[Footnote A:  I transcribe the last opinions of Mr. Edgeworth.  “As to original genius, and the effect of education in forming taste or directing talent, the last revisal of his opinions was given by himself, in the introduction to the second edition of ‘Professional Education.’  He was strengthened in his belief, that many of the great differences of intellect which appear in men, depend more upon the early cultivating the habit of attention than upon any disparity between the powers of one individual and another.  Perhaps, he latterly allowed that there is more difference than he had formerly admitted between the natural powers of different persons; but not so great as is generally supposed.”—­ Edgeworth’s Memoirs, ii. 388.]

Others have strenuously denied that we are born with any peculiar species of mind, and resolve the mysterious problem into capacity, of which men only differ in the degree.  They can perceive no distinction between the poetical and the mathematical genius; and they conclude that a man of genius, possessing a general capacity, may become whatever he chooses, but is determined by his first acquired habit to be what he is.[A]

In substituting the term capacity for that of genius, the origin or nature remains equally occult.  How is it acquired, or how is it inherent?  To assert that any man of genius may become what he wills, those most fervently protest against who feel that the character of genius is such that it cannot be other than it is; that there is an identity of minds, and that there exists an interior conformity as marked and as perfect as the exterior physiognomy.  A Scotch metaphysician has recently declared that “Locke or Newton might have been as eminent poets as Homer or Milton, had they given themselves early to the study of poetry.”  It is well to know how far this taste will go.  We believe that had these philosophers obstinately, against nature, persisted in the attempt, as some have unluckily for themselves, we should have lost two great philosophers, and have obtained two supernumerary poets.[B]

It would be more useful to discover another source of genius for philosophers and poets, less fallible than the gratuitous assumptions of these theorists.  An adequate origin for peculiar qualities in the mind may be found in that constitutional or secret propensity which adapts some for particular pursuits, and forms the predisposition of genius.

[Footnote A:  Johnson once asserted, that “the supposition of one man having more imagination, another more judgment, is not true; it is only one man has more mind than another.  He who has vigour may walk to the east as well as the west, if he happens to turn his head that way.”  Godwin was persuaded that all genius is a mere acquisition, for he hints at “infusing it,” and making it a thing “heritable.”  A reversion which has been missed by the many respectable dunces who have been sons of men of genius.]