Sunday, May 29, 2016
What constitutes manliness?
This description of what
constitutes manliness, from chapter 68 of the novel Phineas Redux by
Anthony Trollope (1815 1882), is a little dated, but I think it says it well.
“The property of
manliness in a man is a great possession, but perhaps there is none
that is less understood,—which is more generally accorded where it
does not exist, or more frequently disallowed where it prevails.
There are not many who ever make up their minds as to what
constitutes manliness, or even inquire within themselves upon the
subject. The woman's error, occasioned by her natural desire for a
master, leads her to look for a certain outward magnificence of
demeanour, a pretended indifference to stings and little torments, a
would-be superiority to the bread-and-butter side of life, an unreal
assumption of personal grandeur. But a robe of State such as
this,—however well the garment may be worn with practice,—can
never be the raiment natural to a man; and men, dressing themselves
in women's eyes, have consented to walk about in buckram. A composure
of the eye, which has been studied, a reticence as to the little
things of life, a certain slowness of speech unless the occasion call
for passion, an indifference to small surroundings, these,—joined,
of course, with personal bravery,—are supposed to constitute
manliness. That personal bravery is required in the composition of
manliness must be conceded, though, of all the ingredients needed, it
is the lowest in value. But the first requirement of all must be
described by a negative. Manliness is not compatible with
affectation. Women's virtues, all feminine attributes, may be marred
by affectation, but the virtues and the vice may co-exist. An
affected man, too, may be honest, may be generous, may be pious;—but
surely he cannot be manly. The self-conscious assumption of any
outward manner, the striving to add,—even though it be but a tenth
of a cubit to the height,—is fatal, and will at once banish the all
but divine attribute. Before the man can be manly, the gifts which
make him so must be there, collected by him slowly, unconsciously, as
are his bones, his flesh, and his blood. They cannot be put on like a
garment for the nonce,—as may a little learning. A man cannot
become faithful to his friends, unsuspicious before the world, gentle
with women, loving with children, considerate to his inferiors,
kindly with servants, tender-hearted with all,—and at the same time
be frank, of open speech, with springing eager energies,—simply
because he desires it. These things, which are the attributes of
manliness, must come of training on a nature not ignoble. But they
are the very opposites, the antipodes, the direct antagonism, of that
staring, posed, bewhiskered and bewigged deportment, that nil
admirari, self-remembering assumption of manliness, that
endeavour of twopence halfpenny to look as high as threepence, which,
when you prod it through, has in it nothing deeper than deportment.
We see the two things daily, side by side, close to each other. Let a
man put his hat down, and you shall say whether he has deposited it
with affectation or true nature. The natural man will probably be
manly. The affected man cannot be so.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment