The evening times., 1900-01-23
Genius and Had Manners.

Genius and had Manners.
suit which certain leading lady re-
Gently brought against the actor-manager
of the company to which she belonged has
aroused some discussion as to the latitude
which may be allowed an undoubted genius.
The actor in question is said to have made
the plea in his own defence that his eccen-
tricities of temper and conduct were due to
genius and would have TO be understood on
that basis. The lady takes the ground that
this quality does not excuse man from
being gentleman.
Whether ii does or not is a matter which
is not likely ever to be settled. 1t is un-
doubtedly true that a great many men
of genius have been very faulty in
their private lives. Perhaps few of them
have been irreproachabe. judged by ordi-
nary standards; but, then ordinary men
/ are not irreproachable, either. Why should
! a genius be required to be a perfect gentle
! man as well as to develop his own peculiar
/ talent. when the perfect gentleman is rare
/ even among those who are not particularly
/ brilliant?
! There was Carlyle for example. His un-
uuestionably bearish temper and oddity of
manner caused great grief to his wife and
some of his friends. but they put up with
it because he was Carlyle. The outside
world blames him severely. But did those
who are so ready to judge him ever hap
pen to think OF the number OF men who
are cross and dyspeptic, and hard to live
with. and never wrote "Sartor Resartus
If JEANNE Welsh Carlyle thought it worth
while to love her husband. in spite of all
his peculiarities. what was the rest of hu-
manity to do with il? 1t did not have to
live With him. and it has the benefit OF
his marvellous work.
The man of genius is sometimes the
product of unique conditions. He has
often. perhaps always, far greater burdens
TO bear than other men. If he happens to
be in opposition TO the ideas prevalent in
his own time, he has the whole force of
society against him In his fight, and he
feels This far more keenly than the ordi-
nary man would, because his perceptions
are keener and his view larger. There
are certain restrictions which most men
are Obliged to observe for the general good
OF society. II they find it difficult TO keep
these rules if the rules interfere with
their full enjoyment OF life and the ac-
compIishment OF their work. there is still
an Obligation resting on them TO conform
to the usual ideal. But the genius has a
work to do which is to benefit SO many
people that nothing ought 10 be allowed to
interfere with il
Suppose public opinion had dictated that
Shakespeare should stay in Stratford-on-
Avon and follow a trade. and suppose he
had done il: would any good have been
accomplished comparable to that which
has come from the writing of his wonder
ful dramas? Is there not reason why the
man who is a genius. who knows that he
has important work to do. should be ex-
cused from some Of the obligations felt by
ordinary members Of society? If the or
binary man accepts an invitation to a dim
uer be ought to go. even if the company
be duh and uninteresting. But suppose
Robert Browning accepted an invitation of
that sort. and half an hour before the time
OF leaving his house. had an inspiration
which led TO the writing of saul or
about his engagement; would he not be
absolyed in the eyes of the world? Cen
orally speaking he would.
All the same, when a man gets up and
pleads that he is genius and therefore
has leave and license to behave in = man
ner unbecoming a gentleman, there is
some reason to object TO the argument. 1t
does not sound so well from his own lips
as from those of others. There is no way
Of judging of the merits of this individual
case: but in general sensible people Will
say that even a genius ought to be a gen.
tleman if he cana gentleman in the true
sense of the word, without regard TO the
conventions associated with popular ideas
on the subject-and that there are certain
faults which he may not commit without
being in danger of condemnation just like
any ordinary man.