Trollope's Case For Moral Imperative Author(s) : Roger L. Slakey Source: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Dec., 1973), Pp. 305-320 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 05/02/2015 15:12

Trollope's Case for Moral Imperative
Author(s): Roger L. Slakey

Source: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Dec., 1973), pp. 305-320
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2933002 .
Accessed: 05/02/2015 15:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Nineteenth-Century Fiction.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.10.76.185 on Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:12:55 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Trollope's Case for

Moral Imperative
ROGER L. SLAKEY
M
O
ORAL IMPERATIVE
Trollope?
in thefiction
ofAnthony
Nonsense.What about Mr. Scarborough'sFamily?That surelyis a

case formoral relativism.Recent criticism,in fact,has advanced
this verythesisso far that one of the best of his critics,Ruth
apRoberts,is makinghim out an advocateof situationethics.He
insists,shesays,upon a flexiblemoralityand encouragesus to "look
in the
at the specificindividualinstanceswitha tendercasuistry,
Robert
ethics.'
'
"1
'situation
is
called
spiritof what now sometimes
fromher onlyinsofaras he findsmoralrelaM. Polhemusdiffers
tivismlimitedto the late novels.2While apRobertsand Polhemus
forall, even for
are not the firstto recognizeTrollope's sympathy
and theevil,8theyare the firstto argue thatthis
the small-minded
thisregardforsituationso characteristic
tolerance,thissympathy,
of Trollope amountto moralrelativism.By way of defendingthe
I "Trollope Empiricus," VN, No. 34 (1968), pp. 4, 6. In a later essay apRoberts
assertsthat Trollope's concernin the novels "is always moral, and he is always recommending,by means of his cases, a more flexiblemorality.His stance is that of what
we now call Situation Ethics." See "Trollope's Casuistry,"Novel, 3 (1969), 25. She
repeats this assertionin The Moral Trollope (Athens: Ohio Univ. Press, 1971), p. 52.
As her book appeared after I had writtenthis paper and as it makes essentiallythe
same argumentas the articles,I have not convertedreferencesto the book.
2 In the last novels,Polhemus says,Trollope begins to "accept moral relativism...
and returns to a quiet crusade for tolerance in personal relationships." See The
Changing World of Anthony Trollope (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1968),
p. 215.
3 As early as 1858,a reviewerof Doctor Thorne had commentedthat because Trollope reveals the De Courcys' heartlessand worldly ways so good-naturedly,we sympathize with them, "we do not disown the family,and that makes the secret of Mr.
Trollope's excellence." See Donald Smalley, Trollope: The Critical Heritage (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969), p. 71. The review appeared in the Athenaeum, 5
June 1858, p. 719.
[305]

306
Nineteenth-CenturyFiction
argument,apRobertssaysthat in OrleyFarm Lady Mason is "a

forgerwe cannotbringourselvesto condemn,"thatin The AmericanSenatortheironicperspectives
upon SenatorGotobedevidence
"a large,relativistic
view."4
Tolerance and sympathy,
however,and regardforsituationand
ironicperspectivedo not necessarily
evidencefundamentalrelativism. And since apRobertsassumestheydo, her argumentis not
conclusive.Trollope is certainlytolerantof his strays,sinners,and
dogmaticascetics,and he not onlysympathizes
withthembut solicits his readers'toleranceand sympathy
as well. Yet if tolerance,
and regardforsituationbe moral relativism,Thomas
sympathy,
Aquinas and JesusChristwould be relativists,
forin moral questionsAquinas manifested
bothsympathy
and toleranceand insisted
upon consideringsituation,and Jesusnot onlyrefusedto condemn
thewomancaughtin adulterybut gave his lifeforsinners.
The pointat issueheredoesnotpivoton a quibble. It turnsupon
fundamentaldistinctions
in thediscussionof morality,
suchas that
betweentheagentofan actionand theact itself,and thatbetween
thegravityof an act and the agent'sunderstanding
of thatgravity.
like thesein his novels.The questionis
Trollope uses distinctions
whether,in doing so, he makesa case forsituationethicsor fora
sympathetic
understandingof morallycompleximperatives.
Accordingto JosephFletcher,situationethics"aimsat a contextual appropriateness-notthe 'good' or the 'right'but thefitting."5
Love alone determineswhatis fittingin a given situationor "in
non-Christian
situationethicssomeotherhighestgood .. . such as
in the ethicsof Aristotle."6Now Trollope believed
self-realization
thatthelove of neighboris thehighestvalue of life:
That doctrinewhichtellsus thatwe should do unto othersas we would
theyshould do unto us [is] theverypithand marrowand insidemeaning
of Christ's teaching,by adapting which we have become human, by
4 See "Trollope's Casuistry,"p. 22 (The Moral Trollope, p. 45) for the one remark,
and, forthe other,"Trollope's One World," SAQ, 68 (1969), 476 (The Moral Trollope,
p. 188).
5 Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster,1966), pp. 27-28.
6 Ibid., pp. 26, 31. The term "self-realization"is an unfortunateoversimplification,
because its meaning is too general. The Imitation of Christis as concernedwith selfrealization as the Nichomachaean Ethics, and neither work attributesto the concept
the same meaning that writersof the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies attribute
to it.

Trollope's Moral Imperative
307
has been the

neglectingwhichwe revertto paganism.... How different
world beforethat law was given to us and sincel Even the existenceof
thatlaw, thoughit be not obeyed,has softenedthe heartsof men.7
From Trollope's viewpoint, Christ's commandment of neighborly
love is the watershed of history,and those who accept it know that
the way to heaven "must be found in good deeds here on earth; and
. . . the good deeds required.. . [are] kindness to others."8Trollope
nowhere intimates that Christ taught two equally important commandments, the love of God and the love of neighbor; he thinks
only of that second commandment. Clearly he considers this men's
greatest good since it is by obeying this that they become human.
The question, then, is whether such a love prompts men to settle
for "contextual appropriateness," to accept as fittingwhat is not in
traditional moralityalso good and right.
Consider Orley Farm and Doctor Wortle's School. In both novels,
principal charactersassume theyhave done what is fitting,although,
in the former,Lady Mason has forgeda codicil to her husband's will,
therebyrobbing her husband's son by a previous marriage, and, in
the latter,Peacocke lives with the wife of another man. According
to traditional morality,Lady Mason has committed theft,Peacocke,
adultery.Trollope handles both situations in such a way that,while
creating a sense of the moral and human complexities involved and
evoking the utmost sympathyfor the characters,he seems always to
maintain that the act committed by each is wrong.
Lady Mason, forinstance,has robbed her stepson only out of love
forher son, not out of consideration forherself.Had she not forged
the codicil, the boy would have been leftwith nothing. She herself
is good and kind and unselfish.She wins almost everyone'saffection,
including the reader's, and administers the estate during her son's
minorityin the best interestsof the tenants and forthe good of the
propertyitself.The stepson, on the other hand, is wealthy enough
without the property,and is such an irascible, grasping, miserly,
spiteful fellow that had he possessed it he would have bled the
tenants and the estate for his own profit.When he learns of the
forgery,he seeks not only to claim the propertybut, in a spirit of
7 AnthonyTrollope, The Life of Cicero,2 vols. (New York: Harper and Bros., 1881),
II, 324-25.
8 Ibid., II, 330.

308
vengeance,tocrushLady Mason intothedust.Givenhis personality

and hers,givenhis behaviorand hers,the estateis saferin Lady
Mason'shandsthanin his.And,afterall, herhusbandshouldhave
providedforhis son by her.
Nonetheless,Trollope insiststhat'thestepson,despicableas he is,
is entitledto the farm,and thatLady Mason, good and lovable as
she is,is not.In simpleterms,she is guilty,and no concatenationof
eventscan alter that fact.There is no explainingotherwisethe
momentwhenshe confessesher crimeto Sir PeregrineOrme,and
Trollope comments,undoubtedlywithan eye to the confessional
melodramain Dickens:
She did not faint,nor gasp as thoughshe werechoking,nor become
hysteric
in heragony;butshelaythere,
huddledup in thecornerofthe
which
sofa,withherfacehidden,andall thosefeminine
gracesforgotten
had longstoodherin truthso royally.The inner,true,living woman
was thereat last,-thatand nothingelse.9
Our attentionis directedhere to Lady Mason's release fromthe
and dishonesty.
shacklesofartifice
Having made herconfession,
she
is on thewayto becomingwhole.
One mightobject,to be sure,thatbecauseLady Mason is cheating
herstepson,heractis notfitting.
The pointin situationethics,however,is thatif Lady Mason thinksher act fitting,
as she does for
manyyears,no one has therightto protest.The nub of theissueis
not whetherwe condemnLady Mason but whether,sympathizing
withher,as we should,we stillrecognizethatshe is wrongto have
forgedthecodicil.
Doctor Wortle's School does not admit even thisobjection,for
theaffair,
a privateand personalone, affects
none but thetwoconcerned.As in Orley Farm, so here,thesituationseemsto favorthose
whomtraditionalmoralitywould hold sinners.While livingin St.
Louis, Mr. Peacockemarriedan Americanwhosehusbandwas reporteddead. When it turnsout the man is alive, Peacockereturns
withthewomanto England,wherethetwocontinuelivingquietly
togetheras man and wifeuntilthehusband'sbrothercomeson the
9 AnthonyTrollope, OrleyFarm, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1866), II, 35;
italics mine.

