Thomas Carlyle by John Nichol

and _Hero-Worship_, and of _Chartism_, the last work with a vestige of adherence to the Radical creed.

II. 1842-1853–When the death of his mother loosened his ties to the North. This decade of his literary career is mainly signalised by the writing and publication of the _Life and Letters of Cromwell_, of Carlyle’s political works, _Past and Present_ and the _Latter-Day Pamphlets_, and of the _Life of Sterling_, works which mark his now consummated disbelief in democracy, and his distinct abjuration of adherence, in any ordinary sense, to the “Creed of Christendom.”

III. 1853-1866–When the laurels of his triumphant speech as Lord Rector at Edinburgh were suddenly withered by the death of his wife. This period is filled with the _History of Friedrick II._, and marked by a yet more decidedly accentuated trust in autocracy.

IV. 1866-1881.–Fifteen years of the setting of the sun.

The Carlyles, coming to the metropolis in a spirit of rarely realised audacity on a reserve fund of from £200 to £300 at most, could not propose to establish themselves in any centre of fashion. In their circumstances their choice of abode was on the whole a fortunate one. Chelsea,

Not wholly in the busy world, nor quite Beyond it,

was, even in those days of less constant communication, within measurable distance of the centres of London life: it had then and still preserves a host of interesting historic and literary traditions. Among the men who in old times lived or met together in that outlying region of London, we have memories of Sir Thomas More and of Erasmus, of the Essayists Addison and Steele, and of Swift. Hard by is the tomb of Bolingbroke and the Square of Sir Hans Sloane; Smollett lived for a time in Laurence Street; nearer our own day, Turner resided in Cheyne Walk, later George Eliot, W.B. Scott, Dante Rossetti, Swinburne for a season, and George Meredith. When Carlyle came to settle there, Leigh Huntin Upper Cheyne Row, an almost next-door neighbour, was among the first of a series of visitors; always welcome, despite his “hugger-mugger” household and his borrowing tendencies, his “unpractical messages” and “rose-coloured reform processes,” as a bright “singing bird, musical in flowing talk,” abounding in often subtle criticisms and constant good humour. To the Chelsea home, since the Mecca of many pilgrims, there also flocked other old Ampton Street friends, drawn thither by genuine regard, Mrs. Carlyle, by the testimony of Miss Cushman and all competent judges, was a “_raconteur_ unparalleled.” To quote the same authority, “that wonderful woman, able to live in the full light of Carlyle’s genius without being overwhelmed by it,” had a peculiar skill in drawing out the most brilliant conversationalist of the age. Burns and Wilson were his Scotch predecessors in an art of which the close of our century–when every fresh thought is treasured to be printed and paid for–knows little but the shadow. Of Carlyle, as of Johnson, it might have been said, “There is no use arguing with him, for if his pistol misses fire he knocks you down with the butt”: both men would have benefited by revolt from their dictation, but the power to contradict either was overborne by a superior power to assert. Swift’s occasional insolence, in like manner, prevailed by reason of the colossal strength that made him a Gulliver in Lilliput. Carlyle in earlier, as in later times, would have been the better of meeting his mate, or of being overmatched; but there was no Wellington found for this “grand Napoleon of the realms” of prose. His reverence for men, if not for things, grew weaker with the strengthening of his sway, a sway due to the fact that men of extensive learning are rarely men of incisive force, and Carlyle–in this respect more akin to Johnson than to Swift–had the acquired material to serve as fuel for the inborn fire. Hence the least satisfactory of his criticisms are those passed on his peers. Injustices of conversation should be pardoned to an impulsive nature, even those of correspondence in the case of a man who had a mania for pouring out his moods to all and sundry; but where Carlyle has carefully recarved false estimates in cameo, his memory must abide the consequence. Quite late in life, referring to the Chelsea days, he says, “The best of those who then flocked about us was Leigh Hunt,” who never seriously said him nay; “and the worst Lamb,” who was not among the worshippers. No one now doubts that Carlyle’s best adviser and most candid critic might have been John Stuart Mill, for whom he long felt as much regard as it was possible for him to entertain towards a proximate equal. The following is characteristic: “He had taken a great attachment to me (which lasted about ten years and then suddenly ended, I never knew how), an altogether clear, logical, honest, amicable, affectionate young man, and respected as such here, though sometimes felt to be rather colourless, even aqueous, no religion in any form traceable in him.” And similarly of his friend, Mrs. Taylor, “She was a will-o’-the- wispish iridescence of a creature; meaning nothing bad either”; and again of Mill himself, “His talk is sawdustish, like ale when there is no wine to be had.” Such criticisms, some ungrateful, others unjust, may be relieved by reference to the close of two friendships to which (though even these were clouded by a touch of personal jealousy) he was faithful in the main; for the references of both husband and wife to Irving’s “delirations” are the tears due to the sufferings of errant minds. Their last glimpse of this best friend of earlier days was in October 1834, when he came on horseback to the door of their new home, and left with the benediction to his lost Jane, “You have made a little Paradise around you.” He died in Glasgow in December of the same year, and his memory is pathetically embalmed in Carlyle’s threnody. The final phases of another old relationship were in some degree similar. During the first years of their settlement, Lord Jeffrey frequently called at Cheyne Row, and sent kind letters to his cousin, received by her husband with the growl, “I am at work stern and grim, not to be interrupted by Jeffrey’s theoretic flourish of epistolary trumpeting.” Carlyle, however, paid more than one visit to Craigcrook, seeing his host for the last time in the autumn of 1849, “worn in body and thin in mind,” “grown lunar now and not solar any more.” Three months later he heard of the death of this benefactor of his youth, and wrote the memorial which finds its place in the second volume of the _Reminiscences_.

[Footnote: Cf. Byron’s account of the same household at Pisa. Carlyle deals very leniently with the malignant volume on Byron which amply justified the epigram of Moore. But he afterwards spoke more slightly of his little satellite, attributing the faint praise, in the _Examiner_, of the second course of lectures to Hunt’s jealousy of a friend now “beginning to be somebody.”]

The work “stern and grim” was the _French Revolution_, the production of which is the dominant theme of the first chapter of Carlyle’s London life. Mr. Froude, in the course of an estimate of this work which leaves little room for other criticism, dwells on the fact that it was written for a purpose, _i.e._ to show that rulers, like those of the French in the eighteenth century, who are solely bent on the pleasures and oblivious of the duties of life, must end by being “burnt up.” This, doubtless, is one of the morals of the _French Revolution_–the other being that anarchy ends in despotism–and unquestionably a writer who never ceased to be a preacher must have had it in his mind. But Carlyle’s peculiarity is that he combined the functions of a prophet and of an artist, and that while now the one, now the other, was foremost, he never wholly forgot the one in the other. In this instance he found a theme well fit for both, and threw his heart into it, though under much discouragement. Despite the Essays, into each of which he had put work enough for a volume, the Reviews were shy of him; while his _Sartor_ had, on this side of the Atlantic, been received mainly with jeers. Carlyle, never unconscious of his prerogative and apostolic primogeniture, felt like an aspirant who had performed his vigils, and finding himself still ignored, became a knight of the rueful countenance. Thoroughly equipped, adept enough in ancient tongues to appreciate Homer, a master of German and a fluent reader of French, a critic whose range stretched from Diderot to John Knox, he regarded his treatment as “tragically hard,” exclaiming, “I could learn to do all things I have seen done, and am forbidden to try any of them.” The efforts to keep the wolf from his own doors were harder than any but a few were till lately aware of. Landed in London with his £200 reserve, he could easily have made way in the usual ruts; but he would have none of them, and refused to accept the employment which is the most open, as it is the most lucrative, to literary aspirants. To nine out of ten the “profession of literature” means Journalism; while Journalism often means dishonesty, always conformity. Carlyle was, in a sense deeper than that of the sects, essentially a nonconformist; he not only disdained to write a word he did not believe, he would not suppress a word he did believe–a rule of action fatal to swift success. During these years there began an acquaintance, soon ripening into intimacy, the memories of which are enshrined in one of the most beautiful of biographies. Carlyle’s relation to John Sterling drew out the sort of affection which best suited him–the love of a master for a pupil, of superior for inferior, of the benefactor for the benefited; and consequently there is no line in the record of it that jars. Sterling once tried to benefit his friend, and perhaps fortunately failed. He introduced Carlyle to his father, then the chief writer in the _Times_, and the Editor invited the struggling author to contribute to its columns, but, according to Mr. Froude, “on the implied conditions … when a man enlists in the army, his soul as well as his body belong to his commanding officer.” Carlyle talked, all his life, about what his greatest disciple calls “The Lamp of Obedience”; but he himself would obey no one, and found it hard to be civil to those who did not see with his eyes. Ho rejected–we trust in polite terms–the offer of “the Thunderer.” “In other respects also,” says our main authority, “he was impracticable, unmalleable, and as independent and wilful as if he were the heir to a peerage. He had created no ‘public’ of his own; the public which existed could not understand his writings and would not buy them; and thus it was that in Cheyne Row he was more neglected than he had been in Scotland.” Welcome to a limited range of literary society, he astonished and amused by his vehement eloquence, but when crossed he was not only “sarcastic” but rude, and speaking of people, as he wrote of them, with various shades of contempt, naturally gave frequent offence. Those whose toes are trodden on, not by accident, justifiably retaliate. “Are you looking for your t-t-turban?” Charles Lamb is reported to have said in some entertainer’s lobby after listening for an evening to Carlyle’s invectives, and the phrase may have rankled in his mind. Living in a glass case, while throwing stones about, super-sensitive to criticism though professing to despise critics, he made at least as many enemies as friends, and by his own confession became an Ishmaelite. In view of the reception of _Sartor_, we do not wonder to find him writing in 1833–

It is twenty-three months since I earned a penny by the craft of literature, and yet I know no fault I have committed…. I am tempted to go to America…. I shall quit literature, it does not invite me. Providence warns me to have done with it. I have failed in the Divine Infernal Universe;

or meditating, when at the lowest ebb, to go wandering about the world like Teufelsdröckh, looking for a rest for the sole of his foot. And yet all the time, with incomparable naiveté, he was asserting:–

The longer I live among this people the deeper grows my feeling of natural superiority to them…. The literary world here is a thing which I have no other course left me but to defy…. I can reverence no existing man. With health and peace for one year, I could write a better book than there has been in this country for generations.

All through his journal and his correspondence there is a perpetual alternation of despair and confidence, always closing with the refrain, “Working, trying is the only remover of doubt,” and wise counsels often echoed from Goethe, “Accomplish as well as you can the task on hand, and the next step will become clear;” on the other hand–A man must not only be able to work but to give over working…. If a man wait till he has entirely brushed off his imperfections, he will spin for ever on his axis, advancing no whither…. The _French Revolution_ stands pretty fair in my head, nor do I mean to investigate much more about it, but to splash down what I know in large masses of colours, that it may look like a smoke-and-flame conflagration in the distance.

The progress of this work was retarded by the calamity familiar to every reader, but it must be referred to as throwing one of the finest lights on Carlyle’s character. His closest intellectual link with J.S. Mill was their common interest in French politics and literature; the latter, himself meditating a history of the Revolution, not only surrendered in favour of the man whose superior pictorial genius he recognised, but supplied him freely with the books he had accumulated for the enterprise. His interest in the work was unfortunately so great as to induce him to borrow the MS. of the first volume, completed in the early spring of 1835, and his business habits so defective as to permit him to lend it without authority; so that, as appears, it was left lying about by Mrs. Taylor and mistaken by her servant for waste paper: certainly it was destroyed; and Mill came to Cheyne Row to announce the fact in such a desperate state of mind that Carlyle’s first anxiety seems to have been to console his friend. According to Mrs. Carlyle, as reported by Froude, “the first words her husband uttered as the door closed were, ‘Well, Mill, poor fellow, is terribly cut up; we must endeavour to hide from him how very serious this business is to us.'” This trait of magnanimity under the first blow of a disaster which seemed to cancel the work of years should be set against his nearly contemporaneous criticisms of Coleridge, Lamb, Wordsworth, Sydney Smith, Macaulay, etc.

[Footnote: Carlyle had only been writing the volume for five months; but he was preparing for it during much of his life at Craigenputtock.]

