A Rake is a stock character that was used extensively in fiction. Rake is a shortened version of the phrase “rakehell” which is similar in definition to “hellraiser.” The name implies someone who stokes the fires of hell and makes them hotter. Etymologically, the word comes from from “the Old Norse reikall, meaning “vagrant” or “wanderer”; this was borrowed into Middle English as rakel” (Rake). It was popularized in the restoration era in plays and romance novels. During this era the Rake was often the hero of the play and would use their charms to win over the audience and the girl. This particular male stock character is defined by his physical attractiveness and charisma. However, while his exterior may be charming, the character is also characterized by womanizing, drinking, gambling and other vices. According to James Hileman, the rake, “attained the zenith of his cultural career during the 1670s; his best representations, outside of the poems and the lives of noblemen such as the Earl of Rochester, are on the stage” (Hileman). Most rakish characters existed, in their earliest iterations, to be reformed by a sweet and kind female character who would teach them the meaning of true love. They would then be taught the error of their ways and settle down into a peaceful coexistence with their new wife. This approach was wildly popular in the Restoration era of Britain. This was the largely due to the feeling of liberation that came under Charles II’s reign. The Rake was used widely in Restoration comedy as well as romantic literature. However, by the time that Jane Austen was writing, The Rake was no longer placed in a favorable light. Instead, they often served as troublemakers and antagonists. She often included them as tragic characters who were never able to be reformed (Berger). Additionally, artists such as William Hogarth began producing artwork featuring a rake (Hogarth’s Modern Moral Series). The Rake is still a popular character to this day, being used in movies and television.
Bibliography
“A Rake Revisted.” A Rake Revisted | Henry Hudson, https://henry-hudson.com/exhibition-4/.
Austen, Jane. Emma. Pearson Education, 2008.
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Pearson Education, 2008.
Austen, Jane. Sense and Sensibility. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Berger, Carole. “The Rake and the Reader in Jane Austen’s Novels.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 15, no. No. 4, 1975, pp. 531–544. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/450009?casa_token=cD6PDr4jp1sAAAAA:3VwhdqkZMDDasYnCUhhwP0uir_sHe0IB1TufUVjoGEL2C_L6Ka-PIkbP57M9VFKGrpD8bm4CVcf8sideYIu_wyO7Qz0l82SRujxjP6yjhFNcJN_9bbA&seq=14#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Brock, Charles Edmund. George Wickham. 1895
Chaucer, Geoffrey, and Martin Riley. The Canterbury Tales. Oxford University Press, 2003.
Cooke, Deryck. “’The Rake’ and the 18th Century.” The Musical Times, Vol. 103, no. No. 1427, pp. 20–23. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/950335?casa_token=xCG81d5kBfUAAAAA:BLWgQgMvbRBuBnCXwWs0-yD1hSS_qwFafm3iXAvu4R6QDLVvqArjpj_veYKnGSQcseH-5gFQO90HMqAwWxDw1k6bUA0UojmB_ojvOtdV_HSPNK4C8aU&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
De Ponte, Lorenzo. “Don Giovanni Libretto English Translation.” Don Giovanni Libretto English Translation, Opera Arias, 2011, https://www.opera-arias.com/mozart/don-giovanni/libretto/english/.
Fabricant, Carole. “Rochester’s World of Imperfect Enjoyment.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 73, No. 3, July 1974, pp. 338-350. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27707747?mag=the-restorations-filthiest-poet-and-why-we-need-him&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Fragonard, Alexandre-Évariste. Don Juan and the statue of the Commander. 1830
Hammond, Chris. John Willoughby. 1899
Hileman, James Bryan. The Rise of The Libertine Hero on The Restoration Stage. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/hileman_james_b_200908_phd.pdf
Kramnick, Jonathan Brody. “Rochester and the History of Sexuality.” ELH, 1 July 2002, https://www.jstor.org/stable/30032021?mag=the-restorations-filthiest-poet-and-why-we-need-him&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Lee, Ang, director. Sense and Sensibility. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 1995.
Lely, Peter. Portrait of John Wilmot. 1677
“Money, Mistresses & Mayhem: How Charles II’s Womanizing Almost Destroyed Britain.” HistoryCollection.co, 27 Nov. 2017, https://historycollection.co/money-mistresses-mayhem-charles-iis-womanizing-almost-destroyed-britain/.
“Puritanism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 21 Sept. 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Puritanism.
“Rake (Character).” Rake (Character) – The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia, http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Rake_(character).
Rochester, John Wilmot. Sodom, or the Quintessence of Debauchery. Olympia Press, 2004.
