CARLYLE AS A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL THINKER
In his essay on Carlyle, Mr John Morley utters a protest against the
habit of labelling great men with names. After making every allowance
for the waywardness of the men of intuitive and poetic insight, it
remains true that between the speculative and the practical sides of a
great thinker's mind there is a potent, though subtle, connection. For
those who take the trouble of searching, there is discoverable such a
connection between the speculative ideas of Carlyle and his practical
outlook upon civilisation. Given a thinker who lays stress upon the
emotional side of progress, and we have a thinker who will take for
heroes men of mystical tendencies, of strong dominating passions, a
thinker who will value progress not by the increase of worldly comfort,
but by the increase in the number of magnetic, epoch-making
personalities. Naturally, we hear Carlyle remark that the history of the
world is at bottom the history of its great men.
Carlyle's fanatical adoption of intuitionalism has told banefully upon
his work in sociology. Trusting to his inner light, to what we might
call Mystical Quakerism, Carlyle has dispensed with a rational theory of
progress. Before a sociological problem, his attitude is not that of the
patient thinker, but of the hysterical prophet, whose emotions find
outlet in declamatory denunciation. Like the prophets of old, Carlyle
tends towards Pessimism. His golden age is in the past. When _Past and
Present_ appeared, many earnest-minded men, captivated by the style and
spirit of the book, hailed Carlyle as a social reformer. As an attempt
to solve the social problem, _Past and Present_ is not a success.
Carlyle could do no more than tell the modern to return to the spirit of
the feudal period, when the people were led by the aristocracy. It
showed considerable audacity on Carlyle's part to come to the
interpretation of history with no theory of progress, no message to the
world beyond the vaguely declamatory one that those nations will be
turned into hell which forget God. Of what value is such writing as
this, taken from the introduction to his _Cromwell_?:--'Here of our own
land and lineage in English shape were heroes on the earth once more,
who knew in every fibre and with heroic daring laid to heart that an
Almighty Justice does verily rule this world, that it is good to fight
on God's side, and bad to fight on the Devil's side! The essence of all
heroism and veracities that have been or will be.' This is simply a
reproduction of Jewish theocratic ideas; indeed, except for the details,
Carlyle might as readily have written a life of Moses as of Cromwell.
In the eyes of Carlyle, human life was what it was to Bunyan, a kind of
pilgrim's progress; only in the Carlylean creed it is all battle and no
victory, all Valley of Humiliation and no Delectable Mountain.
Naturally, where no stress is laid upon collective action, where
individual reason is depreciated, progress is associated with the rise
of abnormal individualities, men of strong wills like Cromwell and
Frederick. With Rousseau, Carlyle appears to look upon civilisation as a
disease. In one of his essays, _Characteristics_, he goes near the
Roussean idea when he declaims against self-consciousness, and
deliberately gives a preference to instinct. The uses of great men are
to lead humanity away from introspection back to energetic, rude,
instinctive action. When humanity will not listen to the voice of the
prophets, it must be treated to whip and scorpion. It never dawned upon
Carlyle that the highest life, individual and collective, has roots in
physical laws, that politico-economic forces must be reckoned with
before social harmony can be reached.
Just as Carlyle's Idealism drove him into opposition to the utilitarian
theory of morals, so it drove him into opposition to the utilitarian
theory of society. Out of his idealistic way of looking upon life there
flowed a curious result. As early as _Sartor Resartus_ we find Carlyle
anticipating the evolutionary conception of society. Spencer has
familiarised us with the idea that society is an organism. The idea
which he received from the Germans that Nature is not a mere mechanical
collection of atoms, but the materialised expression of a spiritual
unity--that idea Carlyle extended to society. As he puts it in _Sartor
Resartus_: 'Yes, truly, if Nature is one, and a living indivisible
whole, much more is Mankind, the Image that reflects and creates Nature,
without which Nature were not.... Noteworthy also, and serviceable for
the progress of this same individual, wilt thou find his subdivisions
into Generations. Generations are as the Days of toilsome Mankind; Death
and Birth are the vesper and the matin bells, that summon Mankind to
sleep, and to rise refreshed for new advancement. What the Father has
made, the Son can make and enjoy; but has also work of his own appointed
him. Thus all things wax and roll onwards.... Find mankind where thou
wilt, thou findest it in living movement, in progress faster or slower;
the Phoenix soars aloft, hovers with outstretched wings, filling Earth
with her music; or as now, she sinks, and with spheral swan-song
immolates herself in flame, that she may soar the higher and sing the
clearer.'
