Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:16:20.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THOMAS CARLYLE ON EPICUREANISM IN THE FRENCH AND GERMAN ENLIGHTENMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2017

ALEXANDER JORDAN
ALEXANDER JORDAN*
Affiliation:
Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Turin, Italy
*
Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Via Principe Amedeo 34, 10123 Torino, Italy[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The young Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) had perused many of the Epicurean writings of the French Enlightenment. According to Carlyle, such ‘Epicureanism’ consisted primarily in an emphasis upon pleasure and pain as the springs of human action, and a positing of self-interest as the foundation of sociability. However, Carlyle soon came to reject such notions, seeking salvation in the writings of Kant and Schiller, who stressed the possibility of disinterested virtue, and the importance of free, moral activity. Indeed, the Epicureanism debate continued to resonate in Carlyle's subsequent political writings, and particularly his notorious polemics against laissez-faire and ‘public opinion’. Finally, in Carlyle's last major work, Frederick the Great, he found himself faced with the unenviable task of painting an Epicurean into a patina of heroic virtue. Despite his best efforts, however, Carlyle's biography remained haunted by the spectre of Epicureanism. Nonetheless, as Carlyle's contemporaries recognized, his writings had done much not only to discredit the Epicureanism of the French eighteenth century, but also to shape the moral and political ideals of the British nineteenth.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 673 - 694
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Carlyle, Thomas, ‘Wotton Reinfred: a romance’, in The last words of Thomas Carlyle (Boston, MA, 1892), pp. 1–147, at p. 71Google Scholar.

2 12 Mar. 1828, The collected letters of Thomas and Jane Welsh Carlyle (CL) (42 vols., Durham, NC, 1970–), iv, pp. 339–44Google Scholar; Mar. 1832, Two note books of Thomas Carlyle, ed. Norton, C. E. (New York, NY, 1898), pp. 256–7Google Scholar.

3 3 Feb. 1835, CL, viii, pp. 36–43.

4 Rosen, Frederick, Classical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill (London, 2003), pp. 167–72Google Scholar.

5 To cite only the book-length studies: Jones, Howard, The Epicurean tradition (London, 1989)Google Scholar; Osler, M. J., ed., Atoms, pneuma, and tranquillity: Epicurean and Stoic themes in European thought (Cambridge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kimmich, Dorothee, Epikureische Aufklärungen: philosophische und poetische Konzepte der Selbstsorge (Darmstadt, 1993)Google Scholar; Bonacina, Giovanni, Filosofia ellenistica e cultura moderna: Epicureismo, stoicismo e scetticismo da Bayle a Hegel (Florence, 1996)Google Scholar; Force, Pierre, Self-interest before Adam Smith (Cambridge, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deneys-Tunney, Anne and Moreau, Pierre-François, eds., ‘L'Épicurisme des Lumières’, special edition of Dix-huitième siècle, 35 (2003)Google Scholar; Paganini, G. and Tortarolo, E., eds., Der Garten und die Moderne: Epikureische Moral und Politik vom Humanismus bis zur Aufklärung (Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt, 2004)Google Scholar; Wilson, Catherine, Epicureanism at the origins of modernity (Oxford, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leddy, N. and Lifschitz, A., eds., Epicurus in the Enlightenment (Oxford, 2009)Google Scholar; Kavanagh, Thomas M., Enlightened pleasures: eighteenth-century France and the new Epicureanism (New Haven, CT, 2010)Google Scholar.

6 Pocock, J. G. A., ‘Historiography and Enlightenment: a view of their history’, Modern Intellectual History, 5 (2008), pp. 83–96, at p. 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Doubtless due to the heavy shadow cast by Froude, J. A., Thomas Carlyle: a history of the first forty years of his life, 1795–1835 (2 vols., New York, NY, 1882)Google Scholar, in which Froude pronounced: ‘Of classical literature [Carlyle] knew little…He was not living in ancient Greece or Rome, but in modern Europe’ (i, p. 104). Cf. Flint, Thomas, ‘Carlyle as classicist’, Classical Weekly, 13 (1919), pp. 51–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 On eighteenth-century Epicureanism, see n. 5 above. There is little reference to Epicureanism in Jenkyns, Richard, The Victorians and ancient Greece (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar, nor in Turner, Frank M., The Greek heritage in Victorian Britain (New Haven, CT, 1981)Google Scholar, nor in Vance, Norman, The Victorians and ancient Rome (Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar. The exceptions are Vaughn, Frederick, The tradition of political hedonism from Hobbes to J. S. Mill (New York, NY, 1982), ch. 7Google Scholar; Scarre, Geoffrey, ‘Epicurus as a forerunner of utilitarianism’, Utilitas, 6 (1994), pp. 219–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rosen, Classical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill, chs. 7, 10, 11, all of which focus on Bentham and J. S. Mill.

