99,the ,silesian ,horseherd99           
997,das ,pferdebrla799                  
,questions of the ,hour ,answered ,by   
99,friedrich ,max ,mller99              
,translated ,from ,the ,german          
,by ,oscar ,a4 ,fechter                 
,with ,a ,forward                       
,by ,j4 ,estlin ,carpenter1 ,m4,a4      
,longmans1 ,green1 and ,co4             
#ci ,paternoster ,row1 ,london          
,new ,york and ,bombay                  
99#aijc99            ,,contents         
,preface  ,chapter ,i4  ,chapter ,,ii4  
,chapter ,,iii4  ,chapter ,,iv4         
,chapter ,v4  ,chapter ,,vi4  ,footnotes
              ,,preface      ,the story 
of this volume is soon told4 ,in ,july1 
#ahie1 ,professor ,max ,mller           
contributed to the ,deutsche ,rundschau 
an essay on the lost treatise  against  
,christianity by the philosopher        
,celsus1 known to us through the  reply 
of ,origen of ,alexandria4 ,this essay1 
entitled 8,the #8,true ,history'7#a7  of
 ,celsus10 contained an exposition of   

the doctrine of the ,logos and its      
place in ,christian teaching1 with      
reference also to its applications in   
our modern thought4 ,among the comments 
upon it which in due time found  their  
way to ,oxford1 was a vigorous1 if      
familiar1 letter 7dated ,february1      
#ahif7 from a ,german emigrant to the   
,united ,states1 residing in            
,pennsylvania1 who signed himself by the
 unusual name of the ,pferdebrla1  or   
8,horseherd407#b7 ,his criticisms served
 as a fair sample of others2 and  his   
letter was published with a reply from  
,professor ,max ,mller in the           
,rundschau of ,november1 #ahif4 ,more   
letters poured in upon the unwearied    
scholar who had thus set aside precious 
time out of his last years to  answer   
his unknown correspondent4 ,one of      
these1 from 8,ignotus ,agnosticus10     
supplied a text for further comment1 and
 the whole grew into a little  popular  
apologia1 which was published at ,berlin
 in #ahii1 and entitled  ,das           

,pferdebrla1 or 8,questions of the ,day 
answered by ,friedrich ,max  ,mller40   
,the veteran teacher thus enforced once 
more his ideas of the relation of       
language and thought1 in which he had   
long since recognised the clue to  man's
 knowledge of the relation of his spirit
 to ,god4 ,this inner union he  found   
realised in ,christ1 according to the   
testimony of the ,fourth  ,gospel27#c7  
and the lucid treatment of this great   
conception1 freed from  the             
technicalities of theology1 will        
possibly prove to some readers the  most
 helpful portion of this book4 ,ranging 
over many topics1 once the  themes of   
vehement controversy1 the discussion has
 often an intimate1  familiar1 personal 
air4 ,the disputants on opposite sides  
had drawn nearer2  they could better    
understand each other's points of       
view47#d7 ,these pages1  therefore1     
reveal the inmost beliefs of one who had
 devoted more than  fifty years to the  
study of the history of religious       

thought on the widest  scale1 and had   
himself passed through severe struggles 
and deep griefs  with unshaken calm4 ,no
 reader of ,max ,mller's writings1 or of
 the ,life  and ,letters1 can fail to   
recognise in these trusts the secret    
unity of  all his labours4 ,the record  
of human experience contained in the    
great  sacred literatures of the world1 
and verified afresh in manifold forms   
from age to age1 provided a basis for   
faith which no philosophy or science    
could disturb4    ,this is the key to   
the reasonings and appeals of this      
little book4 ,it was  translated as a   
labour of love by ,mr4 ,fechter1 ,mayor 
of ,north ,yakima1 in  the ,united      
,states4 ,the translation has been      
revised on this side of the  ,atlantic1 
and is now offered to the public in the 
belief that this final  testimony of a  
8voice that is still0 to the reality of 
8things unseen0  will be welcome to many
 inquiring and perhaps troubled minds4  
,j4 ,,estlin ,,carpenter4  ,,oxford1    

,april #b1 #aijc4            ,,chapter  
,i4                              ,the   
,true ,history ,of ,celsus      ,the    
following essays1 which were intended   
primarily for the ,horseherd1 but  which
 were published in the ,deutsche        
,rundschau1 demand a short  explanatory 
introduction4 ,this1 ,i believe1 can    
best be given by me1 by  means of a     
reprint of another essay which appeared 
in the same periodical1  and was the    
direct cause for the letter1 which the  
writer1 under the name  of 8,horseherd10
 addressed to me4 ,i receive many such  
anonymous  communications1 but regret   
that it is only rarely possible for me  
to  answer them or to give them         
attention1 much as ,i should like to do 
so4 ,in  this particular case1 the      
somewhat abrupt1 but pure1 human tone of
 the  letter appealed to me more than   
usual1 and at my leisure ,i attempted an
  answer4 ,my article1 which called     
forth the letter of the ,horseherd1 was 
entitled 8,the #8,true ,history' of     

,celsus107#e7 in the ,july number of the
  ,deutsche ,rundschau1 #ahie1 and1 with
 a few corrections1 is as follows3--    
,in an article which appeared in the    
,march number of the ,deutsche          
,rundschau1 #ahie1 entitled 8,the       
,parliament of ,religions in ,chicago10 
,i  expressed my surprise that this     
event which ,i had characterised as in  
my  opinion the most important of the   
year #ahic1 had been so little known and
  discussed in ,germany--so little1 that
 the editors of the ,wiener             
,fremdenblatt thought it needful to     
explain the nature of the ,chicago      
,congress4 ,likewise1 when in answer to 
the question as to what ,i should       
consider the most desirable discovery of
 the coming year in my department1  ,i  
answered the discovery of the ,sermo    
,verus of ,celsus2 this1 too1  appeared 
to be a work so little known1 that the  
editors considered it  necessary to add 
that ,celsus was a renowned philosopher 
of the second  century1 who first       

subjected the ever spreading system of  
,christianity to  a thorough criticism  
in a work entitled ,sermo ,verus4 ,the  
wish1 yes1 even  the hope1 that this    
lost book1 of which we gain a fair idea 
from the reply  of ,origen1 should again
 make its appearance1 was prompted by   
the recent  discoveries of ancient      
,greek papyrus manuscripts in ,egypt4   
,where so many  unexpected discoveries  
have been made1 we may hope for yet     
more4 ,for who  would have believed that
 ancient ,greek texts would be found in 
a  mummy-case1 the ,greek papyrus leaves
 being carelessly rolled together to    
serve as cushions for the head and limbs
 of a skeleton8 ,it was plain that      
these papyrus leaves had been sold as   
waste paper1 and that they were         
probably obtained from the houses of    
,greek officials and military  officers1
 who had established themselves in      
,egypt during the ,macedonian           
occupation1 and whose furniture and     
belongings had been publicly sold and   

scattered on occasion of their rapid    
withdrawal4 ,there were found not only  
fragments of classical texts1 as of     
,homer1 ,plato1 and the previously      
unknown treatise on 8,the ,government of
 the ,athenians10 not1 perhaps1         
composed1 but utilised1 by ,aristotle1  
but also many fragments of ,christian   
literature1 which made it probable that 
the libraries of ,christian  families   
also had been thrown on the market1 and 
that papyrus leaves1 when  they appeared
 useless for any other purpose1 were    
used as waste paper1 or  as a kind of   
papier-mach4    ,but why should the     
8,true ,history0 of ,celsus1 the  1 or  
,sermo  ,verus1 excite our curiosity8   
,the reason is quite plain4 ,we know    
practically nothing of the history of   
the teaching of ,christ in the first1   
second1 and even third centuries1 except
 what has been transmitted to us  by    
,christian writers4 ,it is an old rule1 
however1 that it is well to learn  from 
the enemy also1--8,fas est et ab hoste  

doccri40 ,celsus was a resolute  foe of 
the new ,christian teaching1 and we     
should1 at all events1 learn  from his  
treatise how the ,christian religion    
appeared in the eyes of a  cultivated   
man of the second century1 who1 it      
seems1 concurred in many  important     
points with the philosophical conception
 cherished in the  ,christian church1 or
 at least was familiar with it1 namely1 
the ,logos  idea2 but who could not     
comprehend how men1 who had once        
understood and  assimilated a view of   
the world founded on the ,logos1 could  
combine with  it the belief in ,christ  
as the incarnate ,logos4 ,to ,celsus the
 ,christian  religion is something      
objective2 in all other works of the    
first three  centuries it is1 and       
remains1 almost entirely subjective4    
,this could hardly be otherwise1 for a  
religion in its first inception         
scarcely exists for the outer world4    
,what at that time were ,jerusalem and  
,palestine in the eyes of the so-called 

world8 ,a province yielding little      
profit1 and often in rebellion4 ,the    
,jews and their religion had certainly  
attracted the attention of ,rome and    
,athens by their peculiarities2 but the 
,jewish sects interested the classical  
world much less than the sects of  the  
,platonic and ,stoic schools4           
,christians were regarded as ,jews1 just
 as1  not many years ago1 ,jains were   
treated by us as ,buddhists1 ,sikhs as  
,brahmans1 and ,buddhists1 ,jains1      
,sikhs1 and ,brahmans were promiscuously
  placed in one pile as ,indian         
idolaters4 ,how should the differences  
which  distinguished the ,christian from
 the ,jew1 and the ,jewish ,christian   
from  the heathen ,christian1 have been 
understood at that time in ,rome8 ,to   
us1  naturally1 the step which ,paul and
 his associates took appears an enormous
  one--one of world-wide import2 but of 
what interest could these things be     
outside of ,palestine8 ,that the ,jews  
who looked upon themselves as a         

peculiar people1 who would admit no     
strangers1 and tolerate no marriages    
between ,jew and ,gentile1 who1 in spite
 of all their disappointments and       
defeats1 energetically clung to their   
faith in a deliverer1 in an earthly     
,messiah1 and in the coming glory of    
their nation2 that they should  suddenly
 declare clean what they had always     
considered unclean2 that they  should   
transform their national spirit into a  
universal sympathy2 yes1  that they     
should recognise their ,messiah in a    
crucified malefactor1  indicate a       
complete revolution in their history2   
but the race itself was  and continued  
to be1 in the eyes of the world1 if not 
beneath notice1 at  least an object of  
contempt4 ,it should not1 therefore1    
surprise us that no  classical writer   
has given us a really historical account
 of the ,christian  religion1 or has    
even with one word referred to the      
wonderful events  which1 had they       
actually taken place as described in the

 ,gospels1 would  have stirred the      
uttermost corners of the earth4 ,celsus 
is the only writer  of the second       
century who1 being neither ,christian   
nor ,jew1 was not only  acquainted with 
representatives of ,christianity and    
,judaism1 but had also1  it would seem1 
carefully read portions of the ,old and 
,new ,testaments4 ,he  even boasts of   
having a better knowledge of these      
religions than many of  their adherents 
7,,ii1 #ab74 ,that such a man considered
 this new ,christian  sect of sufficient
 importance to subject it to a searching
 investigation1  is proof of his deep   
insight1 and at the same time of the    
increasing power  of ,christianity as a 
religion independent of ,judaism4 ,who  
this ,celsus  really was1 it is not easy
 to discover4 ,even his adversary1      
,origen1 seems  to know but little of   
him2 at any rate he tells us nothing of 
him1--indeed1  we are even still in     
doubt about his date4 ,it has been      
thought that he is  the ,celsus to whom 

,lucian 7#abj-bjj ,a4,d47 dedicated his 
work on the false  ,alexander4 ,this is 
possible2 but ,celsus is a very common  
name1 and ,origen  speaks of two men of 
this name who were both ,epicureans and 
are supposed  to have lived in the times
 of ,nero 7#ed-fh ,a4,d47 and ,hadrian  
7#aah-ach  ,a4,d474 ,it has been argued 
that the latter could not have been the 
author  of the ,sermo ,verus1 because it
 apparently mentions the sect of the    
,marcellians1 and this was not founded  
till the year #aee under ,bishop        
,anicetus4 ,but ,origen's remark1 that  
,celsus may have outlived the reign of  
,hadrian1 has been overlooked4 ,at any  
rate ,origen speaks of the ,sermo       
,verus as a work long known1 and as he  
did not die until the year #bec  ,a4,d41
 in his time the work of ,celsus would  
have been recognised as of  considerable
 age1 even if written after the year    
#aee4 ,much learning has  been expended 
on the identification of ,celsus1 which 
seems to me to have  been wasted4 ,it is

 remarkable that ,origen made no effort 
to become  personally acquainted with   
his adversary4 ,he leaves the question  
open  whether he is the same ,celsus who
 composed two other books against the   
,christians 7,contra ,celsum1 ,,iv1     
#cf74 ,at the end of his book he speaks 
of  him as if he had been a             
contemporary1 and asserts that a second 
book by  him against the ,christians1   
which has either not yet been completed 
or has  not yet reached him1 shall be as
 completely refuted as the ,sermo       
,verus4  ,such language is only used of 
a contemporary4 ,could it be proved that
  ,celsus was a friend of ,lucian1 then 
we should know that in the judgment of  
the latter he was a noble1 truth-loving1
 and cultivated man4 ,it was not        
,origen's interest to emphasise these   
aspects of his opponent's character2    
but it must be said to his credit1 that 
though he was much incensed at  some of 
the charges of ,celsus1 he never        
attacked his personal character4        

,perhaps it was not fair in ,origen to  
accuse ,celsus of being ashamed of his  
,epicureanism1 and of concealing his own
 philosophical and atheistic            
convictions1 in order to obtain an      
easier hearing among ,jews and          
,christians47#f7 ,this does not appear  
quite fair1 for it was a very           
pardonable device for ,celsus first to  
attack a part of ,christian teaching    
under the mask of a ,jew1 who represents
 his faith as the older and more        
respectable1 and seeks to convince the  
,christians that they would have  done  
better had they remained true to the    
religion of their fathers4 ,on  the     
contrary1 as ,celsus1 whatever he may   
have been except a ,jew1 could not  with
 a good conscience have undertaken an   
actual defence of ,judaism1 it  was     
quite natural that he should choose a   
,jew as an advocate of the ,jewish      
religion1 and put into his mouth1 like a
 second ,philo1 ideas which at all      
events sound more ,platonic than        

,epicurean4 ,origen was entirely        
justified  in showing that in this      
process ,celsus frequently forgot his   
part2 and  this he did with much skill4 
,but whatever ,celsus may have been1--an
 ,epicurean1 or1 as has occasionally    
been maintained1 a ,neo-platonist1--he  
was at all events no mean adversary  and
 certainly not unworthy of ,origen's    
steel4 ,if not1 why should ,origen  have
 felt the need of such an earnest       
refutation8 ,he says1 certainly1 that   
he did it only at the request of his old
 friend and protector1 ,ambrosius4  ,but
 that is what many writers under similar
 circumstances have said and  still say4
 ,we have1 at all events1 lost much     
through the loss 7or  destruction87 of  
all manuscripts of ,celsus4 ,not only   
was he acquainted  with the principal   
philosophical schools of antiquity1 he  
appears also to  have studied zealously 
the religions of the ancient world as   
they were  known at that time to the    
learned1 especially in ,alexandria1 of  

which we  have but scant knowledge4     
,origen expressly states 7,i1 #ad7 that 
,celsus  described the various peoples  
who possessed religious and             
philosophical  systems1 because he      
supposed that all these views bore a    
certain  relationship to one another4   
,without a doubt much has been here lost
 to  us1 not only for the history of    
,greek philosophy1 but also for the     
history  of ,oriental religions and     
philosophies1 whose representatives at  
that time  sojourned in ,alexandria1 yet
 as to whose personal influence we are  
almost  entirely in the dark4 ,celsus is
 presumed to have written of the        
doctrines  of the ,egyptians1 the       
,assyrians1 the ,jews1 ,persians1       
,odrysians1  ,samothracians1            
,eleusinians1 even of the ,samaneans1   
i4e4 the ,buddhists  7,i1 #bd71 and to  
have represented these as better        
accredited than those of  the ,jews4 ,we
 see anew what treasures were stored up 
in ,alexandria1 and we  feel all the    

more deeply their irrevocable loss4 ,the
 desire and the hope  of recovering the 
work of ,celsus were therefore quite    
natural for any who  wished to penetrate
 more deeply into the spiritual         
atmosphere of the  second and third     
centuries1 and especially for such as   
strove to  understand clearly how men of
 this age1 versed in philosophy1 such as
  ,clement and ,origen himself1 could   
confess ,christianity1 or become        
converted to it1 or could defend it     
against other philosophers without in   
the least becoming untrue to their      
philosophical convictions4 ,that the    
lower classes among ,jews and ,greeks   
followed the new teaching1 is much  more
 intelligible1 even without wishing to  
lay too much stress on the  evidential  
value of the miracles at that time4 ,the
 great majority were  accustomed to     
miracles2 what was almost entirely      
lacking was practical  religion4 ,the   
,greek thinkers had created systems of  
philosophy and morals1  but the         

traditional worship had degenerated into
 a mere spectacle4 ,even  among the     
,jews the old religion had become a     
rigid temple ritual1 which  offered but 
little comfort and hope to the weak     
heart of man4 ,in the eyes  of the      
majority of the philosophers of the age 
every religion was only  pernicious     
superstition1 good enough for the       
masses1 but scarcely worth              
consideration by the cultured4 ,that    
,celsus made the ,christian religion the
  object of serious treatment and       
refutation1 not only implies a subtle   
and  unprejudiced view of his age1 but  
shows us at the same time how the       
,christianity of that period1 entirely  
independent of the ,jewish religion1    
had gained in significance1 and had even
 in the eyes of a heathen  philosopher  
begun to be esteemed as something       
important1 as something  dangerous1 as  
something that had to be combated with  
philosophical  weapons4    ,christianity
 is especially indebted for its rapid   

spread to its practical  side1 to the   
energy of its love1 which was bestowed  
on all who were weary  and heavy laden4 
,christ and the apostles had understood 
how to gather  around them the poor1 the
 sinners1 the most despised members of  
human  society4 ,they were offered      
forgiveness of their sins1 love1 and    
sympathy1  if they merely promised to   
amend and sin no more4 ,among these     
earliest  followers of ,christ there was
 scarcely a change of religion in our   
sense  of the word4 ,christianity was at
 first much more a new life than a new  
religion4 ,the first disciples were and 
remained ,jews in the eyes of the       
world1 and that they came from the most 
despised classes even ,origen does  not 
dispute4 ,celsus had reproached the     
,christians because the apostles1       
around whose heads even in his time a   
halo had begun to shine1 had been  men  
of bad character1 criminals1 fishermen1 
and tax-gatherers4 ,origen  admits that 
,matthew was a tax-gatherer1 ,james and 

,john fishermen1 probably  ,peter and   
,andrew as well2 but declares that it   
was not known how the other  apostles   
gained a livelihood4 ,even that they had
 been malefactors and  criminals1       
,origen does not absolutely deny4 ,he   
refers to the letter of  ,barnabas1 in  
which it is stated 8that ,jesus chose   
men as his apostles who  were guilty of 
sin more than all other evil doers407#g7
 ,he relies upon the  words of ,peter1  
when he says1 8,depart from me2 for ,i  
am a sinful man1 ,o  ,lord407#h7        
,paul1 in like manner1 says in his      
epistle to ,timothy17#i7 8,this is a    
faithful saying1 and worthy of all      
acceptation1 that ,christ ,jesus came   
into the world to save sinners1 of whom 
,i am chief40    ,but it is just in this
 that ,origen recognises the divine     
power of the  personality and the       
teaching of ,christ1 that by means of it
 men who had  been deeply sunken in sins
 could be raised to a new life2 and he  
declares  it to be unjust that those who

 repented of their early sins1 and had  
entered into a pure life1 well pleasing 
to ,god1 should be reproached with      
their previous sinfulness4 ,in this     
respect he makes1 indeed1 no            
distinction between the apostles and    
such men as ,phdon and ,polemo1 who     
were rescued from the mire of their sins
 through philosophy2 and he  recognises 
in the teaching of ,christ a still      
greater force1 because it had  proved   
its saving and sanctifying power without
 any of the arts of  learning and       
eloquence4 ,what the apostles were1 and 
what they became  through the influence 
of the ,gospel1 ,origen himself explains
 in the words  of ,paul1 8,for we also  
were aforetime foolish1 disobedient1    
deceived1  serving divers lusts and     
pleasures1 living in malice and envy1   
and hating  one another407#aj7    ,he   
attributes it as an honour to the       
apostles that1 even if their            
self-accusations were extravagant1 they 
had so openly acknowledged their  sins1 

in order to place the saving influence  
of the ,gospel in a clearer  light4 ,but
 the fact itself1 that the apostles had 
been sinful and despised  men1 ,origen  
honestly admits4 ,we also know with what
 true humanity ,christ  himself treated 
the adulteress3 how he challenged the   
,pharisees1 if they  themselves were    
free from sin1 to cast the first stone  
at her4 ,and who  does not admire the   
aged ,pharisees who silently withdrew1  
one after the  other1 from the oldest to
 the youngest1 without casting a stone8 
,have we  many such ,pharisees in our   
time8 ,jesus1 however1 dismissed the    
adulteress  with the compassionate      
words1 8,sin no more40 ,that such a     
course toward  sin-laden mankind by one 
who knew no sin1 made a deep impression 
on the  masses1 is perfectly            
intelligible4 ,we see a remarkable      
parallel in the  first appearance of    
,buddha and his disciples in ,india4    
,he1 too1 was  reproached for inviting  
sinners and outcasts to him1 and        

extending to them  sympathy and aid4    
,he1 too1 was called a physician1 a     
healer of the sick2  and we know what   
countless numbers of ailing mankind     
found health through  him4 ,all this can
 be quite understood from a human       
standpoint4 ,a religion  is1 in its     
nature1 not a philosophy2 and no one    
could find fault with  ,christianity if 
it had devoted itself only to the       
healing of all human  infirmities1 and  
had set aside all metaphysical          
questions4 ,we know how  ,buddha also   
personally declined all philosophical   
discussion4 ,when one of  his disciples 
put questions to him about metaphysical 
problems1 the  solution of which went   
beyond the limits of human reason1 he   
contended  that he wished to be nothing 
more than a physician1 to heal the      
infirmities of mankind4 ,accordingly1 he
 says to ,mlunkyaputta3 8,what have  ,i 
said to you before8 ,did ,i say1 #8,come
 to me and be my disciple1 that ,i  may 
teach you whether the world is eternal  

or not2 whether the world is  finite or 
infinite2 whether the life-principle is 
identical with the body  or not1 whether
 the perfect man lives after death or   
not8' 0    ,mlunkyaputta answered1      
8,master1 you did not say that40        
,then ,buddha continued1 8,did you then 
say1 #8,i will be your disciple1' but   
first answer these questions80    8,no10
 said the disciple4    ,thereupon       
,buddha said3 8,a man was once wounded  
by a poisoned arrow1 and  his friends   
called in an experienced physician4     
,what if the wounded man  had said1 ,i  
shall not permit my wound to be examined
 until ,i know who  wounded me1 whether 
he be a nobleman1 a ,brahman1 a ,vaisya1
 or a ,sdra2  what his name is2 to what 
family he belongs2 if he be large or    
small1 or  of medium size1 and how the  
weapon with which he wounded me looked4 
,how  would it fare with such a man8    
,would he not certainly succumb to his  
wound80    ,the disciple then perceives 
that he came to ,buddha as a sick man1  

desiring  to be healed by him as a      
physician1 not to be instructed about   
matters  that lie far beyond the human  
horizon4    ,buddha has often been      
censured because he claimed for his     
religion such an  exclusively practical 
character1 and instead of philosophy    
preached only  morality4 ,these censures
 began in early times2 we find them in  
the famous  dialogues between ,nagasena 
and ,milinda1 the king ,menander1 about 
#ajj ,b4,c4  ,and yet we know how1 in   
spite of all warnings given by the      
founder of  ,buddhism1 this religion was
 soon entirely overgrown with           
metaphysics2 and  how1 finally1         
metaphysics as ,abbidharma found an     
acknowledged place in the  ,sacred      
,canon of the ,buddhists4               
,christianity presents a parallel case4 
,in the beginning it sought only to     
call sinners to repentance4 ,the strong1
 as ,jesus himself said1 do not  require
 a physician1 but the sick4 ,he         
therefore looked upon himself as a      

physician1 just as ,buddha had done in  
an earlier day4 ,he declared that he    
was not come to destroy the law1 but to 
fulfil it4 ,the truth of his  teaching  
should be known by its fruits1 and there
 is scarcely a trace in  the ,gospels of
 philosophical discussions1 or even of  
attacks on the  schools of ,greek       
philosophy4 ,but even here it was soon  
apparent that1 for  a practical         
reformation of conduct1 a higher        
consecration is essential4 ,it  was     
admitted1 as an ,indian philosopher is  
reputed long since to have said  to     
,socrates1 that no one could understand 
the human element who had not  first    
understood the divine4 ,men of ,greek   
culture who felt themselves  attracted  
by the moral principles of the little   
,christian congregations  soon1 however1
 wanted more4 ,they had to defend the   
step which they had  taken1 and the     
,christianity which they wished to      
profess1 or had  professed1 against     
their former friends and co-believers1  

and this soon  produced the so-called   
apologies for ,christianity1 and        
expositions of the  philosophical and   
theological views which constituted the 
foundation of  the new teaching4 ,a     
religion which was recruited only from  
poor sinners  and tax-gatherers could   
scarcely have found entry into the      
higher circles  of society1 or          
maintained itself in lecture-rooms and  
palaces against the  cultivated members 
of refined circles1 if its defenders1   
like ,buddha1 had  simply ignored all   
philosophical1 especially all           
metaphysical1 questions4    ,how came   
it1 then1 that cultured men in high     
stations1 entirely  independent1        
professed ,christianity8 ,how did they  
make their friends and  former          
co-believers understand that such a step
 was bona fide8 ,in  answering this     
question1 we get help from ,celsus1 as  
well as his opponent1  ,origen4    ,the 
bridge which led across from ,greek     
philosophy to ,christianity was the     

,logos4 ,it is remarkable how much this 
fundamental doctrine of ,christianity   
fell1 later on1 into the background2 how
 little it is understood1 even by  the  
educated of our own time1 and how often1
 without giving it any  consideration1  
they have cast it aside4 ,in early      
,christian days this was  probably a    
consequence of the practical and        
political development of the  new       
religion4 ,but the living nerve of the  
,christian religion1 which was  its     
closest bond to the highest spiritual   
acquisitions of the ancient  ,greek     
world1 was thus severed4 ,first1 the    
,logos1 the ,word1 the ,son of ,god1    
was misunderstood1 and mythology was    
employed to make the dogma1 thus        
misconceived1 intelligible4 ,in modern  
times1 through continued neglect of  the
 ,logos doctrine1 the strongest support 
of ,christianity has been cut  from     
under its feet1 and at the same time its
 historical justification1  its living  
connection with ,greek antiquity1 has   

almost entirely passed out  of view4 ,in
 ,germany it almost appears as though   
,goethe1 by his ,faust1 is  answerable  
for the widespread treatment of the     
,logos idea as something  obscure1      
incomprehensible1 mystical4 ,many1 when 
reading the opening of the  ,fourth     
,gospel1 8,in the beginning was the     
,word10 say to themselves1 8,no one     
understands that10 and read on4 ,he who 
does not earnestly and honestly  make an
 effort to understand this beginning of 
the ,gospel1 shows that he  is but      
little concerned with the innermost     
essence of ,christianity1 as  clearly   
presented to us in the ,fourth ,gospel4 
,he forgets that not only  faith1 but   
thought1 pertains to a religion4 ,it is 
no excuse to say1 8,did  not the learned
 ,dr4 ,faust torment himself to discover
 what #8the word' here  meant1 and did  
not find it out80 ,he says in ,goethe3--
    8',tis writ3 #8,in the beginning was
 the ,word'6  ,i pause perplexed6 ,who  
now will help afford8  ,i cannot the    

mere ,word so highly prize1  ,i must    
translate it otherwise40    ,but this is
 just what he ought not do4 ,it was not 
necessary to translate  it at all2 he   
only needed to accept the ,logos as a   
technical expression of  ,greek         
philosophy4 ,he would then have seen    
that it is impossible to prize  the     
,word too highly1 if we first learn what
 the ,word meant in the idiom of        
contemporary philosophy4 ,not even to a 
,faust should ,goethe have imputed  such
 ignorance as when he continues to      
speculate without any historical        
knowledge3--    8,if by the spirit      
guided as ,i read1    8,in the beginning
 was the ,sense10 ,take heed4  ,the     
import of this primal sentence weigh1   
,lest thy too hasty pen be led astray4  
,is force creative then of sense the    
dower8    8,in the beginning was the    
,power40  ,thus should it stand2 yet1   
while the line ,i trace1  ,a something  
warns me once more to efface4  ,the     
spirit aids1 from anxious scruples      

freed1  ,i write3 #8,in the beginning   
was the ,deed4' 07#aa7    ,had ,goethe  
wished to scourge the unhistorical      
exegesis of modern  theologians1 he     
could not have done so better than by   
this attempt of an  interpreter of the  
,bible1 fancying himself illumined by   
the spirit1 but  utterly destitute of   
all knowledge of history4 ,knowledge of 
the history of  the ,greek philosophy of
 the first and second centuries after   
,christ is  indispensable to the        
understanding of such a word as         
,logos--a word that  grew up on ,greek  
soil1 and whose first roots reach far   
into the distant  past of the ,greek    
mind2 and for that very reason not      
admitting of  translation1 either into  
,hebrew or into ,german4 ,like many     
other termini  technici1 it must be     
understood historically2 just as logic1 
metaphysic1  analytic1 organon1 etc41   
can only be apprehended and understood  
historically4 ,now it is1 perhaps1 not  
to be denied1 that even now a  majority 

of educated readers either perfunctorily
 repeat the first  sentence of the      
,fourth ,gospel1 8,in the beginning was 
the ,word10 or believe  that something  
lies buried therein that is beyond the  
depth of ordinary  men4 ,this1 of       
course1 is partially true1 and it cannot
 be otherwise in  religions which are   
intended not only for the young1 but for
 the wise and  learned1 and which should
 be strong meat for adults1 and not     
merely milk  for babes4 ,the fault lies 
chiefly in the translation1 in that it  
should  have been thought necessary to  
translate a word instead of permitting  
it  to remain1 what it was1 a foreign   
word4    ,this becomes still worse when1
 as for instance1 in certain ,oriental  
languages1 the newly converted          
,christian has to read1 8,in the        
beginning  was the ,noun or the ,verb40 
,the correct translation would1 of      
course1 be1  8,in the beginning was the 
,logos40 ,for ,logos is not here the    
usual word  ,logos1 but a terminus      

technicus1 that can no more be          
translated out of  the lexicon than one 
would think of etymologically           
translating ,messiah or  ,christ as the 
8,anointed10 or ,angelos as 8messenger0 
or 8nuncio40 ,if we  read at the        
beginning of the ,gospel1 8,in the      
beginning was the ,logos10 at  least    
every one would know that he has to deal
 with a foreign1 a ,greek  word1 and    
that he must gain an understanding of it
 out of ,greek  philosophy1 just as with
 such words as atom1 idea1 cosmos1 etc4 
,it  is remarkable what human reason    
will consent to4 ,millions of           
,christians  hear and read1 8,in the    
beginning was the ,word10 and either    
give it no  thought1 or imagine the most
 inconceivable things1 and then read on1
 after  they have simply thrown away the
 key to the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,that      
thought  and reflection also are a      
divine service is only too readily      
forgotten4  ,repeated reading and       
reflection are necessary to make the    

first verse of  the ,fourth ,gospel     
accessible and intelligible in a general
 way2 but one  cannot be a true         
,christian without thinking and         
reflecting4    ,an explanation of ,logos
 in ,greek philosophy is much simpler   
than is  commonly supposed4 ,it is only 
needful not to forget that for the      
,greeks  thought and word were          
inseparable1 and that the same term1    
namely1 ,logos1  expressed both1 though 
they distinguished the inner from the   
outer ,logos4  ,it is one of the most   
remarkable aberrations of the human     
mind1 to imagine  that there could be a 
word without thought or a thought       
without word4 ,the  two are inseparable3
 one cannot exist or be even conceived  
without the  other4 ,i believe that ,i  
have clearly shown in my ,science of    
,thought that  thought without word and 
word without thought are impossible and 
inconceivable1 and why it is so4 ,here  
is the first key to a historical        
solution of the riddle at the beginning 

of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,we know that   
,greek philosophy after making every    
possible effort to explain the world    
mechanically1 had already in the school 
of ,anaxagoras reached the view  that   
the hylozoic as well as the atomic      
theory leaves the human mind            
unsatisfied2 and that it is necessary to
 posit as the origin of all things  a   
thought or thinking mind that manifests 
itself in the universe4 ,this was  the  
nous1 the mind1 of ,anaxagoras4 ,he     
could just as well have called it       
,logos1 for the word was in use even    
before the time of ,anaxagoras1 to      
express that reason1 the recognition of 
whose all-pervading presence in  the    
universe was the great step in advance  
made by the system of  ,anaxagoras4     
,even ,heraclitus had divined the       
existence of reason in the  universe1   
and had applied to it the name ,logos4  
,while the masses  recognised in ,moira 
or ,heimarmen only destiny1 or fate1    
,heraclitus  declared1 that the essence 

of this ,heimarmen is the ,logos1 the   
,reason  that pervades the world4 ,this 
is the oldest expression of ,hegel's    
thought1  8,what is1 is rational40 ,we  
must not suppose1 however1 that         
,heraclitus  considered this ,logos as  
identical with his fire4 ,he merely says
 that the  fire is subordinate to the   
,logos1 that it operates   1  according 
to the ,logos1 or 7as we should say7    
rationally4    ,our knowledge of the    
entire system of ,heraclitus is of      
course so  fragmentary that we can only 
speak of this1 as of many other points1 
with  great caution4 ,the same is true1 
although in a lesser degree1 of the     
system of ,anaxagoras4 ,his nous1 if we 
translate it by mind1 is more           
comprehensive than ,logos4 ,we must not1
 however1 suppose1 that this  nous bore 
a personal character1 for ,anaxagoras   
expressly states that it  is a 1 a      
thing1 even though he would have said   
that this nous  regulated all things4   
,whether an impersonal mind is          

conceivable1 was still  at that time a  
remote problem4 ,even in ,plato we      
cannot clearly determine  whether he    
represented his nous as ,god in our     
sense1 or as ,sophia1  wisdom1 a word   
which with him often replaces nous4 ,it 
is remarkable that  in his genuine works
 ,plato does not generally use the word 
,logos1 and in  ,aristotle as well nous 
remains the first term1 what we should  
call the  divine mind1 while ,logos is  
the reason1 the causal nexus1 the  1    
therefore decidedly something           
impersonal1 if not unsubjective4        
,plato is the first who distinguishes   
between essence and being in the        
primeval cause1 or1 as we might say1    
between rest and activity4 ,he speaks   
of an eternal plan of the world1 a      
thought of the world1 the world as a    
product of thought1 inseparable from the
 creator1 but still  distinguishable    
from him4 ,this is the ,platonic world  
of 8,ideas10 which  lies at the         
foundation of the world perceivable by  

the senses1 the  phenomenal world4 ,what
 is more natural or more reasonable than
 this  thought8 ,if the world has an    
author1 what can we imagine as          
reasonable  men1 but that the thought1  
the plan of the world1 belongs to the   
author1  that it was thought1 and       
thereby realised for the first time8    
,now this  plan1 this idea1 was the     
inner ,logos1 and as every thought finds
 its  immediate expression in a word1 so
 did this one1 which was then called the
  outer ,logos4 ,the outer was not      
possible without the inner1 even as a   
word  is impossible without mind and    
reason4 ,but the inner ,logos also first
  realises itself in the outer1 just as 
the reasonable thought can only be  made
 real in the word4 ,this character of   
the ,logos as thought and word1 at  once
 capable of distinction and yet         
undifferentiated and inseparable1 is  of
 the highest importance for ,christian  
speculation2 without an exact           
comprehension of it1 we shall see that  

the relation of the ,son to the  ,father
 as we find it explained by ,clement and
 other fathers of the church1  remains  
dark and misty4 ,we have no concept     
without a word1 and philology  has shown
 us how every word1 even the most       
concrete1 is based on a  concept4 ,we   
cannot think of 8tree0 without the word 
or a hieroglyphic of  some kind4 ,we can
 even say that1 as far as we are        
concerned1 there is no  tree1 except in 
language1 for in the nature of things   
there are only oaks  or beeches1 but not
 and never a tree4 ,and what is true of 
tree is true of  all words1 or to speak 
with ,plato1 of all ideas1 or to speak  
with the  ,stoics1 of all ,logoi4 ,there
 are no doubt conjurers who pretend to  
be  able to think without words1 and    
even take no little pride in being able 
to perform this trick4 ,they forget only
 too often that their inexpressible     
thoughts are nothing but obscure        
feelings1 in fact1 they do not even     
distinguish between presentation and    

idea1 and forget that when we speak  of 
words1 we do not understand by them mere
 mimicry of sound or  interjections1 but
 only and exclusively intelligible      
words1 that is1 such  as are based on   
concepts and are derived from roots4    
,the old ,greek  philosophers1 probably 
favoured by their language1 appear never
 to have  forgotten the true relation   
between ,logos and ,logos1 and their    
thought  finally resulted in a view of  
the world founded upon it4 ,although it 
is  now the custom to speak slightingly 
of the later ,platonists1 we should     
always recognise that we owe to them the
 preservation of this1 the most         
precious jewel out of the rich          
storehouse of ,greek philosophy1 that   
the  world is the expression and        
realisation of divine thought1 that it  
is the  divine word expressed4    ,we   
cannot here enter into the various      
phases in which ,plato and his          
followers presented these ideas4 ,at    
times they are represented as           

independent of the ,creator1 as models1 
as golden statues1 to which the         
creative mind looks up4 ,soon1 however1 
they are conceived as thoughts of  this 
mind1 as something secondary1 created1  
sometimes also as something             
independent1 as much so as is the ,son  
in relation to his ,father4 ,the whole  
,logos1 with all ideas1 became in this  
manner the first-born ,son of the       
,creator1 yet so that the ,father could 
not be ,father without the ,son1 or  the
 ,son without the ,father1 ,son4 ,all   
these distinctions1 insignificant as    
they may appear from a purely           
philosophical point of view1 demand     
attention because of the influence that 
they afterward exerted on  ,christian   
dogma1 especially on that of the        
,trinity--a dogma which1 however        
specifically ,christian it may appear to
 be1 must still in all its  essential   
features be traced back to ,greek       
elements4    ,it is certainly remarkable
 that ,jewish philosophy also developed 

on very  similar lines1 of course not   
with the purity and exactness of the    
,greek  mind1 but still with the same   
object in view1--to bring the reason and
  wisdom recognised in nature into      
renewed connexion with their            
supernatural  ,jehovah4 ,through the    
,proverbs of ,solomon and similar works 
the ,jews were  well acquainted with    
,wisdom1 who says of herself 7viii4 #bb 
ff473 8,the ,lord  possessed me in the  
beginning of his way1 before his works  
of old4 ,i was  set up from everlasting1
 from the beginning1 or ever the earth  
was4'''  ,before the mountains were     
settled1 before the hills was ,i brought
 forth4'''  ,when he prepared the       
heavens1 ,i was there3 when he set a    
compass upon the  face of the depth4''' 
,then ,i was by him1 as a master        
workman3 and ,i was  daily his delight1 
rejoicing always before him40 ,these and
 similar  thoughts were familiar to     
,jewish thinkers 7see ,proverbs viii4   
and ix41 ,job  xxviii4 #ab1             

