Hogg now bacon.
Jonathan Mason
contemporaries of Orwell at Eton, Quintin Hogg, Lord Hailsham, who was
a fag when Orwell was in the sixth form.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,9061,574246,00.html
Hogg was very prominent in British politics in the 60s and 70s and
made headlines with his characterization of Labour (I think it was) as
"stark, staring bonkers" a fine example of the Etonian-style slang
that was already obsolete in the 60s.
Martha Bridegam
Jonathan Mason wrote:
Orwell writing to Cyril Connolly from Marrakech:
"P.S. I suppose the Quintin Hogg who won the Oxford election was the
little squirt who was a fag when I left school."
CW's footnote:
"Quintin Hogg (1907-; 2nd Viscount Hailsham; peerage disclaimed for life,
1963; created life peer, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone, 1970; PC, 1956;
KG, 1988; CH, 1974), lawyer, Conservative Party politician, and writer,
had entered Eton shortly after Orwell. He was elected to the House of
Commons for Oxford City in 1938. Edward Hulton's *Picture Post* reported
that Hogg's platform was 'Unity: solid behind Chamberlain.' Hogg later
served variously as First Lord of the Admiralty, Minister of Education,
Minister for Science and Technology, Lord Prity Seal, and Lord
Chancellor."
And could somebody please explain PC, KG and CH?
/MAB
Alan Allport
news:3BCA42BA...@pacbell.net...
> And could somebody please explain PC, KG and CH?
PC = Privy Councillor
(http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/p-q/ne
wsid_82000/82526.stm)
KG = Knight of the Garter
(http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/199906/gallery_online/garter.html)
CH has me beaten. I know that he stepped down as Lord Chancellor in 1974
when the Tories left power (he got back in five years later), so maybe it's
connected to that.
I am a bit sad about Hogg dying. He had a mediocre political career and was
often foolish and ignorant, but from all accounts he was a genuinely good
man who realized his limitations and had something of a tragic life to boot
(his wife Mary, to whom he was devoted, died in an accident in 1978; the
shock apparently almost destroyed him).
Alan.
Edward Belsky
Alan Allport wrote in message <9qdhjf$ttc$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>"Martha Bridegam" <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3BCA42BA...@pacbell.net...
>
>> And could somebody please explain PC, KG and CH?
>
>PC = Privy Councillor
>(http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/p-q/n
e
>wsid_82000/82526.stm)
>
>KG = Knight of the Garter
>(http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/199906/gallery_online/garter.html)
>
>CH has me beaten. I know that he stepped down as Lord Chancellor in 1974
>when the Tories left power (he got back in five years later), so maybe it's
>connected to that.
Companion of Honour, dude
Tom Deveson
>CH has me beaten. I know that he stepped down as Lord Chancellor in 1974
>when the Tories left power (he got back in five years later), so maybe it's
>connected to that.
Yet another chance to use the [unoriginal] line: just as the Holy Roman
Empire was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire, so the Lord Privy Seal is
neither a lord, a privy, nor a seal.
>I am a bit sad about Hogg dying. He had a mediocre political career and was
>often foolish and ignorant, but from all accounts he was a genuinely good
>man who realized his limitations
Speaking from an older generation -- I found Hogg indeed often foolish
and ignorant, and also not as nice as you suggest. When he was Minister
for Unemployment or whatever it was called back in the 1960s, he didn't
really show sympathetic insight when he turned up on Tyneside wearing a
cloth cap. And his attack on Profumo on television, which I saw, was
more an example of kicking a man who was already down than of the
Christian principles he so publicly and tiresomely claimed to strive
for. His main public characteristic in the 1960s seemed to be ineffable
and unpuncturable self-esteem of an all-too familiar Etonian kind.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
John Rennie
"Alan Allport" <all...@ee.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:9qdhjf$ttc$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
tell a little story about Hogg that he passed on to his secretary, a friend
of mine. His grandfather studied law at Oxford and one of his dons
was a very ancient professor who had actually met Napoleon. Grandpa
Hogg summoned up enough cheek on one occasion and asked
said professor what was his impression of Napoleon "Oh not a
university man you know." was the reply.
Alan Allport
news:6613rQAz...@devesons.demon.co.uk...
> Speaking from an older generation -- I found Hogg indeed often foolish
> and ignorant, and also not as nice as you suggest.
I won't try to attempt a complete defense of Hogg as I share some of your
views about his occasionally suffocating pietism, but in fairness I would
describe his flat cap episode as a symptom of that peculiar rush of blood to
the head that seems to afflict some southerners traveling up the M1. Hardly
are these sons of Mercia into the Peak District before their Weltanschauung
becomes dominated by whippets, gurning, straight glasses and Elsie Tanner.
Alan.
Andrew Dennis
I'll add here that generations of law students yet to come will revile
his memory - indeed, his now having a grave to spit on is a great
bonus - on account of the long, rambling, tedious and frequently
irrelevant judgments he rendered in the House of Lords.
