THE PARANORMAL IN VICTORIAN LITERATURE: THOMAS HARDY

THE WITHERED ARM AND THE RETURN OF THE NATIVE

Here we go again! Having indulged in some extremely enjoyable Chess Games, it is time to return to my blog.

In the next couple of days I shall Post a discussion of Thomas Hardy's novel, 'The Withered Arm, ' to be followed by his, 'The Return of the Native.' The emphasis will be upon THE PARANORMAL elements within the works and to some extent how DARWINISM affected Hardy.

THOMAS HARDY'S COTTAGE WHERE HE WROTE 'THE RETURN OF THE NATIVE'


Until the Post, enjoy Life

Picture credit Wikipedia Commons

VII THE HUMAN MIND: ARCHETYPES IN FAIRY TALES: JACK AND THE BEANSTALK

COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE: THE MUTATION OF THE SHADOW

In the last Post I presented some ideas concerning the Social Background of the Fairy Tale; I cast some doubt upon the general assumption regarding the height of the Giant; finally, I mentioned the codes of Angl-Saxon justice

In th  

Now it is time to explore the various ARCHETYPES in the Fairy Tale. I shall spend some considerable time examining the maneuverings of the SHADOW and CRUCIALLY WHAT HAPPENS IN THE STORY WHEN THE SHADOW TRANSMUTES.

Right, off we go. Let us begin with the ARCHETYPE OF THE MOTHER. Right at the outset I must state that I am NOT RIGIDLY interpreting the ARCHETYPES. As you will see I am deliberately FLEXIBLE in their interpretation. I take this position because, I think such an approach allows a deeper insight into the story and shows how people change under various circumstances and pressures.

We have established previously that the MOTHER ARCHETYPE relates to Nurturing, Caring, Training, Providing for and Protecting the young. So the ideal MOTHER ARCHETYPE would have these attributes in perfect balance. She would teach and train her offspring with Love and Kindness, yet where discipline is required it would be administered fairly and properly. In short, her offspring would know the role of the Mother. But is this the ARCHETYPAL pattern we see in Jack’s Mother?


CERES THE ROMAN GODDESS: THE PERFECT MOTHER ARCHETYPE


It seems that this is not the case. Her offspring, young Jack, is described as her “only child … whom she INDULGED to a fault”.  The origin of the word, ‘indulged’ throws some light on Jack’s Mother. In the early 17^th century the word took on the meaning of  treating one with EXCESSIVE kindness. It comes from the Latin word, “indulgere”, which has the sense of ‘giving free rein” to something. So, although Jack’s Mother had PROTECTED his life when she fled with him from the Giant, and had tried to bring him up, NURTURING him, as best she could, even attempting to sell her cow to keep them alive.

Incidentally, the COW is also AN ARCHETYPE.  The cow is at the point of sale,  their only means of sustenance. Notice the cow goes to the Butcher, so like the classic Scapegoat its life is going to be taken so that the family can live on. The COW  is a very important ARCHETYPE throughout the world, both ancient and modern. For example in Ancient Egypt the Goddess Nut is associated with the cow. Hathor, also was worshipped by the Egyptians as a cow-deity. In this role she was considered the great nurturer and sustainer of everything. As a nourisher the Cow appears in Norse mythology, in Vedic literature, and to this day considered to be India’s most sacred animal. It well depicts this role in our story. Just a word on the Butcher, before reverting to Jack and the Mother. The Butcher well personifies the TRICKSTER. Look how he sets out deliberately to cheat Jack


JACK SETS OFF TO MARKET WITH THE COW

“The Butcher held some curious beans in his hat; they were of various colours and ATTRACTED JACK’S NOTICE. This did not pass unnoticed by the Butcher; who knowing Jack’s temperament thought it was now time TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, and determined not to let slip so good an OPPORTUNITY….. the SILLY BOY” deceived by the sly Butcher “the cow was exchanged for a few paltry beans.”

