 
 on which they [the French] have so much valued themselves, they 
 have produced nothing equal to the Rape of the Lock.” 23 
 
 A letter of Swift’s takes us into the realm of “sharp raillery,” 
 raillery meant to hurt and, often, to hurt as much as possible. It 
 could deal with serious failings and its author’s contempt was not 
 necessarily friendly nor his ridicule delicate. 
 
 As I am conjectured to have generally dealt in raillery and satire, 
 both in prose and verse, if that conjecture be right, although such an 
 opinion has been an absolute bar to my rising in the world, yet that very 
 world must suppose that I followed what I thought to be mv talent, and 
 
 21 From the “Discourse concerning' . . . Satire” in Dryden, Works (Scott- 
 Saintsbury), XIII, 97-99. 
 
 22 Tatler (Aitken), II, 70-72 (No. 59, Aug. 25, 1709). 
 
 23 Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), II, 116. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 *95 
 
 charitable people will suppose I had a design to laugh the follies of man¬ 
 kind out of countenance, and as often to lash the vices out of practice. 
 And then it will be natural to conclude, that I have some partiality for 
 such kind of writing, and favour it in others. I think you acknowledge, 
 that in some time of your life, you turned to the rallying part, but I 
 find at present your genius runs wholly into the grave and sublime, and 
 therefore I find you less indulgent to my way by your dislike of the 
 Beggar’s Opera, in the persons particularly of Polly Peachum and 
 Macheath, whereas we think it a very severe satire upon the most perni¬ 
 cious villainies of mankind. And so you are in danger of quarrelling 
 with the sentiments of Mr. Pope, Mr. Gay the author, Dr. Arbuthnot, 
 myself, Dr. Young, and all the brethren whom we own. Dr. Young 
 is the gravest among us, and yet his satires have many mixtures of 
 sharp raillery. At the same time you judge very truly, that the taste of 
 England is infamously corrupted by shoals of wretches who write for 
 their bread; and therefore I had reason to put Mr. Pope on writing 
 the poem, called the Dunciad. . . , 24 
 
 Earlier in the game Raillerie a la mode (1673), antagonistic to¬ 
 ward the common professors of raillery, had remarked: 
 
 . . . they have their Figures, Graces, and Ornaments peculiar to their kind 
 of Speech, though they do not distinguish or use them Grammatically, 
 by the Names of Sarcasmus, Aste'ismus, Micterismus, Antifhrasis, Char- 
 ientismus, or Ironia, yet have they their Dry Bobs, their Broud Flouts, 
 Bitter Taunts, their Fleering Frumps , and Privy Nip. Besides the use 
 of their admirable Art of Canting, they have a cunning way of Jeering, 
 accusing others by justifying themselves, and saying, I never did—or 
 by asking the Question general, Who did so and so? Why who did you 
 Whore cries ’tother? did I? and so the Game begins; but by this 
 evasive way of Abuse they will be sure to keep wide off the Law’s Tenter¬ 
 hooks. 25 
 
 Only a thin veneer of jocosity, crude indirection, or heavy wit ap¬ 
 parently distinguished such stuff from railing #2, and most people 
 of taste would have called it gross raillery. It differed only in de¬ 
 gree from the works Dryden and Swift admired, however, and in 
 trying to canvass the range of things called raillery in sense |i we 
 are well advised by John Brown: “What is high Humour at Wap- 
 ping, is rejected as nauseous in the City: What is delicate Raillery 
 in the City , grows coarse and intolerable as you approach St. 
 
 24 Swift, Correspondence (Ball), IV, 329-31. 
 
 26 r> 
 
 Pp. 40-42. 
 
196 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 James’s... ” 2C Thus Shaftesbury, who resided at the St. James 
 end, carried delicacy to the point of finding burlesque itself a type 
 of gross raillery. 27 
 
 But in all raillery (#i) as ridicule, fine, sharp, or gross, contemp¬ 
 tuous laughter was an essential ingredient, as John Brown succinctly 
 stated: 
 
 Pure Wit, when not applied to the Characters of Men, is properly a 
 Species of Poetry. It amuses and delights the Imagination by those 
 sudden Assemblages and pleasing Pictures of Things which it creates: 
 and from every common Occasion can raise such striking Appearances, 
 as throw the most phlegmatic Tempers into a Convulsion of good-hu¬ 
 moured Mirth, and undesigning Laughter. 
 
 But Ridicule or Raillery, which is the Subject of our Inquiry, hath 
 a further Scope and Intention. It solely regards the Opinions, Passions, 
 Actions, and Characters of Men: and may properly be denominated 
 “that Species of Writing which excites Contempt with Laughter .” 28 
 
 Pope, in a letter to Caryll of November 19, 1712, had expressed the 
 same idea with more grace: 
 
 You may conclude from what I here say that it was never in my thoughts 
 to offer you my poor pen in any direct reply to such a scoundrel, who, 
 like Hudibras, need fear no blows but such as bruise, but only in some 
 little raillery in the most contemptuous manner thrown upon him, not 
 as in your defence expressly, but as in scorn of him en gaiete de coeur . 29 
 
 We must remember, however, that the content of laughter and 
 gaiety might be only a glint in the eye, a clever allusion, the use 
 of some device for projecting an apparent impersonality. 
 
 (2) In a second sense raillery referred to a kind of verbal at¬ 
 tack which sounded exactly like that ridicule to which raillery in 
 sense #1 referred. But this raillery (#2) was not motivated by con¬ 
 tempt, it did not attack real failings, and it did not hurt. One type 
 of such raillery (#2) was praise-by-blame irony: under the clever 
 hand of the rallier mock faults turned into real virtues and mock 
 ridicule turned into real praise. 30 (Here Voiture was considered 
 
 26 John Brown, Essays on Characteristics (1751), pp. 53-54. 
 
 27 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 50-51. 
 
 28 John Brown, Essays on Characteristics (1751), pp. 41-43. 
 
 29 Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VI, 164-65. 
 
 30 Richard Flecknoe, Enigmaticall Characters (1658), pp. 30-31. Locke, Con¬ 
 cerning Education (Quick), pp. 121-23. Swift, Poems (Williams), I, 214-19; 
 
RAILLERY AND RANTER 
 
 197 
 
 the master.) The second type attacked either imaginary failings or 
 real peccadilloes and aberrations so minor in nature no one could 
 mind having them noticed. The motive of the rallier was friendly 
 affection or simply the desire to furnish a little entertainment, and 
 the effect was like that of being tickled, as the Augustans were fond 
 of saying. 31 
 
 In his “Of Raillerie,” Richard Flecknoe described the raillery 
 of praise-by-blame, and we notice that raillery in this sense connoted 
 elegance, as it continued to do. 
 
 There is as much difference betwixt Raillerie and Satyrs , Jesting and 
 Jeering , (Ac. as betwixt gallantry and clownishnesse; or betwixt a gentle 
 Accost and rude Assault. And if I would habit them in their several 
 properties, I would cloath Satyr in haircloath, jeering in home spun-stuff, 
 jesting in motley, and Raillery in silk. It being a gentle exercise of wit 
 and witty harmlesse calumny, speaks ill of you by contraries; and the 
 reverse or tother side of complement, as far beneath as that above 
 reality. There’s nothing in it of abusive, and only as much in it of hand¬ 
 some invective and reproach as may well be owned without a blush: pub¬ 
 lishing those praises of you without shame, which flattery would make 
 you ashamed to hear. It differs from Gybing as gentle smiles from 
 scornfull laughter, and from rayling as Gentlemens playing at foyls, 
 from Butchers and Clowns playing at Cudgels. Tis nothing bitter, but 
 a poignant sauce of wit, for curious pallats, not for your vulgar Tasts . 32 
 
 The full range of raillery #2 was defined by Henry Fielding a 
 century later. He is unusually clear and concrete: 
 
 True raillery indeed consists either in playing on peccadillos, which, 
 however they may be censured by some, are not esteemed as really 
 blemishes in a character in the company where they are made the subject 
 
 Prose Works (Temple Scott), XI, 71, 88; Correspondence (Ball), I, 62-63, 65. 
 Fielding, Works (Stephen), VI, 322-25. Female Spectator (1755), IV, 136-4.9. 
 Monthly Review , IV (April, 1751), 419. 
 
 31 Richard Bulstrode, Essays (1715), p. 56. William Wotton, Reflections upon 
 Ancient and Modern Learning (1697), p. 149. Bruyere, Manners of the Age 
 (1699), pp. 6, 113-14. Tom Brown, Works (1720), III, 146. Bellegarde, Re¬ 
 flexions upon Ridicule (1717), I, 21, 22, 52-53, 153-54; II, 9. Tatler (Aitken), 
 II, 85 (No. 61, Aug. 30, 1709). Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VI, 96-97, 118- 
 19, 226-28, 295-97; VII, 232-34, 236, 249. Swift, Journal to Stella (Williams), 
 I, 267; II, 436. Swift, Poems (Williams), II, 747, 751-52. Swift, Prose Works 
 (Temple Scott), XI, 72, 88. Swift, Correspondence (Ball), I, 153, 341-43. 
 Fielding, Works (Stephen), VI, 322-25. Female Spectator (1755), IV, 122-23, 
 136-49. Letitia Pilkington, Memoirs I & II (1749), II, 21-22, 49. Christopher 
 Smart, Midwife (1751-53), III, 49-53. 
 
 32 Richard Flecknoe, Enigmaticall Characters (1658), pp. 30-31. 
 
198 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 of mirth; as too much freedom with the bottle, or too much indulgence 
 with women, &c. 
 
 Or, secondly, in pleasantly representing real good qualities in a false 
 light of shame, and bantering them as ill ones. So generosity may be 
 treated as prodigality; economy as avarice, true courage as fool-hardiness: 
 and so of the rest. 
 
 Lastly, in ridiculing men for vices and faults which they are known 
 to be free from. Thus the cowardice of A—le, the dulness of Ch—d, the 
 unpoliteness of D—ton, may be attacked without danger of offence; and 
 thus Lyt—n may be censured for whatever vice or folly you please to 
 impute to him. 
 
 And however limited these bounds may appear to some, yet, in skil¬ 
 ful and witty hands, I have known raillery, thus confined, afford a very 
 diverting, as well as inoffensive entertainment to the whole company. 33 
 
 But raillery #2 could do more than entertain, as Pope pointed out: 
 
 As the fooling and toying with a mistress is a proof of fondness, not 
 disrespect, so is raillery with a friend. I know there are prudes in friend¬ 
 ship, who expect distance, awe, and adoration; but I know you are not 
 of them: and I, for my part, am no idol-worshipper, though a papist. . . . 
 I know some philosophers define laughter, a recommending ourselves to 
 our own favour by comparison with the weakness of another: but I am 
 sure I very rarely laugh with that view. . . , 34 
 
 This “delicate” raillery, as it was often called, this raillery which 
 could be flattering, entertaining, and affectionate, was not work for 
 every hand. “There are,” said La Bruyere, “abundance of obscene, 
 a great many more railing and satyrical Wits, but very few delicate. 
 A Man must have manners and politeness to trifle with a good 
 grace, and a copious fancy to play handsomely on little things, to 
 create matter of raillery, and make something out of nothing.” 35 
 Swift seems to have been thinking of delicate raillery debased and 
 turned gross when he made the following observation: 
 
 There is a sort of rude familiarity, which some people, by practising 
 among their intimates, have introduced into their general conversation, 
 and would have it pass for innocent freedom or humour. . . . This, 
 among the Romans, was the raillery of slaves, of which we have many 
 instances in Plautus. It seemeth to have been introduced among us by 
 
 38 Fielding, Works (Stephen), VI, 322-25. 
 
 34 Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VI, 118-19. 
 
 35 Bruyere, Manners of the Age (1699), p. 6 . 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 199 
 
 Cromwell, who, by preferring the scum of the people, made it a court 
 entertainment. . . . 36 
 
 An even lower type Fielding notes in “that kind of raillery ... 
 which is concerned in tossing men out of their chairs, tumbling them 
 into water, or any of those handicraft jokes which are exercised on 
 those notable persons, commonly known by the name of buf¬ 
 foons. . . .” 37 Perhaps it will be useful to illustrate what the great 
 wits of the age thought of as “delicate” raillery. In his Journal to 
 Stella Swift wrote on December n, 1711, a day when it looked as 
 though Oxford’s ministry would fall: 
 
 Lord treasurer came in to see her [Mrs. Masham], and seeing me in the 
 outer room fell a rallying me; says he, You had better keep company 
 with me, than with such a fellow as Lewis, who has not the soul of a 
 chicken, nor the heart of a mite. . . . He asked, whether I was not afraid 
 to be seen with him ? 38 
 
 Erasmus Lewis, of course, was a good friend of both men and 
 Swift’s loyalty was not being seriously questioned. A much wittier 
 and more graceful sample of delicate raillery comes from the pen 
 of John Gay, in a joint letter with Pope to Caryll, Senior, during 
 April of 1715: 
 
 Sir, —Mr. Pope is going to Mr. Jervas’s, where Mr. Addison is 
 sitting for his picture. In the meantime, amidst clouds of tobacco at 
 William’s Coffee-house, I write this letter. We have agreed to spend 
 this day in visits. He is to introduce me to a lord and two ladies, and 
 on my part, which I think will balance his visits, I am to present him 
 to a duchess. . . . Mr. Rowe’s Jane Grey is to be played in Easter week, 
 when Mrs. Oldfield is to personate a character directly opposite to female 
 nature—for what woman ever despised sovereignty? Chaucer has a tale 
 where a knight saves his head by discovering that it was the thing which 
 all women most coveted. Col. Frowde puns upon his play, and declares 
 that most of the ladies of Drury Lane will not accept of a crown when 
 it is offered them, unless you give them a supper into the bargain, and 
 wonders how people can admire the uncommonness of the character. 
 Mr. Pope’s Homer is retarded by the great rains that have fallen of late, 
 which cause the sheets to be long a-drying. This gives Mr. Lintot great 
 uneasiness, who is now endeavouring to corrupt the curate of his parish 
 to pray for fair weather, that his work may go on the faster. There is 
 
 36 Swift, Prose Works (Temple Scott), XI, 72. 
 
 37 Fielding', Works (Stephen), VI, 322-25. 
 
 38 Swift, Journal to Stella (Williams), II, 436. 
 
200 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 a sixpenny criticism lately published upon the tragedy of the What d’ye 
 Call it, wherein he with much judgment and learning calls me a block¬ 
 head, and Mr. Pope a knave. . . . Mr. Pope will make his conditions 
 before he will venture into your company, that you shall not allow him 
 any of your conversation in the morning. He is obliged to pay this self- 
 denial in complaisance to his subscribers. For my part, who do not deal 
 in heroes or ravished ladies, I may perhaps celebrate a milk-maid, de¬ 
 scribe the amours of your parson’s daughter, or write an elegy upon the 
 death of a hare; but my articles are quite the reverse of his, that you 
 
 will interrupt me every morning, or ten to one I shall be first trouble¬ 
 
 some and interrupt you. . . . 
 
 Thus far Mr. Gay, [Pope has taken over the pen] who in his letter 
 
 has forestalled all the subjects of raillery and diversion. . . . 39 
 
 Such delightful raillery as this occasionally shows its head even to¬ 
 day, but in the much more favorable Augustan atmosphere it was 
 the rage. 
 
 (3) It is not surprising that a word as comprehensive in ref¬ 
 erence as we have seen raillery to be should also have been used to 
 name jesting of any sort at all, regardless of whether the jest at¬ 
 tacked anything. 40 In the extremes of railing (#i) as any sort of 
 attack and raillery (#3) as any sort of jest we see the possible range 
 of the words. Perhaps the clearest indication of sense #3 is that 
 the Augustans sometimes used raillery to name that entire branch 
 of rhetoric which is concerned with jesting. In translating Cicero’s 
 De officiis I, 29, the sixteenth-century translation of Roberte Whvtin- 
 ton had given “two maners of jestynge gentyll boorde and ray- 
 lynge,” 41 and later translators had also used “jesting” in this place, 
 but Roger L’Estrange gives: “There are two sorts of Raillery, or 
 Mirth; the one is Course, Petulant, Criminal, and Foul; the other, 
 
 39 Pope, Works (Elwin-Courthope), VI, 226-28. 
 
 40 (Cotgrave, Dictionarie [1611], “Raillerie.”) Thomas Blount, Glossographia 
 (1656), “Raillery.” Edward Phillips, New World of Words (1662), “Raillery.” 
 Art of Complaisance (1673), pp. 38-44, 58-62. Elisha Coles, English Dictionary 
 (1676), “Raillery.” Roger L’Estrange, Tally's Offices (1681), p. 51. Ferrand 
 Spence, Lucian (1684-85), I, sig. C4 V -C5 T . Isaac Barrow, Works (1687), I, 
 193-94, 199. Tom Brown, Remains (1720), pp. 233-34. Dennis, Critical Works 
 (Hooker), I, 16-17. Edward Cocker, English Dictionary (1704), “Raillery.” 
 Bayle, Dictionary (1734-38), II, 85 col. 2. J. K., New English Dictionary (1731), 
 “Rallery.” Charles Rollin, Teaching and Studying the Belles Lettres (1749), II, 
 261-63. John Brown, Essays on Characteristics (1751), pp. 70-71. 
 
 41 Roberte Whytinton, Tullyes offyces (1534), sig. F7 r . 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 201 
 
 Cleanly, Gracious, Ingenious, and Facetious. . . .” 42 Isaac Barrow 
 speaks of “St. Paul’s meaning...concerning Eutrafelia , (that is, face¬ 
 tious speech, or raillery, by our Translatours rendred Jesting ,)”* 3 
 and when in his Teaching and Studying the Belles Lettres (1749) 
 Charles Rollins translates from Quintilian and De oratore on pru¬ 
 dence and moderation in the use of jests, he uses raillery as a syn¬ 
 onym for jesting.** It should be noted here that Shaftesbury makes 
 a point of calling a particular type of jest raillery, a type 
 which falls between raillery (#3) as harmless jesting and raillery 
 (#1) as ridicule. It is the playful elaboration of a fiction simply for 
 the fun of mystifying all or part of the audience (see that sense of 
 irony discussed under Diet, vn above). The fiction itself has no 
 satiric content, but the act of mystification is the sort of “playing 
 upon a person” which could be thought of as mocking attack. 
 
 ’Tis real humanity and kindness to hide strong truths from tender 
 eyes. And to do this by a pleasant amusement is easier and civiller than 
 by a harsh denial or remarkable reserve. But to go about industriously 
 to confound men, in a mysterious manner, and to make advantage or 
 draw pleasure from that perplexity they are thrown into by such un¬ 
 certain talk, is as unhandsome in a way of raillery as when done with 
 the greatest seriousness, or in the most solemn way of deceit. It may 
 be necessary, as well now as heretofore, for wise men to speak in parables, 
 and with a double meaning, that the enemy may be amused, and they 
 only who have ears to hear may hear. But ’tis certainly a mean, im¬ 
 potent, and dull sort of wit which amuses all alike, and leaves the most 
 sensible man, and even a friend, equally in doubt, and at a loss to under¬ 
 stand what one’s real mind is, upon any subject. 
 
 This is that gross sort of raillery which is so offensive in good com¬ 
 pany. And indeed there is as much difference between one sort and 
 another as between fair-dealing and hypocrisy, or between the genteelist 
 wit and the most scurrilous buffoonery . 40 
 
 Although the important distinctions between railing (#2) as 
 angry invective, raillery (#1) as ridicule, and raillery (#2) as a 
 harmless verbal gambit are not difficult to draw, it is obvious that 
 even abstractly considered the one type of thing modulates into the 
 
 42 Roger L’Estrange, Tully’s Offices (1681), p. 51. 
 
 43 Isaac Barrow, Works (1687), I, 193-94. 
 
 44 II, 261-63. 
 
 46 Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 45. See also ibid., I, 65; II, 
 240, 295. 
 
202 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 next without any pause. Equally important, the bases of the 
 distinctions are the meaning of a tone, the touchiness of an audience, 
 the seriousness of a failing—all of them qualities susceptible of 
 various judgment in Wapping, the City, and St. James’. The con¬ 
 notations of raillery added a third spur to confusion. In friendly 
 relationships delicate raillery (#2) was felt to be an elegant grace, 
 but sharp raillery (#1) was thought cruel or rude; in controversy, 
 satire, and instruction sharp raillery (#1) was felt to be the most 
 effective and graceful method of attack available, but railing (#2) 
 was thought vulgar. Whether from a failure of taste or disin¬ 
 genuousness, people utilized the most favorable connotation they 
 could manage for their verbal offspring, and the lack of either 
 clear-cut or objective demarcations between the various types of 
 raillery and railing made it all the easier for them to succeed. Thus 
 the range of discourse to which the words in their different senses 
 were actually applied was considerable. This unhappy state of 
 affairs did not go unnoticed. 
 
 The most frequent complaint was that what passed as delicate 
 raillery (#2) with some people was really too sharp not to hurt or 
 too blunt to be called raillery. Probably more than any other great 
 wit of his time Swift loved the social uses of raillery (#2) and ob¬ 
 jected to its misuse. In a vivid little poem “To Betty the Grizette” 
 (1730) he describes the sort of vulgar raillery which to his own 
 discriminating taste seemed so blunt and direct it could only be 
 called railing (#2): 
 
 Sets of Phrases, cut and dry, 
 
 Evermore thy Tongue supply. 
 
 And, thy Memory is loaded 
 
 With old Scraps from Plays exploded. 
 
 Stock’t with Repartees and Jokes, 
 
 Suited to all Christian Fokes: 
 
 Shreds of Wit, and senseless Rhimes, 
 
 Blunder’d out a Thousand Times. 
 
