Silent Partner

— In the days of the American merchant marine, — years ago when there was a merchant marine, — it was the custom to send out a son or some young relative of one of the owners of a vessel, to “ learn the business practically.” The nautical débutant advanced in his profession so rapidly that his promotion was no small surprise to landsmen. As he strode serenely over the heads of briny shell-backs ” who had been at sea so long as to have forgotten everything about the land, the question naturally arose, How can the owners entrust a valuable vessel to such inexperience ? But the problem had been met by the expedient of providing what was known as the “ captain’s nurse.” In these cases of youthful commandership, there always went forth, as second in charge, a very shrewd and expert first mate, on whom, virtually, all responsibility rested. Hence, many an achievement recorded in marine lore as the feat of a young sea lion was, by those familiar with the facts, met with a significant shrug, and the remark, “ He sailed with a ‘ nurse.’ ” Furthermore, when some deserving youth, who had risen to the quarter-deck by pure merit, made a voyage that brought reputation, cynics in sou’westers would inquire, “ Who was his ‘nurse ’ ?” as if incredulous of all claim to independent action.

In that larger world which sailors call the “ dull, tame shore,” analogous instances are not wanting. There seems to be a quality in the minds of some men that leads intuitively to the rejection of the obvious as a first cause, and to the adoption of a remote or unrecognized factor. Such are not content to regard Franklin as the original kite-flier ; they must needs go rummaging in obsolete newspapers and old archives for traces of earlier effort in that direction ! There is, of course, much to sustain their position in the gradual processes of evolution, which finally result in a great discovery, a great invention. Thus, the same summer saw enacted at Paris, at Glasgow, at Philadelphia, a trial similar to the one that succeeded on the Hudson River. Fulton’s alone achieved the hopedfor results. Again, Dr. Jackson, of Boston, declared, and I believe proved, that long before Morse’s famous discovery he himself had a telegraph in full operation at his own house in that city. The controversy as to precedence in the invention of the telephone is still extant ; and it would seem that every important discovery ultimately took shape in a manner somewhat analogous to the composite photograph. The various electric lights were, to use a bookseller’s phrase, “ published simultaneously” in America and in every part of Europe. So, the class of critics herein arraigned find special delight in claiming for an unrecognized obscurity the glory which, by common consent, has been awarded to the living kings of invention. This tendency to acknowledge and applaud the silent forces which are supposed to impel great actions would appear altogether admirable in human nature, were it not that the accredited inventors have some rights as well as have those supposititious persons for whom the principle of omne ignotum pro magnifico is so readily applied. Even conquerors, whose results are deemed most explicit, are not exempt : no matter how well established on record their achievements may be, they are sure to be attributed by these critics to some unknown subordinate. “ Kings are sometimes useful to their ministers,” exclaims the wily Richelieu, one of the most accomplished exemplars of power behind the throne ever furnished by history. Much of this tendency to go back of the records, in search of that modest genius who has done the work whereof others have reaped the benefit, is due to an egotism of perspicacity, a passion for originality, on the part of the critic. “ Washington’s only a figure-head,” growled the malcontents of the Greene and Gates faction. “ A fine Virginia gentleman, of commanding stature and awful presence, the hereditary lord of acres and negroes, he makes revolutions respectable. But when it comes to fighting ” — and then would follow numerous allegations in favor of lesser magnates. It might be expected, as regards the victories of a sovereign, whose varied tasks of kingcraft and statesmanship would compel him to relegate military matters to his marshals, that he would find his Waterloos accredited to Wellington or Blücher, his Magentas to MacMahon, his Gravelottes to Von Moltke. But in the case of the great commanders themselves there is nearly always some popular underling who (with mysterious hints) is suspected of having shown his chief “ how it was done.” Take a modern instance. Sherman’s victories in the West were, by certain critical commentators, deemed the result of the military scholarship of MacPherson, who, it may be observed, enjoyed the highest reputation among engineers. After MacPherson’s death, the series of victories continuing unabated, some other secret source of power must be discovered ; and discontent seized upon Thomas as the one whose conspiring hand had won the day. In due time Sherman separated from Thomas, and proceeded on his famous march to the sea with undiminished vigor and success ; but had not the war come to a triumphant conclusion with the surrender of the forces before Sherman, no doubt hypercritics would have gone on discovering successors to Thomas !

In the field of letters. Here too we find ourselves confronted by the indefatigable searchers for “ the inheritors of unfulfilled renown.” The mystery of the Noctes Ambrosianæ has never been cleared up to the entire satisfaction of the reading public. To the partisans of the champions engaged, there has been no mystery at all. “ Why, of course,” says an Irishman, “ it was Maginn who did it all. Don’t you see that the wit is Irish under a thin veneering of Scotch brogue ? ” “ Wilson did it,” contends an Edinburgh man. “ N o one in his senses can pretend that the Ettrick Shepherd could have been capable of the language ascribed to him by his admirers.”

But what age has escaped ? From the Iliad of Homer, by certain German philologists characterized as a collection of folksongs antedating all stylus and papyrus, down to that sonorous but inoffensive ballad, The Burial of Sir John Moore, attributed in the past to Marshall, Wolfe, and others, there have not been wanting commentators who have insisted upon a yet unvindicated cause for all that is done. Indeed, I have often thought that if a Chronitpie Scandaleuse had been as sedulously kept in the old Hebraic dispensation as it was in the times of the Valois kings, we should find the psalms of the sweet singer of Israel attributed to some wild-eyed poetaster of King David’s court, otherwise unknown to fame, and the proverbs of Solomon Claiming as their author some bearded wiseacre of the weatherprophet order !

Theology itself has not been spared by this tendency of the human mind to seek in unknown darkness for that which bringeth great light. The following offers an excellent illustration. There have dwelt for centuries in Bohemia an order of zealots who devote themselves to the worship of Satan. According to their cultus, Satan was the rightful heir, but defeated antagonist, of God ; in other words, was the Jefferson Davis of his Abraham Lincoln ! Like the unreconstructed rebel, they cling tenaciously to their fallen deity ; and their common form of greeting is, “ May he who has been wronged salute thee ! ”