,ecclesiasticus i4 #d71 and it was      
natural that1 in coming in  contact with
 ,greek philosophy1 especially in       
,alexandria1 they should seek  to       
recognise again this traditional        
conception of divine ,wisdom in the     
,logos of ,greek philosophers4 ,we see  
this most clearly in ,philo1 a          
contemporary of ,christ1 of whom it is  
often difficult to say whether he       
reasons more as a ,greek or as a ,jew4  
,while the ,greeks had almost lost      
sight of the bridge between the world   
and ,god by abstraction1 the ,jews1     
through mistaken reverence1 had so far  
removed the ,creator above his  creation
 that on both sides the need of         
mediation or a mediator was deeply      
felt4 ,the ,jewish ,god was little      
better than the ,epicurean4 ,if the     
,epicureans taught that there probably  
is a ,god1 but that the world is of  no 
concern to ,him1 so among the ,jews of  
the first century gnostic ideas         
prevailed1 according to which not the   

highest but a subordinate ,god  created 
and ruled the world4 ,the task of       
creation seemed unworthy of the  supreme
 ,god4 ,philo therefore seized the      
,stoic idea of the ,logos or ,logoi  in 
order to bring his transcendental ,god  
again into relation with the  visible   
world4 ,the most important attributes   
and powers of ,god were  hypostatised as
 beings who participated in the creation
 and government of  the world4 ,philo's 
,god first of all creates or possesses  
within himself a  world that is         
conceived1 an invisible world17#ab7     
which is also called the  world of      
ideas7#ac7 or the idea of ideas47#ad7   
,these ideas are the types7#ae7  of all 
things1 and the power by which ,god     
created them is often called  ,sophia or
 ,epistm1 wisdom or knowledge47#af7     
,this world of ideas in  its entirety   
corresponds1 as is readily seen1 to the 
,greek ,logos1 the  separate types to   
the ,platonic ideas or the ,stoic       
,logoi4    ,the entire ,logos1 or the   

sum of ,ideas1 is called by ,philo1     
entirely  independent of ,christianity1 
the true ,son of ,god1 while the        
realised world  of ,christian teaching  
passes as the second ,son4 ,if the first
 ,logos is  occasionally called the     
image or shadow of ,god1 the world of   
sense is the  image of the image1 the   
shadow of the shadow4 ,more logically   
expressed1  ,god would be the causa     
efficiens1 matter the causa materialis1 
the  ,logos the causa instrumentalis1   
while the goodness of ,god is sometimes 
added as the causa finalis4 ,at the same
 time we also see here the  difference  
between the working of the ,jewish and  
,greek minds4 ,in the ,old  ,testament  
and in ,philo1 the ,sophia or wisdom of 
,god becomes a half  mythological being1
 a goddess who is called the mother1 and
 even the  nurse17#ag7 of all beings4   
,she bore with much labour out of the   
seed of  ,god17#ah7 as ,philo says1 the 
only and beloved visible ,son1 that is  
to say1  this ,cosmos4 ,this ,cosmos is 

called by him the ,son of ,god17#ai7 the
 only  begotten17#bj7 while the first   
,logos is the first-born17#ba7 and as   
such  often coincides with the ,sophia  
and its activity47#bb7 ,he is also      
called  the elder son17#bc7 and as such 
is distinguished from a younger         
son17#bd7  from the real1 visible world4
 ,but this divine ,sophia may not1      
according to  ,philo1 any more than ,god
 ,himself1 come into direct contact with
 impure  matter4 ,according to him this 
contact occurs through the              
instrumentality  of certain powers17#be7
 which in part correspond to the ,greek 
,logoi1 and  which in his poetic        
language are also represented as        
angels47#bf7 ,philo  says in plain terms
 that the eternal ,logoi1 that is the   
,platonic ideas1  are commonly called   
angels4    ,we see by this in how misty 
an atmosphere ,philo lived and wrote1   
and we  may be certain that he was not  
the only one who in this manner blended 
the  ,jewish religion with ,greek       

philosophy4 ,in the ,samaritan theology 
also1 in  ,onkelos and ,jonathan1 traces
 of the ,logos idea are to be           
found47#bg7 ,if we  now observe in the  
,fourth ,gospel1 somewhere in the first 
half of the  second century1 this same  
amalgamation of ,christian doctrine with
 ,platonic  philosophy1 only in a much  
clearer manner1 we can scarcely doubt   
from what  source the ideas of the      
,logos as the only begotten ,son of     
,god1 and of the  divine wisdom1        
originally flowed4 ,christian           
theologians are more inclined  to find  
the first germs of these ,christian     
dogmas in the ,old ,testament1  and it  
is not to be denied that in the minds of
 the authors of some of the  books of   
the ,old ,testament analogous ideas     
struggle for expression4 ,but  they are 
always tinctured with mythology1 and    
among the prophets and  philosophers of 
the ,old ,testament there is absolutely 
no trace of a truly  philosophical      
conception of the ,logos1 such as       

confronts us as a result of  centuries  
of thought among the ,platonists and    
,neo-,platonists1 the ,stoics  and      
,neo-,stoics4 ,we look in vain in       
,palestine for a word like ,logos1 for a
  conception of the ,cosmos as the      
expression of a rationally thinking     
mind1  especially for the ,logoi as the 
species of the ,logos1 as the primeval  
thoughts and types of the universe4 ,it 
is difficult to understand why          
theologians should have so strenuously  
endeavoured to seek the germs of  the   
,logos doctrine among the ,jews rather  
than the ,greeks1 as if it was of  any  
moment on which soil the truth had      
grown1 and as if for purely  speculative
 truths1 the ,greek soil had not been   
ploughed far deeper and  cultivated more
 thoroughly than the ,jewish4 ,that     
,philo found employment  for ,platonic  
ideas1 and especially for the ,stoic    
,logos1 nay1 even for the  ,logoi1 in   
his own house1 and that other           
philosophers went so far as to  declare 

the fundamental truths of ,greek        
philosophy to have been borrowed  from  
the ,old ,testament1 is well known2 but 
modern researches have rendered  such   
ideas impossible4 ,the correspondences  
to the ,greek ,logos that are  found in 
the ,old ,testament are of great        
interest1 in so far as they make  the   
later amalgamation of ,semitic and      
,aryan ideas historically more          
intelligible1 and also in so far        
as--like the correspondences to be found
  among the ,east ,indians and even the 
red ,indians7#bh7--they confirm the     
truth  or at least the innate human     
character of a ,logos doctrine4 ,but    
wherever  we encounter the word ,logos  
outside of ,greece1 it is1 and remains1 
a  foreign word1 a ,hellenic thought4   
,jewish philosophers1 while they adopted
 the word1 only filled their old  skins 
with new wine1 with the natural         
consequence that the wine burst the  old
 skins2 but without spilling4 ,for it   
was this which1 in the hands of  such   

men as the writer of the ,fourth        
,gospel1 as ,hippolytus1 ,clement1      
,origen1 and the best of the church     
fathers1 gave them the strength and     
enthusiasm to triumph over the world1   
and especially over the strongholds  of 
heathen religion1 and even over ,greek  
philosophy4 ,had the ,fourth            
,evangelist wished to say that ,christ  
was the divine ,sophia or the           
,shekinah1 or1 as in ,job1 ,wisdom as   
the fear of ,god1 would he have said1   
8,in the beginning was the ,logos1 and  
the ,logos became flesh1 and lived      
among us1 and we saw his glory1 a glory 
as of the only begotten ,son of the     
,father1 full of grace and truth80 ,why 
not take the facts just as they are1    
and why wish to improve that which      
requires no human improvement8 ,the     
,christian doctrine is and remains what 
it is2 it rests on an  indestructible   
arch1 supported on one side by the ,old 
,testament and on the  other by ,greek  
philosophy1 each as indispensable as the

 other4 ,we forget  only too readily how
 much ,christianity1 in its victory over
 ,greek  philosophy1 owes to this very  
philosophy4 ,christianity could no doubt
 have  achieved the moral and social    
regeneration of the people without these
  weapons of the ,greek mind2 but a     
religion1 especially in the age of the  
downfall of ,greek and ,roman           
philosophy1 must have been armed for    
battle  with the best1 the most         
cultured1 and the most learned classes  
of society1  and such a battle demanded 
a knowledge of the weapons which had    
been  forged in the schools of ,greek   
philosophy4 ,we cannot therefore put too
  high a value on the ,fourth ,gospel   
for a knowledge of the intellectual     
movement of that day4 ,it is true that a
 religion need not be a philosophy1  but
 it must not owe philosophy any answer4 
,small as may be the emphasis  that we  
now lay on the ,logos doctrine1 in that 
period it was the centre1  the vital    
germ of the whole ,christian teaching4  

,if we read any of the  writings of     
,athanasius1 or of any of the older     
church fathers1 we shall be  surprised  
to see how all of them begin with the   
,word 7,logos7 as a fixed  point of     
departure1 and then proceed to prove    
that the ,word is the ,son of  ,god1 and
 finally that the ,son of ,god is ,jesus
 of ,nazareth4 ,religious and           
philosophical are here closely related4 
,if the ,christian philosophers gain  on
 the one hand the divinity of the ,son  
of ,god1 on the other hand they  retain 
the rationality of the created universe4
 ,that 8the ,,all is ,logos1 is  ,word  
or ,reason10 was at that time as much   
the battle cry of the prevailing        
philosophy as the contrary has now      
become the battle cry of the            
,darwinians1 who seek to explain        
species1 kinds1 i4e4 the ,logoi1 the    
divine ideas1 as the products not of the
 originating ,mind1 but of natural      
selection1 of environment or            
circumstance1 of the survival of the    

fittest4  ,and what is the fittest1 if  
not the rational1 the ,platonic 8,good10
 that  is1 the ,logos8 ,why1 then1 turn 
back to the stone age of human thinking1
  why again turn nature into wood1 when 
for thousands of years ,greek           
philosophers and ,christian thinkers    
have recognised her as something        
spiritual1 as a world of eternal ideas8 
,how would such men as ,herder1         
,schelling1 and ,hegel have smiled at   
such a view of the world6 ,yes1 ,darwin 
himself would be ashamed of his         
followers1 for he saw1 though not always
  clearly1 that everything in this      
sphere presupposes something beyond1 and
  in the loftiest utterance of his book 
he demanded an origin1 yes1 an          
originator4 ,in the writings of the     
philosophical church fathers we         
constantly hear more of the ,logos which
 was in the beginning1 and through      
which all things were made1 than of     
,god1 who in the beginning created      
heaven and earth4    ,and in this lies  

the great interest of the lost treatise 
of ,celsus4 ,had he  been an ,epicurean1
 as ,origen supposed1 he would have had 
no personal  interest in the ,logos4    
,but this ,logos had become at that time
 to such an  extent the common property 
of ,greek philosophy1 that the ,jew1    
under whose  mask ,celsus at the outset 
attacked the ,christians1 could quite   
naturally  express his willingness to   
acknowledge the ,logos as the ,son of   
,god4  ,origen1 it is true1 says that   
the ,jew has here forgotten his part1   
for he  had himself known many ,jewish  
scholars1 no one of whom would have     
acknowledged such an idea4 ,this shows  
that ,origen did not know the works  of 
,philo1 who would certainly have offered
 no objection to such a  doctrine1 for  
he himself calls the ,logos the         
first-born ,son 7  77#bi7 ,when         
therefore ,celsus1 the heathen          
philosopher1 admits  through the mouth  
of the ,jew that the ,logos is the ,son 
of ,god1 he is  merely on his guard     

against the identification of any       
individual with the  ,son of ,god and   
indirectly with the ,logos1 that is to  
say1 he does not wish  to be a          
,christian4 ,at all events we see how   
general was the view at that  time1 that
 the whole creation was the realisation 
of the ,logos1 nay1 of  the ,son of     
,god2 that ,god uttered ,himself1       
revealed ,himself1 in the world2  that  
each natural species is a ,word1 a      
,thought of ,god1 and that finally  the 
idea of the entire world is born of     
,god1 and is thereby the ,son of  ,god4 
,this idea of a ,son of ,god1 although  
in its philosophical sense decidedly    
,greek1 had1 it is true1 certain        
preparatory parallels among the ,jews1  
on  which ,christian theologians have   
laid only too great stress4 ,in the     
fifth  book of ,moses we read1 8,you are
 children of the ,lord your ,god40 ,in  
the  book of ,enoch1 chap4 cv41 the     
,messiah is also called the ,son of     
,god1 and  when the tempter says to     

,christ1 ,matthew iv4 #a1 8,if thou be  
the ,son of  ,god10 it means the same as
 8,if thou be the ,messiah40    ,the    
question is3 ,is this ,jewish conception
 of the ,son of ,god as ,messiah  the   
,christian as well8 ,such it has been1  
at least in one book of the  ,christian 
church1 in the ,fourth ,gospel1 and it  
found its expression first  in the      
representation that ,joseph was         
descended from ,david2 secondly1 in  the
 belief that ,jesus had no earthly      
father4 ,we see here at once the first  
clear contradiction between ,christian  
philosophy and ,christian mythology4    
,if ,joseph were not the father of      
,jesus1 how could ,joseph's descent from
  ,david prove the royal ancestry of    
,jesus8 ,and how does it follow from his
  being the ,son of ,god that he had no 
earthly father8 ,although he was the    
,son of ,god1 he was called the son of  
the carpenter1 and his brothers and     
sisters were well known4 ,the divine    
birth demands the human2 without it1  it

 is entirely unintelligible4 ,we know   
from the recently discovered  ancient   
,syrian translation of the ,gospels that
 the two streams of  thought--that      
,christ was the ,son of ,god1 and that  
at the same time he had  an earthly     
father1--could flow side by side1 quite 
undisturbed1 without the  one rendering 
the other turbid4    ,it was the        
misunderstanding of the spiritual birth 
of ,christ from his  divine ,father1 and
 even from his divine mother 7the       
,ruach1 feminine1 the  holy spirit71    
that appeared to make it necessary to   
deny him an earthly  father1 and to     
assert that even his human mother did   
not conceive and give  birth to him in  
the ordinary way4 ,in the earliest      
period of the ,christian  church this   
was otherwise4 ,it was considered at    
that time that in ,christ  the divine   
sonship went hand in hand with the      
human1 and further that the  one without
 the other would lose its true meaning4 
,in a ,syrian palimpsest1  which was    

recently discovered in the convent at   
,mount ,sinai by ,mrs4 ,smith  ,lewis1  
and which1 being written in the fifth   
century1 presupposes a still  older     
,syrian translator1 we now see an       
original ,greek text1 probably of  the  
second century1 in which the ,davidic   
genealogy of ,joseph 7,matthew i4  #af7 
is really the genealogy of ,jesus1 for  
it is there said1 8,jacob begat         
,joseph2 ,joseph to whom the virgin     
,mary was espoused begat ,jesus1 who is 
called ,christ40 ,in the twenty-first   
verse it reads also1 8,and she shall    
bear him a son10 and in the twenty-fifth
 verse1 8,and took unto him his  wife1  
and she bare him a son1 and he called   
his name ,jesus40 ,this purely  human   
birth of ,jesus does not in any manner  
disturb the belief in his true  divine  
origin1 as the ,son of ,god1 as the     
first-born1 the image of ,god1  whose   
name was called the ,word of ,god1 i4e4 
,logos4 ,on the contrary1 it  removes   
all difficulties with which so many     

,christians have contended1  openly or  
in silence1 when they asked themselves  
how it is possible to  conceive a human 
birth1 a human mother1 without a human  
father4 ,even a  deification of the     
mother1 or even of the grandmother1 such
 as is  proclaimed by the ,roman church1
 does not help any honest soul out of   
this  mire which has been made by       
well-meaning but ignorant theologians4  
,the old  ,christian philosophers1 the  
old church fathers1 saints1 and martyrs1
 alone  give us light and leading4 ,as  
long as we conceive the divine sonship  
of  ,christ from the ,jewish or ,greek  
mythological standpoint1 the true divine
  nature of ,christ remains a mere      
phrase4 ,when1 however1 we call to our  
aid  the most orthodox and enlightened  
men of the second century1 we find that 
such men as ,justin1 ,tatian1           
,theophilus1 ,athenagoras1              
,apollonius7#cj7 and  ,clement1 to say  
nothing of ,origen1 believed in ,jesus  
as the only begotten  son of ,god7#ca7  

in the sense which these words had at   
that time for every  one who spoke and  
thought in ,greek4 ,this ,son is often  
represented as  distinguishable from the
 ,father1 but not as separable4 ,of a   
,son of ,god in  the ,jewish sense of   
the word1 of a descendant of ,david1 the
 evangelist  would never have said that 
all things were made by him4 ,that could
 be  affirmed only of the true ,son of  
,god1 of the ,logos1 as the thought of  
,god1  which is uttered in the visible  
world4    ,in what sense this ,logos was
 recognised in ,jesus1 is certainly a   
difficult  question1 and here the work  
of ,celsus would have been of great use 
to us1  for he expressly states that he 
has no objection to the ,logos idea2 but
  how philosophers could accept an      
incarnation7#cb7 of this ,logos in      
,jesus1  was beyond his understanding4  
,it must be borne in mind that matter   
and  flesh were held by ,celsus to be   
something so unclean1 that according to 
him the ,deity could only operate on    

matter by means of an endless number  of
 intermediaries 7a true ftus onum74     
,this obscurity in the conception  of   
,jesus as ,logos by the ,christian      
church is the reason why ,celsus does   
not regard ,joseph as the natural father
 of ,jesus1 but ,panthera4 ,origen1 of  
course1 denounces this very indignantly2
 and the legend is nothing more  than   
one of the many calumnies1 which are    
nearly always to be traced among  the   
opponents of a new religion and its     
founders4 ,for the true nature and  the 
divine birth of ,christ1 as ,origen     
himself seems to feel1 such a story     
would naturally have no significance    
whatever4 ,it remains true1 however1    
that no writer of authority of the      
second and third centuries has clearly  
explained in what sense the ,christian  
church conceived ,jesus as the ,logos4  
,three conceptions are possible4 ,the   
first appears to have been that of the  
,fourth ,gospel1 that the ,logos1 in all
 its fulness1 as the ,son1 who in the   

beginning was with ,god and was ,god1 by
 whom all things were made1 became      
flesh in ,jesus1 and that this ,jesus   
gave to those who believed in him as    
,logos the power themselves to become   
sons of ,god1 born like him not of      
blood nor of the will of flesh1 but of  
,god4 ,this may also explain why the    
legendary details of the birth of       
,christ are never mentioned in the      
,fourth  ,gospel4 ,but however clear the
 view of the evangelist is1 it          
nevertheless  remains obscure how he    
conceived the process of this           
incarnation of an  eternal being1       
transcending time and space and         
comprehending the whole  world1 which   
lived among them1 which1 as is said in  
the ,epistle of ,john1  was from the    
beginning1 that which we have heard1    
that which we have seen  with our eyes1 
that which we have beheld and our hands 
handled1 the ,word  of life17#cc7 etc4  
,if we think ourselves for a moment into
 this view1 into  the unity of the      

,divine that lives and moves in the     
,father1 in the ,logos1  and in all     
souls that have recognised the ,logos1  
we shall comprehend the  meaning of the 
statement1 that whoever believes in     
,jesus is born of ,god1  that whoever   
has the ,son1 has the life4 ,to have the
 truth1 to have eternal  life1 to have  
the ,son1 to have the ,father1 all this 
then signifies one and  the same thing  
for the evangelist1 and for the greatest
 among the  ante-,nicene fathers4       
,but second1 the conception that the    
,logos was born in ,jesus might simply  
signify the same as ,philo means1 when  
he speaks of the ,logos in ,abraham  and
 in the prophets4 ,this would be        
intelligible from ,philo's point of view
  in relation to ,abraham1 but clearly  
does not go far enough to explain the   
deification of ,christ as we find it in 
all the ,evangelists4    ,there remains 
possible therefore only a third         
conception4 ,philo knows very  well that
 ,god has an infinite number of powers  

or ideas1 all of which  might be called 
,logoi1 and together constitute the     
,logos4 ,if now1 among  these ,logoi1   
that of humanity were conceived as      
highest1 and ,jesus were  regarded as   
the incarnate ,logos1 as the expressed  
and perfectly realised  idea of man1 all
 would be intelligible4 ,jesus would    
then be the ideal man1  the one among   
mortals who had fully realised the idea 
of man as it existed  in ,god1 who on   
the one side was the son of ,god1 on the
 other side the son  of man1 the brother
 of all men1 if they would only         
acknowledge ,christ as  the ,son of     
,god1 and emulate ,his example4 ,this   
would be a correct and to us  a         
perfectly intelligible and acceptable   
conception4 ,but many as are the        
difficulties which this would remove1   
the objection remains that we can       
produce no historical proof of such a   
conception of ,jesus as ,logos of       
humanity4 ,we are too poor in historical
 monuments of the first three           

,christian centuries to be able to speak
 with assurance of the inner  processes 
of thought of even the most prominent   
personalities of that  time4 ,in        
everything1 even in relation to many of 
the leading questions of  the ,christian
 religion1 we are obliged to rely on    
combination and  construction4 ,not only
 in the ,evangelists1 but in many of the
 church  fathers1 feeling overcomes     
reason1 and their expressions admit but 
too  often of the most varied           
interpretations1 as the later history of
 the  church has only too clearly       
proved4 ,nevertheless we must endeavour 
to  enter not only into their emotions1 
but also into their thoughts1 and not   
believe that they used words without    
thoughts4 ,i do not say that this is    
impossible4 ,unthinkable as it is1 that 
words arise and exist without  ideas1   
yet we know only too well that words    
become mere words1 that they  grow pale 
and die1 and that they may finally      
become vox et prterea  nihil4 ,it is1   

however1 the duty of the historian and  
especially of the  philologist to call  
back to life such words as have given up
 the ghost4  ,may what ,i have here     
written about the meaning of the ,logos 
fulfil this  aim1 and at the same time  
make it clear that my desire for the    
discovery  of the original text of the  
,sermo ,verus was not an idle one4 ,i   
have  since learned that the same wish  
was expressed at an earlier date by no  
less a person than ,barthold ,niebuhr4  
,,chapter ,,ii4                         
,the ,pferdebrla 7,horseherd7      ,a   
contributor to a periodical1 which1 like
 the ,deutsche ,rundschau1 has a        
world-wide circulation1 receives many   
letters from every corner of the  earth4
 ,many of them are nothing more than the
 twitter of birds in the  trees2 he     
listens and goes his way4 ,others       
contain now and then something  of use1 
for which he is thankful1 usually of    
course in silence1 for a day  and night 
together contain only twenty-four hours1

 and but little time  remains for       
correspondence4 ,it is interesting to   
note how radically one is  often        
misunderstood4 ,while one person        
anonymously accuses the writer of  free 
thinking and heresy1 another1 and he    
generally gives his name1  complains of 
his orthodox narrow-mindedness1         
hypocrisy1 and blindness1  which for the
 most part are attributed to poor       
,oxford1 which1 in foreign  countries at
 least1 still has the reputation of high
 church orthodoxy4    ,yet1 in spite of 
all this1 such letters are useful1 for  
they give us a  knowledge of the public 
which we desire to influence1 but which 
for the  most part goes its own way1 as 
it may find most convenient4 ,often such
  opinions come to us from the highest  
circles1 at times also from the  lowest1
 and it is difficult to tell which of   
the two are the more  instructive4 ,the 
problems of humanity in all their       
simplicity are after  all the same for  
us all1 only they are viewed from       

different standpoints1  and are treated 
with scientific or practical design4    
,members of the same  profession readily
 understand each other2 they employ     
their own technical  language2 but the  
unprofessional person often goes        
straighter to the heart  of a question1 
and refuses to be satisfied with        
authorities or traditional  formulas4   
,these gentlemen it is often difficult  
to silence4 ,we can easily  contend with
 combatants who wield their weapons     
according to the rules  laid down by the
 schools2 we know what to expect1 and   
how to parry a quart  or a tierce4 ,but 
an opponent who strikes regardless of   
all rule is often  hard to manage1 and  
we get a scar where it is least expected
 or deserved4  ,in this wise ,i was     
served by an unknown opponent1 who wrote
 to me from a  place in the             
neighbourhood of ,pittsburgh1 not far   
from ,ohio4 ,he had read  in his country
 solitude my article on ,celsus in the  
,deutsche ,rundschau4  ,i know nothing  

of him1 except what he himself writes1  
but the man  interested me4 ,after all1 
he says in his rude way very much the   
same  things as others veil in learned  
phrases1 and his doubts and difficulties
  are manifestly products of his heart  
as well as of his brain4 ,the problems  
of humanity have troubled him with      
genuine pain1 and after honestly        
thinking them out as well as he knew    
how1 his convictions stand firm as a    
rock1 and all who disagree with him seem
 to him not only fools1 but             
unfortunately hypocrites as well4 ,it is
 the misfortune of these lonely         
thinkers that they cannot comprehend how
 any one can hold opinions  differing   
from their own without being dishonest4 
,they cannot doubt that  they have been 
honest toward themselves1 and as a      
consequence they cannot  conceive how   
others1 who are of a different mind1 can
 be equally honest1  and have come by   
their convictions by a straightforward  
path4 ,often it has  been very difficult

 for them to break with their old faith1
 cherished from  childhood1 and they can
 only look upon it as cowardice and     
weakness if  others1 as they think1 have
 not made or wished to make this        
sacrifice4 ,but  we shall let the       
horseherd who emigrated to ,america     
speak for himself4    ,i here print his 
letter exactly as ,i received it1       
without any  alterations47#cd7 ,to me it
 seems that the man speaks not only for 
himself1  but for many who think as he  
does1 but who have not the ability nor  
the  opportunity to express themselves  
clearly4 ,i resolved1 accordingly1 to   
reply to him1 and once begun1 my pen ran
 on1 and my letter unexpectedly  covered
 more ground than ,i had intended4      
,whether he received the letter or  not1
 ,i do not know2 at least it must have  
been delivered to his address1  for it  
was not returned to me4 ,as ,i have not1
 however1 heard from him  again since   
,february1 and as he speaks in his      
letter of chest catarrh1  which he hopes

 will in no long time bring him to a    
joyful end1 ,i must wait  no longer for 
an answer1 and publish the              
correspondence in the hope that  there  
are other 8,pferdebrle0 in the world to 
whom it may be of value4                
99 99 99 99 99    8                     
,pittsburgh1 ,pa41 ,u4,s41 ,february    
#bf1 #ahif4  ,dear ,colleague ,max      
,mller3    8,your article in the        
,deutsche ,rundschau on ,celsus pleased 
me very much4  ,what does it matter that
 you do not know me8 ,i love you1 and   
that gives me  a right to address you4  
,why those vain regrets over the loss of
 the  original8 ,i would not stretch out
 my little finger for that ,celsus2 gone
  is gone like the lost parts of the    
,annals of ,tacitus4 ,more than likely  
both of these losses are to be ascribed 
to ,christian fanaticism4 ,tacitus      
hated the ,jews and the ,christian sect 
derived from them4 ,but1 father ,max1   
have we not much greater modern         
,celsuses and ,tacituses1 for instance  

,david  ,hume and ,schopenhauer8 ,one   
would think that after the writings of  
these  heroes positive ,christianity    
would be an impossibility1 and yet the  
persistence of error is so great that it
 may take several centuries more  before
 the end of the ,christian era is       
reached4 ,has there ever been  anything 
in the history of the world more        
humiliating to the human  understanding 
than this false and lying tale of the   
,christian religion8  ,and is there     
anything in face of our knowledge1 and  
of the realm of nature  and of man's    
position in it1 so unbearable1 yes so   
odious1 as the  inoculation of such     
error in the tender consciousness of our
 school  children8 ,i shudder when ,i   
think that in thousands of our churches 
and  schools this systematic ruin of the
 greatest of all gifts1 the             
consciousness1 the human brain1 is      
daily1 even hourly1 going on4 ,max1 can 
you1 too1 still cling to the ,god-fable8
 ,the ,english atmosphere may serve  as 

an apology4 ,i could not strike a dog1  
but ,i am filled with  bloodthirstiness 
toward the ,jewish idea of ,god1 the    
soul-phantom1 and the  hallucination of 
immortality4--,the facts are so simple  
and clear2 we are  the highest existing 
forms of being in the animal world of   
this planet1  and share one and the same
 nature with them4 ,after death we are  
just as  entirely reduced to nothing as 
before our birth4 ,nature tells us so   
plainly that the eternal conditions     
before and after our birth are          
identical4    8,you ask me what this    
juggling means2  ,take this short answer
 for your pains2  ,a game of chance from
 the eternal sea  ,by the same sea again
 will swallowed be4  --,,omar ,,khayyam 
7,bodenstedt74    8,but there is nothing
 in this world so false as the statement
 that good  can ever come out of lies4  
,nothing in the world is so wholesome as
 truth1  and truth is under all         
circumstances lovable1 beautiful1 and   
holy4 ,let us  kneel before the truth of

 nature2 nature cannot go astray4 ,the  
distinction  between good and evil1 the 
evil heritage of ,judaism1 must fall in 
the end4  ,max1 on quiet fields1 in a   
mountain village of ,silesia1 ,i turned 
somersaults with joy at the discovery   
that this distinction is false1 and     
that good and evil are identical4 ,max1 
you will not be angry with me8 ,i am  no
 learned fellow4 ,i never attended a    
high school1 and now ,i rejoice at  it1 
for what a ,german calls education can  
only serve to miseducate after  all4    
,modern life is1 for every open-minded  
person1 the real high school4  ,max1 all
 ,german savants1 or1 if you please1 the
 majority of them1 still  labour under  
the delusion that the mind is a         
#8prius4' ,by no means1 ,max6  ,mind is 
a development1 an evolving phenomenon4  
,one would suppose it  impossible that a
 thinking man1 who has ever observed a  
child1 could be of  any other opinion2  
why seek ghosts behind matter8 ,mind is 
a function of  living organisms1 which  

belongs also to a goose and a chicken4  
,then1 ,max1  why not be content with   
the limits of our knowledge1 conditioned
 by  experience1 and give up this       
infamous romancing and tyrannical lying8
 ,the  only affection which after fifty 
years ,i still cherish in my bosom is   
the  sweet1 unquenchable longing for    
that truth which fate has denied us4    
8,max1 you are by no means a free man1  
as ,i observe that the religious        
congress in ,chicago impressed you very 
much47#ce7 ,i was present when the      
gayly dressed idolators from ,cardinal  
,gibbons down to the stupid ,shinto     
priest and the ill-favoured ,baptist    
woman preacher sat together on the      
platform4 ,it was very pretty and       
refreshing to look upon4 ,they all      
talked  nonsense and thought themselves 
very wise4 ,there was but one exception 
which interested me3 a yellow ,buddhist 
monk inquired1 what they thought of     
,english missionaries1 who in time of   
famine distributed bread to the poor1   

but only on one condition1 that they    
adopted the ,christian superstition     
7indifferent whether honestly or not74  
,the so-called #8,ethical ,culture      
,societies' were not admitted by the    
committee to their congress of many     
religions4 ,max1 it was pitiful to      
listen to the tittle-tattle that was    
read4 ,none had learned beforehand what 
he wanted to say4 ,dicere de  scripto is
 a shame for learned men4 ,only         
,cardinal ,gibbons made a short1  but   
colourless and dull extemporaneous      
address1 which closed with the          
hypocrisy1 what a great thing it is to  
keep oneself unspotted by this  world4  
,accursed hypocrites1 you yourselves are
 this world1--pitifully  incarnate1 it  
is true1--but you yourselves are this   
#8spotted world4' ,why  then still hold 
to the stupid distinction between good  
and evil1 when we  must admit that evil 
is essential to the very existence of   
things1 and it  would be impossible for 
the world to be1 except as it is4 ,we   

must be as we  are1 or we should not be 
at all4 ,o beautiful longing for the    
primeval  cause6 ,our ignorance is like 
evil1 welcome4 ,let us1 ,o ,max1 embrace
 the  evil and ignorance1 for if we were
 nothing but wretched cripples of       
virtue1 and knew everything1 we could   
not bear to live4 ,as it is1 we enjoy   
the spirited battle1 and carry a sweet  
yearning in our breasts4    8,max1 how  
are you personally8 ,have you a family8 
,how is your health8 ,how  old are you8 
,what relation do you bear to the       
learned set in ,england8 ,do  you know  
the one ,german philosopher1 with the   
courage of his convictions1  ,emil      
,dhring1 in ,berlin4 ,i consider my     
knowledge of the writings of ,dr4       
,dhring as the greatest gift of fate    
which has been vouchsafed to me4 ,the   
,jews and state professors hide his fame
 under a bushel4 ,oh6 could not such    
independent men as you1 honoured ,max   
,mller1 do something to bring this  hero
 nearer to our young students8 ,dhring  

is the only writer of the  present day  
who is to be enjoyed almost without     
drawback4 ,what is to be  said of our   
,german set which is cowardly enough to 
repress so long the  greatest mind which
 our century has produced8 ,were ,i in  
your position1  how would ,i shout my   
#8,quos ,ego' across to ,germany6       
,please1 my countryman1  favour me with 
a few lines in answer to this effusion1 
in order that ,i may  learn who and what
 you are4 ,i am a ,silesian horseherd   
7to be distinguished  from the cowherds 
khbrla's1 who till their field with     
pious  moo-moos74 ,instead of attending 
a high school1 ,i herded cows1 ploughed1
  harvested1 and helped to thrash in the
 winter4 ,while herding ,i played the   
flute in the valleys of the ,sudetic    
,mountains2 and because the hands of    
the old village schoolmaster trembled   
very much1 ,i begged of him to let me   
try to play the organ for him4 #8,ah1   
you rascal1 you can play better than    
,i1' and he boxed my ears4 ,then my     

eldest brother took possession of the   
farm of seventy-five acres1 gave us no  
compensation1 and the rest of us  lads  
had to pack off4 ,we scraped together   
the passage money to ,america1  and     
about thirty years ago ,i arrived here1 
where--,i almost said ,god be           
praised--it has always gone pretty hard 
with me4 ,whether ,i fare well or ill   
is the same to me4 ,i make no           
distinction1 for in view of the rapid   
passing  of life1 it does not pay to    
give much thought to unnecessary        
distinctions4  ,i never could think of  
marrying1 chiefly because the majority  
of the women  in this country are       
shrews1 cannot cook1 and spend much too 
much money on  the housekeeping4        
,besides1 ,i have but a short time to   
live1 for ,i possess  a chest catarrh   
most loyally devoted to me1 verging upon
 a perfect asthma1  which ,i hope       
erelong will bring me to a joyful end4  
,no doubt you will  think what a        
disconsolate fellow this is who has     

written to me4 ,o pshaw6 ,i  have always
 enjoyed the sunshine1 and have sat     
alone hundreds of snug  hours before my 
winter's companion1 a small iron stove4 
,during the last  three nights ,i have  
repeatedly read through your article on 
,celsus1  published in the ,deutsche    
,rundschau1 by a tallow-candle4 ,in     
relation to  your enthusiasm over the   
religious clap-trap in ,chicago1 ,i     
should like to  observe that you would  
have been entirely in the right if you  
had  represented the ,exhibition as the 
greatest event of the past ten years4 ,i
  came through ,chicago in ,september1  
#ahib1 visited the prospective site of  
the ,exposition1 and found there a mere 
wilderness1 scarcely a single  building 
half finished1 and it was a wonder of   
wonders what ,american  enterprise and  
genius for organisation accomplished    
within the single  intervening winter4  
,one could scarcely recover from one's  
astonishment at  what ten thousand      
labourers1 urged on by the ,yankee lash1

 could make ready  in six months4       
#8,there was money in the business1' and
 for money ,jonathan  works real        
miracles4 ,its like the world has never 
produced4 ,the ,american  is cut on a   
large pattern1 and in spite of his      
political delusions ,i  entertain the   
greatest hopes for the future of a      
country which is in such  hands40       
,with many friendly greetings1          
,a ,silesian ,horseherd4                
,emigrated to ,america4              0  
99 99 99 99 99    ,i answered my unknown
 friend and correspondent as follows3-- 
99 99 99 99 99    8              8,,my  
,,good ,,friend3 ,you are an honest     
fellow1 and ,i believe that ,i am one   
too1 but our views are widely divergent4
 ,i am an old professor1 am now         
seventy-two years old1 or as has been   
often said to me1 seventy-two years     
young4 ,like yourself ,i commenced life 
with nothing1 and have laboured till  ,i
 have become not rich1 but independent4 
,here in wealthy ,england and in        

wealthy ,oxford ,i am considered a poor 
man1 but ,i am quite content1 and  call 
that riches4 ,i have been married       
thirty-seven years1 have one son1       
secretary to the ,embassy at            
,constantinople1 and a happily married  
daughter1 with four grandchildren4 ,now 
you know all that you wished to  know4  
,of my sorrow1 the loss of two          
daughters1 ,i must remain silent4       
8,all my life ,i have been engaged in   
investigating the past2 ,i am a         
philologist and have therefore been also
 a student of history1 have  especially 
studied the historical development of   
the various religions of  mankind1 and  
to this end have had to make a study of 
ancient languages1  particularly        
,oriental languages4 ,when one          
consecrates one's life to such a  cause1
 one acquires an interest in and a love 
for the ancients1 and a wish  to know   
what has consoled them in this vale of  
grief4 ,as you probably  acquired a love
 for your colts1 mares1 and stallions1  

,i acquired an  interest in ancient and 
modern religions4 ,and as you probably  
do not  immediately kill or reject your 
horses because they possess a blemish1  
shy1 kick1 prance about1 etc41 so ,i do 
not immediately destroy all  beliefs1   
and least of all my own mount1 because  
they are not faultless1  occasionally   
leave me in the lurch1 behave foolishly1
 even dance on their  hind legs with    
head in air2 but ,i endeavour to        
understand them4 ,when we  understand   
even a little1 we can forgive much4     
,that many religions1  including our    
own1 contain errors and weak points1    
just as your horses do1  ,i know perhaps
 even better than you4 ,but have you    
ever asked yourself1  what would have   
become of mankind without any religion1 
without the  conviction that beyond our 
horizon1 that is beyond our limit1 there
 still  must be something8 ,you will    
answer1 #8,how do we know that8' ,well1 
can there  be any boundary without      
something beyond it8 ,is not that as    

true as any  theorem in geometry8 ,if it
 were not so1 how could we explain the  
fact that  mankind has never been       
without a belief in a world beyond1 nor 
without  religion1 either in the lowest 
or in the highest levels4    8,this     
horizon1 this boundary1 does not relate 
only to space1 as all will  agree1 even 
when carried beyond the ,milky ,way2 it 
relates as well to time4  ,you assert1  
#8,the world is much older than we      
suppose2' you are right1 but  if it were
 a million years1 still there must have 
been a time before it  was even a day   
old4 ,that also is indisputable4 ,but   
when we reach the limit  of our senses  
and our understanding1 then the horse   
shies1 then we imagine  that nothing can
 go beyond our understanding4 ,now let  
us begin with our  five senses4 ,they   
seem to be our wings1 but seen in the   
light they are our  fetters1 our prison 
walls4 ,all our senses have their       
horizon and their  limits2 and the      
limits in the external world are our    

making4 ,our sight  scarcely reaches a  
mile1 then it ceases2 we can observe the
 movement of  the second hand1 but that 
of the minute hand escapes us4 ,why8 ,we
 might  know that a cannon-ball passes  
through our field of vision1 but we     
cannot  locate it4 ,why not8 ,our sense 
of touch is also very weak and only     
extends  over a very limited space4 ,and
 as it is on the large scale1 so is it  
with  the small4 ,we see the eye of a   
needle1 but infusoria and bacteria1     
which  we know to be there and which    
affect us so much1 we cannot see4 ,with 
telescopes and microscopes we can       
slightly extend the field of our        
perception1 but the limitations and     
weakness of our sense-impressions       
remain none the less an undeniable fact4
 ,we live in a prison1 in a cave as     
,plato said1 and yet we accept our      
impressions as they are1 and form out of
  them general notions and words1 and   
with these words we erect this stately  
building1 or this tower of ,babel1 which

 we then call human science4    8,yes1  
say certain philosophers1 our senses may
 be finite and  untrustworthy1 but our  
understanding1 and still further our    
reason1 they  are unlimited1 and        
recognise nothing which is beyond them4 
,well1 what does  this most wise        
understanding do for us8 ,has not       
,hobbes long since taught  us that it   
adds and subtracts1 and voil tout8 ,it  
receives the  impressions of the senses1
 combines them1 feels them1 comprehends 
and  designates or names them after any 
characteristic1 and when man has found  
words1 then the adding and subtracting  
begin1 but unfortunately also the       
jumbling and chattering1 till we finally
 establish that philosophy and          
religion1 which have aroused in so great
 degree your anger1 and even your  blood
 thirstiness4 ,in spite of all it       
remains true that we can no more get    
beyond the horizon of our senses than we
 can jump out of our skins4 ,you  know  
that old saying of ,locke's1 although it

 is much older than ,locke1  that there 
is nothing in our intellect which was   
not first in our senses4  ,and          
therefore1 however much we may extend   
our knowledge by adding and             
subtracting1 everywhere we feel in the  
end our horizon1 our limitations1  our  
ignorance1 for with the limitations of  
our senses it cannot be  otherwise4     
,invariably we receive the old answer1  
#8,you are like the mind  which you     
conceive1 not me4'    8,but you say that
 we have no right whatever to speak of a
 mind4 ,that is  possible1 but          
everything depends upon what we         
understand by the term  #8mind4' ,is not
 mind1 that is to say1 a recipient1     
essential to our seeing  and hearing8   
,the eye can no more see than a camera  
obscura4 ,true seeing1  hearing1 and    
feeling are not perceptible through the 
organs of sense1 but  through the       
recipient1 for without it the organs of 
sense could make no  resistance1 could  
not receive1 could not perceive4 ,this  

unknown element  which lies beyond the  
senses1 this recipient must be there4   
,it is true he  cannot be named4        
,perhaps it would have been better to   
have called him  #8x' or the ,unknown2  
but when we know what is meant1 why not 
call it mind  or spirit1 that is1       
breath8 ,you call it a soul-phantom4    
,well1 good1 but  without such a        
soul-phantom we cannot get on2 you would
 have to consider  yourself a mere      
photographic apparatus1 and ,i do not   
believe that you do4    8,of course you 
can still say that the mind is a        
development1 a  self-evolving           
phenomenon4 ,rightly understood that is 
quite true1 but how  misleading that    
word #8evolution' has been in these     
latter days4 ,darwin  certainly brought 
much that is beautiful and true to the  
light of day4 ,he  demonstrated that    
many of the so-called species are not   
independent  creations1 but have been   
developed from other species4 ,that     
means that he  has corrected the earlier

 erroneous nomenclature of ,natural     
,history and  has introduced a more     
correct classification4 ,he has greatly 
simplified  the work of the ,creator of 
the world4 ,of that merit no one will   
deprive  him1 and it is a great merit4  
,and those who believed that every      
species  required its own act of        
creation1 and had to be finished by the 
,creator  separately 7as was the        
established opinion in ,england1 and    
still is in  some places71 cannot be    
grateful enough to ,darwin for having   
given them a  simpler and worthier idea 
of the origin of the earth and of its   
animal and  vegetable kingdoms4    8,but
 now comes ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer and   
tells us1 #8,we have to deal with man   
as a product of evolution1 with society 
as a product of evolution1 and  with    
moral phenomena as products of          
evolution4' ,that sounds splendid1 but  
every one who does not quite ignore the 
past1 knows that evolution or           
development is neither anything very new

 or very useful4 ,formerly we used      
simply to say the tree grows1 the child 
develops1 and this was  metaphorically  
transferred to society1 the state1      
science1 and religion4  ,the study of   
this development was called history1 and
 occasionally genetic  or pragmatic     
history2 but instead of talking as we do
 now of evolution  with imperceptible   
transitions1 it was these transitions   
which industrious  and honest           
investigators formerly sought to        
observe4 ,they aimed at  learning to    
know the men1 and the events1 which     
marked a decided step in  advance in the
 history of society1 or in the history  
of morals4 ,this  required painstaking  
effort1 but the result obtained was     
quite different  from the modern view1  
in which everything is evolved1 and1    
what is the  worst1 by imperceptible    
degrees4 ,in ,natural ,history this is  
otherwise2 in  it the term #8evolution1'
 or #8growth1' may be correctly applied1
 because no  one really has ever seen or

 heard the grass grow1 and no one has   
ever  observed the once generally       
accepted transition from a reptile to a 
bird4  ,in this we must doubtless admit 
imperceptible transitions4 ,yet even in 
this we must not go beyond the facts2   
and if a man like ,virchow assures us   
that the intermediate stages between man
 and any sort of animal have never  been
 found to this day1 then in spite of all
 storms we shall probably have  to rest 
there4 ,but ,i go still farther4 ,even  
supposing1 say ,i1 that there  is an    
imperceptible transition from the       
,pithecanthropos to man1 affecting  his 
thigh1 his skull1 his brain1 his entire 
body1 have we then found a  transition  
from the animal to man8 ,certainly not2 
for man is man1 not  because he has no  
tail1 but because he speaks1 and speech 
implies not only  communication1--an    
animal can do that perhaps better than a
 man1--but it  implies thinking1 and    
thinking not only as an animal thinks1  
but thinking  conceptually4 ,and this   

small thing1 the concept1 is the        
transition which  no animal has ever    
accomplished4 ,the moment an ape        
achieved it1 he would  be ipso facto a  
man1 in spite of his miserable brain1   
and in spite of  his long tail4         
8,concepts do not present themselves    
spontaneously 7or we should find them   
also among animals71 but they are a     
special product1 in part the work of    
our ancestors1 and inherited by us with 
our language1 and in part even now  the 
work of more gifted men from time to    
time4 ,this making necessarily  implies 
the existence of a maker1 and if we now 
provisionally call this  maker1 this    
transcendent1 invisible1 but very       
powerful #8x1' mind1 are we  thereby    
chargeable1 as you say1 with having     
conjured up a soul-phantom8  ,call it a 
phantom if you will1 but even as a      
phantom it has a right to  exist4 ,call 
it mind1 breath1 breathing1 willing1 or 
7with ,schopenhauer7  will1 there is    
always a ,he or ,it to be reckoned with4

