MR. GLADSTONE
His Last Utterance--His Fearlessness--His Opinion of Russia and
England--Cardinal Manning's Tribute--Gladstone and the Old
Catholics--The Question of Immortality--Mr. Gladstone's Remarkable
Letter--A Delightful Listener--His Power of Concentration--Hayward and
Gladstone--Their Discussion--Miss Helen Gladstone--We Talk
Gladstone--The Old Lady's Delight--I Miss My Train
Somebody once compared life to an education that can never be
completed--and indeed, the more deeply one studies events and people,
the more emphatically one realises how much must always remain that it
is hopeless to try to understand. Nevertheless, the very contact with
certain characters, even if we cannot always fathom their depths, is
ennobling and edifying, and however much time may have passed since
they left us to go to a better sphere, it is always good to linger over
memories of great men whom we have had the privilege to meet. I hope,
therefore, that I may be allowed to add in this book a few words about
my friendship with Mr. Gladstone.
I have been told that the last word to fall from the lips of the great
statesman several moments before his death, was "Amen." What a fitting
and characteristic ending! The whole life and activity of this grand
old man, indeed, reminds one of nothing {54} so much as of some nobly
worded prayer or confession of faith. All his existence was based upon
his religious ideals and convictions, which he put into practice simply
and naturally in every word and action of his everyday life. Christian
love and charity permeated his activities in a way that is rare indeed
among public men, surrounded as they are by intrigues and rivalries and
difficulties. He was generous, as only so great and noble a character
can be, to the many enemies that surrounded him, supported even by
Queen Victoria herself, whose sympathies were all in favour of
Gladstone's opponent Beaconsfield.
Another trait in Mr. Gladstone's character, that always aroused my
admiration, was the firm, unhesitating manner in which he would
demolish all obstacles and, without looking to right or to left, make
straight for his goal, in the face of opposition, animosity, even
danger, once he had decided that the goal in question was the right
one, the one pointed out by his conscience and his principles. He was
entirely fearless in his opinions and convictions--he knew indeed only
one fear: the fear of God. It seems to me that his courage could only
be compared to his kindness, and I should like, in this connection, to
mention an incident that comes to my mind, and that can surely be no
secret now after so many years. It happened in the year 1884, during
the great political crisis, when one heard on all sides the query:
'Will he return to power?' Everyone knew very well who was meant by
the word "_he_." Just at that time I published my _Russia and
England_, which cost me four years of {55} work and fatigue, and also
some hesitation. Mr. Gladstone called with his wife to express his
sympathetic approval, which he did in the most encouraging terms.
"I will write a review of your book," he said,--to which generous offer
I replied protestingly, to Mrs. Gladstone's surprise and almost
indignation: "No, no!" I exclaimed. "On no account! Not at this
critical moment. Such a step may do you much harm. Besides, in these
emotional times, English people will never read my book at all!"
In answer, Mr. Gladstone struck his hand angrily on the table, "I will
compel them to read it," he said in a determined voice. "Every
Englishman should not only read but _study_ it!"
And truly enough, in spite of my remonstrances, the review was
published in _The Nineteenth Century_, and contained the above
recommendation to Mr. Gladstone's countrymen.
Could anyone be kinder or show greater political courage?
How the events and incidents of those exciting days linger in one's
memory! It is indeed certain that I shall never forget them!
A few days after that glorious St. James's Hall meeting, there was a
great reaction in public opinion. A large section of the Press began
to ridicule Mr. Gladstone, calling him Gladstonoff (English people at
that time, having the scantiest knowledge of things Russian, imagined
that all Russian names ended in _off!_), and even insinuating that he
was an agent in the Russian pay! But although one must admit that his
responsibilities weighed heavily upon {56} him, nothing shook the
courage and the determination of this dauntless English Slavophil to
continue along the path he considered the right one.
Afterwards, when, at the summit of his greatness, he was for the second
time re-elected Prime Minister, he wrote in his diary:
Oh, 'tis a burden, Cromwell, 'tis a burden!
