T H OM AS
CA R L YL E
A S A C R IT IC O F L IT E RA T U R E
BY
F R E D E R IC K
W IL
L IA M R O E , P H D
.
@1 t fla t !:
T H E C O L UM B I A U N I V E R S ITY
1
Al l
ri
91
g/2 t :
0
res erv ed
P R ES S
.
C
BY TH E
i ght
op yr
1
,
91 0
C OL UM BIA U NIVE RS ITY
i t d f m ty p J y 9
Prn
e
ro
a n ua r
e
,
1
1 0
P a s s : or
You : N ew E RA a
rm e Co n n
L a n c a s rs n
.
PA
"
P R Es s
a t ange w o k ith m t u dy in g th es e E s ay ove a gai : t
th e ; it i s I d it i
t I that
o f m y li f e l i é s t ran g l y w itt
y a
Th ey a e a s I c ou l d mak th e m am on g t h e p at -b ogs a d
w o t e all that !
th e c on f s i on s It rath s eem s t h e p eop l e l ik e th em i n s pit e of al l th ei r
ab b d n
CAR L E t o h i M o th er 8 3 9 ( N w L et t e s 1 7 8 )
It i s
e
s r
e
rs
cr
r
s
s
en
r
u
e
es s .
.
er
,
s
a n
—
e
r
r
o
e,
w
r
n
r
s
no
en
,
n
e
er
L Y
s
,
1
e
r
,
,
I
.
P R E FA CE
The present study was begun some fou r y ea rs a go at th e
suggestion o f P ro fessor W P T rent and o f th e late P ro
I t w as thought th at an account
fes s o r George R Ca rp enter
o f Ca rlyle a s a criti c o f l iterature w ould b e o f valu e not only
a s an app r e ciation o f a great p ersonality o n a d i ff e rent si de
f rom that usually consi de re d but al so as a contribution to th e
hi story o f literary criticism in England In thi s bel ie f an d
w i th these ends in vi ew th e follow ing chapters have been
written The new interpretation in the fi rst chapter o f Car
lyle s s o called conversion has not been made w ithout a search
i n g examination o f the p ublished biograph i cal mate ri al and
w ith the s ol e purpose o f setting th e facts in th ei r right rela
tions
To the English departm ent o f Columbia University under
whose direction I have w orked m y obligations are many It i s
a pleasu re to record my grate fulness to P ro fesso r Trent who se
critici sm an d encouragement have been constant and h elp ful
M y thanks are al so due to P ro fe s sor B rander M atth ew s an d
to P ro fessor W A N eil son fo rmerly o f Columbia now o f
Ha rvard University for sti mulating suggestio ns To P ro
fes s o r A H Thornd ike who went over the entire w ork in
manu script w ith me I am esp ecially indebted fo r much valu
able criticism
I am grate ful also to P ro fe s sor J W Cunli ff e and to Asso
ciate P ro fessor H B L ath rop o f the English d ep artment o f
the University o f Wisconsin for ki ndly interest an d coun sel
In th e p reparation o f this essay I have used th e follow ing
boo ks bes id e s others to wh ich re ference i s made i n th e foo t
notes : Ca rl y l e s Work s ( esp ecially the Cri t i c a l a n d M i s c el l a n
e a u s E s s a s in seven volumes copyright edition Chapman and
y
Hall L ondon ) R em i n i s c en c es by Th om a s Ca rl yl e ( 2 vols e d
E a rl y L et t ers ( e d N orton N ew
Norton N ew Yo rk
L e t t ers I8 2 6 IS3 6 ( ed N o rton N ew York
York
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
—
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
f
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
—
,
,
.
1 X
,
,
Corres
po
n d en c e
b et z t
een
Ca rl y l e
a nd
G oe t h e
( ed Nor
.
Th o m a s Ca rl y l e
a nd
f
R a l f ! : Wa l d o E m ers o n ( 2 vols rev c d Boston 1 886 ) N ew
L e t t ers of Th o m a s Ca rl y l e ( 2 vols N ew Yo rk 1 90 4 ) L et t ers
a nd I
Iem on a l s of Ja n e l l el s h Ca rl y l e ( ed F roude 2 vols
N ew York 1 88 3 ) N ew L et t ers a n d 3 1 e m on a l s of Ja n e l l el s h
Ca rl y l e ( 2 vo l s N e w Yo rk 1 90 3 ) Col l ec t a n ea Th o ma s Ca r
l y l e ( ed S A Jo n es Ca n t o n P a
L ec t u res on t h e
H is t on of L i t era t u re ( L o n do n
Tw o N o t e-B ook s of
Th o m a s Ca rl y l e ( ed N ort on N ew York Th e G rol ie r Cl u b
L a s t l l ora s of Th om a s Ca rl yl e ( N ew York
Th om a s Ca rl y l e ( l i fe by Fro u de 4 vol s
N ew York 1 88 2
a nd
M em oi rs of t h e L i fe a nd l l ri t i n gs of Th oma s
Ca rl yl e ( b y S hep herd a n d “ ill i a m s on 2 vols L on don 1 88 1 )
Ed i n bu rgh S k et c he s a n d M em ori es ( by Ma sson L ondo n
B i el s cho w sky s L i fe of G oet h e ( 3 vol s by Cooper
N ew York 1 90 7
ton
,
Yo rk
N ew
Co rres f on d en ee
.
.
.
.
,
.
o
,
,
,
,
'
'
I
.
.
,
'
'
’
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
'
,
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
,
’
'
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
MAD IS ON “ IS CO N S IK
'
,
.
,
,
C O N TE N T S
C3
2 3 3
I
A
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
90
99
C HA P TE R I
TH E
FO U N D AT IO N
L
A
OF
T
I ER
A RY
L
F
I E
I t was an integral part O f th e faith o f T homas Carlyle that
ci rcumstanc e s do not wholly determine human destiny L ike
the belie f o f s o many great men th i s O f Carlyle s w as roote d in
personal experi ence Th e struggles o f h is early li fe p rolonged
and intensifie d in exceptional m easu re p roclaim the pow er O f
the human w ill Yet i t i s scarcely a p aradox t o a ffi rm that
upon Carlyle perhap s the most con s picuou s exampl e o f indi
v i d u a l i s m in the nin eteenth century th e infl uence o f envi ron
ment was both p owe r ful and permanent
H e knew th e w orl d
”
p ro foundly says M r B rownell but he v iewed it fro m E ccle
”1
fechan
Hi s bi rth in th is village O f southern S cotlan d ; h i s
descent from Covenanter stock ; h i s boyh o od among a sternly
moral but narrow -minded peasantry i n the m i dst O f a rigi d i f
not a harsh domestic economy all had thei r part i n fash ion ing
a character fa irly steeped in racial an d rel igious p rej u dice
These early surroundin gs le ft upon hi m an imp ress that e du
cation and contact wi th the w orld never e ffaced Into all h is
w ritings from essay to hi story there w ent something o f the
narrowness and austerity together w ith som ething o f th e
harshness o f the S cottish peasant
Though h i s li f e at Eccle f echan was anything but j oy ful
”
2
Carlyle grat e fully recognized its w orth
I too says Teu fels
d rOc k h
acknowledge th e all -but omnipotence o f early culture
”
and nurture
J ames Carlyle the father w as w hat the s o n
might have become had h e neve r le ft hi s native v illage I n
intellectual m oral and religious temper there w as a remarkabl e
similarity betw een the elde r and the younger Carlyle L ike h i s
son the stone mason p ossessed a native stren gth o f mind a
rough controlling force o f w ill a stubborn integrity i n al l h i s
work and dealing together w ith a f rank contempt for l i fe o n
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
“
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
1
V
i
i
c t or a n
P
ro s e
M
a s t e rs , 9 4
’
.
R em
.
,
I, 44
( N ort o n
’
s
ed
iti n )
o
.
2
its lighter si des Though deeply religious he w as i rascible
”
and choleric a n d h is grim taciturnity made h is h ea rt seem
”a
as i f w a lled i n
He di strusted poetry and fiction as min
”
H e never I believe says hi s
i s t eri n g to worldly pleasures
read three pages o f B u rn s s P oems ; poetry ficti on i n
s on
general he had universally seen treated as not only idle but
“
fa l s e and criminal
The speech o f James Carlyl e was bol d
metaphorical an d humorously exaggerated
he sai d a thing
”5
M ental characterist i cs
and it ran th rough the country
p rominent in the elde r Carlyle reapp ea red almost without ex
c ep t i on in the s on though they were somewhat so ftened by th e
mild a ffectionate nature o f the mother There was little
enough o f love in Thom a s Carlyle little enough o f th e gentle
ness that sometim es tempe rs great natures ; but there was ver y
considera bly more a ff ect ion in him than in his f ather
The
strongest personal passion which he experienced through all
”
”6
his li fe says Froude
was his a ff ectio n for hi s mother
T he relations between M a rga ret Carlyle and her gi fted s on a s
reve a led in numerous l etters were tou ch ingly symp a th eti c and
they go fa r to explain the depth and warmth o f hum a n f ee l
ing i n the essa y on Burns and in the L i fe of J oh n S t erl i ng
T he boy s education began at home mainly unde r th e d i rec
”
"
tion o f his f ather
H e had educated me says Carlyle
against much advi ce I believe and chiefl y i f no t solel y from
hi s own noble faith ; James Bell ( one o f o u r w ise men ) had
tol d him : Educa te a boy and h e grows up t o despi se hi s
My f a ther once t ol d me this ; and a dded :
ignorant parents
Thou h a s not done so Go d be tha n ked for
At a b out
se ven the l a d was put into the village school where h e began
”9
L a t i n a n d w her e h e w a s report ed
complete in E n glish
S wa mped h ere i n th e L at in h e was pulled afloat by the
mini ster s son when he m a de r a pi d a n d sure way At ten
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
’
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
“
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
“
’
‘
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
‘
,
’
.
,
,
“
.
,
’
,
‘
‘
Ib i d
.
I,
,
1
5
.
f C n a y Th m
id I
C lyl 3
4;
M a n E d i b gh S k t h e 8
L if I 88 ;
Of m y l tt ta ght m b y m y m th I ha
f
ad ing a l y y ( R m I
;
l bi d I 8
F d L if
Ib
.
,
,
ss o
1 2
,
e v er
o
re
.
,
,
1
n
,
e
'
.
c
ur
e rs
sc
1
.
.
o
w
e c
u
rc e
o
,
s, 2
1
as
‘
.
e
an
ar
o
e
.
,
e,
e,
,
e r,
2
.
1
cf
ve
.
no
R e m , I,
rec o
,
rou
e,
e,
I,
1
3
.
1
6
.
ll ti n
ec
o
w
hat
at th i s place among those coarse tyrannou s cub s ( th e boys
who torm ented young Carlyl e s o long as he obeyed hi s mother s
command not to fight ) le ft embittered m emories ; but th ere
was real intellectual p rogress
L atin and French I di d get
to read w ith fl uency L atin quantity was a fright f ul chaos
and I h a d t o lea rn it a fterwa rds ; some geometry Algeb ra
arithmeti c tolerably w ell V ague outlines o f geography I
learnt ; all the books I coul d get w ere also devou re d G reek
”1 0
consisted o f th e alphabet merely
The fou r years at A rm an w ere foll ow ed by the university
course at Edinburgh where Carlyle satisfi ed h i s pass ion fo r
knowledge in the m i dst O f most di scoura ging conditi ons P ro
fes s or M asson s gleanings f rom ol d university records yi el d
some definite in formation a s to th e studies which w ere the re
pu rsued For the fi rst sess i on C a rlyle was regi stere d in a h u
manity class ( wh ich m eant L atin ) and a fi rst G reek class ; for
the second he took up mathematics an d logic since there w as
no second cou rse in L atin G reek and ma th ematics w ere c on
The
t i n u ed th e th ird year an d mor a l philosophy was begun
classi cs an d philosophy were d ropp ed i n th e f ourth ye a r while
1 1
mathematics w a s kept up along w ith natural ph il osophy
Carlyl e s class -work at the university ended i n th e summe r o f
1 81 3
i n h i s e ighteenth y ear wh en h e was qual ifi ed for th e
”
M A degre e Thi s h e di d not take ; but in that says P ro
”1 2
fes s or M asso n
h e w a s n ot i n the least singular
I f Car
lyle s fellow -students p redi cted h i s fut ure on the show ing h e
made in the class room they must have reserved h im for d i s
tinction i n mathematics ; fo r in th i s branch alone di d h e display
enthusiasm an d tal ent ch iefly be ca u se o f the superio r teach ing
”
o f P ro fessor L esli e
For seve ral years h e says geometry
shone be fore m e a s the noblest o f all sci ences and I prosecuted
”1 3
it in all my best hours and m oo ds
’
“
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
1°
1’
‘3
i
Ib d
b
F
I id
.
.
,
2
39
rou d e,
,
L i fe
,
t k fi t p iz in
rs
r
E d i n b u rgh S k e t c h es ,
,
2
-2
0
3
36
.
.
M a ss on
(I
oo
M as s on
1 1
e
I,
2 1
.
F
ay that Ca l y l e a i d ff
p iz
f
a t a d iti o n that h
t
gh S k t h
3 4)
n d math mati al l a
Th i ab n d ant p f
( E d i n bu r
the
s ec o
rou d e
s
s
e c
es ,
e
2
c
c
r
c
re e rs
o
s s.
rr e
e re
o
no
r
es
r
s
e
u
roo
,
4
'
The account O f h i s studies in L atin and Greek O ff ers a s u g
”
h
e records
contra
In
the
clas
I
am
s ical fi eld
st :
i
v
e
s
t
c
g
truly as n o th ing H omer I l earnt t o read i n t h e original with
di ffi cult y a ft e r Wol f s broad fla s h o f light thrown into it ;
Tacitus and
ZE s c h y l u s and S ophocles mainly in tran s lations
Virgil becam e really intere s ting t o me ; Homer and ZE s c h yl u s
above all ; Horace egoti stical l ei c h t f ert i g in s a d fact I n ev e r
cared for ; Cicero a fter long and variou s trials alway s proved
a windy p e r s on and a w eari s om e to me extingui shed altogethe r
”1 “
by M iddleton s excellent though mi sj udging li fe O f him
Crippled i n Gr eek in the preparato ry stage Carlyle di d not
much incr ea s e h i s knowledg e o f it at the university He never
made up thi s deficiency and the littl e Greek he knew must
”
have faded fro m disus e according to the Op inion o f P ro fessor
l 5
P recisely h o w much h i s work in criti c i s m su ff ere d
M a s so n
from thi s limited acquaintance w ith the language and l ite rature
o f Greece it i s o f course not possibl e to s a y
N 0 study could
have removed the native bias o f his m ind for Carlyle was
born a romanti cist S till it i s hard not to believe that a sound
classi cal t raining woul d have much increased h is appreciati on
o f es s e ntially l iterary value s
such as individual beauties O f
thought and ph rase and have given t o hi s critical faculties a
balance and restra int whi ch they so o ften failed to exercise
For we should not fo rget that apart from the p oorly taught and
wholly inad eq uate cla s s ics Carlyle had no university study to
“
“
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
“
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
in
fam
a ny
c
of
s e,
f
L i fe
rou d e,
x ll n i n math mati
P hil ph y n d
ll p n Ca ly l
m d azzl
d m n hin
his
B row n
ou s
F
a
,
e
e
u
I,
ce
e
ce
o
2 0
e
r
e a s
c s.
os o
ere
e a n
u
oo
s
“
er
the
( i bi d
e
.
,
.
" E di n bu r h
g S k e t c h es ,
Ca l y l app iati n f G k l it at
as
xp
d i n hi L t
th
h i s t y f lit at
m limit d c
d ot nth ia ti
Hi
y
ma k
h l indi at that h
th
i n a fi l d h i h h n ith k n
ll
g atl y a d t kn
( f
A
L t
nt n h
d th
in t h
ay
d a liking
f
H m ( g E ay III
Pl at h d
a d ai d E m
t
and h d i pa a g d S at
n W k V 6 ; f C nw ay
( Em
L if 9 ; N L t t
d M m i l
W l h C a l y l Int
f J
8 ;
Em
d C ly l
II
C
p d
Ca l y l xp
b t a
f b l int t i n t h
la i i m f G th
e
res s e
so r
s
a n
,
n
e
us
c
o
er
.
e
1
orres
ee
e
e
ew
on
en c e,
e re s
.
,
s
r
e
s
ce
s,
e rs
re
ere
rec
or
ew
r
s
a n
es
n eo -c
or a
ar
ss c s
e
s
e,
o
o
,
a ne
oe
u re
e.
s ee
es s
oes
or
er
s
c
c
s
,
e s
”
,
1
r
e
e w a s
ow
rec o r
s,
e
ur
,
e
o
re
u re
e
re
no
r
,
ree
o e
e
ers o
o
re
ere
o
e
a n
e w
n or
”
o
er
on
w e
a n
o
,
oc r
e rs o n
e s
e
er
e
e
on
c.
e
ss
r
.
e
se
s on ,
e,
s
e
e c u res ,
or
3o
ec u re s
e
w
2
’
.
s
s
o
e,
c
er
o
.
,
ro. ,
res s e s
1
u
5
waken h i s interest and cultivate h i s taste i n th e form a l ele
ments o f literature
H is real university was the l ibrary where h e found th e
materials for laying the foundatio n o f a lite rary li fe H is pas
sion for reading has al ready been re ferre d t o but th e ti m e o f
its app earance it i s n ot p ossibl e to fi x ; p robably Ca rlyle him sel f
d id not reme be r H e may have read th e A ra bi a n N i gh t s
for example be fo re h e w ent to A r man H i s re ference to h i s
fath er s p rohibiti on against th i s book indicates that th ere had
1 6
been a copy at home
M any o f th e books that w ere devoure d
1 7
at A r man w ere novels som e o f S m ol l et t s being among them
B ut a fter Carlyle entered Ed inburgh a greatly expan ded taste
in reading develop ed P ro fessor M asson foun d a re cord o f
the follow ing volumes draw n from the University l ibrary du r
ing D ecember and January o f Carlyle s fi rst term : R ob ert
s on s H i s t ory of S c o t l a n d
Vol I I Co ok s Voy a ges ; Byron s
the Honorable John Byron s N arrative o f th e
N a rra t i v e i e
G reat D istresses su ff ered b y Himsel f and hi s companions on
t h e Coa st o f P atagonia 1 7 40
th e fi rst volume o f G ibbo n ;
two volumes o f Shakespeare ; a volum e o f the A ra bi a n N i gh t s
Congreve s Work s ; ano ther volume o f the A ra bi a n N i gh t s ;
two volumes O f Hume s E n gl a n d ; Gil B l a s ; a th ird volume O f
”1 3
S hakesp eare ; and a volume o f th e S pec t a t or
Fo r a youth
o f fourteen w ith no guide bu t h i s own instincts
thi s i s a s
P ro fessor M asson po ints ou t a remarkabl e list o f books esp e
c i a ll y i f w e consi der that p robably n ot one o f them ha d a n
y
th ing to do w ith th e boy s academ ic stu dies Th e next year
he read w ith equal indep endence in th e selection o f ti tles
Besi des seve ral vo l um es o f travel an d voyages he took f rom
the l ibrary Fiel ding S mollett a translation o f D on Q u i x ot e
1 9
and t w o o r th ree works i n ph ilos ophy
The records for th e
last two y ears are lo st but thi s youth ful passio n for rea ding
must have rapi dly increased To the end o f h i s l i fe Carlyl e felt
that the one se rv ice Edinburgh Un iversity rendered hi m wa s
a
.
,
.
,
m
,
.
.
,
’
.
’
.
,
,
.
,
“
’
’
’
’
.
,
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
’
’
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
int ting t k n
l y l h d a liking f A bi
C n ay L if 3
"E
R id I q i y
g
It i s
e,
’7
e res
a
o
or
w
1
.
o
.
,
e,
,
e
’
s
2
n
ow
ra
a n
that t h
N i gh t
s
.
a nd
abb
cr
R em
“
.
u r
e
L
oc
k
’
e s
E
.
ed
,
I,
di b
Essa y
n
.
an d f ath
gr
2
9
er,
Th ma
o
.
u rgh
S ke
t
c h es ,
2
31
.
s
Ca r
6
”
L
o
f
t
h
e
lib
ary
From
chaos
that
ibrary says
r
t he u se
s
i
n
u
I
ucceed
d
in
fi
h
more
book
perhaps
s
e
s
h
T e u fel s d rOc k
g p
than had been known to t h e ver y k e ep e r s ther e o f T h e foun
dation o f a L it e rary L i fe w a s hereby laid ; I learned on my own
str ength to read flu ently in almost all cultivated languag es on
almo s t all subj e cts and scienc e s ; farther a s man i s ever the
prime Obj ect to man already it w a s my favorite empl o yment
to r ead character in s p eculation and from the writing to con
”2 °
V
In hi s inaugural addres s be fore the uni
s t rue th e V ri t er
ve rs ity in 1 866 there i s similar testimony : What I have found
”2 1
th e University di d for m e is That i t taught me to read
S cattered accounts o f Carlyle s reading from 1 8 1 3 t o 1 8 1 9
when he began to study German show a s teady tren d toward a
literary li fe and th row much ligh t upon his int ellectual develop
”2 2
- 1 6
1
1
ment While at Annan ( 8 4
) he r ead incessantly
We can j udge O f the range o f th is reading from hi s early let
te rs which begin at thi s period and contain numero us allusions
”
to books
Wh a t book s have you been reading ? he w rites to
his friend M itchell
And how d id yo u like S hak e speare ?
S ince I s a w you I have to iled through many a th ick octavo
many o f them to l ittle purpose Byron s and S cott s P oem s
[ I have read ! and must admi re though y ou recollect w e used
of
it s
,
.
—
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
“
.
.
.
,
’
’
.
—
,
20
Sar
t
o r,
79
.
ag q t d ab
f m S t b nd
t dt
f t C a l y l f y a a t t h U ni ity it i d b t l y an
- tat m nt
O nl y in L a t i n d F n h and t m xt nt in
k
ay M a n
ld h ha
ang d b y nd E ngli h i n h i
ad
G
ing ;
a d i ng in hat
lang ag ha b n
at d
hi
T
f l d
kh
mi ll a n
Ca l y l
( E d i b gh S k t h
4 )
p babl y i n l d d t h b
i ng t nl y f f
ll g y a b t f a
m h l ng p i d xt ding d n t 8 and
n lat ; t g th
i th
th
nt i n a l a d i ng d n i n t h l i b a y f E d a d I ving and l h
H
i n E d i nb gh a d i inity t d nt it ill b m mb d d ing
th
fi t y a a ft h i
ll g
Th n am t h ma t hip in
ma h mat i at A n a A a d m y f t y a f ll d b y t h ma t hip
f a
h l at Ki k l dy t p in pp i t i n t
nd t d b y I ing
Th i p i t i n Ca l y l th
t at t h
nt
d f 8 8 and again
p i n di g
E d i nb gh
t
i th I i n g h h l i d f m t f t h t i m ( b k n b y
a at i n a t h m a nd j n y i ng i th t h B ll ) nt i l h i
m al t
C ig p t t k i n
8 8
"
F d L if I 9
a
2 1‘
E s s y s , V II
s oo
re
o
ov er s
re e
e
e
”
,
s
s
n or
sc e
e
co
e
w as
e
rs
t
ca n
2
ro w s
e
en
o
r
r a
o
r ou
rv
o
u
e,
2
,
2
.
.
e
se
e
o
u
s
e re
e
os
o
ve
w
o
o
or
e
u
re
so
2
o
e
rs ,
o
e
o
e rs
a n
s
r
u
1
e
o
er w
e
e re .
ur
,
s ers
s e rs
rv
uc e
e
u
re
.
e
co
1
v
e re
e
ow e
o
os
e
e
e s ew
e
on e
e en
e
s
r
c
rs ,
er
e
e
e
e
e
r
w
,
us
e
s
w
.
w o
or
co
es ,
er
u
ou
e
ee
ev e
2 0
o
e
c ou rs e
u
w
r
s u
e
ou r
1
e,
co
,
e
oc
v
re w
e
w
s
en
r
,
r
e
1
ve
e,
ou r
e
s
e c
o
o
o
ur
o
so
o
e
un
s
,
,
u
n
no
s
e
r
”
ow
c
u
s
e
s
n
o
roc
a s
er
oo
ur
ra
e
cs
o
c
e
,
e s
c
ev e r
w
eu
re
a r or
ro
v e rs
e
ve
’
ov e
uo e
rs
e
a s
ur
os
e
s,
re
e
ou r
c ou
,
re
s
er o
u
sc
s
“
sso
er
e
o
e s
r
e
a n
c u
o
a ss
.
eou s
uc
p
If t h e
.
’
o
s
ro
v
er
74
1
,
.
w e
,
ro
e
s
re
e
ov
o
g i ve Campbell a decided p re ference and I still think w ith
j usti ce Have you ever seen H o ol e s Ta s s o ? I have among
many others read i t L eon i d a s
the E pi gon i a d ( Wil
3
kie s ) O b eron ! Savage s P o em s etc M i ss P orter s S c o t t i s h
Ch i efs and Wa v erl ey have been th e principal o f my novel s
Wi th regard to Wa verl ey I cannot help rem arking that in my
opinion i t i s th e best novel that has been p ubl ished these
“
th irty years ?
In a d dition to these works many othe rs w ere
read during the two years at Annan In Engl ish h e rea d
27
2 6
2 5
Crabbe
M i ss P orter s Th a dd eu s of Wa rs a w
A k en s i d e
29
2 8
S cott s G u y M a n n eri n g and Wa t erl oo
Chesterfi eld Th e
hi s j aunty manne r but ill accorded w ith my sulky
S p ec t a t or
Hume s E s s a ys ( as a whole I am del ighted
32
w ith the
B erkel ey s P ri n c i p l es of Kn ow l edg e to
gether w ith numerous works on travel an d mathematics i n
33
cluding N ewton s P ri n c i p i a
Among French works h e read
34
35
Voltaire s L a P u c ell e
M oli ere s Com ed i es
and some few
extracts o f F é n el on s D i a l ogu es d es M ort s
Carlyle s e fforts
w ith Greek continued un fruit ful H e w rites to M itchell : I
am glad to hear that you a re getting forward s o w ell w ith
Homer I know almost nothing ab out him having n ever
read anything but P ope s translat ion and not above a single
book o f the o riginal and that several years a go Indeed I
know very little o f th e G reek at any rat-e I have several time s
begun to rea d X enophon s A n a ba s i s compl etely ; but al ways
”3 6
gave it up in favour o f something el se
At thi s p erio d there
37
l
i
we re a so Cicero s D e Ofii ci s a n d L u ca n s P h a rs a l i a
the lat
ter no doubt i n t ranslation
Hi s li fe at Kirkcaldy w as brightened by the c ompani onship
o f the gi fte d Edward I rving wh o p ossessed a good library
to
,
,
’
.
.
,
’
’
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
’
,
,
“
’
’
,
,
’
,
.
’
’
,
,
’
’
.
.
—
—
’
,
,
.
.
’
.
’
’
’
,
.
,
D
2‘
“
2'
e
d
.
1 bi d
.
Ib i d
.
V
,
,
,
.
So
35
1
6
2 0
is
”
ve
o
th
9
,
of
Wi e land s
2
.
i
.
,
2
3
3°
.
33
.
33
.
m t imp d nt
os
.
e,
1
,
1
7
u
e
,
b
s
.
,
32
.
,
34
.
,
2 1
.
,
.
,
e
3°
’7
.
Ibi d
Ob
2
e ro n
b
I id
.
,
or o
.
.
.
.
5
35
.
,
E a rl y
N t n
”
.
la ph ming libi d in
.
66
bd
Ib i d
Ib i d
Ib id
"
Ii
81
”
,
v ers o
’
.
the
.
i n
eb y s
; ib d
li d Ibi d
C n w ay Li f
e v er
‘5
lik it
I
Ib i
tl
es s
L et t ers
E a rl y
25 “
m
ou b
’
.
ou s
L e t t e rs
31
.
,
35
b
.
la k g a d that
c
u
r
8
I rving s library was o f great use to me ; Gibbon Hume etc
”3 8
We had
I think I mu s t have read i t almo st through
”3 °
M
L
ry too
ooks
from
Edinbur
h
ollege
ibra
athematics
C
b
g
“ 0
was giving way t o histo ry and oth erl ighter matters
while
the books mention ed in the early lette rs indic ate that he read
with avidity whateve r he could fin d in English and French
G ibbon and Hume were read through and probably R obert
“
i f he had not be en r ead earlier
The whole h istori cal
so n
triumvi rate are abunda ntly d estitute o f vi rtuous feeling— o r
”42
indeed o f any feeling at all
Carlyle read fict ion but w ith
diminishing pleasure except in the case o f S cott s novels in
Y ou have no doubt s een
whi ch h is int e re s t w a s still keen
”
C e rtainly Wa v erl ey
th e Ta l es of m y L a n d l ord he w rites
and M a n n eri n g and the B l a c k D w a rf were neve rw ri tten by the
“ 3
s ame person
The perusal o f e ight volumes o f S mollett and
others w a s a much harder and m o re unprofitable
than
the reading o f h i s tory ; and vet in spite o f h is develop ing taste
for more seri ous b o ok s t h e ea rlier pleasure in romantic sto ries
T h e other n ight I sat up till fou r
w a s not wholly d ead
O clock reading M atthew L ewi s s M on k It i s the most stupi d
”45
and villainous novel I have read for a gr eat while
L al la
R o ok h and Ch il d e H a rol d canto fou rt h w ere al s o a part o f the
r eading o f thi s period I n French there w e re P ascal s
8
“7
L et t res P rov i nc i a l es
M m e de S ta el s G erm a n y L a R ouch e
‘8
i f we may i nfer from a brie f
f o ucault
and
”
quotati o n from him
O n Irving s sh elves Carlyle say s
w ere t he small Di dot French Cl a ss i c s 1 n quantity
w ith my
a ppet i te
Eve r ything in fact in E ngli sh and French
was greedily devoure d by t h e ma turing young schoolmaste r
N o t books o f l i t era tu re only but o f mathe ma tics , theology
ph ilosophy and travel fi ll e d t h e spa re hou rs ; a n d t h e c orre
’
,
.
,
,
“
.
.
“
,
.
,
“
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
“
.
“
.
,
,
.
,
“
.
’
’
.
.
,
,
,
’
.
’
4
.
,
,
—
,
’
.
,
,
“
,
,
,
.
,
,
‘
,
‘
“
“
Rem
bi
I d
.
,
,
E a rl y
bd
Ib i d
Ii
‘3
.
E
a
b
r
II,
2
8
,
.
,
69
I id
.
,
L
.
.
e
69
8
“
L tt
.
ly
2
“
e rs ,
61
‘7
.
‘3
.
.
e t t e rs ,
68
.
43
“
.
bi
Ibid
Ib i d
Ib i d
Ib i d
I d
.
,
58
.
,
49
.
,
57
.
,
61
.
,
77
Rem
.
.
.
.
.
.
II,
2
8
.
10
from one R ob e rt Jardine o f G ottingen ( or rathe r A pplega rth )
in return fo r an e q ually slight tinctu re of the French whi ch I
”5 3
communicate
S i x weeks later ( M arch 2 9 1 8 1 9 ) Carlyle
I am s till at th e Ge rman ; I am able
w rites to his broth e r :
to read book s n o w with a d i c t i on a rv A t p r e sent I am read
ing a stupi d play o f Kotzebue s but tonight I am to have
the hi s tory o f Fr ederick the G re a t from I rving I will make
an a w fu s t ru ggl e to read a good deal o f it and o f the Italian
” 4
N o t lo ng a fte r h e re f e rs to
in summ er w hen at home
reading a little o f Klopstock s
still under th e
tutorage o f Jardine
Then came the two poet s who kindled h is enthusiasm and
awak ened a n ew intellectual l i f e S chiller and Goethe They
occupy s o large a place in the early l iterary li fe o f Carlyl e
and Goethe alone had s o pro found an influenc e upon h is spi r
i t u a l developm ent that it has been easy apparently for s t u
dent s to misconstrue t h e facts concerning h is first acquaint
ance with them P ro fessor N o rton who di d so much val
giv es the usual explanation in h i s
n abl e se rvice for Carlyle
introduction to the Goethe -Carlyle correspondenc e
P er
”
”
he says begi rt by doubts Carlyle fell
p l ex ed and ba ffled
”
in w ith M adame de S t a él s famou s b ook on Germany
From
her he learned to loo k toward Germany for a spi ritual l ight that
he had not found in modern French and E nglish
The first re f e rence to M me de S ta el s boo k occurs in the
57
E a rly L et t ers
wh e re Carlyl e w rites that h e has read thi s
w ork together w ith oth ers and where the context indi
,
,
.
“
.
,
,
’
—
.
’
5
—
,
’
“
.
—
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
“
.
,
,
,
’
.
’
.
,
,
n
,
L
E a rl y
e t t e rs ,
1 00
.
ga d i ng th i m nt i n f Ital i a I m y d d that F d ina at l y
a y that Ca l y l had t d i d It a lian d S pan i h ( L i f I
and
t i ll n at i fi d h h d
f a t n d hi m l f p n G man ; l a l y
p l a i ng b th th
l ng a g in p i nt f t i m b f
If Ca l y l
G man
h d
l dg f Italian b f h b gan G man it m t ha b n
y kn
light ; f in t h pa ag q t d ab
ll i n th pa ag ( E ly
h
L tt
l a l y i mpl i that h
lan
b g i nning a
g ag A f S pan i h h xpl i i tl y a y th a t h
l a ning S pani h
i th h i if a t C i g p t t k i n t h fa ll f 8 8 ( L t t
C f al
Japp L if f D Q i y 9
C
V III
p
E a ly L t t
S pt mb
8 7
5
“
s
“
Re
r
s
s
s
u
c
a
s
s
e
a n
ow
s
or
e
u
e rs ,
e.
w
s w
“
r
e
a
a
u
ss
s
o
ra
e
e
e rs ,
u
,
en
nce
1 1 1
.
s e
e o re
e
w e
oc
“
1
2
o rre s
e
er
es
ss
ar
n ew
“
e
r
s
ers ,
.
.
e
e
ee
ve
e
e
,
r
r
us
o
c e
.
,
e w a s
o
,
”
er
e
cc u r
er
o
w as
s
e
.
a s
e
e,
er
e
s
”
e o re
e
ov e a s
c
u
e
es
e e
,
se
o
r
2 0
rou
s
e
o
uo e
u
a
a n
es
c e
a
e
n ow
e
e
,
e
n
o
or
s
,
e
e
1 1 0
e
,
e
o
s u
es e
o
o
“
e
r
e
er 2
,
1
1
.
”
so
1 1
cates that he read it w ith no more definite purpose than to
grati fy a curiosity daily growing more acute At th is time
”
Carlyl e was not plunged in severe sp iritual w restlings such
as were to troubl e him some years later ; and th ere is no su re
sugg estion that h e went to M m e de Sta el for light o r that s h e
directed h im where to fin d it Yet the book evi dently made a
strong impression for a year and a hal f later ap rop os o f a n
other bo ok by the same autho r h e says o f he r that w ith all
h er faults s h e p ossessed th e lo ftiest soul o f any femal e o f h e r
"5 8
time
In 1 8 2 2 a fter some p rogress i n the study o f S ch iller
and Goethe h e re fers to m uch subl ime phil osophy in th e
”5 9
treati ses o f M adame d e S t a é l
Again in the same year he
w rites : th e M iltons the de Sta el s these a re th e very salt o f
” 6°
th e Ea rth
O f these re fe ren c e s only the fi rst antedate s
Ca rlyle s begin n ing o f German though th e second i s in th e
“
same letter that tells o f th e tutoring unde r Ja rd ine
Th i s
notice o f Jardine suggests that Carlyl e took up German in c on
n ec t i on w ith his study o f mineralogy ; and a passage i n a letter
t o Goeth e dated November 3 I8Z Q sustains th is vi ew
He
there says : I still remember that i t was th e de s ire to read
Wern er s M ineralogical D octrines in the o riginal tha t fi rst
s et me on stu dying German ; where t ruly I found a m ine
far
” 62
d i fferent from any o f th e Freyberg o nes
While i t i s there fore a mi stake to suppos e that Carlyle had
no interest in the German p oets be fore h e began t o rea d i n
thei r language ( h e must have read magazine articles upon
th em in addition to M m e d e Sta el s G erm a n y ) the facts sh ow
that h e came to them wh en he di d partly by accident and
c erta i nly not w ith any definitely forme d pu rpose o f seeking
”
S pi ritual light
N eve rtheless as the concluding clause in
th e lette r to G oethe tells us German l iterature di d co me to
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
’
—
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
'
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
"Ib i
b
d
9
Ibi d
3
Ca ly l e n th ght f t an latin g f m t h F n h L i f
d h
f M d m d S t el
f t a p p d ay h b y Jan
W l h i bi d 3 9
7
mT
h
i
f n t o S hill o G th
th G man
t
lit a y w it
i n t h E ly L t t s b f
8 9
Fo
C
p d
m h m d ifi d Opini n o M m e d S ta el
57
G m y se
ay o S t t of G m L i t t
I 3
“
I id
.
,
1 02
,
2
“
.
o
a
e s
a
er r
orres
er
an
,
s
r
r
e
.
ere
.
0.
e
,
5
.
a
1
,
no
o
‘
re ere
en c e,
e es s
ou
e
o
re e rs
r
.
s
o
ro
re
os e
e
es s
re
on
c
a
er
e
e
.
e rs ,
on
an
,
2 1
ce
2 0
,
e
1
n
ce
ar
c
e
r a
.
a
e
er
er
e o re
uc
er
r
o
an
oe
1
1
or
o
o
er
er
.
e
era
e,
o
u re,
,
n
0
.
.
c
’
s
12
An d
Carl y l e as an unlooked for revelation o f spi ritual t ruth
the raptu rou s outburst s a b out S ch iller and Goethe in early
lette rs add to the wei ght o f th i s t es timony
I could t e ll you
much about the N ew H eaven and N ew Ea rth which a slight
"
I hav e lived
s tudy o f G e rman literatur e has rev e aled t o me
riot o u s ly w ith S chill er G oethe and the rest ; they are the
S everal month s lat e r
gre ate s t men at pre s ent with
I still
h e w a s urging M i ss Welsh to read the s e autho rs
e ntertain a fi rm t rust that you are t o read S chiller and Goe the
with m e in O ctober I never met with any to relish th e i r
65
beauti es ; and s ympathy is th e very soul o f 1i fe
O n the
January previous Carlyl e in formed h i s brother that h e had
t ran s lat ed a portio n o f S chill e r s H i s t o ry of t h e Th i rt y Y ea rs
Wa r and sent it o ff to L on gm a n s and Company
67
tog eth er with proposals to translate the w hol e o f S chiller
A v ea r lat e r he w a s at work o n the critici s m o f Faust that a p
In
p ea re d in t h e N ew E d i n b u rg h R ev i ew for A p ril 1 8 2 2
1 8 2 3 4 t h e L i f e of S c h i l l er cam e o u t in the L o n d on M a g a z i n e
and b e f o r e thi s w a s fini s hed Wi l h el m M ei s t er was well unde r
8
w ay
Thus i t was that Ge rman unexpectedly opened Car
l y l e s path to a lite rary li fe It revealed to him as he s aid a
n e w h e av en and a new earth and gave him a go s p e l to p reach
to the E ngli s h people
But l o n g b e fore he had read S ch ill e r and Goethe Carlyle
h a d literary ambitions whos e b eginnings now b e come i m
p o rtant in the p re s ent study P ro f e s so r M a s s on tells u s that
du ring a walk he once had with Carlyl e h e rec e iv e d the i m
”
p re s s i on that Carlyl e s passion for literature came latish
and that h i s o riginal bent w a s mathematics ; but says P ro fes
s or M ass o n
I think w e are entitled to as s ume the literary
s t ratu m to hav e b ee n the de eper and more primitive in Car
lyl e s con s titution and the math ematical vein to have been a
63
.
.
.
,
“
.
.
”
.
’
’
,
.
.
,
—
,
6
.
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
’
“
,
“
,
’
,
‘3
“
2 2
,
“
"
C mp a
o
Ma
sso
a
n
,
th -Ca l y l C
8 3 l tt
Sk t h
3 4 Goe
,
u rg h
e
e c
r
es ,
2
e
,
o rres
e
.
rl y
bd
I i
2
°7
1 82 0
E
and
n E di b
re
.
,
L
1
et
49
t e rs , 1 7 7
.
o‘B
.
p d
on
e n c e.
dat d A g t 4
Ma n E d i b gh S k
ers
e
sso
Ib i d
.
,
u
n
,
2
83
.
us
ur
a nd
Otb
c o
e t c h es ,
er
30 7
.
13
”69
superposition upon that
The early letters how eve r th e
main source o f facts conce rning hi s development during the se
y ears convincingly sh ow that h is deep e s t lov e was literatu re and
that frequently h e co uld not help exchanging th e truth s
”
o f p hilo s ophy fo r th e airy nothings o f these sweet s ingers
in o n e place he speaks o f forsaking m athematics f or
as
70
H i s general r eputation as a m a t h em a
M oore and Byr o n
t i c i a n was not the r eputation which h e held among th e few
friends who knew hi m intimately Among the se h i s real orig
i n a l i t y and ambitions w e re recognized and h e was s et apart by
them for a li terary ca reer Thi s i s clearly shown in a le tte r
from Thomas M urray i n 1 8 1 4
I have had th e pleasure o f
receiving my dea r Carlyle your ve ry humourou s and f riendly
letter a l etter remarkabl e for vi vaci ty a S handean turn o f ex
p ressi on and an a ff ectionate pathos whi ch indicate a pecul iar
turn o f mind make sincerity doubly st riking an d w i t doubly
po ignant
A happy flow o f language eith er for patho s
description o r humour and an easy grace ful current o f i deas
app ro priate to every subj ect characterize you r styl e Th is
i s n ot a dulation ; I speak what I think Your letters w i ll a l
ways be a feast to me a varied and exqu isite repast ; and t h e
time I hop e w ill come but I trust i s far distant when th es e
our j uvenile ep istles w ill b e read and p robably applaude d by
a generation unbo rn and that the nam e o f Carlyle at least
w ill be inseparably connected w ith the literary h i sto ry o f the
”
nineteenth century
To wh i ch Carlyl e replie d : O h ! T om
what a f o ol ish flattering creature thou a rt ! T o talk o f
future eminence i n connection w ith th e literary hi story o f th e
nineteenth c entury to such a o n e as m e ! Alas my good l a d
when I and all my fanci es and speculations shall h a ve been
swept ove r w ith th e besom o f oblivion the l iterary h i story o f
no centu ry w ill feel itsel f the w orse Yet think not b ecause I
,
,
.
,
“
“
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
“
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
di b g h S k t h
Th
f a t f Ca l y l a ly li f pp t
4
7
thi pini n M ath mati
n m d m h f h i tim i
ll g
d f
fi
f
th a f t ; b t
ha
n h
t ngl y i
y a
fl
d in hi
f thi
h i
bj
t by t h
p i in t c ti n f L li
w h
app a t ha b n t h o nl y t a h t w i Ca l y l
“
E
s
ou r
n
ur
O
o
or
ve
" E a rl
e
s
e rs
y
es ,
e
.
u en c e
o
e c
rs
c
o ce o
o
L e t t e rs
e re
ve
,
73
ee
.
2
6-
cs
co
e
u
su
c s
e
su
er
s
e
.
,
uc
a s
c
er
s
ve
e
e
r
o
w e
ec
o
’
su
o
s ee
e s
e
r
e
n
co
e
,
er o r
n
w as
s ru
r
e.
e
e
e
su
or
a n
or
s ro
o
o
n
es
e,
14
talk thus I am carel ess o f l iterary fame N o ! Heaven know s
that ever s ince I have been able to form a wish the w ish o f
”7 1
S uch was Carlyle s dream
b ei n g known h a s b e en for e mo s t
o f a literary li fe when he was not yet nineteen and had been
s ca rc e ly a year o u t o f college
E ach s ucc e ed ing year strength ened hi s determination to b e
come a literar y man At Ki rk c a l d y his intimate f riends
among w hom w a s the romantic M argaret Gordon regarded
Carl y le as a young man o f great promise Stimulated by such
companion s hip he longed more and more to enter l iteratu re
though never w ithout m el a n c h ol v misgivings as to h is fitness
forwa rded to some magazine editor
A bout this tim e he had
in Edinburgh what p erhaps was a likelier little article ( i e
than a revi ew o f P ictet s Th eory of Gra vi t a t i on ) ( o f d es c ri p
tive tourist kind a fter a real tour by Yarrow c ountry into An
”7 2
When h e went
na n da l e ) which al so v anished without sign
to Edinburgh in 1 8 1 8 it w a s really to try hi s f ortunes in litera
"
3
ture ; though he was too keenly al ive t o its uncertainties to
”
t rust to i t a lone
M ineralo gy i s to be my w inter s work
he writes to M u rray on leaving Kirkcaldy
I have thought
o f writing for booksellers R is u m t en ea s ; f or a t t i m es I am
s erious in thi s matte r
In fine weather i t do es strike me that
there a re in th is head som e i d eas a few d is jec t a m em bra which
might find admittance into some o f the many publications o f
the day To liv e by Authorship was nev e r my intention
have meditated an attempt upon the p ro fession o f a lawyer or
A s Carlyle thus stoutly s et his face
o f a civil
toward the S cott i sh cap ital in pursuit o f his i deal h i s p ros
”75
peets were indeed no t the brightest in nature
but he had no
suspicion that he was about to begin h i s four or five most
”7 °
miserable dark sick and heavy laden years
Because o f the misconception th at has obtained concerning
this c ritical period in Carlyle s early li fe we need to keep the
facts accurately be fore us He took w ith him to Edinburgh
several introductions to men likely t o help him one o f wh ich
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
’
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
F
ro u d e ,
Lif
II
2
,
bd
I i
.
,
2
32
I
e,
35
,
.
2
—
9
30
7‘
.
E a rl y
"E
7'
.
a rl y
R em
.
,
L et t s
L e t t ers
er
II, 5 9
87
,
.
,
Cf
.
88
.
.
R em
.
,
II, 6 0
.
,
1 5
"
was to D r B rew st e r editor o f th e E d i n b u rgh E n cy cl op ed i a
A littl e later he secured a letter to Bailli e Waugh a bookselle r
78
about to start th e N ew E d i n b u rgh R evi ew
Th e door to lit
e ra t u re however di d n o t o p en at once an d h e w a s compell e d
to take up other and dreary empl oyments I rving got h im
”79
some p rivate t eaching
which lasted scarcely more than
two month s an d which w a s followed by m ineralogy a mo urn
”
”8 0
f ul study
Every p rospect o f w riting he says in Feb
up to p resent date has been frustrated by my
ru a ry
1 81 9
”8 1
inability to p rocure books eithe r fo r criti ci sing or consulting
In the same month came a call from B rewste r t o translate a
”
French pap er on chem istry
Have it mo re than hal f done
he writes hom e
B e fore I began it I was busied about s ome
”8 2
other th ing ; but what w ill be the up shot o f it I cannot say
”
other thing though re ference
N othing indeed came o f th i s
t o it i s evidence that Carlyle was striving for exp ression in h i s
o riginal way O n fin ishing th e translatio n for B rewste r in
M arch h e says
I w ish I had plenty more o f a simila r k ind
”sa
to translate ; and good pay for doing i t
B ut th ere was n o
more w ork at hand and the future l oo ked dark
M y p ros
p ec t s are s o unsettled that I do n ot o ften s i t down to b oo ks
w ith all th e zeal I am capabl e o f You are not to th ink I am
”8 4
fret ful
These words a re ominou s o f the deep dep ression
that was fast fixing itsel f upon Carlyle s m ind a dep ressio n
greatly aggravated all th e wh ile by the tortures o f dysp ep sia
It was soo n a fter thi s that h e rem oved h i s books to M a i n h i l l
farm fo r the summer wh ere a s Froude says h e wande re d
”85
about the moors l ike a restless sp irit
R eturning to E dinburgh in the autumn imp roved i n h ealth
and unrelaxed in pu rpo se h e not only continued to look for
l iterary work but enrolle d himsel f i n
th e class o f S cots
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
“
,
.
“
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
“
,
" E a rl
" Ib i d
n
I
b
I id
"
“
.
cce
,
i
91
,
" Ib i d
.
“
96
.
,
Ib i d
.
,
95
.
,
1 02
.
.
Ca l y l i n d p n d n at thi tim
th
pt a t t hip b a
p i
ff
d
1 0
Ib i
y
.
Ib i d
a
to
L et t ers
d
Ib d
.
99
,
r
.
u ors
6
.
.
’
e s
e
ec
e
use
e
ce
e
s
r ce
is
e
o
e re
s
h
w as
ow
n i n hi
f al
n gh
t high
s
no
e
.
,
1 0
5
,
1 0
8
“
.
“
.
Ibi d
F
.
,
1 1 0
ro u d e,
.
L i fe
,
I, 5 5
re u s
.
ou
.