Mill sent a cheque of £200 as “the slightest external compensation” for the loss, and only, by urgent entreaty, procured the acceptance of half the sum. Carlyle here, as in every real emergency, bracing his resolve by courageous words, as “never tine heart or get provoked heart,” set himself to re-write the volume with an energy that recalls that of Scott rebuilding his ruined estate; but the work was at first so “wretched” that it had to be laid aside for a season, during which the author wisely took a restorative bath of comparatively commonplace novels. The re-writing of the first volume was completed in September 1835; the whole book in January 1837. The mood in which it was written throws a light on the excellences as on the defects of the history. The _Reminiscences_ again record the gloom and defiance of “Thomas the Doubter” walking through the London streets “with a feeling similar to Satan’s stepping the burning marl,” and scowling at the equipages about Hyde Park Corner, sternly thinking, “Yes, and perhaps none of you could do what I am at. I shall finish this book, throw it at your feet, buy a rifle and spade, and withdraw to the Transatlantic wilderness.” In an adjacent page he reports himself as having said to his wife–

What they will do with this book none knows, my lass; but they have not had for two hundred years any book that came more truly from a man’s very heart, and so let them trample it under foot and hoof as they see best…. “They cannot trample that,” she would cheerily answer.

This passage points at once to the secret of the writer’s spell and to the limits of his lasting power. His works were written seldom with perfect fairness, never with the dry light required for a clear presentation of the truth; they have all “an infusion from the will and the affections”; but they were all written with a whole sincerity and utter fervour; they rose from his hot heart, and rushed through the air “like rockets druv’ by their own burnin’.” Consequently his readers confess that he has never forgot the Horatian maxim–

Si vis me flere, dolendum est
Primum ipsi tibi.

About this time Carlyle writes, “My friends think I have found the art of living upon nothing,” and there must, despite Mill’s contribution, have been “bitter thrift” in Cheyne REow during the years 1835-1837. He struggled through the unremunerative interval of waiting for the sale of a great work by help of fees derived from his essay on the _Diamond Necklace_ (which, after being refused by the _Foreign Quarterly,_ appeared in _Fraser,_ 1837), that on _Mirabeau_ in the _Westminster,_ and in the following year, for the same periodical, the article on _Sir Walter Scott._ To the last work, undertaken against the grain, he refers in one of the renewed wails of the year: “O that literature had never been devised. I am scourged back to it by the whip of necessity.” The circumstance may account for some of the manifest defects of one of the least satisfactory of Carlyle’s longer’ reviews. Frequent references in previous letters show that he never appreciated Scott, to whom he refers as a mere Restaurateur.

Meanwhile the appearance of the _French Revolution_ had brought the name of its author, then in his forty-third year, for the first time prominently before the public. It attracted the attention of Thackeray, who wrote a generous review in the _Times,_ of Southey, Jeffrey, Macaulay, Hallam, and Brougham, who recognised the advent of an equal, if sometimes an adverse power in the world of letters. But, though the book established his reputation, the sale was slow, and for some years the only substantial profits, amounting to about £400, came from America, through the indefatigable activity and good management of Emerson. It is pleasant to note a passage in the interesting volumes of their _Correspondence_ which shows that in this instance the benefited understood his financial relation to the benefactor: “A reflection I cannot but make is that, at bottom, this money was all yours; not a penny of it belonged to me by any law except that of helpful friend-ship…. I could not examine it (the account) without a kind of crime.” Others who, at this period, made efforts to assist “the polar Bear” were less fortunate. In several instances good intentions paved the palace of Momus, and in one led a well-meaning man into a notoriously false position. Mr. Basil Montagu being in want of a private secretary offered the post to his former guest, as a temporary makeshift, at a salary of £200, and so brought upon his memory a torrent of contempt. Undeterred by this and similar warnings, the indefatigable philanthropist, Miss Harriet Martineau, who at first conciliated the Carlyles by her affection for “this side of the street,” and was afterwards an object of their joint ridicule, conceived the idea of organising a course of lectures to an audience collected by canvass to hoar the strange being from the moors talk for an hour on end about literature, morals, and history. He was then an object of curiosity to those who knew anything about him at all, and lecturing was at that time a lucrative and an honourable employment. The “good Harriet,” so called by Cheyne Row in its condescending mood, aided by other kind friends of the Sterling and Mill circles–the former including Frederick Denison Maurice–made so great a success of the enterprise that it was thrice repeated. The _first_ course of six lectures on “German Literature,” May 1837, delivered in Willis’s Rooms, realised £135; the _second_ of twelve, on the “History of European Literature,” at 17 Edward Street, Portman Square, had a net result of £300; the _third,_ in the same rooms, on “Revolutions,” brought £200; the _fourth,_ on “Heroes,” the same. In closing this course Carlyle appeared for the last time on a public platform until 1866, when he delivered his Inaugural Address as Lord Rector to the students of Edinburgh. The impression he produced on his unusually select audiences was that of a man of genius, but roughly clad. The more superficial auditors had a new sensation, those who came to stare remained to wonder; the more reflective felt that they had learnt something of value. Carlyle had no inconsiderable share of the oratorical power which he latterly so derided; he was able to speak from a few notes; but there were comments more or less severe on his manner and style. J. Grant, in his _Portraits of Public Characters,_ says: “At times he distorts his features as if suddenly seized by some paroxysm of pain … he makes mouths; he has a harsh accent and graceless gesticulation.” Leigh Hunt, in the _Examiner,_ remarks on the lecturer’s power of extemporising; but adds that he often touches only the mountain-tops of the subject, and that the impression left was as if some Puritan had come to life again, liberalised by German philosophy. Bunsen, present at one of the lectures, speaks of the striking and rugged thoughts thrown at people’s heads; and Margaret Fuller, afterwards Countess Ossoli, referred to his arrogance redeemed by “the grandeur of a Siegfried melting down masses of iron into sunset red.” Carlyle’s own comments are for the most part slighting. He refers to his lectures as a mixture of prophecy and play-acting, and says that when about to open his course on “Heroes” he felt like a man going to be hanged. To Emerson, April 17th 1839, he writes :–

My lectures come on this day two weeks. O heaven! I cannot “speak”; I can only gasp and writhe and stutter, a spectacle to gods and fashionables,–being forced to it by want of money. In five weeks I shall be free, and then–! Shall it be Switzerland? shall it be Scotland? nay, shall it be America and Concord?

Emerson had written about a Boston publication of the _Miscellanies_ (first there collected), and was continually urging his friend to emigrate and speak to more appreciative audiences in the States; but the London lectures, which had, with the remittances from over sea, practically saved Carlyle from ruin or from exile, had made him decide “to turn his back to the treacherous Syren”–the temptation to sink into oratory. Mr. Froude’s explanation and defence of this decision may be clenched by a reference to the warning his master had received. He had announced himself as a preacher and a prophet, and been taken at his word; but similarly had Edward Irving, who for a season of sun or glamour gathered around him the same crowd and glitter: the end came; twilight and clouds of night. Fashion had flocked to the sermons of the elder Annandale youth–as to the recitatives of the younger–to see a wild man of the woods and hear him sing; but the novelty gone, they passed on” to Egyptian crocodiles, Iroquois hunters,” and left him stranded with “unquiet fire” and “flaccid face.” “O foulest Circaean draft,” exclaimed his old admirer in his fine dirge, “thou poison of popular applause, madness is in thee and death, thy end is Bedlam and the grave,” and with the fixed resolve, “De me fabula non narrabitur,” he shut the book on this phase of his life.

The lectures on “Hero-Worship” (a phrase taken from Hume) were published in 1841, and met with considerable success, the name of the writer having then begun to run “like wildfire through London.” At the close of the previous year he had published his long pamphlet on _Chartism_, it having proved unsuitable for its original destination as an article in the _Quarterly_. Here first he clearly enunciates, “Might is right”–one of the few strings on which, with all the variations of a political Paganini, he played through life. This tract is on the border line between the old modified Radicalism of _Sartor_ and the less modified Conservatism of his later years. In 1840 Carlyle still speaks of himself as a man foiled; but at the close of that year all fear of penury was over, and in the following he was able to refuse a Chair of History at Edinburgh, as later another at St. Andrews. Meanwhile his practical power and genuine zeal for the diffusion of knowledge appeared in his foundation of the London Library, which brought him into more or less close contact with Tennyson, Milman, Forster, Helps, Spedding, Gladstone, and other leaders of the thought and action of the time.

There is little in Carlyle’s life at any time that can be called eventful. From first to last it was that of a retired scholar, a thinker demanding sympathy while craving after solitude, and the frequent inconsistency of the two requirements was the source of much of his unhappiness. Our authorities for all that we do not see in his published works are found in his voluminous correspondence, copious autobiographical jottings, and the three volumes of his wife’s letters and journal dating from the commencement of the struggle for recognition in London, and extending to the year of her death. Criticism of these remarkable documents, the theme of so much controversy, belongs rather to a life of Mrs. Carlyle; but a few salient facts may here be noted. It appears on the surface that husband and wife had in common several marked peculiarities; on the intellectual side they had not only an extraordinary amount but the same kind of ability, superhumanly keen insight, and wonderful power of expression, both with tongue and pen; the same intensity of feeling, thoroughness, and courage to look the ugliest truths full in the face; in both, these high qualities were marred by a tendency to attribute the worst motives to almost every one. Their joint contempt for all whom they called “fools,” _i.e._ the immense majority of mankind, was a serious drawback to the pleasure of their company. It is indeed obvious that, whether or not it be correct to say that “his nature was the soft one, her’s the hard,” Mrs. Carlyle was the severer cynic of the two. Much of her writing confirms the impression of those who have heard her talk that no one, not even her husband, was safe from the shafts of her ridicule. Her pride in his genius knew no bounds, and it is improbable that she would have tolerated from any outsider a breath of adverse criticism; but she herself claimed many liberties she would not grant. She was clannish as Carlyle himself, yet even her relations are occasionally made to appear ridiculous. There was nothing in her affections, save her memory of her own father, corresponding to his devotion to his whole family. With equal penetration and greater scorn, she had no share of his underlying reverence. Such limited union as was granted to her married life had only soured the mocking-bird spirit of the child that derided her grandfather’s accent on occasion of his bringing her back from a drive by another route to “varry the shane.”

Carlyle’s constant wailings take from him any claim to such powers of endurance as might justify his later attacks on Byron. But neither had his wife any real reticence. Whenever there were domestic troubles–flitting, repairing, building, etc., on every occasion of clamour or worry, he, with scarce pardonable oblivion of physical delicacy greater than his own, went off, generally to visit distinguished friends, and left behind him the burden and the heat of the day. She performed her unpleasant work and all associated duties with a practical genius that he complimented as “triumphant.” She performed them, ungrudgingly perhaps, but never without complaint; her invariable practice was to endure and tell. “Quelle vie,” she writes in 1837 to John Sterling, whom she seems to have really liked, “let no woman who values peace of soul ever marry an author”; and again to the same in 1839, “Carlyle had to sit on a jury two days, to the ruin of his whole being, physical, moral, and intellectual,” but “one gets to feel a sort of indifference to his growling.” Conspicuous exceptions, as in the case of the Shelleys, the Dobells, and the Brownings, have been seen, within or almost within our memories, but as a rule it is a risk for two supersensitive and nervous people to live together: when they are sensitive in opposite ways the alliance is fatal; fortunately the Carlyles were, in this respect, in the main sympathetic. With most of the household troubles which occupy so exaggerated a space in the letters and journals of both–papering, plastering, painting, deceitful or disorderly domestics–general readers have so little concern that they have reason to resent the number of pages wasted in printing them; but there was one common grievance of wider and more urgent interest, to which we must here again finally refer, premising that it affected not one period but the whole of their lives, _i.e._ their constant, only half-effectual struggle with the modern Hydra-headed Monster, the reckless and needless Noises produced or permitted, sometimes increased rather than suppressed, by modern civilisation. Mrs. Carlyle suffered almost as much as her husband from these murderers of sleep and assassins of repose; on her mainly fell the task of contending with the cochin-chinas, whose senseless shrieks went “through her like a sword,” of abating a “Der Freischütz of cats,” or a pandemonium of barrel organs, of suppressing macaws for which Carryle “could neither think nor live”; now mitigating the scales on a piano, now conjuring away, by threat or bribe, from their neighbours a shoal of “demon fowls”; lastly of superintending the troops of bricklayers, joiners, iron-hammerers employed with partial success to convert the top story of 5 Cheyne Row into a sound-proof room. Her hard-won victories in this field must have agreeably added to the sense of personality to which she resolutely clung. Her assertion, “Instead of boiling up individuals into the species, I would draw a chalk circle round every individuality,” is the essence of much of her mate’s philosophy; but, in the following to Sterling, she somewhat bitterly protests against her own absorption: “In spite of the honestest efforts to annihilate my I—ity or merge it in what the world doubtless considers my better half, I still find myself a self-subsisting, and, alas, self-seeking me.”

