Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 49.djvu/542

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

—the same paucity of ideas, the same tendency to hover about one word or phrase with senseless repetitions. One illustration will serve, ex uno discite omnia:

"Ah, will ye despise, will ye despise the blood of Jesus? Will ye pass by the cross, the cross of Jesus? Oh! oh! oh! will ye crucify the Lord of glory? Will ye put him to an open shame? He died, he died, he died for you. He died for you. Believe ye, believe ye the Lamb of God. Oh, he was slain, he was slain, and he hath redeemed you; he hath redeemed you; he hath redeemed you with his blood! Oh, the blood, the blood, the blood that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel—which crieth mercy for you now, mercy for you now! Despise not his love, despise not his love, despise not his love!

"Oh, grieve him not! Oh, grieve not your Father! Rest in his love. Oh, rejoice in your Father's love! Oh, rejoice in the love of Jesus, in the love of Jesus, in the love of Jesus, for it passeth knowledge! Oh, the length! oh, the breadth! oh, the height! oh, the depth, of the love of Jesus! Oh, it passeth knowledge! Oh, rejoice in the love of Jesus! sinner, for what, for what—what, O sinner, what can separate, can separate, can separate from the love of Jesus?" etc.

Mr. Le Baron's "tongues" are constructed upon the same general principle, one phonetic element appearing to serve as the basis or core for a long series of syllables. I believe all these cases to be analogous to that of my friend B——, and I see no reason for ascribing them to subconscious activities of any kind.





WITH this outcome, we may return to the genius. And the first requirement is that we state the social man in the fewest terms, in order that we may then judge the genius with reference to the sane social man, the normal socius. What he is we have seen. He is a person who learns to judge by the judgments of society. What, then, shall we say of the genius from this point of view? Can the hero-worshiper be right in saying that the genius teaches society to judge; or shall we say that the genius, like other men, must learn to judge by the judgments of society? The most fruitful point of view is, no doubt, that which considers the genius a variation. And unless we do this it is evidently impossible to get any theory which will bring him into