Too heavy for a man that hopes for Heaven!
And yet, how nobly and unflinchingly did he bear that burden all
through his life!
Mr. Gladstone has been discussed and appraised and honoured all the
world over as a great statesman. To me, however, his supreme claim to
greatness lay even beyond his genius, in his rare and irreproachable
moral qualities. Cardinal Manning once remarked that Mr. Gladstone was
a more fitting person to receive Holy Orders than himself. "In fact,"
added the Cardinal frankly, "he is as perfectly suited for the Church
as I am _unsuited_ for it!"
Already in his childhood, Gladstone seems to have exercised a
beneficial influence over his companions. Bishop Hamilton, famed for
his many virtues, and treated by his contemporaries almost as a saint,
has admitted that little Willie Gladstone saved him from many an
escapade at Eton!
Much later, in 1838, Gladstone wrote his famous work, _The State in its
Relations to the Church_; in 1845 he gave up his position as chief of
the Ministry in order to remain true to his religious convictions, and
still later, in 1857, he opposed, with all his energy, the "Divorce
Bill," on the ground of his {57} belief that a union consecrated by the
Church cannot be broken by human law.
I will not dwell upon a fact so well known as the sensation produced by
the great English statesman's pamphlet on _The Vatican_. I will only
say that it was the general public, and not Mr. Gladstone's personal
friends, who were so astonished at the views expounded in that
pamphlet. In his own intimate circle, I constantly heard him repeat
his opinion that "Roman Catholicism is the systematic tyranny of the
priest over the layman, the Bishop over the priest, and the Pope over
the Bishop."
Feeling in his soul, on the one hand, almost a horror of Rome, and on
the other a deep religious inspiration, Mr. Gladstone's sympathy with
and admiration for the great cause of the Old Catholics were almost a
foregone conclusion. He first came in contact with this movement
through his friend Döllinger, and he never ceased to express his
confidence in its ultimate success. Whenever he spoke of the Old
Catholics, and he did so very frequently, it was always to express
himself about them in terms of deep sympathy and approval, as of true
Christians who strive, with such inspired faith and steadfast purpose,
to propagate the doctrines of the original Christian Church, robbed of
all the human errors that have crept into it and are represented by the
ambitious and tyrannical Papacy of the Vatican. Mr. Gladstone was one
of the first subscribers to the _Revue internationale de Théologie_,
which always occupied a place of honour in his library, and which, in
January, 1895, published his long letter to me on the subject of Old
Catholicism {58} and Döllinger. This letter is reproduced in my
pamphlet: "_Christ or Moses? Which?_" For Döllinger, Mr. Gladstone
had the warmest admiration and friendship, looking upon him as one of
the most remarkable men in the contemporary Christian Church.
The following letter from Mr. Gladstone will, I think, have some
interest for my readers:--
HAWARDEN CASTLE, CHESTER,
Oct. 6, 1894.
MY DEAR MADAME NOVIKOFF,
I can hardly ever write anything upon suggestion, what is more, is that
I have before me continuous operations, long ago planned, and must
refrain from those that are fragmentary. So I can undertake nothing
new.
My interest in the Old Catholics is cordial. A sister of mine died in
virtual union with them after having been Roman for over 30 years.
I remember suggesting to Dr. Döllinger that their future would probably
depend in great measure upon their being able to enter into some kind
of solid relations with the Eastern Church. And I earnestly hope this
may go forward. Dr. Döllinger agreed in this opinion. They may do
great good, and prevent the Latin Church by moral force from further
Extravagances. All this you will think disheartening with reference to
the object of your Letter. But I have a little more to say.
I have been drawn into writing a Preface to a Pictorial Edition of the
Bible, which will probably {59} have a very wide circulation in
America, but will be confined to English-speakers. My Preface will
have no reference to that Edition, but to the Authority and Value of
the Scriptures. I think there will be nothing to which you or Old
Catholics would object....
