Victorians! discussion

Welcome to Week 1 of our first Autumn read!

Part I

In chapter 1, we are introduced to Dr. Wortle and his family. Dr. Wortle is the Rector and the Headmaster of Bowick, and there is a lengthy description of his character. Insights as to his beliefs, principles, and his conduct both as a clergyman and the headmaster are given in detail in this chapter, and we feel that we have a thorough understanding of him. Mrs. Wortle and their daughter Miss Wortle are overshadowed by the prominence given to Dr. Wortle. Still, we learn enough of them for the moment.

What did you make of Dr. Wortle’s character?

We know that Trollope has been quite critical of English Clergy. In that light, how would you interpret Trollope’s description of Dr. Wortle? Is he being in earnest here or satirical?

In chapter 2, Mr. and Mrs. Peacock are introduced. Mr. Peacock is the curate and assistant headmaster to Dr. Wortle. Mrs. Peacock is American. Despite Dr. Wortle’s contempt for any scholarly venture over the Atlantic, he’s been willing enough to accept the assistance of Mr. Peacock. The Peacocks seem to get on well with their neighbours, and they honoured for their devoted devotion to the school. But the Peacock’s aversion to society and visiting puzzles them, and so, many speculations are made regarding their characters and their past.

Mrs. Peacock seems quite a contrast to Mrs. Wortle. As Dr. Wortle dominates the Wortle household, it looks Mrs. Peacock has more say in the Peacock household. She is, of course, obedient and dutiful towards her husband, but all the same, there is toughness and more character to her. What do you make of her?

In chapter 3, the mystery surrounding the past of the Peacock further excites the community and Trollope decides to unravel the mystery to the readers. It looks that there is some question as to the legality of their marriage, annd whether Mr. and Mrs. Peacock are truly man and wife, is hung on the balance.

What did you feel about the decision of Trollope’s to unravel the mystery at this early stage?

Trollope keeps on referring to Mrs. Peacock as a lady. What need is there for such repetition, do you think?

Part II

At the instigation of the Bishop, Dr. Wortle finally resolves to question Mr. Peacock as to his life in America. He is most uncomfortable at having to take on this unpleasant task but feels duty-bound to his school and its pupils to know a little more about Mr. Peacock. Also, Dr. Wortle cannot help being curious. Mr. Peacock asks for a week’s time but on returning home, he is quite decided to tell the truth. He communicates his intention to his wife, and they decide that, after revealing the true circumstances of their lives to Dr. Wortle, they would go away from Bowick.

This is a curious turn of events, and I’m interested to learn what Dr. Wortle would do when the truth is revealed to him.

I found it interesting that Mr. and Mrs. Peacock refer to Dr. Wortle as Jupiter! What did you make of that?

In chapter 3, we are introduced to a young noble by the name Lord Carstairs, who had been in Bowick school and later gone to Eton, only to return a year or so later to be prepared for Oxford. Although the role of this character is still obscured, I feel he may have a prominent role to play in the future. For now, he is described as a close companion to Mr. Peacock. We are also introduced to another character by the name of Robert Lefroy, who is revealed as the brother of Mrs. Peacock’s husband.
And that brings us to the end of this week’s segment.

What are your thoughts so far?

Part 1 Chapter 1: One of the frameworks I used to examine Dr. Wortle is the split in the Church of England between High Church, Low Church and Broad Church/Latitudinarians. I placed Dr. Wortle as a Latitudinarian. He seems like on those clergyman more involved in this world.
He comes across as self-confident but is very good nature. He reminded me of Rev. Humphrey Cadwallader from George Eliot's "Middlemarch".
I thought it was funny how the tuition Mr. Wortle charged was a sign of the quality of the education he offered and increasing the tuiton would attract more pupils. This reminded me of Mrs. Pinchins's school from Charles Dickens' "Dombey and Son". The vain Mr. Dombey sent his son to that school because it charged a high tuition so that was good enough for Mr. Dombey.
We have this seen this association of price with quality in the modern world. There is a university in Washington, DC called George Washington University. The trustees and like decided to jack up the tuition as a marketing plan and it worked. The higher tuition attracted more and better quality students. The applicants and their parents associated higher tuition with a more selective university.

