THE SONS OF GREAT MEN.

Otago Witness, 1 June 1910, Page 77

THE SONS OF GREAT MEN.

WHY HAVE THEY SO SELDOM INHERITED THE GENIUS OF THEIR FATHERS? (By Harm Tjei'RSton Peck in MxLvmff'a Ifagazine.)

There are two pqpular beliefs which are very widely and very generally heJd, but which appear at first eight to contradict each other. The first is a belief in the value of ancestry in determining one's character and capacity. The second! is an equally deep-rooted conviction thati great men seldom er never have great sons. Are these two opinions well founded? And if so, how can they be reconciled?

The importance of ancestry is attested! by physiologists, and is practically denied by no one. We recognise it ini the lower animals, in the carelul breeding of doge and horses. W& recognise it by inn plication, also, in our estimate' of men and women.; and it is acknowledged in many a well-worn phrase of our common speech. "He comes of a good stock," is a saying that we often hear. " Blood will tell," is a maxim of the people. Nor does this tenet necessarily involve an acceptance of the aristocratic principle. It means only that a man whose parents and grandparents have led clean lives and have been persons of upright character and intellectual force has » far better chance of success in the struggle for existence than one in whose progenitors are found moral or physical op menta' weakness. " Like father, like son," is another proverb which crystallises the same belief. On the other hand, it is also accepted as almost a truism that very marked ability in the father is usually balanced by a, marked inferiority in his offspring, as if Nature had exhausted herself ha creating one supreme product, and had then rested, allowing, by the theory of compensation, dull mediocrity to offset transcendent genius. Yet if ancestry h» so powerful a factor in the moulding of individuals the son of a great man ought to be still greater, until a race of gods should be evolved to guide and dominate the common mass of our humanity. Th« 6on should, as it were, begin where hia father left off, possessing the inheritance of his parent's wisdom, experience, and virility, and with these he should press on indomitably to still greater triumphs., This, however, is obviously not the case. Setting aside a few remarkable exceptions, the contrary will be found to represent the general truth. ' The exception* are not sufficiently important to do more than prove what is apparently the rule. Some families, indeed, have shown a sustained Vigour, a genetic momentum, which has inscribed upon their records more than one great name; but they are not numerous, and most of them belong to the second or third, and not to tha very first, rank of those whom the world calls truly great. In literature, for instance, the name of Dumas suggest* a transmission jf power. The fighting general of that name begot the great romancer, and the romancer had for his son the cleverest French dramatist of modern times. In statesmanship Lord Chathane sired William Pitt, an abler statesmaß even than his father; while in our owi, country the name of Adams is linked witi, four generations of honourable achievement. In science Charles Darwin's and especially his grandfather, Erasnin* Darwin, are remembered lor their own attainments as well as for their relationship to the author of '' The Origin of Species." But how meagre is any such list whet set against the instances of deterioration* Where is the blood successor of a Cicero, a Goethe, a Moliere, a Dickens, or s Browning in literature, or ot a Michael Angelo, a Rubens, a Vandyke, or a Murillo in art? Contrast Napoleon tbc Great, setting his heel upon the neck of Europe, with the puny boy, his son, weak, amiable, and inefficient, fit only to be ih-i theme of a drama of commiseration. Contrast Wellington, the Iron Duke, with hi* sterile son. A Bismarck leaves as his heirs a profligate and a. commonplace you»!j bureaucrat. A Gladstone, whose fiery spirit Earned out as fiercely in his seventieth vear as in his youth, begets a.- peacefai country slergyman and an undistinguished' office-holder. Froebel, who taught xJk world how best to train, the young, saw his own son grow up an utter failure. In our own country the great Franklin gave his name to an unworthy successor. Webster, the lion-like, transmitted neither his intellest nor his vigour .to his mala heirs. There has arisen no second Hamilton, no second Clay, no second Lincoln, to recall the unique genius of their fathers. It would be tedious to extend the list. The great men of all time have often had sons who were worthy citizens and sometimes valuable members of society; but only an insignificant minority have seemed to bequeath the surpassing gifts of heart and brain which they themselves displayed for the • enlightenment or the

jtbetterment of the -world. Not without Tgopd reason ie it said that great men’s, eons are seldom great. ■ "1 «£• ; Handicap of Great Parent*] | age.— i . Of this curious fact several explanations have been given, of which two may be /considered here, before setting forth a third* The superficially plausible solution

r -^iFP Ib -that which lies in ilhe remark that the yery eminence of th© parent is a serious discouragement ig the eon. From childhoo4 he i§ overshadowed by his father’s fame, He lives, as ft were, in a per* petual eclipse. From the outset whatever he does is compared with what his father has achieved. His beginnings are contrasted with the other’s ultimate results. This, it is said, breeds a certain dis-