Believe me, sincerely yours,
W. E. GLADSTONE.
One of the most interesting letters I ever received from Mr. Gladstone,
and one which showed his extreme kindness to me when I was in some
theological difficulties, involves a story.
A very eminent and scientific friend, discussing with me some years ago
the weighty question of Immortality according to the Old Testament,
emphatically said:
"The Old Testament knows no Immortality! This is a fact which almost
every student of theology understands perfectly well, and which, at the
same time, nobody outside that class appears to have the least inkling
of. The Old and New Testaments are commonly spoken and thought of as
one book--one inspired work--instead of as two volumes, based on
opposite and irreconcilable principles. The doctrine of the first is
principally materialistic. The doctrine of the second is purely
idealistic. The Old Testament represents God as Jehovah, quite
otherwise than He is pictured by Jesus Christ. God, as pictured by the
Jews, manifested Himself in the terrible '_Lex Talionis_,' described in
Exodus xxi. 24, 25: 'Eye for eye, burning for burning, wound for
wound.' Whilst we are ordered by Jesus {60} Christ to 'do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.'"
I was greatly impressed by that conversation. It is obvious that once
we deny immortality, we, at the same time, reject the existence of the
soul. An ardent desire seized me to discuss that most important
question from different points of view. I pressed my friend to sum up
all his arguments and publish them to the world. After much hesitation
he consented to do so, provided I took upon myself the responsibility
of the publication and the distribution of his pamphlet amongst
well-known professors of different European Universities.
Beyond this, a _condítío sine qua non_ was my promise not to reveal his
name during his lifetime. Of these stipulations the latter was, of
course, the easiest; but I carefully carried out all of them. But now
that he is dead I am at liberty to disclose his name. It was Count
Alexander Keyserling, to whom Bismarck offered the post of Minister of
Public Instruction in Germany, but which Keyserling refused.
I published, for private circulation, the German pamphlet
_Unsterblichkeítslehre nach der Bibel_, and sent it to one hundred
professors, including Frohschammer, Albert Réville, Treitschke,
Blunschli, Aloïs Riehl, etc., etc., asking their opinion. In the great
majority of cases they returned answer that the facts set forth were
already well known to them, and, in fact, were generally admitted. One
of the fraternity, a Roman Catholic priest, abused me roundly for
dragging such a subject into public discussion.
{61}
But I bore this censure with equanimity. "_Du choc des opíníons
jaillit la vérité_," and the more we study and investigate questions
which guide our life the better.
Since then my desire to have the question more deeply investigated has
been increased greatly by the assertion of a talented and outspoken
Jewish writer that Judaism, or rather its teaching, is spreading. In
the August number of the _Fortnightly Review_, 1884, he says: "This
virtual assumption that the limits of human knowledge can extend no
farther than those of the visible world, appears to me to be the
central idea of Judaism." And he further asserts: "Judaism, _the
materialistic teaching_, is then found to have resulted in Judaism the
physical force." The author finishes thus: "History will show that ...
it has been silently engaged in that further Judaisation of mankind,
which is the sole ideal of its singularly practical teaching." Be it
noted that the above is quoted from a panegyric of the Jewish doctrine!
Amongst those who wrote to me was Professor E. Michaud, one of the most
distinguished representatives of the Old Catholic movement, and the
editor of the _La Revue internationale de Théologie_ (Berne, Suisse)
who wrote as follows: "From a habit of detesting the Jews, people are
sometimes brought to depreciate Judaism and ascribe to it almost
materialistic doctrines. Judaism is certainly not Christianity; but
neither is it Materialism."
Somewhat bewildered by these unexpected, and, as I think, exaggerated
protests, I appealed to Mr. Gladstone, whose kindness in these matters
had for {62} years been unfailing to me. My letter appears to have
given him the mistaken impression that I was venturing on my own
account into the polemical arena. Hence his reply, cautioning me
against an undertaking so obviously beyond my powers.
