 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Hereditary Genius
331
to my Appendices will distinctly show; I do not care to quote cases,
because it is a normal fact, analogous to what is observed in diseases,
and in growths of all kinds, as has been clearly laid down by Mr.
Darwin. The result is, that the precocious child is looked upon as a
prodigy, abler even than his parent, because the parent's abilities at
the same age were less, and he is pushed forward in every way by
home influences, until serious harm is done to his constitution.
So much for the difficulties in the way of arriving at a right
judgment on the question before us. Most assuredly, a surprising
number of the ablest men appear to have left no descendants; but we
are justified, from what I have said, in ascribing a very considerable
part of the adduced instances to other causes than an inherent
tendency to barrenness in men and women of genius. I believe there
is a large residuum which must be so ascribed, and I agree thus far
with the suggestion of Prosper Lucas, that, as giants and dwarfs are
rarely prolific, so men of prodigiously large or small intellectual
powers may be expected to be deficient in fertility. On the other
hand, I utterly disagree with the assertion of that famous author on
heredity, that true genius is invariably isolated.
There is a prevalent belief somewhat in accordance with the subject
of the last paragraph but one, that men of genius are unhealthy, puny
beings—all brain and no muscle—weak-sighted, and generally of
poor constitutions. I think most of my readers would be surprised at
the stature and physical frames of the heroes of history, who fill my
pages, if they could be assembled together in a hall. I would
undertake to pick out of any group of them, even out of that of the
Divines (see pp. 270, 271), an “eleven” who should compete in any
physical feats whatever, against similar selections from groups of
twice or thrice their numbers, taken at hap-hazard from equally
 |
|
 |
|