 Nor, wilt thou of Gifts be sparing, 
 
 Which can ne’er be worse for wearing. 
 
 Picking Wit among Collegions, 
 
 In the Play-House upper Regions; 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 203 
 
 Where, in Eighteen-penny Gall’ry, 
 
 Irish Nymphs learn Irish Raillery: 
 
 But, thy Merit is thy Failing, 
 
 And, thy Raillery is Railing. 
 
 Thus, with Talents well endu’d 
 To be scurrilous, and rude; 
 
 When you pertly raise your Snout, 
 
 Fleer, and gibe, and laugh, and flout; 
 
 This, among Hibernian Asses, 
 
 For sheer Wit, and Humour passes! 
 
 Thus, indulgent Chloe bit, 
 
 Swears you have a World of Wit. 46 
 
 Betty, however, because her manner was jocose flattered herself she 
 was employing delicate raillery (#2). In another place Swift casti¬ 
 gated that raillery (#2) which is too sharp for friendly conversa¬ 
 tion, though not too blunt. 
 
 Raillery is the finest part of conversation; but, as it is our usual 
 custom to counterfeit and adulterate whatever is too dear for us, so we 
 have done with this, and turned it all into what is generally called re¬ 
 partee, or being smart; just as when an expensive fashion cometh up, 
 those who are not able to reach it, content themselves with some paltry 
 imitation. It now passeth for raillery to run a man down in discourse, to 
 put him out of countenance, and make him ridiculous, sometimes to 
 expose the defects of his person or understanding; on all which occasions 
 he is obliged not to be angry, to avoid the imputation of not being able to 
 take a jest. It is admirable to observe one who is dexterous at this art, 
 singling out a weak adversary, getting the laugh on his side, and then 
 carrying all before him. The French, from whence we borrow the 
 word, have a quite different idea of the thing, and so had we in the 
 politer age of our fathers. Raillery was to say something that at first ap¬ 
 peared a reproach or reflection; but, by some turn of wit unexpected 
 and surprising, ended always in a compliment, and to the advantage of 
 the person it was addressed to. And surely one of the best rules in con¬ 
 versation is, never to say a thing which any of the company can reason¬ 
 ably wish we had rather left unsaid; nor can there anything be well 
 more contrary to the ends for which people meet together, than to part 
 unsatisfied with each other or themselves. 47 
 
 Swift was wrong in his notion that raillery had formerly been 
 limited to praise-by-blame irony, but his objection to sharp ralliers 
 
 46 Swift, Poems (Williams), II, 523. 
 
 17 Swift, Prose Works (Temple Scott), XI, 71. 
 
204 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 (#1) in polite conversation had been a common complaint from 
 the beginning, and continued to be. Eliza Haywood does not limit 
 polite raillery (#2) to praise-by-blame, but her objection parallels 
 Swift’s: 
 
 The difference between ridicule and raillery is so very small, that 
 the one is often mistaken for the other. —The latter, therefore, ought 
 never to be attempted but by people of fine taste, nor played off but on 
 those equally qualified to return it; and as it has also some distant affinity 
 to satire , should never have for its subject matters of too serious a nature. 
 —What exposes any thing we wish to have concealed, though it may be 
 done with an air of pleasantry, leaves a sting behind it which is not easily 
 forgiven, and will be taken for ridicule , whether meant as such or not. 
 
 I know nothing in effect that sticks longer on the mind than a bitter 
 sarcasm, especially when conscious of its having some foundation in truth. 
 —But you will say this is not raillery. I grant it is ridicule ,—it is in¬ 
 vective; yet it is that which, with people of narrow understandings, passes 
 for raillery , and as such is excused, if not applauded. 
 
 As your sentiments are gay, to railly well, your expressions must be 
 so too, yet accompanied with a certain softness, which will render what 
 you say tickling, not wounding, to the heart . 48 
 
 The difficulties of the situation and the popular standards of the age 
 are manifest in a passage from Bellegarde: 
 
 There are certain Circumstances wherein Politeness makes it requisite 
 to understand Raillery; as a good means to avoid Differences, and pre¬ 
 serve a Man’s Repose. . . . When the Raillery is innocent, and turns 
 upon indifferent Subjects, it must be brutish to take fire, and to complain 
 of it. If it be too cutting, ’tis enough to signify that we feel it. If the 
 Drolling Person after this pursues his Jest, it manifests he is a Wretch 
 that is defective in Brain and Breeding. I have seen Clarinda put her¬ 
 self in a Passion, because she was told she made an aukward Curtsey, 
 and enter’d a Room with an ill Grace. Those that rallied her upon 
 that Score, did it without the least design of affronting her; and instead 
 of making a Quarrel of it, as she did, she ought to have thank’d ’em for 
 the Advice they gave her . 49 
 
 An occasional complaint was that what passed as witty ridicule 
 with some people was really such crass, blunt stuff that it should 
 be called not raillery (#1) but railing (#2). True raillery (#1), 
 said Sprat, differs from railing (#2) “as the pleasant reproofs of a 
 
 48 Female Spectator (1755), IV, 136-49. 
 
 48 Bellegarde, Reflexions upon Ridicule (1717), IT, 9. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 205 
 
 Gentleman from the severity of a School-master,” 50 but Raillerie a 
 la mode could find little of this difference in the popular practice 
 of the time: 
 
 It is a Vitious sort of Buffoonry, that this mistaken Age is ready to 
 cry up for a high acquir’d Ornament and Piece of Refin’d Education > 
 while a sober Judgment, or modest Innocence, is as much mistook, and 
 exploded for meer Dulness and Ignorance. He that can abuse another 
 handsomely, is presently applauded for a shrewd Wit, a notable Man, 
 which indeed imports no better than an abusive K— as a good harmless 
 honest Man is but the better word for a Fool . 51 
 
 ... to Buy or Read these Cudgel-playing Books, is but to make Bill¬ 
 ings-gate your Diversion; or to know the best way how to give bad 
 Language: ’tis no better than downright Railing, Frenchifi’d into Raillerie 
 a la mode . 52 
 
 Finally, John Brown pointed out Shaftesbury’s vital confusion of 
 raillery #1 and raillery #3: 
 
 . . . the noble Writer often . . . confounds Mirth, Urbanity, or Good- 
 humour, with Raillery or Ridicule: Than which, no two Things in 
 Nature are more diametrically opposite. The first, as it ariseth solely 
 from sudden and pleasing Resemblances impressed on the Imagination, 
 is justly regarded by all, as the best Mediator in every Debate. The last, 
 as it ariseth solely from Contempt, is therefore no less justly regarded 
 by most, as an Embroiler and Incendiary . 53 
 
 In the sixteenth and early seventeenth century the words rail, 
 railing, railer were in common use. Shortly after the middle of the 
 seventeenth century the word raillery was imported from France. 
 At first the French raillerie was also likely to be used and Sprat was 
 obliged to call practitioners of the art “Railleurs,” 5i but from the 
 beginning of its use in England raillery seems to have compre¬ 
 hended all three of the meanings defined above. 55 The definition 
 
 60 Sprat, Cowley (Spingarn), pp. 136-37. 
 
 61 Raillerie a la mode (1673), pp. 1-3. 
 
 63 Ibid., pp. 6-10. 
 
 63 John Brown, Essays on Characteristics (1751), pp. 70-71. 
 
 64 Sprat, Royal Society (1667), pp. 413-19. 
 
 65 Hugh Macdonald asserts that when it first came into use raillery was “more 
 or less equivalent to what we now mean by ‘banter’ ” and had much the same 
 meaning as drollery , “although it had acquired other meanings by 1672.” If I 
 know what Mr. Macdonald means I am obliged to argue that the word had a 
 wider range of meaning even this early. See Hugh Macdonald, “Banter” (1947), 
 pp. 23, 27. 
 
206 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 which had appeared in Cotgrave’s French dictionary of 1611 was 
 repeated for English raillery by Blount and Phillips: “Raillerie: f. 
 Jeasting, boording, sport, merriment ; also, a flowt, or scoffe; a 
 flowting, or scoffing.” 56 Richard Flecknoe described the raillery of 
 praise-by-blame in his Enigmaticall Characters (1658). In his life of 
 Cowley and the history of the Royal Society Sprat used the word to 
 mean ridicule. If any sense was slow in coming to clear concep¬ 
 tion it was that of the delicate raillery (#2) which plays upon imag¬ 
 inary or negligible failings. 
 
 There was bound to be confusion between the old railing and 
 the new raillery. Steele’s remark in the Tatler may not indicate that 
 Steele was confused but it probably misled some of his readers: 
 “. .. they [would-be satirists] may as well pretend to flatter, as rail 
 agreeably without being good-natured.” 57 What have agreeableness 
 and good nature to do with angry invective? But of course there 
 was precedent for the use of railing (#1) as any sort of attack, in¬ 
 cluding good-natured raillery (#1). The opposite of the foregoing 
 instance is supplied us by the Censor , who seriously referred to the 
 following passage as “raillery”: 
 
 . . . the World is grown so Vicious and Degenerate, that I am perfectly 
 sick of being one of its Inhabitants. Interest, and Prejudice are the 
 Two great Bias’s that turn every Inclination. The whole Universe is 
 but one large Family of Knaves and Fools, that, like Flint and Steel, are 
 perpetually striking Fire out of each other. The Friend, you think, you 
 may confide in, betrays his Trust: The Tradesman from whom you 
 promised your self fair Dealing, puts the Tricks of his Vocation upon you: 
 The Lawyer, that should do you Justice in his way, lets the Adversary 
 into the Weakness of your Cause, and sells your Interest for a Cross Fee: 
 In short, we are hem’d in, and besieg’d with Villany. . . , 58 
 
 He prefaced his “raillery” with the observation that he was not 
 “able to bring my self into a Form of Gaiety... .” 59 Some people 
 refused to bother their heads over distinctions; others manipulated 
 the connotations of the words without scruple as to the denotations. 
 Three essays will further illuminate the situation. All of them are 
 
 56 Cotgrave, Dictionarie (1611), “Raillerie.” 
 
 67 Tatler (Aitken), IV, 236 (No. 242, Oct. 26, 1710). 
 
 68 Censor (1717), I, 11-12 (No. 2, April 13, 1715). 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 207 
 
 complaints about the spate of detraction and defamation which op¬ 
 pressed the Augustan age, and all of them deal with the same 
 wide variety of Augustan methods of attack. Their titles are Rail- 
 lerie a la mode (1673), Libels,” 60 and The Art of Railing 
 (1723). But a remedy was at hand. As raillery had become more 
 popular after the Restoration other forms of the word were required. 
 Rally, rallies, rallied, rallying^ 1 became the most popular verb 
 forms, and apparently out of these grew a new spelling of the 
 noun: rallery . 62 Bailey’s dictionaries set out to use this difference 
 in spelling as a means of clearing up the confusion. The Universal 
 Etymological English Dictionary II (1727) gives these entries: 
 
 RAILERY . . . scolding, harsh, opprobrious Language. 
 
 RALLERY ... merry Drolling or Playing on a Person in Words, 
 Jeering, Jesting, a close Jibe. 
 
 This largely artificial distinction was continued in other Bailey dic¬ 
 tionaries, 63 and B. N. Defoe’s dictionary copied it, 64 but it does not 
 seem to have caught on. Raillery and rallery were still used inter¬ 
 changeably in contrast to railing. 
 
 The association of railing and irony was not especially close. 
 Railing (#1) as any kind of verbal attack of course included all the 
 ironies of attack and sometimes obviously referred to one. As angry 
 invective railing (#2) of an especially rhetorical nature could conceiv¬ 
 ably refer to the more virulent ironies, but since the essence of irony 
 was indirection and railing was usually thought of as blunt and direct, 
 irony was not likely to be considered a normal tool of railing (#2). 
 Raillery and irony , however, were very closely related. Raillery 
 (#2) as praise-by-blame was identical in reference with one of the 
 central meanings of irony (see Diet. m.B.i above), though raillery 
 in this sense probably suggested to most people a primarily con¬ 
 versational gambit, and irony did not. Raillery (#2) as the friend¬ 
 ly playing upon imaginary failings or negligible peccadilloes—again 
 felt to be especially a conversational thing—used the same verbal 
 
 60 Humourist II (1725), pp. 96-105. 
 
 61 Art of Complaisance (1673), p. 59. 
 
 62 Art of Speaking (1708; first published 1676?), pp. 305-11. 
 
 sf! Dictionarium Britannicum (1730); Universal Etymological English Dic¬ 
 tionary (1766). 
 
 64 B. N. Defoe, Compleat English Dictionary (1735). 
 
208 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 techniques that raillery (#i) as ridicule did, and in that sense rail¬ 
 lery was both wider and narrower in reference than irony was. 
 Raillery #i comprehended a wide range of techniques in which 
 the specific ironic methods useful for attack were certainly included; 
 on the other hand raillery #i implied a certain motive and effect, 
 whereas irony could include motives and effects other than those 
 of ridicule. The irony of understatement, for instance, did not 
 necessarily function as ridicule. Nevertheless, ironies were used 
 more frequently by the Augustans for the purpose of ridicule than 
 for any other. More important, they had such a taste for ironic 
 methods in their raillery (#i)—chiefly blame-by-praise—that they 
 often found themselves alternating raillery and irony as though the 
 two words were not far from synonymous. 65 Thus Bailey could 
 define ironically to mean “by way of Irony or Raillery,” and Sprat 
 could admonish the wits of his age: 
 
 . . . the Family of the Railleurs is deriv’d from the same Original with 
 the Philosofhers. The Founder of Philosophy is confess’d by all to be 
 Socrates; and he also was the famous Author of all Irony. 
 
 Of course, irony (Diet, ix) as any kind of derisive attack was in 
 fact synonymous with raillery (#i) as ridicule. Similarly raillery 
 in Shaftesbury’s sense of aimless mystification was coextensive with 
 irony used in the same sense (Diet, vn), and raillery (#3) as any 
 kind of jesting could include nearly all the ironies. 
 
 ii. Banter 
 
 Apparently the word banter began to appear in more or less 
 polite company toward the end of Charles II’s reign. Although it 
 was not included in Edward Phillips’ New World of Words for 
 1662, 1671, or 1678, nor in Elisha Coles’ English Dictionary of 
 1676, Tom D’Urfey picked it up for his Madam Fickle, given at 
 
 * s Sprat, Royal Society (1667), pp. 413-19. Dryden, Lucian (1710-11), I, 
 38-48. Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 50-51; Life, Letters, Regimen 
 (Rand), pp. 504-5. Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary II (1727), 
 “Ironically.” “An Essay on Gibing'” (1727), pp. 5-10. Anthony Collins, Dis¬ 
 course concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), p. 38. Female Spectator (1755), 
 III, 319-20. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 209 
 
 the Dorset Garden Theatre in November, 1676, 66 and Anthony 
 Wood used it in an almanac entry dated September 6, 1678. 67 In 
 another entry Wood settled on 1676 as the year that bantering as 
 a social gambit had become popular at Oxford. 
 
 1676: this yeare (I speak as neare as I can) came up at Oxon the 
 way of bantering among certaine bachelors and masters, used by them 
 in public places and coffey houses. The cheif <were> Thomas Bir- 
 ton. . . . Uttering fluently romantic nonsense, unintelligible gibberish, 
 florishing lyes and nonsense. 68 
 
 For the i68o’s the New English Dictionary quotes three passages 
 (from Buckingham, Tom Brown, and Shadwell) in which the word 
 appears, each time referring to some sort of verbal deception, as it 
 had in D’Urfey and Wood, and in 1690 banter was included in A 
 New Dictionary of the Canting Crew . 69 
 
 Of unknown etymology, the word apparently had been picked 
 up from the vulgar cant of the period by the men about town. It 
 was some time, however, before more discriminating wits would 
 admit its respectability. In 1710 Swift was still complaining: 
 
 The Author cannot conclude this Apology, without making this one 
 Reflection; that, as Wit is the noblest and most useful Gift of humane 
 Nature, so Humor is the most agreeable, and where these two enter far 
 into the Composition of any Work, they will render it always acceptable 
 to the World. Now, the great Part of those who have no Share or 
 Tast of either, but by their Pride, Pedantry and Ill Manners, lay them¬ 
 selves bare to the Lashes of Both, think the Blow is weak, because they 
 are insensible, and where Wit hath any mixture of Raillery; ’Tis but 
 calling it Banter , and the work is done. This Polite Word of theirs was 
 first borrowed from the Bullies in White-Fryars, then fell among the 
 Footmen, and at last retired to the Pedants, by whom it is applied as 
 properly to the Productions of Wit, as if I should apply it to Sir Isaac 
 Newton’s Mathematicks, but, if this Bantring as they call it, be so despis- 
 able a Thing, whence comes it to pass they have such a perpetual Itch 
 towards it themselves? To instance only in the Answerer already men¬ 
 tioned; it is grievous to see him in some of his Writings at every turn 
 going out of his way to be waggish, to tell us of a Cow that prickt up 
 
 99 New English Dictionary , “banter.” The play was published in 1677. 
 
 67 Ibid. 
 
 98 Anthony Wood, Life and Times (Clark), II, 334. 
 
 90 Hugh Macdonald, “Banter” (1947), p. 27. 
 
210 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 her Tail , and in his answer to this Discourse, he says it is all a Farce and. 
 a Ladle; With other Passages equally shining.' 0 
 
 Again, in the Tatler for September 26-28, 1710, Swift remarked 
 that “banter” was the invention of “some pretty jellows” and that 
 he had been struggling against its increasing use for some years 
 past. 71 His struggle was a failure, however; the word had been 
 used widely and in polite company ever since the turn of the cen¬ 
 tury. Edward Cocker’s English Dictionary of 1704 had included 
 it, giving a rather limited definition: “ Bantering , a thwarting joc¬ 
 ularly with half witted people,” and it was added to the 1706 edi¬ 
 tion of Phillips’ dictionary: “To Banter , to Jest or Jeer; to Amuse 
 or Play upon.” 72 
 
 We notice in both Swift’s comment and Phillips’ definition that 
 banter could now be used to indicate ridicule in general, often with 
 a pejorative connotation. Although verbal deception of various 
 sorts seems to have been the original referent of the word, this 
 sense was gradually extended to include ridicule of any kind. The 
 extension may have been in process in the following passage from 
 Tom Brown, 1691: “One while he rails at the Priests, another at 
 the French, laughs at the Irish-, and in the whole, banters all, and 
 the work’s done.” 73 Defoe, in that passage of his Explanation of 
 the Shortest Way , 1703, which we have quoted before for different 
 reasons, remarks: 
 
 If any man takes the pains seriously to reflect upon the contents, the 
 nature of the thing, and the manner of the style, it seems impossible to 
 imagine it should pass for anything but a banter upon the high-flying 
 churchmen.' 4 
 
 William Wotton’s A Defense of the Reflections , 1705, uses banter 
 repeatedly and easily to mean, roughly, ridicule . 75 Although the 
 reference of the word may occasionally have been extended even 
 further, to include jesting of any sort regardless of its content of 
 
 70 Swift, Tale of a Tub (Davis), p. io. 
 
 71 Swift, Prose Works (Temple Scott), IX, 35. 
 
 72 Edward Phillips, New World of Words (1706), “Banter.” 
 
 78 Tom Brown, Wit for Money (1691), p. 5. 
 
 74 (Trevelyan), p. 55. 
 
 75 Pp. 56, 6o, 62-63, 68. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 211 
 
 ridicule, 76 ordinarily its meaning fell within the range from de- 
 ception-without-ridicule to ridicule-without-deception, and the sense 
 of ridicule came to overshadow the original sense of verbal decep¬ 
 tion. 
 
 (i) Banter as deception was most often used to denote a verbal 
 fiction of some sort offered with enough ostensible conviction to 
 bamboozle an audience, temporarily at least. The motive behind 
 this game was the desire for fun, playfulness; no ridicule was in¬ 
 volved except insofar as the object was deceived he looked foolish 
 and obtuse. 77 Such a banter might run to considerable length, as 
 did the one Tom Brown commented on: “ . . . the Town has been 
 banter’d near two Months with a sham Account of the Weather, 
 pretended to be taken from Barometers, Thermometers... .” 78 On 
 the other hand it might be quite brief. In a letter to the Rever¬ 
 end William Tisdall of December 16, 1703, Swift described a 
 popular amusement: 
 
 I will teach you a way to outwit Mrs. Johnson: it is a new-fashioned 
 way of being witty. ... You must ask a bantering question, or tell some 
 damned lie in a serious manner, and then she will answer or speak as if 
 you were in earnest; and then cry you, “Madam, there’s a bite” I 
 would not have you undervalue this, for it is the constant amusement in 
 Court, and everywhere else among the great people; and I let you know 
 it, in order to have it obtain among you, and teach a new refinement. 79 
 
 The extremes to which such bamboozling went are illustrated by a 
 note in The Bee, No. 61. After reprinting from the Grub-street 
 Journal an advertisement that Eustace Budgell had been set up as 
 candidate for Parliament, The Bee commented: “We believe we 
 need not inform our Readers that this Advertisement is designed 
 
 70 Bellegarde, Reflexions upon Ridicule (1717), I, 21-22, 100-101. Black- 
 more, Satyr against Wit (Spingarn), pp. 326, 327. Bailey, Dictionarium Britan- 
 nicum (1730), “Banter.” 
 