309
scene to blackmail them.Why should the Peacockes be thought

wrong?The woman'shusbandby law is dissolute,brutal,and indifferent
to her.Peacockeis kindand good and lovesherdeeplyand
tenderly;and sheloveshim.He believes,too,thathe is rightto keep
herand thatifhe desertsherhe will condemnherto miserableloneliness.
Yet nothingin thenarrator'smanneror tonesuggestshe is ironic
whenhe says:"Everyday passedtogetheras man and wifemustbe
a falsehoodand a sin"; or: "That [Mr. Peacocke]had lived a lifeof
sin,-that he and she had continuedin one great falsehood, is
manifestenough."Whydoes he tell the story?He intends,he says,
to show "how the Doctor bore [the news when the sin became
known].. . and how also Mr. and Mrs. Peacocke bore it."'1 That
is,we whostandapartfromthenarrativehaveno doubtwhereright
and wronglie; thoseenmeshedin thesituationhave.We are thereforeaskedtowatchthemsympathetically
as theystrugand patiently
gle 'towardthegood and theright.We are askednot to assumethat
in thissituationthePeacockesmayhaveactedwell but,distinguishingbetweenan actand theagentof thatact,to observehow certain
men and womenbehavein a givensituation.
Trollope sympathizes
withthePeacockes,yes,but approvestheir
livingtogetheroutsidewedlock?I findno evidenceofhis approval,
or ofhissaying,as a truesituationist
would,ifyouare promptedby
love,or byanothervalue youconsiderhighest,I will notjudge you,
foryourvalues,thoughdifferent
frommine,are as good as mine if
you are persuadedof themand attemptto act upon them.On the
contrary,Trollope seems convincedin the novels that thereare
suchthingsas rightbehavior,hierarchy
ofvalues,and bindingrelationships.
What, then,of Mr. Scarborough'sFamily?Granted the above
argumentis valid fortheothernovelsofTrollope,thisone is surely
an exception.The contradictions
in criticalcommentupon it imply
as much. On the one hand, Geoffrey
Tillotson has called it Trollope's "late masterpiece,"Gerald Brace has said it is "not only
'Trollopian' in everyfavorablesenseof the wordbut . . . close to
10 Anthony Trollope, Dr. Wortle's School (1881; London: Oxford Univ. Press,
World's Classics, 1928), pp. 31, 32.

310
beingthebestnovelhe everwrote,"and GordonRay has labeled it

"a cheerfulbook."'- On the other hand, A. 0. J. Cockshuthas
called it "onlybrilliantmelodrama,"shotthroughwithmoralconfusion,12and he and theStebbinsesconsiderits tone anythingbut
cheerful.The Stebbinsessaythatin thisnovel,Trollope, "titanlike
. . . questionsthemoralorderand writheswithpain and contempt
at his own answers."13 In essentialagreementwiththem,Cockshut
arguesthatthe onlysolutionforthe dilemmaposed by the moral
confusionmustcome fromreconcilingreligionand politicaleconomy,somethingTrollope cannotdo. The narrativeitself,Cockshut
adds,proposesa speciesof moralrelativismrepugnantto Trollope:
"Each of the main charactershas a different
standardof honesty,
each is justifiedfromone pointofview and each is vulnerable....
The point of the book is not that Mr. Scarborough'sgrotesque
moralityis justified,but thatit is no morevulnerablethan thatof
theothers."14 Polhemusseemsto convertinto a frankand cheerful
relativismthisreluctantquasi-relativism
that Cockshutfinds,for
he saysthatScarborough,despitehis lies and swindling,"acts out
of benevolentmoltives... getsgood results,"and is a man of inIn short,Mr. Scarborough'sFamilyis called masterpiece
tegrity.15
and melodrama,cheerfuland gloomy,morallyconfusedand morally
If nothingelse,theconflict
relativistic.
ofopinionimpliesthatright
and value are hardlydiscernible.
Yet theyare clearlydiscernible.The book, a masterpieceand
certainlyTrollopian, is neither cheerfulnor gloomy.Whether
11 "Trollope's Style,"in Mid-VictorianStudies,by Geoffrey
and Kathleen Tillotson
(London: Univ. of London, Athlone Press,1965),p. 57; Brace, "The World of Anthony
Trollope," Texas Quarterly,4, No. 3 (1961), 187; Ray, "Trollope at Full Length,"
Huntington Library Quarterly,31 (1968), 323. Like GeoffreyTillotson and Gerald
Brace, James Pope Hennessey considers the novel "one of the greatestand most organized" of Trollope's long novels. See Anthony Trollope (London: Jonathan Cape,
1971), p. 380.
12 Anthony Trollope: A Critical Study (London: Collins, 1955), p. 237.
13 Lucy Poate and Richard Poate Stebbins, The Trollopes: The Chronicle of a
WritingFamily (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1945), p. 328.
14Cockshut, pp. 114, 234-35.
15 Polhemus, pp. 240, 241. See also Ruth apRoberts' remark in "Cousin Henry:
Trollope's Note fromAntiquity,"NCF, 21 (1969), 96, and the contextof that remark.
In The Moral Trollope, p. 157, she furthercomments: "There is a virtuoso quality
in the way Trollope manipulates [the Scarborough case], insistingon its complexity
and difficulty,
insistingon moral relativism.... the oddness of this barely believable
case demands a situation ethic."

311
Scarborough'smotivesare benevolentin his eyes, they are not

simplyto appearso to thereader.His resultsare pitiable,not good.
whateverwe chooseto call
And themoralconfusion,or relativism,
it,vanishesonce we recognizethe relationshipbetweenthe minor
and the principalactions.
As JeromeThale has pointedout, Trollope habituallyemploys
his subplotsto definethe conflictin his major plots.16To read his
novelsproperlyis to readall theplotsofa givennovel,notjust one.
That is so obviousit oughtnot to be said,yetit mustbe said if for
no otherreasonthanto protestthe tendencyin Trollope criticism
duringthe past twentyyearsto fastenupon one action,oftennot
even a majoraction,and to interpretin thelightof it not onlythe
novel in whichit appearsbut Trollope's attitudestowardlife and
valuesas well.
In Mr. Scarborough'sFamilythereare threeactions.The major
plot,Scarborough'seffort
to circumventthe entail to his property,
involvesa seriousmoralquestion.One of thesubplots,Uncle Proshis heir, Harry Annesley,travestiesthe Scarper shuttlecocking
boroughaffair,and, with its rich comedy,undoubtedlyhelps to
account forthe cheerfulness
Gordon Ray has foundin the book.
The othersubplot,theamusinglove taleofFlorenceMountjoyand
HarryAnnesley,develops a thematicperspectiveessentialto an
of Mr. Scarboroughand his family.
understanding
In themajorplot,Scarborough,
determinedto selecthisownheir
despitethe entail on his property,marriesin Rummelsburgand,
afterthe birthof his firstson, Mountjoy,has a second marriage
ceremonyin Nice. He thenreturnsto his familypropertyat Tretton,wherehis wifedies aftera secondchildbirth,
leavinghim two
two
a
sons,
marriagecertificates,
and plan forbestingtheentail.His
plan seemsfoolproof.
If Mountjoygrowsup trustworthy
he will inherit,theproperty;ifhe growsup dissolute,Augustuswill inherit
it, the second certificate
declaringMountjoyillegitimateand Augustusthe heir.Scarboroughdoes not imaginethe possibilitythat
both sons mightdisappointhis expectations.
They do, however.When Mountjoy,a recklessgambler,borrows
heavilyagainsttheproperty,
Scarboroughproducesthesecondcer16 "The Problem of Structurein Trollope," NCF, 15 (1960), 147-57.

312
Nineteenth-Century
Fiction
tificateand claims Augustus,a promisingbarrister,as his heir.

When in his turnAugustus,havingabandoned the law, contemns
his fatherand finallytellshimhe shoulddie and getout oftheway,
reinstatesMountjoy,and
Scarboroughproducesthefirstcertificate,
nor an inheritance;and
dies,leavingAugustusneithera profession
will finditswayto thegambling
he dies knowingthattheproperty
tablesof Monaco.
This is themajoractionin a nutshell.Runningthroughit,there
seemsto be a questionwhetherScarboroughshouldbe exonerated
fromtheburdenofhisrascalityor,ifnot,whetherhe is anymorea
rascal in his way than thoseabout him are in theirs.For, unlike
them,he acts,or seems to act, in accord with his principles.Believingvirtueand vice merely"good-nature"and "ill-nature,"he
does as he wisheswithevidentgood nature.He scornshonestyand,
grossdeto obtainhis end,slandershis wife'smemory,perpetrates
ception,and manipulatesthe law. Althoughhe uses his sons as
tools,however,and beguilesmen,ifnot into approvingor condoninghiswrong,at leastintoexcusingor minimizingit,he actsgeniallyand forthesakeofwhathe considersthegreatestgood,thepreservationoftheestate-in Fletcher'swords,his summumbonum.The
narratorhimselfclaimsthat"in everyphaseofhislife[Scarborough]
had been actuatedbylove forothers.And indeedhe had neverbeen
selfish,thinkingalwaysof othersratherthan of himself."'7
acIf Scarboroughacts out of love and withshrewdconsistency
cordingto his principles,is he worsein his way thanothersare in
theirs?Is he perhapsto be absolvedof guilt?CockshutanswersemphaticallythatScarboroughis no worse,and Polhemus seems to
absolvehim.
forthemoment
Yet Scarboroughis worsethanothers.Forgetting
whetherhe is consistentwithhis principles,I thinkit unlikelythat
Trollope is sayingtherascalwhorevelsin rascalityis no worsethan
the man who, thoughseekingto be honest,sometimesacts dishonestly.It is truethatGrey,Scarborough'sfamilylawyer,believes
him "the greatestrascalthatI everknew" yetis reluctantto sever
relationswithhim,thathe findshimselfunable to "regardhim as
17 AnthonyTrollope, Mr. Scarborough'sFamily (1883; London: Oxford Univ. Press,
World's Classics, 1946), p. 567. Citations in the text are to this edition.

