How Does Edith Wharton Portray Artistic and Intellectual Life in “The Age of Innocence”?
In Edith Wharton’s “The Age of Innocence” (1920), artistic and intellectual life is portrayed as superficial, decorative, and subordinated to social conventions in Gilded Age New York society. The novel reveals that old New York treats art and intellectual pursuits as markers of social refinement rather than genuine expressions of creativity or serious engagement with ideas. Characters like Newland Archer demonstrate dilettantish interest in literature, architecture, and culture, but their intellectual curiosity remains constrained by social expectations that discourage deep thinking or unconventional ideas. Art functions primarily as a commodity for displaying taste and wealth—through opera attendance, book collecting, and European cultural tourism—rather than as a vehicle for authentic aesthetic experience or intellectual growth. Wharton demonstrates that society’s rigid conformity stifles genuine artistic and intellectual development, forcing individuals to choose between social acceptance and authentic creative or intellectual engagement. The few characters who pursue serious artistic or intellectual lives, such as Ned Winsett and Ellen Olenska’s bohemian friends, exist on society’s margins, excluded from meaningful participation in elite social circles (Wharton, 1920).
What Is the Role of Opera in Old New York Society?
Opera serves as the central cultural institution in “The Age of Innocence,” functioning less as an artistic experience than as a social ritual where New York’s elite perform their status and conduct elaborate social negotiations. The novel opens at the Academy of Music during a performance of Gounod’s “Faust,” immediately establishing opera as the primary setting where society gathers, observes, and judges. The opera house functions as a theatrical space where the audience performs for each other as much as the singers perform for the audience, with family boxes serving as private stages for displaying social position, fashionable dress, and proper behavior. Newland Archer’s observations reveal that most attendees pay minimal attention to the actual performance, instead focusing on social interactions, arriving strategically during the second act to maximize visibility while avoiding the tedium of the complete opera. The novel emphasizes that families maintain opera boxes not from genuine appreciation of musical art but because opera attendance represents an essential social obligation that marks membership in New York’s highest circles (Wharton, 1920).
The treatment of opera as social performance rather than artistic experience reflects broader patterns in how old New York society engages with culture and the arts. Wharton notes that audiences tolerate mediocre performances and inferior singers, suggesting that the quality of artistic execution matters less than the social function opera serves. The ritual of opera attendance—arriving at prescribed times, wearing appropriate clothing, visiting specific boxes during intermissions—follows predictable patterns that transform aesthetic experience into social choreography. When Newland Archer finds himself genuinely moved by Christine Nilsson’s performance, his emotional response marks him as slightly unusual, someone whose aesthetic sensibility occasionally transcends the social function of opera attendance. The competition between the Academy of Music and the new Metropolitan Opera House represents not artistic disagreement about musical standards but rather social conflict between established families and nouveaux riches seeking cultural legitimacy. The nouveau riche families built the Metropolitan Opera specifically to gain access to opera culture after established families monopolized the limited boxes at the Academy, demonstrating how opera served as social capital that could be purchased through architectural investment and institutional creation (Wharton, 1920). Wharton’s treatment of opera reveals her critique of a society that transforms art into mere social performance, divorcing aesthetic experience from genuine artistic engagement (Hutchinson, 1984).
How Does Newland Archer Represent the Dilettante Intellectual?
Newland Archer embodies the dilettante intellectual whose literary and artistic interests remain superficial because social conventions prevent serious engagement with ideas or authentic aesthetic experience. Archer prides himself on his cultural sophistication, his knowledge of literature, his appreciation for architecture, and his connoisseurship of rare books and fine art. He considers himself intellectually superior to his social circle, viewing most of old New York society as philistine and conventional. However, Wharton reveals that Archer’s intellectual pretensions lack substance, as he never pursues his interests deeply enough to challenge social orthodoxy or develop genuine expertise. His dilettantism represents a common pattern among old New York gentlemen who cultivate cultural interests as marks of refinement rather than as serious intellectual vocations. Archer reads widely but selectively, preferring literature that confirms his existing worldview rather than challenging his assumptions. His architectural studies remain amateur pursuits that he never develops professionally, and his book collecting focuses more on acquiring rare editions as objects than on engaging deeply with texts (Wharton, 1920).
