showed no coldness of heart. His unstinted generosity to his brothers during his worst times is only one proof of the singular strength of his family affections. No one was more devoted to such congenial friends as Irving and Sterling. He is not the only man whom absorption in work and infirmity of temper have made into a provoking husband, though few wives have had Mrs Carlyle’s capacity for expressing the sense of injustice. The knowledge that the deepest devotion underlies misunderstandings is often a very imperfect consolation; but such devotion clearly existed all through, and proves the defect to have been relatively superficial.
The harsh judgments of individuals in the Reminiscences had no parallel in his own writings. He scarcely ever mentions a contemporary, and was never involved in a personal controversy. But the harshness certainly reflects a characteristic attitude of mind. Carlyle was throughout a pessimist or a prophet denouncing a backsliding world. His most popular contemporaries seemed to him to be false guides, and charlatans had ousted the heroes. The general condemnation of “shams” and cant had, of course, particular applications, though he left them to be inferred by his readers. Carlyle was the exponent of many of the deepest convictions of his time. Nobody could be more in sympathy with aspirations for a spiritual religion and for a lofty idealism in political and social life. To most minds, however, which cherish such aspirations the gentler optimism of men like Emerson was more congenial. They believed in the progress of the race and the triumph of the nobler elements. Though Carlyle, especially in his earlier years, could deliver an invigorating and encouraging, if not a sanguine doctrine, his utterances were more generally couched in the key of denunciation, and betrayed a growing despondency. Materialism and low moral principles seemed to him to be gaining the upper hand; and the hope that religion might survive the “old clothes” in which it had been draped seemed to grow fainter. The ordinary mind complained that he had no specific remedy to propose for the growing evils of the time; and the more cultivated idealist was alienated by the gloom and the tendency to despair. To a later generation it will probably appear that, whatever the exaggerations and the misconceptions to which he was led, his vehement attacks at least called attention to rather grave limitations and defects in the current beliefs and social tendencies of the time. The mannerisms and grotesque exaggerations of his writings annoyed persons of refinement, and suggest Matthew Arnold’s advice to flee “Carlylese” as you would flee the devil. Yet the shrewd common-sense, the biting humour, the power of graphic description and the imaginative “mysticism” give them a unique attraction for many even who do not fully sympathize with the implied philosophy or with the Puritanical code of ethics. The letters and autobiographical writings, whether they attract or repel sympathy, are at least a series of documents of profound interest for any one who cares to study character, and display an almost unique idiosyncrasy. (L. S.)
The chief authorities for Carlyle’s life are his own Reminiscences, the Letters of Jane Welsh Carlyle, the Love Letters of Thomas Carlyle and Jane Welsh (ed. A. Carlyle), and the four volumes of J. A. Froude’s biography; Froude was Carlyle’s literary executor. Prof. C.E. Norton’s edition of the Reminiscences and his collection of Carlyle’s Early Letters correct some of Froude’s inaccuracies. A list of many articles upon Carlyle is given by Mr Ireland in Notes and Queries, sixth series, vol. iv. Among other authors may be noticed Henry James, sen., in Literary Remains; Prof. Masson, Carlyle, Personally and in his Writings; Conway, Thomas Carlyle; Larkin, The Open Secret of Carlyle’s Life; Mrs Oliphant in Macmillan’s Magazine for April 1881; G. S. Venables in Fortnightly Review for May 1883 and November 1884. A good deal of controversy has arisen relating to Froude’s treatment of the relations between Carlyle and his wife, and during 1903–1904 this was pushed to a somewhat unsavoury extent. Those who are curious to pry into the question of Carlyle’s marital capacity, and the issues between Froude’s assailants and his defenders, may consult New Letters and Memorials of Jane Welsh Carlyle, with introduction by Sir James Crichton-Browne; My Relations with Carlyle, by J. A. Froude; The Nemesis of Froude, by Sir J. Crichton-Browne and Alexander Carlyle; and articles in the Contemporary Review (June, July, August, 1903), and Nineteenth Century and After (May, July, 1903). See also Herbert Paul’s Life of Froude (1905). The precise truth in these matters is hardly recoverable, even if it concerns posterity: and though Froude was often inaccurate, he was given full authority by Carlyle, he had all the unpublished material before him, and he was dead and unable to reply to criticism when the later attacks were made.
