ellauri022.html on line 672: Briteissä se ihastu Carlyleen, toiseen yxilönpalvojaan, jonka miälest historia on suurmiesten elämäkertoja. No tääkin paasaus on sitten ilmeisesti historiaa.
ellauri054.html on line 208: Carlyle ja Emerson esseili suurmiehistä. Wannabeet. Macaulay kolmantena hälläpyöränä.
ellauri077.html on line 373: 880 se lakkasi käymästä messuilla ja siitä tuli ahnas lukija: postivismia, fysiologista psykologiaa, italialaista ja brittiläistä runoutta. Se opetteli omin nokin saxaa lukeaxeen Hegeliä ja englantia lukeaxen Spenceriä ja Carlyleä (se espanjansi näitä hyyppiä), kuten se 20v myöhemmin opiskeli tanskaa lukeaxeen Kierkegaardia, josta kukaan Espanjassa ei ollut kuullutkaan. Tulevalle vaimolleen se kertoi painajaisistaan:
ellauri098.html on line 405: In Carlyle’s book On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in Society (Carlyle, 1840), somebody (most likely the author) dove into the lives of several men he deemed “heroes,” like Muhammed, Richard Wagner, Shakespeare, Martin Luther, and Napoleon. He believed that history “turned” on the decisions of these men, and encouraged others to study these heroes as a way of discovering one’s own true nature.
ellauri198.html on line 693: In 1838, he visited Italy looking for background for Sordello, a long poem in heroic couplets, presented as the imaginary biography of the Mantuan bard spoken of by Dante in the Divine Comedy, canto 6 of Purgatory, set against a background of hate and conflict during the Guelph-Ghibelline wars. This was published in 1840 and met with widespread derision, gaining him the reputation of wanton carelessness and obscurity. Tennyson commented that he only understood the first and last lines and Carlyle wrote that his wife had read the poem through and could not tell whether Sordello was a man, a city or a book. Ai tän mä taisinkin jo kertoa albumissa 54.
ellauri222.html on line 1040: Roope Änkkä kirjoittaa onnen saavuttamisesta rikkaiden kannalta. Miten paljon pätäkkää on Aristoteleen mielestä oltava ennenkuin voi harjoittaa hyveitä. Suunnittelen taulukkoa, Sir Walter Raleigh ylhäällä, Carlyle on potaskaa. Ei kiinnosta.
ellauri236.html on line 204: In borrowing from William Faulkner's Sanctuary, Chase only took the plot; the mental atmosphere of the two books is not similar. Chase really derives from other sources, and this particular bit of borrowing is only symbolic. What it symbolizes is the vulgarization of ideas which is constantly happening, and which probably happens faster in an age of print. Chase has been described as ‘Faulkner for the masses’, but it would be more accurate to describe him as Carlyle for the masses. He is a popular writer — there are many such in America, but they are still rarities in England — who has caught up with what is now fashionable to call ‘realism’, meaning the doctrine that might is right. The growth of ‘realism’ has been the great feature of the intellectual history of our own age. Why this should be so is a complicated question. The interconnexion between sadism, masochism, success-worship, power-worship, nationalism, and totalitarianism is a huge subject whose edges have barely been scratched, and even to mention it is considered somewhat indelicate. To take merely the first example that comes to mind, I believe no one has ever pointed out the sadistic and masochistic element in Bernard Shaw's work, still less suggested that this probably has some connexion with Shaw's admiration for dictators. Fascism is often loosely equated with sadism, but nearly always by people who see nothing wrong in the most slavish worship of Stalin. The truth is, of course, that the countless English intellectuals who kiss the arse of Stalin are not different from the minority who give their allegiance to Hitler or Mussolini, nor from the efficiency experts who preached ‘punch’, ‘drive’, ‘personality’ and ‘learn to be a Tiger man’ in the nineteen-twenties, nor from that older generation of intellectuals, Carlyle, Creasey and the rest of them, who bowed down before German militarism. All of them are worshipping power and successful cruelty. It is important to notice that the cult of power tends to be mixed up with a love of cruelty and wickedness for their own sakes. A tyrant is all the more admired if he happens to be a bloodstained crook as well, and ‘the end justifies the means’ often becomes, in effect, ‘the means justify themselves provided they are dirty enough’. This idea colours the outlook of all sympathizers with totalitarianism, and accounts, for instance, for the positive delight with which many English intellectuals greeted the Nazi-Soviet pact. It was a step only doubtfully useful to the U.S.S.R., but it was entirely unmoral, and for that reason to be admired; the explanations of it, which were numerous and self-contradictory, could come afterwards.
ellauri247.html on line 268: Like Mr. Brattle, in The Vicar of Bulhampton, he was thinking always of the evil things that had been done to him. With the pawky (scottish: having a mocking or cynical sense of humour) and philosophic Scots of his own day (Robertson, Hume, Adam Smith, and "Jupiter" Carlyle) he had little in common, but with the sour and mistrustful James Mill or the cross and querulous Carlyle of a later date he had, it seems to me, a good deal.
xxx/ellauri129.html on line 776:
xxx/ellauri208.html on line 404: Some magazine observed of his writing style: "Whenever possible Chesterton made his points with popular sayings, proverbs, allegories—first carefully turning them inside out." Biographers have identified him as a successor to such Victorian authors as Matthew Arnold, Thomas Carlyle, John Henry Newman and John Ruskin. Vankkaa porukkaa.
12