9 Young, Brian, The Victorian eighteenth century: an intellectual history (Oxford, 2007), pp. 25–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Collini, Stefan, Public moralists: political thought and intellectual life in Britain, 1850–1930 (Oxford, 1991), p. 65Google Scholar; see also pp. 65–7, 185–9, 354–61.

11 On this last point, see Turner, Frank M., Contesting cultural authority: essays in Victorian intellectual life (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 262–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which deals with the role of Epicurean materialism and atomism in late Victorian scientific and religious debate.

12 Jones, The Epicurean tradition, pp. 50, 55–8.

13 Cited in Vaughn, The tradition of political hedonism, pp. 34–7.

14 See Long, A. A., From Epicurus to Epictetus: studies in Hellenistic and Roman philosophy (Oxford, 2006), pp. 178–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vaughn, The tradition of political hedonism, pp. 34–7, 156; and Jones, The Epicurean tradition, pp. 62–78.

15 Vaughn, The tradition of political hedonism, p. 43.

16 Carlyle, ‘Wotton Reinfred’, pp. 23–4.

17 See Fusil, C.-A., ‘Montaigne et Lucrèce’, Revue du XVI siècle, 13 (1926), pp. 265–81, at pp. 265, 272Google Scholar; and Boon, Jean-Pierre, ‘Montaigne et Épicure: aspects de l'hédonisme dans les Essais’, Comparative Literature, 20 (1968), pp. 64–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Carlyle borrowed vol. i of the 1754 London edition on 7 Jan. 1820, and vol. vi on 23 Jan. 1820, as revealed by Finlayson, C. P., ‘Thomas Carlyle's borrowings from the Edinburgh University Library’, Bibliotheck, 3/4 (1961), pp. 138–43, at p. 141Google Scholar. Carlyle also owned a copy of the 1818 Paris edition, as noted by Tarr, Rodger L., ‘Thomas Carlyle's libraries at Chelsea and Ecclefechan’, Studies in Bibliography, 27 (1974), pp. 249–65, at p. 260Google Scholar. The entry to the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, published in 1820, has been reprinted in Carlyle, Thomas, Montaigne and other essays, chiefly biographical, ed. Crockett, S. R. (London, 1901), pp. 1–7Google Scholar.

19 Carlyle, ‘Montaigne’, in Montaigne and other essays, pp. 3, 6.

20 De vita et moribus Epicuri (1647) and Syntagma philosophiae Epicuri (1649). See generally Margaret J. Osler, ‘Fortune, fate, and divination: Gassendi's voluntarist theology and the baptism of Epicureanism’, in Osler, ed., Atoms, pneuma, and tranquillity, pp. 155–74.

21 Gassendi as cited (in English) by Vaughn, The tradition of political hedonism, pp. 47–8; and Wilson, Epicureanism at the origins of modernity, p. 181.

22 16 Jan. 1827, Two note books, p. 102.

23 Molière, Le médecin malgré lui (1666), cited in McKenna, Antony, ‘Molière und der Epikureismus am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts’, in Schwarte, L., ed., Philosophien des Fleisches: Das Theater der Libertinage zwischen Kunst und Wissenschaft (1680–1750) (Hildesheim, 2008), pp. 41–56, at p. 54Google Scholar. For Carlyle's early readings of Molière, see generally 15 Dec. 1814, CL, i, p. 35, 20 Dec. 1824, CL, iii, pp. 231–6, and 7 Apr. 1825, CL, iii, p. 312. Carlyle refers explicitly to ‘Médecin malgré lui’ in 21 Mar. 1825, CL, iii, pp. 302–6. Carlyle also owned a copy of Molière, Oeuvres (6 vols., Neuchatel, 1775), as revealed by Tarr, ‘Thomas Carlyle's libraries’, p. 260.

