Jude the Obscure: Week 1 - Part First

[Traveller]

Hmmm, I think one should seriously consider the possibility that the author employs a lot of irony in this novel. I don't think one should take everything he says at at shallow face value, because I do seem to pick up a lot of irony and subtle social commentary in what he writes. One must look behind what he saying, and place it in context, I feel.

I'm on the side of Deborah, Madge and Chris, who I read as seeing Jude somewhat in the way I see him myself - as a sensitive, compassionate and extremely conscientious and serious young man, who is trying to better himself while never losing sight of common decency and compassion for others.

To those who feel that Jude might have in him selfishness, narcissism, sociopathy, or whatever, I put it to you that this exactly describes Arabella.

Note, that she is the one who saw a business opportunity in him. He is motivated to pursue her out of a very natural sexual awakening (note that statistics say that the average age of losing virginity is around 17 years of age, depending on race, class, religion and nationality, ranging from 15 years to 19 generally) that she in fact instigated. Every time it had been Arabella who pursued Jude, taking advantage of his naivety, gender and the fact that he is at the age where hormones really rage around in males.
The irony here, is that even though she is the one who seduced him, he always gives her the benefit of the doubt, no matter how shoddily she treats him.

…so when he says to her: “I know it is not your fault…” this is irony that the author is injecting into the narrative. It also shows how Jude consistently acts with charity towards Arabella.

It should be pretty obvious to the reader that it was Arabella who ensnared Jude, in a truly monstrous way, in order to satisfy her own selfish needs, never giving a second thought to the fact that she was completely smashing his hopes and dreams with her monstrously selfish and manipulative behaviour. He was the one who was prepared to sacrifice his needs for her – definitely nothing close to what she was doing to him.

Note, also, that even if he had seduced her,(which he didn't - read carefully again her little "act" with teasing him and how she specially arranged for them to have her parents house to themselves) there was no need for him to feel guilty about having sex with her, since Hardy makes it clear that she was no longer a virgin before she had even met Jude. She was already what in Victorian times was known as a “fallen woman”, so it was not as if Jude had deflowered her, which would certainly have carried a lot more significance.

I’d like to quote a piece from the article on sociopathy that Madge linked to – and it really very nicely describes Arabella: “People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so.

They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes.

They rarely are able to have jobs that last for any length of time, as they become easily bored, instead needing constant change. They live for the moment, forgetting the past, and not planning the future, not thinking ahead what consequences their actions will have. They want immediate rewards and gratification.”

Arabella is the one who should be feeling remorse, for seducing Jude and entrapping him with that and her deceit. However, she tosses him aside with as much brutal contempt as she had for the poor bleeding pig. (No puns intended).

Through all of this, Jude behaves incredibly decently. Most men would have beaten their wives for what she did to his books – his precious books that he was proud in having managed to obtain with much difficulty, but no, long-suffering decent Jude only tries to contain her irrational violent behaviour, to which she responds with even more irrational and aggressive behaviour.

After she had left him, he is still so decent as to finish off with the pig, and send her the money for it. He had been decent enough to get her a cottage to be comfortable in, and now that she had scorned him, he is decent enough to have the proceeds of all of the belongings he had procured for them as a family, sent to her. She had felt so little for him, that she sold the portrait of him that had been his wedding present to her. He certainly felt the sting of it, because he responds with hurt – he burns the portrait as a symbolic act.

I think Deborah coined a very nice alternative for the fact that Jude is a compassionate person (remember too, his urge to ‘share’ with the rooks – definitely not a selfish act, wouldn’t you say?). Since there is always controversy as to the exact meaning of the words “empathy” (understanding) and “sympathy” (compassion), I find the word “charity” that she mentioned to be very descriptive as one of Jude’s qualities. He acted with charity towards the rooks, the slaughtered pig, and the human pig.

[Traveller]

In short, I imagine Jude is too 'decent' for his own good. :P

Btw, I also noticed that some of our fellow readers seem to ascribe completely a person's character and personality development to the nurture aspect of the nature vs nurture debacle, over which controversy is still raging.