couragement, a chronic hopelessness. One can conceive the son of a Bismarck as saying to himself; *" What chance is there for me? My father has carved out a great name for himself in history. If I attempt to follow his example those who honour him will from the outset expect too much from me. These who are his enemies will belittle all my efforts, and will try to make me fail because they are jealous of his fame. I am" handicapped in both ways, and so I must content myself with being just my father's son." Moreover, in the case of one who has the alleged disadvantage of an illustrious father, the way is often made too smooth. He dees not have to overcome the obstacles which others must struggle to surmount. He is exempted from the strife which toughens the aspirant's fibre and excites his intellectual power to an almost preternatural activity. "The son of his father" finds it all too easy, and he becomes enervated at the very time- when be needs the- stimulus of opposition and the joy of battle to arouse him. This theory is not entirely unreasonable ; yet in its very essence it concedes the point at issue. It makes the son of the great man feel and speak and argue like a man of common mould. The ordinary person would undoubtedly give up in this half-hearted manner. He would feel himself eclipsed and overshadowed. But if he had hie father's genius as well as his father's name he would not for one instant" sit down in such unmanly fashion and accept the place of a nonentity. The example of his father would be not a deterrent, but an inspiration. It would nerve him to the most strenuous effort. He would set his teeth and clench his hands, and vow that, instead of ■ living in the light of another's glory, he would, by his own brain and nerve and power, achieve glory for himself. When the son of a great man fails to do this he shows by that very fact that he has inherited nothing but his name. He has no part nor lot in What has made that name illustrious._ There is another theory which is decidedly a popular one, in the sense that it rests upon no scientific basis, but is to be grouped with other fancies that spring up in untutored minds. Some say that men who rise to eminence expend their powers so lavishly that they have nothing to transmit to the second generation; that they put into their ambition, their love, their life-work all of the vitality and mental force which would naturally go into the children of their body. Hence their achievements are their true offspring. The play, the poem, the painting, the statue, the scheme of statecraft, the victory on the stricken field—these are the real sons of genius, more surely so than are those sons who are begotten not _of the brain and soul, but only of the loins. It is an attractive notion, thiSj because it is so picturesque; but it is contrary to all that we have learned of the deep mystery of generation., A different and much more reasonable explanation of the deficiencies of great men's sons is to be found in certain interesting facts. Great Kings Have Had Great Sons. — In, the first place, I have purposely omitted to refer to one remarkable exception to what otherwise would seem to be almost a rule of general application. Great authors, great artists, great soldiers, great statesmen, and great masters of science do not seem to bequeath their powers to their descendants ; but the case is otherwise with great kings of a longestablished royal line. If we go back beyond the period of constitutional government, which has reduced the monarch to the position of a figurehead, we shall find that the rulers of have often transmitted to their male heirs the masterfulness and the extraordinary gift for leadership which were necessary to the autocratic king who wished his dynasty to endure. Take, for example, in English history, the Norman and Plantagenet monarchs, and see how, with scarce a break, the power passes on from sire to son unchecked and undiminished. The list includes William, who conquered Saxon England ; the fierce but able William Rufus ; Henry I, a shrewd and cunning statesman; Henry 11, a great law-giver, one of the most brilMant of English kings ; Richard, not only a superb warrior, but a subtle ruler of "men; John, evil, but a master of intrigue; and the first and third Edwards, who stand high above all the rest.

The Tudors and the Stuarts exhibit the same continuity of genius; and while morally they may be readily condemned, their -mental powers and the impr-essiye-ness of their personality cannot be gainsaid. In Germany the Hohenzollerns have shown equal tenacity in transmitting the qualities of force and wisdom —from the founder of the royal house down through the great Frederick and the first' William, who made Germany an empire, to the short-lived Frederick and his son," the present Kaiser, who, with all his medievalism, is the greatest personality in Europe. Yet, why should this be so? Why should that be true of kings which is not true of other men? The Influence of Maternity.—i Do we not too easily forget that great men's sons have also mothers? And do we not at the same time forget that, in the main, it is the mother who most contributes to the intellect and character of the son, while the father is more accurately reflected in the daughter? If we bear these two facts in mind it will help us to arrive at a clearer understanding of the apparent anomalies in our problem.

