This paper examines Delphine Perret's analytical framework for irony and humor in French literature and tests it against two landmark French plays: Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi (1896) and Eugène Ionesco's The Bald Soprano (1950). The paper traces Perret's historical account of irony from ancient Greek roots through the 20th century, outlining her key typologies — irony as signification by contraries, as dissimulation, and as interrogation — as well as her speech act theory dimensions: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. It then applies these concepts systematically to both plays, demonstrating how each work embodies Perret's categories and confirming the robustness of her framework across two different centuries and two distinct theatrical styles.
The paper demonstrates systematic framework application: it introduces a multi-part theoretical model, then moves through each component in turn for each literary work. This produces a rigorous, checklist-style analysis that ensures no element of the framework is left untested, and it makes the paper's argument easy to follow and evaluate.
The paper opens with an introduction summarizing Perret's project and the two plays. It then devotes a long section to explicating Perret's framework across historical periods and typologies, followed by two parallel analytical sections — one on Ubu Roi and one on The Bald Soprano — each of which maps Perret's categories onto the play. A conclusion synthesizes the findings. The bibliography uses MLA-style print citations throughout.
Delphine Perret's "Irony" analyzes irony and humor and reaches conclusions about irony's elements and dimensions that are apparently well-founded and well-supported by famous plays. Perret's work explores several historical manifestations of irony, depending on the historical period in which they are found. Perret stresses the key identifiers of the French concept of irony, stating that it focuses on a "verbal situation" in which the speaker uses an urbane and acidic stance toward the subject, creating an intelligent, mocking, and somewhat malicious circumstance (Perret 33). Noting the difference between popular French notions of irony and popular English notions of irony, Perret then explores several dictionary-based and historically-based definitions of irony.
First, Perret speaks of irony as "a mode of signification by means of contraries" (Perret 33). Here, meaning is to be implied by "inversion" — that is, by understanding the antithesis of the literal meaning of the words. An example of this type of irony is a compliment that both the speaker and the hearer understand to be an insult. Secondly, Perret speaks of irony as "dissimulation," or the contrast between what is expected and what actually happens (Perret 33–4). A corollary of this is the use of humor in which the speaker or doer obviously means the opposite of what he says or does (Perret 34). Third, Perret speaks of irony as a mode of interrogation — from the Greek eirein, "to interrogate" (Perret 37) — involving the ironist's "feigning of ignorance in an argument" (Perret 34), as seen in the argumentative style of Socrates.
The Socratic mode of irony stems from the Greek eiron, "to speak." Here, the ironist — who is genuinely naive or feigning naivety — is juxtaposed against a braggart or creator of difficulty, with the result that the braggart is revealed as the truly naive or foolish one (Perret 35). Aristotle later described this dynamic as "excess by default," which reveals the ironist and the subject to be exactly the opposite of what they appear. This type of irony requires a "complicity" between the ironist and the audience.
Perret then draws similarities between this type of irony and the irony of French authors and audiences of the 17th century, who shared language, culture, and values and would therefore all "get" the irony of whatever was said or written — at the expense of the naif, the foolish target within the group or the enemy target outside it (Perret 38). In 18th-century Europe, this type of irony developed into a romantic irony: a veiled and seemingly courteous form in which the speaker plays all the parts and realizes that within himself there is a bizarre world obscured by his own arrogance. This type of irony resulted in an internal voice of truthfulness and sincerity that one felt compelled to direct at the world (Perret 39–40).
In 19th-century irony, the concept shifted so that mockery was directed at the self, extinguishing or acknowledging the speaker's lack of reason and individuality. The ironist becomes identified with the great external realities of fate, destiny, and Life (Perret 40). By the 20th century, the ironist has "lost the battle" and, knowing that he lacks individuality and reason, realizes he is defined by babble occurring outside him, within him, and by him. Perret describes this type of irony as "self-parody in order to demonstrate the enormous farce of a civilization that has disclosed its impotence, truly" (Perret 40).
Perret also notes that as irony has changed throughout the centuries, it has not always changed in the same ways. Within literature, irony can be based on language as an act — what she calls "the speech act theory" (Perret 40). This theory divides speech or action into three parts: the locutionary, which is the actual meaning of the speech or act; the illocutionary, which is the conventional meaning of the speech or act; and the perlocutionary, which is the effect or consequence of the speech or act (Perret 40–1).
Within this construct, irony requires one or more of several possible dimensions: contrastive negation, a kind of qualification that contradicts what the hearer might otherwise think; suspensive negation, in which the speaker suspends or negates the otherwise binding meaning of his actions; interrogation, such as the seemingly innocent Socratic method; the imperative, in which the speaker or actor imposes a modification of the statuses of the speaker, the hearer, and whatever is being said or done; and perspective, in which the hearer can imagine the speaker and whatever is being said or done in real context to understand their roles and ethical values (Perret 41–5). In sum, Perret turns the concept of irony over and over to examine its historical and contextual meanings and developments. Samples of Perret's types and dimensions of irony are found in Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi and Eugène Ionesco's The Bald Soprano.
