Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Oxford University Press (1985), Paperback, 952 pages
Description
Widely regarded as one of Trollope's most successful later novels,He Knew He Was Right is a study of marriage and of sexual relationships cast against a background of agitation for women's rights.
User reviews
LibraryThing member pgchuis
Mainly about the quarrel which arises between Emily Trevelyan and her husband Louis over her friendship with Colonel Osborne, known to be a home-wrecker, but a friend of Emily's father. This quarrel escalates into a separation and then Louis becomes unreasonable and finally mad. Other strands
While there were enjoyable sections in this novel; the irrational whims of Miss Stanbury, Mr Gibson's various mishaps, Sir Marmeduke's complete ineffectuality as a govenerner and the appalling Wallachia, I struggled with much of the rest:
1. Emily's intransigence throughout - obviously Louis becomes impossible to reason with, but for my money, she brought it all on herself. I don't like either Emily or Louis very much and sympathized with neither.
2. How old was the child Louis supposed to be? - I thought he was 10 months old at the beginning of the quarrel and then months later he seems to be a much older child.
3. The whole deathbed forgiveness thing was nauseating (although, I suppose, very Victorian).
4. I became very very tired of the whole "Nora could have been the rich Lady Peterborough, and does she or does she not regret refusing Mr Glascock?"musing, which is repeated over and over. I found it odd that Nora should have been taken in so affectionately by Caroline and Charles, given the history and don't really understand why Emily didn't want her to stay with her in Siena at the end. How was it OK for Emily to stay there alone?
5. There were too many romances and too many examples of heroines resolving to refuse proposals because "it would be better for the man" that they do so.
Ultimately disappointing and I think Colonel Osborne should indeed have got his comeuppance.
Show More
include the romance between Emily's sister Nora and Louis' friend Hugh, who writes for a newspaper and therefore is seen as slightly "Bohemian", the romances of Dorothy, Hugh's sister, and finally the romance of a former suitor of Nora's who dares to marry an American.While there were enjoyable sections in this novel; the irrational whims of Miss Stanbury, Mr Gibson's various mishaps, Sir Marmeduke's complete ineffectuality as a govenerner and the appalling Wallachia, I struggled with much of the rest:
1. Emily's intransigence throughout - obviously Louis becomes impossible to reason with, but for my money, she brought it all on herself. I don't like either Emily or Louis very much and sympathized with neither.
2. How old was the child Louis supposed to be? - I thought he was 10 months old at the beginning of the quarrel and then months later he seems to be a much older child.
3. The whole deathbed forgiveness thing was nauseating (although, I suppose, very Victorian).
4. I became very very tired of the whole "Nora could have been the rich Lady Peterborough, and does she or does she not regret refusing Mr Glascock?"musing, which is repeated over and over. I found it odd that Nora should have been taken in so affectionately by Caroline and Charles, given the history and don't really understand why Emily didn't want her to stay with her in Siena at the end. How was it OK for Emily to stay there alone?
5. There were too many romances and too many examples of heroines resolving to refuse proposals because "it would be better for the man" that they do so.
Ultimately disappointing and I think Colonel Osborne should indeed have got his comeuppance.
Show Less
LibraryThing member uvula_fr_b4
Anthony Trollope's 1869 novel He Knew He Was Right is essentially a Victorian-dress Othello, with the main plot concerning the raving jealousy of one Louis Trevelyan, a well-to-do gentleman ("well-to-do" in this instance being £3,000 per annum, which seems to translate to roughly U.S. $500k/yr.
Show More
these days; Trollope has been called the most money-conscious of the Victorian novelists, and he scandalised his nation when he admitted to enjoying the remuneration he received for his scribblings) who occasionally writes articles for one review or another, over his spirited wife's friendship with an older man, one Colonel Frederic Osborne: as Trevelyan's suspicions deepen he gradually loses his grip on reality and slips into madness. The book also, incidentally, contains what the Oxford English Dictionary says is the first recorded use of the term "private detective," at least according to the endnote provided by Frank Kermode (p. 828; the term is first dropped in Chapter 19, "Bozzle, The Ex-Policeman," p. 166). The title is a bit of a red herring, BTW: Louis Trevelyan is far from being the only character in the book who "knows" that "he was right," with his tropic-reared wife being the most obvious countervailing figure; but essentially every character who's given any sort of time in the spotlight is dead certain that he (or she...) is right. In addition to examining male-female relationships from a variety of perspectives (and not always to the credit of the males), Trollope manages some jibes at feminists, one of his pet peeves, it seems. While I was ready for this book to be finished, its "shoes" didn't pinch nearly as much as those provided by Dickens (see, for example, David Copperfield). Show Less
LibraryThing member Porius
both as a dirty boy at harrow and as a hulking skulking bigger boy at winchester, a t. saw himself as a caliban lookalike. he blamed his poverty . like dr. johnson before him he had a paper thin skin when it came to his dignity. in 'can you forgive her,' he wroteabt. one man dominating another in
the phrase curled darlings is from OTHELLO, where brabantio, desdemona's father, is aghast that his daughter can forsake 'the curled darlings of our nation for the sooty bosom of the moor.
from v. glendennings biog. of trollope. 1993.
'
Show More
social life. concluding that it was 'the outward look of the man' that did the trick. anthony as a youth looked with incredulous envy at those he called curled darlings. good looking, confidant, easy-mannered, sexually attractive young men-born into the purple, or at least into inherited acres- stalk and laze and flirt their way thru his novels.the phrase curled darlings is from OTHELLO, where brabantio, desdemona's father, is aghast that his daughter can forsake 'the curled darlings of our nation for the sooty bosom of the moor.
from v. glendennings biog. of trollope. 1993.
'
Show Less
LibraryThing member riotbrrd
I found this to be one of Trollope's saddest novels, perhaps because of the role of little boy in the story. Nevertheless, a wonderful book, with the rich detail and keen observation of Trollope's best works.
LibraryThing member CVBell
I found He Knew He Was Right thoroughly addictive and thought provoking. Trollope has a masterful way of illustrating the vagaries of all types of social rank and the weaknesses of human spirit.
While it can seem bloated and repetitive at times, I'm particularly amazed at how well Trollope's story
Trollope also has a wonderfully entertaining way of exploring the pitfalls of both conforming to or rebelling against social conformity and authority. Human psychology is illuminated as much as social authority. Each way of being is shown to have its weaknesses. No one side of an argument or single character is ever all right or all wrong (save, perhaps Camilla French). At some point each inhabitant of Trollope's finely drawn universe appears intractable to his or her detriment, as if *he knew he was right*. Pride and ego are relentlessly laid bare. Sticking steadfastly to that position is almost universally the most problematic position.
While it can seem bloated and repetitive at times, I'm particularly amazed at how well Trollope's story
Show More
illustrates the political struggles over women's rights which raged during the 19th century. In the central struggle between the jealous Louis Trevelyan and his prideful but loyal wife Emily, He Knew He Was Right explores male authority and women's rights within marriage--core issues in arguments over married women's property. As documented by Wendy Jones, the novel was written during the height of the debate in British parliament about these issues. Jones makes explicit the nature of Trollope's contribution to this debate by showing how He Knew He Was Right intersects with the broader cultural discourse of contract, which informs Victorian Feminist arguments, and which was central to an ideal of married love. Trollope also has a wonderfully entertaining way of exploring the pitfalls of both conforming to or rebelling against social conformity and authority. Human psychology is illuminated as much as social authority. Each way of being is shown to have its weaknesses. No one side of an argument or single character is ever all right or all wrong (save, perhaps Camilla French). At some point each inhabitant of Trollope's finely drawn universe appears intractable to his or her detriment, as if *he knew he was right*. Pride and ego are relentlessly laid bare. Sticking steadfastly to that position is almost universally the most problematic position.
