Benjamin Disraeli
51:21 Share

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

A truly unique gift. The book, The Ultimate Guide to Rebuilding Civilization, explores essential inventions and skills across 400 and illustrated pages. Weighing nearly 5 pounds and standing over 15 inches tall, it's a conversation starter. This Amazon bestseller includes free shipping in the U.S. Use code TheBook15 for 15% off. Head to

How to rebuild civilization.com to order a copy today. Would you survive as a peasant in the Middle Ages? What did the ancient Egyptians really believe about the afterlife? And how did the Second World War shape the world we live in today? If you're curious about the past, then check out the History Extra podcast. Brought to you by the team behind BBC History magazine, History Extra brings you gripping stories from the past.

and fascinating historical conversations with the world's leading experts. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.

How do you feel when you switch to Geico and save on your car insurance? It's like going to work on Thursday morning and thinking to yourself, just one more day until Friday. But then somebody walks into the elevator and says, Happy Fri-yay! Then you check your phone quickly and discover today is actually Friday. So yes, Happy Fri-yay, random stranger in the elevator. Happy Fri-yay indeed.

Yep, switching and saving with Geico feels just like that. Get more with Geico.

Hello, Benjamin Disraeli, 1804 to 1881, was a major figure in Victorian British politics, both as Prime Minister, twice, and for long periods as Leader of the Opposition.

He was a gifted orator in Parliament and shared his views more widely through several popular novels, including Sybil or The Two Nations, which was to inspire the idea of one-nation conservatism. Queen Victoria mourned his death with the Primrose Wreath, an event marked by annual processions celebrating his life in politics, the life in which he was born Jewish and could only become an MP as his father had baptised him as a Christian.

With me to discuss Benjamin Disraeli are Lawrence Goldman, Emeritus Fellow in History at St Peter's College, University of Oxford, Emily Jones, Lecturer in Modern British History at the University of Manchester, and Daisy Hay, Professor of English Literature and Life Writing at the University of Exeter. Daisy Hay, how did Disraeli start out in life? What kind of education did he have?

Well, he was, according to him, born in a library, which of course wasn't true. But what he meant by that was he was born into the world created by his father, Isaac Disraeli, a bookish minor celebrity in literary London. And he was the second of four children. His elder sister was Sarah, to whom he was very close. Because the family were Jewish, he was sent first of all to a tiny school in Islington and then to a non-conformist boarding school in Blackheath.

But after his baptism into the Anglican Church, he was then sent to an Anglican school in Epping Forest where he was extremely unhappy, as far as we can tell, possibly bullied. And he was removed from that school at 15. And he later was a bit resentful of the fact that as the family's fortunes improved, his younger brothers, Ralph and James, were sent to Winchester.

So they had the kind of public school education that he felt would have been helpful for him. The key thing in what you said, as far as his future is concerned, is that he was baptised as an Anglican. His father suggested he do that. Why did his father want him to become an Anglican? Well, his father, Isaac, fell out with the elders at the synagogue. And in 1817, partly on the advice of Isaac's friend Sharon Turner, the children were baptised into the Anglican church. And it was a crucial moment for Disraeli.

because it enabled much of the career which happened afterwards. You couldn't be a Member of Parliament, you couldn't go to the Inns of Court and become a lawyer. Exactly. And what it meant, therefore, is that Disraeli is, to some extent, an outsider in two traditions.

in that he is Jewish by birth, but he suffers none of the more obvious penalties experienced by, say, his friend Lionel Rothschild in terms of exclusions, although there is certainly a pervasive anti-Semitism that is part of his story. But he's also not quite Christian. He's not really Anglican. And that position as outsider in two traditions is, I think, very important in his story. So

So his education is a bit patchy, but what he does have is a literary education in Isaac's library. He reads and reads and reads, and when he leaves school at 15, he spends about a year reading in Isaac's library. So it's a kind of ad hoc education. Two of the people who read most fiercely were Byron and Shelley. Why did he go for Byron and Shelley? Let's stick with Byron, just one will do.

Well, particularly after Byron dies in 1824, he becomes a kind of icon of alienated heroic brilliance for young men who are looking to make a place for themselves in the world.

And Disraeli is very influenced by the Byronic model. He travels in Europe twice in the 1820s, both time following in Byron's footsteps. And he's quite a fan. He has himself rowed over Lake Geneva by Byron's boatman. He finds Byron's factotum, Tita, and brings him back to the family house in Buckinghamshire. So he takes the business of Byronic imitation really very, very seriously. Yeah.

Thank you very much. Lawrence, we've touched on Disraeli being baptised as an Anglican. Can you develop that? Yes. Unfortunately, we don't have a document evidence as to why he was baptised, but there are certain clues. His grandfather dies in 1860. His grandfather would come to this country in the mid-18th century, and it's thought that perhaps at that point...

it was felt that the family could alter their ancestry, if you like, and their religion.

In addition, we know that his father Isaac had fallen out with the community of which he was a member. This is the synagogue known as Bevis Marks in London. It still functions. And Isaac was asked to become a warden, to take on a leading role in the synagogue, and he refused to do that.