Archer’s intellectual limitations become most apparent through his interactions with characters who represent more authentic engagement with artistic and intellectual life. When he encounters Ned Winsett, a struggling journalist with genuine literary ambitions, Archer recognizes that Winsett possesses intellectual seriousness he himself lacks, yet he cannot imagine sacrificing social position to pursue authentic intellectual work. His conversations with Ellen Olenska reveal how profoundly his thinking has been shaped by social conventions, as she challenges assumptions he has never questioned. Ellen’s exposure to European intellectual and artistic circles provides her with frameworks for understanding experience that Archer finds both alluring and threatening. His attraction to Ellen stems partly from her intellectual independence and cultural sophistication, qualities that his society actively discourages in women and men alike. However, Archer ultimately lacks the courage to embrace the intellectual freedom that Ellen represents, choosing social conformity over authentic intellectual engagement. The novel suggests that Archer’s tragedy lies not in any external constraint but in his internalization of social values that prevent him from pursuing genuine intellectual or artistic development (Wharton, 1920). His dilettantism represents a broader social pattern where culture serves decorative purposes rather than transformative ones, allowing individuals to claim intellectual sophistication while avoiding the risks associated with serious intellectual inquiry (Knights, 2009).
What Is the Treatment of Literature and Reading?
Literature and reading in “The Age of Innocence” function primarily as social markers that distinguish refined individuals from vulgar ones rather than as sources of genuine intellectual stimulation or aesthetic pleasure. Newland Archer’s library contains carefully selected volumes that announce his cultural sophistication—rare editions, poetry collections, works by approved authors—but Wharton suggests that his relationship to these books remains more proprietary than intellectual. He values books as objects to be collected and displayed rather than as texts to be studied deeply or discussed seriously. The novel reveals that old New York society maintains strict boundaries around acceptable reading material, with certain authors and subjects considered unsuitable for discussion in polite company. Women particularly face severe restrictions on their reading, as society considers intellectual ambition in women dangerous and unfeminine. May Welland’s education carefully excludes any literature that might stimulate independent thinking or expose her to unconventional ideas, ensuring she remains intellectually innocent in ways that serve social purposes (Wharton, 1920).
The few characters who engage seriously with literature exist on society’s margins or face social disapproval for their intellectual interests. Ned Winsett writes for small publications that reach limited audiences, his literary ambitions frustrated by lack of financial resources and social connections that might advance his career. Ellen Olenska’s intellectual sophistication, reflected in her literary tastes and conversational references, marks her as dangerously different from conventional New York women. When Archer lends Ellen a volume of poetry, the exchange carries erotic charge precisely because serious literary discussion between men and women violates social conventions that require women to remain intellectually superficial. The novel demonstrates that genuine literary engagement requires time, freedom, and intellectual independence that old New York society denies its members through constant social obligations and rigid conformity. The elaborate social calendar leaves little space for serious reading or reflection, with social duties consuming time that might otherwise be devoted to intellectual pursuits. Wharton suggests that the society’s treatment of literature reflects broader patterns of intellectual suppression, as genuine engagement with ideas threatens the social conformity necessary for maintaining hierarchical structures. Reading becomes another social performance where individuals display their refinement through references to appropriate authors while avoiding serious intellectual engagement that might lead to unconventional conclusions (Wharton, 1920). The novel’s treatment of literature illustrates how culture serves as social capital rather than intellectual stimulus in Gilded Age society (Singley, 1995).
How Are Visual Arts and Architecture Portrayed?
Visual arts and architecture in “The Age of Innocence” serve primarily as vehicles for displaying wealth, taste, and European cultural sophistication rather than as subjects of genuine aesthetic appreciation or artistic understanding. Old New York families compete to acquire European artworks—Italian paintings, French sculptures, Dutch masters—using art collecting to demonstrate both financial resources and cultural refinement. The emphasis on European art reflects society’s colonial relationship to culture, as families purchase aesthetic legitimacy through association with established European artistic traditions rather than developing distinctly American artistic sensibilities. Newland Archer’s architectural interests represent typical dilettantism, as he studies buildings and design principles without ever pursuing architecture professionally or developing truly original aesthetic ideas. His appreciation for architectural details allows him to judge other families’ homes, evaluating whether their choices reflect appropriate taste or reveal them as vulgar newcomers lacking proper cultural education (Wharton, 1920).