 77 New English Dictionary, “banter” in its various forms. Anthony Wood, 
 Life and Times (Clark), II, 334. Tom Brown, Works (1720), I, 163. Dennis, 
 Critical Works (Hooker), II, 348. Edward Cocker, English Dictionary (1704), 
 (1724), “Banter.” Swift, Correspondence (Ball), I, 40; V, 245-46. John Old- 
 mixon, Logick and Rhetorick (1728), pp. 21-28. Anthony Collins, Discourse 
 concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 57-58. Grub-street Journal, July 9, 
 1730. The Bee, V, 387 (No. 61). Publick Register, XII (March 21, 1741), 
 179. t 
 
 78 Tom Brown, Works (1720), I, 163. 
 
 70 Swift, Correspondence (Ball), I, 40. 
 
2 I 2 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 for a Banter; that there never was any such Meeting as is mentioned 
 in it, and that Mr. Budgell never presumed to offer himself as a 
 Candidate for Member of Parliament for the City of London. .. 
 Here, of course, the banter itself—the fictitious structure—may be 
 taken not as harmless but as high burlesque of BudgelPs preten¬ 
 sions. As such it becomes ridicule in sense # 2 of banter. John 
 Dennis applies our word interestingly to a common device of bur¬ 
 lesque, in his Remarks on the Rape of the Lock, 1728: 
 
 Of the same Nature are those numerous Banters in Rhyme, which 
 are to be found throughout this Poem, which are so uniform, and so 
 much of a piece, that one would swear the Author were giving a Receipt 
 for dry Joking: For by placing something important in the Beginning 
 of a Period, and making something very trifling follow it, he seems to 
 take pains to bring something into a Conjunction Copulative with noth¬ 
 ing, in order to beget nothing. Of this there are divers Instances in 
 Ariel’s Speech in the 2d Canto; 
 
 This Day black Omens threat the brightest Fair 
 
 That e’er deserv’d the watchful?st Spirit’s Care; 
 
 Some dire Disaster, or by Force or Sleight, 
 
 Whether the Nymph shall break Dianah Law, 
 Or some frail China Jar receive a Flaw, so 
 
 In deceiving the audience and then disappointing its expectations 
 Pope is bantering it—and using a basic device of irony and bur¬ 
 lesque. 
 
 Banter as deception was also used, though not quite so fre¬ 
 quently, to denote a verbal fiction perpetrated not out of playfulness 
 but out of a desire to gain some practical end. 81 The context of 
 this use is usually argument or controversy, in which the imputed 
 banterer attempts to convince his audience of the truth of some¬ 
 thing which his opponent thinks is arrant nonsense. Thus Charles 
 Leslie accuses Hoadly of consciously manipulating words in a deceit¬ 
 ful way: 
 
 80 Dennis, Critical Works (Hooker), II, 348. 
 
 81 New English Dictionary, “banter” in its various forms. Dennis, Critical 
 Works (Hooker), I, 316. Anthony Collins, Grounds and Reasons of the Chris¬ 
 tian Religion (1724), p. 43; Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), 
 pp. 8-9, 29. Charles Leslie, Best Answer Ever was Made (1709), p. 8. John 
 Ozell, Don Quixote (Mod. Lib.), p. 664. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 213 
 
 . . . If Mr. Hoadly knows that the Word Power is sometimes us’d to 
 mean only Force or Strength, and sometimes to mean a Just and Law¬ 
 ful Authority; then he studiously and on Purpose sets himself to Banter 
 Mankind, by the Sound, only of this Word . 82 
 
 Anthony Collins accuses his Popish adversaries of perpetrating real 
 fictions: 
 
 But what are these clearest Miracles God ever wrought ? Why, 
 the most extravagant, whimsical, absurd, and ridiculous Legends and 
 Stories imaginable; such as that of St. Dominick, who when the Devil 
 came to him in the Shape of a Monkey, made him hold a Candle to him 
 while he wrote, and keep it so long between his Toes, till it burnt them; 
 and his keeping the Devil, who sometimes came to him in the shape of 
 a Flea, and by skipping on the Leaves of his Book disturb’d his Reading, 
 in that Shape, and using him for a Mark to know where he left off read¬ 
 ing: Such as St. Patrick’ s heating an Oven with Snow, and turning a 
 Pound of Honey into a Pound of Butter: Such as Christ’s marrying 
 Nuns, and playing at Cards with them. . . . 
 
 Are these, or such as these the clearest Miracles God ever wroughtF 
 Do such Miracles deserve a serious Regard? And shall the Gravity with 
 which Mankind is thus banter’d out of their common Sense, excuse these 
 Matters from Ridicule? 83 
 
 Calling such tactics “banters” was of course a means of discrediting 
 them. The truth of the charge was a matter of opinion and loyalty. 
 But banter %\ could also be used to denote an outright lie provable 
 by an appeal to facts. In the second part of Don Quixote, for in¬ 
 stance, the Duchess made inquiries of Sancho about the first part: 
 
 I find that the good Sancho had never seen Dulcinea . . . nor carried her 
 his Master’s Letter, as having left the Table-Book behind him in Sierra 
 Morena; how then durst he feign an Answer, and pretend he found 
 her winnowing Wheat? A Fiction and Banter so injurious to the Repu¬ 
 tation of the peerless Dulcinea. . . ! 84 
 
 It is a mildly interesting fact that although the Augustans never, 
 so far as I know, used irony to mean the irony of Fate, they did 
 on at least two occasions use banter in this way. On the third of 
 August, 1714, Bolingbroke wrote to Swift: “The Earl of Oxford 
 was removed on Tuesday; the Queen died on Sunday. What a 
 
 82 Charles Leslie, Best Answer Ever was Made (1709), p. 8. 
 
 83 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 8-9. 
 
 84 John Ozell, Don Quixote (Mod. Lib.), p. 664. 
 
214 the WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 world is this, and how does fortune banter us!” 85 And in Ozell’s 
 revision of Don Quixote appear these verses to the Don: 
 
 May Fortune’s Curse 
 From bad to worse, 
 
 Turn all thy best Adventures; 
 
 Thy Joys to Dumps, 
 
 Thy Brags to Thumps, 
 
 And thy best Hopes to Banters. 88 
 
 (2) Banter as ridicule. Banter (#1) as deception did not neces¬ 
 sarily involve any other ridicule than the making a dupe of its 
 audience. However, a satirist who can dupe his object at the same 
 time he is ridiculing him in other ways has managed to add insult 
 to injury, an accomplishment that warms his heart. No great por¬ 
 tion of Augustan satire did really deceive its objects, but a great 
 deal of it used fictitious structures and apparently innocuous in¬ 
 direction of a sort intended to mislead an audience momentarily, 
 until the light dawned, or to confuse an audience by its ambiguity 
 and complexity. We have only to think of the Tale of a Tub, 
 Gulliver's Travels , the History of John Bull , Pope’s essay on pas¬ 
 toral, Defoe’s Shortest Way, and hosts of periodical essays and pam¬ 
 phlets to realize how in love with indirect attack the Augustans 
 were, and when we compare their attacks with the satires and pam¬ 
 phlets of the Restoration, to see that this love was a development 
 in artistic skill out of rather crude and obvious beginnings. Since 
 so much eighteenth-century ridicule utilized at least to a degree the 
 device of banter (#1) as deception, it need not surprise us that the 
 word banter was in turn extended to almost any sort of ridicule. It is 
 clear, in fact, that the word came to be used in this sense (#2) 
 more often than in the first. 
 
 Within the range indicated banter was occasionally used to de¬ 
 note a piece of ridicule that actually did deceive its object. In this 
 use banter really fused the two senses of deception (#1) and ridi¬ 
 cule (#2). Bellegarde offers an instance: 
 
 ’Tis a surprizing thing, that Conceitedness of Authors: They re¬ 
 duce all the Discourse, and most commonly very impertinently, to their 
 
 85 Arbuthnot, Works (Aitken), p. 77. 
 
 88 John Ozell, Don Quixote (Mod. Lib.), p. 825. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 215 
 
 Works. Nothing but Flattery will content them; they praise themselves 
 without Reserve, and drink, like Nectar , the ironical Encomiums that are 
 made them: The Prejudice in Favour of their Merit, hinders them from 
 perceiving how they are banter’d. 87 
 
 Here “bantered” very evidently refers to the deception practiced— 
 possibly only to that; but the deception is also the vehicle of a 
 satiric attack, so that one feels the word banter was chosen be¬ 
 cause it could refer to ridicule and deception at the same time. The 
 Tatler gives us another instance of the same sort: 
 
 . . . when he has a mind thoroughly to correct a man, he never takes 
 from him anything, but he allows him something for it; or else, he blames 
 him for things wherein he is not defective, as well as for matters where¬ 
 in he is. This makes a weak man believe he is in jest in the whole. The 
 other day he told Beau Prim, who is thought impotent, that his mistress 
 had declared she would not have him, because he was a sloven, and had 
 committed a rape. The beau bit at the banter, and said very gravely, 
 he thought to be clean was as much as was necessary; and that as to the 
 rape, he wondered by what witchcraft that should come to her ears; but 
 it had indeed cost him a hundred pounds to hush the affair. 88 
 
 Such bantering was discussed briefly by the Humourist: 
 
 The Wit of this Set of Men consists either in the Scandal of the Ab¬ 
 sent, ... or else in a sly Artificial Banter of the Person present: This 
 is an Abuse but of late Growth. It was born within a Court, and is 
 generally confined to it. A Man must live there to become a Master 
 in it. It consists in a certain low Sort of Craft, a Cant unworthy of an 
 Honest Man, tho’ it be every Day practis’d in the very Presence-Cham¬ 
 ber itself. To excel in this worthy Mystery, you are to invent Expres¬ 
 sions, which the Person to be abused may well enough construe in his 
 own Favour, and which every one else may be able to expound in his 
 Derision and Contempt. I would fain have Men of Honour be ashamed 
 of this mean sort of Cousenage, which the most ordinary Tradesman is 
 as capable of as themselves, and which an honest Foot-Soldier would 
 heartily despise. 89 
 
 Anthony Collins, discussing Charles II, illustrates his argument with 
 an anecdote in which the bantering (#1) ridicule is clearly of a bur¬ 
 lesque nature, yet the audience is meant actually to be deceived: 
 
 87 Bellegarde, Reflexions upon Ridicule (1717), I, 170. 
 
 88 Tatler (Aitken), II, 70-72 (No. 59, Aug. 25, 1709). 
 
 89 Humourist II (1725), pp. 184-86. 
 
2l6 
 
 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 It is well known how he banter’d the Presbyterian Ministers, who out 
 of Interest came over to him at Breda; where they were placed in a Room 
 next to his Majesty, and order’d to attend till his Majesty had done his 
 Devotions; who, it seems, pray’d so artfully, and poured out so many 
 of their Phrases, which he had learned when he was in Scotland , where 
 he was forced to be present at religious Exercises of six or seven Hours 
 a-day; and had practis’d among the Huguenot Ministers in France , who 
 reported him to have a sanctify’d Heart, and to speak the very Language 
 of Canaan. This Ridicule he cover’d with Seriousness ; having at that 
 time Occasion for those Ministers, who were then his great Instruments 
 in reconciling the Nation to his Restoration. When he had no farther 
 Occasion for them, he was open in his Ridicule, and would say, that 
 Presbyterianism was not a Religion for a Gentleman. 90 
 
 Again, in Pope’s Shakespeare 91 the following interesting entries oc¬ 
 cur in the “Index of fictitious Persons”; 
 
 Hamlet . . . banters the Messengers the K. and Q. sent to him. 
 
 Act. 3 Scene. 8 
 
 Hamlet . . . examin’d by the King, banters him, and is order’d to go to 
 England. Act. 4 Scene. 3 
 
 Hamlet . . . banters a Fop who brought a Challenge from Laertes , and 
 accepts it. Act. 5 Scene. 4 
 
 The first scene named is that (III.ii.303-405) in which, after the 
 play has been acted, first Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and then 
 Polonius come to fetch Hamlet to the Queen. Hamlet plays upon 
 them unmercifully. His banter sounds superficially like the “fluent¬ 
 ly romantic nonsense, unintelligible gibberish” which Wood com¬ 
 plained of in the Oxford scholars. But of course it is more than 
 that. In such a speech as “We shall obey, were she ten times our 
 mother” the seeming nonsense is the vehicle of bitter satire, and 
 the episode with the recorder moves from satire concealed in banter 
 (#1) to outright attack. The same analysis can be made of Ham¬ 
 let’s scene with the King (IV.iii.17-55) and with Osric (V.ii.81-189), 
 in which there is much obvious burlesque. As applied to these 
 scenes banter seems to denote not deception exactly but mystifica¬ 
 tion acting as the vehicle of satire and ridicule. 
 
 80 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 44- 
 
 45 - 
 
 81 Pope, S/iakesfeare (1728), VIII, Indexes. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 217 
 
 Banter was used most often, however, simply to denote ridicule 
 and laughing satire of any sort. 92 Thus Bellegarde’s defense of fools 
 against ridicule could be translated: 
 
 Concur not with those Banterers that droll upon their [the fools’] Stu¬ 
 pidity, nor applaud their [the Banterers’] foolish Jests. 
 
 ’Tis somewhat inhuman, by insulting Railleries to aggravate his Con¬ 
 fusion, who has said a foolish Thing; and yet ’tis the Custom for some 
 to laugh at the Cost of others, who are the ridiculous Subjects. 
 
 Such people, Bellegarde goes on, use all their attention “to ob¬ 
 serve the Incongruities that escape you, which she [the Character- 
 example being used] catches up with a sneering Laughter... .” 93 In 
 December of 1733 the Gentleman’s Magazine** quoted from the 
 Daily Com ant: 
 
 Banter is not capable of being answered by Reason; not , because it has 
 any Strength in it; but because it runs out of all the Bounds of Reason 
 and good Sense, by extravagantly joining together such Images, as have 
 not in themselves any Manner of Similitude or Connection; by which 
 Means all things are alike easy to be render’d ridiculous, by being repre¬ 
 sented only in an absur’d [he] Dress.—Christianity has suffer’d from 
 no one thing so much as from Ridicule and Buffoonery. So far is it 
 
 112 Edward Phillips, New World of Words (1706), “banter.” William Wot- 
 ton, A Defense of the Reflections (1705), pp. 48-49, 56, 60, 62-63, 68. Dennis, 
 Critical Works (Hooker), II, 397. Defoe, Explanation of the Shortest Way 
 (Trevelyan), p. 55. Bellegarde, Reflexions upon Ridicule (1717), I, 126. Bayle, 
 Dictionary (1734-38), II, 117 col. 2. Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), 
 II, 325. Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum (1730), “banter.” Swift, Tale of a 
 Tub (Davis), p. 10. A Complete Key to the Tale of a Tub (1710), p. 7. Swift, 
 Poems (Williams), III, 870-71. Swift, Correspondence (Ball), IV, 163-64, 166, 
 167-69, 213. Walter Moyle, Works (1726), p. 306. “An Essay on Gibing” 
 (1727), pp. 5-7, 20. Craftsman (1731), I, 79-81, 102-4. Gulliveriana 
 (1728), pp. 3, 316. John Oldmixon, Logick and Rhetorick (1728), pp. 27-28. 
 Anthony Collins, Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 25, 50, 63- 
 64; pp. 59-60 and Charles Leslie, Best Answer Ever was Made (1709); p. 5 and 
 Edward Stillingfleet, Works (1709), V, 27; p. 66 and Robert South, Animadver¬ 
 sions upon Sherlock (1693), pp. 329-55. Gentleman's Magazine, III (July, 
 
 1 733 ) > 348; HI (Dec., 1733)) 641; IV (Dec., 1734), 700; V (Jan., 1735), 42. 
 The Bee, IV, 234 (No. 45, Dec. 29-Jan. 5, 1733) ; VI, 195 (No. 70, June 22-29, 
 
 1734) . John Constable, Accuracy of Style (1734), pp. 65-66. William Somer- 
 vile, The Chace (1749), p. 113. Fielding, Works (Stephen), VI, 322-25. Fe¬ 
 male Spectator (1755), III, 319-20. John Ozell, Don Quixote (Mod. Lib.), p. 
 112. Letitia Pilkington, Memoirs I and II (1749), II, 21-22. John Brown, 
 Essays on Characteristics (1751), pp. 49-50, 100-102. Connoisseur (1755), I, 
 161-62 (No. 27). 
 
 03 Bellegarde, Reflexions upon Ridicule (1717), I, 126. 
 
 04 III, 641. 
 
218 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 from being true that Ridicule is the surest Rest of Rruth and real Worth 
 &c. that it is evidently false both as to Religion and Politicks. 
 
 Here “Banter” occupies exactly the place usually reserved for “Rid- 
 and obviously means neither more nor less. Some of the 
 called banter in this wide sense were pretty blunt and open, 
 for instance, is a <( Banter on Pope, as Translator of Homer”: 
 
 Homer describing the divine Abodes, 
 
 Mingled a crippl’d Vulcan with his Gods; 
 
 And the same Bard, when he his Heroes sings, 
 
 Crouds a Ther sites in among his Kings; 
 
 A crooked, petulant, malicious Wight, 
 
 Unfit for Converse, Friendship, Love, or Fight; 
 
 The Scum and Shame of Greece, whose Mother Nature 
 Impress’d the Scoundrel strong on every Feature. 
 
 Should Homer now revive, and sing agen, 
 
 Of Gods Immortal, or of God-like Men; 
 
 As a strong Foil, he’d make his Murd’rer P—e 
 The Vulcan, and Thersites of the Group. 00 
 
 Letitia Pilkington’s anecdote about an elderly admirer uses banter 
 to denote blunt teasing: 
 
 He used to hire me to write Love Letters to him, which, as a Proof 
 of his being a young Man, he shewed at White’s. . . . They [two noble¬ 
 men who frequented White’s] bantered me on my Taste, in writing so 
 many fine Things to an old Fellow, when so many young ones, themselves 
 in particular, would be proud of them—I assured their Lordships, I would 
 oblige them on the same Terms I did the Colonel, who always paid me 
 handsomely for my Compliments. 
 
 This turned all their Raillery on the Colonel. . . , 96 
 
 Nevertheless, about many appearances of banter in which the 
 primary referent is simply the spirit of ridicule we feel the over¬ 
 tone of deception adhering to the word. Since much ridicule and 
 raillery did involve a degree of bamboozling, a general term for 
 ridicule was bound to be associated with it. Consequently it is diffi¬ 
 cult to prove that banter any more than raillery or drollery empha¬ 
 sized the deceptive aspect of a piece of ridicule. Yet such a carry¬ 
 over would have been quite natural, and in some instances the con¬ 
 texts seem to justify saying that an author has chosen to use banter 
 
 95 Gulliveriana (1728), p. 316. 
 
 90 Letitia Pilkington, Memoirs I and II (1749), II, 21-22. 
 
 icule” 
 
 things 
 
 Here, 
 
RAILLERY AND RANTER 
 
 219 
 
 instead of ridicule or raillery or satire because banter emphasizes 
 the fictitious structure or ambiguous complexity or misleading tack 
 of the ridicule he is discussing. We may say this of Wotton’s re¬ 
 mark about an episode in the Tale of a Tub: 
 
 The ridiculous multiplying of the Virgin Mary’s Milk among the Papists, 
 he banters under the Allegory of a Cow which gave as much Milk at 
 a Meal, as would fill Three thousand Churches. . . , 97 
 
 Defoe’s explanation of his Shortest Way, already quoted, 98 seems 
 to be similarly indicative, and in the Craftsman’s critique on a con¬ 
 temporary pamphlet banter unquestionably refers not only to the 
 spirit of ridicule but also to the semi-bantering (#1) vehicle of that 
 ridicule: 
 
 . . . his Design is to ridicule Statesmen and -political Matters in the same 
 Manner that Cervantes exposes Books of Chivalry, or Captain Gulliver 
 the Writings of Travellers, by publishing a Collection of the most palpa¬ 
 ble Falshoods, Absurdities, and Contradictions, in a grave and serious 
 Manner, with the same solemn Grimace and repeated Professions of 
 Truth and Simplicity. 
 
 But I must observe, that this Mock-Enquirer is not only guilty of 
 very unseasonable and indecent Mirth, by turning to Jest things of the 
 highest Concern, but is also somewhat unhappy in his Imitation of those 
 great Masters; for tho’ the Account which he gives of publick Affairs 
 is full as romantick and incredible as the Adventures, which they relate; 
 yet he falls infinitely below them in Diction and manner of Writing; 
 which in them is elegant and majestick; whereas in this Author the Stile 
 is manifestly as indigested and ungrammatical, as the Tenour of his Book 
 is fabulous and improbable; but perhaps this may be done on purpose, in 
 order to make the Banter the stronger. 99 
 
 The Bee No. 70 quotes the Daily-Courant’s complaint about the 
 Craftsman’s veiling its criticism of those in power under parables and 
 fictions. 
 
 As this Manner of Writing on Topicks the most important, is ex¬ 
 tremely unjust in its Nature, and eviden[t]ly unfair as to those against 
 whom it is pointed, so as I have, already hinted, it is a glaring Insidt on 
 such as it is intended to move. It is neither better nor worse than tell¬ 
 ing them, “Gentlemen, you are a Pack of silly laughing Knaves, on 
 whom Reason will do no Good, but who may be led by the Nose 
 
 07 William Wotton, A Defense of the Reflections (1705), p. 56. 
 
 08 See p. 2To above. 
 
 00 Craftsman (1731), I, 79-81 (No. 14, Jan. 20, 1727). 
 
220 THE WORD IRONY AND ITS CONTEXT, 1500-1755 
 
 with Banter. Therefore instead of saying, that the M — robs the Treas¬ 
 ury, for which you might be dull enough to expect Proof, we need but 
 tell you, Robin Goodfellow skims the Bowls , and you swallow the Thing 
 without chewing, as if Innuendo's were better than Evidence } 00 
 
 Here again banter clearly refers not only to the verbal attack but 
 to the techniques of indirection used in the attack. 
 
