Chapter 6

“... as skilful in that art as any.”[19]

He likewise entitles him ‘the summer’s nightingale,’ and hints that he had in store a poem on Queen Elizabeth, which might rival “The Faerie Queene:”—

“To taste the streames, that like a golden showre,Flow from thy fruitful head, of thy Love’s praise—Fitter perhaps to thunder martial stowre—When so thee list thy lofty Muse to raise;Yet till that thou thy poem wilt make known,Let thy faire Cynthia’s praises be thus rudely shown.”

“To taste the streames, that like a golden showre,

Flow from thy fruitful head, of thy Love’s praise—

Fitter perhaps to thunder martial stowre—

When so thee list thy lofty Muse to raise;

Yet till that thou thy poem wilt make known,

Let thy faire Cynthia’s praises be thus rudely shown.”

But poetic effusions are not the only contributions of Raleigh to literature. During his long confinement in the Tower, on charge of treason, he relieved his solitude by compiling a “History of the World;” an undertaking sufficient to appal the most active and learned man under the most favourable circumstances, but which appears something superhuman when attempted and almost accomplished by a wretched prisoner lying under an unjust sentence of death.

This History commences at the Creation, and descends as far as the end of the second Macedonian War; when,in consequence of the death of Prince Henry, for whose instruction it was intended, he ceased from his arduous labours. The work displays a vast extent of reading in history, philosophy, theology, and Rabbinical learning.

Like Raleigh, Sir Philip Sidney combined the characters of the warrior and the author. His Arcadia was a work of poetic prose, better suited to the time in which he lived than to any subsequent period, and is almost forgotten; and the stiffness and hard formality of his poetry has almost sunk it in like oblivion. A writer who is not an author for all time, may be a very useful and agreeable one in his day, but lacks power and thoughtfulness. It is only those who have the “one touch of Nature” which “makes the whole world kin,” that are independent of time, and live with the kindred spirits of all ages.

Time puts out the lesser lights which burn only to light some small apartment and corner of the world, but cannot extinguish the suns which are formed to illuminate the whole earth.

Sir Philip Sidney was rather a discerning patron of letters than a man of letters. He was the first patron and friend of Spenser, whom he introduced to the Queen, and their friendship endured till Sidney’s lamented death. Perhaps in the whole range of literary history, there is no incident so beautiful as the mutual friendship and familiar intercourse of Raleigh, Spenser, and Sidney. This pleasing friendship is frequently alluded to by Spenser. The ‘Faerie Queene’ is dedicated to Raleigh, whose return from his Western Expedition is celebrated in the Pastoral, entitled, “Colin Clout’s come home again;” from which we learn that it was their custom to recline

“... amongst the coolly shadeOf the green alders by the Mulla’s shore,”

“... amongst the coolly shade

Of the green alders by the Mulla’s shore,”

and recite to each other their poetic effusions.

How beautiful a picture of the simplicity of great minds! It strikes us as a more lovely picture than the much-admired one of Chaucer, solitary among the daisies of the Woodstock meadows.

Sidney inspired Spenser with no mere mercenary friendship, the affection of the client for his patron’s substantial marks of favour. When death smote Sidney on the sad field of Zutphen, Spenser invoked every Muse to weep over his untimely fall, and celebrated his virtues in the beautiful elegy “The Tears of the Muses for Astrophel.” It will perhaps relieve the dryness of our subject, to observe that the first poetical use of the Forget-me-not, (Myosotis palustris) as a symbol of faithfulness, occurs in this poem, and the English reader may there find a more fitting reason to esteem this little flower than the absurd German legend of a drowning knight throwing a spray of it to his ladye-love.

The Astrophel of the following lines from Spenser’s Elegy, is Sidney; Stella is the name by which Sidney addressed his Mistress, who, it is feigned, was unable to survive his loss, and,

“... followed her mute, like turtle chaste,To prove that death their hearts cannot divide,Which, living, were in love so firmly tied.The Gods which all things see, this same beheld;And pittying this paire of lovers trew,Transformed them, there lying on the field,Into one flowre, that is both red and blew.It first growes red, and then to blew doth fade,Like Astrophel, which thereinto was made.And in the midst thereof a starre appeares,As fairly formed as any starre in skyes,Resembling Stella in her freshest yeeres,Forth darting beames of beautie from her eyesAnd all the day it standeth full of deow,Which is the teares, that from her eyes did flow.That hearb of some, Starlight is call’d by name,Of others, Penthia, though not so well;But thou, whenever thou dost find the same,From this day forth doe call it Astrophel.And whensoever thou it up doost take,Doe pluck it softly for that shepheard’s sake.”

