The Press. WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1903. THE CARLYLE CONTROVERSY.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11647, 29 July 1903, Page 6

The Press. WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1903. THE CARLYLE CONTROVERSY.

It must have come as a surprise to our readers to find that while the controversy which has been raised anew in regard to the relations between Carlyle and his wife has been raging at Home, filling all the newspapers and periodicals, we have had living in our midst a lady who, from close association with the Carlyles, is able to speak with some authority in regard to the questions at issue. We have no doubt that our interviews with Mrs Larkin, the lady jn question, have been read with 'a good deal of interest, and that our readers

are grateful to her, as we are, for her contributions to our knowledge on tlte subjrct. Mrs Larkin's unreserved __d straightforward vindication of her old friends is one that carries conviction. la some respects this lady and her husband were in a better position to judge of the domestic relations of Carlyle and his wife than Mr Froude, who only visited the house occasionally, and probably saw them under tho most favourable circuntstances. Mr Larkin. there is no ouestion was in intimate confidential relations with Carlyle, and must have seen hint at all times and all seasons. "Poor Mr Larkin" says Dr. Uarnctt. in his "Life of Carlyle," "for his sins had „ talent for dmwlmj " ni.ips and plans, and was expected to be "able to indicate the exact position of "any marching body of troops at any hour "of the day. [This was especially ia reference to the ''Life- of Frederick thi> Great."] "He" was clever in reatlioj " iTablwd copy, und it devolved upon _]_, " " to decipher all such portions of Carlvle's "manuscript as Carlyl* could not _*. 'cipher himself. On the whole- his posi"tion much resembled that of the 'famulus' "of the demon doctor m 'Tales of the "Zenana,' __ye that that gentleman. _«- " sistant dined much better than Carlyle's. "But Yusoof never got that cordis! acknowledgment of service rendered by "which Carlyle ultimately (salved over all "soreness, and assigned his secretary « "niche in history by the side of Napo- " leetn _ and Voltuire's." If i\, is true that no man is _ hero to his valet, it is equall* true that no literary man is a hero to his amanuensis. The latter sees him at his worst, distracted by the. perplexities of his work, when all his most, irritable characteristics show themselves if at ull. Add to this that Carlyle's work was carried on in his owu hou?e. and it is easy to see that if Mr and Mrs Carlyle led the out-and-dog life which some people would have us believe, Mr and Mrs Larkin, especially as they were _e_t. door neighbours, would have known all about it. It is also, w» think, a fair inference, that if Carlyle had been such a morose and surly brute as bs is sometimes represented, he could hardly have gained, as ho did, the whole-soulej devotion of Mr Larkin, who, as Mrs Larkin tells us, had au admiration for Carlyle amounting almost to worship.

That the _ag_ of Chelsea and his wife never had disagreements or sharp words ii too much to ivssert. What married lifs, where two strong natures are wedded together, is entirely free from occasional storms? We are quite pivpared to believe that on one occasion, Carlyle, in one of his '"tantrums," as Mrs Larkin calli them, may have grasped his wife so»e» what roughly by the arm, leaving a bins mark on tho easily-bruised tlesh. Such . tilings might happen, and yet the pair on the whole may have been deeply affec-' tionate, tenderly devoted to each other. The occasional "tantrums" are easily to be accounted for. Carlyle not only belonged to the "irritabile genus" of literary men, hut he .uttered terribly from the demon of indigestion. "Dyspepsia," says Dr. Gar-. nett, "probably occasioned by his long fasta V and irregular meals, clutched him with v '•cruelty equal to that which had driven- " Coleridge and De Quincey to opium. It "was as if a rat were always gnawing at "the pit of his stomach. Carlyle sought " no more perilous anodyne than tobacco,' "which he was by-and-bye informed was "tho occasion of the whole mischief." ("Gave it up and found I might as well "have poured my sorrows into the long, "hairy ear of the first jackass I came upon " as of this Delect medical nia_ ( " is Carlyle's savage commentary—he never had more to do with doctors than he could help). Mrs Carlyle, in the. opinion of Dr. Criehton Brown, suffered terribly from nerves. Mrs Larkin tells us that she cet> tainly had a very sharp tongue. Sparks are hound to fly occasionally from the rub. bing together of a pair so constituted. Na doubt it would have been happier for them if they had hud children. But that they really loved and admired each other, and on tho whole lived together on terms of deep affection, we need no other evidence'; than that of their own letter- to prove. Those letters were certainly not writteq for publication, and they breathe through; out a spirit of genuine affection which could never hare been simulated. Mm Larkin has reminded us of the solkatods shown by Mrs Carlyle lest her husband, should be alarmed and agitated when aba was brought home suffering from an M** cident. It is interesting and iiwtrnctiTt to read what Carlyle himself says in hi*' "Reminiscences" regarding his own feel* ings on this occasion. True, there i* always a tone of regret in what he says, speaking of her excellencies, that he did not show more clearly his appreciation o. them during her lifetime. But is therf not the same feeling in every one of us» no matter how unsullied our affection for some loved object when death has come ta close all accounts? Carlyle gives a moving picture of his joy when his wife, while recovering from the accident, got up froa her sick bed one night to convince him that she was better. " I still right well " remember," be says, " the night when "her bedroom door (double door) ■uddenlyi " opened upon me into the drawing-room, "and she came limping and stooping on "her staff, so gracefully and with such » "child-like joy and triumph to irradiate "my solitude. Never again will any " such bright vision of gladdening surprise "illuminate the darkness for me in that "room or any other. She was in her "Indian dressing gown, absolutely beauti"ful, leaning on her nibbly staff (a fine " hazel, cut and polished from the Dnun- " lanrig woods by some friend for my ■er"vice); and with such a kindly brilliancy "and loving innocence- of expression, like "that of a little child, unconquerable by "weakness and years! A hot-tempered "creature, too, few hotter on " provocation, but what a fund of soft «i-------"fection, hope and melodious innocence "and goodness to temper all that light* " ning I I doubt candidly if I ever saw • " nobler human soul than this which («Ja»

f__a_! never rightly valued till now!) ac- " ,-ompanifd all my steps for forty years. " llliud and deaf thr-t we arc: <•!'. think, "if thou yet love anybody living, wait not -till death su.vp away the paltry little "dust clouds .i:id ill!.' dissonances of the "moment, and all be at U«t so moun.fully « clear and biuutiful when it is too late." The les-un is one v. inch vu may' all well lav to h--.:■:- TL-it then- were " paltry "little duM eio'.l.U and "idle dissonances «„ftli- mo".. :.t "' in Carlyle's marri-d life Wl . do not doubt. That, on the whole, j t was a tru- union of intellectual souls, marked by d<-p human ali'cction and mutual forbearui...-. w.- at- e,,ual!y convinced, at.d «-• do nut s.-e how anyone „b„ nsJs ultti an op-n mind even the BM _.ri-K i-f-t's and reminiscences, edited by Mr Freud..--, cm come to a different conclusion.