The Dualism of Victorian Masculinity: A Threat to Man’s Free Will

Masculinity in the Victorian novel is both transitory - in its requirement of differing and oftentimes opposing characteristics and skills - and dualistic - in its varied opposition to femininity, dependent on the type of identity it seeks to dictate. Evidently, Henchard and Farfrae represent jarringly opposing versions of masculinity, each encompassing differing traits and qualities that dictate their status as men and their ability to function under the guise of male social norms within the public sphere. Henchard represents the working-class, physically strong, authoritarian male figure, while Farfrae embodies the newly intellectual, sophisticated, middle-class male model. What is not so evident perhaps, is the extent to which masculinity in a novel such as this dictates the fate of the men it describes. What I mean to say is that within the Victorian novel, masculinity serves as a confining force; a force by which male characters are controlled to the extent that in embracing and immersing themselves in their own constructs of masculinity, and the masculine social ideal, they lose their free will in the process. Yet, the degree to which masculinity succeeds in confining male characters, however, is ultimately centred around the temperament of the male character himself, and the specific type of masculine ideal he represents. In this respect, in The Mayor of Casterbridge, Hardy depicts the masculine working-class archetype presented by Henchard as inferior to the more refined, middle-class masculine ideal Farfrae seeks to epitomise, largely due to Farfrae’s ability to possess and engage with his own free will as removed from his masculine role, in direct contrast to Henchard’s inability to do the same, due to his innate surrender to the masculine qualities he possesses. 

As Mallet explains 'one is not born a man, one becomes one’ (2) suggesting Victorian masculinity to be made up of ‘a matrix of culturally and historically specific masculinities…informed by class…in an age self-conscious about change.’ (2). Mallet continues in his analysis of constructions of working-class masculinity in it being intrinsically linked to ‘being brave, strong, and independent’ (11) whereby ‘control over the body, authority in the home and independence in the workplace' (11) come to be representative of this male archetype. Clearly, at his height, Henchard represents all three of these characteristics, delineated especially by his vow to cease drinking for twenty years, and his subsequent upkeep of this, demonstrating his ability to ‘control’ (11) his body. This is further reinforced by his dominance, brutishness, and physical strength, which all facilitate in conjunction in allowing him ‘authority in the home and independence in the workplace’(11). Clearly then, according to Mallet’s definition of Victorian masculinity, Henchard seems to fulfil the criteria. However, Henchard’s masculinity comes also to be defined by other characteristics, far less boding of good fortune and success, by the way of his impulsive, egotistical, and arrogant nature. As Herbert Sussman states, ‘bourgeois industrial manhood defines manliness as success within the male sphere, the new arena of commerce and technology in which sexual energy is transmitted into constructive labour’ (20) whereby Henchard does seek to fit with this definition, yet only at the cost of his own free will. By this I mean to say, in attempting to conform to standards of Victorian masculinity and male success such as this, Henchard’s agency becomes redundant, whereby he surrenders to his masculine qualities of impulsivity and egotism in his pursuit of this ideal. This loss of free will is played out most evidently, and most distinctly as a process, when he gives into his first destructive male impulse, that of the sale of his wife. As Sussman explains, for the Victorians manhood was ‘not an essence but a plot, a condition whose achievement and maintenance forms a narrative over time.’ (26). This is not to say that Henchard became a man, or even became masculine as a result of this decision, but instead to assure that masculinity came to define him, that he allowed himself to be defined by the masculine qualities he possesses, at this pivotal point in the novel. Seemingly, both masculine and feminine characteristics dwell within both men and women in the Victorian novel - an indisputable fact - yet the extent to which a character recognises these qualities in themselves, and seeks to become defined and influenced by them, is far more subjective, and is what makes gender so prevalent a theme of the era. 

If it is Henchard’s control and self-restraint that allows him to transition from the private to the public realm, transcending from poverty to bourgeois status, it is equally his lack of self-control and impulsiveness that renders him bankrupt, alone, and ashamed by the end of the novel. Yet, rather tragically, his masculinity endures and prevails through it all. In his attempts to subscribe to the bourgeois male stereotype Henchard must discard his wife and child, and in his fall from grace, due to his inability to continue fulfilling this masculine ideal he seeks to epitomise, he begins to separate himself from the female sphere again, refraining from contact with Elizabeth Jane, displaying his rejection of the feminine realm in an attempt to retain what is left of his crumbling masculine identity. As Elaine Showalter demonstrates:

“Henchard’s masculine identity depends upon the repression and eradication of all feminine elements in his make-up: specifically, loyalty and nurturance and the bounds of domestic, familial and companionate love, in favour of the masculine values of the marketplace: contracts, competition and technology. Henchard has literally expelled the feminine from his life by the sale of his wife and baby daughter, and later the abandonment of his mistress Lucetta in Jersey, leaving him free to progress unencumbered, from an inebriated hay trusser to a sober successful corn merchant and town mayor.” (95). 