Going back to Jack’s Mother, once he had grown past childhood, she ABDICATED her role. Her role as the ARCHETYPAL MOTHER was subordinated to something else. The SHADOW surfaced in her personality. The end result was that Jack, ‘did not pay the least attention to anything she said, but was indolent, careless, and extravagant.’

Let me isolate one or two of the elements attributable to the SHADOW, which had surfaced within her personality. If you need to, look back at the Previous Posts to see my interpretation of this ARCHETYPE. Jack’s Mother  became a WORRIER, often coming to tears, because of Jack’s idleness and their increasing poverty. She becomes afflicted with RAGES, one example is her throwing the Beans out of the window in anger, ‘she kicked the beans away in a passion,’ and then retreating to bed without any supper. But that is not all. She becomes ILL through the anxiety vibrations generated by the SHADOW. This occurred after Jack’s disappearance up the Beanstalk for the second time. When he returns with the bags of gold his Mother recovers. But what happens to the MOTHER ARCHETYPE? Does it reappear? I shall return to that point after I have discussed the ARCHETYPAL elements within Jack.

When the story opens Jack seems to be dominated by the vibrations of the SHADOW. Any normal, appreciative son would do what he could to ease the burden on his Mother. But as I have pointed out he takes the opposite attitude, being completely disobedient, ‘indolent and extravagent’.

Jack becomes the HERO ARCHETYPE in spite of himself: it is thrust upon him. We learn later that the wizened old woman, the Fairy influenced the whole drama, without Jack’s being aware of it. She  is obviously a HELPER ARCHETYPE and she tells Jack when they meet on the road to the Giant’s house:

The day on which you met the Butcher as you went to sell your Mother’s cow, my power was restored. It was I who secretly prompted you to take the beans in exchange for the cow. By my power the Beanstalk grew to so great a height and formed a ladder. I need not add that I inspired you with a strong desire to ascend the ladder.

How she did this is not explained. One wonders HOW the INSPIRATION was achieved:  because the fairy is an ARCHETYPE, and so is Jack, is she operating WITHIN his psyche? If so, how did she maneuvre the Butcher into position and cause the Beanstalk to grow? I am sure you will be able to work this one out.


JACK DESCENDING THE BEANSTALK PURSUED BY THE GIANT A ROMANTIC VIEW


There is no doubt that Jack subordinates THE SHADOW and takes on the role of the HERO ARCHETYPE. This is abundantly clear when we see how he braves the threat of death when entering the Giant’s lair; we see this manifested when he creeps out of hiding on more than one occasion and seizes, the hen, the bags of gold, and the harp. It surely took enormous courage to snatch these objects from under the Monster’s nose and then flee out of the Giant’s lair, run down the Beanstalk, hurriedly chop it down whilst the Giant is in hot pursuit and watch the ogre plunge to his death.

There is no doubt about it Jack successfully TRANSMUTES THE SHADOW. When?

We first notice the glimmer of a change when he intends for the first time to ascend the Beanstalk to ‘seek his fortune’. The MUTATION deepens when, after climbing the Beanstalk he sits down exhausted on a stone and he then thinks of his Mother ‘and reflected with sorrow on his disobedience in climbing the beanstalk.’ Yes, Jack is beginning to change the SHADOW is being transmuted. He is FACING IT, not rationalizing it away.

But he will go deeper yet and produce profound effects within the story.  Once Jack meets the Fairy on the road and she recounts the misfortune the Giant brought upon Jack and his Mother, once she tells him of the courage his Mother displayed in pleading for his life and eventually hiding him safely away, once Jack learns all of this the TRANSMUTATION is almost complete. We see how he braves danger after danger and in EVERY instance gives to his mother the proceeds of his dangerous undertakings. His EXTRAVAGANCE has gone.

Look at his statement of REPENTENCE and the evidence that the SHADOW within has been TRANSMUTED. He gives his Mother the hen and then says:

I have brought home that which will quickly make YOU rich without any trouble: I hope I have made you some amends for the affliction I have caused you through my idleness, extravagence, and folly.