The ever-restive consciousness of being submerged is one of the dominant notes of her journal, the other is the sense of being even within the circle unrecognised. “C. is a domestic wandering Jew…. When he is at work I hardly ever see his face from breakfast to dinner.”… “Poor little wretch that I am, … I feel as if I were already half-buried … in some intermediate state between the living and the dead…. Oh, so lonely.” These are among the _suspiria de profundis_ of a life which her husband compared to “a great joyless stoicism,” writing to the brother, whom he had proposed as a third on their first home-coming:–“Solitude, indeed, is sad as Golgotha, but it is not mad like Bedlam; absence of delirium is possible only for me in solitude”; a sentiment almost literally acted on. In his offering of penitential cypress, referring to his wife’s delight in the ultimate success of his work, he says, “She flickered round me like a perpetual radiance.” But during their joint lives their numerous visits and journeys were made at separate times or apart. They crossed continually on the roads up and down, but when absent wrote to one another often the most affectionate letters. Their attraction increased, contrary to Newton’s law, in the _direct_ ratio of the square of the distance, and when it was stretched beyond the stars the long-latent love of the survivor became a worship.

Carlyle’s devotion to his own kin, blood of his blood and bone of his bone, did not wait for any death to make itself declared. His veneration for his mother was reciprocated by a confidence and pride in him unruffled from cradle to grave, despite their widening theoretic differences; for with less distinct acknowledgment she seems to have practically shared his belief, “it matters little what a man holds in comparison with how he holds it.” But on his wife’s side the family bond was less absolute, and the fact adds a tragic interest to her first great bereavement after the settlement in London. There were many callers–increasing in number and eminence as time went on–at Cheyne Row; but naturally few guests. Among these, Mrs. Carlyle’s mother paid, in 1838, her first and last visit, unhappily attended by some unpleasant friction. Grace Welsh (through whom her daughter derived the gipsy vein) had been in early years a beauty and a woman of fashion, endowed with so much natural ability that Carlyle, not altogether predisposed in her favour, confessed she had just missed being a genius; but she was accustomed to have her way, and old Walter of Pefillan confessed to having seen her in fifteen different humours in one evening. Welcomed on her arrival, misunderstandings soon arose. Carlyle himself had to interpose with conciliatory advice to his wife to bear with her mother’s humours. One household incident, though often quoted, is too characteristic to be omitted. On occasion of an evening party, Mrs. Welsh, whose ideas of hospitality, if not display, were perhaps larger than those suited for her still struggling hosts, had lighted a show of candles for the entertainment, whereupon the mistress of the house, with an air of authority, carried away two of them, an act which her mother resented with tears. The penitent daughter, in a mood like that which prompted Johnson to stand in the Uttoxeter market-place, left in her will that the candles were to be preserved and lit about her coffin, round which, nearly thirty years later, they were found burning. Carlyle has recorded their last sight of his mother-in-law in a few of his many graphic touches. It was at Dumfries in 1841, where she had brought Jane down from Templand to meet and accompany him back to the south. They parted at the door of the little inn, with deep suppressed emotion, perhaps overcharged by some presentiment; Mrs. Welsh looking sad but bright, and their last glimpse of her was the feather in her bonnet waving down the way to Lochmaben gate. Towards the close of February 1842 news came that she had had an apoplectic stroke, and Mrs. Carlyle hurried north, stopping to break the journey at her uncle’s house in Liverpool; when there she was so prostrated by the sudden announcement of her mother’s death that she was prohibited from going further, and Carlyle came down from London in her stead. On reaching Templand he found that the funeral had already taken place. He remained six weeks, acting as executor in winding up the estate, which now, by the previous will, devolved on his wife. To her during the interval he wrote a series of pathetic letters. Reading these,–which, with others from Haddington in the following years make an anthology of tenderness and ruth, reading them alongside of his angry invectives, with his wife’s own accounts of the bilious earthquakes and peevish angers over petty cares; or worse, with ebullitions of jealousy assuming the mask of contempt, we again revert to the biographer who has said almost all that ought to be said of Carlyle, and more: “It seemed as if his soul was divided, like the Dioscuri, as if one part of it was in heaven, and the other in the place opposite heaven. But the misery had its origin in the same sensitiveness of nature which was so tremulously alive to soft and delicate emotion. Men of genius … are like the wind-harp which answers to the breath that touches it, now low and sweet, now rising into wild swell or angry scream, as the strings are swept by some passing gust.” This applies completely to men like Burns, Byron, Heine, and Carlyle, less to the Miltons, Shakespeares, and Goethes of the world.

The crisis of bereavement, which promised to bind the husband and wife more closely together, brought to an end a dispute in which for once Mrs. Carlyle had her way. During the eight years over which we have been glancing, Carlyle had been perpetually grumbling at his Chelsea life: the restless spirit, which never found peace on this side of the grave, was constantly goading him with an impulse of flight and change, from land to sea, from shore to hills; anywhere or everywhere, at the time, seemed better than where he was. America and the Teufelsdröckh wanderings abandoned, he reverted to the idea of returning to his own haunts. A letter to Emerson in 1839 best expresses his prevalent feeling:–

This foggy Babylon tumbles along as it was wont: and as for my particular case uses me not worse but better than of old. Nay, there are many in it that have a real friendliness for me…. The worst is the sore tear and wear of this huge roaring Niagara of things on such a poor excitable set of nerves as mine.

The velocity of all things, of the very word you hear on the streets, is at railway rate: joy itself is unenjoyable, to be avoided like pain; there is no wish one has so pressingly as for quiet. Ah me! I often swear I will be _buried_ at least in free breezy Scotland, out of this insane hubbub … if ever the smallest competence of worldly means be mine, I will fly this whirlpool as I would the Lake of Malebolge.

The competence had come, the death of Mrs. Welsh leaving to his wife and himself practically from £200 to £300 a year: why not finally return to the home of their early restful secluded life, “in reductâ, valle,” with no noise around it but the trickle of rills and the nibbling of sheep? Craigenputtock was now their own, and within its “four walls” they would begin a calmer life. Fortunately Mrs. Carlyle, whose shrewd practical instinct was never at fault, saw through the fallacy, and set herself resolutely against the scheme. Scotland had lost much of its charm for her–a year later she refused an invitation from Mrs. Aitken, saying, “I could do nothing at Scotsbrig or Dumfries but cry from morning to night.” She herself had enough of the Hill of the Hawks, and she know that within a year Carlyle would again be calling it the Devil’s Den and lamenting Cheyne Row. He gave way with the protest, “I cannot deliberately mean anything that is harmful to you,” and certainly it was well for him.

There is no record of an original writer or artist coming from the north of our island to make his mark in the south, succeeding, and then retracing his steps. Had Carlyle done so, he would probably have passed from the growing recognition of a society he was beginning to find on the whole congenial, to the solitude of intellectual ostracism. Scotland may be breezy, but it is not conspicuously free. Erratic opinions when duly veiled are generally allowed; but this concession is of little worth. On the tolerance of those who have no strong belief in anything, Carlyle, thinking possibly of rose-water Hunt and the litterateurs of his tribe, expressed himself with incisive and memorable truth: “It is but doubt and indifference. _Touch the thing they do believe and value, their own self-conceit: they are rattlesnakes then_.”

[Footnote: The italics are Mr. Froude’s.]

Tolerance for the frank expression of views which clash with the sincere or professed faith of the majority is rare everywhere; in Scotland rarest. English Churchmen, high and broad, were content to condone the grim Calvinism still infiltrating Carlyle’s thoughts, and to smile, at worst, at his idolatry of the iconoclast who said, “the idolater shall die the death.” But the reproach of “Pantheism” was for long fatal to his reception across the Tweed.

Towards the close of this period he acknowledged that London was “among improper places” the best for “writing books,” after all the one use of living “for him;” its inhabitants “greatly the best” he “had ever walked with,” and its aristocracy–the Marshalls, Stanleys, Hollands, Russells, Ashburtons, Lansdownes, who held by him through life–its “choicest specimens.” Other friendships equally valued he made among the leading authors of the age. Tennyson sought his company, and Connop Thirlwall. Arnold of Rugby wrote in commendation of the _French Revolution_ and hailed _Chartism._ Thackeray admired him and reviewed him well. In Macaulay, condemned to limbo under the suspicion of having reviewed him ill, he found, when the suspicion was proved unjust, a promise of better things. As early as 1839 Sterling had written an article in the _Westminster,_ which gave him intense pleasure; for while contemning praise in almost the same words as Byron did, he loved it equally well. In 1840 he had crossed the Rubicon that lies between aspiration and attainment. The populace might be blind or dumb, the “rattlesnakes”–the “irresponsible indolent reviewers,” who from behind a hedge pelt every wrestler till they found societies for the victor–might still obscurely hiss; but Carlyle was at length safe by the verdict of the “Conscript Fathers.”

[Footnote: The italics are Mr. Froude’s.]

CHAPTER V

CHEYNE ROW

[1842-1853]

The bold venture of coming to London with a lean purse, few friends, and little fame had succeeded: but it had been a terrible risk, and the struggle had left scars behind it. To this period of his life we may apply Carlyle’s words,–made use of by himself at a later date,–“The battle was over and we were sore wounded.” It is as a maimed knight of modern chivalry, who sounded the _réveil_ for an onslaught on the citadels of sham, rather than as a prophet of the future that his name is likely to endure in the history of English thought. He has also a place with Scott amongst the recreators of bygone ages, but he regarded their annals less as pictures than as lesson-books. His aim was that expressed by Tennyson to “steal fire from fountains of the past,” but his design was to admonish rather than “to glorify the present.” This is the avowed object of the second of his distinctly political works, which following on the track of the first, _Charlism_, and written in a similar spirit, takes higher artistic rank. _Past and Present_, suggested by a visit to the poorhouse of St. Ives and by reading the chronicle of _Jocelin de Brakelond_, was undertaken as a duty, while he was mainly engaged on a greater work,–the duty he felt laid upon him to say some thing that should bear directly on the welfare of the people, especially of the poor around him. It was an impulse similar to that which inspired _Oliver Twist_, but Carlyle’s remedies were widely different from those of Dickens. Not merely more kindness and sympathy, but paternal government, supplying work to the idle inmates of the workhouse, and insisting, by force if need be, on it being done, was his panacea. It had been Abbot Samson’s way in his strong government of the Monastery of St. Edmunds, and he resolved, half in parable, half in plain sermon, to recommend it to the Ministers Peel and Russell.

In this mood, the book was written off in the first seven weeks of 1843, a _tour de force_ comparable to Johnson’s writing of _Rasselas_. Published in April, it at once made a mark by the opposition as well as by the approval it excited. Criticism of the work–of its excellences, which are acknowledged, and its defects as manifold–belongs to a review of the author’s political philosophy: it is enough here to note that it was remarkable in three ways. _First_, the object of its main attack, _laissez faire_, being a definite one, it was capable of having and had some practical effect. Mr. Froude exaggerates when he says that Carlyle killed the pseudo-science of orthodox political economy; for the fundamental truths in the works of Turgot, Smith, Ricardo, and Mill cannot be killed: but he pointed out that, like Aristotle’s leaden rule, the laws of supply and demand must be made to bend; as Mathematics made mechanical must allow for friction, so must Economics leave us a little room for charity. There is ground to believe that the famous Factory Acts owed some of their suggestions to _Past and Present_. Carlyle always speaks respectfully of the future Lord Shaftesbury. “I heard Milnes saying,” notes the Lady Sneerwell of real life, “at the Shuttleworths that Lord Ashley was the greatest man alive: he was the only man that Carlyle praised in his book. I daresay he knew I was overhearing him.” But, while supplying arguments and a stimulus to philanthropists, his protests against philanthropy as an adequate solution of the problem of human misery became more pronounced. About the date of the conception of this book we find in the Journal:–

Again and again of late I ask myself in whispers, is it the duty of a citizen to paint mere heroisms? … Live to make others happy! Yes, surely, at all times, so far as you can. But at bottom that is not the aim of my life … it is mere hypocrisy to call it such, as is continually done nowadays…. Avoid cant. Do not think that your life means a mere searching in gutters for fallen figures to wipe and set up.