16
law
thus signi fying h i s int ention to attach himsel f to a
table pro fession B ut stabl e p ro fessions w ere never to hi s
s
ta s te o r habits ; and j ust as he had renounced p reaching an d
teaching he soon q uit the law finding it a va s t and th o rny
”
de s ert where there are uncounted cases o f blockhead A
”8 7
i
blockhead
ur
ng the wint e r h e searched fo r
D
B
v ers u s
l iterary employment and ventured an anonymous paper for
”
the E d i n bu rgh R evi ew
I have n ot been so diligent o f late
he tell s h i s mother D ecemb e r 2 9 1 8 1 9
on account o f a
paper I am writing wh ich I have a de s ign to o ffer for pub
N o one is aware o f it s o you need n ot mention
l i ca t io n
the circumstances ; but I c a n s ee well enough that to th is
”8 8
point m y chie f eff orts should be directed
In M arch 1 8 2 0
h e reported h imsel f at work up on articles for D r B rew ster s
E n cy cl op ed i a th e fi rst instalment o f the sixteen short bio
graph ical papers beginning w ith M ontaigne and concluding
with Will iam P itt He so ught diligently for further em
ployment for t ranslating for a n y kind o f literary work but
w ithout success Failing to find substantial t h ings to do or any
”
tongue for hi s deepening intellectual li fe thinking in fact
th a t a ll avenues were closed against him Carlyle s mind b ecame
The thought that one s
a prey to gloom and despondency
best days are hurrying da rkly and uselessly away is y et mo re
grievous [ i e than solitude ! It i s vain to deny it I am alto
gether an unprofitable creature Timid yet not humbl e w eak
yet enthusiastic ; nature and education hav e rendered me en
t i rel y unfit to force my way among the thick -skinned i n h a b i
”
19
tants o f thi s planet
This account o f h i s mental condition i s
followed a few days later by a letter to hi s brother Aleck in
wh ich he s ays that h e could enj oy the coming o f summer i f he
.
,
,
“
.
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
’
,
’
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
“
E a rl y
" Ib
id
Le t t ers
1 1
,
9
" Ib i d
.
.
,
1
44
.
l ng l tt f a d i f m I ing t Ca l y l (
F d
L if I 5 9 ) m y ha b n infl ntial in nn ti n ith thi fi t ff t
t
gai n ad mi i n int t h pag
Fr d
f th
E di b gh R i
mm nt i that Ca l y l
l
ag t gi h i th ght t ng
that I i ng pp d ( ib i d
B t t h l tt
f thi p i d h
that
I i ng
t i n ga d i ng C a l y l mind
ma d p t a n h i
li ing b y iting F Ca l y l all i n t thi pap
E ly L t t
e,
.
,
1 2
5
e
o
ve
a
,
o
ss o
co
rv
w as
v
7,
su
a nd
,
II,
es
w as
.
re
or
.
.
e
e
2
33
ro
es s
o
e
e
er
u
,
r
r
co
e s
ec
e
e rs
e s
us o
o
r
e v ew
ou
s
o
s
"
E a rl y
s
L
u
1
ar
-
34 5
‘
s
o
.
e
on
,
s
er s ee
e t t e rs ,
rs
er o
e
rou
s ee
s
as
o
e
w
ur
ve
’
r
’
o
n
o
e
5
.
rv
ue
”
c o rre c
R em
v ce
ee
r
os e
w r
er o
o
“
s
e
rv
1 2
A
.
o
e,
or
’
e s
ue
’
ow
e
r
s
e
e rs ,
18
they h ave all failed ; I have about twenty more to try ; and i f it
do e s but please the D i rector o f all things to continue the m o d
e ra t e share o f h e alth now restore d to me I w ill make th e doors
o f human society fly open be fore m e yet notw ithstanding my
p etard s will not burst or make only n ois e when they do ; I
must m ix them better plant them more j udiciously ; they s h a l l
”96
bur s t and do execution too
But opportunity for literary
employment had al ready brightened the future and had caused
him to write cheer fully t o h i s fath e r : M atters have a more
p ro m i s ing appearance w ith m e at the p resent date than th ey
” 97
have had for a long season
Waugh had sent him Joanna
Baillie s M et ri c a l L egen ds to revi ew a task which he exe c uted
in t h e form o f an article p rinted i n th e N ew E di n bu rgh R evi ew
A t th e end o f M a y Irving
fo r O ctober o f thi s year
took Carlyle for rest and recreation upon a trip to Haddington
”
where h e fi rst met Jane Welsh
Those three o r four days
” 98
h e s ays
were the beginning o f a n ew li fe to m e
Thus the sto rm -clouds blew over and thus happ ily ended
what has correctly been called the darkest p eriod o f Carlyle s
l i f e It i s in this period that Froude placed the sp i ritual con
fl i et the Baphometic fire-bapti sm d e scribed i n S a rt or Th e
bi ographer says that the doubts wh ich had stopped Ca rlyl e s
”9 9
divini ty c areer were blackening in t o thunderclouds
an d
that he was passing th rough th e st ruggle wh ich i s always
ha rdest in the noblest m inds which Job had known and D avi d
”1 0 0
and S olomon and ZE s c h yl u s and Shakespeare and Goethe
O ther biographers p robably echoing Froude have likened
th is spiritual revolution to the sudden illumination o f P aul 1 0 1
1 02
and o f Constantine
Th ey re fer to the E v erl a s t i n g N o o f
S a rt or a s the authentic record o f Carlyle s mental changes at
th is time ; and Froude exp ressly re fers to the sp iritual mal
” 1 °3
adies which were t h e real cau s e o f h is di s traction
But
t h e published lett ers o f Carlyle w ritten at this period have n o
re fer enc e s to s u ch p ro found spi ritual unrest as i s thu s a t
,
,
,
,
.
.
’
,
,
.
,
“
.
,
’
.
,
.
“
’
,
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
“
.
”
’7
“3
“
b
Ib i d
I id
.
.
Rem
L if
e,
1
,
1
,
.
,
60
56
1
.
II, 8 7
I, 5
1
bid 54
”
G a n t L if
Ni h l L if
L if I 8
1 0°
.
.
Cf
.
E
a
rl y
Let t
e rs ,
1
69
.
‘0 3
.
I
.
.
,
r
e
c
o
e,
5
,
e,
2
,
e,
32
,
1
.
.
.
1 9
tributed to him ; wh ile th ey do re fe r frequently to b odily ail
ments and to failure t o fin d th e right w ork I t i s true that h i s
m ind was changing that he was stead ily moving aw ay from
th e faith o f h is fathers an d that S ch iller and Goethe w ere
revealing a n ew heaven and a new earth In Carlyl e i n t ell ec
tual advance w as inevitable B ut i t i s a mi stake t o fi x upon
thi s period as th e cri si s o f th e revolution and to maintain that
t h e ch ie f cause o r any really dete rm ining cause o f hi s di stre ss
was a questioning o f th e t ru th o f revelatio n or o f th e exi stence
1 04
L ong be fore thi s
o f a moral P rovi dence in the uni verse
”
time Gibbon had torn f rom h is m ind th e last remnant o f
1 05
and in 1 8 1 7 h e h a d s ev
h is ortho dox bel ie f in m iracles
”
ered hi s last f eeble tatter o f connection w ith D ivin ity Hall
becau se at that time h e was i ndi ff erent on that
The truth seems to b e that lack o f w ork , failure to advanc e
toward the goal o f h is deepest ambition s an d to find exp ression
for th e surging li f e w ithin w ere th e main s ource s o f Carlyl e s
harrowing discontent A n d th e unbroken progress o f the n ext
few years add to th e evi dence that h i s religi ous l i fe underw ent
no convulsive trans formation
Th ough n o new task awaited h im on h is return to Edinburgh
f ro m Haddington h e resume d the o l d ( p ro bably the articl e on
the L eg en d s fo r Waugh and more biographie s for B rew ster )
w ith a zeal that b etokene d new hope
Within th e last th ree
”
w eeks he w rites in August
I have w ritten almost as much
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
“
,
“
,
“
’
,
.
.
,
.
,
63
d b gh S k t h
R m
f i bi d
Th
II 3 9 ;
n
i n k t h d in S t C
9
l y l ay i
ith n thing lit all y t
pt t h
y m b li al m yt h all
"
in i d nt i n R S t Th ma d l E f
d L if I
By
(F
ym
I nd
tand Ca l y l t m an that t h pi it al nfli t th
b l i l m y th
d
i b d i y mb li f t h t ggl that all in q i ing min d ha t
d
at m p i d f th i g th
him l f pa d th gh
d that h
f hi
in t h g n al
a l y manh d B t n
i n i n t h P a lin
f hang
f
n
li gi
b li f
F d
th
m t in f
d
th
n n at thi tim ; d i f th
h i t am at a
y
lat p i d i n t h mann d i b d in t h R m i i
Th
( II
in i d nt i n L i t h W l k w a t ggl f ill
m o al
t
f b li f
tl ith him l f t w h th h
l d ntin t h e fight t ma k a
l i ing b y lit at
i n pit f th n a l y
h lming d f at f t h
pa t m nth
1“
F
,
e
e
s
c
.
“
s
s
e
e
s
e
er
c
w res
e
o
s
er
o
s
e
w
se
er
s
.
u re
es c r
as
a
as
o
s
a s
o
rou
e
er
.
.
e
e
e
r
e
u
e
o
w
co
se
co
o
an
e rs
co
o v e rw
no
o
en
rou
e
s ee
u
e
e r,
o
c
e
e
,
e
e
ue
e
o
ss e
n s c en c es
,
e re
ve
suc
e
s
c
v e rs o
an
w e re
e
w ou
e
u
ex c e
s
e
e re
s ru
e
e
,
an
e
er
an
“
,
r
2
ar
“
u r
,
es ,
a r or
ru e
e s
e
e
e c
e
e,
e,
e
oo
e
ur
er
ro u
r
ou s
e c
s
o
o
ro w
E in
,
v ers o
er
e
s ru
e
re
e
e
o
c
n
r
s e
o
e
e
s
o
’
co
w
,
c ou rs e o
er o
e
c
e r
o
e
.
”
o
e
v
s
er o
c
w as
0
,
e rs
o
e
.
.
u
M ass on
.
.
o
,
so
e re
s
”
u re
se
c
ue
es c r
se
I, 5 4
,
,
,
ca
o
L i fe
rou d e ,
—
a
r
o
e e
s
e
o
e
20
as I had w ritten be fore in the whole course o f my natural
”
times there were as there
N ervous and spi ritless
would always be for Ca rlyl e ; but o n the w hole th e succeeding
months w ere pa s sed in j oy o us indu s try I n N ovembe r ( 1 8 2 1 )
B rewst e r gave him L eg endre s E l em en t s o f geometry and
”
trigonometry to tran s late a canny j ob when it was begun
but thrice weari some when nearly finished O f thi s task
08
h e w rites :
which brought him fi fty pounds
I have set
fai rly to work and am p roce e ding lustily not in the whimp er
”1 09
ing w avering fe ebl e hobbling style I used ; but stoutly
With the new year ( 1 8 2 2 ) through the friendly h elp o f I rving
who was now in L ondon Carlyle obta ined the tutorship o f
1 0
Charles Buller s two s on s at a salar y o f two hundred pounds
H e liked the Bullers and co ntinued h is teaching for more than
two years finding i t a pleasure rather than a task
the mo re
more s o since it afforded hi m much t ime for hi s literary p ro
jec t s now multiplying encouragingly He re fused an o ff e r t o
e dit a D undee newspap er at one hundred p ounds a year and
accepted from Waugh a commi ssion to w rite a paper on F a u s t
He had go od reason there fore to w rite ; full o f business
even to ov e rflow ing w ith pr o j ect s o f all sorts be fore m e and
s o m e few rational hope s o f ex e cuting a definite p ortion o f
”1 1
them I feel very cont ente d in my usual state
B ut contentment for Carlyle was never o f long durati on
and he was the last man to rest s ati s fi ed with the hackwo rk he
w a s now doing
An unre s t settled up on him t h e unre s t o f an
original m ind conscious o f its p owers but consciou s al so o f its
”
un fruit fulnes s Fo r months he had been ri ddling creation
for a congenial subj e ct Back in D ec ember 1 8 2 1 while work
ing upon L eg en d re he w rote home : The evenings I d e sign
to devote to original com p o s ition i f I coul d but gather m y
”1 1 2
sel f
In the next Feb ruary he sai d : I designed to s et
about w riting some Book sho rtly ; and this ( at which I must
ultimately arrive i f I ev e r arrive at anyth ing ) w ill o f necessi t y
,
.
’
“
,
,
“
.
“
1
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
1
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
1
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
“
,
,
“
.
,
1 0’
E
a
rl y
Rem
1 11
m
b id
.
Le t te
II,
,
I
.
,
Ib i d
.
,
2 0
1
1 0
6
86
rs ,
.
.
6
1
74
“9
.
m
.
Cf
.
2 0
7
.
I
ha
ve
pl nt y
e
5
0 7
13?
bd
Ii
of
.
,
L et te
1
90
o ff e rs
rs ;
1
86
'
.
f m
ro
B ook s e
ll
ers .
"
21
”1 1 3
require to b e po stponed greatly
I t seems quite i n d i s p en
”
sable he told Jane Welsh in M a y
that I s hould make an
e ff ort soo n ; I shall have no settled peace o f m ind till
M ore sign ifi cant a re the words to h i s mother some week s later
I have al so books to w rite and th ings t o s a y and do i n th is
wo rl d wh ich few wot o f Thi s h a s an ai r 0 f vanity ; but i t is
n o t altogether s o ; I conside r that my A lmighty Author has
given m e some glimmer ings o f superio r understanding and
mental gi fts ; an d I shoul d reckon it th e worst treason against
H im t o neg lect improving and using to th e very utmost o f my
”1 1 5
pow er these Hi s beauti ful m erci es
In a study o f Carlyle a s a critic th e characte r o f thi s fi rst
p ropo sed composition h a s consi derabl e importance since it di s
closes the direction o f hi s original ity Earlie st p roj ecte d and
h i s t o ri co—biograph
longest deliberated was a bo ok on a
"1 1 6
th eme fo r which h e began reading ea rly in
i cal
and which he outlined several month s later i n a letter to M i s s
”
Welsh : Four month s a go he w rot e I had a splend i d
plan o f treating the history o f England during th e Common
w eal t h i n a new style not by way o f regular narrat ive fo r
which I felt t oo well my inequality but by gro up ing togeth e r
th e most singular mani festations o f m ind that occurred then
under distinct heads selecting s om e remarkable p erson as the
rep resentative o f each class and t rying to explain and illus
trate thei r excellencies and de fects all that was curious in thei r
f ortunes as in divi duals o r i n th ei r formatio n as m embers o f
the human fam ily by th e most striking methods I coul d devise
Already my charact e rs w ere fixed upon L aud Fox Clarendon
Cromwell M ilton Hamp den alr e ady I was busi ed in th e
study o f thei r w orks ; when that w retched P hilomath w ith h is
sines and tangents cam e to p ut me in m ind o f a p ri or engage
”1 1 8
ment
Thi s passage reveal s the same essential characte r
i s t i c s in the man o f twenty -seven that w e find in the man w ho
at sixty -three published hi s fi rst instalment o f the li f e o f Fre d
erick the Great Unhapp ily w ithdrawn f rom h i s plans by the
.
“
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
“
“
,
,
—
—
,
—
,
,
,
,
.
—
,
,
,
,
.
.
1
" Ibi d
.
Ib i d
.
Ibi d
.
m
’1 ‘
,
2 02
,
2 1
7
.
,
2 2
3
.
.
“7
1 “
bd
N t
I i
.
,
2 1
7
.
o e -B oo k s ,
E a rl y
2
L e t t ers
3
,
-2
2
9
60
.
.
,
22
call from Bre w s ter for L eg en d re Carlyle had neve rtheless no
”
hop e o f finding complete rest until fairly overhea d in t h e
” 1 9
composition o f s om e va l u a bl e B oo k
Hi s letters to M iss
Welsh during thi s period constantly re fer to literary hopes and
aims all o f which w ere destined to be frustrated for a long
time to come O ne o f hi s schemes how ever deserves special
mention s ince it s trengthens th e imp ression which w e get
from the preceding account o f the abandoned biograp hi es
N ext I thought o f some work o f imagination : I woul d paint
in brie f but vivid manner the ol d sto ry o f a nobl e mind strug
gling against an igno ble fate ; some fiery yet benignant spi rit
reaching forth to catch the bright creati on o f hi s own fancy
and breaking h i s head against the vulga r obstacles o f thi s
lowe r w orld But then what knew I o f thi s lowe r world ?
Th e man must be a hero and I could only draw th e materials
R ich source s o f such material s! Besi des
o f him fo r mysel f
i t were well that he died o f love ; and your novel -love i s become
a p er fect dru g ; and 0 f th e genuine sort I coul d not un dertake
to s a y a
Fortunately for the world and fo r Ca rlyle he was obliged
t o give up his scheme o f novel wri ting i n favor o f other tasks
now rapidly accumulating Irving opene d the way in the
L on d on M a ga z i n e for a li fe o f S chiller ; and almost at th e
”
same time ( early in 1 82 3 )
Boyd the pursy B oo kseller
”
w ishe d him to translate G oethe s Wil h el m M ei s t er which he
”1 2 1
had told Boyd w a s ve ry clever
B ut t hese encouraging
p rospects together w ith the B uller tutorship served in th e end
only to i ntensi fy his re stlessness and to p rec ip itate a second
th ough a shorter p eriod o f despair I t was now the accurse d
”
hag dysp epsia rather than the want o f congenial literary oc
cu p a t i on that brought Carlyle to the brink o f suicide
Com
position n early always a harrow ing toil w ith him became a
22
kind o f night mare
In the mid s t o f such distresses t h e year
,
,
,
“
,
1
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
—
.
’
,
“
.
,
,
,
“
.
!
.
,
,
1
1
"I d
m
bi
.
,
2
35
2
61
1 21
.
,
2
66
.
n t it ( i
M i t ) ith t h f
i ty f a h y na ( i b i d
I
ld f q ntl y
a th at I am t h g a t t d n in ati n ;
k i ng
f a pa ag aph i l i ttl b tt
than t h lab
f a G l dm k
;
at and t i l a nd k p t d i
i g i l and at l ngth th
n
m
t f
t t d m lt i ng p t an ing t f lid p t
( ibi d
“
d
I si t
t h e c oo
the
.
.
ow
c ou
I sw
b id
I
e
o r u re
o
re
o
.
ue
r
o
e s er
sw e
r
ee
e
e. ,
- o
e
r
e
s
e
w
e
ou s
o
—
e
v
0
e roc
re
er
e
e
,
so
ew
er
o
es
”
e
u
ce
c re
or o
e re ru
”
.
,
.
o
s
o
a
ou
cr
ro
,
23
and the fi rst an d second pa rts o f S c h i l l er w ere fin
i s h ed w hil e not long a fter ( i e January 1 8 2 4 ) cam e f rom
”
the L o ndon Ti m es th e firs t public nod o f app roval he had
1 23
ever had
The last o f S chiller w as soon o ff h i s hands fol
low ed speedily by the M ei s t er With a dra ft o f o n e hund re d
eighty pound s ( the paym ent for M ei s t er ) and a letter o f intro
ducti on to Thomas Campbell Carlyle sailed June 5 1 8 2 4
from E dinburgh fo r L ondo n to j o in the Buller s
This fi rst L ondon vi sit di d not fill h im w i t h resp ect fo r hi s
f ellow cra ftsmen nor di d it m uch imp rove hi s ch ances fo r s u c
cess in literature I rving introduced h i m to many o f the l ite r
ary celebrities including Co leri dge th e fattish ol d man on
H ighgate Hill w ho mumble d myste ri es about Kant an d
”1 2 4
The fi rst letter from Goethe c ame at thi s tim e and
Co
Carlyle received i t w ith a m ixture o f sentiment and humo r :
”
Almost l ike a message from Fai ry L and h e tell s M iss
1 25
Welsh
I was very glad to h ear f rom th e ol d blade i n
”
1 26
s o kind though s o brie f a fashion
h e tell s h i s broth er A l eck
B ut these flattering attenti ons di d n o t mean soli d pudding a n d
a sta rt on th e right road T h e S chille r gathered into book
f orm was publi shed i n th e late w inter o f 1 82 5 and brought
n inety pounds and great di sgust t o its auth or exp resse d i n
h i s re fu sal to attach h is name to the book and in h i s w illing
ne ss a fter he was paid to let th e th ing l ie and ro t till th e
”1 2 7
To disgust wa s added momenta ry w rath
day o f D oom
”
w hen
a luckless wight o f an op ium eater
D e Q uincey
”1 2 8
wrote a ve ry vulga r and brutish R evi ew o f M ei s t er
By
w ore
on ,
.
.
,
,
,
“
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
—
,
.
,
,
“
,
.
,
“
,
“
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
“
,
.
“
,
,
.
m R
em
ak h
t in h i n t e-b k ; it k pt
4
m
h f l f an h
l m w
thi
H
( N t -B k
f light m y b j d g d f m a pa a g i n t h e n t b
k itt n a f w
y
th
da y b f
j t q t d
s ms d p
My
d bla k
than that f y man ; t b i mm d in a tt n a a
n
y a
f w hi h i
hang d int
inl t f pain ; till m y int ll t i b
d
d
w ak n d
d m y h a d and h a t
ali k d lat
ha v
d da k
H
-B
Id
d thi ?
N
t
k
(
S
iginal k t h f C l i d g F d L if I 7 9 O th
h m
h m t
Campb ll C ab b R b in n B a y C n all
”
" I
E ly L t t
8
bi d 3 4
3
”
Ibi d
3
3 3
e
c
.
,
II,
1 1
e er u
I
.
or
am
ou r
”
v e ry w e
”
e w ro e
,
o e
oo
s
s,
o
ow
“
oo
w e co
e
e
a s
s
,
ra
o
a
s
e o re
e
o
o
c
e
e
,
e
1
ee
e
on e
us
e
or
o e
e c
e
e
ers ,
u re
e
o
r
,
1
oo
o e—
c ou rs e
‘
e
e
.
e
”
s
ss
uo e
e
s
2 2
ro
o a n
an
w ere
ar
e
o
c
es e rv e
’2 ‘
u
a n
s
e
e
ro
e
c
o
r
a re
e
es o
w r
ee
er a n
rc
e
ss,
ec
e an
’
e
e
ev er
s
o
r
.
c
er
ve
ue
s c u re
an
ow
e
s,
o er
o
e,
so
rou
e,
e,
rr
,
or
7
.
.
,
.
,
1
.
ee
oo
w
2
.
2
.
1
,
.
.
ers
w
o
24
“
sp ring ther e fo re Carlyle longed t o l eave L ondon
I desire
to b e w ork i n g h o ne s tly in my day and gen e ra t ion in thi s bus i
n e ss which h a s now b ecome my trad e I make no grain o f
doubt that in time I shall p en etrate t h e f ence that ke ep s me
back and find t h e place which i s d u e to me among my fellow
men We shall s ee : I am not at all in a hurry ; the time w ill
”
0
come
Th e time w a s almo s t at hand D uring the succeeding
period at H o dd a m Hill ( t h e summ e r o f
p erhap s th e
”1 3 0
mo s t t riumphantly important o f my li fe
Carlyle was not
only busy t ransla t ing h is S p ec i m en s of G erma n R om a n ce ( for
which he had contracted be fore leaving L ondon ) but he was
also again f ev e ri s hly eager to pro duce an original wo rk
Ala s ! th e matter lies deep and crude i f it lies at all w ithi n
my soul ; and much unweari ed study w ill be called for be fore
I can shape it into form Yet o u t it shall come by all th e
”1 3
l 32
powe r s o f D ulne s s
The proj ect o f a l iterary n ew s p a p er
and a propo sal to secure the edito rship o f the S c ot s M a ga
i n e le ft a wreck from the failure o f the Ballantynes w ere
alike rej ected In t h e autumn o f 1 8 2 6 h e married Jane Welsh
and remov e d to E dinburgh where the s pectres o f unrest still
haunted h im and the w ish t o b egin some book o f my own
1 33
became a kind o f d emonic possessio n
H e did in fact start
a novel the plan o f which he had s ketched four or fi ve years
previou s ly
Heaven only know s what it w il l turn to but I have
”
1 34
sworn to fini s h it he wrote
But Wot t on R ei n fred ( such
was the book s name ) though daily on the anvil re fused to be
hammered into right shape and had to be s et as ide for a new
”5
en t erp ri s e ?
This c ame as the result o f a visit to Jeffrey
From Barry Corn w all Carlyle had obtained a letter o f i n t ro d u c
tion to the gr eat man who r eceived him in h i s kindest
”1 36
style
o ff e r e d t o introduc e h im to S cott and s poke about
wr iting in hi s
Carlyle asked Je ff r ey to read the
.
,
,
.
,
.
1 2
.
.
“
,
.
“
,
,
.
,
1
'
.
’
r
—
—
.
,
.
[
,
“
.
,
.
’
,
,
.
“
,
,
1
”
,
b id
I
1 3"
R em
’3 “
1 1
Fo r
-1 2 0
9
’3 ‘
m
.
,
v
II,
a
1 3‘
.
79
1
i
r ou s
sc
h m
e
es
of
i g i nal
or
e rs ,
.,
46
2 0
.
a
rl y
I
.
,
wr
1 37
.
E
b id
iting
"
Ib i d
1 3“
.
1 3
.
L tt
Ib i d
e
,
.
6
32
L et t e
3 43
1 bi d
,
.
,
2 2
2
3 39
o e
.
3
.
.
.
N t -B
s ee
.
rs ,
o ok s ,
7 7 80 ,
—
a nd
CH A P TE R I I
I DE A LS
OF
T
L
I ER
AT U RE
O ur s tudy o f Carlyle s early li fe with especial re ference to
’
,
effo rt s to enter the fi el d o f l iterature h a s brought to l ight
c e rtai n impo rtant p reposse s sions E nvironment education an d
early struggles combined to develop a S cottish nature hardly
matched in its uni on o f intellectual power w ith moral intensity
To what ever ta s k he turned Carlyle was almost sure to bring
to the ex ecution o f it an earn e stness so vehement as to deter
mine the direction o f h is int ellectual energies H e l oved litera
ture from the fir s t and he r ead i t w i dely and insatiably ; but
h i s liking for t h e l iterature o f pl easure s oon gave place to a
p re ference whi ch in later days amounted to a p rej udice fo r
the literature o f e d ific a t io n I t was the consum ing a m bition
o f his early manhood to write an o riginal wo rk which was
c e rtain to be ethi cal in i t s purp ose whether i t took th e form o f
novel v e r s e or es say Thi s o riginal bias o f m ind deeply in
fl u en c ed Carlyle s literary and critical ideals
H e always
favo r e d lit e rature t hat carried w ith it an ethical or a sp i ritual
content and he was l ik el v to b e d eficient in sympathy w ith
a man o r a bo o k th at di d n o t a rouse hi s moral nature
It w a s mor e from n ec e s s i t v than from deliberate intention
that Carlyle becam e fo r a p er i od o f years a criti c o f literature
By long m e ditatio n and by int en s e study o f German l iterature
and ph ilosophy he had fo rmulated a go s p el wh ich he w ished
to p r e ach to the Engli s h people Had he been free to ch oose
hi s own time an d method undoubtedly Carlyl e would not have
sel ected the review article or the critical es s ay as the me dium
o f h i s message
N eces s ity le ft him n b alte rnative
But into
compositions w hich w e re w ritt en to meet t h e needs o f th e
hour b e po ur e d s o much o f h i s heart and mind that they have
su rvived to thi s day w ith s carcely dimini s hed vitality an d re
main a s a n o table achi ev ement in E nglish literary criticism
The m es s age that he l ea rned f rom literature and ph il osophy h e
h is
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
26
27
communicated in the form o f a ph ilosoph i cal c riti ci sm o f liter a
ture In all o f h i s essays there fore fro m fi rst to last there
w i ll be found a consi stent body o f literary an d critical doc
trine which rece ived an emphasis varying w ith th e time when
it w a s exp ressed and w ith th e author to whom it was appli ed
It i s the purp ose o f the p resent study to ex po und th is d octrine
or body o f l itera ry and c ritical i deal s We shall fi rst consi de r
thei r nature an d sou rce and their relation t o contemporary
criti cism We shall next show how th es e i deals determ ined
Carlyle s attitude toward the l iterature o f romanti ci sm These
larger and mo re general aspects o f th e subj ect w ill be followed
by some account o f Carlyle s place as an introducer o f G e rm an
literature into E ngland and by an exposition o f five o r s i x o f
h is greate r essays to show h ow he applie d hi s p rinciples to the
Finally we shall point
i nterpretation o f individual autho rs
ou t hi s change f rom crit ici sm to p rophecy an d shall have a
brie f w o rd to s a y concerning his stren gt h an d w eakness as a
criti c o f literature
Carlyle once declared that all re a l Art i s definabl e as
”1
Fact or s a y as the d isimpri soned S oul o f Fact
T hough
h e made thi s declaration in 1 867 i t exp resses a f a ith wh ich
h e held from the beginn ing o f hi s litera ry caree r Fact i s
synonymou s w ith truth o r as h e says in S a rt or i t i s eternity
l ooking through time It i s th e fun ction o f a rt to reveal th i s
”
We cannot but bel ieve says Carlyl e tha t there i s
truth
an inward and essential T ruth in Art ; a T ruth far deeper than
th e di ctates o f mere M ode and wh ich could w e p ierce th rough
t h ese di ctates w ould be true fo r all nations and all men
To
arrive at thi s Truth distant from eve ry o n e at fi rst a pp roach
able by most attainabl e by some smal l number i s the en d a n d
”2
a i m o f all real study o f P oetry
All poetry o r literatu re
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
’
.
’
.
,
.
“
’
‘
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
“
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
1
E s s a y s , V II,
,
2 2 o.
ay s t h e w d a t i
ns
d in th
Fi t
in t h ab
it m an ganiz d t th
n d hap d
th
min d d p t
i th
al m aning ( E a y II 4 ;
; thi
IV
S
d a
n d l y it i
m
f in g t o
w ith f
y n ny m
w hat
all d lit a y m it
thi
q nt
d d m it
i
t inf
in t h a li
ay ( E y IV
Thi dl y t i
m an fi
d t
t
lpt
m i
p t y ; thi u i a v n i n t h ea li
ay
2
E s s a y s , I,
rs
in
as
,
’
e
s
.
ee
e
e
scu
e
r
er
u re,
( E s s a y s II
,
,
In
ov e
ec o
a re c
,
99
e
,
ar
1
es
Ca ly l
pa ag
r
ss
es s
es s
s
er
ssa
or
or
es ,
e
s
u se
s
er r
u s c,
e s
re c e s s es
,
“
’
s,
oe r
s
s
s
a n
s
s
or
o
ru
er
s
r re
s ee
s
,
a r
e
e
an
ss
or
s :
r
,
ree s e
e
ou s
,
se
s u se
e
e usu
e
s
r
u se
s
a s
,
s
u se
e
es .
s
s,
e
2
,
re e rr
no
re
o
r
ue
e
er e s s
ne
s
28
terms a re s ynonymou s in Carlyl e ) i s an apocalyp se o f
man and o f natur e
It may w e ll enough be named in
f
o
style
a
continuous
r
velation
the Godlike in the
e
h
t
e
s
Fi c
”
T e rre s trial and C o mmon
P oetry i s thu s identifi e d w ith
philoso phy w ith w i s dom w ith religion Its aim i s to incor
e to h is
the
ev
rlasting
eason
man
in
forms
visibl
f
o
R
e
p o ra t e
”
T h e tru e po e t i s both a philosopher and a see r
S en s e
Go e the i s n o t a mere poet and sw e e t singer but a M oralist
”
and P hilosopher
In R ichte r P hilo s ophy and P oetry are
”
blend e d
N o valis i s philosopher as w el l as poet because h e
st rives to r e veal the un s een For a c o ntrary reason Voltai re
”3
i s only
a popular s w eet S inger and Haranguer
B ut
wh ether Carlyl e calls t h e literary artist a poet o r a ph ilosopher
he invariably think s o f him as a see r and not as a maker o f
ab s tract sy s tems o f thought Ev en when h e goes s o far in
h i s essay on G e rman playw rights as to declare that a cousi s
”
tent philosophy o f li fe is the soul and e ssence o f all poet ry
h e m eans only that the poet shoul d consistently and habitually
deal w ith real iti e s not with fanci e s w ith what has been lived
not with what has been dreamed L i terature is concerned
4
w ith truth
H e o es 5 1 ; E s s ay s I 2 1 ; II 49 ; I 9 8 ; III 4 ; II 6
Th e m e an i ng o f t h e w ord re al i t y in Ca l y l e o r i t s
E s s a y s II
4
( th e
,
“
,
.
’
,
.
.
,
,
“
.
.
,
“
.
,
.
.
“
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
’
r
1
,
‘
,
1
,
1
,
,
2
.
r
.
,
hi
t th f a t t li f
m t hi f t m hat
int t hang f m l i t at u
i t i i m t bi g aphy and p ph y
d
a li
a y th
t m g n all y ha an xa t f n t
I th
i t i al phil phy and m an m thing t an nd nt a l hil
th
G man
i n t h lat n
al i t y m t m an nl y hat h b n l i d that i
t th hi h h pa d th gh h man xp i n
B t
n th i Ca l y l
ga d
t an nd ntal in t h g n al n
Th
i d ntifi a ti n f p t y and ph i l ph y
mm n am ng t h
manti
it b th in G man y and E ngland It
aim
th
y
h t mak p t y y n n y m
i th l if in i t t tal i ty t h e n f
ial thi al l i gi
and ph i l ph i a l th ght T th i ff t P f
B y
q t f m F i d i h S hl g l mani f t in t h
nd n m b
f Th A t h
m m th
gan f t h R manti S h l in G man y ( E ay
G ma L it
t
Th
it i ng f R i ht and N a l i
f ll
f th i
n t i n Th
i t i i m f W d th C l i dg d H azl i tt f
q ntl y i n l d it ( W d t h l i t a y C i t i i m d Ni l 5 7 65
i dg L i t y C i t i i m d M k i l 7 3 8 3 ; H azl i tt W k
7 ; C l
V O P t y i G a l pa i m p
in D Q i y d
It i
al H f d A g f W d
S h ll y
S
th I t
XV
e
q i al nt
1 1
,
,
2
,
,
u v
e
e res
c
e
e
n
r
w
c
s
a s
r
re
e
c
e re
s oc
o
c
en
o
er
n
s
o
ue
1
c u
1
e
e
se
r c
r e
e or
c
o
e
c
cr
or
c s
s w or
s
or
o
’
er
s
c
o
o
r
e
s,
e
r
r
s ec o
er
e
,
es s o r
er
s
ss
s
a re
u
re
a n
co
.
o
u
.
ov
e
ce
ro
ec
e
er
c s
ev er
es s e
e
o er
,
e
e
s
oo
c
sw or
w
o
,
es o
s
o
o
s
o
o
.
’
e w r
u re ,
e
e
e
s
ou
c
ce
,
ev e
w a s
e
os o
,
ve
co
.
w
e
ee
u
w a s
os o
ou s
o
s
ere
.
.
er
,
es
se
oe r
o
ro
.
er
re
c
sce
as
c e.
ec
ro
r
er e
s
a s
r
e
w
e
e
e
o
e
o
ew
so
ve
so
e
u
ou s
e s
oe r
.
rou
oe r
u
o
s
o
er
e
s
o
c s
cr
e
s
,
2
2
,
,
1
.
’
o er
n
,
s
o
e ra
o
er
e
re
u o es
e
on
e rs
,
es e
s ee
o
e
e
,
a n
sse
c
w r
re
s ee
e
,
er
re
sce
o
e s en
o
r
a r
,
os o
a s
e
ro
s
c
es
c
,
ro
es s
er
er o
ru
as
cr
e
ru
h
es
er
e
w
suc
,
ee
e ra r
n
so
e n er
er o r
r
c s
ss
,
’
s
e
,
,
o
e
es
a c
.
.
or
2
a
,
1
,
s
,
s w or
1
,
,
n
ro
e
.
,
.
u
nce
or
s,
an
29
Carlyl e sometimes i dentifie s th is truth i n a rt w ith beauty
but not by entering the mazes o f aestheti c th eory as do S ch ill er
5
an d Goethe nor by beli eving w i t h Keats that wh at th e
”6
To del icately
imagi nation seizes as B eauty must be Truth
spun system s o r for m ulas h e was opposed An d w e canno t
th ink o f him as s eeking truth i n art th rough th e senses
Truth comes to u s intuitively by a synthesi s o f th e reason I t
is as Wordsw orth also h eld a p roduct o f the c reative imagina
tio n Thi s h igher truth originating fro m w ith in Carlyl e o ften
speaks o f a s beauty We fi nd him re ferring to a un iversal
”
and eternal B eauty and defining taste a s a s ense to d iscern
”7
and a hea rt to love and reve rence all beauty orde r go odness
”
Critici sm he says pretends to clear o u r sense to di scern
”
Eternal B eauty
Under th e influence o f Goeth e s poetry
th e w orld o nce more h a s beco me a solemn temple where
”8
The op en secret i s no longer
the sp i rit o f B eauty still dwells
a secret to the poet ; h e know s that th e un ive rse is full o f good
”
ness and that whatever has being h a s beauty
A w izard
”
b eauty Carlyle says dwells in the fragments o f N oval is but
9
in the art o f H o ffmann there is none
Wh ereever it i s named
beauty i s thought o f a s the c reation not o f a m in d working
from w ithout amo ng sensati ons but o f one working from
w ith in among i deas B eauty i s there fo re indi stingui sh abl e
”
from tran sc endental truth and h as the same spiritual value
It i s an integral part o f thi s doctrine that poetry an d p ro se
are the same an d that meter i s an ornament not a necessity o f
1 1
p oetry
Carlyle i s not dea f to th e m elody and harm ony i n
,
“
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
“
,
,
’
“
,
.
“
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
“
“
“
N
B
o t e-
Ke at s
ooks ,
36 41
W
o rk s ,
,
E s s a y s , I,
9 5,
IV , 4 6
2
E ss a ys
.
30 ,
2
“
.
60 ; III,
62
1
c f.
I, 3 4 ;
,
E s s a y s , I, 4 4
,
55
i bi d
.
,
47
.
.
.
f
a m y ti i n h i
h n pt
t th b a t y g d
I th
n
a li
a y th
t m
hang abl y
d int
d th
i
l f t h ni
at n g d d b a ti f l d t
L at
d
p iall y h n t h
m d t
gg t dil ttanti m d fi
d b a ty
a t h g n all y mpl y d t h t m t th (
alit y ) al n
A n th
f hi
i n tan
m y ti i m i i n h i t atm nt f p t y
m i al
th ght ( H
f
al t h ph a
M i
f th
U ni
77 ;
E
IV
i a V i
mi ng t
f m t h L and f
S ha k p a
y
f S h ll y
M l dy ( E y I
ph a
E t nal m
i D f
;
E
11
7
y
f P t y
1°
Ca l y l
1
I
—
r
es s .
n
s ou
es
e
ec
e
,
ce
s
ss a
e
r
c
e
e
er
o
s
”
s,
,
2 1 2
er
an
u
s ee
e
er
re
c
.
“
r
e
e
es
or
e
e
’
s
r
ru e
o
s,
,
1 0
.
e
an
er
.
an
e.
“
er
u s c
v e rs e ,
e
ro
a n
ne
o
a s
e
u s c,
er
oo
,
s
oe r
us c
u
,
o
o us
se
ss a
e
re
“
e
,
e
o
“
se
ru
a n
u
o ce co
1 1
,
a s
erc
u
re
s
s
su
o
s
so
e
ru
s
.
ce
a re u s e
s
oo
e
e
co
ce
e
c
es
ssa
e
c s
ero e s ,
,
oe r
o
su c
o
es e
w or
e
s
s
s
e
u se
s
er e s s
v e rs e
u
o
s,
e o
s
w
”
ou
is
e
o
r s
o
e
”
”
o
e en s e
30
ong o f the po et ( no c ritic has given h igher o r j uste r
p rai s e to the s ong s o f Burn s ) but h e thinks that th e musi c
”1 2
come s from an expre s sion o f M usical Thought
He d oe s
not attribute it to the poet s mastery o f measured language
In but a single instance does he use th e name po etry wh en
3
re f e rring to S cott s poems
H e usually speaks o f the m as
rhymed o r metri cal romanc e s and o f S cott as a so ng-singer ;
making it appear on all si des that he does not consi der S cott a
poet in the s en s e i n wh ich the word is u s ed in h is critici sm
Vo ltaire the repres entative poet o f t he eighteenth c entury
1 4
in France i s not a p oet but a prosai st
The dramas o f Grill
z e r though written in verse are n ot poetry ; and Grillparzer
a
r
p
is not a dramatist but only a playw right who w rites i n
Writing that fails to carry truth t o the reade r i s
n o t poetry
whatever i t s form Writing that conveys truth
i s poetry wh ethe r its language i s metri cal o r unmetrical Car
l yle there fore regards Goethe s Wi l h el m M ei s t er and Boswell s
1 6
L i fe of J oh ns on as poetry
R ichte r who w rote n o verse
is yet a P oet
The prose fictions o f N ovali s are poet ry
a n d passages from H ei n ri c h v on O f t erd i n en illustrate h im
g
”1 8
in h is character o f P oe t
The true artist may use what
speech he w ill ; but his position as poet i s determined by the
9
i
h
s
worth o f
mes s age
The theory that the s ole function o f poetry i s to reveal t ruth
o r beauty carries w ith it the notion that th e p oe t i s a seer
th e
s
,
.
’
.
’
1
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
“
,
,
.
,
.
’
’
.
,
,
,
“
.
1
.
.
‘3
H
s
1
s s er
o
E ssa ys
P hil
os o
.
i n in
Es s a ys ,
s cu s s o
ph
1
9 4 6 ; IV , 7 8 , 8 1
—
V
,
1
—
in
1 0
,
“
e :
9
E s s a y s , V I, 5 5
is
70
a ll y
re
.
an
n ot
E s s a y s , II, 9 1 ;
c f.
ex c e
11,
1 0
pti n
7
o
to
.
.
J an P a l
e
ist
u
‘8
,
a
Es s ys
g
ei n
II,
,
D i c ht er
ro s s er
2 2 0
und
.
an f h i m ag that i in t h h i
f h i m at e ia l
th
t l i mit d t
p ti
l a f bj t
p
n R ality m y b
f n d in t h m an t pla
am ng t h h mbl t p pl Th
ay
B n m y b
ga d d f m
p i nt f i
a d f n ( again t t h
ap l g i t f t h
h l f J ff y ) f h mbl mat ial
p p f
p t i t at m nt ( E ay II 3 5 ; I
l l al ng that t
C a l y l d t i n i mpl i
lit at
i
i
a d
f am
th a t t h l i t a t
m nt i
at
i n t h l gitimat n
t lit
1”
d li
He
c f.
( We rk e
”
67
1
‘5
III, 5 9 ;
,
II,
.
"E
ss a ys , I
,
‘7
’3
—
di
ti n
Th e
th i a
77 78
e ro es ,
In t h e
e
oe
e
e
s
o o
oe
c
ce o
s no
ou
ur
v er
a
e s
e
( Es s a ys I
,
e
e
’
,
o on e
es
re
o
re
r
e
e
s s
e
r
sc
ss
oc r
er
u re
47,
2
c es
e
c
oo
,
es
8 2 ; II, 9 8
,
—
1
1
o
o
,
s
1
or
u
e rs o
es
v ew
u
o ce o
s.
eo
a s
r
e
e.
e e
e
s
er
,
a
e es s
se
e
on
s
as
ro
s
s er ou s
er
e
or
,
o
e
42
o
e c
ec s
e
re
a
use
su
o
e
1
s,
o
on e
o
s,
e,
ss
or
ro
e
o
es s
s
ru e
no
er
u re
8 4 ; III, 8 9 ; V I,
er
u re
e
e
e
se
n
se
31
’
Thi s notion fills s o large a place in Carlyle s l iterary cre ed that
w e must di scu ss it here even though it w as touched upon in a
previous paragraph
A seer i s an artist w ith th e gi f t o f
vi sion an artist as Carlyle says in G oet h e
in th e high an d
an c ient mean ing ; in th e meaning which i t may have bo rn e
long ago among the masters o f Italian painting and the
f a t h ers o f P oetry i n E nglan d ; [ in wh om ! w e trace s om e
”
”2 0
touches o f that ol d d i vine S p ir it
Th e true P oet h e
s a ys again
i s ever as o f o l d the S eer ; whose eye has been
gi fted to discern th e go dlike M ystery o f God s Uni verse an d
decipher some new l ines o f its cele s tial w riting ; w e can still
call him a Va t es and S eer ; fo r h e s ees into th is greatest o f
secrets the o pen secre t ; hi dden things becom e cl ear ; h ow
th e Future ( both resting on E ternity ) i s but anoth er phasi s o f
th e P resent : thereby are hi s w ords in ve ry truth p roph etic ;
”2 1
L ike th e p oet th e man
what he has spoken s h all be done
o f letters also i s a revealer o f inner an d essential truth
an d
Ca rlyl e appl ies to h im Fi eh t e s chara c ter ization :
M en o f
l etters are a perp etual P riesth ood from age to age teaching
all men that a G od i s still p resent i n th i s li fe ; that all app ear
ance whatsoeve r w e s ee i n th e world i s but a v esture fo r the
D ivine I dea o f th e World for that wh ich li es at the bottom
”2 2
o f appearance
Thi s po w e r t o s ee t ruth fu rn ishes th e
criterion by whi ch Carlyle estimates th e wo rth an d rank o f
every w riter who m h e seri ously conside rs from M us aeu s to
Scott
Th is faculty o f vi sion as Carlyle conceives i t i s th e sup reme
gi ft It means in t h e fi rst place that its p ossessor is a thinke r
”
not a dreamer
At botto m it is the P oet s fi rst gi ft h e says
”2 3
as it i s all men s that he have i ntellect en o ugh
True
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
,
“
,
,
,
’
,
’
‘
,
.
,
,
’
“
.
,
,
’
,
,
’
‘
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
“
,
,
’
,
m
E s s a y s , I,
H
80
1
.
21
E s s a y s , IV , 44
.
Cf
i n
p t
R i
d p t y in W t t
8
f d L t W d
Thi l f t y id a o f t h p t nat
45
d
fli
w
mm n t a l y manti i m p iall y i n G man y P f
B y
ay
Thi xaltati n f t h p t ab
t f h i ki n d
th
f a p ph t p i t
thi a mpti n f t h ffi
d in pi d
d th
k i n d d laim t x mpti n f m t h
l
hi h g
n
f m al
d minant f at
dina y m
i n t h R manti S h l
E
y
22
re
o
e ro e s ,
ce
as
es en
s
on
co
s
o
Ger L i t
en ,
.
,
32
—
a re
e
o
1
r
d
s cu ss o
e
s
.
ro
e
e o
o
8
the
1 2
s
o
s
.
o e
“
s :
r
s,
o
c
.
.
or
s su
re
or
45
as
,
o
1
i
.
on
o
c s
o
o
ce o
ro
e
es
,
oe r
e
r es
,
e
ru es
u res
H
e
ec
oe
23
.
an
e
e
ro
o
oe s
e
ero e s ,
o
oe
’
s
e
re s
a n
s
re
or
s
o
97
c
.
o
c
s
s e e r,
w
oo
a n
ro e s s o r
.
ov e
e n
u re
er
o
on
c
”
.
,
a n
e
ov e r
ssa
s
32
po e try i s alway s t h e q uint e ss ence o f general mental rich es the
pu rified r es ult o f strong thought and conc eption and o f refined
“
H e calls parti cular attention
as well a s powe r ful emotion ?
”
to S hake s peare s superi o rity o f Intellect and to Goethe s
”2 5
all -piercing facult y o f Vi s ion
By int e llect Carlyle di d n o t
mean as did many E ngli s h critics o f hi s day some indi vi dual
faculty or pow e r w orking as it were in i s olation to p roduce a
p ret ty fancy or sentiment H e meant the entire m ind a s a
singl e int e ll ectual force w ith all its faculties acting in concert
to c r eate arti s ti c wholes Goeth e s poetry he says i s the voice
2 6
When he speaks o f mor
o f the who le harmonious manh ood
ality in a po et or o f moral purpose in a p oem there fore Car
lyle i s never thinking o f something d etached and apart A rt i s
moral because intellect and morality are indistingui shable in
2 7
A rt i s ind e ed the creation o f the poet s
th e sound m ind
whole mind in its moments o f clearest vi sion but it i s at p re
2 8
c i s el y those moments that the m ind i s m o st moral
This faculty o f insight o r vision means in the second place
that the po et or think e r works by p rocesses mysterio u s and
incommunicable Carlyle s noti on o f arti stic creation i s care
fully fo rmulated an d h a rrn on i z e s w ith hi s entire ph ilosophical
th eo ry o f poetry The best and fullest stat ement o f i t occu rs
in the essay called Ch a ra c t eri s ti cs :
,
,
’
’
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
.
