Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

com

Genealogies of Genius 1st Edition Joyce E.

Chaplin

https://textbookfull.com/product/genealogies-of-
genius-1st-edition-joyce-e-chaplin/

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

The Unquiet Genius 1st Edition Dyer Glenn

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-unquiet-genius-1st-edition-dyer-
glenn/

textbookfull.com

WordPress Genius Guide Coll.

https://textbookfull.com/product/wordpress-genius-guide-coll/

textbookfull.com

Indo-Caribbean Feminist Thought: Genealogies, Theories,

Enactments 1st Edition Gabrielle Jamela Hosein

https://textbookfull.com/product/indo-caribbean-feminist-thought-
genealogies-theories-enactments-1st-edition-gabrielle-jamela-hosein/

textbookfull.com

No Malice My Life in Basketball or How a Kid from

Queensbridge Survived the Streets the Brawls and Himself
to Become an NBA Champion Metta World Peace
https://textbookfull.com/product/no-malice-my-life-in-basketball-or-
how-a-kid-from-queensbridge-survived-the-streets-the-brawls-and-
himself-to-become-an-nba-champion-metta-world-peace/
textbookfull.com
Ritwik Ghatak and the Cinema of Praxis Culture Aesthetics
and Vision Diamond Oberoi Vahali

https://textbookfull.com/product/ritwik-ghatak-and-the-cinema-of-
praxis-culture-aesthetics-and-vision-diamond-oberoi-vahali/

textbookfull.com

Pearson UGC NET SLET General Paper I Teaching Research

Aptitude 2nd Edition K V S Madaan

https://textbookfull.com/product/pearson-ugc-net-slet-general-paper-i-
teaching-research-aptitude-2nd-edition-k-v-s-madaan/

textbookfull.com

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing: A

Balanced Analysis of the Theory and Practice of a
Sustainable Portfolio 1st Edition John Hill
https://textbookfull.com/product/environmental-social-and-governance-
esg-investing-a-balanced-analysis-of-the-theory-and-practice-of-a-
sustainable-portfolio-1st-edition-john-hill/
textbookfull.com

Reading the Late Byzantine Romance A Handbook Adam J

Goldwyn

https://textbookfull.com/product/reading-the-late-byzantine-romance-a-
handbook-adam-j-goldwyn/

textbookfull.com

Eichmann And The Destruction Of Hungarian Jewry 1st

Edition Braham Randolph L

https://textbookfull.com/product/eichmann-and-the-destruction-of-
hungarian-jewry-1st-edition-braham-randolph-l/

textbookfull.com
Of Storms and Triumphs Thunderbird Academy 3 1st Edition
Valia Lind

https://textbookfull.com/product/of-storms-and-triumphs-thunderbird-
academy-3-1st-edition-valia-lind/

textbookfull.com
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN CULTURAL AND INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
Series Editors
Anthony J. La Vopa, North Carolina State University
Suzanne Marchand, Louisiana State University
Javed Majeed, King’s College, London
The Palgrave Studies in Cultural and Intellectual History series has three pri-
mary aims: to close divides between intellectual and cultural approaches,
thus bringing them into mutually enriching interactions; to encourage inter-
disciplinarity in intellectual and cultural history; and to globalize the field,
both in geographical scope and in subjects and methods. This series is open to
work on a range of modes of intellectual inquiry, including social theory and
the social sciences; the natural sciences; economic thought; literature; reli-
gion; gender and sexuality; philosophy; political and legal thought; psychol-
ogy; and music and the arts. It encompasses not just North America but also
Africa, Asia, Eurasia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. It includes
both nationally focused studies and studies of intellectual and cultural
exchanges between different nations and regions of the world, and encom-
passes research monographs, synthetic studies, edited collections, and broad
works of reinterpretation. Regardless of methodology or geography, all books
in the series are historical in the fundamental sense of undertaking rigorous
contextual analysis.
Published by Palgrave Macmillan
Indian Mobilities in the West, 1900–1947: Gender, Performance, Embodiment
By Shompa Lahiri
The Shelley-Byron Circle and the Idea of Europe
By Paul Stock
Culture and Hegemony in the Colonial Middle East
By Yaseen Noorani
Recovering Bishop Berkeley: Virtue and Society in the Anglo-Irish Context
By Scott Breuninger
The Reading of Russian Literature in China: A Moral Example and Manual of
Practice
By Mark Gamsa
Rammohun Roy and the Making of Victorian Britain
By Lynn Zastoupil
Carl Gustav Jung: Avant-Garde Conservative
By Jay Sherry
Law and Politics in British Colonial Thought: Transpositions of Empire
Edited by Shaunnagh Dorsett and Ian Hunter
Sir John Malcolm and the Creation of British India
By Jack Harrington
The American Bourgeoisie: Distinction and Identity in the Nineteenth Century
Edited by Sven Beckert and Julia B. Rosenbaum
Benjamin Constant and the Birth of French Liberalism
By K. Steven Vincent
The Gospel of Beauty in the Progressive Era: Reforming American Verse and Values
By Lisa Szefel
Knowledge Production, Pedagogy, and Institutions in Colonial India
Edited by Indra Sengupta and Daud Ali
The Emergence of Russian Liberalism: Alexander Kunitsyn in Context, 1783–1840
By Julia Berest
Religious Transactions in Colonial South India: Language, Translation, and the
Making of Protestant Identity
By Hephzibah Israel
Cultural History of the British Census: Envisioning the Multitude in the
Nineteenth Century
By Kathrin Levitan
Character, Self, and Sociability in the Scottish Enlightenment
Edited by Thomas Ahnert and Susan Manning
The European Antarctic: Science and Strategy in Scandinavia and the British
Empire
By Peder Roberts
The Origins of Modern Historiography in India: Antiquarianism and Philology,
1780–1880
By Rama Sundari Mantena
Isaiah Berlin: The Journey of a Jewish Liberal
By Arie Dubnov
At the Edges of Liberalism: Junctions of European, German, and Jewish History
By Steven E. Aschheim
Making British Indian Fictions: 1772–1823
By Ashok Malhotra
Alfred Weber and the Crisis of Culture, 1890–1933
By Colin Loader
Monism: Science, Philosophy, Religion, and the History of a Worldview
Edited by Todd H. Weir
The French Enlightenment and Its Others: The Mandarin, the Savage, and the
Invention of the Human Sciences
By David Allen Harvey
Nature Engaged: Science in Practice from the Renaissance to the Present
Edited by Mario Biagioli and Jessica Riskin
History and Psyche: Culture, Psychoanalysis, and the Past
Edited by Sally Alexander and Barbara Taylor
The Scottish Enlightenment: Race, Gender, and the Limits of Progress
By Silvia Sebastiani
Art and Life in Modernist Prague: Karel Čapek and His Generation, 1911–1938
By Thomas Ort
Music and Empire in Britain and India: Identity, Internationalism, and
Cross-Cultural Communication
By Bob van der Linden
Geographies of the Romantic North: Science, Antiquarianism, and Travel,
1790–1830
By Angela Byrne
Fandom, Authenticity, and Opera: Mad Acts and Letter Scenes in Fin-de-Siècle
Russia
By Anna Fishzon
Memory and Theory in Eastern Europe
Edited by Uilleam Blacker, Alexander Etkind, and Julie Fedor
The Philosophy of Life and Death: Ludwig Klages and the Rise of a Nazi
Biopolitics
By Nitzan Lebovic
The Dream of a Democratic Culture: Mortimer J. Adler and the Great Books Idea
By Tim Lacy
German Freedom and the Greek Ideal: The Cultural Legacy from Goethe to Mann
By William J. McGrath and Edited by Celia Applegate, Stephanie Frontz, and
Suzanne Marchand
Beyond Catholicism: Heresy, Mysticism, and Apocalypse in Italian Culture
Edited by Fabrizio De Donno and Simon Gilson
Translations, Histories, Enlightenments: William Robertson in Germany,
1760–1795
By László Kontler
Negotiating Knowledge in Early Modern Empires: A Decentered View
Edited by László Kontler, Antonella Romano, Silvia Sebastiani, and
Borbála Zsuzsanna Török
William James and the Quest for an Ethical Republic
By Trygve Throntveit
The Uses of Space in Early Modern History
Edited by Paul Stock
Genealogies of Genius
Edited by Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon
Genealogies of Genius

Edited by

Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

GENEALOGIES OF GENIUS
Selection and editorial content © Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon 2016
Individual chapters © their respective contributors 2016
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may
be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be
reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission. In accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms
of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be
liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
First published 2016 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire, RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of Nature America, Inc., One
New York Plaza, Suite 4500, New York, NY 10004-1562.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has
companies and representatives throughout the world.

ISBN: 978-1-349-49764-2
E-PDF ISBN: 978–1–137–49767–3
DOI: 10.1057/9781137497673

Distribution in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world is by Palgrave Macmillan®,
a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number
785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Genealogies of genius / [edited by] Joyce E. Chaplin and
Darrin M. McMahon.
pages cm.—(Palgrave studies in cultural and intellectual history)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Genius—History. I. Chaplin, Joyce E., editor.
BF412.G385 2015
153.9⬘8—dc23 2015019296
A catalogue record for the book is available from the British Library.
 Contents

List of Figures ix

1 Introduction 1
Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

2 The Problem of Genius in the Age of Slavery 11

Joyce E. Chaplin

3 Genius versus Democracy: Excellence and Singularity in

Postrevolutionary France 29
Nathalie Heinich

4 Equality, Inequality, and Difference: Genius as Problem and

Possibility in American Political/Scientific Discourse 43
John Carson

5 Genius and Obsession: Do You Have to Be Mad to Be Smart? 63

Lennard J. Davis

6 Inspiration to Perspiration: Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius

in Victorian Context 77
Janet Browne

7 “Genius Must Do the Scullery Work of the World”: New

Women, Feminists, and Genius, circa 1880–1920 97
Lucy Delap

8 The Cult of the Genius in Germany and Austria at the Dawn of

the Twentieth Century 115
Julia Barbara Köhne

9 Cultivating Genius in a Bolshevik Country 137

Irina Sirotkina

10 Insight in the Age of Automation 153

David Bates

vii
viii Contents

11 Genius and Evil 171

Darrin M. McMahon

List of Contributors 183

Index 185
 Figures

4.1a English search for Genius + Virtue (1700–1940) 46

4.1b American English search for Genius + Virtue (1700–1940) 46
4.2a English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue (1700–1940) 46
4.2b American English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue
(1700–1940) 47
4.3a English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue + Republic
(1700–1940) 47
4.3b American English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue +
Republic (1700–1940) 47
4.4a English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue + Republic +
Fame (1700–1940) 48
4.4b American English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue +
Republic + Fame (1700–1940) 48
4.5a English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue + Republic +
Equality (1700–1940) 48
4.5b American English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue +
Republic + Equality (1700–1940) 49
4.6a English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue + Republic +
Intelligence (1700–1940) 49
4.6b American English search for Genius and Talents + Virtue +
Republic + Intelligence (1700–1940) 49
7.1 Olive Schreiner’s portrait in Notables of Britain 104
8.1 “Geistesheldenbiographien”—list of genius biographies from 1900 116

ix
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
1
Introduction
Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

“Genius” is a seductive term and slippery too—used often, and frequently

abused. Motivational speakers, magazine editors, and the authors of inspi-
rational biographies have certainly grasped its appeal, to say nothing of
the hopeful parents of tiny potential Mozarts, Austens, and Einsteins. But
though genius’s allure helps to keep it in the public eye, popular fascination
has tended to put scholars on guard. The late French philosopher Jacques
Derrida acknowledged as much when he dared to broach the subject at a
formal gathering among scholars in 2003. “In according the least legitimacy
to the word ‘genius,’” he confessed, “one is considered to sign one’s resigna-
tion from all fields of knowledge . . . This noun ‘genius,’” he added, “makes us
squirm.”1 Some academic observers have doubted whether a word so com-
monly used can possess genuine meaning or intellectual merit. Others have
worried about its associations with discredited theories of human superior-
ity and inferiority. Social scientists and psychologists, meanwhile, respond
by attempting to pin down the criteria of genius with greater rigor, hoping
to detect its presence and understand its spread among populations for the
benefit of humanity. As the psychologist Lewis Terman, a key architect of the
IQ exam, put it in his landmark Genetic Studies of Genius (1925), “The origins
of genius, [and] the natural laws of its development are scientific problems of
almost unequaled importance for human welfare.”2
Whatever the veracity of that claim, the impetus behind it points to a
presumption that the chapters in this volume seek to question: that genius
is a constant and recurring phenomenon among human populations. That
presumption, in turn, highlights the fact that genius as a historical concept,
rather than as a presumed transhistorical fact, is surprisingly underexamined.
Only a handful of studies to date have attempted to explain its emergence
and development as a contingent category, one shaped by the exigencies of
time and place.3 Building on this budding interest, the chapters in this vol-
ume seek to examine the uses to which concepts of genius have been put in
different cultures and times. Collectively, they are designed to make two new
statements. First, seen in historical and comparative perspective, genius is

1
2 Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

not a natural fact and universal human constant that has been only recently
identified by modern science, but instead it is a categorical mode of assessing
human ability and merit. Second, as a concept with specific definitions and
resonances, genius has performed specific cultural work within each of the
societies in which it has had a historical presence.
It is precisely because of the varying historical manifestations of genius
that we suggest it had multiple genealogies, even as its branching lines of
descent can be traced to a common ancestor. That shared ancestry is at least
as complex as it is long, but its main developments occurred in three phases
during the ancient, early modern, and modern eras. In the first phase, the
ancient Greeks referred to daimones (demons)—what in Latin would be called
a genius—to describe a type of divinity that offered protection or inspiration.
Such entities could occupy hearth and household, they could accompany
individuals into workshops or onto battlefields, or they could hover over fam-
ilies, communities, and even entire nations. Daimones might be “demonic”
in the present and negative sense of that word, or they could be what later
peoples would think of as angelic; the idea of having two guiding daimones,
good and evil, itself comes from antiquity. For the Romans, a genius origi-
nally meant this kind of deity, though gradually the term began to imply not
just the origin of the divine force that possessed one but also the gift that
an individual possessed. In Roman times (and here we see one origin of a
long-standing and insidious prejudice), only men were thought to possess a
genius. All men had a genius for something, which gave shape to their individ-
ual character, but the greatest individuals could lay claim to a superior force
of this kind—what Cicero, in describing the daimonion or “little demon” of
Socrates, called the philosopher’s quiddam divinum, his “divine something.”
That mysterious force was what set a man such as Socrates—said by the oracle
at Delphi to have been the wisest who lived—apart from all others. It was the
supernatural source that gave him superhuman, even godlike, powers.
The eventual dominance of Christianity in Europe did not dispel these
associations, nor did it do away with the name or the concept of the pagan
genius. Although Christian monotheism in its western and eastern manifesta-
tions certainly discouraged open acceptance of blessings that did not come
from the Trinity, faith in interventions from angels, appeals to patron saints,
and fear of demonic influence bore more than passing resemblances to the
pagan beliefs that had preceded them. In short, the daimones and genii sur-
vived.4 Well into the seventeenth century, European dictionaries bore testi-
mony to that fact, recording, like Robert Cawdrey’s A Table Alphabeticall of
Hard Usual English Words (1604), that genius implied “the angell that waits on
man, be it a good or evil angell.”5
Genius as a notion that bore a more direct relationship to the modern
understanding of individuals of superior creative or intellectual endowments
began to emerge only gradually in the early modern period and rose to prom-
inence in the eighteenth century. During the Renaissance, the elision of the
word genius with ingenium, a classical Latin term for natural talent or ability,
began to articulate the possibility that human beings could actually possess
 Introduction 3

godlike abilities, not just borrow them or receive them via divine inspira-
tion or bestowal.6 “Genius,” that is to say, began to imply a kind of superior
human mind, an understanding that gained widespread acceptance during
the eighteenth century, when illustrious individuals were celebrated as gen-
iuses themselves, persons who embodied the force of genius.
Indeed, whatever the place of reason in the Enlightenment, and despite
that era’s amply noted liberationist tendencies in political philosophy and
actual reform, it was precisely during this period that the genius figure
achieved prominence as a member of a kind of supra-human elite with god-
like capacities that seemed to surpass ordinary human reason. That may have
been gratifying to the early living exemplars—almost exclusively white men
of European origin—though genius, like sainthood, was most often conferred
after the fact. Still, it is from contemporary descriptions that we inherit the
designation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for example, as a genius in letters, Isaac
Newton or Benjamin Franklin as geniuses in natural science, or Napoleon
Bonaparte as a genius in statecraft and war. This novel meaning of genius as a
human individual of original and exalted powers was also, in the eighteenth
century, extended backward in time, bestowed upon the likes of Homer or
William Shakespeare, neither of whom would have recognized the label in
its new form, however convinced the latter may have been of his “ingenuity”
and “genius” for playmaking.7
But it was really only during the modern period, the nineteenth century
and continuing into the twentieth, that geniuses acquired the full range and
complement of associations they now most commonly share. The genius
became in this period a human paragon—unique, exceptional, and one of a
kind—and yet somehow multiplying in ever-greater numbers and across an
expanding set of domains. The proliferation was first apparent in terms of
Romantic definitions of the individual, and especially the artist, as beyond
human typicality. That view endorsed a strong sense of individual differ-
entiation, indeed of individualism as essential to the human personality—
any personality. But geniuses were deemed more individual than ordinary
human beings, less likely to think and act by established conventions and
norms, genuinely original and so often eccentric, or even mad.8 Geniuses
were imagined as lawgivers and lawmakers (at times lawbreakers) who chal-
lenged established authorities in art and thought and were believed to fol-
low a higher law. And they were driven by powerful energies and an intense
capacity for sustained concentration and labor.
As if to make genius indelible, beyond any human ability to acquire or alter
it, nature was assigned a fundamental role in governing human experience
(and determining human aptitude). That designation of genius as deeply nat-
ural grounded it within each person who had it, or supplied him (typically)
with an intensity of knowledge from without, as in Wordsworth’s “impulse
from a vernal wood.” And it was precisely because of their engagement with
nature, with universal truths based in materiality, that many more scien-
tists joined artists as the kinds of people thought most likely to personify
genius, just as they increasingly played a role—in fields such as phrenology,
4 Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

craniometry, statistics, and medical psychology—in identifying its alleged

presence. Whereas artists broadly conceived (poets, musicians, painters, etc.)
captured truths about the human soul, scientists saw into the tiniest constitu-
ents of life and across the vast expanse of the universe. Together, they could
be imagined as visionaries and prophets, revealers of wonder. At the same
time, those working in the human sciences—philosophy or social theory—
might lay claim to such prerogatives. Nietzsche would be hailed as a prophet,
or, as Engels said of Marx, a “genius.” Statesmen, finally, could be styled (or
style themselves) on the model of Napoleon as visionaries and “artists,” who
might shape from human material works of imagination, originality, and
sublime and transcendent power.
Such emerging cultural ideals helped to give genius, and geniuses, a com-
manding presence in nineteenth-century Europe, as well as the neo-Europes
created by imperialism abroad. Even before the cults surrounding the British
Lake Poets, and thereafter resounding in the reverence for cultural figures and
virtuosi such as Byron, Beethoven, Goethe, Verdi, Delacroix, Darwin, Hugo,
and Wagner, the ideal of the genius figure merged with that of the celebrity,
who was also an eighteenth-century invention.9 The hundreds of thousands
of well-wishers and enthusiasts who attended Victor Hugo’s funeral in 1885
are just one indication of the extraordinary outpouring of reverence for pub-
licly recognized “geniuses,” whose lives and deaths were followed closely in
the press, encouraging a trade in “relics” and memorabilia, along with “pil-
grimages” to select sites of memory.10 Such veneration, whether among the
living or the special dead, carried over into the first half of the twentieth cen-
tury, when contemporaries were quick to compare the worship of genius to
a “religion,” replete with martyrs such as Van Gogh, saints such as Einstein,
and wizards such as Edison.11 And though, after World War II, the religious
enthusiasm for great men was steadily called into question, a figure such as
Picasso could still pay his restaurant bills with a sketch. Genius commanded
privilege.
Arguably, it does so still—witness the adulation heaped on Stephen Hawking
or Steven Jobs. Yet the gap between celebrity and genius, always close, is now
closer than ever, with less and less differentiation between the two. At the
same time, the field of possibility has widened well beyond the domains of
high culture, science, and statecraft that once confined it. Geniuses now bask
under that designation in every possible realm of human endeavor, from
cooking, to sports and rock and roll, to the selling of goods on the Internet.
The trend is quite obviously an aspect of a new willingness to democratize
human excellence, to make exceptionalism typical, as if everyone were a gen-
ius at something. Never mind that this is paradoxical—what was once con-
sidered the prized possession of a natural human elite is now imagined to be
within the grasp of all.
It is easy enough to mock the process. Already in the 1950s the philosopher
Hannah Arendt was decrying what she saw as the “commercialization and
vulgarization” of genius, and it is difficult today not to laugh when genius
is presented in a thriving self-help literature as an aspirational goal (Learn
 Introduction 5

