Source
r/janeausten•
atesme

Late night pondering about Henry Crawford

People often say that Henry would probably cheat on Fanny if they married, and I’m not sure if I agree. The redeeming thing about Henry’s character (and I think Jane mentions this herself), is that he values goodness. When he finally pays attention to Fanny and sees her character, he finds himself completely drawn to her. He falls in love for the first time in his life. He’s a player, and we know he’s met and wooed countless other girls in the past. But only Fanny wins his heart.This isn’t the ephemeral passion of a young heart easily distracted by a new toy or pretty face, picking up a shiny object - this man has seen and flirted with many, many, women… and only one ever captured his heart. I don’t think it’s likely that he would randomly get bored of her. Henry has weaknesses, but not knowing his own mind isn’t one of them.

Henry’s failing, in my opinion, is not that he would eventually get tired of being good. He’s not an innately amoral character trying on a new preachy suit that fits him poorly. He is a spoiled man who has been bred to live a life of indolence and pleasure. He is not used to self denial and reflection. Rather than a poorly fitted suit that he will eventually cast off, this is a muscle he is not used to stretching. A muscle which would have gotten stronger with time and practice.

He admires Fanny, he cherishes her, and he values her goodness. He wants goodness for himself. This is in contrast to Mary, who actively seeks to quash Edmund’s more worthy qualities. There is something to be said for good taste! I think if Henry and Fanny did marry, her influence just by being around him would make him better with time.

The unfortunate part, when he went back to town and ran into Maria, is that those novel feelings and the awareness that Fanny woke in him were not yet strong enough to overcome years of habit. That little weak muscle didn’t have much fight in it yet. But the very fact that this man who could have had anyone picked Fanny of all people shows that he wanted to get better. Given time and patience and a happy home… who knows what he could have been.

Posted Feb 24, 2022, 3:21 AM UTC

4744
ShaySketches•

I think he DEFINITELY would have cheated on Fanny. Like if he couldn’t resist leaving with Maria when staying faithful to Fanny had its was the most novel and new, somehow I doubt he would after he had actually won her over.

50
Pegaret•

thanks for sharing your late night thoughts.

I think when it comes to Henry Crawford, this is a fascinating and relevant passage:

...but in Mr. Crawford’s reading there was a variety of excellence beyond what she [Fanny] had ever met with. The King, the Queen, Buckingham, Wolsey, Cromwell, all were given in turn; for with the happiest knack, the happiest power of jumping and guessing, he could always alight at will on the best scene, or the best speeches of each; and whether it were dignity, or pride, or tenderness, or remorse, or whatever were to be expressed, he could do it with equal beauty. It was truly dramatic.

I view MP to be in part about the glamour of acting, its possibility & promise of adventure into unreality and romance.

The most dishonest character, Mrs Norris, literally never stops acting and is constantly presenting some false narrative.

Henry for his part is such a consummate performer that I believe when it comes to Fanny, he even deceives himself for a while. He is able to value her, but for him I think it a matter of taste rather than virtue. Just as he was able to skip through and find the best passages in Shakespeare, he is able to skip over various women and identify Fanny's integrity and genuine feeling. He is able to suddenly jump from the flippant flirt, into the serious, ardent courtier. Is this a real change?

For a person who so enjoys the thrill of acting, in fact, is a master of it, I feel there is no relationship to be had with a person who, in Fanny's own words 'cannot act'. I just don't believe a true connection could be made between a person who wouldn't even read the lines of a play in a rehearsal, and a person who impulsively beds the cousin of the woman he wants to marry. It seems like a recipe for failure?

33
SeriousCow1999•

My opinion and not directed at any person posting here:

The fantasy of a rake being reformed by "true love" is a fantasy. A powerful and compelling one and a fixture of countless novels. Austen knew this--probably she had witnessed it throughout her life. She remains clear-eyed about these so-called "reformed rakes." And she is not going to give us the fantasy, no matter how much we ask for it.

