The San Francisco call., 1895-12-22

Many bitter things have been said about
Carlyle, especially by woman. because of
his alleged treatment of his wife. On this
score l. Zangwiu comes to his defense in
The Chap-Book, saying that it was rather
the wife who was to blame on account of
her too little capacity for passion. And.
says Zangwlu, whatever she had
to suffer from Carlyle's careless tyranny
and gloomy humors, still 1t ought to
have been satisfaction to a woman of
such brilliant parts to live in daily con-
tact with such an intellect. ZangwiIl
suggests that she seems to have found
Carlyle's company stimulating enough be-
fore marriage. Could she not, he queries,
have taken more interest in the books he
was writing, so that instead of silently
perpendlng, he should talk his points over
with her? We quote the following from Mr..
LangwilPs remarks:
The selhshness of Carlyle was not will
tul, even though it be inexcusable. 1t was
blindness; his soul was rapt away from
the real world around him, and lived
amid great men and picturesque mobs.
And it must not be forgotten that the
artist, inasmuch as he lives a double life,
comes under two sets of standards, and it
Is something If he satisnes one. Egoistic
as Carlyle may have been as a man and as a
husband, as an artist he was impeccable.
He Welded neither to the temptation of
gold nor of shoddy work. His energy was
herculean, his labor supremely conscien-
tlouS; his perseverance equaled his
genius. Verify he could toll terri
bly,, this man, who could re-
write The French Revolution after
the first manuscript had been destroyed.
The men of letters and painters and
musicians are not immaculate, the
world knows well enough; but ere it
points the Pharisaic finger of scorn
: let it remember to make the distinc-
ton between the constituencies in
both life and art, and those whose artistic
conscience is at least clear. And let it re-
member that the artistic part of him is to
the artist his own inmost reality, and that,
as was the case with Carlyle, he may in
the service of his art be even un-
conscious of his lapses from common
morality. The prophet was a weak and
sinful creature-perhaps. But he did not
propheSy from the heart OF him. or was he
a charlatan posing for money in the
market-place? That is the question to
be considered in the matter of great
men. Owing to the double nature OF
the artist, four logical possibilities
arise. He may be a good man and a dis
honest artist, or a bad man and an honest
or a good man and an honest artist.
While there can be no question as to the
supreme greatness of the fourth variety or
as to the turpitude of the third, casuists
might wrangle eternaIly over the alterna-
tive of the first two. Should a painter
turn out pot boilers TO support his family,
or should he neglect his domestic duties to
follow his artistic ideals? Is highly re-
spectacle musician, who makes large
royalties on his ballads, better than his
neighbo who combines the unrewarded
creation of the music of the future with
general improperly? In fine, whatever
you may feel about Carlyle's character
pray bear in mind the terrible amount
of morality that went to make
those wonderful books, and which is
stored up in them like force in
nitroglycerin; and if you are an
ordinary humdrum person, who con-
tributes nothing to the world treasury,
it will become you better to say grace than
10 pronounce judgment. And, whatever you
may think OF the rights and wrongs of the
Carlyle household. remember the shrewd
thing that Tennyson said about 1.-THE
shrewdest thing any one has said about
it-that it was a blessing they had married
each other, for otherwise there would have
been four unhappy people instead OF two