to think like da Vinci!).12 To be sure, the tendency to define genius broadly

and democratically is laudable insofar as it has facilitated the recognition of
extraordinary achievement in overlooked, maligned, or marginalized groups,
especially those who have struggled against the historical exclusions of rac-
ism and sexism. Yet, to make everyone a genius would be the end of the idea.
Do we face a future, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, when all might enjoy 15
minutes of genius? By that point, clearly, we would be ready for a new term.
In order to help make sense of these developments, this book aims to
explore the changing fortunes of genius since its self-conscious birth in the
eighteenth century. It aims to do so in new ways. For although the literature
on genius is extensive, too rarely have scholars considered the subject from a
position of historical awareness, let alone historical knowledge.13 On the one
hand, social and natural scientists since the nineteenth century have sought
to identify the enduring properties of genius, searching (largely in vain) for
its markers and traces in everything from cranial size to the intelligence quo-
tient. Such investigations persist, as witnessed by the ongoing fascination
with studying the brains of luminaries such as Einstein, while social psychol-
ogists continue to study the qualities and correlations of eminence and elite
performance.14 Scholars of literature, the arts, and aesthetics, on the other
hand, though once concerned to identify genius and geniuses as the creators
of timeless chefs d’oeuvres, have in recent decades been more interested in top-
pling genius as an arbiter of aesthetic distinction, unmasking its ideological
character and exposing its myths.15 Though often instructive, this literature
has tended, with some exceptions, to eschew a broader historical analysis of
genius in favor of exposing specific facets of its use around salient individuals
or themes.16 Finally, there persists to this day a celebratory literature that has
accompanied genius since the eighteenth century. Seeking to glorify rather
than to analyze or explain, such writings seldom bother to question the cat-
egory they seek to promote.
The chapters of this volume, by contrast, build on recent work examining
the history of genius in order to bring greater historical awareness to the com-
plex and often contested ways the category has been deployed in the modern
era.17 The volume includes ten essays, which together span the eighteenth
through the twentieth centuries, and is organized into three chronologically
distinct sections that examine the changing meanings of genius over time.
Collectively the essays bring to light a revealing and persistent paradox: that
the conceptual category of genius, understood as a natural and privileged
form of human difference constituting a new kind of human elite, emerged
alongside and often in conjunction with modern democratic societies that
frequently claimed legitimacy on the basis of some form of human equality.
As with all historical paradoxes, this demands explanation, which the essays
of the volume undertake in a series of focused, evocative case studies.
The book’s first section concentrates on definitions of genius in the age of
Atlantic revolutions, the period of the modern genius’s birth. At that time,
multiple reforming trends called into question established ways of defin-
ing human beings as different from one another in order to organize them,
6 Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

accordingly, into hierarchies. Were aristocrats really superior to common-

ers by blood? Was there really such a thing as a natural slave? How could
one understand the differences between the sexes and between peoples
of different “races”? While the movements to abolish the slave trade and
emancipate slaves, and the political insurgencies that climaxed with revo-
lutions in North America, France, the Caribbean, and “Latin” America did
not all conclude with the establishment of modern democracies, their lega-
cies contributed to that longer history. But how large a contribution was it?
Historians have long pointed out that, beginning in the eighteenth century,
modern liberal regimes showed themselves particularly adept at defining
“liberal exclusions” to the rights and privileges accorded to others. Women
and people of color, among other disenfranchised groups, were held, on the
basis of a spurious new science and anthropology, to be less equal than oth-
ers, thus calling into question the apparent self-evidence of the claim that
all were created equal. The category of genius, which sought to identify in
dramatic terms the disparity in natural human endowments, is useful in
this context as a means to further identify the extent to which revolution-
ary politics altered conceptions of human inequality in the American and
French republics. Joyce E. Chaplin thus considers “The Problem of Genius
in the Age of Slavery,” examining how the word was applied to new world
individuals, at first as a kind of incredulous admission that they, of all peo-
ple, might be extraordinary, and then withdrawn once the designation
threatened to appear as an actual compliment, least of all with respect to
slaves or former slaves, and by implication others of non-European ances-
try. Nathalie Heinich, in her chapter “Genius versus Democracy: Excellence
and Singularity in Postrevolutionary France,” also establishes that utilizing
the label and concept of genius was logical in postrevolutionary France. Yet
doing so clearly revealed what the revolution had not accomplished. Finally,
John Carson examines “Equality, Inequality, and Difference: Genius as
Problem and Possibility in American Political/Scientific Discourse,” tracing
how deployment of “genius” within two professionalizing communities in
nineteenth-century the United States, those of politicians and scientists,
registered unease with what the concept implied about the postrevolution-
ary republic.
In the next section of the book, the authors analyze nineteenth-century
conceptions of genius, with particular attention to the role of science and to
the challenges of feminists. In “Genius and Obsession: Do You Have to Be
Mad to Be Smart?” Lennard J. Davis tackles the persistent efforts to link posi-
tive and negative forms of human exceptionalism, identifying the origins of
this shotgun marriage in nineteenth-century sciences of the human mind
and body. Janet Browne analyzes one particularly famous proponent of scien-
tific definitions of genius—as themselves genealogies—in her “Inspiration to
Perspiration: Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius in Victorian Context,” which
pays special attention to the class- and gender-specific assumptions about how
talent ran through families, though somehow unevenly, lodging with partic-
ular strength in some (including Galton, in his generous self-estimation), but
 Introduction 7

finding no purchase in others. Not everyone agreed. Lucy Delap focuses on

the exclusion of women from concepts of genius and on the radical redefini-
tions that modern feminists accordingly insisted on to reshape the concept in
her “‘Genius must do the scullery work of the world’: New Women, Feminists,
and Genius, circa 1880–1920.”
Chapters in the final section of the book concentrate on the twentieth-
and twenty-first-century debates over who was or could be a genius. Julia
Barbara Köhne, in “The Cult of the Genius in Germany and Austria at the
Dawn of the Twentieth Century,” examines genius idolatry in the German-
speaking lands before and after World War I, a culturally and historically
specific fascination that seems, in retrospect, ominous and prophetic. Irina
Sirotkina, in her “Cultivating Genius in a Bolshevik Country,” pursues the
western concept of genius into the postrevolutionary Soviet Union where,
no less than in postrevolutionary America or France, the idea both rein-
forced the status of certain heroic figures yet warred with the claims of a
self-announced egalitarian state and society. David Bates traces a possibly
even more radical affront to humanity. His chapter, “Insight in the Age
of Automation,” considers how modern definitions of that quality, as a
peculiarly rapid and penetrating form of cognition, have been conditioned
in large part in relation to artificial intelligence; no longer is the superhu-
man demonic, but instead, robotic. In the concluding chapter, Darrin M.
McMahon’s “Genius and Evil,” the author examines the once widely dis-
seminated contention that genius was somehow beyond good and evil. That,
ultimately Nietzschean, contention existed well before Friedrich Nietzsche,
and it would have a disturbing trajectory afterward, as incisively analyzed
in the work of Thomas Mann.
What does this book not cover or, to put it another way, where might future
research on the history of the concept of genius be fruitfully extended? It
became clear in organizing and editing this volume that the concept of gen-
ius has been (and is being) much better studied in relation to the nations of
the global West. On the face of it, and according to the dialectical tension
between genius and democracy examined here, there is a certain logic to this
pattern. Just as forms of democracy and arguments over political and social
inequalities have dominated scholarship on western nations in a way that is
less apparent for other parts of the world, so it would make sense that a sub-
ject like genius would have loomed less large in non-western historiographies.
Certainly, the etymological history of genius, with the word’s classical origins
in the ancient Mediterranean, would indicate a birthplace for the concept,
as well as its persistence in those societies claiming cultural descent from
Greece and Rome. And it may be that the emergence of the concept of genius
in the eighteenth century was related to religious and economic develop-
ments specific to the West, where it developed in tandem not only with (and
as an antidote to) certain forms of disenchantment, but also with the dictates
of commercial society.18 As scholars have long recognized, genius—with its
emphasis on creative originality—was a concept particularly well suited to
buttressing emergent notions of intellectual copyright.19
8 Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

And yet these same conjectures beg new questions. Future research might,
for instance, draw comparisons with the understandings of divine protec-
tion (and inspiration) that extended well beyond the classical world to Africa
and much of the ancient Near East, if not farther still. The old correlation
between the West and modernity, moreover, of which increasing social and
political equality has been a part, is itself suspicious. It may be an artifact of
historiography rather than a fixed truth of history. Given that a steady and
straightforward trajectory toward human equality is no longer assumed for
the West (as this volume’s essays themselves make clear), it is possible that
nations and cultures that had even less linear histories of democracy were,
nevertheless, incubators of concepts similar to that of genius. In any case,
virtually all societies possess conceptions of intellectual, artistic, or inven-
tive/creative heroism. In what ways are they comparable to the western para-
gon of genius, and how did they evolve in different social, religious, and
economic contexts? The circulation of western ideas of genius to other parts
of the world, moreover, and the subsequent patterns of cultural uptake, criti-
cism, rejection, or modification, is a subject ripe for further exploration. It is
our hope that future scholarship on the category of genius will take up some
of these unexplored possibilities.
Finally, a word of thanks is due to the Huntington Library in Pasadena,
California, and particularly to its successive directors of research, Robert C.
Ritchie and Steve Hindle, who kindly allowed us to convene the majority
of this volume’s contributors for two days of fascinating discussions in the
spring of 2012. It became very apparent to us there that the subject of genius
has the capacity to stimulate passionate interest and exchange. We hope the
essays in this volume will do the same.

