have least knowledge and least ambition to excel. Their taste keeps pace with their capacity; and they are not deterred by insurmountable difficulties, of which they have no idea. I have known artists (for instance) of considerable merit, and a certain native rough strength and resolution of mind, who have been active and enterprising in their profession, but who never seemed to think of any works but those which they had in hand; they never spoke of a picture, or appeared to have seen one to them Titian, Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, Correggio were as if they had never been no tones, mellowed by time to soft perfection, lured them to their luckless doom, no divine forms baffled their vain embrace; no sound of immortality rung in their ears, or drew off their attention from the calls of creditors or of hunger: they walked through collections of the finest works, like the Children in the Fiery Furnace, untouched, unapproached. With these true terræ filii the art might be supposed to begin and end they thought only of the subject of their next production, the size of their next canvas, the grou

ping, the getting in of the figures; and conducted their work to its conclusion with as little distraction of mind and as few misgivings, as a stage-coachman conducts a stage, or a carrier delivers a bale of goods, according to its destination. Such persons, if they do not rise above, at least seldom sink below themselves. They do not soar to the "highest Heaven of invention," nor penetrate the inmost recesses of the heart; but they succeed in all that they attempt or are capable of, as men of business and of industry in their calling. For them the veil of the Temple of Art is not rent asunder, and it is well one glimpse of the Sanctuary, of the Holy of the Holies, might palsy their hands, and bedim their sight forever after!

I think there are two mistakes, common enough on this subject; viz. That men of genius, or of first-rate capacity, do little, except by intermittent fits, or per saltum—and that they do that little in a slight and slovenly manner. There may be instances of this; but they are not the highest, and they are the exceptions, not the rule. On the contrary, the greatest artists have in general been the most

prolific or the most elaborate, as the best writers have been frequently the most voluminous as well as indefatigable. We have a great living instance among writers, that the quality of a man's productions is not to be estimated in the inverse ratio of their quantity, I mean in the Author of Waverley; the fecundity of whose pen is no less admirable than its felicity. Shakespear is another instance of the same prodigality of genius; his materials being endlessly poured forth with no niggard or fastidious hand, and the mastery of the execution being (in many respects at least) equal to the boldness of the design. As one example among others that I might cite of the attention which he gave to his subject, it is sufficient to observe, that there is scarcely a word in any of his more striking passages that can be altered for the better. If any person, for instance, is trying to recollect a favourite line, and cannot hit upon some particular expression, it is in vain to think of substituting any other so good. That in the original text is not merely the best, but it seems the only right one. I will stop to illustrate this point a

little. I was at a loss the other day for the line

in Henry V,

"Nice customs curtesy to great kings.”

I could not recollect the word nice : I tried a number of others, snch as old, grave, etc. -they would none of them do, but seemed all heavy, lumbering, or from the purpose the word nice, on the contrary, appeared to drop into its place, and be ready to assist in paying the reverence due. Again,

A jest's prosperity lies in the ear

Of him that hears it."

I thought, in quoting from memory, of“ A jest's success," "A jest's renown,” etc. I then turned to the volume, and there found the very word that of all others expressed the idea. Had Shakespear searched through the four quarters of the globe, he could not have lighted on another to convey so exactly what he meant a casual, hollow, sounding success! I could multiply such examples, but that I am sure the reader will easily supply them himself; and they shew suffi

ciently that Shakespear was not (as he is often represented) a loose or clumsy writer. The bold, happy texture of his style, in which every word is prominent, and yet cannot be torn from its place without violence, any more than a limb from the body, is (one should think) the result either of vigilant pains-taking, or of unerring, intuitive perception, and not the mark of crude conceptions, or "the random, blindfold blows of Ignorance."

There cannot be a greater contradiction to the common prejudice that "Genius is naturally a truant and a vagabond," than the astonishing and (on this hypothesis) unac countable number of chef-d'œuvres left behind them by the Old Masters. The stream of their invention supplies the taste of successive generations like a river they furnish a hundred Galleries, and preclude competition, not more by the excellence than by the extent of their performances. Take Raphael and Rubens for instance. There are works of theirs in single Collections enough to occupy a long and laborious life, and yet their works are