It is a Truth Universally Acknowledged that a Charming Man Must be in want of Suspicion
In chapter 14 of After Virtue, MacIntyre finds two features that stand out in Jane Austen’s account of the virtues: her emphasis on constancy (understood as steadfastness of character, the capacity to hold firm in your commitments, judgments, affections, and faithfulness) and her distinction between genuine virtue (amiability) and its simulacrum (agreeableness) (183).
MacIntyre states that Aristotle treats agreeableness as a virtue performed out of considerations of honor and expediency, while Austen insists that the genuine virtue, amiability, requires “a certain real affection for people as such” (183). Amiability and agreeableness can look identical on the surface, because both involve being pleasant, warm, and attentive to others. However, genuine amiability is durable because it is grounded in care for persons, while agreeableness vanishes when it becomes costly or inconvenient, or no longer serves the person's interests. Having drawn this distinction, MacIntyre moves on to Benjamin Franklin, stating that the “significance of Austen’s synthesis must be delayed” (185). I would like to pick up where he left off and focus on two of Austen’s novels to show what I think constancy is doing in Austen’s understanding of virtue, because I think it is doing more than MacIntyre says.
Austen stages the contrast between amiability and agreeableness with a distinct consistency. In Sense and Sensibility, Willoughby performs emotional warmth so convincingly that Marriane and nearly everyone around her take him as truly virtuous, yet his conduct is ultimately governed by money and social standing (external goods!). Colonel Brandon, socially awkward and initially unimpressive, is the one whose constancy reflects a real concern for Marianne as a person. In Persuasion, Mr. Elliot’s polished agreeableness conceals his self-interest that is only exposed later in the novel through Mrs. Smith’s testimony.
What I think is interesting across these two novels is that the capacity to distinguish genuine virtue from its simulacrum. In Sense and Sensibility, Marianne’s older sister Elinor maintains a discreet skepticism about Willoughby even though Mrs. Dashwood, her loving and well-intentioned mother, is entirely won over by his apparent devotion. In Persuasion, Anne feels uneasy about Mr. Elliot’s too-polished manners long before Mrs. Smith provides the evidence that confirms her instinct, while Sir Walter, Elizabeth Elliot, and even the experienced Lady Russell all think well of him.
The pattern I see across both novels is that the characters who possess constancy, Elinor and Anne, are also the ones who can see through agreeableness and what lies beneath it. And the characters who lack constancy in their own judgement, Mrs. Dashwood with her romantic ideals, Sir Walter with his vanity and pretentiousness, are the ones deceived. Inconstancy does not just make the characters easily swayed in their own character, but makes them blind to the difference between genuine virtue and a performance of virtue in others.
This to me suggests that constancy in Austen is doing two things. Constancy makes a person genuinely and consistently good over time, but it also enables them to perceive virtue and its absense in others. I believe that MacIntyre gestures at this when he compares constancy to phronesis. He says that constancy is a prerequisite for possessing other virtues, but I wonder if (as Austen's novels may suggest), it also functions as a prerequisite for recognizing them.
Such a cool point! I also think that in Pride and Prejudice and in Mansfield Park it is character failings, e.g. Elizabeth's vanity and resulting prejudice against Darcy, that result in her mistaking Wickham's agreeableness for real amiability. Fanny in Mansfield Park sees through her suitor's facade, but most of those around her, skewed by their desire for the connection, interpret his agreeableness as real amiability.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this blog post, and agree on how the characters in Austen's works can demonstrate the virtues as such. That said, I think that looking at her novel Emma might lead individuals to a different conclusion on the role of constancy in reference to other virtues. In the beginning of the novel, Emma lacks constancy. While she is extremely agreeable, her youth and ignorance leads her to make quick judgements of people and prioritize her own wishes and perceptions of social class over those of her friends, as we can see when she convinces Harriet not to marry Mr. Martin. Similar to how Elizabeth's prejudice leads her to misunderstand Wickham's intentions, Emma's own ignorance leads her to misunderstand both Mr. Elton and Frank Churchill's intentions. However, it is though Emma's affection for Mr. Knightly and his subsequent patience with her that she is able to grow in the virtue of constancy and eventually learn how to treat people differently.
ReplyDeleteMacIntyre claims that Austen "thought it possible and necessary for for the possessor of that virtue to have a certain real affection for people as such." While I agree that constancy helps characters like Elinor and Anne see through agreeableness, I would argue that the plot of Emma leads to the conclusion that amiability and agreeableness are actually prerequisites to constancy. While Emma is able to grow in her capacity for constancy, it is only facilitated by her relationships and her genuine affection for those close to her.