be contended that the very pursuit of Galvani is an indication of Genius, I would beg to observe, that but for this accident, he might have passed into his grave unhonoured and unknown.

I will not detain you any longer with examples of this kind; or I might allude to the dicovery of electricity by Thales, and of the telescope by Jansen, or rather, perhaps, of Jansen's children, who, therefore, in accordance with the received doctrine of Genius, ought to be numbered amongst its favorites. One fact is incontestible, that all these "inventions" of Genius, were nothing more than the concurrence of accident with the active state of a mind previously stored with knowledge; with knowledge which had been derived from its own observation, and the communicated observations of others. Whilst, from the foregoing part of this paper, it is clear, beyond question, that the whole of that knowledge, both individual and communicated, owed its origin to sensible objects, or abstractions derived from them; or in other terms, to a perfect organization of the senses.

Before we proceed any further in our inquiries, let us briefly review the progress we have made, and the conclusions we have drawn. It will serve to refresh us on our journey, and make the remainder of it, though short, more pleasant; we shall have an opportunity of comparing fresh scenes with those which are past.

That information which any one gains by obser

vation alone, is the lowest and simplest species of knowledge; although it is the pregnant germ of the highest human intelligence; and is essential to the production of the choicest fruits of Genius.

When the ideas derived by observation, are compared together, or, as I prefer considering it, are seen together, (for comparison is then involuntary,) and useful conclusions are drawn from such simultaneous vision; there results learning: although we are not accustomed to apply this epithet to any one who has not accumulated a considerable stock of these conclusions. When the conclusions have been adopted from others, without undergoing a strict analysis, and examination, by the test of our own observation, although they may be founded in truth; this constitutes learned ignorance.

When genuine learning is united to mental industry, accident or circumstance will, in all probability, lead to novelty of combination, called "invention ;" and this is, justly, denominated Genius.

Thus, all men possess more or less of simple knowledge; so much so, that we can seldom surprise even the most illiterate, with any new sensible idea; men of learning are every where to be met with; and learned ignorance obtrudes itself upon us at every turn: whilst men of Genius, now and then only, arrest our attention, and excite our admiration. The first of these walk upon the

face of the earth, and look upon nature with a mere animal eye. The second and third, are admirers of the picturesque scenery which surrounds them, and enjoy its beauties; or are, in the latter case, the mere echoes of those who do so: but they add nothing to it. The last are the labourers in the fields of science, who have enriched the landscape with objects useful and pleasing; and which every day present some new appearance to fascinate, or benefit mankind.

Having established the main propositions undertaken in the beginning of this Essay, I shall now confine myself to a few further illustrations of their truth; and shall then attempt to show, by an example or two, what method ought to be pursued by those who are desirous to possess Genius; and shall conclude with a few practical observations, on the best mode of educating the mind,

On this occasion, I can do no more than anticipate the objections which may be urged respecting the divine gift of "wisdom" to Solomon, or the "gifts" to which St. Paul so frequently alludes. This, however, may be remarked, that those cases are either individual, or specific; the very grant to Solomon proves it to be extraordinary; whilst the "gifts," mentioned by St. Paul, are wholly spiritual," and as clearly miraculous. The day of Pentecost was a day of sublime wonder, and cannot, without the grossest perversion, be drawn into an evidence in favour of Genius. The apostles

"spake with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." There was no analogy between their spontaneous command of divers languages, and the manner in which the eloquence of the most erudite linguist has been acquired. The attainments of Crichton were all natural.

And if Pope "lisp'd in numbers," and Cowley wrote verses earlier than other boys, these were no proofs of Genius; for Dryden, and even Virgil, began late, and furnished equal evidences of it. They only show, what our knowledge of Pope might easily lead us to expect, that to an extreme physical sensibility, was added diligent and correct observation. Pope no more excelled other boys at the age of twelve, than he did other men at the age of forty; and no reason can be given, why the fruits of this more lively physical organization, should display themselves at the one age than at the other.

The same remarks will, by contrast, apply to the well-known examples of the sons of Cicero and Chesterfield. I doubt not, if we could have examined the structure of their organization, we should have found it ill adapted to become "feelingly alive to each fine impulse;" and in the "lack lustre eye," should have discerned enough to silence inquiry, why they disappointed the hopes, and frustrated the labour, of parental anxiety. The fault, however, to which their want of success may be ascribed, consisted, wholly, in the manner

of their education. They were treated in the same mode, and subjected to the same discipline, as if there had existed no physical defect whatever. There is, perhaps, no greater practical, and more mischievous error, prevalent in the world, than that all men may be taught according to one system of rules.

The phenomenon of the calculating boys, I shall not attempt to explain in this place. Their talent is, certainly, very distinct from what we understand by Genius. It seems, rather, to resemble intuition. Or, if theirs be Genius, then Homer and Newton possest no Genius; for all their works were the fruits of labour; whereas these boys possess their talent, not only without exertion, but also without knowing how they came by it, or even without being able to explain it. I have seen the root of an adfected cubic equation, said to have been given by one of these boys, in much less time than Newton himself could have performed a tenth part of the operation necessary to find it.

Besides the views already taken of this most interesting subject, there are many others equally important, and equally conclusive, as to the doctrine of this Essay. For example, the decay of Genius; to which allusion has already been incidentally made.

Newton, in his old age, could not understand his own Principia. This is easily to be explained, if Genius depend upon physical organization; but,