Thursday, 30 March 2023
But he would know what he meant
As what I now write will certainly never be read till I am dead, I may dare to say what no one now does dare to say in print, — though some of us whisper it occasionally into our friends’ ears. There are places in life which can hardly be well filled except by “Gentlemen.” The word is one the use of which almost subjects one to ignominy. If I say that a judge should be a gentleman, or a bishop, I am met with a scornful allusion to “Nature’s Gentlemen.”
Were I to make such an assertion with reference to the House of Commons, nothing that I ever said again would receive the slightest attention. A man in public life could not do himself a greater injury than by saying in public that the commissions in the army or navy, or berths in the Civil Service, should be given exclusively to gentlemen. He would be defied to define the term, — and would fail should he attempt to do so. But he would know what he meant, and so very probably would they who defied him.
Anthony Trollope – An Autobiography (1883)
Even in Trollope 's day this claim was not one to make out loud. Yet we need some way to define an honest, upright, incorruptible and experienced ideal by which we measure those who would rule over us. Some way to draw together the necessary threads of character without which we end up where we are now.
The current spat between Corbyn and Starmer highlights the problem. Neither man is fit for high political position. Corbyn is appalling and as one of his shadow ministers Starmer supported Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party. A gentleman in the mould of Trollope’s ideal would look down his nose at both men and vote for neither.
Yet according to many mainstream commentators, Starmer has “dealt with” the Corbyn issue. In a sense he has, but he hasn’t dealt with the Starmer issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The problem is whether T meant "gentleman" in the sense of social class or in the sense of an honest, well behaved man of honour.
Yes, there is a certain indefinable quality that we require, or at least should prefer, in a public office holder. Talking about it does indeed invite difficult questions and ridicule from cynical little minds. And perhaps it is better that we don't try too hard to define and operationalise it, because then the same cynical little minds would try to game the system.
It's not all we require, of course. And it's hard to remember when we last saw it in a top politician. Denis Healey perhaps? Maybe even Robin Cook. A faint hint of it in Jacob R-M.
Trollope lived in our village, by the way. A nice house.
Do we need another Kinnock?
Did we actually need Kinnock I?
Kinnck? Another?
Yeaayyhh.
dearieme - probably both, although honest, well behaved man of honour would be essential with social class less important.
Sam - I don't think it fits major politicians of the modern era at all well. It probably didn't in Trollope's day which is why he wrote about the difficulty.
James - we'll never need another Kinnock.
decnine - definitely not.
Doonhamer - isn't he a lord now?
"Denis Healey perhaps?" Nah, he introduced retrospective taxation which rules him out immediately.
"Maybe even Robin Cook". Nope. When I was a fresher one of my new pals said "I've just met a bloke I've not seen since primary school." Me: "Has he changed much?". He : "No, still a shit." That's your Cook.
On t'other hand when I knew Gordon Brown he wasn't one. I suspect his character was spoiled as frustrated ambition curdled his soul.
Post a Comment