This is why is pissed me off so much when people refer to her work as "romance novels." No, no, no! Marriage is an extremely serious business in Austen's time. Marriage is your life's work. And she treats it as such. Brava!

God, I love her.

14
Basic_Bichetteof Lucas Lodge•

This is what I was thinking. Characters in Austen do reform: Marianne Dashwood reforms her tendency to be overly emotional after her reaction to Willoughby's abandonment; Fitzwilliam Darcy reforms his tendency to arrogance, contempt, and egotism after having been taken to task by Elizabeth; Emma Woodhouse reforms her know-nothing know-it-all meddling after Knightley calls her on it; even Frederick Wentworth reforms his tendency to anger. But these characters reform themselves, and none are immoral people at heart.

The fantasy of a rake being reformed is really the fantasy that a 'good' woman can through the force of her perfect love take an immoral, indecent man and teach!!! him and train!!! him to be moral. It's a control fantasy, a power fantasy: the only power fantasy available to women that fits into traditional religious values that favour proselytization over respect for others.

10
SeriousCow1999•

AMEN to everything you wrote! Brava!

If we can move forward a few decades to Jane Eyre and look at Mr. Rochester? Here's a man, filled with regrets and remorse, but unable to reform on his own. Instead, he looks to Jane to do it for him.

Jane, of course, won't take the easy way; she must be true--not to society's values--but to her own. She must remain Jane Eyre, at whatever the cost. So Rochester has to reform on his own, and pay for his sins on his own, before reaching his reward.

The thing is, even with all his arrogance and egotism, I don't think Darcy really thinks of himself as lovable. I mean, he KNOWS why so Caroline Bingley is so set on him. (Same for Rochester, of course.) But I get the feeling that Henry Crawford, for all his protestations, is pretty well-satisfied with himself.

4
atesmeOP•

I totally agree with you about that whole 'true love reforming someone' trope. The majority of the time it's so trite and I don't find it believable at all. But she writes so insightfully, and her characters are so complex. I find it so fascinating that I can read her work over and over again and have new theories and insights each time. I love her too!

5
Basic_Bichetteof Lucas Lodge•

Well, that's the thing: by refusing to match Fanny with Henry she's rejecting that trope.

7
SeriousCow1999•

And telling us to reject it too!

3
appletreerose•

think it a matter of taste rather than virtue. Just as he was able to skip through and find the best passages in Shakespeare, he is able to skip over various women and identify Fanny's integrity and genuine feeling.

Beautifully put! Henry Crawford leaves no pleasure untasted, and genuine goodness is a pleasure he hasn't tasted yet. He's sophisticated enough to appreciate it as a pleasure, and to enjoy the thrill of the fine feelings it inspires, but that's not the same as being prepared to spend his life pursuing it unglamorously. It's close to the opposite of that.

10
Bonjour234•

I never thought about the relevance of the play compared to the realness of the story and the facade that the characters put on in MP. The way you put it makes so much sense and makes me like MP even more.

4
atesmeOP•

Interesting perspective! It certainly does seem to be that Austen is trying to warn us all about the dangers of acting and of saying or implying things one does not mean, even in fun and flirtation. While I love Mansfield Park and sympathize a lot with Fanny while reading it, I always laugh a little bit after I put the book down and come back to reality. We certainly don't frown on acting to the same degree anymore. And to be honest I'd probably find a lot to like in a modern day Mary Crawford - charming, worldly, accomplished, practical. I'd probably like her better than Fanny.

3
Pegaret•

Yes, I don’t think Austen is necessarily warning us about acting per se, apparently in her real life her family engaged in amateur theatrics.

I think she is using “acting” more metaphorically to describe a way of existing that doesn’t contend with difficult, inconvenient realities. People with a lot of privilege (unlike Fanny) can for a time escape from reality - much like escaping into a role or play - but the underlying truth of a person’s character and identity cannot be denied, and as we see, Henry’s “truth” came out in his caprice, and the “truth” of Mary Crawford hollow moral state could only be dreamed away by Edmund for so long.

