The concept of masculinity, particularly within the European aristocracy, has historically been involved in the idea of culture, education, and travel. From the 18th to the 19th century, the Grand Tour — an educational expedition undertaken by Europe’s young elite — served as a crucial role in shaping not only the individual character but also societal expectations of what it meant to be a gentleman. This paper examines the evolution of a gentleman’s masculinity through the transformative experiences of the Grand Tour: focusing on the development and fundamental philosophy of the masculine identity, Masculinity, and danger, exploring the change in the definition of politeness, chivalry, and the construction of masculinity; due to the lack of military experience elite men received from the 18th century to the 20th century.
The Grand Tour played a critical role in shaping masculine ideals through adversity and adventures in the 18th century. From the transformation of culture refinement in other countries to the appreciation of physical hardship and endurance, The Grand Tour was the most important practice of Britain's young elite (mostly male in the mid-18th) autocracy. It was not just a cultural educational journey; it also served as a platform for demonstrating masculinity through encounters with adversity. At the same time, the grand tours’ principal purpose was to maintain the power and privilege of Britain’s elite by educating, forming, and testing these individuals. (Goldsmith 209)Initially, masculinity on the Grand Tour was defined by qualities of politeness and refinement, mostly situation among French academies and within the art and ruins of Italy. This generic view of these cities emphasized a gentleman, cultured, and skilled in arts and social performances. Such qualities reflected the elite’s desire to model young men into polished individuals who were capable of holding their social roles. This definition was aligned with the concept of masculinity that focused on meticulous skills or intellectual knowledge. However, historians have come to realize from insights of Grand Tourists’ journals which reveal a much complex picture. While the cultural aspects remained important, there were also significant perilous experiences of the Tour that involved serious physical activities. “These comprised of hours, days, and months invested in physical exercises, hunting, playing sports, attending military sites, jolting in carriages, inching alongside precipices, scrambling around glaciers and mountains, and arduously ascending Vesuvius: activities that were all united by a frisson of danger.”(Goldsmith) Over the course of the 18th century, the definition of masculinity gradually expanded to include these more robust characteristics. Comprised of physical danger and enduring hardships, the Grand tourists were not just learning about art and history; they were also providing themselves against the martial pursuits that were approved by the elite society. This evolution in the concept of masculinity was present in the late 18th and early 19th century and consisted of the virtues: of physical robustness, bravery, and the endurance of hardship, these experiences were guaranteed to create great young leaders when they came back. Furthermore, the conception of masculinity was further shaped by the societal shifts of the period. For instance, emphasizing physical and
marital capabilities when war prominent revealed Britain's military and imperial ambitions. “The enduring ideal of the military service elite also shaped aristocratic and gentry concepts of honor as something that had to be proven, affirmed, and defended through displays of courage, prowess, and leadership.” (Goldsmith) The Grand Tourists’ involvement with military service and training helped forge a new ideal of the elite male as not only cultured but also physically courageous and adventurous.
Nicholas Biddle, an American traveler, embarked on a revolutionary journey in Greece(1804-1807), exploring the philosophical and cultural foundation of the Grand Tour that would change the ideology of traveling in Europe among the Elite society for centuries. Biddle’s Journey to Rome and other parts of Europe was revolutionary due to his method of documenting his travels in journals. This was not just about recording sights but involved in deep philosophical reflections on culture and history. Most of his work focused on personal reflection and was judged, however; as subjective work which was unpopular at the time. Only in the mid 18century his work was refined and used extensively among travelers.Biddle undertook his travels for several reasons: accumulation of knowledge; moral improvement; and reflecting on personal enlightenment and growth as he mentions several of times in his journal “To travel alone connects itself in the minds of most men with many an image of listlessness & ennui. But habit and a love of being alone have fortified me against any such sentiments, which if I have ever felt them, have approached me rather in the moments of society than of solitude.”(McNeal 221) He explains his pursuit to undergo and conquer the ability of being alone, he describes it as the ultimate goal of human peace. And finally, the purpose is to discover the ancient antiquity and virtue of the city of ancient Greece.Biddle’s travels were considered revolutionary to the European tourists as they contributed to the establishment of what were considered appropriate qualities for a gentleman in his era. His pursuit of ancient Greeks was genuine enough and was aimed at developing that taste for the antique that any gentleman of his day was expected to have. (McNeal220)Traveling, especially to culturally rich destinations like Rome, was seen as essential for a well-rounded education. Eventually, instruction in history and foreign ways came to be considered an essential part of a true gentleman’s education and means of preparing for a future role as a leader of society back home. This special approach to travel, a shift in how travel could be perceived as an intellectual and philosophical endeavor, marked the beginning of The Grand Tour!
