BOOK THE FIRST.

CHAPTER I.

PARENTAGE.

QUINTUS CURTIUS tells us that, in certain seasons, Bactria was darkened by whirlwinds of dust, which completely covered and concealed the roads. Left thus without their usual landmarks, the wanderers awaited the rising of the stars,

To light them on their dim and perilous way.'

May we not say the same of Literature? From time to time its pathways are so obscured beneath the rubbish of the age, that many a footsore pilgrim complains of the hidden route. In such times let us imitate the Bactrians; let us cease to look upon the confusions of the day, and turning our gaze upon the great Immortals who have gone before, seek guidance from their light. In all ages the biographies of great men have been fruitful in lessons. In all ages they have been powerful stimulants to a noble ambition. In all ages they have been regarded as the armories wherein are gathered the weapons with which great battles have been won.

There may be some among my readers who will dispute Goethe's claim to greatness. They will admit that he was a great poet, but deny that he was a great man. In denying it, they will set forth the qualities which constitute their ideal of greatness, and finding him deficient in some of these qualities, declare his title null. But in awarding him that title, I do not mean to imply that he was an ideal man; I do not present him as the exemplar of all greatness. No man can be such an exemplar. Humanity reveals itself in fragments. One man is the carrier of one kind of excellence, another of another. Achilles wins the victory, and Homer immortalizes it: we bestow the laurel-crown on both. In virtue of a genius such as modern times have only seen equalled once or twice, Goethe deserves the epithet of great; unless we believe a great genius can belong to a small mind. Nor is it in virtue of genius alone that he deserves the name. Merck said of him, that what he lived was more beautiful than what he wrote; and his Life, amid all its weaknesses and all its errors, presents a picture of a certain grandeur of soul, which cannot be contemplated unmoved. I shall make no attempt to conceal his faults. Let them be dealt with as harshly as severest justice may dictate, they will not eclipse the central light which shines throughout his life. He was great, if only in large-mindedness — a magnanimity which admitted no trace of envy, of pettiness, of ignoble feeling to stain or to distort his thoughts. He was great, if only in his lovingness, simplicity, benevolence. He was great, if only in his gigantic activity. He was great, if only in self-mastery, which subdued rebellious impulses into the direct path prescribed by his will and reason. 'This man, we may say, became morally great, by being in his own age what in some other ages many might have been, a genuine man. His grand ex

cellency was this, that he was genuine. As his primary faculty, the foundation of all others, was Intellect, depth and force of Vision; so his primary virtue was Justice, was the courage to be just. A giant's strength we admired in him; yet strength ennobled into softest mildness. The greatest of hearts was also the bravest ; fearless, unwearied, peacefully invincible.'*

The following pages will, it is hoped, furnish evidence for such a judgment, and help to dissipate the many misconstructions which darken the glory of the life of Germany's greatest son.

ance.

The hereditary transmission of qualities is one among the many physiological problems still far from a solution; and the parentage of genius is one of the most difficult aspects of that problem, although usually treated by writ ers with a very light hand, especially when their facile progress is unimpeded by any perplexing weight of knowledge. Definite ignorance rides swiftly over a field, where indefinite knowledge painfully picks its way. The maternal influence is popularly credited with the preponder'All remarkable men have remarkable mothers,' is a current saying. But this hasty and empirical generalization is no truer than such generalizations usually are. It is disproved by fact. It is disproved by what is known of hereditary transmission. It leads also to this fatal conclusion, namely, that if the mother had the preponderating influence over the organization of the child, the race would be in perpetual degeneration; just as the white man's superior organization is gradually lost when a few white men intermarry with a preponderating black race. The whole question of hereditary transmission is at present beyond the scope of science. We know that form, fea

ture, temperament, idiosyncrasy, acquired habit, diseases, anomalies of structure, and duration of life, are transmitted to offspring; but the law of transmission is still hidden. from us.* Certain qualities are transmitted from parents to children in so direct a manner as to strike the least observant eye; on the other hand it often happens that the transmitted quality is masked by the presence of some different quality, and only reappears in the second or third generation. New combinations also take place. Still we can say with safety that whenever a child exhibits any remarkable aptitude we may detect that aptitude in one or both of his parents or grandparents.

Thus it is that observation detects families illustrious through several generations; and families also which, through many generations, transmit idiotcy and imbecility. That' talent runs in families' we are taught by examples, such as the wit of the Sheridans' and the 'esprit des Mortemarts.' Nor am I aware of any musical genius springing from a family in which during two generations musical aptitude was not remarkable. It is necessary to include two generations, because, among the curious phenomena of hereditariness there is the phenomenon of atavism, in which children resemble their ancestors, but do not resemble their progenitors. ‡

*The reader curious on this curious subject is referred to the large work of Dr. Lucas, De l'Hérédité Naturelle (Paris, 1847-50), or the work of Girou de Buzareingues, De la Génération (Paris, 1828), in which are recorded the results of numerous experiments on the breeding of animals.

Haller Elementa Physiologiæ, vol. viii, p. 92. Aristotle seems to have had a glimpse of the law of transmission; De Partibus Animalium, i, p. 4, ed. Bekker.

See, besides the works already named, Burdach: Physiologie, ii, p. 269; and Longet: Traité de Physiol., ii, 133.