Did that offend people? Well, it wasn't that surprising. The synagogue, in fact, had a procedure. You could pay a fine and then you were let off. But Isaac didn't pay the fine. Four years later, when they came back to him in 1817, that seems to have set off...

the procedure that led to the conversion of the children. More generally, as we've heard, there were certain prescriptions on Jews. Not many. It's a small community in early 19th century Britain of about 30,000, and compared with the rest of Europe, they have remarkable freedoms. But as you said, there are some social prescriptions and some conventions which obviously work against them. Did his father foresee a possible political future by doing this?

I doubt that. I mean, I think what his father wanted was that his children should be able to progress in British public life and in British life generally. I don't think he saw his son as a politician. I'm not sure that we have a sense that he had any ambitions for his son as compared with Disraeli's ambitions. But it's worth saying that by this time, there are some converted Jews who are MPs.

in the British Parliament. Most famously, David Ricardo, the bullion trader and very great political economist. So there are models that Disraeli could follow. It mattered to him that he could be financially independent. How did he go about that? Well, not very well, I think, is the answer. He wasn't really financially secure until late Middle Age. It's actually a tale of woe from start to finish.

He first of all invests in South African mining shares. It sounds like a Victorian cliché. And he lost a lot of money. Then he tried to set up... Where did he get the lot of money to lose? Well, I mean, in fact, his father was not poor. I mean, and his grandfather left something like £30,000 to his father. So there was money in the family. They were outsiders, but they weren't without means.

But he lost on the shares. Then he tried to set up a newspaper, The Representative, it was called, and he lost a lot of money there. Later, he married his wife and they were devoted to each other, but he believed she was a wealthier woman than she looked.

actually was. And so it carried on. I mean, he had to be lent money to buy a country estate. No Victorian politician could possibly act as such without an estate. We've come to that. Yeah. How he set himself up as a politician. Yeah. We think of political, different political parties, Emily, Emily Jones.

It wasn't quite like that in Disraeli's youth, but not far from it. Can you tell us about the Whigs and the Tories and the Radicals? So, obviously, political groupings and parties in form as well as content were very different to what they are today.

The Whigs were broadly associated with a constitutional position that emphasised the role of Parliament against royal prerogative and looked to kind of dismantling some of the privileges of the Anglican Church. Whereas the Tories, who had been known as the King's Friends, had historically looked more to the monarchical element in the Constitution and sought to preserve it.

the privileges of the church. The radicals had a slightly different constitutional heritage, tended to look further back into the ancient constitutional past to locate rights and privileges that had once been held but had since been lost. And they tended to argue for the need to restore those lost liberties and those lost privileges.

How did he find his political home? He first stands for Parliament in 1833 and he suffers a series of electoral defeats over the 1830s. I think it's in this period where he also produces his vindication of the English Constitution, which is published in 1835.

And in The Vindication, as well as in Coningsby and Sybil later... Novels. Yeah, the novels. They articulate a very distinctive historical and political account of modern British constitutional development that I think...

why he would not have been a Whig and why he would have had more sympathy towards the Tories. So he sees the Whigs as an anti-national, factional set of exclusive, in his words, Venetian oligarchs who claimed to be the champions of the people, but in reality to Disraeli they did no such thing. He has a very unique sense

interpretation of post-Reformation history, including the dissolution of the monasteries. So the Whigs he associates with the greedy land grabbers who appropriated lots of monastic land. And he also offers a kind of Tory interpretation of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which the Whigs had kind of championed as this great moment in the progress of English liberty and getting rid of James II and bringing over William and Mary. And

But Disraeli argued that this was really not true. And bringing over William and Mary had instead introduced this kind of nefarious system of Dutch finance, which meant national debt, and had also increased wars with France. So Disraeli's Tory alternative that appealed to him was an idea of a free monarch, a prosperous people, multilateral tariff negotiations, and alliance with France.

Daisy, a lot happened to him between 1837 and 1839. One of those was marriage. Can you tell us about it? Yes. He first meets his wife, who is a wife of a Tory MP called Marianne Lewis in the early 1830s, and he describes her initially as a pretty little woman, a flirt and a rattle. What does a rattle mean? She's a bit of a rackety character. She has feathers in her hair and garish jewellery, and she's a bit vulgar.

Sounds a treat for you, doesn't it? She's a tiny little vivacious woman. And in 1837, she persuades her husband, who is a Tory MP of superlatively little distinction, he doesn't speak once in the entire time he's in Parliament, that he should select Disraeli as his running mate for the constituency of Maidstone. So you have two Tory candidates.

And they go out on the campaign trail, the three of them, and Marianne announces in a letter to her brother that she is safely delivered of two twin members, which tells you more that you need to know about her.

But then in 1838, she is widowed, leaving her a rich, vivacious widow, and a Wyndham Lewis dies suddenly. And a heady romance ensues between her and Disraeli, in which everyone around them thinks that she is an idiot and he is courting her for her money. In fact, the truth is a bit more complicated than that. It undeniably is a marriage of convenience in lots of ways. But

But between them, they whip up a fantasy of romance, which really matters to both of them, that it should be true. And there are all sorts of contingencies around this marriage. What are these fantasies? Fantasies of a kind of love-lorn separation, fantasies of parting, of insuperable objects thrown in their way.