_Past and Present_, in the _second_ place, is notable as the only considerable consecutive book–unless we also except the _Life of Sterling_,–which the author wrote without the accompaniment of wrestlings, agonies, and disgusts. _Thirdly_, though marking a stage in his mental progress, the fusion of the refrains of _Chartism_ and _Hero-Worship_, and his first clear breach with Mazzini and with Mill, the book was written as an interlude, when he was in severe travail with his greatest contribution to English history. The last rebuff which Carlyle encountered came, by curious accident, from the _Westminster_, to which Mill had engaged him to contribute an article on “Oliver Cromwell.” While this was in preparation, Mill had to leave the country on account of his health, and gave the review in charge to an Aberdonian called Robertson, who wrote to stop the progress of the essay with the message that _he_ had decided to undertake the subject himself. Carlyle was angry; but, instead of sullenly throwing the MS. aside, he set about constructing on its basis a History of the Civil War.

Numerous visits and tours during the following three years, though bringing him into contact with new and interesting personalities, were mainly determined by the resolve to make himself acquainted with the localities of the war; and his knowledge of them has contributed to give colour and reality to the finest battle-pieces in modern English prose. In 1842 with Dr. Arnold he drove from Rugby fifteen miles to Naseby, and the same year, after a brief yachting trip to Belgium–in the notes on which the old Flemish towns stand out as clearly as in Longfellow’s verse–he made his pilgrimage to St. Ives and Ely Cathedral, where Oliver two centuries before had called out to the recalcitrant Anglican in the pulpit, “Cease your fooling and come down.” In July 1843 Carlyle made a trip to South Wales; to visit first a worthy devotee called Redwood, and then Bishop Thirlwall near Carmarthen. “A right solid simple-hearted robust man, very strangely swathed,” is the visitor’s meagre estimate of one of our most classic historians.

On his way back he carefully reconnoitred the field of Worcester. Passing his wife at Liverpool, where she was a guest of her uncle, and leaving her to return to London and brush up Cheyne Row, he walked over Snowdon from Llanheris to Beddgelert with his brother John. He next proceeded to Scotsbrig, then north to Edinburgh, and then to Dunbar, which he contrived to visit on the 3rd of September, an anniversary revived in his pictured page with a glow and force to match which we have to revert to Bacon’s account of the sea-fight of the _Revenge_. From Dunbar he returned to Edinburgh, spent some time with his always admired and admiring friend Erskine of Linlathen, a Scotch broad churchman of the type of F.D. Maurice and Macleod Campbell, and then went home to set in earnest to the actual writing of his work. He had decided to abandon the design of a History, and to make his book a Biography of Cromwell, interlacing with it the main features and events of the Commonwealth. The difficulties even of this reduced plan were still immense, and his groans at every stage in its progress were “louder and more loud,” _e.g._ “My progress in _Cromwell_ is frightful.” “A thousand times I regretted that this task was ever taken up.” “The most impossible book of all I ever before tried,” and at the close, “_Cromwell_ I must have written in 1844, but for four years previous it had been a continual toil and misery to me; four years of abstruse toil, obscure speculation, futile wrestling, and misery I used to count it had cost me.” The book issued in 1845 soon went through three editions, and brought the author to the front as the most original historian of his time. Macaulay was his rival, but in different paths of the same field. About this time Mr. Froude became his pupil, and has left an interesting account (iii. 290-300) of his master’s influence over the Oxford of those days, which would be only spoilt by selections. Oxford, like Athens, ever longing after something new, patronised the Chelsea prophet, and then calmed down to her wonted cynicism. But Froude and Ruskin were, as far as compatible with the strong personality of each, always loyal; and the capacity inborn in both, the power to breathe life into dry records and dead stones, had at least an added impulse from their master.

The year 1844 is marked by the publication in the _Foreign Quarterly_ of the essay on _Dr. Francia,_ and by the death of John Sterling,–loved with the love of David for Jonathan–outside his own family losses, the greatest wrench in Carlyle’s life. Sterling’s published writings are as inadequate to his reputation as the fragmentary remains of Arthur Hallam; but in friendships, especially unequal friendships, personal fascination counts for more than half, and all are agreed as to the charm in both instances of the inspiring companionships. Archdeacon Hare having given a somewhat coldly correct account of Sterling as a clergyman, Carlyle three years later, in 1851, published his own impressions of his friend as a thinker, sane philanthropist, and devotee of truth, in a work that, written in a three months’ fervour, has some claim to rank, though faltering, as prose after verse, with _Adonais_, _In Memoriam_, and Matthew Arnold’s _Thyrsis_.

These years are marked by a series of acts of unobtrusive benevolence, the memory of which has been in some cases accidentally rescued from the oblivion to which the benefactor was willing to have them consigned. Carlyle never boasted of doing a kindness. He was, like Wordsworth, frugal at home beyond necessity, but often as generous in giving as he was ungenerous in judging. His assistance to Thomas Cooper, author of the _Purgatory of Suicides_, his time spent in answering letters of “anxious enquirers,”–letters that nine out of ten busy men would have flung into the waste-paper basket,–his interest in such works as Samuel Bamford’s _Life of a Radical_, and admirable advice to the writer; his instructions to a young student on the choice of books, and well-timed warning to another against the profession of literature, are sun-rifts in the storm, that show “a heart within blood-tinctured, of a veined humanity.” The same epoch, however,–that of the start of the great writer’s almost uninterrupted triumph–brings us in face of an episode singularly delicate and difficult to deal with, but impossible to evade.

[Footnote: These letters to Bamford, showing a keen interest in the working men of whom his correspondent had written, point to the ideal of a sort of Tory Democracy. Carlyle writes: “We want more knowledge about the Lancashire operatives; their miseries and gains, virtues and vices. Winnow what you have to say, and give us wheat free from chaff. Then the rich captains of workers will he willing to listen to you. Brevity and sincerity will succeed. Be brief and select, omit much, give each subject its proper proportionate space; and be exact without caring to round off the edges of what you have to say.” Later, he declines Bamford’s offer of verses, saying “verse is a bugbear to booksellers at present. These are prosaic, earnest, practical, not singing times.”]

Carlyle, now generally recognised in London as having one of the most powerful intellects and by far the greatest command of language among his contemporaries, was beginning to suffer some of the penalties of renown in being beset by bores and travestied by imitators; but he was also enjoying its rewards. Eminent men of all shades of opinion made his acquaintance; he was a frequent guest of the genial Maecenas, an admirer of genius though no mere worshipper of success, R. Monckton Milnes; meeting Hallam, Bunsen, Pusey, etc., at his house in London, and afterwards visiting him at Fryston Hall in Yorkshire. The future Lord Houghton was, among distinguished men of letters and society, the one of whom he spoke with the most unvarying regard. Carlyle corresponded with Peel, whom he set almost on a par with Wellington as worthy of perfect trust, and talked familiarly with Bishop Wilberforce, whom he miraculously credits with holding at heart views much like his own. At a somewhat later date, in the circle of his friends, bound to him by various degrees of intimacy, History was represented by Thirlwall, Grote, and Froude; Poetry by Browning, Henry Taylor, Tennyson, and Clough; Social Romance by Kingsley; Biography by James Spedding and John Forster; and Criticism by John Ruskin. His link to the last named was, however, their common distrust of political economy, as shown in _Unto This Last_, rather than any deep artistic sympathy. In Macaulay, a conversationalist more rapid than himself, Carlyle found a rival rather than a companion; but his prejudiced view of physical science was forgotten in his personal affection for Tyndall and in their congenial politics. His society was from the publication of _Cromwell_ till near his death increasingly sought after by the aristocracy, several members of which invited him to their country seats, and bestowed on him all acceptable favours. In this class he came to find other qualities than those referred to in the _Sartor_ inscription, and other aims than that of “preserving their game,”–the ambition to hold the helm of the State in stormy weather, and to play their part among the captains of industry. In the _Reminiscences_ the aristocracy are deliberately voted to be “for continual grace of bearing and of acting, steadfast honour, light address, and cheery stoicism, actually yet the best of English classes.” There can be no doubt that his intercourse with this class, as with men of affairs and letters, some of whom were his proximate equals, was a fortunate sequel to the duck-pond of Ecclefechan and the lonely rambles on the Border moors.

Es bildet ein Talent sich in der Stille, Sich ein Character in dem Strom der Welt.

The life of a great capital may be the crown of education, but there is a danger in homage that comes late and then without reserve. Give me neither poverty nor riches, applies to praise as well as to wealth; and the sudden transition from comparative neglect to

honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,

is a moral trial passing the strength of all but a few of the “irritable race” of writers. The deference paid to Carlyle made him yet more intolerant of contradiction, and fostered his selfishness, in one instance with the disastrous result of clouding a whole decade of his domestic life. In February 1839 he speaks of dining–“an eight-o’clock dinner which ruined me for a week”–with “a certain Baring,” at whose table in Bath House he again met Bunsen, and was introduced to Lord Mahon. This was the beginning of what, after the death of Sterling, grew into the most intimate friendship of his life. Baring, son of Lord Ashburton of the American treaty so named, and successor to the title on his father’s death in 1848, was a man of sterling worth and sound sense, who entered into many of the views of his guest. His wife was by general consent the most brilliant woman of rank in London, whose grace, wit, refinement, and decision of character had made her the acknowledged leader of society. Lady Harriet, by the exercise of some overpowering though purely intellectual spell, made the proudest of men, the modern Diogenes, our later Swift, so much her slave that for twelve years, whenever he could steal a day from his work, he ran at her beck from town to country, from castle to cot; from Addiscombe, her husband’s villa in Surrey, to the Grange, her father-in-law’s seat in Hampshire; from Loch Luichart and Glen Finnan, where they had Highland shootings, to the Palais Eoyal. Mr. Froude’s comment in his introduction to the Journal is substantially as follows: Lady Harriet Baring or Ashburton was the centre of a planetary system in which every distinguished public man of genuine worth then revolved. Carlyle was naturally the chief among them, and he was perhaps at one time ambitious of himself taking some part in public affairs, and saw the advantage of this stepping-stone to enable him to do something more for the world, as Byron said, than write books for it. But the idea of entering Parliament, which seems to have once suggested itself to him in 1849, was too vague and transient to have ever influenced his conduct. It is more correct to say that he was flattered by a sympathy not too thorough to be tame, pleased by adulation never gross, charmed by the same graces that charmed the rest, and finally fascinated by a sort of hypnotism. The irritation which this strange alliance produced in the mind of the mistress of Cheyne Row is no matter of surprise. Pride and affection together had made her bear with all her husband’s humours, and share with him all the toils of the struggle from obscurity. He had emerged, and she was still half content to be systematically set aside for his books, the inanimate rivals on which he was building a fame she had some claim to share. But her fiery spirit was not yet tamed into submitting to be sacrificed to an animate rival, or passively permitting the usurpation of companionship grudged to herself by another woman, whom she could not enjoy the luxury of despising. Lady Harriet’s superiority in _finesse_ and geniality, as well as advantages of station, only aggravated the injury; and this with a singular want of tact Carlyle further aggravated when he insisted on his wife accepting the invitations of his hostess. These visits, always against the grain, were rendered more irritating from a half-conscious antagonism between the chief female actors in the tragi-comedy; the one sometimes innocently unobservant of the wants of her guest, the other turning every accidental neglect into a slight, and receiving every jest as an affront. Carlyle’s “Gloriana” was to the mind of his wife a “heathen goddess,” while Mrs. Carlyle, with reference to her favourite dog “Nero,” was in her turn nicknamed “Agrippina.”

In midsummer of 1846, after an enforced sojourn at Addiscombe in worse than her usual health, she returned to Chelsea with “her mind all churned to froth,” and opened it to her husband with such plainness that “there was a violent scene”: she left the house in a mood like that of the first Mrs. Milton, and took refuge with her friends the Paulets at Seaforth near Liverpool, uncertain whether or not she would return. There were only two persons from whom it seemed natural for her at such a crisis to ask advice; one was Geraldine Jewsbury, a young Manchester lady, authoress of a well-known novel, _The Half-Sisters_, from the beginning of their acquaintance in 1841 till the close in 1866 her most intimate associate and chosen confidant, who, we are told, “knew all” her secrets.

[Footnote: Carlyle often speaks, sometimes slightingly, of Miss Jewsbury, as a sensational novelist and admirer of George Sand, but he appreciated her genuine worth.]

