Far From the Madding Crowd 6th Thread Chapter 48 - 57

[Chris]

I would like to echo everyone's comments about the richness of the summaries, & additional info throughout our reading as well as the comments from others. I'm just sorry that I got so bogged down in life I couldn't fully participate. I read Tess with the group last year and adored it and the discussion. This was another great read. I think I am squarely in the Hardy novels camp & look forward for another (next year?).

[Bridget, Moderator]

Hi everyone, sorry I've been away for a couple days. How lovely to come back and read all your nice comments! Thank you so much for that! 😊 It's an honor and pleasure to lead this great group of readers through another amazing novel.

I loved all the comments about this last chapter too. It's a happier ending then I've grown to expect from Hardy. In my head, I compared this novel to Tess of the D’Urbervilles quite a bit while we were reading (maybe it's because we read "Tess" last year) and because of that I was feeling apprehensive as we approached the end. In some ways Bathsheba felt like the precursor to Tess.

Now that we are all done with the novel, I can mention that the illustration I posted in message 65 of this thread (the beginning of Installment 12) shows two people under an umbrella, and that is of course Gabriel and Bathsheba walking to their wedding. I couldn't point that out at the time, but you might want to go back and look at it now that you know :-)

Thanks everyone!!

[Kathleen]

This was my first read with the group and I loved it. I now feel like a real Hardy fan, and can thank this slow read, the great discussions, and all of the informative background material for getting me to this point. Jean and Bridget, all of the effort you put into this is greatly appreciated! 🧡

[Werner]

Earlier, I promised to try, before going offline for a few days tomorrow, to post some thoughts that might have been spoilerish (or otherwise problematical) before. Some of these involve Peter Casagrande's article in the Norton Critical Edition of this novel, which sets out his case for Bathsheba as a static character (and not one he likes much). Another academic critic, Loraine Fletcher, reviewing the Norton edition soon after it was published, wrote:

"On the slender basis of two phrases from Wordsworth incorporated into a description of Bathsheba, Casagrande sees the three stanzas of "She Was a Phantom of Delight" as an ironic subtextual comment on Bethsheba's incapacity to develop from frivolous girl to mature woman. His pursuit of Wordsworthian echoes is indefatigable.... where Bethsheba listens to "Lead, Kindly Light" with Gabriel in the churchyard, her unregenerate nature contrasts with that of the speaker in Stanza 10 of the Immortality Ode: the words "thoughts" appears in both. Casagrande's documentation of Hardy's supposed misogyny is all that is offered on the treatment of women in a novel which seems to cry out for some intelligent feminist criticism.

I read Fletcher's comments only after reading Casagrande's, but on finishing the latter, I already felt a similar skepticism. IMO, when a writer quotes from a poem or other literary work in passing, to embellish a description in his/her own work, there's no warrant for leaping to the assumption that the entire quoted work is intended as a subtext. That was what I was referring to in questioning Casagrande's methodology. It's weak enough when a reading of the quoted work supports his conclusion; the ice gets even thinner when it doesn't, so that he has to claim that Hardy "misread" the poem. (Hardy, of course, might beg to differ. :-) )

There are also places where Casagrande misrepresents events in the text (probably unintentionally, from faulty memory) to put Bathsheba in a worse light than Hardy does. Gabriel's initial courtship of Bathsheba doesn't founder "when he loses his flock and his new station." Bathsheba had rejected his marriage proposal at the time he made it. She'd already left for Weatherbury before he lost his flock, and didn't even know about that until they met again. Nor did she send Boldwood "a valentine on which she has written 'Marry Me.'" Those words just happened to be on the seal she used to stamp the letter, and she only read them after the seal was affixed.

Overall, Casagrande argues rather one-sidedly, pretty much denying any significant good in Bathsheba, treating Hardy's misogyny as an impenetrable prejudice that viewed all women as incapable of any growth towards maturity, and refusing to recognize any in this particular character. I find that view too jaundiced. Bathsheba doesn't become an incarnate angel or a secular saint at the novel's end. But it's obvious to me (and, I think, to most readers) that in the course of what she goes through here, she makes positive moral choices that never faced her at the beginning of the book, and is capable of wanting and doing things at the end of the book that she wasn't capable of at the beginning. That, to me, is what a "dynamic character" does.