What is interesting to note is that this self-imposed isolation from all that is feminine only occurs at the times at which his masculinity is under threat, specifically at the times at which he experiences a crisis of masculinity, further evidenced by the actions he takes and decisions he makes when he is at the height of his masculine existence: he reclaims his wife and his child, and retains the opportunity of marrying Lucetta too. This paradoxically suggests masculinity, at least with regard to Henchard and the identity he constructs around his masculine traits, to be threatened by the coexistence of femininity at times of weakness. Does femininity then, in the novel, seek to negate the unencumbered success of masculinity? Seemingly this threat only exists in the case of Henchard, as it seems Farfrae is not only unimpaired by contact with the feminine realm, but ultimately strengthened by it, through his acceptance of the constructs of femininity and the female characters he aligns himself with. This is further reinforced by ‘Henchard’s inability to comprehend what constitutes the ‘new’ man, and shape himself accordingly’ (Mallet, 27) conveying that Henchard’s physical defeat of Farfrae is not enough, as ‘in the new bourgeois capitalist world, physical strength is no longer the primary indicator of masculinity.’ (27). Perhaps the tragedy inherent at the centre of Hardy’s novel is the extent to which Henchard does in fact align to the outdated working-class masculine ideal, yet he does so in the contrasting and advancing capitalist, bourgeois world Farfrae belongs to. 

To talk of masculinity without discussing the rivalry between Henchard and Farfrae would be to fail to talk of the real significance of masculinity within The Mayor of Casterbridge at all. As Mallet conveys ‘the dual indicators of masculinity - professional and sexual success - are implicated in the rivalry between Michael Henchard and Donald Farfrae’ (25) whereby Farfrae comes to represent everything that Henchard is not - forgiving, practical, positive, and intelligent - just as Henchard represents the antithesis of Farfrae’s male identity - vengeful, impulsive, depressive, and strong. It is easy to see why some critics argue Farfrae’s character to be nothing more than a mirror for Henchard’s own downfalls; a mere tool used by Hardy to critique the rather archaic version of masculinity Henchard epitomises. Yet this is a rather reductive claim of Farfrae and the masculine social norm he strives to represent. Farfrae too has a complex relationship with masculinity, and too loses a certain aspect of his free will as a result of his total embracement of his own masculine identity and his self-regulated subscription to the new masculine intellectual ideal, albeit to a far lesser extent than Henchard demonstrates. This loss can be seen most prominently in his marriage to Lucetta, whereby he discards Elizabeth for a less beautiful, yet far more wealthy bourgeois woman, who will seek to reinforce his own status as a burgeoning young man of financial and social prominence. In this sense, it can be said that Farfrae’s marriage to Lucetta represents his innate desire to fully embody the male social role he seeks to define himself by, thereby displaying his allowance of the masculine qualities he possesses to define his choices, thus detracting from his ability to express and act on his own free will. This is further reinforced by his marriage to Elizabeth Jane shortly after Lucetta’s death, whereby he is able to reestablish his desires as a separate to that of his distinctly masculine social image. Thus, although the version of masculinity Farfrae represents is clearly depicted as superior to Henchard’s own working-class form of masculinity, Farfrae too demonstrates the detrimental effect masculinity has on the ability of Hardy’s men to enact their own free will.

