Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The novel opens with a description of Michael Henchard with his wife, Susan, and their infant girl, Elizabeth-Jane. From the description, we can tell their relationship is strained. At the village fair at Weydon Priors, they order furmity (a porridge). Henchard signals the vendor to add rum to his meal. He becomes increasingly drunk and ignores Susan’s pleas to find lodging. He complains loudly about marriage, lamenting his loss of freedom. He then offers his wife up for auction. A sailor purchases Susan and the baby for five guineas.

Michael wakes up from his drunken stupor the next day, regretting his actions. He enters a church and swears to abstain from alcohol for 21 years. He searches for his family and learns they have emigrated with the sailor.

Eighteen years later, Susan and Elizabeth-Jane return to Weydon Priors. Susan is a widow. She learns Henchard is now the mayor of Casterbridge. They seek him out in Casterbridge and find him hosting a fancy dinner. Susan tells Elizabeth-Jane that Henchard is related to them through marriage, but she is too intimidated by his appearance and authority to approach him. They find lodging in an inn where Elizabeth-Jane serves the customers in exchange for a discounted rate for the room. They later overhear a conversation between Michael and Donald Farfrae, a young man from Scotland. Michael expresses remorse for a past action and offers Farfrae a job to manage his corn business.
_______________

Hardy refers to Michael Henchard as “a man of character.” Nowadays, when we say a person has character, we mean someone who behaves with strong moral and ethical principles. But I’m not sure the word carried the same connotation in Hardy’s time. Maybe it just meant the person had a strong personality—neither good nor bad, just strong. Or maybe Hardy plans to show Henchard developing into a man of character as we understand the word to mean today. It’s something to think about as we move forward with the discussion. But for now, Michael Henchard is not off to a good start.

I posted a wikipedia article on wife-selling in the Historical Context thread for those of you interested to learn more about it.

As shocking as it is to see a man putting his wife up for auction, its occurrence was not totally out of the ordinary. Michael Henchard references it when he says to Susan: I take the money; the sailor takes you. That’s plain enough. It has been done elsewhere—and why not here?

Henchard had tried to sell Susan in the past but had stopped short of doing so. Despite Susan’s pleas to stop his foolishness this time around, Henchard persists with the bidding. What does this say about Henchard’s views towards Susan and towards marriage, in general? And why does Susan agree to be auctioned off?

Hardy sets up a contrast between the male and female reactions to the auction:

A buxom stay-laced dealer in voluminous petticoats tries to reassure Susan that her husband doesn’t mean to auction her off. She chastises Henchard, urging him to behave with decency.

Meanwhile, a former groom or coachman sizes up Susan’s appearance as if he were sizing up an animal for breeding. He suggests she may need fattening up. Notice the use of “it” in that sentence, which reinforces his objectification of Susan:

I’ve had my breedings in as good circles, I may say, as any man,’ he added, ‘and I know true cultivation, or nobody do; and I can declare she’s got it—in the bone, mind ye, I say as much as any female in the fair—though it may want a little bringing out.’

It is noteworthy that none of men try to persuade Henchard from proceeding with the sale. Nor do they object to it on moral or legal grounds. Hardy tells us they initially treated the auction as a joke. But once it becomes obvious Henchard is serious, the mirth-wrinkles left the listeners’ faces, and they waited with parting lips.

If the men are upset by the proceedings, why don’t they intervene to stop it?

Tamara wrote: "Despite Susan’s pleas to stop his foolishness this time around, Henchard persists with the bidding. What does this say about Henchard’s views towards Susan and towards marriage, in general? And why does Susan agree to be auctioned off?.."

Henchard initially seems to be a man in a foul mood who has an alcohol problem. His shame and regret in the morning appear sincere, and the fact that he keeps his vow to not drink is evidence of some level of character. He seems to be a different person when Sara and Elizabeth-Jane return. He's done well in business and has the respect of the town. Hardy's description of his laugh in chapter V is wonderful, though rather ambiguous:

That laugh was not encouraging to strangers; and hence it may have been well that it was rarely heard. Many theories might have been built upon it. It fell in well with conjectures of a temperament which would have no pity for weakness, but would be ready to yield ungrudging admiration to greatness and strength. Its producer's personal goodness, if he had any, would be of a very fitful cast -- an occasional almost oppresive generosity rather than a mild and constant kindness.

Living with an alcoholic has never been easy, and I think Susan has just had enough of him. The fact that Henchard blames Susan's "simplicity" for leaving with the sailor is a good indication of what she's had to put up with. She has to be either brave or desperate to agree to this sailor deal. Probably both. Which makes me wonder why she decides to go back and look for Henchard. Is it only poverty? (Not that poverty is nothing, of course.)

It looks like Hardy was solidly behind the temperance movement.

Thomas wrote: "His shame and regret in the morning appear sincere, and the fact that he keeps his vow to not drink is evidence of some level of character. ."

He is sincere but up to a point. He is concerned with his reputation:

'Did I tell my name to anybody last night, or didn't I tell my name?' he said to himself; and at last concluded that he did not.

He blames Susan:

. . . why didn't she know better than bring me into this disgrace!' he roared out. 'She wasn't queer if I was. 'Tis like Susan to show such idiotic simplicity. Meek--that meekness has done me more harm than the bitterest temper!'

And although he looks for Susan, he never reveals how he lost her, which suggests he is unwilling to accept full responsibility:

The truth was, that a certain shyness of revealing his conduct prevented Michael Henchard from following up the investigation with the loud hue-and-cry such a pursuit demanded to render it effectual; and it was probably for this reason that he obtained no clue, though everything was done by him that did not involve an explanation of the circumstances under which he had lost her.

Thomas wrote: "Which makes me wonder why she decides to go back and look for Henchard. Is it only poverty?."

What option does she have? She is a widow with no income. She has to find a way of supporting her daughter. She learns she is still technically Henchard's wife, so he is legally responsible for her and her daughter.

Susan is probably not well educated, simple, and meek. She had believed the sale was binding and that she was now Newson's wife. She behaved accordingly until a friend pointed out that the sale was not legal and she was still Henchard's wife.

What gets me about this is the men know the sale is not binding. Henchard knows and blames her simple-mindedness for believing the sale is valid. And even Newson knows the sale is not binding and she isn't really his wife. Although he seems to be a good husband and a good provider, he never tells her the truth about their situation:

When Newson came home at the end of one winter he saw that the delusion he had so carefully sustained had vanished forever.

It's as if the men conspire to deceive this poor, simple-minded woman because it is in their interest to do so.