The illustration by Nick Hardcastle showing āthe first historically accurate illustration of Mr Darcy (ā¦) based on research commissioned by channel Drama to celebrate Jane Austen Seasonā has run like burning powder through my Department colleaguesā email. āKey findingsā, we are told, āinclude Mr Darcyās sloping shoulders, powdered white hair, a long nose, pointy chin and pale complexionā (https://vimeo.com/203141362/45c36ba575). Once you consider Darcyās new fancy mug shot, you may next read the article on which this is based, by Professors John Sutherland and Amanda Vickery (https://drama.uktv.co.uk/pride-and-prejudice/article/real-mr-darcy-dramatic-re-appraisal/). It is called āThe Real Mr Darcy: A Dramatic Re-Appraisalā, and it offers a quite amusing description of what a most desirable man must have looked like⦠either in 1790s when Austen wrote her novel or in 1813 when it was published, a mere 20 years apart, with Romanticism in the middle. Very accurate.
As you can see, I find the idea of portraying the ārealā Darcy absolute nonsense, as, to begin with, Darcy is a fictional character. As I have recently complained, authors offer too little description (except Dickens), which makes our task as readers often quite annoying. In the case of men presented as sex symbols, like Darcy, this vagueness may be an advantage to writers, for Austen only needs to say that Darcy is āhandsomeā for each woman reader to supply an ideal image. Hereās how Darcy is actually presented (in Chapter III of Pride and Prejudice), in direct contrast, by the way, with his best friend: āMr. Bingley was good looking and gentlemanlike; he had a pleasant countenance, and easy, unaffected manners. (ā¦) his friend Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien; and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year.ā Two observations: not the man himself but his features are described as handsome, and Austen makes sure we get the point that Darcyās handsomeness is much enhanced by his annual rent, in todayās currency, of 500,000Ā£. The passage, however, continues, by noting that Darcy was much admired until āhis manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud (ā¦)ā. Indisputably, Pride and Prejudice is the story of how Darcyās physical handsomeness is only proven by his handsome rescue of brainless Lydia from her entanglement with Wickham.
Colin Firth, who played a very manly Darcy in the 1995 BBC adaptation, obviously embodied for a whole generation of Austen readers a fantasy of handsomeness, as, of course, did Laurence Olivier for the 1940s. In contrast, Matthew McFadyen did nothing for the role. You will see that the many press articles generated by Hardcastleās illustration tend to compare it with a photo of Firth as Austenās heartthrob. Now we know that Firth had to die his gingerish hair in a darker hue to comply with the ādarkā part of the standard ātall, dark, handsomeā description. Heās naturally tall, at 1.87 m. Having recently heard Jack Halberstam wonder why in heterosexual romance men must be very tall, I now find this matter of height quite droll. Are the 10 cms separating Tom Cruise (170) from Brad Pitt (180) so crucial? Going back to Austen, just let me point out what should be obvious: an illustration of one possible way in which Darcy could be represented in the mental theatre of the female readers of the 1810s is not an illustration of the ārealā Darcy but only one element in the ongoing history of how Darcy has been imagined throughout the years. Also, of the history of the representation of male beauty in fiction.
I keep on telling my studentsāIām sure I have already mentioned this hereāthat I want to supervise a PhD dissertation on the use of the word āhandsomeā in fiction, particularly by women but not only so. My moment of enlightenment came when reading Iain M. Banksā science-fiction novel The Hydrogen Sonata. As Iām sure I have already narrated here, the female protagonist Vyr finds herself gradually falling in love with Beardle, the avatar of the powerful artificial intelligence, or Mind, that runs one of the colossal spaceships which comprise the executive arm of the utopian Culture. Guess how Beardle is described? Heās handsome. Vyr is absolutely chagrined when Beardle basically tells her sheās an idiot for feeling anything towards him, as he is not even human. I was also chagrined, for as a heterosexual female reader used to responding in this silly Pavlovian way to the word āhandsomeā, I had also fallen for Beardle. For Vyr the problem is that Beardle is not a real man. I happen to share her problem for, precisely, Beardle is a fictional construct. Not a real man. Much like Darcy.
There is a wonderful conversation about whether the use of āhandsomeā is archaic in relation to women here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/17108/can-you-still-call-a-woman-handsome. I will not go into this but let me just note that Sigourney Weaver is mentioned as a handsome woman, and Scarlett Johanson as a pretty one, though in my view sheās more handsome than prettyāattractive perhaps. Anyway, if we consider the difference between a āhandsome manā and a āpretty manā (Douglas Booth, Elijah Wood), you begin to see that āhandsomeā actually means āattractive in a manly wayā. Therefore, what makes us, heterosexual female readers, respond to the adjective āhandsomeā is the manliness embedded in it. Whether it is Darcyās or Beardleās.