Part 1 Chapter 2: One historical element is Mr. Peacocke was a Fellow at Trinity College, Oxford University. Then the narrative mentions he got married and "giving up his Fellowship". Oxford and Cambridge faculty were required to be celibate. So when Mr. Peacocke married he was obliged to give up his position. If you ever read Elizabeth Gaskell's "North and South", Mr Bell was a fellow at Oxford thus he was a lifelong bachelor.
The narrative mentions Dr. Wortle "a thououghgoing Tory of the old school, and therefore considered himself bound to the hate the name of the republic (America)". During the American Civil War, the Tories tended to be supporters of the Confederacy identifying with the Southern agrarian gentry. During the War of American Independence, those Americans who kept loyal to Britain were called Tories.
I though the description of Mrs. Peacocke was interesting. She is described as with a "dark and brown" complexion. I was wondering if this will be of significance. Missouri was a slave state so I wondered if Mrs. Peacocke was a mulatto.
Mrs. Peacocke comes across as a formidable women. I noticed she is described as "tall for a woman", "strong". In contrast Mr. Peacocke is described as "small wiry man, anything but robust in appearance". I found this to be an interesting inversion of the usual husband and wife pairing.
As I was reading this and the Peacockes were socially isolating themselves, especially from their social betters, that is going to draw attention.

Thank you, Michael, for your informative comments. It was interesting to find that Fellowship in Oxford and Cambridge required celibacy. I didn't know that. But now that I recall, Mr. Bell in N&S was unmarried and he was a fellow.

Also, I liked the point you raised on fees and the quality of education. It's been thought then, and it's being thought now that the higher the fee is the higher the quality of education.

Part 1

‘What did you make of Dr. Wortle’s character?’

Trollope described Dr. Wortle as a ‘tyrant’ at least once in these opening chapters, yet the majority of the time he writes about him both sympathetically and with some admiration. Perhaps it is because he concurs with Dr. Wortle’s view that a small amount of ‘sin’ occuring from time to time is both natural and acceptable.

Dr. Wortle’s wife is described as ‘very happy’ but also as having ‘no ambition.’ Dr. Wortle’s stubbornness (some may call it resoluteness) has so far served him well and made him both successful and well respected.

I noticed that the author employed quite a few idioms, mottos and sayings throughout these chapters, one of which referred to Dr. Wortle himself when describing his daughter.

’They had one child, a daughter, Mary, of whom it was said in Bowick that she alone knew the length of the Doctor’s foot.It certainly was so that, if Mrs. Wortle wished to have anything done which was a trifle beyond her own influence, she employed Mary.’

Mrs. Peacock seems quite a contrast to Mrs. Wortle. What do you make of her?

Mrs. Peacocke has experienced the harshness of the world, both by being married to an abusive husband (Ferdinand Lefroy) and being brought up on a plantation. Her resilience will have been tested many times and also her readiness to accept the morality of that world which has wronged her. Her loyalty to Mr. Peacocke is commendable but their living arrangements were never going to succeed wherever they went whilst the unscrupulous brothers were alive. I think Trollope’s reference to her as a ‘lady’ is used as a counterbalance to the fact that she is living in ‘sin’ according to the society of that time.

‘ What did you feel about the decision of Trollope’s to unravel the mystery at this early stage? ’

It seems to me that novel might be more about Dr. Wortle’s moral dilemma and the measures he adopts to both support his friends and protect his own interests. So the mystery needed to be revealed to allow the consequences to be explored.

Part II

Mr. and Mrs. Peacock refer to Dr. Wortle as Jupiter! What did you make of that?

Mr. Peacocke, as a renowned scholar of the classics, would have a thorough knowledge of Jupiter, the principal Roman God. As the sky-god, he was a divine witness to oaths, the sacred trust on which justice and good government depend. Whilst the Peacockes regarded Dr. Wortle as the absolute master, they also trusted his judgement and had faith in his wisdom, just like the Romans did with Jupiter.

What are your thoughts so far?