 Given this fusion in banter (#2) of ridicule and various degrees 
 of deception, we are not surprised that irony should be closely linked 
 with banter in people’s minds. Although the two words were often 
 coupled with each other as though synonyms, 101 the use of such 
 terms was so casual that this fact should not be given undue im¬ 
 portance. It is more important that people actually used banter 
 with considerable frequency to refer to blame-through-praise, the 
 dominant referent of irony. Out of thirty-six passages chosen at 
 random from the first half of the eighteenth century, passages in 
 which banter as ridicule is applied to a perfectly clear verbal situ¬ 
 ation, slightly over half of the references are to instances of blame- 
 by-praise. That is to say, the sort of ridicule for which people tended 
 to use banter was blame-by-praise irony, although they also used 
 banter for other types of ridicule—as indeed they did irony at 
 times. 
 
 In relating banter to the other terms we have discussed it is pos¬ 
 sible to see why banter became an important word in the Augustan 
 
 age. For the Augustans wit and humour circumscribed the neces¬ 
 sary capacities of the creator, raillery and ridicule emphasized his 
 purpose. They had a number of words to describe his techniques: 
 irony, burlesque, invective , sarcasm, and so on. But many of these 
 techniques put the author in a somewhat new relationship to his 
 audience, a playful, disingenuous, deceptive relationship, and there 
 was no suitable word to emphasize it. We have seen that both irony 
 and raillery, especially in Shaftesbury, moved toward adopting a 
 
 100 The Bee, VI, 195 (No. 70, June 22-29, 1734). 
 
 101 Bayle, Dictionary (1734-38), III, 631. Shaftesbury, Characteristics (1714), 
 Index under “Irony.” Shaftesbury, Characteristics (Robertson), I, 44-45, 50-51. 
 “An Essay on Gibing-” (1727), pp. 5-10. Anthony Collins, Discourse concern¬ 
 ing Ridicule and Irony (1729), pp. 55, 59, and passim. Craftsman (1731), I, 
 102-4 (No. 18, Feb. 7, 1727). John Oldmixon, Logick and Rhetorick (1728), 
 
 pp. 21-28. William Guthrie, Quinctilianus His Institutes (1756), II, 29-30. 
 Female Spectator (1755), III, 319-20. 
 
RAILLERY AND BANTER 
 
 221 
 
 sense of this deceptiveness, but it was banter that came to be widely 
 used for it. 
 
 No doubt this scheme is too neat. The Augustans used this group 
 of terms in a highly casual way. Yet the satiric spirit of the age 
 demanded terms for discussing it, and as usual such a need was met, 
 haphazardly at first, but it was met. The meaning of humour under¬ 
 went basic modifications} wit underwent somewhat futile analysis} 
 ridicule became a philosophy. Burlesque and raillery were imported 
 from the Continent; banter was picked up from the streetcorners; 
 irony came out of the classroom into the market place. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 [In the following- Bibliography are listed the titles referred to in the text and 
 other sources upon which this work is based. Not listed are bibliographies and 
 general surveys which contributed nothing directly, sources examined which con¬ 
 tain no relevant material, and books and articles on irony published since about 
 1760 not referred to in the text.] 
 
 Abercromby, David. A Discourse of Wit. London, 1686. 
 
 Addison, Joseph. The Free-Holder, No. 45, Friday, May 25, 1716. 
 
 (Augustan Reprint Society, Ser. 1, Essays on Wit No. 1, 1946.) 
 Ainsworth, Robert. T hesaurus Linguae Latinae compendiarius . . . Im¬ 
 provements By Samual [tic] Patrick. Third edition; London, 175 I. 
 Aldridge, Alfred Owen. “Shaftesbury and the Test of Truth,” PMLA, 
 XL (1945), 129-60. 
 
 [Apsley, Allen.] Order and Disorder: or, the World Made and Un¬ 
 done. Being Meditations upon the Creation and the Fall. . . . Lon¬ 
 don, 1679. 
 
 Arbuthnot, John. Life and Works. Edited by George A. Aitken. 
 Oxford, 1892. 
 
 Aristophanes. The Birds. Translated by Benjamin Bickley Rogers. 
 Loeb Classical Library. 
 
 - The Clouds. Translated by Benjamin Bickley Rogers. Loeb 
 
 Classical Library. 
 
 ——-- The Wasps. Translated by Benjamin Bickley Rogers. Loeb 
 
 Classical Library. 
 
 Aristotle. The “Art” of Rhetoric. Translated by John Henry Freese. 
 Loeb Classical Library. 
 
 - The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb 
 
 Classical Library. 
 
 Aristotle’s Rhetoric; Or the True Grounds and Principles of Oratory; 
 Shewing, The Right Art of Pleading and Speaking in full Assemblies 
 and Courts of Judicature. Made English By the Translators of the 
 Art of Thinking. In Four Books. London, 1686. 
 
 The Art of Complaisance or the Means to oblige in Conversation. Lon¬ 
 don, 1673. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 223 
 
 The Art of Railing at Great Men: being a Discourse upon Political 
 Railers Ancient and Modern. London, 1723. 
 
 The Art of Streaking: Written In French by Messieurs Du Port Royal: 
 In persuance of a former Treatise, Intituled, The Art of Thinking. 
 Rendred Into English. Second edition; London, 1708 (first pub¬ 
 lished in 1676?). 
 
 Atkins, J. W. H. English Literary Criticism: The Renascence. Lon¬ 
 don, 1947. 
 
 Bacon, Francis. “An Advertisement touching the Controversies of the 
 ■Church of England.” In Collotype Facsimile & Type Transcript 
 of an Elizabethan Manuscript Preserved at Alnwick Castle, North¬ 
 umberland. Edited by Frank J. Burgoyne. London, 1904. 
 
 - Certain Considerations For the better Establishment of the 
 
 Church of England. . . . London, 1689 (first published in 1603). 
 
 - Selections from The Twoo Bookes of the Proficience and Ad¬ 
 vancement of Learning , Divine and Humane. In J. E. Spingarn, 
 Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. I. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 - Works. Edited by James Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. 
 
 Heath. London, 1857—• 
 
 Bailey, Nathan. Dictlonarlum Britannlcum: Or a more Compleat Uni¬ 
 versal Etymological English Dictionary Than any Extant. London, 
 1730. 
 
 - -. London, 1736. 
 
 - An Universal Etymological English Dictionary. Second edi¬ 
 tion; London, 1724. 
 
 - -. Sixth edition; London, 1733. 
 
 - -. Eleventh edition; London, 1745. 
 
 - -. Seventeenth edition; London, 1757. 
 
 - -. Twenty-first edition; London, 1766. 
 
 - - 1 —. Twenty-fifth edition; London, 1790. 
 
 - The Universal Etymological English Dictionary. Vol. II. 
 
 London, 1727. 
 
 - The New Universal Etymological English Dictionary. Vol. II. 
 
 Fifth edition; London, 1760. 
 
 Baldensperger, F. “Les Definitions de 1 ’Humour.” Annales De LPEst, 
 pp. 177-200. 1900. 
 
 Barclay, Alexander, trans. The Ship of Fools. Edinburgh, 1874. Two 
 volumes. 
 
 Baret, John. An Alvearie or Quadruple Dictionarie , containing foure 
 sund.rie tongues: namelie, English, Latine, Greeke, and French. 
 Newlie enriched. . . . [Second edition; 1580.] 
 
 Barker, Henry, trans. The Polite Gentleman; or, Reflections Upon 
 
224 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 the several Kinds of Wit, viz. In Conversation, Books, and Affairs 
 of the World. Done out of French. London, 1700. 
 
 Barrow, Isaac. Works. Published by the Reverend Dr. Tillotson, Dean 
 of Canterbury. Second edition; London, 1687. Three volumes. 
 
 Baxter, Richard. A Paraphrase on the New Testament, with Notes,. 
 Doctrinal and Practical. Third edition; London, 1701. 
 
 Bayle, Peter. The Dictionary Historical and Critical. Second edition; 
 London, 1734-38. Five volumes. 
 
 *- A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical: in which A New 
 
 and Accurate Translation of that of the Celebrated Mr. Bayle is in¬ 
 cluded. . . . By . . . John Peter Bernard . . . Thomas Birch . . . John 
 Lockman; and other Hands. London, 1734-41. Ten volumes. 
 
 - An Historical and Critical Dictionary. Translated into Eng¬ 
 lish. .. . London, 1710. Four volumes. 
 
 The Bee: or, Universal Weekly Pamphlet. February, 1733—June, 
 
 1 735 - 
 
 Bellegarde, L’Abbe de. Models of Conversation For Persons of Polite 
 Education. London, 1765. 
 
 [-] Reflexions upon Ridicule; or, What it is that makes a Man 
 
 ridiculous, and the Means to avoid it. Third edition; London, 1717 
 (first published in 1706). 
 
 Birney, Earle. “English Irony before Chaucer,” University of Toronto 
 Quarterly, VI (I 93 6 ~ 37 )> 53 8 ~ 57 - 
 
 Blackmore, Richard. Essays upon Several Subjects. Vol. I; London, 
 1716. Vol. II; London, 1717. 
 
 - Preface to Prince Arthur, an Heroick Poem. 1695. In J. E. 
 
 Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. III. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1909. 
 
 - Satyr against Wit. 1700. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays 
 
 of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. III. Oxford, 1909. 
 
 Blackwall, Anthony. An Introduction to the Classics: containing a 
 Short Discourse on their Excellencies; and Directions how to Study 
 them to Advantage. With an Essay on the Nature and Use of those 
 Emphatical and Beautiful Figures which give Strength and Orna¬ 
 ment to Writing. Fourth edition; London, 1728. 
 
 - The Sacred Classics Defended and Illustrated: or, An Essay 
 
 Humbly ojjePd towards proving the Purity, Propriety, and True 
 Eloquence Of the Writers of the New Testament. Second edition; 
 London, 1727. 
 
 - The Sacred Classics Defended. . . The Second and Last Vol¬ 
 ume. London, 1731. 
 
 Blount, Thomas. The Academie of Eloquence. C ontaining a Compleat 
 English Rhetorique. . . . London, 1654. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 225 
 
 - Glossographia, or a Dictionary interpreting all such hard words 
 
 ... as are now used in our refined English Tongue. London, 1656. 
 
 - -. Fourth edition; London, 1674. 
 
 Boileau's Lutrin: A Mock-Heroic Poem. In Six Canto's. Rendered 
 into English Verse. To which is prefix'd some Account of Boileau's 
 Writings, and this Translation. By N. Rowe Esq. London, 1708. 
 
 Bolton, Edmund. Hypercritica, or a Rule of Judgement, for writing or 
 reading our History's. 1722. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of 
 the Seventeenth Century, Vol. I. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Bond, Richmond P. English Burlesque Poetry ijoo-ij 50. Cambridge, 
 Mass., 1932. 
 
 A briefe examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put in 
 print in the name and defence of certaine Ministers in London, re- 
 fusyng to weare the apparell prescribed by the lawes and orders of 
 the Realme. [1566.] 
 
 Brinsley, John. The first Booke of Tullies Offices Translated Gram¬ 
 matically. . . . London, 1631. 
 
 Brown, John. “Essay on Satire.” In A Collection of Poems, Vol. III. 
 London, 1770. 
 
 - Essays on the Characteristics. London, 1751. 
 
 Brown, Tom. Amusements Serious and Comical. Letters on Several 
 Occasions. Edited by Arthur L. Hayward. London, 1927. 
 
 - The Remains of Mr. Tho. Brown, Serious and Comical, in Prose 
 
 and Verse. In One Volume. Collected from scarce Papers and 
 Original Mss. Which makes his Works Compleat. . . . London, 
 1720. 
 
 - Twenty Select Colloquies out of Erasmus Roterodamus. By Sir 
 
 Roger L'Estrange. To which are added, Seven New Colloquies, As 
 Also The Life of Erasmus. By Mr. Brown. London, 1699. 
 
 [-] Wit for Money: or, Poet Stutter. . . . London, 1691. 
 
 - The Works of Mr. Thomas Brown, Serious and Comical, In 
 
 Prose and Verse. Fifth edition; London, 1720. Four volumes. 
 
 Browne, Thomas. Christian Morals . . . Published from the Original 
 and Correct Manuscript of the Author; by John Jeffery, D.D. Arch- 
 Deacon of Norwich. Cambridge, 1716. 
 
 - Pseudodoxia Epidemica or Enquiries into Very Many Received 
 
 Tenents and Commonly Presumed Truths. In Works. Edited by 
 Charles Sayle. London, 1904. 
 
 Bruyere, Jean de la. The Character, or the Manners of the Age . . . 
 Made English by several hands. With the Characters of Theophras¬ 
 tus, Translated from the Greek. And a Prefatory Discourse to them, 
 by Monsieur de la Bruyere. London, 1699 (a separate title page 
 for the Characters of Theophrastus dated 1698). 
 
226 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Budgell, Eustace, trans. The Moral Characters of Theophrastus. Sec¬ 
 ond edition; London, 1714 (first published in 1713). 
 
 Bullitt, John M. Jonathan Swift and the Anatomy of Satire. Cam¬ 
 bridge, Mass., 1953. 
 
 Bullokar, John. An English Expositor: Teaching the Interpretation of 
 the hardest words used in our Language. . . . London, 1621. 
 
 - The English Expositor Improv’d... And now carefully Re¬ 
 vised.... By R. Browne.... Twelfth edition; London, 1719. 
 
 Bulstrode, Richard. Miscellaneous Essays. London, 1715. 
 
 B[ulwer], J[ohn]. Chirologia: or the Naturall Language of the Hand. 
 Composed of the Speaking Motions, and Discoursing Gestures there¬ 
 of. Whereunto is added Chironomia: Or, the Art of Manuall Rhe- 
 toricke. London, 1644. 
 
 - Pathomyotomia or a Dissection Of the significative Muscles of 
 
 the Affections of the Minde. London, 1649. 
 
 Burton, Robert. The Anatomy of Melancholy, What It Is. Oxford, 
 1621. 
 
 - The Anatomy of Melancholy. Edited by Lloyd Dell and Paul 
 
 Jordan-Smith. New York [1927?]. 
 
 Butler, Samuel. Characters and Passages from Note-Books. Edited by 
 A. R. Waller. Cambridge, 1908. 
 
 Cambridge, Richard Owen. The Scribleriad: An Heroic Poem In Six 
 Books. London, 1752. 
 
 - Works. London, 1803. 
 
 Casa, Giovanni della. Galateo, of Manners and Behaviours in Familiar 
 Conversation. Translated by Robert Peterson. 1576. Edited by 
 Herbert J. Reid. 1892. 
 
 Catherall, Samuel. Eiy.cov EwxpaTty.Y] or, A Portraiture of Socrates, Ex¬ 
 tracted out of Plato. In Blank Verse. Oxford, 1717. 
 
 Cawdry, Robert. A Table Alfhabeticall, conteyning and teaching the 
 true writing, and understanding of hard usuall English wordes, bor¬ 
 rowed from the Hebrew, Greeke, Latine, or French, etc. With 
 the interpretation thereof by plaine English words. . . . London,, 
 1604. (Modern Language Association of America, photographic 
 facsimile.) 
 
 Censor, The. [Lewis Theobald.] London, 1717. Three volumes. 
 
 Chaloner, Thomas, trans. The praise of Folie. London, 1549. 
 
 Chambers, Ephraim. Cyclopaedia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts 
 and Sciences. London, 1728. Two volumes. 
 
 - -. Fifth edition; London, 1741, 1743. Two vol¬ 
 umes. 
 
 - Cyclopaedia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 
 
 . . .revised by Abraham Rees, D.D. London, 1778-88. Four vol¬ 
 umes. 
 
 Chandler, Samuel. The History of Persecution, In Four Parts. Lon¬ 
 don, 1736. 
 
 - Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists, In their late 
 
 Writings against Christianity. . . . London, 1727. 
 
 Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope, Fourth Earl of. Fetters. Edited 
 by Bonamy Dobree. London, 1932. Six volumes. 
 
 - Letters . . . to His Son. Edited by Charles Strachey with Notes 
 
 by Annette Calthrop. New York, 1901. Two volumes. 
 
 Chevalier, Haakon M. The Ironic Temper: Anatole France and His 
 Time. New York, 1932. 
 
 Cibber, Colley. Dramatic Works. Vol. III. London, 1760. 
 
 Cicero. Academica. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Li¬ 
 brary. 
 
 - Brutus. Translated by G. L. Hendrickson. Orator. Trans¬ 
 lated by H. M. Hubbell. Loeb Classical Library. 
 
 - De offlciis. Translated by Walter Miller. Loeb Classical Li¬ 
 brary. 
 
 - On Oratory and Orators with his Letters to Quintus and Brutus. 
 
 Translated by J. S. Watson. London, 1862. (Bohn Library.) 
 
 Clark, Donald Lemen. Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance. New 
 York, 1922. 
 
 Clarke, John. An Essay upon Study. London, 1731. 
 
 Clarke, M. L. Greek Studies in England 1J00-18go. Cambridge, 
 I945 ‘ 
 
 Cobb, Samuel. “A Discourse on Criticism” and “Of Poetry” from 
 Poems on Several Occasions. 1707. (Augustan Reprint Society, 
 Ser. 2, Essays on Poetry and Language No. 1, 1946.) 
 
 Cocker, Edward. Cocker’s English Dictionary. .. . London, 1704. 
 
 - -. Third edition; London, 1724. 
 
 Cockeram, Henry. The English Dictionaries or, An Interpreter of hard 
 English Words. . . . Second edition; London, 1626. 
 
 - -. Sixth edition; London, 1639. 
 
 - -. London, 1623. Reprinted with a prefatory note 
 
 by C. B. Tinker. New York, 1930. 
 
 Cockman, Thomas. Tully’s Offices, In English. Third edition; Lon¬ 
 don, 1714 (first published in 1699). 
 
 Coles, Elisha. A Dictionary English-Latin, and Latin-English. Sec¬ 
 
 ond edition; London, 1679. 
 
 - An English Dictionary. London, 1676. 
 
 - An English Dictionary. Newly Corrected, and much Improved. 
 
 London, 1732. 
 
228 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 [Collins, Anthony.] A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in 
 Writing, in a Letter To the Reverend Dr. Nathanael Marshall. Lon¬ 
 don, 1729. 
 
 [-] A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Re¬ 
 
 ligion. London, 1724. 
 
 [-] A Letter To the Reverend Dr. Rogers, on Occasion of his 
 
 Eight Sermons, concerning the Necessity of Divine Revelation, and 
 the Preface prefix’d to them. London, 1727. 
 
 [-] Priestcraft in Perfection: or, a Detection of the Fraud of In¬ 
 
 serting and Continuing this Clause (The Church hath Power to De¬ 
 cree Rites and Ceremonys, and Authority in Controversys of Faith ) 
 In the Twentieth Article of the Articles of the Church of England. 
 London, 1710. 
 
 [-] The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered; in a View of 
 
 the Controversy, Occasioned by a late Book, intitled, A Discourse 
 of the Grounds and Reasons. . . . London, 1727. 
 
 A Complete Key to the Tale of a Tub. London, 1710. 
 
 Congreve, William. Concerning Humour in Comedy. 1695. In J. 
 E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. III. 
 Oxford, 1909. 
 
 Connoisseur, The. London, 1755. Two volumes. 
 
 Constable, John. Reflections upon Accuracy of Style. London, 1734. 
 
 Cooper, John Gilbert. The Life of Socrates. . . . Second edition; Lon¬ 
 don, 1750. 
 
 Cooper, Lane. An Aristotelian Theory of Comedy with an Adaptation 
 of the Poetics and a Translation of the ( Tractatus Coislinianus.’ New 
 York, 1922. 
 
 Cooper, Thomas. Thesaurus Linguae Romanae & Britannicae. . . . 
 London, 1578. 
 
 Cornford, Francis Macdonald. The Origin of Attic Comedy. Cam¬ 
 bridge, 1934. 
 
 Cotgrave, Randle. A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues. 
 London, 1611. 
 
 - A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues. Where¬ 
 unto is also annexed a most copious Dictionarie, of the English set 
 before the French. By R. fobert ] S. \herwood~\ L. [ondoner]. Lon¬ 
 don, 1632. 
 
 [Cotton, Charles.] Burlesque upon Burlesque: or, The Scoffer Scoft. 
 Being some of Lucians Dialogues Newly put into English Fustian. . . . 
 London, 1675. 
 
 Coverdale, Miles. A confutation of that treatise which one John Stand- 
 ish made agaynst the protestation of D. Barnes in the yeare M.D. 
 XL. In Remains of Myles Coverdale. Edited by the Rev. George 
 Pearson. Cambridge, 1846. (Parker Society.) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 
 
 Cowley, Abraham. Preface to Poems. 1656. In J. E. Spingarn, Criti¬ 
 cal Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. II. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Craftsman, The. 1726—. 
 
 Craftsman, The. Vols. I-VII. London, 1731. 
 
 Craftsman, The. Vols. VIII-XIII. London, 1737. 
 
 Craik, Henry. The Life of Jonathan Swift. Second edition; London, 
 1894. Two volumes. 
 
 Cranmer, Thomas. An Answer unto A crafty and. sophistic all cavilla- 
 tion devised by M. Steven Gardiner. . . . London, 1551. 
 
 Croll, Morris W. “ ‘Attic Prose’ in the Seventeenth Century,” Studies 
 in Philology, XVIII (1921), 79-128. 
 
