Anthony Trollope as painted by Samuel Lawrence
Dear Friends and readers,
As I’ve written about too often on this blog, a conference on the occasion of Trollope’s 200th birthday was held in Leuven, Belgium from 17-19 September 2015. There was no keynote speech, and only one panel at a time presented papers. It was all held in one place: a large chapel auditorium in the Irish college. If you had the stamina you could hear every paper and get to know the people there, many of whom were among the most knowledgeable people on Trollope anywhere. One result was you could get a sense of overall trends and what was dominant in these people’s thinking. Somewhat to my surprise, I discovered one trend or prevailing attitude of mind towards Trollope’s art was not about his politics, nor was it that he was ironic, satiric (comic); rather those speaking emphasized how artful his texts are, how much autobiographical or life-writing is in them, and that his art is plangent, deeply felt, emotionally earnest, serious. Izzy (my daughter came with me) and I were not able to stay a fourth night so I could not make a record for the panels and papers occurring after 10 in the morning on Saturday, but I have a record of the gist of each paper that was delivered until that time. I offer brief summaries (these omit many details) and begin with Thursday morning.
Robert Macbeth Walker, A Rainy Day
Panel 1: Ordinary Trollope. Kate Flint chaired and gave the first paper: “Shoddy Trollope.” She suggested that Trollope in his most ordinary moments cared deeply about the workmanship of his stories, of his art, and he wanted to offer the best novel “product” he could, e.g., the clearest style (containing all the meaning he could project). Thus his work contrasted to what was seen as “shoddy” (her paper dwelt on this) by which Victorians meant cheap ill-made goods, raw poor materials, especially about cloth; Carlyle wrote an article condemning all selling of inferior, filthy, dust-laden junk-cloth; Trollope uses the word more neutrally (as do Gaskell and Eliot). Francis O’Gorman took as her topic how critics continue to praise Trollope’s depiction of capitalism in The Way We Live Now when Trollope’s portrayal of the banking business is superficial and misleading. The critics of the Times and Examiner liked the novel but said that Trollope did not know the way the financial world worked from within. By the the time of the novel there were enforced laws demanding minimum disclosure as Parliament tried to control and stamp out fraud. Melmotte in reality could not begin to cheat everyone the way he does. Claire Pettit’s “Inbetween Times” was about Trollope’s interest in psychological chronology; in TWWLN social public time is carefully plotted; a lot of things happen at the same time so Trollope develops a kind of holding pattern where he drops one story and then picks up another, leaving the first to wait. She used terms like fast forward and switch-back (rewind, anyone?) but this kind of thing is found in other older fiction too.
Walter Greaves, Chelsea Regatta (1871)
Panel 2: Political Trollope. Robert Aguirre suggested that The West Indies and the Spanish Main is a racist atavistic book whose route and business enabled Trollope to do some good: he worked to increase the speed with which letters reached people, their reach, to create long communication networks (these are crucial for empire building). Railway stations made non-places become places. Tax per letter would be replaced by tax per annum; an adhesive postage stamp would be used. In 1858 Trollope went to Suez similarly to forge agreements for mail delivery (to Australia). He was overcoming the “forces” of immobility; answering a genuine hunger in people living at great distances for intimacy. At the same time it’s just such self-communings (He had “realized”) that makes the characters come alive .Helen Small’s “Trollope at the Hustings” was about Trollope’s campaign at Beverley and its results. While Beverley was not far from his home, he knew nothing about the place as a community, which reacted with indignation as he was an outsider coming in. She contrasted politicking to hunting (which she called socially inclusive). Trollope knew he was being used, that he would not win, that Henry Edwards, the wealthy Tory, an entrepreneur was a local favorite, says his political views remained the same over his life, and yet he was bitter at the loss. Ms Small suggested that Mr Bonteen is Trollope’s portrait of a modern politician.
Lauren Goodlad chaired; her paper, “Trollopian Politics” was intended to show that the more we abandon “traditional liberalism,” the more coherent and less reactionary Trollope’s political stances become. There is a bleak political pessimism in TWWLN, Phineas Redux, Prime Minister. Commercial activities make for progress, comfort, and time (historical) alertness. Trollope kept his views on specific issues (e.g., Governor Eyre) to himself and affirms political dialectic. She covered various real politicians in the books (Turnbull, John Stuart Mill, Disraeli) with Monk representing an ideal. In 1874 the radicals were stunned by this loss. Money is altering everything. As to gender, in Barchester Towers, the Stanhopes are exceptional figures, but in this and CYFH? the men are impecunious and weak, and the women strong and rich and sought out by the men for support.
We all adjourned for lunch.