Once Jack had TRANSMUTED THE SHADOW within himself it had several effects. First, he and his Mother became very rich, and after he had successfully killed the Giant, and promised ‘to be dutifully obedient to her in the future’, his Mother’ whole personality changes; so does hers. She TRANSMUTES THE SHADOW and he and his mother ‘lived together a great many years and continued to be very happy.’

This would seem like the end of the discussion, but not so. There are one or two other elements that need to be explored in relation to the SHADOW.

Let us go back into the Giant’s domain. I want to suggest that the Giant is – if not specifically – the SHADOW of Jack’s father. This is not to say that he is part of the father’s psyche, rather he is the DARKNESS corresponding to the light of Jack’s father. As we shall see the entire psyche of the Giant corresponds to the SHADOW.

But before I develop this further. I would like to comment – NOT dogmatically – that the tumbledown Cottage that Jack and his Mother lived in BEFORE Jack and she TRANSMUTED the SHADOW within their natures, may well be the SHADOW aspect of either their former home, or at a stretch, the Giant’s house with its ‘large hall magnificently furnished’  and several other “spacious rooms all in the same style of grandeur”. Now, we need to go back to the Giant.






INSIDE A PALATIAL HOUSE OF THE PERIOD BY CONTRAST WITH THE RUN-DOWN STATE OF JACK'S COTTAGE.


As far as the Giant is concerned there is not a single redeeming feature. He is totally manipulated by the vibrations of the SHADOW within his psyche. What is of interest is that once Jack faces up to the Giant it is as if he is FACING THE SHADOW. As a result the MUTATION of the SHADOW within his own nature takes place.

Now, what makes us believe that the Giant was all SHADOW. Let us look at the catalogue of his behaviour.

When Jack, after climbing the Beanstalk, he is told by the Fairy that the Giant was,

As wicked as your father was good; he was in his heart envious, covetous and cruel; but he had the art of concealing these vices …. and wished to enrich himself at any rate.

He was also a liar, and a calculating murderer, deceiving Jack’s father into taking him in and then plotting to kill his benefactor. This he does along with the Porter and the Nurse. Even though he allows Jack and his mother to slip away, but later the Giant ‘repented that he had suffered her to escape.’ He then proceeds to burn down the familiy’s ancestral property.

He is also a cannibal, having a dungeon within his house to keep the prisoners whom he will later eat. He even treats his wife in a despicable manner: not only does he have her running around, waiting on him hand and  foot, he also ‘frequently lifted up his hand to strike his wife for not being quick enough’. Truly, he was a ‘very ill-tempered and impatient’ individual. For good measure he ‘was continually upbraiding her with the loss of the hen’ which Jack had stolen.

THE GIANT DEMANDING HIS DINNER


Much more could be said about this PERSONIFICATION OF THE SHADOW but the narrative sums it up perfectly: Jack intends to steal the Harp because, ‘the Giant’s SOUL was not ATTUNED to harmony.’ He had to die.

When the Giant is killed, the SHADOW vibrations have ceased in the Fairy Tale. When this has occurred both Jack and his Mother become perfectly attuned: the SHADOW has been TRANSMUTED. It is of interest that once this TRANSMUTATION has taken place the Fairy appears both to Jack and his Mother. He Fairy explains the drama behind the Beanstalk and once this explanation had been given, ‘Jack was now fully cleared in the opinion of his Mother.’

So in these two Posts I have tried to show that there are many levels on which Fairy Tales such as this one can be understood. They have endured for centuries and been found all over the world because of one simple fact: they are replete with ARCHETYPES, and these ARCHETYPES are part of our own Nature. Consequently, when we are reading Fairy Tales, we are in some ways looking at ourselves.

I hope you have enjoyed this Post even though much more could have been said. If the discussion has served as a stimulus in some way, then the purpose has been fulfilled.