 ,of this ,he or ,it1  this pronominal  
soul-phantom1 you will never rid        
yourself4    8,and if we now perceive   
with our senses a world as it is given  
us whether  we will or no1 and in this  
objective world1 without us1 which so   
many  regard as within us1 we everywhere
 recognise the presence of purpose1 must
  we then not also have a name for that 
which manifests itself in nature as     
purposive or rational8 ,shall we only   
call it #8x1' or may we transfer the    
word designating what works purposively 
in us to this ,unknown1 and speak  of a 
universal ,mind without which nature    
could not be what it is8 ,nature  is not
 crazy nor incoherent4 ,when the child  
is born1 has the mother milk1  and to   
what purpose8 ,why1 certainly1 to       
nourish the child4 ,and the child  has  
the lips and muscles to suck4 ,when the 
fruit has ripened on the tree1  it falls
 to the earth full of seed4 ,the husk   
breaks1 the seed falls in the  soil1 it 
rains and the rain fertilises the seed1 

the sun shines and makes  it grow1 and  
when the tree has grown and again bears 
blossoms and fruit1  this fruit is      
useful to man1 is food and not poison to
 him4 ,is all this  without purpose1    
without reason8 ,is it a symphony       
without a composer8 ,man1  too1 needs   
rain and sunshine1 and warmth and       
darkness2 and all this is  given to him 
so that he may live and work and think4 
,what would man be  without darkness1   
without the rest afforded by night8     
,probably crazy4 ,what  would he be     
without sunshine8 ,perhaps an ,esquimau 
or a mole4 ,but how  remarkable it is   
that as the tree always reproduces      
itself1 so also does  man4 ,the son     
differs from the father1 and yet how    
like they are4 ,where is  the form which
 retains the continuous resemblance to  
itself1 and yet  leaves to each separate
 person freedom and individuality8      
,whence comes  this purpose in all      
nature8 ,that is an old question which  
has received  many answers1 both wise   

and foolish4 ,unfortunately men so      
frequently  forget what has already been
 attained1 and then begin again at the  
beginning4 ,darwin was an industrious   
and delicate observer1 and showed       
admirable power of combination4 ,but he 
was no philosopher1 and never  sought to
 be one4 ,he was of opinion that        
everything in nature which  appeared to 
show purpose proceeded from the survival
 of the fittest4 ,but  that is no       
answer4 ,we ask1 ,why does the fittest  
survive8 ,and what is the  answer8      
,because only the fittest survives4 ,and
 when we come to ,natural  ,selection1  
who is the selector that selects8 ,these
 are nothing but  phrases1 which have   
long been known and long since been     
abandoned1 and  still are always warmed 
up again4 ,if we recognise in nature    
purpose or  reason1 then we have a right
 to conclude that the source of it lies 
in the  eternal reason1 in the eternally
 rational4 ,behind all objects lies the 
thought or the idea4 ,if there are      

rational ideas in nature1 then there    
must be a rational thinker4 ,behind all 
trees--oaks1 birches1 pines--lies the   
thought1 the idea1 the form1 the word1  
the logos of tree4 ,who made or  thought
 it before ever the first tree existed8 
,we can never see a tree2 we  see only  
an oak1 a birch1 a pine1 never a tree4  
,but the thought or idea of  tree meets 
us1 realised and diversified in all     
trees4 ,this is true of all  things4 ,no
 one has ever seen an animal1 a man1 a  
dog1 but he sees a ,st4  ,bernard1 a    
greyhound1 a dachshund1 and strictly not
 even that4 ,what1 then1  is it that is 
permanent1 always recurring in the dog1 
by means of which  they resemble each   
other1 the invisible form in which they 
are all cast8  ,that is the thought1 the
 idea1 the logos of dog4 ,can there be a
 thought  without a thinker8 ,did the   
ideas in nature1 the millions of objects
 which  make up our knowledge1 fall from
 the clouds8 ,did they make themselves  
or  did nature make them8 ,who1 then1 is

 nature8 ,is it a masculine1 feminine1  
or neuter8 ,if nature can choose1 then  
it can also think and produce4 ,but  can
 it8 ,no1 nature is a word1 very useful 
for certain purposes2 but empty1        
intangible1 and incomprehensible4       
,nature is an abstraction1 as much as   
dog  or tree1 but far more inclusive4   
,when we recognise thought1 reason1     
purpose in nature1 still it is all in   
vain1 we must assume a thinker in1      
above1 behind nature1 and we must as a  
matter of course have a name for  him4  
,the infinite thinker of all things1 of 
all ideas1 of all words1 who  can never 
be seen and never comprehended1 because 
he is infinite1 but in  whose thoughts  
all creatures1 the entire creation1 have
 their source1 and  who when rightly    
understood approaches us palpably or    
symbolically in all  things1 in the sole
 path of sense by which he can approach 
us sentient  beings1 why should we not  
call him ,mind1 or ,god1 or as the ,jews
 called  him1 ,jehovah1 or the          

,mohammedans1 ,allah1 or the ,brahmins1 
,brahman8 ,either  reason operates in   
nature1 or nature is without reason1 is 
chaos and  confusion4 ,neither survival 
of the fittest nor natural selection    
could  bring order into this confusion2 
we might as well believe that if the    
type  in a printing office be thoroughly
 shaken and mixed1 it could produce     
,goethe's ,faust by chance4 ,if we      
insist upon adhering to the theories of 
natural selection1 or survival of the   
fittest1 be it so2 we only transfer  the
 choice to a ,something which can       
choose1 and leave the fitness or        
adaptability to the judgment of an      
originator1 who can really judge and    
think4    8,i hope that ,i have made    
this plain to you2 but what would be    
plain to us  would not be plain to      
children1 and still less to mankind in  
its infancy  five thousand or fifty     
thousand years ago4 ,i have especially  
endeavoured  to discover what led these 
men of old1 in many respects so         

uncultivated1  to believe in something  
beyond1 invisible1 superhuman1          
supernatural4 ,we  can see from their   
language and from the oldest monuments  
of their  religion that they early      
observed that something happened in the 
world4  ,the world was not dark1 nor    
still1 nor dead4 ,the sun rose1 and man 
awoke1  and asked himself and the       
sunshine4 #8,whence8' he said2 #8stop1  
what is  there8 who is there8' ,such an 
object as the sun cannot rise of its own
  volition4 ,there is something behind  
it4 ,at first the sun itself was        
considered a labourer2 it accomplished  
the greatest work on earth1 gave  light1
 heat1 life1 growth1 fruits4 ,it was    
quite natural1 then1 to pay  great      
honour to the sun2 to be grateful to it1
 to appeal to it for light1  heat1 and  
increase4 ,and therefore the sun became 
a ,god1 e4g4 a ,deva  7deus71 which     
originally meant nothing more than      
light4 ,but even then an  old ,inca in  
,peru observed that the sun was not     

free2 could not1 therefore1  be a being1
 to whom man could be grateful1 to whom 
he could pray4 ,it is1  said he1 like a 
beast of burden1 which must daily tread 
its appointed  round4 ,and although the 
worship of the sun was the religion of  
his  country1 and he himself was        
worshipped as a child of the sun1 he    
renounced  the ancient faith of his     
country1 and became what is now         
frequently called  an atheist2 that is1 
he longed after a truer ,god4 ,what say 
you to this  ,inca8 ,this same thing    
occurred also in other lands1 and       
instead of  continuing to worship the   
sun and moon1 the dawn1 the storm-wind1 
or the  sky1 they worshipped that which 
must be behind it all1 which was called 
,heaven-,father1 ,jupiter1 and every    
conceivable name4 ,these names were no  
longer to indicate the visible object1  
but ,him who had thought and created    
the object1 the thinker and ruler of the
 world4 ,this is the fundamental  idea  
from which all religions have arisen3   

not animism1 fetishism1  totemism1 or   
whatever the little tributaries may be  
called1 which have  poured for thousands
 of years into the main stream4 ,every  
people has  produced its own religion1  
its own language1 in the course of      
thousands of  years2 later1 religions   
have been framed for all mankind1 and we
 are still  engaged in that task1 even  
in what you call that clap-trap of      
,chicago4  ,even though we have all been
 born and educated in some religion1 we 
nevertheless have the right1 even the   
duty1 like the old ,inca1 to examine    
every article of our hereditary         
religion1 to retain it or to cast it    
aside1 according to our own judgment and
 conception of the truth4 ,only the     
fundamental principle must remain2 there
 is a thinker and a ruler of the        
universe4 ,of ,pontius ,pilate and      
,caiaphas1 of ,joseph and ,mary1 of the 
resurrection and ascension1 let each one
 believe what he will1 but the  highest 
commandment applies to all1 #8,thou     

shalt love the ,lord thy ,god with  all 
thy heart1 and thy neighbour as         
thyself4'    8,you see1 therefore1 that 
,i1 too1 am a ,god-romancer4 ,and what  
objection  can you raise against it8    
,you are of opinion that to love ,god   
and your  neighbour is equivalent to    
being good1 and are evidently very proud
 of  your discovery that there is no    
distinction between good and evil4      
,well1  if loving ,god and your         
neighbour is equivalent to being good1  
then it  follows that not loving ,god   
and not loving your neighbour is        
equivalent to  not being good1 or to    
being evil4 ,there is1 then1 a very     
plain distinction  between good and bad4
 ,and yet you say that you turned a     
somersault when  you discovered that    
there was no such distinction4 ,it is   
true that the  nature of this           
distinction is often dependent on the   
degree of latitude  and longitude where 
men are congregated1 and still more on  
the intention  of the agent4 ,this is   

very ancient knowledge4 ,the old ,hindu 
philosophers  went still farther1 and   
said of an assassin and his victim1     
#8,the one does  not commit murder1 and 
the other is not murdered4' ,that goes  
still farther  than your somersault4 ,at
 all events1 we entirely agree with each
 other1  that everything which is done  
out of love to ,god and our neighbour is
  good1 and everything which is done    
through selfishness is bad4 ,the old    
philosopher in ,india must have turned  
more somersaults than you2 but what  he 
had in his mind in doing it does not    
concern us here4 ,but it was not so  bad
 as it sounds1 and ,i believe that what 
you say1 that there is no real          
distinction between good and evil1 is   
not so bad as it sounds4    8,we have   
now reached that stage that we must     
admit that there is a mind  within us1  
in our inner world1 and a mind without  
us1 in the outer world4  ,what we call  
this mind1 the ,ego1 the soul within us1
 and the ,non-ego1 the  world-soul1 the 

,god without us1 is a matter of         
indifference4 ,the ,brahmans  appear to 
me to have found the best expression4   
,they call the fundamental  cause of the
 soul1 of the ,ego1 the ,self1 and the  
fundamental cause of the  ,non-ego1 of  
the ,world-soul1 of ,god1 the highest   
,self4 ,they go still  farther1 and hold
 these two selves to be in their deepest
 nature one and  the same--but of this  
another time4 ,to-day ,i am content1 if 
you will admit1  that our mind is not   
mere steam1 nor the world merely a      
steam-engine1 but  that in order that   
the machine shall run1 that the eye     
shall see1 the ear  hear1 the mind      
think1 add1 and subtract1 we need a     
seer1 a hearer1 a  thinker4 ,more than  
this ,i will not inflict on you to-day2 
but you see that  without deviating a   
finger's breadth from the straight path 
of reason1  that is from correct and    
honest addition and subtraction1 we     
finally come  to the soul-phantom and to
 the idea of ,god1 which you look upon  

with such  blood-thirstiness4 ,i have   
indicated to you1 with only a few       
strokes1 the  historical course of human
 knowledge4 ,there still remains much to
 fill in1  which must be gained from    
history and the diligent study of the   
sacred  books of mankind1 and the works 
of the leading philosophers of the ,east
  and the ,west4 ,we shall then learn   
that the history of mankind is the best 
philosophy1 and that not only in        
,christianity and ,judaism1 but that in 
all  religions of the world1 ,god has at
 divers times spoken through the        
prophets in divers manners1 and still   
speaks4    8,and now only a few words   
more over another somersault4 ,you say  
that the  mind is not a prius1 but a    
development out of matter4 ,you are     
right  again1 if you view the matter    
only from an embryological or           
psychological  standpoint4 ,a child     
begins with deep sleep1 then comes      
dream-sleep1 and  finally awakening1    
collecting1 naming1 adding1 subtracting4

 ,what is that  which awakens in the    
child8 ,is it a bone1 or is it the soft 
mass which we  call brain8 ,can the gray
 matter within our skulls give names1 or
 add8 ,why1  then1 has no craniologist  
told us that the monkey's brain lacks   
precisely  those tracts which are       
concerned with speech or with           
aphasia87#cf7 ,i ask  again1 ,can the   
eye see1 the ear hear8 ,try it on the   
body under dissection1  or try it       
yourself in your sleep4 ,without a      
subject there is no object in  the      
world1 without understanding there is   
nothing to understand1 without  mind no 
matter4 ,you think that matter comes    
first1 and then what we call  mind4     
,where is this matter8 ,where have you  
ever seen matter8 ,you see oak1  fir1   
slate1 and granite1 and all sorts of    
other materies1 as the old  architects  
called them1 never matter4 ,matter is   
the creation of the mind1  not the      
reverse4 ,our entire world is thought1  
not wood and stone4 ,we learn  to think 

or reflect upon the thoughts1 which the 
,thinker of the world1  invisible1 yet  
everywhere visible1 has first thought4  
,what we see1 hear1  taste1 and feel1 is
 all within us1 not without4 ,sugar is  
not sweet1 we are  sweet4 ,the sky is   
not painted blue1 we are blue4 ,nothing 
is large or  small1 heavy or light1     
except as to ourselves4 ,man is the     
measure of all  things1 as an ancient   
,greek philosopher asserted2 and man has
 inferred1  discovered1 and named       
matter4 ,and how did he do it8 ,he      
called everything1  out of which he made
 anything1 matter2 materia first meant  
nothing more  than wood used for        
building1 out of which man built his    
dwelling4 ,here you  have the whole     
secret of matter4 ,it is                
building-material1 oak1 pine1  birch1   
whichever you prefer4 ,abstract every   
individual characteristic1  generalise  
as you will1 the wood1 the hyle1 always 
remains4 ,and you will  have it that    
thought1 or even the thinker1 originated

 from this wood4 ,do  you really believe
 that there is an outer world such as we
 see1 hear1 or  feel8 ,where have we a  
tree1 except in our imagination8 ,have  
you ever seen  a whole tree1 from all   
four quarters at once8 ,even here we    
have something  to add first4 ,and of   
what are our ideas composed1 if not our 
sense-perceptions8 ,and these           
perceptions1 imperfect as they are1     
exist  only in us1 for us1 and through  
us4 ,the thing perceived is and always  
remains1 as far as we are concerned in  
the outer world1 transcendent1 a  thing 
in itself2 all else is our doing2 and if
 you wish to call it matter  or the     
material world1 well and good1 but at   
least it is not the prius  of mind1 but 
the posterius1 that which is demanded by
 the mind1 but is  always unattainable4 
,even the professional materialist      
ascribes inertia to  matter4 ,the atoms1
 if he assumes atoms1 are motionless1   
unless disturbed4  ,from whence comes   
this disturbance8 ,it must proceed from 

something outside  the atoms1 or the    
matter1 so that we can never say that   
there is nothing  in the universe but   
matter4 ,and now if we ascribe motion to
 the atoms1 or  like other philosophers1
 perception1 then that is nothing more  
nor less  than to ascribe mind to them1 
which1 however1 if you are right1 must  
first  evolve itself out of this matter4
 ,if we wind something into these atoms1
  then we can also wind something out of
 them2 in doing this1 however1 we  give 
up at the outset the experiment of      
letting mind evolve itself out of       
matter4 ,give an atom the germ-power of 
an acorn1 and it will develop into  an  
oak4 ,give an atom the capacity of      
sense-perception1 and it will become  an
 animal1 possibly a man4 ,but what was  
promised us was the development of      
feeling and perception out of the dead  
atoms of hydrogen1 oxygen1  nitrogen1   
carbon1 etc4 ,even if we could explain  
life out of the activities  of these    
atoms1 which may be possible1--although 

denied by ,haeckel and  ,tyndall1--still
 feeling1 perception1 understanding1 all
 the functions of  mind1 would remain   
unexplained4 ,j4 ,s4 ,mill is certainly 
no idealist1 and  no doubt is one of    
your heroes4 ,well ,mr4 ,mill declares  
that nothing but  mind could produce    
mind4 ,even ,tyndall1 in his address as 
,president of the  ,british ,association
 in ,belfast1 declared in plain words   
that the  continuity of molecular       
processes and the phenomena of          
consciousness  constitute the rock on   
which all ,materialism must inevitably  
be shattered4    8,think over all of    
this by your iron stove1 or better still
 at some  beautiful sunrise in spring1  
and you will see before you a more      
glorious  revelation than all the       
revelations of the ,old ,world40        
,yours faithfully1                      
,f4 ,max ,mller                         
,oxford1 ,november1 #ahif4              
0            ,,chapter ,,iii4           
,concerning ,the ,horseherd      ,the   

appearance of my article in the         
,deutsche ,rundschau seems to have      
caused much headshaking among my friends
 in ,germany1 ,england1 and ,america4   
,many letters came to me privately1     
others were sent directly to the        
publishers4 ,they came chiefly from two 
sides4 ,some were of the opinion  that  
,i dealt too lightly with the           
,horseherd2 others protested against    
what  ,i said about the current theory  
of evolution4 ,the first objection ,i   
have  sought to make up for in what     
follows4 ,the other required no answer1 
for ,i  had ,i think1 in my previous    
writings1 quite clearly and fully       
explained my  attitude in opposition to 
so-called ,darwinism4 ,some of my       
correspondents  wished peremptorily to  
deny me the right of passing judgment   
upon ,darwin's  doctrine1 because ,i am 
not a naturalist by profession4 ,here we
 see an  example of the confusion of    
ideas that results from confusion of    
language4  ,darwinism is a              

high-sounding1 but hollow and unreal    
word1 like most of the  names that end  
in ism4 ,what do such words as          
,puseyism1 ,jesuitism1  ,buddhism1 and  
now even ,pre-,darwinism and            
,pre-,lamarckism signify8  ,everything  
and nothing1 and no one is more on his  
guard against these  generalising       
termini technici than the heroes eponymi
 himself4 ,what  has not been called    
,darwinism8 ,that the present has come  
out of the past1  has been called the   
greatest discovery of the nineteenth    
century4 ,darwin  himself is not        
responsible for such things4 ,he wished 
to show how the  present has come out of
 the past1 and he did it in such a      
manner that even  the laity could follow
 him and sincerely admire him4 ,now1 of 
course1 it  cannot be denied that if we 
understand ,darwinism to mean ,darwin's 
close  observations concerning the      
origin of the higher organisms out of   
lower as  well as the variations of     
individuals from their specific types1  

caused by  external conditions1 it would
 as ill become me to pass either a      
favourable  or unfavourable judgment as 
it would ,darwin to estimate my edition 
of the  ,rig-,veda1 or a follower of    
,darwin to criticise my root theory in  
philology1 without knowing the ,,abc of 
the science of language4 ,if1  however1 
we speak of ,darwinism in the domain of 
universal philosophical  problems1 such 
as1 for instance1 the creation or       
development of the world1  then we poor 
philosophers also have no doubt a right 
to join in the  conversation4 ,and if1  
without appearing too presuming1 we now 
and then  dare to differ from ,kant1 or 
from ,plato or ,aristotle1 is it mere   
insolence1 or perhaps treason1 to differ
 from ,darwin on certain points8        
,this was not the tone assumed by       
,darwin1 giant as he was1 even when he  
spoke to so insignificant a person as   
myself4  ,i have on a previous  occasion
 published a short letter addressed to  
me by ,darwin 7,auld ,lang  ,syne1 p4   

#agh74 ,here follows another1 which ,i  
may no doubt also publish  without being
 indiscreet4                            
99 99 99 99 99    8              ,down1 
,beckenham1 ,kent1 ,july #c1 #ahgc4     
8,,dear ,,sir3 ,i am much obliged for   
your kind note and present of your      
lectures4 ,i am extremely glad to have  
received them from you1 and ,i had      
intended ordering them4    8,i feel     
quite sure from what ,i have read in    
your work1 that you would  never say    
anything to an honest adversary to which
 he would have any just  right to       
object2 and as for myself1 you have     
often spoken highly of me1  perhaps more
 highly than ,i deserve4    8,as far as 
language is concerned1 ,i am not worthy 
to be your adversary1 as  ,i know       
extremely little about it1 and that     
little learnt from very few  books4 ,i  
should have been glad to have avoided   
the whole subject1 but was  compelled to
 take it up as well as ,i could4 ,he who
 is fully convinced1 as  ,i am1 that man

 is descended from some lower animal1 is
 almost forced to  believe1 a priori1   
that articulate language has been       
developed from  inarticulate cries1 and 
he is therefore hardly a fair judge of  
the  arguments opposed to this belief40 
,with cordial respect ,i remain1 dear   
sir1  ,yours very faithfully1           
,charles ,darwin4              0        
,this will at all events show that a man
 who could look upon a chimpanzee  as   
his equal1 did not entirely ignore1 as  
an uninformed layman1 a poor            
philologist4 ,darwin did not in the     
least disdain the uninformed layman4 ,he
  thought and wrote for him1 and there  
is scarcely one of ,darwin's books  that
 cannot be read by the uninformed layman
 with profit4 ,and in the  interchange  
of acquired facts or ideas1 mental      
science has at least as  much right as  
natural science4 ,we live1 it is true1  
in different worlds4  ,what some look   
upon as the real1 others regard as      
phenomenal4 ,what these  in their turn  

look upon as the real1 seems to the     
first to be  non-existent4 ,it will     
always be thus until philology has      
defined the true  meaning of reality4   
,it is1 however1 a worn-out device to   
place all those who differ from  ,darwin
 in the pillory of science as mystics1  
metaphysicians1 and 7what  seems worst  
of all7 as orthodox4 ,it requires more  
than courage1 too1 to  class all who do 
not agree with us as uninformed laymen1 
8to accuse them  of ignorance and       
superstition1 and to praise our friends 
and disciples as  the only experts or   
competent judges1 as impartial and      
consistent  thinkers40 ,through such a  
defence the greatest truths would lose  
their  worth and dignity4 ,the true     
scholar simply leaves such attacks      
alone4 ,it  is to be regretted that this
 resounding trumpet blast of a few      
naturalists  renders any peaceful       
interchange of ideas impossible from the
 beginning4 ,i  have expressed my       
admiration for ,darwin more freely and  

earlier than many  of his present       
eulogists4 ,but ,i maintain1 that when  
anthropogeny is  discussed1 it is       
desirable first of all to explain what  
is understood by  anthropos4 ,man is not
 only an object1 but a subject also4    
,all that man  is as an object1 or      
appears to be for a time on earth1 is   
his organic body  with its organs of    
sense and will1 and with its slowly     
developed so-called  ego4 ,this body is1
 however1 only phenomenal2 it comes and 
goes1 it is not  real in the true sense 
of the word4 ,to man belongs1 together  
with the  visible objective body1 the   
invisible subjective ,something which we
 may  call mind or soul or x1 but which1
 at all events1 first makes the body    
into a man4 ,to observe and make out    
this ,something is in my view the true  
anthropogeny2 how the body originated   
concerns me as little as does the       
question whether my gloves are made of  
kid or peau de sude4 ,that will1  of    
course1 be called mysticism1 second     

sight1 orthodoxy1 hypocrisy1 but        
fortunately it is not contradicted by   
such nicknames4 ,if an animal could     
ever speak and think in concepts1 it    
would be my brother in spite of tail  or
 snout2 if any human being had a tail or
 a forty-four toothed snout1 but  could 
use the language of concepts1 then he   
would be and remain a man1 as  far as ,i
 am concerned1 in spite of all that4    
,we1 too1 have a right to  express our  
convictions4 ,they are as dear to us as 
to those who believe or  believed in the
 ,protogenes ,haeckelii4 ,it is true we 
do not preach to the  whole world that  
our age is the great age of the study of
 language and  mind1 and that it has    
cast more light on the origin of the    
mind 7logogeny7  and on the             
classification of the human race        
7anthropology7 than all other  sciences 
together4 ,a little progress1 however1  
we have made4 ,who is there  that still 
classifies the human race by their      
skulls1 hair1 anatomy1 etc41  and not by

 their speech8 ,if1 like zology1 we may 
borrow countless  millions of years1    
where is there any pure blood left1 amid
 the endless  wars and migrations1 the  
polygamy and slavery of the ancient     
world8  ,language alone is and remains  
identical1 whoever may speak it2 but the
  blood1 8this very peculiar fluid10 how
 can we get at that scientifically8  ,it
 is1 however1 and remains a fixed idea  
with these 8consistent thinkers0  that  
the sciences of language and mind lead  
to superstition and hypocrisy1  while on
 the other hand the science of language 
gratefully acknowledges  the results of 
zology1 and only protests against       
encroachments4 ,both  sciences might    
advance peacefully side by side1        
rendering aid and seeking  it2 and as   
for prejudices1 there are plenty of them
 surviving among  zologists as well as  
philologists1 which must be removed     
viribus  unitis4 ,what is common to us  
is the love of truth and clearness1 and 
the  honest effort to learn to          

understand the processes of growth in   
mind and  language1 as well as in       
nature1 in the individual               
7ontogenetically7 as  well as in the    
race 7phylogenetically74 ,whether we now
 call this evolution  or growth1        
philology at all events has been in     
advance of natural science  in setting a
 good example1 and securing recognition 
of the genetic method4  ,such men as    
,william ,humboldt1 ,grimm1 and ,bopp   
did not exactly belong to  the dark     
ages1 and ,i do not believe that they   
ever doubted that man is a  mammal and  
stands at the head of the mammalia4     
,this is no discovery of the  nineteenth
 century4 ,linnus lived in the          
eighteenth century and ,aristotle       
somewhat earlier4 ,i see that the       
,standard ,dictionary already makes a   
distinction between ,darwinism and      
,darwinianism1 between the views of     
,darwin and those of the ,darwinians1   
and we clearly see that in some of the  
most essential points these two         

tendencies are diametrically opposed to 
each other4 ,there is one thing that    
naturalists could certainly learn from  
philologists1 viz41 to define their     
termini technici1 and not to believe    
that wonders can be performed with      
words1 if only they are spoken loud     
enough4    ,the following letter comes  
from a naturalist1 but is written in a  
sincere  and courteous tone1 and        
deserves to be made public4 ,i believe  
that the  writer and ,i could easily    
come to terms1 as ,i have briefly       
indicated in my  parentheses4           
99 99 99 99 99    8              ,an    
,open ,letter ,to ,professor ,f4 ,max   
,mller4    8,,respected ,,sir3 ,your    
correspondence in this periodical with  
the  #8,horseherd' has no doubt aroused 
an interest on many sides4 ,there are   
many  more ,horseherds than might be    
supposed2 that is to say1 men in all    
possible positions and callings1 who    
after earnest reflection have reached  a
 conclusion that does not essentially   

differ from the mode of thought of  your
 backwoods friend4    8,the present     
writer considers himself one of these2  
he is1 indeed1 not  self-taught like the
 ,horseherd1 but a scientific man1 and  
like you1 a  professor2 but as he had no
 philosophical training1 and he has only
  reached his views through observation 
and reflection2 in contrast to you1  the
 profound philologist1 he stands not    
much higher than the ,silesian          
countryman4 ,and to complete the        
contrast1 he adds1 that he has long been
 a  severe sufferer4 ,so that instead of
 guiding the plough on the field of     
science with a strong hand1 he must     
remain idly at home1 and modestly       
whittle pine shavings for the           
enlightenment of his home circle4    8,i
 do not know whether the ,horseherd will
 consider that his argument has  been   
refuted when he reads your letter by his
 warm stove4 ,in this1  according to my 
view1 you have practically failed4 7,my 
counter arguments  shall follow later47 

8,yes1 ,i find in your reasoning very   
remarkable contradictions4 ,you         
acknowledge for instance the infinity of
 space and time1 and in spite of  this  
you say that there was a time before the
 world was a year old4 ,i do  not       
understand that4 ,we must assume for    
matter1 for that is no doubt what  you  
mean by the term #8world1' the same     
eternity as for space and time1  whose  
infinity can be proved but not          
comprehended4 7,well1 when we say  that 
the world is #ahih years old1 we can    
also say that it once  was a  year1 or  
half a year old2 of course not          
otherwise47    8,a #8creation' in the   
sense of the various religions is       
equally  incomprehensible to us4        
7,certainly47    8,but ,i do not wish to
 enlarge on this point any farther4     
,here begins the  limit of our thinking 
faculties1 and it is the defect of all  
religions  that they require us to      
occupy ourselves with matters that lie  
beyond this  limit1 that never can be   

revealed to us1 since we are denied the 
understanding of them2 a revelation is  
at all events a chimera4 ,for either    
that which is to be revealed lies beyond
 our senses and ideas1--and then it     
cannot be revealed to us1--or it lies on
 this side1 and then it need not be     
revealed to us4 7,this is not directed  
against me47    8,i believe1 moreover1  
dear sir1 that through your comparative 
studies of  religion you must reach the 
same conclusion as myself1 that all     
religious  ideas have arisen solely in  
the brain of man himself1 as efforts at 
explanation in the broadest sense2 that 
dogmas were made out of  hypotheses1 and
 that no religion as a matter of fact   
reveals anything to  us4 7,not only     
religious ideas1 but all ideas have     
arisen in the brain47    8,you express a
 profound truth when you say that       
atheism is properly a  search for a     
truer ,god4 ,i was reminded by it of a  
passage in one of  ,daudet's novels1 in 
which the blasphemy of one who despairs 

of a good ,god1  is yet called a kind of
 prayer4 ,you will therefore bear with  
me if ,i  explain to you how a          
scientific man who thinks consistently  
can reach a  conclusion not far removed 
from that which prompted the ,horseherd 
to turn  a somersault4    8,good and    
evil are purely human notions2 an       
almighty ,god stands beyond  good and   
evil4 ,he is as incomprehensible to us  
in moral relations as in  every other4  
7,from the highest point of view1 yes2  
but in the lives of  men there is such a
 distinction47    8,only look at the    
world6 ,the existence of the majority of
 living creatures  is possible only     
through the destruction of others4 ,what
 refined cruelty  is expressed by the   
various weapons with which animals are  
provided4 ,some  zologist ought to write
 an illustrated work entitled1 ,the     
,torture  ,chamber of ,nature4 ,i merely
 wish to touch upon this field2 to      
exhaust it  would require pages and     
volumes4 ,your adopted countryman1      

,wallace1 seeks1  it is true1 to set    
aside these facts by a superficial      
observation4 ,that  most of the animals 
that are doomed to be devoured1 enjoy   
their lives  until immediately before   
the catastrophe1 takes none of its      
horror from  the mode of death4 ,to be  
dismembered alive is certainly not an   
agreeable  experience1 and ,i suggest   
that you should observe how1 for        
instance1 a  water-adder swallows a     
frog2 how the poor creature1 seized by  
the hind  legs1 gradually disappears    
down its throat1 while its eyes project 
staring  out of their sockets2 how it   
does not cease struggling desperately   
even as  it reaches the stomach4        
8,now ,i1 who am but a poor child of    
man1 full of evil inclinations          
according to ,biblical lore1 liberated  
the poor frog on my ground4 ,but        
#8merciful nature' daily brings millions
 and millions of innocent creatures  to 
a like cruel and miserable end4    8,i  
intentionally leave out of consideration

 here the unspeakable  sufferings of    
mankind4 ,believers in the ,bible find  
it so convenient to  argue about        
original sin4 ,where is the original sin
 of the tormented  animal kingdom8      
8,of course man in his unutterable pride
 looks with deep disdain on all  living 
creatures that are not human4 ,as if he 
were not bone of their bone1  as if     
suffering did not form a common bond    
with all living creatures6 7,i  have    
never done that1 but ,i think that it is
 difficult to establish a  thermometer  
of suffering47    8,do you not bethink  
you1 honoured student of ,sanskrit1 of  
the religion of  the ,brahmins8 ,in     
sparing all animals1 the ,hindus have   
shown only the  broadest consistency4   
8,there will come a time when there will
 be only one religion1 without  dogma3  
the religion of compassion4 7,buddhism  
is founded on ,krunya1  compassion47    
,christianity1 lofty as is its ethical  
content1 is not the  goal1 but only a   
stage in our religious development4     

8,it is a misfortune that ,nietzsche1   
the great keen thinker1 should have     
been misled into an opposite conclusion 
by the mental weakness1 the  paralytic  
imbecility1 which gradually enveloped   
his brain like a growth of  mould4 ,and 
the foolish youths1 who esteem the      
expressions of this  incipient insanity 
as the revelations of a vigorous genius1
 swear by his  later hallucinations     
about the ,over-man and the blond beast4
    8,a specialist in mental disease can
 point out the traces of his malady     
years before it openly broke out4 ,and  
as if he had not written enough when    
the world still considered him of sound 
mind1 must men still try to glean  from 
the time when his brain was already     
visibly clouded8    8,how few there are 
who can pick out of the desolate morass 
of growing  imbecility the scanty grains
 of higher intelligence6 ,there will    
always be  people who will be impressed1
 not by the sound part of his thought1  
but by  his paradoxical nonsense4 7,may 

be47    8,but--,i am straying from the  
path4 ,now to the subject4 ,i perfectly 
understand that the majority of         
religions had to assume a good and evil 
principle to guard themselves against   
the blasphemy of attributing all the    
suffering of the world to an            
all-merciful ,creator4 7,some religions 
have  done this1 on the theory that an  
almighty ,god stands beyond good and    
evil47 ,the devil is a necessary        
antithesis to ,god2 to deny him is the  
first step made by the consistent man of
 science toward that atheism which      
originates really from the search for a 
better ,god4 ,the ,horseherd is wrong   
when he denies the existence of things  
beyond our power of conception4  ,there 
are1 as can be proved1 tones that we do 
not hear1 and rays that we  cannot see4 
,there are many things that we shall    
learn to comprehend in the  hundreds of 
thousands of years that are in store for
 mankind4 ,we are  merely in the        
beginning of our development4           

,something1 however1 will  always remain
 over4 ,the #8,ignorabimus' of one of   
our foremost thinkers and  investigators
 will always retain its value for us4   
7,most certainly47    8,the other world 
is of but little concern to him who has 
constantly  endeavoured to lead a good  
life1 even if he has never given much   
thought  to correct belief4 ,if personal
 existence is continued1 our earthly    
being  must be divested of so many of   
its outer husks that we should scarcely 
recognise each other1 for only a part of
 the soul is the soul4 7,what we  call  
soul is a modification of the ,self47   
,if1 however1 an eternal sleep  is      
decreed for us1 then this can be no     
great misfortune4 ,let the wise  saying 
in ,stobi ,florilegium1 ,vol4 ,,vi1 ,no4
 #ai1 in #8praise of death'  serve to   
comfort us3 #8     1                    
1'--#8,anaxagoras said that two  things 
admonished us about death3 the time     
before birth and sleep4'    8,the       
raindrop1 because it is a drop1 may fear

 for its individuality when  it falls   
back into the sea whence it came4 ,we   
men are perhaps only passing  drops     
formed out of the everlasting changes of
 the world-sea4 7,of what  does the     
world-sea consist but drops87    8,those
 who think as ,i do constitute a silent 
but large congregation3  silent1 because
 the time is not yet ripe for a view    
that will rob  thousands of their       
illusions4 ,we do not preach a new      
salvation1 but a  silent1 for many1 a   
painful1 renunciation4 ,but the profound
 peace that  lies in this view is as    
precious to those who have acquired it  
as is the  hope of heaven to the        
believer4 ,in honest doubt1 too1 lies a 
saving power  as well as in faith2 and  
your ,horseherd is on the path of this  
salvation4  7,i believe that too470     
,with great respect1  ,yours very       
faithfully1                             
,ignotus ,agnosticus4              0    
99 99 99 99 99    ,whilst ,i received   
this and many other letters from many   

lands1 no sign of  life reached me from 
my ,horseherd4 ,he must have received my
 letter1 or it  would have been returned
 to me through the post4 ,i regretted   
this1 for ,i  had formed a liking for   
the man as he appeared in his letter1   
and he no  doubt would have had much to 
say in reply to my letter1 which would  
have  placed his views in a clearer     
light4 ,he was an honest fellow1 and ,i 
respect every conviction that is honest 
and sincere1 even if it is              
diametrically opposite to my own4 ,now1 
my unknown friend could have had no     
thought of self in the matter4 ,he knew 
that his name would not be  mentioned by
 me1 and it would probably have been of 
little concern to him  if his name had  
become known4 ,the worst feature of all 
discussions is the  intrusion of the    
personal element4 ,if for instance in a 
criticism of a new  book we emphasise   
that which we think erroneous1 for which
 every author  should be grateful1 we   
feel at the same time1 that while       

desiring to  render a service to the    
cause of truth1 we may not only have    
hurt the book  or the writer1 but may   
have done a positive injury4 ,the writer
 then feels  himself impelled to defend 
his view not only with all the          
legitimate arts  of advocacy1 but also  
with the illegitimate4 ,this poor truth 
is the  greatest sufferer4 ,as long as  
two paths are open1 there is room for   
quiet  discussion with one's travelling 
companion as to which may be the right  
and best path by which to reach the     
desired point4 ,both parties have the   
same object in view1 the truth4 ,as soon
 however as one goes1 or has gone  his  
own way1 the controversy becomes        
personal and violent4 ,there is no      
thought of turning back4 ,it is no      
longer said3 8,this is the wrong path10 
but 8,you are on the wrong path10 and   
even if it were possible to turn  back1 
the controversy generally ends with1 8,i
 told you so40 ,poor ,truth  stands by  
sorrowfully and rubs its eyes4    ,now  

what was the ,horseherd to me1 and what 
is he now1 even if he has been  brought 
to what he called a joyful end by his   
catarrh 8verging upon a  perfect        
asthma40 ,there was nothing personal    
between us4 ,he knew me only by  that   
which ,i have thought and said2 ,i knew 
of him only what he had  gathered in his
 hours of leisure1 and had laid aside   
for life4 ,i have  never seen him face  
to face1 do not know the colour of his  
eyes1 hardly  even whether he was old or
 young4 ,he was a man1 but he may be    
even that no  longer4 ,everything that  
in our common view constitutes a man1   
his body1  his speech1 his experience1  
is gone4 ,we did not bring these things 
with us  into the world and probably    
shall not take them away with us4 ,what 
the  body is1 we see with our eyes1     
especially if we attend a cremation1 or 
if  in ancient graves we look into the  
urns which contain the grayish black    
ashes1 whilst near by there sleeps in   
cold marble1 as in the ,museo           

