a daily portion of cheering applause.”  How often do such find their powers paralysed by the depression of confidence or the appearance of neglect!  When the North American Indians, amid their circle, chant their gods and their heroes, the honest savages laud the living worthies, as well as their departed; and when, as we are told, an auditor hears the shout of his own name, he answers by a cry of pleasure and of pride.  The savage and the man of genius are here true to nature, but pleasure and pride in his own name must raise no emotion in the breast of genius amidst a polished circle.  To bring himself down to their usual mediocrity, he must start at an expression of regard, and turn away even from one of his own votaries.  Madame De Staeel, an exquisite judge of the feelings of the literary character, was aware of this change, which has rather occurred in our manners than in men of genius themselves.  “Envy,” says that eloquent writer, “among the Greeks, existed sometimes between rivals; it has now passed to the spectators; and by a strange singularity the mass of men are jealous of the efforts which are tried to add to their pleasures or to merit their approbation.”

But this, it seems, is not always the case with men of genius, since the accusation we are noticing has been so often reiterated.  Take from some that supreme confidence in themselves, that pride of exultation, and you crush the germ of their excellence.  Many vast designs must have perished in the conception, had not their authors breathed this vital air of self-delight, this creative spirit, so operative in great undertakings.  We have recently seen this principle in the literary character unfold itself in the life of the late Bishop of Landaff.  Whatever he did, he felt it was done as a master:  whatever he wrote, it was, as he once declared, the best work on the subject yet written.  With this feeling he emulated Cicero in retirement or in action.  “When I am dead, you will not soon meet with another JOHN HUNTER,” said the great anatomist to one of his garrulous friends.  An apology is formed by his biographer for relating the fact, but the weakness is only in the apology.  When HOGARTH was engaged in his work of the Marriage a-la-Mode, he said to Reynolds, “I shall very soon gratify the world with such a sight as they have never seen equalled.”  —­“One of his foibles,” adds Northcote, “it is well known, was the excessive high opinion he had of his own abilities.”  So pronounced Northcote, who had not an atom of his genius.  Was it a foible in Hogarth to cast the glove, when he always more than redeemed the pledge?  CORNEILLE has given a very noble full-length of the sublime egotism which accompanied him through life;[A] but I doubt, if we had any such author in the present day, whether he would dare to be so just to himself, and so hardy to the public.  The self-praise of BUFFON at least equalled his genius; and the inscription beneath his statue in the library of the Jardin des Plantes, which