[Bionic Jean, Moderator]

Thank for this comprehensive post Werner. I hope that when you come to read the other essays in the book you will find one or two which accord more with your views. The intention of the Norton edition was to include a fair amount of background material, plus criticism from various viewpoints, as well as both historical and contemporary (1986) criticism.

For those who are wondering, Werner's thoughts about the essay are in response to this post LINK HERE and the surrounding discussion.

It should be noted that the very title of Peter J. Casagrande's essay: "A New View of Bathsheba Everdene" shows that he was putting forward a new interpretation, rather than rehashing the previous orthodox views. His other books on Thomas Hardy also seem to put forward some new interpretations, which is surely what we expect from a scholar. Which parts (if any) we accept from such new or controversial ideas will depend on our overall knowledge and view of the author or work so far.

The detail ... (edit: and both these spoiler tags are just used to save space, since we have now read the whole novel. There are no spoilers here for any other stories either.)

(view spoiler)[ about the valentine puzzled me too when I read it, but I assumed it was from a different edition. Bridget and I, just using 2 of the many, have found a lot of alterations. Oddly, in the first film Bathsheba is shown as writing the words, which made me wonder if it was ever included. The two main editions though (1874 and 1895) both include the seal section.

I can't find the exact words you reference for your other objection, but I agree the use of the word "courtship" could have been better chosen, to show Gabriel's unwavering loyalty and care towards Bathsheba whenever he was in her area. She was no longer in his locality after the Norcombe chapters, and he did not pursue her that is true. It depends on the nuance. You say Peter J. Casagrande maintains that "Gabriel's initial courtship of Bathsheba doesn't founder "when he loses his flock and his new station" and from this I gather you think the word "when" implies "because", i.e. as a consequence of. Is this quite what he intended to mean? Wasn't it merely that the events came at the same time, through fate? And of course Gabriel, only just having covered his debts, would not then think of marrying anyone for the foreseeable future. Yes, Bathsheba had refused him, but I see no evidence that Peter J. Casagrande was ignoring that.

As for the word "courtship", I do wonder if it was in his mind as an association with "courtly behaviour" - a type of respect which Gabriel nearly always lived up to - only speaking frankly and critically to Bathsheba on 2 (or perhaps 3) occasions. (hide spoiler)]

I can see that the idea of Bathsheba's character mirroring William Wordsworth's poem (although he did admire this poet) did not appeal to you, nor does it have to! There were 9 pages of closely argued text, with constant reference to other Hardy scholars, before he mentioned this, and several after too. It is not the entire thesis of his essay, which is much more than that.

Loraine Fletcher (view spoiler)[ seems to have done a hatchet job in reviewing the Norton edition - presumably this was in 1986. She is a lecturer in the Department of English, University of Reading - born in Somerset but actually brought up quite close to me! Nevertheless I do not know (of) her. She only has a couple of books on GR; her comment that Far From the Madding Crowd is "a novel which seems to cry out for some intelligent feminist criticism" is fair. I wonder why she has not done this herself! She has 3 published works that I can find: one biography, one autobiography and one about aspects of William Shakespeare. Two of these are small press.

However, she has not made a necessary fine distinction here. We have continually pointed out the misogyny of the authorial voice, but this position has nothing to do with the title or subject of Peter J. Casagrande's essay, which is about one particular character: Bathsheba Everdene. It was not intended as a "documentation of Hardy's supposed misogyny". To be honest I am not impressed by her attitude in the paragraph you quoted. She scoffs, which is not the appropriate tone, and also assumes that Peter J. Casagrande is interested in the aspect which interests her, when in fact he has stated his focus quite clearly. (hide spoiler)].

Because Bathsheba Everdene is such an elusive character, (critics agree on this!) we tend to overlay the writing with our own interpretation of her. I am very aware that she does not have a conventional story arc, unless we read selectively. There are too many inconsistencies. Peter J. Casagrande tried to make sense of this, as my brief earlier post indicated. I don't wholly go along with his views about her being a static character, but it was worth us bearing it in mind as we read the second half of the novel.

