of figure, but dashing off the general likeness with bold compre hensive strokes.-See his description of George's two mistresses (p. 153), and Mentzel (p. 150). His description of Leibnitz is also good as regards the externals, though perhaps it would bear filling out in other respects: "Sage Leibnitz, a rather weak, but hugely ingenious old gentleman, with bright eyes and long nose, with vast black peruke and bandy legs." These are but slender specimens of his art, probably far from being the best that could be produced; but the reader will have no difficulty in finding others; he describes every person that crosses his pages. As a rule, he is satisfied with a few suggestive strokes; but occasionally he fills in the picture. When he does so, he gives the general view first, and then tells of particular after particular, deliberately, and with some similitude or collateral circumstance to fix each particular distinctly in the mind. His description of Friedrich in the two first pages of his history, is one of his most finished delineations. He carries the same art of clear broad touches into his description of character. He is not perverted by likes or dislikes from trying to give the broad outlines truly; as a rule, he looks at a character only with the eye of an artist: and as a rule, his vigorous portraiture of the general temperament is true to nature. example or two will show how he always aims at comprehensive general views. We take them at random : An "This Jocelin, as we can discern well, was an ingenious and ingenuous, a cheery-hearted, innocent, yet withal shrewd noticing quick-witted man; and from under his monk's cowl has looked out on that narrow section of the world in a really human manner; not in any simial, canine, ovine, or otherwise inhuman manner," &c. "The eupeptic, right-thinking nature of the man; his sanguineous temper, with its vivacity and sociality, an ever-busy ingenuity, rather small perhaps, but prompt, hopeful, useful, always with a good dash, too, of Scotch shrewd ness, Scotch canniness; and then a loquacity, free, fervid, yet judicious, canny,-in a word, natural vehemence, wholesomely covered over and tem pered (as Sancho has it) in 'three inches of old Christian fat '-all these fitted Baillie to be a leader in General Assemblies," &c. In these short dashing portraitures, perhaps the only thing worth objecting to is a certain want of order. It is when we come to the minute detail of character that we become conscious of a weakness in the scientific foundations. Carlyle's failure should warn all of the danger of despising psychological analysis, and at the same time producing an analysis made out by common-sense with the assistance of capricious fancy. De Quincey had too clear an insight to fall into such a blunder; he had no hope even of criticism, unless it was to be based on accurate psychology. Contempt for psychology usually implies bad psychology; contempt for analysis, bad analysis. Emphatically is it so with Carlyle. Avowing a contempt for analysis, he rushes with analytic assertions into regions where the ablest analyst treads with caution, and commits blunders that the poorest analyst would be ashamed of. We had occasion to note (p. 141) his view about the association of intellect with moral worth, and of a sense of the ridiculous with moral worth. Take this other statement of his favourite doctrine : "The thinking and the moral nature, distinguished by the necessities of speech, have no such distinction in themselves; but rightly examined, exhibit in every case the strictest sympathy and correspondence; are, indeed, but different phases of the same indissoluble unity-a living mind." Now, here the division into thinking nature and moral nature is an analysis, just as the division into intellect and worth and a faculty of laughter is an analysis. These are distinguished, he says, by the necessities of speech; but does he suppose that the psychologist makes any other than a verbal distinction ? The difference is this: the scientific analyst distinguishes with care, common speech distinguishes without care. To prefer the common-speech analysis to the scientific, is to prefer unskilled labour to skilled labour; amateur analysis is not likely to be much more valuable than amateur shoemaking. Persuasion. Carlyle's way of making converts is, as we have seen, the way of the declaiming prophet, not of the supple plausible debater, or of the solid logician. He appeals almost exclusively to the feelings, not to the reason; and issues his lamentations and denunciations, his Jeremiads and Isaiads, without the slightest attempt to conciliate opponents. His oratory is employed partly on political, partly on moral subjects. His political influence has been insignificant, smaller perhaps than has been exercised by any political adviser of moderate ability; his moral influence has been considerable. What chiefly cripples his influence, is the arrogant tone of his assertions, his total disregard for the feelings and cherished opinions of those addressed. A prophet after this strain can win over at first only the few accidentally predisposed to agree with him. With these few all his grandeur and copiousness is overwhelming; they become at once his intense admirers and adherents. For bringing over such as are not prepared to jump to his conclusions, he exerts little influence, except the intrinsic attractions of his style. A reader is disposed to view with favour opinions clothed in a vesture so brilliant: in admiring the fresh original diction, the gorgeous figures, the soaring declamations, the vivid powers of description and narration, one is in danger of being made captive to the doctrines. With those that do not admire the style, whose teeth are set on edge by the outrages on propriety of expression, the prophet's force tells the other way. To many, also, his vituperative eloquence, in spite of its undercurrent of geniality, is offensive. With readers so disposed he is far from gaining ground; every fresh effusion widens the breach. One of the most amiable features in his preaching is the consoling of the humble worker under difficulties. He has many ingenious turns of thought and expression for coining good out of evil, and beguiling the miserable out of their distresses. He comforts the feeble by assuring them with his utmost grandeur of language that in the end right becomes might; that justice, however loug delayed, will at length visit the oppressor. He contends with Plato that the victim of wrong suffers less than the wrong-doer; and talks of "only suffering inhumanity not being it or doing it." If a man has genius, "he is admitted into the West-End of the Universe." "Man's unhappiness comes of his greatness." Had we "half a universe," "there would still be a dark spot in our sunshine." He sets the performance of Duty high above every other consideration. He often declaims against conventional standards of respectability; and cheers the poverty-stricken with such "wine and oil" as the following: "And now what is thy property? That parchment title deed, that purse thou buttonest in thy breeches-pocket? Is that thy valuable property? Unhappy brother, most poor insolvent brother, I without, parchment at all, with purse oftenest in the flaccid state, imponderous, which will not fling against the wind, have quite other property than that! I have the mirac ulous breath of Life in me, breathed into my nostrils by Almighty God.” |