Tess - Raped - Yes or No?

[smartie_pants88]

Simple question really, Was Tess raped by Alec or did she give in to him? As the book gives no real indication, it hints that she was sleeping when he approached her but really would Alec have raped her and would Tess have let him do so?

[kejewa]

Absolutely Tess was raped. I think however, because of the moral atmosphere at the time, Tess would feel responsible for the incident because she consented to riding away from the fray on Alec's horse with him, when she felt she should have known better.

Women probably blamed themselves more often for rape at this time.

The book mildly suggests that this in karma because Tess' knightly ancestors more than likely raped a few peasant girls.

[waljn1002]

It's kinda hard to answer this question, although she is raped in fact. Hardy described it so subtle, it seemed like if you dont pay attention, you would miss it. There has always been a controversy about it, because woman at that time had low position in a society and Tess might wanted to resist but she couldn't~~ So, I think it all depends on how you think, that I think Tess appears to Alec that she is very attractive.

[dammitpoet]

Its my first post and I'll keep it short but straight. I think Tess is raped otherwise the subtitle of the novel wouldn't be "A pure woman". A pure and virtuous woman, according to christian religion, is a woman who keeps herself only for her husband. You may ask "Then, why did she become Alec's mistress?" I defend the point that she was obliged to and she never wanted to be -unlike Moll Flanders!!- Moll became a prostitute for her wish to become a gentlewoman, for something material. Anyway back to the point, Tess is raped and she is a pure woman as Thomas Hardy calls her.

[BooksRMyWeaknes]

This is my first post too, and I have just finished reading this book tonight. I think she was raped, although it is subtly put and hard to imagine Tess giving in to him after all her refusals of even a kiss or sitting by him on his horse. I'm sure that, had she had a choice, she would certainly have refused him!

[subterranean]

I think she was, I'll check it out later to make sure but I think there's some part where Tess shows strong hesitation. But Hardy did not express her feelings explicitly.

[smartie_pants88]

This is my first post too, and I have just finished reading this book tonight. I think she was raped, although it is subtly put and hard to imagine Tess giving in to him after all her refusals of even a kiss or sitting by him on his horse. I'm sure that, had she had a choice, she would certainly have refused him!


ahh but after reading how much alec actually adores her do u think that he would have forced her to do something she didnt want to do?and s for hardy! he portrays tess as a strong moraled (sp) heroine so do you think that she would not have had the force to rebound of him!? personally i agree with the 1st poster i think!? that she concented but blamed herself after and plauged herself with guilty thoughts! :nod:

[ally7kat]

I think you have to consider that rape for men at the time wasn't as much of a crime as it is now, and to alec, perhaps it wasn't violent or wrong because in his own way he did love her. Its the same thought that husbands have the right to sex from their wives?

[squid]

Tess was most definitely raped and that's why the title is "A pure woman faithfully presented". Hardy wanted it made clear that it didn't matter what a man imposed upon a woman, they could still be pure at heart. The rape scene is in chapter 11 at the end:

"Why it was that upon this beautiful feminine tissue, sensitive as gossamer, and practically blank as snow as yet, there should have been traced such a coarse pattern as it was doomed to receive; why so often the coarse appropriates the finer thus, the wrong man the woman, the wrong woman the man, many thousand years of analytical philosophy have failed to explain to our sense of order. One may, indeed, admit the possibility of a retribution lurking in the present catastrophe. Doubtless some of Tess d'Urberville's mailed ancestors rollicking home from a fray had dealt the same measure even more ruthlessly towards peasant girls of their time. But though to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children may be a morality good enough for divinities, it is scorned by average human nature; and it therefore does not mend the matter."

Today that might seem really obscure, but back then in Victorian society he was being really pornographic (or at least what they considered pornographic). It's easy to read over, but that IS the rape scene.

[Joannaz]

Wow, I've read the book couple months ago, but I must say that I didn't feel it that way.
I was pretty convinced that Tess, under pressure, somehow decided 'so let it be'.

Well, Hardy left it to us to judge perhaps... I must admit it's a bit perplexing...
I am not sure which is worse- being raped or being psychologically forced to do make love with such a treacherous man even if she didn't want to... :( either way it's tragic, maybe that's why the author leaves the answer to the reader...

[alicialiv]

I found it to be quite different ( i cannot think of a better word, my vocab has left me right now) that Tess is called a pure woman. I do not deny that she is raped and that the fault is really not her own but she is not, in a since, pure because of her history. She has lived a tragic life and has suffered many things that have affected her physically. In that sense she is not "in the flesh" pure but in "spirit" she is.

[The Unnamable]

I find this thread fascinating for what it reveals about the kind of ideological assumptions I have been trying to explain in the ‘Language and Control’ thread. No doubt some of you will see that as consistent with an attempt to apply my own agenda to a text but suspend your judgment for a moment. I don’t think she was raped at all. Perhaps ‘seduced’ would be a better word to use. Before you all scream at me, that doesn’t necessarily make Alex any less morally reprehensible.

In chapter 15, ‘Maiden No More’, Hardy writes of Tess’s involvement with Alex:
“But for the world's opinion those experiences would have been simply a liberal education.”
What exactly does he mean by that?

No one so far seems to have considered the possibly that Tess is a sexual being with sexual desires of her own. Is this perhaps because women are not supposed to have sexual desire, at least not in the same way as men? Without wishing to offend or make anyone blush, I will say that I have known perfectly ‘decent’ women who enjoy sex as a purely physical, recreational activity – no different, in essence, from a game of tennis. Such women are usually labelled as little ‘better’ than prostitutes, which I think is hugely unfair and, I believe, a view largely to the benefit of men. Nor has anyone really questioned what a ‘pure’ woman is and why the word is applied in the first place. Please disagree with me if you think I’m wrong but aren’t most of you assuming that female purity involves chastity? Why? Why is it more acceptable for a man not to be a virgin on his wedding night than a woman? What would the word ‘pure’ mean if applied to a man? Would Tess be less virtuous if she enjoyed sex? In the eyes of many people, I think that she would. Why is this?

In my view, the uncertainty over whether or not she was raped is the result of ideas about female sexuality that are so deeply embedded that we take them as given. She is presumably not tempted by Alex simply because he could provide her with material security. She does actually find him sexually attractive. Why should she not enjoy expressing her sexuality by having sex with a man she finds attractive? Is it because that would offend our sense of what is proper behaviour for a woman? Isn’t female purity a concept that is used to control female sexual behaviour? Many men seem to like overt sexuality in their mistresses but not in their wives.

That’s enough for now. I expect a few slings and arrows aimed in my direction but I would like to read what women in particular think.

[Virgil]

I don't think there is any ambiguity as I read it: she was raped. She was asleep and he took advantage of her. The situation is doubly complex because Hardy has Tess dependant on Alec and she did have moments that could be construed as sexally attacted to him. But she's also at times repulsed by him too. Hardy is after a very complex situation from which he wants to show how fatalism is integrated into what makes us human beings (I don't know if I've said that well enough, hopefully you understand.) Social injustice is there but a minor theme with Hardy; his central theme is almost always universal/God's injustice to us lttle human beings.