Notes
1. Jacques Derrida, Geniuses, Genealogies, Genres, & Genius: The Secrets of the Archive, trans.
Beverley Bie Brahic (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 3–4.
2 . Lewis M. Terman, ed., Genetic Studies of Genius, 5 vols. (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1925–1959), 1: v.
3. The seminal study is Edgar Zilsel’s Die Entstehung des Geniebegriffes: Ein Beitrag zur
Ideengeschichte der Antike und des Frühkapitalismus (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1926). See
also Penelope Murray, ed., Genius: The History of an Idea (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989);
Norbert Elias, Mozart: Portrait of a Genius, ed. Michael Schröter (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1993); Tia DeNora, Beethoven and the Construction of Genius: Musical
Politics in Vienna, 1792–1803 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); Jochen
Schmidt, Die Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens in der deutschen Literatur, Philosophie und
Politik, 1750–1945, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 2004). Most recently, the two
editors of this volume have published studies on the subject: Joyce E. Chaplin, The First
Scientific American: Benjamin Franklin and the Pursuit of Genius (New York: Basic Books,
2006); Darrin M. McMahon, Divine Fury: A History of Genius (New York: Basic Books,
2013).
4. The story of the transmutation of the ancient genii into Christian and modern forms of
spiritual guardians is told in McMahon, Divine Fury, esp. chs. 1–2. See also Jane Chance
Nitzsche, The Genius Figure in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1975), and Jean-Patrice Boudet, Philippe Faure, and Christian Renoux,
 Introduction 9

eds., De Socrate à Tintin: Anges gardiens et démons familiers de l’Antiquité à nos jours
(Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2011).
5. Robert Cawdrey, A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604), a facsimile
reproduction with an introduction by Robert A. Peters (Gainesville, FL: Scholars’
Facsimiles and Reprints, 1966), 61.
6. On ingenium and the fusion of genius and ingenium, see Zilsel, Die Enstehung des
Geniebegriffes, 265–96; Harald Weinrich, “Ingenium,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der
Philosophie, ed. Joachim Ritter, 13 vols. (Basel: Schwabe, 1971–2007), 4: 36–63, and
the discussion in the text and appendix of ingenium in Patricia Emison’s Creating the
“Divine” Artist: From Dante to Michelangelo (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
7. See Chaplin, First Scientific American, 1–3, 134–36; 342; Fred Inglis, A Short History of
Celebrity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 37–73; McMahon, Divine
Fury, ch. 3, and Jonathan Bates, The Genius of Shakespeare (New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998), esp. ch. 6 (“The Original Genius”).
8. References to the extensive literature on the perceived connection between genius and
madness will be found in the essays that follow. A somewhat dated, but still essential,
place to begin for the modern period is George Becker, The Mad Genius Controversy: A
Study in the Sociology of Deviance (London: Sage, 1978).
9. Antoine Lilti, Figures publiques: Aux origines de la célébrité (1750–1850) (Paris: Fayard,
2014), and David Higgins, Romantic Genius and the Literary Magazine: Biography, Celebrity,
and Politics (Milton Park, UK: Routledge, 2005).
10. McMahon, Divine Fury, ch. 5. On the fascination with the brains of geniuses, see Michael
Hagner’s excellent Geniale Gehirne: Zur Geschichte der Elitegehirnforschung (Munich:
Deutscher Taschenbuch, 2007).
11. Edgar Zilsel, Die Geniereligion: Ein kritischer Versuch über das moderne Persönlichkeitsideal,
intro. Johann Dvorak (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1990 [1917]); Nathalie Heinich, The Glory
of Van Gogh: An Anthropology of Admiration, trans. Paul Leduc Browne (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1996); Julia Barbara Köhne, Geniekult in Geisteswissenschaften
und Literaturen um 1900 und seine filmischen Adaptionen (Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2014).
12 . Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958),
210–11.
13. For a broad overview of scholarly (and other) attempts to study genius, see Darrin M.
McMahon, “Where Have All the Geniuses Gone?,” The Chronicle Review, October 21, 2013.
14. See, for example, Hans Jürgen Eysenck, Genius: The Natural History of Creativity
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), or the prolific body of work on genius
and creativity by the psychologist Dean Keith Simonton.
15. A notable exception is Harold Bloom, Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative
Minds (New York: Warner Books, 2002).
16. Noteworthy examples of this literature include Christine Battersby, Gender and Genius:
Towards a Feminist Aesthetics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989); Andrew
Elfenbein, Romantic Genius: The Prehistory of a Homosexual Role (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1999); Barbara Will, Gertrude Stein and the Problem of “Genius”
(Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2000); Peter Kivy, The Possessor and the
Possessed: Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, and the Idea of Musical Genius (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2001).
17. In addition to the historical works already cited, see Kathleen Kete, Making Way for
Genius: The Aspiring Self in France from the Old Regime to the New (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2012); Eliyahu Stern, The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of
Modern Judaism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013); Patricia Fara, Newton: The
Making of a Genius (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).
18. For a discussion of the role of commerce, see John Hope Mason, The Value of Creativity:
The Origins and Emergence of a Modern Belief (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), esp. chs.
4–6. On commerce and religion, see McMahon, Divine Fury, esp. 5–6, 71–75.
19. See, for example, Mark Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1983); Martha Woodmansee, “The Genius and
10 Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon

the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author,’”
Eighteenth-Century Studies 17 (1984): 425–48; Zeynep Tenger and Paul Trolander,
“Genius versus Capital: Eighteenth-Century Theories of Genius and Adam Smith’s
Wealth of Nations,” Modern Language Quarterly 55 (1994): 169–89; Carla Hesse, “The
Rise of Intellectual Property, 700 B.C.–A.D. 2000: An Idea in the Balance,” Daedalus
131 (2002): 26–45.
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
2
The Problem of Genius in the Age of
Slavery
Joyce E. Chaplin

In a private letter written in 1778, Ignatius Sancho, famous black British

man of letters, deplored the persistence of racial prejudice, yet he did so in
terms that proposed another kind of human inequality, and this has been
the problem of genius ever since. Sancho reported (in order to denounce) an
ongoing debate among white colonists and Britons over whether the African
captive who had been taken to Boston as a child, sold as a slave, and named
by her owners Phillis Wheatley, had herself actually written the Poems on
Various Subjects published under her name in 1773. Sancho observed that
Wheatley’s poems had been preceded by a list of worthies who swore to her
authorship, yet these testifiers made no comment on her status as chattel,
let alone offered any criticism that she (or anyone else) might not deserve that
degraded status:

The list of splendid—titled—learned names, in confirmation of her being

the real authoress—alas! shows how very poor the acquisition of wealth
and knowledge is—without generosity—feeling—and humanity.—These
good great folks—all know—and perhaps admired—nay, praised Genius in
bondage—and then, like the Priests and the Levites in sacred writ, passed
by—not one good Samaritan amongst them.1

Within the ongoing recovery of black authorship as a serious subject for

those who study eighteenth-century literature, Sancho’s letters to the great
and the good have earned a particular place of merit. His evocative phrase,
“Genius in bondage,” has been quoted multiple times and often used as a
title or subtitle for books written by those who work within the field. And yet
Sancho’s triad of words has never been fully contextualized within the his-
tory of the concept of genius. The phrase has instead tended to incite debate
over whether Sancho was right: was Wheatley in fact a genius? That question
accepts present-day definitions of genius, as a talent, or person possessing a

11
12 Joyce E. Chaplin

talent, so far above the average that she or he is qualified to enter a pantheon,
a short list of extraordinary worthies and their amazing works. In those terms,
one is supposed to ask, does Wheatley deserve to be placed alongside Sappho,
Dante, Shakespeare, Byron, Dickinson, and so on? Or was Sancho, in his well-
meaning and protective rage about her, instead exaggerating her talents?2
One difficulty with this level of debate is that it does not bother to recover
what Sancho, or any of his contemporaries, might have meant by using the
word “genius,” which did not carry the same meaning for him as it might
for whoever would, today, confidently call Shakespeare a genius. What cul-
tural work, exactly, did the word “genius” perform, in English, during the
late eighteenth century, when it was used to describe a person of sub-Saha-
ran African descent, a person who either was in or had only recently been
released from bondage?
I interrogate the significance of Sancho and others in the late eighteenth
century who put “genius” in proximity not only to slavery but, more specifi-
cally, to the chattel slavery that existed in the new world. And I do so to argue
that, in the second half of the eighteenth century, chattel bondage based on
racism and genius as an extraordinary human condition invoked statuses
that were strangely similar. Each state was irresistible and involuntary; each
also delivered its human subjects into a hierarchy. Both “race” and “genius”
implied that people became what they were despite their willed intentions,
and each suggested a kind of inequality. That was a problem. If someone
disapproved of slavery because it used racist criteria to reduce human beings
to a state of dependence that was corrupt, if not sinful, how then could they
applaud instances of genius, which similarly supposed that unequal abilities
might be implanted in humans from their birth within places or circum-
stances more or less conducive to genius, or perhaps even descend through
certain lineages? If superior merit could be thus fixed within specific places
or lineages, why not inferior statuses?
Although it had always had its critics, racially defined chattel slavery was
only beginning in the eighteenth century to be publicly contested as unjust,
and therefore defined as an injustice that would require substantial changes
in law and society. Those who undertook the contestation were aware that
they were up against centuries of arguments that social status (and concomi-
tant levels of privilege and respect) could be determined by how, where, and
to whom a person was born. Meanwhile, genius was beginning to signify a
human capacity that sprang from some mysteriously endowed ability, which
echoed the divinely instilled kind of genius that had once been conveyed by
the word, yet was now thought to be something within human nature, if only
among a minority of human beings.
All of this is to say that the phrase “genius in bondage” is particularly fas-
cinating for its internal tension. Genius seems revolutionary, in the same
way that contestation over the justice of fixed human statuses was revolu-
tionary. Racially defined arguments for slavery seem to be the opposite. And
yet this trio of ideas coexisted historically, as examples of how the likeli-
hood of human equality seemed debatable, indeed, was debated. There
 The Problem of Genius in the Age of Slavery 13