In the next Post I shall return to ‘The Paranormal in Victorian Literature’ and examine Thomas Hardy’s ‘The Withered Arm’ and ‘The Return of the Native.’

Any Comments

Picture Credits Wikipedia Commons

Source : “The History of Jack and the Beanstalk’, Tabart, London 1807

VI. THE HUMAN MIND: ARCHETYPES IN FAIRY TALES: JACK AND THE BEANSTALK

SURPRISE, SURPRISE, YOU ARE NOT MUCH BIGGER THAN ME!

The Story of ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ concerns a widow and her son, Jack. The two of them are sinking into poverty and as a last resort the Mother instructs Jack to sell the family cow. On the way to the market Jack meets the Butcher who tricks him into selling the animal for a few beans. Jack’s Mother is furious at this and in desperation hurls the beans through the window and they go to bed hungry. However, the beans are magical and grow into a stalk that reaches the sky. Jack climbs it, discovers an unfamiliar land, and steals a giant's treasure. To retrieve his treasure the giant pursues Jack. But as the Giant descends the beanstalk, Jack succeeds in chopping it down. As a result the Giant  is killed in the fall. We learn that the treasure once belonged to Jack’s father who the Giant killed years before. With the death of the Giant, Jack and his mother live happily ever after, having become  exceedingly rich.

There are many variations of this tale, some allegedly were either transmitted orally or written down.The version I am using was written by Benjamin Tabart in 1807. He claims to have copied it from earlier manuscripts. For our purposes Tabart’s sources do not matter.

A TYPICAL MEDIEVAL COTTAGE

The setting of the story is ‘in the days of King Alfred’ around 871-899 AD. The place is ‘a cottage …. In a remote country village many miles from London.’ To get the flavour of this tale and then probe its Archetypal content it would be fitting to describe the SOCIAL CONDITIONS existing in the days of Alfred the Great (831-899 AD) and then compare these conditions with the descriptions given in our story. We need to ask, does Tabart capture the social conditions of King Alfred’s time or does his tale better reflect 19^th Century assumptions.

INSIDE SUCH A COTTAGE IN THE DAYS OF KING ALFRED

Once I have looked at the Social Conditions,  I am going to explore what is meant by a ‘Giant’. I and many others heard this Fairy Tale when we were young and a definite concept of THE GIANT was conjured up.  We were led to believe that the size of the Giant in this story is somehow equivalent to the height of Gulliver when he visits Lilliput.

Whether this assumption is true or not, I leave you to judge from the evidence presented.

Finally, I shall move to my main topic THE ARCHETYPES in the Fairy Tale. After dealing with one or two lesser ARCHETYPES I shall concentrate most of the discussion around the SHADOW, its various MANIFESTATIONS, and then what happens when the SHADOW is TRANSMUTED.

Let us lead off with the social conditions in the 9^th Century AD.

There is an ANACHRONISM when the tale mentions the Giant counting his GUINEAS. There was no such unit of coinage in the days of King Alfred nor was any minted after 1817. From a historical point of view the Guinea originated from a British gold coin that was first minted in 1663. This coin  was minted from gold imported from West Africa. The value was LATER fixed at 21 shillings – known as a guinea. Because it was replaced by the Sovereign in 1817, this suggests that Tabart’s tale, irrespective of whether or not he claimed an earlier manuscript – is fixed around 1807.

Let us look at the social condition of Jack and his Mother that is described in the Tale. We see they live in ‘a cottage’,  located in ‘a remote country village, a great many miles from London’. Jack apparently does not work, for he is described as ‘indolent, careless, and extravagant.’ They were also poor because, ‘scarcely anything remained but a cow’. Even her garden does not grow sufficient food for they have to buy what they need. For good measure, his mother is also described as a widow. Apparently, the cottage is in a fairly dilapidated condition, for when they seize the Giant’s treasure the house ‘is repaired and WELL FURNISHED.’

