The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

The Trevelyan’s continue their spiral down into a deeper hole of mutual mistrust and antagonism. Despite Hugh Stanbury’s and Lady Milborough’s best advice, Louis refuses to soften his stance towards his wife and in fact exacerbates the situation with an inflammatory letter. Emily, after having ignored her sister and friend’s advice not to see Colonel Osborne, now refuses to stay with them until her parents’ return and insists on leaving a comfortable home out of some sort of misplaced pride, dragging her son and her sister with her.


Is Louis Trevelyan’s insistence on having been shamed and dishonoured by his wife’s actions at all in keeping with the mores of the times, or is it a sign of a pathological jealously and possessiveness?

Is Emily Trevelyan a model for an early feminist push for more independence and agency, or are her actions more of a childish rebellion and power struggle?

Why do you think that Nora takes no stance in their decision to leave the Clock House so early? Would she be considered entirely ruled by her married sister in this circumstance?

Do you feel as if Trollope is taking a position in this disagreement, or does he simply lay out the scenario and allow his readers to decide for themselves?

How do you think that the relationship between Nora and Hugh Stanbury can survive at this time?

Miss Stanbury appears to be trying to matchmake for Dorothy, at one point hoping to have the engagement sorted out within the week. How can either Dorothy or Mr. Gibson decide about marrying if they have had no chance to speak together? Again, this appears to be a sort of arranged marriage-could a woman ever ask for a few weeks of “courtship” in which to get to know her prospective partner?

Please share your thoughts on the novel so far.

LT's actions are from jealousy and stubbornness; Emily's from naivety and stubbornness. For both of them, their actions are plot-driven rather than character-driven.

The author clearly just forgot to include a scene or two where Louis is a person. He just suddenly made him "shamed.'

Frances wrote: "Is Louis Trevelyan’s insistence on having been shamed and dishonoured by his wife’s actions at all in keeping with the mores of the times, or is it a sign of a pathological jealously and possessiveness?..."

I think Louis is taking the strict mores of the time to an even stricter extreme. Lady MIlborough seems to represent the voice of what society would feel acceptable, and she has never advised him to act as he does. He's driven entirely by his own pride.

When he's contemplating what to do (in ch 27), Louis feels utterly wretched, yet "would allow himself to make no attempt at questioning the correctness of his conviction." That would allow himself hints that he has a dim awareness that he may be making the wrong choice. Instead of admitting the possibility he smothers it by telling himself the many ways in which he has been "merciful."

I suppose this self-justification is no more than many of us do at times, unless we're saints; but the extent to which Louis takes it does make it feel like a manipulation for the sake of the plot (as Dan suggests). Its credibility is only partly saved by Trollope's perceptive analysis of Louis's character as fearful of slights, self-conscious and afraid of the world. For someone so afraid of what the world thinks Louis seems remarkably dismissive of his friends' opinions.

In this situation, I wonder if Louis would have behaved so badly if Emily had followed his original request that she stop seeing Colonel Osborne (who, lets face it, was never the old family friend she keeps insisting on) or it he would always have found something in her behaviour or speech to object to and ultimately obsess over.

Remember that the couple had already had three very happy years together before this thing breaks open. If LT were going to obsess over Emily's behavior just from sheer obsessiveness, there would have been signs in the young marriage before this. I think he is clearly provoked here , and Emily's own obsession with not being told what to do in this case is simply pouring gasoline into the flames so to speak.

You'd think that if she were as completely in love with her baby as she keeps claiming, she'd be willing to bend a bit in order to re-establish said baby's home. Instead of talking wildly about going to the poor house.

If I remember correctly, at the very beginning Louis asked his wife to see less of Colonel Osborne rather than not seeing him at all. This was because of the rumours he had heard of Osborne's reputation in damaging other couples' relationships and was perfectly reasonable. However, Emily reacted by seeing more of Osborne as well regularly communicating with 'familiar' notes. We now know that Osborne's reputation was well deserved and that he would take advantage of Emily if she would allow him to. In that respect Louis was right and Emily was wrong.
However, the whole approach to the problem by Louis has been wrong from the start and he has continued to make matters worse with each decision he makes. He could have taken her abroad out of harm's reach but then we wouldn't have a story (unless Osborne followed them.)
I don't think Emily's actions are in any way a bold stand for feminism because everything she does makes her position, as well as her social status, weaker. I agree with Margaret that selfish pride is taking precedent even over the needs of her own child.
Nora seems to have no influence over Emily and is probably compromised anyway by her love for Hugh Stanbury which has left her confused and unable to think straight. Dorothy is also confused by the expectations suddenly thrust upon her. Her aunt just expects her to be grateful to her and comply with the match. Dorothy may be quiet and has been grateful to her aunt but she also has a stubborn streak when it comes to defending her brother so she does have a mind of her own.

Dorothy has been to date an obedient and unassuming young woman, in that, the flip opposite of Emily. She is more a character 'foil' to ET than Nora is--the latter's character seems somewhat indistinct, her main role so far trying to persude Emily to do other than she's doing, and then going wherever the latter decides to end up. Yes, and longing for Hugh S--surely even a 19th c young lady deserves more to do than this!

Love Priscilla's comment about the two things men can't do, 'suckle babies, and they can't forget themselves."
though interestingly, it's Emily who , to me, is the most unable to 'forget herself.'

Nora has turned Hugh into a kind of 'god' of her existence, and now that he has held her hand in farewell, is elated enough that she must trace his every footstep in Niddon Park. Not a terribly mature love, more of an infatuation?

Margaret wrote: "Nora has turned Hugh into a kind of 'god' of her existence, and now that he has held her hand in farewell, is elated enough that she must trace his every footstep in Niddon Park. Not a terribly mature love, more of an infatuation?.."

It's hard to tell, as we're not given a great deal of their back-story. It's clear that Hugh and Nora have known each other for some time but we're not told how well, or how close they have been.

I feel that the awkwardness between them is something new; Nora's feelings seem to have been brought to a head by Mr Glascock's proposal and her knowledge that she rejected him without even having had any definite sign from Hugh.

Although I felt for Nora in this section, at the same time it was quite funny to afterwards hear her harping fretfully on his use of the word dainty, which she took as an insult.

I felt that Nora feels the reversal of her fortunes, and now worries that she has thrown away the chance of a better life without knowing anything definite about Hugh's feelings for her. There is a misunderstanding around the use of dainty-Hugh is trying (clumsily) to ask if she would give up her fine life to be his wife, and she misunderstands and bridles at being thought too fine. Let's hope they are able to sort themselves out better that Louis and Emily!