Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
The Mayor of Casterbridge
Hardy, The Mayor of Casterbridge
>
Week 3: Chapters 16 – 21
date
newest »
newest »
A pattern begins to emerge with Michael Henchard’s behavior. He acts rashly and then regrets it. He auctions his wife and regrets it the next day. He terminates Farfrae’s employment and regrets his decision the next day. And he gives permission to Elizabeth-Jane to leave home, but then he regrets his decision and wants her to stay with him as his daughter. I was struck by the paragraph at the end of Chapter 16 after he gets rid of Farfrae:
Henchard went home, apparently satisfied. But in the morning, when his jealous temper had passed away, his heart sank within him at what he had said and done. He was the more disturbed when he found that this time Farfrae was determined to take him at his word.
Henchard doesn't understand that his words and actions have consequences. It’s as if he expects people to make allowances for him and somehow figure out he doesn’t always mean what he says.
Hardy tells us this in reference to Henchard’s character:
Character is fate, said Novalis, and Farfrae’s character was just the reverse of Henchard’s, who might not inaptly be described as Faust had been described—as a vehement gloomy being, who had quitted the ways of vulgar men, without light to guide him to a better way.
What is meant by “character is fate?” How is Henchard’s character determining his fate?
Susan doesn’t want Henchard to know he is not Elizabeth-Jane’s father until her daughter’s wedding day. Why wait until Elizabeth-Jane’s wedding day to reveal the truth? What does this say about Susan?
Henchard can't seem to learn form his mistakes : he acts, in anger or jealousy, and the consequences are never to his liking, but he can't seem to moderate his temper.My favourite character is Elizabeth-Jane : she has an amazing abilty to make the best of any situation. When Henchard tells her he's her father, she just needs the evening to reflect, and, the following day, she's ready to take Henchard's name and call him "father". When her mother and her (she? sorry, I'm doubting my grammar) are short on money, she's the one waitressing at the inn. Honestly, it seems like Henchard doesn't deserve her (and not the other way around).
Well.- Farfrae and E-J are clearly meant for each other, but it's Henchard who spills the beans about her parentage--only to discover the same day that she is Newson's daughter after all. He can't bring himself to tell E-J, though, the lout.
- Susan sent the notes to F and E-J to get them together. Makes sense.
- No sign of Newson yet.
- The Jersey woman has shown up as a well-to-do and independent lady. She wants to take E-J as a servant/companion. Surely she means to renew her relationship with the now-widowered Henchard.
Tamara wrote: "Susan doesn’t want Henchard to know he is not Elizabeth-Jane’s father until her daughter’s wedding day. Why wait until Elizabeth-Jane’s wedding day to reveal the truth? What does this say about Susan?"I think she wanted to make sure that Henchard took good care of her until she had a husband to take on that duty. Very shrewd, if you ask me.
Roger wrote: "I think she wanted to make sure that Henchard took good care of her until she had a husband to take on that duty. Very shrewd, if you ask me.."Susan has, indeed, turned out to be shrewd.
Hardy foreshadows the issue of Elizabeth-Jane’s real father back in Chapter 14 when he indicates Susan’s uneasiness about the color of her hair. Henchard comments that Elizabeth-Jane’s hair was much darker when she was a baby. Susan brushes off his comment with “an uneasy expression . . . to which the future held the key.”
Later she tries to discourage her daughter from taking Henchard’s name:
She went to Elizabeth-Jane, whom she found sewing in her own sitting-room upstairs, and told her what had been proposed about her surname. ‘Can you agree—is it not a slight upon Newson—now he’s dead and gone?’
And in chapter 18 when Henchard sends a letter to Farfrae telling him to stay away from Elizabeth-Jane, we get this comment from Hardy:
Loving a man or hating him, his diplomacy was as wrongheaded as a buffalo’s; and his wife had not ventured to suggest the course which she, for many reasons, would have welcomed gladly.
Susan conceals the identity of Elizabeth-Jane’s real father from Henchard to let him think he is financially responsible for her. She tries to navigate a match between Elizabeth-Jane and Farfrae to secure financial stability for her daughter. And even though she knows Henchard is wrong to discourage a match between the two of them, she doesn’t try to correct him probably because she knows he is bull-headed.
In all this, Susan shows herself to be astute and may even be smarter than Henchard. She uses a system that makes it obligatory for men to take care of women to her advantage by manipulating it to protect herself and her daughter.
La_mariane wrote: "My favourite character is Elizabeth-Jane : she has an amazing ability to make the best of any situation..."Hardy portrays her as being dignified and resilient. She is also sensible. She doesn’t want to call attention to herself in the way she dresses or behaves. And she also works hard on self-improvement.