Ubu Roi premiered in Paris on December 11, 1896 (Jarry and Lantier VI). As indicated by the play's translator, Lantier, the play is a lesson drawn from Jarry's own life, which he deemed "a sort of humorous and ironic epic" (Jarry and Lantier ix). Jarry espoused reacting to the universe's cruelty and stupidity by making one's own life "a poem of incoherence and absurdity" (Jarry and Lantier ix). This attitude carried over to his first play, beginning with the word "Pshitt" (Jarry and Connelly 21) or "Shittr" (Jarry and Lantier 7), depending on the translation. If for no other reason, the play was notable as the first time the word "Shit" was intentionally used on stage (Dittmar and Entin 5). Described as "the rise and fall of a greedy, dim-witted, and obese regicidal murderer" (Hrbek 247) and now considered a "scatological romp" (Sanders 97), the play was roundly booed and cheered by the premiere audience.
The plot of Ubu Roi is suitably absurd. In Act I, Père Ubu is the anti-hero of Jarry's anti-play: a somewhat pear-shaped, homely, ambitious, lying, vulgar, and violent individual. He plots with his wife and Captain Bordure to kill Venceslas, the King of Poland, so that Ubu can assume the throne. Ubu murders all of Bordure's men by having them taste a excrement-covered toilet brush at a feast, then makes his wife, Captain Bordure, and others swear "to kill the king good and proper" (Jarry and Lantier 13–14). In Act II, Ubu kills Venceslas while the Queen and her son Bougrelas escape; Bougrelas's dead relatives appear and command him to seek vengeance. Meanwhile, newly crowned Ubu throws gold to his subjects, prompting them to trample one another, and invites everyone to an orgy at his palace. In Act III, Ubu and his wife contemplate their rule; he throws Captain Bordure, no longer useful, into the dungeon. Bordure escapes to Russia and allies himself with Czar Alexis. As King, Ubu kills all nobles, magistrates, financiers, and other officials to seize their property, alter the law at will, and control the treasury. When Bordure writes to warn that Czar Alexis, Bordure, and Bougrelas are about to invade Poland, Ubu weeps with fear but is convinced by his wife to go to war — complete with a cardboard horse's head hanging from his neck.
In Act IV, Mère Ubu searches the Polish Kings' crypt for treasure, finds it among the bones, and carries some of it out, intending to return the next day for the rest. However, a voice from the crypt cries, "Never, Mère Ubu!" (Jarry and Lantier 95). Frightened, she flees with what she has. She then fights Bougrelas in Warsaw — and loses, though she escapes. King Ubu fights the Czar in the Ukraine and, after a shifting battle, is defeated and escapes to a cave in Lithuania with a few men. When a bear attacks the cave and his soldiers beg for help, Ubu climbs a rock to safety and recites the "Our Father." The soldiers kill the bear themselves; Ubu falls asleep and they escape. In Act V, Mère Ubu, having reached the cave after her own escape, finds Ubu sleeping. She pretends to be a supernatural being to coax him into begging forgiveness for his crimes, but instead receives a recitation of her own faults. Ubu realizes who she is, throws the dead bear on top of her, and — fearing the bear may still be alive — again recites the "Our Father." She laughs at him; he jumps on her and tries to tear her to pieces. Bougrelas and his army enter the cave and beat them both, but King Ubu and Mère Ubu escape, board a ship on the Baltic Sea, and Ubu begins scheming to be appointed finance minister of Paris in order to become King once more.
Ubu Roi substantially supports Perret's assertion that the French deem irony and humor to be a "verbal situation" in which the speaker uses an urbane and acidic stance toward the subject, creating an intelligent, mocking, and somewhat malicious circumstance. Ubu represents the repugnant middle class, and his ineffectual recitation of the "Our Father" — first in response to his soldiers' pleas for help and then out of his own fear of the possibly still-living bear — manages to mock the middle class, religion, the middle class's use of religion, and politically ambitious persons all at once. Rather than rendering real help or taking effective steps to ensure the bear is dead, Ubu falls back on useless, mocking prayer.
