From: "Jill D. Singer" Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:55:54 -0500 August 13, 2000
Re: Installment of Last Chronicle of Barset, Chs. 38-43:
Vholes, Dockwrath & Toogood - Part 1 of 3
I particularly appreciated this week's installment because we see much more
of Thomas (or is it John? see Ch.. 32) Toogood, visiting his home in
Tavistock Square and traveling with him as a "road warrior" out to do some
discovery for his client's case (what Toogood calls "rummaging" or, more
accurately described by Mr. Harding, gathering evidence). I find it
interesting to contrast Toogood as a person and as an attorney handling the
Crawley Prosecution with (1) Dickens's Mr. Vholes and his representation of
Richard Carstone in Jarndyce v. Jarndyce and (1) Trollope's Samuel Dockwrath
and his role in the Great Orley Farm Case. I wonder what these three would
be like at a modern Bar convention or a CLE seminar. What follows is an
overlong posting making some comparisons of the three lawyers, written
mostly for myself but which I thought I might share it with the group.
Because my notes are so long, I am posting them in three parts.
INDIVIDUAL APPEARANCE AND PERSONALITY
The three men are generally in their middle years, with Dockwrath being
somewhat younger than the other two (based on the ages of his children).
Otherwise, the men are quite different in appearance and manner.
Vholes is quite repellent physically: "a sallow man with pinched lips that
looked as if they were cold, a red eruption here and there upon his face,
tall and thin, about fifty years of age, high-shouldered and stooping.
Dressed in black, black-gloved, and buttoned to the chin, there was nothing
so remarkable in him as a lifeless manner, and a slow fixed way he had of
looking at Richard." He is further "remarkable for an inward manner of
speaking" and "lifeless manner." (BH Ch. 37)
Nor is Dockwrath is particularly outwardly attractive, "a little man, with
sandy hair, a pale face, and stone-blue eyes. In judging of him by
appearance only and not by the ear, one would be inclined to doubt that he
could be a very sharp attorney abroad and a very persistent tyrant at home."
However, in speaking, he revealed his talents, at least as a solicitor. "He
talked well and to the point, and with a tone of voice that could command
where command was possible, persuade where persuasion was required, mystify
when mystification was needed and express with accuracy the tone of an
obedient humble servant when servility was though to be expedient." (OF Ch.
6) Dockwrath is a very angry man, a man taking "delight in abusing those
special friends whom their wives best love," devoted to revenge on Lady
Mason now that he was semi-prosperous and no longer really needed her
charity. (OF Ch. 1)
Toogood is much more appealing, sounding a bit like our author in
appearance: "He was a good-humoured, cheery-looking man, about fifty years
of age, with grizzled hair and sunburnt face, and large whiskers," speaking
with a "goodhumoured, cheery voice," even to the difficult Mr. Crawley.
(LCB Ch. 32) He enjoys offering down-to-earth "potluck" hospitality and
good port, and if not "quite" so much a gentleman as Mr. Walker or often
mingling with high society, he is nevertheless a "good fellow." (LCB Ch.
42, 32)
DOMESTIC ROLES
All three solicitors are concerned about taking care of their families.
Dockwrath is a nasty- tempered, abusive husband, and he is the harassed
father of 16. (What unpleasant nights Mrs. D. has.) We meet him at a messy
breakfast table with the children spilling and squabbling, and he stalks
away from the table to his office after giving an "imperative command to his
wife and slave." (OF Ch. 1) Things don't improve domestically during the
remainder of the novel.
Vholes mouths concerns about his much smaller family, using them as the
excuse for working long hours and diligently collecting his fees. Because
of his three daughters and his aged father he "cannot afford to be selfish"
and it is "indispensable that the mill should be always going." He wishes
to "leave the poor girls some little independence, as well as a good name.
(BH Ch. 37)
Toogood is a warm husband and loving father to 12 children, whom he mentions
frequently and for whom he tries to provide reasonably well. Judging from
Polly and Lucy's behavior at Toogood's dinner party this week, the children
are comfortable and happy around their father. Mrs. Toogood also speaks her
mind openly at the dinner, and previously we saw Toogood discuss Crawley's
case with her. (Chs. 32, 40) Like Dockwrath and Vholes, Toogood is focused
on providing for his dependents, but he has a more down-to-earth approach.
"With twelve of 'em, Mr. Crawley, I needn't tell you they are not all going
to have castles and parks of their own, unless they can get 'em off their
own bats. But I pay upwards of a hundred a year each for my eldest three
boys' schooling, and I've been paying eighty for the girls. Put that and
that together and see what it comes to. Educate, educate, educate; that's
my word." (Ch. 32) I like Toogood's concern for educating his girls as
well as his boys.
Subject: [trollope-l] Last Chronicle: Toogood (Part 2 of 3)
August 13, 2000
Re: Installment of Last Chronicle of Barset, Chs. 38-43:
Vholes, Dockwrath & Toogood - Part 2
PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR
Vholes is prime example of why we have "lawyer jokes." His representation
of Richard in no way relates to concern for or a wish to benefit Richard; it
is to make money for Vholes. The black-clad solicitor exists to "churn" the
case, billing for every moment. (No doubt including "travel time" to and
from Chancery.) He looks at Richard "as if he were looking at his prey and
charming it." And indeed he does. Vholes says what Richard wants to hear
but at the same time scrupulously avoids giving any definite opinion as to a
positive outcome for the suit. "[U]pon the chances of Mr. C's game I
express to you no opinion, no opinion. It might be highly impolitic in Mr.
C, after playing so long and so high, to leave off; it might be the reverse.
I say nothing.'" Vholes's sole focus is on collecting his fees like a
meter. If Richard is not forthcoming with "funds," Vholes will only appear
"to the extent of all such costs as are safe to be allowed of tithe estate:
not beyond that." (BH Ch. 51) Vholes is a key witness supporting Dickens's
charge that the "one great principle of the English law is, to make business
for itself." (BH Ch. 39)
In contrast to Vholes, who focuses on avoidance of taking a stance,
Dockwrath and Toogood both focus on proving a definite theory. Each of
Trollope's solicitors have a valuable legal talent: the ability to "think
outside the box" and to rearrange pieces of evidence to create a story that
suits the attorney's case that was not perceived by others. Both of them
recognize the need for careful and thoughtful investigation. "'[Y]ou know
how very important it is to learn beforehand exactly what your witnesses can
prove and what they can't prove." (LCB Ch. 40) Toogood explains the need
for such discovery during his visit with Mr. Harding. "'In these affairs so
much is to be done by rummaging about, as I always call it. there have been
many theatrical managers, you know, Mr. Harding, who have usually made up
their pieces according to the dresses they have happened to have in their
wardrobes. . . . And we lawyers have to do the same thing. . . . In
preparing a defence we have to rummage about and get up what we can. If we
can't find anything that suits us exactly, we are obliged to use what we do
find as well as we can." (LCB Ch. 42)
Dockwrath focuses on the importance of documents. He discusses with
potential client Mason the possibility that Mason's own attorneys did not
"ferret about enough" in the original Orley Farm will case. "'Mr. Mason,
there's a deal better evidence than any that is given by word of mouth. A
clever counsel can turn a witness pretty nearly any way he likes, but he
can't do that with little facts. He hasn't the time, you see, to get round
them. Your lawyers, sir, didn't get up the little facts as they should have
done." (OF Ch. 7) Dockwrath's careful attention to the documents and how
they were executed unravels the case and reveals the truth.