“... followed her mute, like turtle chaste,To prove that death their hearts cannot divide,Which, living, were in love so firmly tied.

“... followed her mute, like turtle chaste,

To prove that death their hearts cannot divide,

Which, living, were in love so firmly tied.

The Gods which all things see, this same beheld;And pittying this paire of lovers trew,Transformed them, there lying on the field,Into one flowre, that is both red and blew.It first growes red, and then to blew doth fade,Like Astrophel, which thereinto was made.

The Gods which all things see, this same beheld;

And pittying this paire of lovers trew,

Transformed them, there lying on the field,

Into one flowre, that is both red and blew.

It first growes red, and then to blew doth fade,

Like Astrophel, which thereinto was made.

And in the midst thereof a starre appeares,As fairly formed as any starre in skyes,Resembling Stella in her freshest yeeres,Forth darting beames of beautie from her eyesAnd all the day it standeth full of deow,Which is the teares, that from her eyes did flow.

And in the midst thereof a starre appeares,

As fairly formed as any starre in skyes,

Resembling Stella in her freshest yeeres,

Forth darting beames of beautie from her eyes

And all the day it standeth full of deow,

Which is the teares, that from her eyes did flow.

That hearb of some, Starlight is call’d by name,Of others, Penthia, though not so well;But thou, whenever thou dost find the same,From this day forth doe call it Astrophel.And whensoever thou it up doost take,Doe pluck it softly for that shepheard’s sake.”

That hearb of some, Starlight is call’d by name,

Of others, Penthia, though not so well;

But thou, whenever thou dost find the same,

From this day forth doe call it Astrophel.

And whensoever thou it up doost take,

Doe pluck it softly for that shepheard’s sake.”

May the injunction of the last lines never be forgottenby any one who knows that the Forget-me-not is associated with the friendship of two such noble-minded men!

It is hardly necessary to say that Sir Philip Sidney fell gallantly fighting at the battle of Zutphen, or to narrate the interesting anecdote of his refusing a drink of cold water till a wounded soldier had partaken of it, saying, “Thy necessity is yet greater than mine;” thus nobly displaying both firm endurance (I.) and sensitive humanity (II.)

The other instances,Alexander the Great, andNapoleon, may be best treated of by contrasting them with their opposites; and we shall thus be enabled to illustrate, at the same time, both the Roman and the Greek Noses more fully. Moreover, while the contrast will clearly demonstrate the distinctive characteristics of those Noses, it will also evince how important it is to attend to compound forms, and how materially the character is affected by the intermixture of classes.

Of all the conquerors whose wild ambition has stained with blood the page of History, Alexander and Napoleon alone fought from a high romantic motive—the desire of eternal fame. By virtue of a large share of the Roman Nose, they pursued their favourite and chosen career with determined energy and a reckless disregard for the lives of others; nevertheless, being strongly gifted with the Greek, they might in some other sphere have been high artists of some class; but having the sword in their hands, they pursued intellectual fame by its means.

It is difficult to say whether the Roman or the Greek form predominates in their Noses; for they are perhaps as much Greco-Roman as Romano-Greek; but as they were warriors, we place them here because it will be advantageous to draw an illustrative contrast between their characters and Noses, and the characters and Noses of too many other mere conquerors, whose Noses have been purely Roman.

Let us briefly contrast Julius Cæsar and Alexander. They were both, in the prime of life, placed at the head of a large empire, firmly seated, with a large army and all the world open to their grasp. Their Noses alone differed. Alexander, while pursuing everlasting fame byhis arms, and earning what was then deemed the highest glory, steadily devoted himself to the extension of scientific knowledge. Under his revered master Aristotle, he acquired much learning, and, when he ascended his father’s throne, devoted his arms as much to the conquest of the then unknown realms of science as of the kingdoms of the earth. His army was always accompanied by learned men, whose sole duty it was to investigate the history, religion, and arts of the countries he passed through, to collect rare animals and plants, statues, coins, and objects of art or curiosity to be transmitted to Greece for the study of his master Aristotle. It has been well said, “If there had been no Alexander, there would have been no Aristotle.” We do not laud the man who sought glory by the destruction of others, but merely assert that, as these acts prove, his motive to arms was a high intellectual one, and consistent with the compound character of his Nose.

JULIUS CÆSAR.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT.

(From gems in the Florentine Museum.)

