The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-04-26
FIRST BORN SAID TOBE THE DULLEST New Theory of a Great
 Scientist FATE FAVORS YOUNGEST pr. L. c. Rabinovitch Says That Great Men Are Always the Youngest
 Sons of Large Families.
 The Other Side.
From the Boston Post

From the Boston Post.
 A famous European scientist, Dr. l.. G. Rabinovitch, has recently attracted much curiosity and interest among Boston physicians and psych ologists by his assertion, backed up with long string of proofs, that the first born child of a couple is seldom noted for superior qualities of intellect and that usually it is one of the later children that is likely to attain fame and power, if any of them do.
 The general theory of pr. Rabino- witch is that the first born child is, so to speak, an experimental offspring. The father and mother he says, may be quite young. They have not them selves yet attained to physical and mental maturity. Their first child, therefore is not endowed with those qualities which the parents themselves will only acquire at later period
 Men and women at marriage repre- sent'' he says two distinct individu- alties, two distinct temperaments, two distinct natures. It is only as time goes on that these individualities. tenn peraments and natures are gradually blended into one collective personality.
 
 husband and wife, after living many years together, gradually come to re- semble one another, not merely in out ward appearance, but in tastes, in ways of thinking, and in intellectual capac- , ity. When this period has been reached they are able to transmit to tn cir chil- dren a much more marked and def- nite personality and one which reflects their own ripeness and completeness. Their cellular potentiality is then at it's maximum, from the mental as well as from the physical point of view" 1 This theory of Dr. Rabinovitch he supports with an array of facts. The 1 doctor selected "A men and women of world wide fame, and made an investi- l gation of their family history. The list ! included statesmen, poets, prose writ l CTS, painters and musicians. Out of all | these "A, it appeared that only 10 were i first-born children. Of 42 men and wo- men of letters, only six were eldest children. Of IT painters, only one, and of 15 musicians, only two were first i born among their brothers and sisters.
 A second interesting fact is that a very large proportion of these "A typi- l .cal geniuses were either the youngest or else next to the youngest of the i f. mily. Thus, among authors, Bal zac was the last of three children. : George Eliot the last of four, Wash i ington Irving the last of Il, Cole { ridge the last of 13, while Fenimore Cooper was next to the last of 12 chil- l dren.
 Among artists and musicians, the 1 great painter Rembrandt was the last of six children Rubens was the last 1 of seven, as was Sir Joshua Reynolds. Sir Edwin Landseer the famous ami nal painter, was seventh child. Among musicians, Weber was the ninth 1 born, Mozart the last of seven, Schu mann the last of five, Schubert the last of IA and Richard Wagner the last of seven.
 l It is asserted that notwithstanding these examples the doctor should have included in the list not merely states men and artists, but also men of sci ence and likewise children who had no brothers and sisters, as was the case, for instance, with Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.
 Among scientists. for example, there is the great French astronomer and math ematician, Laplace, who was a frst-born son. Sir Isaac Newton, per haps the most extraordinary of all modern men of science, was born when f his parents were still quite young, and in fact within year after their mar riage.
 prominent Boston physician and student of psych oiogy, in reviewing these statements of Dr. Rabinovitch, declares that the scientist has taken only smal percentage of the great in citing his illustrations, and that if the examples were followed out among people of all classes wherever thero have been pronounced geniuses, it would probably show as large a per centage of great first-born children as of last-born.
 1 "The subject is one which is hardly within the field of the physician" he 1 declares. "and yet it throws an inter esting side light upon the world of 1 great men, and its keynote may be 1 path ological."