[Hardy-l] literature, the reader, and history

[Rosemarie Morgan]

This is a most rich and intriguing post, Kevin and I think I am one hundred 
percent on your wavelength vis-a-vis historical context. It seems to me 
that modern readers frequently disregard the time and place, the cultural 
mores and social institutions in which fictional characters are situated, 
irrevocably.

We have recently been talking about Hardy's elision of the events of the 
Chase scene and there is no-one, not a single critic or scholar who is 
qualified to say why this elision took place. Inevitably, it appears that 
modern readers will place their own interpretation of this narratorial 
moment of self-absentia regardless of what Hardy's contemporaries -- 
for  whom he was writing -- might have construed.  We have had, in the 
past, critics who have complained that this elision is purposefully done to 
"silence Tess"  (to my mind a rather subjective piece of 20th century 
feminist propaganda at a time when women were, to be sure, battling to be 
*heard*). We have had others who claim that this was Hardy's way of 
standing on the sidelines forfending commentary on his position on rape or 
seduction. But there is, in the end, no solution.

  On the other hand, to his contemporaries there would have been less 
confusion and Hardy would have known this. Current debates on what we now 
call  date rape and on under-age sexual activity were rampant at this time 
(1890s) . There is no way contemporary readers would have been ignorant of 
these current affairs.  It would not have needed spelling out; it would 
have been understood..

In one of Hardy's versions of *Tess* Joan Durbeyfield actually protests 
that "we have a lawsuit on our hands" or words to that effect . I can't 
recall them verbatim.  At any rate, Joan knows the law -- I think it is, in 
this case, about "trick marriages"  and Alec's unlawful appropriation of 
Tess. That Joan has neither the money nor any kind of means (such as 
influential friends) to take Alec to justice  is possibly why TH saw this 
as a non sequitur (or even noscitur a sociis) or even as simply irrelevant. 
At any rate, it doesn't feature in the final version.

So - do we interpret as we wish-- that is to say that we allow Hardy's 
ambiguity to lead us into  standing  on the sidelines and to make no 
decisive interpretation of this event? Or do we "respect their history and 
context, instead of demolishing them from our own perspectives"?  (if 
that's what you mean -- I don't wish to misrepresent your meaning by taking 
out of context).

I feel quite strongly that in eliding certain explicit descriptions which 
would offend his readers Hardy fully respected the intelligence of his 
reader to :

1. Know the law (the law that informs the contemporary text)
2. To understand that, within the inner life of the novel,  if Tess's 
ancestors had long since practised this kind of "Chase" violation against 
young girls they were not queuing up to make daisy chains.

On another tack, Kevin,  could you be more precise? You quote from other 
authorities but I'm uncertain as to their consistency of argument. Could 
you clarify?  And when you say "These are appropriate ways to approach 
literary texts and characters such as Tess, to respect their history and 
context, instead of demolishing them from our own perspectives" could you 
perhaps be more specific?  Which are the appropriate ways-- in your *own* view?

Besties
Rosemarie

: We we should allow Tess her bizarreness, her strange relationship to 
Alec, her passivity, her passion and violence, so we might best learn from, 
empathize, and understand her.

>Kevin T.