H05053 HARDY AND ANIMALS 7/2/05 - HARDY FORUM ARCHIVES ____________________________________________________________________________
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Re: TTHA Poem of the Month - [Past ones]
Date: July 2, 2005 9:14:45 AM PDT
If anyone knows of data about the Hardys' cats beyond the few poems written originally about them, I would surely appreciate any heads up. I spent about 4-500 hrs of work reading many books, books of letters by TH, Emma and Florence, etc, and came up with a few very sketchy details, but no real info, like what kind of cats, how many they had at one time (notwithstanding Wm. Phelps' comment about "Are these all your cats?"), etc,
I would also REALLY like to know if there are any pictures of them anywhere. Thanks a bunch. Fred Siedow
==========
From: meryfac@hotmail.com
Subject: CAT
Date: July 2, 2005 12:04:00 PM PDT
Dear Fred, I know that Thomas Hardy had a cat named Cobby.
It was a gray persian cat and it was supposed to have stolen Hardy's heart,
when its beloved owner died and then to be disappeared without trace.
Unfortunately this is the only thing I know about Hardy's cat...
I hope it could be useful,
Sincerely,
Maria
==========
From: rnemesva@stfx.ca
Subject: RE: CAT
Date: July 2, 2005 1:20:42 PM PDT
I don't mean to be too cranky about this, but the story that Hardy's
heart was stolen by one of his cats after its removal from his body for
burial in Stinsford churchyard is completely apocryphal, with no
evidence to support it whatsoever. As Michael Millgate points out in
his biography, the heart was immediately wrapped in a small towel and
sealed in a biscuit tin after its excision by the surgeon F. L.
Nash-Wortham, and then removed from Max Gate to be returned next day and
placed in the burial casket. So unless we are postulating a cat
possessing extreme dexterity in the use of a can opener there's really
no chance of the tale being true. The fact that Martin Seymour-Smith
sees fit in his biography to retail this chestnut as "possibly not
true--although...hardly unlikely" reveals more about his unfortunate
willingness to be sensational than it does about the story's actuality.
Richard Nemesvari
Department of English
St. Francis Xavier University
rnemesva@stfx.ca
==========
From: NHardyboy@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAT
Date: July 2, 2005 4:12:06 PM PDT
In a message dated 7/2/2005 3:20:37 PM Central Daylight Time, rnemesva@stfx.ca writes:
I don't mean to be too cranky about this, but the story that Hardy's
heart was stolen by one of his cats after its removal from his body for
burial in Stinsford churchyard is completely apocryphal, with no
evidence to support it whatsoever.
Maybe so, but I've always thought TH himself would have enjoyed that story. In fact, it has a Hardyan touch of the macabre to it, and a poem on this theme would have made an excellent companion to "Ah, are you digging on my grave?" I've put my tongue in my cheek and related the anecdote to my appropriately horrified students. . .and later on I tell them the one about Yeats's body getting lost somewhere between France and Sligo, necessitating the burial of a box of rocks under Ben Bulben.
Cheers,
Paul Niemeyer
==========
From: sschofi404@pickens.net
Subject: Re: CAT
Date: July 3, 2005 12:56:45 PM PDT
I do love the little stories about authors we dig up. My professor told me that one about Yeats during the Spring semester.
Jennifer Schofield
==========
From: patrick@prassociates.co.uk
Subject: RE: CAT
Date: July 3, 2005 1:46:44 PM PDT
Jennifer Schofield said:
" I do love the little stories about authors we dig up. My professor told me that one about Yeats during the Spring semester. "
It is rather off topic, I know, but I do think TH would have appreciated this poem written in the Dark Ages (originally in ancient Irish) in the margin of a copy of Virgil being made a monk in the monastery of St. Gall, Switzerland:
I and Pangor Ban my cat
'Tis a like task we are at.
Hunting mice is his delight
Hunting words I sit all night.
'Gainst the wall he sets his eye,
Full and fierce and sharp and sly;
'Gainst the wall of knowledge I
All my little wisdom try.
So in peace our tasks we ply,
Pangor Ban my cat and I.
In our arts we find our bliss,
I have mine and he has his.
It somehow reminds me of Jude.
Patrick Roper
==========
From: hardycor@owl.csusm.edu
Subject: RE: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 3, 2005 3:34:36 PM PDT
In the nearly eight years I've been directing the Forum, I've been keeping
my fingers crossed that that tired old chesnut about Hardy's heart and the
cat would not turn up on this list. But I guess it was inevitable that it
eventually would. Now my hope is that it will die a natural death.
For the cat lovers amongst you here is a more believable reminiscence by an
American professor, William LLoyd Phelps, taken from James Gibson's edition
_Thomas Hardy: Interviews and Recollections_. It reads in part:
"At five o'clock we walked into the gardens at Max Gate . . . Mr. Hardy was
almost covered with cats. Three or four cats were on various parts of his
person, other cats were near at hand, and I noticed saucers of milk placed
at strategic points in the shrubbery. 'Are all these your own cats?' 'Oh,
dear, no, some of them are, and some are cats who come regularly to have
tea, and some are still other cats, not invited by us, but who seem to find
out about this time of day that tea will be going.' I said I was a
fanatical cattist and was enchanted to have their company" (64).
Best Wishes to all cattists,
Betty
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 3, 2005 5:46:36 PM PDT
This is in answer to the previous postings; to MaRy, R. Nemesvari, Paul Niemeyer, Patrick Roper, Betty C.
MaRy: Yes, Cobby stood for Cobweb, mentioned in Florences letter of 6-2-28 to A. Pinero, "...today...my little cat given to TH on his birthday (1 or 2 yrs previous)... was operated on in the stable..." My question to you -- HOW did you learn it was a [gray] Persian? -- and I haven't run across the heart story yet. And, what was disappeared w/o trace?, the heart, or the cat?
R. Nemesvari: Thanks for setting us straight! -- I surely would have hated to go thru life believing that one!
Paul Niemeyer: Great story, yes, TH would have loved that one.
Patrick Roper: GREAT reply -- definitely NOT off topic, at least for me! I loved that little poem -- how true, for me at least -- either of my cats will come sit/ lie by me when I'm working here, or hop up and make themselves at home on my papers, but amazingly, I have managed to teach them not to walk on the keyboard. They will step all over and around it, but not on it! AND, do you know WHEN that poem was written?, and why ancient Irish, in Switzerland? Thanks.
Betty C.: Thanks so much for sharing that WHOLE Wm. Phelps quote -- I have only known part of it, didn't know it happened out in the garden. I'm going to have to get that book, I guess. I didn't know earlier that J. Gibson was such a good source fot TH lore.
Cheers to all; fast & furious Fred
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: HARDY CAT - oops
Date: July 3, 2005 6:02:50 PM PDT
Darn it! Forgot to add comment to last submission: Cobby - was "...feared dead...heard nothing of him - house unbearable..." -- ltr of 12-30-31, FED to Thomas Soundy. --Fred
==========
From: patrick@prassociates.co.uk
Subject: RE: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 3, 2005 11:20:43 PM PDT
Fred Siedow asked:
do you know WHEN that poem was written?,
and why ancient Irish, in Switzerland?
So, in fear of being labelled a 'cattist', the poem Pangur Ban was written
in the 8th or 9th century. It was in Early Irish because the author was one
of the Irish monks who went all over Europe and, with only a cat and Virgil
for company, he may have been feeling a little homesick. The version I
posted is thought to have been translated by W H Auden, but if you type
'Pangur Ban' into a search engine you will get all sorts of info about the
poem. I gather the monastery, incidentally, is still there.
Patrick Roper
==========
From: ericjchristen@bluewin.ch
Subject: St Gall: away from cats
Date: July 4, 2005 1:46:28 AM PDT
The Monastery of St Gall was founded by one of the Irish (or Scottish)
disciples of St Columba in Iona - hence the name (the words Welsh, Celt,
Gallus are linked; in Switzerland we French speakers are still nicknamed Die
Welschen by our German speaking compatriots). The monastery of St Gall
contains one of the richest collections of medieaval manuscripts in the
world, and is particularly interesting for its manuscripts of early church
music. Anyway it is worth a visit.
This is a long way from Hardy, I am afraid ... And yet as he was interested
in history he must have known about St Columba and the spread of
Christianity.
Best wishes.
Eric Christen
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: St Gall: away from cats
Date: July 4, 2005 2:52:48 AM PDT
This is fascinating, Eric -- ever since reading Umberto Eco's *The Name of the Rose * I've wanted to visit a medieval monastery of the kind you describe -- ah! one day!
Yey! I can bring us back to Hardy-the-cat-lover : - how about when the poet Rosamund Tomson sent him *Concerning Cats: A Book of Poems by Many Authors,* & he was so delighted he sent her a copy of *A Group of Noble Dames*? Or that sad occasion when Snowdove had been killed by a train and Hardy was preoccupied for days chiselling her name in stone for his Pet's Cemetery -- but his chisel wasn't sharp enough so he wrote Hamo Thorncroft, the eminent sculptor, reminding him that he'd once recommended The Perfect Chisel -- where could this be found? Or when Kitsey was hunting out a place to have her kittens & went into the maid's room and shredded up one of her best hats & the maid told Hardy it had cost her 4s/11d so he promptly gave her 5s/- to buy another & everyone was happy (but TH was more concerned about Kitsey & her kittens I think)? And when Kitsey caught a leveret in the garden & Hardy had it cooked for dinner -- remarking that he was sure Kitsey didn't mind!
Well -- I could go on - being a passionate cat lover like TH. But I think the most important and rather more serious aspect of Hardy and Cats is that it created a strong bond between this childless man and his wife. Their estrangement over the years is marked, on several occasions by Emma's sudden flights. She would disappear -- often without notice and to destinations as far as France -- and Hardy would write to her sending money and always included affectionate anecdotes about the cats. Even when Emma didn't disappear he would write to her in detail about the cats.
To non-cat-lovers I apologise!
Cheers,
Rosemarie
==========
From: rnemesva@stfx.ca
Subject: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 4, 2005 6:05:06 AM PDT
I've been enjoying the discussion about Hardy and cats, and I have to agree with Rosemarie that for me the most important thing about this topic is the way in which their love of animals created a bond between Hardy and Emma even as their marriage was, to all intents and purposes, rapidly failing. As well, I think Hardy's sensitivity to the suffering of animals, especially at the hands of that other animal known as Homo sapiens, was one of his most admirable qualities.
As for Hardy appreciating the macabre nature of the "his cat stole his heart" story, I suppose that could be true, but I think it's important to make at least some gesture towards keeping the folk tales separate from the actual biography, even though there's no question Hardy enjoyed folk tales as well. Also, I'm not sure there isn't just a hint of mean-spiritedness in the story itself. To me it has always smacked of Hardy's Dorchester neighbours' desire to take their famous native son down a peg or two, just to make sure he didn't let his fame go to his head. And given the massive reaction to Hardy's death (the state funeral at Westminster Abbey, the prominent obituaries, etc.) this may have seemed (to those whose minds operate that way) an especially appropriate moment to start up a tale that would show he wasn't above the indignity of a cat stealing, and by implication eating, one of his organs.
Richard Nemesvari
Department of English
St. Francis Xavier University
rnemesva@stfx.ca
==========
From: segr@segr-music.net
Subject: Other things and other views
Date: July 4, 2005 8:04:08 AM PDT
I am sorry to have to dis-agree (about felix domesticus for instance)
but what about those lovely dogs?
Wessie was a snappy chappy. Why didn't he eat the cats, then?
And Emma's birds...? With every living thing eating something,
what was the pecking order at Max Gate, one wonders.
TH obviously felt closer to animals than to humans sometimes
and this may have been why he was thought by some to be
a 'heartless old beggar' (my sp.). Hence the story. Emma too loved cats
Could it not rather be that jealous love for the pets intensified the
antipathy that existed between her and her husband?
Rather than condemning harmless country people for what are really
quite amusing and characteristic bits of traditional village fun we should
on the contrary be grateful for a tale or two to talk (and write) about
sometimes Take note you would-be thesis creators. All is not lost
to Mr Seymour-Smith and the others.
Roy Buckle
.
www.segr-music.net
==========
From: sschofi404@pickens.net
Subject: Re: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 4, 2005 8:44:32 AM PDT
The "cat stole his heart" story, could somehow mean it had stolen his heart emotionally. Because animals give us the one thing other humans can't give us, unconditional love.
Jennifer Schofield
Professional career student
University of Alabama
==========
From: rnemesva@stfx.ca
Subject: RE: Other things and other views
Date: July 4, 2005 8:48:22 AM PDT
I take Roy's point about "the famous dog Wessex" and his notoriously bad
temper, but I can only observe that in all the versions of Hardy
biographies and recollections and interviews that I've read I haven't
encountered a single indication that Hardy and Emma exhibited any
jealousy over their constantly shifting menagerie of pets. And as
someone who inhabits the same space as a dog and two cats I can suggest
from experience that they work out their status rankings pretty quickly,
once it becomes obvious that those who deliver the food (i.e. the
humans) insist on some kind of relatively peaceful co-existence. The
train tracks hard by Max Gate were the unfortunate source of the
expanding cemetery in the garden, not any especially murderous
tendencies of Wessex or Moss.
As for "harmless country people" and their "characteristic bits of
traditional village fun," I can only say that Roy and I have differing
perspectives, no doubt based on differing encounters with these kinds of
tales and activities. Nance Mockridge, in helping plan a certain
well-known skimmity-ride, declared "a good laugh warms my heart more
than a cordial," but I'm not certain the result of her traditional bit
of fun was especially comical.
Richard Nemesvari
Department of English
St. Francis Xavier University
rnemesva@stfx.ca
==========
From: NHardyboy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 4, 2005 9:29:54 AM PDT
Certainly true, Richard--I believe that legends and biography must be kept separate, but it seems to me that the legends that spring up after a famous individual's death say a great deal about the individual. Perhaps the heart-snatching tale was a nasty swipe at TH's memory; perhaps it was a tale circulated by an admirer who wished to add a certain "Cosmic irony" to Hardy's death, since dying old and in bed isn't a "typical" Hardyan fate. And, at risk of starting an annoying conspiracy theory on the lines of "Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?", might it be possible that the tale originated even closer to home than with Hardy's neighbors? If I remember correctly, the "double funeral" idea was primarily J. M. Barrie's, and he strong-armed his way through the activities that immediately followed TH's death. Certainly cremation and burial away from Stinsford were contrary to Hardy's express wishes; and I believe that Florence and many of Hardy's friends found the removal of his heart to be gruesome and perverse. Maybe someone didn't want to bring TH himself down a peg or two so much as they wanted to discredit the dismemberment of the native son?
Cheers (if that's appropriate in this abatoirial context),
Paul Niemeyer
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 4, 2005 10:40:06 AM PDT
Exactly! Wholly distasteful!
In effect saying, "Go to the dogs, Thomas Hardy!"