1
SeriousCow1999•

Henry for his part is such a consummate performer that I believe when it comes to Fanny, he even deceives himself for a while

YES! And that makes him even more dangerous.

3
Waitingforadragonof Mansfield Park•

I think his 'love' for Fanny is all fake, even in his own mind. His sister Mary says that the only reason he goes for her in the first place is because he has to have someone to target. I think the only reason he continues is because she says no, and that's a novelty for him. Even Mary implies, when talking to Edmund about the fallout after his flitting away with Maria, that if he'd married Fanny it would have just been a yearly flirtation - suggesting that she thought his behaviour was never going to change.

He's a very heartless person. He knows he makes both Maria and Julia fall in love with him, and he then hurts them on purpose, just for fun.

The worst thing he does in the novel in my opinion is the way he treats Mary and his half sister Mrs Grant. By hooking up with Maria, which he does just for fun and with no serious intentions of staying with Maria, he ruins both their lives. He ruins any relationship that might have worked out between Mary and Edmund, and he makes life in Mansfield Park impossible for Mrs Grant, so much so that as soon as she and her husband can move on they do. After all the work Mrs Grant did to fit in and make herself a happy home in Mansfield. Even his own sisters, who are so loyal to him, are treated as disposable.

29
annaKs_train•

I think he justifies/rationalizes his behavior to women, and Maria and Julia, with a claim that there is no great love on either side and they knew he could have no serious intentions. In essence, he ascribes to all other women the same moral outlook his own sister has. His sister, for example, engages in flirtation in a calculated and strategic way, or at the very least treating it as a game - you can see it in how she approaches Thomas Bertram. She never intends to become interested in Edmund!

If you assume that most women are worldly, urbane, jaded, cynical, playing a game of seduction and money, then you have a lot less guilty in flirting and jilting and playing games yourself than if you are with young women who are pretty sheltered, naive, have different expectations and standards when it comes to courtship. This is not an excuse by the way, just an explanation. Maria and Julia certainly didn't deserve that kind of treatment, for all their character faults.

10
hummingbird_mywillof Longbourn•

Damn I never even thought about how much he screwed up his sisters’ lives. I thought about Mary a little maybe, but Mrs Grant didn’t even cross my mind!

7
atesmeOP•

That's a really interesting point you brought up! You can get a lot of insight into Henry's character by assessing how he treats all women, not just Fanny. I just thought of how Henry never set up housekeeping in an estate of his own, which would have allowed Mary to live with him and have a place to call home. Instead he leaves her to fend for herself amongst lesser relatives. This is despite his fondness for her. A selfish brother indeed!

And while I do commend Henry for admiring the sweetness he sees in Fanny, I guess the flip side of that is that he doesn't give two cents for women who don't have comparable virtues. In modern day, he'd be a huge tinder f**kboi, sleeping around and breaking hearts, then blaming the girls for being too easy.

6
Firm-Ad2137•

I don’t think I’d call it fake but not substantial either. If he was “faking” he wouldn’t have proposed to Fanny, confided in Mary about his serious attachment, etc. Him acting all mooshy with Maria is largely acting (pointedly their tensions peak as characters in a play).

On the other hand it’s unclear how much he cares about Fanny’s personal happiness rather than thinking it’d just be awesome to have a cute shy woman fall in love with him (the challenge, the benefits for HIMSELF, “setting things right FOR Fanny”, all selfish or conceited motives).

It’s another fine display of irony when he confides in Mary, he refers to Fanny as if they’re already well engaged, when in reality he fails to perceive that she doesn’t even consider him as a POSSIBLE romantic partner. So imho it’s a “real” love but very flawed, insubstantial love.