His letter is most important, and I am glad to be able to publish so
weighty a judgment on the most serious of all subjects, by the greatest
Englishman of his century. Here it is:--
HOTEL CAP MARTIN, MENTONE,
Feb. 13th, 1895.
MY DEAR MADAME NOVIKOFF,
I am sorry you have not a better adviser, but I will discharge as
fairly and frankly as I can the part which you desire me to undertake.
I do not see why the word "_heresy_" should be flung at you. Heresy is
a very grave matter, and should not be charged except in cases where
not only the subject matter is grave, but also the whole authority of
the Church or Christian community has been brought to bear. I
conceive, however, that the question of Jewish opinion on a future
state, as opened in the Old Testament, is a question quite open to
discussion.
I have myself been a good deal engaged latterly in examining the
question of a future state, and have had occasion to touch more or less
upon Jewish opinion. The subject is very interesting, but is also
large and complex, and I would advise you as strongly as I may against
publishing anything upon it without a previous examination proportioned
in some degree to the character of the {63} subject. How can you
safely enter upon it without some attention to the researches and the
opinions of the writers who have examined it?
My own state of information is by no means so advanced as to warrant
the expression of confident and final conclusions. But I think there
are some things that are clearly enough to be borne in mind. We cannot
but notice the wise reserve with which the Creeds treat the subject of
the future state. After the period when they were framed, Christian
opinion came gradually, I believe, to found itself upon an assumption
due to the Greek philosophy, and especially to Plato, namely, that of
the natural immortality of the human soul. And this opinion (which I
am not much inclined to accept) supplies us, so to speak, with
spectacles through which we look back upon the Hebrew ideas conveyed in
the Old Testament.
Another view of the matter is, that man was not naturally immortal, but
_immortalíable_. That had he not sinned, he would have attained
regularly to immortality; but after his eating from the tree of
knowledge he was prevented, as the text informs us, from feeding on the
tree of life, and the subject of his immortality was thus thrown into
vague and obscure distance.
I suppose it to be a reasonable opinion that there was a primitive
communication of divine knowledge to man, but of this revelation we
have no knowledge beyond the outline, so to call it, conveyed in the
Book of Genesis. That outline, however, appears to show in the case of
Enoch that one righteous man was specially saved from death; and the
words of {64} our Saviour in the Gospel give us to understand that
there were at any rate glimpses of the future state underlying Jewish
opinion. We must not, I think, forget the respect with which our
Saviour treats that opinion.
Nor can we forget that the Mosaic dispensation, coming as it were upon
the back of the old patriarchal religion, being essentially national,
was also predominantly temporal, and tended very powerfully to throw
the idea of the future state into the shade.
Nevertheless, it is, I think, generally admitted that, while in certain
passages the Psalmist speaks of it either despairingly or doubtfully,
in some Psalms the subject is approached with a vivid and glowing
belief; as when, for example, it is said: "When I awake up after Thy
likeness I shall be satisfied with it."
You know how much upon some occasions I have both sympathised with and
admired your authorship. I do not dissuade you from following up the
task to which you are now drawn. But I do not think you have as yet
quite reached the point at which publication would do honour to
yourself or justice to your theme. And I am sure this very imperfect
reply will serve to show that I do not treat your letter with levity
nor try wantonly to throw obstacles in your path.
I shall be interested to know what you decide about writing--with or
without further study.
W. E. GLADSTONE.
P.S.--Your letter, dated 6th, reached me yesterday.
{65}
Mr. Gladstone's letter may be regarded as the first and most
interesting of those authoritative opinions which it is my sole object
to elicit.
People who met Gladstone at my house always found in him not only an
excellent and charming listener, but also a man who was ever ready to
hear new suggestions, and who delighted in original opinions or ideas
that seemed worthy of closer investigation. On some occasions, he was
eloquent and talkative; at other times, quite the contrary. One
afternoon, for instance, he was in the midst of arguing an interesting
point with me, when he suddenly perceived on my table a catalogue of
recent works on Shakespeare. It happened that he had never seen this
particular catalogue before, and being an ardent Shakespeare
enthusiast, the title attracted his attention. He picked up the book,
approached a lamp, and began interestedly turning over the pages.
