{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72344/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72344","id":"gutenberg_72344","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72344","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Civilization -- History"],"text":"------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_. A number of\nlong horizontal and vertical brackets are simulated. Superscripted\ncharacters are preceded by \u2018^\u2019, and if multiple characters are raised,\nthey are delimited by \u2018{}\u2019.\n\nFootnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are\nreferenced.\n\nMinor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please\nsee the transcriber\u2019s note at the end of this text for details regarding\nthe handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n THE DECLINE\n OF THE WEST\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n THE DECLINE\n OF THE WEST\n FORM AND ACTUALITY\n\n BY\n\n OSWALD SPENGLER\n\n _AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION\n WITH NOTES BY_\n\n CHARLES FRANCIS ATKINSON\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD.\n RUSKIN HOUSE, 40 MUSEUM STREET, W.C. 1\n\n\n\n\n PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n THIS TRANSLATION IS\n DEDICATED TO\n ELLINOR JAMES\n\n A FRIEND\n\n\n\n\n _Wenn im Unendlichen dasselbe\n Sich wiederholend ewig fliesst,\n Das tausendf\u00e4ltige Gew\u00f6lbe\n Sich kr\u00e4ftig ineinander schliesst;\n Str\u00f6mt Lebenslust aus allen Dingen,\n Dem kleinsten wie dem gr\u00f6ssten Stern,\n Und alles Dr\u00e4ngen, alles Ringen\n Ist ewige Ruh in Gott dem Herrn._\n \u2014GOETHE.\n\n\n\n\n TRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE\n\n\nIt must be left to critics to say whether it was Destiny or Incident\u2014\nusing these words in the author\u2019s sense\u2014that Spengler\u2019s \u201cUntergang des\nAbendlandes\u201d appeared in July, 1918, that is, at the very turning-point\nof the four years\u2019 World-War. It was conceived, the author tells us,\nbefore 1914 and fully worked out by 1917. So far as he is concerned,\nthen, the impulse to create it arose from a view of our civilization not\nas the late war left it, but (as he says expressly) as the _coming_ war\nwould find it. But inevitably the public impulse to read it arose in and\nfrom post-war conditions, and thus it happened that this severe and\ndifficult philosophy of history found a market that has justified the\nprinting of 90,000 copies. Its very title was so apposite to the moment\nas to predispose the higher intellectuals to regard it as a work of the\nmoment\u2014the more so as the author was a simple Oberlehrer and unknown to\nthe world of authoritative learning.\n\nSpengler\u2019s was not the only, nor indeed the most \u201cpopular,\u201d\nphilosophical product of the German revolution. In the graver\nconjunctures, sound minds do not dally with the graver questions\u2014they\neither face and attack them with supernormal resolution or thrust them\nout of sight with an equally supernormal effort to enjoy or to endure\nthe day as it comes. Even after the return to normality, it is no longer\npossible for men\u2014at any rate for Western men\u2014not to know that these\nquestions exist. And, if it is none too easy even for the victors of the\nstruggle to shake off its sequel\u00e6, to turn back to business as the\nnormal and to give no more than amateur effort and dilettantish\nattention to the very deep things, for the defeated side this is\nimpossible. It goes through a period of material difficulty (often\nextreme difficulty) and one in which pride of achievement and humility\nin the presence of unsuccess work dynamically together. So it was with\nsound minds in the post-Jena Germany of Jahn and Fichte, and so it was\nalso with such minds in the Germany of 1919-1920.\n\nTo assume the r\u00f4le of critic and to compare Spengler\u2019s with other\nphilosophies of the present phase of Germany, as to respective intrinsic\nweights, is not the purpose of this note nor within the competence of\nits writer. On the other hand, it is unconditionally necessary for the\nreader to realize that the book before him has not only acquired this\nlarge following amongst thoughtful laymen, but has forced the attention\nand taxed the scholarship of every branch of the learned world.\nTheologians, historians, scientists, art critics\u2014all saw the challenge,\nand each brought his _apparatus criticus_ to bear on that part of the\nSpengler theory that affected his own domain. The reader who is familiar\nwith German may be referred to Manfred Schroeter\u2019s \u201cDer Streit um\nSpengler\u201d for details; it will suffice here to say that Schroeter\u2019s\nindex of critics\u2019 names contains some 400 entries. These critics are not\nonly, or even principally, general reviewers, most of them being\nspecialists of high standing. It is, to say the least, remarkable that a\nvolcanically assertive philosophy of history, visibly popular and\nproduced under a catchy title (Reklamtitel) should call forth, as it\ndid, a special number of _Logos_ in which the Olympians of scholarship\npassed judgment on every inaccuracy or unsupported statement that they\ncould detect. (These were in fact numerous in the first edition and the\nauthor has corrected or modified them in detail in the new edition, from\nwhich this translation has been done. But it should be emphasized that\nthe author has not, in this second edition, receded in any essentials\nfrom the standpoint taken up in the first.)\n\nThe conspicuous features in this first burst of criticism were, on the\none hand, want of adequate critical equipment in the general critic,\nand, on the other, inability to see the wood for the trees in the man of\nlearning. No one, reading Schroeter\u2019s book (which by the way is one-\nthird as large as Spengler\u2019s first volume itself), can fail to agree\nwith his judgment that notwithstanding paradoxes, overstrainings, and\ninaccuracies, the work towers above all its commentators. And it was\ndoubtless a sense of this greatness that led many scholars\u2014amongst them\nsome of the very high\u2014to avoid expressing opinions on it at all. It\nwould be foolish to call their silence a \u201csitting on the fence\u201d; it is a\ncase rather of reserving judgment on a philosophy and a methodology that\nchallenge all the canons and carry with them immense implications. For\nthe very few who combine all the necessary depth of learning with all\nthe necessary freedom and breadth of outlook, it will not be the\naccuracy or inaccuracy of details under a close magnifying-glass that\nwill be decisive. The very idea of accuracy and inaccuracy presupposes\nthe selection or acceptance of co-ordinates of reference, and therefore\nthe selection or acceptance of a standpoint as \u201corigin.\u201d That is mere\nelementary science\u2014and yet the scholar-critic would be the first to\nclaim the merit of scientific rigour for his criticisms! It is, in\nhistory as in science, impossible to draw a curve through a mass of\nplotted observations when they are looked at closely and almost\nindividually.\n\nCriticism of quite another and a higher order may be seen in Dr. Eduard\nMeyer\u2019s article on Spengler in the _Deutsche Literaturzeitung_, No. 25\nof 1924. Here we find, in one of the great figures of modern\nscholarship, exactly that large-minded judgment that, while noting minor\nerrors\u2014and visibly attaching little importance to them\u2014deals with the\nSpengler thesis fairly and squarely on the grand issues alone. Dr. Meyer\ndiffers from Spengler on many serious questions, of which perhaps the\nmost important is that of the scope and origin of the Magian Culture.\nBut instead of cataloguing the errors that are still to be found in\nSpengler\u2019s vast ordered multitude of facts, Eduard Meyer honourably\nbears testimony to our author\u2019s \u201cerstaunlich umfangreiches, _ihm st\u00e4ndig\npr\u00e4sentes, Wissen_\u201d (a phrase as neat and as untranslatable as Goethe\u2019s\n\u201cexakte sinnliche Phantasie\u201d). He insists upon the fruitfulness of\ncertain of Spengler\u2019s ideas such as that of the \u201cSecond Religiousness.\u201d\nAbove all, he adheres to and covers with his high authority the basic\nidea of the parallelism of organically-living Cultures. It is not\nnecessarily Spengler\u2019s structure of the Cultures that he accepts\u2014parts\nof it indeed he definitely rejects as wrong or insufficiently\nestablished by evidences\u2014but on the question of their being _an_ organic\nstructure of the Cultures, _a_ morphology of History, he ranges himself\nfrankly by the side of the younger thinker, whose work he sums up as a\n\u201cbleibendez und auf lange Zeit hinaus nachhaltig wirkendes Besitz\nunserer Wissenschaft und Literatur.\u201d This last phrase of Dr. Meyer\u2019s\nexpresses very directly and simply that which for an all-round student\n(as distinct from an erudite specialist) constitutes the peculiar\n_quality_ of Spengler\u2019s work. Its influence is far deeper and subtler\nthan any to which the conventional adjective \u201csuggestive\u201d could be\napplied. It cannot in fact be described by adjectives at all, but only\ndenoted or adumbrated by its result, which is that, after studying and\nmastering it, \u201cone finds it nearly if not quite impossible to approach\nany culture-problem\u2014old or new, dogmatic or artistic, political or\nscientific\u2014without conceiving it primarily as \u2018morphological.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe work comprises two volumes\u2014under the respective sub-titles \u201cForm and\nReality\u201d and \u201cWorld-historical Perspectives\u201d\u2014of which the present\ntranslation covers the first only. Some day I hope to have the\nopportunity of completing a task which becomes\u2014such is the nature of\nthis book\u2014more attractive in proportion to its difficulty. References to\nVolume II are, for the present, necessarily to the pages of the German\noriginal; if, as is hoped, this translation is completed later by the\nissue of the second volume, a list of the necessary adjustments of page\nreferences will be issued with it. The reader will notice that\ntranslator\u2019s foot-notes are scattered fairly freely over the pages of\nthis edition. In most cases these have no pretensions to being critical\nannotations. They are merely meant to help the reader to follow up in\nmore detail the points of fact which Spengler, with his \u201cst\u00e4ndig\npr\u00e4sentes Wissen,\u201d sweeps along in his course. This being their object,\nthey take the form, in the majority of cases, of references to\nappropriate articles in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, which is the only\nsingle work that both contains reasonably full information on the varied\n(and often abstruse) matters alluded to, and is likely to be accessible\nwherever this book may penetrate. Every reader no doubt will find these\nnotes, where they appertain to his own special subject, trivial and even\nannoying, but it is thought that, for example, an explanation of the\nmathematical Limit may be helpful to a student who knows all about the\nKatharsis in Greek drama, and _vice versa_.\n\nIn conclusion I cannot omit to put on record the part that my wife,\nHannah Waller Atkinson, has taken in the work of translation and\nediting. I may best describe it by saying that it ought perhaps to have\nbeen recorded on the title page instead of in this place.\n\n C. F. A.\n\n_January, 1926._\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION\n\n\nAt the close of an undertaking which, from the first brief sketch to the\nfinal shaping of a complete work of quite unforeseen dimensions, has\nspread itself over ten years, it will not be out of place to glance back\nat what I intended and what I have achieved, my standpoint then and my\nstandpoint to-day.\n\nIn the Introduction to the 1918 edition\u2014inwardly and outwardly a\nfragment\u2014I stated my conviction that an idea had now been irrefutably\nformulated which no one would oppose, once the idea had been put into\nwords. I ought to have said: once that idea had been understood. And for\nthat we must look\u2014as I more and more realize\u2014not only in this instance\nbut in the whole history of thought\u2014to the new generation that is _born_\nwith the ability to do it.\n\nI added that this must be considered as a first attempt, loaded with all\nthe customary faults, incomplete and not without inward opposition. The\nremark was not taken anything like as seriously as it was intended.\nThose who have looked searchingly into the hypotheses of living thought\nwill know that it is not given to us to gain insight into the\nfundamental principles of existence without conflicting emotions. A\nthinker is a person whose part it is to symbolize time according to his\nvision and understanding. He has no choice; he thinks as he has to\nthink. Truth in the long run is to him the picture of the world which\nwas born at his birth. It is that which he does not invent but rather\ndiscovers within himself. It is himself over again: his being expressed\nin words; the meaning of his personality formed into a doctrine which so\nfar as concerns his life is unalterable, because truth and his life are\nidentical. This symbolism is the one essential, the vessel and the\nexpression of human history. The learned philosophical works that arise\nout of it are superfluous and only serve to swell the bulk of a\nprofessional literature.\n\nI can then call the essence of what I have discovered \u201ctrue\u201d\u2014that is,\n_true for me_, and as I believe, true for the leading minds of the\ncoming time; not true in itself as dissociated from the conditions\nimposed by blood and by history, for that is impossible. But what I\nwrote in the storm and stress of those years was, it must be admitted, a\nvery imperfect statement of what stood clearly before me, and it\nremained to devote the years that followed to the task of correlating\nfacts and finding means of expression which should enable me to present\nmy idea in the most forcible form.\n\nTo perfect that form would be impossible\u2014life itself is only fulfilled\nin death. But I have once more made the attempt to bring up even the\nearliest portions of the work to the level of definiteness with which I\nnow feel able to speak; and with that I take leave of this book with its\nhopes and disappointments, its merits and its faults.\n\nThe result has in the meantime justified itself as far as I myself am\nconcerned and\u2014judging by the effect that it is slowly beginning to\nexercise upon extensive fields of learning\u2014as far as others are\nconcerned also. Let no one expect to find everything set forth here. It\nis _but one side_ of what I see before me, a new outlook on _history and\nthe philosophy of destiny_\u2014the first indeed of its kind. It is intuitive\nand depictive through and through, written in a language which seeks to\npresent objects and relations illustratively instead of offering an army\nof ranked concepts. It addresses itself solely to readers who are\ncapable of living themselves into the word-sounds and pictures as they\nread. Difficult this undoubtedly is, particularly as our awe in face of\nmystery\u2014the respect that Goethe felt\u2014denies us the satisfaction of\nthinking that dissections are the same as penetrations.\n\nOf course, the cry of \u201cpessimism\u201d was raised at once by those who live\neternally in yesterday (_Ewiggestrigen_) and greet every idea that is\nintended for the pathfinder of to-morrow only. But I have not written\nfor people who imagine that delving for the springs of action is the\nsame as action itself; those who make definitions do not know destiny.\n\nBy understanding the world I mean being equal to the world. It is the\nhard reality of living that is the essential, not the concept of life,\nthat the ostrich-philosophy of idealism propounds. Those who refuse to\nbe bluffed by enunciations will not regard this as pessimism; and the\nrest do not matter. For the benefit of serious readers who are seeking a\nglimpse at life and not a definition, I have\u2014in view of the far too\ngreat concentration of the text\u2014mentioned in my notes a number of works\nwhich will carry that glance into more distant realms of knowledge.\n\nAnd now, finally, I feel urged to name once more those to whom I owe\npractically everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. Goethe gave me method,\nNietzsche the questioning faculty\u2014and if I were asked to find a formula\nfor my relation to the latter I should say that I had made of his\n\u201coutlook\u201d (_Ausblick_) an \u201coverlook\u201d (_\u00dcberblick_). But Goethe was,\nwithout knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz in his whole mode of thought.\nAnd, therefore, that which has at last (and to my own astonishment)\ntaken shape in my hands I am able to regard and, despite the misery and\ndisgust of these years, proud to call _a German philosophy_.\n\n OSWALD SPENGLER.\n\n _Blankenburg am Harz,\n December, 1922._\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION\n\n\nThe complete manuscript of this book\u2014the outcome of three years\u2019 work\u2014\nwas ready when the Great War broke out. By the spring of 1917 it had\nbeen worked over again and\u2014in certain details\u2014supplemented and cleared\nup, but its appearance in print was still delayed by the conditions then\nprevailing.\n\nAlthough a philosophy of history is its scope and subject, it possesses\nalso a certain deeper significance as a commentary on the great epochal\nmoment of which the portents were visible when the leading ideas were\nbeing formed.\n\nThe title, which had been decided upon in 1912, expresses quite\nliterally the intention of the book, which was to describe, in the light\nof the decline of the Classical age, one world-historical phase of\nseveral centuries upon which we ourselves are now entering.\n\nEvents have justified much and refuted nothing. It became clear that\nthese ideas must necessarily be brought forward at just this moment and\nin Germany, and, more, that the war itself was an element in the\npremisses from which the new world-picture could be made precise.\n\nFor I am convinced that it is not merely a question of writing one out\nof several possible and merely logically justifiable philosophies, but\nof writing _the_ philosophy of our time, one that is to some extent a\nnatural philosophy and is dimly presaged by all. This may be said\nwithout presumption; for an idea that is historically essential\u2014that\ndoes not occur within an epoch but itself makes that epoch\u2014is only in a\nlimited sense the property of him to whose lot it falls to parent it. It\nbelongs to our time as a whole and influences all thinkers, without\ntheir knowing it; it is but the accidental, private attitude towards it\n(without which no philosophy can exist) that\u2014with its faults and its\nmerits\u2014is the destiny and the happiness of the individual.\n\n OSWALD SPENGLER.\n\n _Munich,\n December, 1917._\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS OF VOLUME I\n\n\n TRANSLATOR\u2019S NOTE ix\n\n\n AUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION xiii\n\n\n AUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION xv\n\n\n CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1\n\n Scope of the work, p. 3. Morphology of World-History, a new\n philosophy, p. 5. For whom is History? p. 8. Classical and Indian\n mankind ahistorical, p. 9. The Egyptian mummy and the burning of\n the dead, p. 13. The conventional scheme of World-History\n (ancient, medi\u00e6val, modern), p. 15. Its origin, p. 18. Its\n breakdown, p. 22. Europe not a centre of gravity, p. 23. The only\n historical method is Goethe\u2019s, p. 25. Ourselves and the Romans,\n p. 26. Nietzsche and Mommsen, p. 28. The problem of Civilization,\n p. 31. Imperialism the last phase, p. 36. The necessity and range\n of our basic idea, p. 39. Its relation to present-day philosophy,\n p. 41. Philosophy\u2019s last task, p. 45. The origin of this work, p.\n 46.\n\n\n CHAPTER II. THE MEANING OF NUMBERS 51\n\n Fundamental notions, p. 53. Numbers as the sign of delimitation, p.\n 56. Every Culture has its own Mathematic, p. 59. Number as\n magnitude in the Classical world, p. 64. Aristarchus, p. 68.\n Diophantus and Arabian number, p. 71. Number as Function in the\n Western Culture, p. 74. World-fear and world-longing, p. 78.\n Geometry and arithmetic, p. 81. The Limit idea, p. 86. Visual\n limits transcended; symbolical space worlds, p. 86. Final\n possibilities, p. 87.\n\n\n CHAPTER III. THE PROBLEM OF WORLD-HISTORY. (1) PHYSIOGNOMIC AND\n SYSTEMATIC 91\n\n Copernican methods, p. 93. History and Nature, p. 94. Form and Law,\n p. 97. Physiognomic and Systematic, p. 100. Cultures as\n organisms, p. 104. Inner form, tempo, duration, p. 108. Homology,\n p. 111. What is meant by \u201ccontemporary,\u201d p. 112.\n\n\n CHAPTER IV. THE PROBLEM OF WORLD-HISTORY. (2) THE DESTINY-IDEA\n AND THE CAUSALITY-PRINCIPLE 115\n\n Logic, organic and inorganic, p. 117. Time and Destiny, p. 119.\n Space and Causality, p. 119. The problem of Time, p. 121. Time a\n counter-conception to Space, p. 126. The symbols of Time\u2014tragedy,\n time reckoning, disposal of the dead, p. 130. Care (sex, the\n State, works), p. 136. Destiny and Incident, p. 139. Incident and\n Cause, p. 141. Incident and Style of existence, p. 142. Anonymous\n and personal epochs, p. 148. Direction into the future and Image\n of the Past, p. 152. Is there a Science of History? p. 155. The\n new enunciation of the problem, p. 159.\n\n\n CHAPTER V. MAKROKOSMOS. (1) THE SYMBOLISM OF THE WORLD-PICTURE\n AND THE PROBLEM OF SPACE 161\n\n The Macrocosm as the sum total of symbols referred to a Soul, p.\n 163. Space and Death, p. 165. \u201cAlles verg\u00e4ngliche ist nur ein\n Gleichnis,\u201d p. 167. The space problem (only Depth is space-\n forming), p. 169. Depth as Time, p. 172. The world-idea of a\n Culture born out of its prime symbol, p. 174. Classical Body,\n Magian Cavern, Western Infinity, p. 174.\n\n\n CHAPTER VI. MAKROKOSMOS. (2) APOLLINIAN, FAUSTIAN, AND MAGIAN\n SOUL 181\n\n Prime symbol, architecture, divinities, p. 183. The Egyptian prime\n symbol of the path, p. 188. Expression-language of art:\n Ornamentation and Imitation, p. 191. Ornament and early\n architecture, p. 196. The window, p. 199. The grand style, p.\n 200. The history of a Style as organism, p. 205. On the history\n of the Arabian style, p. 207. Psychology of art-technique, p.\n 214.\n\n\n CHAPTER VII. MUSIC AND PLASTIC. (1) THE ARTS OF FORM 217\n\n Music one of the arts of form, p. 219. Classification of the arts\n impossible except from the historical standpoint, p. 221. The\n choice of particular arts itself an expression-means of the\n higher order, p. 222. Apollinian and Faustian art-groups, p. 224.\n The stages of Western Music, p. 226. The Renaissance an anti-\n Gothic and anti-musical movement, p. 232. Character of the\n Baroque, p. 236. The Park, p. 240. Symbolism of colours, p. 245.\n Colours of the Near and of the Distance, p. 246. Gold background\n and Rembrandt brown, p. 247. Patina, p. 253.\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII. MUSIC AND PLASTIC. (2) ACT AND PORTRAIT 257\n\n Kinds of human representation, p. 259. Portraiture, Contrition,\n Syntax, p. 261. The heads of Classical statuary, p. 264.\n Portrayal of children and women, p. 266. Hellenistic portraiture,\n p. 269. The Baroque portrait, p. 272. Leonardo, Raphael and\n Michelangelo overcome the Renaissance, p. 273. Victory of\n Instrumental Music over Oil-Painting, corresponding to the\n victory of Statuary over Fresco in the Classical, p. 282.\n Impressionism, p. 285. Pergamum and Bayreuth, p. 291. The finale\n of Art, p. 293.\n\n\n CHAPTER IX. SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING. (1) ON THE FORM OF THE\n SOUL 297\n\n Soul-image as function of World-image, p. 299. Psychology of a\n counter-physics, p. 302. Apollinian, Magian and Faustian soul-\n image, p. 305. The \u201cWill\u201d in Gothic space, p. 308. The \u201cinner\u201d\n mythology, p. 312. Will and Character, p. 314. Classical posture\n tragedy and Faustian character tragedy, p. 317. Symbolism of the\n drama-image, p. 320. Day and Night Art, p. 324. Popular and\n esoteric, p. 326. The astronomical image, p. 329. The\n geographical horizon, p. 332.\n\n\n CHAPTER X. SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING. (2) BUDDHISM, STOICISM,\n AND SOCIALISM 339\n\n The Faustian morale purely dynamic, p. 341. Every Culture has a\n form of morale proper to itself, p. 345. Posture-morale and will-\n morale, p. 347. Buddha, Socrates, Rousseau as protagonists of the\n dawning Civilizations, p. 351. Tragic and plebeian morale, p.\n 354. Return to Nature, Irreligion, Nihilism, p. 356. Ethical\n Socialism, p. 361. Similarity of structure in the philosophical\n history of every Culture, p. 364. The Civilized philosophy of the\n West, p. 365.\n\n\n CHAPTER XI. FAUSTIAN AND APOLLINIAN NATURE-KNOWLEDGE 375\n\n Theory as Myth, p. 377. Every Natural Science depends upon a\n preceding Religion, p. 391. Statics, Alchemy, Dynamics as the\n theories of three Cultures, p. 382. The Atomic theory, p. 384.\n The problem of motion insoluble, p. 388. The style of causal\n process and experience, p. 391. The feeling of God and the\n knowing of Nature, p. 392. The great Myth, p. 394. Classical,\n Magian and Faustian _numina_, p. 397. Atheism, p. 408. Faustian\n physics as a dogma of force, p. 411. Limits of its theoretical\n (as distinct from its technical) development, p. 417. Self-\n destruction of Dynamics, and invasion of historical ideas; theory\n dissolves into a system of morphological relationships, p. 420.\n\n\n INDEX _Following page_ 428\n\n\n TABLES ILLUSTRATING THE COMPARATIVE _At end of volume_\n MORPHOLOGY OF HISTORY\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\n I\n\nIn this book is attempted for the first time the venture of\npredetermining history, of following the still untravelled stages in the\ndestiny of a Culture, and specifically of the only Culture of our time\nand on our planet which is actually in the phase of fulfilment\u2014the West-\nEuropean-American.\n\nHitherto the possibility of solving a problem so far-reaching has\nevidently never been envisaged, and even if it had been so, the means of\ndealing with it were either altogether unsuspected or, at best,\ninadequately used.\n\nIs there a logic of history? Is there, beyond all the casual and\nincalculable elements of the separate events, something that we may call\na metaphysical structure of historic humanity, something that is\nessentially independent of the outward forms\u2014social, spiritual and\npolitical\u2014which we see so clearly? Are not these actualities indeed\nsecondary or derived from that something? Does world-history present to\nthe seeing eye certain grand traits, again and again, with sufficient\nconstancy to justify certain conclusions? And if so, what are the limits\nto which reasoning from such premisses may be pushed?\n\nIs it possible to find in life itself\u2014for human history is the sum of\nmighty life-courses which already have had to be endowed with ego and\npersonality, in customary thought and expression, by predicating\nentities of a higher order like \u201cthe Classical\u201d or \u201cthe Chinese\nCulture,\u201d \u201cModern Civilization\u201d\u2014a series of stages which must be\ntraversed, and traversed moreover in an ordered and obligatory sequence?\nFor everything organic the notions of birth, death, youth, age, lifetime\nare fundamentals\u2014may not these notions, in this sphere also, possess a\nrigorous meaning which no one has as yet extracted? In short, is all\nhistory founded upon general biographic archetypes?\n\nThe decline of the West, which at first sight may appear, like the\ncorresponding decline of the Classical Culture, a phenomenon limited in\ntime and space, we now perceive to be a philosophical problem that, when\ncomprehended in all its gravity, includes within itself every great\nquestion of Being.\n\nIf therefore we are to discover in what form the destiny of the Western\nCulture will be accomplished, we must first be clear as to what culture\n_is_, what its relations are to visible history, to life, to soul, to\nnature, to intellect, what the forms of its manifestation are and how\nfar these forms\u2014peoples, tongues and epochs, battles and ideas, states\nand gods, arts and craft-works, sciences, laws, economic types and\nworld-ideas, great men and great events\u2014may be accepted and pointed to\nas symbols.\n\n II\n\nThe means whereby to identify dead forms is Mathematical Law. The means\nwhereby to understand living forms is Analogy. By these means we are\nenabled to distinguish polarity and periodicity in the world.\n\nIt is, and has always been, a matter of knowledge that the expression-\nforms of world-history are limited in number, and that eras, epochs,\nsituations, persons are ever repeating themselves true to type. Napoleon\nhas hardly ever been discussed without a side-glance at C\u00e6sar and\nAlexander\u2014analogies of which, as we shall see, the first is\nmorphologically quite inacceptable and the second is correct\u2014while\nNapoleon himself conceived of his situation as akin to Charlemagne\u2019s.\nThe French Revolutionary Convention spoke of Carthage when it meant\nEngland, and the Jacobins styled themselves Romans. Other such\ncomparisons, of all degrees of soundness and unsoundness, are those of\nFlorence with Athens, Buddha with Christ, primitive Christianity with\nmodern Socialism, the Roman financial magnate of C\u00e6sar\u2019s time with the\nYankee. Petrarch, the first passionate arch\u00e6ologist (and is not\narch\u00e6ology itself an expression of the sense that history is\nrepetition?) related himself mentally to Cicero, and but lately Cecil\nRhodes, the organizer of British South Africa, who had in his library\nspecially prepared translations of the classical lives of the C\u00e6sars,\nfelt himself akin to the Emperor Hadrian. The fated Charles XII of\nSweden used to carry Quintus Curtius\u2019s life of Alexander in his pocket,\nand to copy that conqueror was his deliberate purpose.\n\nFrederick the Great, in his political writings\u2014such as his\n_Consid\u00e9rations_, 1738\u2014moves among analogies with perfect assurance.\nThus he compares the French to the Macedonians under Philip and the\nGermans to the Greeks. \u201cEven now,\u201d he says, \u201cthe Thermopyl\u00e6 of Germany,\nAlsace and Lorraine, are in the hands of Philip,\u201d therein exactly\ncharacterizing the policy of Cardinal Fleury. We find him drawing\nparallels also between the policies of the Houses of Habsburg and\nBourbon and the proscriptions of Antony and of Octavius.\n\nStill, all this was only fragmentary and arbitrary, and usually implied\nrather a momentary inclination to poetical or ingenious expressions than\na really deep sense of historical forms.\n\nThus in the case of Ranke, a master of artistic analogy, we find that\nhis parallels of Cyaxares and Henry the Fowler, of the inroads of the\nCimmerians and those of the Hungarians, possess morphologically no\nsignificance, and his oft-quoted analogy between the Hellenic city-\nstates and the Renaissance republics very little, while the deeper truth\nin his comparison of Alcibiades and Napoleon is accidental. Unlike the\nstrict mathematician, who finds inner relationships between two groups\nof differential equations where the layman sees nothing but\ndissimilarities of outward form, Ranke and others draw their historical\nanalogies with a Plutarchian, popular-romantic, touch, and aim merely at\npresenting comparable scenes on the world-stage.\n\nIt is easy to see that, at bottom, it is neither a principle nor a sense\nof historic necessity, but simple inclination, that governs the choice\nof the tableaux. From any _technique_ of analogies we are far distant.\nThey throng up (to-day more than ever) without scheme or unities, and if\nthey do hit upon something which is true\u2014in the essential sense of the\nword that remains to be determined\u2014it is thanks to luck, more rarely to\ninstinct, never to a principle. In this region no one hitherto has set\nhimself to work out a _method_, nor has had the slightest inkling that\nthere is here a root, in fact the only root, from which can come a broad\nsolution of the problems of History.\n\nAnalogies, in so far as they laid bare the organic structure of history,\nmight be a blessing to historical thought. Their technique, developing\nunder the influence of a comprehensive idea, would surely eventuate in\ninevitable conclusions and logical mastery. But as hitherto understood\nand practised they have been a curse, for they have enabled the\nhistorians to follow their own tastes, instead of soberly realizing that\ntheir first and hardest task was concerned with the symbolism of history\nand its analogies, and, in consequence, the problem has till now not\neven been comprehended, let alone solved. Superficial in many cases (as\nfor instance in designating C\u00e6sar as the creator of the official\nnewspaper), these analogies are worse than superficial in others (as\nwhen phenomena of the Classical Age that are not only extremely complex\nbut utterly alien to us are labelled with modern catchwords like\nSocialism, Impressionism, Capitalism, Clericalism), while occasionally\nthey are bizarre to the point of perversity\u2014witness the Jacobin clubs\nwith their cult of Brutus, that millionaire-extortioner Brutus who, in\nthe name of oligarchical doctrine and with the approval of the patrician\nsenate, murdered the Man of the Democracy.\n\n III\n\nThus our theme, which originally comprised only the limited problem of\npresent-day civilization, broadens itself into a new philosophy\u2014_the_\nphilosophy of the future, so far as the metaphysically-exhausted soil of\nthe West can bear such, and in any case the only philosophy which is\nwithin the _possibilities_ of the West-European mind in its next stages.\nIt expands into the conception of a _morphology of world history_, of\nthe world-as-history in contrast to the morphology of the world-as-\nnature that hitherto has been almost the only theme of philosophy. And\nit reviews once again the forms and movements of the world in their\ndepths and final significance, but this time according to an entirely\ndifferent ordering which groups them, not in an ensemble picture\ninclusive of everything known, but in a picture of _life_, and presents\nthem not as things-become, but as things-becoming.\n\nThe _world-as-history_, conceived, viewed and given form from out of its\nopposite the _world-as-nature_\u2014here is a new aspect of human existence\non this earth. As yet, in spite of its immense significance, both\npractical and theoretical, this aspect has not been realized, still less\npresented. Some obscure inkling of it there may have been, a distant\nmomentary glimpse there has often been, but no one has deliberately\nfaced it and taken it in with all its implications. We have before us\ntwo possible ways in which man may inwardly possess and experience the\nworld around him. With all rigour I distinguish (as to form, not\nsubstance) the organic from the mechanical world-impression, the content\nof images from that of laws, the picture and symbol from the formula and\nthe system, the instantly actual from the constantly possible, the\nintents and purposes of imagination ordering according to plan from the\nintents and purposes of experience dissecting according to scheme; and\u2014\nto mention even thus early an opposition that has never yet been noted,\nin spite of its significance\u2014the domain of _chronological_ from that of\n_mathematical number_.[1]\n\nConsequently, in a research such as that lying before us, there can be\nno question of taking spiritual-political events, as they become visible\nday by day on the surface, at their face value, and arranging them on a\nscheme of \u201ccauses\u201d or \u201ceffects\u201d and following them up in the obvious and\nintellectually easy directions. Such a \u201cpragmatic\u201d handling of history\nwould be nothing but a piece of \u201cnatural science\u201d in disguise, and for\ntheir part, the supporters of the materialistic idea of history make no\nsecret about it\u2014it is their adversaries who largely fail to see the\nsimilarity of the two methods. What concerns us is not what the\nhistorical facts which appear at this or that time _are_, per se, but\nwhat they signify, what they point to, _by appearing_. Present-day\nhistorians think they are doing a work of supererogation in bringing in\nreligious and social, or still more art-history, details to \u201cillustrate\u201d\nthe political sense of an epoch. But the decisive factor\u2014decisive, that\nis, in so far as visible history is the expression, sign and embodiment\nof soul\u2014they forget. I have not hitherto found one who has carefully\nconsidered the _morphological relationship_ that inwardly binds together\nthe expression-forms of _all_ branches of a Culture, who has gone beyond\npolitics to grasp the ultimate and fundamental ideas of Greeks,\nArabians, Indians and Westerners in mathematics, the meaning of their\nearly ornamentation, the basic forms of their architecture,\nphilosophies, dramas and lyrics, their choice and development of great\narts, the detail of their craftsmanship and choice of materials\u2014let\nalone appreciated the decisive importance of these matters for the form-\nproblems of history. Who amongst them realizes that between the\nDifferential Calculus and the dynastic principle of politics in the age\nof Louis XIV, between the Classical city-state and the Euclidean\ngeometry, between the space-perspective of Western oil-painting and the\nconquest of space by railroad, telephone and long-range weapon, between\ncontrapuntal music and credit economics, there are deep uniformities?\nYet, viewed from this morphological standpoint, even the humdrum facts\nof politics assume a symbolic and even a metaphysical character, and\u2014\nwhat has perhaps been impossible hitherto\u2014things such as the Egyptian\nadministrative system, the Classical coinage, analytical geometry, the\ncheque, the Suez Canal, the book-printing of the Chinese, the Prussian\nArmy, and the Roman road-engineering can, as symbols, be made\n_uniformly_ understandable and appreciable.\n\nBut at once the fact presents itself that as yet there exists no theory-\nenlightened art of historical treatment. What passes as such draws its\nmethods almost exclusively from the domain of that science which alone\nhas completely disciplined the methods of cognition, viz., physics, and\nthus we imagine ourselves to be carrying on historical research when we\nare really following out objective connexions of cause and effect. It is\na remarkable fact that the old-fashioned philosophy never imagined even\nthe possibility of there being any other relation than this between the\nconscious human understanding and the world outside. Kant, who in his\nmain work established the formal rules of cognition, took _nature_ only\nas the object of reason\u2019s activity, and neither he himself, nor anyone\nafter him, noted the reservation. Knowledge, for Kant, is mathematical\nknowledge. He deals with innate intuition-forms and categories of the\nreason, but he never thinks of the wholly different mechanism by which\nhistorical impressions are apprehended. And Schopenhauer, who,\nsignificantly enough, retains but one of the Kantian categories, viz.,\ncausality, speaks contemptuously of history.[2] That there is, besides a\nnecessity of cause and effect\u2014which I may call the _logic of space_\u2014\nanother necessity, an organic necessity in life, that of Destiny\u2014the\n_logic of time_\u2014is a fact of the deepest inward certainty, a fact which\nsuffuses the whole of mythological religions and artistic thought and\nconstitutes the essence and kernel of all history (in contradistinction\nto nature) but is unapproachable through the cognition-forms which the\n\u201cCritique of Pure Reason\u201d investigates. This fact still awaits its\ntheoretical formulation. As Galileo says in a famous passage of his\n_Saggiatore_, philosophy, as Nature\u2019s great book, is written \u201cin\nmathematical language.\u201d We await, to-day, the philosopher who will tell\nus in what language history is written and how it is to be read.\n\nMathematics and the principle of Causality lead to a naturalistic,\nChronology and the idea of Destiny to a historical ordering of the\nphenomenal world. Both orderings, each on its own account, cover the\n_whole_ world. The difference is only in the eyes by which and through\nwhich this world is realized.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n Kant\u2019s error, an error of very wide bearing which has not even yet\n been overcome, was first of all in bringing the outer and inner Man\n into relation with the ideas of space and time by pure scheme, though\n the meanings of these are numerous and, above all, not unalterable;\n and secondly in allying arithmetic with the one and geometry with the\n other in an utterly mistaken way. It is not between arithmetic and\n geometry\u2014we must here anticipate a little\u2014but between chronological\n and mathematical number that there is fundamental opposition.\n Arithmetic and geometry are _both_ spatial mathematics and in their\n higher regions they are no longer separable. _Time-reckoning_, of\n which the plain man is capable of a perfectly clear understanding\n through his senses, answers the question \u201cWhen,\u201d not \u201cWhat\u201d or \u201cHow\n Many.\u201d\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n One cannot but be sensible how little depth and power of abstraction\n has been associated with the treatment of, say, the Renaissance or the\n Great Migrations, as compared with what is obviously required for the\n theory of functions and theoretical optics. Judged by the standards of\n the physicist and the mathematician, the historian becomes _careless_\n as soon as he has assembled and ordered his material and passes on to\n interpretation.\n\n-----\n\n IV\n\nNature is the shape in which the man of higher Cultures synthesizes and\ninterprets the immediate impressions of his senses. History is that from\nwhich his imagination seeks comprehension of the living existence of the\nworld in relation to his own life, which he thereby invests with a\ndeeper reality. Whether he is capable of creating these shapes, which of\nthem it is that dominates his waking consciousness, is a primordial\nproblem of all human existence.\n\nMan, thus, has before him two _possibilities_ of world-formation. But it\nmust be noted, at the very outset, that these possibilities are not\nnecessarily _actualities_, and if we are to enquire into the sense of\nall history we must begin by solving a question which has never yet been\nput, viz., _for whom_ is there History? The question is seemingly\nparadoxical, for history is obviously for everyone to this extent, that\nevery man, with his whole existence and consciousness, is a part of\nhistory. But it makes a great difference whether anyone lives under the\nconstant impression that his life is an element in a far wider life-\ncourse that goes on for hundreds and thousands of years, or conceives of\nhimself as something rounded off and self-contained. For the latter type\nof consciousness there is certainly no world-history, no _world-as-\nhistory_. But how if the self-consciousness of a whole nation, how if a\nwhole Culture rests on this ahistoric spirit? How must actuality appear\nto it? The world? Life? Consider the Classical Culture. In the world-\nconsciousness of the Hellenes all experience, not merely the personal\nbut the common past, was immediately transmuted into a timeless,\nimmobile, mythically-fashioned background for the particular momentary\npresent; thus the history of Alexander the Great began even before his\ndeath to be merged by Classical sentiment in the Dionysus legend, and to\nC\u00e6sar there seemed at the least nothing preposterous in claiming descent\nfrom Venus.\n\nSuch a spiritual condition it is practically impossible for us men of\nthe West, with a sense of time-distances so strong that we habitually\nand unquestioningly speak of so many years before or after Christ, to\nreproduce in ourselves. But we are not on that account entitled, in\ndealing with the problems of History, simply to ignore the fact.\n\nWhat diaries and autobiographies yield in respect of an individual, that\nhistorical research in the widest and most inclusive sense\u2014that is,\nevery kind of psychological comparison and analysis of alien peoples,\ntimes and customs\u2014yields as to the soul of a Culture as a whole. But the\nClassical culture possessed no _memory_, no organ of history in this\nspecial sense. The memory of the Classical man\u2014so to call it, though it\nis somewhat arbitrary to apply to alien souls a notion derived from our\nown\u2014is something different, since past and future, as arraying\nperspectives in the working consciousness, are absent and the \u201cpure\nPresent,\u201d which so often roused Goethe\u2019s admiration in every product of\nthe Classical life and in sculpture particularly, fills that life with\nan intensity that to us is perfectly unknown.\n\nThis pure Present, whose greatest symbol is the Doric column, in itself\npredicates the _negation of time_ (of direction). For Herodotus and\nSophocles, as for Themistocles or a Roman consul, the past is subtilized\ninstantly into an impression that is timeless and changeless, _polar and\nnot periodic_ in structure\u2014in the last analysis, of such stuff as myths\nare made of\u2014whereas for our world-sense and our inner eye the past is a\ndefinitely periodic and purposeful organism of centuries or millennia.\n\nBut it is just this background which gives the life, whether it be the\nClassical or the Western life, its special colouring. What the Greek\ncalled Kosmos was the image of a world that is not continuous but\ncomplete. _Inevitably_, then, the Greek man himself was not a series but\na term.[3]\n\nFor this reason, although Classical man was well acquainted with the\nstrict chronology and almanac-reckoning of the Babylonians and\nespecially the Egyptians, and therefore with that eternity-sense and\ndisregard of the present-as-such which revealed itself in their broadly-\nconceived operations of astronomy and their exact measurements of big\ntime-intervals, none of this ever became _intimately_ a part of him.\nWhat his philosophers occasionally told him on the subject they had\nheard, not experienced, and what a few brilliant minds in the Asiatic-\nGreek cities (such as Hipparchus and Aristarchus) discovered was\nrejected alike by the Stoic and by the Aristotelian, and outside a small\nprofessional circle not even noticed. Neither Plato nor Aristotle had an\nobservatory. In the last years of Pericles, the Athenian people passed a\ndecree by which all who propagated astronomical theories were made\nliable to impeachment (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1). This last was an act of the deepest\nsymbolic significance, expressive of the determination of the Classical\nsoul to banish distance, in every aspect, from its world-consciousness.\n\nAs regards Classical history-writing, take Thucydides. The mastery of\nthis man lies in his truly Classical power of making alive and self-\nexplanatory the events of the _present_, and also in his possession of\nthe magnificently _practical outlook_ of the born statesman who has\nhimself been both general and administrator. In virtue of this quality\nof _experience_ (which we unfortunately confuse with the historical\nsense proper), his work confronts the merely learned and professional\nhistorian as an inimitable model, and quite rightly so. But what is\nabsolutely hidden from Thucydides is perspective, the power of surveying\nthe history of centuries, that which for us is implicit in the very\nconception of a historian. The fine pieces of Classical history-writing\nare invariably those which set forth matters within the political\npresent of the writer, whereas for us it is the direct opposite, our\nhistorical masterpieces without exception being those which deal with a\ndistant past. Thucydides would have broken down in handling even the\nPersian Wars, let alone the general history of Greece, while that of\nEgypt would have been utterly out of his reach. He, as well as Polybius\nand Tacitus (who like him were practical politicians), loses his\nsureness of eye from the moment when, in looking backwards, he\nencounters motive forces in any form that is unknown in his practical\nexperience. For Polybius even the First Punic War, for Tacitus even the\nreign of Augustus, are inexplicable. As for Thucydides, his lack of\nhistorical feeling\u2014in our sense of the phrase\u2014is conclusively\ndemonstrated on the very first page of his book by the astounding\nstatement that before his time (about 400 B.C.) no events of importance\nhad occurred (o\u1f50 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) in the world![4]\n\nConsequently, Classical history down to the Persian Wars and for that\nmatter the structure built up on traditions at much later periods, are\nthe product of an essentially mythological thinking. The constitutional\nhistory of Sparta is a poem of the Hellenistic period, and Lycurgus, on\nwhom it centres and whose \u201cbiography\u201d we are given in full detail, was\nprobably in the beginning an unimportant local god of Mount Taygetus.\nThe invention of pre-Hannibalian Roman history was still going on even\nin C\u00e6sar\u2019s time. The story of the expulsion of the Tarquins by Brutus is\nbuilt round some contemporary of the Censor Appius Claudius (310 B.C.).\nThe names of the Roman kings were at that period made up from the names\nof certain plebeian families which had become wealthy (K. J. Neumann).\nIn the sphere of constitutional history, setting aside altogether the\n\u201cconstitution\u201d of Servius Tullius, we find that even the famous land law\nof Licinius (367 B.C.) was not in existence at the time of the Second\nPunic War (B. Niese). When Epaminondas gave freedom and statehood to the\nMessenians and the Arcadians, these peoples promptly provided themselves\nwith an early history. But the astounding thing is not that history of\nthis sort was produced, but that there was practically none of any other\nsort; and the opposition between the Classical and the modern outlook is\nsufficiently illustrated by saying that Roman history before 250 B.C.,\nas known in C\u00e6sar\u2019s time, was substantially a forgery, and that the\nlittle that we know has been established by ourselves and was entirely\nunknown to the later Romans. In what sense the Classical world\nunderstood the word \u201chistory\u201d we can see from the fact that the\nAlexandrine romance-literature exercised the strongest influence upon\nserious political and religious history, even as regards its matter. It\nnever entered the Classical head to draw any distinction of principle\nbetween history as a story and history as documents. When, towards the\nend of the Roman republic, Varro set out to stabilize the religion that\nwas fast vanishing from the people\u2019s consciousness, he classified the\ndeities _whose cult was exactly and minutely observed by the State_,\ninto \u201ccertain\u201d and \u201cuncertain\u201d gods, i.e., into gods of whom something\nwas still known and gods that, in spite of the unbroken continuity of\nofficial worship, had survived in name only. In actual fact, the\nreligion of Roman society in Varro\u2019s time, the poet\u2019s religion which\nGoethe and even Nietzsche reproduced in all innocence, was mainly a\nproduct of Hellenistic literature and had almost no relation to the\nancient practices, which no one any longer understood.\n\nMommsen clearly defined the West-European attitude towards this history\nwhen he said that \u201cthe Roman historians,\u201d meaning especially Tacitus,\n\u201cwere men who said what it would have been meritorious to omit, and\nomitted what it was essential to say.\u201d\n\nIn the Indian Culture we have the perfectly ahistoric soul. Its decisive\nexpression is the Brahman Nirvana. There is no pure Indian astronomy, no\ncalendar, and therefore no history so far as history is the track of a\nconscious spiritual evolution. Of the visible course of their Culture,\nwhich as regards its organic phase came to an end with the rise of\nBuddhism, we know even less than we do of Classical history, rich though\nit must have been in great events between the 12th and 8th centuries.\nAnd this is not surprising, since it was in dream-shapes and\nmythological figures that both came to be fixed. It is a full millennium\nafter Buddha, about 500 A.D., when Ceylon first produces something\nremotely resembling historical work, the \u201cMahavansa.\u201d\n\nThe world-consciousness of Indian man was so ahistorically built that it\ncould not even treat the appearance of a book written by a single author\nas an event determinate in time. Instead of an organic series of\nwritings by specific persons, there came into being gradually a vague\nmass of texts into which everyone inserted what he pleased, and notions\nsuch as those of intellectual individualism, intellectual evolution,\nintellectual epochs, played no part in the matter. It is in this\n_anonymous_ form that we possess the Indian philosophy\u2014which is at the\nsame time all the Indian history that we have\u2014and it is instructive to\ncompare with it the philosophy-history of the West, which is a perfectly\ndefinite structure made up of individual books and personalities.\n\nIndian man forgot everything, but Egyptian man forgot _nothing_. Hence,\nwhile the art of portraiture\u2014which is biography in the kernel\u2014was\nunknown in India, in Egypt it was practically the artist\u2019s only theme.\n\nThe Egyptian soul, conspicuously historical in its texture and impelled\nwith primitive passion towards the infinite, perceived past and future\nas its _whole_ world, and the present (which is identical with waking\nconsciousness) appeared to him simply as the narrow common frontier of\ntwo immeasurable stretches. The Egyptian Culture is an embodiment of\n_care_\u2014which is the spiritual counterpoise of distance\u2014care for the\nfuture expressed in the choice of granite or basalt as the craftsman\u2019s\nmaterials,[5] in the chiselled archives, in the elaborate administrative\nsystem, in the net of irrigation works,[6] and, necessarily _bound up\ntherewith_, care for the past. The Egyptian mummy is a symbol of the\nfirst importance. The body of the dead man was _made everlasting_, just\nas his personality, his \u201cKa,\u201d was immortalized through the portrait-\nstatuettes, which were often made in many copies and to which it was\nconceived to be attached by a transcendental likeness.\n\nThere is a deep relation between the attitude that is taken towards the\nhistoric past and the conception that is formed of death, and this\nrelation is expressed in the _disposal of the dead_. The Egyptian denied\nmortality, the Classical man affirmed it in the whole symbolism of his\nCulture. The Egyptians embalmed even their history in chronological\ndates and figures. From pre-Solonian Greece nothing has been handed\ndown, not a year-date, not a true name, not a tangible event\u2014with the\nconsequence that the later history, (which alone we know) assumes undue\nimportance\u2014but for Egypt we possess, from the 3rd millennium and even\nearlier, the names and even the exact reign-dates of many of the kings,\nand the New Empire must have had a complete knowledge of them. To-day,\npathetic symbols of the will to endure, the bodies of the great Pharaohs\nlie in our museums, their faces still recognizable. On the shining,\npolished-granite peak of the pyramid of Amenemhet III we can read to-day\nthe words \u201cAmenemhet looks upon the beauty of the Sun\u201d and, on the other\nside, \u201cHigher is the soul of Amenemhet than the height of Orion, and it\nis united with the underworld.\u201d Here indeed is victory over Mortality\nand the mere present; it is to the last degree un-Classical.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n In the original, these fundamental antitheses are expressed simply by\n means of _werden_ and _sein_. Exact renderings are therefore\n impossible in English.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n The attempts of the Greeks to frame something like a calendar or a\n chronology after the Egyptian fashion, besides being very belated\n indeed, were of extreme _na\u00efvet\u00e9_. The Olympiad reckoning is not an\n era in the sense of, say, the Christian chronology, and is, moreover,\n a late and purely literary expedient, without popular currency. The\n people, in fact, had no general need of a numeration wherewith to date\n the experiences of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, though a\n few learned persons might be interested in the calendar question. We\n are not here concerned with the soundness or unsoundness of a\n calendar, but with its currency, with the question of whether men\n regulated their lives by it or not; but, incidentally, even the list\n of Olympian victors before 500 is quite as much of an invention as the\n lists of earlier Athenian archons or Roman consuls. Of the\n colonizations, we possess not one single authentic date (E. Meyer.\n _Gesch. d. Alt._ II, 442. Beloch. _Griech. Gesch._ I, 2, 219) \u201cin\n Greece before the fifth century, no one ever thought of noting or\n reporting historical events.\u201d (Beloch. I, 1, 125). We possess an\n inscription which sets forth a treaty between Elis and Heraea which\n \u201cwas to be valid for a hundred years from this year.\u201d What \u201cthis year\u201d\n was, is however not indicated. After a few years no one would have\n known how long the treaty had still to run. Evidently this was a point\n that no one had taken into account at the time\u2014indeed, the very \u201cmen\n of the moment\u201d who drew up the document, probably themselves soon\n forgot. Such was the childlike, fairy-story character of the Classical\n presentation of history that any ordered dating of the events of, say,\n the Trojan War (which occupies in their series the same position as\n the Crusades in ours) would have been felt as a sheer solecism.\n\n Equally backward was the geographical science of the Classical world\n as compared with that of the Egyptians and the Babylonians. E. Meyer\n (_Gesch. d. Alt._ II, 102) shows how the Greeks\u2019 knowledge of the form\n of Africa degenerated from Herodotus (who followed Persian\n authorities) to Aristotle. The same is true of the Romans as the heirs\n of the Carthaginians; they first repeated the information of their\n alien forerunners and then slowly forgot it.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n Contrast with this the fact, symbolically of the highest importance\n and unparalleled in art-history, that the Hellenes, though they had\n before their eyes the works of the Mycen\u00e6an Age and their land was\n only too rich in stone, _deliberately reverted to wood_; hence the\n absence of architectural remains of the period 1200-600. The Egyptian\n plant-column was from the outset of stone, whereas the Doric column\n was wooden, a clear indication of the intense antipathy of the\n Classical soul towards duration.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n Is there any Hellenic city that ever carried out one single\n comprehensive work that tells of care for future generations? The road\n and water systems which research has assigned to the Mycen\u00e6an\u2014i.e.,\n the pre-Classical\u2014age fell into disrepair and oblivion from the birth\n of the Classical peoples\u2014that is, from the Homeric period. It is a\n remarkably curious fact, proved beyond doubt by the lack of epigraphic\n remains, that the Classical alphabet did not come into use till after\n 900, and even then only to a limited extent and for the most pressing\n economic needs. Whereas in the Egyptian, the Babylonian, the Mexican\n and the Chinese Cultures the formation of a script begins in the very\n twilight of dawn, whereas the Germans made themselves a Runic alphabet\n and presently developed that respect for writing as such which led to\n the successive refinements of ornamental calligraphy, the Classical\n primitives were entirely ignorant of the numerous alphabets that were\n current in the South and the East. We possess numerous inscriptions of\n Hittite Asia Minor and of Crete, but not one of Homeric Greece. (See\n Vol. II, pp. 180 et seq.)\n\n-----\n\n V\n\nIn opposition to this mighty group of Egyptian life-symbols, we meet at\nthe threshold of the Classical Culture the custom, typifying the ease\nwith which it could forget every piece of its inward and outward past,\nof _burning the dead_. To the Mycen\u00e6an age the elevation into a ritual\nof this particular funerary method amongst all those practised in turn\nby stone-age peoples, was essentially alien; indeed its Royal tombs\nsuggest that earth-burial was regarded as peculiarly honourable. But in\nHomeric Greece, as in Vedic India, we find a change, so sudden that its\norigins must necessarily be psychological, from burial to that burning\nwhich (the Iliad gives us the full pathos of the symbolic act) was the\nceremonial completion of death and the denial of all historical\nduration.\n\nFrom this moment the plasticity of the individual spiritual evolution\nwas at an end. Classical drama admitted truly historical motives just as\nlittle as it allowed themes of inward evolution, and it is well known\nhow decisively the Hellenic instinct set itself against portraiture in\nthe arts. Right into the imperial period Classical art handled only the\nmatter that was, so to say, natural to it, the myth.[7] Even the \u201cideal\u201d\nportraits of Hellenistic sculpture are mythical, of the same kind as the\ntypical biographies of Plutarch\u2019s sort. No great Greek ever wrote down\nany recollections that would serve to fix a phase of experience for his\ninner eye. Not even Socrates has told, regarding his inward life,\nanything important in our sense of the word. It is questionable indeed\nwhether for a Classical mind it was even possible to react to the motive\nforces that are presupposed in the production of a Parzeval, a Hamlet,\nor a Werther. In Plato we fail to observe any conscious evolution of\ndoctrine; his separate works are merely treatises written from very\ndifferent standpoints which he took up from time to time, and it gave\nhim no concern whether and how they hung together. On the contrary, a\nwork of deep self-examination, the _Vita Nuova_ of Dante, is found at\nthe very outset of the spiritual history of the West. How little\ntherefore of the Classical pure-present there really was in Goethe, the\nman who forgot nothing, the man whose works, as he avowed himself, are\nonly fragments of a _single great confession_!\n\nAfter the destruction of Athens by the Persians, all the older art-works\nwere thrown on the dustheap (whence we are now extracting them), and we\ndo not hear that anyone in Hellas ever troubled himself about the ruins\nof Mycen\u00e6 or Phaistos for the purpose of ascertaining historical facts.\nMen read Homer but never thought of excavating the hill of Troy as\nSchliemann did; for what they wanted was myth, not history. The works of\n\u00c6schylus and those of the pre-Socratic philosophers were already\npartially lost in the Hellenistic period. In the West, on the contrary,\nthe piety inherent in and peculiar to the Culture manifested itself,\nfive centuries before Schliemann, in Petrarch\u2014the fine collector of\nantiquities, coins and manuscripts, the very type of historically-\nsensitive man, viewing the distant past and scanning the distant\nprospect (was he not the first to attempt an Alpine peak?), living in\nhis time, yet essentially not of it. The soul of the collector is\nintelligible only by having regard to his conception of Time. Even more\npassionate perhaps, though of a different colouring, is the collecting-\nbent of the Chinese. In China, whoever travels assiduously pursues \u201cold\ntraces\u201d (Ku-tsi) and the untranslatable \u201cTao,\u201d the basic principle of\nChinese existence, derives all its meaning from a deep historical\nfeeling. In the Hellenistic period, objects were indeed collected and\ndisplayed everywhere, but they were curiosities of mythological appeal\n(as described by Pausanias) as to which questions of date or purpose\nsimply did not arise\u2014and this too in the very presence of Egypt, which\neven by the time of the great Thuthmosis had been transformed into one\nvast museum of strict tradition.\n\nAmongst the Western peoples, it was the Germans who discovered the\nmechanical _clock_, the dread symbol of the flow of time, and the chimes\nof countless clock towers that echo day and night over West Europe are\nperhaps the most wonderful expression of which a historical world-\nfeeling is capable.[8] In the timeless countrysides and cities of the\nClassical world, we find nothing of the sort. Till the epoch of\nPericles, the time of day was estimated merely by the length of shadow,\nand it was only from that of Aristotle that the word \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1 received the\n(Babylonian) significance of \u201chour\u201d; prior to that there was no exact\nsubdivision of the day. In Babylon and Egypt water-clocks and sun-dials\nwere discovered in the very early stages, yet in Athens it was left to\nPlato to introduce a practically useful form of clepsydra, and this was\nmerely a minor adjunct of everyday utility which could not have\ninfluenced the Classical life-feeling in the smallest degree.\n\nIt remains still to mention the corresponding difference, which is very\ndeep and has never yet been properly appreciated, between Classical and\nmodern mathematics. The former conceived of things _as they are_, as\n_magnitudes_, timeless and purely present, and so it proceeded to\nEuclidean geometry and mathematical statics, rounding off its\nintellectual system with the theory of conic sections. We conceive\nthings as they _become_ and _behave_, as _function_, and this brought us\nto dynamics, analytical geometry and thence to the Differential\nCalculus.[9] The modern theory of functions is the imposing marshalling\nof this whole mass of thought. It is a bizarre, but nevertheless\npsychologically exact, fact that the physics of the Greeks\u2014being statics\nand not dynamics\u2014neither knew the use nor felt the absence of the time-\nelement, whereas we on the other hand work in thousandths of a second.\nThe one and only evolution-idea that is timeless, ahistoric, is\nAristotle\u2019s entelechy.\n\nThis, then, is our task. We men of the Western Culture are, with our\nhistorical sense, an exception and not a rule. World-history is _our_\nworld picture and not all mankind\u2019s. Indian and Classical man formed no\nimage of a world in progress, and perhaps when in due course the\ncivilization of the West is extinguished, there will never again be a\nCulture and a human type in which \u201cworld-history\u201d is so potent a form of\nthe waking consciousness.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n From Homer to the tragedies of Seneca, a full thousand years, the same\n handful of myth-figures (Thyestes, Clyt\u00e6mnestra, Heracles and the\n like) appear time after time without alteration, whereas in the poetry\n of the West, Faustian Man figures, first as Parzeval or Tristan, then\n (modified always into harmony with the epoch) as Hamlet, Don Quixote,\n Don Juan, and eventually Faust or Werther, and now as the hero of the\n modern world-city romance, but is always presented in the atmosphere\n and under the conditions of a particular century.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n It was about 1000 A.D. and therefore contemporaneously with the\n beginning of the Romanesque style and the Crusades\u2014the first symptoms\n of a new Soul\u2014that Abbot Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II), the friend of\n the Emperor Otto III, invented the mechanism of the chiming wheel-\n clock. In Germany too, the first tower-clocks made their appearance,\n about 1200, and the pocket watch somewhat later. Observe the\n significant association of time measurement with the edifices of\n religion.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n Newton\u2019s choice of the name \u201cfluxions\u201d for his calculus was meant to\n imply a standpoint towards certain metaphysical notions as to the\n nature of time. In Greek mathematics time figures not at all.\n\n-----\n\n VI\n\nWhat, then, _is_ world-history? Certainly, an ordered presentation of\nthe past, an inner postulate, the expression of a capacity for feeling\nform. But a feeling for form, however definite, is not the same as form\nitself. No doubt we feel world-history, experience it, and believe that\nit is to be read just as a map is read. But, even to-day, it is only\nforms of it that we know and not _the_ form of it, which is the mirror-\nimage of _our own_ inner life.\n\nEveryone of course, if asked, would say that he saw the inward form of\nHistory quite clearly and definitely. The illusion subsists because no\none has seriously reflected on it, still less conceived doubts as to his\nown knowledge, for no one has the slightest notion how wide a field for\ndoubt there is. In fact, the _lay-out_ of world-history is an unproved\nand subjective notion that has been handed down from generation to\ngeneration (not only of laymen but of professional historians) and\nstands badly in need of a little of that scepticism which from Galileo\nonward has regulated and deepened our inborn ideas of nature.\n\nThanks to the subdivision of history into \u201cAncient,\u201d \u201cMedi\u00e6val\u201d and\n\u201cModern\u201d\u2014an incredibly jejune and _meaningless_ scheme, which has,\nhowever, entirely dominated our historical thinking\u2014we have failed to\nperceive the true position in the general history of higher mankind, of\nthe little part-world which has developed on West-European[10] soil from\nthe time of the German-Roman Empire, to judge of its relative importance\nand above all to estimate its direction. The Cultures that are to come\nwill find it difficult to believe that the validity of such a scheme\nwith its simple rectilinear progression and its meaningless proportions,\nbecoming more and more preposterous with each century, incapable of\nbringing into itself the new fields of history as they successively come\ninto the light of our knowledge, was, in spite of all, never whole-\nheartedly attacked. The criticisms that it has long been the fashion of\nhistorical researchers to level at the scheme mean nothing; they have\nonly obliterated the one existing plan without substituting for it any\nother. To toy with phrases such as \u201cthe Greek Middle Ages\u201d or \u201cGermanic\nantiquity\u201d does not in the least help us to form a clear and inwardly-\nconvincing picture in which China and Mexico, the empire of Axum and\nthat of the Sassanids have their proper places. And the expedient of\nshifting the initial point of \u201cmodern history\u201d from the Crusades to the\nRenaissance, or from the Renaissance to the beginning of the 19th\nCentury, only goes to show that the scheme _per se_ is regarded as\nunshakably sound.\n\nIt is not only that the scheme circumscribes the area of history. What\nis worse, it rigs the stage. The ground of West Europe is treated as a\nsteady pole, a unique patch chosen on the surface of the sphere for no\nbetter reason, it seems, than because we live on it\u2014and great histories\nof millennial duration and mighty far-away Cultures are made to revolve\naround this pole in all modesty. It is a quaintly conceived system of\nsun and planets! We select a single bit of ground as the natural centre\nof the historical system, and make it the central sun. From it all the\nevents of history receive their real light, from it their importance is\njudged in _perspective_. But it is in our own West-European conceit\nalone that this phantom \u201cworld-history,\u201d which a breath of scepticism\nwould dissipate, is acted out.\n\nWe have to thank that conceit for the immense optical illusion (become\nnatural from long habit) whereby distant histories of thousands of\nyears, such as those of China and Egypt, are made to shrink to the\ndimensions of mere episodes while in the neighbourhood of our own\nposition the decades since Luther, and particularly since Napoleon, loom\nlarge as Brocken-spectres. We know quite well that the slowness with\nwhich a high cloud or a railway train in the distance seems to move is\nonly apparent, yet we believe that the _tempo_ of all early Indian,\nBabylonian or Egyptian history was really slower than that of our own\nrecent past. And we think of them as less substantial, more damped-down,\nmore diluted, because we have not learned to make the allowance for\n(inward and outward) distances.\n\nIt is self-evident that for the Cultures of the West the existence of\nAthens, Florence or Paris is more important than that of Lo-Yang or\nPataliputra. But is it permissible to found a scheme of world-history on\nestimates of such a sort? If so, then the Chinese historian is quite\nentitled to frame a world-history in which the Crusades, the\nRenaissance, C\u00e6sar and Frederick the Great are passed over in silence as\ninsignificant. How, _from the morphological point of view_, should our\n18th Century be more important than any other of the sixty centuries\nthat preceded it? Is it not ridiculous to oppose a \u201cmodern\u201d history of a\nfew centuries, and that history to all intents localized in West Europe,\nto an \u201cancient\u201d history which covers as many millennia\u2014incidentally\ndumping into that \u201cancient history\u201d the whole mass of the pre-Hellenic\ncultures, unprobed and unordered, as mere appendix-matter? This is no\nexaggeration. Do we not, for the sake of keeping the hoary scheme,\ndispose of Egypt and Babylon\u2014each as an individual and self-contained\nhistory quite equal in the balance to our so-called \u201cworld-history\u201d from\nCharlemagne to the World-War and well beyond it\u2014as a _prelude_ to\nclassical history? Do we not relegate the vast complexes of Indian and\nChinese culture to foot-notes, with a gesture of embarrassment? As for\nthe great American cultures, do we not, on the ground that they do not\n\u201cfit in\u201d (with what?), entirely ignore them?\n\nThe most appropriate designation for this current West-European scheme\nof history, in which the great Cultures are made to follow orbits round\n_us_ as the presumed centre of all world-happenings, is the _Ptolemaic\nsystem_ of history. The system that is put forward in this work in place\nof it I regard as the _Copernican discovery_ in the historical sphere,\nin that it admits no sort of privileged position to the Classical or the\nWestern Culture as against the Cultures of India, Babylon, China, Egypt,\nthe Arabs, Mexico\u2014separate worlds of dynamic being which in point of\nmass count for just as much in the general picture of history as the\nClassical, while frequently surpassing it in point of spiritual\ngreatness and soaring power.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n Here the historian is gravely influenced by preconceptions derived\n from geography, which assumes a _Continent_ of Europe, and feels\n himself compelled to draw an ideal frontier corresponding to the\n physical frontier between \u201cEurope\u201d and \u201cAsia.\u201d The word \u201cEurope\u201d ought\n to be struck out of history. There is historically no \u201cEuropean\u201d type,\n and it is sheer delusion to speak of the Hellenes as \u201cEuropean\n Antiquity\u201d (were Homer and Heraclitus and Pythagoras, then, Asiatics?)\n and to enlarge upon their \u201cmission\u201d as such. These phrases express no\n realities but merely a sketchy interpretation of the map. It is thanks\n to this word \u201cEurope\u201d alone, and the complex of ideas resulting from\n it, that our historical consciousness has come to link Russia with the\n West in an utterly baseless unity\u2014a mere abstraction derived from the\n reading of books\u2014that has led to immense real consequences. In the\n shape of Peter the Great, this word has falsified the historical\n tendencies of a primitive human mass for two centuries, whereas the\n Russian _instinct_ has very truly and fundamentally divided \u201cEurope\u201d\n from \u201cMother Russia\u201d with the hostility that we can see embodied in\n Tolstoi, Aksakov or Dostoyevski. \u201cEast\u201d and \u201cWest\u201d are notions that\n contain real history, whereas \u201cEurope\u201d is an empty sound. Everything\n great that the Classical world created, it created in pure denial of\n the existence of any continental barrier between Rome and Cyprus,\n Byzantium and Alexandria. Everything that we imply by the term\n European Culture came into existence between the Vistula and the\n Adriatic and the Guadalquivir and, even if we were to agree that\n Greece, the Greece of Pericles, lay in Europe, the Greece of to-day\n certainly does not.\n\n-----\n\n VII\n\nThe scheme \u201cancient-medi\u00e6val-modern\u201d in its first form was a creation of\nthe Magian world-sense. It first appeared in the Persian and Jewish\nreligions after Cyrus,[11] received an apocalyptic sense in the teaching\nof the Book of Daniel on the four world-eras, and was developed into a\nworld-history in the post-Christian religions of the East, notably the\nGnostic systems.[12]\n\nThis important conception, within the very narrow limits which fixed its\nintellectual basis, was unimpeachable. Neither Indian nor even Egyptian\nhistory was included in the scope of the proposition. For the Magian\nthinker the expression \u201cworld-history\u201d meant a unique and supremely\ndramatic act, having as its theatre the lands between Hellas and Persia,\nin which the strictly dualistic world-sense of the East expressed itself\nnot by means of polar conceptions like the \u201csoul and spirit,\u201d \u201cgood and\nevil\u201d of contemporary metaphysics, but by the figure of a catastrophe,\nan epochal change of phase between world-creation and world-decay.[13]\n\nNo elements beyond those which we find stabilized in the Classical\nliterature, on the one hand, and the Bible (or other sacred book of the\nparticular system), on the other, came into the picture, which presents\n(as \u201cThe Old\u201d and \u201cThe New,\u201d respectively) the easily-grasped contrasts\nof Gentile and Jewish, Christian and Heathen, Classical and Oriental,\nidol and dogma, nature and spirit _with a time connotation_\u2014that is, as\na drama in which the one prevails over the other. The historical change\nof period wears the characteristic dress of the religious \u201cRedemption.\u201d\nThis \u201cworld-history\u201d in short was a conception narrow and provincial,\nbut within its limits logical and complete. Necessarily, therefore, it\nwas specific to this region and this humanity, and incapable of any\n_natural_ extension.\n\nBut to these two there has been added a third epoch, the epoch that we\ncall \u201cmodern,\u201d on Western soil, and it is this that for the first time\ngives the picture of history the look of a progression. The oriental\npicture was _at rest_. It presented a self-contained antithesis, with\nequilibrium as its outcome and a unique divine act as its turning-point.\nBut, adopted and assumed by a wholly new type of mankind, it was quickly\ntransformed (without anyone\u2019s noticing the oddity of the change) into a\nconception of a _linear progress_: from Homer or Adam\u2014the modern can\nsubstitute for these names the Indo-German, Old Stone Man, or the\nPithecanthropus\u2014through Jerusalem, Rome, Florence and Paris according to\nthe taste of the individual historian, thinker or artist, who has\nunlimited freedom in the interpretation of the three-part scheme.\n\nThis third term, \u201cmodern times,\u201d which in form asserts that it is the\nlast and conclusive term of the series, has in fact, ever since the\nCrusades, been stretched and stretched again to the elastic limit at\nwhich it will bear no more.[14] It was at least implied if not stated in\nso many words, that here, beyond the ancient and the medi\u00e6val, something\ndefinitive was beginning, a Third Kingdom in which, somewhere, there was\nto be fulfilment and culmination, and which had an objective point.\n\nAs to what this objective point is, each thinker, from Schoolman to\npresent-day Socialist, backs his own peculiar discovery. Such a view\ninto the course of things may be both easy and flattering to the\npatentee, but in fact he has simply taken the spirit of the West, as\nreflected in his own brain, for the meaning of the world. So it is that\ngreat thinkers, making a metaphysical virtue of intellectual necessity,\nhave not only accepted without serious investigation the scheme of\nhistory agreed \u201cby common consent\u201d but have made of it the basis of\ntheir philosophies and dragged in God as author of this or that \u201cworld-\nplan.\u201d Evidently the mystic number three applied to the world-ages has\nsomething highly seductive for the metaphysician\u2019s taste. History was\ndescribed by Herder as the education of the human race, by Kant as an\nevolution of the idea of freedom, by Hegel as a self-expansion of the\nworld-spirit, by others in other terms, but as regards its ground-plan\neveryone was quite satisfied when he had thought out some abstract\nmeaning for the conventional threefold order.\n\nOn the very threshold of the Western Culture we meet the great Joachim\nof Floris (c. 1145-1202),[15] the first thinker of the Hegelian stamp\nwho shattered the dualistic world-form of Augustine, and with his\nessentially Gothic intellect stated the new Christianity of his time in\nthe form of a third term to the religions of the Old and the New\nTestaments, expressing them respectively as the Age of the Father, the\nAge of the Son and the Age of the Holy Ghost. His teaching moved the\nbest of the Franciscans and the Dominicans, Dante, Thomas Aquinas, in\ntheir inmost souls and awakened a world-outlook which slowly but surely\ntook entire possession of the historical sense of our Culture. Lessing\u2014\nwho often designated his own period, with reference to the Classical as\nthe \u201cafter-world\u201d[16] (Nachwelt)\u2014took his idea of the \u201ceducation of the\nhuman race\u201d with its three stages of child, youth and man, from the\nteaching of the Fourteenth Century mystics. Ibsen treats it with\nthoroughness in his _Emperor and Galilean_ (1873), in which he directly\npresents the Gnostic world-conception through the figure of the wizard\nMaximus, and advances not a step beyond it in his famous Stockholm\naddress of 1887. It would appear, then, that the Western consciousness\nfeels itself urged to predicate a sort of finality inherent in its own\nappearance.\n\nBut the creation of the Abbot of Floris was a _mystical_ glance into the\nsecrets of the divine world-order. It was bound to lose all meaning as\nsoon as it was used in the way of reasoning and made a hypothesis of\n_scientific_ thinking, as it has been\u2014ever more and more frequently\u2014\nsince the 17th Century.\n\nIt is a quite indefensible method of presenting world-history to begin\nby giving rein to one\u2019s own religious, political or social convictions\nand endowing the sacrosanct three-phase system with tendencies that will\nbring it exactly to one\u2019s own standpoint. This is, in effect, making of\nsome formula\u2014say, the \u201cAge of Reason,\u201d Humanity, the greatest happiness\nof the greatest number, enlightenment, economic progress, national\nfreedom, the conquest of nature, or world-peace\u2014a criterion whereby to\njudge whole millennia of history. And so we judge that they were\nignorant of the \u201ctrue path,\u201d or that they failed to follow it, when the\nfact is simply that their will and purposes were not the same as ours.\nGoethe\u2019s saying, \u201cWhat is important in life is life and not a result of\nlife,\u201d is the answer to any and every senseless attempt to solve the\nriddle of historical form by means of a _programme_.\n\nIt is the same picture that we find when we turn to the historians of\neach special art or science (and those of national economics and\nphilosophy as well). We find:\n\n \u201cPainting\u201d from the Egyptians (or the cave-men) to the\n Impressionists, or\n\n \u201cMusic\u201d from Homer to Bayreuth and beyond, or\n\n \u201cSocial Organization\u201d from Lake Dwellings to Socialism, as the case\n may\n be,\n\npresented as a linear graph which steadily rises in conformity with the\nvalues of the (selected) arguments. No one has seriously considered the\npossibility that arts may have an allotted span of life and may be\nattached as forms of self-expression to particular regions and\nparticular types of mankind, and that therefore the total history of an\nart may be merely an additive compilation of separate developments, of\nspecial arts, with no bond of union save the name and some details of\ncraft-technique.\n\nWe know it to be true of every organism that the rhythm, form and\nduration of its life, and all the expression-details of that life as\nwell, are determined by the _properties of its species_. No one, looking\nat the oak, with its millennial life, dare say that it is at this\nmoment, now, about to start on its true and proper course. No one as he\nsees a caterpillar grow day by day expects that it will go on doing so\nfor two or three years. In these cases we feel, with an unqualified\ncertainty, a _limit_, and this sense of the limit is identical with our\nsense of the inward form. In the case of higher human history, on the\ncontrary, we take our ideas as to the course of the future from an\nunbridled optimism that sets at naught all historical, i.e., _organic_,\nexperience, and everyone therefore sets himself to discover in the\naccidental present terms that he can expand into some striking\nprogression-series, the existence of which rests not on scientific proof\nbut on predilection. He works upon unlimited possibilities\u2014never a\nnatural end\u2014and from the momentary top-course of his bricks plans\nartlessly the continuation of his structure.\n\n\u201cMankind,\u201d however, has no aim, no idea, no plan, any more than the\nfamily of butterflies or orchids. \u201cMankind\u201d is a zoological expression,\nor an empty word.[17] But conjure away the phantom, break the magic\ncircle, and at once there emerges an astonishing wealth of _actual_\nforms\u2014the Living with all its immense fullness, depth and movement\u2014\nhitherto veiled by a catchword, a dryasdust scheme, and a set of\npersonal \u201cideals.\u201d I see, in place of that empty figment of _one_ linear\nhistory which can only be kept up by shutting one\u2019s eyes to the\noverwhelming multitude of the facts, the drama of _a number_ of mighty\nCultures, each springing with primitive strength from the soil of a\nmother-region to which it remains firmly bound throughout its whole\nlife-cycle; each stamping its material, its mankind, in _its own image_;\neach having _its own_ idea, _its own_ passions, _its own_ life, will and\nfeeling, _its own_ death. Here indeed are colours, lights, movements,\nthat no intellectual eye has yet discovered. Here the Cultures, peoples,\nlanguages, truths, gods, landscapes bloom and age as the oaks and the\nstone-pines, the blossoms, twigs and leaves\u2014but there is no ageing\n\u201cMankind.\u201d Each Culture has its own new possibilities of self-expression\nwhich arise, ripen, decay, and never return. There is not _one_\nsculpture, _one_ painting, _one_ mathematics, _one_ physics, but many,\neach in its deepest essence different from the others, each limited in\nduration and self-contained, just as each species of plant has its\npeculiar blossom or fruit, its special type of growth and decline. These\ncultures, sublimated life-essences, grow with the same superb\naimlessness as the flowers of the field. They belong, like the plants\nand the animals, to the living Nature of Goethe, and not to the dead\nNature of Newton. I see world-history as a picture of endless formations\nand transformations, of the marvellous waxing and waning of organic\nforms. The professional historian, on the contrary, sees it as a sort of\ntapeworm industriously adding on to itself one epoch after another.\n\nBut the series \u201cancient-medi\u00e6val-modern history\u201d has at last exhausted\nits usefulness. Angular, narrow, shallow though it was as a scientific\nfoundation, still we possessed no other form that was not wholly\nunphilosophical in which our data could be arranged, and world-history\n(as hitherto understood) has to thank it for filtering our classifiable\nsolid residues. But the number of centuries that the scheme can by any\nstretch be made to cover has long since been exceeded, and with the\nrapid increase in the volume of our historical material\u2014especially of\nmaterial that cannot possibly be brought under the scheme\u2014the picture is\nbeginning to dissolve into a chaotic blur. Every historical student who\nis not quite blind knows and feels this, and it is as a drowning man\nthat he clutches at the only scheme which he knows of. The word \u201cMiddle\nAge,\u201d[18] invented in 1667 by Professor Horn of Leyden, has to-day to\ncover a formless and constantly extending mass which can only be\ndefined, negatively, as every thing not classifiable under any pretext\nin one of the other two (tolerably well-ordered) groups. We have an\nexcellent example of this in our feeble treatment and hesitant judgment\nof modern Persian, Arabian and Russian history. But, above all, it has\nbecome impossible to conceal the fact that this so-called history of the\nworld is a limited history, first of the Eastern Mediterranean region\nand then,\u2014with an abrupt change of scene at the Migrations (an event\nimportant only to us and therefore greatly exaggerated by us, an event\nof purely Western and not even Arabian significance),\u2014of West-Central\nEurope. When Hegel declared so na\u00efvely that he meant to ignore those\npeoples which did not fit into his scheme of history, he was only making\nan honest avowal of methodic premisses that every historian finds\nnecessary for his purpose and every historical work shows in its lay-\nout. In fact it has now become an affair of scientific tact to determine\nwhich of the historical developments shall be _seriously_ taken into\naccount and which not. Ranke is a good example.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 31, 175.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Windelband, _Gesch. d. Phil._ (1903), pp. 275 ff.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n In the New Testament the polar idea tends to appear in the dialectics\n of the Apostle Paul, while the periodic is represented by the\n Apocalypse.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n As we can see from the expression, at once desperate and ridiculous,\n \u201cnewest time\u201d (_neueste Zeit_).\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n K. Burdach, _Reformation, Renaissance, Humanismus_, 1918, pp. 48 et\n seq. (English readers may be referred to the article _Joachim of\n Floris_ by Professor Alphandery in the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, XI\n ed., _Tr._)\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n The expression \u201cantique\u201d\u2014meant of course in the dualistic sense\u2014is\n found as early as the _Isagoge_ of Porphyry (c. 300 A.D.).\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n \u201cMankind? It is an abstraction. There are, always have been, and\n always will be, men and only men.\u201d (Goethe to Luden.)\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n \u201cMiddle Ages\u201d connotes the history of the space-time region in which\n _Latin was the language of the Church and the learned_. The mighty\n course of Eastern Christianity, which, long before Boniface, spread\n over Turkestan into China and through Sab\u00e6a into Abyssinia, was\n entirely excluded from this \u201cworld-history.\u201d\n\n-----\n\n VIII\n\nTo-day we think in continents, and it is only our philosophers and\nhistorians who have not realized that we do so. Of what significance to\nus, then, are conceptions and purviews that they put before us as\nuniversally valid, when in truth their furthest horizon does not extend\nbeyond the intellectual atmosphere of Western Man?\n\nExamine, from this point of view, our best books. When Plato speaks of\nhumanity, he means the Hellenes in contrast to the barbarians, which is\nentirely consonant with the ahistoric mode of the Classical life and\nthought, and his premisses take him to conclusions that _for Greeks_\nwere complete and significant. When, however, Kant philosophizes, say on\nethical ideas, he maintains the validity of his theses for men of all\ntimes and places. He does not say this in so many words, for, for\nhimself and his readers, it is something that goes without saying. In\nhis \u00e6sthetics he formulates the principles, not of Phidias\u2019s art, or\nRembrandt\u2019s art, but of Art generally. But what he poses as necessary\nforms of thought are in reality only necessary forms of Western thought,\nthough a glance at Aristotle and his essentially different conclusions\nshould have sufficed to show that Aristotle\u2019s intellect, not less\npenetrating than his own, was of different structure from it. The\ncategories of the Westerner are just as alien to Russian thought as\nthose of the Chinaman or the ancient Greek are to him. For us, the\neffective and complete comprehension of Classical root-words is just as\nimpossible as that of Russian[19] and Indian, and for the modern Chinese\nor Arab, with their utterly different intellectual constitutions,\n\u201cphilosophy from Bacon to Kant\u201d has only a curiosity-value.\n\nIt is _this_ that is lacking to the Western thinker, the very thinker in\nwhom we might have expected to find it\u2014insight into the _historically\nrelative_ character of his data, which are expressions of one _specific\nexistence and one only_; knowledge of the necessary limits of their\nvalidity; the conviction that his \u201cunshakable\u201d truths and \u201ceternal\u201d\nviews are simply true for him and eternal for his world-view; the duty\nof looking beyond them to find out what the men of other Cultures have\nwith equal certainty evolved out of themselves. That and nothing else\nwill impart completeness to the philosophy of the future, and only\nthrough an understanding of the living world shall we understand the\nsymbolism of history. Here there is nothing constant, nothing universal.\nWe must cease to speak of the forms of \u201cThought,\u201d the principles of\n\u201cTragedy,\u201d the mission of \u201cThe State.\u201d Universal validity involves\nalways the fallacy of arguing from particular to particular.\n\nBut something much more disquieting than a logical fallacy begins to\nappear when the centre of gravity of philosophy shifts from the\nabstract-systematic to the practical-ethical and our Western thinkers\nfrom Schopenhauer onward turn from the problem of cognition to the\nproblem of life (the will to life, to power, to action). Here it is not\nthe ideal abstract \u201cman\u201d of Kant that is subjected to examination, but\nactual man as he has inhabited the earth during historical time,\ngrouped, whether primitive or advanced, by peoples; and it is more than\never futile to define the structure of his highest ideas in terms of the\n\u201cancient-medi\u00e6val-modern\u201d scheme with its local limitations. But it is\ndone, nevertheless.\n\nConsider the historical horizon of Nietzsche. His conceptions of\ndecadence, militarism, the transvaluation of all values, the will to\npower, lie deep in the essence of Western civilization and are for the\nanalysis of that civilization of decisive importance. But what, do we\nfind, was the foundation on which he built up his creation? Romans and\nGreeks, Renaissance and European present, with a fleeting and\nuncomprehending side-glance at Indian philosophy\u2014in short \u201cancient,\nmedi\u00e6val and modern\u201d history. Strictly speaking, he never once moved\noutside the scheme, not did any other thinker of his time.\n\nWhat correlation, then, is there or can there be of his idea of the\n\u201cDionysian\u201d with the inner life of a highly-civilized Chinese or an up-\nto-date American? What is the significance of his type of the\n\u201cSuperman\u201d\u2014for the world of Islam? Can image-forming antitheses of\nNature and Intellect, Heathen and Christian, Classical and Modern, have\nany meaning for the soul of the Indian or the Russian? What can Tolstoi\u2014\nwho from the depths of his humanity rejected the whole Western world-\nidea as something alien and distant\u2014_do_ with the \u201cMiddle Ages,\u201d with\nDante, with Luther? What can a Japanese do with Parzeval and\n\u201cZarathustra,\u201d or an Indian with Sophocles? And is the thought-range of\nSchopenhauer, Comte, Feuerbach, Hebbel or Strindberg any wider? Is not\ntheir whole psychology, for all its intention of world-wide validity,\none of purely West-European significance?\n\nHow comic seem Ibsen\u2019s woman-problems\u2014which also challenge the attention\nof all \u201chumanity\u201d\u2014when, for his famous Nora, the lady of the North-west\nEuropean city with the horizon that is implied by a house-rent of \u00a3100\nto \u00a3300 a year and a Protestant upbringing, we substitute C\u00e6sar\u2019s wife,\nMadame de S\u00e9vign\u00e9, a Japanese or a Turkish peasant woman! But, for that\nmatter, Ibsen\u2019s own circle of vision is that of the middle class in a\ngreat city of yesterday and to-day. His conflicts, which start from\nspiritual premisses that did not exist till about 1850 and can scarcely\nlast beyond 1950, are neither those of the great world nor those of the\nlower masses, still less those of the cities inhabited by non-European\npopulations.\n\nAll these are local and temporary values\u2014most of them indeed limited to\nthe momentary \u201cintelligentsia\u201d of cities of West-European type. World-\nhistorical or \u201ceternal\u201d values they emphatically are not. Whatever the\nsubstantial importance of Ibsen\u2019s and Nietzsche\u2019s generation may be, it\ninfringes the very meaning of the word \u201cworld-history\u201d\u2014which denotes the\ntotality and not a selected part\u2014to subordinate, to undervalue, or to\nignore the factors which lie outside \u201cmodern\u201d interests. Yet in fact\nthey are so undervalued or ignored to an amazing extent. What the West\nhas said and thought, hitherto, on the problems of space, time, motion,\nnumber, will, marriage, property, tragedy, science, has remained narrow\nand dubious, because men were always looking for _the_ solution of _the_\nquestion. It was never seen that many questioners implies many answers,\nthat any philosophical question is really a veiled desire to get an\nexplicit affirmation of what is implicit in the question itself, that\nthe great questions of any period are fluid beyond all conception, and\nthat therefore it is only by obtaining a _group of historically limited\nsolutions_ and measuring it by _utterly impersonal_ criteria that the\nfinal secrets can be reached. The real student of mankind treats no\nstandpoint as absolutely right or absolutely wrong. In the face of such\ngrave problems as that of Time or that of Marriage, it is insufficient\nto appeal to personal experience, or an inner voice, or reason, or the\nopinion of ancestors or contemporaries. These may say what is true for\nthe questioner himself and for his time, but that is not all. In other\nCultures the phenomenon talks a different language, for other men there\nare different truths. The _thinker_ must admit the validity of all, or\nof none.\n\nHow greatly, then, Western world-criticism can be widened and deepened!\nHow immensely far beyond the innocent relativism of Nietzsche and his\ngeneration one must look\u2014how fine one\u2019s sense for form and one\u2019s\npsychological insight must become\u2014how completely one must free oneself\nfrom limitations of self, of practical interests, of horizon\u2014before one\ndare assert the pretension to understand world-history, the _world-as-\nhistory_.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 362, foot-note. To the true Russian the basic\n proposition of Darwinism is as devoid of meaning as that of Copernicus\n is to a true Arab.\n\n-----\n\n IX\n\nIn opposition to all these arbitrary and narrow schemes, derived from\ntradition or personal choice, into which history is forced, I put\nforward the natural, the \u201cCopernican,\u201d form of the historical process\nwhich lies deep in the essence of that process and reveals itself only\nto an eye perfectly free from prepossessions.\n\nSuch an eye was Goethe\u2019s. That which Goethe called _Living Nature_ is\nexactly that which we are calling here world-history, _world-as-\nhistory_. Goethe, who as artist portrayed the life and development,\nalways the life and development, of his figures, the thing-becoming and\nnot the thing-become (\u201cWilhelm Meister\u201d and \u201cWahrheit und Dichtung\u201d)\nhated Mathematics. For him, the world-as-mechanism stood opposed to the\nworld-as-organism, dead nature to living nature, law to form. As\nnaturalist, every line he wrote was meant to display the image of a\nthing-becoming, the \u201cimpressed form\u201d living and developing. Sympathy,\nobservation, comparison, immediate and inward certainty, intellectual\n_flair_\u2014these were the means whereby he was enabled to approach the\nsecrets of the phenomenal world in motion. _Now these are the means of\nhistorical research_\u2014precisely these and no others. It was this\n_godlike_ insight that prompted him to say at the bivouac fire on the\nevening of the Battle of Valmy: \u201cHere and now begins a new epoch of\nworld history, and you, gentlemen, can say that you \u2018were there.\u2019\u201d No\ngeneral, no diplomat, let alone the philosophers, ever so directly felt\nhistory \u201cbecoming.\u201d It is the deepest judgment that any man ever uttered\nabout a great historical act in the moment of its accomplishment.\n\nAnd just as he followed out the development of the plant-form from the\nleaf, the birth of the vertebrate type, the process of the geological\nstrata\u2014_the Destiny in nature and not the Causality_\u2014so here we shall\ndevelop the form-language of human history, its periodic structure, its\n_organic logic_ out of the profusion of all the challenging details.\n\nIn other aspects, mankind is habitually, and rightly, reckoned as one of\nthe organisms of the earth\u2019s surface. Its physical structure, its\nnatural functions, the whole phenomenal conception of it, all belong to\na more comprehensive unity. Only in _this_ aspect is it treated\notherwise, despite that deeply-felt relationship of plant destiny and\nhuman destiny which is an eternal theme of all lyrical poetry, and\ndespite that similarity of human history to that of any other of the\nhigher life-groups which is the refrain of endless beast-legends, sagas\nand fables.\n\nBut only bring analogy to bear on this aspect as on the rest, letting\nthe world of human Cultures intimately and unreservedly work upon the\nimagination instead of forcing it into a ready-made scheme. Let the\nwords youth, growth, maturity, decay\u2014hitherto, and to-day more than\never, used to express subjective valuations and entirely personal\npreferences in sociology, ethics and \u00e6sthetics\u2014be taken at last as\nobjective descriptions of organic states. Set forth the Classical\nCulture as a self-contained phenomenon embodying and expressing the\nClassical soul, put it beside the Egyptian, the Indian, the Babylonian,\nthe Chinese and the Western, and determine for each of these higher\nindividuals what is typical in their surgings and what is necessary in\nthe riot of incident. And then at last will unfold itself the picture of\nworld-history that is natural to us, men of the West, and to us alone.\n\n\n X\n\nOur narrower task, then, is primarily to determine, from such a world-\nsurvey, the state of West Europe and America as at the epoch of 1800-\n2000\u2014to establish the chronological position of this period in the\nensemble of Western culture-history, its significance as a chapter that\nis in one or other guise necessarily found in the biography of every\nCulture, and the organic and symbolic meaning of its political,\nartistic, intellectual and social expression-forms.\n\nConsidered in the spirit of analogy, this period appears as\nchronologically parallel\u2014\u201ccontemporary\u201d in our special sense\u2014with the\nphase of Hellenism, and its present culmination, marked by the World-\nWar, corresponds with the transition from the Hellenistic to the Roman\nage. _Rome_, with its rigorous realism\u2014uninspired, barbaric,\ndisciplined, practical, Protestant, _Prussian_\u2014will always give us,\nworking as we must by analogies, the key to understanding our own\nfuture. The _break of destiny that we express by hyphening the words\n\u201cGreeks = Romans\u201d is occurring for us also, separating that which is\nalready fulfilled from that which is to come_. Long ago we might and\nshould have seen in the \u201cClassical\u201d world a development which is the\ncomplete counterpart of our own Western development, differing indeed\nfrom it in every detail of the surface but entirely similar as regards\nthe inward power driving the great organism towards its end. We might\nhave found the constant _alter ego_ of our own actuality in establishing\nthe correspondence, item by item, from the \u201cTrojan War\u201d and the\nCrusades, Homer and the Nibelungenlied, through Doric and Gothic,\nDionysian movement and Renaissance, Polycletus and John Sebastian Bach,\nAthens and Paris, Aristotle and Kant, Alexander and Napoleon, to the\nworld-city and the imperialism common to both Cultures.\n\nUnfortunately, this requires an interpretation of the picture of\nClassical history very different from the incredibly one-sided,\nsuperficial, prejudiced, limited picture that we have in fact given to\nit. We have, in truth been only too conscious of our near relation to\nthe Classical Age, and only too prone in consequence to unconsidered\nassertion of it. Superficial similarity is a great snare, and our entire\nClassical study fell a victim to it as soon as it passed from the\n(admittedly masterly) ordering and critique of the discoveries to the\ninterpretation of their spiritual meaning. That close inward relation in\nwhich we conceive ourselves to stand towards the Classical, and which\nleads us to think that we are its pupils and successors (whereas in\nreality we are simply its adorers), is a venerable prejudice which ought\nat last to be put aside. The whole religious-philosophical, art-\nhistorical and social-critical work of the 19th Century has been\nnecessary to enable us, not to _understand_ \u00c6schylus, Plato, Apollo and\nDionysus, the Athenian state and C\u00e6sarism (which we are far indeed from\ndoing), but to begin to realize, once and for all, how immeasurably\nalien and distant these things are from our inner selves\u2014more alien,\nmaybe, than Mexican gods and Indian architecture.\n\nOur views of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman Culture have always swung between two\nextremes, and our standpoints have invariably been defined for us by the\n\u201cancient-medi\u00e6val-modern\u201d scheme. One group, public men before all else\u2014\neconomists, politicians, jurists\u2014opine that \u201cpresent-day mankind\u201d is\nmaking excellent progress, assess it and its performances at the very\nhighest value and measure everything earlier by its standards. There is\nno modern party that has not weighed up Cleon, Marius, Themistocles,\nCatiline, the Gracchi, according to its own principles. On the other\nhand we have the group of artists, poets, philologists and philosophers.\nThese feel themselves to be out of their element in the aforesaid\npresent, and in consequence choose for themselves in this or that past\nepoch a standpoint that is in its way just as absolute and dogmatic from\nwhich to condemn \u201cto-day.\u201d The one group looks upon Greece as a \u201cnot\nyet,\u201d the other upon modernity as a \u201cnevermore.\u201d Both labour under the\nobsession of a scheme of history which treats the two epochs as part of\nthe same straight line.\n\nIn this opposition it is the two souls of Faust that express themselves.\nThe danger of the one group lies in a clever superficiality. In its\nhands there remains finally, of all Classical Culture, of all\nreflections of the Classical soul, nothing but a bundle of social,\neconomic, political and physiological facts, and the rest is treated as\n\u201csecondary results,\u201d \u201creflexes,\u201d \u201cattendant phenomena.\u201d In the books of\nthis group we find not a hint of the mythical force of \u00c6schylus\u2019s\nchoruses, of the immense mother-earth struggle of the early sculpture,\nthe Doric column, of the richness of the Apollo-cult, of the real depth\nof the Roman Emperor-worship. The other group, composed above all of\nbelated romanticists\u2014represented in recent times by the three Basel\nprofessors Bachofen, Burckhardt and Nietzsche\u2014succumb to the usual\ndangers of ideology. They lose themselves in the clouds of an antiquity\nthat is really no more than the image of their own sensibility in a\nphilological mirror. They rest their case upon the only evidence which\nthey consider worthy to support it, viz., the relics of the old\nliterature, yet there never was a Culture so incompletely represented\nfor us by its great writers.[20] The first group, on the other hand,\nsupports itself principally upon the humdrum material of law-sources,\ninscriptions and coins (which Burckhardt and Nietzsche, very much to\ntheir own loss, despised) and subordinates thereto, often with little or\nno sense of truth and fact, the surviving literature. Consequently, even\nin point of critical foundations, neither group takes the other\nseriously. I have never heard that Nietzsche and Mommsen had the\nsmallest respect for each other.\n\nBut neither group has attained to that higher method of treatment which\nreduces this opposition of criteria to ashes, although it was within\ntheir power to do so. In their self-limitation they paid the penalty for\ntaking over the causality-principle from natural science. Unconsciously\nthey arrived at a pragmatism that sketchily copied the world-picture\ndrawn by physics and, instead of revealing, obscured and confused the\nquite other-natured forms of history. They had no better expedient for\nsubjecting the mass of historical material to critical and normative\nexamination than to consider one complex of phenomena as being primary\nand causative and the rest as being secondary, as being consequences or\neffects. And it was not only the matter-of-fact school that resorted to\nthis method. The romanticists did likewise, for History had not revealed\neven to their dreaming gaze its specific logic; and yet they _felt_ that\nthere was an immanent necessity in it to determine this somehow, rather\nthan turn their backs upon History in despair like Schopenhauer.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n This is conclusively proved by the selection that determined survival,\n which was governed not by mere chance but very definitely by a\n deliberate tendency. The Atticism of the Augustan Age, tired, sterile,\n pedantic, back-looking, conceived the hall-mark \u201cclassical\u201d and\n allowed only a very small group of Greek works up to Plato to bear it.\n The rest, including the whole wealth of Hellenistic literature, was\n rejected and has been almost entirely lost. It is this pedagogue\u2019s\n anthology that has survived (almost in its entirety) and so fixed the\n imaginary picture of \u201cClassical Antiquity\u201d alike for the Renaissance\n Florentine and for Winckelmann, H\u00f6lderlin, and even Nietzsche.\n\n [In this English translation, it should be mentioned, the word\n \u201cClassical\u201d has almost universally been employed to translate the\n German _antike_, as, in the translator\u2019s judgment, no literal\n equivalent of the German word would convey the specific meaning\n attached to _antike_ throughout the work, \u201cantique,\u201d \u201cancient\u201d and the\n like words having for us a much more general connotation.\u2014_Tr._]\n\n-----\n\n XI\n\nBriefly, then, there are two ways of regarding the Classical\u2014the\nmaterialistic and the ideological. By the former, it is asserted that\nthe sinking of one scale-pan has its cause in the rising of the other,\nand it is shown that this occurs invariably (truly a striking theorem);\nand in this juxtaposing of cause and effect we naturally find the social\nand sexual, at all events the purely political, facts classed as causes\nand the religious, intellectual and (so far as the materialist tolerates\nthem as facts at all) the artistic as effects. On the other hand, the\nideologues show that the rising of one scale-pan follows from the\nsinking of the other, which they are able to prove of course with equal\nexactitude; this done, they lose themselves in cults, mysteries,\ncustoms, in the secrets of the strophe and the line, throwing scarcely a\nside-glance at the commonplace daily life\u2014for them an unpleasant\nconsequence of earthly imperfection. Each side, with its gaze fixed on\ncausality, demonstrates that the other side either cannot or will not\nunderstand the true linkages of things and each ends by calling the\nother blind, superficial, stupid, absurd or frivolous, oddities or\nPhilistines. It shocks the ideologue if anyone deals with Hellenic\nfinance-problems and instead of, for example, telling us the deep\nmeanings of the Delphic oracle, describes the far-reaching money\noperations which the Oracle priests undertook with their accumulated\ntreasures. The politician, on the other hand, has a superior smile for\nthose who waste their enthusiasm on ritual formul\u00e6 and the dress of\nAttic youths, instead of writing a book adorned with up-to-date\ncatchwords about antique class-struggles.\n\nThe one type is foreshadowed from the very outset in Petrarch; it\ncreated Florence and Weimar and the Western classicism. The other type\nappears in the middle of the 18th Century, along with the rise of\ncivilized,[21] economic-megalopolitan[22] politics, and England is\ntherefore its birthplace (Grote). At bottom, the opposition is between\nthe conceptions of culture-man and those of civilization-man, and it is\ntoo deep, too essentially human, to allow the weaknesses of _both\nstandpoints alike_ to be seen or overcome.\n\nThe materialist himself is on this point an idealist. He too, without\nwishing or desiring it, has made his views dependent upon his wishes. In\nfact all our finest minds without exception have bowed down reverently\nbefore the picture of the Classical, abdicating in this one instance\nalone their function of unrestricted criticism. The freedom and power of\nClassical research are always hindered, and its data obscured, by a\ncertain almost religious awe. In all history there is no analogous case\nof one Culture making a passionate cult of the memory of another. Our\ndevotion is evidenced yet again in the fact that since the Renaissance,\na thousand years of history have been undervalued so that an ideal\n\u201cMiddle\u201d Age may serve as a link between ourselves and antiquity. We\nWesterners have sacrificed on the Classical altar the purity and\nindependence of our art, for we have not dared to create without a side-\nglance at the \u201csublime exemplar.\u201d We have projected our own deepest\nspiritual needs and feelings on to the Classical picture. Some day a\ngifted psychologist will deal with this most fateful illusion and tell\nus the story of the \u201cClassical\u201d that we have so consistently reverenced\nsince the days of Gothic. Few theses would be more helpful for the\nunderstanding of the Western soul from Otto III, the first victim of the\nSouth, to Nietzsche, the last.\n\nGoethe on his Italian tour speaks with enthusiasm of the buildings of\nPalladio, whose frigid and academic work we to-day regard very\nsceptically: but when he goes on to Pompeii he does not conceal his\ndissatisfaction in experiencing \u201ca strange, half-unpleasant impression,\u201d\nand what he has to say on the temples of P\u00e6stum and Segesta\u2014masterpieces\nof Hellenic art\u2014is embarrassed and trivial. Palpably, when Classical\nantiquity in its full force met him face to face, he did not recognize\nit. It is the same with all others. Much that was Classical they chose\nnot to see, and so they saved their inward image of the Classical\u2014which\nwas in reality the background of a life-ideal that they themselves had\ncreated and nourished with their heart\u2019s blood, a vessel filled with\ntheir own world-feeling, a phantom, an idol. The audacious descriptions\nof Aristophanes, Juvenal or Petronius of life in the Classical cities\u2014\nthe southern dirt and riff-raff, terrors and brutalities, pleasure-boys\nand Phrynes, phallus worship and imperial orgies\u2014excite the enthusiasm\nof the student and the dilettante, who find the same realities in the\nworld-cities of to-day too lamentable and repulsive to face. \u201cIn the\ncities life is bad; there are too many of the lustful.\u201d\u2014_also sprach\nZarathustra_. They commend the state-sense of the Romans, but despise\nthe man of to-day who permits himself any contact with public affairs.\nThere is a type of scholar whose clarity of vision comes under some\nirresistible spell when it turns from a frock-coat to a toga, from a\nBritish football-ground to a Byzantine circus, from a transcontinental\nrailway to a Roman road in the Alps, from a thirty-knot destroyer to a\ntrireme, from Prussian bayonets to Roman spears\u2014nowadays, even, from a\nmodern engineer\u2019s Suez Canal to that of a Pharaoh. He would admit a\nsteam-engine as a symbol of human passion and an expression of\nintellectual force if it were Hero of Alexandria who invented it, not\notherwise. To such it seems blasphemous to talk of Roman central-heating\nor book-keeping in preference to the worship of the Great Mother of the\nGods.\n\nBut the other school sees _nothing but_ these things. It thinks it\nexhausts the essence of this Culture, alien as it is to ours, by\ntreating the Greeks as simply equivalent, and it obtains its conclusions\nby means of simple factual substitutions, ignoring altogether the\nClassical _soul_. That there is not the slightest inward correlation\nbetween the things meant by \u201cRepublic,\u201d \u201cfreedom,\u201d \u201cproperty\u201d and the\nlike then and there and the things meant by such words here and now, it\nhas no notion whatever. It makes fun of the historians of the age of\nGoethe, who honestly expressed their own political ideals in classical\nhistory forms and revealed their own personal enthusiasms in\nvindications or condemnations of lay-figures named Lycurgus, Brutus,\nCato, Cicero, Augustus\u2014but it cannot itself write a chapter without\nreflecting the party opinion of its morning paper.\n\nIt is, however, much the same whether the past is treated in the spirit\nof Don Quixote or in that of Sancho Panza. Neither way leads to the end.\nIn sum, each school permits itself to bring into high relief that part\nof the Classical which best expresses its own views\u2014Nietzsche the pre-\nSocratic Athens, the economists the Hellenistic period, the politicians\nRepublican Rome, poets the Imperial Age.\n\nNot that religious and artistic phenomena are more primitive than social\nand economic, any more than the reverse. For the man who in these things\nhas won his unconditional freedom of outlook, beyond _all_ personal\ninterests whatsoever, there is no dependence, no priority, no relation\nof cause and effect, no differentiation of value or importance. That\nwhich assigns relative ranks amongst the individual detail-facts is\nsimply the greater or less purity and force of their form-language,\ntheir symbolism, beyond all questions of good and evil, high and low,\nuseful and ideal.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n As will be seen later, the words _zivilisierte_ and _Zivilisation_\n possess in this work a special meaning.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n English not possessing the adjective-forming freedom of German, we are\n compelled to coin a word for the rendering of _grossst\u00e4dtisch_, an\n adjective not only frequent but of emphatic significance in the\n author\u2019s argument.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n XII\n\nLooked at in this way, the \u201cDecline of the West\u201d comprises nothing less\nthan the problem of _Civilization_. We have before us one of the\nfundamental questions of all higher history. What is Civilization,\nunderstood as the organic-logical sequel, fulfilment and finale of a\nculture?\n\nFor every Culture has _its own_ Civilization. In this work, for the\nfirst time the two words, hitherto used to express an indefinite, more\nor less ethical, distinction, are used in a _periodic_ sense, to express\na strict and necessary _organic succession_. The Civilization is the\ninevitable _destiny_ of the Culture, and in this principle we obtain the\nviewpoint from which the deepest and gravest problems of historical\nmorphology become capable of solution. Civilizations are the most\nexternal and artificial states of which a species of developed humanity\nis capable. They are a conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the\nthing-becoming, death following life, rigidity following expansion,\nintellectual age and the stone-built, petrifying world-city following\nmother-earth and the spiritual childhood of Doric and Gothic. They are\nan end, irrevocable, yet by inward necessity reached again and again.\n\nSo, for the first time, we are enabled to understand the Romans as the\n_successors_ of the Greeks, and light is projected into the deepest\nsecrets of the late-Classical period. What, but this, can be the meaning\nof the fact\u2014which can only be disputed by vain phrases\u2014that the Romans\nwere barbarians who did not _precede_ but _closed_ a great development?\nUnspiritual, unphilosophical, devoid of art, clannish to the point of\nbrutality, aiming relentlessly at tangible successes, they stand between\nthe Hellenic Culture and nothingness. An imagination directed purely to\npractical objects\u2014they had religious laws governing godward relations as\nthey had other laws governing human relations, but there was no\nspecifically Roman saga of gods\u2014was something which is not found at all\nin Athens. In a word, Greek _soul_\u2014Roman _intellect_; and this\nantithesis is the differentia between Culture and Civilization. Nor is\nit only to the Classical that it applies. Again and again there appears\nthis type of strong-minded, completely non-metaphysical man, and in the\nhands of this type lies the intellectual and material destiny of each\nand every \u201clate\u201d period. Such are the men who carried through the\nBabylonian, the Egyptian, the Indian, the Chinese, the Roman\nCivilizations, and in such periods do Buddhism, Stoicism, Socialism\nripen into definitive world-conceptions which enable a moribund humanity\nto be attacked and re-formed in its intimate structure. _Pure_\nCivilization, as a historical process, consists in a progressive\n_taking-down_ of forms that have become inorganic or dead.\n\nThe transition from Culture to Civilization was accomplished for the\nClassical world in the 4th, for the Western in the 19th Century. From\nthese periods onward the great intellectual decisions take place, not as\nin the days of the Orpheus-movement or the Reformation in the \u201cwhole\nworld\u201d where not a hamlet is too small to be unimportant, but in three\nor four world-cities that have absorbed into themselves the whole\ncontent of History, while the old wide landscape of the Culture, become\nmerely provincial, serves only to feed the cities with what remains of\nits higher mankind.\n\n_World-city and province_[23]\u2014the two basic ideas of every civilization\u2014\nbring up a wholly new form-problem of History, the very problem that we\nare living through to-day with hardly the remotest conception of its\nimmensity. In place of a world, there is a _city, a point_, in which the\nwhole life of broad regions is collecting while the rest dries up. In\nplace of a type-true people, born of and grown on the soil, there is a\nnew sort of nomad, cohering unstably in fluid masses, the parasitical\ncity dweller, traditionless, utterly matter-of-fact, religionless,\nclever, unfruitful, deeply contemptuous of the countryman and especially\nthat highest form of countryman, the country gentleman. This is a very\ngreat stride towards the inorganic, towards the end\u2014what does it\nsignify? France and England have already taken the step and Germany is\nbeginning to do so. After Syracuse, Athens, and Alexandria comes Rome.\nAfter Madrid, Paris, London come Berlin and New York. It is the destiny\nof whole regions that lie outside the radiation-circle of one of these\ncities\u2014of old Crete and Macedon and to-day the Scandinavian North[24]\u2014to\nbecome \u201cprovinces.\u201d\n\nOf old, the field on which the opposed conception of an epoch came to\nbattle was some world-problem of a metaphysical, religious or dogmatic\nkind, and the battle was between the soil-genius of the countryman\n(noble, priest) and the \u201cworldly\u201d patrician genius of the famous old\nsmall towns of Doric or Gothic springtime. Of such a character were the\nconflicts over the Dionysus religion\u2014as in the tyranny of Kleisthenes of\nSikyon[25]\u2014and those of the Reformation in the German free cities and\nthe Huguenot wars. But just as these cities overcame the country-side\n(already it is a purely civic world-outlook that appears in even\nParmenides and Descartes), so in turn the world-city overcame them. It\nis the common intellectual process of later periods such as the Ionic\nand the Baroque, and to-day\u2014as in the Hellenistic age which at its\noutset saw the foundation of artificial, land-alien Alexandria\u2014Culture-\ncities like Florence, N\u00fcrnberg, Salamanca, Bruges and Prag, have become\nprovincial towns and fight inwardly a lost battle against the world-\ncities. The world-city means cosmopolitanism in place of \u201chome,\u201d[26]\ncold matter-of-fact in place of reverence for tradition and age,\nscientific irreligion as a fossil representative of the older religion\nof the heart, \u201csociety\u201d in place of the state, natural instead of hard-\nearned rights. It was in the conception of _money_ as an inorganic and\nabstract magnitude, entirely disconnected from the notion of the\nfruitful earth and the primitive values, that the Romans had the\nadvantage of the Greeks. Thenceforward any high ideal of life becomes\nlargely a question of money. Unlike the Greek stoicism of Chrysippus,\nthe Roman stoicism of Cato and Seneca presupposes a private income;[27]\nand, unlike that of the 18th Century, the social-ethical sentiment of\nthe 20th, if it is to be realized at a higher level than that of\nprofessional (and lucrative) agitation, is a matter for millionaires. To\nthe world-city belongs not a folk but a mass. Its uncomprehending\nhostility to all the traditions representative of the Culture (nobility,\nchurch, privileges, dynasties, convention in art and limits of knowledge\nin science), the keen and cold intelligence that confounds the wisdom of\nthe peasant, the new-fashioned naturalism that in relation to all\nmatters of sex and society goes back far beyond Rousseau and Socrates to\nquite primitive instincts and conditions, the reappearance of the _panem\net circenses_ in the form of wage-disputes and football-grounds\u2014all\nthese things betoken the definite closing-down of the Culture and the\nopening of a quite new phase of human existence\u2014anti-provincial, late,\nfutureless, but quite inevitable.\n\nThis is what has to be _viewed_, and viewed not with the eyes of the\npartisan, the ideologue, the up-to-date novelist, not from this or that\n\u201cstandpoint,\u201d but in a high, time-free perspective embracing whole\nmillenniums of historical world-forms, if we are really to comprehend\nthe great crisis of the present.\n\nTo me it is a symbol of the first importance that in the Rome of\nCrassus\u2014triumvir and all-powerful building-site speculator\u2014the Roman\npeople with its proud inscriptions, the people before whom Gauls,\nGreeks, Parthians, Syrians afar trembled, lived in appalling misery in\nthe many-storied lodging-houses of dark suburbs,[28] accepting with\nindifference or even with a sort of sporting interest the consequences\nof the military expansion: that many famous old-noble families,\ndescendants of the men who defeated the Celts and the Samnites, lost\ntheir ancestral homes through standing apart from the wild rush of\nspeculation and were reduced to renting wretched apartments; that, while\nalong the Appian Way there arose the splendid and still wonderful tombs\nof the financial magnates, the corpses of the people were thrown along\nwith animal carcases and town refuse into a monstrous common grave\u2014till\nin Augustus\u2019s time it was banked over for the avoidance of pestilence\nand so became the site of M\u00e6cenas\u2019s renowned park; that in depopulated\nAthens, which lived on visitors and on the bounty of rich foreigners,\nthe mob of parvenu tourists from Rome gaped at the works of the\nPericlean age with as little understanding as the American globe-trotter\nin the Sistine Chapel at those of Michelangelo, every removable art-\npiece having ere this been taken away or bought at fancy prices to be\nreplaced by the Roman buildings which grew up, colossal and arrogant, by\nthe side of the low and modest structures of the old time. In such\nthings\u2014which it is the historian\u2019s business not to praise or to blame\nbut to consider morphologically\u2014there lies, plain and immediate enough\nfor one who has learnt to see, an _idea_.\n\nFor it will become manifest that, from this moment on, all great\nconflicts of world-outlook, of politics, of art, of science, of feeling\nwill be under the influence of this one opposition. What is the hall-\nmark of a politic of Civilization to-day, in contrast to a politic of\nCulture yesterday? It is, for the Classical rhetoric, and for the\nWestern journalism, both serving that abstract which represents the\npower of Civilization\u2014_money_.[29] It is the money-spirit which\npenetrates unremarked the historical forms of the people\u2019s existence,\noften without destroying or even in the least disturbing these forms\u2014the\nform of the Roman state, for instance, underwent very much less\nalteration between the elder Scipio and Augustus than is usually\nimagined. Though forms subsist, the great political parties nevertheless\ncease to be more than reputed centres of decision. The decisions in fact\nlie elsewhere. A small number of superior heads, whose names are very\nlikely not the best-known, settle everything, while below them are the\ngreat mass of second-rate politicians\u2014rhetors, tribunes, deputies,\njournalists\u2014selected through a provincially-conceived franchise to keep\nalive the illusion of popular self-determination. And art? Philosophy?\nThe ideals of a Platonic or those of a Kantian age had for the higher\nmankind concerned a general validity. But those of a Hellenistic age, or\nthose of our own, are valid exclusively for the brain of the\nMegalopolitan. For the villager\u2019s or, generally, the nature-man\u2019s world-\nfeeling our Socialism\u2014like its near relation Darwinism (how utterly un-\nGoethian are the formul\u00e6 of \u201cstruggle for existence\u201d and \u201cnatural\nselection\u201d!), like its other relative the woman-and-marriage problem of\nIbsen, Strindberg, and Shaw, like the impressionistic tendencies of\nanarchic sensuousness and the whole bundle of modern longings,\ntemptations and pains expressed in Baudelaire\u2019s verse and Wagner\u2019s\nmusic\u2014are simply non-existent. The smaller the town, the more unmeaning\nit becomes to busy oneself with painting or with music of these kinds.\nTo the Culture belong gymnastics, the tournament, the agon, and to the\nCivilization belongs Sport. This is the true distinction between the\nHellenic pal\u00e6stra and the Roman circus.[30] Art itself becomes a sport\n(hence the phrase \u201cart for art\u2019s sake\u201d) to be played before a highly-\nintelligent audience of connoisseurs and buyers, whether the feat\nconsist in mastering absurd instrumental tone-masses and taking harmonic\nfences, or in some _tour de force_ of colouring. Then a new fact-\nphilosophy appears, which can only spare a smile for metaphysical\nspeculation, and a new literature that is a necessity of life for the\nmegalopolitan palate and nerves and both unintelligible and ugly to the\nprovincials. Neither Alexandrine poetry nor _plein-air_ painting is\nanything to the \u201cpeople.\u201d And, then as now, the phase of transition is\nmarked by a series of scandals only to be found at such moments. The\nanger evoked in the Athenian populace by Euripides and by the\n\u201cRevolutionary\u201d painting of Apollodorus, for example, is repeated in the\nopposition to Wagner, Manet, Ibsen, and Nietzsche.\n\nIt is possible to understand the Greeks without mentioning their\neconomic relations; the Romans, on the other hand, can _only_ be\nunderstood through these. Ch\u00e6ronea and Leipzig were the last battles\nfought about an idea. In the First Punic War and in 1870 economic\nmotives are no longer to be overlooked. Not till the Romans came with\ntheir practical energy was slave-holding given that big collective\ncharacter which many students regard as the die-stamp of Classical\neconomics, legislation and way of life, and which in any event vastly\nlowered both the value and the inner worthiness of such free labour as\ncontinued to exist side by side with gang-labour. And it was not the\nLatin, but the Germanic peoples of the West and America who developed\nout of the steam-engine a big industry that transformed the face of the\nland. The relation of these phenomena to Stoicism and to Socialism is\nunmistakable. Not till the Roman C\u00e6sarism\u2014foreshadowed by C. Flaminius,\nshaped first by Marius, handled by strong-minded, large-scale men of\nfact\u2014did the Classical World learn the _pre-eminence of money_. Without\nthis fact neither C\u00e6sar, nor \u201cRome\u201d generally, is understandable. In\nevery Greek is a Don Quixote, in every Roman a Sancho Panza factor, and\nthese factors are dominants.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 117 et seq.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n One cannot fail to notice this in the development of Strindberg and\n especially in that of Ibsen, who was never quite at home in the\n civilized atmosphere of his problems. The motives of \u201cBrand\u201d and\n \u201cRosmersholm\u201d are a wonderful mixture of innate provincialism and a\n theoretically-acquired megalopolitan outlook. Nora is the very type of\n the provincial derailed by reading.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n Who forbade the cult of the town\u2019s hero Adrastos and the reading of\n the Homeric poems, with the object of cutting the Doric nobility from\n its spiritual roots (c. 560 B.C.).\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n A profound word which obtains its significance as soon as the\n barbarian becomes a culture-man and loses it again as soon as the\n civilization-man takes up the motto \u201c_Ubi bene, ibi patria_.\u201d\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n Hence it was that the first to succumb to Christianity were the Romans\n who could _not afford_ to be Stoics. See Vol. II, pp. 607 et seq.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n In Rome and Byzantium, lodging-houses of six to ten stories (with\n street-widths of ten feet at most!) were built without any sort of\n official supervision, and frequently collapsed with all their inmates.\n A great part of the _cives Romani_, for whom _panem et circenses_\n constituted all existence, possessed no more than a high-priced\n sleeping-berth in one of the swarming ant-hills called _insul\u00e6_.\n (Pohlmann, _Aus Altertum und Gegenwart_, 1911, pp. 199 ff.)\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n See Vol. II, 577.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n German gymnastics, from the intensely provincial and natural forms\n imparted to it by Jahn, has since 1813 been carried by a very rapid\n development into the sport category. The difference between a Berlin\n athletic ground on a big day and a Roman circus was even by 1914 very\n slight.\n\n-----\n\n XIII\n\nConsidered in itself, the Roman world-dominion was a negative\nphenomenon, being the result not of a surplus of energy on the one side\u2014\nthat the Romans had never had since Zama\u2014but of a deficiency of\nresistance on the other. That the Romans did _not_ conquer the world is\ncertain;[31] they merely took possession of a booty that lay open to\neveryone. The _Imperium Romanum_ came into existence not as the result\nof such an extremity of military and financial effort as had\ncharacterized the Punic Wars, but because the old East forwent all\nexternal self-determinations. We must not be deluded by the appearance\nof brilliant military successes. With a few ill-trained, ill-led, and\nsullen legions, Lucullus and Pompey conquered whole realms\u2014a phenomenon\nthat in the period of the battle of Ipsus would have been unthinkable.\nThe Mithradatic danger, serious enough for a system of material force\nwhich had never been put to any real test, would have been nothing to\nthe conquerors of Hannibal. After Zama, the Romans never again either\nwaged or were capable of waging a war against a great military\nPower.[32] Their classic wars were those against the Samnites, Pyrrhus\nand Carthage. Their grand hour was Cann\u00e6. To maintain the heroic posture\nfor centuries on end is beyond the power of any people. The Prussian-\nGerman people have had three great moments (1813, 1870 and 1914), and\nthat is more than others have had.