ct, a being without a peer, a demigod,
"_Uebermensch_." He can be explained neither by heredity, nor by
environment.

For others (Taine, Spencer, Grant, Allen, _et al._), the important
factor is seen in the race and external conditions. Goethe held that a
whole family line is summarized some day in a single one of its members,
and a whole people in one or several men. For him, Louis XIV and
Voltaire are respectively the French king and writer _par excellence_.
"The alleged great men," says Tolstoi, "are only the labels of history,
they give their names to events."[68]

Each party explains the same facts according to its own principle and in
its own peculiar way. The great historic epochs are rich in great men
(the Greek republics of the fourth century B. C., the Roman Republic,
the Renaissance, French Revolution, etc.). Why? Because, say some,
periods put into ferment by the deep working of the masses make this
blossoming possible. Because, say the others, this flowering modifies
profoundly the social and intellectual condition of the masses and
raises their level. For the former the ferment is deep down; for the
latter it is on top.

Without presuming to solve this vexed question, I lean toward the view
of individualism pure and simple. It seems to me very difficult to admit
that the great creator is only the result of his environment. Since this
influence acts on many others, it is very necessary that, in great men,
there should be in addition a personal factor. Besides, in opposition to
the exclusively environmental theory we may bring the well-known fact
that most innovators and inventors at first arouse opposition. We know
the invariable sentence on everything novel--it is "false" or "bad;"
then it is adopted with the statement that it had been known for a long
time. In the hypothesis of collective invention, it seems that the mass
of people should applaud inventors, recognizing itself in them, seeing
its confused thought take form and body: but most often the contrary
happens. The misoneism of crowds seems to me one of the strongest
arguments in favor of the individual character of invention.

We can doubtless distinguish two cases--in the first, the creator sums
up and clearly translates the aspirations of his _milieu_; in the
second, he is in opposition to it because he goes beyond it. How many
innovators have been disappointed because they came before their time!
But this distinction does not reach to the b