Which they surmount. Which they surmount. He writes terrible poetry to her. They invent a kind of sign language in the letters where there's a symbol that looks a bit like a kind of turnet, which stands for the love that is too great to be articulated. There's all this sort of flummery. But in 1839, August, they are married. The day before their marriage, Disraeli writes to one of his creditors and says he must not write to him during his honeymoon because Marianne has no idea about the extent of his debts.

All creditors are instructed to communicate with him only through his sister Sarah. So the marriage starts with all sorts of deceptions. But the great thing about it is that over its 30-year passage, they make that romance come true. It ends as a great and true romance, but it's always a marriage which is characterised as odd by other people. But it is crucial to his political survival because it gives him an income...

At the point that, the moment Parliament is dissolved, he knows he's liable to be arrested for debt. It gives him just enough solidity to cling on to life in Britain at the point where he's threatened with exile in France. He's that bankrupt. So it comes at a really crucial moment for him. And it's worth telling people that members of Parliament were not paid. They weren't paid, but they were also immune from arrest for bankruptcy and indeed for other crimes.

which meant that the moment that Parliament was dissolved, Disraeli knew the bailiffs would be there for him. At one point, he lets the bailiffs into Marianne's house on Grosvenor Gate while she's out, and they catalogue the entire contents and then give him a note of exchange for them. She has no idea that he has signed over everything down to the salt sellers in their house to the bailiffs.

So the money worries don't stop, but they are managed through this marriage. It's quite a big burden for a young man to carry, isn't it, when he's already one sort of outsider. There's also a problem with the very few people he knows in his position in Parliament who's so deeply in debt. That's true. There's a wonderful moment in the Disraeli letters from the 1850s where he says, I have never owed a penny in my life.

And the editorial note in this very serious edition just says, the editorial mind boggles, which I think is a wonderful, a wonderful moment. But Mary Ann is also quite well connected. She is the best friend of Mary Dawson, her next door neighbour, who is the sister of Robert Peel. It's through Mary Ann and Mary Dawson's friendship that Disraeli is sort of inveigled into Peel's outer circle in the early 1840s. So she's not unuseful to him politically either.

Let's turn to Peter Lawrence, North Goldman. He was...

Peel was a very important, significant person then, but Disraeli wasn't particularly fond of him or taken into his group. What was going on there? No, well, in the 1840s, eventually they're at odds, seriously so. Peel forms a Conservative government in 1841 after the election in that year, and Disraeli, who is really bursting for a job, actually writes to him offering his services in the government, and Peel simply ignores him. They are chalk and cheese, really.

Peel is the son of a great cotton master from Lancashire, a man of business, a very serious-minded statesman. And Israel's persona at this point is of a dandy in Parliament, not someone to be taken very seriously. And obviously, as an outsider, quite a different kettle of fish as compared with most Tory MPs.

The result of this, a personal sort of animus, leads actually to a kind of political and ideological difference between them because Disraeli, on the back benches of the Tory party, forms around him a group of people

known as Young England, who tried to set out a different philosophy. Did he have significant supporters there? Well, he had three. Three MPs were his... Three all do, aren't they? It's a start. It's a start. But it's interesting because they lay out a kind of position...

which has much greater significance. George Smythe, Alexander Bailey Cochrane and Lord John Manners are their names. These are the four who formed the core of Young England. They're all backbench Tory MPs.

Peel is taking the party leftwards, we might say. He is a Liberal Tory and in the course of the 1840s he's moving towards free trade, which means selling out the agriculturalists, the landholders. What do you mean by selling out? Well, they depend on agricultural protection, on tariffs to keep out cheap foreign foodstuffs. That makes the price of bread that much higher, of course, for the working classes in Britain.

Peel has to deal with a social and economic crisis in the early 1840s, and one way to deal with that is to lower the price of basic foodstuffs, and that means ending agricultural protection, which isn't good for the British landholders.

Now, Disraeli takes the side of the protectionists, as they're called. There were lots of young movements across Europe in this period, Young Italy and so forth. And we had one, Young England, and Disraeli was at the centre of it. They're philosophically arguing with Peel. They dislike the leftward liberal trend in the Tory party.

And they dislike the fact that Peel is courting, as they see it, the middle classes, the entrepreneurs, the commercial sorts. They try to put forward a different model, an England in which the landed classes appeal over the heads of the middle classes to the people. They depend upon the patriotism and the deference of the people. Isn't this a bit optimistic when the people had no votes?

That's true, absolutely. I mean, it's the sort of politics that many historians would say had no future in it at all. But it chimes with this idea of a romantic conservatism, a kind of fantasy conservatism, but nevertheless, a kind of argumentative position that can be used against the materialism, the cynicism, as Disraeli thinks of it,

of Peel and the Liberal Tories. But what impact did it have? Well, not great until the final crisis of the Peel government at the beginning of 1846 when Peel comes out openly for the repeal of the Corn Laws and the end of agricultural protection. And then, in a sense, Disraeli, it appears to the Tory backbenches, has been proved right. Peel has ratted on his party. Peel is a traitor to the landed classes.

