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

VIII. THE PARANORMAL IN VICTORIAN LITERATURE: GEORGE ELIOT, "THE LIFTED VEIL"

THE DANGERS INVOLVED IN LIFTING THE VEIL

In the previous Post I showed George Eliot’s familiarity with, and sometimes her attempted practice of Paranormal experiments. In addition I indicated that she wrote ‘The Lifted Veil’ as a WARNING concerning the dangers of such practices.

We pick up now at the point where the VEIL on Latimer’s Mind begins to lift in a new and more horrific fashion. He speaks of a new’phase in my abnormal sensibility’ that has ‘not been alive before.’ He begins to receive the intrusion into his mind ‘of the mental processes … in first one person and then another.’ So, he begins to receive UNWANTED, frivolous thoughts of casual acquaintances. But what was the result?

The result was these thoughts were so trivial, so shallow and as irritating as ‘ an ill-played musical instrument, or the loud activity of an  imprisoned insect.’ This crowding out of his own thoughts and the TELEPATHIC insight into others was such that he was exhausted. In fact, when the activity ceased now and again, he ‘felt a relief such as silence brings to wearied nerves.’ (I)

But the TELEPATHIC intrusion becomes even worse. He begins to read the Minds of his own family. This ultimately alienates him from them. He discovers that their words and deeds are based on TRIVIAL THOUGHTS , meanness, egoism; it even seems that his own brother is nothing more than a conceited self-seeking person. The end result is such that Latimer concludes that his brother’s kindness good humour, and friendliness is nothing more than a wily trick. This leads to his hating his brother.

 

A VICTORIAN MIND READER

Now, what is George Eliot trying to tell us?

George Eliot is trying to say that LIFTING THE VEIL is completely destructive. It is necessary for the thoughts and motives of others to be blanked off from us. If this were not so, life would be intolerable: humans are not perfect and allowance should be made for their weaknesses.

When we turn to Bertha Grant, the woman who will fatally ruin Latimer, George Eliot presents the reader with a strange paradox.

BERTHA  GRANT, WHO WILL EVENTUALLY RUIN  LATIMER 

The paradox is this. Latimer receives no warning PREMONITIONS or TELEPATHIC insights into the woman’s true character, not until he marries her. At that point his doom is sealed. He had previous to his marriage, developed a passion for her simply because ‘Bertha was the only being’ whose Mind he could not penetrate. He speaks of himself as ‘completely under her sway’, as if he were a MESMERISED subject. This hints at the power of the woman’s eyes being fixed upon him, referred to earlier. The only WARNING he had received was the painful sensation mentioned previously. I feel sure, that had Latimer been able to access her Mind at that time an alienation would have occurred between them.

Nevertheless, Latimer seemed to receive an OMEN, followed by a VISION, which directly bore on the personality of Bertha and his future involvement with her.

 

LUCREZIA BORGIA THE PICTURE DELIVERS A WARNING TO LATIMER

The OMEN and the VISION occur to Latimer when Bertha Grant becomes engaged to his brother. At this time Latimer is in the Lichtenberg Palace gazing at a picture of the infamous Lucrezia Borgia, who had disposed of her husbands once they had served their purpose – this picture is in itself an omen. Shortly after this the VISION arises. We need to take it apart piece by piece:

I seemed to be suddenly in darkness, out of which there gradually broke a dim fire-light, and I felt myself sitting in my father’s leather chair in the library at home.

So,  Latimer, is still within the Lichtenberg Palace and is MESMERICALLY whisked away back home. Notice his FEELINGS whilst experiencing the VISION. He say, ‘Intense and hopeless misery was pressing on my soul.’ What happens next in the VISION is highly significant:

The light became stronger, for Bertha was entering with a candle in her hand – Bertha, MY WIFE – with cruel eyes, with green jewels, and green leaves on her white ball dress.