was a similarity between genius as a human capacity unbidden and race as

a marker of human biddability, convenient to the person who could com-
mand labor and service based on a naturalized theory of human inequality.
Sancho himself reemphasized that odd family resemblance in the same letter
quoted above, with a repeated use of the word “genius,” this time in relation
to rumors that Wheatley’s owner had been slow to manumit the now-famous
author: “It reflects nothing either to the glory or generosity of her master—if
she is still his slave—except he glories in the low vanity of having in his wan-
ton power a mind animated by Heaven—a genius superior to himself.”3
It is useful to circle outward from Sancho’s indignation in order to con-
sider how genius was used to describe several new world persons, enslaved
or free, black or white, with different levels of hesitation. In the cases of the
black Americans, there was particular reluctance to make a full-throated
claim that each had been born and destined to her or his glory, and this
was true not solely of racist protests against that possibility. Rather, there
was broader unease over the possibility that description of blacks as geniuses
might imply an acceptance that individuals were born and destined to prede-
termined places in society, which, after all, followed the logic that supported
chattel slavery in the Atlantic world. In this way, as in my chapter’s title, I
refer to David Brion Davis’s canonical work, The Problem of Slavery in the Age
of Revolution (1975), to point out that the tensions between old and new ways
of classifying humanity continued beyond the age of revolution, the start of
an era in which democracy began to be the default political condition. The
newest, highest form of praise for human achievement—genius—was, in the
end, problematically unrevolutionary and deeply undemocratic. Ever since,
“genius” has carried traces of its awkward birth in the age of slavery, when
it did as much to reinforce as to challenge long-standing belief in human
inequality.

Race, place, and genius

It is by now standard scholarly practice to regard the eighteenth century as

a watershed in the history of racism, as a time when racial categories were
hardening and when the conviction that those categories could predict a
definite and ethically justified place for everyone within the social hierarchy
was becoming more difficult to assail, at least in any way that resulted in
legal and political change. The longer history of racialized human catego-
ries, which extends back at least as far as the middle ages, makes this claim
somewhat tenuous. So does the fact that antislavery gained ground precisely
when racism was supposed to be doing so. These contrasting trends are not,
on the surface of things, easy to reconcile, though they do indicate that, as
skepticism over inherited status may have been growing over the course of
the long eighteenth century, certain extreme categories of it were becoming
flash points of debate, whether those extreme conditions were monarchy and
aristocracy at the top end of society, or peasantry and chattel slavery toward
the bottom.4
14 Joyce E. Chaplin

Certainly, ancestry and slavery were becoming coterminous, as the socie-

ties of the Atlantic gradually discarded exceptions, such as convict labor in
parts of British America and galley slavery in the Mediterranean. Anyone who
criticized the Atlantic slave trade, or (more boldly) slavery itself, therefore
had to counter long-standing and hardening opinions among whites that
people of African ancestry lacked the mental capacity to govern themselves,
yet possessed bodies capable of performing hard labor under harsh circum-
stances when governed by others who would profit from the labor, directly
or indirectly.5
These conclusions had been fundamental to the adoption of slavery
throughout the Atlantic world, and they were eventually embellished with
the talismanic prestige of the new science that was beginning to redefine nat-
ural phenomena. Eighteenth-century science did not invent these negative
opinions, nor did it refute them. Rather, the new science’s systematic observa-
tion and classification tended to reinforce the hierarchy of human differences
that valorized Europeans, and, above all, European men. The often deliber-
ate implication was that European civilization (including the development
of science) was not historically contingent but instead the natural product
of a certain kind of embodied intellect. After Linnaeus classified humans
within the animal Creation, some theorists blurred still further the bound-
ary between non-Europeans and animals, questioning whether Africans, for
example, were really different from nonhuman primates. More casually, if
no less damagingly, some men of science endorsed racial interpretations of
humanity’s physical characteristics. One of the founders of the Royal Society,
William Petty, claimed of Africans that “the Mould of their skulls” showed
how “they differ also in their Naturall Manners, and in the internall Qualities
of their Minds.”6
Meanwhile, people in eighteenth-century Europe and its overseas territo-
ries were rethinking the concept of genius. This was not a simple matter of
redefining the word from one dominant meaning to another, however. What
occurred was instead a multiplication of its meanings. The term and concept
had originally described tutelary or household gods that protected certain
people. Even when it began to describe humans, “genius” in earlier eras had
typically meant a specific disposition or aptitude, often divinely instilled;
a person so blessed had a genius for something or other. In the eighteenth
century, the term also signified human intelligence, functioning as a near-
synonym for intellect. According to these terms, an individual might pos-
sess genius in one of two ways: as someone with notable intelligence overall,
or else as someone with a particular intellectual gift. Certain people might
embody both.7
The term “genius” was also used to describe corporate capacities, most obvi-
ously in descriptions of national characters. This would be a lasting use of the
idea of genius, as found in the ancient “airs, waters, places” tradition associ-
ated with Hippocrates, reinterpreted in Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws (1748)
and in the blood-and-soil assessments of human character that ran from
the romantic period and into the National Socialism of Hitler’s Germany,
 The Problem of Genius in the Age of Slavery 15

if not beyond. This last usage is particularly relevant for the history of rac-
ism. Although definitions of human races as constituted through lineage may
have attached racial characteristics to people in an inescapable way, a cor-
responding idea that different human races resulted from long adaptation to
particular places made it seem that the consequences of such physical mold-
ing could not be undone, except over many if not dozens of generations.
The ostensible slowness of that process was hardly likely to imply that the
national genius of anyone would be altered on a time-scale of significance to
workaday political and legal regimes.8
Finally, “genius” was becoming a noun applied to individual humans. In
this way, it acquired the common definition still used today, with various
atypical people being described as geniuses, usually positively. The newer
definition by no means replaced the older ones—at first, it simply augmented
them. That trend probably explains why the Google Ngram for the word
“genius,” in English, shows an impressive eighteenth-century spike, with use
of the word trending upward beginning around 1750, peaking in the 1770s,
and commencing a decline around 1800. It would be hard to argue that one
comprehension of genius was suddenly generating all of these “hits”; it is
more credible that multiple iterations of them were doing that together, and
that once the meaning of the word narrowed, use of it dwindled.9
That this was an ongoing and productively incomplete transition during
the long eighteenth century, and of particular relevance to the Atlantic soci-
eties built upon slavery, may also be seen in a keyword search of the Early
American Imprints database of printed material from colonial British America
and then the independent early American republic. Plug the word “genius”
into the database and you generate 101 hits; put in the phrase “a genius,”
and you see only two results, and these direct you to two different editions
of the same work. This is of course a rough measure, and yet that 101 to 2
ratio at least hints that, however much genius was beginning to indicate an
extraordinary kind of person, it was still mostly used as a modifier in order to
designate something characteristic of a nation or an individual. But these ver-
bal proportions beg a question: how was the older meaning of genius being
transformed by the newer one in order to designate a personal characteristic
perhaps only found in certain exceptional individuals?10
Tracing that shift would indicate the extent to which the ingenuity that
might have been present in many kinds of people—high born or low born;
male or female; enslaved or free; European or not—was turning into some-
thing reserved only to a particular sort of person. That paragon existed
among a minority or even among an elite. He (but maybe sometimes she) was
a leader who should not be made to follow others.
In English, descriptions of genius as existing within some state of bondage
had at first described white people, especially Europeans who found them-
selves subjected to political or confessional tyranny. Thus the dedication to
Samuel Pufendorf’s 1698 work, Of the Nature and Qualification of Religion in
Reference to Civil Society, asked, in relation to religious intolerance, “How much
more in-supportable must the Slavery of the Mind be to a sublime Genius,
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
Kellett, Sgt. F., M.S.M.
Sloan, R.Q.M.S. R., M.S.M.
Kelsey, R.Q.M.S. C. (F.).
Morris, Sgt. W., M.M. (F.).
Robinson, L.-Cpl. J. (F.).

126th INFANTRY BRIGADE

1/4 BATTALION EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT

Officers

Battye, Lt.-Col. C. W., D.S.O., to be Brevet Lt.-Col.

Bolton, Capt. M.B., M.C.
Green, Capt. L., M.C.
Bennett, Lieut. and Q.M. G., M.C.
Robinson, Lieut. A. J. D., M.C.
Davenport, 2nd Lieut. A. A. O., M.C.
Burrows, Maj. H. M., I.A. (F.).
Mellowes, Capt. and Adjt. H. A., (F.).

Other Ranks

Gertson, Cpl. F., D.C.M.

Murphy, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J. (A. R.S.M.), D.C.M.
Potts, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. A., D.C.M.
Smith, Pte. T., D.C.M.
Wilkinson, Pte. T., D.C.M.
Bury, Pte. J., M.M.
Driver, Sgt. R., M.M.
Graham, Sgt. R., M.M.
Jennings, Pte. M., M.M.
Kay, Pte. F., M.M.
Kay, Pte. G., M.M.
Middlehurst, Pte. J., M.M.
Atkinson, R.Q.M.S. J., M.S.M.
Clarke, R. Sgt.-Mjr. F. J., M.S.M.
Lonsdale, Pte. A., M.S.M.
Cooper, L.-Cpl. L. (F.).
Dean, Cpl. J. S. (F.).
Wearing, L.-Cpl J. D. (F.).
Dugdale, Sgt. W. R., to be C.Sgt.

1/5 BATTALION EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT

Officers

V.C. Smith, 2nd Lieut. A. V.