,nazionale in ,rome1 the lovely head of 
the young ,roman maiden1 to whom two    
thousand years ago belonged these ashes1
 as well as the beautiful mansion  that 
has been excavated from the earth and   
rebuilt round about her4 ,and  the      
language1 the language in which all our 
experience here on earth lies  stored1  
will this be everlasting8 ,shall we in  
another life speak ,english  or         
,sanscrit8 ,the philologist knows too   
well of what material speech is  made1  
how much of the temporal and accidental 
it has adopted in its  eternal forms1 to
 cherish such a hope1 and to think that 
the ,logos can be  eternally bound to   
the regular or irregular declensions or 
conjugations of  the ,greek1 the        
,german1 or even the ,hottentot         
languages4 ,what then remains8  ,not the
 person1 or the so-called ego--that had 
a beginning1 a continuation1  and an    
end4 ,everything that had a beginning1  
once was not1 and what once  was not1   
has in itself1 from its very beginning1 

the germ of its end4 ,what  remains is  
only the eternal ,one1 the eternal      
,self1 that lives in us all  without    
beginning and without end1 in which each
 one has his true  existence1 in which  
we live1 move1 and have our being4 ,each
 temporal ego  is only one of the       
million phenomena of this eternal ,self1
 and such a  phenomenon was the         
,horseherd to me4 ,it is only what we   
recognise in all  men as the eternal1 or
 as the divine1 that we can love and    
retain4  ,everything else comes and     
goes1 as the day comes in the morning   
and goes  at night1 but the light of the
 sun remains forever4 ,now it may be    
said3  ,this ,self1 that is and abides1 
is after all next to nothing4 ,it is1   
however1 and that 8is0 is more than     
everything else4 ,light is not much     
either1 probably only vibration1 but    
what would the world be without it8     
,did we not begin this life simply with 
this ,self1 continue it with this       
,self1 and bring it to an end with this 

,self8 ,there is nothing that  justifies
 us in saying that this ,self had a     
beginning1 and will therefore  have an  
end4 ,the ego had a beginning1 the      
persona1 the temporal mask  that unfolds
 itself in this life1 but not the ,self 
that wears the mask4  ,when therefore my
 ,horseherd says1 8,after death we are  
just as much a  nullity as before our   
birth10 ,i say1 quoderat demonstrandum  
is still to  be proved4 ,what does he   
mean by we8 ,if we were nothing before  
birth1  that is1 if we never had been at
 all1 what would that be that is born8  
,being born does not mean becoming      
something out of nothing4 ,what is born 
or produced was there1 before it was    
born or produced1 before it came into   
the light of the world4 ,all creation   
out of nothing is a pure chimera for    
us4  ,have we ever the feeling or       
experience that we had a beginning here 
on earth1 or have we entirely forgotten 
the most remarkable thing in our  life1 
viz41 its beginning8 ,have we ever seen 

a beginning8 ,can we even  think of an  
absolute beginning8 ,in order to have   
had our beginning on  earth1 there must 
have been something that begins1 be it a
 cell or be it  the ,self4 ,all that we 
call ego1 personality1 character1 etc41 
has unfolded  itself on earth1 is       
earthly1 but not the ,self4 ,if we now  
on earth were  content with the pure    
,self1 if in all those that we love1 we 
loved the  eternal ,self and not only   
the appearance1 what then is more       
natural than  that it should be so in   
the next world1 that the continuity of  
existence  cannot be severed1 that the  
,self should find itself again1 even    
though in  new and unexpected forms8    
,when therefore my friend makes the bold
  assertion3 8,after our death we are   
again as much a nullity as before our   
birth10 ,i say1 8,yes1 if we take       
nullity in the ,hegelian sense40        
,otherwise  ,i say the direct contrary  
to this3 8,after our death we are again 
as little  a nullity as before our      

birth4 ,what we shall be we cannot know2
 but that  we shall be1 follows from    
this1 that the ,self or the divine      
within us can  neither have a beginning 
nor an end40 ,that is what the ancients 
meant in  saying that death was to be   
best understood from the time before    
birth4  ,but we must not think that each
 single ego lays claim only to a part of
  the ,self1 for then the ,self would be
 divided1 limited1 and finite4 ,no1 the 
entire ,self bears us1 just as the      
entire light illumines all1 every grain 
of sand and every star1 but for that    
reason does not belong exclusively to   
any one grain of sand or star4 ,it is   
that which is eternal1 or in the true   
sense of the word that which is divine  
in us1 that endures in all changes1     
that makes all change possible1 for     
without something that endures in       
change1 there could be no change2       
without something continuous1 that      
persists through transformation1 nothing
 could be transformed4 ,the ,self is    

the bond that unites all souls1 the red 
thread which runs through all  being1   
and the knowledge of which alone gives  
us knowledge of our true  nature4 8,know
 thyself0 no longer means for us 8,know 
thy ego10 but 8,know  what lies beyond  
thy ego1 know the ,self10 the ,self that
 runs through the  whole world1 through 
all hearts1 the same for all men1 the   
same for the  highest and the lowest1   
the same for creator and creature1 the  
tman of  the ,veda1 the oldest and      
truest word for ,god4    ,for this      
reason the ,horseherd was to me what all
 men have always been to  me--an        
appearance of the ,self1 the same as ,i 
myself1 not only a  fellow-creature1 but
 a fellow-man1 a fellow-self4 ,had ,i   
met him in life1  who knows whether his 
ego or his appearance would have        
attracted me as  much as his letter4 ,we
 all have our prejudices1 and much as ,i
 honour a  ,silesian peasant who has    
spent his life faithfully and honestly  
in a  strange land1 ,i do not know      

whether ,i should have sat down by his  
iron  stove and chatted with him about  
4    ,i also felt as ,i read his letter1
 that it was not a solitary voice in the
  desert1 but that he spoke in the name 
of many who felt as he felt1 without    
being willing or able to express it4    
,this also has proved to be entirely    
true4    ,judging by the numerous       
letters and manuscripts that reach me1  
the  ,horseherd was not alone in his    
opinions4 ,there are countless others in
 the  world of the same mind1 and even  
if his voice is silenced1 his ideas     
survive in all places and directions1   
and he will not lack followers and      
defenders4 ,the striking thing in the   
letters that reached me was that the    
greater number and the most             
characteristic among his sympathisers   
did not  wish their names to be known4  
,what does this signify8 ,do we still   
live on  a planet on which we dare not  
express what we hold to be the          
truth--planet  ,terra so huge and yet so

 contemptibly small8 ,has mankind still 
only  freedom of thought1 but not       
freedom of utterance8 ,the powers may   
blockade  ,greece2 can they blockade    
thoughts on wings of words8 ,it has been
  attempted1 but force is no proof1 and 
when we have visited the prisons in     
which ,galilei or even ,giordano ,bruno 
was immured1 we learn how nothing  lends
 greater strength to the wings of truth 
than the heavy chains with  which men   
try to fetter it4 ,it is still the      
general opinion that even in  free      
,england thought and speech are not     
free1 that in the realm of thought      
there is even less freedom on this side 
of the ,channel than on the  other47#cg7
 ,oxford especially1 my own university1 
is still considered the  stronghold of  
obscurantists1 and my ,horseherd even   
considers the fact that  ,i have lived  
so long in ,oxford a circonstance       
attnuante of my so-called  orthodoxy4   
,plainly what is thought1 said1 and     
published in ,england1 and  especially  

in ,oxford1 is not read4 ,in ,england we
 can say anything we  please1 we must   
only bear in mind that the same         
consideration is due to  others that we 
claim from others4 ,it is true that from
 time to time in  ,england1 and even in 
,oxford1 feeble efforts have been made1 
if not to  curtail freedom of thought1  
at least to punish those who laid claim 
to it4  ,where possible the salaries of 
professors were curtailed2 in certain   
elections very weak candidates were     
preferred because they were outwardly   
orthodox4 ,i do not wish to mention any 
names1 but ,i myself have received  in  
,england1 even if not in ,oxford1 a     
gentle aftertaste of this antiquated    
physic4 ,when at the request of my      
friend ,stanley1 the ,dean of           
,westminster  ,abbey1 ,i delivered a    
discourse in his venerable church1 which
 was crowded  to the doors1 petitions   
were sent to ,parliament to condemn me  
to six  months' imprisonment4 ,i was    
accosted in the streets and an ordinary 

tradesman said to me1 8,sir1 if you are 
sent to prison1 you shall have at  least
 two warm dinners each week from me40 ,i
 am1 to be sure1 the first  layman that 
ever spoke publicly in an ,english      
church1 but ,i had the advice  of the   
highest authorities that the ,dean was  
perfectly within his rights  and that we
 were guilty of no violation of law4 ,i 
therefore waited in  silence2 ,i knew   
that public opinion was on my side1 and 
that in the end  the petition to        
,parliament would simply be laid aside4 
,later on it was  attempted again4 ,at  
the time that ,i delivered my lectures  
on the ,science  of ,religion at the    
university of ,glasgow1 by invitation of
 the ,senate1 ,i  was accused first     
before the presbytery at ,glasgow1 and  
when this attempt  failed1 the charge   
was carried before the great ,synod at  
,edinburgh4 ,in  this case1 too1 ,i went
 on my way1 in silence1 and in the end1 
even in  ,scotland1 the old saying1     
8,much cry and little wool10 was        

verified4 ,this  proverb is frequently  
heard in ,england4 ,i have often        
inquired into its  origin4 ,finally ,i  
found that there is a second line1 8,as 
the deil said  when he shore the sow40  
,of course such an operation was        
accompanied with  much noise on the part
 of the sow1 but little wool1 nothing   
but bristles4  ,i have never1 however1  
had to turn my bristles against the     
gentlemen who  wished to shear me4    ,i
 am of opinion1 therefore1 that those   
who wished to espouse the cause of  my  
,horseherd should have done so publicly 
and with open visor4 ,as soon as  any   
one feels that he has found the truth1  
he knows also that what is real  and    
true can never be killed or silenced2   
and secondly1 that truth in the  world  
has its purpose1 and this purpose must  
in the end be a good one4 ,we  do not   
complain about thunder and lightning1   
but accustom ourselves to  them1 and    
seek to understand them1 so as to live  
on good terms with them2  and we finally

 invent lightning conductors1 to protect
 ourselves1 as far  as we can1 against  
the inevitable4 ,so it is with every new
 truth1 if it is  only maintained with  
courage4 ,at first we cry and clamour   
that it is  false1 that it is dangerous4
 ,in the end we shake our wise heads and
 say  these are old matters known long  
since1 of which only old women were     
afraid4 ,in the end1 after the thunder  
and lightning1 the air is made  clearer1
 fresher1 and more wholesome4 ,when ,i  
first read the long letter of  my       
,horseherd1 ,i said to myself1 8,he is a
 man who has done the best he  could in 
his position40 ,he has let himself be   
taught1 but also  irresistibly          
influenced1 by certain popular books1   
and has come to think  that the         
abandonment of views that have been     
instilled into him from his  youth is so
 brave and meritorious1 that all who    
disagree with him must be  cowards4     
,this inculcation of truth into childish
 minds is always a  dangerous matter1   

and even if ,i do not use the strong    
expressions that are  used by my        
friend1--for ,i always think1 the       
stronger the expression the  weaker the 
argument1--,i must admit that he is     
right up to a certain point4  ,it does  
not seem fair that in the decision of   
the most important questions  of life   
the young mind should have no voice4 ,a 
,jewish child becomes a ,jew1  a        
,christian child a ,christian1 and a    
,buddhist child a ,buddhist4 ,what does 
this prove8 ,unquestionably1 that in the
 highest concern in life the child  is  
not allowed a voice4 ,my friend asks    
indignantly3 8,is there anything in     
face of our knowledge1 and of the realm 
of nature and of man's position in  it1 
so unbearable1 yes so odious1 as the    
inoculation of such error in the  tender
 consciousness of our school children8  
,i shudder when ,i think that  in       
thousands of our churches and schools   
this systematic ruin of the  greatest of
 all gifts1 the consciousness1 the human

 brain1 is daily1 even  hourly1 going   
on4 ,max1 can you1 too1 still cling to  
the ,god-fable80 etc4    ,now ,i have   
explained clearly and concisely in what 
sense ,i cling to the  ,god-fable1 and  
,i should like to know if ,i have       
convinced my ,horseherd4 ,i  belong1    
above all1 to those who do not consider 
the world an irrational  chaos1 and also
 to those who cannot concede that there 
can be reason  without a reasoner4      
,reason is an activity1 or1 as others   
have it1 an  attribute1 and there can   
neither be an activity without an agent1
 nor an  attribute without a subject2 at
 least1 not in the world in which we    
live4  ,when ordinary persons and even  
professional philosophers speak of      
reason  as if it were a jewel that can  
be placed in a drawer or in a human     
skull1  they are simply myth-makers4 ,it
 is precisely in this ever recurring    
elevation of an adjective or a verb to a
 noun1 of a predicate to a  subject1    
that this disease of language1 as ,i    

have called mythology1 has  its deepest 
roots4 ,here lies the genesis of the    
majority of gods1 not by  any means1 as 
it is generally believed ,i have taught1
 merely in later  quibbles and          
misunderstandings1 which are interesting
 and popular1 but  have little reference
 to the deepest nature of the myth4 ,we 
must not take  these matters too        
lightly4    ,i recognise therefore a    
reasoner1 and consequent reason in the  
world1 or  in other words1 ,i believe in
 a thinker and ruler of the world1 but  
gladly  concede that this ,being so     
infinitely transcends our faculties of  
comprehension1 that even to wish only to
 give him a name borders on  madness4   
,if1 in spite of all of this1 we use    
such names as ,jehovah1 ,allah1  ,deva1 
,god1 ,father1 ,creator1 this is only a 
result of human weakness4 ,i  cling     
therefore to the ,god-fable in the sense
 which is more fully set  forth in my   
letter1 and it pleased me very much to  
see that at least a few  of those1 who  

as they said were formerly on the side  
of the ,horseherd1 now  fully agree with
 me1 that the world is not irrational4  
,here is the  dividing line between two 
systems of philosophy4 ,whoever thinks  
that an  irrational world becomes       
rational by the survival of the fittest1
 etc41  stands on one side2 ,i stand on 
the other1 and hold with the ,greek     
thinkers1 who accept the world as the   
expression of the ,logos1 or of a       
reasonable thought or thinker4    ,but  
here the matter became serious4 ,to my  
,horseherd ,i thought that ,i could     
make myself intelligible in a humorous  
strain1 for his letter was  permeated   
with a quiet humour4 ,but my known and  
unknown opponents take the  matter much 
more seriously and thoroughly1 and ,i am
 consequently obliged  at least to try  
to answer them seriously and thoroughly4
 ,what my readers  will say to this ,i  
do not know4 ,i believe that even in    
short words we can  be serious and      
profound4 ,when ,schiller says that he  

belongs to no  religion1 and why8       
because of religion1 the statement is   
short and  concise1 and yet easily      
understood4 ,i shall1 however1 at least 
attempt to  follow my opponents step by 
step1 even at the risk of becoming      
tedious4    ,and first of all a         
confession4 ,it has been pointed out to 
me that in one  place ,i did my         
,horseherd an injustice4 ,i wrote3 8,you
 are of opinion that  to love ,god and  
your neighbour is equivalent to being   
good1 and are  evidently very proud of  
your discovery that there is no         
distinction  between good and evil4     
,well10 ,i then continue1 8if loving    
,god and your  neighbour is equivalent  
to being good1 then it follows that not 
loving ,god  and not loving your        
neighbour is equivalent to not being    
good1 or to being  evil4 ,there is1     
then1 a very plain distinction between  
good and evil4 ,and  yet you say that   
you turned a somersault when you        
discovered that there  was no such      

distinction40    ,well1 that looked as  
though ,i had driven my friend into a   
corner from  which he would find it     
difficult to extricate himself4 ,but ,i 
did him an  injustice and shall         
therefore do everything in my power to  
right it4 ,my  memory1 as it so         
frequently does1 played me a prank4 ,at 
the same time that  ,i answered him1 ,i 
was in active correspondence with one of
 the delegates  to the ,chicago         
,parliament of ,religions1 at which the 
love of ,god and one's  neighbour had   
been adopted1 as a sort of article of   
agreement which the  followers of any or
 every faith could accept4 ,thus it     
befell that ,i  supposed the ,horseherd 
in ,america to stand at the same point  
of view1 and  consequently to be guilty 
of a contradiction4 ,such is1 however1  
not the  case2 he made no such          
concession of love of ,god and one's    
neighbour in his  letter4 ,if he        
therefore insists that there is no      
distinction between good  and evil1 ,i  

cannot at least refute him out of his   
own mouth4 ,the only  place where he is 
inconsistent is where he concedes that  
he could not  strike a dog1 but is      
filled with bloodthirstiness toward the 
,jewish idea  of ,god4 ,here he clearly 
holds it good that he cannot be cruel to
 an  animal1 and that he looks upon     
bloodthirstiness as a contrast4 ,he also
  concedes that a lie can never         
accomplish any good1 and believes that  
the  truth is beautiful and holy4 ,if a 
lie can accomplish no good1 only evil1  
then there must be a distinction between
 good and evil4  ,and what is the       
meaning of beautiful and holy1 if there 
is no contrast between good and  evil4  
,but ,i shall argue this point no       
farther1 but simply say peccavi1  and ,i
 believe that he1 and those like-minded 
with him1 will be satisfied  with that4 
,how different it would have been1      
however1 had ,i been guilty of  such a  
mistake in a personal dispute6 ,the     
injured party would never have  believed

 that my oversight was accidental1 and  
not malicious1 in spite of  the fact    
that it would have been the most stupid 
malevolence to say that  which every one
 who can read would instantly recognise 
as untrue4 ,but  enough of this1 and    
enough to show that my ,horseherd at    
least remained  consistent4 ,even when  
he so far forgets himself as to say1    
8,god be  praised10 he excuses himself4 
,only he has unfortunately not told us  
what  he really means when he says that 
good and evil are identical4 ,good and  
evil are relative ideas1 just like right
 and left1 black and white1 and         
although he has told us that he turned  
somersaults with joy over the  discovery
 that this distinction is false1 he has 
left us in total darkness  as to how we 
shall conceive this identity4    ,but   
let us turn back to more important      
things4 ,my opponents further call  me  
sharply to account1 and ask how ,i can  
imagine that the material world  can be 
rational1 or permeated with reason4 ,i  

believed that it must be  clear to every
 person with a philosophical training1  
that there are things  that are beyond  
our understanding1 that man can neither 
sensibly apprehend  nor logically       
conceive an actual beginning1 and that  
to inquire for the  beginning of the    
subjective self1 or of the objective    
world1 is like  inquiring for the       
beginning of the beginning4 ,all that we
 can do is to  investigate our          
perceptions1 to see what they           
presuppose4 ,a perception  plainly      
presupposes a self that perceives1 or   
that resists1 and on the  other side1   
something that forces itself upon us1   
or1 as ,kant says1  something that is   
given4 ,this 8given0 element might be   
mere confusion1 but  it is not2 it      
displays order1 cause and effect1 and   
reveals itself as  rational4 ,this      
revelation of a rational world may1     
however1 be explained  in two ways4     
,that there is reason in nature1 even   
the majority of  ,darwinians admit1 but 

they think that it arises of itself1    
since in the  struggle for life that    
which is most adapted to its conditions1
 fittest1  best1 necessarily survives4  
,in this view of the world1 however1 if 
,i see  it aright1 much is admitted     
surreptitiously4 ,whence comes all at   
once this  idea of the best1 of the     
good1 the fit1 the adapted1 in the      
world8 ,do  roasted pigeons fall from   
the sky8 ,is the pigeon itself an       
accidental  combination1 an evolution1  
that might as well have been as it is1  
or  otherwise8 ,it is all very fine to  
recognise in the ascending series of    
protozoa1 clenterata1 echinoderms1      
worms1 mollusks1 fishes1 amphibia1      
reptiles1 the stages of progress toward 
birds and finally to mammals and  man4  
,but whence comes the idea of bird or   
pigeon8 ,is it no more than an          
abstraction from our perceptions of     
thousands of birds or pigeons1 or must  
the idea of bird1 of pigeon1 even of the
 wood pigeon1 be there already1  that we

 may detect it behind the multiplicity  
of our perceptions8    ,is the pigeon1  
in whose wing each feather is counted1 a
 mere accident1 a  mere survival which  
might have been what it is or something 
different1 or  is it something willed   
and thought1 an organic whole8 ,it is   
the old  question whether the idea      
preceded or followed the reality1 on    
which the  whole ,middle ,ages broke    
their teeth1 the question which         
separated and  still separates          
philosophers into two camps1--the       
,realists and the  ,nominalists4 ,i     
think that the latest investigations    
show us that the ,greek  philosophers1  
and especially ,plato1 saw more         
correctly when they  recognised behind  
the multiplicity of individuals the     
unity of the idea1  or the species1 and 
then sought the true sequence of        
evolution not in this  world1 in a      
struggle for existence1 but beyond the  
perception of the  senses1 in a         
development of the ,logos or the idea4  

,the circumstances1 it  appears to me1  
in this view remain just the same2 the  
sequence1 and the  purposiveness in this
 sequence1 remain untouched1 only that  
the ,greeks saw  in the rational and    
purposive in nature the realisation of  
rational  progressive thoughts1 not the 
bloody survivals of a monstrous         
gladiatorial  combat in nature4 ,the    
,darwinians appear to me to resemble the
 ,roman  emperors1 who waited till the  
combat was ended1 and then applauded the
  survival of the fittest4 ,the idealist
 philosophy1 be it ,plato's or          
,hegel's1 recognises in what actually   
is1 the rational1 the realisation of    
eternal1 rational ideas4 ,this          
realisation1 or the process of what we  
call  creation1 can never be conceived  
by us otherwise than figuratively4 ,but 
we  can make this figurative            
presentation clearer and clearer4 ,that 
the world  was made by a wood cutter1 as
 was originally implied in the ,hebrew  
word  bara1 and in the ,german          

schoepfer1 schaffer1 in the ,english    
shaper1 or in the ,vedic tvasht1 and the
 ,greek 1 was quite  comprehensible at a
 time in which man's highest product was
 that of the  carpenter and the stone   
mason2 and in which the name of timber  
7materies7 could become the universal   
name for matter 71 wood74 ,after  this  
idea of the founder of the universe as a
 carpenter or builder was  abandoned as 
inadequate1 the world was divided into  
two parties4 ,the one  adopted the      
theory of material primitive elements1  
whether they be called  atoms1 or       
monads1 or cells1 which by collision or 
struggle with each  other1 and by mutual
 affinity1 became that which we now see 
around us4 ,the  other saw the          
impossibility of the rise of something  
rational out of the  irrational1 and    
conceived a rational being1 in which was
 developed the  original type of        
everything produced1 the so-called      
,logos of the universe4  ,how this      
,logos became objectively and materially

 real1 is as far beyond  human          
comprehension as is the origin of the   
cosmos out of countless atoms1  or even 
out of living cells4 ,so far1 then1 one 
hypothesis would be as  complete and as 
incomplete as the other4 ,but the ,logos
 hypothesis has the  far-reaching       
advantage1 that instead of a long       
succession of wonders1--call  them if   
you like the wonder of the monads1 or   
the worm1 or the mollusk1 or  the fish1 
or the amphibian1 or the reptile1 or the
 bird1 or1 lastly1  man1--it has but one
 wonder before it1 the ,logos1 the idea 
of thought1 or  of the eternal thinker1 
who thought everything that exists in   
natural  sequence1 and in this sense    
made all4 ,in this view we need not even
  abandon the survival of the fittest1  
only it proceeds in the ,logos1 in the  
mind1 not in the outward phenomenal     
world4 ,it would then also become       
conceivable that the embryological      
development of animated nature runs     
parallel with the biological or         

historical1 or as it were recapitulates 
it1 only the continuity of the idea is  
far closer and more intimate than  that 
of the reality4 ,thus1 for instance1 in 
the development of the human  embryo1   
the transition from the invertebrate to 
the vertebrate may be  represented in   
the reality by the isolated amphioxus1  
which remains  stationary where         
vertebrate man begins1 and can make no  
step forward1  while the human embryo   
advances farther and farther till it    
reaches its  highest limit4    ,in order
 now to infer from these and similar    
facts that man at one time  really      
existed in this scarcely vertebrate     
condition of the amphioxus1--a          
conclusion which1 strictly understood1  
yields no meaning1--we can make the     
case much more easily conceivable if we 
represent the thinking1 or  invention of
 the world1 as an ascending scale1 in   
which even the least  chromatic tone    
must have a place without a break1 while
 the principal  tones do not become     

clear and full until the requisite      
number of  vibrations is attained4      
,these gradations of tone are the really
  interesting thing in nature4 ,as the  
full1 clear tones imply certain         
numerical relations among the           
vibrations1 so the successive stages or 
the  true species in nature imply a will
 or thought in which the true ,origin   
of ,species has its foundation4 ,that   
natural selection1 as it is called1     
could suffice to explain the origin of  
species1 was doubted even by            
,huxley17#ch7 who yet described himself 
as ,darwin's bull-dog4    ,if we have   
followed the supporters of my ,horseherd
 so far1 ,i should like  here to enter a
 caveat1 that is indeed of no great     
significance1 but may  turn one or      
another from a by-way1 which the        
,horseherd himself has not  avoided4 ,he
 speaks of the place of man in nature2  
he thinks 7like so many  others7 that   
man is not only an animal belonging to  
the mammalia1 which no  one has ever    

denied1 but that he is of the same      
nature as the animal  world4 ,he need   
not therefore have accepted the whole   
simian theory1 at  least he does not say
 so2 but that each man1 and the entire  
human race1  has descended from an      
unknown pair of animals1 he appears to  
receive as  indubitable4 ,this would    
not1 so far as ,i can see1 make the     
slightest  difference in the so-called  
dignity of mankind4 ,if man had a       
prehensile  tail1 it would not detract  
from his worth4 ,i myself have little   
doubt that  there were men with tails in
 prehistoric or even in historic times4 
,i go  still farther and declare that if
 ever there should be an ape who can    
form  ideas and words1 he would ipso    
facto be a man4 ,i have therefore no    
prejudices such as the advocates of the 
simian theory like to attribute to  us4 
,what ,i and those who agree with me    
demand of our opponents1 is merely      
somewhat keener thought1 and a certain  
consideration for the results of  our   

knowledge1 such as we on our side have  
bestowed on their researches4  ,they    
have taught us that the body in which we
 live was at first a simple  cell4 ,the 
significance of this 8at first0 is left 
somewhat vague4 ,this  cell was really  
what the word means1 the cella 7room7 of
 a dumb  inhabitant1 the ,self4 ,the    
essential thing is and remains what was 
in the  cell4 ,through gemmation1       
differentiation1 segmentation1          
evolution1 or  whatever other technical 
expressions we may use for division1    
multiplication1 budding1 increase1 etc41
 each cell became a hundred1 a          
thousand1 a million4 ,within this cell  
is a bright spot into which not even    
the microscope can penetrate1 although  
whole worlds may be contained  therein4 
,if it is now remembered that no one has
 ever succeeded in  distinguishing the  
human cell from the cell of a horse1 an 
elephant1 or an  ape1 we shall see how  
much unnecessary indignation has been   
expended in  recent years over the      

simian origin of the human race1 and how
 much  intelligent thought has been     
wasted about the animal origin of man1  
that  is of the individual4 ,my body1   
your body1 his body1 is derived         
7ontogenetically7 from the cell1 is in  
fact the cell which has remained        
persistently the same from beginning to 
end1 without ever1 in spite of all      
changes1 losing its identity4 ,this cell
 in its transformations has shown       
remarkable analogies with the           
transformations of other animal cells4  
,while1 however1 the other animal cells 
in their transformations remain         
stationary here and there1 either at the
 boundary line of worms1 fishes1        
amphibia1 reptiles1 or mammals1 the one 
cell which was destined to become  man  
moves on to the stage of the tailed     
catarrhine apes1 then of the  tailless  
apes1 and without staying here it       
irresistibly strides towards  its       
original goal1 and only stops where it  
is destined to stop4 ,speaking1         

however1 not phylogenetically1 but      
ontogenetically1 at what point does our 
own cell come in contact with the cell  
that was intended to become an ape1  and
 that became and remained an ape8 ,if we
 accept the cell theory in its  latest  
form1 what meaning can there be in the  
statement of the late ,henry  ,drummond1
 that 8,in a very distant period the    
progenitors of birds and the            
progenitors of men were one and the     
same087#ci7 ,would not a very small     
quantity of strictly logical thought    
have cut off a priori the bold          
hypothesis that directly or indirectly  
we descend from a menagerie8 ,every     
man1 and consequently all mankind1 has  
accomplished his uninterrupted          
embryological development on his own    
account2 no man and no human cell       
springs from the womb of an ape or any  
other animal1 but only from the  womb of
 a human mother1 fertilised by a human  
father4 ,or do men owe their  being to a
 miscarriage8    ,as many streams may   

flow alongside of each other and through
 the same  strata1 and one ends in a    
lake while the others flow on and grow  
larger  and larger1 till finally one    
river attains its highest goal1 the sea1
 so  the cells develop for a time       
alongside of each other1 then some      
remain  stationary at their points of   
destination1 while others move on       
farther2  but the cell that has moved   
forward is as little derived from the   
stationary cell as the ,indus from the  
,sarasvati4 ,it is at the points of     
destination that the true species       
digress1 and when these points are      
reached1 the specific development       
ceases1 and there remains only the      
possibility of the variety1 the origin  
of which is conditioned by the          
multiplicity of individuals2 but which  
must never be confounded with a  true   
species4 ,every species represents an   
act of the will1 a thought1 and  this   
thought cannot be shaken from its       
course1 however close temptation  may   

often come4    ,with this ,i believe ,i 
have cleared up and refuted one of the  
objections  that my correspondents made1
 at any rate to the best of my ability4 
,whoever is convinced that each         
individual1 be it fish or bird1 springs 
from its own cell1 knows ipso facto that
 a human cell1 however                  
undistinguishable it may be to the human
 eye from the cell of a catarrhine  ape1
 could never have been the cell of an   
ape4 ,and what is true  ontogenetically1
 is of course true phylogenetically4    
,for myself this  inquiry into the      
simian origin of man never had any great
 interest2 ,i even  doubt whether the   
,horseherd would have laid great stress 
upon it4 ,his  champions1 however1      
plainly consider it one of the principal
 and  fundamental questions on which our
 whole view of the world must be        
erected4 ,in my opinion so little       
depends on our covering of flesh1 that  
as  ,i have often said1 ,i should       
instantly acknowledge an ape that could 

speak1  that is1 think in concepts1 as a
 man and brother1 in spite of his hide1 
in  spite of his tail1 in spite of his  
stunted brain4 ,we are not that which is
  buried or burned4 ,we are not even the
 cell1 but the inhabitant of the  cell4 
,but this leads me to new questions and 
objections1 which have been  made by the
 representatives and successors of the  
,horseherd1 and to which  ,i hope to    
reply on some other occasion1 assuming  
that my own somewhat  dilapidated cell  
holds out so long against wind and rain4
    ,f4 ,,max ,m,,ller4  ,,frascati1    
,april1 #ahig4            ,,chapter     
,,iv4                                   
,language ,and ,mind      ,the number of
 ,horseherds appears to grow each month4
 ,he would rejoice to  see the letters  
of men and women who are all on his     
side1 and give me  clearly to understand
 that ,i should by no means imagine that
 ,i have  refuted my unknown friend4    
,the letter of ,ignotus ,agnosticus in  
the ,june  number of the ,deutsche      

,rundschau is a good example of these   
communications4 ,i have read it with    
much interest1 and have partly dealt    
with it in my article in the same       
number2 but ,i hope at some future time 
to answer his objections1 and those of  
several other correspondents1 more      
fully4 ,i should have been glad to      
publish some of these letters4 ,but     
first1 they are too long1 and they are  
far inferior in power to the letter  of 
the ,horseherd4 ,moreover1 they are     
usually so full of friendly             
recognition1 even when disagreeing with 
me1 that it would ill become me to  give
 them publicity4 ,that there was no lack
 of coarse letters as well1 may  be     
taken for granted2 these however were   
all anonymous1 as if the writers  were  
ashamed of their heroic style4 ,i have  
never been able to understand  what     
attraction there can be in coarseness4  
,the coarse work is generally  left for 
the apprentice4 ,everything coarse1 be  
it a block1 a wedge1 or a  blade1 passes

 as unfinished1 as raw1 jagged1 and just
 the reverse of  cutting4 ,no one is    
proud of a coarse shirt1 but many1 even 
quite  distinguished people1 proudly    
strut about the streets in a coarse     
smock of  abusive language1 quite       
unconcernedly1 without any suspicion of 
their  unsuitable attire4    ,well1 ,i  
shall endeavour to be as fair as ,i can 
to my unknown opponents and  friends1   
the coarse as well as the courteous4 ,i 
cannot be coarse myself1  much as it    
seems to be desired in some quarters    
that ,i should4 ,each one  must         
determine for himself what is specially 
meant for him4    ,i cannot of course   
enter into all the objections that have 
been made4 ,many  have very little or   
nothing to do with what lay nearest the 
,horseherd's  heart4 ,the antinomies1   
for example1 on the infinity of space   
and time1  have long since belonged to  
the history of metaphysics1 and have    
been so  thoroughly worked out by ,kant 
and his school that there is hardly     

anything  new to be said about them4 ,in
 the question about the age of our      
world1 we  need only distinguish between
 world as universe and world as our     
world1  that is1 as the earth or the    
terrestrial world4 ,a beginning of the  
world  as universe is of course         
incomprehensible to us2 but we may speak
 of the  beginning of the earth1        
especially of the earth as inhabited by 
man1  because here1 as ,lord ,kelvin has
 shown1 astronomical physics and geology
  have enabled us to fix certain        
chronological limits1 and to say how old
  our earth may be1 and no older or     
younger4 ,when ,i said of the world1    
that  though it were millions of years  
old1 there still was a time before it   
was  one year or #ahig years old1 ,i    
referred to the world in the sense of   
our  world1 that is1 the earth4 ,of the 
world as universe this would scarcely be
  said2 on the contrary1 we should here 
apply the axiom that every boundary     
implies something beyond1 i4e4 an       

unbounded1 until we arrive at the       
region where1 as people say1 the world  
is nailed up with boards4 ,many  years  
ago ,i tried to prove that our senses   
can never perceive a real  boundary1 be 
it on the largest or the smallest scale2
 they present to us  everywhere the     
infinite as their background1 and       
everything that has to do  with religion
 has sprung out of this infinite        
background as its ultimate  and deepest 
foundation4 ,instead of saying that by  
our senses we perceive  only the finite 
or limited1 ,i have sought to show 7,on 
the ,perception of  the ,infinite7 that 
we everywhere perceive the unlimited1   
and that it is  we1 and not the objects 
about us1 that draw the boundary lines  
in our  perceptions4 ,when ,i also      
called this unknown omnipresence of the 
infinite  the source of all religion1   
this was the highest1 the most abstract1
 and  the most general expression that  
could be found for the wide domain of   
the  transcendent2 it had of course     

nothing to do with the historical       
beginnings of religion4 ,when the       
,aryans felt1 thought1 and named their  
god1 their ,dyaus1 in the blue sky1 they
 meant the blue sky within the  limits  
of the horizon4 ,we know1 however1 that 
while they called the sky  ,dyaus1 they 
had in mind an infinite subject1 a      
,deva1 a ,god4 ,but1 as  stated1 these  
things were remote from the ,horseherd1 
and he would scarcely  have had anything
 to object4    ,his chief objection was 
of a quite different nature4 ,he wished 
to show  that the human mind was a mere 
phantom of man's making1 that there are 
only bodies in the world1 and that the  
mind has sprung from the body1 and      
therefore constituted1 not the prius1   
but the posterius of those  bodies4     
,this view is evidently widely          
disseminated and has found very         
abundant support1 at least in the       
letters addressed to me4 8,the mind10 so
  wrote the ,horseherd1 8is not a prius1
 it is a development1 a  self-evolving  

phenomenon40 ,everything is now         
development1 and there is no  better    
salve for all ills than development4 ,if
 our knowledge of  development is taken 
in the sense of scientific historical   
inquiry1 then  we all agree1 for how can
 there be anything that has not         
developed8 ,in  order to know what a    
thing is1 we must learn how it became   
what it is4 ,a  much-admired            
philosopher1 recently deceased1 ,henry  
,drummond1 who was quite  intoxicated   
with evolution1 nevertheless admits     
quite plainly in his last  work1 ,the   
,ascent of ,man1 that 8,order of events 
is history1 and evolution  is history0  
7p4 #acb74 ,with this ,i am of course   
quite satisfied1 for it is  what ,i have
 been preaching in season and out of    
season for at least thirty  years4 ,but 
this order1 or this sequence of facts1  
must be proved with  scientific         
accuracy1 and not merely postulated4 ,if
 then my ,horseherd had  been content to
 say1 8,the human mind is also a        

development10 certainly no  student of  
history1 least of all a philologist1    
would have contradicted  him4 ,but he   
says3 8,max1 all ,german savants1 or1 if
 you please1 the  majority of them1     
still labour under the delusion that    
mind is a prius4  ,but nonsense1 ,max1  
mind is a development1 a self-evolving  
phenomenon4 ,one  would consider it     
impossible that a thinking man1 who has 
ever observed a  child1 could be of any 
other opinion2 why seek ghosts behind   
matter8 ,mind  is a function of living  
organisms1 which belongs also to a goose
 and a  chicken40    ,in the ,horseherd 
such language was excusable1 but for    
philosophers to talk  in the same style 
is strange1 to say the least4 ,how can  
such an assertion  be made without any  
proof whatever1 without even a few words
 to explain  what is meant by the term  
mind8 ,the ,german like the ,english    
language  swarms with words that may be 
used interchangeably1 though each of    
them  has its own shade of meaning4 ,if 

we translate ,geist 7,spirit7 as mind1  
then  we must consider that 8spirit10 in
 such expressions as 8,he has yielded up
  his spirit10 means the same as the    
principle of life or physical life4 ,the
  same is true of 8spirit0 in such a    
phrase as 8his spirit has departed40    
,but easy as it is to distinguish       
between spirit in the sense of the      
breath  of life1 and spirit in the sense
 of mind1 the exact definition of such  
words as intellect1 reason1             
understanding1 thought1 consciousness1  
or  self-consciousness becomes very     
difficult1 to say nothing of soul and   
feeling in their various activities4    
,these words are used in both ,english  
and ,german so confusedly that we often 
hesitate merely to touch them4 ,now  if 
we say that the mind is a development1  
and is not a prius1 what idea  ought it 
to suggest8 ,does this mean the         
principle of life1 or the               
understanding1 or the reason1 or        
consciousness8 ,we suffer here from a   