Once the mystery was revealed my first thought was that yet again Trollope showed that he was not afraid to tackle controversial subjects. I have read He Knew He Was Right and memories of the trials and traumas which surfaced in that novel sprung to mind. Not many other novelists of that time have included bigamous relationships in their stories and it will be interesting to compare the outcomes of those that did. For example Arnold Bennett’s ‘Clayhanger’ trilogy.

I am also left wondering what will happen next, with both the Peacockes and Dr. Wortle about to feel the icy blast of public opinion.

Piyangie wrote: "Thank you, Michael, for your informative comments. It was interesting to find that Fellowship in Oxford and Cambridge required celibacy. I didn't know that. But now that I recall, Mr. Bell in N&S w..."

I agree Piyangie on the connection between the fee and the quality of education--in fact with any 'product' or 'service', the assumption is that the higher the price/fee the better the quality--it is expected certainly but whether it is delivered is another question.

In Dr Wortle's case, though I think it is true; he does ensure that his students get the best of everything.

I'd forgotten about the school in Dombey and Son and was actually thinking how different Dr Wortle's establishment was from the usual pictures of Victorian schools we have from Dickens where neither the teaching nor the facilities are particularly good.

I liked Dr Wortle as a character; even though he is described as a 'tyrant' one can see that while he does like to have his way in things, he isn't one who wants to hurt or harm or one who has acts out of spite. He also seem more practical in his approach to things not expecting too high standards as far as religion is concerned. I also liked that he didn't want to poke into the Peacocke's personal life and was feeling uneasy doing so.

The references to Mrs Peacocke as a lady as Trev above said are indeed to show that she is otherwise genteel and perfectly respectable, even though she has taken a decision which is seen as morally wrong and something someone from her class wouldn't do.

Lady C - I've not read Dombey and Son, but I can recall two Dickensian novels - David Copperfield and Nicholas Nickleby - where a different picture was painted on private boarding schools. Dr. Wortle's School is certainly a pleasant contrast.

Trev - Thanks for your explanatory and insightful comments. I too think referring to Mrs. Peacock as a lady is Trollope's way of telling that she is a proper and respectable gentlewoman and that in no way has she committed a willful act of sin. And you're probably right about the subject matter of this story. As the things stand, the story will deal with Dr. Wortle's moral dilemma and not so much the mystery hanging over the Peacocks head. I liked your explanation of Jupiter. Dr. Wortle is an authority unto him, and a wise man with his own principles and morals.

Victorian society was highly opinionated. They were always ready to find faults in their fellow men and relish scandals. Dr. Wortle represents what Victorian society ought to be - understanding and sympathetic.

Lady Clementina wrote: "I liked Dr Wortle as a character; even though he is described as a 'tyrant' one can see that while he does like to have his way in things, he isn't one who wants to hurt or harm or one who has acts..."

I like Dr Wortle too, he is used to getting his own way but he has a lot of decency and kindness too.

I enjoyed the way Trollope tackled the moral issue of Mr Peacocke and his wife. If Peacocke had abandoned her when it became clear that Lefroy hadn’t died, he would have acted in accordance with the social mores of the time. Yet it’s quite clear to the reader that the obligation he feels to protect her and make the best of their situation (plus the fact that he genuinely loves her) is more commendable than blindly following those dictates.

Mrs Stantiloup won’t agree though - great name!

The idea of ‘class’ as Lady C mentions above is an interesting one. Mrs Peacocke is seen as an outsider to the British class system that she has entered - she is American, and of course she is living in ‘sin’. She has her own code which means that she doesn’t follow the expectations of Broughton society - paying calls etc - but she is seen to be respectable, and dutiful in her working role.

Pamela - I think Dr. Wortle's scale was balancing in Mr. Peacock's favour. I agree with you; Mr. Pecock's actions were commendable. Instead of acting in accordance with rigid social norms, he acts according to his heart and thus conducts himself as an admirable human.

Pamela wrote: "I enjoyed the way Trollope tackled the moral issue of Mr Peacocke and his wife. If Peacocke had abandoned her when it became clear that Lefroy hadn’t died, he would have acted in accordance with th..."