Show Less
LibraryThing member davegregg
This came highly recommended by a friend. She loves digging into characters, and this book certainly does that. But however much I tried, I just could not finish this book. I get stressed out when I'm around too much petty drama and this book has a lot of it. Trollope is an excellent writer. His
Show More
characters are true to imperfect human form. He stands out as a master among English literary masters, but I just couldn't stand the unwavering pettiness that seems to dominate the major plot. Show Less
LibraryThing member thorold
I allowed this to sit on my shelf for quite a while, in part because the title makes it sound like such an absolutely typical story. Is there a Trollope novel where we don't get stubborn men who stick to their opinions in the face of all reason and common-sense? But, of course, it turns out that
We do get the self-destructive stubbornness of Last chronicle of Barsetshire and the potentially tragic marital strife of Phineas Finn, both also written in the late 60s, but these are almost incidental to what turns out to be a big sweeping examination of the situation of (middle-class) women in mid-Victorian society. By the 60s, intelligent, educated young women were becoming accustomed to thinking of themselves as at least intellectually and morally the equals of men, but law and custom still treated them to a large extent as chattels of their fathers or husbands. Without a great deal of money to pay for servants and a “companion”, a respectable unmarried woman could not live by herself; to attempt to work for a living meant facing an irreparable loss of social standing. A married woman unfortunate enough to quarrel with her husband was automatically presumed by the courts and by her neighbours to be in the wrong, and stood to lose custody of her children unless she could prove actual criminal wrongdoing by her husband. Trollope invites his readers to reflect on these and other absurdities, without very much obvious polemic. His methods aren't always politically correct: the satirical picture of an American feminist poet in Florence, Wallachia Petrie “the Republican Browning”, certainly struck me as unnecessarily cruel to support his message that change happens because sensible people want it, not because fundamentalists bang on the table. Still, "poor Wallie" must be one of the first lesbian characters to have been slipped into a mainstream English novel. She was presumably based on one of his mother’s Florence friends, perhaps the sculptor Harriet Hosmer.
For once with Trollope it's the women characters who dominate the whole story. The ostensible central character, the stubborn husband Louis Trevelyan, is rather on the margins of the story, and we see him mainly through the women’s eyes. The other men are all fairly peripheral too: apart from a couple of entertaining old ladies, we have three very convincing, strong-minded young women at the centre of the plot, all of them prepared to stand up for themselves and make their own lives, as far as the world they live in will allow them to.
Of course, this is also a book that features a very sympathetic (if rather talkative) family of Americans called Spalding...
Show More
there's a bit more to this one than just that.We do get the self-destructive stubbornness of Last chronicle of Barsetshire and the potentially tragic marital strife of Phineas Finn, both also written in the late 60s, but these are almost incidental to what turns out to be a big sweeping examination of the situation of (middle-class) women in mid-Victorian society. By the 60s, intelligent, educated young women were becoming accustomed to thinking of themselves as at least intellectually and morally the equals of men, but law and custom still treated them to a large extent as chattels of their fathers or husbands. Without a great deal of money to pay for servants and a “companion”, a respectable unmarried woman could not live by herself; to attempt to work for a living meant facing an irreparable loss of social standing. A married woman unfortunate enough to quarrel with her husband was automatically presumed by the courts and by her neighbours to be in the wrong, and stood to lose custody of her children unless she could prove actual criminal wrongdoing by her husband. Trollope invites his readers to reflect on these and other absurdities, without very much obvious polemic. His methods aren't always politically correct: the satirical picture of an American feminist poet in Florence, Wallachia Petrie “the Republican Browning”, certainly struck me as unnecessarily cruel to support his message that change happens because sensible people want it, not because fundamentalists bang on the table. Still, "poor Wallie" must be one of the first lesbian characters to have been slipped into a mainstream English novel. She was presumably based on one of his mother’s Florence friends, perhaps the sculptor Harriet Hosmer.
For once with Trollope it's the women characters who dominate the whole story. The ostensible central character, the stubborn husband Louis Trevelyan, is rather on the margins of the story, and we see him mainly through the women’s eyes. The other men are all fairly peripheral too: apart from a couple of entertaining old ladies, we have three very convincing, strong-minded young women at the centre of the plot, all of them prepared to stand up for themselves and make their own lives, as far as the world they live in will allow them to.
Of course, this is also a book that features a very sympathetic (if rather talkative) family of Americans called Spalding...
