has become a very fair question to ask--What is the residuum of
permanent effect from these great books of his, which have been
permeating English thought for half a century and more?

It is a rare honour for any writer--at least for one who is neither
poet nor novelist--to have his productions live beyond two generations,
and to continue to be a great literary force, when fifty years have
altered all the conditions in which he wrote and the purposes and ideas
which he treated. It cannot be said that Carlyle's effective influence
is less now than it was a generation ago. It has lived through the
Utilitarian and Evolution movements and has not been extinguished by
them. And Thomas Carlyle bids fair to enter into that sacred band
whose names outlive their own century and give some special tone to
their national literature.

The survival of certain books and names from generation to generation
does not depend on merit alone. Boswell's _Life of Johnson_ is
immortal: though we do not rank "Bozzy" as a hero or a genius. Hume's
_History of England_ is a classic: though it can hardly be said to be
an adequate account of our country. Few books have ever exercised so
amazing an influence as Rousseau's _Social Contract_; yet the loosest
mind of to-day can perceive its sophistry. Burke's diatribes on the
French Revolution affected the history of Europe; though no one denies
that they were inspired by passion and deformed by panic. Hobbes has
very few readers to-day; but the _Leviathan_ may last as long as More's
_Utopia_, which has hardly more readers in our age. Books which exert
a paramount influence over their contemporaries may die down and be
known only in the history of literature. And books, again, of very
moderate value, written by men of one-sided intellect or founded on
somewhat shallow theories, may, by virtue of some special quality, or