Qualities of Men
REVIEWS AND CRITICISM.
- Author:
Joseph Jastrow. New York: Houghton, Mifflin
& Co., 1911; pp. 183.
Dr Jastrow has spared the critics their painstaking but generally inadequate explanation of the author’s intentions by the following: “The purpose of my ambitious venture is to survey the varieties of human qualities, and to do this dominantly in a practical vein, to gauge the measure and to note the manner of distinctive inequalities, to distinguish and portray their several influences on the careers of men; then more critically, to appraise their worth, to observe the success which attends them, and, if fortune favor, to reach some insight into the play of personal forces that shape our fate individually, collectively, nationally.” If the author does not quite cover all this ground, the reader must remember that 183 small pages is scant room for such a large order.
Professor Jastrow lays great emphasis and with reason on the quality of sensibility, and contends that there are few callings demanding any high order or quality in which sensibility is not a vital factor. It is the lack of sensibilities which is largely responsible for ugliness, vulgarity, stupidities and immoralities. Dr Jastrow believes that the “gentleman born” is likely to be more generously treated in this respect than the “common man,” but he does little to prove his contention, what he says pointing rather to the advantages of environment than heredity. He dwells on the superiority of the poietic or creative type, “men who can plan and foresee, and are not afraid to dream; men moved by principle as well as practice; men cherishing their individuality, not cowed by convention nor awed by power; men in whom the very nobility and worth of their theories enables them to meet adequately the conditions that confront them.” He makes a strong plea for the safeguarding and encouragement of the poietic callings, and points out the potential influence of our colleges and universities in aiding or stifling poietic originality. He also believes that a deficient appreciation of this quality is a national trait, founded on national convictions and ideals. Stress is laid on the importance of a community’s ideals, inasmuch as the qualities selected or idealized are bound to become more and more prominent, while those which sink into disrepute gradually disappear, as shown, for instance, in the decline of the swooning, frail, tearful female of a past day and the rise of the athletic, confident, “even domineering young woman” of to-day.
We agree “that communities are judged by the qualities of the men they choose for their leaders,” but is it true, I wonder, that “the purpose of Society is to utilize and encourage the aristocracy of capacity it commands”? It would be pleasant to think so, even though we had to confess the “purpose” amazingly befogged.
In the academic career Dr Jastrow thinks that “the second-best qualities lead to preferment more rapidly than first-best ones, that the environment in which academic men are required to labor is not as stimulating as it might well be and that their activities are too much beset with uncongenial routine, too interferingly hampered by unappreciative control.”
The remedy for this and for the other evils pointed out is to “rest larger directive authority in the hands of poietic men, particularly in callings that require special qualities of appreciation,” not to “apply commercial standards to non-commercial pursuits,” to “be patient with genius, respectful to dissent, responsive to reform, attentive to criticism, grateful to leadership, considerate of principle, and appreciative of quality.” This is not all the remedy, but it is enough to give one pause. It reminds one vaguely of the preparatory oath for membership in the “King’s Daughters.” To some it may sound very Utopian and rather unattainable, but as a star to which to hitch the reformer’s chariot, it seems sufficiently effulgent. Professor William James is quoted as saying that “though it is no small thing to inoculate seventy millions of people with new standards, yet, if there is to be any relief, that will have to be done.” Professor Jastrow’s virus, though it may lack the popularity to insure its reaching that number of persons, is eminently healthy and sound and likely to “take” wherever the injection is permitted.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.