Small Marks and Instinctual Responses: A Study in the Uses of Gladstone's Marginalia (1992)

William Gladstone has one respect been well served by scholars. Enticed by his prodigious achievements and encouraged by an enormous paper residue, they have produced an amount and quality of scholarship unparalleled nineteenth-century political studies. Yet from this detailed examination of the politician, the scholar and the Christian, one has managed to produce satisfying portrait of the whole man. The singular duality which Morley noted 1903 has neither been explained nor explored as fully as it might. (1) As result, surprising number of questions both large and small remain: what was the nature of Gladstone's liberalism and why did he move toward Liberal politics the late 1850's; why did he fail to appreciate the public aspects of Gordon's mission and death Khartoum; when and why was he converted to Home Rule; why was he so often persuaded to retain Liberal Party leadership after resignation 1874 and numerous threats of resignation thereafter? Indeed, his commitment to the Liberal Party itself is now being called into question. (2) Although none of these issues can be dealt here definitively, I would like to examine neglected source--Gladstone's marginalia--and suggest its possible uses helping to answer questions which have resisted explanation on the basis of traditional documentary sources. II. In Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad illustrated common human tendency portraying the mysterious Mr. Kurtz, self-deluded demagogue who could get himself to believe anything. (3) Most political observors, both Liberal and Conservative, believed the tendency to be strong Gladstone. (4) As result, apart from sycophants who wrote without personal knowledge, Gladstone's biographers could not ignore the opportunistic appearance of much of his maneuvering. Morley hid it under euphemisms such as of opportuneness, over-refining, or simplicity; or without comment simply allowed Gladstone to speak his own defense. (5) Sir Philip Magnus took small step forward to speak casually of few cases of honest self-deception. (6) More recently, however, an understated consensus suggests that it was integral rather than incidental to his character. (7) Indeed, Gladstone's recognition of the power of self-deception both himself and others is notable. One of his last diary entries, indicating the near impossibility of writing honestly, is well known. (8) His warning regarding the trustworthiness of the diaries has been cogently examined by Derek Beales. (9) More fully developed is his account of the Duke of Newcastle's move to the War Office 1854, in compliance, according to the Duke, with the unanimous desire of his colleagues. Though many were fact of the opposite opinion, no one contradicted It was obviously impossible to contradict him. Gladstone cites this as a curious example of the power of self-deception the most upright of men. (10) Gladstone's own observations suggest what is commonly avowed by scholars but not always practiced, the cautious use of self-referential evidence. And the danger is more real Gladstone's case than most, for the vast quantity of letters, diary entries, and memoranda which he left have become, especially the ongoing publication of his Diaries since 1968, the touchstone for all judgments of Gladstone. But this abundance of resources is deceptive two closely related ways. The hundreds of thousands of items give false sense of documentary wholeness; and their stylization, particularly later life, precludes much insight. Gladstone's massive and disparate autobiographical record conjures up a massive illusion of intimate acquaintance which may create, or even be meant to create, an impenetrable wall against knowledge. (11) Much of what Gladstone said and wrote is of course factually accurate and representative of his conscious perceptions The value of these materials is nevertheless mitigated by both the general imprecision of language, and the more specific adjudication of his mind. …