The great man who is below kingly rank marries as he will —for love, perhaps, for money, or for position, and often at an early age when his discrimination has not been developed'. Hence his wife may be any woman—good and virtuous and a " comfoi'table " wife, —but not the picked woman, nor probably the. woman to imjjart

exceptional qualities to her sons. Indeed, the less usual the man the more usual the wife is apt to be. One recalls the dowdy little grisette with whom Heine mated ; the rouged and raddled old woman whom Samuel Johnson's bleared eyes mistook for an enticing beauty; the 'shrew whom Shakespeare married; the prosaic housewife whose mind was given wholly to the care of her linen-closets while her husband, the Wizard of the North, was weaving his .immortal romances ; the decent bourgeoise who bore Victor Hugo's name ; the orderly German hausfrau who became the Princess Bismarck; the boarding-house flirt who captured the serious Madison, and with him readied the White House; and the plain farmer's daughter who was the wife of Webster's youth.

Men of this type wed as it were by accident, and because of the chances of proximity. It is seldom enough that they give much thought to the selection of a wife, since marriage with them is but an episode amid the stress of what appears to them the more important business of their lives. And if they have sens, the sons are the sons of the mother, and only in a physical sense the sons of the father too.

But with the kings of the older line the rule was different. When kingship meant true domination, the king was the fittest man to rule, And he did rule by virtue o.f his warlike prowess, his craft, his personal gifts. He held his throne by the right of natural selection, even though he may have styled this natural selection the grace of God. And when he mated, he took to himself the daughter of some.other king—a woman upon whom was stamped the impress of her father's power, and who represented all the vigour of body and mind which made her male ancestors what they Avere. Hence, she bore to her husband sons of her own kind, fit to succeed him—princes of a truly royal breed. This is wiiy the Norman rulers of England and the Plantagenets were so virile, and why their virility was transmitted from generation to generation. What more natural than that an Eleanor of Aquitane should bear a Cceur de Lion; or that a Philippa of Hainault should be the mother of a Black Prince, the conqueror of France? A striking illustration of my thesis is found in the family record of Henry VIII —a man of furious passions and tyrannical temper, yet none the less a great and splendid man. By the mild and virtuous Jane Seymour Henry had his only son, who afterward reigned as Edward VI, and who was the very replica of his mother—as gentle, as good, as tractable as that estimable lady, and without a trace of his father's fire and force. But the two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, children of Catherine of Aragon and of Anne Boleyn, were Henry's very flesh and blood, with all his faults and with all his Tudor pride and potency. Mary had her father's obstinacy and his bigotry, but she had. his high courage too. Elizabeth had all his pride, his passion, and his wantonness, but she possessed as well his subtlety, his learning, and his inborn gift for statecraft.

The son, then, resembled his mother, and was commonplace; the daughters resembled the father, and were, like Maria Theresa, not queens so much as kings. Napoleon affords another instance. His father, Carlo Buonaparte, was a nonentity ; but his mother, Letizia Ramolino, sprung from the old Florentine nobility, was an Italian of the medieval type, strong-willed and masterful, wise, subtle, and far-seeing ; and from her the future emperor derived his almost supernatural genius. Napoleon's own son was but a weakling, because he was his mother's child, reproducing the negative, indefinite character of Marie Louise. Had Josephine given a son to the great conqueror, the map of Europe might be different today. —The Case of Abraham Lincoln.—■ And last of all, out of many curiously convincing examples, I may cite the most remarkable oi all. How can we account for the career of Abranam Lincoln, a man born into the most abject poverty, bred under the most depressing and disheartening conditions, and apparently doomed by sheer force of circumstances to perpetual obscurity, and yet one who rose to take his place beside the stately Washington in the pantheon of all time? Lincoln's father was of the extreme type of "poor whites," thriftless, ignorant, inefficient, —one who was never able, unaided, to earn even a miserable living. How came such a man to be the father of such a eon?

In answering this question, some have invented a legend to the effect that Lincoln was not the offspring of his putative father, but of a member of the Marshall family of Virginia, and that in consequence he had in his veins the blood of the great jurist who interpreted the Constitution when the Republic was still young. There never has been adduced a scrap of evidence to support this story ; and it is refuted by the fact thifc in, his physical appearance Abraham. Lincoln bore the stamp of Thomas —in the coarse black hair, the ungainly limbs, and the abnormal stature.

The true solution, was given by Lincoln himself in 1850 to his friend and biographer, Mr W. H. Herndon. He said that his mother was the natural daughter of an unknown Virginian planter —«, man of wealth and good position. "He arpued"—so Herndon states—"that, from this isource came Ms power _of analysis, his logic, Iris mental (activity, and his ambition." In a> word, Abriham, Lincoln was his mother's son, an<l from her he drew the qualities which, made him what he finally became,. Here, then, is the answer, to a question that is often asked; and by It we may reconcile the apparently conflicting views to which I made a reference at the be-

ginning of this paper. Blcod will tell. Ancestry means much. Yet great men's sons, nevertheless, are seldom great; for in the male descendants their characters are given, not by the fathers who begot them, but by the mothers who bore them, either to the lot of ordinary mortals, or to .a heritage of imperishable fame.