GENIUS AND STATURE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Sta.,—Professor Arthur Keith, who, according to your cor- respondent " J. H. B." in last week's issue, has stated that "the small man is invariably the intellectual superior of the tall man," must be greatly put to it to account for the many men who have towered over their fellows, as much in intellect as in inches, from Saul the son of Kish down to Lord Kitchener. The second Caliph, Omar, and Charlemagne have been compared by their historians to Caesar and Alexander. The former must have been nearly seven feet high, and the latter as gigantic. It is rare in old times to find details given, or even so close an approximation as the proclamation which described the fugitive Charles II. as " above two yards high." Still, we do know that Dr. Johnson was of huge stature as well as bulk ; that George Washington was some inches over the " two yards," and that Abraham Lincoln was taller still. No one who has seen him can forget John Lawrence's tail, gaunt, and powerful figure. His brother Henry was bigger still. Though not so tall, Lord Mayo looked as gigantic, with his massive proportions. These Viceroys naturally bring ns to Lord Curzon, who is not likely to accept Professor Keith's dictum, and to Lord Ampthill, whose size is a. very extra one. It looks as if "that little man, Bobs Bahadur " had a genius for chiefs and colleagues, and friends, of excep- tional stature—figures like Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir Frederick Haines, Sir Neville Chamberlain, Sir Henry Tombs, or his own three successors in India ; and finally his special hero, John Nicholson, who was one of the tallest of men. Though he disposes of the Russians, the Germans must pre- sent some difficulty to Professor Keith—Prince Albert for instance, and the late German Emperor, to say nothing of Moltke and Bismarck.
It happens that the name of every low sized notable given in " J. H. B.'s " letter at once suggests a tall analogue, of equal or greater value, just as if one of them had been that of Edward VII., recalling Longsbanks and Edward III. The case of Lord Roberts is done with. For Wellington there is Marlborough, who was much above the Long Parliament's " two yards " ; to say nothing of his colleague, General Webb, who stood close on seven foot from heel to plume. For Mr. Lloyd George there is Sir Robert Peel—surely as eminent a politician. For "Little" Tom Moore there is the long-limbed Scott, and so on through the list. Napoleon was exceptional in stature as in other ways, but so was Peter the Great, who was 6 feet 8 inches. For Newton I venture to offer Aristotle, and do so on as good authority as that which puts Cmsar among the dwarfs !
Professor Keith's dogma, if correct, is one so patent that it ought to be made a rule for action, like the principle that appointments should only be given to those who have some fitness for the duties. As already indicated, this has been flagrantly violated in India from Professor Keith's point of view. There are worse instances than those given above. It is true the present Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal is believed to be both the shortest and the ablest official in the country. But only the other day an ex-Lieutenant Governor who is 6 feet 5 inches received the Grand Cross. Some of his relatives of corresponding stature have held high positions, and one of them, who is 6 feet 6 inches, has just been ap- pointed to be Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal.—I am,
Previous page