 Cross, Wilbur L. The History of Henry Fielding. New Haven, 1918. 
 Three volumes. 
 
 Dacier, Andre. The Works of Plato, With an Account of his Life, Philos¬ 
 ophy, Morals, and Politicks. Together with a Translation of his 
 choicest Dialogues. . . . Illustrated with Notes. By M. Dacier. 
 Translated from the French. London, 1701. Two volumes. 
 
 Danett, Thomas, trans. The History of Comines Englished by Thomas 
 Danett anno 1596. With an Introduction by Charles Whibley. 
 Vol. II. London, 1897. 
 
 Daniel, George. The Poems of George Daniel. Edited by Alexander 
 B. Grosart. 1878. Four volumes. 
 
 Davies, Myles. Athenae Britannicae: or, A Critical History of the Ox¬ 
 ford and Cambridge Writers and Writings. .. . London, 1716. 
 Two volumes. 
 
 Davis, Herbert. The Satire of Jonathan Swift. New York, 1947. 
 
 Day, Angel. The English Secretorie: Or, plaine and direct Method, for 
 the enditing of all manner of Epistles or Letters. . . . Studiously, now 
 corrected, refined & amended . . . Together falsof with the second 
 part. . . . London, 1595 (the first part first published in 1586). 
 
 The D- -n of W—r still the same: Or, His New Defence of the 
 Lord Bishop of BangoPs Sermon, &c. consider'd As the Performance 
 of a Great Critick, a Man of Sense, and a Man of Probity. London, 
 1720. (On authorship see Richard Steele, Correspondence [Blanch¬ 
 ard], p. 118.) 
 
 [De Britaine, William.] Humane Prudence, or the Art By which a 
 Man may Raise Himself and his Fortune to Grandeur. Eighth edi¬ 
 tion; London, 1700. 
 
 Dedekind, Friedrich. Grobianus; or, the Compleat Booby. An Ironical 
 Poem . . . Done into English, from the Original Latin of Friderick 
 Dedekindus, By Roger Bull, Esq. London, 1739. 
 
 Defoe, B. N. A Compleat English Dictionary. Westminster, 1735. 
 
230 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Defoe, Daniel. The Compleat English Gentleman. Edited by Karl 
 D. Bulbring. London, 1890. 
 
 - Explanation of the Shortest Way with the Dissenters. In Select 
 
 Documents for Queen Anne’s Reign. . . . Edited by G. M. Tre¬ 
 velyan. Cambridge, 1929. 
 
 [-] The Pacificator. A Poem. London, 1700. 
 
 - The True-Born Englishman. London, 1910. 
 
 Delaney, Patrick. Observations upon Lord Orrery’s Remarks on the 
 Life and Writings of Dr. Jonathan Swift. London, 1754. 
 
 Demosthenes. Philippics. Translated by J. H. Vince. Loeb Classical 
 Library. 
 
 - Several Orations of Demosthenes, To encourage the Athenians 
 
 To Oppose the Exorbitant Power of Philip of Macedon. English’d 
 from the Greek by several Hands. London, 1702. 
 
 Dennis, John. Critical Works. Edited by Edward Niles Hooker. Balti¬ 
 more, 1939, 1943. Two volumes. 
 
 [Dodd, William.] A Day in Vacation at College. A Burlesque Poem. 
 London, 1751. 
 
 Douay, English College of. The Second Tome of the Holie Bible Faith¬ 
 fully Translated into English. . . . Rouen, 1635. 
 
 Dove, John. Atheism Defned and confuted by undeniable Arguments; 
 Drazvne from Scripture (A Reason. London, 1656. [Second title 
 page:] A Confutation of Atheisme. London, 1640 (first published 
 in 1605). 
 
 Draper, John W. “The Theory of the Comic in Eighteenth-Century 
 England,” JEGP, XXXVII (1938), 207-23. 
 
 Drayton, Michael. Epistle to Henry Reynolds, of Poets and Poesie. 
 1627. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, 
 Vol. I. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Dryden, John. The Best of Dry den. Edited by Louis I. Bredvold. New 
 York, 1939. 
 
 - Essays. Edited by W. P. Ker. Oxford, 1900. 
 
 - “The Life of Lucian, A Discourse on his Writings” in The 
 
 Works of Lucian, Translated from the Greek, by several Eminent 
 Hands. London, 1710-11. Four volumes. 
 
 - Life of Plutarch in Plutarch’s Lives. Translated From the 
 
 Greek by Several Hands. London, 1683-86. Five volumes. 
 
 - The Prologues and Epilogues. Edited by William Bradford 
 
 Gardner. New York, 1951. 
 
 - Works. Edited by Sir 'Walter Scott and George Saintsbury. 
 
 London, 1882-93. Eighteen volumes. 
 
 Dyche, Thomas. A New General English Dictionary . . . Originally be¬ 
 gun by the late Reverend Mr. Thomas Dyche . . . and now finished 
 by William Pardon. . . . Twelfth edition; London, 1765. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 231 
 
 Eachard, John. The Grounds & Occasions of the Contempt of the 
 Clergy and Religion Enquired into. In a Tetter written to R. L. 
 London, 1670. 
 
 - Some Opinions of Mr Hobbs Considered in a Second Dialogue 
 
 between Philautus and Timothy. London, 1673. 
 
 Earbery, Matthias. A Serious Admonition to Doctor Rennet, in order 
 to Perswade him to forbear the Character of an Impartial Historian. 
 London [n.d]. 
 
 Edwards, John. A Discourse Concerning the Authority, Stile, and Per¬ 
 fection of the Books of the Old and New Testament. Vol. III. 
 London, 1695. 
 
 - Some New Discoveries of the Uncertainty, Deficiency, and Cor¬ 
 ruptions of Human Knowledge and Teaming ... To which is added, 
 A Defence of Sharp Reflections and Censures on Writers and Their 
 Opinions. .. . London, 1714. 
 
 Eliot, John. Ortho-epia Gallica. Eliots Fruits for the French: Enter- 
 laced with a double new Invention, which teacheth to speake truely, 
 speedily and volubly the French-tongue. London, 1593. 
 
 Elyot, Thomas. Bibliotheca Eliotae . . . the second tyme enriched ... by 
 Thomas Cooper.... London, 1552. 
 
 - Bibliotheca Eliotae ... by Thomas Cooper the third tyme cor¬ 
 rected. . . . London, 1559. 
 
 - The Boke Named the Governour. Edited by H. H. S. Croft. 
 
 London, 1880. Two volumes. 
 
 Erasmus. The Praise of Folly. Translated by John Wilson. 1668. 
 
 Edited by Mrs. P. S. Allen. Oxford, 1925. 
 
 “An Essay on Gibing.” In Miscellanea, Vol. II, pp. 1-22. London, 
 
 I 7 2 7- 
 
 An Essay on the New Species of Writing founded by Mr. Fielding: 
 With a Word or Two upon the Modern State of Criticism. Lon¬ 
 don, 1751. 
 
 An Essay on Wit: To which is annexed, A Dissertation on Antient and 
 Modern History. London, 1748. (Augustan Reprint Society, Ser. 
 1, Essays on Wit No. 2, 1946.) 
 
 An Essay upon Sublime. Translated from the Greek of .. . Tonginus . . . 
 
 Compar’d with the French of .. . Boileau. Oxford, 1698. 
 
 An Essay upon the Taste and Writings of the Present Times . . . Oc¬ 
 casion’d by a late Volume of Miscellanies by A. Pope, Esq.; and Dr. 
 Swift. Inscrib’d to the Right Honourable Sir Robert Walpole. Lon¬ 
 don, 1728. 
 
 Essays Divine, Moral, and Political. . . By the Author of the Tale of a 
 Tub, sometime the Writer of the Examiner, and the Original In¬ 
 ventor of the Band-Box-Plot. London, 1714. 
 
232 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Farquhar, George. A Discourse upon Comedy, in Reference to the 
 English Stage. 1702. In W. H. Durham, Critical Essays of the 
 Eighteenth Century 1700-172 5. New Haven, 1915. 
 
 Felltham, Owen. Resolves: Divine, Moral, Political. The Eighth Im¬ 
 pression. London, 1661. 
 
 [Felton, Henry.] A Dissertation On Reading the Classics, And Form¬ 
 ing a Just Style. Written in the Year 1709. London, 1713. 
 
 The Female Spectator. [Eliza Haywood.] Fifth edition; London, 
 1775 (first issued in 1744-46). Four volumes. 
 
 Fenelon, Salignac de la M. Dialogues concerning Eloquence . . . Trans¬ 
 lated from the French . . . By William Stevenson. Glasgow, 1750. 
 
 Ferguson, Robert. The Interest of Reason in Religion; with the Im¬ 
 port Use of Scripture-Metaphors. . . . London, 1675. 
 
 Fielding, Henry. Amelia. London [n.d.] (Navarre Society, Ltd., three 
 volumes.) 
 
 -] Common Sense: or, the Englishman’s Journal. London, 
 
 [ 
 
 I738. 
 
 - The Covent-Garden Journal. Edited by G. E. Jensen. New 
 
 Haven, 1915. Two volumes. 
 
 -——■] The Jacobite’s Journal. December 5, 1747-. 
 
 - Jonathan Wild. London [n.d.]. (Navarre Society, Ltd.) 
 
 - Joseph Andrews. New York, 1939. (Modern Library.) 
 
 -] A Proper Answer To A Late Scurrilous Libel, entitled, An 
 
 Apology for the Conduct of a late celebrated Second-rate Minister. 
 Second edition; London, 1748. 
 
 - T om Jones. Modern Library. 
 
 - Works. Edited by Leslie Stephen. London, 1822. Ten 
 
 volumes. 
 
 - and Edward Young. 
 
 Plutus, the God of Riches. A Comedy. 
 Translated from the Original Greek of Aristophanes. . . . London, 
 
 .. I7 . 42- 
 
 [Fielding, Sarah.] The Cry: A New Dramatic Fable. Vol. III. Lon¬ 
 don, 1754. 
 
 Fiske, George Converse. “The Plain Style in the Scipionic Circle,” 
 University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, No. 3 
 (1919), pp. 62-106. 
 
 Flecknoe, Richard. Enigmaticall Characters, All Taken to the Life, 
 from severall Persons, Humours, & Dispositions. 1658. 
 
 F.[lecknoe], R.[ichard]. Sixtynine Enigmatical Characters, All Very 
 exactly drawn to the Life. . . . Second edition; London, 1665. (Au¬ 
 gustan Reprint Society, Ser. 1, Essays on Wit No. 2, 1946.) 
 
 Florio, John. A Worlde of Wordes, Or Most copious, and exact Dic- 
 tionarie in Italian and English. . . . London, 1598. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 233 
 
 Fog’s Weekly Journal, No. 239, Saturday, June 2, 1733. 
 
 The Fox with his Fire-brand IJ nkennell’d and Insnar’d: Or, a Short 
 Answer to Mr. Daniel Foe’s Shortest Way with the Dissenters. As 
 also to his Brief Explanation of the same. London, 1703. 
 
 Foxe, John. Actes and Monuments. 1596. 
 
 Fraunce, Abraham. The Arcadian Rhetorike. London [1588]. 
 
 The Free-Holder, or Political Essays. [Joseph Addison.] London, 1716. 
 Fuller, Thomas. The Holy State. The Profane State. Cambridge, 
 1642. 
 
 - Two Sermons: The first, Comfort in Calamitie. ... The other, 
 
 The Grand Assizes. . . . London, 1654. 
 
 Gaily, Henry. The Moral Characters of Theophrastus. Translated 
 from The Greek, with Notes. To which is prefix’d A Critical Essay 
 on Characteristic-Writings. London, 1725. 
 
 Gascoigne, George. Certayne Notes of Instruction. London, 1575. In 
 G. Gregory Smith, Elizabethan Critical Essays, Vol. I. Oxford, 
 I9°4- 
 
 Gay, John. The Present State of Wit, in a Letter to a Friend in the- 
 Country. London, 1711. (Augustan Reprint Society, Ser. 1, Es¬ 
 says on Wit No. 3, 1947.) 
 
 Gayton, Edmund. Festivous Notes on the History and Adventures Of 
 the Renowned Don Quixote. Revised, with Corrections, Alterations, 
 and Additions ... By the Editor. London, 1768. 
 
 - Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot. London, 1654. 
 
 Geddes, James. An Essay on the Composition and Manner of Writing 
 of the Antients, particularly Plato. Glasgow, 1748. 
 
 The Gentleman’s Journal: or the Monthly Miscellany. Tanuary, 1692 
 -—November, 1694. 
 
 The Gentleman’s Magazine. 1731-. 
 
 Gildon, Charles. “To my Honoured and Ingenious Friend Mr. Har¬ 
 rington, for the Modern Poets against the Ancients.” 1694. In 
 W. H. Durham, Critical Essays of the Eighteenth Century ijoo- 
 1725. New Haven, 1915. 
 
 [Glanvill, Joseph.] A Blow at Modern Sadducism In some Philosoph¬ 
 ical Considerations about Witchcraft.. .With some Reflections on 
 Drollery, and Atheisme. London, 1668. 
 
 - A Seasonable Defence of Preaching: and the Plain Way of it. 
 
 London, 1678. 
 
 [Gother, John.] Good Advice to the Pulpits, Deliver’d in a few Cau¬ 
 tions For the keeping up the Reputation of those Chairs, And Pre¬ 
 serving the Nation in Peace. London, 1687. 
 
 Goulston, Theodore. Aristotelis de Rhetorica. . . . London, 1619. 
 
234 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Granger, Thomas. Syntagma Logicum, or, The Divine Logike. Serv¬ 
 ing especially for the use of Divines in the practise of preaching, and 
 for the further helpe of judicious Hearers, and generally for all. Lon¬ 
 don, 1620. 
 
 Grant, Mary A. The Ancient Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable. 
 Madison, Wise., 1924. (University of Wisconsin Studies in Lan¬ 
 guage and Literature, No. 21.) 
 
 Granville, George, Lord Lansdowne. An Essay upon Unnatural Flights 
 in Poetry. 1701. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seven¬ 
 teenth Century, Vol. III. Oxford, 1909. 
 
 Gray, Charles Harold. Theatrical Criticism in London to 1795. New 
 York, 1931. 
 
 Greville, Fulke. The Life of the Renowned Sr Philip Sidney. London, 
 1652. 
 
 Grey, Zachary. Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes upon Hudi- 
 bras . . . with A Dissertation upon Burlesque Poetry. By Montagu 
 Bacon. .. . London, 1752. 
 
 Grimalde, Nicolas, trans. Marcus Tullius Ciceroes thre bookes of duties, 
 to Marcus his sonne. [London] 1558 (first published in 1553). 
 
 The Grub-street Journal. 1730-. 
 
 The Guardian. In The British Essayists, Vols. XIII-XV. Edited by 
 Alexander Chalmers. Boston, 1856. 
 
 Guazzo, Steeven. The Civile Conversation of M. Steeven Guax-z.0. . . . 
 With an Introduction by Sir Edward Sullivan. London & New 
 York, 1925. Two volumes. (Tudor Translations, Second series, 
 VII.) 
 
 Guilletiere [Georges Guillet de St. Georges]. An Account of a Late 
 Voyage to Athens, containing the Estate both Ancient and Modern 
 of that Famous City. . . . Now Englished. London, 1676. 
 
 Gulliver DecyphePd: or Remarks On a late Book, intitled, Travels into 
 several Remote Nations of the World. By Capt. Lemuel Gulliver. 
 Vindicating The Reverend Dean on whom it is maliciously FathePd. 
 Second edition; London [1726?]. 
 
 Gulliveriana: or, a Fourth Volume of Miscellanies. Being a Sequel of 
 the Three Volumes, published by Pope and Swift. To zvhich is added, 
 Alexanderiana; or, A Comparison between the Ecclesiastical and Poeti¬ 
 cal Pope. And many Things, in Verse and Prose, relating to the 
 latter. [Jonathan Smedley.] London, 1728. 
 
 Guthrie, William, trans. M. Fabius Quinctilianus His Institutes of Elo¬ 
 quence. .. . London, 1756. Two volumes. 
 
 - The Morals of Cicero. London, 1744 - 
 
 - M. T. Cicero De Oratore. . . . Boston, 1882 (first published in 
 
 1742?). 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 235 
 
 - M. T. Cicero His Offices. . . . London, 1755. 
 
 Guyse, John. The Scripture-notion of -preaching Christ further clear’d 
 and vindicated. . . . London, 1730. 
 
 H[all], J[ohn]. IIspc UX 0U ?> Or Dionysius Longinus of the Height of 
 Eloquence. Rendred out of the Originall. London, 1652. 
 
 [Hall, Joseph.] Virgidemiarum, Sixe Bookes. . . . London, 1597. 
 
 - Works. Oxford (D. A. Talboys), 1837. Twelve volumes. 
 
 Hall, Thomas. Vindiciae Liter arum. The Schools Guarded: or, the 
 Excellency and Usefulnesse of Humane Learning in Subordination to 
 Divinity, and preparation to the Ministry-, As Also, Rules for the 
 expounding of the Holy Scriptures: With a Synopsis of the most ma- 
 teriall Tropes and Figures contained in the Sacred Scriptures. Lon¬ 
 don, 1655. 
 
 [Hanmer, Thomas? ] Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet. . . . 
 1736. (Augustan Reprint Society, Ser. 3, Essays on the Stage No. 
 3 > i 947 -) 
 
 [Hare, Francis.] The Difficulties and Discouragements Which attend 
 the Study of the Scriptures In the Way of Private Judgment-, Repre¬ 
 sented in a Letter to a Young Clergyman . . . To which is annexed. 
 The Censure of the Lower House of Convocation upon This Book. 
 Seventh edition; London, 1716 (first published in 1714). 
 
 - A New Defence of the Lord Bishop of Bangor’s Sermon on 
 
 John xviii.30. London, 1720. 
 
 Harington, Sir John. A Preface, or rather a Briefe Apologie of Poetrie, 
 and of the Author and Translator, prefixed to Harington’s transla¬ 
 tion of Orlando Furioso. 1591. In G. Gregory Smith, Elizabethan 
 Critical Essays, Vol. II. Oxford, 1904. 
 
 Harris, John. Lexicon Technicum: or, an Universal English Dictionary 
 of Arts and Sciences. . . . London, 1704. 
 
 - -. Vol. I. Third edition; London, 1726. 
 
 Harte, Walter. An Essay on Satire, Particularly on the Dunciad. To 
 which is added, A Discourse on Satires, Arraigning Persons by Name. 
 By Monsieur Boileau. London, 1730 - 
 
 Hartley, David. Observations on Man, His Frame, His Duty, and His 
 Expectations. London, 1749. 
 
 Harvey, Gabriel. Letter-Book. Edited by E. J. L. Scott. 1884. 
 (Camden Society, New ser., Vol. 33.) 
 
 - Marginalia. Edited by G. C. Moore Smith. Stratford-upon- 
 
 Avon, 1913. 
 
 - Works. Edited by Alexander B. Grosart. 1884. Three vol¬ 
 umes. (Huth Library.) 
 
236 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Healey, John. Epictetus Manuall. Cebes Table. Theophrastus Char¬ 
 acters. London, 1616. 
 
 Heltzel, Virgil Barney. “Chesterfield and the Tradition of the Ideal 
 Gentleman.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 
 x 9 2 5 - 
 
 Henley, John. An Oration on Grave Conundrums, and Serious Buf¬ 
 foons; Justifying Burlesque Teaching . . . Being No. VI of Oratory- 
 Transactions. London, 1729. 
 
 Herbert, Thomas. Some Years Travels into Divers Parts of Africa and 
 Asia the Great. Fourth impression; London, 1677. 
 
 Heywood, Thomas. Pleasant Dialogues and DrammaJ s, Selected out of 
 Lucian, Erasmus, Textor, Ovid, &c. . . . London, 1637. 
 
 Hickes, Francis. Certaine Select Dialogues of Lucian: Together with 
 His True Historie, Translated from the Greeke. . . . IVhereunto is 
 added the life of Lucian . . . by T. [homas] H. [ickes]. . . . Oxford, 
 1634. 
 
 Hobbes, Thomas. The Answer... to Sr. Will. D’AvenantJs Preface 
 Before Gondibert. 1650. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the 
 Seventeenth Century, Vol. II. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 - The Art of Rhetoric Plainly Set Forth. London, 1681. In 
 
 English Works, Vol. VI. Edited by Sir William Molesworth. Lon¬ 
 don, 1840. 
 
 [-] A Briefe of the Arte of Rhetorique. Containing in substance 
 
 all that Aristotle hath written in his Three Bookes of that subject, 
 Except onely what is not applicable to the English Tongue. Lon¬ 
 don [1637?]. 
 
 - Hobbes’s Leviathan. Reprinted from the Edition of 1651. 
 
 With an Essay by W. G. Pogson Smith. Oxford, 1909. 
 
 Hoby, Thomas, trans. The Book of the Courtier by Count Baldassare 
 Castiglione Done into English . . . 1561. Everyman’s Library. 
 
 Holland, Philemon, trans. The Philosophie, commonlie called, The 
 Morals Written by the learned Philosopher Plutarch of Chaeronea. 
 London, 1603. 
 
 Holyoke, Francis. Dictionarium Etymologicum Latinum . . . Lastly 
 [John] Riders Dictionarie. . . . Oxford, 1627. 
 
 Hooker, Edward N. “Humour in the Age of Pope,” Huntington Li¬ 
 brary Quarterly, XI (1947-48), 361-85. 
 