The other was the inspired Italian, pure patriot and Stoic moralist Joseph Mazzini. To him she wrote twice–once apparently before leaving London, and again from Seaforth. His letters in reply, tenderly sympathetic and yet rigidly insistent on the duty of forbearance and endurance, availed to avert the threatened catastrophe; but there are sentences which show how bitter the complaints must have been.

It is only you who can teach yourself that, whatever the _present_ may be, you must front it with dignity…. I could only point out to you the fulfilment of duties which can make life–not happy–what can? but earnest, sacred, and resigned…. I am carrying a burden even heavier than you, and have undergone even bitterer deceptions. Your life proves an empty thing, you say. Empty! Do not blaspheme. Have you never done good? Have you never loved? … Pain and joy, deception and fulfilled hopes are just the rain and the sunshine that must meet the traveller on his way. Bless the Almighty if He has thought proper to send the latter to you…. Wrap your cloak round you against the first, but do not think a single moment that the one or the other have anything to do with the _end_ of the journey.

Carlyle’s first letter after the rupture is a mixture of reproach and affection. “We never parted before in such a manner; and all for literally nothing…. Adieu, dearest, for that is, and, if madness prevail not, may for ever be your authentic title.” Another, enclosing the birthday present which he had never omitted since her mother’s death, softened his wife’s resentment, and the storm blew over for a time. But while the cause remained there was in the house at best a surface tranquillity, at worst an under tone of misery which (October 1855 to May 1856) finds voice in the famous Diary, not merely covered with “black spider webs,” but steeped in gall, the publication of which has made so much debate. It is like a page from _Othello_ reversed. A few sentences condense the refrain of the lament. “Charles Buller said of the Duchess de Praslin, ‘What could a poor fellow do with a wife that kept a journal but murder her?'” “That eternal Bath House. I wonder how many thousand miles Mr. C. has walked between here and there?” “Being an only child, I never wished to sew men’s trousers–no, never!”

I gin to think I’ve sold myself
For very little cas.”

“To-day I called on my lady: she was perfectly civil, for a wonder.”

“Edward Irving! The past is past and gone is gone–

O waly, waly, love is bonnie,
A little while when it is new;”

quotations which, laid alongside the records of the writer’s visit to the people at Haddington, “who seem all to grow so good and kind as they grow old,” and to the graves in the churchyard there, are infinitely pathetic. The letters that follow are in the same strain, _e.g._ to Carlyle when visiting his sister at the Gill, “I never forget kindness, nor, alas, unkindness either”: to Luichart, “I don’t believe thee, wishing yourself at home…. You don’t, as weakly amiable people do, sacrifice yourself for the pleasure of others”; to Mrs. Russell at Thornhill, “My London doctor’s prescription is that I should be kept always happy and tranquil(!!!).”

In the summer of 1856 Lady Ashburton gave a real ground for offence in allowing both the Carlyles, on their way north with her, to take a seat in an ordinary railway carriage, beside her maid, while she herself travelled in a special saloon. Partly, perhaps in consequence, Mrs. Carlyle soon went to visit her cousins in Fifeshire, and afterwards refused to accompany her ladyship on the way back. This resulted in another quarrel with her husband, who had issued the command from Luichart–but it was their last on the subject, for Gloriana died on the 4th of the following May, 1857, at Paris: “The most queen-like woman I had ever known or seen, by nature and by culture _facile princeps_ she, I think, of all great ladies I have ever seen.” This brought to a close an episode in which there were faults on both sides, gravely punished: the incidents of its course and the manner in which they were received show, among other things, that railing at the name of “Happiness” does little or nothing to reconcile people to the want of the reality. In 1858 Lord Ashburton married again–a Miss Stuart Mackenzie, who became the attached friend of the Carlyles, and remained on terms of unruffled intimacy with both till the end: she survived her husband, who died in 1864, leaving a legacy of £2000 to the household at Cheyne Row. _Sic transiit._

From this date we must turn back over nearly twenty years to retrace the main steps of the great author’s career. Much of the interval was devoted to innumerable visits, in acceptance of endless hospitalities, or in paying his annual devotions to Annandale,–calls on his time which kept him rushing from place to place like a comet. Two facts are notable about those expeditions: they rarely seemed to give him much pleasure, even at Scotsbrig he complained of sleepless nights and farm noises; and he was hardly ever accompanied by his wife. She too was constantly running north to her own kindred in Liverpool or Scotland, but their paths did not run parallel, they almost always intersected, so that when the one was on the way north the other was homeward bound, to look out alone on “a horizon of zero.” Only a few of these visits are worth recording as of general interest. Most of them were paid, a few received. In the autumn of 1846, Margaret Fuller, sent from Emerson, called at Cheyne Row, and recorded her impression of the master as “in a very sweet humour, full of wit and pathos, without being overbearing,” adding that she was “carried away by the rich flow of his discourse”; and that “the hearty noble earnestness of his personal bearing brought back the charm of his writing before she wearied of it.” A later visitor, Miss Martineau, his old helper in days of struggle, was now thus esteemed: “Broken into utter wearisomeness, a mind reduced to these three elements–imbecility, dogmatism, and unlimited hope. I never in my life was more heartily bored with any creature!” In 1847 there followed the last English glimpse of Jeffrey and the last of Dr. Chalmers, who was full of enthusiasm about _Cromwell_; then a visit to the Brights, John and Jacob, at Rochdale: with the former he had “a paltry speaking match” on topics described as “shallow, totally worthless to me,” the latter he liked, recognising in him a culture and delicacy rare with so much strength of will and independence of thought. Later came a second visit from Emerson, then on a lecturing tour to England, gathering impressions revived in his _English Traits_. “His doctrines are too airy and thin,” wrote Carlyle, “for the solid practical heads of the Lancashire region. We had immense talkings with him here, but found that he did not give us much to chew the cud upon. He is a pure-minded man, but I think his talent is not quite so high as I had anticipated.” They had an interesting walk to Stonehenge together, and Carlyle attended one of his friend’s lectures, but with modified approval, finding this serene “spiritual son” of his own rather “gone into philanthropy and moonshine.” Emerson’s notes of this date, on the other hand, mark his emancipation from mere discipleship. “Carlyle had all the kleinstãdtlicher traits of an islander and a Scotsman, and reprimanded with severity the rebellious instincts of the native of a vast continent…. In him, as in Byron, one is more struck with the rhetoric than with the matter…. There is more character than intellect in every sentence, therein strangely resembling Samuel Johnson.” The same year Carlyle perpetrated one of his worst criticisms, that on Keats:–

The kind of man he was gets ever more horrible to me. Force of hunger for pleasure of every kind, and want of all other force…. Such a structure of soul, it would once have been very evident, was a chosen “Vessel of Hell”;

and in the next an ungenerously contemptuous reference to Macaulay’s _History_:–

The most popular ever written. Fourth edition already, within perhaps four months. Book to which four hundred editions could not add any value, there being no depth of sense in it at all, and a very great quantity of rhetorical wind.

Landor, on the other hand, whom he visited later at Bath, he appreciated, being “much taken with the gigantesque, explosive but essentially chivalrous and almost heroic old man.” He was now at ease about the sale of his books, having, _inter alia_, received £600 for a new edition of the _French Revolution_ and the _Miscellanies_. His journal is full of plans for a new work on Democracy, Organisation of Labour, and Education, and his letters of the period to Thomas Erskine and others are largely devoted to politics.

[Footnote: This is one of the few instances in which further knowledge led to a change for the better in Carlyle’s judgment. In a letter to Emerson, 1840, he speaks disparagingly of Landor as “a wild man, whom no extent of culture had been able to tame! His intellectual faculty seemed to me to be weak in proportion to his violence of temper: the judgment he gives about anything is more apt to be wrong than right,–as the inward whirlwind shows him this side or the other of the object: and _sides_ of an object are all that he sees.” _De te faliula._ Emerson answers defending Landor, and indicating points of likeness between him and Carlyle.]

In 1846 he spent the first week of September in Ireland, crossing from Ardrossan to Belfast, and then driving to Drogheda, and by rail to Dublin, where in Conciliation Hall he saw O’Connell for the first time since a casual glimpse at a radical meeting arranged by Charles Buller–a meeting to which he had gone out of curiosity in 1834. O’Connell was always an object of Carlyle’s detestation, and on this occasion he does not mince his words.

Chief quack of the then world … first time I had ever heard the lying scoundrel speak…. Demosthenes of blarney … the big beggar-man who had £15,000 a year, and, _proh pudor!_ the favour of English ministers instead of the pillory.

At Dundrum he met by invitation Carleton the novelist, with Mitchell and Gavan Duffy, the Young Ireland leaders whom he seems personally to have liked, but he told Mitchell that he would probably be hanged, and said during a drive about some flourishing and fertile fields of the Pale, “Ah! Duffy, there you see the hoof of the bloody Saxon.”

[Footnote: Sir C. Gavan Duffy, in the “Conversations and Correspondence,” now being published in the _Contemporary Review_, naturally emphasises Carlyle’s politer, more genial side, and prints several expressions of sympathy with the “Tenant Agitations”; but his demur to the _Reminiscences of My Irish Journey_ being accepted as an accurate account of the writer’s real sentiments is of little avail in face of the letters to Emerson, more strongly accentuating the same views, _e.g._ “Bothered almost to madness with Irish balderdash…. ‘_Blacklead_ these two million idle beggars,’ I sometimes advised, ‘and sell them in Brazil as niggers!’–perhaps Parliament on sweet constraint will allow you to advance them to be niggers!”]

He returned from Kingston to Liverpool on the 10th, and so closed his short and unsatisfactory trip. Three years later, July to August 6th, 1849, he paid a longer and final visit to the “ragged commonweal” or “common woe,” as Raleigh called it, landing at Dublin, and after some days there passing on to Kildare, Kilkenny, Lismore, Waterford, beautiful Killarney and its beggar hordes, and then to Limerick, Clare, Castlebar, where he met W.E. Forster, whose acquaintance he had made two years earlier at Matlock. At Gweedore in Donegal he stayed with Lord George Hill, whom he respected, though persuaded that he was on the wrong road to Reform by Philanthropy in a country where it had never worked; and then on to half Scotch Derry. There, August 6th, he made an emphatic after- breakfast speech to a half-sympathetic audience; the gist of it being that the remedy for Ireland was not “emancipation” or “liberty,” but to “cease following the devil, as it had been doing for two centuries.” The same afternoon he escaped on board a Glasgow steamer, and landed safe at 2 A.M. on the morning of the 7th. The notes of the tour, set down on his return to Chelsea and republished in 1882, have only the literary merit of the vigorous descriptive touches inseparable from the author’s lightest writing; otherwise they are mere rough-and-tumble jottings, with no consecutive meaning, of a rapid hawk’s-eye view of the four provinces.

But Carlyle never ceased to maintain the thesis they set forth, that Ireland is, for the most part, a country of semi-savages, whose staple trade is begging, whose practice is to lie, unfit not only for self-government but for what is commonly called constitutional government, whose ragged people must be coerced, by the methods of Raleigh, of Spenser, and of Cromwell, into reasonable industry and respect for law. At Westport, where “human swinery has reached its acme,” he finds “30,000 paupers in a population of 60,000, and 34,000 kindred hulks on outdoor relief, lifting each an ounce of mould with a shovel, while 5000 lads are pretending to break stones,” and exclaims, “Can it be a charity to keep men alive on these terms? In face of all the twaddle of the earth, shoot a man rather than train him (with heavy expense to his neighbours) to be a deceptive human swine.” Superficial travellers generally praise the Irish. Carlyle had not been long in their country when he formulated his idea of the Home Rule that seemed to him most for their good.

Kildare Railway: big blockhead sitting with his dirty feet on seat opposite, not stirring them for one who wanted to sit there. “One thing we’re all agreed on,” said he; “we’re very ill governed: Whig, Tory, Radical, Repealer, all all admit we’re very ill-governed!” I thought to myself, “Yes, indeed; you govern yourself! He that would govern you well would probably surprise you much, my friend–laying a hearty horse-whip over that back of yours.”

And a little later at Castlebar he declares, “Society here would have to eat itself and end by cannibalism in a week, if it were not held up by the rest of our Empire standing afoot.” These passages are written in the spirit which inspired his paper on “The Nigger Question” and the aggressive series of assaults to which it belongs, on what he regarded as the most prominent quackeries, shams, and pretence philanthropies of the day. His own account of the reception of this work is characteristic:–

In 1849, after an interval of deep gloom and bottomless dubitation, came _Latter-Day Pamphlets_, which unpleasantly astonished everybody, set the world upon the strangest suppositions–“Carlyle got deep into whisky,” said some,–ruined my reputation according to the friendliest voices, and in effect divided me altogether from the mob of “Progress-of-the-species” and other vulgar; but were a great relief to my own conscience as a faithful citizen, and have been ever since.

