The past permeates the life of New York society as described by Edith Wharton in The Age of Innocence. Society appears to be an inherently conservative institution with an extreme focus on ritual and tradition, as evidenced by our introduction early in the novel to a character who can explain even society's most complex family trees, and to another which is an authority on “form”. " (7--9). It thus appears that the members of society are conscious, if not explicitly, of the past through each of their rituals and traditions. Newland Archer, through his training in anthropology at Harvard, continually makes references to prehistoric rituals as they relate to society: the most notable are at her wedding (153 pp) and her engagement (59) The pattern of furs and feathers worn by the women and the use of words such. that "clan" in the narration reinforce this focus on the past by comparing current society to an ancient society. The future is also explicitly addressed: as the author of a historical novel, Wharton dangles his knowledge of the past. he future of society; often, the characters discuss technological innovations that they have heard speculation about. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an original essayThis. continued reference to time raises the question of how these characters relate to the future and the distant past. Objects from the past and speculations about the future play an important role in the conversations: elements of the past are interspersed throughout the narrative through metaphor and word choice, while speculations about the future occur in a few conversations. While the past seems to have a greater presence and a different role than the future, there are two occasions where speculation about the future is present in the same scene as a significant presence from the past: in the Patroon's house at Skuytercliff and the Museum. . The juxtaposition of past and future in these scenes raises the question of how a transition from discussion of the past to discussion of the future affects the mood of the scene. The first interesting passage occurs when Archer visits Ellen at Skuytercliff, the van der Luydens estate. Archer meets Ellen on the road and they walk together to a stone house on the property which had been built in 1612 by the first Patroon (footnote - A Patroon owned an estate granted by the Dutch government) . There they begin a moving conversation, but are interrupted by the unexpected appearance of Julius Beaufort; To diffuse the tension, Ellen uses a remark from Beaufort and begins a conversation about the prospect of the telephone. The setting of this scene creates a feeling of rusticity that is not present in New York society; although separated from the time of the House of the Patroon by two and a half centuries, the change in attitude conveyed by the House of van der Luyden in relation to that house could just as easily span millennia. The squat stone house has four rooms grouped around a central fireplace in which there is a bed of still hot embers under an iron pot held by a crane (111, 113--4). This contrasts greatly with van der Luyden's house: people had always been told that Skuytercliff's house was an Italian villa. Those who had never been to Italy believed it; some did it too. . . . It was a large square wooden structure, with tongue-and-groove walls painted pale green andwhite, a Corinthian portico and fluted pilasters between the windows. From the high ground on which it stood, a series of terraces lined with balustrades and urns descended in the style of steel engraving to a small, irregular asphalt-edged lake overlooked by rare weeping conifers. To the right and left, the famous weed-free lawns dotted with specimen trees (each of a different variety) extended to long stretches of grass topped with elaborate cast-iron ornaments; and below, in a hollow, was the four-room stone house which the first Patroon had built on the land granted to him in 1612. (110--111) The contrast between a house built to suit its environment and a house built despite its environment is quite striking. clear. Skuytercliff's house is built to resemble an Italian villa in a natural environment, but it has borrowed elements from other architectures and the elements of nature within it are tamed within its confines. The land descending from the house is terraced as in Italy, but these terraces, normally used with agricultural land to prevent erosion, are unnecessary: ​​these terraces are lined with urns and balusters, and no greenery is mentioned about them. Below, a lake is held back by an asphalt border, but its shape is irregular, which raises the question of whether it is a natural element of the environment, or whether it too has was created unnaturally to highlight the rare trees in the middle. its edge. Additional rare trees (one of each [specimen]) are planted at regular intervals, dotting the famously weed-free lawn, the van der Luydens' lawn a velvety showcase for their tree collection. By its presentation as a foreign villa, as well as the words used to describe it (for example, the lawn being amous), this house was clearly built for display. Even a weed-free lawn – planting acres of land with a single inedible plant and keeping it that way – stands in stark contrast to the aesthetic of the Patroon's house; cast iron lawn ornaments ironically combine the mundane functionality of cast iron with the decorative notion of this pseudo-natural decor. The contrast of this house with that of the Patroon highlights the roles of each in relation to their environment. The Patroon's house was clearly built to be functional. Its central fireplace, shutters and stone walls retain heat, while the presence of a cast iron cooking pot and a crane to lift the pot reinforces the age of the house. The only ornaments in the house are shiny brasses (footnote - brasses probably refers to brass utensils) and Delft