Clare, Lt.-Col. O. C., D.S.O. and Bar, M.C.
Hodge, Capt. A., D.S.O., M.C.
Murray-White, Lt.-Col R. S., D.S.O.
Acton, Maj. W. M., D.S.O.
Dick, Capt. W. H., D.S.O.
Reed, J., M.C. and Bar.
Wintle, M.C. and Bar.
Worswick, Capt. H. B., M.C. and Bar.
Hoxey, Lt.-Col. J. P., M.C.
Baxter, Capt. W. H., M.C.
Britcliffe, Capt. F., M.C.
Curl, Capt. C., M.C.
Kay, Capt. G. B., M.C.
Rawcliffe, Capt. J. M., M.C.
Bolton, Lieut. G. G. H., M.C.
Cooke, Lieut. S. D., M.C.
Dunkerley, Lieut. W., M.C.
Dunlop, Lieut. G. H., M.C.
Elliott, Lieut. A. C., M.C.
Lancaster, Lieut. P. G., M.C.
Little, Lieut. W. B., M.C.
Cookson, 2nd Lieut. W., M.C.
Gledhill, 2nd Lieut. A., M.C.
Holdsworth, 2nd Lieut. H., M.C.
Pacey, 2nd Lieut. S. W., M.C.
Smith, 2nd Lieut. A. V. (F.).

Other Ranks

Houston, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. D., D.C.M. and Bar.

Birkett, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Cooke, Pte. J. L., D.C.M.
Entwistle, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Evans, Sgt. H. E., D.C.M.
Gowers, Sgt. G. W., D.C.M.
Greenhalgh, Cpl. W., D.C.M.
Hargreaves, Cpl. T., D.C.M.
Harrison, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Harrison, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J. H., D.C.M.
Haslam, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Jolly, Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Jones, Pte. E., D.C.M.
Kehoe, Pte. W. H., D.C.M.
Kinsella, Sgt. W., D.C.M.
Marshall, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Pratt, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. W. H., D.C.M.
Spiers, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Steele, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. R. J., D.C.M.
Stezaker, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. A., D.C.M.
Swarbrick, Cpl. W., D.C.M.
Waterworth, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Whitehead, L.-Cpl. G., D.C.M.
Whittaker, Pte. F., D.C.M.
Wilkinson, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Littlewood, Sgt. R., M.M. and Bar.
Airey, Pte. G. F., M.M.
Baldwin, Pte. E., M.M.
Bannister, Pte. H., M.M.
Baxter, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. E., M.M.
Berry, L.-Cpl. H., M.M.
Brierley, Pte. E., M.M.
Brindle, Sgt. T., M.M.
Brotherton, Pte. T., M.M.
Burnett, Pte. W., M.M.
Cain, Pte. M. H., M.M.
Chadwick, Pte. E., M.M.
Clarke, Pte. J. T., M.M.
Cole, Pte. R., M.M.
Connolly, Pte. J., M.M.
Cooper, Pte. G., M.M.
Cox, Pte. H., M.M.
Farrell, Pte. J. A., M.M.
Gillibrand, Pte. G., M.M.
Gorse, Pte. E., M.M.
Green, Pte. J., M.M.
Greenhalgh, L.-Cpl. A., M.M.
Gregson, Sgt. G., M.M.
Haffner, Sgt. G. C. A., M.M.
Hardman, Pte. G., M.M.
Hargreaves, Pte. D. E., M.M.
Hargreaves, Sgt. W., M.S.M., M.M.
Hartley, Pte. W., M.M.
Higgins, Pte. J., M.M.
Horne, Pte. H., M.M.
Hurley, Sgt. J., M.M.
Kneale, Pte. J. W., M.M.
Lewis, Pte. A., M.M.
Livesey, L.-Cpl. C., M.M.
Longworth, Pte. H., M.M.
Maloney, Pte. J., M.M.
McGlynn, L.-Cpl. T., M.M.
Moden, Sgt. A. W., M.M.
Partington, Pte. J., M.M.
Patefield, Pte. W., M.M.
Potter, Pte. H. G., M.M.
Sarginson, Pte. H., M.M.
Singleton, Pte. J. H., M.M.
Smith, Pte. G., M.M.
Steele, Sgt. R. J., M.M.
Sullivan, Pte. J., M.M.
Ward, L.-Cpl. C., M.M.
Whittaker, Sgt. A., M.M.
Wilson, Pte. J., M.M.
Yegliss, Pte. H., M.M.
Yoxall, Pte. W., M.M.
Hudson, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. H., M.S.M.
Oliver, Sgt. W. J., M.S.M.
Stezaker, R.Q.M.S. W., M.S.M.
Haffner, C.Q.M.S. G. C. A. (F.).
Hargreaves, Cpl. T. (F.).
Harrison, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J. M., D.C.M. (F.).
Jones, Pte. A. H. (F.).
Marshall, Pte. F. (F.).

1/9 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT

Officers

V.C. Forshaw, Lieut. W. T.

Lloyd, Lt.-Col E. C., D.S.O. and Bar.
Connery, Q.M. and Hon. Maj. M. H., M.C.
Stephenson, Capt. D. B., M.C.
Wood, Lieut. R. G., M.C. (F.).
Cooke, 2nd Lieut. C. E., M.C.
Hunt, 2nd Lieut. G., M.C.
Sutton, 2nd Lieut. O. J., M.C.
Howorth, Maj. T. E. (F.).
Nowell, Maj. R. B. (F.).
Welbon, Capt. F. W. (C.F.), M.C.

Other Ranks

Bayley, Cpl. S., D.C.M.

Christie, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J. C., D.C.M.
Davies, L.-Cpl. A., D.C.M.
Grantham, Sgt. H., D.C.M.
Greenhalgh, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Hibbert, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Horsfield, Sgt. J., D.C.M., M.M.
Latham, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Littleford, Pte. S., D.C.M.
May, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Moss, Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Pearson, L.-Cpl. S., D.C.M.
Pickford, Pte. T., D.C.M.
Sylvester, L.-Cpl. G. J., D.C.M.
Thickett, Sgt. F., D.C.M.
Holden, Pte. J., M.M. and Bar.
Adshead, Pte. A., M.M.
Allen, Sgt. G., M.M.
Atherton, Sgt. J., M.M.
Byrom, Pte. T. H., M.M.
Chadderton, Pte. H., M.M.
Chadderton, Pte. W., M.M.
Eastwood, Cpl. A., M.M.
Garside, Pte. H., M.M.
Gorman, Pte. F., M.M.
Hall, Cpl. R., M.M.
Horton, Pte. A., M.M.
Howard, Pte. T. M., M.M.
Kinsella, Pte. J., M.M.
Longson, Pte. J., M.M.
Metcalfe, Sgt. H., M.M.
O’Donnell, Cpl. R., M.M.
Pemberton, Pte. F., M.M.
Price, L.-Cpl. R., M.M.
Radcliffe, L.-Cpl. F. D., M.M.
Ratcliffe, Pte. F. E., M.M.
Roberts, L.-Sgt. H., M.M.
Shelmerdine, Pte. J., M.M.
Simister, Pte. N., M.M.
Tipton, L.-Sgt. T., M.M.
Vause, Pte. J., M.M.
White, Pte. F., M.M.
Howard, Cpl. J., M.S.M.
Andrew, L.-Cpl. R. (F.).
Christie, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J. A., D.C.M. (F.).
Horsfield, Sgt. J., D.C.M. (F.).
Sheekey, Pte. W. (F.).

1/10 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT

V.C. Mills, Pte. W.

Officers

Robinson, Brig.-Gen. G. W., C.B.

Peel, Lt.-Col. W. R., 2 Bars to D.S.O.
Wilde, Maj. L. C., D.S.O.
Taylor, Capt. J. A. C., D.S.O., M.C. and Bar.
Bletcher, Capt. T., M.C.
Butterworth, Capt. A., M.C.
Hampson, Capt. H. J., M.C.
Hardman, Capt. F., M.C.
Cook, Lieut. F. E., M.C.
Howarth, Lieut. F., M.C.
Shaw, Lieut. W. D., M.C.
Hassall, 2nd Lieut. H., M.C.
Whitehead, 2nd Lieut. J. B., M.C.
Williams, 2nd Lieut. W., M.C.

Other Ranks

Toogood, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. K., D.C.M. and Bar.

Ayre, L.-Cpl. C., D.C.M.
Baddeley, L.-Cpl. F., D.C.M.
Brown, Sgt. D., D.C.M.
Darby, Pte. E., D.C.M.
Haskey, Sgt. M., D.C.M.
Langley, Sgt. C., D.C.M.
Lees, Sgt. S. R., D.C.M., M.M.
Leigh, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Lloyd, Cpl. O., D.C.M.
Owen, L.-Cpl. E., D.C.M.
Revell, L.-Cpl. W., D.C.M.
Rigby, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Schofield, Pte. F., D.C.M.
Seddon, L.-Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Spedding, Cpl., D.C.M.
Sugden, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Taylor, Pte. T., D.C.M.
McNamara, Pte. W., M.M. and Bar.
Ashurst, Pte. W., M.M.
Bradbury, Sgt. M. R., M.M.
Bradshaw, L.-Cpl. J., M.M.
Bridge, Pte. J., M.M.
Brimelow, Pte. J. L., M.M.
Brookes, Cpl. H., M.M.
Butterworth, Sgt. E., M.M.
Carroll, Cpl. H., M.M.
Clutton, Sgt. T. H., M.M.
Cooke, Pte. H., M.M.
Creswell, Sgt. F., M.M.
Critchley, Pte. F., M.M.
Davies, Pte. J., M.M.
Dukenson, Pte. G. R., M.M.
Fisher, Cpl. A., M.M.
Hancock, Pte. A., M.M.
Hayes, Pte. J., M.M.
Hayes, Pte. J. R., M.M.
Heslop, Pte. R. W., M.M.
Hulme, Pte. S., M.M.
Hutchins, Pte. E., M.M.
Matthews, Pte. F., M.M.
Milner, Sgt. J., M.M.
Newton, Sgt. H., M.M.
Nicholson, Pte. W., M.M.
Parker, L.-Cpl. W., M.M.
Radcliffe, Pte. W., M.M.
Robinson, Cpl. B. B., M.M.
Silverwood, Pte. T., M.M.
Smith, Pte. G. A., M.M.
Smith, Sgt. R. S., M.M.
Spink, Pte. E., M.M.
Squires, Sgt. W., M.M.
Stockton, Cpl. E., M.M.
Storey, Pte. J., M.M.
Sugden, Sgt. J., M.M.
Ward, Pte. R. B., M.M.
Weston, Pte. T., M.M.
Whittaker, Pte. H., M.M.
Dransfield, Cpl. J., M.S.M.
Gartside, Sgt. J., M.S.M.
Hollingsworth, Sgt. J. E., M.S.M.
Keighley, Cpl. J. H., M.S.M.
Robinson, L.-Cpl. B. B., M.S.M.
Scholes, Cpl. J., M.S.M.
Trevitt, R.Q.M.S. J. P., M.S.M.
Coulson, Pte. J. (F.).
Hammond, Pte. J. (F.).
Haslam, Sgt. S., (F.).
McHugh, Sgt. M. (F.).
Whitehead, L.-Cpl. R. (F.).
Wilde, Pte. S. (F.).