He has his heart in the right place; I think Trollope is highlighting the fact that there are situations where what is morally correct may not be the most just solution.

I'm enjoying it.

Not that this is important, but I can't tell if part of the school is a seminary. I know that there's a prep school, but early on there was a seminary mentioned. Also, what the hell is an usher?

An interesting concept is suggested by Trollope's writing on p. 2: He says "But he (Whortle) was a domineering husband. ... little harm came from this. If a tyrant, he was an affectionate tyrant. His wife felt him to be so." Is that a commentary on the times? Is that a commentary on his wife? Both? Neither? Do we treasure equality, etc. more now than then, and more in some places of the world than others? Is what one person feels is marital tyranny what another person considers the normal state of things? Most likely, all feelings are relative, and not absolute. Behavior must be judged on a relative, and not an absolute scale.

The Peacockes refuse to be entertained by the Whortles on the grounds that they couldn't afford to reciprocate. Strange and strained, because that would come across as a not so subtle comment on Peacocke's salary, and Peacocke doesn't speak to Whortle that way.

A theme is society's tenacious belief that there are limits to acceptable variances in behavior, beyond which society will cut out or marginalize a person or group. Obviously those limits have expanded over the centuries, but they are still there. I was reminded of the amusing scene in Gone With the Wind, when a young woman is warned about the scandalous Rhett Butler: "My dear, he isn't received!"

The arrival of Robert Lefroy to Peacocke's home is a jolt of fate that sounds as if it's right out of a Thomas Hardy novel.

Trev wrote: "Part II

Mr. and Mrs. Peacock refer to Dr. Wortle as Jupiter! What did you make of that?

Mr. Peacocke, as a renowned scholar of the classics, would have a thorough knowledge of Jupiter, the princ..."

While I agree that Jupiter refers to the principal Roman god, it also refers to the largest planet, and when Mrs Peacocke says ...I should never have consented to be one of his satellites, or have been contented to see you doing chief moon. I think she is alluding to that.

Lady Clementina wrote: "The references to Mrs Peacocke as a lady as Trev above said are indeed to show that she is otherwise genteel and perfectly respectable, even though she has taken a decision which is seen as morally..."

I think that, in her deciding not to play the part of a lady, that is not to accept invitations to dine at the Wortle's table or to come as a visitor at an aristocrat's home, The Peacockes raise the very questions about their background and time in America that would likely not have been raised if they had played the part of Gentleman and Lady.

Lady Clementina wrote: "I liked Dr Wortle as a character; even though he is described as a 'tyrant' one can see that while he does like to have his way in things, he isn't one who wants to hurt or harm or one who has acts..."

Agreed, except that he clearly is someone who wishes to get his own way, and can be rather difficult when crossed. He has been very wise and/or lucky in his choice of wife, in that he has found someone who is happy to be told what to do, and forms no opinions of her own (or gets her daughter to change his mind for her).

Piyangie wrote: "Lady C - I've not read Dombey and Son, but I can recall two Dickensian novels - David Copperfield and Nicholas Nickleby - where a different picture was painted on private boarding schools. Dr. Wort..."

Let us also include the school in Jane Eyre among the Victorian horrors. I assume there were expensive schools that gave good educations and taught good habits to the wealthy young boys, and finishing schools that did the same for girls, and then there were cheaper schools for poorer families or those that simply wanted to get unwanted children (often step-children) out of the way. Sadly, though, even the best schools were rife with abuse and bullying at times, and it is hard to imagine sending small children away for large periods of time.

Brian wrote: "I'm enjoying it.

Not that this is important, but I can't tell if part of the school is a seminary. I know that there's a prep school, but early on there was a seminary mentioned. Also, what the h..."

I found an Usher as an assistant teacher in a school. I remain confused by whether the school is completely separate from Dr Wortle's religious/church duties-which I believe it is-and why Dr Wortle is so keen to have Peacocke function as a curate as well as a teacher at the school-would this allow him to get more pay from the church rather from the school (and therefore out of Dr Wortle's pocket)?

I agree Frances, he isnt one who reacts well when someone disagrees with him. At the same time, I felt that aspect of his character didn't make him someone one can entirely disapprove of either. In the sense that while he may not like disagreement with his way of doing things, the disapproval arises as a defence mechanism rather than going out of his way to get people to agree to his way.

Re playing a part, I'm not really sure, but perhaps they are trying to commit the lesser wrong by staying quiet about their circumstances and avoiding sort of an active playing of a falsehood than a passive one if that makes sense. But that does indeed create a chink in their armour. The one dark spot that questions their character

Frances - I forgot Jane Eyre. That horrid school also should be added to the lot. Thanks, Frances.

Brian - An usher is an assistant school teacher as Frances has said. And the school I understood to be just a private boarding school for boys and not in part a seminary.

Piyangie wrote: "Frances - I forgot Jane Eyre. That horrid school also should be added to the lot. Thanks, Frances.

Brian - An usher is an assistant school teacher as Frances has said. And the school I understood..."

Among the schools I had in mind when I thought about the contrast were Jane Eyre, Squeers' establishment in Nicholas Nickleby; the school in Hard Times.

Lady C - I can't remember in detail the school in Hard Times, but I can't remember it being the abusive kind, either. Must check that out. My concentration was totally centered on the Gradgrind household, so I might have overlooked the school.

Piyangie wrote: "Lady C - I can't remember in detail the school in Hard Times, but I can't remember it being the abusive kind, either. Must check that out. My concentration was totally centered on the Gradgrind hou..."

I remember one of the teachers was Mr Chokumchild.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Piyangie wrote: "Lady C - I can't remember in detail the school in Hard Times, but I can't remember it being the abusive kind, either. Must check that out. My concentration was totally centered on ..."

My overriding memory of the school in ‘Hard Times’ was that the children were treated like objects to be put through the ‘education’ assembly line and that their own feelings and personalities were not considered at all. It is probably because of those famous opening lines of Chapter One, lines that I have never forgotten…..

‘“NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!”’

It is a long time since I have read that novel so any nuances to that have been forgotten.

There is an interesting article on the Victorian Web related to schools and Victorian literature.

https://victorianweb.org/history/educ...

If you click on the link ‘education’ at the bottom of that web page a long list of related articles appear for you to peruse at your leisure.

Trev - I remember that quote. I found it quite strange at the time. It was my first Dickens's reading after years and years, so I've quite forgotten his satire. :)

Thanks for sharing the link Trev

Frances wrote: "The Peacockes raise the very questions about their background and time in America that would likely not have been raised if they had played the part of Gentleman and Lady."

I was thinking the same thing. Why draw attention to yourself?

Piyangie wrote: "At the instigation of the Bishop, Dr. Wortle finally resolves to question Mr. Peacock as to his life in America. He is most uncomfortable at having to take on this unpleasant task but feels duty-bound to his school and its pupils to know a little more about Mr. Peacock."

Shouldn't Wortle have made inquiries of this nature before he hired Peacocke? Given that the moral character of a teacher was of the utmost importance, I would assume probing questions in this regard de rigueur.

So what was the legal situation here regarding the "marriage" of the Peacockes?
I would assume once her first husband showed up her second marriage is void. Why not get divorced given the abusive history and him not sticking around anyway? How hard was it back then in the US to do this? There was stigma, yes, but is bigamy any better?

On a general note, I think there were plenty of bigamists in those days, though I don't know any percentage. I do know of cases where folks immigrating to the US who left a spouse behind and "remarried" in the New World. Or travelling salesmen having two wives (and families) in different cities. John D. Rockefeller's father was such a salesman who had two "wives."

When we look at bigamy, it is a form of adultery or cheating, with the added "bonus" that the deception is cloaked in apparent respectability. Often only one of the spouses knows of the deception, though we don't have this situation here. What I am wondering, was it mostly practiced by the lower gentry, folks who had a better income and more mobility than commoners?
For the upper crust, who often married to make alliances, their wealth made whatever picadillos they were engaged in no obstacle. I imagine bigamy would not have been an attractive option given legacy, inheritances, and generally being in the public eye.

