Just an inkling

[kev67]

Possible spoiler (chap 33) ************************************************** ************************************************


I have just read the chapter with Tess's wedding to Angel. I can't help feeling that Tess not being a virgin will turn out to be a VERY BIG DEAL. What with her agonizing about it all summer; trying to tell him on the cart but her courage failing her; putting a note under his door but under the carpet as well; the rooster crowing twice in the afternoon, and almost half the book yet to go. It's just an inkling I have.

[kev67]

Read the next three chapters. Well, he took that well, didn't he?

[kev67]

Tess has suggested to Angel that they separate and he has agreed. I can't help thinking that was a mistake. Give him a fortnight and he might get over the disappointment of not getting to open his present on his wedding night, and his head around the idea that another man has carnal knowledge of his wife. He was thinking of emigrating to Texas or Australia. They're hardly likely to run into anyone who knows her background there. No doubt he will discuss things with his clergyman father who will point out what his Christian duty is. But now Angel and Tess are not together and that can become a habit.

Another thing I wondered about was annulment. Angel says divorce is impossible, but since the couple haven't had sex yet, couldn't Angel have the marriage annulled? Another thing to discuss with his old man perhaps.

Also, I wonder whether Angel is a bit dense. Did he really think that Tess was reluctant to marry him because of her family name? Might it not have occurred to him over all those months that her reluctance might be due to a physical or sexual problem that she was ashamed to tell him about, especially in light of Angel's own secret?

[kiki1982]

Oh, no, you see, it was morally wrong for a woman not to be a virgin when she marreid. Regardless of whether she had been unlucky as a young girl or not (I know, disgusting, isn't it?). For men that wasn't a problem. That's the whole thing Hardy wishes to point out in that scene and the remainder of that part: the double morals for women and men. They live in the same world, but men are allowed more than women, even though that women, in that particular case, are more vulnerable than men (arguably there is something like male rape, but it is harder than a man raping a woman or having sexual intercourse without her express consent).

The point is not that Angel is merely surprised at the fact that Tess has had a man before and feels he has been somewhat betrayed, but that he is repulsed by that. He sees his wife now as 'impure' (maybe from there Hardy's subtitle 'A pure woman') and disgusting.

Annulment is difficult, because how is he going to prove that she wasn't a virgin when he married her? Ok, she is not a virgin, but he can have done it. I believe they did know about the hymen already back then. I seem to remember that Joan of Arc was examined for that purpose (somethig to do with being a witch), so they must have known in the 19th century as well.
Another cause for annulment could be infidelity on the woman's part (not on the man's or it should have been numerous cases plus cruelty into the bargain, or desertion for several years...). But Tess has not been unfaithful during the marriage.

So, indeed, Angel Clare is trapped in a marriage to a woman he is disgusted with, a woman he cannot present to his father and he cannot consult the latter because he's going to say, 'I told you so.'
I seem to remember, although I read this novel a few years ago, that Angel's relationship with his father was rather strained and that his father did not really like him marrying a farmer's girl. He rather wanted him to marry the school mistress (?), but that was not to his purpose as Angel wanted to be a pioneer, so he needed someone who knew about farming (Tess).That was also why he was at Crick's.

You see why I said I was disappointed with Angel? ;) He seems ike the kind of person who is free-thinking, is against the establishment and thinks his father is old-fashioned, but he is more attached to that morality than he thinks of himself. He says one thing and he does another.

[kev67]

Oh, no, you see, it was morally wrong for a woman not to be a virgin when she marreid. Regardless of whether she had been unlucky as a young girl or not (I know, disgusting, isn't it?). For men that wasn't a problem. That's the whole thing Hardy wishes to point out in that scene and the remainder of that part: the double morals for women and men. They live in the same world, but men are allowed more than women, even though that women, in that particular case, are more vulnerable than men (arguably there is something like male rape, but it is harder than a man raping a woman or having sexual intercourse without her express consent).

The point is not that Angel is merely surprised at the fact that Tess has had a man before and feels he has been somewhat betrayed, but that he is repulsed by that. He sees his wife now as 'impure' (maybe from there Hardy's subtitle 'A pure woman') and disgusting.


I understand that. She has been defiled in his eyes. I think many Victorians regarded sex as rather a filthy act, acceptable within marriage, but otherwise not. I think the reason women were judged more harshly was largely because the act took place in the woman's body. It is women who are penetrated and who have unspeakable deposits left in them. Sex also has more of an effect on a woman's body than a man's. Her hymen is physical symbol of her virginity, like a seal. Also, a woman could become pregnant (and men like to be sure their wive's babies are theirs). I think the other thing is that men often married later than women because they had to get themselves established before they could afford to. Also it was recognised that men had sexual urges, while many people supposed women only wanted sex to have babies.

I am sure you are right that Hardy was drawing attention to the double standard, but even if Angel had been a virgin himself, it would not have justified the way he behaved.

After reflection, Angel may have understood that Tess's behaviour was much less blameworthy than his own forty-eight hours of dissipation. He may have eventually come around. He doesn't seem a total monster.



So, indeed, Angel Clare is trapped in a marriage to a woman he is disgusted with, a woman he cannot present to his father and he cannot consult the latter because he's going to say, 'I told you so.'
I seem to remember, although I read this novel a few years ago, that Angel's relationship with his father was rather strained and that his father did not really like him marrying a farmer's girl. He rather wanted him to marry the school mistress (?), but that was not to his purpose as Angel wanted to be a pioneer, so he needed someone who knew about farming (Tess).That was also why he was at Crick's.


I think both Angel's parents wanted him to marry a woman called Mercy, who was very religious. I can't remember whether she was a school teacher or just a Sunday school teacher. There was a point in the book where Angel's father tells him of how he confronted Alec d'Urberville over his fornicating, when he was standing in as vicar around Trantridge. Angel tells the story to Tess, disapproving of his father getting involved in confrontations at his age. His parents may have said 'we told you so' but his father would also have said he should forgive her and make the best of it.



You see why I said I was disappointed with Angel? ;) He seems ike the kind of person who is free-thinking, is against the establishment and thinks his father is old-fashioned, but he is more attached to that morality than he thinks of himself. He says one thing and he does another.

That's what I got too. He thinks he's progressive, but he's a creature of his time and class.