The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1914-08-06
WAS TOM CARLYLE
A GRAMMARIAN?
An Inmate Asks for the Opinion
Of Knowing Ones Here Con-
fined, and Cites Many In
stances to Prove His Belief
that He was.
By J. r.

By. r.
Was Thomas Carlyle the greatest
master of the English language Gas
have heard eminent literati con-
tend), or was he one of those occa-
slonal transcendent geniuses who,
somehow, manage to give express
sion to their great thoughts without
having any thorough knowledge of
language or grammar, as many
grammarians claim? By chance, /
overheard discussion of this ques-
ton one recent holiday. and as l
have been somewhat of student of
Carlyle's work, it interested me
very much. Why not make the
discussion general, l thought, for
surely some of the Mirrors brilliant
contributors must have some very
interesting ideas on the subject;
ideas which must prove to be in
forming to those of us who want to
know. you know.
Nil Desperandum and Sherlock,
Englishmen bred and born; Marco
Polo, student of world literature;
Pendennls, Celt as was Carlyle,
though from different branch of
the family; and Vox Populi, the ju-
dicious critic; what light nave these
men to throw on the subject? May
we not have the stimulation of their
ideas?
Many grammarians laugh at Car
lyle's diction, in particular, while
admitting It's effectiveness in gen.
eral-as who must not? They term
it "Carlylese," as distinguished from
English, and make satyric remarks
about "Carlylitis." They point
jeeringly at Carlyle's Capitalism"
and with tolerant scorn at his ill.,
verified sentences.
Carlyle a grammarian, master
Of English?" they say, ard then add
(mentally, of course, being too,
too. conservative to give tongue to
so virile phrase.) 1T is to laugh"
On the other hand are those who
maintain that Carlyle's diction is the
purest Anglo-Saxon English. No
chasing after French, Latin, and
Greek root-words for him. If he
had one leaning away from the main
font of English, it was towards the
German, a northern tongue also.
This German trend in Carlyle's die
tiop was strengthened by. if in fact
it did not originate with his &C
quaintance with and profound adj
miration for the genius of Luther
and Goethe, in their two separate
fields.
Carlyle a Historian
Nor was Carlyle's preference for
Anglo-Saxon words prescribed by
necessity, as some of his critics have
claimed. True, Carlyle was not
possessed of a brilliant education.
He was not polished llteratuer. as
was Cooke, or Spencer. But he did
have a profound education, deeply
grounded and we'll balanced, IN the
subjects to which he laid any claims.
And above all else he had the true
historians instinct.
1t was this attribute which led to
that excess of capital letters, which
polished writer's have jeered at. He
had the true insight that enables any
historian to recognize and guage
forces, plus the courage to label
them so that others might recognize
them-nay, must recognize them.
He could see the need of capitaliz-
ing an insurrection Of women, and
he did it. In the same sense, the
historian of present day America
will see the need for capitalizing a
Colorado labor war, though demo-
cratic administration may be passed
by with casual mention.
1t has been claimed. also that Car
lyle's photography and chirOgraphy
were execrable muddles to any save
the initiate. | have never seen any
of his manuscripts. so l can not say
whether or not this is true, but it
probably is. True or not. it is not
avalid criticism. What matters it
if writer uses species of long
short hand in the original transcript
ton of his ideas, leaving the more
mechanical work of preparing the
manuscripts for publication to other
persons better fitted for that line OF
work? Doubtless Carlyle could
have prepared neat and accurate
manuscript if he had considered i,
worth his time.
For my own part, l believe tina,
there have been few writer's who
could use that language so effective.
ly and 50 accurately as could Car.
LYLE. AS student, | parsed and