And Disraeli is suddenly thrown to the very centre of politics and makes some very notable speeches in those debates in which he blames Peel for being a traitor to his class and to his party.

A truly unique gift. The book, The Ultimate Guide to Rebuilding Civilization, explores essential inventions and skills across 400 hand-illustrated pages. Weighing nearly 5 pounds and standing over 15 inches tall, it's a conversation starter. This Amazon bestseller includes free shipping in the U.S. Use code THEBOOK15 for 15% off. Head to

How to rebuild civilization.com to order a copy today. Would you survive as a peasant in the Middle Ages? What did the ancient Egyptians really believe about the afterlife? And how did the Second World War shape the world we live in today? If you're curious about the past, then check out the History Extra podcast. Brought to you by the team behind BBC History magazine, History Extra brings you gripping stories from the past.

and fascinating historical conversations with the world's leading experts. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.

Meantime, also, with his left hand, Emily, he's writing novels. He started with the pernicious novel, but let's not talk about that. Let's go into Sybil. It came out in 1845, a year before the year Lawrence was referring to, and it must have a big impact. Yes, so Sybil is one of the most famous examples of the condition of England novels of the 1840s that also includes works by Charles Dickens, Elizabeth Gaskell, Charles Kingsley...

And they were all concerned with raising awareness of the terrible conditions that most of the population were living and working in. Sybil was part of what's known as the Young England Trilogy. So before Sybil in 1844 was Coningsby and after Sybil in 1847 came Tancred. And all three of the novels were concerned with a theme of leadership, moral, spiritual leadership, at a time when Disraeli really sensed

that significant forces supporting the country were falling into potential disintegration. So Coningsby addressed political leadership and political parties, Tancred addressed the role of the church, and Sybil was concerned with the condition of the people.

The novel itself was drawn from Disraeli's own researches by visits to the north. He read a huge amount of parliamentary blue books or reports. He read royal commissions. And Sybil itself, the novel is a...

drama, a political novel, a social novel, a romance. It starts by the introduction of the youngest son of an aristocratic family, Charles Egremont, his entry into Parliament, at which he accrues some debts, naturally, and his increasing familiarity with what was known as the condition of England question, the conditions of

of the people alongside his growing kind of romance and love of the titular character of Sybil Gerard who is when we meet her training to be a Catholic nun she's also the daughter of a Chartist activist

So Sybil is really representative of a kind of feminine spiritual moral power in kind of shaping and guiding Egremont's growing concern with the condition of the people. And what sort of impact was he intending to have and did he have with this book? Sybil covers a huge range of themes from agricultural depression to Chartist politics and riots to the changing of agricultural titles to

and caused a kind of sensation. There's lots of letters that were written to Disraeli by people who were very moved by the depictions of the women in the mines that were conveyed, the condition of agricultural labourers as well as the overcrowding in urban areas. And Sybil itself was to have a really significant later legacy because Sybil is picked up

becomes a really important source for some of the earliest major socio- and economic historians of the later 19th century who were interested in ill effects of industrialisation on the working classes. Daisy, you wanted to come in. I was just thinking that it's really interesting to hear Emily give a kind of political historian's account of Sybil, which makes complete sense to me. But the other thing I was reflecting on as you were talking, Emily, is that all three of those 1840s novels, and indeed actually the 1830s novels...

are in some ways an attempt to test out a kind of rewriting of a proposition of Shelley. So Shelley writes very famously that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. And in his novels in the 1830s, but particularly in the 1840s, Disraeli is asking the question, can the poet, can the man of genius...

also be the world's acknowledged legislator. It's a reforming of an idea which Carlyle is also testing out in the 1840s in his lectures on heroes and hero worship. Can a man of genius, a visionary, a man of imagination, note a man, also be a kind of political actor? That's what Disraeli wants to be. And in the figures of Egremont and Coningsby and indeed in Tancred and Cydonia, you have versions of that vision

that heroic man of genius and action. The two things you needed if you went into the Commons, really, was money, which he borrowed, and even better, just an estate, a country estate where you could have your meetings and where you could have your position and be part of the... Let's call it barony, that'll do. How did he get his estate?

Well, it's a great story and it becomes particularly important after, as Lawrence was saying, he splits the Conservatives, he splits the protectionists away from Peel and therefore becomes a slightly accidental spokesman for the landed interest while also having no land himself. He teams up with an MP called Lord George Bentinck, who's the younger son of the Duke of Portland, and together they represent the protectionist interests.

And it's Bentinck's family, through the representations that George Bentinck makes, who agree to support the purchase of Huenden, the estate in Buckinghamshire that Disraeli buys after his father Isaac's death in 1846. But again, as so often in Disraeli's story, it's something of a mirage because three weeks after the purchase is concluded...