Toogood is more concerned with witnesses and personal testimony. Toogood is
brilliant at patiently and delicately probing his witnesses and, most
important, he listens. His inquiries of the Dragon waiter, his conversation
with Mr. Harding and his interview with the prickly magistrate's clerk read
like excellent depositions, not only eliciting facts but also wooing the
witness. He knows just when to stop his questioning of the waiter: "The
waiter said he knew nothing about Mr. Soames, or the cheque, and the lawyer
suspecting that the waiter was suspecting him, finished his brandy and water
and went to bed." Toogood wins over Mr. Harding, notwithstanding the
attorney's reservation's about Crawley's absolute innocence. Mr. Harding
gives Toogood Mrs. Arabin's address and even writes her tacitly indicating
approval of Toogood's forthcoming inquiries. "Rummaging" in Silverbridge
involved coping with the magistrate's clerk, "a taciturn old man, who was
nearly as difficult to deal with in any rummaging process as a porcupine.
But nevertheless, at last he reaches a state of conversation which was not
absolutely hostile." Toogood arrives at this point by an honest but
carefully given description of his role as a family lawyer and protector in
poor Crawley's case. Toogood closes his discovery mission by a pleasant
meal at his opponent's home (such courtesy between opposing counsel being
very refreshing to behold). There he "gradually learned the position which
Mr. Crawley and the question of Mr. Crawley's guilt really held in the
county, and he returned to town resolved to go on with the case." (LCB Ch.
42)
We also see Toogood's sensitivity to jury perception. He mentally responds
to Crawley's explanation by reflecting that Crawley had "convinced me of his
innocence . . . and why should he not convince a jury? . . . [T]here is
either real truth in his words, or else so well-feigned a show of truth that
no jury can tell the difference. . . . He may have put his finger into my
eye; but, if so, why not also into the eyes of a jury?'" (LCB Ch. 32) And
he considers that Mr. Crawley's proud rejection of a barrister's aid in open
court might even work in his favor. "But there would come an explanation --
how Crawley was too honourable to employ a man whom he could not pay, and
there would be a romance, and it would all go down with the jury. One wants
sympathy in such a case as that -- not evidence." (LCB Ch. 42)
August 13, 2000
Re: Installment of Last Chronicle of Barset, Chs. 38-43:
Vholes, Dockwrath & Toogood - Part 3 of 3
But perhaps Toogood's most important lawyering skills are his willingness to
take time to elicit information and his knowledge of when to speak and
when to listen. He chatters and natters on and on about his family, etc.,
and thereby manages to put Mr. Crawley temporarily off-guard, which in turn
has the net result of Mr. Crawley carefully spelling out as much of his tale
as he can recall as opposed to only arguing or rejecting his would-be
benefactor. Mr. Crawley "had expected to find a man who in the hurry of
London business might perhaps just manage to spare him five minutes -- who
would grapple instantly with the subject that was to be discussed between
them, would speak to him half a dozen hard words of wisdom, and would then
dismiss him and turn on the instant to other matters of important
business -- but here was an easy familiar fellow, who seemed to have nothing
on earth to do, and who at this first meeting had taken advantage of a
distant family connection to tell him everything about the affairs of his
own household." (LCB Ch. 32)
Having taken his difficult client somewhat aback by this rambling monologue,
Toogood suddenly shifts his behavior persuades Crawley to do the talking.
"Of a sudden, as Mr. Toogood spoke these last words, the whole tone of his
voice seemed to change, and even the position of his body became so much
altered as to indicate a different kind of man. 'You just tell your story
in your own way, and I won't interrupt you till you've done. That's always
the best.'" And, indeed, Toogood then listens, mentally reflecting about
what he's hearing but hearing his client out, with only minor questions or
signals to indicate that he was attending to the speaker. "Mr. Toogood was
actually true to his promise and let the narrator go on with his narrative
without interruption. . . . When [Crawley] spoke thus, Mr. Toogood got up,
and thrusting his hands into his waistcoat pockets walked about the room,
exclaiming, 'By George, by George, by George!' but he still let the man go
on with his story, and heard him out at last to the end." (LCBM Ch. 32)
Not surprisingly, given the other aspects of their personalities, Trollope's
two lawyers have differing attitudes about money. Dockwrath is probably
more aligned with Vholes on this point. Dockwrath's vendetta against Lady
Mason is triggered by her reclaiming acreage from the attorney's erstwhile
use, and he is as much concerned with making sure he profits from his
re-getting up of the facts as he is with revenge or justice. Nevertheless,
he never comes off as quite being quite as sleazy as Vholes. Toogood, on
the other hand, is almost "too good" in his willingness not only to
volunteer his own time but also to pay some of the out-of-pocket expenses of
the investigation. Furthermore, he does this willingly and with only the
slightest sigh over the effect on the well-being of the 12 children. He is
a truly good man and a role model as an attorney.
Finally, I particularly liked Toogood's pleasure in the case itself. "'And
then you see there's something very pretty in the case. It's quite a
pleasure getting it up.'" (LCB Ch. 42) What a contrast to practicing
solely to meet the year's goal of 2200 billable hours. And what a
difference from Dickens's counselor Conversation Kenge's explanation at the
end of the Jarndyce case that the case is finally over because the entire
estate has been eaten up in legal costs, necessary to address the "numerous
difficulties, contingencies, masterly fictions, and forms of procedure" of
the "great cause." "If the public have the benefit, and if the country have
the adornment of this great Grasp, it must be paid for, in money or money's
worth, sir." (BH Ch. 65).
All in all, Trollope's lawyers -- good or evil-- are interesting human
beings and fascinating lawyers, professional men with dimension and, on the
whole, a pleasant contrast with Dickens's two-dimensional "lawyer jokes"
such as Vholes.
P.S. Personal "soapbox" note: I strongly believe that Toogood is in all
ways a good model for today's attorneys. He balances family and career. He
enjoys his practice. He has a good relationship with opposing counsel.
And, most important, he understands that he is in a profession, not an
industry. The members of today's bar should recognize the validity of
Toogood's willingness to provide pro bono representation to those who cannot
otherwise have access to the justice system, particularly the middle class.
Note: I am personally NOT liberal in the matter of how today's pro bono
legal work is handled, at least in Missouri, where I practice. I do NOT
appreciate the current system of court-appointments for juvenile, criminal
cases and the like for people with little or no income. In over 20 years of
practice, with only one exception, I have NOT been appointed to people
deserving of free representation, that is to say, people who were honestly
trying to make their own way in the world. I have had to represent a lot of
true "free loaders," and I have not enjoyed it. Nevertheless, I understand
that these appointments are a necessary part of the profession. What I
would like to see is something more along the line of Toogood's pro bono
activity, i.e., selective voluntary pro bono (or reduced fee) representation
for the struggling middle class, those who work very hard to earn a living
but lack independent wealth, in cases where there is no enormous contingent
fee possible at the end of the day but where justice is not available
because they simply cannot afford to pay for a lawyer's time on a
middle-class income. I also have one other question: why are there not
mandatory medical-treatment appointments for doctors, similar to
court-appointments for attorneys?
Jill Singer To Trollope-l
August 13, 2000
Re: Three Lawyers: Vholes, Dockwrath and Toogood
I much enjoyed Jill's comparison. Putting the names together,
one sees that the novelists have allegorised their patterns into
the names. Vholes, an elegant rat; Dockwrath, a man deeply
wrathful at the world and ready to take his revenge on those
vulnerable to his powers; and Toogood, someone who is, alas,
too good for real verisimilitude, an exemplary pattern for
lawyers to aspire to, and people who go to lawyers to judge
them by.
Jill says she 'strongly believes that Toogood is in all ways a
good model for today's attorneys', and wonders 'why are there not
mandatory medical-treatment appointments for doctors, similar to
court-appointments for attorneys?' When she describes how
Toogood was willing to take out the time really to listen to his
prospective client, I thought of the many physicians I have
encountered to whom time is money and who hardly listen to
the patient at all, leaving the impression that the patient has
no information to convey worth hearing. Toogood is also a
good model for today's physicians.
We have on this list read Bleak House (last summer) and
Orley Farm (the first summer Trollope-l was up and running).
Cheers to all, Reply-To: trollope-l@egroups.com Speaking of names, when we were reading The American Senator, I thought
that Senator Gotobed's name was a coined one. However, last night we were
watching a British TV show and noticed in the cast that one of the lesser
characters had the real-life name Harry Gotobed. Reminds me of a shoe store
in Cornwall where the owner's name was Goodenough. Although I'm well
accustomed to English surnames, I can still be surprised from time to time.
Now there would be a partnership for you: Toogood and Goodenough.
Gene Stratton Re: Last Chronicle: Reading for Living & Reading for Historical Interest
In reply to Howard's cogent comments on Trollope's depiction
of Grace Crawley and Major Henry Grantly, I offer the idea that
when we read an older novel we always read it in two ways
at once. Immediately we give it slack. We know it was written
so many years ago, and when we come across attitudes that
are today repellent or unacceptable in some ways, we
historicise. Of course Major Grantly has a lot going for him:
he has a good deal of money compared to anything the Crawleys
have ever known or apparently will ever know. Grace will eat
better, sleep in a comfortable bed, dress respectably, not live
in fear of debt collectors. She will be respected for his rank,
his connections. He is educated and is clearly not going to
beat her. Many men are violent, and in the Victorian period
when once a woman married a man, the law still commanded
her to submit unless she could prove demonstrable bodily
harm. And then there was shame. Grace is safe with Major
Grantly.
However, there are other ideas going on here about
Grantly's value which I submit are not acceptable
to a lot of 20th century readers. Among these
is the assumption that Grantly is more valuable
than other people because of who he is, his rank,
his, not to put too fine a point on it, his blood.
There is something numinous attributed to him beyond
even his being a gentleman which puts him above
Grace in ways that make any marriage to her a
comedown for him. The pages of the novel tremble with the
idea that Grantly is someone we all ought to think a great
deal about, care about simply because he's him. He is
told he is the brother of Lady Dumbello. He is therefore
among the special of the world. Has entered into
this realm. So he's special and has to live up to this.
I'm thinking about sentences filled with awe like "It is something,
Grace, to have been wooed by such a man at such a
time" (Mrs Crawley, solemn, to Grace on the couch).
Or his letter to Grace which is condescending. At points
I recalled how Darcy spoke to Elizabeth about what
a favor he was doing her. Austen presented that one
through exaggeration; Trollope keeps to verisimilitude
but the values there are the same. Were Austen's
Miss Bates (Emma) Grace's aunt I can see her daily
telling everyone in the neighborhood 'so very kind and
obliging! -- But he always had been such a kind noble
man! and indeed she must thankfully say she and
Grace remain grateful to him ... so very very ... well,
my dear, magnanimous, such a big word, don't you know?
Yes we can understand that people thought that way
in the 19th century, but I am holding Trollope to a higher
standard. I am reading the novel as one which is alive
today, speak to us today. I submit the Crawley story,
the Crawley character is a living one today, directly
relevant, one whose ethical inferences we need provide
hardly any slack for. The plot device is forced,
a bit unreal. Trollope admits this: it is not quite credible that
all this fuss would be occasioned by a £20 bill. We are not
children. But Trollope wanted us to remain intensely respectful
of Crawley and like many an 18th century woman novelist who
wanted to explore woman's sexuality yet tried to keep her
heroine chaste, so Trollope wants to explore what happens
when a man as down and out as Crawley gets on the wrong
side of the law and money in this community. He is food for
the vultures and the indifferent, and the reasonable and non-
thinking and those who don't know him go along. Toogood
is an exemplary character, but Jill's posting has saved me
the trouble of outlining why the ethical inferences there are
living for us today. We need not excuse Trollope. Yes he
wrote for his audience, but so did hundreds of novelists and
we are not reading the minor and superminor people on
this list. We are seeing him as still alive today, speaking
to us. We cannot be ourselves 19th century upper class
ladies and gentleman; we simply don't and can't respond
this way. We make an effort of the historical imagination,
but then we draw a line between what is historically interesting
and what is alive.
I submit we also ought to divide up what is historically
interesting and discuss what is today harmful, or reinforces
values that are injust or inhumane. We are here in the same
area we entered into when we debated Trollope's antisemitism,
his classism, when we have talked about his sexist
attitudes towards women, particularly lower class ones.
Yes we can see the story of Grantly as a prudent exemplum,
and in that sense I suppose it's merely tiresome. I can't read
as if I were an equivalent of Mrs Grantly who is herself
charmed by her daughter's high rank and now worried
lest her son marry down. Do note that Mr Harding is
never dazzled by Griselda, not himself confused by what
she stands for. Toogood is another character who
suggest that Trollope is not altogether entering into
this Grantly story so much as giving the reader what
is expected without much thinking about it. That's
why I used the verb 'nod'.
That Trollope is somewhat aware of the falsity of his
presentation of the love scenes between Grantly and
Grace may be hinted at when Johnny Eames says he
is no Sir Charles Grandison and Madalina Desmoulins
must not expect Sir Charles Grandison stuff today:
"The Sir Charles Grandison business is done and gone."
Of course not for everyone I suppose, not for the female
reader Trollope is teaching his lesson to who dreams
of 'angels of light'. What Trollope really thought of this
we will see in Ayala's Angel.
Howard will see that we have had versions of this discussion
before: as in Dr Thorne over the Scatcherds. I am at
least consistent in my approach, the standard I hold
Trollope up to of high ethical ideals of humanity and
justice. I'll give him a great deal and say most of the
time he does live up to ethical ideals still vital today.
The Last Chronicle is at its heart a story of injustice
(the Crawley and Proudie story) and emotional
inadequacy, retreat & recoil (the Johnny and Lily story).
Its dark shadow side or mirror image is in the London
plots. The Grantly story is a hold-over from Barchester
Towers (that's the last time we have really gotten
involved with these Grantlys); not just 'pleasing
romance' filler, but to some extent that.
I agree, though, that this story will be used with effective
drama to present a conflict between Grantly and his father.
I'm not sure how much Trollope does identify with the
Archdeacon. To some extent, especially when the
Archdeacon finds he is losing his son. Therefore, the
scenes between Grantly and his father need much less
historicising to enter into, though not altogether, for the
Archdeacon's point of view is expressed in ways that
a modern parent anxious that the progeny get the
degree, go into the business, would not use.
One problem Trollope does have with Grace as opposed to
Lucy Robarts and Mary Thorne, also underdog heroines
(Mary is a bastard), is he must shape her story in accordance
with that of her father. Since he is so determined we shall
be on Crawley's side as to the merits of the case (i.e.,
Crawley didn't and couldn't have done it, though he has
been driven nearly mad over the course of his lifetime),
he will not allow Grace any individuality in the way he does
Lucy and Mary. There is no rebellion, no anger, no,
no resentments. Mrs Crawley is given reality but she too
is deprived of the full burden of her resentments and
humanity to leave room for this portrait of mentally
disabled man, for that's what he has become under these
new yet worse pressures of accusation, not knowing
how to counter them, and the coming humiliation and
perhaps destruction of his family. Characters are not
people; they are always a product of what they do in
a story, are shaped by the needs of the story. They
are rhetoical devices in a pattern, which pattern Trollope
keeps his mind on when it comes to the more minor
people. The major characters of the novel remain
the Crawleys and Lily and Johnny; they are allowed
to make the story, the patterns, not fit into it.
