And yet the pamphlet reveals some of the tangled roots from which
the later concept of the "original" or "primitive" genius grew.
For here are two prerequisites of that later, more extravagant
concept. One is the author's positive delight in the infinite
differences of human temperaments and talents--a delight from
which might spring the preference for original or unique works of
art. The other is his conviction that there is something
necessary and foreordained about those differences: a conviction
essential to faith in the artist who is apparently at the mercy
of a genius beyond his own control. The importance of this latter
belief was long ago indicated in Paul Kaufman's "Heralds of
Original Genius."

While his tone is perhaps more exuberant than that of most of his
immediate contemporaries, there is nothing particularly new in
our author's interest in those aspects of human nature which
render a man different from his fellows. It is true that the main
stress of neoclassical thought had rested on the fundamental
likeness of all men in all ages, and had sought an ideal and
universal norm in morals, conduct, and art. But there had always
been counter currents making for a recognition of the inescapable
differences among various races and individuals. Such deviations
were often merely tolerated, but toward the close of the
seventeenth century more and more voices had praised human
diversity. England, in particular, began to take notice of the
number of "originals" abounding in the land.

At least as old as the delight in human differences was the
belief in the foreordained nature of at least those differences
resulting in specific vocational aptitudes. This is the