\n\nHere, then, I lay it down that _Imperialism_, of which petrifacts such\nas the Egyptian empire, the Roman, the Chinese, the Indian may continue\nto exist for hundreds or thousands of years\u2014dead bodies, amorphous and\ndispirited masses of men, scrap-material from a great history\u2014is to be\ntaken as the typical symbol of the passing away. Imperialism is\nCivilization unadulterated. In this phenomenal form the destiny of the\nWest is now irrevocably set. The energy of culture-man is directed\ninwards, that of civilization-man outwards. And thus I see in Cecil\nRhodes the first man of a new age. He stands for the political style of\na far-ranging, Western, Teutonic and especially German future, and his\nphrase \u201cexpansion is everything\u201d is the Napoleonic reassertion of the\nindwelling tendency of _every_ Civilization that has fully ripened\u2014\nRoman, Arab or Chinese. It is not a matter of choice\u2014it is not the\nconscious will of individuals, or even that of whole classes or peoples\nthat decides. The expansive tendency is a doom, something daemonic and\nimmense, which grips, forces into service, and uses up the late mankind\nof the world-city stage, willy-nilly, aware or unaware.[33] Life is the\nprocess of effecting possibilities, and for the brain-man there are\n_only extensive_ possibilities.[34] Hard as the half-developed Socialism\nof to-day is fighting against expansion, one day it will become arch-\nexpansionist with all the vehemence of destiny. Here the form-language\nof politics, as the direct intellectual expression of a certain type of\nhumanity, touches on a deep metaphysical problem\u2014on the fact, affirmed\nin the grant of unconditional validity to the causality-principle, that\n_the soul is the complement of its extension_.\n\nWhen, between 480 and 230,[35] the Chinese group of states was tending\ntowards imperialism, it was entirely futile to combat the principle of\nImperialism (Lien-heng), practised in particular by the \u201cRoman\u201d state of\nTsin[36] and theoretically represented by the philosopher Dschang Yi, by\nideas of a League of Nations (Hoh-tsung) largely derived from Wang H\u00fc, a\nprofound sceptic who had no illusions as to the men or the political\npossibilities of this \u201clate\u201d period. Both sides opposed the anti-\npolitical idealism of Lao-tse, but as between themselves it was Lien-\nheng and not Hoh-tsung which swam with the natural current of expansive\nCivilization.[37]\n\nRhodes is to be regarded as the first precursor of a Western type of\nC\u00e6sars, whose day is to come though yet distant. He stands midway\nbetween Napoleon and the force-men of the next centuries, just as\nFlaminius, who from 232 B.C. onward pressed the Romans to undertake the\nsubjugation of Cisalpine Gaul and so initiated the policy of colonial\nexpansion, stands between Alexander and C\u00e6sar. Strictly speaking,\nFlaminius was a private person\u2014for his real power was of a kind not\nembodied in any constitutional office\u2014who exercised a dominant influence\nin the state at a time when the state-idea was giving way to the\npressure of economic factors. So far as Rome is concerned, he was the\narchetype of opposition C\u00e6sarism; with him there came to an end the\n_idea of state-service_ and there began the \u201cwill to power\u201d which\nignored traditions and reckoned only with forces. Alexander and Napoleon\nwere romantics; though they stood on the threshold of Civilization and\nin its cold clear air, the one fancied himself an Achilles and the other\nread Werther. C\u00e6sar, on the contrary, was a pure man of fact gifted with\nimmense understanding.\n\nBut even for Rhodes political success means territorial and financial\nsuccess, and only that. Of this Roman-ness within himself he was fully\naware. But Western Civilization has not yet taken shape in such strength\nand purity as this. It was only before his maps that he could fall into\na sort of poetic trance, this son of the parsonage who, sent out to\nSouth Africa without means, made a gigantic fortune and employed it as\nthe engine of political aims. His idea of a trans-African railway from\nthe Cape to Cairo, his project of a South African empire, his\nintellectual hold on the hard metal souls of the mining magnates whose\nwealth he forced into the service of his schemes, his capital Bulawayo,\nroyally planned as a future Residence by a statesman who was all-\npowerful yet stood in no definite relation to the State, his wars, his\ndiplomatic deals, his road-systems, his syndicates, his armies, his\nconception of the \u201cgreat duty to civilization\u201d of the man of brain\u2014all\nthis, broad and imposing, is the prelude of a future which is still in\nstore for us and with which the history of West-European mankind will be\ndefinitely _closed_.\n\nHe who does not understand that this outcome is obligatory and\ninsusceptible of modification, that our choice is between willing _this_\nand willing nothing at all, between cleaving to _this_ destiny or\ndespairing of the future and of life itself; he who cannot feel that\nthere is grandeur also in the realizations of powerful intelligences, in\nthe energy and discipline of metal-hard natures, in battles fought with\nthe coldest and most abstract means; he who is obsessed with the\nidealism of a provincial and would pursue the ways of life of past ages\u2014\nmust forgo all desire to comprehend history, to live through history or\nto make history.\n\nThus regarded, the Imperium Romanum appears no longer as an isolated\nphenomenon, but as the normal product of a strict and energetic,\nmegalopolitan, predominantly practical spirituality, as typical of a\nfinal and irreversible condition which has occurred often enough though\nit has only been identified as such in this instance.\n\nLet it be realized, then:\n\nThat the secret of historical form does not lie on the surface, that it\ncannot be grasped by means of similarities of costume and setting, and\nthat in the history of men as in that of animals and plants there occur\nphenomena showing deceptive similarity but inwardly without any\nconnexion\u2014e.g., Charlemagne and Haroun-al-Raschid, Alexander and C\u00e6sar,\nthe German wars upon Rome and the Mongol onslaughts upon West Europe\u2014and\nother phenomena of extreme outward dissimilarity but of identical\nimport\u2014e.g., Trajan and Rameses II, the Bourbons and the Attic Demos,\nMohammed and Pythagoras.\n\nThat the 19th and 20th centuries, hitherto looked on as the highest\npoint of an ascending straight line of world-history, are in reality a\nstage of life which may be observed in every Culture that has ripened to\nits limit\u2014a stage of life characterized not by Socialists,\nImpressionists, electric railways, torpedoes and differential equations\n(for these are only body-constituents of the time), but by a civilized\nspirituality which possesses not only these but also quite other\ncreative possibilities.\n\nThat, as our own time represents a transitional phase which occurs with\ncertainty under particular conditions, there are perfectly well-defined\nstates (such as have occurred more than once in the history of the past)\n_later_ than the present-day state of West Europe, and therefore that\n\nThe future of the West is not a limitless tending upwards and onwards\nfor all time towards our present ideals, but a single phenomenon of\nhistory, strictly limited and defined as to form and duration, which\ncovers a few centuries and can be viewed and, in essentials, calculated\nfrom available precedents.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n See Vol. II, 529.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n The conquest of Gaul by C\u00e6sar was frankly a colonial, i.e., a one-\n sided, war; and the fact that it is the highest achievement in the\n later military history of Rome only shows that the well of real\n achievement was rapidly drying up.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n The modern Germans are a conspicuous example of a people that has\n become expansive without knowing it or willing it. They were already\n in that state while they still believed themselves to be the people of\n Goethe. Even Bismarck, the founder of the new age, never had the\n slightest idea of it, and believed himself to have reached the\n _conclusion_ of a political process (cf. Vol. II, 529).\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n This is probably the meaning of Napoleon\u2019s significant words to\n Goethe: \u201cWhat have we to-day to do with destiny? Policy is destiny.\u201d\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n Corresponding to the 300-50 B.C. phase of the Classical world.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n Which in the end gave its name to the Empire (Tsin = China).\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n See Vol. II, 521-539.\n\n-----\n\n XIV\n\nThis high plane of contemplation once attained, the rest is easy. To\nthis _single_ idea one can refer, and by it one can solve, without\nstraining or forcing, all those separate problems of religion, art-\nhistory, epistemology, ethics, politics, economics with which the modern\nintellect has so passionately\u2014and so vainly\u2014busied itself for decades.\n\nThis idea is one of those truths that have only to be expressed with\nfull clarity to become indisputable. It is one of the inward necessities\nof the Western Culture and of its world-feeling. It is capable of\nentirely transforming the world-outlook of one who fully understands it,\ni.e., makes it intimately his own. It immensely deepens the world-\npicture natural and necessary to us in that, already trained to regard\nworld-historical evolution as an organic unit seen backwards from our\nstandpoint in the present, we are enabled by its aid to follow the broad\nlines into the future\u2014a privilege of dream-calculation till now\npermitted only to the physicist. It is, I repeat, in effect the\nsubstitution of a Copernican for a Ptolemaic aspect of history, that is,\nan immeasurable widening of horizon.\n\nUp to now everyone has been at liberty to hope what he pleased about the\nfuture. Where there are no facts, sentiment rules. But henceforward it\nwill be every man\u2019s business to inform himself of what _can_ happen and\ntherefore of what with the unalterable necessity of destiny and\nirrespective of personal ideals, hopes or desires, _will_ happen. When\nwe use the risky word \u201cfreedom\u201d we shall mean freedom to do, not this or\nthat, but the necessary or nothing. The feeling that this is \u201cjust as it\nshould be\u201d is the hall-mark of the man of fact. To lament it and blame\nit is not to alter it. To birth belongs death, to youth age, to life\ngenerally its form and its allotted span. The present is a civilized,\nemphatically not a cultured time, and _ipso facto_ a great number of\nlife-capacities fall out as impossible. This may be deplorable, and may\nbe and will be deplored in pessimist philosophy and poetry, but it is\nnot in our power to make otherwise. It will not be\u2014already it is not\u2014\npermissible to defy clear historical experience and to expect, merely\nbecause we hope, that this will spring or that will flourish.\n\nIt will no doubt be objected that such a world-outlook, which in giving\nthis certainty as to the outlines and tendency of the future cuts off\nall far-reaching hopes, would be unhealthy for all and fatal for many,\nonce it ceased to be a mere theory and was adopted as a practical scheme\nof life by the group of personalities effectively moulding the future.\n\nSuch is not my opinion. We are civilized, not Gothic or Rococo, people;\nwe have to reckon with the hard cold facts of a _late_ life, to which\nthe parallel is to be found not in Pericles\u2019s Athens but in C\u00e6sar\u2019s\nRome. Of great painting or great music there can no longer be, for\nWestern people, any question. Their architectural possibilities have\nbeen exhausted these hundred years. Only _extensive_ possibilities are\nleft to them. Yet, for a sound and vigorous generation that is filled\nwith unlimited hopes, I fail to see that it is any disadvantage to\ndiscover betimes that some of these hopes must come to nothing. And if\nthe hopes thus doomed should be those most dear, well, a man who is\nworth anything will not be dismayed. It is true that the issue may be a\ntragic one for some individuals who in their decisive years are\noverpowered by the conviction that in the spheres of architecture,\ndrama, painting, there is nothing left for _them_ to conquer. What\nmatter if they do go under! It has been the convention hitherto to admit\nno limits of any sort in these matters, and to believe that each period\nhad its own task to do in each sphere. Tasks therefore were found by\nhook or by crook, leaving it to be settled posthumously whether or not\nthe artist\u2019s faith was justified and his life-work necessary. Now,\nnobody but a pure romantic would take this way out. Such a pride is not\nthe pride of a Roman. What are we to think of the individual who,\nstanding before an exhausted quarry, would rather be told that a new\nvein will be struck to-morrow\u2014the bait offered by the radically false\nand mannerized art of the moment\u2014than be shown a rich and virgin clay-\nbed near by? The lesson, I think, would be of benefit to the coming\ngenerations, as showing them what is possible\u2014and therefore necessary\u2014\nand what is excluded from the inward potentialities of their time.\nHitherto an incredible total of intellect and power has been squandered\nin false directions. The West-European, however historically he may\nthink and feel, is at a certain stage of life invariably uncertain of\nhis own direction; he gropes and feels his way and, if unlucky in\nenvironment, he loses it. But now at last the work of centuries enables\nhim to view the disposition of his own life in relation to the general\nculture-scheme and to test his own powers and purposes. And I can only\nhope that men of the new generation may be moved by this book to devote\nthemselves to technics instead of lyrics, the sea instead of the paint-\nbrush, and politics instead of epistemology. Better they could not do.\n\n\n XV\n\nIt still remains to consider the relation of a morphology of world-\nhistory to Philosophy. All genuine historical work is philosophy, unless\nit is mere ant-industry. But the operations of the systematic\nphilosopher are subject to constant and serious error through his\nassuming the permanence of his results. He overlooks the fact that every\nthought lives in a historical world and is therefore involved in the\ncommon destiny of mortality. He supposes that higher thought possesses\nan everlasting and unalterable objectiveness (Gegenstand), that the\ngreat questions of all epochs are identical, and that therefore they are\ncapable in the last analysis of unique answers.\n\nBut question and answer are here one, and the great questions are made\ngreat by the very fact that unequivocal answers to them are so\npassionately demanded, so that it is as life-symbols only that they\npossess significance. There are no eternal truths. Every philosophy is\nthe expression of its own and only its own time, and\u2014if by philosophy we\nmean effective philosophy and not academic triflings about judgment-\nforms, sense-categories and the like\u2014no two ages possess the same\nphilosophic intentions. The difference is not between perishable and\nimperishable doctrines but between doctrines which live their day and\ndoctrines which never live at all. The immortality of thoughts-become is\nan illusion\u2014the essential is, what kind of man comes to expression in\nthem. The greater the man, the truer the philosophy, with the inward\ntruth that in a great work of art transcends all proof of its several\nelements or even of their compatibility with one another. At highest,\nthe philosophy may absorb the entire content of an epoch, realize it\nwithin itself and then, embodying it in some grand form or personality,\npass it on to be developed further and further. The scientific dress or\nthe mark of learning adopted by a philosophy is here unimportant.\nNothing is simpler than to make good poverty of ideas by founding a\nsystem, and even a good idea has little value when enunciated by a\nsolemn ass. Only its necessity to life decides the eminence of a\ndoctrine.\n\nFor me, therefore, the test of value to be applied to a thinker is his\neye for the great facts of his own time. Only this can settle whether he\nis merely a clever architect of systems and principles, versed in\ndefinitions and analyses, or whether it is the very soul of his time\nthat speaks in his works and his intuitions. A philosopher who cannot\ngrasp and command actuality as well will never be of the first rank. The\nPre-Socratics were merchants and politicians _en grand_. The desire to\nput his political ideas into practice in Syracuse nearly cost Plato his\nlife, and it was the same Plato who discovered the set of geometrical\ntheorems that enabled Euclid to build up the Classical system of\nmathematics. Pascal\u2014whom Nietzsche knows only as the \u201cbroken Christian\u201d\u2014\nDescartes, Leibniz were the first mathematicians and technicians of\ntheir time.\n\nThe great \u201cPre-Socratics\u201d of China from Kwan-tsi (about 670) to\nConfucius (550-478) were statesmen, regents, lawgivers like Pythagoras\nand Parmenides, like Hobbes and Leibniz. With Lao-tsze\u2014the opponent of\nall state authority and high politics and the enthusiast of small\npeaceful communities\u2014unworldliness and deed-shyness first appear,\nheralds of lecture-room and study philosophy. But Lao-tsze was in his\ntime, the _ancien r\u00e9gime_ of China, an exception in the midst of sturdy\nphilosophers for whom epistemology meant the knowledge of the important\nrelations of actual life.\n\nAnd herein, I think, all the philosophers of the newest age are open to\na serious criticism. What they do not possess is real standing in actual\nlife. Not one of them has intervened effectively, either in higher\npolitics, in the development of modern technics, in matters of\ncommunication, in economics, or in any other _big_ actuality, with a\nsingle act or a single compelling idea. Not one of them counts in\nmathematics, in physics, in the science of government, even to the\nextent that Kant counted. Let us glance at other times. Confucius was\nseveral times a minister. Pythagoras was the organizer of an important\npolitical movement[38] akin to the Cromwellian, the significance of\nwhich is even now far underestimated by Classical researchers. Goethe,\nbesides being a model executive minister\u2014though lacking, alas! the\noperative sphere of a great state\u2014was interested in the Suez and Panama\ncanals (the dates of which he foresaw with accuracy) and their effects\non the economy of the world, and he busied himself again and again with\nthe question of American economic life and its reactions on the Old\nWorld, and with that of the dawning era of machine-industry. Hobbes was\none of the originators of the great plan of winning South America for\nEngland, and although in execution the plan went no further than the\noccupation of Jamaica, he has the glory of being one of the founders of\nthe British Colonial Empire. Leibniz, without doubt the greatest\nintellect in Western philosophy, the founder of the differential\ncalculus and the _analysis situs_, conceived or co-operated in a number\nof major political schemes, one of which was to relieve Germany by\ndrawing the attention of Louis XIV to the importance of Egypt as a\nfactor in French world-policy. The ideas of the memorandum on this\nsubject that he drew up for the Grand Monarch were so far in advance of\ntheir time (1672) that it has been thought that Napoleon made use of\nthem for his Eastern venture. Even thus early, Leibniz laid down the\nprinciple that Napoleon grasped more and more clearly after Wagram,\nviz., that acquisitions on the Rhine and in Belgium would not\npermanently better the position of France and that the neck of Suez\nwould one day be the key of world-dominance. Doubtless the King was not\nequal to these deep political and strategic conceptions of the\nPhilosopher.\n\nTurning from men of this mould to the \u201cphilosophers\u201d of to-day, one is\ndismayed and shamed. How poor their personalities, how commonplace their\npolitical and practical outlook! Why is it that the mere idea of calling\nupon one of them to prove his intellectual eminence in government,\ndiplomacy, large-scale organization, or direction of any big colonial,\ncommercial or transport concern is enough to evoke our pity? And this\ninsufficiency indicates, not that they possess inwardness, but simply\nthat they lack weight. I look round in vain for an instance in which a\nmodern \u201cphilosopher\u201d has made a name by even one deep or far-seeing\npronouncement on an important question of the day. I see nothing but\nprovincial opinions of the same kind as anyone else\u2019s. Whenever I take\nup a work by a modern thinker, I find myself asking: has he any idea\nwhatever of the actualities of world-politics, world-city problems,\ncapitalism, the future of the state, the relation of technics to the\ncourse of civilization, Russia, Science? Goethe would have understood\nall this and revelled in it, but there is not one living philosopher\ncapable of taking it in. This sense of actualities is of course not the\nsame thing as the content of a philosophy but, I repeat, it is an\ninfallible symptom of its inward necessity, its fruitfulness and its\nsymbolic importance.\n\nWe must allow ourselves no illusions as to the gravity of this negative\nresult. It is palpable that we have lost sight of the final significance\nof effective philosophy. We confuse philosophy with preaching, with\nagitation, with novel-writing, with lecture-room jargon. We have\ndescended from the perspective of the bird to that of the frog. It has\ncome to this, that the very _possibility_ of a real philosophy of to-day\nand to-morrow is in question. If not, it were far better to become a\ncolonist or an engineer, to do something, no matter what, that is true\nand real, than to chew over once more the old dried-up themes under\ncover of an alleged \u201cnew wave of philosophic thought\u201d\u2014far better to\nconstruct an aero-engine than a new theory of apperception that is not\nwanted. Truly it is a poor life\u2019s work to restate once more, in slightly\ndifferent terms, views of a hundred predecessors on the Will or on\npsycho-physical parallelism. This may be a profession, but a philosophy\nit emphatically is not. A doctrine that does not attack and affect the\nlife of the period in its inmost depths is no doctrine and had better\nnot be taught. And what was possible even yesterday is, to-day, at least\nnot indispensable.\n\nTo me, the depths and refinement of mathematical and physical theories\nare a joy; by comparison, the \u00e6sthete and the physiologist are fumblers.\nI would sooner have the fine mind-begotten forms of a fast steamer, a\nsteel structure, a precision-lathe, the subtlety and elegance of many\nchemical and optical processes, than all the pickings and stealings of\npresent-day \u201carts and crafts,\u201d architecture and painting included. I\nprefer one Roman aqueduct to all Roman temples and statues. I love the\nColosseum and the giant vault of the Palatine, for they display for me\nto-day in the brown massiveness of their brick construction the _real_\nRome and the grand practical sense of her engineers, but it is a matter\nof indifference to me whether the empty and pretentious marblery of the\nC\u00e6sars\u2014their rows of statuary, their friezes, their overloaded\narchitraves\u2014is preserved or not. Glance at some reconstruction of the\nImperial Fora\u2014do we not find them the true counterpart of a modern\nInternational Exhibition, obtrusive, bulky, empty, a boasting in\nmaterials and dimensions wholly alien to Periclean Greece and the Rococo\nalike, but exactly paralleled in the Egyptian modernism that is\ndisplayed in the ruins of Rameses II (1300 B.C.) at Luxor and Karnak? It\nwas not for nothing that the genuine Roman despised the _Gr\u00e6culus\nhistrio_, the kind of \u201cartist\u201d and the kind of \u201cphilosopher\u201d to be found\non the soil of Roman Civilization. The time for art and philosophy had\npassed; they were exhausted, used up, superfluous, and his instinct for\nthe realities of life told him so. _One_ Roman law weighed more than all\nthe lyrics and school-metaphysics of the time together. And I maintain\nthat to-day many an inventor, many a diplomat, many a financier is a\nsounder philosopher than all those who practise the dull craft of\nexperimental psychology. This is a situation which regularly repeats\nitself at a certain historical level. It would have been absurd in a\nRoman of intellectual eminence, who might as Consul or Pr\u00e6tor lead\narmies, organize provinces, build cities and roads, or even be the\nPrinceps in Rome, to want to hatch out some new variant of post-Platonic\nschool philosophy at Athens or Rhodes. Consequently no one did so. It\nwas not in harmony with the tendency of the age, and therefore it only\nattracted third-class men of the kind that always advances as far as the\n_Zeitgeist_ of the day before yesterday. It is a very grave question\nwhether this stage has or has not set in for us already.\n\nA century of purely extensive effectiveness, excluding big artistic and\nmetaphysical production\u2014let us say frankly an irreligious time which\ncoincides exactly with the idea of the world-city\u2014is a time of decline.\nTrue. But we have not _chosen_ this time. We cannot help it if we are\nborn as men of the early winter of full Civilization, instead of on the\ngolden summit of a ripe Culture, in a Phidias or a Mozart time.\nEverything depends on our seeing our own position, our _destiny_,\nclearly, on our realizing that though we may lie to ourselves about it\nwe cannot evade it. He who does not acknowledge this in his heart,\nceases to be counted among the men of his generation, and remains either\na simpleton, a charlatan, or a pedant.\n\nTherefore, in approaching a problem of the present, one must begin by\nasking one\u2019s self\u2014a question answered in advance by instinct in the case\nof the genuine adept\u2014what to-day is possible and what he must forbid\nhimself. Only a very few of the problems of metaphysics are, so to say,\nallocated for solution to any epoch of thought. Even thus soon, a whole\nworld separates Nietzsche\u2019s time, in which a last trace of romanticism\nwas still operative, from our own, which has shed every vestige of it.\n\nSystematic philosophy closes with the end of the 18th Century. Kant put\nits utmost possibilities in forms both grand in themselves and\u2014as a\nrule\u2014final for the Western soul. He is followed, as Plato and Aristotle\nwere followed, by a specifically megalopolitan philosophy that was not\nspeculative but practical, irreligious, social-ethical. This philosophy\u2014\nparalleled in the Chinese civilization by the schools of the \u201cEpicurean\u201d\nYang-chu, the \u201cSocialist\u201d Mo-ti, the \u201cPessimist\u201d Chuang-ts\u00fc, the\n\u201cPositivist\u201d Mencius, and in the Classical by the Cynics, the Cyrenaics,\nthe Stoics and the Epicureans\u2014begins in the West with Schopenhauer, who\nis the first to make the _Will to life_ (\u201ccreative life-force\u201d) the\ncentre of gravity of his thought, although the deeper tendency of his\ndoctrine is obscured by his having, under the influence of a great\ntradition, maintained the obsolete distinctions of phenomena and things-\nin-themselves and suchlike. It is the same creative will-to-life that\nwas Schopenhauer-wise denied in \u201cTristan\u201d and Darwin-wise asserted in\n\u201cSiegfried\u201d; that was brilliantly and theatrically formulated by\nNietzsche in \u201cZarathustra\u201d; that led the Hegelian Marx to an economic\nand the Malthusian Darwin to a biological hypothesis which together have\nsubtly transformed the world-outlook of the Western megalopolis; and\nthat produced a homogeneous series of tragedy-conceptions extending from\nHebbel\u2019s \u201cJudith\u201d to Ibsen\u2019s \u201cEpilogue.\u201d It has embraced, therefore, all\nthe possibilities of a true philosophy\u2014and at the same time it has\nexhausted them.\n\nSystematic philosophy, then, lies immensely far behind us, and ethical\nhas been wound up. _But a third possibility, corresponding to the\nClassical Scepticism, still remains to the soul-world_ of the present-\nday West, and it can be brought to light by the hitherto unknown methods\nof historical morphology. That which is a possibility is a necessity.\nThe Classical scepticism is ahistoric, it doubts by denying outright.\nBut that of the West, if it is an inward necessity, a symbol of the\nautumn of our spirituality, is obliged to be historical through and\nthrough. Its solutions are got by treating everything as relative, as a\nhistorical phenomenon, and its procedure is psychological. Whereas the\nSceptic philosophy arose within Hellenism as the negation of philosophy\u2014\ndeclaring philosophy to be purposeless\u2014we, on the contrary, regard the\n_history of philosophy_ as, in the last resort, philosophy\u2019s gravest\ntheme. This _is_ \u201cskepsis,\u201d in the true sense, for whereas the Greek is\nled to renounce absolute standpoints by contempt for the intellectual\npast, we are led to do so by comprehension of that past as an organism.\n\nIn this work it will be our task to sketch out this unphilosophical\nphilosophy\u2014the last that West Europe will know. Scepticism is the\nexpression of a pure Civilization; and it dissipates the world-picture\nof the Culture that has gone before. For us, its success will lie in\nresolving all the older problems into one, the genetic. The conviction\nthat what _is_ also _has become_, that the natural and cognizable is\nrooted in the historic, that the World as the actual is founded on an\nEgo as the potential actualized, that the \u201cwhen\u201d and the \u201chow long\u201d hold\nas deep a secret as the \u201cwhat,\u201d leads directly to the fact that\neverything, whatever else it may be, must at any rate be _the expression\nof something living_. Cognitions and judgments too are acts of living\nmen. The thinkers of the past conceived external actuality as produced\nby cognition and motiving ethical judgments, but to the thought of the\nfuture they are above all _expressions and symbols. The Morphology of\nworld-history becomes inevitably a universal symbolism._\n\nWith that, the claim of higher thought to possess general and eternal\ntruths falls to the ground. Truths are truths only in relation to a\nparticular mankind. Thus, my own philosophy is able to express and\nreflect _only_ the Western (as distinct from the Classical, Indian, or\nother) soul, and that soul _only_ in its present civilized phase by\nwhich its conception of the world, its practical range and its sphere of\neffect are specified.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n See Vol. II, 373 ff.\n\n-----\n\n XVI\n\nIn concluding this Introduction, I may be permitted to add a personal\nnote. In 1911, I proposed to myself to put together some broad\nconsiderations on the political phenomena of the day and their possible\ndevelopments. At that time the World-War appeared to me both as imminent\nand also as the inevitable outward manifestation of the historical\ncrisis, and my endeavour was to comprehend it from an examination of the\nspirit of the preceding centuries\u2014not years. In the course of this\noriginally small task,[39] the conviction forced itself on me that for\nan effective understanding of the epoch the area to be taken into the\nfoundation-plan must be very greatly enlarged, and that in an\ninvestigation of this sort, if the results were to be fundamentally\nconclusive and necessary results, it was impossible to restrict one\u2019s\nself to a single epoch and its political actualities, or to confine\none\u2019s self to a pragmatical framework, or even to do without purely\nmetaphysical and highly transcendental methods of treatment. It became\nevident that a political problem could not be comprehended by means of\npolitics themselves and that, frequently, important factors at work in\nthe depths could only be grasped through their artistic manifestations\nor even distantly seen in the form of scientific or purely philosophical\nideas. Even the politico-social analysis of the last decades of the 19th\ncentury\u2014a period of tense quiet between two immense and outstanding\nevents: the one which, expressed in the Revolution and Napoleon, had\nfixed the picture of West-European actuality for a century and another\nof at least equal significance that was visibly and ever more rapidly\napproaching\u2014was found in the last resort to be impossible without\nbringing in _all_ the great problems of Being in all their aspects. For,\nin the historical as in the natural world-picture, there is found\nnothing, however small, that does not embody in itself the entire sum of\nfundamental tendencies. And thus the original theme came to be immensely\nwidened. A vast number of unexpected (and in the main entirely novel)\nquestions and interrelations presented themselves. And finally it became\nperfectly clear that no single fragment of history could be thoroughly\nilluminated unless and until the secret of world-history itself, to wit\nthe story of higher mankind as an organism of regular structure, had\nbeen cleared up. And hitherto this has not been done, even in the least\ndegree.\n\nFrom this moment on, relations and connexions\u2014previously often\nsuspected, sometimes touched on but never comprehended\u2014presented\nthemselves in ever-increasing volume. The forms of the arts linked\nthemselves to the forms of war and state-policy. Deep relations were\nrevealed between political and mathematical aspects of the same Culture,\nbetween religious and technical conceptions, between mathematics, music\nand sculpture, between economics and cognition-forms. Clearly and\nunmistakably there appeared the fundamental dependence of the most\nmodern physical and chemical theories on the mythological concepts of\nour Germanic ancestors, the style-congruence of tragedy and power-\ntechnics and up-to-date finance, and the fact (bizarre at first but soon\nself-evident) that oil-painting perspective, printing, the credit\nsystem, longrange weapons, and contrapuntal music in one case, and the\nnude statue, the city-state and coin-currency (discovered by the Greeks)\nin another were identical expressions of one and the same spiritual\nprinciple. And, beyond and above all, there stood out the fact that\nthese great _groups of morphological relations_, each one of which\nsymbolically represents a particular sort of mankind in the whole\npicture of world-history, are strictly symmetrical in structure. It is\nthis perspective that first opens out for us the true style of history.\nBelonging itself as symbol and expression to one time and therefore\ninwardly possible and necessary only for present-day Western man, it can\nbut be compared\u2014distantly\u2014to certain ideas of ultra-modern mathematics\nin the domain of the Theory of Groups. These were thoughts that had\noccupied me for many years, though dark and undefined until enabled by\nthis method to emerge in tangible form.\n\nThereafter I saw the present\u2014the approaching World-War\u2014in a quite other\nlight. It was no longer a momentary constellation of casual facts due to\nnational sentiments, personal influences, or economic tendencies endowed\nwith an appearance of unity and necessity by some historian\u2019s scheme of\npolitical or social cause-and-effect, but the type of _a historical\nchange of phase_ occurring within a great historical organism of\ndefinable compass at the point preordained for it hundreds of years ago.\nThe mark of the great crisis is its innumerable passionate questionings\nand probings. In our own case there were books and ideas by the\nthousand; but, scattered, disconnected, limited by the horizons of\nspecialisms as they were, they incited, depressed and confounded but\ncould not free. Hence, though these questions are seen, their identity\nis missed. Consider those art-problems that (though never comprehended\nin their depths) were evinced in the disputes between form and content,\nline and space, drawing and colour, in the notion of style, in the idea\nof Impressionism and the music of Wagner. Consider the decline of art\nand the failing authority of science; the grave problems arising out of\nthe victory of the megalopolis over the country-side, such as\nchildlessness and land-depopulation; the place in society of a\nfluctuating Fourth Estate; the crisis in materialism, in Socialism, in\nparliamentary government; the position of the individual _vis-\u00e0-vis_ the\nState; the problem of private property with its pendant the problem of\nmarriage. Consider at the same time one fact taken from what is\napparently an entirely different field, the voluminous work that was\nbeing done in the domain of folk-psychology on the origins of myths,\narts, religions and thought\u2014and done, moreover, no longer from an ideal\nbut from a strictly morphological standpoint. It is my belief that every\none of these questions was really aimed in the same direction as every\nother, viz., towards that _one_ Riddle of History that had never yet\nemerged with sufficient distinctness in the human consciousness. The\ntasks before men were not, as supposed, infinitely numerous\u2014they were\none and the same task. Everyone had an inkling that this was so, but no\none from his own narrow standpoint had seen the single and comprehensive\nsolution. And yet it had been in the air since Nietzsche, and Nietzsche\nhimself had gripped all the decisive problems although, being a\nromantic, he had not dared to look strict reality in the face.\n\nBut herein precisely lies the inward necessity of the _stock-taking_\ndoctrine, so to call it. It had to come, and it could only come at this\ntime. Our scepticism is not an attack upon, but rather the verification\nof, our stock of thoughts and works. It _confirms_ all that has been\nsought and achieved for generations past, in that it integrates all the\ntruly living tendencies which it finds in the special spheres, no matter\nwhat their aim may be.\n\nAbove all, there discovered itself the _opposition of History and\nNature_ through which alone it is possible to grasp the essence of the\nformer. As I have already said, man as an element and representative of\nthe World is a member, not only of nature, but also of history\u2014which is\na second Cosmos different in structure and complexion, entirely\nneglected by Metaphysics in favour of the first. I was originally\nbrought to reflect on this _fundamental_ question of our world-\nconsciousness through noticing how present-day historians as they fumble\nround tangible events, things-become, believe themselves to have already\ngrasped History, the happening, the becoming itself. This is a prejudice\ncommon to all who proceed by reason and cognition, as against intuitive\nperception.[40] And it had long ago been a source of perplexity to the\ngreat Eleatics with their doctrine that through cognition there could be\nno becoming, but only a being (or having-become). In other words,\nHistory was seen as Nature (in the objective sense of the physicist) and\ntreated accordingly, and it is to this that we must ascribe the baneful\nmistake of applying the principles of causality, of law, of system\u2014that\nis, the structure of rigid being\u2014to the picture of happenings. It was\nassumed that a human culture existed just as electricity or gravitation\nexisted, and that it was capable of analysis in much the same way as\nthese. The habits of the scientific researcher were eagerly taken as a\nmodel, and if, from time to time, some student asked what Gothic, or\nIslam, or the Polis _was_, no one inquired why such symbols of something\nliving _inevitably_ appeared just _then, and there, in that form, and\nfor that space of time_. Historians were content, whenever they met one\nof the innumerable similarities between widely discrete historical\nphenomena, simply to register it, adding some clever remarks as to the\nmarvels of coincidence, dubbing Rhodes the \u201cVenice of Antiquity\u201d and\nNapoleon the \u201cmodern Alexander,\u201d or the like; yet it was just these\ncases, in which the _destiny-problem_ came to the fore as the true\nproblem of history (viz., the problem of time), that needed to be\ntreated with all possible seriousness and scientifically regulated\n_physiognomic_ in order to find out what strangely-constituted\nnecessity, so completely alien to the causal, was at work. That every\nphenomenon _ipso facto_ propounds a metaphysical riddle, that the time\nof its occurrence is _never_ irrelevant; that it still remained to be\ndiscovered what kind of a _living_ interdependence (apart from the\ninorganic, natural-law interdependence) subsists within the world-\npicture, which radiates from nothing less than the whole man and not\nmerely (as Kant thought) from the cognizing part of him; that a\nphenomenon is not only a fact for the understanding but also an\nexpression of the spiritual, not only an object but a symbol as well, be\nit one of the highest creations of religion or art or a mere trifle of\neveryday life\u2014all this was, philosophically, something new.\n\nAnd thus in the end I came to see the solution clearly before me in\nimmense outlines, possessed of full inward necessity, a solution derived\nfrom one single principle that though discoverable had never been\ndiscovered, that from my youth had haunted and attracted me, tormenting\nme with the sense that it was there and must be attacked and yet defying\nme to seize it. Thus, from an almost accidental occasion of beginning,\nthere has arisen the present work, which is put forward as the\nprovisional expression of a new world-picture. The book is laden, as I\nknow, with all the defects of a first attempt, incomplete, and certainly\nnot free from inconsistencies. Nevertheless I am convinced that it\ncontains the incontrovertible formulation of an idea which, once\nenunciated clearly, will (I repeat) be accepted without dispute.\n\nIf, then, the narrower theme is an analysis of the Decline of that West-\nEuropean Culture which is now spread over the entire globe, yet the\nobject in view is the development of a philosophy and of the operative\nmethod peculiar to it, which is now to be tried, viz., the method of\ncomparative morphology in world-history. The work falls naturally into\ntwo parts. The first, \u201cForm and Actuality,\u201d starts from the form-\nlanguage of the great Cultures, attempts to penetrate to the deepest\nroots of their origin and so provides itself with the basis for a\nscience of Symbolic. The second part, \u201cWorld-historical Perspectives,\u201d\nstarts from the _facts of actual life_, and from the historical practice\nof higher mankind seeks to obtain a quintessence of historical\nexperience that we can set to work upon the formation of our own future.\n\nThe accompanying tables[41] present a general view of what has resulted\nfrom the investigation. They may at the same time give some notion both\nof the fruitfulness and of the scope of the new methods.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n THE MEANING OF NUMBERS\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n THE MEANING OF NUMBERS\n\n\nIt is necessary to begin by drawing attention to certain basic terms\nwhich, as used in this work, carry strict and in some cases novel\nconnotations. Though the metaphysical content of these terms would\ngradually become evident in following the course of the reasoning,\nnevertheless, the exact significance to be attached to them ought to be\nmade clear beyond misunderstanding from the very outset.\n\nThe popular distinction\u2014current also in philosophy\u2014between \u201cbeing\u201d and\n\u201cbecoming\u201d seems to miss the essential point in the contrast it is meant\nto express. An endless becoming\u2014\u201caction,\u201d \u201cactuality\u201d\u2014will always be\nthought of also as a condition (as it is, for example, in physical\nnotions such as uniform velocity and the condition of motion, and in the\nbasic hypothesis of the kinetic theory of gases) and therefore ranked in\nthe category of \u201cbeing.\u201d On the other hand, out of the results that we\ndo in fact obtain by and in consciousness, we may, with Goethe,\ndistinguish as final elements \u201cbecoming\u201d and \u201cthe become\u201d (_Das Werden_,\n_das Gewordne_). In all cases, though the atom of human-ness may lie\nbeyond the grasp of our powers of abstract conception, the very clear\nand definite _feeling_ of this contrast\u2014fundamental and diffused\nthroughout consciousness\u2014is the most elemental something that we reach.\nIt necessarily follows therefore that \u201cthe become\u201d is always founded on\na \u201cbecoming\u201d and not the other way round.\n\nI distinguish further, by the words \u201cproper\u201d and \u201calien\u201d (_das Eigne_,\n_das Fremde_), those two basic facts of consciousness which for all men\nin the waking (not in the dreaming) state are established with an\nimmediate inward certainty, without the necessity or possibility of more\nprecise definition. The element called \u201calien\u201d is always related in some\nway to the basic fact expressed by the word \u201cperception,\u201d i.e., the\nouter world, the life of sensation. Great thinkers have bent all their\npowers of image-forming to the task of expressing this relation, more\nand more rigorously, by the aid of half-intuitive dichotomies such as\n\u201cphenomena and things-in-themselves,\u201d \u201cworld-as-will and world-as-idea,\u201d\n\u201cego and non-ego,\u201d although human powers of exact knowing are surely\ninadequate for the task.\n\nSimilarly, the element \u201cproper\u201d is involved with the basic fact known as\nfeeling, i.e., the inner life, in some intimate and invariable way that\nequally defies analysis by the methods of abstract thought.\n\nI distinguish, again, \u201csoul\u201d and \u201cworld.\u201d _The existence of this\nopposition is identical with the fact of purely human waking\nconsciousness (Wachsein)._ There are degrees of clearness and sharpness\nin the opposition and therefore grades of the consciousness, of the\nspirituality, of life. These grades range from the feeling-knowledge\nthat, unalert yet sometimes suffused through and through by an inward\nlight, is characteristic of the primitive and of the child (and also of\nthose moments of religious and artistic inspiration that occur ever less\nand less often as a Culture grows older) right to the extremity of\nwaking and reasoning sharpness that we find, for instance, in the\nthought of Kant and Napoleon, for whom soul and world have become\nsubject and object. This elementary structure of consciousness, as a\nfact of immediate inner knowledge, is not susceptible of conceptual\nsubdivision. Nor, indeed, are the two factors distinguishable at all\nexcept verbally and more or less artificially, since they are always\nassociated, always intertwined, and present themselves as a unit, a\ntotality. The epistemological starting-point of the born idealist and\nthe born realist alike, the assumption that soul is to world (or world\nto soul, as the case may be) as foundation is to building, as primary to\nderivative, as \u201ccause\u201d to \u201ceffect,\u201d has no basis whatever in the pure\nfact of consciousness, and when a philosophic system lays stress on the\none or the other, it only thereby informs us as to the personality of\nthe philosopher, a fact of purely biographical significance.\n\nThus, by regarding waking-consciousness structurally as a tension of\ncontraries, and applying to it the notions of \u201cbecoming\u201d and \u201cthe thing-\nbecome,\u201d we find for the word _Life_ a perfectly definite meaning that\nis closely allied to that of \u201cbecoming.\u201d We may describe becomings and\nthe things-become as the form in which respectively the facts and the\nresults of life exist in the waking consciousness. To man in the waking\nstate his proper life, progressive and constantly self-fulfilling, is\npresented through the element of Becoming in his consciousness\u2014_this\nfact we call \u201cthe present\u201d_\u2014and it possesses that mysterious property of\n_Direction_ which in all the higher languages men have sought to impound\nand\u2014vainly\u2014to rationalize by means of the enigmatic word _time_. It\nfollows necessarily from the above that there is a fundamental connexion\nbetween _the become_ (the _hard-set_) and _Death_.\n\nIf, now, we designate the Soul\u2014that is, the Soul as it is felt, not as\nit is reasonably pictured\u2014as the _possible_ and the World on the other\nhand as the _actual_ (the meaning of these expressions is unmistakable\nto man\u2019s inner sense), we see life as _the form in which the actualizing\nof the possible is accomplished_. With respect to the property of\nDirection, the possible is called the _Future_ and the actualized the\n_Past_. The actualizing itself, the centre-of-gravity and the centre-of-\nmeaning of life, we call the _Present_. \u201cSoul\u201d is the still-to-be-\naccomplished, \u201cWorld\u201d the accomplished, \u201clife\u201d the accomplishing. In\nthis way we are enabled to assign to expressions like moment, duration,\ndevelopment, life-content, vocation, scope, aim, fullness and emptiness\nof life, the definite meanings which we shall need for all that follows\nand especially for the understanding of historical phenomena.\n\nLastly, the words _History_ and _Nature_ are here employed, as the\nreader will have observed already, in a quite definite and hitherto\nunusual sense. These words comprise _possible_ modes of understanding,\nof comprehending the totality of knowledge\u2014becoming as well as things-\nbecome, life as well as things-lived\u2014as a homogeneous, spiritualized,\nwell-ordered _world-picture_ fashioned out of an indivisible mass-\nimpression in this way or in that according as the becoming or the\nbecome, direction (\u201ctime\u201d) or extension (\u201cspace\u201d) is the dominant\nfactor. And it is not a question of one factor being alternative to the\nother. The possibilities that we have of possessing an \u201couter world\u201d\nthat reflects and attests our proper existence are infinitely numerous\nand exceedingly heterogeneous, and the purely organic and the purely\nmechanical world-view (in the precise literal sense of that familiar\nterm[42]) are only the extreme members of the series. Primitive man (so\nfar as we can imagine his waking-consciousness) and the child (as we can\nremember) cannot fully see or grasp these possibilities. One condition\nof this higher world-consciousness is the possession of _language_,\nmeaning thereby not mere human utterance but a culture-language, and\nsuch is non-existent for primitive man and existent but not accessible\nin the case of the child. In other words, neither possesses any clear\nand distinct notion of the world. They have an inkling but no real\nknowledge of history and nature, being too intimately incorporated with\nthe ensemble of these. _They have no Culture._\n\nAnd therewith that important word is given a positive meaning of the\nhighest significance which henceforward will be assumed in using it. In\nthe same way as we have elected to distinguish the Soul as the possible\nand the World as the actual, we can now differentiate between _possible_\nand _actual_ culture, i.e., culture as _an idea in the_ (general or\nindividual) _existence_ and culture as the _body_ of that idea, as the\ntotal of its visible, tangible and comprehensible expressions\u2014acts and\nopinions, religion and state, arts and sciences, peoples and cities,\neconomic and social forms, speech, laws, customs, characters, facial\nlines and costumes. _Higher history_, intimately related to life and to\nbecoming, _is the actualizing of possible Culture_.[43]\n\nWe must not omit to add that these basic determinations of meaning are\nlargely incommunicable by specification, definition or proof, and in\ntheir deeper import must be reached by feeling, experience and\nintuition. There is a distinction, rarely appreciated as it should be,\nbetween experience as lived and experience as learned (zwischen Erleben\nund Erkennen), between the immediate certainty given by the various\nkinds of intuition\u2014such as illumination, inspiration, artistic flair,\nexperience of life, the power of \u201csizing men up\u201d (Goethe\u2019s\n\u201cexact percipient fancy\u201d)\u2014and the product of rational procedure and\ntechnical experiment.\n\nThe first are imparted by means of analogy, picture, symbol, the second\nby formula, law, scheme. The become is experienced by learning\u2014indeed,\nas we shall see, the having-become is for the human mind identical with\nthe completed act of cognition. A becoming, on the other hand, can only\nbe experienced by living, felt with a deep wordless understanding. It is\non this that what we call \u201cknowledge of men\u201d is based; in fact the\nunderstanding of history implies a superlative knowledge of men. The eye\nwhich can see into the depths of an alien soul\u2014owes nothing to the\ncognition-methods investigated in the \u201cCritique of Pure Reason,\u201d yet the\npurer the historical picture is, the less accessible it becomes to any\nother eye. The mechanism of a pure nature-picture, such as the world of\nNewton and Kant, is cognized, grasped, dissected in laws and equations\nand finally reduced to system: the organism of a pure history-picture,\nlike the world of Plotinus, Dante and Giordano Bruno, is intuitively\nseen, inwardly experienced, grasped as a form or symbol and finally\nrendered in poetical and artistic conceptions. Goethe\u2019s \u201cliving nature\u201d\nis a _historical_ world-picture.[44]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n The work referred to is embodied in Vol. II (pp. 521 et seq., 562 et\n seq., 631 et seq.).\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n The philosophy of this book I owe to the philosophy of Goethe, which\n is practically unknown to-day, and also (but in a far less degree) to\n that of Nietzsche. The position of Goethe in West-European metaphysics\n is still not understood in the least; when philosophy is being\n discussed he is not even named. For unfortunately he did not set down\n his doctrines in a rigid system, and so the systematic philosophy has\n overlooked him. Nevertheless he was a philosopher. His place _vis-\u00e0-\n vis_ Kant is the same as that of Plato\u2014who similarly eludes the would-\n be-systematizer\u2014_vis-\u00e0-vis_ Aristotle. Plato and Goethe stand for the\n philosophy of Becoming, Aristotle and Kant the philosophy of Being.\n Here we have intuition opposed to analysis. Something that it is\n practically impossible to convey by the methods of reason is found in\n individual sayings and poems of Goethe, e.g., in the Orphische\n Urworte, and stanzas like \u201cWenn im Unendlichen\u201d and \u201cSagt es Niemand,\u201d\n which must be regarded as the expression of a _perfectly definite_\n metaphysical doctrine. I would not have one single word changed in\n this: \"The Godhead is effective in the living and not in the dead, in\n the becoming and the changing, not in the become and the set-fast; and\n therefore, similarly, the reason (_Vernunft_) is concerned only to\n strive towards the divine through the becoming and the living, and the\n understanding (_Verstand_) only to make use of the become and the set-\n fast\" (to Eckermann). This sentence comprises my entire philosophy.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n At the end of the volume.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Weltanschauung im w\u00f6rtlichen Sinne; Anschauung der Welt.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n The case of mankind in the historyless state is discussed in Vol. II,\n pp. 58 et seq.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n With, moreover, a \u201cbiological horizon.\u201d See Vol. II, p. 34.\n\n-----\n\n\n II\n\nIn order to exemplify the way in which a soul seeks to actualize itself\nin the picture of its outer world\u2014to show, that is, in how far Culture\nin the \u201cbecome\u201d state can express or portray an idea of human existence\u2014\nI have chosen _number_, the primary element on which all mathematics\nrests. I have done so because mathematics, accessible in its full depth\nonly to the very few, holds a quite peculiar position amongst the\ncreations of the mind. It is a science of the most rigorous kind, like\nlogic but more comprehensive and very much fuller; it is a true art,\nalong with sculpture and music, as needing the guidance of inspiration\nand as developing under great conventions of form; it is, lastly, a\nmetaphysic of the highest rank, as Plato and above all Leibniz show us.\nEvery philosophy has hitherto grown up in conjunction with a mathematic\n_belonging_ to it. Number is the symbol of causal necessity. Like the\nconception of God, it contains the ultimate meaning of the world-as-\nnature. The existence of numbers may therefore be called a mystery, and\nthe religious thought of every Culture has felt their impress.[45]\n\nJust as all becoming possesses the original property of _direction_\n(irreversibility), all things-become possess the property of\n_extension_. But these two words seem unsatisfactory in that only an\nartificial distinction can be made between them. The real secret of all\nthings-become, which are _ipso facto_ things extended (spatially and\nmaterially), is embodied in mathematical number as contrasted with\nchronological number. Mathematical number contains in its very essence\nthe notion of a _mechanical demarcation_, number being in that respect\nakin to _word_, which, in the very fact of its comprising and denoting,\nfences off world-impressions. The deepest depths, it is true, are here\nboth incomprehensible and inexpressible. But the actual number with\nwhich the mathematician works, the figure, formula, sign, diagram, in\nshort the _number-sign which he thinks, speaks or writes exactly_, is\n(like the exactly-used word) from the first a symbol of these depths,\nsomething imaginable, communicable, comprehensible to the inner and the\nouter eye, which can be accepted as representing the demarcation. The\norigin of numbers resembles that of the myth. Primitive man elevates\nindefinable nature-impressions (the \u201calien,\u201d in our terminology) into\ndeities, _numina_, at the same time capturing and impounding them by a\n_name_ which limits them. So also numbers are something that marks off\nand captures nature-impressions, and it is by means of names and numbers\nthat the human understanding obtains power over the world. In the last\nanalysis, the number-language of a mathematic and the grammar of a\ntongue are structurally alike. Logic is always a kind of mathematic and\nvice versa. Consequently, in all acts of the intellect germane to\nmathematical number\u2014measuring, counting, drawing, weighing, arranging\nand dividing[46]\u2014men strive to delimit the extended in words as well,\ni.e., to set it forth in the form of proofs, conclusions, theorems and\nsystems; and it is only through acts of this kind (which may be more or\nless unintentioned) that waking man begins to be able to use numbers,\nnormatively, to specify objects and properties, relations and\ndifferenti\u00e6, unities and pluralities\u2014briefly, that structure of the\nworld-picture which he feels as necessary and unshakable, calls \u201cNature\u201d\nand \u201ccognizes.\u201d _Nature is the numerable_, while History, on the other\nhand, is the aggregate of that which has no relation to mathematics\u2014\nhence the mathematical certainty of the laws of Nature, the astounding\nrightness of Galileo\u2019s saying that Nature is \u201cwritten in mathematical\nlanguage,\u201d and the fact, emphasized by Kant, that exact natural science\nreaches just as far as the possibilities of applied mathematics allow it\nto reach. In number, then, as the _sign of completed demarcation_, lies\nthe _essence_ of everything actual, which is cognized, is delimited, and\nhas become all at once\u2014as Pythagoras and certain others have been able\nto see with complete inward certitude by a mighty and truly religious\nintuition. Nevertheless, mathematics\u2014meaning thereby the capacity to\nthink practically in figures\u2014must not be confused with the far narrower\nscientific mathematics, that is, the _theory_ of numbers as developed in\nlecture and treatise. The mathematical vision and thought that a Culture\npossesses within itself is as inadequately represented by its written\nmathematic as its philosophical vision and thought by its philosophical\ntreatises. Number springs from a source that has also quite other\noutlets. Thus at the beginning of every Culture we find an archaic\nstyle, which might fairly have been called geometrical in other cases as\nwell as the Early Hellenic. There is a common factor which is expressly\nmathematical in this early Classical style of the 10th Century B.C., in\nthe temple style of the Egyptian Fourth Dynasty with its absolutism of\nstraight line and right angle, in the Early Christian sarcophagus-\nrelief, and in Romanesque construction and ornament. Here every line,\nevery deliberately non-imitative figure of man and beast, reveals a\nmystic number-thought in direct connexion with the mystery of death (the\nhard-set).\n\nGothic cathedrals and Doric temples are _mathematics in stone_.\nDoubtless Pythagoras was the first in the Classical Culture to conceive\nnumber scientifically as the principle of a world-order of\ncomprehensible things\u2014as _standard_ and as _magnitude_\u2014but even before\nhim it had found expression, as a noble arraying of sensuous-material\nunits, in the strict canon of the statue and the Doric order of columns.\nThe great arts are, one and all, modes of interpretation by means of\nlimits based on number (consider, for example, the problem of space-\nrepresentation in oil painting). A high mathematical endowment may,\nwithout any mathematical science whatsoever, come to fruition and full\nself-knowledge in _technical_ spheres.\n\nIn the presence of so powerful a number-sense as that evidenced, even in\nthe Old Kingdom,[47] in the dimensioning of pyramid temples and in the\ntechnique of building, water-control and public administration (not to\nmention the calendar), no one surely would maintain that the valueless\narithmetic of Ahmes belonging to the New Empire represents the level of\nEgyptian mathematics. The Australian natives, who rank intellectually as\nthorough primitives, possess a mathematical instinct (or, what comes to\nthe same thing, a power of thinking in numbers which is not yet\ncommunicable by signs or words) that as regards the interpretation of\npure space is far superior to that of the Greeks. Their discovery of the\nboomerang can only be attributed to their having a sure feeling for\nnumbers of a class that we should refer to the higher geometry.\n_Accordingly_\u2014we shall justify the adverb later\u2014they possess an\nextraordinarily complicated ceremonial and, for expressing degrees of\naffinity, such fine shades of language as not even the higher Cultures\nthemselves can show.\n\nThere is analogy, again, between the Euclidean mathematic and the\nabsence, in the Greek of the mature Periclean age, of any feeling either\nfor ceremonial public life or for loneliness, while the Baroque,\ndiffering sharply from the Classical, presents us with a mathematic of\nspatial analysis, a court of Versailles and a state system resting on\ndynastic relations.\n\nIt is the style of a Soul that comes out in the world of numbers, and\nthe world of numbers includes something more than the science thereof.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 327 et seq.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n Also \u201cthinking in money.\u201d See Vol. II, pp. 603 et seq.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n Dynasties I-VIII, or, effectively, I-VI. The Pyramid period coincides\n with Dynasties IV-VI. Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus belong to the IV\n dynasty, under which also great water-control works were carried out\n between Abydos and the Fayum.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n III\n\nFrom this there follows a fact of decisive importance which has hitherto\nbeen hidden from the mathematicians themselves.\n\n_There is not, and cannot be, number as such._ There are several number-\nworlds as there are several Cultures. We find an Indian, an Arabian, a\nClassical, a Western type of mathematical thought and, corresponding\nwith each, a type of number\u2014each type fundamentally peculiar and unique,\nan expression of a specific world-feeling, a symbol having a specific\nvalidity which is even capable of scientific definition, a principle of\nordering the Become which reflects the central essence of one and only\none soul, viz., the soul of that particular Culture. Consequently, there\nare more mathematics than one. For indubitably the inner structure of\nthe Euclidean geometry is something quite different from that of the\nCartesian, the analysis of Archimedes is something other than the\nanalysis of Gauss, and not merely in matters of form, intuition and\nmethod but above all in essence, in the intrinsic and obligatory meaning\nof number which they respectively develop and set forth. This number,\nthe horizon within which it has been able to make phenomena self-\nexplanatory, and therefore the whole of the \u201cnature\u201d or world-extended\nthat is confined in the given limits and amenable to its particular sort\nof mathematic, are not common to all mankind, but specific in each case\nto one definite sort of mankind.\n\nThe style of any mathematic which comes into being, then, depends wholly\non the Culture in which it is rooted, the sort of mankind it is that\nponders it. The soul can bring its inherent possibilities to scientific\ndevelopment, can manage them practically, can attain the highest levels\nin its treatment of them\u2014but is quite impotent to alter them. The idea\nof the Euclidean geometry is actualized in the earliest forms of\nClassical ornament, and that of the Infinitesimal Calculus in the\nearliest forms of Gothic architecture, centuries before the first\nlearned mathematicians of the respective Cultures were born.\n\nA deep inward experience, the genuine _awakening of the ego_, which\nturns the child into the higher man and initiates him into community of\nhis Culture, marks the beginning of number-sense as it does that of\nlanguage-sense. It is only after this that objects come to exist for the\nwaking consciousness as things limitable and distinguishable as to\nnumber and kind; only after this that properties, concepts, causal\nnecessity, system in the world-around, _a form of the world_, and _world\nlaws_ (for that which is set and settled is _ipso facto_ bounded,\nhardened, number-governed) are susceptible of exact definition. And\ntherewith comes too a sudden, almost metaphysical, feeling of anxiety\nand awe regarding the deeper meaning of measuring and counting, drawing\nand form.\n\nNow, Kant has classified the sum of human knowledge according to\nsyntheses _a priori_ (necessary and universally valid) and _a\nposteriori_ (experiential and variable from case to case) and in the\nformer class has included mathematical knowledge. Thereby, doubtless, he\nwas enabled to reduce a strong inward feeling to abstract form. But,\nquite apart from the fact (amply evidenced in modern mathematics and\nmechanics) that there is no such sharp distinction between the two as is\noriginally and unconditionally implied in the principle, the _a priori_\nitself, though certainly one of the most inspired conceptions of\nphilosophy, is a notion that seems to involve enormous difficulties.\nWith it Kant postulates\u2014without attempting to prove what is quite\nincapable of proof\u2014both _unalterableness of form_ in all intellectual\nactivity and _identity of form for all men_ in the same. And, in\nconsequence, a factor of incalculable importance is\u2014thanks to the\nintellectual prepossessions of his period, not to mention his own\u2014simply\nignored. This factor is the _varying degree_ of this alleged \u201cuniversal\nvalidity.\u201d There are doubtless certain characters of very wide-ranging\nvalidity which are (seemingly at any rate) independent of the Culture\nand century to which the cognizing individual may belong, but along with\nthese there is a quite particular necessity of form which underlies all\nhis thought as axiomatic and to which he is subject by virtue of\nbelonging to his own Culture and no other. Here, then, we have two very\ndifferent kinds of _a priori_ thought-content, and the definition of a\nfrontier between them, or even the demonstration that such exists, is a\nproblem that lies beyond all possibilities of knowing and will never be\nsolved. So far, no one has dared to assume that the supposed constant\nstructure of the intellect is an illusion and that the history spread\nout before us contains more than one _style of knowing_. But we must not\nforget that unanimity about things that have not yet become problems may\njust as well imply universal error as universal truth. True, there has\nalways been a certain sense of doubt and obscurity\u2014so much so, that the\ncorrect guess might have been made from that non-agreement of the\nphilosophers which every glance at the history of philosophy shows us.\nBut that this non-agreement is not due to imperfections of the human\nintellect or present gaps in a perfectible knowledge, in a word, is not\ndue to defect, but to destiny and historical necessity\u2014this is a\n_discovery_. Conclusions on the deep and final things are to be reached\nnot by predicating constants but by studying differenti\u00e6 and developing\nthe _organic logic_ of differences. The _comparative morphology of\nknowledge forms_ is a domain which Western thought has still to attack.\n\n IV\n\nIf mathematics were a mere science like astronomy or mineralogy, it\nwould be possible to define their object. This man is not and never has\nbeen able to do. We West-Europeans may put our own scientific notion of\nnumber to perform the same tasks as those with which the mathematicians\nof Athens and Baghdad busied themselves, but the fact remains that the\ntheme, the intention and the methods of the like-named science in Athens\nand in Baghdad were quite different from those of our own. _There is no\nmathematic but only mathematics._ What we call \u201cthe history of\nmathematics\u201d\u2014implying merely the progressive actualizing of a single\ninvariable ideal\u2014is in fact, below the deceptive surface of history, a\ncomplex of self-contained and independent developments, an ever-repeated\nprocess of bringing to birth new form-worlds and appropriating,\ntransforming and sloughing alien form-worlds, a purely organic story of\nblossoming, ripening, wilting and dying within the set period. The\nstudent must not let himself be deceived. The mathematic of the\nClassical soul sprouted almost out of nothingness, the historically-\nconstituted Western soul, already possessing the Classical science (not\ninwardly, but outwardly as a thing learnt), had to win its own by\napparently altering and perfecting, but in reality destroying the\nessentially alien Euclidean system. In the first case, the agent was\nPythagoras, in the second Descartes. In both cases the act is, at\nbottom, the same.\n\nThe relationship between the form-language of a mathematic and that of\nthe cognate major arts,[48] is in this way put beyond doubt. The\ntemperament of the thinker and that of the artist differ widely indeed,\nbut the expression-methods of the waking consciousness are inwardly the\nsame for each. The sense of form of the sculptor, the painter, the\ncomposer is essentially mathematical in its nature. The same inspired\nordering of an infinite world which manifested itself in the geometrical\nanalysis and projective geometry of the 17th Century, could vivify,\nenergize, and suffuse contemporary music with the harmony that it\ndeveloped out of the art of thoroughbass, (which is the geometry of the\nsound-world) and contemporary painting with the principle of perspective\n(the felt geometry of the space-world that only the West knows). This\ninspired ordering is that which Goethe called \u201c_The Idea, of which the\nform is immediately apprehended in the domain of intuition_, whereas\npure science does not apprehend but observes and dissects.\u201d The\nMathematic goes beyond observation and dissection, and in its highest\nmoments finds the way by vision, not abstraction. To Goethe again we owe\nthe profound saying: \u201cthe mathematician is only complete in so far as he\nfeels within himself the _beauty_ of the true.\u201d Here we feel how nearly\nthe secret of number is related to the secret of artistic creation. And\nso the born mathematician takes his place by the side of the great\nmasters of the fugue, the chisel and the brush; he and they alike\nstrive, and must strive, to actualize the grand order of all things by\nclothing it in symbol and so to communicate it to the plain fellow-man\nwho hears that order within himself but cannot effectively possess it;\nthe domain of number, like the domains of tone, line and colour, becomes\nan image of the world-form. For this reason the word \u201ccreative\u201d means\nmore in the mathematical sphere than it does in the pure sciences\u2014\nNewton, Gauss, and Riemann were artist-natures, and we know with what\nsuddenness their great conceptions came upon them.[49] \u201cA\nmathematician,\u201d said old Weierstrass \u201cwho is not at the same time a bit\nof a poet will never be a full mathematician.\u201d\n\nThe mathematic, then, is an art. As such it has its styles and style-\nperiods. It is not, as the layman and the philosopher (who is in this\nmatter a layman too) imagine, substantially unalterable, but subject\nlike every art to unnoticed changes from epoch to epoch. The development\nof the great arts ought never to be treated without an (assuredly not\nunprofitable) side-glance at contemporary mathematics. In the very deep\nrelation between changes of musical theory and the analysis of the\ninfinite, the details have never yet been investigated, although\n\u00e6sthetics might have learned a great deal more from these than from all\nso-called \u201cpsychology.\u201d Still more revealing would be a history of\nmusical instruments written, not (as it always is) from the technical\nstandpoint of tone-production, but as a study of the deep spiritual\nbases of the tone-colours and tone-effects aimed at. For it was the\nwish, intensified to the point of a longing, to fill a spatial infinity\nwith sound which produced\u2014in contrast to the Classical lyre and reed\n(lyra, kithara; aulos, syrinx) and the Arabian lute\u2014the two great\nfamilies of keyboard instruments (organ, pianoforte, etc.) and bow\ninstruments, and that as early as the Gothic time. The development of\nboth these families belongs spiritually (and possibly also in point of\ntechnical origin) to the Celtic-Germanic North lying between Ireland,\nthe Weser and the Seine. The organ and clavichord belong certainly to\nEngland, the bow instruments reached their definite forms in Upper Italy\nbetween 1480 and 1530, while it was principally in Germany that the\norgan was developed into the _space-commanding_ giant that we know, an\ninstrument the like of which does not exist in all musical history. The\nfree organ-playing of Bach and his time was nothing if it was not\nanalysis\u2014analysis of a strange and vast tone-world. And, similarly, it\nis in conformity with the Western number-thinking, and in opposition to\nthe Classical, that our string and wind instruments have been developed\nnot singly but in great groups (strings, woodwind, brass), ordered\nwithin themselves according to the compass of the four human voices; the\nhistory of the modern orchestra, with all its discoveries of new and\nmodification of old instruments, is in reality the self-contained\nhistory of one tone-world\u2014a world, moreover, that is quite capable of\nbeing expressed in the forms of the higher analysis.\n\n V\n\nWhen, about 540 B.C., the circle of the Pythagoreans arrived at the idea\nthat _number is the essence of all things_, it was not \u201ca step in the\ndevelopment of mathematics\u201d that was made, but a wholly new mathematic\nthat was born. Long heralded by metaphysical problem-posings and\nartistic form-tendencies, now it came forth from the depths of the\nClassical soul as a formulated theory, a mathematic born in one act at\none great historical moment\u2014just as the mathematic of the Egyptians had\nbeen, and the algebra-astronomy of the Babylonian Culture with its\necliptic co-ordinate system\u2014and new\u2014for these older mathematics had long\nbeen extinguished and the Egyptian was never written down. Fulfilled by\nthe 2nd century A.D., the Classical mathematic vanished in its turn (for\nthough it seemingly exists even to-day, it is only as a convenience of\nnotation that it does so), and gave place to the Arabian. From what we\nknow of the Alexandrian mathematic, it is a necessary presumption that\nthere was a great movement within the Middle East, of which the centre\nof gravity must have lain in the Persian-Babylonian schools (such as\nEdessa, Gundisapora and Ctesiphon) and of which only details found their\nway into the regions of Classical speech. In spite of their Greek names,\nthe Alexandrian mathematicians\u2014Zenodorus who dealt with figures of equal\nperimeter, Serenus who worked on the properties of a harmonic pencil in\nspace, Hypsicles who introduced the Chaldean circle-division, Diophantus\nabove all\u2014were all without doubt Aram\u00e6ans, and their works only a small\npart of a literature which was written principally in Syriac. This\nmathematic found its completion in the investigations of the Arabian-\nIslamic thinkers, and after these there was again a long interval. And\nthen a perfectly new mathematic was born, the Western, _our own_, which\nin our infatuation we regard as \u201cMathematics,\u201d as the culmination and\nthe implicit purpose of two thousand years\u2019 evolution, though in reality\nits centuries are (strictly) numbered and to-day almost spent.\n\nThe most valuable thing in the Classical mathematic is its proposition\nthat number is the essence of all things _perceptible to the senses_.\nDefining number as a measure, it contains the whole world-feeling of a\nsoul passionately devoted to the \u201chere\u201d and the \u201cnow.\u201d Measurement in\nthis sense means the measurement of something near and corporeal.\nConsider the content of the Classical art-work, say the free-standing\nstatue of a naked man; here every essential and important element of\nBeing, its whole rhythm, is exhaustively rendered by surfaces,\ndimensions and the sensuous relations of the parts. The Pythagorean\nnotion of the harmony of numbers, although it was probably deduced from\nmusic\u2014a music, be it noted, that knew not polyphony or harmony, and\nformed its instruments to render single plump, almost fleshy, tones\u2014\nseems to be the very mould for a sculpture that has this ideal. The\nworked stone is only a something in so far as it has considered limits\nand measured form; what it _is_ is what it _has become_ under the\nsculptor\u2019s chisel. Apart from this it is a _chaos_, something not yet\nactualized, in fact for the time being a null. The same feeling\ntransferred to the grander stage produces, as an opposite to the state\nof chaos, that of _cosmos_, which for the Classical soul implies a\ncleared-up situation of the external world, a harmonic order which\nincludes each separate thing as a well-defined, comprehensible and\npresent entity. The sum of such things constitutes neither more nor less\nthan the whole world, and the interspaces between them, which for us are\nfilled with the impressive symbol of the Universe of Space, are for them\nthe nonent (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f45\u03bd).\n\nExtension means, for Classical mankind body, and for us space, and it is\nas a function of space that, to us, things \u201cappear.\u201d And, looking\nbackward from this standpoint, we may perhaps see into the deepest\nconcept of the Classical metaphysics, Anaximander\u2019s \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u2014a word that\nis quite untranslatable into any Western tongue. It is that which\npossesses no \u201cnumber\u201d in the Pythagorean sense of the word, no\nmeasurable dimensions or definable limits, and therefore no being; the\nmeasureless, the negation of form, the statue not yet carved out of the\nblock; the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 optically boundless and formless, which only becomes a\nsomething (namely, the world) after being split up by the senses. It is\nthe underlying form _a priori_ of Classical cognition, bodiliness as\nsuch, which is replaced exactly in the Kantian world-picture by that\nSpace out of which Kant maintained that all things could be \u201cthought\nforth.\u201d\n\nWe can now understand what it is that divides one mathematic from\nanother, and in particular the Classical from the Western. The whole\nworld-feeling of the matured Classical world led it to see mathematics\nonly as the theory of relations of magnitude, dimension and form between\nbodies. When, from out of this feeling, Pythagoras evolved and expressed\nthe decisive formula, number had come, for him, to be an _optical_\nsymbol\u2014not a measure of form generally, an abstract relation, but a\nfrontier-post of the domain of the Become, or rather of that part of it\nwhich the senses were able to split up and pass under review. By the\nwhole Classical world without exception numbers are conceived as units\nof measure, as magnitude, lengths, or surfaces, and for it no other sort\nof extension is imaginable. The whole Classical mathematic is at bottom\n_Stereometry_ (solid geometry). To Euclid, who rounded off its system in\nthe third century, the triangle is of deep necessity the bounding\nsurface of a body, never a system of three intersecting straight lines\nor a group of three points in three-dimensional space. He defines a line\nas \u201clength without breadth\u201d (\u03bc\u1fc6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c2). In our mouths such a\ndefinition would be pitiful\u2014in the Classical mathematic it was\nbrilliant.\n\nThe Western number, too, is not, as Kant and even Helmholtz thought,\nsomething proceeding out of Time as an _a priori_ form of conception,\nbut is something specifically spatial, in that it is an order (or\nordering) of like units. Actual time (as we shall see more and more\nclearly in the sequel) has not the slightest relation with mathematical\nthings. Numbers belong exclusively to the domain of extension. But there\nare precisely as many possibilities\u2014and therefore necessities\u2014of ordered\npresentation of the extended as there are Cultures. Classical number is\na thought-process dealing not with spatial relations but with visibly\nlimitable and tangible units, and it follows naturally and necessarily\nthat the Classical knows only the \u201cnatural\u201d (positive and whole)\nnumbers, which on the contrary play in our Western mathematics a quite\nundistinguished part in the midst of complex, hypercomplex, non-\nArchimedean and other number-systems.\n\nOn this account, the idea of irrational numbers\u2014the unending decimal\nfractions of our notation\u2014was unrealizable within the Greek spirit.\nEuclid says\u2014and he ought to have been better understood\u2014that\nincommensurable lines are \u201c_not related to one another like numbers_.\u201d\nIn fact, it is the idea of irrational number that, once achieved,\nseparates the notion of number from that of magnitude, for the magnitude\nof such a number (\u03c0, for example) can never be defined or exactly\nrepresented by any straight line. Moreover, it follows from this that in\nconsidering the relation, say, between diagonal and side in a square the\nGreek would be brought up suddenly against a quite other sort of number,\nwhich was fundamentally alien to the Classical soul, and was\nconsequently feared as a secret of its proper existence too dangerous to\nbe unveiled. There is a singular and significant late-Greek legend,\naccording to which the man who first published the hidden mystery of the\nirrational perished by shipwreck, \u201cfor the unspeakable and the formless\nmust be left hidden for ever.\u201d[50]\n\nThe fear that underlies this legend is the selfsame notion that\nprevented even the ripest Greeks from extending their tiny city-states\nso as to organize the country-side politically, from laying out their\nstreets to end in prospects and their alleys to give vistas, that made\nthem recoil time and again from the Babylonian astronomy with its\npenetration of endless starry space,[51] and refuse to venture out of\nthe Mediterranean along sea-paths long before dared by the Ph\u0153nicians\nand the Egyptians. It is the deep metaphysical fear that the sense-\ncomprehensible and present in which the Classical existence had\nentrenched itself would collapse and precipitate its cosmos (largely\ncreated and sustained by art) into unknown primitive abysses. And to\nunderstand this fear is to understand the final significance of\nClassical number\u2014that is, _measure in contrast to the immeasurable_\u2014and\nto grasp the high ethical significance of its limitation. Goethe too, as\na nature-student, felt it\u2014hence his almost terrified aversion to\nmathematics, which as we can now see was really an involuntary reaction\nagainst the _non-Classical_ mathematic, the Infinitesimal Calculus which\nunderlay the natural philosophy of his time.\n\nReligious feeling in Classical man focused itself ever more and more\nintensely upon physically present, _localized_ cults which alone\nexpressed a college of Euclidean deities. Abstractions, _dogmas_\nfloating homeless in the space of thought, were ever alien to it. A cult\nof this kind has as much in common with a Roman Catholic dogma as the\nstatue has with the cathedral organ. There is no doubt that something of\ncult was comprised in the Euclidean mathematic\u2014consider, for instance,\nthe secret doctrines of the Pythagoreans and the Theorems of regular\npolyhedrons with their esoteric significance in the circle of Plato.\nJust so, there is a deep relation between Descartes\u2019 analysis of the\ninfinite and contemporary dogmatic theology as it progressed from the\nfinal decisions of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation to\nentirely desensualized deism. Descartes and Pascal were mathematicians\nand Jansenists, Leibniz a mathematician and pietist. Voltaire, Lagrange\nand D\u2019Alembert were contemporaries. Now, the Classical soul felt the\nprinciple of the irrational, which overturned the statuesquely-ordered\narray of whole numbers and the complete and self-sufficing world-order\nfor which these stood, as an impiety against the Divine itself. In\nPlato\u2019s \u201cTim\u00e6us\u201d this feeling is unmistakable. For the transformation of\na series of discrete numbers into a continuum challenged not merely the\nClassical notion of number but the Classical world-idea itself, and so\nit is understandable that even _negative_ numbers, which to us offer no\nconceptual difficulty, were impossible in the Classical mathematic, let\nalone _zero as a number_, that refined creation of a wonderful\nabstractive power which, for the Indian soul that conceived it as base\nfor a positional numeration, was nothing more nor less than the key to\nthe meaning of existence. _Negative magnitudes_ have no existence. The\nexpression -2\u00d7-3=+6 is neither something perceivable nor a\nrepresentation of magnitude. The series of magnitudes ends with +1, and\nin graphic representation of negative numbers\n\n ( + 3 + 2 + 1 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 )\n \u2014 \uff65 \u2014 \uff65 \u2014 \uff65 \uff65 \u2014 \uff65 \u2014 \uff65 \u2014 \uff65\n\nwe have suddenly, from zero onwards, _positive_ symbols of something\nnegative; they _mean_ something, but they no longer _are_. But the\nfulfilment of this act did not lie within the direction of Classical\nnumber-thinking.\n\nEvery product of the waking consciousness of the Classical world, then,\nis elevated to the rank of actuality by way of sculptural definition.\nThat which cannot be drawn is not \u201cnumber.\u201d Archytas and Eudoxus use the\nterms surface- and volume-numbers to mean what we call second and third\npowers, and it is easy to understand that the notion of higher integral\npowers did not exist for them, for a fourth power would predicate at\nonce, for the mind based on the plastic feeling, an extension in four\ndimensions, and four _material_ dimensions into the bargain, \u201cwhich is\nabsurd.\u201d Expressions like \u03b5^{ix} which we constantly use, or even the\nfractional index (e.g., 5^\u00bd) which is employed in the Western\nmathematics as early as Oresme (14th Century), would have been to them\nutter nonsense. Euclid calls the factors of a product its sides \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\nand fractions (finite of course) were treated as whole-number\nrelationships between two lines. Clearly, out of this no conception of\nzero as a number could possibly come, for from the point of view of a\ndraughtsman it is meaningless. We, having minds differently constituted,\nmust not argue from our habits to theirs and treat their mathematic as a\n\u201cfirst stage\u201d in the development of \u201cMathematics.\u201d Within and for the\npurposes of the world that Classical man evolved for himself, the\nClassical mathematic was a complete thing\u2014it is merely not so _for us_.\nBabylonian and Indian mathematics had long contained, as essential\nelements of _their_ number-worlds, things which the Classical number-\nfeeling regarded as nonsense\u2014and not from ignorance either, since many a\nGreek thinker was acquainted with them. It must be repeated,\n\u201cMathematics\u201d is an illusion. A mathematical, and, generally, a\nscientific way of thinking is right, convincing, a \u201cnecessity of\nthought,\u201d when it completely expresses the life-feeling proper to it.\nOtherwise it is either impossible, futile and senseless, or else, as we\nin the arrogance of our historical soul like to say, \u201cprimitive.\u201d The\nmodern mathematic, though \u201ctrue\u201d only for the Western spirit, is\nundeniably a master-work of that spirit; and yet to Plato it would have\nseemed a ridiculous and painful aberration from the path leading to the\n\u201ctrue\u201d\u2014to wit, the Classical\u2014mathematic. And so with ourselves. Plainly,\nwe have almost no notion of the multitude of great ideas belonging to\nother Cultures that we have suffered to lapse because _our_ thought with\nits limitations has not permitted us to assimilate them, or (which comes\nto the same thing) has led us to reject them as false, superfluous, and\nnonsensical.\n\n VI\n\nThe Greek mathematic, as a science of perceivable magnitudes,\ndeliberately confines itself to facts of the comprehensibly present, and\nlimits its researches and their validity to the near and the small. As\ncompared with this impeccable consistency, the position of the Western\nmathematic is seen to be, practically, somewhat illogical, though it is\nonly since the discovery of Non-Euclidean Geometry that the fact has\nbeen really recognized. Numbers are images of the perfectly\ndesensualized understanding, of pure thought, and contain their abstract\nvalidity within themselves.[52] Their exact application to the actuality\nof conscious experience is therefore a problem in itself\u2014a problem which\nis always being posed anew and never solved\u2014and the congruence of\nmathematical system with empirical observation is at present anything\nbut self-evident. Although the lay idea\u2014as found in Schopenhauer\u2014is that\nmathematics rest upon the direct evidences of the senses, Euclidean\ngeometry, superficially identical though it is with the popular geometry\nof all ages, is only in agreement with the phenomenal world\napproximately and within very narrow limits\u2014in fact, the limits of a\ndrawing-board. Extend these limits, and what becomes, for instance, of\nEuclidean parallels? They meet at the line of the horizon\u2014a simple fact\nupon which all our art-perspective is grounded.\n\nNow, it is unpardonable that Kant, a Western thinker, should have evaded\nthe mathematic of distance, and appealed to a set of figure-examples\nthat their mere pettiness excludes from treatment by the specifically\nWestern infinitesimal methods. But Euclid, as a thinker of the Classical\nage, was entirely consistent with its spirit when he refrained from\nproving the phenomenal truth of his axioms by referring to, say, the\ntriangle formed by an observer and two infinitely distant fixed stars.\nFor these can neither be drawn nor \u201cintuitively apprehended\u201d and his\nfeeling was precisely the feeling which shrank from the irrationals,\nwhich did not dare to give nothingness a value as zero (i.e., a number)\nand even in the contemplation of cosmic relations shut its eyes to the\nInfinite and held to its symbol of Proportion.\n\nAristarchus of Samos, who in 288-277 belonged to a circle of astronomers\nat Alexandria that doubtless had relations with Chaldaeo-Persian\nschools, projected the elements of a heliocentric world-system.[53]\nRediscovered by Copernicus, it was to shake the metaphysical passions of\nthe West to their foundations\u2014witness Giordano Bruno[54]\u2014to become the\nfulfilment of mighty premonitions, and to justify that Faustian, Gothic\nworld-feeling which had already professed its faith in infinity through\nthe forms of its cathedrals. But the world of Aristarchus received his\nwork with entire indifference and in a brief space of time it was\nforgotten\u2014designedly, we may surmise. His few followers were nearly all\nnatives of Asia Minor, his most prominent supporter Seleucus (about 150)\nbeing from the Persian Seleucia on Tigris. In fact, the Aristarchian\nsystem had no spiritual appeal to the Classical Culture and might indeed\nhave become dangerous to it. And yet it was differentiated from the\nCopernican (a point always missed) by something which made it perfectly\nconformable to the Classical world-feeling, viz., the assumption that\nthe cosmos is _contained_ in a materially finite and optically\nappreciable _hollow sphere_, in the middle of which the planetary\nsystem, arranged as such on Copernican lines, moved. In the Classical\nastronomy, the earth and the heavenly bodies are consistently regarded\nas entities of two different kinds, however variously their movements in\ndetail might be interpreted. Equally, the opposite idea that the earth\nis _only a star among stars_[55] is not inconsistent in itself with\neither the Ptolemaic or the Copernican systems and in fact was pioneered\nby Nicolaus Cusanus and Leonardo da Vinci. But by this device of a\ncelestial sphere the principle of infinity which would have endangered\nthe sensuous-Classical notion of bounds was smothered. One would have\nsupposed that the infinity-conception was inevitably implied by the\nsystem of Aristarchus\u2014long before his time, the Babylonian thinkers had\nreached it. But no such thought emerges. On the contrary, in the famous\ntreatise on the grains of sand[56] Archimedes proves that the filling of\nthis stereometric body (for that is what Aristarchus\u2019s Cosmos is, after\nall) with atoms of sand leads to very high, but _not_ to infinite,\nfigure-results. This proposition, quoted though it may be, time and\nagain, as being a first step towards the Integral Calculus, amounts to a\ndenial (implicit indeed in the very title) of everything that we mean by\nthe word analysis. Whereas in our physics, the constantly-surging\nhypotheses of a material (i.e., directly cognizable) \u00e6ther, break\nthemselves one after the other against our refusal to acknowledge\nmaterial limitations of any kind, Eudoxus, Apollonius and Archimedes,\ncertainly the keenest and boldest of the Classical mathematicians,\ncompletely worked out, in the main with rule and compass, a _purely\noptical_ analysis of things-become on the basis of sculptural-Classical\nbounds. They used deeply-thought-out (and for us hardly understandable)\nmethods of integration, but these possess only a superficial resemblance\neven to Leibniz\u2019s definite-integral method. They employed geometrical\nloci and co-ordinates, but these are always specified lengths and units\nof measurement and never, as in Fermat and above all in Descartes,\nunspecified spatial relations, values of points in terms of their\npositions in space. With these methods also should be classed the\nexhaustion-method of Archimedes,[57] given by him in his recently\ndiscovered letter to Eratosthenes on such subjects as the quadrature of\nthe parabola section by means of inscribed rectangles (instead of\nthrough similar polygons). But the very subtlety and extreme\ncomplication of his methods, which are grounded in certain of Plato\u2019s\ngeometrical ideas, make us realize, in spite of superficial analogies,\nwhat an enormous difference separates him from Pascal. Apart altogether\nfrom the idea of Riemann\u2019s integral, what sharper contrast could there\nbe to these ideas than the so-called quadratures of to-day? The name\nitself is now no more than an unfortunate survival, the \u201csurface\u201d is\nindicated by a bounding function, and the _drawing_ as such, has\nvanished. Nowhere else did the two mathematical minds approach each\nother more closely than in this instance, and nowhere is it more evident\nthat the gulf between the two souls thus expressing themselves is\nimpassable.\n\nIn the cubic style of their early architecture the Egyptians, so to say,\nconcealed pure numbers, fearful of stumbling upon their secret, and for\nthe Hellenes too they were the key to the meaning of the become, the\nstiffened, the mortal. The stone statue and the scientific system deny\nlife. Mathematical number, the formal principle of an extension-world of\nwhich the phenomenal existence is only the derivative and servant of\nwaking human consciousness, bears the hall-mark of causal necessity and\nso is linked with _death_ as chronological number is with becoming, with\n_life_, with the necessity of destiny. This connexion of strict\nmathematical form with the _end_ of organic being, with the phenomenon\nof its organic remainder the corpse, we shall see more and more clearly\nto be the origin of all great art. We have already noticed the\ndevelopment of early ornament on funerary equipments and receptacles.\n_Numbers are symbols of the mortal._ Stiff forms are the negation of\nlife, formulas and laws spread rigidity over the face of nature, numbers\nmake dead\u2014and the \u201cMothers\u201d of Faust II sit enthroned, majestic and\nwithdrawn, in\n\n \u201cThe realms of Image unconfined.\n ... Formation, transformation,\n Eternal play of the eternal mind\n With semblances of all things in creation\n For ever and for ever sweeping round.\u201d[58]\n\nGoethe draws very near to Plato in this divination of one of the final\nsecrets. For his unapproachable Mothers are Plato\u2019s Ideas\u2014the\npossibilities of a spirituality, the unborn forms to be realized as\nactive and purposed Culture, as art, thought, polity and religion, in a\nworld ordered and determined by that spirituality. And so the number-\nthought and the world-idea of a Culture are related, and by this\nrelation, the former is elevated above mere knowledge and experience and\nbecomes a view of the universe, there being consequently as many\nmathematics\u2014as many number-worlds\u2014as there are higher Cultures. Only so\ncan we understand, as something _necessary_, the fact that the greatest\nmathematical thinkers, the creative artists of the realm of numbers,\nhave been brought to the decisive mathematical discoveries of their\nseveral Cultures by a deep religious intuition.\n\nClassical, Apollinian number we must regard as the creation of\nPythagoras\u2014_who founded a religion_. It was an instinct that guided\nNicolaus Cusanus, the great Bishop of Brixen (about 1450), from the idea\nof the unendingness of God in nature to the elements of the\nInfinitesimal Calculus. Leibniz himself, who two centuries later\ndefinitely settled the methods and notation of the Calculus, was led by\npurely metaphysical speculations about the divine principle and its\nrelation to infinite extent to conceive and develop the notion of an\n_analysis situs_\u2014probably the most inspired of all interpretations of\npure and emancipated space\u2014the possibilities of which were to be\ndeveloped later by Grassmann in his _Ausdehnungslehre_ and above all by\nRiemann, their real creator, in his symbolism of two-sided planes\nrepresentative of the nature of equations. And Kepler and Newton,\nstrictly religious natures both, were and remained convinced, like\nPlato, that it was precisely through the medium of number that they had\nbeen able to apprehend intuitively the essence of the divine world-\norder.\n\n VII\n\nThe Classical arithmetic, we are always told, was first liberated from\nits sense-bondage, widened and extended by Diophantus, who did not\nindeed create algebra (the science of undefined magnitudes) but brought\nit to expression within the framework of the Classical mathematic that\nwe know\u2014and so suddenly that we have to assume that there was a pre-\nexistent stock of ideas which he worked out. But this amounts, not to an\nenrichment of, but a complete victory over, the Classical world-feeling,\nand the mere fact should have sufficed in itself to show that, inwardly,\nDiophantus does not belong to the Classical Culture at all. What is\nactive in him is a new number-feeling, or let us say a new limit-feeling\nwith respect to the actual and become, and no longer that Hellenic\nfeeling of sensuously-present limits which had produced the Euclidean\ngeometry, the nude statue and the coin. Details of the formation of this\nnew mathematic we do not know\u2014Diophantus stands so completely by himself\nin the history of so-called late-Classical mathematics that an Indian\ninfluence has been presumed. But here also the influence it must really\nhave been that of those early-Arabian schools whose studies (apart from\nthe dogmatic) have hitherto been so imperfectly investigated. In\nDiophantus, unconscious though he may be of his own essential antagonism\nto the Classical foundations on which he attempted to build, there\nemerges from under the surface of Euclidean _intention_ the new limit-\n_feeling_ which I designate the \u201cMagian.\u201d He did not widen the idea of\nnumber as magnitude, but (unwittingly) eliminated it. No Greek could\nhave stated anything about an _undefined_ number _a_ or an\n_undenominated_ number 3\u2014which are neither magnitudes nor lines\u2014whereas\nthe new limit-feeling sensibly expressed by numbers of this sort at\nleast underlay, if it did not constitute, Diophantine treatment; and the\nletter-notation which we employ to clothe our own (again transvalued)\nalgebra was first introduced by Vieta in 1591, an unmistakable, if\nunintended, protest against the classicizing tendency of Renaissance\nmathematics.\n\nDiophantus lived about 250 A.D., _that is, in the third century of that\nArabian Culture_ whose organic history, till now smothered under the\nsurface-forms of the Roman Empire and the \u201cMiddle Ages,\u201d[59] comprises\neverything that happened after the beginning of our era in the region\nthat was later to be Islam\u2019s. It was precisely in the time of Diophantus\nthat the last shadow of the Attic statuary art paled before the new\nspace-sense of cupola, mosaic and sarcophagus-relief that we have in the\nEarly-Christian-Syrian style. In that time there was once more _archaic_\nart and strictly geometrical ornament; and at that time too Diocletian\ncompleted the transformation of the now merely sham Empire into a\nCaliphate. The four centuries that separate Euclid and Diophantus,\nseparate also Plato and Plotinus\u2014the last and conclusive thinker, the\nKant, of a fulfilled Culture and the first schoolman, the Duns Scotus,\nof a Culture just awakened.\n\nIt is here that we are made aware for the first time of the existence of\nthose higher individualities whose coming, growth and decay constitute\nthe _real substance of history_ underlying the myriad colours and\nchanges of the surface. The Classical spirituality, which reached its\nfinal phase in the cold intelligence of the Romans and of which the\nwhole Classical Culture with all its works, thoughts, deeds and ruins\nforms the \u201cbody,\u201d had been born about 1100 B.C. in the country about the\n\u00c6gean Sea. The Arabian Culture, which, under cover of the Classical\nCivilization, had been germinating in the East since Augustus, came\nwholly out of the region between Armenia and Southern Arabia, Alexandria\nand Ctesiphon, and we have to consider as expressions of this new soul\nalmost the whole \u201clate-Classical\u201d art of the Empire, all the young\nardent religions of the East\u2014Mand\u00e6anism, Manich\u00e6ism, Christianity, Neo-\nPlatonism, and in Rome itself, as well as the Imperial Fora, that\nPantheon which is the _first of all mosques_.\n\nThat Alexandria and Antioch still wrote in Greek and imagined that they\nwere thinking in Greek is a fact of no more importance than the facts\nthat Latin was the scientific language of the West right up to the time\nof Kant and that Charlemagne \u201crenewed\u201d the Roman Empire.\n\nIn Diophantus, number has ceased to be the measure and essence of\n_plastic things_. In the Ravennate mosaics man has ceased to be a\n_body_. Unnoticed, Greek designations have lost their original\nconnotations. We have left the realm of Attic \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 the Stoic\n\u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1 and \u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7. Diophantus does not yet know zero and negative\nnumbers, it is true, but he has _ceased_ to know Pythagorean numbers.\nAnd this Arabian indeterminateness of number is, in its turn, something\nquite different from the controlled variability of the later Western\nmathematics, the variability of the _function_.\n\nThe Magian mathematic\u2014we can see the outline, though we are ignorant of\nthe details\u2014advanced through Diophantus (who is obviously not a\nstarting-point) boldly and logically to a culmination in the Abbassid\nperiod (9th century) that we can appreciate in Al-Khwarizmi and\nAlsidzshi. And as Euclidean geometry is to Attic statuary (the same\nexpression-form in a different medium) and the analysis of space to\npolyphonic music, so this algebra is to the Magian art with its mosaic,\nits arabesque (which the Sassanid Empire and later Byzantium produced\nwith an ever-increasing profusion and luxury of tangible-intangible\norganic motives) and its Constantinian high-relief in which uncertain\ndeep-darks divide the freely-handled figures of the foreground. As\nalgebra is to Classical arithmetic and Western analysis, so is the\ncupola-church to the Doric temple and the Gothic cathedral. It is not as\nthough Diophantus were one of the great mathematicians. On the contrary,\nmuch of what we have been accustomed to associate with his name is not\nhis work alone. His accidental importance lies in the fact that, so far\nas our knowledge goes, he was the first mathematician in whom the new\nnumber-feeling is unmistakably present. In comparison with the masters\nwho _conclude_ the development of a mathematic\u2014with Apollonius and\nArchimedes, with Gauss, Cauchy, Riemann\u2014Diophantus has, in his form-\nlanguage especially, something _primitive_. This something, which till\nnow we have been pleased to refer to \u201clate-Classical\u201d decadence, we\nshall presently learn to understand and value, just as we are revising\nour ideas as to the despised \u201clate-Classical\u201d art and beginning to see\nin it the tentative expression of the nascent Early Arabian Culture.\nSimilarly archaic, primitive, and groping was the mathematic of Nicolas\nOresme, Bishop of Lisieux (1323-1382),[60] who was the first Western who\nused co-ordinates so to say elastically[61] and, more important still,\nto employ fractional powers\u2014both of which presuppose a number-feeling,\nobscure it may be but quite unmistakable, which is completely non-\nClassical and _also_ non-Arabic. But if, further, we think of Diophantus\ntogether with the early-Christian sarcophagi of the Roman collections,\nand of Oresme together with the Gothic wall-statuary of the German\ncathedrals, we see that the mathematicians as well as the artists have\nsomething in common, which is, that they stand in their respective\nCultures at _the same_ (viz., the primitive) level of abstract\nunderstanding. In the world and age of Diophantus the stereometric sense\nof bounds, which had long ago reached in Archimedes the last stages of\nrefinement and elegance proper to the megalopolitan intelligence, had\npassed away. Throughout that world men were unclear, longing, mystic,\nand no longer bright and free in the Attic way; they were men rooted in\nthe earth of a young country-side, not megalopolitans like Euclid and\nD\u2019Alembert.[62] They no longer understood the deep and complicated forms\nof the Classical thought, and their own were confused and new, far as\nyet from urban clarity and tidiness. Their Culture was in the _Gothic_\ncondition, as all Cultures have been in their youth\u2014as even the\nClassical was in the early Doric period which is known to us now only by\nits Dipylon pottery. Only in Baghdad and in the 9th and 10th Centuries\nwere the young ideas of the age of Diophantus carried through to\ncompletion by ripe masters of the calibre of Plato and Gauss.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n As also those of law and of money. See Vol. II, pp. 68 et seq., pp.\n 616 et seq.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n Poincar\u00e9 in his _Science et M\u00e9thode_ (Ch. III), searchingly analyses\n the \u201cbecoming\u201d of one of his own mathematical discoveries. Each\n decisive stage in it bears \u201c_les m\u00eames caract\u00e8res de bri\u00e8vet\u00e9, de\n soudainet\u00e9 et de certitude absolue_\u201d and in most cases this\n \u201c_certitude_\u201d was such that he merely registered the discovery and put\n off its working-out to any convenient season.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n One may be permitted to add that according to legend, both Hippasus\n who took to himself public credit for the discovery of a sphere of\n twelve pentagons, viz., the regular dodecahedron (regarded by the\n Pythagoreans as the quintessence\u2014or \u00e6ther\u2014of a world of real\n tetrahedrons, octahedrons, icosahedrons and cubes), and Archytas the\n eighth successor of the Founder are reputed to have been drowned at\n sea. The pentagon from which this dodecahedron is derived, itself\n involves incommensurable numbers. The \u201cpentagram\u201d was the recognition\n badge of Pythagoreans and the \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd (incommensurable) their special\n secret. It would be noted, too, that Pythagoreanism was popular till\n its initiates were found to be dealing in these alarming and\n subversive doctrines, and then they were suppressed and lynched\u2014a\n persecution which suggests more than one deep analogy with certain\n heresy-suppressions of Western history. The English student may be\n referred to G. J. Allman, _Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid_\n (Cambridge, 1889), and to his articles \u201cPythagoras,\u201d \u201cPhilolaus\u201d and\n \u201cArchytas\u201d in the _Ency. Brit._, XI Edition.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n Horace\u2019s words (Odes I xi): \u201cTu ne qu\u00e6sieris, scire nefas, quem mihi\n quem tibi finem di dederint, Leucono\u00eb, _nec Babylonios temptaris\n numeros_ ... carpe diem, _quam minimum credula postero_.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 11 et seq.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n In the only writing of his that survives, indeed, Aristarchus\n maintains the geocentric view; it may be presumed therefore that it\n was only temporarily that he let himself be captivated by a hypothesis\n of the Chaldaean learning.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n Giordano Bruno (born 1548, burned for heresy 1600). His whole life\n might be expressed as a crusade on behalf of God and the Copernican\n universe against a degenerated orthodoxy and an Aristotelian world-\n idea long coagulated in death.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n F. Strunz, _Gesch. d. Naturwiss. im Mittelalter_ (1910), p. 90.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n In the \u201cPsammites,\u201d or \u201cArenarius,\u201d Archimedes framed a numerical\n notation which was to be capable of expressing the number of grains of\n sand _in a sphere of the size of our universe_.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n This, for which the ground had been prepared by Eudoxus, was employed\n for calculating the volume of pyramids and cones: \u201cthe means whereby\n the Greeks were able _to evade_ the forbidden notion of infinity\u201d\n (Heiberg, _Naturwiss. u. Math. i. Klass. Alter._ [1912], p. 27).\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n Dr. Anster\u2019s translation.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n See Vol. II, Chapter III.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n Oresme was, equally, prelate, church reformer, scholar, scientist and\n economist\u2014the very type of the philosopher-leader.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n Oresme in his _Latitudines Formarum_ used ordinate and abscissa, not\n indeed to specify numerically, but certainly to describe, change,\n i.e., fundamentally, to express functions.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n Alexandria ceased to be a world-city in the second century A.D. and\n became a collection of houses left over from the Classical\n civilization which harboured a primitive population of quite different\n spiritual constitution. See Vol. II, pp. 122 et seq.\n\n-----\n\n\n VIII\n\nThe decisive act of Descartes, whose geometry appeared in 1637,\nconsisted not in the introduction of a new method or idea in the domain\nof traditional geometry (as we are so frequently told), but in the\ndefinitive conception of _a new number-idea_, which conception was\nexpressed in the emancipation of geometry from servitude to optically-\nrealizable constructions and to measured and measurable lines generally.\nWith that, the analysis of the infinite became a fact. The rigid, so-\ncalled Cartesian, system of co-ordinates\u2014a semi-Euclidean method of\nideally representing measurable magnitudes\u2014had long been known (witness\nOresme) and regarded as of high importance, and when we get to the\nbottom of Descartes\u2019 thought we find that what he did was not to round\noff the system but to overcome it. Its last historic representative was\nDescartes\u2019 contemporary Fermat.[63]\n\nIn place of the sensuous element of concrete lines and planes\u2014the\nspecific character of the Classical feeling of bounds\u2014there emerged the\nabstract, spatial, un-Classical element of the _point_ which from then\non was regarded as a group of co-ordered pure numbers. The idea of\nmagnitude and of perceivable dimension derived from Classical texts and\nArabian traditions was destroyed and replaced by that of variable\nrelation-values between positions in space. It is not in general\nrealized that this amounted to the _supersession of geometry_, which\nthenceforward enjoyed only a fictitious existence behind a fa\u00e7ade of\nClassical tradition. The word \u201cgeometry\u201d has an inextensible Apollinian\nmeaning, and from the time of Descartes what is called the \u201cnew\ngeometry\u201d is made up in part of synthetic work upon the _position_ of\n_points_ in a space which is no longer necessarily three-dimensional (a\n\u201cmanifold of points\u201d), and in part of analysis, in which numbers are\ndefined through point-positions in space. And this replacement of\nlengths by positions carries with it a purely spatial, and no longer a\nmaterial, conception of extension.\n\nThe clearest example of this destruction of the inherited optical-finite\ngeometry seems to me to be the conversion of angular functions\u2014which in\nthe Indian mathematic had been numbers (in a sense of the word that is\nhardly accessible to our minds)\u2014into _periodic_ functions, and their\npassage thence into an infinite number-realm, in which they become\nseries and not the smallest trace remains of the Euclidean figure. In\nall parts of that realm the circle-number \u03c0, like the Napierian base \u03b5,\ngenerates relations of all sorts which obliterate all the old\ndistinctions of geometry, trigonometry and algebra, which are neither\narithmetical nor geometrical in their nature, and in which no one any\nlonger dreams of actually drawing circles or working out powers.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Born 1601, died 1665. See Ency. Brit., XI Ed., article _Fermat_, and\n references therein.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n IX\n\nAt the moment exactly corresponding to that at which (c. 540) the\nClassical Soul in the person of Pythagoras discovered its own proper\nApollinian number, the measurable magnitude, the Western soul in the\npersons of Descartes and his generation (Pascal, Fermat, Desargues)\ndiscovered a notion of number that was the child of a passionate\n_Faustian_ tendency towards the infinite. Number as _pure magnitude_\ninherent in the material presentness of things is paralleled by numbers\nas _pure relation_,[64] and if we may characterize the Classical\n\u201cworld,\u201d the cosmos, as being based on a deep need of visible limits and\ncomposed accordingly as a sum of material things, so we may say that our\nworld-picture is an actualizing of an infinite space in which things\nvisible appear very nearly as realities of a lower order, limited in the\npresence of the illimitable. The symbol of the West is an idea of which\nno other Culture gives even a hint, the idea of _Function_. The function\nis anything rather than an expansion of, it is complete emancipation\nfrom, any pre-existent idea of number. With the function, not only the\nEuclidean geometry (and with it the common human geometry of children\nand laymen, based on everyday experience) but also the Archimedean\narithmetic, ceased to have any value for the really _significant_\nmathematic of Western Europe. Henceforward, this consisted solely in\nabstract analysis. For Classical man geometry and arithmetic were self-\ncontained and complete sciences of the highest rank, both phenomenal and\nboth concerned with magnitudes that could be drawn or numbered. For us,\non the contrary, those things are only practical auxiliaries of daily\nlife. Addition and multiplication, the two Classical methods of\nreckoning magnitudes, have, like their sister geometrical-drawing,\nutterly vanished in the infinity of functional processes. Even the\npower, which in the beginning denotes numerically a set of\nmultiplications (products of equal magnitudes), is, through the\nexponential idea (logarithm) and its employment in complex, negative and\nfractional forms, dissociated from all connexion with magnitude and\ntransferred to a transcendent relational world which the Greeks, knowing\nonly the two positive whole-number powers that represent areas and\nvolumes, were unable to approach. Think, for instance, of expressions\nlike \u03b5^{-x}, ^\u03c0\u221ax, \u03b1^{1\u2044i}.\n\nEvery one of the significant creations which succeeded one another so\nrapidly from the Renaissance onward\u2014imaginary and complex numbers,\nintroduced by Cardanus as early as 1550; infinite series, established\ntheoretically by Newton\u2019s great discovery of the binomial theorem in\n1666; the differential geometry, the definite integral of Leibniz; the\naggregate as a new number-unit, hinted at even by Descartes; new\nprocesses like those of general integrals; the expansion of functions\ninto series and even into infinite series of other functions\u2014is a\nvictory over the popular and sensuous number-feeling in us, a victory\nwhich the new mathematic had to win in order to make the new world-\nfeeling actual.\n\nIn all history, so far, there is no second example of one Culture paying\nto another Culture long extinguished such reverence and submission in\nmatters of science as ours has paid to the Classical. It was very long\nbefore we found courage to think our proper thought. But though the wish\nto emulate the Classical was constantly present, every step of the\nattempt took us in reality further away from the imagined ideal. The\nhistory of Western knowledge is thus one of _progressive emancipation_\nfrom Classical thought, an emancipation never willed but enforced in the\ndepths of the unconscious. _And so the development of the new mathematic\nconsists of a long, secret and finally victorious battle against the\nnotion of magnitude._[65]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n Similarly, coinage and double-entry book-keeping play analogous parts\n in the money-thinking of the Classical and the Western Cultures\n respectively. See Vol. II, pp. 610 et seq.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n The same may be said in the matter of Roman Law (see Vol. II, pp. 96\n et seq.) and of coinage (see Vol. II, pp. 616 et seq.).\n\n-----\n\n\n X\n\nOne result of this Classicizing tendency has been to prevent us from\nfinding the new notation proper to our Western number as such. The\npresent-day sign-language of mathematics perverts its real content. It\nis principally owing to that tendency that the belief in numbers as\nmagnitudes still rules to-day even amongst mathematicians, for is it not\nthe base of all our written notation?\n\nBut it is not the separate signs (e.g., \u03c7, \u03c0, \u03c2) serving to express the\nfunctions _but the function itself as unit_, as element, the variable\nrelation no longer capable of being optically defined, that constitutes\nthe new number; and this new number should have demanded a new notation\nbuilt up with entire disregard of Classical influences. Consider the\ndifference between two equations (if the same word can be used of two\nsuch dissimilar things) such as 3^x + 4^x = 5^x and x^n + y^n = z^n (the\nequation of Fermat\u2019s theorem). The first consists of several Classical\nnumbers\u2014i.e., magnitudes\u2014but the second is _one number_ of a different\nsort, veiled by being written down according to Euclidean-Archimedean\ntradition in the identical form of the first. In the first case, the\nsign = establishes a rigid connexion between definite and tangible\nmagnitudes, but in the second it states that within a domain of variable\nimages there exists a relation such that from certain alterations\ncertain other alterations necessarily follow. The first equation has as\nits aim the specification by measurement of a concrete magnitude, viz.,\na \u201cresult,\u201d while the second has, in general, no result but is simply\nthe picture and sign of a relation which for n>2 (this is the famous\nFermat problem[66]) _can probably be shown to_ exclude integers. A Greek\nmathematician would have found it quite impossible to understand the\npurport of an operation like this, which was not meant to be \u201cworked\nout.\u201d\n\nAs applied to the letters in Fermat\u2019s equation, the notion of the\nunknown is completely misleading. In the first equation _x_ is a\nmagnitude, defined and measurable, which it is our business to compute.\nIn the second, the word \u201cdefined\u201d has no meaning at all for _x_, _y_,\n_z_, _n_, and consequently we do not attempt to compute their \u201cvalues.\u201d\nHence they are not numbers at all in the plastic sense but signs\nrepresenting a connexion that is destitute of the hallmarks of\nmagnitude, shape and unique meaning, an infinity of possible positions\nof like character, an ensemble unified and so attaining existence as a\n_number_. The whole equation, though written in our unfortunate notation\nas a plurality of terms, is actually _one single_ number, _x_, _y_, _z_\nbeing no more numbers than + and = are.\n\nIn fact, directly the essentially anti-Hellenic idea of the irrationals\nis introduced, the foundations of the idea of number as concrete and\ndefinite collapse. Thenceforward, the series of such numbers is no\nlonger a visible row of increasing, discrete, numbers capable of plastic\nembodiment but a unidimensional _continuum_ in which each \u201ccut\u201d (in\nDedekind\u2019s sense) represents a number. Such a number is already\ndifficult to reconcile with Classical number, for the Classical\nmathematic knows only _one_ number between 1 and 3, whereas for the\nWestern the totality of such numbers is an infinite aggregate. But when\nwe introduce further the imaginary (\u221a-1 or _i_) and finally the complex\nnumbers (general form _a_ + _bi_), the linear continuum is broadened\ninto the highly transcendent form of a number-body, i.e., the content of\nan aggregate of homogeneous elements in which a \u201ccut\u201d now stands for a\nnumber-surface containing an infinite aggregate of numbers of a lower\n\u201cpotency\u201d (for instance, all the real numbers), and there remains not a\ntrace of number in the Classical and popular sense. These number-\nsurfaces, which since Cauchy and Riemann have played an important part\nin the theory of functions, are _pure thought-pictures_. Even positive\nirrational number (e.g., \u221a2) could be conceived in a sort of negative\nfashion by Classical minds; they had, in fact, enough idea of it to ban\nit as \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. But expressions of the form _x_ + _yi_ lie\nbeyond every possibility of comprehension by Classical thought, whereas\nit is on the extension of the mathematical laws over the whole region of\nthe complex numbers, within which these laws remain operative, that we\nhave built up the function theory which has at last exhibited the\nWestern mathematic in all purity and unity. Not until that point was\nreached could this mathematic be unreservedly brought to bear in the\nparallel sphere of our _dynamic_ Western physics; for the Classical\nmathematic was fitted precisely to its own stereometric world of\nindividual objects and to _static_ mechanics as developed from Leucippus\nto Archimedes.\n\nThe brilliant period of the Baroque mathematic\u2014the counterpart of the\nIonian\u2014lies substantially in the 18th Century and extends from the\ndecisive discoveries of Newton and Leibniz through Euler, Lagrange,\nLaplace and D\u2019Alembert to Gauss. Once this immense creation found wings,\nits rise was miraculous. Men hardly dared believe their senses. The age\nof refined scepticism witnessed the emergence of one seemingly\nimpossible truth after another.[67] Regarding the theory of the\ndifferential coefficient, D\u2019Alembert had to say: \u201cGo forward, and faith\nwill come to you.\u201d Logic itself seemed to raise objections and to prove\nfoundations fallacious. But the goal was reached.\n\nThis century was a very carnival of abstract and immaterial thinking, in\nwhich the great masters of analysis and, with them, Bach, Gluck, Haydn\nand Mozart\u2014a small group of rare and deep intellects\u2014revelled in the\nmost refined discoveries and speculations, from which Goethe and Kant\nremained aloof; and in point of content it is exactly paralleled by the\nripest century of the Ionic, the century of Eudoxus and Archytas (440-\n350) and, we may add, of Phidias, Polycletus, Alcamenes and the\nAcropolis buildings\u2014in which the form-world of Classical mathematic and\nsculpture displayed the whole fullness of its possibilities, and so\nended.\n\nAnd now for the first time it is possible to comprehend in full the\nelemental opposition of the Classical and the Western souls. In the\nwhole panorama of history, innumerable and intense as historical\nrelations are, we find no two things so fundamentally alien to one\nanother as these. And it is because extremes meet\u2014because it may be\nthere is some deep common origin behind their divergence\u2014that we find in\nthe Western Faustian soul this yearning effort towards the Apollinian\nideal, the only alien ideal which we have loved and, for its power of\nintensely living in the pure sensuous present, have envied.\n\n XI\n\nWe have already observed that, like a child, a primitive mankind\nacquires (as part of the inward experience that is the birth of the ego)\nan understanding of number and _ipso facto_ possession of an external\nworld referred to the ego. As soon as the primitive\u2019s astonished eye\nperceives the dawning world of _ordered_ extension, and the\n_significant_ emerges in great outlines from the welter of mere\nimpressions, and the irrevocable parting of the outer world from his\nproper, his inner, world gives form and direction to his waking life,\nthere arises in the soul\u2014instantly conscious of its loneliness\u2014the root-\nfeeling of _longing_ (Sehnsucht). It is this that urges \u201cbecoming\u201d\ntowards its goal, that motives the fulfilment and actualizing of every\ninward possibility, that unfolds the idea of individual being. It is the\nchild\u2019s longing, which will presently come into the consciousness more\nand more clearly as a feeling of constant _direction_ and finally stand\nbefore the mature spirit as the _enigma of Time_\u2014queer, tempting,\ninsoluble. Suddenly, the words \u201cpast\u201d and \u201cfuture\u201d have acquired a\nfateful meaning.\n\nBut this longing which wells out of the bliss of the inner life is also,\nin the intimate essence of every soul, a _dread_ as well. As all\nbecoming moves towards a having-become wherein it _ends_, so the prime\nfeeling of becoming\u2014the longing\u2014touches the prime feeling of having-\nbecome, the dread. In the present we feel a trickling-away, the past\nimplies a passing. Here is the root of our eternal dread of the\nirrevocable, the attained, the final\u2014our dread of mortality, of the\nworld itself as a thing-become, where death is set as a frontier like\nbirth\u2014our dread in the moment when the possible is actualized, the life\nis inwardly fulfilled and consciousness stands at its _goal_. It is the\ndeep world-fear of the child\u2014which never leaves the higher man, the\nbeliever, the poet, the artist\u2014that makes him so infinitely lonely in\nthe presence of the alien powers that loom, threatening in the dawn,\nbehind the screen of sense-phenomena. The element of direction, too,\nwhich is inherent in all \u201cbecoming,\u201d is felt owing to its inexorable\n_irreversibility_ to be something alien and hostile, and the human will-\nto-understanding ever seeks to bind the inscrutable by the spell of a\nname. It is something beyond comprehension, this transformation of\nfuture into past, and thus time, in its contrast with space, has always\na queer, baffling, oppressive ambiguity from which no serious man can\nwholly protect himself.\n\nThis world-fear is assuredly the most _creative_ of all prime feelings.\nMan owes to it the ripest and deepest forms and images, not only of his\nconscious inward life, but also of the infinitely-varied external\nculture which reflects this life. Like a secret melody that not every\near can perceive, it runs through the form-language of every true art-\nwork, every inward philosophy, every important deed, and, although those\nwho can perceive it in that domain are the very few, it lies at the root\nof the great problems of mathematics. Only the spiritually dead man of\nthe autumnal cities\u2014Hammurabi\u2019s Babylon, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Islamic\nBaghdad, Paris and Berlin to-day\u2014only the pure intellectual, the\nsophist, the sensualist, the Darwinian, loses it or is able to evade it\nby setting up a secretless \u201cscientific world-view\u201d between himself and\nthe alien. As the longing attaches itself to that impalpable something\nwhose thousand-formed elusive manifestations are comprised in, rather\nthan denoted by, the word \u201ctime,\u201d so the other prime feeling, dread,\nfinds its expression in the intellectual, understandable, outlinable\nsymbols of _extension_; and thus we find that every Culture is aware\n(each in its own special way) of an opposition of time and space, of\ndirection and extension, the former underlying the latter as becoming\nprecedes having-become. It is the longing that underlies the dread,\n_becomes_ the dread, and not vice versa. The one is not subject to the\nintellect, the other is its servant. The r\u00f4le of the one is purely to\nexperience, that of the other purely to know (erleben, erkennen). In the\nChristian language, the opposition of the two world-feelings is\nexpressed by: \u201cFear God and love Him.\u201d\n\nIn the soul of all primitive mankind, just as in that of earliest\nchildhood, there is something which impels it to find means of dealing\nwith the alien powers of the extension-world that assert themselves,\ninexorable, in and through space. To bind, to bridle, to placate, to\n\u201cknow\u201d are all, in the last analysis, the same thing. In the mysticism\nof all primitive periods, to _know God_ means to conjure him, to make\nhim favourable, to _appropriate_ him inwardly. This is achieved,\nprincipally, by means of a word, the Name\u2014the \u201cnomen\u201d which designates\nand _calls up_ the \u201cnumen\u201d\u2014and also by ritual practices of secret\npotency; and the subtlest, as well as the most powerful, form of this\ndefence is causal and systematic knowledge, delimitation by label and\nnumber. In this respect man only becomes wholly man when he has acquired\n_language_. When cognition has ripened to the point of words, the\noriginal chaos of _impressions_ necessarily transforms itself into a\n\u201cNature\u201d that has laws and must obey them, and the world-in-itself\nbecomes a world-for-us.[68]\n\nThe world-fear is stilled when an intellectual form-language hammers out\nbrazen vessels in which the mysterious is captured and made\ncomprehensible. This is the _idea_ of \u201c_taboo_,\u201d[69] which plays a\ndecisive part in the spiritual life of all primitive men, though the\noriginal content of the word lies so far from us that it is incapable of\ntranslation into any ripe culture-language. Blind terror, religious awe,\ndeep loneliness, melancholy, hate, obscure impulses to draw near, to be\nmerged, to escape\u2014all those _formed_ feelings of mature souls are in the\nchildish condition blurred in a monotonous indecision. The two senses of\nthe word \u201cconjure\u201d (verschw\u00f6ren), meaning to bind and to implore at\nonce, may serve to make clear the sense of the mystical process by which\nfor primitive man the formidable alien becomes \u201ctaboo.\u201d Reverent awe\nbefore that which is independent of one\u2019s self, things ordained and\nfixed by law, the alien powers of the world, is the source from which\nthe elementary formative acts, one and all, spring. In early times this\nfeeling is actualized in ornament, in laborious ceremonies and rites,\nand the rigid laws of primitive intercourse. At the zeniths of the great\nCultures those formations, though retaining inwardly the mark of their\norigin, the characteristic of binding and conjuring, have become the\ncomplete form-worlds of the various arts and of religious, scientific\nand, above all, _mathematical_ thought. The method common to all\u2014the\nonly way of actualizing itself that the soul knows\u2014is the _symbolizing\nof extension_, of space or of things; and we find it alike in the\nconceptions of absolute space that pervade Newtonian physics, Gothic\ncathedral-interiors and Moorish mosques, and the atmospheric infinity of\nRembrandt\u2019s paintings and again the dark tone-worlds of Beethoven\u2019s\nquartets; in the regular polyhedrons of Euclid, the Parthenon sculptures\nand the pyramids of Old Egypt, the Nirvana of Buddha, the aloofness of\ncourt-customs under Sesostris, Justinian I and Louis XIV, in the God-\nidea of an \u00c6schylus, a Plotinus, a Dante; and in the world-embracing\nspatial energy of modern technics.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n That is, \u201cit is impossible to part a cube into two cubes, a biquadrate\n into two biquadrates, and generally any power above the square into\n two powers having the same exponent.\u201d Fermat claimed to possess a\n proof of the proposition, but this has not been preserved, and no\n general proof has hitherto been obtained.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n Thus Bishop Berkeley\u2019s _Discourse addressed to an infidel\n mathematician_ (1735) shrewdly asked whether the mathematician were in\n a position to criticize the divine for proceeding on the basis of\n faith.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n From the savage conjuror with his naming-magic to the modern scientist\n who subjects things by attaching technical labels to them, the form\n has in no wise changed. See Vol. II, pp. 116 et seq., 322 et seq.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 137 et seq.\n\n-----\n\n XII\n\nTo return to mathematics. In the Classical world the starting-point of\nevery formative act was, as we have seen, the ordering of the \u201cbecome,\u201d\nin so far as this was present, visible, measurable and numerable. The\nWestern, Gothic, form-feeling on the contrary is that of an\nunrestrained, strong-willed far-ranging soul, and its chosen badge is\npure, imperceptible, unlimited space. But we must not be led into\nregarding such symbols as unconditional. On the contrary, they are\nstrictly conditional, though apt to be taken as having identical essence\nand validity. Our universe of infinite space, whose existence, for us,\ngoes without saying, simply does not exist for Classical man. It is not\neven capable of being presented to him. On the other hand, the Hellenic\ncosmos, which is (as we might have discovered long ago) entirely foreign\nto our way of thinking, was for the Hellene something self-evident. The\nfact is that the infinite space of our physics is a form of very\nnumerous and extremely complicated elements tacitly assumed, which have\ncome into being only as the copy and expression of _our_ soul, and are\nactual, necessary and natural only for _our_ type of waking life. The\nsimple notions are always the most difficult. They are simple, in that\nthey comprise a vast deal that not only is incapable of being exhibited\nin words but does not even need to be stated, because _for men of the\nparticular group_ it is anchored in the intuition; and they are\ndifficult because for all alien men their real content is _ipso facto_\nquite inaccessible. Such a notion, at once simple and difficult, is our\nspecifically Western meaning of the word \u201cspace.