Rosemarie
this may have seemed (to those whose minds operate that way) an especially appropriate moment to start up a tale that would show he wasn't above the indignity of a cat stealing, and by implication eating, one of his organs.
Richard Nemesvari
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Other things and other views
Date: July 4, 2005 10:58:18 AM PDT
Roy, I was not speculating upon the Hardy marriage but using existing evidence in commenting on the bond created by their love of animals. There is, in Hardy's letters and other writings, no sign of the kind of antipathy (over pets) which you suggest If nothing else, taking time in a busy day to sit down at your desk with pen and ink and a sheet of paper to share thoughtful and sensitive obervations on the daily doings of loved pets indicates empathy. not antipathy. Such thoughtful and sensitive observations were not occasioned by anything in particular but remained, like bread and butter, a regular part of everyday life for these two.
With every good wish,
Rosemarie
Could it not rather be that jealous love for the pets intensified the
antipathy that existed between her and her husband?
RB
==========
From: segr@segr-music.net
Subject: RE: Other things and other views
Date: July 4, 2005 12:12:35 PM PDT
Rosemarie, I thank you for your valued time
and I am glad you understood my use of
'antipathy' to describe not what Hardy felt for his pets
but for what he and his wife felt for each other.
Empathy, or the bond, with the pets as demonstrated by daily
writings is (or was) not, of course, the point in question.
In speaking of the sharing of thoughts with one another
you presumably refer to letters from Hardy to Emma.
But what of those from "She To Him", if any?
Those I have not seen.
Have you?
Perhaps, for what he thought were good reasons, he burnt
them with the rest of her writings-we all make mistakes.
More good wishes.
Roy Buckle.
==========
From: hardycor@owl.csusm.edu
Subject: RE: Other things and other views
Date: July 4, 2005 1:08:36 PM PDT
Roy I believe Michael Millgate has collected all Emma's extant letters to
Hardy in Letters of Emma and Florence Hardy, Oxford, 1996. There are
only four of them--one on her religious beliefs, one on Hardy's work, and
two descriptions of her travel experiences. None of these were
particularly antipathetical. Hardy may well have destroyed others of course.
Betty
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Re: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 4, 2005 1:23:34 PM PDT
Patrick Roper wrote:
.... the poem Pangur Ban was written
in the 8th or 9th century. It was in Early Irish because the author was one
of the Irish monks who went all over Europe and . . .
Patrick, thanks very much for the rest of the story! That was great. I am amazed that I could write a simple question in this forum, and get back such amazing, diverse, and interesting and enriching replies from all over, even from Switzerland, where the ancient act took place (Thanks to you, Eric Cristen!). I would have never learned of that neat little poem if not for your comment, and I surely will look it up on the net.
to Rosemarie: who wrote "...taking time in a busy day to sit down at your desk with pen and ink and a sheet of paper to share thoughtful and sensitive obervations on the daily doings of loved pets indicates empathy. not antipathy. Such thoughtful and sensitive observations were not occasioned by anything in particular but remained, like bread and butter, a regular part of everyday life for these two."
Perfectly said, Rosemarie. I had the same response. I think Emma had a bit of the "Collector" mentality, but TH just plain loved living things, especially those of the higher animals who were strongly impacted by human activities and actions. I think he liked cats because they are quietly loyal and loving to those who treat them with respect and kindness. To be respected and loved by a cat is an honor and uplifts one's spirit. (Whereas dogs, for instance, are genetically programed to suck up to anyone they see as a superior, or "pack leader". And they will do it even to one who mistreats them.)
My thanks, also, to Roy, Richard, et.al., for all your always incisive, insightful, and often fun, comments. If I ever get near Switzerland, I will certainly get to that St. Gall Monastery!
And, again, Rosemarie: (wrote) "...Or when Kitsey was hunting out a place to have her kittens & went into the maid's room and shredded up one of her best hats & the maid told Hardy it had cost her 4s/11d so he promptly gave her 5s/- to buy another & everyone was happy (but TH was more concerned about Kitsey & her kittens I think)?"
Yes, I agree -- But, 9 days later he also said that "tomorrow we'll drown all of them but one"! What irony. This is what they did instead of neutering them -- just cold, hard, matter-of-fact procedure.
"And when Kitsey caught a leveret in the garden & Hardy had it cooked for dinner -- remarking that he was sure Kitsey didn't mind!" Yes, and that reminds me of the story THE CAT by Mary Wilkins-Freeman, which Emma had remarked about to Rebecca Owen that she also liked, wherein a cat catches animals, brings them home to a befriending stranger; he cooks them and shares them with the cat, thus surviving a tough winter.
Enough! Fred Siedow
==========
From: hardycor@owl.csusm.edu
Subject: Re: Emma and Cats
Date: July 4, 2005 1:43:28 PM PDT
Roy Wrote;
Emma too loved cats. Could it not rather be that jealous love for the
pets intensified the antipathy that existed between her and her husband?
Roy looking over Emma's letters again. I came across one to Clement
Shorter, concerning the death of Snowdove which would seem to indicate, as
Rosemarie has already suggested, that the couple's mutual affection for
their animals was a bonding, rather than a divisive factor.
"We are in great sorrow, for the death, a terrible one, of our beloved
*Snowdove -- Cut in two* on the railway which runs at the back --& and
where we have lost several dear Pussies in a horrible manner. You would
scarcely, perhaps, imagine what a gloom this event has cast upon us--but he
was a personality& worthy of lamentation . . " (30).
Betty
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Hardy and Cats
Date: July 4, 2005 2:30:23 PM PDT
Yes-- it seems a sad thing but before spaying we had to drown kittens at birth --preferably before the sac has been broken and they are not yet breathing or licked into life by their mother (I've had to do it myself -- it's grim).
Best
Rosemarie
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: RE: Other things and other views
Date: July 4, 2005 2:34:18 PM PDT
Roy -- there is a sad lack of letters from Emma but those extant are singularly expressive - she speaks a good deal of her ill-health, of her "lazy' household (meaning maids), how much she dislikess Dorchester and if she is jealous at all it is of her husband's writing (she feels excluded --seems to her that his books are like a "child"to him). Of the loss of her letters, . Millgate writes:
"Following Florence Hardy's death in 1937 her executor, Irene Cooper Willis, came across a mass of the first Mrs Hardy's incoming correspondence that had sat undisturbed in her former attic retreat at Max Gate ever since her death twenty-five years earlier. ...Cooper Willis destroyed by far the greater part of the papers she came across, selecting for preservation only a small group of letters she thought interesting " (*Letters of Emma and Florence Hardy* edited by Michael Millgate: OUP 1996, ix)
Millgate goes on to say that the Dorset County Museum collection indicates that Emma wrote far more letters than remain with us today. In these she appears to have discussed her beloved cats with many friends.
All best,
Rosemarie
==========
From: segr@segr-music.net
Subject: RE: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 4, 2005 3:53:32 PM PDT
Well, I just sat through a TV programme shown on BBC 2 on the
slaughtering for human consumption of pigs cows and sheep by
throat-cutting. As an occasional meat-eater (I can't stand any
carcase on or near the table) I am tongue-tied,
outraged by the spectacle of harmless creatures knifed
methodically (religiously?) as they are strung-up or otherwise conveyed
along the 'production line' at the abbatoir.
What cowards we are. Instead of beheading defenceless herbivores
we could catch other carnivores (e.g., tigers) bare-handedly and try knifing
them.
We wouldn't have to eat them though: the pleasure would be theirs.
Perhaps fishing is different ("Huntin', shootin', fishin' the sportsmens'
fun).
Fred would know.