127th INFANTRY BRIGADE

1/5 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT

V.C. Wilkinson, L.-Cpl. A.

Officers

Darlington, Lt.-Col. H. C., C.M.G.

Cronshaw, Lt.-Col. A. E., D.S.O.
Woods, Capt. W. T., D.S.O.
Welsh, Lieut. R. H., D.S.O.
Simpson, Lt.-Col. A. W. W., O.B.E.
Frost, 2nd Lieut. C. E., M.C. and Bar.
Bryan, Maj. J. L., M.C.
Bryham, Maj. A. L., M.C.
Fletcher, Maj. B. L., M.C.
Burrows, Capt. E. J., M.C.
Burrows, Capt. M. K., M.C.
Clayton, Capt. P. C., M.C.
Dickson, Capt. S., M.C.
Douglas, Capt. R. A., M.C. (U.S.A.)
Ellis, Capt. R. R., M.C.
Frost, Capt. M., M.C.
Greer, Capt. J. M., M.C.
Just, Capt. L. W., M.C.
Sanders, Capt. J. M. B., M.C.
Woods, Capt. W. T., M.C.
Fletcher, Lieut. P. C., M.C.
Fox, Lieut. J., M.C.
Taylor, Lieut. S., M.C.
Barker, 2nd Lieut. J. P., M.C.
Bootland, 2nd Lieut. F. R., M.C.
Lockyer, 2nd Lieut. H. R., M.C.
Rourke, 2nd Lieut. T., M.C.
Cronshaw, Lt.-Col. A. E. (F.).
Darlington, Lt.-Col. H. C. (F.).
Simpson, Lt.-Col. A. W. W. (F.).

Other Ranks

McCartney, Sgt. J., D.C.M. and Bar.

Andrews, Pte. F., D.C.M.
Barnes, Sgt. C., D.C.M.
Bent, Pte. R., D.C.M.
Blythe, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. G., D.C.M.
Casey, Cpl. A. E., D.C.M.
Chadwick, Cpl. F., D.C.M.
Christy, R.Q.M.S. W. H., D.C.M.
Davies, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Greensmith, Sgt. W., D.C.M.
Gregory, Cpl. R., D.C.M.
Grimshaw, L.-Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Hibbert, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Hills, Pte. S. L., D.C.M.
Hilton, Pte. A., D.C.M.
Lever, C.Q.M.S. J., D.C.M.
McCarty, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. T., D.C.M.
Moore, Pte. W., D.C.M.
Morrisin, R. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Oldham, Cpl. A., D.C.M.
Seddon, Pte. T., D.C.M.
Smith, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Stockton, Cpl. S., D.C.M.
Stott, L.-Cpl. J., D.C.M.
Stridgeon, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Trousdale, L.-Cpl. F., D.C.M.
Ward, Pte. R. W., D.C.M.
Cunningham, L.-Sgt. J., M.M. and Bar.
Abrahams, Pte. J. W., M.M.
Atherton, Sgt. J., M.M.
Barker, Cpl. J., M.M.
Barker, Cpl. J., M.M.
Bevan, L.-Sgt. J., M.M.
Bowers, Pte. J., M.M.
Brennan, Pte. F., M.M.
Britton, Pte. E., M.M.
Carroll, Pte. J., M.M.
Carter, Pte. W., M.M.
Chadwick, Pte. A., M.M.
Coogan, Pte. H., M.M.
Creed, Pte. J., M.M.
Drouthwaite, Sgt. T., M.M.
Flavill, Cpl. H., M.M.
Florendine, Cpl. J., M.M.
Hamer, Sgt. F., M.M.
Hayes, L.-Cpl. H., M.M.
Hewitt, Pte. J., M.M.
Hooley, Pte. H., M.M.
Hosler, Pte. T., M.M.
Kane, Pte. R., M.M., M.S.M.
Lee, Pte. F., M.M.
Lee, L.-Cpl. J. E., M.M.
Lomas, Pte. W., M.M.
Lowe, Pte. T., M.M.
Melling, Cpl. J., M.M.
Millward, Pte. H. S., M.M.
Molyneux, Pte. C., M.M.
Morgan, Pte. G., M.M.
Newcombe, Pte. C., M.M.
Parrott, Pte. W., M.M.
Pattison, Pte. C., M.M.
Penkethman, Cpl. H., M.M.
Poole, Pte. E., M.M.
Radcliffe, Pte. W., M.M.
Ralphs, Pte. T., M.M.
Reynolds, Pte. J., M.M.
Roberts, L.-Sgt. H., M.M.
Rooke, Pte. J., M.M.
Rowe, Pte. A., M.M.
Smith, Cpl. J., M.M.
Stamper, C.Q.M.S. P. A., M.M.
Stuart, Sgt. T., M.M.
Teague, Pte. A. E., M.M.
Turner, Pte. J. H., M.M.
Valentine, Pte. H., M.M.
Walsh, L.-Sgt. S., M.M.
Webb, Pte. J., M.M.
Whitehead, Pte. J., M.M.
Whittle, Pte. W., M.M.
Wilde, Pte. W., M.M.
Hyde, Pte. T., M.S.M.
Jones, Cpl. R., M.S.M.
Leake, Sgt. G., M.S.M.
Owen, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., M.S.M.
Seddon, Cpl. W., M.S.M.
Stone, Sgt. H., M.S.M.
Taylor, C.Q.M.S. F., M.S.M.
Gill, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. G. (F.).
Grimes, Pte. J. (F.).
Dandy, Pte. H. (F.).
Lomas, Pte. W. (F.).

1/6 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT

Officers

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. C. R., C.M.G.

Holberton, Capt. and Adjt. P. V., to be Brevet Major.
Worthington, Lt.-Col. C. S., D.S.O. and Bar.
Blatherwick, Lt.-Col. T., D.S.O.
Wedgwood, Lt.-Col. G. H., D.S.O.
Benton, Capt. F. C., M.C.
Blatherwick, Capt. T., M.C.
Kershaw, Capt. G. G., M.C.
Kershaw, Capt. G. V., M.C.
Molesworth, Capt. W. N., M.C.
Norris, Capt. A. H., R.A.M.C., M.C.
Till, Capt. G. F., M.C.
Wilson, Capt. H., R.A.M.C., M.C.
Wood, Capt. J., M.C.
Collier, Lieut. S., M.C.
Crossley, Lieut. F., M.C.
Hammick, Lieut. H. A., M.C.
Maule, Lieut. R., M.C.
Warburton, Lt.-Qr. Mr. W. R., M.C.
Heyhoe, 2nd Lieut. S. G., M.C.
Martin, 2nd Lieut. H. R., M.C.
Lane, 2nd Lieut. W. J., M.C.
Holberton, Maj. P. V. (F.).

Other Ranks

Roberts, Sgt. W., D.C.M. and Bar.

Ashley, Pte. E., D.C.M.
Cutter, Pte. G. R., D.C.M.
Davies, Pte. T. J., D.C.M.
Dennerly, L.-Sgt. R., D.C.M.
Doig, Pte. A. M., D.C.M.
Farthing, R.Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Gill, Sgt. R. W., D.C.M.
Hartshorn, Cpl. E. P., D.C.M.
Hashim, Pte. R., D.C.M.
Hay, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. F., D.C.M.
Holden, Sgt. H., D.C.M.
Hurdley, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
Ingham, Pte. J. R., D.C.M.
Kent, R.Sgt.-Mjr. W. A., D.C.M.
Martin, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J. R., D.C.M.
McDonald, L.-Sgt. A., D.C.M.
McDowell, Sgt. A., D.C.M.
Moores, Pte. S., D.C.M.
Murphy, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Roberts, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. W., D.C.M.
Senior, L.-Cpl. W. A., D.C.M.
Sturgess, Sgt. S., D.C.M.
Whitford, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. H. D., D.C.M.
Wignall, Sgt. A., D.C.M.
Wilson, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. S. H., D.C.M.
Wood, Sgt. G. H., D.C.M.
Jarvis, Pte. H. W., M.M. and Bar.
Shea, Cpl. M., M.M. and Bar.
Stubbs, Pte. B., M.M. and Bar.
Aldridge, Pte. J., M.M.
Allen, Pte. G., M.M.
Atherton, L.-Cpl. E. A., M.M.
Baker, Cpl. W., M.M.
Barker, Pte. W., M.M.
Beresford, Pte. T., M.M.
Berry, Sgt. A. J., M.M.
Brooks, Pte. A., M.M.
Butterworth, Pte. S., M.M.
Clarke, Pte. J., M.M.
Crowther, Pte. J. C., M.M.
Dugdale, L.-Cpl. F., M.M.
Dutton, Pte. G., M.M.
Farrand, Pte. W., M.M.
Farrell, Pte. J., M.M.
Fearn, Pte. M., M.M.
Fletcher, Pte. W. S., M.M.
Foster, Cpl. J. M., M.M.
Fox, L.-Cpl. W. H., M.M.
Gibbons, Sgt. W. G., M.M.
Gorman, L.-Sgt. D. W., M.M.
Griffiths, Pte. W. H., M.M.
Hadfield, Pte. E. G., M.M.
Hallworth, Pte. W., M.M.
Halstead, Pte. G., M.M.
Hancock, Pte. H., M.M.
Houghton, Pte. W. S., M.M.
Irwin, Pte. S., M.M.
James, L.-Cpl. W. H., M.M.
Johnson, Sgt. R., M.M.
Jones, Pte. J. N., M.M.
Kennedy, Pte. P. J., M.M.
Kent, Sgt. G., M.M.
Lockett, Sgt. P., M.M.
Maskell, Sgt. C. H., M.M.
McCarthy, Pte. D., M.M.
McDermott, Pte. J., M.M.
Mitton, Cpl. S. H., M.M.
Mullins, Cpl. P., M.M.
Parkinson, Pte. G. V., M.M.
Parry, L.-Sgt. E. E., R.A.M.C., M.M.
Potts, Cpl. A. V., M.M.
Pounder, Pte. W., M.M.
Ralphs, Pte. T., M.M.
Richardson, Pte. N., M.M.
Saxon, Pte. C., M.M.
Sellers, Pte. J., M.M.
Senior, Pte. W., M.M.
Sidebottom, L.-Cpl. W. J. H., M.M.
Smith, Pte. N. S., M.M.
Smith, Pte. W. E., M.M.
Tomkinson, Pte. W., M.M.
Tomlinson, Pte. S., M.M.
Warburton, Pte. H., M.M.
Whitehead, Pte. E., M.M.
Whittaker, L.-Cpl. O., M.M.
Williams, L.-Cpl. R. D., M.M.
Chadwick, C.Q.M.S. A. R., M.S.M.
Dale, C.Q.M.S. T. R., M.S.M.
Lee, R.Q.M.S. S., M.S.M.
Taylor, Sgt. V., M.S.M.
White, R.Q.M.S. J., M.S.M.
Wills, L.-Sgt. N. T., M.S.M.
Featherstone, Sgt. (F.).
Foster, Cpl. J. M. (F.).
Hurdley, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J. (F.).
McDowell, Sgt. A. (F.).