\u201d The whole of our\nmathematic from Descartes onward is devoted to the theoretical\ninterpretation of this great and wholly religious symbol. The aim of all\nour physics since Galileo is identical; but in the Classical mathematics\nand physics the content of this word is simply _not known_.\n\nHere, too, Classical names, inherited from the literature of Greece and\nretained in use, have veiled the realities. Geometry means the art of\nmeasuring, arithmetic the art of numbering. The mathematic of the West\nhas long ceased to have anything to do with both these forms of\ndefining, but it has not managed to find new names for its own elements\u2014\nfor the word \u201canalysis\u201d is hopelessly inadequate.\n\nThe beginning and end of the Classical mathematic is consideration of\nthe properties of individual bodies and their boundary-surfaces; thus\nindirectly taking in conic sections and higher curves. _We_, on the\nother hand, at bottom know only the abstract space-element of the point,\nwhich can neither be seen, nor measured, nor yet named, but represents\nsimply a centre of reference. The straight line, for the Greeks a\nmeasurable edge, is for us an infinite continuum of points. Leibniz\nillustrates his infinitesimal principle by presenting the straight line\nas one limiting case and the point as the other limiting case of a\ncircle having infinitely great or infinitely little radius. But for the\nGreek the circle is a _plane_ and the problem that interested him was\nthat of bringing it into a commensurable condition. Thus the _squaring\nof the circle became for the Classical intellect the supreme problem of\nthe finite_. The deepest problem of world-form seemed to it to be to\nalter surfaces bounded by curved lines, without change of magnitude,\ninto rectangles and so to render them measureable. For us, on the other\nhand, it has become the usual, and not specially significant, practice\nto represent the number \u03c0 by algebraic means, regardless of any\ngeometrical image.\n\nThe Classical mathematician knows only what he sees and grasps. Where\ndefinite and defining visibility\u2014the domain of his thought\u2014ceases, his\nscience comes to an end. The Western mathematician, as soon as he has\nquite shaken off the trammels of Classical prejudice, goes off into a\nwholly abstract region of infinitely numerous \u201cmanifolds\u201d of _n_ (no\nlonger 3) dimensions, in which his so-called geometry always can and\ngenerally must do without every commonplace aid. When Classical man\nturns to artistic expressions of his form-feeling, he tries with marble\nand bronze to give the dancing or the wrestling human form that pose and\nattitude in which surfaces and contours have all attainable proportion\nand meaning. But the true artist of the West shuts his eyes and loses\nhimself in the realm of bodiless music, in which harmony and polyphony\nbring him to images of utter \u201cbeyondness\u201d that transcend all\npossibilities of visual definition. One need only think of the meanings\nof the word \u201cfigure\u201d as used respectively by the Greek sculptor and the\nNorthern contrapuntist, and the opposition of the two worlds, the two\nmathematics, is immediately presented. The Greek mathematicians ever use\nthe word \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 for their entities, just as the Greek lawyers used it for\npersons as distinct from things (\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: _person\u00e6 et res_).\n\nClassical number, integral and corporeal, therefore inevitably seeks to\nrelate itself with the birth of bodily man, the \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. The number 1 is\nhardly yet conceived of as actual number but rather as \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, the prime\nstuff of the number-series, the origin of all true numbers and therefore\nall magnitudes, measures and materiality (Dinglichkeit). In the group of\nthe Pythagoreans (the date does not matter) its figured-sign was also\nthe symbol of the mother-womb, the origin of all life. The digit 2, the\nfirst _true_ number, which doubles the 1, was therefore correlated with\nthe male principle and given the sign of the phallus. And, finally, 3,\nthe \u201choly number\u201d of the Pythagoreans, denoted the act of union between\nman and woman, the act of propagation\u2014the erotic suggestion in adding\nand multiplying (the only two processes of increasing, of _propagating_,\nmagnitude useful to Classical man) is easily seen\u2014and its sign was the\ncombination of the two first. Now, all this throws quite a new light\nupon the legends previously alluded to, concerning the sacrilege of\ndisclosing the irrational. The irrational\u2014in our language the employment\nof unending decimal fractions\u2014implied the destruction of an organic and\ncorporeal and reproductive order that the gods had laid down. There is\nno doubt that the Pythagorean reforms of the Classical religion were\nthemselves based upon the immemorial Demeter-cult. Demeter, G\u00e6a, is akin\nto Mother Earth. There is a deep relation between the honour paid to her\nand this exalted conception of the numbers.\n\nThus, inevitably, the Classical became by degrees the Culture of the\n_small_. The Apollinian soul had tried to tie down the meaning of\nthings-become by means of the principle of _visible limits_; its taboo\nwas focused upon the immediately-present and proximate alien. What was\nfar away, invisible, was _ipso facto_ \u201cnot there.\u201d The Greek and the\nRoman alike sacrificed to the gods of the place in which he happened to\nstay or reside; all other deities were outside the range of vision. Just\nas the Greek tongue\u2014again and again we shall note the mighty symbolism\nof such language-phenomena\u2014possessed _no word for space_, so the Greek\nhimself was destitute of our feeling of landscape, horizons, outlooks,\ndistances, clouds, and of the idea of the far-spread fatherland\nembracing the great nation. _Home_, for Classical man, is what he can\nsee from the citadel of his native town and no more. All that lay beyond\nthe visual range of this political atom was alien, and hostile to boot;\nbeyond that narrow range, fear set in at once, and hence the appalling\nbitterness with which these petty towns strove to destroy one another.\nThe Polis is the smallest of all conceivable state-forms, and its policy\nis frankly short-range, therein differing in the extreme from our own\ncabinet-diplomacy which is the policy of the unlimited. Similarly, the\nClassical temple, which can be taken in in one glance, is the smallest\nof all first-rate architectural forms. Classical geometry from Archytas\nto Euclid\u2014like the school geometry of to-day which is still dominated by\nit\u2014concerned itself with small, manageable figures and bodies, and\ntherefore remained unaware of the difficulties that arise in\nestablishing figures of astronomical dimensions, which in many cases are\nnot amenable to Euclidean geometry.[70] Otherwise the subtle Attic\nspirit would almost surely have arrived at some notion of the problems\nof non-Euclidean geometry, for its criticism of the well-known\n\u201cparallel\u201d axiom,[71] the doubtfulness of which soon aroused opposition\nyet could not in any way be elucidated, brought it very close indeed to\nthe decisive discovery. The Classical mind as unquestioningly devoted\nand limited itself to the study of the small and the near as ours has to\nthat of the infinite and ultra-visual. All the mathematical ideas that\nthe West found for itself or borrowed from others were automatically\nsubjected to the form-language of the Infinitesimal\u2014and that long before\nthe actual Differential Calculus was discovered. Arabian algebra, Indian\ntrigonometry, Classical mechanics were incorporated as a matter of\ncourse in analysis. Even the most \u201cself-evident\u201d propositions of\nelementary arithmetic such as 2 \u00d7 2 = 4 become, when considered\nanalytically, problems, and the solution of these problems was only made\npossible by deductions from the Theory of Aggregates, and is in many\npoints still unaccomplished. Plato and his age would have looked upon\nthis sort of thing not only as a hallucination but also as evidence of\nan utterly nonmathematical mind. In a certain measure, geometry may be\ntreated algebraically and algebra geometrically, that is, the eye may be\nswitched off or it may be allowed to govern. We take the first\nalternative, the Greeks the second. Archimedes, in his beautiful\nmanagement of spirals, touches upon certain general facts that are also\nfundamentals in Leibniz\u2019s method of the definite integral; but his\nprocesses, for all their superficial appearance of modernity, are\nsubordinated to stereometric principles; in like case, an Indian\nmathematician would naturally have found some trigonometrical\nformulation.[72]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n A beginning is now being made with the application of non-Euclidean\n geometries to astronomy. The hypothesis of curved space, closed but\n without limits, filled by the system of fixed stars on a radius of\n about 470,000,000 earth-distances, would lead to the hypothesis of a\n counter-image of the sun which to us appears as a star of medium\n brilliancy. (See translator\u2019s footnote, p. 332.)\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n That only one parallel to a given straight line is possible through a\n given point\u2014a proposition that is incapable of proof.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n It is impossible to say, with certainty, how much of the Indian\n mathematics that we possess is old, i.e., before Buddha.\n\n-----\n\n\n XIII\n\nFrom this fundamental opposition of Classical and Western numbers there\narises an equally radical difference in the relationship of element to\nelement in each of these number-worlds. The nexus of _magnitudes_ is\ncalled _proportion_, that of _relations_ is comprised in the notion of\n_function_. The significance of these two words is not confined to\nmathematics proper; they are of high importance also in the allied arts\nof sculpture and music. Quite apart from the r\u00f4le of proportion in\nordering the parts of the _individual_ statue, the typically Classical\nartforms of the statue, the relief, and the fresco, admit _enlargements\nand reductions of scale\u2014words that in music have no meaning at all_\u2014as\nwe see in the art of the gems, in which the subjects are essentially\nreductions from life-sized originals. In the domain of Function, on the\ncontrary, it is the idea of _transformation of groups_ that is of\ndecisive importance, and the musician will readily agree that similar\nideas play an essential part in modern composition-theory. I need only\nallude to one of the most elegant orchestral forms of the 18th Century,\nthe _Tema con Variazioni_.\n\nAll proportion assumes the constancy, all transformation the variability\nof the constituents. Compare, for instance, the congruence theorems of\nEuclid, the proof of which depends in fact on the assumed ratio 1 : 1,\nwith the modern deduction of the same by means of angular functions.\n\n XIV\n\nThe Alpha and Omega of the Classical mathematic is _construction_ (which\nin the broad sense includes elementary arithmetic), that is, the\nproduction of a single visually-present figure. The chisel, in this\nsecond sculptural art, is the compass. On the other hand, in function-\nresearch, where the object is not a result of the magnitude sort but a\ndiscussion of general formal possibilities, the way of working is best\ndescribed as a sort of composition-procedure closely analogous to the\nmusical; and in fact, a great number of the ideas met with in the theory\nof music (key, phrasing, chromatics, for instance) can be directly\nemployed in physics, and it is at least arguable that many relations\nwould be clarified by so doing.\n\nEvery _construction_ affirms, and every _operation_ denies appearances,\nin that the one works out that which is optically given and the other\ndissolves it. And so we meet with yet another contrast between the two\nkinds of mathematic; the Classical mathematic of small things deals with\nthe concrete _individual instance_ and produces a once-for-all\nconstruction, while the mathematic of the infinite handles whole\n_classes_ of formal possibilities, _groups_ of functions, operations,\nequations, curves, and does so with an eye, not to any result they may\nhave, but to their course. And so for the last two centuries\u2014though\npresent-day mathematicians hardly realize the fact\u2014there has been\ngrowing up _the idea of a general morphology of mathematical\noperations_, which we are justified in regarding as the real meaning of\nmodern mathematics as a whole. All this, as we shall perceive more and\nmore clearly, is one of the manifestations of a general tendency\ninherent in the Western intellect, proper to the Faustian spirit and\nCulture and found in no other. The great majority of the problems which\noccupy our mathematic, and are regarded as \u201cour\u201d problems in the same\nsense as the squaring of the circle was the Greeks\u2019,\u2014e.g., the\ninvestigation of convergence in infinite series (Cauchy) and the\ntransformation of elliptic and algebraic integrals into multiply-\nperiodic functions (Abel, Gauss)\u2014would probably have seemed to the\nAncients, who strove for simple and definite quantitative results, to be\nan exhibition of rather abstruse virtuosity. And so indeed the popular\nmind regards them even to-day. There is nothing less \u201cpopular\u201d than the\nmodern mathematic, and it too contains its symbolism of the infinitely\nfar, of _distance_. _All_ the great works of the West, from the \u201cDivina\nCommedia\u201d to \u201cParsifal,\u201d are unpopular, whereas everything Classical\nfrom Homer to the Altar of Pergamum was popular in the highest degree.\n\n XV\n\nThus, finally, the whole content of Western number-thought centres\nitself upon the historic _limit-problem_ of the Faustian mathematic, the\nkey which opens the way to the Infinite, that _Faustian infinite_ which\nis so different from the infinity of Arabian and Indian world-ideas.\nWhatever the guise\u2014infinite series, curves or functions\u2014in which number\nappears in the particular case, the _essence_ of it is the _theory of\nthe limit_.[73] This limit is the absolute opposite of the limit which\n(without being so called) figures in the Classical problem of the\nquadrature of the circle. Right into the 18th Century, Euclidean popular\nprepossessions obscured the real meaning of the differential principle.\nThe idea of infinitely small quantities lay, so to say, ready to hand,\nand however skilfully they were handled, there was bound to remain a\ntrace of the Classical constancy, the _semblance of magnitude_, about\nthem, though Euclid would never have known them or admitted them as\nsuch. Thus, zero is a constant, a whole number in the linear continuum\nbetween +1 and -1; and it was a great hindrance to Euler in his\nanalytical researches that, like many after him, he treated the\ndifferentials as zero. Only in the 19th Century was this relic of\nClassical number-feeling finally removed and the Infinitesimal Calculus\nmade logically secure by Cauchy\u2019s definitive elucidation of the _limit-\nidea_; only the intellectual step from the \u201cinfinitely small quantity\u201d\nto the \u201clower limit of _every possible_ finite magnitude\u201d brought out\nthe conception of a variable number which oscillates beneath any\nassignable number that is not zero. A number of this sort has ceased to\npossess any character of magnitude whatever: the limit, as thus finally\npresented by theory, is no longer that which is approximated to, but\n_the approximation, the process, the operation itself. It is not a\nstate, but a relation._ And so in this decisive problem of our\nmathematic, we are suddenly made to see how _historical_ is the\nconstitution of the Western soul.[74]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n The technical difference (in German usage) between _Grenz_ and\n _Grenzwert_ is in most cases ignored in this translation as it is only\n the underlying conception of \u201cnumber\u201d common to both that concerns us.\n _Grenz_ is the \u201climit\u201d strictly speaking, i.e., the number _a_ to\n which the terms _a__{1}\u2081, _a__{2}\u2082, _a_\u2083 ... of a particular _series_\n approximate more and more closely, till nearer to _a_ than any\n assignable number whatever. The _Grenzwert_ of a _function_, on the\n other hand, is the \u201climit\u201d of the value which the function takes for a\n given value _a_ of the variable _x_. These methods of reasoning and\n their derivatives enable solutions to be obtained for series such as\n (1\u2044_m_\u00b9,) (1\u2044_m_\u00b2,) (1\u2044_m_\u00b3,) ... (1\u2044_m_^{_x_}) or functions such as\n\n _x_(2_x_ - 1)\n _y_ = \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n (_x_+ 2)(_x_- 3)\n\n where _x_ is _infinite_ or _indefinite_.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n \u201cFunction, rightly understood, is existence considered as an activity\u201d\n (Goethe). Cf. Vol. II, p. 618, for functional money.\n\n-----\n\n\n XVI\n\nThe liberation of geometry from the visual, and of algebra from the\nnotion of magnitude, and the union of both, beyond all elementary\nlimitations of drawing and counting, in the great structure of function-\ntheory\u2014this was the grand course of Western number-thought. The constant\nnumber of the Classical mathematic was dissolved into the variable.\nGeometry _became_ analytical and dissolved all concrete forms, replacing\nthe mathematical bodies from which the rigid geometrical values had been\nobtained, by abstract spatial relations which in the end ceased to have\nany application at all to sense-present phenomena. It began by\nsubstituting for Euclid\u2019s optical figures geometrical loci referred to a\nco-ordinate system of arbitrarily chosen \u201corigin,\u201d and reducing the\npostulated objectiveness of existence of the geometrical object to the\none condition that during the operation (which itself was one of\nequating and not of measurement) the selected co-ordinate system should\nnot be changed. But these co-ordinates immediately came to be regarded\nas values pure and simple, serving not so much to determine as to\nrepresent and replace the position of points as space-elements. Number,\nthe boundary of things-become, was represented, not as before\npictorially by a figure, but symbolically by an equation. \u201cGeometry\u201d\naltered its meaning; the co-ordinate system as a picturing disappeared\nand the point became an entirely abstract number-group. In architecture,\nwe find this inward transformation of Renaissance into Baroque through\nthe innovations of Michael Angelo and Vignola. Visually pure lines\nbecame, in palace and church fa\u00e7ades as in mathematics, ineffectual. In\nplace of the clear co-ordinates that we have in Romano-Florentine\ncolonnading and storeying, the \u201cinfinitesimal\u201d appears in the graceful\nflow of elements, the scrollwork, the cartouches. The constructive\ndissolves in the wealth of the decorative\u2014in mathematical language, the\nfunctional. Columns and pilasters, assembled in groups and clusters,\nbreak up the fa\u00e7ades, gather and disperse again restlessly. The flat\nsurfaces of wall, roof, storey melt into a wealth of stucco work and\nornaments, vanish and break into a play of light and shade. The light\nitself, as it is made to play upon the form-world of mature Baroque\u2014\nviz., the period from Bernini (1650) to the Rococo of Dresden, Vienna\nand Paris\u2014has become an essentially musical element. The Dresden\nZwinger[75] is a _sinfonia_. Along with 18th Century mathematics, 18th\nCentury architecture develops into a form-world of _musical_ characters.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n Built for August II, in 1711, as barbican or fore-building for a\n projected palace.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n XVII\n\nThis mathematics of ours was bound in due course to reach the point at\nwhich not merely the limits of artificial geometrical form but the\nlimits of the visual itself were felt by theory and by the soul alike as\nlimits indeed, as obstacles to the unreserved expression of inward\npossibilities\u2014in other words, the point at which the ideal of\ntranscendent extension came into fundamental conflict with the\nlimitations of immediate perception. The Classical soul, with the entire\nabdication of Platonic and Stoic \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1, submitted to the sensuous and\n(as the erotic under-meaning of the Pythagorean numbers shows) it rather\n_felt_ than _emitted_ its great symbols. Of transcending the corporeal\nhere-and-now it was quite incapable. But whereas number, as conceived by\na Pythagorean, exhibited the essence of individual and discrete _data_\nin \u201cNature\u201d Descartes and his successors looked upon number as\n_something to be conquered_, to be _wrung out_, an abstract relation\nroyally indifferent to all phenomenal support and capable of holding its\nown against \u201cNature\u201d on all occasions. The will-to-power (to use\nNietzsche\u2019s great formula) that from the earliest Gothic of the Eddas,\nthe Cathedrals and Crusades, and even from the old conquering Goths and\nVikings, has distinguished the attitude of the Northern soul to its\nworld, appears also in the sense-transcending energy, the _dynamic_ of\nWestern number. In the Apollinian mathematic the intellect is the\nservant of the eye, in the Faustian its master. Mathematical, \u201cabsolute\u201d\nspace, we see then, is utterly un-Classical, and from the first,\nalthough mathematicians with their reverence for the Hellenic tradition\ndid not dare to observe the fact, it was something different from the\nindefinite spaciousness of daily experience and customary painting, the\n_a priori_ space of Kant which seemed so unambiguous and sure a concept.\nIt is a pure abstract, an ideal and unfulfillable postulate of a soul\nwhich is ever less and less satisfied with sensuous means of expression\nand in the end passionately brushes them aside. _The inner eye has\nawakened._\n\nAnd then, for the first time, those who thought deeply were obliged to\nsee that the Euclidean geometry, which is the _true and only_ geometry\nof the simple of all ages, is when regarded from the higher standpoint\nnothing but a _hypothesis_, the general validity of which, since Gauss,\nwe know it to be quite impossible to prove in the face of other and\nperfectly non-perceptual geometries. The critical proposition of this\ngeometry, Euclid\u2019s axiom of parallels, is an _assertion_, for which we\nare quite at liberty to substitute another assertion. We may assert, in\nfact, that through a given point, no parallels, or two, or many\nparallels may be drawn to a given straight line, and all these\nassumptions lead to completely irreproachable geometries of three\ndimensions, which can be employed in physics and even in astronomy, and\nare in some cases preferable to the Euclidean.\n\nEven the simple axiom that extension is boundless (boundlessness, since\nRiemann and the theory of curved space, is to be distinguished from\nendlessness) at once contradicts the essential character of all\nimmediate perception, in that the latter depends upon the existence of\nlight-resistances and _ipso facto_ has material bounds. But abstract\nprinciples of boundary can be imagined which transcend, in an entirely\nnew sense, the possibilities of optical definition. For the deep\nthinker, there exists even in the Cartesian geometry the tendency to get\nbeyond the three dimensions of _experiential_ space, regarded as an\nunnecessary restriction on the symbolism of number. And although it was\nnot till about 1800 that the notion of _multi-dimensional space_ (it is\na pity that no better word was found) provided analysis with broader\nfoundations, the real first step was taken at the moment when powers\u2014\nthat is, really, logarithms\u2014were released from their original relation\nwith sensually realizable surfaces and solids and, through the\nemployment of irrational and complex exponents, brought within the realm\nof function as perfectly general relation-values. It will be admitted by\neveryone who understands anything of mathematical reasoning that\ndirectly we passed from the notion of a\u00b3 as a natural maximum to that of\na^{_n_}, the unconditional necessity of three-dimensional space was done\naway with.\n\nOnce the space-element or point had lost its last persistent relic of\nvisualness and, instead of being represented to the eye as a cut in co-\nordinate lines, was defined as a group of three independent numbers,\nthere was no longer any inherent objection to replacing the number 3 by\nthe general number _n_. The notion of dimension was radically changed.\nIt was no longer a matter of treating the properties of a point\nmetrically with reference to its position in a visible system, but of\nrepresenting the entirely abstract properties of a number-group by means\nof any dimensions that we please. The number-group\u2014consisting of _n_\nindependent ordered elements\u2014is an _image_ of the point and it is\n_called_ a point. Similarly, an equation logically arrived therefrom is\n_called_ a plane and is the image of a plane. And the aggregate of all\npoints of _n_ dimensions is _called_ an _n_-dimensional space.[76] In\nthese transcendent space-worlds, which are remote from every sort of\nsensualism, lie the relations which it is the business of analysis to\ninvestigate and which are found to be consistently in agreement with the\ndata of experimental physics. This space of higher degree is a symbol\nwhich is through-and-through the peculiar property of the Western mind.\nThat mind alone has attempted, and successfully too, to capture the\n\u201cbecome\u201d and the extended in _these_ forms, to conjure and bind\u2014to\n\u201cknow\u201d\u2014the alien by _this_ kind of appropriation or taboo. Not until\nsuch spheres of number-thought are reached, and not for any men but the\nfew who have reached them, do such imaginings as systems of hypercomplex\nnumbers (e.g., the quaternions of the calculus of vectors) and\napparently quite meaningless symbols like \u221e^{_n_} acquire the character\nof something actual. And here if anywhere it must be understood that\nactuality is not only sensual actuality. The spiritual is in no wise\nlimited to perception-forms for the actualizing of its idea.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n From the standpoint of the theory of \u201caggregates\u201d (or \u201csets of\n points\u201d), a well-ordered set of points, irrespective of the dimension\n figure, is called a corpus; and thus an aggregate of _n_ - 1\n dimensions is considered, _relatively_ to one of _n_ dimensions, as a\n surface. Thus the limit (wall, edge) of an \u201caggregate\u201d represents an\n aggregate of lower \u201cpotentiality.\u201d\n\n-----\n\n\n XVIII\n\nFrom this grand intuition of symbolic space-worlds came the last and\nconclusive creation of Western mathematic\u2014the expansion and subtilizing\nof the function theory in that of _groups_. Groups are aggregates or\nsets of homogeneous mathematical images\u2014e.g., the totality of all\ndifferential equations of a certain type\u2014which in structure and ordering\nare analogous to the Dedekind number-bodies. Here are worlds, we feel,\nof perfectly new numbers, which are nevertheless not utterly sense-\ntranscendent for the _inner_ eye of the adept; and the problem now is to\ndiscover in those vast abstract form-systems certain elements which,\nrelatively to a particular group of operations (viz., of transformations\nof the system), remain unaffected thereby, that is, possess invariance.\nIn mathematical language, the problem, as stated generally by Klein, is\u2014\ngiven an _n_-dimensional manifold (\u201cspace\u201d) and a group of\ntransformations, it is required to examine the forms belonging to the\nmanifold in respect of such properties as are not altered by\ntransformation of the group.\n\nAnd with this culmination our Western mathematic, having exhausted every\ninward possibility and fulfilled its destiny as the _copy and purest\nexpression of the idea of the Faustian soul_, closes its development in\nthe same way as the mathematic of the Classical Culture concluded in the\nthird century. Both those sciences (the only ones of which the organic\nstructure can even to-day be examined historically) arose out of a\nwholly new idea of number, in the one case Pythagoras\u2019s, in the other\nDescartes\u2019. Both, expanding in all beauty, reached their maturity one\nhundred years later; and both, after flourishing for three centuries,\ncompleted the structure of their ideas at the same moment as the\nCultures to which they respectively belonged passed over into the phase\nof megalopolitan Civilization. The deep significance of this\ninterdependence will be made clear in due course. It is enough for the\nmoment that for us the time of the _great_ mathematicians is past. Our\ntasks to-day are those of preserving, rounding off, refining, selection\u2014\nin place of big dynamic creation, the same clever detail-work which\ncharacterized the Alexandrian mathematic of late Hellenism.\n\nA historical paradigm will make this clearer.\n\ncolumn 1\n\ncolumn two\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n THE PROBLEM OF WORLD-HISTORY\n\n I\n PHYSIOGNOMIC AND SYSTEMATIC\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n THE PROBLEM OF WORLD-HISTORY\n\n\n I\n PHYSIOGNOMIC AND SYSTEMATIC\n\n\n I\n\nNow, at last, it is possible to take the decisive step of sketching an\nimage of history that is independent of the accident of standpoint, of\nthe period in which this or that observer lives\u2014independent too of the\npersonality of the observer himself, who as an interested member of his\nown Culture is tempted, by its religious, intellectual, political and\nsocial tendencies, to order the material of history according to a\nperspective that is limited as to both space and time, and to fashion\narbitrary forms into which the superficies of history can be forced but\nwhich are entirely alien to its inner content.\n\nWhat has been missing, till now, is _detachment_ from the objects\nconsidered (die Distanz vom Gegenstande). In respect of Nature, this\ndetachment has long ago been attained, though of course it was\nrelatively easy of attainment, since the physicist can obviously\nsystematize the mechanical-causal picture of his world as impersonally\nas though he himself did not exist in it.\n\nIt is quite possible, however, to do the same as regards the form-world\nof History. We have merely been unaware of the possibility. The modern\nhistorian, in the very act of priding himself on his \u201cobjectivity,\u201d\nna\u00efvely and unconsciously reveals his prepossessions. For this reason it\nis quite legitimate to say\u2014and it will infallibly be said some day\u2014that\nso far a genuinely Faustian treatment of history has been entirely\nlacking. By such a treatment is meant one that has enough detachment to\nadmit that any \u201cpresent\u201d is only such with reference to a particular\ngeneration of men; that the number of generations is infinite, and that\nthe proper present must therefore be regarded just as something\ninfinitely distant and alien is regarded, and treated as an interval of\ntime neither more nor less significant in the whole picture of History\nthan others. Such a treatment will employ no distorting modulus of\npersonal ideals, set no personal origin of co-ordinates, be influenced\nby none of the personal hopes and fears and other inward impulses which\ncount for so much in practical life; and such a detachment will\u2014to use\nthe words of Nietzsche (who, be it said, was far from possessing enough\nof it himself)\u2014enable one to view the whole fact of Man from an immense\ndistance, to regard the individual Cultures, one\u2019s own included, as one\nregards the range of mountain peaks along a horizon.\n\nOnce again, therefore, there was an act like the act of Copernicus to be\naccomplished, an act of emancipation from the evident present in the\nname of infinity. This the Western soul achieved in the domain of Nature\nlong ago, when it passed from the Ptolemaic world-system to that which\nis alone valid for it to-day, and treats the position of the observer on\none particular planet as accidental instead of normative.\n\nA similar emancipation of world-history from the accidental standpoint,\nthe perpetually re-defined \u201cmodern period,\u201d is both possible and\nnecessary. It is true that the 19th Century A.D. seems to us infinitely\nfuller and more important than, say, the 19th Century B.C.; but the\nmoon, too, seems to us bigger than Jupiter or Saturn. The physicist has\nlong ago freed himself from prepossessions as to relative distance, the\nhistorian not so. We permit ourselves to consider the Culture of the\nGreeks as an \u201cancient\u201d related to our own \u201cmodern.\u201d Were they in their\nturn \u201cmodern\u201d in relation to the finished and historically mature\nEgyptians of the court of the great Thuthmosis who lived a millennium\nbefore Homer? For us, the events which took place between 1500 and 1800\non the soil of Western Europe constitute the most important third of\n\"world\"-history; for the Chinese historian, on the contrary, who looks\nback on and judges by 4000 years of Chinese history, those centuries\ngenerally are a brief and unimportant episode, infinitely less\nsignificant than the centuries of the Han dynasty (206 B.C. to 220\nA.D.), which in _his_ \"world\"-history are epoch-making.\n\nTo liberate History, then, from that thraldom to the observers\u2019\nprejudices which in our own case has made of it nothing more than a\nrecord of a partial past leading up to an accidental present, with the\nideals and interests of that present as criteria of the achievement and\npossibility, is the object of all that follows.\n\n II\n\n_Nature_ and _History_[77] are the opposite extreme terms of man\u2019s range\nof possibilities, whereby he is enabled to order the actualities about\nhim as a picture of the world. An actuality is Nature in so far as it\nassigns things-becoming their place as things-become, and History in so\nfar as it orders things-become with reference to their becoming. An\nactuality as an evocation of mind is contemplated, and as an assurance\nof the senses is critically comprehended, the first being exemplified in\nthe worlds of Plato, Rembrandt, Goethe and Beethoven, the second in the\nworlds of Parmenides, Descartes, Kant and Newton. Cognition in the\nstrict sense of the word is that act of experience of which the\ncompleted issue is called \u201cNature.\u201d The cognized and \u201cNature\u201d are one\nand the same. The symbol of mathematical number has shown us that the\naggregate of things cognized is the same as the world of things\nmechanically defined, things correct once and for all, things brought\nunder law. _Nature is the sum of the law-imposed necessities._ There are\nonly laws of _Nature_. No physicist who understands his duty would wish\nto transcend these limits. His task is to establish an ordered code\nwhich not only includes all the laws that he can find in the picture of\nNature that is proper to himself but, further, represents that picture\nexhaustively and without remainder.\n\nContemplation or vision (Anschauen), on the other hand\u2014I may recall\nGoethe\u2019s words: \u201cvision is to be carefully distinguished from seeing\u201d\u2014,\nis that act of experience which _is itself history because it is itself\na fulfilling_. That which has been lived is that which has happened, and\nit is history. (Erlebtes ist Geschehenes, ist Geschichte.)\n\nEvery happening is unique and incapable of being repeated. It carries\nthe hall-mark of Direction (\u201cTime\u201d), of _irreversibility_. That which\nhas happened is thenceforth counted with the become and not with the\nbecoming, with the stiffened and not the living, and belongs beyond\nrecall to the past. Our feeling of world-fear has its sources here.\nEverything cognized, on the contrary, is _timeless_, neither past nor\nfuture but simply \u201cthere,\u201d and consequently permanently valid, as indeed\nthe very constitution of natural law requires that it should be. Law and\nthe domain of law are _anti-historical_. They exclude incident and\ncasuality. The laws of nature are forms of rigorous and therefore\ninorganic necessity. It becomes easy to see why mathematics, as the\nordering of things-become by number, is _always and exclusively_\nassociated with laws and causality.\n\nBecoming has no number. We can count, measure, dissect only the lifeless\nand so much of the living as can be dissociated from livingness. Pure\nbecoming, pure life, is in this sense incapable of being bounded. It\nlies beyond the domain of cause and effect, law and measure. No deep and\npure historical research seeks for conformities with causal laws\u2014or, if\nit does so, it does not understand its own essence.\n\nAt the same time, history as positively treated is not pure becoming: it\nis an image, a world-form radiated from the waking consciousness of the\nhistorian, in which the becoming _dominates_ the become. The possibility\nof extracting results of any sort by scientific methods depends upon the\nproportion of things-become present in the subject treated, and by\nhypothesis there is in this case a defect of them; the higher the\nproportion is, the more mechanical, reasonable, causal, history is made\nto appear. Even Goethe\u2019s \u201cliving nature,\u201d utterly unmathematical world-\npicture as it was, contained enough of the dead and stiffened to allow\nhim to treat at least his foreground scientifically. But when this\ncontent of things-become dwindles to very little, then history becomes\napproximately pure becoming, and contemplation and vision become an\nexperience which can only be rendered in forms of _art_. That which\nDante saw before his spiritual eyes as the destiny of the world, he\n_could not possibly_ have arrived at by ways of science, any more than\nGoethe could have attained by these ways to what he saw in the great\nmoments of his \u201cFaust\u201d studies, any more than Plotinus and Giordano\nBruno could have distilled their visions from researches. This contrast\nlies at the root of all dispute regarding the inner form of history. In\nthe presence of the same object or corpus of facts, every observer\naccording to his own disposition has a different _impression_ of the\nwhole, and this impression, _intangible and incommunicable_, underlies\nhis judgment and gives it its personal colour. The degree in which\nthings-become are taken in differs from man to man, which is quite\nenough in itself to show that they can never agree as to task or method.\nEach accuses the other of a deficiency of \u201cclear thinking,\u201d and yet the\nsomething that is expressed by this phrase is something not built with\nhands, not implying superiority or a priority of degree but necessary\ndifference of kind. The same applies to all natural sciences.\n\nNevertheless, we must not lose sight of the fact that at bottom the wish\nto write history _scientifically_ involves a contradiction. True science\nreaches just as far as the notions of truth and falsity have validity:\nthis applies to mathematics and it applies also to the science of\nhistorical spade-work, viz., the collection, ordering and sifting of\nmaterial. But real historical vision (which only _begins_ at this point)\nbelongs to the domain of significances, in which the crucial words are\nnot \u201ccorrect\u201d and \u201cerroneous,\u201d but \u201cdeep\u201d and \u201cshallow.\u201d The true\nphysicist is not deep, but _keen_: it is only when he leaves the domain\nof working hypotheses and brushes against the final things that he can\nbe deep, but at this stage he is already a metaphysician. Nature is to\nbe handled scientifically, History poetically. Old Leopold von Ranke is\ncredited with the remark that, after all, Scott\u2019s \u201cQuentin Durward\u201d was\nthe true history-writing. And so it is: the advantage of a good history\nbook is that it enables the reader to be his own Scott.\n\nOn the other hand, within the very realm of numbers and exact knowledge\nthere is that which Goethe called \u201cliving Nature,\u201d an immediate vision\nof pure becoming and self-shaping, in fact, history as above defined.\nGoethe\u2019s world was, in the first instance, an organism, an existence,\nand it is easy therefore to see why his researches, even when\nsuperficially of a physical kind, do not make numbers, or laws, or\ncausality captured in formul\u00e6, or dissection of any sort their object,\nbut are morphology in the highest sense of the word; and why his work\nneither uses nor needs to use the specifically Western and un-Classical\nmeans of causal treatment, metrical experiment. His treatment of the\nEarth\u2019s crust is invariably geology, and never mineralogy, which he\ncalled the science of something dead.\n\nLet it be said, once more, that there are no exact boundaries set\nbetween the two kinds of world-notion. However great the contrast\nbetween becoming and the become, the fact remains that they are jointly\npresent in every kind of understanding. He who looks at the becoming and\nfulfilling in them, experiences History; he who dissects them as become\nand fulfilled cognizes Nature.\n\nIn every man, in every Culture, in every culture-phase, there is found\nan inherent disposition, an inherent inclination and vocation to prefer\none of the two forms as an ideal of understanding the world. Western man\nis in a high degree historically disposed,[78] Classical man far from\nbeing so. We follow up what is given us with an eye to past and future,\nwhereas Classical man knew only the point-present and an ambiance of\nmyth. We have before us a symbol of becoming in every bar of our music\nfrom Palestrina to Wagner, and the Greeks a symbol of the pure present\nin every one of their statues. The rhythm of a body is based upon a\nsimultaneous relation of the parts, that of a fugue in the succession of\nelements in time.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n See p. 55, also Vol. II, pp. 25 et seq.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n \u201cAnti-historical,\u201d the expression which we apply to a decidedly\n systematic valuation, is to be carefully distinguished from\n \u201cahistorical.\u201d The beginning of the IV Book (53) of Schopenhauer\u2019s\n _Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_ affords a good illustration of the\n man who thinks anti-historically, that is, deliberately for\n theoretical reasons suppresses and rejects the historical in himself\u2014\n something that is actually there. The ahistoric Greek nature, on the\n contrary, neither possesses nor understands it.\n\n-----\n\n\n III\n\nThere emerge, then, as the two basic elements of all world-picturing,\nthe principle of Form (Gestalt) and the principle of Law (Gesetz). The\nmore decidedly a particular world-picture shows the traits of \u201cNature,\u201d\nthe more unconditionally law and number prevail in it; and the more\npurely intuitive the picture of the world as eternally becoming, the\nmore alien to numbers its manifold and intangible elements. \u201cForm is\nsomething mobile, something becoming, something passing. The doctrine of\nformation is the doctrine of transformation. Metamorphosis is the key to\nthe whole alphabet of Nature,\u201d so runs a note of Goethe\u2019s, marking\nalready the methodic difference between his famous \u201cexact percipient\nfancy\u201d which quietly lets itself be worked upon by the living,[79] and\nthe exact killing procedure of modern physics. But whatever the process,\na remainder consisting of so much of the alien element as is present is\nalways found. In strict natural sciences this remainder takes the form\nof the inevitable _theories and hypotheses_ which are imposed on, and\nleaven, the stiff mass of number and formula. In historical research, it\nappears as _chronology_, the number-structure of dates and statistics\nwhich, alien though number is to the essence of becoming, is so\nthoroughly woven around and into the world of historical forms that it\nis never felt to be intrusive. For it is devoid of mathematical import.\nChronological number distinguishes uniquely-occurring actualities,\nmathematical number constant possibilities. The one sharpens the images\nand works up the outlines of epoch and fact for the understanding eye.\nBut the other _is itself_ the law which it seeks to establish, the end\nand aim of research. Chronological number is a scientific means of\npioneering borrowed from the science of sciences, mathematics, and used\nas such without regard to its specific properties. Compare, for\ninstance, the meaning of the two symbols 12 \u00d7 8 = 96, and 18 October,\n1813.[80] It is the same difference, in the use of figures, that prose\nand poetry present in the use of words.\n\nOne other point remains to be noted.[81] As a becoming always lies at\nthe base of the become, and as the world-picture representative of\nbecoming is that which history gives us, therefore history is the\n_original_ world-form, and Nature\u2014the fully elaborated world-mechanism\u2014\nis the _late_ world-form that only the men of a mature Culture can\ncompletely actualize. In fact, the darkness encompassing the simple soul\nof primitive mankinds, which we can realize even to-day from their\nreligious customs and myths\u2014that entirely organic world of pure\nwilfulness, of hostile demons and kindly powers\u2014was through-and-through\na living and swaying whole, ununderstandable, indefinable, incalculable.\nWe may call this Nature if we like, but it is not what _we_ mean by\n\u201cnature,\u201d i.e., the strict image projected by a knowing intellect. Only\nthe souls of children and of great artists can now hear the echoes of\nthis long-forgotten world of nascent humanity, but it echoes still, and\nnot rarely, even in the inelastic \"nature\"-medium that the city-spirit\nof the mature Culture is remorselessly building up round the individual.\nHence that acute antagonism between the scientific (\u201cmodern\u201d) and the\nartistic (\u201cunpractical\u201d) world-idea which every Late period knows; the\nman of fact and the poet do not and cannot understand one another. Hence\ncomes, too, that tendency of historical study, which must inevitably\ncontain an element of the childish, the dreamy, the Goethian, to dress\nup as a science, to be (using its own na\u00efve word) \u201cmaterialistic,\u201d at\nthe imminent risk of becoming a mere physics of public life.\n\n\u201cNature,\u201d in the exact sense, is a way of possessing actuality which is\nspecial to the few, restricted to the megalopolitans of the late periods\nof great Cultures, masculine, perhaps even senatorial; while History is\nthe na\u00efve, youthful, more or less instinctive way that is proper to\n_all_ men alike. At least, that is the position of the number-based,\nunmystical, dissectable and dissected \u201cNature\u201d of Aristotle and Kant,\nthe Sophists and the Darwinians, modern physics and chemistry, _vis-\u00e0-\nvis_ the lived, felt and unconfined \u201cNature\u201d of Homer and the Eddas, of\nDoric and Gothic man. To overlook this is to miss the whole essence of\nhistorical treatment. It is history that is the truly natural, and the\nexact mechanically-correct \u201cNature\u201d of the scientist that is the\nartificial conception of world by soul. Hence the paradox that modern\nman finds \"nature\"-study easy and historical study hard.\n\nTendencies towards a mechanistic idea of the world proceeding wholly\nfrom mathematical delimitation and logical differentiation, from law and\ncausality, appear quite early. They are found in the first centuries of\nall Cultures, still weak, scattered and lost in the full tide of the\nreligious world-conception. The name to be recalled here is that of\nRoger Bacon. But soon these tendencies acquire a sterner character: like\neverything that is wrung out of the soul and has to defend itself\nagainst human nature, they are not wanting in arrogance and\nexclusiveness. Quietly the spatial and comprehensible (comprehension is\nin its essence number, in its structure quantitative) becomes prepotent\nthroughout the outer world of the individual and, aiding and aided by\nthe simple impressions of sensuous-life, effects a mechanical synthesis\nof the causal and legal sort, so that at long last the sharp\nconsciousness of the megalopolitan\u2014be he of Thebes, Babylon, Benares,\nAlexandria or a West European cosmopolis\u2014is subjected to so consistent a\npressure of natural-law notions that, when scientific and philosophical\nprejudice (it is no more than that) dictates the proposition that this\ncondition of the soul is _the_ soul and the mechanical world-picture is\n_the_ world, the assertion is scarcely challenged. It has been made\npredominant by logicians like Aristotle and Kant. But Plato and Goethe\nhave rejected it and refuted it.\n\n IV\n\nThe task of world-knowing\u2014for the man of the higher Cultures a need,\nseen as a duty, of expressing his own essence\u2014is certainly in every case\nthe same, though its process may be called science or philosophy, and\nthough its affinity to artistic creation and to faith-intuition may for\none be something felt and for another something questionable. It is to\npresent, without accretions, that form of the world-picture which to the\nindividual in each case is proper and significant, and for him (so long\nas he does not _compare_) is in fact \u201cthe\u201d world.\n\nThe task is necessarily a double one, in view of the distinction between\n\u201cNature\u201d and \u201cHistory.\u201d Each speaks its own form-language which differs\nutterly from that of the other, and however the two may overlap and\nconfuse one another in an unsifted and ambiguous world-picture such as\nthat of everyday life, they are incapable of any inner unity.\n\nDirection and Extension are the outstanding characters which\ndifferentiate the historical and the scientific (naturhaft) kind of\nimpressibility, and it is totally impossible for a man to have both\nworking creatively within him at the same time. The double meaning of\nthe German word \u201cFerne\u201d (distance, farness) is illuminating. In the one\norder of ideas it implies futurity, in the other a spatial interval of\nstanding apart, and the reader will not fail to remark that the\nhistorical materialist almost necessarily conceives time as a\nmathematical dimension, while for the born artist, on the contrary,\u2014as\nthe lyrics of every land show us\u2014the distance-impressions made by deep\nlandscapes, clouds, horizon and setting sun attach themselves without an\neffort to the sense of a future. The Greek poet denies the future, and\nconsequently he neither sees nor sings of the things of the future; he\ncleaves to the near, as he belongs to the present, entirely.\n\nThe natural-science investigator, the productive reasoner in the full\nsense of the word, whether he be an experimenter like Faraday, a\ntheorist like Galileo, a calculator like Newton, finds in his world only\ndirectionless _quantities_ which he measures, tests and arranges. It is\nonly the quantitative that is capable of being grasped through figures,\nof being causally defined, of being captured in a law or formula, and\nwhen it has achieved this, pure nature-knowledge has shot its bolt. All\nits laws are quantitative connexions, or as the physicist puts it, all\nphysical processes _run a course in space_, an expression which a Greek\nphysicist would have corrected\u2014without altering the fact\u2014into \u201call\nphysical processes _occur between bodies_\u201d conformably to the space-\ndenying feeling of the Classical soul.\n\nThe historical kind of impression-process is alien to everything\nquantitative, and affects a different organ. To World-as-Nature certain\nmodes of apprehension, as to World-as-History certain other modes, are\n_proper_. We know them and use them every day, without (as yet) having\nbecome aware of their opposition. There is _nature-knowledge_ and there\nis _man-knowledge_; there is _scientific_ experience and there is\n_vital_ experience. Let the reader track down this contrast into his own\ninmost being, and he will understand what I mean.\n\nAll modes of comprehending the world may, in the last analysis, be\ndescribed as Morphology. _The Morphology of the mechanical and the\nextended, a science which discovers and orders nature-laws and causal\nrelations, is called Systematic. The Morphology of the organic, of\nhistory and life and all that bears the sign of direction and destiny,\nis called Physiognomic._\n\n V\n\nIn the West, the Systematic mode of treating the world reached and\npassed its culminating-point during the last century, while the great\ndays of Physiognomic have still to come. In a hundred years all sciences\nthat are still possible on this soil will be parts of a single vast\nPhysiognomic of all things human. This is what the \u201cMorphology of World-\nHistory\u201d means. In every science, and in the aim no less than in the\ncontent of it, man tells the story of himself. Scientific experience is\nspiritual self-knowledge. It is from this standpoint, as a chapter of\nPhysiognomic, that we have just treated of mathematics. We were not\nconcerned with what this or that mathematician _intended_, nor with the\nsavant as such or his results as a contribution to an aggregate of\nknowledge, but with the mathematician as a human being, with his work as\na part of the phenomenon of himself, with his knowledge and purposes as\na part of his expression. This alone is of importance to us here. He is\nthe mouthpiece of a Culture which tells us about itself through him, and\nhe belongs, as personality, as soul, as discoverer, thinker and creator,\nto the physiognomy of that Culture.\n\nEvery mathematic, in that it brings out and makes visible to all the\nidea of number that is proper to itself and inborn in its conscious\nbeing, is, whether the expression-form be a scientific system or (as in\nthe case of Egypt) an architecture, the confession of a Soul. If it is\ntrue that the intentional accomplishments of a mathematic belong only to\nthe surface of history, it is equally true that its unconscious element,\nits number-as-such, and the style in which it builds up its self-\ncontained cosmos of forms are an expression of its existence, its blood.\nIts life-history of ripening and withering, its deep relation to the\ncreative acts, the myths and the cults of the same Culture\u2014such things\nare the subject-matter of a second or historical morphology, though the\npossibility of such a morphology is hardly yet admitted.\n\nThe visible foregrounds of history, therefore, have the same\nsignificance as the outward phenomena of the individual man (his statue,\nhis bearing, his air, his stride, his way of speaking and writing), as\ndistinct from what he says or writes. In the \u201cknowledge of men\u201d these\nthings exist and matter. The body and all its elaborations\u2014defined,\n\u201cbecome\u201d and _mortal_ as they are\u2014are an expression of the soul. But\nhenceforth \u201cknowledge of men\u201d implies also knowledge of those\nsuperlative human organisms that I call Cultures, and of their mien,\ntheir speech, their acts\u2014these terms being meant as we mean them already\nin the case of the individual.\n\nDescriptive, creative, Physiognomic is the art of portraiture\ntransferred to the spiritual domain. Don Quixote, Werther, Julian Sorel,\nare portraits of an epoch, Faust the portrait of a whole Culture. For\nthe nature-researcher, the morphologist as systematist, the portrayal of\nthe world is only a business of imitation, and corresponds to the\n\u201cfidelity to nature\u201d and the \u201clikeness\u201d of the craftsman-painter, who,\nat bottom, works on purely mathematical lines. But a real portrait in\nthe Rembrandt sense of the word is physiognomic, that is, _history_\ncaptured in a moment. The set of his self-portraits is nothing else but\na (truly Goethian) autobiography. So should the biographies of the great\nCultures be handled. The \u201cfidelity\u201d part, the work of the professional\nhistorian on facts and figures, is only a means, not an end. The\ncountenance of history is made up of all those things which hitherto we\nhave only managed to evaluate according to personal standards, i.e., as\nbeneficial or harmful, good or bad, satisfactory or unsatisfactory\u2014\npolitical forms and economic forms, battles and arts, science and gods,\nmathematics and morals. Everything whatsoever that has _become_ is a\nsymbol, and the expression of a soul. Only to one having the knowledge\nof men will it unveil itself. The restraint of a law it abhors. What it\ndemands is that its significance should be sensed. And thus research\nreaches up to a final or superlative truth\u2014Alles Verg\u00e4ngliche ist nur\nein Gleichnis.[82]\n\nThe nature-researcher can be educated, but the man who knows history is\nborn. He seizes and pierces men and facts with one blow, guided by a\nfeeling which cannot be acquired by learning or affected by persuasion,\nbut which only too rarely manifests itself in full intensity. Direction,\nfixing, ordering, defining by cause and effect, are things that one can\ndo if one likes. These things are work, but the other is creation. Form\nand law, portrayal and comprehension, symbol and formula, have different\norgans, and their opposition is that in which life stands to death,\nproduction to destruction. Reason, system and comprehension kill as they\n\u201ccognize.\u201d That which is cognized becomes a rigid object, capable of\nmeasurement and subdivision. Intuitive vision, on the other hand,\nvivifies and incorporates the details in a living inwardly-felt unity.\nPoetry and historical study are kin. Calculation and cognition also are\nkin. But, as Hebbel says somewhere, systems are not dreamed, and art-\nworks are not calculated or (what is the same thing) thought out. The\nartist or the real historian sees the becoming of a thing (schaut, wie\netwas wird), and he can re-enact its becoming from its lineaments,\nwhereas the systematist, whether he be physicist, logician, evolutionist\nor pragmatical historian, learns the thing that has become. The artist\u2019s\nsoul, like the soul of a Culture, is something potential that may\nactualize itself, something complete and perfect\u2014in the language of an\nolder philosophy, a microcosm. The systematic spirit, narrow and\nwithdrawn \u201cabs-tract\u201d) from the sensual, is an autumnal and passing\nphenomenon belonging to the ripest conditions of a Culture. Linked with\nthe _city_, into which its life is more and more herded, it comes and\ngoes with the city. In the Classical world, there is science only from\nthe 6th-century Ionians to the Roman period, but there was art in the\nClassical world for just as long as there was existence.\n\nOnce more, a paradigm may help in elucidation.\n\n _Soul_ _World_\n Existence { potentiality \u2192 fulfilment \u2192 actuality\n { (_Life_)\n\n { becoming \u2192 the become\n Consciousness { direction extension\n { organic mechanical\n { symbol, portrait, number,\n notion.\n [Crossed\n \u2193 downward \u2193\n arrows]\n { _History_ _Nature_\n World-image { Rhythm, form. Tension, law.\n { Physiognomic. Systematic.\n { Facts Truths\n\n\nSeeking thus to obtain a clear idea of the unifying principle out of\nwhich each of these two worlds is conceived, we find that\nmathematically-controlled cognition relates always (and the purer it is,\nthe more directly) to a continuous present. The picture of nature dealt\nwith by the physicist is that which is deployed before his senses at the\ngiven moment. It is one of the tacit, but none the less firm,\npresuppositions of nature-research that \u201cNature\u201d (_die_ Natur) is the\nsame for every consciousness and for all times. An experiment is\ndecisive for good and all; time being, not precisely denied, but\neliminated from the field of investigation. Real history rests on an\nequally certain sense of the contrary; what it presupposes as its origin\nis a nearly indescribable sensitive faculty within, which is\ncontinuously labile under continuous impressions, and is incapable\ntherefore of possessing what may be called a centre of time.[83] (We\nshall consider later what the physicist means by \u201ctime.\u201d) The picture of\nhistory\u2014be it the history of mankind, of the world of organisms, of the\nearth or of the stellar systems\u2014is a _memory_-picture. \u201cMemory,\u201d in this\nconnexion, is conceived as a higher state (certainly not proper to every\nconsciousness and vouchsafed to many in only a low degree), a perfectly\ndefinite kind of imagining power, which enables experience to traverse\neach particular moment _sub specie \u00e6ternitatis_ as one point in an\nintegral made up of all the past and all the future, and it forms the\nnecessary basis of all looking-backward, all self-knowledge and all\nself-confession. In this sense, Classical man has no memory and\ntherefore no history, either in or around himself. \u201cNo man can judge\nhistory but one who has himself experienced history,\u201d says Goethe. In\nthe Classical world-consciousness all Past was absorbed in the instant\nPresent. Compare the entirely historical heads of the N\u00fcrnberg Cathedral\nsculptures, of D\u00fcrer, of Rembrandt, with those of Hellenistic sculpture,\nfor instance the famous Sophocles statue. The former tell the whole\nhistory of a soul, whereas the latter rigidly confines itself to\nexpressing the traits of a momentary being, and tells nothing of how\nthis being is the issue of a course of life\u2014if indeed we can speak of\n\u201ccourse of life\u201d at all in connexion with a purely Classical man, who is\nalways complete and never becoming.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n \u201cThere are prime phenomena which in their godlike simplicity we must\n not disturb or infringe.\u201d\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n The date of Napoleon\u2019s defeat, and the liberation of Germany, on the\n field of Leipzig.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 25 et seq., 327 et seq.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n \u201cAll we see before us passing\n Sign and symbol is alone.\u201d\n\n From the final stanza of Faust II (Anster\u2019s translation).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n This phrase, derived by analogy from the centre of gravity of\n mechanics, is offered as a translation of \u201cmithin in einim Zeitpunkte\n ger nicht zusammengefasst werden k\u00f6nnen.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n VI\n\nAnd now it is possible to discover the ultimate elements of the\nhistorical form-world.\n\nCountless shapes that emerge and vanish, pile up and melt again, a\nthousand-hued glittering tumult, it seems, of perfectly wilful chance\u2014\nsuch is the picture of world-history when first it deploys before our\ninner eye. But through this seeming anarchy, the keener glance can\ndetect those pure forms which underlie all human becoming, penetrate\ntheir cloud-mantle, and bring them unwillingly to unveil.\n\nBut of the whole picture of world-becoming, of that cumulus of grand\nplanes that the Faust-eye[84] sees piled one beyond another\u2014the becoming\nof the heavens, of the earth\u2019s crust, of life, of man\u2014we shall deal here\nonly with that very small morphological unit that we are accustomed to\ncall \u201cworld-history,\u201d that history which Goethe ended by despising, the\nhistory of higher mankind during 6000 years or so, without going into\nthe deep problem of the inward homogeneity of all these aspects. What\ngives this fleeting form-world meaning and substance, and what has\nhitherto lain buried deep under a mass of tangible \u201cfacts\u201d and \u201cdates\u201d\nthat has hardly yet been bored through, is the _phenomenon of the Great\nCultures_. Only after these prime forms shall have been seen and felt\nand worked out in respect of their physiognomic meaning will it be\npossible to say that the essence and inner form of human History as\nopposed to the essence of Nature are understood\u2014or rather, that we\nunderstand them. Only after this inlook and this outlook will a serious\nphilosophy of history become feasible. Only then will it be possible to\nsee each fact in the historical picture\u2014each idea, art, war,\npersonality, epoch\u2014according to its symbolic content, and to regard\nhistory not as a mere sum of past things without intrinsic order or\ninner necessity, but as an organism of rigorous structure and\nsignificant articulation, an organism that does not suddenly dissolve\ninto a formless and ambiguous future when it reaches the accidental\npresent of the observer.\n\n_Cultures are organisms_, and world-history is their collective\nbiography. Morphologically, the immense history of the Chinese or of the\nClassical Culture is the exact equivalent of the petty history of the\nindividual man, or of the animal, or the tree, or the flower. For the\nFaustian vision, this is not a postulate but an experience; if we want\nto learn to recognize inward forms that constantly and everywhere repeat\nthemselves, the comparative morphology[85] of plants and animals has\nlong ago given us the methods. In the destinies of the several Cultures\nthat follow upon one another, grow up with one another, touch,\novershadow, and suppress one another, is compressed the whole content of\nhuman history. And if we set free their shapes, till now hidden all too\ndeep under the surface of a trite \u201chistory of human progress,\u201d and let\nthem march past us in the spirit, it cannot but be that we shall succeed\nin distinguishing, amidst all that is special or unessential, the\nprimitive culture-form, _the_ Culture that underlies as ideal all the\nindividual Cultures.\n\nI distinguish the _idea_ of a Culture, which is the sum total of its\ninner possibilities, from its sensible _phenomenon_ or appearance upon\nthe canvas of history as a fulfilled actuality. It is the relation of\nthe soul to the living body, to its expression in the light-world\nperceptible to our eyes. This history of a Culture is the progressive\nactualizing of its possible, and the fulfilment is equivalent to the\nend. In this way the Apollinian soul, which some of us can perhaps\nunderstand and share in, is related to its unfolding in the realm of\nactuality, to the \u201cClassical\u201d or \u201cantique\u201d as we call it, of which the\ntangible and understandable relics are investigated by the arch\u00e6ologist,\nthe philologist, the \u00e6sthetic and the historian.\n\nCulture is the _prime phenomenon_ of all past and future world-history.\nThe deep, and scarcely appreciated, idea of Goethe, which he discovered\nin his \u201cliving nature\u201d and always made the basis of his morphological\nresearches, we shall here apply\u2014in its most precise sense\u2014to all the\nformations of man\u2019s history, whether fully matured, cut off in the\nprime, half opened or stifled in the seed. It is the method of living\ninto (erf\u00fchlen) the object, as opposed to dissecting it. \u201cThe highest to\nwhich man can attain, is wonder; and if the prime phenomenon makes him\nwonder, let him be content; nothing higher can it give him, and nothing\nfurther should he seek for behind it; here is the limit.\u201d The prime\nphenomenon is that in which the idea of becoming is presented net. To\nthe spiritual eye of Goethe the idea of the prime plant was clearly\nvisible in the form of every individual plant that happened to come up,\nor even that could possibly come up. In his investigation of the \u201cos\nintermaxillare\u201d his starting-point was the _prime phenomenon of the\nvertebrate type_; and in other fields it was geological stratification,\nor the leaf as the prime form of the plant-organism, or the\nmetamorphosis of the plants as the prime form of all organic becoming.\n\u201cThe same law will apply to everything else that lives,\u201d he wrote, in\nannouncing his discovery to Herder. It was a look into the heart of\nthings that Leibniz would have understood, but the century of Darwin is\nas remote from such a vision as it is possible to be.\n\nAt present, however, we look in vain for any treatment of history that\nis entirely free from the methods of Darwinism\u2014that is, of systematic\nnatural science based on causality. A physiognomic that is precise,\nclear and sure of itself and its limits has never yet arisen, and it can\nonly arise through the discoveries of method that we have yet to make.\nHerein lies the great problem set for the 20th Century to solve\u2014to\nexplore carefully the inner structure of the organic units through and\nin which world-history fulfils itself, to separate the morphologically\nnecessary from the accidental, and, by seizing the _purport_ of events,\nto ascertain the languages in which they speak.\n\n VII\n\nA boundless mass of human Being, flowing in a stream without banks; up-\nstream, a dark past wherein our time-sense loses all powers of\ndefinition and restless or uneasy fancy conjures up geological periods\nto hide away an eternally-unsolvable riddle; down-stream, a future even\nso dark and timeless\u2014such is the groundwork of the Faustian picture of\nhuman history.\n\nOver the expanse of the water passes the endless uniform wave-train of\nthe generations. Here and there bright shafts of light broaden out,\neverywhere dancing flashes confuse and disturb the clear mirror,\nchanging, sparkling, vanishing. These are what we call the clans,\ntribes, peoples, races which unify a series of generations within this\nor that limited area of the historical surface. As widely as these\ndiffer in creative power, so widely do the images that they create vary\nin duration and plasticity, and when the creative power dies out, the\nphysiognomic, linguistic and spiritual identification-marks vanish also\nand the phenomenon subsides again into the ruck of the generations.\nAryans, Mongols, Germans, Kelts, Parthians, Franks, Carthaginians,\nBerbers, Bantus are names by which we specify some very heterogeneous\nimages of this order.\n\nBut over this surface, too, the great Cultures[86] accomplish their\nmajestic wave-cycles. They appear suddenly, swell in splendid lines,\nflatten again and vanish, and the face of the waters is once more a\nsleeping waste.\n\nA Culture is born in the moment when a great soul awakens out of the\nproto-spirituality (_dem urseelenhaften Zustande_) of ever-childish\nhumanity, and detaches itself, a form from the formless, a bounded and\nmortal thing from the boundless and enduring. It blooms on the soil of\nan exactly-definable landscape, to which plant-wise it remains bound. It\ndies when this soul has actualized the full sum of its possibilities in\nthe shape of peoples, languages, dogmas, arts, states, sciences, and\nreverts into the proto-soul. But its living existence, that sequence of\ngreat epochs which define and display the stages of fulfilment, is an\ninner passionate struggle to maintain the Idea against the powers of\nChaos without and the unconscious muttering deep-down within. It is not\nonly the artist who struggles against the resistance of the material and\nthe stifling of the idea within him. Every Culture stands in a deeply-\nsymbolical, almost in a mystical, relation to the Extended, the space,\nin which and through which it strives to actualize itself. The aim once\nattained\u2014the idea, the entire content of inner possibilities, fulfilled\nand made externally actual\u2014the Culture suddenly hardens, it mortifies,\nits blood congeals, its force breaks down, and it becomes\n_Civilization_, the thing which we feel and understand in the words\nEgypticism, Byzantinism, Mandarinism. As such they may, like a worn-out\ngiant of the primeval forest, thrust their decaying branches towards the\nsky for hundreds or thousands of years, as we see in China, in India, in\nthe Islamic world. It was thus that the Classical Civilization rose\ngigantic, in the Imperial age, with a false semblance of youth and\nstrength and fullness, and robbed the young Arabian Culture of the East\nof light and air.[87]\n\nThis\u2014the inward and outward fulfilment, the finality, that awaits every\nliving Culture\u2014is the purport of all the historic \u201cdeclines,\u201d amongst\nthem that decline of the Classical which we know so well and fully, and\nanother decline, entirely comparable to it in course and duration, which\nwill occupy the first centuries of the coming millennium but is heralded\nalready and sensible in and around us to-day\u2014the decline of the\nWest.[88] Every Culture passes through the age-phases of the individual\nman. Each has its childhood, youth, manhood and old age. It is a young\nand trembling soul, heavy with misgivings, that reveals itself in the\nmorning of Romanesque and Gothic. It fills the Faustian landscape from\nthe Provence of the troubadours to the Hildesheim cathedral of Bishop\nBernward.[89] The spring wind blows over it. \u201cIn the works of the old-\nGerman architecture,\u201d says Goethe, \u201cone sees the blossoming of an\nextraordinary state. Anyone immediately confronted with such a\nblossoming can do no more than wonder; but one who can see into the\nsecret inner life of the plant and its rain of forces, who can observe\nhow the bud expands, little by little, sees the thing with quite other\neyes and knows what he is seeing.\u201d Childhood speaks to us also\u2014and in\nthe same tones\u2014out of early-Homeric Doric, out of early-Christian (which\nis really early-Arabian) art and out of the works of the Old Kingdom in\nEgypt that began with the Fourth Dynasty. There a mythic world-\nconsciousness is fighting like a harassed debtor against all the dark\nand daemonic in itself and in Nature, while slowly ripening itself for\nthe pure, day-bright expression of the existence that it will at last\nachieve and know. The more nearly a Culture approaches the noon\nculmination of its being, the more virile, austere, controlled, intense\nthe form-language it has secured for itself, the more assured its sense\nof its own power, the clearer its lineaments. In the spring all this had\nstill been dim and confused, tentative, filled with childish yearning\nand fears\u2014witness the ornament of Romanesque-Gothic church porches of\nSaxony[90] and southern France, the early-Christian catacombs, the\nDipylon[91] vases. But there is now the full consciousness of ripened\ncreative power that we see in the time of the early Middle Kingdom of\nEgypt, in the Athens of the Pisistratid\u00e6, in the age of Justinian, in\nthat of the Counter-Reformation, and we find every individual trait of\nexpression deliberate, strict, measured, marvellous in its ease and\nself-confidence. And we find, too, that everywhere, at moments, the\ncoming fulfilment suggested itself; in such moments were created the\nhead of Amenemhet III (the so-called \u201cHyksos Sphinx\u201d of Tanis), the\ndomes of Hagia Sophia, the paintings of Titian. Still later, tender to\nthe point of fragility, fragrant with the sweetness of late October\ndays, come the Cnidian Aphrodite and the Hall of the Maidens in the\nErechtheum, the arabesques on Saracen horseshoe-arches, the Zwinger of\nDresden, Watteau, Mozart. At last, in the grey dawn of Civilization, the\nfire in the Soul dies down. The dwindling powers rise to one more, half-\nsuccessful, effort of creation, and produce the Classicism that is\ncommon to all dying Cultures. The soul thinks once again, and in\nRomanticism looks back piteously to its childhood; then finally, weary,\nreluctant, cold, it loses its desire to be, and, as in Imperial Rome,\nwishes itself out of the overlong daylight and back in the darkness of\nprotomysticism, in the womb of the mother, in the grave. The spell of a\n\u201csecond religiousness\u201d[92] comes upon it, and Late-Classical man turns\nto the practice of the cults of Mithras, of Isis, of the Sun\u2014those very\ncults into which a soul just born in the East has been pouring a new\nwine of dreams and fears and loneliness.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n Cf. Vol. II, p. 33 et seq.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n Not the dissecting morphology of the Darwinian\u2019s pragmatic zoology\n with its hunt for causal connexions, but the seeing and overseeing\n morphology of Goethe.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 41 et seq.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 227 et seq.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 116 et seq. What constitutes the downfall is not,\n e.g., the catastrophe of the Great Migrations, which like the\n annihilation of the Maya Culture by the Spaniards (see Vol. II, p. 51\n et seq.) was a coincidence without any deep necessity, but the inward\n undoing that began from the time of Hadrian, as in China from the\n Eastern Han dynasty (25-220).\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n St. Bernward was Bishop of Hildesheim from 993 to 1022, and himself\n architect and metal-worker. Three other churches besides the cathedral\n survive in the city from his time or that of his immediate successors,\n and Hildesheim of all North German cities is richest in monuments of\n the Romanesque.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n By \u201cSaxony,\u201d a German historian means not the present-day state of\n Saxony (which was a small and comparatively late accretion), but the\n whole region of the Weser and the lower Elbe, with Westphalia and\n Holstein.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n Vases from the cemetery adjoining the Dipylon Gate of Athens, the most\n representative relics that we possess of the Doric or primitive age of\n the Hellenic Culture (about 900 to 600 B.C.).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 381 et seq.\n\n-----\n\n\n VIII\n\nThe term \u201chabit\u201d (Habitus) is used of a plant to signify the special\nway, proper to itself, in which it manifests itself, i.e., the\ncharacter, course and duration of its appearance in the light-world\nwhere we can see it. By its habit each kind is distinguished, in respect\nof each part and each phase of its existence, from all examples of other\nspecies. We may apply this useful notion of \u201chabit\u201d in our physiognomic\nof the grand organisms and speak of the habit of the Indian, Egyptian or\nClassical Culture, history or spirituality. Some vague inkling of it has\nalways, for that matter, underlain the notion of _style_, and we shall\nnot be forcing but merely clearing and deepening that word if we speak\nof the religious, intellectual, political, social or economic style[93]\nof a Culture. This \u201chabit\u201d of existence in space, which covers in the\ncase of the individual man action and thought and conduct and\ndisposition, embraces in the case or the existence of whole Cultures the\ntotality of life-expressions of the higher order. The choice of\nparticular branches of art (e.g., the round and fresco by the Hellenes,\ncounterpoint and oil-painting by the West) and the out-and-out rejection\nof others (e.g., of plastic by the Arabs); inclination to the esoteric\n(India) or the popular (Greece and Rome); preference for oratory\n(Classical) or for writing (China, the West) as the form of spiritual\ncommunication, are all style-manifestations, and so also are the various\ntypes of costume, of administration, of transport, of social courtesies.\nAll great personalities of the Classical world form a self-contained\ngroup, whose spiritual habit is definitely different from that of all\ngreat men of the Arabian or the Western groups. Compare even Goethe and\nRaphael with Classical men, and Heraclitus, Sophocles, Plato,\nAlcibiades, Themistocles, Horace and Tiberius rank themselves together\ninstantly as members of one family. Every Classical Cosmopolis\u2014from\nHiero\u2019s Syracuse to Imperial Rome the embodiment and sense-picture of\none and the same life-feeling\u2014differs radically in lay-out and street-\nplan, in the language of its public and private architecture, in the\ntype of its squares, alleys, courts, fa\u00e7ades, in its colour, noises,\nstreet-life and night-life, from the group of Indian or that of Arabian\nor that of Western world-cities. Baghdad and Cairo could be felt in\nGranada long after the conquest; even Philip II\u2019s Madrid had all the\nphysiognomic hall-marks of modern London and Paris. There is a high\nsymbolism in every dissimilarity of this sort. Contrast the Western\ntendency to straight-lined perspectives and street-alignments (such as\nthe grand tract of the Champs-Elys\u00e9es from the Louvre, or the Piazza\nbefore St. Peter\u2019s) with the almost deliberate complexity and narrowness\nof the Via Sacra, the Forum Romanum and the Acropolis, whose parts are\narranged without symmetry and with no perspective. Even the town-\nplanning\u2014whether darkly as in the Gothic or consciously as in the ages\nof Alexander and Napoleon\u2014reflects the same principle as the mathematic\u2014\nin the one case the Leibnizian mathematic of infinite space, in the\nother the Euclidean mathematic of separate bodies.[94] But to the\n\u201chabit\u201d of a group belong, further, its definite _life-duration_ and its\ndefinite tempo of development. Both of these are properties which we\nmust not fail to take into account in a historical theory of structure.\nThe rhythm (Takt) of Classical existence was different from that of\nEgyptian or Arabian; and we can fairly speak of the _andante_ of Greece\nand Rome and the _allegro con brio_ of the Faustian spirit.\n\nThe notion of life-duration as applied to a man, a butterfly, an oak, a\nblade of grass, comprises a specific time-value, which is quite\nindependent of all the accidents of the individual case. Ten years are a\nslice of life which is approximately equivalent for all men, and the\nmetamorphosis of insects is associated with a number of days exactly\nknown and predictable in individual cases. For the Romans the notions of\n_pueritia_, _adolescentia_, _iuventus_, _virilitas_, _senectus_\npossessed an almost mathematically precise meaning. Without doubt the\nbiology of the future will\u2014in opposition to Darwinism and to the\nexclusion in principle of causal fitness-motives for the origins of\nspecies\u2014take these _pre-ordained_ life durations as the starting-point\nfor a new enunciation of its problem.[95] The duration of a generation\u2014\nwhatever may be its nature\u2014is a fact of almost mystical significance.\n\nNow, such relations are valid also, and to an extent never hitherto\nimagined, for all the higher Cultures. _Every Culture, every adolescence\nand maturing and decay of a Culture, every one of its intrinsically\nnecessary stages and periods, has a definite duration, always the same,\nalways recurring with the emphasis of a symbol._ In the present work we\ncannot attempt to open up this world of most mysterious connexions, but\nthe facts that will emerge again and again as we go on will tell us of\nthemselves how much lies hidden here. What is the meaning of that\nstriking fifty-year period, the rhythm of the political, intellectual\nand artistic \u201cbecoming\u201d of all Cultures?[96] Of the 300-year period of\nthe Baroque, of the Ionic, of the great mathematics, of Attic sculpture,\nof mosaic painting, of counterpoint, of Galileian mechanics? What does\nthe _ideal_ life of one millennium for each Culture mean in comparison\nwith the individual man\u2019s \"three-score years and ten\"? As the plant\u2019s\nbeing is brought to expression in form, dress and carriage by leaves,\nblossoms, twigs and fruit, so also is the being of a Culture manifested\nby its religious, intellectual, political and economic formations. Just\nas, say, Goethe\u2019s individuality discourses of itself in such widely-\ndifferent forms as the _Faust_, the _Farbenlehre_, the _Reineke Fuchs_,\n_Tasso_, _Werther_, the journey to Italy and the Friederike love, the\n_West\u00f6stliche Diwan_ and the _R\u00f6mische Elegien_; so the individuality of\nthe Classical world displays itself in the Persian wars, the Attic\ndrama, the City-State, the Dionysia and not less in the Tyrannis, the\nIonic column, the geometry of Euclid, the Roman legion, and the\ngladiatorial contests and \u201cpanem et circenses\u201d of the Imperial age.\n\nIn this sense, too, every individual being that has any sort of\nimportance recapitulates,[97] of intrinsic necessity, all the epochs of\nthe Culture to which it belongs. In each one of us, at that decisive\nmoment when he begins to know that he is an ego, the inner life wakens\njust where and just how that of the Culture wakened long ago. Each of us\nmen of the West, in his child\u2019s day-dreams and child\u2019s play, lives again\nits Gothic\u2014the cathedrals, the castles, the hero-sagas, the crusader\u2019s\n\u201cDieu le veult,\u201d the soul\u2019s oath of young Parzival. Every young Greek\nhad his Homeric age and his Marathon. In Goethe\u2019s Werther, the image of\na tropic youth that every Faustian (but no Classical) man knows, the\nspringtime of Petrarch and the Minnes\u00e4nger reappears. When Goethe\nblocked out the _Urfaust_,[98] he was Parzival; when he finished _Faust\nI_, he was Hamlet, and only with _Faust II_ did he become the world-man\nof the 19th Century whom Byron could understand. Even the senility of\nthe Classical\u2014the faddy and unfruitful centuries of very late Hellenism,\nthe second-childhood of a weary and blas\u00e9 intelligence\u2014can be studied in\nmore than one of its grand old men. Thus, much of Euripides\u2019 _Bacch\u00e6_\nanticipates the life-outlook, and much of Plato\u2019s _Tim\u00e6us_ the religious\nsyncretism of the Imperial age; and Goethe\u2019s _Faust II_ and Wagner\u2019s\n_Parsifal_ disclose to us in advance the shape that _our_ spirituality\nwill assume in our next (_in point of creative power our last_)\ncenturies.\n\nBiology employs the term _homology_ of organs to signify morphological\nequivalence in contradistinction to the term _analogy_ which relates to\nfunctional equivalence. This important, and in the sequel most fruitful,\nnotion was conceived by Goethe (who was led thereby to the discovery of\nthe \u201cos intermaxillare\u201d in man) and put into strict scientific shape by\nOwen;[99] this notion also we shall incorporate in our historical\nmethod.\n\nIt is known that for every part of the bone-structure of the human head\nan exactly corresponding part is found in all vertebrated animals right\ndown to the fish, and that the pectoral fins of fish and the feet, wings\nand hands of terrestrial vertebrates are homologous organs, even though\nthey have lost every trace of similarity. The lungs of terrestrial, and\nthe swim-bladders of aquatic animals are homologous, while lungs and\ngills on the other hand are analogous\u2014that is, similar in point of\nuse.[100] And the trained and deepened morphological insight that is\nrequired to establish such distinctions is an utterly different thing\nfrom the present method of historical research, with its shallow\ncomparisons of Christ and Buddha, Archimedes and Galileo, C\u00e6sar and\nWallenstein, parcelled Germany and parcelled Greece. More and more\nclearly as we go on, we shall realize what immense views will offer\nthemselves to the historical eye as soon as the rigorous morphological\nmethod has been understood and cultivated. To name but a few examples,\n_homologous_ forms are: Classical sculpture and West European\norchestration, the Fourth Dynasty pyramids and the Gothic cathedrals,\nIndian Buddhism and Roman Stoicism (Buddhism and Christianity are _not\neven analogous_); the periods of \u201cthe Contending States\u201d in China, the\nHyksos in Egypt and the Punic Wars; the age of Pericles and the age of\nthe Ommayads; the epochs of the Rigveda, of Plotinus and of Dante. The\nDionysiac movement is homologous with the Renaissance, analogous to the\nReformation. For us, \"Wagner is the _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of modernity,\" as Nietzsche\nrightly saw; and the equivalent that logically _must_ exist in the\nClassical modernity we find in Pergamene art. (Some preliminary notion\nof the fruitfulness of this way of regarding history, may be gathered\nfrom studying the tables included in this volume.)\n\nThe application of the \u201chomology\u201d principle to historical phenomena\nbrings with it an entirely new connotation for the word \u201ccontemporary.\u201d\nI designate as contemporary two historical facts that occur in exactly\nthe same\u2014relative\u2014positions in their respective Cultures, and therefore\npossess exactly equivalent importance. It has already been shown how the\ndevelopment of the Classical and that of the Western mathematic\nproceeded in complete congruence, and we might have ventured to describe\nPythagoras as the contemporary of Descartes, Archytas of Laplace,\nArchimedes of Gauss. The Ionic and the Baroque, again, ran their course\n_contemporaneously_. Polygnotus pairs in time with Rembrandt, Polycletus\nwith Bach. The Reformation, Puritanism and, above all, the turn to\nCivilization appear simultaneously in all Cultures; in the Classical\nthis last epoch bears the names of Philip and Alexander, in our West\nthose of the Revolution and Napoleon. Contemporary, too, are the\nbuilding of Alexandria, of Baghdad, and of Washington; Classical coinage\nand our double-entry book-keeping; the first Tyrannis and the Fronde;\nAugustus and Shih-huang-ti;[101] Hannibal and the World War.\n\nI hope to show that without exception all great creations and forms in\nreligion, art, politics, social life, economy and science appear, fulfil\nthemselves and die down _contemporaneously_ in all the Cultures; that\nthe inner structure of one corresponds strictly with that of all the\nothers; that there is not a single phenomenon of deep physiognomic\nimportance in the record of one for which we could not find a\ncounterpart in the record of every other; and that this counterpart is\nto be found under a characteristic form and in a perfectly definite\nchronological position. At the same time, if we are to grasp such\nhomologies of facts, we shall need to have a far deeper insight and a\nfar more critical attitude towards the visible foreground of things than\nhistorians have hitherto been wont to display; who amongst them, for\ninstance, would have allowed himself to dream that the counterpart of\nProtestantism was to be found in the Dionysiac movement, and that\nEnglish Puritanism was for the West what Islam was for the Arabian\nworld?\n\nSeen from this angle, history offers possibilities far beyond the\nambitions of all previous research, which has contented itself in the\nmain with arranging the facts of the past so far as these were known\n(and that according to a one-line scheme)\u2014the possibilities, namely, of\n\n Overpassing the present as a research-limit, and predetermining the\n spiritual form, duration, rhythm, meaning and product of the _still\n unaccomplished_ stages of our western history; and\n\n Reconstructing long-vanished and unknown epochs, even whole Cultures\n of the past, by means of morphological connexions, in much the same\n way as modern pal\u00e6ontology deduces far-reaching and trustworthy\n conclusions as to skeletal structure and species from a single\n unearthed skull-fragment.\n\nIt is possible, given the physiognomic rhythm, to recover from scattered\ndetails of ornament, building, script, or from odd political, economic\nand religious data, the organic characters of whole centuries of\nhistory, and from known elements on the scale of art-expression, to find\ncorresponding elements on the scale of political forms, or from that of\nmathematical forms to read that of economic. This is a truly Goethian\nmethod\u2014rooted in fact in Goethe\u2019s conception of the _prime phenomenon_\u2014\nwhich is already to a limited extent current in comparative zoology, but\ncan be extended, to a degree hitherto undreamed of, over the whole field\nof history.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n In English the word \u201ccast\u201d will evidently satisfy the sense better on\n occasion. The word \u201cstil\u201d will therefore not necessarily be always\n rendered \u201cstyle.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 109 et seq.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 36 et seq.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n I will only mention here the distances apart of the three Punic Wars,\n and the series\u2014likewise comprehensible only as rhythmic\u2014Spanish\n Succession War, Silesian wars, Napoleonic Wars, Bismarck\u2019s wars, and\n the World War (cf. Vol. II, p. 488). Connected with this is the\n spiritual relation of grandfather and grandson, a relation which\n produces in the mind of primitive peoples the conviction that the soul\n of the grandfather returns in the grandson, and has originated the\n widespread custom of giving the grandson the grandfather\u2019s _name_,\n which by its mystic spell binds his soul afresh to the corporeal\n world.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n The word is used in the sense in which biology employs it, viz., to\n describe the process by which the embryo traverses all the phases\n which its species has undergone.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n The first draft of _Faust I_, discovered only comparatively recently.\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n See Ency. Brit., XIth Ed., articles _Owen, Sir Richard; Morphology and\n Zoology_ (p. 1029).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n It is not superfluous to add that there is nothing of the causal kind\n in these _pure phenomena_ of \u201cLiving Nature.\u201d Materialism, in order to\n get a system for the pedestrian reasoner, has had to adulterate the\n picture of them with fitness-causes. But Goethe\u2014who anticipated just\n about as much of Darwinism as there will be left of it in fifty years\n from Darwin\u2014_absolutely_ excluded the causality-principle. And the\n very fact that the Darwinians quite failed to notice its absence is a\n clear indication that Goethe\u2019s \u201cLiving Nature\u201d belongs to actual life,\n \"cause\"-less and \"aim\"-less; for the idea of the prime-phenomenon does\n not involve causal assumptions of any sort unless it has been\n misunderstood in advance in a mechanistic sense.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n Reigned 246-210 B.C. He styled himself \u201cfirst universal emperor\u201d and\n intended a position for himself and his successors akin to that of\n \u201cDivus\u201d in Rome. For a brief account of his energetic and\n comprehensive work see Ency. Brit., XI Ed., article _China_, p. 194.\u2014\n _Tr._\n\n-----\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n THE PROBLEM OF WORLD-HISTORY\n\n II\n\n THE IDEA OF DESTINY AND THE PRINCIPLE\n OF CAUSALITY\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n THE PROBLEM OF WORLD-HISTORY\n\n\n II\n THE IDEA OF DESTINY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY\n\n I\n\nFollowing out this train of thought to the end, we come into the\npresence of an opposition in which we perceive the key\u2014the only key\u2014\nwherewith to approach, and (so far as the word has any meaning at all)\nto solve, one of the oldest and gravest of man\u2019s riddles. This is the\nopposition of the _Destiny Idea_ and the _Causality Principle_\u2014an\nopposition which, it is safe to say, has never hitherto been recognized\nfor what it is, the necessary foundation of world-building.\n\nAnyone who understands at all what is meant by saying that the soul is\nthe _idea of an existence_, will also divine a near relationship between\nit and the _sure sense of a destiny_ and must regard Life itself (our\nname for the form in which the actualizing of the possible is\naccomplished) as directed, irrevocable in every line, fate-laden.\nPrimitive man feels this dimly and anxiously, while for the man of a\nhigher Culture it is definite enough to become his vision of the world\u2014\nthough this vision is communicable only through religion and art, never\nthrough notions and proofs.\n\nEvery higher language possesses a number of words such as luck, doom,\nconjuncture, vocation, about which there is, as it were, a veil. No\nhypothesis, no science, can ever get into touch with that which we feel\nwhen we let ourselves sink into the meaning and sound of these words.\nThey are symbols, not notions. In them is the centre of gravity of that\nworld-picture that I have called the World-as-history as opposed to the\nWorld-as-nature. The Destiny-idea demands life-experience and not\nscientific experience, the power of seeing and not that of calculating,\ndepth and not intellect. There is an _organic logic_, an instinctive,\ndream-sure logic of all existence as opposed to the _logic of the\ninorganic_, the logic of understanding and of things understood\u2014a logic\nof direction as against a logic of extension\u2014and no systematist, no\nAristotle or Kant, has known how to deal with it. They are on their own\nground when they tell us about \u201cjudgment,\u201d \u201cperception,\u201d \u201cawareness,\u201d\nand \u201crecollection,\u201d but as to what is in the words \u201chope,\u201d \u201chappiness,\u201d\n\u201cdespair,\u201d \u201crepentance,\u201d \u201cdevotion,\u201d and \u201cconsolation\u201d they are silent.\nHe who expects here, in the domain of the living, to find reasons and\nconsequences, or imagines that an inward certainty as to the meaning of\nlife is the same thing as \u201cFatalism\u201d or \u201cPredestination,\u201d simply knows\nnothing of the matters in question, confusing experience lived with\nexperience acquired or acquirable. Causality is the reasonable, the law-\nbound, the describable, the badge of our whole waking and reasoning\nexistence. But destiny is the word for an inner certainty that is _not_\ndescribable. We bring out that which is in the causal by means of a\nphysical or an epistemological system, through numbers, by reasoned\nclassification; but the idea of destiny can be imparted only by the\nartist working through media like portraiture, tragedy and music. The\none requires us to _distinguish_ and in distinguishing to dissect and\ndestroy, whereas the other is _creative_ through and through, and thus\ndestiny is related to life and causality to death.\n\nIn the Destiny-idea the soul reveals its world-longing, its desire to\nrise into the light, to accomplish and actualize its vocation. To no man\nis it entirely alien, and not before one has become the unanchored\n\u201clate\u201d man of the megalopolis is original vision quite overpowered by\nmatter-of-fact feeling and mechanizing thought. Even then, in some\nintense hour, the lost vision comes back to one with terrible clearness,\nshattering in a moment all the causality of the world\u2019s surface. For the\nworld as a system of causal connexions is not only a \u201clate\u201d but also a\nhighly rarefied conception and only the energetic intellects of high\nCultures are capable of possessing it\u2014or perhaps we should say, devising\nit\u2014with conviction. The notion of causality is coterminous with the\nnotion of law: the only laws that are, are causal laws. But just as\nthere lies in the causal, according to Kant, a _necessity of the\nthinking consciousness_ and the _basic form of its relation to the\nessence of things_, so also, designated by the words destiny,\ndispensation, vocation, there is a something that is an inevitable\n_necessity of life_. Real history is heavy with fate but free of laws.\nOne can divine the future (there is, indeed, a certain insight that can\npenetrate its secrets deeply) but one cannot reckon it. The physiognomic\nflair which enables one to read a whole life in a face or to sum up\nwhole peoples from the picture of an epoch\u2014and to do so without\ndeliberate effort or \u201csystem\u201d\u2014is utterly remote from all \u201ccause and\neffect.\u201d\n\nHe who comprehends the light-world that is before his eyes not\nphysiognomically but systematically, and makes it intellectually his own\nby the methods of _causal_ experience, must necessarily in the end come\nto believe that every living thing can be understood by reference to\ncause and effect\u2014that there is no secret and no inner directedness. He,\non the other hand, who as Goethe did\u2014and for that matter as everyone\ndoes in nine out of ten of his waking moments\u2014lets the impressions of\nthe world about him work merely upon his senses, absorbs these\nimpressions as a whole, feels the become in its becoming. The stiff mask\nof causality is lifted by mere _ceasing to think_. Suddenly, Time is no\nmore a riddle, a notion, a \u201cform\u201d or \u201cdimension\u201d but becomes an inner\ncertainty, destiny itself; and in its directedness, its\n_irreversibility_, its livingness, is disclosed the very meaning of the\nhistorical world-picture. _Destiny and Causality are related as Time and\nSpace._\n\nIn the two possible world-forms then\u2014History and Nature, the physiognomy\nof all becoming and the system of all things become\u2014destiny _or_\ncausality prevails. Between them there is all the difference between a\nfeeling of life and a method of knowledge. Each of them is the starting-\npoint of a complete and self-contained, but not _of a unique_ world.\nYet, after all, just as the become is founded upon a becoming, so the\n_knowledge_ of cause and effect is founded upon the sure _feeling_ of a\ndestiny. Causality is\u2014so to say\u2014destiny become, destiny made inorganic\nand modelled in reason-forms. Destiny itself (passed over in silence by\nKant and every other builder of rational world-systems because with\ntheir armoury of _abstractions_ they could not touch _life_) stands\nbeyond and outside all comprehended Nature. Nevertheless, being itself\nthe original, it alone gives the stiff dead principle of cause-and-\neffect the opportunity to figure in the later scenes of a culture-drama,\nalive and historical, as the incarnation of a tyrannical thinking. The\nexistence of the Classical soul is the _condition_ for the appearance of\nDemocritus\u2019s method, the existence of the Faustian soul for that of\nNewton\u2019s. We may well imagine that either of these Cultures might have\nfailed to produce a natural science of its own, but we cannot imagine\nthe systems without their cultural foundations.\n\nHere again we see how becoming and the become, direction and extension,\ninclude one another and are subordinated each to the other, according as\nwe are in the historical or in the \u201cnatural\u201d focus. If history is that\nkind of world-order in which all the become is fitted to the becoming,\nthen the products of scientific work must _inter alia_ be so handled;\nand, in fact, for the historical eye there is only a _history_ of\nphysics. It was Destiny that the discoveries of oxygen, Neptune,\ngravitation and spectrum analysis happened as and when they did. It was\nDestiny that the phlogiston theory, the undulatory theory of light, the\nkinetic theory of gases could arise at all, seeing that they were\nelucidations of results and, as such, highly personal to their\nrespective authors, and that other theories (\u201ccorrect\u201d or \u201cerroneous\u201d)\nmight equally well have been developed instead. And it is again Destiny\nand the result of strong personality when one theory vanishes and\nanother becomes the lodestar of the physicist\u2019s world. Even the born\nphysicist speaks of the \u201cfate\u201d of a problem or the \u201chistory\u201d of a\ndiscovery.\n\nConversely, if \u201cNature\u201d is that constitution of things in which the\nbecoming should logically be incorporated in the thing-become, and\nliving direction in rigid extension, history may best be treated as a\nchapter of epistemology; and so indeed Kant would have treated it if he\nhad remembered to include it at all in his system of knowledge.\nSignificantly enough, he did not; for him as for every born systematist\nNature is _The_ World, and when he discusses time without noticing that\nit has direction and is irreversible, we see that he is dealing with the\nNature-world and has no inkling of the possibility of another, the\nhistory-world. Perhaps, for Kant, this other world _was_ actually\nimpossible.\n\nNow, _Causality has nothing whatever to do with Time_. To the world of\nto-day, made up of Kantians who know not how Kantian they are, this must\nseem an outrageous paradox. And yet every formula of Western physics\nexhibits the \u201chow\u201d and the \u201chow long\u201d as distinct in essence. As soon as\nthe question is pressed home, causality restricts its answer rigidly to\nthe statement _that_ something happens\u2014and not _when_ it happens. The\n\u201ceffect\u201d must of necessity be put with the \u201ccause.\u201d The _distance_\nbetween them belongs to a different order, it lies within the act of\nunderstanding itself (which is an element of life) and not within the\nthing or things understood. It is of the essence of the extended that it\novercomes directedness, and of Space that it contradicts Time, _and yet\nthe latter, as the more fundamental, precedes and underlies the former_.\nDestiny claims the same precedence; we begin with the idea of Destiny,\nand only later, when our waking-consciousness looks fearfully for a\nspell that will bind in the sense-world and overcome the death that\ncannot be evaded, do we conceive causality as an anti-Fate, and make it\n_create another world to protect us from and console us for this_. And\nas the web of cause and effect gradually spreads over the visible\nsurfaces there is formed a convincing picture of timeless duration\u2014\nessentially, Being, but Being endowed with attributes by the sheer force\nof pure thought. This tendency underlies the feeling, well known in all\nmature Cultures, that \u201cKnowledge is Power,\u201d the power that is meant\nbeing power over Destiny. The abstract savant, the natural-science\nresearcher, the thinker in systems, whose whole intellectual existence\nbases itself on the causality principle, are \u201clate\u201d manifestations of an\nunconscious _hatred_ of the powers of incomprehensible Destiny. \u201cPure\nReason\u201d denies all possibilities that are outside itself. Here strict\nthought and great art are eternally in conflict. The one keeps its feet,\nand the other lets itself go. A man like Kant must always feel himself\nas superior to a Beethoven as the adult is to the child, but this will\nnot prevent a Beethoven from regarding the \u201cCritique of Pure Reason\u201d as\na pitiable sort of philosophy. _Teleology_, that nonsense of all\nnonsenses within science, is a misdirected attempt to deal mechanically\nwith the _living_ content of scientific knowledge (for knowledge implies\nsomeone to know, and though the substance of thought may be \u201cNature\u201d the\n_act_ of thought is history), and so with life itself as an inverted\ncausality. Teleology is a caricature of the Destiny-idea which\ntransforms the _vocation_ of Dante into the _aim_ of the savant. It is\nthe deepest and most characteristic tendency both of Darwinism\u2014the\nmegalopolitan-intellectual product of the most abstract of all\nCivilizations\u2014and of the materialist conception of history which springs\nfrom the same root as Darwinism and, like it, kills all that is organic\nand fateful. Thus the morphological element of the Causal is a\n_Principle_, and the morphological element of Destiny is an _Idea_, an\nidea that is incapable of being \u201ccognized,\u201d described or defined, and\ncan only be felt and inwardly lived. This idea is something of which one\nis either entirely ignorant or else\u2014like the man of the spring and every\ntruly significant man of the late seasons, believer, lover, artist,\npoet\u2014entirely certain.\n\nThus Destiny is seen to be the true _existence-mode of the prime\nphenomenon_, that in which the living idea of becoming unfolds itself\nimmediately to the intuitive vision. And therefore the Destiny-idea\ndominates the whole world-picture of history, while causality, which is\nthe existence-mode of _objects_ and stamps out of the world of\nsensations a set of well-distinguished and well-defined _things_,\n_properties_ and _relations_, dominates and penetrates, as the form of\nthe understanding, the Nature-world that is the understanding\u2019s \u201calter\nego.\u201d\n\nBut inquiry into the degree of validity of causal connexions within a\npresentation of nature, or (what is henceforth the same thing for us)\ninto the destinies involved in that presentation, becomes far more\ndifficult still when we come to realize that for primitive man or for\nthe child no comprehensive causally-ordered world exists at all as yet\nand that we ourselves, though \u201clate\u201d men with a consciousness\ndisciplined by powerful speech-sharpened thought, can do no more, even\nin moments of the most strained attention (the only ones, really, in\nwhich we are exactly in the physical focus), than _assert_ that the\ncausal order which we see in such a moment is continuously present in\nthe actuality around us. Even waking, we take in the actual, \u201cthe living\ngarment of the Deity,\u201d _physiognomically_, and we do so involuntarily\nand by virtue of a power of experience that is rooted in the deep\nsources of life.\n\nA _systematic_ delineation, on the contrary, is the expression of an\nunderstanding emancipated from perception, and by means of it we bring\nthe mental picture of all times and all men into conformity with the\nmoment\u2019s picture of Nature as ordered by ourselves. But the mode of this\nordering, which has a history that we cannot interfere with in the\nsmallest degree, is not the working of a cause, but a destiny.\n\n II\n\nThe way to the problem of Time, then, begins in the primitive\nwistfulness and passes through its clearer issue the Destiny-idea. We\nhave now to try to outline, briefly, the content of that problem, so far\nas it affects the subject of this book.\n\nThe _word_ Time is a sort of charm to summon up that intensely personal\nsomething designated earlier as the \u201cproper,\u201d which with an inner\ncertainty we oppose to the \u201calien\u201d something that is borne in upon each\nof us amongst and within the crowding impressions of the sense-life.\n\u201cThe Proper,\u201d \u201cDestiny\u201d and \u201cTime\u201d are interchangeable words.\n\nThe problem of Time, like that of Destiny, has been completely\nmisunderstood by all thinkers who have confined themselves to the\nsystematic of the Become. In Kant\u2019s celebrated theory there is not one\nword about its character of directedness. Not only so, but the omission\nhas never even been noticed. But what _is_ time as a length, time\nwithout direction? Everything living, we can only repeat, has \u201clife,\u201d\ndirection, impulse, will, a movement-quality (Bewegtheit) that is most\nintimately allied to yearning and has not the smallest element in common\nwith the \u201cmotion\u201d (Bewegung) of the physicists. The living is\nindivisible and irreversible, once and uniquely occurring, and its\ncourse is entirely indeterminable by mechanics. For all such qualities\nbelong to the essence of Destiny, and \u201cTime\u201d\u2014that which we actually feel\nat the sound of the word, which is clearer in music than in language,\nand in poetry than in prose\u2014has this _organic_ essence, while Space has\nnot. Hence, Kant and the rest notwithstanding, it is impossible to bring\nTime _with Space_ under one general Critique. Space is a _conception_,\nbut time is a _word_ to indicate something inconceivable, a sound-\nsymbol, and to use it as a notion, scientifically, is utterly to\nmisconceive its nature. Even the word direction\u2014which unfortunately\ncannot be replaced by another\u2014is liable to mislead owing to its visual\ncontent. The vector-notion in physics is a case in point.\n\nFor primitive man the word \u201ctime\u201d can have no meaning. He simply lives,\nwithout any necessity of specifying an opposition to something else. He\n_has_ time, but he _knows_ nothing of it. All of us are conscious, as\nbeing aware, of space only, and not of time. Space \u201cis,\u201d (i.e. exists,\nin and with our sense-world)\u2014as a self-extension while we are living the\nordinary life of dream, impulse, intuition and conduct, and as space in\nthe strict sense in the moments of strained attention. \u201cTime,\u201d on the\ncontrary, is a _discovery_, which is only made by thinking. We create it\nas an idea or notion and do not begin till much later to suspect that\n_we ourselves are Time_, inasmuch as we live.[102] And only the higher\nCultures, whose world-conceptions have reached the mechanical-Nature\nstage, are capable of deriving from their consciousness of a well-\nordered measurable and comprehensible Spatial, the projected image of\ntime, the _phantom_ time,[103] which satisfies their need of\ncomprehending, measuring and causally ordering all. And this impulse\u2014a\nsign of the sophistication of existence that makes its appearance quite\nearly in every Culture\u2014fashions, outside and beyond the real life-\nfeeling, that which is called time in all higher languages and has\nbecome for the town-intellect a completely _inorganic magnitude_, as\ndeceptive as it is current. But, if the characteristics, or rather the\ncharacteristic, of extension\u2014limit and causality\u2014is really wizard\u2019s gear\nwherewith our proper soul attempts to conjure and bind alien powers\u2014\nGoethe speaks somewhere of the \u201cprinciple of reasonable order that we\nbear within ourselves and could impress as the seal of our power upon\neverything that we touch\u201d\u2014if all law is a fetter which our world-dread\nhurries to fix upon the incrowding sensuous, a deep necessity of self-\npreservation, so also the invention of a time that is knowable and\nspatially representable within causality is a later act of this same\nself-preservation, an attempt to bind by the force of _notion_ the\ntormenting inward riddle that is doubly tormenting to the intellect that\nhas attained power only to find itself defied. Always a subtle hatred\nunderlies the intellectual process by which anything is forced into the\ndomain and form-world of measure and law. The living is _killed_ by\nbeing introduced into space, for space is dead and makes dead. With\nbirth is given death, with the fulfilment the end. Something _dies_\nwithin the woman when she conceives\u2014hence comes that eternal hatred of\nthe sexes, child of world-fear. The man destroys, in a very deep sense,\nwhen he begets\u2014by bodily act in the sensuous world, by \u201cknowing\u201d in the\nintellectual. Even in Luther[104] the word \u201cknow\u201d has the secondary\ngenital sense. And with the \u201cknowledge\u201d of life\u2014which remains alien to\nthe lower animals\u2014the knowledge of death has gained that power which\ndominates man\u2019s whole waking consciousness. By a _picture_ of time the\nactual is changed into the transitory.[105]\n\nThe mere creation of the _name_ Time was an unparalleled deliverance. To\nname anything by a name is to win power over it. This is the essence of\nprimitive man\u2019s art of magic\u2014the evil powers are constrained by naming\nthem, and the enemy is weakened or killed by coupling certain magic\nprocedures with his name.[106]\n\nAnd there is something of this primitive expression of world-fear in the\nway in which all systematic philosophies use mere names as a last resort\nfor getting rid of the Incomprehensible, the Almighty that is all too\nmighty for the intellect. We name something or other the \u201cAbsolute,\u201d and\nwe feel ourselves at once its superior. Philosophy, the _love_ of\nWisdom, is at the very bottom defence against the incomprehensible. What\nis named, comprehended, measured is _ipso facto_ overpowered, made inert\nand taboo.[107] Once more, \u201cknowledge is power.\u201d Herein lies one root of\nthe difference between the idealist\u2019s and the realist\u2019s attitude towards\nthe Unapproachable; it is expressed by the two meanings of the German\nword _Scheu_\u2014respect and abhorrence.[108] The idealist contemplates, the\nrealist would subject, mechanize, render innocuous. Plato and Goethe\naccept the secret in humility, Aristotle and Kant would open it up and\ndestroy it. The most deeply significant example of this realism is in\nits treatment of the Time problem. The dread mystery of Time, life\nitself, must be spellbound and, by the magic of comprehensibility,\nneutralized.\n\nAll that has been said about time in \u201cscientific\u201d philosophy, psychology\nand physics\u2014the supposed answer to a question that had better never have\nbeen asked, namely what _is_ time?\u2014touches, not at any point the secret\nitself, but only a spatially-formed _representative_ phantom. The\nlivingness and directedness and fated course of real Time is replaced by\na figure which, be it never so intimately absorbed, is only a _line_,\nmeasurable, divisible, reversible, and not a portrait of that which is\nincapable of being portrayed; by a \u201ctime\u201d that can be mathematically\nexpressed in such forms as \u221a_t_, _t_\u00b2, -_t_, from which the assumption\nof a time of zero magnitude or of negative times is, to say the least,\n_not_ excluded.[109] Obviously this is something quite outside the\ndomain of Life, Destiny, and living _historical_ Time; it is a purely\nconceptual time-system that is remote even from the sensuous life. One\nhas only to substitute, in any philosophical or physical treatise that\none pleases, this word \u201cDestiny\u201d for the word \u201ctime\u201d and one will\ninstantly see how understanding loses its way when language has\nemancipated it from sensation, and how impossible the group \u201ctime and\nspace\u201d is. What is not experienced and felt, what is merely _thought_,\nnecessarily takes a _spatial_ form, and this explains why no systematic\nphilosopher has been able to make anything out of the mystery-clouded,\nfar-echoing sound symbols \u201cPast\u201d and \u201cFuture.\u201d In Kant\u2019s utterances\nconcerning time they do not even occur, and in fact one cannot see any\nrelation which could connect them with what is said there. But only this\nspatial form enables time and space to be brought into functional\ninterdependence as magnitudes _of the same_ order, as four-dimensional\nvector analysis[110] conspicuously shows. As early as 1813 Lagrange\nfrankly described mechanics as a four-dimensional geometry, and even\nNewton\u2019s cautious conception of \u201ctempus absolutum sive duratio\u201d is not\nexempt from this _intellectually inevitable_ transformation of the\nliving into mere extension. In the older philosophy I have found one,\nand only one, profound and reverent presentation of Time; it is in\nAugustine\u2014\u201cIf no one questions me, I know: if I would explain to a\nquestioner, I know not.\u201d[111]\n\nWhen philosophers of the present-day West \u201chedge\u201d\u2014as they all do\u2014by\nsaying that things _are_ in time as in space and that \u201coutside\u201d them\nnothing is \u201cconceivable,\u201d they are merely putting another kind of space\n(R\u00e4umlichkeit) beside the ordinary one, just as one might, if one chose,\ncall hope and electricity the two forces of the universe. It ought not,\nsurely, to have escaped Kant when he spoke of the \u201ctwo forms\u201d of\nperception, that whereas it is easy enough to come to a scientific\nunderstanding about space (though not to \u201cexplain\u201d it, in the ordinary\nsense of the word, for that is beyond human powers), treatment of time\non the same lines breaks down utterly. The reader of the \u201cCritique of\nPure Reason\u201d and the \u201cProlegomena\u201d will observe that Kant gives a well-\nconsidered proof for the connexion of space and geometry but carefully\navoids doing the same for time and arithmetic. There he did not go\nbeyond enunciation, and constant reassertion of analogy between the two\nconceptions lured him over a gap that would have been fatal to his\nsystem. _Vis-\u00e0-vis_ the Where and the How, the When forms a world of its\nown as distinct as is metaphysics from physics. Space, object, number,\nnotion, causality are so intimately akin that it is impossible\u2014as\ncountless mistaken systems prove\u2014to treat the one independently of the\nother. Mechanics is a copy of the logic of its day and vice versa. The\npicture of thought as psychology builds it up and the picture of the\nspace-world as contemporary physics describes it are reflections of one\nanother. Conceptions and things, reasons and causes, conclusions and\nprocesses coincide so nicely, as received by the consciousness, that the\nabstract thinker himself has again and again succumbed to the temptation\nof setting forth the thought-\u201cprocess\u201d graphically and schematically\u2014\nwitness Aristotle\u2019s and Kant\u2019s tabulated categories. \u201cWhere there is no\nscheme, there is no philosophy\u201d is the objection of principle\u2014\nunacknowledged though it may be\u2014that all professional philosophers have\nagainst the \u201cintuitives,\u201d to whom inwardly they feel themselves far\nsuperior. That is why Kant crossly describes the Platonic style of\nthinking \u201cas the art of spending good words in babble\u201d (die Kunst,\nwortreich zu schwatzen), and why even to-day the lecture-room\nphilosopher has not a word to say about Goethe\u2019s philosophy. Every\nlogical operation is capable of being _drawn_, every system a\n_geometrical_ method of handling thoughts. And therefore Time either\nfinds no place in the system at all, or is made its victim.\n\nThis is the refutation of that widely-spread misunderstanding which\nconnects time with arithmetic and space with geometry by superficial\nanalogies, an error to which Kant ought never to have succumbed\u2014though\nit is hardly surprising that Schopenhauer, with his incapacity for\nunderstanding mathematics, did so. Because the living act of numbering\nis somehow or other related to time, number and time are constantly\nconfused. But numbering is not number, any more than drawing is a\ndrawing. Numbering and drawing are a becoming, numbers and figures are\nthings become. Kant and the rest have in mind now the living act\n(numbering) and now the result thereof (the relations of the finished\nfigure); but the one belongs to the domain of Life and Time, the other\nto that of Extension and Causality. _That_ I calculate is the business\nof organic, _what_ I calculate the business of inorganic, logic.\nMathematics as a whole\u2014in common language, arithmetic and geometry\u2014\nanswers the _How?_ and the _What?_\u2014that is, the problem of the Natural\norder of things. In opposition to this problem stands that of the\n_When?_ of things, the specifically historical problem of destiny,\nfuture and past; and all these things are comprised in the word\n_Chronology_, which simple mankind understands fully and unequivocally.\n\nBetween arithmetic and geometry there is no opposition.[112] Every kind\nof number, as has been sufficiently shown in an earlier chapter, belongs\nentirely to the realm of the extended and the become, whether as a\nEuclidean magnitude or as an analytical function; and to which heading\nshould we have to assign the cyclometric[113] functions, the Binomial\nTheorem, the Riemann surfaces, the Theory of Groups? Kant\u2019s scheme was\nrefuted by Euler and d\u2019Alembert before he even set it up, and only the\nunfamiliarity of his successors with the mathematics of their time\u2014what\na contrast to Descartes, Pascal and Leibniz, who evolved the mathematics\nof _their_ time from the depths of their own philosophy!\u2014made it\npossible for mathematical notions of a relation between time and\narithmetic to be passed on like an heirloom, almost uncriticized.\n\nBut between Becoming and any part whatsoever of mathematics there is not\nthe slightest contact. Newton indeed was profoundly convinced (and he\nwas no mean philosopher) that in the principles of his Calculus of\nFluxions[114] he had grasped the problem of Becoming, and therefore of\nTime\u2014in a far subtler form, by the way, than Kant\u2019s. But even Newton\u2019s\nview could not be upheld, even though it may find advocates to this day.\nSince Weierstrass proved that continuous functions exist which either\ncannot be differentiated at all or are capable only of partial\ndifferentiation, this most deep-searching of all efforts to close with\nthe Time-problem mathematically has been abandoned.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n The sensuous life and the intellectual life too are Time; it is only\n sensuous _experience_ and intellectual _experience_, the \u201cworld,\u201d that\n is spatial nature. (As to the nearer affinity of the Feminine to Time,\n see Vol. II, pp. 403 et seq.)\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n The expression \u201cspace of time\u201d (Zeitraum) which is common to many\n languages, is evidence of our inability to represent direction\n otherwise than by extension.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n I.e., the translated Bible.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 19 et seq.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n See p. 80 of this volume, and Vol. II, pp. 166, 328.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 137.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n The nearest English equivalent is perhaps the word \u201cfear.\u201d \u201cFearful\u201d\n would correspond exactly but for the fact that in the second sense the\n word is objective instead of subjective. The word \u201cshy\u201d itself bears\n the second meaning in such trivial words as gun-shy, work-shy.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n The Relativity theory, a working hypothesis which is on the way to\n overthrowing Newton\u2019s mechanics\u2014which means at bottom his view of the\n problem of motion\u2014admits cases in which the words \u201cearlier\u201d and\n \u201clater\u201d may be inverted. The mathematical foundation of this theory by\n Minkowski uses _imaginary_ time units for measurement.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n The dimensions are _x_, _y_, _z_ (in respect of space) and _t_ (in\n respect of time), and all four appear to be regarded as perfectly\n equivalent in transformations. [The English reader may be referred to\n A. Einstein, \u201cTheory of Relativity,\u201d Ch. XI and appendices I, II.\u2014\n _Tr._]\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicari velim, nescio.\n (_Conf._ XI, 14.)\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n Save in elementary mathematics. (It may be remarked that most\n philosophers since Schopenhauer have approached these questions with\n the prepossessions of elementary mathematics.)\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n The \u201cinverse circular functions\u201d of English text-books.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n The Newtonian form of the differential calculus was distinct from the\n Leibnizian, which is now in general use. Without going into\n unnecessary detail, the characteristic of Newton\u2019s method was that it\n was meant not for the calculation of quadratures and tangents (which\n had occupied his predecessors), nor as an organ of functional theory\n as such (as the differential calculus became much later), but quite\n definitely as a method of dealing with _rate of change_ in pure\n mechanics, with the \u201cflowing\u201d or \u201cfluxion\u201d of a dependent variable\n under the influence of a variable which for Newton was the \u201cfluent,\u201d\n and which we call the argument of a function.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n III\n\n_Time is a counter-conception (Gegenbegriff) to Space_, arising out of\nSpace, just as the notion (as distinct from the fact) of Life arises\nonly in opposition to thought, and the notion (as distinct from the\nfact) of birth and generation only in opposition to death.[115] This is\nimplicit in the very essence of all awareness. Just as any sense-\nimpression is only remarked when it detaches itself from another, so any\nkind of understanding that is genuine critical activity[116] is only\nmade possible through the setting-up of a new concept as anti-pole to\none already present, or through the divorce (if we may call it so) of a\npair of inwardly-polar concepts which as long as they are mere\nconstituents, possess no actuality.[117] It has long been presumed\u2014and\nrightly, beyond a doubt\u2014that all root-words, whether they express things\nor properties, have come into being by pairs; but even later, even to-\nday, the connotation that every new word receives is a reflection of\nsome other. And so, guided by language, the understanding, incapable of\nfitting a sure inward subjective certainty of Destiny into its form-\nworld, created \u201ctime\u201d out of space as its opposite. But for this we\nshould possess neither the word nor its connotation. And so far is this\nprocess of word-formation carried that the particular style of extension\npossessed by the Classical world led to a specifically Classical notion\nof time, differing from the time-notions of India, China and the West\nexactly as Classical space differs from the space of these\nCultures.[118]\n\nFor this reason, the notion of an art-form\u2014which again is a \u201ccounter-\nconcept\u201d\u2014has only arisen when men became aware that their art-creations\nhad a connotation (Gehalt) at all, that is, when the expression-language\nof the art, along with its effects, had ceased to be something perfectly\nnatural and taken-for-granted, as it still was in the time of the\nPyramid-Builders, in that of the Mycen\u00e6an strongholds and in that of the\nearly Gothic cathedrals. Men become suddenly aware of the existence of\n\u201cworks,\u201d and then for the first time the understanding eye is able to\ndistinguish a causal side and a destiny side in every living art.\n\nIn every work that displays the _whole_ man and the _whole_ meaning of\nthe existence, fear and longing lie close together, but they are and\nthey remain different. To the fear, to the Causal, belongs the whole\n\u201ctaboo\u201d side of art\u2014its stock of motives, developed in strict schools\nand long craft-training, carefully protected and piously transmitted;\nall of it that is comprehensible, learnable, _numerical_; all the\n_logic_ of colour, line, structure, order, which constitutes the mother-\ntongue of every worthy artist and every great epoch. But the other side,\nopposed to the \u201ctaboo\u201d as the directed is to the extended and as the\ndevelopment-destiny within a form-language to its syllogisms, comes out\nin genius (namely, in that which is wholly personal _to the individual\nartists_, their imaginative powers, creative passion, depth and\nrichness, as against all mere mastery of form) and, beyond even genius,\nin that superabundance of creativeness in the race which conditions the\nrise and fall of whole arts. This is the \u201ctotem\u201d side, and owing to it\u2014\nnotwithstanding all the \u00e6sthetics ever penned\u2014there is no timeless and\nsolely-true way of art, but only a _history_ of art, marked like\neverything that lives with the sign of irreversibility.[119]\n\nAnd this is why architecture of the grand style\u2014which is the only one of\nthe arts that handles the alien and fear-instilling itself, the\nimmediate Extended, the stone\u2014is naturally _the_ early art in all\nCultures, and only step by step yields its primacy to the special arts\nof the city with their more mundane forms\u2014the statue, the picture, the\nmusical composition. Of all the great artists of the West, it was\nprobably Michelangelo who suffered most acutely under the constant\nnightmare of world-fear, and it was he also who, alone among the\nRenaissance masters, never freed himself from the architectural. He even\npainted as though his surfaces were stone, become, stiff, _hateful_. His\nwork was a bitter wrestle with the powers of the cosmos which faced him\nand challenged him in the form of material, whereas in the yearning\nLeonardo\u2019s colour we see, as it were, a glad materialization of the\nspiritual. But in every large architectural problem an implacable causal\nlogic, not to say mathematic, comes to expression\u2014in the Classical\norders of columns a Euclidean relation of _beam_ and _load_, in the\n\u201canalytically\u201d disposed thrust-system of Gothic vaulting the dynamic\nrelation of _force_ and _mass_. Cottage-building traditions\u2014which are to\nbe traced in the one and in the other, which are the necessary\nbackground even of Egyptian architecture, which in fact develop in every\nearly period and are regularly lost in every later\u2014contain the whole sum\nof this logic of the extended. But the symbolism of direction and\ndestiny is beyond all the \u201ctechnique\u201d of the great arts and hardly\napproachable by way of \u00e6sthetics. It lies\u2014to take some instances\u2014in the\ncontrast that is always felt (but never, either by Lessing or by Hebbel,\nelucidated) between Classical and Western tragedy; in the succession of\nscenes of old Egyptian relief and generally in the _serial_ arrangement\nof Egyptian statues, sphinxes, temple-halls; in the choice, as distinct\nfrom the treatment, of materials (hardest diorite to affirm, and softest\nwood to deny, the future); in the occurrence, and not in the grammar, of\nthe individual arts, e.g., the victory of arabesque over the Early\nChristian picture, the retreat of oil-painting before chamber music in\nthe Baroque; in the utter diversity of intention in Egyptian, Chinese\nand Classical statuary. All these are not matters of \u201ccan\u201d but of\n\u201cmust,\u201d and therefore it is not mathematics and abstract thought, but\nthe great arts in their kinship with the contemporary religions, that\ngive the key to the problem of Time, a problem that can hardly be solved\nwithin the domain of history[120] alone.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 13, 19.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n The original reads: \u201c(So ist jede Art von Verstehen ... nur dadurch\n m\u00f6glich ...) dass ein Begriffspaar von innerem Gegensatz\n gewissermassen durch Auseinandertreten erst Wirklichkeit erh\u00e4lt.\u201d\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n At this point the German text repeats the paragraph which in this\n edition begins at \u201cBut inquiry\u201d (p. 121) and ends at the close of\n section I (p. 121).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 137, 159.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n Here the author presumably means history in the ordinary acceptation\n of the word.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n IV\n\nIt follows from the meaning that we have attached to the Culture as a\nprime phenomenon and to destiny as the organic logic of existence, that\neach Culture must necessarily possess its own destiny-idea. Indeed, this\nconclusion is implicit from the first in the feeling that every great\nCulture is nothing but the actualizing and form of a single, singularly-\nconstituted (einzigartig) soul. And what cannot be felt by one sort of\nmen exactly as it is felt by another (since the life of each is the\nexpression of the idea _proper_ to himself) and still less transcribed,\nwhat is named by us \u201cconjuncture,\u201d \u201caccident,\u201d \u201cProvidence\u201d or \u201cFate,\u201d\nby Classical man \u201cNemesis,\u201d \u201cAnanke,\u201d \u201cTyche\u201d or \u201cFatum,\u201d by the Arab\n\u201cKismet,\u201d by everyone in some way of his own, is just that of which each\nunique and unreproduceable soul-constitution, quite clear to those who\nshare in it, is a rendering.\n\nThe Classical form of the Destiny-idea I shall venture to call\nEuclidean. Thus it is the sense-actual person of \u0152dipus, his \u201cempirical\nego,\u201d nay, his \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 that is hunted and thrown by Destiny. \u0152dipus\ncomplains that Creon has misused his \u201cbody\u201d[121] and that the oracle\napplied to his \u201cbody.\u201d[122] \u00c6schylus, again, speaks of Agamemnon as the\n\u201croyal body, leader of fleets.\u201d[123] It is this same word \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 that the\nmathematicians employ more than once for the \u201cbodies\u201d with which they\ndeal. But the destiny of King Lear is of the \u201canalytical\u201d type\u2014to use\nhere also the term suggested by the corresponding number-world\u2014and\nconsists in dark inner relationships. The idea of fatherhood emerges;\nspiritual threads weave themselves into the action, incorporeal and\ntranscendental, and are weirdly illuminated by the counterpoint of the\nsecondary tragedy of Gloster\u2019s house. Lear is at the last a mere name,\nthe axis of something unbounded. _This_ conception of destiny is the\n\u201cinfinitesimal\u201d conception. It stretches out into infinite time and\ninfinite space. It touches the bodily, Euclidean existence not at all,\nbut affects only the Soul. Consider the mad King between the fool and\nthe outcast in the storm on the heath, and then look at the Laoco\u00f6n\ngroup; the first is the Faustian, the other the Apollinian way of\nsuffering. Sophocles, too, wrote a Laoco\u00f6n drama; and we may be certain\nthat there was nothing of _pure soul-agony_ in it. Antigone goes below\nground in the body, because she has buried her brother\u2019s body. Think of\nAjax and Philoctetes, and then of the Prince of Homburg and Goethe\u2019s\nTasso\u2014is not the difference between magnitude and relation traceable\nright into the depths of artistic creation?