Roy Buckle.
www.segr-music.net
==========
From: jan.lloyd-jones@anu.edu.au
Subject: the cat and the can-opener
Date: July 4, 2005 6:13:18 PM PDT
Not sure how we know that the cat and biscuit-tin story is not true. Is it
because it is deemed to be improbable? But surely a cat prising off a lid
is not unexampled - Martin Seymour-Smith doesn't seem to have encountered
the more speculative can-opener theory and just mentions the word
"prised"; and says anyway he thinks it's probably unlikely.
What is far more bizarre is the very idea of carving up a man and burying
him in two places a couple of hundred miles apart. The cat eating the
heart seems to add a rather homely and endearing dimension to the story -
a pet thwarting the ghoulish plans of those bossy individuals overseeing
the funeral.
The question that arises is how can one be sure of what is "likely" and
what is unlikely: this implies a certain expectation, which is to say
prejudice. ("I don't like principles...I prefer prejudices" - Wilde, not
Hardy.) Are we saying that scholarship is not open-minded? Isn't this
beautiful cat story being rejected because it is too good to be true? -
that is too neat, too melodramatic, too story-like to be entertained as
possible fact (a frequent criticism of Hardy's plots). Have we fallen for
the historical fallacy?
With best wishes from Australia, where cats are constantly and
outrageously prising one thing off another and the most unlikely things
happen,
Jan Lloyd Jones
--
J.K. Lloyd Jones
School of Humanities
The Australian National University
==========
From: sschofi404@pickens.net
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 4, 2005 6:17:12 PM PDT
How did you think it was done? I mean, there's millions of people to feed.
Jennifer Schofield
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: the cat and the can-opener
Date: July 4, 2005 6:52:30 PM PDT
I agree Jan - that a cat could prise off a tin lid -- most definitely, if hungry enough. Cats, like birds, have "radar" senses superior to our own after all.
I think at heart (oops!) the problem lies in the connotative value of this anecdote. Think on things like grave robbers and vivisection (Hardy hated) and all the blood-sucking, parasitic, flesh devouring ghouls of Victorian literature and I think you'll understand that this story was not circulated to appeal to "Beautiful" minds (if you think this "beautiful" can I suggest you contact Vampire..com?).
Logically speaking: had it been the case that the heart was absent when burial time came up at Stinsford I am certain we would know about it (far too many important people present and personally involved for a start). It would have made (serious) national headlines.
Cheers,
Rosemarie
==========
From: harrybatt@mn.rr.com
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 4, 2005 9:45:54 PM PDT
Well now, slaughter. I had a couple tours on the hog kill and hog cut at
an Iowa packinghouse. In high school and after I was discharged from the
Navy. We got everything out of the porkers except the squeal and oink. On
the beef kill and beef cut side the hides ultimately became leather. I can
count my ancient Dorset ag laborer antecedents who produced pork bellies and
leather up in jolly old Sydling St. Nicholas and in Ontario after the
emigration. Meat I am told is the primary source of whatever it is the
primary source of. Protein! Eh? When the break whistle blew we raced to the
cafeteria for a pair of fresh hot dogs. I would wager that the whole
experience has damaged my psych to the nth. To this day I cannot eat a
veggie burger nor pass up a rasher of bacon.
John Bridell,
Minneapolis, Mn.
USA
==========
From: Jcphardysoc@aol.com
Subject: Re: the cat and the can-opener
Date: July 5, 2005 3:35:52 AM PDT
A few years ago, one of the men who worked for the Dorchester undertaker [USA mortician?] who arranged Hardy's Stinsford funeral confirmed to the Hardy Society that there was no truth in the cat story.
I do sometimes wonder how Florence's full-size coffin rests above Hardy's heart casket. Presumably precautions were taken to prevent its being crushed between his two wives' coffins.
Best wishes
John Pentney - unaided by my cat who often jumps on my lap when I'm working at the computer.
==========
From: michael@perceptivecreation.co.uk
Subject: Re: away from cats - to hats!
Date: July 4, 2005 5:53:19 PM PDT
I'm way behind on this strand (sorry) - and although a cat lover (though strictly long-term serial monogamy - or should I say "unifelinity"?) - I was intrigued by the episode of the maid's hat shredded by Kitsey costing 4/11, and it reminded me of "On the Western Circuit" - but Anna's new hat "was to cost 15/9". Either a case of sharp inflationary pressures on the millinery trade, or a case of Hardy giving his fictional maid a much better quality hat than his real maid?
Michael Barry
==========
From: Carolyn.McGrath@newham.gov.uk
Subject: A shared love
Date: July 5, 2005 5:10:13 AM PDT
Chipping in, in defence of the Hardys' shared love of animals being a bond
between the ill-matched pair, in 'Afterwards', the persona/Hardy speculates
that, posthumously, it may be said of him: 'He strove that such innocent
creatures should come to no harm,/But he could do little for them; and now
he is gone.' - see POTM for full poem. I also remember reading somewhere
that Hardy admired Emma's tenacity in defending 'animal rights' (if that is
not too anachronistic a term to use). Can anyone fill in any detail on their
public activities in this field?
Carolyn McGrath
===========
From: rnemesva@stfx.ca
Subject: RE: the cat and the can-opener
Date: July 5, 2005 6:37:09 AM PDT
With all due respect to Jan Lloyd Jones, and at the risk of crossing
disciplines, I will simply quote the late (and missed) Carl Sagan:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Since there is
absolutely no evidence to back up "the cat stole Hardy's heart" story,
and since as John Pentney has already noted the tale has been scotched
by someone who would be in a position to know, I think we can move it
out of the realm of "unlikely" and into the realm of falsehood. In
contrast, the apparently equally "unlikely story" of Hardy's heart being
removed and buried at Stinsford, while his body was cremated and placed
in the Abbey, is fully documented and confirmed by numerous witnesses
and records, which places it in a whole other realm.
Of course the cat story makes for an involving little anecdote, as can
be seen by the length of this thread, but in the end this isn't a
question of being "open-minded," it's a question of whether we're
supposed to lend credence to something for which there is absolutely no
proof. That's just a little too open-mind for me.
Richard Nemesvari
Department of English
St. Francis Xavier University
rnemesva@stfx.ca
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals- Jude or Arabella?
Date: July 5, 2005 6:41:33 AM PDT
Animal slaughter is all rather grim but nothing compared with the plight of the disease-ridden starving masses in the world not to mention the massacre of innocents in the name of the slaughter invented by man for man -- that is, war.
My father was always a bit sensitive (Jude style)) about the throat-slitting part and would have the porkers shot. As I child I found that almost as horrific -- that instantaneous round bloody hole in the head and suddenly "my" piggies were dead. I think I would have preferred a fight, at least (Arabella style?). Wouldn't the adrenalin of the battle, for man and beast, help to de-sensitise both? One of Jude's most cowardly acts, I think, is to balk and walk: had he rolled up his sleeves instead and helped with the grisly act, with the intent of minimising the poor animal's pain, he would have earned admiration from this particular reader.
Like John I've come to terms with the bacon. Perhaps we should all experience the kill at first hand?. We have become an "armchair" world of protesters. I wonder how many vegetarians who are comfortable with eating eggs realise that for every laying hen a baby cockerel is snuffed.
And the only part of why this has anything remotely to do with Hardy is that I too would plead for humane methods of slaughter.
Best wishes,
Rosemarie
==========
From: hardycor@owl.csusm.edu
Subject: RE: the cat and the can-opener
Date: July 5, 2005 7:25:49 AM PDT
I couldn't agree more strongly with Richard's Carl Sagan quote
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Here is another from Chemistry Professor Fred Menger, which I think is
applicable to some of the wilder theories we hear gaining credence: "If
you torture data sufficiently, they will confess to almost anything."
Best Wishes,
Betty
==========
From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com
Subject: RE: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 5, 2005 12:20:32 PM PDT
I can't read the pig killing scene in Jude the Obscure without feeling
sorry for the pig, and share Roy's and Rosemary's revulsion at primitive
methods of slaughter, though in the U.S. we need to make an exception on
1st Amendment grounds for Kosher slaughter. Whether Roy's chloroform
suggestion (anesthesia before throat cutting) would be acceptable in a
Kosher context is an interesting question. Does anybody know the
answer? I have asked a learned friend about it.
Still, the remark about wrestling tigers reminded me of some
observations on hunting made by a famous vegetarian, non-smoker, and dog
lover:
"Killing animals, if it must be done, is the butcher's business. But to
spend a great deal of money on it in addition....I understand, of
course, that there must be professional hunters to shoot sick animals.
If only there were still some danger connected with hunting, as in the
days when men used spears for killing game. But today, when anybody with
a fat belly can shoot the animal down at a distance....Hunting and horse
racing are the last remnants of a dead feudal world." (Adolf Hitler:
Remarks made at Obersalzberg, quoted in Albert Speer's Inside the Third
Reich, Chapter 7.)
[P.S. My third job as a systems analyst was improving the inventory
systems at the Oscar Mayer HQ in Madison, Wisconsin, and I can
corroborate that, as John Bridell observed, every part the animal was
put to some use. (But hot dogs were made only of inspected skeletal meat
-- no offal.) Cripes that was a disgusting system -- we had bills of
materials for cows and pigs, as if you would assemble one from component
parts or something. Hmm, the Dr. Frankenstein of Wisconsin. Enormous
swine ravaging the countryside and farmers burning down the
slaughterhouse. No doubt the screenplay has already been written.]
Chuck Anesi
charles.anesi@wellsfargo.com
office 480-575-3478
cell 612-940-3345
fax 480-575-3519
==========
From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com
Subject: Slaughter of Animals -- tranquilization
Date: July 5, 2005 12:24:16 PM PDT
Response from my learned friend:
Question: Can an animal be tranquilized before shechita?
Answer: This question was asked in Europe (Switzerland, Poland, Germany
and other countries) before and during the Holocaust period. Many
countries passed or tried to pass laws against traditional shechita,
claiming that it was cruel (many people in these countries had no
problem using any form of murder to get rid of Jews). Much was written
in the halacha literature of the period about this issue, however it was
not permitted even when taking the difficult situation created by the
Holocaust into account.
Sources: See Hashoah B'mkorot Rabaniim, by Avraham Fuchs, Sridei Esh
Vol. I (much of this volume deals with this question), Ahiezer, Helkat
Yaakov Vol. I (responsa 106-107), and Mekadshei Hashem Vol. II (responsa
30-32).
Chuck Anesi
charles.anesi@wellsfargo.com
office 480-575-3478
cell 612-940-3345
fax 480-575-3519
==========
From: tomlessup@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 5, 2005 1:59:31 PM PDT
Enormous swine ravaging the countryside and farmers burning down the
slaughterhouse. No doubt the screenplay has already been written."
It has - well almost. See the 1984 Australian movie "Razorback". But don't
see it alone.
Thos Lessup
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 12:05:57 AM PDT
Roy Buckle wrote:
Well, I just sat through a TV programme shown on BBC 2 on the
slaughtering for human consumption of pigs cows and sheep by
throat-cutting. ....
Perhaps fishing is different ("Huntin', shootin', fishin' the sportsmens'
fun).
Fred would know.
Boy, Roy -- it makes my stomach churn to read your comment! I hate "huntin', shootin', fishin'" for the same reasons. I seem to be the only one in my neighborhood who has feelings for animals, and wants to treat them well, and they don't seem to get it that the animals have feelings, pains, fears just like we do! It's an ongoing battle to educate them. Fred S. (Over the last 10-15 yrs I have cut way down on meat myself, mostly for the same reasons, I guess)
(Also, I don't consider killing of animals to be "sport", and never waste a chance to say so loudly in a sporting goods store, pawn shop, etc.)
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 5:14:47 AM PDT
To get back to Hardy-- with all these squeamish feelings -- what do you feel about Jude's sidestepping worms for fear of injuring them and feeding the rooks instead of scaring them off and later, with Sue, releasing a caged bird into the free air (where it may well not survive having been caged all its life) -- and so on?
Cheers,
Rosemarie
==========
From: sschofi404@pickens.net
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 5:40:21 AM PDT
I haven't read that book since I was in high school (read it voluntarily I might add) and that was 16 years ago so I vaguely remember it. I was an avid reader in high school, they would actually take books away that I was reading beneath my desk. I still have it, that might be what I read while I'm recuperating from my surgery.
Thanks for the light note this morning Rosemarie,
Jennifer Schofield
==========
From: patrick@prassociates.co.uk
Subject: Hardy and horses
Date: July 6, 2005 5:46:31 AM PDT
Under the general umbrella of TH and animals, I would be interested to know
how people view the role of horses in Hardy's world. Until the widespread
use of the bicycle and the motorcar, most people knew and great deal about
horses and probably often rode them.
Why Hardy's approach interests me is that Emma, when she first met TH,
clearly spent much time on horseback, on her pony Fanny. Fanny is
paralleled in a Pair of Blue Eyes by Pansy, the pony Elfride rode, and I
feel that the men involved sometimes believe the women prefer the horses to
them. E.g:
"See how I can gallop. Now, Pansy, off!' And Elfride started; and Stephen
beheld her light figure contracting to the dimensions of a bird as she sank
into the distance--her hair flowing.
He walked on in the same direction, and for a considerable time could see no
signs of her returning. Dull as a flower without the sun he sat down upon a
stone, and not for fifteen minutes was any sound of horse or rider to be
heard. Then Elfride and Pansy appeared on the hill in a round trot.
'Such a delightful scamper as we have had!' she said, her face flushed and
her eyes sparkling. She turned the horse's head, Stephen arose, and they
went on again."
This is echoed many years later in TH's wonderful poem Beeny Cliff when he
says of Emma:
"O the opal and the sapphire of that wandering western sea,
And the woman riding high above with bright hair flapping free -
The woman whom I loved so, and who loyally loved me."
Another strange horse episode was written not long after PBE when in FFMC
Hardy describes Gabriel Oak secretly watching Bathsheba on horseback. After
much thought I am still not at all sure what, in its context, this passage
is all about. The interesting performance on horseback does not appear to
advance the story but seems to me to have variety of psycho-erotic
connotations. Again, I would be interested to know what others think. Here
is the passage:
"She came up and looked around - then on the other side of the hedge.
Gabriel was about to advance and restore the missing article, when an
unexpected performance induced him to suspend the action for the present.
The path, after passing the cowshed, bisected the plantation. It was not a
bridle-path - merely a pedestrian's track, and the boughs spread
horizontally at a height not greater than seven feet above the ground, which
made it impossible to ride erect beneath them. The girl, who wore no riding
habit, looked around for a moment, as if to assure herself that all humanity
was out of view, then dexterously dropped backwards flat upon the pony's
back, her head over its tail, her feet against its shoulders, and her eyes
to the sky. The rapidity of her glide into this position was that of a
kingfisher - its noiselessness that of a hawk. The tall lank pony seemed
used to such doings, and ambled along unconcerned. Thus she passed under
the level boughs."
I am sure there are many other interesting horse episodes in Hardy that
indicate what his attitude towards these animals may have been.
