New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-11-04
MR. FROEDE,S DEFENCE.

Il. >
against him by Mr.. Norton in relation to the
editing of Carlyo's autobiography and letters
can hardly appear other than inadequate to
all who bear in mind the nature and extent
of the accusations, and the evidence in support
of them. Mr.. Norton alleged, and proved, that
Mr.. Froude had garbed Carlye's statements
in q most extraordinary manner; that he had
even gone so far as to make omissions and
alterations the effect Of which was to change
the meaning and bearing of Carlyle's languagel;
that he had so misread the manuscript in lis
hands az to convert innocent and even
laudatory remarks into carping and injurious
ones that he had deliberately disregarded
express written prohibitions by Carlyle, and
had published things which he was forbidden
to publish and that the ultimate effect of this
peculiar editing had been to convey to the
world far more unfavorable opinion of the
dead author than the facts warranted. AS
these charges were not made haphazard, but
were backed in every instance by evidence
which seemed incontIoyertible, it is obvious
that they could hot be met by a mere general
denial.
Mr.. Froude perhaps intends to reply to them
in detail at some future time, but it must be
is sngularly lacking in all the elements Of
valid justification. He says that Carlyle's
writing was very hard to decipher, and that he
had to use magnifer in reading it. Judging
from his success in getting at Carlyles actual
meaning, perhaps it would have been better
had he MT employed the magni6er, for the
latter appears to have exaggerated the authors
defects of charart ter instead of calculating his
chirography. Then Mr. FrOude says he used
his best Judgment in determining what should
and should not be printed. This statement,
however, is In no way calculated to alter the
impression the public are likely to derive from
Mr.. Norton's charges, namely, that the judg-
ment of the historian Is lamentably bad even
at its pest. For what is most remarkable in
the editing OF Carlyle's autobiography is the
fact that though Ostensibly the work of the
dead mans nearest friend, it produces Just the
effect which his most implacable enemy would
have most desired. Mr. Froude goes on TO
complain that Carlyle's niece did not call his
attention to his mistakes before it was too late.
and very irrelev antly, if not maliciously, an
nounces that he made her a gift of the profits
of the books sale.
Of course it is evident that Carlyle's niece
cuU0OI 10 iHhuo party 10 LLe COD
troversy. Mr.. Froude was Carlyle's literary
and no one shared the responsibility
with him. But he says one other thing which
has curious SAVIOR of the spirit which seemed
10 inspire his editorial work. 1t is to the effect
that his chief desire was to present Carlyle to
The world as he really was. Now this is liable
10 be interpreted as claim that the Froudean
lew of Carlyle is after all truer one than that
in which Carlye's ungarbled autobiography
xould have placed him and more remark
,ble assertion is seldom encountered than that.
It may be that the Sage of Chelsea seemed a
very disagreeable person to Mr.. Froude. If
he latter in all sincerity sought to reproduce
his personal Impressions of his friend by his
peculiar methods of editing the remains, such
! conclusion cannot be avoided. But the awk-
VI ard facts that such editing is unwari antabie.
hat it il open to the charge of treason to
and that it Ia impossible to regard
I as proof of amIty. no matter how It DO
iewsd. cannot be got rid Of by the so-caled
APPLICATIONS which Mr.. Froude now offers. All
hat he says, indeed, only tends to strengthen |