real  and very dangerous embarras de    
richesse4 ,the words are often intended 
to  signify the same things1 only viewed
 under different aspects4 ,but as there 
were various words1 it was believed that
 they must also signify various  things4
 ,different philosophers have further   
advanced different definitions  of these
 words1 until it was finally supposed   
that each of these names  must be borne 
by a separate subject1 while some of    
them originally only  signified         
activities of one and the same          
substance4 ,understanding1 reason1  and 
thought originally expressed properties 
or activities1 the activities  of       
understanding1 of perceiving1 of        
thinking1 and their elevation to nouns  
was simply psychological mythology1     
which has prevailed1 and still  prevails
 just as extensively as the physical    
mythology of the ancient  ,aryan        
peoples4    ,it would be most useful if 
we could lay aside all these mouldy and 
decayed  expressions1 and introduce a   

word that simply means what is not      
understood  by body1 the subject1 in    
opposition to the objective world4 ,it  
would by no  means follow that what is  
not body must therefore exist           
independent of the  body4 ,it would     
first of all only declare that beside   
the objective body  perceived by the    
senses1 there is also something         
subjective1 which the  five senses      
cannot perceive4 ,the best name for this
 appears to me still to  be the         
,vedantic term tman1 which ,i translate 
into 8the ,self0 7neuter71  because our 
language will scarcely allow the phrase 
8the ,self0  7masculine74 8,soul0 has a 
too tender quality to be the equivalent 
of  tman4    ,this ,self is something   
that exists for itself and not for      
others4 ,while  everything that is      
purely corporeal only exists for us men1
 inasmuch as it  is perceived1 the ,self
 exists by reason of the fact that it   
perceives4  ,while the ,esse of all     
objects is a percipi1 a something       

perceived1 which  has come into         
knowledge1 the ,esse of the self is a   
percipere1 a  perceiving1 a knowing1    
that is1 the ,self can only be thought  
of as  self-knowing4 ,the ,self exists  
even when it does not yet clearly know  
itself1 but it is not the real ,self    
until it knows itself2 and it requires  
long and earnest thought for the ,self  
to know or recognise itself as          
different from the ego or the body4 ,but
 if the ,self has once come to  itself1 
the darkness or the phenomenal          
appearance which the ,vednta            
philosophers called ,avidy 7not knowing1
 ignorance71 or also ,my  7appearance1  
or illusion71 vanishes4    ,the origin  
of this ignorance1 this illusion1 or the
 world of appearance1  is a question    
which no human being will ever solve4   
,there are questions  which must be set 
aside as simply ultra vires by every    
reasonable  philosophy4 ,we know that we
 cannot hear certain tones1 cannot see  
certain  colours2 why not then          

understand that we cannot comprehend    
certain things8  ,the ,vednta           
philosophers consider the ,avidy        
7ignorance7 as  inexplicable1 and this  
was no doubt originally implied in the  
name which  they gave it4 ,their aim    
was1 to prove the temporal existence of 
such an  ,avidy1 not to discover its    
origin2 and then in the ,vidy1 the      
,vednta  philosophy1 to set forth the   
means by which the ,avidy could be      
destroyed4  ,how or when the ,self came 
into this ignorance1 ,avidy1 or ,my     
7illusion1 or the phenomenal world71 the
 ,vednta philosophers no more  sought to
 explain than we seek to explain how the
 ,self comes into the  body1 the bodily 
senses1 and the phenomenal world which  
they perceive4 ,we  begin our philosophy
 with what is given us1 that is1 with a 
,self1 that in  its embodiment knows    
everything that befalls the body2 that  
for a time is  blended with the body1   
till it attains a true self-knowledge1  
and then1  even in life1 or later in    

death1 by liberation from its phenomenal
  existence1 or from the body1 again    
comes to itself4    ,how this body1 with
 its senses that convey and present to  
us the  phenomenal world1 originated or 
developed1 is a question that belongs to
  biology4 ,so far as is possible to the
 human understanding1 this question  has
 been solved by the cell theory4 ,the   
other question is the development  of   
what we call mind1 that is1 the         
subjective knowledge of the phenomenal  
world4 ,to this the body1 as it exists  
and lives1 and the organs of sense1  as 
they exist1 are essential4 ,we know that
 all sense-perceptions depend  upon     
bodily vibrations1 i4e4 the nerves2 and 
if we wish to make plain  the transition
 of impressions to conscious ideas1 we  
can best do so  through the assumption  
of the ,self as a witness or accessory  
to the  nerve-vibrations4 ,this1        
however1 is only an image1 not an       
explanation1 for  an explanation belongs
 to the ,utopia of philosophy4 ,how it  

happens that  atoms think1 atomists do  
not know1 and no one should imagine that
  so-called ,darwinism has helped or can
 help us even one step farther4         
,whatever some ,darwinians may say1     
nothing can be simpler than the frank   
admission of ignorance on this point on 
the part of ,darwin4 ,the frank and     
modest expressions of this great but    
sober thinker are generally passed  over
 in silence1 or are even controverted as
 signs of a temporary  weakness4 ,to me1
 on the contrary1 they are very         
valuable1 and very  characteristic of   
,darwin4    ,in one place7#dj7 he says1 
8,i have nothing to do with the origin  
of the  primary mental power any more   
than ,i have with that of life itself40 
,in  another place7#da7 he speaks still 
more plainly and says1 8,in what manner 
the mental powers were first developed  
in the lowest organisms is as  hopeless 
an inquiry as how life first            
originated40 ,let no one suppose1       
therefore1 that all gates and doors can 

be opened with the word  8evolution0 or 
the name ,darwin4 ,it is easy to say    
with ,drummond1  8,evolution is         
revolutionising the world of nature and 
of thought1 and  within living memory   
has opened up avenues into the past and 
vistas into  the future such as science 
has never witnessed before407#db7 ,those
 are bold  words1 but what do they mean 
or prove8 ,du,bois-,reymond has said    
long  before1 8,how consciousness can   
arise from the co-operation of atoms is 
beyond our comprehension40 ,in the      
,contemporary ,review1 ,november1       
#ahga17dc7 ,huxley speaks just as       
decidedly as ,darwin in the name of     
biology1 8,i really know nothing        
whatever1 and never hope to know        
anything1  of the steps by which the    
passage from molecular movement to      
states of  consciousness is effected40  
,molecules and atoms are objects of     
knowledge4  ,if we ascribe knowledge to 
them1 they immediately become the monads
 of  ,leibnitz2 you may evolve out of   

them what you have first involved into  
them4 ,knowledge belongs to the ,self   
alone1 call it what we will4 ,the       
nerve-fibres might vibrate as often as  
they pleased1 millions and millions  of 
times in a second2 they would never     
produce the sensation of red if  there  
were no ,self as the receiver and       
illuminator1 the translator of  these   
vibrations of ether2 this ,self1 that   
alone receives1 alone  illumines1 alone 
knows1 and of which we can say nothing  
more than what the  ,indian philosophers
 call sak-kid-nanda1 that it exists1    
that it  perceives1 and as they add1    
that it is blessed1 i4e4 that it is     
complete  in itself1 serene and eternal4
    ,if we take a firm stand on this    
living and perceiving ,self 7for kid is 
not so much thinking as perceiving1 or  
knowing71 there can then be no  question
 that it is present not only in men1 but
 in animals as well2 only  let us beware
 of the inference that what we mean by  
human mind1 that is1  understanding and 

reasoning thought1 is a necessary       
function of all living  organisms1 and  
is possessed also by a goose or a       
chicken4 ,it is just the  same with the 
perceiving ,self as it is with the cell4
 ,to the eye they are  all alike4 ,to   
express it figuratively1 one cell has a 
ticket to ,cologne1  another to ,paris1 
a third to ,london4 ,each reaches its   
destination1 and  then remains          
stationary1 and no power on earth can   
make it advance beyond  the place to    
which it is ticketed1 that is1 its      
original destination1 its  fundamental  
eternal idea4 ,it is just the same with 
the perceiving ,self4 ,it  is true that 
the ,self sees1 hears1 and thinks4 ,as  
there are animals that  cannot see1 that
 cannot hear1 so there are animals--and 
this class includes  the whole of       
them--that cannot speak4 ,it is true    
that the speaking animals1  that is men1
 have passed the former stations on a   
fast train2 but they did  not leave the 
train1 nor have they anything in common 

with those who  remained behind at      
previous stations1 least of all can we  
consider them as  the offspring of those
 that remained behind4 ,this is only a  
simile1 and  should not provoke         
ridicule4 ,of course it will be said    
that those who can  journey to ,cologne 
may go on to ,paris1 and once in ,paris 
may easily cross  the ,channel4 ,we must
 not ride a comparison to death1 but    
always adhere to  the facts4 ,why does  
not grass grow as high as a poplar1 why 
is care taken1  as ,goethe says1 that no
 tree grows up to the sky8 ,a strawberry
 might grow  as large as a cucumber or a
 pumpkin1 but it does not4 ,who draws   
the line8  ,it is true1 too1 that along 
every line slight deviations take place 
right  and left4 ,nearly each year we   
hear of an abnormally large strawberry1 
and  no doubt abnormally small ones     
could be found as well4 ,but in spite of
  all1 the normal remains4 ,and whence  
comes it1 if not from the same hand or  
the same source which we compared with  

the ticket agent at the railway         
station1 in whom all who are familiar   
with the history of philosophy will     
again readily recognise the ,greek      
,logos8    ,these comparisons should at 
least be so far useful as to disclose   
the  confusion of thought1 when1 for    
instance1 ,mr4 ,romanes holds that it is
 not  only comprehensible1 but the      
conclusion is unavoidable1 that the     
human  mind has sprung from the minds of
 the higher quadrumana on the line of   
natural genesis4 ,the human mind may    
mean every possible thing2 the  question
 therefore arises if he refers only to  
consciousness1 or to  understanding and 
reason4 ,in the second place the human  
mind is not  something subsisting by    
itself1 but can only be the mind of an  
individual  man4 ,we cannot be too      
careful in these discussions--otherwise 
we only end  by substituting bare       
abstractions for concrete things4 ,we do
 not know the  human mind as anything   
concrete at all1 only as an abstraction1

 and in  that case only as the mind of  
one man1 or of many men4 ,how can it    
then be  thought that my mind or the    
mind of ,darwin sprang from the minds of
 the  higher quadrumana4 ,we may say    
such things1 but what meaning can we    
attach  to them8 ,the same misconception
 exists here1 if ,i am not mistaken1 as 
in  the statement1 that the human body  
springs from the bodies of the higher   
quadrupeds--a misconception to which we 
have already referred4 ,that has        
absolutely no sense if we only hold     
firmly1 that every organised body was   
originally a cell1 or originates in a   
cell1 and that each cell1 even in  its  
most complicated1 manifold1 and perfect 
form1 always is1 and remains1  an       
individual4 ,it is useless therefore to 
talk of a descent of the human  mind    
from the minds of the higher quadrupeds1
 for no intelligible meaning  can be    
discovered in it2 we should have to fall
 back on a miscarriage1 and  to set up  
this miscarriage as the mother of all   

men1 and without a  legitimate father4  
,such are the wanderings of a wrong     
method of thought1  even if it struts   
about in kingly robes4    ,above all    
things we must settle what we are really
 to understand by the  mind of the      
higher quadrupeds as distinguished from 
the human mind4 ,what  is there lacking 
in these animal minds to make them      
human8 ,and what do  they possess1 or   
what are they1 that they should claim   
equal birth with  man8 ,how much        
obscurity there is in these matters     
among the best animal  psychologists is 
seen when1 for instance1 we compare the 
assertions of  ,romanes with those of   
,lloyd ,morgan4 ,while the former sets  
up a natural  genesis of the human mind 
from animal mind as being indisputable  
and as  not being thinkable in any other
 way1 the latter1 his greatest admirer1 
says1 8,believing1 as ,i do1 that       
conception is beyond the power of my    
favourite and clever dog1 ,i am forced  
to believe that his mind differs        

generically from my own407#dd7          
,undoubtedly by 8generically0 is meant1 
according to his genus or his genesis4  
,but in spite of this1 the same  savant 
says in another place1 that he cannot   
allow that there is a  difference in    
kind1 that is in genere1 between the    
human mind and the  mind of a dog4 ,if  
men would only define their words1 such 
contradictions  would in time become    
impossible4    ,what men and animals    
have in common is the ,self1 and this   
so-called ,self  consists first of all  
in perception4 ,this perception belongs1
 as has been  said1 to those things     
which are given us1 and not to those    
which can be  explained4 ,it is a       
property of the eternal ,self1 as of    
light1 to shine1 to  illumine itself1   
that is1 to know4 ,its knowing is its   
being1 and its being  is its knowing1 or
 its self-consciousness4 ,if we take the
 ,self as we find  it1 not merely in    
itself1 but embodied1 we must attribute 
to it1 besides  its own                 

self-consciousness1 a consciousness of  
the conditions of the body2  but of     
course we must not imagine that we can  
make this embodiment in any  way        
conceivable to us4 ,it is so--that is   
all that we can say1 just as in  an     
earlier consideration of the embodiment 
and multiplication of the  eternal      
,logos we had to accept this as a datum1
 without being able to come  any nearer 
to the fact by conceptions1 or even by  
mere analogies4 ,this is  where the task
 of the psychologist begins4 ,grant the 
self-consciousness of  the individual1  
although still very obscure2 grant the  
sentient  perception2 everything else   
that we call mind is the result of a    
development1 which we must follow       
historically in order to understand that
  it could not come about in any other  
way4 ,but where are the facts1 where    
the monuments1 where the trustworthy    
documents1 from which we can draw our   
knowledge of this wonderful development8
    ,four sources have been propounded  

for the study of psychogenesis4 ,it has 
been said that to investigate the       
development of the human mind1 the      
following objects must be scientifically
 observed3 7#a7 ,the mind of a  child2  
7#b7 the mind of the lower animals2 7#c7
 the survivals of the oldest  culture1  
as we find it in ethnological           
collections2 7#d7 the mind of still     
living savages4 ,i formerly entertained 
similar hopes1 but in my own  melancholy
 experience all these studies end in    
delusion1 in so far as they  are applied
 to explain the genesis of the human    
mind4 ,they do not reach  far enough1   
they give us everywhere only the        
products of growth1 the  result of art1 
not the natural growth1 or the real     
evolution4 ,the  observations on the    
development of a child's mind are very  
attractive1  especially when they are   
made by thoughtful mothers4 ,but this   
nursery  psychology is wanting in all   
scientific exactness4 ,the object of    
observation1 the child that cannot yet  

speak1 can never be entirely  isolated4 
,its environment is of incalculable     
influence1 and the petted  child        
develops very differently from the      
neglected foundling4 ,the early  smile  
of the one is often as much a reflex    
action as the crying and  blustering of 
the other1 from hunger or inherited     
disease4 ,much as ,i  admire the        
painstaking effort with which the first 
evidences of perception  or of mental   
activity in a child have been recorded  
from day to day1 from  week to week1    
these observations prove untrustworthy  
when we endeavour to  control them      
independently4 ,it has been said that   
the mental activities of  a child       
develop in the following order3--       
,after three weeks fear is manifested2  
,after seven weeks social affections2   
,after twelve weeks jealousy and anger2 
,after five months sympathy2    ,after  
eight months1 pride1 sentiment1 love of 
ornament2    ,after fifteen months1     
shame1 remorse1 a sense of the          

ludicrous47#de7    ,we may generalise   
this scale as much as we please1 and    
gradually permit  the gradations to     
vanish1 but ,i doubt if even two mothers
 could be found  who would agree in such
 an interpretation of their children's  
looks4 ,add  to this that this whole    
scale has very little to do with what1  
in the  strict sense of the word1 we    
call mind4 ,from fear up to shame and   
penitence are all manifestations simply 
of the feelings1 and not of the  mind4  
,we know that what we call fear is often
 a reflex action1 as when a  child      
closes its eyelids before a blow4 ,what 
has been named jealousy in a  child1 is 
often nothing but hunger1 while shame is
 instilled into one  child1 and in      
others is by no means of spontaneous    
growth4    ,the worst feature of such   
observations is that they are very      
quickly  regarded as safe ground1 and   
are reared higher and higher until in   
the end  the entire scaffold collapses4 
,in order to establish the truth of this

  psychologic scale in children still   
more firmly1 and at the same time to    
make good its universal necessity1 an   
effort has been made to prove that a    
similar scale is to be found in the     
animal kingdom1 and of course what was  
sought has been found4 ,romanes asserts 
that the lowest order of animals1  the  
annelids1 only show traces of fear2 a   
little higher in the scale1 in  insects1
 are found social instincts such as     
industry1 combativeness1 and  curiosity2
 another step higher1 fishes exhibit    
jealousy1 and birds1  sympathy2 then in 
carnivorous animals follow cruelty1     
hate1 and grief2 and  lastly1 in the    
anthropoid apes1 remorse1 shame1 and a  
sense of the  ridiculous1 as well as    
deceit4 ,it needs but one step more to  
make this  scale1 which belongs much    
more to the sphere of feeling than the  
realm of  thought1 universally          
applicable to all psychology4 ,how      
should we otherwise  explain the        
parallelism between the mental          

development of infants and that  of     
undeveloped animals8 ,one need but take 
a firm hold of such  observations1 and  
they are transformed into airy visions4 
,who1 for  instance1 would dare to      
distinguish the traces of fear in       
annelids from  those of surprise in     
higher animals8 ,nevertheless fear      
occupies the first  place1 surprise the 
third4 ,and what mark distinguished     
combativeness in  insects from jealousy 
in fishes8 ,in the same way ,i doubt if 
any two nurses  would agree in the      
chronology of the phenomena of the      
infant disposition1  and have therefore 
long since given up all hope of         
obtaining any hints  either in          
embryological or physiological          
development1 about the real  historical 
unfolding of the human consciousness1   
either out of a nursery  or out of a    
zological garden4    ,as for            
ethnological museums1 they certainly    
give us wonderful glimpses  into the    
skilfulness of primitive man1 especially

 in what relates to the  struggle for   
life2 but of the historic or prehistoric
 age of these wood1  horn1 and stone    
weapons1 they tell us absolutely        
nothing4 ,whoever thinks  that man      
descended from an ape1 may no doubt say 
that flint implements for  kindling fire
 belonged to a higher period1 post      
hominem natum1 although  it has been    
thought that even apes could have       
imitated such weapons1  though they     
could not have invented them4 ,romanes1 
in his book on ,mental  ,evolution in   
,animals1 has collected a large number  
of illustrations of  animal skilfulness2
 the majority of them1 however1 are     
explained by mere  mimicry2 of a        
development of original ideas peculiar  
to animals in their  wild state1 apart  
from the contact and influence of human 
society1 there  is no trace4 ,even the  
most intelligent animal1 the elephant1  
acquires  reason only in its intercourse
 with men1 and similarly the more or    
less  trained apes1 dogs1 parrots1 etc4 

,all this is very interesting reading1  
and an ,english weekly1 ,the ,spectator1
 has from week to week given us  similar
 anecdotes about wonderfully gifted     
animals from all parts of the  earth1   
but these matters lie outside the narrow
 sphere of science4    ,what then       
remains to enable us to study the       
earliest phase of development  of the   
human mind accessible to us8 ,if we go  
to savages1 whose language we  only     
understand imperfectly1 these           
observations are of course still more   
untrustworthy than in the case of our   
own children2 at all events we must     
wait before we receive any really       
valuable evidence of the development of 
the human mind from that source4 ,i     
repeat that the human mind itself1 as   
far as it perceives1 must simply be     
accepted as a fact1 given to us and     
inexplicable1 whether in civilised or   
uncivilised races2 but only in its      
greatest simplicity1 as mere            
self-conscious perception--a perception 

which  in this simplicity can in no wise
 be denied to animals1 although we can  
only with difficulty form a clear idea  
of the peculiarity of their  sentient   
perceptions4    ,where can we observe   
the first steps that rise above this    
simple  perception8 ,i say1 as ,i have  
always said1 ,in language and in        
language  alone4 ,language is the oldest
 monument which we possess of man's     
mental  power1 older than stone weapons1
 than cuneiform inscriptions1 than      
hieroglyphics4 ,the development of      
language is continuous1 for where this  
continuity is broken1 language dies4    
,after every ,tasmanian had been killed 
or had died1 the ,tasmanian language    
ipso facto ceased2 and even if any      
literary remains had survived1 the      
language itself would have to be        
reckoned1 like ,latin and ,greek1 with  
dead languages4 ,thousands of them may  
have disappeared from the earth2 in its 
development a language may have  changed
 as much as ,sanskrit to ,bengali2 but  

it suffers no break1 it  remains always 
the same1 and in a certain sense we     
still speak in ,german  the same tongue 
as was spoken by the ,aryans before     
there was a ,sanskrit1 a  ,greek1 or a  
,latin language4 ,consider what this    
signifies4 ,chronologically1  we cannot 
get at this primitive ,aryan speech4    
,let us assume that ,sanskrit1  ,greek1 
and ,latin were spoken as independent   
national tongues at least  fifteen      
hundred years before our                
chronology--what an age had elapsed     
before  these three1 as well as the     
remaining ,aryan tongues1 could have    
diverged  so much as ,sanskrit diverges 
from ,greek and ,greek from ,latin4 ,the
 numerals  are the same in these three  
languages1 and yet katvras sounds quite 
differently from  and quatuor and our   
four4 ,the words for eight1  octo in    
,latin1  in ,greek1 and ashtau in       
,sanskrit1 are nearly  identical2 and it
 is even possible that the lesser       
deviations in the  pronunciation of     

these words demanded no great interval  
of time4 ,but now  let us consider what 
lies behind these ten numerals4 ,there  
is the  elaboration of a decimal system 
from #a to #aj1 no1 to #ajj 771         
,sanskrit satm1 centum4 ,there is the   
formation and fixing of names for  these
 numbers1 which must have been          
originally more or less arbitrary1      
because numbers only subordinate        
themselves with difficulty to one of    
those general ideas which are expressed 
in the ,aryan roots4 ,besides these     
words are1 even in their oldest         
attainable forms1 already so            
weather-beaten1 that in most cases it is
 impossible even to guess their         
etymology and original meaning4 ,we see 
that the names for two and eight  are   
dual1 while those for three and four    
clearly have plural endings4 ,but  why  
eight in the primitive ,aryan was a     
dual1 and what were the two  tetrads1   
which1 combined in asht-au1 oct-o1 -1   
expressed the  number eight1 will       

probably never be discovered4 ,it is    
possible that  asht-i was a name for the
 four phases of the moon1 or for the    
four  fingers of the hand without the   
thumb4 ,analogies occur in other        
families  of language1 but certainty is 
beyond our reach4 ,if we now consider   
what  mental effort is necessary to work
 out a decimal system1 and to secure    
general recognition and value for the   
name given to each number1 we shall     
readily realise what remote periods in  
the development of the human mind  open 
up before us here1 and of how little use
 it would be to try to  establish       
chronological limits4 ,old as the       
,vedas1 old as the ,homeric songs  may  
be1 what is their age compared with the 
periods that were required not  only to 
work out the numerals but the entire    
treasury of ,aryan words1 and  the      
wonderful network of grammar that       
surrounds this treasure1 which also  was
 complete before the separation of the  
,aryan languages began4 ,the            

immeasurable cannot be measured1 but    
this much stands immovable in the  mind 
of every linguist1 that there is nothing
 older in the entire ,aryan  world than 
the complete primitive ,aryan language  
and grammar1 in which  nearly all the   
categories of thought1 and consequently 
the whole scaffold  of our thinking1    
have found their expression4    ,of     
course it will be said that all this    
only applies to the ,aryan race1  and   
that they constitute only a small and   
perhaps the youngest portion of  the    
human race4 ,well1 it is difficult to   
prove that the ,aryans constitute  the  
least numerous subdivision4 ,we know too
 little of their great masses  to       
attempt a census4 ,that they are the    
youngest branch of the human race  is   
really of no consequence2 we should then
 have to assume against all  ,darwinian 
principles1 various1 not                
contemporaneous1 but successive         
monstrosities1 slowly ascending to      
humanity1 and this would only be pure   

invention4 ,nothing absolutely compels  
us to ascribe a shorter earthly life  to
 those races which speak ,chinese1      
,semitic1 ,bantu1 ,american1            
,australian1  or other languages1 than  
to the ,aryans4 ,that all races have    
begun on a  lower plane of culture1 and 
especially of the knowledge of language1
 will  no doubt be universally          
acknowledged4 ,but even if we only place
 the first  beginnings of the ,aryan    
race at #aj1jjj ,b4,c41 there is time   
enough for it  and other races to have  
risen1 and also to have again declined4 
,the  difference would merely be that   
the ,aryans1 in spite of many drawbacks1
 on  the whole constantly progressed1   
while the ,australians1 ,negroes1 and   
,patagonians1 forced into unfavourable  
positions1 remained stationary on a     
very low level4 ,that their present     
plane can in any respect1 and           
especially in regard to their language1 
supply a picture of the earliest        
condition of the human race1 or even of 

certain branches of it1 is again  mere  
assumption1 and as bare of all analogy  
as the attempt to see in the  salons of 
,london a picture of ,aryan family life 
before the first  separation4 ,there are
 savages who are cannibals4 ,shall we   
conclude from  this that the first men  
all devoured each other1 or that only   
those who  were least appetising        
remained over as survivals of the       
fittest8 ,it is  remarkable how many    
ideas are current in science which the  
healthy human  mind1 after short        
reflection1 silently lays aside4 ,any   
one who has  occupied himself with the  
polysynthetic tongues of the ,redskins1 
or with  the prefixes in the languages  
of the ,bantus1 knows how much time must
 have  been needed to develop their     
grammar1 and how much higher the makers 
of  these languages must have stood than
 those who speak them now4    ,but even 
if language is the oldest chronicle in  
which the human mind has  traced its own
 development1 we must by no means       

imagine that any known  language1 be it 
as old as the pyramids1 or as the       
cuneiform inscriptions1  can offer us a 
picture of the first beginning of the   
mental life of the  race4 ,long before  
the pyramids1 long before the oldest    
monuments in  ,babylon1 ,nineveh1 and   
,china1 there was language1 even        
writing2 for on the  oldest ,egyptian   
inscriptions we find among the          
hieroglyphic signs writing  materials   
and the stilus4 ,here perspectives open 
up to us1 before which  every           
chronological telescope gives way4      
,there is a rigorous continuity in  the 
development of a language1 but this     
continuity in no wise excludes a        
transformation as marked as that of the 
butterfly from the caterpillar4  ,even  
when1 as for instance in ,sanskrit1 we  
go back to a number of roots1  to which 
,indian grammarians such as ,pnini have 
systematically traced  back the entire  
wealth of their abundant language1 we   
must not suppose  that these roots      

really constituted the original and     
complete material  with which the       
primitive ,aryan tongue began its       
historical career4 ,this is  not true   
even of the ,indian branch of this      
primitive tongue1 for in its            
development much may have been lost1 and
 much so changed that we dare not  think
 of restoring a perfect picture from    
these fragments of the earliest  mental 
development of the ,indians4 ,these     
things are so simple that  philologists 
accept them as axioms2 but it is curious
 to observe1 that in  spite of the      
widespread interest that has been       
created in all civilised  nations by the
 results of the science of language1    
philosophers who write  about language  
and its relation to thought still       
trouble themselves over  notions long   
since antiquated4 ,i had1 for instance1 
classified the  principal ideas         
expressed in ,sanskrit roots1 and had   
reduced them to the  small number of    
#aba47df7 ,with these #aba ideas1       

,indian philology pledges  itself to    
explain all the simple and derivative   
meanings of words that  fill the thick  
volumes of a ,sanskrit lexicon4 ,and    
what did ethnologists  say to this8     
,instead of gratefully accepting this   
fact1 they asserted that  many of these 
#aba radical ideas1 as for instance1    
weaving or cooking1  could not possibly 
be primitive4 ,impossible is always a   
very convenient  word4 ,but who ever    
claimed that these #aba fundamental     
ideas all belonged  to the primitive    
,aryan language4 ,they are1 in fact1 the
 ideas that are  indicated in the       
thousands of words in classical         
,sanskrit1 but they have  never made any
 claim to have constituted the mental   
capital of the  primitive ,aryans1      
whether acquired from heaven or from the
 domicile of  apes4 ,and if now a few of
 these ideas1 such as to weave1 to cook1
 to  clean1 appear modern1 what of that 
compared with the simple fact that they 
are actually there8    ,these           

ethnologists1 too1 always make the old  
mistake of confounding the  learning of 
a language1 as is done by every child1  
with the first  invention or formation  
of a language4 ,the two things are as   
radically  different as the labour of   
miners who bring forth to the light of  
day gold  ore out of the depths of the  
earth1 and the enjoyment which the heirs
 of a  rich man have in squandering his 
cash4 ,the two things are quite         
different1  and yet there are books upon
 books which attempt to draw conclusions
 as to  the creation of language from   
children learning to talk4 ,we have at  
least  now got so far as to admit that  
language facilitates thinking2 but that 
language first made thought possible1   
that it was the first step in the       
development of the human mind1 but few  
anthropologists have seen47#dg7 ,they   
do not know what language in the true   
sense of the word means1 and still      
think that it is only communication1 and
 that it does not differ from the       

signals made by chamois1 or the         
information imparted by the antenn of   
ants4 ,henry ,drummond goes so far as to
 say that 8,any means by which          
information is conveyed from one mind to
 another1 is language407#dh7 ,that  is  
entirely erroneous4 ,the entire chapter 
on sign language1 interesting as  it is1
 must be treated quite differently by   
the philologist1 compared with  the     
ethnologist4 ,when the sign is such as  
was used in the old method of           
telegraphing1 and meant a real word1 or1
 as in modern electric telegraphy1  even
 a letter1 this is really speaking by   
signs2 and so is the finger  language of
 the deaf and dumb4 ,but when ,i        
threaten my opponent with my  fist1 or  
strike him in the face1 when ,i laugh1  
cry1 sob1 sigh1 ,i certainly  do not    
speak1 although ,i do make a            
communication1 the meaning of which     
cannot be doubted4 ,not every           
communication1 therefore1 is language1  
nor  does every act of speaking aim at a

 communication4 ,there are philologists 
who maintain that the first words were  
merely a clearing of the ideas1 a  sort 
of talking to oneself4 ,this may have   
been so or not1 at any rate it  appears 
to me that in such primitive times1     
practical ends deserve the  first       
consideration4 ,no one can distinguish  
the difference in the stages  of mental 
development1 between wiping the         
perspiration from the brow after  work1 
which signifies and communicates to     
every observer1 8,it is warm0 or  8,i am
 tired10 and the man who can actually   
say1 8,it is warm10 8,i am  tired40     
,thousands1 millions of years may lie   
between these two steps4 ,we  do not    
know1 and to attempt to fix periods of  
time where the means are  lacking1 is   
like pouring water into the ,danaids'   
sieves4    ,just consider what effort   
was required to enable an ,aryan man to 
say1 8,it  is warm40 ,we shall say      
nothing of 8it02 it may be a simple     
demonstrative  stem1 which needed little

 for its formation4 ,but before this    
8i-t0 or 8id0  could become an          
impersonal 8it10 long-continued         
abstraction1 or1 if you  prefer1        
long-continued polishing1 was required4 
,take the word is4 ,whence  comes such a
 verbal form1 ,sanskrit as-ti1 ,greek 1 
,latin est8 ,was  the abstract 8to be0  
onomatopoetically imitated8 ,often1 of  
course1 we  cannot answer such questions
 at all4 ,in this case1 however1 it is  
possible4 ,the root as in asti1 that we 
now translate as is1 means as  we see   
from as-u1 breath1 originally to        
breathe4 ,whoever likes may see  in as1 
to breathe1 an imitation of hissing     
breath4 ,we neither gain or  lose       
anything by this2 for the critical step 
always remains to be taken  from a      
single imitation of a single act1 to the
 comprehension of many such  acts1 at   
various places1 and at various times1 as
 one and the same1 which  is called     
abstraction or the forming of a concept4
    ,this may appear to be a very small 

step1 just as the first slight          
deviation in a railroad track is        
scarcely a finger's breadth1 but in time
  changes the course of the train to an 
entirely different part of the  world4  
,the formation of an idea1 such as to   
be1 or to become1 or to take a  still   
simpler one1 such as four or eight1     
appears to us to be a very small        
matter1 and yet it is this very small   
matter that distinguishes man from  the 
animal1 that pushed man forward and left
 the animal behind on his old  track4   
,nay1 more1 this 8concept0 has caused   
much shaking of the head among          
philosophers of all times4 ,that one and
 one are two1 two and two1 four1  four  
and four1 eight1 eight and eight1       
sixteen1 etc41 appears to be so  very   
easy1 that we do not understand how such
 things can constitute an  eternally    
intended distinction between man and    
animal4 ,i have myself seen  an ape so  
well trained that as the word 8seven0   
was spoken1 he picked up  seven straws4 

,but what is such child's play in       
comparison with the first  formation of 
the idea of seven8 ,do you not see that 
the formation of such  an abstract idea1
 isolating mere quantity apart from all 
qualities1  requires a power of         
abstraction such as has never been      
displayed by an  animal8 ,if there were 
any languages now that actually had no  
word for  seven1 it would be a valuable 
confirmation of this view4 ,i doubt     
only1  whether the speakers of such     
languages could not call composition to 
their  aid1 and attain the idea of seven
 by two1 two1 two1 plus one4 ,we still  
know too little of these languages and  
of those who speak them4 ,of what  takes
 place in animals we know absolutely    
nothing1 and nowhere would a  dose of   
agnosticism be more useful than here4   
,sense-impressions an animal  certainly 
has2 whether quite the same as man must 
remain uncertain4 ,and                  
sense-impressions enable an animal to   
accomplish much1 especially in the      

realm of feeling2 but language--never4  
,this fact1 as a bare undeniable fact1  
should have startled the ,darwinians1   
even as it startled the venerable       
,darwin1 when ,i simply set the facts   
before him1 and he immediately drew the 
necessary consequences4 ,of any  danger 
there could be no fear4 ,the facts are  
there and show us the right  path4 ,and 
it is not only simple facts1 but the    
consequences of prexisting  conditions  
which render every so-called transition 
from animal to man  absolutely          
unthinkable4 ,language--as ethnologists 
should have learned--has  neither       
originated from artificial signs1 nor   
from imitation of sounds4  ,that we can 
communicate with signs without saying a 
word1 that we even now  use signs in our
 speech1 is best learned in southern    
races1 and in such  pantomimes as       
,l'enfant prodigue4 ,we have long known 
that imitations of  sound exist in      
greater or lesser numbers in every      
language1 and how far  they can reach   

has probably never been shown in such   
detail as by  myself47#di7 ,but that our
 ,aryan tongues1 and also the ,semitic1 
and all  others that have been studied  
scientifically1 originated from roots1  
is  now generally known and recognised4 
,that these roots may in remote times   
have contained an element of imitation1 
we may readily concede1 for it is       
really self-evident2 only we should not 
from the beginning bar our way by       
conceiving them as mere imitations of   
sound4 ,if this were so1 the problem  of
 language would long since have been    
solved1 and the first formation of      
ideas would require no further          
reflection4 ,it must be conceded on the 
other side that the origin of roots     
still contains much that is obscure1    
and that even ,noir's clamor concomitans
 does not explain every case4  ,only it 
is firmly established that a scientific 
analysis of language  leaves a certain  
number of roots which are not mere      
sound-imitations1 such  as 8bow wow10 or

 8moo moo40 ,there are people who have  
taken much pains to  discover whether   
the roots ever had an independent       
existence1 or if they  have merely been 
scientifically abstracted1 or shelled   
out of the words in  which they occur4  
,these are vain questions1 for we can   
never of course  come at the matter     
historically1 and the attempt to prove  
the necessity of  the one or the other  
view is a useless undertaking4 ,it      
appears to be the  most reasonable plan 
to assume for the ,aryan languages a    
period that  approaches the ,chinese1 in
 which roots had the same sound and the 
same  form as the corresponding noun1   
adjective1 and verb4 ,even in ,sanskrit 
roots appear at times still unchanged1  
although it is quite right that as  soon
 as they take on grammatical functions1 
they should no longer be  called roots4 
,much may be said in favour of both     
views1 without arriving  one step nearer
 our goal4 ,if we now only remember that
 the whole ,sanskrit  language has been 

reduced to #aba primitive ideas1 and    
that the roots  denoting these 7which   
are of course much more numerous7 are   
not imitations  of sound in the strict  
sense of the word1 but sounds about     
whose origin we  may say much but can   
prove little1 we have at least a   for  
our  researches4 ,i myself1 like my     
deceased friend ,noir1 have looked upon 
roots as clamor concomitans1 that is1   
not as sound-imitations1 but as  actual 
sounds1 uttered by men in common        
occupations1 and to be heard even  now4 
,why1 however1 the ,aryans used and     
retained ad for eat1 tan for  stretch1  
mar for rub1 as for breathe1 sta for    
stand1 ga for go1 no  human thought can 
find out2 we must be content with the   
fact that it was  so1 and that a certain
 number of such roots--of course much   
greater than  the #aba ideas expressed  
by them--constitute the kernels from    
which has  sprouted the entire flora of 
the ,indian mind4    ,if we now return1 
to our is1--,sanskrit as-ti1 ,greek 1   

