There is an old maxim that there is nothing new under the sun. And yet much favorable comment is made regarding that which the human mind has named originality. The desirability of this quality is emphasized in almost every form of art,—in music, in craftsmanship, in every grade and character of decorative art; it is urged in the schools, in English classes; the quality of freshness and originality is considered an essential element to a successful theme. The human mind professes admiration for originality in ideas, originality in dress, originality in manner, and so on throughout the whole gamut of human custom and endeavor.
A thoughtful, analytical study of Webster's definition of the word, in connection with what Christian Science has revealed to this age of the divine origin of man and the universe, is most enlightening. "Originality," as every one knows, is the "state or quality of being original," while the word "original" is defined in part as "of or pertaining to the origin or beginning." "Origin" is "the first existence or beginning" and "that from which anything primarily proceeds." This, then, takes us back to the first chapter of Genesis, where it is recorded that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and where is also recorded the spiritual origin of man as the image and likeness of God. Man in the image and likeness of God self-evidently is not material nor mortal; he is spiritual, the likeness of the one divine Mind, and as such he reflects every attribute of this one Mind. To the Christian Scientist, this record of the divine origin of man and the universe is inseparable from the exegesis given by Mrs. Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, in the Christian Science textbook, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," in which she says (p. 502): "The infinite has no beginning. This word beginning is employed to signify the only,—that is, the eternal verity and unity of God and man, including the universe."
We also have in the first chapter of Genesis the record of the spiritual classification of creation,—and it is helpful here to remember that creation is simply the expression of the creator, or, in other words, the idea of divine Principle. Now the human mind, the suppositional opposite of divine Mind, and the wouldbe counterfeit of this one Mind, has also attempted to organize and classify its beliefs. It has essayed to separate its branches of learning into two departments, science and art, and, in turn, to subdivide science into sciences, and art into arts; and it is a curious thing that, while that which is termed originality is considered an essential element to success in the arts, the term is seldom associated with those branches of learning which the human mind has classified as sciences. The science of mathematics, for instance is recognized as that of an unvarying principle, and exactness in calculation, based upon correct understanding of the fundamentals of mathematics, is justly considered essential to the success of the mathematician. Yet the truth is that the art of painting or sculpture, for example, is no less a science than that of mathematics. That which, academically, has been classified as art is but the application of the science on which the art is founded. The science of music, for instance, is an art to the exact extent to which it is applied. The same is also true of linguistic science, on which the arts of writing and speaking are based, and of the science of logic, which is utilized in the art of discourse; the science of astronomy is the foundation of the art of navigation; the art of oratory is the applied principles and rules of rhetoric. Thus the human mind has attempted to catalogue the whole series of academic arts, and such is the relation of science and art to each other that frequently even the most respected authorities disagree as to what is art and what is science.
