Bionic Jean’s Comments (group member since Jul 27, 2022)

Bionic Jean’s comments from the Works of Thomas Hardy group.

Different Plans and Editions

We've talked of this at various points, but some might have entailed spoilers. One which intrigues me is that at one point there were to be two daughters: one staying with Henchard and one going with Susan and Newson; the Elizabeth Jane of the opening chapters was not to die, so the young woman in the body of the novel was to be Henchard's real daughter. Newson himself was to die, instead of returning in the final chapters to supplant Henchard.

We can see that if he had gone with this plan, then Hardy's intention to make the relationship with Farfrae the centre of the novel would have been more fleshed out.

There are quite a few scenes which were missed out in the ongoing American serial, which were restored in later editions, so we will have read most of these.

And the opposite applies too: scenes which were in both British and American serial editions, but removed when published in book form.

To bring us back to Thomas Hardy, he and Emma had visited Jersey before he wrote The Mayor of Casterbridge so this will have informed the parts about Lucetta.

Bridget has done such an excellent job in covering the different endings, including the goldfinch episode. It wasn't straightforward, so thank you so much. I am enormously grateful to have a co-mod to work with who is so knowledgeable and diligent. Thank you Bridget for leading this second half, and making our group read of another novel by Thomas Hardy so very enjoyable for us all.

Thanks to Connie also, for her stellar work on the associated poems. I can honestly say that incorporating these was a new experience for me, and one I hope to be able to repeat. (Don't miss the final two, everyone!)

And of course thanks to everyone who participated, especially to those who have generously shared their insights with us. I believe we have all benefited from this, and gained a wider and more in-depth experience of this novel.

I'll can now add more about the different endings; please forgive me though if I inadvertently repeat anything already mentioned ...

Two small points -

I love Claudia picking up the significance of Henchard's writing his "will" in pencil. Yes, it is all he would have about him, as a lowly peasant, no longer the mayor with his fancy fountain pen. But what a great symbol too, for all the impulse decisions he made, which did not last, but sometimes had catastrophic consequences. Pencil would not last too, but fade away, but the thoughts thus expressed would be adhered to as his final wishes.

The second detail is the choice of Abel Whittle. It is perfect to choose a minor character - and such a memorable one - one whom Henchard had made a laughing stock of, to complete the novel with his own forgiveness. Henchard degraded Abel not from malice, but from temper. The simple soul Abel Whittle saw Henchard's true generosity through how he privately helped Abel's own mother - and he honoured him for it.

I can weep buckets for Michael Henchard 😢

Michael Henchard though, as I said near the beginning is acknowledged as one of the great and most complex heroes of 19th century English literature. For me, "Michael Henchard's Will" is the most poignant "letter" of all the recorded century letters and diary entries in 19th century English fiction.

"Bitter"? That's how Elizabeth-Jane describes it, and certainly it has that momentary quality. Would Henchard have intended it to be lasting? Or was it another of his "impulses"? That's the million dollar question.

"She knew the directions to be a piece of the same stuff that his whole life was made of"

I feel this too, but to me this means that if a loving friend (such as herself) had found him earlier, he may have recanted his "will". Elizabeth-Jane though, believed that "the man who wrote them meant what he said." Yes, he did in the moment, but would he have done for ever?

Herein lies the crux of the anguish of the novel for me.

At the beginning we were unsure whether to trust Michael Henchard. Was he as "sinister" as one member said? Is it true that "greed, ambition, pride - and his focus on money - are the qualities in Henchard we will see repeated over and over"? Did he "exploit people for low wages" to demonstrate "capitalists becoming rich"? Or "resent his poverty, his lowly status?

(These comments are verbatim, but have sadly since been deleted by the member. I include them here for our final discission, as we all considered tendencies of this nature, at various times, I think.)

For me, there is some truth in the final one, but with a careful read such as we have done, we can see that there is a lot more to Michael Henchard that this summary dismissal. The Mayor of Casterbridge was always intended to be partly about the Corn Laws, (as we learnt at the beginning from Thomas Hardy's own preface), so is political in this sense, but a grand political statement is not the novel's overriding aim.

Michael Henchard makes mistakes - terrible mistakes - which seem unforgiveable at first. Yet as Bridget points out, there are many people in the novel who do forgive him, and hence we see examples of the better side of human nature. The point about this is that Henchard agonises over these mistakes, every single time. Bridget quoted the part which rings the greatest truth to me too, when Elizabeth-Jane reflects on his gift, which she correctly assumes must have been his "token of repentance", but now exists merely as a trapped and starved goldfinch. It makes her remember:

"He had not expressed to her any regrets or excuses for what he had done in the past; but it was a part of his nature to extenuate nothing, and live on as one of his own worst accusers."