[Eldraeli]

I am currently doing an essay on Tess myself, along the lines of "Purity". (Happen to be stuck, though. :confused:)
I find the aspect of silence interesting in this. Tess didn't verbaly refuse Alec's attention. And she was sleeping in key places of the novel when she is viewed, such as Stonehenge. Also, Hardy completely cut out her narrative to Angel. (Angel's such a bastard...grr...)



By the way, DammitPoet, the English were Protestant. :D

[tn2743]

I don't think that it matters too much what happened after the event of the night at The Chase.

What actually happened after Alec fell on to Tess and kissed her? Did she resist?

"Raped or not"? Base on the description of the event in the book, this question is impossible to answer, at least legally anyway. The fact that he fell on top of her and kissed her without consent (because she was sleeping) can only amount to a lighter sexual offense ('rape' has to involve actual ...you know). She must have woken up after this; and how did she react to his further actions? Did she contribute to the event? We don't even know that. It is too unclear. Perhaps Hardy meant for this grey area to be.

If the question had been: Is Tess pure? Then this would be an argument; and I would undoubtedly be in Tess' favour. But the word "rape" has a legal definition, even at the time, I believe. And the moral behind this law is precisely to avoid grey areas like this, in order to punish the rapist in much worse cases. So, legally speaking (and thus morally speaking...kind of), rape: no.

Please don't get mad at me for slowly turning into a bloodsucking lawyer :D

[ElizabethSewall]

I would say that Hardy voluntarily laid the emphasis on ambiguity. Even the title of the chapter: The Seduction or Rape stresses ambiguity. Hardy wanted for the reader to make his own opinion. Moreover, he wasn't a manichean author. All his characters are stained by flaws, but also have some good in them. Somehow, even Alec can't be judged as an all evil character (though I DO hate him, but I try to put reason ahead for once :p ). The night where the turning point happened, he had just rescued Tess from the other girls, after the feast.
But, on the other hand, the name of the wood, the Chase is really symbolical. Alec is pursuing Tess and gives her no rest. He misleads her and is her downfall. Tess was asleep and very tired, even if she protested she may not have had enough strength to stop him. Not to mention she knew nothing of men and had told Alec several times that she didn't love him.
Yet, later in the novel, Tess aludes to it as a weakness of her own.

The fact that nothing is shown of the scene in the book really shows the grey vision of Hardy (or so I believe). Anyway, Tess is the embodiement of innocence and martyrdom all along the novel. This can't be contested. I think she was both raped and seduced, perhaps a bit more raped than truly seduced because Tess is also the kind of character who will always feel guilty about things she isn't responsible for.

This might help: Rape or Seduction? (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_19c/hardy/rape.html)

[Kentish Sophie]

Well I think she was raped. But for the love of god don't say anything so definitive in your essays or exams.
Hardy is very protective of Tess which makes her into a victim. It also makes her into an annoying idiot, but again; personal opinion.
There are a few things that Americans may not be aware of in terms of historical context:

The Industial Revolution creeping into the rural areas: resulting in the birth of 'new money'. Alec is new money and therefore despised by Hardy.

The agnostic tendancies of the educated classes in Victorian England. So 'fate' takes the place of 'God' in the common vancular. Hardy was educated so his ideas of God are none too favourable. He thought such ideas of Christain purity were stupid etc, that is why even if Tess had consented, she would still be eligible for the 'pure' description.

Victiorians did not talk about sex. Tess might have known the basics, what with being from the country, but the whole abc's of the matter were definatly not revealled to her.

There's an old saying: Lie back and think of England. Intention and perception are two differnt things.

Though I still think she was raped.

[HoniSoit]

I agree with some of the early comments, and tend to think Tess unwillingly gives in to the 'rape' (if we can still call it so). she certainly would have not preferred it happening, but given the situation (both physical: she is alone with Alec in some unknown place, and is unable to go to anywhere amidst the fogs; and material: she feels responsible for the death of the horse, therefore feels oblidged to go along with her parents' advice to appeal to rich kins), she might have given in despite the pains.

[Anthony Furze]

The first time was rape-definitely, but after that preliminary loss of innocence Tess feels compelled to give herself to Alec who kind of possesses her.

[il-janus]

I have been trying to convince myself that Tess was in a literal sense raped, but somehow I cannot get that impression whilst reading the book. Hardy does make it very difficult to give a definitive judgement, but he is surely not so straightforward in his narrative.

If she was raped, why does Hardy calls Alec in later chapters “her old lover”? The word lover does not make any sense in the context of rape, but it makes a lot of sense if Tess unwillingly consented to the act.

Why would Angel abandon Tess if she told him she was actually raped? Clearly, his “slavery” to conventions and customs would not be so extreme. I believe he would have understood Tess more, and end up loving her more than before. Though Clare was actually an unbeliever, he based his perception of ‘purity’ on Christian morals,and rape does not take away the spiritual purity from a woman. He is in fact a product of his social background. Angel also tells Tess that she was more sinned against; in other words, he does acknowledge that Tess actually sinned, and thus in her innocence she consented to the act.

Tess also acknowledges that it was her weakness, and believes this to the end. This does not make her less pure, because Hardy’s perception of purity is much different from the Christian view. Tess did not know what was really happening, so in a sense she was abused of her innocence. On a number of occasions, she refused Alec, but in the situation, she was unable to do so. Thus, she retains her purity in Hardy’s view, because like an innocent child corrupted by adults, she has been corrupted and robbed of her virginity.

[Laindessiel]

Yes, I think she was. There's some point in the book in which she was feeling uncomfortable talking to Angel Clare (I can't stop laughing when I first read HIS name.) upon Angel seeing her big belly.

[Newcomer]

In Hardy's own voice:”Let me repeat that a novel is an impression, not an argument; and the matter must rest.” (The New Review,1890). Irwing Howe in 1966 wrote:”For Tess he stakes everything on his sensuous apprehension of a young woman's life, a girl, who is at once a simple milkmaid and an archetype of feminine strength.”
Hardy's image of Tess is ambivalent in character, contradictory, ephemeral of emotional meanings. To desire an in focus image, a yes or no answer to whether Tess was raped, is to impose on Hardy's novel our own predilections for certainty. In my opinion a mistake.
The answer to the question is Yes AND No.

[islandclimber]

I think the idea of what rape is, was different back then... though I agree, I do think Alec forced himself on her completely, maybe not so much in a physical sense so much as in a mental sense... but Hardy is ambiguous because he wants to let the readers decide about Tess I think...

[tao_jie_mei]

If what happened to Tess happened now, I believe the term we would use is "date rape." She may have started out sorta/maybe/kinda wanting it, but realizing at some point that this wasn't what she wanted, tried to make him stop, then realized she couldn't. Also, Tess was an undereducated country girl with dim prospects. She was also a mere seventeen, extremely naive, and very unworldly. Alec, on the other hand, was a nouveau riche cad who became sexually obsessed with her. I think what happened to her is not what we 21st century folks think of as rape. I very much doubt that he violently threw her down and penetrated her. Instead, after weeks of constantly wearing her down her defenses, he takes advantage of the situation (foggy night, her sleepiness and naivete, etc) and manages to "slip it in" (yes, I know that's vulgar, but so is his behavior). It is not something she really wants because while she might have been sexually curious at first, it is very doubtful whether or not she fully realizes what she might be getting into in sleeping with him. His position of authority and experience over her is very much like the kinds of situations we see nowadays with young male (or female) teachers seducing their teenage students. Certainly, the young victim might have "consented" but the reason it is considered rape is that the victim is too naive, too powerless to benefit from the situation and their innocence is exploited. Alec is an a**hole, but to me, the bigger a**hole will always be Angel, who is such a despicable hypocrite. I find I have to agree slightly with a poster who describes Tess as an "annoying idiot." While I sympathize with her to a degree (who can't?), sometimes I want her simply to punch Alec and Angel both in their faces. I also can't stand her constant victimhood. Even though Hardy was ahead of his time in challenging the mores of late 1800s English society, he still has the whole vamp/virgin duality working in the text, which makes Tess a perpetual victim, which is quite annoying for the contemporary reader (at least, this contemporary reader).