Look at what happens next – but remember it is only a VISION, not physical reality, not something, which Latimer might take as absolute:

Every hateful THOUGHT within her present to me …. “Madman, Idiot! Why don’t you kill yourself, then? It was a moment of hell. I saw into her pitiless soul – saw its barren worldliness, its scorching hate. (I)

This vision has a number of implications: Latimer is to be married to Bertha despite her being engaged to his brother. But, how is this to be? Quite simply, his brother’s death removes this obstacle. The above vision, in revealing Bertha’s true nature, should have deterred Latimer from marrying her. But fate seemed to have inevitably decreed

otherwise.  This idea of FATE is worth pursuing, unfortunately, not here. How then do things work out? Three elements now come to the fore: first his brother dies and Latimer and Bertha marry; second, once they marry Latimer gains TELEPATHIC access to Bertha’s Mind for the first time; finally, the vision had shown the abject misery into which he would be plunged once Latimer married Bertha. This misery is confirmed by what he sees once the VEIL is lifted from Bertha’s Mind.

He sees pettiness, craftiness, the complete absence of something positive or good. He saw a vain, ‘scheming selfishness’, saw someone who had a deep hatred for him and deliberately delivered emotional pain for its own gratification.

The sad part is, that despite the agony of his life, Latimer seems to be in the grip of a MESMERIC SPELL.  He cannot break out:

I was  too completely swayed by the sense that I was in the grip of unknown FORCES…Towards my own destiny I had become entirely passive (II)

In fulfillment of the OMEN incorporated in the picture of Lucrezia Borgia, Bertha sets out to kill Latimer. Her Maid, a party to the conspiracy dies without divulging any information, but Latimer’s old friend Meunier, a highly qualified doctor resuscitates her.  The Maid then reveals the plan to kill Latimer.

 

BERTHA AND THE MAID CONSPIRE TO KILL LATIMER

The incident when the physician resuscitates Bertha is important for a number of reasons. First, the physician had lifted the veil, which cuts off communication between the living and the dead. Thus, it accords with the belief of the SPIRITUALISTS that such a veil could be drawn aside and that the dead could communicate via a MEDIUM. Secondly, this is a attempt to remove the Veil totally and restore the person in the flesh, not just in the spirit. So, it is as if Latimer receives the fateful message, in a sense, FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE.

In the final stages of the Novel George Eliot delivers the strongest possible warning through the experiences of Latimer. He receives visions … of strange cities’ and of isolated places.’

 

STRANGE CITIES AND ISOLATED PLACES WITH A MORBID PRESENCE

During these new visions ‘one presence seemed to weigh’ on Latimer, ‘the presence of something unknown and pitiless’. His experiences are soon to result in ‘continual suffering’ along with the annihilation of any religious faith he has. His is to be replaced by ‘a worship of devils.’ (II)

I must interrupt the narrative for the moment and comment on the strange paradox of George Eliot herself. For example, considering the last paragraph, we notice the authoress’ condemnatory tone in connection with Latimer’s visions. In what sense? According to her apparent outlook the Paranormal experiences had led Latimer to do two things – both deplorable in the authoress’ eyes. They were:

1. His visions had annihilated his Religious Faith

2. The Annihilation of his Religious Faith resulted in the ‘worship of devils’.

So, turning this on its head the authoress suggests that Paranormal Experiences should be avoided because she feels that Religious Faith is Healthy and that Religious Faith will protect one from the ‘worship of Devils’.

Now here is the paradox relating to the authoress herself. Not only had she translated two books, which cast doubt on Christianity,: Strauss’ ‘Life of Jesus’ and Feuerbach’s , ‘Essence of Christianity’, she was also a friend of Charles Darwin and the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Both of whom rejected traditional religious beliefs. It is well known that she rejected Christianity. Why then would she seem to suggest that the destruction of one’s Religious Beliefs place one in a dangerous position. Was she in a dangerous position herself? It makes one ponder where George Eliot really stood. She could simply have shown that under the pressure of Paranormal Experiences Latimer went mad. Why one wonders did she introduce religion at all in this context.

Anyway, back to the novel. Concurrent with this vision Latimer’s relationship with his associates becomes ‘more and more deadened.’ (II). If we accept that this series of visions portrays George Eliot’s own position, ignoring the enigma in the previous paragraph, we conclude that Latimer’s personality disintegrates; that George Eliot seems to have a revulsion for Paranormal Practices which make such VISIONARY INSIGHTS possible.

 

ISOLATED AND DISINTEGRATING

In fulfillment of the vision Latimer separates from Bertha, wanders in a number of foreign countries isolated from all human contact, and continually experiences the horror of the ‘Unknown Presence’ within (II)

Eventually, the torment of living in a Universe bereft of any Religious Consolation is too great a burden for him, so Latimer returns home completely broken. At this point he receives a PREVISION of his own death. This is both the conclusion of the story and its opening narration.

