to admit that the creative genius follows any path whatever at his
choice--a proposition that Weismann, in his horror of inheritance of
acquired characters (which are a kind of innateness) is not afraid to
support. That is true only of the man of talent, a matter of education
and circumstances. The distinction between these two orders of
creators--the great and the ordinary--has been made too often to need
repetition, although it is proper to recognize that it is not always
easy in practice, that there are names that cause us to hesitate, which
we class somewhat at hazard. Yet genius remains, as Schopenhauer used to
say, _monstrum per excessum_; excessive development in one direction.
Hypertrophy of a special aptitude often makes genius fall, as far as the
others are concerned, below the average level. Even those exceptional
men who have given proof of multiple aptitudes, such as Vinci,
Michaelangelo, Goethe, etc., always have a predominating tendency which,
in common opinion, sums them up.

III

A third characteristic is the clearly defined _individuality_ of the
great creator. He is the man of his work; he has done this or that: that
is his mark. He is "representative." There is no other opinion as to
this; what is a subject of discussion is the _origin_, not the nature of
this individuality. The Darwinian theory as to the all-powerful action
of environment has led to the question whether the representative
character of great inventors comes from themselves, and from them alone,
or must not rather be sought in the unconscious influence of the race
and epoch of which they are at a given instant only brighter sparks.
This debate goes beyond the bounds of our subject. To decide whether
social changes are due mostly to the accumulated influences of some
individuals and their initiative, or to the environment, to
circumstances, to hereditary transmission, is not a problem for
psychology to solve. We can not, however, totally avoid this discussion,
for it touches the very springs of creation.

Is the inventive genius the highest degree of personality or a synthesis
of masses?--the result of himself or of others?--the expression of an
individual activity or of a collective activity? In short, should we
look for his representative character within him or without? Both these
alternatives have authoritative supporters.

For Schopenhauer, Carlyle (_Hero-worship_), Nietzsche, _et al._, the
great man is an autonomous produ