This is not a greedy, ambitious man. It is a tragic hero.

I can imagine everyone is stunned by this ending.

We knew from the title that there would be an account of the end of Henchard's life of course - unless the title referred to Farfrae - but that seemed unlikely since he is not as "present" in the novel as Michael Henchard. For me Farfrae has an elusive personality. In fact, even if he had been described more fully, and a little time given to his inner thoughts, I find the bright, cheerful, talented and "kind-as-long-as-it-doesn't-intefere-with-business" Donald Farfrae a little shallow.

How about Elizabeth-Jane? Did she grow to be the good and true heroine we hoped for at the start?

To me, the final paragraph reflects a typically jaundiced opinion by Thomas Hardy. Elizabeth-Jane was grateful for her fortunate position. She became tranquil rather than happy, and tried to do good works. But was this really any better than her erroneous belief at the beginning that "happiness was but the occasional episode in a general drama of pain"? Was it, as we say, a life well lived?

Final Locations

Henchard's last days are spent in a derelict cottage near "the heath to the north of Anglebury" near a blasted clump of fire on the summit of a hill". Well not surprisingly there is no record of this specific cottage, since it was derelict then! But we do know where this high viewpoint is.

Back in 1913 Hermann Lea wrote the most authoritative work on the subject of Thomas Hardy's Wessex (illustrated by his own photographs). He identified the hill as Beacon Hill, a prominent landmark on the heath between Corfe Mullen and Upton.

This wiki article refers to 3 existing cottages which have survived to the present day. A track leads from them to the site of the old beacon. Historically it was one of a series of beacons used to warn of the advancing Spanish Armada, so the history of the hill makes interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_...

Egdon Heath often crops up in Thomas Hardy's writing, but it does not exist as an entity - it's more an idea in the same way that the boundaried "Wessex" does not exist. This article specifies the locations he used: it is an amalgam of scattered areas of moorland chiefly east of Dorchester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egdon_H...

When tourists ask to be taken to "Edgon Heath" (as Hardy fans often do) taxi drivers have to explain ... or just take them to one bit!

Peter wrote: "Henchard carries the bird in its cage towards Elizabeth-Jane in the hope he will be able to set himself free ..."

Wow Peter! I think this is one of the best and most insightful posts you have written, thank you!

Cindy - Please don't worry! These are subtle nuances we are talking about, and it's hard to make sure we have conveyed exactly what we meant. I know I find this! So it made me knuckle down and analyse exactly what we had been told in the text so far, and what was skimmed over.

In fact it seems we concurred about the interpretation of most of it. 🙂Then as we saw, the next chapter gave us more information about Elizabeth-Jane's feelings and "is something that Elizabeth-Jane would have taxed Henchard with during their confrontation".

I wonder whether she ever will learn this particular secret, (about the auction of her mother) or if it will continue to be fudged so we are never sure! It doesn't help that we virtually have 2 authors at some points. Nor that Hardy himself made so many revisions 🤔

Oddly I have a lock of hair from my grandfather, whom I never knew as he died before I was born. My mother kept it as a precious memento of him. It is a rich red-auburn colour, as hers was when young.

(Poem is linked to our list.)

Claudia has rightly identified how important the "Casterbridge to Budmouth" road is to this novel, just as "the Ring" is. Critical meetings and walks at dramatic parts of the story occur at those sites.

Thomas Hardy was well aware of its history and the emotional power this area has; ancient history mixed with superstition. Only today I came across this piece on the Rural Histories FB site:

"In 2009, a mass Viking grave containing 54 decapitated skeletons was discovered by archaeologists on the South Dorset Ridgeway, located in the hills between Dorchester ("Casterbridge") and Weymouth ("Budmouth"), England." (Using a spoiler now just to save space)
(view spoiler)["All of the skeletons were males, and all were buried in shallow graves with their decapitated heads piled up to one side.
Some researchers have suggested that the skeletons may have belonged to a group of Vikings called the Jomsvikings who modelled themselves on a legendary group of mercenaries named the Jomsvikings.

The Jomsvikings were a group of killers founded by Harald Bluetooth and based at Jomsborg on the Baltic coast, and were known for their strict views on battle. The Jomsvikings, and those who sought to emulate them, valued bravery in conflict above all else, and never showed fear or ran away in battle.

Due to this, some researchers have suggested that this might be one reason why the individuals were beheaded from the front, though this does not account for the unpredictable nature of battle. Nonetheless, some of the skeletons do show evidence of defence wounds on their arms, as well as deep cuts to vertebrae, jawbones and skulls, thus pointing towards a rapid, and very unpleasant, execution.

You can see these warriors at the County Museum, Dorchester. Incredible piece of history on the doorstep. And a reminder that you really didn’t want to upset the Men of Wessex." (hide spoiler)]

Cindy "I think possibly Elizabeth-Jane was told the story of what happened before she was born and her true paternity."

You argue this very well, but particularly after today's chapter I'm afraid I disagree that Elizabeth-Jane even knew her true parentage before this. And certainly did not know about the wife-selling. (I nearly said in answer to Claudia's query about maybe missing some textual evidence, that not to worry - there had not been any. And also how unlikely that would seem to have been, that Elizabeth-Jane still would not know ... (e.g. think of the "slip" about the colour of her hair as a baby, when Michael believed her to be his own) - but then this novel is full of well-kept secrets.

Here's a little more of the paragraph you quoted

"from whom she had been separated half-a-dozen years, as if by death, need hardly be detailed. It was an affecting one, apart from the question of paternity. Henchard’s departure was in a moment explained. When the true facts came to be handled the difficulty of restoring her to her old belief in Newson was not so great as might have seemed likely, for Henchard’s conduct itself was a proof that those facts were true. Moreover, she had grown up under Newson’s paternal care ..."

What this describes is their assumptions about Henchard's motives in leaving Casterbridge. But as we learn in today' s chapter 44, they are much more complex. And in fact Henchard makes great efforts to return as a "humble old friend" and fantasises about being accepted as an elderly man, treated affectionately and living with them in their home. (Though this seems a bit of a stretch to me! I think he would not feel this way for long).

It is another assumption that they would want to:

"discredit Henchard" In fact we learn in ch 44 that Newson has no malice towards Henchard, and says it was a "good joke" so although we might feel that they would naturally be tempted to "tell the truth about ALL of it" this is not what we are told has happened.

(For the record, I too find Newson's attitude unfathomable! It's passed off as being "like a good many rovers and sojourners among strange men and strange moralities", but I'm not sure this is a believable justification really.)

Even Elizabeth-Jane herself is not clear about what happened:

"you have deceived me so—so bitterly deceived me! You persuaded me that my father was not my father—allowed me to live on in ignorance of the truth for years; and then when he, my warm-hearted real father, came to find me, cruelly sent him away with a wicked invention of my death, which nearly broke his heart."

It is evident that she has now been told her true parentage, but not about the wife-selling. Since she is in a rare passion, wouldn't she have added this accusation in disgust?

On the other hand, Henchard assumes that she does know:

"Then you know all;"

and moreover keeps his own counsel. Hardy enumerates 3 things he could have said in his defence:

1. He himself had initially believed her to be his daughter, until Susan revealed the truth by letter. (I personally think that he did not protest his innocence at this point, because it would have laid the blame on her mother, and he did not wish Elizabeth-Jane - whom we are told he now truly loves - to receive this further blow.)

2. The lie he told to Newson was "the last desperate throw of a gamester" - we read at the time that it was the impulse of a moment, which he never expected to get away with, and again his rash gamble with Fate was because he "loved her affection better than his own honour".

3. "he did not sufficiently value himself" to argue his own case.

Henchard is a broken man. Partly because of his own feelings of guilt, but also perhaps because he believes Elizabeth-Jane "knows all" and he cannot believe that she would not as a consequence despise him for auctioning her mother like a piece of cattle.

But does she? It's ambiguous.

Someone asked how old Elizabeth-Jane is. She was 18 at the start, and has only been in Casterbridge for 3 years or so I think - 4 at the most. We could probably count the seasons, as the novel is based around the farming year. Including the months when they were travelling, she and Newson had been apart for 6 years (she told Henchard she was 12 when they came to England from Canada in ch 10, and its confirmed in this quotation. Also in ch 10, she says: "Father was lost last Spring".)

Therefore Elizabeth-Jane must still be in her early 20s. She had a loving, light-hearted father for almost 12 years, and had chosen a husband very like him in manner - they even both love to dance! Though they differ in their attitude to drinking. Newson wanted to provide whatever alcoholic drink was usual for the female wedding guests, but Farfrae was shocked, in true Scottish Presbyterian style ...