“Sex, Scandal and John Wilmot.” London Resident Magazine SEX SCANDAL AND JOHN WILMOT Comments, https://www.theresident.co.uk/london-culture-events/sex-scandal-john-wilmot/.
Simon, Ed. “The Restoration’s Filthiest Poet (and Why We Need Him).” Daily JSTOR, JSTOR, 11 Apr. 2018, https://daily.jstor.org/the-restorations-filthiest-poet-and-why-we-need-him/.
“Hogarth: Hogarth’s Modern Moral Series. The Rake’s Progress.” Tate, https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/hogarth/hogarth-hogarths-modern-moral-series/hogarth-hogarths-0.
Hogarth, William. The Rake’s Progress. 1734
“John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 22 July 2019, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Wilmot-2nd-earl-of-Rochester
Wilmot, John. “The Imperfect Enjoyment by John Wilmot Earl of Rochester.” Poetry Foundation, Poetry Foundation, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/50452/the-imperfect-enjoyment.
Wright, John Michael. Portrait of King Charles II. 1660
The Rake in Art
The Rake was not exclusively a literary character. On the contrary, there were several paintings and ink printings that contained the rake as their central figure. The most notable of these artistic portrayals is William Hogarth’s “The Rake’s Progress.” This set of 8 images published in 1734. The images detail the life of Tom Rakewell as he pursues a life of sex, gambling, and alcohol (Hogarth’s Modern Moral Series). Interestingly, the story was later adapted into an opera by Igor Stravinsky with a libretto provided by the famous poet W.H. Auden.
Tom Rakewell’s story is that of a fallen gentleman. Son of a wealthy man, Tom begins to squander his inheritance after his father dies and, in the process, leaves the woman, Sarah, who is pregnant with his child. He does so by immediately living like an aristocrat and spending everything he has on orgies, alcohol, and gambling, He is then almost arrested for his debts in painting 4 but is saved by Sarah who still loves him. Instead of marrying her, however, he finds a wealthy old maid whom he convinces to marry him. In scene 6 we see Tom losing his new fortune in a gambling den. However, since he loses his fortune, he is ultimately arrested and thrown in Bedlam, penniless and insane.
It is clear that Hogarth was inspired by contemporary depictions of The Rake. He takes a similar approach to Austen in that he supplies all of the elements of a traditional “reformed rake” plot but instead has his Rake continue his ways and receive punishment for it. This dictates a trend in regency Rake stories. There seems to be an attachment to the traditional elements of the restoration rake stories, however, there seems to be more cynicism or realism attached to it.
A modern British artist named Henry Hudson recreated Hogarth’s famous set in 2011 with his interpretation called “The Rake Revisited” (Hudson). Hudson himself reinterpreted the art in his own style, giving the pieces new life, and bringing them to a contemporary audience. Based upon this, it is clear that there is still a fascination with the character of the Rake in modern society. Audiences are still interested in seeing this stock character reinterpreted and reapplied to different mediums. There are infinite versions of this character and it is still impacting art and Literature to this day.
The Rake in Jane Austen
Jane Austen treated her Rakes in a similar way to her contemporary authors. She seemed to reject the reformed Rake plot and moved instead toward having her Rakes live discontented with wives that make them unhappy. While Austen doesn’t condemn them to death, ruin, or some other horrible form of poetic justice, she does take a more realistic approach to the situation. Her Rakes always pay the price for not being reformed by finding unfavorable matches. This can also be seen as the worst possible fate for a wealthy individual in her stories. We see two Rakes that adhere to this model in the forms of John Willoughby and George Wickham. Both of these characters follow the same general arc. They are introduced, charm one of the lead women, disappear, have their rakishness discovered, and then are forced to marry another woman on the basis of money and have a miserable life with their newfound wife. While this may not seem like a punishment for these characters, it is clear that since Austen’s ultimate reward for characters is a good and favorable marriage, the inverse is her ultimate punishment.