As to why, seemingly, Farfrae has more control over his own life than Henchard - in terms of his ability to claim and enact his expressions of free will - two factors can be attributed with causality. Firstly, Farfrae’s identity, as constructed around the intellectual male ideal, is presented as superior to the masculine qualities Henchard possesses and constructs his own identity around. Despite Henchard’s victory in the physical fight enacted towards the end of the novel, Farfrae claims victory in all other aspects of Henchard’s life, taking over his business, marrying Lucetta, buying Henchard’s house, and even becoming mayor. In this sense Farfrae too is defined by his conduct in relation to his masculinity, distinctly with regard to his financial, romantic and social success. In this sense, the version of masculinity Farfrae personifies serves to bolster his prospects in the town of Casterbridge, and amongst its people. Secondly, Farfrae doesn’t have to reject the feminine realm in order to conform to the newly emerging male social ideal; he works alongside it, displaying the ways in which the new version of masculinity he exemplifies seeks to exist, and thrive, within the newly burgeoning capitalist, public sphere, in conjunction with the feminine private sphere, displaying a transcendence from past gender roles and norms. In this sense, Hardy conveys a progressive depiction of male identity through Farfrae, one that is able to exert free will in alignment with new forms of masculinity as supplemented by typically feminine qualities - such as forgiveness and patience - such that is boundless in contrast to the limitations posed upon the working-class male archetype. 

In summary, Hardy uses masculinity within his novel to express a social commentary on male identity as defined by qualities, actions, and an ability to enact free will. The masculine identity Henchard represents is expressed to be one of the past, and one of detriment, whereby Henchard is forced to discard the feminine world in order to encompass the masculine working-class ideal. Farfrae, by comparison, is illustrative of the new male social model, whereby he seeks to align himself with the feminine realm and with typically feminine qualities, in order to convey the superiority of the newly burgeoning form of intellectual male identity within the developing capitalist world. In this regard, Farfrae’s ability to possess and engage with his own free will as removed from his masculine role, in direct contrast to Henchard’s inability to do the same, due to his innate surrender to the masculine qualities he possesses, demonstrates, at least by Hardy’s terms, the deserved metaphorical and literal replacement of the Victorian archaic masculine ideal of Henchard, with the prospering dualistic nature of Farfrae’s newfound masculine identity. 

Works Cited

Mallett, Phillip. The Victorian Novel and Masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Showalter, Elaine, “The Unmanning of the Mayor of Casterbridge”, in Critical

Approaches to the Fiction of Thomas Hardy, ed. by Dale Kramer (London:

Macmillan, 1979), pp. 99-115

Sussman, Herbert, Victorian Masculinities: Manhood and Masculine Poetics in Early

Victorian Literature and Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Masculinity in the Victorian novel is both transitory - in its requirement of differing and oftentimes opposing characteristics and skills - and dualistic - in its varied opposition to femininity, dependent on the type of identity it seeks to dictate. Evidently, Henchard and Farfrae represent jarringly opposing versions of masculinity, each encompassing differing traits and qualities that dictate their status as men and their ability to function under the guise of male social norms within the public sphere. Henchard represents the working-class, physically strong, authoritarian male figure, while Farfrae embodies the newly intellectual, sophisticated, middle-class male model. What is not so evident perhaps, is the extent to which masculinity in a novel such as this dictates the fate of the men it describes. What I mean to say is that within the Victorian novel, masculinity serves as a confining force; a force by which male characters are controlled to the extent that in embracing and immersing themselves in their own constructs of masculinity, and the masculine social ideal, they lose their free will in the process. Yet, the degree to which masculinity succeeds in confining male characters, however, is ultimately centred around the temperament of the male character himself, and the specific type of masculine ideal he represents. In this respect, in The Mayor of Casterbridge, Hardy depicts the masculine working-class archetype presented by Henchard as inferior to the more refined, middle-class masculine ideal Farfrae seeks to epitomise, largely due to Farfrae’s ability to possess and engage with his own free will as removed from his masculine role, in direct contrast to Henchard’s inability to do the same, due to his innate surrender to the masculine qualities he possesses. 