Philosophies of civilisation have a tendency to beget Fatalism. Bent
upon watching the resistless play of general laws, philosophers, in
their admiration of the products, are apt to ignore the frightful
suffering and waste involved in the process. Society being an organism,
a thing of development, the duty of thinkers is to demonstrate the
nature of sociological laws, and allow them free scope for operation. To
this is due much of the apparent hardness of Eighteenth Century
political speculation, which, beginning with the French Physiocratic
School, culminated in the works of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Bentham, and the
two Mills. With those thinkers, the one palpable lesson of the past was
the duty of abstaining from interference with the general process of
social development. Give man liberty, said the Utilitarian Radicals, and
he will work out his own salvation: from the play of individual
self-interest, social harmony will result.
Carlyle is frequently thought of as a Conservative force in politics. In
some respects he was more Radical than the Benthams and the Mills. His
deeper ideal conception of society intensified his dissatisfaction with
society as it existed. In fact, to Carlyle's attack upon those
institutions, beliefs and ceremonies which had no better basis than mere
unreasoning authority, most of the Radicalism of the early 'forties' was
due. Conceive what effect language like this must have had upon
thoughtful, high-souled young men: 'Call ye that a Society, where there
is no longer any Social Idea extant; not so much as the Idea of a common
Home, but only of a common overcrowded Lodging-house? Where each,
isolated, regardless of his neighbour, turned against his neighbour,
clutches what he can get, and cries "Mine!" and calls it Peace because,
in the cut-purse and cut-throat Scramble, no steel knives, but only a
far cunninger sort, can be employed? Where Friendship, Communion, has
become an incredible tradition; and your holiest Sacramental Supper is a
smoking Tavern Dinner, with Cook for Evangelist? Where your Priest has
no tongue but for plate-licking; and your high Guides and Governors
cannot guide; but on all hands hear it passionately proclaimed: _Laissez
faire_; leave us alone of your guidance, such light is darker than
darkness; eat your wages and sleep. Thus, too, must an observant eye
discern everywhere that saddest spectacle: the Poor perishing, like
neglected, foundered Draught-Cattle, of Hunger and Overwork; the Rich,
still more wretchedly, of Idleness, Satiety, and Overgrowth. The Highest
in rank, at length, without honour from the Lowest; scarcely, with a
little mouth-honour, as from tavern-waiters who expect to put it in the
bill. Once sacred Symbols fluttering as empty Pageants, whereof men
grudge even the expense; a World becoming dismantled: in one word, the
CHURCH fallen speechless, from obesity and apoplexy; the STATE shrunken
into a Police-Office, straitened to get its pay!'
It was when suggesting a remedy that Carlyle's Idealistic Radicalism
parted company with Utilitarian Radicalism. Failing to see that society
was in a transition period, a period so well described by Herbert
Spencer as the movement from Militarism to Industrialism, in which there
was a severe conflict of ideals, opinions, and interests, Carlyle sought
for the remedy in a return to a form of society which had been outgrown.
