ORIGINALITY.*

THE publisher's note on the cover of Mr. Sharnol's book informs us that it is " a practical and highly interesting guide to those mental

conditions that promote original thinking." The present writer passes every day on his lawful occasions a notice-board which announces that the occupant of the house to which it is affixed is a, " practical chimney-sweeper." The latter statement is understand- able ; a practical chimney-sweeper is, we presume, a gentleman who sweers chimneys, and is thereby distinguished from a theoretical chimney-sweeper, who perhaps discusses with ability the ethics and philosophy of sweeping chimneys, but does not personally remove soot from them. What exact meaning is attached to the word " practical " in our first quotation, however, we have not been able to decide. We take it that the sense intended is that in which a book, say, on billiards or golf might loosely be described as " practical " if it omitted all vexed questions of kinetics, and confined itself to plain downright directions how to hit the ball. Even in this sense we feel that it is hardly the right term to use for Mr. Sharnol's work, of which the larger portion is devoted to pure theory ; his chief danger, indeed, is the desire to formulate " laws " on a very slender and possibly disputed basis ; but a brief summary of the contents will help our readers to judge how far the description is accurate.

Mr. Sharnol finds, to begin with, that all Original Minds obey the Same Laws : their superiority lies only in their Greater Range of Consciousness. " Range of Consciousness " is the action of the whole mind in its conscious and unconscious spheres, and originality is due, we are told, " mainly to the interaction between those two spheres." (Incidentally our readers will note that whatever may be

the " practical " effect of Mr. Sharnol's teaching on his students, he is at least original in his use of the English language : " action between two spheres " and " the-interaction of two spheres " would be intelligible propositions, but " the interaction between two spheres " is, to us, an entirely novel phenomenon.) " The question

now arises as to what causes consciousness to increase its range in such a manner as to eventuate in originality," and we accordingly get the Laws of Inspiration. Here, if anywhere, is where the practicality comes in, so we quote the Laws in full :- " (A) That a Period of Close Inquiry and Reflection should be followed either by a Change of Subject or a Period of Mental Inactivity.

(B) That the Search for Now Ideas is conditioned by Intellectual Rhythm.

(C) That the Now Idea is- partly dependent for its Birth on the right External Stimulus.

(D) That the Employment of Analogy, consciously or uncon- sciously, is a Creative Method of Great Value.

(E) That when the Mind is bent on a Discovery, or Otherwise set upon the Realisation of an Idea, its Energies may suddenly be side-tracked by a Conception with few Relationships to the immediate Purpose ; or it may make what is called a Chance Dis- covery of a totally different Nature.

(F) That the Final Law is : Think for Yourself."

We have done our best to obey the last precept, and the only conclusion we can come to is that these " Laws " do not add any- thing appreciable to the sum of human knowledge. If you abandon your mind to it, and your printer does not run out of his stock of capital letters, you can manufacture a number of similar Laws for yourself without any groat trouble. You observe, lot us say, that most people do not begin work until after breakfast : that is the Law of Postponed Cerebration. Some people, however, do begin work before breakfast: that is the Law of Pre-nutrimental Activity. Most people sit down when they aro tired—the Law of Semi-per.

pondicular Repose ; others go to bed—the Law of Final Recum- bency. There is no reason why you should over stop formulating such " Laws " so long as your technical vocabulary holds out ; but it is not clear what advantage you would bestow on the world by doing so. You cannot conceal the identity of a truism

by wrapping it up in a semi-scientific phraseology.

We pass over the pathology and biology of inspiration, and come to the Hindrances to Originality. This, although not strikingly above the standard set by Dr. Smiles's uplifting volumes, is perhaps the best part of the work. The author considers the various in- fluences, such as defective home training and education, the over- valuation of experience, and the improper assimilation of books, that tend to dwarf the mind into an irrational conservatism, and ho brings together a very interesting collection of examples of their ill-effects. Even hose, however, there is much with which we cannot possibly concur :-

" We claim that a dispassionate analysis of the type of brilliance associated with much of the work of Oscar Wilde, G. K. Chesterton, and G. B. Shaw—taking them as specimens of some modern literary fashions—proves it to be the result of artificial methods ; it does not spring from greatness of mind so much as skill in dialectics ; in short, it is merely the outcome of a trick. . . . That our attitude towards the three mon is not hard, unjust, ill-informed or incompetent will be evident if the thinking reader cares to make a few inquiries into the artistic quality and possible immortality • Originality : a Popular Study of the Creative Mind. By Thomas Sham! London: T. Werner Laurie. -ins. net.1 of such work as they have produced. Wilde is greatly superior to the other two, and his De Profundis will take its place amongst the great Confessions."

The first remark we have to offer about this passage is that when an author tells us that his attitude is not ilk-informed or incompetent, inasmuch as an attitude cannot possibly be either, we suspect at once that he himself may be both ; and his literary criticism only confirms the suspicion. No reader of the Spectator is likely to accuse us of undue partiality for the work of any of the three writers named ; but to say their brilliance is merely the outcome of atrick is to prove oneself void of the analytic faculty. Years ago some one made a similar assertion about the Pre-Raphaelite painters ; he said that they either copied or actually painted over photographs. Ruskin invited the critic to produce a Pre-Raphaelite picture by the means alleged to be employed, and the challenge was not accepted. If the " brilliance " is as purely mechanical as Mr. Sharnol believes, it can be produced to order, and he can prove his case by writing as good a play as Lady Windermere's Fan or Candida, or as good a critical study as Mr. Chesterton's Browning. We await the attempt with interest. Meanwhile we can only mourn over the sense of literary and spiritual values which places De Profundis in the same category as, say, Newman's Apologia. De Profundis was written with all Wilde's mastery of style, but intrinsically it has nothing to recommend it ; the feeling is shallow and insincere ; qualis artifex pereo is its dominant note ; it represents only a change of pose on the part of a man who had posed all his life, and his pose of repentance is far more disgusting than his harmless pose of flippancy.

We may seem to have laid too great stress on verbal criticism, but in this case loose and inaccurate expression is the token of loose and inaccurate thought. Mr. Sharnol is happy in his choice of subject, but he makes very little real effort to come to close grips with any of the problems it presents. We infer from his references that his studies have lain much amongst the American manuals of the " Success in Life " type, and we are consequently not surprised to find him worshipping the vulgar fetish of the " business govern- ment " ; but their methods, however likely to lead to the proprietor- ship of " a mail order business worth a quarter of a million," are not those best suited for a sober scientific treatise. Even in their own sphere they are not always as helpful as their students are asked to believe. A young man, educated in a modern Commercial Training College, once managed, after much correspondence, to procure a personal interview with the heads of a large New York firm. He explained his qualifications for a post in the establish rent and the partners listened to him in silence until he had finished. Then the senior partner spoke for the first time : " Well, Mr. Jones, we have interviewed you. We are not- impressed. Good morning ! " We are afraid that Mr. Sharnol on business efficiency in the world of thought has left us equally cold.