plates, both functional and decorative. The setting of an antique house proves to be a place where Ellen feels comfortable; May later talks about Ellen's feelings about the house, saying that it is the only house she has seen in America that she could imagine being perfectly happy in (162). The house also proved to be a beneficial environment for Archer: he followed her into the narrow passage. His spirits. . . jumped up irrationally. The welcoming little house stood there, its panels and brass gleaming in the firelight, as if magically created to accommodate them. (113--114) The house is described in the same sentence as being simple and having been created by magic. These ideas seem at first glance to contradict each other: magical houses are generally designed as magnificent and exotic, and more like that of the van der Luydens than a smallstone house. However, Ellen and Archer seem to view the cottage as an escape: Ellen notes that we won't be missed home for another hour, (113) giving a somewhat furtive note to their meeting; Archer seems disappointed that they only have an hour together. Both Archer and Ellen clearly seem to have an affinity for the ancient simplicity of this house, which allows them to escape. (Footnote - Clearly, there are additional questions about what aspects of home were comforting to them and what they preferred to escape; unfortunately, these questions cannot be answered through textual analysis of passages individual, if at all, due to lack of information.) A revelation of the source of Ellen's worry seems imminent when Julius Beaufort appears in the way. Both men are surprised to see the other. Beaufort explains that he had come to inform Ellen of a house that would be perfect for her: If only this new dodge to talk by telephone had been a little closer to perfection, I could have told you all this from the city, and I could have told you. As I toasted my toes in front of the club fire at that minute, instead of following you into the snow, he grumbled, masking real irritation under the pretext of that; and at this opening, Madame Olenska diverted the speech towards the fantastic possibility that they could one day actually converse from street to street, or even... an incredible dream! --- from one city to another. This was evident from the three allusions to Edgar Poe and Jules Verne, and from those platitudes which naturally rise to the lips of the most intelligent when they speak against time and when they deal with a new invention in which it would seem naive to believe too much. early ; and the question of the telephone brought them safely back to the big house. (115--116) Leaving aside the irony of Beaufort getting Ellen to leave the house she has already decided is perfect for her in order to discuss a house he deems perfect for her, we can note the transition from a focus on the past to a focus on the future, which is used to distract them from the current tension of Beaufort's visit. A discussion about the future is a transitional device between the Patroon and van der Luyden homes. In this discussion, Ellen seems to play the most important role: she brings up a topic of conversation to avoid discomfort and is referred to as Madame Olenska in the narration, while Beaufort and Archer are only mentioned implicitly. the future seems to contain excessive speculation like fantasy. Inserting the exclamation dream incredible! In Ellen's unquoted remark that perhaps telephones could connect cities, she seems surprisingly incredulous about the prospect. The expression itself offers a mixture of connotations. Although it is used as a meaningless exclamation or superlative modifier, unbelievable generally refers to something that cannot be believed. Using this word to modify the dream seems to imply that even the idea of ​​long distance telephones cannot be believed, that is, the concept itself is unbelievable. This remark therefore seems quite extreme, in its expression of disbelief, and could therefore be interpreted as adding a bit of sarcasm to Ellen's expression of enthusiasm, given where Wharton and the reader are fifty years from now. Referring to this as a fantastic possibility reinforces their disbelief, especially since in its original sense, fantastic meant the product of a dream, rather than the meaningless exclamation it tends to be in common parlance. . The description of such a conversation as speaking against time can be read in several ways. IfIf we put this expression in parallel with a race against time, it can be interpreted as implying an opposition or a competition between the discussants and time itself in which the latter has a great advantage; in this case, it would be a valiant fight to force time to divulge its secrets. A reading that sees time as monolithic, but not necessarily animate, might take counter-time to imply that their discourse opposed time as if it were a wall. Such speeches could be considered as a force, capable of moving the wall of time forward; however, the fact that the time wall moves slightly anyway could only give the illusion of such movement. Regardless, speaking against time can refer to an intense effort to push against the wall of time with one's words. The diction here implies that the characters are discussing incredible perspectives and are engaged in an intense quest to learn the truth. The seriousness of the diction plays on the implication in the same sentence that the characters might not actually be discussing the prospect of the telephone, but rather resorting to banal remarks that they would use about any innovation, for fear of appearing gullible to the point of believing it. such a thing. In other words, it seems that no matter what type of innovation these characters were talking about, the conversation would have been the same, with each character afraid to dare to believe in the possibility of the new technology. The existence of a