When presented with an opportunity to leave Henchard’s home, she takes it because she doesn’t want to rely on him when she senses he is ashamed of her. But she is also a young woman and susceptible to Henchard’s criticism.
When Henchard learns Elizabeth-Jane is not his daughter, he becomes critical of her behavior and her idioms whereas neither seemed to bother him in the past. Elizabeth-Jane doesn’t understand why his attitude toward her has changed. But she feels the sting of his reprimands. She internalizes his criticism and feels inadequate and embarrassed. She moderates her behavior and her speech, accordingly, in the hope of winning his approval.
Do you think Henchard’s pattern of behavior towards her amounts to psychological and emotional abuse?
Well, this was a surprise that Elizabeth-Jane is a ringer. Hardy did give hints, but I think he did some quick double talking when he talks about her age initially since there would have been an age difference between the two children. I’ll have to look again. And is it really plausible that Susan and Newsom would use the same name again for this second child? This revelation makes me reevaluate Susan’s character since she intended to deceive Henchard about Elizabeth-Jane’s paternity. And while she was careful not to deceive Elizabeth-Jane about who her father was, her inadequately sealed letter has led to just that situation. I’m not advocating to let Henchard off the hook for his rough treatment of Elizabeth Jane, who is after all blameless, but he does have a right to feel deceived/used, doesn’t he?
Hardy seems really masterful to me in his depiction of characters and their conflicting, contradictory impulses.
Susan wrote: "And while she was careful not to deceive Elizabeth-Jane about who her father was, her inadequately sealed letter has led to just that situation.."In a sense, Susan deceives everyone. Yes, she has Elizabeth-Jane convinced Newson is her father, which is the truth. However, after Susan's death, Elizabeth-Jane believes Henchard when he tells her he is her real father and she agrees to take on his surname.
I thought it was strange to give Elizabeth-Jane the same name as the first baby. But maybe that was Susan's idea as a sort of insurance policy because if something were to happen to Newson, she could always go back to Henchard and claim Elizabeth-Jane is his child and, thereby, make him legally and financially responsible for her.
Susan wrote: "Hardy seems really masterful to me in his depiction of characters and their conflicting, contradictory impulses."
I agree. And the more I get into it, the more I am impressed with Susan. Henchard described her as weak and stupid. But she is anything but that. In many ways, she is a master manipulator.
Susan wrote: "I’m not advocating to let Henchard off the hook for his rough treatment of Elizabeth Jane, who is after all blameless, but he does have a right to feel deceived/used, doesn’t he?"Yes, but the problem is he takes it out on Elizabeth-Jane who, as you said, is completely blameless. I think if we look at the situation from Susan's perspective, we might see it a little differently. Yes, she deceived him, but what option did she have?
Henchard thinks only in terms of the injury done to him. He does not stop to consider that he instigated the chain of events when he sold his wife and daughter for auction. He doesn't think of the precarious position he put Susan in because of his drunken behavior. He doesn't stop to consider she had no option but to deceive him as he was the only means of support available to her.
Hardy shows us Susan feels guilty about deceiving him because even at her initial meeting with Henchard, she expresses her willingness to leave and not cause him a problem. If she had revealed the truth to him earlier, she would be taking a terrible risk because he may refuse to support her and Elizabeth-Jane. And that is a risk she is unwilling to take. Her primary concern has always been for her daughter.
"Henchard thinks only in terms of the injury done to him." That's why I have next to no sympathy for him. Who gets to middle age and only thinks of his own perspective?
La_mariane wrote: "Who gets to middle age and only thinks of his own perspective?"Good question. How much time do you have? I'm compiling a list :-)
Tamara wrote: "La_mariane wrote: "Who gets to middle age and only thinks of his own perspective?"Good question. How much time do you have? I'm compiling a list :-)"
You're right! Very long list! I might have phrased it better and asked about reasonable people, but that takes Henchard out of the equation.
It's one of the (many) reasons I advocate reading fiction at all ages : it teaches us empathy!
Susan wrote: "This revelation makes me reevaluate Susan’s character since she intended to deceive Henchard about Elizabeth-Jane’s paternity."This explains why Susan went back to Henchard. I had trouble understanding why she would return to a man who literally sold her out, but now it makes sense. It wasn't a long shot after all. She had a plan, and she knew Henchard well enough to predict his behavior.
Tamara wrote: "What is meant by “character is fate?” How is Henchard’s character determining his fate?."Character as fate sounds like it implies that Henchard has no choice, that he is bound by his emotional, rash, and impulsive character to act accordingly. He can't help being the way he is and must suffer the consequences. Are we supposed to forgive him for his cruelty then, or downplay its significance? Or even pity him?
And what is Henchard's relation to Faust? If I remember correctly, Faust is full of desire and ambition, at first for knowledge and then for sensuality. I don't quite see that with Henchard, but maybe I'm missing something.