The novel’s detailed descriptions of interiors reveal how visual culture operates as a language through which families communicate their social position and values. Each drawing room, each piece of furniture, each decorative object carries social meaning that trained observers like Archer can decode. Mrs. Mingott’s mansion, with its unconventional location and opulent interiors, announces her wealth while revealing her nouveau riche origins through design choices that deviate from established taste. The Welland drawing room’s conservative furnishings reflect family values emphasizing tradition and propriety over innovation. Ellen Olenska’s apartment, filled with exotic objects and unconventional arrangements, visually represents her dangerous sophistication and her rejection of New York’s aesthetic conventions. The novel demonstrates that visual culture serves primarily social rather than aesthetic functions, with families investing substantial resources in creating interiors that communicate appropriate messages to social observers. Architecture and design become areas where families can demonstrate cultural sophistication while competing for status through careful aesthetic choices. However, Wharton suggests that this emphasis on visual display corrupts genuine aesthetic appreciation, reducing art to mere decoration and status signaling (Wharton, 1920). The treatment of visual arts reveals how culture becomes commodified in Gilded Age society, with artistic objects valued primarily for their social utility rather than their aesthetic or intellectual significance (Montgomery, 1998).
What Role Do Bohemian Artists Play in the Novel?
Bohemian artists and intellectuals in “The Age of Innocence” exist on the periphery of old New York society, representing alternative possibilities for authentic artistic and intellectual life that the novel’s central characters cannot fully embrace. Ned Winsett, the struggling journalist whom Newland Archer occasionally encounters, embodies the bohemian intellectual who prioritizes genuine literary work over social acceptance and financial security. Winsett’s poverty and social marginalization result directly from his commitment to serious intellectual work that produces limited financial reward and carries no social prestige in old New York. His conversations with Archer reveal the profound gulf between dilettantish cultural interest and serious artistic commitment, as Winsett pursues literary ambitions that require sacrifices Archer cannot imagine making. The bohemian artistic world that Ellen Olenska’s European friends inhabit offers alternatives to old New York’s values, prioritizing creativity, intellectual exchange, and authentic experience over social conformity and material display (Wharton, 1920).
Ellen’s connections to artistic and intellectual circles in Europe and New York demonstrate possibilities for life organized according to aesthetic and intellectual rather than social and commercial principles. Her shabby-genteel apartment hosts gatherings of writers, painters, and musicians whose conversation focuses on ideas and artistic creation rather than social gossip and status competition. Dr. Agathon Carver and his wife, bohemian intellectuals whom Ellen knows, represent the kind of serious engagement with ideas that old New York society finds threatening and ridiculous. When Archer briefly encounters Ellen’s bohemian world, he experiences both attraction and repulsion, recognizing authentic intellectual and artistic life while feeling his social conditioning resist unconventional people and settings. The novel suggests that genuine artistic and intellectual development requires freedom from social convention that few characters possess the courage to claim. Bohemian artists pay significant costs for their independence—financial instability, social marginalization, exclusion from institutional support—yet they achieve authentic creative and intellectual engagement impossible within conventional society. Wharton’s portrayal of bohemian culture remains somewhat ambivalent, acknowledging both its genuine artistic seriousness and its elements of affectation and pretension (Wharton, 1920). Nevertheless, bohemian alternatives highlight the sterility of old New York’s relationship to art and intellect, demonstrating what authentic cultural life might look like if freed from social constraints that subordinate aesthetic experience to status display (Ammons, 1980).
How Does Gender Affect Access to Intellectual Life?
Gender profoundly restricts access to artistic and intellectual life in “The Age of Innocence,” with women facing severe limitations on their education, reading, and participation in cultural discourse. Old New York society deliberately cultivates intellectual innocence in women, believing that female ignorance ensures moral purity and social propriety. May Welland’s education carefully excludes any knowledge that might stimulate independent thinking, expose her to unconventional ideas, or equip her to participate meaningfully in intellectual conversation. Her “Jacobean” innocence, which Archer initially finds appealing, reflects systematic denial of intellectual development that serves social purposes by producing women incapable of challenging male authority or social conventions. The novel reveals that society views female intellectual curiosity as dangerous, a trait that threatens proper gender relations and social stability. Women who demonstrate intellectual interests risk being labeled unfeminine, unmarriageable, or socially inappropriate (Wharton, 1920).