But what a contrast with with Henchard, whom she's only known for as a young woman, and for only a few years. During that time his attitude to her has varied from affection, to cold dislike, and now an almost obsessional love. Now she sees he has "skulked out of town", but although it is "mystifying" she knows it is in keeping with his volatile behaviour. Yes, she would now connect Henchard's leaving with Newson's arrival, and has been told about his earlier visit. It is a huge shock. But it's not necessarily proof that she knows about the wife selling. Henchard's embarrassment and shame at his lie alone, could be what she believes. And we see that at this point at least, she is reactive and does not consider Henchard's better motives, which Thomas Hardy has enumerated for us.

There are so many half truths and misunderstandings between these characters. Ah, and the caged goldfinch! A perfect symbol for all the cages the characters have trapped themselves in. I'm sure Peter will have something to say about this, as he collects instances of the trope of birds in cages in Victorian literature.

Kathleen wrote: "I find Elizabeth Jane's thoughts and comments in these last chapters ring a little false, and could easily see them as an "add-on"..."

Yes, me too. In fact, if it hadn't been for some very Thomas Hardy-esque expressions and thoughts, I would have suspected this too to have been penned by Emma.

For such emotional content, it feels very dry and disengaged. But the quotation you include "the ingenious machinery contrived by the gods for reducing human possibilities of amelioration to a minimum . . . stood in the way of all that" and also the various mathematical and astronomical refences are typical of him. So I suspect Emma of some rather heavy editing and expansion perhaps of a shorter chapter. To me, she seems to be trying to draw the threads together to make sense, but making a few slips in the meantime!

And of course the editing later by Hardy himself, as explained so well by Bridget, further muddies the waters.

Every time I have been to Maiden Castle I have been almost blown off my feet! These Neolithic earthworks are often like that though. Badbury Rings, which is referred to in some of Hardy's poems is like that as well, and Maumbury Rings - "The Ring" - which features prominently as a meeting place in The Mayor of Casterbridge too, although it's smaller in area.

It is just Thomas Hardy who calls Maiden Castle "Mai' Dun" - one of his approximations like "Budmouth" for Weymouth - rather than inventing another name.

Perhaps you can see that there's a lot of chalk between the grassy mounds, and this is where you walk. You aren't aware of the actual shape when you are there, just the wind ... 😂 To appreciate the scale, the tiny blocks in the bottom left of Bridget's photo (great find Bridget!) are cars. To add to the English Heritage page, here's wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_...

Once I picked up an odd-looking stone on one of the tracks round Maiden Castle to find it was a flint! It made me feel quite light-headed, to realise that the last person to hold it in their palm must have been a prehistoric person, skilfully chipping away at a hard stone to make a useful tool. What a privilege. 🙂

Great comments all! Sorry for my brevity today, but I've been travelling all day, and won't be back in the Casterbridge area until a week after we finish The Mayor of Casterbridge.

Hi Peter, Emma certainly did write, and Bridget may well add more about how her ambitions were thwarted and rather subsumed under Tom's own. So I'll just remind us all of what I wrote about Emma's contributions to this particular novel. This is part of my post LINK HERE.

The original manuscript of The Mayor of Casterbridge was donated by Thomas Hardy himself to the Dorset County Museum, in Dorchester in 1911. But oddly, it is only 374 pages long!

108 pages are missing and 5 are fragmentary. The most plausible theory seems to be that Thomas Hardy excised the missing portions of the novel because they had been written by his wife, Emma. (see Simon Gatrell, although other scholars agree.) Emma had regularly produced the fair copies of parts of his previous novels, and was a talented writer herself, who was never really allowed to shine.

Unlike some other major authors who wrote Victorian serial fiction, Thomas Hardy made notes on the actual text itself, rather than having a notebook for planning. If he had about 10 lines he had changed, then he would produce a fair copy, and throw the previous one away. This means that many alterations are visible to show his thought processes (although he sometimes rubbed or scribbled them out!) but equally a lot have been lost. He did have a notebook, but used this to note items of local interest, not his own writing.

Emma and Tom had very similar handwriting, so in other cases some Hardy scholars have tried to identify parts of his stories which might also have been written by Emma. The manuscript in the museum is interesting, as it also shows quite a few cancelled plot-lines, due to his method just described.

The Norton edition has section which analyse the various editions in detail.