Of
Think ing h d la
might y it i b t t h e m
pp er
w
f a that
hap int a ti lat Th ght
nd n ath t h
gi n f
i
a g m nt and n i
di
li th
gi n f m ditati n ; h
it
i d pth d ll hat ital f
i
if
i
q i t my t
; h
a ght i t b
at d and t m l y man f a t d d mm ni at d
k g
i int ll i g i bl
m t th
M an f a t
b t t i ial ; C ati n i
g at d ann t b nd t d Th i f t h D b t
d D m n t at
m y
w h m w
ank
th
l
t f t
thin k
kn
hat h h
d n
d h
h
d i d it t h
A t i st
h m
nk a t h high t
t ; m
kn
t p ak f In p i at i n
th d ial t
d in
th
all h i
k th
gi ft f a
su r
ou r
w e s
e
co
s
u e
u
s
us
e
o
o
c
L if
“
Lit
ss
Lif
era
Z‘
29
o
ay
e
e
I
,
1
1
50
s
e
re
e re
s
s
r
r
o
1
69
8 0 ; II,
i
,
I 5 6,
Es sa ys
,
IV , 4
e
ru e
w
,
an
s
w e
on e
e re ,
us
e re ,
co
u
c
e
ow s
ra
w
s
e
o
o
o
n
e
s r
e
,
s
o
re
or a n
or
o
o
r v
ers ,
o
n
a n
u
a
re
e
e
c u re
e
,
e
o
e,
,
1
1
25
.
8 ;
71 ;
H
H
eroe s ,
98 , 7 3
e roes ,
41
H e ro es
1
,
.
8 0 ; II,
1
9, 5
1
; IV ,
,
or
.
as
e
es
er
ec
9 8 ; E s s a y s , IV ,
.
,
99 ;
2 0
,
L ec t
.
Ess a ys
er
ere u
u
o rc e
e
o
e
—u
o
u
us
o w es
s
v
w
.
,
.
,
o
f S c h l l er
t u re ,
ers o o
e
ou
c u re
o
e
i
o
u
e
f S c h l l e r,
s,
u
sa
es
s
no
,
s
e
e
w e
,
e
us
cu
s,
a s
ow
r
.
r
w or
e
"E
1 ’
a
no
s
on
o
re s ,
s c ou rs e ,
e
e
o
a n
ow s
o
s c ou s
c re
c
e
e,
2‘
e
w or
a n
,
e
s e r ou s
o
ec
e
,
ce
r u
re
”
48
.
u r es
on
the
1
Hi
78
.
s t ory
o
f
34
”
“
the S pirit which i t i s employed to bo dy forth
The
”
There i s no uni
w ord that he speaks i s t h e m a n h imsel f
”
form o f e xcellence say s Carlyle all Genuine things are what
”3 6
Again th ere fore Carlyle returns to an
they ought to be
”
ethical standard
In poet ry he says we have heard o f no
secret posses s ing the small est effectual virtu e except thi s o n e
general s ecr et ; that the po et i s a man o f a purer higher richer
nature than oth er men ; w h ich higher nature shall itsel f a fter
earne s t in q ui ry have taught h im the p roper form for embo dy
ing its in s pi rations as in de e d t h e imperi s hable beauty o f these
w ill shine with more o r less d istinctness th rough any form
”3 7
what e ver
The proces s o f artistic creation wh ethe r w e
speak o f form o r o f content o r o f bot h thus integrates w ith
Carlyle s theory o f poetry The o bj ect o f the poet i s t ruth
H e di s covers it by h i s faculty o f vi sion or insight H e bodies
it forth b y means o f th e creative process Th is process i tsel f
a product o f the highest intell ectual culture w orks m y s t e
ri o u s l y w ithin the innermost recesses o f the mind
where it
weaves the app ropriate garment fo r the truth which has been
88
revealed
Now that we have be f ore us the principles underlying Car
lyle s ideals o f lite rature it i s p r oper to say someth ing o f thei r
source The doctrine thus far p r esented is a coherent one
but it i s not original M uch o f it may be paralleled in Aris
t o t l e in Horace a n d in the critics o f the I tal ian R enaissance 3 9
The idea o f poetry a s a higher philosophy the idea that i t de
pends for i t s vitality upon thought rather than upon form and
that meter i s not an e s sential and distin gui sh ing chara cte ri sti c
and the regard for poetry ch iefly as an interp retation o f li fe
and a guide to conduct these are idea s wh ich were taught an d
beli ev e d hundreds o f years be fore Carlyle gave expression to
them But there is no e vi dence that he was directly indebted
of
.
.
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
.
.
—
.
—
,
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
3
"E s
s a ys, I
,
37
1
a
E s s y s , II,
6—
1
1 1
5
7,
1 2
8 ; IV , 6 2
—
H
63 , 8 7 ;
e ro es ,
—
6
9
97
.
t that A
W S hl g l l a n d
B nd p int
p f t t h i q h a n in a d i gi n ( M a i C
idg ay th a t
gani f m i innat ( L i t a y C
"
C f S p i nga n L i t a y C i t i i m i t h R i
38
ra
e r ec
r
e
es
ec
s
3
.
o
n
s
ue
“
s
r
,
ou
.
a s
or
w
c
er r
or
r
”
or
s
r
c s
e
c
.
e
r
er
e
e
f m
ro
r
G oe
II,
u rre n t s ,
n
e
n
e
.
i
ri t i c s m ,
e n a s s a n c e,
II
.
th
e
that
C l
“
o e
35
to critics a n d th inkers o f a f ormer age H i s lite rary creed h a s
I t ow es its o rigin to r o mantici sm and
a much later parentage
to some o f the sources from which ro m anticism itsel f sprang
In its attitude o f revolt from neo -classi cal standard s in its
glorification o f p oets and poetry i n i ts declaration that geni us
h a s a right to choose its own p ath Carlyle s romanticism e x
p resses a general agreem ent w ith the new literary movements
I t di ff ers w i dely from much o f
o f the n ineteenth century
th e romantici sm in Englan d ( that o f S cott an d Ke a ts for ex
amples ) in that i t rests upon definite doctrines wh i ch go
40
back to t h e transcend en tal philosophy o f Germany
B ut i t
has mu ch in common w ith ro m antici sm in Germany because
romantic i sm began among the G erma ns a s an organize d mo ve
ment establi shed up on p rinciples derived mainl y f rom Kant
and f rom th e w ritings o f Schille r and Go et he Th e o ri gi nal
source s o f C a rlyle s doctrine th ere fore take us back to th e
transcendental ph ilosophy
T he G erman l iterature o f h i s day says Carlyle owes its in
sp i ration to t h e c ri tical philosophy created by K a nt an d devel
oped by Fi chte and S c helling
S uch m en as G oethe and
”
S chiller h e says c annot ex ist w ithout e ff ect in a n y literature
o r in any centu ry ; but i f on e ci rcumstance more than anothe r
has cont ributed to forward th ei r endeavors an d i ntro duce that
higher tone into the literature o f G ermany i t has been th is ph il
” 41
0 5 0 p h i ca l system
The fullest interp retations o f th i s system
to be found in the essays are in Th e S t a t e of G erm a n L i t era t u re
a n d in N ov a l is
Its general outlines are w ell kno wn I t i s
opposed to th e sensational ph ilosoph y o f L ocke and to the
skeptical philosophy o f H ume because as Carlyle says it
” 42
commences from within
Space an d time are fo rms and
matter has no real existence Th e visibl e worl d i s but a
.
.
.
,
,
’
,
.
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
“
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
“
.
.
Wh ere Ca rl y l e s i d e al s
ith th
th
f W d
d
C l i d ge a mm n o igin m y b f n d i n G man phil ph y d
lit at
Ca l y l h d a l
pini n f C l i d g
a thin k b t h
tainl y h d a d t h B i g ph i L i t i ( g II
d h
m t ha p fit d b y C l i d g
iti i m ( g H
th gh I
fi d
in d i ati n f d i t ind b t d n
Th
al
m i
t
ti g
p n d n b t n S h ll y th i
d Ca l y l
40
’
o er
er
co
,
u re.
a
ve
can
n
e re s
“
n
e
r
c er
us
o
r
a
no
c orre s
e
e
c
o
o
o er
o
e
s
o
c es
.
o
ra
w
e
o
o
’
e s
re c
es e
ou
o er
e ra r a
cr
e.
e
es s .
e
e
“
’
s
e
e
c s
e
o
or
er
o
a
e w ee
E s s a y s , I, 66 ; IV , 3 6
p nd
a
ow
re
ro
c o rres
.
.
,
.
,
,
a n
os o
a n
er,
a n
I, 6 7
.
u
a n
,
e ro e s ,
e re
e o r es
Essa ys
a s
s w or
e
e
ou
a re
so
r
so
’
e s.
e
n
36
shadow o f th e etern al mind Th e un iverse is there fo re spirit
ual thro ugh and through God and man are the only realities
E ven the individual ego i s only a light -sparkle floating on th e
ether o f d e ity Truth reality or fact ( it m atters n o t wh i ch
term w e u s e ) i s appreh end ed by man intuitively that i s by the
”
inward ey e o f rea s on the m ind s supreme faculty ; whereas
”
all practical and mate rial knowledge such as comes w ithin
the ken o f logic is th e product o f the understanding a u se ful
but a lo w er o rgan o f the intellect In this transcendentalism
t h ere i s a mystical o r poetical mingling o f the systems o f Kant
“3
Fichte and S ch elling
The terms reason and understanding
us e d s o frequently by Carlyle in his criticism a re Kantian in
origin but the mean ing which t hey carry in the essays i s d efin
“
i t el y F i c h t ea n
T h e notion o f l iterature as a revelation of th e
“5
d ivine i dea and o f th e poet as a seer is also Fichtean
From
Fichte i s derived th e theory o f artisti c creation a s an u n c on
sc ious p rocess S ince space and t ime are forms
D eity i s
omm ip res en t and eternal
and app rehended by reason work
ing in its own m ys tical manner a statement o f F i c h t e s doc
trine o f the infinite sel f Trace Carlyle s sp eculations where
w e w ill w e are ce rtain to emerge up on a path that leads
straight to the transcendental philosophy The thinker o f
Cra igen p u t t oc k l ived in a shadow -world far more real to h im
than the gray moors which surroun ded hi s solita ry home
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
’
“
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
“
.
,
’
—
’
.
,
.
.
Ca l y l p babl y n
b t h
ad ab t
W
d
G l h t
“
r
e
u
da s
ro
e re
e s en
es
ev e r
Kant
ou
e e
re
ad
Kant
all id
on
s
th
Cr t q u e
s
He
es .
( E s s a y s , I, s o )
r en
ii
’
a nd
rou
q t f
f
u o es
he
gh
m
ro
( N o t e-B o ok s
t o Fi c h t e
re ers
Ub er
’
Fi c h t e
,
s
Wi s s en
'
s
h lling i a l y f d t ( E
I 7 ; H
y
Ca l y l f l y
d t h Kantian t m
a n
and nd tand i ng b t
ga d a n t i n a t i tl y Kanti an n
Kant n
d ni d t h
i t n f matt and h main d a ali t C
l y l thin k ing f t h m t p a t i i d nti al ith t h
i d ali m
b j ti
f Fi ht ( i
h i
l l in all a Fi ht an ;
nl y alit y d
m i th
i
b t th
nat
fl x f
in a d f
t
I 8 9
; S
S m tim
h
int p t t h
l d i n t m f S h lling b j ti i d al
i m
h n h ay that t h ni
aliz d Th ght f
i
th
s cha
sa
f t s l e h re ( E s s a y s
s,
1
,
u
11,
,
2 0 1
ero es ,
ers
e v er
e
r
u
,
Sc
,
e
a s
,
re
e ex s e
e
r
s
e
ree
re
r re
u se
so
ce o
s
e
er
no
,
re e rre
o
s
re
s r c
er
e re
s
so
se
e
re
s
se
ar
.
’
e s
o
or
c
e
u re
o
s
G od
”
.
w
H
,
e
e
e
s
os
re
e
e roes ,
75
s
s
a nd
e
e
o
ou r
e
s
e
e
ou r
w
er
u
w
e
ow n
w or
c
r
s
v ers e
e
s
s
“
e
ve
’
s
re
e
re
a r o r,
e
c
ec
e o
o rc e
o
su
o
e
,
ec
s
,
an
,
,
ve
e
ou
o
.
C l i dg
o er
E s s a y s , I, 5 0 — 5 2
iti i m
’
r
’
s
c
e r re s
e
r
a
R e a s o n in Ca l y l e s
Ha z l i t t
“
.
u
es
a s
,
“
s
e
e
.
e
cr
c s
is
ab t
ou
q i al nt
u v
to
e
’
e s
.
“
.
e
E s s a y s , II,
2 0
5
.
i magi na i n in
t
o
.
37
B ut Carlyle s debt to S ch iller to Goethe and to the Germ an
romanticist s was also very great We shoul d not be exc eeding
the t ru th i f we sai d t h a t he bo rrowe d h i s i deas concerning t he
nature and fun c tion o f poetry fi rst from t he p oets and a fter
ward traced such as w ere funda m ental back t o t he philosoph ers
It i s not how ever the purpo se o f thi s s tudy to explore m inutely
th e w i de fiel d from wh i ch Carlyle gathered h is i deas These
i deas strewn broadcast everywhere acte d a s a po wer ful fer
t i l i z i n g in fl uence ; and no i m portant m in d in G er m an literature
at that p e ri od came to fruition w i thout receiving from the m a
q uickening impulse We shall there fo re b e content here to
point out but a few o f the literary origins such a s are u n qu es
t i o n a b l e and easy o f access i n th e essays themselves and leave
others to be re ferred to in later chapters as oc casion requi res
The i deals o f m odern German p oetry as Carlyl e i nt erp rete d
them in h i s essay o n Th e S t a t e of G erm a n L i t era t u re a re p ra c
t ically i dentical w ith tho se whi ch w e have s et fo rth in th e p re
Th e p assage wh ich he quotes from S ch iller s
c eding pages
47
A few
L et t ers on t h e E s t h eti c E d u ca t i on of M a n i s notable
sentences f rom thi s w ill illustrate th e close correspon dence b e
tween Sch iller s d oc t ri n e a n d Carlyle s
A f t er an art is t h a s g ro w n t o m a n h oo d u n d er a d is t a t G r ec i a s k y s a y s
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
.
’
’
'
.
n
n
hill l t hi m r t r int h i c t ry
h
t
t
d light
h i pr s
ib l l ik t h S
f A gam mn n t
p i fy it
; b t t
f hi
k h w ill ta k
matt
f m t h p nt ; b t th i F m h
d i
f m a n b l tim
m b y d all tim f m t h ab
y f
L t th
n hanging nity f h i a t r
rtis t l a to
tan d ing hi h i h
at h m t h p in
U nd
f t h e a t al ;
h
by
ti
niting t h p i b l
ith t h
ss a ry t p od
Sc
e r,
e en c e
s
er o
e r ve
u
e u
e
w or
ro
o
c
,
s r v es ,
e
s
w
e,
e
e
e
e,
er
s
c
en u
s
e
o
u
e rs
o
e rr
u
s
n
n
u
e
no
e
o w ev e r,
,
e
o
e
ro
os s
e,
e
w
,
on
rov
e
e
ur
o
e r
e,
e
e
o
u
e
o
o
re s e
e.
ere
s
,
ro
na
u
on
“
a
ce
or
e
e
n ec e
ve
c u
o
,
o
it
r
by
Th e
.
ro
“
,
ill
l t
m
hil
e w
so u
e
ere
e
w
u ce
the
th ese sentences w e ad d s till others f rom Th e L i fe of S eh il
l er ( 1 7 5
whe rein Carlyle inte rp ret s the p oet s i deas co n
cerning the natu re and function o f l iterature w e may s ee that
Carlyl e must have recei ved both i deas and i nsp i ration fro m
S chiller
The huge a rray o f de fin i t i on s and techni cal ter m s in
S ch iller s w ritings on aesth eti cs rep elled Carlyle ; but in certain
If t o
’
,
.
’
Ca l y l q t
w h l
( L if
f S
Ess ay s I 48
r
o e
e
u o es
e o
c h i l l e r,
‘8
,
,
t he
.
pa ag e t i
l
7 6 ; Ess y s I II
w
ss
I
ce
e s ew
'
a
,
,
h
e re ,
e
ith
er
i n pa t
r
or
as
a
38
fundamental article s such as t h e transc endental origin o f
p oetry and th e exalted i dea o f the purpose o f l iterature an d
o f the characte r o f the po et h e bel ieved as devoutly as di d
S ch iller
Impo rtant as was S chiller s infl uence it i s hardly to be com
par e d w ith that wh ich G oethe exe rted fo r G oeth e was to Car
lyl e th e h ighest rep resentative o f m odern p o etry and unlike
He was the c om p l et e m a n
S chiller a poet born not made
poet philosopher teacher The boo k o f Goethe s to which
Carlyle ow ed most i s beyond a doubt Wi l h el m M ei s t er The
opinion s on art and c onduct interwoven into this w ork were for
h im the bread o f l i fe
I have not got as many i dea s fro m
”
‘9
any boo k for six years h e w rote to Jane Welsh i n I8 2 4
Wherever in h i s w ri tings he speaks intimately o f it there i s
From the A pp ren t i c e
s omething o f reverence i n his words
s hi p Carlyle learned that it shoul d be t h e purpose o f po etry to
exp res s the universal and the ideal and that the s e should b e
found in t h e conditional world in which w e live not above it
o r under it
He learned that art should deal w ith wholes that
poet ry and p ro s e are n ot at variance an d that the po et i s a
sacred character a teacher a prophet a fr i end o f gods and
5°
Th e second pa rt o f Wi l h el m M ei s t er Th e Tra v el s
men
moved Carlyle s spi rit m ore deeply than di d the A pp ren t i c es h i p
but it c ould sca rcely have taught him m ore o f a rt or li fe It
contains how ever th e kernel o f hi s doctrine and in a letter to
G oethe he speaks o f it a s an emb od iment o f all that i s finest i n
”
the P h ilosophy o f A rt and L i fe and he say s it has almost
”5 1
assumed th e aspect o f per fection in hi s thoughts
From
th e essential teachings o f these tw o parts o f Wi l h el m M ei s t er
Carlyle never departed He found Goethe s trans c endentali s m
m ore congenial to his nature than he di d S chille r s fo r G oe
the s ideas c oncerning literary art grew up fro m t h e ri c h soil
o f h is ow n experience
He l ived so Carl yl e thought unde r
the guidance o f rea s on not o f passion ; and hi s m ind i n unity
w ith it s e l f dwelt s erenely within the realm o f t h e Whole the
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
.
”
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
“
,
,
,
“
,
,
’
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
’
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
ro d
C r s
F
5’
II I
,
u
e
1 2
re
3
-I
L if
e,
.
,
66
,
3I
.
.
e,
I
,
1
Fo r
7
1
“
.
a rt th i in
eo r es
Essay s I
T vl
,
Th e
ra
e s
,
1
94
s ee
—
1
97
.
Ca l y l
r
’
e s
t an lati n
r
s
o
,
39
G o od and th e True
”5 2
Though these i deals received an u n
goethean emphasi s from Carlyle a s time went on the y remained
the an imating heart o f h i s message alike o n poetry on h istory
53
and on soci ety
N ext to Go eth e a n d Schiller th e German authors wh o m o st
It was how
i n fl uenced Carlyl e were R ichter and N oval is
ever ch iefly as literary i nte rp reter s o i the criti cal ph ilosophy
that they had any app rec i abl e influence up on h i s i deal s o f
lite rature In R i chter h e discove red a transcendental i st to
”
R i chter w as not
whom nature was a mysteri ous P res e nce
a novel ist at least in th e usual sense but a P h ilos ophe r and
”
H e was a m ystic wh o clothe d h is w ild w ay
M oral P oet
ward d ream s allego ri es an d shadow y i maginings in a styl e
extravagant m etapho rical co m plex and abounding i n humor
He was Carlyle s brothe r Titan preaching in a si milar dial e ct
“
against a skeptical an d me chanical age
Jean P aul w a s th e
fo rerunne r o f another m yst i c Noval is wh o as P rofessor R oy c
”
says was th e true romanti c i nterp reter o f Fi ch t e s doctrine
Fo r a time at least Carlyle w as much move d by th e singular
p roduction s from th e p en o f this young dreame r H i s variou s
and extended qu otati ons fro m the w ritings o f N ovali s wheth e r
on poetry or philosophy art or c onduct imply a la rge sp iritual
i ndebtedness
N ovali s i s the t yp i cal Ge rman mysti c th e m a n
steep ed i n Kantian m etaphysics w h o has i n him
an u n
”
fathomed m ine o f philosoph i cal i deas an d who regards t h e
55
visible w orl d only a s a man i festation o f deity
In s o far a s
ideas are con c ern ed there fore N oval is l ike R ichte r w a s fo r
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
“
.
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
,
’
“
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
“
,
.
,
,
,
,
Ess y s I 7 9 ; IV 5
A S pi n z i t r th r t h
a Kanti t G th
all t h m
a b li
in t h t an n d ntal igin f p t y
n n i
pr ss o f
d in th
p ti
ati n ( f M ist r II
H b li
in t h
ntial
d al
f th
b a ti f l and t h
n n
tr
ith hi h t h m all y g d i
in pa abl y nn t d ( Bi l h ky L if f G t h I I 3 9
an
F
int p tati n f G o t h s i d a
al II 6
3 7 39
; I II 3 -3 4
a b n d ant in
S a y ing
t pa all ling Ca l y l
5
56 6
Di h t g d W h h it d i t h G p a h
Ess ay s I 8 3 ; f II 68 7 5 T h h m
d s ty l
w r
f R i ht
n i d abl infl n c
p n Ca l y l b t w ith th
t h r
n n d
Ess ay s II 6 6
“
a
53
o
e
oe
o
r
e
es s
se
,
c
e
co
o
1
,
c
e
e
r
un
,
co
c er
e
u
e
u
e
e
e sc
’
e
a
,
e
,
1
ue
r
e
c
es
,
u
on
w
e
so
a r
ev e
w
,
s ee
e
,
r
“
oe
I— 2
,
e
1
’
e s
es s e
or
oo
2
,
,
r
n
2
o
—
es
e
2
e
.
r
r
e,
c
e
—
or
.
2
a re
s
,
1
,
u
u
.
or a n
u
e o
w e
es e
5‘
.
e
ev e r
oc e
e
e,
2
e
s c ou s
so
c
o
I
co
u
o re
'
a n
.
ow s
s
s
u e,
e
e
e
e
w as
e
a n
,
,
,
”
oe
,
oe r
o
e
.
o
un
er
s
1 00
,
s
an
or
ec e
“
co
e
a
o
er re
1
s
o
0.
,
sce
c re
c
2
,
,
,
,
2 2
,
2 0
c
a re
.
er
no
e e
e
e
4O
’
Carlyl e rath e r an in s piring inte rp re ter o f other men s doc
trin e s than a t eacher o f h i s own B oth these German roman
t i c i s t s imm ensely stimulated Carlyle because they clothed th ei r
m e ssage s in a language th a t strongly appealed to h is delight i n
h u m or and h i s love o f the my s tical ; but they did not furni sh
h i m w ith ideas that h e could not have found in the w ritings
eith e r o f Goethe and S chill e r or o f the philosophers
L ik e the th eo ries o f N ovalis o f Friedrich Schlegel and other
G erman romantici sts those o f Carlyle not only had thei r roots
in the tran s c endental philo s ophy but they grew and expanded
until th ey embraced ne arly every sign ificant exp ression o f th e
human spi rit L iterature was regarded not a s a mani festation
o f a phase o f man s activities merely but a s the quintessence
P oet ry sai d th e roma nti ci sts
o f th e s oul s li fe everywh e re
i s l i fe ; poetry s ai d Carlyle is the vital spir i t o f hi stories con
and creeds as well a s o f epics and ph i losophies
s t i t u t i on s
Whatever voi ces the soul o f humanity that i s p oetry Th e
significance o f thi s belie f in connect ion with a study o f Car
l yle s mind can scarcely be exaggerated ; for i n hi s i deas c on
cerning the relation o f poets and poetry to s oc iety his original
i t y fi rst finds expres s ion h is independent moral convi ction s first
rise to t h e s u rface He drew freely upon Goethe and th e
ro m anticists for the so c ial aspects o f hi s p oetical theori es but
he did n ot devel o p these theories in the di rection o f the n eo
classicism o r symbolism o f the later Go ethe n o r di d h e s ym
p a t h i z e with t he voluptuous and s ensual dreams th e religious
vagari es and other fanta s tic excesses into wh ich N ovali s an d
hi s brethren o f t h e new school finally descended R ather we
hear more and more o ften th e native S cotch voice and we feel
the impulse o f the rigorou s puritan prophet We are drawn
into a c urrent o f thought that ultimately ca rrie s us away from
l iterature into hero -wo rship and prophecy
Amo ng the various i d eas which imply th e social si de o f Car
lyle s poetic theory perhap s the m ost inclusive i s one that
Goeth e i m p ressed upon him namely t he un iversality o f the
po et s mind The poet i s t h e embo dim e nt o f t h e h i ghest intel
l ec tual achieveme nts o f the rac e He i s the o racl e o f the eter
nal longings and s trivings o f common humanity I n h im says
.
,
.
,
‘
,
,
.
’
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
’
,
,
,
’
.
.
.
,
42
i deal mu s t be built upon the actual From t he s e sources he
learned that literature w hich leav e s a world o f men t o dwe ll
apart in a vi sionary romantic o r sup ernatural realm is a litera
61
ture un s o und and unsub s ta ntial unwo rthy o f the na m e o f art
Th i s n o tion gr e w to be the mo s t impo rtant o n e i n Carlyle s
l iterary c reed It claimed the largest share o f hi s interest and
received f rom him an altogether original emphasis Accord
ing t o th i s th eory o f literary art th e po et s hould i nte rp ret h is
o w n age he should be h is age s high e st and tru e st inte rp reter
O f all men he is t h e one in hi s ti m e to s i ft th e t rue from th e
fal s e t h e p ermanent from the transient It is a man s highest
”62
enterprise says Carlyle that o f being the P oet o f hi s Age
In thi s d oct rin e w e find the explanation o f Carl yl e s almost ex
e lusive int e r e st in the great rep resentative w rite rs who inte r
p ret national movements and who st and out as the i ntellectual
”
leaders o f their resp ective p eriods
The great man h e says
do es in good tru t h belong to h is own age ; nay more s o than
any other man ; b e ing p roperly th e synopsi s and ep ito m e o f
”63
such age w ith its interests an d i n flu en c es
Th e criti cal
es s ays throughout w itness t o Carlyl e s genius for interp reting
and p ortraying the representative mind Goethe i s the high
”
est man o f h i s time and the hi story o f hi s mind i s in fact
”
th e history o f German culture in h i s day
In Volt ai re says
Carlyle w e have a E uropean subj ect or there never was
”
”
V oltaire is the man o f h is century
one
the paragon and
”
ep itome o f a whole s p iritual p eriod
D iderot too i s
a sig
”
n i fica n t epitome
o f the age o f L ouis X V Johnson i s the
”
John B ull o f S piritual E urope the i deal Tory
D ante
”64
i s the spokesman o f t h e M iddle A ges
O n th e other
hand Carlyle i s not drawn to m inds not o f t h e fi rst order
.
,
.
,
’
.
.
,
’
.
,
’
.
,
“
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
“
.
,
,
,
.
,
“
,
,
“
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
“
,
.
.
,
Ess ay s I 9 5 ; II
Ess ay s II 5 ; I II 4 5
3
Ess ay s IV 9 ; c f I 3 9 Th gh Ca l y l d riv d th s i d a s i n
f
th y lat x l i ly t p t m i l y f m G man y th y all y
pr ss an attit d t a d l if that
ta k n in d p n d ntl y Th plan
f t at i ng
f th
tain l ad
C mm n alth
p ntati
m nti n d in t h pr vio s h a pt
h
th t t h histori a l m th d
th
ll
id a f h - h i p
igin ( E L t t r s
f ind p nd nt
“
,
,
1
,
“
ar a s
ex
e
re
u
re
e
w e
2 0
6,
“
o
a s
.
e
e
o
1
,
,
e
e
e
Ess ay s
,
e
ow
IV ,
r
1
u
,
ou
.
o
s
1
oe s ,
c
7 6 ; II,
a
n
,
e
e r,
,
1 2
w as
4,
1 2
o
ow s
o
5,
e
ro
1 2
e
8;
e
e
V
,
“
re
c
or
4 ; IV ,
.
e
e
re
e
res e
e
.
1 2
so
,
.
e
e
—
,
e
a s
a
2 2
e e
er
w e
e
,
e
e
o
s
1
,
e
w as
o
e ro w o rs
7 5 ; I,
r
e
e rs
e
o
.
,
e
e
,
“
1
c u s ve
c er
e
1 2
v e,
o
8 ; H ero e
a s
,
e
e
s
,
”
91
,
.
43
s
i
fl
e
i
s
h
e
attracted
by
the
l
sser
th
e
way
n
uence
no r
originating w ith such m in ds Th e b y ways o f l iterature
do n ot lure him from its beaten high road He speaks o f th e
”
sonnet elegy song as belonging t o the out-lyi ng p rovince
”
o f p oe try
H e says that the Vi ca r of Wa k efiel d i s a m odern
”
and noth ing m ore
H e th inks th at no true poet w il l
i dyl
eve r dw indle into a man o f Vers d e
Truth i n its
f ulness an d in i t s representati ve characte r he held c a n b e re
vealed only in minds o f the fi rst rank and n ot in m inds o f the
”6 6
second e xcep t as se con dary symptoms
I f i t b e a sk e d
w h y i t was then that Carlyle show ed so much interest i n R ich
ter and N ovalis an d was s o p ro foundly aff ected by the care ers
o f B urns and Byron ( tw o names wh i ch ne xt to Goeth e s occu r
most o ften in h i s essays ) w e may s a y tha t these w riters
scarcely f urnish an exception to th e rule R ichte r and Novali s
w ere for Carlyle l iterary exp onent s o f transcendental ism the
o n e a humorist t h e other a mystic ; both w ere m i nd s that re
vea led truth Carlyle loved and reverenced B u rns bec ause
Burns was a native Scotch p r oduct and a s ong -m a k er o f
Shakespearian and universal order H e and Byron w ere the
two B r i t i sh m en o f thei r age who w er e bo rn to be poets in th e
high and ancient s ense but whom fortune and an undi scipl ine d
w ill p revente d from delivering th ei r m essage t o the wo rld
They we re p raised b y Carlyle rathe r for thei r p romi sed than
f or th ei r act ual achievem ent ; and the i r tragical l ive s a fforded
h im t h e texts o f a hundred sermons
Carlyle s i de a o f the poet a s a rep resen ta tive man incl ude s
a l so t h e i dea o f h im as th e high est m a n o f h i s t ime I n th e
stri ct sense a rt i s ari stoc ratic Sp i ritual truth i s born t o o n e
man here to a nother there but not in t he same degree o r
67
kind to all men
Art has th ere fore no c on c e rn w ith popular
i t y ; i t makes no app eal to t h e po pula r e a r a n d i s not depen dent
’
fo r approval upon th e p opula r voi ce
P opula ri ty a fl o rd s no
i ndex Carlyle s ay s o f o riginality o r great n ess for th e favor
o f th e m any i s no criterion o f the value o f l iterature
In
”
f act h e sa ys
th e po pular m a n an d the m a n o f true at
—
—
f
u
t
o
o
,
—
—
.
“
.
“
,
,
.
“
.
“
,
,
“
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
“
.
“
,
“
,
Essay s II 9 ;
Ess ay s V 4 7
,
“
,
,
,
0
.
,
I,
1
8 5 ; I, 3 6
,
.
'7
Ess y s I I
a
,
,
2
46
.
44
least o f great originality are seldom one and the same The
po pular man stands on ou r own level the original man s tands
”
abov e us
Th e multitude o f voices i s no author ity
fame
”
i s n o sur e test o f merit
To illustrate an d support these
opinion s Carlyle was fond o f c iting the popularity o f Kotzebue
whose plays he says had be en acted in every theatre f rom
”
Kamtschatka t o Cadi z but who for all tha t was a l i feless
bundle o f dyed
The true poet w ill rely wholly upon
h imsel f since the insp iration as well a s the enduring truth o f
h is message originates in his own soul Art i s ari st ocratic b e
cause i t i s the creati on o f th e highest minds and b ecause it
ma kes its appea l independently o f the p raise o r blam e o f t he
“
multitude
We rea c h the same conclusion at whatever po int we take u p
a stud y o f Carlyle s l iterary i deals b ecause a consistent and
uni form doctrine underlie s every expression o f them We
have discussed the social aspects o f these i deals and w e are
l e ft upon a path that leads us immediately into the fi eld oce n
p i e d by the works o f the later Carlyle From the same mystic
region o f the unconscious proceed all P oesies and R el igions
”7 °
The poet evolve s into th e hero and
a n d Soc ial Systems
poetry becomes hi s to ry Th i s change o n th e sur face impl ie s
no change underneath for the philosophy that forms th e basis
o f Ca rlyle s lite rary c reed i s the foundation alike o f h is politica l
and e c ono m ical theories hi s theori es o f ethi c s e ducation and
religion To test th e a cc ura c y o f th i s statement w e have only
to recall the principles proclai m ed in every non -critical w ri ting
f rom Ch a ra c t eri s t i cs to H eroes and Pa s t a nd Pres en t The
a ge which Carlyle looks out upo n i s gro wn sick skeptical m e
.
,
,
.
.
“
,
,
“
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
Ess ay s III 6 ; I 6 ; II 4 ; V I 3 ; II 8 9 ; III 4 5
Ess ay s II 9 5
Ca l y l
fa th t f m ay ing that t i
th
H
t i t d t t h pp
la
pp d F n h pini n f thi s
t
d h
pp d E n gli h
i
h
laim d that G man t h r w r
iall y l
i f that matt d H a t d a gain d again that t
i
ind p nd nt f an k G th h ai d a s n ith n b l
pl b ian n ith lib al
il
infid l
t
l a
d
b t
d
iv rs a l M an ( Ess ay s I
A
ga d
t a l d i ff n
f
i t y t i d m ati T h a ti t m y p ing f m y r k
y
p pl ( Ess ay s I 3 3 9
Essay s IV 3 5
“
,
1 1
,
“
,
,
re s r c e
o
a n
os e
e
O
s oc
ow
s
e
e
a n
e
s oc e
eo
e
,
e
2 1
r
.
u
er c
s
e
s s es
o
er
r
er
e
,
e
.
oc r
,
1
e
o
w
c
e
n o r s erv
e,
n or
r
ro
re
c
s
s
o
o
“
w
,
s
o
s or
au
n or
re
r
e
s
ex ern
r
ro
an
,
,
.
,
e e
o s
a r
er
evo e e ,
7°
—
s
ar
an
,
s
.
er
e
a
2
s
e
s
,
e
,
s s er e
e
.
es
os e
o
.
,
r
e,
c
1
,
oe
.
,
s
2
w as
ere
e
1
rev e w e rs
e
ar
,
as
e
,
un
—
1
,
e
,
”
o
u
e,
a
ere
an
“
n or
c e
c es
r
o
or a n
45
utilitarian R e forms sch emes o f government new
remedi e s for s oc ial ills a re unavailing because w itho ut ex c ep
t i on they begin from the out s i de inste ad o f fro m withi n N o
re form count s says Carlyle except a mo ral one B enthamite
ethics and economics government by l a i z z ez -fa i re rel igi o n
”
through evidences and theologies alike strive to change
man by machinery when h e can be trans formed only by sp i ri t
Society d oes indeed exist to p rotect m y property but my p rop
”
Happ iness i s no t and never can be
L i f e in m e
ert y i s the
Th e vi tal p rincipl e o f all
a result o f external arrang ement
p rogress e c ono m i c al educati onal rel igious i s th at soul i s
”
k indle d only by soul What the age needs there fore i s a h ero
and a government by arist ocracy for
he wh o i s t o be my
”
R uler was c ho sen for me i n H eaven
I t sca rcely n ee ds t o be
p ointe d o u t that th is ent i re cree d i s only an expansion o r de
vel op m en t
o f th e one t hat w e have been interp reting in th e
f oregoing pages Go ethe a poet in on e decade is f or Ca r
lyle a p rophet in the next H e i s th e he ro to wh o m a s i c k age
must lo ok for relie f Th e nature an d m ission o f th e p o et a s
s et fo rth in th e earlier essa s do n ot di ff er in essentials from
y
t he nat u re and m i s s w n o f t h e hero as des cri b e d i n eve ry s o c i al
a n d po l itical pamphlet
The h ero l ike the po et i s an o ra cle
71
o f a w orl d unseen
ch a n i ca
l,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
,
.
,
“
.
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
71
1
72
E s s a y s , IV ,
,
1
7s
.
2 0
5 ;
V
,
5 0 ; V I,
1
49 ;
II
,
2
39 ;
V I,
1
r
7 9 ; S a t o r R e s a rt u s ,
CHA P TE R I I I
I DE A LS
C RIT IC IS M
OF
P
i
n c i p l es
r
( )
M et h ods
a nd
a
Carlyl e s theory o f literature determines the principl es and
methods o f his criticism The standards o f j udgment which
he applied to the interp retation o f authors and thei r work grew
The se
o u t o f h is i deas o f the nature and function o f p o etry
prin c iples a re applied i n every criti cal essay f rom first to last
but they are rarely stated in direct fo rm in the later essays in
wh ich the treatment i s s o l argely biographica l Th ey are to
be found c hiefly in the criticism be fore 1 8 3 2 in some i n
stances exp res s ed in brie f categori ca l a sse rti ons an d i n a few
others expanded i nto so m ething like a forma l declarat ion o r
m a ni festo The fullest statements occur i n t w o essays Th e
In
S t a t e of G erma n L i t era t u re ( 1 82 7 ) and G oet h e
subs t ance both declarations are the same but the earlier one
frankly pro fesses to be no more than an interp retation o f G er
man p rinciples We shall there fore quote from th e second
i n which Carlyle s position i s taken independently :
’
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
'
,
.
’
li
in t h maxim h s a y s that f all ight
hi g
j d gm nt f y man thin g it i
f l y nti a l t
d
L t
q aliti b f p n n ing h i b d
n i d wh t
m an b y a f a lt B y t h
d ignat m thing that d i pl a
d f a lt
that nt adi t
B t h
th
q ti n might a i Wh o w ?
f
i
Thi f a lt d i pl a
nt ad i t
l a ; d h d
h d I
;
d m y pl a
and nfi mati n b
th
hi f d f t h p t th n
d b tl h h fa i l d in that d
f a lt main i m d iab l y
d hi
ith t d f n
B t who
hall y h th
h all y
hi
d
b j t wh th r
h ght t ha b n h i b j t ? d i f it
t
d
ght t t ha b
hat b m
f a lt ? It m t hang
f th
alt g t h nd id d ;
n thing f it ; p hap i t m y t b
y t kn
th
p t b t
f a lt ; p hap it m y b
f a lt hat
T
i ghtl y int thi matt t d t min ith y in f allib ilit y w h eth
what
all f a lt is i n
m t p i l y ha
d a f a lt
y d
f
ttl d t p i nt n i th
hi h m y b
ad i l y ttl d Fi t e
We
a re
u
e
o
u
es
“
u
co
u
s
e
es s
ou
ec
an
e
s ee
’
s,
ec
c
c s
r
r
een ,
w e a s
o u r ow n
s
er,
er
een
e
c
e
ve
er
o
o
w
s
e
ec
e
u
a
e
no
su c
so
w e
re
w e
a
e
w e,
a
rre
s es
e
a
oe
e
e
,
e
,
s
w as
re
an
w as
u
no
us
a
s
u
o
er
,
us
se
ve
rev o u s
e
e
no
ev e r.
w
a n
,
oo
s
a re
s
er
e
w
ee
46
o
a
e er
c
er
o
s
er
o
re
o
o
s
an
en
e
s
es
s ee
s
r
u
w
ee
ec o
v er
e
c e
sa
o
r se :
s
an
co
r
e
o
a r
,
,
us
e so
u es
ow
u
u
s,
e
e
so
us
w
es s e
es
s
o
na
,
or
,
,
.
e
o
ou
e
a
e re
u
ve
u se u
w e
u
en
c e.
a
o
s
e
o
w o
co
su c
u
on
u
co
o
r
e
s es ,
e e
no
w e
se
e
e
c
u s.
as
er u
oe
e
c s
s u re
e
,
ou
o
r
ou
s
“
e
,
,
e w or
.
e
w
a n
ou
ro
s
an
e
or
e ore
u s e,
ev e rs
an
e
o
fi rm b e
”
.
rs
,
w
47
ma d plain t
rs l v s hat t h p t aim all y and t l y
hi
d h w f
t a sk h h d t d t d b f
h
th
y
ith
h m an
it a ff d d h i m h h f l fil l d i t S ndl y
m t
t
ha d i d d wh th r and h fa r thi aim t his ta k f h i a or d d
ith
and
indi id al
h t and t h
h t f
littl
nat
h w gi o r t k t h l a w b t i th h man nat
at r f
d th
f p
th i ng at la g ; ith t h ni
a l p in ipl
ti c b t y t
th y
tan d itt n in
t t -b oo k s b t i n t h h a t
f all
d ima gi nati n
m
D o s t h an
t
in ith r a
m
n f a abl y ;
th r an
d th
d a di
in n i t n y b t n t h m an
b t n th
d an
i a fa l t
th
t th
i
fa l t
d t h t th th
d
Th i t
l d app a that t h d t ti n f f a lt p i d d th y b
f it l f i nt
f a lt f y d pth and n q n l ad
th at gi n
f th
h
al t h high b a ti
pi
i f it ha
b a ti
y t
ntiall y id I f a t a d ing t
vi w
man
p n n
f b ing ight
d gmati all y
ith
n a han
f a lt f a p m
th
it
till h h s
d high t b a t y ; t h
la t i n b ming
y l st
i i b l t any n
hi h f
l k a ft
hi h in d d i m t pi
it w r
ain t l k a f t ; t h b a t y f t h p m
Wh l in t h
y
t i t n ; t h l a vi w f it
an in d i i i b l U nity ; d wh t h r it
"
h
g n p nat all y f m t h g n al il f Th ght T his iti i m
Ca l y l g
t
t
n n d ith p t y t h t am
f
y i
th
s t dy f hi h
man i q i d t gi r l s b t ith p t y f a
nt kin d
it
W sp ak f th t P t y wh i h M s t rs
y d i ff
hi h aim
t at
f ni hing a lan g i d min d ith f anta ti h
d
in d l nt m ti n b t at in p ating t h
la ting R a n f man in
f m i ibl t h i S n
itab l t it
d
m t ha
us
w a s,
w
e
suc
ec
ve
w
e re
w r
en
a n
“
s
a n
o
se
as
row
e
w
c
o
oo
c e
on
w
o e
e
s v s
e
c
e
.
no
e
o
s,
o
’
s
ur
ou r
er
c er
re
u re
e
o
so
e
o
ve
u e
e
u
ev er
o
es ,
ou
ce
oe
os
ec e s
e
e
e
cr
a
u s es ,
w
oe r
e
a
s
e
,
o e,
c
s
o
ec o
a
w
e
su
,
oe r
a
u
an
”
e
u
o
s
.
oe r
e
ro
a n
ou
e
re
n
a s
e
e
s
e
w
o
oe
e
ru e
ee
e
v s
c or or
s e,
e
e
o
e
an
u
o
.
ca n
c
s
o
e
u
u
rov
no
on
w
o
no
se
,
,
e
as
co
o
e
r
u
s,
ve
e r,
e
s
u
e
us
e c e,
oo
e
u
e
e w ee
ce
s
e
as
no
,
w a s
e re
.
u
o
s c or
,
,
se
e n
ea u
no
—
e
a n
vor
o
s
e
ou r
o
us
w e
cc
an
u
o
e
e
no
s
en
es
e
no
‘
o
o
s
ou
e
o
ev e r
ro
,
c e,
an
er
e
r s
e re n o
e
ce
a
“
o
o
ew
r
sa
o
e re
s
es
c
ur
o es
c
or
v
o
ver
e,
e
ue
e
e ec
c c or
,
v er
s
u
u
c
: w a s
se
e s
a r,
o
,
s,
oe
o
e
e
e
u
ev e
se
e
r
e
n
.
o
e e v er
s r c
e
e en
as
e
v s
r
er
w
c
e
e
co
an
s
u
co
e
re s
o
s
se
c
e
e re
e
so
es s e
w
,
u
e
e
w ou
o
ere
w
ru
e
us
u
e
c roc
a n
ec o
u re
es
e,
o
u
c
e
.
s
,
r
,
ow n
e
u
w
v e rs
ex
e w ee
c
a s
ru
re
s
s
e
u
,
s w er
e
e
e s,
—
oe
e o re
s
c ro c
e u
e
s oo
,
e
e
ou r
e
o
e
u
w
e
s s e
co
a
r e
s
en .
v
ve
w
e
ow
e
ou r
e
s
or
a s
e
e
u s,
w
s
o
a
e
e
ow
e
ou
o
e
ve
’
c
so
s
c s
“
,
or
o
w r
ow s
e,
a n
o
” 1
.
In thi s mani festo Carlyle s eeks to establish tw o funda m ental
p rinc i ples o f literary c ritici sm Fi rst crit icism i s to deal only
w ith serious literature the nature o f whi ch w e have analyze d
in the p revious chapte r S econ d i t should be c on s tructive in
i t s aim s an d meth ods
In orde r to be constructive critici sm
has several funct ions t o p e rform each related to the othe r and
all together constituting a m ethod in theory at lea st bo th c o m
prehen sive an d pro found To begin w ith c ritici sm i s i n t erp re
t a t i ve
The critic m ust stri ve to see the p oet s w ork h i s a im
and accompl ishment as th e poet h imsel f s a w it ; h e mu st d i s
cover the author s innermost purpose must s tudy h i s work
f rom w ithin must in a word penetrate to the soul o f th e po et
and be able t o describe what h e di sce rns there H e cannot
do this unless h e commands a sympathy o f the h ighest o rde r
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
Ess ay s
,
I,
2 1
8
—
2 2 1
;
o f.
I,
2
8 3— 4
.
48
unl es s h e i s h imsel f a seer Next the c ritic must j udge the
w ork o f a w riter in terms o f universal principles as they
are r evealed in th e un folding order o f the wo rl d an d are fo un d
written in the heart o f man In the accomplishment o f thi s
task criticism has to regard wholes not parts ; s ince the fina l
beauty o f a poem its permanent me s sage or mea ning reside s
in an organic unity w ithout which l ite rature is d ead a li feless
bundle o f fragm ents The inte rp retative m ethod o f c ri ticism
thus l eads into th e philosophi cal The critic must not only
have imagination and insight he mu st also possess p h il o s op h i
cal grasp and power o f integration Wh en he has brought th e
poet s truth to l ight it i s hi s fu rther duty to r elate that truth
‘
t o the larger envi roni ng world both o f general p rinciples
2
and o f men and m ovements
These two great methods o f
the interp ret ative and the philo so phical imply
c riticism
still othe rs the b i ographical the historical and the compar
ative th e fi rst t w o o f which w ere define d and devel ope d
more completely by Carlyle than by any o f his B ritish
contemporaries It was a favorite saying o f h is a s w e have
po inte d ou t th a t th e c r i ti c shoul d s ee the p oet s ob j e c t a s t h e
"
To do thi s th e critic n o t only ha s to
p oet h imsel f s a w i t
grasp th e form in its totality but he has also to know as much
as possible o f th e poet s mind w ith in and w i thout fro m wh ich
th i s totality has grown He mu st ask says Carlyle whethe r
the uni ty has grown up naturally from th e general soil o f
”
Thought
The p rinciple stated i n i t s s implest term s i s th i 5
a true poem i s a unity which in turn sp ri ngs from a deepe r
unity o f mind ; mind again i s the result o f two fo r c es always
w o r k i ng t ogether and in great po ets harmoniously together
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
’
,
,
.
—
—
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
“
°
.
,
,
,
v ry w h r i m p l i d in Ca l y l that i n t h nity f a p m i d
it
lati on t
ath i t
infinit
v lati
f th
th
t
d ntall y
al ; g I
m ag
tl i n f hat a h l i ; al
h
an in d i i d al d lin ti n m y b in f m d with t h Infinit m y
f tim and pa
app a han gi ng in t h ni
hi h c
( p a rt l y ) in
i it a p
m d a h l ? F d II 7 9
I a d d iti n t
th
l ng pa ag q t d ab
I 8 3 -4 9 ; I I
8
5 ; Lif
Ca l y l m th d o f p d i lik that f
f S ch i l l
S aint B
h
P f
Ha p
ma k
anal y t h t mp a
m
f a th
ts d ha a t
a m an of app iatin g th i
rk
S i t -B v
335
‘
It i s
s
e
e
re
o,
e
re
v
e
r
“
.
n
o
2 2
a n e
e
eu v e ,
a n
eu
c
e,
w
er,
o,
a s
r c ers
.
e
2
v
a
v e rs e
o
e
e
o
o e
e o
e—
en
o
u
re
so
ea
e
w
s
s ee
,
u
a n
r
er
e
oe
,
e
r
s
’
or
e.
ow
1 2
e e
u
o
ue
ou
e,
ss
e
r
o rs
or
s
oe
or
w
o
e
w
e
e
ce
:
re s
es
ra n s c en
o e
so
s
e,
w
’
c
a
ase
.