Ellen Olenska’s intellectual sophistication marks her as dangerously different from conventional New York women, her European education and exposure to artistic and intellectual circles having developed capacities that threaten social norms governing female behavior. Ellen reads widely, engages seriously with ideas, participates actively in intellectual conversations, and maintains friendships with artists and writers—all activities that violate expectations for proper feminine conduct. Her intellectual independence correlates with her unconventional life choices, including her separation from her husband and her rejection of social constraints. The novel suggests that society recognizes connections between intellectual freedom and social independence, explaining why families systematically deny women access to genuine education. Mrs. Manson Mingott represents another pattern: intelligent women who learn to exercise their minds within socially acceptable constraints, focusing on social strategy and family management rather than artistic or intellectual pursuits. The treatment of gender and intellectual life reveals how social structures systematically limit female development to maintain hierarchical gender relations essential to old New York’s social organization. Wharton herself experienced these constraints, her own intellectual development occurring despite rather than because of her social context, making her particularly attuned to how gender restricts artistic and intellectual possibilities (Wharton, 1920). The novel demonstrates that gender operates as a fundamental constraint on cultural participation, with intellectual life remaining primarily a male preserve from which women are systematically excluded (Benstock, 1994).
What Is the Role of European Culture and Travel?
European culture functions as the ultimate source of aesthetic legitimacy in “The Age of Innocence,” with old New York families treating European artistic and intellectual traditions as standards against which American culture must be measured. Wealthy families undertake regular European tours that serve multiple purposes: acquiring cultural sophistication through exposure to European art and architecture, purchasing luxury goods and artworks that display their wealth and taste, and maintaining distance from American commercial culture by associating with European aristocratic traditions. The emphasis on European culture reflects old New York society’s colonial relationship to aesthetic authority, as families seek legitimacy through connection to established European cultural institutions rather than developing distinctly American artistic sensibilities. Young people’s education includes extended European travel, with families considering exposure to European museums, opera houses, and historical sites essential for proper cultural formation (Wharton, 1920).
The novel demonstrates that European cultural authority serves ideological purposes by allowing old New York society to distinguish itself from other Americans through claims to cosmopolitan sophistication. Families use their knowledge of European culture—their fluency in French, their familiarity with Italian art, their understanding of European social customs—to mark themselves as superior to provincials lacking such refinement. However, Wharton suggests that old New York’s relationship to European culture remains superficial, more concerned with acquiring cultural capital than with genuine aesthetic or intellectual engagement. Newland Archer’s Paris honeymoon follows predictable tourist patterns, visiting required sites and acquiring expected cultural experiences without deep engagement. Ellen Olenska’s years in Europe genuinely transformed her intellectual and aesthetic sensibilities, exposing her to artistic and intellectual movements that old New York ignores or dismisses. Her European sophistication makes her both alluring and dangerous, as she brings back ideas and values that threaten social conventions. The novel’s ending, when Archer visits Paris years later but declines to see Ellen, suggests his recognition that European culture offered possibilities for authentic experience he proved unable to embrace. Wharton’s treatment of European culture reveals both its genuine artistic and intellectual richness and how old New York commodifies and superficializes European traditions to serve social purposes (Wharton, 1920). The emphasis on European cultural authority demonstrates American cultural insecurity while revealing how cosmopolitan claims mask fundamentally provincial attitudes (Joslin, 1991).
How Does Social Conformity Stifle Intellectual Development?
Social conformity operates as a powerful force suppressing intellectual development and artistic creativity throughout “The Age of Innocence,” with old New York society demanding rigid adherence to conventions that discourage independent thinking and unconventional ideas. The social calendar’s relentless demands leave minimal time for serious reading, reflection, or intellectual work, as families expect participation in constant rounds of dinners, receptions, balls, and other obligations. This elaborate social choreography serves crucial functions—maintaining hierarchies, facilitating alliances, conducting social negotiations—but it consumes time and energy that might otherwise support intellectual or artistic pursuits. The novel reveals that society views intellectual curiosity with suspicion, considering serious engagement with ideas potentially disruptive to social harmony. Individuals who question established conventions or pursue unconventional interests risk social disapproval that can damage their families’ positions, creating powerful incentives for intellectual conformity (Wharton, 1920).
Newland Archer’s intellectual development illustrates how social conformity shapes and limits individual thinking, as he gradually abandons his early aspirations for authentic experience and genuine intellectual engagement. His marriage to May, his conventional legal career, his predictable social life—all reflect his acceptance of social conformity over intellectual independence. The novel suggests that social pressure operates not only externally, through explicit disapproval of nonconformity, but also internally, as individuals internalize social values that make intellectual independence psychologically difficult or impossible. Archer ultimately chooses comfort and social security over the intellectual and emotional risks that Ellen Olenska represents, demonstrating how effectively social conformity shapes individual choices. The few characters who resist conformity—Ellen with her unconventional lifestyle, Ned Winsett with his literary ambitions—pay significant costs in social marginalization and financial instability. Wharton demonstrates that old New York society functions as a totalizing system that shapes consciousness itself, making it extremely difficult for individuals raised within its values to imagine alternatives. Social conformity stifles intellectual development not primarily through overt censorship but through subtler mechanisms that make unconventional thinking psychologically costly and socially dangerous (Wharton, 1920). The novel presents a society where intellectual and artistic sterility results inevitably from social structures that prioritize conformity over creativity, status maintenance over authentic expression (Dimock, 1985).
What Is the Relationship Between Wealth and Cultural Participation?
Wealth operates as a prerequisite for cultural participation in “The Age of Innocence,” with artistic and intellectual life accessible primarily to those possessing sufficient financial resources to support leisure, education, and cultural consumption. Old New York’s cultural activities—opera attendance, art collecting, European travel, book collecting—require substantial financial investment, effectively excluding those without inherited wealth from meaningful participation. The novel reveals that genuine artistic or intellectual development requires freedom from economic necessity that only wealth provides, as serious cultural engagement demands time, education, and resources unavailable to those who must work for living. Newland Archer’s ability to cultivate literary interests, study architecture, and collect rare books depends entirely on his inherited wealth and his undemanding legal career that provides income without requiring serious professional effort. The connection between wealth and cultural participation reinforces social hierarchies by using culture as a marker that distinguishes elite from non-elite, refined from vulgar (Wharton, 1920).
The novel demonstrates how wealth shapes not only access to culture but also the forms that cultural participation takes, with old New York treating art and intellect as commodities to be acquired and displayed rather than as intrinsic goods worthy of pursuit. Families invest in culture—purchasing artworks, maintaining opera boxes, funding European tours—because cultural capital serves social purposes by marking status and facilitating social competition. This commodification of culture corrupts authentic artistic and intellectual engagement, reducing aesthetic experience to status signaling and intellectual work to gentlemanly accomplishment. The few characters pursuing serious artistic or intellectual work without substantial wealth, like Ned Winsett, struggle financially and socially, demonstrating that the society offers minimal support for cultural production while richly rewarding cultural consumption. Wharton suggests that this pattern produces cultural sterility, as wealth enables dilettantish cultural participation while serious artistic and intellectual work languishes without adequate support. The relationship between wealth and culture reveals how economic structures shape artistic and intellectual possibilities, determining who participates in cultural life and what forms that participation takes (Wharton, 1920). The novel’s treatment of wealth and culture demonstrates that economic inequality extends beyond material disparities to encompass unequal access to aesthetic experience and intellectual development, with cultural resources concentrated among those possessing economic resources (Wagner-Martin, 1995).
How Does the Novel Critique Cultural Superficiality?
Wharton’s “The Age of Innocence” offers a sustained critique of cultural superficiality in Gilded Age society, exposing how old New York transforms art and intellect into mere decorations that serve social purposes rather than intrinsic values. The novel reveals that society’s relationship to culture remains fundamentally instrumental, with artistic and intellectual pursuits valued primarily for their social utility rather than for aesthetic or intellectual merit. Opera attendance functions as social performance rather than aesthetic experience, literature serves as a marker of refinement rather than a source of ideas, visual arts operate as status symbols rather than objects of genuine appreciation. This instrumental approach to culture produces widespread dilettantism, as individuals cultivate superficial familiarity with artistic and intellectual traditions without developing genuine expertise or authentic engagement. Wharton demonstrates that cultural superficiality results not from individual failing but from social structures that actively discourage serious artistic and intellectual work while rewarding shallow cultural display (Wharton, 1920).
