Most villains draw fire for mainly legal or political reasons. The Casanova gets the loudest condemnation because he defies social convention, and those who understand nothing but social interactions are also those who squawk the loudest when offended. This isn’t a new problem, and has existed before Giacomo Casanova himself lived and gave his name to the habit of serial seduction. To deal with such things, it helps to learn lessons from Casanova himself.

This is, of course, enormously condensed. Wikipedia has a good overview of the man, and even his memoirs are available if you want to look more closely at this entirely archetypical villain.

A Casanova, as archetype or historical figure (and for clarity we shall refer to the first from now on, taking into account the second by calling him Giacomo when needed), is interested primarily in pleasure. He sees it as a good in and of itself, and an indicator that something is good. The writings of Epicurus go into this idea with some depth, if with partly different conclusions. The Casanova may well see pursuit of pleasure as a lifelong interest.

Obviously, and infamously, a Casanova is a seducer. His specific technique is to overwhelm a woman, not with force or alcohol or any such thing, but with straight passion. He makes her feel the center of his world and by reference the whole world. Giacomo had a repeated pattern that brought excitement and drama, gallantry and romantic idealism. William Bolitho’s Twelve Against the Gods says that his technique “had nothing more esoteric in it than [offering] what every woman who respects herself must demand: all that he had, all that he was, with (to set off the lack of legality) the dazzling attraction of the lump sum over what is more regularly doled out in a lifetime of installments.” It may be well argued that such elaborate ways are not only unnecessary but counterproductive in the 21st century West. This is possibly true, but keep in mind his preference for more challenging sorts over easy conquests. The same style may do well with the same sorts today, and would have been disastrous overkill for easy targets even then.

The difference between a Casanova and a slovenly profligate is that pleasure is not his only interest. Giacomo was highly intelligent and interested in many things. A list of his jobs and hobbies is immense. The Casanova must support his drive for pleasure with the intellect and curiosity to become worthy of receiving it. His intelligence also allows him to produce the funds which pleasures almost always require.

The Casanova also knows how to present himself, both a cause and a result of his money-making abilities. Giacomo did whatever he could to look the part required of himself, and he tended to aim high. His archetype may not require being a fop, but success with women does require appealing to their interests, though of course what that means precisely will vary according to circumstances. When in doubt, dress a bit better than you think you must. That slight edge will yield excellent dividends. Something worth imitating, even if one despises Giacomo in general, is his habit of bringing a woman along when purchasing clothing. Do not slavishly follow her whim (unless she has outstanding taste in men’s fashion and you have very little experience), but make good use of her advice and reactions and you will rarely go wrong.

The Casanova is probably the most social of all Villainous archetypes, and knows how to make use of networking, social standing, small-group politics, and so on. He can rise in influence by becoming interesting to influential people (which Giacomo did many times). His many skills and accomplishments draw many women’s interest, though he is selective in which he decides to pursue. He is charming, witty, and usually the most intriguing person in the room.

Giacomo’s failings should also be considered, the better to avoid them: He had continuous problems with gambling and drugs; he was oversensitive and vindictive beyond reason; his temper was entirely too short; and his self-estimation was famously inaccurate and misplaced. He managed to cause enough scandals to get himself exiled twice and imprisoned. This is a pattern seen in many historical (and modern) people who fall into the Casanova type. Its greatest weakness would appear to be losing perspective and inviting trouble through carelessness or hubris. It may seem odd that mental energy should coexist with lack of self-discipline, but in practice it’s not at all an unusual pairing. (My own Jovian philosophy has certain tenets to head off this sort of thing.) A Casanova should be extremely careful to keep his passions in check, well controlled, and out of the way of rational thought. His inability to maintain interest in one thing or another is also how Giacomo managed to pour such passion – sometimes to the point of risking his own life and limb – into an affair and soon after become bored. He simply hadn’t the focus in any long term.

Giacomo was and is considered a libertine by most, but in truth he was quite religious, which would seem to be at odds with libertinism. He did not see pursuit of pleasure to be an obstacle to his beliefs, and like most villains, had a personal code he kept to but which was different from those around him. Those who match the Casanova archetype remind us that a personal code is indeed personal, that having such a thing readily brings the wrath of the general populace (as do most Villainous archetypes), and that judgment among Villains should be avoided whenever possible.

Clearly, seeing pleasure as a goal in itself, while broadening one’s interests to accommodate and facilitate that goal, is easy to blend with most of the Villainous archetypes. It also may be used with most aliases, excepting only the least social and most iconoclastic. Moliere’s Dom Juan, however (from almost a century before Giacomo’s birth), in order to get himself out of trouble declares, “I shall not give up my dear habits, but will carefully hide them, and avoid all show in my pleasures.” It is not an easy thing for someone who draws attention to do, but it is possible.

I find this to be the most challenging archetype to write about thus far, and I hope I have done it fair justice. It is one which we see in various forms in daily life but which gets lumped together into something not even realistic in the imagination of most people. It exists in some amount in a great many Villains but is looked down on even by those who, objectively, share many of its goals and methods. A very strange Villain indeed.