Presently he sank into a chair, and having clearly quite forgotten his
surroundings, was soon lost in study of his favourite literary subject.
Among my other visitors on that particular afternoon was Hayward, a
well-known critic, also a dabbler in poetry and a would-be man of the
world. Hayward had a great weakness for people with sounding names and
assured positions, and was, of course, always more than pleased to be
seen in conversation with the great Prime Minister of England. I was
quite aware of this, and inwardly somewhat amused, for indeed, though
myself belonging to the class patronised by Hayward, I often invited to
my house people whose _present_ was perhaps humble, {66} but whose
_future_ seemed to me promising. I have every sympathy and admiration
for family traditions, and aristocratic manners and associations--but I
have always felt that if one never comes in contact with self-made,
energetic, persevering people with ideas and ideals, one is inclined to
grow narrow and prejudiced. This has always particularly struck me
during my visits to Vienna. The Viennese aristocracy, in spite of loud
voices and a bad habit of shouting as though one were deaf, is
distinguished for its graceful and charming manners. However, beyond
references to ballets and to sport, punctuated by gossip about mutual
friends, conversation is practically non-existent. There is only a
perpetual buzz of small talk, tedious to the highest degree, and to me
at least, acceptable only in homoeopathic doses!
Self-made men, as I have found, always have something more interesting
to say; their characters are often worth studying, give one food for
reflection, and, being a new element in society, introduce new ideas to
broaden our minds. This has always been my view, and I have followed
it out, often in the face of protests from my friends who urged me to
be more exclusive, and who failed to understand that ideas are better
than empty grandeur.
Gladstone, Froude, Kinglake, Tyndall and many others, however,
fortunately shared my peculiar tastes in this matter, and perhaps this
was one of the reasons why my association with them was always, as I
think, pleasant for us all.
But I have made a long digression, and must return to my party.
{67}
Hayward, as I have said, was always greatly attracted by the presence
of Gladstone, and made every effort to draw him into conversation.
Alas, however, nothing could divert him from his book (the Shakespeare
Catalogue). His answers to all Hayward's remarks were vague and
monosyllabic, and only after some time did he look up and reply quite
irrelevantly to some question on current events. "Strange, I have
never seen this catalogue before," observed Gladstone. Hayward was
indignant. "There is nothing to see," he grumbled testily, "it is only
a list of reprints, and an incomplete list at that."
"No, no," remonstrated Gladstone enthusiastically, "that is just the
charm of it--there really seems to be nothing missing."
"Oh, yes," objected Hayward angrily, "there are many things missing. I
know all the Shakespearean literature as well as anyone. I can show
you at once."
"Oh, but show me, show me," exclaimed Gladstone, highly interested.
Hayward took the volume somewhat resentfully, and it was now his turn
to lose himself in its pages, while Gladstone waited in silence, and my
remaining visitors looked at me almost in distress! The incident ended
as unexpectedly as it began. After having almost quarrelled with
Hayward about some published or unpublished works, Gladstone suddenly
remembered that he had promised Mrs. Gladstone to be back at a certain
hour, rose hurriedly, and took his leave. I was exceedingly amused;
not so, however, my remaining guests.
{68}
"You can hardly say that these manners are good!" remarked someone to
me. "Well," I answered, "I never find fault with my friends. Besides,
is it not natural that an Englishman should be carried away with
enthusiasm for your great English genius Shakespeare, who is honoured
all the world over?"
This was not the only occasion on which I remarked that Gladstone had
an almost morbid love of books. In Russia, we had only one man who was
a match for the great English Premier in this respect: this was the
head of our Holy Synod, Pobyedonostzeff. I used to send new books that
I came across to both these friends, but I confess that I seldom had
the satisfaction to find that my gifts were not already known to them.