,
uo e
’
e s
ov e
e
o
r er re
a s
e,
e
e
rou
o
e
,
‘
e
ro es s o r
o
on
o
.
e u
e
s
s ee
ro c e
r
s,
“
re c
,
2
u re
s es
,
s
1 2
o
e
e
,
e
e r w o
er
s.
”
50
Ca rlyl e say s to di scover by what gi fts and what employment
o f th em [ S ch ille r! reached the eminence on wh ich w e now
s e e him ; to follow th e step s o f hi s int ellectual and m oral cul
ture ; to gathe r from hi s li fe and works som e pi cture o f h im
sel f It i s worth inquiring w hether he w ho could represent
noble action s s o w ell did himsel f act no bly ; h o w those pow er s
o f intell ect which i n philo s ophy and art ach ieved so much
appli e d th em s elves to th e e veryday emergencies o f li fe ; how
th e genero us ardour which d elights u s in h is po etry di splayed
it s el f i n the common intercourse between man and man It
wo uld at onc e instruct and grati fy u s i f we c ould understand
h im thoroughl y could transpo rt ourselve s into h is c i rcu m
stances outward and inward coul d s ee as he s a w and feel as he
”6
felt
These sel f -imposed q uestions indicate a keen curio s ity
on th e part o f the criti c as to wh ether there i s a con formity
a living har mo ny between S chiller s l i fe and works as upon
Carlyle s theo ry there shoul d be Accordingly ea c h o f the three
divisions o f the li fe o f the poe t i s followed by an int erp retation
o f hi s w ritings regarde d as an exp ression o f the poet at that
pa rt icular epo ch Th e whol e is concluded w ith a c h a ra c t eri z a
tion in wh ich the clos e relation b e t ween S chill er the man an d
7
The biographi cal
S ch ille r the poet is the prominent feature
method i s fully develop ed in the introduction to G erm a n R o
m a n c e and in the fi r s t R i c h t er
I n th e essay on Go e th e
Carlyle puts th e following q uestions :
What manner o f man
i s thi s ?
How shall we int erp ret h o w shall w e even s ee hi m ?
What i s h is spiritual s tructure what at least are the o utward
form and features o f his mind ? Has h e any real p oetic wo rth ;
”8
P
h ow much to his own people how much to us
H e finds in
Werner the dramatist an exact c orresp ondence betw een man
9
and wo rk
In t ruth the whole b ody o f hi s criticism from first
essay to last i s c onstru c ted upon thi s theory that the l itera ry
p er formance o f an author i s o r s h ould b e an e xpression o f hi s
moral characte r
“
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
‘
f S ch i l l e
i
L fe
o
r
2
,
.
C f Ess a y s III 9 4
al ay t h a an a
7
.
w
a
“
,
s
Ibi d
e
.
Ib i d
.
,
,
,
s e,
c
I,
1
73
I,
1 1
7
—
.
1 1
8
.
Sc
.
at
cc u r
C f II
.
hill
e
,
’
er s
co
2 2
nf
5 ;
int ll t al ha a t
m i ty with h i m al
e
ec u
or
V
c
r c er
s
-
,
4 7
.
or
h a s,
o n e.
”
a s
in d
ee d
is
51
H i s method i s at all times l ikely to lead to a
si ded e ri ti
Th e criti c wh o regards p oetry as l i fe an d l i fe as p o etry
cism
may fail to fi nd sust aining vitality in the l iterary w orks o f h i s
day and co me to regard t h e acte d li fe a s the only po etry Thi s
i s what happened in the case o f Carlyle When he had done
w ith t h e Germans when he came to think that no real l iterature
was being p roduced in England and when tired o f critici sm
he w i shed to w rite original bo oks as he d id more an d more i n
s i s t en t l y a fter I8 3 O he inevitably gave prom inence to th e b io
g raphi cal s i de to th e neglect i f n ot to the o m i ssion o f th e
literary The e s s ay s on Goethe s Works Johnson D iderot an d
S cott for exampl e give a great d e al o f attention to th e o u t
ward li fe while they show a notable di sregard o f very many
impo rtant literary matters At all times Carlyle was prone to
make much o f critical m om ents in a man s a c ted li fe w hen h i s
mo ral nature was supremely tried G oeth e passing from th e
Wert er to the M ei s t er p eriod B urns at E dinburgh J ohnson
replying t o Chesterfi eld S cott mounting to the summ it o f h i s
fa m e V olta i re during h is last triumph at P ar i s Di derot at th e
court o f Catherine these d ramati c epi sodes are i nt rodu c ed and
dwelt upon more fo r thei r o w n sake than for th e light they
she d upon t h e genesis o r quality o f th e man s literary w or k
Th e biographer and th e h i s torian not in fre quently th reatened
to overshadow the c riti c
From th e biograph ical to the h i s torical m etho d the path i s
”
N o character
d irect and short
Carlyle says i n Vol t a i re
was ever rightly understood till i t had fi rst been regarded
w ith a certain f eel ing not o f toleran ce only but o f sympathy
B ut to j udge rightly o f [ a man s ! character w e must
”1 0
learn t o lo ok at it not less w ith hi s eyes than w ith ou r o w n
To understand a poet s wo rk from the p oet s point o f v i ew a s
s ound criticism requires us to understand i t demands a care ful
consi deration o f hi s whole outer environment social po litical
nat i onal epochal Carlyl e i s clear an d emphatic upon th i s
p oint The reader should be warned aga i n however that w ith
Carlyl e envi ronment i s not everyth ing A fter w e know the
oute r fo rce s that have played upon the poet an d m oul de d h is
o n e—
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
—
’
.
.
.
,
,
“
,
,
’
,
,
.
’
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
1°
b d II
Ii
.
,
,
1 2
8
.
,
,
52
l i f e to a ce rtain s hape we have still to study his o riginal nature
”
idea in him t h a t he was destined
w e hav e yet to di s cov e r t h e
to reveal The critic scorn full y rej ects the notion that a great
”
man whether poet or h e ro can be wholly account e d for
E ven a s a rt in the de epest s ense i s universal and perennial an d
1 1
s o the a rt ist h a s
for th e s e rea s ons i nd ependent o f fashion
w ithin him a free creative spirit wh ich the philosop hical cri ti c
1 2
shall app reciate a fter t h e wo rk o f the h i s torical criti c i s done
B ut wh ile urging this Carlyl e in the same breath declares
” 3
-a truth whi ch
that no man works save under conditions
he learned from Go ethe P erhaps the b est statement o f h is
position i s that in the essay on D iderot
It i s a g re at t ru th o e si d e o f a g re at t ru th th a t M an mak e s t h e
,
,
.
“
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
1
.
:
“
n
,
Ci
f
t ifi
w ll
n mi all y i t h
f tn
a oth r i d f t h am tr th that t h
hi
l m
man i m tan
t h i app int d t li
k in ;
d
th
th t h b y n
i ty t a k h i co m p l i v st r mb d im nt f m
th
and i in all p a ti al mani f tati n m d ifi d b y th m alm t
ith t limit ;
that i n an th
l
g n in
n it
ai d
b
Ci m tan mak t h M an N
i f it ntin all y b hov s
in i t
t
th
f m t th t a d rs l v s it q all y b h v s t b a in
min d t h l tt r h n
j d g f th m
rc u
s
m tan
,
s
ow n
'
a
ces
e re
es
r c
rc u
or
e
e
e
er
a
e
ow
ru
w
e
w e
e
e
en
ec o
s
e
er
no
ow
.
e
es s
e
e
e
,
er
e,
e
e
u
en .
e
e
ro
,
e
e
o
os
ca n
e
u
e
o
w or
o
se ,
se
e
c er
,
an
e
o
u
u
ve
o
u
s
co
o
o
e
e
e
s
a r
e
s
e
o
o
,
e
ou
u
o
s
es
r s
e
c
o
ex o n ,
c
o
c es
n
s
so
s
a s
e
s
e e
e
a re
s
ou
a s
u
r
ec e s s
e
on
pi it all y
i
B t th
s
u
.
s
e s e,
w
e
or u
c rc u
s
a nd
c es ,
e
us
us
o
s s
e
o
s
r
” 1‘
’
Carlyl e s appreciation o f this principle as r egards l iterature
and literary men i s t w o -fold Fi rst he everywhere insi sts that
the n a t i on a l i t y o f literary wo rk and o f author s must be taken
a c c ount o f i n a j udgm ent o f the one or th e othe r In
th e Prefa c e t o G erm a n R om a n ce for example h e say s the
reader must not lo s e sight o f o n e thing vi a
They are G er
man novel ists n o t E nglish on e s ; and th ei r G ermanhoo d I have
”1 5
all along regarded as a q uality not as fault
A gain in the
case o f Goeth e wh o was s o per s istently and lud i crou s ly m i s
j udged by E nglish reviewers Carlyl e a s ks for a j ust consi de r
ation o f national di ff erences : Goethe s world i s every way so
di ff erent from our s ; it costs us s uch e ff ort w e have so much
to r ememb er and s o much to forget be fore w e can trans fer
ours el ves in any measure into his peculiar po int o f vi s i on that
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
11
b id I
Ib i d I I
H o s
I
.
.
1 ’
er
1
,
,
,
e
,
,
2
9 9,
2
43
-2
1 02
.
82
1 ‘
.
46 ; H e
ro s
e
Ess ay s
Ibid I
V
,
,
1 1
1“
.
.
,
,
2
,
47 ;
31 ;
cf
c f.
.
I,
II, 3 3
2 2
7
.
.
53
right study o f h im fo r an Engl ish m an e ven o f ingenu ous
open inqu isitive mind becomes unusually di fficult ; fo r a fi xe d
”1 6
Th e
deci ded contemptuous E ngli shman next to impossible
criti c must remember that a Foreigner i s no Englishm a n ;
that in j udging a foreign work i t i s not eno u gh to ask whether
it i s suitable to o u r m od es but wh ether it i s suita ble to fo rei gn
”1 7
S ec on d
w a n t s ; above all whether it is suitable to itsel f
h
and
thi
s
int
i
s
even
more
signifi
cant
t
an
th
e
fi
rst
poetry
o
)
p
(
and poets must be interpreted in relation to thei r age a s its
true representatives Carlyle con siders poetry not only a s th e
choicest flow e r o f an age but as th e essence o f i t s h i st ory
The comp rehensiveness o f this aspect o f the hi storical m ethod
as u sed by Carlyl e i s best shown in h i s definition o f literary
history in which h e points out that t h e literature o f a nation
must be taken as a w hole and must be regarded a s a reco rd
o f the spi ritual evolut i on o f an enti re people :
a
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
“
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
i t y f G man
f
y nati nal P t ry w o l d f o m tak e n
i n i t c m pl t n
f t h m st a d
nt p i
ld
y w it
i t h att mpt w hi h
ngag in P t y
it t h
d t so i t b
in
man ma k t
nd hi
i t n e ha m ni
tm st h
f r
th
d
th at e d it p i ng th f e f m h i w h l f eling pini n a ti it y
and tak i t c ha a t f m t h s It m y b all d t h m i f h i
f b ing ;
h l mann
d hi t i all y
n id d i t h t t h w f
Fr d m
M i
x i t d th r i
f ling f L of B a ty
th
; h w f
d D ignity
l d b li it d f r m t h t p li a s i t t i of h i a d f rom
th
h th e h d f L i f
i
i nt na l d
d Nat
f t h U i v rs
xt nal H n in a y m
r t n d tan d t h P t ry t o e timat i t
w
k
rth d hi t i al m aning
q it f d m t l in q i y : Wh t
?
that it ati n
Th t h H i t y f a nati n P t y i t h
n
f i t H i t o y p liti al
n mi
i ntifi eligi
With all th
th
mpl t H i t i an o f a nati na l P t y w il l b f amilia ; t h nati nal
ph y i gn m y in i t fin t t ait
d th
gh i t
i
tag
cc
f
g w th w i l l b l a t o him H e w il l di sc r t h g an d pi it al T n d n y
f
c h p ri d w hat w a
th
hi gh s t Ai m d E nth ia m of mankin d in
a h d h w
p oc h nat all y v l d it l f f m t h th
He h s
t
r rd t h high t Ai m f a nati n i n i t
i d i ti n s a d
d e l pm nt ; f
b y thi t h P o t ry
nati n m od lat it l f ; thi
f th
is t h p t ry f t h nati n
A H
“
s or
o
s
e e se
e
e
n
es
s
r
s
e v ew s
er
e
an
s
o
s
co
r
e e
s o
o
s
e c e
ea
o
,
e
o
an
e
Ib i d
.
,
" Ib d
.
,
id e r o t
e
I,
I,
mu
1
st
81
e
o
e
e
u
n
e
oe
un
o
c,
r
a
s
o ve
o
e
o
33,
a nd
su
e
ar
n
er
an
e
s
u r
s
s
a
e
es s e
e
es s v e
r
s
us
s
s
e u
e,
,
,
ce
es e
r
e
v
o
s,
e
o
o
es
oe r
s
se
,
us c
r
a n
e
c
ou s .
rou
e
o
ov e,
e
a n
s,
en a
’
o
o
on
e
c
ca n
e
o
ua
o
e n
e
ee
r
o
s
er c ou
e
e
,
,
e
o
e
e re
ers
a s a
s,
o
s
s
r
e
s,
c
e
r
an
s
u
e
oe r
ur
or
o
ec u
sc e
c,
e
es
s
a
:
s
on e
oe
i
o
r
r
e
ve o
1‘
ec o
es
,
o
ec o
e
,
e
a r
o u
o
,
,
c
c
s or
o
ro
o
,
ou s ,
o
s or
e
c ere ,
u re ,
w e a s
,
us
e
e s
co
u
,
er r s es
a
.
an
ea s u
e
o e
s
o
e
e
o
s or c
o
w as
r
c
e e
e
n
u ou s
,
e e n
c
a
c e,
o
s
e e
r
es
,
oe
o
ro
s e
s or c
u
o
ro
a n
e
,
e
e re o r
er
e
.
o
o
an
ex s e
s
e
c ou
,
e
o
o
e ru
r c er
ee
an
D
er
er
u s c , or
e
re
s
o e
w ere
,
o
:
or
,
on e o
s e,
oe r
.
es
w
er
o
ro
es
e
e
o
c
s
e
s u c c es s v e
o
o
s
u
e
u
o
er.
rec
es
a
o
se
n
s
.
.
2 2 2
;
be
re
s ee
ga
al
rd ed
so
as
I
a
,
V
F reh c h m a n
,
of
47 ,
w
h er e Ca rl y l e s ay s t h a t
i ht nth
the e g
ee
ce
nt
u ry .
54
p i m a y ss c f a t
Hi t y f P t y ; th
nd h i h all d ta h d fa cts and ph n m na all pa
a
f P o m s and P o ts wo l d f a hi n th m s l v s i nt
if th y b y y m an t coh r T a mpli h s h a
t
ld q i
nl y all t a d aid b t an
k f
y L it ra t r
f
x ll nt i n a d f a lty all t l p
at i
a ail
d b
i th t t h
ing y and t h nd t a n d ing h a t
ch w r
l i ing p ri cip l
r t ha a t
h nt h l
Su
e
co
c
e
ro u
w
w
e
s ee
e
e
no
u re
e es c o
:
cu
re
w ou
e
u
e e
o
s
a n
es
o
or es
s e rv
e
ers
u
w
ou
e
cco
o
se
,
e
e
.
o
e
o
o
s
u
,
e
a n
a re
e
r
e
ou
e
e
oe r
o
e
e
c
e
c
s or
ru e
o
e
e
e
w
e
en
e
r
w
o e,
or a n
ce
r
o
c e rs
r
e re
w or
e
t he
n
v
a
e e
r
o
s
uc
s,
u
w e re o
no
v
,
” 1‘
r
.
Carlyl e w a s the fi rst E ngli sh critic o f importance to adopt
the hi storical m ethod as an articulate part o f h is criticism
H e can th ink o f no man or literature apart from its age In
the D iv i n e Co m edy
Al l Chri stiani sm as D ante and the
” °
The Elizabethan era
M i ddle A ges had it i s emblemed
w ith its S hakesp ear e i s t h e outcome and flo w era ge o f all
2o
which p receded i t
A stud y o f Goethe s spi ritual dev elop
”2 1
progress also o f hi s nation
m ent implies a study o f the
Th e literature be fore and during th e age o f Voltai r e D ide rot
G o ethe Johnso n B urn s and S cott i s reco gnize d as a neces s ary
factor in a j ust appreciation o f these men This statement
holds good even though as w e may re m e m ber Carlyl e had no
i nterest in th e smaller p roblems o f literary relati onsh ip an d
sa w
no p rofit i n explor ing strea m s o f influence up to th e
2 2
N on e knew better than h e that the criti c o r
t i nie st source
l iterary h istorian w ill not arrive at a complete o r even an ade
quate understanding o f his material until h e has comprehended
the total envi ronment o f which literature i s th e final exp res
sion
N o r d id he overlook entirely th e com parat i ve met hod in
criticism though th i s receiv e s less recognition t han any o f th e
oth e r m ethod s Had he continued a l itera ry c ritic deepening
hi s interest in pure l iterature a s hi s knowledge o f li fe expande d
undoubtedly Carlyle would have gi ven us many an admi rable
.
.
“
,
,
1
.
,
,
’
.
“
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
"
Ib i d III
,
Ca l y l
n tb k f
am ng t h work s
8 7
i t i m nti n d
whi h h
l d l ik t
A Hi t y
f E ngli h L it a
t r ; f m t h ti m s f Cha
V t
H isto ry
; V
f E g l i h P o t ry
f h l p b t n thing
ld d
m th i ng in t h
a m d l Th
y
m
ght t b j dg d
t p at d
h l
vir m t f
f ; and t h
th
th i t a l nt
ll
tal nt i t l f t f a i l y b f o r t h
ad
N t -B k
(T
H ro s 9
Ess ay s I 7 6
Ib d 9 5
Cf i bi d
V I 64
.
c
u
,
e
e
ro
w ou
o
en
20
e
so
e
i
a s
,
oo
e
0.
,
e
r
w r
o
e
o
e
e
u
w e
e
a s
e s
s
o e
e
,
no
e
w a
e
“
e
o
1
or
2
o
,
s or
e
e
o
u
,
o
o
se
a s
e
,
se
n
w
o e
r
e
e
s,
2‘
,
,
,
.
s
er
s
e
1
.
.
,
.
,
o
en
21
.
e
o
a r on s
o
r
oo
’
u c er
e
o e
e
In
.
e
o
e r
4
w ou
ou
w o
2 2
,
’
.
on
e
e
e
.
en
re
o
er
.
”
55
illustration o f thi s m ethod because he w a s k eenly aware that
no great p o et o r p o etry i s related to a s ingle literatu re A n d
hi
s
e
say
s as they s tand show that h e rarely introduce s th e
e
s
t
y
l iterature o f on e nation without glancing at that o f a noth e r
during the s am e perio d He compare s the literary conditi on
3
o f G e rmany w ith t h a t o f E ngland in the eighteenth century {
he compar e s t h e litera ry condition o f S c o tland in B u rn s s day
2 4
S tream s o f philo s oph ical
w ith that in E ngland an d Franc e
an d r eligi ou s influence run parallel in E ngland and on t h e c o n
2
Th e romantic movem e nt Ca rlyl e fr o m the fi r s t loo k s
t i n en t
u p on as E uropean d u e to intellectual tendencies and di sturb
auce s breaking o u t n o t o nly in G erman y and E ngland but in
6
F ranc e and Italy
T h e Cot s and c rt c r p e ri o d s in Ger
man l iterature the stor m and stress are fo l low e d by simila r
2 7
Th e n ew c ri t i
mani festation s in the literature o f E ngland
cal sci e nc e i t s el f do e s n o t belo n g t o Ge rmany alone ; i t i s a
E uropean tenden cy and s prings from th e general condition
” 8
o f intellect in E urop e
Whereve r Carlyle turns to look at
literary condition s h i s vi e w i s a br o ad o n e al w a y s extending
beyond th e l imits o f E ngland to oth er lan ds and people s H e
w a s too tho roughly steepe d i n G e rman th o ught t o o s en s itive
him s el f to ali e n influ enc e s to mak e h i s h orizon include l e ss
than the intellectual culture o f E urop e
Carlyle s i dea o f t h e natur e and functio n o f critici s m i s
there fore comp reh en s iv e and p ro fo und Th e main bu s ine ss
o f t h e criti c i s summ e d up in th e o n e wo rd int e rpretati o n ; all
”
h i s o ther offi c e s a re bound up in thi s
Critic i sm s ays Ca r
lyle
stands lik e an int e rpr et e r betw een the in spi re d an d the
un i nsp i red b etween th e p rophe t an d those w ho hea r th e m el
o d y o f hi s wo rds
an d catch some glimp s e o f th e ir m ate rial
”2 9
m eaning but under s t o od not th e i r deep e r import
Th e tru e
c ritic looks w ithin t h e poe m h e d o e s n o t seek to apply re a d v
made rules from w ithout ; fo r he kno w s t hat only by th i s s u b
e
i
e
e
c
t
v
metho
d
can
h
e
arriv
at
the
m
aning o f the p oem i ts
e
j
,
.
.
.
3
’
.
5
,
,
2
.
,
,
.
“
,
2
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
I, 4 2
b i d II
Ib i d
I
"
Ib i d
I
2!
I
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
25
2
.
2
,
1
,
6
85
“
.
1
86
2
4 6 , 4 5 ; II,
b
I
bd I
I id
2"
I i
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
1
88
45
I 44
.
,
1
70
.
.
.
,
2
73
.
56
”
indivi s ibl e Unity
The true criti c must be a p s ychologi st
mu s t hav e t h e p o w e r t o decipher charact er must b e able to
r e ad t h e w riting a s an exp res s ion o f t h e writer H e must
po s s e s s the hi s t o rical s en s e and have the rare faculty o f
putting him s el f int o the po s iti o n o f t he po et into his a ge h i s
nation h i s li fe in o rd er that he may under s tand the complex
fo rce s that h av e c o mbined to mould the po et s li fe a n d w ork
But w h en h e h a s d one all th i s the c ritic has p e rhaps h i s
hard e s t ta s k sti ll t o d o H e mu s t finally j udge writer and
w riting in term s o f unive r s al principl e s o f po eti c b eauty a s they
in the
a re un f o ld e d in t h e co s mic pr o ces s o r a re revealed
inmo s t S pi rit o f M an
The t rue critic like t h e poet i s a seer
and exerci ses t h e power o f creation ; for critici sm i s i n so m e
sort a c r eative a rt ; aiming at l east to reproduce under a d i ff er
E very human
ent shape t h e exi sting product o f the
bei ng possesses in som e measure the gi fts and feeling o f th e
but only he whose mind is richly cultivated can fully
p o et
inte rpret the poe t s meaning
To appr ehend th is be auty
”
o f po etry
Carlyle says in its full and purest brightne s s i s
not e a s y but di ff i cult ; thousands o n thousands eagerly read
p oem s and a t tain not the smallest taste o f i t ; yet t o all u n
corrupted heart s some e ff ulgenc es o f thi s heavenly gl ory are
here and th e r e rev ealed ; and to appr eh end it clearly and wholly
to ac q ui re and maintain a sense and h eart that sees and w or
”3 2
sh ips i t
is t h e last p erfection o f all humane culture
The
mind o f the critic that i s t o s a y mu s t b e trained to relate
the l i fe o f a poe m t o phil o s ophical principle s to m easure t h e
poet s pr o duc e in ter m s o f t h e highe s t generalization s reached
by human knowl e dge Critici s m i s thus in the final analysi s
33
not logical but intuitional in its meth od s ; and though it deals
only with s e rious literature it is not didactic in i t s aim s b e
cause i t holds that literatur e teaches not by rules and precept s
“
but by the co mmunication o f l i fe
Criticism is thu s n ot
m echanical but poetical L a s tly though i t s c riteria are
sub j ective criticism i s not impr e s s ioni s t ic in the latter -day
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
“
”
,
,
.
“
,
,
’
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
—
.
—
—
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
bid I
Ib i d
11
Ibid I
"I
3‘
“
.
,
.
,
.
,
5
,
,
,
"
2
1
.
8
47
.
“
.
Ib i d I 8
Ib i d III
7
.
,
.
,
,
1
,
1
1
.
2
.
58
E ngland
eve ral y ears b e for e German c ritici s m had gained
Wordsworth s P refa c e to t h e L yri c a l
e ven a s light f o o thold
B a ll a d s w a s publi s h e d in 1 80 0 and fro m I8 O8 to 1 8 1 8 Co le
ridge del ivered h i s lectu res on l iterature i n five s eries In
w ith t h e app earance o f his B i ogra ph i a L i t era ri a Cole
1 81 7
ridg e becam e t h e fi r s t o f E ngli sh critic s and a pro fou nd i n
H i s la b ors we re ably sup
t e rp ret e r o f the new p rinciple s
port e d and supplem ent e d by the criticism o f L amb and Hazlitt
t w o o f t h e m o s t s ensitiv e m inds t hat ever gave th e ms elves t o
4°
In the earlier part o f th e
t h e app reciati o n o f l iterature
centu ry also the great reviews w ere founded ; and these wh il e
o ft en destructive an d reactionary in t hei r critical tendenci es
“
contributed som ething to t h e new mo vement
B y 1 82 4
there fore wh en Carlyl e s translation o f Wil h el m M ei s t er s A p
p ren t i c es h i p was publi shed ro ma nti c cri ti cism was a settled
thing in Ge rmany and was rapidly gaining ground in E n g
land under the l ead e r s h ip o f Wordsworth Coleri dge L amb
and Hazlitt
Chance comm ents in hi s early let ters sh o w that Carlyle
partly by the bent o f his o w n genius and partly by the di rective
force o f the n ewe r i deal s was moving toward philosoph ical
and h isto ri cal criticism e ven be fore Go e the and the o ther G e r
mans could hav e much affect e d h i s thought In 1 8 1 9 upon
reading a part o f R oussea us Con fes s i on s he remarks that he
would like to s ee the remainder o f it in order to try i f p o s
s ible to conn ect the character o f J ean Jac q ue s w ith my previous
i deas o f human
H e propo s es M adam e de S ta el
t o Jan e \Vel s h as a sub j ect for an e ssay an d a s ks : What i s to
h inde r you from d eline ating yo ur conception o f her mi nd
In an o ther letter c o mm enting on Wi l h el m M ei s t er he say s :
I have accurately co pied a striking portrait o f G oeth e s
A gain in 1 82 2 he tells hi s brother that the es s ay on
s
’
'
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
'
’
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
“
’
s app a d i n 8 8 ; H l i t t L ct r s
th
Ch a r a
t rs f S h a k sp ar i n 8 7 h i L ct r s
E g l is h P o ts in 8 8 h i
th
th
L ct r s
Co m ic Wr it r s i n
8 9
d a y ar lat
h i D ra m a ti
L it ra t r f t h A g f E l i ab th
Th E d i b rg h R
i
tabl i h d in 8 t h Q ar t l y in 8 9
and B l a c k oo d s i n 8 7
E L tt r s
Ib i d 3 8
Ib i d
7
L amb s
'
Sp
o
e
e
u
e
“
e
e
on
u
e o
e
e
c
i m en
e
e
e
1
1
re
e
s
,
e
e
e
e
n
1
o
z
e v ew
u
w a s
’
az
0
u
e
1
1
on
,
e
s
e
‘3
e
.
‘3
.
,
1
e
2 1
,
.
1 1 2
.
1
e
on
n
an
e
er,
c
1
e
e
1
s
,
c
s
e
es
s
e
1
02
,
'
w
u
.
.
,
0
.
e
u
er
1
0
,
59
the Civi l Wars whi ch he thinks o f w riting w ill consi der cer
tain distinguish ed actors i n that d rama fo r the purpose o f e x
”45
some features o f the national character
These
h i b it in g
evidenc es o f cr itical attitude reveale d in random rema rks
show that the seeds were alr eady sown in Carlyle s min d an d
only needed nou ri shment from Germa n tho ught i n orde r to
develop into a fruit ful system
We need go no further than Fi chte and G oeth e for the G er
man critical i deals to wh ich Carlyle wa s s o largely i ndebted
”
The criti cal p rincipl es o f Tieck and t h e S chlegels he himsel f
said derive from Goethe and S ch ill er an d have been de duc e d
pati ently and by long investigation from the h igh est an d calm
“
That i s to s a y th e new critici sm
e s t regions o f P h ilosophy ?
lai d i t s foundation upon transcen dental ph ilosophy as i t o ri gi
mated w ith Kant and was develop ed by Fi chte
Concerning
thi s system w e do not need to repeat what has already been
sai d in the second chapter and it i s only necessary t o po int o u t
that the final task o f the critic i s t o di scover by th e ai d o f thi s
ph ilo so phy the divine idea which the po et has impa rted t o
“7
his wo rk
It i s sign ificant that to Fichte Carlyl e owes the
best statement o f th e h i storical metho d in critici sm A ccord
ing to the thought o f Fichte each age by th e law o f i t s natu re
i s di ff e re nt from every o t he r age and demands a diff erent
representation o f the D ivine I dea th e essence o f wh i ch i s th e
same in all ; so that the literary man o f one century i s only by
m ediation and rein t e rp retati on appl icabl e to the want s o f a n
In th is passage w e find a clear recognition o f th e
relation o f the poet to h i s age an d o f th e dev e lopm ent or
change in fo rm o f the I dea from age to age the very kernel o f
th e hi storical m ethod Th is great p rinciple there fore as well
as th e enti re metaphysic al bas is o f the new c ritici sm w e may
trace to Fi chte and the othe r Kant ians
But for its animating an d sustaini ng sp iri t for its metho d
in all departments excep t the purely philosophi cal w e shoul d
In h is writings there i s a bo dy o f c ritical max
go to Goethe
im s from wh ich Carlyle derived invaluable and incal culable
'
“
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
“
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
—
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
‘5
bi
I d,
4"
Ess a
.
2 0
6
‘7
.
y s , I,
2
4 6 ; 44
.
b
I id
i
Ib d
.
,
I, 4 7 — 5 0
.
,
50
.
.
'
60
support and for which he ma de the full e st acknowledgment
But even in the case o f Goethe i t i s well to limit ou r search fo r
borrow ings to the criticism o f H a m l et in Wi l hel m M ei s t er s
A pp ren t i ces h i p an int e rpretati o n which reveals the heart o f
Goethe s method and wh ich Carlyle himsel f calls the poetry
“ 9
o f critici sm
A ccording to the method h e re employed eriti
studies
c i s m loo ks at a poem from the autho r s point o f view
character in relation to its environment seeks to penetrate t o
the origina l and organic i d ea o f the work I t there fore regards
a p oem n ot in part s but as a whole search ing thus for its cen
tral id ea wh ich it discovers by intuiti on and announces not by
argument but by expo sition Thi s critici sm demands a criti c
who is an interpreter who l oo ks w ithin w ith h is ow n eyes who
the inward truth o f hi s own c on c ep
c a n know a work by
tive pow er and in whom lies a pre sentiment o f all the uni
verse wh ich by the harmonious touch o f poetry i s awakened
”5 0
a n d un f olded
We have here a group o f p ri n c iples whi ch
Carlyle accepted i n t o t o and wh ich h e set up and de f ended as
th e true ideals o f a s ound and su b stantial critici sm In fact
a short pa ssag e wherein Go ethe describes Wilhelm M e ister
m ight be appli ed word fo r word to Carlyl e in h i s critical
”
capacity
Wilhelm always w ished says Goethe t o deduce
everything from abstract i deas which he had arrived at ; he
wanted to have art vi ewed in all its connexio n s as a whol e
H e wanted to promulgate and fi x down universal laws ; to
settle what wa s right beauti ful and g oo d : in short he treate d
”5 1
a l l things in a serious manner
Carlyle s indebtedness to
.
’
,
“
’
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
“
“
.
.
“
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
itt n b f Ca l y l had mp d h i
ay
th
St t
Li t a t
n ti
Ca l y l in h i
G th
h
f G m
i nt d t i n t G m R m
k p t h b alan b t n indi i d ality
d n i nm nt and h
h
d ll
hat i
p iall y ha a t i ti
f nati nal t n d n i
G th
al p int t that t h
ff t
f th
b t p t and
th ti
f all nati n ha
it
m tim b n
f
di
t d t a d hat i ni al i n h man i t y
pl y Ca l y l
I hi
a y that th
i d a mman d h i nt i a nt ( C
p 3 4
Th
iti i m f H m l t i t b f nd
pp 9 9
7
4
3
f V l I;
d pp
t an lat i n f Wi l h l m
7
5 V l II f Ca l y l
Ib
on
id
.
1 , 52
,
e
ro
a n
a
uc
e
s
v ro
o
es
s
i
e
o
cr
o
e
e
c s
u
s
o
1 2
—
2
s
o
o
,
s
re
e
ce
e w ee
“
“
sse
on
.
r
0— 1
1
’
e s
.
r
1
s
or s
o
e
e
,
ee
r
2
o
e
,
2 1
,
c
e
re
2
,
u
r c er s
e
s
orre s
s
v
or s o
n
es s
e
c
e
ve n o w
s
r
ec
s
.
o
,
.
ow
”
ou
os e
c es
ou
u
e
co
s
o
v e rs
e
o
w
o
s
a
.
so
e
e
o
co
e
s
on
s
e
ers
s
an
.
w r
w
s
w e
oe
oe
ee
a nce
e
”
c
u re,
r
—
2 1
2 2
,
e
o
s te r
.
" M ei
l
Ca l y l
r
c es .
e
r
o
an
e ore
e
er
ow
a s
ow
er w r
an
,
es e
lio
Me
er
e
s
2 2
o
oe s
re c e
er
e
o
e
o
e
o
a l tt
In
.
e
s t e r,
s ee
m
I,
s
2
to
41
.
be
d ibing t h
p tting q ti n
In
u
es c r
u es
o
e
s,
n ew
w
ith
iti i m
th
cr
Goe
c s
’
e s
( Es s a ys,
i ti i m
cr
c s
I, 4 3 -44 )
of
H
a
m l et
61
G oethe and the rel a tion
of
hi s doctrines to those p reache d by
his master may be seen w ith great di stinctness th rough out th e
A ppren i c es h i p n o t only i n the passages relating to H a m l et but
i n the hundred and o n e sayings upon art and literature scattered
up and down th is mo st suggestive and searching book We d o
n o t ther e fore e xceed th e truth i f w e s a y that Carlyle s main
critical p rinciple s d erive a fter Fichte an d the tr a nscende u
t a l i s t s largely from Wi l h el m M ei s t er s A pp ren t i c es h i p by Go e
the What h e received f rom other sources only c onfi rmed
5 2
what he found there
This German c riti cism Carlyl e descr ibes as new and a s en
t i rel y di fferent from establ ished o r orth odox English critici sm
pa st and p resent
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
’
,
.
.
,
.
g and q ti n h ay
i
t
a q ti n n ning t h
w
q aliti f d i ti n t h e c h n c f m taph t h fitn
f
ntim nt
al l gi al t th in a w k f t
it
m hal f nt y
the g n
am ng m t iti ; n i th e i i t a q ti n mainl y f a p y c h ol ogi c al
ag
t t b an
in g d d l i n ating t h p lia nat e f
d by di c
th
i
p t f m hi p t y
al ith t h b t f
iti at
p nt b t it i ot in d d x l i el y b t in l i l y f th e t
th
q ti n p p l y a d ltimat l y a q ti n t h
n
li a
d p
li f f t h p t y it l f Th fi t f th q ti n
it an
d
f
in tan
in t h c iti i m f J hn n d Kam
lat
t i tl y
p ak ing t t h g a m t f p t y ; t h
n d in d d t i t b dy d
mat ial xi t n a m h high p int ; b t nl y t h la t t i t
“
Th e
es
u
e
o
res e
u es
ro
s,
e o
ro
e
e
o
,
se
er
e
e
s e
a s
,
e
u
e
e
r
r
en
c e,
c us v
e
es e
o
c s
s
o
o
oe r
o
e
er
es
r
ur
cr
o
w o o
os
ce
an
es ,
ee
o
es ,
o
er
r
o
,
s r c
an
o
s
s
e
cs
s w e re
re
,
o
ecu
s , a s w e s ee
,
s,
ur
ou r o w n
es s e
an
u
e
ce
ec u
o
e
o
s ec o
o
se
e
s
e
u es
so
o
o
on
o
c er
e
so
c u s ve
u
,
co
es s
w a s
e
u es
rs
uc
e
w
e
.
o
o
e
a s
,
u es
a n
u su
s
u es
ors ,
a r
o
s
ov e r
ee
n
c e,
r
s
er
oe r
s
e
no
no
e
or
cs
s, n
s
e o
,
oe r
s
u
:
o
or
cr
“
s,
e re
o
,
ru
s
e
,
s w e re
e
oe
o
c
os
o
,
o
o
o
e
s
c
er
o
s or
u es
r
”
s
In othe r words the criti ci sm which Carlyl e s et up an d practi ced
i s squarely oppo se d to the n eo -classic eighteenth century theo
ries rep re s ented by P op e and John s on ; and likew i se to tho s e
advocat e d by the school o f J e ff rey high p ri est o f the periodical
criti cism o f Carlyle s own day P ro fessor Sain tbu ry has de
scribed neo classi c critic ism a s a system o f rule s applied a c
,
,
’
.
—
,
min d I a n
ati n ith E k mann G th ma k d app ingl y
p n Ca l y l
iti i m f G man a th
t
th
ff t that Ca l y l had
th
p iall y i n i
pi it al d m al k nal d g i t i g
d
ittli h K
that hi h i
all y ffi a i
III
(G p a h
3 ;
f i b i d II
p 99
d C
th
S
t k t p n t at t h
k
d a g
Ca l y l f
d d al t S hill b t
id a
S hill
f
in
Ca l y l
h
th i infl n
t p n t h t an n d ntal
t
phil ph y it d
m n
a y t d al ith th m f th than
th y ha al a d y b n d alt ith in t h
n d hapt
in
u
o
es
’
r
e s
ec
s
c
n
.
c
,
,
r
so
e
ar
os o
“
cr
c s
e rn —
en
.
e
v e rs
v ew
.
‘2
co
o
,
e
o rres
c o u rs e
,
o es
re
I, 4 3
r
c
.
e s
no
s
oo
e r
s ee
e
e c es s
w
o
or
re
,
ow s
o rs ,
an
s
oe
,
u
u
ow e
’
ee
.
s
w
a n
r
,
“
er
c
er
o
as
a s
ve
E s s a ys
2 2
w
o
co
e
o
ue
r
e
e
c
s
o
e r,
c
c e,
res
o
e
u
r
ro v
e
r
en
—
e s
en
a n
'
es
e
r
e r
u
o
w
c
e
ec
c ou s
s ee
s ec o
e
”
er
e
e
e re
a s
e
e
e r.
c
e,
e
,
e w or
’
c
r
1 2
er s
s ce
ur
er
e
e
s
62
“
cording t o good ta s t e o r g o od sen s e
You never critici s e
”
anything h e says fi r s t in it s el f but w ith imm e diate re f e r
ence to i t s Kind You mu s t pl ease in the Kind by the Quality
”5 4
according to th e R ule
Thi s method besides carrying
w ith it the autho rity o f gr eat name s was d evelop e d in an atten
u a t e d and galliciz e d form by such m en as Blair and L o rd
Kam es wh o se wo rks were s tandard in Carlyle s s tud ent days
at E dinburgh R e fer ences to th is s chool o f criticism in the
essay s a re few and s catt e r ed but su fficient to point very cl early
to Carlyl e s attitud e toward it In on e place h e says that
Kame s borrow e d hi s p rinciples from R acine and Voltai re
”55
Batteaux and B o ileau
He re f ers to a neo -classic Fr ench
critic o f t h e late seventeenth century B ossu as on e wh o
c ould not mea s ure H e rder S chiller G oethe
w ith h i s scales
”5 8
H e says that William Taylor uses S u l z er s
and compa s ses
Un i v ers a l Th eory a s h i s road -boo k to the t emple o f German
taste
almost as i f th e G e rman critic should undertake t o
measure Wa verl ey and M a n fred by the scale o f B l a i r/ s L ec
”5 7
t u res
A gain in pictures q u e phras e he s p eaks of
that ol d
strait -lac ed microscopic sect o f b el l es l et t res men who se divin
”5 8
i t y was Elegance a creed o f French growth
From the s e
scattered co mme n ts it is evid ent that Carlyl e looked upon t he
o l d cr e e d o f critici s m as a system o f narrow rules by whi ch the
e xternals the garment o f
poetry were measured Its criteria
w ere totally inad e q uat e to b e o f use for j udging t h e new po etry
which had a wholly di ff e rent origin and made a wholly di ff er
ent appeal fro mthat o f th e conventional e ighteenth c entu ry
l iterature
Carlyle s relation t o Je ffrey and to the periodical critici sm
for wh ich h e s tood was far m o re definitely o n e o f s u staine d
and activ e opposi t i o n for Je ff r ey as edito r o f the E di n bu rg h
R e vi ew was enth roned in powe r at the very time when Carlyle
w a s pr eaching the n e w critici sm by every mean s at hi s com
mand In the pa s s ag e quoted abo ve h e speaks o f the criticism
o f hi s day a s mainly o f a p s ychological sort which being liber
.
“
,
,
,
,
.
—
.
,
’
,
.
,
’
.
“
,
.
—
—
,
,
,
’
“
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
.
,
5!
“
“
Hi
s t o ry
a
Ess ys
b id
I
.
,
,
o
Ciii
f
r
II,
I, 4 3
2
7
t
c s m,
II, 4 0 7 4 2
—
1
.
‘7
.
“
.
,
b
Ib i d
I id
.
,
III,
.
,
III, 3
2
35
.
.
63
ally interp reted means the imp ress ioni s ti c criti cism p revalent
in t h e great revi e ws o f th e tim e though th e phra s e w a s p r ob
ably w ri tten w ith J e ffr ey i n m ind a s c h i e f among the sinners
Je ff r ey s critici sm unlik e that o f mo st o f h i s contemp orari e s
etty w ell formulat ed an d rested upon certai n p s y c h o lo g
w a s pr
ical theori e s that h e o btain e d from A lison the apostle o f
”5 9
Tast e
In a revi ew o f A l i s on i n the E di n bu rgh for M a y
J e ffrey lai d down s om e principl e s o f aesth e ti cs an d e ri ti
1 81 1
The o bj ect o f po etry
c i s m that underly hi s ow n critical ideal s
he s aid is t o gi ve pl ea s ure The q uality and wo rth o f th i s
pleasure are estimat e d by a sel ect numbe r o f j udges n e cessarily
few w h o po ssess goo d taste that i s wh o are qual ifi ed by
natural s en s ibility and long e xperi ence and refl ectio n to p er
c e i v e all b e auti e s that really exi s t a s w ell as to settle th e rela
” 60
tive valu e and importance o f all di fferent so rt s o f beauty
‘
s el f as one o f th e j udges
a p p re
fi
r
e
con
s
ider
e
d
h
im
H
e
e
J
y
c i a t e d literature in term s o f hi s ow n tast e whi ch he regarded
as representative o f th e taste o f cultivated p eople ; an d h e
always s eemed to be looking to these as an advocate to a j ury
Th e taste to wh ich h e appeal s i s de
fo r a su s taining verdict
fined as the capacity to p e rc e ive beauty ; and b eauty according
to Al i s on s a s sociation th eo ry i s a pleasurable feeling excited
in us by obj ects wh ich move us becau s e by the pow er o f asso
t h e y call up certai n p rimary emotions
c i a t io n
Whoev e r de
rives pleasure f rom an obj ect that obj ect t o h im i s beauti ful
E ach individual h a s w ithin h imsel f hi s o w n s tandard o f beauty
and h ence o f ta s te Indivi dual taste i s not n ec e s s a rily good
because the p erson wh o possesses i t may have a very narrow
range o f as s ociations O nly tho se whose as s ociat ion s are
w ide who s e e xp eriences and sympath ie s are broad an d deep
have good tast e because to them alone i s beauty brought from
a gr eat numbe r an d variety o f obj ects Ta s te i s th e re fore a
relative term the b e s t taste belonging to him whose nature i s
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
“
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
h i b ald A li n E y
N t
ip l
th
d P i
T t p bl i h d in 7 9
a tanda d w k f n a l y f t y y a
Ca l y l
al t i m
f t P a n A li n
p i n ipl
d hi
ta t b y h i h
j dg f p t y w j dg f d inn
( L if
‘9
T h e R ev
a s e,
u
e
r
s e,
i
A rc
.
s
e
1
s ev e r
w
so
c
es
“
a
w e
0
J
e
u
2 1
M de
s
ssa
w a s
,
re e rs
S c h l l e r, 9 9 ; E s s y s , I, 2
’
“
e ff re y s E s s a y s ,
o
’
s
“
o
o
on
s
oe r
e
r
or
rs o
a s
u re
a
or
so
e
u
an
e
o
‘
; Fro u d e, I, 3 0 4
rn
a
B ri t i s h E s s y i s t s
,
I, 3 68
.
a n
e
r nc
r
or
s
r
er
c
f
es
o
e
rs
e
of
e
o
.
f
64
most richly dev eloped Th e only reason why the lower beauty
should give plac e to th e high e r i s to assist in the cultivati on
”6
o f a fine r morality
From fi r s t to last th e the o ry i s em p i r
ical sensational a s sociational s pringing from the older p s y
It i s Engli s h in origin and stands
c h o l ogy o f Hume and L ocke
fo r what i s commons ense and practical in criticism and it rests
secur ely upon a ba s is o f morality It di ff e rs by a whole heaven
f r o m t h e critici s m o f Carlyl e who se ultimate standards are
found in philosophy not in p s ychology ; and who se method i s
intuitional not associational Carlyle habitually re fers to a b s o
lute value s t o a h ighest truth or bea uty or r ea lity established
in th e d eepest part o f man s nature and independent o f p l ea s u r
abl e associations With Je ff r ey the competent critic i s th e
j udge o f cultivated ta s te ; w ith Carlyle he i s the interpreter
w ith a c reative faculty and a seer s vi si on
In the hands o f a catholic discrim inating and sensiti vely tem
per e d critic Je ff rey s principle s might have been p roductive
o f much fine and end uring critici sm but a s w i elded by h im t h e
c riti c s rule became a schoolmaster s ro d Assuming the i n
fallibi lity o f hi s own taste and j udgment he tries to whip
errant authors into l ine and he m easures everything i n the I
”
”
l ike it and I don t like it manner He b ring s the poem
into hi s i u d i c i a l pre s ence a s it were and appreciates it in term s
variety a nd qual ity o f sensation s o f beauty
o f the number
which it awakens in him He marks and quotes passages for
praise o r blame H e j udges parts and fragments si nce he
seeks impression s rathe r than ideas Carlyle calls this t he
”
method o f the N egative S chool because it is d estructive in
its results and contents its el f w ith exhibiting violation s o f goo d
taste It s approach to a poem is external a n d it al w ays a p
plies a s et o f ready -made principles In much o f the criti cism
o f Je ff rey there fore there survives the spirit and the letter o f
t h e eighteenth century neo -classi c doctrine
In one im p or t a nt particular howeve r the re i s som e agree
m ent w ith Carlyl e J effr ey us e s t h e hi s t o ri cal method i n a
faint and tentativ e fashion and thus slightly anti cipates th e
6’
you n ger critic P ro f es sor Gates in an essay on Je ff rey
.
,
1
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
’
.
,
’
,
,
’
’
.
,
“
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
“
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
‘1
bd
I i
.
,
38
‘3
.
Th
re e
S
t di
u
es
in
Lite atu
r
re ,
3 3 38
—
.
66
Con s e qu ently h is p o sition remains restricted and insular l im
i t ed to p s ychological consideration s and i s never broad enough
to admit principl es o f philosophical d epth and range Y et
it i s p roper to point out that i f Carlyl e owe s nothing t o Je f
frey in the use o f the hi s torical method he was n o t quite th e
fi r s t to employ it in English l it e rary c ri ticism There w ere
faint traces o f it in Je ff rey a decade be fore Carlyle began to
“
w rit e
Th e edit o r o f the E d i n b u rg h R evi ew w as for Carlyle the
leading r epre s entativ e o f periodical critici sm current i n h is
dav Thi s critici s m w a s never v e ry friendly to German i deas
and i t was som etimes absurdly hostile s o much s o that many
an arti cle arous ed Carlyle s w rath and evoked from h im well
merited condemnation couch e d in ph ras e s b oth picture s que
65
In order that w e may appreciate the d ifficu l
a n d pungent
t ies i n the way even o f a critic w ith Carlyl e s fighting spi rit
let u s glance at th ree review s o f hi s translations o f Wi l h el m
’
M ei s t er s A pp ren t i ces h i p as examples o f early nineteenth cen
tury perio dical criticism The fi rst i s in B l a c k w o od s for June
and was p robably w ritten by L ockhart w h o had been
in G ermany and who sh owed som e interest i n German l itera
ture B eginning w ith the assertion that he w ill give h is opin
”
ion o f Goethe as i t is the revi ewe r m ildly p raises the poet
in a gen e ral way be fore he com es to Wi l h el m M ei s t er In thi s
w ork he condemns the critical dialogue a s so many impe rtinent
interruptions which the reader i s to skip wh ilst he follow s
the story o f M ignon The review conclu des w ith a brie f o u t
line o f th is sto ry intersper s ed with copious e xtracts which
”
Car l yl e would call f ragment s
Such i s a fa v orabl e review
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
’
,
.
’
,
,
’
,
.
,
.
“
,
.
,
.
,
“
.
.
Ca l y l
ll n d t d t h min d d t mp
pi it
f J ff y
d th
d m th d
f hi
iti i m H all d J ff y a g d man d b d
iti ( G t h -C l y l C
a t
n pap
iti
g at
th
I f
al ( F d II
nd h a y
that
nt i all y h
al ay
i f p ak ing t a j y ( R m II
ll k n n
I a
pa a g h all J ff y m th d t h m th d f M li e maid
d y
l i k i t D t y l i k it
t y l hi h i n han d m and m i n f i
t
th t
nd h a t d l d lady a nd him h
i n g n g ad a ll y t
h
i mm a abl l ngth am ng
al E L t t
S
( Ib i d II
337
r
an
e
e
cr
sc
e
ss
a
e
o rn
e
e
s
re
s
su r
ou
-
e
S ee E s s a ys
e
r e
e
,
.
g
o
a
s
.
,
e
,
”
e
e
e w
II
,
1
us
86
.
,
re
o
.
ce
XV
on
s
w e
re s
re
e
o re
ow
—
r
so
6 1 9 63 2
—
.
u
.
su c
o
e
ou
er or
o re
ro w
w as
o
,
r
a
e
’
ee
,
e
es s e
o
s
V ol
c
n
o
s
a n
an
er c r
,
,
a s
re
oo
“
s,
,
66
.
“
c
,
o
.
e
ew s
s
e
o
s
e
ur
P—
e
e
e
”
ou
e
er o
ru e
o
’
c
e
,
,
on
s ou
e
.
“
s
c
e
an
e
c s
'
?
e
°5
e
cr
a r
e,
a s
e
ers oo
s
e
rou
s
u
o
oe
”
w
o
o
”
c
w e
e rs
,
.
67
The essay by D e Quincey in th e M on t h l y M a ga zi n e o f th e
sam e yea r illu s trates a hostile attitude an d i s typ ical o f Eng
lish op inion toward G oeth e in I8 2 4 A fter declaring that by
t h e publi c a tion o f th is revolting book G o ethe s nam e mu st
tott e r and a fte r severely and pe danti cally censu ri ng Carlyl e s
translation D e Q uincey opens hi s criti ci sm w i th the remark
that i n th e j udgment o f a novel there i s one rule
the gol den
”
rule o f goo d s ense and j ust feel ing
H e th en tu rn s to G oe
th e s shockin gly immoral c reation and p roceeds t o exh ib it its
i ndecenci e s under the two h ea ds o f G a l l ery of F em a l e P or
t ra i t s and H i s t ory of M r M ei s t er s A ffa i rs of t h e H ea rt
”
S uch i s th e manner i n whi ch that cockney a n imalcule as
67
Carlyle dubbed D e Quincey reviewe d a German boo k
Je f
f rev s article in the E di n bu rgh fo r A ugust 1 8 2 5 has al re ady
in p art be e n re ferre d to I t reveals th e same m eth od as D e
Quin cey s critique though as compared w ith that it i s m ild i n
manner and broad in scope Yet Je ff rey cannot re frain from
saying that Wi l h el m M ei s t er i s on e fl agrant o ff ense against
every p rinciple o f taste an d eve ry j ust rul e o f
The b o ok he says illustrates G erman extravagance an d G er
man vulgarity m ixe d u p w ith Ge rman m a t a p h y s i c s These
wholesale condemnations th e reviewe r follow s up by quota
ti ons tagged with likes or d islikes I t i s no wonder that Car
lyle p rotests again an d again against th i s style o f c riticism a
69
critici sm by fragments and not by wholes
and eve rlastingly
70
in te rm s o f taste
It i s no w onder that he finds the Eng
li sh reviewers p ortrait o f Go ethe resembling Goeth e a s some
unusually exp ressive S ign o f th e Saracen s Head may resem
”7 1
ble the p resent Sultan o f Constantinople
It i s n o w onder
finally that w ith these review e r s and th ei r revi ew s i n m in d
h e describes the c ritical pe riod o f h i s day a s o n e o f litera ry
anarchy ; for the P an dects o f B lai r an d B os s u are obsolete or
abrogated but no new code supplies thei r place ; and author
a n d critic
each sings o r says that whi ch i s right in h i s o w n
”7 2
eyes
H is essay o n the S t a t e of G erm a n L i t era t u re fo r
.
’
,
’
,
,
,
.
’
’
.
.
“
,
.
,
’
,
,
.
’
,
.
“
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
°7
De
J
“9
7°
,
Q in
u
eff rey ,
E ss a ys
bid
I
.
,
,
I,
c ey ,
C
E s s a ys
I, 5 4 ,
1
32
,
t d W i ti
o l l ec e
,
1 0
2 2 0
2 2 1
.
,
6
r
.
2 2
6,
2
83
n gs ,
ed .
bid
"I
7n
.
M as s on
Ib i d
.
.
,
XI
2 2
,
,
I,
1
73
,
I,
2
46
.
.
6—
2
56
.
68
xample i s not only an exposition o f German critici s m but
t h roughout a stout attack upon the method s o f J e ff rey and the
”73
revi ewers o r upon critici sm as a Science o f N egation
The j ustification for dwelling at some length upon the i deal s
and methods o f thi s sch ool o f n egative crit icism lies in the
fa ct that Carlyle s o w n position as an inno vator hi s own s u s
t a i n ed battle f or the n ew criticism is the more sharply brought
to vie w i f w e clearly di s c e rn the fo rce s that were allied against
h im But Carlyle did n o t fight alon e Indep e ndent and fea r
less a s he was he marched i n the ranks o f men who followed
the flag o f romantic critici s m and he received ev en from the
E ngl ish co ntingent a kind o f moral support greater than he was
perhap s a ware o f He did not call th e mov ement romantic
but he clearly understood that an effort was being ma de to re
construc t critic ism and that it was c ommon to Germany Eng
”
l a nd France and Italy
It i s a European tendency he says
o f it
and springs from th e genera l condition o f intellect in
E urope
We ourselves have all fo r the last t h irty years more
o r less distinctly felt the necessity o f such a science : w itne s s the
neglect into which ou r Blai rs a n d Bossus have silently fallen ;
o u r inc reased and increasing adm iration not only o f S hakes
speare but o f all hi s contemporaries and o f all who breathe
any portion o f h is spi rit ; our co n troversy whethe r P ope was a
p oet ; and so much vague effort o n the pa rt o f our best critics
e verywhere to express some still unexpressed i dea concerning
the nature o f true poetry ; as i f t hey felt in their hearts t hat a
pure glory nay a d ivinenes s belonged to it for which they had
“
a s yet no name and no intellectual form ?
e
,
,
“
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
“
,
.
,
“
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
ntial t t h f g ing d i
i n t
in l d a anal y i f t h indi i d al iti c i m f Wil n S tt L kha t
F
d G i ff d
Wi l n
Li t t
fi t ei
E
S aint b y
y i
Ca l y l th ght Wil n a f b igg man than J ff y ( R m
7 -3 3
I
b t
anting t h c nt al gi ft F S tt
tt
S i W lt
S
C iti
t
b y Ball
Th
a th
n l d
that S tt
f Li t
34
46
th
h l an imp i ni ti iti
L kha t
Lif
F
L ang
p iall y V l 1 1 hapt X IX d XX L ang ay that L kha t h d
m h kn
g at p
l d g l a i d a a g ood pp t nit y b t t h
Im p
f th
h d d mini n
P
him G i ff d i d i
d in
" bi d
I
c u
e
I, 3 4
,
s s
or
0
0
r
u
c
es
e
o
e w
o
es s e
s
ur
so
e
o e
”
c
—
1
s
ers
’
1
o
o
so
s
co
,
e ra
n
s cu s s o
u re,
c
”
s ee
u
or
or
.
co
oc
s
.
r
a
c u
rs
r
,
r es ,
s
e
co
.
,
a
as
“
co
’
s ee
s
r
re
er
es
o
oc
,
e
co
e
a n
ore
er
.
c cr
e
ss a
s
or
.
res s o
s
ar
r
,
o
cr
u
s ee
ou
,
m
v
u re
.
s ee
e
e
er a
ec
n ot
oes
so
w
o
w a s on
d
or
.
.
,
r
It
.
n
an
2
.
e,
s
oc
“
r
a
'
re
o w e rs ,
o
S a i n t b u ry
e
’
s
E s s a ys
,
Hi
uc
e rv e rs e
s t.
I, 4 5
o
.
ow
’
e
e,
c e
o
a
o
r
e
III 86 88
f C i
O n h B l nt
t
r
t
.
,
e
,
ow
2
—
es
2
co
ov e r
s,
o
”
or u
or
.
,
s cu s se
s
.
rov ers y , s ee
al
so
III, 7 1
u
.
e
69
Th e e ff ort to e stabli s h criticism up o n a new foundation by
i nve s tigating fi rst principles such as th e nature o f
true
”
poetry was r ep re s ent e d in E ngland ch iefly by four names
already m entioned in the early part o f th is chapter Words
wo rth Coleridg e Hazlitt and L amb While it i s impossible
to p oint o u t instances o f di re ct indebtedness Carlyl e must
have b e en influenced by these criti cs for during th e p erio d o f
h is es s ay writing h e was a care ful reader o f review s an d ha d
an attentive ear for whatev e r was spoken in l iterary c ircles
A n d with all hi s contempt and cynical i ndiff e rence no man o f
75
his da y was more curious concerning hi s fellow cra ftsmen
At all events the re i s an interesting agreement between Ca r
lyl e and the romantic critics concerning several fi rst p rinciples
T o begin w ith t hey would e ndorse w i th co nsi derably di ff erent
emphasi s upon the first o f them th e two leading doct rines
in Carlyl e s mani f esto namely that p oetry is to be j udge d from
w ithin and that it i s t o be j udged a ccording to un iversal
”
p rinciples w ritten on th e hearts and imaginations o f all men
With them as w ith Carlyle criticism i s fi rst and last pos itive
and an e ff ort there fore not to censure but to i nterp ret Ca r
lyle was not more determ ine d than w ere Coleri dge and Hazlitt
to break away from criti cism by rule and ki nd according to
Along w ith thi s new app roach to th e
t h e external method
mat eri al o f critici sm there we n t a new conception o f the natu re
and worth o f poetry The fi el d o f p oe try sai d th ese critics
i s not arbitrarily r estricted ; the poet i s free to choose h i s s u b
jec t s where he w ill i f o nly he treat th em i n harmony w ith p rin
P oetry i s the voice o f
c i p l es un iversal i n thei r applic a tion
common hu m anity and i t s appeal i s not confined to m en o f one
ra nk or national ity In the critical ut teranc e s o f these w riters
po etry is indeed regarded as l i fe or rathe r as the e s sence o f it
Thei r faith in th ese h igh matters cannot be regarde d as di ff e r
ing from Carlyle s O ne and all they bel ieve d in t h e m y s t e
rio u s origin o f poetry a s the p roduct o f a divine faculty s u b
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
’
,
,
“
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
’
.
,
Ca l y l
r
Re m
s ee
.
II,
,
F
ro u
E s s a ys,
B
oo k s ,
d
’
e s
2
o
97 30 9
I,
e,
3
pini n
:
—
IV ,
2 1
o
:
1
79,
of
f or
2 0
5,
th
iti i
C l idg b i d
2 1
F ro u d e,
for L
amb F
,
cr
o er
8 ;
2
es e
4,
2
II,
ro u
d
cs
e,
s
es
fam i lia
the
es
3 8 ; E s s a y s , II,
1
69 ;
e,
II,
C
!
1
0 rre s
.
1
w
7 0 ; R em
.
e
Fo r
r.
Wo
ighth hapt
c
H
i th
E m ers o n ,
,
I, 9 4 ; II,
in
s ee
i g
84 f
H azlitt
I 45 ; N t
84 ;
e ro e s ,
th
rd s w o r
er
:
1
,
32
.
S t e rl
n
or
o e
,
,
70
to
no
la
w s low e r than it s el f ; though none o f th e m clung
j
to thi s conviction w ith as much s e ri o u sness and con s i s tency
as did Carlyl e T e rms s uch as imagination and g enius occur
ring s o fr eq u ently i n Wo rd s w orth and s o continually in Cole
ridge and Hazl itt a re e q uivalent to reason a s uni formly u s e d
in Carlyle ; and all thre e nam es d enot e t h e higher c reative
powe r o f the poet to s ee and body forth truth
Carlyl e s di ff e ren c e s from th es e critics a s to both id eals and
m ethods ari s e chi e fly from h is closer relation to the Ge rmans
and to h i s own large r V i ew o f soci ety Hi s criticism reaches
do w n into phil o so phy : h i s principles hav e th e i r roots in trans
ideali s m
Coleridge i s the only other Engli sh
c en d en t a l
critic whose principl es her e and there se em to presuppose the
Kantian system and yet he nowhere succeeds in resting h is
c riticism upon a definite philosophical basis It follows that
Carlyl e alone i s int ent upon the idea or interpreted mo re lib e r
ally the purpose or message o f literature its contribution
toward the solution o f th e enigma o f existence In hi s criticism
th er e fo re he overlooks many important matters such for ex
ample a s the distinction between poet ry and p rose wh ich Cole
ridge took up and di s cu s sed with incompa rable skill and insight
Again in Carlyle the proposition that p oetry is li fe has a far
w ider meaning than i t has in the work o f the other romant ic
cri tics With h im poetry i s not only the breath and spi ri t o f
all knowledge
i t is also the representative o f man an d society
It a s sumes for him a social chara ct e r and significance ve ry
faintly recogn ized by hi s contemp orari es The poet for Car
lyle i s the rep resentative man in whom all movements o f h is
tim e the q u e stionings o f t h e Z ei t G ei s t are reflected are hea rd
H e i t i s t o whom we look for un iver s al tru th and for an inter
Carlyl e there
p ret a t i on o f our age in the light o f that truth
fore places a far great e r emphasi s than do Coleridge and Haz
litt upon the histo rical method L ike J e ff rey both these critics
touch this m ethod in a few general remarks but neithe r o f
th em giv e s utterance to any desi re o r purpo s e to interp ret lit e ra
ture as an expre s sion o f the age in which it w a s creat ed 7 6
ec t
.
,
.
’
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
7
V
,
"F
or
1
81
.
C l idg
o er
e,
s ee
L it e
ra ry
C
r
ii
t c is m,
1
89
—
1
9 1 ; f or
H azlitt
,
s ee
Wo rk s
,
71
They are content Hazlitt e s pecially to point out in a d e sultory
fash ion certa in general influences o f an age up on i t s l iterature
Farth e r th ey do not go
It follow s that the biographi cal
method in c ritici sm rec e ives no attention from these c riti cs
fo r they regard l ite ratur e an d it i s thei r great glo ry a s some
thing apart a w o rk o f art to be app reciated on its o w n merit s
and fo r its own sake Whereas Carlyle though h e begin s
w ith thi s method early comes to value poetry ch iefly a s an
index o f the writ e r a r e flection o f h i s ch a ract er both in itsel f
and as related t o i ts age Wordsworth and Coleri dge L amb
and Hazlitt remained criti cs o f li terature Carlyl e was drawn
into biography and h istory and became a p rophet
,
,
.
.
,
—
—
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
CH A P T E R IV
CA R L Y L E
R E LAT IO N
’
s
To T H E
L
T
I ER
AT U RE
CIS M
RO M A N TI
OF
’
app ea rs f rom the analy s i s o f Carlyl e s lit e rary theorie s
and c ritical principl es in t h e t w o pr ec eding chapters that h e at
all tim es b eli eved that a m ind capable o f creating lit e rature
mu s t b e h ealthy By thi s he meant a mind finely balanced and
s el f -d ep end ent th ro u gh w hich t ruth s hin e s a s through a trans
parent m edium a m ind w ith all its faculties w orking har
m on i o u s l y t og eth e r for o n e g re at obj ect the revelation in some
form o f t h e d ivine i dea In thi s articl e o f his faith as in s o
many oth e r s Ca rlyl e i s at o n e w ith Goethe who in a l etter to
him says that it h a s b een at last found most advi s able to
deduce the d ev el o pment o f M orals as w ell as o f ZE s t h et i c s ou t
”1
In critici sm
o f the whol e Complex o f healthy human natur e
Carlyle u s e s the w ord h ealthy in the sens e he explains in h i s
as synonymous w ith wholeness o r
E d i n b u rgh A dd res s
holin es s o f m ind S uch an int ell ect he says i s all lucid and
”2
in eq uil ibrium
S uch an int e llect mor e over develops it s
id e ali s m o u t o f actuality n ot o u t o f dr e ams ; its belie f rest s
s o li dly u p o n exp e ri ence and always clings t o facts and rej ects
fanci es Th e truly cr e ative w riter i s s eri o us he tak e s s erious
view s o f h i s a rt and mak e s it an in s trument fo r c omm u n i c a t
ing l i f e n o t fo r e xciting a t ran s it o ry plea s ur e H i s appeal i s
to s e ri o u s reade rs w h o he s ays ought to furnish m ind s
”3
activ e and watch ful not pa s siv e and somno l ent
R ead e r a s
w ell a s w riter i f lit e rature i s t o be worthy o f its name and
do i t s w o rk mu s t b e h ealthy -mind ed for health w ith Carlyl e
i s a w o rd o f w ide compa s s and includ e s a th eory o f art
This attitude o r faith plac e s Ca rlyle in oppos ition o ften i n
It
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
“
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
C
z
co
n
'
o rre s
Ess a
.
,
bd
.
,
.
C f III 4 Of
d t i n that a ll h alth y m i nd
V II
ys,
,
v e rs e o f
I i
79
I
,
h is
1
30
1
95
.
oc r
.
.
e,
,
2 2
.
e
c ou rs e
s
Ca l y l n
g at
a re
r
re
e
,
ev e r
e
.
g
.
,
a
pt
tt
cce
S co
.
s
the
74
”7
tions o f i t s pha s es in e very oth e r
Fr e q uent parall els are
dra w n betw e en G e rmany and E ngland : the U t z es Gellert s
Cramer s e t c o f G e rmany rank w ith t h e B eatti e s L ogans
Wilkie s and Gl o vers o f E ngland and S cotland In uch
w riter s Carlyle p ro f es ses to find a certain clear light u n
a ff ect e d eleganc e to the exclusion o f all v e ry de ep o r genial
”8
q ualiti e s
O f a period earlier s till he say s that the Germans
had at best O p i t z es Fl emm ings L oga u s as w e had our
Que e n A nne Wits ; o r i n their L oh en s t ei n s G ry p h s Ho ff
m a n n s w a l d a u s though in inverse order an unintentional
”9
parody o f our D rydens and L ees
H is opinion even o f
some o f t h e greatest o f English w riters o f th e eighteenth
century i s extreme
O ur Engli sh poet o f th e period w as
”
Goldsmith h e says ; a pure cl ear genuine spirit had he been
”1 °
Th e po etry o f Gray he calls
o f d epth or strength s u fli c i en t
a labori ou s mosaic in which l i fe feel ing freedom a re sacri
T h e prose o f Johnson though
fic ed to pomp and splendor
true and sound and practical d o es not rise above a prosai c
1 1
E ven B urke i s
world
a resplendent far-sighted R h et o ri
”1 2
a deep sure Think e r
Gathered from
e ian rather than
various parts o f th e critical essays the s e vi ew s point to a
un i form attitude o f mind The lit e rature o f the eighteenth
century everywh e re w as to Carlyle fini s hed corr e ct and a d
m i ra b l y expressive o f taste ; but it was likew ise cold con ven
t i o n a l and shallow dw ell ing remote from
the actual passions
”1 3
the hope s sorrow s j oys o f living men
Because l ike the
S chlegels o r lik e Wo rdsw orth in their several w ays he sought
to lib e rate literature from thi s bondage o f neo -classici sm
4
Carlyle i s always to be regard e d a s a romanti ci s t
I n the s ec o nd place Carlyl e is to be classed as a member o f
the new school in s o far as romanticism may be i dentified w ith
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
s
.
“
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
.
,
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
.
.
,
“
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
1
.
’
'
b
Ibid
Ib i d
Ibid
I id
.
,
I 57
.
,
42
,
1 ‘
.
I,
.
,
IV ,
8 5 -6 ;
1 1
9
cf
II,
.
2
6—
2
7 ; V I, 5 2 ;
1 3
.
.
III,
,
.
1
,
L i fe
b id
I
.
,
1
2 2
8
85 ;
In
v
er o
r
ow
'
e s
of
ew
r
os
re
v
u
c
o
e
u
er
o
s
e
e
u re ,
s ee
ss a
s,
no
,
I,
,
s ee
1
c f.
I, 4 2 ; II,
f S c hi l l er
er
o es
.
o
1 0 1
,
1
85
2
7
.
.
.
h t i l att i t d alik i n G man y
p i d t a d F n h lit at
it d
m n
t
C a l y l i ndi id al p i ni n ( E y II 6 7
1‘
i
1
bd
bd
I i
1"
I i
.
,
’3
“
.
a nd
nglan d at thi
a y t d ll
E
ec e s s
r
o
w e
s
on
75
metaphysical as di s ti ngui shed from med ieval my stici sm
With a mysticism that sp e nt itsel f in longings fo r a new
catholici sm or dwelt apart in a m i sty dream w orld o f fairies
and hobgoblins he had nothing t o do B ut i f w e take m y s t i
”
natural supernaturali sm as it undoubt
c i s m in the sen se o f
e d l y w as taken by many w riters w e shall find that Carlyle w as
a devout worshipper at its shrine
H i s analysi s o f German
my sticism both in th e essay o n the S t a t e of G erm a n L i t era t u re
and in that o n N ova l i s show s that to him it w as i denti cal
”
Th e ch ie f mystics in German y
w ith G erman m etaphysic s
he says
Kant Fi chte
a re the Transcendental P hilosophers
”1 5
and S chell ing
With these thinkers Carlyle i n so far a s h e
w as ph ilosophically m inded w a s allied from th e very fi rst by
nature and by study ; and to the end o f h i s li fe h e d i d not
cease to have many moments w hen the w orld seemed to him
a place o f shadow s an abode o f fl itting phantom s w hose real
existence belonged to anothe r sph ere T o think and to f eel
in thi s manner w a s to unite him sel f w ith the new order o f
thought n ot w ith the ol d
Carlyl e i s romantici st again in h i s a ttitude tow ard th e past
His position how eve r i s independent H e turned frequently
and regret fully to the past more and more indeed a s h i s o w n
1 6
age seeme d t o him mechanical and spi ritually dead ; but th i s
backward glance w as not becau se he w i shed t o revive the f orm s
and customs the external l i fe o f a bygone age nor w a s i t
becau se he thought h i s ow n t ime potentially unromantic
”
The A ge o f R omance h e says
ha s n o t ceased ; i t never
”
ceases
R omance exists i n R eality
H i s own
time how ever seemed to him t o reveal only few and fit fu l
gl impses o f such romance and h e there fore reverted to the
past as the only home o f actualities th e realm w here rea l m en
w ere to be found w hose l ive s large and heroic might serve as
pattern s to a generation o f sentimentali sts and skeptics It i s
for thi s reason alone that he prai se s the novel s o f Scott ; they
make the past seem alive Carlyle in fact doe s not w i sh to
take hi s reade r ou t o f the present s o much as to incite him t o
.
,
,
—
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
“
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
1
"I i d
1 ’
b
Cf
.
Ibi d
.
,
I, 62
Ibi d
.
,
V
.
,
.
IV ,
,
1
31
,
Pa s t
2
6;
1
36
.
and
P res en t
is
a
d o cu
m nt
e
to
s
h
ow
thi
s
s
pi it
r
.
76
”1 8
”
wed that ol d sentiment o f the past to modern thoughts
H i s romanticism in thi s regard there fore may be described as
didactic biographical c ertainty quit e a di ff erent thing from
1 9
the extreme romantici sm o f some o f the German School
Finally Carlyle i s a romanticist i n hi s rej ection o f form as
an external and fixed thing determ ined by rules As thi s
matter has already been touched in the second chapter only a
brie f mention i s necessary here The fullest declaration o f the
freedom o f an artist to choose hi s ow n w ay occurs in the fi rst
R i c h t er wh ere Carlyle asserts that while the beaten path s o f
”
l iterature lead s a feli es t to the goal genius a fter all has privi
leges o f its own and selects its o w n orbit which may be never
20
A stronger statement
i f only it be celestial
so eccentric
”
to the same e ff ect occurs in the H el ena : i f an artist he
says
has conceived hi s subj ect in the secr et shrine o f hi s
own mind and know s w ith a knowledge beyond all pow er
that i t is true and pure h e may choose hi s own
o f cavi l
manner o f exhibiting it and w ill generally be the fittest to
”2 1
choose i t well
Carlyle impose s on e condition upon the
l iterary artist h e m ust have a m eaning to express he must
lend to hi s word s the leaven o f thought And thus Carlyle s
romantici sm sw ings round to hi s literary theory The w riter s
sole business i s to s ee truth fact reality whether in the past
or in the present and he i s n ot to be fettered i n his e ff orts by
any arbitrary standards whatsoever Inasmuch a s the literary
man o f the eight e enth century did not take to hi s task in thi s
spirit and with this aim he found l ittle favor from Carlyle 2 2
In order to understand more clearly how it i s that Carlyle
though a romantici st himsel f i s to be found in ou t and o u t
opposition to s o much that is characteri stically romantic in
German French and English literature it may be w ell to
.
,
,
,
—
,
—
.
.
,
,
.
“
,
,
,
.
,
“
,
“
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
—
,
’
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
bid
I
.
,
,
I,
2
42
.
P ro fes s or B eers p oint s
the
t ee n
”
22
pa t t
th C
t
s
o
en
Ess a ys
S ee
,
that Ca l y l p f
indi i d al i m f t h p nt R
the
3 82
u ry ,
I,
1
6- 1
H f d
e r or
v
,
s
o r re
re u
r
s
r
0
e
re erre d
e
res e
.
oma n
ll ti i m
Ni
i
th
t h e co
ti i
c sm
ec
n
v s
e
of
ne
.
21
.
Age
hi t i al
lati
by i t
g la it y b
s or c
7
u
ou t
v e aes
ut
f
o
bid
I
.
Wo rds w orth XX III
th t i
e
by i ts
,
,
hi h m a
p
f xp
c w
c
ow er o
e
e
s u re s
I
,
,
e
.
res s o
.
8
.
,
m it
the
i n
g
1 2
er
”
.
th
aw
Goe
of
e
f n d d that
ou
o rk
e
o f a rt n o t
.
77
glance again at hi s position tow ard G oethe w h o stood for h i m
”2 3
at all times both in l iterature and li fe as a completed m a n
Goethe i s the e mbodiment o f all the ideal s which dete rm ined
the attitude o f Carlyl e whose interpretation o f the German
poet i s largely that o f a mind th a t has lived through the feve r
o f d ou b t a n d d i scontent in all i t s stages and has come forth i n
”2 4
invulnerable health
R egret for the past and despai r o f
the present as exp res sed i n Cot e and Wert er finally give place
”
to freedom belie f and cl ear activity as expres sed in Wi l
25
Goethe s m ind in these struggles i s typi cal
h el m M ei s t er
emblematic He has passed from d i seases common to i m
mature incompleted o r unhealthy m inds to a condition o f
mental equilibrium H e l ives in the w hole
h e i s king
”2 7
H ence h e becom es th e
o f himsel f and o f h i s w orld
”2 8
Unite r the R econciler
Goethe s intellect l ive s and w orks
now w ithi n the actual h is i deal re st s on the fi rm ground o f
human interest and business as in its tru e scene on its tru e
”2 9
basis
In the poetry o f G oethe say s Carlyle there i s no
looking back i nto an antique Fai ryland
the mythologies o f
bygone days pass only f or w hat they a re ; w e have n o w itch
”
cra ft o r magic in the common accept a tion ; an d h eroes are
not brought from remote ori ental cl imates o r period s o f
30
chival ry
Wi th Heine Carlyle believed that G oeth e s voice
scattered the whole brood o f ghosts owls and ravens back t o
31
l
the castles and o d bell tow ers o f th e m i ddle ages
What
Goethe has to sa y i s valuable the re f ore f or pre sent -day l i fe a
health -resto ring medicine for th e fevere d conditi on o f romantic
32
Europe
The romantici sm th a t Carly le sets h is f ace against i s i n
eve ry instance a romantici sm that uphold s i deal s contrary to
,
.
,
“
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
.
,
,
,
“
.
“
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
2“
“
E s s a y s , IV , 4 9
Ib d , IV , : 7 2
i
25
Ibi
2"
Ib i
.
d
.
,
I,
2 1 0
,
" Ib i d
IV , 5 0
.
,
I,
manti i m i
f n d in G
ou
L i fe
2
s
oe
o
79
.
,
IV ,
Ib i d
.
,
1,
n
I
.
75
1
.
:95 .
1, 55
V
We rlee
,
.
,
46
2
.
.
m an t impl y th at G th p iti n t a d o
i d nti al w ith Ca l y l
nl y t
I m an
y that Ca l y l e
th j tifi ati n f h i
pp iti n S Bi l h k y
I do
c ou rs e
c s
“
Ib i d
.
.
Of
.
.
d
“
“
f G oe th e
,
n ot
e
c
e
us
III,
e
o
r
c
1
43 ff
o
.
or
oe
’
e s
s
e
.
ow n
O
’
e s
o
o
os
os
o
.
o
ow
sa
ee
t
r
r
e sc
ow s
,
78
those t o b e found in Wi l h el m M ei s t er o r in the w ritings o f
Goethe s maturity But though he d e rived support and d i rec
tion from Goethe hi s attitude w as independent because it w as
temperamental as i s evidenced n ot only in o n e or two notabl e
opinions i n the early l etters but in the entire literary develop
m e nt o f Carlyle a s described in o u r fi rst chapt e r The early
evidence comes out in conn ection w ith tw o men who stand a s
proph e t s o r forerunners o f the romantic movem ent in Fran ce
In 1 8 1 9 Carlyle expresses di s
R ous seau and Chateaubriand
gust w ith R ousseau s Con fes s i on s and declares that the book
should teach a vi rtuou s Briton to be content w ith the dull
33
sobri e ty o f hi s native country
Three years later he speaks
”
o f the nons ense o f A t a l a
and o f the rude me lancholy
”3 4
vastness o f that famou s w ork
These early opinions it ma y
be added are lik ew ise fairly typical o f all that Carlyle h a d to
He did not much conce rn
s a y o f the movement in France
himsel f w ith French thought and literature until he took up
Voltai re when hi s intere st led him into the fi eld o f hi story
rather than o f literature and exp res sed itsel f in the Di d erot
the D i a m on d N ec kl a c e the M i ra b ea u and finally in the great
Fren c h R ev ol u t i on
B e fore the period o f the essay on Vol
taire
there i s little to indicate more than a di ff used
and conventional hostility to the literary and critical standards
o f France
a hostil ity in which are heard echoes o f th e G er
mans and o f Coleridge and Wordsw orth In the pre face to
G e rm a n R o m a n ce Carlyle alludes again to the
thunder y
”35
regions o f A t a l a
and in the introduction to Ti ec k there is a
36
f
clear recognition o literary a ff airs in France
In the Vol
t a i re which appeared two years a fter Hugo s Crom w el l
( 1 82 7 )
and a yea r be fore his H ern a n i ( I83 0 ) Carlyle expres ses some
sympathy w ith the literary r evolution then p roceeding on the
other si de o f the channel The French are he says in what
may be called the ecl ectic state ; trying all things German
E ngli sh Italian S pani sh w ith a candou r and real love o f i m
p rovement which give the best omens o f a still higher su c
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
“
.
“
“
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
—
.
“
,
,
.
’
,
“
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
“
“
E
.
L et t ers
bd
Ii
.
,
2 1
5
,
1 1 2
“
.
“
.
Ib i
bi
d
I d
.,
.
,
I,
2 2
I,
2
9
.
46
.
,
79
ce ss
The intere s t here i s friendly and not ho stile fo r
Carlyle thinks that Franc e now feels hersel f calle d to a more
grave and nobler d estiny than s h e had show n i n the previous
B ut th e i nterest
a ge the age o f Voltai re and the clas sicists
i s already lat e and Carlyle i s d ri fting from critici sm into
proph e cy From what w e know o f h i s opinion o f German
and E ngli sh romantici sts how ever w e run no ri sk in a ffi rm ing
that had h e di scussed Victor Hugo o r George S and he w oul d
have condemned them and the spi rit w hich th ey repre sented as
”8
heartily a s he condemned Byroni sm in England s
H i s few
lat e r re ferences to Chateaubriand an d R ous seau show that h i s
attitude tow ard th e se m en remaine d what it had been S a rt or
R es a rt u s may indeed be taken in one a spect as an indignant
re futation o f R o usseauism a declaration that s ociety w ill ca s t
39
In the thought
o ff its o l d cu stom s only to assum e new ones
o f these revolutionary w riters Carlyle early and late p ro
fesses to find a ros ep i n k sentimentality and he tu rn s from
th em j u st as he turns from th e romanti cists in Germany and
England
Tow ard the romantic movement in G erman y h i s position i s
more cl e arly defined The literature o f the storm and stress
period excited h i s aversion and h e woul d gladly have sw ept
it all into the dust -heap o f oblivion It w as c reated and
repre sented h e thought by the G b tz and Wert er o f Goethe
and the R o bb ers o f Schille r I t included the S entim entalists
”
the Chival ry play w riters and the P ow er man and w a s a
40
l it e ratu re o f desperation and di sease
With the new school
as a separate and organized movem ent o f w hich T ieck and
the S chlegel s w ere high prie sts Carlyle had a curiou s and i n
som e respects a sympathetic interest ; and h e w as w ell aw a r e
o f its v arious mani festations in the literature o f the p e riod ‘ 1
H e w rote e ssays on tw o membe rs o f the school We rner and
N ovali s he w rote introductions to the romance o f Tieck
Ho ff mann and F ou qu é and he d i scussed in a f ull -length paper
”3 7
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
“
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
37
II,
S a r t or 4 0
,
“’
“
70
1
Cf
.
.
Ib
id
.
,
S ee
.
Cf E s s a y s
88
.
,
al
I, 5 8 ,
I, 4 6,
so
1
1 0 1
E s s a y s , V I, 5 4 ;
83,
,
2
1
89 ,
46
.
2
7 3 ; IV ,
F ro u
V
1
,
2
69
.
d
e,
8 ;
III,
H
1
77
e roes ,
1
.
72
-1 7
3
.
80
the N i b el u n gen L i ed the medieval poem perhaps most lauded
by the romanticists He asse rt s that the principles o f the
42
new school w ere derived from the transcendental system ;
and in so far as th ey were he o f course finds them nourishing
From thi s philosophy the romantici st s drew their fundamental
doctrine o f the i dentity o f poet ry and li fe a doctrine upon
which Carlyle s own poetic creed is erected P oetry said they
i s an expr e ssion o f the spirit o f man wherever it may be
found in ethics religion politics education All human in
t e res t s culminate in po et ry and a w riter s literary creed must
43
be broad enough to take i n man s social relations
Inter
p ret ed liberally this belie f commanded Carlyle s support but
his application o f it to actual social conditions was w idely
d ifferent
I n fact Carlyle did not follow the movement beyond the
sphere o f philosoph ical principles H is introductions to Tieck
Ho ff m ann and F ou qu é show an indi ff erence to thei r w ork o r
“
at most a very lukewa rm interest in it
Though these w riters
belonged to the new school Carlyle doe s not attempt to relate
them to it and there i s con fessedly something s econd hand i n
many o f his j udgm ents upon thei r books He has not read
Tieck s Wi ll i a m L ovell a production highly typical o f certain
tendencies nor does he even mention such ou t and ou t ro
m a n t i c i s t s as Br entan o or von A rnim
H e i s interest e d in
Friedrich Schlegel n ot as the a uthor o f L u ci n d e another book
steeped in romantic extravagances and not mentioned by
Carlyle but as the interpreter o f transcendentalism and as in
‘5
some sense a religious mystic
As for We rne r Carlyle con
fesses that he seeks chiefly for hi s religious
and
looks for some glimmering o f truth through the con fused
‘7
j ungle o f Wern e r s w ritings
We cannot think o f Carlyle as
,
.
.
—
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
’
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
—
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
“
’
.
“
“
“
“
Ib
id
.,
I, 4 4,
B an d
S ee
r
E s s a y s , I,
C a
h
2
t i
s ee
46
42
.
M ain C
II, 6 8 ;
u rre n t s ,
es ,
ra c er s
l es u n gen ;
2
- ,
3
ti cs
2
49 , 2 6 1 2
Essa ys
,
r
IV ,
2
s
8, 3 1
red
“
.
by S c
Ib i
d
.
,
hl g l
e
c
e
Th e
e
e
o
r
,
e
c
e
s ee
e
e
ow
ss
c es
ere
s
s,
e
er
o
es
.
.
,
,
1 2
e r,
o
w
e
e n t u ry ,
1
35
.
so
he
,
1
,
P h i l os op h i s c h e
’
s
Vo r
.
y ou
u
,
e
I, 8 8
f W n
Cath li t nd n i
f th
S hl g l Ca l y l n
h
ith b t
y mpathiz
E ay
xplain th m ;
I
I 3
g
3 ; al
‘7
C
XIX
e ers ,
.
in pa t in pi
w as
B
ng
ath
er
r
1 0 1
,
S
er
1 1
8
.
talb g d F
lam l y t i t
er
a n
e
r es
.
o
82
That i s t o s a y in s o far as romantici s m s e eks t o bring the ideal
d own to the actual n o t to li ft t h e actual into a lunar w orld o f
fanta s y and g rote s q ue ry Carlyle w ill b e found in hearty agree
m ent w ith it fo r th e n i t s mi s s ion corre s ponds exactly w ith hi s
idea o f t h e mi ssion o f all literature
The romantic mov ement in E ngland was n ear er to Carlyle i t
was creative rath e r than int e rp retativ e it st eered clear o f tran
and i t d id not exc ep t in eff e ctually in Words
s cen d e n t a l i s m
wo rth and S h ell ey att empt to relate it s el f as a constructive
fo rc e to li f e and society For all these reasons as well as for
rea s on s o f temp e rament Carlyle took a far more det e rm ined
stan d again s t E nglish romanticism than he di d again s t Ger
man H i s position is shown i n scattered remarks upon nearly
al l o f the chie f actors in t h e new drama but it i s most evident
in what he has to s a y o f S c o tt and Byron w hose w orks he
fre q uently re f ers to as the leading products o f t h e M oss
troope r and S atanic
N ext to G o e th e and Burns Byron as has been said was the
poet wh o most drew the att e ntion o f Carlyle He i s re ferred to
a gain and again in the E s s a y s and hi s brilliant and wayward
care er i s the weari somely it e rat e d text fo r a dozen sermons
Carlyle was fascinated by By ron s genius Froude quotes an
extract from a letter to M i ss Welsh in which Ca rlyl e lam ents
i n a highly emotional strain t h e death o f the poet and speaks
”
noblest spirit in E urope who had sunk b e fo r e
o f him a s the
57
A f ew years later ( 1 8 3 0 ) he writ e s
h i s course was hal f run
to N apier then editor o f the E d i n b u rgh R ev i ew off e ring an
e s say o n Byron as s oon as M oore s sec o n d volum e o f the L i fe
should app ear Carlyle u rges t h e matte r again a fter tw o
year s but N apier fear ful o f what Carlyle might s a y turne d
58
the subj ect over to M acaulay
Though we have lost what
p robably would have b een a notable contribution to the study
o f Byro n and ce rtainly a Carlyl e document o f extreme intere s t
we can be pr etty certain from numerous incidental op inions
59
what dir ection the p ropos e d review would have taken
S om e
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
“
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
b id
“
I
IV ,
l"
’
S h ep l ze rd
‘9
1
,
In h i s
b n
ee
.
v e ry
69
" F ro u
.
I, 7 4 7 5 ,
—
,
nd l tt
g at b t
s ec o
re
e
,
u
1 0
er
I
4
to
.
Nap i
s ee
er,
n ot
d
e,
I,
1
73
.
Ca l y l a y f B y n H i f am h
i t i t nd ; n i th d that
h ow
r
e
s
s
s
o
o
e
ro
u re
:
e
“
e
s
er
o es
as
83
o f the op in ions in the earlier essays t e s ti fy to an interest te m
p ered w ith sympathy I n th e introduction t o T ieck Carlyle
says that o u r own nobl e and hapless Byron peri sh ed from
”60
among us at the instant when h is del ive rance se e med at han d
In the B u rn s h e as s e rts that Byron has a poet s soul and
”61
strives t owards t h e Infinite and th e E ternal
Such favo r
able comments are al l al ike in one resp ect they express Car
lyle s j udgment that Byron s li f e w a s incomplete and that h e
d ied be fore h e could solve t h e en igma o f exi stence a s it w as
solved by Goethe in Wi l h el m M ei s t er Unl ike S chille r an d
Goethe Byron di d n ot survive hi s s torm and stress peri od
62
but peri s h e d wh ile passing th rough i t
That he w as d es
tined to conqu e r hims el f and h is worl d Carlyle seem s t o have
had no doubt ; as is p roved by h is fre q uent praise o f Byron s
p oetical endowment and by hi s signifi cant cri tical remark on
the last o f Byron s poem s D on J u a n o f w h ich h e says that
i t i s especially t h e latter part o f i t pe rhap s th e only thing
63
app roach ing t o a s i n c ere work he ever w rote
Except G oe
the Byron was the only o n e o f h i s contempo raries o f wh om
Carlyle spoke w ith s o much favor
B ut wh ile he was deeply moved by the tragedy in By ron s
li fe and w ork and refl ected regret fully upon what the poet
might have accompli shed Carlyle s o pinion o f hi s po etry o f
Byronism that i s rarely varie d from what h e w rote a s early
as 1 8 2 1 in a revi ew o f Joanna Ba illi e s M et ri c a l L eg en d s
Though h e does not the re m ention th e poet by name h e u n m i s
t a k a b l y re fers to Byron ism in such phrases a s ru fli a n s ori ental
gorge ousness di sease d melancholy frenzies o f despai r etc
all mani festations o f the B ritish We rt er L ate r opin ions are
more extreme an d sometime s vi olent but to the last th ey i n
d i ca t e that Byron was th e p rototype o f th ose Engli sh senti
,
.
“
.
’
,
.
—
’
’
.
,
,
.
,
’
’
,
,
“
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
’
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
mak h i m g at N g n in p d ti th ght
al d b y
him t man k in d ; ind d
l a n d i t t d i i n int an y thing
f an y thing ; b t all h d a
pi t
tain f al h d a b a lin g th at i al
in i n
ha a t
I 44
Ib i d
Ibi d
I 59
88
3 ; IV
Ib i d
II 5
Ibi d
II
re
e
o
c u re
s
e
o
.
ee
o
c e re
u
r c er
c
,
,
no
a
ro
c e
r
uc
ve
w as
ou
s or e
u
c er
se
eve r
v s o
oo
rev e
e
o
r w
,
or
,
,
e
r c
”
“
2
,
61
.
e
.
“
.
,
u
,
.
0
.
,
.
,
,
63
.
2 1 1
,
,
1 1
.
,
2 1
,
1
.
,
84
mentali s ts w h o di d not emerge from s ickly sel f -consciousness
64
into healthy uncon s ciou s ne s s o f sel f
I f Byron cur s ed the present S cott uttered regrets for the
pa s t ; and the author o f Wa v erl ey succeeded n o bette r than di d
the author of Ch i l d e H m ol d in investing his work w ith trans
Carlyle early pointed o u t the relationship
c en d en t a l meanings
b etween G otz and S c ott s romances prose and metri cal and he
invar iably class e d S cott s work w ith the ch ivalry drama o f
85
Go ethe
With these general opinions the essay o n S cott i s in
full agreement S i r Walter s entrance into literature Car
lyle says was s ingularly fo rtunate It was an age fallen
”
into S pi ritual languo r destitute o f belie f an age in wh i ch
a Hayl ey was the main
Inevitably the man wh o
carried the reader back to rough strong times wherein those
”
maladies o f ours h a d not yet arisen w a s hailed w ith warm
welcome and became the song-singer and pleasant tale -teller to
Britain an d E urope in the beginning o f the artificial ninet eenth
”37
century
But since literature ha s other aims than that
”
the sick hea rt
o f harmlessly amusing indolent langui d men
o f the a ge w ill find no heal ing in the romances o f Walter Scott
He who has no mes s age to give cannot be t rusted t o cure the
68
f eve r o f the soul
From S cott o u t and away king o f the romantics as S t e
venson named h im the transiti on i s easy to the romanti c drama
and to fiction in genera l ; fo r Carlyle rega rded the Wave rley
.
,
.
’
,
,
’
.
’
,
.
“
.
,
,
,
“
,
,
,
“
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
L a s t Words
“
V I, 5 4
“
ol l e c t a n ea
8 ; E s s a y s , I,
1 2
,
1
8 9 ; II,
1 0— 1 1
2
,
48 ;
III, 3 5 ; IV ,
1
77 ;
.
C
9 1 ; E s s a y s , I,
,
2
73,
1
8 3 ; IV ,
1
6 9 ; V I, 5 3
.
i VI 38
" It d
t
m n
ay t
mm nt p i ally
Ca l y l
pini n
f K at
S h ll y W d
th C l i d g H azlitt d D Q in y F
K at
II
e B
8 ; F
d III 3 8 4 Ca ting a glan at K at
Ca l y l a y that J hn n
man t b k ill d b y a
i
(E
lV
F
S h ll y
IV
8 ( al
H azlitt )
d R m II 9 3 ;
y
f
C l i d g ( Ca l y l
ga d t h lat C l i d g n t t h
y h
f Th A
i
a th
t Ma i
L if f S h i l l
d Ch i t b l )
;
h V III; f
S t li g
th
L if f S h i l l
W d
53 ; E
y
I 8 ; R m
V l II 9 7 - 3 9
N t t h ph a
p
m aning m
t
M a ph
n ( E ay III
light b a a d a h f t h
f ai
f l H m
t th f l
it y f C ab b
ty l
( Ib i d
“
Ibi d
.
V I, 5 2
,
o es
o
e
e
r
sa
s
,
1
c
e
o o n ou s
r
IV .
'
1
,
e
e
e
une u
e
c
.
ers o
e
e
o er
e,
e,
e re
”
en s ,
0
2
”
“
ru
r
r s a
u
e
e
s ev e r
,
r
s ee
an
e
o er
o
c
“
r
e s
e
1 00
ssa
,
s
s
2
o
er,
o
r vu r
s
,
1
o or,
s,
”
,
c
er,
’
.
e
e o
s
o
or
.
e
rev ew
er
s es ,
o
o
ce
u
e
e
s ee
,
e
,
e
e s
ce
e
s
’
r
s
“
s,
ss
on
so
re
o e
.
ec
a n
o
,
.
,
.
no
or s w o r
2
.,
s
,
r n er a n
,
Ib d
co
s ee
ev er w
e
n c en
o
,
w as
so
or
,
o
ro u
o
r
.
.
r
or s w o r
or
o er
n
ec e s s
,
,
er
1
e
“
or o
u
s ee
u rn s ,
s
s,
or
,
e
se
e
.
no
s,
s
‘7
e
o
s,
on
e
”
.
,
85
as only a higher species o f t h e w ho le genu s called litera
ture o f amusement He did n ot care for plays and he r a rely
w e nt to th e theater When h e was translating Wi lh el m
M ei s t er in 1 8 2 3 h e w rote in di sgu s t t o a frien d o f the endless
talk in that book about players and their so rry pasteboard a p
paratus and even i n his p re face he did not sh rink from re fer
ring to th e everlasting di squi sitions about plays an d play
” 69
ers
In t h e same y ear he records that h e coul d not rea d
a single play o f the ol d dramati sts
M ass inge r B eaumont
”70
and Fletcher etc to an end w ith o ut di sgust
Th i s feeling
naturally deepens into loathing wh en h e comes to con s i der
the romantic drama o f the nineteenth centu ry as he doe s in the
essay o n G erm a n P l a y w ri gh ts
Th roughout the d i scu ssion
the re runs the disti nct ion bet ween the d ramatist and th e play
w right be fore re ferred to The latter i s the target for Car
lyle s sharpest sarcasms Hi s attitude toward hi s subj ect i s
”
amusing H e i s entering a low p rovince in the inte rest
o f a sound study o f Foreign L ite rature
h e con fesses that
”
h i s knowledge o f h is ground i s i n the h ighest degree l imit ed
”
an d that h e w ill take o n e bri e f s h y glance and leave it
”7 1
p robably for many years
H e turns away accordingly w ith
the concluding re m ark that he w ishes to wander ove r the
”
Elysian Fields o f G e rman L iterature not to watch the
”7 2
gloomy di sco rds o f its Tarta ru s
H e brushes asi de the
whole tribe o f Grillparzers Kl i n gem a n n s and M ii l l n ers as s o
many p oo r mechanical prosai st s who possess no philosophy o f
l i fe and have no w ord o f w isdom Kotzebue i s elsewhere
”7 3
picturesquely d escribed as a l i feless bundle o f dyed rags
The Engli sh playwrights th e Kn o w l es es M a t u ri n s Shi els
N ov el s
.
.
“
.
“
—
,
—
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
’
.
“
.
“
“
,
“
“
,
.
“
“
,
.
,
,
.
“
.
“
—
,
6
"E
.
L e t t ers
8 6 ; E s s a y s , I,
2
,
2 2
5
,
.
N t -B k 3
af t
a d littl f
It i
y that Ca l y l
y
d amat i
it
x pt S ha k p a S hill
d G th
f hi
S m
a l y pin i n f S hill
h
xt a agan
d ama
th
f i mmat
j d gm nt (
Li f f S h il l
H
a d M li e b t h
3
3
a y that F an n
int t h ph
f S hill
n i n t h d ay
"
f C n i ll
Thi a l y pini n i
pp t d
( L if
f S h il l
b y lat
j d gm nt ( E y I 5 ; II
hi
ma k
L p d
S
V ga and Cal d n ( H i t y f L i t t
9
E
II 8 8
II
Ibi d
8
y
Ibid
III 4 5 ; f V I 3
70
o e
r
e
w r
c
r
oo
o
o
e
u
s
2
ers
e
er
e
7‘
er s
o
,
1
,
1
e
e
ow
2
s
,
s or
o
1
r v
ee
,
u re ,
.
,
,
2
c
.
,
2
.
,
,
e.
o
or
e
o
s
re
1 1
.
s
o
u re
o
r e,
u
e
s
e
o
r
a n
o
er eve
1 1
.
e
re
r
e
re
ce
c
o
s
e ra
e
e
e re
c
oe
,
e r,
s,
a n
“
s,
73
.
1
er
c
s
e
r
re ,
s
o
c
ssa
s
ero
ssa
e
r
e r,
c
sa
o
e v e r ros e
e
e
’
o
ce
u
e
es
c
e
e
s
ce
e
r
or
s
.
o
s
s ee
s
o
s,
s
s
su
on
or e
o
e
e
86
and S h ees
a littl e run
b og f
are o f t h e s ame s o rt though th e ir popularity i s
l ike firs on an I rish
o u t and they stand forlorn
—
,
“
”‘
Carlyl e would have been glad t o banish romantic novels to
a plac e more forlorn than an I ri sh bog had it b een in h is
po w e r to do s o Thei r nam e was legion and thei r bale ful i n
To guide us to h is p osition
flu en c e p enetrated e v e rywhere
towa rd the fi ction o f hi s day and earlier w e have nothing
bett e r than a paragraph in the pre face to G erm a n R o ma n c e
whe r ei n the opinion i s both early an d characteri stic The
novel i s the work he says not o f an artist but o f a m a n u fa c
turer and i s there fore among the simplest form s of composi
”
tion
Though the re are a few noveli s ts o f high o rder
a
f ew P oets among them there are whole legions and h os ts
”
o f P oeta s ters who in Germany and elsewhere have made th e
sentimental novel and the Gothic romance a mountain o f
”7 5
f alsehood
Carlyl e regards the novels o f Go ethe and R ichte r as the
p roduct o f p oets and he exclude s th e se from the c on dem n a
tion h e was s o ready to bring down upon the rest Hi s op in
ions o f thei r wo rk i n fiction are especially valuable as show
ing how he considers i t hardly at all from the p oint o f v iew
o f what we should call legitimate novel -intere s t plot charac
ters situat ions but fo r entirely di ff erent reasons
The two
”
B ook s named N ovels h e says o f the t w o parts o f Wi lh el m
M ei s t er c o me not under the M inerva -P res s Category nor
”7 6
th e Ballantyne -P ress Category
N ot for their
romance
”
interest
but for thei r philoso phy the i r litera ry critici sm
the ir vari ed and deep thoughts on reli gi on and li fe are these
77
celebrated German fiction s es teemed
It is the sam e with
R ichte r except that in R ichter Carlyle finds also a congenial
humor which he describes with a good deal o f minuteness He
doe s not l ike what in Jean P aul s day constituted the novel
”
intere s t o f the s e strang e pi e ce s th e i r oriental extravagance
thei r fanta s tic exaggeration overflowing abundance and lyri cal
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
“
,
.
,
,
“
.
,
.
—
,
—
.
,
,
“
,
,
“
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
“
,
,
,
7‘
7‘
and
bid
Ib i d
I
.
,
.
,
1 1 , 86
I
,
2 2
9
H ff m a nn
I 86
Ib i d
o
,
7"
.
,
,
2
.
.
Th e
re v e
;
cf
al
.
pa at int d t i n
p ially
l i k i ng f th i fi t i n C f I
"Ib i d 1
8
9
5
se
no
I,
1
r
e
ro
or
uc
e r
o
c
s,
o
es
.
.
7
.
.
,
ec
,
2 2
,
Ti
to
,
32
2 2
6,
ec k ,
.
2
84
.
F
ou
q
ue
87
-
di ffuseness ; but he likes the l i fe in them thei r never om itted
78
meaning
Carlyl e s fi rm an d unchanging insist e nce upon reali sm in
79
explains h is faint and h i s sometimes les s than faint sym
a rt
pathy w ith t w o E ngli s h noveli sts o f the eighteenth century
Fielding and S terne t o wh om w e may turn fo r a moment in
pas s ing on to the romanti c fiction o f the n e xt century Fi e ld
ing s Tom J on es s e ems to have stood to h im as the h ighest
typ e o f what h e calls o u r common E ngl ish notion o f the
”8 0
N ovel
S terne he places higher than Fielding i f we may
j udge from the m ore frequent and m o re favorable noti ces o f
him Th e humo r in Tri s t ra m S h a n dy awoke answ ering
e choes i n Carlyle s nature and h e w armed to Uncl e To by an d
81
the other members o f that eccentric family
It was the English romantic fi ction o f a late r day that came
under Carlyle s censure a censur e sometimes iron ical o ften
savag e but alway s vigorous an d earnest H e d ivi des all fic
ti on o f thi s type into th ree or fo ur group s w h o s e names recu r
o ften i n h is critici sm the M inerva th e Ballantyne and th e Co l
burn novels ( s o called from the name or prop ri eto r o f th e
p ress ) and the fash ionable novel s L owe s t in thei r kind w ere
the wo rks o f the Gothic school th o s e o f M rs R adcli ff e M rs
S helley M onk L ew i s and Beck ford togethe r w ith To m a n d
f erry a d r a matized version o f P ierc e E gan s p opular cockney
82
A little l e s s l ow p erhap s were the fashi onable
production
novels o f wh ich D i s raeli s Vi vi a n G rey ( 1 8 2 6 ) and B ulwer s
P el h a m ( 1 8 2 8 ) w ere the m o st shining and popula r examples
T hese fiction s were all th e rage when Ca rlyle w a s w riting S a r
t or and he unmistakably re fers to them as th e sacre d bo oks o f
,
.
’
,
,
.
’
“
,
.
.
’
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
—
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
’
’
,
.
'
,
“
Ibi d
.
,
I,
2
67 ,
.
,
I,
2
31
bd
R i ht
80
Ii
c f.
65 ;
It i s
.
Fi l d i ng
Fo r
e r.
c
2
e
,
II,
1
i n thi
f th
ur
83 4
—
s
e r,
se
" Ib i d
.
n
s ee
se
I,
that
2 2
.
,
IV , 5 8
d n
the
2
9,
w or
8 4 ; IV , 5 8
C ant
l y l ; h all him t h p
t f all h m i t
d
t app a
t
ha l i k d ( I
M ntaign
h
d
n id
nt i m nt a l and h di mi
t
a al mm nt
al
85 ;
( I 33 4
m
Ib i d
.
’
e s
oes
a r
c
e
D e fo e
,
e
2
3 7,
2
6 6 ; II,
“
s
r
co
o
s
e rs
e
or
e
2 0
1
,
u re s
ve
e
se
e rv
.
o
u
,
or s s
e
,
2
,
es
2
,
1
”
s
s ee
.
,
I, 3 2
,
2
6 1 ; II,
1 2
—
1
3 ; III, 6 5 ,
2
.
ov e
l
a fa
is
appli
ed
to
it f C
R ab lai h
(I
di d ( I
Ri h
h
ith a
G l d mith
R i ha d n
d
w as
e
o
,
e
w o
67
vor
e
e
4 2 ; V I, 7 0
.
o
on
e
s
w
s
c
a r
c
,
s s es
so
o
e
,
II,
bd
Ii
5,
e
co
su
1
c
no
s on
”
I,
,
.
r
so
a n
88
”
“
dandies who haunt A l m a c k s a J e w ish temple where th e
“
leading p reache r an d teache r P el h a m hol ds f o rth
S till
h ighe r up but not entering the ranks of literature were the
Wav e rl ey N ovels But even S cott w hen he attempts t h e
heroi c
wh ich i s but seldom the case falls almost at o nce
into the rose -p ink sentimental d escries the M ine rva P ress from
“
a far ?
O n all s id es Carlyl e regards the novelists o f hi s day
a s dealing with sham and unreality and he del iberately brands
thei r w o rk a s false In hi s e ssay o n B i ogra p h y he says s i gn ifi
high est exercise o f Invention has in ve ry deed
c a n t l y that the
nothing to do with Fiction ; but i s an invention o f new Truth
85
what we can call a R evelation
With invention in the sense
used in imaginative fiction Carlyle has next to n o inte rest
whether w e take h is work o f 1 8 2 3 when he was translating
Wi l h el m M ei s t c r o r o f 1 8 3 7 when unhappily he was criticising
the novels o f S cott
It matte rs not where we look into the w ritings o f Carlyle
O ur survey o f the
h i s fundamental attitude remains fixed
field o f romanti c literature s o far a s it was explored by h im
a n d he knew pretty clearly what w a s going fo rward in G er
many France and England shows that he searched h is field
as he searched all others for some traces o f transcendental
truth and that where he f ound none he regarded the te rrito ry
a s barren o r nearly s o
Th e earliest and m ost extreme mani
t estations o f romanticism whethe r th e oriental reveri es o f
We rn er and N ovalis the operatic sentimentalities o f R ousseau
o r the spectral and bl oo dy business o f the Gothic novels Ca r
lyle never spoke o f but to ri dicule o r condemn ; and Byronism
fi rst a n d last rouse d h im to something like invective B ut
when romantici sm in i t s later stages developed in th e directi on
o f real i sm and shoo k off some o f t h e earlier extr a vagances he
expressed now and again a f eeling o f sympathy Fo r C a rlyle
8"
was as h e h imsel f says in S t erli n g a stubborn reali st
We
have seen that he found some merit in the great real ists o f the
,
.
,
,
.
,
“
,
,
,
—
,
.
,
,
,
”
.
,
,
'
,
,
.
,
.
—
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
“
,
t
Sar
o r,
1
92
—
3
.
S ee
n p p d t Napi
S h ph d I 8
Ib i d
IV 5 9
o
ce
e
ro
os e
er
,
o
0
,
,
,
so
a
Es s ys
to w
it
r
e
,
a
I,
.
8 4 ; II
1
,
t
s or
“
.
“
.
er
al
“
of
bd
I i
s
.
L if e
,
1 2
all y
ou
V I, 7 0
f S
o
Ca l y l
Fa hi nab l N el
6 ; IV , 6 3 ,
o
s
.
t e rl
i
n g,
1
1
80
63
e
.
r
.
ov
s.
e
”
CHA P T E R V
CA R L Y L E
PLA
’
s
CE
IN
I N T RO D U C T IO N OF G E R M A N
I N TO E N GLA N D
TH E
T U RE
L
T
I ER
A
’
B e f o re c o n s i d e ri n g c ert a in o f Ca rlyle e s say s a s i llustratio n s
it will b e
o f t h e a ppl i c a ti o n o f h i s i d e al s t o individual w rit e r s
n ec e s s a ry t o t a k e s o m e p re l i m ina ry notice o f h i s p o s iti o n as an
int ro d u c e r o f G e rman lit e ra tur e into E ngland If w e e ven
f a intl y a pp re c i a t e t h e ig n o ranc e n o t to s a y t h e stup id p rej udic e
o f t h e E n gl i s h mi n d t o w ard G e rman l ite rature f o r t h e fi r s t
q ua rt e r o f t h e c entu ry and i f w e r emind our s elve s o f the great
and alm o s t u n a id e d e ffo rt s o f Ca rl vl e fo r n early fi fte en yea rs
th e r ea ft e r t o br eak d o w n pr ej udi c e and l eave no excu s e for
ign o rance w e s hall unde rs tand how incompl ete t h e p resent
study w o uld b e w ith o ut s o m e conside ration o f hi s place among
t h e E ngli s h pione er s w h o mad e t h e nam es o f S chiller and
B eyo n d a doubt Carlyle
G o eth e kn o w n t o th e i r c o unt ry men
w a s t h e fi rs t re all y gr e at i n t e rpr et e r o f G e rman th o ught to t h e
E n g l i h p eo pl e
O ut o f t h i rt y fou r s epa rat e titl e s in t h e
c riti c a l e s ay s d ow n t o 1 8 3 9 ( that i s to Cl za rt i s m ) hal f a re
up o n G e rm a n s ubj ect s : and t o t h es e m u s t b e add e d n o t o n l v
s e v e ral a rt ic l es n o w figurin g a s app e ndic es
but a l s o t h e L i f e
o
f S c h i l l er t h e t ran s lation o f l Vi l /zel m M e i s t er an d o f s pec i
m en s o f G e rm a n R o m a n c e M uch o f thi s w o rk w a s done in
s pit e o f c ritici s m so s n ee ri n g a s t o di s ma y a pu rpo s e w eak e r
th a n Carlyl e s H e w a s called a G erman my s tic and w a s
laugh ed at fo r w or s hipping s tra n ge diviniti e s from ov e r the
A n d y e t h e w ent o n w riting G e rman r e vi ew s partly o f
s ea s
cour s e b ecau s e h e mad e a living in that w a y but partly because
h e w a s d et e rm in e d t o pr o v e t o h i s r ead ers that a n ew l iterature
h a d g ro w n u p s o g re a t s o l i f e-giving that t h ey co uld n o t
a ffo rd t o re m a i n i n i gn o ra n c e o f it H o w m uch t h e E ngland
o f h i s a n d a l a t e r d a y o w e s t o h i s lit e ra ry l a b o r
i n t hi s fi eld
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
—
s
.
s
.
,
,
’
,
.
'
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
s
90
91
w i ll becom e cl e arer i f w e glance at the situation as i t was be
f ore Carlyl e s infl uence began to tell
Up to th e tim e o f Willia m Taylor o f N o rw i ch German l it
A
e ra t u re was little bett e r than unknown in G reat B ritain
few translati ons had appeare d mos t o f them from lesse r w rit
e rs an d many i n mutilate d v e rs ions from the French but these
fail e d to a w aken a de ep o r pe rmanent interest B randl speaks
fi rst o ff sp ring o f the G erman mu se
t G es s n er s Idy l s a s th e
whi ch under the R oyal Hous e o f Hanover found a welcome
”1
in England
A t the same time ( 1 7 62 ) there app eared the
D ea t h of A b el by the s a m e auth or followed a year later by a
translation o f Klop stock s M es s i a h and D ea t h of A d a m B o d
ner s N oa c h i d e belongs to 1 7 67 and there we re ve rsions o f
Wi eland in 1 77 1 and 1 77 3 The latter year s a w als o a t ra n s l a
tion o f L essing s Fa bl es wh i ch w as succee de d in 1 7 8 1 by a
prose versi on o f N a t h a n and in 1 7 8 6 by a p roduction o f hi s
M i n n a v on B a rn h el m on the L on don stage a s th e Di s ba n d ed
L essing won no popularity however be fore 1 80 0
In
Ofii c er
fi rst E nglish translat ion o f Wert er from the
1 7 7 9 came the
French Th is novel was tw ice translated during th e next ten
years an d betw e en 1 7 84 and 1 7 92 no fewer than n ine c on
2
M ore than ten
t i n u a t i on s and p a ra p h a s es w ere published
y e ars elap s ed b e fore S chiller became much known and by th i s
time the influence o f Wi ll iam Taylor an d othe rs wa s beginning
3
to be felt
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
'
a
,
,
.
,
’
.
’
,
.
’
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
1
L ife
o
er
e
C
f
H z f ld
dg
o l e ri
1 2
e,
3
.
Wi ll i a m Ta y l o r
N ih
Tay l
f t an E ngli h t an lati n f t h R bb
i
b li d b y H M a k nz i E q f E d i n b gh ; and
th
iginal d iti n f 7 8
III
(Hi t i S
y
m nti n f
h a t an lati n b y M a k nzi
h
kn
and p babl y t
n in 7 88
G man in
78
B i g V l XXX V
L
k ha t p a k
f th
i
A l xand
F a
Ty tl
i n f S hill
Hi
L
k ha t
f th
a li t f m t h G man th
tt I
i b l that Ta y l
S
d B t n
It i p
34
M a k nzi f T y tl
th gh I ha
t b
n abl t
tat m nt
I
am S hill
Ca b l d L
i n 798 h i D
79 5
hi W ll
t i
8
( by C l idg )
2
8
ev e
e
“
e
e
o
o
.
o
,
oc
r
co
,
,
c
e
e
n
00
o
su c
.
“
2
,
e
e
e
e
o
os o
.
or
“
s
e
r
s
e
es
ou
s
ro
s
ve
e,
o
e rs ,
w
o
ee
u o es
e
o
ca n
tainl y
( s ee
to
Di
at
re
ct
i fy
v er
n ot
Nat
man
”
.
of
s
ay
s
( L fe
o
f
s
e
rs ,
”
i
m i ta k n
L k ha t
ha s
or
.
it
m
fin d
G er
R o bb e
e
ro
d id
c er
er s
e
t
e c u ed ,
I
’
er
x
q t f
he
s e rv c es
c
os s
e
,
1
e
o
e
no
,
ev e
v e rs o
,
e r,
e
o
”
u rv e
no
r
e
ur
ro
e r.
on e
o
,
c
oc
.
o
o
o
,
s er
w a s
,
.
1 1
,
s or c
s
,
r
s
c
s
1
r
1
r
e,
1
o
1
er
e
1
o
e
c
er
ow
s
.
e
orw
v on
o
,
or
no
s
re e rs
or
s
,
oc
r
’
s
.
c
1
s
a
e
c
en s e n
’
er s
a
a n
o er
e
o v e,
.
1
s
on
Ca rl o s
,
a nd
in
92
Taylo r dese rv es the distincti on o f be ing the first man in
England to awaken any interest i n mo dern German literature
Hi s critical ability w as sl ightly above mediocre but h e exerted
an important influence upon som e o f h is contempora ri es whose
united e ff orts contributed no t a littl e to open the way for Car
lyle Taylor spent the summer o f 1 7 8 2 in Germa ny visited
Weima r ( though it i s uncerta in whether h e sa w Goethe )
ained
a
sound
knowl
dge
o
f
the
language
o
f
Germany
and
e
g
came back w ith a love for i ts l ite rature that continued th rough
li fe It was his unpublished translation o f B ii rge r s L en ore
which sti rred S cott s interest in German ballads o f the d iableri e
kind ; an d which wh en publi shed in 1 7 96 played so interest
ing a p a rt in early romanticism I n 1 7 9 1 Taylor s vers ified
version o f L essing s N a t h a n appeared and two years later hi s
Iph i g en i e th e fi rst translation o f Goethe s class ical drama into
En glish wh ich as late as 1 82 8 Crabb R obinson regarded as
4
Fo r more
t h e best English version o f Goethe s longer p oems
than five and twenty years Taylor was a contributor t o the
M on t h l y M a ga z i n e and M on t h ly R evi ew w riting some hundred
M any o f these were t ra n s l a
a n d th irty articles o f all sorts
tions f rom the German a n d w ere subsequentl y collected i n the
H i s t ori c S u rv ey
Fo r a considerable period a fter 1 8 1 1 Tay
lor s interest in German lite rature lulled somewhat though he
w a s now recogniz ed even by th e Ed i n b u rgh R evi ew
a s the
”
'
5
o
f
head
all our t ra nslators f rom th e G erman
In 1 8 3 0
h e publi shed h i s H i s t ori c S u rvey of G erm a n P oet ry in three
vo lumes a w ork which hi s friends had long u rged him to
p roduce a n d whi ch remains a record o f hi s cont ribution to the
s p read o f Ge rman literature in England
The S u rv ey has a
u nique interest fo r it i s the most import ant representative o f
E n gl i sh op inions on G erman literature p rior to Carlyl e Tay
l or s litera ry j udgments rarely ri s e out o f the commonplace and
th ey are som e t i mes absurdly erroneous as in the case o f Kotze
bue w hose popularity in E urope how ever about 1 8 0 0 w as s o
dazzl ing as to blind nearly every critic to h is faults To Kotze
bue Taylor devote s almost as many pages a s to Goethe and he
gi ves more to Wi eland than to both together I n orde r to taste
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
’
,
,
’
.
,
’
,
’
,
—
’
.
,
.
.
,
’
,
“
.
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
‘
D ia
ry ,
II, 5 3
l’
.
Ed
.
R ev i e w
,
V III
,
1
54
.
94
higher G erman literature w a s Henry Crabb R o binson a
nam e to b e r ememb e r e d for i t s plac e among the early a d
In 1 7 98 R o binson r ecords that
m i re rs o f S chiller and Goeth e
the most event ful occurr ence o f the y ear w as an introduction
to William Taylor o f N orw ich who encou raged me in a grow
”8
Tw o years later he made
ing taste for G e rman l it e rature
hi s fi rst trip to Germany wh e r e h e remained five year s study
ing at Jena and enj oying ther e and el s ewher e contact w ith
cultivat e d Germans H e was much at Weimer during its
most fl o urishing p e ro i d and s a w Goethe S chiller Wieland and
Kotzebue
H e heard Wa l l en s t ei n s D ea t h at the We im e r
theatre and apparently w as favored w ith many opportunities
to vi e w the intell ectual ci rcle at close range While at We imer
during this fi rst vi sit R obinson becam e a contributor to the
”
M on t h l y R egi s t er
The subj e cts on which I w rote he says
we re German literature the philo s ophy o f Kant etc I also
gave many tran slations from G oethe S chiller and others in
”
order to exempli fy the German theo ry o f v ers ific a t i o n
But
fo r the mo st part I una ff ectedly declare that they attracted no
”9
notice and d id not deserve any
It was not indeed what h e
w rote but what he talk e d that made R obinson s influence i m
portant in t h e introduction o f G erman thought to England
N o other Engli s hman o f hi s time could bo ast o f s o much
acquaintance w ith the higher lit e rary ci rcl e s o f Ge rmany H e
made in all six vi s its upon the third o f which in 1 8 2 9 he
1 0
spent five evenings w ith Goethe
He m et Tieck and later
A W S chlegel when they were i n L ondon He wa s there
fore solidly equipped to talk on German subj ects and he d id
s o mo s t assiduously for many years i f w e may j udge from the
conversations o n S chiller Goethe and others recorded in hi s
D i a ry
Engli sh opinion as he s e ems to have enc o unt e r e d it
was almost uni formly ho s tile and it was not until w el l into the
thi rti e s that i s to s a y wh en Carlyle s essay s w ere beginning to
be read that R obinson began to find th e o l d prej udice giving
w ay His recorded talks w ith Coleridge for exampl e show
Coleridge s rath e r habitual attitude o f oppo s ition e specially to
,
.
“
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
‘
D ia
evo
2
4
.
th h a d p i l y
t i n t G m a n l i t at
Goe
d
I,
ry ,
9
o
e
o
rev ou s
er
er
se
nt R bin n
u re .
o
so
bi
I d
tw
.
,
o
72
.
m dal in t tim n y
e
s
es
o
of
his
95
Goethe The general tenor i s suggested in a s ingle i n s tance :
Coleridge conced e d to G oethe says R obinson
unive rsal
”1 1
talent but felt a moral l i fe to be the de fect o f hi s poetry
Coleridge m ight have done fo r G e rman literatur e w hat
Carlyle d id later H e posse ss ed the geni us and the equipment
I n 1 797 h e had begun to l earn German and a year later h e
made hi s trip to Germany w ith the Wordsw orth s There h e
plunged into L e ssing s w orks fi rst for theological purpose s
and read him through and very soon pro posed t o translate h im
1 2
into E ngl ish
But most o f Coleri dge s plan s end ed in talk
except h i s spl endi d tran s lations o f Schiller s P i c c ol om i n i and
Wa l l en s t ei n s D ea t h which though neglected by th e many
showed to the few w hat h e w as capabl e o f doing fo r G erman
literature in E ngland H is activitie s i n l iteratu re soon gav e
way to a w ide w andering in the field s o f G erman ph ilosophy
and for the last twenty -fiv e years o f h is li fe he w as not an
influence favorable to S ch ille r an d Goethe At no time i n fact
was he an influence at all commensurate w ith his geni u s and
know ledge B eside s Coleridge th ere w as anothe r man w h o
possessed geniu s an d had consi derabl e knowledge o f G e rman
D e Quincey
Tw o papers by him o n L essing s L a o c oon and
another o n Kant appeared i n B l a c k w o od s in 1 8 2 6 and 1 8 2 7
B ut h e fi rst announced h im sel f as a student and c ritic o f
German w riters in the pages o f the L on d on M a ga zi n e in
which in 1 8 2 1 he publi shed an e ssay o n R ichter and som e
”
analects
I n 1 8 2 3 he brought ou t a short paper on Herder
”
and more analect s from R ichter D e Quincey has undi s
p u t ed claim to the title o f introduc e r o f R ichter t o th e E ngl ish
public h i s fi rst paper antedating Carlyle s by six years B ut
whoever wi shes to test at fi rst hand th e superiority o f Ca rlyl e
over D c Quincey as an interpreter o f Jean P aul shoul d compare
the sol id orderly opinion s o f the o n e w ith the j umbled cap ri
cions opinion s o f the other D e Q uincey and Col eridge w e re
the tw o men i t should seem w ho ough t to have done more
than any others be fore Carlyl e to w in a secure place for Ge r
man lit e rature i n E ngland But Coleri dge s plans and prom i ses
evaporated i n talk and D e Quincey s brilliant detache d e ff ort s
w ere not backed by the requi site fi rmness o f m ind It i s
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
’
,
,
,
’
,
,
’
’
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
’
'‘
.
,
’
.
.
.
,
‘
.
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
’
,
.
1 ‘
Ib i d
.
,
1
60
12
.
B
ra n
dl
,
2
39
—
2
49
.
96
doubt ful there fore i f t h e actual cont emporary influence o f
th ese w rit e r s among cultivat e d people w as anything like s o
1 3
gr eat as that o f Taylor and R obinson
N othing so w ell show s how di ff icul t it w a s to make a gap in
”
the Chin e s e Wall o f antiquat e d p r ej udices which divided
E ngland from Germany as the attitude o f th e great periodicals
Fo r the fi rst thi rty y e ars o f the century the review that h eld
most al o o f from German thought w a s the E d i n b u rgh I f n ot
actually hostile it maintained a pos ition o f condescension s u p
ported by in exhau s tible ignoranc e In i t s pages appeared t e
vi ew s o f M adame de S ta el s G erm a n y S chl egel s L ec t u res
L ord Gower s tran s lation o f Fa u s t Go ethe s D i c h t u n g u n d
Wa h rh ei t and Carlyle s translation o f Wi l h el m M ei s t er From
its high place it looked down and sn ee red at the s o -called ex a gger
ation clum siness and barbarity o f German w rit e rs and it never
”
failed to be shocked at that monster in literature G oethe s
”
“
Fa u s t
The ignorance the blessed sel f complac ence and
”
th e d e h a u t en ba s position o f the E dinburgh was vigor
1 5
i ou s l y opposed by Blackwood s
L ockhart s early connection
w ith the review i s the source o f much o f i ts friendliness t o the
G erm ans and to Goethe in particular In 1 8 1 7 the year o f
B l a c k w ood s inception L o ckhart mad e a tour to G e rmany met
G oethe and returned w ith something like rev e rence for the
1 6
best German l iterature
In the early numbers o f the maga
zine there are many traces o f L ockhart s hand in translat i ons
from S chill e r B urger KOrn er Hall e r and G oeth e as w ell a s
in various critical rem arks which n ot only show the y oung
review er s l iking for Fa u s t but al s o his fondness fo r picking a
“7
B l a c k w oo d s d id indeed do
q uarrel w ith the E d i n bu rgh
m ore by translations than by critical review s to dispel E ngl ish
,
,
.
“
.
.
,
,
.
’
’
,
,
’
’
,
’
.
,
,
,
“
’
,
“
.
,
“
’
’
.
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
’
,
’
.
l d ly
iv d by
L amb S th y d W d
th
it
C f D i y II
b y C l idg
t h II 3 4
th P
W d
3 7 ; 7 9 ; Knight L i f
W ks
f W d
Go
t
d
III 4 3 6
S h ll y h d d
btl l i ttl t d w ith t h p ad f
G man lit at
in E ngland b t h
him l f a ad
f G ma n
k
w
and
d ply m d b y F t H
ad S hl g l L t
in
8 8 (D
d n L if I 4 7 ; II
E R
V l L II 5
i
Bl
k
d
III
3
L a ng L i f f L k h t I 8 9
Bla k
d
IV
g
; Vl I
35
n
R ob i n s o n
ou
,
’
s
e
e
us
o r s w or
e o
,
sa r
c
.
er
or
er
s
ow
1 ‘
e
1 °
c
o
o
e
,
w oo
a
’
s,
.
,
oc
e.
.
,
,
w a s
ou
o er
2
,
e
w as
o
re c e
e.
’
ros e
s
e s
re
re
c
e
er
e
2
,
l s
a c
.
,
2 1 1
1 1
-1 1
,
.
2
.
w oo
’
s,
,
e
ar
.
o
se
e
.
co
s w or
or
es s
e
as
o
’
s
2 1
.
,
,
or
re
er
ec u res
,
2
ar
,
a us
2
,
s
w as
u
ov e
e,
,
as
,
ee
,
e v ew
.
e
u re
w as
1
e
G er
s w or
or
.
,
,
man
f or t h e
s
a n
1
1
nth ia m
,
o
98
l it e ra ry critici sm O f t h e nin et eenth century He i t was w ho
p o s s e s s ed the in s ight k n o w l e dge and n ec es s a ry c o urag e to
fight again st a many -voic ed and persistent opposition From
t h e fi rst h e und e rs tood t h e attitud e in E ngland toward G e rman
literatur e a s t h e i n troduct o ry paragraph s in hi s pre face to
20
He o ff ers hi s
Wi l l zc l m M ei s t er s A pp re n t i c es h i p cl early show
21
He
G erm a n R o m a n ce a s a small taper in total darknes s
complain s in 1 8 2 7 that German lit e rature i s not o nly generally
unkn o w n but mi s known s inc e false and taw dry instead o f
22
genuin e wa res hav e b ee n impo rted
But by 1 8 3 0 w e note a
change fo r though Carlyle then and therea fter compl ained o f
E ngl i sh ignoranc e he n o w b egan to di scover a certain reco gn i
”2 3
tion o f Germany R ichter h a s hi s readers and admi rers
and knowl edge o f S chiller s w o rk s is si lently and rapidl y
”2 4
proceeding
I n 1 8 3 2 h e claim s for Goethe s ome sh adow
o f r e cogniti o n
notably among the younger more hope ful
”2 5
minds
And as late as 1 83 8 h e hop e s that G e rmany i s no
lo n ger a land o f gray vapor and chimeras as it w as to most
”2 6
E ngli s hmen not many years a go
Hi s hopes w ere i ndeed
beginning to be realized for both E ngland and Ame rica
th rough the influence o f h i s e fforts w ere becoming intereste d
in Germany H i s position as a pr o phet i f not as a critic o f
G o ethe i s pr eeminent For y ears E ngland look ed to Carlyle
as its greatest interpreter o f the German poet and m en so
diff e r ent a s M atthew A rnol d and George Henry L ew es
ackno w l edge d thei r obligation And i f in recent times methods
o f critici sm as to Go ethe have changed greatly
ince
it
has
s
(
been the fa s hion to approach hi s w ork o n di ff e rent sides rather
than as a whol e ) no critic can fail to recognize the substa n tial
and pion eer service which Carlyle rendered to make hi s
2 7
favorite poet known t o hi s countrymen
E s s ay s II 2 6 5
Ib i d
III 3
.
,
.
,
’
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
“
,
.
“
’
.
“
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
23
,
,
.
b id I 3
Ib i d
3
Ib i d
f
6;
76
3
J hn S t l i ng i n an a y
R
i
It i
ay
f th
th lab
am h a nd
pap ) i d alm t all t h
in E nglan d ( S t l i ng E y
“
I
.
21
.
,
22
.
2
7
,
2 2
,
,
2
1
.
c
1
,
o rs
,
s
1
o
s :
e
ue
s
on
“
s
,
e
ssa
s
Ca l l
r
a n
y
bi
Ib i d
Ib i d
I d
e
,
.
.
,
71
.
,
IV ,
.
,
V I, 8 1 ;
,
.
f or t h e
1
45
.
cf
.
L o d on
n
III,
2 1
9 ; I,
a nd
Wes t m i n s t e r
2
86
.
m h t
th a t t th
d
y
C a l y l E ay and mi llan
(i
j t a pp i ati n f G th
xi t i ng
d Ta l
I
n ot
e
os
er
28
.
es s
s
er
e rs
1
.
er
ev ew
o
25
.
2
o
1“
.
.
t oo
e
.
,
us
uc
r
re c
es ,
,
o
’
e s
o
sa
ss
o
o
,
es e
sce
s
oe
e
n ow
an
eou s
e
s
C H A P TE R V I
TH E
To
E SS A Y S
G O ET H E
ON
S how how Carlyle appl ied h i s crit i ci sm to G oeth e w e
,
S hall briefly analyz e the tw o essays o f
82 8
and
Th e
extended introduction to the fi rst e ssay and the great critical
mani festo at the end o f it to w hich w e have s o o ften re ferred
evidence hi s sense o f the immense d iffi culty o f making Goethe
understood to E nglish r e aders o f 1 8 2 8 They declare too hi s
purpose to remove i f he can the d istorted portrait draw n b y
the revi ew ers and t o substitute anothe r paint ed a fter h i s ow n
ideal s and in harmony w ith principle s that are con structive
”
Here i s the highest reputation over all E urope he says
here i s a poet w hose spi ritual progres s symbol ize s not only
”
individual but nati onal d evel opment
The business o f th e
critic i s to s ee thi s imposing figu re as i t i s to account for it s
exalted position to trace its h i story to d i scover by w hat
”
st ep s such influence has been attained
Fo r th i s reputation
the e ssayist declares i s deserve d and its influence i s ben e fi ci al
because i n Goeth e w e d i scove r an arti st in the o l d sense a
see r in whom w i sdom speaking from a h armoniou s manhood
delivers its message w ith a voice o f authority
Carlyl e handles h i s subj ect in hi s cu stomary manner c o n
s i d e ri n g fi rst the l iterary character and second the mind o f th i s
character as disclosed in its w orks The p resent e ssay h ow
ever S h ow s a modification o f method a s regard s the biograph
ical section Carlyle clearly understood that Goethe s personal
l i fe at all events the most important part o f it namely the
moral and spi ritual str u ggles wa s interw oven in the w ritten
2
w orks ; and being interested above all el se i n G oethe s spi ritual
1
,
,
.
,
,
.
“
,
,
“
.
,
“
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
’
1
Th e
se
pa at
r
iti i m and n ti
h ip
int
e cr
c s
s
o
M e i s t er s A pp ren t i c es
’
ma n
R
D ea th
Work s
om a n c e
o
f
G oe t h e
’
G oe t h e s
,
int
rod u c
ti n
o
H
to
c es
of
ro d u c
e l en a
,
Goe
ti n
th
to
o
t
s
2
99
o
P
M ei s t e
G oe h e
a t an lati n
r
a re :
e
f
re a c e
’
r s
T
ra v e l s
G oe t h e
of
E s s a y s , I,
Da s
1
77.
Ma
'
to
’
s
rc h e n
,
Wi l l i a m
in
Po
Ger
rt r
ai t
G oet h e
,
’
s
1 00
dev e lopment he omits enti rely the outer biograph ical facts and
confines hi s treatment to the moral hi s tory o f the poet as it i s
3
Fi rst i s the period o f
s e t forth in thr e e o r fou r prose pieces
When the s e appear e d
G li t z v o n B erl i c h i n gen and Wert er
the m ind o f E urope Carlyle says w as cold and conventiona l i n
l ite ratu re sen s ational and materialistic in philosophy S keptical
in religion A fte r Voltai re had set h i s torch to the j ungle o f
superstition nothing remained but doubt and unrest Thi s
fever o f d i s content found an expression in these early works
o f Go ethe They remain as the record o f a mind not yet
fre e d from t h e slavery o f sel f In Wi l h el m M ei s t er s A ppren
t i c es h i p Carlyle finds the second pe riod o f Goethe s growth
He re the outer and inner w orld s have been reconciled i deal s
now have thei r fi rm ba s i s in actualities th e goal o f human
endeavor l i e s straight ahead From thi s book the critic turns
to its s equ a l M ei s t er s Tra v el s a w ork w hich he praises nay
a lmost w orships for the message it carries and from which h e
‘
extracts the greater number o f passage s quoted in th e essay
These two parts o f Wi l h el m M ei s t er together S how Goethe s
ch a nge from i nward impri sonment doubt and discontent into
freedom belie f an d clear
and there fore prove h im to
be the rep resentative modern man
The critical section i s hardly one fi fth as long as what pre
cedes and the analysi s i s necessarily condensed and highly
ge n eralized B ut even here the method i s typical since Carlyl e
i n hi s greate r e s s ay s seldom regards indivi dual pieces but
rather the author s m ind as reflected in h is w ork as a w hole
Tw o general characteri stics o f Goethe are pointed ou t h i s
3
‘
emblematic int ellect and hi s universal ity As to special qual i
ties Carlyle adds nothing to those described in h i s introduction
to the Tra vels f rom w hich he quotes a pas sage on G oethe s
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
’
.
’
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
’
,
magn i t d f h i
b j t t h limit f h i S pa
d
that h h d a y a b f
f ni h d a h t b i g aph y
al
in t h p b l m f t t
Th
t nth d l nth hapt
in t h T v l
p ai d
q t d f m a nt f th i th ght
l i gi n
Ib i d I
1
hi n
f ailing t nd n y t t an f m int h ap int
p i n i n t h f l i ng that m y d ll in him ( Ib i d
'
Th e
e
a
e
e
O
o
,
,
,
“
.
on
e
o
r
su
s
e o re
ec
ur
e
,
e
s
s
s
o
or
s
o
c e,
a n
w e re
r
fa t
the
so
fa t
c
c ors
s ru c u re .
e ev e
c c ou
c
o
ers
e r
e
ou
s on
ra
e s
re
o
a re
r
s
e,
se
a nd
a re
.
2 1 0.
e ve r-
s
,
,
o
a n
ro
.
.
e
e
uo e
‘
e
ro
e
‘
e
u
ee
e
a
e
w e
c
o
r
s or
o
.
,
o
l i fe, t h e
1 02
m e s s age o f G o ethe l ies in the fact that he i s a builder and has
l ived a whole li fe in a time o f hal fn es s This appreciation i s
fi rmly support e d by the biographical hi s torical and compara
tive m e thods o f critici sm ; fo r the li fe and environment o f
G o ethe are nev e r lost sight o f and h is relation to hi s age
together w ith a comparison o f hi s influence and Voltai re s
receive s t h e notic e d u e t o a force like Goethe s
T h e s e cond e s s ay i s significant n o t because it adds to o r
subtract s f rom pr eviou s e stimate s but rather becau se i t show s
the change that has tak en place i n Carlyl e himsel f betw een
In thi s period S a rt or and Ch a ra c t eri s t i cs w ere
1 8 2 8 and 1 8 3 2
w ritten ; Carlyle weary o f review ing ti red o f the Germans
w i shed to d el ive r a per s onal message in an independent w ork
Thi s last essay o n Go ethe w itnesses t o thi s condition o f mind
O ne fi fth o f it i s g i ven up to a rhapsody on great men in the
T eu fel s d rOc k h manner
Fou r pages more are occupied w ith
prai se o f G oethe and N apoleon as the tw o heroes o f thei r era
Above the noise o f hero -worship are heard echoes o f the R e
f orm Bill o f 1 83 2 and o f Benthamite utilitariani sm The
prophet has invaded the domain o f the critic Critical i n
f er e st has waned for even in the body o f the essay Carlyle
declares that the greatest w ork o f every man is the li fe he
1 1
has led and that conc e rning G oethe s w ritings in gene ral it
”1 2
i s needless to r epeat what has elsewhere been w ritten
He
there fore S ketches Goethe s external h istory at considerable
length filling in w ith copious extracts from D i c h t u ng u n d
Wa h rh ei t Wh en he reaches the period o f G otz and Wert er
he regard s what w e can S p ecially call the L i fe o f G oethe as
comm encing the inner l i f e that i s to s a y w ith which the essay
Thi s li fe now l ies be fore him
o f 1 8 2 8 i s s o largely concerned
in forty volume s but his characteristic summari es show that
Goethe has taught him nothing new The central i d e a re
mains what it was
In G o e t h e s Work s chronologically
”
w e s ee thi s above all things : A m ind
arranged he says
w o rki n g it s el f into clear e r and clearer fr e edom ; gaining a more
”1 3
and mor per f ect dominion o f its world
The poet a fter
,
.
,
,
,
’
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
’
“
,
.
’
,
'‘
.
—
,
,
.
,
.
’
.
,
“
,
,
e
“
b
I id
.
,
.
IV ,
1
69
1
,
47
1
1
.
72
.
3
b
I id
.
,
1
72
.
1 03
passing through th ree stage s o f development th e period o f
Wert er o f the A pp ren t i c es h i p o f the Tra vel s stand s forth
”
as th e true proph et o f hi s time a poet w hose pow ers are s o
transcendent as to prompt the criti c to place h im in a class w ith
S hak e spear e
Carlyle
T h eessay o f 1 8 3 2 i s in ferior to the o n e o f 1 8 2 8
i s n o t les s but mor e reverent B ut hi s reverence i s that o f a
p rophet n o t that O f a critic Th e didacti c element i s n ow ob
t ru d ed on all si d e s n o t me rely suggested in a remark here an d
there And yet the methods used and the conclusion s reached
Here
do not essentially di ffer from tho se in the earlier essay
as there the message th e m ind o f Go ethe i s the th ing Thi s
moreove r i s regarded in i ts rep resentative character its rel a
tion to society G oethe i s lo oked upon chiefly as a w orl d
”
change r and benignant S pi ritual revolutioni st
and
h is
Spiritual History i s as it w ere the ideal emblem o f all tru e
”1 4
men s i n the se days
Though Carlyle d i stinctly declare s
”
that n o w i s not the tim e fo r a cri tical exam inati on o f the
”
m e rit s and characteri stic s o f the v oluminou s w ritings o f
1 5
Goethe it i s di fficult for th e student o f h i s critici sm to bel i eve
that the time w oul d eve r have arrive d when Carlyl e w ould o r
even could examine th e Work o f Goeth e except as an expre s
s ion o f the poet s spi ritual hi story Thi s inner li fe thi s truth
or idea Carlyle had indeed already s et forth in such a manne r
as to S how to the w orld what w as for him G oeth e s eternal
significance
—
—
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
“
.
“
,
,
,
,
’
.
“
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
’
.
1 ‘
Ibi d
.
,
1
81
1 ‘
.
bd
Ii
.
,
1
72
.
CHA P T E R V I I
C A R LY L E
AND
V O LTA IR E
The study o f Goethe and the conditions which helped to
p roduce him inevitably led Carlyle back to Voltaire that w itty
v e rsatile and audacious Frenchman whose influence in the
eight e enth centu ry was as w ide as the intellectual h orizon o f
Eu rope I n 1 8 2 9 the date o f Carlyl e s es say Voltai re and
Voltai rism i n E ngland w e re synonymou s w ith immorality and
i rreligion To the average cultivated Englishman Voltaire had
l ong stood as a per fect exemplar o f the sensuality a n d
hypocrisy the unbounde d impiety o f the age o f L ouis XV
As a Q u a rt erly review er expressed it h e w as at once the
w onder and the scorn o f mankind This extremely hostile
position toward him wa s far more pronounced during the last
quarter o f the eighteenth century than it had been at a n y
earl ier date When Voltai re vi sited England in 1 72 6 as the
brilliant and pers e cuted young author o f ( E di p e and L a
H en ri a d e he w as received w ith attention by many and w ith
particular favor by not a few ; and Engli sh li fe and thought
l e ft upon h is restl e ssly inquiring intelligence a permanent i n
fl u en c e for good
But the E ngland o f 1 7 2 6 w as the E ngl and
o f P ope and S w i ft Gay and Co ngr ev e Bolingbroke and
the elder Walpole Forty years later in the reign o f G eorge
I I I though ther e w e re V ol t a i ri a n s l ike Hume Gibbon and
Horace Walpole the opinion s o f the King and o f Johnson
w ere representative
They thought that Voltai re was a
monste r even though a clever one as th e King remarked t o
Fanny Burney At the time o f t h e French R evolution th is
p rej udice deepened into intense antipathy not o f course t o
Voltaire alon e but to all that was French D uring the fi rst
twenty -five years o f the ninet eenth century th e re w as a gradua l
reaction and Voltaire w a s rather w idely read by educated a n d
literary p eople But w ith the exception o f some acute though
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
1 04
1 03
”
Thi s i s a E uropean subj ect o r ther e nev e r was one he says ;
and mu s t i f w e w o uld in the lea s t comprehend it be looked at
n e ithe r from the pari s h b el fry nor any P et e rloo plat form ; but
i f po s s ibl e from s o me natural and infinit ely higher point o f
”2
vi s i on
The appl ication o f these p rinciples to the subj ect i n
hand pr es ent s a p robl em which Carlyle states as follow s : T o
asce rtain what was the true s ignificance o f Voltai re s h istory
both a s re sp ect s him s el f and t h e worl d ; what was hi s specifi c
character and value as a man ; what has b een the character and
value o f h i s influence on society o f his appearance a s an active
agent in the culture o f Europ e : all thi s leads u S into much
de epe r inv e s tigations ; on the settlement o f which h ow ever
”3
the w hole busines s turns
The an swer to these broad ques
tion s the int e rpretation o f Voltaire that i s to s a y involve s the
u se o f a l l the m ethods which are a part o f Carlyle s critici sm
but ch iefly the biographical and hi storical ; for the critic sees
h i s mat erial not only in its individual but in its large social
relations
Voltai re i s appreciated first as a ma n then as a w riter ; o r
‘
fi r s t in h i s moral and second in hi s intellectual capacity
B ut
w hether as man o r as w riter he i s studied always in relation to
hi s age and a s a part o f it M or eover he i s not regarded
merely on thi s side or that but as a whole ; and the intellectual
charact eri s tics are thou ght o f a s growing o u t o f the moral To
Carlyle Voltaire was a living unity as G oethe w as
The essay i s o n e o f t h e most regular in structure and most
w id e and sw e eping in its general izations that Carlyle eve r
w rote Th e read e r who know s his Voltaire and has some a p
p reciation o f Voltaire s multitudinou s activities during a long
l i fe cannot but respect the thoroughness w ith which Carlyle
”
seems to have gon e over those s i x and thirty quartos ex
tracting s o much o f thei r essence and depositing i t w ithin the
pages o f a s ingle review article The latter day critic may
r ep eatedly find himsel f in disagreement w ith the conclusi on
reached but i f he suspects that thi s di ff erence i s due to want
o f kno w l edge o n the part o f Carlyle he i s likely to di scover
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
’
“
,
—
.
,
a
l b i d ” II
1 2
,
3
b
I id
.
,
1 2
9
.
8
‘
.
bd
I i
.
,
1
31
,
1
61
.