Show Less
LibraryThing member pgchuis
Mainly about the quarrel which arises between Emily Trevelyan and her husband Louis over her friendship with Colonel Osborne, known to be a home-wrecker, but a friend of Emily's father. This quarrel escalates into a separation and then Louis becomes unreasonable and finally mad. Other strands
While there were enjoyable sections in this novel; the irrational whims of Miss Stanbury, Mr Gibson's various mishaps, Sir Marmeduke's complete ineffectuality as a govenerner and the appalling Wallachia, I struggled with much of the rest:
1. Emily's intransigence throughout - obviously Louis becomes impossible to reason with, but for my money, she brought it all on herself. I don't like either Emily or Louis very much and sympathized with neither.
2. How old was the child Louis supposed to be? - I thought he was 10 months old at the beginning of the quarrel and then months later he seems to be a much older child.
3. The whole deathbed forgiveness thing was nauseating (although, I suppose, very Victorian).
4. I became very very tired of the whole "Nora could have been the rich Lady Peterborough, and does she or does she not regret refusing Mr Glascock?"musing, which is repeated over and over. I found it odd that Nora should have been taken in so affectionately by Caroline and Charles, given the history and don't really understand why Emily didn't want her to stay with her in Siena at the end. How was it OK for Emily to stay there alone?
5. There were too many romances and too many examples of heroines resolving to refuse proposals because "it would be better for the man" that they do so.
Ultimately disappointing and I think Colonel Osborne should indeed have got his comeuppance.
Show More
include the romance between Emily's sister Nora and Louis' friend Hugh, who writes for a newspaper and therefore is seen as slightly "Bohemian", the romances of Dorothy, Hugh's sister, and finally the romance of a former suitor of Nora's who dares to marry an American.While there were enjoyable sections in this novel; the irrational whims of Miss Stanbury, Mr Gibson's various mishaps, Sir Marmeduke's complete ineffectuality as a govenerner and the appalling Wallachia, I struggled with much of the rest:
1. Emily's intransigence throughout - obviously Louis becomes impossible to reason with, but for my money, she brought it all on herself. I don't like either Emily or Louis very much and sympathized with neither.
2. How old was the child Louis supposed to be? - I thought he was 10 months old at the beginning of the quarrel and then months later he seems to be a much older child.
3. The whole deathbed forgiveness thing was nauseating (although, I suppose, very Victorian).
4. I became very very tired of the whole "Nora could have been the rich Lady Peterborough, and does she or does she not regret refusing Mr Glascock?"musing, which is repeated over and over. I found it odd that Nora should have been taken in so affectionately by Caroline and Charles, given the history and don't really understand why Emily didn't want her to stay with her in Siena at the end. How was it OK for Emily to stay there alone?
5. There were too many romances and too many examples of heroines resolving to refuse proposals because "it would be better for the man" that they do so.
Ultimately disappointing and I think Colonel Osborne should indeed have got his comeuppance.
Show Less
LibraryThing member vguy
Always satisfying - a huge long book which I could only manage becos I was laid up with flu and could not face anything but reading. And yet...always a slight suspicion that it's a bit superficial, artificial, a Newtonian clockwork universe that our novelist has set up. Most delightful is the
Show More
private dick avant le jour Bozzle who, once set in motion, just carries on investigating, talking hifalutin poiclemanese, and only taking instruction from his wife. Show Less
LibraryThing member nhalliwell
The first time I encountered Anthony Trollope’s most popular work, He Knew He Was Right, was in a BBC production. My teen aged children and I enjoyed it. I had not read the book that the mini-series was based on. When I was offered the opportunity to review the book narrated by Nigel Patterson, I
He Knew He Was Right was written in 1869. It is very important that the listener keep that in mind. It was a very different world, especially for women. The book follows Louis Trevelyan, a wealthy gentleman, who while traveling in one of the Empire’s colonies (it is a fictitious colony)
meets the girl of his dreams, Emily Rowley. Although Emily has been raised outside of England, she does come from a good family as her father is the governor of the colony. Emily and her family travel back to England for the wedding. The first two years of marriage are wonderful complete with a baby boy. Then Louis begins to take exception to an old family friend, a man her father’s age, visiting Emily. He demands she no longer see the man because he suspects infidelity. Emily digs her heels in and refuses to end her harmless friendship. Louis takes it as proof that he wife is not faithful.
