“Sense and Sensibility” – The Princeps and the Dictator

“Sense and Sensibility” sounds like the playful little cousin to Jane Austen’s highly acclaimed “Pride and Prejudice”. But it isn’t to be underestimated, for it outlines themes both complex and thought provoking.

This novel centres on two sisters, Elinor and Marianne. Shortly after their father’s untimely demise, most of his inheritance, instead of to the sisters, goes to their stepbrother’s family. No longer able to afford their palatial residence in Norland, they retreat to quaint little Barton cottage. Though their dwelling more modest, their social lives continue to be exorbitantly enriched with gaiety, romance and tension.

The title “Sense and Sensibility” reflects the difference between Elinor and Marianne. In Austen’s time, ‘sense’ referred to pragmaticism and self restraint. ‘Sensibility’ was to express emotion, and to be guided by sentiment. Though Elinor and Marianne embody both, one is particularly dominant in each of them. For Elinor, Sense, and Marianne sensibility.

However, at the end, it was the message which I found quite interesting, albeit a little depressing.

The younger Marianne is flamboyant and outspoken. She loves openly and ardently. This sometimes earns her the scorn of those around her, but she is confident in herself. She was never too coquettish or overdramatic. But for the standards of the time, a woman being so bold could have been considered scandalous.

Elinor is equally perceptive and in touch with her emotion. The thought of romance occupies her just as much as Marianne. However she maintains the image of being more ‘restrained’.

What are the fates of the two? Elinor is betrothed to the man she always loved, despite the initial distance he kept from her. The man Marianne truly loved thought of her as just a temporary preoccupation. Eventually her marriage is arranged to a man whom she barely even started to bond with.

Initially it feels like Elinor is ‘rewarded’ for her restraint, and Marianne ‘punished’ for having human emotion. But Marianne was not reprimanded because she was bold, or because she was infatuated. Neither did Elinor reap the benefits because she was stoic. Elinor is rewarded because she presented her emotions in a way that were tailored to society’s expectations of her.

As always, I was prompted to think about how conformity and public image was even rewarded in the Ancient World.

Caius Julius Caesar needs no introduction. He broke laws, introduced radical reforms, challenging the might of the Senate. He belonged to an ancient Patrician family, but unlike most of the patricians, who were Optimates, keen to preserve their own wealth, he was a champion of the people. Though the Optimates advocated for the preservation of the traditional Republic, this Republic was an oligarchy which was collapsing. Julius’ intervention as Dictator Perpetuo introduced tangible, albeit short stability, interrupted by his assassination. Most of the conspirators were those from the Senatorial class, enraged at Julius’ refusal to abide by tradition, despite his efficiency and well documented clementia.

Meanwhile, his heir, Caesar Augustus is viewed as the architect of Rome. He is now remembered he man whose 45 year long reign heralded the Pax Romana, after years of civil war. Many think that Julius was more explicit about his power, and Augustus more covert.

However, the two Caesar men are more similar than we give them credit for. Augustus, wielded much more formal influence than Julius ever did. Augustus too had little respect for Roman law in his youth, even waging a civil war, larger in extent and even perhaps impact than that of Caesar’s. Both men were equally ambitious. It’s not that Augustus was subtle either, for everyone in Rome knew that he was the most powerful man in the Mediterranean.

The difference lies in performance.

Though Julius Caesar was careful of his public perception, ensuring he was not thought of as a ‘king’, he did view the Republic as obsolete. He was not particularly fond of the Senate. Though the masses adored him, for his policies did favor them; others felt that he was going to bring back the tyranny which the principles of the Republic were against.

Despite being the most powerful man in the Mediterranean, Augustus maintained the institutions of the Republic, like the Senate, consular elections, and so on. He even legislated family matters, perpetuating his image as a conservative who wanted to preserve the traditional family structure . He presented his reforms – from administrative, to religious as a return to the days of Republic, of tradition. His assumption of ‘unlimited power’ wasn’t a radical change to the Res Publicas, it was to help in its restoration to its former glory.

This is obviously not the only factor which led to Julius’ assassination and prevented Augustus’. The Romans were fatigued with endless war and suffering. Even if Augustus was an ’emperor’, if his reign guaranteed peace, maybe that’s all they wanted. As much as I’d like to discuss the topic in the future, this article is not to contemplate every difference between the two Caesars. I am only discussing them in as far as it is relevant to Austen’s novel.

Though it seems disheartening, from Ancient Rome to Barton Cottage, we as a society have always had an aversion towards change, regardless of how much it could benefit us. Julius brought in that sweeping change, but it was Augustus who legitimized it, reassuring that it conformed to custom.

But who dictates us to choose only one? We all can endeavor to inculcate in ourselves Marianne’s audacity as well as Elinor’s appearance of restraint. That truly embodies the Caesarian spirit.