\n\nThis brings us to another connexion of high symbolic significance. The\ndrama of the West is ordinarily designated _Character-Drama_. That of\nthe Greeks, on the other hand, is best described as _Situation-Drama_,\nand in the antithesis we can perceive what it is that Western, and what\nit is that Classical, man respectively feel as the basic life-form that\nis imperilled by the onsets of tragedy and fate. If in lieu of\n\u201cdirection\u201d we say \u201cirreversibility,\u201d if we let ourselves sink into the\nterrible meaning of those words \u201ctoo late\u201d wherewith we resign a\nfleeting bit of the present to the _eternal_ past, we find the deep\nfoundation of every tragic crisis. It is Time that is the tragic, and it\nis by the meaning that it intuitively attaches to Time that one Culture\nis differentiated from another; and consequently \u201ctragedy\u201d of the grand\norder has only developed in the Culture which has most passionately\naffirmed, and in that which has most passionately denied, Time. The\nsentiment of the ahistoric soul gives us a Classical tragedy of the\nmoment, and that of the ultrahistorical soul puts before us Western\ntragedy that deals with the _development of a whole life_. Our tragedy\narises from the feeling of an _inexorable_ Logic of becoming, while the\nGreek feels the _illogical, blind Casual of the moment_\u2014the life of Lear\nmatures inwardly towards a catastrophe, and that of \u0152dipus stumbles\nwithout warning upon a situation. And now one may perceive how it is\nthat synchronously with Western drama there rose and fell a mighty\nportrait-art (culminating in Rembrandt), a kind of historical and\nbiographical art which (_because_ it was so) was sternly discountenanced\nin Classical Greece at the apogee of Attic drama. Consider the veto on\nlikeness-statuary in votive offerings[124] and note how\u2014from Demetrius\nof Alopeke (about 400)[125]\u2014a timid art of \u201cideal\u201d portraiture began to\nventure forth when, and only when, grand tragedy had been thrown into\nthe background by the light society-pieces of the \u201cMiddle Comedy.\u201d[126]\nFundamentally all Greek statues were standard masks, like the actors in\nthe theatre of Dionysus; all bring to expression, in significantly\nstrict form, _somatic_ attitudes and positions. Physiognomically they\nare _dumb_, corporeal and _of necessity_ nude\u2014character-heads of\ndefinite individuals came only with the Hellenistic age. Once more we\nare reminded of the contrast between the Greek number-world, with its\ncomputations of tangible results, and the other, our own, in which the\nrelations between groups of functions or equations or, generally,\nformula-elements of the same order are investigated morphologically, and\nthe character of these relations fixed _as such_ in express laws.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n _\u0152d. Rex._, 642. \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f50\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7. (Cf. Rudolf\n Hirsch, _Die Person_ (1914), p. 9.)\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n _\u0152d. Col._, 355. \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 ... \u1f03 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n _Cho\u00ebphor\u00e6_, 710. \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 ... \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n Phidias, and through him his patron Pericles, were attacked for\n alleged introduction of portraits upon the shield of Athene Parthenos.\n In Western religious art, on the contrary, portraiture was, as\n everyone knows, a habitual practice. Every Madonna, for instance, is\n more or less of a portrait.\n\n With this may be compared again the growing resistance of Byzantine\n art, as it matured, to portraiture in sacred surroundings, evidenced\n for instance in the history of the _nimbus_ or halo\u2014which was removed\n from the insignia of the Prince to become the badge of the Saint\u2014in\n the legend of the miraculous effacement of Justinian\u2019s pompous\n inscription on Hagia Sophia, and in the banishment of the human patron\n from the celestial part of the church to the earthly.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Who was criticized as \u201cno god-maker but a man-maker\u201d and as one who\n spoilt the _beauty_ of his work by aiming at _likeness_.\n\n Cresilas, the sculptor from whom the only existing portrait of\n Pericles is derived, was a little earlier; in him, however, the\n \u201cideal\u201d was still the supreme aim.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n The writers immediately succeeding Aristophanes.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n V\n\nIn the capacity of experientially living history and the way in which\nhistory, particularly the history of personal becoming, is lived, one\nman differs very greatly from another.\n\nEvery Culture possesses a wholly individual way of looking at and\ncomprehending the world-as-Nature; or (what comes to the same thing) it\n_has_ its own peculiar \u201cNature\u201d which no other sort of man can possess\nin exactly the same form. But in a far greater degree still, every\nCulture\u2014including the individuals comprising it (who are separated only\nby minor distinctions)\u2014possesses a specific and peculiar sort of\nhistory\u2014and it is in the picture of this and the style of this that the\ngeneral and the personal, the inner and the outer, the world-historical\nand the biographical becoming, are immediately perceived, felt and\nlived. Thus the autobiographical tendency of Western man\u2014revealed even\nin Gothic times in the symbol of auricular confession[127]\u2014is utterly\nalien to Classical man; while his intense historical awareness is in\ncomplete contrast to the almost dreamy unconsciousness of the Indian.\nAnd when Magian man\u2014primitive Christian or ripe scholar of Islam\u2014uses\nthe words \u201cworld-history,\u201d what is it that he sees before him?\n\nBut it is difficult enough to form an exact idea even of the \u201cNature\u201d\nproper to another kind of man, although in this domain things\nspecifically cognizable are causally ordered and unified in a\ncommunicable system. And it is quite impossible for us to penetrate\ncompletely a historical world-aspect of \u201cbecoming\u201d formed by a soul that\nis quite differently constituted from our own. Here there must always be\nan intractable residue, greater or smaller in proportion to our\nhistorical instinct, physiognomic tact and knowledge of men. All the\nsame, the solution of this very problem is the condition-precedent of\nall really deep understanding of the world. The historical environment\nof another is a part of his _essence_, and no such other can be\nunderstood without the knowledge of his time-sense, his destiny-idea and\nthe style and degree of acuity of his inner life. In so far therefore as\nthese things are not directly confessed, we have to extract them from\nthe symbolism of the alien Culture. And as it is thus and only thus that\nwe can approach the incomprehensible, the style of an alien Culture, and\nthe great time-symbols belonging thereto acquire an immeasurable\nimportance.\n\nAs an example of these hitherto almost uncomprehended signs we may take\nthe _clock_, a creation of highly developed Cultures that becomes more\nand more mysterious as one examines it. Classical man managed to do\nwithout the clock, and his abstention was more or less deliberate. To\nthe Augustan period, and far beyond it, the time of day was estimated by\nthe length of one\u2019s shadow,[128] although sun-dials and water-clocks,\ndesigned in conformity with a strict time-reckoning and imposed by a\ndeep sense of past and future, had been in regular use in both the older\nCultures of Egypt and Babylonia.[129] Classical man\u2019s existence\u2014\nEuclidean, relationless, point-formed\u2014was wholly contained in the\ninstant. Nothing must remind him of past or future. For the true\nClassical, arch\u00e6ology did not exist, nor did its _spiritual inversion_,\n_astrology_. The Oracle and the Sibyl, like the Etruscan-Roman\n\u201charuspices\u201d and \u201caugurs,\u201d did not foretell any distant future but\nmerely gave indications on particular questions of immediate bearing. No\ntime-reckoning entered intimately into everyday life (for the Olympiad\nsequence was a mere literary expedient) and what really matters is not\nthe goodness or badness of a calendar but the questions: \u201cwho uses it?\u201d\nand \u201cdoes the life of the nation run by it?\u201d In Classical cities nothing\nsuggested duration, or old times or times to come\u2014there was no pious\npreservation of ruins, no work conceived for the benefit of future\ngenerations; in them we do not find that durable[130] material was\ndeliberately chosen. The Dorian Greek ignored the Mycen\u00e6an stone-\ntechnique and built in wood or clay, though Mycen\u00e6an and Egyptian work\nwas before him and the country produced first-class building-stone. The\nDoric style is a timber style\u2014even in Pausanias\u2019s day some wooden\ncolumns still lingered in the Her\u00e6um of Olympia. The real organ of\nhistory is \u201cmemory\u201d in the sense which is always postulated in this\nbook, viz., that which preserves as a constant present the image of\none\u2019s personal past and of a national and a world-historical past[131]\nas well, and is conscious of the course both of personal and of super-\npersonal becoming. That organ was not present in the make-up of a\nClassical soul. There was no \u201cTime\u201d in it. Immediately behind his proper\npresent, the Classical historian sees a background that is already\ndestitute of temporal and therefore of inward order. For Thucydides the\nPersian Wars, for Tacitus the agitation of the Gracchi, were already in\nthis vague background;[132] and the great families of Rome had\ntraditions that were pure romance\u2014witness C\u00e6sar\u2019s slayer, Brutus, with\nhis firm belief in his reputed tyrannicide ancestor. C\u00e6sar\u2019s reform of\nthe calendar may almost be regarded as a deed of emancipation from the\nClassical life-feeling. But it must not be forgotten that C\u00e6sar also\nimagined a renunciation of Rome and a transformation of the City-State\ninto an empire which was to be dynastic\u2014marked with the badge of\nduration\u2014and to have its centre of gravity in Alexandria, which in fact\nis the birthplace of his calendar. His assassination seems to us a last\noutburst of the antiduration feeling that was incarnate in the _Polis_\nand the _Urbs Roma_.\n\nEven then Classical mankind was still living every hour and every day\nfor itself; and this is equally true whether we take the individual\nGreek or Roman, or the city, or the nation, or the whole Culture. The\nhot-blooded pageantry, palace-orgies, circus-battles of Nero or\nCaligula\u2014Tacitus is a true Roman in describing only these and ignoring\nthe smooth progress of life in the distant provinces\u2014are final and\nflamboyant expressions of the Euclidean world-feeling that deified the\nbody and the present.\n\nThe Indians also have no sort of time-reckoning (the absence of it in\ntheir case expressing their Nirvana) and no clocks, and _therefore_ no\nhistory, no life memories, no care. What the conspicuously historical\nWest calls \u201cIndian history\u201d achieved itself without the smallest\nconsciousness of what it was doing.[133] The millennium of the Indian\nCulture between the Vedas and Buddha seems like the stirrings of a\nsleeper; here life was _actually_ a dream. From all this our Western\nCulture is unimaginably remote. And, indeed, man has never\u2014not even in\nthe \u201ccontemporary\u201d China of the Ch\u00f3u period with its highly-developed\nsense of eras and epochs[134]\u2014been so awake and aware, so deeply\nsensible of time and conscious of direction and fate and movement as he\nhas been in the West. _Western history was willed and Indian history\nhappened._ In Classical existence years, in Indian centuries scarcely\ncounted, but here the hour, the minute, yea the second, is of\nimportance. Of the tragic tension of a historical crisis like that of\nAugust, 1914, when even moments seem overpowering, neither a Greek nor\nan Indian could have had any idea.[135] Such crises, too, a deep-feeling\nman of the West can experience _within himself_, as a true Greek could\nnever do. Over our country-side, day and night from thousands of\nbelfries, ring the bells[136] that join future to past and fuse the\npoint-moments of the Classical present into a grand relation. The epoch\nwhich marks the birth of our Culture\u2014the time of the Saxon Emperors\u2014\nmarks also the discovery of the wheel-clock.[137] Without exact time-\nmeasurement, without a _chronology of becoming_ to correspond with his\nimperative need of arch\u00e6ology (the preservation, excavation and\ncollection of _things-become_), Western man is unthinkable. The Baroque\nage intensified the Gothic symbol of the belfry to the point of\ngrotesqueness, and produced the pocket watch that constantly accompanies\nthe individual.[138]\n\nAnother symbol, as deeply significant and as little understood as the\nsymbol of the clock, is that of the funeral customs which all great\nCultures have consecrated by ritual and by art. The grand style in India\nbegins with tomb-temples, in the Classical world with funerary urns, in\nEgypt with pyramids, in early Christianity with catacombs and\nsarcophagi. In the dawn, innumerable equally-possible forms still cross\none another chaotically and obscurely, dependent on clan-custom and\nexternal necessities and conveniences. But every Culture promptly\nelevates one or another of them to the highest degree of symbolism.\nClassical man, obedient to his deep unconscious life-feeling, picked\nupon burning, an act of annihilation in which the Euclidean, the here-\nand-now, type of existence was powerfully expressed. He _willed_ to have\nno history, no duration, neither past nor future, neither preservation\nnor dissolution, and therefore he _destroyed_ that which no longer\npossessed a present, the _body_ of a Pericles, a C\u00e6sar, a Sophocles, a\nPhidias. And the soul passed to join the vague crowd to which the living\nmembers of the clan paid (but soon ceased to pay) the homage of\nancestor-worship and soul-feast, and which in its _formlessness_\npresents an utter contrast to the ancestor-_series_, the _genealogical\ntree_, that is eternalized with all the marks of historical order in the\nfamily-vault of the West. In this (with one striking exception, the\nVedic dawn in India) no other Culture parallels the Classical.[139] And\nbe it noted that the Doric-Homeric spring, and above all the \u201cIliad,\u201d\ninvested this act of burning with all the vivid feeling of a _new-born_\nsymbol; for those very warriors whose deeds probably formed the nucleus\nof the epic were in fact buried almost in the Egyptian manner in the\ngraves of Mycen\u00e6, Tiryns, Orchomenos and other places. And when in\nImperial times the sarcophagus or \u201cflesh-consumer\u201d[140] began to\nsupersede the vase of ashes, it was again, as in the time when the\nHomeric urn superseded the shaft-grave of Mycen\u00e6, a _changed sense of\nTime_ that underlay the change of rite.\n\nThe Egyptians, who preserved their past in memorials of stone and\nhieroglyph so purposefully that we, four thousand years after them, can\ndetermine the order of their kings\u2019 reigns, so thoroughly eternalized\ntheir bodies that today the great Pharaohs lie in our museums,\nrecognizable in every lineament, a symbol of grim triumph\u2014while of\nDorian kings not even the names have survived. For our own part, we know\nthe exact birthdays and deathdays of almost every great man since Dante,\nand, moreover, we see nothing strange in the fact. Yet in the time of\nAristotle, the very zenith of Classical education, it was no longer\nknown with certainty if Leucippus, the founder of Atomism and a\ncontemporary of Pericles\u2014i.e., hardly a century before\u2014had ever existed\nat all; much as though for us the existence of Giordano Bruno was a\nmatter of doubt[141] and the Renaissance had become pure saga.\n\nAnd these museums themselves, in which we assemble everything that is\nleft of the corporeally-sensible past! Are not they a symbol of the\nhighest rank? Are they not intended to conserve in mummy the entire\n\u201cbody\u201d of cultural development?\n\nAs we collect countless data in milliards of printed books, do we not\nalso collect _all_ the works of _all_ the dead Cultures in these myriad\nhalls of West-European cities, in the mass of the collection depriving\neach individual piece of that instant of actualized purpose that is its\nown\u2014the one property that the Classical soul would have respected\u2014and\n_ipso facto_ dissolving it into our unending and unresting Time?\nConsider what it was that the Hellenes named \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd;[142] how deep a\nsignificance lies in the change of sense!\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 360 et seq.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n Diels, _Antike Technik_ (1920), p. 159.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n About 400 B.C. savants began to construct crude sun-dials in Africa\n and Ionia, and from Plato\u2019s time still more primitive clepsydr\u00e6 came\n into use; but in both forms, the Greek clock was a mere imitation of\n the far superior models of the older East, and it had not the\n slightest connexion with the Greek life-feeling. See Diels, _op.\n cit._, pp. 160 et seq.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n Horace\u2019s _monumentum \u00e6re perennius_ (Odes III, 30) may seem to\n conflict with this: but let the reader reconsider the whole of that\n ode in the light of the present argument, and turn also to Leuconoe\n and her \u201cBabylonian\u201d impieties (Odes I, 11) _inter alia_, and he will\n probably agree that so far as Horace is concerned, the argument is\n supported rather than impugned.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n Ordered, for us, by the Christian chronology and the ancient-medi\u00e6val-\n modern scheme. It was on those foundations that, from early Gothic\n times, the images of religion and of art have been built up in which a\n large part of Western humanity continues to live. To predicate the\n same of Plato or Phidias is quite impossible, whereas the Renaissance\n artists could and did project a classical past, which indeed they\n permitted to dominate their judgments completely.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n See pp. 9. et seq.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n The Indian history of our books is a Western reconstruction from texts\n and monuments. See the chapter on epigraphy in the \u201cIndian Gazetteer,\u201d\n Vol. II.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 482, 521 et seq.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n There is one famous episode in Greek history that may be thought to\n contradict this\u2014the race against time of the galley sent to Mitylene\n to countermand the order of massacre (Thucydides, III, 49). But we\n observe that Thucydides gives twenty times the space to the debates at\n Athens that he gives to the drama of the galley-rowers pulling night\n and day to save life. And we are told that it was the Mitylenean\n ambassadors who spared no expense to make it worth the rowers\u2019 while\n to win, whereupon \u201cthere arose such a zeal of rowing that....\u201d The\n final comment is, strictly construing Thucydides\u2019s own words: \u201cSuch\n was the magnitude of the danger that Mitylene passed by\u201d (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f21 \u039c\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5), a phrase which recalls\n forcibly what has just been said regarding the \u201csituation-drama.\u201d\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n Besides the clock, the bell itself is a Western \u201csymbol.\u201d The passing-\n bell tolled for St. Hilda of Whitby in 680, and a century before that\n time bells had come into general use in Gaul both for monasteries and\n for parish churches. On the contrary, it was not till 865 that\n Constantinople possessed bells, and these were presented in that year\n by Venice. The presence of a belfry in a Byzantine church is accounted\n a proof of \u201cWestern influence\u201d: the East used and still largely uses\n mere gongs and rattles for religious purposes. (British Museum\n \u201cHandbook of Early Christian Antiquities)\u201d.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n May we be permitted to guess that the Babylonian sun-dial and the\n Egyptian water-clock came into being \u201csimultaneously,\u201d that is, on the\n threshold of the third millennium before Christ? The history of clocks\n is inwardly inseparable from that of the calendar; it is therefore to\n be assumed that the Chinese and the Mexican Cultures also, with their\n deep sense of history, very early devised and used methods of time-\n measurement.\n\n (The Mexican Culture developed the most intricate of all known systems\n of indicating year and day. See British Museum \u201cHandbook of May on\n Antiquities.\u201d\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n Let the reader try to imagine what a Greek would feel when suddenly\n made acquainted with this custom of ours.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n The Chinese ancestor-worship honoured genealogical order with strict\n ceremonies. And whereas here ancestor-worship by degrees came to be\n the centre of all piety, in the Classical world it was driven entirely\n into the background by the cults of _present_ gods; in Roman times it\n hardly existed at all.\n\n (Note the elaborate precautions taken in the Athenian \u201cAnthesteria\u201d to\n keep the anonymous mass of ghosts at bay. This feast was anything but\n an All Souls\u2019 Day of re-communion with the departed spirits.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n With obvious reference to the resurrection of the flesh (\u1f10\u03ba \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd).\n But the meaning of the term \u201cresurrection\u201d has undergone, from about\n 1000 A.D., a profound\u2014though hardly noticed\u2014change. More and more it\n has tended to become identified with \u201cimmortality.\u201d But in the\n resurrection from the dead, the implication is that time begins again\n to repeat in space, whereas in \u201cimmortality\u201d it is time that overcomes\n space.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n For English readers, the most conspicuous case of historic doubt is\n the Shakespeare-Bacon matter. But even here, it is only the work of\n Shakespeare that is in question, not his existence and personality,\n for which we have perfectly definite evidence.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n Originally a philosophical and scientific lecture-temple founded in\n honour of Aristotle, and later the great University of Alexandria,\n bore the title \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. Both Aristotle and the University amassed\n collections but they were collections of (_a_) books, (_b_) natural\n history specimens, living or taken from life. In the West, the\n collection of _memorials of the past as such_ dates from the earliest\n days of the Renaissance.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n VI\n\nIt is the _primitive feeling of Care_[143] which dominates the\nphysiognomy of Western, as also that of Egyptian and that of Chinese\nhistory, and it creates, further, the symbolism of the erotic which\nrepresents the flowing on of endless life in the form of the familial\nseries of individual existences. The point-formed Euclidean existence of\nClassical man, in this matter as in others, conceived only the here-and-\nnow definitive act of begetting or of bearing, and thus it comes about\nthat we find the birth-pangs of the mother made the centre of Demeter-\nworship and the Dionysiac symbol of the phallus (the sign of a sexuality\nwholly concentrated on the moment and losing past and future in it) more\nor less everywhere in the Classical. In the Indian world we find,\ncorrespondingly, the sign of the Lingam and the sect of worshippers of\nPaewati.[144] In the one case as in the other, man feels himself as\nnature, as a plant, as a willless and care-less element of becoming (dem\nSinn des Werdens willenlos und sorglos hingegeben). The domestic\nreligion of Rome centred on the _genius_, i.e., the creative power of\nthe head of the family. To all this, the deep and thoughtful care of the\nWestern soul has opposed the sign of _mother-love_, a symbol which in\nthe Classical Culture only appeared above the horizon to the extent that\nwe see it in, say, the mourning for Persephone or (though this is only\nHellenistic) the seated statue of Demeter of Knidos.[145] The Mother\nwith the Child\u2014the future\u2014at her breast, the Mary-cult in the new\nFaustian form, began to flourish only in the centuries of the Gothic and\nfound its highest expression in Raphael\u2019s Sistine Madonna.[146] This\nconception is not one belonging to Christianity generally. On the\ncontrary, Magian Christianity had elevated Mary as Theotokos, \u201cshe who\ngave birth to God\u201d[147] into a symbol felt quite otherwise than by us.\nThe lulling Mother is as alien to Early-Christian-Byzantine art as she\nis to the Hellenic (though for other reasons) and most certainly Faust\u2019s\nGretchen, with the deep spell of unconscious motherhood on her, is\nnearer to the Gothic Madonna than all the Marys of Byzantine and\nRavennate mosaics. Indeed, the presumption of a spiritual relation\nbetween them breaks down completely before the fact that the Madonna\nwith the Child answers exactly to the Egyptian Isis with Horus\u2014both are\ncaring, nursing mothers\u2014and that nevertheless this symbol had vanished\nfor a thousand years and more (for the whole duration of the Classical\nand the Arabian Cultures) before it was reawakened by the Faustian\nsoul.[148]\n\nFrom the maternal care the way leads to the paternal, and there we meet\nwith the highest of all the time-symbols that have come into existence\nwithin a Culture, the State. The meaning of the child to the mother is\nthe future, the continuation, namely, of her own life, and mother-love\nis, as it were, a welding of two discontinuous individual existences;\nlikewise, the meaning of the state to the man is comradeship in arms for\nthe protection of hearth and home, wife and child, and for the insurance\nfor the whole people of its future and its efficacy. The state is the\ninward form of a nation, its \u201cform\u201d in the athletic sense, and history,\nin the high meaning, is the State conceived as kinesis and not as kinema\n(nicht als Bewegtes sondern als Bewegung gedacht). _The Woman as Mother\nis, and the Man as Warrior and Politician makes, History._[149]\n\nAnd here again the history of higher Cultures shows us three examples of\nstate-formations in which the element of care is conspicuous: the\nEgyptian administration even of the Old Kingdom (from 3000 B.C.); the\nChinese state of the Ch\u00f3u dynasty (1169-256 B.C.), of the organization\nof which the Ch\u00f3u Li gives such a picture that, later on, no one dared\nto believe in the authenticity of the book; and the states of the West,\nbehind whose characteristic eye-to-the-future there is an unsurpassably\nintense Will to the future.[150] And on the other hand we have in two\nexamples\u2014the Classical and the Indian world\u2014a picture of utterly care-\nless submission to the moment and its incidents. Different in themselves\nas are Stoicism and Buddhism (the old-age dispositions of these two\nworlds), they are at one in their negation of the historical feeling of\ncare, their contempt of zeal, of organizing power, and of the duty-\nsense; and therefore neither in Indian courts nor in Classical market-\nplaces was there a thought for the morrow, personal or collective. The\n_carpe diem_ of Apollinian man applies also to the Apollinian state.\n\nAs with the political, so with the other side of historical existence,\nthe economic. The hand-to-mouth life corresponds to the love that begins\nand ends in the satisfaction of the moment. There was an economic\norganization on the grand scale in Egypt, where it fills the whole\nculture-picture, telling us in a thousand paintings the story of its\nindustry and orderliness; in China, whose mythology of gods and legend-\nemperors turns entirely upon the holy tasks of cultivation; and in\nWestern Europe, where, beginning with the model agriculture of the\nOrders, it rose to the height of a special science, \u201cnational economy,\u201d\nwhich was in very principle a _working hypothesis_, purporting to show\nnot what happens but what _shall_ happen. In the Classical world, on the\nother hand\u2014to say nothing of India\u2014men managed from day to day, in spite\nof the example of Egypt; the earth was robbed not only of its wealth but\nof its capacities, and the casual surpluses were instantly squandered on\nthe city mob. Consider critically any great statesman of the Classical\u2014\nPericles and C\u00e6sar, Alexander and Scipio, and even revolutionaries like\nCleon and Tiberius Gracchus. Not one of them, economically, looked far\nahead. No city ever made it its business to drain or to afforest a\ndistrict, or to introduce advanced cultivation methods or new kinds of\nlive stock or new plants. To attach a Western meaning to the \u201cagrarian\nreform\u201d of the Gracchi is to misunderstand its purport entirely. Their\naim was to make their supporters _possessors_ of land. Of educating\nthese into managers of land, or of raising the standard of Italian\nhusbandry in general, there was not the remotest idea\u2014one let the future\ncome, one did not attempt to work upon it. Of this economic Stoicism of\nthe Classical world the exact antithesis is Socialism, meaning thereby\nnot Marx\u2019s theory but Frederick William I\u2019s Prussian practice which long\npreceded Marx and will yet displace him\u2014the socialism, inwardly akin to\nthe system of Old Egypt, that comprehends and cares for permanent\neconomic relations, trains the individual in his duty to the whole, and\nglorifies hard work as an affirmation of Time and Future.\n\n VII\n\nThe ordinary everyday man in all Cultures only observes so much of the\nphysiognomy of becoming\u2014his own and that of the living world around him\u2014\nas is in the foreground and immediately tangible. The sum of his\nexperiences, inner and outer, fills the course of his day merely as a\nseries of facts. Only the outstanding (bedeutende) man feels behind the\ncommonplace unities of the history-stirred surface a deep logic of\nbecoming. This logic, manifesting itself in the idea of Destiny, leads\nhim to regard the less significant collocations of the day and the\nsurface as mere incidents.\n\nAt first sight, however, there seems to be only a difference of degree\nin the connotations of \u201cdestiny\u201d and \u201cincident.\u201d One feels that it is\nmore or less of an incident when Goethe goes to Sesenheim, but destiny\nwhen he goes to Weimar;[151] one regards the former as an episode and\nthe latter as an epoch. But we can see at once that the distinction\ndepends on the inward quality of the man who is impressed. To the mass,\nthe whole life of Goethe may appear as a sequence of anecdotal\nincidents, while a very few will become conscious, with astonishment, of\na symbolic necessity inherent even in its most trivial occurrences.\nPerhaps, then, the discovery of the heliocentric system by Aristarchus\nwas an unmeaning incident for the Classical Culture, but its\nsupposed[152] rediscovery by Copernicus a destiny for the Faustian? Was\nit a destiny that Luther was not a great organizer and Calvin was? And\nif so, for whom was it a destiny\u2014for Protestantism as a living unit, for\nthe Germans, or for Western mankind generally? Were Tiberius Gracchus\nand Sulla incidents and C\u00e6sar a destiny?\n\nQuestions like these far transcend the domain of the understanding that\noperates through concepts (der begriffliche Verst\u00e4ndigung). What is\ndestiny, what incident, the spiritual experiences of the individual\nsoul\u2014and of the Culture-soul\u2014decide. Acquired knowledge, scientific\ninsight, definition, are all powerless. Nay more, the very attempt to\ngrasp them epistemologically defeats its own object. For without the\ninward certainty that destiny is something entirely intractable to\ncritical thought, we cannot perceive the world of becoming at all.\nCognition, judgment, and the establishment of _causal_ connexions within\nthe known (i.e., between things, properties, and positions that have\nbeen distinguished) are one and the same, and he who approaches history\nin the spirit of _judgment_ will only find \u201cdata.\u201d But that\u2014be it\nProvidence or Fate\u2014which moves in the depths of present happening or of\nrepresented past happening is lived, and only lived, and lived with that\nsame overwhelming and unspeakable certainty that genuine Tragedy awakens\nin the uncritical spectator. Destiny and incident form an opposition in\nwhich the soul is ceaselessly trying to clothe something which consists\n_only_ of feeling and living and intuition, and can only be made plain\nin the most subjective religious and artistic creations of those men who\nare _called_ to divination. To evoke this root-feeling of living\nexistence which endows the picture of history with its meaning and\ncontent, I know of no better way\u2014for \u201cname is mere noise and smoke\u201d\u2014than\nto quote again those stanzas of Goethe which I have placed at the head\nof this book to mark its fundamental intention.\n\n \u201cIn the Endless, self-repeating\n flows for evermore The Same.\n Myriad arches, springing, meeting,\n hold at rest the mighty frame.\n Streams from all things love of living,\n grandest star and humblest clod.\n All the straining, all the striving\n is eternal peace in God.\u201d[153]\n\nOn the surface of history it is the _unforeseen_ that reigns. Every\nindividual event, decision and personality is stamped with its hall-\nmark. No one foreknew the storm of Islam at the coming of Mohammed, nor\nforesaw Napoleon in the fall of Robespierre. The coming of great men,\ntheir doings, their fortune, are all incalculables. No one knows whether\na development that is setting in powerfully will accomplish its course\nin a straight line like that of the Roman patrician order or will go\ndown in doom like that of the Hohenstaufen or the Maya Culture. And\u2014\nscience notwithstanding\u2014it is just the same with the destinies of every\nsingle species of beast and plant within earth-history and beyond even\nthis, with the destiny of the earth itself and all the solar systems and\nMilky Ways. The insignificant Augustus made an epoch, and the great\nTiberius passed away ineffective. Thus, too, with the fortunes of\nartists, artworks and art-forms, dogmas and cults, theories and\ndiscoveries. That, in the whirl of becoming, one element merely\nsuccumbed to destiny when another became (and often enough has continued\nand will continue to be) a destiny itself\u2014that one vanishes with the\nwave-train of the surface while the other _makes_ this, is something\nthat is not to be explained by any why-and-wherefore and yet is of\ninward necessity. And thus the phrase that Augustine in a deep moment\nused of Time is valid also of destiny\u2014\u201cif no one questions me, I know:\nif I would explain to a questioner, I know not.\u201d\n\nSo, also, the supreme ethical expression of Incident and Destiny is\nfound in the Western Christian\u2019s idea of Grace\u2014the grace, obtained\nthrough the sacrificial death of Jesus, of being made free to will.[154]\nThe polarity of Disposition (original sin) and Grace\u2014a polarity which\nmust ever be a projection of feeling, of the emotional life, and not a\nprecision of learned reasoning\u2014embraces the existence of every truly\nsignificant man of this Culture. It is, even for Protestants, even for\natheists, hidden though it may be behind a scientific notion of\n\u201cevolution\u201d (which in reality is its direct descendant[155]), the\nfoundation of every confession and every autobiography; and it is just\nits absence from the constitution of Classical man that makes\nconfession, by word or thought, impossible to him. It is the final\nmeaning of Rembrandt\u2019s self-portraits and of music from Bach to\nBeethoven. We may choose to call that something which correlates the\nlife-courses of all Western men disposition, Providence or \u201cinner\nevolution\u201d[156] but it remains inaccessible to thought. \u201cFree will\u201d is\nan inward certitude. But whatever one may will or do, that which\nactually ensues upon and issues from the resolution\u2014abrupt, surprising,\nunforeseeable\u2014_subserves_ a deeper necessity and, for the eye that\nsweeps over the picture of the distant past, visibly conforms to a major\norder. And when the Destiny of that which was willed has been Fulfilment\nwe are fain to call the inscrutable \u201cGrace.\u201d What did Innocent III,\nLuther, Loyola, Calvin, Jansen, Rousseau and Marx will, and what came of\nthe things that they willed in the stream of Western history? Was it\nGrace or Fate? Here all rationalistic dissection ends in nonsense. The\nPredestination doctrine of Calvin and Pascal\u2014who, both of them more\nupright than Luther and Thomas Aquinas, dared to draw the causal\nconclusion from Augustinian dialectic\u2014is the _necessary_ absurdity to\nwhich the pursuit of these secrets by the reason leads. They lost the\ndestiny-logic of the world-becoming and found themselves in the causal\nlogic of notion and law; they left the realm of direct intuitive vision\nfor that of a mechanical system of objects. The fearful soul-conflicts\nof Pascal were the strivings of a man, at once intensely spiritual and a\nborn mathematician, who was determined to subject the last and gravest\nproblems of the soul both to the intuitions of a grand instinctive faith\nand to the abstract precision of a no less grand mathematical plan. In\nthis wise the Destiny-idea\u2014in the language of religion, God\u2019s\nProvidence\u2014is brought _within the schematic form of the Causality\nPrinciple_, i.e., the Kantian form of mind activity (productive\nimagination); _for that is what Predestination signifies_,\nnotwithstanding that thereby Grace\u2014the causation-free, living Grace\nwhich can only be experienced as an inward certainty\u2014is made to appear\nas a nature-force that is bound by irrevocable law and to turn the\nreligious world-picture into a rigid and gloomy system of machinery. And\nyet was it not a Destiny again\u2014for the world as well as for themselves\u2014\nthat the English Puritans, who were filled with this conviction, were\nruined not through any passive self-surrender but through their hearty\nand vigorous certainty that their will was the will of God?\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n The connotation of \u201ccare\u201d is almost the same as that of \u201cSorge,\u201d but\n the German word includes also a certain specific, _ad hoc_\n apprehension, that in English is expressed by \u201cconcern\u201d or \u201cfear.\u201d\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n The _Lingayats_ are one of the chief sects of the Saivas (that is, of\n the branch of Hinduism which devotes itself to Shiva) and Paewati\n worshippers belong to another branch, having the generic name of\n Saktas, who worship the \u201cactive female principle\u201d in the persons of\n Shiva\u2019s consorts, of whom Paewati is one. Vaishnavism\u2014the Vishnu\n branch of Indian religion\u2014also contains an erotic element in that form\n which conceives Vishnu as Krishna. But in Krishna worship the erotic\n is rather less precise and more amorous in character.\n\n See \u201cImperial Gazetteer of India,\u201d Vol. I, pp. 421 et seq., and Ency.\n Brit., XI Edition, article _Hinduism_.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n British Museum.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n Dresden.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 316.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n In connexion with this very important link in the Author\u2019s argument,\n attention may be drawn to a famous wall-painting of very early date in\n the Catacomb of St. Priscilla. In this, Mary is definitely and\n unmistakably the _Stillende Mutter_. But she is, equally unmistakably,\n different in soul and style from her \u201cEarly-Christian-Byzantine\u201d\n successor the Theotokos. Now, it is well known that the art of the\n catacombs, at any rate in its beginnings, is simply the art of\n contemporary Rome, and that this \u201cRoman\u201d art had its home in\n Alexandria. See Woermann\u2019s _Geschichte der Kunst_, III, 14-15, and\n British Museum \u201cGuide to Early Christian Art,\u201d 72-74, 86. Woermann\n speaks of this Madonna as the prototype of our grave, tenderly-\n solicitous Mother-Madonnas. Dr. Spengler would probably prefer to\n regard her as the last Isis. In any case it is significant that the\n symbol disappears: in the very same catacomb is a Theotokos of perhaps\n a century later date.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n Vol. II, pp. 403 et seq.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n See, further, the last two sections of Vol. II (_Der Staat_ and\n _Wirtschaftsleben_).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n Sesenheim is the home of Friederike, and a student\u2019s holiday took him\n thither: Weimar, of course, is the centre from which all the activity\n of his long life was to radiate.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n _Vermeintlich._ The allusion is presumably to the fact that\n Copernicus, adhering to the hypothesis of circular orbits, was obliged\n to retain some elements of Ptolemy\u2019s geocentric machinery of\n epicycles, so that Copernicus\u2019s sun was not placed at the true centre\n of any planetary orbit.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n Spr\u00fcche in Reimen.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 294 et seq., 359 et seq.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n The path from Calvin to Darwin is easily seen in English philosophy.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n This is one of the eternal points of dispute in Western art-theory.\n The Classical, ahistorical, Euclidean soul has no \u201cevolution\u201d; the\n Western, on the contrary, extends itself in evolving like the\n convergent function that it is. The one _is_, the other _becomes_. And\n thus all Classical tragedy assumes the _constancy_ of the personality,\n and all Western its _variability_, which essentially constitutes a\n \u201ccharacter\u201d in our sense, viz., a picture of being that consists in\n continuous qualitative movement and an endless wealth of\n relationships. _In Sophocles the grand gesture ennobles the suffering,\n in Shakespeare the grand idea_ (Gesinnung) _ennobles the doing_. As\n our \u00e6sthetic took its examples from _both_ Cultures, it was bound to\n go wrong in the very enunciation of its problem.\n\n-----\n\n\n VIII\n\nWe can proceed to the further elucidation of the incidental (or casual)\nwithout running the risk of considering it as an exception or a breach\nin the causal continuity of \u201cNature,\u201d for Nature is _not_ the world-\npicture in which Destiny is operative. Wherever the sight emancipates\nitself from the sensible-become, spiritualizes itself into Vision,\npenetrates through the enveloping world and lets prime phenomena instead\nof mere objects work upon it, we have the grand _historical_, trans-\nnatural, super-natural outlook, the outlook of Dante and Wolfram and\nalso the outlook of Goethe in old age that is most clearly manifested in\nthe finale of Faust II. If we linger in contemplation in this world of\nDestiny and Incident, it will very likely seem to us incidental that the\nepisode of \u201cworld-history\u201d should have played itself out in this or that\nphase of one particular star amongst the millions of solar systems;\nincidental that it should be men, peculiar animal-like creatures\ninhabiting the crust of this star, that present the spectacle of\n\u201cknowledge\u201d and, moreover, present it in just this form or in just that\nform, according to the very different versions of Aristotle, Kant and\nothers; incidental that as the counter-pole of this \u201cknowing\u201d there\nshould have arisen just these codes of \u201cnatural law,\u201d each supposedly\neternal and universally-valid and each evoking a supposedly general and\ncommon picture of \u201cNature.\u201d Physics\u2014quite rightly\u2014banishes incidentals\nfrom its field of view, but it is incidental, again, that physics itself\nshould occur in the alluvial period of the earth\u2019s crust, uniquely, as a\nparticular kind of intellectual composition.\n\n_The world of incident is the world of once-actual facts that longingly\nor anxiously we live forward to (entgegenleben) as Future, that raise or\ndepress us as the living Present, and that we contemplate with joy or\nwith grief as Past. The world of causes and effects is the world of the\nconstantly-possible, of the timeless truths which we know by dissection\nand distinction._\n\nThe latter only are scientifically attainable\u2014they are indeed\n_identical_ with science. He who is blind to this other, to the world as\n_Divina Commedia_ or drama for a god, can only find a senseless turmoil\nof incidents,[157] and here we use the word in its most trivial sense.\nSo it has been with Kant and most other systematists of thought. But the\nprofessional and inartistic sort of historical research too, with its\ncollecting and arranging of mere data, amounts for all its ingenuity to\nlittle more than the giving of a _cachet_ to the banal-incidental. Only\nthe insight that can penetrate into the metaphysical is capable of\nexperiencing in data _symbols_ of that which happened, and so of\nelevating an Incident into a Destiny. And he who is to himself a Destiny\n(like Napoleon) does not need this insight, since between himself as a\nfact and the other facts there is a harmony of metaphysical rhythm which\ngives his decisions their dreamlike certainty.[158]\n\nIt is this insight that constitutes the singularity and the power of\nShakespeare. Hitherto, neither our research nor our speculation has hit\nupon this in him\u2014that he is _the Dramatist of the Incidental_. And yet\nthis Incidental is the very heart of Western tragedy, which is a true\ncopy of the Western history idea and with it gives the clue to that\nwhich we understand in the world\u2014so misconstrued by Kant\u2014\u201cTime.\u201d It is\nincidental that the political situation of \u201cHamlet,\u201d the murder of the\nKing and the succession question impinge upon just that character that\nHamlet is. Or, take Othello\u2014it is incidental that the man at whom Iago,\nthe commonplace rogue that one could pick up in any street, aims his\nblow is one whose person possesses just this wholly special physiognomy.\nAnd Lear! Could anything be more incidental (and therefore more\n\u201cnatural\u201d) than the conjunction of this commanding dignity with these\nfateful passions and the inheritance of them by the daughters? No one\nhas even to-day realized all the significance of the fact that\nShakespeare took his stories as he found them and _in the very finding\nof them_ filled them with the force of inward necessity, and never more\nsublimely so than in the case of the Roman dramas. For the _will_ to\nunderstand him has squandered itself in desperate efforts to bring in a\nmoral causality, a \u201ctherefore,\u201d a connexion of \u201cguilt\u201d and \u201cexpiation.\u201d\nBut all this is neither correct nor incorrect\u2014these are words that\nbelong to the World-as-Nature and imply that something causal is being\njudged\u2014but _superficial_, shallow, that is, in contrast to the poet\u2019s\ndeep subjectivizing of the mere fact-anecdote. Only one who feels this\nis able to admire the grand na\u00efvet\u00e9 of the entrances of Lear and\nMacbeth. Now, Hebbel is the exact opposite, he destroys the depth of the\nanecdote by a system of cause and effect. The arbitrary and abstract\ncharacter of his plots, which everyone feels instinctively, comes from\nthe fact that the causal scheme of his spiritual conflicts is in\ncontradiction with the historically-motived world-feeling and the quite\nother logic proper to that feeling. These people do not live, they\n_prove_ something by coming on. One feels the presence of a great\nunderstanding, not that of a deep life. Instead of the Incident we get a\nProblem.\n\nFurther, this _Western_ species of the Incidental is entirely alien to\nthe Classical world-feeling and therefore to its drama. Antigone has no\nincidental character to affect her fortunes in any way. What happened to\n\u0152dipus\u2014unlike the fate of Lear\u2014might just as well have happened to\nanyone else. This is the Classical \u201cDestiny,\u201d the _Fatum_ which is\ncommon to all mankind, which affects the \u201cbody\u201d and in no wise depends\nupon incidents of personality.\n\nThe kind of history that is commonly written must, even if it does not\nlose itself in compilation of data, come to a halt before the\n_superficially_ incidental\u2014that is the ... destiny of its authors, who,\nspiritually, remain more or less in the ruck. In their eyes nature and\nhistory mingle in a cheap unity, and incident or accident, \u201csa sacr\u00e9e\nmajest\u00e9 le Hazard,\u201d is for the man of the ruck the easiest thing in the\nworld to understand. For him the secret logic of history \u2018which he does\nnot feel\u2019 is replaced by a causal that is only waiting behind the scene\nto come on and prove itself. It is entirely appropriate that the\nanecdotal foreground of history should be the arena of all the\nscientific causality-hunters and all the novelists and sketch-writers of\nthe common stamp. How many wars have been begun when they were because\nsome jealous courtier wished to remove some general from the proximity\nof his wife! How many battles have been won and lost through ridiculous\nincidents! Only think how Roman history was written in the 18th Century\nand how Chinese history is written even to-day! Think of the Dey\nsmacking the Consul with his fly-flap[159] and other such incidents that\nenliven the historical scene with comic-opera motives! Do not the deaths\nof Gustavus Adolphus and of Alexander seem like expedients of a\nnonplussed playwright; Hannibal a simple intermezzo, a surprise\nintrusion in Classical history; or Napoleon\u2019s \u201ctransit\u201d more or less of\na melodrama? Anyone who looks for the inner form of history in any\ncausal succession of its visible detail-events must always, if he is\nhonest, find a comedy of burlesque inconsequence, and I can well imagine\nthat the dance-scene of the drunken Triumvirs in \u201cAntony and Cleopatra\u201d\n(almost overlooked, but one of the most powerful in that immensely deep\nwork)[160] grew up out of the contempt of the prince of _historical_\ntragedy for the pragmatic aspect of history. For this is the aspect of\nit that has always dominated \u201cthe world,\u201d and has encouraged ambitious\nlittle men to interfere in it. It was because their eyes were set on\n_this_, and its rationalistic structure, that Rousseau and Marx could\npersuade themselves that they could alter the \u201ccourse of the world\u201d by a\ntheory. And even the social or economic interpretation of political\ndevelopments, to which present-day historical work is trying to rise as\nto a peak-ideal (though its biological cast constantly leads us to\nsuspect foundations of the causal kind), is still exceedingly shallow\nand trivial.\n\nNapoleon had in his graver moments a strong feeling for the deep logic\nof world-becoming, and in such moments could divine to what extent he\n_was_, and to what extent he _had_, a destiny. \u201cI feel myself driven\ntowards an end that I do not know. As soon as I shall have reached it,\nas soon as I shall become unnecessary, an atom will suffice to shatter\nme. Till then, not all the forces of mankind can do anything against\nme,\u201d he said at the beginning of the Russian campaign. Here, certainly,\nis not the thought of a pragmatist. In this moment he divined how little\nthe logic of Destiny needs particular instances, better men or\nsituations. Supposing that he himself, as \u201cempirical person,\u201d had fallen\nat Marengo\u2014then that which he _signified_ would have been actualized in\nsome other form. A melody, in the hands of a great musician, is capable\nof a wealth of variations; it can be entirely transformed so far as the\nsimple listener is concerned without altering itself\u2014which is quite\nanother matter\u2014fundamentally. The epoch of German national union\naccomplished itself through the person of Bismarck, that of the Wars of\nFreedom through broad and almost nameless events; but either theme, to\nuse the language of music, could have been \u201cworked out\u201d in other ways.\nBismarck might have been dismissed early, the battle of Leipzig might\nhave been lost, and for the group of wars 1864\u20141866\u20141870 there might\nhave been substituted (as \u201cmodulations\u201d) diplomatic, dynastic,\nrevolutionary or economic facts\u2014though it must not be forgotten that\n_Western history, under the pressure of its own physiognomic abundance_\n(as distinct from physiognomic style, for even Indian history has that)\n_demands, so to say, contrapuntally strong accents\u2014wars or big\npersonalities\u2014at the decisive points_. Bismarck himself points out in\nhis reminiscences that in the spring of 1848 national unity could have\nbeen achieved on a broader base than in 1870 but for the policy (more\naccurately, the personal taste) of the King of Prussia;[161] and yet,\nagain, according to Bismarck, this would have been so tame a working-out\nthat a coda of one sort or another (_da capo e poi la coda_) would have\nbeen imperatively necessary. Withal, the Theme\u2014the meaning of the epoch\u2014\nwould have been entirely unaltered by the facts assuming this or that\nshape. Goethe might\u2014possibly\u2014have died young, but _not_ his \u201cidea.\u201d\nFaust and Tasso would not have been written, but they would have \u201cbeen\u201d\nin a deeply mysterious sense, even though they lacked the poet\u2019s\nelucidation.\n\nFor if it is incidental that the history of higher mankind fulfils\nitself in the form of great Cultures, and that one of these Cultures\nawoke in West Europe about the year 1000; yet from the moment of\nawakening it is bound by its charter. Within every epoch there is\nunlimited abundance of surprising and unforeseeable possibilities of\nself-actualizing in detail-facts, but the epoch itself is necessary, for\nthe life-unity is in it. That its inner form is precisely what it is,\nconstitutes its specific determination (Bestimmung). Fresh incidentals\ncan affect the shape of its development, can make this grandiose or\npuny, prosperous or sorrowful, but alter it they cannot. An irrevocable\nfact is not merely a special case but a special type; thus in the\nhistory of the Universe we have the type of the \u201csolar system\u201d of sun\nand circling planets; in the history of our planet we have the type\n\u201clife\u201d with its youth, age, duration and reproduction; in the history of\n\u201clife\u201d the type \u201chumanity,\u201d and in the world-historical stage of that\nhumanity the type of the great individual Culture.[162] And these\nCultures are essentially related to the plants, in that they are bound\nfor the whole duration of their life to the soil from which they sprang.\nTypical, lastly, is the manner in which the men of a Culture understand\nand experience Destiny, however differently the picture may be coloured\nfor this individual and that; what I say here about it is not \u201ctrue,\u201d\nbut inwardly necessary for this Culture and this time-phase of it, and\nif it convinces you, it is not because there is only one \u201ctruth\u201d but\nbecause you and I belong to the same epoch.\n\nFor this reason, the Euclidean soul of the Classical Culture could only\nexperience its existence, bound as this was to present foregrounds, in\nthe form of _incidents of the Classical style_. If in respect of the\nWestern soul we can regard incident as a minor order of Destiny, in\nrespect of the Classical soul it is just the reverse. Destiny is\nincident become immense\u2014that is the very signification of Ananke,\nHeimarmene, Fatum. As the Classical soul did not genuinely live through\nhistory, it possessed no genuine feeling for a _logic_ of Destiny. We\nmust not be misled by words. The most popular goddess of Hellenism was\nTyche, whom the Greeks were practically unable to distinguish from\nAnanke. But Incident and Destiny are felt by _us_ with all the intensity\nof an opposition, and on the issue of this opposition we feel that\neverything fundamental in our existence depends. _Our_ history is that\nof great connexions, Classical history\u2014its full actuality, that is, and\nnot merely the image of it that we get in the historian (e.g.,\nHerodotus)\u2014is that of anecdotes, of a series of plastic details. The\nstyle of the Classical life generally, the style of every individual\nlife within it, is anecdotal, using the word with all seriousness. The\nsense-perceivable side of events condenses on _anti-historical,\ndaemonic, absurd_ incidents; it is the denial and disavowal of all logic\nof happening. The stories of the Classical master-tragedies one and all\n_exhaust_ themselves in incidents that mock at any meaning of the world;\nthey are the exact denotation of what is connoted by the word\n\u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7[163] in contrast to the Shakesperian _logic_ of incident.\nConsider \u0152dipus once more: that which happened to him was wholly\nextrinsic, was neither brought about nor conditioned by anything\nsubjective to himself, and could just as well have happened to anyone\nelse. This is the very _form of the Classical myth_. Compare with it the\nnecessity\u2014inherent in and governed by the man\u2019s whole existence and the\nrelation of that existence to Time\u2014that resides in the destiny of\nOthello, of Don Quixote, of Werther. It is, as we have said before, the\ndifference of situation-tragedy and character-tragedy. And this\nopposition repeats itself in history proper\u2014every epoch of the West has\ncharacter, while each epoch of the Classical only presents a situation.\nWhile the life of Goethe was one of fate-filled logic, that of C\u00e6sar was\none of mythical indidentalness, and it was left to Shakespeare to\n_introduce_ logic into it. Napoleon is a tragic character, Alcibiades\nfell into tragic situations. Astrology, in the form in which from Gothic\nto Baroque the Western soul knew it\u2014was dominated by it even in denying\nit\u2014was the attempt to master one\u2019s _whole_ future life-course; the\nFaustian horoscope, of which the best-known example is perhaps that\ndrawn out for Wallenstein by Kepler, _presupposes_ a steady and\npurposeful direction in the existence that has yet to be accomplished.\nBut the Classical oracle, always consulted for the _individual_ case, is\nthe genuine symbol of the meaningless incident and the moment; it\naccepts the point-formed and the discontinuous as the elements of the\nworld\u2019s course, and oracle-utterances were therefore entirely in place\nin that which was written and experienced as history at Athens. Was\nthere one single Greek who possessed the notion of a historical\n_evolution_ towards this or that or any aim? And _we_\u2014should we have\nbeen able to reflect upon history or to make it if we had _not_\npossessed it? If we compare the destinies of Athens and of France at\ncorresponding times after Themistocles and Louis XIV, we cannot but feel\nthat the style of the historical feeling and the style of its\nactualization are always one. In France logic _\u00e0 outrance_, in Athens\nun-logic.\n\nThe ultimate meaning of this significant fact can now be understood.\nHistory is the actualizing of a soul, and the same style governs the\nhistory one makes as governs the history one contemplates. The Classical\nmathematic excludes the symbol of infinite space, and therefore the\nClassical history does so too. It is not for nothing that the scene of\nClassical existence is the smallest of any, the individual _Polis_, that\nit lacks horizon and perspective\u2014notwithstanding the episode of\nAlexander\u2019s expedition[164]\u2014just as the Attic stage cuts them off with\nits flat back-wall, in obvious contrast to the long-range efficacy of\nWestern Cabinet diplomacy and the Western capital city. And just as the\nGreeks and the Romans neither knew nor (with their fundamental\nabhorrence of the Chaldean astronomy) would admit as actual any cosmos\nbut that of the foreground; just as at bottom their deities are house-\ngods, city-gods, field-gods but never star-gods,[165] so also what they\n_depicted_ was only foregrounds. Never in Corinth or Athens or Sicyon do\nwe find a landscape with mountain horizon and driving clouds and distant\ntowns; every vase-painting has the same constituents, figures of\nEuclidean separateness and artistic self-sufficiency. Every pediment or\nfrieze group is serially and not contrapuntally built up. But then,\nlife-experience itself was one strictly of foregrounds. Destiny was not\nthe \u201ccourse of life\u201d but something upon which one suddenly stumbles. And\nthis is how Athens produced, with Polygnotus\u2019s fresco and Plato\u2019s\ngeometry, _a fate-tragedy_ in which fate is precisely the fate that we\ndiscredit in Schiller\u2019s \u201cBride of Messina.\u201d The complete unmeaning of\nblind doom that is embodied, for instance, in the curse of the House of\nAtreus, served to reveal to the ahistorical Classical soul the full\nmeaning of its own world.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n \u201cThe older one becomes, the more one is persuaded that His Sacred\n Majesty Chance does three-quarters of the work of this miserable\n Universe.\u201d (Frederick the Great to Voltaire.) So, necessarily, must\n the genuine rationalist conceive it.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 20 et seq.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n The incident which is said to have precipitated the French war on\n Algiers (1827).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n Act. II, Scene VII.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n In the general upheaval of 1848 a German national parliament was\n assembled at Frankfurt, of a strongly democratic colour, and it chose\n Frederick William IV of Prussia as hereditary emperor. Frederick\n William, however, refused to \u201cpick up a crown out of the gutter.\u201d For\n the history of this momentous episode, the English reader may be\n referred to the Cambridge Modern History or to the article _Germany\n (History)_ in the Ency. Brit., XI Edition.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n It is the fact that a whole group of these Cultures is available for\n our study that makes possible the \u201ccomparative\u201d method used in the\n present work. See Vol. II, pp. 42 et seq.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n Derived from \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, to receive as one\u2019s portion, to have allotted\n to one, or, colloquially, to \u201ccome in for\u201d or \u201cstep into.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n The expedition of the Ten Thousand into Persia is no exception. The\n Ten Thousand indeed formed an ambulatory Polis, and its adventures are\n truly Classical. It was confronted with a series of \u201csituations.\u201d\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n Helios is only a poetical figure; he had neither temples nor cult.\n Even less was Selene a moon-goddess.\n\n-----\n\n\n IX\n\nWe may now point our moral with a few examples, which, though hazardous,\nought not at this stage to be open to misunderstanding. Imagine Columbus\nsupported by France instead of by Spain, as was in fact highly probable\nat one time. Had Francis I been the master of America, without doubt he\nand not the Spaniard Charles V would have obtained the imperial crown.\nThe early Baroque period from the Sack of Rome to the Peace of\nWestphalia, which was actually the _Spanish_ century in religion,\nintellect, art, politics and manners, would have been shaped from Paris\nand not from Madrid. Instead of the names of Philip, Alva, Cervantes,\nCalderon, Velasquez we should be talking to-day of great Frenchmen who\nin fact\u2014if we may thus roundly express a very difficult idea\u2014remained\nunborn. The style of the Church which was definitively fixed in this\nepoch by the Spaniard Loyola and the Council of Trent which he\nspiritually dominated; the style of politics to which the war-technique\nof Spanish captains, the diplomacy of Spanish cardinals and the courtly\nspirit of the Escorial gave a stamp that lasted till the Congress of\nVienna and in essential points till beyond Bismarck; the architecture of\nthe Baroque; the great age of Painting; ceremonial and the polite\nsociety of the great cities\u2014all these would have been represented by\nother profound heads, noble and clerical, by wars other than Philip II\u2019s\nwars, by another architect than Vignola, by another Court. The\nIncidental chose the Spanish gesture for the late period of the West.\nBut the _inward logic_ of that age, which was _bound_ to find its\nfulfilment in the great Revolution (or some event of the same\nconnotation), remained intact.\n\nThis French revolution might have been represented by some other event\nof different form and occurring elsewhere, say in England or Germany.\nBut its \u201cidea,\u201d\u2014which (as we shall see later) was the transition from\nCulture to Civilization, the victory of the inorganic megalopolis over\nthe organic countryside which was henceforward to become spiritually\n\u201cthe provinces,\u201d\u2014was necessary, and the moment of its occurrence was\nalso necessary. To describe such a moment we shall use the term (long\nblurred, or misused as a synonym for period) _epoch_. When we say an\nevent is epoch-making we mean that it marks in the course of a Culture a\nnecessary and fateful turning-point. The merely incidental event, a\ncrystallization-form of the historical surface, may be represented by\nother appropriate incidents, but the _epoch_ is necessary and\npredeterminate. And it is evident that the question of whether, in\nrespect of a particular Culture and its course, an event ranks as an\nepoch or as an episode is connected with its ideas of Destiny and\nIncidents, and therefore also with its idea of the Tragic as \u201cepochal\u201d\n(as in the West) or as \u201cepisodic\u201d (as in the Classical world).\n\nWe can, further, distinguish between _impersonal_ or anonymous and\n_personal_ epochs, according to their physiognomic type in the picture\nof history. Amongst \u201cincidents\u201d of the first rank we include those great\npersons who are endowed with such formative force that the destiny of\nthousands, of whole peoples, and of ages, are incorporated in their\nprivate destinies; but at the same time we can distinguish the\nadventurer or successful man who is destitute of inward greatness (like\nDanton or Robespierre) from the Hero of history by the fact that his\npersonal destiny displays only the traits of the common destiny. Certain\nnames may ring, but \u201cthe Jacobins\u201d collectively and not individuals\namongst them were the type that dominated the time. The first part of\nthis epoch of the Revolution is therefore thoroughly anonymous, just as\nthe second or Napoleonic is in the highest degree personal. In a few\nyears the immense force of these phenomena accomplished what the\ncorresponding epoch of the Classical (c. 386-322), fluid and unsure of\nitself, required decades of undermining-work to achieve. It is of the\nessence of all Culture that at the outset of each stage the same\npotentiality is present, and that necessity fulfils itself thereafter\neither in the form of a great individual person (Alexander, Diocletian,\nMohammed, Luther, Napoleon) or in that of an almost anonymous happening\nof powerful inward constitution (Peloponnesian War, Thirty Years\u2019 War,\nSpanish Succession War) or else in a feeble and indistinct evolution\n(periods of the Diadochi and of the Hyksos, the Interregnum in Germany).\nAnd the question which of these forms is the more likely to occur in any\ngiven instance, is one that is influenced in advance by the historical\nand therefore also the tragic style of the Culture concerned.[166]\n\nThe tragic in Napoleon\u2019s life\u2014which still awaits discovery by a poet\ngreat enough to comprehend it and shape it\u2014was that he, who rose into\neffective being by fighting British policy and the British spirit which\nthat policy so eminently represented, completed by that very fighting\nthe continental victory of this spirit, which thereupon became strong\nenough, in the guise of \u201cliberated nations\u201d to overpower him and to send\nhim to St. Helena to die. It was not Napoleon who originated the\nexpansion principle. That had arisen out of the Puritanism of Cromwell\u2019s\n_milieu_ which called into life the British Colonial Empire.[167]\nTransmitted through the English-schooled intellects of Rousseau and\nMirabeau to the Revolutionary armies, of which English philosophical\nideas were essentially the driving force, it became their tendency even\nfrom that day of Valmy which Goethe alone read aright. It was not\nNapoleon who formed the idea, but the idea that formed Napoleon, and\nwhen he came to the throne he was obliged to pursue it further against\nthe only power, England namely, whose purpose was _the same_ as his own.\nHis Empire was a creation of French blood but of English style. It was\nin London, again, that Locke, Shaftesbury, Samuel Clarke and, above all,\nBentham built up the theory of \u201cEuropean Civilization\u201d\u2014the Western\nHellenism\u2014which Bayle, Voltaire and Rousseau carried to Paris. Thus it\nwas in the name of _this_ England of Parliamentarianism, business\nmorality and journalism that Valmy, Marengo, Jena, Smolensk and Leipzig\nwere fought, and in _all_ these battles it was the English spirit that\ndefeated the French Culture of the West.[168] The First Consul had no\nintention of incorporating West Europe in France; his primary object\nwas\u2014note the Alexander-idea on the threshold of every Civilization!\u2014to\nreplace the British Colonial Empire by a French one. Thereby, French\npreponderance in the Western culture-region would have been placed on a\npractically unassailable foundation; it would have been the Empire of\nCharles V on which the sun never set, but managed from Paris after all,\nin spite of Columbus and Philip, and organized as an economic-military\ninstead of as an ecclesiastical-chivalric unit. So far-reaching,\nprobably, was the destiny that was in Napoleon. But the Peace of Paris\nin 1763 had already decided the question _against_ France, and\nNapoleon\u2019s great plans time and again came to grief in petty incidents.\nAt Acre a few guns were landed in the nick of time from the British\nwarships: there was a moment, again, just before the signature of the\nPeace of Amiens, when the whole Mississippi basin was still amongst his\nassets and he was in close touch with the Maratha powers that were\nresisting British progress in India; but again a minor naval\nincident[169] obliged him to abandon the whole of a carefully-prepared\nenterprise: and, lastly, when by the occupation of Dalmatia, Corfu and\nall Italy he had made the Adriatic a French lake, with a view to another\nexpedition to the East, and was negotiating with the Shah of Persia for\naction against India, he was defeated by the whims of the Tsar\nAlexander, who at times was undoubtedly willing to support a march on\nIndia and whose aid would infallibly have secured its success. It was\nonly after the failure of all extra-European combinations that he chose,\nas his _ultima ratio_ in the battle against England, the incorporation\nof Germany and Spain, and so, raising against himself _his own_ English-\nRevolutionary ideas, the very ideas of which he had been the\nvehicle,[170] he took the step that made him \u201cno longer necessary.\u201d\n\nAt one time it falls to the Spanish spirit to outline, at another to the\nBritish or the French to remould, the world-embracing colonial system. A\n\u201cUnited States of Europe,\u201d actualized through Napoleon as founder of a\nromantic and popular military monarchy, is the analogue of the Realm of\nthe Diadochi; actualized as a 21st-Century economic organism by a\nmatter-of-fact C\u00e6sar, it is the counterpart of the _imperium Romanum_.\nThese are incidentals, but they are in the picture of history. But\nNapoleon\u2019s victories and defeats (which always hide a victory of England\nand Civilization over Culture), his Imperial dignity, his fall, the\n_Grande Nation_, the episodic liberation of Italy (in 1796, as in 1859,\nessentially no more than a change of political costume for a people long\nsince become insignificant), the destruction of the Gothic ruin of the\nRoman-German Empire, are mere surface phenomena, behind which is\nmarching the great logic of genuine and invisible History, and it was in\nthe sense of this logic that the West, having fulfilled its French-\nformed Culture in the _ancien r\u00e9gime_, closed it off with the English\nCivilization. As symbols of \u201ccontemporary\u201d epochal moments, then, the\nstorming of the Bastille, Valmy, Austerlitz, Waterloo and the rise of\nPrussia correspond to the Classical-history facts of Ch\u00e6ronea, Gaugamela\n(Arbela), Alexander\u2019s Indian expedition and the Roman victory of\nSentinum.[171] And we begin to understand that in wars and political\ncatastrophies\u2014the chief material of our historical writings\u2014victory is\nnot the essence of the fight nor peace the aim of a revolution.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n The original is somewhat obscure. It reads: \"Welche Form die\n Wahrscheinlichkeit f\u00fcr sich hat, ist bereits eine Frage des\n historischen\u2014und also des tragischen\u2014Stils.\"\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n The words of Canning at the beginning of the XIXth century may be\n recalled. \u201cSouth America free! and if possible English!\u201d The expansion\n idea has never been expressed in greater purity than this.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n The Western Culture of maturity was through-and-through a French\n outgrowth of the Spanish, beginning with Louis XIV. But even by Louis\n XVI\u2019s time the English park had defeated the French, sensibility had\n ousted wit, London costume and manners had overcome Versailles, and\n Hogarth, Chippendale and Wedgwood had prevailed over Watteau, Boulle\n and S\u00e8vres.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n The allusion is to the voyage of Linois\u2019s small squadron to Pondich\u00e9ry\n in 1803, its confrontation by another small British squadron there,\n and the counter-order which led Linois to retire to Mauritius.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n Hardenberg\u2019s reorganization of Prussia was thoroughly English in\n spirit, and as such incurred the severe censure of the old Prussian\n Von der Marwitz. Scharnhorst\u2019s army reforms too, as a breakaway from\n the professional army system of the eighteenth-century cabinet-wars,\n are a sort of \u201creturn to nature\u201d in the Rousseau-Revolutionary sense.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n Where in 295 B.C. the Romans decisively defeated the last great\n Samnite effort to resist their hegemony over Italy.\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n X\n\nAnyone who has absorbed these ideas will have no difficulty in\nunderstanding how the causality principle is bound to have a fatal\neffect upon the capacity for genuinely experiencing History when, at\nlast, it attains its rigid form in that \u201clate\u201d condition of a Culture to\nwhich it is proper and in which it is able to tyrannize over the world-\npicture. Kant, very wisely, established causality as a necessary form of\nknowledge, and it cannot be too often emphasized that this was meant to\nrefer exclusively to the understanding of man\u2019s environment by the way\nof reason. But while the word \u201cnecessary\u201d was accepted readily enough,\nit has been overlooked that this limitation of the principle to a single\ndomain of knowledge is just what forbids its application to the\ncontemplation and experiencing of living history. Man-knowing and\nNature-knowing are in essence entirely incapable of being compared, but\nnevertheless the whole Nineteenth Century was at great pains to abolish\nthe frontier between Nature and History in favour of the former. The\nmore historically men tried to think, the more they forgot that in this\ndomain they ought _not_ to think. In forcing the rigid scheme of a\nspatial and anti-temporal relation of cause and effect upon something\nalive, they disfigured the visible face of becoming with the\nconstruction-lines of a physical nature-picture, and, habituated to\ntheir own late, megalopolitan and causally-thinking _milieu_, they were\nunconscious of the fundamental absurdity of a science that sought to\nunderstand an organic becoming by methodically misunderstanding it as\nthe _machinery_ of the thing-become. Day is not the cause of night, nor\nyouth of age, nor blossom of fruit. Everything that we grasp\nintellectually has a _cause_, everything that we live organically with\ninward certitude has a _past_. The one recognizes the _case_, that which\nis generally possible and has a fixed inner form which is the same\nwhenever and wherever and however often it occurs, the other recognizes\nthe _event_ which once was and will never recur. And, according as we\ngrasp something in our envelope-world critically and consciously or\nphysiognomically and involuntarily, we draw our conclusion from\ntechnical or from living experience, and we relate it to a timeless\ncause in space or to a direction which leads from yesterday to to-day\nand to-morrow.\n\nBut the spirit of our great cities _refuses_ to be involuntary.\nSurrounded by a machine-technique that it has itself created in\nsurprising Nature\u2019s most dangerous secret, the \u201claw,\u201d it seeks to\nconquer history also technically, \u201ctheoretically and practically.\u201d\n\u201cUsefulness,\u201d suitableness to purpose (Zweckm\u00e4ssigkeit), is the great\nword which assimilates the one to the other. A materialist conception of\nhistory, ruled by laws of causal Nature, leads to the setting up of\nusefulness-ideals such as \u201cenlightenment,\u201d \u201chumanity,\u201d \u201cworld-peace,\u201d as\naims of world-history, to be reached by the \u201cmarch of progress.\u201d But in\nthese schemes of old age the feeling of Destiny has died, and with it\nthe young reckless courage that, self-forgetful and big with a future,\npresses on to meet a dark decision.\n\nFor only youth has a future, and _is_ Future, that enigmatic synonym of\ndirectional Time and of Destiny. _Destiny is always young._ He who\nreplaces it by a mere chain of causes and effects, sees even in the not-\nyet-actualized something, as it were, old and past\u2014_direction_ is\nwanting. But he who lives towards a something in the superabundant flow\nof things need not concern himself with aims and abilities, for he feels\nthat he himself is the meaning of what is to happen. This was the faith\nin the Star that never left C\u00e6sar nor Napoleon nor the great doers of\nanother kind; and this it is that lies deepest of all\u2014youthful\nmelancholy notwithstanding\u2014in every childhood and in every young clan,\npeople, Culture, that extends forward over all their history for men of\nact and of vision, who are young however white their hair, younger even\nthan the most juvenile of those who look to a timeless utilitarianism.\nThe feeling of a significance in the momentarily present world-around\ndiscloses itself in the earliest days of childhood, when it is still\nonly the persons and things of the nearest environment that essentially\nexist, and develops through silent and unconscious experience into a\ncomprehensive picture. This picture constitutes the general expression\nof the whole Culture as it is at the particular stage, and it is only\nthe fine judge of life and the deep searcher of history who can\ninterpret it.\n\nAt this point a distinction presents itself between the _immediate\nimpression_ of the present and the _image_ of the past that is only\npresented in the spirit, in other words between the world as happening\nand the world as history. The eye of the man of action (statesman and\ngeneral) appreciates the first, that of the man of contemplation\n(historian and poet) the second. Into the first one plunges practically\nto do or to suffer; chronology,[172] that great symbol of irrevocable\npast, claims the second. We look backwards, and we live forward towards\nthe unforeseen, but even in childhood our _technical_ experience soon\nintroduces into the image of the singular occurrence elements of the\nforeseeable, that is, an image of regulated Nature which is subject not\nto physiognomic fact but to calculation. We apprehend a \u201chead of game\u201d\nas a living entity and immediately afterwards as food; we see a flash of\nlightning as a peril and then as an electrical discharge. And this\nsecond, later, petrifying projection of the world more and more tends to\noverpower the first in the Megalopolis; the image of the past is\nmechanized and materialized and from it is deduced a set of causal rules\nfor present and future. We come to believe in historical laws and in a\nrational understanding of them.\n\nNevertheless science is always natural science. Causal knowledge and\ntechnical experience refer only to the become, the extended, the\ncomprehended. As life is to history, so is knowledge (Wissen) to Nature,\nviz., to the sensible world apprehended as an element, treated as in\nspace and subjected to the law of cause and effect. Is there, then, a\nscience of History at all? To answer this question, let us remember that\nin every personal world-picture, which only approximates more or less to\nthe ideal picture, there is both something of Nature and something of\nHistory. No Nature is without living, and no History without causal,\n_harmonies_. For within the sphere of Nature, although two like\nexperiments, conformably to law, have the like result, yet each of these\nexperiments is a historical event possessing a date and not recurring.\nAnd within that of History, the dates or data of the past (chronologies,\nstatistics, names, forms[173]) form a rigid web. \u201cFacts are facts\u201d even\nif we are unaware of them, and all else is image, _Theoria_, both in the\none domain and in the other. But history is itself the condition of\nbeing \u201cin the focus\u201d and the material is only an aid to this condition,\nwhereas in Nature the real aim is the winning of the material, and\ntheory is only the servant of this purpose.\n\nThere is, therefore, not a science _of_ history but an ancillary science\n_for_ history, which ascertains that which has been. For the historical\noutlook itself the data are always symbols. Scientific research, on the\ncontrary, is science and only science. In virtue of its technical origin\nand purpose it sets out to find data and laws of the causal sort and\nnothing else, and from the moment that it turns its glance upon\nsomething else it becomes _Metaphysics_, something trans-scientific. And\njust because this is so, historical and natural-science data are\ndifferent. The latter consistently repeat themselves, the former never.\nThe latter are _truths_, the former _facts_. However closely related\nincidentals and causals may appear to be in the everyday picture,\nfundamentally they belong to different worlds. As it is beyond question\nthat the shallowness of a man\u2019s history-picture (the man himself,\ntherefore) is in proportion to the dominance in it of frank incidentals,\nso it is beyond question that the emptiness of written history is in\nproportion to the degree in which it makes the establishment of purely\nfactual relations its object. The more deeply a man lives History, the\nmore rarely will he receive \u201ccausal\u201d impressions and the more surely\nwill he be sensible of their utter insignificance. If the reader\nexamines Goethe\u2019s writings in natural science, he will be astounded to\nfind how \u201cliving nature\u201d can be set forth without formulas, without\nlaws, almost without a trace of the causal. For him, Time is not a\ndistance but a feeling. But the experience of last and deepest things is\npractically denied to the ordinary savant who dissects and arranges\npurely critically and allows himself neither to contemplate nor to feel.\nIn the case of History, on the contrary, this power of experience is\n_the_ requisite. And thus is justified the paradox that the less a\nhistorical researcher has to do with real science, the better it is for\nhis history.\n\nTo elucidate once more by a diagram:\n\n Soul \u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u23af\u279b World\n \\\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014v\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014/\n Life, Direction Extension\n Destiny-Experience Causal Knowledge\n The uniquely The\n occurring and irrevocable constantly-possible\n \u201cFact\u201d \u201cTruth\u201d\n Physiognomic tact (instinct) Systematic criticism (reason)\n \u2193 [Crossed downward \u2193\n arrows]\n Consciousness Consciousness\n as _servant_ of Being as _master_ of Being\n The world-image of \u201cHistory\u201d The world-image of \"Nature\"\n _Life-experience_ _Scientific methods_\n Image of the Past Religion. Natural Science\n Constructive Contemplation Theoretical: Myth and Dogma.\n Hypothesis\n (Historian, Tragic Dramatist) Practical: Cult. Technique\n to _investigate_ Destiny\n Direction into the Future\n Constructive Action\n (Statesman)\n to _be_ Destiny\n\n XI\n\nIs it permissible to fix upon one, any one, group of social, religious,\nphysiological or ethical facts as the \u201ccause\u201d of another? \u201cCertainly,\u201d\nthe rationalistic school of history, and still more the up-to-date\nsociology, would reply. That, they would say, is what is meant by our\ncomprehending history and deepening our knowledge of it. But in reality,\nwith \u201ccivilized\u201d man there is always the implicit postulate of an\nunderlying _rational_ purpose\u2014without which indeed his world would be\nmeaningless. And there is something rather comic in the most\nunscientific freedom that he allows himself in his _choice_ of his\nfundamental causes. One man selects this, another that, group as _prima\ncausa_\u2014an inexhaustible source of polemics\u2014and all fill their works with\npretended elucidations of the \u201ccourse of history\u201d on natural-science\nlines. Schiller has given us the classical expression of this method in\none of his immortal banalities, the verse in which the \u201cWeltgetriebe\u201d is\nstat \u201cdurch Hunger und durch Liebe\u201d; and the Nineteenth Century,\nprogressing from Rationalism to Materialism, has made this opinion\ncanonical. The cult of the useful was set up on high. To it Darwin, in\nthe name of his century, sacrificed Goethe\u2019s Nature-theory. The organic\nlogic of the facts of life was supplanted by a mechanics in\nphysiological garb. Heredity, adaptation, natural selection, are\nutility-causes of purely mechanical connotation. The historical\n_dispensations_ were superseded by a naturalistic _movement_ \u201cin space.\u201d\n(But _are there_ historical or spiritual \u201cprocesses,\u201d or life-\n\u201cprocesses\u201d of any sort whatever? Have historical \u201cmovements\u201d such as,\nfor example, the Renaissance or the Age of Enlightenment anything\nwhatever to do with the scientific notion of movement?) The word\n\u201cprocess\u201d eliminated Destiny and unveiled the secret of becoming, and\nlo! there was no longer a tragic but only an exact mathematical\nstructure of world-happening. And thereupon the \u201cexact\u201d historian\nenunciated the proposition that in the history-picture we had before us\na sequence of \u201cstates\u201d of mechanical type which were amenable to\nrational analysis like a physical experiment or a chemical reaction, and\nthat therefore causes, means, methods and objects were capable of being\ngrouped together as a comprehensible system on the visible surface. It\nall becomes astonishingly simple. And one is bound to admit that given a\nsufficiently shallow observer, the hypothesis (so far as concerns _his_\npersonality and its world-picture) comes off.\n\nHunger and Love[174] thus become mechanical causes of mechanical\nprocesses in the \u201clife of peoples.\u201d Social problems and sexual problems\n(both belonging to a \u201cphysics\u201d or \u201cchemistry\u201d of public\u2014all-too-public\u2014\nexistence) become the obvious themes of utilitarian history and\n_therefore of the corresponding tragedy_. For the social drama\nnecessarily accompanies the materialist treatment of history, and that\nwhich in Goethe\u2019s \u201cWahlverwandtschaften\u201d was destiny in the highest\nsense has become in Ibsen\u2019s \u201cLady from the Sea\u201d nothing but a sexual\nproblem. Ibsen and all the reason-poets of our great cities build\u2014build\nfrom their very first causes to their very last effect\u2014but they do not\nsing. As artist, Hebbel fought hard to overcome this merely prosaic\nelement in his more critical than intuitive temperament, to be a poet\n_quand m\u00eame_, hence his desperate and wholly un-Goethean effort to\n_motive_ his events. In Hebbel, as in Ibsen, motiving means trying to\nshape tragedy _causally_, and he dissected and re-dissected and\ntransformed and retransformed his Anecdote until he had made it into a\nsystem that proved a case. Consider his treatment of the Judith story\u2014\nShakespeare would have taken it as it was, and scented a world-secret in\nthe physiognomic charm of the pure adventure. But Goethe\u2019s warning: \u201cDo\nnot, I beg you, look for anything behind phenomena. _They are themselves\ntheir own lesson_ (sie selbst sind die Lehre)\u201d had become\nincomprehensible to the century of Marx and Darwin. The idea of trying\nto read a destiny in the physiognomy of the past and that of trying to\nrepresent unadulterated Destiny as a tragedy were equally remote from\nthem. In both domains, the cult of the useful had set before itself an\nentirely different aim. Shapes were called into being, not to be, but to\nprove something. \u201cQuestions\u201d of the day were \u201ctreated,\u201d social problems\nsuitably \u201csolved,\u201d and the stage, like the history-book, became a means\nto that end. Darwinism, however unconscious of what it was doing, has\nmade biology politically effective. Somehow or other, democratic\nstirrings happened in the protoplasm, and the struggle for existence of\nthe rain-worms is a useful lesson for the bipeds who have scraped\nthrough.\n\nWith all this, the historians have failed to learn the lesson that our\nripest and strictest science, Physics, would have taught them, the\nlesson of prudence. Even if we concede them their causal method, the\nsuperficiality with which they apply it is an outrage. There is neither\nthe intellectual discipline nor the keen sight, let alone the scepticism\nthat is inherent in our handling of physical hypotheses.[175] For the\nattitude of the physicist to his atoms, electrons, currents, and fields\nof force, to \u00e6ther and mass, is very far removed from the na\u00efve faith of\nthe layman and the Monist in these things. They are _images_ which he\nsubjects to the abstract relationships of his differential equations, in\nwhich he clothes trans-phenomenal numbers, and if he allows himself a\ncertain freedom to choose amongst several theories, it is because he\ndoes not try to find in them any actuality but that of the \u201cconventional\nsign.\u201d[176] He knows, too, that over and above an experimental\nacquaintance with the technical structure of the world-around, all that\nit is possible to achieve by this process (which is the only one open to\nnatural science) is a symbolic interpretation of it, no more\u2014certainly\nnot \u201cKnowledge\u201d in the sanguine popular sense. For, the image of Nature\nbeing a creation and copy of the Intellect, its \u201calter ego\u201d in the\ndomain of the extended, to _know_ Nature means to know oneself.\n\nIf Physics is the maturest of our sciences, Biology, whose business is\nto explore the picture of organic life, is in point both of content and\nof methods the weakest. What historical investigation _really_ is,\nnamely pure Physiognomic, cannot be better illustrated than by the\ncourse of Goethe\u2019s nature-studies. He works upon mineralogy, and at once\nhis views fit themselves together into a conspectus of an earth-history\nin which his beloved granite signifies nearly the same as that which I\ncall the proto-human signifies in man\u2019s history. He investigates well-\nknown plants, and the prime phenomenon of metamorphosis, the original\nform of the history of all plant existence, reveals itself; proceeding\nfurther, he reaches those extraordinarily deep ideas of vertical and\nspiral tendencies in vegetation which have not been fully grasped even\nyet. His studies of ossature, based entirely on the contemplation of\nlife, lead him to the discovery of the \u201cos intermaxillare\u201d in man and to\nthe view that the skull-structure of the vertebrates developed out of\nsix vertebr\u00e6. Never is there a word of causality. He feels the necessity\nof Destiny just as he himself expressed it in his _Orphische Urworte_:\n\n \u201cSo must thou be. Thou canst not Self escape.\n So erst the Sibyls, so the Prophets told.\n Nor Time nor any Power can mar the shape\n Impressed, that living must itself unfold.\u201d\n\nThe mere chemistry of the stars, the mathematical side of physical\nobservations, and physiology proper interested him, the great historian\nof Nature very little, because they belonged to Systematic and were\nconcerned with experiential learning of the become, the dead, and the\nrigid. This is what underlies his anti-Newton polemic\u2014a case in which,\nit must be added, both sides were in the right, for the one had\n\u201cknowledge\u201d of the regulated nature-process in the dead colour[177]\nwhile the experiencing of the other, the artist, was intuitive-sensuous\n\u201cfeeling.\u201d Here we have the two worlds in plain opposition; and now\ntherefore the essentials of their opposition must be stated with all\nstrictness.\n\nHistory carries the mark of the _singular-factual_, Nature that of the\n_continuously possible_. So long as I scrutinize the image of the world-\naround in order to see by what laws it _must_ actualize itself,\nirrespective of whether it does happen or merely might happen\u2014\nirrespective, that is, of time\u2014then I am working in a genuine science.\nFor the necessity of a nature-law (and there are no other laws) it is\nutterly immaterial whether it becomes phenomenal infinitely often or\nnever. _That is, it is independent of Destiny._ There are thousands of\nchemical combinations that never are and never will be produced, but\nthey are demonstrably possible and therefore they _exist_\u2014for the fixed\nSystem of Nature though not for the Physiognomy of the whirling\nuniverse. A system consists of truths, a history rests on facts. Facts\nfollow one another, truths follow _from_ one another, and this is the\ndifference between \u201cwhen\u201d and \u201chow.\u201d That there has been a flash of\nlightning is a fact and can be indicated, without a word, by the\npointing of a finger. \u201cWhen there is lightning there is thunder,\u201d on the\ncontrary, is something that must be communicated by a proposition or\nsentence. Experience-lived may be quite wordless, while systematic\nknowing can only be through words. \u201cOnly that which has no history is\ncapable of being defined,\u201d says Nietzsche somewhere. But History is\npresent becoming that tends into the future and looks back on the past.\nNature stands beyond all time, its mark is extension, and it is without\ndirectional quality. Hence, for the one, the necessity of the\nmathematical, and for the other the necessity of the tragic.\n\nIn the actuality of waking existence both worlds, that of scrutiny and\nthat of acceptance (Hingebung), are interwoven, just as in a Brabant\ntapestry warp and woof together effect the picture. Every law must, to\nbe _available_ to the understanding at all, once have been discovered\nthrough some destiny-disposition in the history of an intellect\u2014that is,\nit must have once been in experiential life; and every destiny appears\nin some sensible garb\u2014as persons, acts, scenes and gestures\u2014in which\nNature-laws are operative. Primitive life is submissive before the\ndaemonic unity of the fateful; in the consciousness of the mature\nCulture this \u201cearly\u201d world-image is incessantly in conflict with the\nother, \u201clate,\u201d world-image; and in the civilized man the tragic world-\nfeeling succumbs to the mechanizing intellect. History and nature\n_within ourselves_ stand opposed to one another as _life_ is to _death_,\nas _ever-becoming time_ to _ever-become space_. In the waking\nconsciousness, becoming and become struggle for control of the world-\npicture, and the highest and maturest forms of both sorts (possible only\nfor the great Cultures) are seen, in the case of the Classical soul, in\nthe opposition of Plato and Aristotle, and, in the case of our Western,\nin that of Goethe and Kant\u2014the pure physiognomy of the world\ncontemplated by the soul of an eternal child, and its pure system\ncomprehended by the reason of an eternal greybeard.\n\n XII\n\nHerein, then, I see the _last_ great task of Western philosophy, the\nonly one which still remains in store for the aged wisdom of the\nFaustian Culture, the preordained issue, it seems, of our centuries of\nspiritual evolution. No Culture is at liberty to _choose_ the path and\nconduct of its thought, but here for the first time a Culture can\nforesee the way that destiny has chosen for it.\n\nBefore my eyes there seems to emerge, as a vision, a hitherto unimagined\nmode of superlative historical research that is truly Western,\nnecessarily alien to the Classical and to every other soul but ours\u2014a\ncomprehensive Physiognomic of all existence, a morphology of becoming\nfor _all_ humanity that drives onward to the highest and last ideas; a\nduty of penetrating the world-feeling not only of our proper soul but of\nall souls whatsoever that have contained grand possibilities and have\nexpressed them in the field of actuality as grand Cultures. This\nphilosophic view\u2014to which we and we alone are entitled in virtue of our\nanalytical mathematic, our contrapuntal music and our perspective\npainting\u2014in that its scope far transcends the scheme of the systematist,\npresupposes the eye of an artist, and of an artist who can feel the\nwhole sensible and apprehensible environment dissolve into a deep\ninfinity of mysterious relationships. So Dante felt, and so Goethe felt.\nTo bring up, out of the web of world-happening, a millennium of organic\nculture-history as an entity and person, and to grasp the conditions of\nits inmost spirituality\u2014such is the aim. Just as one penetrates the\nlineaments of a Rembrandt portrait or a C\u00e6sar-bust, so the new art will\ncontemplate and understand the grand, fateful lines in the visage of a\nCulture as a superlative human individuality.\n\nTo attempt the interpretation of a poet or a prophet, a thinker or a\nconqueror, is of course nothing new, but to enter a culture-soul\u2014\nClassical, Egyptian or Arabian\u2014so intimately as to absorb into one\u2019s\nself, to make part of one\u2019s own life, the totality expressed by typical\nmen and situations, by religion and polity, by style and tendency, by\nthought and customs, is quite a new manner of experiencing life. Every\nepoch, every great figure, every deity, the cities, the tongues, the\nnations, the arts, in a word everything that ever existed and will\nbecome existent, are physiognomic traits of high symbolic significance\nthat it will be the business of quite a new kind of \u201cjudge of men\u201d\n(Menschenkenner) to interpret. Poems and battles, Isis and Cybele,\nfestivals and Roman Catholic masses, blast furnaces and gladiatorial\ngames, dervishes and Darwinians, railways and Roman roads, \u201cProgress\u201d\nand Nirvana, newspapers, mass-slavery, money, machinery\u2014all these are\nequally signs and symbols in the world-picture of the past that the soul\npresents to itself and would interpret. \"_Alles Verg\u00e4ngliche ist nur ein\nGleichnis._\" Solutions and panoramas as yet unimagined await the\nunveiling. Light will be thrown on the dark questions which underlie\ndread and longing\u2014those deepest of primitive human feelings\u2014and which\nthe will-to-know has clothed in the \u201cproblems\u201d of time, necessity,\nspace, love, death, and first causes. There is a wondrous music of the\nspheres which _wills to be heard_ and which a few of our deepest spirits\nwill hear. The physiognomic of world-happening will become the _last\nFaustian philosophy_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n MAKROKOSMOS\n\n I\n\n THE SYMBOLISM OF THE WORLD-PICTURE AND THE\n SPACE-PROBLEM\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n MAKROKOSMOS\n\n\n I\n THE SYMBOLISM OF THE WORLD-PICTURE AND THE SPACE-PROBLEM\n\n I\n\nThe notion of a world-history of physiognomic type expands itself\ntherefore into the wider idea of an _all-embracing symbolism_.\nHistorical research, in the sense that we postulate here, has simply to\ninvestigate the picture of the once-living past and to determine its\ninner form and logic, and the Destiny-idea is the furthest limit to\nwhich it can penetrate. But this research, however comprehensive the new\norientation tends to make it, cannot be more than a fragment and a\nfoundation of a still wider treatment. Parallel with it, we have a\nNature-investigation that is equally fragmentary and is limited to its\nown causal system of relations. But neither tragic nor technical\n\u201cmotion\u201d (if we may distinguish by these words the respective bases of\nthe lived and the known) exhausts the living itself. We both live and\nknow when we are awake, but, in addition, we live when mind and senses\nare asleep. Though night may close every eye, the blood does not sleep.\nWe are moving in the moving (so at least we try to indicate, by a word\nborrowed from science, the inexpressible that in sleep-hours we feel\nwith inward certainty). But it is only in the waking existence that\n\u201chere\u201d and \u201cthere\u201d appear as an irreducible duality. Every impulse\nproper to oneself has an expression and every impulse alien to oneself\nmakes an impression. And thus everything of which we are conscious,\nwhatever the form in which it is apprehended\u2014\u201csoul\u201d and \u201cworld,\u201d or life\nand actuality, or History and Nature, or law and feeling, Destiny or\nGod, past and future or present and eternity\u2014has for us a deeper meaning\nstill, a final meaning. And the one and only means of rendering this\nincomprehensible comprehensible must be a kind of metaphysics which\nregards _everything whatsoever_ as having significance as a _symbol_.\n\nSymbols are sensible signs, final, indivisible and, above all, unsought\nimpressions of definite meaning. A symbol is a trait of actuality that\nfor the sensuously-alert man has an immediate and inwardly-sure\nsignificance, and that is incommunicable by process of reason. The\ndetail of a Doric or Early-Arabic or Early-Romanesque ornament; the\nforms of the cottage and the family, of intercourse, of costume and\nrite; the aspect, gait and mien of a man and of whole classes of peoples\nand men; the communication-and community-forms of man and beast; and\nbeyond all this the whole voiceless language of Nature with her woods\nand pastures, flocks, clouds, stars, moonlight and thunderstorm, bloom\nand decay, nearness and distance\u2014all this is the emblematical impression\nof the Cosmos upon us, who are both aware and in our reflective hours\nquite capable of listening to this language. Vice versa, it is the sense\nof a homogeneous understanding that raises up the family, the class, the\ntribe, or finally the Culture, out of the general humanity and assembles\nit as such.\n\nHere, then, we shall not be concerned with what a world \u201cis,\u201d but with\nwhat it signifies to the being that it envelops. When we wake up, at\nonce something extends itself between a \u201chere\u201d and a \u201cthere.\u201d We live\nthe \u201chere\u201d as something proper, we experience the \u201cthere\u201d as something\nalien. There is a dualizing of soul and world as poles of actuality; and\nin the latter there are both resistances which we grasp causally as\nthings and properties, and impulses in which we feel beings, _numina_\n(\u201cjust like ourselves\u201d) to be operative. But there is in it, further,\nsomething which, as it were, eliminates the duality. Actuality\u2014the world\n_in relation to_ a soul\u2014is for every individual the projection of the\nDirected upon the domain of the Extended\u2014the Proper mirroring itself on\nthe Alien; one\u2019s _actuality then signifies oneself_. By an act that is\nboth creative and unconscious\u2014for it is not \u201cI\u201d who actualize the\npossible, but \u201cit\u201d actualizes itself through me\u2014the bridge of symbol is\nthrown between the living \u201chere\u201d and \u201cthere.\u201d Suddenly, necessarily, and\ncompletely \u201cthe\u201d world comes into being out of the totality of received\nand remembered elements: and as it is an individual who apprehends the\nworld, there is for each individual a singular world.\n\nThere are therefore as many worlds as there are waking beings and like-\nliving, like-feeling groups of beings. The supposedly single,\nindependent and external world that each believes to be common to all is\nreally an ever-new, uniquely-occurring and non-recurring experience in\nthe existence of each.\n\nA whole series of grades of consciousness leads up from the root-\nbeginnings of obscure childish intuition, in which there is still no\nclear world for a soul or self-conscious soul within a world, to the\nhighly intellectualized states of which only the men of fully-ripened\ncivilizations are capable. This gradation is at the same time an\nexpansion of symbolism from the stage in which there is an inclusive\nmeaning of _all_ things to one in which separate and specific signs are\ndistinguished. It is not merely when, after the manner of the child, the\ndreamer and the artist, I am passive to a world full of dark\nsignificances; or when I am awake without being in a condition of\nextreme alertness of thought and act (such a condition is much rarer\neven in the consciousness of the real thinker and man of action than is\ngenerally supposed)\u2014it is continuously and always, for as long as my\nlife can be considered to be a waking life at all, that I am endowing\nthat which is outside me with the _whole_ content that is in me, from\nthe half-dreamy impressions of world-coherence to the rigid world of\ncausal laws and number that overlies and binds them. And even in the\ndomain of pure number the symbolical is not lacking, for we find that\nrefined _thought_ puts inexpressible meanings into signs like the\ntriangle, the circle and the numbers 7 and 12.\n\nThis is the _idea of the Macrocosm, actuality as the sum total of all\nsymbols in relation to one soul_. From this property of being\nsignificant nothing is exempt. All that is, symbolizes. From the\ncorporeal phenomena like visage, shape, mien (of individuals and classes\nand peoples alike), which have always been known to possess meaning, to\nthe supposedly eternal and universally-valid forms of knowledge,\nmathematics and physics, everything speaks out of the essence of one and\nonly one soul.\n\nAt the same time these individuals\u2019 worlds as lived and experienced by\nmen of _one_ Culture or spiritual community are interrelated, and on the\ngreater or less degree of this interrelation depends the greater or less\ncommunicability of intuitions, sensations and thoughts from one to\nanother\u2014that is, the possibility of making intelligible what one has\ncreated in the style of one\u2019s own being, through expression-media such\nas language or art or religion, by means of word-sounds or formul\u00e6 or\nsigns that are themselves also symbols. The degree of interrelation\nbetween one\u2019s world and another\u2019s fixes the limit at which understanding\nbecomes self-deception. Certainly it is only very imperfectly that we\ncan understand the Indian or the Egyptian soul, as manifested in the\nmen, customs, deities, root-words, ideas, buildings and acts of it. The\nGreeks, ahistoric as they were, could not even guess at the essence of\nalien spiritualities\u2014witness the na\u00efvet\u00e9 with which they were wont to\nrediscover their own gods and Culture in those of alien peoples. But in\nour own case too, the current translations of the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, or _Atman_, or\n_Tao_ of alien philosophers presuppose our proper world-feeling, which\nis that from which our \u201cequivalents\u201d claim their significance, as the\nbasis of an alien soul-expression. And similarly we elucidate the\ncharacters of early Egyptian and Chinese portraits with reference to our\nown life-experience. In both cases we deceive ourselves. That the\nartistic masterpieces of all Cultures are still living for us\u2014\u201cimmortal\u201d\nas we say\u2014is another such fancy, kept alive by the unanimity with which\nwe understand the alien work in the proper sense. Of this tendency of\nours the effect of the Laoco\u00f6n group on Renaissance sculpture and that\nof Seneca on the Classicist drama of the French are examples.\n\n II\n\nSymbols, as being things actualized, belong to the domain of the\nextended. They are become and not becoming (although they may stand for\na becoming) and they are therefore rigidly limited and subject to the\nlaws of space. There are _only_ sensible-spatial symbols. The very word\n\u201cform\u201d designates something extended in the extended,\u2014even the inner\nforms of music are no exception, as we shall see. But extension is the\nhall-mark of the fact \u201cwaking consciousness,\u201d and this constitutes only\none side of the individual existence and is intimately bound up with\nthat existence\u2019s destinies. Consequently, every trait of the actual\nwaking-consciousness, whether it be feeling or understanding, is in the\nmoment of our becoming aware of it, already _past_. We can only\n_reflect_ upon impressions, \u201cthink them over\u201d as our happy phrase goes,\nbut that which for the sensuous life of the animals is _past_, is for\nthe grammatical (wortgebundene) understanding of man _passing_,\n_transient_. That which happens is, of course, transient, for a\nhappening is irrevocable, but every kind of significance is also\ntransient. Follow out the destiny of the Column, from the Egyptian tomb-\ntemple in which columns are ranked to mark the path for the traveller,\nthrough the Doric peripteros in which they are held together by the body\nof the building, and the Early-Arabian basilica where they support the\ninterior, to the fa\u00e7ades of the Renaissance in which they provide the\nupward-striving element. As we see, an old significance never returns;\nthat which has entered the domain of extension has begun and ended at\nonce. A deep relation, and one which is early felt, exists _between\nspace and death_. Man is the only being that knows death; all others\nbecome old, but with a consciousness wholly limited to the moment which\nmust seem to them eternal. They live, but like children in those first\nyears in which Christianity regards them as still \u201cinnocent,\u201d they know\nnothing of life, and they die and they see death without knowing\nanything about it. Only fully-awakened man, man proper, whose\nunderstanding has been emancipated by the habit of language from\ndependence on sight, comes to possess (besides sensibility) the _notion_\nof transience, that is, a memory of the past as past and an experiential\nconviction of irrevocability. We _are_ Time,[178] but we _possess_ also\nan image of history and in this image death, and with death birth,\nappear as the two riddles. For all other beings life pursues its course\nwithout suspecting its limits, i.e., without conscious knowledge of\ntask, meaning, duration and object. It is because there is this deep and\nsignificant identity that we so often find the awakening of the inner\nlife in a child associated with the death of some relation. The child\n_suddenly_ grasps the lifeless corpse for what it is, something that has\nbecome wholly matter, wholly space, and at the same moment it feels\nitself as an individual _being_ in an alien extended world. \u201cFrom the\nchild of five to myself is but a step. But from the new-born baby to the\nchild of five is an appalling distance,\u201d said Tolstoi once. Here, in the\ndecisive moments of existence, when man first becomes man and realizes\nhis immense loneliness in the universal, the world-fear reveals itself\nfor the first time as the essentially human fear in the presence of\ndeath, the limit of the light-world, rigid space. Here, too, the higher\nthought originates as meditation upon death. Every religion, every\nscientific investigation, every philosophy proceeds from it. Every great\nsymbolism attaches its form-language to the cult of the dead, the forms\nof disposal of the dead, the adornment of the graves of the dead. The\nEgyptian style begins with the tomb-temples of the Pharaohs, the\nClassical with the geometrical decoration of the funerary urns, the\nArabian with catacomb and sarcophagus, the Western with the cathedral\nwherein the sacrificial death of Jesus is re-enacted daily under the\nhands of the priest. From this primitive fear springs, too, historical\nsensitiveness in all its modes, the Classical with its cleaving to the\nlife-abundant present, the Arabian with its baptismal rite that wins new\nlife and overcomes death, the Faustian with its contrition that makes\nworthy to receive the Body of Jesus and therewith immortality. Till we\nhave the constantly-wakeful concern for the life that is _not yet past_,\nthere is no concern for that which _is past_. The beast has only the\nfuture, but man knows also the past. And thus every new Culture is\nawakened in and with a new view of the world, that is, a sudden glimpse\nof death as the secret of the perceivable world. It was when the idea of\nthe impending end of the world spread over Western Europe (about the\nyear 1000) that the Faustian soul of this religion was born.\n\nPrimitive man, in his deep amazement before death, sought with all the\nforces of his spirit to penetrate and to spellbind this world of the\nextended with the inexorable and always present limits of its causality,\nthis world filled with dark almightiness that continuously threatened to\nmake an end of him. This energetic defensive lies deep in unconscious\nexistence, but, as being the first impulse that genuinely projects soul\nand world as parted and opposed, it marks the threshold of _personal_\nconduct of life. Ego-feeling and world-feeling begin to work, and all\nculture, inner or outer, bearing or performance, is as a whole only the\nintensification of this being-human. Henceforward all that resists our\nsensations is not mere resistance or thing or impression, as it is for\nanimals and for children also, but an expression as well. Not merely are\nthings actually contained in the world-around but also they possess\n_meaning_, as phenomena in the world-_view_. Originally they possessed\nonly a relationship to men, but now there is also a relationship of men\nto them. They have become emblems of his existence. And thus the essence\nof every genuine\u2014_unconscious and inwardly necessary_\u2014symbolism proceeds\nfrom the knowledge of death in which the secret of space reveals itself.\nAll symbolism implies a defensive; it is the expression of a deep\n_Scheu_ in the old double sense of the word,[179] and its form-language\ntells at once of hostility and of reverence.\n\n_Every thing-become is mortal._ Not only peoples, languages, races and\nCultures are transient. In a few centuries from now there will no more\nbe a Western Culture, no more be German, English or French than there\nwere Romans in the time of Justinian. Not that the sequence of human\ngenerations failed; it was the inner form of a people, which had put\ntogether a number of these generations as a single gesture, that was no\nlonger there. The _Civis Romanus_, one of the most powerful symbols of\nClassical being, had nevertheless, as a form, only a duration of some\ncenturies. But the primitive phenomenon of the great Culture will itself\nhave disappeared some day, and with it the drama of world-history; aye,\nand man himself, and beyond man the phenomenon of plant and animal\nexistence on the earth\u2019s surface, the earth, the sun, the whole world of\nsun-systems. All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts but\nthe arts themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last\nbar of Mozart will have ceased to be\u2014though possibly a coloured canvas\nand a sheet of notes may remain\u2014because the last eye and the last ear\naccessible to their message will have gone. Every thought, faith and\nscience dies as soon as the spirits in whose worlds their \u201ceternal\ntruths\u201d were true and necessary are extinguished. Dead, even, are the\nstar-worlds which \u201cappeared,\u201d a proper world to the proper eye, to the\nastronomers of the Nile and the Euphrates, for our eye is different from\ntheirs; and our eye in its turn is mortal. All this we know. The beast\ndoes not know, and what he does not know does not exist in his\nexperienced world-around. But if the image of the past vanishes, the\nlonging to give a deeper meaning to the passing vanishes also. And so it\nis with reference to the purely human macrocosm that we apply the oft-\nquoted line, which shall serve as motto for all that follows: _Alles\nVerg\u00e4ngliche ist nur ein Gleichnis_.\n\nFrom this we are led, without our noticing it, back to the space-\nproblem, though now it takes on a fresh and surprising form. Indeed, it\nis as a corollary to these ideas that it appears for the first time as\ncapable of solution\u2014or, to speak more modestly, of enunciation\u2014just as\nthe time-problem was made more comprehensible by way of the Destiny-\nidea. From the moment of our awakening, the fateful and directed life\nappears in the phenomenal life as an experienced _depth_. Everything\nextends itself, but it is not yet \u201cspace,\u201d not something established in\nitself but a self-extension continued from the moving here to the moving\nthere. World-experience is bound up with the essence of _depth_ (i.e.,\n_far-ness_ or _distance_). In the abstract system of mathematics,\n\u201cdepth\u201d is taken along with \u201clength\u201d and \u201cbreadth\u201d as a \u201cthird\u201d\ndimension; but this trinity of elements of like order is misleading from\nthe outset, for in our impression of the spatial world these elements\nare unquestionably _not_ equivalents, let alone homogeneous. Length and\nbreadth are no doubt, experientially, a unit and not a mere sum, but\nthey are (the phrase is used deliberately) simply a form of reception;\nthey represent the purely sensuous impression. But depth is a\nrepresentation of _expression_, of _Nature_, and with it begins the\n\u201cworld.\u201d\n\nThis discrimination between the \u201cthird\u201d and the other two dimensions, so\ncalled, which needless to say is wholly alien to mathematics, is\ninherent also in the opposition of the notions of sensation and\ncontemplation. Extension into depth converts the former into the latter;\nin fact, depth is the first and genuine dimension in the literal sense\nof the word.[180] In it the waking consciousness is active, whereas in\nthe others it is strictly passive. It is the _symbolic content of a\nparticular order_ as understood by one particular Culture that is\nexpressed by this original fundamental and unanalysable element. The\nexperiencing of depth (this is a premiss upon which all that follows is\ndependent) is an act, as entirely involuntary and necessary as it is\ncreative, whereby the ego keeps its world, so to say, in subordination\n(zudiktiert erh\u00e4lt). Out of the rain of impressions the ego fashions a\nformal unit, a cinematic _picture_, which as soon as it is mastered by\nthe understanding is subjected to law and the causality principle; and\ntherefore, as the projection of an individual spirit it is transient and\nmortal.\n\nThere is no doubt, however reason may contest it, that this extension is\ncapable of infinite variety, and that it operates differently not merely\nas between child and man, or nature-man and townsman, or Chinese and\nRomans, but as between individual and individual according as they\nexperience their worlds contemplatively or alertly, actively or\nplacidly. Every artist has rendered \u201cNature\u201d by line and by tone, every\nphysicist\u2014Greek, Arabian or German\u2014has dissected \u201cNature\u201d into ultimate\nelements, and how is it that they have not all discovered the same?\nBecause every one of them has had his own Nature, though\u2014with a na\u00efvet\u00e9\nthat was really the salvation of his world-idea and of his own self\u2014\nevery one believed that he had it in common with all the rest. Nature is\na possession which is saturated through and through with the most\npersonal connotations. _Nature is a function of the particular Culture._\n\n III\n\nKant believed that he had decided the great question of whether this _a\npriori_ element was pre-existent or obtained by experience, by his\ncelebrated formula that Space is the form of perception which underlies\nall world impressions. But the \u201cworld\u201d of the careless child and the\ndreamer undeniably possess this form in an insecure and hesitant\nway,[181] and it is only the tense, practical, _technical_ treatment of\nthe world-around\u2014imposed on the free-moving being which, unlike the\nlilies of the fields, must care for its life\u2014that lets sensuous self-\nextension stiffen into rational tridimensionality. And it is only the\ncity-man of matured Cultures that really _lives_ in this glaring\nwakefulness, and only for his thought that there is a Space wholly\ndivorced from sensuous life, \u201cabsolute,\u201d dead and alien to Time; and it\nexists not as a form of the intuitively-perceived but as a form of the\nrationally-comprehended. There is no manner of doubt that the \u201cspace\u201d\nwhich Kant saw all around him with such unconditional certainty when he\nwas thinking out his theory, did not exist in anything like so rigorous\na form for his Carolingian ancestors. Kant\u2019s greatness consists in his\nhaving created the idea of a \"form _a priori_,\" but not in the\napplication that he gave it. We have already seen that Time is not a\n\u201cform of perception\u201d nor for that matter a form at all\u2014forms exist only\nin the extended\u2014and that there is no possibility of defining it except\nas a counter-concept to Space. But there is the further question\u2014does\nthis word \u201cspace\u201d exactly cover the formal content of the intuitively-\nperceived? And beyond all this there is the plain fact that the \u201cform of\nperception\u201d _alters with distance_. Every distant mountain range is\n\u201cperceived\u201d as a scenic plane. No one will pretend that he sees the moon\nas a body; for the eye it is a pure plane and it is only by the aid of\nthe telescope\u2014i.e. when the distance is artificially reduced\u2014that it\nprogressively obtains a spatial form. Obviously, then, the \u201cform of\nperception\u201d is a function of distance. Moreover, when we reflect upon\nanything, we do not exactly remember the impressions that we received at\nthe time, but \u201crepresent to ourselves\u201d the picture of a space abstracted\nfrom them. But this representation may and does deceive us regarding the\nliving actuality. Kant let himself be misled; he should certainly not\nhave permitted himself to distinguish between forms of perception and\nforms of ratiocination, for _his_ notion of Space in principle embraced\nboth.[182]\n\nJust as Kant marred the Time-problem by bringing it into relation with\nan essentially misunderstood arithmetic and\u2014on that basis\u2014dealing with a\nphantom sort of time that lacks the life-quality of direction and is\ntherefore a mere spatial scheme, so also he marred the Space-problem by\nrelating it to a common-place geometry.\n\nIt befell that a few years after the completion of Kant\u2019s main work\nGauss discovered the first of the Non-Euclidean geometries. These,\nirreproachably demonstrated as regards their own internal validity,\nenable it to be proved that there are _several_ strictly mathematical\nkinds of three-dimensional extension, all of which are _a priori_\ncertain, and none of which can be singled out to rank as the genuine\n\u201cform of perception.\u201d\n\nIt was a grave, and in a contemporary of Euler and Lagrange an\nunpardonable, error to postulate that the Classical school-geometry (for\nit was that which Kant always had in mind) was to be found reproduced in\nthe forms of Nature around us. In moments of attentive observation at\nvery short range, and in cases in which the relations considered are\nsufficiently small, the living impressions and the rules of customary\ngeometry are certainly in approximate agreement. But the _exact_\nconformity asserted by philosophy can be demonstrated neither by the eye\nnor by measuring-instruments. Both these must always stop short at a\ncertain limit of accuracy which is very far indeed below that which\nwould be necessary, say, for determining which of the Non-Euclidean\ngeometries is the geometry of \u201cempirical\u201d Space.[183] On the large\nscales and for great distances, where the experience of depth completely\ndominates the perception-picture (for example, looking on a broad\nlandscape as against a drawing) the form of perception is in fundamental\ncontradiction with mathematics. A glance down any avenue shows us that\nparallels meet at the horizon. Western perspective and the otherwise\nquite different perspective of Chinese painting are both alike based on\nthis fact, and the connexion of these perspectives with the root-\nproblems of their respective mathematics is unmistakable.\n\nExperiential Depth, in the infinite variety of its modes, eludes every\nsort of numerical definition. The whole of lyric poetry and music, the\nentire painting of Egypt, China and the West by hypothesis deny any\nstrictly mathematical structure in space as felt and seen, and it is\nonly because all modern philosophers have been destitute of the smallest\nunderstanding of painting that they have failed to note the\ncontradiction. The \u201chorizon\u201d _in and by which every visual image\ngradually passes into a definitive plane_, is incapable of any\nmathematical treatment. Every stroke of a landscape painter\u2019s brush\nrefutes the assertions of conventional epistemology.\n\nAs mathematical magnitudes abstract from life, the \u201cthree dimensions\u201d\nhave no natural limits. But when this proposition becomes entangled with\nthe surface-and-depth of experienced impression, the original\nepistemological error leads to another, viz., that apprehended extension\nis also without limits, although in fact our vision only comprises the\n_illuminated_ portion of space and stops at the light-limit of the\nparticular moment, which may be the star-heavens or merely the bright\natmosphere. The \u201cvisual\u201d world is the totality of _light-resistances_,\nsince vision depends on the presence of radiated or reflected light. The\nGreeks took their stand on this and stayed there. It is the Western\nworld-feeling that has produced the idea of a limitless universe of\nspace\u2014a space of infinite star-systems and distances that far transcends\nall optical possibilities\u2014and this was a creation of the _inner_ vision,\nincapable of all actualization through the eye, and, even as an idea,\nalien to and unachievable by the men of a differently-disposed Culture.\n\n IV\n\nThe outcome, then, of Gauss\u2019s discovery, which _completely_ altered the\ncourse of modern mathematics,[184] was the statement that there are\nseverally equally valid structures of three-dimensional extension. That\nit should even be asked which of them corresponds to actual perception\nshows that the problem was not in the least comprehended. Mathematics,\nwhether or not it employs visible images and representations as working\nconveniences, concerns itself with systems that are entirely emancipated\nfrom life, time and distance, with form-worlds of pure numbers whose\nvalidity\u2014not _fact-foundation_\u2014is timeless and like everything else that\nis \u201cknown\u201d is known by causal logic and not experienced.\n\nWith this, the difference between the living intuition-way and the\nmathematical form-language became manifest and the secret of _spatial\nbecoming_ opened out.\n\nAs becoming is the foundation of the become, continuous living history\nthat of fulfilled dead nature, the organic that of the mechanical,\ndestiny that of causal law and the causally-settled, so too _direction\nis the origin of extension. The secret of Life accomplishing itself\nwhich is touched upon by the word Time forms the foundation of that\nwhich, as accomplished, is understood by_ (or rather _indicated to an\ninner feeling in us by_) _the word Space_. Every extension that is\nactual has first been accomplished in and with an experience of depth,\nand what is primarily indicated by the word Time is just this process of\nextending, first sensuously (in the main, visually) and only later\nintellectually, into depth and distance, i.e., the _step_ from the\nplanar semi-impression to the macrocosmically ordered world-picture with\nits mysterious-manifest kinesis. We feel\u2014and the feeling is what\nconstitutes the state of all-round awareness in us\u2014that we are _in_ an\nextension that encircles us; and it is only necessary to follow out this\noriginal impression that we have of the worldly to see that in reality\nthere is only one true \u201cdimension\u201d of space, which is direction from\none\u2019s self outwards into the distance, the \u201cthere\u201d and the future, and\nthat the abstract system of three dimensions is a mechanical\nrepresentation and not a fact of life. By the depth-experience sensation\nis _expanded_ into the world. We have seen already that the directedness\nthat is in life wears the badge of _irreversibility_, and there is\nsomething of this same hall-mark of Time in our instinctive tendency to\nfeel the depth that is in the world uni-directionally also\u2014viz., from\nourselves outwards, and never from the horizon inwards. The bodily\nmobility of man and beast is disposed in this sense. We move _forward_\u2014\ntowards the Future, nearing with every step not merely our aim but our\nold age\u2014and we feel every _backward_ look as a glance at something that\nis past, that has already become history.[185]\n\nIf we can describe the basic form of the understood, viz., causality, as\n_destiny become rigid_, we may similarly speak of spatial depth as a\n_time become rigid_. That which not only man but even the beast _feels_\noperative around him as destiny, he _perceives_ by touching, looking,\nlistening, scenting as movement, and under his intense scrutiny it\nstiffens and becomes causal. We _feel_ that it is drawing towards spring\nand we feel in advance how the spring landscape expands around us; but\nwe _know_ that the earth as it moves in space revolves and that the\nduration of spring consists of ninety such revolutions of the earth, or\ndays. Time gives birth to Space, but Space gives death to Time.\n\nHad Kant been more precise, he would, instead of speaking of the \u201ctwo\nforms of perception,\u201d have called time the form of perception and space\nthe form of the perceived, and then the connexion of the two would\nprobably have revealed itself to him. The logician, mathematician, or\nscientist in his moments of intense thought, knows only the Become\u2014which\nhas been detached from the singular event by the very act of meditating\nupon it\u2014and true systematic space\u2014in which everything possesses the\n_property_ of a mathematically-expressible \u201cduration.\u201d But it is just\nthis that indicates to us how space is continuously \u201cbecoming.\u201d While we\ngaze into the distance with our senses, it floats around us, but when we\nare startled, the alert eye sees a tense and rigid space. This space\n_is_; the principle of its existing at all is that it is, outside time\nand detached from it and from life. In it duration, a piece of perished\ntime, resides as a known property of things. And, as we know ourselves\ntoo as _being_ in this space, we know that we also have a duration and a\nlimit, of which the moving finger of our clock ceaselessly warns us. But\nthe rigid Space itself is transient too\u2014at the first relaxation of our\nintellectual tension it vanishes from the many-coloured spread of our\nworld-around\u2014and so it is a sign and symbol of _the most elemental and\npowerful symbol_, of life itself.\n\nFor the involuntary and unqualified realization of depth, which\ndominates the consciousness with the force of an elemental event\n(_simultaneously with the awakening of the inner life_), marks the\nfrontier between child and ... Man. The symbolic experience of depth is\nwhat is lacking in the child, who grasps at the moon and knows as yet no\nmeaning in the outer world but, like the soul of primitive man, dawns in\na dreamlike continuum of sensations (in traumhafter Verbundenheit mit\nallem Empfindungshaften hind\u00e4mmert). Of course the child is not without\nexperience of the extended, of a very simple kind, but there is no\n_world-perception_; distance is felt, but it does not yet speak to the\nsoul. And with the soul\u2019s awakening, direction, too, first reaches\nliving expression\u2014Classical expression in steady adherence to the near-\npresent and exclusion of the distant and future; Faustian in direction-\nenergy which has an eye only for the most distant horizons; Chinese, in\nfree hither-and-thither wandering that nevertheless goes to the goal;\nEgyptian in resolute march down the path once entered. Thus the Destiny-\nidea manifests itself in every line of a life. With it alone do we\nbecome members of a particular Culture, whose members are connected by a\ncommon world-feeling and a common world-form derived from it. A deep\nidentity unites the awakening of the _soul_, its birth into clear\nexistence in the name of a Culture, with the sudden realization of\ndistance and time, the _birth of its outer world_ through the symbol of\nextension; and thenceforth this symbol is and remains the _prime symbol_\nof that life, imparting to it its specific style and the historical form\nin which it progressively actualizes its inward possibilities. From the\nspecific directedness is derived the specific prime-symbol of extension,\nnamely, for the Classical world-view the near, strictly limited, self-\ncontained Body, for the Western infinitely wide and infinitely profound\nthree-dimensional Space, for the Arabian the world as a Cavern. And\ntherewith an old philosophical problem dissolves into nothing: this\nprime form of the world is _innate_ in so far as it is an original\npossession of the soul of that Culture which is expressed by our life as\na whole, and _acquired_ in so far that every individual soul re-enacts\nfor itself that creative act and unfolds in early childhood the symbol\nof depth to which its existence is predestined, as the emerging\nbutterfly unfolds its wings. The first comprehension of depth is _an act\nof birth_\u2014the spiritual complement of the bodily.[186] In it the Culture\nis born out of its mother-landscape, and the act is repeated by every\none of its individual souls throughout its life-course. This is what\nPlato\u2014connecting it with an early Hellenic belief\u2014called anamnesis. The\ndefiniteness of the world-form, which for each dawning soul _suddenly\nis_, derives meaning from Becoming. Kant the systematic, however, with\nhis conception of the form _a priori_, would approach the interpretation\nof this very riddle from a dead result instead of along a living way.\n\nFrom now on, we shall consider the _kind of extension as the prime\nsymbol of a Culture_. From it we are to deduce the entire form-language\nof its actuality, its physiognomy as contrasted with the physiognomy of\nevery other Culture and still more with the almost entire lack of\nphysiognomy in primitive man\u2019s world-around. For now the interpretation\nof depth rises to acts, to formative expression in works, to the\n_trans_-forming of actuality, not now merely in order to subserve\nnecessities of life (as in the case of the animals) but above all to\ncreate a picture out of extensional elements of all sorts (material,\nline, colour, tone, motion)\u2014a picture, often, that re-emerges with power\nto charm after lost centuries in the world-picture of another Culture\nand tells new men of the way in which its authors understood the world.