As Mallet explains 'one is not born a man, one becomes one’ (2) suggesting Victorian masculinity to be made up of ‘a matrix of culturally and historically specific masculinities…informed by class…in an age self-conscious about change.’ (2). Mallet continues in his analysis of constructions of working-class masculinity in it being intrinsically linked to ‘being brave, strong, and independent’ (11) whereby ‘control over the body, authority in the home and independence in the workplace' (11) come to be representative of this male archetype. Clearly, at his height, Henchard represents all three of these characteristics, delineated especially by his vow to cease drinking for twenty years, and his subsequent upkeep of this, demonstrating his ability to ‘control’ (11) his body. This is further reinforced by his dominance, brutishness, and physical strength, which all facilitate in conjunction in allowing him ‘authority in the home and independence in the workplace’(11). Clearly then, according to Mallet’s definition of Victorian masculinity, Henchard seems to fulfil the criteria. However, Henchard’s masculinity comes also to be defined by other characteristics, far less boding of good fortune and success, by the way of his impulsive, egotistical, and arrogant nature. As Herbert Sussman states, ‘bourgeois industrial manhood defines manliness as success within the male sphere, the new arena of commerce and technology in which sexual energy is transmitted into constructive labour’ (20) whereby Henchard does seek to fit with this definition, yet only at the cost of his own free will. By this I mean to say, in attempting to conform to standards of Victorian masculinity and male success such as this, Henchard’s agency becomes redundant, whereby he surrenders to his masculine qualities of impulsivity and egotism in his pursuit of this ideal. This loss of free will is played out most evidently, and most distinctly as a process, when he gives into his first destructive male impulse, that of the sale of his wife. As Sussman explains, for the Victorians manhood was ‘not an essence but a plot, a condition whose achievement and maintenance forms a narrative over time.’ (26). This is not to say that Henchard became a man, or even became masculine as a result of this decision, but instead to assure that masculinity came to define him, that he allowed himself to be defined by the masculine qualities he possesses, at this pivotal point in the novel. Seemingly, both masculine and feminine characteristics dwell within both men and women in the Victorian novel - an indisputable fact - yet the extent to which a character recognises these qualities in themselves, and seeks to become defined and influenced by them, is far more subjective, and is what makes gender so prevalent a theme of the era. 

If it is Henchard’s control and self-restraint that allows him to transition from the private to the public realm, transcending from poverty to bourgeois status, it is equally his lack of self-control and impulsiveness that renders him bankrupt, alone, and ashamed by the end of the novel. Yet, rather tragically, his masculinity endures and prevails through it all. In his attempts to subscribe to the bourgeois male stereotype Henchard must discard his wife and child, and in his fall from grace, due to his inability to continue fulfilling this masculine ideal he seeks to epitomise, he begins to separate himself from the female sphere again, refraining from contact with Elizabeth Jane, displaying his rejection of the feminine realm in an attempt to retain what is left of his crumbling masculine identity. As Elaine Showalter demonstrates:

“Henchard’s masculine identity depends upon the repression and eradication of all feminine elements in his make-up: specifically, loyalty and nurturance and the bounds of domestic, familial and companionate love, in favour of the masculine values of the marketplace: contracts, competition and technology. Henchard has literally expelled the feminine from his life by the sale of his wife and baby daughter, and later the abandonment of his mistress Lucetta in Jersey, leaving him free to progress unencumbered, from an inebriated hay trusser to a sober successful corn merchant and town mayor.” (95). 

What is interesting to note is that this self-imposed isolation from all that is feminine only occurs at the times at which his masculinity is under threat, specifically at the times at which he experiences a crisis of masculinity, further evidenced by the actions he takes and decisions he makes when he is at the height of his masculine existence: he reclaims his wife and his child, and retains the opportunity of marrying Lucetta too. This paradoxically suggests masculinity, at least with regard to Henchard and the identity he constructs around his masculine traits, to be threatened by the coexistence of femininity at times of weakness. Does femininity then, in the novel, seek to negate the unencumbered success of masculinity? Seemingly this threat only exists in the case of Henchard, as it seems Farfrae is not only unimpaired by contact with the feminine realm, but ultimately strengthened by it, through his acceptance of the constructs of femininity and the female characters he aligns himself with. This is further reinforced by ‘Henchard’s inability to comprehend what constitutes the ‘new’ man, and shape himself accordingly’ (Mallet, 27) conveying that Henchard’s physical defeat of Farfrae is not enough, as ‘in the new bourgeois capitalist world, physical strength is no longer the primary indicator of masculinity.’ (27). Perhaps the tragedy inherent at the centre of Hardy’s novel is the extent to which Henchard does in fact align to the outdated working-class masculine ideal, yet he does so in the contrasting and advancing capitalist, bourgeois world Farfrae belongs to. 