There are several subplots to this book, which is over 300 pages in print and 30 hours in audio. The subplots involve other couples including Emily’s sister, Nora. Each couple has their own challenges to overcome, several involving social standing or economic position. While the subplots are interesting, it is Louis and Emily’s story that is the main attraction.
I did have to keep reminding myself of the 1869 publication date because I had a persistent and overwhelming need to slap Louis. Emily never, in deed or word, gives him cause to doubt her but he is so insecure he cannot trust her. It is a combination of Emily’s stubbornness and Louis’s insecurity that cause this to blow up into a major disaster involving both families and dividing friends. That being said, it really is a great book and worth the impulse to slap Louis.
Mr. Patterson does a great job narrating this book. He captures the characters and their emotions. He also handles the language well. Sometimes narrators can allow the more formal language of the 19th century to sound stilted but Mr. Patterson does not. He makes the language flow naturally. I have not had a disappointing listen from Mr. Patterson yet. If you are going to invest in He Knew He Was Right as an audiobook, get the right one with Nigel Patterson as the narrator.
Show More
was happy to finally get a chance at the source.He Knew He Was Right was written in 1869. It is very important that the listener keep that in mind. It was a very different world, especially for women. The book follows Louis Trevelyan, a wealthy gentleman, who while traveling in one of the Empire’s colonies (it is a fictitious colony)
meets the girl of his dreams, Emily Rowley. Although Emily has been raised outside of England, she does come from a good family as her father is the governor of the colony. Emily and her family travel back to England for the wedding. The first two years of marriage are wonderful complete with a baby boy. Then Louis begins to take exception to an old family friend, a man her father’s age, visiting Emily. He demands she no longer see the man because he suspects infidelity. Emily digs her heels in and refuses to end her harmless friendship. Louis takes it as proof that he wife is not faithful.
There are several subplots to this book, which is over 300 pages in print and 30 hours in audio. The subplots involve other couples including Emily’s sister, Nora. Each couple has their own challenges to overcome, several involving social standing or economic position. While the subplots are interesting, it is Louis and Emily’s story that is the main attraction.
I did have to keep reminding myself of the 1869 publication date because I had a persistent and overwhelming need to slap Louis. Emily never, in deed or word, gives him cause to doubt her but he is so insecure he cannot trust her. It is a combination of Emily’s stubbornness and Louis’s insecurity that cause this to blow up into a major disaster involving both families and dividing friends. That being said, it really is a great book and worth the impulse to slap Louis.
Mr. Patterson does a great job narrating this book. He captures the characters and their emotions. He also handles the language well. Sometimes narrators can allow the more formal language of the 19th century to sound stilted but Mr. Patterson does not. He makes the language flow naturally. I have not had a disappointing listen from Mr. Patterson yet. If you are going to invest in He Knew He Was Right as an audiobook, get the right one with Nigel Patterson as the narrator.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JBD1
Another Trollope novel where I often wanted to reach into the pages and slap the characters silly. The subplots are generally quite good, but the Louis-Emily main plot drove me up the wall. When I read later that Trollope himself was disappointed with the result, I felt quite a lot better.
LibraryThing member cbl_tn
On a visit to the Mandarin islands, Louis Trevelyan is charmed by Emily Rowley, the Governor's eldest daughter. Louis and Emily are married, and the Trevelyans return to England with Emily's next youngest sister, Nora. Early in their marriage, Louis and Emily have a disagreement so sharp that they
Show More
are unable to continue living together. Both Louis and Emily believe they have been wronged and are unwilling to admit fault. Emily is stubborn and is unwilling to view the situation from any perspective other than her own. Louis has a deeper psychological problem that intensifies with time. The secondary plots also revolve around marriage. Nora Rowley must choose between two suitors, the eccentric Miss Stanbury plays matchmaker to a poor relative, and an American young woman weighs whether or not she should accept an offer of marriage from an English peer. The older generation still views marriage as a business transaction, but most of the young people in the novel are repelled by the thought of marriage without love. The relationships in the novel illustrate the results of the choices different characters make regarding love and marriage. Show Less
LibraryThing member leslie.98
Listened to the LibriVox audiobook. Decent narration but not one of Trollope's better novels. Despite the fact that this novel didn't appeal to me as much as others by this author, I found its exploration of the differing ways people try to control others (both successful and unsuccessful)
Show More
thought-provoking. Show Less
LibraryThing member japaul22
After reading both the Barsetshire and Palliser series, this was my first foray into one of Trollope's standalone novels. It left me a little unsatisfied, I think because of the main topic, marriage.