There was surely something pathetically absurd in the spectacle of a
great teacher endeavouring to cure social and political diseases by
preaching the resuscitation of Puritanism at a time when the intellect
of the day was parting company with theocratic conceptions. Equally
absurd was it to offer as a remedy for social anarchy the despotism of
ambitious rulers at a time when society was suffering from the effects
of previous despotism. Equally irrelevant was the attempt in _Past and
Present_ to get reformers to model modern institutions on those of the
Middle Ages. Carlyle's remedy for the evils of liberty was a return to
the apron-strings of despotism. Carlyle, in fact, forgot his conception
of society as a developing organism; he endeavoured to arrest progress
at the autocratic stage, because of his ignorance of the laws of
progress and his lack of sympathy with democratic ideas. Still, the
value of Carlyle's political writings should not be overlooked. The
Utilitarian Radicals laid themselves open to the charge of intellectual
superstition. They worshipped human nature as a fetish. Lacking clear
views of social evolution, they overlooked the relativity of political
terms. Ignorant of the conception of human nature to which Spencer has
accustomed us, the old Radicals treated it as a constant quantity which
only needed liberty for its proper development. In their eagerness to
discard theology, they discarded the truth of man's depravity which
finds expression in the creed of the Churches. We have changed all that.
We now realise the fact that political institutions are good or bad, not
as they stand or fall when tested by the first principles of a
rationalistic philosophy, but as they harmonise or conflict with
existing phases of human nature.
If in the sphere of industrialism Carlyle as a guide is untrustworthy,
great is his merit as an inspirer. His influence was needed to
counteract the cold prosaic narrowness of the Utilitarian teaching. He
called attention to an aspect of the economic question which the
Utilitarian Radicals ignored, namely, the inadequacy of self-interest as
a social bond. To Carlyle is largely due the higher ethical conceptions
and quickened sympathies which now exist in the spheres of social and
industrial relationships. Unhappily his implicit faith in intuitionalism
led him to deride political economy and everything pertaining to man's
material life. Much there was in the writings of the economists to call
for severe criticism, and if Carlyle had treated the subject with
discrimination he would have been a power for good; but he chose to pour
the vials of his contempt upon political economy as a science, and upon
modern industrial arrangements, with the result that many of the most
intelligent students of sociology have been repelled from his writings.
In this respect he contrasts very unfavourably with Mill, who,
notwithstanding the temptations to intellectual arrogance from his
one-sided training, with quite a chivalrous regard for truth, was ever
ready to accept light and leading from thinkers who differed from him in
temperament and methods. There may be conflicting opinions as to which
of the two men was intellectually the greater, but there can be no doubt
that Mill dwelt in an atmosphere of intellectual serenity and nobility
far removed from the foggy turbulence in which Carlyle lived, moved, and
had his being. Between the saintly apostle of Progress and the barbaric
representative of Reaction there was a great gulf fixed.
As was natural, the _Latter-day Pamphlets_ were treated as a series of
political ravings. For that estimate Carlyle himself was largely
responsible. He deprived himself of the sympathy of intelligent readers
by the violence of his invective and the lack of discrimination in his
abuse. Much of what Carlyle said is to be found in Mill's
_Representative Government_, said, too, in a quiet, rational style,
which commands attention and respect. Mill, no more than Carlyle, was a
believer in mob rule. He did not think that the highest wisdom was to
be had by the counting of heads. Thinkers like Mill and Spencer did not
deem it necessary to pour contempt on modern tendencies. They suggested
remedies on the lines of these tendencies. They did not try to put back
the hands on the clock of time; they sought to remove perturbing
influences. Much of the evil has arisen from men trying to do by
political methods what should not be done by these methods. Carlyle's
idea that Government should do this, that, and the other thing has
wrought mischief, inasmuch as it has led to an undue belief in the
virtues of Government interference. His writings are largely responsible
for the evils he predicted.