Look at Julius Cæsar on the other hand. Under similar circumstances, what was his ambition? To make himself imperial master of Rome, and to subject his fellow-citizens for his own personal aggrandizement. Histhoughts never extended beyond his own immediate existence. Posterity never entered into his calculations. Unlike his successor Augustus—though he had greater facilities if he had been less sensually ambitious—he patronised no art—literary or scientific. His one idea was self, without one refinement or softening alloy. Granted that Alexander’s ambition was also selfish, there was yet this difference between them; the one (Cæsar) sought only hispresent personalandsensuousprofit; the other (Alexander) laboured to earn “a name on History’s page to make him ‘Great.’” The one was the common prose, the other the epic poem. The one sacrificed his fame to himself, the other himself to his fame; and the world has recognized and recorded this distinction: for while the one is remembered as “the enslaver of his country,” the other is immortalized as “the Great.”

A similar contrast may be drawn between the characters and noses of the two modern heroes, Napoleon and Wellington. Like Alexander and Cæsar, the only point in which their characters assimilate is their warrior, physical energy; and this exhibits itself in whatever is Roman in their Noses. In all other respects they are diametrically opposite; the Nose of Wellington being purely (almost in excess) Roman; while Napoleon’s partakes largely of the refining qualities of the Greek.

To describe the character of Napoleon would be to repeat what we have said of Alexander; for whether the similarity was accidental, or arose from mental conformity (their Noses were remarkably alike), or was intentionally imitative on the part of the former,[20]it is certainly most striking.

Ambition of future fame was far more the ruling passion of Napoleon than lust of present power. His mind, with all its imperfections and meannesses (as whose is without?), was too noble to be satisfied with mere personal aggrandizement.

All the great mistakes of his life were occasioned by his obedience to the passion for future fame. When swayedby the mere desire of power, all his acts were successful. But when he saw all Europe (except one little pugnacious island) lying helpless at his feet, he began to revolve schemes which could not enhance, but might risk, his personal power. Then he attempted to realize his long-cherished dream of Eastern conquest—a conquest not to be held, but to be overrun; a conquest like that of Alexander, Nadir Shah, or Zinghis Khan. Often did he exclaim, “the seat of all fame is the east.” To realize this empty fame, he took the false step of invading Egypt. Foiled there, he still hoped to penetrate Asia by land, and gathered all his strength to overwhelm Russia, his last and greatest error. They greatly err who think these were mere schemes to keep France embroiled, lest peace should annihilate his power. They equally err who ridicule and attribute to a childish vanity his ambition to link himself by marriage with the imperial families of Europe. It was no childish vanity, but a politic endeavour to found a dynasty, which should hand down his name as its founder to the latest ages. They again who can see nothing better in the melancholy spectacle of Napoleon at St. Helena, engaged in falsifying records and altering figures to deceive the world, than a drivelling vanity, utterly miscomprehend the man. Fame, fame to the utmost limits of human duration, was to his last moment his highest ambition. Foiled in everything else, he yet hoped to secure fame. He knew that under his name the most eventful page in the History of Europe, since the fall of Rome, must be written, and he naturally desired

“To be among the worthies of renown,And so sit fair with fame, with glory bright.”DANIEL.

“To be among the worthies of renown,And so sit fair with fame, with glory bright.”

“To be among the worthies of renown,

And so sit fair with fame, with glory bright.”

DANIEL.

To describe the character of Wellington, is to reverse that of Napoleon. Napoleon was shrewd, artful, and deceitful; Wellington open-hearted, strong-sensed, candid, and sincere. Napoleon a clever statesman; Wellington obtuse in politics. Napoleon a great strategist; Wellington short-sighted, though daring in the field. Napoleon a lover and patron of arts; Wellington a despiser ofthem. Napoleon said to be personally timid; Wellington constitutionally brave. Napoleon’s cruelties were acts of cool calculation and state-policy; Wellington’s of military fury. Napoleon poisoned his sick troops because he did not know what else to do with them, and murdered the Duke d’Enghien to produce “an effect” in Europe; Wellington’s cruelties were the necessary consequences of war energetically carried on, and were never the result of cold-blooded predetermination.[21]

Before closing this section, we would request the reader’s attention to the strong proof of the truth of the hypothesis derivable from the fact that like Noses, with like circumstances (cæteris paribus, as the phrenologists say), produce like characters: for instance, Wolsey, Richelieu, Ximenes, Lorenzo di Medici, Alfred:—Sidney, Raleigh:—Alexander, Napoleon.

Back to Index Next