313
an honestman regardsa rascal" (373). It is truealso thathe assists

Scarboroughin cheatingthe moneylendersand in manipulating
thelaw. What he does,however,he does onlyafterhavingsatisfied
himself,precipitately
as thingsturnout, thatScarboroughis speakfromNice and
ingthetruthwhenhe revealsthemarriagecertificate
claims Mountjoy is illegitimate.Grey does n/otintend to cheat.
When he learnsthetruthof theaffairand sees how -thelaw can be
manipulatedby the unscrupulous,he resignshis legal practicein
disgustand dismay.His inconsistency
betweenprincipleand practiceis forthemostpartunintentional,
and, whereit is not,is somethingthatperplexesand annoyshim.There is, too,a moraldifference between the dissipationof Mountjoy and the calculating
of Augustus.AlthoughTrollope does not
avariceand indifference
explore thematicallythe distinctionsbetweenrecklessand calculatedevil,as Dostoevsky
does in The BrothersKaramazov,he makes
thosedistinctions.
Mountjoyis clearlya betterman thanAugustus,
and GreythanScarborough.
Of course people seem to approve Scarborough.Merton,his
medical attendant,says that while "thoroughlydishonest,"Scarboroughis "a mostexcellentman," a modernRobin Hood, witha
whichalmostatonesforhis
"capacityforlove,and an unselfishness,
dishonesty";and: "If you can imagineforyourselfa stateof things
in whichneithertruthnormoralityshallbe thoughtessential,then
old Mr. Scarborough would be your hero" (514).18 Barry,an astute
lawyer,would exoneratehim: "He has been so cleverthathe ought

to be forgivenall hisrascality"(53).
Nonetheless,whateverpeople thinkthe compensationsof Scarborough'schicanery,theyacknowledgethe chicaneryitself(201),
and Merton'spropositionis both conditionaland hypothetical.
If
thereis a Barrythereis also a Grey,and a numberof otherslike
him.The livesofthosesurrounding
Scarboroughand talkingabout
him,therefore,
do not encourageus to assumethat,alas, thereis no
difference
betweenone man's behaviorand another's.They evidence rathera degreeof moral uncertainty
somewhatin the way
18 Taking this passage as the key to the novel, Cockshut says, pp. 234-35, that
Scarboroughis such an agreeable and clever fellow he is indeed our hero. But in the
novel itself,Merton has just said that "all the world must condemn" Scarborough
(567).

314
to a need for
theydo in The Ring and theBook. As such,theytestify
moral precision.What kind of moral precision?Certainlynot, as
Greybelieved,the precisionof law.
Trollope's novels,and Mr. Scarborough'sFamily in particular,
make clear what he consideredthat precisionto be. One of its
elementsis honesty,forTrollope, the sine qua non of society.Uneven
like Dickens,Thackeray,and GeorgeEliot,whosecharacters,
when deliberatelydishonest,maintainrelationswithothers,Trollope thoughtthatthe dishonestman isolateshimselffromothers
and thatifhe persistsin dishonesty
he becomeslessand lesscapable
eitherof associatingwithothersin any formor ofjudginghis own
in his novels,
actions.19
This is thecase withall formsof dishonesty
thedishonesty
of maliceor speculation,like thatof GeorgeVavasor
in Can You ForgiveHer? or of FerdinandLopez in The Prime
and prejudice,like thatof
ofstubbornness
Minister,thedishonesty
oftryingto subRobertKennedyin PhineasRedux, thedishonesty
mit to another'swisheswhile ignoringone's own, dishonestylike
that of Mary Mastersin The AmericanSenator.The veryword
"honesty"in factrecursso frequently
in Trollope's writingthatit
to
extent
have
must some
assertedtheveryessenceof life forhim.
and the unpreIt meantto him not onlythe absenceof pretense20
declaration,
judiced receptivityto others,21but the forthright
revelationas it were,of the verysubstanceof anything.This is its
meaningin such remarksas ",thesnow had not fallen in hearty,
in suchreflections
as Hugh Stanbury'sin He Knew
honestflakes"22
He Was Right,thatit is "moremanly"to tellNora hislove "honestwords."23 It is the
ly,thango on gropingabout withhalf-expressed
19 In Trollope's novels note, for example, Countess Josephine in Lady Anna, Madame Staubach in Linda Tressel, and Mrs. Bolton in John Caldigate.
20 Trollope once said in a lecture that "a man should not live with an easy conscience if,in his calling, he pretends to anything,either to knowledge,or to sanctity,
or to propertywhich he does not possess." See "The Civil Service as a Profession,"in
Trollope, Four Lectures, ed. M. L. Parrish (London: Constable, 1938), p. 7.
21 Concluding North America, Trollope says that he has "endeavored to judge
without prejudice, and to hear with honest ears, and to see with honest eyes." See
North America,ed. Donald Smalley and BradfordA. Booth (New York: Knopf, 1951),
p. 509. In the firstchapter of this remarkablebut neglectedbook, Trollope speaks of
difficultiesone meets in attemptingto view a foreigncountryfairly.His discussion
should be a persuasive argument against the claim he is a relativist,for he clearly
regardscircumstancein order to perceive the truth.
22 Ibid., p. 410.
23 AnthonyTrollope, He Knew He Was Right (1869; London: Oxford Univ. Press,
World's Classics, 1948), p. 313.

