New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-12-13
GENIUS AND INSANITY.
ARE ALL MEN OF GENIUS MADp

THE NAN OF GENIUS. by Cesare Lomoroso. VIII VIII
Sons
b. The theory which Professor Lombroso has
written this book to support is certainly well cal
culated to create a sensation. but those who read
il most carefully will be least likely to admit
that the author has made out his case The bold
ness of his assertion that genius is degenerauon
that it is form Of insanity, and that all men OF
genius are more or less mad, at once arrests al
tention, while the profusion of citations and IL
Illustrations may very easily appear TO nasty
reader cumulative and convincing But no very
minute examination OF the work discloses defects
both in method and argument which go far toward
invalidating the conclusions of the writer, ana
which have the effect of destroying whatever
scientific value it may have been thought TO
possess Professor Lombroso's opening chapter
inevitably arouses suspicion Of his method Of
dealing with the main question, for he begins by
citing the opinions of the ancents as to the nature
Of genius. Such reference, indeed, Is not sin
GUAR for the power of convention and tradition
has kept alive to this day view Of genius whose
origin Is essentially primitive and barbarous, and
which can be traced back without break to
The dense ignorance Of savage man. The attrlbu-
ton Of insanity to men Of genius unquestionably
arose in the first place from the incapacity Of
what Professor Lombroso terms the normal man |"
TO understand higher intellectually than his own
In the beginning of civilization. or before that
stage is reached, interprets everything tncom-
prehensible as in some sense miraculous His
ruling principle is to take "omne ignotum pro
magnifco.' The really insane he regards with awe
and veneration, and because he can no more com.
prehend genius than insanity. he oonfounds the
first with the second.
This emphatically crude and primitive view
hoa h.1t, hon aI <hxA, %hA IA
curious persistence and it has been, from time
10 time, supported by the exhibition Of genuine
insanity in men of genius. But a
scientific argument cannot make use Of
such help, and when we find it used
in what purports TO be a scientific work, we
at once begin to suspect and to be prepared for q
very unscientifc laxity Of method and reasoning.
Nor are the evidences of this laxity long in appear
ing. For the author enters upon this important
inquiry without attempting definition either OF
genius of insanity lie admits in his preface that
he often confounds genius with talent, though they
are quite distinct and though he does not admit
it. the fact is equally apparent that in innumer-
able instances he imputes insanity to men OF
genius without the least valid evidence. Insanity
again he fails TO distinguish from eccentrlcity.
and so careless, unsystematic and loose are his
illustrations generally that it would be easy to
deduce from his book the conclusion that every
body who differed in any important particular
from all the rest of the community must be in
sane That, indeed, has to all practical intents
been the theory of the masses during long periods
Of the worlds history The people have usually
assembled the sheep of Panurge, and those superior
men who exhibited marked individuality, who
insisted on living their lives whose perceptive
and imaginative faculties exceeded those Of the
common herd have been regarded with dislike
and suspicion and either dubbed insane or charged
with the practice of sorcery and magic.
According to Professor Lombroso the advance of
science has now confirmed the theory of ig-
torrance, prejudice and superstition. He tells us
that all difference in thought and conduct from
the normal man" is evidence of insanity; and
in proof Of this he instances the peculiarties OF
great many men Of genius all Of whose works. in
art, literature craftsmanship, science, con-
clusivey demonstrate that if they were insane, in
sanity should be defined intellectual superiority
and not at all degeneration. So eager is the
Professor to extend his list of examples that he
casts his dragnet over oil history, and claims as
his captives men whose appearance in such sur
roundings must amaze every thinking reader.
From julius Caesar down to Charles Darwin, no.
body can hope to escape. The perquisitions OF
the Holy Office during the witch-mana were not
more undiscriminating, Every historical character
not distinctly commonplace is set down as insane
Among the men of genius who have been insane
he classes Tasso, Newton, Schopenhauer, Schumann,
Harrington, and others against whom no such
charge can be seriously preferred Among religious
maniacs he places Luther and St. Francis OF
Assist. Why he has omitted Saint Theresa and
the mystics generally we do not understand
Loyola too, should surely have been among the
prescribed, and scores of other preachers and
founders. Savonarola, of course, is put in the
piilory, and here there is some warrant for the
Judgment. But what could be extravagant
than to claim that the great man of science, New.
ton, and the great philosopher, Schopenhauer were
insane? To make such assertions is to bewider
the reader to the authors idea of insanity
1t is even TO recall the weknown habit of
the insane TO think all the world mad but them
selves; a delision having analoges with the
primitive theory Of genius already referred to.
Again, it appears to us that Professor Lombrosc
does not argue very nationally, and not at al
scientifically, upon the significance of certain IN
fortunate habits in certain men of genius. Nc
doubt some men of genius have been addicted
10 drink, have been loose in their living have
exhibited more less deplorabe social vices
But can these facts be employed as evidence OF
insanity? If SO, what proportion of all who do
not possess genius talent could escape classified
ton under the same general head? OF course
it cannot be shown that these alterations and
Irregularities are in any sense properties of genius
On the contrary, the highest genius known to the
world has been singularly free from such failings
man may have genius and yet be weak in hi,
conduct; but it certainly does not follow thai
the possession of genius necessarily entails weak
ness Of conduct Moreover, no small percentage
of the instances cited by the Professor are not
indsputable cases Of genius. number arc simply
Of faIa nd fale iS mt oil
but quite different thing. True genius il
not all of one kind. 1t may be many sided or il
may be concentrated upon single purpose. Th
laftor is called mnnnmania by the anthor who MD