2d. As another broad character of distinction between _genius_ and _talent_, I would observe, that _genius_ differentiates a man from all other men; whereas _talent_ is the same in one man as in another; that is, where it exists at all, it is the mere echo and reflex of the same talent, as seen in thousands of other men, differing only by more and less, but not at all in quality. In genius, on the contrary, no two men were ever duplicates of each other. 3d. All talent, in whatsoever class, reveals itself as an effort--as a counteraction to an opposing difficulty or hinderance; whereas genius universally moves in headlong sympathy and concurrence with spontaneous power. Talent works universally by intense resistance to an antagonist force; whereas genius works under a rapture of necessity and spontaneity. [8] This word, I am well aware, grew out of the French word _contre danse_; indicating the regular contraposition of male and female partners in the first arrangement of the dancers. The word _country dance_ was therefore originally a corruption; but, having once arisen and taken root in the language, it is far better to retain it in its colloquial form; better, I mean, on the general, principle concerned in such cases. For it is, in fact, by such corruptions, by offsets upon an old stock, arising through ignorance or mispronunciation originally, that every language is frequently enriched; and new modifications of thought, unfolding themselves in the progress of society, generate for themselves concurrently appropriate expressions. Many words in the Latin can be pointed out as having passed through this process. It must not be allowed to weigh against the validity of a word once fairly naturalized by use, that originally it crept in upon an abuse or a corruption. _Prescription_ is as strong a ground of legitimation in a case of this nature as it is in law. And the old axiom is applicable--_Fieri non debuit, factum valet_. Were it otherwise, languages would be robbed of much of their wealth. And, universally, the class of _purists,_ in matters of language, are liable to grievous suspicion, as almost constantly proceeding on _half_ knowledge and on insufficient principles. For example, if I have read one, I have read twenty letters, addressed to newspapers, denouncing the name of a great quarter in London, _Mary-le-bone,_ as ludicrously ungrammatical. The writers had learned (or were learning) French; and they had thus become aware, that neither the article nor the adjective was right. True, not right for the current age, but perfectly right for the age in which the name arose; but, for want of elder French, they did not know that in our Chaucer's time both were right. _Le_ was then the article feminine as well as masculine, and _bone_ was then the true form for the adjective.