in childhood for any ingenuity; that they had rather been remarkable for dulness; so much so, that their preceptors and friends were afterwards astonished by the sudden blaze of their talents.

It is vain to attempt giving an accurate answer to such assertions. The terms bent of mind, impulse of genius, natural turn, &c., mean nothing, or take the subject in dispute for granted, unless we are told the accidents which are said to have brought these hidden talents to light, and unless we know the degree of penetration of the friends, who mistook early abilities for early dulness; unless, in short, we are made acquainted with the whole course of their education, and with each minute circumstance of their childish history, we must remain utterly incapable of forming any just judgment. Yet such are the assertions, and such the assumed facts, which pass from books into common conversation, and which are continually repeated in support of the argument in favour of peculiar natural genius. Even when definitions of original genius are attempted, they are often as unintelligible as poor Sir Richard Blackmore's:

"What we call genius, results," says the medical, metaphysical, and poetical knight, "from "the particular happy complexion in the first for"mation of the person that enjoys it, and is na"ture's gift, but diversified by various specific "characters and limitations, as its active fire is

"blinded and allayed by different proportions of phlegm, or reduced and regulated by the con"trast of opposite ferments."

Let us rather listen to the evidence and opinions of those, who have themselves been ac knowledged to be men of superior genius, and who have also been in the habits of philosophizing upon their own mental faculties. The great Newton assures us, that he knew of no difference between himself and other men, except in his habits of attention and application: the sagacious Locke says nearly the same thing. Poets we cannot call in evidence, because inspiration is part of their stock in trade. Their eyes roll in fine phrensy, which is something beyond reason; yet Pope, the poet both of reason and imagination, never made these pretences to inspiration; he corrected and corrected, and has left posterity traces of the slow, patient steps, by which he attained to that elevation of excellence, which seems, at first view, unattainable but by the flights of genius. Painters are men who also talk much of inspira tions; their evidence, as a body, would probably be given in favour of natural genius: but it must be considered, that artists, even the most cele brated, have not always been men habituated to reflect on the operations of their own minds, or capable of forming a judgment on a philosophical question, or able, when formed, to express it in accurate terms. The greatest English painter

of the present age, however, was a man, who united literary habits and philosophical reflection with those professional talents, to which none in popular language could deny the praise of genius. The evidence and opinion of Sir Joshua Reynolds must, from all these claims, be listened to with deference. Fortunately he recollected the slight circumstances, by which, in childhood, his love for his art was first excited, He attributes his carly love of drawing to the pleasure he received when he was five or six years old from the prints in an old book of emblems, lent to him by his Dutch grandmother. When he was eight years old, he met with the Jesuit's Perspective; was pleased with it, and attempted to draw an elevation of a building; showed it to his father; and was delighted to hear his father exclaim, that it was wonderful! These trivial accidents, the pleasure of occupation, success, and praise, determined the direction of his industry and talents. His opinion on the subject of natural taste and genius is distinctly given. He acknowledges, that the first time he saw the pictures of Rafaelle at the Vatican, he was mortified because he was not struck with their excellencies; this led him to reflect upon the pretensions which are made to natural taste, and he says, that, after revolving the matter frequently in his mind, he was convinced that the perception of the higher excellencies of art is an acquired taste, which no man

ever possessed without long cultivation, and great labour and attention. "Nor does painting in "this respect differ from other arts," continues he. "A just poetical taste, and the acquisition of "a nice discriminative musical ear, are equally "the work of time, Even the eye, however per"fect in itself, is often unable to distinguish be"tween the brilliancy of two diamonds: the experienced jeweller will be amazed at this

blindness, though his own powers of discrimi"nation were acquired by slow and scarcely per"ceptible degrees." Sir Joshua asserts, that not only a taste for painting, but that genius is the effect of close observation and experience; and not, as it is commonly supposed to be, a power of producing excellencies beyond the reach of rules, or a power, which is innate and incommunicable. It is, however, curious to observe, that the term is applied to different degrees of excellence in the course of the progress of an art. A man, who first drew and coloured a mackarel upon a board, obtained the honourable appellation of a man of genius; he or she who first drew the outline of a human figure was called a genius, and deserved the appellation; but, when it was discovered, that any person by practice, and by following certain rules, could draw an exact representation of the human figure, this was no longer honoured as a

Sixth Discourse on Painting,

mark of genius; he only was a man of genius, who could add expression, and grace, and dignity to his figures; and when it was found, that this also could be taught and learned by rule, then the exclusive praise of genius was reserved for the man who could go a step beyond known rules, and who, by further observations and combinations, could produce something knew. In fact, genius seems to be nothing more than invention; the power of combining ideas in a new manner; a power which must be preceded by the habit of observation and of attention; so that it is an abuse of terms to call that natural, which is the result of cultivation, labour, precept, and the experience not only of the individual, but what he has obtained from the wisdom of past ages. If what is called genius were to be considered in the choice of any profession for a child, it should be in those arts where genius is supposed to have the greatest influence; such for instance as painting; but it has just been shown by the opinion and arguments of one of the greatest painters England can boast, that labour and observation, not genius, in the popular acceptation of the term, can ensure success and excellence in that art. And if this be allowed as to painters, how much less should parents be influenced by the notion of natural genius for the professions of law or medicine, for the church or for the army. Innate ideas of these professions, natural propensities for being bishops,