[JBI]

Hardy, I think is saying this... "what difference does it make? he is rich, she is poor, either way he would get what he wants, where is she going to turn to?" The truth of the matter is that she has no where to go, therefore doesn't call out. I am tempted to think perhaps Hardy was playing Leviticus 22;


If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

That perhaps is just my speculation, though it seems possible.

These quotes also seem to haunt the book, and I do not have the scholarship to prove it, but I think Hardy may be playing on them. From Deuteronomy



22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. [ Country Rape
If a woman is raped in the country, then only the man shall die (since there was no one to hear her if she cried out.)]
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Stick that with the sub-title, "A Pure Woman Faithfully Presented" and you can look at the thing more in context. Of course, I guess we have to decide whether or not Hardy was against these sort of premarital sexual events, if they were consensual, and I cannot comment, since I am no expert on Hardy.

[liverpool1939]

yes she was! alec took advantage

[abzu]

What would Alec have to apoligize for when he met Tess after seeing her after his conversion and preaching jag if he had not raped her? The strength of his apology should make the rape obvious, plus there is her unwavering general disdain for Alec which also makes her nonreceptivness to his advances a foregone conclusion.

[MissBethany]

Tommy Hardy got into a bit of trouble with his publishers. They obviously thought that Tess had it coming, and wanted it to happen. Hence why Hardy felt the need to include the subtitle A Pure Woman later. These days yes, Tess was definitely raped. I believe she was. But back in the day readers may have decided that Tess was asking for it, considering she didn't always act as a woman 'should' do.

[Oliver_Grant]

Hardy does not simply allude to rape, and if one reads the novel with an open mind to the contrary it becomes clear that there is evidence that Tess becomes Alec's mistress for a time as he has seduced her.

In part 1 there are various hints that Tess is unintenionally leading Alec on. Then there are further hints after the event itself (which is left rather ambiguous) that imply that she was passive. Hardy leaves it three months after the event depicted in the woods before Tess leaves. Tess sights that she has seen the light which could either imply that she realised being his mistress was wrong or alternatively that she was pregnant. Again it's left ambiguous.

Within the context of the time period, Alec would be responsible for seducing her and making her his mistress just as much as if he were to rape her. For the majority of the Victorian society there would be little difference between the two. Therefore, Alec's constant appologies could easilly mean that he is sorry for seducing Tess into willingly becoming his mistress for three months. This is also be furthered by Tess constantly blaming herself.

When Angel asks Tess about the events he tries to force the conversation to encourage Tess to claim that it was rape. Yet she doesn't, instead saying she was confused. Again, this is deliberatly ambiguous but certainly doesn't just alude to rape.

In a later edition of the novel, Hardy actually embellishes on the line "and then she told" with a passage depicting the events at Tantridge. Here he describes it as Tess having become Alec's mistress for a time before Alec proposed that they married. However he took her to a fake parson who was infact a friend of his and faked the marriage. When she found out that they were not truley married she left Tantridge. Whilst this was omitted from later editions (seemingly because it destroyed the ambiguity) it seems to infer far more that she made love to Alec willingly on several occations.

It is however ridiculous to asert either one way or the other. To say Tess was definatly raped is obsured as it is never made clear one way or another, but merely hinted at. Ultimatly, it doesn't matter what exactly happened to her. Hardy is criticising both Christianity and Victorian vallues within this novel and by leaving the act wide open to interpretation encourages a broader interpretation and thus a vast criticism of several values as apposed to just one.

[JBI]

I think though, Grant, that you miss a large part of the point.

The first issue: whether it was rape or not is irrelevant; if Tess cried out, nothing could have changed. Ultimately, her fate, and the fate of her family rested on her job - Alec knew that, and from the beginning essentially took advantage of that, and sexually harassed her. Beyond that, she tried to dissuade him, but he became more militant - reached by the point where, if he didn't rape her, it was clear that she had no other options anyway - her job lying on his good opinion of her, and her family's future at stake. Whether there was consent or not is irrelevant - clearly, judging by Tess reaction to him from the beginning, there was no real romance there - the later Tess, when she reunites with him, is simply a self-defense mechanism, as once again she is at his mercy, financially, and out of options. The only possible outcome was for herto give in.

Beyond that too, there is still the point of fact, that after the sexual encounter, had she spoken out, though he may be punished (though unlikely), she ultimately would have been branded a whore by society, and rejected from everywhere on those grounds. Tough luck - no options, so though I think you bring up some points that there is still ambiguity, ultimately, the willingness of Tess, by the constructs of naturalism which structure the novel, was merely a survival mechanism - faced with failure, or giving in, her options seem to have been quite slim - family fails, or she, like they intended of her, is sacrificed. Her family from the beginning tried to whore her off, I guess by this point she realizes that there is no running from it, and is ultimately taken advantage of, once, exhausted from trying to get away.

[meg1231]

hmm that is a wonderful question which was discussed in an earlier discussion which i had, i think she was raped but if you read a little further there is a part where she says took advantage of her when she was .......vulnerable so considering the fact she was so scared and i guess asleep when Alec approached her maybe she knew what was going on but just felt very raw and vulnerable and therefore just let it happen....... i think thats kind of the mystery among that situation maybe rape is implied or maybe the author just want the readers to have their own impression of what happened to her............................................... my first post :yawnb:

[Dark Muse]

I have heard a lot about this book before reading it, and everyone always talks about Tess being raped, but I just cannot see it that way after reading about what happened.

From the start to the book Tess is shown to be a person who allows herself to be easily persuaded by other people, and with whom it does not take much effort to get her to forsake her own will for someone else's and to give into what other people want of her.

Based upon what is known about the kind of person Tess is and her own reflections after the incident occurred I believe that Tess allowed Alec to pressure her into consenting to his advances. She might not have per sea truly wanted to do it, but I do not believe that she actively protested against Alec or made any attempt to resist him, but she gave into what he wanted.

Alec was a cad and he did use his position to take advantage of Tess as well as used her own weakness against her, and Tess was naive and did not have a very strong personality, she was easily malleable, but I do not believe that Alec physically overpowered Tess and violently forced himself upon her.

While he did put Tess in a disadvantageous situation, pressuring someone into agreeing to do something which they may not want to do while is morally questionable I do not think constitutes "rape"

I do believe that Tess shares in part some responsibility for what happened for I believe that she could have by her own actions and behavior prevented herself from being placed in that position if she had on more than one occasion listened to and trusted her own judgement and stood more firmly behind her own convictions instead of so easily giving way to what others want.

