HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE HO2034 5/17/02 "TESS AS FALLEN WOMAN & HER GENTLEMEN SUITORS" ================================================================================ Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:03:00 +0100 (BST) From: Tatyana Pakulova Subject: tess- fallen woman??? Is Tess a fallen woman???? ========== From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com Subject: RE: tess- fallen woman??? Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:22:54 -0700 Well, she was compromised, dishonored, and ruined, so I would say yes, definitely. In the 19th century it didn't make much difference how the woman got that way, by her own will, or, as in Tess's case, by force or coercion. She was a fallen woman nonetheless. A true gentleman would not classify Tess as a wanton hussy, a wicked jade, an audacious harlot, or a vile strumpet. He would call her a "poor unfortunate girl". ========== Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:33:51 +0100 (BST) From: Tatyana Pakulova Subject: RE: tess- fallen woman??? ---Thank you. I think she is just a sexual and sensitive girl. Do you think Alec stirs her awakened sexuality? ========== From: rarebks@aiconnect.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: tess- fallen woman??? She was when they opened the hatch under the noose. ========== Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:24:33 +0100 (BST) From: Tatyana Pakulova Subject: RE: tess- fallen woman??? ---Thank you!!!!!! ========== Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:13:41 -0500 From: Glen & Sara van Alkemade Subject: Re: tess- fallen woman??? To my mind, the expression "fallen woman" is vague, subject to interpretation, and may vary greatly in meaning between countries and centuries. Thus I think you need to flesh out the question a little. Glen & Sara van Alkemade Jesus People USA 920 W. Wilson Ave #422 Chicago Il 60640 (773)561-2450 ext 1142 ========== Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:30:41 -0500 From: Glen & Sara van Alkemade Subject: RE: tess- fallen woman??? I think it was Angel who stirred Tess' wounded sexuality, and Alec who only continued to exploit her vulnerability. I would call neither of these guys gentlemen. Male characters who might qualify include Gabriel Oak & Giles Winterborne. PS: Forget my remark about expanding the question. I fired it off before noticing there was already a dialog happening. Glen ========== Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 07:55:53 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan Subject: RE: tess- fallen woman??? A "gentleman" they may have been (in quotation marks)-- unfortunately the concept of a gentleman was still complicated at this time by notions of gentility (belonging to a family of position or attached to the household of sovereign or great person) -- a person of wealth and leisure who did not labour with his hands, or earn his living by labour. Neither Oak nor Winterborne qualifies. Boldwood qualifies because as a gentleman-farmer he does not soil his hands with labour or "the sweat of his brow." Cheers, RM ========== From: "Michael Barry" Subject: Re: tess- fallen woman??? Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:50:17 +0100 A "true gent" is to me a modern derivation implying an honourable approach to others (especially women) by anyone (male) of any class - derived from the supposed behaviour of those who were "gentlemen" by class as opposed to members of the lower orders (or "other ranks" as the UK armed services have always so decorously called them!). And that was still around (in Britain) in my youth (in fact still is in certain circles). I was taught to address others on envelopes as I should be addressed - viz Michael Barry Esq (Esquire, I understood, meaning a gentleman). Many "gentlemen" by class definition would never qualify as what we might now refer to as "true gents" by nature. In fact "true gents", I feel, often specifically implied that the nominee was not a "gentleman" by class. I would have thought both Angel and Alec were gentlemen by class, or acquired class in the latter's case, but neither were true gents in their treatment of Tess (for completely different reasons). However there is a definition complication with gentlemen-farmers. Did Boldwood seriously not dirty his hands? Certainly Angel was prepared to do so. But I'm sure his Esquire status was unblemished by this fact: after all, he'd been to a decent school and knew the classics! Michael Barry ========== Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:06:00 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan Subject: Re: tess- fallen woman??? The upstart Alec is an interesting case, isn't he? I suspect that Angel wouldn't have regarded him as a gentlemen but no doubt traders seeking his custom would have. He appears to have been wealthy enough and titled (if fraudulently) well enough to have satisfied Tess's mother. I'm not sure that a gentleman ceased to be a gentleman if he was a "cad" or a "bounder" -- or