Pobyedonostzeff being, of course, incessantly busy and in demand, and
rarely having a moment to himself, would on receiving a new book that
interested him, take a train from Petrograd to Moscow, and back in
order to enjoy some hours of solitude and the possibility of reading
his book undisturbed during this improvised journey!
Another of my book-lover friends who has left so warm an impression in
my remembrance, and whose name comes to my mind as I write, is Tyndall.
How good and kind-hearted he always was, and how responsive and eager
to do good and to help others!
As I have said, Mr. Gladstone was greatly interested in the Old
Catholics. On one occasion when we were both dining with Dr.
Döllinger, one of the leaders of the Old Catholic movement, at {69}
Munich, we were discussing the Old Catholicism and Mr. Gladstone
repeated how greatly interested he was in the movement. I remember the
way in which he spoke to me afterwards of his sister in connection with
the Old Catholic question. I thought it only natural to tell him that,
as I should pass Cologne on my way to Russia, I would like to call on
her. Mr. Gladstone's face brightened at my suggestion.
When I called on Miss Helen Gladstone I found that she already expected
my visit, and had heard a great deal not only about me, but about the
Old Catholic question.
"Yes," she said, "my brother is quite a superior man. But if you knew
what an original he is! For instance, once when he was travelling
abroad already in his capacity of Prime Minister, his wife desired him
to take a drive and off they went. But what vehicle do you think they
took? A little one-horsed cart, just as if they were two paupers sent
on some business!"
"Don't you think it is natural," said I, "for a man like Mr. Gladstone,
who has so many grand ideas and splendid schemes, to pay no attention
to the trivialities of this conventional world? Let me tell you what
happened to us once, when the Gladstones and myself met at Munich. We
went to a Museum, the President of which was very anxious to make the
'honneurs' of some very rare specimens. He showed us a certain dish,
and seemed particularly proud of it. Your brother took it in his hand,
examined it very carefully, and then said: 'But you know, Professor,
this is not genuine. In {70} a genuine dish there would be here a
special little mark that is not to be found here,' The President
actually turned pale--would you believe it?"
Dear Miss Gladstone seemed quite charmed with this story. "Oh, how
like him!" she exclaimed. "He knows everything. But you promised to
tell me something more about him," she pressed.
"Well," I said, "my second recollection refers to our meeting in Paris.
When I arrived there the celebrated politician and journalist, Emile de
Girardin, asked me to a large dinner party that he was giving. A few
days before this event, I heard of the Gladstones' arrival in Paris and
mentioned it to Monsieur de Girardin, with the suggestion how nice it
would be if he were to invite them also. My old Frenchman was
delighted. 'Oh, do try to arrange that!' he exclaimed; 'I do not know
them personally, but have always longed to make their acquaintance. I
shall send you the list of all my guests, and hope you will try to
ascertain whom they would like to meet, and whom to avoid.' This was
an easy task, and I fulfilled it. Mr. Gladstone said: 'I would very
much like to meet your brother, General Kiréeff (who had already been
invited), and the Contributor of the _Revue des Deux Mondes_,
Scherer'--(Scherer was a celebrated senator, politician and literary
critic). It so happened that by chance I knew some of his work, and
was delighted at the prospect of this meeting. But Mr. Gladstone
frankly admitted that he would not like to meet Gambetta. This desire
was also observed at the end of the dinner; one of the guests addressed
a long speech of welcome to Mr. Gladstone, of course in {71} French.
But just fancy my surprise, when Mr. Gladstone rose and answered, also
in French, to the delight of the whole assembly. No one had suspected
that he possessed such a mastery of the French language. As to my
brother, who took Miss Helen Gladstone in to dinner, they turned out to
be both great admirers of Botticelli and well agreed on their favourite
subject."
Dear old Miss Gladstone seemed delighted with all these details about
her relations, and pressed me to prolong my visit, which I did to the
point of losing my train!
{72}