[kelby_lake]

I believe that the specific incident in the woods was rape- however Alech had started the process of seduction even since she bit into the strawberry. the strawberries, the learning how to whistle and the rose are so blatantly erotic symbols that it would be stupid to assume that she has absolutely no idea. Tess gets her awakening but she is not ready to go all the way.

She is not 'pure' in the chaste sense but in an earthly sense. It would have been more shocking back then to have her actively consent and desire Alec- at least if it was a rape, she was an innocent taken advantage of.

[janesmith]

I find this thread fascinating for what it reveals about the kind of ideological assumptions I have been trying to explain in the ‘Language and Control’ thread. No doubt some of you will see that as consistent with an attempt to apply my own agenda to a text but suspend your judgment for a moment. I don’t think she was raped at all. Perhaps ‘seduced’ would be a better word to use. Before you all scream at me, that doesn’t necessarily make Alex any less morally reprehensible.

In chapter 15, ‘Maiden No More’, Hardy writes of Tess’s involvement with Alex:
“But for the world's opinion those experiences would have been simply a liberal education.”
What exactly does he mean by that?

No one so far seems to have considered the possibly that Tess is a sexual being with sexual desires of her own. Is this perhaps because women are not supposed to have sexual desire, at least not in the same way as men? Without wishing to offend or make anyone blush, I will say that I have known perfectly ‘decent’ women who enjoy sex as a purely physical, recreational activity – no different, in essence, from a game of tennis. Such women are usually labelled as little ‘better’ than prostitutes, which I think is hugely unfair and, I believe, a view largely to the benefit of men. Nor has anyone really questioned what a ‘pure’ woman is and why the word is applied in the first place. Please disagree with me if you think I’m wrong but aren’t most of you assuming that female purity involves chastity? Why? Why is it more acceptable for a man not to be a virgin on his wedding night than a woman? What would the word ‘pure’ mean if applied to a man? Would Tess be less virtuous if she enjoyed sex? In the eyes of many people, I think that she would. Why is this?

In my view, the uncertainty over whether or not she was raped is the result of ideas about female sexuality that are so deeply embedded that we take them as given. She is presumably not tempted by Alex simply because he could provide her with material security. She does actually find him sexually attractive. Why should she not enjoy expressing her sexuality by having sex with a man she finds attractive? Is it because that would offend our sense of what is proper behaviour for a woman? Isn’t female purity a concept that is used to control female sexual behaviour? Many men seem to like overt sexuality in their mistresses but not in their wives.

That’s enough for now. I expect a few slings and arrows aimed in my direction but I would like to read what women in particular think.


Having read all of the posts I have to admit I wholeheartedly agree with you. The rape/seduction scene in The Chase is still one of the most ambiguous and hotly debated episodes in literature. I focused on Tess and some of Hardy's other late novels for my MA dissertation in order to expose and challenge late-Victorian biological discourses of female sexuality.
You are correct when you point out that contemporary readers would be outraged to think that a woman could be capable of sexual feeling. Therefore, unfortunately ,it would have been easier for them to accept the situation as rape rather than female sexual awakening.
Hardy's intention was to portary woman as a sexual being in her own right.

[kiki1982]

Yes, I have been on the fence since reading this book in 2008...

You can't really tell whether it was rape in the modern sense or not. I suppose in the 19th century it was considered rape because a woman was not supposed to consent to something like that unless she was a sad case... She was not supposed to know about that kind of stuff even.

However, Kelby Lake is right that Alec has long started the seduction process before Tess is even aware of it. I can still remember, and that I found really shocking, that after she has left when she was sent on that errand for her parents, that Alec said to himself that 'she [was] a crummy girl', meaning of low value... So, there already respect was lacking. Of course Tess's mother goes for it.

I don't know if Tess had an idea though... It would be in line with Naturalism if she had not. It would make the story even sadder and that kind of people often crop up in Naturalist stories because they walk in -to their own misfortune with their eyes wide open. It makes you as a reader feel that life is pointless. I had the impression that Tess's mother pretty much presented her on a silver plate in the hope that Alec would provide for them I think. However, whether Tess knew about that is the question. Girls back then were not so knowing when it came to that as girls are now. I mean, some of them didn't know what was going to happen on their wedding nght, and they gave their consent to marry, of all things! My mother (born in 1949) knew that babies came out of her mother's belly only because her mother told her. Her aunts found that vile and kept going on about the cabages. There were the wildest rumours about wedding nights. Some of them were so horrendous that it moved girls to drug themselves with chloroform and tell the groom the get on with it.

I have the impression that Tess reproaches her mother later for not telling her what Alec had in mind. Knowing that, she would have made it clear from the start. But, it was not to happen.

Thinking of that, she might have consented to a kiss and gone further than she wanted in that wood. Even if it was not really rape (she crying 'no' and he forcing her anyway) and she kind of went along with it not really knowing what was happening, she must have regretted it afterwards and so it is kind of rape as he didn't ask her permission to do so explicitly (as it is outside wedlock)...

It is all pretty difficult, but if the woman was supposed to be this naïve creature, then she was raped yes. Still, I feel sadder about it as Tess doesn't even seem to know what has happened to her until later...

[MUMUKSHA]

I have the impression that Tess reproaches her mother later for not telling her what Alec had in mind. Knowing that, she would have made it clear from the start. But, it was not to happen...It is all pretty difficult, but if the woman was supposed to be this naïve creature, then she was raped yes. Still, I feel sadder about it as Tess doesn't even seem to know what has happened to her until later...

Even I think what makes it so unfortunate and unfair is her innocence, or rather ignorance.

But I would prefer 'seduced' if I really had to choose to term it. And I believe what happened to Tess would remain as hideous and unfair even if it isn't called 'rape'.

I believe when returning back to her home with Alec she tells him about how she loaths herself for her weakness and much more because she does not really love him. Then she says: "My eyes were dazed by you for a little, and that was all." And she also added later "I didn't understand your meaning till it was too late."

I don't think any violence was involved so I would say 'seduced'. Then again it depends on the perspective. I consider violence or threat implicit as far as rape is considered.

Besides I don't think it really would make a difference how it is termed. Especially, I don't see how it has anything to do with Tess being a 'Pure Woman'. If being raped or seduced made a difference to Hardy he would have made it clear that she was raped. That would have settled the question. It wasn't too difficult making it clear in suggestion if he did not have the freedom to be explicit about it.

[kelby_lake]

Indeed Alec took advantage of her (symbolically the strawberries he feeds her are 'out of season'). However to deny that she was not at all flattered or never felt any physical attraction to him at all seems rather unbelievable. The 'cruelty of lust' does not need to apply solely to Alec's mistreatment of her but perhaps to Tess in her blindness to see Alec's actual intentions back then.

I think Hardy's initial intention for the scene might have been to have Alec as 'a mistake'- that Tess alowed herself to be seduced too early. However the readers of the time would have been less likely to sympathise with her so Hardy has to make it rape, eradicating Tess' blame. Her martyrdom adds to the reader's sense that she is in no way to blame.