Why then have I discussed ‘The Lifted Veil’

I have done so for a number of reasons. This novel describes in some detail the different activities of those engaged in the Paranormal: Latimer’s somnambulistic CLAIRVOYANCE was an echo of the abilities claimed by various individuals I referred to in earlier Posts; the description of Latimer ‘in the grip of unknown forces’ resembles the condition that the MESMERISER introduced in his subject; TELEPATHY was also a capability claimed for a person in a MESMERISED state as I have previously discussed at length.

The second reason for discussing this novel is too show George Eliot’s apparent revulsion for practices such as these. Many of the Victorians whom I have discussed at length believed that a new era for Human Society would open up if PHRENOLOGY was employed to discover a person’ potential and then harness it. The same improvement in Society, they believed, would be possible if the powers of the Human Mind could be unleashed by lifting the VEIL on the future, or by TELEPATHY.

In this novel it seems that George Eliot took the opposite view. He explores the consequences of lifting the Veil on normal everyday experiences and examines the implications of EXTENDING the operation of HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS in this direction. Instead of producing happiness it produced abject misery. The horrors of Latimer’ situation increase in proportion to the strength and frequency of his Paranormal Abilities.

I suggest, therefore, that ‘The Lifted Veil’ is George Eliot’s declaration of her abhorrence of following the Victorian practice of dabbling with the Paranormal. In this novel her view seems to be that in order to be reasonably happy,  Humans must live within the bounds of  LIMITED knowledge. TELEPATHIC insight would result in the alienation of individuals from each other; Society would fragment because man’s baser instincts would be laid bare. In order for Social Groups to cohere these Animalistic Drives need to be veiled or masked.

I am sure there is room for a discussion about the SHADOW here.

Well, there we are.

I am going to deal with the ARCHETYPES in Jack and the Beanstalk next. After, which I shall return to the Paranormal in Victorian Literature with a discussion of two novels by Thomas Hardy, “The Withered Arm” and “The return of the Native”

Anyway, we’ll climb the Beanstalk next.

I hope the Post has been of interest.

Any Comments?

Picture Sources Wikimedia Commons

VII THE PARANORMAL IN VICTORIAN LITERATURE: GEORGE ELIOT 'THE LIFTED VEIL'

THE DANGERS INVOLVED IN LIFTING THE VEIL

In my earlier Posts my aim was to show that the practices associated with the Paranormal were attempts to explore the limits of Human Consciousness by lifting a number of Veils shrouding the Human Personality.

In this Post I shall examine how George Eliot explores the subject of revealing the potential of the Human Personality and the Human Mind in one of her lesser known stories, “The Lifted Veil” (1859). She does so in order to deliver A WARNING.

 

GEORGE ELIOT IN 1860. WHEN SHE WAS 41 YEARS OLD

George Eliot was well acquainted with each aspect of the Paranormal that I have discussed previously. She refers to PHRENOLOGY many times in her letters written between 1838 – 1840, to her friends Maria Lewis and Martha Jackson. More than that she became deeply involved in PHRENOLOGY especially after meeting the Coventry Ribbon Manufacturer, Charles Bray in 1841. She became a personal friend of Edmund Gurney (a member of the SPR) and of of George Combe (the disciple of Spurzheim), and no doubt under Combe’s influence began making PHRENOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS of others, including Charles Dickens. She was rather disappointed at detecting nothing remarkable about this famous author.

 

CHARLES DICKENS IN 1867/8. GEORGE ELIOT NOTICED NOTHING REMARKABLE ABOUT HIM  PHRENOLOGICALLY ,

As for MESMERISM, she was well acquainted with this also. In 1844 she was herself MESMERISED at a Dinner Party. In addition she became involved in SPIRITUALISM, as her letters between 1840 and 1870 reveal. However, she was at times intensely hostile to this Paranormal practice. In fact she refused to sit in the same room as D.D. Home. But here is the paradox. Despite her aversion to Spiritualism, she thought it worthy of investigation.

In 1873 we notice a shift in George Eliot’s attitude once she met Edmund Gurney. It is highly likely that George Eliot based the character of Daniel Deronda, to some extent, on Gurney. Finally, she admitted to George Cross that her best writing occurred when something seemed to be TAKING POSSESSION of her. When this took place she felt like a mere INSTRUMENT through whom some sort of SPIRIT was operating. But students of George Eliot  detect A CERTAIN UNEASE concerning the Paranormal. The Novel, which we shall examine, makes that UNEASE apparent.

