I lock the door upon myself.
And bar them out; but who shall wall
Self from myself, most loathed of
all?
Christina Rossetti, 1891
When Hardy published Jude the Obscure in 1895, reviewers
roundly reviled it for its sexual explicitness, and for his portrayal of Sue
Bridehead as a “poor maimed degenerate, ignorant of herself and of the
perversions of her instincts.” The New
York Bookman regarded it as “one of the most objectionable books that we
have ever read in any language whatsoever.” Hardy, who was so stung by the
criticism, did not write another novel in the last thirty years of his life.
Few books could compare with the firestorm ignited by Jude.
That year did mark the
beginning of a more conservative, indeed repressive climate. The hysteria
generated by the Oscar Wilde trials contributed to the backlash for reasserting
conventional attitudes toward sex and marriage. Hardy’s ostensible attack on
the institution of marriage and social mores was bound to elicit visceral,
pejorative responses, particularly since he does not pathologize Sue. In a
multi-layered portrait, she is by turns intellectually ambitious and socially
unconventional, brittle and captious, vulnerable and almost childlike, a woman
who found it easy to stress the faults of others. What most disturbed
contemporary readers was the horrific murder of two young children by a child
who subsequently commits suicide. This “phantasmagoric eruption” occurs in what
is ostensibly a naturalistic novel. Perhaps
had Hardy written his tale in the Gothic genre, even though there are incipient
elements of that genre present, the horror could have been accepted with a
little more equanimity. Moreover, it was published at a time when the eugenics
movement was urging intelligent women to bear children and the purity movement
was stressing the general “promotion of public morals” and discouraging birth
control and abortion. But external forces are secondary to his exploration of
the damaged personalities of both Sue and her first cousin, Jude Fawley, which has
far more to do with the ensuing tragedy.
Hardy was condemned for
writing a degenerate novel because his heroine Sue has a nervous collapse, and
her quivering self-abasement is a grotesque parody of the Victorian self-sacrificing
icon of the angel at the hearth Jude
blends the two themes that have attracted the attention of readers and critics—the
unfolding of degeneration in families and the perverse characterization of the
New Woman. Given Hardy’s familiarity with Darwinian psychiatry, one critic has
described Jude as “the consummate literary text of late Victorian psychiatry” because
of its premise that defective ancestry diminishes and progressively weakens the
reserves of each succeeding generation for coping with the demands of the
present. Accordingly, limited resources vitiate the novel’s protagonists’
capacity to withstand life’s adversity so that they collapse under it with
catastrophic results: tragedy, a breakdown and unmitigated misery. In a letter
later written by Hardy, he referred to Jude and Sue as “living under a curse of
hereditary temperament.” Instead of disease, the taint of a pre-ordained
pattern of dysfunctional marriages haunts Sue and her first cousin Jude Fawley.
Each comes from families where their parents’ marriage failed: Jude’s mother
later committed suicide. Jude is raised by his great aunt who resents his
“useless” existence believing that he should have followed his parents to the
grave. Having denied him any emotional affection, she nonetheless cautions him
that becoming involved with Sue and her “tight-strained nerves” would be “stark
madness” because the members of the Fawley family are “not made for wedlock.”
It is a prescient warning. Jude’s first marriage is a disaster, and Sue’s
first involvement ends in the young man’s suicide. Their own relationship
reveals incompatibility and conflicting needs, and these difficulties are
exacerbated by the neediness of an emotionally fragile child.