A recent study indicated that womanās favourite male physical feature is not, as it is often said, the eyes, or, as some have been insisting lately, a shapely butt, but, rather, a good pair of muscled arms. Why? Because when we think āmanlyā we think āprotectiveā and little girls that we all are, we want to be embraced by manly men with bulky armsātall ones, as daddy always is for little girls (thereās Electra for you, Jack Halberstam).
This is the main irritant in the new image created for Darcy: heās lost the manly arms, the square shoulders we associate with him since Firth. Profs. Sutherland and Vickery explain that in Austenās time āIt was all about the legs. The six pack was unknown and square shouldered bulk was the mark of the navvy not the gentlemen. Chests were modest and shoulders sloping. Arm holes cut high and to the back rather pinioning the man within. The general effect was one of languid, graceful length not breadth. More ballet dancer than beef-cakeā. What theyāre missing is that not even ballet dancers, whether gay or not, look languid today. Also that contemporary heterosexual women do not care at all what was considered ideal for men back in the 1810s.
Reading recently my good friend Isabel ClĆŗaās new book Cuerpos de escĆ”ndalo: Celebridad femenina en el fin-de-siĆØcle, which deals with the Spanish female stars of the popular theatre, I was surprised by the photos. There was no way I could see beauty in Carolina Otero, internationally known as āla bella Oteroā. Tórtola Valencia, on the other hand, seemed quite handsome to meāmeaning that her beauty must have looked very odd in her time. Iām thus making again the well-known point that the appreciation of human beauty has a history. The problem, of course, is that it has usually focused on the representation of women, not of men. When I wrote the short essay āEntre Clooney y Pitt: El problema del deseo femenino heterosexual y lo sexy masculinoā (https://gent.uab.cat/saramartinalegre/sites/gent.uab.cat.saramartinalegre/files/EntreCloone y Pitt Sara Martin.pdf) I had a very hard time finding sources that discuss male beauty as seen from womenās point of view. Even today, Iām not sure why the six-pack is an essential part of our ideal, though itās been suggested that it connects manliness with discipline.
This lack of a history of male handsomeness, I am arguing, and of its representation in print and audiovisual fiction means that we lack the codes to read Hardcastleās rendering of his ārealā Darcy but also to understand what is happening under our very noses. And this is quite interesting: letās see who can convincingly explain why Brad Pitt, aged 53, is universally acknowledged as the most handsome man on Earth, a title he is keeping since 1991, when he seduced Thelma (Geena Davis) and the rest of the planet in Thelma & Louise. Recently, I went through as many lists I could find in IMDB of the hottest male actors active today, lists that ranged from men in their 70s to men in their teens, and, believe me, nobody could compare to Pitt. Chris Hemsworth came second but, like the rest, he lacked this something else that makes Pitt charismatic. Interestingly, Pittās status as male icon of beauty seems to have been unaffected by his ex-wife Angelina Jolieās demolition of his image as ideal family man, whereas a similar icon of a similar age, Johnny Depp, is now facing decadence after a highly problematic divorce.
If I go into why Pitt is so handsome, despite the acne scarring of his face, I will never finish. For the sake of my argumentation, just letās agree that nobody personifies better than him ideal masculinity today. Now think of two learned professors claiming in two hundred years time that in the fiction of 2010s Pitt is what handsome men looked like. Donāt even say the words Christian Grey and Jamie Dornan, please. Next, take any contemporary novel with a handsome man, thus described, and tell me what you see. Is it Pitt, our consensual ideal, or your own personal fantasyāperhaps based on someone you know?
What Iām saying is that not even in Austenās time was handsomeness dominated by a single image. Today, when Pitt might be the equivalent of Hardcastleās handsome man for our times, as in the past, the adjective āhandsomeā is used by authors to trigger a certain psychological reaction in readers, not as a descriptor. A description would clarify that āMr. Darcy was, at six feet, a very tall man. His impressive blue eyes were the best feature in a suitably pale countenance, dominated by an exquisite long nose, small mouth and gracefully pointed chin. His hair, naturally blonde, was hidden beneath an elegantly powdered wig.ā There you are.
I canāt wait to write the following post about, how can I put it? secondary handsomeness. Think Paul Bettanyā¦
I publish a new post every Tuesday. Comments are very welcome! (Thanks!) Just be warned that I check them for spam; it might take a few days for yours to be online. Follow the blog updates on Twitter: @SaraMartinUAB and download the yearly volumes from https://ddd.uab.cat/record/116328. See also: https://gent.uab.cat/saramartinalegre/.