Being scholarly affairs - he was never a judge at first instance and
so never developed the skill of a pithy and relevant ex tempore
judgment - they tended to be great favourites among law professors for
the sheer depth of research and erudition they displayed. Hailsham
was a man after their hearts. So, the poor students got flogged
through every turgid bloody line.
Fortunately, his legacy in practitioners' law is virtually nil, at
this date.
--
Andrew Dennis
"A maze of twisty little laws, all different."
John Rennie
"Andrew Dennis" <and...@fidai.clara.net> wrote in message
news:3bcb2643...@news.clara.net...
infamous statement that some poor woman who
had been raped "has asked for it"?
Alan Allport
news:_QFy7.3026$ks.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Where, when and in what capacity did [Lord Hailsham] make his infamous
statement that some poor woman who
> had been raped "has asked for it"?
Corrections are invited, but I think this a mistake John. Hailsham often
spoke out in defence of judges whom he felt were being manipulated in their
sentencing decisions by the courts of public and media opinion, but I cannot
find any record of him making the statement above. Not thinking of Judge
Pickles are you?
Alan.
Edward Belsky
1. When he successfully stood for Parliament in the Oxford by-election of
1938, the slogan of his opponent was "A Vote for Hogg is a Vote for Hitler"
2. Hogg said that mastering English Law was like learning how to get along
with the intelligent but eccentric Old Lady who lives upstairs from you.
You have to learn her crotchets, her clemencies, her blind spots, her
trigger-words, and what allays her. I think that he wanted to show that the
hodgepodge of English law hangs together in the manner of a sane personality
rather than in the manner that Euclidean geometry. I know this kind of
thinking is an old Tory trick but I think there is something behind it.
His Parable of the Law reminds me of Ezra Pound:
and yet
For all this sea-horde of deciduous things,
Strange woods half-sodden and new brighter stuff:
In the slow float of differing light and deep,
No! there is nothing! In the whole and all,
Nothing that's quite your own.
Yet this is you.
Ezra Pound Portrait d'une Femme
Andrew Dennis
<Edward...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>2. Hogg said that mastering English Law was like learning how to get along
>with the intelligent but eccentric Old Lady who lives upstairs from you.
>You have to learn her crotchets, her clemencies, her blind spots, her
>trigger-words, and what allays her. I think that he wanted to show that the
>hodgepodge of English law hangs together in the manner of a sane personality
>rather than in the manner that Euclidean geometry. I know this kind of
>thinking is an old Tory trick but I think there is something behind it.
>His Parable of the Law reminds me of Ezra Pound:
Following through with his metaphor, then, Hogg/Hailsham's
contributions to the canon of common law were like the Old Lady's
unfortunate habit of breaking wind lengthily, loudly and malodourously
and blaming it on the dog.
ROBBIE
> and unpuncturable self-esteem of an all-too familiar Etonian kind.
good one
>
> Tom
> --
> Tom Deveson
belsky
Andrew Dennis wrote in message <3bcbe70...@news.clara.net>...
>Following through with his metaphor, then, Hogg/Hailsham's
>contributions to the canon of common law were like the Old Lady's
>unfortunate habit of breaking wind lengthily, loudly and malodourously
>and blaming it on the dog.
>
>
The Elizabethans seemed to have given old people a pass vis-à-vis their
greater flatulence but we fanatically harp on it. We won't let it go. It's
down to the sluggishness of their bowels you know. That's the whole squalid
story. Even such an unblinking portrait of old age as King Lear forbore to
mention flatulence, probably considering it a cheap shot. But in 1600 old
people were not as numerous as they are now and were prized like rare
orchids for having weathered life's numerous triages. Now, because of good
medicine and smaller families, there has been a transvaluation and young
people, being less abundant, are the more prized.
But, hey, Andrew, if this were just about demographics I wouldn't even get
on this jag. I don't want to sound like I am browbeating you with pietism
but your posting shows you to be a mouthpiece for capitalist forces of which
you are completely unaware and I feel it is my duty to open your eyes.
Please read on!
I guess you know what internalization means. I am not so nice but I hate to
be tricked. I am writing from New York. The calamity we suffered here was
terrible for business. The reflection, the sense of proportion, the
solemnity which the calamity induced is apparently bad for business! A
robust economy depends on people having superficial values. American
business regards lean stretches as irreparable, not as being make-up-able
come Christmas. With that fixation on steady sales, American business does
not spurn any angle to better the percentages. It is always refining its
techniques of manipulating us and making us into Pavlovian consumers.
George Orwell very rarely writes as if from the barricades of the consumer
society. I therefore think that the science of getting people to buy has
developed unrecognizably since 1950. American business pumps the economy by
marginalizing old people. Old people tend to counsel younger family members
against running up bills. Old people are never presented in ads as
prototypical buyers. That would not make sense. The slight gain in sales
to old people that would ensue from such a presentation would not justify
the dangerous boost in legitimacy old people might gain that way. American
business takes as one of its jobs the neutralizing of their influence.
