Introduction
At 96 pages, this five-part essay by Vernon Lushington (1832-1912) is the
longest of any of the works in The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine, making up about an eighth of
its total length. At the outset, Lushington worries that he will not be able
to fit all he wants to say into “a little casket like this of
Magazine article, or into two such” (193). This statement
implies
that Lushington intended this to be a shorter essay than it turned out to
be, and circumstances of the article’s publication confirm this.
The first three chapters appeared sequentially from April through June, but
the fourth chapter was not published until November, and in the final line of
the third chapter, Lushington refers to his now-completed essay as
“a thing of the Past” (352). Possibly Fulford, who by
August was struggling to fill the pages of the Magazine, encouraged
Lushington to continue this essay.
Vernon Lushington, whose twin brother Godfrey also published an essay in The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine, was one of the few
contributors who attended Cambridge; he took a degree in civil law from
Trinity College in 1854-5. He knew the Morris brotherhood through Wilfred
Heeley, whom he had met at Cambridge and who described Lushington as
“one of the jolliest men I know” (Memorials 124). Though the
first chapter of this essay was his first contribution to the Magazine, he
had planned to contribute as early as 1855. Heeley must have spoken highly
of Lushington to his friends, for Burne-Jones, in a letter to his cousin
that year, wrote that Henry MacDonald would
soon be replaced by “a great Cambridge man named Lushington, to
whom I have not yet been introduced. He is already an author and I hear a
very very fine fellow” (Memorials 123). These lines must refer to
Vernon, as Godfrey Lushington attended Balliol College, at Oxford. The year
before, Vernon had published political articles about the Crimean War,
factory workers, and trade unions (Dictionary of National Biography).
All of the Morris brotherhood admired Carlyle and Tennyson. To each is
devoted a multi-part essay in the Magazine, and medallions of these men, by
Thomas Woolner, were advertised in April and November. They sold
for a shilling and were intended to be bound with the Magazine. Like Fulford in
his essay on Tennyson, Lushington begins
by explaining that he has carefully read all of Carlyle’s
writings, and so is at least somewhat qualified to write about them. But
this is one of few similarities between the two articles. Fulford
organizes his essay around Tennyson’s works, treating first the
miscellaneous poems, then “
In
Memoriam”, then
Maud
. Lushington organizes his essay thematically. He discusses a
remarkable range of Carlyle’s writings, and explores themes
common to all of them, rather than the argument of any particular one.
In the first chapter,
Lushington investigates Carlyle’s religion, defending him from
charges of Deism and Pantheism. Lushington argues that Carlyle’s
writings tend toward a theory of “Order, Subordination, above all
of Unity" (196), and are directly explained by his religious faith. He goes
on to examine Carlyle’s principles of “Might is
Right” and “Hero-Worship.” For the former,
Lushington stresses that Might does not mean brute force, but the Might of
the Intellect, of “truth, wisdom, and valour (208). He extends
this idea to the idea of Hero-Worship. Beginning with the precept
that man must be governed by man, Lushington defends Carlyle’s
belief in service and duty against the “modern dislike and
contempt for authority” (210).
The second and third chapters examine
Carlyle’s views of history, and his use of historical events and
personalities to understand the present. Lushington discusses
Carlyle’s writings on Goëthe and Cromwell, and praises
his ability to “show us the men and the spirit that was in
them” (302). Throughout these chapters, Lushington continually
returns to the principle of “Might is Right” he
discussed in the first chapter. His argument (or rather, his interpretation
of Carlyle’s argument) is that history tends toward the Good, and
it is the great historical personalities, the Mighty, who move history in
that direction. History provides a perspective on the actions of these men,
and judges them differently than their contemporaries did.
Lushington’s fourth chapter discusses Carlyle as a writer. In a metaphor
almost certainly suggested by
Sartor Resartus
, Lushington writes, “the dress which his thoughts wear is
very curious, and in many little particulars has been cut out and stitched
together by himself” (698). These particulars include
Carlyle’s tendency to coin new phrases, and his use of odd syntax
and punctuation (706-707). Lushington
praises Carlyle’s authoritative, commanding tone, his simple
language, and his use of facts rather than abstractions to prove his points.
Unlike in the first three chapters, however, Lushington here is also
somewhat critical of Carlyle, especially of his later writings. Lushington
accuses him of “coarse and unworthy banter” (703) and, in the
Latter Day Pamphlets, of “far too much bawling, gesticulation,
and execration” (712). The overall tone is still reverent, but
these criticism do show a marked contrast from the earlier chapters.
In the final chapter,
the longest of the five, Lushington examines Carlyle’s writings
on contemporary issues, such as poverty, idleness, foreign affairs, the
colonies, and overpopulation. Lushington sees Carlyle as a teacher,
“A Great Man born in these years in Britain to be a Guide to
British Men” (743). Most of the passages Lushington quotes
exemplify Carlyle’s insistence that men must work, and he
reiterates the concepts of “Might is Right” and
“Hero-Worship” that he brought up in the first
chapter, showing how Carlyle applies these concepts to contemporary society.
The tone of this final chapter returns to the reverence and admiration that
characterized the first three.