Chivalry Is Not Dead

The concept of courtly love in literature blossomed in France during the middle ages. Stories of knights, damsels in distress, and low status beauties marrying upper class noblemen become not only a form of escape, but a beacon of hope for those born to less fortunate families. This sexual revolution of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, frowned upon the church but allowed none the less, refined the art of love making into a series of tropes which came to be defined in the late medieval period as chivalric love.

In Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Hardy creates a classic love triangle between Alec, Angel and Tess. H.M. Daleski in his criticism Thomas Hardy and Pardoxes of Love states:

"The typical Hardy plot places a female protagonist in a love triangle with two male protagonists who are portrayed as polar opposites. The woman contradicting a general view of her as victim is always granted the freedom of choice of a marriage partner. She invariably makes the wrong choice, which leads to a bad marriage and disastrous sexual relationships."

How do we see this thesis fulfilled in Tess? In what ways are the male protagonists polar opposites? Does this criticism work for the second Hardy novel you are reading in your Literature Circles?

Ceci N'est Pas une Pipe

In its simplest terms, novels can be reduced to setting, plot, character, conflict, and resolution. Any seventh grader knows that. But literature is more than these things. Literature is different than story. But what makes literature, well, literature? 

The explanation of what is literature and what is not has endured generations of writers, reviewers, and critics. Most recently the debate has fallen into the Freudian realm of "a pipe is just a pipe," leading to recursive arguments where both sides lack a will to move toward consensus. However, the question remains: why is one piece of writing considered literary and another, perhaps similar piece, not.

This got me to thinking: how do we know Hardy is literature? What makes his novels more important than what some would call Victorian melodrama, or soap operas? In the New York Times Book Review, reviewer Christopher Beha disagrees with Marjorie Garber's premise that "what it might mean to regard literature in a 'literary' way, or as Garber writes, how we might distinguish it 'from other distinct, though valuable, human enterprises like morality, politics and aesthetics.'" Beha promotes the idea that this is exactly what literature is for: to express the author's views on society, morality, and beauty.

Read the review and comment below on whether you believe Hardy's work can be considered literature.

A Pure Woman

Purity is an aspect revered by many cultures. The concept that one can be "free from contamination," "innocent in the ways of society," or "chaste" in a sexual or moral sense was highly valued by Victorian England. As the Victorian age lingered through the mid and late 19th century, the authors of the time became suspect of whether this purity actually existed. The contamination of industrialization, the ongoing imperialistic military ventures, and the lifting of the veil of middle class respectability led writers to question their own Victorian sensibilities.

Thomas Hardy was the last of a line of writers critical of the social, moral, and economic policies which defined the Victorian age. Hardy’s mostly unmentioned subtitle, A Pure Woman, raises the question of Victorian ethics. Critic, and teacher, Andrew H. Miller believes nineteenth-century literature was a “response to a crisis of human purpose” and that the Victorian age was one "destitute of faith, but terrified by skepticism.". Hardy could be seen as challenging the Victorian quest for faith of purpose and adding his own sense of skepticism. Therefore, his audience would have questioned his use of the word “pure” to describe Tess. 


Currently our post-modern American skepticism circumvents the challenges poses by writers critical of the Victorians. We see ourselves as an accepting, democratic people who have risen above the traditional, archaic nationalism of the past and embrace a global culture. So the debate has moved organized social movements such as Stormfront, Kau Inoa, Amnesty International, and the United Human Rights Council who have found a purpose in crisis. Is our society better than that of the Victorians? Or are we muddling through the same quagmire of philosophical dilemmas fought over a century ago?

What is your view on Miller's criticism? Post comments, share ideas, and comment on each other's views in a polite and professional manner.