2
[deleted]•

Personally I'm convinced sooner or later Henry would have cheated on Fanny. Due to the fact one thing he lacks most is self-control. It might have been the first time he sincerely and deeply fell in love with someone and wasn't just playing but as soon as the chance arose he stil took off with Maria.

Maybe Fanny would have been able to have a good impact on him on certain aspects (no, she definitely would have) but as long as Henry wouldn't try to solve the core problem he would have as soon as things weren't going as he had pictured them in their marriage and the opportunity arose he'd cheat on her.

You don't stop because of a person (of course love to someone is involved) but you do because you know it would hurt those you love and even harm yourself. And Henry in a way was too self-centered even when trying to win over Fanny. That's why it's quite ironic Fanny gets blamed for the situation by Mrs. Norris. Because if I would have been in Fanny's position I would have done the same. Actions speak louder than words. And I feel if Fanny would have given in she would have ended up getting hurt. People can't change other people entirely. They have to work on it themselves and they can receive support from those who care about them.

At least that's how I view the situation.

21
ChaptainBlood•

I think had he been able to conquer his lack of self control then that is what would have convinced Fanny to marry him in the first place. So then he would not have cheated on her. However, we are shown that he can’t so she does not marry him. Can’t cheat on someone you aren’t with.

6
[deleted]•

Can’t cheat on someone you aren’t with.

This is true but his characters was showing so many red flags he could have easily started a parade with them. Another reason I think Fanny is underestimated and underrated a lot. Because she was clever enough to notice them. She might have mainly rejected him for other reasons (as loyal person that she is). Out of all of Austen's main characters (or all characters in general) Fanny might be the one I relate to the most for these specific reasons.

9
ChaptainBlood•

My point exactly. The only way Henry was gonna get with Fanny was if he did the work and became a better person. He just didn’t do that.

5
hummingbird_mywillof Longbourn•

So many red flags he could start a parade 😂 lawd did you make that phrase up?! It’s hysterical

3
[deleted]•

Actually I just wrote the next thing that popped up inside my head 😅. Don't know if I'm the first person to express it that way though.

2
atesmeOP•

I totally see your side too! He's such an interesting character to think about. My postulation obviously requires a whole lot of 'what ifs' since the whole situation didn't end up happening because Henry failed his very first test lol. But if circumstances were different... would he have been better or worse for knowing Fanny? Or completely different altogether, unrecognizable? Or perhaps it's a moot point since the situation could never have been different because he was always going to act the way he did in the book?

3
ChaptainBlood•

Henry would not cheat on Fanny if they got married. This is because Fanny would never consent to marry him until he was worthy in her eyes. Had he stuck it out and earned her love then he will have also altered himself enough to become the good man she would want to marry. He couldn’t stick it out so he failed to become that good man. In either case, as the good man he would be unlikely to cheat, and as the failure she would never marry him so he couldn’t cheat on her if he wanted to.

Honestly I think this is kinda a clever comment on how a woman can’t just “fix” a man, and that it’s foolish to try. Let him work out his issues first then see if the relationship will work. In this case he was unable to work out his issues so Fanny moved on and was happy, but had he succeeded in his personal growth they could have been happy together.

12
OutrageousYak5868•

Yes, this!

Had Fanny married him when he wanted / too soon, he wouldn't have reformed so would have cheated on her. By putting him off, she tested his character and he was found wanting. Had he survived the test of his loyalty and faithfulness, he would have reformed himself, which would have made him worthy of her. Then and only then should/would she have married him.

I still wish he could have reformed himself, but it's very hard to change such habits as he had.

