GREAT MEM

Hokitika Guardian, 14 October 1927, Page 4

GREAT MEM

(Sydney paper). In a London interview, R Nicholas Murray Duller, preside.' t of Columbia University, expressed the opinion that the world is suffering from an intellectual famine. “For 2090 years jiast.” he said “there never was a period when somewhere in the world there was not a really great poet, philosopher, or genius of same sort who dwarfed 1 iis fellow men. A'et to-day there is not a single such great man in any country. Never before has the world been convulsed

by a great war without some great man emerging from the struggle. I)r Butler was asked whether Signor Mussolini did not merit the title. He replied that he had seen .Mussolini, hut that the latter did not measure uji to his standard. This answer promped the remark that Dr Butler would he well advised to avoid Italy in his future travels on the Continent! Of course, Dr Butler is not to ho taken “at the foot of the letter” as the French say. We do not suppose that he means that between the years 74 B.C. and 1926 A..D genius could always be discovered somewhere or another, but that in 1927 tho supply suddenly ceased. Presumably bo is referring to that vague hut convenient period which we call “our own day,” and which lias no definite beginning Still it would he interesting to know tlie identity of the last man or woman who satisfied Dr Riitlor’s somewhat exacting tests. Would he apply tho term “really great” to Anatole Franco or Joseph Conrad, or

must wo go further hack before the giant is found? By a. coincidence, just about the time of Dr Butler’s pronouncement a New York journal held a plebiscite among its readers, who wore asked to name the five greatest men now living. The vote put Mussolini, first, followed by Edison, Marconi, and Orville Wright in that order, while Henry Ford and G. B. Slmw tied for fifth place. It speaks volumes for the national modesty of Americans that tho list included only three of their fellow countrymen 1 But is Dr Butler correct in his

diagnosis? There were kings before Agamernlnon—and iliiioo. Is it true that the world is experiencing a. dearth of genius. Democracy and universal opportunity in education tend to reduce the observable differ-

ence 'between greatness and first-rate ability. There is no lack of ability on the earth to-day, but over-in-creasing specialisation is an obstacle to the recognition of greatness. Formerly greatness implied isolation. The great man stood apart from his kind; there was no mistaking him. Now he may be among us hut he may he .surrounded by figures hut little inferior in stature, which prevent us from

appreciating bis eminence. The explorer in the mountain range has gfieat 'difficulty 'an telling which is tho highest of the peaks about him. but when viewed from the plain the loftiest stands clear. Moreover, in other ages genius manifested itself chiefly in literature and the fine arts, war, statecraft, aaid what we may term the less recondite forms of

science. The great poet, the greni soldier, were in the public eye. Theii work was visible to all. But nowadays a vast mass of endeavour is directed into less conspicuous channels, and its results have no popular appeal. Is it not quite on the cards that posterity will acclaim as a genius s'ome obscure student, who is now spending toilful days and nights devoid of ease in his laboratory? It is said that in the field of natural philosophy there has been an achievement comparable to Einstein’s theory since Newton formulated the law of gravity. But it does not arouse tho reverential enthusiasm cf the man in the street. We are too close to our great men to know them for what they are. They cannot ho appraised until the passage of time has allowed a sense of proportion to develop. There have been some men whose outstanding

greatness’ was recognised by their contemporaries; Mohammed, Alexander and Napoleon are cases in -point. But they arc comparatively few in number, and even. these assumed, in their own day. no such supremacy over other men as that with which later generations have endowed them. Although on Shakespeare’s death Ben Jonson paid him a glowing tribute Shakespeare had no great primacy over bis fellows in the estimation of his age. Abraham Lincoln was not hailed as great until after his assassination. Galileo was a- dangerous heretic, and Blake was a. crack-brained lunatic to the people of their period. Keats’s poetry was derided by the leading critics of liis day. While Julius Caesar was the idol of the mob, \ of his own rank had no particular admiration for him. He was a successful general, but Rome had produced many successful generals. liis victories had been won not against a well-trained and well-armed enemy such as the Carthageninns, but against undisciplined, ill-equipped barbarisms. Xo doubt Casca says of him to Brutus.

He doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus; and we petty men. Walk under liis huge legs. But these words are Shakespeare’s, not the Roman’s, and in any event they are spoken in hotter irony. Pasteur was denounced as a charlatan. instances of a. similar lack ol discernment could he multiplied indefinitely. Proximity < lends the judgment, a,ml when so often the quality of great men has boon unperceived by their contemporaries it requires not a little daring to assert dogmatically that genius is non-exis-tent. To say that there are no great men in this ago of ours is to undertake history’s task without history’s perspective.