The main storyline here involves the marriage of Louis and Emily Trevelyan who have been happily
Contrasted with this portrait of marriage is Emily's sister's love for Hugh Stanbury. Stanbury works as a journalist for his income and here is another theme. Should a woman tie herself to a husband who doesn't have inherited income and has to work for a living - and not just work, but work in journalism instead of something like the clergy, a doctor, or a lawyer? And then there are a host of other women who treat marriage and love in different ways, but always the question is what is more important, love or financial security or independence. It doesn't seem possible to achieve all three of these things. In fact, Trollope seems intent on saying that women really need to worship their husbands (a troubling word and concept to me) for a marriage to be happy. Certainly this has come up before in his work, but I found it more pervasive here and harder to gloss over or accept.
Then again, I really loved some of the characters, particularly Miss Stanbury, and thought there were some really funny moments (especially the running "chignon" joke). I enjoyed this, but it wasn't my favorite of his novels.
The main storyline here involves the marriage of Louis and Emily Trevelyan who have been happily
Show More
married for about 5 years and have a young son. Trevelyan becomes jealous of Emily's relationship with a friend of her father's, Colonel Osbourne and forbids her to see him anymore. She believes he is overreacting (which he is) but also can't see that Col Osborne is certainly flirting with her and sort of enjoying making the situation worse. At first I felt they were equally at fault, but then Trevelyan descends farther and farther into obsession and madness to the extent of banishing Emily from his house and hiring a private detective to watch her. Contrasted with this portrait of marriage is Emily's sister's love for Hugh Stanbury. Stanbury works as a journalist for his income and here is another theme. Should a woman tie herself to a husband who doesn't have inherited income and has to work for a living - and not just work, but work in journalism instead of something like the clergy, a doctor, or a lawyer? And then there are a host of other women who treat marriage and love in different ways, but always the question is what is more important, love or financial security or independence. It doesn't seem possible to achieve all three of these things. In fact, Trollope seems intent on saying that women really need to worship their husbands (a troubling word and concept to me) for a marriage to be happy. Certainly this has come up before in his work, but I found it more pervasive here and harder to gloss over or accept.
Then again, I really loved some of the characters, particularly Miss Stanbury, and thought there were some really funny moments (especially the running "chignon" joke). I enjoyed this, but it wasn't my favorite of his novels.
Show Less
LibraryThing member burritapal
Of course, I would be drawn to this title: I know two people who would destroy relationships rather than admit that they were wrong. The character to whom this thought is attributed destroyed more than his relationship. Reading of it, you are so maddened by the sheer obstinacy....But nevertheless,
Show More
Trollope's treatment of him, and of all his colorful characters keep you wonderfully entertained. Show Less
LibraryThing member Kristelh
Reason read: 1st Quarter Read, Reading 1001
This is a story of epic study of pride, forgiveness and its lack, and pathological jealousy. Trevalyn could be diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder. The story has many characters and subplots and I read that Trollope did not really like this story.
This is a story of epic study of pride, forgiveness and its lack, and pathological jealousy. Trevalyn could be diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder. The story has many characters and subplots and I read that Trollope did not really like this story.
Show More
I think the many characters and subplots were stronger than the main story or at least gave the reader relief from the irritating Louis. This was a retelling of Othello/Shakespeare. Show Less
Language
Original publication date
1869
Physical description
952 p.; 7.24 inches
ISBN
0192816926 / 9780192816924