contribute most of the intellectual laborers of note, and that the popular notion that genius is generally of low origin or derived from obscure districts is a mistake. Some "village Hampden," it is true, may adorn the region of politics, but this is an exceptional distinction. It is needless to premise that Mr. Clarke has considered the influence of population, and has not merely enumerated the clever men from given places. He has taken 2,000 names of men of genius or high intellectual powers, and sorted them out into districts, and this forms the basis of his calculations. He says:
The more important matter is to ascertain how far the external influence of the community has affected the birth or production of men of ability, genius, or celebrity, exemplified in intellectual endowment‥‥On the whole, such men are rather born in towns than in the country, and examples to the contrary, as those of Newton, Dryden, etc., admit of explanations which neutralize their apparent antagonism.
Speaking of the preëminence of London in the production of such men, he says:
If we test this for other countries, whether in ancient or modern times, we shall find the same thing. Rome and Athens will assert a metropolitan position, and so will Paris. A map of the geographical distribution of such elements will safely mark out the most famous cities of antiquity. A map of England, of France, of Germany, or Italy, will show the like modern results. The town population being the smaller portion in each country, yet the larger number of names will belong to the town population, and not to the rural population; and, on the whole, the names which can be marked as first and second class will belong in the larger proportion to the town population.
Of the 2,000 names, three-eighths belong to the country, and five-eighths to the town districts.
The following extracts give the main points in the interesting analysis: