Publication information |
Source: Cambridge Chronicle Source type: newspaper Document type: editorial Document title: “‘What’s in a Name?’” Author(s): anonymous City of publication: Cambridge, Massachusetts Date of publication: 16 November 1901 Volume number: none Issue number: none Part/Section: 2 Pagination: 10 |
Citation |
“‘What’s in a Name?’” Cambridge Chronicle 16 Nov. 1901: part 2, p. 10. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
McKinley assassination (personal response). |
Named persons |
Alexander; Napoléon Bonaparte; Marcus Junius Brutus [identified as Cassius Brutus below]; Julius Caesar; Gaius Cassius Longinus [identified as Cassius Brutus below]; Leon Czolgosz; William McKinley; Philip II (Macedon). |
Notes |
This item (below) appears in an editorial section of the newspaper titled “Observations.” |
Document |
“What’s in a Name?”
He who divided the great into three orders—those
born great, those who achieve greatness and those who have greatness thrust
upon them—reckoned but poorly. There is a fourth class, comprising a few who,
having achieved a measure of greatness, are thrust upon with yet more.
Such men are often in their day looked upon as
scourges of humanity and instruments of an evil power. One such was Alexander,
the son of Philip of Macedon, born a prince, to be sure, but only of a wild
region of northern Greece. His after greatness was, in truth, achieved through
indomitable will and a capacity for organization and control of men. Alexander
the Great later conquered the world, carrying in his mind the great idea of
Hellenizing it, of imbuing it with the spirit of Hellenic thought and civilization.
In so far he achieved greatness. But little did
he think that his Hellenistic conquest, great as it was, was simply the preparation
of the ground for a far greater Christian conquest to follow later. In this
respect a much more significant greatness was thrust upon him.
Napoleon Bonaparte, in his turn, of comparatively
humble birth, achieved a greatness second only to that of Alexander. By the
force of his will and the power of his imagination, with an Alexandrian dream
of world-conquest, he held part of Europe in his hand and the whole in his fear.
A united Germany stands as a monument to him. But his memory, and the memory
of his greatness, are anathema and accursed.
The achievements of Alexander and of Napoleon
were great, but they were, each in his day, assassins of thousands, and their
greatness was devilish. With the adventitious greatness thrust upon them they
personally had nothing to do. Providence prevails, but yet their names live
and will live so long as lives the world, cursed even though they were by the
men of their day.
Another of this fourth class of men has but just
passed along. Of low birth, as we reckon birth, in a single second he achieved
greatness, of an unenviable and abhorred sort, to be sure, but yet greatness
it cannot be gainsaid. So long as there is a memory of this country, so long
will there be a record of its wars, for wars are the landmarks of history. So
long as there is any record of the Spanish war, with its tremendous significance,
so long will there be a memory of William McKinley. And with the name of McKinley
must ever be linked that of his murderer. Cassius Brutus and the rest slew Caesar.
Czolgosz slew McKinley. So the page must run. He slew a greater than himself,
and by the act achieved greatness. The insignificant became significant.
Standing as we do with a long look backward, possessing
the perspective of history, we can estimate exactly the greatness thrust upon
Alexander and Napoleon. Who shall say how men looking at Czolgosz with our perspective
towards Alexander may not regard him?
Points of view change with changing epochs. He
whom we execrate today may, in the course of time, be called a martyr. Not the
less should we execrate him today, however. And yet, his name, murderer though
he be, will doubtless live on into the ages, whether blessed or cursed of men,
while we shall have been long forgotten. Providence prevails, but mysteriously.