1 07
somewhere in the essay a ph rase o r a sentence to d i ss ipate h i s
doubts The characteri stics o f Voltai re the man are p re s ente d
i n an orderly analysi s H i s merits ad roitne s s and rectitude
hardly balanc e his de fects or lim itations w ant o f earnestnes s
and inborn shallow ness for th i s Corypheu s o f de ism w as by
birth a mocke r The age in which he l ived fostered th e lighte r
side s o f h i s nature In an epoch o f di sruption and decay
w hen society w as h op elessly split into fragments Volta ire
became not a ph ilosophe r and reconciler but a partisan whose
ruling passion w as ambition an d w hose perpetual a ppeal w a s
to hi s contemporari es P ubl i c opinion w as hi s deity not
”
eternal truth
We s ee in him says Carlyl e s imply a M a n
such a s P ar i s an d the eighteenth century p ro
o f the World
d u c ed and approved o f : a pol ite attractive most cultiv a ted
but essentially sel f -inte rested man ; not w ithout highly a m i a b l e
qualities ; indeed w ith a general di sposition whi ch w e coul d
have accepted in a mere M a n o f the World but must fin d ve ry
de fective sometimes altogether o u t o f place in a P oet and
”5
V oltai re there fore i s no great M a n but only
P hilosophe r
”
a great P ers i fleu r a phras e w hich may be taken a s Carlyle s
final formula for Voltai re o n the moral side The critic adds
that the great Frenchman played hi s part w ith li fe -long c onsi st
ency o f aim and de serve s the high praise o f being in unity
”8
w ith himsel f
In the interp retation thus far Carlyle expressly declares that
7
he i s trying V oltaire by too high a standard but that h e has no
othe r He cannot avoi d measuring Voltaire as he me asures
G oethe and Scott and John son in te rm s o f h i s o w n ph ilosoph y
Voltaire i s n o t heroic and h e i s there fore not truly
o f l i fe
great To him the D ivine I dea was i nvisible h i s s oul d id n o t
dilate w ith the thought o f the M ighty All i n its beauty and
”
infinite mysterious grandeu r
Volta ire s li fe there fore i s neg
ative in its results a li fe in wh ich the fi rst question al ways wa s
not what i s true but what i s false not what i s to be loved
”8
but what i s to be derided
Thi s estimate carri es w ith
it tw o op inions w hich Carlyle i s care ful to state : fi rst th at
.
—
.
—
—
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
’
,
.
“
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
“
°
Ess a ys
Ibt d
.
,
,
II,
: 5 3.
1
44
7
.
“
bid
Ib i d
1
.
,
.
,
1
45
1
35 ;
.
c f.
1
35
—
1
39
.
1 08
ridicul e i s a small and somewhat contemptibl e w e a pon
and second that Voltaire w as not h ims el f a seriou s man
T h e transcendental ist cannot highly rate the p ers i fleu r or
much value h i s instrument o f pow e r With all hi s shrew d
ness hi s incomparable cleverness V oltaire i s a destroyer w h o
he i s n ot a constructive force like
a pplies a to rch to burn
G oethe who wields a hammer to build
Though these j ud gments delivered from the h igh levels o f
Kantian philosophy and clothed in phrases o f power and p i c t u r
es qu e n es s are Carlylean through and through and though they
s et forth an und eniable t ruth namely that Voltai re was neithe r
a see r nor a lover o f seer s they also make clear how al l but
impossible it i s for a critic living in one sphere o f thought to
pass j ust sentence upon a w riter who lives in an entirely di f
feren t sphere
While Voltai re was not a Cervantes nor a
M ol i ere ridicule i n his hands became what it had become in
th ei rs on e o f the most p otent forces known to man against ex
t ra va ga n c e and corrupti on ; a n d in this sense a positive i n flu
ence for good In an age o f levity and m ocke ry in a country
ru led by the D uke o f O rleans and L ouis XV when t h e sole
re straint upon conduct was decorum an d when superstition and
sacerdotal power were carried to fantastic and degrading ex
tremes ri dicule was perhaps the only agent that would work
re f o rm At all events i t is di fficult to believe that the French
society o f the old r égime w ould have responded to the p h il oso
phy o f Kant or t o the poetry o f Goethe as it respo nded to the
arrow y w it o f Voltaire R id icule in such an age and s o used
i s an ally n ot an enemy o f truth It i s easy to S how more
over that Voltaire was serious sometimes fi e rcely serious in
hi s use o f ri dicule Behind hi s laugh ing face and hi s flashing
eyes there lived an intellect more sober and purpose ful than a
man like Carlyle i s ever likely to believe While neither above
nor p retending to be above h is age in many matters Volta ire
w aged a li fe -long w ar fare for t h e enthronement o f c o mmon
sense and practical w isdom in every realm o f human interest
In an a ge more priest -ridden than most he was an implacable
i f not sometimes an heroic fo e t o superstition and bigotry i n
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
e
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
9
bd
Ii
.
,
1
34
.
,
1 10
’
ual realitie s Voltai re m akes no appeal to man s highest
faculty his r eason \Vh a t e ve r claim s h e has to distinction must
be d e fend ed upon other grounds upon the ground o f under
standing the second term wh i ch Carlyle takes over from Kan
tian philo s ophy In the realm o f the understanding Vol ta i re
i s preeminent ; h is works have t h e sup e rficial practi cal logi
cal unimaginative character which g i ves to them the highest
value in the world o f business relations They exhibit expert
ness superficial extent human ity ; thei r consummate o rd e r
”
declare Voltai re to be t h e most intelligible o f w riters
If
he is not a genius he i s at least an unrivalled talent ; i f there
i s in h im no gleam o f the divine idea he i s able to display h is
1 2
intelligence in a thousand protean forms
In this interp retation o f Voltaire as a w rite r Carlyle ha s
given us eight o r t en pages o f brilliantly general ized c ri ticism
perhaps une q ualled elsewhere in hi s w ritings unless it be i n the
essa y on Burns N owhere else in th e same S pace certainly
has he throw n out more or better summaries and suggestions
a s to l iterary values
And to the Anglo S axon mind at least
1 3
most o f hi s critici sm seems fundamentally sound
Voltai re s
w ritings open no vi sta to realms o f the spirit drop no plum m et
into the abysses o f the human heart With some o f the world s
truest interpreters o f the soul P lato D ante S hakesp eare P a s
cal h e had little o r no sympathy Jesus P eter and P aul were
names which h e could not dissociate from eccles iasti cal wars
and from superstition through all the centuries Had Carlyle s
master Go ethe been Voltaire s contempora ry Voltaire would
no t have underst o od h is message and would have ri diculed
much o f the form in which it was convey e d Fa u s t must have
been t o him no voice from the skies but the unintelligible
utterance o f a rude foreigner When thought le ft th e daylight
worl d o f practical w isdom when it straye d from the path o f
good s ense and good tast e a s these we re understoo d in t h e
France o f the eighteenth century Voltaire laughed at it as the
vagary o f a superstitious or an uncultivated mind H is c on
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
“
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
62
1
1
’
-1
70
Cf B n t i e
ru
.
S iécle
,
2
47
.
e
.
re ,
E
t d
u
es
C it i q
r
u es ,
I,
2
—
8
4
2
53 ;
F
a gu e t ,
D i x -H u i t i é m e
l l !
temporary R ou s s eau was to h im only a celebrated ign oramus
who u s e d h i s int ellect to p rove men beasts I t i s not strange
that Carlyle could find n o poetry in Voltai re ; th ere was none
to seek at least o f the kind he looke d f or Interpretative and
ph ilosophical criticism must there fore come to negative con
elusi ons
But Voltai re i s perhap s th e most consp icuous example o f a
class o f w riters who su ffe r from a too exclusive application o f
thi s method men o f letters who l ive by thei r p en and who
exert a prodigious influence upon thei r immediat e contempo
raries Carlyle s cr itici sm leave s Voltai re th e man o f letters
too much in the background Th e l iterary h istory o f Franc e
in the eighteenth century w ithout Voltai re w ould be H a m l et
w ith Hamlet l e ft o u t Up on every fi eld o f thought he l e ft h i s
imp ress In hi story h e was a p rogressive force ; in the d rama
H e coul d write a sto ry o r a poem that
a conservative one
wo uld s ti r the salons o f France to laughter Hi s letter s ex
pressed i n phrase s o f m a tchless limpi dity and grace carri ed
message s o f pow er t o all parts o f E u rope and brought down
ridicule upon imposters and quacks o r w on j u stice for tho se
who had su ffered from the want o f i t Voltai re s pen wa s
literally mighti er than the swo rd o f L ou i s the Well -Beloved
O f thi s Voltai r e Carlyle s interp retation gives but an indi stinct
p icture and yet perhaps th e o n e portrait that the w orl d would
care to preserve fresh and clear i s that wh ich p resents Vol
tai re a s the incarnated S pi rit o f French lett e rs in th e E ight
e en t h C e ntury
It i s as a reli gious polemic rather than as a man o f lette rs
that Voltai re figu res most p rominently be fore the w orld in t h e
op inion o f Ca rlyle In other wo rds Voltai rism or war fare
upon revealed religion i s greater than Voltai re H e re t oo w e
”
We ma y s a y in gene ral says Car
find intellectual unity
lyle
that hi s style o f controversy i s o f a p iece w ith h imsel f ;
n o t a high er an d scarcely a lower style than might have been
”1 4
expected from h im
Voltai re i s i ngenious and adroit n o t
nobl e and comprehen sive I n hi s battle w ith unreason
h e fights w ith borrow ed w eapon s ; h e marches unde r the
.
.
.
,
.
—
’
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
’
.
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
“
.
,
“
,
,
.
,
.
1‘
E s s a y s , II,
1
71
.
1 12
fl ag o f Engli sh thinkers and the French Bayl e M ore than
th is h i s knowledge i s shallow since it turns wholly upon
the in s pi ration o f the S criptures and regards Ch ristianity a s a
book -made rel igion ; whereas religious truth i s revealed to man
not th rough books but by i ntuition is born not to the under
standing but to the reason Voltai re s faults says Carlyle are
also the ch ie f fault s o f h i s time and count ry
It w a s an age
w ithout nobleness wi thout high vi rtue o r h igh man i festation o f
tal e nt ; an age o f S hallow clearness o f po l ish sel f -conceit S kep
”
I t is little su rp ri sing h e
t i c i s m and all for m s o f P ers i fla ge
adds that Volta ire in such an age shoul d have par t a ken
”1 5
largely o f all its qual ities
His task in this epoch was n ot
V oltairi sm then according
o n e o f a ffirmation but o f denial
1 6
to Carlyle s formula i s negation
In th is final appreciation it will be seen that Carlyle applies
once more the same high standards o f critici sm : true religion
like true literature o r true l i fe i s n o t a creation o f the under
standing but o f the reason And once more i t may be sai d that
C a rlyle s position fro m t h e po int o f vi e w o f the unchanging
re a l ities o f the inner l i fe is unassailable Voltaire was not an
or igi nal thinke r but a popularizer o f ot her men s thinking
H i s work interp reted from s o exalted a position is i rreverent
i n spi rit and negative in results The man w h o fo r twenty
years and more in the P h i l os op h i ca l D i c t i on a ry and in hundreds
o f letters relentlessly fought established religion o r the In
f a m ou s as he called it i s little l ikely to yield to later genera
tions much o f the real S p irit o f Christianity o r o f religious
reverence in Carlyle s meaning o f the word B ut again Ca r
ly l e s c ritici sm needs t o be supplemented w ith a criticism that
takes fuller account than does h i s o f the positive results o f
V oltaire s work a s regarded from the po int o f vi ew o f V ol
t a i re s o w n age and country
For while the critic is swi ft to
condemn the era o f L oui s X V and frankly recognizes its l i fe
as something to be torn down and swept away he cannot heart
ily p rai se Voltaire and V oltairi sm for their large part in t h e
labor o f destruction He doe s n o t make su ffi ciently clear what
Ch ri stianity stood for in the o l d regi m e ; how for the most part
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
“
,
.
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
’
,
’
’
.
,
.
1“
bi
I d
.
,
1
79
1‘
.
Ibi
d
.
,
1
7 1 -1 7 9
.
CH A P T E R VI I I
T H E E N GLIS
H E SS AY S
Carlyl e wrote but th ree essays on Engli s h subj ects B u rn s
He proposed
B os w ell s L i f e of J oh n s on and S i r Wa l t er S c ot t
to w rit e other s notably one on Byron and another o n Fash
”
but they n e ver appeared ch iefly because
i o n a b l e N ovel s
N api er t h e successor to Je ff r e y as editor o f the E d i n bu rg h
R evi ew to whom they were o ffered was warned that Carlyle
w as a man to be f ear e d as an intense radical and a hysterical
w orshipper o f German divinities The three essays whi ch
there for e constitute hi s deliberate appreciation o f E nglish a u
thors cover a decad e o f time a n d roughly mark the end o f three
critical periods in Carlyle s lit erary fortunes The essay on
B urns was t h e fi rst work executed at Cra igen p u t t oc k whi ther
in 1 8 2 8 he had move d from E dinburgh in order to toil and
think and be beyond th e reach o f interruptions Hi s critical
int ere s t w a s now at i t s height and h e had entered th e field o f
letter s fa r enough t o be recognized as a new force But as
we have s ai d s o o ft en r evi ew ing in no long time gave way to
p rophe s ying ; S a rt or s ucceeded S i gn s of t h e Ti m es and Ch a r
Carlyl e became r e s tles s to deliver
a c t eri s t i c s followed S a rt or
h i s p e rsonal me s s age to the world
H i s letters during thi s p er
i od S ho w that he was considering great moral subj ects L uther
and the German re formation J ohn Knox and the S cottish
re formation Finally i n 1 8 3 1 h e w ent up to L ondon to try h i s
fortun e s w ith S a rt or but the p u b l i sh ers w o u l d n o t p rint i t
Carlyle remained in the metropol is through the winte r a lonely
crabb e d my s tic sn eering and sneere d at a man whose literary
and mat e rial fortun e s still hung in the balance In the sp ring
b e fo re returning to Cra i gen p u t t o c k at t h e requ est o f Jame s
Fras e r the publi s h e r h e wrot e a revi ew o f Bo s well s L i f e of
J oh n s o n Th is gr eat es s ay l ik e the second o n e on G oethe
w ritt en a fe w month s later may in o n e sense be regarded as the
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
—
,
,
.
‘
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
114
1 1 5
lyrical cry o f a lonely p rophet w h o f e lt that h e must p reach
h e roi sm to an unhero ic di stracted age A fte r th is e ssay w a s
w ritten there followed another period o f struggle uncertainty
and ill -fortune
Carlyle became absorbed in a study o f the
French R evoluti on an d i n 1 8 3 4 he move d to L ondon where h e
could get books to carry on h i s work Amidst the harrowing
labor of th ese years th e voi ce O f th e critic became S ilent B ut
in 1 8 3 7 when the H i s t ory was completed th i s voice was h eard
once more not in deed passi onate and melodious as i t had been
a decade ago but still s trong and co mmanding fi t t o w in a t
tention even from those wh o denie d i ts authority Th e essay
on S i r Walt e r S cott publi shed in 1 8 3 8 w a s the last o f the eri ti
cal essays and w ith it th e caree r o f Carlyle the criti c may be
said to hav e come t o a c lose
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
( )
O f all the essays from Carlyle s pen that on B urns i s the
best known and mo st admi red As D r Garnett so w ell said
”
it is the very voi ce o f S cotland
In B urns Carlyl e found
a native poet wh ose songs an d
a subj ect that fi red hi s hea rt
whose tragical l i fe alike s ti rre d him to pas s ionat e sympathy
To his ey e s the A yrshi r e poet appeared no t as a vulgar w onde r
to be stared at from the h eights o f l it e ra ry E dinburgh but a
Scotlan d s mo st original genius and a s o n e o f the song-make rs
o f the world The a ffinitie s between B urn s and Carlyle w e re
numerous and sp e cial Both were sons o f S cotti sh peasants
both w ere poor p roud indepen dent gi fte d and ambitious
L ike Carlyle B urns w a s bo rn to wage war w ith a hostile en
v i ron m en t unlike him h e w as destined t o be de feated becau se
h is w il l was not as Carlyle s the w ill o f a Titan H i s tragical
fate togeth e r w ith h i s o rigin and e nvironm ent mov e d the critic
to love and pity Instead o f the turbi d stream o f declamation
that was sometimes poured into the lat e r es s ays there flo w s
th rough thi s interpr etation o f B urns a tend erness almo st fem
i nine and a sp irit O f devotion almost sentimental E ven down
to his clo s ing year s Carlyl e w oul d recit e o r hum ove r to h i m
sel f the ver s es o f B urns w ith the deep delight bo rn o f real
community o f spi rit
B u rn s
a
’
.
.
,
“
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
1 16
H e makes no apology for giving up two -thirds
of
his essa y
”
to t h e l i fe o f Bu rns
It i s not chiefly as a poet says Car
”1
lyle
but as a man that h e i nterests us and affects u s
Here was a tragical career p eculiarly alluring to the morali st
here was a gi fted genius gone to ru in because he fai led to rec
on c i l e the i deal with the actual failed that i s to put into p rae
tice the great Goethean doctrine o f renunciation Into his
account o f B u rn s s w averings betw een inner and outer condi
tions Carlyle h a s put the sum -total o f hi s own ethical philosophy
”
He measure s the inward springs and relations o f B u rn s s
character i n terms o f the high ideals he applies to all other
men Burns he says was born a true poet an d there fo re
2
should have been a p rophet and teacher to h i s age
He shoul d
have fitted himsel f by rigorou s di scipl ine by sel f-denying toil
to deliver hi s message to h is generation But a man born to b e
3 vo t es or see r m
u s t live a whole l i fe h e cannot be anything by
halves The grand error in B u rn s s l i fe w a s the w ant o f
”
unity in hi s purposes o f consistency i n hi s aims
I t was
a hapless att empt to m ingle i n friendly union the common
S pi rit o f the worl d w ith the spi rit o f poetry which i s o f a far
di ff erent and a ltogether i rreconcilable nature B urns w a s
”3
nothing w holly
In d i scussing the want o f harmony between the clay soil o f
M ossgiel and the soul o f Burns Carlyle t a kes large account o f
c ircumstances the poet s mate rial condition and th e influences
o f the period He recognizes the p re s sure o f th e external
f act in the form o f poverty lack o f education early t em p t a
tions to depa rt from the right path H e t hinks t oo that B u rn s s
reli gi ous quarrel s were a circumstance o f fatal
B ut o f all th e outer forces that helped to wreck the poet s li f e
Carlyle regards the visits to Edinburgh as strongest Th ese
did h im great and lasting inj ury and madd ened h is heart s till
”
mo re w ith th e feve r o f worldly ambition
H a d th e patrons
o f genius le ft Burns to himsel f
the w ound s o f the he a rt woul d
”
have been heal e d vulgar ambition would have di ed away
These men as w e bel ieve were p ro ximately the m eans o f
“
,
.
“
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
’
“
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
“
’
.
.
,
“
,
.
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
’
.
’
,
.
.
“
,
.
“
'
,
,
1
'
E s s a ys
b id
I
.
,
,
II, 6 ; c f
46
.
2
9
'
‘
.
bi
I d
.
Ibi
d
.
,
47
.
,
33
.
.
1 18
evil courses The convivial poet alternating between the
tables o f the high and th e taverns o f the low and fast descend
ing to the lowest could not exp ect to retain the favor and
social patronage o f refined people Such important phases o f
th e ethica l que s tion at all events Carlyle does n o t seem to have
treated quite candidly o r rather h e i s prone to give to th e Edin
bu rgh vi sits a n active part in the tragedy o f B u rn s s l i fe when
at mo st it was seductively passive
A s w ith the li fe so w ith the w ritings o f Burns Hi s moral
natu re was at war w ith itsel f and there f ore h i s w ork rem a in s
w ithout the unity o f a great idea remains a poo r mutilate d
f raction o f what was in h im ; brie f broken glimpse s o f a
”8
genius th a t could neve r S how itsel f complete
We can
”
l oo k on but f ew o f these piec es says Carlyle speaking o f the
poet ry o f Burns as in st ri ct critical language deserving the
n a me o f P oem s z t h ey are rhymed eloq uence
rhymed pathos
rh ymed sense ; yet sel dom essentially melodious aerial poet
Burns there fore i s n ot perhaps absolutely a great
po et
he never rose except by n a tural e ff o rt and for sho rt
”1 0
i nte rv a ls i nto the region o f great ideas
S ince the p oet
attained no mastery in h is art the critic th inks i t woul d be at
”
once unp rofitable and un fai r to try him hi s imper fect f rag
”1 1
m ents by the strict rules o f Art
In these opinions h ow
ever the final j udgment i s impl icit Burns i s not a great poet
because he has no i dea to reveal because h e speaks no wo rd
o f authenti c truth B ut i f not absolutely great he i s a poet
o f N ature s ow n
and on e o f t h e most c onsiderabl e
”1 3
B riti sh men o f the eighteenth century
Hi s work has an en
du ri ng quality a rare excellence that merits high appr e ciation
T he so urce o f its sustaine d vitality Carlyle finds to be sin cerity
graphic phra sa l power vigor and fineness o f m ind as shown
in the poet s love indignation and humo r Nowh ere else i n
the considerabl e mass o f B urns criticism i s there an i n t erp re
t a t i on S 0 sympatheti c s o ill uminated w i th flashes o f inspi red
comment as th is which Carlyle has given us in a few S hort
ow n
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
.
.
,
—
,
“
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
,
!
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
,
bi
Ibi d
Ib i d
"I d
“
.
.
1°
8
,
.
,
.
3
2
,
1‘
1
1 2‘
.
3,
1
8
1’
.
Ibi
d
i
Ibi d
Ib d
.
,
. .
.
,
5, 8
1
4
3
.
.
.
1 19
’
pages The treatment i s critical i n the best sense Carlyle s
in s ight knowledge and sympathy are nowhere u se d to bett er
results and he evi d ences an app reciation o f t h e ph rasal beauty
and emotional value o f poetry all t oo rare in h i s critical essays
P erhaps the strongest p roo fs o f hi s original capaci ty fo r
cr itici sm are th e few paragraph s on Ta m O S h a n t er Th e J ol l y
H e re criticism show s itsel f
B eggars and the songs o f B urns
Ta m O S h a n
to be truly a creative art as Carlyl e said i t w a s
not s o much a p oem as a p iece o f sparkl ing
t er he says i s
”
rheto ric
Its parts its natural ism and sup ernaturali sm are
not p rop erly fused ; it i s n o t s trictly comic but farcical ; it i s
not o rgani cally but artificially alive Carlyle w e obs e rve i s
here applying h is test o f unity o r c entral truth w ith negative
results and to h im there fore B u rn s S Ta m O S h a n t er lack s uni
“
versal symbolic sign ifi canc e ; i s not p oe try but rhyme d farce
He measures Th e J ol l y B egga rs by the same standard T hi s
”
p oem ri ses into th e domai n o f Art be cause it seems thor
”
oughly compacted ; melted togethe r refined because its char
”
a c t ers are at once
Scotti sh yet ideal because i t exp re sses a
”
universal sympathy w ith man
It has i n o ther w ords
inne r and oute r correspondence a universal appeal an d i s a
”
sel f supporting whole the h ighest merit in a p oem
I n thes e
few passages w e have a the o ry o f a rt o f A risto telian brea dth
1 5
applied to conc rete material w ith suggestive results
Th e
songs are c ons idered by far the best that B ritain has yet pro
”
d u c ed
Carlyle ranks B urns as the fi rst o f all o f o u r S ong
”
w riters an d thinks th at B u rn S S ch ie f influence a s an autho r
w ill ultimately rest upon h i s songs The se cond paragraph in
this s ection i s the ve ry p oetry o f criticism worthy to be classe d
with the app reciations o f Charles L amb at thei r best H a d
Carlyle chosen to develop th e ve in that S h ow s itsel f he re i t
.
.
,
,
.
’
,
.
’
.
,
“
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
’
’
.
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
“
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
C n i d ing t h tim f i t d li an thi
iti c i m h
Ca l y l
f j dgm nt p h a p
b tt
i n d p nd n
than y th that
All th
p int t
iti b f
hi m J ff y S tt L k ha t H azlitt
By n W d
B
th ga d d T m
ma t pi
n
S
did B
L if III
( Walla
Th
J l l y B gg a
t m
h n ti d b y t h a l y it i
It
t in d
d p b l i h d in mpl t f m til l 8
tt p ai
it highl y
S
M atth A n l d ith Ca l y l an k it hi gh than T m O S h t
1‘
e
o
s
e
o
e
o
ro
er
ce
or
no
e
s w or
e,
o
e
cr
,
u
r
o
re
e
s
o
er
cs
r
ver
s
e o re
e
c e,
er
e
e
,
a
a s
s
cr
a n
re
co
,
’
u rn s s
s
s
o
er
oc
,
s er
ow s
r
e c e.
’
r
e s
w e
ca n
,
o
ur
,
s.
,
e
ee
ew
u
e
c e,
1 ‘
e
o
.
,
e
rs
s
w
e
w as
co
r
no
uc
e e
e r
or
s
o
ce
e
1
er
0 2
.
e
co
a
cr
r
r
’
cs
.
s es
a n e r.
w as
.
1 20
’
should s e em that h e might have become on e o f England s tw o
1 6
o r th re e g reat critic s
It i s w hen w e con s ider the treatm ent o f t h e p o et s relation
to the literature o f hi s o w n day that w e must deduct some
thing f rom ou r praise o f Carlyl e a s a c ritic e specially i n hi s
method H e touches l ightly though
u s e o f the h istorical
master fully upon the literary revival in S cotland and upon
In this brilliant resuscitation o f ou r
B u rn s s share in it
fervi d geniu s
h e says there was nothing S cottish noth
”
ing indigenous
Cultur e was exclusively French and a t
But a fter B u rn s s day a spirit o f nationalism spr a ng
t en u a t ed
up and literature became native domestic democratic I n
thi s change S cott s influence i s acknowledged but the i n flu
”
ence o f Burns also says Carlyle may have been considerable
fo r h i s ex a mple in the fearless adoption o f domestic s u b
”
Hi storical criticism
jec t s could not but operate from a far
in s o far is sound But Carlyle makes a m istake in regard ing
the w ork o f Burns as the beginn i ng o f a new movement rather
than as the culmination o f an o l d Hi s casual and depreciating
n otices o f R am say and F e rguson t h e predecesso rs o f Burns
and his apologetic re fe rence to th e S cotti sh d ialect together
w ith variou s remarks o n B u rn s s lack o f p roper education
ind icate that he d id not correctly appreciate the relation o f the
poet t o the ve rnacular school o f poetry Had Burns w ritten
exclu s ively in E ngl i sh follow ing the model s and literary i n
fl u en c es o f that day he would now belong to the school o f
S henston e Thomson and P op e ; for hi s E ngli s h p oet ry i s
sti ff imitative
a dmitted on n e arly all sides to be hi s w eakest
Augustan The true way i s to interpret the poetry o f B urns
as the fl owering o f a spi rit transmitted throu gh Fergu son a n d
.
’
,
,
.
,
“
’
.
“
’
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
“
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
,
—
,
,
.
In
re
lating thi
s
i ti i m
bit
of cr
of t h e s o
c s
ng
Sh ld
f g t that him a ng b l
p in
f p
t i a b i f i mpl p i
Ca l y l
s to
r
g n al th
’
e s
er
e
i
tl y ing
eor e s ,
all t t h
f
mp i t i n ( Ib i d 3
y
H d Ca l y l b n abl t
tak t h m d n p int f i w f t h
f t h l y i i n all ag
t d nt f g
and i f h had n i d d t h p
a l y y th f m f t d
t a i ght t t h h a t f man
t
g
and th n h d n t d th a t B n had g n t t h h a t f S tland and
ind d f t h
ld h might ha h a d d bt ith ga d t h i d nial
g atn
a p t ( mm nt mad p n m y man ipt )
f B
w e
n ot
ou
ce
rov
“
s u
e
o
o,
o
o
rc e
e
u ra s s
o
re
w or
es s
er
s
oe
e re
a r
o
o
e
o es ,
o
co
e c es
e
ve
e
a s
s
o
or
s
e
o
co
ur
,
e
s
e
e
a n
e o n gs
so
r e
ee
o e
a
’
e
e n re s
a s sc
o
‘
s
,
r
a
e
ee
oe r
o
to
or e
e
e
a
ft er
co
er
e
e
w
r
re
o
o
e
ou
”
.
v e
,
e
o
r
e
2
e
o
es
r c
e
o
e u
o
o
s r
s
o
os
ow er o
o
ou
’
r
o
,
co
o
u scr
s
e
.
1 22
E ngl ish
li fe political and social w ere alarm ing to many mind s
The tide o f innovation was strong and men feared that the
Carlyle
o l d landmarks w ere in danger o f being sw ept away
then in L ondon w atched t h e current o f a ff ai rs w ith eager
i nterest i n fact w ith apprehension ; for re form never meant to
h im w hat it di d to the utilitarians a change in external condi
tions mer ely Unl e s s re form reached the individual and l i fted
him to a better li fe Carlyle d istru sted and condemned it h e
even feared it The only way the individual can be bettered
he sai d i s by contact w ith another greater indivi dual ; soul i s
kindled only by soul H i s remedy for the distracted times o f
there fore was the gospel o f hero -worship
1 83 2
But the prophet doe s not quite usurp the place o f the critic
No other essay displays deeper di scernment o r more thorough
know ledge o f subj ect than thi s and it i s only below the fi rst
In epithet and phr a se
G oet h e and the B u rn s in sympathy
f rom the fi rst page to the last there are flashes o f keenest
ins ight Illuminating suggestions on literature and li fe are
strew n lavi shly along the w ay We find Carlyl e moreover
m easu ring Boswell and Johnson the men and thei r w ork by
preci sely the sam e standards which he applied in earlie r e ssay s
to R ichte r and to Goethe The critical method remains n u
changed because the principles upon which it was established
are in 1 8 3 2 what th ey w ere in 1 8 2 8
A tell ing pro o f o f the sustained vitality o f Carly l e s critical
po w ers i s hi s treatment o f Boswell To s a y aught i n 1 83 2 in
de fense o f Jo hnson s biographe r w a s to fly i n the face o f all
literary opinion From 1 768 when G ray commenting on Bos
w ell s fi rst literary ventur e the book on Cor s ica said that any
fool may w rite a most valuable book i f he w ill only tell what h e
”1 °
heard and s a w w ith veracity
down to 1 8 3 1 when M acaulay
i n t h e E d i n b u rgh R evi ew launched his no torious paradox that
B osw ell woul d n ever have been a great w riter i f he had not
been a great fool B osw ell had been th e Obj ect o f unmeasured
ridicul e H i s only titl e to public recognition seem s to have
be e n h i s many -si ded folly Carlyle clearly s a w the po s ition
wh ich Boswell occupied be fore the B ritish public but he re
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
.
’
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
a
Gr y
,
Wo rk s
,
III, 3 1
0.
1 23
f used to believe that a great biography had b e en w ritten by a
fool o r that good work could be done by reason o f w eaknesse s
H is entire theory o f l i fe and o f l iterature w as
o r v ices
against such a false paradox H e d i d not shut h i s eyes to
Bosw ell s follies and foibles he s a w them w ith a keene r visi on
than d id M acaulay and h i s portrait o f the exterior B oz z y
ranks as a mast e rpi ece in a gallery o f great pai ntings But to
laugh at a man s fantastic freaks and to catalogu e them i s not
the sam e as to interp ret the man M acaulay s B osw ell w as not
I n the place o f a fals e
f o r Carlyle the biographer o f J ohnson
paradox he supplied a tru e one H ere h e said i s a man w ho
h a s p rovi ded u s a greater p l ea s u re than a n y other ind ivi dual
perhaps has done u s a great s ervi ce and can be e spe
c i a l l y attributed to more than tw o o r three ;
y et no w ritten
”
Th i s
o r spok e n eulo gy o f James B osw ell anyw here exi sts
situation exi ste d because critics had seen the v isibl e vices o f
Boswell but had no insight into hi s h i dden vi rtues B oswell
i s cor rectly unde rstood says Carlyle only when w e th ink o f
h im as a disciple a hero -w orshipper H e had in him a love
o f excell e nce invi sible to the general eye In an unspi ritual
eighteenth century when R everence fo r Wisdom had w ell
nigh vani sh e d from the earth Bosw ell wa s raised up to be a
real m artyr to thi s high eve rlasting truth that H ero w orsh ip
”
l ives per e nnially in th e human bo s om
True to h i s biograph
ical method Carlyle find s in th i s interp retati on a k ey to th e
greatness o f B oswell s work
B osw ell w rote a good Book
because h e had a heart and an eye to di scern Wi sdom and an
utterance to render it forth ; because o f hi s free insight h i s
lively talent above all o f hi s L ove and ch ildlike O penm inded
n eS S
N one but a rev eren t man coul d have f ound hi s w ay
”
from B os w el l S environment to J ohnson s
The c riti c men
tions insight and talent a s a part o f th e biographer s e q uipment
but he lays stress up on certain u n con s ci ou s pow ers like reve r
ence and love a s th e greater part Carlyl e indeed fi nd s i n
Boswell a cap ital illustration o f h i s theory o f art as an u n c on
scious proces s
We do the man s intellectual endowm ent
”
great w rong he says
i f w e mea sure it by its mere logical
outcome ; though here too the re i s n o t w anting a l igh t i a
,
.
.
’
,
,
.
’
’
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
“
.
,
.
,
—
.
,
“
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
’
.
’
,
,
,
.
“
’
.
“
,
,
,
1 24
a figu ra t i ve n es s and fanci ful sport w ith gl impse s o f
insight far deeper than the common But Bo s w ell s grand i n
”
He
t el l ec t u a l talent w as as such e v e r is an u n c o n s ci ou s one
”
i s th e re fore
one o f N ature s o w n A rti s t s and hi s book i s
”
great becau s e o f i t s import o f R ea l i ty becaus e it i s wholly
”
Upon these terms Carlyle s p raise o f the L i f e b e
cred i b l e
come s poetical o n e o i the sunny spots o f interpretation that
proves the illuminating pre s ence o f the critic Hi s final u dg
ment i s expressed in a sentenc e : In worth as a Book w e
have rat ed it beyond any other product o f the eighteenth cen
tu ry : all John s on s Writings stand on a quite in ferior level
”2 0
to i t
Thi s interpr etation o f Bosw ell i s o n e o f the highest services
that the critici sm o f Carlyl e has done fo r E ngli sh l iterature
Becau se o f it England s g reatest biographer has been li fted
from a place o f ridicule and contempt to one in wh ich hi s
real greatness i s recognized S ince 1 83 2 critical opinion has
not onl y regarded the L i f e of Joh n s on as the fi rst o f b i ogra
phi es but it has mo re and more come to under s tand that
Boswell him sel f i s on e o f England s truest l iterary a rti sts who
knew per fectly w ell the richness o f h is material and who knew
h ow t o shape i t in obedience to the aim o f a supremely sel f
conscious purpose But i f Carlyle s portrait brilliant as it is
had remained untouched by later critici sm w e S hould to -day
fail t o understand the real Boswell The fact i s Carlyle a t
tempts to strain hi s theory o f Hero -Worship farthe r than i t
w ill go When he says for example that it w as reverence for
w i sdom which drew B osw ell to Johnson he has to place both
B osw ell and Johnson in a somewhat false position in orde r
to support hi s claim He seems to forget that when T om
D avies introduc e d them i n 1 7 63 J ohnson wa s not so much
a
”
poor rusty coated s cholar as the foremos t literary figure in
England A ll o f Johnson s important w ork except th e
S h a k es p ea re and the L i v es w as done ; he had received a
pension t h e previou s year fo r literary merit alone and he was
”
to e s tabli sh the famou s Club a year later With all hi s
peculiarities J ohnson w as a man to know N ow Boswell
gen u i t y ,
,
’
.
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
“
’
.
.
’
,
.
,
,
’
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
“
.
,
no
E s s a y s , IV , 7 3 — 8 3
.
.
,
1 26
ideals He w as neither the unqualified fool o f M acaulay s
portrait nor the martyr -hero o f Carlyle s ; he was something
it i s true but he w as al so a cra ft s man o f the fi rst
o f both
r a nk w orking by conscious processes toward sel f appointed
ends
But whatever be the true interpretation o f the processes by
wh ich Boswell achieved hi s a rt there can be no two opinions
o f its accompl i shment Fo r Carlyle at any rate the case w as
clear ; he found Boswell s work good because it revealed to
him a personality which aroused his deepest interest and s ym
pathy We have al ready implied i n the previous section o f
thi s chapte r that the unique and pro found relationship betw een
Carly l e and Burns w a s S piritual ; and now at the ri sk o f con
fusing language w e w i sh to point ou t that the remarkabl e
sympath y betw een Carlyle and Johnson w a s largely intellectual
Affi n ity w ith Burn s moreover w as part ly a matte r o f pity ; it
A ffin ity
w a s the feeling o f the strong man toward the w eak
w ith Johnson w as wholly due to the liking o f on e strong m a n
f or another The mind o f Carlyl e indeed touches that o f
J oh n s on a t so many points that at times it i s hard to avoi d
fancy i ng that a gre a t spi rit o f the eighteenth century became
reincarnated in the nineteenth Johnson like Carly l e was a
stoic a hater o f cant and sham a man who renounced happi
ness a s his rule o f l i fe Both w ere pass ionately interested in
human natu re del ighting in biography and believing in the
pow er o f a really great man to turn hi s abil itie s to any a c count
In political principles as in ethical the two men w ere singu
l a rl y alike
T o Johnson the doctrine o f politic a l equality w as
mere moonshine He despised the teachings o f R ou sseau and
he regarded agitators o f the Wilkes ty pe w ith contempt He
che rished a superior disregard o f the people and ( to use the
word s o f M rs P iozzi ) he exp ressed a zeal for insubordina
”
tion w a r m even to bigotry
Wh ile these political opinions
w oul d apply more Obviously to the Carlyle o f 1 8 50 than to th e
Carlyle o f 1 8 3 2 they are in reality true o f him at any period
o f hi s manhood
for he was ever as full o f intuitive aver
”
sions as w as Johnson We might extend the parallel into
the le ss tangible realm o f temperament for each l i fe w a s over
’
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
“
.
.
,
“
,
.
,
1 27
shadowed w ith m elancholy o r l ight e d at interval s w ith fl a s he s
and in each ther e dwelt a
o f s atu rnine and i ronic humor
religious seriousness tow ard e very human interest
B oth
”
Johnson and Carlyl e w ere characters in thei r tim e bol d
independ ent dominating o rigina l and both w ill l ive for future
generation s a s men rather than as w riters In all or i n nearly
”
all o f Carlyle s w riting there i s th e deep lyric tone w h ich
h e con f e ss e s to find in John s on the man It i s because o f th i s
mani fol d and intimate sympathy that Carlyle a fter B osw ell i s
H is e ssay though
t h e most inspired interprete r o f Johnson
n ot s o well balanced as some earlier one s
deserves the p rai se
o f E dward Fitzgerald
w h o thought that it j udged Johnson
”
for go od and all
The int e rp r etation o f Johnson rests upon essentially th e s a m e
ideals o f biography as those s et fo rth in the essay o n Burn s
It i s not t h e outer but th e inner J ohnson that i s presente d ; not
the eccentric de formed giant o f M acaulay s pages but th e
”
best intellect in England a man belonging to th e keen er
order o f intelle c t s such as Hume and V oltai re a man n ot
ranking among the highest o r even th e high yet d i stinctly
”
admitted into that sacred band
That i s to s a y Johnson i s a
p riest and p rophet w hose l i fe Carlyle frankly hold s up as an
answ er to the qu e stion how to l ive a s the text t o a sermon o n
hero -w orship The heroi c aspects o f Johnson s l i fe are th ere
fore brought forw ard and ex h ibited in the most favorabl e l ight
while the e ss entially l iterary S ide s are l e ft som ewhat obscure d
Carlyle sings a kin d o f p aean ove r the early struggles o f
Johnso n and from the facts conce rning Johnson s fi rst days in
L ondon he selects material for some o f hi s strongest para
graph s
A s Carlyle s a w it th e l i fe problem o f J ohnson w as tw o -fold
how to l iv e and how to l ive by speaking only the truth Th e
pr oblem w a s mad e doubly di ffi cult because the age wa s
t ransitional in literature i n politics in religion ; and becau se
Johnson h imsel f possessed a contra dict o ry temperament
It
is n o t th e lea s t cu rious o f the incoherences wh ich John son had
”
to reconcile s ays Carlyle that though by nature c o n t em p t u
ous and incredulou s he w as at that t im e o f d a y t o fi nd h i s
,
.
“
,
,
,
,
.
“
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
“
.
.
’
,
,
“
“
,
“
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
“
.
“
,
,
,
sa fety and glory in de f ending w ith hi s whole might the tradi
”
ti o ns o f the elder s
B ut Johnson kept a straight path through
the s e tangled time s becaus e h e had a knowledg e o f the t ran
s c en d en t a l i m m ea s u rea bl e character o f D uty the essence o f all
”
Thi s is hi s great glory this i s the central fact o f
R eligion
h i s li fe beside which all others are secondary and ci rcum
In thus placing Johnson the morali st high above
st a n t ia l
J o hn s on the man o f letters Carlyle exalts the he ro at the
expense o f the man He scarc ely more than glances at the
inter es ting figure who gathered the w its about him at the
Club and who w as cel ebrated as the fi rst talker o f L ondon
the perennially delight ful personality whom the w orld know s
to -day through the pages o f Boswell
We may in fer from Carlyle s slight notice o f Johnson as a
man o f letters that hi s interest in Johnson s w ritings i s like
w ise slight Such i s indeed the case Intent upon interp reting
Johnson a s a morali st the critic cares only for the sp irit w h i ch
S h ows through the R a m bl ers th e Id l ers and the L i ves Thi s
S p i rit he finds t o be an expression o f Johnson s moral nature
”
J ohn so n by act and word was a Tory
the p rese rver and
tra nsmitter o f whatsoe ver w a s genuine in the S pirit o f Tory
”
i sm
The motive o f his li fe was duty o r truth in the tran
21
sc en d en t a l sense ; the work o f his l i fe was Toryism
In a
t ime o f change when even the f oundations o f society were in
danger o f being swept away J ohnson served E nglan d by re
s isting the ri sing tide o f innovation The moral endowment
by which he e ff ected this work was mainly courage a bel ie f in
the eve rlasting Truth that man is ev e r a R evelation o f God
”
to man and lastly mercy and affection Johnson s a ff ection
Carlyle p oints o u t mani fested itsel f both as courtesy and a s
p rej udi c e P r ej udice again was the virtue by which Johnson
accomplished his mi s si on th e mi ssion o f serving as the John
”
Bull o f s pi ritual Europe
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
’
’
.
.
,
.
,
’
.
“
“
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
—
.
" It
h ld b n d t d that th gh h p a h d ty
d t th
Ca ly l d
t
n n d iti nall y p a h t h D t in f S tan ding-S till
H d
t gl
i fy tagnati n ith in t h in d i i d al
in t h tat
f
H
ay that J hn n aim
i n it l f an imp ibl
; thi
t mm i ng h t nal Fl d f tim Th t ng t man
ta d
b t
nt pa t i all y and f a S h t h
th
r
e
e
e
s
o es
o es
s
e
ou
no
no
s
s e
e c u rre
t
u
or
“
e
o
e er
r
ers oo
u
co
o
’
e
e
c
re
o
s
so
ou
e
er
e
w as
s
oo
or
o
e
.
ou r
.
”
c
es
oc r
e
v
u
se
e
or
“
re
es
ru
an
,
”
o
os s
s ro
u
.
or
e
e
on e
ca n
u
e.
s
s
o
re
r
1 30
as true poets can th rough th ei rs the D ivine I dea Johnson
was a prophet because h i s character w a s a m e dium for tran
s ce n d en t a l duty ; but he was neither a s eer nor a poet because
hi s intellect could not transmit truth From such j udgm ent
there i s nothing to deduct Critical Opinion from the time o f
Burke and Coleridge does not diffe r e s sentially from Carlyle s
E ven the late D r B i r
a s to t h e value o f Johnson s writings
beck Hill has declared that Johnson l ives no t in hi s writings
23
but in hi s talk
Carlyle s sin in hi s interpretation o f Johnson
the w r iter i s one o f omi ssion He has failed to take account
o f Johnson as a l iterary influence j ust as he failed to consider
except in a few sentence s J ohnson a s a man o f letters And it
was i n the literary sense o f course not in the pol iti cal that
John s on was th e dictator o f the British public We must go
t o other i nte rp reters an d critics the re fore for an account o f
Johnson s place i n l iteratur e from P op e to Wordsworth even
a s w e must turn to B oswell i f w e w ish to kn o w Johnson as a
literary personality B ut i f w e are content t o kno w h im a s a
moralist a s a great eth ical fo rce i n th e total English li fe o f the
eighteenth century w e S hall find t hat Carlyle i s Johnson s truest
i nterp reter
.
,
.
.
’
’
.
.
’
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
’
,
.
( c ) S cot t
Th e essay o n S ir Wal ter Scott h a s increased the number o f
Carlyle s enemie s and apologists Hi s enemies or rather those
who dislike the man and distrust h i s critici sm re fer to th is
essay a s a spite ful attack o f one S cotchman u pon hi s more
favored and famous countryman M r L ang S cott s most
recent biographer asserts that Carlyle was embittere d against
” 4
S cott on a matte r o f an unanswere d letter
O n the other
hand Froude apologizes for Carlyle s unsympathetic tone on the
ground that he was not yet recovere d from the exhau stive
5
labors on the Fren ch R ev ol u t i on
S O much has been said at
one time o r another in way o f censure o r extenuation th a t w e
are j ustified in th e p resent study in briefly rev i ew i ng the f acts
regarding the genesis o f the essay and the relations o f Carlyle
with S cott
’
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
“
2
.
’
2
.
.
2’
Dr
.
2‘
L ife
Joh
f S c ot t
o
F
His
n s on ,
,
1 2
9
ri en d s
a nd
“
.
i
F
h i s Cr t i c s ,
1 2
rou d e,
9
.
L i fe
,
III,
1 0
3
.
1 31
Carlyle was teach ing mathematics at Annan Academy wh en
H e declared that Wa v erl ey
S co tt s novels b e gan to appear
was t h e b est novel that had been publ ish e d
these thi rty
”2 6
years
and he read many others w ith youth ful pleasure and
admi ration H i s attitude toward them howeve r w a s not at
all di ff erent from that tow ard nearly e verything he read at thi s
time But during th e next five or s ix years a great change too k
place Carlyle s intellectual li fe w a s expanded and deepened
by hard struggle w ith fortune and by a study o f Goethe In
hi s crystalliz ing ph ilosophy o f li fe there wa s l ittle o r no place
for m inor poetry and ficti on I t i s p er fectly consi stent w ith
th is new tu rn that Carlyle shoul d make the following entry i n
hi s note -bo ok :
S i r Walt er S c o tt i s t h e g re at R es t a u ra t eu r o f E u ro p e : h e might ha v e
’
.
“
,
,
,
.
‘
.
’
.
.
.
.
,
n n m b d am ng th i C n ipt Fath ; h h
h
pa t
nl y a h g P b l i
What i h i n l
d i
f hampagn
la t p t
n l d i nking
A b ut
h li
t ng ? N ! W h v b
am d
b tt
lg t
t
th kn
tt
ll that V i t l d t
b ee
r
e re
u
an
,
s
o
o
e r,
e
u
o
c
oo w e
o w es
re
er
s ro
s cr
o
e rs
ca nu s.
u
e
c
e,
e r,
o
ou
e r
o
e
o
r us
,
s
or
or
,
a s
e
eve
a e
e
een
a
au
a
ur e
ov e
s
r
the w
a ny
of
A re
w e
.
Sir
0
o rs e r
th m ?
i
Walt
e
s e r,
w
e r,
”
e
a
,
.
u se
n
os e
c
.
A f ew month s late r occurs th i s entry :
“
p
h ll
N ot
on e
ro s e c ou
o
ow
ld
of
S co
tt
’
go , h e h a
s
Fa i rs erv i c e s
s
g n
o
e
;
a nd
D e a n s es ,
or
ha
w e
ve
f ai
is
et c . ,
r ou t s i d es
a
l i ve
; bu t
A s fa r
.
ithin
w
as
is
all
”
?
These private op inions w ere w ritten down many month s be fore
there was a word o f corre spo ndence w ith G oethe conc e rn ing
medal s and ten years b e fore the essay was comp osed and yet
they m ight serve a s texts for nearly everything t hat Carlyl e
2 8
eve r sai d against the li fe and work o f Scott
With thi s attitude o f Carlyle s be fore us let u s turn to the
unlucky ep isod e o f the unansw er e d lette r G oeth e had long
be en an admi rer o f the author o f Wa v erl ey In testimony o f
h i s esteem he sent in 1 8 2 8 tw o medal s to Car l yl e to be del ivere d
to Scott It was very natural for the Ge rm an poet to S upp ose
,
,
.
’
,
.
.
.
26
L e t t ers
E a rl y
1D‘
o
N
n
1
2
re s e
ro
su
B
.
a 8 6 d 8 7
”
I
8 7 J ff y
ff
d t
int d
Ca l y l t S tt i f Ca l y l
p nt him l f at t h
t
m Ca l y l d lin d b t h
t
f thi
b th ap p
in i d nt that S tt w
m ng l b
fli i
t
h d man L t t
3 67
2’
Tw
1 0
,
o te e
o ok s ,
re
o
se
e r,
c en
ro
o
71
e re
e
os
o
1 2
6, y e
o
c ou r
s
”
.
,
e
c
ers ,
rs
1
ro
roo
e
2
2
an
uce
r
r
.