I personally am of the view that both nature and nurture have considerable influences on a personality's devolopment, and never either just the one or the other. I do believe that people are born with different innate characters, otherwise identical twins brought up in the same family would not have maifested such diverse personalities.

Identical twins never manifest a similar personality to their twin, and even with i. twins there tends to be a dominant one.

[Traveller]

Oh, and Madge, I've managed to read through most of the articles you linked to, and I must say that I found most of them interesting, but especially this one Baby farming to be quite illuminating and rather appaling! *O*

This is so sad, and seems to be the kind of thing that happens when society starts putting too harsh strictures on human nature.

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Traveller wrote: "I'm on the side of Deborah, Madge and Chris, who I read as seeing Jude somewhat in the way I see him myself - as a sensitive, compassionate and extremely conscientious and serious young man, who is trying to better himself while never losing sight of common decency and compassion for others.

To those who feel that Jude might have in him selfishness, narcissism, sociopathy, or whatever, I put it to you that this exactly describes Arabella. "

Sensitivity, compassion, conscientiousness, and seriousness; all of these can coexist with selfishness, narcissism, sociopathy, etc. No one person is a single way at all times. Additionally, while I do find Jude somewhat one dimensional, he is not wholly without complexity. Neither is Arabella. You seem to be setting up a scenario where Jude cannot be what Arabella is and vice versa. I think Hardy built in more reality than that.

Traveller wrote: "I personally am of the view that both nature and nurture have considerable influences on a personality's devolopment, and never either just the one or the other.

I could not agree more.

[Traveller]

Sorry Bill. Here's a little hug for you to make up. Let me explain: I've been too busy to read the entire thread earlier this week, and while reading through the entire thread today, I found myself going through various emotions - certainly more colourful emotions than what I felt while reading the book! You guys are a treat. ;)

Some of those emotions needed closure, so I'm sorry for still going on about that point, but what I had wanted to post already formed in my mind long before I reached the post where you said you wanted to move on.

Next episode is only 2 days away, so hopefully we will be moving on pretty soon now.

I've barely started with episode 2, but since you are all very interesting companions to be sharing this literary excursion with, I'm very much looking forward to it, and I'm going to make my best effort to stay with you guys all the way this time. :)

[Traveller]

Bill wrote: "After all, who am I to say people shouldn't continue to disagree with me that Jude is a sociopath?..."

Well, precisely! Disagreeing on that particular point is so... therapeutic... :P

Hehe - but admit it - if we all agreed on every point, these discussions would become very boring, don't you think? There'd be no spice in the mix at all. So do continue throwing out bait that we can disagree on! XD

[Everyman]

Traveller wrote: I think Deborah coined a very nice alternative for the fact that Jude is a compassionate person (remember too, his urge to ‘share’ with the rooks – definitely not a selfish act, wouldn’t you say?). Since there is always controversy as to the exact meaning of the words “empathy” (understanding) and “sympathy” (compassion), I find the word “charity” that she mentioned to be very descriptive as one of Jude’s qualities. He acted with charity towards the rooks, the slaughtered pig, and the human pig. "

wrt his relationship with Arabella, I would be more likely to use words like soft-hearted fool, sucker, or wimp.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Silver wrote: "Denae wrote: "Silver wrote: "His lack of guilt about his sexual relations with Arabella, does seem a bit out of character of his usual moral standard, particuarly considering he was perfectly willi..."

I'm a bit behind in posts here for some reason. Not sure why as I have been checking in. Anyway, Silver I completely agree (and it was very well said). For me Arabella is more cruel. Arabella created a plan that even her devious friend said she hadn't thought about (lying about being pregnant vs. becoming pregnant). To me, that means it was a deliberate trap. The Aunt says nasty things, but to me it comes across as more thoughtless than her deliberately trying to hurt or manipulate.

[Silver]

Deborah wrote: "Silver wrote: "Denae wrote: "Silver wrote: "His lack of guilt about his sexual relations with Arabella, does seem a bit out of character of his usual moral standard, particuarly considering he was ..."

In addition, in regards to the aunt, in her own strange and perhaps morbid way I think she means well with the things she says, while to us they seem cruel and heartless, I do not believe she is necessarily being intentionally malicious, but rather I think she does feel that there is a since of doom cast over all of Jude's family because of its bitter past. And I do believe that she genuinely feels as if Jude would have been better off if he had not lived and I do not think this is out of hate for him, but out of pity. Considering what she knows about the history of the family as well as seeing how Jude is so much an outcast, seemingly so unable to function in the practical real world, I think she does for see suffering and pain for him in the future, and she fears that he will not find contentment or happiness in his life.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Bill wrote: "Benjamin wrote: "I think the question of the desire for intelligence is really fascinating! .."

I'm certainly fascinated by it.

I suspect that there is a spiritual urge--even derived from biolog..."

For me in my isolated childhood learning was a way I could prove to myself that I wasn't what I had been told I was. It quickly became a passion without any connection to that motivation.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Benjamin wrote: "Denae wrote: "I think there is a balance, it has to bleed quickly enough to be avoid coagulation but also bleed slowly enough for all of the blood to be drained before it is blocked by clotting. My..."

Supposedly a good book on this is The Kind Diet. I haven't read it, but a friend highly recommended it. It did completely change her eating habits.

[whimsicalmeerkat]

I agree with you. I don't see malice in the aunt so much as carelessness.

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "wrt his relationship with Arabella, I would be more likely to use words like soft-hearted fool, sucker, or wimp."

LOL! But, he is a fascinating contrast to Tess. And, dare I say, I'm not certain that description embodies much empathy. (Note, I am referring to the description only. :0)

[MadgeUK]

...his own goal to leave the country life in which he lives in to seek out Christminster which I am not sure if it is considered a city...

It was a significant city in Hardy's day and is today Silver, being the premier English University town (see photo in Background info.). What I find interesting is that Great Fawley ('Marygreen') is only around 26 kilometres from Oxford/Christminster yet Hardy portrays it as being a great distance. Even in those times of horse and cart/carriage transport I wouldn't have thought that 13 miles was a great distance and it could have easily been walked by a healthy young man.

[Traveller]

Yes, I must say that one thing I find rather curious about Jude, is his complete lack of hatred or retaliation or feelings of revenge or even just resentment, which would surely have been quite normal in some of the circumstances he finds himself. (I know Eman would say this is because he is such a "wimp".)
Much as I find I can identify with Jude in his overabundance of sensitivity (I was also a bit of a lonely child, like Deborah, due to various circumstances, and I also found company and solace in books when I didn't have other children around to play with), I would have, in Jude's shoes, certainly felt, at certain times some burning resentment, along with the hurt, and a feeling of: "I'll show them, I'll make my own happiness!" or something like that.

I think I personally would have felt anger at the Quack doctor who had pulled such a ruse on him. I think I would have felt a considerable amount of anger towards Arabella as well.

On the other hand, it is quite normal for a young child not to "hate" caregivers who abuse or neglect them (which the aunt did in emotional sense (neglected him emotionally, at the very least)- she was, it seems not capable of love or affection).

Jude certainly never abandoned the old aunt. He always helped her in good grace, and when he got a job as a stonemason's apprentice, he found a replacement for himself to help her.

[MadgeUK]

I personally am of the view that both nature and nurture have considerable influences on a personality's devolopment...

Lily and I have touched on this Traveller and I certainly agree that the findings so far seem to indicate a balance between the two. However, in Hardy's time, as mentioned in my earlier post, people were heavily into the pseudo-sciences of Eugenics and Phrenology so in reading the novel we are more likely to see 'nature' predominating, as with the details about Jude's family background. However, it has been commented that Hardy (like George Eliot) pre-dated Freud in some of his psychological interpretations of character and Freud later analysed some of Hardy's writing.