24 Molière, ‘Le misanthrope’ (1666), cited in McKenna, ‘Molière und der Epikureismus’, pp. 47–8; see also pp. 55–6.

25 Carlyle, Thomas, Past and present (1843) (Everyman edn, London, 1912), p. 180Google Scholar.

26 Lafond, Jean, ‘Augustinisme et épicurisme au XVIIIe siècle’ (1982), reprinted in his L'homme et son image: morales et littératures de Montaigne à Mandeville (Paris, 1996), pp. 345–68Google Scholar.

27 Pascal, ‘Writings on grace’, cited (in English) by Force, Self-interest before Adam Smith, p. 53. See also McKenna, Antony, ‘Pascal et Épicure: L'intervention de Pierre Bayle dans la controverse entre Antoine Arnauld et le Père Malebranche’, Dix-septième siècle, 137 (1982), pp. 421–8, at p. 421Google Scholar.

28 See [Thomas Carlyle], ‘Pascal’ (1823), in Brewster, D., ed., Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (18 vols., Philadelphia, PA, 1832), xv, pp. 395–8Google Scholar, in which Carlyle notes that Pascal opposed ‘the supporters of free will’ (p. 398). Carlyle's authorship has only recently been established, and the entry has never been reprinted. See Tarr, Rodger L., Thomas Carlyle: a descriptive bibliography (Pittsburgh, PA, 1989), p. 404Google Scholar.

29 On La Rochefoucauld, see Lafond, ‘Augustinisme et épicurisme’, pp. 345, 354, 357.

30 19 Nov. 1817, CL, i, pp. 111–15.

31 Dictionnaire historique et critique (1695–7). Carlyle reports having bought and studied the Dictionnaire in 29 Mar. 1833, CL, vi, pp. 359–67, 7 Sept. 1833, CL, vi, pp. 431–6, and 24 Sept. 1833, CL, vi, pp. 444–50. Carlyle owned a copy of the 1740 Amsterdam edition, as revealed by Tarr, ‘Thomas Carlyle's libraries’, p. 260.

32 Cited (in English) by Force, Self-interest before Adam Smith, p. 53. See also Paganini, Gianni, ‘Tra Epicuro e Stratone: Bayle e l'immagine di Epicuro dal Sei al Settecento’, Revista critica di storia della filosofia, 33 (1978), pp. 72–115, at pp. 75–7Google Scholar; McKenna, ‘Pascal et Épicure’, p. 423; and Bonacina, Filosofia ellenistica e cultura moderna, pp. 19–22.

33 Carlyle, Thomas, ‘Burns’ (1828), in Critical and miscellaneous essays (CME) (People's edn, 7 vols., London, 1872), ii, pp. 1–53, at pp. 27–8Google Scholar. See also Carlyle, Thomas, ‘Faustus’ (1822), in Collectanea Thomas Carlyle, ed. Jones, S. A. (Canton, PA, 1903), pp. 59–92, at p. 78Google Scholar.

34 See Dagen, Jean, ‘Fontenelle et l'épicurisme’, Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France, 103 (2003), pp. 397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 On 7 Jan. 1820, Carlyle borrowed vols. i, iii, and iv of the 1764 Amsterdam edition, as revealed by Finlayson, ‘Thomas Carlyle's borrowings’, p. 142. Vol. i consisted entirely of the ‘Dialogues’, and vol. iii contained ‘Du bonheur’ (pp. 144–58).

36 Cited in Dagen, ‘Fontenelle et l'épicurisme’, pp. 400, 410–11.

37 Carlyle, ‘Diderot’ (1833), CME, v, pp. 1–63, at pp. 25–6.

38 Voltaire, ‘Epître à Madame de G.’ (1716–17), cited in Cronk, Nicholas, ‘Arouet, poète épicurien: Les voix de l'épicurisme dans la poésie de jeunesse de Voltaire’, Dix-huitième siècle, 35 (2003), pp. 157–70, at pp. 165–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Voltaire, ‘Le Mondain’ (1736), cited in idem, ‘The Epicurean spirit: champagne and the defence of poetry in Voltaire's Le mondain’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 371 (1999), pp. 53–80, at pp. 56–7Google Scholar.

39 Voltaire, Des singularités de la nature (1768), cited in Fusil, C.-A., ‘Lucrèce et les philosophes du XVIIIe siècle’, Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France, 35 (1928), pp. 194–210, at p. 209Google Scholar.

40 Carlyle owned an edition of Voltaire's Oeuvres complètes (97 vols., Paris, 1825–34)Google Scholar, as well as his Lettres inédites (Paris, 1826)Google Scholar, as revealed by Tarr, ‘Thomas Carlyle's libraries’, p. 261.

