the peculiarities of physical stature generally, and the common intellectual accompaniments of under-development and over-development. The conclusion we have reached, that both tall and short individuals tend to predominate unduly among persons of genius, is confirmed and to some extent explained by observation of the general population. The observations so far made, indeed, are few, but so far as they go perfectly definite. Thus Mr. Bohannon-who, under the inspiration of Professor Stanley Hall, has collected data concerning over one thousand abnormal children in the United States, dividing them into various groups according to the predominant abnormal character-finds that both tall children and short children are intellectually superior to children of medium height. The tall (except in cases of very excessive tallness, which may be regarded as pathological) showed their superiority both in general health and mental ability; at the same time they were notable for their sensitiveness, good nature, even temper, and popularity with others. The small were less often healthy, and consequently were apt to be delicate, ugly, or vicious; but when fairly healthy they tended to show very great activity both of body and mind. These observations, which will no doubt be confirmed, are in harmony with the results of daily experience with children, and they serve not only to support the conclusion we have reached with regard to men of genius, but they also indicate that genius itself is merely the highest form of a common tendency which puts forth its tender buds in every schoolroom. It would still remain to show the causes of this tendency; for it is scarcely possible to hold that the health and ability of the tall is due (as has apparently been suggested) to forced association with their elders in youth, and quite absurd to hold that the activity and mental quickness of the small is due to the arrested development caused by forced association with their juniors. In both cases it seems probable that the primary cause is a greater vital activity, however we may ultimately have to define 'vital activity.' Among the tall such intensity of vital action has shown itself in unimpeded freedom; in the short it is impeded and forced into new channels by pathological or other causes. The latter case is perhaps the more interesting and complicated. An anthropometric examination of short men of genius would throw much light on this question. There are certainly at least two types of short men of genius: the slight, frail, but fairly symmetrical type (approaching what is called the true dwarf), and the type of the stunted giant (a type also to be found among dwarfs proper). The former are fairly symmetrical, but fragile; generally with little physical vigour or health, all their energy being concentrated in the brain. Kant was of this type. The stunted giants are usually more vigorous, but lacking in symmetry. Far from being delicately diminutive persons, they suggest tall persons who have been cut short below; in such the brain and viscera seem to flourish at the expense of the limbs, and while abnormal they often have the good fortune to be robust both in mind and body. Lord Chesterfield was a man of this type, short for his size, thick-set, 'with a head big enough for a Polyphemus;' Hartley Coleridge carried the same type to the verge of caricature, possessing a large head, a sturdy and ample form, with ridiculously small arms and legs, so that he was said to be 'indescribably elfish and grotesque.' Dryden -'Poet Squab'-was again of this type, as was William Godwin; in Keats the abnormally short legs co-existed with a small head. The typical stunted giant has a large head; and such stunting of the body has, indeed, a special tendency to produce large heads, and therefore doubtless those large brains which are usually associated with extraordinary intellectual power. It is a curious fact-as a distinguished anatomist, the late Sir George Humphrey, remarked many years ago-that when from any cause the growth of the rest of the body is stunted, the head not only remains disproportionately large, but often becomes actually larger than in ordinary persons. Thus short persons and persons with imperfectly developed lower extremities are not uncommonly remarkable for the size of their heads, as though, the expenditure of growing force being too great in one direction, other parts are ill-cared for.' It may be added that the commonest type of dwarf possesses a proportionally large head and short legs. 4 It would doubtless be an attractive task to attempt to trace the causes which lead genius to be associated at once with both abnormal extremes of stature. It must probably be found at an early period of embryonic development, when, as we know from the researches of Dareste and others, the causes of dwarfism may also be found, sometimes in arrest of growth resulting from precocious development. Here, however, it is enough to have ascertained the facts in a roughly approximate fashion. It need only be pointed out, in conclusion, that the result we have reached, although apparently new, is such a result as should have been expected. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire long since, and Ranke more recently, have pointed out that both giants and dwarfs the abnormally tall and the abnormally short-are usually abnormal in other respects also. From the biological point of view we know nothing of 'genius,' what is so termed being simply an abnormal aptitude of brain function; so that among those variations and abnormalities which, as is already generally agreed, we find with unusual frequency among the very tall and the very short, extraordinary mental aptitude ought sometimes to occur. HAVELOCK ELLIS. 4 Humphrey, The Human Skeleton, p. 96. THE POPE AND THE ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOPS It is related in an old story, admirably versified by Longfellow, that a certain Count Robert of Sicily, having made defiant mock of the Scripture which saith He hath put down the mighty from their seat,' whilst the monks were singing the Magnificat at Vespers, incontinently fell into a deep sleep, from which, when he had awakened and gone home, he found another in his royal seat and himself an outcast, and treated on all hands as a pretentious fool. It is with something of Count Robert's bewilderment that we listen to the claim of continuity from the mouth of our Anglican friends. Of course, we Roman Catholics are well aware that we do not constitute the Established Church in this country; but we fondly thought that time was when we did so; that as the Stuarts were on the English throne until they were supplanted by Dutch William and the Hanoverians, so we once possessed its churches, which we had built, until we were dispossessed by a mingled rout of Calvinists and Zuinglians in the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth, who found their one point of union in