Genius, say some, is but a capacity for hard work. This is not the whole truth, says the New Science Review. There must be work in accordance with law. The miner who digs for gold on the seashore will never find it, though he dig so laboriously, but if he study gold and the geologic strata in which it lives he has begun to put himself into harmony with law. Mere work, unless properly directed, is like riding a hobby-horse–there is energy and motion, but no progress.
For years Napoleon was living in miniature the battles he was to fight, analyzing strategic moves and positions, and training his mind to thus grasp a new situation on the instant. Von Moltke studied the military topography of all Europe, and with marvelous foresight thought out how to win. His victory was no triumph of mere fortune or special inspiration. It was but the logical outcome of his trained mind, and a trained mind ever lights the torch of its own inspiration. Leonardo da Vinci always carried in his girdle his sketch-book in his walks in Florence constantly looking for picturesque faces. “In the silence of the night,” he would counsel himself, “recall the ideas of the things you have studied. Design in your spirit the contours and outlines of the figures you have seen during the day.” There is a theory held by scientists that genius comes from disease. Disease, insanity, depravity and other failings often do occur as consequences due to overconcentration or misuse of powers, but they do not create genius any more than the vultures of the plains create the carcass upon which they feed. The genius, too, being of finer mental material, is more likely to show a flaw, as Dresden china reveals a mar not noticeable in a red clay flower pot. In support of this disease theory the most insignificant, commonplace ailments of ordinary humanity, when found in genius, are magnified and exaggerated. The weaknesses thus pointed out are, it is worth noting, usually shown in the part of mind or of body where the genius was not exercised.
A review of The New Science Review from The Manufacturer and Builder, October, 1894, page 238…
The New Science Review. A Miscellany of Modern Thought and Discovery. Conducted by J. M. Stoddart. The Transatlantic Publishing Co., New York, 63 Fifth avenue; London, 26 Henrietta street, Covent Garden. Price 50 cents; $2 per annum. (Quarterly).
The two impressions of this new corner in the field of scientific journalism that have appeared, give a sufficiently good indication of its scope to permit of forming a fair idea of its character and probable utility.
It aims, apparently, to present the latest and best aspects of scientific discovery and speculative thought in intelligible form, so as to be digestible by the non-technical reader. In the list of authors whose names appear as contributors, we find Dewar, Oswald, Haupt, Conway, Hawthorne and Heilprin–a coterie from whom nothing but work of sterling value would emanate.
There may be some reason for the admission of such incomprehensible bosh as the paper entitled “A Newton of the Mind” (under which disguise, Keely, the motor man, masquerades), but it is not apparent.
On the whole, the selection of material presented is excellent, and the Review is entitled to the cordial welcome with which, doubtless, it will be received by a wide circle of intelligent readers.
Seems like a reiteration of the “90% Perspiration/10% Inspiration” quote commonly attributed to Thomas Edison (also attributed to Haydn, Bach and Paderewski).
This idea of disease and genius being linked is still bandied about today. Don’t know if I believe that syphilis is responsible for Lincoln’s actions, but I do agree that a person of moderate compulsion can seem to be a “genius” in their subject. Even more recent ascriptions of genius to “disease” belong to Asperger’s syndrome.
The problem I have with this is that it implies that it is abnormal to be smart and/or focused. Is autism/Asperger’s the hammer that our society uses to hit all the unconventional individual nails?