41 Carlyle, ‘Voltaire’ (1829), CME, ii, pp. 120–82, at pp. 143–4.

42 Diderot, ‘Epicuréisme’ (1755), cited variously in Paganini, ‘Tra Epicuro e Stratone’, p. 111; Bonacina, Filosofia ellenistica e cultura moderna, pp. 71–2; Holley, Jared, ‘The poison and the spider's web: Diderot and eighteenth-century French Epicureanism’, History of European Ideas, 41 (2015), pp. 1107–24, at pp. 1118–19 (in English)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Warman, Caroline, ‘Modèles violents et sensations fortes dans la genèse de l'oeuvre de Sade’, Dix-huitième siècle, 35 (2003), pp. 213–39, at p. 236CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Joseph de Chaumeix, Préjugés légitimes contre l'Encyclopédie (1758), cited in Albertan-Coppola, Sylviane, ‘L'anti-épicurisme’, Dix-huitième siècle, 35 (2003), pp. 309–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 309, 313–14.

44 See Eduardo Tortarolo, ‘Epicurus and Diderot’, in Paganini and Tortarolo, eds., Der Garten und die Moderne, pp. 383–98, at pp. 389–98.

45 Froude, Thomas Carlyle, ii, p. 242. See also 21 Aug. 1832, CL, vi, pp. 204–7, and 28 Aug. 1832, CL, vi, pp. 209–13.

46 Carlyle, ‘Diderot’, CME, v, pp. 55, 59, 62.

47 Helvétius, De l'esprit (1758), cited variously in Force, Pierre, ‘First principles in translation: the axiom of self-interest from Adam Smith to Jean-Baptiste Say’, History of Political Economy, 38 (2006), pp. 319–38, at pp. 327–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Force, Self-interest before Adam Smith, p. 94 (in English); Force, ‘Helvétius as an Epicurean political theorist’, in Leddy and Lifschitz, eds., Epicurus in the Enlightenment, pp. 105–18 , at pp. 109, 116; Rosen, Classical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill, pp. 90–1 (in English); and Heydt, Colin, ‘Utilitarianism before Bentham’, in Eggleston, B. and Miller, D. E., eds., The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism (Cambridge, 2014), pp. 16–37, at pp. 31–3 (in English)Google Scholar.

48 Carlyle borrowed the 1764 Amsterdam edition, as revealed by Finlayson, ‘Thomas Carlyle's borrowings’, p. 141.

49 Carlyle, ‘Diderot’, CME, v, p. 30; Carlyle, Thomas, Sartor resartus (1833–4) (Oxford World's Classics edn, Oxford, 1987), pp. 72–3Google Scholar.

50 See generally Gruner, Shirley A., Economic materialism and social moralism: a study in the history of ideas from the latter part of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century (The Hague, 1973), pp. 11–13, 61–5, 77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Welch, Cheryl B., Liberty and utility: the French Idéologues and the transformation of liberalism (New York, NY, 1984), pp. 5–43, 135–53Google Scholar; and Saad, Mariana, ‘Cabanis, Destutt de Tracey, Volney: Science de l'homme et épicurisme’, Dix-huitième siècle, 35 (2003), pp. 101–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 3 Nov. 1823, Two note books, p. 52.

52 Carlyle, ‘Goethe's Helena’ (1828), CME, i, pp. 126–71, at pp. 135–6, see also pp. 137–8, 169; Carlyle, Sartor resartus, p. 136.

53 Cabanis, Rapports du physique et du morale de l'homme (1802), cited in Saad, ‘Cabanis, Destutt de Tracey, Volney’, pp. 103–4.

54 Carlyle, Thomas, The life of Schiller (1825) (People's edn, London, 1872), p. 22Google Scholar. See also the reference to ‘Dr. Cabanis’, in Carlyle, ‘German playwrights’ (1829), CME, ii, pp. 85–119, at p. 104.