 Hooper, John. A Declaration of the Ten Holy Commandments of Al¬ 
 mighty God. 1548. In Early Writings of John Hooper, D.D. 
 Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester, Martyr, 7555. Cam¬ 
 bridge, 1843. (Parker Society.) 
 
 Hoskins, John. Directions for Speech and Style. Edited by Hoyt H. 
 Hudson. Princeton, 1935. (Princeton Studies in English, No. 12.) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 237 
 
 An Hue and Cry after Dr. S — t; Occasion’d by a True and Exact 
 Co-py of Part of his own Diary, found in his Pocket-Book, wherein 
 he has set down a faithful Account of himself, and of all that hap¬ 
 pen’d to him for the last Week of his Life. Second edition; Lon¬ 
 don, 1714. 
 
 Hughes, John. Of Style. 1735 (first published in 1698). In W. H. 
 Durham, Critical Essays of the Eighteenth Century 1700-172 5. 
 New Haven, 1915. 
 
 Huloet, Richard. Huloets Dictionarie, newelye corrected, amended, set 
 in order and enlarged. . . . And in eche place fit Phrases, gathered 
 out of the best Latin Authors. Also the Frenche thereunto an¬ 
 nexed. ... By John Higgins late student in Oxeforde. London, 
 I 57 2 - 
 
 Hultzen, Lee Sisson. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric in England to 1600.” Un¬ 
 published Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1932. 
 
 The Humourist. [Thomas Gordon.] Vol. I; London, 1720. Vol. 
 II; London, 1725. 
 
 Hutcheson, Francis. Reflections upon Laughter, and Remarks upon 
 The Fable of the Bees. Carefully corrected. Glasgow, 1750 (first 
 published in 1726). 
 
 Hutton, Henry. Follie’s Anatomies or Satyres & Satyricall Epigrams . . . 
 From the original tract printed in i6ig. Edited by E. F. Rimbault. 
 London, 1842. (Percy Society.) 
 
 Jarvis, Charles, trans. The Life and Exploits Of the ingenious gentle¬ 
 man Don Quixote De La Mancha. London, 1742. Two volumes. 
 
 [Jeffery, Thomas.] A R eview of the Controversy Between the Au¬ 
 thor of a Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Re¬ 
 ligion, And his Adversaries. London, 1726. 
 
 Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. Second edi¬ 
 tion; London, 1755-56. Two volumes. 
 
 —- Lives of the English Poets. Edited by George Birkbeck Hill. 
 
 Oxford, 1905. Three volumes. 
 
 Jones, Richard F. “The Attack on Pulpit Eloquence in the Restoration: 
 An Episode in the Development of the Neo-Classical Standard for 
 Prose,” JEGP, XXX (1931), 188-217. 
 
 Jonson, Ben. Dedicatory epistle before Volpone. 1607. In J. E. 
 Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. I. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1908. 
 
 •- Works. Edited by C. H. Herford and Percy Simpson. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1925-. Ten volumes. 
 
238 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 K., J. [John Kersey?]. A New English Dictionary. Third edition; 
 London, 1731. 
 
 [Kennett, White, trans.] Moriae Encomium: or, a Panegyrick upon 
 Folly. Written in Latin hy Desiderius Erasmus. Done into Eng¬ 
 lish. . . . London, 1709 (first published in 1683). 
 
 [King, William.] Some Remarks on the Tale of a Tub .. . By the Au¬ 
 thor of the Journey to London. London, 1704. 
 
 Knowles, Edwin B., Jr. “Allusions to Don Quixote before 1660,” 
 Philological Quarterly, XX (1941), 573-86. 
 
 - Four Articles on Don Quixote in England. New York, 1941. 
 
 Lawson, John. Lectures Concerning Oratory. Delivered in Trinity 
 College, Dublin. Third edition; Dublin, 1760. 
 
 [Leigh, Richard.] The Transproser Rehears’d: or the Fifth Act of Mr. 
 Bayes’s Play. . . . Oxford, 1673. 
 
 Le Roux, Philibert Joseph. Dictionaire Comique, Satyrique, Critique, 
 Burlesque, Libre (A Proverbial. .. . Alion, 1735. 
 
 - Dictionaire Comique, Satyrique, Critique, Burlesque, Libre & 
 
 Proverbial. Amsterdam, 1750. 
 
 [Leslie, Charles.] The Best Answer Ever was Made. And to which 
 no Answer Ever will be Made. London, 1709. 
 
 [-] The Bishop of Salisbury’s Proper Defence, from a Speech 
 
 Cry’d about the Streets in his Name, and Said to have been Spoken 
 by him in the House of Lords, upon the Bill Against Occasional Con¬ 
 formity. London, 1704. 
 
 L’Estrange, Roger. Tully’s Offices . . . Turned out of Latin into Eng¬ 
 lish. Second edition; London, 1681 (first published in 1680). 
 
 Lloyd, David. Memoires of the Lives, Actions, Sufferings & Deaths of 
 those Noble, Reverend, and Excellent Personages, That Suffered . . . 
 for the Protestant Religion, And the great Principle thereof, Alle¬ 
 giance T0 their Soveraigne, In our late Intestine Wars. . . . Lon¬ 
 don, 1668. 
 
 [-] The Worthies of the World: or, The Lives Of the most 
 
 Heroick Greeks and Romans Compared, By . . . Plutarch . . . Eng¬ 
 lished and Abridged ... To which are added More Lives ... By sev¬ 
 eral Hands. London, 1665. 
 
 Locke, John. Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Edited by R. H. 
 Quick. Cambridge, 1902. 
 
 The London Journal, No. 938, Saturday, July 9, Q37- 
 
 The London Magazine: or. Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer. 
 
 732-• 
 
 Longinus. On Literary Excellence. In Allan H. Gilbert, Literary 
 Criticism: Plato to Dry den. New York [1940]. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 
 
 Lucian. The Works of Lucian of Samosata. Translated by H. W. 
 Fowler and F. G. Fowler. Oxford, 1905. Four volumes. 
 
 Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. Translated by W. H. D. Rouse. Loeb 
 Classical Library. 
 
 McCutcheon, Roger Philip. “The Beginnings of Book-Reviewing in 
 English Periodicals,” PMLA, XXXVII (1922), 691-706. 
 
 Macdonald, Hugh. “Banter in English Controversial Prose after the 
 Restoration,” Essays and Studies by Members of the English Associa¬ 
 tion , Vol. XXXII, 1946. 
 
 - John Dryden: A Bibliography of Early Editions and of Dry- 
 
 deniana. Oxford, 1939. 
 
 McGrew, J. Fred. “A Bibliography of the Works on Speech Compo¬ 
 sition in England during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” 
 Quarterly Journal of Speech, XV (1929), 381-412. 
 
 Manningham, John. Diary of John Manningham . . . 1602-1603. 
 Edited by John Bruce. Westminster, 1868. (Camden Society, No. 
 99 -) 
 
 Marbeck, John. A Booke of Notes and Common places, with their ex¬ 
 positions, collected and gathered out of the workes of divers singular 
 Writers. . . . London, 1581. 
 
 Marshall, Stephen. Emanuel; a thanksgiving sermon before the house 
 of commons, upon the victory of the parliamentary forces in South 
 Wales. London, 1648. 
 
 Martin, Benjamin. Bibliotheca Technologica: or, a Philological Library 
 of Literary Arts and Sciences. London, 1737. 
 
 - Lingua Britannica Reformata. A New Universal English Dic¬ 
 tionary. London, 1749. 
 
 [Marvell, Andrew.] Mr. Smirke: or, the Divine in Mode: being Cer¬ 
 tain Annotations, upon the Animadversions on the Naked Truth. 
 By Andreas Rivetus, Junior. 1676. 
 
 [-] The Rehearsal Transpros’d: or, Animadversions Upon a late 
 
 Book, entituled, A Preface, Shewing What Grounds there are of 
 Fears and Jealousies of Popery. London, 1672. 
 
 Mason, John E. Gentlefolk in the Making: Studies in the History of 
 English Courtesy Literature and Related Topics from 1531 to 1774. 
 Philadelphia, 1935. 
 
 Mayne, Jasper. Part of Lucian Made English from the Originall. In 
 the Yeare 1638. Oxford, 1663. 
 
 Memoirs of the Society of Grub-street. London, 1737 - Two volumes. 
 
 Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury. 1598. In G. Gre¬ 
 gory Smith, Elizabethan Critical Essays, Vol. II. Oxford, 1904. 
 
240 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Middleton, Thomas, and William Rowley. A Courtly Masque: The 
 Device called, The World tost at Tennis. [1620.] 
 
 Milton, John. Works. New York, 1931-40. Twenty volumes. 
 
 Mitchell, W. Fraser. English Pulpit Oratory from Andrewes to Tillot- 
 son. London, 1932. 
 
 The Monthly Review. 1749-. 
 
 More, Henry. A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, The 
 First Part, Containing A Careful and Impartial Delineation of the 
 True Idea of Antichristianism. London, 1664. 
 
 More, Thomas. The Apology e of Syr Thomas More, Knyght. Edited 
 by Arthur Irving Taft. London, 1930. (Early English Text So¬ 
 ciety, Orig. Ser. No. 180.) 
 
 ———- Epistle Dedicatory to his translations of Lucian, translated by 
 C. R. Thompson, The Translations of Lucian by Erasmus and St. 
 Thomas More. Ithaca, 1940. 
 
 - Works. London, 1557. 
 
 [Morris, Corbyn.] An Essay Towards Fixing the True Standards of 
 Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule. London, 1744. (Au¬ 
 gustan Reprint Society, Ser. 1, Essays on Wit No. 4, 1947.) 
 
 Moryson, Fynes. An Itinerary Written By Fynes Moryson Gent. Lon¬ 
 don, 1617. 
 
 Moyle, Walter. “A Dissertation Upon the Age of the Philopatris, A 
 Dialogue, Commonly Attributed to Lucian: In several Letters to 
 Mr. K—.” In The Works of Walter Moyle, Esq., Vol. I. London, 
 1726. 
 
 Muses Library; Or a Series of English Poetry. . . , The. [Mrs. Eliza¬ 
 beth Cooper.] Vol. I. London, 1737. 
 
 Nashe, Thomas. “To the Gentleman Students of Both Universities.” 
 In G. Gregory Smith, Elizabethan Critical Essays, Vol. I. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1904. 
 
 - Works. Edited by Ronald B. McKerrow. London, 1904- 
 
 10. Five volumes. 
 
 Ness, Christopher. A Compleat History and Mystery of the Old and 
 New Testament, Logically Discust and Theologically Improved. 
 London, 1696. Four volumes. 
 
 Nicholls, William. An Answer to an Heretical Book Called the Naked 
 Gospel. . . . London, 1691. 
 
 North, Roger. Examen: or, an Enquiry into the Credit and Veracity of 
 a Pretended Complete History. .. . London, 1740. 
 
 North, Thomas, trans. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romanes, 
 compared together by that Grave Learned Philosopher and Historiog¬ 
 rapher, Plutarke. . . . London, 1595 (first published in 1579). 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 241 
 
 Oldham, John. The Works . . . Together with his Remains. London, 
 1686. 
 
 Oldmixon, John. The Arts of Logick and Rhetorick . . . Interpreted 
 and Explain'd By that Teamed and Judicious Critick, Father Bou- 
 hours. To which are added, Parallel Quotations Out of the Most 
 Eminent English Authors. . . . London, 1728. 
 
 Orrery, John Boyle, Earl of. Remarks on the Life and Writings of 
 Dr. Jonathan Swift. . . In a Series of Letters. . . . London, 1752. 
 
 Otway, Thomas. Complete Works. Edited by Montague Summers. 
 Vol. I. Bloomsbury (Nonesuch Press), 1926. 
 
 Overbury, Thomas. The Overhurian Characters. Edited by W. J. 
 Paylor. Oxford, 1936. (The Percy Reprints XIII.) 
 
 Ozell, John, trans. Don Quixote. New York [n.d], (Modern Li¬ 
 brary.) 
 
 Patrick, Simon. A Commentary upon the Historical Books of the Old 
 Testament. Third edition; London, 1727. Two volumes. 
 
 - A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Non-Conform¬ 
 ist. Third edition; London, 1669. 
 
 P[eacham], H[enry], The Garden of Eloquence, conteining the most 
 excellent Ornaments, Exornations, Lightes, flowers, and formes of 
 speech, commonly called the Figures of Rhetorike. Corrected and 
 augmented by the first Author. London, 1593. 
 
 - “Of Poetrie” from The Compleat Gentleman. 1622. In 
 
 J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. I. 
 Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Pell, Daniel. Nec inter Vivos, nec inter Mortuos, Neither Amongst the 
 living, nor amongst the Dead. Or, An Improvement of the Sea, 
 Upon the Nine Nautical Verses in the ioj. Psalm. . . . London, 
 i 6 59 . 
 
 Pepys, Samuel. Diary. Edited by Henry B. Wheatley. London, 1899. 
 Nine volumes. 
 
 Perceval, Richard. A Dictionarie in Spanish and English . . . Now en¬ 
 larged and amplifed ... All done by John Minsheu. . . . London, 
 1 599 - 
 
 - -. London, 1623. 
 
 Phillips, Edward. The New World of English Words.... London, 
 1662. 
 
 - -. Third edition; London, 1671. 
 
 - -—. Fourth edition; London, 1678. 
 
 - The New World of Words . . . Revised . . . By J. [ohn] K. 
 
 [ersey]. Sixth edition; London, 1706. 
 
 -- Preface to Theatrum Poetarum, or a Compleat Collection of 
 
242 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 the Poets. 1675. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seven¬ 
 teenth Century, Vol. II. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Philostratus. The Life of Appollonius of Tyana. Translated by F. C. 
 Conybeare. Loeb Classical Library. Two volumes. 
 
 Philpott, John. A Defence of the true and, old authority of Chrises 
 Church. An Oration of Coelius, the second Curio, for the true and 
 ancient authority of Christ his Church, against Antony Florebell of 
 Mutiny. . . . Translated out of Latin into English. In The Exami¬ 
 nations and Writings of John Philpot, B. C. L. Archdeacon of Win¬ 
 chester: Martyr, 7555. Edited by the Rev. Robert Eden. Cam¬ 
 bridge, 1842. (Parker Society.) 
 
 Pilkington, Letitia. Memoirs . . . Written by Herself. . . . Vols. I & II; 
 Dublin, 1749. Vol. Ill; Dublin, 1754. 
 
 Plato. Apology. Translated by H. N. Fowler. Loeb Classical Li¬ 
 brary. 
 
 - Cratylus. Translated by H. N. Fowler. Loeb Classical Li¬ 
 brary. 
 
 - Euthydemus. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical 
 
 Library. 
 
 - Gorgias. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical Li¬ 
 brary. 
 
 - Laws. Translated by R. G. Bury. Loeb Classical Library. 
 
 - The Lovers. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical 
 
 Library. 
 
 - The Republic. Translated by Paul Shorey. Loeb Classical 
 
 Library. 
 
 - The Sophist. Translated by H. N. Fowler. Loeb Classical 
 
 Library. 
 
 - Symposium. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical 
 
 Library. 
 
 Plato his Afology of Socrates, and Phaedo or Dialogue concerning the 
 Immortality of Mans Soul, and Manner of Socrates his Death: Care¬ 
 fully translated from the Greek. London, 1675. 
 
 Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. Loeb 
 Classical Library. Eleven volumes. 
 
 - Plutarch’s M or alia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Loeb 
 
 Classical Library. Fourteen volumes. 
 
 Plutarch’s Morals: Translated from the Greek by Several Hands. Lon¬ 
 don, 1691 (first published in 1683-84?). Five volumes. 
 
 A Pocket Dictionary or Complete English Expositor. . . . London, 1753. 
 
 Poole, Joshua. The English Parnassus: or, A Helpe to English Poesie. . . . 
 London, 1657* 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 243 
 
 Pope, Alexander. Complete Poetical Works. Edited by Henry W. Boyn¬ 
 ton. Boston and New York, 1903. 
 
 - The Dunciad. Edited by James Sutherland. London, 1943. 
 
 - The Iliad of Homer. London, 1756. Six volumes. 
 
 - Martinus Scriblerus, Peri Bathous: or, Of the Art of Sinking in 
 
 Poetry. Written in the Year 1727. In The Works of Alexander 
 Pope, Vol. VI. London, 1751. 
 
 - Memoirs Of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of 
 
 Martinus Scriblerus. In The Works of Alexander Pope, Vol. VI. 
 London, 1751. 
 
 - Miscellanies in Prose and Verse. London, 1728. Three vol¬ 
 umes. 
 
 - The Odyssey of Homer. London, 1725-26. Five volumes. 
 
 - Prose Works. Edited by Norman Ault. Vol. I. Oxford, 1936. 
 
 - Works. Edited by Whitwell Elwin and William John Court- 
 
 hope. London, 1871-89. Ten volumes. 
 
 - The Works of Shakespeare. Second edition; London, 1728. 
 
 Eight volumes. 
 
 Potter, John. Archaeologia Graeca, or the Antiquities of Greece . . .A 
 New Edition. To which is added, An Appendix, containing A Con¬ 
 cise History of the Grecian States, And a Short Account of the Lives 
 and Writings of the Most Celebrated Greek Authors. By G. Dun¬ 
 bar. . . . Edinburgh, 1818. Two volumes. 
 
 Prideaux, John. Sacred Eloquence: Or, the Art of Rhetorick, As it is 
 layd down in Scripture. London, 1659. 
 
 The Prompter. November 12, 1734—July 2, 1736. 
 
 The Publick Register: or, the Weekly Magazine. January 3, 1741 — 
 June 13, 1741. 
 
 P.[ulteney], J. A Treatise of the Loftiness or Elegancy of Speech. 
 Written Originally in Greek by Longin-, and now Translated out 
 of French. . . . London, 1680. 
 
 Purchas, Samuel. Purchas his Pilgrimage. . . . Second edition; Lon¬ 
 don, 1614. 
 
 Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. Edited by Gladys 
 Doidge Willcock and Alice Walker. Cambridge, 1936. 
 
 Quintilian. Institutio oratoria. Translated by H. E. Butler. Loeb 
 Classical Library. Four volumes. 
 
 Raillerie a la Mode Considered: or the Supercilious Detractor. A J oco- 
 serious Discourse; shewing the open Impertinence and Degenerosity 
 of Publishing Private Pecques and Controversies to the World. Lon¬ 
 don, 1673. 
 
244 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Ramsay, Allan. Preface to the Ever Green. 1724. In W. H. Dur¬ 
 ham, Critical Essays of the Eighteenth Century 1700-1725. New 
 Haven, 1915. 
 
 Ramsay, Allan (the younger). An Essay on Ridicule. London, 1753. 
 In The Investigator. London, 1762. 
 
 [Rapin, Rene.] The Comparison of Plato and Aristotle . . . Translated 
 from the French. London, 1673. 
 
 - Reflections upon the Eloquence of these times; Particularly of 
 
 the Barr and Pulpit. London, 1672. 
 
 Remarks upon Remarques: or, A Vindication of the Conversations of the 
 Town, In another Letter directed to the same Sir T. L. London, 
 i 6 73 . 
 
 Remarques on the Humours and Conversations of the Town. Written 
 in a Letter to Sr. T. L. London, 1673. 
 
 Reyner, Edward. Rules for the Government of the Tongue. . . . Third 
 edition; London, 1658 (first published in 1656). 
 
 Reynolds, Henry. Mythomystes. [1633?] In J. E. Spingarn, Critical 
 Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. I. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Robertson, Jean. The Art of Letter Writing. An Essay on the Hand¬ 
 books Published in England during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth 
 Centuries. Liverpool, 1942. 
 
 Rogers, John. A Discourse of the Visible and Invisible Church of Christ. 
 London, 1719. 
 
 - The Necessity of Divine Revelation, and the Truth of the 
 
 Christian Revelation Asserted; in Eight Sermons. Second edition; 
 London, 1729. 
 
 - Twelve Sermons, Preached upon Several Occasions. London, 
 
 I73 °' 
 
 - A Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion . . . With 
 
 an Appendix containing a Letter from the Reverend Dr. Marshal. . . . 
 London, 1728. 
 
 Rollin, Charles. The Method of Teaching and Studying the Belles Let- 
 tres . . . Translated from the French. Fourth edition; London, 1749 - 
 Four volumes. 
 
 Rollins, Hyder E. An Analytical Index to the Ballad-Entries (i 557 ~ 
 1709) in the registers of the Company of Stationers of London. 
 Chapel Hill, N. C., 1924. 
 
 The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Translated by 
 Earnest Cary. Loeb Classical Library. Seven volumes. 
 
 Samuel, Irene. Plato and Milton. Ithaca, 1947. 
 
 Sandford, William Phillips. English Theories of Public Address, iggo- 
 18 28. Columbus, Ohio, 1931. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 
 
 [Sandys, George.] A Relation of a Journey begun An. Dom: 1610. 
 Fifth edition; London, 1615. 
 
 Sedgewick, G. G. “Dramatic Irony: Studies in its History, its Defini¬ 
 tion, and its Use Especially in Shakespere and Sophocles.” Unpub¬ 
 lished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1913. 
 
 - Of Irony Especially in Drama. Toronto, 1948. 
 
 Select Letters taken from Fog’s Weekly Journal. Vol. I. London, 
 1732. 
 
 S.fergeant], J. [ohn]. Raillery Defeated by Calm Reason: or, the New 
 Cartesian Method of Arguing and Answering Expos’d. In a Let¬ 
 ter to all Lovers of Science, Candour and Civility. London, 1699. 
 
 - Reason against Raillery: or, A Full Answer to Dr. Tillotson’s 
 
 Preface Against J. S. 1682. 
 