\n\nBut the prime symbol does not actualize itself; it is operative through\nthe form-sense of every man, every community, age and epoch and dictates\nthe style of every life-expression. It is inherent in the form of the\nstate, the religious myths and cults, the ethical ideals, the forms of\npainting and music and poetry, the fundamental notions of each science\u2014\nbut it is not presented by these. Consequently, it is not presentable by\nwords, for language and words are themselves _derived_ symbols. Every\nindividual symbol tells of it, but only to the inner feelings, not to\nthe understanding. And when we say, as henceforth we shall say, that the\nprime-symbol of the Classical soul is the material and individual body,\nthat of the Western pure infinite space, it must always be with the\nreservation that concepts cannot represent the inconceivable, and thus\nat the most a _significative feeling_ may be evoked by the sound of\nwords.\n\nInfinite space is the ideal that the Western soul has always striven to\nfind, and to see immediately actualized, in its world-around; and hence\nit is that the countless space-theories of the last centuries possess\u2014\nover and above all ostensible \u201cresults\u201d\u2014a deep import as symptoms of a\nworld-feeling. In how far does unlimited extension _underlie_ all\nobjective things? There is hardly a single problem that has been more\nearnestly pondered than this; it would almost seem as if every other\nworld-question was dependent upon the one problem of the nature of\nspace. And is it not in fact so\u2014_for us_? And how, then, has it escaped\nnotice that the whole Classical world never expended one word on it, and\nindeed did not even possess a word[187] by which the problem could be\nexactly outlined? Why had the great pre-Socratics nothing to say on it?\nDid they overlook in their world just that which appears to us the\nproblem of all problems? Ought we not, in fact, to have seen long ago\nthat the answer is in the very fact of their silence? How is it that\naccording to _our_ deepest feeling the \u201cworld\u201d is nothing but that\nworld-of-space which is the true offspring of our depth-experience, and\nwhose grand emptiness is corroborated by the star-systems lost in it?\nCould a \u201cworld\u201d of this sense have been made even comprehensible to a\nClassical thinker? In short, we suddenly discover that the \u201ceternal\nproblem\u201d that Kant, in the name of humanity, tackled with a passion that\nitself is symbolic, is a _purely Western_ problem that simply does not\narise in the intellects of other Cultures.\n\nWhat then was it that Classical man, whose insight into his own world-\naround was certainly not less piercing than ours, regarded as the prime\nproblem of all being? It was the problem of \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, the _material origin\nand foundation_ of all sensuously-perceptible things. If we grasp this\nwe shall get close to the significance of the fact\u2014not the fact of\nspace, but the fact that made it a necessity of destiny for the space-\nproblem to become the problem of the Western, and only the Western,\nsoul.[188] This very spatiality (R\u00e4umlichkeit) that is the truest and\nsublimest element in the aspect of _our_ universe, that absorbs into\nitself and begets out of itself the substantiality of all things,\nClassical humanity (which knows no word for, and therefore has no idea\nof, space) with one accord cuts out as the nonent, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd, that which\n_is not_. The pathos of this denial can scarcely be exaggerated. The\nwhole passion of the Classical soul is in this act of excluding by\nsymbolic negation that which it _would_ not feel as actual, that in\nwhich its own existence _could_ not be expressed. A world of other\ncolour suddenly confronts us here. The Classical statue in its splendid\nbodiliness\u2014all structure and expressive surfaces and no incorporeal\n_arri\u00e8re-pens\u00e9e_ whatsoever\u2014contains without remainder all that\nActuality is for the Classical eye. The material, the optically\ndefinite, the comprehensible, the immediately present\u2014this list exhausts\nthe characteristics of this kind of extension. The Classical universe,\nthe _Cosmos_ or well-ordered aggregate of all near and completely\nviewable things, is concluded by the corporeal vault of heaven. More\nthere is not. The need that is in us to think of \u201cspace\u201d as being behind\nas well as before this shell was wholly absent from the Classical world-\nfeeling. The Stoics went so far as to treat even properties and\nrelations of things as \u201cbodies.\u201d For Chrysippus, the Divine Pneuma is a\n\u201cbody,\u201d for Democritus seeing consists in our being penetrated by\nmaterial particles of the things seen. The State is a body which is made\nup of all the bodies of its citizens, the law knows only corporeal\npersons and material things. And the feeling finds its last and noblest\nexpression in the stone body of the Classical temple. The windowless\ninterior is carefully concealed by the array of columns; but outside\nthere is not one truly straight line to be found. Every flight of steps\nhas a slight sweep outward, every step relatively to the next. The\npediment, the roof-ridge, the sides are all curved. Every column has a\nslight swell and none stand truly vertical or truly equidistant from one\nanother. But swell and inclination and distance vary from the corners to\nthe centres of the sides in a carefully toned-off ratio, and so the\nwhole corpus is given a something that swings mysterious about a centre.\nThe curvatures are so fine that to a certain extent they are invisible\nto the eye and only to be \u201csensed.\u201d But it is just by these means that\ndirection in depth is eliminated. While the Gothic style _soars_, the\nIonic _swings_. The interior of the cathedral pulls up with primeval\nforce, but the temple is laid down in majestic rest. All this is equally\ntrue as relating to the Faustian and Apollinian Deity, and likewise of\nthe fundamental ideas of the respective physics. To the principles of\nposition, material and form we have opposed those of straining movement,\nforce and mass, and we have defined the last-named as a constant ratio\nbetween force and acceleration, nay, finally volatilized both in the\npurely spatial elements of _capacity_ and _intensity_. It was an\nobligatory consequence also of this way of conceiving actuality that the\ninstrumental music of the great 18th-Century masters should emerge as a\nmaster-art\u2014for it is the only one of the arts whose form-world is\ninwardly related to the contemplative vision of pure space. In it, as\nopposed to the statues of Classical temple and forum, we have bodiless\nrealms of tone, tone-intervals, tone-seas. The orchestra swells, breaks,\nand ebbs, it depicts distances, lights, shadows, storms, driving clouds,\nlightning flashes, colours etherealized and transcendent\u2014think of the\ninstrumentation of Gluck and Beethoven. \u201cContemporary,\u201d in our sense,\nwith the Canon of Polycletus, the treatise in which the great sculptor\nlaid down the strict rules of human body-build which remained\nauthoritative till beyond Lysippus, we find the strict canon (completed\nby Stamitz about 1740) of the sonata-movement of four elements which\nbegins to relax in late-Beethoven quartets and symphonies and, finally,\nin the lonely, utterly infinitesimal tone-world of the \u201cTristan\u201d music,\nfrees itself from all earthly comprehensibleness. This prime feeling of\na loosing, Erl\u00f6sung, solution, of the Soul in the Infinite, of a\nliberation from all material heaviness which the highest moments of our\nmusic always awaken, sets free also the energy of depth that is in the\nFaustian soul: whereas the effect of the Classical art-work is to bind\nand to bound, and the body-feeling secures, brings back the eye from\ndistance to a Near and Still that is saturated with beauty.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n Which, inasmuch as it has been detached from time, is able to employ\n mathematical symbols. These rigid figures _signify_ for us a destiny\n of yore. But their meaning is other than mathematical. Past is not a\n cause, nor Fate a formula, and to anyone who handles them, as the\n historical materialist handles them, mathematically, the past event as\n such, as an actuality that has lived once and only once, is invisible.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n That is, not merely conclusions of peaces or deathdays of persons, but\n the Renaissance style, the _Polis_, the Mexican Culture and so forth\u2014\n are dates or data, facts that have been, even when we possess no\n representation of them.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 403 et seq., 589 et seq.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n The formation of hypotheses in Chemistry is much more thoughtless,\n owing to the less close relation of that science to mathematics. A\n house of cards such as is presented to us in the researches of the\n moment on atom-structure (see, for example, M. Born, _Der Aufbau der\n Materie_, 1920) would be impossible in the near neighbourhood of the\n electro-magnetic theory of light, whose authors never for a moment\n lost sight of the frontier between mathematical vision and its\n representation by a picture, or of the fact that this was only a\n picture.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n There is no difference essentially between these representations and\n the switchboard wiring-diagram.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n Goethe\u2019s theory of colour openly controverted Newton\u2019s theory of\n light. A long account of the controversy will be found in Chapter IX\n of G. H. Lewes\u2019s _Life of Goethe_\u2014a work that, taken all in all, is\n one of the wisest biographies ever written. In reading his critique of\n Goethe\u2019s theory, of course, it has to be borne in mind that he wrote\n before the modern development of the electro-magnetic theory, which\n has substituted a merely mathematical existence for the Newtonian\n physical existence of colour-rays as such in white light. Now, this\n physical existence was just what, in substance, Goethe denied. What he\n affirmed, in the simpler language of his day, was that white light was\n something simple and colourless that becomes coloured through\n diminutions or modifications imposed upon it by \u201cdarkness.\u201d The modern\n physicist, using a subtler hypothesis than Newton\u2019s and a more refined\n \u201cbalance\u201d than that which Lewes reproaches Goethe for \u201cflinging away,\u201d\n has found in white light, not the Newtonian mixture of colour-rays,\n but a surge of irregular wave-trains which are only regularized into\n colour-vibrations through being acted upon by analysers of one sort\n and another, from prisms to particulate matter. This necessity of a\n counter-agent for the production of colour seems\u2014to a critical\n outsider at any rate\u2014very like the necessity of an efficient negative\n principle or \u201copaque\u201d that Goethe\u2019s intuitive interpretation of his\n experiments led him to postulate. It is this that is the heart of the\n theory, and not the \u201csimplicity\u201d of light _per se_.\n\n So much it seems desirable to add to the text and the reference, in\n order to expand the author\u2019s statement that \u201cboth were right.\u201d For\n Lewes, with all his sympathetic penetration of the man and real\n appreciation of his scientific achievement, feels obliged to regard\n his methods and his theory as such as \u201cerroneous.\u201d And it is perhaps\n not out of place in this book to adduce an instance of the peculiar\n nature and power of intuitive vision (which entirely escapes direct\n description) in which Vision frankly challenges Reason on its own\n ground, meets with refutation (or contempt) from the Reason of its\n day, and yet may come to be upheld in its specific rightness (its\n rightness as vision, that is, apart from its technical enunciation by\n the seer) by the Reason of a later day.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n See p. 123.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n See page 123.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n The word _dimension_ ought only to be used in the singular. It means\n extension but not extensions. The idea of the three directions is an\n out-and-out abstraction and is not contained in the immediate\n extension-feeling of the body (the \u201csoul\u201d). Direction as such, the\n direction-essence, gives rise to the mysterious _animal_ sense of\n right and left and also the _vegetable_ characteristic of below-to-\n above, earth to heaven. The latter is a fact felt dream-wise, the\n former a truth of waking existence to be learned and therefore capable\n of being transmuted. Both find expression in architecture, to wit, in\n the symmetry of the plan and the energy of the elevation, and it is\n only because of this that we specially distinguish in the\n \u201carchitecture\u201d of the space around us the angle of 90\u00b0 in preference,\n for example, to that of 60\u00b0. Had not this been so, the conventional\n number of our \u201cdimensions\u201d would have been quite different.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n The want of perspective in children\u2019s drawings is emphatically not\n perceptible to the children themselves.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n His idea that the _a priori_-ness of space was proved by and through\n the unconditional validity of simple geometrical facts rests, as we\n have already remarked, on the all-too-popular notion that mathematics\n are either geometry or arithmetic. Now, even in Kant\u2019s time the\n mathematic of the West had got far beyond this na\u00efve scheme, which was\n a mere imitation of the Classical. Modern geometry bases itself not on\n space but on multiply-infinite number-manifolds\u2014amongst which the\n three-dimensional is simply the undistinguished special case\u2014and\n within these groups investigates functional formations with reference\n to their structure; that is, there is no longer any contact or even\n possibility of contact between any possible kind of sense-perception\n and mathematical facts in the domain of such extensions as these, and\n yet the demonstrability of the latter is in no wise impaired thereby.\n Mathematics, then, are independent of the perceived, and the question\n now is, how much of this famous demonstrability of the forms of\n perception is left when the artificiality of juxtaposing both in a\n supposedly single process of experience has been recognized.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n It is true that a geometrical theorem may be proved, or rather\n demonstrated, by means of a drawing. But the theorem is differently\n constituted in every kind of geometry, and that being so, the drawing\n ceases to be a _proof_ of anything whatever.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n So much so that Gauss said nothing about his discovery until almost\n the end of his life for tear of \u201cthe clamour of the B\u0153otians.\u201d\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n The distinction of right and left (see p. 169) is only conceivable as\n the outcome of this directedness in the dispositions of the body. \u201cIn\n front\u201d has no meaning whatever for the body of a plant.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n It may not be out of place here to refer to the enormous importance\n attached in savage society to initiation-rites at adolescence.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n Either in Greek or in Latin, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (= _locus_) means spot, locality,\n and also social position; \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 (= _spatium_) means space-between,\n distance, rank, and also ground and soil (e.g., \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n produce); \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (_vacuum_) means quite unequivocally a hollow body,\n and the stress is emphatically on the envelope. The literature of the\n Roman Imperial Age, which attempted to render the _Magian_ world-\n feeling through Classical words, was reduced to such clumsy versions\n as \u1f41\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 (sensible world) or _spatium inane_ (\u201cendless space,\u201d\n but also \u201cwide surface\u201d\u2014the root of the word \u201cspatium\u201d means to swell\n or grow fat). In the true Classical literature, the idea not being\n there, there was no necessity for a word to describe it.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n It has not hitherto been seen that this fact is implicit in Euclid\u2019s\n famous parallel axiom (\u201cthrough a point only one parallel to a\n straight line is possible\u201d).\n\n This was the only one of the Classical theorems which remained\n unproved, and as we know now, it is incapable of proof. But it was\n just that which made it into a dogma (as opposed to any experience)\n _and therefore the metaphysical centre_ and main girder of that\n geometrical system. Everything else, axiom or postulate, is merely\n introductory or corollary to this. This one proposition is necessary\n and universally-valid for the Classical intellect, _and yet not\n deducible_. What does this signify?\n\n It signifies that the statement is a _symbol_ of the first rank. It\n contains the structure of Classical corporeality. It is just this\n proposition, theoretically the weakest link in the Classical geometry\n (objections began to be raised to it as early as Hellenistic times),\n that reveals its soul, and it was just this proposition, self-evident\n within the limits of routine experience, that the Faustian number-\n thinking, derived from incorporeal spatial distances, fastened upon as\n the centre of doubt. It is one of the deepest symbols of _our_ being\n that we have opposed to the Euclidean geometry not one but _several_\n other geometries all of which for us are equally true and self-\n consistent. The specific tendency of the anti-Euclidean group of\n geometries\u2014in which there may be no parallel or two parallels or\n several parallels to a line through a point\u2014lies in the fact that by\n their very plurality the corporeal sense of extension, which Euclid\n _canonized_ by his principle, is entirely got rid of; for what they\n reject is that which all corporeal postulates but all spatial denies.\n The question of which of the three Non-Euclidean geometries is the\n \u201ccorrect\u201d one (i.e., that which underlies actuality)\u2014although Gauss\n himself gave it earnest consideration\u2014is in respect of world-feeling\n entirely Classical and therefore it should not have been asked by a\n thinker of our sphere. Indeed it prevents us from seeing the true and\n deep meaning implicit in the plurality of these geometries. The\n specifically Western symbol resides not in the reality of one or of\n another, but in the true plurality of _equally possible_ geometries.\n It is the _group_ of space-structures\u2014in the abundance of which the\n classical system is a mere particular case\u2014that has dissolved the last\n residuum of the corporeal into the pure space-feeling.\n\n-----\n\n\n V\n\nEach of the great Cultures, then, has arrived at a secret language of\nworld-feeling that is only fully comprehensible by him whose soul\nbelongs to that Culture. We must not deceive ourselves. Perhaps we can\nread a little way into the Classical soul, because its form-language is\nalmost the exact inversion of the Western; how far we have succeeded or\ncan ever succeed is a question which necessarily forms the starting-\npoint of all criticism of the Renaissance, and it is a very difficult\none. But when we are told that probably (it is at best a doubtful\nventure to meditate upon so alien an expression of Being) the Indians\nconceived numbers which according to our ideas possessed neither value\nnor magnitude nor relativity, and which only became positive and\nnegative, great or small units in virtue of position, we have to admit\nthat it is impossible for us exactly to re-experience what spiritually\nunderlies this kind of number. For us, 3 is always _something_, be it\npositive or negative; for the Greeks it was unconditionally a positive\nmagnitude, +3; but for the Indian it indicates a possibility without\nexistence, to which the word \u201csomething\u201d is _not yet_ applicable,\noutside both existence and non-existence which are _properties_ to be\nintroduced into it. +3, -3, \u2153, are thus emanating actualities of\nsubordinate rank which reside in the mysterious substance (3) in some\nway that is entirely hidden from us. It takes a Brahmanic soul to\nperceive these numbers as self-evident, as ideal emblems of a self-\ncomplete world-form; to us they are as unintelligible as is the Brahman\nNirvana, for which, as lying beyond life _and_ death, sleep _and_\nwaking, passion, compassion _and_ dispassion and yet somehow actual,\nwords entirely fail us. Only this spirituality could originate the grand\nconception of _nothingness as a true number, zero_, and even then this\nzero is the Indian zero for which existent and non-existent are equally\nexternal designations.[189]\n\nArabian thinkers of the ripest period\u2014and they included minds of the\nvery first order like Alfarabi and Alkabi\u2014in controverting the ontology\nof Aristotle, _proved_ that the body as such did not necessarily assume\nspace for existence, and deduced the essence of this space\u2014the _Arabian_\nkind of extension, that is\u2014from the characteristic of \u201cone\u2019s being in a\nposition.\u201d\n\nBut this does not prove that as against Aristotle and Kant they were in\nerror or that their thinking was muddled (as we so readily say of what\nour own brains cannot take in). It shows that the Arabian spirit\npossessed other world-categories than our own. They could have rebutted\nKant, or Kant them, with the same subtlety of proof\u2014and both disputants\nwould have remained convinced of the correctness of their respective\nstandpoints.\n\nWhen we talk of space to-day, we are all thinking more or less in the\nsame style, just as we are all using the same languages and word-signs,\nwhether we are considering mathematical space or physical space or the\nspace of painting or that of actuality, although all philosophizing that\ninsists (as it must) upon putting an _identity_ of understanding in the\nplace of such kinship of significance-feeling must remain somewhat\nquestionable. But no Hellene or Egyptian or Chinaman could re-experience\nany part of those feelings of ours, and no artwork or thought-system\ncould possibly convey to him unequivocally what \u201cspace\u201d means for us.\nAgain, the prime conceptions originated in the quite differently\nconstituted soul of the Greek, like \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f20, comprise the whole\ncontent of his world. But this world is differently constituted from\nours. It is, for us, alien and remote. We may take these words of Greek\nand translate them by words of our own like \u201corigin,\u201d \u201cmatter\u201d and\n\u201cform,\u201d but it is mere imitation, a feeble effort to penetrate into a\nworld of feeling in which the finest and deepest elements, in spite of\nall we can do, remain dumb; it is as though one tried to set the\nParthenon sculptures for a string quartet, or cast Voltaire\u2019s God in\nbronze. The master-traits of thought, life and world-consciousness are\nas manifold and different as the features of individual men; in those\nrespects as in others there are distinctions of \u201craces\u201d and \u201cpeoples,\u201d\nand men are as unconscious of these distinctions as they are ignorant of\nwhether \u201cred\u201d and \u201cyellow\u201d do or do not mean the same for others as for\nthemselves. It is particularly the common symbolic of language that\nnourishes the illusion of a homogeneous constitution of human inner-life\nand an identical world-form; in this respect the great thinkers of one\nand another Culture resemble the colour-blind in that each is unaware of\nhis own condition and smiles at the errors of the rest.\n\nAnd now I draw the conclusions. There is a plurality of prime symbols.\nIt is the depth-experience through which the world becomes, through\nwhich perception _extends itself_ to world. Its signification is for the\nsoul to which it belongs and only for that soul, and it is different in\nwaking and dreaming, acceptance and scrutiny, as between young and old,\ntownsmen and peasant, man and woman. It actualizes for every high\nCulture the possibility of form upon which that Culture\u2019s existence\nrests and it does so of deep necessity. All fundamentals words like our\nmass, substance, material, thing, body, extension (and multitudes of\nwords of the like order in other culture-tongues) are emblems,\nobligatory and determined by destiny, that out of the infinite abundance\nof world-possibilities evoke in the name of the individual Culture those\npossibilities that alone are significant and therefore necessary for it.\nNone of them is exactly transferable just as it is into the experiential\nliving and knowing of another Culture. And none of these prime words\never recurs. The _choice of prime symbol_ in the moment of the Culture-\nsoul\u2019s awakening into self-consciousness on its own soil\u2014a moment that\nfor one who can read world-history thus contains something catastrophic\u2014\ndecides all.\n\n Culture, as the soul\u2019s total expression \u201cbecome\u201d and perceptible in\n gestures and works, as its mortal transient body, obnoxious to\n law, number and causality:\n\n As the historical drama, a picture in the whole picture of world-\n history:\n\n As the sum of grand emblems of life, feeling and understanding:\n\n\u2014this is the language through which alone a soul can tell of what it\nundergoes.\n\nThe macrocosm, too, is a property of the individual soul; we can never\nknow how it stands with the soul of another. That which is implied by\n\u201cinfinite space,\u201d the space that \u201cpasseth all understanding,\u201d which is\nthe creative interpretation of depth-experience proper and peculiar to\nus men of the West\u2014the kind of extension that is nothingness to the\nGreeks, the Universe to us\u2014dyes our world in a colour that the\nClassical, the Indian and the Egyptian souls had not on their palettes.\nOne soul listens to the world-experience in A flat major, another in F\nminor; one apprehends it in the Euclidean spirit, another in the\ncontrapuntal, a third in the Magian spirit. From the purest analytical\nSpace and from Nirvana to the most somatic reality of Athens, there is a\nseries of prime symbols each of which is capable of forming a complete\nworld out of itself. And, as the idea of the Babylonian or that of the\nIndian world was remote, strange and elusive for the men of the five or\nsix Cultures that followed, so also the Western world will be\nincomprehensible to the men of Cultures yet unborn.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n MAKROKOSMOS\n\n II\n\n APOLLINIAN, FAUSTIAN AND MAGIAN SOUL\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n MAKROKOSMOS\n\n\n II\n APOLLINIAN, FAUSTIAN AND MAGIAN SOUL\n\n\n I\n\nHenceforth we shall designate the soul of the Classical Culture, which\nchose the sensuously-present individual body as the ideal type of the\nextended, by the name (familiarized by Nietzsche) of the _Apollinian_.\nIn opposition to it we have the _Faustian_ soul, whose prime-symbol is\npure and limitless space, and whose \u201cbody\u201d is the Western Culture that\nblossomed forth with the birth of the Romanesque style in the 10th\ncentury in the Northern plain between the Elbe and the Tagus. The nude\nstatue is Apollinian, the art of the fugue Faustian. Apollinian are:\nmechanical statics, the sensuous cult of the Olympian gods, the\npolitically individual city-states of Greece, the doom of \u0152dipus and the\nphallus-symbol. Faustian are: Galileian dynamics, Catholic and\nProtestant dogmatics, the great dynasties of the Baroque with their\ncabinet diplomacy, the destiny of Lear and the Madonna-ideal from\nDante\u2019s Beatrice to the last line of _Faust II_. The painting that\ndefines the individual body by contours is Apollinian, that which forms\nspace by means of light and shade is Faustian\u2014this is the difference\nbetween the fresco of Polygnotus and the oil painting of Rembrandt. The\nApollinian existence is that of the Greek who describes his ego as\n_soma_ and who lacks all idea of an inner development and therefore all\nreal history, inward and outward; the Faustian is an existence which _is\nled_ with a deep consciousness and introspection of the ego, and a\nresolutely personal culture evidenced in memoirs, reflections,\nretrospects and prospects and conscience. And in the time of Augustus,\nin the countries between Nile and Tigris, Black Sea and South Arabia,\nthere appears\u2014aloof but able to speak to us through forms borrowed,\nadopted and inherited\u2014the Magian soul of the Arabian Culture with its\nalgebra, astrology and alchemy, its mosaics and arabesques, its\ncaliphates and mosques, and the sacraments and scriptures of the\nPersian, Jewish, Christian, \u201cpost-Classical\u201d and Manich\u00e6an religions.\n\n\u201cSpace\u201d\u2014speaking now in the Faustian idiom\u2014is a spiritual something,\nrigidly distinct from the momentary sense-present, which _could_ not be\nrepresented in an Apollinian language, whether Greek or Latin. But the\ncreated _expression-space_ of the Apollinian arts is equally alien to\nours. The tiny cella of the early-Classical temple was a dumb dark\nnothingness, a structure (originally) of perishable material, an\nenvelope of the moment in contrast to the eternal vaults of Magian\ncupolas and Gothic naves, and the closed ranks of columns were expressly\nmeant to convey that for the eye at any rate this body possessed no\n_Inward_. In no other Culture is the firm footing, the socket, so\nemphasized. The Doric column bores into the ground, the vessels are\nalways thought of from below upward (whereas those of the Renaissance\nfloat above their footing), and the sculpture-schools feel the\nstabilizing of their figures as their main problem. Hence in archaic\nworks the legs are disproportionately emphasized, the foot is planted on\nthe full sole, and if the drapery falls straight down, a part of the hem\nis removed to show that the foot is standing. The Classical relief is\nstrictly stereometrically set on a plane, and there is an interspace\nbetween the figures but no depth. A landscape of Claude Lorrain, on the\ncontrary, is _nothing but_ space, every detail being made to subserve\nits illustration. All bodies in it possess an atmospheric and\nperspective meaning purely as carriers of light and shade. The extreme\nof this disembodiment of the world in the service of space is\nImpressionism. Given this world-feeling, the Faustian soul in the\nspringtime necessarily arrived at an architectural problem which had its\ncentre of gravity in the spatial vaulting-over of vast, and from porch\nto choir dynamically deep, cathedrals. This last expressed _its_ depth-\nexperience. But with it was associated, in opposition to the cavernous\nMagian expression-space,[190] the element of a soaring into the broad\nuniverse. Magian roofing, whether it be cupola or barrel-vault or even\nthe horizontal baulk of a basilica, _covers in_. Strzygowski[191] has\nvery aptly described the architectural idea of Hagia Sophia as an\nintroverted Gothic striving under a closed outer casing. On the other\nhand, in the cathedral of Florence the cupola _crowns_ the long Gothic\nbody of 1367, and the same tendency rose in Bramante\u2019s scheme for St.\nPeter\u2019s to a veritable towering-up, a magnificent \u201cExcelsior,\u201d that\nMichelangelo carried to completion with the dome that floats high and\nbright over the vast vaulting. To this sense of space the Classical\nopposes the symbol of the Doric peripteros, wholly corporeal and\ncomprehensible in one glance.\n\nThe Classical Culture begins, then, with a great _renunciation_. A rich,\npictorial, almost over-ripe art lay ready to its hand. But this _could_\nnot become the expression of the young soul, and so from about 1100 B.C.\nthe harsh, narrow, and to our eyes scanty and barbaric, early-Doric\ngeometrical style appears in opposition to the Minoan.[192] For the\nthree centuries which correspond to the flowering of our Gothic, there\nis no hint of an architecture, and it is only at about 650 B.C.,\n\u201ccontemporarily\u201d with Michelangelo\u2019s transition into the Baroque, that\nthe Doric and Etruscan temple-type arises. All \u201cEarly\u201d art is religious,\nand this symbolic Negation is not less so than the Egyptian and the\nGothic Affirmation. The idea of _burning_ the dead accords with the\ncult-site but not with the cult-building; and the Early Classical\nreligion which conceals itself from us behind the solemn names of\nCalchas, Tiresias, Orpheus and (probably) Numa[193] possessed for its\nrites simply that which is left of an architectural idea when one has\nsubtracted the architecture, viz., the sacred precinct. The original\ncult-plan is thus the Etruscan templum, a sacred area merely staked off\non the ground by the augurs with an impassable boundary and a propitious\nentrance on the East side.[194] A \u201ctemplum\u201d was created where a rite was\nto be performed or where the representative of the state authority,\nsenate or army, happened to be. It existed only for the duration of its\nuse, and the spell was then removed. It was probably only about 700 B.C.\nthat the Classical soul so far mastered itself as to represent this\narchitectural Nothing in the sensible form of a built body. In the long\nrun the Euclidean feeling proved stronger than the mere antipathy to\nduration.\n\nFaustian architecture, on the contrary, begins on the grand scale\nsimultaneously with the first stirrings of a new piety (the Cluniac\nreform, c. 1000) and a new thought (the Eucharistic controversy between\nBerengar of Tours and Lanfranc 1050),[195] and proceeds at once to plans\nof gigantic intention; often enough, as in the case of Speyer, the whole\ncommunity did not suffice to fill the cathedral,[196] and often again it\nproved impossible to complete the projected scheme. The passionate\nlanguage of this architecture is that of the poems too.[197] Far apart\nas may seem the Christian hymnology of the south and the Eddas of the\nstill heathen north, they are alike in the implicit space-endlessness of\nprosody, rhythmic syntax and imagery. Read the _Dies Ir\u00e6_ together with\nthe V\u00f6lusp\u00e1,[198] which is little earlier; there is the same adamantine\nwill to overcome and break all resistances of the visible. No rhythm\never imagined radiates immensities of space and distance as the old\nNorthern does:\n\n Zum Unheil werden\u2014noch allzulange\n M\u00e4nner und Weiber\u2014zur Welt geboren\n Aber wir beide \u2014bleiben zusammen\n Ich und Sigurd.\n\nThe accents of the Homeric hexameter are the soft rustle of a leaf in\nthe midday sun, the rhythm of _matter_; but the \u201cStabreim\u201d likes\n\u201cpotential energy\u201d in the world-pictures of modern physics, creates a\ntense restraint in the void without limits, distant night-storms above\nthe highest peaks. In its swaying indefiniteness all words and things\ndissolve themselves\u2014it is the dynamics, not the statics, of language.\nThe same applies to the grave rhythm of _Media vita in morte sumus_.\nHere is heralded the colour of Rembrandt and the instrumentation of\nBeethoven\u2014_here infinite solitude is felt as the home of the Faustian\nsoul_. What is Valhalla? Unknown to the Germans of the Migrations and\neven to the Merovingian Age, it was conceived by the nascent Faustian\nsoul. It was conceived, no doubt, under Classic-pagan and Arabian-\nChristian impressions, for the antique and the sacred writings, the\nruins and mosaics and miniatures, the cults and rites and dogmas of\nthese past Cultures reached into the new life at all points. _And yet_,\nthis Valhalla is something beyond all sensible actualities floating in\nremote, dim, Faustian regions. Olympus rests on the homely Greek soil,\nthe Paradise of the Fathers is a magic garden somewhere in the Universe,\nbut Valhalla is nowhere. Lost in the limitless, it appears with its\ninharmonious gods and heroes the supreme symbol of solitude. Siegfried,\nParzeval, Tristan, Hamlet, Faust are the loneliest heroes in all the\nCultures. Read the wondrous awakening of the inner life in Wolfram\u2019s\nParzeval. The longing for the woods, the mysterious compassion, the\nineffable sense of forsakenness\u2014it is all Faustian and only Faustian.\nEvery one of us knows it. The motive returns with all its profundity in\nthe Easter scene of Faust I.\n\n \u201cA longing pure and not to be described\n drove me to wander over woods and fields,\n and in a mist of hot abundant tears\n I felt a world arise and live for me.\u201d\n\nOf this world-experience neither Apollinian nor Magian man, neither\nHomer nor the Gospels, knows anything whatever. The climax of the poem\nof Wolfram, that wondrous Good Friday morning scene when the hero, at\nodds with God and with himself, meets the noble Gawan and resolves to go\non pilgrimage to Tevrezent, takes us to the heart of the _Faustian_\nreligion. Here one can feel the mystery of the Eucharist which binds the\ncommunicant to a mystic company, to a Church that alone can give bliss.\nIn the myth of the Holy Grail and its Knights one can feel the inward\nnecessity of the German-Northern Catholicism. In opposition to the\nClassical sacrifices offered to individual gods in separate temples,\nthere is here the _one never-ending_ sacrifice repeated everywhere and\nevery day. This is the Faustian idea of the 9th-11th Centuries, the Edda\ntime, foreshadowed by Anglo-Saxon missionaries like Winfried but only\nthen ripened. The Cathedral, with its High Altar enclosing the\naccomplished miracle, is its expression in stone.[199]\n\nThe plurality of separate bodies which represents Cosmos for the\nClassical soul, requires a similar pantheon\u2014hence the antique\npolytheism. The _single_ world-volume, be it conceived as cavern or as\nspace, demands the _single_ god of Magian or Western Christianity.\nAthene or Apollo might be represented by a statue, but it is and has\nlong been evident to our feeling that the Deity of the Reformation and\nthe Counter-Reformation can only be \u201cmanifested\u201d in the storm of an\norgan fugue or the solemn progress of cantata and mass. From the rich\nmanifold of figures in the Edda and contemporary legends of saints to\nGoethe our myth develops itself in steady opposition to the Classical\u2014in\nthe one case a continuous disintegration of the divine that culminated\nin the early Empire in an impossible multitude of deities, in the other\na process of simplification that led to the Deism of the 18th Century.\n\nThe Magian hierarchy of heaven\u2014angels, saints, persons of the Trinity\u2014\nhas grown paler and paler, more and more disembodied, in the sphere of\nthe Western pseudomorphosis,[200] supported though it was by the whole\nweight of Church authority, and even the Devil\u2014the great adversary in\nthe Gothic world-drama[201]\u2014has disappeared unnoticed from among the\npossibilities of the Faustian world-feeling. Luther could still throw\nthe inkpot at him, but he has been passed over in silence by perplexed\nProtestant theologians long ago. For the _solitude_ of the Faustian soul\nagrees not at all with a duality of world powers. God himself is the\nAll. About the end of the 17th Century this religiousness could no\nlonger be limited to pictorial expression, and instrumental music came\nas its last and only form-language: we may say that the Catholic faith\nis to the Protestant as an altar-piece is to an oratorio. But even the\nGermanic gods and heroes are surrounded by this rebuffing immensity and\nenigmatic gloom. They are steeped in music and in night, for daylight\ngives visual bounds and therefore shapes bodily things. Night eliminates\nbody, day soul. Apollo and Athene have no souls. On Olympus rests the\neternal light of the transparent southern day, and Apollo\u2019s hour is high\nnoon, when great Pan sleeps. But Valhalla is light-less, and even in the\nEddas we can trace that deep midnight of Faust\u2019s study-broodings, the\nmidnight that is caught by Rembrandt\u2019s etchings and absorbs Beethoven\u2019s\ntone colours. No Wotan or Baldur or Freya has \u201cEuclidean\u201d form. Of them,\nas of the Vedic gods of India, it can be said that they suffer not \u201cany\ngraven image or any likeness whatsoever\u201d; and this impossibility carries\nan implicit recognition that eternal space, and not the corporeal copy\u2014\nwhich levels them down, desecrates them, denies them\u2014is the supreme\nsymbol. This is the deep-felt motive that underlies the iconoclastic\nstorms in Islam and Byzantium (_both_, be it noted, of the 7th century),\nand the closely similar movement in our Protestant North. Was not\nDescartes\u2019s creation of the _anti-Euclidean_ analysis of space an\niconoclasm? The Classical geometry handles a number-world of day, the\nfunction-theory is the genuine mathematic of night.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n This zero, which probably contains a suggestion of the _Indian_ idea\n of extension\u2014of that spatiality of the world that is treated in the\n Upanishads and is entirely alien to our space-consciousness\u2014was of\n course wholly absent in the Classical. By way of the Arabian\n mathematics (which completely transformed its meaning) it reached the\n West, where it was only introduced in 1554 by Stipel, with its sense,\n moreover, again fundamentally changed, for it became the mean of +1\n and -1 as a cut in a linear continuum, i.e., it was assimilated to the\n Western number-world in a wholly un-Indian sense of _relation_.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n The word _H\u00f6hlengef\u00fchl_ is Leo Frobenius\u2019s (_Paideuma_, p. 92). (The\n Early-Christian Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem [A.D. 327] is\n built over a natural cave.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n Strzygowski\u2019s _Ursprung der Christlichen Kirchenkunst_ (1920), p. 80.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 101 et seq.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 345 et seq.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n M\u00fcller-Decker, _Die Etrusker_ (1877), II, pp. 128 et seq. Wissowa,\n _Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer_ (1912), p. 527. The oldest plan of\n Roma Quadrata was a \u201ctemplum\u201d whose limits had nothing to do with the\n building-up of the city but were connected with sacral rules, as the\n significance of this precinct (the \u201cPom\u0153rium\u201d) in later times shows. A\n \u201ctemplum,\u201d too, was the Roman camp whose rectangular outline is\n visible to-day in many a Roman-founded town; it was the consecrated\n area within which the army felt itself under the protection of its\n gods, and originally had nothing whatever to do with fortification,\n which is a product of Hellenistic times. (It may be added that Roman\n camps retained their rigidity of outline even where obvious \u201cmilitary\n considerations\u201d of ground, etc., must have suggested its\n modification.\u2014_Tr._) Most Roman stone-temples (\"_\u00e6des_\") were not\n \u201ctempla\u201d at all. On the other hand, the early Greek \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 of Homeric\n times must have had a similar significance.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n The student may consult the articles \u201cChurch History,\u201d \u201cMonasticism,\u201d\n \u201cEucharist\u201d and other articles therein referred to in the Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Britannica, XI Edition.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n English readers may remember that Cobbett (\u201cRural Rides,\u201d passim) was\n so impressed with the spaciousness of English country churches as to\n formulate a theory that medi\u00e6val England must have been more populous\n than modern England is.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n Cf. my introduction to Ernst Droem\u2019s _Ges\u00e4nge_, p. ix.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n The oldest and most mystical of the poems of the \u201cElder Edda.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 358 et seq.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 241 et seq.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 354.\n\n-----\n\n\n II\n\nThat which is expressed by the soul of the West in its extraordinary\nwealth of media\u2014words, tones, colours, pictorial perspectives,\nphilosophical systems, legends, the spaciousness of Gothic cathedrals\nand the formul\u00e6 of functions\u2014namely its world-feeling, is expressed by\nthe soul of Old Egypt (which was remote from all ambitions towards\ntheory and literariness) almost exclusively by the immediate language of\n_Stone_. Instead of spinning word-subtleties around its form of\nextension, its \u201cspace\u201d and its \u201ctime,\u201d instead of forming hypotheses and\nnumber-systems and dogmas, it set up its huge symbols in the landscape\nof the Nile in all silence. Stone is the great emblem of the Timeless-\nBecome; space and death seem bound up in it. \u201cMen have built for the\ndead,\u201d says Bachofen in his autobiography, \u201cbefore they have built for\nthe living, and even as a perishable wooden structure suffices for the\nspan of time that is given to the living, so the housing of the dead for\never demands the solid stone of the earth. The oldest cult is associated\nwith the stone that marks the place of burial, the oldest temple-\nbuilding with the tomb-structure, the origins of art and decoration with\nthe grave-ornament. Symbol has created itself in the graves. That which\nis thought and felt and silently prayed at the grave-side can be\nexpressed by no word, but only hinted by the boding symbol that stands\nin unchanging grave repose.\u201d The dead strive no more. They are no more\nTime, but only Space\u2014something that stays (if indeed it stays at all)\nbut does _not_ ripen towards a Future; and hence it is stone, the\nabiding stone, that expresses how the dead is mirrored in the waking\nconsciousness of the living. The Faustian soul looks for an immortality\nto follow the bodily end, a sort of marriage with endless space, and it\ndisembodies the stone in its Gothic thrust-system (contemporary, we may\nnote, with the \u201cconsecutives\u201d in Church music[202]) till at last nothing\nremained visible but the indwelling depth- and height-energy of this\nself-extension. The Apollinian soul would have its dead burned, would\nsee them annihilated, and so it remained averse from stone building\nthroughout the early period of its Culture. The Egyptian soul saw itself\nas moving down a narrow and inexorably-prescribed life-path to come at\nthe end before the judges of the dead (\u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d cap. 125).\nThat was its _Destiny-idea_. The Egyptian\u2019s existence is that of the\ntraveller who follows one unchanging direction, and the whole form-\nlanguage of his Culture is a translation into the sensible of this one\ntheme. And as we have taken _endless space_ as the prime symbol of the\nNorth and _body_ as that of the Classical, so we may take the word _way_\nas most intelligibly expressing that of the Egyptians. Strangely, and\nfor Western thought almost incomprehensibly, the one element in\nextension that they emphasize is that of direction in depth. The tomb-\ntemples of the Old Kingdom and especially the mighty pyramid-temples of\nthe Fourth Dynasty represent, not a purposed organization of space such\nas we find in the mosque and the cathedral, but a rhythmically ordered\n_sequence_ of spaces. The sacred way leads from the gate-building on the\nNile through passages, halls, arcaded courts and pillared rooms that\ngrow ever narrower and narrower, to the chamber of the dead,[203] and\nsimilarly the Sun-temples of the Fifth Dynasty are not \u201cbuildings\u201d but a\npath enclosed by mighty masonry.[204] The reliefs and the paintings\nappear always as rows which with an impressive compulsion lead the\nbeholder in a definite direction. The ram and sphinx avenues of the New\nEmpire have the same object. For the Egyptian, the depth-experience\nwhich governed his world-form was so emphatically directional that he\ncomprehended space more or less as a continuous process of\nactualization. There is nothing rigid about distance as expressed here.\nThe man must move, and so become himself a symbol of life, in order to\nenter into relation with the stone part of the symbolism. \u201cWay\u201d\nsignifies both Destiny and third dimension. The grand wall-surfaces,\nreliefs, colonnades past which he moves are \u201clength and breadth\u201d; that\nis, mere perceptions of the senses, and it is the forward-driving life\nthat _extends_ them into \u201cworld.\u201d Thus the Egyptian experienced space,\nwe may say, in and by the processional march along its distinct\nelements, whereas the Greek who sacrificed _outside_ the temple did not\nfeel it and the man of our Gothic centuries praying in the cathedral let\nhimself be immersed in the quiet infinity of it. And consequently the\nart of these Egyptians must aim at _plane_ effects and nothing else,\neven when it is making use of solid means. For the Egyptian, the pyramid\nover the king\u2019s tomb is a _triangle_, a huge, powerfully expressive\n_plane_ that, whatever be the direction from which one approaches,\ncloses off the \u201cway\u201d and commands the landscape. For him, the columns of\nthe inner passages and courts, with their dark backgrounds, their dense\narray and their profusion of adornments, appear entirely as vertical\nstrips which rhythmically accompany the march of the priests. Relief-\nwork is\u2014in utter contrast to the Classical\u2014carefully restricted in one\nplane; in the course of development dated by the Third to the Fifth\ndynasties it diminishes from the thickness of a finger to that of a\nsheet of paper, and finally it is _sunk_ in the plane.[205] The\ndominance of the horizontal, the vertical and the right angle, and the\navoidance of all foreshortening support the two-dimensional principle\nand serve to insulate this directional depth-experience which coincides\nwith the way and the grave at its end. It is an art that admits of no\ndeviation for the relief of the tense soul.\n\nIs not this an expression in the noblest language that it is possible to\nconceive of what all our space-theories would like to put into words? Is\nit not a metaphysic in stone by the side of which the written\nmetaphysics of Kant seems but a helpless stammering?\n\nThere is, however, another Culture that, different as it most\nfundamentally is from the Egyptian, yet found a closely-related prime\nsymbol. This is the Chinese, with its intensely directional principle of\nthe Tao.[206] But whereas the Egyptian treads to the end a way that is\nprescribed for him with an inexorable necessity, the Chinaman _wanders_\nthrough his world; consequently, he is conducted to his god or his\nancestral tomb not by ravines of stone, between faultless smooth walls,\nbut by friendly Nature herself. Nowhere else has the _landscape_ become\nso genuinely the material of the architecture. \u201cHere, on religious\nfoundations, there has been developed a grand lawfulness and unity\ncommon to all building, which, combined with the strict maintenance of a\nnorth-south general axis, always holds together gate-buildings, side-\nbuildings, courts and halls in the same homogeneous plan, and has led\nfinally to so grandiose a planning and such a command over ground and\nspace that one is quite justified in saying that the artist builds and\nreckons with the landscape itself.\u201d[207] The temple is not a self-\ncontained building but a lay-out, in which hills, water, trees, flowers,\nand stones in definite forms and dispositions are just as important as\ngates, walls, bridges and houses. This Culture is the only one in which\nthe art of gardening is a grand religious art. There are gardens that\nare reflections of particular Buddhist sects.[208] It is the\narchitecture of the landscape, and only that, which explains the\narchitecture of the buildings, with their flat extension and the\nemphasis laid on the roof as the really expressive element. And just as\nthe devious ways through doors, over bridges, round hills and walls lead\nat last to the end, so the paintings take the beholder from detail to\ndetail whereas Egyptian relief masterfully points him in the one set\ndirection. \u201cThe whole picture is _not_ to be taken at once. Sequence in\ntime presupposes a sequence of space-elements through which the eye is\nto wander from one to the next.\u201d[209] Whereas the Egyptian architecture\ndominates the landscape, the Chinese espouses it. But in both cases it\nis direction in depth that maintains the _becoming_ of space as a\ncontinuously-present experience.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n This refers to the diaphonic chant of Church music in the eleventh and\n twelfth centuries. The form of this chant is supposed to have been an\n accompaniment of the \u201cplain chant\u201d by voices moving parallel to it at\n a fourth, fifth, or octave.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n H\u00f6lscher, _Grabdenkmal des K\u00f6nigs Chephren_; Borchardt, _Grabdenkmal\n des Sahur\u00ea_; Curtius, _Die Antike Kunst_, p. 45.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 342; Borchardt, _Re-Heiligtum des Newoserri_; Ed.\n Mayer, _Geschichte des Altertums_, I, 251.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n \u201cRelief en creux\u201d; compare H. Sch\u00e4fer, _Von \u00e4gyptischer Kunst_ (1919),\n I, p. 41.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 350 et seq.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n O. Fischer, _Chinesische Landmalerei_ (1921), p. 24. What makes\n Chinese\u2014as also Indian\u2014art so difficult a study for us is the fact\n that all works of the early periods (namely, those of the Hwangho\n region from 1300 to 800 B.C. and of pre-Buddhist India) have vanished\n without a trace. But that which we now call \u201cChinese art\u201d corresponds,\n say, to the art of Egypt from the Twentieth Dynasty onward, and the\n great schools of painting find their parallel in the sculpture schools\n of the Sa\u00efte and Ptolemaic periods, in which an antiquarian preciosity\n takes the place of the living inward development that is no longer\n there. Thus from the examples of Egypt we are able to tell how far it\n is permissible to argue backwards to conclusions about the art of Ch\u00f3u\n and Vedic times.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n C. Glaser, _Die Kunst Ostasiens_ (1920), p. 181.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n Glaser, _op. cit._, p. 43.\n\n-----\n\n\n III\n\nAll art is _expression-language_.[210] Moreover, in its very earliest\nessays\u2014which extend far back into the animal world\u2014it is that of one\nactive existence speaking for itself only, and it is unconscious of\nwitnesses even though in the absence of such the impulse to expression\nwould not come to utterance. Even in quite \u201clate\u201d conditions we often\nsee, instead of the combination of artist and spectator, a crowd of art-\nmakers who _all_ dance or mime or sing. The idea of the \u201cChorus\u201d as sum\ntotal of persons present has never entirely vanished from art-history.\nIt is only the higher art that becomes decisively an art \u201cbefore\nwitnesses\u201d and especially (as Nietzsche somewhere remarks) before God as\nthe supreme witness.[211]\n\nThis expression is either _ornament_ or _imitation_. Both are _higher_\npossibilities and their polarity to one another is hardly perceptible in\nthe beginnings. Of the two, imitation is definitely the earlier and the\ncloser to the producing race. Imitation is the outcome of a physiognomic\nidea of a second person with whom (or which) the first is involuntarily\ninduced into resonance of vital rhythm (mitschwingen im); whereas\nornament evidences an ego conscious of its own specific character. The\nformer is widely spread in the animal world, the latter almost peculiar\nto man.\n\nImitation is born of the secret rhythm of all things cosmic. For the\nwaking being the One appears as discrete and extended; there is a Here\nand a There, a Proper and an Alien something, a Microcosm and a\nMacrocosm that are polar to one another in the sense-life, and what the\nrhythm of imitation does is to bridge this dichotomy. Every religion is\nan effort of the waking soul to reach the powers of the world-around.\nAnd so too is Imitation, which in its most devoted moments is wholly\nreligious, for it consists in an identity of inner activity between the\nsoul and body \u201chere\u201d and the world-around \u201cthere\u201d which, vibrating as\none, become one. As a bird poises itself in the storm or a float gives\nto the swaying waves, so our limbs take up an irresistible beat at the\nsound of march-music. Not less contagious is the imitation of another\u2019s\nbearing and movements, wherein children in particular excel. It reaches\nthe superlative when we \u201clet ourselves go\u201d in the common song or parade-\nmarch or dance that creates out of many units one unit of feeling and\nexpression, a \u201cwe.\u201d But a \u201csuccessful\u201d picture of a man or a landscape\nis also the outcome of a felt harmony of the pictorial motion with the\nsecret swing and sway of the living opposite; and it is this actualizing\nof physiognomic rhythm that requires the executant to be an adept who\ncan reveal the idea, the _soul_, of the alien in the play of its\nsurface. In certain unreserved moments we are all adepts of this sort,\nand in such moments, as we follow in an imperceptible rhythm the music\nand the play of facial expression, we suddenly look over the precipice\nand see great secrets. The aim of all imitation is effective simulation;\nthis means effective assimilation of ourselves into an alien something\u2014\nsuch a transposition and transubstantiation that the One lives\nhenceforth in the Other that it describes or depicts\u2014and it is able to\nawaken an intense feeling of unison over all the range from silent\nabsorption and acquiescence to the most abandoned laughter and down into\nthe last depths of the erotic, a unison which is inseparable from\ncreative activity. In this wise arose the popular circling-dances (for\ninstance, the Bavarian _Schuhplattler_ was originally imitated from the\ncourtship of the woodcocks) but this too is what Vasari means when he\npraises Cimabue and Giotto as the first who returned to the imitation of\n\u201cNature\u201d\u2014the Nature, that is, of springtime men, of which Meister Eckart\nsaid: \u201cGod flows out in all creatures, and therefore all created is\nGod.\u201d That which in this world-around presents itself to our\ncontemplation\u2014and therefore contains meaning for our feelings\u2014as\nmovement, we render by movement. Hence all imitation is in the broadest\nsense dramatic; drama is presented in the movement of the brush-stroke\nor the chisel, the melodic curve of the song, the tone of the\nrecitation, the line of poetry, the description, the dance. But\neverything that we _experience_ with and in seeings and hearings is\nalways an alien soul to which we are uniting ourselves. It is only at\nthe stage of the Megalopolis that art, reasoned to pieces and de-\nspiritualized, goes over to naturalism as that term is understood\nnowadays; viz., imitation of the charm of visible appearances, of the\nstock of sensible characters that are capable of being scientifically\nfixed.\n\nOrnament detaches itself now from Imitation as something which does not\nfollow the stream of life but rigidly _faces it_. Instead of\nphysiognomic traits overheard in the alien being, we have established\nmotives, _symbols_, which are impressed upon it. The intention is no\nlonger to pretend but to conjure. The \u201cI\u201d overwhelms the \u201cThou.\u201d\nImitation is only a _speaking_ with means that are born of the moment\nand unreproduceable\u2014but Ornament _employs a language_ emancipated from\nthe speaking, a stock of forms that possesses duration and is not at the\nmercy of the individual.[212]\n\nOnly the _living_ can be imitated, and it can be imitated only in\nmovements, for it is through these that it reveals itself to the senses\nof artists and spectators. To that extent, imitation belongs to Time and\nDirection. All the dancing and drawing and describing and portraying for\neye and ear is irrevocably \u201cdirectional,\u201d and hence the highest\npossibilities of Imitation lie in the copying of a destiny, be it in\ntones, verses, picture or stage-scene.[213] Ornament, on the contrary,\nis something taken away from Time: it is pure extension, settled and\nstable. Whereas an imitation expresses something by _accomplishing\nitself_, ornament can only do so by presenting itself to the senses as a\nfinished thing. It is Being as such, wholly independent of origin. Every\nimitation possesses beginning and end, while an ornament possesses only\nduration, and therefore we can only imitate the destiny of an\n_individual_ (for instance, Antigone or Desdemona), while by an ornament\nor symbol only the generalized destiny-idea itself can be represented\n(as, for example, that of the Classical world by the Doric column). And\nthe former presupposes a talent, while the latter calls for an\nacquirable knowledge as well.\n\nAll strict arts have their grammar and syntax of form-language, with\nrules and laws, inward logic and tradition. This is true not merely for\nthe Doric cabin-temple and Gothic cottage-cathedral, for the carving-\nschools of Egypt[214] and Athens and the cathedral plastic of northern\nFrance, for the painting-schools of the Classical world and those of\nHolland and the Rhine and Florence, but also for the fixed rules of the\nSkalds and Minnes\u00e4nger which were learned and practised as a craft (and\ndealt not merely with sentence and metre but also with gesture and the\nchoice of imagery[215]), for the narration-technique of the Vedic,\nHomeric and Celto-Germanic Epos, for the composition and delivery of the\nGothic sermon (both vernacular and Latin), and for the orators\u2019\nprose[216] in the Classical, and for the rules of French drama. In the\nornamentation of an art-work is reflected the inviolable causality of\nthe macrocosm as the man of the particular kind sees and comprehends it.\nBoth have system. Each is penetrated with the religious side of life\u2014\n_fear_ and love.[217] A genuine symbol can instil fear or can set free\nfrom fear; the \u201cright\u201d emancipates and the \u201cwrong\u201d hurts and depresses.\nThe imitative side of the arts, on the contrary, stands closer to the\nreal race-feelings of _hate_ and love, out of which arises the\nopposition of _ugly_ and _beautiful_. This is in relation only with the\nliving, of which the inner rhythm repels us or draws us into phase with\nit, whether it be that of the sunset-cloud or that of the tense breath\nof the machine. An imitation is beautiful, an ornament _significant_,\nand therein lies the difference between direction and extension, organic\nand inorganic logic, life and death. That which we think beautiful is\n\u201cworth copying.\u201d Easily it swings with us and draws us on to imitate, to\njoin in the singing, to repeat. Our hearts beat higher, our limbs\ntwitch, and we are stirred till our spirits overflow. But as it belongs\nto Time, it \u201chas its time.\u201d A symbol endures, but everything beautiful\nvanishes with the life-pulsation of the man, the class, the people or\nthe race that feels it as a specific beauty in the general cosmic\nrhythm.[218] The \u201cbeauty\u201d that Classical sculpture and poetry contained\nfor Classical eyes is something different from the beauty that they\ncontain for ours\u2014something extinguished irrecoverably with the Classical\nsoul\u2014while what we regard as beautiful in it is something that only\nexists for us. Not only is that which is beautiful for one kind of man\nneutral or ugly for another\u2014e.g., the whole of our music for the\nChinese, or Mexican sculpture for us. For _one and the same life_ the\naccustomed, the habitual, owing to the very fact of its possessing\nduration, cannot possess beauty.\n\nAnd now for the first time we can see the opposition between these two\nsides of every art in all its depth. Imitation spiritualizes and\nquickens, ornament enchants and kills. The one becomes, the other is.\nAnd therefore the one is allied to love and, above all\u2014in songs and riot\nand dance\u2014to the _sexual love_, which turns existence to face the\nfuture; and the other to care of the past, to recollection[219] and to\nthe _funerary_. The beautiful is longingly pursued, the significant\ninstils dread, and there is no deeper contrast than that between the\nhouse of the living and the house of the dead.[220] The peasant\u2019s\ncottage[221] and its derivative the country noble\u2019s hall, the fenced\ntown and the castle are mansions of life, unconscious expressions of\ncircling blood, that no art produced and no art can alter. The idea of\nthe family appears in the plan of the proto-house, the inner form of the\nstock in the plan of its villages\u2014which after many a century and many a\nchange of occupation still show what race it was that founded them[222]\u2014\nthe life of a nation and its social ordering in the plan (_not_ the\nelevation or silhouette) of the city.[223] On the other hand,\nOrnamentation of the high order develops itself on the stiff symbols of\ndeath, the urn, the sarcophagus, the stele and the temple of the\ndead,[224] and beyond these in gods\u2019 temples and cathedrals _which are\nOrnament through and through_, not the expressions of a race but the\nlanguage of a world-view. They are pure art through and through\u2014just\nwhat the castle and the cottage are not.[225]\n\nFor cottage and castle are _buildings in which_ art, and, specifically,\nimitative art, is _made and done_, the home of Vedic, Homeric and\nGermanic epos, of the songs of heroes, the dance of boors and that of\nlords and ladies, of the minstrel\u2019s lay. The cathedral, on the other\nhand, _is_ art, and, moreover, the only art by which _nothing_ is\nimitated; it alone is pure tension of persistent forms, pure three-\ndimensional logic that expresses itself in edges and surfaces and\nvolumes. But the art of villages and castles is derived from the\ninclinations of the moment, from the laughter and high spirit of feasts\nand games, and to such a degree is it dependent on Time, so much is it a\nthing of occasion, that the troubadour obtains his very name from\nfinding, while Improvisation\u2014as we see in the Tzigane music to-day\u2014is\nnothing but race manifesting itself to alien senses under the influence\nof the hour. To this free creative power all spiritual art opposes the\nstrict _school_ in which the individual\u2014in the hymn as in the work of\nbuilding and carving\u2014is the servant of a logic of timeless forms, and so\nin all Cultures the seat of its style-history is in its early cult\narchitecture. In the castle it is the life and not the structure that\npossesses style. In the town the plan is an image of the destinies of a\npeople, whereas the silhouette of emergent spires and cupolas tells of\nthe _logic in the builders\u2019 world-picture_, of the \u201cfirst and last\nthings\u201d of their universe.\n\nIn the architecture of the living, stone _serves a_ worldly _purpose_,\nbut in the architecture of the cult _it is a symbol_.[226] Nothing has\ninjured the history of the great architectures so much as the fact that\nit has been regarded as the history of architectural techniques instead\nof as that of architectural ideas which took their technical expression-\nmeans as and where they found them. It has been just the same with the\nhistory of musical instruments,[227] which also were developed on a\nfoundation of tone-language. Whether the groin and the flying buttress\nand the squinch-cupola were imagined specially for the great\narchitectures or were expedients that lay more or less ready to hand and\nwere taken into use, is for art-history a matter of as little importance\nas the question of whether, technically, stringed instruments originated\nin Arabia or in Celtic Britain. It may be that the Doric column was, as\na matter of workmanship, borrowed from the Egyptian temples of the New\nEmpire, or the late-Roman domical construction from the Etruscans, or\nthe Florentine court from the North-African Moors. Nevertheless the\nDoric peripteros, the Pantheon, and the Palazzo Farnese belong to wholly\ndifferent worlds\u2014they subserve the artistic expression of the prime-\nsymbol in three different Cultures.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 135 et seq.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n The monologue-art of very lonely natures is also in reality a\n conversation with self in the second person. But it is only in the\n intellectuality of the megalopolitan stages that the impulse to\n express is overcome by the impulse to communicate (see Vol. II, p.\n 135) which gives rise to that tendencious art that seeks to instruct\n or convert or prove views of a politico-social or moral character, and\n provokes the antagonistic formula of \u201cArt for Art\u2019s sake\u201d\u2014which is\n itself rather a view than a discipline, though it does at least serve\n to recall the primitive significance of artistic expression.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 138 et seq., and Worringer, _Abstraktion und\n Einf\u00fchrung_, pp. 66 et seq.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n Imitation, being life, is past in the very moment of accomplishment.\n The curtain falls, and it passes either into oblivion or, if the\n product is a durable artifact, into art-history. Of the songs and\n dances of old Cultures nothing remains, of their pictures and poems\n little. And even this little contains, substantially, only the\n ornamental side of the original imitation. Of a grand drama there\n remains only the text, not the image and the sound; of a poem only the\n words, not the recital; and of all their music the notes at most, not\n the tone-colours of the instruments. The essential is irrevocably\n gone, and every \u201creproduction\u201d is in reality something new and\n different.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n For the workshop of Thothmes at Tell-el-Amarna, see _Mitteilungen der\n Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, No. 52, pp. 28 et seq.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n K. Burdach, _Deutsche Renaissance_, p. 11. The pictorial art of the\n Gothic period also has its strict typism and symbolism.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n E. Norden, _Antike Kunst-prosa_, pp. 8 et seq.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 323.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n The translation is so far a paraphrase here that it is desirable to\n reproduce the German original: \u201cAlles Sch\u00f6ne vergeht mit dem\n Lebenspulsschlag (dessen) der es aus dem kosmischen Takt heraus als\n solches empfindet.\u201d\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n Hence the ornamental character of script.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n See p. 188.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 104.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n E.g., the Slavonic round-villages and Teutonic street-villages east of\n the Elbe. Similarly, conclusions can be drawn as to many of the events\n of the Homeric age from the distribution of round and rectangular\n buildings in ancient Italy.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 109.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n See p. 167.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 142 et seq.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n See p. 128.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n See p. 62.\n\n-----\n\n\n IV\n\nIn every springtime, consequently, there are _two_ definitely ornamental\nand non-imitative arts, that of building and that of decoration. In the\nlonging and pregnant centuries before it, elemental expression belongs\nexclusively to Ornamentation in the narrow sense. The Carolingian period\nis represented only by its ornament, as its architecture, for want of\nthe _Idea_, stands between the styles. And similarly, as a matter of\nart-history, it is immaterial that no buildings of the Mycen\u00e6an age have\nsurvived.[228] But with the dawn of the great Culture, _architecture as\nornament_ comes into being suddenly and with such a force of expression\nthat for a century mere decoration-as-such shrinks away from it in awe.\nThe spaces, surfaces and edges of stone speak _alone_. The tomb of\nChephren is the culmination of mathematical simplicity\u2014everywhere right\nangles, squares and rectangular pillars, nowhere adornment, inscription\nor desinence\u2014and it is only after some generations have passed that\nRelief ventures to infringe the solemn magic of those spaces and the\nstrain begins to be eased. And the noble Romanesque of Westphalia-Saxony\n(Hildesheim, Gernrode, Paulinzella, Paderborn), of Southern France and\nof the Normans (Norwich and Peterborough) managed to render the whole\nsense of the world with indescribable power and dignity in _one_ line,\n_one_ capital, _one_ arch.\n\nWhen the form-world of the springtime is at its highest, and not before,\nthe ordained relation is that architecture is lord and ornament is\nvassal. And the word \u201cornament\u201d is to be taken here in the widest\npossible sense. Even conventionally, it covers the Classical _unit_-\nmotive with its quiet poised symmetry or meander supplement, the _spun\nsurface_ of arabesque and the not dissimilar surface-patterning of Mayan\nart, and the \u201cThunder-pattern\u201d[229] and others of the early Ch\u00f3u period\nwhich prove once again the landscape basis of the old Chinese\narchitecture without a doubt. But the warrior figures of Dipylon vases\nare also conceived in the spirit of ornament, and so, in a far higher\ndegree still, are the statuary _groups_ of Gothic cathedrals. \u201cThe\nfigures were composed pillarwise from the spectator, the figures of the\npillar being, with reference to the spectator, ranked upon one another\nlike rhythmic figures in a symphony that soars heavenward and expands\nits sounds in every direction.\u201d[230] And besides draperies, gestures,\nand figure-types, even the structure of the hymn-strophe and the\nparallel motion of the parts in church music are ornament in the service\nof the all-ruling architectural idea.[231] The spell of the great\nOrnamentation remains unbroken till in the beginning of a \u201clate\u201d period\narchitecture falls into a _group_ of civic and worldly special arts that\nunceasingly devote themselves to pleasing and clever imitation and\nbecome _ipso facto_ personal. To Imitation and Ornament the same applies\nthat has been said already of time and space. Time gives birth to space,\nbut space gives death to time.[232] In the beginning, rigid symbolism\nhad petrified everything alive; the Gothic statue was not permitted to\nbe a living body, but was simply a set of lines disposed in human form.\nBut now Ornament loses all its sacred rigour and becomes more and more\ndecoration for the architectural setting of a polite and mannered life.\nIt was purely as this, namely _as a beautifying_ element, that\nRenaissance taste was adopted by the courtly and patrician world of the\nNorth (and by it alone!). Ornament meant something quite different in\nthe Egyptian Old Kingdom from what it meant in the Middle; in the\ngeometric period from what it meant in the Hellenistic; at the end of\nthe 12th Century from what it meant at the end of Louis XIV\u2019s reign. And\narchitecture too becomes pictorial and makes music, and its forms seem\nalways to be trying to imitate something in the picture of the world-\naround. From the Ionic capital we proceed to the Corinthian, and from\nVignola through Bernini to the Rococo.\n\nAt the last, when Civilization sets in, true ornament and, with it,\ngreat art as a whole are extinguished. The transition consists\u2014in every\nCulture\u2014in Classicism and Romanticism of one sort or another, the former\nbeing a sentimental regard for an Ornamentation (rules, laws, types)\nthat has long been archaic and soulless, and the latter a sentimental\nImitation, not of life, but of an older Imitation. In the place of\narchitectural style we find architectural taste. Methods of painting and\nmannerisms of writing, old forms and new, home and foreign, come and go\nwith the fashion. The inward necessity is no longer there, there are no\nlonger \u201cschools,\u201d for everyone selects what and where it pleases him to\nselect. _Art becomes craft-art_ (_Kunstgewerbe_) in all its branches\u2014\narchitecture and music, poetry and drama\u2014and in the end we have a\npictorial and literary stock-in-trade which is destitute of any deeper\nsignificance and is employed according to taste. This final or\nindustrial form of Ornament\u2014no longer historical, no longer in the\ncondition of \u201cbecoming\u201d\u2014we have before us not only in the patterns of\noriental carpets, Persian and Indian metal work,` Chinese porcelain, but\nalso in Egyptian (and Babylonian) art as the Greeks and Romans met it.\nThe Minoan art of Crete is pure craft-art, a northern outlier of\nEgyptian post-Hyksos taste; and its \u201ccontemporary,\u201d Hellenistic-Roman\nart from about the time of Scipio and Hannibal, similarly subserves the\nhabit of comfort and the play of intellect. From the richly-decorated\nentablature of the Forum of Nerva in Rome to the later provincial\nceramics in the West, we can trace the same steady formation of an\nunalterable craft-art that we find in the Egyptian and the Islamic\nworlds, and that we have to presume in India after Buddha and in China\nafter Confucius.\n\n V\n\nNow, Cathedral and Pyramid-temple are different in spite of their deep\ninward kinship, and it is precisely in these differences that we seize\nthe mighty phenomenon of the Faustian soul, whose depth-impulse refuses\nto be bound in the prime symbol of a way, and from its earliest\nbeginnings strives to transcend every optical limitation. Can anything\nbe more alien to the Egyptian conception of the State\u2014whose tendency we\nmay describe as a noble sobriety\u2014than the political ambitions of the\ngreat Saxon, Franconian and Hohenstaufen Emperors, who came to grief\nbecause they overleapt all political actualities and for whom the\nrecognition of any bounds would have been a betrayal of the idea of\ntheir rulership? Here the prime symbol of infinite space, with all its\nindescribable power, entered the field of active political existence.\nBeside the figures of the Ottos, Conrad II, Henry VI and Frederick II\nstand the Viking-Normans, conquerors of Russia, Greenland, England,\nSicily and almost of Constantinople; and the great popes, Gregory VII\nand Innocent III\u2014all of whom alike aimed at making their visible spheres\nof influence coincident with the whole known world. This is what\ndistinguishes the heroes of the Grail and Arthurian and Siegfried sagas,\never roaming in the infinite, from the heroes of Homer with their\ngeographically modest horizon; and the Crusades, that took men from the\nElbe and the Loire to the limits of the known world, from the historical\nevents upon which the Classical soul built the \u201cIliad\u201d and which from\nthe style of that soul we may safely assume to have been local, bounded,\nand completely appreciable.\n\nThe Doric soul actualized the symbol of the corporally-present\nindividual thing, while deliberately rejecting all big and far-reaching\ncreations, and it is for this very good reason that the first post-\nMycen\u00e6an period has bequeathed nothing to our arch\u00e6ologists. The\nexpression to which this soul finally attained was the Doric temple with\nits purely outward effectiveness, set upon the landscape as a massive\nimage but denying and artistically disregarding the space within as the\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44v, that which was held to be incapable of existence. The ranked\ncolumns of the Egyptians carried the roof of a hall. The Greek in\nborrowing the motive invested it with a meaning proper to himself\u2014he\nturned the architectural type inside out like a glove. The outer column-\nsets are, in a sense, relics of a denied interior.[233]\n\nThe Magian and the Faustian souls, on the contrary, built high. Their\ndream-images became concrete as vaultings above significant inner-\nspaces, structural anticipations respectively of the mathematic of\nalgebra and that of analysis. In the style that radiated from Burgundy\nand Flanders rib-vaulting with its lunettes and flying buttresses\nemancipated the contained space from the sense-appreciable surface[234]\nbounding it. In the Magian interior \"the window is merely a negative\ncomponent, a utility-form in no wise yet developed into an art-form\u2014to\nput it crudely, nothing but a hole in the wall.\"[235] When windows were\nin practice indispensable, they were for the sake of artistic impression\nconcealed by galleries as in the Eastern basilica.[236] The _window as\narchitecture_, on the other hand, is peculiar to the Faustian soul and\nthe most significant symbol of its depth-experience. In it can be felt\nthe will to emerge from the interior into the boundless. The same will\nthat is immanent in contrapuntal music was native to these vaultings.\nThe incorporeal world of this music was and remained that of the first\nGothic, and even when, much later, polyphonic music rose to such heights\nas those of the Matthew Passion, the Eroica, and Tristan and Parsifal,\nit became of inward necessity _cathedral-like_ and returned to its home,\nthe stone language of the Crusade-time. To get rid of every trace of\nClassical corporeality, there was brought to bear the full force of a\ndeeply significant Ornamentation, which defies the delimiting power of\nstone with its weirdly impressive transformations of vegetal, animal and\nhuman bodies (St. Pierre in Moissac), which dissolves all its lines into\nmelodies and variations on a theme, all its fa\u00e7ades into many-voiced\nfugues, and all the bodiliness of its statuary into a music of drapery-\nfolds. It is this spirituality that gave their deep meaning to the\ngigantic glass-expanses of our cathedral-windows with their polychrome,\n_translucent and therefore wholly bodiless_, painting\u2014an art that has\nnever and nowhere repeated itself and forms the completest contrast that\ncan be imagined to the Classical fresco. It is perhaps in the Sainte-\nChapelle at Paris that this emancipation from bodiliness is most\nevident. Here the stone practically vanishes in the gleam of the glass.\nWhereas the fresco-painting is co-material with the wall on and with\nwhich it has grown and its colour is effective as material, here we have\ncolours dependent on no carrying surface but as free in space as organ\nnotes, and shapes poised in the infinite. Compare with the Faustian\nspirit of these churches\u2014almost wall-less, loftily vaulted, irradiated\nwith many-coloured light, aspiring from nave to choir\u2014the Arabian (that\nis, the Early-Christian Byzantine) cupola-church. The pendentive cupola,\nthat seems to float on high above the basilica or the octagon, was\nindeed also a victory over the principle of natural gravity which the\nClassical expressed in architrave and column; it, too, was a defiance of\narchitectural body, of \u201cexterior.\u201d But the very absence of an exterior\nemphasizes the more the unbroken coherence of the wall that shuts in the\nCavern and allows no look and no hope to emerge from it. An ingeniously\nconfusing interpenetration of spherical and polygonal forms; a load so\nplaced upon a stone drum that it seems to hover weightless on high, yet\nclosing the interior without outlet; all structural lines concealed;\nvague light admitted, through a small opening in the heart of the dome\nbut only the more inexorably to emphasize the walling-in\u2014such are the\ncharacters that we see in the masterpieces of this art, S. Vitale in\nRavenna, Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and the Dome of the Rock[237]\nin Jerusalem. Where the Egyptian puts reliefs that with their flat\nplanes studiously avoid any foreshortening suggestive of lateral depth,\nwhere the Gothic architects put their pictures of glass to draw in the\nworld of space without, the Magian clothes his walls with sparkling,\npredominantly golden, mosaics and arabesques and so drowns his cavern in\nthat unreal, fairy-tale light which for Northerners is always so\nseductive in Moorish art.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n The same applies to the architecture of Thinite Egypt and to the\n Seleucid-Persian sun and fire temples of the pre-Christian area.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n The combination of scrolls and \u201cGreek keys\u201d with the Dragon or other\n emblem of storm-power.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n Dvor\u00e1k, _Idealismus und Naturalismus in der got. Skulptur u. Malerei_\n (_Hist. Zeitschrift_, 1918, pp. 44 et seq.).\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n And, finally, ornament in the highest sense includes _script_, and\n with it, the Book, which is the true associate of the cult-building,\n and as an art-work always appears and disappears with it. (See Vol.\n II, pp. 182. et seq., pp. 298 et seq.) In writing, it is understanding\n as distinct from intuition that attains to form: it is not essences\n that those signs symbolize but notions abstracted therefrom by words,\n and as for the speech-habituated human intellect rigid space is the\n presented objective, the writing of a Culture is (after its stone-\n building) the purest of all expressions of its prime-symbol. It is\n quite impossible to understand the history of Arabesque if we leave\n the innumerable Arabian scripts out of consideration, and it is no\n less impossible to separate Egyptian and Chinese style-history from\n the history of the corresponding writing-signs and their arrangement\n and application.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n See p. 173.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n Certainly the Greeks at the time when they advanced from the Ant\u00e6 to\n the Peripteros were under the mighty influence of the Egyptian\n _series_-columns\u2014it was at this time that their sculpture in the\n round, indisputably following Egyptian models, freed itself from the\n relief manner which still clings to the Apollo figures. But this does\n not alter the fact that the motive of the Classical column and the\n Classical application of the rank-principle were wholly and peculiarly\n Classical.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n The surface of the space-volume itself, not that of the stone. Dvor\u00e1k,\n _Hist. Ztschr._, 1918, pp. 17 et seq.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n Dehio, _Gesch. der deutschen Kunst_, I, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n For descriptions and illustrations of types of Doming and Vaulting,\n see the article _Vault_ in Ency. Brit., XI Ed.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n \u201cMosque of Omar.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\n-----\n\n\n VI\n\nThe phenomenon of the _great style_, then, is an emanation from the\nessence of the Macrocosm, from the prime-symbol of a _great_ culture. No\none who can appreciate the connotation of the word sufficiently to see\nthat it designates not a form-aggregate but a form-history, will try to\naline the fragmentary and chaotic art-utterances of primitive mankind\nwith the comprehensive certainty of a style that consistently develops\nover centuries. Only the art of great Cultures, the art that has ceased\nto be only art and has begun to be an effective unit of expression and\nsignificance, possesses style.\n\nThe organic history of a style comprises a \"pre\u2014,\" a \"non\u2014\" and a \"post\u2014\n.\" The bull tablet of the First Dynasty of Egypt[238] is not yet\n\u201cEgyptian.\u201d Not till the Third Dynasty do the works acquire a style\u2014but\nthen they do so suddenly and very definitely. Similarly the Carolingian\nperiod stands \u201cbetween-styles.\u201d We see different forms touched on and\nexplored, but nothing of inwardly necessary expression. The creator of\nthe Aachen Minster \u201cthinks surely and builds surely, but does not feel\nsurely.\u201d[239] The Marienkirche in the Castle of W\u00fcrzburg (c. 700) has\nits counterpart in Salonika (St. George), and the Church of St. Germigny\ndes Pr\u00e8s (c. 800) with its cupolas and horseshoe niches is almost a\nmosque. For the whole of West Europe the period 850-950 is almost a\nblank. And just so to-day Russian art stands between two styles. The\nprimitive wooden architecture with its steep eight-sided tent-roof\n(which extends from Norway to Manchuria) is impressed with Byzantine\nmotives from over the Danube and Armenian-Persian from over the\nCaucasus. We can certainly feel an \u201celective affinity\u201d between the\nRussian and the Magian souls, but as yet the prime symbol of Russia, the\n_plane without limit_,[240] finds no sure expression either in religion\nor in architecture. The church roof emerges, hillock-wise, but little\nfrom the landscape and on it sit the tent-roofs whose points are coifed\nwith the \u201ckokoshniks\u201d that suppress and would abolish the upward\ntendency. They neither tower up like the Gothic belfry nor enclose like\nthe mosque-cupola, but _sit_, thereby emphasizing the horizontality of\nthe building, which is meant to be regarded merely from the outside.\nWhen about 1760 the Synod forbade the tent roofs and prescribed the\northodox onion-cupolas, the heavy cupolas were set upon slender\ncylinders, of which there may be any number[241] and which sit on the\nroof-plane.[242] It is not yet a style, only the promise of a style that\nwill awaken when the real Russian religion awakens.\n\nIn the Faustian West, this awakening happened shortly before A.D. 1000.\nIn one moment, the Romanesque style was there. Instead of the fluid\norganization of space on an insecure ground plan, there was, suddenly, a\nstrict dynamic of space. From the very beginning, inner and outer\nconstruction were placed in a fixed relation, the wall was penetrated by\nthe form-language and the form worked into the wall in a way that no\nother Culture has ever imagined. From the very beginning the window and\nthe belfry were invested with their meanings. The form was irrevocably\nassigned. Only its development remained to be worked out.\n\nThe Egyptian style began with another such creative act, just as\nunconscious, just as full of symbolic force. The prime symbol of the Way\ncame into being suddenly with the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty (2930\nB.C.). The world-creating depth-experience of this soul gets its\nsubstance from the direction-factor itself. Spatial depth as stiffened\nTime, distance, death, Destiny itself dominate the expression, and the\nmerely sensuous dimensions of length and breadth become an escorting\nplane which restricts and prescribes the Way of destiny. The Egyptian\nflat-relief, which is designed to be seen at close quarters and arranged\nserially so as to compel the beholder to pass along the wall-planes in\nthe prescribed direction, appears with similar suddenness about the\nbeginning of the Fifth Dynasty.[243] The still later avenues of sphinxes\nand statues and the rock- and terrace-temples constantly intensify that\ntendency towards the one distance that the world of Egyptian mankind\nknows, the grave. Observe how soon the colonnades of the early period\ncome to be systems of huge, close-set pillars that _screen off_ all\nside-view. This is something that has never reproduced itself in any\nother architecture.\n\nThe grandeur of this style appears to us as rigid and unchanging. And\ncertainly it stands beyond the passion which is ever seeking and fearing\nand so imparts to subordinate characters a quality of restless personal\nmovement in the flow of the centuries. But, vice versa, we cannot doubt\nthat to an Egyptian the Faustian style (which _is_ our style, from\nearliest Romanesque to Rococo and Empire) would with its unresting\npersistent search for a Something, appear far more uniform than we can\nimagine. It follows, we must not forget, from the conception of style\nthat we are working on here, that Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance,\nBaroque and Rococo are only _stages of one and the same style_, in which\nit is naturally the variable that we and the constant that men of other\neyes remark. In actual fact, the inner unity of the Northern Renaissance\nis shown in innumerable reconstructions of Romanesque work in Baroque\nand of late Gothic work in Rococo that are not in the least startling.\nIn peasant art, Gothic and Baroque have been identical, and the streets\nof old towns with their pure harmony of all sorts of gables and fa\u00e7ades\n(wherein definite attributions to Romanesque or Gothic Renaissance or\nBaroque or Rococo are often quite impossible) show that the family\nresemblance between the members is far greater than they themselves\nrealize.\n\nThe Egyptian style was purely architectural, and remained so till the\nEgyptian soul was extinguished. It is the only one in which\nOrnamentation as a decorative supplement to architecture is entirely\nabsent. It allowed of no divergence into arts of entertainment, no\ndisplay-painting, no busts, no secular music. In the Ionic phase, the\ncentre of gravity of the Classical style shifted from architecture to an\nindependent plastic art; in that of the Baroque the style of the West\npassed into music, whose form-language in its turn ruled the entire\nbuilding art of the 18th Century; in the Arabian world, after Justinian\nand Chosroes-Nushirvan, Arabesque dissolved all the forms of\narchitecture, painting and sculpture into style-impressions that\nnowadays we should consider as craft-art. But in Egypt the sovereignty\nof architecture remained unchallenged; it merely softened its language a\nlittle. In the chambers of the pyramid-temple of the Fourth Dynasty\n(Pyramid of Chephren) there are unadorned angular pillars. In the\nbuildings of the Fifth (Pyramid of Sahu-r\u00ea) the plant-column makes its\nappearance. Lotus and papyrus branches turned into stone arise gigantic\nout of a pavement of transparent alabaster that represents water,\nenclosed by purple walls. The ceiling is adorned with birds and stars.\nThe sacred way from the gate-buildings to the tomb-chamber, the picture\nof life, is a stream\u2014it is the Nile itself become one with the prime-\nsymbol of direction. The spirit of the mother-landscape unites with the\nsoul that has sprung from it.\n\nIn China, in lieu of the awe-inspiring pylon with its massy wall and\nnarrow entrance, we have the \u201cSpirit-wall\u201d (yin-pi) that conceals the\nway in. The Chinaman slips into life and thereafter follows the Tao of\nlife\u2019s path; as the Nile valley is to the up-and-down landscape of the\nHwang Ho, so is the stone-enclosed temple-way to the mazy paths of\nChinese garden-architecture. And just so, in some mysterious fashion,\nthe Euclidean existence is linked with the multitude of little islands\nand promontories of the \u00c6gean, and the passionate Western, roving in the\ninfinite, with the broad plains of Franconia and Burgundy and Saxony.\n\n VII\n\nThe Egyptian style is the expression of a _brave_ soul. The rigour and\nforce of it Egyptian man himself never felt and never asserted. He dared\nall, but said nothing. In Gothic and Baroque, on the contrary, the\ntriumph over heaviness became a perfectly conscious motive of the form-\nlanguage. The drama of Shakespeare deals openly with the desperate\nconflict of will and world. Classical man, again, was weak in the face\nof the \u201cpowers.\u201d The \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of fear and pity, the _relief and\nrecovery_ of the Apollinian soul in the moment of the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 was,\naccording to Aristotle, the effect deliberately aimed at in Attic\ntragedy. As the Greek spectator watched _someone whom he knew_ (for\neveryone knew the myth and its heroes and lived in them) senselessly\nmaltreated by fortune, without any conceivable possibility of resistance\nto the Powers, and saw him go under with splendid mien, defiant, heroic,\nhis own Euclidean soul experienced a marvellous uplifting. If life was\nworthless, at any rate the _grand gesture_ in losing it was not so. The\nGreek willed nothing and dared nothing, but he found a stirring beauty\nin _enduring_. Even the earlier figures of Odysseus the patient, and,\nabove all, Achilles the archetype of Greek manhood, have this\ncharacteristic quality. The morale of the Cynics, that of the Stoics,\nthat of Epicurus, the common Greek ideals of \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 and \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u1f30\u03b1,\nDiogenes devoting himself to \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 in a tub\u2014all this is masked\ncowardice in the face of grave matters and responsibilities, and\ndifferent indeed from the pride of the Egyptian soul. Apollinian man\ngoes below ground out of life\u2019s way, even to the point of suicide, which\n_in this Culture alone_ (if we ignore certain related Indian ideals)\nranked as a high ethical act and was treated with the solemnity of a\nritual symbol.[244] The Dionysiac intoxication seems a sort of furious\ndrowning of uneasinesses that to the Egyptian soul were utterly unknown.\nAnd consequently the Greek Culture is that of the small, the easy, the\nsimple. Its technique is, compared with Egyptian or Babylonian, a clever\nnullity.[245] No ornamentation shows such a poverty of invention as\ntheirs, and their stock of sculptural positions and attitudes could be\ncounted on one\u2019s fingers. \u201cIn its poverty of forms, which is conspicuous\neven allowing that at the beginning of its development it may have been\nbetter off than it was later, the Doric style pivoted everything on\nproportions and on measure.\u201d[246] Yet, even so, what adroitness in\navoiding! The Greek architecture with its commensuration of load and\nsupport and its peculiar smallness of scale suggests a persistent\nevasion of difficult architectural problems that on the Nile and, later,\nin the high North were literally looked for, which moreover were known\nand certainly not burked in the Mycen\u00e6an age. The Egyptian loved the\nstrong stone of immense buildings; it was in keeping with his self-\nconsciousness that he should choose only the hardest for his task. But\nthe Greek avoided it; his architecture first set itself small tasks,\nthen ceased altogether. If we survey it as a whole, and then compare it\nwith the totality of Egyptian or Mexican or even, for that matter,\nWestern architecture, we are astounded at the feeble development of the\nstyle. A few variations of the Doric temple and it was exhausted. It was\nalready closed off about 400 when the Corinthian capital was invented,\nand everything subsequent to this was merely modification of what\nexisted.\n\nThe result of this was an almost bodily standardization of form-types\nand style-species. One might choose between them, but never overstep\ntheir strict limits\u2014that would have been in some sort an admission of an\ninfinity of possibilities. There were three orders of columns and a\ndefinite disposition of the architrave corresponding to each; to deal\nwith the difficulty (considered, as early as Vitruvius, as a conflict)\nwhich the alternation of triglyphs and metopes produced at the corners,\nthe nearest intercolumniations were narrowed\u2014no one thought of imagining\nnew forms to suit the case. If greater dimensions were desired, the\nrequirements were met by superposition, juxtaposition, etc., of\nadditional elements. Thus the Colosseum possesses three rings, the\nDidym\u00e6um of Miletus three rows of columns in front, and the Frieze of\nthe Giants of Pergamum an endless succession of individual and\nunconnected motives. Similarly with the style-species of prose and the\ntypes of lyric poetry, narrative and tragedy. Universally, the\nexpenditure of powers on the basic form is restricted to the minimum and\nthe creative energy of the artist directed to detail-fineness. It is a\nstatical treatment of static genera, and it stands in the sharpest\npossible contrast to the dynamic fertility of the Faustian with its\nceaseless creation of new types and domains of form.\n\n VIII\n\nWe are now able to see the _organism_ in a great style-course. Here, as\nin so many other matters, Goethe was the first to whom vision came. In\nhis \u201cWinckelmann\u201d he says of Velleius Paterculus: \u201cwith his standpoint,\nit was not given to him to see all art as a living thing (\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd) that\nmust have an inconspicuous beginning, a slow growth, a brilliant moment\nof fulfilment and a gradual decline like every other organic being,\nthough it is presented in a set of individuals.\u201d This sentence contains\nthe entire morphology of art-history. Styles do not follow one another\nlike waves or pulse-beats. It is not the personality or will or brain of\nthe artist that makes the style, but the style that makes the _type_ of\nthe artist. The style, like the Culture, is a prime phenomenon in the\nstrictest Goethian sense, be it the style of art or religion or thought,\nor the style of life itself. It is, as \u201cNature\u201d is, an ever-new\nexperience of waking man, his alter ego and mirror-image in the world-\naround. And therefore in the general historical picture of a Culture\nthere can be but one style, _the style of the Culture_. The error has\nlain in treating mere style-phases\u2014Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, Rococo,\nEmpire\u2014as if they were styles on the same level as units of quite\nanother order such as the Egyptian, the Chinese (or even a\n\u201cprehistoric\u201d) style. Gothic and Baroque are simply the youth and age of\none and the same vessel of forms, the style of the West as ripening and\nripened. What has been wanting in our art-research has been detachment,\nfreedom from prepossessions, and the will to abstract. Saving ourselves\ntrouble, we have classed any and every form-domain that makes a strong\nimpression upon us as a \u201cstyle,\u201d and it need hardly be said that our\ninsight has been led astray still further by the Ancient-Medi\u00e6val-Modern\nscheme. But in reality, even a masterpiece of strictest Renaissance like\nthe court of the Palazzo Farnese is infinitely nearer to the arcade-\nporch of St. Patroclus in Soest, the interior of the Magdeburg\ncathedral, and the staircases of South-German castles of the 18th\nCentury than it is to the Temple of P\u00e6stum or to the Erechtheum. The\nsame relation exists between Doric and Ionic, and hence Ionic columns\ncan be as completely combined with Doric building forms as late Gothic\nis with early Baroque in St. Lorenz at N\u00fcrnberg, or late Romanesque with\nlate Baroque in the beautiful upper part of the West choir at Mainz. And\nour eyes have scarcely yet learned to distinguish within the Egyptian\nstyle the Old Kingdom and Middle Empire elements corresponding to Doric\nand Gothic youth and to Ionic and Baroque maturity, because from the\nTwelfth Dynasty these elements interpenetrate in all harmony in the\nform-language of all the greater works.\n\nThe task before art-history is to write the _comparative biographies of\nthe great styles_, all of which as organisms of the same genus possess\nstructurally cognate life histories.\n\nIn the beginning there is the timid, despondent, naked expression of a\nnewly-awakened soul which is still seeking for a relation between itself\nand the world that, though its proper creation, yet is presented as\nalien and unfriendly. There is the child\u2019s fearfulness in Bishop\nBernward\u2019s building at Hildesheim, in the Early-Christian catacomb-\npainting, and in the pillar-halls of the Egyptian Fourth Dynasty. A\nFebruary of art, a deep presentiment of a coming wealth of forms, an\nimmense suppressed tension, lies over the landscape that, still wholly\nrustic, is adorning itself with the first strongholds and townlets. Then\nfollows the joyous mounting into the high Gothic, into the Constantinian\nage with its pillared basilicas and its domical churches, into the\nrelief-ornament of the Fifth-Dynasty temple. _Being_ is understood, a\nsacred form-language has been completely mastered and radiates its\nglory, and the Style ripens into a majestic symbolism of directional\ndepth and of Destiny. But fervent youth comes to an end, and\ncontradictions arise within the soul itself. The Renaissance, the\nDionysiac-musical hostility to Apollinian Doric, the Byzantine of 450\nthat looks to Alexandria and away from the overjoyed art of Antioch,\nindicate a moment of resistance, of effective or ineffective impulse to\ndestroy what has been acquired. It is very difficult to elucidate this\nmoment, and an attempt to do so would be out of place here.\n\nAnd now it is the manhood of the style-history that comes on. The\nCulture is changing into the intellectuality of the great cities that\nwill now dominate the country-side, and _pari passu_ the style is\nbecoming intellectualized also. The grand symbolism withers; the riot of\nsuperhuman forms dies down; milder and more worldly arts drive out the\ngreat art of developed stone. Even in Egypt sculpture and fresco are\nemboldened to lighter movement. The _artist_ appears, and \u201cplans\u201d what\nformerly grew out of the soil. Once more existence becomes self-\nconscious and now, detached from the land and the dream and the mystery,\nstands questioning, and wrestles for an expression of its new duty\u2014as at\nthe beginning of Baroque when Michelangelo, in wild discontent and\nkicking against the limitations of his art, piles up the dome of St.\nPeter\u2019s\u2014in the age of Justinian I which built Hagia Sophia and the\nmosaic-decked domed basilicas of Ravenna\u2014at the beginning of that\nTwelfth Dynasty in Egypt which the Greeks condensed under the name of\nSesostris\u2014and at the decisive epoch in Hellas (c. 600) whose\narchitecture probably, nay certainly, expressed that which is echoed for\nus in its grandchild \u00c6schylus.\n\nThen comes the gleaming autumn of the style. Once more the soul depicts\nits happiness, this time conscious of self-completion. The \u201creturn to\nNature\u201d which already thinkers and poets\u2014Rousseau, Gorgias and their\n\u201ccontemporaries\u201d in the other Cultures\u2014begin to feel and to proclaim,\nreveals itself in the form-world of the arts as a sensitive longing and\n_presentiment of the end_. A perfectly clear intellect, joyous urbanity,\nthe sorrow of a parting\u2014these are the colours of these last Culture-\ndecades of which Talleyrand was to remark later: \u201cQui n\u2019a pas v\u00e9cu avant\n1789 ne conna\u00eet pas la douceur de vivre.\u201d So it was, too, with the free,\nsunny and superfine art of Egypt under Sesostris III (c. 1850 B.C.) and\nthe brief moments of satiated happiness that produced the varied\nsplendour of Pericles\u2019s Acropolis and the works of Zeuxis and Phidias. A\nthousand years later again, in the age of the Ommaiyads, we meet it in\nthe glad fairyland of Moorish architecture with its fragile columns and\nhorseshoe arches that seem to melt into air in an iridescence of\narabesques and stalactites. A thousand years more, and we see it in the\nmusic of Haydn and Mozart, in Dresden shepherdesses, in the pictures of\nWatteau and Guardi, and the works of German master-builders at Dresden,\nPotsdam, W\u00fcrzburg and Vienna.\n\nThen the style fades out. The form-language of the Erechtheum and the\nDresden Zwinger, honeycombed with intellect, fragile, ready for self-\ndestruction, is followed by the flat and senile Classicism that we find\nin the Hellenistic megalopolis, the Byzantium of 900 and the \u201cEmpire\u201d\nmodes of the North. The end is a sunset reflected in forms revived for a\nmoment by pedant or by eclectic\u2014semi-earnestness and doubtful\ngenuineness dominate the world of the arts. We to-day are in this\ncondition\u2014playing a tedious game with dead forms to keep up the illusion\nof a living art.\n\n IX\n\nNo one has yet perceived that Arabian art is a single phenomenon. It is\nan idea that can only take shape when we have ceased to be deceived by\nthe crust which overlaid the young East with post-Classical art-\nexercises that, whether they were imitation-antique or chose their\nelements from proper or alien sources at will, were in any case long\npast all inward life; when we have discovered that Early Christian art,\ntogether with every really living element in \u201clate-Roman,\u201d is in fact\nthe springtime of the _Arabian style_; and when we see the epoch of\nJustinian I as exactly on a par with the Spanish-Venetian Baroque that\nruled Europe in the great days of Charles V or Philip II, and the\npalaces of Byzantium and their magnificent battle-pictures and pageant-\nscenes\u2014the vanished glories that inspired the pens of courtly literati\nlike Procopius\u2014on a par with the palaces of early Baroque in Madrid,\nVienna and Rome and the great decorative-painting of Rubens and\nTintoretto. This Arabian style embraces the entire first millennium of\nour era. It thus stands at a critical position in the picture of a\ngeneral history of \u201cArt,\u201d and its organic connectedness has been\nimperceptible under the erroneous conventions thereof.[247]\n\nStrange and\u2014if these studies have given us the eye for things latent\u2014\nmoving it is to see how this young Soul, held in bondage to the\nintellect of the Classical and, above all, to the political omnipotence\nof Rome, dares not rouse itself into freedom but humbly subjects itself\nto obsolete value-forms and tries to be content with Greek language,\nGreek ideas and Greek art-elements. Devout acceptance of the powers of\nthe strong day is present in every young Culture and is the sign of its\nyouth\u2014witness the humility of Gothic man in his pious high-arched spaces\nwith their pillar-statuary and their light-filled pictures in glass, the\nhigh tension of the Egyptian soul in the midst of its world of pyramids,\nlotus-columns and relief-lined halls. But in this instance there is the\nadditional element of an intellectual prostration before forms really\ndead but supposedly eternal. Yet in spite of all, the taking-over and\ncontinuance of these forms came to nothing. Involuntarily, unobserved,\nnot supported by an inherent pride as Gothic was, but felt, there in\nRoman Syria, almost as a lamentable come-down, a whole new form-world\ngrew up. Under a mask of Gr\u00e6co-Roman conventions, it filled even Rome\nitself. The master-masons of the Pantheon and the Imperial Fora were\n_Syrians_. In no other example is the primitive force of a young soul so\nmanifest as here, where it has to make its own world by sheer conquest.\n\nIn this as in every other Culture, Spring seeks to express its\nspirituality in a new ornamentation and, above all, in religious\narchitecture as the sublime form of that ornamentation. But of all this\nrich form-world the only part that (till recently) has been taken into\naccount has been the Western edge of it, which consequently has been\nassumed to be the true home and habitat of Magian style-history. In\nreality, in matters of style as in those of religion, science and\nsocial-political life, what we find there is only an irradiation from\noutside the Eastern border of the Empire.[248] Riegl[249] and\nStrzygowski[250] have discovered this, but if we are to go further and\narrive at a conspectus of the development of Arabian art we have to shed\nmany philological and religious prepossessions. The misfortune is that\nour art-research, although it no longer recognizes the religious\nfrontiers, nevertheless unconsciously assumes them. For there is in\nreality no such thing as a Late-Classical nor an Early-Christian nor yet\nan Islamic art in the sense of an art proper to each of those faiths and\nevolved by the community of believers as such. On the contrary, the\ntotality of these religions\u2014from Armenia to Southern Arabia and Axum,\nand from Persia to Byzantium and Alexandria\u2014possess a broad uniformity\nof artistic expression that overrides the contradictions of detail.[251]\n_All_ these religions, the Christian, the Jewish, the Persian, the\nManich\u00e6an, the Syncretic,[252] possessed cult-buildings and (at any rate\nin their script) an Ornamentation of the first rank; and however\ndifferent the items of their dogmas, they are all pervaded by an\nhomogeneous religiousness and express it in a homogeneous symbolism of\ndepth-experience. There is something in the basilicas of Christianity,\nHellenistic, Hebrew and Baal-cults, and in the Mithr\u00e6um,[253] the\nMazdaist fire-temple and the Mosque, that tells of a like spirituality:\nit is the _Cavern_-feeling.\n\nIt becomes therefore the bounden duty of research to seek to establish\nthe hitherto completely neglected architecture of the South-Arabian and\nPersian temple, the Syrian and the Mesopotamian synagogue, the cult-\nbuildings of Eastern Asia Minor and even Abyssinia;[254] and in respect\nof Christianity to investigate no longer merely the Pauline West but\nalso the Nestorian East that stretched from the Euphrates to China,\nwhere the old records significantly call its buildings \u201cPersian\ntemples.\u201d If in all this building practically nothing has, so far,\nforced itself specially upon our notice, it is fair to suppose that both\nthe advance of Christianity first and that of Islam later could change\nthe religion of a place of worship without contradicting its plan and\nstyle. We know that this is the case with Late Classical temples: but\nhow many of the churches in Armenia may once have been fire-temples?\n\nThe artistic centre of this Culture was very definitely\u2014as Strzygowski\nhas observed\u2014in the triangle of cities Edessa, Nisibis, Amida.\nTo the westward of it is the domain of the Late-Classical\n\u201cPseudomorphosis,\u201d[255] the Pauline Christianity that conquered in the\ncouncils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,[256] Western Judaism and the cults of\nSyncretism. _The architectural type of the Pseudomorphosis_, both for\nJew and Gentile, is the Basilica.[257] It employs the means of the\nClassical to express the opposite thereof, and is unable to free itself\nfrom these means\u2014that is the essence and the tragedy of\n\u201cPseudomorphosis.\u201d The more \u201cClassical\u201d Syncretism modifies a cult that\nis resident in a Euclidean place into one which is _professed by a\ncommunity_ of indefinite estate, the more the interior of the temple\ngains in importance over the exterior without needing to change either\nplan or roof or columns very much. The space-feeling is different, but\nnot\u2014at first\u2014the means of expressing it. In the pagan religious\narchitecture of the Imperial Age there is a perceptible\u2014though never yet\nperceived\u2014movement from the wholly corporeal Augustan temple, in which\nthe cella is the architectural expression of _nothingness_, to one in\nwhich the interior _only_ possesses meaning. Finally the external\npicture of the Peripteros of the Doric is transferred to the four inside\nwalls. Columns ranked in front of a windowless wall are a denial of\nspace beyond\u2014that is, for the Classical beholder, of space within, and\nfor the Magian, of space without. It is therefore a question of minor\nimportance whether the entire space is covered in as in the Basilica\nproper, or only the sanctuary as in the Sun-temple of Baalbek with the\ngreat forecourt,[258] which later becomes a standing element of the\nmosque and is probably of South Arabian origin.[259] That the Nave\noriginates in a court surrounded by halls is suggested not only by the\nspecial development of the basilica-type in the East Syrian steppe\n(particularly Hauran) but also by the basic disposition of porch, nave\nand choir as stages leading to the altar\u2014for the aisles (originally the\nside-halls of the court) end blind, and only the nave proper corresponds\nwith the apse. This basic meaning is very evident in St. Paul at Rome,\nalbeit the Pseudomorphosis (inversion of the Classical temple) dictated\nthe technical means, viz., column and architrave. How symbolic is the\nChristian reconstruction of the Temple of Aphrodisias in Caria, in which\nthe cella within the columns is abolished and replaced by a new wall\noutside them.[260]\n\nOutside the domain of the \u201cPseudomorphosis,\u201d on the contrary, the\ncavern-feeling was free to develop its own form-language, and here\ntherefore it is _the definite roof that is emphasized_ (whereas in the\nother domain the protest against the Classical feeling led merely to the\ndevelopment of an _interior_). When and where the various possibilities\nof dome, cupola, barrel-vaulting, rib-vaulting, came into existence as\ntechnical methods is, as we have already said, a matter of no\nsignificance. What is of decisive importance is the fact that about the\ntime of Christ\u2019s birth and the rise of the new world-feeling, the new\nspace-symbolism must have begun to make use of these forms and to\ndevelop them further in expressiveness. It will very likely come to be\nshown that the fire-temples and synagogues of Mesopotamia (and possibly\nalso the temples of Athtar in Southern Arabia) were originally cupola-\nbuildings.[261] Certainly the pagan marna-temple at Gaza was so, and\nlong before Pauline Christianity took possession of these forms under\nConstantine, builders of Eastern origin had introduced them, as\nnovelties to please the taste of the Megalopolitans, into all parts of\nthe Roman Empire. In Rome itself, Apollodorus of Damascus was employed\nunder Trajan for the vaulting of the temple of \u201cVenus and Rome,\u201d and the\ndomed chambers of the Baths of Caracalla and the so-called \u201cMinerva\nMedica\u201d of Gallienus\u2019s time were built by Syrians. But the masterpiece,\n_the earliest of all Mosques_, is the Pantheon as rebuilt by Hadrian.\nHere, without a doubt, the emperor was imitating, for the satisfaction\nof his own taste, cult-buildings that he had seen in the East.[262]\n\nThe architecture of the central-dome, in which the Magian world-feeling\nachieved its purest expression, extended beyond the limits of the Roman\nEmpire. For the Nestorian Christianity that extended from Armenia even\ninto China it was the only form, as it was also for the Manich\u00e6ns and\nthe Mazdaists, and it also impressed itself victoriously upon the\nBasilica of the West when the Pseudomorphosis began to crumble and the\nlast cults of Syncretism to die out. In Southern France\u2014where there were\nManich\u00e6an sects even as late as the Crusades\u2014the form of the East was\ndomesticated. Under Justinian, the interpenetration of the two produced\nthe domical basilica of Byzantium and Ravenna. The pure basilica was\npushed into the Germanic West, there to be transformed by the energy of\nthe Faustian depth-impulse into the cathedral. The domed basilica,\nagain, spread from Byzantium and Armenia into Russia, where it came by\nslow degrees to be felt as an element of exterior architecture belonging\nto a symbolism concentrated in the roof. But in the Arabian world Islam,\nthe heir of Monophysite and Nestorian Christianity and of the Jews and\nthe Persians, carried the development through to the end. When it turned\nHagia Sophia into a mosque it only resumed possession of an old\nproperty. Islamic domical building followed Mazdaist and Nestorian along\nthe same tracks to Shan-tung and to India. Mosques grew up in the far\nWest in Spain and Sicily, where, moreover, the style appears rather in\nits East-Aram\u00e6an-Persian than in its West-Aram\u00e6an-Syrian mode.[263] And\nwhile Venice looked to Byzantium and Ravenna (St. Mark), the brilliant\nage of the Norman-Hohenstaufen rule in Palermo taught the cities of the\nItalian west coast, and even Florence, to admire and to imitate these\nMoorish buildings. More than one of the motives that the Renaissance\nthought were Classical\u2014e.g., the court surrounded by halls and the union\nof column and arch\u2014really originated thus.\n\nWhat is true as regards architecture is even more so as regards\nornamentation, which in the Arabian world very early overcame all\nfigure-representation and swallowed it up in itself. Then, as\n\u201carabesque,\u201d it advanced to meet, to charm and to mislead the young art-\nintention of the West.\n\nThe early-Christian-Late-Classical art of the Pseudomorphosis shows the\nsame ornament-_plus_-figure mixture of the inherited \u201calien\u201d and the\ninborn \u201cproper\u201d as does the Carolingian-Early Romanesque of (especially)\nSouthern France and Upper Italy. In the one case Hellenistic\nintermingles with Early-Magian, in the other Mauro-Byzantine with\nFaustian. The researcher has to examine line after line and ornament\nafter ornament to detect the form-feeling which differentiates the one\nstratum from the other. In every architrave, in every frieze, there is\nto be found a secret battle between the conscious old and the\nunconscious, but victorious, new motives. One is confounded by this\ngeneral interpenetration of the Late-Hellenistic and the Early-Arabian\nform-senses, as one sees it, for example, in Roman portrait-busts (here\nit is often only in the treatment of the hair that the new way of\nexpression is manifested); in the acanthus-shoots which show\u2014often on\none and the same frieze\u2014chisel-work and drill-work side by side; in the\nsarcophagi of the 3rd Century in which a childlike feeling of the Giotto\nand Pisano character is entangled with a certain late and megalopolitan\nNaturalism that reminds one more or less of David or Carstens; and in\nbuildings such as the Basilica of Maxentius[264] and many parts of the\nBaths and the Imperial Fora that are still very Classical in conception.\n\nNevertheless, the Arabian soul was cheated of its maturity\u2014like a young\ntree that is hindered and stunted in its growth by a fallen old giant of\nthe forest. Here there was no brilliant instant _felt and experienced as\nsuch_, like that of ours in which, simultaneously with the Crusades, the\nwooden beams of the Cathedral roof locked themselves into rib-vaulting\nand an interior was made to actualize and fulfil the idea of infinite\nspace. The political creation of Diocletian was shattered in its glory\nupon the fact that, standing as he did on Classical ground, he had to\naccept the whole mass of the administrative tradition of Urbs Roma; this\nsufficed to reduce his work to a mere reform of obsolete conditions. And\nyet he was the first of the Caliphs. With him, the idea of the Arabian\nState emerges clearly into the light. It is Diocletian\u2019s dispensation,\ntogether with that of the Sassanids which preceded it somewhat and\nserved in all respects as its model, that gives us the first notion of\nthe ideal that ought to have gone on to fulfilment here. But so it was\nin all things. To this very day we admire as last creations of the\nClassical\u2014because we cannot or will not regard them otherwise\u2014the\nthought of Plotinus and Marcus Aurelius, the cults of Isis, Mithras and\nthe Sun-God, the Diophantine mathematics and, lastly, the whole of the\nart which streamed towards us from the Eastern marches of the Roman\nEmpire and for which Antioch and Alexandria were merely _points\nd\u2019appui_.\n\nThis alone is sufficient to explain the intense vehemence with which the\nArabian Culture, when released at length from artistic as from other\nfetters, flung itself upon all the lands that had inwardly belonged to\nit for centuries past. It is the sign of a soul that feels itself in a\nhurry, that notes in fear the first symptoms of old age before it has\nhad youth. This emancipation of Magian mankind is without a parallel.\nSyria is conquered, or rather _delivered_, in 634. Damascus falls in\n637, Ctesiphon in 637. In 641 Egypt and India are reached, in 647\nCarthage, in 676 Samarkand, in 710 Spain. And in 732 the Arabs stood\nbefore Paris. Into these few years was compressed the whole sum of\nsaved-up passions, postponed hopes, reserved deeds, that in the slow\nmaturing of other Cultures suffice to fill the history of centuries. The\nCrusaders before Jerusalem, the Hohenstaufen in Sicily, the Hansa in the\nBaltic, the Teutonic Knights in the Slavonic East, the Spaniards in\nAmerica, the Portuguese in the East Indies, the Empire of Charles V on\nwhich the sun never set, the beginnings of England\u2019s colonial power\nunder Cromwell\u2014the equivalent of all this was shot out in _one_\ndischarge that carried the Arabs to Spain and France, India and\nTurkestan.\n\nTrue, all Cultures (the Egyptian, the Mexican and the Chinese excepted)\nhave grown up under the tutelage of some older Culture. Each of the\nform-worlds shows certain alien traits. Thus, the Faustian soul of the\nGothic, already predisposed to reverence by the Arabian origin of\nChristianity, grasped at the treasures of Late-Arabian art. An\nunmistakably Southern, one might even say an Arabian, Gothic wove itself\nover the fa\u00e7ades of the Burgundian and Proven\u00e7al cathedrals, dominated\nwith a magic of stone the outward language of Strassburg Minster, and\nfought a silent battle in statues and porches, fabric-patterns, carvings\nand metalwork\u2014and not less in the intricate figures of scholastic\nphilosophy and in that intensely Western symbol, the Grail legend[265]\u2014\nwith the Nordic prime-feeling of _Viking Gothic_ that rules the interior\nof the Magdeburg Cathedral, the points of Freiburg Minster and the\nmysticism of Meister Eckart. More than once the pointed arch threatens\nto burst its restraining line and to transform itself into the horseshoe\narch of Moorish-Norman architecture.\n\nSo also the Apollinian art of the Doric spring\u2014whose first efforts are\npractically lost to us\u2014doubtless took over Egyptian elements to a very\nlarge extent, and by and through these came to its own proper symbolism.\n\nBut the Magian soul of the Pseudomorphosis had not the courage to\nappropriate alien means _without yielding to them_. And this is why the\nphysiognomic of the Magian soul has still so much to disclose to the\nquester.\n\n X\n\nThe idea of the Macrocosm, then, which presents itself in the style-\nproblem as simplified and capable of treatment, poses a multitude of\ntasks for the future to tackle. To make the form-world of the arts\navailable as a means of penetrating the spirituality of entire Cultures\u2014\nby handling it in a thoroughly physiognomic and symbolic spirit\u2014is an\nundertaking that has not hitherto got beyond speculations of which the\ninadequacy is obvious. We are hardly as yet aware that there may be a\npsychology of the metaphysical bases of all great architectures. We have\nno idea what there is to discover in the change of meaning that a form\nof _pure extension_ undergoes when it is taken over into another\nCulture. The history of the column has never yet been written, nor have\nwe any notion of the deeply symbolic significances that reside in the\nmeans and the instruments of art.\n\nConsider mosaic. In Hellenic times it was made up of pieces of marble,\nit was opaque and corporeal-Euclidean (e.g., the famous Battle of Issus\nat Naples), and it adorned the floor. But with the awakening of the\nArabian soul it came to be built up of pieces of glass and set in fused\ngold, and it simply covered the walls and roofs of the domed basilica.\nThis Early-Arabian Mosaic-picturing corresponds exactly, as to phase,\nwith the glass-picturing of Gothic cathedrals, both being \u201cearly\u201d arts\nancillary to religious architectures. The one by letting in the light\nenlarges the church-space into world-space, while the other transforms\nit into the magic, gold-shimmering sphere which bears men away from\nearthly actuality into the visions of Plotinus, Origen, the Manich\u00e6ans,\nthe Gnostics and the Fathers, and the Apocalyptic poems.\n\nConsider, again, the beautiful notion of _uniting the round arch and the\ncolumn_; this again is a Syrian, if not a North-Arabian, creation of the\nthird (or \u201chigh Gothic\u201d) century.[266] The revolutionary importance of\nthis motive, which is specifically Magian, has never in the least degree\nbeen recognized; on the contrary, it has always been assumed to be\nClassical, and for most of us indeed it is even representatively\nClassical. The Egyptians ignored any deep relation between the roof and\nthe column; the latter was for them a plant-column, and represented not\nstoutness but growth. Classical man, in his turn, for whom the\nmonolithic column was the mightiest symbol of Euclidean existence\u2014all\nbody, all unity, all steadiness\u2014connected it, in the strictest\nproportions of vertical and horizontal, of strength and load, with his\narchitrave. But here, in this union of arch and column which the\nRenaissance in its tragicomic deludedness admired as expressly Classical\n(though it was a notion that the Classical neither possessed nor could\npossess), the bodily principle of load and inertia is rejected and the\narch is made to spring clear and open out of the slender column. The\nidea actualized here is at once a liberation from all earth-gravity and\na capture of space, and between this element and that of the dome which\nsoars free but yet encloses the great \u201ccavern,\u201d there is the deep\nrelation of like meaning. The one and the other are eminently and\npowerfully Magian, and they come to their logical fulfilment in the\n\u201cRococo\u201d stage of Moorish mosques and castles, wherein ethereally\ndelicate columns\u2014often growing out of, rather than based on, the ground\u2014\nseem to be empowered by some secret magic to carry a whole world of\ninnumerable notched arcs, gleaming ornaments, stalactites, and vaultings\nsaturated with colours. The full importance of this basic form of\nArabian architecture may be expressed by saying that the combination of\ncolumn and architrave is the Classical, that of column and round arch\nthe Arabian, and that of pillar and pointed arch the Faustian Leitmotiv.\n\nTake, further, the history of the Acanthus motive.[267] In the form in\nwhich it appears, for example, on the Monument of Lysicrates at Athens,\nit is one of the most distinctive in Classical ornamentation. It has\nbody, it is and remains individual, and its structure is capable of\nbeing taken in at one glance. But already it appears heavier and richer\nin the ornament of the Imperial Fora (Nerva\u2019s, Trajan\u2019s) and that of the\ntemple of Mars Ultor; the organic disposition has become so complicated\nthat, as a rule, it requires to be studied, and the tendency to _fill\nup_ the surfaces appears. In Byzantine art\u2014of which Riegl thirty years\nago noticed the \u201clatent Saracenic character\u201d though he had no suspicion\nof the connexion brought to light here\u2014the acanthus leaf was broken up\ninto endless tendril-work which (as in Hagia Sophia) is disposed quite\ninorganically over whole surfaces. To the Classical motive are added the\nold-Aram\u00e6an vine and palm leaves, which have already played a part in\nJewish ornamentation. The interlaced borders of \u201cLate-Roman\u201d mosaic\npavements and sarcophagus-edges, and even geometrical plane-patterns are\nintroduced, and finally, throughout the Persian-Anatolian world,\nmobility and _bizarrerie_ culminate in the Arabesque. _This_ is the\ngenuine Magian motive\u2014anti-plastic to the last degree, hostile to the\npictorial and to the bodily alike. Itself bodiless, it disembodies the\nobject over which its endless richness of web is drawn. A masterpiece of\nthis kind\u2014a piece of architecture completely opened out into\nOrnamentation\u2014is the fa\u00e7ade of the Castle of Mashetta in Moab built by\nthe Ghassanids.[268] The craft-art of Byzantine-Islamic style (hitherto\ncalled Lombard, Frankish, Celtic or Old-Nordic) which invaded the whole\nyouthful West and dominated the Carolingian Empire, was largely\npractised by Oriental craftsmen or imported as patterns for our own\nweavers, metal-workers and armourers.[269] Ravenna, Lucca, Venice,\nGranada, Palermo were the efficient centres of this then highly-\ncivilized form-language; in the year 1000, when in the North the forms\nof a new Culture were already being developed and established, Italy was\nstill entirely dominated by it.\n\nTake, lastly, the changed point of view towards the human body. With the\nvictory of the Arabian world-feeling, men\u2019s conception of it underwent a\ncomplete revolution. In almost every Roman head of the period 100-250\nthat the Vatican Collection contains, one may perceive the opposition of\nApollinian and Magian feeling, and of muscular position and \u201clook\u201d as\ndifferent bases of expression. Even in Rome itself, since Hadrian, the\nsculptor made constant use of the drill, an instrument which was wholly\nrepugnant to the Euclidean feeling towards stone\u2014for whereas the chisel\nbrings out the limiting surfaces and _ipso facto_ affirms the corporeal\nand material nature of the marble block, the drill, in breaking the\nsurfaces and creating effects of light and shade, denies it; and\naccordingly the sculptors, be they Christian or \u201cpagan,\u201d lose the old\nfeeling for the phenomenon of the naked body. One has only to look at\nthe shallow and empty Antinous statues\u2014and yet these were quite\ndefinitely \u201cClassical.\u201d Here it is only the head that is\nphysiognomically of interest\u2014as it never is in Attic sculpture. The\ndrapery is given quite a new meaning, and simply dominates the whole\nappearance. The consul-statues in the Capitoline Museum[270] are\nconspicuous examples. The pupils are bored, and the eyes look into the\ndistance, so that the whole expression of the work lies no longer in its\nbody but in that Magian principle of the \u201cPneuma\u201d which Neo-Platonism\nand the decisions of the Church Councils, Mithraism and Mazdaism alike\npresume in man.\n\nThe pagan \u201cFather\u201d Iamblichus, about 300, wrote a book concerning\nstatues of gods in which the divine is substantially present and working\nupon the beholder.[271] Against this idea of the image\u2014an idea of the\nPseudomorphosis\u2014the East and the South rose in a storm of iconoclasm;\nand the sources of this iconoclasm lay in a conception of artistic\ncreation that is nearly impossible for us to understand.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n H. Sch\u00e4fer, _Von Aegyptischer Kunst_, I, pp. 15 et seq.\n\n (The bulls are shown in Fig. 18 in the article _Egypt_ in the\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, XI Edition, Vol. IX, pp. 65-66.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n Frankl, _Baukunst des Mittelalters_ (1918), pp. 16 et seq.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 361 et seq. The lack of any vertical tendency in the\n Russian life-feeling is perceptible also in the saga-figure of Ilya\n Murometz (see Vol. II, p. 231). The Russian has not the smallest\n relation with a _Father_-God. His ethos is not a filial but purely a\n _fraternal_ love, radiating in all directions along the human plane.\n Christ, even, is conceived as a Brother. The Faustian, wholly\n vertical, tendency to strive up to fulfilment is to the real Russian\n an incomprehensible pretension. The same absence of all vertical\n tendency is observable in Russian ideas of the state and property.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n The cemetery church of Kishi has 22.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n J. Grabar, \u201cHistory of Russian Art\u201d (Russian, 1911), I-III. Eliasberg,\n _Russ. Baukunst_ (1922), Introduction.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n The disposition of Egyptian and that of Western history are so clear\n as to admit of comparison being carried right down into the details,\n and it would be well worth the expert\u2019s while to carry out such an\n investigation. The Fourth Dynasty, that of the strict Pyramid style,\n B.C. 2930-2750 (Cheops, Chephren), corresponds to the Romanesque (980-\n 1100), the Fifth Dynasty (2750-2625, Sahu-r\u00ea) to the early Gothic\n (1100-1230), and the Sixth Dynasty, prime of the archaic portraiture\n (2625-2475, Phiops I and II), to the mature Gothic of 1230-1400.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n That which differentiates the Japanese harakiri from this suicide is\n its intensely purposeful and (so to put it) active and demonstrative\n character.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 626.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n Koldewey-Puchstein, _Die griech. Tempel in Unter-Italien und\n Sizilien_, I, p. 228.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n See Vol. II, Chapter III.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 240 et seq.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n _Stilfragen, Grundlage zu einer Geschichte der Ornamentik_ (1893).\n _Spatr\u00f6mische Kunstindustrie_ (1901).\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n _Amida_ (1910). _Die bildende Kunst des Ostens_ (1916), _Altai-Iran_\n (1917). _Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa_ (1918).\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n These contradictions of detail are not greater, after all, than those\n between Doric, Attic and Etruscan art, and certainly less than those\n which existed about 1450 between Florentine Renaissance, North French,\n Spanish and East-German (brick) Gothic.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 304 et seq.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n For a brief description of the components of a Mithr\u00e6um, the student\n may be referred to the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, XI Edition, art.\n Mithras (Section II).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n The oldest Christian designs in the Empire of Axum undoubtedly agree\n with the pagan work of the Sab\u00e6ans.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 143 et seq.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 316 et seq.