h　a　man　weaves　his　own　thoughts　or　fancies；　instead　of　merely　taking　in　what　others　have　thought；　and　even　though　he　go　so　far　as　to　bring　fresh　gains　to　art　and　science；　this　does　not　afford　a　valid　reason　for　calling　such　a　man　of　brains；　and　often　great　brains；　a　genius；　in　contradistinction　to　one　who　goes　by　the　name　of　shallow…pate；　because　he　can　never　do　more　than　merely　learn　and　follow　a　lead。　For　what　is　accomplished　in　this　way　is　something　that　could　have　been　learned。　Hence　it　all　lies　in　the　natural　path　of　investigation　and　reflection　according　to　rules；　and　so　is　not　specifically　distinguishable　from　what　may　be　acquired　as　the　result　of　industry　backed　up　by　imitation。　So　all　that　Newton　bas　set　forth　in　his　immortal　work　on　the　Principles　of　Natural　Philosophy　may　well　be　learned；　however　great　a　mind　it　took　to　find　it　all　out；　but　we　cannot　learn　to　write　in　a　true　poetic　vein；　no　matter　how　complete　all　the　precepts　of　the　poetic　art　may　be；　or　however　excellent　its　models。　The　reason　is　that　all　the　steps　that　Newton　had　to　take　from　the　first　elements　of　geometry　to　his　greatest　and　most　profound　discoveries　were　such　as　he　could　make　intuitively　evident　and　plain　to　follow；　not　only　for　himself　but　for　every　one　else。　On　the　other　hand；　no　Homer　or　Wieland　can　show　how　his　ideas；　so　rich　at　once　in　fancy　and　in　thought；　enter　and　assemble　themselves　in　his　brain；　for　the　good　reason　that　he　does　not　himself　know；　and　so　cannot　teach　others。　In　matters　of　science；　therefore；　the　greatest　inventor　differs　only　in　degree　from　the　most　laborious　imitator　and　apprentice；　whereas　he　differs　specifically　from　one　endowed　by　nature　for　fine　art。　No　disparagement；　however；　of　those　great　men；　to　whom　the　human　race　is　so　deeply　indebted；　is　involved　in　this　comparison　of　them　with　those　who　on　the　score　of　their　talent　for　fine　art　are　the　elect　of　nature。　The　talent　for　science　is　formed　for　the　continued　advances　of　greater　perfection　in　knowledge；　with　all　its　dependent　practical　advantages；　as　also　for　imparting　the　same　to　others。　Hence　scientists　can　boast　a　ground　of　considerable　superiority　over　those　who　merit　the　honour　of　being　called　geniuses；　since　genius　reaches　a　point　at　which　art　must　make　a　halt；　as　there　is　a　limit　imposed　upon　it　which　it　cannot　transcend。　This　limit　has　in　all　probability　been　long　since　attained。　In　addition；　such　skill　cannot　be　communicated；　but　requires　to　be　bestowed　directly　from　the　hand　of　nature　upon　each　individual；　and　so　with　him　it　dies；　awaiting　the　day　when　nature　once　again　endows　another　in　the　same　way…one　who　needs　no　more　than　an　example　to　set　the　talent　of　which　he　is　conscious　at　work　on　similar　lines。　　　Seeing；　then；　that　the　natural　endowment　of　art　（as　fine　art）　must　furnish　the　rule；　what　kind　of　rule　must　this　be？　It　cannot　be　one　set　down　in　a　formula　and　serving　as　a　precept…for　then　the　judgement　upon　the　beautiful　would　be　determinable　according　to　concepts。　Rather　must　the　rule　be　gathered　from　the　performance；　i。e。；　from　the　product；　which　others　may　use　to　put　their　own　talent　to　the　test；　so　as　to　let　it　serve　as　a　model；　not　for　imitation；　but　for　following。　The　possibility　of　this　is　difficult　to　explain。　The　artist's　ideas　arouse　like　ideas　on　the　part　of　his　pupil；　presuming　nature　to　have　visited　him　with　a　like　proportion　of　the　mental　Powers。　For　this　reason；　the　models　of　fine　art　are　the　only　means　of　handing　down　this　art　to　posterity。　This　is　something　which　cannot　be　done　by　mere　descriptions　（especially　not　in　the　line　of　the　arts　of　speech）；　and　in　these　arts；　furthermore；　only　those　models　can　become　classical　of　which　the　ancient；　dead　languages；　preserved　as　learned；　are　the　medium。　　　Despite　the　marked　difference　that　distinguishes　mechanical　art；　as　an　art　merely　depending　upon　industry　and　learning；　from　fine　art；　as　that　of　genius；　there　is　still　no　fine　art　in　which　something　mechanical；　capable　of　being　at　once　comprehended　and　followed　in　obedience　to　rules；　and　consequently　something　academic；　does　not　constitute　the　essential　condition　of　the　art。　For　the　thought　of　something　as　end　must　be　present；　or　else　its　product　would　not　be　ascribed　to　an　art　at　all；　but　would　be　a　mere　product　of　chance。　But　the　effectuation　of　an　end　necessitates　determinate　rules　which　we　cannot　venture　to　dispense　with。　Now；　seeing　that　originality　of　talent　is　one　（though　not　the　sole）　essential　factor　that　goes　to　make　up　the　character　of　genius；　shallow　minds　fancy　that　the　best　evidence　they　can　give　of　their　being　full…blown　geniuses　is　by　emancipating　themselves　from　all　academic　constraint　of　rules；　in　the　belief　that　one　cuts　a　finer　figure　on　the　back　of　an　ill…tempered　than　of　a　trained　horse。　