Cheers to all,
Ellen Moody
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:00:42 +0100 Where does Catherine get the idea that Henry Grantly has been married TWICE
before? Just over six pages into Chapter II (page 18 of the Trollope Society
edition) Trollope sets out his history, and indicates that as a very young
man he had served in India, and won the Victoria Cross. This would
presumably be during the Indian Mutiny, which was between 1857 and 1859.
Since Henry is "under thirty" when The Last Chronicle was being written
in 1866, he would have been born in the late thirties, and have been between
18 and 20 years old when he was involved in the Mutiny. He had left the army
when he married "a lady with some money", and she had died in childbirth
"just two years" ago. This would mean that they had married in, say, 1862 or
1863, which hardly leaves time for a second marriage, either before the one
referred to, or after.
This leads me up to a defence of Grace and Henry. Of course, they are a
standard young Trollope couple, falling in love, and then having apparently
insuperable difficulties put in the way of their marriage, as a result of
lack of money and her father's suspected criminality. I hope that it will
not be too much of a spoiler if I say that, as usual, Trollope finds a way
out for them in the course of his plot. The interest lies in how he does it.
Meanwhile, Grace is an accomplished and beautiful young woman, and Henry is
handsome, brave, and appears to be determined to overcome the obstacles in
the way of his second marriage. He is a typical Trollope hero, well
educated, brought up to take up one of the 'permitted' professions, and set
up as a country gentleman by his wealthy father. These were the sort of
people that Trollope wrote about, and I think that it is unreasonable to
expect him to have chosen someone different to be Grace's lover. He did this
very successfully in Lady Anna, but that was a book written with an
entirely different purpose five years later, and he recognised that most of
his readers would regard the marriage of Lady Anna and her tailor as a
mésalliance. Grace and Henry are not a very exciting pair, but I cannot
agree with Ellen that Henry has nothing going for him.
I think that the main purpose that Trollope had for introducing the
Grace/Henry plot was to show his readers the development in the character of
the Archdeacon. There is a scene coming up which illustrates beautifully the
way in which Archdeacon Grantly's prejudices against Grace and Henry's
marriage are overcome. If there is a great deal of Trollope in the
Archdeacon, then we shall see from this episode how what has probably only
been the reader's liking becomes admiration and fondness for the
character.
Regards, Howard
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 15:32:12 -0000 After reading Howard's post about major Grantly, I went back and looked at
LCB again. You are correct, Howard. Major Grantly was only married once.
(That he will admit to! Just kidding.) He is under thirty years old, at the
start of the novel and had been married to a woman for less than twelve
months before she died. This first wife gave birth to Edith before she died.
(In fact, she died hours after Edith was born.)The first wife has been dead
for two years when the novel starts. Edith must be just a toddler. I misread
the paragraph about Major Grantly's marriage. (This passage is in the middle
of Chapter 2.) You make some good points, Howard, about the "underlying
meaning" (for want of a better expression) about this plot line. But I still
think Grace could do better than marry Major Grantly. I don't understand why
Grace is considered a pariah by the Grantly family. If they are going to be
so unfriendly, why does she want to marry Major Grantly? Either Major
Grantly has to "come down" in social standing, or Grace has to be suddenly
"forgiven" for being the daughter of a perpetual curate. In Chapter 2, Major
Grantly's mother urges him to take a look at Emily Dunstable. Here is the
exchange:
'What, Mr. thorne's nieces?'
'No; they are not her nieces, but her cousins. Emily Dunstable is very
handsome; - and as for money - !'
'But what about birth, mother?'
'One can't have everything, my dear.'" I guess it's OK not to have "birth" is you have money. Grace has no money,
but isn't her father a gentleman? I don't want to give the plot away, but I
am amazed that it takes the Archdeacon 800 pages to somehow make allowances
for Reverend Crawley. Time will tell whether or not Trollope can convince
his readers that the pairing of Grace Crawley and Major Grantly makes sense.
It doesn't make sense to me. I look forward to discussing Grace Crawley as
we continue to read Last Chronicle of Barset.
Regards Subject: [trollope-l] Grace could do better
Dear Catherine,
Re: your question "why is Grace considered a pariah?"
There is a scene, or scenes where Mrs. Grantly (I think) is talking about
Grace Crawley. She imagines that Grace's family poverty means that Grace
has never set foot in a parlor, and that Grace must be completely
uneducated. She suspects that Grace will turn out to be not a "lady." I
couldn't find this in the book when I looked for it so perhaps it will turn
out that I am mixed up...
And of course there is the Crawley family lack of money, and the theft of
the cheque. The Archdeacon likes the good things in life, and he likes his
good reputation.
About the theft, when I first read this book in college in the late 1980's
20 pounds just didn't sound like enough money to matter. However, when you
consider that Crawley's entire yearly income is something like 130 pounds
the cheque suddenly seems like much more. I have trouble thinking outside
of current money figures. Also, these days perhaps there is less of a
feeling that a whole family is tainted by the crime of one person than there
once was.
Kind of off the subject but has anyone here seen the film The Winslow Boy?
It takes place around WWI (I think). It is about a British family in
whose son is accused of stealing a postal order for something like five
shillings. I think that it gives a good picture of how people felt about
crime and personal reputation in the past, and may well be close to
attitudes in Trollope's day.
I agree that the romance is weak, as far as the interactions of Grace and
the Major are concerned, but Major Grantly's character (in other respects) ...
The rest of the posting has been lost as well as the name of the person
who wrote it.
Re: Henry Grantly
Seems wonderfully done to me. He is such a real person in that he proposes
to Grace partly because he is encouraged to by women he knows, and he likes
the idea of being a hero. He also proposes because his father has
forbidden him to do it. His motivations seem so recognizably mundane and
real. I also love the interaction between him and his father. That too
seems very wonderful and like life.
As far as Grace doing better is concerned, it is very hard in real life to
find the right person, and if finding the right person was really your only
decent career option, then from a practical point of view Grace really might
not do any better, and ought not to gamble on doing so. If she weds Henry
she will be able to help her sister Jane meet eligible men.
Clarissa
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:53:26 Dear Jill and Trollope-l friends,
Fourteen is very young to be a parent. I hadn't really
thought about how Grace is said to be sixteen. I often
find these Victorian heroines exist in some non-age virginal
reality. They are often given a depth of apprehension (which
we see in Grace in the scenes with her father in this week's
instalments) well beyond the years of a teenager; on the other
hand, if they are middle class, we are to think them superchaste,
never a sexy thought in their head. That's not true of
most of Trollope's heroines, even the good ones: Grace
is more Dickensian in this way. There is in fact a Dickensian
element in numbers of these scenes. A kind of benevolence
suffuses the atmosphere of the Toogood family which recalls
Dickens's way of making us smile fondly at his characters,
which makes us forget how much of this is sentimentalising.
Then again Trollope does have the pointed name: Too-good.
On the treatment of Henry Grantly and who he marries I didn't
say money doesn't matter. What I objected to was the treating
of him as someone special, as part of some group of people who
count, matter more than others by virtue of their blood which
is an old word which asserts numinousness. Of course this
idea permeates much of Trollope: the point is made that
Toogood is not quite the gentleman which means he's not as
good or important as Walker. It could be objected
to my objection that all Trollope's books
reinforce this notion that some people count more than others,
mean more, so that when one of them dies (say the Princess
Diana), we should care a good deal while if on the same
day someone else did or got into some kind of horrible accident
which disfigured them for life the society is not even responsible
for helping the person to get decent medical care or cosmetic
surgery. I would say that in most of Trollope's plots he
treats this idea ironically too and looks at many angles: Toogood
is after all the hero of this book who saves the victim. In
the Major Grantly-Grace story the idea is not even thought about
very much. It is simply embodied as wholly valid; that's what
makes the love scenes so stilted and unreal. The Sir Charles
Grandison approach simply allows Trollope to push human realities
under the rug to get the scene done with.
It's an ethical as well as realistic standard I am
applying. I think most of Trollope's fiction does come up to
this even if we must historicise and read through analogies.
Probably the reason he does come up to this is he is himself
honest and attempts to found all his fiction on really apprehended
complex psychological life.
William Godwin has a closing statement in his novel, Caleb Williams
which I sometimes remember when I am reading stories like this of
how important Major Grantly is, how valuable, how much above
the Crawleys (wondering irony in that name) At the close
of Caleb we have endured a long agony of struggle and
conflict between an aristocratic gentleman, Falkland,
and his servant, Caleb. Throughout everyone has insisted how
significant is Falkland, how we all must be concerned for his feelings,
for what happenes to him, how Caleb was wrong ever to question and
bring out the deep underside of sordidness and crime in Falkland;
finally, while in prison Caleb is told Falkland died, heart-broken;
they tell him this because they think it must make him feel bad.
He is himself half-mad and sick and in this dungeon for a long time
to come. He asks, "I wonder who that Mr Falkland was, for every body
to think so much about him. Do you know?" Grace Crawley, were
she a real young girl, not a character, would be just as worthy
our thinking about her as any man, whether an elegant gentleman
high on his horse or her father, a poverty-striken curate who
can't remember what he did with his paper money.
Characters, though, remain characters. What is important is the
ideas the scenes dramatise -- finally the perception of the
experience of life they present to us for thought.
Ellen Moody
To Trollope-l
August 16, 2000
Re: Last Chronicle: Living v Historical Interest and Grace
We have had a posting today which suggests that the role model
or exemplary depiction of Grace Crawley can still work for some
young women today [A passionately Christian interpretation by
someone.]. Kristi then remarked that mores have changed,
especially when it comes to sex; I'd add or seek to qualify that
by saying that these mores are in flux. Here in the US what
I'll call very old-fashioned attitudes towards sex as part of a
sacred area of behavior exist side-by-side with an attitude towards
it that it is just another form of behavior you can share with
someone or not as you and the other person think fit without
reference to anything else. The other day my husband found
an interesting set of statistics on the Net: it was in an article
intended for people who are Vicars and curates in the Church
of England: it said 49% of Anglicans live together before they
are married; 79% of Dissenting people, and something like
51% of Catholics. How did the writer arrive at these statistics?
Among other things, when you fill out a marriage certificate
in England, you say where you are living at the time.
Still I would say that if the exemplar or role model can touch, it
needs to be believable. Like Clarissa, I find much of the
behavior of Crawley's family towards him not quite believable.
It's idealised; they are far more tolerant and fearful of him than
is probable. Only the mother is allowed to feel emotions
approaching regret, resentment and anger. There is an
interesting book by Patricia Meyer Spacks (who writes book both for the
common reader and academics); it's called Boredom. In
one chapter she tries to explain why 18th century readers and
in the first half of the 19th century some readers still found
Sir Charles Grandison so rivetting, deeply absorbing and why
today it can't stay in print and students say they can't get through
it and find it irritating. Spacks's explanation for the early
popularity of Grandison is that believability is not the only
criteria for finding a work speak to you; if it forms issues
that count to you in ways that validate your desires,
you will read on. People today do demand more believability,
more presentation of the unpleasant aspects of our human
nature as they continually come up; for us Grandison is
now 'a monument to dead ideas' (I take that phrase from what someone
called Milton's Paradise Lost early in the 20th century, just
after World War One). It's revealing that Trollope has his
Johnny Eames make fun of this book in a scene which shows
two young people courting who were it written 30 years later
Trollope would have left climbing the stairs up to bed together.
Howard and I talked off list and I can do no better than say my
usage of historicise comes from the way I have seen it used
in talking about older books or art or technologies or attitudes
&c&c. It's the opposite of reading against the grain. When you
read against the grain, you deliberately ignore the writer's slant
so as to reread the book from a point of view he never meant.
This is common among feminists when they approach Trollope
and they can emerge with scathing and laudatory readings of
his books which shed new lights upon them. When you historicise,
you look upon the book as a historical document. When movie-
makers remake old books, they often justify their attempts to
find new analogies for what is presented in the book by saying
they cannot present a historical document to an audience. The
work must be re-created in modern terms.
Then maybe let us move away from the specific incident since
one can get to a point where the only thing to do is agree to
differ. There's a larger issue here, and I'll rephrase it with
the above comments in mind thus, Do Trollope's novels transcend
time and speak generally to the human condition? If so, where
and how? (That's what I was aiming at or the standard I
had in mind.) Or are these books interesting historical documents,
mirrors of their age, very lively and entertaining no doubt, but limited
and even frequently obsolete. Perhaps they reinforce attitudes
that are harmful. There are many thoughtful people today who think
the latter is true. That's one reason Trollope's books don't
spread into the universities. This in turn links up to the nature
of Trollope's reputation, its history, how he was regarded in
the later 19th century (just after his death), during the early
part of this century and is looked upon now. Readers' opinions
don't necessarily have anything to do with the book in front
of them. But let us pretend for the sake of argument that
the writer's reputation is the result of what readers have truly
understood from the books that is there.
This is an interesting debate. It makes us feel good to agree
and admire one another's posts, but we can't do that always.
Maybe Trollope is the more disquieting and therefore
interesting writer than Gaskell because he provokes
disagreement on central issues for us today: rank, class,
money and sex are still central to our lives. Somehow
Gaskell moved in a way that sheered off from provoking
us. Did she do that deliberately? As a woman, she would
not want herself to be attacked. She really was upset at
the furor her Ruth caused.
Finally, I don't know if it's true that women and men have
been more influenced by feminism in the US than in the UK; on the
academic lists I am on the British women seem as strongly
feminist as Americans, French, German and other
nationalities.
Cheers to all, Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:07:34 -0400 Thanks for this analysis Jill, I found it very helpful. I loved Toogood's
way with Crawley when I read the chapter--and it was very effective. I hope
we get to read more about him later.
Probably they want another Hartletop or whatever his name is
for him too. They seem to me to be completely carried away
with money. The Archdeacon's idea of punishment for his
marrying Grace is to disown him. Their daughter with her
ideas of nothing but money and prestige did come from
their upbringing. Being a girl she probably would have
been home more than the major who was surely sent away to
school. She has to have picked up her awful ideas from
someone around the house, doesn't she??
It's astonishing to me that Trollope can manage to bring
out all this differing of opinion 100+ years later. To me
Grace is a young woman, who like Cousin Phyllis reads the
books around the house because she has brains and must do
something with them. Her father passes on to her the only
wealth he has, his knowledge (worth more to me than any other),
her lack of experience in the world leads her to fall in love
with the first man she meets who pays attention to her, and there
she is--stuck with him.
Why, Catherine, this bothers you I can't imagine. To me, it is
AT showing some more of that wonderful variety of characters
he always shows (although at this time in a less interesting way).
You have found her a character who's real to you; I'm in the other
camp and just prefer to go on to Toogood, Crawley (who certainly
never crawls!), and the Archdeacon who interest me.
I have lost the name of the person who wrote the above too.
Reply-To: trollope-l@egroups.com August 16, 2000
While I agree that the character, Grace Crawley, has probably
had enough comment on this list, I'd like to say that we should
not say no one can talk about Grace Crawley if they really want
to. We have had two further postings this morning on this
character, and since characters are not people but stand for
ideas we will probably carry on talking about this character
in terms of the book's ideas as we go. Let us keep to the idea
that to discuss the nature or approach of someone else's
postings is beyond what personalities can be asked to
bear, but that the content of what they want to discuss is
their choice.
Sometimes I find these conversations about books revealing
in ways I had never expected. There is a level in which list
conversations taken as a whole bring forth anthropological
revelations (these not always conscious) about our own
culture. I wonder what Margaret Mead would have said about
the responses to Grace and Major Grantly. It is fascinating
how these minor characters attract intense discussions
where today's values simmer under the surface of an
apparent discussion about literal things in the text.
We can also learn why a particular author becomes a cult
figure -- as Jane Austen has been since the end of the
19th century. One should never ignore the literal content
of the story for it seems to mean so much to people;
they in fact often stick with it so that it can be turned here
and there to validate whatever seems so at issue. On
his memorial Trollope was called the creator of Barsetshire.
These are but 6 out of 47 novels, and novels whose content
is limited by conventions of plot which demand love
stories, happy endings, shaped conclusions. Sometimes
I am attracted to Mullen's argument that Trollope's really
great books are his travel ones. This business of not
reading a book as a work of art where the tenor (meaning,
what the events are metaphors for) is often basically
ignored or not treated apart from a adherence to the
vehicle (content) explains how there can be two tiers of
readers. The cult arises most often from sticking to the
vehicle when the surface seems pleasant, happy and
alluring -- or, in the case of detective stories say,
at once exciting and comforting.
Cheers to all, August 17, 2000
[trollope-l] Trollope and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood
Joan - Thank you for your post! You and I were very fortunate to have been
in London to hear Ellen's wonderful talk at the AGM. We were both lucky to
be guests of Angela's and Paul's. I have many, many happy memories of a week
saturated in books, art, and friendship. Going to the museum and seeing the
Millais paintings with Paul as an interpreter was a highlight of the trip
for me. (I was overcome by the experience -truly!) I didn't appreciate many
things about the Victorians until my experiences in London, and exposure to
the art of the period was a big part of my new ideas. I am rather
inarticulate still. The Victorians were real, vibrant people. Millais'
colors just exploded off the canvas in a way that was vital and emotional. I
didn't expect it. When I had seen prints of these same paintings before, I
had thought they were garish and "corny." Not any longer. The subject of
artists and Trollope is apropos now, as we read the artistic sub-plot in
Last Chronicle of Barset. I am really enjoying this ("The fevered
existence")!!! One of the many things that caught my attention was the
purple velvet coat that one of the artists wears. Didn't Bertie Stanhope
sport a blue velvet coat? Is this one of the signs of being "arty"? (I hear
Dickens also sported blue velvet coats - but didn't he hang with an arty
crowd?) When we read Ayala's Angel, we will see color and art bursting
from the pages in a surprising way. (Please, please, do, my fellow Trollope
lovers, find a copy of Ayala's Angel. I think the Trollope society has the
book on offer. ) I rambling all over the place here, sorry. Yes, Joan - I
remember the thrill of looking at bound copies of the original magazines
(courtesy of Paul and Angela!) with the Millais illustrations. I also
remember how amazing it was to be at the Trollope AGM, at the Reform Club,
being in a room filled with Trollope aficionados, hearing Ellen speak. It
was a night I will never forget.
Catherine Crean
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Rev. Crawley the Giant
Ellen, I agree that some of the characters in Last Chronicle of Barset
fall a bit flat. Maybe that is why the "secondary plot" seems so colorful to
me. Trollope seems like a harried stage manager, trying to keep the crowd
satisfied. Bring on Lily Dale! Bring on Johnny Eames! Even Mr Butterwell is
dusted off and trotted out. In this novel, Reverend Crawley dominates
everybody else. He is a giant, and they are Lilliputians. Although the some
of the life has gone out of the old stand-bys, the ensemble piece works
quite well because of Crawley. This is a great book, one of Trollope's
greatest, but reading it makes me understand why Trollope did NOT go on
writing Framley Parsonage forever. Maybe one of the reasons Trollope had
such long career is that he knew when to move on. He did not rely on the
same formula, the same setting, or the same cast of characters.
Catherine Crean
Given the rather outlandish Christianizing post sent to Trollope-l,
and that the person who wrote it seemed to have promptly unsubscribed,
we got to talking about age. It was decided this person was very
young, and we began to see that the average age of people on
Trollope-l was between 40 and 50.
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:15:39 GMT I'll add my age to the Trollope Reader Survey.
I'm 34, but have been reading Trollope off and on since I discovered him in
college at the age of 21. I have to say that the first book I read was The
Last Chronicle of Barset, and I loved it.
However, rereading it now many years later does give me a different view of
it. The comments about Crawley's depression really struck me. In the
intervening years between the first and the current read I had a lengthy
relationship with a person who suffered from severe depression. I am very
impressed with Trollope's powerful portrayal of Crawley. But I think that
the rest of the family copes with him and his depression in ways that seem
somewhat idealized and unrealistic to me.
Clarissa
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:05:50 +0100 I hope that this isn't just a disagreement between Ellen and I about whether
we should judge Trollope's attitudes towards society by his standards or our
own. As Ellen says, this came up when we were reading _Doctor Thorne_ and I
thought that her criticism of Trollope's description of Louis Scatcherd, on
the grounds that Trollope was expressing a class attitude, was unfair. There
does not seem to be the least hint that Trollope suggests that Grace Crawley
is inferior in rank to Henry Grantly. I think that it was Susan Grantly who
says to the Archdeacon ' You are both clergymen' or something like that in
referring to Mr Crawley. (Its too late at night to look that one up).
I am also not clear what Ellen means when she says 'when we come across
attitudes that are today repellent or unacceptable in some ways, we
historicise.' My dictionary defines 'historicism' as :-
and I suppose that she is using a verb derived from this concept. When I
come across attitudes in books which I disapprove of, I don't blame history,
I just accept that that is what people did, and am glad that they don't do
it any more, or that if they do, then I can express my disapproval freely.
There seems to be a fairly strong feminist view on the list. I don't
disagree with most of what is said, but I don't think that we can base our
views on Grace Crawley's future prospects on the grounds that she ought to
have been able to study Greek at university, and possibly become an Oxbridge
don. It took many years work by dedicated women and a few supportive males
to achieve the present situation in the UK and the USA, and I suspect that
many of today's women are still coming up against the glass ceiling in their
academic or business careers.
I would be interested to know whether other list members agree with Ellen's
view that Trollope should be judged on his attitude to what is today
harmful, or reinforces values that are unjust or humane. I personally cannot
see it that way.
Having said the above, I do agree with most of what Ellen has said in her
posting under the above heading. I think that we shall probably have to
agree to differ on Trollope's attitudes to class and feminism.
Regards, Howard
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:19:52 -0700 What struck me very forcibly the first, second, third, and fourth times I
read The Last Chronicle was the extreme respect demonstrated toward Grace
Crawley by virtually every person who gets to know her personally.
Because of her poverty and the scandal associated with her father, this
respect is entirely due to her own merits. These are: her entirely
feminine personality, tender heart, cultivated mind, dignity, courage, and
personal refinement. I thought that the scene where she accepts her suitor
was extremely moving and powerful. Henry Grantly, in his weakest moment,
nonetheless knows that she is superior to himself in all the important ways.
His core values are sounder in this respect than those of his parents.
Having the responsibility of a motherless child, he is attracted to Grace
because of her character as much or more than her physical beauty, which is
less mature at this point.
Perhaps our society will evolve to the point where we too can hold these
qualities in a young woman in high esteem. It's difficult to identify a
similar role model today.
Jill Singer
Kristi Jaliks
Ellen wrote:
But, I think that Jill's daughter became
step-mother to a 14 year old. She heself is just
somewhere presumably less than 30.
I think that the way young women are raised, from
childhood on, very much affects their attitudes.
There were many taboos about sex for upper and
middle-class Victorian girls, and I doubt that
many of them thought all that consciously about
sex, per se, when they were in their teens.
Romance and/or duty and/or social advantage
preoccupied most of them, I think. I am only two
years older than Ellen, and I see a great
difference in social attitudes in my lifetime
alone.
Kristi
From Dagny?
I think a person distinguished by these
particular qualities will not usually be
sufficiently in the public eye to qualify as a
role model.
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:04:58 -0000 I am confused by those who think that I am "judging" Trollope by Y2K
standards. I do not do so, nor, do I think does Ellen. The point I'm trying
to make is that Trollope, master artist and story teller that he is, does
not do things without a reason. I am asking what Trollope is doing with his
characters, in particular, Grace, Edith and Jane. I find Grace and Major
Grantly a little flat compared to some of Trollope's other romantic pairs.
One thing I do not understand is why Grace feels so "proud" of Major
Grantly's love. Did this word have another meaning in Trollope's time? Why
is Grace proud of Major Grantly's love? Grace is not proud that she has
snared a man - Trollope tells us that she loves Major Grantly. I find it
ironic that in etiquette books circa 1920, it was considered ill-mannered to
congratulate a young a woman when she became engaged. One congratulated the
man, and wished the woman joy, or happiness. The idea was that
congratulating a woman implied that she "chased" the man down and caught
him. In Trollope's novels, characters openly and warmly congratulate young
women when they become engaged. I bring this up to point out how every era
has its own manners, customs and assumptions. I am not saying that Grace
should have had a career teaching Greek at university. I am just asking what
did Grace see in Major Grantly? I still think that Jane Crawley as a
daughter and sister presents us an opportunity for interpretation,
discussion, whatever. If Reverend Crawley had only one daughter, how would
this have affected Grace's love story? (Again, I wonder why Trollope kept
Jane in the picture.) Edith still puzzles me too. For a man who didn't have
a daughter, Trollope writes about fathers and daughters with great insight.
(I know that Trollope was close to his niece, Florence Bland, but this is
not quite the same thing.)
Catherine Crean
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:36:29 +0200 Ellen had this to say today:
Ellen, could you explain a bit more what you mean by that sentence ...they
reinforce attitudes that are harmful. I find this very interesting and also
very vague. thanks.
Marian Poller Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:39:08 +0100 Thank you very much Jill for your studies of Toogood and other
lawyers.
The character of Mr Toogood does strike many modern notes as a
particular kind of detective. He is vulgar and slangy (rummaging
about) genial and social. Yet behind it all is a keen intelligence
looking for facts, or something as useful to Mr Crawley. (I found it
a bit laboured to have him meet with Mr Harding again, reminding us
of a recurrent theme in Barsetshire where characters do not like to
be got off, but to have the truth revealed.)
In these characteristics he is much more like the actual detectives
in Dickens and Collins than other lawyers.
Angela
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:12:39 +0100 Ellen wrote :
"I see hints today in this week's scene
that she could be available ... " I notice that Trollope refers to John as her lover. Its in a
section which conveys Lily's thoughts about being in London
with both Crosbie and Eames. I was quite struck by this term,
as 'suitor' might have been more appropriate. Is it meant to
be Lily's thought? or Trollope's early signal?
Angela, who's not read Last Chronicle before
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:20:31 +0100 Catherine wrote recently about male characters in Trollope
wearing velvet jackets and suggested this was because they
were arty.
Instinctively I think you must be right Catherine but there is a photo of
Wilkie Collins in what looks to be a velvet jacket with braid trimmings.
Athough he was certainly part of an art set, I wonder if he would have
a formal portrait taken in something so 'outre' once he was famous?
Perhaps its the colour of the jacket, and Trollope certainly makes
sure we know its a bright colour.
By the way, John Fowles is very good on the new and garish colours
of the Victorians in the French Lts Woman
Angela
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:28:33 -0700 (PDT) It just struck me that the visit of Dr. Tempest to the
palace could be likened to a tempest in a teacup as he
precipitates a major break between the Proudies. I
noted that Mrs. Tempest declined her invitation. When
Dr. Tempest said he was afraid of Mrs. Proudie and
that if she interfered there would be a row I liked
Mrs. Tempest's comment: "Then, my dear, there will be
a row, for I am told that she always interferes."
Smart woman to turn down the invitation. Who needs the
aggravation (assuming it can be avoided)--and it seems
the dinner was rather boring.
I don't think that Dr. Tempest refused to talk to Mrs.
Proudie because she was a woman but because of the way
she is. To me it just seemed like he was trying to be
polite about his hostess by saying it wasn't
appropriate to discuss the subject in front of a lady.
I do think Mrs. Proudie's conduct was apalling. I
could not believe that she would contradict the Bishop
in that way in front of someone. She definitely needs
to take a lesson from Mrs. Grantly about keeping
things in the family, in privacy. She must be losing
her control to think of undermining the Bishop's
authority, such as it is, like that.
Ellen wrote:
I hadn't until Ellen mentioned it, but I certainly now
notice that they are all men. Is it a matter of pride
and honor? Or are women just more of the mind set to
carry on, to do what must be done?
With Mrs. Crawley, it seems that she would never
contemplate leaving her family. She is needed, not
only by her children but by her husband. I can
understand Mr. Crawley's contemplation of suicide in
that he is a drag on his family instead of a help. He
must feel at times like he is not doing any good at
all. I think that is one of the reasons he is so
desperate to hold on to his duties. It is not just
stubborness, he needs to feel needed.
Dagny
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Angela wrote:
This is also my first reading of LCB. I did notice the
term lover in the same passage you did. I have seen it
used by other authors of the period and it doesn't
have the same connotation as it generally does today.
And time and I again I read the phrase "making love"
to . . . and it merely means verbal wooing.
Dagny
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:46:55 +0100 I have refrained previously from joining in the pro-Lily and anti-Lily
camps, but I have always leaned towards the latter. While I can accept that
she had a strong sexual attraction towards Crosbie, although I am sure that
Victorian manners and Victorian dress made it very improbable that this
attraction was physically consummated during their long walks through the
fields, I cannot understand how she remained in love with him after his
betrayal of her, and his marriage to Lady Alexandrina. Her behaviour on the
day of his wedding seemed extraordinary, and her attitude towards Johnny
Eames incomprehensible. Those who criticise Johnny for his dallying (I
cannot call them affairs) with Amelia and Madalina don't seem to have
considered the effect of Lily's constant repetition that she wanted to be
his sister. We shall see later on in the book how Trollope develops this.
Incidentally, it is clear that what Cradell is suggesting at the beginning
of Chapter XLVIII is that Johnny should take what our Australian
list-members will instantly recognise as a "sickie". In both the UK and in
Australia (and there may well be in the USA too) there is the assumption
amongst some employees that the time allowed off by any good employer for
sickness is a right, so that in the UK you will hear people say 'I still
have some sick leave to come.' It takes the Australians to come up with the
use of "sickie" as a pithy summary of this, saying 'I think that I shall
take a sickie'. I would emphasise that this was simply a mode of
expression. I never got the impression that any more time was lost in this
way in Australia than in the UK.
Finally, Ellen talks about 'licit' and 'illicit' money. I am sure that a
great deal of the advancing of credit to the Crawleys of this world should
properly be regarded as illicit. It is, however, perfectly legal, and the
Dobbs Broughtons and Musselboros of this world will continue to advance
money to people who cannot afford it as long as the rate of interest that
they charge shows them a handsome rate of profit after they have covered
their inevitable losses. Mr Butterwell does not fall into this category. He
is merely doing Crosbie a good turn, and proposes to charge a modest rate of
interest.
Regards, Howard
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:15:58 +0200 I am glad that you have brought this up again Howard, I have been meaning to
myself. We had a long discussion when reading SHA about "how far" Lily and
Crosbie went, the general feeling being "all the way". It suddenly struck
me a few weeks ago when I was looking at one of the illustrations that it
would have been nearly impossible for them to get down to it because of all
the clothes they were wearing. I couldn't imagine them either doing it with
their clothes on or taking their clothes off and rolling about in the bushes
- and then, critically, getting dressed again. Somehow the whole thing
doesn't ring true.
Cheers Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:29:41 -0400 Like everyone else in the world, I'd be happier if Lily Dale would accept
John Eames and give us a happy ending. But Trollope has taught me that Lily
herself would not be happier.
Or should I say that my deepened respect for Trollope has encouraged me to
pay closer attention. This isn't a matter of reading between the lines.
Rather, it's the sympathetic business of trying to imagine the feelings
ascribed to Lily on the page. It seems to me that the general impatience
with her rejection of Eames' suit betrays a shallow understanding of love.
Can anyone doubt that love persists, and even grows, where it's not wanted?
Can anyone wonder that an abiding desire for one body might make contact
with all others repulsive?
Perhaps Trollope himself, no less than the times, was unready to confront
the issues raised by Lily's fidelity to Crosbie. As Ellen Moody has pointed
out many times - a point that can't be made often enough, I fear - Lily's
devotion to Crosbie is inextricably carnal. What kind of sexual contact she
enjoyed with him is not the point, as the enjoyment of some sexual contact
cannot be doubted. But Trollope can take us no further; he certainly could
not have written an entire book about Lily's 'love addiction' - to borrow a
phrase from Motown. Writing in a period of intense (and also intensely
disappointed) idealism, Trollope could no more than suggest that a woman's
love might be tragically earthy.
The fact that Lily and John have known each other since childhood ought not
to be overlooked. Actually I think it might be more realistic for John to
outgrow his crush on Lily than for Lily to invest the former hobbledehoy
with sexual appeal.
RJ Keefe
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:39:13 I agree with the anti-Lily folk. I do feel she is portrayed by
Trollope as being the typical lily, virginal. I feel that she
has "fallen" with Crosbie and that she (AT) has decided to live
the rest of her life as a martyr to her "love". I am reading
"A Game of Hide and Seek" by Elizabeth Taylor at the present
moment. The heroine in this book has a young love affair but
marries the (older) man who loves her and has a seemingly
happy life with him until the original lover comes back on the
scene. A good friend talks to her when she sees the the heroine's
marriage is beginning to disintegrate since the return of the
young love and there is a wonderful scene in which the two women
talk--and don't talk--about their feelings.
The heroine, just like Lily, won't give up her "idea" of love.
Haven't finished this book as yet but its similarily to the Lily
John love story really caught me after Howard's post.
Joan
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:05:53 -0700 (PDT) RJ wrote:
I am in agreement with this. Whether Lily ever gets
over Crosbie or not does not necessarily affect the
fact that she feels towards John as towards a friend
or male relative.
When Lily expresses her admiration of the fact that
John is going in search of the dean in order to aid
the Crawleys does not mean that she suddenly sees him
as HER knight-in-shining-armour. Brothers and cousins
can be looked upon as heroes too.
Sex appeal is such an intangible, inexplicable
abstract thing. People can grow to love others, but
generally if sex appeal, or passion we might call it,
is not there early it will never arrive.
Dagny
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:37:23 +0100 What puzzles me about the velvet jackets is that
two Trollope characters have now been reported
wearing them in public. And one at a party.
One is an artist and one is arty. I think these
are different to smoking jackets, which surely
were for informal indoor wearing.
Makes me think I should see if Topsy Turvey is out
on video as that film (about Gilbert and Sullivan)
had a lot of smoking jackets in it, as I recall,
not to mention matching hats.
Angela
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Overland Park KS
jds@hoveywilliams.com
Ellen Moody
Subject: [trollope-l] Three Lawyers: Vholes, Dockwrath and Toogood
gwlit@worldnet.att.net
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Grace Crawley on the marriage market
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Grace could do better
"And the major's mother had strongly advised him to marry again without
loss of time. 'My dear Henry,' she had said, 'you'll never be younger, and youth
does go for something. As for dear little Edith, being a girl, she is almost
no impediment. Do you know those two girls at Chaldicotes?'
Howard
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Henry Grantly & Grace Crawley: Numinousness not Money
Ellen Moody
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Last Chronicle: Toogood (Part 2 of 3)
Subject: [trollope-l] Anthropological Studies and Grace
Ellen Moody
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [trollope-l] Introductions
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Last Chronicle : Living v Historical interest
"theory that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history;
belief that historical events are governed by laws; tendency to regard historical
development as most basic aspect of human existence; excessive regard for
past styles etc."
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Last Chronicle : Living v Historical interest
"Fourteen is very young to be a parent."
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Proud of her man's love
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Last Chronicle: Living V Historical Interest and Grace
:Or are these books interesting historical documents,
mirrors of their age, very lively and entertaining no doubt, but limited
and even frequently obsolete. Perhaps they reinforce attitudes
that are harmful. There are many thoughtful people today who think
the latter is true. That's one reason Trollope's books don't
spread into the universities. This in turn links up to the nature
of Trollope's reputation
Herzlyia, Israel
mpoller@netvision.net.il
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Last Chronicle: Toogood
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Lily and Johnnie were lovers?
"Yet I see hints in this scene that Lily could be won by Johnny
too. She is so full-blooded, so much a woman. She responds
to his aggressive demands that he love her; were the scene
a play, the playwright would show us this. That is why John
says at one point "'I think you love me'".
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Velvet Jackets
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] LCB: A Tempest in a Teacup
"Anyone ever notice how many people in this novel have
had suicidal thoughts: Crawley, Crosbie (comically,
but half-real), and now Proudie on his wife's behalf
and eventually himself."
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Lily and Johnnie were lovers?
"I notice that Trollope refers to John as her lover.
Its in a section which conveys Lily's thoughts about
being in London with both Crosbie and Eames. I was
quite struck by this term, as 'suitor' might have been
more appropriate. Is it meant to be Lily's thought?
or Trollope's early signal?"
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] The Last Chronicle
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] The Last Chronicle
Roger (from a very hot and sunny London!!!!)
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Pro-Lily
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] The Last Chronicle: Anti-Lily
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Pro-Lily
"The fact that Lily and John have known each other
since childhood ought not to be overlooked. Actually
I think it might be more realistic for John to
outgrow his crush on Lily than for Lily to invest the
former hobbledehoy with sexual appeal."
To: trollope-l@egroups.com
Subject: [trollope-l] Velvet Jackets
Home
Contact Ellen Moody.
Pagemaster: Jim
Moody.
Page Last Updated 11 January 2003