But Hardy doesn't fully commit to the idea of having a pretty innocent girl be raped. Maybe because of his fixation on Tess' beauty and figure, he sets up a seduction, making Tess partly complicit in her misfortune. Therefore it is a very muddled area- Hardy cannot decide whether it is the rape of an innocent or the manipulation of sexual curiosity. Either choice would have made a powerful novel- were it actually a pure rape, Hardy would not need to overdo the martyrdom and the reader would sympathise with Tess entirely. Granted, it would make Angel's rejection of her incredibly cruel and Hardy may not have been able to redeem him.
If it was a manipulation, that would have been a truly feminist approach and a proper attack on double standards. It also means that Alec's character could have been developed more and there would be a genuine conflict, not simply a looming melodramatic villain. It then makes Angel a hypocrite but not cruel.

[MUMUKSHA]

I think Hardy's initial intention for the scene might have been to have Alec as 'a mistake'- that Tess alowed herself to be seduced too early. However the readers of the time would have been less likely to sympathise with her so Hardy has to make it rape, eradicating Tess' blame. Her martyrdom adds to the reader's sense that she is in no way to blame.

But Hardy doesn't fully commit to the idea of having a pretty innocent girl be raped. Maybe because of his fixation on Tess' beauty and figure, he sets up a seduction, making Tess partly complicit in her misfortune. Therefore it is a very muddled area- Hardy cannot decide whether it is the rape of an innocent or the manipulation of sexual curiosity.
I can't agree with this.



Granted, it would make Angel's rejection of her incredibly cruel and Hardy may not have been able to redeem him.
This, although, is a great point. At least for me this answers the question why Hardy didn't just make it clear she was raped. Thanks for pointing this out.


If it was a manipulation, that would have been a truly feminist approach and a proper attack on double standards. It also means that Alec's character could have been developed more and there would be a genuine conflict, not simply a looming melodramatic villain. It then makes Angel a hypocrite but not cruel.

The thing is I'm not really getting your point. It's like thinking aloud. I'm rather confused by the 'if', 'but' and 'however's.

[kelby_lake]

Basically, if it had been an ultimately consential seduction, albeit misguided, that would have been a gutsier attack at double standards. Hardy presents Tess as a sensual figure so why not commit fully to that? Alec's character could have been developed so he wasn't just a 2D villain and Angel would come off as hypocritical, denouncing Tess for what he did himself, but he wouldn't come off as cruel.

[bestwork]

wow controversial thread, a lot of people seem to have gotten in trouble for commenting on this one..

I've got an alternative reality question for you hardy fans, relates to 'The Return of the Native' (and yes I know this is the Tess forum); What about Susan Nonsuch murdering Eustacia? Anyone ever read it that way?

I bring it up because I'm a filmmaker, I've shot an American adaptation of Return and I guess I'd like to get some feedback on it before I start to shop it around.. maybe this isn't the forum, but if not here, then I don't know where..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1n1PSkj58

I'm curious if anyone finds it recognizably ROTN from the trailer..

[kelby_lake]

Basically, if it had been an ultimately consential seduction, albeit misguided, that would have been a gutsier attack at double standards. Hardy presents Tess as a sensual figure so why not commit fully to that? Alec's character could have been developed so he wasn't just a 2D villain and Angel would come off as hypocritical, denouncing Tess for what he did himself, but he wouldn't come off as cruel.

In 19th century England, the idea that a woman could be 'pure'/'innocent' but not a virgin, or even just have feelings of lust, was inconceivable. It's unclear whether Hardy could have written an ultimately consential scene but chose not to, or whether he didn't believe that consent would still make Tess innocent.

[sfieldrdr]

I struggled to figure this out, as it is pretty ambiguous. But, I believe she was raped. In a subsequent chapter it's stated that 'screams were heard coming from the Chase'. So, although not stated explicity I believe that, once woken by Alec kissing her she did struggle and scream. She stayed at the estate for weeks afterward and, I believe, continued to have sex with him. Why? Only thought is that she already was violated, was afraid to leave and to not be able to keep helping family.

Interesting note: Just finished watching 'Tess', 1979 Roman Polanski film. In this movie she is decidedly not raped. Alec kisses her in the Chase, she's awake, tries to push him away at first but then very much allows herself to be kissed - actually, contributing to it. In film she is shown staying on at estate and is given fancy clothes, goes in rowboat with him and seems very much his mistress. Funny that this take on the 'rape' was presented this way in movie. Only thing I can deduce is that screenplay was written by Polanski (with two others). Perhaps, being Polanski, his view on what constitutes rape, and what 'no' means is different from yours or mine.

[cafolini]

I don't think that it matters too much what happened after the event of the night at The Chase.

What actually happened after Alec fell on to Tess and kissed her? Did she resist?

"Raped or not"? Base on the description of the event in the book, this question is impossible to answer, at least legally anyway. The fact that he fell on top of her and kissed her without consent (because she was sleeping) can only amount to a lighter sexual offense ('rape' has to involve actual ...you know). She must have woken up after this; and how did she react to his further actions? Did she contribute to the event? We don't even know that. It is too unclear. Perhaps Hardy meant for this grey area to be.

If the question had been: Is Tess pure? Then this would be an argument; and I would undoubtedly be in Tess' favour. But the word "rape" has a legal definition, even at the time, I believe. And the moral behind this law is precisely to avoid grey areas like this, in order to punish the rapist in much worse cases. So, legally speaking (and thus morally speaking...kind of), rape: no.

Please don't get mad at me for slowly turning into a bloodsucking lawyer :D

:iagree:

Can't speak morality without exposing the legal framework.

[kev67]

I read a book a while ago called 'I Never Called It Rape'. It was a write up of a survey carried out back in the 80s in America, sponsored by the Ms, which I think is a magazine. It was about date and acquaintance rape. It contained some shocking statistics. It said about 1 in 4 women had been a victim of rape or attempted rape, and that 70-80% of these were acquaintance rapes. When the women in the survey were being interviewed, the researcher did not use the word rape, but if the women described an incident that fitted the criteria, it was recorded as one. I read it because I often wondered why frequently there seemed to so little evidence of a struggle, as I could not imagine submitting to anything like that without a fight.

It seems that unless the victim can show a bruised face, bruised thighs and skin under her fingernails, her chances of being believed are not high, especially not in a law court. However, most victims probably do not have this sort of evidence. They are often lovely young girls, like Tess. They may feel unhappy about a situation that is developing, but they don't want to offend the man - because they're nice girls. She is often not prepared for coping with an assault (like Tess). She may not know how to defend herself against a man who may be much larger than her. She may be frightened of being hurt. Often the rapist has been very cynical. He has often planned the assault. He often takes her somewhere where she cannot be heard. Often the rapist drives her home afterwards, like Alec d'Urberville does.

Tess was asleep when Alec found her again, so hardly in a state to consent. Alec d'Urberville knew Tess did not want to have sex with him. If she did not fight him off in her half-asleep state, it was still non-consensual. It seems to me that Hardy wrote a pretty realistic depiction of an acquaintance rape.

[kev67]

I am wondering whether it was rape now. Tess seemed to imply it wasn't in her letter to Angel. Still, the book said that Angel found her asleep. Did she consent? Was she just too exhausted to resist? No doubt she would not have consented if she had been fully awake and feeling strong, but Alec is incredibly persistent. I think I would still consider it rape, although one with no chance of a conviction.