Thomas wrote: "Character as fate sounds like it implies that Henchard has no choice, that he is bound by h..."I'm not comfortable with Hardy's description of "character is fate" because it suggests Henchard has no choice, as you point out. We always have a choice. I'm more comfortable with the idea that character can influence fate.
Henchard's character does influence his fate. But he has a choice to control his emotional, rash, and impulsive character and alter the trajectory of his fate accordingly. He can choose to learn from his mistakes and behave differently. He chooses not to do that. He chooses to allow his character to guide his decisions and behaviors.
The only similarity I see with Faust is that both men transgressed:
Faust by making a pact with the devil and Henchard by selling his wife. And both persist in continuing along the same path without genuinely repenting for their actions. Genuine repentance entails changing behavior, which neither one did.
Maybe someone else might have better insight into this issue.
"Character is fate, said Novalis" : I took it to mean that Henchard is going to be the cause of his own downfall, as opposed to Farfrae, who is far less rigid. I also took it as a bit of irony from Hardy (I hesitate to use the term joke, because it's not light in tone, but maybe a play of words?) : character is fate, and the novelist clearly has a plan for his characters in this novel, and I feel like Henchard is his main guinea pig. This novel read a bit like a cautionary tale : don't be like Henchard, or suffer because of it (a bit like a moralist from the 17th century).
Also, why chose to mention Novalis, the German poet and novellist, and not Heraclitus, who has a very similar quote? (ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων (ethos anthropoi daimon), translated as "A man's character is his destiny", according to Wikipedia).
La_mariane wrote: "This novel read a bit like a cautionary tale : don't be like Henchard, or suffer because of it (a bit like a moralist from the 17th century)..."That's a good point. But Henchard also has some good qualities, doesn't he? He adheres to his resolution of avoiding alcohol. He is determined to make it up to Susan. And he is generous with his money, giving them both a home, and wanting Elizabeth-Jane to take his name when he thought she was his daughter. He is also generous with Abel Whittle's mother. He is a man of extremes. Nothing is straightforward and simple about him.
He does have good qualities, I think Hardy needed to balance his character out, because it's the "hook" that draws the reader in : how can this man be both so good and so bad? It's an interesting character study, but I still don't like Henchard (in a "love to hate" kind of way. I think it's an excellent novel).
The good and bad qualities also possibly show up in Hardy’s nuanced portrayal of the villagers. They are portrayed as harmless country bumpkins who comment on the actions of the main characters and provide some comic relief with their banter. And, as Susan observed in an earlier post, they serve as a Greek chorus. But is there another side to them? Christopher Coney steals pennies from a corpse and spends the money on alcohol. The villagers show no loyalty to Henchard when shifting their allegiance to Farfrae. And when Henchard sees Elizabeth-Jane helping Nance, he chastises her for making herself “a drudge for a common workwoman of such a character as hers.” Nance punctures his pride by revealing Elizabeth-Jane served as a waitress at the Three Mariners.
On the one hand, Nance is justified in embarrassing Henchard for impugning her character. On the other hand, Nance succeeds in extending the wedge between Henchard and Elizabeth-Jane, which is to the girl's disadvantage. And she does it when the poor girl was simply trying to help her.
Is there a streak of nastiness to the villagers?
La_mariane wrote: ""Also, why chose to mention Novalis, the German poet and novellist, and not Heraclitus, who has a very similar quote? (ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων (ethos anthropoi daimon), translated as "A man's character is his destiny", according to Wikipedia)"There is a note in the Norton Critical edition that says "Hardy probably knew the quotation from George Eliot's use of it (in the form "Character is destiny') in The Mill on the Floss, Book 6, chapter 6."
"Character, says Novalis, in one of his questionable aphorisms -- 'Character is destiny.' "
(Evidently Eliot read Novalis's quotation of Heraclitus, and Hardy read Eliot's rendition in the Mill on the Floss.)
The curious thing is that Eliot uses the phrase ironically. For Eliot (in that novel anyway) external circumstances have an equally powerful role in determining her characters' destinies. Does Hardy mean it ironically?
In the same passage Henchard is compared to Faust (the despairing Faust before he makes his deal with Mephistopheles) and Farfrae is compared to the wily Jacob in Genesis. But there's nothing particularly Faustian about Henchard (unless Mephisto is about to make an appearance) and Farfrae is not deceptive the way that Jacob is in that reference. The literary allusions are interesting, but they are mentioned in passing and seem more decorative than substantial.
Thomas wrote: "But there's nothing particularly Faustian about Henchard (unless Mephisto is about to make an appearance) and Farfrae is not deceptive the way that Jacob is in that reference. The literary allusions are interesting, but they are mentioned in passing and seem more decorative than substantial."Sigh. I don't understand the Faust bit either. (Even though I was SO proud of finishing Faust with this group!) The best I can figure, Faust made an impossible deal for knowledge. Farfrae shows up with this incredible knowledge and says "Don't worry about paying me." Seems too good to be true.