315
meaning,too, of Trollope's insistingthata writernot only speak

thetruthbut convey"withtheleastpossibleamountof trouble"to
thereaderand "mostaccuratelyall thatthewriterwishesto convey
on anysubject."24A thing,a person,a statementis honestwhenits
expressiondeclareswhatit is and whatit is supposedto be.
The peculiarthingabout thisdeclarationis thatin goodmenand
womenit is compulsive.Those who perceivea truth,howeverdimly,and do not speakit out whentheyshould,encountera pressure
fromwithinand mustdo battlewiththemselves.
They can no more
hide with impunityfromtheirdispositionsand perceptionsthan
theycan successfully
obscure,conceal,or obliteratefacts.
As a corollaryto thisimpulsein men,thereis in affairs
themselves
In Trollope's fiction,
an impulsetowardmanifestation.
unlike that
of Dickensor Balzac, information
cannotlong remainhidden,for,
thougha man maytinkerwithit forawhile,as Scarboroughdoes,
still,in thewordsof Bozzle,,theprivatedetectiveof He Knew He
WasRight,"factsisopen ... ifyouknowswhereto look forthem";25
and mostof Trollope's charactersdo. That is, factsare available to
the patient.In the courseof time,moreover,theyhave a way of
announcingthemselvesdespitehuman ingenuity.For thisreason,
in Mr. Scarborough's
lawFamily,Barry,a practicaland hard-nosed
yer,is rightto insistthatevenhad Scarboroughsaid nothingof his
marriagein Rummelsburgit would eventuallyhave come to light
because "thesethingsdo come out" (562).26 Given thisimpulsetoward expressionboth in men and in the nature of things,Scarto manipulatethe law obviouslyattacksnot only
borough'seffort
thelaw itselfbut thevitalprinciplein men thatmakessocietyposThackeray (New York: Harper and Bros., 1879), p. 193.
He Knew He Was Right, p. 592.
26 This view runs throughoutTrollope's fiction.For instance,in Lady Anna (1874;
London: Oxford Univ. Press, World's Classics, 1936), p. 473, when the Countess Josephine shoots and injures Daniel Thwaite, he says nothing to anyone. And yet the
world knowsof the shooting,although "nobody knew it 'officially.'"In An Old Man's
Love (1884; London: Oxford Univ. Press,World's Classics, 1936),p. 102, "news had got
abroad, and tidingswere told that Mr. Baggett was about to arrive in the neighborhood," yet the source of this news is unknown,and Mrs. Baggett has kept mum. Trollope himself confessesin The Duke's Children (1880; London: Oxford Univ. Press,
1938), I, 84, that he cannot handle epic beginningsbecause "I have always found that
the details would insiston being told at last and that by rushing'in medias res' I was
simplypresentingthe cart beforethe horse." The words "always" and "insist" describe
a pressurein factstoward manifestation.And, indeed, Trollope says in Australia and
New Zealand (Melbourne: George Robertson, 1873), p. 525, that "time [would] reveal
most things."
24
25