their common Erastianism. This was generally recognised by the ordinary Protestant historian as a crowning mercy. He was contented to find here and there in the past a scintilla of Protestant aspiration in the person of some distorted saint or whitewashed ruffian; but now it would seem that we are to lose even the inheritance of our regrets, for it would be mere affectation to mourn the loss of that which was never ours. Our sole representatives in pre-Elizabethan history written up to date are unfortunately just those whom we could best afford to dispense with the leaders, to wit, of the fierce Papist reaction under Mary, who kindled the fires of Smithfield and threw away a noble opportunity. Here we are distinctly wanted, and we appear upon the stage for the first time to burn a few poor blasphemers of the Mass, not Anglicans certainly, neither are Anglicans as yet anywhere distinctly visible. In the next reign we appear again, and a goodly number of us are disembowelled at the hands of very emphatic Protestants, Anglicanism the while 'mewing its mighty youth' in the safety of some 'green retreat,' and leaving such rough companions to fight it out for themselves. An invisible Church, heir at once to the memories of the past and the hopes of the future, I see her slowly materialising beneath the royal smile, a kneeling figure conscious of having chosen the better part, whilst Papists and Protestants busy themselves in various ways, mainly at each other's throats. Doubtless the spirit of Erastianism had existed from the beginning, but as one of those principalities and powers with which the Christian Church was in chronic warfare. Never before had it become incarnate, fully incarnate in an ecclesiastical system, as it was in the English Church of the Tudors and Stuarts. This is the first great note distinguishing the Establishment of Edward and Elizabeth from the pre-Reformation Church, and it issued in a constitutional indifference to heresy, ecclesiastical solidarity with admitted heretics, and complete incapacity of assimilation or rejection of such doctrine as might present itself. The lowest form of animal life involves a digestive cavity, and a power of absorbing and expelling, whereas a carpet bag receives and retains whatever incongruous elements may be placed within it.1 The Establishment as at present constituted is the outcome of a period of violent revolution, in which a hierarchy was destroyed, altars overthrown, and those who held by the ancient landmarks outlawed. We can hardly be expected to receive the Anglicanism of the day without credentials, as Merlin did Arthur at his first coming: And down the wave and in the flame was borne A naked babe, and rode to Merlin's feet, Who stooped and caught the babe and cried, 'The King! Prætorian here, Prætorian there, I ken the bigging o't,' was the Scotch gaberlunzie's comment on his patron's antiquarian pretensions. When the Spanish Ambassador inquired what form of religion Elizabeth intended to introduce, she replied at first that it would be that of the Confession of Augsburg, and then, correcting herself, that it would be something like it, and yet different. I should wish to handle the Anglican claim with the utmost consideration-not that it is in itself respectable, but it is made by respectable people who are very much in earnest, and who feel that for them it is a matter of life and death. But first we must be quite sure that we understand it. Now, its meaning will very much depend upon the character of the person who makes it. If he is a Broad Churchman, who regards dogma generally as a transient form of expression, within the limits of that vague term 'Christianity,' and Church institutions as State institutions in Church matters, we may concede that there is a continuous persistence, unbroken by the Reformation, of all that is See for the process Child's Church and State under the Tudors, passim. H conveyed to him by the expression English Church'-viz. legality, locality, and maintenance. At first one is tempted to protest that these are qualities only, without any suggestion of a subject in which they should inhere. But we are mistaken: the subject is the English nation; the English Church is merely an adjectival or departmental expression, signifying the national organisation for purposes of worship, precisely as there is a national organisation for war or commerce. The Establishment is the same form of national activity, exhibited on the same premises, and maintained by the same funds, as the preReformation Church. We have no pretext for denying such continuity as this, nor, indeed, any interest in doing so, for such identity is quite compatible with the substantial substitution we maintain took place. The High Churchman's contention is, of course, something very different. He begins by admitting that the Church of England, if it is a Church at all, must be part of a world-wide institution, which Christ formed for the instruction and sanctification of mankind; that it is committed to a large body of dogmatic truth, and to an episcopal organisation. Hence it follows that it is by no means an otiose question for him to ask if the present Church of England has preserved its continuity with the Church of the pre-Reformation period, for it might have forfeited it, as he confesses, either by losing its episcopal succession, or by letting fall an integral portion of its faith. He proceeds then to insist that the Church of England has preserved through the storm of the Reformation the apostolic succession of her bishops, the integrity of her faith, and the plenitude of her jurisdiction, in which, and not in any external political or social relations, he makes the identity of her ecclesiastical personality to consist. Now, on each and every one of these matters of fact do we Catholics join issue with him. Our contention is that the Church of England (1) has no orders-i.e. possesses bishops, priests, and deacons in name only, without the potestas ordinis; (2) has made shipwreck of her faith, at least, by committing herself to positions of indifference in respect to a point of faith and its opposite heresy, and by remaining in full communion with notorious heretics; (3) has thereby forfeited all authority and jurisdiction in respect to Christ's mystical body. The primary duty of a member of the Church of England, on the hypothesis of the truth of this contention, would be (1) schism, or separation from his unnatural mother; (2) union with his nearest orthodox kindred. Such an obligation, be it observed, would exist independently of any question of the special claims of the see of Rome. I propose to consider the Church of England's claim to continuity, directly as to her orders, touching indirectly upon her faith and jurisdiction so far as these are related to her orders. Her orders. These have been pronounced by the highest ecclesiastical judge of Christendom, in a bull bearing date September 1896, |