The critique extends to education, social conventions, and institutional arrangements that systematically prevent authentic cultural development. Education focuses on imparting social skills and conventional knowledge rather than stimulating intellectual curiosity or creative thinking. Social conventions demand constant participation in rituals that consume time while producing minimal intellectual or aesthetic value. Institutional arrangements—opera houses, museums, libraries—serve primarily social rather than cultural functions, providing venues for status display rather than serious artistic or intellectual engagement. Wharton suggests that this cultural superficiality damages individuals and society, producing stunted personalities incapable of genuine aesthetic experience or serious intellectual work. Newland Archer’s tragedy lies partly in his recognition of cultural possibilities he cannot actualize, his awareness of intellectual and artistic depth that his social context prevents him from achieving. The novel’s ending, revealing Archer’s life as a series of missed opportunities and unfulfilled potential, reinforces Wharton’s critique of a society that wastes human capacities through enforced superficiality. The treatment of cultural superficiality demonstrates Wharton’s broader argument that Gilded Age society’s values produced not only social injustice but also intellectual and artistic poverty, stunting human development through rigid conformity and instrumental approaches to culture (Wharton, 1920). Her critique remains relevant for contemporary readers, challenging us to examine whether our own cultural participation reflects genuine engagement or merely superficial consumption (Goodwyn, 1990).
Conclusion: What Does Wharton Reveal About Art and Intellect in Society?
Edith Wharton’s “The Age of Innocence” ultimately reveals that Gilded Age New York society treated artistic and intellectual life as decorative elements subordinated to social purposes rather than as intrinsic values worthy of serious pursuit. The novel demonstrates that culture functioned primarily as social capital, with artistic and intellectual accomplishments serving to mark status, facilitate social competition, and maintain class boundaries. Characters engage with art and ideas superficially, cultivating dilettantish interests that display refinement without requiring genuine commitment or risking unconventional conclusions. Social structures systematically prevent authentic artistic and intellectual development through multiple mechanisms: rigid conformity that discourages independent thinking, elaborate social obligations that consume time and energy, gender restrictions that deny women access to serious education, and instrumental attitudes that reduce culture to mere status signaling. The few characters attempting serious artistic or intellectual work face social marginalization and financial struggle, demonstrating society’s lack of support for genuine cultural production while it richly rewards shallow cultural consumption.
Wharton’s critique extends beyond historical description to offer lasting insights about relationships between social structures and cultural possibilities. The novel suggests that societies claiming to value art and intellect often construct systems that actually prevent authentic cultural development, subordinating aesthetic and intellectual values to social and economic imperatives. By exposing the cultural superficiality underlying Gilded Age New York’s pretensions to refinement, Wharton challenges readers to examine how contemporary social structures might similarly limit artistic and intellectual possibilities while celebrating superficial cultural participation. “The Age of Innocence” endures as a masterpiece because it provides not merely a portrait of a vanished society but a penetrating analysis of how social conformity, instrumental attitudes, and class structures corrupt cultural life across historical periods. Wharton demonstrates that authentic artistic and intellectual development requires freedom, courage, and social support that rigid hierarchical societies systematically deny, producing cultural sterility masked by elaborate performances of refinement. Her novel stands as both a historical document and a continuing critique, revealing tensions between social conformity and cultural authenticity that remain relevant for understanding contemporary artistic and intellectual life.
References
Ammons, E. (1980). Edith Wharton’s argument with America. University of Georgia Press.
Benstock, S. (1994). No gifts from chance: A biography of Edith Wharton. Scribner’s.
Dimock, W. C. (1985). Debasing exchange: Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth. PMLA, 100(5), 783-792.
Goodwyn, J. (1990). Edith Wharton: Traveller in the land of letters. St. Martin’s Press.
Hutchinson, S. (1984). Unspeakable horror in Wharton’s “The Age of Innocence.” Legacy, 1(1), 31-40.
Joslin, K. (1991). Edith Wharton and the making of fashion. University of New Hampshire Press.
Knights, P. (2009). The Age of Innocence: Ironic inversion and the suppressed self. In C. J. Singley (Ed.), A historical guide to Edith Wharton (pp. 155-186). Oxford University Press.
Montgomery, M. (1998). Displaying women: Spectacles of leisure in Edith Wharton’s New York. Routledge.
Singley, C. J. (1995). Edith Wharton: Matters of mind and spirit. Cambridge University Press.
Wagner-Martin, L. (1995). The Age of Innocence: A novel of ironic nostalgia. Twayne Publishers.
Wharton, E. (1920). The Age of Innocence. D. Appleton and Company.