“The Lifted Veil” (1859) is a clear indication of that concern, and the background to the story reveals the fascination yet repulsion for the Paranormal on the author’s part. Although the story was written in 1859 it was only in 1873 that she allowed it to be included amongst her complete works. It appears that during this fourteen-year period her mind wavered as to its suitability.

OK let me outline the Story then you will not get lost. Don’t forget, though, there is no substitute for reading the Novel itself.

The story is narrated in the first person by a man named Latimer. He is  gifted or cursed with the Paranormal ability to discern the future and read the thoughts of other people. Unfortunately, Latimer recoils from what he sees about the motivations of others. It must be said that none of his predictions work out exactly as he foresaw them.  As the novel progresses, Latimer becomes entranced by his brother’s fiancée, Bertha, a cold- hearted flirtatious woman. She fascinates him because hers is the only mind he cannot read. When his brother dies Latimer marries Bertha. But the marriage disintegrates  as Bertha’s manipulative and untrustworthy nature become apparent. In true Gothic style. Bertha’s maid dies and a blood transfusion is administered to save her. The maid comes back to life briefly and accuses Bertha of a plot to poison Latimer. When this is revealed Bertha flees and Latimer eventually dies as he had foretold at the start of the novel.

 

THIS PICTURE CAPTURES THE ALOOF NATURE OF BERTHA TOWARDS LATIMER. NOTICE THE EYES, THE MOUTH, AND THE STANCE

The opening paragraph of the story reveals George Eliot’s aversion to the Paranormal. Latimer foresees the time and manner of his own death:

“Just a month from this day … I shall be sitting in this chair, in this study …longing to die, weary of incessant INSIGHT and FORESIGHT … without hope “ (Ch. 1)

Latimer is completely broken in spirit. There is nothing positive in his statement at all. Everything is wearisome. Notice how he focuses on ‘INSIGHT’ and on ‘FORESIGHT’ as twin CURSES. The story goes on to show, that as the VEILS lift one by one from his Mind, Latimer eventually reaches this desperate state. One after the other George Eliot brings out certain Paranormal techniques or abilities and points out the dire consequences – AS SHE SEES IT.

A PHRENOLOGIST soon comes on the scene

 

GEORGE COMBE THE PHRENOLOGIST TYPICAL OF THE ONE LATIMER’S FATHER ENGAGED TO DIAGNOSE HIS SON

  

Latimer tells us that in his early youth his father engaged Mr Letherall, a PHRENOLOGIST, to advise him on Latimer’s future career. Look how Mr Letherall proceeds. He takes Latimer’s ‘small head between his large hands and pressed it here and there in an exploratory, suspicious manner’  Following this he places ‘each of his great thumbs on my temples’ and studies the CONTOURS of  Latimer’s head.

After this examination Letherall launches into his interpretation and tells Latimer’s father what course of study the boy must undertake. The PHRENOLOGIST says, “the DEFICIENCY is there sir – there and here. Pointing to the alleged PHRENOLOGICAL CONTOURS he says, “here is the excess. That must be brought out, sir and this must be laid to sleep.’ Following this diagnosis his father engaged a range of private tutors because, ‘Natural History, Science, and the Modern Languages’ were the instruments for REORGANISING Latimer, mentally.

 

 AN EXAMPLE OF VICTORIAN HOME SCHOOLING SIMILAR TO THAT ADVOCATED FOR LATIMER

As we read on we discover that this study programme is irksome to this sensitive, artistic boy. Because this regime initiates Latimer’s mental trouble, George Eliot ATTACKS IT at once. This episode unquestionably reflects the VICTORIAN ASSUMPTIONS that one’s potential is determined at birth and by using the so called Scientific Method – in this case PHRENOLOGY – the Veil which shrouded one’s full potential could be lifted.

There are other points that must also be made. The implication is that these latent abilities could be MODIFIED: some could be ENHANCED and others SUPPRESSED exactly as Combe believed. Also the stress on particular features of Latimer’s training programme line up with Victorian PHRENOLOGICAL views on education.

 

GENEVA AT THE TIME OF LATIMER’S ILLNESS

Latimer’s mental trouble begins when he is sixteen years old and living in Geneva. At this time he suffers a severe illness directly traceable to the PRESCRIBED educational regimen. To remedy the situation Latimer’s father arranges a trip through various European cities concluding with a visit to Prague.

LATIMER HAS A MESMERIC VISION OF PRAGUE

After Latimer’s father has outlined the plans for his son’s recovery his father leaves the room. At that point,  Latimer experiences ‘a strange sense that a new and wondrous scene was breaking in upon me.’ He is engulfed by a MESMERIC TRANCE, in which he has a PREVISION of certain areas of Prague.

After Latimer comes out of the MESMERIC STATE, he  questions ‘whether  I had been sleeping. Was this a dream?’ He soon discounts this idea because he ‘remembered distinctly the gradual BREAKING IN of the VISION.’ He likens himself to a MESMERIC SUBJECT when he describes the ‘rapt passivity’ of the experience. (chap. I)

Now let us pause a moment or two and see what George Eliot is setting up. First she sets up the idea that the CLAIRVOYANT VISIONS seem fairly pleasant and harmless. After all, the VEIL lifts INVOLUNTARILY  from Latimer’s mind; it enables minute CLAIRVOYANT details of Prague to be seen. When Latimer eventually visits the City the details of his vision are corroborated precisely. No, Latimer does not at this stage appear to experience any ill effects at all. In relation to his visit to Prague, George Eliot deliberately provides Latimer with a basis for CONFIDENCE in what he had seen CLAIRVOYANTLY. So far, so good!

Several days later the VEIL over Latimer’s Mind begins to lift again, shifting its emphasis from places to people. A MESMERIC VISION arises  of a group of three people – none of whom are in the room. These include Latimer’s father, Mrs Filmore – note her dress – ‘a commonplace middle-aged woman in silk and cashmere’, and another lady ‘not more than twenty.’ She is a ‘tall, slim, willowy figure, with luxuriant blond hair, arranged in cunning braids and folds.’ The dominant imagery concerns her FACE and EYES. She is ‘thin-lipped .. the face had not a girlish expression: the features were sharp, the pale grey eyes at once acute, restless, and sarcastic.’ The eyes are ‘fixed on me in half-smiling curiosity.’

THE WOMAN IN THE VISION FIXES HER GAZE ON LATIMER

But then something strange occurs. Because of this woman’s physical appearance and the penetrating POWER OF HER EYES, Latimer feels, ‘a painful sensation as if a sharp wind were cutting me’ His father – in the vision – makes a final remark, “Well, Latimer, you thought me long.’ Once these words are uttered the VISION dissolves and Latimer remarks, “This strange new power had manifested itself again.’ Within a short time these people visit him, and the minute details of the VISION concerning their dress, physical features, their names, and the words spoken are fulfilled.

We need to notice that a number of PHRENOLOGICAL and MESMERIC ideas are woven into the text such as CLAIRVOYANCE, and PRESENTIMENT, which is an INTUITIVE feeling about the future, often unpleasant. As for the PHYSICAL APPEARANCE of the woman, her FEATURES would alert any Victorian reader familiar with PHRENOLOGY and PHYSIOGNOMY to the latent evil associated with her. Regarding her EYES fixed upon Latimer, this seems a reference to the method of TRANCE INDUCTION practiced by some MESMERISTS. Even Latimer’s sensation of pain acts like a PRESENTIMENT of some future unhappiness that his eventual marriage to her will bring. This latter sensation produced by the ‘sharp wind’ is akin to SPIRITUALIST terminology.

At this point George Eliot moves to make her view of the Paranormal clear. She uses Latimer as her mouth-piece to declare:

“Already I had begun to taste something of the HORROR that belongs to the lot of a human being whose nature is not adjusted to simple human conditions” (chap 1) 

So, the picture is changing. Now we begin to see George Eliot’s dislike of the Paranormal take shape in the experiences that begin to befall Latimer.

At this point I am going to leave the discussion and continue in the next Post concerning the evidence George Eliot provides in the novel for her own attitude.

I hope the discussion thus far has been of interest.


I apologise that some of the pictures do not retain a better resolution when enlarged.

Any Comments

Picture Credits Wikimedia Commons

All quotations in this and future Posts are from Eliot, G. ‘The Lifted Veil’ The Cabinet Edition Volume iii. (Edinburgh 1878)