To talk of masculinity without discussing the rivalry between Henchard and Farfrae would be to fail to talk of the real significance of masculinity within The Mayor of Casterbridge at all. As Mallet conveys ‘the dual indicators of masculinity - professional and sexual success - are implicated in the rivalry between Michael Henchard and Donald Farfrae’ (25) whereby Farfrae comes to represent everything that Henchard is not - forgiving, practical, positive, and intelligent - just as Henchard represents the antithesis of Farfrae’s male identity - vengeful, impulsive, depressive, and strong. It is easy to see why some critics argue Farfrae’s character to be nothing more than a mirror for Henchard’s own downfalls; a mere tool used by Hardy to critique the rather archaic version of masculinity Henchard epitomises. Yet this is a rather reductive claim of Farfrae and the masculine social norm he strives to represent. Farfrae too has a complex relationship with masculinity, and too loses a certain aspect of his free will as a result of his total embracement of his own masculine identity and his self-regulated subscription to the new masculine intellectual ideal, albeit to a far lesser extent than Henchard demonstrates. This loss can be seen most prominently in his marriage to Lucetta, whereby he discards Elizabeth for a less beautiful, yet far more wealthy bourgeois woman, who will seek to reinforce his own status as a burgeoning young man of financial and social prominence. In this sense, it can be said that Farfrae’s marriage to Lucetta represents his innate desire to fully embody the male social role he seeks to define himself by, thereby displaying his allowance of the masculine qualities he possesses to define his choices, thus detracting from his ability to express and act on his own free will. This is further reinforced by his marriage to Elizabeth Jane shortly after Lucetta’s death, whereby he is able to reestablish his desires as a separate to that of his distinctly masculine social image. Thus, although the version of masculinity Farfrae represents is clearly depicted as superior to Henchard’s own working-class form of masculinity, Farfrae too demonstrates the detrimental effect masculinity has on the ability of Hardy’s men to enact their own free will.

As to why, seemingly, Farfrae has more control over his own life than Henchard - in terms of his ability to claim and enact his expressions of free will - two factors can be attributed with causality. Firstly, Farfrae’s identity, as constructed around the intellectual male ideal, is presented as superior to the masculine qualities Henchard possesses and constructs his own identity around. Despite Henchard’s victory in the physical fight enacted towards the end of the novel, Farfrae claims victory in all other aspects of Henchard’s life, taking over his business, marrying Lucetta, buying Henchard’s house, and even becoming mayor. In this sense Farfrae too is defined by his conduct in relation to his masculinity, distinctly with regard to his financial, romantic and social success. In this sense, the version of masculinity Farfrae personifies serves to bolster his prospects in the town of Casterbridge, and amongst its people. Secondly, Farfrae doesn’t have to reject the feminine realm in order to conform to the newly emerging male social ideal; he works alongside it, displaying the ways in which the new version of masculinity he exemplifies seeks to exist, and thrive, within the newly burgeoning capitalist, public sphere, in conjunction with the feminine private sphere, displaying a transcendence from past gender roles and norms. In this sense, Hardy conveys a progressive depiction of male identity through Farfrae, one that is able to exert free will in alignment with new forms of masculinity as supplemented by typically feminine qualities - such as forgiveness and patience - such that is boundless in contrast to the limitations posed upon the working-class male archetype. 

In summary, Hardy uses masculinity within his novel to express a social commentary on male identity as defined by qualities, actions, and an ability to enact free will. The masculine identity Henchard represents is expressed to be one of the past, and one of detriment, whereby Henchard is forced to discard the feminine world in order to encompass the masculine working-class ideal. Farfrae, by comparison, is illustrative of the new male social model, whereby he seeks to align himself with the feminine realm and with typically feminine qualities, in order to convey the superiority of the newly burgeoning form of intellectual male identity within the developing capitalist world. In this regard, Farfrae’s ability to possess and engage with his own free will as removed from his masculine role, in direct contrast to Henchard’s inability to do the same, due to his innate surrender to the masculine qualities he possesses, demonstrates, at least by Hardy’s terms, the deserved metaphorical and literal replacement of the Victorian archaic masculine ideal of Henchard, with the prospering dualistic nature of Farfrae’s newfound masculine identity. 

Works Cited

Mallett, Phillip. The Victorian Novel and Masculinity. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Showalter, Elaine, “The Unmanning of the Mayor of Casterbridge”, in Critical

Approaches to the Fiction of Thomas Hardy, ed. by Dale Kramer (London:

Macmillan, 1979), pp. 99-115

Sussman, Herbert, Victorian Masculinities: Manhood and Masculine Poetics in Early

Victorian Literature and Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)