55 Carlyle, ‘Signs of the times’ (1829), CME, ii, pp. 230–52, at pp. 237–8.

56 Carlyle, ‘Wotton Reinfred’, pp. 23–4.

57 Laurent, P.-M., ‘Caractère de notre époque. 2ème article’, L'Organisateur, 36 (18 Apr. 1830), pp. 2–3Google Scholar. This was a review of Carlyle's essay ‘Signs of the times’. Having received a copy, Carlyle replied: ‘our real Governors in this age are…Helvetius, and the like’ (9 Aug. 1830, CL, v, pp. 134–9). On Carlyle and the Saint-Simonians, see generally Shine, Hill, Carlyle and the Saint-Simonians: the concept of historical periodicity (Baltimore, MD, 1941)Google Scholar; Pankhurst, R. K. P., The Saint-Simonians, Mill and Carlyle (London, 1957)Google Scholar; Fielding, K. J., ‘Carlyle and the Saint-Simonians (1830–1832): new considerations’, in Clubbe, J., ed., Carlyle and his contemporaries (Durham, NC, 1976), pp. 35–59Google Scholar; and Jordan, Alexander, ‘Noble just industrialism: Saint-Simonism in the political thought of Thomas Carlyle’ (European University Institute Ph.D. thesis, 2015)Google Scholar.

58 Wieland, Geschichte des Agathon (1766–7), cited in Kimmich, Epikureische Aufklärungen, pp. 158–60, 187–9, 198, 211–13, qu. pp. 187–9; and idem, ‘Christoph Martin Wielands Epikureismus’, Wieland-Studien, 3 (1996), pp. 47–74, at pp. 52–4, 60–4, qu. pp. 52–4Google Scholar.

59 Sauder, Gerhard, Der reisende Epikureer: Studien zu Moritz August von Thümmels Roman Reise in die mittaglichen Provinzen von Frankreich (Heidelberg, 1968), p. 188Google Scholar; Kimmich, Epikureische Aufklärungen, p. 182.

60 On 22 Nov. 1819, Carlyle borrowed vols. iv and v of Wieland's Sämmtliche Werke (45 vols., Leipzig, 1784–1811), as revealed in Finlayson, ‘Thomas Carlyle's borrowings’, p. 140. See also 12 July 1824, CL, iii, pp. 108–9.

61 Carlyle, Life of Schiller, pp. 95–6. On Wieland, see also Mar. 1823, Two note books, pp. 45–6; Carlyle, ‘Jean Paul Friedrich Richter’ (1827), CME, i, pp. 1–21, at p. 25; and Carlyle, ‘State of German literature’ (1827), CME, i, pp. 22–73, at p. 40. See also the highly similar remarks regarding German Rococo poetry in CME, i, p. 42. On Rococo and its debts to French Epicureanism, see Sauder, Der reisende Epikureer, pp. 189–94; and Kimmich, Epikureische Aufklärungen, pp. 168–72.

62 See generally Bonacina, Filosofia ellenistica e cultura moderna, pp. 48–50, 176–82; and also Beiser, Frederick C., Enlightenment, revolution and romanticism: the genesis of modern German political thought, 1790–1800 (Cambridge, MA, 1992), pp. 16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Carlyle, ‘Historic survey of German poetry’ (1831), CME, iii, pp. 217–51, at pp. 228–9.

64 The following paragraph is based on Aubenque, Pierre, ‘Kant et l'épicurisme’, in Association Guillaume Budé: Actes du VIIIe Congrès (Paris, 1969), pp. 293–303Google Scholar; Düsing, Klaus, ‘Kant und Epikur: Untersuchungen zum Problem der Grundlegung einer Ethik’, Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 3 (1976), pp. 39–58Google Scholar; and Verde, Francesco, ‘L'Epicuro di Kant: Note sulla presenza epicurea nella Kritik der reinen Vernunft’, Philosophical Readings, 2 (2010), pp. 179–207Google Scholar. For some qualifications, see Adler, Anthony Curtis, ‘Sensual idealism: the spirit of Epicurus and the politics of finitude in Kant and Hölderlin’, in Holmes, B. and Shearin, W. H., eds., Dynamic reading: studies in the reception of Epicureanism (Oxford, 2012), pp. 199–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Aubenque, ‘Kant et l'épicurisme’, pp. 295–7; Adler, ‘Sensual idealism’, pp. 200–1.

66 Aubenque, ‘Kant et l'épicurisme’, pp. 300–1; Düsing, ‘Kant und Epikur’, pp. 41, 52, 56; Adler, ‘Sensual idealism’, p. 201; Verde, ‘L'Epicuro di Kant’, pp. 190–1, 198–200.

67 Carlyle owned a copy of the 1818 Leipzig edition, as revealed by Tarr, ‘Thomas Carlyle's libraries’, p. 262. See also 27 Sept. 1826, CL, iv, pp. 137–9, and Mar. 1827, Two note books, p. 113.

