Hello, friends!
Do you ever have where you're reading a book and it reminds you so much of something, that you end up describing it to people as, "It's just like XYZ, but the exact opposite!"
...How can a story be so much like something if it is the exact opposite? Well, that's what I'm going to explore today as Rafael Sabatini's Scaramouche reminds me of Jane Austen's Persuasion.
I'm looking at how the two main characters in the respective novels--André-Louis Moreau and Anne Elliot--are diametrically opposed, but learn lessons that work well together. In fact, their differences give me a more complete picture of what I think is trying to be said by both authors, and their polarity doesn't make one better than the other, rather complementary. I find them both fascinating in different yet similar ways. Each of them have a foil in their corresponding stories (maybe Aline for André-Louis and Wentworth for Anne?) yet I've decided to do an inter-story analysis.
The most simple way of comparing them is that their names both start with "An," which is why my title is fANNEdango. Hehe. I know, it's a terrible pun, I apologize!
~ This post is going to have mild spoilers for the two works as I'll be discussing the character development and lessons learned. Scaramouche itself has SO MUCH happening in terms of plot that I will not give away, so reading this post there are a few reveals but you'll be safe from the really big plot twists. ~
When I was throwing around ideas of how to articulate myself I was calling Scaramouche the "anti-Persuasion." But that doesn't mean that I am against the work! My freshman year of college I gave a whole persuasive speech about why one should read Jane Austen, if that gives you any indication that I am "pro-Persuasion." I also lay claim on Persuasion for being my second favorite Jane Austen--after Pride and Prejudice because I'm basic--but I have only read it once and that was six years ago, so forgive any of my mistakes about the plot interpretation or quote context as I am not a Persuasion scholar.
I'm hoping to draw some of you Austen fans in, as most people probably haven't heard of Rafael Sabatini. He was an author in the early 20th century whose work featured pirate stories, such as The Black Swan, The Sea Hawk, and Captain Blood, the last of which was adapted into a movie with Errol Flynn in 1935. While low on the buccaneering, his historical fiction work Scaramouche is not lacking in excitement.
 |
| All the swashbuckling for the win! And all the Errol Flynn for the win! |
Scaramouche has been adapted into two films--one in 1923 and the other in 1952--but has since, for the most part, fallen out of cultural recognition, with exception of the band Queen making it a catchphrase in their song "Bohemian Rhapsody." I think it's a pity that there hasn't been a more recent film adaptation because I would have a TON of fun with that. Since, though, it is not so well known, I don't expect the majority of my readers to know what I'm talking about, so here is a quick, non-spoilery overview of
Scaramouche:Set on the backdrop of the French Revolution, Sabatini looks at the class disputes and political spats that added to the layers of the revolt. André-Louis is not popular in social standings, but is one of the best lawyers of his age, and all that matters to him is his one friend Phillippe Vilmorin, his godfather, and his cousin, Aline. He's always been on the safe side of the law, but when he gets a close-up view of injustice he swears revenge and uses what talent he has: his own persuasive voice. He rallies the people on a viewpoint he does not believe in purely because he sees it as the means to the end he is pursuing. He himself ends up being the one pursued and while in hiding he exceeds at new skills and makes a name for himself in the theatrical world under the mask of Scaramouche*.
*The archetype of Scaramouche is not a creation of Sabatini's but a character in Italian opera/theatre. The New Oxford American dictionary says the term describes one who is "a boastful but cowardly person," literally "skirmish." This archetype in opera is used to be a bit of a rabble-rouser, or fool.
To set up our contrast, here is a brief overview of Persuasion:
Anne Elliot is dealing with the aftermath of being persuaded. She was engaged to a poor yet promising lieutenant, but her family peer-pressured her into breaking it off because he was below her station. Now eight years later her family's own finances are poor, which adds to Anne's regret that she's been carrying around since she broke off the engagement. Who happens to show up in her life but her old fiancé, who is now the wealthy Captain Wentworth. Their circumstances have flipped, which adds to Anne's discouragement about being persuaded. Seeing how wrong her family was back then, she's trying to have more control in her own life. Through the book we see how Anne can be calm in times of hysteria and panic, and how she has grown to be a steady presence. Now there are new pressures of whom she should marry and she's trying to only be persuaded by her own heart.