The play also exhibits Perret's first typology of irony as "a mode of signification by means of contraries" in Mère Ubu's very first line. Responding to King Ubu's "Psshit!", Mère Ubu states, "Oh! That's a nice way to talk!" (Jarry and Lantier 9). From the context and her follow-up line — "Père Ubu, you are a bloody great oaf!" — we know that her claim that "Psshit" is a nice way to talk is actually the opposite of what she means: that it is a bad and vulgar way to talk. The play also complies with Perret's idea of irony as "dissimulation," or the contrast between what is expected and what actually happens. When Mère Ubu finds King Ubu asleep and pretends to be a supernatural apparition to get him to beg for forgiveness, the audience may expect such a confession; what actually happens is that Ubu assaults her with a list of her own faults. Perret's idea of irony as a mode of interrogation is similarly borne out in the portion of Act I in which Mère Ubu goads King Ubu into murdering the King of Poland through seemingly foolish questions:
He states, "Oh no, though! I, a captain of dragons, slay the King of Poland! I'd rather die"; she asks, "Then are you going to stay as poor as a rat, Père Ubu?"; he states, "Gadzookers, by my green candle, I prefer to be as poor as a skinny, honest rat than as rich as a vicious, fat cat"; she replies, "And the cape? And the umbrella? And the great big cloak?" (Jarry and Lantier 13–14). Through simple, seemingly naive questions, she assuredly goads him into murder. Premiering in the late 19th century, Ubu Roi also agrees with Perret's concept of 19th-century irony, in which mockery is directed at the self and the ironist becomes identified with the great external realities of fate, destiny, and Life. Despite Ubu's constant scheming and ready murder of anyone in his way, he is a laughable fool — defeated by fate, deposed from his ill-gotten throne, barely escaping with his life, and left to scheme ineffectually once more.
Perret's dissection of speech-act irony is also shown in Ubu Roi. When Mère Ubu berates King Ubu with her very first words, "Oh! That's a nice way to talk!" (Jarry and Lantier 9), there is: the locutionary element, in which the real meaning is that King Ubu is speaking poorly; the illocutionary element, in which the sentence has the opposite, apparent meaning that he is talking nicely; and the perlocutionary element, which has the effect of making the audience realize that King Ubu is a vulgar oaf. All of Perret's dimensions of irony are likewise borne out in the play. Contrastive negation is present in Mère Ubu's statement that "Psshit" is a nice way to talk: the audience knows from King Ubu's word choice and from her follow-up insult that she means precisely the opposite. Suspensive negation is present in King Ubu's recitation of the Lord's Prayer when his soldiers beg for help: while one might normally expect prayer in response to a plea to signal kindness, everything the audience already knows about the vulgar, murderous Ubu tells them he has no intention of helping anyone. The interrogation dimension has already been illustrated through Mère Ubu's naive questions. The imperative is presented by the playwright himself through the play as a whole, which assigns differing meanings and statuses to the middle class, government workers, and royalty. Finally, Perret's perspective is present in the audience's ability to observe the play from a distance, imagine these characters in a real context, and thereby assess their roles and ethical values. Consequently, Ubu Roi completely bears out and supports Perret's in-depth analysis of irony across historical periods and contexts, as well as in the elements and dimensions of irony.
Delphine Perret's analysis of irony and humor is apparently well-founded and well-illustrated by famous plays. Perret exhaustively examines the phenomena of irony in history and finds that irony has several manifestations, depending on its historical period. Noting the difference between popular French notions of irony and popular English notions of irony, Perret returns to "square one," using dictionaries to begin her research. First, Perret speaks of irony as "a mode of signification by means of contraries." Secondly, she speaks of irony as "dissimulation," or the contrast between what is expected and what actually happens. Third, she speaks of irony as a mode of interrogation, as exemplified by Socrates. This type of irony requires a "complicity" between the ironist and the audience.
French authors and audiences of the 17th century, who shared language, culture, and values, would all "get" the irony of whatever was said or written — at the expense of the naif, whether a foolish target within the group or an enemy target outside it. In 18th-century Europe, this type of irony developed into a romantic irony, resulting in an internal voice of truthfulness and sincerity that one felt compelled to direct at the world. In 19th-century irony, the concept shifted so that mockery was directed at the self, and the ironist became identified with the great external realities of fate, destiny, and Life. By the 20th century, the ironist has "lost the battle" and, knowing that he lacks individuality and reason, realizes he is defined by babble occurring outside him, within him, and by him.
Perret also notes that as irony has changed throughout the centuries, it has not always changed in the same ways. Within literature, irony can be based on language as an act — the "speech act theory" — divided into three parts: the locutionary, the illocutionary, and the perlocutionary. Within this construct, irony requires one or more dimensions: contrastive negation, suspensive negation, interrogation, the imperative, and perspective. Clearly, Perret examined irony inside and out, arriving at insightful conclusions that are easily illustrated through at least two famous examples of French literature.