whatever Victorians might have called an otherwise respectable gentleman who behaved dishonourably towards women -- because it was so closely tied to birth and breeding. At any rate, the sexual double-standard was blatant here -- the gentleman-seducer was not "ruined"; the seduced lady would have been unless, like Lady Aldclyffe, she kept its manifestation a closely-guarded secret. "Esquire" is something quite else-- and, fortunately (being a misnomer), increasingly rare in usage. The man who was your shield-bearer was an Esquire ("escuier") in the days when you might have been a knight.Your eldest son would be an Esquire if you were a knight (or peer of the realm); investiture of Esquire could also be granted by the queen/king. An Esquire would have ranked imediately below a knight and these days, after a century or so of misuse, Esquire is only legitimately used to designate a Justice of the Peace or an officer of trust under the crown. On court listings an Esquire would feature immediately below Gentleman, the last on the list. But none of that has anything to do with Tess - thank goodness! Cheers Rosemarie ========== From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com Subject: RE: tess- fallen woman??? Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:15:08 -0500 I was using the term "gentleman" in its Victorian sense, and under that definition Rosemary is correct -- neither Oak nor Winterborne would qualify. If Tess had been of higher rank but similarly compromised, I think that a gentleman would not have called her a "poor unfortunate girl" but, more likely, just "Miss D'Urberville" -- reflecting yet another double standard. Chuck Anesi Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com 612-667-9518 pager 888-278-6532 ========== From: "Alan Shelston" Subject: Re: tess- fallen woman??? Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:12:44 +0100 Two separate points. (1) Rosemary's point about working with one's hands reminds me that the classic novel about negotiating the bprocess of becoming a gentleman is of course Great Expectations, where the imagery of hands plays a major part. 'What coarse boots he has, this boy, and what coarse hands,' Estella says. (2) How did Hardy describe himself - e.g. on official documents? He certainly had anxieties - to say no more - about his social status. On my marriage certificate (many years ago|) my father-in-law described himself as a 'gentleman' although he certainly wasn't one by birth. Is there any Hardyean equivalent? Alan Shelston ========== From: "Roy Buckle" Subject: Re: tess- fallen woman??? Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:38:51 +0100 "Gentleman" on certificates of marriage or birth, and particularly entries relating to parentage, refers to a person of independent means or perhaps to one who wants to avoid revealing his source of income... ========== Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:18:35 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan Subject: Re: Gentleman OED -- adds-- a person with heraldic status, not nobility. More recently (post 1800) a man of distinction, of superior position in society or "having the habits of life indicative of this." Not engaging in a trade. Among the gentlemanly qualities listed: of valiant behaviour, courteous to those of lesser rank, of ancient and high-standing family, of honourable reputation, of independent means (and as Roy indicates, a gentleman never mentions money matters). There's a cute quotation from Darwin who complains that now he has become a gentleman he finds it hard to fill his day. And (wait for it!) the "gentleman-commoner" at Oxford (still listed at colleges such as Christ Church) sits at a higher table, wears distinct garb and pays higher fees. (I guess Alec still had a long way to go) Cheers, RM ========== From: rarebks@aiconnect.com Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Gentleman I dont know if anyone has noticed, but police in the US have taken to calling apprehended criminals "gentlemen." This began in the late 1970s when I was a federal prosecutor. Prior to this they were called "perps." If anyone watches the Fox show Cops--and I'm not recommending it--you will universally hear policeman refer to a drunken wife-beater as "We just told the gentleman that we will have to take him into custody." I was referred to as a "bloke" in the UK and felt insulted--there is something negative about that term to the American ear, even though I now know it to mean "guy." But, all things considered, I'd rather be called a bloke than a gentleman (as it is currently used.)We've come a long way baby--unfortuantely the trip has been mostly downhill. ========== From: "James Gibson" Subject: re:Gentlemen Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:26:15 +0100 Those of you interested in the use of the word 'gentlemen' in the 19th century may like to hear of an experience I had at Plymouth, in the Public Library Reference Room, in the 1960s while doing some research on Emma Gifford's homes there. I requested Kelly's Directory for that period was disappointed not to find any Giffords recorded there. Discussing this with the Librarian I was informed that I had been looking at the section of the Directory devoted to the 'ordinary' people while I should have been looking at the section headed 'Gentlemen...'