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n Kohl & Watzinger, _Antike Synagogen in Galil\u00e3a_ (1916). The Baal-\n shrines in Palmyra, Baalbek and many other localities are basilicas:\n some of them are older than Christianity and many of them were later\n taken over into Christian use.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n Frauberger, _Die Akropolis von Baalbek_, plate 22. (See Ency. Brit.,\n XI Edition, art. \u201cBaalbek,\u201d for plan, etc.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n Diez, _Die Kunst der islamischen V\u00f6lker_, pp. 8 et seq. In old Sab\u00e6an\n temples the altar-court (mahdar) is in front of the oracle chapel\n (makanat).\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n Wulff, _Altchristliche und byzantinische Kunst_, p. 227.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n Pliny records that this region was rich in temples. It is probable\n that the type of the transept-basilica\u2014i.e., with the entrance in one\n of the long sides\u2014which is found in Hauran and is distinctly marked in\n the tranverse direction of the altar space of St. Paul Without at\n Rome, is derived from a South Arabian archetype. (For the Hauran type\n of church see Ency. Brit., XI Ed., Vol. II, p. 390; and for St. Paul\n Without, Vol. III, p. 474.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n Neither technically nor in point of space-feeling has this piece of\n purely _interior_ architecture any connexion whatever with Etruscan\n round-buildings. (Altmann, _Die ital. Rundbauten_, 1906.) With the\n cupolas of Hadrian\u2019s Villa at Tibur (Tivoli), on the contrary, its\n affinity is evident.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n Probably synagogues of domical type reached these regions, and also\n Morocco, long before Islam, through the missionary enterprise of\n Mesopotamian Judaism (see Vol. II, p. 253), which was closely allied\n in matters of taste to Persia. The Judaism of the Pseudomorphosis, on\n the contrary, built basilicas; its Roman catacombs show that\n artistically it was entirely on a par with Western Christianity. Of\n the two, it is the Jud\u00e6o-Persian style coming from Spain that has\n become the pattern for the synagogues of the West\u2014a point that has\n hitherto entirely escaped the notice of art-research.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n Generally called the \u201cBasilica of Constantine.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n The Grail legend contains, besides old Celtic, well-marked Arabian\n elements; but where Wolfram von Eschenbach goes beyond his model\n Chrestien de Troyes, his Parzival is entirely Faustian. (See articles\n _Grail_ and _Perceval_, Ency. Brit., XI Ed.)\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n The relation of column and arch spiritually corresponds to that of\n wall and cupola, and the interposition of the drum between the\n rectangle and the dome occurs \u201csimultaneously\u201d with that of the impost\n between the column and the arch.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n A. Riegl, _Stilfragen_ (1893), pp. 248 et seq., 272 et seq.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n The Ghassanid Kingdom flourished in the extreme North-west of Arabia\n during the sixth century of our reckoning. Its people were essentially\n Arab, and probably came from the south; and an outlying cousinry\n inhabited Medina in the time of the Prophet.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n Dehio, _Gesch. der deutschen Kunst_, I, pp. 16 et seq.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n Wulff, _Altchristl.-byzant. Kunst_, pp. 153 et seq.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 315, Geffcken, _Der Ausgang des griech-r\u00f6m.\n Heidentums_ (1920), p. 113.\n\n-----\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII | | MUSIC AND PLASTIC\n I\n THE ARTS OF FORM\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n MUSIC AND PLASTIC\n\n\n I\n THE ARTS OF FORM\n\n I\n\nThe clearest type of symbolic expression that the world-feeling of\nhigher mankind has found for itself is (if we except the mathematical-\nscientific domain of presentation and the symbolism of its basic ideas)\nthat of the arts of form,[272] of which the number is legion. _And with\nthese arts we count music_ in its many and very dissimilar kinds; had\nthese been brought within the domain of art-historical research instead\nof being put in a class apart from that of the pictorial-plastic arts,\nwe should have progressed very much further in our understanding of the\nimport of this evolution towards an end. For the formative impulse that\nis at work in the _wordless_[273] arts can never be understood until we\ncome to regard the distinction between optical and acoustic means as\nonly a superficial one. To talk of the art of the eye and the art of the\near takes us no further. It is not such things that divide one art from\nanother. Only the 19th Century could so over-estimate the influence of\n_physiological_ conditions as to apply it to expression, conception or\ncommunion. A \u201csinging\u201d picture of Claude Lorrain or of Watteau does not\nreally address itself to the bodily eye any more than the space-\nstraining music since Bach addresses itself to the bodily ear. The\nClassical relation between art-work and sense-organ\u2014of which we so often\nand so erroneously remind ourselves here\u2014is something quite different\nfrom, something far simpler and more material than ours. We _read_\n\u201cOthello\u201d and \u201cFaust\u201d and we study orchestral scores\u2014that is, we change\none sense-agency for another in order to let the undiluted spirit of\nthese works take effect upon us. Here there is always an appeal from the\nouter senses to the \u201cinner,\u201d to the truly Faustian and wholly un-\nClassical power of imagination. Only thus can we understand\nShakespeare\u2019s ceaseless change of scene as against the Classical unity\nof place. In extreme cases indeed, for instance in that of \u201cFaust\u201d\nitself, no representation of the work (that is, of its full content) is\nphysically possible. But in music too\u2014in the unaccompanied \u201cA capella\u201d\nof the Palestrina style as well as _a fortiori_ in the Passions of\nHeinrich Sch\u00fctz, in the fugues of Bach, in the last quartets of\nBeethoven, and in \u201cTristan\u201d\u2014we livingly experience _behind_ the sensuous\nimpressions a whole world of others. And it is only through these latter\nthat all the fullness and depth of the work begins to be present to us,\nand it is only mediately\u2014through the images of blond, brown, dusky and\ngolden colours, of sunsets and distant ranked mountain-summits, of\nstorms and spring landscapes, of foundered cities and strange faces\nwhich harmony conjures up for us\u2014that it tells us something of itself.\nIt is not an incident that Beethoven wrote his last works when he was\ndeaf\u2014deafness merely released him from the last fetters. For this music,\nsight and hearing _equally_ are bridges into the soul and nothing more.\nTo the Greek this visionary kind of artistic enjoyment was utterly\nalien. He _felt_ the marble with his eye, and the thick tones of an\naulos moved him almost _corporally_. For him, eye and ear are the\nreceivers of the _whole_ of the impression that he wished to receive.\nBut for us this had ceased to be true even at the stage of Gothic.\n\nIn the actual, tones are something extended, limited and numerable just\nas lines and colours are; harmony, melody, rhyme and rhythm no less so\nthan perspective, proportion, chiaroscuro and outline. The distance\nseparating two kinds of painting can be infinitely greater than that\nseparating the painting and the music of a period. Considered in\nrelation to a statue of Myron, the art of a Poussin landscape is the\nsame as that of a contemporary chamber-cantata; that of Rembrandt as\nthat of the organ works of Buxtehude, Pachelbel and Bach; that of Guardi\nas that of the Mozart opera\u2014the _inner_ form-language is so nearly\nidentical that the difference between optical and acoustic means is\nnegligible.\n\nThe importance which the \u201cscience of art\u201d has always attached to a\ntimeless and conceptual delimitation of the individual art-spheres only\nproves that the fundamentals of the problem have not been attacked. Arts\nare living units, and the living is incapable of being dissected. The\nfirst act of the learned pedant has always been to partition the\ninfinitely wide domain into provinces determined by perfectly\nsuperficial criteria of medium and technique and to endow these\nprovinces with eternal validity and immutable (!) form-principles. Thus\nhe separated \u201cMusic\u201d and \u201cPainting,\u201d \u201cMusic\u201d and \u201cDrama,\u201d \u201cPainting\u201d and\n\u201cSculpture.\u201d And then he proceeded to define \u201cthe\u201d art of Painting,\n\u201cthe\u201d art of Sculpture, and so on. But in fact the technical form-\nlanguage is no more than the _mask_ of the real work. Style is not what\nthe shallow Semper\u2014worthy contemporary of Darwin and materialism\u2014\nsupposed it to be, the product of material, technique, and purpose. It\nis the very opposite of this, something inaccessible to art-reason, a\nrevelation of the metaphysical order, a mysterious \u201cmust,\u201d a Destiny.\nWith the material boundaries of the different arts it has no concern\nwhatever.\n\nTo classify the arts according to the character of the sense-impression,\nthen, is to pervert the problem of form in its very enunciation. For how\nis it possible to predicate a genus \u201cSculpture\u201d of so general a\ncharacter as to admit of general laws being evolved from it? What _is_\n\u201cSculpture?\u201d\n\nTake painting again. There is no such thing as \u201c_the_\u201d art of Painting,\nand anyone who compares a drawing of Raphael, effected by outline, with\none of Titian, effected by flecks of light and shade, without feeling\nthat they belong to two different arts; any one who does not realize a\ndissimilarity of essence between the works of Giotto or Mantegna\u2014relief,\ncreated by brushstroke\u2014and those of Vermeer or Goya\u2014music, created on\ncoloured canvas\u2014such a one will never grasp the deeper questions. As for\nthe frescoes of Polygnotus and the mosaics of Ravenna, there is not even\nthe similarity of technical means to bring them within the alleged\ngenus, and what is there in common between an etching and the art of Fra\nAngelico, or a proto-Corinthian vase-painting and a Gothic cathedral-\nwindow, or the reliefs of Egypt and those of the Parthenon?\n\nIf an art has boundaries at all\u2014boundaries of its soul-become-form\u2014they\nare historical and not technical or physiological boundaries.[274] An\nart is an organism, not a system. There is no art-genus that runs\nthrough all the centuries and all the Cultures. Even where (as in the\ncase of the Renaissance) supposed technical traditions momentarily\ndeceive us into a belief in the eternal validity of antique art-laws,\nthere is at bottom entire discrepance. There is _nothing_ in Greek and\nRoman art that stands in any relation whatever to the form-language of a\nDonatello statue or a painting of Signorelli or a fa\u00e7ade of\nMichelangelo. _Inwardly_, the Quattrocento is related to the\ncontemporary Gothic and to nothing else. The fact of the archaic Greek\nApollo-type being \u201cinfluenced\u201d by Egyptian portraiture, or early Tuscan\nrepresentation by Etruscan tomb-painting, implies precisely what is\nimplied by that of Bach\u2019s writing a fugue upon an alien theme\u2014he shows\nwhat he can express with it. Every individual art\u2014Chinese landscape or\nEgyptian plastic or Gothic counterpoint\u2014is _once existent_, and departs\nwith its soul and its symbolism never to return.\n\n II\n\nWith this, the notion of Form opens out immensely. Not only the\ntechnical instrument, not only the form-language, but also _the choice\nof art-genus itself_ is seen to be an expression-means. What the\ncreation of a masterpiece means for an individual artist\u2014the \u201cNight\nWatch\u201d for Rembrandt or the \u201cMeistersinger\u201d for Wagner\u2014that the creation\nof a _species_ of art, comprehended as such, means for the life-history\nof a Culture. It is epochal. Apart from the merest externals, each such\nart is an individual organism without predecessor or successor. Its\ntheory, technique and convention all belong to its character, and\ncontain nothing of eternal or universal validity. When one of these arts\nis born, when it is spent, whether it dies or is transmuted into\nanother, why this or that art is dominant in or absent from a particular\nCulture\u2014all these are questions of Form in the highest sense, just as is\nthat other question of why individual painters and musicians\nunconsciously avoid certain shades and harmonies or, on the contrary,\nshow preferences so marked that authorship-attributions can be based on\nthem.\n\nThe importance of these groups of questions has not yet been recognized\nby theory, even by that of the present day. And yet it is precisely from\nthis side, the side of their physiognomic, that the arts are accessible\nto the understanding. Hitherto it has been supposed\u2014without the\nslightest examination of the weighty questions that the supposition\ninvolves\u2014that the several \u201carts\u201d specified in the conventional\nclassification-scheme (the validity of which is assumed) are all\n_possible_ at all times and places, and the absence of one or another of\nthem in particular cases is attributed to the accidental lack of\ncreative personalities or impelling circumstances or discriminating\npatrons to guide \u201cart\u201d on its \u201cway.\u201d Here we have what I call a\ntransference of the causality-principle from the world of the become to\nthat of the becoming. Having no eye for the perfectly different logic\nand necessity of the Living, for Destiny and the inevitableness and\n_unique occurrence_ of its expression-possibilities, men had recourse to\ntangible and obvious \u201ccauses\u201d for the building of their art-history,\nwhich thus came to consist of a series of events of only superficial\nconcordance.\n\nI have already, in the earliest pages of this work, exposed the\nshallowness of the notion of a linear progression of \u201cmankind\u201d through\nthe stages of \u201cancient,\u201d \u201cmedi\u00e6val\u201d and \u201cmodern,\u201d a notion that has made\nus blind to the true history and structure of higher Cultures. The\nhistory of art is a conspicuous case in point. Having assumed as self-\nevident the existence of a number of constant and well-defined provinces\nof art, one proceeded to order the history of these several provinces\naccording to the\u2014equally self-evident\u2014scheme of ancient-medi\u00e6val-modern,\nto the exclusion, of course, of Indian and East-Asiatic art, of the art\nof Axum and Saba, of the Sassanids and of Russia, which if not omitted\naltogether were at best relegated to appendices. It occurred to no one\nthat such results argued unsoundness in the method; the scheme was\nthere, demanded facts, and must at any price be fed with them. And so a\nfutile up-and-down course was stolidly traced out. Static times were\ndescribed as \u201cnatural pauses,\u201d it was called \u201cdecline\u201d when some great\nart in reality died, and \u201crenaissance\u201d where an eye really free from\nprepossessions would have seen another art being born in another\nlandscape to express another humanity. Even to-day we are still taught\nthat the Renaissance was a rebirth of the Classical. And the conclusion\nwas drawn that it is possible and right to take up arts that are found\nweak or even dead (in this respect the present is a veritable battle-\nfield) and set them going again by conscious reformation-program or\nforced \u201crevival.\u201d\n\nAnd yet it is precisely in this problem of the end, the impressively\nsudden end, of a great art\u2014the end of the Attic drama in Euripides, of\nFlorentine sculpture with Michelangelo, of instrumental music in Liszt,\nWagner and Bruckner\u2014that the organic character of these arts is most\nevident. If we look closely enough we shall have no difficulty in\nconvincing ourselves that no _one_ art of any greatness has ever been\n\u201creborn.\u201d\n\nOf the Pyramid style _nothing_ passed over into the Doric. _Nothing_\nconnects the Classical temple with the basilica of the Middle East, for\nthe mere taking over of the Classical column as a structural member,\nthough to a superficial observer it seems a fact of the first\nimportance, weighs no more in reality than Goethe\u2019s employment of the\nold mythology in the \u201cClassical Walpurgis Night\u201d scene of \u201cFaust.\u201d To\nbelieve genuinely in a rebirth of Classical art, or any Classical art,\nin the Western 15th Century requires a rare stretch of the imagination.\nAnd that a great art may die not merely with the Culture but within it,\nwe may see from the fate of music in the Classical world.[275]\nPossibilities of great music there must have been in the Doric\nspringtime\u2014how otherwise can we account for the importance of old-\nfashioned Sparta in the eyes of such musicians as there were later (for\nTerpander, Thaletas and Alcman were effective there when elsewhere the\nstatuary art was merely infantile)?\u2014and yet the Late-Classical world\nrefrained. In just the same fashion everything that the Magian Culture\nhad attempted in the way of frontal portraiture, deep relief and mosaic\nfinally succumbed before the Arabesque; and everything of the plastic\nthat had sprung up in the shade of Gothic cathedrals at Chartres, Reims,\nBamberg, Naumburg, in the N\u00fcrnberg of Peter Vischer and the Florence of\nVerrocchio, vanished before the oil-painting of Venice and the\ninstrumental music of the Baroque.\n\n III\n\nThe temple of Poseidon at P\u00e6stum and the Minster of Ulm, works of the\nripest Doric and the ripest Gothic, differ precisely as the Euclidean\ngeometry of bodily bounding-surfaces differs from the analytical\ngeometry of the position of points in space referred to spatial axes.\nAll Classical building begins from the outside, all Western from the\ninside. The Arabian also begins with the inside, but it stays there.\nThere is one and only one soul, the Faustian, that craves for a style\nwhich drives through walls into the limitless universe of space and\nmakes both the exterior and the interior of the building complementary\nimages of one and the same world-feeling. The exterior of the basilica\nand the domical building may be a _field for ornamentation_, but\n_architecture_ it is not. The impression that meets the beholder as he\napproaches is that of something shielding, something that hides a\nsecret. The form-language in the cavern-twilight exists for the faithful\nonly\u2014that is the factor common to the highest examples of the style and\nto the simplest Mithr\u00e6a and Catacombs, the prime powerful utterance of a\nnew soul. Now, as soon as the Germanic spirit takes possession of the\nbasilical type, there begins a wondrous mutation of all structural\nparts, as to both position and significance. Here in the Faustian North\nthe outer form of the building, be it cathedral or mere dwelling-house,\nbegins to be brought into relation with the meaning that governs the\narrangement of the interior, a meaning undisclosed in the mosque and\nnon-existent in the temple. The Faustian building has a _visage_ and not\nmerely a fa\u00e7ade (whereas the front of a peripteros is, after all, only\none of four sides and the centre-domed building in principle has not\neven a front) and with this visage, this head, is associated an\narticulated trunk that draws itself out through the broad plain like the\ncathedral at Speyer, or erects itself to the heavens like the\ninnumerable spires of the original design of Reims. The _motive of the\nfa\u00e7ade_, which greets the beholder and tells him the inner meaning of\nthe house, dominates not only individual major buildings but also the\nwhole aspect of our streets, squares and towns with their characteristic\nwealth of windows.[276]\n\nThe great architecture of the early period is ever the mother of all\nfollowing arts; it determines the choice of them and the spirit of them.\nAccordingly, we find that the history of the Classical shaping art is\none untiring effort to accomplish one single ideal, viz., the conquest\nof the free-standing human body as the vessel of the pure real present.\nThe temple of the naked body was to it what the cathedral of voices was\nto the Faustian from earliest counterpoint to the orchestral writing of\nthe 18th Century. We have failed hitherto to understand the emotional\nforce of this secular tendency of the Apollinian, because we have not\nfelt how the _purely material, soulless body_ (for the Temple of the\nBody, too, has no \"interior\"!) is the object which archaic relief,\nCorinthian painting on clay, and Attic fresco were all striving to\nobtain until Polycletus and Phidias showed how to achieve it in full. We\nhave, with a wonderful blindness, assumed this kind of sculpture as both\nauthoritative and universally possible, as in fact, \u201cthe art of\nsculpture.\u201d We have written its history as one concerned with all\npeoples and periods, and even to-day our sculptors, under the influence\nof unproved Renaissance doctrines, speak of the naked human body as the\nnoblest and most genuine object of \u201cthe\u201d art of sculpture. Yet in\nreality this statue-art, the art of the naked body standing free upon\nits footing and appreciable from all sides alike, existed in the\nClassical and the Classical only, for it was that Culture alone which\nquite decisively refused to transcend sense-limits in favour of space.\nThe Egyptian statue is always meant to be seen from the front\u2014it is a\nvariant of plane-relief. And the _seemingly_ Classically-conceived\nstatues of the Renaissance (we are astounded, as soon as it occurs to us\nto count them, to find how few of them there are[277]) are nothing but a\nsemi-Gothic reminiscence.\n\nThe evolution of this rigorously _non-spatial_ art occupies the three\ncenturies from 650 to 350, a period extending from the completion of the\nDoric and the simultaneous appearance of a tendency to free the figures\nfrom the Egyptian limitation of frontalness[278] to the coming of the\nHellenistic and its illusion-painting which closed-off the grand style.\nThis sculpture will never be rightly appreciated until it is regarded as\nthe last and highest Classical, as _springing from a plane art, first\nobeying and then overcoming the fresco_. No doubt the technical origin\ncan be traced to experiments in figure-wise treatment of the pristine\ncolumn, or the plates that served to cover the temple wall,[279] and no\ndoubt there are here and there imitations of Egyptian works (seated\nfigures of Miletus), although very few Greek artists can ever have seen\none.[280] But as a _form-ideal_ the statue goes back through relief to\nthe archaic clay-painting in which fresco also originated. Relief, like\nfresco, is tied to the bodily wall. All this sculpture right down to\nMyron may be considered as relief detached from the plane. In the end,\nthe figure is treated as a self-contained body apart from the mass of\nthe building, but it remains essentially a silhouette in front of a\nwall.[281] Direction in depth is excluded, and the work is spread out\nfrontally before the beholder. Even the Marsyas of Myron can be copied\nupon vases or coins without much trouble or appreciable\nforeshortenings.[282] Consequently, of the two major \u201clate\u201d arts after\n650, fresco definitely has the priority. The small stock of types is\nalways to be found first in vase-figuring, which is often exactly\nparalleled by quite late sculptures. We know that the Centaur group of\nthe West pediment at Olympia was worked out from a painting. On the\n\u00c6gina temple, the advance from the West to the East pediment is an\nadvance from the fresco-character to the body-character. The change is\ncompleted about 460 with Polycletus, and thenceforward plastic groups\nbecome the model for strict painting. But it is from Lysippus that the\nwholly cubic and \u201call-ways\u201d treatment becomes thoroughly veristic and\nyields \u201cfact.\u201d Till then, even in the case of Praxiteles, we have still\na lateral or planar development of the subject, with a clear outline\nthat is only fully effective in respect of one or two standpoints. But\nan undeviating testimony to the picture-origin of independent sculpture\nis the practice of polychroming the marble\u2014a practice unknown to the\nRenaissance and to Classicism, which would have felt it as\nbarbaric[283]\u2014and we may say the same of the gold-and-ivory statuary and\nthe enamel overlaying of bronze, a metal which already possesses a\nshining golden tone of its own.\n\n IV\n\nThe corresponding stage of Western art occupies the three centuries\n1500-1800, between the end of late Gothic and the decay of Rococo which\nmarks the end of the great Faustian style. In this period, conformably\nto the persistent growth into consciousness of the will to spatial\ntranscendence, it is instrumental music that develops into the ruling\nart. At the beginning, in the 17th Century, music uses the\ncharacteristic tone-colours of the instruments, and the contrasts of\nstrings and wind, human voices and instrumental voices, as means\nwherewith to _paint_. Its (quite unconscious) ambition is to parallel\nthe great masters from Titian to Velasquez and Rembrandt. It makes\npictures (in the sonata from Gabrieli [d. 1612.] to Corelli [d. 1713]\nevery movement shows a theme embellished with graces and set upon the\nbackground of a _basso continuo_), paints heroic landscapes (in the\npastoral cantata), and draws a portrait in lines of melody (in\nMonteverde\u2019s \u201cLament of Ariadne,\u201d 1608). With the German masters, all\nthis goes. Painting can take music no further. Music becomes itself\n_absolute_: it is music that (quite unconsciously again) dominates both\npainting and architecture in the 18th Century. And, ever more and more\ndecisively, sculpture fades out from among the deeper possibilities of\nthis form-world.\n\nWhat distinguishes painting as it was before, from painting as it was\nafter, the shift from Florence to Venice\u2014or, to put it more definitely,\nwhat separates the painting of Raphael and that of Titian as two\nentirely distinct arts\u2014is that the plastic spirit of the one associates\npainting with relief, while the musical spirit of the other works in a\ntechnique of visible brush-strokes and atmospheric depth-effects that is\nakin to the chromatic of string and wind choruses. It is an opposition\nand not a transition that we have before us, and the recognition of the\nfact is vital to our understanding of the _organism_ of these arts.\nHere, if anywhere, we have to guard against the abstract hypothesis of\n\u201ceternal art-laws.\u201d \u201cPainting\u201d is a mere word. Gothic glass-painting was\nan element of Gothic architecture, the servant of its strict symbolism\njust as the Egyptian and the Arabian and every other art in this stage\nwas the servant of the stone-language. Draped figures were built up as\ncathedrals were. Their folds were an _ornamentation_ of extreme\nsincerity and severe expressiveness. To criticize their \u201cstiffness\u201d from\na naturalistic-imitative point of view is to miss the point entirely.\n\nSimilarly \u201cmusic\u201d is a mere word. Some music there has been everywhere\nand always, even _before_ any genuine Culture, even among the beasts.\nBut the serious music of the Classical was nothing but a _plastic for\nthe ear_. The tetrachords, chromatic and enharmonic, have a structural\nand not a harmonic meaning:[284] but this is the very difference between\nbody and space. This music was single-voiced. The few instruments that\nit employed were all developed in respect of capacity for tone-plastic;\nand naturally therefore it rejected the Egyptian harp, an instrument\nthat was probably akin in tone-colour to the harpsichord. But, above\nall, the melody\u2014like Classical verse from Homer to Hadrian\u2019s time\u2014was\ntreated quantitatively and not accentually; that is, the syllables,\ntheir bodies and their _extent_, decided the rhythm. The few fragments\nthat remain suffice to show us that the sensuous charm of this art is\nsomething outside our comprehension; but this very fact should cause us\nalso\n\nto reconsider our ideas as to the impressions purposed and achieved by\nthe statuary and the fresco, for we do not and cannot experience the\ncharm that these exercised upon the Greek eye.\n\nEqually incomprehensible to us is Chinese music: in which, according to\neducated Chinese, we are never able to distinguish gay from grave.[285]\nVice versa, to the Chinese all the music of the West without distinction\nis _march-music_. Such is the impression that the rhythmic dynamic of\nour life makes upon the accentless Tao of the Chinese soul, and, indeed,\nthe impression that our entire Culture makes upon an alien humanity\u2014the\ndirectional energy of our church-naves and our storeyed fa\u00e7ades, the\ndepth-perspectives of our pictures, the march of our tragedy and\nnarrative, not to mention our technics and the whole course of our\nprivate and public life. We ourselves have _accent_ in our blood and\ntherefore do not notice it. But when our rhythm is juxtaposed with that\nof an alien life, we find the discordance intolerable.\n\nArabian music, again, is quite another world. Hitherto we have only\nobserved it through the medium of the Pseudomorphosis, as represented by\nByzantine hymns and Jewish psalmody, and even these we know only in so\nfar as they have penetrated to the churches of the far West as\nantiphons, responsorial psalmody and Ambrosian chants.[286] But it is\nself-evident that not only the religious west of Edessa (the syncretic\ncults, especially Syrian sun-worship, the Gnostic and the Mand\u00e6an) but\nalso those to the east (Mazdaists, Manich\u00e6ans, Mithraists, the\nsynagogues of Irak and in due course the Nestorian Christians) must have\npossessed a sacred music of the same style; that side by side with this\na gay secular music developed (above all, amongst the South-Arabian and\nSassanid chivalry[287]); and that both found their culmination in the\nMoorish style that reigned from Spain to Persia.\n\nOut of all this wealth, the Faustian soul borrowed only some few church-\nforms and, moreover, in borrowing them, it instantly transformed them\nroot and branch (10th Century, Hucbald, Guido d\u2019Arezzo). Melodic accent\nand beat produced the \u201cmarch,\u201d and polyphony (like the rime of\ncontemporary poetry) the image of endless space. To understand this, we\nhave to distinguish between the imitative[288] and the ornamental sides\nof music, and although owing to the fleeting nature of all tone-\ncreations[289] our knowledge is limited to the musical history of our\nown West, yet this is quite sufficient to reveal that duality of\ndevelopment which is one of the master-keys of all art-history. The one\nis soul, landscape, feeling, the other strict form, style, school. West\nEurope has an _ornamental music of the grand style_ (corresponding to\nthe full plastic of the Classical) which is associated with the\narchitectural history of the cathedral, which is closely akin to\nScholasticism and Mysticism, and which finds its laws in the motherland\nof high Gothic between Seine and Scheldt. Counterpoint developed\nsimultaneously with the flying-buttress system, and its source was the\n\u201cRomanesque\u201d style of the Fauxbourdon and the Discant with their simple\nparallel and contrary motion.[290] It is an architecture of human voices\nand, like the statuary-group and the glass-paintings, is only\nconceivable in the setting of these stone vaultings. With them it is a\nhigh art of space, of that space to which Nicolas of Oresme, Bishop of\nLisieux, gave mathematical meaning by the introduction of co-\nordinates.[291] _This_ is the genuine \u201crinascita\u201d and \u201creformatio\u201d as\nJoachim of Floris saw it at the end of the 12th Century[292]\u2014the birth\nof a new soul mirrored in the form-language of a new art.\n\nAlong with this there came into being in castle and village a secular\n_imitative_ music, that of troubadours, Minnes\u00e4nger and minstrels. As\n\u201cars nova\u201d this travelled from the courts of Provence to the palaces of\nTuscan patricians about 1300, the time of Dante and Petrarch. It\nconsisted of simple melodies that appealed to the heart with their major\nand minor, of canzoni, madrigals and caccias, and it included also a\ntype of _galante_ operetta (Adam de la Hale\u2019s \u201cRobin and Marion\u201d). After\n1400, these forms give rise to forms of collective singing\u2014the rondeau\nand the ballade. All this is \u201cart\u201d for a public.[293] Scenes are painted\nfrom life, scenes of love, hunting, chivalry. The point of it is in the\nmelodic inventiveness, instead of in the symbolism of its linear\nprogress.\n\nThus, musically as otherwise, the castle and the cathedral are distinct.\nThe cathedral _is_ music and the castle _makes_ music. The one begins\nwith theory, the other with impromptu: it is the distinction between\nwaking consciousness and living existence, between the spiritual and the\nknightly singer. Imitation stands nearest to life and direction and\ntherefore begins with melody, while the symbolism of counterpoint\nbelongs to extension and through polyphony signifies infinite space. The\nresult was, on the one side, a store of \u201ceternal\u201d rules and, on the\nother, an inexhaustible fund of folk-melodies on which even the 18th\nCentury was still drawing. The same contrast reveals itself,\nartistically, in the _class_-opposition of Renaissance and\nReformation.[294] The courtly taste of Florence was antipathetic to the\nspirit of counterpoint; the evolution of strict musical form from the\nMotet to the four-voice Mass through Dunstaple, Binchois and Dufay (c.\n1430) proceeded wholly within the magic circle of Gothic architecture.\nFrom Fra Angelico to Michelangelo the great Netherlanders ruled alone in\nornamental music. Lorenzo de\u2019 Medici found no one in Florence who\nunderstood the strict style, and had to send for Dufay. And while in\nthis region Leonardo and Raphael were painting, in the north Okeghem (d.\n1495) and his school and Josquin des Pr\u00e9s (d. 1521) brought the formal\npolyphony of human voices to the height of fulfilment.\n\nThe transition into the \u201cLate\u201d age was heralded in Rome and Venice. With\nBaroque the leadership in music passes to Italy. But at the same time\narchitecture ceases to be the ruling art and there is formed a group of\nFaustian special-arts in which oil-painting occupies the central place.\nAbout 1560 the empire of the human voice comes to an end in the _a\ncappella_ style of Palestrina and Orlando Lasso (both d. 1594). Its\npowers could no longer express the passionate drive into the infinite,\nand it made way for the chorus of instruments, wind and string. And\nthereupon Venice produced Titian-music, the new madrigal that in its\nflow and ebb follows the sense of the text. The music of the Gothic is\narchitectural and vocal, that of the Baroque pictorial and instrumental.\nThe one builds, the other operates by means of motives. For all the arts\nhave become urban and therefore secular. We pass from super-personal\nForm to the personal expression of the Master, and shortly before 1600\nItaly produces the _basso continuo_ which requires virtuosi and not\npious participants.\n\nThenceforward, the great task was to extend the tone-corpus into the\ninfinity, or rather to _resolve it into an infinite space of tone_.\nGothic had developed the instruments into families of definite timbre.\nBut the new-born \u201corchestra\u201d no longer observes limitations imposed by\nthe human voice, but treats it as a voice to be combined with other\nvoices\u2014at the same moment as our mathematic proceeds from the\ngeometrical analysis of Fermat to the purely functional analysis of\nDescartes.[295] In Zarlino\u2019s \u201cHarmony\u201d (1558) appears a genuine\nperspective of pure tonal space. We begin to distinguish between\nornamental and fundamental instruments. Melody and embellishment join to\nproduce the Motive, and this in development leads to the rebirth of\ncounterpoint in the form of the fugal style, of which Frescobaldi was\nthe first master and Bach the culmination. To the vocal masses and\nmotets the Baroque opposes its grand, orchestrally-conceived forms of\nthe oratorio (Carissimi), the cantata (Viadana) and the opera\n(Monteverde). Whether a bass melody be set against upper voices, or\nupper voices be concerted against one another upon a background of\n_basso continuo_, always sound-worlds of characteristic expression-\nquality work reciprocally upon one another in the infinity of tonal\nspace, supporting, intensifying, raising, illuminating, threatening,\novershadowing\u2014a music all of interplay, scarcely intelligible save\nthrough ideas of contemporary Analysis.\n\nFrom out of these forms of the early Baroque there proceeded, in the\n17th Century, the sonata-like forms of suite, symphony and concerto\ngrosso. The inner structure and the sequence of movements, the thematic\nworking-out and modulation became more and more firmly established. And\nthus was reached the great, immensely dynamic, form in which music\u2014now\ncompletely bodiless\u2014was raised by Corelli and Handel and Bach to be the\nruling art of the West. When Newton and Leibniz, about 1670, discovered\nthe Infinitesimal Calculus, the fugal style was fulfilled. And when,\nabout 1740, Euler began the definitive formulation of functional\nAnalysis, Stamitz and his generation were discovering the last and\nripest form of musical ornamentation, the four-part movement[296] as\nvehicle of pure and unlimited motion. For, at that time, there was still\nthis one step to be taken. The theme of the fugue \u201cis,\u201d that of the new\nsonata-movement \u201cbecomes,\u201d and the issue of its working out is in the\none case a picture, in the other a drama. Instead of a series of\npictures we get a cyclic succession,[297] and the real source of this\ntone-language was in the possibilities, realized at last, of our deepest\nand most intimate kind of music\u2014the music of the strings. Certain it is\nthat the violin is the noblest of all instruments that the Faustian soul\nhas imagined and trained for the expression of its last secrets, and\ncertain it is, too, that it is in string quartets and violin sonatas\nthat it has experienced its most transcendent and most holy moments of\nfull illumination. Here, _in chamber-music, Western art as a whole\nreaches its highest point_. Here our prime symbol of endless space is\nexpressed as completely as the Spearman of Polycletus expresses that of\nintense bodiliness. When one of those ineffably yearning violin-melodies\nwanders through the spaces expanded around it by the orchestration of\nTartini or Nardini, Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven, we know ourselves in the\npresence of an art beside which that of the Acropolis is alone worthy to\nbe set.\n\nWith this, the Faustian music becomes dominant among the Faustian arts.\nIt banishes the plastic of the statue and tolerates only the minor art\u2014\nan entirely musical, refined, un-Classical and counter-Renaissance art\u2014\nof porcelain, which (as a discovery of the West) is contemporary with\nthe rise of chamber-music to full effectiveness. Whereas the statuary of\nGothic is through-and-through architectural ornamentation, human\nespalier-work, that of the Rococo remarkably exemplifies the pseudo-\nplastic that results from entire subjection to the form-language of\nmusic, and shows to what a degree the technique governing the presented\nforeground can be in contradiction with the real expression-language\nthat is hidden behind it. Compare Coysevox\u2019s[298] (1686) crouching Venus\nin the Louvre with its Classical prototype in the Vatican\u2014in the one\nplastic is understudying music, in the other plastic is itself. Terms\nlike \u201cstaccato,\u201d \u201caccelerando,\u201d \u201candante\u201d and \u201callegro\u201d best describe\nthe kind of movements that we have here, the flow of the lines, the\nfluidity in the being of the stone itself which like the porcelain has\nmore or less lost its fine compactness. Hence our feeling that the\ngranular marble is out of keeping. Hence, too, the wholly un-Classical\ntendency to work with reference to effects of light and shade. This is\nquite in conformity with the principles of oil-painting from Titian\nonwards. That which in the 18th Century is called \u201ccolour\u201d in an\netching, a drawing, or a sculpture-group really signifies music. Music\ndominates the painting of Watteau and Fragonard and the art of Gobelins\nand pastels, and since then, have we not acquired the habit of speaking\nof colour-tones or tone-colours? And do not the very words imply a\nrecognition of a final _homogeneity_ between the two arts, superficially\ndissimilar as they are? And are not these same words perfectly\nmeaningless as applied to _any and every_ Classical art? But music did\nnot stop there; it transmuted also the architecture of Bernini\u2019s Baroque\ninto accord with its own spirit, and made of it Rococo, a style of\ntranscendent ornamentation upon which lights (or rather \u201ctones\u201d) play to\ndissolve ceilings, walls and everything else constructional and actual\ninto polyphonies and harmonies, with architectural trills and cadences\nand runs to complete the identification of the form-language of these\nhalls and galleries with that of the music imagined for them. Dresden\nand Vienna are the homes of this late and soon-extinguished fairyland of\n_visible_ chamber music, of curved furniture and mirror-halls, and\nshepherdesses in verse and porcelain. It is the final brilliant autumn\nwith which the Western soul completes the expression of its high style.\nAnd in the Vienna of the Congress-time it faded and died.\n\n V\n\nThe Art of the Renaissance, considered from this particular one of its\nmany aspects,[299] is a _revolt against the spirit of the Faustian\nforest-music_ of counterpoint, which at that time was preparing to\nvassalize the whole form-language of the Western Culture. It was the\nlogical consequence of the open assertion of this will in matured\nGothic. It never disavowed its origin and it maintained the character of\na simple _counter-movement_; necessarily therefore it remained dependent\nupon the forms of the original movement, and represented simply the\neffect of these upon a hesitant soul. Hence, it was without true depth,\neither ideal or phenomenal. As to the first, we have only to think of\nthe bursting passion with which the Gothic world-feeling discharged\nitself upon the whole Western landscape, and we shall see at once what\nsort of a movement it was that the handful of select spirits\u2014scholars,\nartists and humanists\u2014initiated about 1420.[300] In the first the issue\nwas one of life and death for a new-born soul, in the second it was a\npoint of\u2014taste. The Gothic gripped life in its entirety, penetrated its\nmost hidden corners. It created new men and a new world. From the idea\nof Catholicism to the state-theory of the Holy Roman Emperors, from the\nknightly tourney to the new city-form, from cathedral to cottage, from\nlanguage-building to the village maiden\u2019s bridal attire, from oil-\npainting to the Spielmann\u2019s song, everything is hall-marked with the\nstamp of one and the same symbolism. But the Renaissance, when it had\nmastered some arts of word and picture, had shot its bolt. It altered\nthe ways of thought and the life-feeling of West Europe not one whit. It\ncould penetrate as far as costume and gesture, but the roots of life it\ncould not touch\u2014even in Italy the world-outlook of the Baroque is\nessentially a continuation of the Gothic.[301] It produced no wholly\ngreat personality between Dante and Michelangelo, each of whom had one\nfoot outside its limits. And as for the other\u2014phenomenal or manifested\ndepth\u2014the Renaissance never touched the people, even in Florence itself.\nThe man for whom they had ears was Savonarola\u2014a phenomenon of quite\nanother spiritual order and one which begins to be comprehensible when\nwe discern the fact that, all the time, the deep under-currents are\nsteadily flowing on towards the Gothic-musical Baroque. The Renaissance\nas an anti-Gothic movement and a reaction against the spirit of\npolyphonic music has its Classical equivalent in the Dionysiac movement.\nThis was a reaction against Doric and against the sculptural-Apollinian\nworld-feeling. It did _not_ \u201coriginate\u201d in the Thracian Dionysus-cult,\nbut merely took this up as a weapon against and counter-symbol to the\nOlympian religion, precisely as in Florence the cult of the antique was\ncalled in for the justification and confirmation of a feeling already\nthere. The period of the great protest was the 7th Century in Greece and\n(_therefore_) the 15th in West Europe. In both cases we have in reality\nan outbreak of deep-seated discordances in the Culture, which\nphysiognomically dominates a whole epoch of its history and especially\nof its artistic world\u2014in other words, a stand that the soul attempts to\nmake against the Destiny that at last it comprehends. The inwardly\nrecalcitrant forces\u2014_Faust\u2019s second Soul that would separate itself from\nthe other_\u2014are striving to deflect the sense of the Culture, to\nrepudiate, to get rid of or to evade its inexorable necessity; it stands\nanxious in presence of the call to accomplish its historical fate in\nIonic and Baroque. This anxiety fastened itself in Greece to the\nDionysus-cult with its musical, dematerializing, body-squandering\norgasm, and in the Renaissance to the tradition of the Antique and its\ncult of the bodily-plastic tradition. In each case, the alien\nexpression-means was brought in consciously and deliberately, in order\nthat the force of a directly-opposite form-language should provide the\nsuppressed feelings with a weight and a pathos of their own, and so\nenable them to stand against the stream\u2014in Greece the stream which\nflowed from Homer and the Geometrical to Phidias, in the West that which\nflowed from the Gothic cathedrals, through Rembrandt, to Beethoven.\n\nIt follows from the very character of a counter-movement that it is far\neasier for it to define what it is opposing than what it is aiming at.\nThis is the difficulty of all Renaissance research. In the Gothic (and\nthe Doric) it is just the opposite\u2014men are contending _for_ something,\nnot against it\u2014but Renaissance art is nothing more nor less than anti-\nGothic art. Renaissance music, too, is a contradiction in itself; the\nmusic of the Medicean court was the Southern French \u201cars nova,\u201d that of\nthe Florentine Duomo was the Low-German counterpoint, both alike\nessentially _Gothic_ and the property of the _whole_ West.\n\nThe view that is customarily taken of the Renaissance is a very clear\ninstance of how readily the proclaimed intentions of a movement may be\nmistaken for its deeper meaning. Since Burckhardt,[302] criticism has\ncontroverted every _individual_ proposition that the leading spirits of\nthe age put forward as to their own tendencies\u2014and yet, this done, it\nhas continued to use the word Renaissance substantially in the former\nsense. Certainly, one is conscious at once in passing to the south of\nthe Alps of a marked dissimilarity in architecture in particular and in\nthe look of the arts in general. But the very obviousness of the\nconclusion that the impression prompts should have led us to distrust it\nand to ask ourselves, instead, whether the supposed distinction of\nGothic and \u201cantique\u201d was not in reality merely a difference between\n_Northern and Southern_ aspects of one and the same form-world. Plenty\nof things in Spain give the impression of being \u201cClassical\u201d merely\nbecause they are Southern, and if a layman were confronted with the\ngreat cloister of S. Maria Novella or the fa\u00e7ade of the Palazzo Strozzi\nin Florence and asked to say if these were \u201cGothic\u201d he would certainly\nguess wrong. Otherwise, the sharp change of spirit ought to have set in\nnot beyond the Alps but only beyond the Apennines, for Tuscany is\nartistically an island in Italian Italy. Upper Italy belongs entirely to\na Byzantine-tinted Gothic; Siena in particular is a genuine monument of\nthe _counter-Renaissance_, and Rome is already the home of Baroque. But,\nin fact, it is the change of _landscape_ that coincides with the change\nof feeling.\n\nIn the actual birth of the Gothic style Italy had indeed no inward\nshare. At the epoch of 1000 the country was still absolutely under the\ndomination of Byzantine taste in the East and Moorish taste in the\nSouth. When Gothic first took root here it was the mature Gothic, and it\nimplanted itself with an intensity and force for which we look in vain\nin any of the great Renaissance creations\u2014think of the \u201cStabat Mater,\u201d\nthe \u201cDies Ir\u00e6,\u201d Catharine of Siena, Giotto and Simone Martini! At the\nsame time, it was lighted from the South and its strangeness was, as it\nwere, softened in acclimatization. That which it suppressed or expelled\nwas not, as has been supposed, some lingering strains of the Classical\nbut purely the Byzantine-_cum_-Saracen form-language that appealed to\nthe senses in familiar everyday life\u2014in the buildings of Ravenna and\nVenice but even more in the ornament of the fabrics, vessels and arms\nimported from the East.\n\nIf the Renaissance had been a \u201crenewal\u201d (whatever that may mean) of the\nClassical _world-feeling_, then, surely, would it not have had to\nreplace the symbol of embraced and rhythmically-ordered _space_ by that\nof closed structural _body_? But there was never any question of this.\nOn the contrary, the Renaissance practised wholly and exclusively an\narchitecture of space prescribed for it by Gothic, from which it\ndiffered _only_ in that in lieu of the Northern \u201cSturm und Drang\u201d it\nbreathed the clear equable calm of the sunny, care-free and\nunquestioning South. It produced _no_ new building-idea, and the extent\nof its architectural achievement might almost be reduced to _fa\u00e7ades and\ncourtyards_.\n\nNow, this focussing of expressible effort upon the street-front of a\nhouse or the side of a cloister\u2014many-windowed and ever significant of\nthe spirit within\u2014is characteristic of the Gothic (and deeply akin to\nits art of portraiture); and the cloistered courtyard itself is, from\nthe Sun-temple of Baalbek to the Court of the Lions in the Alhambra, as\ngenuinely Arabian. And in the midst of this art the Poseidon temple of\nP\u00e6stum, all body, stands lonely and unrelated: no one saw it, no one\nattempted to copy it. Equally un-Attic is the Florentine sculpture, for\nAttic is _free_ plastic, \u201cin the round\u201d in the full sense of the words,\nwhereas every Florentine statue feels behind it the ghost of the niche\ninto which the Gothic sculptor had built its real ancestors. In the\nrelation of figure to background and in the build of the body, the\nmasters of the \u201cKings\u2019 heads\u201d at Chartres and the masters of the\n\u201cGeorge\u201d choir at Bamberg exhibit the same interpenetration of \u201cAntique\u201d\nand Gothic expression-means that we have, neither intensified nor\ncontradicted, in the manner of Giovanni Pisano and Ghiberti and even\nVerrocchio.\n\nIf we take away from the models of the Renaissance all elements that\noriginated later than the Roman Imperial Age\u2014that is to say, those\nbelonging to the Magian form-world\u2014nothing is left. Even from Late-Roman\narchitecture itself all elements derived from the great days of Hellas\nhad one by one vanished. Most conclusive of all, though, is that motive\nwhich actually _dominates_ the Renaissance, which because of its\nSouthern-ness we regard as the noblest of the Renaissance characters,\nviz., _the association of round-arch and column_. This association, no\ndoubt, is very un-Gothic, but in the Classical style it simply does not\nexist, and in fact it represents the leitmotif of the Magian\narchitecture that originated in Syria.\n\nBut it was just then that the South received from the North those\ndecisive impulses which helped it first of all to emancipate itself\nentirely from Byzantium and then to step from Gothic into Baroque. In\nthe region comprised between Amsterdam, K\u00f6ln and Paris[303]\u2014the counter-\npole to Tuscany in the style-history of our culture\u2014counterpoint and\noil-painting had been created in association with the Gothic\narchitecture. Thence Dufay in 1428 and Willaert in 1516 came to the\nPapal Chapel, and in 1527 the latter founded that Venetian school which\nwas decisive of Baroque music. The successor of Willaert was de Rore of\nAntwerp. A Florentine commissioned Hugo van der Goes to execute the\nPortinari altar for Santa Maria Nuova, and Memlinc to paint a Last\nJudgment. And over and above this, numerous pictures (especially Low-\nCountries portraits) were acquired and exercised an enormous influence.\nIn 1450 Rogier van der Weyden himself came to Florence, where his art\nwas both admired and imitated. In 1470 Justus van Gent introduced oil-\npainting to Umbria, and Antonello da Messina brought what he had learned\nin the Netherlands to Venice. How much \u201cDutch\u201d and how little\n\u201cClassical\u201d there is in the pictures of Filippino Lippi, Ghirlandaio and\nBotticelli and especially in the engravings of Pollaiulo! Or in Leonardo\nhimself. Even to-day critics hardly care to admit the full extent of the\ninfluence exercised by the Gothic North upon the architecture, music,\npainting and plastic of the Renaissance.[304] It was just then, too,\nthat Nicolaus Cusanus, Cardinal and Bishop of Brixen (1401-1464),\nbrought into mathematics the \u201cinfinitesimal\u201d principle, that\n_contrapuntal method_ of number which he reached by deduction from the\nidea of God as Infinite Being. It was from Nicholas of Cusa that Leibniz\nreceived the decisive impulse that led him to work out his differential\ncalculus; and thus was forged the weapon with which dynamic, Baroque,\nNewtonian, physics definitely overcame the static idea characteristic of\nthe Southern physics that reaches a hand to Archimedes and is still\neffective even in Galileo.\n\nThe high period of the Renaissance is a moment of _apparent_ expulsion\nof music from Faustian art. And in fact, for a few decades, in the only\narea where Classical and Western landscapes touched, Florence did\nuphold\u2014with one grand effort that was essentially metaphysical and\nessentially defensive\u2014an image of the Classical so convincing that,\nalthough its deeper characters were without exception mere anti-Gothic,\nit lasted beyond Goethe and, if not for our criticism, yet for our\nfeelings, is valid to this day. The Florence of Lorenzo de\u2019 Medici and\nthe Rome of Leo the Tenth\u2014that is what for us the Classical _is_, an\neternal goal of most secret longing, the only deliverance from our heavy\nhearts and limit upon our horizon. And it is this because, and only\nbecause, it is anti-Gothic. So clean-cut is the opposition of Apollinian\nand Faustian spirituality.\n\nBut let there be no mistake as to the extent of this illusion. In\nFlorence men practiced fresco and relief in contradiction of Gothic\nglass-painting and Byzantine gold-ground mosaic. This was the one moment\nin the history of the West when sculpture ranked as the paramount art.\nThe dominant elements in the picture are the poised bodies, the ordered\ngroups, the structural side of architecture. The backgrounds possess no\nintrinsic value, merely serving to fill up between and behind the self-\nsufficient present of the foreground-figures. For a while here, painting\nis actually under the domination of plastic; Verrocchio, Pollaiuolo and\nBotticelli were goldsmiths. Yet, all the same, these frescoes have\nnothing of the spirit of Polygnotus in them. Examine a collection of\nClassical painted vases\u2014not in individual specimens or copies (which\nwould give the wrong idea) but in the mass, for this is the one species\nof Classical art in which originals are plentiful enough to impress us\neffectively with the _will_ that is behind the art. In the light of such\na study, the utter un-Classicalness of the Renaissance-spirit leaps to\nthe eye. The great achievement of Giotto and Masaccio in creating a\nfresco-art is only _apparently_ a revival of the Apollinian way of\nfeeling; but the depth-experience and idea of extension that underlies\nit is not the Apollinian unspatial and self-contained body but the\n_Gothic field_ (Bildraum). However recessive the backgrounds are, they\nexist. Yet here again there was the fullness of light, the clarity of\natmosphere, the great noon-calm, of the South; dynamic space was changed\nin Tuscany, and only in Tuscany, to the static space of which Piero\ndella Francesca was the master. Though fields of space were painted,\nthey were put, not as an existence unbounded and like music ever\nstriving into the depths, but as _sensuously definable_. Space was given\na sort of bodiliness and order in plane layers, and drawing, sharpness\nof outline, definition of surface were studied with a care that\nseemingly approached the Hellenic ideal. Yet there was always this\ndifference, that Florence depicted space perspectively as singular in\ncontrast with things as plural, whereas Athens presented things as\nseparate singulars in contrast to general nothingness. And in proportion\nas the surge of the Renaissance smoothed down, the _hardness_ of this\ntendency receded, from Masaccio\u2019s frescoes in the Brancacci Chapel to\nRaphael\u2019s in the Vatican Stanze, until the _sfumato_ of Leonardo, the\nmelting of the edges into the background, brings a musical ideal in\nplace of the relief-ideal into painting. The hidden dynamic is equally\nunmistakable in the sculpture of Florence\u2014it would be perfectly hopeless\nto look for an Attic companion for Verrocchio\u2019s equestrian statue.[305]\nThis art was a _mask_, a mode of the taste of an \u00e9lite, and sometimes a\ncomedy\u2014though never was comedy more gallantly played out. The\nindescribable inward purity of Gothic form often causes us to forget\nwhat an excess of native strength and depth it possessed. Gothic, it\nmust be repeated again, is the _only_ foundation of the Renaissance. The\nRenaissance never even touched the real Classical, let alone understood\nit or \u201crevived\u201d it. The consciousness of the Florentine \u00e9lite, wholly\nunder literary influences, fashioned the deceptive name to positivize\nthe negative element of the movement\u2014thereby demonstrating how little\nsuch currents are aware of their own nature. There is not a single one\nof their great works that the contemporaries of Pericles, or even those\nof C\u00e6sar, would not have rejected as utterly alien. Their palace\ncourtyards are Moorish courtyards, and their round arches on slender\npillars are of Syrian origin. Cimabue taught his century to imitate with\nthe brush the art of Byzantine mosaic. Of the two famous domical\nbuildings of the Renaissance, the domed cathedral of Florence is a\nmasterpiece of late Gothic, and St. Peter\u2019s is one of early Baroque.\nWhen Michelangelo set himself to build the latter as the \u201cPantheon\ntowering over the Basilica of Maxentius,\u201d he was naming two buildings of\nthe purest early Arabian style. And ornament\u2014is there indeed a genuine\nRenaissance ornamentation? Certainly there is nothing comparable in\nsymbolic force with the ornamentation of Gothic. But what is the\nprovenance of that gay and elegant embellishment which has a real inward\nunity of its own and has captivated all Europe? There is a great\ndifference between the home of a \u201ctaste\u201d and the home of the expression-\nmeans that it employs: one finds a great deal that is Northern in the\nearly Florentine motives of Pisano, Maiano, Ghiberti and Della Quercia.\nWe have to distinguish in all these chancels, tombs, niches and porches\nbetween the outward and transferable forms (the Ionic column itself is\ndoubly a transfer, for it originated in Egypt) and the spirit of the\nform-language that uses them as means and signs. One Classical element\nor item is equivalent to another so long as something un-Classical is\nbeing expressed\u2014significance lies not in the thing but in the way in\nwhich it is used. But even in Donatello such motives are far fewer than\nin mature Baroque. As for a strict Classical capital, no such thing is\nto be found.\n\nAnd yet, at moments, Renaissance art succeeded in achieving something\nwonderful that music _could not_ reproduce\u2014a feeling for the bliss of\nperfect _nearness_, for pure, restful and _liberating_ space-effects,\nbright and tidy and free from the passionate movement of Gothic and\nBaroque. It is not Classical, but it is a dream of Classical existence,\nthe only dream of the Faustian soul in which it was able to forget\nitself.\n\n VI\n\nAnd now, with the 16th Century, the decisive epochal turn begins for\nWestern painting. The trusteeship of architecture in the North and that\nof sculpture in Italy expire, and painting becomes polyphonic,\n\u201cpicturesque,\u201d infinity-seeking. The colours become tones. The art of\nthe brush claims kinship with the style of cantata and madrigal. The\ntechnique of oils becomes the basis of an art that means to conquer\n_space_ and to dissolve things in that space. With Leonardo and\nGiorgione begins Impressionism.\n\nIn the actual picture there is transvaluation of all the elements. The\nbackground, hitherto casually put in, regarded as a fill-up and, as\nspace, almost shuffled out of sight, gains a preponderant importance. A\ndevelopment sets in that is paralleled in no other Culture, not even in\nthe Chinese which in many other respects is so near to ours. The\nbackground as symbol of the infinite conquers the sense-perceptible\nforeground, and at last (herein lies the distinction between the\ndepicting and the delineating styles) the depth-experience of the\nFaustian soul is captured in the kinesis of a picture. The space-relief\nof Mantegna\u2019s plane layers dissolves in Tintoretto into directional\nenergy, and there emerges in the picture the great symbol of an\nunlimited space-universe which comprises the individual things within\nitself as incidentals\u2014the _horizon_. Now, that a landscape painting\nshould have a horizon has always seemed so self-evident to us that we\nhave never asked ourselves the important question: _Is_ there always a\nhorizon, and if not, when not and why not? In fact, there is not a hint\nof it, either in Egyptian relief or in Byzantine mosaic or in vase-\npaintings and frescoes of the Classical age, or even in those of the\nHellenistic in spite of its spatial treatment of foregrounds. This line,\nin the unreal vapour of which heaven and earth melt, the sum and potent\nsymbol of the far, contains the painter\u2019s version of the \u201cinfinitesimal\u201d\nprinciple. It is out of the remoteness of this horizon that the _music_\nof the picture flows, and for this reason the great landscape-painters\nof Holland paint only backgrounds and atmospheres, just as for the\ncontrary reason \u201canti-musical\u201d masters like Signorelli and especially\nMantegna, paint _only_ foregrounds and \u201creliefs.\u201d It is in the horizon,\nthen, that Music triumphs over Plastic, the _passion_ of extension over\nits _substance_. It is not too much to say that no picture by Rembrandt\nhas a foreground at all. In the North, the home of counterpoint, a deep\nunderstanding of the meaning of horizons and high-lighted distances is\nfound very early, while in the South the flat conclusive gold-background\nof the Arabic-Byzantine picture long remained supreme. The first\ndefinite emergence of the pure space-feeling is in the Books of Hours of\nthe Duke of Berry (that at Chantilly and that at Turin) about 1416.\nThereafter, slowly and surely, it conquers the Picture.\n\nThe same symbolic meaning attaches to clouds. Classical art concerns\nitself with them no more than with horizons, and the painter of the\nRenaissance treats them with a certain playful superficiality. But very\nearly the Gothic looked at its cloud-masses, and through them, with the\nlong sight of mysticism; and the Venetians (Giorgione and Paolo Veronese\nabove all) discovered the full magic of the cloud-world, of the\nthousand-tinted Being that fills the heavens with its sheets and wisps\nand mountains. Gr\u00fcnewald and the Netherlanders heightened its\nsignificance to the level of tragedy. El Greco brought the grand art of\ncloud-symbolism to Spain.\n\nIt was at the same time that along with oil-painting and counterpoint\nthe _art of gardens_ ripened. Here, expressed on the canvas of Nature\nitself by extended pools, brick walls, avenues, vistas and galleries, is\nthe same tendency that is represented in painting by the effort towards\nthe linear perspective that the early Flemish artists felt to be the\nbasic problem of their art and Brunellesco, Alberti and Piero della\nFrancesca formulated. We may take it that it was not entirely a\ncoincidence that this formulation of perspective, this mathematical\nconsecration of the picture (whether landscape or interior) as a field\nlimited at the sides but immensely increased in depth, was propounded\njust at this particular moment. It was the proclamation of the Prime-\nSymbol. The point at which the perspective lines coalesce is at\ninfinity. It was just because it avoided infinity and rejected distance\nthat Classical painting possessed no perspective. _Consequently_ the\nPark, the deliberate manipulation of Nature so as to obtain space and\ndistance effects, is an impossibility in Classical art. Neither in\nAthens nor in Rome proper was there a garden-art: it was only the\nImperial Age that gratified its taste with ground-schemes of Eastern\norigin, and a glance at any of the plans of those \u201cgardens\u201d that have\nbeen preserved[306] is enough to show the shortness of their range and\nthe emphasis of their bounds. And yet the first garden-theorist of the\nWest, L. B. Alberti, was laying down the relation of the surroundings to\nthe house (that is, to the spectators in it) as early as 1450, and from\nhis projects to the parks of the Ludovisi and Albani villas,[307] we can\nsee the importance of the perspective view into distance becoming ever\ngreater and greater. In France, after Francis I (Fontainebleau) the long\nnarrow lake is an additional feature having the same meaning.\n\nThe most significant element in the Western garden-art is thus the\n_point de vue_ of the great Rococo park, upon which all its avenues and\nclipped-hedge walks open and from which vision may travel out to lose\nitself in the distances. This element is wanting even in the Chinese\ngarden-art. But it is exactly matched by some of the silver-bright\ndistance-pictures of the pastoral music of that age (in Couperin for\nexample). It is the _point de vue_ that gives us the key to a real\nunderstanding of this remarkable mode of making nature itself speak the\nform-language of a human symbolism. It is in principle akin to the\ndissolution of finite number-pictures into infinite series in our\nmathematic: as the remainder-expression[308] reveals the ultimate\nmeaning of the series, so the glimpse into the boundless is what, in the\ngarden, reveals to a Faustian soul the meaning of Nature. It was _we_\nand not the Hellenes or the men of the high Renaissance that prized and\nsought out high mountain tops for the sake of the limitless range of\nvision that they afford. This is a Faustian craving\u2014to be _alone_ with\nendless space. The great achievement of Le N\u00f4tre and the landscape-\ngardeners of Northern France, beginning with Fouquet\u2019s epoch-making\ncreation of Vaux-le-Vicomte, was that they were able to render this\nsymbol with such high emphasis. Compare the Renaissance park of the\nMedicean age\u2014capable of being taken in, gay, cosy, well-rounded\u2014with\nthese parks in which all the water-works, statue-rows, hedges and\nlabyrinths are instinct with the suggestion of long range. It is the\nDestiny of Western oil-painting told over again in a bit of garden-\nhistory.\n\nBut the feeling for long range is at the same time one for history. At a\ndistance, space becomes time and the horizon signifies the future. _The\nBaroque park is the park of the Late season_, of the approaching end, of\nthe falling leaf. A Renaissance park is meant for the summer and the\nnoonday. It is timeless, and nothing in its form-language reminds us of\nmortality. It is perspective that begins to awaken a premonition of\nsomething passing, fugitive and final. The very words of distance\npossess, in the lyric poetry of all Western languages, a plaintive\nautumnal accent that one looks for in vain in the Greek and Latin. It is\nthere in Macpherson\u2019s \u201cOssian\u201d and H\u00f6lderlin, and in Nietzsche\u2019s\nDionysus-Dithyrambs, and lastly in Baudelaire, Verlaine, George and\nDroem. The Late poetry of the withering garden avenues, the unending\nlines in the streets of a megalopolis, the ranks of pillars in a\ncathedral, the peak in a distant mountain chain\u2014all tell us that the\ndepth-experience which constitutes our space-world for us is in the last\nanalysis our inward certainty of a Destiny, of a prescribed direction,\nof _time_, of the irrevocable. Here, in the experience of horizon as\nfuture, we become directly and surely conscious of the identity of Time\nwith the \u201cthird dimension\u201d of that experienced space which is living\nself-extension. And in these last days we are imprinting upon the plan\nof our megalopolitan streets the same directional-destiny character that\nthe 17th Century imprinted upon the Park of Versailles. We lay our\nstreets as long arrow-flights into remote distance, regardless even of\npreserving old and historic parts of our towns (for the symbolism of\nthese is not now prepotent in us), whereas a megalopolis of the\nClassical world studiously maintained in its extension that tangle of\ncrooked lanes that enabled Apollinian man to feel himself a body in the\nmidst of bodies.[309] Herein, as always, practical requirements, so\ncalled, are merely the mask of a profound inward compulsion.\n\nWith the rise of perspective, then, the deeper form and full\nmetaphysical significance of the picture comes to be concentrated upon\nthe horizon. In Renaissance art the painter had stated and the beholder\nhad accepted the contents of the picture for what they were, as self-\nsufficient and co-extensive with the title. But henceforth the contents\nbecame a _means_, the mere vehicle of a meaning that was beyond the\npossibility of verbal expression. With Mantegna or Signorelli the pencil\nsketch could have stood as the picture, without being carried out in\ncolour\u2014in some cases, indeed, we can only regret that the artist did not\nstop at the cartoon. In the statue-like sketch, colour is a mere\nsupplement. Titian, on the other hand, could be told by Michelangelo\nthat he did not know how to draw. The \u201cobject,\u201d i.e., that which could\nbe exactly fixed by the drawn outline, the near and material, had in\nfact lost its artistic actuality; but, as the theory of art was still\ndominated by Renaissance impressions, there arose thereupon that strange\nand interminable conflict concerning the \u201cform\u201d and the \u201ccontent\u201d of an\nart-work. Mis-enunciation of the question has concealed its real and\ndeep significance from us. The first point for consideration should have\nbeen whether painting was to be conceived of plastically or musically,\nas a static of things or as a dynamic of space (for in this lies the\nessence of the opposition between fresco and oil technique), and the\nsecond point, the opposition of Classical and Faustian world-feeling.\nOutlines define the material, while colour-tones interpret space.[310]\nBut the picture of the first order belongs to directly sensible nature\u2014\nit _narrates_. Space, on the contrary, is by its very essence\ntranscendent and addresses itself to our imaginative powers, and in an\nart that is under its suzerainty, the narrative element enfeebles and\nobscures the more profound tendency. Hence it is that the theorist, able\nto feel the secret disharmony but misunderstanding it, clings to the\nsuperficial opposition of content and form. The problem is purely a\nWestern one, and reveals most strikingly the complete inversion in the\nsignificance of pictorial elements that took place when the Renaissance\nclosed down and instrumental music of the grand style came to the front.\nFor the Classical mind no problem of form and content in this sense\ncould exist; in an Attic statue the two are completely identical and\nidentified in the human body.\n\nThe case of Baroque painting is further complicated by the fact that it\ninvolves an opposition of ordinary popular feeling and the finer\nsensibility. Everything Euclidean and tangible is also popular, and the\ngenuinely popular art is therefore the Classical. It is very largely the\nfeeling of this popular character in it that constitutes its\nindescribable charm for the Faustian intellects that have to _fight_ for\nself-expression, to win their world by hard wrestling. For us, the\ncontemplation of Classical art and its intention is pure _refreshment_:\nhere nothing needs to be struggled for, everything offers itself freely.\nAnd something of the same sort was achieved by the anti-Gothic tendency\nof Florence. Raphael is, in many sides of his creativeness, distinctly\npopular. But Rembrandt is not, cannot be, so. From Titian painting\nbecomes more and more esoteric. So, too, poetry. So, too, music. And the\nGothic _per se_ had been esoteric from its very beginnings\u2014witness Dante\nand Wolfram. The masses of Okeghem and Palestrina, or of Bach for that\nmatter, were never intelligible to the average member of the\ncongregation. Ordinary people are bored by Mozart and Beethoven, and\nregard music generally as something for which one is or is not in the\nmood. A certain degree of interest in these matters has been induced by\nconcert room and gallery since the age of enlightenment invented the\nphrase \u201cart for all.\u201d But Faustian art is not, and by very essence\ncannot be, \u201cfor all.\u201d If modern painting has ceased to appeal to any but\na small (and ever decreasing) circle of connoisseurs, it is because it\nhas turned away from the painting of things that the man in the street\ncan understand. It has transferred the property of actuality from\ncontents to space\u2014the space _through_ which alone, according to Kant,\nthings _are_. And with that a difficult metaphysical element has entered\ninto painting, and this element does not give itself away to the layman.\nFor Phidias, on the contrary, the word \u201clay\u201d would have had no meaning.\nHis sculpture appealed entirely to the bodily and not to the spiritual\neye. _An art without space is a priori unphilosophical._\n\n VII\n\nWith this is connected an important principle of _composition_. In a\npicture it is possible to set the things inorganically above one another\nor side by side or behind one another without any emphasis of\nperspective or interrelation, i.e., without insisting upon the\ndependence of their actuality upon the structure of space which does not\nnecessarily mean that this dependence is denied. Primitive men and\nchildren draw thus, before their depth-experience has brought the sense-\nimpressions of their world more or less into fundamental order. But this\norder differs in the different Cultures according to the prime symbols\nof these Cultures. The sort of perspective composition that is so self-\nevident to us is a particular case, and it is neither recognized nor\nintended in the painting of any other Culture. Egyptian art chose to\nrepresent simultaneous events in superposed ranks, thereby eliminating\nthe third dimension from the look of the picture. The Apollinian art\nplaced figures and groups separately, with a deliberate avoidance of\nspace-and-time relations in the plane of representation. Polygnotus\u2019s\nfrescoes in the Lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi are a celebrated\ninstance of this. There is no background to connect the individual\nscenes\u2014for such a background would have been a challenge to the\nprinciple that things alone are actual and space non-existent. The\npediment of the \u00c6gina temple, the procession of gods on the Fran\u00e7ois\nVase and the Frieze of the Giants of Pergamum are all composed as\nmeander-syntheses of separate and interchangeable motives, without\norganic character. It is only with the Hellenistic age (the Telephus\nFrieze of the altar of Pergamum is the earliest example that has been\npreserved) that the un-Classical motive of the consistent series comes\ninto existence. In this respect, as in others, the feeling of the\nRenaissance was truly Gothic. It did indeed carry group-composition to\nsuch a pitch of perfection that its work remains the pattern for all\nfollowing ages. But the order of it all proceeded out of space. In the\nlast analysis, it was a silent music of colour-illumined extension that\ncreated within itself _light-resistances_, which the understanding eye\ncould grasp as things and as existence, and could set marching with an\ninvisible swing and rhythm out into the distance. And with this spatial\nordering, with its unremarked substitution of air-and light-perspective\nfor line-perspective, the Renaissance was already, in essence, defeated.\n\nAnd now from the end of the Renaissance in Orlando Lasso and Palestrina\nright up to Wagner, from Titian right up to Manet and Mar\u00e9es and Leibl,\ngreat musicians and great painters followed close upon one another while\nthe plastic art sank into entire insignificance. Oil-painting and\ninstrumental music evolve organically towards aims that were\ncomprehended in the Gothic and achieved in the Baroque. Both arts\u2014\nFaustian in the highest sense\u2014are within those limits _prime phenomena_.\nThey have a soul, a physiognomy and therefore a history. And in this\nthey are alone. All that sculpture could thenceforward achieve was a few\nbeautiful incidental pieces in the shadow of painting, garden-art, or\narchitecture. The art of the West had no real need of them. There was no\nlonger a _style_ of plastic in the sense that there were styles of\npainting or music. No consistent tradition or necessary unity links the\nworks of Maderna, Goujon, Puget and Schl\u00fcter. Even Leonardo begins to\ndespise the chisel outright: at most he will admit the bronze cast, and\nthat on account of its pictorial advantages. Therein he differs from\nMichelangelo, for whom the marble block was still the true element. And\nyet even Michelangelo in his old age could no longer succeed with the\nplastic, and none of the later sculptors are great in the sense that\nRembrandt and Bach are great. There were clever and tasteful\nperformances no doubt, but not one single _work_ of the same order as\nthe \u201cNight Watch\u201d or the \u201cMatthew Passion,\u201d nothing that expresses, as\nthese express, the whole depth of a whole mankind. This art had fallen\nout of the destiny of the Culture. Its speech meant nothing now. What\nthere is in a Rembrandt portrait simply cannot be rendered in a bust.\nNow and then a sculptor of power arises, like Bernini or the masters of\nthe contemporary Spanish school, or Pigalle or Rodin (none of whom,\nnaturally, transcended the decorative and attained the level of grand\nsymbolism), but such an artist is always visibly either a belated\nimitator of the Renaissance like Thorwaldsen, a disguised painter like\nHoudon or Rodin, an architect like Bernini and Schl\u00fcter or a decorator\nlike Coysevox. And his very appearance on the scene only shows the more\nclearly that this art, incapable of carrying the Faustian burden, has no\nlonger a mission\u2014and therefore no longer a soul or a life-history of\nspecific style-development\u2014in the Faustian world. In the Classical\nworld, correspondingly, music was the art that failed. Beginning with\nprobably quite important advances in the earliest Doric, it had to give\nway in the ripe centuries of Ionic (650-350) to the two truly Apollinian\narts, sculpture and fresco; renouncing harmony and polyphony, it had to\nrenounce therewith any pretensions to organic development as a higher\nart.\n\n VIII\n\nThe strict style in Classical painting limited its palette to yellow,\nred, black and white. This singular fact was observed long ago, and,\nsince the explanation was only sought for in superficial and definitely\nmaterial causes, wild hypotheses were brought forward to account for it,\ne.g., a supposed colour-blindness in the Greeks. Even Nietzsche\ndiscussed this (_Morgenr\u00f6te_, 426).\n\nBut why did this painting in its great days _avoid_ blue and even blue-\ngreen, and only begin the gamut of permissible tones at greenish-yellow\nand bluish-red? It is not that the ancient artists did not know of blue\nand its effect. The metopes of many temples had blue backgrounds so that\nthey should appear deep in contrast with the triglyphs; and trade-\npainting used _all_ the colours that were technically available. There\nare authentic blue horses in archaic Acropolis work and Etruscan tomb-\npainting; and a bright blue colouring of the hair was quite common. The\nban upon it in the higher art was, without a doubt, imposed upon the\nEuclidean soul by its prime symbol.\n\nBlue and green are the colours of the heavens, the sea, the fruitful\nplain, the shadow of the Southern noon, the evening, the remote\nmountains. They are essentially atmospheric and not substantial colours.\nThey are _cold_, they disembody, and they evoke impressions of expanse\nand distance and boundlessness.\n\nFor this reason they were kept out of the frescoes of Polygnotus. And\nfor this reason also, an \u201cinfinitesimal\u201d blue-to-green is the space-\ncreating element throughout the history of our perspective oil-painting,\nfrom the Venetians right into the 19th Century; it is the basic and\nsupremely important tone which _supports_ the ensemble of the intended\ncolour-effect, as the _basso continuo_ supports the orchestra, whereas\nthe warm yellow and red tones are put on sparingly and in dependence\nupon this basic tone. It is not the full, gorgeous and _familiar_ green\nthat Raphael and D\u00fcrer sometimes\u2014and seldom at that\u2014use for draperies,\nbut an indefinite blue-green of a thousand nuances into white and grey\nand brown; something deeply musical, into which (notably in Gobelin\ntapestry) the whole atmosphere is plunged. That quality which we have\nnamed aerial perspective in contrast to linear\u2014and might also have\ncalled _Baroque_ perspective in contrast to Renaissance\u2014rests almost\nexclusively upon this. We find it with more and more intense depth-\neffect in Leonardo, Guercino, Albani in the case of Italy, and in\nRuysdael and Hobbema in that of Holland, but, above all, in the great\nFrench painters, from Poussin and Claude Lorrain and Watteau to Corot.\nBlue, equally a perspective colour, always stands in relation to the\ndark, the unillumined, the unactual. It does not press in on us, it\npulls us out into the remote. An \u201cenchanting nothingness\u201d Goethe calls\nit in his _Farbenlehre_.\n\nBlue and green are transcendent, spiritual, non-sensuous colours. They\nare missing in the strict Attic fresco and _therefore dominant_ in oil-\npainting. Yellow and red, the Classical colours, are the colours of the\nmaterial, the near, the full-blooded. Red is the characteristic colour\nof sexuality\u2014hence it is the only colour that works upon the beasts. It\nmatches best the Phallus-symbol\u2014and therefore the statue and the Doric\ncolumn\u2014but it is pure blue that etherealizes the Madonna\u2019s mantle. This\nrelation of the colours has established itself in every great school as\na deep-felt necessity. Violet, a red succumbing to blue, is the colour\nof women no longer fruitful and of priests living in celibacy.\n\nYellow and red are the _popular_ colours, the colours of the crowd, of\nchildren, of women, and of savages. Amongst the Venetians and the\nSpaniards high personages affected a splendid black or blue, with an\nunconscious sense of the aloofness inherent in these colours. For red\nand yellow, the _Apollinian, Euclidean-polytheistic_ colours, belong to\nthe foreground even in respect of social life; they are meet for the\nnoisy hearty market-days and holidays, the na\u00efve immediateness of a life\nsubject to the blind chances of the Classical _Fatum_, the point-\nexistence. But blue and green\u2014the Faustian, monotheistic colours\u2014are\nthose of loneliness, of care, of a present that is related to a past and\na future, of destiny as the dispensation governing the universe from\nwithin.\n\nThe relation of Shakespearian destiny to space and of Sophoclean to the\nindividual body has already been stated in an earlier chapter. All the\ngenuinely transcendent Cultures\u2014that is all whose prime-symbol requires\nthe _overcoming_ of the apparent, the life of struggle and not that of\nacceptance\u2014have the same metaphysical inclination to space as to blues\nand blacks. There are profound observations on the connexion between\nideas of space and the meaning of colour in Goethe\u2019s studies of\n\u201centoptic colours\u201d in the atmosphere; the symbolism that is enunciated\nby him in the _Farbenlehre_ and that which we have deduced here from the\nideas of Space and Destiny are in complete agreement.\n\nThe most significant use of dusky green as the colour of destiny is\nGr\u00fcnewald\u2019s. The indescribable power of space in his _nights_ is\nequalled only by Rembrandt\u2019s. And the thought suggests itself here, is\nit possible to say that his bluish-green, the colour in which the\ninterior of a great cathedral is so often clothed, is the specifically\n_Catholic_ colour?\u2014it being understood that we mean by \u201cCatholic\u201d\nstrictly the Faustian Christianity (with the Eucharist as its centre)\nthat was founded in the Lateran Council of 1215 and fulfilled in the\nCouncil of Trent. This colour with its silent grandeur is as remote from\nthe resplendent gold-ground of Early Christian-Byzantine pictures as it\nis from the gay, loquacious \u201cpagan\u201d colours of the painted Hellenic\ntemples and statues. It is to be noted that the effect of this colour,\nentirely unlike that of yellow and red, depends upon work being\nexhibited _indoors_. Classical painting is emphatically a public art,\nWestern just as emphatically a studio-art. The whole of our great oil-\npainting, from Leonardo to the end of the 18th Century, is not meant for\nthe bright light of day. Here once more we meet the same opposition as\nthat between chamber-music and the free-standing statue. The climatic\nexplanation of the difference is merely superficial; the example of\nEgyptian painting would suffice to disprove it if disproof were\nnecessary at all. Infinite space meant for Classical feeling complete\nnothingness, and the use of blue and green, with their powers of\ndissolving the near and creating the far, would have been a challenge to\nthe absolutism of the foreground and its unit-bodies, and therefore to\nthe very meaning and intent of Apollinian art. To the Apollinian eye,\npictures in the colours of Watteau would have been destitute of all\nessence, things of almost inexpressible emptiness and untruth. By these\ncolours the visually-perceived light-reflecting surface of the picture\nis made effectively to render, not circumscribed things, but\ncircumambient space. And that is why they are missing in Greece and\ndominant in the West.\n\n IX\n\nArabian art brought the Magian world-feeling to expression by means of\nthe _gold ground_ of its mosaics and pictures. Something of the uncanny\nwizardry of this, and by implication of its symbolic purpose, is known\nto us through the mosaics of Ravenna, in the work of the Early Rhenish\nand especially North Italian masters who were still entirely under the\ninfluence of Lombardo-Byzantine models, and last but not least in the\nGothic book-illustrations of which the archetypes were the Byzantine\npurple codices.\n\nIn this instance we can study the soul of three Cultures working upon\nvery similar tasks in very dissimilar ways. The Apollinian Culture\nrecognized as actual only that which was immediately present in time and\nplace\u2014and thus it repudiated the background as pictorial element. The\nFaustian strove through all sensuous barriers towards infinity\u2014and it\nprojected the centre of gravity of the pictorial idea into the distance\nby means of perspective. The Magian felt all happening as an expression\nof mysterious powers that filled the world-cavern with their spiritual\nsubstance\u2014and it shut off the depicted scene with a gold background,\nthat is, by something that stood beyond and outside all nature-colours.\nGold is not a colour. As compared with simple yellow, it produces a\ncomplicated sense-impression, through the metallic, diffuse refulgence\nthat is generated by its glowing surface. Colours\u2014whether coloured\nsubstance incorporated with the smoothed wall-face (fresco) or pigment\napplied with the brush\u2014are natural. But the metallic gleam, which is\npractically never found in natural conditions, is unearthly.[311] It\nrecalls impressively the other symbols of the Culture, Alchemy and\nKabbala, the Philosophers\u2019 Stone, the Holy Scriptures, the Arabesque,\nthe inner form of the tales of the \u201cThousand and One Nights.\u201d The\ngleaming gold takes away from the scene, the life and the body their\nsubstantial being. Everything that was taught in the circle of Plotinus\nor by the Gnostics as to the nature of things, their independence of\nspace, their accidental causes\u2014notions paradoxical and almost\nunintelligible to _our_ world-feeling\u2014is implicit also in the symbolism\nof this mysterious hieratic background. The nature of bodies was a\nprincipal subject of controversy amongst Neo-Pythagoreans and Neo-\nPlatonists, as it was later in the schools of Baghdad and Basra.\nSuhrawardi distinguishes extension, as the primary existence of the\nbody, from width and height and depth as its accidents. Nazz\u00e2m\npronounced against the corporeal substantiality and space-filling\ncharacter of the atom. These and the like were the metaphysical notions\nthat, from Philo and Paul to the last great names of the Islamic\nphilosophy, manifested the Arabian world-feeling. They played a decisive\npart in the disputes of the Councils upon the substantiality of\nChrist.[312] And thus the gold background possesses, in the iconography\nof the Western Church, an explicit dogmatic significance. It is an\nexpress assertion of the existence and activity of the divine spirit. It\nrepresents the _Arabian_ form of the Christian world-consciousness, and\nwith such a deep appropriateness that for a thousand years this\ntreatment of the background was held to be the only one metaphysically\u2014\nand even ethically\u2014possible and seemly in representations of the\nChristian legend. When \u201cnatural\u201d backgrounds, with their blue-green\nheavens, far horizons and depth perspective, began to appear in early\nGothic, they had at first the appearance of something profane and\nworldly. The change of dogma that they implied was, if not acknowledged,\nat any rate felt, witness the tapestry backgrounds with which the real\ndepth of space was covered up by a pious awe that disguised what it\ndared not exhibit. We have seen how just at this time, when the\n_Faustian_ (German-Catholic) Christianity attained to consciousness of\nitself through the institution of the sacrament of Contrition\u2014a new\nreligion in the old garb\u2014the tendency to perspective, colour, and the\nmastering of aerial space in the art of the Franciscans[313] transformed\nthe whole meaning of painting.\n\nThe Christianity of the West is related to that of the East as the\nsymbol of perspective to the symbol of gold-ground\u2014and the final schism\ntook place almost at the same moment in Church and in Art. The\nlandscape-background of the depicted scene and the _dynamic_\ninfiniteness of God were comprehended at the same moment; and,\nsimultaneously with the gold ground of the sacred picture, there\nvanished from the Councils of the West that Magian, ontological problem\nof Godhead which had so passionately agitated Nic\u00e6a, Ephesus, Chalcedon\nand all the Councils of the East.\n\n X\n\nThe Venetians discovered, and introduced into oil-painting as a space-\nforming and quasi-musical motive, the handwriting of the _visible brush-\nstroke_. The Florentine masters had never at any time challenged the\nfashion\u2014would-be Classical and yet in Gothic employ\u2014of smoothing out all\nturns of the brush so as to produce pure, cleanly-outlined and even\ncolour-surfaces. In consequence, their pictures have a certain air of\n_being_, something felt, unmistakably, as the opposite of the inherent\n_motion_-quality of the Gothic expression-means that were storming in\nfrom over the Alps. The 15th-Century manner of applying colour is a\ndenial of past and future. It is only in the brushwork, which remains\npermanently visible and, in a way, perennially fresh, that the\n_historical_ feeling comes out. Our desire is to see in the work of the\npainter not merely something that _has become_ but something that _is\nbecoming_. And this is precisely what the Renaissance wanted to avoid. A\npiece of Perugino drapery tells us nothing of its artistic origin; it is\nready-made, given, simply present. But the individual brush-strokes\u2014\nfirst met with as a complete new form-language in the later work of\nTitian\u2014are accents of a personal temperament, characteristic in the\norchestra-colours of Monteverde, melodically-flowing as a contemporary\nVenetian madrigal: streaks and dabs, immediately juxtaposed, cross one\nanother, cover one another, entangle one another, and bring unending\nmovement into the plain element of colour. Just so the geometrical\nAnalysis of the time made its objects become instead of being. Every\npainting has in its execution a history and does not disguise it; and a\nFaustian who stands before it feels that he too has a spiritual\nevolution. Before any great landscape by a Baroque master, the one word\n\u201chistorical\u201d is enough to make us feel that there is a meaning in it\nwholly alien to the meaning of an Attic statue. As other melody, so also\nthis of the restless outlineless brush-stroke is part of the dynamic\nstability of the universe of eternal Becoming, directional Time, and\nDestiny. The opposition of painting-style and drawing-style is but a\nparticular aspect of the general opposition of historical and\nahistorical form, of assertion and denial of inner development, of\neternity and instantaneity. A Classical art-work is an event, a Western\nis a deed. The one symbolizes the here-and-now point, the other the\nliving course. And the physiognomy of this script of the brush\u2014an\nornamentation that is entirely new, infinitely rich and personal, and\npeculiar to the Western Culture\u2014is purely and simply _musical_. It is no\nmere conceit to compare the _allegro feroce_ of Frans Hals with the\n_andante con moto_ of Van Dyck, or the minor of Guercino with the major\nof Velasquez. Henceforward the notion of _tempo_ is comprised in the\nexecution of a painting and steadily reminds us that this art is the art\nof a soul which, in contrast to the Classical, forgets nothing and will\nlet nothing be forgotten that once was. The a\u00ebry web of brush-strokes\nimmediately dissolves the sensible surface of things. Contours melt into\nchiaroscuro. The beholder has to stand a very long way back to obtain\nany corporeal impression out of our coloured space values, and even so\nit is always the chromatic and active air itself that gives birth to the\nthings.\n\nAt the same time with this, there appeared in Western painting another\nsymbol of highest significance, which subdued more and more the\nactuality of all colour\u2014the \u201cstudio-brown\u201d (atelierbraun). This was\nunknown to the early Florentines and the older Flemish and Rhenish\nmasters alike. Pacher, D\u00fcrer, Holbein, passionately strong as their\ntendency towards spatial depth seems, are quite without it, and its\nreign begins only with the last years of the 16th Century. This brown\ndoes not repudiate its descent from the \u201cinfinitesimal\u201d greens of\nLeonardo\u2019s, Sch\u00f6ngauer\u2019s and Gr\u00fcnewald\u2019s backgrounds, but it possesses a\nmightier power over things than they, and it carries the battle of Space\nagainst Matter to a decisive close. It even prevails over the more\nprimitive linear perspective, which is unable to shake off its\nRenaissance association with architectural motives. Between it and the\nImpressionist technique of the visible brush-stroke there is an enduring\nand deeply suggestive connexion. Both in the end dissolve the tangible\nexistences of the sense-world\u2014the world of moments and foregrounds\u2014into\natmospheric semblances. Line disappears from the tone-picture. The\nMagian gold-ground had only dreamed of a mystic power that controlled\nand at will could thrust aside the laws governing corporeal existence\nwithin the world-cavern. But the brown of these pictures opened a\nprospect into an infinity of pure forms. And therefore its discovery\nmarks for the Western style a culmination in the process of its\nbecoming. _As contrasted with the preceding green, this colour has\nsomething Protestant in it._ It anticipates the hyperbolic[314] Northern\npantheism of the 18th Century which the Archangels voice in the Prologue\nof Goethe\u2019s \u201cFaust.\u201d[315] The atmosphere of Lear and the atmosphere of\nMacbeth are akin to it. The contemporary striving of instrumental music\ntowards freer and ever freer chromatics (de Rore, Luca Marenzio) and\ntowards the formation of bodies of tone by means of string and wind\nchoruses corresponds exactly with the new tendency of oil-painting to\ncreate _pictorial chromatics_ out of pure colours, by means of these\nunlimited brown shadings and the contrast-effect of immediately\njuxtaposed colour-strokes. Thereafter both the arts spread through their\nworlds of tones and colours\u2014colour-tones and tone-colours\u2014an atmosphere\nof the purest spatiality, which enveloped and rendered, no longer body\u2014\nthe human being as a shape\u2014but the soul unconfined. And thus was\nattained the inwardness that in the deepest works of Rembrandt and of\nBeethoven is able to unlock the last secrets themselves\u2014the inwardness\nwhich Apollinian man had sought with his strictly somatic art to _keep\nat bay_.\n\nFrom now onward, the old foreground-colours yellow and red\u2014the Classical\ntones\u2014are employed more and more rarely and always as deliberate\ncontrasts to the distances and depths that they are meant to set off and\nemphasize (Vermeer in particular, besides of course Rembrandt). This\natmospheric brown, which was entirely alien to the Renaissance, is the\nunrealest colour that there is. It is the one major colour that _does\nnot exist in the rainbow_. There is white light, and yellow and green,\nand red and other light of the most entire purity. But a pure brown\nlight is outside the possibilities of the Nature that we know. All the\ngreenish-brown, silvery, moist brown, and deep gold tones that appear in\ntheir splendid variety with Giorgione, grow bolder and bolder in the\ngreat Dutch painters and lose themselves towards the end of the 18th\nCentury, have the common quality that they strip nature of her tangible\nactuality. They contain, therefore, what is almost a religious\nprofession of faith; we feel that here we are not very far from Port\nRoyal, from Leibniz. With Constable on the other hand\u2014who is the founder\nof the painting of _Civilization_\u2014it is a different will that seeks\nexpression; and the very brown that he had learnt from the Dutch meant\nto him not what it had meant to them\u2014Destiny, God, the meaning of life\u2014\nbut simply romance, sensibility, yearning for something that was gone,\nmemorial of the great past of the dying art. In the last German masters\ntoo\u2014Lessing, Mar\u00e9es, Spitzweg, Diez, Leibl[316]\u2014whose belated art is a\nromantic retrospect, an epilogue, the brown tones appear simply as a\nprecious heirloom. Unwilling in their hearts to part with this last\nrelic of the great style, they preferred to set themselves against the\nevident tendency of their generation\u2014the soulless and soul-killing\ngeneration of _plein-air_ and Haeckel. Rightly understood (as it has\nnever yet been), this battle of Rembrandt-brown and the _plein-air_ of\nthe new school is simply one more case of the hopeless resistance put up\nby soul against intellect and Culture against Civilization, of the\nopposition of symbolic necessary art and megalopolitan \u201capplied\u201d art\nwhich affects building and painting and sculpture and poetry alike.\nRegarded thus, the significance of the brown becomes manifest enough.\nWhen it dies, an entire Culture dies with it.\n\nIt was the masters who were inwardly greatest\u2014Rembrandt above all\u2014who\nbest understood this colour. It is the enigmatic brown of his most\ntelling work, and its origin is in the deep lights of Gothic church-\nwindows and the twilight of the high-vaulted Gothic nave. And the gold\ntone of the great Venetians\u2014Titian, Veronese, Palma, Giorgione\u2014is always\nreminding us of that old perished Northern art of glass painting of\nwhich they themselves know almost nothing. Here also the Renaissance\nwith its deliberate bodiliness of colour is seen as merely an episode,\nan event of the very self-conscious surface, and not a product of the\nunderlying Faustian instinct of the Western soul, whereas this luminous\ngold-brown of the Venetian painting links Gothic and Baroque, the art of\nthe old glass-painting and the dark music of Beethoven. And it coincides\nprecisely in time with the establishment of the Baroque style of colour-\nmusic by the work of the Netherlanders Willaert and Cyprian de Rore, the\nelder Gabrieli, and the Venetian music-school which they founded.\n\nBrown, then, became the characteristic colour of the _soul_, and more\nparticularly of a historically-disposed soul. Nietzsche has, I think,\nspoken somewhere of the \u201cbrown\u201d music of Bizet, but the adjective is far\nmore appropriate to the music which Beethoven wrote for strings[317] and\nto the orchestration that even as late as Bruckner so often fills space\nwith a browny-golden expanse of tone. All other colours are relegated to\nancillary functions\u2014thus the bright yellow and the vermilion of Vermeer\nintrude with the spatial almost as though from another world and with an\nemphasis that is truly metaphysical, and the yellow-green and blood-red\nlights of Rembrandt seem at most to play with the symbolism of space. In\nRubens, on the contrary\u2014brilliant performer but no thinker\u2014the brown is\nalmost destitute of idea, a shadow-colour. (In him and in Watteau, the\n\u201cCatholic\u201d blue-green disputes precedence with the brown.) All this\nshows how any particular means may, in the hands of men of inward depth,\nbecome a symbol for the evocation of such high transcendence as that of\nthe Rembrandt landscape, while for other great masters it may be merely\na serviceable technical expedient\u2014or in other words that (as we have\nalready seen) technical \u201cform,\u201d in the theoretical sense of something\nopposed to \u201ccontent,\u201d has nothing whatever to do with the real and true\nform of a great work.\n\nI have called brown a historical colour. By this is meant that it makes\nthe atmosphere of the pictured space signify directedness and _future_,\nand overpowers the assertiveness of any instantaneous element that may\nbe represented. The other colours of distance have also this\nsignificance, and they lead to an important, considerable and distinctly\nbizarre extension of the Western symbolism. The Hellenes had in the end\ncome to prefer bronze and even gilt-bronze to the painted marble, the\nbetter to express (by the radiance of this phenomenon against a deep\nblue sky) the idea of the individualness of any and every corporeal\nthing.[318] Now, when the Renaissance dug these statues up, it found\nthem black and green with the patina of many centuries. The historic\nspirit, with its piety and longing, fastened on to this\u2014and from that\ntime forth our form-feeling has canonized this black and green of\ndistance. To-day our eye finds it indispensable to the enjoyment of a\nbronze\u2014an ironical illustration of the fact that this whole species of\nart is something that no longer concerns us as such. What does a\ncathedral dome or a bronze figure mean to us without the patina which\ntransmutes the short-range brilliance into the tone of remoteness of\ntime and place? Have we not got to the point of artificially producing\nthis patina?[319]\n\nBut even more than this is involved in the ennoblement of decay to the\nlevel of an art-means of independent significance. That a Greek would\nhave regarded the formation of patina as the ruin of the work, we can\nhardly doubt. It is not merely that the colour green, on account of its\n\u201cdistant\u201d quality, was avoided by him on spiritual grounds. Patina is a\nsymbol of _mortality_ and hence related in a remarkable way to the\nsymbols of time-measurement and the funeral rite. We have already in an\nearlier chapter discussed the wistful regard of the Faustian soul for\nruins and evidences of the distant past, its proneness to the collection\nof antiquities and manuscripts and coins, to pilgrimages to the Forum\nRomanum and to Pompeii, to excavations and philological studies, which\nappears as early as the time of Petrarch. When would it have occurred to\na Greek to bother himself with the ruins of Cnossus or Tiryns?[320]\nEvery Greek knew his \u201cIliad\u201d but not one ever thought of digging up the\nhill of Troy. We, on the contrary, are moved by a secret piety to\npreserve the aqueducts of the Campagna, the Etruscan tombs, the ruins of\nLuxor and Karnak, the crumbling castles of the Rhine, the Roman Limes,\nHersfeld and Paulinzella from becoming mere rubbish\u2014but we keep them _as\nruins_, feeling in some subtle way that reconstruction would deprive\nthem of something, indefinable in terms, that can never be\nreproduced.[321] Nothing was further from the Classical mind than this\nreverence for the weather-beaten evidences of a once and a formerly. It\ncleared out of sight everything that did not speak of the present; never\nwas the old preserved because it was old. After the Persians had\ndestroyed old Athens, the citizens threw columns, statues, reliefs,\nbroken or not, over the Acropolis wall, in order to start afresh with a\nclean slate\u2014and the resultant scrap-heaps have been our richest sources\nfor the art of the 6th Century. Their action was quite in keeping with\nthe style of a Culture that raised cremation to the rank of a major\nsymbol and refused with scorn to bind daily life to a chronology. _Our_\nchoice has been, as usual, the opposite. The heroic landscape of the\nClaude Lorrain type is inconceivable without ruins. The English park\nwith its atmospheric suggestion, which supplanted the French about 1750\nand abandoned the great perspective idea of the latter in favour of the\n\u201cNature\u201d of Addison, Pope and sensibility, introduced into its stock of\nmotives perhaps the most astonishing bizarrerie ever perpetrated, the\n_artificial ruin_, in order to deepen the historical character in the\npresented landscape.[322] The Egyptian Culture restored the works of its\nearly period, but it would never have ventured to _build_ ruins as the\nsymbols of the past. Again, it is not the Classical statue, but the\nClassical _torso_ that we really love. It has had a destiny: something\nsuggestive of the past as past envelops it, and our imagination delights\nto fill the empty space of missing limbs with the pulse and swing of\ninvisible lines. A good restoration\u2014and the secret charm of endless\npossibilities is all gone. I venture to maintain that it is only by way\nof this _transposition into the musical_ that the remains of Classical\nsculpture can really reach us. The green bronze, the blackened marble,\nthe fragments of a figure abolish for our inner eye the limitations of\ntime and space. \u201cPicturesque\u201d this has been called\u2014the brand-new statue\nand building and the too-well-groomed park are not picturesque\u2014and the\nword is just to this extent, that the deep meaning of this weathering is\nthe same as that of the studio-brown. But, at bottom, what both express\nis the spirit of instrumental music. Would the Spearman of Polycletus,\nstanding before us in flashing bronze and with enamel eyes and gilded\nhair, affect us as it does in the state of blackened age? Would not the\nVatican torso of Heracles lose its mighty impressiveness if, one fine\nday, the missing parts were discovered and replaced? And would not the\ntowers and domes of our old cities lose their deep metaphysical charm if\nthey were sheathed in new copper? Age, for us as for the Egyptian,\nennobles all things. For Classical man, it depreciates them.\n\nLastly, consider Western tragedy; observe how the same feeling leads it\nto prefer \u201chistorical\u201d material\u2014meaning thereby not so much demonstrably\nactual or even possible, but _remote and crusted_ subjects. That which\nthe Faustian soul wanted, and must have, could not be expressed by any\nevent of purely momentary meaning, lacking in distance of time or place,\nor by a tragic art of the Classical kind, or by a timeless myth. Our\ntragedies, consequently, are tragedies of the past and of the future\u2014the\nlatter category, in which men yet to be are shown as carriers of a\nDestiny, is represented in a certain sense by \u201cFaust,\u201d \u201cPeer Gynt\u201d and\nthe \u201cG\u00f6tterd\u00e4mmerung.\u201d But tragedies of the present we have _not_, apart\nfrom the trivial social drama of the 19th Century.[323] If Shakespeare\nwanted on occasion to express anything of importance in the present, he\nat least removed the scene of it to some foreign land\u2014Italy for\npreference\u2014in which he had never been, and German poets likewise take\nEngland or France\u2014always for the sake of getting rid of that _nearness_\nof time and place which the Attic drama emphasized even in the case of a\nmythological subject.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n MUSIC AND PLASTIC\n\n II\n\n ACT AND PORTRAIT\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n MUSIC AND PLASTIC\n\n\n II\n ACT AND PORTRAIT\n\n I\n\nThe Classical has been characterized as a culture of the Body and the\nNorthern as a culture of the Spirit, and not without a certain _arri\u00e8re-\npens\u00e9e_ of disprizing the one in favour of the other. Though it was\nmainly in trivialities that Renaissance taste made its contrasts between\nClassical and Modern, Pagan and Christian, yet even this might have led\nto decisive discoveries if only men had seen how to get behind formula\nto origins.\n\nIf the environment of a man (whatever else it may be) is with respect to\nhim a macrocosm with respect to a microcosm, an immense aggregate of\nsymbols, then the man himself, in so far as he belongs to the fabric of\nactuality, in so far as he is _phenomenal_, must be comprised in the\ngeneral symbolism. But, in the impress of him made upon men like\nhimself, what is it that possesses the force of Symbol, viz., the\ncapacity of summing within itself and intelligibly presenting the\nessence of that man and the signification of his being? Art gives the\nanswer.\n\nBut this answer is necessarily different in different Cultures. As each\nlives differently, so each is differently impressed by Life. For the\nmode of human imagining\u2014metaphysical, ethical, artistic imagining alike\u2014\nit is more than important, it is determinant that the individual feels\nhimself as a body amongst bodies or, on the contrary, as a centre in\nendless space; that he subtilizes his ego into lone distinctness or, on\nthe contrary, regards it as substantially part of the general consensus,\nthat the directional character is asserted or, on the contrary, denied\nin the rhythm and course of his life. In all these ways the prime-symbol\nof the great Culture comes to manifestation: this is indeed a world-\nfeeling, but the life-ideal conforms to it. From the Classical ideal\nfollowed unreserved acceptance of the sensuous instant, from the Western\na not less passionate wrestle to overcome it. The Apollinian soul,\nEuclidean and point-formed, felt the empirical visible body as the\ncomplete expression of its own way of being; the Faustian, roving into\nall distances, found this expression not in _person_, \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, but in\n_personality_, _character_, call it what you will. \u201cSoul\u201d for the real\nHellene was in last analysis the form of his body\u2014and thus Aristotle\ndefined it. \u201cBody\u201d for Faustian man was the vessel of the soul\u2014and thus\nGoethe felt it.\n\nBut the result of this is that Culture and Culture differ very greatly\nin their selection and formation of their humane arts. While Gluck\nexpresses the woe of Armida by a melody combined with drear gnawing\ntones in the instrumental accompaniment, the same is achieved in\nPergamene sculptures by making every muscle speak. The Hellenistic\nportraiture tries to draw a spiritual _type_ in the structure of its\nheads. In China the heads of the Saints of Ling-yan-si tell of a _wholly\npersonal_ inner life by their look and the play of the corners of the\nmouth.\n\nThe Classical tendency towards making the body the sole spokesman is\nemphatically not the result of any carnal overload in the race (to the\nman of \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 wantonness was not permitted[324]), it was _not_, as\nNietzsche thought, an orgiastic joy of untrammelled energy and perfervid\npassion. This sort of thing is much nearer to the ideals of Germanic-\nChristian or of Indian chivalry. What Apollinian man and Apollinian art\ncan claim as their very own is simply the apotheosis of the bodily\n_phenomenon_, taking the word perfectly literally\u2014the rhythmic\nproportioning of limbs and harmonious build of muscles. This is _not_\nPagan as against Christian, it is Attic as against Baroque; for it was\nBaroque mankind (Christian or unbeliever, monk or rationalist) that\nfirst utterly put away the cult of the palpable \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, carrying its\nalienation indeed to the extremes of bodily uncleanliness that prevailed\nin the entourage of Louis XIV,[325] whose full wigs and lace cuffs and\nbuckled shoes covered up Body with a whole web of ornament.\n\nThus the Classical plastic art, after liberating the form completely\nfrom the actual or imaginary back-wall and setting it up in the open,\nfree and unrelated, to be seen as a body among bodies, moved on\nlogically till the _naked_ body became its only subject. And, moreover,\nit is unlike every other kind of sculpture recorded in art-history in\nthat its treatment of the bounding surfaces of this body is\n_anatomically convincing_. Here is the Euclidean world-principle carried\nto the extreme; any envelope whatever would have been in contradiction,\nhowever slightly, with the Apollinian phenomenon, would have indicated,\nhowever timidly, the existence of the circum-space.\n\nIn this art, what is ornamental in the high sense resides entirely in\nthe proportions of the structure[326] and the equivalence of the axes in\nrespect of support and load. Standing, sitting, lying down but always\nself-secure, the body has, like the peripteros, no interior, that is, no\n\u201csoul.\u201d The significance of the muscle-relief, carried out absolutely in\nthe round, is the same as that of the self-closing array of the columns;\nboth contain the _whole_ of the form-language of the work.\n\nIt was a strictly metaphysical reason, the need of a supreme life-symbol\nfor themselves, that brought the later Hellenes to this art, which under\nall the consummate achievement is a narrow one. It is not true that this\nlanguage of the outer surface is the completest, or the most natural, or\neven the most obvious mode of representing the human being. Quite the\ncontrary. If the Renaissance, with its ardent theory and its immense\nmisconception of its own tendency, had not continued to dominate our\njudgment\u2014long after the plastic art itself had become entirely alien to\nour inner soul\u2014we should not have waited till to-day to observe this\ndistinctive character of the Attic style. No Egyptian or Chinese\nsculptor ever dreamed of using external anatomy to express his meaning.\nIn Gothic image-work a language of the muscles is unheard of. The human\ntracery that clothes the mighty Gothic framework with a web of countless\nfigures and reliefs (Chartres cathedral has more than _ten thousand_\nsuch) is not merely ornament; as early as about 1200 it is employed for\nthe expression of schemes and purposes far grander than even the\ngrandest of Classical plastic. For these masses of figures constitute a\n_tragic_ unit. Here, by the North even earlier than by Dante, the\nhistorical feeling of the Faustian soul\u2014of which the deep sacrament of\n_Contrition_ is the spiritual expression and the rite of _Confession_\nthe grave teacher\u2014is intensified to the tragic fullness of a world-\ndrama. That which Joachim of Floris, at this very time, was seeing in\nhis Apulian cell\u2014the picture of the world, not as Cosmos, but as a\nDivine History and succession of three world-ages[327]\u2014the craftsmen\nwere expressing at Reims, Amiens and Paris in serial presentation of it\nfrom the Fall to the Last Judgment. Each of the scenes, each of the\ngreat symbolic figures, had its significant place in the sacred edifice,\neach its r\u00f4le in the immense world-poem. Then, too, each individual man\ncame to feel how his life-course was fitted as ornament in the plan of\nDivine history, and to experience this personal connexion with it in the\nforms of Contrition and Confession. And thus these bodies of stone are\nnot mere servants of the architecture. They have a deep and particular\nmeaning of their own, the same meaning as the memorial-tomb brings to\nexpression with ever-increasing intensity from the Royal Tombs of St.\nDenis onward; they speak of a _personality_. Just as Classical man\nproperly meant, with his perfected working-out of _superficial_ body\n(for all the anatomical aspiration of the Greek artist comes to that in\nthe end), to exhaust the whole essence of the living phenomenon in and\nby the rendering of its bounding surfaces, so Faustian man no less\nlogically found the most genuine, the only exhaustive, expression of his\nlife-feeling in the _Portrait_. The Hellenic treatment of the nude is\nthe great exceptional case; in this and in this only has it led to an\nart of the high order.[328]\n\n_Act_ and _Portrait_ have never hitherto been felt as constituting an\nopposition, and consequently the full significance of their appearances\nin art-history has never been appreciated. And yet it is in the conflict\nof these two form-ideals that the contrast of two worlds is first\nmanifested in full. There, on the one hand, an existence is made to show\nitself in the composition of the exterior structure; here, on the other\nhand, the human interior, the Soul, is made to speak of itself, as the\ninterior of a church speaks to us through its fa\u00e7ade or face. A mosque\nhad no face, and consequently the Iconoclastic movement of the Moslems\nand the Paulicians\u2014which under Leo III spread to Byzantium and beyond\u2014\nnecessarily drove the portrait-element quite out of the arts of form, so\nthat thenceforward they possessed only a fixed stock of human\narabesques. In Egypt the face of the statue was equivalent to the pylon,\nthe face of the temple-plan; it was a mighty emergence out of the stone-\nmass of the body, as we see in the \u201cHyksos Sphinx\u201d of Tanis and the\nportrait of Amenemhet III. In China the face is like a landscape, full\nof wrinkles and little signs that mean something. But, for us, the\nportrait is _musical_. The look, the play of the mouth, the pose of head\nand hands\u2014these things are a fugue of the subtlest meaning, a\ncomposition of many voices that _sounds_ to the understanding beholder.\n\nBut in order to grasp the significance of the portraiture of the West\nmore specifically in contrast with that of Egypt and that of China, we\nhave to consider the deep change in the language of the West that began\nin Merovingian times to foreshadow the dawn of a new life-feeling. This\nchange extended _equally_ over the old German and the vulgar Latin, but\nit affected only the tongues spoken in the countries of the coming\nCulture (for instance, Norwegian and Spanish, but not Rumanian). The\nchange would be inexplicable if we were to regard merely the spirit of\nthese languages and their \u201cinfluence\u201d of one upon another; the\nexplanation is in the spirit of the mankind that raised a mere way of\nusing words to the level of a symbol. Instead of _sum_, Gothic _im_, we\nsay _ich bin_, _I am_, _je suis_; instead of _fecisti_, we say _tu habes\nfactum_, _tu as fait_, _du habes git\u00e2n_; and again, _daz w\u00eep_, _un\nhomme_, _man hat_. This has hitherto been a riddle[329] because families\nof languages were considered as beings, but the mystery is solved when\nwe discover in the idiom the reflection of a soul. The Faustian soul is\nhere beginning to remould for its own use grammatical material of the\nmost varied provenance. The coming of this specific \u201cI\u201d is the first\ndawning of that personality-idea which was so much later to create the\nsacrament of Contrition and _personal_ absolution. This \u201cego habeo\nfactum,\u201d the insertion of the auxiliaries \u201chave\u201d and \u201cbe\u201d between a doer\nand a deed, in lieu of the \u201cfeci\u201d which expresses activated body,\nreplaces the world of bodies by one of functions between centres of\nforce, the static syntax by a dynamic. And this \u201cI\u201d and \u201cThou\u201d is the\nkey to Gothic portraiture. A Hellenistic portrait is the type of an\nattitude\u2014a confession it is not, either to the creator of it or to the\nunderstanding spectator. But our portraits depict something _sui\ngeneris_, once occurring and never recurring, a life-history expressed\nin a moment, a world-centre for which everything else is world-around,\nexactly as the grammatical subject \u201cI\u201d becomes the centre of force in\nthe Faustian sentence.\n\nIt has been shown how the experience of the extended has its origin in\nthe living _direction_, _time_, _destiny_. In the perfected \u201cbeing\u201d of\nthe all-round nude body the depth-experience has been cut away, but the\n\u201clook\u201d of a portrait leads this experience into the supersensuous\ninfinite. Therefore the Ancient art is an art of the near and tangible\nand timeless, it prefers motives of brief, briefest, pause between two\nmovements, the last moment _before_ Myron\u2019s athlete throws the discus,\nor the first moment after P\u00e6onius\u2019s Nike has alighted from the air, when\nthe swing of the body is ending and the streaming draperies have not yet\nfallen\u2014attitudes devoid equally of duration and of direction, disengaged\nfrom future and from past. \u201cVeni, vidi, vici\u201d is just such another\nattitude. But in \"I\u2014came, I\u2014saw, I\u2014conquered\" there is a becoming each\ntime in the very build of the sentence.\n\nThe depth-experience is a becoming and effects a become, signifies time\nand evokes space, is at once cosmic and historical. Living direction\nmarches to the horizon as to the future. As early as 1230 the Madonna of\nthe St. Anne entrance of Notre-Dame dreams of this future: so, later,\nthe Cologne \u201cMadonna with the Bean-blossom\u201d of Meister Wilhelm. Long\nbefore the Moses of Michelangelo, the Moses of Klaus Suter\u2019s well in the\nChartreuse of Dijon meditates on destiny, and even the Sibyls of the\nSistine Chapel are forestalled by those of Giovanni Pisano in Sant\u2019\nAndrea at Pistoia (1300). And, lastly, there are the figures on the\nGothic tombs\u2014how they rest from the long journey of Destiny and how\ncompletely they contrast with the _timeless_ grave and gay that is\nrepresented on the stel\u00e6 of Attic cemeteries.[330] The Western\nportraiture is endless in every sense, for it begins to wake out of the\nstone from about 1200 and it has become completely music in the 17th\nCentury. It takes its man not as a mere centre of the World-as-Nature\nwhich as phenomenon receives shape and significance from his being, but,\nabove all, as a centre of the World-as-History. The Classical statue is\na piece of present \u201cNature\u201d and nothing besides. The Classical poetry is\nstatuary in verse. Herein is the root of our feeling that ascribes to\nthe Greek an unreserved devotion to Nature. We shall never entirely\nshake off the idea that the Gothic style as compared with the Greek is\n\u201cunnatural.\u201d Of course it is, for it is _more than_ Nature; only we are\nunnecessarily loath to realize that it is a deficiency in the Greek that\nour feeling has detected. The Western form-language is richer\u2014\nportraiture belongs to Nature _and_ to history. A tomb by one of those\ngreat Netherlanders who worked on the Royal graves of St. Denis from\n1260, a portrait by Holbein or Titian or Rembrandt or Goya, is a\n_biography_, and a self-portrait is a historical _confession_. To make\none\u2019s confession is not to avow an act but to lay before the Judge the\ninner history of that act. The act is patent, its roots the personal\nsecret. When the Protestant or the Freethinker opposes auricular\nconfession, it never occurs to him that he is rejecting merely the\noutward form of the idea and not the idea itself. He declines to confess\nto the priest, but he confesses to himself, to a friend, or to all and\nsundry. The whole of Northern poetry is one outspoken confession. So are\nthe portraits of Rembrandt and the music of Beethoven. What Raphael and\nCalderon and Haydn told to the priests, these men put into the language\nof their works. One who is forced to be silent because the _greatness_\nof form that can take in even the ultimate things has been denied him\n... goes under like H\u00f6lderlin. Western man lives in the _consciousness_\nof his becoming and his eyes are constantly upon past and future. The\nGreek lives point-wise, ahistorically, somatically. No Greek would have\nbeen capable of a genuine self-criticism. As the phenomenon of the nude\nstatue is the completely ahistoric copy of a man, so the Western self-\nportrait is the exact equivalent of the \u201cWerther\u201d or \u201cTasso\u201d\nautobiography. To the Classical both are equally and wholly alien. There\nis nothing so impersonal as Greek art; that Scopas or Polycletus should\nmake an image of himself is something quite inconceivable.\n\nLooking at the work of Phidias, of Polycletus, or of any master later\nthan the Persian Wars, do we not see in the doming of the brow, the\nlips, the set of the nose, the blind eyes, the expression of entirely\nnon-personal, plantlike, _soulless_ vitality? And may we not ask\nourselves whether this is the form-language that is capable even of\nhinting at an inner experience? Michelangelo devoted himself with all\npassion to the study of anatomy, but the phenomenal body that he works\nout is always the expression of the activity of all bones, sinews and\norgans of the _inside_; without deliberate intention, the living that is\nunder the skin comes out in the phenomenon. It is a physiognomy, and not\na system, of muscles that he calls to life. But this means at once that\nthe personal destiny and not the material body has become the starting-\npoint of the form-feeling. There is more psychology (and less \u201cNature\u201d)\nin the arm of one of his Slaves[331] than there is in the whole head of\nPraxiteles\u2019s Hermes.[332] Myron\u2019s Discobolus,[333] on the other hand,\nrenders the exterior form purely as itself, without relation of any sort\nto the inner organs, let alone to any \u201csoul.\u201d One has only to take the\nbest work of this period and compare it with the old Egyptian statues,\nsay the \u201cVillage Sheikh\u201d[334] or King Phiops (Pepi), or again with\nDonatello\u2019s \u201cDavid,\u201d[335] to understand at once what it means to\nrecognize a body purely with reference to its material boundaries.\nEverything in a head that might allow something intimate or spiritual to\nbecome phenomenal the Greeks (and markedly this same Myron) most\ncarefully avoid. Once this characteristic has struck us, the best heads\nof the great age sooner or later begin to pall. Seen in the perspective\nof our world-feeling, they are stupid and dull, wanting in the\nbiographical element, devoid of any _destiny_. It was not out of caprice\nthat that age objected so strongly to votive images. The statues of\nOlympian victors are representatives of a fighting attitude. Right down\nto Lysippus there is not one single character-head, but only masks.\nAgain, considering the figure as a whole, with what skill the Greeks\navoid giving any impression that the head is the favoured part of the\nbody! That is why these heads are so small, so un-significant in their\npose, so un-thoroughly modelled. Always they are formed as a part of the\nbody like arms and legs, never as the seat and symbol of an \u201cI.\u201d\n\nAt last, even, we come to regard the feminine (not to say effeminate)\nlook of many of these heads of the 5th, and still more of the 4th,\nCenturies[336] as the\u2014no doubt unintentional\u2014outcome of an effort to get\nrid of personal character entirely. We should probably be justified in\nconcluding that the ideal facial type of this art\u2014which was certainly\nnot an art for the people, as the later naturalistic portrait-sculpture\nat once shows\u2014was arrived at by rejecting all elements of an individual\nor historical character; that is, by steadily narrowing down the field\nof view to the pure Euclidean.\n\nThe portraiture of the great age of Baroque, on the contrary, applies to\nhistorical distance all those means of pictorial counterpoint that we\nalready know as the fabric of their spatial distance\u2014the brown-dipped\natmosphere, the perspective, the dynamic brush-stroke, the quivering\ncolour-tones and lights\u2014and with their aid succeeds in treating body as\nsomething intrinsically non-material, as the highly expressive envelope\nof a space-commanding ego. (This problem the fresco-technique, Euclidean\nthat it is, is powerless to solve.) The whole painting has only one\ntheme, a soul. Observe the rendering of the hands and the brow in\nRembrandt (e.g., in the etching of Burgomaster Six or the portrait of an\narchitect at Cassel), and again, even so late, in Mar\u00e9es and Leibl[337]\u2014\nspiritual to the point of dematerializing them, visionary, lyrical.\nCompare them with the hand and brow of an Apollo or a Poseidon of the\nPericlean age!\n\nThe Gothic, too, had deeply and sincerely felt this. It had draped body,\nnot for its own sake but for the sake of developing in the ornament of\nthe drapery a form-language consonant with the language of the head and\nthe hands in a fugue of Life. So, too, with the relations of the voices\nin counterpoint and, in Baroque, those of the \u201ccontinuo\u201d to the upper\nvoices of the orchestra. In Rembrandt there is always interplay of bass\nmelody in the costume and motives in the head.\n\nLike the Gothic draped figure, the old Egyptian statue denies the\nintrinsic importance of body. As the former, by treating the clothing in\na purely ornamental fashion, reinforces the expressiveness of head and\nhands, so the latter, with a grandeur of idea never since equalled (at\nany rate in sculpture), holds the body\u2014as it holds a pyramid or an\nobelisk\u2014to a mathematical scheme and confines the personal element to\nthe head. The fall of draperies was meant in Athens to reveal the sense\nof the body, in the North to conceal it; in the one case the fabric\nbecomes body, in the other it becomes music. And from this deep contrast\nsprings the silent battle that goes on in high-Renaissance work between\nthe consciously-intended and the unconsciously-insistent ideals of the\nartist, a battle in which the first\u2014anti-Gothic\u2014often wins the\nsuperficial, but the second\u2014Gothic becoming Baroque\u2014invariably wins the\nfundamental victory.\n\n II\n\nThe opposition of Apollinian and Faustian ideals of Humanity may now be\nstated concisely. Act and Portrait are to one another as body and space,\ninstant and history, foreground and background, Euclidean and analytical\nnumber, proportion and relation. The Statue is rooted in the ground,\nMusic (and the Western portrait _is_ music, soul woven of colour-tones)\ninvades and pervades space without limit. The fresco-painting is tied to\nthe wall, trained on it, but the oil-painting, the \u201cpicture\u201d on canvas\nor board or other table, is free from limitations of place. The\nApollinian form-language reveals only the become, the Faustian shows\nabove all a becoming.\n\nIt is for this reason that child-portraits and family groups are amongst\nthe finest and most intimately right achievements of the Western art. In\nthe Attic sculpture this motive is entirely absent, and although in\nHellenistic times the playful motive of the Cupid or Putto came into\nfavour, it was expressly as a being _different_ from the other beings\nand not at all as a person growing or becoming. The child links past and\nfuture. In every art of human representation that has a claim to\nsymbolic import, it signifies duration in the midst of phenomenal\nchange, the endlessness of Life. But the Classical Life exhausted itself\nin the completeness of the moment. The individual shut his eyes to time-\ndistances; he comprehended in his thought the men like himself whom he\nsaw around him, but not the coming generations; and therefore there has\nnever been an art that so emphatically ignored the intimate\nrepresentation of children as the Greek art did. Consider the multitude\nof child-figures that our own art has produced from early Gothic to\ndying Rococo\u2014and in the Renaissance above all\u2014and find if you can in\nClassical art right down to Alexander one work of importance that\nintentionally sets by the side of the worked-out body of man or woman\nany child-element with existence still before it.\n\nEndless Becoming is comprehended in the idea of _Motherhood_, Woman as\nMother _is_ Time and _is_ Destiny. Just as the mysterious act of depth-\nexperience fashions, out of sensation, extension and world, so through\nmotherhood the bodily man is made an individual member of this world, in\nwhich thereupon he _has_ a Destiny. All symbols of Time and Distance are\nalso symbols of maternity. _Care_ is the root-feeling of future, and all\ncare is motherly. It expresses itself in the formation and the idea of\nFamily and State and in the principle of Inheritance which underlies\nboth. Care may be either affirmed or denied\u2014one can live care-filled or\ncare-free. Similarly, Time may be looked at in the light of eternity or\nin the light of the instant, and the drama of begetting and bearing or\nthe drama of the nursing mother with her child may be chosen as the\nsymbol of Life to be made apprehensible by all the means of art. India\nand the Classical took the first alternative, Egypt and the West the\nsecond.[338] There is something of pure unrelated present in the Phallus\nand the Lingam, and in the phenomenon of the Doric column and the Attic\nstatue as well. But the nursing Mother points into the future, and she\nis just the figure that is entirely missing in the Classical art. She\ncould not possibly be rendered in the style of Phidias. One feels that\nthis form is opposed to the sense of the phenomenon.\n\nBut in the religious art of the West, the representation of Motherhood\nis the noblest of all tasks. As Gothic dawns, the Theotokos of the\nByzantine changes into the Mater Dolorosa, the Mother of God. In German\nmythology she appears (doubtless from Carolingian times only) as Frigga\nand Frau Holle. The same feeling comes out in beautiful Minnesinger\nfancies like Lady Sun, Lady World, Lady Love. The whole panorama of\nearly Gothic mankind is pervaded by something maternal, something caring\nand patient, and Germanic-Catholic Christianity\u2014when it had ripened into\nfull consciousness of itself and in one impulse settled its sacraments\nand created its Gothic Style\u2014placed _not the suffering Redeemer but the\nsuffering Mother_ in the centre of its world-picture. About 1250, in the\ngreat epic of statuary of Reims Cathedral, the principal place in the\ncentre of the main porch, which in the cathedrals of Paris and Amiens\nwas still that of Christ, was assigned to the Madonna; and it was about\nthis time, too, that the Tuscan school at Arezzo and Siena (Guido da\nSiena) began to infuse a suggestion of mother-love into the conventional\nByzantine Theotokos. And after that the Madonnas of Raphael led the way\nto the purely human type of the Baroque, the mother in the sweetheart\u2014\nOphelia, Gretchen\u2014whose secret reveals itself in the glorious close of\nFaust II and in its fusion with the early Gothic Mary.\n\nAs against these types, the imagination of the Greeks conceived\ngoddesses who are either Amazons like Athene or het\u00e6r\u00e6 like Aphrodite.\nIn the root-feeling which produced the Classical type of womanhood,\nfruitfulness has a vegetal character\u2014in this connexion as in others the\nword \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 exhaustively expresses the meaning of the phenomenon. Think of\nthe masterpieces of this art, the three mighty female bodies of the East\nPediment of the Parthenon,[339] and compare with them that noblest image\nof a mother, Raphael\u2019s Sistine Madonna. In the latter, all bodiliness\nhas disappeared. She is all distance and space. The Helen of the\n\u201cIliad,\u201d compared with Kriemhild, the motherly comrade of Siegfried, is\na courtesan, while Antigone and Clyt\u00e6mnestra are Amazons. How strangely\neven \u00c6schylus passes over in silence the mother-tragic in Clyt\u00e6mnestra!