68 See Wellek, René, Immanuel Kant in England, 1793–1838 (Princeton, NJ, 1931), pp. 183–202Google Scholar; Harrold, C. F., Carlyle and German thought, 1819–1834 (New Haven, CT, 1934), pp. 10–11, 68, 87–8, 95, 130–46Google Scholar; and Ashton, Rosemary, The German idea: four English writers and the reception of German thought, 1800–1860 (London, 1994), pp. 46–8, 71, 92Google Scholar.

69 Sorensen, David, ‘An instinctive Kantian: Carlyle, Kant, and the vital interests of man’, Carlyle Studies Annual, 18 (1998), pp. 53–63, at p. 57Google Scholar.

70 Carlyle, Life of Schiller, pp. 95–6.

71 Carlyle, ‘Wotton Reinfred’, pp. 23–4, 61–2, 69, 72–3.

72 Carlyle, ‘State of German literature’, CME, i, pp. 67–71. See also Carlyle, ‘Novalis’ (1829), CME, ii, pp. 183–229, at pp. 202–5.

73 See generally Ewen, Frederic, The prestige of Schiller in England, 1788–1859 (New York, NY, 1932), pp. 134–47Google Scholar.

74 Schiller to Herzog Friedrich Christian von Augustenburg, cited in Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhart, ‘Die Gärten Epikurs in Sanssouci – Französische Epikuräer und Materialisten am Hofe Friedrichs II von Preußen’, in Beilecke, F. and Marmetschke, K., eds., Der Intellektuelle und der Mandarin: Festschrift für Hans Manfred Bock (Kassel, 2005), pp. 675–724, at pp. 722–3Google Scholar. Meyer-Kalkus does not give the date.

75 Carlyle, Life of Schiller, pp. 95–100.

76 Schiller, Letters on the aesthetic education of man, cited in ‘State of German literature’, CME, i, p. 49.

77 Carlyle, ‘Schiller’ (1831), CME, iii, pp. 65–110, at pp. 89–90.

78 Carlyle, Thomas, Lectures on the history of literature (1838), ed. Greene, J. Reay (London, 1892), pp. 52, 162–3, 190, 194Google Scholar.

79 Carlyle, Past and present, pp. 261, 147–8, 150.

80 Carlyle, Sartor resartus, p. 126; Carlyle, Thomas, On heroes, hero worship, and the heroic in history (1841) (Oxford World's Classics edn, London, 1904), pp. 75–6Google Scholar; Carlyle, Past and present, p. 106. Around this time, Carlyle wrote: ‘Once master of Kant, you have attained what I reckon most precious…namely, deliverance from the fatal incubus of…French philosophy’ (28 Aug. 1841, CL, xiii, pp. 227–9).

81 26 Apr. 1840, CL, xii, p. 118, and 15 June 1840, CL, xii, pp. 163–6.

82 Carlyle, Past and present, pp. 173, 265. See also Carlyle, On heroes, p. 92.

83 See generally Hirschman, Albert O., The passions and the interests: political arguments for capitalism before its triumph (Princeton, NJ, 1977), p. 16Google Scholar; and Gordon, Daniel, Citizens without sovereignty: equality and sociability in French thought, 1670–1789 (Princeton, NJ, 1994), pp. 43–85Google Scholar.

84 See Gunn, J. A. W., ‘Public opinion’, in Ball, T., Farr, J., and Hanson, R. L., eds., Political innovation and conceptual change (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 247–65, at pp. 254–5, 259Google Scholar, Baker, Keith Michael, Inventing the French Revolution: essays in French political culture in the eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 168–72, 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gunn, J. A. W., Queen of the world: opinion in the public life of France from the Renaissance to the Revolution (Oxford, 1995), pp. 66–77Google Scholar.

85 Carlyle, ‘Voltaire’, CME, ii, pp. 176–8. See also Carlyle, ‘Signs of the times’, CME, ii, pp. 236–41, 245–6, 249–50.

86 See variously Janko Zagar, ‘Bentham et la France’ (Univ. of Paris Ph.D. thesis, 1958), pp. 212–16, 241–3; Gruner, Economic materialism and social moralism, pp. 73–83; Vaughn, The tradition of political hedonism, pp. 76–7; Force, ‘First principles in translation’, p. 335; Sonenscher, Michael, Before the deluge: public debt, inequality, and the intellectual origins of the French revolution (Princeton, NJ, 2007), p. 345Google Scholar; and Faccarello, Gilbert and Steiner, Philippe, ‘Interest, sensationism and the science of the legislator: French “philosophie économique”, 1695–1830’, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15 (2008), pp. 1–23, at pp. 19–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 10 Aug. 1824, CL, iii, pp. 120–4.