There is indeed a lot of irony in the novel, particularly about marriage and religion but it is perhaps more pronounced in later chapters.

(I like your analysis of both Jude and Arabella in post 198. Perhaps nowadays we would describe Jude as 'being in touch with his feminine side'?))

[Traveller]

Hi Madge! As our resident expert on historical sociology, I'd like to ask you something which struck me at the time of reading it: I found it rather odd that Arabella and Jude get to spend so much time alone with no kind of chaperone whatsoever.

Her parents seem to even encourage them spending time alone together. (In the very hope that she would get 'hitched'?)
Every book I have read so far of the period up to the early 20th century, it would have been unheard of for a young unmarried girl to go out alone like this, and even be given time alone in a house like this with a healthy young man.
Context? Could this be because she was not a virgin anymore anyway? Was this common among the peasant class, and was the "chaperone" thing only reserved for the upper classes?

When reading your article about the baby farming, one would think that it would be orphans themselseves, or girls born out of illegitemate relations themselves that would become unwed mothers like this?

I know that in Medditeranean countries, even peasant fathers looked after their daughters a lot more jealously than seems to be the case in Victorian England? I feel a bit puzzled by this situation.

[MadgeUK]

Every book I have read so far of the period up to the early 20th century, it would have been unheard of for a young unmarried girl to go out alone like this, and even be given time alone in a house like this with a healthy young man.

Not in village/rural society and not amongst the labouring classes Traveller. A lot of the literature we read, like Austen and Bronte deals with the middle and upper classes, where virginity was prized because of inheritance. It was important to know who the fathers of sons were - which is still true in the upper classes, only now we have DNA testing! The ancient ritual of 'Handfasting' was common in rural communities and allowed a 'betrothed' couple, with the permission of their parents, to try out marriage by sleeping together for a year and a day. It was often performed in rural areas when a priest was not available. The couple could form a temporary, trial marriage, and then be married, 'churched', the next time a priest visited their area. (A fair was at one time held in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, at which a young man was allowed to pick out a female companion to live with him. They lived together for twelve months and if they both liked the arrangement were man and wife.)

What was taboo was not marrying the girl if the bloke got her pregnant, which is why Jude felt he had had to marry Arabella and why Hardy's publisher insisted that Tess and Alec had a (fake) marriage ceremony - getting pregnant out of wedlock was one thing, having a bastard child was quite another. In village communities there often were not enough lads and lasses to go around and so snaring a husband/wife became important - as we see with Arabella.

Victorian publishers protected the reading public from reading about such things and so we do not see much literature which reflects the truth - something which Hardy was trying to rectify. 'Fallen women' who were rescued were a popular subject in Victorian literature and this alone indicates that premarital sex was more common than was publicised. That is why there was so much baby farming and child prostitution - there were plenty of poverty stricken mums and abandoned children around.

Another indicator of the size of this problem is the work done by Josephine Butler on sexually transmitted disease amongst women - not only prostitutes but working women, especially those with children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...

(Somewhere in my loft I have an old book published in 1838 called 'Juvenile Offenders' and that details the high incidence of illegitimacy and child prostitution at that time from which I once learned a lot of these facts.)

[Silver]

MadgeUK wrote: "Every book I have read so far of the period up to the early 20th century, it would have been unheard of for a young unmarried girl to go out alone like this, and even be given time alone in a house..."

Yes this quite true. I am have read a couple books by Gaskell which dealt with the lower classes, and in both of her books she does have young female characters who live in vilalges that do often go walking about alone and it is accepted and not really seen as taboo. Among the lower classes women do seem to have a bit more freedom/liberality than that as the upper classes. They are not so closely guarded or protected.

[MadgeUK]

I'm sending you a Hug from Over the Pond too Bill:D.

[Traveller]

Thanks for all that! Yes, I can quite see how preserving the 'family genes' (or "line" as they used to call it) would be more valuable to the upper classes.