Genius　can　do　no　more　than　furnish　rich　material　for　products　of　fine　art；　its　elaboration　and　its　form　require　a　talent　academically　trained；　so　that　it　may　be　employed　in　such　a　way　as　to　stand　the　test　of　judgement。　But；　for　a　person　to　hold　forth　and　pass　sentence　like　a　genius　in　matters　that　fall　to　the　province　of　the　most　patient　rational　investigation；　is　ridiculous　in　the　extreme。1　One　is　at　a　loss　to　know　whether　to　laugh　more　at　the　impostor　who　envelops　himself　in　such　a　cloud…in　which　we　are　given　fuller　scope　to　our　imagination　at　the　expense　of　all　use　of　our　critical　faculty…or　at　the　simple…minded　public　which　imagines　that　its　inability　clearly　to　cognize　and　comprehend　this　masterpiece　of　penetration　is　due　to　its　being　invaded　by　new　truths　en　masse；　in　comparison　with　which；　detail；　due　to　carefully　weighed　exposition　and　an　academic　examination　of　root　principles；　seems　to　it　only　the　work　of　a　tyro。
  SS　48。　The　relation　of　genius　to　taste。
  For　estimating　beautiful　objects；　as　such；　what　is　required　is　taste；　but　for　fine　art；　i。e。；　the　production　of　such　objects；　one　needs　genius。　　　If　we　consider　genius　as　the　talent　for　fine　art　（which　the　proper　signification　of　the　word　imports）；　and　if　we　would　analyse　it　from　this　point　of　view　into　the　faculties　which　must　concur　to　constitute　such　a　talent；　it　is　imperative　at　the　outset　accurately　to　determine　the　difference　between　beauty　of　nature；　which　it　only　requires　taste　to　estimate；　and　beauty　of　art；　which　requires　genius　for　its　possibility　（a　possibility　to　which　regard　must　also　be　paid　in　estimating　such　an　object）。　　　A　beauty　of　nature　is　a　beautiful　thing；　beauty　of　art　is　a　beautiful　representation　of　a　thing。　　　To　enable　me　to　estimate　a　beauty　of　nature；　as　such；　I　do　not　need　to　be　previously　possessed　of　a　concept　of　what　sort　of　a　thing　the　object　is　intended　to　be；　i。e。；　I　am　not　obliged　to　know　its　material　finality　（the　end）；　but；　rather；　in　forming　an　estimate　of　it　apart　from　any　knowledge　of　the　end；　the　mere　form　pleases　on　its　own　account。　If；　however；　the　object　is　presented　as　a　product　of　art；　and　is　as　such　to　be　declared　beautiful；　then；　seeing　that　art　always　presupposes　an　end　in　the　cause　（and　its　causality）；　a　concept　of　what　the　thing　is　intended　to　be　must　first　of　all　be　laid　at　its　basis。　And；　since　the　agreement　of　the　manifold　in　a　thing　with　an　inner　character　belonging　to　it　as　its　end　constitutes　the　perfection　of　the　thing；　it　follows　that　in　estimating　beauty　of　art　the　perfection　of　the　thing　must　be　also　taken　into　account…a　matter　which　in　estimating　a　beauty　of　nature；　as　beautiful；　is　quite　irrevelant。　It　is　true　that　in　forming　an　estimate；　especially　of　animate　objects　of　nature；　e。g。；　of　a　man　or　a　horse；　objective　finality　is　also　commonly　taken　into　account　with　a　view　to　judgement　upon　their　beauty；　but　then　the　judgement　also　ceases　to　be　purely　aesthetic；　i。e。；　a　mere　judgement　of　taste。　Nature　is　no　longer　estimated　as　it　appears　like　art；　but　rather　in　so　far　as　it　actually　is　art；　though　superhuman　art；　and　the　teleological　judgement　serves　as　a　basis　and　condition　of　the　aesthetic；　and　one　which　the　latter　must　regard。　In　such　a　case；　where　one　says；　for　example；　〃That　is　a　beautiful　woman；〃　what　one　in　fact　thinks　is　only　this；　that　in　her　form　nature　excellently　portrays　the　ends　present　in　the　female　figure。　For　one　has　to　extend　one's　view　beyond　the　mere　form　to　a　concept；　to　enable　the　object　to　be　thought　in　such　manner　by　means　of　an　aesthetic　judgement　logically　conditioned。　　　Where　fine　art　evidences　its　superiority　is　in　the　beautiful　descriptions　it　gives　of　things　that　in　nature　would　be　ugly　or　displeasing。　The　Furies；　diseases；　devastations　of　war；　and　the　like；　can　（as　evils）　be　very　beautifully　described；　nay　even　represented　in　pictures。　One　kind　of　ugliness　alone　is　incapable　of　being　represented　conformably　to　nature　without　destroying　all　aesthetic　delight；　and　consequently　artistic　beauty；　namely；　that　which　excites　disgust。　For；　as　in　this　strange　sensation；　which　depends　purely　on　the　imagination；　the　object　is　represented　as　insisting；　as　it　were；　upon　our　enjoying　it；　while　we　still　set　our　face　against　it；　the　artificial　representation　of　the　object　is　no　longer　distinguishable　from　the　nature　of　the　object　itself　in　our　sensation；　and　so　it　cannot　possibly　be　regarded　as　beautiful。　The　art　of　sculpture；　again；　since　in　its　products　art　is　almost　confused　with　nature；　h