3
jojobaggins42•

Agreed. I would've loved an alternate ending to this book, like a Choose Your Own Adventure. Where Austen writes a version where Henry does reform himself (and avoids Maria), and then Fanny can eventually accept him because he's become a good person. I still think Edmund is too much like a big brother and it feels icky. I joined team Henry when he was visiting Portsmouth and was so kind to Fanny while she was anxious about how uncouth her family was. He showed some real sensitivity, even if he did turn up uninvited. And Fanny herself enjoyed his company there. I think Henry had real potential for good that Wickham, Mr Elliot, and Willoughby did not.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

-2
Far-Adagio4032of Mansfield Park•

I think he would have been faithful to her initially, while the excitement of marriage and all that came with it was still there. However, habit is a powerful force, especially when he never learned to regret to feel guilt for his previous behavior. At the time of the book, he is in love with Fanny, but he has no apparent regret for any behavior before. He takes up the flirtation with Maria without the slightest qualm about how it conflicts with his love for Fanny, probably because in his mind it doesn't. I think if he and Fanny were married, it would just be a matter of time before extroverted Henry would have found himself in society without his introverted wife, and he would have fallen into his old habits again the same way. Perhaps it would have only started with flirtations, but as we see, those can progress quickly into something else. Really, if he wasn't capable of controlling himself when he was in the first flush of passion and still working to win the girl, how will he control himself when his wife is pregnant and stuck in the country, and he's in town by himself?

The way out is through actual self-reflection and character change on Henry's part, but I don't know that being married to Fanny by itself would have been enough to create that.

12
hummingbird_mywillof Longbourn•

Yep, this is it right here. I also think he was in love with Fanny for real, but he wouldn’t be able to rein in his habits. I also do think he’s attracted to her because he’s enticed by the idea of having that motivation to change… he inherently loves a challenge, be it seducing a woman or disciplining himself. But eventually he would slip.

3
giveuptheghostbuster•

The fact that he values morality without behaving in a moral way himself, tells you everything you need to know about Henry Crawford.

10
appletreerose•

True! It reminds me of Voltaire believing that religion is false, but should be kept around to get good behavior from women and servants.

3
chapuran•

I appreciate your thoughts on this! I see the appeal and that it almost could have happened but I think almost is the key word. Even when Mary talked to Eddie she said when Henry and Mrs Rushworth met (after Henry and Fannys wedding) it would still be a standing flirtation all year round. Habit carries it, and in Henry's mind he was never unfaithful (funny how cognitive dissonance works)but in his actions and habits he was.

7
hummingbird_mywillof Longbourn•

Oooh I love a hot take but I have to disagree. I commented on some other posters comments but will add this epiphany I just had.

There is a short novel called Station Eleven that I am just in love with. It’s one of those multiple story lines jumping back and forth in time things.

One of the plot lines is very similar to Henry and Fanny, but the couple actually do get married. She tries to join in his life but it’s such an awkward fit for her and bums her out. She retreats to her introverted love (of art in her case) and he gets frustrated that they’re living two different lives. Eventually he cheats on her. He’s this combo of still being in love with her but mad at her for not being this impossible creature who can both be what he wants and her own person. And so he goes to be with someone more like himself. It’s this slowly unfolding tragedy amidst other interesting storylines.

There is a brand new show of it, but it’s like the same characters and set with a new plot… this plot line is basically the same though and pretty well done but the wife is more fiery than the book.

4
schuma73•

My impression of Henry was that he only wanted what he couldn't have, and his "love" for Fanny was just his ego because she turned him down instead of fawned all over him as other women tend to do.

Having said that, you could say the same thing of Mr. Darcy who only like Elizabeth after she turned him down for a dance and we don't question whether he really loves her.

3
atesmeOP•

I actually don’t think that’s true. I do believe that Henry is egotistical enough to be intrigued by someone who isn’t interested in him. However, when he decided to make Fanny his wife, he was not actually in any doubt that she’d say yes. He was exulting over how he was going to give her the life she deserved and show the Bertram’s up. He was not nervous about his reception. And even after he is rejected, he spends a great deal of time believing that he only has to show her he is serious and she will change her mind. It’s ego, but in a different manifestation. Therefore, I don’t think he only liked her because she turned him down.

