[STEWART] THOMAS CARLYLE 27 



forgotten, and that those who hate him, no less than those who love 

 him, are unable to escape from the magic of his words. Mr. 

 Courtney himself, while assuring us that Carlyle is out of favour with 

 undergraduates, does not simply record so satisfactory an improve- 

 ment, but has to join the chorus of those who argue at length in what 

 respects Carlyle was wrong. Professor Sherman has a different view, 

 asking us of what use it is to guard ourselves against the malignant 

 influence of Prussian literature when Prussianism is still streaming 

 into our Anglo-Saxon communities through the forty volumes of 

 Carlyle. Thus two of our most recent guides on this matter, while 

 each thinks a particular influence bad, are at complete variance as to 

 how far that influence extends. Mr. Courtney judges it quite negli- 

 gible; to Professor Sherman it is an awful public danger. But both 

 are constrained to write about it, and there is still scarcely a book of 

 the least consequence on political theory which appears without some 

 extensive reference, whether sympathetic or denunciatory, to Thomas 

 Carlyle. One is reminded of a neat remark by Mr. L. T. Hobhouse 

 about the advocates of Tariff Reform, that they like to begin by 

 saying "Free Trade is dead," and yet proceed to revile free trade 

 with a rancour from which the dead are usually exempt. 



Herein lies a coincidence in itself worth noting. As a rule we can 

 quietly disagree about the worth of a famous man, especially when he 

 is long since gone. Although each critic believes his opponent mistaken, 

 he need not say nasty things about "critical incompetence," and may 

 even admit a measure of justice in views which he does not fully 

 share. But Carlyle is being discussed quite otherwise. One seems 

 to believe or disbelieve in his genius, as one accepts or rejects a scien- 

 tific doctrine, refusing compromise, insisting on Tennyson's "clash 

 of Yes and No," deriding or even hating those who take the opposite 

 view with a bitterness almost theological. It is indeed a high tribute 

 to the forcefulness of any writer that he should thus continue to 

 awaken the warmth alike of enthusiasm and of resentment. About 

 most of those whom we criticise there is nothing distinctive enough to 

 raise the white heat of passion either for them or against them. But 

 the violence of this particular debate does more credit to the originality 

 of the man who has been able to provoke it than to the judicial temper 

 of those by whom it has been exhibited. 



In this paper I have tried to commend a more moderate attitude. 

 Froude anticipated thirty years ago that when time should have 

 levelled accidental distinctions, and the chief figures of the nineteenth 

 century should be seen in their true proportions, Carlyle would tower 

 above all his contemporaries, and be the one person among them 