Evidently, they are at the bottom end of the social structure. With the above facts in mind, we need to see how Society was organized in King Alfred’s day.


The deeper we probe the narrative the more obvious it is that it does not capture the Days of King Alfred. It is unlikely that people at the social level of Jack and his Mother, without any true means of substance would have been in position to own their own cottage.  From the stand point of Alfred’s time there would be no such thing as ‘well furnished’. A 19^th century reader would hardly call rude cottages with dirt floors and walls that were likely to be woven reeds chinked with mud (wattle and daub) or small stones, chinked with mud, WELL FURNISHED. The roofs of such cottages were generally thatched reeds. As for keeping warm in winter,  they only had fires, built on the dirt floors. These were  in the middle of the room. Tabart is influenced by his own time and unwittingly slips his situation into the story.

KING ALFRED HIMSELF IN ONE OF THE BETTER COTTAGES

Let us go a little deeper. At that time people in their class would either be serfs or freemen. The Serfs would render so many days of Labour to the Lord of the Manor. On the other hand, Freemen, who were also known as Free-tenants. These were essentially, RENT PAYING Tenant Farmers who owed little or no service to the lord. But in Alfred’s days such Freemen were not so Common, for in the 11^th century it has been estimated that such people composed only about 10 per cent of the population. So, Jack, and his mother would fall into one of the two classes. What we see, however, is that Jack seems to have plenty of free time, performs no labour service, yet at the same time no reference is made to paying any rent. The assumption seems to be that they owned their own cottage – hardly likely and were thus free of any obligations. I suggest that once more Tabart is weaving 19^th century social conditions into the narrative.

If this was truly Anglo-Saxon England then  it would NOT have been the case that Jack’s Mother BOUGHT the food and just drank the cow’s milk. The Anglo-Saxon  villagers grew their own crops, and kept animals. But a cow and a garden that produced nothing was out of the question: the villagers WORKED HARD because they had to provide all their food for themselves. How was it done? Each family  grew their own corn; they grew fruit and vegetables and took their corn to the local mill for grinding into flour. Enough has been said. Jack could not possibly have idled his time away, or they would long since have starved.

Also depending on the sort of village to which they belonged, they would be expected to contribute along with the rest of the village in paying RENT to the LORD ‘in kind’, that is, with goods instead of with money. 

PEASANTS PAYING RENT IN 'KIND' TO THE LORD OF THEIR VILLAGE

This would be part of the produce which they grew or some of the animals, geese, hens and other animals. They might even have to contribute cheese and butter. Thus it is seen that Tabart is squeezing the conditions of his own time into those of Jack and his Mother, alleged to be living in the days of King Alfred. 

I must make one final point before moving on. This concerns THE LAW and notions of SOCIAL JUSTICE in the days of King Alfred. As the story progresses we learn that the GIANT had killed Jack’s father, stolen his money and burned down his house. The giant WOULD NEVER HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT. Tabart misses the mark completely regarding SOCIAL JUSTICE.

THE KING PUNISHING THE WRONGDOER 

There were two key principles in Anglo-Saxon Law. First that a man’s loyalty to his Lord was of greatest importance. A man was expected to obey his lord un-conditionally. In return for this obedience his lord protected his men. If one was murdered, the dead man's family would appeal to the lord to punish the murderer The Lord would see to it that this was done. The second principle was that a man's family and relations would support him in any circumstances. If something had been stolen from him, he would get his family together to punish the thief.

Therefore, had this been truly set in Anglo-Saxon England, the widow would long since have been avenged, her fortune restored, and the Giant punished.

Of course, after all, it is only a story; even so, I hope it is of interest to open it out on several levels.

With that in mind, let us explore the PHYSICAL details concerning the GIANT.

There is something rather strange about the Giant. As I remarked earlier, I, and many others, were brought up with this story and led to believe that the Giant was of enormous size, even taller than a normal house. However, a closer examination of this story seems to undermine such a notion.