,latin  est1--we see that it originally 
meant 8to breathe out40 ,this blowing or
  breathing was then used for 8life10 as
 in as-u1 breath of life1 and from  life
 it lost its content until it could be  
applied to everything existing1  and    
meant nothing more than the abstract 8to
 be40 ,there are languages that  possess
 no such pale word as 8be0 and could not
 form such a sentence as  8,it is warm40
 ,the auxiliary verb 8to have0 is also  
lacking in many  languages1 especially  
the ancient1 such as ,sanskrit1 ,greek1 
and even  classical ,latin4 ,if the     
words failed1 the ideas failed as well1 
and such  languages had to try and      
fulfil their requirements in other ways4
 ,if there  was no such word as 8be10   
8stand0 was employed2 where there was no
 word  for 8have10 then 8hold10 tenere1 
would render the same1 or at least      
similar service4 ,but this implied not  
only different speech1 but different    
thought4    ,but here ,i should like to 
call attention to the long process      

through which  a language must pass1    
before it could reduce 8breathe0 to 8be0
 and form  such a sentence as 8,it is   
warm40 ,even an animal feels warmth1 and
 can in  various ways make known if it  
is overheated4 ,but in all this it is   
only a  question of feelings1 not to    
ideas1 and still less of language4 ,let 
us  consider 8warm40 ,of course 8warm0  
may represent a mere feeling1 and then a
  simple panting would suffice to       
express it4 ,that is communication1 but 
not  language4 ,to think a word like    
warm1 a root and an idea are necessary4 
,probably1 and in spite of a few        
phonetic difficulties1 the root was in  
this case ghar 7in gharm1 71 and this   
meant at first to be  bright1 to        
glitter1 to shine1 then to burn1 to     
heat1 to be warm2 that is  to say1 the  
observing mind of man was able to       
abstract brightness from the            
sense-impressions produced by sun1 fire1
 gold1 and many other objects1  and1    
letting everything else drop1 to reach  

the idea of shining1 then of  being     
warm4 ,these ideas1 of course1 do not   
exist on their own account  anywhere in 
the world2 they must be and have been   
constructed by man  alone1 never by an  
animal4 ,why8 ,because an animal does   
not possess what  man possesses3 the    
faculty of grasping the many as one1 so 
as to form an  idea and a word4 ,light  
or lighting1 warmth or warming1 exist   
nowhere in  the world1 and are nowhere  
given in sentient experience4 ,every    
object of  sense exists individually1   
and is perceived as such individually1  
such as  the sun1 a torch1 a stove2 but 
heat in general1 like everything        
general1  is the product of our thought2
 its name is made by us1 and is not     
given  us4    ,of all this1 of course1  
when we learn to speak as children1 we  
have no  suspicion4 ,we learn the       
language made by others who came before 
us1 and  proceed from words to ideas1   
not from ideas to words4 ,whether the   
relation  between ideas and words was a 

succession1 it is hard to say1 because  
no  idea exists without a word1 any more
 than a word without an idea4 ,word and 
idea exist through each other1 beside   
each other1 with each other2 they  are  
inseparable4 ,we could as easily try to 
speak without thinking1 as to  think    
without speaking4 ,it is at first       
difficult to grasp this4 ,we are so     
accustomed to think silently1 before    
speaking aloud1 that we actually        
believe that the same is true1 even of  
the first formation of ideas and  words4
 ,our so-called thinking before         
speaking1 however1 refers simply to     
reflection1 or deliberation4 ,it is     
something quite different1 and occurs   
only with the aid of silent words that  
are in us1 even if they are not         
uttered4 ,every person1 particularly in 
his youth1 believes that he  cherishes  
within himself inexpressible feelings1  
or even thoughts4 ,these  are chiefly   
obscure feelings1 and the expression of 
feelings has always  been the most      

difficult task to be performed by       
language1 because they  must first pass 
through a phase of conception4 ,if1     
however1 they are  actually ideas1 they 
are such as have an old expression that 
is felt to be  inconvenient1 or         
inadequate1 and must be replaced by a   
new one4 ,we cannot  do enough to rid   
ourselves of the old error1 that thought
 is possible  without words4 ,we can1 of
 course1 repeat words without meaning2  
but that  is not speaking1 only making a
 noise4 ,if any one1 however1 tells us  
that  he can think quite well without   
words1 let this silent thinker be       
suddenly  interrupted1 ask him of what  
he has thought in silence1 and he will  
have  to admit that it was of a dog1 a  
horse1 or a man--in short1 of something 
that has a name4 ,he need not utter     
these words--that has never been        
maintained1 but he must have the ideas  
and their signs1 otherwise there  are   
not1 and there cannot be for him1 either
 ideas or things4 ,how often we  see    

children move their lips while they are 
thinking1 that is1 speaking  without    
articulation4 ,we can1 of course1 in    
case of necessity1 use other  signs2 we 
can hold a dog on high and show him1 but
 if we ask what is  shown1 we shall find
 that the actual dog is only a          
substitute for the  abstract word 8dog10
 not the reverse1 for a dog that is     
neither a spaniel1  poodle1 dachshund1  
etc41 is nowhere to be found1 in rerum  
natura1 or in  domestic life4 ,these    
things1 that give us so much trouble1   
were often  quite clear to the ancient  
,hindus1 for their usual word for       
8thing0 is  padrtha2 that is1 meaning or
 purpose of the word4 ,but men persist  
that  they are able to think without    
speaking aloud1 or in silence4 ,they    
persist  that thought comes first1 and  
then speech2 they persist that they can 
speak without thinking1--and that is    
often quite true1--and that they can    
also think without speaking1 which must 
first be proved4 ,consider only  what is

 necessary to form so simple a word as  
8white40 ,the idea of white  must be    
formed at the same time1 and this can   
only be done by dropping  everything but
 the colour from the sense-perceptions  
of such things as  snow1 snowdrop1      
cloud1 chalk1 or sugar1 then marking    
this colour1 and1 by  means of a sign   
7in this case a vocal one71 elevating it
 to a  comprehensible idea1 and at the  
same time to a word4 ,how this vocal    
token  originates it is often difficult1
 often quite impossible1 to say4 ,the   
simplest mode is1 for example1 if there 
be a word for snow1 to take this  and to
 generalise it1 and then to call sugar1 
for instance1 snow1 or  snowy1 or       
snow-white4 ,but the prior question1 how
 snow was named1 only  recedes for a    
while1 and must of course be answered   
for itself4 ,given a  word for snow1 it 
can easily be generalised4 ,but how did 
we name snow8 ,i  believe that snow1    
which forms into balls in melting and   
coheres1 was  named nix nivis1 from a   

root snigh or snu1 denoting everything  
which  melted and yet stuck together or 
cohered4 ,but these are mere            
possibilities  that may be true or      
false2 yet their truth or falsity leave 
undisturbed  the fundamental truth1 that
 each individual perception1 as1 for    
example1  this snow or this ice1 first  
had to be brought under a general       
conception1  before it could be clearly 
marked1 or elevated to a word4 ,in such 
a case  men formed1 by living and       
working together1 a general conception  
and a  root1 for an oft-repeated action1
 such as forming into balls2 and under  
this general concept they then conceived
 an individual impression like  snow2   
that is1 that which is formed into a    
ball1 so that they had the  sign1 and   
with the sign the concept of snow1 both 
inseparable in reality1  distinguishable
 as they are in their origin4 ,having   
this1 they could  extend the concept in 
the vocal sign for snow1 and speak of   
snowy things1  just as they spoke of    

rosy cheeks4 ,only we must not imagine  
that it will  ever be possible to make  
the origin of root sounds perfectly     
clear4 ,this  goes back to times that   
are entirely withdrawn from our         
observation4 ,it  goes back to times in 
which the first general ideas were      
formed1 and  thereby the first steps    
were taken in the development of the    
human mind4  ,how is it possible that   
any recollection should have remained of
 such  early times1 or even any         
understanding of these mental processes8
 ,we may  settle many things1 but in the
 end nothing is left but to say3 ,it is 
so1  and remains so1 whether we can     
explain it or not4 ,the first general   
concept may no doubt have been1 as ,noir
 affirmed1 an often repeated  action1   
such as striking1 going1 rubbing1       
chewing--acts that spontaneously        
present themselves to consciousness1 as 
manifold and yet single1 that is1  as   
continually repeated1 in which the mind 
consequently found the first  natural   

stimulus to the formation of concepts4  
,why1 however1 rub was  denoted by mar1 
eat by ad1 go by ga1 strike by tud1 we  
may perhaps  apprehend by feeling1 but  
we could not account for or even        
conceive it4  ,here we must be content  
with the facts1 especially as in other  
families of  languages we find entirely 
different vocal signs4 ,no doubt there  
was a  reason for all of them2 but this 
reason1 even if we could prove it       
historically1 would always remain       
incomprehensible to us1 and only as fact
  would it have any significance for    
science4    ,at any rate1 we can now    
understand in what manner language      
offers us  really historical documents  
of the oldest stages which we can reach 
in the  development of the human mind4  
,i say1 8which we can reach10 for what  
lies  beyond language does not exist for
 us4 ,nothing remains of the history of 
homo alalus4 ,but every word represents 
a deed1 an acquisition of the  mind4 ,if
 we take such a word as the ,vedic deva1

 there may have been many  older words  
for god1 but let us not imagine that a  
fetish or totem1 whose  etymology is or 
should be known1 belongs to them4 ,but  
at all events we  know from deva and the
 ,latin deus1 that even before the      
,aryan  separation a root dyu or div had
 been formed1 as well as the  conception
 8shine40 ,if this root was first used  
actively for the act of  shedding light1
 of striking a spark1 of shining1 it was
 a step farther to  transfer this       
originally active root to the image     
which the sky produces  in us1 and to   
call it a 8shiner10 dyu 7nom4 dyaus71   
and then with a  new upward tendency to 
call all bright and shining beings1     
deva1 deus4  ,man started1 therefore1   
from a generalisation1 or an idea1 and  
then under  this idea grouped other     
single presentations1 such as sun1 moon1
 and  stars1 from which 8shining0 had   
been withdrawn1 or abstracted1 and thus 
obtained as a mental acquisition a sign 
for the idea 8shine10 and further       

formations such as ,dyaus 7shiner7 and  
deva 7shining74 ,now observe how        
,dyaus1 as 8shiner10 at the same time   
assumed the significance of an          
otherwise unknown agent or author of    
light1 and developed into the ancient   
,dyaus1 into ,zeus and ,jove2 that is1  
into the oldest personal ,god of the    
still united ,aryans4 ,these are the    
true stages of the development of the   
human mind1 which are susceptible of    
documentary proof in the archives of    
language4    ,all this occurred1 of     
course1 on exclusively ,aryan ground1   
while the  ,semitic and other branches  
went their own way in the formation of  
ideas1  and of sounds for their ideas4  
,physiologically all these branches may 
have  one and the same origin1 but      
linguistically they have various        
beginnings1  and have not1 at least as  
far as scientific proof is possible1    
sprung from  one and the same source4   
,the common origin of all languages is  
not  impossible1 but it is and remains  

undemonstrable1 and to science that is  
enough1 sapienti sat4 ,if we analyse the
 ,semitic and other languages1 we  shall
 find in them as many ancient documents 
of the development of the  human mind as
 in the ,aryan4 ,and just as we can     
clearly and plainly trace  back the     
,french dieu1 the ,latin deus1 the      
,sanskrit deva1 divine1 to  the physical
 idea div1 8shine10 so we can with      
thousands of other words1  of which each
 indicates an act of will1 and each     
gives us an insight into  the           
development of our mind4 ,whether the   
,aryans were in possession of  other    
ideas and sounds for 8shine10 etc41     
before the formation of div1  ,dyaus1   
and deva1 must be left uncertain2 at all
 events we see how  naturally the first 
consciousness of ,god developed in them1
 how the idea  conditioned the language1
 and the language the idea1 and both    
originated  and continued inseparable   
one from the other4    ,if we take any  
root of the ,aryan language1 we shall be

 astonished at the  enormous number of  
its derivatives and the shades in their 
meaning4 ,here  we see very plainly how 
thought has climbed forward upon words4 
,we find1  for instance1 in the list of 
,sanskrit roots1 the root bhar with the 
simple meaning to bear4 ,this we see    
plainly in bharmi1 in bibharmi1  in     
bibharti 7,i bear1 he bears71 also in   
bhras or bhartr 7a  bearer71 and bhrs   
7load7 and bhrman and bhart 7bearing71  
etc4    ,but these forms1 with all their
 cases and persons and tenses1 give us  
no  idea of the fruitfulness of a root1 
especially if we follow its             
ramifications in the cognate languages4 
,in ,greek we have 1 in ,latin  fero1 in
 ,gothic bairan1 in ,english to bear4   
,the principal meanings  which this root
 assumes are1 to carry1 carry hither1   
carry away1 carry in1  to support1 to   
maintain1 to bring forth1 etc4 ,we find 
simple derivatives  such as the ,german 
,bahre1 ,english bier 7,french bire1    
borrowed71 and  also  and feretrum1 as  

well as ferculum 7a litter74 ,on the    
other hand there is  7a porter's wages71
 and aa 7quiver74 ,and  barrow in       
wheel-barrow has the same origin4       
,burden is that which is  borne1 then a 
load1 as1 for instance1 the burden of   
years4 ,a step farther  takes us to     
7bearable7 and  7unbearable74 ,we also  
find in  ,greek 1 which corresponds     
exactly to the ,sanskrit durbhara1 with 
the meaning 8heavy to bear40 ,in ,latin1
 however1 fertus signifies  fruitful1   
like fertilis1 ferax4 ,we say1 8,the    
earth bears0 7trgt71  and ,getreide     
7grain7 meant originally that borne     
7getragen7 by the  earth 7hence in      
,middle ,high ,german ,getrgede74 ,so we
 have also far1  the oldest corn grown  
by the ,romans1 derived from fero1 and  
along with  it frina 7flour71 if it     
stands for farrina4 ,far may originally1
  however1 have also meant food1        
maintenance1 and the ,anglo-,saxon bere1
  the ,english barley1 are again related
 to it4 ,of course we have the same     

root in derivatives1 such as lucifer1   
frugifer1 in ,greek  or  4 ,in ,german  
it becomes a mere suffix1 as fruchtbar1 
dankbar1  scheinbar1 urbar4 ,like 1     
means also what is carried or  brought1 
hence specially tribute1 duty1 tax4 ,to 
bear a child was used in  the sense of  
to bring forth1 and from this we have   
many derivatives such  as birth1 born1  
and ,gothic berusjos 7parents71 parentes
 and barn  7the child71 like the ,greek 
4    ,if  7carriage7 stands for 1 it    
means originally a carriage  for two    
persons1 just as 1 ,latin amphora1 was a
 vessel with two  handles4 ,we should   
scarcely believe that the same root is  
concealed in the  ,german ,zuber 7tub7  
and ,eimer 7bucket74 ,but ,zuber was    
originally  ,zwiber1 a vessel with two  
handles1 and ,eimer was ,einber1 a      
bucket  with one bail4 ,we may compare  
manubrium 7handle7 and derivatives like 
candelebrum1 lugubris1 as well as       
luctifer4 ,if bhartri meant  bearer and 
then husband1 as bhrya meant wife1 i4e4 

the one to be  maintained1 we are       
probably justified in seeing in bhrtar  
7brother7 the  original meaning of      
helper1 protector4 ,although the wife is
 to be  maintained and sustained1 she1  
too1 brings something to the household1 
and  that is the  7dowry74 ,the ,middle 
,latin expression paraphernalia is      
properly dowry1 though it has now       
assumed an entirely different meaning4  
8,to be carried0 easily takes the       
meaning of being torn away1 s'emporter1 
and this we find in the ,greek          
represented by 1 in the ,sanskrit in    
the secondary form bhur 7to hasten71    
yielding bhurany1 bhrni  7hasty1        
violent71 and other derivatives4    ,we 
have already seen how  and  signified   
that which is  contributed1 then duty1  
tribute4 ,this is the ,gothic gabaur1   
that is1  gebhr 7due71 and consequently 
all things that are proper or becoming4 
,offerre 7bring before7 leads to ,opfer 
7sacrifice7 and to the simpler  offrir1 
as sufferre to souffrir 7suffer74    ,it

 has been usual to derive ,fors1        
,fortuna1 from ferre17#ej7 the  goddess 
who brings1 although she takes away as  
well4 ,the ancients had no  doubts of   
this derivation1 and   7fate7 and       
7chance7  seem to substantiate it4 ,but 
the old divine character of ,fors1      
,fortuna  7as related to ,harit71 points
 to other sources1 which had already    
entirely  vanished from the             
consciousness of the ancients4 ,yet the 
expression1 es  trgt sich zu 7it        
happens71 the old gaburjan1             
,anglo-,saxon gebyrian1  and kipuri     
7zufllig1 casual71 must be taken into   
account1 and forms  such as forte1      
forsan1 fortassis 7forte an si vis71    
fortuitus1  are very remote from their  
supposed mythological meaning4 ,if ferre
 were  the root1 we should have further 
proof of the immeasurable fertility to  
which we owe such words as fortune and  
misfortune4    ,it would lead us too far
 if we tried to collect all the meanings
 which our  roots had in the various    

ancient ,aryan tongues in combination   
with  prepositions4 ,it must suffice to 
select a small number from a modern     
language such as ,french1 which give us 
an idea of the endless  modifications to
 which every root is more or less       
adapted4 ,thus from  circumferre we have
 circonfrence1 also priphrie1 from      
conferre1  confrence and also           
confortable1 from deferre dfrence1 from 
differre diffrence1 from praeferre      
prfrence1 from proferre  profrer1 from  
referre rfrence1 each word again with   
numerous  offshoots4 ,we are not at the 
end yet1 and still less when we keep in 
view  also the parallel formations tuli 
and latum1 or portare4 ,we then see     
what a root in this language has to     
signify1 whether considered as a        
concrete word or as a mere abstraction4 
,this is prolific of contention and  has
 been much disputed2 the main thing is  
to know the facts4 ,from these we  may  
infer how in all this multiplicity the  
unity of the root element can  be best  

explained4    ,i do not say that all    
ideas can be so clearly traced to their 
origin as in  this root4 ,in some the   
intermediate forms have been lost1 and  
the  etymologies become uncertain1 often
 impossible4 ,but the result on the     
whole remains the same4 ,wherever we can
 see clearly1 we see that what we  call 
mind and thought consists in this1 that 
man has the power not only to  receive  
presentations like an animal1 but to    
discover something general in  them4    
,this element he can eliminate and fix  
by means of vocal signs2 and  he can    
further classify single presentations   
under the same general  concepts1 and   
mark them by the same vocal signs4 ,what
 we call derivative  forms1 such as deva
 besides div1 are originally varieties  
in the  formation of words1 that in time
 proved useful1 and through repeated    
employment obtained their special       
application4 ,often1 too1 there are real
  compounds1 just as the ,german bar in 
fruchtbar1 furchtbar1 etc41 was         

originally the same word that we have in
 ,bahre 7bier71 but was very  different 
from bar in ,nachbar 7neighbour71 which 
in spite of the  similarity in sound    
comes from an entirely different root1  
seen in bauen  7build71 bebauen         
7cultivate71 bauer 7peasant71 and in the
 ,english  neighbour4    ,if we have the
 ideas and the words1 the process of    
thought1 as ,hobbes has  taught us1 is  
nothing but an addition and subtraction 
of ideas4 ,we add  when we say1 ,a is   
,b2 when we say1 for instance1 man1 or  
,caius1 is mortal1  adding ,caius1 or   
man1 to all that we call mortal2 we     
subtract when we say1  ,a is not ,b2    
that is1 when we abstract ,enoch from   
all that we call mortal4  ,everything   
that man has ever thought1 humiliating  
as it may sound1  consists in these two 
operations2 just as the most abstruse   
operations of  mathematics go back in   
the end to addition and subtraction4 ,to
 what else  could they go back8 ,whether
 these mental operations are true or    

false1 is  another question1 with which 
the method of the thinker has nothing to
 do2  any more than formal logic        
inquires whether all men are mortal1 but
 only  infers on the basis of these     
premises that ,caius1 because he is a   
man1 is  also mortal4    ,we see1       
therefore1 how language and thought go  
hand in hand2 where there  is as yet no 
word1 there is not yet an idea4 ,the    
thinking capacity of the  mind has its  
source in language1 lives in language1  
and develops  continuously in language4 
,the human mind is human language1 and  
as animals  possess no language1 they do
 not ipso facto possess what            
philosophers  understand by mind4 ,we   
need not for this reason ascribe any    
special  faculty to men4 ,speech and    
thought are only a wider development of 
the  faculty of presentation such as an 
animal may have2 but in an animal it    
never develops any farther1 for an      
animal has no general ideas2 it remains 
at the individual1 and never attains    

unity in plurality4 ,it knows1 as       
,plato would say1 a horse1 but not      
8horsedom40 ,if we wish to say that the 
perceiving self is present in animals as
 in men1 there is no objection1  though 
in all such1 questions relating to      
animals we are always groping in  the   
dark4 ,but the fact remains that the    
step1 whether small or vast1 that  leads
 from the individual to the general1    
from the concrete to the  abstract1 from
 perceiving 7that is1 being acted upon7 
to conceiving1  thinking1 speaking1 that
 is1 to acting1 is for the animal       
impossible4 ,an  animal might speak1 but
 it cannot2 a stone might grow1 but it  
cannot2 a  tree might walk1 but it      
cannot4 ,why not8 ,because there are    
natural  boundaries that are apparently 
easy to pass1 and yet impassable4 ,the  
tree  grows up a tree1 the animal an    
animal1 but no farther1 just as man     
never  surpasses the human1 and         
therefore can never think except through
  language1 which often is very         

imperfect4    ,in one sense1 therefore1 
the ,horseherd is quite right4 ,the mind
 is a  development1 an eternal1         
ceaseless development2 but when he calls
 it a  function possessed by all living 
organisms1 even a goose and a chicken1  
he  goes far beyond the facts4 ,no goose
 speaks1 although it cackles1 and       
although by cackling it apprised the    
,romans of the important fact that      
their ,capitol was in danger4 ,how much 
a dog could tell us if he could  speak6 
,as if this capacity or incapacity is   
not as much the result of  intention as 
every other capacity and incapacity in  
nature6 ,if we  translate this ability  
by facultas1 that is facilitas1 we need 
not for  that reason assume in man a    
faculty1 or as the ,horseherd calls it1 
a  phantom1 but the thing remains the   
same4 ,we can speak1 and an animal      
cannot2 we can think1 and an animal     
cannot4    ,but it must not be supposed 
that because we deny thought and speech 
to  animals1 we wish to degrade them4   

,everything that has been told us of the
  ingenious tricks of animals1 even the 
most incredible1 we shall gladly        
believe1 only not that bos locutus est1 
or that an actual utterance lies  hidden
 in the bark of a dog4 ,a man who sees  
no difference between language  and     
communication will of course continue to
 say that a dog speaks1 and  explain in 
how many dialects he barks1 when he is  
hungry1 when he wants to  go out with   
his master1 when he hears burglars in   
the house1 or when he  has been whipped 
and whines4 ,it would be more natural if
 scientists  confined themselves to     
facts1 without asking for reasons1 and  
primarily to  the great fact that no    
animal1 with the exception of man1      
speaks1 or ever  has spoken4 ,the next  
duty of the observer is to ask3 ,why is 
this8 ,there is  no physical            
impossibility4 ,a parrot can imitate all
 words4 ,there must  therefore be a     
non-physical cause why there has never  
been a parrot or dog  language4 ,is that

 true or false8 ,and if we now call that
 non-physical  cause mind1 or still     
better the ,logos1 namely1 the gatherer 
of the many  into the one1              
comprehending1 conceiving1 is our       
argument so erroneous if  we seek the   
distinction between man and animal in   
the ,logos1 in speech and  thought1 or  
in mind8 ,this mind is no ghost1 as the 
,horseherd asserts1 nor  is it a mere   
phantom of the brain as is imagined by  
so many scientists4 ,it  is something   
real1 for we see its effects4 ,it is    
born1 like everything  that belongs to  
our ego1 of the self-conscious ,self1   
which alone really  and eternally exists
 and abides4    ,so far ,i hope to have 
answered the second objection of the    
,horseherd or  ,horseherds1 that the    
mind is a function possessed also by a  
goose or a  chicken4 ,mind is language1 
and language is mind1 the one the sine  
qua  non of the other1 and so far no    
goose has yet spoken1 but only cackled4 
,,chapter ,v4                           

,the ,reasonableness ,of ,religion      
,the most difficult and at all events   
the thorniest problem that was          
presented to me by the ,horseherd still 
remains unanswered1 and ,i have long    
doubted whether ,i should attempt to    
answer it in so popular a periodical  as
 the ,deutsche ,rundschau4    ,there are
 so many things that have been so long  
settled among scholars  that they are   
scarcely mentioned1 while to a great    
majority of even  well-informed people  
they are still enveloped in a misty     
gloom4 ,to this  class belong especially
 the so-called articles of faith4 ,we   
must not  forget that with many1 even   
with most men1 faith is not faith1 but  
acquired habit4 ,why otherwise should   
the son of a ,jew be a ,jew1 the son of 
a ,parsi a ,parsi8 ,moreover1 no one    
likes to be disturbed in his old habits4
  ,there are questions1 too1 on which   
mankind as it is now constituted will   
never reach a common understanding1     
because they lie outside the realm of   

science or the knowable4 ,concerning    
such questions it is well to waste no   
more words4 ,but it is on just such a   
question1 namely1 the true nature of    
revelation1 that the ,horseherd and his 
companions particularly wish to  know my
 views4 ,the current theory of          
revelation is their greatest  stumbling 
block1 and they continually direct their
 principal attack  against this ancient 
stronghold4 ,on the other hand there is 
nothing so  convenient as this theory1  
and many who have no other support cling
 fast  to this anchor4 ,the ,bible is   
divine revelation1 say they1 therefore  
it is  infallible and unassailable1 and 
that settles everything4    ,now we     
must1 above all things1 come to an      
understanding as to what is  meant by   
revelation before we attribute          
revelation to the ,bible4 ,there are    
not many now who really believe that an 
angel in bodily form descended  from    
heaven and whispered into the ear of the
 apostles1 in rather bad  ,greek1 every 

verse1 every word1 even every letter of 
our ,gospels4 ,when  ,peter in his      
second ,epistle 7i4 #ah7 assures us that
 he heard a voice from  heaven1 that is 
a fact that can only be confirmed1 or   
invalidated1 by  witnesses4 ,but when he
 immediately after says 7i4 #ba7 that   
8holy men of  ,god spake as they were   
moved by the ,holy ,spirit10 he presents
 to us a view  of inspiration that is   
easily intelligible1 the possibility or 
truth of  which must yet be first       
determined by psychologists4 ,if it be  
conceded1  however1 that holy men may   
partake of such an inspiration1 even    
then it is  plain that it requires a    
much higher inspiration to declare      
others to be  divinely inspired than to 
make such a claim for oneself alone4    
,this  theory1 that the ,gospels are    
inspired by ,god1 and therefore are     
infallible  and unassailable1 has gained
 more and more currency since the time  
of the  ,reformation4 ,the ,bible was to
 be the only authority in future for the

  ,christian faith4 ,pope and           
ecclesiastical tradition were cast      
aside1 and a  greater stress was        
consequently laid on the litera scripta 
of the ,new  ,testament4 ,this naturally
 led to a very laborious and detailed   
criticism  of these records1 which year 
by year assumed a wider scope1 and was  
finally absorbed in so many special     
investigations that its original        
purpose of establishing the authority of
 the ,scriptures of the ,new  ,testament
 seems to have quite passed out of      
sight4 ,these critical  investigations  
concerning the manuscripts of the ,new  
,testament1 ,codex  ,sinaiticus1        
,alexandrimus1 and ,vaticanus1 down to  
,number #bfi1 ,bentley's ,q1  are       
probably of less interest to the        
,horseherd2 they are known to those  who
 make a special study of this subject1  
and are of no interest outside4    ,if1 
as might have happened1 without any     
miracle1 the original autograph of  the 
,gospels1 as they were written by the   

apostles or some one else with  their   
own hands1 had been carefully preserved 
in the archives of the first  popes1 our
 professors would have been spared much 
labour4 ,but we nowhere  read that these
 successors and heirs of ,peter showed  
any special  solicitude for this prime  
duty of their office1 the preservation  
of this  precious jewel of their        
treasure1 the ,new ,testament4 ,what    
they neglected1  had therefore to be    
recovered by our philologists4 ,just as 
those who  wished to study the          
,peloponnesian war resorted to the      
manuscripts of  ,thucydides1 the        
,christian scholars1 to become          
acquainted with the origins  of         
,christianity1 betook themselves to the 
manuscripts of the ,new  ,testament4    
,and as the manuscripts of ,thucydides  
vary widely from one  another and in    
certain passages leave us quite         
helpless1 so do the  manuscripts of the 
,new ,testament4 ,bentley speaks of     
thirty thousand vari  lectiones in the  

,new ,testament2 but since his time     
their number must have  increased       
fourfold4 ,the manuscripts of the ,new  
,testament are more numerous  than those
 of any classic4 ,two thousand are known
 and have been described1  and more yet 
may lie buried in libraries4 ,now while 
this large number of  manuscripts and   
various readings have given the         
philologists of the ,new  ,testament    
greater difficulties than the classical 
philologist encounters1  still on the   
other hand the ,new ,testament has the  
advantage over all  classical texts1 in 
that some of its manuscripts are much   
older than those  of the majority of    
classical writers4 ,we have1 for        
instance1 no complete  manuscripts of   
,homer earlier than the thirteenth      
century1 while the oldest  manuscripts  
of the ,new ,testament descend from the 
fourth and fifth  centuries4 ,it is     
frequently said that all these things   
are of no  importance for the           
understanding of the ,new ,testament1   

and that  theologians need not trouble  
themselves about them4 ,but this is     
saying too  much4 ,there are vari       
lectiones1 which are certainly not      
without  importance for the facts and   
the doctrines of ,christianity1 and in  
which  the last word belongs not to the 
theologian1 but to the philologist4 ,no 
one would say that it makes no          
difference if ,mark xvi4 #i-bj is       
omitted or  not2 no one would declare   
that the authenticity or spuriousness of
 the  section on the adulteress 7,john  
vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa7 was entirely        
indifferent4 ,when we consider what     
contention there has been over the      
seventh verse of the fifth chapter of   
the first ,epistle of ,john1 and how    
the entire doctrine of the ,trinity has 
been based on that 78,for there are     
three that bear record in heaven1 the   
,father1 the ,son1 and the ,holy ,ghost3
  and these three are one071 it will    
hardly be maintained that the           
manuscripts are of no importance for    

,christian dogma4 ,whether in the first 
,epistle to ,timothy iii4 #af1 we read  
for 1 that is1 1 is also not  quite     
immaterial4 ,still ,i admit that in     
comparison to the problems  presented to
 me by the ,horseherd and his comrades1 
these vari lectiones  will not rack our 
brains nearly so badly4 ,i have been    
reproached for still  owing my friends  
an answer to the attacks which they     
directed exclusively  against ,christian
 religion4 ,it was1 however1 impossible 
to deal thoroughly  with these matters1 
without first taking into consideration 
their  objections against all religion4 
,i therefore first endeavoured to make  
clear to my unknown friends two  things1
 which constitute the foundation of all 
religion3 first1 that the  world is     
rational1 that it is the result of      
thought1 and that in this  sense only is
 it the creation of a being which       
possesses reason1 or is  reason itself  
7the ,logos72 and secondly1 that mind or
 thought cannot be  the outcome of      

matter1 but on the contrary is the prius
 of all things4  ,to this end a         
statement of the results of the         
philosophy of language was  absolutely  
necessary1 partly to establish more     
clearly the relation of  thought to     
speech1 partly to comprehend the true   
meaning of the ,logos or  the ,word in  
the ,new ,testament1 and understand in  
how easily intelligible  and perfectly  
reasonable a sense the term 8,word0     
7,logos7 can be applied to  the ,son of 
,god4    ,i am not one of those who     
pretend to find no difficulties in all  
these  questions4 ,on the contrary1 ,i  
have wrestled with them for years1 and  
remember well the joy ,i felt when first
 the true historical meaning of the     
opening of the ,fourth ,gospel1 8,in the
 beginning was the word10 became  clear 
to me4 ,it is true that ,i turned no    
somersaults like the ,horseherd1  but ,i
 was well satisfied4 ,i do not therefore
 consider the objections  raised by him 
as unfounded or without justification2  

on the contrary1 it  were better if     
others would speak with the same freedom
 as he has done1  although a calmer tone
 in such matters would be more effective
 than the  fortissimo of the ,horseherd4
    ,what aided me most in the solution 
of these religious or theological       
difficulties1 was a comparative study of
 the religions of mankind4 ,in  spite of
 their differences1 they are all        
afflicted with the same ailments1  and  
when we find that we encounter the same 
difficulties in other  religions as     
those with which we are ourselves       
contending1 it is safe to  consider them
 as deeply rooted in human nature1 and  
in this same nature1  be it weak or     
strong1 to seek their solution4 ,as     
comparative philology has  proved that  
many of the irregular nouns and verbs   
are really the most  regular and        
ancient1 so it is with the irregular1   
that is1 the miraculous  occurrences in 
the history of religion4 ,indeed1 we may
 now say that it  would be a miracle if 

there were anywhere any religion without
 miracles1  or if the ,scriptures on    
which any religion is based were not    
presented by  the priests and accepted  
by the believers as of superhuman1 even 
divine  origin1 and therefore           
infallible4 ,in all these matters we    
must seek for  the reasons1 and in this 
manner endeavour to understand their    
truth as  well as error4    ,whether or 
not ,i have succeeded in proving that   
the world is rational1 and  that mind is
 the prius of matter1 ,i must leave to  
the decision of the  ,horseherd and his 
friends4 ,fortunately these questions   
are of that nature  that we may         
entertain different opinions upon them  
without accusing each  other of heresy4 
,many ,darwinians1 for instance1        
,romanes1 and even ,huxley1  have always
 considered themselves good ,christians1
 although they believed  the doctrine of
 ,darwin to be the only way of          
salvation4 ,if1 however1 we  take up    
such questions as were propounded to me 

by the ,horseherd1 and  which have more 
to do with ,christian theology than     
,christian religion1  there is an       
immediate change of tone1 and           
unfortunately the difference of  view   
becomes at once a difference of aim4    
,the moral element enters  immediately1 
and those who believe otherwise are     
designated unbelievers1  though we do   
not at once stamp those who think       
otherwise as incapable of  thought4     
,here lies the great difficulty in      
considering and treating calmly         
religious1 or rather1 theological       
questions4 ,there is little hope of     
reaching a mutual understanding when the
 first attack is characterised by  such 
vigour as was shown by the ,horseherd   
and many of his comrades4 ,he  speaks at
 once of tales of fraud and deceit1 and 
of the fantasies of the  ,christian     
religion4 ,he says that he is full of   
bloodthirstiness against  the ,jewish   
idea of ,god1 and believes that since   
the writings of ,hume and               

,schopenhauer1 positive ,christianity   
has become a sheer impossibility1 and   
more of the same import4 ,this is       
certainly 8fortissimo10 but not         
therefore  by any means 8verissimo40    
,other correspondents1 such as          
,agnosticus1 declare all revelation a   
chimera2 in short1 there has been no    
lack of expressions subversive of       
,christianity1 and1 in fact1 of all     
revealed religion4    ,at this point a  
glance at the development of the        
religion of the ,hindus  may be of great
 service to us4 ,nowhere is the idea of 
revelation worked  out so carefully as  
in their literature4 ,they have a       
voluminous  literature1 treating of     
religion and philosophy1 and they draw a
 very  sharp distinction between        
revealed and unrevealed works 7,sruti   
and  ,smriti74 ,here much depends upon  
the name4 ,revealed meant originally    
nothing more than plain and clear1 and  
when we speak of a revelation1 in       
ordinary life1 this is not much more    

than a communication4 ,but erelong      
8reveal0 was used in the special sense  
of a communication from a  superhuman to
 a human being4 ,the question of the    
possibility of such a  communication    
raised little difficulty4 ,but this     
possibility depends  naturally on the   
prior conception of superhuman beings   
and of their  relationship to human     
beings4 ,so long as it was imagined that
 they  occasionally assumed human form1 
and could mingle in very human affairs1 
a  communication from a ,not-man1 ,i    
will not say a monster1 presents no     
great  difficulties4 ,the ,greeks went  
so far as to ascribe to men of earlier  
times  a closer intercourse with the    
gods4 ,but even with them the idea that 
man  should not enter too closely into  
the presence of the gods breaks forth   
here and there1 and ,semele1 who wished 
to be embraced by ,zeus in all his      
glory1 found her destruction in this    
ecstasy4 ,as soon as the ,deity was     
conceived in less human fashion1 as in  

the ,old ,testament1 intercourse        
between ,god and man became more and    
more difficult4 ,in ,genesis this       
intercourse is still represented very   
simply and familiarly1 as when ,god     
walks about in the ,garden of ,eden1 and
 ,adam and ,eve are ashamed of their    
nakedness before ,him4 ,soon1 however1 a
 higher conception of ,god enters1 so   
that ,moses1 for example 7,exodus       
xxxiii4 #bc71 may not see the face of   
,jehovah1 but still ventures at least to
 look upon ,his back4 ,the writer of    
the ,fourth ,gospel goes still farther  
and declares 7i4 #ah71 8,no man hath    
seen ,god at any time1 the only begotten
 son1 which is in the bosom of the      
,father1 he hath declared ,him40 ,here  
we clearly see that the possibility of  
intercourse between man and ,god1 and a 
revelation of ,god to man1 depends      
chiefly or exclusively on the conception
 which man has previously formed  of    
,god and man4 ,in all theological       
researches we must carefully bear in    

mind that the idea of ,god is our idea1 
which we have formed in part  through   
tradition1 and in part by our own       
thinking2 and we must not forget  that  
existence formed an essential attribute 
of this idea1 whatever  opposition may  
have been raised against the ontological
 proof in later  times4 ,after what we  
have seen of the true relationship      
between thought  and speech1 it follows 
that the name1 and with it the idea of a
 divine  being1 can only proceed from   
man4 ,god is and remains our ,god4 ,we  
can  have a knowledge of ,him only      
through our inner consciousness1 not    
through  our senses4 ,god ,himself has  
no more imparted ,his name to mankind   
than the  fixed stars and planets to    
which we have given names1 although we  
only  see1 but do not hear or touch     
them4 ,this must be absolutely clear to 
us  before we dare speak of the         
possibility or impossibility of a       
revelation4    ,now it is very useful1  
before we treat of our own idea of a    

revelation  emanating from ,god1 to look
 round among other nations and see how  
they  reached the idea of a revelation4 
,we see in ,india that a number of hymns
  in an ancient dialect and in fixed    
metres were preserved by oral           
tradition--the method was wonderful1 but
 is authenticated by history--before    
there could have been a thought of      
reducing them to writing4 ,these hymns  
contain very little that would appear to
 be too high or too deep for an         
ordinary human poet4 ,they are of great 
interest to us because they make  known1
 as clearly as possible1 the sound of   
the oldest ,aryan language1 and  the    
nature of the oldest ,aryan gods4 ,as   
,professor ,deussen1 in his valuable    
,history of ,philosophy says1 7,i1 #hc71
 the ,vedic religion1 which he at the   
same time calls the oldest philosophy1  
is richer in disclosures than any  other
 in the world4 ,in this sense he very   
properly calls the study of the         
,rigveda the high school of the science 

of religion1 so that as he says no  one 
can discuss these matters without a     
knowledge of it4 ,this unique           
distinction rests1 as he truly remarks1 
on the fact1 8,that the process on      
which originally all gods depend1 the   
personification of the phenomena of     
nature1 while it is more or less        
obscured by all other religions1 in the 
,rigveda still takes place1 so to speak1
 before our eyes visibly and  palpably40
 ,i have long preached this in vain4    
,all who have studied the  ,rigveda say 
this1 and all who have not studied it   
say just the contrary1  and lay especial
 stress upon the fact that these hymns  
contain ideas that  once and for all    
they declare as modern4 ,but no one has 
ever contended  that this is not so4    
,what is historically the oldest1 may   
from a higher  point of view be quite   
modern1 and there are scholars who even 
look upon  ,adam as a reformer of       
mankind4 ,those who best know the       
,rigveda have often  shown that it      

stands at a tolerably advanced stage1   
and here and there  casts a distant     
glance into its own past4 ,i myself have
 often said that ,i  would give much if 
,i could escape from my own proofs of   
the age of this  collection of hymns1   
and could clearly show that at least    
some of these  ,vedic hymns had been    
added later4    ,these hymns1 therefore1
 just because1 judging from their       
language and  metre1 they are older than
 everything else in ,india1 or even in  
the entire  ,aryan world1 and because   
they are mainly concerned with the      
ancient gods  of nature1 appeared to the
 ,hindus themselves as apaurusheya1 that
 is1  not wrought by man4 ,they were    
called ,sruti1 7that which was heard71  
in  distinction from other literature1  
which was designated as ,smriti1 or     
recollection4    ,all this is easily    
intelligible4 ,there followed a period1 
however1 during  which the true         
understanding of the hymns became       
considerably obscured1  and a new series

 of works1 the so-called ,brhmanas1     
arose4 ,these were  very different from 
the hymns4 ,they are composed in a      
younger language and  in prose4 ,they   
treat of the sacrifice1 so full of      
significance in ,india1  at which the   
hymns were employed1 and which seems to 
me to have been  originally designed for
 measuring time1 and thus served to mark
 the  progress of civilisation4 ,they   
explain the meaning of the hymns1 often 
quite erroneously2 but they contain some
 interesting information upon the       
condition of ,india1 long after the     
period when the hymns first appeared1   
and yet before the rise of ,buddhism in 
the sixth century before ,christ4 ,it   
has been supposed that1 as the ,brhmanas
 were composed in prose1 they  were     
originally written1 according to the    
hypothesis of ,wolf1 that prose         
everywhere presupposes the knowledge of 
writing4 ,i cannot admit this in  the   
case of ,india2 at any rate1 there is no
 trace of any acquaintance with  writing

 in the whole of this extensive mass of 
literature4 ,it was  throughout a       
mnemonic literature1 and just because   
the art of writing was  unknown1 the    
memory was cultivated in a manner of    
which we have no idea4  ,at all events1 
the ,brahmans themselves knew nothing of
 the ,brhmanas in  written form1 and    
included them with the hymns under the  
names ,veda and  ,sruti2 that is1 they  
regarded them1 in our phraseology1 as   
revealed1 and  not the work of men4     
,the remarkable thing1 however1 is that 
they did not assume1 like the  ,romans  
in the case of ,numa and ,egeria1 a     
communication from the ,vedic gods  of  
nature to ordinary men1 but contented   
themselves with declaring that  the     
,veda had been seen by the ,rishis1     
whose name ,rishi they explained        
etymologically as 8seer40    ,it is     
clear1 therefore1 that what the         
,brahmans understood under ,sruti  was  
nothing more than literature composed in
 an ancient language 7for the  ,brhmanas

 are also composed in an ancient        
language1 though not as  ancient as that
 of the hymns71 and treating of matters 
on which apparently  man alone can      
establish no authority4 ,for how could  
ordinary man take on  himself to speak  
about the gods or to give directions for
 the sacrifice1  to make promises for   
the reward of pious works1 or even to   
decide what is  morally right or wrong8 
,more than human authority was necessary
 for this1  and so the ,brhmanas1 as    
well as the hymns1 were declared to be  
apaurusheya1 that is1 not human1 though 
by no means divine1 in the sense  of    
having been imparted by one of the      
,devas4    ,we see1 therefore1 that the 
idea of the ,sruti1 while approaching to
 our  idea of revelation as apaurusheya1
 that is1 not human1 does not quite     
coincide with it4 ,what was ancient and 
incomprehensible1 was called            
superhuman1 and soon became infallible  
and beyond assault4 ,if we look at      
other religions1 we find that ,buddhism 

denied the ,veda every authority1  and  
in conformity with its own character    
especially excluded every idea of       
superhuman revelation4 ,in ,china1 too1 
we look in vain for revelation4 ,in     
,palestine1 however1 we find the idea   
that the ,lord ,himself spoke with      
,moses1 who delivered ,his commands to  
,israel1 and the tables of the          
commandments were even written by ,god's
 own fingers on both sides4 ,but  this  
must not be confounded with written     
literature4 ,the idea that the  entire  
,old ,testament was written or revealed 
by ,jehovah is absolutely not  of       
ancient ,jewish origin1 whatever respect
 may have been shown to the holy  books 
as recognised in the ,synagogue4    ,as 
for ,islam1 the ,koran is looked upon as
 communicated to ,mohammed by the  angel
 ,gabriel1 even as ,zoroaster in the    
,avesta claims to have received  certain
 communications in conversation with    
,ahuramazda4    ,in ,christianity1 in   
whose history the theory of revelation  

has played so  great a part1 there is in
 fact--and this is frequently           
overlooked--no  declaration on the      
subject by ,christ or the apostles      
themselves4 ,that the  ,gospels1 as they
 have come down to us1 have been        
revealed1 is nowhere  stated in them1   
nor can it be gathered from the ,acts of
 the ,apostles or  the ,epistles4 ,no   
one has ever maintained that any ,new   
,testament ,scripture  was known to     
,christ or even to the apostles47#ea7   
,on the contrary1 if we  take the titles
 of the ,gospels in their natural       
meaning1 they do not  purport to have   
been written down by ,matthew1 ,mark1   
,luke1 and ,john  themselves3 they are  
simply the sacred history as it was     
recorded by  others according to each of
 these men4 ,attempts have indeed been  
made to  reason away the meaning of 1   
8according to10 and interpret it as     
8by10  but it is more natural to take it
 in its ordinary sense4 ,when ,paul1 in 
his  second ,epistle to ,timothy 7iii4  

#af71 says1 8,every scripture inspired  
of  ,god is also profitable for         
teaching10 this is the usual mode of    
expression  applied to the ,scriptures  
of the ,old1 not of the ,new ,testament 
7,john v4  #ci71 and would merely       
signify inspired1 breathed in1 not      
revealed in each  word and letter4      
,in any case we learn this much from a  
comparative study of religions1 that    
the majority of them have their holy    
books1 which are usually the oldest     
remains of literature1 oral or written1 
that they possess4 ,they look upon  the 
authors of these ,scriptures as         
extraordinary1 even superhuman beings2  
and the later theologians in order to   
remove from the minds of the people     
every doubt as to their truth1 devised  
the most ingenious theories1 to  show   
how these books were not produced by    
men1 but were merely seen by  them1 and 
how in the end even the words and       
letters of the original text  were      
dictated to certain individuals4 ,it is 

imagined1 therefore1 that the  ,deity   
condescended to speak ,hebrew or ,greek 
in the dialect of that period1  and that
 therefore no letter or accent may be   
disturbed4    ,this would1 of course1   
make the matter very easy1 and this is  
no doubt the  reason why the theory has 
found so many adherents4 ,it is only    
strange that  no founder of any religion
 ever appears to have felt the necessity
 of  leaving anything in his own writing
 either to his contemporaries or to     
posterity4 ,no one has ever attempted to
 prove that ,moses wrote books1 nor  has
 it ever been said of ,christ that he   
composed a book 7,john vii4 #ae74  ,the 
same is true of ,buddha1 in spite of the
 legend of the alphabets2 and  of       
,mohammed we know from himself that he  
could neither read nor write4  ,what we 
possess1 therefore1 in the way of holy  
,scriptures is always the  product of a 
later generation1 and subject to all the
 hazards involved in  oral tradition4   
,this was not to be avoided1 and ought  

not to surprise us4  ,if we attempt     
ourselves to write down without the aid 
of books or  memoranda1 occurrences or  
conversations of which we were witnesses
 fifty  years ago1 we shall see how     
difficult it is1 and how untrustworthy  
is our  memory4 ,we may be entirely     
veracious1 but it by no means follows   
that we  are also true and trustworthy4 
,let any one try to describe the        
incidents  of the ,austro-,prussian ,war
 without referring to books1 and he will
 see  how1 with the best intentions1    
names and dates will waver and reel4    
,when  did the ,german ,national        
,assembly elect the ,german ,emperor8   
,who were the  members of the regency8  
,who was ,henry ,simon1 and were there  
one or more  ,simons1 like the nine     
,simons in the ,new ,testament8 ,who can
 answer these  questions now without    
newspapers1 and yet these are matters   
only fifty  years old1 and at the time  
were well known to all of us4 ,was it   
different  with the ,christians in the  

year #ej ,a4,d48 ,it was therefore very 
natural  that a certain inspiration or  
preminent endowment should be demanded  
for  the authors of the ,gospels2 if    
some do so still1 it is on their own    
responsibility1 just as if we demanded  
for the mother of ,mary the same        
immaculate birth as for ,mary herself1  
et sic ad infinitum4 ,these are for  the
 most part merely excuses for human     
unbelief4 ,nothing proves the  veracity 
of the authors of the ,gospels so       
clearly as the natural1 often           
derogatory words which they use of      
themselves1 or even more of the         
apostles4 ,these did not understand1 as 
they say1 the simplest parables or      
teachings2 they were jealous of one     
another2 ,peter even denied the ,lord2  
in short1 the authors of the ,gospels   
cannot be credited with sinlessness  and
 infallibility1 supposing that they were
 really the apostles4    ,if they were  
not1 then all these difficulties of our 
own making disappear4  ,we then find in 

the ,gospels just what we might expect3 
no ingeniously  prepared statements     
without inconsistencies and without     
contradictions1  but simple1 natural    
accounts1 such as were current from the 
first to the  third generations in      
certain circles or localities1 and even 
according to  the attachment of certain 
families to the personal narrations of  
one or  another of the apostles4 ,we    
must not forget that in the first       
generation  the necessity for a record  
was not even felt4 ,children were still 
brought  up as ,jews1 for ,christianity 
did not seek to destroy1 only to fulfil2
 and  as all the ,scriptures1 that is   
the ,old ,testament1 were derived from  
,god  and were good for instruction1    
they continued in use for teaching      
without  further question4 ,but in the  
second and third generations the breach 
between ,jews and ,christians became    
wider and wider1 and the number of      
those who had known ,christ and the     
apostles1 less and less2 the need of    

books especially for the instruction of 
children consequently became more       
urgent1 and the four ,gospels thus arose
 by a natural process in answer to  a   
natural and even irresistible want4 ,the
 difficulties involved even in  the     
smallest contradiction between the      
,gospels on a theory of inspiration     
thus disappear of themselves2 nay1 their
 discrepancies become welcome1  because 
they entirely exclude every idea of     
intentional deviation1 and  simply      
exhibit what the historical conditions  
would lead us to expect4 ,of  what harm 
is it1 for instance1 that ,matthew      
7viii4 #bh71 in relating the  expulsion 
of the devils in the land of the        
,gergesenes1 speaks of two  possessed   
men1 while ,mark 7v4 #b7 knows only of  
one among the ,gadarenes8  ,mark also   
speaks only of unclean spirits1 while   
,matthew speaks of devils4  ,mark and   
,luke know the name of the sufferer1    
,legion2 ,matthew does not  mention the 
,roman name4 ,these are matters of small

 import in human  traditions and        
records2 in divine revelations they     
would be difficult to  explain4    ,but 
it becomes still more difficult when we 
come to expressions which are  really   
significant and essential for           
,christianity1 for even in these we     
find inconsistencies4 ,what can be more 
important than the passage in which     
,christ asks his disciples1 8,but whom  
say ye that ,i am10 and ,peter answers1 
8,thou art the ,messiah0 7,mark viii4   
#bi74 ,that was a purely                
,jewish-,christian  answer1 and ,jesus  
accepts it as the perfect truth1 which1 
however1 should  still remain secret4   
,in 7,matthew xvi4 #af7 ,peter says not 
only1 8,thou art  the ,messiah10 but    
adds1 8,son of the living ,god40 ,this  
makes a great  difference1 and the      
remarkable thing is1 that later on      
,jesus only commands  his disciples to  
keep secret that he1 ,jesus1 was the    
,messiah1 and says  nothing of himself  
as the ,son of ,god4 ,so much has been  

written about other  discrepancies in   
this passage1 particularly of the       
promise of the building  of the church  
upon this rock 7,peter71 which is only  
found in 7,matthew xvi4  #ah71 that we  
have nothing further to say about it1   
unless it be that in  ,mark in this very
 passage ,jesus rebukes ,peter because  
he thinks more of  the world than of    
,god1 like so many of his later         
successors4    ,let us bear in mind     
further that neither revelation nor     
divine inspiration  was really necessary
 for recording most of the things       
related in the  ,gospels4 ,the less1 the
 better2 for either the witnesses knew  
that ,pilate  was at the time governor  
in ,palestine1 that ,caiaphas was high  
priest1 and  that ,jairus was ruler of a
 synagogue1 or they did not know it1 and
 in that  case we cannot assume that    
these things were revealed to them by   
,god  without irreverence4 ,if1 however1
 it is impossible that ,god should have 
inspired or sanctioned the historical   

part of the ,gospels1 why then the      
other part1 which contains the teachings
 of ,christ8 ,is it not much better1    
much more honest and trustworthy for the
 writers to have communicated them  to  
us1 as they knew and understood them    
7and that they occasionally             
misunderstood them they themselves quite
 honestly admit71 than to have  been    
supernaturally inspired for the purpose1
 and even to have received a  revelation
 in the form of a theophany8 ,through   
such weak human ideas we  merely drag   
the ,real1 the truly ,divine1 into the  
dust1 and from whom do  these ideas of a
 divine inspiration or revelation come1 
if not from men as  they were           
everywhere1 whether in ,india or ,judea8
 ,everywhere the natural is  divine1 the
 supernatural or miraculous is human4   
,even for the ,apostles and the authors 
of the ,gospels there was only one      
revelation3 that was the revelation     
through ,christ2 and this has an        
entirely different meaning4 ,to         

understand this1 however1 we must glance
 at  what we know of the intellectual   
movements of that time4 ,the ,jewish    
nation  cherished two great             
expectations4 ,the one was ancient and  
purely ,jewish1  the expectation of the 
,messiah1 the anointed 7,christ71 who   
should be the  political and spiritual  
liberator of the chosen but enslaved    
people of  ,israel4 ,the other was also 
,jewish1 but transfused with ,greek     
philosophy1  the recognition of the word
 7,logos7 as the ,son of ,god1 who      
should  reconcile or unite humanity with
 ,god4 ,the first declares itself most  
clearly1 though not exclusively1 in the 
three so-called ,synoptic ,gospels1  the
 second in the so-called ,gospel of     
,john4 ,but it is worthy of note how    
often these apparently remote ideas are 
found combined in the ,gospels4 ,the    
idea that a man can be the ,son of ,god 
was blasphemy in a strict ,jewish  view1
 and it was for this reason that the    
last question of the high priest  was1  

8,i adjure thee by the living ,god1 that
 thou tell us whether thou be  the      
,christ1 the ,son of ,god0 7,matthew    
xxvi4 #fc74 ,the ,jewish ,messiah could 
never be the ,son of ,god1 the ,word1 in
 the ,christian sense of the term1 but  
only in the sense in which many nations 
have called ,god the ,father of men4    
,in this sense1 also1 the ,jews say     
7,john viii4 #d71 8,we have one father1 
even ,god10 while they start back       
affrighted at the idea of a divine      
sonship of man4 ,the ,messiah1 according
 to ,jewish doctrine1 was to be the  son
 of ,david 7,matthew xxii4 #db71 as the 
people appear to have called ,jesus     
7,mark x4 #dg1 xv4 #ci71 and in order to
 counteract this view ,christ himself   
said1 in a passage of great historical  
import3 8,how then doth ,david in       
spirit call the ,messiah ,lord1 saying1 
,the ,lord said unto my ,lord1 ,sit thou
  on my right hand till ,i make thine   
enemies thy footstool8 ,if then ,david  
called him ,lord1 how is he his son80   

,with these words the true ,messiah     
publicly renounced his royal descent    
from ,david1 whilst he immediately  laid
 claim to a much higher one4 ,of what   
use is it1 then1 that the author  of the
 ,gospel takes such pains in the first  
chapter to trace ,joseph's  descent     
genealogically from ,david1 in spite of 
the fact that he does not  represent    
,joseph himself as the natural father of
 ,jesus8    ,these contradictions are   
quite conceivable in an age strongly    
influenced  by different intellectual   
currents1 but they would be intolerable 
in a  revealed or divinely inspired     
book4 ,all becomes intelligible1 clear1 
and  free from contradiction1 if we see 
in the ,synoptic ,gospels that which    
they  profess to be--narratives of what 
had long been told and believed in      
certain circles about the teaching and  
person of ,christ4 ,i say1 what they    
themselves profess to be2 for can we    
believe1 that if the authors had  really
 witnessed a miraculous vision1 if every

 word and every letter had  been        
whispered to them1 they would have made 
no mention of it8 ,they relate  so many 
wonders1 why not this one1 the greatest 
of all8 ,but it is not  enough that they
 do not claim any miraculous            
communication for themselves  or their  
works4 ,luke states in plain words the  
character of his gospel1  8,for as much 
as many have taken in hand to draw up a 
narrative concerning  those matters     
which have been fulfilled among us1 even
 as they delivered  them unto us1 which 
from the beginning were eye-witnesses1  
and ministers  of the word 7,logos72 it 
seemed good to me also1 having traced   
the course  of all things accurately    
from the first1 to write unto thee in   
order1 most  excellent ,theophilus1 that
 thou mightest know the certainty       
concerning the  things wherein thou wast
 instructed40    ,what can be clearer8  
,theophilus had evidently received a not
 very  systematic ,christian training1  
such as was possible under the          

conditions  of that time4 ,as ,luke     
says1 there were even then several works
 on the  matters of common belief among 
,christians4 ,in order1 however1 that   
,theophilus may have a trustworthy      
knowledge of them1 his friend 7whether  
,luke or any one else7 determines to    
communicate them to him in regular      
order1 as they had been imparted to him1
 without asserting that he had  himself 
been from the beginning an eye-witness  
of them1 or a minister of  the ,word4   
,it is apparent1 therefore1 that the    
writer rests upon a  tradition derived  
from eye-witnesses1 and that he had even
 investigated  everything with care4 ,is
 it credible that he would not have made
 mention  of a revelation or a          
theophany1 had either fallen to his lot8
 ,he also lays  stress upon his orderly 
arrangement1 which probably implies that
 even at  that time there were the same 
discrepancies in the sequence of events 
that  we observe in the four ,gospels1  
to say nothing about the numerous       

apocryphal ,gospels4 ,this is just what 
we as historians expected1 in fact  it  
could scarcely be otherwise4 ,christ's  
message had first to pass through  the  
colloquial process1 the leavening       
process of oral transmission2 then      
followed the reduction to written form1 
and it is this that we have1 apart  from
 the corruptions of copyists4 ,it is    
difficult to conceive how it could  have
 been otherwise1 and still we are not   
content with these facts1 and  imagine  
that we could have done it much better  
ourselves4    ,when we take the         
,synoptic ,gospels one by one1 we find  
in ,luke the most  complete and probably
 the latest sequence of all the         
important events2 in  ,mark1 the        
shortest and probably most original     
narrative1 which only  contains that    
which seemed to him undisputed or of the
 greatest  importance2 while ,matthew1  
on the contrary1 clearly presents the   
tradition  formed and established among 
the ,jewish ,christians and believers in

 the  ,messiah4    ,if we may speak of  
communities at this early time1 the     
community for which  the first ,gospel  
was intended manifestly consisted of    
converted ,jews1 who  had recognised in 
,jesus their long-expected ,messiah or  
,christ1 and were1  therefore1 convinced
 that everything which had been expected
 of the  ,messiah came true in this     
,jesus4 ,they went still farther4 ,when 
they were  once convinced that ,jesus   
was the ,messiah1 many traditions arose 
which  ascribed to him what he1 if he   
were the ,messiah1 must have done4 ,this
 is  the pervading feature of the first 
,gospel1 as every one who reads it      
carefully may easily be convinced4 ,this
 alone explains the frequent and  frank 
expression that this and that occurred  
8for thus it was written1 and  thus it  
was spoken by the prophet40 ,every idea 
of intentional invention of  ,messianic 
fulfilments1 which has so often been    
asserted1 disappears of  itself in our  
interpretation of the origin of the     

,gospel4 ,it must be so1  people        
thought1 and they soon told themselves  
and their children that it  had been so1
 and all in good faith1 for otherwise   
,jesus could not have  been the expected
 ,messiah4    ,if we examine the gospel 
of ,matthew from this historical        
standpoint in  detail1 we find that it  
begins with an entirely unnecessary     
genealogy of  ,joseph1 the ostensible   
father of ,jesus4 ,then follows the     
birth1 and this  is confirmed in i4 #bb1
 8,for all this was done1 that it might 
be fulfilled  which was spoken by the   
,lord through the prophet10 namely1     
,isaiah 7vii4  #ad71 8,behold a maiden  
is with child and shall bear a son1 and 
shall call  his name ,immanuel40 ,this  
means simply that it will be the        
first-born son1  and that he will be    
called 8,god is with us10 and1          
therefore1 certainly  nothing           
supernatural4    ,the next story that   
the birth took place in ,bethlehem1 and 
that the wise  men from the ,east saw   

the star over ,bethlehem1 is again      
founded on the  prophet's word that the 
ruler of ,israel would come from        
,bethlehem4    ,when the flight of      
,joseph and ,mary to ,egypt with the    
,christ child is told1  it is again set 
forth in ii4 #ae1 that what the prophet 
said might be  fulfilled1 8,out of      
,egypt have ,i called my son40    ,the  
massacre of the children in ,bethlehem1 
with all its difficulties in  the eyes  
of the historian1 finds a sufficient    
reason in verse #ag on the  words which 
were spoken by ,jeremiah the prophet1   
8,a voice was heard in  ,rama1 weeping  
and great mourning1 ,rachel weeping for 
her children2 and she  would not be     
comforted1 because they are not40       
,later1 when ,joseph returns with the   
child and journeys to ,nazareth1 this   
too is explained by the words of the    
prophet1 who said1 8,he shall be  called
 a ,nazarene40    ,on the false idea of 
the words of the prophet1 that a        
,nazarene is an  inhabitant of          

,nazareth1 ,i shall say nothing here4   
,everything1 even such  popular errors1 
is quite intelligible from this point of
 view1 and only  shows how convinced the
 people were that ,jesus was the        
,messiah1 and  therefore must have      
fulfilled everything which was expected 
of the  ,messiah4 ,to us these          
fulfilments of the prophecy may not     
sound very  convincing4 ,but as a       
presentation of the ideas which then    
held sway over  the people1 and as proof
 of the grasp of the colloquial process1
 they are  of great value to the        
historian4    ,the appearance of ,john  
the ,baptist1 too1 is immediately       
explained by  reference to prophetic    
words 7iii4 #c74 ,and when ,jesus1 after
 the  imprisonment of ,john1 left his   
abode and removed to ,capernaum1 as was 
quite natural1 this1 likewise must have 
occurred 7iv4 #ad-af7 that certain      
words of ,isaiah should be fulfilled4   
,there follows in the fifth to the      
seventh chapters the real kernel of     

,christian teaching in the sermon on the
 mount1 and the announcement of the     
coming kingdom of ,god upon earth4 ,here
 we ask nothing more than a true        
statement1 such as an apostle or his    
disciples were fully in a position to   
give us4 ,no miraculous inspiration is  
needed for it2 on the contrary1 it      
would only injure for us the            
trustworthiness of the reporter4 ,in the
 next  chapters we read of the works    
done by ,jesus1 which were soon         
construed by  the people as miracles1   
while in another place the evangelist   
sets the  forgiveness of sins higher    
than all miracles1 than all healing of  
the  sick1 and even declares this to be 
a power which ,god had given to men 7ix4
  #h74 ,jesus himself often makes his   
healing power depend on the faith of the
  person to be healed1 and of miraculous
 arts he says not a word 7ix4 #bh74     
,next follow the appointment and        
despatch of the disciples1 and soon     
after  those words1 which are so        

significant for this ,gospel 7xi4 #bg71 
8,all  things are delivered unto me of  
my ,father2 and no man knoweth the ,son1
 but  the ,father2 neither knoweth any  
man the ,father1 save the ,son1 and he  
to  whomsoever the son willeth to reveal
 him40 ,here we have in a few words  the
 true spirit1 the true inspiration of   
the teaching which ,christ  proclaimed1 
that he was not only the ,messiah or the
 son of ,david1 but the  true son of    
,god1 the ,logos1 which ,god willed when
 he willed man1 the  highest thought of 
,god1 the highest revelation of ,god1   
which was imparted  in ,jesus to blind  
humanity4 ,we cannot judge of this so   
correctly as those  who saw and knew    
,jesus in his corporeal existence1 and  
found in him all  those perfections1    
particularly in his life and conduct1 of
 which human  nature is capable4 ,we    
must here rely on the evidence of his   
contemporaries  who had no motive to    
discover in him1 the son of a carpenter1
 the  realisation on earth of the divine

 ideal of man1 if this ideal had not    
stood realised in him1 before their     
eyes1 in the flesh4 ,what is true       
,christianity if it be not the belief in
 the divine sonship of man1 as the      
,greek philosophers had rightly         
surmised1 but had never seen realised on
  earth8 ,here is the point1 where the  
two great intellectual currents of the  
,aryan and ,semitic worlds flow         
together1 in that the long-expected     
,messiah  of the ,jews was recognised as
 the ,logos1 the true son of ,god1 and  
that he  opened or revealed to every man
 the possibility to become what he had  
always been1 but had never before       
apprehended1 the highest thought1 the   
,word1 the ,logos1 the ,son of ,god4    
,knowing here means being4 ,a man may be
 a  prince1 the son of a king1 but if he
 does not know it1 he is not so4 ,even  
so from all eternity man was the son of 
,god1 but until he really knew it1  he  
was not so4 ,the reporters in the       
,synoptic ,gospels only occasionally    

recognise the divine sonship of man with
 real clearness1 for in their view  the 
practical element in ,christianity was  
predominant1 but in the end  everything 
practical must be based upon theory or  
faith4 ,our duties toward  ,god and man1
 our love for ,god and for man1 are as  
nothing1 without the  firm foundation   
which is formed only by our faith in    
,god1 as the ,thinker  and ,ruler of the
 world1 the ,father of the ,son1 who was
 revealed through  him as the ,father of
 all sons1 of all men4 ,such sayings are
 especially  significant in the         
,synoptic ,evangelists1 because it might
 appear as though  they had not         
recognised the deepest mystery of the   
revelation of ,christ1  but were        
satisfied with the purely practical     
parts of his teachings4  ,shortly after1
 when ,jesus again proves his healing   
powers among the  people1 and the       
,pharisees persecute him because the    
people were more and  more inclined to  
recognise in him the son of ,david1 the 

,evangelist again  declares 7xii4 #ag7  
that all this occurred that the words of
 the prophet  ,isaiah might be          
fulfilled1 8,behold my servant1 whom ,i 
have chosen1 my  beloved in whom my soul
 is well pleased2 ,i will put my spirit 
upon him1  and he shall declare judgment
 unto the ,gentiles40    ,then follow   
many of the profoundest and most        
beautiful parables which  contain the   
secrets of ,christ's teaching1 and of   
which some1 as we read1  and not by any 
means the most obscure1 remained        
unintelligible even to the  disciples4  
,even at that time his fame had become  
so great1 that on  returning to his own 
birthplace1 the people would scarcely   
believe that he  was the same as the son
 of the carpenter1 that his mother was  
named ,mary1  and his brothers1 ,jacob1 
,joseph1 ,simon1 and ,judas1 who like   
his sisters  were all still living4 ,yet
 among his own people he could          
accomplish but  few works4 ,the ,gospel 
then goes on to relate that as ,herod   

had caused ,john  to be beheaded1 ,jesus
 again withdrew to a lonely place1      
probably to escape  the persecutions of 
,herod4 ,then follow the really         
important chapters1 full  of teachings  
and of parables1 intended to illumine   
these teachings and to  bring them home 
to the people4 ,here we naturally do not
 expect any appeal  to the prophets2 on 
the contrary we often find a very bold  
advance beyond  the ancient law or a    
higher interpretation of the ancient    
,jewish  teachings4 ,as soon1 however1  
as we return to facts like the last     
journey  to ,jerusalem1 and the arrest  
of ,jesus through the treachery of      
,judas1 the  words immediately recur    
that all this came to pass that the     
,scriptures  should be fulfilled 7xxvi4 
#ed74 ,even ,jesus himself1 when he     
commands his  disciples to make no      
resistance1 must have added the words1  
8,but how then  shall the scriptures be 
fulfilled1 that thus it must be10 which 
clearly  refers to the famous prophecy  

of ,isaiah in the fifty-third chapter4  
,even  the thirty pieces of silver which
 were paid ,judas for his betrayal1 are 
considered necessary1 that a prophesy of
 ,jeremiah's may be fulfilled4 ,but  it 
seems that this prophesy is not to be   
found in ,jeremiah1 and must be  sought 
in ,zechariah 7xi4 #ab1 #ac74 ,such a   
confusion might easily occur  among the 
people1 imperfectly acquainted with the 
text of the prophets4 ,in  this case1   
therefore1 it is quite harmless2 but how
 could it possibly  occur in a revealed 
gospel8 ,at the crucifixion of ,jesus   
the garments are  divided1 and another  
passage is immediately recalled1 this   
time in a ,psalm  7xxii4 #ai71 in which 
the poet says of himself that his       
enemies divided his  garments between   
them1 but there is no mention of the    
,messiah4 ,such an  application of the  
words of the ,psalm to ,jesus is        
perfectly intelligible  in the          
contemporary feeling of the ,jewish     
people4 ,once convinced that  ,jesus was

 the ,messiah or ,christ1 all the       
incidents of his life and death  must   
necessarily remind them of the          
prophecies which had been current for   
years1 and kept alive among them the    
hope of their deliverer4 ,such details  
were probably employed to deepen the    
conviction in themselves and others     
that ,jesus was really the ,messiah4    
,this is all quite natural and          
comprehensible2 but if we look at it    
with the idea that the writer was       
called and inspired by ,god1 what must  
we say8 ,first1 in some cases there  are
 plain errors which would be impossible 
in an infallible witness4  ,secondly1   
must we believe that such events as the 
birth of ,christ in  ,bethlehem and his 
betrayal by ,judas took place merely in 
order that  certain prophecies might be 
fulfilled8 ,this would reduce the life  
of  ,christ to a mere phantasm and rob  
it of its entire historical             
significance4 ,or shall we assume 7as   
some critics have done7 that all  these 

events were simply invented to prove the
 ,messiahship of ,jesus8    ,from all   
these difficulties we escape when we    
recognise in the ,gospels a  record or  
deposit of what was developed in the    
first century in the  consciousness of  
the ,christians1 and concerning the     
,gospel of ,matthew in  particular1     
,christians who were converts from      
,judaism4 ,in this view  everything that
 borders on intentional deceit drops    
away of itself4 ,the  facts remain as   
before1 as the people had explained and 
arranged them4  ,according to ,matthew  
and his successors1 ,christianity       
originated as is  described in the      
,gospel according to ,matthew4 ,many    
facts may in the minds  and mouths of   
the people have assumed a more popular  
or legendary form2  that was not to be  
avoided4 ,we know how much this popular 
influence1 or  what ,i call the         
colloquial process1 has infected the    
traditions of other  nations1 and it is 
very helpful to know this1 in order to  

do justice to  the ,gospels4 ,for how   
should this influence have been wanting 
just in the  first and second centuries 
in ,palestine8 ,everything becomes clear
 when we  accept the historical view1   
supported by many parallel cases1 of the
  origin of the ,gospels in the mouths  
of the people4 ,the tradition was just  
such as we should expect under the      
existing conditions4 ,of intentional    
deceit there is no further question4 ,we
 cannot expect anything other or  better
 than what we have1 i4e4 what the       
people1 or the young ,christian         
community1 related about the life of the
 founder of the new religion1  unless it
 were a record from the hand of the     
founder of our religion  himself2 for   
even the apostles are only depicted as  
men1 and their  comprehension is        
represented as purely human and often   
very fallible4 ,when  we speak of       
revelation1 the term can only refer to  
the true revelation of  the eternal     
truths through ,jesus himself1 as we    

find them in the ,gospels1  and the     
verity of which1 even where it is       
somewhat veiled by the  tradition1      
confers on it the character of          
revelation4 ,for it is a fact  which we 
should never forget1 that even the best 
attested revelation1 as  it can only    
reach us in human setting and by human  
means1 does not make  truth1 but it is  
truth1 deeply felt truth1 which makes   
revelation4 ,truth  constitutes         
revelation1 not revelation truth4 ,we   
therefore lose nothing by  this view1   
but gain immensely1 and are at once     
relieved from all the  little           
difficulties which a laborious criticism
 thinks it discovers by a  comparison of
 the ,gospels with one another4 ,the    
only difficulty that seems  to remain is
 this1 that the ,synoptic ,gospels are  
so often content to put  the ,jewish    
conception of ,jesus as the ,messiah1 as
 the son of ,david and  ,abraham1 and   
finally as the bodily son of ,god1 in   
the foreground1 and only  hint at the   

leading and fundamental truth of        
,christ's teaching4 ,we must  never     
forget that the apostles were no        
philosophers1 and the ,logos idea in    
its full significance and historical    
development demands1 for its correct    
understanding1 a considerable           
philosophical training4    ,here we are 
helped by the ,fourth ,gospel1 which    
must decidedly be ascribed  to          
,christians with more of ,greek culture4
 ,that ,greek ideas had penetrated  into
 ,palestine is best seen in the works of
 ,philo ,judus1 the contemporary  of    
,jesus4 ,we cannot suppose that he stood
 alone1 and other ,jewish thinkers  must
 like him have accepted the ,logos idea 
as a solution of the riddle of  the     
universe4 ,out of soil like this1       
permeated and fructified with such      
ideas1 grew the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,if we 
ever make it plain to ourselves that    
,jews who1 like ,philo1 had adopted the 
,logos idea with all its  consequences1 
necessarily recognised in the ,logos the

 ,son of ,god1 the  chosen of ,god      
7,luke xxiii4 #ce71 the realised image  
of ,god1 and then in the  actual ,jesus 
the incarnation or realisation1 or      
rather the universalising  of this      
image1 the ,fourth ,gospel ascribed to  
,john will become much clearer  to us4  
,here lies the nucleus of true          
,christianity1 in so far as it deals    
with the personality of ,christ1 and the
 relation of ,god to humanity4 ,it is   
no longer said that ,god has made and   
created the world1 but that ,god has    
thought and uttered the world4 ,all     
existences are thoughts1 or             
collectively the thought 7,logos7 of    
,god1 and this thought has found its    
most perfect expression1 its truest     
word1 in a man in ,jesus4 ,in this sense
  and in no other was ,jesus the ,son of
 ,god and the ,word1 as the ,jews of    
,greek culture believed1 and as the     
author of the ,fourth ,gospel believed1 
and as still later the young ,athanasius
 and his contemporaries believed1  and  

as we must believe if we really wish to 
be ,christians4 ,there is no  other     
really ,christian explanation of the    
world than that ,god thought and        
uttered it1 and that man follows in life
 and thought the thoughts of ,god4  ,we 
must not forget that all our knowledge  
and hold of the world are again  nothing
 but thoughts1 which we transform under 
the law of causality into  objective    
realities4 ,it was this unswerving      
dependence on ,god in thought  and life 
that made ,jesus what he was1 and what  
we should be if we only  tried1 viz41   
children of ,god4 ,this light or this   
revelation shines through  here and     
there even in the ,synoptic ,gospels1   
though so often obscured by  the ,jewish
 ,messianic ideas4    ,in the ,fourth   
,gospel the influence of these ideas and
 their employment by  ,jesus and his    
disciples cannot be mistaken4 ,and why  
should not ,jesus have  adopted and     
fulfilled the ,logos ideas of the ,greek
 world as well as the  ,messianic ideas 

of the ,jewish people8 ,do the ,jews as 
thinkers rank so much  higher than the  
,greeks8 ,how does the first verse read1
 which might well  have been said by a  
,neo-platonic philosopher1 8,in the     
beginning was the  ,word08 ,this ,word  
is the ,logos1 and this ,greek word is  
in itself quite  enough to indicate the 
,greek origin of the idea4 ,word        
7,logos71 however1  signified at the    
same time thought4 ,this creative ,word 
was with ,god1 nay1  ,god himself was   
this ,word4 ,and all things were made by
 this ,word1 that is  to say1 in this   
,word and in all ,words ,god thought the
 world4 ,whoever  cannot or will not    
understand this1 will never enter into  
the deepest  depths of the teaching of  
,christ1 good ,christian as he may      
otherwise be1  and the ,fourth ,gospel  
in its deepest meaning does not exist   
for him4 ,that  there was life in these 
words or things shining forth from ,god1
 we know1  and this life1 be it what it 
may1 was a light to man1 the light of   

the  world1 even though man had long    
been blind and imprisoned in darkness1  
and  did not understand the life1 the   
light1 the ,word4    ,now1 in passing to
 the gospel story1 the evangelist says  
that ,jesus  brought or himself was the 
true light1 while ,john's duty was      
merely to  announce his coming          
beforehand4 ,this is certainly a great  
step--it is the  ,christian recognition 
of the ,word or of the ,son of ,god in  
the historical  ,jesus1 whose historical
 character is confirmed by the character
 of ,john  the ,baptist4 ,the people    
believed in ,john1 and ,john believed in
 ,jesus4 ,of  course we must not assume 
that the philosophical significance of  
the ,word1  or of the ,logos1 was ever  
clearly and completely present to the   
people in  the form worked out by the   
,neo-platonists4 ,that was impossible at
 the  time1 and it is so even now with  
the great mass of ,christians4 ,on the  
other hand1 the many subtleties and     
oddities which have made the later      

,neo-platonism so repulsive to us1      
hardly existed for the consciousness of 
the masses1 which could only adopt the  
fundamental ideas of the ,logos  system 
with a great effort4 ,religion is not   
philosophy2 but there has  never been a 
religion1 and there never can be1 which 
is not based on  philosophy1 and does   
not presuppose the philosophical notions
 of the  people4 ,the highest aim1      
toward which all philosophy strives1 is 
and will  always remain the idea of     
,god1 and it was this idea which        
,christianity  grasped in the ,platonic 
sense1 and presented to us most clearly 
in its  highest form1 in the ,fourth    
,gospel4 ,to ,john1 if for brevity we   
may so call  the author of the ,fourth  
,gospel1 ,god was no longer the ,jewish 
,jehovah1 who  had created the world in 
six days1 formed ,adam out of the dust1 
and every  living creature out of the   
ground2 for him ,god had acquired a     
higher  significance1 his nature was a  
spiritual nature1 his creation was a    

spiritual creation1 and as for man the  
,word comprehends everything1           
represents everything1 realises         
everything that exists for him2 so ,god 
was  conceived as being in the          
beginning1 and then expressing ,himself 
in the  ,word1 or as one with the ,word4
 ,to ,god the ,word1 that is the        
all-comprehensive ,word1 was the        
utterance1 the actualising or           
communicating of ,his subjective divine 
ideas1 which were in ,him1 and  through 
the ,word passed out of ,him into human 
perception1 and thereby into  objective 
reality4 ,this second reality1          
inseparable from the first1 was  the    
second ,logos1 inseparable as cause and 
effect are inseparable in  essence4 ,as 
the highest of all ,logoi was man1 the  
most perfect man was  recognised as the 
son of ,god1 the ,logos become flesh1   
the highest thought  and will of ,god4  
,in this there is nothing miraculous4   
,everything is  consistently thought    
out1 and in this sense ,jesus could have

 been nothing  else than the ,word or   
the ,son of ,god4 ,all this sounds very 
strange to us  at first1 because we have
 forgotten the full meaning of the      
utterance or  the ,word1 and are not    
able to transfer the creation of the    
,word and the  ,thought1 even though    
only in the form of a similitude1 to    
that which was  in the beginning4 ,a    
similitude it is and must remain1 like  
everything that  we say of ,god2 but it 
is a higher and more spiritual          
similitude than any  that have been or  
can be applied to ,god in the various   
religions and  philosophies of the      
world4 ,god has thought the world1 and  
in the act of  thinking has uttered or  
expressed it2 and these thoughts which  
were in  ,him1 and were thought and     
uttered by ,him in rational sequence1   
are the  ,logoi1 or species1 or kinds1  
which we recognise again by reflection  
in the  objective world1 as rationally  
developing one from another4 ,here we   
have  the true 8,origin of ,species0    

long before ,darwin's book4    ,to the  
philosophers this is all perfectly      
intelligible4 ,the step taken by        
,christ and his disciples 7those1       
namely1 who speak to us in the ,fourth  
,gospel7 was this1 that they believed   
they recognised in the historical       
,jesus1 the son of the carpenter of     
,nazareth1 the highest ,logos 8,man0 in 
his complete realisation4 ,it was       
entirely natural1 but it can only have  
occurred after overpowering experiences1
 for it must have signified more  than  
we understand under the 8ideal of a     
man10 although originally both          
expressions are derived from the same   
source4 ,nor was the designation of  the
 ,saviour as the ,word1 or1 in more     
human fashion1 the ,son of ,god1        
intended so much for him conceived      
purely spiritually1 but rather for his  
personality as inspired by the highest  
ideas4    ,in all these matters we must 
think of the ever changing medium1 in   
which  these expressions moved4 ,word   

and ,son in the mouths of the people    
might  coalesce or be kept quite apart2 
,son of ,david1 ,son of ,abraham1 might 
at  times take the place of ,son of     
,god1 and all these phrases might appear
 in  popular intercourse to express only
 what others called the ,messiah or     
,christ4 ,in any case1 all these were   
the highest expressions which could be  
applied to man or to the son of man4 ,to
 the ordinary understanding1 still      
permeated with heathen ideas1 it was    
certainly monstrous to elevate a man  to
 ,olympus1 to transform him into a son  
of ,god4 ,but what was there for man    
higher than man8 ,intermediate beings1  
such as demons1 heroes1 or angels1  had 
never been seen1 nor did they answer the
 purpose4 ,one step1 however  small1    
above the human1 could only lead to the 
divine1 or bring into  consciousness the
 divine in man4 ,what seemed blasphemy  
to the ,jewish  consciousness was just  
that truth which ,christ proclaimed1 the
 truth for  which he laid down his human

 life4 ,if we enter into this thought1  
we shall  understand not only the       
occasional expressions of the           
,synoptics1 but the  ,fourth ,gospel    
especially in all its depth4 ,how it was
 possible to make  this last ,gospel    
intelligible without these ideas1 is    
almost  incomprehensible4    ,what1     
then1 did the readers think of the      
,word1 that was in the beginning1  that 
was with ,god1 that even was ,god1 of   
the ,word1 by which all things  were    
made8 ,and what was understood when     
,jesus was called the ,word1 that  was  
in the world1 without the world knowing 
him1 while those who  recognised and    
acknowledged him as the ,word1 thereby  
became like him sons  of ,god8 ,we must 
ascribe some meaning to these words1 and
 what can we  ascribe if we do not take 
the philosophic term 8,logos0 in its    
historic  sense8 ,one need only attempt 
to translate the beginning of the       
,fourth  ,gospel into a non-,christian  
language1 and we shall realise that     

without  its heathen antecedents the    
words remain absolutely unintelligible4 
,we  find translations that mean simply1
 8,in the beginning was the             
substantive40 ,that may seem incredible 
to us2 but what better idea has a  poor 
old peasant woman in reading the first  
chapter of the ,fourth ,gospel1  and    
what better idea can the village        
preacher give her if she asks for an    
explanation8    ,for us the greatest    
difficulty remains in verse #ad1 8,the  
,word became  flesh1 and dwelt among    
us40 ,but what grounds have we for      
setting our  opinion against the        
unhesitating acceptance of              
contemporaries1 and later  even of the  
,alexandrian philosophers8 ,they must   
have felt the same  difficulties as     
ourselves1 but they overcame them in    
consideration of what  they had seen in 
,jesus1 or even only heard of him4 ,they
 could not  comprehend him in his moral 
elevation and holiness1 except as the   
,logos1  the ,word1 the ,son of ,god4   