It is curious to notice how, with all his belief in individualism,
Carlyle, in political matters, was unconsciously driven in the direction
of socialism. Get your great man, worship him, and render him
obedience--such was the Carlylean recipe for modern diseases. Suppose
the great man found, how is he to proceed? In these democratic days, he
can only proceed by ruling despotically with the popular consent; in
other words, there will follow a regime of paternalism and fraternalism,
the practical outcome of which would be Socialism. Carlyle himself never
suspected how childish was his conception of national life. He wrote of
his Great Man theory as if it was a discovery, whereas the most advanced
races had long since passed through it, and those which were not
advanced were precisely those which had not been able to shake
themselves free of paternal despotism. On this point the criticism of
the late Professor Minto goes to the heart of the matter: 'Carlyle's
doctrines are the first suggestions of an earnest man, adhered to with
unreasoning tenacity. As a rule, with no exception, that is worth
naming, they take account mainly of one side of a case. He was too
impatient of difficulties, and had too little respect for the wisdom and
experience of others to submit to be corrected: opposition rather
confirmed him in his own opinion. Most of his practical suggestions had
already been made before, and judged impracticable upon grounds which he
could not, or would not, understand. His modes of dealing with pauperism
and crime were in full operation under the despotism of Henry VII. and
Henry VIII. His theory of a hero-king, which means in practice an
accidentally good and able man in a series of indifferent or bad
despots, had been more frequently tried than any other political system;
Asia at this moment contains no government that is not despotic. His
views in other departments of knowledge are also chiefly determined by
the strength of his unreasoning impulses.'
In his interesting _Recollections_ Mr Espinasse states that during the
time that Carlyle was writing on the labour question, not a single
blue-book was visible on his table! To Carlyle's influence must be
traced much of the sentimental treatment of social and industrial
questions which has followed the unpopularity of political economy. It
is only fair to Carlyle to note, that at times he had qualms as to the
superiority of his paternal theory of government over Laissez Faire. In
one place he admits that even Frederick could not have superintended the
great emigration movement to such good effect as was done by the
spontaneous efforts of nature. In the social sphere Carlyle was false to
his doctrine of spontaneity. In his early essays he was perpetually
condemning mechanical interference with society, and contending that
free play should be given to the dynamic agencies. Untrue to himself and
his creed, Carlyle in his later books was constantly denouncing
Government for neglecting to apply mechanical remedies for social
diseases. In his view, the duty of a ruler was not to work in harmony
with social impulses, but to cut and carve institutions in harmony with
the ideas of great men. Puritanism under Cromwell failed because it was
forgotten that society is an organism, not a piece of clay, to be
moulded according to the notions of heroic potters. Strictly speaking,
_Frederick_ and _Cromwell_ should be classed with the _Latter Day
Pamphlets_. In the _Pamphlets_ Carlyle declaims against democratic
methods, and in _Frederick_ and _Cromwell_ we are presented with
incarnations of autocratic methods.
Of all the critics of Carlyle, no one has surpassed Mr Morley in
indicating the mischievous effects which flow from the elevation of
mere will power and emotional force into guides in social and political
questions. As Mr Morley says: 'The dictates of a kind heart are of
superior force to the maxims of political economy; swift and peremptory
resolution is a safer guide than a balancing judgment. If the will works
easily and surely, we may assume the rectitude of the moving impulse.
All this is no caricature of a system which sets sentiment, sometimes
hard sentiment, above reason and method. In other words, the writer who
in these days has done more than anybody else to fire men's hearts with
a feeling for right, and an eager desire for social activity, has, with
deliberate contempt, thrust away from him the only instruments by which
we can make sure what right is, and that our social action is effective.
A born poet, only wanting perhaps a clearer feeling for form and a more
delicate spiritual self-possession to have added another name to the
illustrious band of English singers, he has been driven by the
impetuosity of his sympathies to attack the scientific side of social
questions in an imaginative and highly emotional manner.'
Had Carlyle confined himself to description of social, industrial, and
political diseases, he would have had an unsullied reputation in the
sphere of spiritual dynamics, but flaws immediately appeared when he
endeavoured to prescribe remedies. Many of his remedies were too vague
to be of use; where they were specific, they were so Quixotic as to be
useless. His proposals for dealing with labour and pauperism never
imposed on any sensible man on this side of cloud-land.