ituation is wrought
with pain.

In spite of this parallel the distinguishing criterion between the two
is very vague, because from the sane to the delirious idea the
transitions are very numerous. We are obliged to recognize "that with
certain workers--who are rather taken up with the elaboration of their
work, and not masters directing it, quitting it, and resuming it at
their pleasure--an artistic, scientific, or mechanical conception
succeeds in haunting the mind, imposing itself upon it even to the
extent of causing suffering." In reality, pure psychology is unable to
discover a positive difference between obsession leading to creative
work and the other forms, because in both cases the mental mechanism is,
at bottom, the same. The criterion must be sought elsewhere. For that we
must go out of the internal world and proceed objectively. We must judge
the fixed idea not in itself but by its effects. What does it produce in
the practical, esthetic, scientific, moral, social, religious field? It
is of value according to its fruits. If objection be made to this change
of front we may, in order to stick to a strictly psychological point of
view, state that it is certain that as soon as it passes beyond a middle
point, which it is difficult to determine, the fixed idea profoundly
troubles the mechanism of the mind. In imaginative persons this is not
rare, which partly explains why the pathological theory of genius (of
which we shall speak later) has been able to rally so many to its
support and to allege so many facts in its favor.

FOOTNOTES:

[30] For the distinction between this form of imagination and the
two others (fixed, objectified), I refer the reader to the
Conclusion of this work, where the subject will be treated in
detail.

[31] Colozza, _L'immaginazione nella Scienza_, Rome, 1900, pp. 111
ff.

[32] This unifying, organizing, creative principle is so active in
certain minds that, placed face to face with any work whatever--novel,
picture, monument, scientific or philosophic theory, financial or
political institution--while believing that they are merely
considering it, they spontaneously remake it. This characteristic of
their psychology distinguishes them from mere critics.

[33] Oelzelt-Newin, _op. cit._, p. 49.

[34] Pitres et Regis, _Semeiologie des obsessions et des idees
fixes_, 1878. Seglas, _Lecons cliniques sur les maladies mentales_,
1895. Raymond et Janet, _Nevroses et idees fixes_, 1898.