 Shadwell, Thomas. Preface to The Humorists, A Comedy. 1671. 
 In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. 
 II. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 - Preface to The Sullen Lovers, or The Impertinents, A Comedy. 
 
 1668. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Cen¬ 
 tury, Vol. II. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of. Characteristics of 
 Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Second edition; 1714. Three 
 volumes. 
 
 - Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, etc. Edited 
 
 by John M. Robertson. New York, 1900. Two volumes. 
 
 - The Life, Unpublished Letters, and Philosophical Regimen. 
 
 Edited by Benjamin Rand. London and New York, 1900. 
 
 - Second Characters or The Language of Forms. Edited by 
 
 Benjamin Rand. Cambridge, 1914. 
 
 Shakespeare, William. Works. Edited by W. A. Wright. London, 
 1891. Nine volumes. 
 
 Sheffield, John, Earl of Mulgrave and Duke of Buckingham. “An Es¬ 
 say upon Poetry.” 1682. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the 
 Seventeenth Century, Vol. II. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 - “An Essay upon Satyr.” In Poems on Affairs of State: from 
 
 the time of Oliver Cromwell, to the Abdication of K. James the Sec¬ 
 ond, pp. 187-97. 1697. 
 
 Sherry, Richard. A Treatise of the Figures of Grammer and Rhet- 
 orike. . . . [1555.] 
 
 Shortest-Way with the Dissenters ... With its Author’s Brief Explica¬ 
 tion Consider’d; His Name Expos’d, His Practices Detected, and his 
 Hellish Designs set in a true Light.... Second edition; London, 
 1703. 
 
246 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Sidney, Philip. An Apology for Poetry. 1595. In G. Gregory Smith, 
 Elizabethan Critical Essays, Vol. I. Oxford, 1904. 
 
 Skeat, Walter W. A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English 
 Language. New York, 1882. 
 
 Smart, Christopher. The Hilliad. 1752. In The Works of the Eng¬ 
 lish Poets, Vol. XVI. Edited by Alexander Chalmers. London, 
 1810. 
 
 [-] The Midwife, or the Old Woman’s Magazine. London, 
 
 1751-53. Three volumes. 
 
 Smectymnuus. A Vindication of the Answer to the Humble Remon¬ 
 strance, from the Unjust Imputations of Frivolousnesse and False¬ 
 hood. . . . London, 1641. 
 
 Smith, David Nichol, editor. Characters from the Histories (A Memoirs 
 of the Seventeenth Century. Oxford, 1918. 
 
 Smith, Edmund. “A Poem to the Memory of Mr. John Philips.” In 
 The Works of the English Poets, Vol. IX, pp. 204-6. Edited by 
 Alexander Chalmers. London, 1810. 
 
 Smith, John. The Mysterie of Rhetorique Unvail’d, Wherein above 130 
 The Tropes and Figures are severally derived from the Greek into 
 English. . . . London, 1657. 
 
 Smith, William. Dionysius Longinus on the Sublime: Translated from 
 the Greek. . . . Second edition; London, 1743 (first published in 
 
 039)- 
 
 Smollett, Tobias, trans. Don Quixote. London, 1755. Two volumes. 
 
 - Peregrine Pickle. Oxford, 1925. Four volumes. 
 
 Somers Tracts. A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts, on the most 
 Interesting and Entertaining Subjects. . . . Vol. I. London, 1748. 
 
 Somervile, William. The Chace. To which is added, Hobbinol. . . . 
 Fourth edition; London, 1749. 
 
 [South, Robert.] Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book, Entituled 
 A Vindication of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity, (tic.... Sec¬ 
 ond edition; London, 1693. 
 
 The Spectator. Edited by G. Gregory Smith. Everyman’s Library. 
 Four volumes. 
 
 Spence, Ferrand. Lucian’s Works, Translated From the Greek. To 
 Which is Prefixt, The Life of Lucian. London, 1684-85. Five vol¬ 
 umes. 
 
 Spenser, Edmund. Minor Poems. Edited by Ernest de Selincourt. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1910. 
 
 Sprat, Thomas. An Account of the Life and Writings of Mr. Abra¬ 
 ham Cowley: Written to Mr. M. Clifford. 1668. In J. E. Spin- 
 garn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. II. Oxford, 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 
 
 - The History of the Royal-Society of London, For the Improv¬ 
 ing of Natural Knowledge. London, 1667. 
 
 Spurgeon, C. H. The Treasury of David: containing an original expo¬ 
 sition of the book of Psalms; a collection of illustrative extracts from 
 the whole range of literature. ... Vol. II. New York, 1885. 
 
 Stanley, Thomas. The History of Philosophy. London, 1655-62. 
 
 Stanyhurst, Richard. Dedication of Thee First Foure Bookes of Virgil 
 his Aeneis translated in too English Heroical Verse. 1582. In G. 
 Gregory Smith, Elizabethan Critical Essays, Vol. I. Oxford, 1904. 
 
 Steele, Richard. Correspondence. Edited by Rae Blanchard. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1941. 
 
 Stephens, John. Essayes and Characters Ironicall, and Instructive. The 
 second impression. With a new Satyre in defence of Common Law 
 and Lawyers: Mixt with reproofe against their common Enemy. 
 With many new Characters, & divers other things added; £5? every 
 thing amended. . . . London, 1615. 
 
 - Satyrical Essayes Characters and Others. Or Accurate and 
 
 quick Descriptions, fitted to the life of their Subjects. London, 1615* 
 
 Stevens, George Alexander. Distress upon Distress: or, Tragedy in 
 True Taste. A Heroi-Comi-Parodi-Tragedi-Farcical Burlesque. In 
 Two Acts. London, 1752. 
 
 ———■— Songs, Comic and Satyrical. A New Edition, Corrected. With 
 the New Edition of the Lecture upon Heads. London, 1788. 
 
 Stillingfleet, Benjamin. An Essay on Conversation. Second edition; 
 London, 1738. 
 
 Stillingfleet, Edward. Works. London, 1709. Six volumes. 
 
 - Works. Vol. I. London, 1710. 
 
 Stocker, Thomas, trans. A Righte noble and pleasant History of the' 
 Successors of Alexander surnamed the Great, taken out of Diodorus 
 Siculus: and some of their lives written by the wise Plutarch. Trans¬ 
 lated out of French into Englysh. London, 1569. 
 
 Sweeting, Elizabeth J. Early Tudor Criticism Linguistic & Literary. 
 Oxford, 1940. 
 
 Swift, Deane. An Essay upon the Life, Writings, and Character, of 
 Dr. Jonathan Swift. London, 1755. 
 
 Swift, Jonathan. Correspondence. Edited by F. Elrington Ball. Lon¬ 
 don, 1910-14. Six volumes. 
 
 - The Examiner and Other Pieces Written in 1J10-11. Edited 
 
 by Herbert Davis. Oxford, 1940. 
 
 - Journal to Stella. Edited by Harold Williams. Oxford, 1948. 
 
 Two volumes. 
 
 - Letters to Charles Ford. Edited by David Nichol Smith. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1935. 
 
248 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 - Poems. Edited by Harold Williams. Oxford, 1937. Three 
 
 volumes. 
 
 - Prose Works. Edited by Temple Scott. London, 1897-1908. 
 
 Twelve volumes. 
 
 - A Tale of A Tub with Other Early Works 1696-1 707. Edi¬ 
 ted by Herbert Davis. Oxford, 1939. 
 
 The Tatler. Edited by George A. Aitken. London, 1898. Four vol¬ 
 umes. 
 
 Taylor, Warren. Tudor Figures of Rhetoric. Chicago, 1937. 
 Temple, William. An Essay upon the Ancient and Modern Teaming. 
 1690. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Cen¬ 
 tury, Vol. III. Oxford, 1909. 
 
 - “Of Poetry.” 1690. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of 
 
 the Seventeenth Century, Vol. III. Oxford, 1909. 
 
 Theobald, Lewis, trans. The Clouds. A Comedy. Translated from 
 the Greek of Aristophanes. London, 1715. 
 
 Theophrastus. The Characters of Theophrastus. Translated by J. M. 
 Edmonds. Loeb Classical Library. 
 
 Thompson, Alan Reynolds. The Dry Mock: A Study of Irony in 
 Drama. Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1948. 
 
 Thompson, C. R. “Lucian and Lucianism in the English Renaissance.” 
 Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1937. 
 
 - The Translations of Lucian by Erasmus and St. Thomas More. 
 
 Ithaca, 1940. 
 
 Thompson, Elbert N. S. The Controversy between the Puritans and the 
 Stage. New York, 1903. 
 
 - Literary Bypaths of the Renaissance. New Haven, 1924. 
 
 Thomson, J. A. K. “Erasmus in England.” In Vortrage der Biblio- 
 thek Warburg. London (London University, Warburg Institute), 
 
 I 93 °- 3 l. 
 
 - Irony: An Historical Introduction. Cambridge, Mass., 1927. 
 
 Thordynary of Crysten men. (Wynken de Worde), 1506. 
 
 Thornton, Bonnell. Have At You All: or , the Drury-Lane Journal. 
 
 By Madam Roxana Termagant. London, 1752. 
 
 Topsell, Edward. The Historic of Foure-Footed Bcastes . . . Collected 
 out of all the Volumes of Conradus Gesner, and all other Writers to 
 this present day. London, 1607. 
 
 Trissino, Giangiorgio. Poetica. Selections in Allan H. Gilbert, Liter ary 
 Criticism Plato to Dry den. New York [1940]. 
 
 A True History , Translated from the Greek. London, 1744. 
 Turner, F. McD. C. The Element of Irony in English Literature. 
 Cambridge, 1926. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 249 
 
 Tuve, Rosemond. Elizabethan and Metaphysical Imagery: Renaissance 
 Poetic and Twentieth-century Critics. Chicago, 1947. 
 
 Ustick, W. Lee. “Changing Ideals of Aristocratic Character and Con¬ 
 duct in Seventeenth-Century England,” Modern Philology, XXX 
 ( 1932 - 33 ). 147 - 66 . 
 
 Vanbrugh, John. A Short Vindication of the Relapse and the Provok'd 
 Wife, from Immorality and Prophaneness. In The Complete Works 
 of Sir John Vanbrugh, Vol. I. Edited by Bonamy Dobree. Lon¬ 
 don, 1927. 
 
 The Vanity of Scoffing: or a Tetter to a Witty Gentleman, Evidently 
 Shewing the Great Weakness and Unreasonableness of Scoffing at 
 the Christian's Faith, on account of its supposed uncertainty. [Cle¬ 
 ment Ellis and John Fell?] London, 1674. 
 
 Vega, Lope de. The New Art of Making Comedies. In Allan H. 
 Gilbert, Titerary Criticism Plato to Dry den. New York [1940]. 
 
 Vives, Juan Luis. Vives: On Education: A Translation of the De 
 Tradendis Disciplinis. Translated by Foster Watson. Cambridge, 
 
 I 9 I 3- 
 
 [Walker, Obadiah.] Some Instructions concerning the Art of Ora¬ 
 tory. London, 1659. 
 
 - IIsptajAjia STtcSmtov; Or, Vulgar Errours in Practice Censured. 
 
 London, 1659. 
 
 Ward, Edward. The Tife and Notable Adventures of that Renown'd 
 Knight, Don Quixote De la Mancha. Merrily Translated into 
 Hudibrastick Verse. London, 1 711. 
 
 [Ward, Tom.] England's Reformation. [no title page .] 
 
 Warner, William. Albions England. London, 1612. 
 
 Warton, Joseph. The Adventurer, Nos. 127, 133. (Augustan Re¬ 
 print Society, Ser. 1, Essays on Wit No. 2, 1946.) 
 
 —- An Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope. Fifth edition; 
 
 London, 1806. Two volumes. 
 
 Webbe, William. A Discourse of English Poetrie. 1586. In G. Gre¬ 
 gory Smith, Elizabethan Critical Essays, Vol. I. Oxford, 1904. 
 
 Welsted, Leonard. A Dissertation Concerning the Perfection of the 
 English Tanguage, the State of Poetry, etc. 1724. In W. H. Dur¬ 
 ham, Critical Essays of the Eighteenth Century 1JOO-1J2 5. New 
 Haven, 1915. 
 
 -, trans. A Treatise on the Sublime. By Dionysius Tonginus. 
 
 Translated from the Greek. Third edition; Dublin, 1727 (first pub¬ 
 lished in 1712). 
 
250 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Wesley, Samuel. An Epistle to a Friend C oncerning Poetry. London, 
 1700. (Augustan Reprint Society, Ser. 2, Essays on Poetry No. 2, 
 I 947 -) 
 
 Whately, William. Prototypes. . . . London, 1640. 
 
 Whitehead, William. “On Ridicule.” 1743. In The Works of the 
 English Poets, Vol. XVII. Edited by Alexander Chalmers. Lon¬ 
 don, 1810. 
 
 Whytinton, Roberte, trans. The thre hookes of Tullyes offyces bothe 
 in latyne tonge & in englysshe lately translated by Roberte Whytin¬ 
 ton poete laureate. London (Wynkyn de Worde), 1534. 
 
 Wilkins, John. Ecclesiastes, or, A Discourse concerning the Gift of 
 Preaching as it fals under the rules of Art. London, 1646. 
 
 Willet, Andrew. Hexafla in Exodum. . . . London, 1633 (first pub¬ 
 lished in 1608). 
 
 - Hexafla in Genesin. . . . London, 1608 (first published in 
 
 i6 °5)- 
 
 [Williams, John.] Pulpit-Popery, True Popery: Being an Answer To 
 a Book Intituled, Pulpit-Sayings: and in Vindication of the Apology 
 for the Pulpits. . . . London, 1688. 
 
 Williamson, George. The Senecan Amble: A Study in Prose Form 
 from Bacon to Collier. London, 1951. 
 
 Wilmot, Tohn, Earl of Rochester. An Allusion to the Tenth Satyr of 
 the First Book of Horace. 1685. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical Es¬ 
 says of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. II. Oxford, 1908. 
 
 Wilson, H. S. “Gabriel Harvey’s Orations on Rhetoric,” English Lit¬ 
 erary History, XII (1945), 167-82. 
 
 Wilson, Thomas, trans. The three Orations of Demosthenes chiefe Ora¬ 
 tor among the Grecians, in favour of the Olynthians, . . . with those 
 his fower Orations . . . against king Philip of Macedonie. . . . Eng¬ 
 lished out of the Greeke by Thomas Wylson. . . . London, 1570. 
 
 - Wilson’s Arte of Rhetorique 1560. Edited by G. H. Mair. Ox¬ 
 ford, 1909. (Tudor and Stuart Library.) 
 
 Wolseley, Robert. Preface to Valentinian, A Tragedy, As ’Tis AItePd 
 by the Late Earl of Rochester. 1685. In J. E. Spingarn, Critical 
 Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Vol. III. Oxford, 1909. 
 
 Wood, Anthony. Life and Times. Collected by Andrew Clark. Vol. 
 II; 1664-1681. Oxford, 1892. 
 
 Worcester, David. The Art of Satire. Cambridge, Mass., 1940. 
 
 The World. In The British Essayists, Vols. XXVI-XXIX. Edited by 
 Alexander Chalmers. London, 1817. 
 
 W. [orsley], E.[dward]. A Discourse of Miracles Wrought in the 
 Roman Catholick Church, or, A full refutation of Dr Stillingfleets un¬ 
 just exceptions against Miracles. . . . Antwerp, 1676. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 251 
 
 Wotton, William. A Defense of the Reflections upon Ancient and Mod¬ 
 ern Learning . . . With Observations upon The Tale of a Tub. Lon¬ 
 don, 1705. 
 
 - Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning. The Second 
 
 Edition . . . With a Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, Themi- 
 stocles, Socrates , Euripides; &c. and Aesop’s Fables. By Dr. Bentley. 
 London, 1697. 
 
 [Wylkinson, John]. The Ethiques of Aristotle . . . now newly trdslated 
 into English. London, 1547. 
 
INDEX 
 
 A briefe examination , 91 
 Addison, Joseph, 125, 137, 151, 170, 
 187, 199 
 Africanus, 47 
 Agrippa, 102, 191 
 
 Allegory, 6 , 10-11, 35-37, 44 -, 125, 135 - 
 36, 143, 147, 180, 219 
 Allusion, 105-6, 144, 196 
 Ambiguity, 19, 43-44, 83-84, 107, 136, 
 155, 160-61, 180, 186, 201, 214-15, 
 21 9 
 
 Annius, 47 
 
 Antiphrasis , 10, 36, 59, 105, 142, 195 
 Apsley, Allen, 71, 107 
 Arbuthnot, John, 16, 124-25, 136, 168, 
 182, 191, 195, 214 
 Aretine, 191 
 Ariston, 21 
 
 Aristophanes, 3, 8, 11, 38, 40, 51, 54, 
 62, 190-91 
 
 Aristotle, 4, 6, 8, 11, 25, 38, 40-41, 46- 
 47, 56, 61, 71, 101, 103, 104, 125, 
 131, 159, 184 
 
 The Art of Complaisance , 59, 164-66, 
 200, 207 
 
 The Art of Railing , 28, 190, 207 
 The Art of Speaking , 31, 35, 71, 79, 
 142, 145, 147, 192, 207 
 Asteismus , 36, 83-84, 114, 195 
 Audiences, 19-20, 43, 60, 92-94, 96, 
 98, ioo-ioi, 109, 113, 133, 142, 144, 
 146-49, 154-57, 161, 190, 192-96, 
 
 201-4, 210-12, 214, 217, 219-20 
 
 Bacon, Francis, 8-9, 56, 63-64 
 Bailey, Nathan, 24, 31, 33, 56, 73, 79, 
 148, 191, 207-8, 211, 217 
 Banter, vii-viii, x, 16, 74, 85, 90, 92, 
 141, 148, 153, 158-59, l6l > i( 53-64, 
 180-81, 190, 198, 205, 208-21 
 Baret, John, 26, 38 
 
 Barrow, Isaac, 191, 200-201 
 Bathurst, Lord, 57-58, 182 
 Baxter, Richard, 71, 101 
 Bayle, Peter, 71, 163, 190, 192, 200, 
 217, 220 
 Bede, 6 
 
 The Bee , 191, 193, 211-12, 217, 219- 
 
 20 
 
 Bellegarde, L’Abbe de, 71, 156, 166, 
 192, 197, 204, 211, 214-15, 217 
 Blackmore, Richard, 73, 117, 119, 146, 
 163, 211 
 
 Blackwall, Anthony, 13, 31, 35-36, 74, 
 76, ioi-2, 107, 113, 116, 119, 142, 
 147 , 151, 153 , 182 
 
 Blount, Thomas, 16, 30-31, 33, 59, 70, 
 79, 81, 116, 200, 206 
 Boileau, 139, 159, 168, 170 
 Bolingbroke, Viscount, 106, 213 
 Bond, Richmond P., 125, 141, 151-52, 
 160, 167, 172, 189 
 Bouhours, Father, 158 
 Boyce, Benjamin, 65, 67 
 Brinsley, John, 26, 70 
 Brown, John, 75, 152, 193, 195-96, 200, 
 205, 217 
 
 Brown, Tom, 71, 165, 190, 192, 197, 
 200, 209-11 
 
 Browne, Sir Thomas, 11, 31, 40-41 
 Bruyere, Jean de la, 38, 71, 197-98 
 Buffoonery. See Exaggeration 
 Bullitt, John M., 123, 137 
 Bulls, 84 
 
 Bulwer, John, 27, 30, 65, 70, 91, 148, 
 163 
 
 Burlesque, 8, 20, 48, 65, 80, 89, 96, 
 115, 122, 125-35, 139-41, i 44 , 151- 
 53, 155-56, 160, 167-71, 175-76, 
 
 180-81, 186, 189, 212, 215-16, 220- 
 
 21 
 
 Burton, Robert, 22, 59, 91, 96-98, 156 
 
INDEX 
 
 254 
 
 Butler, Samuel, 136, 139, 149, 168, 189 
 Byron, George Gordon, 20 
 
 Cambridge, R. O., x, 75, 120, 139, 151, 
 I 7 °- 7 I , 175 - 76 , 185-86 
 Caricature. See Exaggeration 
 Cawdry, Robert, 27, 34 
 The Censor, 206 
 
 Cervantes, x, 20, 54, 57, 75-76, 78, 89, 
 hi, 125, 137, 139, 150, 167-72, 176- 
 77, 180-81, 183, 185-86, 193, 212- 
 
 14, 219 
 
 Chambers, Ephraim, 11, 30, 32-33, 36- 
 37 ) 74 , 147-48, 158 
 Chartentismus, 36, 195 
 Charles II, 165, 208, 215-16 
 Chaucer, 17-18, 46, 199 
 Chesterfield, Fourth Earl of, 10, 31, 33, 
 75 , 1° 6, 143, 149 
 Chevalier, Haakon, 20 
 Chleuasmus, 6, 36 
 
 Christ, 11, 29, 42-43, 59 , ”3, 1 *5-*7, 
 213 
 
 Cicero, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, 21, 25-27, 30, 
 32, 34 , 45 - 47 , 59 , 61-62, 75-76, 83- 
 84, ioo-ioi, 104-5, I 4 I , 145, 165, 
 167, 182, 191, 200-201 
 Clarity of irony. See Deception 
 Clues to ironic meaning, 18-20, 22-23, 
 82, 92-94, 101, 105-9, ni-16, 119- 
 20, 123-24, 127-28, 133, 135-36, 143- 
 44 , 146-54, 159 , 185-86 
 Cocker, Edward, 31-32, 34, 200, 210-11 
 Cockeram, Henry, 26, 30-31, 34 
 Coles, Elisha, 34, 200, 208 
 Collins, Anthony, 8, 29, 44, 55, 74, 80, 
 82, 87, 91-92, 103-4, 107, 109, 114- 
 