By the end of the 18th century, the British elites entered a period of reconstruction in the masculine identity: A transition in masculine ideals from politeness to etiquette. They argued that the polite society, “both as network of venues and as a social ideal to be enacted therein” (Cohen 311), broke down, with consequences for the definition of the gentleman as well as concepts of manliness in the 19th century. Soon, by the early 19th century, the British elites no longer believed that politeness was a quality readily associated with Victorian men (Cohen 311). Thus, in the early 19th century, the definition of gentlemanly masculinity underwent significant
transformations, particularly in how men were expected to engage socially and behave in polite manners.What happened to politeness? Historians have given us one approach to this question, etiquette replaces politeness. Although etiquette and politeness share the common behavior of presenting oneself with grace and showing respect in public situations, they are not synonyms. A key difference is that in the 19th-century etiquette was mainly concerned with precise rules of interpersonal behaviors(Cohen 312) in social environments; though politeness, also in the same environment focuses on social performance and the attributes of identity and social virtues(cohen 312).
Historically, politeness was considered the most important quality of a gentleman with the ability to lead social situations with grace, charm, and delicacy, often learned through literature and embarking upon The Grand Tour. Such books and manuals were widespread in 19th-century Europe, they provided guidance on how to appear in social gatherings through intricate control of one’s actions and speech. These were no doubt derived from classical antiquity which provided reliability among the elites. This type of politeness was applied to the generic population of the elites, it was required to have a strong moral base and self-discipline to create a morally and socially upright man.
As the 18th century diminished, there was uncertainty about the sincerity of politeness, involving gentlemen wearing masks and hiding the truth to maintain social harmony. This critique encourages the change in definition of masculinity where it emphasizes sincerity and authenticity distancing itself away from the 19th century continuation of politeness. However, the real groundbreaking idea that totally reformed the idea of politeness was that people started to associate the behavior with the feminine. They argued that pretending their facial expression and speech was sacrificing one’s true feelings, thus assembling politeness to females who cared about their social appearances and performance.
The shift from politeness to etiquette reflected border changes in societal norms and expectations of behavior, specifically among men in the upper classes. Etiquette manuals of the 19th century began to focus more on explicit rules and procedures for social behavior, moving away from the 18th century focusing on the performance on the outside. This new etiquette emphasized the importance of precise behaviors in specific situations — how to dress for different occasions, the correct way to address superiors and inferiors, the proper manner at the dining table, and so forth. These changes were influenced by various factors, including the upheaval of the French Revolution and, rise of democrats in Europe (Cohen 319). As the new etiquette was perceived by the elite society, it came to be recognized as a social hierarchy where traditional concepts were being challenged. Most importantly, the British Elite needed a symbolism that differentiated them from the average men, thus etiquette became a quality of gentlemen created and used to preserve the hierarchy of the elites in modern society.
Works Cited
Cohen, Michelle; Manners; Make the Man: Politeness, Chivalry, and the Construction of
Masculinity, 1750–1830." Journal of British Studies, vol. 44, no. 2, 2005, pp.
312-29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/427127. Accessed 17 Apr. 2024. Goldsmith, Sarah. "Conclusion." Masculinity and Danger on the Eighteenth-Century Grand
Tour, U of London P, 2020, pp. 209-20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvk3gp1g.12.
Accessed 15 Apr. 2024.Harp, Stephen L. "Travel and Tourism." Encyclopedia of European Social History, edited by
Peter N. Stearns, vol. 5, Detroit, MI, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2001, pp. 229-45. Gale eBooks, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3460500241/GVRL?u=blair_timkenlib&sid=bookmark-GVR L&xid=b9c998df. Accessed 29 Mar. 2024.
McNeal, R. A. "Nicholas Biddle, Anacharsis, and the Grand Tour." The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 120, no. 3, 1996, pp. 217-47. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20093046. Accessed 17 Apr. 2024.
Comments