In Sense and Sensibility, we are introduced to John Willoughby soon after the Dashwoods move to their cottage. Willoughby suddenly appears on his horse, woos Marianne within the same page that he is introduced, and then leaves back into the storm he rescued Marianne from. This melodramatic introduction seems to show Austen lampooning the heroic appearance of Rakes in previous works. Additionally, it plays into Marianne’s romantic ideas about men. Willoughby exemplifies the shift in Rake treatment that occurred after the Restoration. Willoughby is a prolific womanizer who is responsible for getting another girl pregnant and abandoning her. However, instead of finding a reforming force in Marianne, Willoughby inadvertently reforms her. Austen seems to not only subvert the traditional “reformed rake” plot, she also inverts it and uses the male characters to reform her female ones. In the case of Marianne in Sense and Sensibility, Willoughby ultimately changes her and removes much of her sensibility that Austen criticizes throughout the story. Willoughby is punished by knowing that he no longer can be with Marianne. However, while Austen does construct a condemned rake plot for Willoughby, she troubles it with her representation of him late in the novel. As Carole Berger points out, “Willoughby (is) too attractive, thus impairing our pleasure in Marianne’s marriage to Brandon. It is true that Willoughby’s dramatic reappearance near the end of the novel rekindles some of his early appeal” (Berger). In this way, Willoughby becomes a more tragic figure and makes the reader feel sorry for him.
George Wickham meets a similar end to his rakish counterpart. However, while Austen seems to be concerned with portraying his tragic end, Wickham is more closely tied to traditional Rakes. He is almost entirely an antagonist. He serves as a force that Elizabeth and the Bennets have to be rescued from. While Elizabeth is personally safe from Wickham, her families reputation is at stake due to Lydia’s elopement with him. Thus Wickham is simply a metaphorical dragon for Darcy to slay and prove his devotion to Elizabeth. Additionally, Wickham is one of the principal causes for Elizabeth’s shame. Since we learn of Wickham’s true nature in Darcy’s letter, he becomes the main reason that Elizabeth realizes her prejudice. This inadvertently makes him an agent of change similar to Willoughby. However, while there is an attempt to redeem Willoughby somewhat, no such effort is made for Wickham. He is the truest rake that Austen produced.
Historical Rakes
Rakes where not conjured into existence without a source that they were based on. On the contrary, real Rakes existed in England since the middle ages. However, during the Restoration, gentlemen and lords ran rampant with rakish behavior. One earl, John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester, was infamous for his escapades. Not only was he a rake himself, he wrote pornographic poetry and plays such as Sodom, or the Quintessence of Debauchery. His works, featuring names such as “Clytoris” and “Fuckadillia,” were some of the most pornographic pieces written in England at the time (Simon). One of Wilmot’s poems, “The Imperfect Enjoyment,” is an exceptionally pornographic piece.
The Imperfect Enjoyment by John Wilmot
Naked she lay, clasped in my longing arms,
I filled with love, and she all over charms;
Both equally inspired with eager fire,
Melting through kindness, flaming in desire.
With arms, legs, lips close clinging to embrace,
She clips me to her breast, and sucks me to her face.
Her nimble tongue, love’s lesser lightning, played
Within my mouth, and to my thoughts conveyed
Swift orders that I should prepare to throw
The all-dissolving thunderbolt below.
My fluttering soul, sprung with the pointed kiss,
Hangs hovering o’er her balmy brinks of bliss.
But whilst her busy hand would guide that part
Which should convey my soul up to her heart,
In liquid raptures I dissolve all o’er,
Melt into sperm, and spend at every pore.
A touch from any part of her had done ’t:
Her hand, her foot, her very look’s a cunt.
Smiling, she chides in a kind murmuring noise,
And from her body wipes the clammy joys,
When, with a thousand kisses wandering o’er
My panting bosom, “Is there then no more?”
She cries. “All this to love and rapture’s due;
Must we not pay a debt to pleasure too?”
But I, the most forlorn, lost man alive,
To show my wished obedience vainly strive:
I sigh, alas! and kiss, but cannot swive.
Eager desires confound my first intent,
Succeeding shame does more success prevent,
And rage at last confirms me impotent.
Ev’n her fair hand, which might bid heat return
To frozen age, and make cold hermits burn,
Applied to my dear cinder, warms no more
Than fire to ashes could past flames restore.
Trembling, confused, despairing, limber, dry,
A wishing, weak, unmoving lump I lie.
This dart of love, whose piercing point, oft tried,
With virgin blood ten thousand maids has dyed,
Which nature still directed with such art
That it through every cunt reached every heart—
Stiffly resolved, ’twould carelessly invade
Woman or man, nor ought its fury stayed:
Where’er it pierced, a cunt it found or made—
Now languid lies in this unhappy hour,
Shrunk up and sapless like a withered flower.
Thou treacherous, base deserter of my flame,
False to my passion, fatal to my fame,
Through what mistaken magic dost thou prove
So true to lewdness, so untrue to love?
What oyster-cinder-beggar-common whore
Didst thou e’er fail in all thy life before?
When vice, disease, and scandal lead the way,
With what officious haste doest thou obey!
