The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-30

disliked Mr.. Gladstone; on the contrary, my
only difficulty with him has been that
could never understand him.. Carlyle
himself thawed when Disraeli, whom he
had so long Historically abused. but many
Of whose ideas he shared. offered him pub
lie recognition in letter which gave as
a reason for rendering him uninheritabfe
honors, Il have remembered that you, too,
like myself, are ohildless." Carlyle, who
had aspersed him, never denied that he
looked facts in the face without mistake
Ing phantoms for them.
One of the best things In this volume
Is the parallel drawn after the manner
Of Plutarch and DR.. johnson between
Disraeli and Gladstone. 1t Is q fine ex-
ample OF antithesis Our author points
out what Ia indubitable, that except In
vigor Of undaunted character and in a
sort Of inward loneliness. the qualities OF
the two men were opposed. THE intensity
OF the one was austere, imperious i'm
posing and didactic; that OF the other
buoyant, lively and poignant. Frequently
the fppancy Of certain leaders provoked
Disraeli's gravity; more frequently the
solemnity of others upset his own. Glad
stone moved by violent reaction and nasty
rebounds; Disraeli with a springy step,
1t Is true yet a step measured. wary ana
equal. Disraeli stamped himself on his
age; 1t was often. on the contrary, the
time spirit that impressed itself on Mr.
Gladstone. a list OF whose changeful CON
victions from 1886 to 1895 might fill small
volume Again, Disrael's utterance left
stronger sense Of reserve power, OF some-
thing serious behind the veil" Mr. Glad
stones phrases. though always sincere
In the main, struck more the conscience
Of certain sections Of the community
Disraeli's ideas, the national feelings
Mr. Gladstone's subtleties were those OF
theologian did not quicken the lay
mind Disraelis were the subleties OF an
artist-they put things in new perspectiVes.
Mr. Sichel would say that by nature and
unconscious bent the one hid simplicity
under the form of subtlety. while with the
other the process was the converse. In
oratory Mr.. Gladstone convinced by height
and redundance Of enthusiasm, by depth
OF feeling and weight or wealth OF words
and gesture; Disraeli more by grasp, in
cisiveness and point: his imagination played
all around many sides of his subject. Glad
stones eloquence resembled the stormi-
ness and the mist of the North Sea: Disraells
the strange lights and shadows. the subtle
and tdeless lustre of the Mediterranean.
As Mr. Gladstone warmed to his theme
he increased In eloquence; his perorations
were ALWAYS great II was. on the con-
trary, in peroration that Disraei some
81 fot
speeches. which never missed fire from
start to finish" Our author thinks that
Mr.. Gladstone was saturated, Disraeli
tinctured, with the classics. The former
was essentially the scholar. He was Ho-
meric, while Disraeli was Horatian and
1acitean. The latter's ready acquaintance
with Latin masterpieces was shown when
he first took the oath as Chancellor OF
the E1chequer. and hit off most happy
quotation on the spur of the moment.
We are reminded also that once, when Dis
raei was citing a classic in the House
he added (which, for the sake OF the
successful capitalists around Inc, ! Will
now try to translate In Mr.. Sichefs
opinion. Gladstone will not live through
his books. He is pronounced far more
a writer than an author" Afamous book
seller, with whom both statesmen FREE
o,iently conversed, used eoriecSuSt vAat
Disraeli once inquired, az was his won't
what OF new interest was .forthaGJHiRg,
The bookseller mentioned one Of Glad
stones Vatican pamphlets. NO was
the answer. please not that Mr.. Glad
stone is powerful writer, but nothing
that he writes is literature. ,
For sheer insight into the march of ideas
and reach Of vision, our author holds that
there is no comparison between the two
statesmen. As Bolingbroke had foreseen
that the Wing oligarchy of the eighteenth
century could only be overthrow by a
Patriot King" so. even in the '4os
Disraei perceived that the coming choice
Law between absolute democracy and a
monarchical democracy. Afterward - in
the early sos while monarchy in England
was still far from popular-he laid his plans
as is apparent from his contributions to
his organ, the Press, in 1861, to popularize
monarchy and educate democracy before
enfranchising it, and-but not till that was
accomplished-to reimperialize Great Brit
ain. He has not he wrote in 1853 Of
Lord John Russell. -comprehended that
for the last twenty years the choice has been
between tUt vi liiost IiiS'ilh
lions and habits Of thought which preserve
monarchy and that gradual change into
absolute democracy to which Tocquevlle
somewhere rashly asserted that all the
tendencies of our age were impelling the
destinies OF Europe. The Wings should
have been conservative Of the reform con-
stitution, and have developed it
Elsewhere, completing his parallel, Mr..
Sichel opines that Gladstone was per-
haps, more OF an apostle; Disraeli, Of a seer.
Gladstone owned a noble heart, with lofty
spiritual standards and an enormous guam
tity Of moral resentment; but his church
views colored his life az much as his re-
ligious convictions, while his minute and
perpexing scruples too often changed the
forms OF his enthusiasm, led zeal to chime
with prejudice and sometimes sent him
astray altogether into self-deception.
Gladstone, indeed, is here conceived as a
strange compound Of diverse elements
of Highlander and Lowlander, Of Scot
land, Liverpool Oxford and Italy. 1In
some respects he might even be termed
the Dante Of politics; in others, he was
occasionally deemed it's Ignatius Loyola.
Disraeli, on the other hand, depended on