George Bentinck dies of a heart attack and his father is much less clear about wanting to support Disraeli. So he offers to fund the purchase of Huenden, but on the basis that he will take out a mortgage for £25,000 and he will receive all the rents. So on paper, Disraeli becomes a master of his estate, man of the country, but in practice, his estate is owned by someone else.

But it's worth just ending the story in an interesting way because at the end of the 1850s, the Portland family call in the loan and Disraeli is facing ruin once again. He hasn't got £25,000. But in the kind of Disraelian tweak that you get used to in this story... Well, an amazingly benevolent coincidence, you might say. That's right. A tweak doesn't do justice to... A tweak doesn't, no, indeed.

His dilemma comes to the ear of a rich Jewish widow who was living in a hotel in Torquay. And she is Mrs Bridges Williams. And she sends him £25,000 to pay off the loan.

with one condition only, that she is buried in the family plot next to Disraeli. And if you go to Hughenden Chapel, you can see Mrs Bridges Williams' grave next to Disraeli's, and that was the payoff. It's a tiny bit more complicated than that, in that in the interim, a Conservative backer does take on all the debt and agrees to service them at a much lower level of interest. But Mrs Bridges Williams will leave Disraeli a legacy, but they do have to wait for her to die. Ah.

And she doesn't die until 1863. So there is a slightly fraught bridging period between the Portlands calling in the loan and Mrs Bridges-Williams doing the decent thing and dying and leaving her fortune. And one of her friends describes them arriving in her drawing room, both dressed black as crows in high glee at the fact that this longed-for legacy. They are very fond of Mrs Bridges-Williams, but nevertheless, her death is a sort of blessing for them.

Well, we saw it at that time. Lawrence, can I come back to you?

He spent a lot of his time in opposition, and I think you believe that he was the greatest opposition leader there's ever been. Well, I think he was a very great leader of the opposition up there. So why? Well, he has a problem. The Conservatives have a problem. This is a generation that belongs to the Liberal Party. From 1846 and the split of the Tories over the Corn Laws through to 1874, this is really a period of Liberal dominance.

Conservatives form three minority administrations. They never have a majority, but they form governments briefly, 1852-3, 1858-9, 1866-8.

And in this period, they depend upon Disraeli above all in the House of Commons to worst the liberal big guns. And he's clever and witty and carries the house with him. And humour, of course, can do an awful lot. Is this rather surprising, given the anti-Semitism that was drifting around the place? Well...

Yes, I mean, it's an issue, undoubtedly, for him. Less, I think, in the House of Commons than in the public realm more generally. I mean, he has to put up with caricaturists and cartoonists in the press and veiled comments all the time. But I think his identity in politics, if not secure, is at least accepted.

because of his talents. I mean, were he not to be so talented, he would not have been accepted in quite that way. An interesting thing is the older he got, the more he went back to his Jewishness. Is that right? Well, yes. He never really left it. I mean, in 1847, he's very prominent in the debates over what was known as the Jew Bill, Jewish emancipation. Really, with his backbenches looking on aghast, Disraeli makes a famous speech in favour of...

of Jewish emancipation, drawing attention to his Jewishness and not in any way trying to hide the fact.

And I think he used it, really, because it made him different. It made him an outsider who was exotic. It added to his persona. I mean, he was sincere in everything he said in that debate. He was sincere in his regard for the Jewish religion. He valued his Jewish roots very obviously. But obviously it could also be used as a way of making himself out to be a rather special figure in politics. So I think his colleagues came to accept it

It was wider society that had problems with him. Can we continue that with you, Emily, about Disraeli's achievements in power?

If we were going to go with the hits, I would focus on three themes, which would be parliamentary reform, social legislation and imperial and foreign policy. So if we go back to 1866 and 1867, Disraeli's name is intrinsically associated with the passing of the 1867 Reform Act. So he's not...

Prime Minister, then he's Chancellor, but leader in the Commons. And the bill that eventually passed under Disraeli in 1867 was far more radical than the bill that had been proposed by the Liberals. Eventually, as it goes through Parliament, all of the kind of amendments, the fancy franchises that would have given additional votes to people with certain types of property or university degrees are kind of stripped away.

And the result of the bill, the act, is that the electorate is doubled from one million to two million adult males, mostly in urban areas. And the significance of the bill for his critics was that it enabled them to continue to portray him as male.

an opportunist, a political manipulator and devoid of kind of serious political principle. But for his supporters and for his later admirers, the passage of the 1860 Reform Act was on the one hand evidence of consistency with a kind of anti-Whig view that saw the 1832 Reform Act as a kind of factional middle class piece of legislation and

And that also enabled his supporters to portray him as a prophet who had foreseen the coming of Tory democracy, possibilities of the conservative working man and later woman, and essentially the democracy that votes Tory.

Once he becomes Prime Minister in 1874, the two key themes that are associated with that period are the social legislation of 1875, which included a whole raft of bills on housing, on public health, on the adulteration of food and drink, on trade unions. And this is really seen as being, on the one hand, again to his supporters, as the...

the principles of the Young England novels put into practice. And from 1875, Disraeli is increasingly preoccupied by matters of empire and also foreign policy. So the pictures of the Suez Canal shares in 1875...

Victoria becomes Empress of India in 76. There's the Anglo-Afghan War, the Anglo-Zulu War, and most significantly, the growing problem known as the Eastern Question, the Eastern Crisis, that surrounded the kind of decline of the Ottoman Empire and concerns around the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe. And Israel was particularly concerned with encroaching Russian militarism.

The problem was, was that the Eastern question allowed Gladstone and Disraeli's opponents to portray Disraeli in supporting Ottoman rule, which included supposedly kind of condoning what were known as the Bulgarian atrocities against Christians in the region.

once again allowed his critics to portray him as alien, other and fundamentally as standing outside of an orthodox Christian morality. Thank you. Can I turn to you again, Daisy? Enter Queen Victoria. They didn't get on very well to begin with because Victoria, as many people will know, was a great fan of Robert Peel and she held Dithrelli responsible for his downfall and she thought Marianne was vulgar.

However, after Albert died in 1861, Disraeli really was able to sympathise with her imaginatively, emotionally, to understand the extent of her loss. He got on very well with Albert. Was this calculated or natural? I think it was natural because he liked Albert a great deal. They worked together on various projects.

and he understood imaginatively her loneliness. So he was instrumental in the establishing of a memorial to Albert at South Kensington, and he didn't hold her responsible for her withdrawal from public life in the way that many others did. And it blossomed into another great romance in his story, the relationship between Disraeli and Victoria. He was said by some to have laid it on with a trowel when he referred to them both as wee authors because of her Journal of the Highlands.

But the relationship really took flight in terms of the courtly romancing of the sovereign when, as premier, he visited Balmoral in 1868.

And she became intensely interested in his life. Gifts were exchanged between her and Marianne. And she then remained very, very attached to him, rather to the detriment of poor Gladstone, who she held responsible in his turn for the downfall of Disraeli. And it's skipping forward slightly in the story, but when the Disraelis were both very ill in 1867, Victoria wrote anxiously asking for news of them. And...

Most unusually, after Disraeli died, she came to Huenden to take tea and to sit in his drawing room. So it was, again, an affair of the head and the heart for both of them. Emily, let's go back to One Nation conservatism. How is that getting on? One Nation conservatism is usually invoked to signify a holistic, socially-minded brand of conservatism that claims sympathy with social concerns and issues

seeks to improve national unity whilst maintaining existing institutions and systems of power. I think that the term is generally attributed to Stanley Baldwin in 1924 and is very famously used by the One Nation group when they were founded in 1950, which included unlikely members such as Keith Joseph and Enoch Powell.

Disraeli, there are certainly materials within Disraeli's life, his writings, to support an understanding of Disraeli as a One Nation Conservative on that definition.

I think that it's very unconvincing to portray Disraeli simply as an opportunist and without principle. It's particularly easy to find evidence, for example, for Disraeli's belief in the need to improve the condition of the people. But Disraeli wasn't a Democrat. He wouldn't have approved of extensive forms of state welfare. And I also think it's really important to understand that

even when you have these kind of raw materials, it still takes a huge amount of editing, adaptation, selection to first of all kind of extract Sybil in particular as his most representative and significant text.

And then to also, as happens after his death, portrayed Israeli as a serious thinker, as a great statesman, and as a guide to modern problems, i.e. kind of adapting his 19th century Tory politics into...

into a 20th century political agenda that is fundamentally much more concerned with questions of welfare and economic management. Thank you. Daisy, he wrote many novels. One of them, Le Fer, was phenomenally successful. Can you tell us about that and about the other later novels? It certainly was. This is how Disraeli recovers from being Prime Minister, that he writes a novel. He retreats to Huyenden and he writes a novel. He does it twice. The first time was Le Fer, which is...

An account of the struggles with the Catholic Church in various complicated ways. It's an enormous success. Ships are named after it, streets are named after it. The Associated Cable Company try, have to block a New York publisher who want to have the whole thing telegraphed under the Atlantic because it would knock out the telegraph for two or three days.

It sells an enormous copy numbers both in Britain and in America. It's a sort of passion project for Disraeli. It's great fun. And these late novels, these reckonings with some of the people, both of the years when he's politically active, but also the years which are politically formative for him.

that's what these novels really are concerned with. Was he rated then? I mean, there's some very big novelists writing then. Was he rated alongside them? Not by them. I mean, Trollope and Dickens both couldn't stand him, partly because he got paid very well. He got paid £10,000 for Lothair, which drove them nuts.

But he was very popular with the public. But he's a kind of celebrity novelist by this point. People buy Lothair partly because it has the novelty of being by a former prime minister. So he's not widely respected by his fellow novelists. But he's held in such wide affection by the public at this point that his novels are widely read and enjoyed.

So are we saying his myth didn't get in the way of his books, his myth sped them on that way? Yes, I think that's right. I think by the end he was almost, I wouldn't say a caricature, that would be unkind. It would be very unkind. It would be unkind. I mean, he was a man, obviously, of enormous qualities and depth with a vast hinterland, but there's a sense in which his persona had been established...

and he'd found his way into that position we sometimes refer to as a national treasure. But he understood the British people. That's the interesting thing in the 1870s, that famous Disraelian phrase, we must come in on the principle of not harassing the people. What he'd understood is that by the 1870s, the middle classes had been satiated. They'd done very well in the mid-Victorian period.

And they didn't really want Gladstonian reform and radicalism to take it all away from them. The liberals were promising radical changes, and Israeli understood that there was a kind of centrism that you should aim at, and that the British liked to be governed from the centre and liked to be left alone.

left alone. And so in the 1870s, so many of his speeches are about the glory of the Constitution, the established institutions of the nation, with a little touch of reformism, some public health reform and so forth. And that suited the mood

of the middle classes very well, many of whom in the 1874 election left liberalism for the first time. They voted for the liberals in the 1850s and 60s. But in 1874, he got it right. He judged the people perfectly. And the middle classes voted for him and for the Tories. How about the working classes that he set out to educate? Yes.

I mean, this is part of, I think, the mythology, because later, after he died, as has been suggested, there was the idea that he'd seen a kind of Tory democracy, that he'd understood the angel in the marble. This was the phrase of a Times editorial after he died. The angel in the marble, that he'd seen the Tory working man.

And in a way, of course, that's correct because working class conservatism was a very important theme in the late 19th century and beyond into the 20th century. But whether Disraeli divined that

is an open question. I mean, it's part of the mythology and part of the debate, really. Well, if you think about Disraeli as a speaker in comparison to someone like Gladstone and later Salisbury, he spoke predominantly in Parliament. He didn't become a great mass platform speaker, orator, in the way that Gladstone or Salisbury did. So his actual style of...

speaking to the people was through Parliament and not in those big public meetings. We're coming to the end of this programme now, unfortunately. I'm enjoying it like anything.

He also had a reputation outside this country. Bismarck, for instance, Chancellor of Germany, was a huge admirer of him. Der alte Jude, das ist der Mann, the old Jew, he's the one, was what Bismarck said about him in 1878 at the Congress of Berlin. And one of the things we should say, as old and ill and tired as he was, he dominated the Congress of Berlin, which patched up Europe.

after the Balkan Wars of the 1870s. And that was a very important moment in European history. It put off the great crises of the early 20th century for a generation. And it may well be the last time that a British statesman dominated a European diplomatic congress. So it very much counts in Disraeli's legacy. And within British politics, he has an enormous influence...

in the Labour Party as well, because of the significance of civil and the two nations kind of metaphor in providing a kind of common vocabulary of talking about inequality, material inequality throughout the 20th century, particularly in moments of economic slump, later de-industrialisation and

Disraeli, Sybil and the two nations becomes a rhetorical device to hold conservative governments to account both outside of the Conservative Party and inside of the party. Well, thank you all very much. Thanks to Daisy Hay, Emily Jones and Ron Scolman. Next week, wormholes, the tantalising theory of shortcuts in space-time out there in the universe. Thanks for listening.

And the In Our Time podcast gets some extra time now with a few minutes of bonus material from Melvin and his guests. I'll start with you, Emily. What did you not have time to say you would like to have said?

So something that is of particular interest to me is people often compare or associate Disraeli with Edmund Burke, who is also known as a founder of modern conservatism. But I think talking about what Disraeli made of Burke really helps you to understand the difference between Whiggism and Toryism. So people often see Disraeli as being a great admirer of Burke.

And Disraeli really did admire Burke as someone who could also do literature and politics and also really admired Disraeli for doing...

What he wanted to do for the Tories, for the Whigs in the late 18th century, which was essentially to enliven, re-articulate and modernise Whig principles for the modern day and re-educate his party. That's what Disraeli wanted to do for the Tories. But people often assume that he is Burkean in some way, but really he sees Burke as the arch-Whig trumpeter and not as a Tory. So the common assumption that Disraeli and Burke are somehow connected

connected and he takes his political thought from Burke is quite misconceived, I think. Daisy, same to you. Could you mention his dandyism, which was a big part of him. He just came out as a dandy. Certainly as a young man, part of his Byronic persona was about clothes and appearing as a kind of very glamorous, alienated intellectual.

Bright colours, jewels. Of course, men didn't start dressing soberly until later in the 19th century, at which point he turned quickly and then began to inhabit that position too. I think the other thing I would like to say a little bit more about though is Hughenden, because I talked about Hughenden's

slightly fragile economic basis. But Disraeli described it as his rock and it really did become a place of great sanctuary and happiness. He and Marianne commissioned the architect Edward Buxton Lamb to redo a quite plain Georgian house in true Gothic revival style.

and although in the 1850s there was a lot of unhappiness at Huenden, by the 1860s, once its economic foundations were a bit sturdier, Disraeli loved being a man of the country. Constance de Rothschild described walking through the woods with him, and he had an axe in his hand, and she said, ''This hand which had never held anything heavier than a pen.''

