In the latest addition to my Jane Austen Theorem*, Mark T. Mitchell explains how Jane Austen teaches us to be a gentlemen:
Austen’s gentlemen (I’m thinking especially of Darcy here) understand the call of duty; they are committed to family, reputation, propriety, and self-control. To be sure, Darcy takes himself quite seriously, but aren’t these pursuits serious by nature? To neglect one’s duty, to be careless of one’s family and reputation, to ignore the bounds of propriety and to indulge the appetites without restraint are not the actions of a gentleman. They represent, conversely, the behavior of a boor. Or, perhaps equally fitting, they are the actions of a male who has no sense of what it means to be a man. Such characters may be Guys or Peter Pans but they are not men and surely not gentlemen.
*Carter’s Jane Austen Theorem states that all complex behavior of advanced mammals can be explained by reference to the novels of Jane Austen. See also: Jane Austen and Game Theory and Jane Austen and Baboon Metaphysics
April 5th, 2011 | 9:50 am
[...] Apr via First Things By Joe [...]
April 5th, 2011 | 10:01 am
Yes, Austen’s heroes are “gentlemen” in the truest sense, and it has little to do with money and nothing to do with clothing, horses, or their ability to dance. And all the “villain” or “foil” characters get passed over precisely because of their failure to be gentlemanly in that sense.
April 5th, 2011 | 11:48 am
Yes, Austen’s heroes are “gentlemen” in the truest sense, and it has little to do with money and nothing to do with clothing, horses, or their ability to dance. And all the “villain” or “foil” characters get passed over precisely because of their failure to be gentlemanly in that sense.
Yes, but following the links in that article – to the books “Guyland” and “The Peter Pan Syndrome” – makes me wonder why men are so uninterested in being “gentlemanly”.
April 5th, 2011 | 12:28 pm
If the men “understand the call to duty”, why are so few of them in the military? England, during that time, was fighting for her life against Napoleon. Why wasn’t Darcy in Spain with Wellington, or in the Navy with Nelson?
Perhaps because they were actually selfish and spoiled, and preferred to let men of lower social class defend their wealth and property?
April 5th, 2011 | 12:29 pm
Because it assumes responsibility and is personally costly. Mr. Darcy is in some ways one of the weaker examples — he didn’t have much to lose except a broken heart which there were plenty of ladies clamoring to try to heal, and the esteem of an aunt who wasn’t much of a joy to be around anyway, but some of Austen’s men risked a great deal to maintain their honor. Edward Ferrars, of all Austen’s leading men the least “sexy” and the least highly-rated even according to the standards of Austen’s own time, assumed a level of responsibility for his actions that most men today would consider downright foolish, and very few would come close to imitating.
April 5th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
Jack Swan — the younger sons (and sometimes the scions) of families just like Darcy’s were in the army and navy. That’s where the entire officer corps came from. Should Darcy, as the current lord of the manor have abandoned his tenantry to a possibly corrupt paid agent to go fighting somewhere? Overseeing an estate like Pemberley was as much a responsibility, if taken seriously, as a privilege. Who do you think Nelson and Wellington *were*? Do you realize that Persuasion took place during Napoleon’s exile, and its male lead was a in fact a fighting naval captain?
In a still largely land-based society like England of Austen’s day, responsible land-owners were as essential to the welfare of large segments of society as fighting men. Jane Austen depicts fools and wastrels as well as men of honor in both the upper and middle classes. It’s precisely how they conducted themselves in the sphere they were called to that forms the basis for how she judges them.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact