![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
DR. WORTLE'S SCHOOL by Anthony Trollope
Sep. 23rd, 2013 09:26 pmDoctor Wortle himself is an interesting character, often frustrating but no less interesting because of it. A mass of good qualities and a mass of bad; self-satisfied and egotistic; able to brook little argument; bellicose; mildly hypocritical; dictatorial to his wife; generous; affectionate; humanistic; very human. THS Escott, Trollope's first biographer, claimed that Wortle and Trollope were similar as "blustering amiability, an imperious manner, and a good heart"; if Wortle is an honestly portrayed autobiographical character, then I feel like this explains my interest and frustrations in him.
The Peacockes are a married couple who work in the eponymous school. He is an excellent scholar and teacher and she is a compassionate, gifted housemother. But they were married in Missouri at a time when they believed her abusive husband to be dead; he turned up alive; Mr Peacocke refused to desert her; and they end up in England trying to conceal their past. When it is discovered, both their position in the school and the school itself are gravely affected.
Besides the interest of the theme in itself, it's fascinating to note that Trollope subverted the conventions of the sensation novel by intentionally revealing the bigamy plot from the start and instead focusing on characters' reactions to it. He is muh more sensible than the typical sensation writer resorting to series of unlikely contingencies to preserve the plot, especially since such plots are often quite transparent to readers' guesses. It's very refreshing to meet with characters who are sensible enough to realise when honest confidances are necessary rather than melodramatic stand-offs.
Trollope does a really good line in compassion in this long paragraph:
Should they part? There is no one who reads this but will say that they should have parted. Every day passed together as man and wife must be a falsehood and a sin. There would be absolute misery for both in parting;—but there is no law from God or man entitling a man to escape from misery at the expense of falsehood and sin. Though their hearts might have burst in the doing of it, they should have parted. Though she would have been friendless, alone, and utterly despicable in the eyes of the world, abandoning the name which she cherished, as not her own, and going back to that which she utterly abhorred, still she should have done it. And he, resolving, as no doubt he would have done under any circumstances, that he must quit the city of his adoption,—he should have left her with such material sustenance as her spirit would have enabled her to accept, should have gone his widowed way, and endured as best he might the idea that he had left the woman whom he loved behind, in the desert, all alone! That he had not done so the reader is aware. That he had lived a life of sin,—that he and she had continued in one great falsehood,—is manifest enough. Mrs. Stantiloup, when she hears it all, will have her triumph. Lady De Lawle's soft heart will rejoice because that invitation was not accepted. The Bishop will be unutterably shocked; but, perhaps, to the good man there will be some solace in the feeling that he had been right in his surmises. How the Doctor bore it this story is intended to tell,—and how also Mr. and Mrs. Peacocke bore it, when the sin and the falsehood were made known to all the world around them.
Nowadays there are extremely *few* people who read this and say they should have parted. But that is something of the effect Anthony Trollope was going for: that the reader will understand and empathise with the situation and as a result times will change for the better. Double standards are appropriately noted:
...a woman with a misfortune is condemned by the general voice of the world, whereas for a man to have stumbled is considered hardly more than a matter of course.
This line is placed in the mouth of a character Trollope intends to seem lacking in compassion:
"I am afraid that I must say so. The knowledge that such a feeling exists no doubt deters others from guilt. The fact that wrong-doing in women is scorned helps to maintain the innocence of women. Is it not so?"
It appears that Trollope's thoughts changed since writing AN EYE FOR AN EYE (where he was sympathetic to the notion that some shunning of guilty women encourages the innocent to remain so). This was published in 1881; the latter written in 1870.
Speaking of comparisons to other Trollope novels, Mrs Peacocke's situation is also comparable to that of Winifred Hurtle in THE WAY WE LIVE NOW (published 1875). Both are represented with sympathy, but Mrs Peacocke is granted a larger measure of it. Perhaps in part because, despite her travails, Mrs Peacocke remains stereotypically feminine (by the standards of the era) whereas Winifred acts independently to defend herself and shoot rapists as necessary. But I'd like to believe that it is also because Trollope's thinking evolved in positive ways.
( Read more... )
The book was quite thin for a Trollope; it was apparently written in three weeks (which makes me utterly amazed at his talent and industry). But Wortle is a well written character and the issues covered in the novels through the Peacockes' story are socially relevant and justly presented. The scenes of Peacocke in America are also vivid and interesting. It's a book worth reading.
The Peacockes are a married couple who work in the eponymous school. He is an excellent scholar and teacher and she is a compassionate, gifted housemother. But they were married in Missouri at a time when they believed her abusive husband to be dead; he turned up alive; Mr Peacocke refused to desert her; and they end up in England trying to conceal their past. When it is discovered, both their position in the school and the school itself are gravely affected.
Besides the interest of the theme in itself, it's fascinating to note that Trollope subverted the conventions of the sensation novel by intentionally revealing the bigamy plot from the start and instead focusing on characters' reactions to it. He is muh more sensible than the typical sensation writer resorting to series of unlikely contingencies to preserve the plot, especially since such plots are often quite transparent to readers' guesses. It's very refreshing to meet with characters who are sensible enough to realise when honest confidances are necessary rather than melodramatic stand-offs.
Trollope does a really good line in compassion in this long paragraph:
Should they part? There is no one who reads this but will say that they should have parted. Every day passed together as man and wife must be a falsehood and a sin. There would be absolute misery for both in parting;—but there is no law from God or man entitling a man to escape from misery at the expense of falsehood and sin. Though their hearts might have burst in the doing of it, they should have parted. Though she would have been friendless, alone, and utterly despicable in the eyes of the world, abandoning the name which she cherished, as not her own, and going back to that which she utterly abhorred, still she should have done it. And he, resolving, as no doubt he would have done under any circumstances, that he must quit the city of his adoption,—he should have left her with such material sustenance as her spirit would have enabled her to accept, should have gone his widowed way, and endured as best he might the idea that he had left the woman whom he loved behind, in the desert, all alone! That he had not done so the reader is aware. That he had lived a life of sin,—that he and she had continued in one great falsehood,—is manifest enough. Mrs. Stantiloup, when she hears it all, will have her triumph. Lady De Lawle's soft heart will rejoice because that invitation was not accepted. The Bishop will be unutterably shocked; but, perhaps, to the good man there will be some solace in the feeling that he had been right in his surmises. How the Doctor bore it this story is intended to tell,—and how also Mr. and Mrs. Peacocke bore it, when the sin and the falsehood were made known to all the world around them.
Nowadays there are extremely *few* people who read this and say they should have parted. But that is something of the effect Anthony Trollope was going for: that the reader will understand and empathise with the situation and as a result times will change for the better. Double standards are appropriately noted:
...a woman with a misfortune is condemned by the general voice of the world, whereas for a man to have stumbled is considered hardly more than a matter of course.
This line is placed in the mouth of a character Trollope intends to seem lacking in compassion:
"I am afraid that I must say so. The knowledge that such a feeling exists no doubt deters others from guilt. The fact that wrong-doing in women is scorned helps to maintain the innocence of women. Is it not so?"
It appears that Trollope's thoughts changed since writing AN EYE FOR AN EYE (where he was sympathetic to the notion that some shunning of guilty women encourages the innocent to remain so). This was published in 1881; the latter written in 1870.
Speaking of comparisons to other Trollope novels, Mrs Peacocke's situation is also comparable to that of Winifred Hurtle in THE WAY WE LIVE NOW (published 1875). Both are represented with sympathy, but Mrs Peacocke is granted a larger measure of it. Perhaps in part because, despite her travails, Mrs Peacocke remains stereotypically feminine (by the standards of the era) whereas Winifred acts independently to defend herself and shoot rapists as necessary. But I'd like to believe that it is also because Trollope's thinking evolved in positive ways.
( Read more... )
The book was quite thin for a Trollope; it was apparently written in three weeks (which makes me utterly amazed at his talent and industry). But Wortle is a well written character and the issues covered in the novels through the Peacockes' story are socially relevant and justly presented. The scenes of Peacocke in America are also vivid and interesting. It's a book worth reading.