\nThe figure of Medea is nothing less than the mythic _inverse_ of the\nFaustian \u201cMater Dolorosa\u201d; her tragic is not one of future or children,\nit is with her lover, the symbol of wholly-present life, that her\nuniverse collapses. Kriemhild revenges her unborn children\u2014it is _this_\nfuture that has been murdered in her\u2014but Medea revenges only a past\nhappiness. When the Classical sculpture, _late_ art that it is,[340]\narrives at secularizing[341] the pictures of the god, it creates the\nantique ideal of female form in a Cnidian Aphrodite\u2014merely a very\nbeautiful object, not a character or an ego but a piece of Nature. And\nin the end Praxiteles finds the hardihood to represent a goddess\nentirely naked. This innovation met with severe criticism, for it was\nfelt to be a sign of the decline of the Classical world-feeling;\nsuitable as it was to erotic symbolism, it was in sharp contradiction\nwith the dignity of the older Greek religion. But exactly then, too, a\nportrait-art ventured to show itself, simultaneously with the invention\nof a form that has never since been forgotten, the _bust_. Unfortunately\n(here as elsewhere) art-research has made the mistake of discovering in\nthis the \u201cbeginnings\u201d of \u201cthe\u201d portrait. In reality, whereas a Gothic\nvisage speaks of an individual destiny, and even an Egyptian\u2014in spite of\nthe rigid formalism of the figure\u2014has the recognizable traits of the\nindividual person (since otherwise it could not serve as dwelling for\nthe higher soul of the dead, his _Ka_), the Greeks developed a taste for\ntypical representations just as the contemporary comedy produced\nstandard men and situations, to which any names whatever could be\naffixed. The \u201cportrait\u201d is distinguishable not by personal traits but by\nthe label only. This is the general custom amongst children and\nprimitive men, and it is connected with name-magic. The name serves to\ncapture some essence of what is named and to bind it as an object which\nthereupon becomes specific for every beholder. The statues of the\nTyrannicides,[342] the (Etruscan) statues of Kings in the Capitol and\nthe \u201ciconic\u201d portraits of victors at Olympia must have been portraits of\nthis sort, viz., not likenesses but figures with names. But now, in the\nlater phase, there was an additional factor\u2014the tendency of the time\ntowards genre and applied art, which produced also the Corinthian\ncolumn. What the sculptors worked out was the _types_ of life\u2019s stage,\nthe \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 which we mistranslate by character but which is really the\nkinds and modes of public behaviour and attitude; thus there is \u201cthe\u201d\ngrave Commander, \u201cthe\u201d tragic poet, \u201cthe\u201d passion-torn actor, \u201cthe\u201d\nabsorbed philosopher. Here is the real key to the understanding of the\ncelebrated Hellenistic portraiture, for which the quite unjustifiable\nclaim has been set up that its products are expressions of a deep\nspiritual life. It is not of much moment whether the work bears the name\nof someone long dead\u2014the Sophocles[343] was sculptured about 340\u2014or of a\nliving man like the Pericles of Cresilas.[344] It was only in the 4th\nCentury that Demetrius of Alopeke began to emphasize individual traits\nin the _external build_ of the man and Lysistratus the brother of\nLysippus to copy (as Pliny tells us) a plaster-of-paris cast of the\nsubject\u2019s face without much subsequent modification. And how little such\nportraiture is portraiture in Rembrandt\u2019s sense should surely have been\nobvious to anyone. The _soul_ is missing. The brilliant fidelity of\nRoman busts especially has been mistaken for physiognomic depth. But\nwhat really distinguishes the higher work from this craftsman\u2019s and\nvirtuoso\u2019s work is an intention that is the precise opposite of the\nartistic intention of a Mar\u00e9es or a Leibl. That is, in such work the\nimportant and significant is not _brought out_, it is _put in_. An\nexample of this is seen in the Demosthenes statue,[345] the artist of\nwhich possibly saw the orator in life. Here the particulars of the body-\nsurface are emphasized, perhaps over-emphasized (\u201ctrue to Nature,\u201d they\ncalled this then), but into the disposition so conceived he works the\ncharacter-type of the Serious Orator which we meet again on different\nbases in the portraits of \u00c6schines and Lysias at Naples. That is truth\nto life, undoubtedly, but it is truth to life as Classical man felt it,\ntypical and impersonal. We have contemplated the result with _our_ eyes,\nand have accordingly misunderstood it.\n\nsp 2\n\n III\n\nIn the oil-painting age that followed the end of the Renaissance, the\ndepth of an artist can be accurately measured by the content of his\nportraits. To this rule there is hardly an exception. All forms in the\npicture (whether single, or in scenes, groups or masses)[346] are\nfundamentally felt as portraits; whether they are meant to be so or not\nis immaterial, for the individual painter has no choice in the matter.\nNothing is more instructive than to observe how under the hands of a\nreal Faustian man even the Act transforms itself into a portrait-\nstudy.[347] Take two German masters like Lucas Cranach and Tilmann\nRiemenschneider who were untouched by any theory and (in contrast to\nD\u00fcrer, whose inclination to \u00e6sthetic subtlety made him pliant before\nalien tendencies) worked in unqualified na\u00efvet\u00e9. They seldom depict the\nAct, and when they do so, they show themselves entirely unable to\nconcentrate their expression on the immediately-present plane-specified\nbodiliness. The meaning of the human phenomenon, and therefore of the\nrepresentation of it, remains entirely in the head, and is consistently\nphysiognomical rather than anatomical. And the same may be said of\nD\u00fcrer\u2019s Lucrezia, notwithstanding his Italian studies and the quite\nopposite intention. A Faustian _act_ is a contradiction in itself\u2014hence\nthe character-heads that we so often see on feeble act-representations\n(as far back as the Job of old French cathedral-sculpture) and hence\nalso the laborious, forced, equivocal character that arouses our dislike\nin too manifest efforts to placate the Classical ideal\u2014sacrifices\noffered up not by the soul but by the cultivated understanding. In the\nwhole of painting after Leonardo there is not one important or\ndistinctive work that derives its meaning from the Euclidean being of\nthe nude body. It is mere incomprehension to quote Rubens here, and to\ncompare his unbridled dynamism of swelling bodies in any respect\nwhatever with the art of Praxiteles and even Scopas. It is owing\nprecisely to his splendid sensuality that he is so far from the _static_\nof Signorelli\u2019s bodies. If there ever was an artist who could put a\nmaximum of \u201cbecoming\u201d into the beauty of naked bodies, who could treat\nbodily floridness _historically_ and convey the (utterly un-Hellenic)\nidea of an inexhaustible outflowing from within, it was Rubens. Compare\nthe horse\u2019s head from the Parthenon pediment[348] with his horses\u2019 heads\nin the Battle of the Amazons,[349] and the deep metaphysical contrast\nbetween the two conceptions of the same phenomenal element is felt at\nonce. In Rubens (recalling once more the characteristic opposition of\nApollinian and Faustian mathematics) the body is not magnitude but\nrelation. What matters is not the regimen of its external structure but\nthe fullness of life that streams out of it and the stride of its life\nalong the road from youth to age, where the Last Judgment that turns\nbodies into flames takes up the motive and intertwines it in the\nquivering web of active space. Such a synthesis is entirely un-\nClassical; but even nymphs, when it is Corot who paints them, are\nlikewise shapes ready to dissolve into colour-patches reflecting endless\nspace. Such was _not_ the intention of the Classical artist when he\ndepicted the Act.\n\nAt the same time, the Greek form-ideal\u2014the self-contained unit of being\nexpressed in sculpture\u2014has equally to be distinguished from that of the\nmerely beautiful bodies on which painters from Giorgione to Boucher were\nalways exercising their cleverness, which are fleshly still-life, genre-\nwork expressing merely a certain gay sensuousness (e.g., \u201cRubens\u2019s wife\nin a fur cloak.\u201d[350]) and in contrast with the high ethical\nsignificance of the Classical Act have almost no symbolic force.[351]\nMagnificent as these men\u2019s painting is, therefore, they have not\nsucceeded in reaching the highest levels either of portraiture or of\nspace-representation in landscape. Their brown and their green and their\nperspective lack \u201creligiousness,\u201d future, Destiny. They are masters only\nin the domain of _elementary_ form, and when it has actualized this\ntheir art is exhausted. It is they who constitute the substance-element\nin the development-history of a great art. But when a great _artist_\npressed on beyond them to a form that was to be capable of embracing the\nwhole meaning of the world, he had necessarily to push to perfection the\ntreatment of the nude body if his world was the Classical, and _not_ to\ndo so if it was our North. Rembrandt never once painted an Act, in this\nforeground sense, and if Leonardo, Titian, Velasquez (and, among\nmoderns, Menzel, Leibl, Mar\u00e9es and Manet) did so at all, it was very\nrarely; and even then, so to say, they painted bodies as _landscapes_.\nThe portrait is ever the touchstone.[352]\n\nBut no one would ever judge masters like Signorelli, Mantegna,\nBotticelli or even Verrocchio, by the quality of their portraits. The\nequestrian statue of Can Grande[353] of 1330 is in a far higher sense a\nportrait than the Bartolommeo Colleoni is; and Raphael\u2019s portraits (the\nbest of which e.g., Pope Julius II were done under the influence of the\nVenetian Sebastian del Piombo), could be ignored altogether in an\nappreciation of his creative work. It is only with Leonardo that the\nportrait begins to count seriously. Between fresco-technique and oil-\npainting there is a subtle opposition. In fact, Giovanni Bellini\u2019s\n\u201cDoge\u201d (Loredano)[354] is the first great oil-portrait. Here too the\ncharacter of the Renaissance as a protest against the Faustian spirit of\nthe West betrays itself. The episode of Florence amounts to an attempt\nto replace the Portrait of the Gothic style (as distinct from the\n\u201cideal\u201d portrait of late-Classical art, which was well known through the\nC\u00e6sar-busts) by the Act as human symbol. Logically, therefore, the\nentire art of the Renaissance should be wanting in the physiognomic\ntraits. And yet the strong undercurrent of Faustian art-will kept alive,\nnot only in the smaller towns and schools of middle Italy, but also in\nthe instincts of the great masters themselves, a Gothic tradition that\nwas never interrupted. Nay, the physiognomic of Gothic art even made\nitself master of the Southern nude body, alien as this element was. Its\ncreations are not bodies that speak to us through static definition of\ntheir bounding surfaces. What we see is a _dumb-show_ that spreads from\nthe face over all parts of the body, and the appreciative eye detects in\nthis very _nudity_ of Tuscany a deep identity with the _drapery_ of the\nGothic. Both are envelopes, neither a limitation. The reclining nude\nfigures of Michelangelo in the Medici chapel are wholly and entirely the\nvisage and the utterance of a _soul_. But, above all, every head,\npainted or modelled, became of itself a portrait, even when the heads\nwere of gods or saints. The whole of the portrait-work of A. Rossellino,\nDonatello, Benedetto de Maiano, Mino da Fiesole, stands so near in\nspirit to that of Van Eyck, Memlinc and the Early Rhenish masters as to\nbe often indistinguishable from theirs. There is not and there cannot\nbe, I maintain, any genuine Renaissance portraiture, that is, a\nportraiture in which just that artistic sentiment which differentiates\nthe Court of the Palazzo Strozzi from the Loggia dei Lanzi and Perugino\nfrom Cimabue applies itself to the rendering of a visage. In\narchitecture, little as the new work was Apollinian in spirit, it was\npossible to create anti-Gothically, but in portraiture\u2014no. It was too\nspecifically Faustian a symbol. Michelangelo declined the task:\npassionately devoted as he was to his pursuit of a plastic ideal, he\nwould have considered it an abdication to busy himself with portraiture.\nHis Brutus bust is as little of a portrait as his de\u2019 Medici, whereas\nBotticelli\u2019s portrait of the latter is actual, and frankly Gothic to\nboot. Michelangelo\u2019s heads are allegories in the style of dawning\nBaroque, and their resemblance even to Hellenistic work is only\nsuperficial. And however highly we may value the Uzzano bust of\nDonatello[355]\u2014which is perhaps the most important achievement of that\nage and that circle\u2014it will be admitted that by the side of the\nportraits of the Venetians it hardly counts.\n\nIt is well worth noting that this overcoming of, or at least this desire\nto overcome, the Gothic portrait with the Classical Act\u2014the deeply\nhistorical and biographical form by the completely ahistoric\u2014appears\nsimultaneously with, and in association with, a decline in the capacity\nfor self-examination and artistic confession in the Goethian sense. The\ntrue Renaissance man did not know what spiritual development meant. He\nmanaged to live entirely outwardly, and this was the great good fortune\nand success of the Quattrocento. Between Dante\u2019s \u201cVita Nuova\u201d and\nMichelangelo\u2019s sonnets there is no poetic confession, no self-portrait\nof the high order. The Renaissance artist and humanist is the one single\ntype of Western man for whom the word \u201cloneliness\u201d remained unmeaning.\nHis life accomplished its course in the light of a _courtly_ existence.\nHis feelings and impressions were all public, and he had neither secret\ndiscontents nor reserves, while the life of the great contemporary\nNetherlanders, on the contrary, moved on in the shadow of their works.\nIs it perhaps permissible to add that it was _because_ of this that that\nother symbol of historic distance, duration, care and ponderation, _the\nState_, also disappeared from the purview of the Renaissance, between\nDante and Michelangelo? In \u201cfickle Florence\u201d\u2014whose great men one and all\nwere cruelly maltreated and whose incapacity for political creation\nseems, by the side of other Western state-forms, to border on sheer\n_bizarrerie_\u2014and, more generally, wherever the anti-Gothic (which in\nthis connexion means anti-dynastic) spirit displayed itself vigorously\nin art and public life, the State made way for a truly Hellenic\nsorriness of Medicis, Sforzas, Borgias, Malatestas, and waste republics.\nOnly that city where sculpture gained _no_ foothold, where the Southern\nmusic was at home, where Gothic and Baroque joined hands in Giovanni\nBellini and the Renaissance remained an affair of occasional\ndilettantism, had an art of portraiture and therewith a subtle diplomacy\nand a will to political duration\u2014Venice.\n\n IV\n\nThe Renaissance was born of defiance, and therefore it lacked depth,\nwidth and sureness of creative instinct. It is the one and only epoch\nwhich was more consistent in theory than in performance and\u2014in sharp\ncontrast to Gothic and Baroque\u2014the only one in which theoretically-\nformulated intention preceded (often enough surpassed) the ability to\nperform. But the fact that the individual arts were forced to become\nsatellites of a Classicist sculpture could not in the last analysis\nalter the essence of them, and could only impoverish their store of\ninward possibilities. For natures of medium size, the Renaissance theme\nwas not too big; it was attractive indeed from its very plainness, and\nwe miss consequently that Gothic wrestling with overpowering imprecise\nproblems which distinguishes the Rhenish and Flemish schools. The\nseductive ease and clarity of the Renaissance rests very largely upon\nevasion\u2014the evasion of deeper reluctances by the aid of speciously\nsimple rule. To men of the inwardness of Memlinc or the power of\nGr\u00fcnewald such conditions as those of the Tuscan form-world would have\nbeen fatal. They could not have developed their strength in and through\nit, but only against it. Seeing as we do no weakness in the form of the\nRenaissance masters, we are very prone to overrate their humanity. In\nGothic, and again in Baroque, an entirely great artist was fulfilling\nhis art in deepening and completing its language, but in Renaissance he\nwas necessarily only destroying it. \u201c So it was in the cases of\nLeonardo, Raphael and Michelangelo, the only really great men of Italy\nafter Dante. Is it not curious that between the masters of the Gothic\u2014\nwho were nothing but silent workers in their art and yet achieved the\nvery highest that could be achieved within its convention and its field\u2014\nand the Venetians and Dutch of 1600\u2014who again were purely workers\u2014there\nshould be these three men who were not \u201csculptors\u201d or \"painters\u201d but\n_thinkers_, and thinkers who of necessity busied themselves not merely\nwith all the available means of artistic expression but with a thousand\nother things besides, ever restless and dissatisfied, in their effort to\nget at the real essence and aim of their being? Does it not mean\u2014that in\nthe Renaissance they could not \u201cfind themselves\u201d? Each in his own\nfashion, each under his own tragic illusion, these three giants strove\nto be \u201cClassical\u201d in the Medicean sense; and yet it was they themselves\nwho in one and another way\u2014Raphael in respect of the line, Leonardo in\nrespect of the surface, Michelangelo in respect of the body\u2014shattered\nthe dream. In them the misguided soul is finding its way back to its\nFaustian starting-points. What they _intended_ was to substitute\nproportion for relation, drawing for light-and-air effect, Euclidean\nbody for pure space. But neither they nor others of their time produced\na Euclidean-static sculpture\u2014for that was possible once only, in Athens.\nIn all their work one feels a secret music, in all their forms the\nmovement-quality and the tending into distances and depths. They are on\nthe way, not to Phidias but to Palestrina, and they have come thither\nnot from Roman ruins but from the still music of the cathedral. Raphael\nthawed the Florentine fresco, and Michelangelo the statue, and Leonardo\ndreamed already of Rembrandt and Bach. The higher and more conscientious\nthe effort to actualize the ideas of the age, the more intangible it\nbecame.\n\nGothic and Baroque, however, are something that _is_, while Renaissance\nis only an ideal, unattainable like all ideals, that floats over the\nwill of a period. Giotto _is_ a Gothic, and Titian _is_ a Baroque,\nartist. Michelangelo _would be_ a Renaissance artist, but fails.\nVisibly, the plastic in him, for all its ambitiousness, is overpowered\nby the pictorial spirit\u2014and a pictorial spirit, too, in which the\nNorthern space-perspective is implicit. Even as soon as 1520 the\nbeautiful proportion, the pure rule\u2014that is, the conscious Classical\u2014are\nfelt as frigid and formal. The cornice which he put on to Sangallo\u2019s\npurely \u201cClassical\u201d fa\u00e7ade of the Palazzo Farnese was no doubt, from the\nstrictly Renaissance standpoint, a disfigurement, but he himself and\nmany with him felt it to be far superior to the achievements of Greeks\nand Romans.\n\nAs Petrarch was the first, so Michelangelo was the last Florentine who\ngave himself up passionately to the Antique. But it was no longer an\nentire devotion. The Franciscan Christianity of Fra Angelico, with its\nsubtle gentleness and its quiet, reflective piety\u2014to which the Southern\nrefinement of ripe Renaissance work owes far more than has been\nsupposed[356]\u2014came now to its end. The majestic spirit of the Counter-\nReformation, massive, animated, gorgeous, lives already in Michelangelo.\nThere is something in Renaissance work which at the time passed for\nbeing \u201cClassical\u201d but is really only a deliberately noble dress for the\nChristian-German world-feeling; as we have already mentioned, the\ncombination of round-arch and pillar, that favourite Florentine motive,\nwas of Syrian origin. But compare the pseudo-Corinthian column of the\n15th Century with the columns of a real Roman ruin\u2014remembering that\nthese ruins were known and on the spot! Michelangelo alone would\ntolerate no half-and-half. Clarity he wanted and he would have. The\nquestion of form was for him a religious matter; for him (and only for\nhim) it was all or nothing. And this is the explanation of the lonely\nfearful wrestlings of this man, surely the unhappiest figure in our art;\nof the fragmentary, the tortured, the unsatisfied, the _terribile_ in\nhis forms that frightened his contemporaries. The one half of his nature\ndrew him towards the Classical and therefore to sculpture\u2014we all know\nthe effect produced upon him by the recently-discovered Laoco\u00f6n. No man\never made a more honest effort than he did to find a way with the chisel\ninto a buried world. Everything that he created he meant sculpturally\u2014\nsculpturally, that is, in a sense of the word that he and he alone stood\nfor. \u201cThe world, presented in the great Pan,\u201d the element which Goethe\nmeant to render when he brought Helena into the Second Part of Faust,\nthe Apollinian world in all its powerful sensuous corporal presence\u2014that\nwas what Michelangelo was striving with all his might to capture and to\nfix in artistic being when he was painting the Sistine ceiling. Every\nresource of fresco\u2014the big contours, the vast surfaces, the immense\nnearness of naked shapes, the materiality of colour\u2014was here for the\nlast time strained to the utmost to liberate the paganism, the high-\nRenaissance paganism, that was in him. But his second soul, the soul of\nGothic-Christian Dante and of the music of great expanses, is pulling in\nthe opposite sense; his scheme for the ensemble is manifestly\nmetaphysical in spirit.\n\nHis was the last effort, repeated again and again, to put the entirety\nof the artist-personality into the language of stone. But the Euclidean\nmaterial failed him. His attitude to it was not that of the Greek. In\nthe very character of its being the chiselled statue contradicts the\nworld-feeling that tries to _find_ something by, and not to _possess_\nsomething in, its art-works. For Phidias, marble is the cosmic stuff\nthat is crying for form. The story of Pygmalion and Galatea expresses\nthe very essence of that art. But for Michelangelo marble was the foe to\nbe subdued, the prison out of which he must deliver his idea as\nSiegfried delivered Brunhilde. Everyone knows his way of setting to\nwork. He did not approach the rough block coolly from every aspect of\nthe intended form, but attacked it with a passionate frontal attack,\nhewing into it as though into space, cutting away the material layer by\nlayer and driving deeper and deeper until his form emerged, while the\nmembers slowly developed themselves out of the quarry. Never perhaps has\nthere been a more open expression of world-dread in the presence of the\nbecome\u2014Death\u2014of the will to overpower and capture it in vibrant form.\nThere is no other artist of the West whose relation to the stone has\nbeen that of Michelangelo\u2014at once so intimate and so violently\nmasterful. It is his symbol of Death. In it dwells the hostile principle\nthat his daemonic nature is always striving to overpower, whether he is\ncutting statues or piling great buildings out of it.[357] He is the one\nsculptor of his age who dealt _only_ with marble. Bronze, as cast,\nallows the modeller to compromise with pictorial tendencies, and it\nappealed therefore to other Renaissance artists and to the softer\nGreeks. The Giant stood aloof from it.\n\nThe instantaneous bodily _posture_ was what the Classical sculptor\ncreated, and of this Faustian man was incapable. It is here just as it\nis in the matter of love, in which Faustian man discovers, not primarily\nthe act of union between man and woman, but the great love of Dante and\nbeyond that the caring Mother. Michelangelo\u2019s erotic\u2014which is that of\nBeethoven also\u2014is as un-Classical as it is possible to be. It stands\n_sub specie \u00e6ternitatis_ and not under that of sense and the moment. He\nproduced acts\u2014a sacrifice to the Hellenic idol\u2014but the soul in them\ndenies or overmasters the visible form. He wills infinity as the Greek\nwilled proportion and rule, he embraces past and future as the Greek\nembraced present. The Classical eye absorbs plastic form into itself,\nbut Michelangelo saw with the spiritual eye and broke through the\nforeground-language of immediate sensuousness. And inevitably, in the\nlong run, he destroyed the conditions for this art. Marble became too\ntrivial for his will-to-form. He ceased to be sculptor and turned\narchitect. In full old age, when he was producing only wild fragments\nlike the Rondanini Madonna and hardly cutting his figures out of the\nrough at all, the _musical_ tendency of his artistry broke through. In\nthe end the impulse towards contrapuntal form was no longer to be\nrepressed and, dissatisfied through and through with the art upon which\nhe had spent his life, yet dominated still by the unquenchable will to\nself-expression, he shattered the canon of Renaissance architecture and\ncreated the Roman Baroque. For relations of material and form he\nsubstituted the contest of force and mass. He grouped the columns in\nsheaves or else pushed them away into niches. He broke up the storeys\nwith huge pilasters and gave the fa\u00e7ade a sort of surging and thrusting\nquality. Measure yielded to melody, the static to the dynamic. And thus\nFaustian music enlisted in its service the chief of all the other arts.\n\nWith Michelangelo the history of Western sculpture is at an end. What of\nit there was after him was mere misunderstandings or reminiscences. His\nreal heir was _Palestrina_.\n\nLeonardo speaks another language. In essentials his spirit reached\nforward into the following century, and he was in nowise bound, as\nMichelangelo was bound by every tie of heart, to the Tuscan ideal. He\nalone had neither the ambition to be sculptor nor the ambition to be\narchitect. It was a strange illusion of the Renaissance that the\nHellenic feeling and the Hellenic cult of the exterior structure could\nbe got at by way of anatomical studies. But when Leonardo studied\nanatomy it was not, as in Michelangelo\u2019s case, foreground anatomy, the\n_topography_ of human surfaces, studied for the sake of plastic, but\n_physiology_ studied for the inward secrets. While Michelangelo tried to\nforce the whole meaning of human existence into the language of the\nliving body, Leonardo\u2019s studies show the exact opposite. His much-\nadmired _sfumato_ is the first sign of the repudiation of corporeal\nbounds, in the name of _space_, and as such it is the starting-point of\nImpressionism. Leonardo begins with the inside, the spiritual space\nwithin us, and not with the considered definition-line, and when he ends\n(that is, if he ends at all and does not leave the picture unfinished),\nthe substance of colour lies like a mere breathing over the real\nstructure of the picture, which is something incorporeal and\nindescribable. Raphael\u2019s paintings fall into planes in which he disposes\nhis well-ordered groups, and he closes off the whole with a well-\nproportioned background. But Leonardo knows only one space, wide and\neternal, and his figures, as it were, float therein. The one puts inside\na frame a sum of individual near things, the other a portion cut out of\nthe infinite.\n\n_Leonardo discovered the circulation of the blood._ It was no\nRenaissance spirit that brought him to that\u2014on the contrary, the whole\ncourse of his thought took him right outside the conceptions of his age.\nNeither Michelangelo nor Raphael could have done it, for their painter\u2019s\nanatomy looks only at the form and position, not the function, of the\nparts. In mathematical language, it is stereometry as against analysis.\nDid not the Renaissance find it quite sufficient preparation for great\npainted scenes to study _corpses_, suppressing the becoming in favour of\nthe become and calling on the dead to make Classical \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1 accessible\nto Northern creative energy? But Leonardo investigated the _life_ in the\nbody as Rubens did, and not the body-in-itself as Signorelli did. His\ndiscovery was contemporary with that of Columbus, and the two have a\ndeep affinity, for they signify the victory of the infinite over the\nmaterial limitedness of the tangibly present. Would a Greek ever have\nconcerned himself with questions like theirs? The Greeks inquired as\nlittle into the interior of their own organization as they sought for\nthe sources of the Nile; these were problems that might have jeopardized\nthe Euclidean constitution of their being. The Baroque, on the other\nhand, is truly the _period of the great discoveries_. The very word\n\u201cdiscovery\u201d has something bluntly un-Classical in it. Classical man took\ngood care not to take the cover, the material wrapping, off anything\ncosmic, but to do _just this_ is the most characteristic impulse of a\nFaustian nature. The discoveries of the New World, the circulation of\nthe blood, and the Copernican universe were achieved almost\nsimultaneously and, at bottom, are completely equivalent; and the\ndiscovery of gunpowder (that is, the _long-range weapon_[358]) and of\nprinting (the _long-range script_) were little earlier.\n\nLeonardo was a discoverer through-and-through, and discovery was the sum\nin one word of his whole nature. Brush, chisel, dissecting-knife, pencil\nfor calculating and compasses for drawing\u2014all were for him of equal\nimportance. They were for him what the Mariner\u2019s Compass was for\nColumbus. When Raphael completes with colour the sharp-drawn outline he\nasserts the corporeal phenomenon in every brush-stroke, but Leonardo, in\nhis red-chalk sketches and his backgrounds reveals aerial secrets with\nevery line. He was the first, too, who set his mind to work on aviation.\nTo fly, to free one\u2019s self from earth, to lose one\u2019s self in the expanse\nof the universe\u2014is not this ambition Faustian in the highest degree? Is\nit not in fact the fulfilment of our dreams? Has it never been observed\nhow the Christian legend became in Western painting a glorious\ntransfiguration of this motive? All the pictured ascents into heaven and\nfalls into hell, the divine figures floating above the clouds, the\nblissful detachment of angels and saints, the insistent emphasis upon\nfreedom from earth\u2019s heaviness, are emblems of soul-flight, peculiar to\nthe art of the Faustian, utterly remote from that of the Byzantine.\n\n V\n\nThe transformation of Renaissance fresco-painting into Venetian oil-\npainting is a matter of _spiritual history_. We have to appreciate very\ndelicate and subtle traits to discern the process of change. In almost\nevery picture from Masaccio\u2019s \u201cPeter and the Tribute Money\u201d in the\nBrancacci Chapel, through the soaring background that Piero della\nFrancesca gave to the figures of Federigo and Battista of Urbino,[359]\nto Perugino\u2019s \u201cChrist Giving the Keys,\u201d[360] the fresco manner is\ncontending with the invasive new form, though Raphael\u2019s artistic\ndevelopment in the course of his work on the Vatican \u201cstanze\u201d is almost\nthe only case in which we can see comprehensively the change that is\ngoing on. The Florentine fresco aims at actuality in individual things\nand produces a sum of such things in an architectonic setting. Oil-\npainting, on the other hand, sees and handles with ever-growing sureness\nextension as a whole, and treats all objects only as representatives\nthereof. The Faustian world-feeling created the new technique that it\nwanted. It rejected the drawing style, as, from Oresme\u2019s time, co-\nordinate geometry rejected it. It transformed the linear perspective\nassociated with the architectural motive into a purely aerial\nperspective rendered by imponderable gradations of tone. But the\ncondition of Renaissance art generally\u2014its inability either to\nunderstand its own deeper tendencies or to make good its anti-Gothic\nprinciple\u2014made the transition an obscure and difficult process. Each\nartist followed the trend in a way of his own. One painted in oils on\nthe bare wall, and thereby condemned his work to perish (Leonardo\u2019s\n\u201cLast Supper\u201d). Another painted pictures as if they were wall-frescoes\n(Michelangelo). Some ventured, some guessed, some fell by the way, some\nshied. It was, as always, the struggle between hand and soul, between\neye and instrument, between the form willed by the artist and the form\nwilled by time\u2014the struggle between Plastic and Music.\n\nIn the light of this, we can at last understand that gigantic effort of\nLeonardo, the cartoon of the \u201cAdoration of the Magi\u201d in the Uffizi. It\nis the grandest piece of artistic daring in the Renaissance. Nothing\nlike it was even imagined till Rembrandt. Transcending all optical\nmeasures, everything then called drawing, outline, composition and\ngrouping, he pushes fearlessly on to challenge eternal space; everything\nbodily floats like the planets in the Copernican system and the tones of\na Bach organ-fugue in the dimness of old churches. In the technical\npossibilities of the time, so dynamic an image of distance could only\nremain a torso.\n\nIn the Sistine Madonna, which is the very summation of the Renaissance,\nRaphael causes the outline to draw into itself the entire content of the\nwork. It is the _last grand line_ of Western art. Already (and it is\nthis that makes Raphael the least intelligible of Renaissance artists)\nconvention is strained almost to breaking-point by the intensity of\ninward feeling. He did not indeed wrestle with problems. He had not even\nan inkling of them. But he brought art to the brink where it could no\nlonger shirk the plunge, and he lived to achieve the utmost\npossibilities _within_ its form-world. The ordinary person who thinks\nhim flat simply fails to realize _what is going on_ in his scheme. Look\nagain, reader, at the hackneyed Madonna. Have you ever noticed the\nlittle dawn-cloudlets, transforming themselves into baby heads, that\nsurround the soaring central figure?\u2014these are the multitudes of the\nunborn that the Madonna is drawing into Life. We meet these light clouds\nagain, with the same meaning, in the wondrous finale of Faust II.[361]\nIt is just that which does _not_ charm in Raphael, his sublime\nunpopularity, that betrays the inner victory over the Renaissance-\nfeeling in him. We do understand Perugino at a glance, we merely think\nwe understand Raphael. His very line\u2014that drawing-character that at\nfirst sight seems so Classical\u2014is something that floats in space,\nsupernal, Beethoven-like. In this work Raphael is the least obvious of\nall artists, less obvious even than Michelangelo, whose intention is\nmanifest through all the fragmentariness of his works. In Fra\nBartolommeo the material bounding-line is still entirely dominant. It is\nall foreground, and the whole sense of the work is exhaustively rendered\nby the definition of bodies. But in Raphael line has become silent,\nexpectant, veiled, waiting in an extremity of tension for dissolution\ninto the infinite, into space and music.\n\nLeonardo _is_ already over the frontier. The Adoration of the Magi _is_\nalready music. It is not a casual but a deeply significant circumstance\nthat in this work, as also in his St. Jerome,[362] he did not go beyond\nthe brown underpainting, the \u201cRembrandt\u201d stage, the atmospheric brown of\nthe following century. For him, entire fullness and clearness of\nintention was attained with the work in that state, and one step into\nthe domain of colour (for that domain was still under the metaphysical\nlimitations of the fresco style) would have destroyed the soul of what\nhe had created. Feeling, in all its depth, the symbolism of which oil-\npainting was later to be the vehicle, he was afraid of the fresco\n\u201cslickness\u201d (Fertigkeit) that must have ruined his idea. His studies for\nthis painting show how close was his relation to the Rembrandt\n_etching_\u2014an art whose home was also that of the art (unknown to\nFlorence) of counterpoint. Only it was reserved for the Venetians, who\nstood outside the Florentine conventions, to achieve what he strove for\nhere, to fashion a colour-world subserving space instead of things.\n\nFor this reason, too, Leonardo (after innumerable attempts) decided to\nleave the Christ-head in the \u201cLast Supper\u201d unfinished. The men of his\ntime were not even ripe for portraiture as Rembrandt understood the\nword, the magistral building-up of a soul-history out of dynamic brush-\nstrokes and lights and tones. But only Leonardo was great enough to\nexperience this limitation as a Destiny. Others merely set themselves to\npaint heads (in the modes prescribed by their respective schools) but\nLeonardo\u2014the first, here, to make the _hands_ also speak, and that with\na physiognomic maestria\u2014had an infinitely wider purpose. His soul was\nlost afar in the future, though his mortal part, his eye and hand,\nobeyed the spirit of the age. Assuredly he was the freest of the three\ngreat ones. From much of that which Michelangelo\u2019s powerful nature\nvainly wrestled with, he was already remote. Problems of chemistry,\ngeometrical analysis, physiology (Goethe\u2019s \u201cliving Nature\u201d was also\nLeonardo\u2019s), the technique of fire-arms\u2014all were familiar to him. Deeper\nthan D\u00fcrer, bolder than Titian, more comprehensive than any single man\nof his time, he was essentially the _artist of torsos_.[363]\nMichelangelo the belated sculptor was so, too, but in another sense,\nwhile in Goethe\u2019s day that which had been unattainable for the painter\nof the Last Supper had already been reached and overpassed. Michelangelo\nstrove to force life once more into a dead form-world, Leonardo felt a\nnew form-world in the future, Goethe divined that there could be no new\nform-worlds more. Between the first and the last of these men lie the\nripe centuries of the Faustian Culture.\n\n\n VI\n\nIt remains now to deal with the major characters of Western art during\nthe phase of accomplishment. In this we may observe the deep necessity\nof all history at work. We have learned to understand arts as prime\nphenomena. We no longer look to the operations of cause and effect to\ngive unity to the story of development. Instead, we have set up the idea\nof the _Destiny_ of an art, and admitted arts to be _organisms_ of the\nCulture, organisms which are born, ripen, age and _for ever_ die.\n\nWhen the Renaissance\u2014its last illusion\u2014closes, the Western soul has come\nto the ripe consciousness of its own strength and possibilities. It has\n_chosen_ its arts. As a \u201clate\u201d period, the Baroque knows, just as the\nIonic had known, what the form-language of its arts has to mean. From\nbeing a philosophical religion, art has to be a religious philosophy.\nGreat masters come forward in the place of anonymous schools. At the\nculmination of every Culture we have the spectacle of a splendid _group\nof great arts_, well-ordered and linked as a unit by the unity of the\nprime symbol underlying them all. The _Apollinian group_, to which\nbelong vase-painting, fresco relief, the architecture of ranked columns,\nthe Attic drama and the dance, centres upon the naked statue. The\n_Faustian group_ forms itself round the ideal of pure spatial infinity\nand its centre of gravity is instrumental music. From this centre, fine\nthreads radiate out into all spiritual form-languages and weave our\ninfinitesimal mathematic, our dynamic physics, the propaganda of Jesuits\nand the power of our famous slogan of \u201cprogress,\u201d the modern machine-\ntechnique, credit economics and the dynastic-diplomatic State\u2014all into\none immense totality of spiritual expression. Beginning with the inward\nrhythm of the cathedral and ending with Wagner\u2019s \u201cTristan\u201d and\n\u201cParsifal,\u201d the artistic conquest of endless space deploys its full\nforces from about 1550. Plastic is dying with Michelangelo in Rome just\nwhen planimetry, dominant hitherto, is becoming the least important\nbranch of our mathematic. At the same time, Venice is producing\nZarlino\u2019s theories of harmony and counterpoint (1558) and the practical\nmethod of the _basso continuo_\u2014a perspective and an analysis of the\nworld of sound\u2014and this music\u2019s sister, the Northern mathematic of the\nCalculus, is beginning to mount.\n\nOil-painting and instrumental music, the arts of space, are now entering\ninto their kingdom. So also\u2014_consequently_, we say\u2014the two essentially\nmaterial and Euclidean arts of the Classical Culture, viz., the all-\nround statue and the strictly planar fresco, attain to their primacy at\nthe corresponding date of c. 600 B.C. And further, in the one and in the\nother case, it is the painting that ripens _first_. For in either kind\npainting on the plane is a less ambitious and more accessible art than\nmodelling in solid or composing in immaterial extension. The period\n1550-1650 belongs as completely to oil-painting as fresco and vase-\npainting belong to the 6th Century B.C. The symbolism of space and of\nbody, expressed in the one case by perspective and in the other by\nproportion, are only indicated and not immediately displayed by\npictorial arts. These arts, which can only in each case produce their\nrespective prime-symbols (i.e., their possibilities in the extended) as\nillusions on a painted surface, are capable indeed of denoting and\nevoking the ideal\u2014Classical or Western, as the case may be\u2014but they are\nnot capable of _fulfilling_ it; they appear therefore in the path of the\n\u201clate\u201d Culture as the ledges before the last summit. The nearer the\ngrand style comes to its point of fulfilment, the more decisive the\ntendency to an ornamental language of inexorable clarity of symbolism.\nThe group of great arts is further simplified. About 1670, just when\nNewton and Leibniz were discovering the Differential Calculus, oil-\npainting had reached the limit of its possibilities. Its last great\nmasters were dead or dying\u2014Velasquez 1660, Poussin 1665, Franz Hals\n1666, Rembrandt 1669, Vermeer 1675, Murillo, Ruysdael and Claude Lorrain\n1682\u2014and one has only to name the few successors of any importance\n(Watteau, Hogarth, Tiepolo) to feel at once the descent, the end, of an\nart. In this time also, the great forms of _pictorial_ music expired.\nHeinrich Sch\u00fctz died in 1672, Carissimi in 1674, and Purcell in 1695\u2014the\nlast great masters of the Cantata, who had played around image-themes\nwith infinite variety of vocal and instrumental colour and had painted\nveritable pictures of fine landscape and grand legend-scene. With Lully\n(1687) the heart of the heroic Baroque opera of Monteverde ceased to\nbeat. It was the same with the old \u201cclassical\u201d sonata for orchestra,\norgan and string trio, which was a development of image-themes in the\nfugal style. Thereafter, the forms become those of final maturity, the\nconcerto grosso, the suite, and the three-part sonata for solo\ninstruments. Music frees itself from the relics of bodiliness inherent\nin the human voice and becomes absolute. The theme is no longer an image\nbut a pregnant _function_, existent only in and by its own evolution,\nfor the fugal style as Bach practised it can only be regarded as a\nceaseless process of differentiation and integration. The victory of\npure music over painting stands recorded in the Passions which Heinrich\nSch\u00fctz composed in his old age\u2014the visible dawn of the new form-\nlanguage\u2014in the sonatas of Dall\u2019Abaco and Corelli, the oratorios of\nH\u00e4ndel and the Baroque polyphony of Bach. Henceforth this music is _the_\nFaustian art, and Watteau may fairly be described as a painter-Couperin,\nTiepolo as a painter-H\u00e4ndel.\n\nIn the Classical world the corresponding change occurred about 460, when\nPolygnotus, the last of the great fresco-painters, ceded the inheritance\nof the grand style to Polycletus and free sculpture in the round. Till\nthen\u2014as late even as Polygnotus\u2019s contemporaries Myron and the masters\nof the Olympia pediment\u2014the form-language of a purely planar art had\ndominated that of statuary also; for, just as painting had developed its\nform more and more towards the ideal of the _silhouette of colour with\ninternal drawing superposed_\u2014to such an extent that at last there was\nalmost no difference between the painted relief and the flat picture\u2014so\nalso the sculptor had regarded the frontal _outline_ as it presented\nitself to the beholder as the true symbol of the Ethos, the cultural\ntype, that he meant his figure to represent. The field of the temple-\npediment constitutes a _picture_; seen from the proper distance, it\nmakes exactly the same impression as its contemporary the red-figure\nvase-painting. In Polycletus\u2019s generation the monumental wall-painting\ngives place to the board-picture, the \u201cpicture\u201d proper, in tempera or\nwax\u2014a clear indication that the great style has gone to reside\nelsewhere. The ambition of Apollodorus\u2019s shadow painting was not in any\nsense what we call chiaroscuro and atmosphere, but sheer _modelling in\nthe round_ in the sculptor\u2019s sense; and of Zeuxis Aristotle says\nexpressly that his work lacked \u201cEthos.\u201d Thus, this newer Classical\npainting with its cleverness and human charm is the equivalent of our\n18th-Century work. Both lacked the inner greatness and both tried by\nforce of virtuosity to speak in the language of that single and final\nArt which in each case stood for ornamentation in the higher sense.\nHence Polycletus and Phidias aline themselves with Bach and H\u00e4ndel; as\nthe Western masters liberated strict musical form from the executive\nmethods of the Painting, so the Greek masters finally delivered the\nstatue from the associations of the Relief.\n\nAnd with this full plastic and this full music the two Cultures reach\ntheir respective ends. A pure symbolism of mathematical rigour had\nbecome possible. Polycletus could produce his \u201ccanon\u201d of the proportions\nof the human body, and his contemporary Bach the \u201cKunst der Fuge\u201d and\n\u201cWohltemperiertes Klavier.\u201d In the two arts that ensued, we have the\nlast perfection of achievement that pure form saturated with meaning can\ngive. Compare the tone-body of Faustian instrumental music, and within\nthat system again the body of the strings (in Bach, too, the virtual\nunity of the winds), with the bodies of Attic statuary. Compare the\nmeaning of the word \u201cfigure\u201d to Haydn with its meaning to Praxiteles. In\nthe one case it is the figure of a rhythmic motive in a web of voices,\nin the other the figure of an athlete. But in both cases the notion\ncomes from mathematics and it is made plain that the aim thus finally\nattained is a union of the artistic and the mathematical spirit, for\nanalysis like music, and Euclidean geometry like plastic, have both come\nto full comprehension of their tasks and the ultimate meaning of their\nrespective number-languages. The mathematics of beauty and the beauty of\nmathematics are henceforth inseparable. The unending space of tone and\nthe all-round body of marble or bronze are _immediate_ interpretations\nof the extended. They belong to number-as-relation and to number-as-\nmeasure. In fresco and in oil-painting, in the laws of proportion and\nthose of perspective, the mathematical is only indicated, but the two\nfinal arts _are_ mathematics, and on these peaks Apollinian art and\nFaustian art are seen entire.\n\nWith the exit of fresco and oil-painting, the great masters of absolute\nplastic and absolute music file on to the stage, man after man.\nPolycletus is followed by Phidias, P\u00e6onius, Alcamenes, Scopas,\nPraxiteles, Lysippus. Behind Bach and H\u00e4ndel come Gluck, Stamitz, the\nyounger Bachs, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven\u2014in their hands an armoury of\nwonderful and now long-forgotten instruments, a whole magician\u2019s world\ncreated by the discovering and inventing spirit of the West in the hope\nof getting more and more tones and timbres for the service and\nenhancement of musical expression\u2014in their winds an abundance of grand,\nsolemn, ornate, dainty, ironic, laughing and sobbing forms of perfectly\nregular structure, forms that no one now understands. In those days, in\n18th-Century Germany especially, there was actually and effectively a\n_Culture of Music_ that suffused all Life. Its type was Hoffmann\u2019s\nKapellmeister Kreisler. To-day it is hardly even a memory.\n\nAnd with the 18th Century, too, architecture died at last, submerged and\nchoked in the music of Rococo. On that last wonderful fragile growth of\nthe Western architecture criticism has blown mercilessly, failing to\nrealize that its origin is in the spirit of the fugue and that its non-\nproportion and non-form, its evanescence and instability and sparkle,\nits destruction of surface and visual order, are nothing else than a\nvictory of tones and melodies over lines and walls, the triumph of pure\nspace over material, of absolute becoming over the become. They are no\nlonger buildings, these abbeys and castles and churches with their\nflowing fa\u00e7ades and porches and \u201cgingerbread\u201d courts and their splendid\nstaircases, galleries, salons and cabinets; they are sonatas, minuets,\nmadrigals in stone, chamber-music in stucco, marble, ivory and fine\nwoods, cantilene of volutes and cartouches, cadences of fliers and\ncopings. The Dresden Zwinger is the most completely musical piece in all\nthe world\u2019s architecture, with an ornamentation like the tone of an old\nviolin, an _allegro fugitivo_ for small orchestra.\n\nGermany produced the great musicians _and therefore_ also the great\narchitects of this century (Poppelmann, Schl\u00fcter, B\u00e4hr, Naumann, Fischer\nvon Erlach, Dinzenhofer). In oil-painting she played no part at all: in\ninstrumental music, on the contrary, hers was the principal r\u00f4le.\n\n VII\n\nThere is a word, \u201cImpressionism,\u201d which only came into general use in\nManet\u2019s time (and then, originally, as a word of contempt like Baroque\nand Rococo) but very happily summarizes the special quality of the\nFaustian way of art that has evolved from oil-painting. But, as we\nordinarily speak of it, the idea has neither the width nor the depth of\nmeaning that it ought to have: we regard it as a sequel to or derivative\nof the old age of an art which, in fact, belongs to it entirely and from\nfirst to last. What is the imitation of an \"impression\"? Something\npurely Western, something related to the idea of Baroque and even to the\nunconscious purposes of Gothic architecture and diametrically opposed to\nthe deliberate aims of the Renaissance. Does it not signify the\ntendency\u2014the deeply-necessary tendency of a waking consciousness to feel\npure endless space as _the_ supreme and unqualified actuality, and all\nsense-images as secondary and conditioned actualities \"within it\"? A\ntendency that can manifest itself in artistic creations, but has a\nthousand other outlets besides. Does not Kant\u2019s formula \"space as _a\npriori_ form of perception\" sound like a slogan for the whole movement\nthat began with Leonardo? Impressionism is the inverse of the Euclidean\nworld-feeling. It tries to get as far as possible from the language of\nplastic and as near as possible to that of music. The effect that is\nmade upon us by things that receive and reflect light is made not\nbecause the things _are_ there but as though they \u201cin themselves\u201d _are\nnot_ there. The things are not even bodies, but light-resistances in\nspace, and their illusive density is to be unmasked by the brush-stroke.\nWhat is received and rendered is the _impression_ of such resistances,\nwhich are tacitly evaluated as simple functions of a transcendent\nextension. The artist\u2019s inner eye penetrates the body, breaks the spell\nof its material bounding surfaces and sacrifices it to the majesty of\nSpace. And with this impression, under its influence, he feels an\nendless _movement-quality_ in the sensuous element that is in utter\ncontrast to the statuesque \u201cAtaraxia\u201d of the fresco. Therefore, there\nwas not and could not be any Hellenic impressionism; if there is one art\nthat _must_ exclude it on principle, it is Classical sculpture.\n\nImpressionism is the comprehensive expression of a world-feeling, and it\nmust obviously therefore permeate the whole physiognomy of our \u201cLate\u201d\nCulture. There is an impressionistic mathematic, which frankly and with\nintent transcends all optical limitations. It is Analysis, as developed\nafter Newton and Leibniz, and to it belong the visionary images of\nnumber-\u201cbodies,\u201d aggregates, and the multidimensional geometry. There is\nagain an impressionistic physics which \u201csees\u201d in lieu of bodies systems\nof mass-points\u2014units that are evidently no more than constant relations\nbetween variable efficients. There are impressionistic ethics, tragedy,\nand logic, and even (in Pietism) an impressionistic Christianity.\n\nBe the artist painter or musician, his art consists in creating with a\nfew strokes or spots or tones an image of inexhaustible content, a\nmicrocosm meet for the eyes or ears of Faustian man; that is, in laying\nthe actuality of infinite space under enchantment by fleeting and\nincorporeal indications of something objective which, so to say, forces\nthat actuality to become phenomenal. The daring of these arts of moving\nthe immobile has no parallel. Right from the later work of Titian to\nCorot and Menzel, matter quivers and flows like a solution under the\nmysterious pressure of brush-stroke and broken colours and lights. It\nwas in pursuit of the same object that Baroque music became \u201cthematic\u201d\ninstead of melodic and\u2014reinforcing the \u201ctheme\u201d with every expedient of\nharmonic charm, instrumental colour, rhythm, and tempo\u2014developed the\ntone-picture from the imitative piece of Titian\u2019s day to the leitmotiv-\nfabric of Wagner, and captured a whole new world of feeling and\nexperience. When German music was at its culmination, this art\npenetrated also into lyric poetry (German lyric, that is, for in French\nit is impossible) and gave rise to a whole series of tiny masterpieces,\nfrom Goethe\u2019s \u201cUrfaust\u201d to H\u00f6lderlin\u2019s last poems\u2014passages of a few\nlines apiece, which have never yet been noticed, let alone collected,\nbut include nevertheless whole worlds of experience and feeling. On a\nsmall scale, it continually repeats the achievements of Copernicus and\nColumbus. No other Culture possesses an ornament-language of such\ndynamical impressiveness relatively to the means it employs. Every point\nor stroke of colour, every scarce-audible tone releases some surprising\ncharm and continually feeds the imagination with fresh elements of\nspace-creating energy. In Masaccio and Piero della Francesca we have\n_actual bodies_ bathed in air. Then Leonardo, the first, discovers the\ntransitions of _atmospheric_ light and dark, the soft edges, the\noutlines that merge in the depth, the domains of light and shade in\nwhich the individual figures are inseparably involved. Finally, in\nRembrandt, objects dissolve into mere coloured impressions, and forms\nlose their specific humanness and become collocations of strokes and\npatches that tell as elements of a passionate depth-rhythm. Distance, so\ntreated, comes to signify Future, for what Impressionism seizes and\nholds is by hypothesis a unique and never-recurring instant, not a\nlandscape _in being_ but a fleeting moment of the _history_ thereof.\nJust as in a Rembrandt portrait it is not the anatomical relief of the\nhead that is rendered, but the _second visage_ in it that is confessed;\njust as the art of his brush-stroke captures not the eye but the look,\nnot the brow but the experience, not the lips but the sensuousness; so\nalso the impressionist picture in general presents to the beholder not\nthe Nature of the foreground but again a _second visage_, the look and\nsoul of the landscape. Whether we take the Catholic-heroic landscape of\nClaude Lorrain, the \u201cpaysage intime\u201d of Corot, the sea and river-banks\nand villages of Cuyp and Van Goyen, we find always a portrait in the\nphysiognomic sense, something uniquely-occurring, unforeseen, brought to\nlight for the first and last time. In this love of the character and\nphysiognomy in landscape\u2014just the motive that was unthinkable in fresco\nart and permanently barred to the Classical\u2014the art of portraiture\nwidens from the immediately human to the mediately human, to the\nrepresentation of the world as a part of the ego or the self-world in\nwhich the painter paints himself and the beholder sees himself. For the\nexpansion of Nature into Distance reflects a _Destiny_. In this art of\ntragic, daemonic, laughing and weeping landscapes there is something of\nwhich the man of another Culture has no idea and for which he has no\norgan. Anyone who in the presence of this form-world talks of\nHellenistic illusion-painting must be unable to distinguish between an\nornamentation of the highest order and a soulless imitation, an ape-\nmimicry of the obvious. If Lysippus said (as Pliny tells us he said)\nthat he represented men as they appeared to him, his ambition was that\nof a child, of a layman, of a savage, not that of an artist. The great\nstyle, the meaning, the deep necessity, are absent; even the cave-\ndwellers of the stone age painted thus. In reality, the Hellenistic\npainters could do more when they chose. Even so late, the wall-paintings\nof Pompeii and the \u201cOdyssey\u201d landscapes in Rome contain a _symbol_. In\neach case it is a _group of bodies_ that is rendered\u2014rocks, trees, even\n\u201cthe Sea\u201d as a body among bodies! There is no depth, but only\nsuperposition. Of course, of the objects represented one or several had\nnecessarily to be furthest away (or rather _least near_) but this is a\nmere technical servitude without the remotest affinity to the illumined\nsupernal distances of Faustian art.\n\n VIII\n\nI have said that oil-painting faded out at the end of the 17th Century,\nwhen one after another all its great masters died, and the question will\nnaturally, therefore, be asked\u2014is Impressionism (in the current narrow\nsense) a creation of the 19th Century? Has painting lived, after all,\ntwo centuries more? Is it still existing? But we must not be deceived by\nappearances. Not only was there a dead space between Rembrandt and\nDelacroix or Constable\u2014for when we think of the living art of high\nsymbolism that was Rembrandt\u2019s the purely decorative artists of the 18th\nCentury do not count\u2014but, further, that which began with Delacroix and\nConstable was, notwithstanding all technical continuity, something quite\ndifferent from that which had ended with Rembrandt. The new _episode_ of\npainting that in the 19th Century (i.e., beyond the 1800 frontier and in\n\u201cCivilization\u201d) has succeeded in awakening some illusion of a great\nculture of painting, has itself chosen the word _Plein-air_\n(_Freilicht_) to designate its special characteristic. The very\ndesignation suffices to show the significance of the fleeting phenomenon\nthat it is. It implies the conscious, intellectual, cold-blooded\nrejection of that for which a sudden wit invented the name \u201cbrown\nsauce,\u201d but which the great masters had, as we know, regarded as the one\ntruly metaphysical colour. On it had been built the painting-culture of\nthe schools, and especially the Dutch school, that had vanished\nirretrievably in the Rococo. This brown, the symbol of a spatial\ninfinity, which had for Faustian mankind created a spiritual something\nout of a mere canvas, now came to be regarded, quite suddenly, as an\noffence to Nature. What had happened? Was it not simply this, that the\n_soul_ for which this supernal colour was something religious, the sign\nof wistfulness, the whole meaning of \u201cLiving Nature,\u201d had quietly\nslipped away? The materialism of a Western Cosmopolis blew into the\nashes and rekindled this curious brief flicker\u2014a brief flicker of two\ngenerations, for with the generation of Manet all was ended again. I\nhave (as the reader will recall) characterized the noble green of\nGr\u00fcnewald and Claude and Giorgione as the Catholic space-colour and the\ntranscendent brown of Rembrandt as the colour of the Protestant world-\nfeeling. On the other hand, _Plein-air_ and its new colour scale stand\nfor irreligion.[364] From the spheres of Beethoven and the stellar\nexpanses of Kant, Impressionism has come down again to the crust of the\nearth. Its space is cognized, not experienced, seen, not contemplated;\nthere is tunedness in it, but not Destiny. It is the mechanical object\nof physics and not the felt world of the pastorale that Courbet and\nManet give us in their landscapes. Rousseau\u2019s tragically correct\nprophecy of a \u201creturn to Nature\u201d fulfils itself in this dying art\u2014the\nsenile, too, return to Nature day by day. The modern artist is a\nworkman, not a creator. He sets unbroken spectrum-colours side by side.\nThe subtle script, the dance of brush-strokes, give way to crude\ncommonplaces, pilings and mixings and daubings of points, squares, broad\ninorganic masses. The whitewasher\u2019s brush and the trowel appear in the\npainter\u2019s equipment; the oil-priming of the canvas is brought into the\nscheme of execution and in places left bare. It is a risky art,\nmeticulous, cold, diseased\u2014an art for over-developed nerves, but\nscientific to the last degree, energetic in everything that relates to\nthe conquest of technical obstacles, acutely assertive of programme. It\nis the \u201csatyric pendant\u201d of the great age of oil-painting that stretches\nfrom Leonardo to Rembrandt; it could only be at home in the Paris of\nBaudelaire. Corot\u2019s silvern landscapes, with their grey-greens and\nbrowns, dream still of the spiritual of the Old Masters; but Courbet and\nManet conquer bare physical space, \u201cfactual\u201d space. The meditative\ndiscoverer represented by Leonardo gives way to the painting\nexperimentalist. Corot, the eternal child, French but not Parisian,\nfinds his transcendent landscapes anywhere and everywhere; Courbet,\nManet, C\u00e9zanne, portray over and over again, painfully, laboriously,\nsoullessly, the Forest of Fontainebleau, the bank of the Seine at\nArgenteuil, or that remarkable valley near Arles. Rembrandt\u2019s mighty\nlandscapes lie essentially in the universe, Manet\u2019s near a railway\nstation. The plein-air painters, true megalopolitans, obtain as it were\nspecimens of the music of space from the least agitated sources of Spain\nand Holland\u2014from Velasquez, Goya, Hobbema, Franz Hals\u2014in order (with the\naid of English landscapists and, later, the Japanese, \u201chighbrows\u201d all)\nto restate it in empirical and scientific terms. It is natural science\nas opposed to nature experience, head against heart, knowledge in\ncontrast to faith.\n\nIn Germany it was otherwise. Whereas in France it was a matter of\nclosing-off the great school, in Germany it was a case of catching up\nwith it. For in the picturesque style, as practised from Rottmann,\nWasmann, K. D. Friedrich and Runge to Mar\u00e9es and Leibl, an unbroken\nevolution is the very basis of technique, and even a new-style school\nrequires a closed tradition behind it. Herein lies the weakness and the\nstrength of the last German painters. Whereas the French possessed a\ncontinuous tradition of their own from early Baroque to Chardin and\nCorot, whereas there was living connexion between Claude Lorrain and\nCorot, Rubens and Delacroix, all the great Germans of the 18th Century\nhad been _musicians_. After Beethoven this music, without change of\ninward essence, was diverted (one of the modalities of the German\nRomantic movement) back into painting. And it was in painting that it\nflowered longest and bore its kindliest fruits, for the portraits and\nlandscapes of these men are suffused with a secret wistful music, and\nthere is a breath of Eichendorff and M\u00f6rike left even in Thoma and\nB\u00f6cklin. But a foreign teacher had to be asked to supply that which was\nlacking in the native tradition, and so these painters one and all went\nto Paris, where they studied and copied the old masters of 1670. So also\ndid Manet and his circle. But there was this difference, that the\nFrenchmen found in these studies only reminiscences of something that\nhad been in their art for many generations, whereas the Germans received\nfresh and wholly different impressions. The result was that, in the 19th\nCentury, the German arts of form (other than music) were a phenomenon\nout of season\u2014hasty, anxious, confused, puzzled as to both aim and\nmeans. There was indeed no time to be lost. The level that German music\nor French painting had taken centuries to attain had to be made good by\nGerman painting in two generations. The expiring art demanded its last\nphase, and this phase had to be reached by a vertiginous race through\nthe whole past. Hence the unsteadiness, in everything pertaining to\nform, of high Faustian natures like Mar\u00e9es and B\u00f6cklin, an unsteadiness\nthat in German music with its sure tradition (think of Bruckner) would\nhave been impossible. The art of the French Impressionists was too\nexplicit in its programme and correspondingly too poor in soul to expose\nthem to such a tragedy. German literature, on the contrary, was in the\nsame condition as German painting; from Goethe\u2019s time, every major work\nwas intended to found something _and_ obliged to conclude something.\nJust as Kleist felt in himself both Shakespeare and Stendhal, and\nlaboured desperately, altering and discarding without end and without\nresult, to forge two centuries of psychological art into a unit; just as\nHebbel tried to squeeze all the problems from Hamlet to Rosmersholm into\none dramatic type; so Menzel, Leibl, and Mar\u00e9es sought to force the old\nand new models\u2014Rembrandt, Claude, Van Goyen, and Watteau, Delacroix,\nCourbet and Manet\u2014into a single form. While the little early interiors\nof Menzel anticipated all the discoveries of the Manet circle and Leibl\nnot seldom succeeded where Courbet tried and failed, their pictures\nrenew the metaphysical browns and greens of the Old Masters and are\nfully expressive of an inward experience. Menzel _actually_ re-\nexperienced and reawakened something of Prussian Rococo, Mar\u00e9es\nsomething of Rubens, Leibl in his \u201cFrau Gedon\u201d something of Rembrandt\u2019s\nportraiture. Moreover, the studio-brown of the 17th Century had had by\nits side a second art, the intensely Faustian art of etching. In this,\nas in the other, Rembrandt is the greatest master of all time; this,\nlike the other, has something Protestant in it that puts it in a quite\ndifferent category from the work of the Southern Catholic painters of\nblue-green atmospheres and the Gobelin tapestries. And Leibl, the last\nartist in the brown, was the last great etcher whose plates possess that\nRembrandtesque infinity that contains and reveals secrets without end.\nIn Mar\u00e9es, lastly, there was all the mighty intention of the great\nBaroque style, but, though Gu\u00e9ricault and Daumier were not too belated\nto capture it in positive form, he\u2014lacking just that strength that a\ntradition would have given him\u2014was unable to force it into the world of\npainter\u2019s actuality.\n\n IX\n\nThe last of the Faustian arts died in \u201cTristan.\u201d This work is the giant\nkeystone of Western music. Painting achieved nothing like this as a\nfinale\u2014on the contrary, the effect of Manet, Menzel and Leibl, with\ntheir combination of \u201cfree light\u201d and resurrected old-master styles, is\nweak.\n\n\u201cContemporaneously,\u201d in our sense, Apollinian art came to its end in\nPergamene sculpture. _Pergamum is the counterpart of Bayreuth._ The\nfamous altar itself,[365] indeed, is later, and probably not the most\nimportant work of the epoch at that; we have to assume a century (330-\n220 B.C.) of development now lost in oblivion. Nevertheless, all\nNietzsche\u2019s charges against Wagner and Bayreuth, the \u201cRing\u201d and\n\u201cParsifal\u201d\u2014decadence, theatricalness and the like\u2014could have been\nlevelled in the same words at the Pergamene sculpture. A masterpiece of\nthis sculpture\u2014a veritable \u201cRing\u201d\u2014has come down to us in the\nGigantomachia frieze of the great altar. Here is the same theatrical\nnote, the same use of motives from ancient discredited mythology as\n_points d\u2019appui_, the same ruthless bombardment of the nerves, and also\n(though the lack of inner power cannot altogether be concealed) the same\nfully self-conscious force and towering greatness. To this art the\nFarnese Bull and the older model of the Laoco\u00f6n group certainly belong.\n\nThe symptom of decline in creative power is the fact that to produce\nsomething round and complete the artist now requires to be emancipated\nfrom form and proportion. Its most obvious, though not its most\nsignificant, manifestation is the taste for the gigantic. Here size is\nnot, as in the Gothic and the Pyramid styles, the expression of inward\ngreatness, but the dissimulation of its absence. This swaggering in\n_specious_ dimensions is common to all nascent Civilizations\u2014we find it\nin the Zeus altar of Pergamum, the Helios of Chares called the \u201cColossus\nof Rhodes,\u201d the architecture of the Roman Imperial Age, the New Empire\nwork in Egypt, the American skyscraper of to-day. But what is far more\nindicative is the arbitrariness and immoderateness that tramples on and\nshatters the conventions of centuries. In Bayreuth and in Pergamum, it\nwas the superpersonal Rule, the absolute mathematic of Form, the Destiny\nimmanent in the quietly-matured language of a great art, that was found\nto be intolerable. The way from Polycletus to Lysippus and from Lysippus\nto the sculptors of the groups of Gauls[366] is paralleled by the way\nfrom Bach, by Beethoven, to Wagner. The earlier artists felt themselves\nmasters, the later uneasy slaves, of the great form. While even\nPraxiteles and Haydn were able to speak freely and gaily within the\nlimits of the strictest canon, Lysippus and Beethoven could only produce\nby straining their voices. The sign of all living art, the pure harmony\nof \u201cwill,\u201d \u201cmust\u201d and \u201ccan,\u201d the self-evidence of the aim, the un-self-\nconsciousness of the execution, the unity of the art and the Culture\u2014all\nthat is past and gone. In Corot and Tiepolo, Mozart and Cimarosa, there\nis still a real mastery of the mother-tongue. After them, the process of\nmutilation begins, but no one is conscious of it because no one now can\nspeak it fluently. Once upon a time, Freedom and Necessity were\nidentical; but now what is understood by freedom is in fact\nindiscipline. In the time of Rembrandt or Bach the \u201cfailures\u201d that we\nknow only too well were quite unthinkable. The Destiny of the form lay\nin the race or the school, not in the private tendencies of the\nindividual. Under the spell of a great tradition full achievement is\npossible even to a minor artist, because the living art brings him in\ntouch with his task and the task with him. To-day, these artists can no\nlonger perform what they intend, for intellectual operations are a poor\nsubstitute for the trained instinct that has died out. All of them have\nexperienced this. Mar\u00e9es was unable to complete any of his great\nschemes. Leibl could not bring himself to let his late pictures go, and\nworked over them again and again to such an extent that they became cold\nand hard. C\u00e9zanne and Renoir left work of the best quality unfinished\nbecause, strive as they would, they could do no more. Manet was\nexhausted after he had painted thirty pictures, and his \u201cShooting of the\nEmperor Maximilian,\u201d in spite of the immense care that is visible in\nevery item of the picture and the studies for it, hardly achieved as\nmuch as Goya managed without effort in its prototype the \u201cshootings of\nthe 3rd of May.\u201d Bach, Haydn, Mozart and a thousand obscure musicians of\nthe 18th Century could rapidly turn out the most finished work as a\nmatter of routine, but Wagner knew full well that he could only reach\nthe heights by concentrating all his energy upon \u201cgetting the last\nounce\u201d out of the best moments of his artistic endowment.\n\nBetween Wagner and Manet there is a deep relationship, which is not,\nindeed, obvious to everyone but which Baudelaire with his unerring flair\nfor the decadent detected at once. For the Impressionists, the end and\nthe culmination of art was the conjuring up of a world in space out of\nstrokes and patches of colour, and this was just what Wagner achieved\nwith three bars. A whole world of soul could crowd into these three\nbars. Colours of starry midnight, of sweeping clouds, of autumn, of the\nday dawning in fear and sorrow, sudden glimpses of sunlit distances,\nworld-fear, impending doom, despair and its fierce effort, hopeless\nhope\u2014all these impressions which no composer before him had thought it\npossible to catch, he could paint with entire distinctness in the few\ntones of a motive. Here the contrast of Western music with Greek plastic\nhas reached its maximum. Everything merges in bodiless infinity, no\nlonger even does a linear melody wrestle itself clear of the vague tone-\nmasses that in strange surgings challenge an imaginary space. The motive\ncomes up out of dark terrible deeps. It is flooded for an instant by a\nflash of hard bright sun. Then, suddenly, it is so close upon us that we\nshrink. It laughs, it coaxes, it threatens, and anon it vanishes into\nthe domain of the strings, only to return again out of endless\ndistances, faintly modified and in the voice of a single oboe, to pour\nout a fresh cornucopia of spiritual colours. Whatever this is, it is\nneither painting nor music, in any sense of these words that attaches to\nprevious work in the strict style. Rossini was asked once what he\nthought of the music of the \u201cHuguenots\u201d; \u201cMusic?\u201d he replied. \u201cI heard\nnothing resembling it.\u201d Many a time must this judgment have been passed\nat Athens on the new painting of the Asiatic and Sicyonian schools, and\nopinions not very different must have been current in Egyptian Thebes\nwith regard to the art of Cnossus and Tell-el-Amarna.\n\nAll that Nietzsche says of Wagner is applicable, also, to Manet.\nOstensibly a return to the elemental, to Nature, as against\ncontemplation-painting (Inhaltsmalerei) and abstract music, their art\nreally signifies a concession to the barbarism of the Megalopolis, the\nbeginning of dissolution sensibly manifested in a mixture of brutality\nand refinement. As a step, it is necessarily the last step. An\nartificial art has no further organic future, it is the mark of the end.\n\nAnd the bitter conclusion is that it is all irretrievably over with the\narts of form of the West. The crisis of the 19th Century was the death-\nstruggle. Like the Apollinian, the Egyptian and every other, the\nFaustian art dies of senility, having actualized its inward\npossibilities and fulfilled its mission within the course of its\nCulture.\n\nWhat is practised as art to-day\u2014be it music after Wagner or painting\nafter C\u00e9zanne, Leibl and Menzel\u2014is impotence and falsehood. Look where\none will, can one find the great personalities that would justify the\nclaim that there is still an art of determinate necessity? Look where\none will, can one find the _self-evidently necessary_ task that awaits\nsuch an artist? We go through all the exhibitions, the concerts, the\ntheatres, and find only industrious cobblers and noisy fools, who\ndelight to produce something for the market, something that will \u201ccatch\non\u201d with a public for whom art and music and drama have long ceased to\nbe spiritual necessities. At what a level of inward and outward dignity\nstand to-day that which is called art and those who are called artists!\nIn the shareholders\u2019 meeting of any limited company, or in the technical\nstaff of any first-rate engineering works there is more intelligence,\ntaste, character and capacity than in the whole music and painting of\npresent-day Europe. There have always been, for one great artist, a\nhundred superfluities who practised art, but so long as a great\ntradition (and _therefore_ great art) endured even these achieved\nsomething worthy. We can forgive this hundred for existing, for in the\nensemble of the tradition they were the footing for the individual great\nman. But to-day we have only these superfluities, and ten thousand of\nthem, working art \u201cfor a living\u201d (as if that were a justification!). One\nthing is quite certain, that to-day every single art-school could be\nshut down without art being affected in the slightest. We can learn all\nwe wish to know about the art-clamour which a megalopolis sets up in\norder to forget that its art is dead from the Alexandria of the year\n200. There, as here in our world-cities, we find a pursuit of illusions\nof artistic progress, of personal peculiarity, of \u201cthe new style,\u201d of\n\u201cunsuspected possibilities,\u201d theoretical babble, pretentious fashionable\nartists, weight-lifters with cardboard dumb-bells\u2014the \u201cLiterary Man\u201d in\nthe Poet\u2019s place, the unabashed farce of Expressionism which the art-\ntrade has organized as a \u201cphase of art-history,\u201d thinking and feeling\nand forming as industrial art. Alexandria, too, had problem-dramatists\nand box-office artists whom it preferred to Sophocles, and painters who\ninvented new tendencies and successfully bluffed their public. What do\nwe possess to-day as \"art\"? A faked music, filled with artificial\nnoisiness of massed instruments; a faked painting, full of idiotic,\nexotic and showcard effects, that every ten years or so concocts out of\nthe form-wealth of millennia some new \u201cstyle\u201d which is in fact no style\nat all since everyone does as he pleases; a lying plastic that steals\nfrom Assyria, Egypt and Mexico indifferently. Yet this and only this,\nthe taste of the \u201cman of the world,\u201d can be accepted as the expression\nand sign of the age; everything else, everything that \u201csticks to\u201d old\nideals, is for provincial consumption.\n\nThe grand Ornamentation of the past has become as truly a dead language\nas Sanskrit or Church Latin.[367] Instead of its symbolism being\nhonoured and obeyed, its mummy, its legacies of perfected forms, are put\ninto the pot anyhow, and recast in wholly inorganic forms. Every modern\nage holds change to be development, and puts revivals and fusions of old\nstyles in the place of real becoming. Alexandria also had its Pre-\nRaphaelite comedians with their vases, chairs, pictures and theories,\nits symbolists, naturalists and expressionists. The fashion at Rome was\nnow Gr\u00e6co-Asiatic, now Gr\u00e6co-Egyptian, now (after Praxiteles) neo-Attic.\nThe relief of the XIXth Dynasty\u2014the modern age in the Egyptian Culture\u2014\nthat covered the monstrous, meaningless, inorganic walls, statues and\ncolumns, seems like a sheer parody of the art of the Old Kingdom. The\nPtolemaic Horus-temple of Edfu is quite unsurpassed in the way of\nvacuous eclecticism\u2014so far, for we are only at the beginning of our own\ndevelopment in this line, showy and assertive as the style of our\nstreets and squares already is.\n\nIn due course, even the strength to wish for change fades out. Rameses\nthe Great\u2014so soon\u2014appropriated to himself buildings of his predecessors\nby cutting out their names and inserting his own in the inscriptions. It\nwas the same consciousness of artistic impotence that led Constantine to\nadorn his triumphal arch in Rome with sculptures taken from other\nbuildings; but Classical craftsmanship had set to work long before\nConstantine\u2014as early, in fact, as 150\u2014on the business of copying old\nmasterpieces, not because these were understood and appreciated in the\nleast, but because no one was any longer capable of producing originals.\nIt must not be forgotten that these copyists were the _artists_ of their\ntime; their work therefore (done in one style or another according to\nthe moment\u2019s fashion) represent the maximum of creative power then\navailable. All the Roman portrait statues, male and female, go back for\nposture and mien to a very few Hellenic types; these, copied more or\nless true to style, served for torsos, while the heads were executed as\n\u201cLikenesses\u201d by simple craftsmen who possessed the knack. The famous\nstatue of Augustus in armour, for example, is based on the Spearman of\nPolycletus, just as\u2014to name the first harbingers of the same phase in\nour own world\u2014Lenbach rests upon Rembrandt and Makart upon Rubens. For\n1500 years (Amasis I to Cleopatra) Egypticism piled portrait on portrait\nin the same way. Instead of the steady development that the great age\nhad pursued through the Old and Middle Kingdoms, we find _fashions_ that\nchange according to the taste of this or that dynasty. Amongst the\ndiscoveries at Turfan are relics of Indian dramas, contemporary with the\nbirth of Christ, which are similar in all respects to the Kalidasa of a\nlater century. Chinese painting as we know it shows not an evolution but\nan up-and-down of fashions for more than a thousand years on end; and\nthis unsteadiness must have set in as early as the Han period. The final\nresult is that endless industrious repetition of a stock of fixed forms\nwhich we see to-day in Indian, Chinese, and Arabian-Persian art.\nPictures and fabrics, verses and vessels, furniture, dramas and musical\ncompositions\u2014all is patternwork.[368] We cease to be able to date\nanything within centuries, let alone decades, by the language of its\nornamentation. So it has been in the Last Act of all Cultures.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n _Die bildenden K\u00fcnste._ The expression is a standard one in German,\n but unfamiliar in English. Ordinarily, however, \u201cdie bildenden K\u00fcnste\u201d\n (shaping arts, arts of form) are contrasted with \u201cdie redenden K\u00fcnste\u201d\n (speaking arts)\u2014music, as giving utterance rather than spatial form to\n things, being counted among the latter.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n As soon as the word, which is a transmission-agent of the\n understanding, comes to be used as the expression-agent of an art, the\n waking consciousness ceases to express or to take in a thing\n integrally. Not to mention the _read_ word of higher Cultures\u2014the\n medium of literature proper\u2014even the spoken word, when used in any\n artificial sense, separates hearing from understanding, for the\n ordinary meaning of the word also takes a hand in the process and, as\n this art grows in power, the wordless arts themselves arrive at\n expression-methods in which the motives are joined to word-meanings.\n Thus arises the _Allegory_, or motive that _signifies a word_, as in\n Baroque sculpture after Bernini. So, too, painting very often develops\n into a sort of painting-writing, as in Byzantium after the second\n Nicene Council (787) which took from the artist his freedom of choice\n and arrangement. This also is what distinguishes the arias of Gluck,\n in which the melody grew up out of the meaning of the libretto, from\n those of Alessandro Scarlatti, in which the texts are in themselves of\n no significance and mostly serve to carry the voices. The high-Gothic\n counterpoint of the 13th Century is entirely free from any connexion\n with words: it is a _pure architecture of human voices_ in which\n several texts, Latin and vernacular, sacred and secular, were sung\n together.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n Our pedantic method has given us an art-history that excludes music-\n history; and while the one has become a normal element of higher\n education, the other has remained an affair solely for the expert. It\n is just as though one tried to write a history of Greece without\n taking Sparta into account. The result is a theory of \u201cArt\u201d that is a\n pious fraud.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n This sentence is not in the original. It has been inserted, and the\n following sentence modified, for the sake of clarity.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 110. The aspect of the streets of Old Egypt may have\n been very similar to this, if we can draw conclusions from tesser\u00e6\n discovered in Cnossus (see H. Bossert, _Alt Kreta_ (1921), T. 14). And\n the Pylon is an undoubted and genuine fa\u00e7ade. (Such tesser\u00e6, bearing\n pictures of windowed houses, are illustrated in Art. \u201c_\u00c6gean\n Civilization_,\u201d Ency. Brit., XI Edition, Vol. I, p. 251, plate IV,\n fig. 1.\u2014_Tr._).\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n Ghiberti has not outgrown the Gothic, nor has even Donatello; and\n already in Michelangelo the feeling is Baroque, i.e., musical.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n The struggle to fix the problem is visible in the series of \u201cApollo-\n figures.\u201d See D\u00e9onna, _Les Apollons archa\u00efques_ (1909).\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n Woermann, _Geschichte der Kunst, I_ (1915), p. 236. The first tendency\n is seen in the Samian Hera of Cheramues and the persistent turning of\n columns into caryatids; the second in the Delian figure dedicated to\n Artemis by Nicandra, with its relation to the oldest metope-technique.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n Miletus was in a particular relation with Egypt through Naucratis.\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n Most of the works are pediment-groups or metopes. But even the Apollo-\n figures and the \u201cMaidens\u201d of the Acropolis could not have stood free.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n V. Salis, _Kunst der Griechen_ (1919), pp. 47, 98 et seq.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n The decisive preference of the _white_ stone is itself significant of\n the _opposition_ of Renaissance to Classical feeling.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n All Greek scales are capable of reduction to \u201ctetrachords\u201d or four-\n note scales of which the form E\u2014note\u2014note\u2014A is typical. In the\n diatonic the unspecified inner notes are F, G; in the chromatic they\n are F, F sharp; and in the enharmonic they are E half-sharp, F. Thus,\n the chromatic and enharmonic scales do not provide additional notes as\n the modern chromatic does, but simply displace the inner members of\n the scale downwards, altering the proportionate distances between the\n same given total. In Faustian music, on the contrary, the meaning of\n \u201cenharmonic\u201d is simply _relational_. It is applied to a change, say\n from A flat to G sharp. The difference between these two is not a\n quarter-tone but a \u201cvery small\u201d interval (theory and practice do not\n even agree as to which note is the higher, and in tempered instruments\n with standardized scales the physical difference is eliminated\n altogether). While a note is being sounded, even without any physical\n change in it, its harmonic co-ordinates (i.e., substantially, the key\n of the harmony) may alter, so that henceforth the note, from A flat,\n has become G sharp.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n In the same way the whole of Russian music appears to us infinitely\n mournful, but real Russians assure us that it is not at all so for\n themselves.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n See articles under these headings in Grove\u2019s \u201cDictionary of Music.\u201d\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 238.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n In Baroque music the word \u201cimitation\u201d means something quite different\n from this, viz., the exact repetition of a motive in a new colouring\n (starting from a different note of the scale).\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n For all that survives performance is the notes, and these speak only\n to one who still knows and can manage the tone and technique of the\n expression-means appropriate to them.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n See articles _Fauxbourdon_, _Discant_ and _Gimel_ in Grove\u2019s\n \u201cDictionary of Music.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n Note that Oresme was a contemporary of Machault and Philippe de Vitry,\n in whose generation the rules and prohibitions of strict counterpoint\n were definitively established.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n See p. 19 and Vol. II, p. 357.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Even the first great troubadour, Guilhem of Poitiers, though a\n reigning sovereign, made it his ambition to be regarded as a\n \u201cprofessional,\u201d as we should say.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n See also Vol. II, p. 365.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n See p. 74.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n A movement in sonata form consists essentially of (_a_) First Subject;\n (_b_) Second Subject (in an allied key); (_c_) Working-out, or free\n development of the themes grouped under (_a_) and (_b_); and (_d_)\n Recapitulation, in which the two subjects are repeated in the key of\n the tonic.\n\n The English usage is to consider (_a_) and (_b_) with the bridge or\n modulation connecting them, together as the \u201cExposition,\u201d and the form\n is consequently designated \u201cthree-part.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Einstein, _Gesch. der Musik_, p. 67.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n Coysevox lived 1640-1720. Much of the embellishment and statuary of\n Versailles is his work.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 357 et seq., 365 et seq.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n It was not merely national-Italian (for that Italian Gothic was also):\n it was purely Florentine, and even within Florence the ideal of one\n class of society. That which is called Renaissance in the Trecento has\n its centre in Provence and particularly in the papal court at Avignon,\n and is nothing whatever but the southern type of chivalry, that which\n prevailed in Spain and Upper Italy and was so strongly influenced by\n the Moorish polite society of Spain and Sicily.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n Renaissance ornament is merely embellishment and self-conscious \"art\"-\n inventiveness. It is only with the frank and outspoken Baroque that we\n return to the necessities of high symbolism.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Jacob Burckhardt, _Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien_. (An English\n translation was published in 1878.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n Inclusive of Paris itself. Even as late as the fifteenth century\n Flemish was as much spoken there as French, and the architectural\n appearance of the city in its oldest parts connects it with Bruges and\n Ghent and not with Troyes and Poitiers.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n A. Schmarsow, _Gotik in der Renaissance_ (1921); B. Haendke, _Der\n niederl. Einfluss auf die Malerei Toskana-Umbriens_ (_Monatshefte f\u00fcr\n Kunstwissensch._ 1912).\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n The colossal statue of Bartolommeo Colleone at Venice.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n Svoboda, _R\u00f6mische und Romanische Pal\u00e4ste_ (1919); Rostowzew,\n _Pompeianische Landschaften und R\u00f6mische Villen_ (_R\u00f6m. mitt._, 1904).\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n Environs of Rome. They date from the late 17th and the mid-18th\n centuries respectively; the gardens of the V. Ludovisi were laid out\n by Le N\u00f4tre.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n That is, the expression for the sum of a convergent series beyond any\n specified term.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 117 et seq.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n In Classical painting, light and shadow were first consistently\n employed by Zeuxis, but _only for the shading of the thing itself_,\n for the purpose of freeing the modelling of the body painted from the\n restriction of the relief-manner, i.e., without any reference to the\n relation of shadows to the _time of day_. But even with the earliest\n of the Netherlanders light and shade are already _colour-tones_ and\n affected by atmosphere.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n The brilliant _polish_ of the stone in Egyptian art has a deep\n symbolic significance of much the same kind. Its effect is to\n dematerialize the statue by causing the eye to glide along its\n exterior. Hellas on the contrary manifests, by its progress from\n \u201cPoros\u201d stone, through Naxian, to the translucent Parian and Pentelic\n marbles, how determined it is that the look shall sink right into the\n material essence of the body.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 314 et seq.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n The life and teaching of St. Francis were, morally and \u00e6sthetically\n alike, the centres of inspiration for Cimabue, Giotto and the Italian\n Gothic generally.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n Der nordische im Grenzenlose schweifende Pantheismus.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n On the following page is a translation of this chorus.\u2014_Tr._\n\n _Raphael._ The Sun outsings the brother-spheres\n in olden rivalry of song,\n and thunder-girt pursues the years\n the preordain\u00e8d path along.\n \u2019Tis from his face the angels gain\n their strength; but scan it no one may.\n Thought is outranged and Works remain\n sublime as on Creation-Day.\n _Gabriel._ And, swift beyond description, flies\n the circling scene of land and sea,\n in alternance of Paradise\n with dark and awful Mystery.\n The ocean swings, the billows sway,\n back from the cliff the waves are hurled.\n But cliff and waves alike obey\n the mightier movement of the World.\n _Michael._ And storms arise and swell and ebb\n o\u2019er sea and mountain, lake and field,\n in wild contention weave a web\n of forces purposed though concealed.\n The lightning is thy flaming sword,\n the thunder veils thee on thy way,\n yet ever spare thy envoys, Lord,\n the gentle changing of thy day.\n _The Three._ \u2019Tis from thy face the angels gain\n their strength, but scan it no one may.\n Beyond all thought thy Works remain\n sublime as on Creation-Day.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n His portrait of Frau Gedon, all steeped in brown, is the last _Old-\n Master portrait_ of the West; it is painted entirely in the style of\n the past.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n The strings in the Orchestra represent, as a class, the colours of the\n distance. The bluish green of Watteau is found already in the\n Neapolitan _bel canto_ of about 1700, in Couperin, in Mozart and\n Haydn; and the brown of the Dutch in Corelli, Handel and Beethoven.\n The woodwind, too, calls up illumined distances. Yellow and red, on\n the other hand, the colours of nearness, the _popular_ colours, are\n associated with the brass timbre, the effect of which is corporeal\n often to the point of vulgarity. The tone of an old fiddle is entirely\n bodiless. It is worth remarking that the Greek music, insignificent as\n it is, underwent an evolution from the Dorian lyre to the Ionian flute\n (aulos and syrinx) and that even in the time of Pericles strict\n Dorians blamed this as an enervating and lowering tendency.\n\n (The horn is an exception, and is always treated as an exception, to\n the brass generally. Its place is with the woodwind, and its colours\n are those of the distance.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n The use of gold in this way, viz., to add brilliancy to bodies\n standing freely in the open, has nothing in common with its employment\n in Magian art to provide glittering backgrounds for figures seen in\n dim interiors.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n The Chinese also attach enormous importance to the patinas of their\n old bronzes, which, owing to the different alloys used and the strong\n chemical characters of the soil, are of infinite variety and natural\n intricacy. They too, in later phases, have come to the production of\n artificial patina.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n Pausanias, it should be observed, was neither by date nor by origin a\n Greek.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n \u201cIn places, as you stand on it, the great towered and embattled\n enceinte produces an illusion: it looks as if it were still equipped\n and defended. One vivid challenge at any rate it flings down before\n you; it compels you to make up your mind on the matter of restoration.\n For myself, I have no hesitation; I prefer in every case the ruined,\n however ruined, to the reconstructed however splendid.... After that,\n I am free to say that the restoration of Carcassonne is a splendid\n achievement.\u201d (Henry James, \u201cA Little Tour in France,\u201d xxiii.) Yet if\n ever there was a reconstruction carried out with piety and scholarship\n as well as skill, it was Viollet-le-Duc\u2019s reconstruction of these old\n town-walls.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n Home, an English philosopher of the 18th Century, declared in a\n lecture on English parks that Gothic ruins represented the triumph of\n _time over power_, Classical ruins that of barbarism over taste. It\n was that age that first discovered the beauty of the ruin-studded\n Rhine, which was thenceforward the _historic_ river of the Germans.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n English readers will very likely think of the case of Shaw\u2019s \u201cBack to\n Methuselah,\u201d with its extreme contrast of the cheaply-satirical\n present-day scene and the noble and tragic scenes of far past and far\n future.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n One need only contrast the Greek artist with Rubens and Rabelais.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n Of whom one of his mistresses remarked that he \u201csmelt like a carcass\u201d\n (qu\u2019il puait comme une charogne). Note also how the musician generally\n has a reputation for uncleanliness.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n From the solemn canon of Polycletus to the elegance of Lysippus the\n same process of lightening is going on in the body-build as that which\n brought the column from the Doric to the Corinthian order. The\n Euclidean feeling was beginning to relax.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n See p. 19.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n In other countries, e.g., old Egypt and Japan (to anticipate a\n particularly foolish and shallow assertion), the sight of naked men\n was a far more ordinary and commonplace thing than it was in Athens,\n but the Japanese art-lover feels emphasized nudity as ridiculous and\n vulgar. The act is depicted (as for that matter it is in the \u201cAdam and\n Eve\u201d of Bamberg Cathedral), but merely as an object without any\n significance of potential whatsoever.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n Kluge, _Deutsche Sprachgesch._ (1920), pp. 202 et seq.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n A. Conze, _Die Attischen Grabreliefs_ (1893 etc.).\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n Louvre. Replicas of the pair in the Vict. and Alb. Museum, London.\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n Olympia\u2014the only unquestioned original that we have from the \u201cgreat\n age.\u201d References would be superfluous, for few, if any, Classical\n works are better or more widely known.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n Of the several copies that have survived, all imperfectly preserved,\n that in the Palazzo Massimi is accounted the best. The restoration\n which, once seen, convinces, is Professor Furtw\u00e4ngler\u2019s (shown in\n Ency. Brit., XI Ed., article _Greek Art_, fig. 68).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n A cast of this is in the British Museum (illustrated in the Museum\n Guide to Egypt. Antiq., pl. XXI).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n In the Bargello, Florence. Replica in Vict. and Alb. Museum, London.\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n The \u201cApollo with the lyre\u201d at Munich was admired by Winckelmann and\n his time as a Muse. Till quite recently a head of Athene (a copy of\n Praxiteles) at Bologna passed as that of a general. Such errors would\n be entirely impossible in dealing with a physiognomic art, e.g.,\n Baroque.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n In his portrait of Frau Gedon, already alluded to, p. 252.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n See p. 136 and also Vol. II, p. 354.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n The so-called \u201cThree Fates\u201d in the British Museum.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n The Orphic springtime _contemplates_ the Gods and does not _see_ them.\n See Vol. II, p. 345.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n There was indeed a beginning of this in the aristocratic epic of\n Homer\u2014so nearly akin to the courtly narrative art of Boccaccio. But\n throughout the Classical age strictly religious people felt it as a\n profanation; the worship that shines through the Homeric poems is\n quite without idolatry, and a further proof is the anger of thinkers\n who, like Heraclitus and Plato, were in close touch with the temple\n tradition. It will occur to the student that the unrestricted handling\n of even the highest divinities in this very late art is not unlike the\n theatrical Catholicism of Rossini and Liszt, which is already\n foreshadowed in Corelli and H\u00e4ndel and had, earlier even, almost led\n to the condemnation of Church music in 1564.\n\n (The event alluded to in the last line is the dispute in and after the\n Council of Trent as to the nature and conduct of Church music. If\n Wagner\u2019s suggestion that Pope Marcellus II tried to exclude it\n altogether is exaggerated, it is certain at least that the complaints\n were deep and powerful, and that the Council found it necessary to\n forbid \u201cunworthy music in the house of God\u201d and to bring the subject\n under the disciplinary control of the Bishops.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n Harmodius and Aristogiton. At Naples. Illustrated in Ency. Brit. XI\n ed., article _Greek Art_, fig. 50. Cast in British Museum.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n The famous statue now in the Lateran Museum, Rome.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n See foot-note, p. 130. An antique copy is in the British Museum.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n In the Vatican Museum.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n Even the landscape of the Baroque develops from composed backgrounds\n to portraits of definite localities, representations of the soul of\n these localities which are thus endowed with _faces_.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n It could be said of Hellenistic portrait art that it followed exactly\n the opposite course.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n British Museum.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n Pinakothek, Munich.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n Art Gallery, Vienna.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n Nothing more clearly displays the decadence of Western art since the\n middle of the 19th century than its absurd rendering of acts by\n masses; the deeper meaning of act-study and the importance of the\n motive have been entirely forgotten.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n By that test Rubens, and, among moderns, especially Feuerbach and\n B\u00f6cklin, lose, while Goya, Daumier, and, in Germany, Oldach, Wasmann,\n Rayski and many another almost forgotten artist of the earlier 19th\n Century, gain. And Mar\u00e9es passes to the rank of the very greatest.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n Tombs of the Scaligers, Verona.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n National Gallery, London.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n Museo Nazionale, Florence.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n It is the same \u201cnoble simplicity and quiet greatness\u201d\u2014to speak in the\n language of the German Classicists\u2014that produces such an impression of\n the antique in the Romanesque of Hildesheim, Gernrode, Paulinzella and\n Hersfeld. The ruined cloisters of Paulinzella, in fact, have much of\n what Brunellesco so many centuries later strove to obtain in his\n palace-courts. But the basic feeling that underlies these creations is\n not something which we got from the Classical, but something that we\n projected on to our own notion of Classical being. And our own notion\n of peace is one of an _infinite_ peace. We feel the \u201cRest in God\u201d to\n be an _expanse_ of quietude. All Florentine work, in so far as\n sureness does not turn into the Gothic challenge of Verrocchio, is\n characterized by this feeling, with which Attic \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 has nothing\n whatever in common.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n It has never been sufficiently noticed that the few sculptors who came\n after Michelangelo had no more than a mere workaday relation with\n marble. But we see at once that it is so when we think of the deeply\n intimate relation of great musicians to their favourite instruments.\n The story of Tartini\u2019s violin, which shattered itself to pieces on the\n death of the master\u2014and there are a hundred such stories\u2014is the\n Faustian counterpart of the Pygmalion legend. Consider, too, E. T. A.\n Hoffmann\u2019s \u201cJohannes Kreisler the Kapellmeister\u201d; he is a figure\n worthy to stand by the side of Faust, Werther and Don Juan. To see his\n symbolic significance and the inward necessity of him, we have only to\n compare him with the theatrical painter-characters in the works of\n contemporary Romanticists, who are not in any relation whatever with\n the idea of Painting. As the fate of 19th-Century art-romances shows\u2014a\n painter _cannot_ be made to stand for the destiny of Faustian art.\n\n (E. T. A. Hoffmann, the strange many-sided genius who was at once\n musician, caricaturist, novelist, critic, wit, able public official\n and winebibber, at one time in his career wrote in the character of\n \u201cJohannes Kreisler.\u201d See his _Fantasiest\u00fccke in Callots Manier_ and\n _Der Kater Murr_, also Thomas Carlyle\u2019s \u201cMiscellanies\u201d and the\n biographical sketches of Hoffmann in Grove\u2019s Dictionary of Music and\n the Ency. Brit.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n Although gunpowder is much older than the Baroque, its application in\n real earnest to long-ranging fire-arms was only accomplished during\n the 16th Century. It cannot be said that there was any _technical_\n reason why 100 years should have elapsed between the first use of\n powder in European warfare and the first effective soldier\u2019s fire-arm.\n No careful student of this period of military history can fail to be\n struck with this fact\u2014the significance of which, not being technical,\n must be cultural. Much the same could be said of printing, which, so\n far as concerns technical factors, might just as well have been\n invented in the 10th as in the 15th Century.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n Uffizi, Florence.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n Sistine Chapel, Rome.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n \u201cDoctor Marianus.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n Vatican.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n In Renaissance work the finished product is often quite depressingly\n complete. The absence of \u201cinfinity\u201d is palpable. No secrets, no\n discoveries.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n Hence the impossibility of achieving a genuinely religious painting on\n plein-air principles. The world-feeling that underlies it is so\n thoroughly irreligious, so worthless for any but a \u201creligion of\n reason\u201d so-called, that every one of its efforts in that direction,\n even with the noblest intentions (Uhde, Puvis de Chavannes), strikes\n us as hollow and false. One instant of plein-air treatment suffices to\n secularize the interior of a church and degrade it into a showroom.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n State Museum, Berlin.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n I.e., the \u201cgiants\u201d of the great frieze, who were in fact Galatians\n playing the part. This Gigantomachia, a programme-work like the Ring,\n represented a situation, as the Ring represented characters, under\n mythological labels.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 138 et seq.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n See pp. 197 et seq.\n\n-----\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING\n\n\n I\n ON THE FORM OF THE SOUL\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING\n\n\n I\n ON THE FORM OF THE SOUL\n\n I\n\nEvery professed philosopher is forced to believe, without serious\nexamination, in the existence of a Something that in his opinion is\ncapable of being handled by the reason, for his whole spiritual\nexistence depends on the possibility of such a Something. For every\nlogician and psychologist, therefore, however sceptical he may be, there\nis a point at which criticism falls silent and faith begins, a point at\nwhich even the strictest analytical thinker must cease to employ his\nmethod\u2014the point, namely, at which analysis is confronted with itself\nand with the question of whether its problem is soluble or even exists\nat all. The proposition \u201cit is possible by thought to establish the\nforms of thought\u201d was not doubted by Kant, dubious as it may appear to\nthe unphilosophical. The proposition \u201cthere is a soul, the structure of\nwhich is scientifically accessible; and that which I determine, by\ncritical dissection of conscious existence-acts into the form of psychic\nelements, functions, and complexes, _is_ my soul\u201d is a proposition that\nno psychologist has doubted hitherto. And yet it is just here that his\nstrongest doubts should have arisen. Is an abstract science of the\nspiritual possible at all? Is that which one finds on this path\nidentical with that which one is seeking? Why has psychology\u2014meaning\nthereby not knowledge of men and experience of life but _scientific_\npsychology\u2014always been the shallowest and most worthless of the\ndisciplines of philosophy, a field so empty that it has been left\nentirely to mediocre minds and barren systematists? The reason is not\nfar to seek. It is the misfortune of \u201cexperimental\u201d psychology that it\ndoes not even possess an _object_ as the word is understood in any and\nevery scientific technique. Its searches and solutions are fights with\nshadows and ghosts. What is it\u2014the Soul? If the mere reason could give\nan answer to that question, the science would be _ab initio_\nunnecessary.\n\nOf the thousands of psychologists of to-day not one can give an actual\nanalysis or definition of \u201cthe\u201d Will\u2014or of regret, anxiety, jealousy,\ndisposition, artistic intention. Naturally, since only the systematic\ncan be dissected, and we can only define notions by notions. No\nsubtleties of intellectual play with notional distinctions, no plausible\nobservations of connexions between sensuous-corporeal states and \u201cinward\nprocesses\u201d touch that which is in question here. Will\u2014this is no notion,\nbut a name, a prime-word like God, a sign for something of which we have\nan immediate inward certainty but which we are for ever unable to\ndescribe.\n\nWe are dealing here with something eternally inaccessible to learned\ninvestigation. It is not for nothing that every language presents a\nbaffling complexity of labels for the spiritual, warning us thereby that\nit is something not susceptible of theoretical synthesis or systematic\nordering. Here there is nothing for us to order. Critical (i.e.,\nliterally, separating) methods apply only to the world-as-Nature. It\nwould be easier to break up a theme of Beethoven with dissecting-knife\nor acid than to break up the soul by methods of abstract thought.\nNature-knowledge and man-knowledge have neither aims nor ways in common.\nThe primitive man experiences \u201csoul,\u201d first in other men and then in\nhimself, as a _Numen_, just as he knows numina of the outer world, and\ndevelops his impressions in mythological form. His words for these\nthings are symbols, sounds, not descriptive of the indescribable but\nindicative of it for him who hath ears to hear. They evoke images,\n_likenesses_ (in the sense of Faust II)\u2014the only language of spiritual\nintercourse that man has discovered to this day. Rembrandt can reveal\nsomething of his soul, to those who are in inward kinship with him, by\nway of a self-portrait or a landscape, and to Goethe \u201ca god gave it to\nsay what he suffered.\u201d Certain ineffable stirrings of soul can be\nimparted by one man to the sensibility of another man through a look,\ntwo bars of a melody, an almost imperceptible movement. That is the real\nlanguage of souls, and it remains incomprehensible to the outsider. The\nword as utterance, as poetic element, may establish the link, but the\nword as notion, as element of scientific prose, never.\n\n\u201cSoul,\u201d for the man who has advanced from mere living and feeling to the\nalert and observant state, is an _image_ derived from quite primary\nexperiences of life and death. It is as old as thought, i.e., as the\narticulate separation of thinking (thinking-over) from seeing. We _see_\nthe world around us, and since every free-moving being must for its own\nsafety understand that world, the accumulating daily detail of technical\nand empirical experience becomes a stock of permanent data which man, as\nsoon as he is proficient in speech, collects into an _image_ of what he\n_understands_. This is the World-as-Nature.[369] What is not environment\nwe do not see, but we do divine \u201cits\u201d presence in ourselves and in\nothers, and by virtue of \u201cits\u201d physiognomic impressive power it evokes\nin us the anxiety and the desire to know; and thus arises the meditated\nor pondered _image of a counterworld_ which is our mode of visualizing\nthat which remains eternally alien to the physical eye. The image of the\nsoul is mythic and remains objective in the field of spiritual religion\nso long as the image of Nature is contemplated in the spirit of\nreligion; and it transforms itself into a scientific notion and becomes\nobjective in the field of scientific criticism as soon as \u201cNature\u201d comes\nto be observed critically. As \u201cTime\u201d is a counter-concept[370] to space,\nso the \u201csoul\u201d is a counterworld to \u201cNature\u201d and therefore variable in\ndependence upon the notion of Nature as this stands from moment to\nmoment. It has been shown how \u201cTime\u201d arose, out of the feeling of the\ndirection-quality possessed by ever-mobile Life, as a conceptual\n_negative_ to a positive magnitude, as an incarnation of _that which is\nnot extension_; and that all the \u201cproperties\u201d of Time, by the cool\nanalysis of which the philosophers believe they can solve the problem of\nTime, have been gradually formed and ordered in the intellect as\ninverses to the properties of space. In exactly the same way, the notion\nof the spiritual has come into being as the inverse and _negative of the\nnotion of the world_, the spatial notion of polarity assisting\n(\"outward\"-\u201cinward\u201d) and the terms being suitably transvalued. _Every\npsychology is a counter-physics._\n\nTo attempt to get an \u201cexact\u201d science out of the ever-mysterious soul is\nfutile. But the late-period City must needs have abstract thinking and\nit forces the \u201cphysicist of the inner world\u201d to elucidate a fictitious\nworld by ever more fictions, notions by more notions. He transmutes the\nnon-extended into the extended, builds up a system as \u201ccause\u201d for\nsomething that is only manifested physiognomically, and comes to believe\nthat in this system he has the structure of \u201cthe\u201d soul before his eyes.\nBut the very words that he selects, in all the Cultures, to notify to\nothers the results of his intellectual labours betray him. He talks of\nfunctions, feeling-complexes, mainsprings, thresholds of consciousness;\ncourse, breadth, intensity and parallelism in spiritual processes. All\nthese are words proper to the mode of representation that Natural\nScience employs. \u201cThe Will is related to objects\u201d is a spatial image\npure and simple. \u201cConscious\u201d and \u201cunconscious\u201d are only too obviously\nderivatives of \u201cabove-ground\u201d and \u201cbelow-ground.\u201d In modern theories of\nthe Will we meet with all the vocabulary of electro-dynamics. Will-\nfunctions and thought-functions are spoken of in just the same way as\nthe function of a system of forces. To analyse a feeling means to set up\na representative silhouette in its place and then to treat this\nsilhouette mathematically and by definition, partition, and measurement.\nAll soul-examination of this stamp, however remarkable as a study of\ncerebral anatomy, is penetrated with the mechanical notion of locality,\nand works without knowing it under imaginary co-ordinates in an\nimaginary space. The \u201cpure\u201d psychologist is quite unaware that he is\ncopying the physicist, but it is not at all surprising that the na\u00efvest\nmethods of experimental psychology give depressingly orthodox results.\nBrain-paths and association-threads, as modes of representation, conform\nentirely to an optical scheme\u2014the \u201ccourse\u201d of the will or the feeling;\nboth deal with cognate _spatial_ phantoms. It does not make much\ndifference whether I define some psychic capacity conceptually or the\ncorresponding brain-region graphically. Scientific psychology has worked\nout for itself a complete system of images, in which it moves with\nentire conviction. Every individual pronouncement of every individual\npsychologist proves on examination to be merely a variation of this\nsystem conformable to the style of outer-world science of the day.\n\nClear thought, emancipated from all connexion with seeing, presupposes\nas its organ a culture-language, which is created by the soul of the\nCulture as a part supporting other parts of its expression;[371] and\npresently this language itself creates a \u201cNature\u201d of word-meanings, a\nlinguistic cosmos within which abstract notions, judgments and\nconclusions\u2014representations of number, causality, motion\u2014can lead a\nmechanically determinate existence. At any particular time, therefore,\nthe current image of the soul is a function of the _current language and\nits inner symbolism_. All the Western, Faustian, languages possess the\nnotion of Will. This mythical entity manifested itself, simultaneously\nin all, in that transformation of the verb[372] which decisively\ndifferentiated our tongues from the Classical tongues and therefore our\nsoul from the Classical soul. When \u201cego habeo factum\u201d replaced \u201cfeci,\u201d a\nnew numen of the inner world spoke. And at the same time, under specific\nlabel, there appeared in the scientific soul-pictures of all the Western\npsychologies the figure of the Will, of a well-rounded capacity of which\nthe definition may be formulated in different ways by different schools,\nbut the existence is unquestionable.\n\n\n II\n\nI maintain, then, that scientific psychology (and, it may be added, the\npsychology of the same kind that we all unconsciously practise when we\ntry to \u201cfigure to ourselves\u201d the stirrings of our own or others\u2019 souls)\nhas, in its inability to discover or even to approach the essence of the\nsoul, simply added one more to the symbols that collectively make up the\nMacrocosm of the culture-man. Like everything else that is no longer\nbecoming but become, it has put a _mechanism_ in place of an _organism_.\nWe miss in its picture that which fills our feeling of life (and should\nsurely be \u201csoul\u201d if anything is) the Destiny-quality, the necessary\ndirectedness of existence, the possibility that life in its course\nactualizes. I do not believe that the word \u201cDestiny\u201d figures in any\npsychological system whatsoever\u2014and we know that nothing in the world\ncould be more remote from actual life-experience and knowledge of men\nthan a system without such elements. Associations, apperceptions,\naffections, motives, thought, feeling, will\u2014all are dead mechanisms, the\nmere topography of which constitutes the insignificant total of our\n\u201csoul-science.\u201d One looked for Life and one found an ornamental pattern\nof notions. And the soul remained what it was, something that could\nneither be thought nor represented, _the_ secret, _the_ ever-becoming,\n_the_ pure experience.\n\nThis _imaginary soul-body_ (let it be called so outright for the first\ntime) is never anything but the exact mirror-image of the form in which\nthe matured culture-man looks on his outer world. In the one as in the\nother, the depth-experience actualizes the extension-world.[373] Alike\nout of the perception of the outside and the conception of the inside,\nthe secret that is hinted at in the root-word Time creates Space. The\nsoul-image like the world-image has its directional depth, its horizon,\nand its boundedness or its unboundedness. An \u201cinner eye\u201d sees, an \u201cinner\near\u201d hears. There exists a distinct idea of an inner order, and this\ninner order like the outer wears the badge of _causal necessity_.\n\nThis being so, everything that has been said in this work regarding the\nphenomenon of the high Cultures combines to demand an immensely wider\nand richer sort of soul-study than anything worked upon so far. For\neverything that our present-day psychologist has to tell us\u2014and here we\nrefer not only to the systematic science but also in the wider sense to\nthe physiognomic knowledge of men\u2014relates to the _present_ condition of\nthe _Western_ soul, and not, as hitherto gratuitously assumed, to \u201cthe\nhuman soul\u201d at large.\n\nA soul-image is never anything but the image of one quite definite soul.\nNo observer can ever step outside the conditions and the limitations of\nhis time and circle, and whatever it may be that he \u201cknows\u201d or\n\u201ccognizes,\u201d the very cognition itself involves in all cases choice,\ndirection and inner form, and is therefore _ab initio_ an expression of\nhis proper soul. The primitive himself appropriates a soul-image out of\nfacts of _his own_ life as subjected to the formative working of the\nbasic experiences of waking consciousness (distinction of ego and world,\nof ego and tu) and those of being (distinction of body and soul, sense-\nlife and reflection, sex-life and sentiment). And as it is thoughtful\nmen who think upon these matters, an inner numen (Spirit, Logos, Ka,\nRuach) always arises as an opposite to the rest. But the dispositions\nand relations of this numen in the individual case, and the conception\nthat is formed of the spiritual elements\u2014layers of forces or substances,\nunity or polarity or plurality\u2014mark the thinker from the outset as a\npart of his own specific Culture. When, therefore, one convinces one\u2019s\nself that one knows the soul of an alien Culture from its workings in\nactuality, the soul-image underlying the knowledge is really _one\u2019s own_\nsoul-image. In this wise new experiences are readily assimilated into\nthe system that is already there, and it is not surprising that in the\nend one comes to believe that one has discovered forms of eternal\nvalidity.\n\nIn reality, every Culture possesses its own systematic psychology just\nas it possesses its own style of knowledge of men and experience of\nlife; and just as even each separate stage\u2014the age of Scholasticism,\nthat of the Sophists, that of Enlightenment\u2014forms special ideas of\nnumber and thought and Nature that pertain to itself only, so even each\nseparate century mirrors itself in a soul-image of its own. The best\njudge of men in the Western world goes wrong when he tries to understand\na Japanese, and vice versa. But the man of learning goes equally wrong\nwhen he tries to translate basic words of Arabic or Greek by basic words\nof his own tongue. \u201cNephesh\u201d is not \u201canimus\u201d and \u201c\u00e2tm\u00e2n\u201d is not \u201csoul,\u201d\nand what we consistently discover under our label \u201cwill\u201d Classical man\ndid not find in his soul-picture _at all_.\n\nTaking one thing with another, it is no longer possible to doubt the\nimmense importance of the individual soul-images that have severally\narisen in the general history of thought. Classical, Apollinian man, the\nman of Euclidean point-formed being, looked upon his soul as a Cosmos\nordered in a group of excellent parts. Plato called it \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 and compared it with man, beast and plant, in one place even\nwith Southern, Northern and Hellenic man. What seems to be copied here\nis Nature as seen by the Classical age, a well-ordered sum of tangible\nthings, in contrast to a space that was felt as the non-existent, the\nNonent. Where in this field is \"Will\"? or the idea of functional\nconnexions? or the other creations of _our_ psychology? Do we really\nbelieve that Plato and Aristotle were less sure in analysis than we are,\nand did not see what is insistently obvious to every layman amongst us?\nOr is it that Will is missing here for the same reason as space is\nmissing in the Classical mathematic and force in the Classical physics?\n\nTake, on the contrary, any Western psychology that you please, and you\nwill always find a _functional_ and never a _bodily_ ordering. The basic\nform of all impressions which we receive from within is _y_ = _f_(_x_),\nand that, _because_ the function is the basis of our outer world.\nThinking, feeling, willing\u2014no Western psychologist can step outside this\ntrinity, however much he may desire to do so; even in the controversies\nof Gothic thinkers concerning the primacy of will or reason it already\nemerges that the question is one of a relation between _forces_. It\nmatters not at all whether these old philosophers put forward their\ntheories as original or read them into Augustine or Aristotle.\nAssociations, apperceptions, will-processes, call them what you will,\nthe elements of our picture are without exception of the type of the\nmathematico-physical Function, and in very form radically un-Classical.\nNow, such psychology examines the soul, not physiognomically to indicate\nits traits, but physically, as an object, to ascertain its elements, and\nit is quite natural therefore to find psychology reduced to perplexity\nwhen confronted with the problem of motion. Classical man, too, had his\ninward _Eleatic_ difficulty,[374] and the inability of the Schoolmen to\nagree as to the primacy of Will or Reason foreshadows the dangerous flaw\nin Baroque physics\u2014its inability to reach an unchallengeable statement\nof the relation between force and movement. Directional energy, denied\nin the Classical and also in the Indian soul-image (where all is settled\nand rounded), is emphatically affirmed in the Faustian and in the\nEgyptian (wherein all is systems and centres of forces); and yet,\nprecisely because this affirmation cannot but involve the element of\ntime, thought, which is alien to Time, finds itself committed to self-\ncontradictions.\n\nThe Faustian and the Apollinian images of the soul are in blunt\nopposition. Once more all the old contrasts crop up. In the Apollinian\nwe have, so to call it, the soul-body, in the Faustian the soul-space,\nas the imagination-unit. The body possesses parts, while the space is\nthe scene of processes. Classical man conceives of his inner world\nplastically. Even Homer\u2019s idiom betrays it; echoing, we may well\nbelieve, immemorial temple-traditions, he shows us, for instance, the\ndead in Hades as well-recognizable copies of the bodies that had been.\nThe Pre-Socratic philosophy, with its three well-ordered parts\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c2, suggests at once the Laoco\u00f6n group.\nIn our case the impress is a musical one; the sonata of the inner life\nhas the will as first subject, thought and feeling as themes of the\nsecond subject; the movement is bound by the strict rules of a spiritual\ncounterpoint, and psychology\u2019s business is to discover this\ncounterpoint. The simplest elements fall into antithesis like Classical\nand Western number\u2014on the one hand magnitudes, on the other spiritual\nrelations\u2014and the _spiritual static_ of Apollinian existence, the\nstereometric ideal of \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 and \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1, stands opposed to the\n_soul-dynamic_ of Faustian.\n\nThe Apollinian soul-image\u2014Plato\u2019s biga-team with \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 as charioteer\u2014\ntakes to flight at once on the approach of the Magian soul. It is fading\nout already in the later Stoa, where the principal teachers came\npredominantly from the Aramaic East, and by the time of the Early Roman\nEmpire, even in the literature of the city itself, it has come to be a\nmere reminiscence.\n\nThe hall-mark of the Magian soul-image is a strict _dualism of two\nmysterious substances, Spirit and Soul_. Between these two there is\nneither the Classical (static) nor the Western (functional) relation,\nbut an altogether differently constituted relation which we are obliged\nto call merely \u201cMagian\u201d for want of a more helpful term, though we may\nillustrate it by contrasting the physics of Democritus and the physics\nof Galileo with Alchemy and the Philosopher\u2019s Stone. On this\nspecifically Middle-Eastern soul-image rests, of inward necessity, all\nthe psychology and particularly the theology with which the \u201cGothic\u201d\nspringtime of the Arabian Culture (0-300 A.D.) is filled. The Gospel of\nSt. John belongs thereto, and the writings of the Gnostics, the Early\nFathers, the Neoplatonists, the Manich\u00e6ans, and the dogmatic texts in\nthe Talmud and the Avesta; so, too, does the tired spirit of the\nImperium Romanum, now expressed only in religiosity and drawing the\nlittle life that is in its philosophy from the young East, Syria, and\nPersia. Even in the 1st Century B.C. the great Posidonius, a true Semite\nand young-Arabian in spite of the Classical dress of his immense\nlearning, was inwardly sensible of the complete opposition between the\nClassical life-feeling and this Magian soul-structure which for him was\nthe true one. There is a patent difference of _value_ between a\nSubstance permeating the body and a Substance which falls from the\nworld-cavern into humanity, abstract and divine, making of all\nparticipants a Consensus.[375] This \u201cSpirit\u201d it is which evokes the\nhigher world, and through this creation triumphs over mere life, \u201cthe\nflesh\u201d and Nature. This is the prime image that underlies all feeling of\nego. Sometimes it is seen in religious, sometimes in philosophical,\nsometimes in artistic guise. Consider the portraits of the Constantinian\nage, with their fixed stare into the infinite\u2014_that look stands for the_\n\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. It is felt by Plotinus and by Origen. Paul distinguishes, for\nexample in I Cor., xv, 44, between \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd and \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\nThe conception of a double, bodily or spiritual, ecstasy and of the\npartition of men into lower and higher, psychics and pneumatics, was\nfamiliar currency amongst the Gnostics. Late-Classical literature\n(Plutarch) is full of the dualistic psychology of \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 and \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, derived\nfrom Oriental sources. It was very soon brought into correlation with\nthe contrast between Christian and Heathen and that between Spirit and\nNature, and it issued in that scheme of world-history as man\u2019s drama\nfrom Creation to Last Judgment (with an intervention of God as means)\nwhich is common to Gnostics, Christians, Persians and Jews alike, and\nhas not even now been altogether overcome.\n\nThis Magian soul-image received its rigorously scientific completion in\nthe schools of Baghdad and Basra.[376] Alfarabi and Alkindi dealt\nthoroughly with the problems of this Magian psychology, which to us are\ntangled and largely inaccessible. And we must by no means underrate its\ninfluence upon the young and wholly abstract soul-theory (_as distinct\nfrom the ego-feeling_) of the West. Scholastic and Mystic philosophy, no\nless than Gothic art, drew upon Moorish Spain, Sicily and the East for\nmany of its forms. It must not be forgotten that the Arabian Culture is\nthe culture of the established revelation-religions, all of which assume\na dualistic soul-image. The Kabbala[377] and the part played by Jewish\nphilosophers in the so-called medi\u00e6val philosophy\u2014i.e., late-Arabian\nfollowed by early-Gothic\u2014is well known. But I will only refer here to\nthe remarkable and little-appreciated Spinoza.[378] Child of the Ghetto,\nhe is, with his contemporary Schirazi, the last belated representative\nof the Magian, a stranger in the form-world of the Faustian feeling. As\na prudent pupil of the Baroque he contrived to clothe his system in the\ncolours of Western thought, but at bottom he stands entirely under the\naspect of the Arabian dualism of two soul-substances. _And this is the\ntrue and inward reason why he lacked the force-concept of Galileo and\nDescartes._ This concept is the centre of gravity of a dynamic universe\nand _ipso facto_ is alien to the Magian world-feeling. There is no link\nbetween the idea of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone (which is implicit in\nSpinoza\u2019s idea of Deity as \u201ccausa sui\u201d) and the causal necessity of\n_our_ Nature-picture. Consequently, his determinism is precisely that\nwhich the orthodox wisdom of Baghdad had maintained\u2014\u201cKismet.\u201d It was\nthere that the home of the _more geometrico_[379] method was to be\nlooked for\u2014it is common to the Talmud, the Zend Avesta and the Arabian\nKalaam;[380] but its appearance in Spinoza\u2019s \u201cEthics\u201d is a grotesque\nfreak in _our_ philosophy.\n\nOnce more this Magian soul-image was to be conjured up, for a moment.\nGerman Romanticism found in magic and the tangled thought-threads of\nGothic philosophers the same attractiveness as it found in the Crusade-\nideals of cloisters and castles, and even more in Saracenic art and\npoetry\u2014without of course understanding very much of these remote things.\nSchelling, Oken, Baader, G\u00f6rres and their circle indulged in barren\nspeculations in the Arabic-Jewish style, which they felt with evident\nself-satisfaction to be \u201cdark\u201d and \u201cdeep\u201d\u2014precisely what, for Orientals,\nthey were _not_\u2014understanding them but partially themselves and hoping\nfor similar quasi-incomprehension in their audiences. The only\nnoteworthy point in the episode is the attractiveness of obscurity. We\nmay venture the conclusion that the clearest and most accessible\nconceptions of Faustian thought\u2014as we have it, for instance, in\nDescartes or in Kant\u2019s \u201cProlegomena\u201d\u2014would in the same way have been\nregarded by an Arabian student as nebulous and abstruse. What for us is\ntrue, for them is false, and vice versa; and this is valid for the soul-\nimages of the different Cultures as it is for every other product of\ntheir scientific thinking.\n\n III\n\nThe separation of its ultimate elements is a task that the Gothic world-\noutlook and its philosophy leaves to the courage of the future. Just as\nthe ornamentation of the cathedral and the primitive contemporary\npainting still shirk the decision between gold and wide atmosphere in\nbackgrounds\u2014between the Magian and the Faustian aspects of God in\nNature\u2014so this early, timid, immature soul-image as it presents itself\nin this philosophy mingles characters derived from the Christian-Arabian\nmetaphysic and its dualism of Spirit and Soul with Northern inklings of\nfunctional soul-forces not yet avowed. This is the discrepance that\nunderlies the conflict concerning the primacy of will or reason, the\n_basic problem of the Gothic philosophy_, which men tried to solve now\nin the old Arabian, now in the new Western sense. It is this myth of the\nmind\u2014which under ever-changing guises accompanies our philosophy\nthroughout its course\u2014that distinguishes it so sharply from every other.