A POPULAR VIEW OF THE SIZE OF THE GIANT. THIS IS QUESTIONABLE

We notice there is no mention of his SIZE by anyone in the story except a passing reference to it by his wife.   Even so, she simply says, “for it was well known that HER HUSBAND was a LARGE AND POWERFUL GIANT”, But she does not define HOW LARGE. We shall see when we come to look at her, that this so called “Giant’ was perhaps only a little over six feet tall perhaps. I must emphasise that by comprison with him ordinary people were NOT the size of Tom Thumb. There are several reasons for this:

1. No one refers to his extraordinary height except his wife, later on in the tale

2. The Giant  is ‘given .. apartments’ in Jack’s father’s house. No reference is made to any alterations in either the physical structure of the rooms nor in the furniture to befit his size. One assumes from this that he was perhaps a little more than average height.

3. When Jack is in hiding and watching the Giant. The Giant places a hen in front of him. This hen, at once  lays Golden Eggs. These eggs are taken as normal size. Jack steals the animal and takes it home. The Giant did not need a magnifying glass to see either the hen or the eggs. If the man was of gargantuan height the hen would be the size of a mouse and the  eggs would be the size of  peas.

.

4. When the ‘Giant’ enveigles his way into the favour of Jack’s father and is taken by him into the library, Jack’s father handed him ‘a favourite book’, once more of normal size.

5. The Giant eventually stabs Jack’s father to death and later kills the Porter and the Nurse. Not, we might add, by picking them up and squeezing them, but presumably the same way that he had killed Jack’s father, by stabbing him. But his REACTION gives away his physical height. After the killing of these individuals Jack and his mother are allowed to escape. Now, notice the FEARFUL reaction of the Giant, “He had his own SAFETY to provide for, as it was necessary he should be gone before the servants returned.” Clearly there is not an enormous difference in scale; the servants are not like miniature people, or ants by comparison. Evidently, the Giant believes they could OVERPOWER him.

6. Because of these apparent anomalies, it might be better to consider the specific meaning the word, Giant’ took on in the 1530s. Apparently from that date the word  ‘Giant’ took on the meaning of those individuals who ‘have ANY quality in extraordinary degree. Well this unnamed ‘giant’ certainly did have distinctive attributes, cruelty, murder, thievery. Maybe he also had a physical build that was somewhat larger than normal. But this, as I said, is not commented on, whereas his other ‘GIANT’ attributes are dealt with at length.

7. In line with the above, the story uses a synonym for Giant when it says “At last THE MONSTER seated himself by the fireside while his wife prepared supper”

8. We can also arrive at the conclusion I have just outlined by bringing the Giant’s Wife into the discussion.  When she first meets Jack, she recognizes that he is ‘a Human Being’ but makes NO COMMENT about Jack’s size. So, it seems to me that she was approximately the same height as Jack. Even when she takes Jack through various rooms, no comment is made about the furniture. In fact “for it was well known that HER HUSBAND was a LARGE AND POWERFUL GIANT”, the assumption being that she was not in any way out of the ordinary. But not so small that she would not be able to serve him food, or look after him in the way she does.

Furthermore, recent studies have shown that the average height in Medieval England, in the area of London where our tale is set, was 5 feet 7 and a half inches for men; for women it was 5 feet 3 inches. Therefore anyone well over six feet in height could easily be considered a Giant without too much alteration needed in furniture or apartment facilities. Obviously if our ‘Giant’ was also of a heavy build it would add to the impression. Perhaps he was about six feet six inches tall – about 1.98 meters.

I think that I enough for now. In the next Post I shall explore the Archetypes as they Manifest themselves in the Story. THE SHADOW will be of particular interest.

I hope I did not take away too much romance from the Tale – anyway, I shall not have nightmares any more.

Any Comments

Picture Credits Wikimedia Commons

SOURCE: “The History of Jack and the Beanstalk’, Tabart, London 1807