[Emma Carraro]

Before we can discuss the rape vs. seduction of Tess, I think that we need to discuss the personalities of the leading characters and without any firm conformation by Hardy I have made some assumptions about each.
Alec – I have assumed that he has engaged in premarital sex and has an eye for the ladies, today he would not be considered to be a bad person who needs to be saved, but this would not be the case in Victorian society. Personally I like Alec, I think that his feelings towards Tess are more genuine than those of Angel. I think that unlike Angel, he does not deny his sexual feelings and is comfortable with those desires. Tess is often described as beautiful and it’s no wonder that he is attracted to her and sees her in a sexual way.
Tess – is described in the sub-heading as pure. It has been assumed that by pure Hardy meant had no lustful feelings, but I don’t agree with this. I think Tess is a sensual woman, but in Hardy’s opinion “pure” as she didn’t use her attractiveness to take advantage of men like other women in her position would have. I think that she believes that she should love a man before being romantically involved with him and not to become the mistress of a man for financial gain.
Angel – Hardy often describes his love for Tess as ethereal. I think that in contrast to Alec, rather than being in love with Tess the sensual women, he is in love with the women he believes Tess to be. I think if Tess had been a virgin when they married, he would have put her on a pedestal and I don’t believe that Tess would have been fulfilled as a woman and would not have been truly happy.
Rape or Seduction? - Although the narrative states that, once he gained his bearings, Alec came upon Tess while she was asleep, the narrative stops here and does not take up again until a few weeks later as she leaves Tantridge, by which time we know she is a maiden no more. We do not know exactly what happened that night in the Chase and although other posters have assumed that Alec starts to have sex with Tess while she is still asleep, I have not made that assumption.
Up to the point in the Chase, Alec has clearly been making advances toward Tess which she has rejected but he has not mistreated her, in fact I feel that he very much likes her. Tess’s own mother felt sure that given time Alec would ask Tess to marry him, Alec replaced the Durbyfield’s dead horse, goes to visit Tess at her home before she starts working for his mother, personally meets her along the road to give her a lift to Tantridge and on the night in question, saved her from being bullied by two other women from Tantridge. I will agree that he has taken some liberties with Tess up to that point, such as scaring her during their initial drive to Tantridge and then getting her to kiss him, but I do not think that Alec had deliberately taken Tess off with a mind to rape her that night. I think that he enjoyed her company, the feeling of her close to him and wanted to prolong the time they spent together only to genuinely get lost. I think that upon his return, Alec has renewed his advances toward Tess who finally gives in and sleeps with him and so beings a brief romance between the two. However, as Tess does not love Alec, within a few weeks she comes to regret the arrangement and returns home. When talking to Alec on her way home, she states that she “loathe[s] and hate[s]” herself for her “weakness,” and laments that her “eyes were dazed by [Alec] for a little.” Once back home, she reflects how she was “stirred to confused surrender” because of “his ardent manners” despite not loving him. The narrative also states that she accepts some gifts of “finery” from him too, although she is not fully comfortable with this arrangement. Some readers have assumed that when Hardy talks about Tess’s knightly ancestors, who centuries before likely imposed themselves on peasant girls “even more ruthlessly,” meant she was raped by Alec, I’ve assumed that it meant that the peasant girls were raped by her ancestors, although Tess was not raped but had her repeated rejections of Alec worn down by his persistence against her better judgement.

[kelby_lake]

I agree with you in that Tess shows a degree of interest but only to the extent that any teenage girl would. She is dazzled by his apparant chivalry but does not realise what the chivalry must culminate in. As he is the first real man she's known, it's perfectly natural that she might fall for his tricks but if she knew what men were really like, she would have thought it through. Arguably her mother is the worst figure for Tess; she sends Tess off to Alec in the hope that she might marry him and does not think to give her any sort of advice on men. Tess simply has to give the man what he wants, even if it's not what she wants.

I believe that Alec does genuinely like Tess but he only knows one way of dealing with women. He is a slave to his lust. I think also some of it stems from his mother, who notably is blind and only cares about her birds. This develops in Alec a hate and intolerance of women.

[kev67]

I have just read an introduction to Tess by Margaret Higonnet. Interestingly, in the form of the story that was serialized in a magazine, Tess in tricked into a sham marriage. I think Alec gets one of his friends to dress up as a priest, so the marriage was not valid. Could that be considered rape? I read a book recently that suggested the Victorians may have thought so. Tess gives consent, but it is conditional consent. In the first edition of the book, Alec pours drugs down Tess's throat, something similar to rohypnol, I suppose. That would definitely be rape. In the second edition, the bit about the drugs was removed.

[kiki1982]

Ooooo, that's interesting. So Alec is actually more of a villain than he seems to most readers of the novel? Pouring drugs into a girl and then deflowering her is pretty bad. Although I seem to remember that she could have been slightly dazed by alcohol (wasn't there a cat fight between two women of the group she was going home with?).
The bit about the sham marriage is a bit reminiscent of |I]Jane Eyre[/I], although Rochester was at least honest about the priest himself. Still, it would have been a sham and he knew it. At least he had some extenuating circumstances on a human level, but getting a false priest when you're single and not in a pitiful situation is quite a despicable thing to do.

[kev67]

I am reading a history of the text. It is quite confusing. There were so many variations of the book, and the bit that seems to vary the most is the rape/seduction scene. Hardy tinkered with the book from the late 1880s to 1919. I think (but I am not sure) that the edition we usually read is the 1891 version.

[kev67]

Ah, this is interesting. I bought a new copy to replace the 2nd hand paperback I had before. My new copy is the 1891 version in which Alec drugs Tess. The paperback that I read previously was the Clarendon edition. I can't find out exactly when it was written but OUP website says it is: "A unique critical text, taken from the authoritative Clarendon edition, based on the manuscript collated with Hardy's later revisions."
In the Clarendon edition it is not clear whether it was a rape or seduction.

I am a bit annoyed now. I know Hardy had to submit a toned down version of the story for serialization in the magazines, but why couldn't he stop tinkering? Having said that, I think I prefer the version of events in the Clarendon edition, in which it is left for the reader to wonder what really happened.

Edit: The Clarendon edition was published in 1983, and was edited by Juliet Grindle and Simon Gatrell.

[kiki1982]

So what does it exactly say? I'm intrigued.

I can see what you mean, though. Maybe Hardy tinkered a lot because he was a perfectionist and perfectionists never stop tinkering. I'm one. It's a nightmare, seeing back old translations from myself. :blush: No, as Hardy genuinely loved Tess, he may have tinkered with the plot because he felt sorry for her or maybe he started feeling sorry for Alec. Some authors (and I suppose readers too) do start to think of their characters as real people.

Then you see, though, how easily you can manipulate a character's image. Just leave out one sentence and the whole thing changes.