What a pity young girls from the lower classes were not also protected just for the sake of protection alone, but as Madge points out, not having an inheritance probably made these women infinitely less desirable, and therefore in many cases, she had to do whatever she could, to "catch" a man.

[MadgeUK]

Traveller wrote: On the other hand, it is quite normal for a young child not to "hate" caregivers who abuse or neglect them

This is an excellent point Traveller and worth applying to Jude. Even the children of horrific sexual abusers still continue to love the abusing parent.

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Traveller wrote: "Thanks for all that! Yes, I can quite see how preserving the 'family genes' (or "line" as they used to call it) would be more valuable to the upper classes.

What a pity young girls from the l..."

Wait, are you saying young lower class girls needed to be protected from premarital sex or are you referencing the prostitution, either being "fallen" or forced into marriages, etc.?

[Traveller]

I think young girls needed to be protected from premarital sex in a time where condoms did not exist.

[MadgeUK]

Bill wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I'm sending you a Hug from Over the Pond too Bill:D."

Thanks Madge. You rather owed me one. :)"

Did I??

[MadgeUK]

Traveller wrote: "Thanks for all that! Yes, I can quite see how preserving the 'family genes' (or "line" as they used to call it) would be more valuable to the upper classes.

What a pity young girls from the l..."

Yes it was more important get your man Traveller, so women 'set their stall out'...:) Being a spinster was not acceptable because women often could not earn their living alone. Spinsters were regarded as failures and there was a surplus of women at this time:-

http://www.webhistoryofengland.com/?p...

[MadgeUK]

Thanks Benjamin - I enjoy spending my retirement time finding them:).

BTW I should have said in my post 221 above that the reason having a child out of wedlock was so taboo was because if the mother died (as was so common then) the child's welfare would fall on the 'parish' as we saw, for instance, in Oliver Twist. Having two people married and responsible for it was safer.

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: "The ancient ritual of 'Handfasting' was common in rural communities and allowed a 'betrothed' couple, with the permission of their parents, to try out marriage by sleeping together ..." Benjamin responded "...how much pagan influence lasted even through the 19th century. Hardy goes into this influence more, I think, in Return of the Native"

Perhaps also how much society has always adapted its "rules" to the realities of the powers of sexuality.

[Traveller]

MadgeUK wrote: "
BTW I should have said in my post 221 above that the reason having a child out of wedlock was so taboo was because if the mother died (as was so common then) the child's welfare would fall on the 'parish' as we saw, for instance, in Oliver Twist. Having two people married and responsible for it was safer.

"

This was also made very clear in the Baby Farming article. That article really is an eye-opener.

[Amarilli]

I'm sorry I'm a bit late (first time I read Hardy).

Denae wrote: "Of course then we come to Arabella. He does not seem to notice anything specific about her other than that she pays attention to him. It does not seem as though he listens to her..."

It struck me that when Jude yields to the impulse of seeing Arabella, on the day of their first date, Hardy says This seemed to care little for his reason and his will, nothing for his so-called elevated intentions, and moved him along, as a violent schoolmaster a schoolboy he has seized by the collar, in a direction which tended towards the embrace of a woman for whom he had no respect, and whose life had nothing in common with his own except locality.

Is this what Jude thinks in his inner self, or is it a comment from Hardy?

Another thing that puzzles me is: can Arabella go back to her familiy without dishonour because there was actually no baby? (I read your posts about handfasting, so I think it can be related to that, even if they married in church).

[Lily]

testina_blu wrote: "Is this what Jude thinks in his inner self, or is it a comment from Hardy?"

Good question! Feels like a bit of both to me. I don't think Jude really expected this tete-a-tete to end in marriage.

...can Arabella go back to her family without dishonour because there was actually no baby?

I didn't get the sense honor particularly motivated either Arabella or her family, although they are certainly willing to accept/adopt convention (e.g., Arabella's marriage) when it isn't contrary to their interests.

