The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1926. FOOTPRINTS ON THE SANDS OF TIME.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 April 1926, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1926. FOOTPRINTS ON THE SANDS OF TIME.

Something was said a week ago in this column about Colonel House’s recent hook, entitled “Intimate Papers.” The subject is worth considering in regard to big men who leave their footprints on the sands of time, and the Colonel’s work leads tip to a wider review of tho subject than even the delusions in tho hook suggest. Colonel House arrived at tile final conclusion, that Woodrow Wilson, the war-time President of the United States, was a “big” man, hut not the very "biggest.” Colonel House, a contemporary remarks, in referring further to the subject, is a shrewd judge of his fellow creatures, and that is his dispassionate estimate of the man who was deemed to be tho

outstanding figure of the Versailles Conference—a gathering attended by I’rime Ministers of many lands, tlic political elite of the victorious Powers. Woodrow Wilson was not of the “biggest” type. Who, then, is the truly great man ? I!v what %'lmll we know him; hy what shall we measure his stature? Clearly he is not necessarily it good man. Some of those whose eminence is acknowledged on all hands- were devoid of scruple and any sentiment of humanity. The sun of

their greatness was defaced hy many a dark spot. Nor need he he a popular man. Some of the giants of history were cordially hated, and lived in daily peril of the assassin’s knife. The definition is elusive. We can best determine the nature of greatness hy

concrete examples. “Some are born great.” says Malvolio in “Twelfth Night,” “some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” What, precisely, does lie mean hy the first proposition ? Does he. imply that some are endowed at birth with the attributes which lead to greatness, or that they are horn to the purpose ? In the former ease they will he among those who achieve great-

ness. But not all of those who are born in high places can claim the title great. Kings have often been weak and inept. Emperors in name have been mere ciphers, the puppets of

their Ministers. With the second class "e are on surer ground. An obscure artillery subaltern from Corsica, thanks to his military genius and his capacity for seizing the golden opportunity, makes himself tnaster of western. Europe. A' gauche, lanky lawyer from the middle west becomes

President of the United States nt tho most critical moment of its history. B»t tv as not Abraham Lincoln rather one of those who had greatness thrust upon him? It came to him unasked. He sought office, not for any personal ends, but from a sense of duty to his country. Again one remembers the story of Cincinnatus, who was tilling liis little farm by the Tiber when messengers came from Rome announcing that lie had been made Dictator, and bidding him save the Republic from tho approaching enemy. “With great simplicity,” runs the torse record, “he left the plough, conquered the Aequi, and returned to his furrows again.” Sorely Cincinnatus’ greatness lay not only in his martial prowess, hut in his renunciation of greatness as soon as lie had finished the job. Of course, there are degrees of greatness; but wo have no difficulty in identifying the quality in the heroes of the- post. There* are some men who, by common consent, are among the Olympians. They tower above the. level of other mortals like an. obelisk on a plain. But did they appear great to their own day? Did their contemporaries assess them at their true worth—Julius Caeser had his detractors. No doubt lie was a successful general, they said, but after all Rome hail produced many such. Most of his victories had been gained against undisciplined, ill-equipped barbarians. Ho had defeated l’ompey because of the latter’s irresolution. if we had lived ill Rome then might wo not have .shared the views of the envious Casca? Would we have realised that the principles of Caesarian strategy would endure for close upon two thousand years and longer? So. too. many of Napoleon's enemies refused to allow that he was great. They railed at him and denounced him, which was comprehensible enough. But they disparaged his ability, which argued a singular lack of perception. Ho was “tho wretched little Corsican upstart,” an object of contempt and ridicule ns well as of hate. Yet had we been in their place would we have exhibited more acumen? The fact of tho matter seems to be that we are very loth to admit that persons of our own day are truly great. Only when they have been dead many years is their greatness recognised. To whom, for example, iq the field of contemporary statecraft would we concede the title? Would we not he inclined to say that, while there is no one approaching: the calibre, of a Pitt, a 'Lincoln, a Talleyrand, or a Oivour. Yet Mussolini, rising from the ranks, has made himself virtual dictator of Italy, has rescued her from anarchy, ami given her si able government and prosperity. We limy detest his principles and methods, but. is not his a rciinirkablo achievement? Must we not in honesty grant that only a great, man could lie capalilo of it? Tn the same way Lenin, the driving force of the Russian revolution, bocame master of the most populous country in Kurope. and his despotism was terminated only liv hK death. Wo may regard him as a Satanisl, as the malevolent embodiment of evil. But can wo deny that he was groat? Could a. lesser man have done what he did? Just as we arc- now prepared to acknowledge, that although Napoleon in hi.s selfish ambition brought untold suffering to Kurope he was nevertheless great, iso the verdict of posterity may lie that those two men, whose names are execrated by millions are. not'wii [islanding, great after their fashion.