(or any one of his successors) may, upon a motive of malice to the author or an impulse of false taste, after all proscribe any part of the books thus dishonorably acquired. [7] The words _genius_ and _talent_ are frequently distinguished from each other by those who evidently misconstrue the true distinction entirely, and sometimes so grossly as to use them by way of expressions for a mere difference in _degree_. Thus, "a man of great talent, absolutely a _genius_" occurs in a very well-written tale at this moment before me; as if being a man of genius implied only a greater than ordinary degree of talent. _Talent_ and _genius_ are in not one point allied to each other, except generically--that both express modes of intellectual power. But the kinds of power are not merely different; they are in polar opposition to each other. _Talent_ is intellectual power of every kind, which acts and manifests itself by and through the _will_ and the _active_ forces. _Genius_, as the verbal origin implies, is that much rarer species of intellectual power which is derived from the _genial_ nature,--from the spirit of suffering and enjoying,--from the spirit of pleasure and pain, as organized more or less perfectly; and this is independent of the will. It is a function of the _passive_ nature. Talent is conversant with the adaptation of means to ends. But genius is conversant only with ends. Talent has no sort of connection, not the most remote or shadowy, with the _moral_ nature or temperament; genius is steeped and saturated with this moral nature. This was written twenty years ago. Now, (1853,) when revising it, I am tempted to add three brief annotations:-- 1st. It scandalizes me that, in the occasional comments upon this distinction which have reached my eye, no attention should have been paid to the profound suggestions as to the radix of what is meant by _genius_ latent in the word _genial_. For instance, in an extract made by "The Leader," a distinguished literary journal, from a recent work entitled "Poetics," by Mr. Dallas, there is not the slightest notice taken of this subtile indication and leading towards the truth. Yet surely _that_ is hardly philosophic. For could Mr. Dallas suppose that the idea involved in the word _genial_ had no connection, or none but an accidental one, with the idea involved in the word _genius_? It is clear that from the Roman conception (whencesoever emanating) of the natal genius, as the secret and central representative of what is most characteristic and individual in the nature of every human being, are derived alike the notion of the _genial_ and our modern notion of _genius_ as contradistinguished from _talent_.