. Sure enough, there was Emma's father's address, and I was able to find and photograph 'the tall house' with 'the view of the bay' which features in 'During Wind and Rain'! best wishes, James Gibson ========== From: Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com Subject: RE: Gentleman Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:07:49 -0500 That is an interesting ironic usage, and I have noticed it. Here in the U.S. the word "gentleman" has acquired a fuzzy definition having something to do with politeness, fairness, honesty, honor, and a hint of gentility (except when used ironically, as in your example.) "Lady" is even more ridiculously used in the U.S. In Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary we have: "LADY,* n. A vulgarian's name for a woman. A Lieutenant-Governor of California and Warden of the State Prison once reported the number of prisoners under his care as '931 males and 27 ladies.'" In the U.S. Congress (a true bastion of scholarship), at least a few years ago, a Congressman was recognized as "Gentleman" and a Congresswoman as "Gentlelady", which seemed to me a bit redundant. To return to gentlemen, the Devil's Dictionary contains these entries: GENT,* n. The vulgarian's ideal of a gentleman. The male of the genus Hoodlum. [FT] GENTEEL adj. Refined, after the fashion of a gent. Observe with care, my son, the distinction I reveal: A gentleman is gentle and a gent genteel. Heed not the definitions your "Unabridged" presents, For dictionary makers are generally gents. Chuck Anesi Charles.Anesi@wellsfargo.com 612-667-9518 pager 888-278-6532 ========== From: "Roy Buckle" Subject: Re: Gentleman Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 22:37:46 +0100 Sorry everyone- that is, if you are still with us(?). In spite of being in danger of encroaching too often on Betty's bandwidth I have to say (O horrid phrase!) it has been most enlightening to learn about the multifarious usages to which our language is put ( shades of a Winston Churchill quotation there). It has been common when opening an address to a gathering for an invited speaker to use a phrase like 'My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen'. One could, these days, get away with dropping the 'lords' but to omit the 'ladies' or to mention them last would never do, even in this enlightened age of gender equality. Let's face it you gents, it seems us guys will never catch up with the dolls! Let alone with the vagaries of modern language usage. (Incidentally, 'gents' could not possibly be used as a form of address: the word has a very specific meaning 'over here'...) Incidentally, was Hardy a gentleman, a bloke or a guy? Please qualify any reply with appropriate references or other literary proof. ========== Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:09:17 +1000 From: David Cornelius Subject: RE: tess- fallen woman??? : The question of whether Alec or Angel were "gentlemen" in any form of definition is largely irrelevant. Hardy is at pains to show that both men violated Tess either sexually or emotionally. As such they allow Hardy to highlight the predicament of a beautiful young country girl in Victorian England. Tess is shown as endeavouring, despite all setbacks, to find personal happiness, and still attempting to ensure the economic security of her family. She is a victim of circumstance. Her economic situation, as much as her beauty, led to her problems. Joan was fully aware of the likely outcome of sending Tess to claim kin with Alec. However, the situation that she envisaged of a successful union did not eventuate because Tess wanted love in her marriage. Again Hardy is trying to educate his largely urban, middle-class female readers about the plight and the nature of country people. Her 'fallenness' or 'purity' is only a matter of degree. What happened to Tess was little different to what happens to other creatures in the countryside. As such it is part of the natural process of things. However, he emphasises the point that Tess, is no 'Hodge'. She has the same romantic desires as those of her readers. Hardy illustrates that in the grand scheme of things happiness is only fleeting. Like the gnats she is only momentarily irradiated before her death at the hands of an inflexible and dispassionate male-dominated legal system. As to whether she is a 'fallen woman' Hardy wants to provoke his readers into considering the problems of the violated woman. It is up to the reader, in terms of his/her moral viewpoint, to decide. I think that Hardy would have also viewed the term as irrelevant, except in terms of provoking his readers. Sorry for being longwinded, David Cornelius ========== From: "Michael Barry" Subject: Re: Gentleman Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 05:00:39 +0100 C