On Genius. A15 
the main, with the celebrated definition of 
Genius by Dr. Samuel Johnson ; “that itis 
nothing more than strong general powers, ac- 
cidentally determined to a particular direc- 
tion.’ Nor are our views inconsistent, on 
the whole, with those, which have been so 
eloquently unfolded by Sir Joshua Reynolds 
in his discourse on Genius. His definition of 
it, as applied to the practice of the art of 
Painting, is that it ‘ consists in the power of 
expressing an object, whatever it may be, as 
a whole ; so that the general effect and power 
of the whole may take possession of the 
mind.” To be able to do this, the artist 
must have a quick perception of the expres- 
sive features of nature; and accustom him- 
self, by comprehensively associating them 
in his mind, to survey nature with a painter’s 
eye.(u) 
(u) It has been objected to the foregoing theory, that, by making 
Genius to consist in susceptibility of temperament, we do not sufficiently 
distinguish it from Taste, which implies an exquisite sensibility to the 
beauties of nature and art. The following considerations, which are 
quite consistent with our views, sufficiently point out the distinction 
between these two faculties. Genius is active, and delighis in the ex- 
pression of its own enthusiastic feelings and original views ; Taste is a 
passive quality, which yields itself quietly to the influences of other 
minds and terminates in enjoyment: Genius is the gift of nature; Taste, 
the result of education: we meet with Genius in all states of society 
and all ranks of life; Taste characterizes periods of high cultivation, 
and is rarely found but in the polished and well-educated classes of the 
community. To explain this, it should be recollected, that although 