Personally, I don't trust Farfrae. He doesn't seem to have any sentiment for E-J. He stands up for his workers (looking respected and showing up to work in pants,) but he seems so disconnected from people. Unless he's singing, I guess.
Tamara wrote: "A pattern begins to emerge with Michael Henchard’s behavior. He acts rashly and then regrets it... What is meant by “character is fate?” How is Henchard’s character determining his fate?"I read this differently than some of you. It's not that he doesn't have a choice, it's that his choices create his fate. If he responds rashly, skies are grey ahead. When he makes pointed decisions like abstaining from alcohol, he becomes mayor and achieves success.
Tamara wrote: "La_mariane wrote: "My favourite character is Elizabeth-Jane : she has an amazing ability to make the best of any situation..."Hardy portrays her as being dignified and resilient. She is also sens..."
The title is funny. The Mayor of Casterbridge: The Life and Death of a Man of Character. E-J seems to have the strongest character, though, doesn't she? In chapter 20: "She began the study of Latin, incited by the Roman characteristics of the town she lived in. 'If I am not well-informed it shall be no fault of my own,'"
Tamara mentioned before the connection to Roman city-structure. This website is worth a look if you're into finding connections of that ilk.
https://thomashardysfiction.blogspot....
Ashley wrote: "Tamara mentioned before the connection to Roman city-structure. This website is worth a look if you're into finding connections of that ilk.https://thomashardysfiction.blogspot....."
A really interesting link. Thank you for sharing it, Ashley.
I think the selection of the Ring for Henchard and Susan’s meeting place serves as foreshadowing. It is described as “melancholy, impressive, lonely.” It had served as the town gallows” and “pugilistic encounters almost to the death” had occurred there. It was a place where crimes “might be perpetrated there unseen.” As well as housing skeletons of dead soldiers from the Roman empire, there is a suggestion the place might be haunted.
The location reinforces Hardy’s bleak world view. It is a physical manifestation of death and a destructive past haunting the present—just as Henchard and Susan’s past haunts their present.
One other way it might foreshadow is the location represents the decline of a once powerful empire. Similarly, the traditional way of life at Casterbridge is on the decline. Henchard’s way of doing things is being replaced by Farfrae’s greater reliance on technology. I suspect Hardy does not embrace the change.
I got the feeling that Hardy rather welcomes the changes that Farfrae brings, as far as his gloomy outlook allows. There are many references to the efficiency of the new ways, and to the ignorance, isolation, and backwardness of the old-fashioned villagers.
Roger wrote: "I got the feeling that Hardy rather welcomes the changes that Farfrae brings, as far as his gloomy outlook allows. There are many references to the efficiency of the new ways, and to the ignorance,..."Maybe so. But I get the sense something valuable is lost with Farfrae and his way of doing things. I can't put my finger on it and it could just be me projecting something on to Hardy that isn't there.
I'm like Ashely (#23) in that I don't like/trust Farfrae. Henchard, with all his faults and all the times he has messed up, seems more human. I get the sense there is something very cold and calculating about Farfrae. And, yes, his way of doing things is more efficient, but it also feels heartless to me.
Tamara wrote: "Roger wrote: "I got the feeling that Hardy rather welcomes the changes that Farfrae brings, as far as his gloomy outlook allows. There are many references to the efficiency of the new ways, and to ..."My guess is that we'll see Farfrae's faults soon enough. He has a strange separation inside him, like a "buisiness side" and a "soft side" that don't communicate.
Susan becomes ill and writes a letter to Henchard with instructions that it not be opened until Elizabeth-Jane’s wedding day. And in Chapter 18, she reveals to Elizabeth-Jane that she had sent the letters to her and to Farfrae in an attempt at match-making.
Henchard receives a letter from Lucetta Templeman to return her love letters. He agrees, but she doesn’t show up to retrieve them. Susan dies and is buried. After her death, Henchard reveals to Elizabeth-Jane he is her real father but omits to say he sold them at auction. He wants her to adopt his name. But then he finds Susan’s letter and learns Elizabeth-Jane is not his daughter. Although he decides not to tell her the truth, he becomes increasingly critical of her, especially when he learns she worked as a waitress at the inn. Elizabeth is convinced he dislikes her. Henchard withdraws his disapproval of Farfrae’s courtship hoping he will take Elizabeth-Jane off his hands.
Elizabeth-Jane meets a well-dressed lady at the church yard who has just moved to Casterbridge. She agrees to work for her as her companion at her new place of residence. The woman introduces herself as Lucetta Templeman.