It is on this power that our attention should first be arrested; the more so because it is usually spoken of in vague rhapsodical language, with intimations of its being something peculiarly mysterious.  There are few words more abused.  The artist is called a creator, which in one sense he is; and his creations are said to be produced by processes wholly unallied to the creations of Philosophy, which they are not.  Hence it is a paradox to speak of the “Principia,” as a creation demanding severe and continuous exercise of the imagination; but it is only a paradox to those who have never analysed the processes of artistic and philosophic creation.

I am far from desiring to innovate in language, or to raise interminable discussions respecting the terms in general use.  Nevertheless we have here to deal with questions that lie deeper than mere names.  We have to examine processes, and trace, if possible, the methods of intellectual activity pursued in all branches of Literature; and we must not suffer our course to be obstructed by any confusion in terms that can be cleared up.  We may respect the demarcations established by usage, but we must ascertain, if possible, the fundamental affinities.  There is, for instance, a broad distinction between Science and Art, which, so far from requiring to be effaced, requires to be emphasised:  it is that in Science the paramount appeal is to the Intellect—–­its purpose being instruction; in Art, the paramount appeal is to the Emotions—­its purpose being pleasure.  A work of Art must of course indirectly appeal to the Intellect, and a work of Science will also indirectly appeal to the Feelings; nevertheless a poem on the stars and a treatise on astronomy have distinct aims and distinct methods.  But having recognised the broadly-marked differences, we are called upon to ascertain the underlying resemblances.  Logic and Imagination belong equally to both.  It is only because men have been attracted by the differences that they have overlooked the not less important affinities.  Imagination is an intellectual process common to Philosophy and Art; but in each it is allied with different processes, and directed to different ends; and hence, although the “Principia” demanded an imagination of not less vivid and sustained power than was demanded by “Othello,” it would be very false psychology to infer that the mind of Newton was competent to the creation of “Othello,” or the mind of Shakspeare capable of producing the “Principia.”  They were specifically different minds; their works were specifically different.  But in both the imagination was intensely active.  Newton had a mind predominantly ratiocinative:  its movement was spontaneously towards the abstract relations of things.  Shakspeare had a mind predominantly emotive, the intellect always moving in alliance with the feelings, and spontaneously fastening upon the concrete facts in preference to their abstract relations.  Their mental Vision was turned towards images of different