Sidebar comment: Immigrating to Australia was frequently associated with other types of dishonor, such as inability to pay one's debts.

I find myself wondering what was shaping Jude's values as a youth. He rather quickly caught on to the quack doctor. His aunt was probably pretty honest in her business. The farmer taught a lesson on not being a slacker. His teacher encouraged learning. Not much evidence of church-going, which would rather fit such a character as created by Hardy. What other sources of values do we see? (An issue we are probably better alerted to explore than Hardy, given our modern questions about slums and other tough living conditions?)

[MadgeUK]

Lily wrote:Perhaps also how much society has always adapted its "rules" to the realities of the powers of sexuality. .."

Yes, although the church certainly seems to be fighting a rearguard action about marriage these days, especially in the UK where those that cohabit are very nearly as numerous as those who marry (as we recently discussed in the Cafe). Perhaps it was starting in Hardy's time:).

Not much evidence of church-going, which would rather fit such a character as created by Hardy.

Going to Christminster was evidence of Christian intent I think Lily but otherwise the novel is generally seen as an attack on the church, not as condoning it. We see more of that in following sections. Hardy was always keen to emphasise the morality of 'nature', the old pagan ways and again we see some of that later. I don't think that Hardy thought that going to church was the only way of learning moral values.

Jude was 'moral' in the way he married Arabella when he found she was pregnant and there are later examples of his morality towards her which I think illustrate his 'values as a youth'.

[MadgeUK]

Testina:

Arabella's family would have been pleased that she was married and had a husband to call upon when in need - getting married was a very important step for such a young woman (see post 221). I don't think honour had much to do with it since she behaved dishonourably anyway and her parents would have known this.

Is this what Jude thinks in his inner self, or is it a comment from Hardy?

This is Hardy commenting on the way in which society expected young people to marry and remain married etc. See, for instance, my post No 107 on this topic. There are quite a lot of comments like this throughout the novel because Hardy was criticising Victorian attitudes towards sex and marriage.

[Traveller]

As far as religion goes, Jude has been reading the New Testament in the original Greek, and has been devoting himself to biblical study entirely, in the last part of Episode 1, so he certainly knows what the bible says, and would already have formed his morals and values irrespective of whether he is at this stage visiting church or not.

We see though, that Jude does seem to have quite a strong sense of morality through his actions in general; he is conscientious and charitable towards his aunt and towards Arabella.

He is not dishonest, he is kind, thoughtful and he honours his obligations and what he feels are his duties.

Certainly, he did lapse in his duty to ward off the crows, but he was conflicted there, and I suppose he was there excercising what Hardy would have seen as the "morality" of nature as opposed to that which are laid down by human law and human decisions.

( Or charitability and sharing as opposed to selfishness and greed.)

[Traveller]

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4]

Morality has two principal meanings:

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of any moral truths,[5] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics.

[Traveller]

Why I posted the bit on the semantics of the word "morality" is that it is a very difficult term to pin down, and people could easily start argueing right past one another if one doesn't pin down the exact meaning it holds for the specific group of people discussing it.

[MadgeUK]

Well done Traveller and it also pins down the fact that morality is not dependent upon religion but upon a system of ethics going back to the dawn of recorded time, such as the rules similar to the 10 Christian commandments which underpinned other earlier societies, or the ancient Golden Rule - the ethic of reciprocity.

I agree that Jude was well schooled in the New Testament and probably in Greek ethics too and that he seems to be of good character overall. I thought the incident with the rooks showed compassion towards animals and birds, as he was bid by Pillotson, so it was another example of his good character, not of dereliction of duty per se.

[MadgeUK]

Benjamin wrote: '...but I think it is also an observation by an older, more cynical Jude.'

Careful of spoilers Benjamin - we haven't got to an older Jude yet:). He is only 19 by the end of Part First.

[Lily]

I don't think the question is whether Jude is moral or not, at least that wasn't mine. What I do wonder is how was his learning morals obtained -- some of which we have touched upon. Reading the Greek Bible alone sounds like a tough road and unlikely to be the main one for youth like Jude, but perhaps I underestimate.

