that is, the prophet is par excellence the Hebrew genius, as the philosopher and sculptor are the Greek genius.

"The power of applying the attention, steady and undissipated, to a single object is the sure mark of a superior genius."1 And James remarks that it is the genius that makes him attentive, not the attention that makes one a genius. This overpowering attention to one supreme subject or thought is, as James hints, an involuntary act, an overmastering impulse. Note here that this characteristic of genius is the characteristic of the Hebrew prophets. They have “the power of applying their attention, steady and undissipated, to a single object," namely, the Ethical Jahve Religion, and they do this with an overmastering passion that is truly involuntary. Jeremiah expresses this thought with true prophetic force: "I thought I would speak no more in the name of God, but it was within me like a burning fire, shut up in my bones; I thought to withstand it but I could not" (Jer. 10: 9).2 In this connection it is of great interest to psychology to note that all geniuses, and the prophet among them, have often been taken for insane. Now, Nordau observed that art is the slight beginning of a deviation from complete health, and Ribot remarks: "To demand that we shall create or enjoy without excitement, remaining all the time in the level, prosaic calm of every-day life, is to expect the impossible." If we assume with Nordau that complete health means unemotional, unexcited, nervous condition, perfect neurotic rest, then it is evident that he is correct when he says art, which is a high state of emotional excitement, is a deviation from health. Now genius and insanity are both the greatest deviation from perfect health in that assumed sense because both are intense

emotional, nervous excitement. The insane, and espe

1

Chesterfield, by James, "Psychology," Vol. I, p. 423, note.

2 Cf. Am. 3: 8.

cially the monomaniac and megalomaniac, is one who through intense over-attention and nervous excitement, usually "steady and undissipated to a single object," has set up a greater katabolism of brain cells than the natural anabolism can repair, and the lesion thus caused is insanity. The genius is doing psychologically the identical thing, namely, "applying an attention, steady and undissipated, to a single object," and the genius sometimes becomes insane because his intense emotional activity causes the same great katabolism of brain-cells; but because the great nervous activity of the genius is usually not wholly morbidly selfish, the natural anabolism going on regularly is sufficiently great to repair the loss regularly. When, however, the genius, as may often be the case, finds himself near cerebral lesion through the same overintense emotional activity, he is then occasionally taken for insane. That this is the correct explanation seems to me evident further from the fact that a man may be insane on one subject and sane on all others, that is the cerebral cells mostly operative on the one subject of intense emotional interests have been broken down, perhaps beyond repair, while all others are intact.

Again, “genius, in truth," says James,1 means little more than the faculty of perceiving in an unhabitual way." This definition of genius also applies in every sense and detail to the Hebrew prophets. Their mode of thinking was so unhabitual that, as often happens in such cases, they were hated and feared, reverenced and haunted, imprisoned and persecuted. The people habitually thought that Jahve was a God of favoritism whose good will could be obtained through presents and sacrifice; the prophets announced that Jahve was a God of justice whose favor could be gained only through righteousness. The people thought that Jahve was a national God who 'Psychology," " Vol. II, p. 110.

166

could not destroy Israel because, being a national God, he would destroy his own field of activity and usefulness by destroying the people whose God he is. The prophets said that Jahve is the God of the whole earth, and by destroying one nation his dominion is not impaired. Israel's defeats did not show Jahve's weakness, as thought the people, but Jahve's moral nature, as thought the prophets. Jahve is a God of love, announced Hosea eight centuries before the Christian era, the first one, so far as we know, who uttered so unhabitual a thought. Therefore, the faculty of perceiving in an unhabitual way was in the highest sense a prophetic faculty, and hence again we see that the prophet is a genius.

Professor Bain's definition1 that the leading fact in genius of every order is a native talent for perceiving analogies also applies very well to the prophet. The prophets certainly, each and all, have this native talent for perceiving analogies in a superb degree; so grand and startling are these analogies that they have not yet spent their original force. Sublime indeed is Hosea's example of analogy between his relation to his faithless wife and God's relation to faithless Israel. Even as he loves his faithless wife, desiring only that she return and sin no more, infinitely more so does Jahve love His spouse, Israel, desiring only repentance and return to righteousness. Isaiah's analogy of the gardener's disappointment in his vineyard to God's disappointment in Israel is another striking example of this power of genius. (Is. ch. 5.)

It is plain, therefore, that the prophet is not only related to genius, but is in the truest sense a genius. It is the history of Israel, as a study of that history reveals, that shaped the Hebrew genius into prophet just as truly and indentically as the histories of other people shaped their geniuses into other moulds.

1 1 James: "Psychology," Vol. I, p. 530.

We have now completed the study of prophecy from every standpoint, and we have been led to the conclusion that the prophet is the Hebrew national type of genius. We know, of course, what is meant by a poet-genius, or music-genius, but we may not be quite clear as to the meaning of prophet-genius.

It now remains, therefore, to determine what kind of genius the prophet is, and then to explain the psychology of this particular species of genius, the prophet. Before going any further, however, it may be well to indicate in few words the similarity of all great men known as geniuses.

(E) SIMILARITY OF GREAT MEN

Nature makes no leaps. There are gradations of intellect as there are gradations in all other manifestations in the known universe. The difference in degree between the intellect of the highest ape and the lowest man is not as marked as is the difference between the lowest man and the highest, namely genius. If in all ages the lowest mind has not been able to grasp the laws of the highest mind or the laws of a higher mind, that is not the fault of genius or of the higher mind. Both the highest and the lowest minds, as the largest and the smallest plant, are natural in all their various manifestations and activities, and act, as each must, in accordance with universal natural laws. The difference between the great mind and the small mind is a difference of degree, not of kind, the former is capable of continued attention and steady application, both of which the latter lacks. The greatest mind, that is the mind of genius, is simply the greatest power of attention and application, usually to some great and noble purpose. I say usually, because genius may devote its energies to low unworthy objects and succeed equally well. It is all a matter of temperament, environment and per

ceptions, in the sense of life experiences and contemporary history, that determines the channel in which the energies of genius shall flow. All great men are similar, perhaps even identical, in this one respect, to wit, they all focalize their brain activity with such intense interest, emotion and concentrated passion that they see more deeply, act more nobly and think and utter more profound truths than other classes of men.1

Schwartzkopff very correctly observes (p. 87): "So liesse sich eine grosse Anzahl von Beispielen auffuehren, WO bedeutende Dichter, Denker, Geschichtsforscher, Staatsmaenner die grosse Zukunft der von ihnen verkuendigten neuen Gedanken in religioeser, sittlicher, sozialer, politischer Hinsicht ahnten und voraussagten. Hierher gehoeren auch die grosse Maenner der That, die Helden der Weltgeschichte, welche neue Epochen heraufgefuehrt haben. Sie konnten das nur, weil sie sich als die willenskraeftigen, von der Gottheit berufenen Vertreter grosser, sittlich bedeutsamer Gedanken fuehlten.

"In diesem sittlichen Inhalt und in dieser religioesen Begruendung ihres Berufes erkennen wir zugleich die tiefere Verwandschaft mit dem eigentlichen Prophetenthum. Dies gab ihnen jene wunderbare Zuversicht, vermoege deren sie den Sieg an ihre Fahnen gekettet wussten. Man denke an Alexander den Grossen, Caesar, Napoleon I., Luther."

1 Cf. James: "Psychology," Vol. II, pp. 366 ff.