178 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



loss upon his country. He is spoken of in the highest terms by all 

 historians, especially for his bravery, prudence and magnanimity.* 

 Don John, a natural son of Philip IV., also was the possessor of great 

 qualities. 



It is noteworthy that three of these six were illegitimate, and that 

 the greatest, Alexandre Farnese and Don John, were of these three. 

 It seems probable that owing to the extremely high-strung and un- 

 stable condition of nearly all the members of the family, a union 

 with an entirely different class of people would be of advantage to 

 the health and balance of mind. It was not so much that ability was 

 needed as a toning down of the excessiveness that had been manifesting 

 itself in so many ways. 



Of these mentioned, one was a son, two were grandsons, two were 

 great-grandsons and one was a great-great-grandson. The most 

 eminent were the closest related, and it is probable that the 

 number of more distant relationship would not have been so large 

 (as in the case of Galton's tables) but for the close intermarriages, 

 giving the genius a chance to be further perpetuated than would 

 ordinarily have been the case. 



The kings of Spain never again had anything of the renowned 

 abilities of Isabella, Charles, or the celebrated warriors of early days 

 like Alfonso VI. (1126), James I. of Aragon, or John the Great of 

 Portugal. It might have been that some of the eldest sons should 

 have inherited the great qualities instead of little ones, but Spain 

 may be said to have been unlucky in this, and as the next three, 

 Philip II., III. and IV., did not get the best, in each succeeding gen- 

 eration the chances of its reappearing become more and more dim 

 until the probabilities of a reversion were entirely unlikely. 



Let us now notice the neuroses in this same region. The amount 

 of insanity, or at least marked deviation from the normal, should be 

 strikingly conspicuous owing to the intermarriages. It is so. Philip 

 II. is described in this way by Motley. 



He was believed to be the reverse of the Emperor (his father). Charles 

 sought great enterprises, Philip would avoid them. . . . The son was reserved, 

 cautious, suspicious of all men and capable of sacrificing a realm from hesi- 

 tation and timidity. The father had a genius for action, the son a predeliction 

 for repose. His talents were in truth very much below mediocrity. A petty 

 passion for contemptible details characterized him from youth . . . diligent 

 with great ambition. . . . He was grossly licentious and cruel. f 



Philip II. evidently took after his grandmother, Joanna 'the Mad,' 

 who was weak and melancholic, and perhaps also his grandfather, the 

 feeble Philip 'the Fair' of Austria. He did not resemble either his 



* Dunlop, ' Mem. Sp.,' I., 183, also Hume's ' Spain.' 

 Motley's 'Rise Dutch Rep.,' Vol. I., p. 142. 