generic conversation regarding the future has probably been part of the reader's experience more than fifty years after this scene; thus, describing such a conversation adds to the irony implicit in a discussion about the future that the reader and Wharton experience. There is already dramatic irony, because the readers are at least 50 years ahead of the characters; Furthermore, the irony lies in the fact that people always seem to react the same way to the future. A possible explanation for the juxtaposition of past and future is that it demonstrates the absence of present in the scene. The present intrudes very little in this scene, as it moves from the past in the Patroon's house to the future, upon returning to the van der Luyden house. Note, further, that Ellen has been the dominant character, determining that the past and future will take center stage: she has led Archer to the Patroon's house and leads the conversation into the future. in a conversation between Archer and Ellen at the Museum where the presence of the past leads them to reflect on their role in time. Archer asks Ellen to meet somewhere where they can be alone to discuss his feelings for her, at the Metropolitan Museum (262). Avoiding a more popular main gallery, they had wandered into a passage leading to the room where Cesnola's antiquities were rotting in unprecedented solitude. They had this melancholy retreat to themselves, and sitting on the couch surrounding the central steam radiator, they looked silently at the mounted display cases of blackened wood which contained the found fragments of Ilium. (263), an expensive wood not native to America) contrasts with the older content of the exhibit. The extent of the exhibition is greatly exaggerated by referring to it as the fragments recovered from Ilium. The use of the and of (respectively) rather than, for example, some and from implies that these are the last and only remains of Ilium (footnote "Troy) when in fact the exhibition probably included only a small part of the object. artifacts available. Another interesting aspect of this expression is the use of the passive in the description of the artifacts which highlights the delicacy and sterility of the displays, the artifacts are recovered, as if they had beenlost, then carefully returned to the sterile place. decor of a museum. This language contrasts with the beginning of the description, where the artifacts are personified as moldering in unvisited solitude, as if the artifacts are decaying or collapsing in their display cases from lack of companionship. as an apology to Ellen for the modest state of the museum, Archer shares his prophetic notion that one day, perhaps, the Metropolitan Museum of Art will be a great museum. This exchange between Archer and Ellen makes for an interesting juxtaposition with the previous passage. By looking at fragments of a society that no longer exists, and then discussing the future of the museum in which they sit, they situate themselves in a historical context: recognizing that they inhabit a time between this ancient society and the era of potential greatness. of the Museum. While it is obvious that {everyone} lives in a historical context that lies between the past and the future, the fact that Archer thinks about the future after being confronted with the past is not necessarily the obvious thing to do , and perhaps reveals something about Archer's state of mind. Indeed, change, as it applies to Archer and Ellen, is mentioned, and again juxtaposed with artifacts. Presently he rose and approached the case before which she rose. Its glass shelves were filled with small, broken objects—barely recognizable domestic utensils, ornaments, and personal trifles—made of glass, clay, discolored bronze, and other substances blurred by time. It seems cruel, she says, that after a while, nothing matters. . . no more than those little things, which were once necessary and important for the forgotten, and which now have to be guessed with a magnifying glass and labeled: “Use unknown”. \ Yes; but in the meantime ---\ Ah, in the meantime --- \ As she stood there, in her long sealskin coat, her hands thrust into a small round muff, her veil pulled down like a transparent mask until at the tip of his nose, and the bouquet of violets that he had brought her, moving with his hurried breath, it seemed incredible that this pure harmony of lines and colors would one day undergo the stupid law of change. (263--4) In addition to the antiquity implied by the museum artifacts, we may note that there are extreme images of the tribe here which add to the effect of age: Ellen has a wing of whole heron in his fur hat, and is wearing a sealskin coat. The choice of these more exotic animals, which one can imagine used by Native Americans, intensifies the image. The main questions raised here concern the future of Ellen and Archer. In a sense, it seems like Ellen and Archer are wondering if they will disappear into the past. Archer's desire not to see Ellen as vulnerable to the stupid law of change or as a blur in time seems to clearly foreshadow Archer's decision not to go see Ellen and perhaps rekindle their old relationship, or s 'he only needs to rely on his memories. This question evokes the continual tension between the tangible and the intangible: the question of artifacts versus memory. Artifacts may endure and prove something while memories die with their owner, but they may be passed down to future generations in a biased form. The fact that Dallas believes Archer had an affair with Ellen demonstrates distortions in the oral history. Looking at specific phrases provides additional insight. The term time-fuzzy substance has a very different connotation than aged materials, which are described as simply discolored. The use of the word "fuzzy time" implies movement - as if the substance itself had become indistinct and had its boundaries vaguely.