Their business is sacrificed to the great potential of the younger market.
Most of the goods that are sold in America are sold with the under-theme of
defining yourself against old people and their crotchets. In many subtle
ways business has run a smear campaign against them during the last half
century. (Alan A. will say that I am a conspiracy theorist [actually, he
more likely will say that this posting is incomprehensible] but I take as a
methodological principle that business is dependably liable for any idea in
general circulation that wreaks some extra sales). So Andrew you probably
would not talk about old people so disrespectfully if American business had
not maneuvered you to that point. In any case you are getting their word
out for them.
Andrew Dennis
<Edward...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>But, hey, Andrew, if this were just about demographics I wouldn't even get
>on this jag. I don't want to sound like I am browbeating you with pietism
>but your posting shows you to be a mouthpiece for capitalist forces of which
>you are completely unaware and I feel it is my duty to open your eyes.
>Please read on!
>
Oh, you don't want to bother with me. My other personality will be
posting in a little while, and he's _far_ more thin-skinned and
volatile.
Edward Belsky
Andrew Dennis wrote in message <3bce97e0...@news.clara.net>...
>>Oh, you don't want to bother with me. My other personality will be
>posting in a little while, and he's _far_ more thin-skinned and
>volatile.
Point subtly made and never argue with a lawyer and all that. A
psychiatrist distinguished 3 personalities in MY psyche which he denominated
as Huey, Dewey, and Louie.
Edward Belsky
belsky wrote in message <9ql7u2$oub8u$1...@ID-78245.news.dfncis.de>...
> The calamity we suffered here was
>terrible for business. The reflection, the sense of proportion, the
>solemnity which the calamity induced is apparently bad for business! A
>robust economy depends on people having superficial values.
I see Esteemed Friends now that Mandville made this point two centuries ago:
The root of Evil, Avarice,
That damned ill-natured baneful vice,
Was Slave to Prodigality,
That noble Sin; while Luxury
Employ'd a Million of the Poor,
And odious Pride a Million more:
Envy itself, and Vanity,
Were Ministers of Industry;
Their darling Folly, Fickleness,
In Diet, Furniture, and Dress,
That strange ridic'lous Vice, was made
The very Wheel that turned the Trade.
[After they gain a virtuous sense of things]
As Pride and Luxury decrease,
So by degrees they leave the Seas.
Not Merchants now, but Companies
Remove whole Manufactories.
All Arts and Crafts neglected lie;
Content, the Bane of Industry,
Makes 'em admire their homely Store,
And neither seek nor covet more.
Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees 17??
Martha Bridegam
Edward Belsky wrote:
This is *how* many years before Keynes?
/MAB
Bayle
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<3BD37D39...@pacbell.net>...
Couple hundred years.
One of the greatest publishing enterprises on the planet is the following
http://catalog.libertyfund.org/
A press devoted to keeping the "classics" in print in unbelievably low-cost
and high quality editions. Of course they are committed to a capitalist and
libertarian philosophy but so what. They make the key works of their point
of view (which happen to be key works in European thought) available the
old Marxist press used to. Though in the best scholarly editions.
For example the ""Fable of the Bees" in the standard scholarly edition in 2
vols is $20 for the set in paperback.
They also publish the Glasgow edition of Adam Smith and Hume's History of
England and Essays. For example Smith's "The Theory of the Moral
Sentiments" is $12. (They must have had to raise their prices, for years it
was $7.50.) If it was an Oxford paperback it would be about $30.
Recently they republished "The Founder's Constitution" (in 5 folio sized
volumes for $60), edited by Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, which was
originally published by the University of Chicago to celebrate the
bicentennial. It breaks down the articles and amendments of the US
Constitution and then includes various document and excerpts that the
founding fathers would have been aware of. A great book.
Check it out.
Tom Deveson
>This is *how* many years before Keynes?
*The Fable of the Bees* [subtitle 'Private Vices, Publick Benefits']
came out in bits. An early version of part of it came out in 1705, then
more in 1714, 1723 and a complete version in 1734.
The moral drawn by Mandeville:
"...Then leave complaints: Fools only strive
To make a Great an Honest Hive.
T'enjoy the World's Conveniences,
Be famed in War, yet live in Ease,
Without great Vices, is a Vain
Eutopia seated in the Brain..."
But M isn't a utilitarian, though he's realistically concerned with
consequences. He recognises the existence of Virtue as well as of
Nature. He can be seen as an austere moralist as well as a laissez-faire
liberal [old sense].
Basil Willey calls him 'an obstinate amalgam, irreducible to any simple
formula, though made up of ingredients which could only have co-existed
in his own age.' I'm not sure of the fitness of citing him to deal with
today's crises.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson