| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| character_possessions_photos [2018/11/22 16:03] – judith | character_possessions_photos [2018/11/24 18:21] – judith |
|---|
| \\ | \\ |
| His diaries, as well as his friendship with Leichhardt, reveal his intense scientific and philosophical curiosity. When he London in 1882, he got chatting to a Salvation Army officer, commenting that Meta, then 9 years old, had asked, 'Why God let the Devil make her bad!' TLM-P told the officer that he thought this and other tricky questions should be honestly tackled by clergyman rather than the issue being dismissed with an exhortion to have faith.((TLM-P, Diary, 14 June 1882)) While he shared the common view of his time that religion was necessary, he was tolerant of sectarian differences. A High Church Anglican service amazed him with its similarities to Catholic rituals, but while he privately considered the service 'too much like acting and mummery', he conceded others may feel differently 'and if sincere may do good'.((TLM-P, Diary, 25 June 1882)) \\ | His diaries, as well as his friendship with Leichhardt, reveal his intense scientific and philosophical curiosity. When he London in 1882, he got chatting to a Salvation Army officer, commenting that Meta, then 9 years old, had asked, 'Why God let the Devil make her bad!' TLM-P told the officer that he thought this and other tricky questions should be honestly tackled by clergyman rather than the issue being dismissed with an exhortion to have faith.((TLM-P, Diary, 14 June 1882)) While he shared the common view of his time that religion was necessary, he was tolerant of sectarian differences. A High Church Anglican service amazed him with its similarities to Catholic rituals, but while he privately considered the service 'too much like acting and mummery', he conceded others may feel differently 'and if sincere may do good'.((TLM-P, Diary, 25 June 1882)) \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| | It is a relief, given the number of children he had, that the evidence of his 1882 diary is that he had a soft spot for children, particularly grandchildren. He is pleased when he can be with them, and a bit of a soft touch. On 13 August 1882, for instance, he wrote in his diary that he was up late because Rosa's two young boys had come into his room before he got up and insisted on a story - this was apparently their morning routine.(TLM-P, Diary, 13,14,16 August 1882, ML.)) In this diary there is also a reference to taking Meta to the park and other indications he was an active, loving father.((TLM-P, Diary, 27 June 1882, ML.)) \\ |
| | \\ |
| TLM-P's conflict with Elise Barney of the Brisbane Post office has made him somewhat of a feminist anti-hero, but his two choices of wife, and his support for his controversial daughter Rosa's public career, indicates that he respected independent women. While in London in 1882, he gave practical support to Rosa: he gave her £500 (£517.10 in Australian values; around $64,569 in 2017 values) depositing it in a bank account in her name. To do so, as a married women, she needed her husband's permission which Campbell Praed wrote. He gave the money as an advance on that the money he planned to leave her in his will. It is significant that he did so ensuring that she had sole control of the money.((TLM-P, Diary, 14,21 July 1882, ML)) His will indicates this was not an aberration. In some ways his will supports the view of him as an Victorian patriarch in that the money left to his female relatives, and some of his sons, was controlled by trustees. But, on the other hand, he made all bequests to his wife and daughters 'free from marital control', and he further emphasised that 'all payments to any female under this my Will and the share and claim of any female under my will shall be to her sole and separate use and benefit independent of the debts control and engagements of any then or future husband without power of anticipation or alienation during marriage.'((TLM-P, Last will and testament, 1892, J. Godden's copy)) He was being cautious - the Married Women's Property Act had only came into force in Queensland in 1891: before then, unless such stipulations were made, anything inherited (or earned) by the wife, automatically belonged to the husband. His sense of responsibility for his female relatives extended to his daughters-in-law and grandchildren, with provision being made for them on the death of his son/s. ((TLM-P, Last will and testament, J. Godden's copy)).\\ | TLM-P's conflict with Elise Barney of the Brisbane Post office has made him somewhat of a feminist anti-hero, but his two choices of wife, and his support for his controversial daughter Rosa's public career, indicates that he respected independent women. While in London in 1882, he gave practical support to Rosa: he gave her £500 (£517.10 in Australian values; around $64,569 in 2017 values) depositing it in a bank account in her name. To do so, as a married women, she needed her husband's permission which Campbell Praed wrote. He gave the money as an advance on that the money he planned to leave her in his will. It is significant that he did so ensuring that she had sole control of the money.((TLM-P, Diary, 14,21 July 1882, ML)) His will indicates this was not an aberration. In some ways his will supports the view of him as an Victorian patriarch in that the money left to his female relatives, and some of his sons, was controlled by trustees. But, on the other hand, he made all bequests to his wife and daughters 'free from marital control', and he further emphasised that 'all payments to any female under this my Will and the share and claim of any female under my will shall be to her sole and separate use and benefit independent of the debts control and engagements of any then or future husband without power of anticipation or alienation during marriage.'((TLM-P, Last will and testament, 1892, J. Godden's copy)) He was being cautious - the Married Women's Property Act had only came into force in Queensland in 1891: before then, unless such stipulations were made, anything inherited (or earned) by the wife, automatically belonged to the husband. His sense of responsibility for his female relatives extended to his daughters-in-law and grandchildren, with provision being made for them on the death of his son/s. ((TLM-P, Last will and testament, J. Godden's copy)).\\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| {{:turk_reclining_enhanced.jpg?300|}} ((Provenance: from G.S.M-P to T.A. M-P.))\\ | {{:turk_reclining_enhanced.jpg?300|}} ((Provenance: from G.S.M-P to T.A. M-P.))\\ |
| The following is a black and white photo of the original.{{:parents_painting.jpg?300|}} {{:pilate_enhanced.jpg?300|}}((Provenance of both: ?H.A. Wiessner)) {{:dscn3697.jpg?300|}}((Provenance: From G.S.M-P to J. Godden))\\ | The following is a black and white photo of the original.{{:parents_painting.jpg?300|}} {{:pilate_enhanced.jpg?300|}}((Provenance of both: ?H.A. Wiessner)) {{:dscn3697.jpg?300|}}((Provenance: From G.S.M-P to J. Godden))\\ |
| | \\ |
| | {{:cattle_enhanced.jpg?300|}} A damaged unframed painting of Hereford cattle.((Provenance: From G.S.M-P to T.A. M-P)) When TLM-P was in England he mentioned that he a painting by Thos Sidney Cooper that his father had bought was 'in the tin case for packing'. He showed it ed to Edmund Ashford, a former pupil of Cooper's who had watched it being created. It was not this one of herefords, as Ashford and TLM-P's step-sister Jemima agreed if was his best regarding 'the trees'. Yet the hereford painting is very like another of Coopers, of a bull's head:see [[https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Sidney+Cooper+painting&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCl9Ly8-neAhVUSX0KHWK2BVEQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=938#imgrc=A7g6hqw_cNPk0M:|Cooper painting]] Alternatively, it may be by TLM-P's brother William as TLM-P states that not only Edmund Ashford, but also William, 'was one of Cooper's pupils.((TLM-P, Diary, 9 August 1882, ML.)) \\ |
| |
| ==== Nora's or Thomas Lodge's? ==== | ==== Nora's or Thomas Lodge's? ==== |