Through some unexpected phrase that was dropped, the conversation took a new turn at this point, which I should not like to withhold, inasmuch as it gave rise to a noteworthy observation of Einstein about the nature of genius. We were talking about the "possibility of genius for science being inherited" and about the comparative rareness with which it occurs. There seems to have been only one case of a real dynasty of great minds, that of the ten Bernoullis who were descended of a line of mathematicians, and all of them achieved important results, some of them making extraordinary discoveries. Why is this exception unique? In other examples we do not get beyond three or four names in the same family, even if we take Science and Art conjointly. There were two Plinys, two Galileis, two Herschels, two Humboldts, two Lippis, two Dumas, several Bachs, Pisanos, Robbias, and Holbeins--the net result is very poor, even if we count similar names, disregarding the fact of relationship; there is no recognizable dynasty except in the case of the ten Bernoullis.[2] "And so," I continued, "the conclusion seems justified that Nature has nothing to do with a genealogy of talents, and that, if we happen to notice manifestations of talent in one and the same family, this is a mere play of chance." [Footnote 2: The Roman family Cosmati (of the thirteenth century), which gave us seven splendid representatives of architecture and mosaic work, hardly comes into consideration, since not one of them is regarded in the history of art as a real genius.] Einstein, however, contradicted this emphatically: "Inherited talent certainly occurs in many cases, where we do not observe it, for genius in itself and the possibility of genius being apprehended are certainly far from always appearing in conjunction. There are only insignificant differences between the genius that expresses itself in remarkable achievements and the genius that is latent. At a certain instant, perhaps, only some impulse was wanting for the latent genius to burst forth with all clearness and brilliance; or, perhaps, it required only an unusual situation in the development of science to call into action his special talents, and thus it remained dormant, whereas a very slight change of circumstances would have caused them to assert themselves in definite results. "In passing I should like to remark that you just now mentioned the two Humboldts; it seems to me that Alexander von Humboldt, at least, is not to be counted as a genius. It has struck me repeatedly that you pronounced his name with particular reverence----"