[Traveller]

Lily wrote: "I don't think the question is whether Jude is moral or not, at least that wasn't mine. What I do wonder is how was his learning morals obtained -- some of which we have touched upon. Reading the ..."

All right, I'll bite on this one. First a question, to clarify and to try and understand where you are coming from: how are people's learning? morals usually obtained? (As opposed to Jude).

Sorry, did you mean to say "learning morals"? I feel a bit uncertain as to your exact meaning, Lily, apologies.

[MadgeUK]

I do feel Jude's alienation from his society makes the moral code from that society weaker in him then it otherwise would be.

How is it weaker? As Traveller as pointed out earlier he seems to be of good character, is kind and compassionate, treats Arabella well etc.

We cannot even take his first sexual encounter to be immoral since it may have been quite common to have premarital sex in that society, certainly with a woman like Arabella who was not a virgin and was trying to entrap him. It might have been foolish but it was not necessarily immoral.

The majority of us learn moral codes from the society around us. Even rotten old atheist liberals like me do! Jude grew up with an old aunt and we have no reason to suppose that she did not teach him some sense of the morality appertaining at that time - even that he shouldn't jump into bed with gals like Arabella but lads will be lads...:).

My biggest quarrel with Jude's behaviour is that he is inclined to drink too much and I am a bit of a stickler about that - I find it immoral because it tends to lead to unethical behaviour:D.

[Traveller]

Bill, where did you learn your moral code from? Please don't say 'from society around me'. Where did most of us become culturally ingrained about morals?

Firstly, our parents, right? Jude had parents, and after that, he had an aunt looking after him.

Then your school. Jude had attended school - from hence he knew Mr Phillitson.

Then, from cultural examples and icons - in my case (I was a bookworm since the age of 4), it was actually to a large extent from books. To some extent this would also be the church, (and this still holds true for many people), or whatever other similar cultural institutions a society has around.

..and now we come to the tricky part, which people differ a great deal upon; there are some schools of thought that says humans have an innate sense of morality. I give it credence, for many reasons. Why? because what morality does, is it serves society to run better.

It is what makes human society 'work' and if humans did not have very strong innate positive social urges, humanity as a species could not survive, since the biggest criterium which has distinguished man from beast, and put man on top of the food chain, is his ability to co-operate.

(Like ants do, and may I mention, at this point, that numbers-wise, ants are actually a more successful (prolific) species than humans are. :D )
Ok, the bit about the ants was just being rather mischievous, but also to drive a point home, being that there is inestimable value in co-operation.

What precicely is a sociopath? It is someone who cannot feel guilt, and who is supremely unco-operative. They are devaints as far as the "moral blueprint" of humanity is concerned, because they violate all the rules that make society and humans as a species be successful.

Jude shows time and agian, that he is a co-operative person, and seeks the wellfare of others, does he not?

[MadgeUK]

I do find it a strange belief. How does alienation from your society make you less moral? And why can't you be sensitive to suffering and have a moral code? What extra morals would Jude have if he wasn't alienated and over sensitive?

[Traveller]

Yes, but Bill, what do you class as a "moral code"?

A moral code is something like this:

1)I believe that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

2) I believe that I should have integrity and honesty unto myself and unto others.
..and so on.

I believe that Jude had this, he shows it.

..but coming back to my post about the "ingrained" moral code, I believe that this is something that could be defended from both a spiritual and an evolutionary, eugenics (genetics) POV. (Which is mainly the POV I argued in my post above)


If you were a religious person, you could say that God had made humans in his own likeness, and instilled in them a flame of divinity. (Which would be their conscience. Some streams in Chrsitianity would also say that "the Holy Ghost" lives inside you.

So either way, you could say that Jude had this 'spirit that approaches, or searches for the divine' strongly within him.

[MadgeUK]

Traveller wrote: Please don't say 'from society around me'. Where did most of us become culturally ingrained about morals?