Ubu Roi, premiering in Paris on December 11, 1896, reacted to the universe's cruelty and stupidity through "a poem of incoherence and absurdity." The play substantially supports Perret's assertion that the French deem irony and humor to be a "verbal situation" creating an intelligent, mocking, and somewhat malicious circumstance. Ubu's representation of the repugnant middle class and his ineffectual recitation of the "Our Father" mock the middle class, religion, the middle class's use of religion, and politically ambitious persons simultaneously. The play exhibits Perret's irony as "a mode of signification by means of contraries" in Mère Ubu's very first line, responsive to King Ubu's "Psshit!" It complies with Perret's "dissimulation" when Mère Ubu's pretense of being a supernatural apparition produces not repentance but a list of her own faults. Perret's interrogation dimension is borne out in the Act I dialogue through which Mère Ubu goads King Ubu into regicide through seemingly naive questions. The play also agrees with Perret's concept of 19th-century irony in which mockery is directed at the self, making fate, destiny, and Life the ultimate ironist — and Ubu their fool. Perret's dissection of speech-act irony is illustrated when Mère Ubu declares, "Oh! That's a nice way to talk!" showing the locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary parts of irony. The play further illustrates the dimensions of contrastive negation, suspensive negation, interrogation, the imperative, and perspective.
The Bald Soprano, introduced in 1950, illustrated Ionesco's belief in pataphysique and the absurdity of autonomous language. The play also excellently illustrates Perret's explorations and findings about irony and humor, focusing on the French concept of an urbane and acidic stance toward language through inane clichés and non-sequiturs. It illustrates Perret's irony as "a mode of signification by means of contraries" through the Martins' conversation in which they speak as though they are strangers despite being a married couple. Perret's "dissimulation" is seen when the Smiths go upstairs to change, only to return in the same clothes. Perret's "interrogation" is shown when Mr. Smith and Mrs. Martin question the Fire Chief through naive, simple questions to prove their point. The play is an outstanding illustration of Perret's 20th-century irony, in which entire sections consist of babble yelled to demonstrate the loss of individuality, meaning, and reason. Perret's speech-act theory is illustrated through the Martins' exchange as apparent strangers. The play's dimensions of irony include: contrastive negation in the Martins' dialogue; suspensive negation when the Fire Chief arrives to fight a nonexistent fire and remains to socialize; interrogation in the simplistic questions posed to the Chief; the imperative in the work's wholesale reduction of language to autonomous babble; and perspective in the audience's ability to stand back, imagine these people in real situations, and assign status and value to the characters and to language itself.
Through playing with irony in numerous examples, both Ubu Roi and The Bald Soprano strongly support Perret's analysis and findings on the essential elements and dimensions of irony, along with its manifestations in different historical periods. By starting "at square one" with dictionary definitions and then tracing irony through history with contributions from outstanding thinkers, Perret has developed a workable and penetrating understanding of irony and humor. Evidence of this is found in the examination of both plays, which are examples of irony in French literature but were written in different centuries by different playwrights. The fact that Perret's analysis and conclusions are clearly set forth in the somewhat differing styles of Jarry and Ionesco demonstrates the intelligence and thoroughness of Perret's study. Consequently, Perret's analysis is well-founded and well-supported through review of outstanding French literature of both the 19th and 20th centuries.
Ashton, Dore. "On Blaise Cendrars...But I Digress." Raritan, 31(2) (Fall 2011): 1–42, 164. Print.
Dittmar, Linda and Joseph Entin. "Jamming the Works: Art, Politics, and Activism." Radical Teacher, 89 (Winter 2010): 3–9, 79–80. Print.
Hrbek, Greg. "The Science of Imaginary Solutions." Salmagundi, 170/171 (Spring 2011): 240–252, 280. Print.
Ionesco, Eugène and Donald M. Allen. The Bald Soprano and Other Plays. New York, NY: Grove Press, Inc., 1958. Print.
Jarry, Alfred and Cyril Connelly. The Ubu Plays. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1968. Print.
Jarry, Alfred and L. Lantier. Ubu Roi. New York, NY: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961. Print.
Milutinovic, Zoran. "The Death of Representation and the Representation of Death: Ionesco, Beckett, and Stoppard." Comparative Drama, 40(3) (Fall 2006): 337–364. Print.
Perret, Delphine. "Irony." Poetics Journal, 3 (May 1983): 33–45. Print.
Sanders, James H. "Performing Arts-Based Education Research: An Epic Drama of Practice, Precursors, Problems and Possibilities." Studies in Art Education, 48(1) (Fall 2006): 89–107. Print.
Walker, Craig Stewart. "Three Tutorial Plays: The Lesson, The Prince of Naples and Oleanna." Modern Drama, 40(1) (Spring 1997): 149–162. Print.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.