This has the real crushing Carlylean wit and picturesqueness of
statement, but is it the case of democracy, of universal suffrage fairly
put? The eternal verities appear again, as they appear everywhere in our
author in connection with this subject. They recur in his pages like
"minute-guns," as if deciding, by the count of heads, whether Jones or
Smith should go to Parliament or to Congress was equivalent to sitting
in judgment upon the law of gravitation. What the ship in doubling Cape
Horn would very likely do, if it found itself officerless, would be to
choose, by some method more or less approaching a count of heads, a
captain, an ablest man to take command, and put the vessel through. If
none were able, then indeed the case were desperate; with or without the
ballot-box, the abyss would be pretty sure of a victim. In any case
there would perhaps be as little voting to annul the storms, or change
the ocean currents, as there is in democracies to settle ethical or
scientific principles by an appeal to universal suffrage. But Carlyle
was fated to see the abyss lurking under, and the eternities presiding
over, every act of life. He saw everything in fearful gigantic
perspective. It is true that one cannot loosen the latchet of his shoe
without bending to forces that are cosmical, sidereal; but whether he
bends or not, or this way or that, he passes no verdict upon them. The
temporary, the expedient,--all those devices and adjustments that are of
the nature of scaffolding, and that enter so largely into the
administration of the coarser affairs of this world,--were with Carlyle
equivalent to the false, the sham, the phantasmal, and he would none of
them. As the ages seem to have settled themselves for the present and
the future, in all civilized countries,--and especially in
America,--politics is little more than scaffolding; it certainly is not
the house we live in, but an appurtenance or necessity of the house. A
government, in the long run, can never be better or worse than the
people governed. In voting for Jones for constable, am I voting for or
against the unalterable laws of the universe,--an act wherein the
consequences of a mistake are so appalling that voting had better be
dispensed with, and the selection of constables be left to the
evolutionary principle of the solar system?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account