Patrick Roper
==========
From: patrick@prassociates.co.uk
Subject: RE: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 5:47:22 AM PDT
These compassionate feelings towards animals in Jude contrast interestingly with the pig episode in the same novel which, I believe, got Hardy into so much trouble when the book was first published. It also shows that it was normal for young countrywomen (and, of course, all others) to be quite closely involved in the slaughter of animals. I suspect many people from 19th century rural Dorset would wonder why such concern is often now shown towards something which to them would have been a matter-of-fact everyday occurrence. I don't think this made them cruel or indifferent: thy just had a different mind set because of the way they been brought up and the conditions under which they lived.
Patrick Roper
==========
From: pauline.guerin@ntlworld.com
Subject: RE: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 5:47:16 AM PDT
Mmmmmmmm some interesting thoughts there thank you, I think that Jude's sensitivity to the creatures and birds is indicative of his feminisation or feminne side, in opposition to Sue's somewhat more 'masculine' ideas of freedom. I think it his sensitivity is also indicative of his sensitivity towards the community and what they think of Sue and Jude. The fact that they have to move 'until they are accepted'. They look towards the pains and fear of others, but they are not shown the same respect or thought.
The caged bird is a great metaphor, for example, of Sue's inability to function as a 'free' or unmarried mother, the only way she can survive is to remarry Phillotson effectively recaging herself. 'she is easily suppressed'.
I'm fairly new to this, so I hope it makes sense.
Pauline
Postgraduate
University of Reading
==========
From: M.Delveaux@exeter.ac.uk
Subject: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 5:59:30 AM PDT
Dear members,
I've been following the discussion with much interest. I think Jude's
sidestepping earthworms is indicative of the kind of ecological sensibility
which with Hardy imbued many of his protagonists (and we could mention Tess,
Giles Winterborne, Clym Yeobright, Gabriel Oak..) and which which Hardy was
imbued himself, of course. Rosemary is right that the birds might not survive
once freed, but if Jude hadn't done anything, what would have been the odds
for the birds? They were half-famished anyway...I would argue that for a
character like Jude, with such strong feelings for nature and his ideas about
solidarity (" 'Poor little dears! [...] You shall have some dinner you shall!
There is enough for us all';) it would have been impossible NOT to feed the
birds or, in fact, to help with he cruel killing of the pig.
I think Richard Kerridge is spot on when he argues that "Perhaps Jude is the
character with the most highly developed sympathy for non-human creatures" (In
Lawrence Coupe, *The Green Studies Reader*). It certainly seems to match
Hardy's special relationship with animals which made the essayist and
journalist Henry Woodd Nevinson (1856-1941) argue that "if we all had that
intensity of imagination we should never do any harm to any human being or
animal or bird, certainly not in cruelty" (qtd. in Gibson, 1999: 79).
Martin
Dr Martin Delveaux
Victorian Studies
School of English
University of Exeter
==========
From: nhardyboy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 7:35:36 AM PDT
I may be in the minority on this, but I feel that Jude's "sensitivity" is shown to be more of a weakness than a strength--or, to put it in kinder terms, that sensitivity is a quality that is out of place in the cold and material world in which Jude finds himself. Overt sensitivity can also be viewed as destructive in the world of the novel. An alternate way of looking at the "rook" scene, for instance, is that Jude's kindness toward the birds would encourage them to multiply and to eventually destroy a crop that others depend on. There is also a certain parody of Jude's compassionate traits in the character of Little Father Time, who inherits them and takes them to psychotic extremes--weeping because flowers will die, and, of course, killing off his siblings and himself because they are "too menny," much as one would do with unwanted kittens. As re pulsive as she may be, the true survivor in the novel is Arabella, whose callous insensitivity allows her to latch on to the best opportunities that arise. I think that, at some level, Hardy shows that too much compassion can lead to destruction.
Oh, and throughout this discussion I haven't been able to get Bismarck's comment about the making of sausage out of my head. . .
Regards,
Paul Niemeyer
==========
From: pauline.guerin@ntlworld.com
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 8:06:48 AM PDT
Actually I agree with you Mr Niemeyer, I didn't say it but I was thinking it, and interestingly it relates a little to my current dissertation on madness, the compassion shown by John Connolly and his contemporaries, resulted vastly overcrowded asylums, affording the insane 'comfort and cure'.... His somewhat hard hearted son in law, Henry Maudsley, who took over from him, tended to see male madness as emasculation.
Jude was certainly different to the 'norm' and given that madness is, in Elaine Showalter's book 'the female malady' - persons who, without being insane, exhibit peculiarities of thought, feeling, and character which render them unlike ordinary beings and make them objects of remark among their fellows,- makes me wonder as well if Jude's 'sensitivity' and therefore feminisation makes him border on the slightly bonkers.
Pauline
==========
From: Jcphardysoc@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hardy and horses
Date: July 6, 2005 8:25:25 AM PDT
In a message dated 06/07/2005 13:47:14 GMT Daylight Time, patrick@prassociates.co.uk writes:
Under the general umbrella of TH and animals, I would be interested to know
how people view the role of horses in Hardy's world. Until the widespread
use of the bicycle and the motorcar, most people knew and great deal about
horses and probably often rode them.
Although doubtless an animal lover, Hardy does not seem to have been a 'horsey' person, and seldom if ever rode. It seems likely though that his father would have kept a horse and cart for his building business - probably essential for transporting materials to whereever he was working, just as every modern self-employed builder has a van or pick up truck. There's a reference to a family horse called Bob in a letter of 28 January 1881 from Mary Hardy to Emma, cited in Millgate's A Biographty Revisited (pp202-3). It would have been logistically difficult to run the Hardy building business without such transport as his father was not just a hired labourer who could walk to work. The Dewys' carts in Under the Greenwood Tree may owe much to Hardy's father's business.
Perhaps Hardy was nervous of horse-riding, though he later took up cycling quite enthusiastically. By the time he was an established novelist he could no doubt have afforded to keep a horse, but this would have been difficult during the first decade of his marriage when he and Emma led a somewhat peripatetic existence before settling at Max Gate, which has a stable/coach-house block incidentally. Emma also seems to have ceased horse-riding after her marriage.
Although there seem to be elements of The Poor Man and the Lady in Hardy/Stephen Smith walking while Emma/Elfride rode, ultimately it seems to have been a matter of personal choice for Hardy not to ride.
Hardy would of course often have travelled in hired horse-drawn conveyances such as when making architectural site visits for John Hicks and Crickmay to places beyond the railway, such as from Launceston to St Juliot in 1870.
Best wishes
John Pentney
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 8:31:12 AM PDT
I'm with you -- Paul, almost. The complexity of Hardy's characterisation is utterly engrossing and as confounding as anything you might encounter in real life. Jude possesses the values we respect and the compassion we admire but his thinking is subjective to a fault. Who would wish to crush a worm underfoot (aside from little boys who torture flies)? Who would not step in to berate the donkey-beater? Our empathy is finely manipulated in such instances. But to allow your emotional response to govern your actions indiscriminately, as Jude does, is less than admirable. Of course the pig-killing is brutal and the withdrawal of the scene for propriety's sake (or whatever the motive) is understandable (at the political level in our own day media broadcasters are banned - by the White House censors-- from showing certain unpalatable images on public news programs). The point I wished to make earlier is that with a little more grit and a little less self-indulgence Arabella's helpmeet (?) could have rolled up his sleeves and assisted in the process to the possible benefit to all -- especially the pig. Then, of course we would have had a hero of some moral strength and militancy who might not have taken no for answer in his college applications and who might have helped Sue through her trauma with the dead babies. And then we would not have had *Jude the Obscure.* The marvel of Hardy's characterisation is its complexity -- we suffer for Jude while we also tear our hair in utter desperation at his inability to transcend his subjective feelings.
Cheers,
Rosemarie
PS-- the bareback riding scene in FFMC forwards the plot insofar as Oak's espials, and shame-making divulging of them to Bathsheba, adds to her trials - in her struggle for autonomy, self-worth and independence in a world in which men, and Oak of course, take all of this for granted.
At 10:35 AM 7/6/2005, you wrote:
I may be in the minority on this, but I feel that Jude's "sensitivity" is shown to be more of a weakness than a strength--
Regards,
Paul Niemeyer
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Hardy and horses
Date: July 6, 2005 8:53:48 AM PDT
Fascinating -- John. I wonder if part of Hardy's feeling about horses had to do with the manner of disciplining of them (bridle-bits, reins, crops and whips). There was an occasion in London when, observing the power of men over horses (he doesn't specify except that it was a rainy day so maybe the horse were slipping on the cobbles), that he rejoiced to see an "electric omnibus". He felt this augured well for the future.
Rosemarie
___________
Although doubtless an animal lover, Hardy does not seem to have been a 'horsey' person, and seldom if ever rode.
Best wishes
John Pentney
==========
From: M.Delveaux@exeter.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 10:21:49 AM PDT
I agree that Jude's sensitivity comes across more as a weakness, but isn't
this a criticism of society rather than an an inherent character fault on
Jude's behalf? To be honest I don't think that Hardy criticised too much
compassion per se, or lamented a heightened sensitivity for nature, but rather
a society that is too intolerant and in which these traits are doomed.
In a similar vein, in *The Woodlanders* Giles is the only one (and Marty to a
certain degree) who practices "an intelligent discourse with Nature" - but of
course he doesn't succeed, either. Again, I think Hardy is criticising a
society that leaves no room for this identification with nature rather than
criticising Giles's discourse with nature.
It is this identification with nature that is so important in Hardy's novels,
and which made him (quite rightly) furious that some people keep birds in
cages and that horses were used at the war front (cf. Gibson, 1999: 87; 76)
Martin
Dr Martin Delveaux
Victorian Studies
School of English
University of Exeter
==========
From: medway_man@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 12:46:39 PM PDT
In The Victorians by A N Wilson, there is mention of the following incident in Hardy's childhood, linked with the repeal of the Corn Laws (when he was six):
As a little boy he dipped his toy wooden sword into the blood of a freshly killed pig and danced about the garden crying 'Free trade or blood!'.
Wilson's footnote references Seymour-Smith (1994).
Not sure what this tells us, apart from how easy it is for adults to influence children, or how attitudes can later be unlearned by self-improvement.
Steve.
==========
From: NHardyboy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 1:21:06 PM PDT
I think I may need to clarify my earlier position here--I perhaps came across as a social Darwinist or/and as someone who believes TH himself was one, and neither is the case. I agree with Martin Delveaux's post that Hardy no doubt was criticizing a society that makes no room for Jude's compassion; however, I think TH also makes it clear that Jude has inadequately prepared himself for a life in society and that he is unrealistic to expect the world to change just for himself. Jude essentially teaches himself to be a master mason who specializes in the Gothic, and only later discovers that Gothic is out of fashion; he sets out on a course of learning that he THINKS will get him into Christminster, but he never once consults with anyone who could offer guidance and help; when his marriage to Arabella breaks he chooses to become an alcoholic because, he reasons, that was the thing society expected a man in his position to become; when he receives a single discouraging letter from Christminster he abandons his dream forever; and no sooner does he engage in the idea of becoming a country parson, a job he's suited for, he abandons it as not being worthy of his learning and talents. I could go on.
My belief is that Hardy did not assign the role of "villain" to society in _Jude the Obscure_. Society is, by and large, cold and indifferent, much like the later Imminent Will; but throughout the novel Jude and Sue are presented with options and alternate courses that could allow them to survive in society. That the characters demand society conform to their wants is unrealistic at best, delusional at worst.
As I try to make the world conform to my own wishes,
I remain,
Paul Niemeyer
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 4:14:07 PM PDT
Rosemarie Morgan wrote:
... back to Hardy-... what do you feel about Jude's sidestepping worms for fear of injuring them and feeding the rooks instead of scaring them off and later, with Sue, releasing a caged bird into the free air (where it may well not survive having been caged all its life) -- and so on?
Cheers, Rosemarie
" animals have feelings, pains, fears just like we do!"
Fred S.
Boy, now you've hit a real Thread starter!!
Hi, Rosmarie: I face that all the time: I moved here to "the country", where I knew there would be deer, et.al. I feed the birds on my back deck, and in the front yd, feed the deer a corn/protein mix in the back little yard. I have been here 3 summers now, and this yr am having trouble with squirrels, racoons, and White-Winged doves. I have shot (and killed) 1 Brown-Headed Cowbird -- they knock other bird's eggs & young out of the nest, lay theirs in it--, and continually have to pop the white-wings, squirrels and racoons with the BB gun. They all destroy the bird feeders and eat up all the seed which is meant for the rarer, nicer birds who need help (I have had ~60 species so far). I can't let my cats out in the free (they have a 15 X 60 ft enclosure in front) because 1 of 'em has learned to catch birds, and I can't bear that. So I live on both sides of this issue.
When I was a kid I didn't like fishing much because I hated torturing the worms putting them on the hook -- I could feel them writhe in pain, I thought. I really don't know how much reptiles and insects feel, pain-wise. Maybe not much. I see lizzards eating insects on TV, watch closely, and can't really say that the insects are suffering. They are pretty much an automatic response mechanism, programmed to do certain behaviors and responses. A cockroach can live several hrs w/it's head cut off - other segments of it's body have micro brains which make it move around.
And, I know that there is a built-in response in wild animals that makes them go into a torpor when they are caught and being killed by a predator -- they just give up, and I guess don't suffer much beyond that point. I find myself allowing spiders, etc. to live in the house, as long as they're not too numerous. In college I took 2 yrs of German, and one book we read was about Albert Schweitzer -- he allowed all living things to be, didn't even kill insects -- I guess that made an impression on me. I do kill anything that stings or bites, tho. I kill scorpions (We have a small species here), but catch and throw outside Daddy-longlegs, grasshoppers, crickets, moths, etc.
This may sound wierd, and I almost hate to seed others' thoughts, but I sometimes have the thought "If I just kill other animals, birds, etc., just because I don't like them, then I'm telling the universe it's OK to do that", and of course, "that means the universe can do the same to me!" ("what we do and think tells the universe what we want done") Would TH say that? Maybe so.
Releasing domesticated animals into the wild is not OK, for me. We have to take responsibility for what we have created! Letting domestic (and neutered) cats roam free, especially long-haired ones, is NOT OK, as they cannot "take care of themselves OK", as many people think.
WHEW!! Well that may not have much to do w/TH, except I think he felt the same ways mostly. I don't remember seeing a ref that he heard of A. Schweitzer, and A.S. was a few yrs after him, too. I do think TH had an amazing awareness way above others around him about these issues, as well as others. Cheers, Fumin' Fred
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Re: Hardy and horses
Date: July 6, 2005 4:23:56 PM PDT
Patrick Roper wrote: ... TH and animals, I would be interested to know
how people view the role of horses in Hardy's world.......
I am sure there are many other interesting horse episodes in Hardy that
indicate what his attitude towards these animals may have been.