2
schuma73•

He was in no doubt that she'd say yes because no woman had ever refused him before. He is described as a philanderer, and has likely never targeted a woman that said no before.

But I think he wants what he can't have not only because he only liked Fanny after she initially rebuffed him, but also because he liked Mariah over Julia seemingly because he was told he shouldn't like Mariah better on account of her engagement.

I used to know a guy like this, only wanted girls he couldn't have and when he could have them he immediately lost interest. It's a type, and clearly Jane Austen knew a guy like this as well. So, I guess, to answer your initial question of why do we think he would cheat? Because the men we know who act like this IRL would cheat on Fanny once they had her.

Consider also that it's his sister also who tells us how pure his love for Fanny is, etc. and she has a history of glossing over his faults and painting him in a better light than he deserves. His own actions tell us better when he immediately ran to Mariah for comfort when Fanny finally rebuked him for good.

2
ReinventingDLady•

You have made the best case for him with which I have ever come across 🤩👏🏼 It reflects the good you want to see in people. If we were Fanny, how would one make that decision?!!! 😱 I would say the proof is in the pudding. He wanted to make Fanny responsible for his goodness and Jane through Fanny says: “we have all a better guide in ourselves, if we would only attend to it…” He couldn’t even make it to the point where he wins her heart. He might have changed but evidently after many many moments of pain and humiliation at Fanny’s expense.

2
RoseIsBadWolfof Everingham•

I totally agree with you, Ch. 30 of Mansfield Park is one of the most romantic and beautifully written confessions of love ever. He loved Fanny, "rationally and passionately" and I think he would have become better if he married her. He's a pretty young guy, I think he could have changed for sure.

1
Jane1814•

I agree with you. I feel Henry would have become a better person and with Fanny, would be worthy of being her husband. He sees her and all that she does for the family, more clearly than anyone else. He is angry at how she has been treated and wants her to be happy more than anything. It’s Austen’s greatest flaw that she didn’t allow Henry to be redeemed. It would have been a powerful ending and like how other men (Darcy, Wentworth) were able to change and grow over time. The quick retreat to previous behaviors always seemed like a bit of a rushed response.

0
OutrageousYak5868•

I also wish that Henry was redeemed, but don't view the ending as a "quick retreat to previous behaviors". Rather, I see it as Austen saying that people rarely change in any material way, and she was showing what really happens most of the time.

Had Henry not run off with Maria, I could see Austen quickly summarizing his reformation, if she thought the novel was already long enough - something along the lines of "he continued to resist temptation and came to truly repent of his past actions, thus becoming worthy of Fanny". So I don't think the primary thing was a short ending.

Maybe we prize the idea of reformation because it is so unusual, "and therefore more worth the earning". However, the ending she wrote is far more realistic than Henry reforming. But I do wish she had explored and then showed such a reformation, because I think such a thing is possible, even if not common.

2
Jane1814•

I would have been happy with a slight reformation of character. And people can change. It takes a lot of effort but there was such potential to show him on this journey.

2
atesmeOP•

It's interesting, because looking back I can't really think of any real Austen hero/heroines who were allowed to come back from anything truly unvirtuous. Darcy's fault was pride and... well... social awkwardness. Wentworth - again, pride. The closest redemption for actual indiscretion I can think of would be Marianne, who got a decent ending despite doing some pretty questionable things (keeping up a correspondance without being engaged, riding about and visiting estates with only Willoughby and no chaperone). Lydia was horrible and ends up materially comfortable but in no way redeemed. Same with Lucy Steele and the Ferrars. Willoughby she softens towards at the end but leaves him doomed to pine for Marianne. You would think that in such a book as Mansfield Park, so full of morality and preaching forbearance and forgiveness, someone would be allowed to repent their wrongs!

2
Jane1814•

Exactly! It almost seems it was going that way when it awkwardly pivots.

1