Kerstin wrote: "So what was the legal situation here regarding the "marriage" of the Peacockes?
I would assume once her first husband showed up her second marriage is void. Why not get divorced given the abusive h..."

I think one problem was that Ferdinand showed up, made his presence known and then disappeared again, so there was no way to track him down.

I suspect the only reason for bigamy was being in love with someone who was not your spouse, and that person not being willing to have an affair without marriage. For the upper crust it would be very difficult to hide a spouse as they were public figures, so their options were have a mistress or an affair or pay for sex.

Kerstin wrote: "So what was the legal situation here regarding the "marriage" of the Peacockes?
I would assume once her first husband showed up her second marriage is void. Why not get divorced given the abusive h..."

As Frances said, Ferdinand did show up one day drunk and made known he is alive. But on the next day, when Mr. Peacocke wanted to talk to him about the situation, he had disappeared without a trace. So it was impossible for the Peacocks to remedy their position. The only option would have been for them is to part from one another which they weren't willing to do. But the question remains whether the Peacockes acted right in misrepresenting them and accepting a position in a prestigious bonding school. They were desperate. That's true. But they were doing an injury to an unsuspecting man.

Kerstin wrote: "Piyangie wrote: "At the instigation of the Bishop, Dr. Wortle finally resolves to question Mr. Peacock as to his life in America. He is most uncomfortable at having to take on this unpleasant task ..."

Dr. Wortle might have acted a little imprudently here. But given that Mr. Peacocke was a clergyman and a respected scholar he couldn't have thought that Mr. Peacocke would misrepresent him as a married man if he wasn't.

Piyangie wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Piyangie wrote: "At the instigation of the Bishop, Dr. Wortle finally resolves to question Mr. Peacock as to his life in America. He is most uncomfortable at having to take on this ..."

I don't know that I'd have faulted him for not making inquiries. Since Mr Peacocke was a reknowned scholar, who'd held respectable positions--there'd be no reason to suspect him of any wrongdoing.

Kerstin wrote: "So what was the legal situation here regarding the "marriage" of the Peacockes?
I would assume once her first husband showed up her second marriage is void. Why not get divorced given the abusive h..."

Often, in Victorian novels especially, bigamy is associated with scoundrels who trick unsuspecting young women into false marriages. I am thinking of Wilkie Collins who wrote a number of novels involving bigamy, including his most famous one. Of course his own real life relationship with two women could be said to be semi-bigamous.
This story is therefore a subtle twist to other depictions of bigamy that I have read. However, I can’t forget that Jane Eyre herself was minutes away from becoming the victim of a bigamous relationship and what would the outcome of that have been?

It seems bigamous relationships were a more common occurrence during the Victorian times since we find the concept recurring in many Victorian novels. As Trev mentioned, Jane Eyre and The Woman in White are good examples.

Hello, I am currently catching up after ten hectic days at work :( Your observations and thoughts are really useful, thank you! Overall I am liking the reading.
I think that perhaps the Peackokes acted in the way they did, refusing to mingle with Bowick society, not to deceive people more than they were already doing.
I found Mrs Stantiloup behavior rather similar to modern stalking or political sullying.

Daniela wrote: "Hello, I am currently catching up after ten hectic days at work :( Your observations and thoughts are really useful, thank you! Overall I am liking the reading.
I think that perhaps the Peackokes a..."

There is no hurry, Daniela. Take your time. The threads will be here when you are ready. I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying it. And I quite agree with you on your observation of the Peacockes. Surely they didn't want to misrepresent themselves more than necessary.

Piyangie wrote: "Daniela wrote: "Hello, I am currently catching up after ten hectic days at work :( Your observations and thoughts are really useful, thank you! Overall I am liking the reading.
I think that perhaps..."

I agree as well--passive deception is perhaps less of a sin than active deception, in that in the former case, they're not telling a lie but just presenting a picture which is for others to understand as they will; had they gone into society, they would also be asked about themselves and would have had to tell untruths which would not be as acceptable. Plus of course, socialising in their situation wouldn't be 'right' from their perspective since they would be actively subjecting others to 'tainted society' as it would have been seen by others