Great Hinds Think Alike.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17840, 12 October 1929, Page 13 (Supplement)

Great Hinds Think Alike.

IT has often been said that, were it possible for one to know all the antecedents of any action, that action could never surprise us; neither could it disappoint up, nor cause us anger or dispute. It might with equal truth be said that were it possible for eacii of us to see behind the purely superficial conception wc have of our inner selves, this sort of cinematographic shorthand by means of which, for the sake of brevity, we represent to our minds the highly complex inlricacies of our emotions —joy, sorrow, anguish, love, a fiduciary and strange currency long depreciated out of all proportion to its face value —that is to say. were it possible for each of us lo set. aside the faded domino of names which hides us from ourselves, as only Ihe greatest noct or the greatest artist is rarely able, and See tho Real Substance of Ourselves and see it continuously and clearly, then 100 would disarrreeme.nl. and dispute be taken from tho world. There is an Old English proverb which holds that “Great minds think alike." It has been objected to Ibis proverb that it is precisely because great minds think differently Hint they are great, and. as at first sight 1 here appears to bn some foundation for this view, it might be of interest to consider it. What is there in the thought of great, minds which makes it great? Why is the song of a great poet, the .work of a great artist in every branch of art. universally considered great? If we can find an answer to these questions, if we can find something underlying ttic thought of all great men. something uniform and fundamental and common to them all, then perhaps we may have a clue lo why it is they think alike. It should be remembered here that an artist —and wc use I tie word in its widest sense —even the greatest artist is Powerless to Describe • that which is external lo himself. A poet may sing the joy or sorrow or the love that is within his own heart, but it will ever be beyond his power to describe the simplest emotion which is within the hearts of those even the most near to him, and give his words poetic life. In the same way. when we are moved by any form of art, when wc feel I hat it is the expression of something fundamentally true, that it touches us, then 100, it. is not that we have gained a glimpse into the poet's mind, but rather that we also for that moment have to some extent become a poet, one with the poet, and see the thing of which lie sings already living in ourselves. When Shelley wrote his “Ode to a Sky-lark" the soaring gladness he described was not the lark’s, but his; the silver chain of sound of which he sings was his own proper song. What, then, is there in this poem which makes it great? Surely there is this. When Shelley wrote his “Ode to a Sky-lark" be was gazing honestly and earnestly straight down into the substance of himself. He set aside the outside world, and faithfully described the joyful tumult that lie Found Within Himself and that had suddenly been shown him by Ihe singing of the bird. He described his own blithe spirit, bis own wild ecstasy, but in so doing—and this is important—he described the bird’s. He described what Bergson calls a Tealitc.’ He described the fundamental prime material of which is made, no only his, but every soul and therefore, incidentally, the soul of him who hears his song. In other words, Shelley is ever to his hearer what the lark has been to him. Again,-when Shelley wrote his “Ode lo the West Wind," he came as it were a link, a link between bis reader and the west wind. Not that necessarily lie des-

A Clue to the Cause. Gordon Hayward in Chambers Journal.

cribed the veritable passions of the west wind, but by its aid be was permitted to regard for a moment plainly his own emotions, and being a great artist, he was able to describe himself. But as, so far as ail we know, it, is not Hie veritable passion of the west wind that we find in Shelley’s poem, so also_it is not the poet’s passion, but our own, and Shelley has become for us what the west wind was for him. Beethoven is reported to have said that one possessing the necessary true ear and sufficient application could And in Ills works every Shade and Sort of Human Emotion. Dante in speaking of his own works seems to hav,e said something almost_ the same. But we have seen that an artist Is unable to describe that which is external to himself, and it follows then that both Beethoven and Dante must have been strictly limited to the emotions which tiiey found within themselves, and it stands therefore to reason that, unless Beethoven and Dante were boastfully mistaken, they must have hold ihe entire universe of possible emotion within themselves. More than tin's, it stands to reason that for him whose car and power of application were true and great enough, for iiim eyery shade of human emotion would lie revealed. Which is to say that every shade of human emotion would be revealed to be within himself. It might again he repeated here that art docs not create. “Creative art" is an unfortunate and often a misused term. Art, the single .scope of art is temporarily to draw aside that highly simplified conception that we have of our emotions, of our most intimate and obscure selves, and show them as they are. Art reveals, it does not create;" it reveals us to ourselves. It is evident, then, that as art is universal in the sense that any normal human being of any rac c—being given the necessary education allowing him io understand that art, allowing hinii lo have access to himself by means of it—will always Find Existing in Himself the universe of which pure poetry and perfect art are but Hie faithful description; in other words, as the highest expression of art is equally valid for all races and all colours of men, be it. only truly understood, then surely we may say, not only lhat art is universal, not only that Ihe method is uniformly efficacious, but also that the tiling with which the whole of art is singly, concerned, this substance of our souls, our spirits, our inner selves —that this is likewise universally and uniformly one. With this in mind it is clearly seen that individuality, personality, originality, and all the infinite variety of forms and sorts of character we meet with every day are not in fact the evidence of deformities and distortions of the fundamental substance of ourselves, but rather are they the evidence, and in some sort the exteriorisation, of that reduced design, that working formula, by which wc each unconsciously and Individually are forced to simplify the universe we hold within ourselves; or, to express it in another way, that rigid chest into which each one of us has crushed the overflowing riches of his nature, that they he practicably portable for the business of every day. In the antique Hindu religion. Hint most ancient of all known faiths, it was said that the Spirit In a IVlan is Imprisoned in His Body as the free air is captured in an earthen jar. Here again, and in all ils primitive clarity, wc find the underlying sameness of Hie substance of ourselves, while personality and individuality and character can only he compared with tho internal form and size, and at most the elegance of the vase. Space does not allow that we pursue this subject further; suftice it here, then, to add that it is because “la realile" Is always oue that great minds think alilre. ._