M'kay. So how are these related? Let's introduce our protagonists.
André-Louis Moreau:
"He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad" (Sabatini, Scaramouche). (A pretty dope opening line if I do say so myself.)
André-Louis is annoyingly good at everything. This is to say he's strikingly intelligent in an academic sense, but not that emotionally intelligent. He resists feelings about things he cannot change. Not because he couldn't lean into emotions (as an actor you learn to interpret people to an extent) but because he does not see the benefit in it. In fact, putting on a mask helps him embrace that to a certain degree more than when he started out, however when he leaves acting he also seems to leave any emotions behind.
 |
| Yes, this is Sir Percy Blakeney of The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934), but both stories are about the French Revolution or its aftermath so let's go with it, shall we? I couldn't find a good image of him actually...okay |
Anne Elliot:
“She had been forced into prudence in her youth, she learned romance as she grew older: the natural sequel of an unnatural beginning” (Austen, Persuasion).
Anne has always been the obedient one (#MiddleSibling) and throughout the course of the book we see how many strengths she has even though she tears herself down for being persuaded of something she didn't want to do. Persuasion comes from her trusting the words of others over her own fortitude. It's a sign of being insecure. Anne learns to be secure both in her characteristics and decisions as she's making them for her own benefit, not for anyone else's.
The way I see these two characters being connected is through elements of persuasion, denial, and emotions. Each of those build upon each other, so let's break those down.
Persuasion (the concept, not the book):
André-Louis's training as a lawyer means he's the one doing the persuading and he knows all the tricks of the trade, so he can spot a con from a mile away and measures everything through logic not emotion, judging others for not doing the same. He tells his friend Phillippe "You must change man, not systems" (Sabatini, Scaramouche), which implies that he is so firmly set in his own beliefs that he doesn't think other people are able to be persuaded in the long run. He ends up discovering how much a mob mentality can affect people.
In the first few chapters we see him using the unrest of the people to his own benefit: “He had wrought them up to a pitch of dangerous passion, and they were ripe for any violence to which he urged them. If he had failed with the windmill, at least he was now master of the wind” (Sabatini, Scaramouche).
 |
| I do love a good Don Quijote reference. |
Despite---or possibly because of---being a student of the law, he doesn't actually care that much for the laws itself, yet believes that the only way to find justice is to play that game. The current systems are deeply disturbing to Phillippe, but André-Louis himself has a bit of a nihilistic mindset; whatever replaces this current government will likely have its own flaws.
“I am ready to admit that the present government is execrable, unjust, tyrannical—what you will; but I beg you to look ahead, and to see that the government for which it is aimed at exchanging it may be infinitely worse” (Sabatini, Scaramouche).
André-Louis resists being persuaded: Phillippe tries to persuade him to stand up for justice; his godfather tries to persuade him to not be involved in politics; Le Chapelier and others try to persuade him to be MORE invested in politics. André-Louis ends up doing some of these things, i.e. getting quite involved in politics, but he does it for his own reasons, not what anyone else said.
 |
| Footage of Phillippe and André-Louis, courtesy of Enola Holmes (2020). |
Let's take the last example from my above list, where Le Chapelier and another show up to André-Louis's dueling studio to ask André-Louis to use his skills and, well, kill the people in the meetings that are killing all of their own.
André-Louis refuses, saying that is a despicable use of the sword and that succumbing to being like their enemies makes them no better than their enemies. He fully lays them out, eloquently and brutally as is his want. Le Chapelier sees it is no use and says, fine, we'll just have to find someone else to deal with La Tour d'Azyr.
Aka André-Louis's archenemesis.
And André-Louis flips on a coin.
But from what we have seen of his character so far, it's not a contradiction to his personality. He's doing it for his own reasons, not for what anyone else is persuading him to do. He voiced opinions that were not his own to spite La Tour d'Azyr. He's given up careers to spite La Tour d'Azyr. Now he'll give up his morals to fight La Tour d'Azyr, but that is his reasoning and no one else's.
 |
| Some "sword fighting," for those of you still celebrating Christmas until Jan. 6th. |
Persuasion has an after-effect, which is what Austen's whole book is about. To wrap that up in one word (which is not the title), I would say that impacts one's integrity. Once one has been pressured to do something and it doesn't turn out in a desirable way, it makes one feel untrue to oneself and one's own initial wishes. André-Louis maintains his integrity if nothing else while Anne is trying to regain hers.