I do personally see more of this aspect in Bathsheba than in the author's later "dynamic" heroines, probably because this is the first novel where Thomas Hardy tried to create a fully rounded heroine. For me though, she remains a child of nature, responding to outward events and conditions. She does not use her agency to grow and change much, but merely reacts, often impulsively, and in the end she "settles".

Do we see her falling in love with Gabriel? No. She just could not bear the thought of him going abroad and deserting her, just as she had literally asked him not to desert her when her herd had sheep bloat, and also could not stand the fact that Boldwood did not look at her in the Cornmarket all that time ago. Essentially, I'm afraid she has not changed.

However, everyone likes a happy ending, and this is what Thomas Hardy has given us. They are rare in his novels, but he was trying to please the public at this stage, as he said. And of course we all hope that love will come in the end. Gabriel certainly deserves it! 😊

Perhaps we should also look again at what Thomas Hardy himself said about Bathsheba Everdene:

"I myself must confess I have no liking for the perfect woman of fiction ... The majority of women are quite worthy enough in nature to satisfy any reasonable being, but I venture to think that they too frequently do not exhibit that nature truly and simply ... I had an idea that Bathsheba, with all her errors was not devoid of honesty of this kind; it is however a point for readers to decide. I must add that no satire on the sex is intended in any case by the imperfections of my heroines."

We must each decide for ourselves what to think of Bathsheba.

[Bridget, Moderator]

Werner: "But it's obvious to me (and, I think, to most readers) that in the course of what she goes through here, she makes positive moral choices that never faced her at the beginning of the book, and is capable of wanting and doing things at the end of the book that she wasn't capable of at the beginning. That, to me, is what a "dynamic character" does."

Jean: "Do we see her falling in love with Gabriel? No. She just could not bear the thought of him going abroad and deserting her, just as she had literally asked him not to desert her when her herd had sheep bloat, and also could not stand the fact that Boldwood did not look at her in the Cornmarket all that time ago. Essentially, I'm afraid she has not changed."

Werner and Jean, What a fascinating debate. Both of you make excellent points, and how lucky are the rest of us to read along.

I really like what Jean said at the end of her post . . .
'We must each decide for ourselves what to think of Bathsheba.".

I would like to think that Bathsheba is "in love" with Gabriel, but that might be my romantic sensibility reaching for something that is not there. Here's what the text says at the end of Chapter 56, a final paragraph that many of us commented on (underlining added by me :-)

"They spoke very little of their mutual feeling; pretty phrases and warm expressions being probably unnecessary between such tried friends. "

That sounds like deep friendship but maybe not passionate love. Yet later on in the same paragraph we find this:

"Where, however, happy circumstance permits its development, the compounded feeling proves itself to be the only love which is strong as death—that love which many waters cannot quench, nor the floods drown, beside which the passion usually called by the name is evanescent as steam."

Which, to be honest is sufficiently vague, that I can't rightly say these two are in love, but I can't say they aren't either. Which feels very typical of Thomas Hardy.

I realize my comments here probably don't help bring clarity to the debate. I can say that I sometimes like reading what academics like Casagrande and Fletcher have to say about a novel, but in the end, what lingers in my head is the feeling I got while reading. That will have the longest effect on me.

[Bionic Jean, Moderator]

Bridget wrote: "in the end, what lingers in my head is the feeling I got while reading. That will have the longest effect on me ..."

I think as usual, you have hit the nail on the head, Bridget. This is exactly what I was grasping towards, but not saying as elegantly when I said "Which parts (if any) we accept from such new or controversial ideas will depend on our overall knowledge and view of the author or work so far". We can adapt what we think according to their ideas, and be glad to learn from them, but it is unlikely to greatly alter our strong interpretative sense when we read a work.

How right you are that a feature of Thomas Hardy's writing - and his genius - is his feeling of ambiguity 😊

Many thanks, and bravo!

[Carolien]

I loved the ending and the Hardy's writing throughout is just beautiful. My youngest is nearly 15 and loves big words, I kept finding ones to show her and then was surprised when she knew them. Thank you so much for all the detailed information, it was lovely to read along with everyone!

[Bionic Jean, Moderator]

We loved having you reading along with us too Carolien - and I'm delighted you made it through to the end of this one 😊 Perhaps your daughter will also come to be a fan!