´óÏó´«Ã½

I can quite understand why Adonis would prefer Gladstone to any Labour Prime Minister for the simple reason that Gladstone stood for something even though none of us these days really know what that something was.

Gladstone was a product of his times; his energy, coupled to his manifestly high principles for one of his class could only be a product of the Victorian Age. In my eyes Gladstone did not know the meaning of cynicism.

Many years ago when being taught history by the vulgarian who masqueraded as my history teacher, that pedagogue used to go on for ages about Gladstone and the prostitutes he sought to rescue. The smutty comments and leering behaviour of this dreadful teacher demonstrated to me that nobody is qualified to judge someone if they refuse to understand them. If he lived in our times Gladstone would be called a nerd and an idiot. Says it all really: this country has gone down the tubes big-time.

in the days before TV there was little to do but read books, pamphlets, penny papers. Mayhew's London gives examples how the average costermonger outside St Pauls knew what fractional reserve banking was and how it affected the empire. the level of 'education' to a lower level was much higher before TV.

I'm sure you will know in the Byazantium empire civil service it was considered the extent you could recite Homer's Iliad from memory was the extent to which someone was considered civilised.[to see how it was done see the book Art Of Memory by Frances Yates].

so it probably as unfair [and impossible] as a barbarian reviewing the Roman Empire for moderns to review the pre WW1 generation?

why is someone educated and going for long walks [in the days before gyms] an oddball? are people who run the london marathon in monkey suits oddballs?

"And he was driven to account in his diaries for every hour that God had given him."

Keeping a proper reflective diary was presented as a religious duty in the 19th century, and doing so does not necessarily indicate pathological weirdness.

Dear Mr Crick

I have to admit to having just about zilch knowledge about the British Prime Ministers from before WWII /apart from obviously Churchill and some knowledge, though very limited, on Disraeli/ and your reflections on William Gladstone have given me a taste for finding out what they were about and who did what, etc.

I wasn't at all aware of the bitter fight between Gladstone and Disraeli and their relations with Queen Victoria.

From what I've managed to read just now, I'm quite certain I would side with Gladstone rather than Disraeli as he strikes me as a humane kind of person, not least for his commitment to the female cause and protection.

Once I've read more about Gladstone, I shall probably write to you again.

Thank you and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Monika

#4 an addendum

And it's been fascinating to learn about Lord Adonis' rise from care to the House of Lords and about some of his convictions and preferences.

Thanks again

Monika

I do hope Mr Crick's Boxing Day discussion will throw light on Mr Gladstone's outstanding talent: the ability to assimilate and influence domestic and pan-European politics whilst never hiding his high-Anglican religious conviction. It appears to me that for all his adult life the two were inseparable and that he saw his political function as a logical expression of a work ethic that was firmly and exclusively grounded on the moral and social values of the New Testament.

That he did this to the exclusion of everything else, is what many today admire as a practical and focussed take on solving the problems of his time. Rigid adherence to his adopted brand of Christianity was a function of the implicit integrity of the man. The Victorian proletariat saw this as a very desirable trait in a national politician and its the basis of his enduring legacy.

The modern view that Mr Gladstone would have wanted the successor to his own "Tin Tabernacle" to actively propagate knowledge of latter-day prophets as if it were some kind of prerequisite to international harmony is, surely, extrapolating the Grand Old Man's pragmatism a bit far.

#6

jbsandown

It would be interesting to know who represents 'The modern view that Mr Gladstone would have wanted the successor to his own "Tin Tabernacle" to actively propagate knowledge of latter-day prophets as if it were some kind of prerequisite to international harmony'.

The view that it is only religion that is 'ethical' has quite dramatically changed since then but not enough, I don't think, whereby there is still considerable prejudice against atheists seen as either people with communist tendencies or 'unethical'.

In my view, people who do not believe in any divinity can be most useful in propagating international peace as they are neutral religion wise and therefore cannot be accused of taking sides.

mim

I enjoyed the programme with William Gladstone emerging as a more complex figure in terms of how he is viewed by present day politicians than I originally thought. However, he most certainly remains as one of the most extraordinary Prime Ministers and modernisers this country has ever had.

From what I can gather by the still rather limited knowledge that I have of him and his work, he had one of the qualities that I appreciate most in a politician which is a fine balance between vision and ethics and the ability and strength not to cowtow to either public opinion or to that of his peers, or even 'further up'.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that he thought he was 'chosen by God' is of not all that much significance as, from what I understand, he remained humane throughout his career and did not resort to maiming his oponents into pulp or to sending voters opposing him into mental institutions, for example.

And one more thing, I do find it difficult to believe that he'd read 22,000 books from the beginning to the very end. He may have been good, however, at browsing through some of them with skill and efficiency.

mim

#8 continuation

What also emerged from the programme was that Gladstone is these days, if not revered by all, then at least admired and appreciated across the political spectrum for this or that reason.

It was also interesting to learn how respected he was by so many 'ordinary' people, including probably some of the prostitutes he tried so hard to help.

Is it just me or are our television and radio programmes getting worse? Over the holiday period there was so little that I wanted to view or listen to that it came as a great surprise when on Saturday morning I tuned in to Radio 4 and heard one of the best programmes for a long time. Michael Crick's half hour on Gladstone. It was brilliant. First of all he spoke to Gladstone's great grandson and then there was the studio discussion between Lord David Steel, Lord Adonis and David Willetts. How refreshing it was to hear two historians (Adonis and Willetts) putting current events into a historical context with the help of a former Leader of the Liberal Party. I do hope that Michael Crick will do more programmes of a similar style. Well done.

#10

In terms of the quality of the programme itself, what I thought was very good about it was a pleasant and respectful ambiance between the speakers with no attempts at cheap party point scoring being made by any of them.

The programme was full of info but Michael Crick managed to keep it light, fresh and easily absorbable, so to speak.