88 Carlyle, ‘Chartism’ (1839), CME, vi, pp. 109–86, at pp. 139, 144, 152–3.

89 Carlyle, Past and present, pp. 178, 32–3; see also p. 179.

90 Simpson, Dwight J., ‘Carlyle as a political theorist: natural law’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, 3 (1959), pp. 263–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Carlyle, Past and present, pp. 18, 27–9, 131, 137.

92 Carlyle, ‘Chartism’, CME, vi, pp. 135, 144.

93 Carlyle, On heroes, pp. 199–200.

94 ‘Carlyle's life of Sterling’, North British Review, 16 (Feb. 1852), pp. 359–89, at pp. 388–9Google Scholar.

95 ‘Latter-day pamphlets. By Thomas Carlyle’, English Review, 16 (Jan. 1852), pp. 331–51, at pp. 335–6, 340Google Scholar.

96 Lecky, William Edward Hartpole, History of European morals from Augustus to Charlemagne (2 vols., London, 1869), i, pp. 1, 5–6, 8, 10–12, 13, 17, 58, 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quote is from On heroes, p. 71. On Lecky's ‘very long walks with Carlyle’, see letter dated 1 Apr. 1868, in A memoir of the right hon. William Edward Hartpole Lecky…by his wife (New York, NY, 1909), p. 63Google Scholar. On Carlyle's positive response to the book, see ibid., pp. 67–8.

97 ‘Carlyle's Frederick the Great’, Saturday Review (22 Apr. 1865), pp. 476–8, at p. 476.

98 ‘History of Friedrich II. of Prussia’, Dublin University Magazine, 53 (Jan. 1859), pp. 12–31, at pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

99 Nicolai, Friedrich, Anekdoten von König Friedrich dem Zweiten von Preußen, und von einigen Personen, die um Ihn waren (2 vols., Berlin, 1788–92), i, p. 137Google Scholar, as cited in Meyer-Kalkus, ‘Die Gärten Epikurs in Sanssouci’, p. 700. Carlyle certainly owned a copy of the book, as revealed by Lane, William Coolidge, The Carlyle collection: a catalogue of books on Oliver Cromwell and Frederick the Great, bequeathed by Thomas Carlyle to Harvard College Library (Cambridge, MA, 1888), p. 17Google Scholar. Carlyle also referred to ‘Nicolai's good industry (in his Anekdoten-Book)’, in Carlyle, Thomas, History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, called Frederick the Great (1858–65) (Copyright edn, 10 vols., London, 1888), iv, p. 233Google Scholar.

100 Johann Georg Sulzers Lebenbeschreibung, von ihms selbst aufgesetz (Berlin, 1809)Google Scholar, as cited in Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhart, ‘Epikureische Aufklärung in Deutschland. Johann Georg Sulzers Gespräch mit Friedrich II. von Preußen am 31.12.1777’, Hyperboreaus, 9 (2003), pp. 191–207, at pp. 193–4Google Scholar. Carlyle referred explicitly to ‘Sulzer’ and ‘a Speech of Friedrich's to him once, which has often been repeated’ (Carlyle, Frederick the Great, vi, pp. 252–3; see also vi, p. 291).

101 Frederick to Voltaire, as cited in Meyer-Kalkus, ‘Die Gärten Epikurs in Sanssouci’, p. 703. Meyer-Kalkus does not give the date.

102 Frederick to d'Argens, 2 July 1761, as cited in ibid., pp. 701–2.

103 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, iii, pp. 210–11, 225–6, 29.

104 Frederick, ‘Epître à Sweerts’, cited in Meyer-Kalkus, ‘Die Gärten Epikurs in Sanssouci’, p. 714; Fusil, ‘Lucrèce et les philosophes du XVIIIe siècle’, p. 208.

105 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, iii, pp. 264–5, vi, pp. 168–9; see also viii, p. 249.