[kev67]

XI

The twain cantered along without speech, Tess as she clung to him still panting in her triumph, yet in other respects dubious. She had perceived that the horse was not the spirited one he sometimes rode, and felt no alarm on that score, though her seat was precarious enough. She asked him to slow the animal to a walk, which Alec accordingly did.
“Neatly done, was it not, dear Tess,” he said by and by.
“Yes!” said she. “I am sure I should be much obliged to you.”
“And are You?”
She did not reply.
“Tess, why do you always dislike my kissing you?”
“I suppose - because I don’t love you.”
“You are quite sure?”
“I am angry with you sometimes!”
“Ah, I feared as much.” Nevertheless, Alec did not object to that confession. He knew that anything was better than frigidity. “Why haven’t you told me when I have made you angry?”
“You know very well why. Because I cannot help myself here.”
“I haven’t offended you often by love-making?”
“You have sometimes.”
“How many times?”
“You know as well as I - too many times.”
“Every time I have tried?”
She went silent, and the horse ambled along for a considerable distance, till a faint luminous fog, which had hung in the hollows all the evening, became general and enveloped them. It seemed to hold the moonlight in suspension, rendering it more pervasive than in clear air. Whether on this account, or from absent-mindedness, or from sleepiness, she did not perceive that they had long ago passed the point at which Trantridge branched from the highway and that her conductor had not taken the Trantridge track.
She was inexpressibly weary. She had risen at five o’clock every morning of that week, had been on foot the whole of each day, and on this evening had in addition walked three miles to Chaseborough, waited three hours for her neighbours without eating or drinking, her impatience to start them preventing either; she had then walked a mile of the way home, and had undergone the excitement of the quarrel, till it was now nearly one o’clock. Only once, however, was she overcome by actual drowsiness. In that moment of oblivion she sank gently against him.
D’Urberville withdrew his feet from the stirrups, turned sidewards on the saddle, and enclosed her waist with his arm to support her.
This immediately put her on the defensive, and with one of those sudden impulses of reprisal to which she was liable she gave him a little push from her. In his ticklish position he nearly lost his balance and only just avoided rolling onto the road, the horse, though a powerful one, being fortunately the quietest he rode.
“That is devilish unkind!” he said. “I mean no harm - only to keep you from falling.”
She pondered suspiciously; till, thinking that after all this might be true, she relented, and said quite humbly, “I beg your pardon, sir.”
“I won’t pardon you unless you show some confidence in me. Good God!” he burst out, “what am I to be repulsed so by a mere chit like you? For near three mortal months you have trifled with my feelings, eluded me and snubbed me; and I won’t stand it!”
“I’ll leave to-morrow, sir.”
“No, you will not leave me to-morrow! Will you, I ask once more, show your belief in me by letting me encircle you with my arm? Come, between us two and nobody else, now. We know each other well; and you know that I love you, and think you are the prettiest girl in the world, which you are. May I treat you as a lover?”
She drew a quick pettish breath of objection, writhing uneasily on her seat, looked far ahead, and murmured, “I don’t know - I wish - how can I say yes or no when -”
He settled the matter by clasping his arm round her as he desired, and Tess expressed no further negative. Thus they sidled onward till it struck her they had been advancing for an unconscionable time - far longer than was usually occupied by the short journey from Chaseborough, even at this walking pace, and that they were no longer on hard road, but in a mere trackway.
“Why, where be we?” she exclaimed.
“Passing a wood.”
“A wood - what wood? Surely we are quite out of the road?”
“A bit of The Chase - the oldest wood in England. It is a lovely night, and why should we not prolong our ride a little?”
“How could you be so treacherous!” said Tess, between archness and real dismay, and getting rid of his arm by pulling open his fingers one by one, though at the risk of slipping off herself. “Just when I have been putting such trust in you, and obliging you to please you, because I thought I had wronged you by that push! Please set me down and let me walk home.”
“You cannot walk home, even if the air were clear. We are miles away from Trantridge, if I must tell you, and in this growing fog you might wander for hours among the trees.”
“Never mind that,” she coaxed. “Put me down, I beg you. I don’t mind where it is; only let me get down, sir, please!”
“Very well, then, I will - on one condition. Having brought you here to this out-of-the-way place, I feel myself responsible for your safe-conduct home, whatever you may feel yourself about it. As to your getting to Trantridge without assistance, it is quite impossible; for, to tell the truth, owing to this fog, which so disguises everything, I don’t quite know where we are myself. Now, if you promise to wait beside the horse while I walk through the bushes till I come to some road or house, and ascertain exactly our whereabouts, I’ll deposit you here willingly. When I come back I’ll give you full directions, and if you insist upon walking you may; or you may ride - at your pleasure.”
She accepted these terms, and slid off on the near side, though not till he had stolen a hearty kiss. He sprang down on the other side.
“I suppose I must hold the horse?” said she.
“Oh no, it is not necessary,” replied Alec, patting the panting creature. “He’s had enough of it for to-night.”
He turned the horse’s head into the bushes, hitched him onto a bough, and pulling off a light dust coat that he wore, spread it upon the thick leaves.
“Now, you sit there,” he said. “That will keep away the damp. Just give an eye to the horse - it will be quite sufficient.”
He took a few steps away from her, but, returning, said “By the bye, Tess, your father has a new cob to-day. Somebody gave it to him.”
“Somebody? You!”
D’Urberville nodded.
“Oh how very good of you that is!” with a painful sense of the awkwardness of having to thank him just then.
“And the children have some toys.”
“I didn’t know - you ever sent them anything!” she murmured, much moved. “I almost wish you had not - yes, I almost wish it!”
“Why, dear?”
“It - hampers me so.”
“Tessy - don’t you love me ever so little now?”
“I’m grateful,” she reluctantly admitted. “But I fear I do not - “ The sudden vision of his passion for herself as a factor in this result so distressed her that, beginning with one slow tear, and then following with another, she wept outright.
“Don’t cry, dear, dear one! Now sit down here, and wait till I come.” She passively sat down on the coat that he had spread, and shivered slightly. “Are you cold?” he asked.
“Not very - a little.”
He touched her with his fingers, which sank into her as into a billow. “You have only that puffy muslin dress on - how’s that?”
“It’s my best summer one. ‘Twas very warm when I started, and I didn’t know I was going to ride, and that it would be night.”
“Nights grow chilly in September. Let me see.” He went to the horse, took a druggist’s bottle from a parcel on the saddle, and after some trouble in opening it held it to her mouth unawares. Tess sputtered and coughed, and gasping, “It will go on my pretty frock!” swallowed as he poured, to prevent the catastrophe she feared.
“That’s it - now you’ll feel warmer,” said d’Urberville, as he restored the bottle to its place. “It is only a well-known cordial that my mother ordered me to bring for household purposes, and she won’t mind me using some of it medicinally. Now, my pretty, rest there; I shall soon be back again.”
He pulled the overcoat around her shoulders and plunged into the webs of vapour which by this time formed veils between the trees. She could hear the rustling of the branches as he ascended the adjoining slope, till his movements were no louder than the hopping of a bird, and finally died away. With the setting of the moon the pale light lessened, and Tess became invisible as she fell into reverie upon the leaves where he had left her.
In the meantime Alec d’Urberville had pushed on up the slope to clear his genuine doubt as to the quarter of The Chase they were in. He had, in fact, ridden quite at random for over an hour, taking any turning that came to hand in order to prolong companionship with her, and giving far more attention to Tess’s moonlit person than to any wayside object. A little rest for the jaded animal being desirable, he did not hasten his search for landmarks. A clamber over the hill into the adjoining vale brought him to the fence of a highway whose aspect he recognised, which settled the question of their whereabouts. D’Urberville thereupon turned back; but by this time the moon had quite gone down, and partly on account of the fog the Chase was wrapped in thick darkness, although morning was not far off. He was obliged to stretch with outstretched hands to avoid contact with the boughs, and discovered that to hit upon the exact spot from which he had started was at first entirely beyond him. Roaming up and down, round and round, he at length heard a slight movement of the horse close at hand; and the sleeve of his overcoat unexpectedly caught his foot.
“Tess!” said d’Urberville.
There was no answer. The obscurity was now so great that he could see absolutely nothing but a pale nebulousness at his feet, which represented the white muslin figure he had left upon the dead leaves. Everything else was blackness alike. D’Urberville stooped; and heard a gentle regular breathing. She was sleeping soundly.
Darkness and silence ruled everywhere around. Above them rose the primeval yews and oaks of the Chase, in which were poised gentle roosting birds in their last nap; and around them the hopping rabbits and hares. But where was Tess’s guardian angel? where was Providence? Perhaps, like that other god of whom the ironical Tishbite spoke, he was walking, or he was pursuing, or he was in a journey, or peradventure he was sleeping and was not to be awaked.
Already at that hour some sons of the forest were stirring and striking lights in not very distant cottages; good and sincere hearts among them, patterns of honesty and devotion and chivalry. And powerful horses were stamping in their stalls, ready to be let out into the morning air. But no dart of intelligence inspired these men to harness and mount, or gave them any means the least inkling that their sister was in the hands of the spoiler; and they did not come that way.
Why was it that upon this beautiful feminine tissue, sensitive as gossamer, and practically as blank as snow as yet, there should have been traced such a coarse pattern as it was doomed to receive; why so often the coarse appropriates the finer thus, many thousand years of analytical philosophy have failed to explain to our sense of order. One may, indeed, admit the possibility of a retribution lurking in the catastrophe. Doubtless some of Tess d’Urberville’s mailed ancestors rollicking home from a fray had dealt the same wrong even more ruthlessly upon peasant girls of their time. But though to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children may be a morality good enough for the divinities, it is scorned by average human nature; and it therefore does not mend the matter.
As Tess’s own people down in those retreats are never tired of saying among each other in their fatalistic way: “It was meant to be.” There lay the pity of it. An immeasurable chasm was to divide our heroine’s personality thereafter from that previous self of hers who stepped from her mother’s door to try her fortune at Trantridge poultry farm.

[kelby_lake]

Sounds like rape- not necessarily violently fought but still sounds like rape. There's so many references to whiteness and purity, which I think is the sign to the reader that Tess is innocenct in the seduction, though obviously Hardy can't go into too much detail.

I tend to align Hardy with Lawrence (although Lawrence was Hardy's predecessor). I don't think Hardy would be prudish enough to write the passage in this way if she'd consented; he's hard enough on Sue Bridehead for abstaining so I don't think he would go on about how coarse it was unless the ordeal was unpleasant. Tess is meant to be so beautiful that men can't control themselves.

[Maple]

In Chapter XII Tess returns to her parents' cottage in Marlott and tells her mother about this pivotal event. She says, "She dreaded him, winced before him, succumbed to adroit advantages he took of her helplessness, then, temporarily blinded by his ardent manners, had been stirred to confused surrender awhile..."

While the above doesn't supply us enough detail to determine whether Tess, deeply fatigued and physically helpless, was forcibly raped while resisting him as forcibly as she might, or whether she merely surrendered against her wishes, doesn't this description provide us enough? She lost her virginity against her will to a wealthy rake who had all of society's advantages while she had none. She even lacked a mother's warning about such situations because, as Joan admits, she feared such information would make Tess "hontish wi' him and lose your chance." Joan, Tess' mother, Alec, Tess' employer, and Tess are the three involved in this event. Joan effectively put her in the scene, Alec overwhelmed her being determined to satisfy himself, and only Tess didn't want it to happen. She didn't stand a chance.

And, by the way, on learning what happened at Trantridge and Joan discovering that her plan to secure the Derbyville future had failed, Joan's immediate reaction is to blame Tess, saying "Why didn't ye think of doing some good for your family instead o' thinking only of yourself." What chance could Tess have had in life with such a mother?

[kelby_lake]

The problem is, Tess can't fully consent. Her surrender is 'confused'. She certainly doesn't understand the consequences. There's nothing in the passage to suggest that Tess actively consented

[Maple]

[QUOTE=kelby_lake;1253112]The problem is, Tess can't fully consent. /QUOTE]

There's a crime called statutory rape in some places. If a female has sex prior to an age, say 18, at which age she is presumed to have the mental capacity to consent to sex, sex even if the girl requests it is deemed rape. In Tess' case, she was sixteen, unsophisticated and confused by sex. Whether in Wessex the crime of statutory rape was in place hardly matters to modern readers. We understand the concept and appreciate that Tess was simply too young and unsophisticated to consent. Statutory rape in my country can send the offender to jail for years and is considered a crime in par with rape of a woman past the age of majority.

Kelby's post is on the money.

[SilverMask]

At the risk of repeating previous opinions, have we considered that it may not be an either/or question, not legally speaking of course, the law is based on absolutes after all?

Hardy continuously and persistently describes Tess as seemingly more mature physically, than emotionally and psychologically, which is usually the case for most people of 16.

As having the unique experience of being in contact with an almost identical real life version of Alec, I can attest to the fact that things were not and are not as simple as this or that. It is possible for attraction and desire to understand to coexist with disgust and disapproval, so while one may only have a physical representation, I believe both had a psychological one as well in Hardy's novel. While, indeed, Tess would not have had many choices either way, I do believe it is alluded to a certain connection between Tess and Alec at that point in the narrative, so it is possible the act conveniently not described could be both seduction and rape from a different standpoint in Tess' mind, since we are discussing the character, not the legal definition of the term. (I don't know how clear I'm being, I always have difficulty explaining whatever it is that sounds logical in my mind).

Overall, my point is that while Hardy left the act to the imagination and judgement of the reader, in my opinion he did so intentionally to stress on the duality of it and the conflict within Tess.

[Misty_View]

It is very clear that although Alex loves Tess he is also trying to seduce her. In my opinion as a woman who has been in a similar situation (where my rapist tried to seduce me at the age of 15), I feel that Tess was raped. Her rights were limited due to the time frame as well as being a woman in those times. She showed uncertainty toward him and yet he pressed his suit. Also, please take into account that when Alex arrives back from his persuit of directions, Tess is asleep... no one seems to have taken this into account. In a groggy and foggy minded state she might not have registered the situation as clearly as she might have.


"She had been made to break an accepted social law, but no law known to the environment in which she fancied herself such an anomaly." - part 2 end of chapter 3

No slings or arrows, just a different POV. :)

[Misty_View]

I would also like to say that Tess could not have been 16 at the time of her rape. In part two when Tess leaves home for the second time she has been home for 2 years. when she is walking along by the river it is stated that she is 21. By those statements alone and adding on that she only stayed by Alex for no more than a few months. she was no younger than 17 or 18 at the time.

[Danik 2016]

As it is a Victorian novel, the sexual facts are much more implied than stated:
"She had been made to break an accepted social law". An interesting quotation which, to my mind, sums up the relationship between Tess and Alex.
Some clue might be in this significant use of the passive voice. Even considering that Tess might not have undestood, what was going on the first time when Alex actually raped her (for he knew what he was doing) there is an fatal atraction. When he is around she acts as she wouldn´t in other circunstances. The last of these acts is the murder.