Litchfield enquirer., 1849-04-12
+. B. AIacauIay and Thomas Carlyle.

he De maC1ufAy anu lugWaS CaEtyhOe
Macaulay's sense Of beauty is keen, but
not deep; his enthusiasm has no central
fire his convictions want depth, and, as
consequence, his eloquence, with all its
apparent earncstness, wants force. The
surface of bis mind is large and active;
but its regions below remain untroubled.
The consequence is, that he has no infiu-
ence on his age. lie hatters the indo-
/ lence of his readers; he does not stimu-
late their minds. He delights, he does
not inspire. In reading him. we do not
feel that his soul is speaking from its
depths to the depths of ours. Compare
him with Carlyle. Two more opposite
men cannot be named in the same breath.
Macaulay, clear. definite. elegant, metho-
dical; crowding his pages with antithe-
ses and illustrations more solicitous a.
bout the fall of a period than about the
accuracy of his assertion; grouping de-
tails into picture; fond of paradox, yet
never probing beneath the surface; ex-
pert, in polemics, yet seldom fighting for
great truths; captivating by the grace,
and dazzling BY the gorgeousness Of his
diction, and leaving upon the readers
mind no more durable impression than
that which a splendid spectacle leaves
upon the mind of theatrical audience.
Cariyle,--rugged, mystical, abrupt, i'm
methodical, unmusical, vehement, scorn-
full, sarcastic, sardonic, and humorous
rich also in pictures Unfortunately fond
of paradox, but profoundly serious stri-
wing at all times to see into the depths of
things; disdainful Of ordinary rules of
composition, disdainful of all elegancies,
graces, and shams of life and of literature;
forever appealing to the soul Of man, and
bidding him remember that he is in the
presence of the Infinite sternly recalling
those awful facts of life which frivolity
endeavors to gloss over fercely preach
ing the imperative nature of duty and Of
earnestness speaking in prophet tones
to needless generation; mingling the
quaintest imagery and widest buffoonery
with the saddest pathos and the dreari-
est gloom; a sceptic, yet a prophet; a.
midst alternate laughter and alternate
tears, alternate exhortation and alternate
contempt; he does not dazzle, he pro-
vokes ; he does not captivate, he inspires;
and the impression he leaves upon the
mind is various and abiding, as that left
by a tragedy Of Shakespeare. AS speci
mems of literature, in the limited sense of
the word, Macaulay's writings are i'm
measurably superior; but if literature
be something more than the amusement
of cultivated intellects, something more
than an intellectual luxury, for the dissi-
patton of leisure hours, Carlyle's supeii-
osity is unmisiakable. Macaulay has de-
lighted thousands. This is no slight
thing, and we should be the last to un-
dervalue it. But he has materially bet
te,ed no one. He has deepened no mans
convictions, he has given fresh strength
to no human soul. His influence on his |
generation has been null. Carlyle, tho
scorned by many for his offences against
literary taste, and though dreaded by
others for his reckless treatment of great
questions, has, nevertheless, produced a
visible influence on the minds of his con-
temporaries he has given direction to
their thoughts, and has suggested so
much thought that he is rightfully re-
garded as teacher. This fact there is
no gainsaying. Think what we may Of
the influence, be it evil or be it good, it is
there. We could name more than one
distinguished ornament of the church,
whose rise has been rendered impossible
because of the Carlyle "taint." We,-i
that is, the present writer--feel called |
upon here distinctly to declare, that with
scarcely any living author have we less
agreement than with Carlyle; yet we
are, nevertheless, sensible of great ben
eft derived from his writings. There is
an indirect teaching not less valuable |
than the direct teaching. No serious |
thinker writes in vain. Carlyle has his |
affectations, his shams; but he has his
realities. Had he not lived, some of the |
most active minds of our generation |
would have been different; they would |
assurcdly have been as active, it may be
wiser, but certainly different. Now, it is
impossible, we think, to say that any hu- |
man being would have been otherwise had
Macaulay never written. Some few
might have written less picturesquely
and less elegantly, but no human soul
would have been poorer.-Ihe British
Quarterly for February.
"