,if we follow them1 we are safe2 if not1
 we can  no doubt say much in excuse1   
but we place ourselves in the strongest 
opposition to history4 ,we may say that 
men have never seen any divine  idea1   
any divine word1 any divine thought of  
any kind realised on earth2  nay1 that  
man can never have the right to pass    
such a deifying judgment1  of his own   
sovereign power1 on anything lying      
within his actual  experience4 ,we so   
easily forget that if ,god is once      
brought near to  humanity1 and no longer
 regarded as only transcendent1 humanity
 must1 at  the same time1 be thought and
 brought nearer to the divine4 ,we may  
acknowledge this and still maintain that
 others1 like the apostles and the      
philosophers of ,alexandria after them1 
must have felt the same difficulty1     
perhaps even more strongly than we1 who 
never were eye-witnesses nor  ,platonic 
philosophers4 ,yet they still insisted  
that ,jesus in his life1  conduct1 and  
death demonstrated that human nature    

could rise no higher  than in him1 and  
that he was all and fulfilled all that  
,god had  comprised in the ,logos 8man40
 ,jesus himself declares1 when ,peter   
first  called him the son of ,god1 that 
flesh and blood had not revealed it unto
  him1 but his ,father which is in      
heaven 7,matthew xvi4 #ag74 ,and this   
was  perfect truth and applies to us    
also4    ,we may go through the whole   
,fourth ,gospel1 and we shall find that 
it  remains incomprehensible1 except    
from the standpoint that we ascribe to  
the author4 ,when we read 7i4 #ah71 8,no
 man hath seen ,god at any time2 the    
only begotten ,son1 which is in the     
bosom of the ,father1 he hath declared  
him10 shall we then think only of the   
son of the carpenter1 the bodily        
,jesus1 and not rather of the ,word that
 was in him1 and that was as near to    
the ,father as ,he to himself2 that was 
in the bosom of the ,father1 and that   
declared to us the ,father1 who was in  
the beginning8 ,has not ,jesus himself  

stated 7iii4 #ac7 that no man hath      
ascended up to heaven except him who    
came down from heaven1 that is from     
,god1 and that no one has seen the      
,father1 save he which is of ,god1 that 
is the ,son 7vi4 #df78 ,these are1 of   
course1 figurative expressions1 but     
their meaning cannot be doubtful4 ,when 
,nathanael called ,jesus1 ,rabbi1 ,king 
of ,israel1 and ,son of ,god1 his ideas 
may still have been very immature1 but  
in time the true meaning of the ,son  of
 ,god breaks through more and more      
clearly4    ,the declaration of ,jesus  
to ,nicodemus1 8,ye must be born anew10 
is a  remarkable one--remarkable1       
because the ,brahmans from the earliest 
times  make use of the same expression1 
and call themselves the reborn1 the     
twice  born 7,dvija71 and both no doubt 
attributed the same meaning to the      
second  birth1 namely1 the recognition  
of the true nature of man1 the ,brahmans
 as  one with ,brahman1 that is1 the    
,word2 the ,christians as one with the  

,word1  or the ,son of ,god4 ,and why   
should this belief in the ,son give     
everlasting  life 7ii4 #af78 ,because   
,jesus has through his own sonship in   
,god declared  to us ours also4 ,this   
knowledge gives us eternal life through 
the  conviction that we too have        
something divine and eternal within us1 
namely1 the word of ,god1 the ,son1 whom
 ,he hath sent 7v4 #ch74 ,jesus         
himself1 however1 is the only begotten  
,son1 the light of the world4 ,he  first
 fulfilled and illumined the divine idea
 which lies darkly in all men  7see     
,john viii4 #ab1 xii4 #ce1 #df71 and    
made it possible for all men to  become 
actually what they have always been     
potentially--sons of ,god4    ,further  
reading in the ,fourth ,gospel will of  
course show us many things  that are    
only indirectly connected with this1    
which ,i believe to be the  supreme     
truth of ,christianity4 ,to the woman of
 ,samaria ,jesus only declares  that    
,god is a spirit1 and that he must be   

worshipped in spirit1 bound  neither to 
,jerusalem nor to ,samaria4 ,she knows  
only that the ,messiah will  come1 she  
was scarcely ready for the idea of a son
 of ,god1 but like the  ,pharisees 7v4  
#ah7 would have considered this only as 
blasphemy 7x4 #cc74  ,but again and     
again the keynote of the new teaching   
breaks through4 ,when  ,jesus speaks of 
his works1 he calls them the works of   
his ,father 7v4 #ai72  even the         
resurrection from the dead is explained 
by him1 as clearly as  possible1 to be  
an awakening through the ,word1 8,he    
that heareth my word1  and believeth on 
him that sent me1 hath everlasting life0
 7v4 #ad71 which  means that he is      
immortal4 ,he1 however1 who did not     
recognise the ,word and  his divine     
nature1 as ,jesus taught it1 does not   
yet possess that eternal  life1 for     
which he is destined1 but which must    
first be gained through  insight1 or    
belief in ,jesus4 ,can anything be      
clearer than the words 7,john  xvii4    

#c71 8,and this is life eternal1 that   
they might know thee1 the only  true    
,god1 and ,jesus ,christ1 whom thou hast
 sent08 ,of course many of these        
expressions were not understood by the  
masses1 or were even misunderstood4     
,the words were repeated1 and when      
necessary1 especially in the            
questionings of children1 they had to be
 explained somehow1 often by a  parable 
or story1 which the mother invents at   
the moment1 to quiet them4  ,all this is
 inevitable2 it has happened everywhere1
 and happens still4  ,whoever wishes to 
learn how tradition or common report    
treats historical  facts1 should compare
 the ,gnther or ,etzel of the           
,nibelungen with the  ,gundicarius or   
,attila of history1 or ,charles the     
,great crowned by the ,pope  with the   
,charlemagne who besieged ,jerusalem1 or
 ,hruodlandus with ,roland1  or ,arturus
 with ,arthur4 ,or1 to come to later    
days1 we need only recall the  wonderful
 tales of the ,french journals during   

the last ,franco-,german ,war1  and we  
shall be astonished at the manner in    
which1 quite unintentionally1  the      
people adapt all tidings to their own   
views4 ,nineteen hundred years  ago     
there were no newspapers4 ,why should it
 have been different then8    ,what the 
children had heard and believed1 they   
remembered when they had  grown older1  
or themselves had become parents4 ,it   
was convenient and  natural to tell     
their children again what they had heard
 in their own  childhood1 and like a    
rolling stone1 with each repetition the 
tradition  constantly took up new       
miraculous elements4 ,there is scarcely 
a miracle in  the ,new ,testament that  
did not account for itself spontaneously
 in this  way1 and that did not in its  
original form reveal to us a far higher 
truth  than the mere miracle itself4    
,and when the time came for a record1   
was it  not quite natural that          
everything available should be gathered 
together1  according to the tales told  

and believed from house to house1 or    
village  to village8 ,in this process1  
moreover1 the appeal to a voucher1 if   
possible to a contemporary or           
eye-witness1 was not at all surprising1 
especially if there was a still living  
tradition1 that this or that had  been  
heard from one of the apostles1 and     
could be traced back to him from  son to
 father4 ,why should we put aside1 nay1 
indignantly reject1 this  simple1       
natural theory1 suggested by all the    
circumstances1 and capable of  at once  
removing all difficulties1 in order to  
prefer another1 which has  the          
advantage1 it is true1 of having been   
generally accepted for  centuries1 but  
nevertheless was originally nothing more
 than a human  appeal to a superhuman   
attestation8 ,it must not be forgotten  
that if a  voice were really heard from 
heaven1 it lies with man to understand  
it1  or1 on his own authority1 to       
declare it the voice of ,god or an      
angel4 ,with  one-half of ,christendom  

the doctrine of the verbal inspiration  
of the four  ,gospels never became an   
article of faith4 ,it was first made so 
among the  ,protestants to provide      
something incontestable in place of the 
councils  and the ,pope4 ,but this only 
drove ,protestants from ,scylla into    
,charybdis1  and landed them in         
inextricable difficulties1 because they 
withdrew the  ,gospels from the         
historical soil out of which they       
sprang4 ,but we do not  escape          
,charybdis by steering again into       
,scylla1 but by endeavouring to  rise   
above ,charybdis1 ay1 even above the    
,gospels4 ,in our human                 
shortsightedness we may believe that it 
would have been better for us had       
,jesus or the apostles themselves left  
us something in writing4 ,but as this   
did not happen1 why should we not be    
content with what we have8 ,the ruins   
of the true ,christianity still remain2 
why should we not endeavour with  their 
help to restore the ancient temple8     

,why should we contemptuously reject the
 tradition which arose in the  mouths of
 the people8 ,should we be worse        
,christians if it were clearly and      
plainly demonstrated that we only       
possess popular traditions1 out of which
  we must ourselves form a conception of
 the career and teaching of ,christ8    
,is it not good for us1 that we are free
 in many points to decide for  ourselves
 what ,jesus was and what he taught8    
,and in a world in which everything     
develops1 everything grows and changes1 
why should religion alone be an         
exception8 ,do we not all freely confess
  that certain precepts which are       
ascribed to ,jesus in the ,gospels are  
no  longer adapted to our times and to  
our circumstances8 ,does any ,christian 
turn his left cheek when he has been    
struck upon the right8 ,do we give our  
cloak when our coat has been taken from 
us8 ,do we hold everything that we      
possess in common as the first          
,christians did8 ,do we sell all that we

 have  and give it to the poor 7,matthew
 xix4 #ba78    ,it is quite true that   
under this method a certain personal    
freedom in the  interpretation of the   
,gospels is unavoidable1 but is not this
 freedom at  the same time accompanied  
by a very important feeling of personal 
responsibility1 which is of the utmost  
significance for every religious        
conviction8 ,it cannot be denied1 that  
this open and honest acknowledgment  of 
the undeniable influence of popular     
tradition has far-reaching              
consequences1 and will take from us much
 to which we are accustomed1 and  that  
has become near and dear1 even sacred1  
to us4 ,but it has this  advantage1 that
 we feel we are candid and honest in our
 faith1 to which we  may add that we are
 never forced in dealing with human     
hypotheses to give  our assent blindly1 
but may follow our own judgment4 ,we may
 adopt or  reject the view that in the  
development of the gospel story much    
must be  ascribed to popular tradition1 

and ,i can readily believe that many who
 do  not know1 either through the study 
of legends or their own experience1 the 
transforming influence which school and 
family traditions exercise on the  form 
of historical narratives1 find it       
incredible that such a carbonising      
process could have taken place also in  
the evangelical tradition as  related by
 the men of the next generation4 ,they  
must then content  themselves with the  
alternative1 that the laws of nature1   
which they  themselves ascribe to the   
,deity1 must have been abrogated by     
their own  founder in order that the    
truth of the teaching of ,christ might  
gain a  certain probability in the eyes 
of the people by so-called miracles4    
,let us take an example in order to see 
what we shall gain on the one side  and 
lose on the other4 ,the original meaning
 of making the blind see1 ,jesus  has   
himself told us 7,john ix4 #ci71 8,for  
judgment ,i am come into this  world1   
that they which see not might see2 and  

that they which see might be  made      
blind40 ,this refers to spiritual1 not  
physical blindness1 and which  is the   
more difficult to heal1 the spiritual or
 the physical8 ,but when  ,jesus was    
repeatedly said to have healed this     
spiritual blindness1 to have  opened the
 eyes of the blind and unbelieving1 how 
was it possible that the  masses1       
especially the children1 should not     
misunderstand such cures1 and  interpret
 and repeat them as cures of physical   
blindness8 ,certainly such  an idea     
carries us a long way4 ,we must then1   
for instance1 explain such an           
expression as that placed in the mouths 
of the ,pharisees 7,john x4 #ba71  8,can
 a devil open the eyes of the blind80 as
 a further extension of a  popular      
notion already in the field4 ,nor can it
 be denied that cures of  the physically
 blind have this in their favour1 that  
so exceptional a  personality as ,jesus 
may also have possessed an exceptional  
healing power4  ,it then depends only on

 the character of the blindness1 whether
 it was  curable or incurable1 and the  
solution of this question we may be     
content  to leave to the medical man4 ,i
 only remark1 that if the medical man   
should  deny such a possibility1 a true 
,christian would lose nothing in        
consequence1 for under all circumstances
 a spiritual healing power in  ,christ  
would stand higher with all of us than  
one merely physical4    ,this may be    
called shallow rationalism1 but surely  
the human ratio or  reason cannot be    
entirely rejected4 ,many know of their  
own experience that  a man of high moral
 energy can even now drive out devils   
and base  thoughts4 ,why not also       
believe that through his appearance and 
words ,jesus  made such an impression   
upon those possessed1 for instance1 upon
 the man  or the two men who herded     
swine in the country of the ,gadarenes  
or  ,gergesenes1 that they came to      
themselves and began to lead new lives8 
,that  on such a conversion the         

swine-herds should forget their swine   
which  rushed headlong into the lake1 is
 easily understood1 and when these two  
incidents came to the ears of the       
people1 what was more natural than the  
story which we find in ,matthew 7viii4  
#bh71 ,mark 7v4 #a71 and ,luke 7viii4   
#bf71 but not in ,john8 ,we need not now
 enter into the discrepancies between   
these three narratives1 striking as they
 would be in a divinely inspired  book4 
,of course it will be said again1 that  
this is a shallow1  rationalistic       
explanation1 as if the word             
8rationalist0 contained within  itself  
something condemnatory4 ,at all events1 
no one can now demonstrate  that ,jesus 
did not bewitch the unclean spirits out 
of the two demoniacs  into the two      
thousand swine2 but ,i confess that the 
shallow rationalistic  explanation seems
 to me far better calculated to bring   
clearly to light  the influence which   
,jesus could exercise over the most     
abandoned men4    ,one more instance4   

,how often does ,jesus say that he is   
the bread that  really satisfies man1   
and the water that quenches all thirst  
7vi4 #dh73 8,i  am the bread of life4   
,this is the bread which cometh down    
from heaven1  that a man may eat thereof
 and not die4 ,whoso eateth my flesh and
 drinketh  my blood hath eternal life1  
and ,i will raise him up at the last    
day40  ,would any one1 even the woman of
 ,samaria1 take these words literally8  
,does  not ,jesus himself help us to a  
correct understanding of them when he   
says  7vi4 #ce71 8,i am the bread of    
life2 he that cometh to me shall never  
hunger2 and he that believeth on me     
shall never thirst10 and again1 7vii4   
#cg71 8,if any man thirst let him come  
unto me1 and drink40 ,and in order to   
shield his words against any            
misunderstanding he himself says 7vi4   
#fc71  8,it is the spirit that          
quickeneth2 the flesh profiteth nothing2
 the words  that ,i speak unto you1 they
 are spirit and they are life40 ,and are

 we  resolved in spite of all this not  
to understand the deep meaning of his   
words1 to remain blind and deaf2 and do 
we1 like the ,pharisees1 prefer the     
story of how ,jesus by magic means fed  
thousands with five or seven loaves  and
 two fishes 7vi4 #i71 so that in the end
 twelve baskets of bread  remained after
 all were satisfied8 ,we can readily    
comprehend how in the  mouths of the    
people the great miracles of ,jesus1 the
 real mira wrought  by his life and     
teaching1 became small miracula4 ,but if
 we surrender  these small miracula1 is 
not something far better left us1       
namely1 that  ,jesus1 who so often      
called himself the bread and the wine1  
who even at the  ,last ,supper1 as he   
broke bread with his disciples1         
commanded them to eat  the bread which  
was his body1 and drink the wine which  
was his blood1--that  this teacher could
 by his teaching satisfy1 content1 and  
convert  thousands1 who came to him and 
believed in him6 ,it is true that the   

story  of the feeding of thousands with 
five loaves of bread is more            
intelligible  to women and children1 and
 makes a stronger impression than the   
metaphorical words of ,christ2 but      
nothing is more easy to understand than 
the transformation of a tale of the     
conversion or spiritual satisfying of   
thousands1 into a parable of the feeding
 of thousands with five loaves4  ,but   
have not the truly devout and           
conscientious thinkers rights of their  
own in the community8 ,must they really 
hold themselves aloof from the  church1 
because they have too deep a reverence  
for the true teaching of  ,christ8      
,grand and beautiful as are ,st4        
,peter's in ,rome1 ,st4 ,mark's in      
,venice1 or the ,cathedral at ,milan1 it
 is heartbreaking to observe the        
so-called divine service in these       
buildings4 ,let us not be deceived by   
the  sayings1 that the kingdom of heaven
 belongs to the children1 or that a     
childlike faith is best4 ,that is quite 

true1 but it has absolutely nothing  to 
do with our question4 ,of course in     
every generation millions of  children  
are born1 and milk must be provided for 
these as well2 but this  milk is not for
 men1 and these should not permit       
themselves to be  frightened by mere    
words1 such as shallow enlightenment1   
rationalism1  unbelief1 etc4 ,the worst 
of it is that we have permitted our     
ministri to  become our masters instead 
of our servants1 and that the weak among
 them  far outnumber the strong4 ,in    
history1 however1 the minority is always
  victorious4 ,popular legend has       
certainly at times grievously obscured  
the  gospel of ,christ1 but not so much 
as to prevent those who are familiar    
with its nature and effect from         
discovering the grains of gold in the   
sand1 the rays of truth behind the      
clouds4 ,at all events1 popular legend  
refuses to be ruled out4 ,a knowledge of
 it and its influence on historical     
events in other nations1 and especially 

a familiarity with the modes of         
expression in ,oriental languages1 are  
of the greatest use in all these        
investigations4 ,only let no one        
confound legend and metaphor with       
mythology4 ,when ,jesus says that he is 
the water1 and that whoever drinks  of  
this water shall never thirst again1    
every one readily perceives that  he    
speaks metaphorically4 ,and likewise    
when he says that he is the vine or  the
 good shepherd4 ,but here the transition
 from parable to reality very  soon     
begins4 ,among so many pictures of the  
good shepherd it need occasion  no      
surprise that it is commonly imagined   
that ,jesus actually was a  shepherd and
 carried a lamb on his shoulders4 ,what 
occurs now was of  course equally       
possible in the earliest times4 ,when   
the common people saw  daily1 in old    
mosaic pictures1 a sword coming forth   
from the mouth of ,god1  they formed a  
representation of ,god corresponding to 
these pictures 7,rev4  i4 #bj74 ,and    

thus many readers of the ,gospel suppose
 that ,jesus was really  carried up into
 the air by the devil and placed on the 
summit of the  temple or of a high      
mountain1 that he might show him all the
 kingdoms of  the earth1 and tempt him  
to establish an earthly realm4 ,is it   
reverent to  imagine ,christ borne      
through the air by the devil1 instead of
 simply  learning that ,christ himself1 
as we read1 was not a stranger to inward
  trials1 and that he freely confessed  
them to his disciples8 ,many parables   
are represented in the ,gospels1 as     
though they had really occurred at the  
time4 ,thus1 in the parables of the     
kingdom of heaven1 the phrase always    
runs that it is like seed which a man   
sowed1 and while he slept an enemy  came
 and sowed tares4 ,or the kingdom of    
heaven is like leaven1 which a  woman   
took and hid in three measures of meal1 
or like a treasure found by  a man in a 
field1 or like a merchant seeking goodly
 pearls1 etc4 ,in  listening to these   

parables or looking at pictorial        
representations of  them1 there develops
 almost unconsciously1 especially among 
the young1 a  belief in their reality1  
in their actual occurrence at the time  
of ,christ4  ,in many cases this belief 
is widely spread1 as1 for example1 in   
the story  of the good ,samaritan1 ,now 
it is quite possible that some such     
incident as  ,jesus related had occurred
 in his time1 or shortly before it2 but 
it is  just as likely to have been a    
parable invented for a specific purpose4
 ,and  why should not this be true of   
other things1 which the ,gospels ascribe
 to  ,jesus himself8    ,is it necessary
 to believe1 that ,jesus saw the        
,pharisees casting their  gifts into the
 treasury with his own eyes 7,luke xxi4 
#a71 and the poor  widow who threw in   
two mites1 or is it possible to consider
 this1 too1 as  a parable1 without      
insisting that ,jesus really sat        
opposite the sacred  chest1 and counted 
the alms1 and knew that the widow had   

put in two mites1  and had really       
nothing left8 ,of many things1 as of the
 conversation  between ,jesus and       
,nicodemus1 or between ,jesus and the   
woman of ,samaria1 no  one could have   
had any knowledge except those who took 
part in it4 ,we must  therefore assume  
that ,jesus communicated these          
conversations to his  disciples1 and    
that these have reported to us the      
ipsissima verba4 ,in  this manner we are
 constantly involving ourselves in fresh
 difficulties of  our own making1 which 
we may indeed leave out of              
consideration1 but which  would never   
exist at all if we would only consider  
the circumstances under  which the      
,gospels arose4 ,i have previously      
expounded this view of the  popular     
origin of the evangelic narratives in my
 ,gifford lectures before  an audience1 
certainly very orthodox2 and although a 
small number of  theologians were much  
incensed against me1--it was their      
duty1--the  majority1 even of the       

clergy1 were decidedly with me4 ,the    
things  themselves and their lessons    
remain undiminished in value2 we merely 
acknowledge a fact1 quite natural from  
an historical standpoint1 viz4 that  the
 accounts of the life and teachings of  
,jesus have not come to us direct  from 
,christ1 nor from the apostles1 but from
 men who1 as they themselves  tell us1  
received the report from others by      
tradition4 ,their narratives1           
consequently1 are not perhaps           
fictitious1 or prepared with a certain  
object2 but they do show traces of the  
influence that was unavoidable in  oral 
transmission1 especially at a time of   
great spiritual excitement4  ,this is a 
problem which in itself has nothing     
whatever to do with  religion4 ,we have 
the ,gospels as they are4 ,it remains   
with the historian  alone to pass       
judgment upon the origin1 the           
transmission1 and the  authenticity of  
these texts1 just as the reconstruction 
of the text lies  solely with the       

philologist4 ,for this he need not even 
be a ,christian1  merely an historian4  
,whatever may be the judgment of the    
historical  inquirer1 we must learn to  
be content with what they leave us4 ,in 
this1  too1 the half is often better    
than the whole4 ,quite sufficient       
remains1  even when the critical        
historian assures us that the ,gospels  
as we possess  them were neither written
 by ,christ nor the apostles1 but       
contain the  traditions of the oldest   
,christian communities1 and that the    
manuscripts  in which they have reached 
us were not written till the fifth or at
 the  earliest the fourth century4 ,we  
may deal with these materials as with   
all  other historical materials from    
that period2 and we do so rather as     
independent historians than as          
,christians4    ,the view that the four 
,gospels were miraculously revealed to  
their  authors1 miraculously written1   
miraculously copied and finally printed1
 is  a view no doubt deserving of       

respect1 but it leaves the contents of  
the  ,gospels untouched4 ,the difference
 between the historical and the         
conventional interpretation of the      
,gospels comes out most clearly in the  
doctrine of eternal life4 ,what ,jesus  
understands by the eternal life that  he
 has brought to mankind1 is as clear as 
the sun4 ,he repeats it again and       
again4 ,eternal life consists in knowing
 that men have their ,father and  their 
true being in the only true ,god1 and   
that as sons of this same  ,father1 they
 are of like nature with ,god and       
,christ 7,john xvii4 #c74    ,this is   
the fundamental truth of ,christianity1 
and it holds good not only  for the     
contemporaries of ,jesus1 but for all   
times4 ,those who see in this  view an  
overestimate of human nature1 need only 
ask themselves what man  could be1 if he
 were not a partaker of the divine      
nature4 ,this excludes  the difference  
between human and divine nature as      
little as the difference  between the   

physical father and the physical son4   
,even in this case we  speak            
figuratively1 for how could we speak    
otherwise of what is  supersensual8 ,the
 repetition of stories among the people1
 narrating how  ,jesus raised one or    
another to life1 to eternal life1 very  
soon led among  women and children to   
the misunderstanding that this referred 
only to a  resurrection from bodily     
death4 ,nay1 this raising passed with   
them1 as it  still does with many1 for a
 stronger proof of the divine nature and
 power  of ,christ than the resurrection
 from that spiritual death1 which holds 
in  captivity all who have not          
recognised their own divine sonship and 
have  not understood the glad tidings   
which ,jesus brought to all mankind4    
,such  misunderstandings we find        
everywhere1 as when1 for instance1 even 
a man  like ,nicodemus fails to         
comprehend the new birth of which ,jesus
 speaks1  and asks if a man can enter   
his mother's womb a second time4 ,if    

this was  possible in a ,scribe1 how    
much more so with the uneducated people4
 ,in the  same way the ,jews            
misunderstand the saying of ,jesus1 that
 the truth will  make them free1 and    
answer that they are the seed of        
,abraham1 and free  men1 so that ,jesus 
had to repeat that whosoever commits sin
 is not free1  but a slave of sin 7,john
 viii4 #cc74 ,such misunderstandings    
meet us  everywhere1 and their influence
 extends much farther than we at first  
suppose4 ,naturally the tradition also  
puts words into ,jesus' mouth that      
could only have issued out of the       
notions of the people1 and almost       
entirely conceal the depth of his own   
words4 ,while the revelation of the     
true divine sonship of man immediately  
bestows eternal life on him who         
comprehends or believes in it1 heals his
 blindness1 and raises him from         
spiritual death1 ,jesus is presented as 
not purposing to raise the dead  until  
the last day 7,john vi4 #dj74 ,martha   

makes the same mistake1 when to  the    
words of ,jesus1 8,thy brother shall    
rise again10 she answers1 8,i know  that
 he shall rise at the last day0 7,john  
xi4 #bd74 ,even some of the works  which
 are ascribed to ,jesus are plainly     
derived from the same source4 ,a        
spiritual resurrection is not           
sufficient1 it even passes for less than
 a  bodily1 and this is the very reason 
for the numerous stories of the  raising
 of the dead4 ,these are matters from   
which1 even to this day1  devout        
,christians are loath to part1          
especially where the details are  given 
so minutely as in the raising of        
,lazarus4 ,now there is absolutely no   
objection to this1 if we are resolved to
 cling to the historical reality  of the
 raising of ,lazarus4 ,only in that case
 the terms employed should be  exactly  
defined4 ,if we give the name death to  
the condition which excludes  any return
 to life1 especially when1 as with      
,lazarus1 decay had already  set in1 the

 condition from which ,lazarus returned 
to life cannot be called  death without 
a contradiction4 ,jesus even says that  
his sickness was not  fatal 7,john xi4  
#d71 and that he is not dead1 but merely
 sleeps 7,john xi4  #aa74 ,was he       
mistaken8 ,such words should at least   
not be entirely  disregarded1 even      
though the other words follow           
immediately after1  8,lazarus is dead0  
7,john xi4 #ad74 ,that a highly gifted  
nature1 like that of  ,jesus1 may have  
possessed wonderful healing powers1     
cannot be denied1  however difficult it 
may be to determine the boundary between
 what is and  is not possible here4 ,on 
the other hand1 it is firmly established
 that  when once such an idea as the    
raising from physical death becomes     
rooted  in the popular mind1 the        
details1 especially such as can serve as
  evidence1 are provided spontaneously4 
,the nucleus of the story of the        
raising of ,lazarus lies of course in   
the words 7,john xi4 #be1 #bf71 8,i am  

the resurrection and the life1 he that  
believeth in me though he were  dead1   
yet shall he live1 and whosoever liveth 
and believeth in me shall  never die40  
,here we have the true teaching of      
,christ1 in his own  apparently         
contradictory language4 ,the saying1    
8,whoever believes in me  shall never   
die10 does not necessarily mean that his
 body will never die2  and so the words1
 8,though he were dead1 yet shall he    
live10 certainly do  not signify that   
his dead and decayed body shall receive 
new life4 ,but the  people wanted       
something else4 ,for the true miracles1 
for the spiritual  resurrection1 they   
had no comprehension1 they wanted       
sensuous miracles1  they wanted the     
resurrection of a body already decayed1 
and this is  described in the ,gospels  
in detail4 ,such is the regular         
privilege of  popular tradition1 and it 
happens without deliberate intention1   
except  that of bringing vividly before 
us the common interpretation of the     

fact4  ,popular tradition is not        
intentional deception1 it is only an    
unavoidable  fusion of facts with       
conventional ideas1 whereby ,god becomes
 a laborer  wearied by six days' work2  
his seat becomes ,olympus or a golden   
throne in  some corner of the blue sky2 
the ,son of ,god sinks to the level of a
 prince  of the house of ,david1 the    
,saviour to a miracle doctor1 and his   
message of  salvation to a promise of   
resurrection from physical death4 ,there
 are many  good men and women fulfilling
 in their daily walk the commands of    
,christ1  to whom the true historical   
conception of the gospel story would be 
a  terrible disillusion4 ,well1 such    
,christians are at liberty to remain in 
their own views4 ,our own interpretation
 of many of the details in the          
traditional representation of the       
,gospels1 though details certainly of   
very great significance1 makes no claim 
to papal authority4 ,it gladly  concedes
 the possibility of error1 and only     

claims to give an  interpretation of the
 evangelic writings1 founded on nature  
and history4  ,it should answer1 and at 
the same time appease1 the very numerous
 and1 at  bottom1 honest men1 who1 like 
the ,horseherd1 declare the gospel      
narratives1 as ordinarily understood1   
full of falsehood and fraud or even     
pure fancy1 and who have consequently   
broken with the ,christian revelation   
from conscientious scruples4 ,their     
number is greater than is generally     
supposed1 and it must on no account be  
supposed that they are necessarily      
wicked or even immoral men4 ,when they  
declare the ,christian revelation to  be
 an absurdity1 it is because they do not
 know it in its historical  origin and  
its divine truth4 ,to assume that every 
word1 every letter1--for  it has been   
carried even so far1--that every        
parable1 every figure1 was  whispered to
 the authors of the ,gospels1 is        
certainly an absurdity1 and  rests only 
on human and often only on priestly     

authority4 ,but the true  revelation1   
the real truth1 as it was already       
anticipated by the ,greek  philosophers1
 slowly accepted by ,jews like ,philo   
and the contemporaries of  ,jesus1      
taught by men like ,clement and ,origen 
in the ancient ,greek church1  and1 in  
fine1 realised in the life of ,jesus and
 sealed by his death1 is no  absurdity2 
it is for every thinking ,christian the 
eternal life or the  kingdom of ,god on 
earth1 which ,jesus wished to establish1
 and in part did  establish4 ,to become 
a citizen of this kingdom is the highest
 that man can  attain1 but it is not    
attained merely through baptism and     
confirmation2 it  must be gained in     
earnest spiritual conflict4    ,in      
nearly all religions ,god remains far   
from man4 ,i say in nearly all          
religions2 for in ,brahmanism the unity1
 not the union1 of the human soul  with 
,brahman is recognised as the highest   
aim4 ,this unity with ,deity1  together 
with phenomenal difference1 ,jesus      

expressed in part through the  ,logos1  
in part through the ,son4 ,there is     
nothing so closely allied as  thought   
and word1 ,father and ,son4 ,they can be
 distinguished1 but never  separated1   
for they exist only through each other4 
,in this manner the  ,greek philosophers
 considered all creation as the thought 
or the word of  ,god1 and the thought   
8man0 became naturally the highest      
,logos1 realised in  millions of men1   
and raised to the highest perfection in 
,jesus4 ,as the  thought exists only    
through the word1 and the word only     
through the  thought1 so also the       
,father exists only through the ,son1   
and the ,son  through the ,father1 and  
in this sense ,jesus feels and declares 
himself the  ,son of ,god1 and all men  
who believe in him his brethren4 ,this  
revelation  or inspiration came to      
mankind through ,jesus4 ,no one knew the
 ,father  except the ,son1 who is in the
 bosom of the ,father1 and those to whom
 the  ,son willeth to reveal him4 ,this 

is the ,christian revelation in the true
  sense of the word4 ,it has long been  
attempted to make an essential          
difference between ,jesus1 the only     
begotten ,son1 and his brethren1 through
  an exaggerated feeling of affected    
reverence4 ,but if this is carried too  
far1 the temple which ,jesus himself    
erected for mankind is destroyed4 ,it   
is true that no one comes to the ,father
 except through ,jesus1 and that  ,jesus
 is the only begotten ,son1 for he is in
 the ,father and the ,father in  him    
7,john xiv4 #aj71 nay1 he and the       
,father are one 7,john x4 #cj74 ,the    
distinction is therefore there1 but the 
unity as well1 for ,jesus himself  says 
that he is in his disciples as the      
,father is in him1 that they all  may be
 one1 as he is one with ,god1 and ,god  
with him 7,john xvii4 #ba74 ,to  many   
there may be no sense in this1 because  
their ideas of ,god and of the  ,son of 
,god are altogether materialistic1 but  
to those who have learned to  feel the  

divine1 not only without but also       
within1 these words are the  light of   
the world4 ,in this sense we need not be
 ashamed of the gospel of  ,christ1 and 
can be prepared to look all the         
,horseherds of the world in the  face as
 intellectually free1 yet at the same   
time as true ,christians1 in  the way   
,jesus himself would have desired2 often
 in error1 like the  disciples of old1  
but still loyal and honest followers of 
the ,son of ,god4    ,the main issue in 
all these questions is honesty1 honesty 
toward ourselves  even more than toward 
others4 ,we know how easily we may all  
be deceived1  how easily we are put off 
with words1 especially when they are    
words of  ancient use4 ,it was the      
sincere tone of the ,horseherd that     
prompted me to  public discussion of his
 doubts1 for doubts are generally       
anticipations of  truth1 and to be true 
to oneself is better than to possess all
 truth4 ,it  gave me pleasure to learn  
recently that he is still among the     

living1  although for an interval he was
 beyond the range of the usual postal   
facilities1 so that my letters did not  
reach him4 ,whether he thinks me as     
honest as himself1 we must wait to know4
 ,i did not seek either to persuade  or 
to convince him4 ,such things depend too
 much on circumstances and  environment4
 ,i merely wished to show him that      
others1 who do not agree  with him1 or  
with whom he does not agree1 are honest1
 and may honestly  hold entirely        
different views4 ,to learn to understand
 each other is the  great art of life1  
and to 8agree to differ0 is the best    
lesson of the  comparative science of   
religion4            ,,chapter ,,vi4    
,conclusion4      ,the allusion in the  
foregoing page is to a very long letter 
which the  ,horseherd wrote to my       
husband1 dated ,september #aj1 #ahig1   
eighteen months  after his first letter4
 ,this was followed three days later by 
a short  note1 saying that the long     
letter was not written for publication1 

and  that it was the ,horseherd's       
express wish that it should not be      
printed4 ,in  this note he mentions that
 he was perfectly well1 and that he had 
been so  successful in his trade1 that  
he no longer sat with an oil lamp by an 
iron  stove1 but was 8every inch a      
gentleman10 as he expressed it4 ,the    
,pferdebrla was brought out early in    
#ahii1 and my husband sent a copy to    
the only address he had1--8,pferdebrla1 
,post-,office1 ,pittsburgh10--with the  
following letter3--    8                
7,translation47 #g ,norham ,gardens1    
,feb4 #aj _/#ii4  ,dear far-off ,friend3
    8,you see ,i have kept my promise1  
and after many delays the book is ready4
  ,how are you8 whether you are sitting 
by your iron and oil light1 or have     
become a great and rich man4 ,well1 all 
that is only external1 the great  thing1
 the ,self1 remains unchanged4 ,i am    
growing old--past seventy-five--and     
have still so much to do1 and am now    
printing a big book1 the ,six ,systems  

of ,indian ,philosophy4 ,that would     
please you1 for those old fellows saw   
deeper than our philosophers1 though    
they don't talk so much about it4 ,now  
write and tell me how it is with you1   
and whether you are pleased or not  with
 your and my book4 ,but make haste1 for 
who knows how long it may last4  ,it is 
strange how well one can know those whom
 one has never seen10    ,with all good 
wishes1                                 
,f4 ,max ,mller4              0    ,the 
book and letter were returned as        
unclaimed after three months4 ,but on   
,september #bi1 #ahii1 the ,horseherd   
wrote again1 giving his real name1      
,fritz  ,menzel1 and the address        
,monangahela ,hotel1 ,pittsburgh4 ,this 
letter ,i have  been unable to find4 ,on
 ,october #ag1 #ahii1 ,i wrote by my    
husband's desire4    8,,dear ,,sir3 ,my 
husband1 who is seriously ill1 wishes me
 to send you this  letter from him1     
written last ,february and returned late
 in ,april1 and to  say1 as he has now  

received your letter of ,september #bi1 
with your real  name and address1 he is 
sending you the copy of his book1 ,das  
,pferdebrla1 which was also returned to 
him40    ,after a few months both letter
 and book came back unclaimed1 and from 
that  time nothing more has been heard  
from the ,horseherd4 ,the book bears the
  inscription3--    8,to the            
,pferdebrla1 with greetings from his    
,pardner40    ,a few words must be said 
about the translation4 ,in ,august1     
#ahih1 a  translation of the first      
article on ,celsus1 made by ,mr4 ,o4 ,a4
 ,fechter of  ,north ,yakima1           
,washington1 ,u4,s4,a41 was sent to my  
husband by an old friend1  ,mrs4        
,bartlett1 wife of the ,rev4 ,h4 ,m4    
,bartlett1 rector of the church in  the 
same place4 ,he liked it and returned it
 at once1 begging that the  other       
articles1 which had appeared in the     
,deutsche ,rundschau1 though not  yet   
published as a book1 might be           
translated4 ,for more than two years    

nothing was heard from ,north ,yakima1  
though ,i wrote more than once during   
my husband's illness1 so anxious was he 
to see the translation carried  out4 ,at
 length1 just before ,christmas1 #aija1 
,i wrote once more and  registered the  
letter1 which was safely delivered1 and 
,i then heard that  my friend had not   
only written repeatedly1 but that the   
whole finished  translation had been    
sent1 nearly two years before1 and that 
she was  astonished at hearing nothing  
further4 ,some fault in the post-office 
had  caused the long silence on both    
sides4 ,a rough copy of the translation 
had  been kept1 and was sent over after 
it had been clearly written out4    ,i  
cannot sufficiently express my gratitude
 to the ,rev4 ,j4 ,estlin  ,carpenter1  
who has revised the whole work in the   
most thorough manner1  devoting to it   
much of his very valuable time4         
,,georgina ,,max ,m,,ller               
,,footnotes          #a ,the ,greek term
 8logos0 was rendered ,geschichte in the

 ,german        title4        #b ,the   
word ,pferdebrla is apparently a        
,silesian equivalent for                
,pferdebursche1 and is represented in   
this volume by the term                 
8horseherd10 after the analogy of       
cowherd1 swineherd1 or shepherd4        
,the termination brla is probably a     
local corruption of the                 
diminutive brschel or brschlein4        
#c 8,what difference does it make10 he  
would ask1 8whether it was              
written by the son of ,zebedee1 or some 
other ,john1 if only it        reveals  
to us the ,son of ,god80 7letter from   
the ,vicar of ,st4        ,giles's1     
,oxford1 ,life and ,letters1 ,,ii1      
,chap4 xxxvi474        #d ,see the      
letters between ,max ,mller and ,dr4 ,g4
 ,j4 ,romanes1 ,life and                
,letters1 ,,ii1 ,chap4 xxxi4        #e  
,ueber die ,wahre ,geschichte des       
,celsus4        #f ,contra ,celsum1 ,i1 
#h4        #g ,contra ,celsum1 ,i1 #fc4 
#h ,luke v4 #h4        #i #a ,tim4 i4   

#ae4       #aj ,tit4 iii4 #c4       #aa 
,miss ,swanwick's translation4       #ab
  1 4       #ac  4       #ad   4        
#ae 4       #af ,philo1 vol4 ,i1 p4     
#ajf4       #ag 4       #ah ,de         
,ebriet41 ,,viii1 #a1 #cfa f4       #ai 
4       #bj 4       #ba 4       #bb    4
       #bc  4       #bd    4       #be 4
       #bf ,m4 ,m41 ,theosophy and      
,psychological ,religion1 p4 #djf4      
#bg ,lcke1 ,commentary on the ,gospel of
 ,john4       #bh ,m4 ,m41 ,theosophy   
and ,psychological ,religion1 p4 #chc4  
#bi ,m4 ,m41 ,theosophy1 p4 #djd4       
#cj ,see the ,deutsche ,rundschau1      
#ahie1 ,,xxxiii1 p4 #dg4       #ca    4 
#cb    4       #cc   4       #cd ,the   
original was1 however1 in ,german4      
#ce ,deutsche ,rundschau1 #ahie1        
,,lxxxii1 #dji ff41 8,the ,parliament of
        ,religions in ,chicago10 by ,f4 
,max ,mller4       #cf ,see ,prof4 ,dr4 
,paul ,flechsig1 ,neue ,untersuchungen  
ber die        ,markbildung in den      
menschlichen ,gehirnlappen1 p4 #fg4     

#cg ,these pronouns1 referring of course
 to ,england and the ,continent1        
were reversed in the original4       #ch
 ,academy1 ,january #b1 #ahig1 p4 #ab4  
#ci ,ascent of ,man1 p4 #ahg4       #dj 
,origin of ,species1 #eth ed41 #ahfi1 p4
 #bee4       #da ,descent of ,man1      
#ahga1 ,vol4 ,i1 p4 #cf4       #db      
,ascent of ,man1 #ahid1 p4 #i4       #dc
 ,vol4 ,,xviii1 p4 #dfd4       #dd      
,lloyd ,morgan1 ,animal ,life and       
,intelligence1 p4 #cej4       #de ,h4   
,drummond1 ,ascent of ,man1 #ahid1 p4   
#afi4       #df ,see ,science of        
,thought1 p4 #dje4       #dg ,see the   
author's preface to his ,english        
translation 7second edition7        of  
,kant's ,critic of ,pure ,reason1 p4    
xxviii1 to which we now add        the  
prophetic words of ,shelley1 in his     
,prometheus ,unbound 7,,ii1             
#d73--          8,he gave man speech1   
and speech created thought1             
,which is the measure of the ,universe40
       #dh ,ascent of ,man1 #ahid1 p4   

#bjj4       #di ,science of ,language1  
#ahia1 p4 #dii4       #ej ,cf4          
,biographies of ,words1 by ,m4 ,m41     
#ahhh4       #ea ,this must of course be
 understood of authoritative or         
canonical        ,scripture4--ed4 ,j4   
,e4 ,c4