Like a rude, roaring hector in the streets
Who scuffles, cuffs, and justles all he meets,
But if his king or country claim his aid,
The rakehell villain shrinks and hides his head;
Ev’n so thy brutal valor is displayed,
Breaks every stew, does each small whore invade,
But when great Love the onset does command,
Base recreant to thy prince, thou dar’st not stand.
Worst part of me, and henceforth hated most,
Through all the town a common fucking post,
On whom each whore relieves her tingling cunt
As hogs on gates do rub themselves and grunt,
Mayst thou to ravenous chancres be a prey,
Or in consuming weepings waste away;
May strangury and stone thy days attend;
May’st thou never piss, who didst refuse to spend
When all my joys did on false thee depend.
And may ten thousand abler pricks agree
To do the wronged Corinna right for thee.
Wilmot himself was, “the hero of numerous escapades, and the lover of various mistresses” (John Wilmot). He was also a high-ranking member of Charles II’s court and became a very well-known poet despite his explicit content. Charles II’s entire court was widely considered to be debauched, however, Wilmot is one of the most well documented Rakes. When Charles II was restored to the English throne in 1660, Wilmot was only 13. According to James Hileman, “Rochester, because of his mother‘s influence, had grown up in England, and was, from January 1660 to September 1661, safely tucked away at Oxford, and thereafter, until December 1664” (Hileman). Wilmot eventually served in the British Navy and was given the appointment of gentleman of the bedchamber to the king after leaving it. According to an interview with Wilmot’s biographer, Alexander Larman, “Vast sections of Rochester’s life are near-unbelievable. He started at Oxford when he was 12, lost his virginity at 13, was an alcoholic by 14, tried to abduct the woman who became his wife at 18, was a naval hero at 19, and then he really started getting going” (Sex, Scandal and John Wilmot).
Wilmot’s life exemplified what it means to be a Rake. He not only was relentless in his pursuit of women, he reveled in it. His poetry shows that sex was the center of his world and that despite his high rank, he was quite happy to portray things in a frank and blunt manner. He was unashamed of his rakishness and it was his defining characteristic. This is mirrored by a similar attitude in the Rakes that were presented in literature contemporaneously.To be a Rake was to be unashamed of ones libertine tendencies.
A History of The Rake
Immediately prior to Charles II’s restoration period, Britain was under the control of Oliver Cromwell’s extreme religious conservatism. As a result, the British people were repressed in what kinds of literature they could create or consume. Plays and literature that contained sexual or “immoral” content was banned (Puritanism). Therefore, after Charles II was instated as king, a flood of sexually explicit plays, poetry, and prose was produced. The Rake, therefore, became the embodiment of this new debauched literature. Charles himself was quite a rakish character and saw nothing wrong with that kind or lifestyle (Money, Mistresses & Mayhem). The nickname “merry monarch” was given to him in honor of his excessive and hedonistic lifestyle. One of his courtiers, John Evelyn, once stated that Charles II might have been a fine king “if he had been less addicted to women” (Money, Mistresses & Mayhem). In fact, one account states that as Charles watched his new wife, Catherine of Braganza, move into Hampton Court, he was accompanied by one of his mistresses, Barbara Villiers. Charles even employed a “Royal Pimpmaster” named William Chiffinch (Money, Mistresses & Mayhem). Additionally, Charles’ court was filled with other Rakes that had similar bawdy appetites. This no doubt contributed to the prevalence of The Rake in literature. However, after the Restoration, The Rake was characterized very differently.
In the 1700’s, authors seemed to take a very different perspective on The Rake. Writers and audiences alike seemed to be fatigued by the “reformed rake” trope and thus the “condemned rake” trope began to emerge. The change to condemnation persisted throughout the Regency and Victorian eras. This trope is exemplified in Mozart’s Don Giovanni. Mozart collaborated with librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte to adapt the story of Don Juan into the darkest opera of his career. In the opera, the title character, Don Giovanni, is a stereotypical Rake figure who is know for sleeping with hundreds of women. However, at the end of the Opera, Don Giovanni refuses to repent his rakish ways and is dragged to hell by the ghost of The Commandatore, the possessed statue of a man whom Giovanni kills in Act 1 (De Ponte). It is clear that audiences were no longer interested in seeing a Rake redeemed. Instead, they seemed to favor a more realistic portrayal, in which, the Rake is not saved and there is no happily-ever-after. This is likely due to the prevalence of debauched and rakish behavior among the play-going and literate class. Those that would appreciate literature and art became exhausted with real-life Rakes. Thus, the harsh treatment they received in literature was a reaction to rampant rakishness.
The Rake in Jane Austen and Regency Literature 