Page:Calcutta Review (1925) Vol. 16.djvu/318

1925] what is meant when scientists talk of the ‘insanity’ of genius. The very fact that genius claims exemption from moral criticism, implies that it has some taint of moral aberration. And the lives of great men often bear out this contention.

This leads to the thesis that a hero is but a successful villain, a genius is but a clever criminal, and a criminal on a larger scale perhaps. In other words, the sort of activity which ordinarily is called crime, if pursued on a large scale and if crowned with success, will be regarded as a stroke of genius. Poets will sing its praise and monuments and obelisks will rise in its honour. If the leader of a small party of men, starts an expedition against private property, he is, like the well-known Thracian and like Rob Roy of ballad fame, a robber and an outlaw : and his party is a gang of bandits. But if he is a mightier man, leads a bigger party and robs on an immensely larger scale, then, his party is an army and himself is a conqueror. Then the pages of history will be full of his praise; later generations will scrutinise his exploits with reverence and admiration; and his life will he the theme of many an epic poem.

The fact states us in the face that a pick-pocket and a multi-millionaire may have the same propensity—vulgarly called greed. The one robs a pice, is caught and is punished; the other robs millions, is not caught, and is not only not punished but has eulogies bestowed on him. The instincts and impulses may not be—and often are not—different in geniuses and criminals. The difference often lies in the dimensions of the act done—and probably in the magnitude of the impulse also. But this difference of quantity only, does not preclude the possibility of kinship. Magnitude apart, crime and genius may have the same moral tone. Psychologically, the difference between the Macedonian hero, and the Thracian robber, has not been established perhaps; yet the judgment of history has been different in the two cases