Character: The Hermit (Scottish Highers English): Revision Notes
Character: The Hermit
An indirect portrait
The hermit occupies the centre of the story, yet readers learn almost nothing about his inner life. Smith presents him entirely through the narrator's external observations. The narrator acts as spokesperson for village opinion, filtering every detail about the hermit through collective judgment rather than individual understanding.
The hermit never speaks. No dialogue appears in the text, and his responses to the three key incidents remain unknown. This absence of direct speech means the hermit exists as a blank canvas onto which the villagers project their anxieties and assumptions.
Observable facts
What readers know about the hermit comes from what can be seen:
- He is well built
- He always wears the same long, ragged coat
- He rides a bicycle
- He has constructed his own tin hut
- He buys food at the village shop
- He fishes
- He does not appear to drink alcohol
- He walks on the moors
- He has no desire for human interaction
These details reveal a self-sufficient lifestyle. The hermit meets his own needs through fishing, building and solitary movement across the landscape. Nothing in his behaviour suggests he requires or seeks the company of others.
Village speculation and projection
Unable to understand the hermit's choice to live alone, the villagers invent explanations. They decide he must be a disappointed lover, a scientist, a writer or a singer. Each theory reveals more about what the village considers outlandish than about the hermit himself.
The villagers attempt to gather information, but the hermit ignores them. His indifference is not hostile. He simply does not need other people. This refusal to participate in village curiosity frustrates the community and deepens their sense that something is wrong with him.
The belief that he is hiding from the world because of a broken heart becomes the most comforting theory. There is no evidence for this. The villagers prefer this romantic explanation because it allows them to understand his isolation as a response to pain rather than as a deliberate choice. They cannot accept that someone might prefer solitude to community.
The hermit as disturbance
The narrator explains that the hermit is not a nuisance, but he is a disturbance. The distinction matters. A nuisance causes practical problems. A disturbance challenges assumptions about how life should be lived. The narrator states:
"the very fact of his existence was a kind of insult to us all."
This quotation reveals that the hermit's offence lies not in his actions but in his mode of being. The word "insult" suggests the villagers feel affronted, as though his choice to live differently is a deliberate attack on their values. The phrase "very fact of his existence" shows that his presence alone, regardless of what he does, provokes hostility.
The village depends on conformity. Everyone knows everyone else and lives according to shared patterns. The hermit's isolated, self-sufficient life contradicts these patterns. His existence demonstrates that community, social connection and collective approval are not necessary for contentment. This challenges the village's sense of its own importance.
The hermit becomes both a challenge and a temptation. His life suggests an alternative that the villagers cannot fully reject or accept. They must question whether their predictable, conforming way of life is the only valid option, and this question disturbs them deeply.
The power of silence
The hermit's silence functions as more than an absence of speech. It is absolute withdrawal. By refusing to engage in conversation, he denies the villagers any opportunity to categorise him through dialogue. This forces them to rely on speculation and gossip.
Silence proves more powerful than speech. It exposes the villagers' dependence on explanation and shared narratives. They need to place the hermit within a framework they understand, but his silence prevents this. His refusal to participate in their social rituals becomes a form of resistance, though not an aggressive one.
The hermit does not attempt to persuade others to follow his example. He does not criticise village life or express dissatisfaction with society. He does not preach independence or self-sufficiency. This makes the villagers' hostility more revealing. Their discomfort arises not from anything he says or does, but from what his existence suggests. His life demonstrates that isolation and contentment without community are possible, and this undermines the values the village takes for granted.
The hermit as catalyst
The hermit functions less as a conventional character and more as a catalyst. He triggers psychological responses in others while remaining passive throughout. The three incidents involving the old married man, the schoolmaster and the bachelor show this effect clearly. Each character responds differently, but all are destabilised by the hermit's presence.
The hermit's influence is indirect but profound. He does not provoke these characters through confrontation or persuasion. His mere existence creates self-doubt, resentment and psychological crisis in others. This shows that the true conflict of the story lies not within the hermit himself but within the community that observes him.
The hermit as mirror
The hermit acts as a mirror to the village. Each character who becomes unsettled by him reveals something about their own dissatisfaction or insecurity. The hermit himself remains unchanged. He does not develop or transform. His consistency highlights the instability in others.
This mirroring effect shows that the villagers' hostility stems from their own repressed doubts about their lives. The hermit does not create these doubts. He simply makes them visible by offering a living example of an alternative existence.
Departure and erasure
The hermit's departure is as mysterious as his arrival. One day there is no smoke from his chimney, and he is gone. The hut remains, with the door left open, as though advertising his exit. He is never seen again.
The narrator concludes:
"he ceased to be a challenge to us"
This suggests the hermit had actively confronted the villagers about their restrictive way of life. However, this is misleading. His challenge lay purely in the fact that he lived how he wanted, free and completely uninterested in their rules. The villagers could not cope with that.
Their relief at his departure is telling. They feel as if a malign presence has been removed, yet the hermit did nothing wrong. His only crime was living differently.
The villagers destroy the hut after he leaves. This act symbolises their desire not just to remove the hermit physically but to erase the idea he represents. By eliminating all traces of his existence, they attempt to restore the illusion that their way of life is the only viable one.
The relief they feel is psychological rather than moral. They are no longer forced to confront an alternative way of living. The destruction of the hut allows them to return to their previous certainties, as though the hermit never existed.
Key Points to Remember:
- The hermit never speaks and readers learn nothing about his thoughts or feelings. Smith presents him entirely through the narrator's external observations.
- His silence becomes more powerful than speech. It forces the villagers to project their own fears and assumptions onto him.
- The quotation "the very fact of his existence was a kind of insult to us all" shows that the hermit's offence lies not in his actions but in his choice to live differently.
- The hermit functions as a catalyst, triggering psychological crisis in others while remaining passive. He also acts as a mirror, revealing the villagers' own dissatisfactions and insecurities.
- The destruction of the hermit's hut after his departure symbolises the villagers' need to erase the alternative he represents and restore their sense that conformity is the only valid way of life.