 15, 120, 122-23, J 27, 129, 136, 183, 
 187, 193, 208, 211-13, 215-17, 220 
 
 Congreve, William, 188-89 
 Consistency of an irony, 108-9, 116, 
 121-24, 128, 133-35, 137, 1 73‘79» 
 184-85 
 
 Contemptuous laughter, 192, 196, 198, 
 2°5, 217 
 
 Contraries. See Stock definitions 
 Cooper, John G., 75, 108, 193 
 Cooper, Thomas, 25, 31, 62 
 Corinthians, 33 
 Cosmic irony, vii 
 Cotgrave, Randle, 200, 206 
 Coverdale, Miles, 10, 32, 34, 61, 105, 
 112-13 
 
 Cowley, Abraham, 70, 206 
 The Craftsman, 8, 28-29, 44, 73*74, 
 142, 148-49, 155, 160, 169, 183, 217, 
 219-20 
 
 Craik, Henry, 173 
 Crane, W. G., 142 
 Cranmer, Thomas, 61, 113 
 
 Dacier, Andre, 72, 85, 170, 192 
 The Daily Courant, 217, 219 
 The Daily Gazeteer, 73 
 The Daily Journal, 135 
 Danett, Thomas, 26, 63, 114-15 
 Daniel, George, 32 
 “Darke Reproofe,” 67-69 
 Day, Angel, 34, 59, 63, 79, 101, 106, 
 130-3 1 
 
 Dean of Worcester still the same, 74, 
 82, 87-89, 109 
 
 Deception, 3-4, 6-7, 11-12, 18-19, 28, 
 31, 38-44, 46, 49-55, 60, 65-66, 68- 
 70, 72, 84-89, 92-93, 133, 149, 154- 
 62, 184, 201, 208-20 
 Decorum, 188 
 
 Dedekind, Friedrich, 75, 118-19, 146, 
 
 150-51, 153 
 
 Defoe, B. N., 34, 207 
 Defoe, Daniel, 7, 24, 28, 41-42, 71, 90, 
 109, 115, 145-48, 154, 159, 210, 214, 
 217, 219 
 
 Delivery, x, 5, 9, 16, 39, 50-53, 67, 
 84-89, 104, 114, 127-28, 147-48, 150, 
 154, 158, 162-73, 175-76, 178, 180, 
 185, 187-88, 190-95, 197-98, 202-5, 
 211-13, 216, 219 
 Democritus, 96-98 
 
 Demosthenes, 4, 6, 8, 11, 38, 41, 46 
 Dennis, John, 28, 71, 126-27, 1 65, 168, 
 192, 200, 211-12, 217 
 Diasyrmus, 36 
 
 Diction, 53, 131-35, i 44 , 152, 159-60, 
 165, 169-70, 219 
 Diminution, 79-80 
 Diogenes, 45, 83-84 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 7 
 Dissimulation, 4, 11-12, 15, 25-26, 32, 
 34 , 38-41, 46 - 47 , 49 , 51-52, 56, 59 , 
 62, 64-66, 72, 80, 83, 85, 104-5, 
 141, 147 , 164-65, 184 
 Dodd, William, 170-71 
 Drake, James, 165 
 
 Dramatic irony, vii, x, 17-20, 22-23, 
 45, 92-98, 185-86 
 
INDEX 
 
 255 
 
 Draper, John W., 141, 187 
 Drayton, Michael, 162 
 Drollery. See Exaggeration 
 Dryden, John, 8, 27-28, 38, 41, 57, 127, 
 134, 162, 164-65, 187-88, 191-95, 
 208 
 
 D’Urfey, Tom, 208-9 
 
 Ecclesiastes, 33, 117 
 Elijah, 59, 103, 119-20 
 Enigma, 6, 36 
 
 Erasmus, 56, 62, 98, 136-37, 139, 183- 
 84, 190 
 Esau, 43-44 
 
 “Essay on Gibing,” 8, 28, 74, 92, 193, 
 208, 217, 220 
 
 An Essay upon ... Taste, 182-83, 193 
 Exaggeration, 4, 11, 41-42, 48-54, 64- 
 65, 72, 102-3, 105-6, no, 112-15, 
 125-31, 133-35, 137, 139, 144, 151- 
 54 , 156-57, 160-61, 164-65, 170, 
 
 173 
 
 Exutenismus , 36 
 Fables, 53, 136 
 
 Fallacious argument. See Ironic logic 
 The Fetnale Spectator , 75, 92, 114, 190, 
 193, 197, 204, 208, 217, 220 
 Ferguson, Robert, 31, 150 
 Fictitious character, 22, 99, 127, 135- 
 40, 144, 151, 176, 180-81, 185-86 
 Fielding, Henry, 9, 16, 20, 29, 33-34, 
 75, 83, 99, 124, 126, 138-39, 151- 
 53, 155, 166, 171, 179, 183, 185, 
 i 93 , 197 - 99 , 217 
 Fielding, Sarah, 139 
 Flecknoe, Richard, 191, 196-97, 206 
 Fog’s Weekly Journal , 29, 75, 122, 174- 
 75 , 183, 193 
 
 Fraunce, Abraham, 10, 13, 30, 35-36, 
 56 , 62, 77, 105, 123, 147-48, 177, 
 182 
 
 The Free Briton, 28, 122, 174 
 
 The Free-Holder, 137 
 
 Fuller, Thomas, 30, 70 
 
 Function of irony. See Value of irony 
 
 Gardiner, Stephen, 113 
 
 Gay, John, 102-3, 195, 199-200 
 
 Geddes, James, 60-61 
 
 The Gentleman’s Journal, 167, 180 
 
 The Gentleman’s Magazine, 28-29, 74 > 
 
 80, 92, 109-11, 117, 123, 129-30, 
 
 142, 149, 157, 166, 183, 193, 217- 
 18 
 
 Gestures, 27, 49, 65, 91, 131, 148, 163- 
 
 65 
 
 Gordon, Thomas. See The Humourist 
 Granger, Thomas, 35, 70, 113, 119 
 Granville, George, 31, 71, 158-59 
 Gravity. See Delivery 
 Greville, Fulke, 22, 45-47 
 Grimalde, Nicolas, 25 
 The Grub-street Journal, 29, 33, 56-58, 
 74, 120, 132, 143, 170, 178-79, 211 
 Gurnall, William, 56, 108 
 Guthrie, William, 30, 55, 58, 75, 83- 
 84, 220 
 
 Hales, John, 103 
 
 Hall, Thomas, 36, 59, 70, 79-80, 112- 
 13, 116, 119 
 
 Hare, Francis, 74, 80, 82, 103, 114, 
 120-21, 123, 127-29 
 Harte, Walter, 169-70 
 Harvey, Gabriel, 8, 11, 39-40, 45, 56, 
 62-63, 67, 190-91 
 Henley, John, 8, 29, 74 
 Heraclitus, 95-96 
 Herbert, Thomas, 71, 107 
 Hey wood, Thomas, 27 
 Hickes, Francis, 27 
 Hippocrates, 96-97 
 
 Hobbes, Thomas, 13, 31, 35, 38, 59, 
 70, 77, 80, 131, 134 
 Hoby, Thomas, 12, 30, 32, 38, 59, 83, 
 
 105 
 
 Holland, Philemon, 59, 64, 84, 167 
 Hooker, E. N., 28, 188-89 
 Hooper, John, 25, 61, 100-101 
 Horace, 34, 57, 72, 165, 191-93 
 Hoskins, John, 8, 15, 30, 33, 59, 63, 
 79-81, 116, 182 
 Hughes, John, 165 
 Huloet, Richard, 25 
 Humour, 188-89, 220-21 
 The Humourist, 8, 10, 28, 73, 131, 135- 
 36, 143 - 44 , 148-49, 153 - 54 , 190, 207, 
 
 215 
 
 Hutcheson, Francis, 155 
 Hutton, Henry, 162 
 Huxley, Aldous, 18-19 
 Hyperbole, 158-59 
 Hypocrisy. See Dissimulation 
 
INDEX 
 
 256 
 
 lllusio, 59, 147 
 Imitation. See Strategies of irony, Bur¬ 
 lesque 
 
 Incongruity, 116, 141-42, 155, 160-61, 
 180, 188, 189, 196, 205, 217 
 Invective, 188, 190-91, 197, 204, 206-7, 
 220 
 
 I rivers to, 32 
 
 Ironic advice, 112-13, 116-19, I2 3 > I2 ^> 
 144 , 151, M 3 , i 7 2 
 
 Ironic concession, 67, 111-16, 119, 123- 
 24, 126, 144, 150 
 
 Ironic defense, 112-13, II 9' 2 3> 126-27, 
 137, 146 
 
 Ironic logic, 123-3°) * 37 ) * 39 ) J 44 ) 
 185 
 
 Ironic praise-by-blame, 9, 13, 45, 55-58, 
 64, 67, 100-101, 196-98, 203-4, 206- 
 8 
 
 Irony and banter, 220-21 
 Irony and burlesque, 189 
 Irony and humour, 188-89 
 Irony and raillery, 189-90, 207-8 
 Irony and ridicule, 188 
 Irony and satire, 188 
 Irony of detachment, 5, 17, 20-21, 45, 
 5 2 *S3) 93-98> 186, 188 
 Irony of Fate, vii, 17-20, 92-98, 213- 
 
 14 
 
 Irony of manner, 14, 17-18, 20-22, 45- 
 55) 60, 64, 87, 93 
 Irrisio, 59 
 Isaac, 43 
 Isaiah, 33 
 
 Jacob, 43-44 
 
 Jarvis, Charles, 75, 111, 155, 171, 175- 
 76, 183, 199 
 Jeremiah, 70, 117 
 Job, 112 
 
 Johnson, Samuel, 10, 24, 31, 56, 58, 
 76, 90, 127, 184 
 
 Jonson, Ben, 8, 26, 64, 132-33, 157, 
 162, 164, 191 
 Joseph, 42 
 Juvenal, 190-93 
 
 Kennett, White, 72, 136 
 Kerby-Miller, Charles, 73 
 
 Lawson, John, 10, 32, 75, 78, 83, 116, 
 176-77 
 
 Length of an irony, 5, 21-22, 32, 35, 
 
 45 - 47 ) 5 2 ) 6°> 64, 86, 104-5, no- 
 11, 115, n8, 120, 137-40, 150, 177- 
 81, 185-86 
 
 Leslie, Charles, 56, 71, 74, 78, 122, 212- 
 13, 217 
 
 L’Estrange, Roger, 27, 165, 200-201 
 Litotes, 15, 79 
 The London Chronicle , 172 
 The London Journal, 73, 75, 131-32 
 The London Magazine, 122, 193 
 Lucian, 6, 27, 38, 54, 61-62, 96, 98, 
 100, 104, 112, 119, 125, 136, 171, 
 177, 183, 192 
 
 Macdonald, Hugh, 71, 163-64, 205, 
 
 209 
 
 Marshall, Stephen, 70, 118 
 Marvell, Andrew', 71, 149, 163 
 Mayne, Jasper, 27, 70 
 Meier, G. F., 157 
 Meiosis, 15, 79-80 
 Metaphor, 106-7, 11 4, 132, J 44 
 Micterismus, 6, 36, 59, 83, 154, 164, 
 19 5 
 
 Middleton, Thomas, 31 
 Milton, John, 70, 101-2, 132, 168 
 Mock-heroic. See Burlesque, Diction 
 The Monthly Review, 58, 75, 108, 128, 
 
 i 53 > i 55 > 1 7 °- 7 2 > > 93 , J 97 
 More, Thomas, 8, 30, 45, 61-62, 105, 
 i 37 > 191 
 
 Morris, Corbyn, 180-81, 193 
 M oses, 1 o 1 
 
 Motteux, Peter, 167, 171, 180 
 
 Naivete. See Delivery 
 Nashe, Thomas, 22, 62-63, 67, 93-96, 
 162, 190-91 
 Negatio, 13-14, 77 
 Ness, Christopher, 71 
 New Critics, vii. See also Irony of de¬ 
 tachment 
 
 A New Dictionary of the Canting Crew, 
 209 
 
 North, Thomas, 25-26, 38, 83 
 
 Oldmixon, John, 30-31, 74, 90, 158-60, 
 164, 166, 211, 217, 220 
 Orrery, John B., 75, 90, 118, 150, 152, 
 172 
 
 Otway, Thomas, 71, 120 
 Ovid, 191 
 
 Ozell, John, 75, 176, 193, 212-14, 217 
 
INDEX 
 
 257 
 
 Parables, 53, 201, 219 
 Peacham, Henry, 30, 35-36, 59, 63, 
 79-80, 84, 107, 116, 142, 147, 154, 
 157 
 
 Perceval, Richard, 26, 30 
 Persius, 191 
 Philemon, 3 
 
 Philips, John, 167, 184 
 Phillips, Edward, 31, 33-34, 38, 70-71, 
 80, 192, 200, 206, 208, 210, 2x7 
 Philosophic irony. See Irony of detach¬ 
 ment 
 
 Philpott, John, 61, 116 
 Pilkington, Letitia, 58, 75, 197, 217-18 
 Plato. See Socratic irony 
 Plautus, 51, 198 
 
 Plutarch, 6 , 25-27, 38, 41, 61, 71, 83- 
 84, 104, 107, 167, 192 
 Pope, Alexander, 8-10, 13, 29, 56-57, 
 73-74, 76, 7«, 81, 85-87, 99, 103, 
 no, 118-19, 1 3 5-3 6, 139, 168-69, 
 171, 175-78, 184, 19 1 , 193-20°, 212, 
 214, 216, 218 
 Praeteritio, 13, 36, 77 
 Prideaux, John, 31-32, 35-36 
 The Prompter, 29, 58, 75, 178-79 
 The Publick Register, 10, 136-37, 160- 
 61, 179-80, 2 11 
 
 Puttenham, George, 10, 30, 32, 34, 35, 
 59, 62, 79, 83-84, 112, 164, 182 
 
 Quincy, John, 160 
 
 Quintilian, 5-7, 9-10, 13-14, 21, 25, 30, 
 32 - 34 , 45 , 47 , 56, 59 , 61-62, 75 - 76 , 
 83-84, 100, 104-5, II2 , 116, 141, 
 
 i 45 , i 47 - 5 o, 153 , 162-63, 177 , 201 
 
 Rabelais, 57, 78, 169, 172 
 Racine, 108 
 Railing. See Raillery 
 Raillerie a la mode, 190, 192, 195, 205, 
 207 
 
 Raillery, vii-viii, x, 7, 16, 27, 34, 38, 
 44, 50-51, 53-55, 57, 61, 67, 71, 73- 
 75 , 92, 108, 141, 143, 157 - 59 , l6 3 - 
 67, 175, 181, 187, 189-208, 209-10, 
 217-18, 220-21 
 
 Ramsay, Allan (the younger), 10, 75, 
 124-25, 136-37, 183-84 
 
 Rapin, Rene, 47, 71 
 
 Reductio ad absurdum. See Ironic logic 
 Rhetoric to Alexander, 4, 8, 30, 55-56, 
 71, 100, 104 
 
 Ridicule, 188, 192, 220-21 
 Rollin, Charles, 166, 200-201 
 Romantic irony, vii, 20, 87, 172-73 
 
 St. Jerome, 105 
 
 St. Paul, 33, 59, 101-2, 108, 116, 201 
 St. Peter, 108 
 Sanazarius, 45, 63 
 Sandford, W. P., 35 
 Sandys, George, 65, 136 
 Sarcasm, 6, 10, 36, 59, 62, 73, 76, 81, 
 118, 162, 195, 204, 220 
 Satire, 187-88 
 
 Satiric vehemence. See Delivery 
 Scaliger, 37 
 Scarron, 168 
 Schlegel, F., 20 
 
 Sedgewick, G. G., vii, ix, 3, 5, 8, 20-22, 
 25, 3°, 35, 52, 55, 60, 78, 87, 93, 
 104, 131 
 
 Self-depreciation, 3-6, 11, 17-19, 21-22, 
 25, 4 i, 45 - 47 , 50 - 53 , 56, 64, 67, 
 72, 78, 99-104, 112, 144, 163 
 Serious matters as subjects of raillery. 
 
 See Raillery, especially 190-208 
 Shadwell, Thomas, 151, 209 
 Shaftesbury, Third Earl of, 9, 22, 29, 
 42, 44 , 47 - 55 , 72 , 148, 151-52, 156, 
 157, 163, 165-66, 173, 175, 191-93, 
 196, 201, 205, 208, 217, 220 
 Shakespeare, William, 172, 190-91, 212, 
 216 
 
 Sherry, Richard, 10, 32, 35-36, 62, 83, 
 
 114-15, i47 
 
 Sidney, Philip, 77, 105-6, 126, 190 
 Simulatio. See Dissimulation 
 Smart, Christopher, 166, 197 
 Smith, Edmund (“Rag”), 167-68, 170 
 Smith, John, 13, 16, 24, 27, 31-32, 34- 
 36, 59, 70, 77, 80-81, 83-84, 102, 
 112-13, n6, 119, 147, 150 
 Smollett, Tobias, 30, 75-76, 89, 106, 
 
 118, 124, 171 
 
 Social and moral criticism of irony, 141 
 Socrates. See Socratic irony 
 Socratic irony, vii, 3-5, 8-9, 11, 17-22, 
 25-26, 28-29, 39-40, 45-56, 60-64, 
 72, 75, 78, 85, 98-99, 103-4, 108, 
 
 119, 167, 177, 208 
 Solomon, 42, 117 
 
 Somers Tracts, 71, 124, 133 
 Sophoclean irony, 19 
 
INDEX 
 
 258 
 
 Somervile, William, 170, 217 
 The Spectator , 73, 126, 193 
 Spence, Ferrand, 27, 166, 200 
 Spence, Joseph, 172 
 Spenser, Edmund, 62 
 Sprat, Thomas, 165, 192, 204-6, 208 
 Stanley, Thomas, 38, 47, 167, 177 
 Steele, Richard, 184, 206 
 Stephens, John, 7, 26, 56, 65-70, 115, 
 162, 191 
 
 Sterne, Laurence, 20 
 Stock definitions, ix, 4-6, 8-15, 30-37, 
 39-40, 52, 55, 60, 66, 76, 82, 85, 
 9 °, 94, 144 
 Stoic, 49 
 
 Strategies of irony, 64-67, 109-13, 115- 
 16, 120, 125-26, 128-31, 133-39, *42- 
 5 i, 153 - 54 , i 7 2 , ‘76, 185, 215 
 Subjects of raillery. See Raillery, espe¬ 
 cially 190-208 
 
 Swift, Deane, 58, 76, 122, 152, 177, 
 184 
 
 Swift, Jonathan, 7, 9, 13, 16, 18, 24, 
 29, 54-58, 73 - 74 , 78, 99, 102-3, 106, 
 108-10, 118-20, 122, 127, 136-37, 
 
 > 39 , 147 , 150, 152, 159, i6i> 166, 
 168-69, I 7 I- 73 , 177 - 84 , 187-88, 
 
 193-99, 202-4, 209-11, 213-14, 217, 
 219 
 
 Synchoresis , 150 
 
 The Tatler , 166, 192, 194, 197, 206, 
 210, 215 
 
 Taylor, Warren, 26, 31, 34 
 Test of truth, 217-18 
 Theophrastus, 4, 6, 8, 11, 38, 40-41, 
 46, 65, 66, 70 
 Thompson, A. R., 20 
 Thomson, J. A. K., 20, 25, 56, 119 
 Thordynary of Crysten men , 7, 10, 11, 
 25, 30, 41, 61 
 
 Tieck, L., 20, 87 
 Tone. See Delivery 
 Topsell, Edward, 64-65, 131 
 Tragic irony, 19 
 Trenchard, John, 73 
 Tropes, 5, 30, 32, 35, 42, 59, 148-50, 
 158, 177, 182 
 
 Truth to Nature, 152-53, 157-59, 161 
 Turner, F. McD. C., 20 
 
 Understatement, 15-16, 54, 59-60, 78- 
 79, 80-82, 182, 208 
 Urbanity, 5, 47, 84, 164, 205 
 
 Value of irony, 4, 34, 60, 67, 69-70, 76, 
 
 79, 92, 110-11, 117, 133, 140-42, 
 
 169, 174, 178-79, 181-85, 188-89, 
 
 194 - 95 , I 97 - 9 8 , 202-5 
 
 Virgil, 57, 86, 114, 127 
 Voiture, 57, 158-59, 166, 196 
 Voltaire, 18 
 
 Walker, Obadiah, 70, 113, 149 
 Warton, Joseph, 76, 127, 171, 177, 184, 
 194 
 
 Waugh, Evelyn, 18 
 Welsted, Leonard, 30 
 Whately, William, 30, 42-43, 70 
 Whytinton, Roberte, 25, 45, 191, 200 
 Wilmot, John, 111 
 
 Wilson, Thomas, 10, 12, 32-33, 38, 59, 
 
 80, 83, 105, 147, 177, 182 
 Wit, 188-89, 220-21 
 Wolseley, Robert, 145 
 Wood, Anthony, 209, 211 
 Worcester, David, 17-22, 92, 162, 186- 
 
 87 
 
 The World , 31, 75, 147, 155-56, 193 
 Wotton, William, 192, 197, 210, 217, 
 219 
 
 Wylkinson, John, 25, 38 
 

 
 
 
 


 .