Patrick Roper
Hi, Patarick: I know from reading all the letters, etc, that he felt really strongly about the wrongness of the treatment horses received in transportation, etc, and especially in war. He objected in words and writing to people about this, and supported Emma's efforts in this. Fred S.
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Re: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 4:40:24 PM PDT
NHardyboy@aol.com wrote:
...... Society is, by and large, cold and indifferent, much like the later Imminent Will; but throughout the novel Jude and Sue are presented with options and alternate courses that could allow them to survive in society. That the characters demand society conform to their wants is unrealistic at best, delusional at worst.
As I try to make the world conform to my own wishes,...
Paul Niemeyer
Hi, Paul -- well said! I think I, too suffer from what you described! What a pain.
Cheers, and enlightenment -- Fred S.
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 6:01:43 PM PDT
Fred - I think TH would have enjoyed every minute of this. Although it's one thing to live, as he did, in a benign environment where there is only one venomous snake, no venomous spiders, no marauding reptiles or bears or close encounters with creatures like snapping turtles in your pond or rabid raccoons, no killer bees or stinging insects which throw you into trauma -- and much more.. In the US "nature" can maim and kill and the weather likewise. Sentiment is out. Survival is in. That's very foreign to my English soul but it's enlightening. Perhaps Hardy should have visited the US after all!
Rosemarie
I do think TH had an amazing awareness way above others around him about these issues, as well as others. Cheers, Fumin' Fred
==========
From: wesspix1@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Date: July 6, 2005 6:19:49 PM PDT
Surely unfair to Thomas Hardy - he could have been chased by an ooser! The great ooser cull of the late 19th century may have been inevitable, but it was still brutal...
Gary Alderson
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rosemarie Morgan" <Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu>
To: <HARDY-L@csusm.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Slaughter of animals
Fred - I think TH would have enjoyed every minute of this. Although it's one thing to live, as he did, in a benign environment where there is only one venomous snake, no venomous spiders, no marauding reptiles or bears or
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 7:54:48 PM PDT
This is where we have to repair to the philosophers -- starting perhaps with epiphenominalism. If, say, Hardy's "doomed" characters exert no causal influence upon the world they live in (the inner world of the novel) this is not to say that they leave no mark upon those mental worlds existing beyond their own domain.
Cheers,
Rosemarie
____________________________
a society that is too intolerant and in which these traits are doomed.
In a similar vein, in *The Woodlanders* Giles is the only one (and Marty to a
certain degree) who practices "an intelligent discourse with Nature" - but of
course he doesn't succeed, either.
Martin
===========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Here comes! The Dorset Ooser --
Date: July 6, 2005 6:46:15 PM PDT
cc7649jpg(107KB)
==========
From: fsiedow@omniglobal.net
Subject: Re: Here comes! The Doset Ooser --
Date: July 6, 2005 9:31:55 PM PDT
Well, Rosemarie, now you've done it again!!
I was just about to go ahead and bite, and ask Gary in a civil manner what an Ooser was, when I just clicked on the next message, just in case it was also related to it, when all of a sudden I was ASSAULTED by this huge monster from Dorset!! I, of course, knew I was in for it when I would ask Gary the question, and knew I would certainly be belittled by the answer, but instead, I was BLOWN AWAY by the monster itself! So you saved me from the belittlement, but Gary from the supreme satisfaction of telling me where it was at! --or, at least, what it was. GOOD WORK, friends! flippin' Fred.
===========
From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 6, 2005 11:57:24 PM PDT
That is how I took the rook scene - shortsighted sentimentality, damaging a crop to feed rooks that would find food elsewhere anyway. And of course dereliction, because he was being paid to keep the rooks off the grain. That one ingenious scene pegs Jude immediately as a clueless sentimental slacker for whom things will not go smoothly.
Chuck Anesi
charles.anesi@wellsfargo.com
office 480-575-3478
cell 612-940-3345
fax 480-575-3519
==========
From: jacky@wilkibob.me.uk
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 7, 2005 1:12:34 AM PDT
That one ingenious scene pegs Jude immediately as a clueless sentimental slacker for whom things will not go smoothly.
Chuck you for that, Anesi!
To me Jude is a normal human being with normal human failings, many of them reflecting Hardy's own. How many of us handle our own fates better than Jude? Most of us have great plans which never come to fruition, and how often we are frozen within our own fates, incapable of changing either our present position or our destiny.
Jacky
==========
From: pauline.guerin@ntlworld.com
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 7, 2005 2:29:12 AM PDT
Maybe it's easy to forget as well that Jude's lack of guidance and education in the world (his only source of parental guidance is his stick in the mud old Aunt after all) means that he doesn't know HOW to make things change for himself. He does not know how to pursue the education at Christminster, whereas for us edjikated types, well we'd push and try other routes until we reached our goals?? So he may be clueless, not sure he's a slacker as such.
Pauline
==========
From: fjhp82@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Hardy and horses
Date: July 7, 2005 4:22:01 AM PDT
Speaking of horse incidents, don't forget that poor steed, Prince, in Tess!
I haven't checked my email in a few days, and now all this talk of animals- just what I have been waiting for!
...Fiona
PS- Another g'day from Australia!
-
Dr Fiona Hyde Page
Sutherland Veterinary Clinic
37 East Pde.
Sutherland 2232
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: RE: Significant horses
Date: July 7, 2005 4:52:25 AM PDT
Evidently a Hardy and "horse" project is overdue! What about those tossed by a horse? Fitzpiers is one, and there's some character in one of the short stories (forget which or who) -- then there is the lame horse in FFMC which permits Oak and his consorts to track Bathsheba; confrontations of horse and carriage in the Woodlanders --which leads to Giles losing his tenure -- "Significant Horses" indeed!
Cheers,
Rosemarie
PS Sadly --I feel rather frivolous treating with this thread while the London bombing is being sorted out.
==========
From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com
Subject: RE: Hardy's ecological sensibility (Slaughter of animals)
Date: July 7, 2005 9:23:42 AM PDT
>Maybe it's easy to forget as well that Jude's lack of guidance and education in the
>world (his only source of parental guidance is his stick in the mud old Aunt after all)
> .... So he may be clueless, not sure he's a slacker as such.
Was using "slacker" to mean a person who neglects his duty, as Jude seems often to do. Jude certainly lacks parental guidance, and that can account for some of his early cluelessness. But later? As Paul Niemeyer observed, Jude never seems to seek out wise counsel when he really needs it. He gets some fortuitously - as when Highridge suggests that he become a licentiate - but he doesn't follow through, for his own uninformed sanctimonious reasons ("..it was glaringly inconsistent for him to pursue the idea of becoming the soldier and servant of a religion in which sexual love was regarded as at its best a frailty.."). Does he think all clergymen are eunuchs, or what? To me, he seems not only clueless, but obstinately clueless. Or as Paul said, delusional.
Chuck Anesi
charles.anesi@wellsfargo.com
office 480-575-3478
cell 612-940-3345
fax 480-575-3519
==========
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Hardy & Cats, Pangur Ban, Monasteries, animal suffering
Date: July 11, 2005 5:30:59 AM PDT
Ref the small debate on Jude's culpability-- I came across this in Hardy's *Life and Work* (ed MiIlgate). (Extra-textual authorial comment and biographical material is, necessarily, extrinsic to the text in question.)
Writing to a friend about a proposed dramatization of *Jude the Obscure*... Would not Arabella be the villain of the piece? or Jude's personal constitution? -- so far as there is any villain more than blind Chance. Christminster is of course the tragic influence on Jude's drama in one sense, but innocently so, and merely as crass obstruction (467).
Rosemarie
==========