He loved being friends with the woodsmen. He described having ten guests over a weekend and said it's as hard as work as keeping an inn. This man who certainly did not play or do the job of innkeeper. But it really gave him a kind of place from which he could fly. I think Huenden is a really important part of his story in the 1860s and the 1870s. So that's what I would want to bring back into the story, the happiness of Huenden, particularly in the later stages of his life. Lauren?

Well, I suppose if it were anything that I'd like to add, it would be that what, for me at least, threads together his life and career is reverence for past things and for things as they were. He's living in an age of progress. That's what we associate with Victorian Britain, technological and other forms of progress, industrial and so forth, commercial. And of course, he favours the people being fed and he favours growing wealth and so forth.

But at heart, his instinct is always to admire things from the past and want to revere them and preserve them, which is why he's good with people like Queen Victoria, why he's good with so many British institutions. And of course, if one thinks about the psychology of this, one realises that somebody who is an outsider either

who's been allowed to have really a remarkably privileged place at the heart of British political and social life, would indeed revere those institutions and not really want to see them change. He becomes more British than the British, even though he starts out as the grandson of an Italian immigrant who's come to England and a man who's from a different religion.

And with, if you like, the conservatism, we can use that word, of the converted, he's more aligned with keeping Britain as it was than almost anyone else in the House of Commons.

I think that part thing about Disraeli being more English than the English is so important because that's how he dies as a symbol of England with an understanding that that is in part a construction, but it's a construction that everyone happily falls for. So it's a really important part of the end of his story, isn't it? Yes.

I just really think, I think the success of the play and the film Disraeli is just really extraordinary. George Arliss plays, the play's first stage in Broadway in the West End between 1911 and 16. It's a smash hit across the Atlantic. George Arliss makes an entire career that stretches to the Second World War in playing Disraeli in various forms.

The film is the Warner Brothers film that's produced in 1929 of the play. It's a huge success. It's seen all around the world by all kinds of audiences.

And Arliss is then picked up by the Conservative and Unionist Film Association and he is dressed up as Disraeli once more and put into a film with Stanley Baldwin, made to kind of quote selections from Disraeli's speeches and writings to portray what the principles of modern conservatism were in 1931. So the combination of political culture, celebrity culture...

was essential in his life, but it really just goes through the whole of the 20th century as well. He'd have been so pleased. I know. And just a final point from me would be that I think we misunderstand him more than the Victorians misunderstood him, in a sense.

Your point, Melvin, that by the end of his life he's a national treasure and he's much admired and loved, is clearly true. I think we misunderstand him because we don't understand Victorian politics. We think that politics is about manifestos and radical commitments and a list of measures that governments will pass once they come into power.

But Disraeli and most Victorians didn't think about politics in that way at all. They thought that one had to do the Queen's business, one had to keep the ship of state secure, and Disraeli was always for taking short-term kind of opportunities in politics, playing the game, dishing the wigs, is one of his famous phrases, and that's what he wanted to do. And this was all part of politics in the House of Commons.

Very few politicians had a sense that they would do great things in power. And Disraeli clearly fits into a kind of Victorian cultural political mould where politics is a game and you play it...

With sincerity, but it's not something, as it were, that you turn to the people and say, we will do these things for you. So there's been a tendency to say, oh, Disraeli is an opportunist. He's heavily ambitious. He doesn't stand for anything. And you find that in contemporary and recent interpretations. I think we're misunderstanding him because we're not really understanding how the Victorians played politics.

It's so much too easy to read him as an opportunist, isn't it? And I just wonder too about the idea that Disraeli is a kind of dilettante. I wonder what that is also refracting in terms of our own prejudices too. But I think it's a great advantage to him that he never went to a public school and he never went to the university because he had a quite

individual intellectual development. He read different books. He thought in different ways. And so he's always kind of coming at Victorian culture from another position, which makes him remarkable and different. And people listen because of that difference. It's sometimes enjoyable to tick off the people who were more successful than any others and they didn't go to university. Well, thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Does anyone want to your coffee? To your coffee, Melvin? Tea, I think. I've been out of tea. Tea. Tea. I'll have a cup of tea. That'd be lovely. Yes, please. That'd be lovely. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, everybody. In Our Time with Melvin Bragg is produced by Simon Tillotson and it's a BBC Studios audio production.

I was definitely too young when I was leader of the opposition, not to do many of the other jobs I did in government. Emissions and insights from the people who shape how we think. I would say my family gave myself and my two siblings a critical eye. And because it's not just politicians who mould our lives, we also hear from economists, comedians and best-selling authors. It's the fastest way to change things. You do need politics, but if you want to change something overnight, culture is the quickest way to do it.

Conversations, not newsy interrogations. That's Political Thinking with me, Nick Robinson, from BBC Radio 4. Listen now on BBC Sounds.

A truly unique gift. The book, The Ultimate Guide to Rebuilding Civilization, explores essential inventions and skills across 400 hand-illustrated pages. Weighing nearly 5 pounds and standing over 15 inches tall, it's a conversation starter. This Amazon bestseller includes free shipping in the U.S.,

Use code TheBook15 for 15% off. Head to HowToRebuildCivilization.com to order a copy today.