‘There are many tragic victimsʼ – Tess of
DʼUrbervilles and Death of a Salesman
‘There are many tragic victimsʼ – Tess of DʼUrbervilles and Death of a Salesman
Prince and the Birds (birds reflecting Tess and the position of women in 19th century
society).
Dave Singleman as a victim.
Happy Loman and Liza-Lu as victims in the generational tragedy.
In Aristotleʼs poetics, Aristotle stated that tragedy should have a ‘unity of plotʼ which focuses
on the tragedy of the main tragic hero protagonist. In the 16th century, Shakespeare atypically
subverted this presenting many tragic victims in a form of ‘collateral damageʼ in his plays.
Typical to more recent tragedy texts, both Death of a Salesman and Tess of DʼUrbervilles
present many victims whose stories parallel that of the tragic hero. However, the victims may
not be direct ‘collateral damageʼ of the tragedy so their position as tragic victims can be
debated. In this essay I will therefore discuss to what extent there are many tragic victims in
both tragedy texts.
In Tess of DʼUrbervilles, Tessʼs life seems to parallel that of the environment around her in a
form of emotional and psychologically deep pathetic fallacy. The animals around her seem to
foreshadow and reflect the struggles and emotions she is feeling due to her connection with
nature, and therefore occasionally become involved in her tragedy. The first tragic victim of the
novel can be seen as Prince – the DʼUrberville families horse. His character parallels that of
Boxer in Animal Farm as he presents the worker by being the manual labour of the family, with a
death so much more intense and given so much more weight than any of the human characters
who die. As it is described how Princeʼs “lifeʼs blood” squirted out of the hole which the mailcart
punctured covering Tess “from face to skirt in crimson droplets”, the scientific and dramatic
language describing the “iridescence of coagulation” emphasises the weight of the tragedy
marking Prince as a tragic victim of not just Tessʼs families feckless and irresponsible nature but
of the uncaring juxtaposition of fate. Princeʼs death is contrasted with the pragmatic uncaring
natural landscape around him. The pool of blood around him is zoomed out to focus on the
inconsequential reflections of the mail-cart, birds, and of course fate. His death foreshadows
Tessʼs position as a “murderess” later on in the novel as is tragic because of how easily it could
have been avoided if Tessʼs father did not hear that he was once linked to the DʼUrberville
knights; “how the mighty are fallen”, and if Tess had not fallen asleep. Through this Prince
becomes a tragic victim as his death ultimately leads to Tessʼs own.
However, the tragic victims who Tessʼs life is most frequently compared to are birds. They
appear to symbolise not only Tessʼs status but the position of all women in 19th century society,
with ‘birdsʼ which are usually a symbol of freedom being presented as trapped and hurt at the
DʼUrbervilles and Death of a Salesman
‘There are many tragic victimsʼ – Tess of DʼUrbervilles and Death of a Salesman
Prince and the Birds (birds reflecting Tess and the position of women in 19th century
society).
Dave Singleman as a victim.
Happy Loman and Liza-Lu as victims in the generational tragedy.
In Aristotleʼs poetics, Aristotle stated that tragedy should have a ‘unity of plotʼ which focuses
on the tragedy of the main tragic hero protagonist. In the 16th century, Shakespeare atypically
subverted this presenting many tragic victims in a form of ‘collateral damageʼ in his plays.
Typical to more recent tragedy texts, both Death of a Salesman and Tess of DʼUrbervilles
present many victims whose stories parallel that of the tragic hero. However, the victims may
not be direct ‘collateral damageʼ of the tragedy so their position as tragic victims can be
debated. In this essay I will therefore discuss to what extent there are many tragic victims in
both tragedy texts.
In Tess of DʼUrbervilles, Tessʼs life seems to parallel that of the environment around her in a
form of emotional and psychologically deep pathetic fallacy. The animals around her seem to
foreshadow and reflect the struggles and emotions she is feeling due to her connection with
nature, and therefore occasionally become involved in her tragedy. The first tragic victim of the
novel can be seen as Prince – the DʼUrberville families horse. His character parallels that of
Boxer in Animal Farm as he presents the worker by being the manual labour of the family, with a
death so much more intense and given so much more weight than any of the human characters
who die. As it is described how Princeʼs “lifeʼs blood” squirted out of the hole which the mailcart
punctured covering Tess “from face to skirt in crimson droplets”, the scientific and dramatic
language describing the “iridescence of coagulation” emphasises the weight of the tragedy
marking Prince as a tragic victim of not just Tessʼs families feckless and irresponsible nature but
of the uncaring juxtaposition of fate. Princeʼs death is contrasted with the pragmatic uncaring
natural landscape around him. The pool of blood around him is zoomed out to focus on the
inconsequential reflections of the mail-cart, birds, and of course fate. His death foreshadows
Tessʼs position as a “murderess” later on in the novel as is tragic because of how easily it could
have been avoided if Tessʼs father did not hear that he was once linked to the DʼUrberville
knights; “how the mighty are fallen”, and if Tess had not fallen asleep. Through this Prince
becomes a tragic victim as his death ultimately leads to Tessʼs own.
However, the tragic victims who Tessʼs life is most frequently compared to are birds. They
appear to symbolise not only Tessʼs status but the position of all women in 19th century society,
with ‘birdsʼ which are usually a symbol of freedom being presented as trapped and hurt at the
