In 1865 he was elected Lord Rector by the students of Edinburgh University. This office is unlike anything that we have in this country, and is purely honorary, the only duty in connection with it being the delivery of an “Installation address." His address on the "Reading of Books," was "a perfect triumph," and may fairly be said to mark the culmination of his career.

In the midst of this success in the north came the news of Mrs. Carlyle's sudden death in London. It was a terrible blow to the old man, already weakened by age, for, in spite of his complaining and his absorption in his work, he was devotedly attached to his wife, and wonderfully dependent on her. Not until she had gone from him did he realize how much unhappiness and suffering he had caused her. "Oh!" he cried, "if I could but see her once more, were it but for five minutes, to let her know that I always loved her through all that! She never did know it, never!"

During the remaining fifteen years of his life, he wrote and published nothing of importance. He died at Chelsea, February 5, 1881. The honor of burial in Westminster Abbey was offered, but Carlyle had foreseen the possibility of this, and had decided before his death that it should not be. In accordance with his wish he was buried near his father and mother in the old kirkyard at Ecclefechan.

Carlyle appointed his intimate friend, James Anthony Froude, the historian, his literary executor, giving him full discretion as to the making public of his and his wife's letters, journals, and private papers. Froude has been bitterly condemned for the freedom and fulness with which ne has revealed the inmost details of the life at Craigenputtock and at Chelsea. Probably it would have been wiser, certainly it would have shown a tenderer regard for the memory of his friend, if he had withheld much that he

has given to the public. But, on the other hand, he has given us most ample material for the study of the character of one of the most remarkable men of recent times.

Carlyle was a strange man, with much in him that we are forced to condemn, but a man whom, with all his faults, we cannot help admiring. For forty years his life was one unceasing struggle against adverse circumstances. The persistent application to work and the privations of his early years brought on the dyspepsia which tormented him until his death, and which undoubtedly was the cause of much of his irritability and complaining. Harder still to bear was the lack of recognition and of appreciation of his work. Had he been willing to cater to others' ideas, had he been willing to shape his writing to conform to popular opinion, he undoubtedly could, with his ability, have greatly eased the pecuniary strain, and earlier have won popular applause. But in spite of the obstacles, and in the face of the temptations, he never wavered in his aim, but held true to his course in spite of all. He had a mission in life, a message to deliver, and this mission he proposed to fulfil, this message to proclaim, come what might.

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of the man was his love of Truth, and his hatred of insincerity and sham. Truth was to him a passion. In his writing he spared neither toil nor pains to secure the facts. His mission was to proclaim Truth, and nothing must stand in the way of that. Everything savoring of hypocrisy he hated with the veriest hatred, and the exposure of a sham roused all the powers of his nature. Whatever he felt, he felt deeply, and to whatever he undertook he gave all his energy.

But

It is this sincerity, this intensity, this rugged strength, keeping on in spite of obstacles, that appeals to us. with this strength there was a compensating inconsistency and weakness. Manful in enduring great ills, he was chafed and irritated by the little trials of life. The man

who could make his first thought the sparing of the feelings of a friend through whose carelessness the manuscript of the entire first volume of the "French Revolution" had been destroyed, and who could, with scarcely a murmur, take up the enormous work of rewriting it from the beginning, flew into a rage if his dinner were not properly cooked, and was inconsolable if a neighboring cock disturbed his night's rest. He did not always practise what he preached. He urged the duty of reticence, and yet no man was more outspoken about his personal troubles than he. It has been wittily said that he "preached the doctrine of Silence in thirty volumes.' His sense of proportion was lacking. He fulminated as strongly against a small thing as against a great, and he was prone to exaggerate whatever was before him at the time. An earnest seeker after truth, when once he had formed an idea, he saw no other side to the question.

In his personality, too, there was the same inconsistency. His appearance was striking and impressive, but at the same time uncouth. He had a most marvellous command of language, but he retained to the last his broad Annandale accent. His conversational powers were great, but his conversation was mostly monologue. He had great charm and power of fascination, but his lack of tact often caused him to repel.

Such was Carlyle, a remarkable combination of strength and weakness, but with the strength predominating; a man to admire, rather than to love; a man of many faults and inconsistencies; whose judgment was not always sound; but of such sterling integrity, of such absolute honesty, so noble in purpose, so lofty in aim, and so persistent in his devotion to that aim, as to compel our respect, and even

our reverence.

II. CARLYLE'S WRITINGS AND INFLUENCE.

His

Carlyle is not an author who appeals to all minds. individuality is too pronounced for that. While to some he is a source of genuine delight and inspiration, others are unable to look beyond his eccentricities and contradictions. Nor is it necessarily a mark of defective literary taste that one is unable to enjoy him. Everyone, however, whether he enjoys Carlyle or not, can appreciate the rugged strength and honest vigor of the man, and every one who calls himself well-read should have some knowledge at first-hand of a writer who has exerted so profound an influence on the thought of the present day, and who has helped and inspired so many thinking men and women. If a young student desires to become acquainted with Carlyle, he can hardly do better than to begin with the "Essay on Burns." This might be followed by one or two of the other essays -say those on "History," History," and "Scott," or on Boswell's "Life of Johnson." Having now some acquaintance with his earlier and simpler style, and some understanding of his purpose and method of working, the student should be able to read "Heroes and Hero Worship" with enjoyment and appreciation. Next would come his two great works Sartor Resartus " and the "French Revolution. Some students would enjoy these latter works, even before they had read the others, but it is an unquestioned fact that many who find "Sartor Resartus" very hard reading, and comparatively unintelligible, would find the same book extremely enjoyable, if before attempting it they had some acquaintance with Carlyle's style and way of thinking. That labor is not wasted that leads one to the more complete enjoyment and appreciation of a great writer.

66

Carlyle's writings may, perhaps, roughly be divided into three classes-critical, historical, and ethical. This divi

sion is not strictly logical, and serious exception might be taken to the term "ethical"—all of his writings were ethical-but the arrangement is convenient and will answer our purpose.

Carlyle's critical writings consist mainly of the articles written for the Reviews in his early years, and later reprinted in the first three volumes of his "Miscellanies." By general consent that on Burns is reckoned as the best of these. Others that are notable are those on Scott, Johnson, Voltaire, Diderot, Schiller, and that on German literature. These essays began a reaction from the "slashing" style of criticism then fashionable in Great Britain. Carlyle's aim was not to write a brilliant article, not to extol one man to the skies and to crush another to the earth, not simply to estimate, to praise or to blame, but to “interpret "the author to his readers, and to lead them to a true appreciation of his spirit and his worth. His great power in this line lay in his ability to go right to the heart of a subject, and to distinguish those qualities that give lasting worth to a work from those that win merely temporary applause through conformity to the fashion of the time. The weakness of his critical work lay in his placing too great stress on the moral quality of a man's work, and not appreciating fully its æsthetic and artistic value. This is well illustrated in the "Essay on Burns," by his judgment of Keats (paragraph 21).

Carlyle's fame as a writer of history rests on three works that have already been mentioned, the " History of the French Revolution," "Life and Letters of Oliver Cromwell," and the "History of Frederick II., com.. monly called The Great." The "French Revolution "" is generally regarded as his greatest work, although many claim this distinction for Sartor Resartus; and there are those who rank "Frederick the Great" above either. Carlyle's histories are unlike any others that have ever

66