Interconnected with
this fatalistic degeneration motif is the neurasthenic New Woman, a product of
urbanization, that produces modern stresses. Hardy’s nuanced portrait of Sue is
careful to emphasize that her condition owes more to her personal temperament
and heritage than to her gender. Although Sue vehemently dismisses marriage as
a “sordid contract” and values unconventional behaviour and intellectual
pursuits above marriage and raising children, her creator demonstrates
sensitivity to social and personal context. Years later he seemed to endorse
the harsh criticisms that Jude had
been a condemnation of the institution of marriage as it was presently
constituted. He wrote, “My opinion at the time, if I remember rightly, was what
it is now, that a marriage should be dissolvable as soon as it becomes a
cruelty to either of the parties.” These comments refer to Jude for walking out
on his marriage to Arabella because he recognized that ‘having based a
permanent contract on a temporary feeling which had no necessary connections
with affinities that alone render a life–long comradeship tolerable.” They
could also refer to Sue for leaving her unhappy marriage to the older Richard
Phillotson for whom she felt only revulsion when he touched her.
Even though Sue’s
difficulty in establishing viable relationships has been attributed to the
theory of degeneration, it is too schematic and overlooks the intellectually
independent but psychologically edgy New Woman which is central to an
understanding of the novel. Because it was experienced as an attack on the
family, both the public and literary critics missed how the characterization of
Sue represents the dark underbelly of the medical discourse on women of an
Acton or Krafft–Ebing. Moreover, Hardy unravels the dynamics behind chivalry to
expose how a pact based upon idealization and infantilization entered into by
Sue and Jude militates against building a mutually satisfying relationship.
Their difficulties are compounded by Sue’s fear of physical and emotional
intimacy that would have likely led her to a breakdown even without the
mind-numbing assault of a double tragedy.
No physician obviously
would have ever endorsed Sue before her breakdown as a representative of
healthy Victorian womanhood. Despite Jude’s allusion to her as his “guardian
angel,” she is reluctant to offer him physical love, affection or even support.
The physician William Acton was even alarmed about a trend that many middle
class wives were withholding sexual access from their husbands for which he
blamed the insidious influence of John Stuart Mill. In his Functions
and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs (1875), which is primarily about
male sexuality and is intended to offer assurances to calm male anxieties,
Acton warned about the threat to the supremacy of men in marriages posed by
advocates of women’s rights. He specifically noted the case of a “lady who
maintains women’s rights might be…highly detrimental to the health of the
husband.” Yet disturbing connections exist between the officially approved
medical perspective and the emotional difficulties experienced by Sue Bridehead.
Physicians believed that healthy women had limited sexual feelings. This
perception certainly applies to Sue who has at best an insipid sex drive and
considers it “gross,” and who admits to Jude that “my nature is not as
passionate as yours.” Jude describes her as a “phantasmal bodiless creature,” a
characterization that accords with official view that women were spiritual
rather than sensual creatures. Far from denying her sexuality, some Victorian
doctors (and readers) would perceive Sue’s initial responses as high minded in
contrast with the carnality of Arabella who years earlier had seduced into
marriage the honorable but naïve Jude with her ruse that she was pregnant. Sue
and Jude both endorse the duality of women; Sue regards Arabella as a “‘fleshy
coarse woman” and he perceives her to be a “complete and substantial female
animal.” Starved for the affection that he has never had, Jude appreciates Sue
as the “ethereal least sensuous woman [he] ever knew.”
Christopher Eccleston and Kate Winslet in the 1996 film adaptation Jude |
Sue reluctantly
acquiesces to Jude’s sexual desires when Arabella returns from Australia as a
way of binding him to her. Even after both receive their respective divorces
and make two conscious attempts to actually get married, her fear overtakes her
and they remain an unmarried couple. Yet for a short time, they do experience a
sexual relationship; the difficulties emerge when children arrive on the scene.
Then both encounter discrimination from a censorious Victorian society when
they seek accommodation: Jude experienced it acquiring employment as a
stonemason. When two children are born and she becomes pregnant with a third,
as Hardy explained in a letter to a friend, “her intimacies with Jude have
never been more than occasional…they occupy separate rooms.” For those like
Krafft–Ebing, who considered sexuality largely for the purpose of procreation,
the “moderate expression” of their sexual life, albeit unsatisfying for Jude,
would appear compatible with the norms articulated by some Victorian doctors.
Some argued that the chaste mother and sexually indifferent wife were essential
in protecting her husband from nervous drain and the decline of masculine
productivity in the economic sphere through the abundant loss of semen. For
those doctors who worried that the neurotic New Woman was starving her uterus
by developing her brain, the occasional intimacies of Sue and Jude did not
impair her capacity to reproduce.
Womanhood however does
pose powerful challenges for Sue, who is determined to pursue an unconventional
life as a critic of the coercive conventions that clashed with powerful drives
within her. There is always an undercurrent of tension between her professed
intellectual development that could be a vehicle for personal liberation and
her longing to escape from adult responsibilities: “I like reading and all
that, but I crave to get back to the life of my infancy and its freedom.” This
astute self-perception is initially puzzling since from the scraps of textual
evidence, we learn that after her mother left her father she lived with her
mother for a time in London, and then returned to her father whom she is now
estranged. He raised her to “hate her mother’s family” which presumably meant
hating her mother and her own femaleness. From these snippets, we can infer
that she probably was made to feel shameful and worthless as a woman like her
mother. Is it surprising that Sue would fear sexuality, and the inevitable
by-product of child–bearing with or without the blessings of a marriage ritual,
if in her psyche, motherhood connoted “badness”? Also would not the birth of
each child precipitate within her the pain she would have experienced at being
abandoned by her own mother and release what today is called postpartum
depression? There is a startling absence of interaction in the text between Sue
and her two young unnamed children. Add these internal dynamics to the stress
of poverty, social ostracism for being different, and the addition of Jude’s
son from his previous marriage, the accumulation of pressures would likely
have, at some point, been too much for Sue to sustain.
Sue has often been
perceived by readers and critics and by Jude himself as inconsistent and
contradictory, and therefore, incomprehensible. But she always hypersensitive
to anything that makes her feel fettered: the demands of sexuality, the
constraints of religious dogma and legal restraints that would limit her
options in life on the basis of her gender. At the same time, she wanted to
establish a deep connection with another person, and she hoped that Jude would
satisfy that need. Sue is a complex character because her conscious desires
conflict with unconscious pressures that include a powerful internal mechanism,
a superego, which craves punishment for her continual badness. She may have
regarded herself as a freethinker who could quote John Stuart Mill to
Phillotson, and attack societal conventions, but there is a strong infusion of
the repressive medievalist in her, and an emotional fragility that betrays a
real difficulty in grappling with the pressures of living as an adult woman.
When Jude responds to her secular agnostic views, she becomes upset and
defensive. But neither understands that for all her intellectual interest in
ancient pagan culture, personal feelings ricochet within her, and always bubble
near the surface threatening to erupt.
Rather than engaging Jude in a
meaningful exchange, her ability to intellectualize, or in other contexts,
politicize her feelings about marriage and the law, becomes either a weapon to
use against others in a sarcastic or contemptuous way, or a shield to defend
her fragile self. What she deeply craved, as insurance so that Jude would not
abandon her, was to ennoble him “to high aims,” to idealize him so that he
would be protective of her as though she were a child. She proceeds to seal the
chivalrous pact with the promise that they “are going to be very nice with each
other…and never, never vex each other anymore.” And Jude duly, though
unconsciously, accepts the dynamic between them. For his part, Jude on this
occasion and in future altercations between them will alternate between
idealizing her, “you disembodied creature, you dear, sweet tantalizing
phantom–hardly flesh at all” and capitulating to her whims. “He could never
resist her when she pleaded [as she well knew].” Sue feels most at ease with
him when she takes his arm as they rehearse his role in giving her away (as a
father) in her marriage to Phillotson. This pact will ensure that any future
erotic relationship that Jude initiates will incur resistance.
'VIETNAM - A War Lost and Won' by Nigel Cawthorne was first published in 2003 by Arcturus Publishing Limited in the UK. Nigel Cawthorne, who was born in Chicago, the United States, is an American-born British writer of fiction and non-fiction, and an editor. The book includes an introduction on what triggered one the worst wars in American war history. wars
ReplyDelete