316
sible. It attacksthesubstanceofthingsand would makeofsocietya

merestructure,
devoidof thevital,humanforcesthatonlyhonesty
reveals.
The novel hintsat such structuralism
throughnumerousallusions to manner,costume,showmanship,and pretense.27
Scarborough himself,forall his vauntedindependence,is noticeablyconcernedwithappearance.While claimingindifference
to theworld's
opinion (196), he likesto exaggeratehis suffering
(63, 72), he wants
men "to thinkme good" (75), he seeks "to arrangeeverything
so
thatit would be seen thathe has setall lawsat defiance"(366; italics
mine),and,as Augustusnotes,he is at pains to showtheworldhe is
a bold fellowin his suffering
and is readyto facedeath "withouta
pang or a regret"(67-68). He speaks,too,so repeatedlyand ostentatiouslyofhiscouragein defyingthelaw thatone hearsalmostunawaresGertrude's"methinkstheladydothprotesttoo much."
Now sinceScarboroughnowhereapprehendsthe contradiction,
norownsto himselfthathe is boasting,we are led to recognizethat
he is a man of surface,pitiablyignorantof himself.His ignorance
is the more pitiable because,with all his talent,he lacks even an
elementaryunderstandingof human relationships.He is introto his
duced as one "luxuriousand self-indulgent.... affectionate
children,and anxious above all thingsfortheirwelfare,or rather
happiness"(1-2; italicsmine). While the distinctionbetweenwelfareand happinessis not evident,it is obvious thata man,at once
affectionate,
luxurious,and self-indulgent
is likelyto confusethem.
Indeed, Scarboroughseemsnot to knowwhateithermeans.A momentlaterhe appearsinsensitive
to hisson'sfeelingsand,implicitly,
to all feelingsof personalrelationship:"It did not occur to him,
that,in makingsuch a revelationas to his son's mother,he would
inflictany greatgriefon his son's heart.To be illegitimatewould
be, he thought,nothingunlessillegitimacycarriedwith it loss of
property"(6). Moreover,thoughhe is said to have acted out of
selfless
love,he has playedfavorites
amonghischildren,spoilingthe
27 Mr. Anderson, for instance, claims to be "fond of anything that requires a
costume" (130). Prosper, about to propose to Miss Thoroughbung, reflectsthat "so
much must depend upon manner" (254). Scarborough's sister justifiesher calling a
London consultantby telling Augustus,"It will show ... that we have had the best
advice," an excuse that promptshim scornfullyto remark: "Yes it will show; that is
exactly what people care about" (63).

317
elder "by everymeans in his power" (191), and has "poured out
[his]moneywithopen handsforboth" (508). He has allowed them
completefreedomand has expectednothing,not even kindness,in
return(509). He has not educated.themto familyloyaltyand love,
nor does he feel loyaltytowardthem. He disownsMountjoyfor
and he setsout to destroyAugustus.
offering
theestateas security,
That is to say,theScarboroughsare a familyin name and byvirtue
of the estate.They have neitherrespectnor considerationforone
anotherand no interestin one another.What theylack is made
evidentby the contrastbetweentheirfamilyand thatof the Anas the narratorsays,Scarboroughacts out of
nesleys.If, therefore,
love,thatlove is grotesque.
And whatdoes it accomplish?Not thegood resultsPolhemushas
claimed.It underminesthefamilyhonor,as Florenceremarks(88),
and, as Scarboroughrealizesin the finalhoursof his life,despoils
theestatehe had givena lifeltime
to develop.Materially,he sees,he
has accomplishedexactlynothing(565-66). Humanly,he has accomplishedless,forbothsonshave learnedto hate each otherand
to mistrust
him,and he has cometo hateAugustus.Surelyhisdeathbed plea thatMountjoystop gamblingand concernhimselfwith
ifironically,overthe travesty
Augustus(566-67) ringspathetically,
of familylife,forhe has loved themprincipallyas the means of
his property,
safeguarding
his love,has sacriand, while protesting
ficedthemto his aim withoutremorse.He has confusednotions
indeedof welfareand happiness.
Scarboroughundermineslove and familybecausehe destroys
the
foundationupon whichtheyrest,confidencein othersand reliance
upon them.As Mr.AnnesleysaysoftheabsurdProsper,"it is dreadful to have to trustto a man who cannot tell wrongfromright"
(239); and Greyin one way,Augustusin another,learnto theirperil
how dreadfulthattrustcan be. Here, in fact,theironyofMr. Scarborough'sFamily has its fullestplay. Scarboroughtrustsno one.
In planningto securehis estate,he trustsnei(ther
his wifenor himselfto educatethe boys,nor the boysto learn.Ironically,he trusts
theverythinghe hates,thelaw. He countson it to honorwhatever
certificates
he producesand,in honoringto theletteritsregulations
forinheritance,
to disownhis elderson if a piece of paper declares
him illegitimate.