106 Frederick, Anti-Machiavel, cited in Yashiki, Jiro Rei, ‘Eigenliebe als Moralprinzip unter den aufgeklärten Absolutismus Friedrichs des Grossen’, Hitosubashi Journal of Law and Politics, 36 (2008), pp. 35–42Google Scholar, at pp. 35–6. See also Lifschitz, Avi, ‘Adrastus versus Diogenes: Frederick the Great and Jean-Jacques Rousseau on self-love’, in Lifschitz, A., ed., Engaging with Rousseau (Cambridge, 2016), pp. 17–32, at pp. 28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, iii, p. 269; see also ix, pp. 245, 249, x, p. 152.

108 Ibid., iii, pp. 211–2. See also 6 June 1852, CL, xxvii, pp. 135–40.

109 Carlyle, ‘Diderot’, CME, v, p. 33. See also Carlyle, ‘Voltaire’ (1829), CME, ii, p. 147.

110 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, iii, p. 207.

111 Voltaire, letter c. 1751/2, cited in ibid., vi, pp. 231–2.

112 Casanova, cited in Aleksić, Bruno, ‘Casanova à l'école Buissonière d'Épicure’, Dix-huitième siècle, 35 (2003), pp. 241–60, at p. 246CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, v, p. 101; see also ix, p. 73.

114 Maupertuis, ‘Essai de philosophie morale’ (1749), as cited in Meyer-Kalkus, ‘Epikureische Aufklärung in Deutschland’, p. 195. Maupertuis, Carlyle owned, Oeuvres (4 vols., Paris, 1756)Google Scholar, and Maupertuisiana (Paris, 1753)Google Scholar, as revealed by Lane, The Carlyle collection, p. 16. See also 21 July 1856, CL, xxxi, pp. 131–2.

115 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, vi, pp. 246–7.

116 Ibid., ix, pp. 266–8; see also x, p. 10.

117 La Mettrie, Système d’Épicure (1750), cited in Kavanagh, Enlightened pleasures, pp. 208–9; and also Ann Thomson, ‘La Mettrie et l'épicurisme’, in Paganini and Tortarolo, eds., Der Garten und die Moderne, pp. 361–81, at p. 373.

118 La Mettrie, Discours sur le bonheur (1748), and La Mettrie, L'Art de jouir (1751), cited in Comte-Sponville, André, ‘La Mettrie et le “Système d'Épicure”’, Dix-huitième siècle, 24 (1992), pp. 105–15, at pp. 111–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Deneys-Tunney, Anne, ‘Marivaux et la pensée du plaisir’, Dix-huitième siècle, 35 (2003), pp. 211–29, at p. 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, vi, pp. 237–8, 247–9, 252–3; see also vi, p. 291.

120 Meyer-Kalkus, ‘Die Gärten Epikurs in Sanssouci’, pp. 698, 721–2.

121 Johann Georg Sulzers vermischte Schriften (1781), cited in Meyer-Kalkus, ‘Epikureische Aufklärung in Deutschland’, pp. 195–7. See also Sauder, Der reisende Epikureer, pp. 193–4.

122 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, vi, pp. 252–3; see also p. 291. In ‘Historic survey of German poetry’, Carlyle had written that ‘Sulzer was an estimable man, who did good service in his day’ (CME, iii, p. 235).

123 9 May 1856, CL, xxxi, pp. 90–1. On Rousseau as an anti-Epicurean thinker, see Menzel, Walter, Der Kampf gegen den Epikureismus in der französischen Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1931), pp. 43, 115–40Google Scholar; Strauss, Leo, Natural right and history (Chicago, IL, 1953), pp. 264–83Google Scholar; and Kavanagh, Enlightened pleasures, pp. 106–7. For an alternative interpretation, which stresses Rousseau's debts to Epicureanism, see Nichols, James H. Jr, Epicurean political philosophy (Ithaca, NY, 1976), pp. 198–205Google Scholar; Brooke, Christopher, ‘Rousseau's second discourse: between Epicureanism and Stoicism’, in McDonald, C. and Hoffman, S., eds., Rousseau and freedom (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Holley, Jared, ‘Eighteenth-century Epicureanism and Rousseau on liberty’, History of European Ideas, 31 (2011), pp. 81–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Carlyle claimed that Rousseau had ‘a spark of real heavenly fire’ in him, praising his opposition to ‘withered mocking Philosophism’ (Carlyle, On heroes, pp. 187–8).

124 Lecky, W. E. H., History of England in the eighteenth century (3rd edn, 8 vols., London, 1891), v, p. 364Google Scholar.