,
.
e
e
co
,
1
2
.
o
ec
as
co
e
u
,
no
r
,
“
e
o
e
w ou
w ro e
re
”
,
ld
his
ut
a
1 32
that the t w o S cotchmen were acquainted th o ugh h e had indee d
expres s ed surpri s e to E ckermann that S cott had had nothing to
O bviousl y Carlyle was flatter e d to be chosen
s a y o f Carl y le
the mes s enger b e tw e en th e most famous w rit e r o f Germany an d
th e most famo u s w rit e r o f Great B ritain an d h e wrote Goe t h e
29
that he expected t o p resent the medal s to S i r Walter in p erson
Unhappily the m eeting n eve r t oo k place fo r S cott was i n L o n
30
don a t the tim e
Ca rlyle was di s appointed not to s ee S cott
an d probably p i q ued not to hear f rom h im But w a s he SO re
s en t fu l and even s o embittered as to all ow h is p rivate feelings
?
t o c o ndition h is p ublish e d criti ci sm o f S cott ten years later
P a rt isan friends o f S i r Walter w ill probably continue to sa y
th a t he w a s even i f th ey have to d i s regard the early note -boo k
comments which we have quoted They w ill continue to assert
”
that Ca rlyle vented a private bi t tern ess t o use M r L ang s
phrase though to do s o they will have to overl oo k entirely th e
complete con form ity o f th e indivi dual j udgm ents in the essay to
C a rlyle s th eo ry o f l iterature an d ph i losophy o f l i fe O n th e
othe r hand those who know Carlyle s habit s o f thought from
1 8 2 7 to 1 83 7 and have examined t h e l iterary relations o f S cott
and Carlyle duri ng th ese vea rs w ill always find i t hard to
believe that th e essay contains a criti cal opinion that it w ould
not have contained had th ere been no incident o f an unan
Carlyle s central position toward S cott did not
s w ered letter
change a fter t h e inci dent as certain p rivately expressed op in
31
ions fully S how
What h e believed i n 1 82 7 h e believed an d
expres s e d i n 1 8 37 I f Carlyle s essay i s to be inte rp reted
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
’
“
,
.
,
’
.
’
,
’
.
,
.
’
.
t
C
d C a ly l
83
Walt S tt I d i d t
h
i n L nd n ;
h a f
b a
h
p hap b a
a b y
n
t
man ;
I l f t h i G th
m d al t b b g i n h i m b y J ff y ( L tt
ti n f
I
N t n n t t th i pa ag it m y b a i d that Ca rl y l m t ha k
f S
tt fi an ial t bl ( E ly L tt
It
n f t nat that
m t S tt
H
C ly l n
had m
than
pp t ity d h
m i ght ha b n
by S
tt p nal i ty A ga d f t h man mi ght
ha
ft n d Ca l y l t n in t h
ay B t I d
th at
t b li
f i ndl y lati n
l d ha
a d Ca l y l t alt p i ni n g i ng t
f f ndam ntal b l i f
h lati n d i d t alt th m i n t h a e f
S
J hn S t ling
N t -B k
Tw
d L if II 5
4
5 ; F
”
G oe h e
a n
er
er
ec
s
e
s
s
a r
e
u se
o
s
n
c
r e
o
u
o
o
o
s
es
’
e s
w ou
e
a
e
o
e
uc
e
c
u se
re
r
o
on e
re
e
s
o
oo
s,
2 1
2 1
rou
e,
er o
no
e,
or
er
,
2
1
.
e
o
o
e
e
an
e
no
o
e
n ow n
or u
u
e
s
,
oe
ve
o r un
o
.
o e
o
r
u
.
c orr e c
us
w as
e r o
s
n
e
.
es s
n or
e
ers ,
ers ,
ers o
s
o
so
o re
’
o
e s
e
.
e w as
re
ar
ve
e s.
use
c ou r e ou s
or u
e
co
w on
e
e
er
co
r
re
ss
e
e
us
ec
e
rou
ee
e
so
w a s
.
,
s ee ,
no
o e
ve
ve
e
ev er
.
,
ve
s
or r
e
e
’
co
co
e
’
or o
o
o
r
ev e
r ow
e
ou
c
s
o
1 34
Subsequent j ud gm ents are made on t h e ba s i s o f th is p rel i m i
nary estimate Carlyle passes i n rapi d r evi e w t h e earlier
periods o f S cott s li fe giving an undue p rominence perhaps to
”
certain questio nable do ing s connected w ith the L idde s dale
”
He regard s the portentous Ballantyne c onnection as
ra i d s
natural in a worldly man like Scott He c riti cises S cott s
poe try in a desultor y manner and seems to c onsider it a s an
incident in the author s career and an explanation o f th is
wo rldly succes s rathe r than as literature which merits serious
app reciation At all ev ents though he does not de n y real
worth o f a kind in the metri cal romances Carlyle explains thei r
immense vogue more o n external than on internal grounds
Hi s interest reaches i t s h ighest point when he discusses the
culm inating period o f S cott s li fe the peri od o f the Waverley
Novels Thi s was the critical time in the career o f S cott when
it was to be seen wh eth e r he was guided by inner ideals or ex
ternal considerations Carlyle s j udgment o f Scott s character
Tho ugh he p ronounces the p ictu re
a t thi s point i s si gnificant
p resented in the cop ious extracts from L ockhart s L i f e to be
”
very be a uti ful he unequivocally asserts that Scott at this
”
period
w ith all his health was i n f ec t ed
S cott wrote i m
p rom p t u novels to buy farms w ith and his tragedy w a s due not
”
to bankruptcy but to false ambition
Hi s way o f l i fe says
”
Ca rlyle
wa s not w ise
Thus as in the case o f Burns the
.
’
,
.
’
.
’
.
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
’
’
.
.
’
“
,
,
“
.
,
,
“
.
,
,
“
.
,
n xt
i hm nt in th m ;
fitab l f d t in f
t p
p f f d i fi t i f b il d ing p
l ating in y hap ;
th y
m th m l
d p int t b t
mpa ati l y t i ial
d
t f
n
at man b t t h h althi t f m
( ) H l th i
; ( ) N t a g
t
p a h a
m n
H alth S tt ght t b t h
W
( b)
t xt ( ) Th happi t i m tan
f all i
that S tt h d in him l f
i ght h alth y
l ( d ) S tt h alth i n S h d it l f d i i l y in
all thing
h
m
hi c h
d n
d i i l y than in thi
th
w y in
h e t k h i f am
If
Sk y b n m ng
b tantial p a
( )
f a m t h man
ab l t
t ial man ( f ) L tt th y
man f
th
w
ld ( g ) S tt api d it y i g at i a p f and n q n
f
th
lid h alth f t h man b dil y d S pi it al
in g n al
(h)
l th i
h
f min d th
N l p
tt t ha b n am ng t t h
S
I
f m t f it
nn ti n ith
many p ai
tt
f S
h a lth thi pa ag S h ld t b f g tt n
tt ith all h i
A la
S
i f t d
h alth
is
to
e
re
ro o
es .
o
or e
,
no
o
”
a
r
e
s ou
oo
or
o
w as
“
e
.
co
o
e
ss
n
ers
”
e
ec e
n
.
ou
”
.
ow e
o
a n
ov e s
co
no
re
r
rove
ec
e
o
a
o
su
a
w
s
e
,
u
ce
e
o
ue
se
ee
co
e
ec s v e
ce
e
s,
.
se
co
ve
”
e
o
e
r
“
en
o
.
o
:
r v
”
u
e
a
os
so
e
ve
es
ro o
co
w
or o
e r—
s
,
r
se
s :
a re
e
ou
or
e,
”
s
co
es s e
oc r
e
co
,
es s
e
e rs
s
,
es e
,
e
s,
or
r
e
o
w r
s
o
e
no
“
’
s
co
ec s v e
.
s
,
ore
”
e
os
e
e
”
.
n es s
co
e re
”
so
ea
o re
e
’
on
e
on
ce
s
.
e rre s r
e,
e
s
c rc u
u
u
o
or
e
an
re
ser
”
ow
an
s,
e
es
ro
e res s ,
o
c
no
o r e ev
ee
a
re
e
c
.
o
u
u
on
n es s
on e
e re
or
s e ves
ea
H
e
e
on ,
e
2
”
ou r s
ca
or
“
e
no
n
,
o
s es
w
o
o
er
e
s
co
’
s
s
1 35
ritic pierces to the soul o f S cott an d interprets h is failure
solely upon spiritual grounds Thi s search ing j udgment o f
course carries w ith it th e corollary that the Waverley N ovel s
were in large measure the product o f a commerci alized m ind
It was inevitable that th is app reciati on o f the l i fe and w ork
o f Scott should have aroused the anger o f those wh o honore d
him as one o f the most lovabl e and ma n ly o f m en an d a s the
mo s t d el ight f ul story t e ller o f their day B ut Carlyle s j udg
ment i s t h e e xp ression o f h ighe r standards than th e averag e
criti c i s wont to apply to li fe and l iterature H e measu red
S cott in 1 8 3 7 by exactly the sam e standards which he had a p
plied to R i chter in 1 8 2 7 an d to Johnson in 1 83 2
How ever
manly or del ight ful S cott was he was not great or noble be
cause he di d not dedicate h i s characte r and h i s art to the ex
p ression o f truth In saying o r implying this op inion Car
lyle o f cour s e d o e s not m ean t o suggest as some seem to have
supposed t hat truth is a barren f ormula or thes is o r that it i s
synonymous w ith the Thi rty nine Articles We hav e gon e
with him too far t o suspect h im o f such shallow thinking H e
hated the doctrinai re even more heartily than do some o f h i s
un friendly critics But he never departed from h is b e lie f that
th e l i fe o f a truly gr eat man whethe r p oet or p rophet mu st
be felt to be und e r the direction o f some centr al purp ose o r
i dea through wh ich i t beco m es relat e d t o the vast invi sible
potential ities o f the un iverse Whethe r yo u call th is inne r
fo rce an i dea or a message i t i s som ething which the great
man w ill ever s trive to utter and f or the sake o f wh i ch h e i s
w illing to sacrifice all else in l i fe
S co tt was not born fo r th i s kind o f greatn e ss H is min d
was not S piritual in th is lo fty s e ns e It was not ev e n i n t e l l ec
tual i f by intellectual ity w e mean a p ass ionate interest in
abstract truth or in the d e epe r things o f characte r and art s u c h
as B rowning had for exampl e To S cott the w orl d w a s not
the vesture o f an i d ea a s i t was to Carlyle D reame r tho u gh
h e was hi s dreams w ere always o f a romantic neve r o f a m \ s
tical wo rld He w as a medi aeval i s t th rough and through but
he delighte d i n t h e m edi aeval i s m o f A riosto n ot o f D ant e
H e was also an una ffected man o f th e worl d
I hav e been n o
c
.
.
,
’
—
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
—
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
1 36
”
“
sigh er in the S hades he sai d
I love the virtues o f rough
”
and -round m en
He was human on every side hi s nature
was patriotic paternal soc ial What philosophy he pretende d
to have he ex e rcised in managing h i s everyday l i fe Carlyle
i s not indeed indi ff erent to the s e splendi d qual ities in Si r Wa l
te r He prai s e s the goo d sen s e and sanity th e manliness
brav ery and genial humanity o f S cott in pas s ages o f great
beauty and po we r B ut running through this golden character
he saw a s treak o f baser metal which in hi s opinion lowe red
its worth He coul d n o more app rove o f the building o f Ab
b ots ford than he coul d approve o f the eth ics o f Bentham or the
Scott and Carlyle
po litical principles o f the A m e rican p eopl e
as m en lived in diff erent wo rlds and according to di ff erent
standards
In art as well as in li fe their real m s were w idely sundered
S cott s literary ideals as expressed in his own w ritings and
in L ockhart s L i f e are well known He w rote to amuse not
to edi fy or to convey transcendental truth He w ould not have
understood o r i f h e had und e rst o od he w ould not ha ve taken
seriously the Fichtean notion o f th e man o f letters as a re
"
”
vealer o f the D ivine I dea
H e had no illusions concerning
h is position as a w riter L ike M oli ere he felt that h i s art
served i t s ends i f it brought applause from his audience H e
consi dere d lit erature a p ro f es s ion not a martyrdom He re
garded his ability to write books v ery much as a man to-day
r egards h i s bu s iness ability as a means w ith which he ma y
make a su c c es s o f li fe both financially an d socially A uth or
sh ip as a calling to which o n e solemnly dedicates h imsel f w a s
f arthe st from S cott s thought ; that as h e s aid w as for the
Shakesp eares and the M oli eres but not for h im Wi th th ese
i deals accompanied w ith such gi fts as h e had S cott was for
Carlyle a m inor writer not an arti s t o f the fi rst rank A n d fo r
m inor w rit ers the critici s m o f Carlyle h a s vi rtually n o place
be cause they d o n o t add n ew meanings to o u r conc eption o f
li fe \Vh il e Carlyle s inte rp retatio n o f S cott reaches th e re fore
negative conclu s ions and i s expressed w e mu s t own in a
spi rit s o metim e s needl e s s ly ha rs h it i s as a whole enti rely in
harmo ny with h is l iterary and critical doctrine
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
’
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
1 38
nev e r likely to s a t i s fv t h e reading worl d as an interp retation
A S an analy s i s o f the man i t ove r-emphasizes hi s
o f S cott
worldliness and in consequence fail s to b ring into prope r rel ie f
the really great moral qualiti e s o f h is character A s a criti que
o f t h e author it fail s even mo re decidedly b e cause i t i s s o
largely incompl ete and negativ e and becau s e i t explains S cott s
de f ects a s a writ e r too largely in terms o f h i s moral weakness
in building A bbots ford B ut as a Carlyle document the essay
i s invaluable and i t i s l ik ely to l ive as long a s an interest in
Carlyle endure s It i s on all side s an exact expression o f the
man In the study o f Carlyle as criti c it i s o f pecul iar i m
portanc e for it i s the best illustration we have o f the applica
tion o f hi s ideas o f li fe l iterature an d criticism to a di stin
g u i s h ed writer whose wo rks he regarde d as o f mino r value
fi t only to amuse the indolent o r languid mind
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
CHA P TE R I X
F RO M C R IT ICIS M
TO
P ROP
H E CY
the e ssay o n S i r Walter Scott w as the last f ormal
critici sm that Carlyl e w rote it by n o mean s marks th e end o f
his interest in literature and i n m en o f lette rs Forty years
from that time h e read G ibbon throu gh again and d ipped i nto
Sw i ft S terne and Voltai re and during all the intervening
period even while h e w as w restling w ith h i s Crom w el l an d
hi s Fred eri c k hi s eye w a s keen to s ee th e movements o f m en
in the field o f letters I n the earl ier years o f thi s late r pe riod
he lectu re d o n h eroe s and o n the hi story o f literature and he
w rote a li fe o f hi s fri end John S terling ; and i n each instance
he gave much evidence o f h i s critical inte rest i n l ite rature
Evidence o f a similar kind is abundant too i n rem iniscences
letters political pamphlets and even i n the ponderous h i stori es
them selves M oreover Carlyle him sel f had n ow become one
o f the foremost figu res in a great age o f l iterature and h e
n umb e red among hi s fri end s and ac q uaintanc e nearly every
E ngl ish w riter o f high rank
H e breathed th e ai r in wh ich
gr eat literature w a s created H e could n ot altogethe r e scape
it i f h e w ould Frou de remarks that Ca rlyl e read more m i s
c el l a n
eo u s l
y than any man he had ever know n that h e w as a s
familiar w ith E ngli sh literatu re as M acaulay and knew G er
man French and Italian literatu res infinit e ly bette r
His
”
knowl edge says Froude w as not in points o r lines but c o m
”1
H i s view s how ever remained essentially
p l et e and sol id
w h at they had been though h i s la n guage o fte n became ri d i c
u l o u s l y extravagant in its expression o f th e m
Wordsworth Tennyson and B row ning h e knew and l iked a s
men but n ot as poets He once spoke o f Word sw orth s poetry
”2
as pastoral pipings
and T ennyson s P ri n c es s h e thought
A lthough
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
“
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
.
“
’
,
1
F d
rou
e,
IV ,
2 1
8
.
D u ff y C on v e s a t i o n s
,
r
w
it h C
a rl y l e ,
55
1 39
.
1 40
”3
had everything but common sen se
whi le in the Idy l l s he
”4
recognized the i nward per f ecti on o f vacancy
He admired
B rowning s intellectual and spiritual pow er but urged him to
w rite in prose The early R u skin he di d not care f or though
he expressed high appreciation o f R uskin s late r w orks
Emerson was a li fe -long friend and Carlyle praised the tone
”
in hi s e s says though in later li fe he came to
o f v e racity
regard the American sage s w ritings a s thin and moonshiny
l ike t h e articles in the D i a l N ewman Keble and J ow ett
churchmen all h e s poke o f i n con temptuous terms
The novel i sts for the most part be di smissed in di sgust espe
Trollope Jane Austen G eorge S and and Balzac
c i a l ly
Thackeray whom he disliked as a man he rated higher than
”
he said to Si r Charle s
D ickens w hom he liked ; Thackeray
D u ff y
has mor e reality i n h im and woul d cut up into a
”5
dozen D ickenses
Hi s standard w as the same in all cases
He praised the l iterature that seemed to h im truth ful vera
c i o u s faith ful to fact and reality but he generally complained
that the books o f hi s day w ere eithe r fal se or shallow and
trifl ing and that l iterature had fallen from its position o f
powe r
The fact i s Carlyl e w a s too deeply absorbed in his ow n w ork
and m ission and had gone t oo far along hi s ow n appointed
path to appreciate fai rly the work o f h is contemporaries
While a great and enduring literature w as being created all
about him he stood apart as a p rophet to p reach to hi s
generation his gosp e l o f hero -worship and w ork Thi s posi
tion by which he i s best known to the world Carlyle began to
a ssume at a period that i s coinci dent w ith h i s work upon
S a rt or R es a rt u s that is t o s a y from the fall o f 1 8 3 0 onward
From thi s time w e may date the beginning o f hi s change from
critici sm to prophecy The causes o f this change w ere several
When he went to L ondon in 1 8 3 1 fo r the s econd time he
found l iterature as h e b eliev ed to be either dying or dead and
o ff ering no hop e to on e o f h i s b eli e f and purpose H i s slight
acquaintance w ith the foremost literary men o f that day Cole
“
,
“
.
’
,
,
.
’
.
“
,
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
“
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
a
‘
L i t era ry R e
-C a rl l e Corr
y
E s p i n a s s e,
E m ers on
.
,
i
c ol l e c t o n s ,
II, 3 4 0
2 1
4
5
.
.
C
o n v ers a
t i on s , 7 6
.
1 42
i n rhymes o r i n deed s In an age there fore in w hich a s
Carlyle s ees it li fe i s n ot to be found in literature he w ill turn
for i t to biography and to hi story From 1 83 1 he finds poetry
reality that i s less and l e ss in literature and more and more
i n the l ives o f great men G oethe the poet becomes G oeth e
Transcendental truth no longer discoverable in the
t h e he ro
books that men w rite i s t o be found i n the l ives that heroe s
have lived
Evidences o f this transition from critici sm to prophecy a re
to be seen everywhere in the essay s w ritten a fter 1 830 Even
in one e ssay o f 1 830 the second R i c h t er Carlyle points out that
8
he i s now lo oking from the po em to the p oet
In the S c h i l l er
i
r
1
8
1
d
s
he
( 3 )
g es ses to discuss happines s and t o condemn
util itarian ethics From 1 8 30 onward he re f ers more a n d
”
more o f ten to ou r age
Hardly an essay but echoes the
re f o rm movement o r contains re ferences to the French R evo
fo r example M i ra b ea u
l u t i on
are wholly
S ome e ssays
biographical and hi storical whi le others a s D id erot S how that
C a rlyle has greate r interest in hi story and biography than in
l iterature The message i s th e thing We hear n ow f rom
Sau erteig S m el fu n gu s T eu fel s d rOc k h who are introduced to
give harangues o n the great man and h i s us es I t would be
possible i ndeed to rega rd all the later and greater e ssa y s as
tracts for the times though to do thi s w e should be laying
emph asi s upon certain feature s at the expense o f others In
Vol t a i re which i s a l ittl e earl ie r than the peri od o f p rophecy
Carlyle i s declaring against S keptici sm and denial ; in D i d erot
he preaches against m echanism and a mechanical age Even
th e essay o n S cott last o f the critical e ssays i s from on e
point o f vi ew a declaration against w orldliness O n the other
hand th e e s say on B os w ell s L i fe on J oh n s on i s w ri t t en partly for
the purpose o f presenting to a dri fting social order the figure
o f a m an w h o held fast to duty ; w hile the second G o et h e holds
up th e true prophet for the time the man who builds who has
l ived a whole li f e in contra s t to the man o f Carlyle s time who
destroys and w ho has lived only a hal f li fe The change from
criticism to prophecy becomes m ore apparent still i f w e con
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
“
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
'
a
E ss ys
,
III, 5
.
1 43
trast the fi rst w ith the second e ssay on G oeth e the essay on
Voltaire w ith that on D i derot I n the earl ie r e ssays the treat
ment i s di stinctly more literary more critical the men are mo re
broadly d iscussed a s men o f letters and the critic is inte rested
in the men and thei r w ork more fo r thei r own sake and l es s
for the purpo s e o f advancing a message In the late r e ssays
the prophet fre q uently replace s the critic
Fo r u s i n these
”
days
w rote Carlyle
prophecy ( w ell understood ) n o t
poetry i s the th ing wanted How can w e s i n g and p a i n t wh e n
”
?
w e do not yet b el i eve an d s ee
There fore Carlyle st a n d s
apart t o p reach against Coleri dgean ph ilosoph y and S hovel
hatti sm B enthamite Ethics and the w hol e doctrine o f utili
t a ri a n i s m against re form and the n ew democracy against i n
d u s t ri a l i s m and l a i s s ez fa i re A t exactly the time w hen Tenny
son w as leading i n a new age o f p o etry Carlyle w as throw ing
”1 0
down hi s c ritical assaying balance
He n o w began to
declare that not the poet only but every w orker bodies forth
”1 1
the forms o f Things Un seen
,
.
,
,
.
“
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
“
,
.
,
.
’
1
F
L i fe
rou d e ,
,
"E s s a s
y ,
f or
“
Ca ly l
r
Pa s t
IV ,
’
e s
a nd
fa
II,
1
84
rew e
P
2
99
S ee t h e
.
ll
re s e n
.
t,
to
1
o
iti i m
cr
76
.
c s
.
p enin g pa ag aph
r
r
to
Co rn -L
aw
R hy m es
C H A P T ER X
C A RLY L E S C RIT IC IS M
’
’
Carlyle s l iterary criticism like all human products has its
d e fects and its merits i t s w eakness as w ell as its strength
O f the four great re q ui sites o f a critic insight knowl edge
sympathy and detachment h e possessed the fi rst two in large
measu re but he w a s o ften w anting in sympathy and he w as
sel dom abl e to maintain th e j udicial attitude tow ards hi s ma
I f he i s in sympathy w ith hi s w riter as in the case o f
t eri a l
G oethe hi s position i s con fessedly that o f an advocate L ike
the lawyer he i s for o r against the question at i ssue : i f in an
author h e d i scovers merits i t i s to praise them ; i f he finds
de fects it i s to condemn th em He does not s i t apart a n d
coolly exercise the function o f a j udge I n truth as Carlyle
grew older he S how ed less and less o f the ideal tempe r a n d
taste o f the critic Where hi s taste and sympathy w ere n ot a p
pealed to he w as apt to become intol erant and sometime s
frankly ant a goni stic Hi s ta s te s and sympathies moreover
excluded a large area o f literature from the field o f hi s interest
and h ence hi s s ervices to criticism w ere very cons iderably
l imited Carlyl e w as by nature deficient in sympathy w ith
two great form s o f literature the novel and the d rama O f
the novel regarded as a medium for the communication o f a
phi lo s ophy o f li fe or a theory o f education and cultur e such as
Goeth e s Wi l h el m M ei s t er he o f course mad e an excep t ion
The d ramas too o f S hakespear e Goethe and Schiller c o n
s i d e re d apart from the theatre and s o lely as interpretations o f
l i fe h e read and w rote about w ith enthusiasm But interest i n
story plot o r character -d ev e lopment h e had littl e even from
Hi s theory o f art as w ell as his taste and sym pathy
t h e fi r st
l e ft but a s mall pl a c e for pu rely imaginative as di stingui she d
from int e rpretativ e lit e ratur e He did not care for the sensu
ou s po etry o f Keats
for the eth e real music o f S helley o r for
,
,
.
,
—
,
,
—
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
1 44
1 46
essays that he wrote He was drawn to great w riters he
delighted to s tudy them in relation to their age and to extract
m
u
s
from the volume o f thei r w ritings the
total o f thei r
c ritici sm o f li fe To do th is great knowledg e and great i nter
Th e critic must have interests
p ret a t i ve power are n eces sary
beyong the merely literary he must be compet ent to under
stand and interp ret influences social and political r eligious and
ph ilosophical that h ave united to shape great m inds such for
as Goeth e Voltai re and D id erot Carlyl e r e sembles
e xample
Goethe himsel f in his ability to bring to the interp retation o f
men and b ooks a w i de knowledge and a rare power of p enetra
ti on I f to this insight and in formation w e a dd hi s sp irit o f
i ndep endence hi s moral f orce in breaking away f rom t ra di
t i on and convention w e must admit that Carlyle was fi tted to
per form a substantial and permanent service for English l ite
rary criticism
This service may be summarized briefly In the fi rst pl a ce
Ca rlyle defined more clearly and accurately than contempora ry
Engli sh critics the aims and methods o f the new criti cism
H e was the fi rst to define the historical method and he c a rri ed
He
th e u s e o f it further than did other criti cs o f hi s day
p repared the way for th e criticism that has gained s o much
f avor and currency in recent y ears a criticism in which l ite ra
ture is interpreted in relation to the li fe o f its creator and t o
the age in wh ich he lived Carl y le s a w more clearly than hi s
contemporaries the value o f the comparative method ; and in
hi s G erman essays he made much use o f th is method in tracing
p arallel streams o f influence in German and English roman
S econdly Carlyle deserves a permanent place in Eng
t ici sm
l i sh criticism as an introduc er o f German literature especially
that o f G oethe into E ngland From 1 8 2 8 to 1 8 50 he was th e
best i ndeed alm ost the only interpreter o f Ge rman thought in
England and he was recognized as th e critic w h o had done
most to spread the knowledge o f it among E nglish people
G oethe s fi rst great criti c in E ngland was Ca rl vl e Thi rdly
Carlyle at hi s best was ( apart from h i s pion ee r service for
German l iterature ) a really great interpr eter o f men o f letters
H e was th e fi rst to recognize the genius o f
a n d o f lite rature
,
.
.
.
!
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
1 47
B oswell and he was the fi rst Engl i shman o f importance to
interp ret Voltaire H i s essays on B urns and on Johnson are
still the be s t o f thei r class These are services o f th em s elves
substantial enou gh to entitle Carlyle t o a wo rthy place in t h e
hi story o f E ngli sh critici s m Finally w e must add the work
that h e di d in common w ith other English critics o f rom a n t i
He lent hi s knowledge and hi s i nsight hi s moral courage
c ism
and h i s intellectual independence to the establishment o f the
cardinal p rinciple in all modern critic ism that l iterature i s to
be j udged as P ro fessor Saintsbury exp resses it
not by
”1
adj ustment to anyth ing else but on its own merits
.
.
.
‘
.
,
,
,
“
,
,
,
1
Hi s t
.
f Cri t i c i s m
o
,
III, 4
.
.
I N DEX
h l
A es c y u s , 4 ,
A g e of Wor
d
Ma k
hibal d
A k en s i d e ,
Al
i n
so
s w ort h ,
r
8,
2
76
7
,
A rc
,
tt f i d A g t
B k E d m nd 7 4 3
B n y Fanny
4
B
Ca l y l E ay
B ii rger, G o
8
1
R ev
.
,
63
,
A ra b
i
s,
i t 35
i t tl 3 4
ni m
L dw i g
n l d M atth e 9 8
Ar
os o ,
Ar
s o
Ar
o
v on ,
u
82
5
,
t
Jan
e,
1
,
e,
c,
1
re
1 1
,
e,
ero
or
ee rs ,
e
ra
era r
r
e,
ss
az
a
r s
o
e
o
ou
62
,
B os s u
B os w
B os w
1 2 1
,
e
e
e,
,
1 0
62
,
e,
,
’
s
B
B
B
B
B
es ,
re
row
ro w
u
o
30 , 33,
J oh
f
H
.
.
er,
e
r
.
2
,
e
1
,
.
,
,
ex
1 1
9
2
3
47
1
L
,
re
r
o
6,
ord ,
1
3,
48,
as
1 0,
’
w
I6.
Th o m a s , C
8,
1
’
s
1
T h om
Li fe
o f,
2
3 . 3 8,
a n tt L i f
r
’
e
c
e
o f,
Li fe
o f,
s
Ni h l
a s,
o f,
9,
8
a rl y l e,
e
s
Frou d e
,
66
a rl y l e ,
2 1
,
o
5.
1
2
2
,
a s,
Th o m
3 , 4.
,
7,
s,
e r,
4
,
o
’
s
8
es ,
re
,
of
Vi s
Ca l y l
cs ,
1 02
8
I0
,
r
1 1
,
r
1
4,
,
o
.
1 2 1
—
n s on ,
1
30,
30 ,
1
1 1
47
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
4,
r es ,
8o
1
,
er
6,
1
9,
2 0
,
2 2
1
,
,
o
a
’
Ess y, 3 2
e s
,
41
,
,
,
,
w
,
r
S
e,
am l Ta y l
ue
35,
1
2 0
,
2
1
39,
1
40
3
1 48
idg L i f f
nd t d M a
o l er
o
o
o
o
e,
orc e
on
fi t al
e,
rs
e
r
2 1
o er
8, 3 1
s,
,
a ro
C l idg
,
e
re w s e r,
n
or, 2
3 5 , 3 6, 5 8 , 6 9 . 7 o , 7 1
o
e
eo r
o,
G ord o
e
45 ,
1
5 4, 5 5 ,
,
l an d
3
M a ga t
T h m C n ay L i f
A
c e ro ,
2
and G g 3 4
ntan Cl m n
t D
5
n ll W C
ning R b t
ll Cha l
Br
4,
5
1 0
e u
42
B o y e s en , H
6,
1 2
,
,
e
r
es ,
1
3 o, 4 3 , 5 1
,
Chat a b ian d 7 8 7 9
Cha
54
Ch i l d H l d 8 8 4
Ci
4 7
Cla n d n E d a d H y d
,
,
6 7 , 68
,
e
ll Jam
ll
L if
,
2
,
8 4. 8 9 . 9 3 .
44 , 8 0 ,
6 7 , 68
,
g
a ra c e r s
2
ro
1 1
u c e r,
e c u re s ,
u,
83,
on ,
,
e,
e rv
on ,
Bl i L t
6
B il a 6
B lingb k
H n y S aint J hn
nt
c
4
’
2 1
C ant 8 7
t
Ch
i ti
97
u
0
ss
n 85
ll Th oma
a rl y l e,
1
,
e,
,
a
H gh
r,
e s
s
9 6.
C
,
,
’
’
w oo
oe
e,
1
0
e o
s
,
9 s.
C
1
,
r
2
er,
,
'
w ar
ac
,
e re
c
a c
lai
.
ow s
ra
o
B
r
,
o
C
,
e
e sc
c
,
er
-1
.
e,
e,
2
1 1 2
a n
5
e
r
r
,
2
o
ec
,
,
e rre,
u
e
e s
G eor
,
Cal d
Camp b
C d id
Ca l y l
Ca l y l
Ca ly l
9
0
e ux,
n
an
1
,
r
,
96
,
80
40
o
o
43. 82
ailli J anna 8 8 3
B all M a g a t 68 9 3
B alza
4
Batt a 6
B ay l
Pi
B a m nt
d Fl et h
85
B k f d Will i am 8 7
B
H n y A 76 8
B nth a m J
my 3 6
Bi l h
ky
Li f f G t h 3 9 7 7
B i g ph i L i t
ia 35 5 8
B i g p h y Ca l y l
E ay
88
B l k D f Th 8
Bl k
d M g m 5 7 5 8 66
B
92
,
1 0
’
r
1
,
,
1 1
,
By ro
,
w
,
Ata la , 7 8
A u s en ,
,
s,
ur
1
,
e
,
B n R b t
e,
Ar
ur
u
us
u
1 2 2
bi 9 7
Nig h t Th e
a n
e,
u rn s ,
An a ba s i s , 7
A n i - a co n,
t J
ur
r e
fe s s
i
e
o
e,
,
on s o
qi
r u s,
f R ou s s ea u
ng
William 5
n t a ntin 8
n ay M n
D
rev e,
s
,
e,
w
o
,
’
oo k s
e
or
w
.
2
,
,
Voy a g es , 5
e,
85
n ill
n all Ba
or
,
,
rry ,
2
3,
2
4
8, 3 4,
s,
91
9
5 8, 7 8
4
1
c u re
’
1 0
1 0
,
2
7 8 , 8 4, 9 4 ,
,
B ra n dl
,
3,
7
1 50
,
H f
H
’
e s,
oe
,
c
e
,
von ,
,
er or
.
.
.
,
,
44 '
g
,
ors
H ern a n i Hu o s 7 8
1 30
H
G eo r e B rb ec
H i s t ori c S u rvey of G erm a n
,
,
Ta y l
Hi
g
’
62
i
k
aint
S
,
P oe t
ry ,
s b u ry s ,
’
s,
s or
t h e G re a t ,
red eri c k
e s,
s or
co
o
r
1
39
or
2
e,
f
in g
,
E dw
,
e,
Jo b ,
o
1
,
a
,
,
J hn n
so
S
,
1 0
B
J o l l ey
J ow tt
e
er
1 0
,
T nny n
e
7, 8,
so
2 2
2
,
7
1 0
,
c s,
9,
ue
1 2 1
—
egga rs ,
Be
,
4,
1
32
42
,
1
2
5,
51
,
1
30 ,
Th e,
,
.
.
,
1
r
n
W
hl
Sc
.
.
ege
l
’
5 7, 96
s,
’
1
s,
,
,
—
5 4, 6 1
,
.
,
.
68 ,
94
.
.
,
oc
,
1
9 6, 9 7
o
,
7 4,
o
r
1 1
,
so
p
,
V ga 8 5
i h Fi f t nth
de
e
e
a
H e n ri a d e,
1 0
t
s
ee
e
1 0
,
91
,
1
3 4,
1
36
95
,
4,
1 0
8,
1 1 1
,
u ci n
7
,
F S hl g l
M a tin 4
B ll d 58
d e,
Lu th er
L y ri c a l
c
.
r
,
a
M a c a u lay T
Ma ck a i l
B
.
.
.
,
2
,
1 2
,
7,
1
39
84
’
81
e s,
oe
1 2 2
,
es ,
M a i n Cu rren ts i n Ni n e t een th Cen
t y L i t era t ure B ran d es 8 o
M a n f ed B y ron s 62
M a s s o n D av i d 1 2
M a s s ing er 8 5
M es s i a s 1 0
M e t i c a l L ege ds J oanna Bailli e s
ur
8
82
,
,
80
s,
J W 8
n Jam
G th
,
s,
1 1
,
a
e
e
’
,
,
’
r
,
,
,
,
,
,
n
r
,
92
,
1
8,
’
1
,
83
9,
M ilt o n J o hn 1 1 2
M i rab e au 1 4 2
M i ra b ea u Ca rl y l e s
M it c h e ll R ob ert 6
,
,
1
,
a
’
4
,
,
,
4
,
41
1
Ess y,
,
L
,
,
M a h rc h en
.
1 0
,
o
9,
e
s,
,
,
,
'
1 0
87, 9 3
en a i s
,
’
r
M a c ph ers o
.
,
Cr t i c i s m i n
,
,
,
,
1 1 2
,
Korn er K T
Kn ox J o hn 1
L
40
9
,
37
,
,
e,
L u c an
61
.
i
th
R
S pinga n
34
k
J hn 3 5 64 9
kha t J hn G i b n 66 6 8
L ou
,
,
,
,
oc
L
3
30
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
40
,
,
,
,
8
,
L oc k h a rt s L i fe of S c o t t
L o n don M a g a z i n e 1 2 2 2
L on d on Ti m es 2 3
47
1 1
,
.
,
9
’
1 1
,
2
n j amin
,
L
L
am l
,
1 0
,
9 6,
1 2
,
Kam es L o rd 6 1 62 7 5
Kant 2 3 3 5 3 6 5 7 5 9 9 4 9 5
Ke at s J o hn 2 9 3 5 8 4 1 44
Keb l e J ohn 1 4 0
Kl op s t oc k 1 0 9 1
Ko tz eb u e v on A F 1 0 4 4 8 5
,
R ou c h e f ou c a u l t
,
8
8 4,
a
7,
,
s a n c e,
1
rd ,
1 1
4,
,
,
,
r
1 1
1
L
a r,
e a rs
0
Ki n g
Ja d in R b t
J ff y F an i
o
,
,
1
th e
o
70 ,
P u c e ll e
L i t t e ra ry
s,
,
,
e
re
a
,
’
er s o
o
,
,
v
,
r
L
,
0
r
c or,
Idy l l s
e
on ,
,
,
u
Irv
an
o u
,
o,
u
,
,
er s , 1 2
er,
u
1
,
e
,
68
,
L e t t res P rovi n c i a l es 8
L ew es G eorge H e n ry 9 8
L e w i s M atth ew G reg o ry 8
’
c
o
1 1
,
o
e
re n c
e
’
r
s
ng s
f Ma n
F
h R v l ti
th
i t y
Ca l y l
78
3
5
d R b t n
tl
Hi t y f S
5
W
H i to y
f t h Th i t y Y
S hill
8
86 93
Hoff mann
9
79 8
H m
7
4
H ac e 4 3 4
Vi t 78 79
H g
D a i d 7 8 3 5 64 4 5
H m
H nt L i gh
4
H
’
o
f
of
32
L i fe of L o c k h a rt
L i fe of S c o t t 1 3 0
ng s
.
,
,
F
1
30 ,
,
’
o
1
,
L e on i d a s 7
L es li e P ro f es s or 3
L es s in g s 7
92
9s 97
L e t t ers on t h e A es th e t i c E du c a t i on
’
,
54
H i s t ory
9,
,
o
H
n
A d rew
,
’
A
f E n g l a n d Hu m e s 5
of E n gl i s h P o e t ry Wa rt o n
H i s t ory
i s t ory
1 1
L a u d William 2 1
L ec t u es o D ra m a t i c L i t era tu re
47
1
9 6,
,
I4 5
.
,
,
o
68 ,
,
,
f Cri t i c i s m
s t ory
e s
’
92
or s ,
La
La
’
r
,
ang
L
5 8 , 69, 7 1
r es ,
,
I4 1
,
ro
eroes a n
2
8
,
am b Cha l
L
1
,
.
,
on ,
ss
e s
r
H e l en a
H e m en s
H erd e r
ill
L a l l a R ook h
Ca l y l E ay
76
8
G th
F li ia 8 4
J G 5 7 6 95
d C H
76
W h ip Ca l y l
d He
H e l en a
’
,
,
,
9,
1
7
78
1 51
M o l i e e 7 66 8 5 1 3 6
M o te Th e 8
M ontaign e 8 1 6 8 7
M o t h l y M a g a z i e 67
M o t h l y R eg i s t er 9 4
M o t h l y R e v i ew 9 2 9 7
M oore Th o ma s 1 3 8 2
r
n
,
,
,
R i c ht e r J e an P a u l
,
,
,
,
,
n
n
,
R o b b e rs
R obin s o n
92
,
n
,
M ii l l n er
82
er,
8 8,
,
b
N ew
E di n
N ew
L e t t ers
We l s h
N
Ni
N
N
1
,
81
.
.
,
s,
1
,
4,
f
o
1
Ja
8
ne
2
ed ,
1 0
0
,
Ca l y l
lis ,
Ob
O di p
O l an
r
Wi e lan d s
ero n ,
e,
e
r e
1 0
s
o f,
1 0
8
,
i
44, 7 5 ,
,
,
,
’
,
Sc
.
,
1
,
,
,
,
,
2
1 0
’
,
,
,
,
n
,
,
7
Q
u a rt erl y
R evi ew
R ab e lai s 8 7
R a c in e 62
R ad c l i ff e M s
R am s ey A ll a n
1 04
,
A
.
nn
e,
c
o
s,
r
so
,
c
e r,
s
s
ou ,
u
ue
,
ea n
0
.
,
S
,
r
,
1
2
’
e s
Es
8,
I7 .
,
7,
2
a
Ca l y l
’
I44
Es s y
e s
f
o
9. 2 9. 3 5 .
62 . 8 3 . 8 5 .
1
r
,
1
on ,
’
1 2
e s,
.
42
,
2 2
,
8 , 40 , 5 9 , 8 0
2
,
3 5 . 3 6. 5 9 . 7 9 . 9 4
,
f
e s,
7
Walt er
1
Wa l t er
68 ,
u re ,
re ,
1
,
M rs
e
ey ,
P
s o
.
2
9, 3 2
.
l m n
ph l
th y
o
o
,
pe
T ia
1
,
c ta
4
R ob e r
,
r
,
,
e
.
.
r
c
f
o
3 3 , 5 4, 6 8 ,
t
E
.
,
r
96
34
d e, 8 ,
1 o,
82
,
Ca l y l
t or, Th e , 5 , 7
pinga n J
S ta el M m
S
a
8 4,
9 6,
1 2 0
8
o c es ,
e
,
35,
9,
2
,
William
e,
93.
87
,
B
I44
.
44
ey ,
.
3 3,
93
8,
1
,
Ess y
C i ti
a
a s
,
e
e
1
,
S ir
e
—
Wa l t e r Ca rl y l e s
4
h nt n
30
’
S ir
1 1
6, 8 , 3 0 , 3 1
8 2 . 8 4 . 88 . 9 2
3 8, 1 4 5
,
9,
1 1 0
S ou
1 2
,
a u
,
h ll
S h ll
So
1 2 0
os
r
7,
es
So
87
n ld S i J h a 5
R i ha d n S am l 8 7
Ri h t
J
P l Ca l y l
ay
5
76
4
R ey
1 2
,
W
.
Ch i
hak p a
S
1
I I4 .
.
S ig n s of t h e Ti m es ,
S m o l l et ,
ob
s, 5 , 8
,
,
F
,
1 1
85 ,
S
,
r
A
.
L i t era t
S
6,
e s,
.
L i fe
Sir
,
9 7.
5 7 , 5 8,
,
e
S cot t,
,
’
e
on ,
’
r n
e
S c ot t,
,
,
1 1
,
1 02
s I. 5 4 . 68 . 7 s ,
,
,
e
tt
S co
,
,
r
’
47
1
7 9, 1 40
3 6. 7 s
r
S c ot t i s h
,
,
Ca l y l
,
68 ,
,
3 . 3 7 . 4 8. 4 9 . 6 3 . 8 s
hl g l
hl g l
Sc
e,
Ca l y l
S c h i l l er,
2
Pau l 1 8
P el h a m 8 7 88
Ph a s a l i a L u c a n s 7
P h i l os op h i c a l D i c t i on a ry 1 1 2
P i ozzi M rs 1 2 6
P itt William 1 6
P lat o 1 0
P lat o 1 1 0
P op e A l e xan d er 6 1 6 8 1 0 4 1 0
P ort er Jan e 7
P ri n c es s Th e T enny s o n s 1 3 9
P i c i p i a N ew t o n s 7
P ri n c i p l es of K ow l e dg e B erk e l ey s
40
5 7 . 5 9. 6 1 .
9 s. 9 6 . 9 7 . 9 8 .
S c h l l er,
43
,
1 0
er,
7 9 , 88 ,
41
35.
.
9 0 . 9 4.
’
r
g
7 8,
48
1
3 7. 40 . 4 1
,
,
40 ,
e
0
,
G e o rge, 6 1
,
e or
,
c
P a s c al 1 1 0
P a s t a n d P res en t Ca rl y l e s
1
1
,
an d G
S h lling
S hill
S
4
Du k e
,
1 2 1
7
,
,
3 6. 4 5 . 7 9 . 8 7 .
c
’
,
1
,
S a rt or R es a rt u s
Ess y, 3 5, 7 5
e s
ur
th
n e t e en
6
1 2
eu ve,
s
a
’
.
R u s kin J o hn
3 9. 40 . 4 3 . 7 3 . 7 9 .
.
.
5,
1 2
9 4,
,
,
u,
,
,
.
81
3, 92
Ni
3 9,
1 2 2
7 9,
2
,
the
e er s ,
os
aint e B
S a i nt b y
32
1
r
’
,
80 , 8 1
er s ,
B
76 8
J iah 3 9
a J J 57 58
S
,
.
1 1 1
88
,
o va
,
0
en
e un
ov
N
R evi ew 1 2
a n d M e m ori a l s
u rg h
man 4
b l g Li
t n C E
ali 9 3
or o
4
1 1
Ca rl y l e, 4
ew
e
R oy c e
R ou s s e
,
Napi
ry
9 8.
’
in
Ce n t u ry ,
97
,
n
3 o,
9 7.
hill
C a bb
Sc
R om a n t i c i s m
,
,
He
,
9 s.
8,
2
96
95.
,
‘
,
T h e,
,
,
8 6.
73.
35
1
,
n
5 7.
43.
,
5,
2
,
65
’
e s,
1 1
4
1 5 5!
S ta
te
Ca l l E a
6
6
5
S t l i ng J hn
8
S t li g J h
L if
'
r
0
7
er
n
on
y
1 1
,
Th e
,
3 5 , 3 7 , 46
,
t u re
ra
,
,
7
.
o
,
er
ss
e s
y
.
L i te
f G e rm a n
o
o
,
9
,
1
,
n,
32
1
,
o
r
,
er
e,
ev e
w
u re
so
.
,
o
,
87
c e,
.
e s,
2
,
H a
Wa t n Th ma
Wa gh Ba i lli
1
4,
or c e ,
,
r o
o
,
,
I3
39
7 , 8,
,
N
es o
To m
a
T ay l
T
'
0
Wel s h J a n e
l
1 1
,
’
e s,
\Ni l l i a m
o r,
Wern er
Wert er
9
9
,
1
92
,
9 3 , 9 4,
96
e
so
c
er
o
so
ec
,
ra
o
e,
Vi c a r
es ,
o
f
d
G rey ,
i
an
V ltai
o
7 8,
re,
79,
5
8 3 , 8 6, 9 4
P
7,
ros e
2
1
1 0
,
so
Th e
,
Ma s te
8, 3 0 , 4 2
4
,
-1
1
,
8,
43
rs
1 00
,
f
,
5
o
,
,
o
,
51
3,
,
1 2
62
5 4,
5,
1
,
s w or
ai
2 1
2 2
,
,
2
3,
re,
,
7 7 , 7 9, 9 1
,
94
C a ly l
.
'
t ra n s l a
e s
3 , 5 8 , 6 6, 8 5 , 88 ,
2
,
G oe
th
6s. 6 7
,
1 0
.
’
e s
30,
3 8,
7 7 . 7 8, 8 3 .
3,
1
44
2
8,
2
1 2
,
,
1 0
,
5
7
,
7 4 . 7 8. 8 2
.
I4 S
R ei n f re d ,
n
Z
35,
,
X e oph on
3 9,
1
r
1 0 1
,
5 8. 6 9 . 7 o . 7 1
9 6. 1 1 9 . 1 3 9 .
1
1
3 4,
88
,
J hn 6
Wi l n J hn 6 8
Win k lmann 5 7
W d
th William
or
1 0
1
,
3
2 2
,
87
,
o
s
,
1 2
93,
Wo tt o n
1 0 0— 2
8 4, 88
1 2
,
,
e
,
l
1 1
,
5 8 . 60 . 6 1
,
8 6,
87
Wa k efie l d
31
,
.
Vi v
,
,
1
7 9, 8 0 , 8 1
,
,
o f,
\Vi l k e s
S ha n y
A , 1 40
8 4,
,
Wi l h el m M e i s t er
1 2 0
o,
2 0
9 6, 9 8
7
,
62
,
o
87
4
r
or a n
,
,
t i
V i gi l
Vi c
1 02
,
ti n
a rs a w
o
8—
1
Wi e land 7 9 1 9 2
Wi l h e l m M e i s t er
0
o n es ,
Tit m
T ll p
ro
1
,
J
1
,
,
,
Tom
1
,
eu s
r s
1 00
.
,
T nny n 3 9 4 3
Tha k y 4
Th a dd
f W
Th m n Jam
Ti k 5 9 7 8 7 9 8
5
1 2
4,
54
s,
ov e s ,
S o rro w
,
62
,
Z
,
7
'
78.
1
4, 3 8 , 8 2
2
8
or
a n
S h a n t er
B oo
s s o,
L dl d
f My
5
on ,
7
,
Ta l
1 0
e,
Wa v e rl ey
Wa v erl ey
39
84
,
1 0
,
1
,
a
Ess y
e s
42
u
t n La n
St
n n R L
S i f t J nath a n
r
'
’
88
S
1
Ca l y l
re ,
\Va l p ol e
39
Ca l y l
f
e
i
Vol t a
’
2
4, 3 1
,
35,
9,
84
.
95 .