Firstly, our parents, right? Jude had parents, and after that, he had an aunt looking after him.

Although I agree that parents are the first port of call in the morality department I do think that 'society' and many others around us also impart moral codes, school for instance and, as you say, books, especially the morality stories we tend to read as children like, say, Aesop's Fables. I think we learn the basics from our parents but the more sophisticated mores of society we learn from quite a number of sources, including church in religious households.

[Traveller]

To sum up, there is no reason at all anywhere in the book, that indicates that Jude had been set a "bad' moral example. His mother was not a prostitute or a drug addict. Neither was his father a drug pusher/addict, pimp, thief or murderer. (That we know of).

His aunt is pehaps not the best example for him to follow emotionally, but she is still a relatively decent enough sort.

Mr Phillitson certainly did not council him badly as far as morals are concerned, and Jude would have read about ethics and morals and philisophical discourse thereon in the Classics as well as the Bible that he had been reading.

..and not that I'm a religionist, but I certainly think you'd be hard pressed to find better morals than those that Christ preached, and this is exactly whose morals Jude had been following.

[MadgeUK]

His mother was not a prostitute or a drug addict. Neither was his father a drug pusher/addict, pimp, thief or murderer.

The early descriptions of his mother and father (Chap 2?) did not augur well though, as his mother committed suicide and his father had the 'shakes, which might have been from alcoholism. I think perhaps Hardy was trying to infer that Jude had inherited 'bad blood' but you and I will go with the nurture argument eh?!

[Traveller]

Bill wrote: " A moral code can also say
"You must marry the woman you impregnated and never divorce her"
"You must not suffer a witch to live"
"If a man lie with a man, take him outside the city and stone him to death"
"Don't eat milk with your meat"
"Women submit to your husbands in all things"

Ah, did you see my earlier post where I said it is important to exactly pin something down or else we'll talk right past one another? See, what you see there as 'moral codes' I don't see as the latter at all! Those are 'laws' in my book, and even the religions that espouse those rules, call them "laws' and not morals.

What I see as 'morals' are much more closely tied in with "ethics" .

No wonder we were a bit out of sync there - we were not comparing apples with apples. :)

I had thought when you were talking about morals, you were talking about something closer to values - though I do think morals are also something you must believe in, it is what you personally believe is right or wrong - see a dictionary definition:

Definition of MORAL
1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action
2: probable though not proved : virtual
3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect
— mor·al·ly \-ə-lē\ adverb

[Traveller]

Hehe- when I think of the word 'morals' I tend to see a tight-lipped old lady in black with pince-nez glasses, pursing her mouth and wagging her finger..

..but seriously, I think it means more what you believe is right and wrong.

So yeah - ask yourself how moral it is to stone a 14-year old girl to death because she was gang-raped? To me not "moral" at all, even though it was sanctioned and even apparently 'ordered' by a religious "law".

Oops, but we're getting ourselves into hot water again. Better stop before we.. -you know, get carried away..

[Traveller]

MadgeUK wrote: "His mother was not a prostitute or a drug addict. Neither was his father a drug pusher/addict, pimp, thief or murderer.

The early descriptions of his mother and father (Chap 2?) did not augur well..."

Hmm, that is true. I do seem to pick up though, the notion in some of these pre-20th century authors the notion that some humans have a "fine" or "strong" "moral fibre" in spite of either direct hereditary or environmental influences, which seems to have gained some popularity again in contemporary popular culture (Pop. books, films etc.)

I'm not quite sure that I'm not a bit enamoured with the idea.

I don't know, there somehow seems something quite attractive about the notion that some people are inherently "good" (if you make any value-judgements about "good" and "bad" at all, which seems pretty black-and-white to me), and some people inherently bad.

Just a romantic notion, but there it is..
Anyway, you have read the book, so I'm sure you'd have a better idea of what Hardy was getting at. I'm actually looking forward to moving on to the next part now. :)