1/7 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT

Officers

Canning, Lt.-Col. A., C.M.G.

Fawcus, Lt.-Col. A. E. F., D.S.O., M.C.
Hodge, Lt.-Col. A., D.S.O., M.C.
Carr, Lt.-Col. H. A., D.S.O., to be Brevet Lt.-Col.
Cronshaw, Lt.-Col. A. E., D.S.O.
Brown, Maj. J. N., D.S.O.
Creagh, Maj. P. H., D.S.O.
Rae, Maj. G. B. L., D.S.O.
Welch, Lieut., D.S.O.
Scott, Maj. and Q.M. J., O.B.E.
Nasmith, Capt. G. W., O.B.E.
Thorpe, Capt. J. H., O.B.E.
Gresty, Lieut. W., M.C. and Bar.
Burn, Maj. F. G., M.C.
Whitley, Maj. N. H. P., M.C.
Allen, Capt. C. R., M.C.
Baker, Capt. J., M.C.
Farrow, Capt. J., R.A.M.C., M.C.
Hayes, Capt. F., M.C.
Hoskyns, Capt. E. C. (C.F.), M.C.
Kirby, Capt. E. T., M.A. (C.F.), M.C.
Nidd, Capt. H.H., M.C.
Williamson, Capt. C. H., M.C.
Bagshaw, Lieut. K., M.C.
Douglas, Lieut. C. B., M.C.
Edge, Lieut. N., M.C.
Franklin, Lieut. H. C., M.C.
Goodall, Lieut. J. C., M.C.
Goodier, Lieut. A., M.C.
Gorst, Lieut. H., M.C.
Harris, Lieut. L. G., M.C.
Siddall, Lieut. J. R., M.C.
Wilson, Lieut. S. J., M.C.
Harland, 2nd Lieut. J. A., M.C.
Milne, 2nd Lieut., M.C.
Thrutchley, 2nd Lieut. F. D., M.C.
Cronshaw, Lt.-Col. A. E. (F.).
Fawcus, Lt.-Col. A. E. F. (F.).
Brown, Maj. J. N. (4th Class), (F.).
Whitley, Maj. N. H. P. (F.).
Brown, Maj. J. N. (F.).
Chadwick, Capt. G. (F.).
Manger, Lt.-Col. E. V., to be Brevet Lt.-Col.
Brown, Maj. J. N., Brevet Majority.

Other Ranks

Bamber, Sgt. F., D.C.M., M.S.M.

Fleetwood, Sgt. A., D.C.M.
Green, Sgt. J. W., D.C.M., M.M.
Hand, Sgt. A., D.C.M.
Heasman, L.-Cpl. A., D.C.M.
Holbrook, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Horsfield, Sgt. J., D.C.M., M.M.
King, Cpl. A. W., D.C.M.
Lockett, Cpl. S., D.C.M.
Mather, Sgt., D.C.M.
McHugh, Co. Sgt.-Mjr., D.C.M.
Mort, L.-Sgt. W., D.C.M.
Quinn, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Richardson, Pte. M., D.C.M.
Tabbron, Co. Sgt.-Mjr., D.C.M., M.M.
White, Cpl. F., D.C.M.
Wood, Cpl. T., D.C.M.
Greer, Pte. A., M.M. and Bar.
Heath, Sgt. F., M.M. and Bar.
McHugh, Co. Sgt.-Mjr., M.M. and Bar.
Twist, L.-Cpl. T., M.M. and Bar.
Aldred, L.-Sgt. J., M.M.
Bailey, Pte. S., M.M.
Banahan, Sgt. J., M.M.
Booker, L.-Cpl. F. W., M.M.
Botham, Pte. W. E., M.M.
Bowman, Pte. J., M.M.
Boydell, Pte. J., M.M.
Bradshaw, Pte. W., M.M.
Braithwaite, Pte. T., M.M.
Broughton, Cpl. A., M.M.
Coffey, Sgt. W., M.M.
Collinge, Pte. H., M.M.
Conrey, Pte. R. E., M.M.
Craven, L.-Cpl. A., M.M.
Daley, Sgt. W., M.M.
Davies, Pte. W. T., M.M.
Dearden, Pte. R., M.M.
Downs, Pte. A., M.M.
Eastwood, Cpl. W., M.M.
Edwards, Pte. R., M.M.
Fidler, Sgt. W., M.M.
Gammond, Sgt. T. A., M.M.
Gregory, Cpl. B., M.M.
Hadfield, Sgt. A., M.M.
Halfhide, Pte. C., M.M.
Hayhurst, Pte., M.M.
Hyde, L.-Cpl. L., M.M.
Jackson, L.-Cpl. E., M.M.
Jennions, Pte. H., M.M.
Jolly, Sgt. J., M.M.
Joyce, Co. Sgt.-Mjr., M.M.
Latham, Pte. H., M.M.
Livesley, Sgt. J. L., M.M.
Lynn, Sgt. H., M.M.
Lyons, Pte. C., M.M.
Maguire, Cpl. A., M.M.
McClean, Pte. T., M.M.
Moore, Pte. T. C., M.M.
Morris, L.-Cpl. G., M.M.
Mottram, L.-Sgt. G., M.M.
Mullin, Pte. C., M.M.
Parker, Sgt. G., M.M.
Parkin, Pte. I., M.M.
Pickering, Pte. W., M.M.
Reeves, Pte. E., M.M.
Riley, Pte. J. G., M.M.
Riley, Sgt. R., M.M.
Rotham, Pte. J., M.M.
Rourke, Pte. A., M.M.
Sanderson, Pte. G., M.M.
Shaughnessy, Pte., M.M.
Standring, Cpl. W., M.M.
Stubbard, Pte. R., M.M.
Thorpe, Sgt. H., M.M.
Titchener, Pte. E., M.M.
Titterington, L.-Sgt. H. L., M.M.
Walsh, Pte. J., M.M.
Walton, Pte. F. G., M.M.
Warrington, Pte. W., M.M.
Whiskin, Pte. A., M.M.
Wilkinson, Pte. H., M.M.
Wilkinson, Pte. J., M.M.
Willmer, Pte. R., M.M.
Anlezark, R. Sgt.-Mjr. W., M.S.M.
Clavering, Sgt. H., M.S.M.
Ogden, R.Q.M.S., M.S.M.
Shields, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., M.S.M.
Horsfield, Sgt. J. (F.).
Joyce, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. (F.).

1/8 BATTALION MANCHESTER REGIMENT

Officers

McCarthy Morrogh, Lt.-Col. D. F., C.M.G.

Cross, Lt.-Col. E. G. K., D.S.O.
Bluhm, Maj. Q. M., D.S.O.
Lings, Maj. H. C., D.S.O.
Stewart, Capt. W. H., O.B.E.
Horsfall, Maj. E., M.C.
Moore, Maj. C. G., M.C. (F.).
Barlow, Capt. A. E., M.C.
Norman, Capt. H. L., M.C.
Ross, Capt. E. A., M.C.
Holdaway, Lieut. N. A., M.C.
McGuffie, Lieut. T., M.C.
Parsons, 2nd Lieut. H., M.C.
Stephenson, Lt.-Col. H. M. (F.).

Other Ranks

Code, R.Q.M.S. J. H., D.C.M.

Evans, Cpl. G., D.C.M.
Harrison, Sgt. H., D.C.M., M.M.
Hennessey, Pte. T., D.C.M.
Knott, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. J., D.C.M.
O’Connell, Pte. J., D.C.M.
Simpson, Co. Sgt.-Mjr. H., D.C.M.
Stenton, L.-Cpl. W., D.C.M.
Tasker, Pte. G., D.C.M.
Waterhouse, Sgt. J., D.C.M.
Wood, Pte. H. T., D.C.M.
Boardman, Sgt. E., M.M.
Bogie, Cpl. H. S., M.M.
Bradshaw, Cpl. G., M.M.
Derrig, Sgt. T. H., M.M.
Forrest, Pte. J., M.M.
Halliwell, Pte. J., M.M.
Harris, Pte. W. S., M.M.
Hewitt, Cpl. C., M.M.
Holmes, Pte. C., M.M.
Hooper, Pte. H., M.M.
Jones, L.-Cpl. H., M.M.
Jones, Pte. T., M.M.
Kelly, Cpl. J. C., M.M.
Kirwin, Pte. J., M.M.
Layton, Pte. T., M.M.
McCormick, Pte. J., M.M.
McMullon, Pte., M.M.
Monks, Pte. G., M.M.
Poke, Cpl. J., M.M.
Quinn, L.-Cpl. F. P., M.M.
Rigly, Pte. T., M.M.
Rimmer, Pte. W., M.M.
Russell, Cpl. R. F., M.M.
Slowe, Pte. E., M.M.
Taylor, Pte. W., M.M.