These pamphlets alienated Mazzini and Mill, and provoked the assault of the newspapers; which, by the author’s confession, did something to arrest and restrict the sale.

Nor was this indignation wholly unnatural. Once in his life, on occasion of his being called to serve at a jury trial, Carlyle, with remarkable adroitness, coaxed a recalcitrant juryman into acquiescence with the majority; but coaxing as a rule was not his way. When he found himself in front of what he deemed to be a falsehood his wont was to fly in its face and tear it to pieces. His satire was not like that of Horace, who taught his readers _ridendo dicere verum_, it was rather that of the elder Lucilius or the later Juvenal; not that of Chaucer, who wrote–

That patience is a virtue high is plain, Because it conquers, as the clerks explain, Things that rude valour never could attain,

but that of _The Lye_, attributed to Raleigh, or Swift’s _Gulliver_ or the letters of Junius. The method of direct denunciation has advantages: it cannot be mistaken, nor, if strong enough, ignored; but it must lay its account with consequences, and Carlyle in this instance found them so serious that he was threatened at the height of his fame with dethronement. Men said he had lost his head, gone back to the everlasting “No,” and mistaken swearing all round for political philosophy. The ultimate value attached to the _Latter-Day Pamphlets_ must depend to a large extent on the view of the critic. It is now, however, generally admitted on the one hand that they served in some degree to counteract the rashness of Philanthropy; on the other, that their effect was marred by more than the writer’s usual faults of exaggeration. It is needless to refer the temper they display to the troubles then gathering about his domestic life. A better explanation is to be found in the public events of the time.

The two years previous to their appearance were the Revolution years, during which the European world seemed to be turned upside down. The French had thrown out their _bourgeois_ king, Louis Philippe–“the old scoundrel,” as Carlyle called him,–and established their second Republic. Italy, Hungary, and half Germany were in revolt against the old authorities; the Irish joined in the chorus, and the Chartist monster petition was being carted to Parliament. Upheaval was the order of the day, kings became exiles and exiles kings, dynasties and creeds were being subverted, and empires seemed rocking as on the surface of an earthquake. They were years of great aspirations, with beliefs in all manner of swift regeneration–

Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo,

all varieties of doctrinaire idealisms. Mazzini failed at Rome, Kossuth at Pesth; the riots of Berlin resulted in the restoration of the old dull bureaucratic regime; Smith O’Brien’s bluster exploded in a cabbage garden; the Railway Bubble burst in the fall of the bloated king Hudson, and the Chartism of the time evaporated in smoke. The old sham gods, with Buonaparte of the stuffed eagle in front, came back; because, concluded Carlyle, there was no man in the front of the new movement strong enough to guide it; because its figure-heads were futile sentimentalists, insurgents who could not win. The reaction produced by their failure had somewhat the same effect on his mind that the older French Revolution had on that of Burke: he was driven back to a greater degree than Mr. Froude allows on practical conservatism and on the negations of which the _Latter-Day Pamphlets_ are the expression. To this series of _pronunciamentos_ of political scepticism he meant to add another, of which he often talks under the name of “Exodus from Houndsditch,” boldly stating and setting forth the grounds of his now complete divergence from all forms of what either in England or Europe generally could be called the Orthodox faith in Religion. He was, we are told, withheld from this by the feeling that the teaching even of the priests he saw and derided in Belgium or in Galway was better than the atheistic materialism which he associated with the dominion of mere physical science. He may have felt he had nothing definite enough to be understood by the people to substitute for what he proposed to destroy; and he may have had a thought of the reception of such a work at Scotsbrig. Much of the _Life of Sterling_, however, is somewhat less directly occupied with the same question, and though gentler in tone it excited almost as much clamour as the _Pamphlets_, especially in the north. The book, says Carlyle himself, was “utterly revolting to the religious people in particular (to my surprise rather than otherwise). ‘Doesn’t believe in us either!’ Not he for certain; can’t, if you will know.” During the same year his almost morbid dislike of materialism found vent in denunciations of the “Crystal Palace” Exhibition of Industry; though for its main promoter, Prince Albert, he subsequently entertained and expressed a sincere respect.

In the summer of 1851 the Carlyles went together to Malvern, where they met Tennyson (whose good nature had been proof against some slighting remarks on his verses), Sydney Dobell, then in the fame of his “Roman,” and other celebrities. They tried the “Water Cure,” under the superintendence of Dr. Gully, who received and treated them as guests; but they derived little good from the process. “I found,” says Carlyle, “water taken as medicine to be the most destructive drug I had ever tried.” Proceeding northward, he spent three weeks with his mother, then in her eighty-fourth year and at last growing feeble; a quiet time only disturbed by indignation at “one ass whom I heard the bray of in some Glasgow newspaper,” comparing “our grand hater of shams” to Father Gavazzi. His stay was shortened by a summons to spend a few days with the Ashburtons at Paris on their return from Switzerland. Though bound by a promise to respond to the call, Carlyle did not much relish it. Travelling abroad was always a burden to him, and it was aggravated in this case by his very limited command of the language for conversational purposes. Fortunately, on reaching London he found that the poet Browning, whose acquaintance he had made ten years before, was, with his wife, about to start for the same destination, and he prevailed upon them, though somewhat reluctant, to take charge of him.

[Footnote: Mrs. Sutherland Orr’s _Life of Robert Browning_.]

The companionship was therefore not accidental, and it was of great service. “Carlyle,” according to Mrs. Browning’s biographer, “would have been miserable without Browning,” who made all the arrangements for the party, passed luggage through the customs, saw to passports, fought the battles of all the stations, and afterwards acted as guide through the streets of the great city. By a curious irony, two verse-makers and admirers of George Sand made it possible for the would-be man of action to find his way. The poetess, recalling the trip afterwards, wrote that she liked the prophet more than she expected, finding his “bitterness only melancholy, and his scorn sensibility.” Browning himself continued through life to regard Carlyle with “affectionate reverence.” “He never ceased,” says Mrs. Orr, “to defend him against the charge of unkindness to his wife, or to believe that, in the matter of their domestic unhappiness, she was the more responsible of the two…. He always thought her a hard unlovable woman, and I believe little liking was lost between them … Yet Carlyle never rendered him that service–easy as it appears–which one man of letters most justly values from another, that of proclaiming the admiration which he privately professed for his work.” The party started, September 24th, and reached Dieppe by Newhaven, after a rough passage, the effects of which on some fellow-travellers more unfortunate than himself Carlyle describes in a series of recently-discovered jottings [Footnote: Partially reproduced, _Pall Mall Gazette,_ April 9th 1890, with illustrative connecting comments.] made on his return, October 2nd, to Chelsea. On September 25th they reached Paris. Carlyle joined the Ashburtons at Meurice’s Hotel; there dined, went in the evening to the Théâtre Français, cursed the play, and commented unpleasantly on General Changarnier sitting in the stalls.

During the next few days he met many of the celebrities of the time, and caricatured, after his fashion, their personal appearance, talk, and manner. These criticisms are for the most part of little value. The writer had in some of his essays shown almost as much capacity of understanding the great Frenchmen of the last century as was compatible with his Puritan vein; but as regards French literature since the Revolution he was either ignorant or alien. What light could be thrown on that interesting era by a man who could only say of the authors of _La Comédie Humaine_ and _Consuelo_ that they were ministers in a Phallus worship? Carlyle seems to have seen most of Thiers, whom he treats with good-natured condescension, but little insight: “round fat body, tapering like a ninepin into small fat feet, placidly sharp fat face, puckered eyeward … a frank, sociable kind of creature, who has absolutely no malignity towards any one, and is not the least troubled with self-seekings.” Thiers talked with contempt of Michelet; and Carlyle, unconscious of the numerous affinities between that historian of genius and himself, half assented. Prosper Mérimée, on the other hand, incensed him by some freaks of criticism, whether in badinage or in earnest–probably the former. “Jean Paul,” he said, getting on the theme of German literature, “was a hollow fool of the first magnitude,” and Goethe was “insignificant, unintelligible, a paltry kind of Scribe manqué.” “I could stand no more of it, but lighted a cigar, and adjourned to the street. ‘You impertinent blasphemous blockhead!’ this was sticking in my throat: better to retire without bringing it out.”

[Footnote: The two men were mutually antagonistic; Mérimée tried to read the _French Revolution_, but flung the book aside in weariness or in disdain.]

Of Guizot he writes, “Tartuffe, gaunt, hollow, resting on the everlasting ‘No’ with a haggard consciousness that it ought to be the everlasting ‘Yea.'” “To me an extremely detestable kind of man.” Carlyle missed General Cavaignac, “of all Frenchmen the one” he “cared to see.” In the streets of Paris he found no one who could properly be called a gentleman. “The truly ingenious and strong men of France are here (_i.e_. among the industrial classes) making money, while the politician, literary, etc. etc. class is mere play-actorism.” His summary before leaving at the close of a week, rather misspent, is: “Articulate-speaking France was altogether without beauty or meaning to me in my then diseased mood; but I saw traces of the inarticulate … much worthier.”

Back in London, he sent Mrs. Carlyle to the Grange (distinguishing himself, in an interval of study at home, by washing the back area flags with his own hands), and there joined her till the close of the year. During the early part of the next he was absorbed in reading and planning work. Then came an unusually tranquil visit to Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, during which he had only to complain that the servants were often obliged to run out of the room to hide their laughter at his humorous bursts. At the close of August 1852 he embarked on board a Leith steamer bound for Rotterdam, on his first trip to Germany. Home once more, in October, he found chaos come, and seas of paint overwhelming everything; “went to the Grange, and back in time to witness from Bath House the funeral, November 18th, of the great Duke,” remarking, “The one true man of official men in England, or that I know of in Europe, concludes his long course…. Tennyson’s verses are naught. Silence alone is respectable on such an occasion.” In March, again at the Grange, he met the Italian minister Azeglio, and when this statesman disparaged Mazzini–a thing only permitted by Carlyle to himself–he retorted with the remark, “Monsieur, vous ne le connaissez pas du tout, du tout.” At Chelsea, on his return, the fowl tragic-comedy reached a crisis, “the unprotected male” declaring that he would shoot them or poison them. “A man is not a Chatham nor a Wallenstein; but a man has work too, which the Powers would not quite wish to have suppressed by two and sixpence worth of bantams…. They must either withdraw or die.” Ultimately his mother-wife came to the rescue of her “babe of genius”; the cocks were bought off, and in the long-talked-of sound-proof room the last considerable work of his life, though painfully, proceeded. Meanwhile “brother John” had married, and Mrs. Carlyle went to visit the couple at Moffat. While there bad tidings came from Scotsbrig, and she dutifully hurried off to nurse her mother-in-law through an attack from which the strong old woman temporarily rallied. But the final stroke could not be long delayed. When Carlyle was paying his winter visit to the Grange in December news came that his mother was worse, and her recovery despaired of; and, by consent of his hostess, he hurried off to Scotsbrig,–“mournful leave given me by the Lady A., mournful encouragement to be speedy, not dilatory,”–and arrived in time to hear her last words. “Here is Tom come to bid you good-night, mother,” said John. “As I turned to go, she said, ‘I’m muckle obleeged to you.'” She spoke no more, but passed from sleep after sleep of coma to that of death, on Sunday, Christmas Day, 1853. “We can only have one mother,” exclaimed Byron on a like event–the solemn close of many storms. But between Margaret Carlyle and the son of whom she was so proud there had never been a shadow. “If,” writes Mr. Froude, “she gloried in his fame and greatness, he gloried more in being her son, and while she lived she, and she only, stood between him and the loneliness of which he so often and so passionately complained.”

Of all Carlyle’s letters none are more tenderly beautiful than those which he sent to Scotsbrig. The last, written on his fifty-eighth birthday, December 4th, which she probably never read, is one of the finest. The close of their wayfaring together left him solitary; his “soul all hung with black,” and, for months to come, everything around was overshadowed by the thought of his bereavement. In his journal of February 28th 1854, he tells us that he had on the Sunday before seen a vision of Mainhill in old days, with mother, father, and the rest getting dressed for the meeting-house. “They are gone now, vanished all; their poor bits of thrifty clothes, … their pious struggling efforts; their little life, it is all away. It has all melted into the still sea, it was rounded with a sloop.” The entry ends, as fitting, with a prayer: “O pious mother! kind, good, brave, and truthful soul as I have ever found, and more than I have elsewhere found in this world. Your poor Tom, long out of his schooldays now, has fallen very lonely, very lame and broken in this pilgrimage of his; and you cannot help him or cheer him … any more. From your grave in Ecclefechan kirkyard yonder you bid him trust in God; and that also he will try if he can understand and do.”

CHAPTER VI

THE MINOTAUR

[1853-1866]

Carlyle was now engaged on a work which required, received, and well nigh exhausted all his strength, resulting in the greatest though the least generally read of all his books. _Cromwell_ achieved, he had thrown himself for a season into contemporary politics, condescending even, contrary to his rule, to make casual contributions to the Press; but his temper was too hot for success in that arena, and his letters of the time are full of the feeling that the _Latter-Day Pamphlets_ had set the world against him. Among his generous replies to young men asking advice, none is more suggestive than that in which he writes from Chelsea (March 9th 1850):–

If my books teach you anything, don’t mind in the least whether other people believe it or not; but lay it to heart … as a real message left with you, which you must set about fulfilling, whatever others do…. And be not surprised that “people have no sympathy with you.” That is an accompaniment that will attend you all your days if you mean to live an earnest life.

But he himself, though “ever a fighter,” felt that, even for him, it was not good to be alone. He decided there “was no use railing in vain like Timon”; he would go back again from the present to the past, from the latter days of discord to seek countenance in some great figure of history, under whose ægis he might shelter the advocacy of his views. Looking about for a theme, several crossed his mind. He thought of Ireland, but that was too burning a subject; of William the Conqueror, of Simon de Montfort, the Norsemen, the Cid; but these may have seemed to him too remote. Why, ask patriotic Scotsmen, did he not take up his and their favourite Knox? But Knox’s life had been fairly handled by M’Crie, and Carlyle would have found it hard to adjust his treatment of that essentially national “hero” to the “Exodus from Houndsditch.” “Luther” might have been an apter theme; but there too it would have been a strain to steer clear of theological controversy, of which he had had enough. Napoleon was at heart too much of a gamin for his taste. Looking over Europe in more recent times, he concluded that the Prussian monarchy had been the main centre of modern stability, and that it had been made so by its virtual creator, Friedrich II., called the Great. Once entertained, the subject seized him as with the eye of Coleridge’s mariner, and, in spite of manifold efforts to get free, compelled him, so that he could “not choose but” write on it. Again and again, as the magnitude of the task became manifest, we find him doubting, hesitating, recalcitrating, and yet captive. He began reading Jomini, Preuss, the king’s own Memoirs and Despatches, and groaned at the mountains through which he had to dig. “Prussian Friedrich and the Pelion laid on Ossa of Prussian dry-as-dust lay crushing me with the continual question, Dare I try it? Dare I not?” At length, gathering himself together for the effort, he resolved, as before in the case of Cromwell, to visit the scenes of which he was to write. Hence the excursion to Germany of 1852, during which, with the kindly-offered guidance of Mr. Neuberg, an accomplished German admirer of some fortune resident in London, he made his first direct acquaintance with the country of whose literature he had long been himself the English interpreter. The outlines of the trip may be shortly condensed from the letters written during its progress to his wife and mother. He reached Rotterdam on September 1st; then after a night made sleepless by “noisy nocturnal travellers and the most industrious cocks and clamorous bells” he had ever heard, he sailed up the river to Bonn, where he consulted books, saw “Father Arndt,” and encountered some types of the German professoriate, “miserable creatures lost in statistics.” There he met Neuberg, and they went together to Rolandseck, to the village of Hunef among the Sieben-Gebirge, and then on to Coblenz. After a detour to Ems, which Carlyle, comminating the gaming-tables, compared to Matlock, and making a pilgrimage to Nassau as the birthplace of William the Silent, they rejoined the Rhine and sailed admiringly up the finest reach of the river. From Mainz the philosopher and his guide went on to Frankfort, paid their respects to Goethe’s statue and the garret where _Werther_ was written, the Judengasse, “grimmest section of the Middle Ages,” and the Römer–election hall of the old Kaisers; then to Homburg, where they saw an old Russian countess playing “gowpanfuls of gold pieces every stake,” and left after no long stay, Carlyle, in a letter to Scotsbrig, pronouncing the fashionable Badeort to be the “rallying-place of such a set of empty blackguards as are not to be found elsewhere in the world.” We find him next at Marburg, where he visited the castle of Philip of Hesse. Passing through Cassel, he went to Eisenach, and visited the neighbouring Wartburg, where he kissed the old oaken table, on which the Bible was made an open book for the German race, and noted the hole in the plaster where the inkstand had been thrown at the devil and his noises; an incident to which eloquent reference is made in the lectures on “Heroes.” Hence they drove to Gotha, and lodged in Napoleon’s room after Leipzig. Then by Erfurt, with more Luther memories, they took rail to Weimar, explored the houses of Goethe and of Schiller, and dined by invitation with the Augustenburgs; the Grand Duchess, with sons and daughters, conversing in a Babylonish dialect, a melange of French, English, and German. The next stage seems to have been Leipzig, then in a bustle with the Fair. “However,” says Carlyle, “we got a book or two, drank a glass of wine in Auerbach’s keller, and at last got off safe to the comparative quiet of Dresden.” He ignores the picture galleries; and makes a bare reference to the palaces from which they steamed up the Elbe to the heart of Saxon Switzerland. There he surveyed Lobositz, first battle-field of the Seven Years’ War, and rested at the romantic mountain watering-place of Töplitz. “He seems,” wrote Mrs. Carlyle, “to be getting very successfully through his travels, thanks to the patience and helpfulness of Neuberg. He makes in every letter frightful _misereres_ over his sleeping accommodations; but he cannot conceal that he is really pretty well.” The writer’s own _misereres_ are as doleful and nearly as frequent; but she was really in much worse health. From Töplitz the companions proceeded in weary stellwagens to Zittau in Lusatia, and so on to

Herrnhut, the primitive city of the Moravian brethren: a place not bigger than Annan, but beautiful, pure, and quiet beyond any town on the earth, I daresay; and, indeed, more like a saintly dream of ideal Calvinism made real than a town of stone and lime.

Onward by “dreary moory Frankfurt” on the Oder, whence they reconnoitred “the field of Kunersdorf, a scraggy village where Fritz received his worst defeat,” they reached the Prussian capital on the last evening of the month. From the British Hotel, Unter den Linden, we have, October 1st:–

I am dead stupid; my heart nearly choked out of me, and my head churned to pieces…. Berlin is loud almost as London, but in no other way great … about the size of Liverpool, and more like Glasgow.

They spent a week there (sight-seeing being made easier by an introduction from Lady Ashburton to the Ambassador), discovering at length an excellent portrait of Fritz, meeting Tieck, Cornelius, Rauch, Preuss, etc., and then got quickly back to London by way of Hanover, Cologne, and Ostend. Carlyle’s travels are always interesting, and would be more so without the tiresome, because ever the same, complaints. Six years later (1858) he made his second expedition to Germany, in the company of two friends, a Mr. Foxton–who is made a butt–and the faithful Neuberg. Of this journey, undertaken with a more exclusively business purpose, and accomplished with greater dispatch, there are fewer notes, the substance of which may be here anticipated. He sailed (August 21st) from Leith to Hamburg, admiring the lower Elbe, and then went out of his way to accept a pressing invitation from the Baron Usedom and his wife to the Isle of Rügen, sometimes called the German Isle of Wight. He went there by Stralsund, liked his hosts and their pleasant place, where for cocks crowing he had doves cooing; but in Putbus, the Richmond of the island, he had to encounter brood sows as well as cochin-chinas. From Rügen he went quickly south by Stettin to Berlin, then to Cüstrin to survey the field of Zorndorf, with what memorable result readers of _Friedrich_ know. His next halt was at Liegnitz, headquarters for exploring the grounds of “Leuthen, the grandest of all the battles,” and Molwitz–first of Fritz’s fights–of which we hear so much in the _Reminiscences_. His course lay on to Breslau, “a queer old city as ever you heard of, high as Edinburgh or more so,” and, by Landshut, through the picturesque villages of the Riesen-Gebirge into Bohemia. There he first put up at Pardubitz in a vile, big inn, for bed a “trough eighteen inches too short, a mattress forced into it which cocked up at both ends”–such as most travellers in remoter Germany at that period have experienced. Carlyle was unfavourably impressed by the Bohemians; and “not one in a hundred of them could understand a word of German. They are liars, thieves, slatterns, a kind of miserable, subter-Irish people,–Irish with the addition of ill-nature.” He and his friends visited the fields of Chotusitz and Kolin, where they found the “Golden Sun,” from which “the last of the Kings” had surveyed the ground, “sunk to be the dirtiest house probably in Europe.” Thence he made for Prague, whose picturesque grandeur he could not help extolling. “Here,” he writes, enclosing the flower to his wife, “is an authentic wild pink plucked from the battle-field. Give it to some young lady who practises ‘the Battle of Prague’ on her piano to your satisfaction.” On September 15th he dates from Dresden, whence he spent a laborious day over Torgau. Thereafter they sped on, with the usual tribulations, by Hochkirk, Leipzig, Weissenfels, and Rossbach. Hurrying homeward, they were obliged to decline another invitation from the Duchess at Weimar; and, making for Guntershausen, performed the fatiguing journey from there to Aix-la-Chapelle in one day, _i.e._ travelling often in slow trains from 4 A.M. to 7 P.M., a foolish feat even for the eupeptic. Carlyle visited the cathedral, but has left a very poor account of the impression produced on him by the simple slab sufficiently inscribed, “Carolo Magno.” “Next morning stand upon the lid of Charlemagne, abominable monks roaring out their idolatrous grand music within sight.” By Ostend and Dover he reached home on the 22nd. A Yankee scamper trip, one might say, but for the result testifying to the enormous energy of the traveller. “He speaks lightly,” says Mr. Froude, “of having seen Kolin, Torgau, etc. etc. No one would guess from reading these short notices that he had mastered the details of every field he visited; not a turn of the ground, not a brook, not a wood … had escaped him…. There are no mistakes. Military students in Germany are set to learn Frederick’s battles in Carlyle’s account of them.”

During the interval between those tours there are few events of interest in Carlyle’s outer, or phases of his inner life which have not been already noted. The year 1854 found the country ablaze with the excitement of the Crimean War, with which he had as little sympathy as had Cobden or Bright or the members of Sturge’s deputation. He had no share in the popular enthusiasm for what he regarded as a mere newspaper folly. All his political leaning was on the side of Russia, which, from a safe distance, having no direct acquaintance with the country, he always admired as a seat of strong government, the representative of wise control over barbarous races. Among the worst of these he reckoned the Turk, “a lazy, ugly, sensual, dark fanatic, whom we have now had for 400 years. I would not buy the continuance of him in Europe at the rate of sixpence a century.” Carlyle had no more faith in the “Balance of power” than had Byron, who scoffed at it from another, the Republican, side as “balancing straws on kings’ noses instead of wringing them off,” _e.g._–

As to Russian increase of strength, he writes, I would wait till Russia meddled with me before I drew sword to stop his increase of strength. It is the idle population of editors, etc., that has done all this in England. One perceives clearly that ministers go forward in it against their will.

Even our heroisms at Alma–“a terrible, almost horrible, operation”–Balaclava, and Inkermann, failed to raise a glow in his mind, though he admitted the force of Tennyson’s ringing lines. The alliance with the “scandalous copper captain,” elected by the French, as the Jews chose Barabbas,–an alliance at which many patriots winced–was to him only an added disgrace. Carlyle’s comment on the subsequent visit to Osborne of Victor Hugo’s “brigand,” and his reception within the pale of legitimate sovereignty was, “Louis Bonaparte has not been shot hitherto. That is the best that can be said.” Sedan brought most men round to his mind about Napoleon III.: but his approval of the policy of the Czars remains open to the criticism of M. Lanin. In reference to the next great struggle of the age, Carlyle was in full sympathy with the mass of his countrymen. He was as much enraged by the Sepoy rebellion as were those who blew the ringleaders from the muzzles of guns. “Tongue cannot speak,” he exclaims, in the spirit of Noel Paton’s picture, before it was amended or spoilt, “the horrors that were done on the English by these mutinous hyaenas. Allow hyaenas to mutiny and strange things will follow.” He never seems to have revolved the question as to the share of his admired Muscovy in instigating the revolt. For the barbarism of the north he had ready apologies, for the savagery of the south mere execration; and he writes of the Hindoos as he did, both before and afterwards, of the negroes in Jamaica.

Three sympathetic obituary notices of the period expressed his softer side. In April 1854, John Wilson and Lord Cockburn died at Edinburgh. His estimate of the former is notable as that generally entertained, now that the race of those who came under the personal spell of Christopher North has passed:–

We lived apart as in different centuries; though to say the truth I always loved Wilson, he had much nobleness of heart, and many traits of noble genius, but the central tie-beam seemed always wanting; very long ago I perceived in him the most irreconcilable contradictions–Toryism with Sansculottism, Methodism of a sort with total incredulity, etc…. Wilson seemed to me always by far the most gifted of our literary men, either then or still: and yet intrinsically he has written nothing that can endure.

Cockburn is referred to in contrast as “perhaps the last genuinely national type of rustic Scotch sense, sincerity, and humour–a wholesome product of Scotch dialect, with plenty of good logic in it.” Later, Douglas Jerrold is described as “last of the London wits, I hope the last.” Carlyle’s letters during this period are of minor interest: many refer to visits paid to distinguished friends and humble relatives, with the usual complaints about health, servants, and noises. At Farlingay, where he spent some time with Edward FitzGerald, translator of _Omar Khayyam_, the lowing of cows took the place of cocks crowing. Here and there occurs a, criticism or a speculation. That on his dreams is, in the days of “insomnia,” perhaps worth noting (F. iv. 154, 155); _inter alia_ he says:–“I have an impression that one always dreams, but that only in cases where the nerves are disturbed by bad health, which produces light imperfect sleep, do they start into such relief as to force themselves on our waking consciousness.” Among posthumously printed documents of Cheyne Row, to this date belongs the humorous appeal of Mrs. Carlyle for a larger allowance of house money, entitled “Budget of a Femme Incomprise.” The arguments and statement of accounts, worthy of a bank auditor, were so irresistible that Carlyle had no resource but to grant the request, _i.e._ practically to raise the amount to £230, instead of £200 per annum. It has been calculated that his reliable income even at this time did not exceed £400, but the rent of the house was kept very low, £30: he and his wife lived frugally, so that despite the expenses of the noise-proof room and his German tour he could afford in 1857 to put a stop to her travelling in second-class railway carriages; in 1860, when the success of the first instalment of his great work made an end of financial fears, to keep two servants; and in 1863 to give Mrs. Carlyle a brougham. Few men have left on the whole so unimpeachable a record in money matters.

In November 1854 there occurred an incident hitherto unrecorded in any biography. The Lord Rectorship of the University of Glasgow having fallen vacant, the “Conservative Club” of the year had put forward Mr. Disraeli as successor to the honorary office. A small body of Mr. Carlyle’s admirers among the senior students on the other side nominated him, partly as a tribute of respect and gratitude, partly in opposition to a statesman whom they then distrusted. The nomination was, after much debate, adopted by the so-called “Liberal Association” of that day; and, with a curious irony, the author of the _Latter-Day Pamphlets_ and _Friedrich II._ was pitted, as a Radical, against the future promoter of the Franchise of 1867 as a Tory. It soon appeared that his supporters had underestimated the extent to which Mr. Carlyle had offended Scotch theological prejudice and outraged the current Philanthropy. His name received some sixty adherents, and had ultimately to be withdrawn. The nomination was received by the Press, and other exponents of popular opinion, with denunciations that came loudest and longest from the leaders of orthodox Dissent, then arrogating to themselves the profession of Liberalism and the initiation of Reform. Among the current expressions in reference to his social and religious creeds were the following:–

Carlyle’s philanthropy is not that of Howard, his cure for national distress is to bury our paupers in peat bogs, driving wooden boards on the top of them. His entire works may be described as reiterating the doctrine that “whatever is is wrong.” He has thrown off every form of religious belief and settled down into the conviction that the Christian profession of Englishmen is a sham…. Elect him and you bid God-speed to Pantheism and spiritualism.

[Footnote: Mr. Wylie states that “twice before his election by his own University he (Carlyle) had been invited to allow himself to be nominated for the office of Lord Rector, once by students in the University of Glasgow and once by those of Aberdeen: but both of these invitations he had declined.” This as regards Glasgow is incorrect.]

Mr. Carlyle neither possesses the talent nor the distinction, nor does he occupy the position which entitle a man to such an honour as the Rectorial Chair. The _Scotch Guardian_ writes: But for the folly exhibited in bringing forward Mr. Disraeli, scarcely any party within the College or out of it would have ventured to nominate a still more obnoxious personage. This is the first instance we have been able to discover in which the suffrages of the youth of the University have been sought for a candidate who denied in his writings that the revealed Word of God is “the way, the truth, the life.” It is impossible to separate Mr. Carlyle from that obtrusive feature of his works in which the solemn verities of our holy religion are sneered at as wornout “biblicalities,” “unbelievabilities,” and religious profession is denounced as “dead putrescent cant.” The reader of the _Life of Sterling_ is not left to doubt for a moment the author’s malignant hostility to the religion of the Bible. In that work, saving faith is described as “stealing into heaven by the modern method of sticking ostrich-like your head into fallacies on earth,” that is to say, by believing in the doctrines of the Gospels. How, after this, could the Principal and Professors of the University, the guardians of the faiths and morals of its inexperienced youth, accompany to the Common Hall, and allow to address the students a man who has degraded his powers to the life-labour of sapping and mining the foundations of the truth, and opened the fire of his fiendish raillery against the citadel of our best aspirations and dearest hopes?

In the result, two men of genius–however diverse–were discarded, and a Scotch nobleman of conspicuous talent, always an active, if not intrusive, champion of orthodoxy, was returned by an “overwhelming majority.” In answer to intelligence transmitted to Mr. Carlyle of these events, the president of the Association of his supporters–who had nothing on which to congratulate themselves save that only the benches of the rooms in which they held their meetings had been riotously broken,–received the following previously unpublished letter:–

Chelsea, _16th December_ 1854.

DEAR SIR–I have received your Pamphlet; and return many thanks for all your kindness to me. I am sorry to learn, as I do for the first time from this narrative, what angry nonsense some of my countrymen see good to write of me. Not being much a reader of Newspapers, I had hardly heard of the Election till after it was finished; and I did not know that anything of this melancholy element of Heterodoxy, “Pantheism,” etc. etc., had been introduced into the matter. It is an evil, after its sort, this of being hated and denounced by fools and ignorant persons; but it cannot be mended for the present, and so must be left standing there.

That another wiser class think differently, nay, that they alone have any real knowledge of the question, or any real right to vote upon it, is surely an abundant compensation. If that be so, then all is still right; and probably there is no harm done at all!–To you, and the other young gentlemen who have gone with you on this occasion, I can only say that I feel you have loyally meant to do me a great honour and kindness; that I am deeply sensible of your genial recognition, of your noble enthusiasm (which reminds me of my own young years); and that in fine there is no loss or gain of an Election which can in the least alter these valuable facts, or which is not wholly insignificant to me, in comparison with them. “Elections” are not a thing transacted by the gods, in general; and I have known very unbeautiful creatures “elected” to be kings, chief-priests, railway kings, etc., by the “most sweet voices,” and the spiritual virtue that inspires these, in our time!

Leaving all that, I will beg you all to retain your honourable good feelings towards me; and to think that if anything I have done or written can help any one of you in the noble problem of living like a wise man in these evil and foolish times, it will be more valuable to me than never so many Elections or Non-elections. With many good wishes and regards I heartily thank you all, and remain–Yours very sincerely,

T. CARLYLE.

[Footnote: For the elucidation of some points of contact between Carlyle and Lord Beaconsfield, _vide_ Mr. Froude’s _Life_ of the latter.]

Carlyle’s letters to strangers are always valuable, for they are terse and reticent. In writing to weavers, like Bamford; to men in trouble, as Cooper; to students, statesmen, or earnest inquirers of whatever degree, a genuine sympathy for them takes the place of the sympathy for himself, often too prominent in the copious effusions to his intimates. The letter above quoted is of special interest, as belonging to a time from which comparatively few survive; when he was fairly under weigh with a task which seemed to grow in magnitude under his gaze. The _Life of Friedrich_ could not be a succession of dramatic scenes, like the _French Revolution_, nor a biography like _Cromwell_, illustrated by the surrounding events of thirty years. Carlyle found, to his dismay, that he had involved himself in writing the History of Germany, and in a measure of Europe, during the eighteenth century, a period perhaps the most tangled and difficult to deal with of any in the world’s annals. He was like a man who, with intent to dig up a pine, found himself tugging at the roots of an Igdrasil that twined themselves under a whole Hercynian forest. His constant cries of positive pain in the progress of the work are distressing, as his indomitable determination to wrestle with and prevail over it is inspiring. There is no imaginable image that he does not press into his service in rattling the chains of his voluntary servitude. Above all, he groans over the unwieldy mass of his authorities–“anti-solar systems of chaff.”

“I read old German books dull as stupidity itself–nay superannuated stupidity–gain with labour the dreariest glimpses of unimportant extinct human beings … but when I begin operating: _how_ to reduce that widespread black desert of Brandenburg sand to a small human garden! … I have no capacity of grasping the big chaos that lies around me, and reducing it to order. Order! Reducing! It is like compelling the grave to give up its dead!”

Elsewhere he compares his travail with the monster of his own creation to “Balder’s ride to the death kingdoms, through frozen rain, sound of subterranean torrents, leaden-coloured air”; and in the retrospect of the _Reminiscences_ touchingly refers to his thirteen years of rarely relieved isolation. “A desperate dead-lift pull all that time; my whole strength devoted to it … withdrawn from all the world.” He received few visitors and had few correspondents, but kept his life vigorous by riding on his horse Fritz (the gift of the Marshalls), “during that book, some 30,000 miles, much of it, all the winter part of it, under cloud of night, sun just setting when I mounted. All the rest of the day I sat, silent, aloft, insisting upon work, and such work, _invitissimâ Minervâ_, for that matter.” Mrs. Carlyle had her usual share of the sufferings involved in “the awful _Friedrich_.” “That tremendous book,” she writes, “made prolonged and entire devastation of any satisfactory semblance of home life or home happiness.” But when at last, by help of Neuberg and of Mr. Larkin, who made the maps of the whole book, the first two volumes were in type (they appeared in autumn 1858), his wife hailed them in a letter sent from Edinburgh to Chelsea: “Oh, my dear, what a magnificent book this is going to be, the best of all your books, forcible, clear, and sparkling as the _French Revolution_; compact and finished as _Cromwell_. Yes, you shall see that it will be the best of all your books, and small thanks to it, it has taken a doing.” On which the author naively purrs: “It would be worth while to write books, if mankind would read them as you.” Later he speaks of his wife’s recognition and that of Emerson–who wrote enthusiastically of the art of the work, though much of it was across his grain–as “the only bit of human criticism in which he could discern lineaments of the thing.” But the book was a swift success, two editions of 2000 and another of 1000 copies being sold in a comparatively brief space. Carlyle’s references to this–after his return from another visit to the north and the second trip to Germany–seen somewhat ungracious:–

Book … much babbled over in newspapers … no better to me than the barking of dogs … officious people put reviews into my hands, and in an idle hour I glanced partly into these; but it would have been better not, so sordidly ignorant and impertinent were they, though generally laudatory.

[Footnote: Carlyle himself writes: “I felt well enough how it was crushing down her existence, as it was crushing down my own; and the thought that she had not been at the choosing of it, and yet must suffer so for it, was occasionally bitter to me. But the practical conclusion always was, Get done with it, get done with it! For the saving of us both that is the one outlook. And sure enough, I did stand by that dismal task with all my time and all my means; day and night wrestling with it, as with the ugliest dragon, which blotted out the daylight and the rest of the world to me till I should get it slain.”]

But these notices recall the fact familiar to every writer, that while the assailants of a book sometimes read it, favourable reviewers hardly ever do; these latter save their time by payment of generally superficial praise, and a few random quotations.

Carlyle scarcely enjoyed his brief respite on being discharged of the first instalment of his book: the remainder lay upon him like a menacing nightmare; he never ceased to feel that the work must be completed ere he could be free, and that to accomplish this he must be alone. Never absent from his wife without regrets, lamentations, contrite messages, and childlike entreaties for her to “come and protect him,” when she came

Thomas Carlyle by John Nichol (page 2)