Thanks Keith - just none that I know then.

Perils of Serial Publication?

I mentioned the slip in the previous chapter, about Susan being "barely able to write her own name".

Now in ch 42 we have a couple more examples of something which does not seem consistent. In the second long paragraph, we read "Lucetta had confessed everything to him [Farfrae] before her death". This seems to contradict ch 40, in which what Lucetta revealed to Farfrae "cannot be told". If the facts could be told to him then, why not now?

Another instance is in the following paragraph:

"For Elizabeth’s sake the former had fettered his pride sufficiently to accept the small seed and root business which some of the Town Council, headed by Farfrae, had purchased to afford him a new opening."

But we know from ch 34 that Farfrae had abandoned the idea of setting Henchard up in business.

So much happens so quickly in this novel, that even in a slow careful read like ours it's easy to misremember (e.g. I had to think hard before I remembered that Elizabeth-Jane still does not know the truth of her parentage). So these could be examples of the perils of serial writing, or a second author.

Perhaps this calmer chapter is one of those largely written by his wife, as we discussed before, as part of her "editing". 🤔

Well this is a gentler chapter, but I feel it's ominous too.

Henchard is becoming so reliant on Elizabeth-Jane's love and approval, and she is edging more towards being secretive and independent. Their roles appear to be completely reversed. So both are behaving out of character; tiptoeing round each other, and that surely can't last. 🤔

Thanks Bridget for the reminder about the tiny snippet we know of Henchard's backstory - that he lost a much-loved brother who looked like Farfrae, and thus like David in the Bible. That does feel important in assessing his psychology.

Completely off-topic ... (I can easily edit it out if you like 🙂)

We are watching an old 1980s TV cop series called "Bergerac" with John Nettles (who went on to do Midsomer Murders.) It's set in Jersey, and the island's prosperous culture, both dual-language and wealthy tax-exile English inhabitants, the various organisational systems, and its locations and scenery are very prominent in every episode. What a surprise I had yesterday evening, when the Scottish actor who played Farfrae in the first BBC adaptation of The Mayor of Casterbridge (the one from 1978, brilliantly adapted by Dennis Potter) was cast in that episode in the role of a drugs baron! 😂 The actor is called Jack Galloway, but I've never seen him in anything else! 😆

I think this is perhaps the most sombre poem I have ever read by Thomas Hardy. It is clearly written from the heart; so full of anguish, but also technically perfect. As others have said, the imagery of those final 4 lines is incredibly powerful.

The fact that it is such a beautiful poem is in itself a tribute to Thomas Hardy's friend Horace Moule, who had such a formative influence on his work, and would have recognised its artistic merit.

Thank you so much Connie for all the background information you have researched and shared with us, to enhance that about Ten Hatches Weir in our read of The Mayor of Casterbridge and about Horace Moule in the bio we have read Thomas Hardy: The Time Torn Man by Claire Tomalin. Thank you also everyone for your detailed analyses, which helps us all to appreciate the poem even more.

A link is also now in our list of poems.

Cindy wrote: "I did love Hardy's mention of how profoundly music affected Henchard, to the point where it "transubstantiated" him ..."

Yes - I love your comments on this Cindy, and Peter's too.

Today I listened to a busking fiddler in "Port-Bredy", and as I enjoyed her fast catchy folk tune renderings, I thought how timeless it all is here. The way she was dressed, in various cotton layers and scarves could have come straight out of a Thomas Hardy story 🙂 (Sorry Peter, but it seemed a bit invasive to take a pic! Maybe another time I could ask.) Earlier the "Wessex Military Band" were regaling everyone; a brass ensemble sounding similar to the Salvation Army.

I suspect perhaps Thomas Hardy, like me, might have preferred the solitary fiddler, but I don't know for sure!

Kathleen wrote: "It seems to me that Hardy doesn't find Henchard unlikeable. I think he relates to him in his suffering ..."

Yes, I agree, there's a lot of Thomas Hardy himself in both Michael Henchard and Jude. I feel desperately sorry for Henchard, (as you can probably tell from my analysis) who tortures himself with regrets.

Very early on someone speculated that we don't know his or Susan's back story, and I feel that a Freudian would have an interesting take on this. Perhaps Michael too had a mother like Jemima Hardy ...

However I do think it's well worth thinking about the mania and depression Bridget highlighted. He seems to be cyclothymic, and his mood swings might even be due to bipolar disorder, but it's not absolutely clear.