WILLIAM G. STEVENSON. Al 
tions by Mr. Sully, on /nsanity and Genius and Genius 
and Precocity, and by Miss Sanborn on the Vanity and 
Insanity of Genius, are as welcome as they are interest- 
ing. Itis obvious, however, that names are often used 
to show the kinship between insanity and genius which 
do not represent the most illustrious minds. Mr. Sully 
is, however, logically correct in thus using names, for 
he includes under the term genius ‘‘all varieties of 
originative power, whether in art, science, or in practical 
affairs’’; but in so doing he destroys, as it seems to me, 
the value of his argument in support of the relationship 
of insanity and genius, for, measured by this standard, 
the evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory. 
Neither is due regard given to the real significance of 
false perceptions, which are often made to appear in- 
dicative of insanity, when in reality mental integrity is 
not impaired. 
Although obliged to follow a common trend of thought 
with familiar illustrations, it is, nevertheless, my hope 
to place a few garlands of honor on the brow of health, 
and to defend genius against the implication that it is 
such only with madness. The profound ignorance of 
the ancient philosophers concerning the nature of mind 
itself justifies us in attaching but little importance to 
their interpretation of its phenomena. 
Thus, Plato’s Psychology affirmed a self-existent, 
self-moving, and eternal soul, in form ‘like a pair 
of winged steeds. . . . In divine souls both steeds are 
good, in human souls one is bad. . . . Before entering 
the body the wings are lost which were nourished by 
beauty, wisdom, goodness, and all that is divine. 
The mind of the philosopher alone has wings; he is 
ever initiated into perfect mysteries, and his soul alone 
becomes complete. But the vulgar deem him mad and 
rebuke him; they do not see that he is inspired. This 