Austen's works often look at the how strong her characters are, not in a physical sense but in their personality and integrity. Anne was not persuaded because she had a "weak character," it was because she cared about people; “If I was wrong in yielding to persuasion once, remember that it was to persuasion exerted on the side of safety, not of risk” (Austen, Persuasion).
 |
| Not my favorite version, but thought it should get a place in the post still. |
Let's get something straight right away: caring for people is not weak (that's what André-Louis needs to learn, but more on that in a minute). What Anne learns is that she cared for the wrong person/people; she chose those so wrapped up in their own vanities that they persuaded her out of fearing how her choice would make society look at them, not the man who cared for her in return.
We can also sympathize with Anne for her time period, as women did not have a lot of choices; economics and wealth are constant subtle themes in Austen's bibliography. What's important in the book is that Anne is already beating herself up for making the wrong decision BEFORE Wentworth reenters the picture with changed fortunes. She's learned from her family's indulgences---what got them to their current state of "near-destitution"---that money is not everything; what matters is being happy with people one trusts. One can only be persuaded by a credible source, so Anne has come to realize she put her trust in the wrong people. It was a risk and she bet on material things instead of intangible things.
To look briefly at the other side of risk, Sabatini's novel is fraught with more threats than poverty. Andre Louis is always putting himself into danger, choosing risks, not safety, much to the distress of his family. Those things do not weigh into his decisions, but how he feels about it, and he knows his family will feel what they will, but he won't let their feelings persuade him. This leads to our next factor: denial.
Denial:
This is kind of the mushy middle between my points of persuasion and emotions, but it is what gives the story plot. If a character developed instantly, we'd be bored.
André-Louis is in a bit of denial about his own mortality. He doesn't think of himself as being immortal, but he seems to not worry about his ultimate demise. It is Aline who convinces him early on to run away. It is his godfather who is always worried about the risks. Yet André-Louis repeatedly acts as if no one cares about him, as if he must only look out for himself. There's this whole scene where he gaslights himself into thinking that his adversary is the one who is cared about and it couldn't possibly be him.
“I am just a rascal who tries to be honest—Scaramouche always, in fact; a creature of sophistries" (Sabatini, Scaramouche).
There's also a little bit where André-Louis insists "I am not a man of action." He says this several times, it kind of becomes his MO by the end and is always a pointed remark at one person. That one person is admitted to be honest at all times. The ingredients of "man of action" and honesty/lies, leads me to take the negation of a quote from The Princess Bride (1987); if André-Louis is NOT a man of action, lies do become him?
 |
| What's another word for lies to oneself? Denial. |
This is surprising because to be a lawyer and a swordsman means he must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would've put the poison as far away from yourself---hold up, that's still from The Princess Bride (1987).
Jokes aside, André-Louis is in denial because he thinks he is being true to himself. And he is, but he's also very much in denial of certain feelings. The feelings he has categorized as getting him into trouble in the past; the feelings he thinks will cloud his judgement: love, compassion, care, etc..
The thought of being judged by others has made Anne in denial about how others feel. She's sure that her past mistakes are irreparable.
 |
| Looking to the past, not the future. |
“Soon, however, she began to reason with herself, and try to be feeling less. Eight years, almost eight years had passed, since all had been given up. How absurd to be resuming the agitation which such an interval had banished into distance and indistinctness! What might not eight years do? Events of every description, changes, alienations, removals,--all, all must be comprised in it; and oblivion of the past...
Alas! with all her reasonings, she found, that to retentive feelings eight years may be little more than nothing” (Austen, Persuasion, emphasis mine).
Linguistically, the opposite of denial would probably be approval, but there is a line to walk in the real world. The book laments, “How quick come the reasons for approving what we like” (Austen, Persuasion). Anne is dissimilar to her father and sisters because she doesn't just approve everything that sounds good to her, and that is a strength in and of itself. Her integrity is there, if she will just look beyond what happened in the past.
