An Echo in the Bone

Across generations, the men of Gabaldon’s novel consider it their duty to accept or perform acts of violence as the cost of protecting those they love. Some of this worldview is explained by the gender expectations of the 1700s, as the prevailing model of masculinity at this time is defined by physical ability and military prowess. As Arch tells Rachel, “Ye think vengeance is a stain? [...] It is a glory, lass. My glory, my duty to my wife” (1130). Gabaldon gives Arch’s proclamation significance because Ian himself understands Arch’s thinking. At Murdina’s funeral, Ian tells Arch, “Ye swore once to my uncle […] and offered life for life, for this woman. I swear by my iron, and I offer the same” (63). Ian fully expects Arch to take violent revenge and dignifies this perspective by willingly offering up his own life. At no point in the novel does any character besides Rachel Hunter posit that Arch’s desire for vengeance is unnecessary or not understandable. Through this dynamic, Gabaldon reproduces rather than critiques historical attitudes about the masculine expression of love and honor. Jamie expresses another aspect of this masculine obligation to family, when he declares that “purity of purpose was the province of men without families […] a man who sought his own safety was a coward; a man who risked his family’s safety was a poltroon” (745). For Jamie, safety and courage are incompatible.

Not only does Gabaldon reproduce these ideas in their own time, but the author translates an aggressively protective masculine love into 20th-century terms. Thinking of Jamie, Roger notes: “It was a bargain made between men […] Nothing mattered but that the family be preserved, the children protected. And whether the cost of it was paid in blood, sweat, or soul—it would be paid” (73). Roger innately understands his role as patriarch to be one of self-sacrificing paternalism; he is responsible for his family in a manner that he does not share with his wife. However, complicating this resolve and possibly indicating Roger’s more contemporary mindset, Roger also expresses unresolved guilt over abandoning his path to ordination as a minister in order to hunt down the pirate Stephen Bonnet. Even if Roger is willing to commit and justify acts of violence in the name of love, he is still disturbed by his own facility with violence.

Gabaldon complicates this dynamic when Ian disarms himself for Rachel in the final confrontation with Arch. Unable to satisfy Rachel’s conscience by killing Arch to protect her, Ian instead offers himself in her place, saying “Kill me, then” (1130). Still, men feel duty-bound to endure or enact violence to fulfill their duty to those they love throughout the novel. This adherence to patriarchal gender dynamics is not uncommon in historical romance fiction; authors like Gabaldon use stereotypically masculine associations with violence to inform the power dynamics of sexual relationships. Jamie, Roger, Ian, and Lord John are all presented as sexually active, and their need to protect their sexual and romantic partners informs their sexual desire. Lord John is titillated by the Baron Amandine’s knowledge of his sexuality because it creates an unexpected power dynamic; Lord John feels attracted to the danger that he might be revealed. Similarly, when Jamie and Claire have sex at Ticonderoga, Claire tells Jamie: “If I can do it in front of you, you can certainly return the favor. Of course, if you’d rather I stopped…” (673). Claire arouses Jamie by subverting the expected power dynamic. Though Jamie and Lord John seek power to protect their loved ones, Gabaldon writes these men as responding to instances of reduced power with sexual excitement.