John Everett Millais, An Excluded Woman (from Irish Melodies)
Panel 3: Psychological/epistemological Trollope. Jenny Bourne Taylor chaired and she introduced the papers by quoting Amanda Anderson’s essay on depth psychology in Trollope, and talked of his interest in how we know what we know. He was one of the founding group of The Fortnightly Review where he worked with G. H. Lewes. Patrick Fassenbecker’s talk was about how Trollope characters slowly learn to shape their fates by teaching themselves to do or think this or that; we witness them overcoming earlier instincts and exerting self-control. Sometimes the characters refuse to accept beliefs that are not supported by evidence (or that are). Bad consequences ensue. The characters have a duty to be honest with themselves, and are aware others can deceive them. So we watch a form of character management. You have to learn not to let your preference for something shape your over-all view. Sophie Gilmartin’s “Trollope on the Face of It” was a discussion of Trollope’s use of language, the surface style which flows, is filled with direct and free indirect speech, narration, description; how he builds subjective sensory images which subjectivities and character’s body actions and feelings and thoughts inhabit and swirl around. The reader pauses when the data of the utterance exceeds what the scene needs, and visualization and poetic apprehension envelop the reader. She felt Trollope hardly considers how painful his scenes can become, though he is aware how he suggests what is beyond the edge of consciousness for his characters. Her examples included Alice Vavasour’s green room, her trip with Kate and George down the Rhine, Marie Melmotte’s painful subterfuges and sudden direct demands.
It was then time for coffee and in the later afternoon so I’ll stop here. Next blog report will include Robert Polhemus’s paper which took Panel 3’s general topic in a different direction and the rest of the day’s panels.
Susan Herbert, Victorian Cats
Ellen
Ellen And Jim Have A Blog, Two 
I don’t know enough about banking to judge whether Trollope’s depiction of banking was superficial, but I very much doubt that Victorian laws and regulations were sufficient to prevent a Melmotte-like pyramid scheme. In twenty-first century America we have far a far more
regulated industry, and yet: Bernie Madoff.
I’m reporting what was said. Later today I’ll come back and give more details from my notes: the scholar cited laws. Now that I come to think of it it’s imporbable that people investing large sums of money would not ask detailed questions, if not in the boardroom elsewhere (in private). No one objected afterward at the session. I have not reported on the discussions afterward as yet. These were informed and insightful, adding much. I thought I’d write about them separately at the end. E.M.
Before everything, thank you for “reporting” and telling us avout the Leuven Conference, whih gives us news of the Trollopean world and scholars.
Then I’d thought my tastes and initial training would have driven me towards Panels 1 & 2 but what you say of Panel 3 is most interesting, notably Sophie Gilmartin’s paper – something I had never envisaged and makes me want to re-read the two examples that were given.
And last, I see in your answer to the previous comment that you will report on the discussions that followed the papers: thank you very much indeed as these are most of the time broadening the (already) issues presented by the main person in charge.
And thank you for the voiced appreciation.
My stenography is no longer what it was so I can’t give details the way I once did — as I’m not sure I’ve got them down correctly. Since it’s general trends then I thought I’d gather the discussions up at the end and give a gist of them too — though in some cases a specific paper elicited specific responses, like one where a poet-scholar quoted a double sonnet by Elizabeth Bishop to shed light on the Washington D.C. section of Trollope’s travel book, North America. In those few cases I will try to put the remarks afterward with the summary of the talk/paper.
I don’t think the fact that your shorthand is t what it was Ellen. You amply illustrate that you have grasped the argument of each paper. You have remembered the main thoughts and most of all you have shared them. I shall have to have a think about the Melmotte paper. I am uncertain that she was right. The Victorians had rules about investments and indeed banking. However, the rules about investments were fairly loose and I am not sure how strictly they were enforced. Banking is a different thing altogether, and the Bank of England’s rules were a byword for banking probity at the time. Thanks so much for writing this, it has given me much to think about. I have put it on my todo list. I need to do some research on this interesting idea. I am looking forward to your next post about the conference with keen anticipation.
Clare
I haven’t had time to bring in the details on that one. I will do when I come to write the second report. It’s a good point that these talks by these people are by no means to be taken as any kind of gospel. I suspect this is a more dull set of summaries because people were so careful about what they said and often hitting a mainstream consensus: now that’s of interest, what that is for academics. It’s different from that of the common reader — who Gopnick’s article in the New Yorker mirrored.
That will be excellent, Ellen. I think that sometimes the gap between law and its enforcement is underestimated. Cycling on the footpath in the UK has been illegal for many decades, but everyday one can see adults cycling at a fast clip on the pavement. No enforcement means the law has no effect. Another factor is that police enforcement was in its infancy in the Victorian period.
Clare
[…] full week has gone by since I posted my first report on the recent Trollope Conference held in Leuven, Belgium, at the Irish college. I covered somewhat […]
To answer Michele’s query, a perusal of Mary Poovey’s “The Financial System in Nineteenth-Century Britain” shows that Britain ‘s financial system was a major topic of interest and discussion to the general public and to investors in particular at the time and there were laws in place to aid people who were duped by the Bernie Madoff’s of the time. However, as in modern times, once the money is gone it is gone! The collection in the volume comprises contemporary documents and are hard reading but they do show the thought which went into the articles. “Speculative Investments” by Alexander Innes Shand, which originally appeared in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 120 (September 1876): 293-316 (the year after “The Way We Live Now” was published) clearly shows that the locals knew about such schemes.
[…] second day, Friday, September 18th, was as long and rich a day as Thursday (1, 2), and it included some unexpected collocations (e.g., Trollope’s North America with a […]
[…] and last report of the papers given at the Trollope Bicentennial Conference in Leuven, Belgium (see 1, 2, 3). I combine late Friday afternoon, early Saturday morning (Sept 18th-19th), an address from […]