74 GENIUS AND MENTAL DISEASE. 
Lucretius——‘‘ writer of the purest Latin, and author of 
De Rerum Natura, the most exalted poem of theage” 
—whose mind combined the ‘‘contemplative enthusiasm 
of a philosopher, the earnest purpose of a reformer and 
moral teacher, and the profound pathos and sense of 
beauty of a great poet,’’ has been used to illustrate the 
kinship of genius and madness upon the unreliable evi- 
dence that he lost his reason from the effect of a ‘‘love- 
philter’’ (a very ridiculous absurdity) which had been 
given to him; and after writing several books, during 
his lucid intervals, he committed suicide. 
Were this allegation true, it could only show the bane- 
ful effect of the drug upon his brain, which is quite apart 
from the influence of any psychic cause. The historic 
facts are too few and insufficient to justify any state- 
ment as to the life and personal character of this man, 
who exerted such an influence over others by his writings, 
and yet. like Homer, was content to let his personality 
‘‘pass through life unnoticed.’”’ Ceesar, Catullus, and 
Cicero were his contemporaries, and yet we know of him 
only through a brief record given by Jerome four hun- 
dred years after the poet’s death. Independent of the 
historic doubts as to his insanity, the theory which 
makes a drug its potent cause, should at least find rea- 
son for not uniting to it his genius. 
That Socrates had his ‘‘demon,’’ or guardian angel, 
may be true; but, if so, the hallucination corresponded 
with the accepted belief of the age, and therefore signi- 
fies nothing against his mental integrity. 
Neither is there justification in using such illustrious 
names as Descartes, Newton, and Goethe, to prove that 
madness holds its court so near the temple of greatness. 
It is true that Descartes, inan hour of deep intellectual 
abstraction, was ‘‘ filled with enthusiasm, and discovered 
the foundations of a marvelous science’’; and, it may 
be that, during his profound meditations, in which he 