CARMAGNOLA, FRANCESCO BUSSONE, Count of (1390–1432), Italian soldier of fortune, was born at Carmagnola near Turin, and began his military career when twelve years old under Facino Cane, a condottiere then in the service of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, duke of Milan. On the death of the latter his duchy was divided among his captains, but his son and heir, Filippo Maria, determined to reconquer it by force of arms. Facino Cane being dead, Visconti applied to Carmagnola, then in his thirtieth year, and gave him command of the army. That general’s success was astonishingly rapid, and soon the whole duchy was brought once more under Visconti’s sway. But Filippo Maria, although he rewarded Carmagnola generously, feared that he might become a danger to himself, and instead of giving him further military commands made him governor of Genoa. Carmagnola felt greatly aggrieved, and failing to obtain a personal interview with the duke, threw up his commission and offered his services to the Venetians (1425). He was well received in Venice, for the republic was beginning to fear the ambitions of the Visconti, and the new doge, Francesco Foscari, was anxious to join the Florentines and go to war with Milan. Carmagnola himself represented the duke’s forces as much less numerous than they were supposed to be, and said that the moment was an opportune one to attack him. These arguments, combined with the doge’s warlike temper, prevailed; Carmagnola was made captain-general of St Mark in 1426, and war was declared. But while the republic was desirous of rapid and conclusive operations, it was to the interest of Carmagnola, as indeed to all other soldiers of fortune, to make the operations last as long as possible, to avoid decisive operations, and to liberate all prisoners quickly. Consequently the campaign dragged on interminably, some battles were won and others lost, truces and peace treaties were made only to be broken, and no definite result was achieved. Carmagnola’s most important success was the battle of Maclodio (1427), but he did not follow it up. The republic, impatient of his dilatoriness, raised his emoluments and promised him immense fiefs including the lordship of Milan, so as to increase his ardour, but in vain. At the same time Carmagnola was perpetually receiving messengers from Visconti, who offered him great rewards if he would abandon the Venetians. The general trifled with his past as with his present employers, believing in his foolish vanity that he held the fate of both in his hand. But the Venetians were dangerous masters to trifle with, and when they at last lost all patience, the Council of Ten determined to bring him to justice. Summoned to Venice to discuss future operations on the 29th of March 1432, he came without suspicion. On his arrival at the ducal palace he was seized, imprisoned and brought to trial for treason against the republic. Although the doge befriended him he was condemned to death and beheaded on the 5th of May. A man of third-rate ability, his great mistake was that he failed to see that he could not do with a solvent and strong government what he could with bankrupt tyrants without military resources, and that the astute Visconti meant to ruin him for his abandonment.
Bibliography.—The best account of Carmagnola is Horatio Brown’s essay in his Studies in Venetian History (London, 1907); see also A. Battistella, Il Conte di Carmagnola (Genoa, 1889); E. Ricotti, Storia delle Compagnie di Ventura (Turin, 1845). Alessandro Manzoni (q.v.) made this episode the subject of a poetical drama, Il Conte di Carmagnola (1826). (L. V.*)
CARMAGNOLA, a town of Italy, in the province of Turin, 18 m. by rail S. of Turin. Pop. (1901) 2447 (town), 11,721 (commune). It is the junction where the lines for Savona and Cuneo diverge; it is also connected with Turin by a steam tramway via Carignano. Carmagnola is a place of medieval origin. The town was captured by the French in 1796.
CARMAGNOLE (from Carmagnola, the town in Italy), a word first applied to a Piedmontese peasant costume, well known in the south of France, and brought to Paris by the revolutionaries