Denial and regret go hand-in-hand; Anne regrets she did not choose the alternative and is in denial that her life will ever change now. Hope is a huge theme in Austen's book and Anne struggles by denying herself hope. Hope is a commitment, and one can be half hope and half agony, but that's only after there is not denial left.
Speaking of agony, let's talk about emotions.
Emotion:
“We live at home, quiet, confined, and our feelings prey upon us” (Austen, Persuasion).
 |
| What goes better (again) with The French Revolution than a story that takes place semi-during the U.S. Civil War? |
Part of the reason that Anne is living in this dance of denial is it the only way to escape from her thoughts, when she is so often neglected, left to reflect on what could've been. André-Louis, meanwhile, draws his denial from the fact that he doesn't have time to waste on those feelings. His version of the early 2010s phrase, "Ain't nobody got time for that."
While André-Louis is brilliant in many ways, Sabatini gives us an insider's view on how he is missing out on something.
“You behold him at the age of four-and-twenty stuffed with learning enough to produce an intellectual indigestion in an ordinary mind” (Sabatini, Scaramouche).
André-Louis, like all good protagonists, makes the story longer for himself by going about things the hard way. He gives himself emotional indigestion by not processing things. The story would've been much shorter if he had asked those around him how they felt, instead of trying to sort things out for himself. From being in denial, he assumes much about the people around him. Despite having a genius-level of observation, he cannot know everything about others. That wisdom comes from experience.
As for Anne, “She hoped to be wise and reasonable in time; but alas! Alas! She must confess to herself that she was not wise yet” (Austen, Persuasion). Andre-Louis also acts as if he's wise, but the narrator tells us that he is not emotionally savvy. We just hope that we become that way by the end of our stories.
 |
| Life is complicated, Edmond. And anyone who says otherwise is selling something.... |
Stories have ups and downs, embarrassments and mistakes; “Anne hoped she had outlived the age of blushing; but the age of emotion she certainly had not” (Austen, Persuasion). And that's the thing, emotions ARE good. André-Louis is learning this, and Anne is learning that her emotions are valid, too.
Conclusions:
I've thrown a lot of thoughts out there, so now time to be direct.
What I think Austen is trying to say: Persuasion leads to a denial of one's self, and the only way to counteract that is to reconnect with one's emotions.
One can make a mistake, but let that be one's own mistake, not a mistake one was persuaded into making.
 |
| So many good Austen adaptations came out in 1995 and I have yet to watch this one... |
“She felt that she could so much more depend upon the sincerity of those who sometimes looked or said a careless or a hasty thing, than of those whose presence of mind never varied, whose tongue never slipped” (Austen, Persuasion).
My tongue often slips, which is why I prefer writing to express myself. The above quote reminds me of André-Louis's rigidness vs. his sincere friend, Phillippe, one who sometimes is careless but always with good intentions. André-Louis is a master of words and sees each one as his tool, looking down on those who do not wield them as well. He hasn't become a master of his emotions, yet, though. Which brings us to...
What I think Sabatini is trying to say: To counteract the denial of one's emotions, one needs to persuade oneself that one's emotions are true.
One's integrity comes from listening to one's heart---yes, one's emotions. They are not a weakness, but a place to find oneself.
Okay, those summaries may be a bit of a stretch to fit my pattern. The gist of it is that mind and heart, decisions and mistakes, are all human things. One does not use solely logic or emotions, but a mix of both, which Scaramouche and Persuasion explore.
Now I've persuaded myself to reread Persuasion...
Thanks to all of you for reading! I wanted to get one last post in for 2025 and decided to buckle down and get this one done since I've been stewing on it for the entirety of November and December. Thanks to Sarah Seele and Katie Hanna for encouraging me to explain myself after I posted my review on Goodreads!
How many of you are Austen fans? Any Sabatini readers? What do you think of my dissection of persuasion-denial-emotions? What are other characters who oppose and compliment each other? What is your favorite Persuasion adaptation? How do you think integrity and persuasion are related?
Happy end of 2025, friends!
Chloe the MovieCritic
