THOMAS CARLYLE. 335 



mate resulLs we know not, tlie all-potent play of 

 molecular forces in the animal and vegetable organisms. 

 Without, however, trenching upon these points, which 

 Carlyle saw as in a glass darkly, he would have found 

 in Newton or Boyle an appropriate subject. Had he 

 taken either of them in hand, he would undoubtedly have 

 turned out an impressive figure. Boyle especially 

 would, I imagine, have appealed to his sympathies and 

 love. 



The mistake, not unfrequently made, of supposing 

 Carlyle's mind to be unscientific, may be further 

 glanced at here. The scientific reader of his works 

 mu.<t have noticed the surprising accuracy of the 

 metaphors he derived from Science. Without sound 

 knowledge such uniform exactitude would not have 

 been possible. He laid the svhole body of the sciences 

 under contribution — Astronomy, from the nebular 

 theory onwards ; mathematics, physics, chemistry, geo- 

 logy, natural history — drawing illustrations from all of 

 them, grinding the appropriate parts of each of them 

 into paint for his marvellous pictures. Quite as clearly 

 as the professed physicist he grasped the principle of 

 Continuity, and saw the interdependence of ; parts ' in 

 the ' stupendous Whole.' To him the Universe was not 

 a Mechanism, but an Organism — each part of it thril- 

 ling and responding sympathetically with all other parts. 

 Igdrasil, ' the Tree of Existence,' was his favourite 

 image : — ' Considering how human things circulate 

 each inextricably in communication with all, I find no 

 similitude so true as this of a tree. Beautiful ; alto- 

 gether beautiful, and great. The " Machine of the 

 Universe," — alas, do but think of that in contrast ! ' l 

 Other penetrative minds have made us familiar with the 



1 Heroes and Hero- Worshijj, Library Edition, p. 25. 