318
The cruxofthisnovel,then,is theproblemoftrust.It permeates

implicitlythe major action, underliesthe shenanigansof Uncle
Prosperand his will, and defineseveryfacetof the love affairof
FlorenceMountjoyand HarryAnnesley.For thesetwolovershave
had to build theirrelationshipupon trustthroughthe long separation imposedupon themby Florence'smother.Under pressure
fromfamilyand associates,and subjectto rumorsthatHarryis a
scoundrel,Florencehas had to relyupon herknowledgeofhimand
herbeliefin his essentialhonesty.And bothhave had to bide their
confidentin each
timepatientlyin thefaceofthreatenedadversity,
otherand in the future.
In the closinglines of thenovel the importanceof trustis made
explicitwhen,on a tripin theAlps, HarryteasinglycautionsFlorence lesther ponystumbleand pitchher over a precipice.She replies thatit is
almostas unlikelyto stumbleas youare.One has toriskdangersin the
world,butonemakestheriskas littleas possible.I knowtheywon'tgive
me a ponythatwilltumbledown.And I knowI've toldyouto lookto
see thattheydon't.You chosetheponybutI had to chooseyou.I don't
abouta lover;knowverymuchaboutponiesbutI do knowsomething
and I knowthatI havegotone thatwillsuitme. (629)
Whateverherlecturemayaugurforthehappinessoftheirmarriage,
it is thematicallysignificant,
summarizingas iitdoes an implied
statementof the novel: men musttrustone anotherin orderwith
securityto assumea numberofrelationships,
runthenecessary
risks
in life,and go forwardcreativelyin time.
In Trollope's fictionalworlda man can look onlyto othermen.
Greyhas believed in the law, assumingthatwhen factsare made
certainthey"are immovable"(518),and he learnsto hissorrowthat
the unscrupulousmayconcocttheirown factsand fora timepass
themoffas thoughtheyare certain,thatlaw is reliable onlywhile
men chooseto live by it. HarryAnnesleylearnsin moredetail.He
discoversthatlaw is ineffectual
withoutthegoodwillofhonestmen:
"The law will allow him,"he saysof Prosper'sintentionto disown
him, "but the injusticewould be monstrous"(215). He discovers
thatin humanaffairs
legalismcan perpetrateinjusticebecause one
man maybringagainstanotheraccusationsthatare "thoughin essence. . . false,in words. .. true"(223). And he discoversthatsome

319
problemsare not resolvedby an appeal to justice: "I am not speaking of justice,"he says,protestingAugustus'cold-bloodedaccusationsagainsthis father,"but of feeling"(64).
Given the tangle of human relationshipsthroughtime, the
pledgesmenmake,and thecoursestheyfollowon thebasisof those
pledges,honesty,love, and trustare more the foundationand the
buttresses
ofsocietythan,as Aeschylussaysin theOresteia,the law.
Scarborough'sfailureand the discoveriesof Greyand Annesleydo
not mean in thisnovel thatreligionand politicaleconomyare irreconcilable,as Cockshuthas said theyare; theymean ratherwhat
Furnivalhas pointedout in OrleyFarm: "Let us makewhatlawswe
will, theycannottake precedenceof human nature,"28a view developedwithremarkablevarietythroughout
Trollope's work.
Mr. Scarborough's
Family,then,like thenovelsofEvelynWaugh
and AnthonyBurgess,thoughmore gently,worksironicallywith
theneedsofa healthysocietyand ofmoralmen.Epithetslike"goodnatured"and "kind-hearted,"
used withapparentindiscrimination
and prodigality,
createan ironicambiencethatinvitesTrollope's
readersto listenskepticallyto such protestations
as the narrator's
paean,"in everyphaseofhislife[Scarborough
was]actuatedbylove
forothers.. . . [and] had neverbeen selfish"(567)-and to listen
withgood reason;fora momentlaterthenarratoradds,
skeptically
"the three personswho were assembledaround [Scarborough's]
death-bed,did respecthim,and had been made to love himbywhat
he had done" (567). One ofthe threeis Mountjoy.
I do notmeanthatScarborough's
genialityis ofno account.Cockshutis rightin sayinghe is likable. He is also pitiable,a victimof
his own assumptionsabout life.At the same time he is culpable.
The pervasiveironyin the novel functionsultimatelyto accuse us
of grossmoralinsensitivity
if we accept the protestsof love at face
valueand failtoperceivetheessentialcauseofScarborough's
wrong.
The man,not theboast,revealswhathe is.
There is no evidence,therefore,
thatin Mr. Scarborough's
Family
Trollope appearsmorallyconfusedor morallyrelativistic.On the
thereis a profoundappreciationforthemoralcomplexity
contrary,
in humanaffairs,
a keen awarenessthat,as Donne has said,he who
would reach the truth"about mustand about mustgo." Perhaps
28
Orley Farm, II, 254.

320
Fiction
Nineteenth-Century
fromTrollope'sviewpointthefailureto realizethisand to preserve

equanimityand trust,as Florencedoes,is evidenceof "the waywe
live now." Be thatas it may,he evidentlybelievedthatin lifethere
was truthto be gotten,and good,and right.


Trollope's Case For Moral Imperative Author(s) : Roger L. Slakey Source: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Dec., 1973), Pp. 305-320 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 05/02/2015 15:12

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Trollope's Case For Moral Imperative Author(s) : Roger L. Slakey Source: Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Dec., 1973), Pp. 305-320 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 05/02/2015 15:12

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Trollope's Case for Moral Imperative

Author(s): Roger L. Slakey

This content downloaded from 129.10.76.185 on Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:12:55 PM