\nThe rationalism of late Baroque, in all the pride of the self-assured\ncity-spirit, decided in favour of the greater power of the Goddess\nReason (Kant, the Jacobins); but almost immediately thereafter the 19th\nCentury (Nietzsche above all) went back to the stronger formula\n_Voluntas superior intellectu_, and this indeed is in the blood of all\nof us.[381] Schopenhauer, the last of the great systematists, has\nbrought it down to the formula \u201cWorld as Will and Idea,\u201d and it is only\nhis ethic and not his metaphysic that decides _against_ the Will.\n\nHere we begin to see by direct light the deep foundations and meaning of\nphilosophizing within a Culture. For what we see here is the Faustian\nsoul trying in labour of many centuries to paint a _self-portrait_, and\none, moreover, that is in intimate concordance with its world-portrait.\nThe Gothic world-view with its struggle of will and reason is in fact an\nexpression of the life-feeling of the men of the Crusades, of the\nHohenstaufen empire, of the great cathedrals. _These men saw the soul\nthus, because they were thus._\n\n_Will and thought in the soul-image correspond to Direction and\nExtension, History and Nature, Destiny and Causality in the image of the\nouter world._ Both aspects of our basic characters emerge in our prime-\nsymbol which is infinite extension. Will links the future to the\npresent, thought the unlimited to the here. _The historic future is\ndistance-becoming, the boundless world-horizon distance-become_\u2014this is\nthe meaning of the Faustian depth-experience. The direction-feeling as\n\u201cWill\u201d and the space-feeling as \u201cReason\u201d are imagined as entities,\nalmost as legend-figures; and out of them comes the picture that our\npsychologists of necessity abstract from the inner life.\n\nTo call the Faustian Culture a _Will-Culture_ is only another way of\nexpressing the eminently historical disposition of its soul. Our first-\nperson idiom, our \u201cego habeo factum\u201d\u2014our dynamic syntax, that is\u2014\nfaithfully renders the \u201cway of doing things\u201d that results from this\ndisposition and, with its positive directional energy, dominates not\nonly our picture of the World-as-History but our own history to boot.\nThis first person towers up in the Gothic architecture; the spire is an\n\u201cI,\u201d the flying buttress is an \u201cI.\u201d And therefore the _entire Faustian\nethic_, from Thomas Aquinas to Kant, _is an \u201cexcelsior\u201d_\u2014fulfilment of\nan \u201cI,\u201d ethical work upon an \u201cI,\u201d justification of an \u201cI\u201d by faith and\nworks; respect of the neighbour \u201cThou\u201d for the sake of one\u2019s \u201cI\u201d and its\nhappiness; and, lastly and supremely, immortality of the \u201cI.\u201d\n\nNow this, precisely this, the genuine Russian regards as contemptible\nvain-glory. The Russian soul, will-less, having the limitless _plane_ as\nits prime-symbol,[382] seeks to grow up\u2014serving, anonymous, self-\noblivious\u2014in the brother-world of the plane. To take \u201cI\u201d as the\nstarting-point of relations with the neighbour, to elevate \u201cI\u201d morally\nthrough \u201cI\u2019s\u201d love of near and dear, to repent for \u201cI\u2019s\u201d own sake, are\nto him traits of Western vanity as presumptuous as is the upthrusting\nchallenge to heaven of our cathedrals that he compares with his plane\nchurch-roof and its sprinkling of cupolas. Tolstoi\u2019s hero Nechludov\nlooks after his moral \u201cI\u201d as he does after his finger-nails; this is\njust what betrays Tolstoi as belonging to the pseudomorphosis of\nPetrinism. But Raskolnikov is only something in a \u201cwe.\u201d His fault is the\nfault of all,[383] and even to regard his sin as special to himself is\npride and vanity. Something of the kind underlies the Magian soul-image\nalso. \u201cIf any man come to me,\u201d says Jesus (Luke xiv, 26), \u201cand hate not\nhis father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, _yea, and\nhis own life_ (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd) _also_,[384] he cannot be my disciple\u201d;\nand it is the same feeling that makes him call himself by the title that\nwe mistranslate \u201cSon of Man.\u201d[385] The Consensus of the Orthodox too is\nimpersonal and condemns \u201cI\u201d as a sin. So too with the\u2014truly Russian\u2014\nconception of truth as the anonymous agreement of the elect.\n\nClassical man, belonging wholly to the present, is equally without that\ndirectional energy by which our images of world and of soul are\ndominated, which sums all our sense-impressions as a path towards\ndistance and our inward experiences as a feeling of future. He is will-\nless. The Classical idea of destiny and the symbol of the Doric column\nleave no doubt as to that. And the contest of thinking and willing that\nis the hidden theme of every serious portrait from Jan van Eyck to\nMar\u00e9es is impossible in Classical portraiture, for in the Classical\nsoul-image thought (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), the inner Zeus, is accompanied by the wholly\nahistoric entities of animal and vegetative impulse (\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 and\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1), wholly somatic and wholly destitute of conscious direction\nand drive towards an end.\n\nThe actual designation of the Faustian principle, which belongs to us\nand to us alone, is a matter of indifference. A name is in itself mere\nsound. Space, too, is a word that is capable of being employed with a\nthousand nuances\u2014by mathematicians and philosophers, poets and painters\u2014\nto express one and the same indescribable; a word that is ostensibly\ncommon to all mankind and yet, carrying a metaphysical under-meaning\nthat we gave it and could not but give it, is in that sense valid only\nfor our Culture. It is not the notion of \u201cWill,\u201d but the circumstance\nthat we possess it while the Greeks _were entirely ignorant of it_, that\ngives it high symbolic import. At the very bottom, there is no\ndistinction between space-as-depth and will. For the one, and\n_therefore_ for the other also, the Classical languages had no\nexpression.[386] The pure space of the Faustian world-picture is not\nmere extension, but efficient extension into the distance, as an\novercoming of the merely sensuous, as a strain and tendency, as a\nspiritual will-to-power. I am fully aware how inadequate these\nperiphrases are. It is entirely impossible to indicate in exact terms\nthe difference between what we and what the men of the Indian or the\nArabian Culture call space, or feel or imagine in the word. But that\nthere _is_ some radical distinction is proved by the very different\nfundamentals of the respective mathematics, arts of form, and, above\nall, immediate utterances of _life_. We shall see how the identity of\nspace and will comes to expression in the acts of Copernicus and\nColumbus\u2014as well as in those of the Hohenstaufen and Napoleon\u2014but it\nunderlies also, in another way, the physical notions of fields of force\nand potential, ideas that it would be impossible to convey to the\ncomprehension of any Greek. \"Space as _a priori_ form of perception,\"\nthe formula in which Kant finally enunciated that for which Baroque\nphilosophy had so long and tirelessly striven, implies an assertion of\nsupremacy of soul over the alien; the ego, through the form, is to rule\nthe world.[387]\n\n_This_ is brought to expression in the depth-perspective of oil-painting\nwhich makes the space-field of the picture, conceived as infinite,\ndependent on the observer, who in choosing his distance asserts his\ndominion. It is this attraction of distance that produces the type of\nthe _heroic and historically-felt_ landscape that we have alike in the\npicture and the park of the Baroque period, and that is expressed also\nin the mathematico-physical concept of the vector. For centuries\npainting fought passionately to reach this symbol, which contains all\nthat the words space, will and force are capable of indicating. And\ncorrespondingly we find in our metaphysic the steady tendency to\nformulate pairs of concepts (such as phenomena and things-in-themselves,\nwill and idea, ego and non-ego) all of the same purely dynamic content,\nand\u2014in utter contrast to Protagoras\u2019s conception of man as the measure,\nnot the creator, of things\u2014to establish a functional dependence of\nthings upon spirit. The Classical metaphysic regarded man as a body\namong bodies, and knowledge as a sort of _contact_, passing from the\nknown to the knower and not vice versa. The optical theories of\nAnaxagoras and Democritus were far from admitting any active\nparticipation of the percipient in sense-perception. Plato never felt,\nas Kant was driven to feel, the ego as centre of a transcendent sphere\nof effect. The captives in his celebrated cave are really captives, the\n_slaves_ and not the masters of outer impressions\u2014recipients of light\nfrom the common sun and not themselves suns which irradiate the\nuniverse.\n\nThe relation of our will to our imaginary space is evidenced again in\nthe physical concept of space-energy\u2014that utterly un-Classical idea in\nwhich even _spatial interval_ figures as a form, and indeed as prime\nform thereof, for the notions of \u201ccapacity\u201d and \u201cintensity\u201d rest upon\nit. We feel will and space, the dynamic world-picture of Galileo and\nNewton and the dynamic soul-picture which has will as its centre of\ngravity and centre of reference, as of identical significance. Both are\nBaroque ideas, symbols of the fully-ripened Faustian Culture.\n\nIt is wrong, though it may be usual, to regard the cult of the \u201cwill\u201d as\ncommon, if not to mankind, at any rate to Christendom, and derived in\nconsequence from the Early-Arabian ethos. The connexion is merely a\nphenomenon of the historical surface, and the deduction fails because it\nconfuses the (formal) history of words and ideas such as \u201cvoluntas\u201d with\nthe course of their destiny, thereby missing the profoundly symbolical\nchanges of connotation that occur in that course. When Arabian\npsychologists\u2014Murtada for instance\u2014discuss the possibility of several\n\u201cwills,\u201d a will that hangs together with the act, another will that\nindependently precedes the act, another that has no relation to the act\nat all, a will that is simply the parent of a willing, they are\nobviously working in deeper connotations of the Arabic word and on the\nbasis of a soul-image that in structure differs entirely from the\nFaustian.\n\nFor every man, whatever the Culture to which he belongs, the elements of\nthe soul are the deities of an _inner mythology_. What Zeus was for the\nouter Olympus, \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 was for the inner world that every Greek was\nentirely conscious of possessing\u2014the throned lord of the other soul-\nelements. What \u201cGod\u201d is for us, God as Breadth of the world, the\nUniversal Power, the ever-present doer and provider, that also\u2014reflected\nfrom the space of world into the imaginary space of soul and necessarily\nfelt as an actual presence\u2014is \u201cWill.\u201d With the microcosmic dualism of\nthe Magian Culture, with _ruach_ and _nephesh_, pneuma and psyche, is\nnecessarily associated the macrocosmic opposition of God and Devil\u2014\nOrmuzd and Ahriman for Persians, Yahwe and Beelzebub for Jews, Allah and\nEblis for Mohammedans\u2014in brief, Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. And\nnote, further, how in the Western world-feeling _both_ these oppositions\npale _together_. In proportion as the Will emerges, out of the Gothic\nstruggle for primacy between \u201cintellectus\u201d and \u201cvoluntas,\u201d as the\n_centre of a spiritual monotheism_, the figure of the Devil fades out of\nthe real world. In the Baroque age the pantheism of the outer world\nimmediately resulted in one of the inner world also; and the word \u201cGod\u201d\nin antithesis to \u201cworld\u201d has always\u2014however interpreted in this or that\ncase\u2014implied exactly what is implied in the word \u201cwill\u201d with respect to\nsoul, viz., the power that moves all that is within its domain.[388]\nThought no sooner leaves Religion for Science than we get the double\nmyth of concepts, in physics and psychology. The concepts \u201cforce,\u201d\n\u201cmass,\u201d \u201cwill,\u201d \u201cpassion\u201d rest not on objective experience but on a\nlife-feeling. Darwinism is nothing but a specially shallow formulation\nof this feeling. No Greek would have used the word \u201cNature\u201d as our\nbiology employs it, in the sense of an absolute and methodical activity.\n\u201cThe will of God\u201d for us is a pleonasm\u2014God (or \u201cNature,\u201d as some say) is\nnothing but will. After the Renaissance the notion of God sheds the old\nsensuous and personal traits (omnipresence and omnipotence are almost\nmathematical concepts), becomes little by little identical with the\nnotion of infinite space and in becoming so becomes transcendent world-\nwill. And _therefore_ it is that about 1700 painting has to yield to\ninstrumental music\u2014the only art that in the end is capable of clearly\nexpressing what we feel about God. Consider, in contrast with this, the\ngods of Homer. Zeus emphatically does _not_ possess full powers over the\nworld, but is simply \u201cprimus inter pares,\u201d a body amongst bodies, as the\nApollinian world-feeling requires. Blind necessity, the Ananke immanent\nin the cosmos of Classical consciousness, is in no sense dependent upon\nhim; on the contrary, the Gods are subordinate to It. \u00c6schylus says so\noutright in a powerful passage of the \u201cPrometheus,\u201d[389] but it is\nperceptible enough even in Homer, e.g., in the Strife of the Gods and in\nthat decisive passage in which Zeus takes up the scales of destiny, not\nto settle, but to learn, the fate of Hector.[390] The Classical soul,\ntherefore, with its parts and its properties, imagines itself as an\nOlympus of little gods, and to keep these at peace and in harmony with\none another is the ideal of the Greek life-ethic of \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 and\n\u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1. More than one of the philosophers betrays the connexion by\ncalling \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, the highest part of the soul, Zeus. Aristotle assigns to\nhis deity the single function of \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, contemplation, and this is\nDiogenes\u2019s ideal also\u2014a completely-matured static of life in contrast to\nthe equally ripe dynamic of our 18th-Century ideal.\n\nThe enigmatic Something in the soul-image that is called \u201cwill,\u201d the\n_passion of the third dimension_, is therefore quite specially a\ncreation of the Baroque, like the perspective of oil-painting and the\nforce-idea of modern physics and the tone-world of instrumental music.\nIn every case the Gothic had foreshadowed what these intellectualizing\ncenturies brought to fullness. Here, where we are trying to take in the\n_cast_ of Faustian life in contradiction to that of all other lives,\nwhat we have to do is to keep a firm hold on the fact that the primary\nwords will, space, force, God, upborne by and permeated with\nconnotations of _Faustian_ feeling, are emblems, are the effective\nframework that sustains the great and kindred form-worlds in which this\nbeing expresses itself. It has been believed, hitherto, that in these\nmatters one was holding in one\u2019s grip a body of eternal facts, of facts-\nin-themselves, which sooner or later would be successfully treated,\n\u201cknown,\u201d and proved by the methods of critical research. This illusion\nof natural science was shared by psychology also. But the view that\nthese \u201cuniversally-valid\u201d fundamentals belong merely _to the Baroque\nstyle of apprehension and comprehension_, that as expression-forms they\nare only of transitory significance, and that they are only \u201ctrue\u201d for\nthe Western type of intellect, alters the whole meaning of those\nsciences and leads us to look upon them not only as subjects of\nsystematic cognition but also, and in a far higher degree, as _objects\nof physiognomic study_.\n\nBaroque architecture began, as we have seen, when Michelangelo replaced\nthe tectonic elements of the Renaissance, support and load, by those of\ndynamics, force and mass. While Brunelleschi\u2019s chapel of the Pazzi in\nFlorence expresses a bright composedness, Vignola\u2019s fa\u00e7ade of the Ges\u00f9\nin Rome is _will become stone_. The new style in its ecclesiastical form\nhas been designated the \u201cJesuit,\u201d and indeed there is an inward\nconnexion between the achievement of Vignola and Giacomo Della Porta and\nthe creation by Ignatius Loyola of the Order that stands for the pure\nand abstract will of the Church,[391] just as there is between the\ninvisible operations and the unlimited range of the Order and the arts\nof Calculus and Fugue.\n\nHenceforward, then, the reader will not be shocked if we speak of _a\nBaroque_, _and even of a Jesuit_, _style in psychology_, _mathematics_,\n_and pure physics_. The form-language of dynamics, which puts the\nenergetic contrast of capacity and intensity in place of the\nvolitionless somatic contrast of material and form, is one common to all\nthe mind-creations of those centuries.\n\n\n IV\n\nThe question is now: How far is the man of this Culture himself\nfulfilling what the soul-image that he has created requires of him? If\nwe can, to-day, state the theme of Western physics quite generally to be\nefficient space, we have _ipso facto_ defined also the kind of\nexistence, the _content_ of existence as lived by contemporary man. We,\nas Faustian natures, are accustomed to take note of the individual\naccording to his _effective_ and not according to his plastic-static\nappearance in the field of our life-experience. We measure what a man is\nby his activity, which may be directed inwardly or outwardly, and we\njudge all intentions, reasons, powers, convictions and habits entirely\nby this directedness. The word with which we sum up this aspect is\n_character_. We habitually speak of the \u201ccharacter\u201d of heads and\nlandscapes; of ornaments, brush-strokes and scripts; of whole arts and\nages and Cultures. The art of the characteristic is, above all, Baroque\nmusic\u2014alike in respect of its melody and its instrumentation. Here again\nis a word indicating an indescribable, a something that emphasizes,\namong all the Cultures, the Faustian in particular. And the deep\nrelation between this word \u201ccharacter\u201d and the word \u201cwill\u201d is\nunmistakable; what will is in the soul-image, character is in the\npicture of life as we see it, the Western life that is self-evident to\nWestern men. It is the fundamental postulate of all our ethical systems,\ndiffer otherwise as they may in their metaphysical or practical\nprecepts, that man has character. Character, which forms itself _in the\nstream of the world\u2014the personality, the relation of living to doing_\u2014is\na Faustian impression of the man made by the man; and, significantly\nenough, just as in the physical world-picture it has proved impossible\n(in spite of the most rigorous theoretical examination) to separate the\nvectorial idea of forces from the idea of motion (because of the\ninherent directional quality of the vector), so also it is impossible to\ndraw a strict distinction between will and soul, character and life. At\nthe height of our Culture, certainly since the 17th Century, we feel the\nword \u201clife\u201d as a pure and simple synonym of willing. Expressions like\nliving force, life-will, active energy, abound in our ethical literature\nand their import is taken for granted, whereas the Age of Pericles could\nnot even have translated them into its language.\n\nHitherto the pretension of each and every morale to universal validity\nhas obscured the fact that every Culture, as a homogeneous being of\nhigher order, possesses a _moral constitution proper to itself_. There\nare as many morales as there are Cultures. Nietzsche was the first to\nhave an inkling of this; but he never came anywhere near to a really\nobjective morphology of morale \u201cbeyond good\u201d (_all_ good) \u201cand evil\u201d\n(_all_ evil). He evaluated Classical, Indian, Christian and Renaissance\nmorale by his own criteria instead of understanding the style of them as\na symbol. And yet if anything could detect the _prime-phenomenon_ of\nMorale as such, it should have been the historical insight of a\nWesterner. However, it appears that we are only now ripe enough for such\na study. The conception of mankind as an active, fighting, progressing\nwhole is (and has been since Joachim of Floris and the Crusades) so\nnecessary an idea for us that we find it hard indeed to realize that it\nis an exclusively Western hypothesis, living and valid only for a\nseason. To the Classical spirit mankind appears as a stationary mass,\nand correspondingly there is that quite dissimilar morale that we can\ntrace from the Homeric dawn to the time of the Roman Empire. And, more\ngenerally, we shall find that the immense activity of the Faustian life-\nfeeling is most nearly matched in the Chinese and the Egyptian, and the\nrigorous passivity of the Classical in the Indian.\n\nIf ever there was a group of nations that kept the \u201cstruggle for\nexistence\u201d constantly before its eyes, it was the Classical Culture. All\nthe cities, big and little, fought one another to sheer extinction,\nwithout plan or purpose, without mercy, body against body, under the\nstimulus of a completely anti-historical instinct. But Greek ethics,\nnotwithstanding Heraclitus, were far from making struggle an ethical\nprinciple. The Stoics and the Epicureans alike preached abstention from\nit as an ideal. The overcoming of resistances may far more justly be\ncalled the typical impulse of the Western soul. Activity, determination,\nself-control, are postulates. To battle against the comfortable\nforegrounds of life, against the impressions of the moment, against what\nis near, tangible and easy, to win through to that which has generality\nand duration and links past and future\u2014these are the sum of all Faustian\nimperatives from earliest Gothic to Kant and Fichte, and far beyond them\nagain to the Ethos of immense power and will exhibited in our States,\nour economic systems and our technics. The _carpe diem_, the saturated\nbeing, of the Classical standpoint is the most direct contrary of that\nwhich is felt by Goethe and Kant and Pascal, by Church and Freethinker,\nas alone possessing value\u2014_active, fighting and victorious being_.[392]\n\nAs all the forms of Dynamic (whether pictorial, musical, physical,\nsocial or political) are concerned with the working-out of infinite\nrelations and deal, not with the individual case and the sum of\nindividual cases as the Classical physics had done, but with the typical\ncourse or process and its functional rule, \u201ccharacter\u201d must be\nunderstood as that which remains in principle constant in the working-\nout of life; where there is no such constant we speak of \u201clack of\ncharacter.\u201d It is character\u2014the form in virtue of which a _moving_\nexistence can combine the highest constancy in the essential with the\nmaximum variability in the details\u2014that makes telling biography (such as\nGoethe\u2019s \u201cWahrheit und Dichtung\u201d), possible at all. Plutarch\u2019s truly\nClassical biographies are by comparison mere collections of anecdotes\nstrung together chronologically and not ordered pictures of historical\ndevelopment, and it will hardly be disputed that only this second kind\nof biography is imaginable in connexion with Alcibiades or Pericles or,\nfor that matter, any purely Apollinian figure. Their experiences lack,\nnot mass, but relation; there is something _atomic_ about them.\nSimilarly in the field of Science the Greek did not merely _forget_ to\nlook for general laws in the sum of his experiential data; in his cosmos\nthey were simply _not there to be found_.\n\nIt follows that the sciences of character-study, particularly\nphysiognomy and graphology, would not be able to glean much in the\nClassical field. Its handwriting we do not know, but we do know that its\nornament, as compared with the Gothic, is of incredible simplicity and\nfeebleness of character-expression\u2014think of the Meander and the\nAcanthus-shoot. On the other hand, it has never been surpassed in\ntimeless evenness.\n\nIt goes without saying that we, when we turn to look into the Classical\nlife-feeling, must find there some basic element of ethical values that\nis antithetical to \u201ccharacter\u201d in the same way as the statue is\nantithetical to the fugue. Euclidean geometry to Analysis, and body to\nspace. We find it in the _Gesture_. It is this that provides the\nnecessary foundation for a spiritual static. The word that stands in the\nClassical vocabulary where \u201cpersonality\u201d stands in our own is \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u201cpersona\u201d\u2014namely _r\u00f4le_ or _mask_. In late Greek or Roman speech it\nmeans _the public aspect and mien_ of a man, which for Classical man is\ntantamount to the essence and kernel of him. An orator was described as\nspeaking in the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u2014not the character or the vein as we should say\u2014\nof a priest or a soldier. The slave was \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\u2014that is, he had _no_\nattitude or figure in the public life\u2014but not \u1f00\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u2014that is, he did\nhave a _soul_. The idea that Destiny had assigned the r\u00f4le of king or\ngeneral to a man was expressed by Romans in the words _persona regis,\nimperatoris_.[393] The Apollinian cast of life is manifest enough here.\nWhat is indicated is not the personality (that is, an unfolding of\ninward possibilities in _active striving_) but a permanent and self-\ncontained _posture_ strictly adapted to a so-to-say plastic ideal of\nbeing. It is only in the Classical ethic that Beauty plays a distinct\nr\u00f4le. However labelled\u2014as \u03c3\u03c9\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 or \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u2014it always\namounts to the well-ordered group of tangible and publicly evident\ntraits, defined for other men rather than specific to one\u2019s self. A man\nwas the object and not the subject of outward life. The pure present,\nthe moment, the foreground were not conquered but worked up. The notion\nof an inward life is impossible in this connexion. The significance of\nAristotle\u2019s phrase \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u2014quite untranslatable and habitually\ntranslated with a Western connotation\u2014is that it refers to men who are\nnothing when single and lonely (what could be more preposterous than an\nAthenian Robinson Crusoe!) and only count for anything when in a\nplurality, in agora or forum, where each reflects his neighbour and\nthus, only thus, acquires a genuine reality. It is all implicit in the\nphrase \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, used for the burghers of the city. And thus we see\nthat the Portrait, the centre of Baroque art, is identical with the\nrepresentation of a man to the extent that he possesses character, and\nthat in the best age of Attic the representation of a man in respect of\nhis _attitude_, as _persona_, necessarily leans to the form-ideal of the\nnude statue.\n\n\n V\n\nThis opposition, further, has produced forms of tragedy that differ from\none another radically in every respect. The Faustian _character-drama_\nand the Apollinian _drama of noble gesture_ have in fact nothing but\nname in common.[394]\n\nStarting, significantly enough, from Seneca and not from \u00c6schylus and\nSophocles[395] (just as the contemporary architecture linked itself with\nImperial Rome and not with P\u00e6stum), the Baroque drama with ever-\nincreasing emphasis makes character instead of occurrence its centre of\ngravity, the origin of a system of spiritual co-ordinates (so to express\nit) which gives the scenic facts position, sense, and value in relation\nto itself. The outcome is a _tragedy of willing_, of efficient forces,\nof inward movement not necessarily exhibited in visible form, whereas\nSophocles\u2019s method was to employ a minimum of happening and to put it\nbehind the scenes particularly by means of the artifice of the\n\u201cmessenger.\u201d The Classical tragedy relates to general situations and not\nparticular personalities. It is specifically described by Aristotle as\n\u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. That which in his _Poetica_\u2014\nassuredly the most fateful of all books for our poetry\u2014he calls \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2,\nnamely the ideal _bearing_ of the ideal Hellene in a painful situation,\nhas as little in common with our notion of character (viz., a\nconstitution of the ego which determines events) as a surface in\nEuclidean geometry has with the like-named concept in Riemann\u2019s theory\nof algebraic equations. It has, unfortunately, been our habit for\ncenturies past to translate \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 as \u201ccharacter\u201d instead of paraphrasing\nit (exact rendering is almost impossible) by \u201cr\u00f4le,\u201d \u201cbearing\u201d or\n\u201cgesture\u201d; to reproduce myth, \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, which is _timeless occurrence_, by\n\u201caction\u201d; and to derive \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1 from \u201cdoing.\u201d It is Othello, Don Quixote,\nLe Misanthrope, Werther and Hedda Gabler that are characters, and the\ntragedy consists in the mere existence of human beings thus constituted\nin their respective _milieux_. Their struggle\u2014whether against this world\nor the next, or themselves\u2014is forced on them by their character and not\nby anything coming from outside; a soul is placed in a web of\ncontradictory relations that admits of no net solution. Classical stage-\nfigures, on the contrary, are r\u00f4les and not characters; over and over\nagain the same figures appear\u2014the old man, the slayer, the lover, all\nslow-moving bodies under masks and on stilts. Thus in Classical drama\u2014\neven of the Late period\u2014the mask is an element of profound symbolic\n_necessity_, whereas our pieces would not be regarded as played at all\nwithout the play of features. It is no answer to point to the great size\nof the Greek theatre, for even the strolling player\u2014even the portrait-\nstatue[396]\u2014wore a mask, and had there been any spiritual need of a more\nintimate setting the required architectural form would have been\nforthcoming quickly enough.\n\nIn the tragedy of a character, what _happens_ is the outcome of a long\ninner development. But in what _befalls_ Ajax and Philoctetes, Antigone\nand Electra, their psychological antecedents (even supposing them to\nhave any) play no part. The decisive event comes upon them, brutally, as\naccident, from without, and it might have befallen another in the same\nway and with the same result. It would not be necessary even for that\nother to be of the same sex.\n\nIt is not enough to distinguish Classical and Western tragedy merely as\naction-drama and event-drama. Faustian tragedy is _biographical_,\nClassical _anecdotal_; that is, the one deals with the sense of a whole\nlife and the other with the content of the single moment.[397] What\nrelation, for instance, has the entire _inward_ past of \u0152dipus or\nOrestes to the shattering event that suddenly meets him on his way?[398]\nThere is one sort of destiny, then, that strikes like a flash of\nlightning, and just as blindly, and another that interweaves itself with\nthe course of a life, an invisible thread[399] that yet distinguishes\nthis particular life from all others. There is not the smallest trait in\nthe past existence of Othello\u2014that masterpiece of psychological\nanalysis\u2014that has not some bearing on the catastrophe. Race-hatred, the\nisolation of the upstart amongst the patricians, the Moor as soldier and\nas child of Nature, the loneliness of the ageing bachelor\u2014all these\nthings have their significance. Lear, too, and Hamlet\u2014compare the\nexposition of these characters with that of Sophoclean pieces. They are\npsychological expositions through-and-through and not summations of\noutward data. The psychologist, in our sense of the word, namely the\nfine student (hardly nowadays to be distinguished from the poet) of\nspiritual turning-points, was entirely unknown to the Greeks. They were\nno more analytical in the field of soul than in that of number; _vis-\u00e0-\nvis_ the Classical soul, how could they be so? \u201cPsychology\u201d in fact is\nthe proper designation for the _Western_ way of fashioning men; the word\nholds good for a portrait by Rembrandt as for the music of \u201cTristan,\u201d\nfor Stendhal\u2019s Julian Sorel as for Dante\u2019s \u201cVita Nuova.\u201d The like of it\nis not to be found in any other Culture. If there is anything that the\nClassical arts scrupulously exclude it is this, for psychology is the\nform in which art handles man as incarnate will and not as \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. To call\nEuripides a psychologist is to betray ignorance of what psychology is.\nWhat an abundance of character there is even in the mere mythology of\nthe North with its sly dwarfs, its lumpy giants, its teasing elves, its\nLoki, Baldr and the rest! Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Ares are simply \u201cmen,\u201d\nHermes the \u201cyouth,\u201d Athene a maturer Aphrodite, and the minor gods\u2014as\nthe later plastic shows\u2014distinguishable only by the labels. And the same\nis true without reservation of the figures of the Attic stage. In\nWolfram von Eschenbach, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Goethe, the tragic is\nindividual, life develops from within outwards, dynamic, functional, and\nthe life-courses are only fully understandable with reference to the\nhistorical background of the century. But in the great tragedians of\nAthens it comes from outside, it is static, Euclidean. To repeat a\nphrase already used in connexion with world-history, the shattering\nevent is _epochal_ in the former and merely _episodic_ in the latter,\neven the finale of death being only the last bead in the string of sheer\naccidents that makes up an existence.\n\nA Baroque tragedy is nothing but this same directive character brought\ninto and developed in the light-world, and shown as a curve instead of\nas an equation, as kinetic instead of as potential energy. The visible\nperson is the character as potential, the action the character at work.\nThis, under the heap of Classicist reminiscences and misunderstandings\nthat still hides it, is the whole meaning of our idea of Tragedy. The\ntragic man of the Classical is a Euclidean body that is struck by the\nHeimarmene in a position that it did not choose and cannot alter, but is\nseen, in the light that plays from without upon its surfaces, to be\nindeformable _quand m\u00eame_. This is the sense in which Agamemnon is\n\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and in which \u0152dipus\u2019s \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 is subjected to the\nOracle.[400] Down to Alexander the significant figures of Greek history\nastonish us with their inelasticity; not one of them, apparently,\nundergoes in the battle of life any such inward transformation as those\nwhich we know took place in Luther and Loyola. What we are prone\u2014too\nprone\u2014to call \u201ccharacterization\u201d in Greek drama is nothing but the\nreflection of events upon the \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 of the hero, never the reflection of\na personality on events.\n\nOf deep necessity, therefore, we Faustians understand drama as a maximum\nof activity; and, of deep necessity also, the Greek understood it as a\nmaximum of passivity.[401] Speaking generally, the Attic tragedy had no\n\u201caction\u201d at all. The Mysteries were purely \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or \u03b4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, i.e.,\nritual performances, and it was from the Mystery-form with its\n\u201cperipeteia\u201d that \u00c6schylus (himself an Eleusinian) derived the high\ndrama that he created. Aristotle describes tragedy as the _imitation_ of\nan occurrence. This imitation is identical with the \u201cprofanation\u201d of the\nmysteries; and we know that \u00c6schylus went further and made the sacral\nvestments of the Eleusinian priesthood the regular costume of the Attic\nstage, and was accused on that account.[402] For the \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1 proper, with\nits reversal from lamentation to joy, consisted not in the fable that\nwas narrated but in the ritual action that lay behind it, and was\nunderstood and felt by the spectator as deeply symbolic. With this\nelement of the non-Homeric early religion[403] there became associated\nanother, a boorish\u2014the burlesque (whether phallic or dithyrambic) scenes\nof the spring festivals of Demeter and Dionysus. The beast-dances[404]\nand the accompanying song were the germ of the tragic Chorus which puts\nitself before the actor or \u201canswerer\u201d of Thespis (534).\n\nThe genuine tragedy grew up out of the solemn death-lament (threnos,\nn\u00e6nia). At some time or other the joyous play of the Dionysus festival\n(which also was a soul-feast) became a mourners\u2019 chorus of men, the\nSatyr-play being relegated to the end. In 494 Phrynichus produced the\n\u201cFall of Miletus\u201d\u2014not a historical drama but a lament of the women of\nMiletus\u2014and was heavily fined for thus recalling the public calamity. It\nwas \u00c6schylus\u2019s introduction of the second actor that accomplished the\nessential of Classical tragedy; the lament as _given theme_ was\nthenceforward subordinated to the visual presentation of a great human\nsuffering as _present motive_. The foreground-story (\u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2) is not\n\u201caction\u201d but the occasion for the songs of the Chorus, which still\nconstitutes the \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1ff3\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 proper. It is immaterial whether the occurrence\nis indicated by narrative or exposition. The spectator was in solemn\nmood and he felt himself and his own fate to be meant in the words of\npathos. It was in him that the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, the central element of the\nholy pageant, took place. Whatever the environment of message and tale,\nthe liturgical lament for the woe of mankind remained always the centre\nof gravity of the whole, as we see more particularly in the\n\u201cPrometheus,\u201d the \u201cAgamemnon\u201d and the \u201c\u0152dipus Rex.\u201d But presently\u2014at the\nvery time when in Polycletus the pure plastic was triumphing over the\nfresco[405]\u2014there emerges high above the lament the grandeur of human\nendurance, the attitude, the \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 of the Hero. The theme is, not the\nheroic Doer whose will surges and breaks against the resistance of alien\npowers or the demons in his own breast, but the will-less Patient whose\nsomatic existence is\u2014gratuitously\u2014destroyed. The Prometheus trilogy of\n\u00c6schylus begins just where Goethe would in all probability have left\noff. King Lear\u2019s madness is the _issue_ of the tragic action, but\nSophocles\u2019s Ajax is _made_ mad by Athene before the drama opens\u2014here is\nthe difference between a character and an operated figure. Fear and\ncompassion, in fact, are, as Aristotle says, the necessary effect of\nGreek tragedy upon the Greek (and only the Greek) spectator, as is\nevident at once from his choice of the most effective scenes, which are\nthose of piteous crash of fortune (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) and of recognition\n(\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). In the first, the ruling impression is \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 (terror) and\nin the second it is \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (pity), and the \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in the spectator\npresupposes his existence-ideal to be that of \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1.[406] The\nClassical soul is pure \u201cpresent,\u201d pure \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, unmoved and point-formed\nbeing. To see this imperilled by the jealousy of the Gods or by that\nblind chance that may crash upon any man\u2019s head without reason and\nwithout warning, is the most fearful of all experiences. The very roots\nof Greek being are struck at by what for the challenging Faustian is the\nfirst stimulus to living activity. And then\u2014to find one\u2019s self\n_delivered_, to see the sun come out again and the dark thunder clouds\nhuddle themselves away on the remote horizon, to rejoice profoundly in\nthe admired grand gesture, to see the tortured mythical soul breathe\nagain\u2014that is the \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. But it presupposes a kind of life-feeling\nthat is entirely alien to us, the very word being hardly translatable\ninto our languages and our sensations. It took all the \u00e6sthetic industry\nand assertiveness of the Baroque and of Classicism, backed by the\nmeekest submissiveness before ancient texts, to persuade us that this is\nthe spiritual basis of our own tragedy as well. And no wonder. For the\nfact is that the effect of our tragedy is precisely the opposite. It\ndoes not deliver us from deadweight pressure of events, but evokes\nactive dynamic elements in us, stings us, stimulates us. It awakens the\nprimary feelings of an energetic human being, the fierceness and the joy\nof tension, danger, violent deed, victory, crime, the triumph of\novercoming and destroying\u2014feelings that have slumbered in the depths of\nevery Northern soul since the days of the Vikings, the Hohenstaufen and\nthe Crusades. _That_ is Shakespearian effect. A Greek would not have\ntolerated Macbeth, nor, generally, would he have comprehended the\nmeaning of this mighty art of directional biography at all. That figures\nlike Richard III, Don Juan, Faust, Michael Kohlhaas, Golo\u2014un-Classical\nfrom top to toe\u2014awaken in us not sympathy but a deep and strange envy,\nnot fear but a mysterious desire to suffer, to suffer-with (\u201ccompassion\u201d\nof quite another sort), is visibly\u2014even to-day when Faustian tragedy in\nits final form, the German, is dead at last\u2014the standing motive of the\nliterature of our Alexandrian phase. In the \u201csensational\u201d adventure- and\ndetective-story, and still more recently in the cinema-drama (the\nequivalent of the Late-Classical mimes), a relic of the unrestrainable\nFaustian impulse to conquer and discover is still palpable.\n\nThere are corresponding differences between the Apollinian and the\nFaustian outlook in the forms of dramatic presentation, which are the\ncomplement of the poetic idea. The antique drama is a piece of plastic,\na group of pathetic scenes conceived as reliefs, a pageant of gigantic\nmarionettes disposed against the definitive plane of the back-wall.[407]\nPresentation is entirely that of grandly-imagined gestures, the meagre\nfacts of the fable being solemnly recited rather than presented. The\ntechnique of Western drama aims at just the opposite\u2014unbroken movement\nand strict exclusion of flat static moments. The famous \u201cthree unities\u201d\nof place, time and action, as unconsciously evolved (though not\nexpressly formulated) in Athens, are a paraphrase of the type of the\nClassical marble statue and, like it, an indication of what classical\nman, the man of the Polis and the pure present and the gesture, felt\nabout life. The unities are all, effectively, _negative_, denials of\npast and future, repudiation of all spiritual action-at-a-distance. They\ncan be summed in the one word \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1. The postulates of these\n\u201cunities\u201d must not be confused with the superficially similar postulates\nin the drama of the Romance peoples. The Spanish theatre of the 16th\nCentury bowed itself to the authority of \u201cClassical\u201d rules, but it is\neasy to see the influence of _noblesse oblige_ in this; Castilian\ndignity responded to the appeal without knowing, or indeed troubling to\nfind out, the original sense of the rules. The great Spanish dramatists,\nTirso da Molina above all, fashioned the \u201cunities\u201d of the Baroque, but\nnot as metaphysical negations, but purely as expressions of the spirit\nof high courtesy, and it was as such that Corneille, the docile pupil of\nSpanish \u201cgrandezza,\u201d borrowed them. It was a fateful step. If Florence\nthrew herself into the imitation of the Classical sculpture\u2014at which\neveryone marvelled and of which no one possessed the final criteria\u2014no\nharm was done, for there was by then no Northern plastic to suffer\nthereby. But with tragedy it was another matter. Here there was the\npossibility of a mighty drama, purely Faustian, of unimagined forms and\ndaring. That this did _not_ appear, that for all the greatness of\nShakespeare the Teutonic drama never quite shook off the spell of\nmisunderstood convention, was the consequence of blind faith in the\nauthority of Aristotle. What might not have come out of Baroque drama\nhad it remained under the impression of the knightly epic and the Gothic\nEaster-play and Mystery, in the near neighbourhood of Oratorios and\nPassions, without ever hearing of the Greek theatre! A tragedy issuing\nfrom the spirit of contrapuntal music, free of limitations proper to\nplastic but here meaningless, a dramatic poetry that from Orlando Lasso\nand Palestrina could develop\u2014side by side with Heinrich Sch\u00fctz, Bach,\nH\u00e4ndel, Gluck and Beethoven, but entirely free\u2014to a pure form of its\nown: that was what was possible, and that was what did not happen; and\nit is only to the fortunate circumstance that the whole of the fresco-\nart of Hellas has been lost that we owe the inward freedom of our oil-\npainting.\n\n\n VI\n\nThe unities were not sufficient for the Attic drama. It demanded,\nfurther, the rigid mask in lieu of facial play, thus forbidding\nspiritual characterization in the same spirit as Attic sentiment forbade\nlikeness-statuary. It demanded more-than-life-sized figures and got them\nby means of the cothurnus and by padding and draping the actor till he\ncould scarcely move, thus eliminating all his individuality. Lastly, it\nrequired monotonous sing-song delivery, which it ensured by means of a\nmouthpiece fixed in the mask.\n\nThe bare text as we read it to-day (not without reading into it the\nspirit of Goethe and Shakespeare and of our perspective vision) conveys\nlittle of the deeper significance of these dramas. Classical art-works\nwere created entirely for the eye, even the physical eye, of Classical\nman, and the secrets reveal themselves only when put in sensuous forms.\nAnd here our attention is drawn to a feature of Greek tragedy that any\ntrue tragedy of the Faustian style must find intolerable, the continual\npresence of the Chorus. The Chorus is the primitive tragedy, for without\nit the \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 would be impossible. Character one possesses for one\u2019s self,\nbut attitude has meaning only in relation to others.\n\nThis Chorus as crowd (the ideal opposite to the lonely or inward man and\nthe monologue of the West), this Chorus which is always there, the\nwitness of every \u201csoliloquy,\u201d this Chorus by which, in the stage-life as\nin the real life, fear before the boundless and the void is banished, is\ntruly Apollinian. Self-review as a _public_ action, pompous public\nmourning in lieu of the solitary anguish of the bedchamber, the tears\nand lamentations that fill a whole series of dramas like the\n\u201cPhiloctetes\u201d and the \u201cTrachini\u00e6,\u201d the impossibility of being alone, the\nfeeling of the Polis, all the feminine of this Culture that we see\nidealized in the Belvedere Apollo, betrays itself in this symbol of the\nChorus. In comparison with this kind of drama, Shakespeare\u2019s is a single\nmonologue. Even in the conversations, even in the group-scenes we are\nsensible of the immense _inner_ distance between the persons, each of\nwhom at bottom is only talking with himself. Nothing can overcome this\nspiritual remoteness. It is felt in Hamlet as in \u201cTasso\u201d and in Don\nQuixote as in Werther, but even Wolfram von Eschenbach\u2019s Parzeval is\nfilled with and stamped by the sense of infinity. The distinction holds\nfor all Western poetry against all Classical. All our lyric verse from\nWalther von der Vogelweide to Goethe and from Goethe to the poems of our\ndying world-cities is monologue, while the Classical lyric is a choral\nlyric, a singing before witnesses. The one is received inwardly, in\nwordless reading, as soundless music, and the other is publicly recited.\nThe one belongs to the still chamber and is spread by means of the book,\nthe other belongs to the place where it is voiced.\n\nThus, although the Eleusinian Mysteries and the Thracian festival of the\nepiphany of Dionysus had been nocturnal celebrations, the art of Thespis\ndeveloped, as its inmost nature required, as a scene of the morning and\nthe full sunlight. On the contrary, our Western popular and Passion\nplays, which originated in the sermon of allocated parts and were\nproduced first by priests in the church, and then by laymen in the open\nsquare, on the _mornings_ of high festivals, led almost unnoticed to an\nart of evening and night. Already in Shakespeare\u2019s time performances\ntook place in the late afternoon, and by Goethe\u2019s this mystical sense of\na proper relation between art-work and light-setting had attained its\nobject. In general, every art and every Culture has its significant\ntimes of day. The music of the 18th Century is a music of the darkness\nand the inner eye, and the plastic of Athens is an art of cloudless day.\nThat this is no superficial contrast we can see by comparing the Gothic\nplastic, wrapped eternally in \u201cdim religious light,\u201d and the Ionic\nflute, the instrument of high noon. The candle affirms and the sunlight\ndenies space as the opposite of things. At night the universe of space\ntriumphs over matter, at midday things and nearness assert themselves\nand space is repudiated. The same contrast appears in Attic fresco and\nNorthern oil-painting, and in the symbols of Helios and Pan and those of\nthe starry night and red sunset. It is at midnight, too, and\nparticularly in the twelve long nights after Christmas, that the souls\nof our dead walk abroad. In the Classical world, the souls belong to the\nday\u2014even the early Church still speaks of the \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, the twelve\ndedicated days; but with the awakening of the Faustian soul these become\n\u201cTwelfth Night.\u201d\n\nThe Classical vase-painting and fresco\u2014though the fact has never been\nremarked\u2014has no time-of-day. No shadow indicates the state of the sun,\nno heaven shows the stars. There is neither morning nor evening, neither\nspring nor autumn, but _pure timeless brightness_.[408] For equally\nobvious reasons our oil-painting developed in the opposite direction,\ntowards an imaginary darkness, also independent of time-of-day, which\nforms the characteristic atmosphere of the Faustian soul-space. This is\nall the more significant as the intention is from the outset to treat\nthe field of the picture with reference to a certain time-of-day, that\nis, historically. There are early mornings, sunset-clouds, the last\ngleams upon the sky-line of distant mountains, the candle-lighted room,\nthe spring meadows and the autumn woods, the long and short shadows of\nbushes and furrows. But they are all penetrated through and through with\na subdued darkness that is _not_ derived from the motion of the heavenly\nbodies. In fact, steady brightness and steady twilight are the\nrespective hall-marks of the Classical and the Western, alike in\npainting and in drama; and may we not also describe Euclidean geometry\nas a mathematic of the day and Analysis as a mathematic of the night?\n\nChange of scene, undoubtedly regarded by the Greeks as a sort of\nprofanation, is for us almost a religious necessity, a postulate of our\nworld-feeling. There seems something pagan in the fixed scene of Tasso.\nWe _inwardly_ need a drama of perspectives and wide backgrounds, a stage\nthat shakes off sensuous limitations and draws the whole world into\nitself. In Shakespeare, who was born when Michelangelo died and ceased\nto write when Rembrandt came into the world, dramatic infinity, the\npassionate overthrow of all static limitations, attained the maximum.\nHis woods, seas, alleys, gardens, battlefields lie in the afar, the\nunbounded. Years fly past in the space of minutes. The mad Lear between\nfool and reckless outcast on the heath, in the night and the storm, the\nunutterably lonely ego lost in space\u2014here is the Faustian life-feeling!\nFrom such a scene as this it is but a step to the _inwardly_ seen and\n_inwardly_ felt landscapes of the almost contemporary Venetian music;\nfor on the Elizabethan stage the whole thing was merely _indicated_, and\nit was the inner eye that out of a few hints fashioned for itself an\nimage of the world in which the scenes\u2014far-fetched always\u2014played\nthemselves out. Such scenes the Greek stage could not have handled at\nall. The Greek scene is never a landscape; in general, it is nothing,\nand at best it may be described as a basis for movable statues. The\nfigures are everything, in drama, as in fresco. It is sometimes said\nthat Classical man lacked the feeling for Nature. Insensitive to\nFaustian Nature, that of space and of landscape, Classical man certainly\nwas. _His_ Nature was the _body_, and if once we have let the sentiment\nof this sink into us, we suddenly comprehend the eye with which the\nGreek would follow the mobile muscle-relief of the nude body. This, and\nnot clouds and stars and horizon, was his \u201cLiving Nature.\u201d\n\n VII\n\nNow, whatever is sensuously-near is understandable for all, and\ntherefore of all the Cultures that have been, the Classical is the most\npopular, and the Faustian the least popular, in its expressions of life-\nfeeling. A creation is \u201cpopular\u201d that gives itself with all its secrets\nto the first comer at the first glance that incorporates its meaning in\nits exterior and surface. In any Culture, that element is \u201cpopular\u201d\nwhich has come down unaltered from primitive states and imaginings,\nwhich a man understands from childhood without having to _master by\neffort_ any really novel method or standpoint\u2014and, generally, that which\nis immediately and frankly evident to the senses, as against that which\nis merely hinted at and has to be discovered\u2014by the few, and sometimes\nthe very, very few. There are popular ideas, works, men and landscapes.\nEvery Culture has its own quite definite sort of esoteric or popular\ncharacter that is immanent in all its doings, so far as these have\nsymbolic importance. The commonplace eliminates differences of spiritual\nbreadth as well as depth between man and man, while the esoteric\nemphasizes and strengthens them. Lastly, considered in relation to the\nprimary depth-experience of this and that kind of awakening man\u2014that is,\nin relation to the prime-symbol of his existence and the cast of his\nworld-around\u2014the purely \u201cpopular\u201d and na\u00efve associates itself with the\nsymbol of the bodily, while to the symbol of endless Space belongs a\nfrankly _un_-popular relation between the creations and the men of the\nCulture.\n\nThe Classical geometry is that of the child, that of any layman\u2014Euclid\u2019s\nElements are used in England as a school-book to this day. The workaday\nmind will always regard this as the only true and correct geometry. All\nother kinds of natural geometry that are possible (and have in fact, by\nan immense effort of overcoming the popular-obvious, been discovered)\nare understandable only for the circle of the professional\nmathematicians. The famous \u201cfour elements\u201d of Empedocles are those of\nevery na\u00efve man and his \u201cinstinctive\u201d physics, while the idea of\nisotopes which has come out of research into radioactivity is hardly\ncomprehensible even to the adept in closely-cognate sciences. Everything\nthat is Classical is comprehensible in _one_ glance, be it the Doric\ntemple, the statue, the Polis, the cults; backgrounds and secrets there\nare none. But compare a Gothic cathedral-fa\u00e7ade with the Propyl\u00e6a, an\netching with a vase-painting, the policy of the Athenian people with\nthat of the modern Cabinet. Consider what it means that every one of our\nepoch-making works of poetry, policy and science has called forth a\nwhole literature of explanations, and not indubitably successful\nexplanations at that. While the Parthenon sculptures were \u201cthere\u201d for\nevery Hellene, the music of Bach and his contemporaries was only for\nmusicians. We have the types of the Rembrandt expert, the Dante scholar,\nthe expert in contrapuntal music, and it is a reproach\u2014a justifiable\nreproach\u2014to Wagner that it was possible for far too many people to be\nWagnerians, that far too little of his music was for the trained\nmusician. But do we hear of Phidias-experts or even Homer-scholars?\nHerein lies the explanation of a set of phenomena which we have hitherto\nbeen inclined to treat\u2014in a vein of moral philosophy, or, better, of\nmelodrama\u2014as weaknesses common to humanity, but which are in fact\nsymptoms of the Western life-feeling, viz., the \u201cmisunderstood\u201d artist,\nthe poet \u201cleft to starve,\u201d the \u201cderided discoverer,\u201d the thinker who is\n\u201ccenturies in advance of his time\u201d and so on. These are types of an\nesoteric Culture. Destinies of this sort have their basis in the passion\nof distance in which is concealed the desire-to-infinity and the will-\nto-power, and they are as necessary in the field of Faustian mankind\u2014at\nall stages\u2014as they are unthinkable in the Apollinian.\n\nEvery high creator in Western history has in reality aimed, from first\nto last, at something which only the few could comprehend. Michelangelo\nmade the remark that his style was ordained for the correction of fools.\nGauss concealed his discovery of non-Euclidean geometry for thirty\nyears, for fear of the \u201cclamour of the B\u0153otians.\u201d It is only to-day that\nwe are separating out the masters of Gothic cathedral art from the rank-\nand-file. But the same applies also to every painter, statesman,\nphilosopher. Think of Giordano Bruno, or Leibniz, or Kant, as against\nAnaximander, Heraclitus or Protagoras. What does it mean, that no German\nphilosopher worth mentioning can be understood by the man in the street,\nand that the combination of simplicity with majesty that is Homer\u2019s is\nsimply not to be found in any Western language? The Nibelungenlied is a\nhard, reserved utterance, and as for Dante, in Germany at any rate the\npretension to understand him is seldom more than a literary pose. We\nfind everywhere in the Western what we find nowhere in the Classical\u2014the\nexclusive form. Whole periods\u2014for instance, the Proven\u00e7al Culture and\nthe Rococo\u2014are in the highest degree select and uninviting, their ideas\nand forms having no existence except for a small class of higher men.\nEven the Renaissance is no exception, for though it purports to be the\nrebirth of that Antique which is so utterly _non_-exclusive and caters\nso frankly for all, it is in fact, through-and-through, the creation of\na circle or of individual chosen souls, a taste that rejects popularity\nfrom the outset\u2014and how deep this sense of detachment goes we can tell\nfrom the case of Florence, where the generality of the people viewed the\nworks of the elect with indifference, or with open mouths, or with\ndislike, and sometimes, as in the case of Savonarola, turned and rent\nthem. On the contrary, _every_ Attic burgher belonged to the Attic\nCulture, which excluded nobody; and consequently, the distinctions of\ndeeps and shallows, which are so decisively important for us, did not\nexist at all for it. For us, popular and shallow are synonymous\u2014in art\nas in science\u2014but for Classical man it was not so.\n\nConsider our sciences too. Every one of them, without exception, has\nbesides its elementary groundwork certain \u201chigher\u201d regions that are\ninaccessible to the layman\u2014symbols, these also, of our will-to-infinity\nand directional energy. The public for whom the last chapters of up-to-\ndate physics have been written numbers at the utmost a thousand persons,\nand certain problems of modern mathematics are accessible only to a much\nsmaller circle still\u2014for our \u201cpopular\u201d science is without value,\n_d\u00e9traqu\u00e9e_, and falsified. We have not only an art for artists, but\nalso a mathematic for mathematicians, a politic for politicians (of\nwhich the _profanum vulgus_ of newspaper-readers has not the smallest\ninkling,[409] whereas Classical politics never got beyond the horizon of\nthe Agora), a religion for the \u201creligious genius\u201d and a poetry for\nphilosophers. Indeed, we may take the craving for wide effect as a\nsufficient index by itself of the commencing and already perceptible\ndecline of Western science. That the severe esoteric of the Baroque Age\nis felt now as a burden, is a symptom of sinking strength and of the\ndulling of that distance-sense which _confessed_ the limitation with\nhumility. The few sciences that have kept the old fineness, depth, and\nenergy of conclusion and deduction and have not been tainted with\njournalism\u2014and few indeed they are, for theoretical physics,\nmathematics, Catholic dogma, and perhaps jurisprudence exhaust the list\u2014\naddress themselves to a very narrow and chosen band of experts. _And it\nis this expert, and his opposite the layman, that are totally lacking in\nthe Classical life, wherein everyone knows everything._ For us, the\npolarity of expert and layman has all the significance of a high symbol,\nand when the tension of this distance is beginning to slacken, there the\nFaustian life is fading out.\n\nThe conclusion to be argued from this as regards the advances of Western\nscience in its last phase (which will cover, or quite possibly will\n_not_ cover, the next two centuries) is, that in proportion as\nmegalopolitan shallowness and triviality drive arts and sciences on to\nthe bookstall and into the factory, the posthumous spirit of the Culture\nwill confine itself more and more to very narrow circles; and that\nthere, remote from advertisement, it will work in ideas and forms so\nabstruse that only a mere handful of superfine intelligences will be\ncapable of attaching meanings to them.\n\n VIII\n\nIn no Classical art-work is a relation with the beholder attempted, for\nthat would require the form-language of the individual object to affirm\nand to make use of the existence of a relation between that object and\nambient unlimited space. An Attic statue is a completely Euclidean body,\ntimeless and relationless, wholly self-contained. It neither speaks nor\nlooks. _It is quite unconscious of the spectator._ Unlike the plastic\nforms of every other Culture, it stands wholly for itself and fits into\nno architectural order; it is an individual amongst individuals, a body\namongst bodies. And the living individuals merely perceive it _as a\nneighbour_, and do not feel it as an invasive influence, an efficient\ncapable of traversing space. Thus is expressed the Apollinian life-\nfeeling.\n\nThe awakening Magian art at once reversed the meaning of these forms.\nThe eyes of the statues and portraits in the Constantinian style are big\nand staring and very definitely directed. They represent the Pneuma, the\nhigher of the two soul-substances. The Classical sculptor had fashioned\nthe eyes as blind, but now the pupils are bored, the eye, unnaturally\nenlarged, looks into the space that in Attic art it had not acknowledged\nas existing. In the Classical fresco-painting, heads are turned towards\none another, but in the mosaics of Ravenna and even in the relief-work\nof Early-Christian-Late-Roman sarcophagi they are always turned towards\nthe beholder, and their wholly spiritual look is fixed upon him.\nMysteriously and quite un-Classically the beholder\u2019s sphere is invaded\nby an action-at-a-distance from the world that is in the art-work.\nSomething of this magic can still be traced in early Florentine and\nearly Rhenish gold-ground pictures.\n\nConsider, now, Western painting as it was after Leonardo, fully\nconscious of its mission. How does it deal with infinite space as\nsomething _singular_ which comprehends both picture and spectator as\nmere centres of gravity of a spatial dynamic? The full Faustian life-\nfeeling, the passion of the third dimension, takes hold of the form of\nthe picture, the painted plane, and transforms it in an unheard-of way.\nThe picture no longer stands for itself, nor looks at the spectator, but\n_takes him into its sphere_. The sector defined by the sides of the\nframe\u2014the peepshow-field, twin with the stage-field\u2014represents universal\nspace itself. Foreground and background lose all tendency to materiality\nand propinquity and disclose instead of marking off. Far horizons deepen\nthe field to infinity, and the colour-treatment of the close foreground\neliminates the ideal plane of separation formed by the canvas and thus\nexpands the field so that the spectator is _in_ it. It is not he, now,\nwho chooses the standpoint from which the picture is most effective; on\nthe contrary, the picture dictates position and distance to him. Lateral\nlimits, too, are done away with\u2014from 1500 onwards overrunnings of the\nframe are more and more frequent and daring. The Greek spectator stands\n_before_ the fresco of Polygnotus. We _sink into_ a picture, that is, we\nare pulled into it by the power of the space-treatment. Unity of space\nbeing thus re-established, the infinity that is expanded in all\ndirections by the picture is ruled by the Western perspective;[410] and\nfrom perspective there runs a road straight to the comprehension of our\nastronomical world-picture and its passionate pioneering into unending\nfarness.\n\nApollinian man _did not want_ to observe the broad universe, and the\nphilosophical systems one and all are silent about it. They know only\nproblems concerned with tangible and actual things, and have never\nanything positive or significant to say about what is between the\n\u201cthings.\u201d The Classical thinker takes the earth-sphere, upon which he\nstands and which (even in Hipparchus) is enveloped in a fixed celestial\nsphere, as the complete and _given_ world, and if we probe the depths\nand secrets of motive here we are almost startled by the persistency\nwith which theory attempted time after time to attach the order of these\nheavens to that of the earth in some way that would not impugn the\nprimacy of the latter.[411]\n\nCompare with this the convulsive vehemence with which the discovery of\nCopernicus\u2014the \u201ccontemporary\u201d of Pythagoras\u2014drove through the soul of\nthe West, and the deep spirit of awe in which Kepler looked upon the\nlaws of planetary orbits which he had discovered as an immediate\nrevelation from God, not daring to doubt that they were circular because\nany other form would have been too unworthy a symbol. Here the old\nNorthern life-feeling, the Viking infinity-wistfulness, comes into its\nown. Here, too, is the meaning of the characteristically Faustian\ndiscovery of the telescope which, penetrating into spaces hidden from\nthe naked eye and inaccessible to the will-to-power, _widens_ the\nuniverse that we possess. The truly religious feeling that seizes us\neven to-day when we dare to look into the depths of starry space for the\nfirst time\u2014the same feeling of power that Shakespeare\u2019s greatest\ntragedies aim at awakening\u2014would to Sophocles appear as the impiety of\nall impieties.\n\nOur denial of the \u201cvault\u201d of heaven, then, is a _resolve_ and not a\nsense-experience. The modern ideas as to the nature of starry space\u2014or,\nto speak more prudently, of an extension indicated by light-indices that\nare communicated by eye and telescope\u2014most certainly do not rest upon\nsure knowledge, for what we see in the telescope is small bright disks\nof different sizes. The photographic plate yields quite another picture\u2014\nnot a _sharper_ one but a _different_ one\u2014and the construction of a\nconsistent world-picture such as we crave depends upon connecting the\ntwo by numerous and often very daring hypotheses (e.g., of distances,\nmagnitudes and movements) that we ourselves frame. The style of this\npicture corresponds to the style of our own soul. In actual fact we do\nnot know how different the light-powers of one and another star may be,\nnor whether they vary in different directions. We do not know whether or\nnot light is altered, diminished, or extinguished in the immensities of\nspace. We do not know whether our earthly conceptions of the nature of\nlight, and therefore all the theories and laws deduced from them, have\nvalidity beyond the immediate environment of the earth. What we \u201csee\u201d\nare merely light-_indices_; what we understand are symbols of ourselves.\n\nThe strong upspringing of the Copernican world-idea\u2014which belongs\nexclusively to our Culture and (to risk an assertion that even now may\nseem paradoxical) would be and will be _deliberately forced into\noblivion_ whenever the soul of a coming Culture shall feel itself\nendangered by it[412]\u2014was founded on the certainty that the corporeal-\nstatic, the imagined preponderance of the plastic _earth_, was\nhenceforth eliminated from the Cosmos. Till then, the heavens which were\nthought of, or at any rate felt, as a substantial quantity, like the\nearth, had been regarded as being in polar equilibrium with it. But now\nit was _Space_ that ruled the universe. \u201cWorld\u201d signifies space, and the\nstars are hardly more than mathematical points, tiny balls in the\nimmense, that as material no longer affect the world-feeling. While\nDemocritus, who tried (as on behalf of the Apollinian Culture he was\nbound to try) to settle some limit of a bodily kind to it all, imagined\na layer of hook-shaped atoms as a skin over the Cosmos, an insatiable\nhunger drives _us_ ever further and further into the remote. The solar\nsystem of Copernicus, already expanded by Giordano Bruno to a thousand\nsuch systems, grew immeasurably wider in the Baroque Age; and to-day we\n\u201cknow\u201d that the sum of all the solar systems, about 35,000,000,\nconstitutes a closed (and demonstrably finite[413]) stellar system which\nforms an ellipsoid of rotation and has its equator approximately along\nthe band of the Milky Way. Swarms of solar systems traverse this space,\nlike flights of migrant birds, with the same velocity and direction. One\nsuch group, with an apex in the constellation of Hercules, is formed by\nour sun together with the bright stars Capella, Vega, Altair and\nBetelgeuse. The axis of this immense system, which has its mid-point not\nfar from the present position of our sun, is taken as 470,000,000 times\nas long as the distance from the earth to the sun. Any night, the starry\nheavens give us at the same moment impressions that originated 3,700\nyears apart in time, for that is the distance in light-years from the\nextreme outer limit to the earth. In the picture of history as it\nunfolds before us here, this period corresponds to a duration covering\nthe whole Classical and Magian ages and going back to the zenith of the\nEgyptian Culture in the XIIth Dynasty. This aspect\u2014an _image_, I repeat,\nand not a matter of experimental knowledge\u2014is for the Faustian a high\nand noble[414] aspect, but for the Apollinian it would have been woeful\nand terrible, an annihilation of the most profound conditions of his\nbeing. And he would have felt it as sheer salvation when after all a\nlimit, however remote, had been found. But we, driven by the deep\nnecessity that is in us, must simply ask ourselves the new question: Is\nthere anything _outside_ this system? Are there aggregates of such\nsystems, at such distances that even the dimensions established by our\nastronomy[415] are small by comparison? As far as sense-observations are\nconcerned, it seems that an absolute limit has been reached; neither\nlight nor gravitation can give a sign of existence through this outer\nspace, void of mass. But for us it is a simple _necessity of thought_.\nOur spiritual passion, our unresting need to actualize our existence-\nidea in symbols, _suffers_ under this limitation of our sense-\nperceptions.\n\n\n IX\n\nSo also it was that the old Northern races, in whose primitive souls the\nFaustian was already awakening, discovered in their grey dawn the art of\n_sailing the seas_ which emancipated them.[416] The Egyptians knew the\nsail, but only profited by it as a labour-saving device. They sailed, as\nthey had done before in their oared ships, along the coast to Punt and\nSyria, but the _idea_ of the high-seas voyage\u2014what it meant as a\nliberation, a symbol\u2014was not in them. Sailing, real sailing, is a\ntriumph over Euclidean land. At the beginning of our 14th Century,\nalmost coincident with each other (and with the formation-periods of\noil-painting and counterpoint!) came gunpowder and the compass, that is,\n_long-range weapons and long-range intercourse_ (means that the Chinese\nCulture[417] too had, necessarily, discovered for itself). It was the\nspirit of the Vikings and the Hansa, as of those dim peoples, so unlike\nthe Hellenes with their domestic funerary urns, who heaped up great\nbarrows as memorials of the lonely soul on the wide plains. It was the\nspirit of those who sent their dead kings to sea in their burning ships,\nthrilling manifests of their dark yearning for the boundless. The spirit\nof the Norsemen drove their cockle-boats\u2014in the Tenth Century that\nheralded the Faustian birth\u2014to the coasts of America. But to the\ncircumnavigation of Africa, already achieved by Egyptians and\nCarthaginians, Classical mankind was wholly indifferent. How statuesque\ntheir existence was, even with respect to intercourse, is shown by the\nfact that the news of the First Punic War\u2014one of the most intense wars\nof history\u2014penetrated to Athens from Sicily merely as an indefinite\nreport. Even the souls of the Greeks were assembled in Hades as\nunexcitable shadows (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1) without strength, wish or feeling. But the\nNorthern dead gathered themselves in fierce unresting armies of the\ncloud and the storm.\n\nThe event which stands at the same cultural level as the discoveries of\nthe Spaniards and Portuguese is that of the Hellenic colonizations of\nthe 8th Century B.C. But, while the Spaniards and the Portuguese were\npossessed by the adventured-craving for uncharted distances and for\neverything unknown and dangerous, the Greeks went carefully, point by\npoint, on the known tracks of the Ph\u0153nicians, Carthaginians and\nEtruscans, and their curiosity in no wise extended to what lay beyond\nthe Pillars of Hercules and the Isthmus of Suez, easily accessible as\nboth were to them. Athens no doubt heard of the way to the North Sea, to\nthe Congo, to Zanzibar, to India\u2014in Nero\u2019s time the position of the\nsouthern extremity of India was known, also that of the islands of\nSunda\u2014but Athens shut its eyes to these things just as it did to the\nastronomical knowledge of the old East. Even when the lands that we call\nMorocco and Portugal had become Roman provinces, no Atlantic voyaging\nensued, and the Canaries remained forgotten. Apollinian man felt the\nColumbus-longing as little as he felt the Copernican. Possessed though\nthe Greek merchants were with the desire of gain, a deep metaphysical\nshyness restrained them from extending the horizon, and in geography as\nin other matters they stuck to near things and foregrounds. The\nexistence of the Polis, that astonishing ideal of the State as statue,\nwas in truth nothing more nor less than a refuge from the wide world of\nthe sea-peoples\u2014and that though the Classical, alone of all the Cultures\nso far, had a ring of coasts about a sea of islands, and not a\ncontinental expanse, as its motherland. Not even Hellenism, with all its\nproneness to technical diversions,[418] freed itself from the oared ship\nwhich tethered the mariner to the coasts. The naval architects of\nAlexandria were capable of constructing giant ships of 260-ft.\nlength,[419] and, for that matter, the steamship was discovered in\nprinciple. But there are some discoveries that have all the pathos of a\ngreat and _necessary_ symbol and reveal depths within, and there are\nothers that are merely play of intellect. The steamship is for\nApollinians one of the latter and for Faustians one of the former class.\nIt is prominence or insignificance in the Macrocosm as a whole that\ngives discovery and the application thereof the character of depth or\nshallowness.\n\nThe discoveries of Columbus and Vasco da Gama extended the geographical\nhorizon without limit, and the world-sea came into the same relation\nwith land as that of the universe of space with earth. And then first\nthe political tension within the Faustian world-consciousness discharged\nitself. For the Greeks, Hellas was and remained the important part of\nthe earth\u2019s surface, but with the discovery of America West-Europe\nbecame a province in a gigantic whole. Thenceforward the history of the\nWestern Culture has a _planetary_ character.\n\nEvery Culture possesses a proper conception of home and fatherland,\nwhich is hard to comprehend, scarcely to be expressed in words, full of\ndark metaphysical relations, but nevertheless unmistakable in its\ntendency. The Classical home-feeling which tied the individual\ncorporally and Euclidean-ly to the Polis[420] is the very antithesis of\nthat enigmatic \u201cHeimweh\u201d of the Northerner which has something musical,\nsoaring and unearthly in it. Classical man felt as \u201cHome\u201d just what he\ncould see from the Acropolis of his native city. Where the horizon of\nAthens ended, the alien, the hostile, the \u201cfatherland\u201d of another began.\nEven the Roman of late Republican times understood by \u201cpatria\u201d nothing\nbut Urbs Roma, not even Latium, still less Italy. The Classical world,\nas it matured, dissolved itself into a large number of point-patri\u00e6, and\nthe need of bodily separation between them took the form of hatreds far\nmore intense than any hatred that there was of the Barbarian. And it is\ntherefore the most convincing of all evidences of the victory of the\nMagian world-feeling that Caracalla[421] in 212 A.D. granted Roman\ncitizenship to all provincials. For this grant simply abolished the\nancient, statuesque, idea of the citizen. There was now a Realm and\nconsequently a new kind of membership. The Roman notion of an army, too,\nunderwent a significant change. In genuinely Classical times there had\nbeen no Roman Army in the sense in which we speak of the Prussian Army,\nbut only \u201carmies,\u201d that is, definite formations (as we say) created as\ncorps, limited and visibly present bodies, by the appointment of a\nLegatus to command\u2014an _exercitus Scipionis_, _Crassi_ for instance\u2014but\nnever an _exercitus Romanus_. It was Caracalla, the same who abolished\nthe idea of \u201ccivis Romanus\u201d by decree and wiped out the Roman civic\ndeities by making all alien deities equivalent to them, who created the\nun-Classical and _Magian_ idea of an Imperial Army, something\n_manifested_ in the separate legions. These now meant something, whereas\nin Classical times they _meant_ nothing, but simply _were_. The old\n\u201cfides exercituum\u201d is replaced by \u201cfides exercitus\u201d in the inscriptions\nand, instead of individual bodily-conceived deities special to each\nlegion and ritually honoured by its Legatus, we have a spiritual\nprinciple common to all. So also, and in the same sense, the\n\"fatherland\"-feeling undergoes a change of meaning for Eastern men\u2014_and\nnot merely Christians_\u2014in Imperial times. Apollinian man, so long as he\nretained any effective remnant at all of his proper world-feeling,\nregarded \u201chome\u201d in the genuinely corporeal sense as the ground on which\nhis city was built\u2014a conception that recalls the \u201cunity of place\u201d of\nAttic tragedy and statuary. But to Magian man, to Christians, Persians,\nJews, \u201cGreeks,\u201d[422] Manich\u00e6ans, Nestorians and Mohammedans, it means\nnothing that has any connexion with geographical actualities. And for\nourselves it means an impalpable unity of nature, speech, climate,\nhabits and history\u2014not earth but \u201ccountry,\u201d not point-like presence but\nhistoric past and future, not a unit made up of men, houses and gods but\nan _idea_, the idea that takes shape in the restless wanderings, the\ndeep loneliness, and that ancient German impulse towards the South which\nhas been the ruin of our best, from the Saxon Emperors to H\u00f6lderlin and\nNietzsche.\n\nThe bent of the Faustian Culture, therefore, was overpoweringly towards\n_extension_, political, economic or spiritual. It overrode all\ngeographical-material bounds. It sought\u2014without any practical object,\nmerely for the Symbol\u2019s own sake\u2014to reach North Pole and South Pole. It\nended by transforming the entire surface of the globe into a single\ncolonial and economic system. Every thinker from Meister Eckhardt to\nKant willed to subject the \u201cphenomenal\u201d world to the asserted domination\nof the cognizing ego, and every leader from Otto the Great to Napoleon\ndid it. The _genuine_ object of their ambitions was the boundless, alike\nfor the great Franks and Hohenstaufen with their world-monarchies, for\nGregory VII and Innocent III, for the Spanish Habsburgs \u201con whose empire\nthe sun never set,\u201d and for the Imperialism of to-day on behalf of which\nthe World-War was fought and will continue to be fought for many a long\nday. Classical man, for inward reasons, could not be a conqueror,\nnotwithstanding Alexander\u2019s romantic expedition\u2014for we can discern\nenough of the inner hesitations and unwillingnesses of his companions\nnot to need to explain it as an \u201cexception proving the rule.\u201d[423] The\nnever-stilled desire to be liberated from the binding element, to range\nfar and free, which is the essence of the fancy-creatures of the North\u2014\nthe dwarfs, elves and imps\u2014is utterly unknown to the Dryads and Oreads\nof Greece. Greek daughter-cities were planted by the hundred along the\nrim of the Mediterranean, but not one of them made the slightest real\nattempt to conquer and penetrate the hinterlands. To settle far from the\ncoast would have meant to lose sight of \u201chome,\u201d while to settle in\n_loneliness_\u2014the ideal life of the trapper and prairie-man of America as\nit had been of Icelandic saga-heroes long before\u2014was something entirely\nbeyond the possibilities of Classical mankind. Dramas like that of the\nemigration to America\u2014man by man, each on his own account, driven by\ndeep promptings to loneliness\u2014or the Spanish Conquest, or the\nCalifornian gold-rush, dramas of uncontrollable longings for freedom,\nsolitude, immense independence, and of giantlike contempt of all\nlimitations whatsoever upon the home-feeling\u2014these dramas are Faustian\nand only Faustian. No other Culture, not even the Chinese, knows them.\n\nThe Hellenic emigrant, on the contrary, clung as a child clings to its\nmother\u2019s lap. To make a new city out of the old one, exactly like it,\nwith the same fellow citizens, the same gods, the same customs, with the\nlinking sea never out of sight, and there to pursue in the Agora the\nfamiliar life of the \u03b6\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u2014this was the limit of change of\nscene for the Apollinian life. To us, for whom freedom of movement (if\nnot always as a practical, yet in any case as an ideal, right) is\nindispensable, such a limit would have been the most crying of all\nslaveries. It is from the Classical point of view that the oft-\nmisunderstood expansion of Rome must be looked at. It was anything\nrather than an _extension_ of the fatherland; it confined itself exactly\nwithin fields that had already been taken up by other culture-men whom\nthey dispossessed. Never was there a hint of dynamic world-schemes of\nthe Hohenstaufen or Habsburg stamp, or of an imperialism comparable with\nthat of our own times. The Romans made no attempt to penetrate the\ninterior of Africa. Their later wars were waged only for the\n_preservation_ of what they already possessed, not for the sake of\nambition nor under a significant stimulus from within. They could give\nup Germany and Mesopotamia without regret.\n\nIf, in fine, we look at it all together\u2014the expansion of the Copernican\nworld-picture into that aspect of stellar space that we possess to-day;\nthe development of Columbus\u2019s discovery into a worldwide command of the\nearth\u2019s surface by the West; the perspective of oil-painting and of\ntragedy-scene; the sublimed home-feeling; the passion of our\nCivilization for swift transit, the conquest of the air, the exploration\nof the Polar regions and the climbing of almost impossible mountain-\npeaks\u2014we see, emerging everywhere the prime-symbol of the Faustian soul,\nLimitless Space. And those specially (in form, uniquely) Western\ncreations of the soul-myth called \u201cWill,\u201d \u201cForce\u201d and \u201cDeed\u201d must be\nregarded as derivatives of this prime-symbol.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING\n\n II\n BUDDHISM, STOICISM, SOCIALISM\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n SOUL-IMAGE AND LIFE-FEELING\n\n\n II\n BUDDHISM, STOICISM, SOCIALISM\n\n I\n\nWe are now at last in a position to approach the phenomenon of\n_Morale_,[424] the intellectual interpretation of Life by itself, to\nascend the height from which it is possible to survey the widest and\ngravest of all the fields of human thought. At the same time, we shall\nneed for this survey an objectivity such as no one has as yet set\nhimself seriously to gain. Whatever we may take Morale to be, it is no\npart of Morale to provide its own _analysis_; and we shall get to grips\nwith the problem, not by considering what _should_ be our acts and aims\nand standards, but only by diagnosing the Western feeling in the very\nform of the enunciation.\n\nIn this matter of morale, Western mankind, without exception, is under\nthe influence of an immense optical illusion. Everyone _demands_\nsomething of the rest. We say \u201cthou shalt\u201d in the conviction that so-\nand-so in fact will, can and must be changed or fashioned or arranged\nconformably to the order, and our belief both in the efficacy of, and in\nour title to give, such orders is unshakable. _That_, and nothing short\nof it, _is_, for us, morale. In the ethics of the West everything is\ndirection, claim to power, will to affect the distant. Here Luther is\ncompletely at one with Nietzsche, Popes with Darwinians, Socialists with\nJesuits; for one and all, the beginning of morale is a claim to general\nand permanent validity. It is a necessity of the Faustian soul that this\nshould be so. He who thinks or teaches \u201cotherwise\u201d is sinful, a\nbackslider, a _foe_, and he is fought down without mercy. You \u201cshall,\u201d\nthe State \u201cshall,\u201d society \u201cshall\u201d\u2014this form of morale is to us self-\nevident; it represents the only real meaning that we can attach to the\nword. But it was not so either in the Classical, or in India, or in\nChina. Buddha, for instance, gives a pattern to take or to leave, and\nEpicurus offers counsel. Both undeniably are forms of high morale, and\nneither contains the will-element.\n\nWhat we have entirely failed to observe is the peculiarity of moral\n_dynamic_. If we allow that Socialism (in the ethical, not the economic,\nsense) is that world-feeling which seeks to carry out its own views on\nbehalf of all, then we are all without exception, willingly or no,\nwittingly or no, Socialists. Even Nietzsche, that most passionate\nopponent of \u201cherd morale,\u201d was perfectly incapable of limiting his zeal\nto himself in the Classical way. He thought only of \u201cmankind,\u201d and he\nattacked everyone who differed from himself. Epicurus, on the contrary,\nwas heartily indifferent to others\u2019 opinions and acts and never wasted\none thought on the \u201ctransformation\u201d of mankind. He and his friends were\ncontent that _they_ were as they were and not otherwise. The Classical\nideal was indifference (\u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) to the course of the world\u2014the very\nthing which it is the whole business of Faustian mankind to master\u2014and\nan important element both of Stoic and of Epicurean philosophy was the\nrecognition of a category of things neither preferred nor rejected[425]\n(\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1). In Hellas there was a pantheon of morales as there was of\ndeities, as the peaceful coexistence of Epicureans, Cynics and Stoics\nshows, but the Nietzschean Zarathustra\u2014though professedly standing\nbeyond good and evil\u2014breathes from end to end the pain of seeing men to\nbe other than as he would have them be, and the deep and utterly un-\nClassical desire to devote a life to their reformation\u2014his own sense of\nthe word, naturally, being the only one. It is just this, the _general_\ntransvaluation, that makes ethical monotheism and\u2014using the word in a\nnovel and deep sense\u2014socialism. All world-improvers are Socialists. And\nconsequently there are no Classical world-improvers.\n\nThe moral imperative as the form of morale is Faustian and only\nFaustian. It is wholly without importance that Schopenhauer denies\ntheoretically the will to live, or that Nietzsche will have it affirmed\u2014\nthese are superficial differences, indicative of personal tastes and\ntemperaments. The important thing, that which makes Schopenhauer the\nprogenitor of ethical modernity, is that he too _feels_ the whole world\nas Will, as movement, force, direction. This basic feeling is not merely\nthe foundation of our ethics, _it is itself our whole ethics_, and the\nrest are bye-blows. That which we call not merely activity but\naction[426] is a historical conception through-and-through, saturated\nwith directional energy. It is the proof of being, the dedication of\nbeing, in that sort of man whose ego possesses the tendency to Future,\nwho feels the momentary present not as saturated being but as epoch, as\nturning-point, in a great complex of becoming\u2014and, moreover, feels it so\nof both his personal life and of the life of history as a whole.\nStrength and distinctness of this consciousness are the marks of higher\nFaustian man, but it is not wholly absent in the most insignificant of\nthe breed, and it distinguishes his smallest acts from those of any and\nevery Classical man. It is the distinction between character and\nattitude, between conscious becoming and simple accepted statuesque\nbecomeness, between will and suffering in tragedy.\n\nIn the world as seen by the Faustian\u2019s eyes, everything is motion with\nan aim. He himself _lives_ only under that condition, for to him life\nmeans struggling, overcoming, winning through. The struggle for\nexistence as ideal form of existence is implicit even in the Gothic age\n(of the architecture of which it is visibly the foundation) and the 19th\nCentury has not invented it but merely put it into mechanical-\nutilitarian form. In the Apollinian world there is no such directional\nmotion\u2014the purposeless and aimless see-saw of Heraclitus\u2019s \u201cbecoming\u201d (\u1f21\n\u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9) is irrelevant here\u2014no \u201cProtestantism,\u201d no \u201cSturm und\nDrang,\u201d no ethical, intellectual or artistic \u201crevolution\u201d to fight and\ndestroy the existent. The Ionic and Corinthian styles appear by the side\nof the Doric without setting up any claim to sole and general validity,\nbut the Renaissance expelled the Gothic and Classicism expelled the\nBaroque styles, and the history of every European literature is filled\nwith battles over form-problems. Even our monasticism, with its\nTemplars, Franciscans, Dominicans and the rest, takes shape as an order-\n_movement_, in sharp contrast to the \u201caskesis\u201d of the Early-Christian\nhermit.\n\nTo go back upon this basic form of his existence, let alone transform\nit, is entirely beyond the power of Faustian man. It is presupposed even\nin efforts to resist it. One fights against \u201cadvanced\u201d ideas, but all\nthe time he looks on his fight itself as an advance. Another agitates\nfor a \u201creversal,\u201d but what he intends is in fact a continuance of\ndevelopment. \u201cImmoral\u201d is only a new kind of \u201cmoral\u201d and sets up the\nsame claim to primacy. The will-to-power is intolerant\u2014all that is\nFaustian wills to reign alone. The Apollinian feeling, on the contrary,\nwith its world of coexistent individual things, is tolerant as a matter\nof course. But, if toleration is in keeping with will-less Ataraxia, it\nis for the Western world with its oneness of infinite soul-space and the\nsingleness of its fabric of tensions the sign either of self-deception\nor of fading-out. The Enlightenment of the 18th Century was tolerant\ntowards\u2014that is, careless of\u2014differences between the various Christian\ncreeds, but in respect of its own relation to the Church as a whole, it\nwas anything but tolerant as soon as the power to be otherwise came to\nit. The Faustian instinct, active, strong-willed, as vertical in\ntendency as its own Gothic cathedrals, as upstanding as its own \u201cego\nhabeo factum,\u201d looking into distance and Future, demands toleration\u2014\n_that is, room, space_\u2014for its proper activity, but only for that.\nConsider, for instance, how much of it the city democracy is prepared to\naccord to the Church in respect of the latter\u2019s management of religious\npowers, while claiming for itself unlimited freedom to exercise its own\nand adjusting the \u201ccommon\u201d law to conform thereto whenever it can. Every\n\u201cmovement\u201d means to _win_, while every Classical \u201cattitude\u201d only wants\nto _be_ and troubles itself little about the Ethos of the neighbour. To\nfight for or against the trend of the times, to promote Reform or\nReaction, construction, reconstruction or destruction\u2014all this is as un-\nClassical as it is un-Indian. It is the old antithesis of Sophoclean and\nShakespearian tragedy, the tragedy of the man who only wants to exist\nand that of the man who wants to win.\n\nIt is quite wrong to bind up Christianity with the moral imperative. It\nwas not Christianity that transformed Faustian man, but Faustian man who\ntransformed Christianity\u2014and he not only made it a new religion but also\ngave it a new moral direction. The \u201cit\u201d became \u201cI,\u201d the passion-charged\ncentre of the world, the foundation of the great Sacrament of _personal_\ncontrition. Will-to-power even in ethics, the passionate striving to set\nup a proper morale as a universal truth, and to enforce it upon\nhumanity, to reinterpret or overcome or destroy everything otherwise\nconstituted\u2014nothing is more characteristically our own than this is. And\nin virtue of it the Gothic springtime proceeded to a profound\u2014and never\nyet appreciated\u2014_inward transformation_ of the morale of Jesus. A quiet\nspiritual morale welling from Magian feeling\u2014a morale or conduct\nrecommended as potent for salvation, a morale the knowledge of which was\ncommunicated as a special act of grace[427]\u2014was recast as a _morale of\nimperative command_.[428]\n\nEvery ethical system, whether it be of religious or of philosophical\norigin, has associations with the great arts and especially with that of\narchitecture. It is in fact a structure of propositions of causal\ncharacter. Every truth that is intended for practical application is\npropounded with a \u201cbecause\u201d and a \u201ctherefore.\u201d There is mathematical\nlogic in them\u2014in Buddha\u2019s \u201cFour Truths\u201d as in Kant\u2019s \u201cCritique of\nPractical Reason\u201d[429] and in every popular catechism. What is _not_ in\nthese doctrines of acquired truth is the uncritical logic of the blood,\nwhich generates and matures those conduct-standards (Sitten) of social\nclasses and of practical men (e.g., the chivalry-obligations in the time\nof the Crusades) that we only consciously realize when someone infringes\nthem. A systematic morale is, as it were, an Ornament, and it manifests\nitself not only in precepts but also in the style of drama and even in\nthe choice of art-motives. The Meander, for example, is a Stoic motive.\nThe Doric column is the very embodiment of the Antique life-ideal. And\njust _because_ it was so, it was the one Classical \u201corder\u201d which the\nBaroque style necessarily and frankly excluded; indeed, even Renaissance\nart was warned off it by some very deep spiritual instinct. Similarly\nwith the transformation of the Magian dome into the Russian roof-\ncupola,[430] the Chinese landscape-architecture of devious paths, the\nGothic cathedral-tower. Each is an image of the particular and unique\nmorale which arose out of the waking-consciousness of the Culture.\n\n II\n\nThe old riddles and perplexities now resolve themselves. There are as\nmany morales as there are Cultures, no more and no fewer. Just as every\npainter and every musician has something in him which, by force of\ninward necessity, never emerges into consciousness but dominates _a\npriori_ the form-language of his work and differentiates that work from\nthe work of every other Culture, so every conception of Life held by a\nCulture-man possesses _a priori_ (in the very strictest Kantian sense of\nthe phrase) a constitution that is deeper than all momentary judgments\nand strivings and impresses the _style_ of these with the hall-mark of\nthe particular Culture. The individual may act morally or immorally, may\ndo \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cevil\u201d with respect to the primary feeling of his Culture,\nbut the theory of his actions is not a result but a datum. Each Culture\npossesses its own standards, the validity of which begins and ends with\nit. There is no general morale of humanity.\n\nIt follows that there is not and cannot be any true \u201cconversion\u201d in the\ndeeper sense. Conscious behaviour of any kind that rests upon\nconvictions is a primary phenomenon, the basic tendency of an existence\ndeveloped into a \u201ctimeless truth.\u201d It matters little what words or\npictures are employed to express it, whether it appears as the\npredication of a deity or as the issue of philosophic meditation, as\nproposition or as symbol, as proclamation of proper or confutation of\nalien convictions. It is enough that it is _there_. It can be wakened\nand it can be put theoretically in the form of doctrine, it can change\nor improve its intellectual vehicle but it cannot be begotten. Just as\nwe are incapable of altering our world-feeling\u2014so incapable that even in\ntrying to alter it we have to follow the old lines and confirm instead\nof overthrowing it\u2014so also we are powerless to alter the ethical basis\nof our waking being. A certain verbal distinction has sometimes been\ndrawn between ethics the science and morale the duty, but, as we\nunderstand it, the point of duty does not arise. We are no more capable\nof converting a man to a morale alien to his being than the Renaissance\nwas capable of reviving the Classical or of making anything but a\nSouthernized Gothic, an anti-Gothic, out of Apollinian motives. We may\ntalk to-day of transvaluing all our values; we may, as Megalopolitans,\n\u201cgo back to\u201d Buddhism or Paganism or a romantic Catholicism; we may\nchampion as Anarchists an individualist or as Socialists a collectivist\nethic\u2014but in spite of all we do, will and feel the same. A conversion to\nTheosophy or Freethinking or one of the present-day transitions from a\nsupposed Christianity to a supposed Atheism (or vice versa) is an\nalteration of words and notions, of the religious or intellectual\nsurface, no more. None of our \u201cmovements\u201d have changed _man_.\n\nA strict morphology of all the morales is a task for the future. Here,\ntoo, Nietzsche has taken the first and essential step towards the new\nstandpoint. But he has failed to observe his own condition that the\nthinker shall place himself \u201cbeyond good and evil.\u201d He tried to be at\nonce sceptic _and_ prophet, moral critic _and_ moral gospeller. It\ncannot be done. One cannot be a first-class psychologist as long as one\nis still a Romantic. And so here, as in all his crucial penetrations, he\ngot as far as the door\u2014and stood outside it. And so far, no one has done\nany better. We have been blind and uncomprehending before the immense\nwealth that there is in the moral as in other form-languages. Even the\nsceptic has not understood his task; at bottom he, like others, sets up\nhis own notion of morale, drawn from his particular disposition and\nprivate taste, as standard by which to measure others. The modern\nrevolutionaires\u2014Stirner, Ibsen, Strindberg, Shaw\u2014are just the same; they\nhave only managed to hide the facts (from themselves as well as from\nothers) behind new formul\u00e6 and catchwords.\n\nBut a morale, like a sculpture, a music, a painting-art, is a self-\ncontained form-world expressing a life-feeling; it is a datum,\nfundamentally unalterable, an inward necessity. It is ever true within\nits historical circle, ever untrue outside it. As we have seen\nalready,[431] what his several works are to the poet or musician or\npainter, that its several art-genera are for the higher individual that\nwe call the Culture, viz., _organic units_; and that oil-painting as a\nwhole, act-sculpture as a whole and contrapuntal music as a whole, and\nrhymed lyric and so on are all epoch-making, and as such take rank as\nmajor symbols of Life. In the history of the Culture as in that of the\nindividual existence, we are dealing with the actualization of the\npossible; it is the story of an inner spirituality becoming the _style\nof a world_. By the side of these great form-units, which grow and\nfulfil themselves and close down within a predeterminate series of human\ngenerations, which endure for a few centuries and pass irrevocably into\ndeath, we see the group of Faustian morals and the sum of Apollinian\nmorals also as individuals of the higher order. That they _are_, is\nDestiny. They are data, and revelation (or scientific insight, as the\ncase may be) only put them into shape for the consciousness.\n\nThere is something, hardly to be described, that assembles all the\ntheories from Hesiod and Sophocles to Plato and the Stoa and opposes\nthem collectively to _all_ that was taught from Francis of Assisi and\nAbelard to Ibsen and Nietzsche, and even the morale of Jesus is only the\nnoblest expression of a general morale that was put into other forms by\nMarcion and Mani, by Philo and Plotinus, by Epictetus, Augustine and\nProclus. All Classical ethic is an ethic of attitude, all Western an\nethic of deed. And, likewise, the sum of all Indian and the sum of all\nChinese systems forms each a world of its own.\n\n III\n\nEvery Classical ethic that we know or can conceive of constitutes man an\nindividual static entity, a body among bodies, and all Western\nvaluations relate to him as a centre of effect in an infinite\ngenerality. Ethical Socialism is neither more nor less than the\nsentiment of action-at-a-distance, the moral pathos of the third\ndimension; and the root-feeling of Care\u2014care for those who are with us,\nand for those who are to follow\u2014is its emblem in the sky. Consequently\nthere is for us something socialistic in the aspect of the Egyptian\nCulture, while the opposite tendency to immobile attitude, to non-\ndesire, to static self-containedness of the individual, recalls the\nIndian ethic and the man formed by it. The seated Buddha-statue\n(\u201clooking at its navel\u201d) and Zeno\u2019s Ataraxia are not altogether alien to\none another. The ethical ideal of Classical man was that which is led up\nto in his tragedy, and revealed in its Katharsis. This in its last\ndepths means the purgation of the Apollinian soul from its burden of\nwhat is _not_ Apollinian, not free from the elements of distance and\ndirection, and to understand it we have to recognize that Stoicism is\nsimply the mature form of it. That which the drama effected in a solemn\nhour, the Stoa wished to spread over the whole field of life; viz.,\nstatuesque steadiness and will-less ethos. Now, is not this conception\nof \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 closely akin to the Buddhist ideal of Nirvana, which as a\nformula is no doubt very \u201clate\u201d but as an essence is thoroughly Indian\nand traceable even from Vedic times? And does not this kinship bring\nideal Classical man and ideal Indian man very close to one another and\nseparate them both from that man whose ethic is manifested in the\nShakespearian tragedy of dynamic evolution and catastrophe? When one\nthinks of it, there is nothing preposterous in the idea of Socrates,\nEpicurus, and especially Diogenes, sitting by the Ganges, whereas\nDiogenes in a Western megalopolis would be an unimportant fool. Nor, on\nthe other hand, is Frederick William I of Prussia, the prototype of the\nSocialist in the grand sense, unthinkable in the polity of the Nile,\nwhereas in Periclean Athens he is impossible.\n\nHad Nietzsche regarded his own times with fewer prejudices and less\ndisposition to romantic championship of certain ethical creations, he\nwould have perceived that a specifically Christian morale of compassion\nin _his_ sense does not exist on West-European soil. We must not let the\nwords of humane formul\u00e6 mislead us as to their real significance.\nBetween the morale that one has and the morale that one thinks one has,\nthere is a relation which is very obscure and very unsteady, and it is\njust here that an incorruptible psychology would be invaluable.\nCompassion is a dangerous word, and neither Nietzsche himself\u2014for all\nhis maestria\u2014nor anyone else has yet investigated the meaning\u2014conceptual\nand effective\u2014of the word at different times. The Christian morale of\nOrigen\u2019s time was quite different from the Christian morale of St.\nFrancis\u2019s. This is not the place to enquire what _Faustian_ compassion\u2014\nsacrifice or ebullience or again race-instinct in a chivalrous\nsociety[432]\u2014means as against the fatalistic Magian-Christian kind, how\nfar it is to be conceived as action-at-a-distance and _practical\ndynamic_, or (from another angle) as a proud soul\u2019s demand upon itself,\nor again as the utterance of an imperious distance-feeling. A fixed\nstock of ethical phrases, such as we have possessed since the\nRenaissance, has to cover a multitude of different ideas and a still\ngreater multitude of different meanings. When a mankind so historically\nand retrospectively disposed as we are accepts the superficial as the\nreal sense, and regards ideals as subject-matter for mere knowing, it is\nreally evidencing its veneration for the past\u2014in this particular\ninstance, for religious tradition. The _text_ of a conviction is never a\ntest of its _reality_, for man is rarely conscious of his own beliefs.\nCatchwords and doctrines are always more or less popular and external as\ncompared with deep spiritual actualities. Our theoretical reverence for\nthe propositions of the New Testament is in fact of the same order as\nthe theoretical reverence of the Renaissance and of Classicism for\nantique art; the one has no more transformed the spirit of men than the\nother has transformed the spirit of works. The oft-quoted cases of the\nMendicant Orders, the Moravians and the Salvation Army prove by their\nvery rarity, and even more by the slightness of the effects that they\nhave been able to produce, that they are exceptions in a quite different\ngenerality\u2014namely, the _Faustian-Christian_ morale. That morale will not\nindeed be found formulated, either by Luther or by the Council of Trent,\nbut all Christians of the great style\u2014Innocent III and Calvin, Loyola\nand Savonarola, Pascal and St. Theresa\u2014have had it in them, even in\nunconscious contradiction to their own formal teachings.\n\nWe have only to compare the purely Western conception of the manly\nvirtue that is designated by Nietzsche\u2019s \u201cmoralinfrei\u201d _virt\u00f9_, the\n_grandezza_ of Spanish and the _grandeur_ of French Baroque, with that\nvery feminine \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae of the Hellenic ideal, of which the practical\napplication is presented to us as capacity for enjoyment (\u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae),\nplacidity of disposition (\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), absence of wants and\ndemands, and, above all, the so typical \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1. What Nietzsche called\nthe Blond Beast and conceived to be embodied in the type of Renaissance\nMan that he so overvalued (for it is really only a jackal counterfeit of\nthe great Hohenstaufen Germans) is the utter antithesis to the type that\nis presented in every Classical ethic without exception and embodied in\nevery Classical man of worth. The Faustian Culture has produced a long\nseries of granite-men, the Classical never a one. For Pericles and\nThemistocles were soft natures in tune with Attic \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1, and\nAlexander was a Romantic who never woke up, C\u00e6sar a shrewd reckoner.\nHannibal, the alien, was the only \u201cMann\u201d amongst them all. The men of\nthe early time, as Homer presents them to our judgment\u2014the Odysseuses\nand Ajaxes\u2014would have cut a queer figure among the chevaliers of the\nCrusades. Very feminine natures, too, are capable of brutality\u2014a\nrebound-brutality of their own\u2014and Greek cruelty was of this kind. But\nin the North the great Saxon, Franconian and Hohenstaufen emperors\nappear on the very threshold of the Culture, surrounded by giant-men\nlike Henry the Lion and Gregory VII. Then come the men of the\nRenaissance, of the struggle of the two Roses, of the Huguenot Wars, the\nSpanish Conquistadores, the Prussian electors and kings, Napoleon,\nBismarck, Rhodes. What other Culture has exhibited the like of these?\nWhere in all Hellenic history is so powerful a scene as that of 1176\u2014the\nBattle of Legnano as foreground, the suddenly-disclosed strife of the\ngreat Hohenstaufen and the great Welf as background? The heroes of the\nGreat Migrations, the Spanish chivalry, Prussian discipline, Napoleonic\nenergy\u2014how much of the Classical is there in these men and things? And\nwhere, on the heights of Faustian morale, from the Crusades to the World\nWar, do we find anything of the \u201cslave-morale,\u201d the meek resignation,\nthe deaconess\u2019s Caritas?[433] Only in pious and honoured words, nowhere\nelse. The type of the very priesthood is Faustian; think of those\nmagnificent bishops of the old German empire who on horseback led their\nflocks into the wild battle,[434] or those Popes who could force\nsubmission on a Henry IV and a Frederick II, of the Teutonic Knights in\nthe Ostmark, of Luther\u2019s challenge in which the old Northern heathendom\nrose up against old Roman, of the great Cardinals (Richelieu, Mazarin,\nFleury) who shaped France. _That_ is Faustian morale, and one must be\nblind indeed if one does not see it efficient in the whole field of\nWest-European history. And it is only through such grand instances of\nworldly passion which express the consciousness of a _mission_ that we\nare able to understand those of grand spiritual passion, of the upright\nand forthright Caritas which nothing can resist, the dynamic charity\nthat is so utterly unlike Classical moderation and Early-Christian\nmildness. There is a _hardness_ in the sort of com-passion that was\npractised by the German mystics, the German and Spanish military Orders,\nthe French and English Calvinists. In the Russian, the Raskolnikov, type\nof charity a soul melts into the fraternity of souls, in the Faustian it\narises out of it. Here too \u201cego habeo factum\u201d is the formula. Personal\ncharity is the justification before God of the Person, the individual.\n\nThis is the reason why \"compassion\"-morale, in the everyday sense,\nalways respected by us so far as words go, and sometimes hoped for by\nthe thinker, is _never_ actualized. Kant rejected it with decision, and\nin fact it is in profound contradiction with the Categorical Imperative,\nwhich sees the meaning of Life to lie in actions and not in surrender to\nsoft opinions. Nietzsche\u2019s \u201cslave-morale\u201d is a phantom, _his master-\nmorale is a reality_. It does not require formulation to be effective\u2014it\nis there, and has been from of old. Take away his romantic Borgia-mask\nand his nebulous vision of supermen, and what is left of his man is\nFaustian man himself, as he is to-day and as he was even in saga-days,\nthe type of an energetic, imperative and dynamic Culture. However it may\nhave been in the Classical world, _our_ great well-doers are the great\n_doers_ whose forethought and care affects millions, the great statesmen\nand organizers. \"A higher sort of men, who thanks to their preponderance\nof will, knowledge, wealth and influence make use of democratic Europe\nas their aptest and most mobile tool, in order to bring into their own\nhands the destinies of the Earth and as artists to shape \u2018man\u2019 himself.\nEnough\u2014the time is coming when men will unlearn and relearn the art of\npolitics.\" So Nietzsche delivered himself in one of the unpublished\ndrafts that are so much more concrete than the finished works. \u201cWe must\neither breed political capacities, or else be ruined by the democracy\nthat has been forced upon us by the failure of the older\nalternatives,\u201d[435] says Shaw in _Man and Superman_. Limited though his\nphilosophic horizon is in general, Shaw has the advantage over Nietzsche\nof more practical schooling and less ideology, and the figure of the\nmultimillionaire Undershaft in _Major Barbara_ translates the Superman-\nideal into the unromantic language of the modern age (which in truth is\nits real source for Nietzsche also, though it reached him indirectly\nthrough Malthus and Darwin). It is these fact-men of the grand style who\nare the representatives to-day of the Will-to-Power over other men\u2019s\ndestinies and therefore of the Faustian ethic generally. Men of this\nsort do not broadcast their millions to dreamers, \u201cartists,\u201d weaklings\nand \u201cdown-and-outs\u201d to satisfy a boundless benevolence; they employ them\nfor those who like themselves count as material for the Future. They\npursue a purpose with them. They make a centre of force for the\nexistence of generations which outlives the single lives. The mere\nmoney, too, can develop ideas and make history, and Rhodes\u2014precursor of\na type that will be significant indeed in the 21st Century\u2014provided, in\ndisposing of his possessions by will, that it should do so. It is a\nshallow judgment, and one incapable of inwardly understanding history,\nthat cannot distinguish the literary chatter of popular social-moralists\nand humanity-apostles from the deep ethical instincts of the West-\nEuropean Civilization.\n\nSocialism\u2014in its highest and not its street-corner sense\u2014is, like every\nother Faustian ideal, exclusive. It owes its popularity only to the fact\nthat it is completely misunderstood even by its exponents, who present\nit as a sum of rights instead of as one of duties, an abolition instead\nof an intensification of the Kantian imperative, a slackening instead of\na tautening of directional energy. The trivial and superficial tendency\ntowards ideals of \u201cwelfare,\u201d \u201cfreedom,\u201d \u201chumanity,\u201d the doctrine of the\n\u201cgreatest happiness of the greatest number,\u201d are mere negations of the\nFaustian ethic\u2014a very different matter from the tendency of Epicureanism\ntowards the ideal of \u201chappiness,\u201d for the condition of happiness was the\nactual sum and substance of the Classical ethic. Here precisely is an\ninstance of sentiments, to all outward appearance much the same, but\nmeaning in the one case everything and in the other nothing. From this\npoint of view, we might describe the content of the Classical ethic as\n_philanthropy_, a boon conferred by the individual upon himself, his\n_soma_. The view has Aristotle on its side, for it is exactly in this\nsense that he uses the word \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, which the best heads of the\nClassicist period, above all Lessing, found so puzzling. Aristotle\ndescribes the effect of the Attic tragedy on the Attic spectator as\nphilanthropic. Its Peripeteia relieves him from compassion with himself.\nA sort of theory of master-morale and slave-morale existed also in the\nearly Hellenism, in Callicles for example\u2014naturally, under strictly\ncorporeal-Euclidean postulates. The ideal of the first class is\nAlcibiades. He did exactly what at the moment seemed to him best for his\nown person, and he is felt to be, and admired as, the type of Classical\nKalokagathia. But Protagoras is still more distinct, with his famous\nproposition\u2014essentially ethical in intention\u2014that man (each man for\nhimself) is the measure of things. That is master-morale in a statuesque\nsoul.\n\n IV\n\nWhen Nietzsche wrote down the phrase \u201ctransvaluation of all values\u201d for\nthe first time, the spiritual movement of the centuries in which we are\nliving found at last its formula. Transvaluation of all values is the\nmost fundamental character of _every_ civilization. For it is the\nbeginning of a Civilization that it remoulds all the forms of the\nCulture that went before, understands them otherwise, practises them in\na different way. It begets no more, but only reinterprets, and herein\nlies the negativeness common to all periods of this character. It\nassumes that the genuine act of creation has already occurred, and\nmerely enters upon an inheritance of big actualities. In the Late-\nClassical, we find the event taking place inside Hellenistic-Roman\nStoicism, that is, the long death-struggle of the Apollinian soul. In\nthe interval from Socrates\u2014who was the spiritual father of the Stoa and\nin whom the first signs of inward impoverishment and city-\nintellectualism became visible\u2014to Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, every\nexistence-ideal of the old Classical underwent transvaluation. In the\ncase of India, the transvaluation of Brahman life was complete by the\ntime of King Asoka (250 B.C.), as we can see by comparing the parts of\nthe Vedanta put into writing before and after Buddha. And ourselves?\nEven now the ethical socialism of the Faustian soul, its fundamental\nethic, as we have seen, is being worked upon by the process of\ntransvaluation as that soul is walled up in the stone of the great\ncities. _Rousseau is the ancestor of this socialism; he stands, like\nSocrates and Buddha, as the representative spokesman of a great\nCivilization._ Rousseau\u2019s rejection of all great Culture-forms and all\nsignificant conventions, his famous \u201cReturn to the state of Nature,\u201d his\npractical rationalism, are unmistakable evidences. Each of the three\nburied a millennium of spiritual depth. Each proclaimed his gospel to\nmankind, but it was to the mankind of the city intelligentsia, which was\ntired of the town and the Late Culture, and whose \u201cpure\u201d (i.e.,\nsoulless) reason longed to be free from them and their authoritative\nform and their hardness, from the symbolism with which it was no longer\nin living communion and which therefore it detested. The Culture was\nannihilated by discussion. If we pass in review the great 19th-Century\nnames with which we associate the march of this great drama\u2014\nSchopenhauer, Hebbel, Wagner, Nietzsche, Ibsen, Strindberg\u2014we comprehend\nin a glance that which Nietzsche, in a fragmentary preface to his\nincomplete master-work, deliberately and correctly called the _Coming of\nNihilism_. Every one of the great Cultures knows it, for it is of deep\nnecessity inherent in the finale of these mighty organisms. Socrates was\na nihilist, and Buddha. There is an Egyptian or an Arabian or a Chinese\nde-souling of the human being, just as there is a Western. This is a\nmatter not of mere political and economic, nor even of religious and\nartistic, transformations, nor of any tangible or factual change\nwhatsoever, but of the condition of a soul after it has actualized its\npossibilities in full. It is easy, but useless, to point to the bigness\nof Hellenistic and of modern European achievement. Mass slavery and mass\nmachine-production, \u201cProgress\u201d and Ataraxia, Alexandrianism and modern\nScience, Pergamum and Bayreuth, social conditions as assumed in\nAristotle and as assumed in Marx, are merely symptoms on the historical\nsurface. Not external life and conduct, not institutions and customs,\nbut deepest and last things are in question here\u2014the inward\n_finishedness_ (Fertigsein) of megalopolitan man, _and_ of the\nprovincial as well.[436] For the Classical world this condition sets in\nwith the Roman age; for us it will set in from about the year 2000.\n\nCulture and Civilization\u2014the living body of a soul and the mummy of it.\nFor Western existence the distinction lies at about the year 1800\u2014on the\none side of that frontier life in fullness and sureness of itself,\nformed by growth from within, in one great uninterrupted evolution from\nGothic childhood to Goethe and Napoleon, and on the other the autumnal,\nartificial, rootless life of our great cities, under forms fashioned by\nthe intellect. Culture and Civilization\u2014the organism born of Mother\nEarth, and the mechanism proceeding from hardened fabric. Culture-man\nlives inwards, Civilization-man outwards in space and amongst bodies and\n\u201cfacts.\u201d That which the one feels as Destiny the other understands as a\nlinkage of causes and effects, and thenceforward he is a materialist\u2014in\nthe sense of the word valid for, and only valid for, Civilization\u2014\nwhether he wills it or no, and whether Buddhist, Stoic or Socialist\ndoctrines wear the garb of religion or not.\n\nTo Gothic and Doric men, Ionic and Baroque men, the whole vast form-\nworld of art, religion, custom, state, knowledge, social life was easy.\nThey could carry it and actualize it without \u201cknowing\u201d it. They had over\nthe symbolism of the Culture that unstrained mastery that Mozart\npossessed in music. Culture is the self-evident. The feeling of\nstrangeness in these forms, the idea that they are a burden from which\ncreative freedom requires to be relieved, the impulse to overhaul the\nstock in order by the light of reason to turn it to better account, the\nfatal imposition of thought upon the inscrutable quality of\ncreativeness, are all symptoms of a soul that is beginning to tire. Only\nthe sick man feels his limbs. When men construct an unmetaphysical\nreligion in opposition to cults and dogmas; when a \u201cnatural law\u201d is set\nup against historical law; when, in art, styles are invented in place of\n_the_ style that can no longer be borne or mastered; when men conceive\nof the State as an \u201corder of society\u201d which not only can be but must be\naltered[437]\u2014then it is evident that something has definitely broken\ndown. The Cosmopolis itself, the supreme Inorganic, is there, settled in\nthe midst of the Culture-landscape, whose men it is uprooting, drawing\ninto itself and using up.\n\nScientific worlds are superficial worlds, practical, soulless and purely\nextensive worlds. The ideas of Buddhism, of Stoicism, and of Socialism\nalike rest upon them.[438] Life is no longer to be lived as something\nself-evident\u2014hardly a matter of consciousness, let alone choice\u2014or to be\naccepted as God-willed destiny, but is to be treated as a problem,\npresented as the intellect sees it, judged by \u201cutilitarian\u201d or\n\u201crational\u201d criteria. This, at the back, is what all three mean. The\nbrain rules, because the soul abdicates. Culture-men live unconsciously,\nCivilization-men consciously. The Megalopolis\u2014sceptical, practical,\nartificial\u2014_alone_ represents Civilization to-day. The soil-peasantry\nbefore its gates does not count. The \u201cPeople\u201d means the city-people, an\ninorganic mass, something fluctuating. The peasant is _not_ democratic\u2014\nthis again being a notion belonging to mechanical and urban\nexistence[439]\u2014and he is therefore overlooked, despised, detested. With\nthe vanishing of the old \u201cestates\u201d\u2014gentry and priesthood\u2014he is the only\norganic man, the sole relic of the Early Culture. There is no place for\nhim either in Stoic or in Socialistic thought.\n\nThus the Faust of the First Part of the tragedy, the passionate student\nof solitary midnights, is logically the progenitor of the Faust of the\nSecond Part and the new century, the type of a purely practical, far-\nseeing, outward-directed activity. In him Goethe presaged,\npsychologically, the whole future of West Europe. He is Civilization in\nthe place of Culture, external mechanism in place of internal organism,\nintellect as the petrifact of extinct soul. As the Faust of the\nbeginning is to the Faust of the end, so the Hellene of Pericles\u2019s age\nis to the Roman of C\u00e6sar\u2019s.\n\n V\n\nSo long as the man of a Culture that is approaching its fulfilment still\ncontinues to live straight before him naturally and unquestioningly, his\nlife has a settled conduct. This is the _instinctive_ morale, which may\ndisguise itself in a thousand controversial forms but which he himself\ndoes not controvert, because he _has_ it. As soon as Life is fatigued,\nas soon as a man is put on to the artificial soil of great cities\u2014which\nare intellectual worlds to themselves\u2014and needs a theory in which\nsuitably to present Life to himself, morale turns into a _problem_.\nCulture-morale is that which a man has, Civilization-morale that which\nhe looks for. The one is too deep to be exhaustible by logical means,\nthe other is a _function_ of logic. As late as Plato and as late as Kant\nethics are still mere dialectics, a game with concepts, or the rounding-\noff of a metaphysical system, something that at bottom would not be\nthought really necessary. The Categorical Imperative is merely an\nabstract statement of what, for Kant, was not in question at all. But\nwith Zeno and with Schopenhauer this is no longer so. It had become\nnecessary to discover, to invent or to squeeze into form, as a rule of\nbeing, that which was no longer anchored in instinct; and at this point\ntherefore begin the civilized ethics that are no longer the reflection\nof Life but the reflection of Knowledge upon Life. One feels that there\nis something artificial, soulless, half-true in all these _considered_\nsystems that fill the first centuries of all the Civilizations. They are\nnot those profound and almost unearthly creations that are worthy to\nrank with the great arts. All metaphysic of the high style, all pure\nintuition, vanishes before the one need that has suddenly made itself\nfelt, the need of a _practical_ morale for the governance of a Life that\ncan no longer govern itself. Up to Kant, up to Aristotle, up to the Yoga\nand Vedanta doctrines, philosophy had been a sequence of grand world-\nsystems in which _formal_ ethics occupied a very modest place. But now\nit became \u201cmoral philosophy\u201d with a metaphysic as background. The\nenthusiasm of epistemology had to give way to hard practical needs.\nSocialism, Stoicism and Buddhism are philosophies of this type.\n\nTo look at the world, no longer from the heights as \u00c6schylus, Plato,\nDante and Goethe did, but from the standpoint of oppressive actualities\nis _to exchange the bird\u2019s perspective for the frog\u2019s_. This exchange is\na fair measure of the fall from Culture to Civilization. Every ethic is\na formulation of a soul\u2019s view of its destiny\u2014heroic or practical, grand\nor commonplace, manly or old-manly. I distinguish, therefore, between a\n_tragic_ and a _plebeian_ morale. The tragic morale of a Culture knows\nand grasps the heaviness of being, but it draws therefrom the feeling of\npride that enables the burden to be borne. So \u00c6schylus, Shakespeare, the\nthinkers of the Brahman philosophy felt it; so Dante and German\nCatholicism. It is heard in the stern battle-hymn of Lutheranism \u201cEin\u2019\nfeste Burg ist unser Gott,\u201d and it echoes still in the Marseillaise. The\nplebeian morale of Epicurus and the Stoa, the sects of Buddha\u2019s day and\nthe 19th Century made rather battle-plans for the outman\u0153uvring of\ndestiny. What \u00c6schylus did in grand, the Stoa did in little\u2014no more\nfullness, but poverty, coldness and emptiness of life\u2014and all that Roman\nbigness achieved was to intensify this same intellectual chill and void.\nAnd there is the same relation between the ethical passion of the great\nBaroque masters\u2014Shakespeare, Bach, Kant, Goethe\u2014the manly will to\n_inward mastery_ of natural things that it felt to be far below itself,\nand modern Europe\u2019s state-provision, humanity-ideals, world-peace,\n\u201cgreatest happiness of greatest number,\u201d etc., which express the will to\nan _outward clearance from the path_ of things that are on the same\nlevel. This, no less than the other, is a manifestation of the will-to-\npower, as against the Classical endurance of the inevitable, but the\nfact remains that material bigness is not the same as metaphysical\nmajesty of achievement. The former lacks depth, lacks that which former\nmen had called God. The Faustian world-feeling of _deed_, which had been\nefficient in every great man from the Hohenstaufen and the Welf to\nFrederick the Great, Goethe and Napoleon, smoothes itself down to a\nphilosophy of _work_. Whether such a philosophy attacks or defends work\ndoes not affect its inward value. The Culture-idea of Deed and the\nCivilization-idea of Work are related as the attitude of \u00c6schylus\u2019s\nPrometheus and that of Diogenes. The one suffers and bears, the other\nlolls. It was _deeds_ of science that Galileo, Kepler and Newton\nperformed, but it is _scientific work_ that the modern physicist carries\nout. And, in spite of all the great words from Schopenhauer to Shaw, it\nis the plebeian morale of every day and \u201csound human reason\u201d that is the\nbasis of all our expositions and discussions of Life.\n\n VI\n\nEach Culture, further, has _its own mode of spiritual extinction_, which\nis that which follows of necessity from its life as a whole. And hence\nBuddhism, Stoicism and Socialism are morphologically equivalent as end-\nphenomena.\n\nFor even Buddhism is such. Hitherto the deeper meaning of it has always\nbeen misunderstood. It was _not_ a Puritan movement like, for instance,\nIslamism and Jansenism, _not_ a Reformation as the Dionysiac wave was\nfor the Apollinian world, and, quite generally, _not_ a religion like\nthe religions of the Vedas or the religion of the Apostle Paul,[440] but\na final and purely practical world-sentiment of tired megalopolitans who\nhad a closed-off Culture behind them and no future before them. It was\nthe basic feeling of the Indian Civilization and as such both equivalent\nto and \u201ccontemporary\u201d with Stoicism and Socialism. The quintessence of\nthis thoroughly worldly and unmetaphysical thought is to be found in the\nfamous sermon near Benares, the Four Noble Truths that won the prince-\nphilosopher his first adherents.[441] Its roots lay in the rationalist-\natheistic Sankhya philosophy, the world-view of which it tacitly\naccepts, just as the social ethic of the 19th Century comes from the\nSensualism and Materialism of the 18th and the Stoa (in spite of its\nsuperficial exploitation of Heraclitus) is derived from Protagoras and\nthe Sophists. In each case it is the all-power of Reason that is the\nstarting-point from which to discuss morale, and religion (in the sense\nof belief in anything metaphysical) does not enter into the matter.\nNothing could be more irreligious than these systems in their original\nforms\u2014and it is these, and not derivatives of them belonging to later\nstages of the Civilizations, that concern us here.\n\nBuddhism rejects all speculation about God and the cosmic problems; only\nself and the conduct of actual life are important to it. And it\ndefinitely did not recognize a soul. The standpoint of the Indian\npsychologist of early Buddhism was that of the Western psychologist and\nthe Western \u201cSocialist\u201d of to-day, who reduce the inward man to a bundle\nof sensations and an aggregation of electrochemical energies. The\nteacher Nagasena tells King Milinda[442] that the parts of the car in\nwhich he is journeying are not the car itself, that \u201ccar\u201d is only a word\nand that so also is the soul. The spiritual elements are designated\n_Skandhas_, groups, and are impermanent. Here is complete correspondence\nwith the ideas of association-psychology, and in fact the doctrines of\nBuddha contain much materialism.[443] As the Stoic appropriated\nHeraclitus\u2019s idea of Logos and flattened it to a materialist sense, as\nthe Socialism based on Darwin has mechanicalized (with the aid of Hegel)\nGoethe\u2019s deep idea of development, so Buddhism treated the Brahman\nnotion of _Karma_, the idea (hardly achievable in our thought) of a\nbeing actively completing itself. Often enough it regarded this quite\nmaterially as a world-stuff under transformation.\n\nWhat we have before us is three forms of Nihilism, using the word in\nNietzsche\u2019s sense. In each case, the ideals of yesterday, the religious\nand artistic and political forms that have grown up through the\ncenturies, are undone; yet even in this last act, this self-repudiation,\neach several Culture employs the prime-symbol of its whole existence.\nThe Faustian nihilist\u2014Ibsen or Nietzsche, Marx or Wagner\u2014shatters the\nideals. The Apollinian\u2014Epicurus or Antisthenes or Zeno\u2014watches them\ncrumble before his eyes. And the Indian withdraws from their presence\ninto himself. Stoicism is directed to _individual self-management_, to\nstatuesque and purely present being, without regard to future or past or\nneighbour. Socialism is the dynamic treatment of the same theme; it is\ndefensive like Stoicism, but what it defends is not the pose but the\nworking-out of the life; and more, it is offensive-defensive, for with a\npowerful thrust into distance it spreads itself into all future and over\nall mankind, which shall be brought under one single regimen. Buddhism,\nwhich only a mere dabbler in religious research could compare with\nChristianity,[444] is hardly reproducible in words of the Western\nlanguages. But it is permissible to speak of a Stoic Nirvana and point\nto the figure of Diogenes, and even the notion of a Socialist Nirvana\nhas its justification in so far that European weariness covers its\nflight from the struggle for existence under catchwords of world-peace,\nHumanity and brotherhood of Man. Still, none of this comes anywhere near\nthe strange profundity of the Buddhist conception of Nirvana. It would\nseem as though the soul of an old Culture, when from its last\nrefinements it is passing into death, clings, as it were, jealously to\nthe property that is most essentially its own, to its form-content and\nthe innate prime-symbol. There is nothing in Buddhism that could be\nregarded as \u201cChristian,\u201d nothing in Stoicism that is to be found in the\nIslam of A.D. 1000, nothing that Confucius shares with Socialism. The\nphrase \u201csi duo faciunt idem, non est idem\u201d\u2014which ought to appear at the\nhead of every historical work that deals with living and uniquely-\noccurring Becomings and not with logically, causally and numerically\ncomprehensible Becomes\u2014is specially applicable to these final\nexpressions of Culture-movements. In all Civilizations being ceases to\nbe suffused with soul and comes to be suffused with intellect, but in\neach several Civilization the intellect is of a particular structure and\nsubject to the form-language of a particular symbolism. And just because\nof all this individualness of the Being which, working in the\nunconscious, fashions the last-phase creations on the historical\nsurface, relationship of the instances to one another _in point of\nhistorical position_ becomes decisively important. What they bring to\nexpression is different in each case, but the fact that they bring it to\nexpression _so_ marks them as \u201ccontemporary\u201d with one another. The\nBuddhistic abnegation of full resolute life has a Stoic flavour, the\nStoic abnegation of the same a Buddhistic flavour. Allusion has already\nbeen made to the affinity between the Katharsis of the Attic drama and\nthe Nirvana-idea. One\u2019s feeling is that ethical Socialism, although a\ncentury has already been given to its development, has not yet reached\nthe clear hard resigned form of its own that it will finally possess.\nProbably the next decades will impart to it the ripe formulation that\nChrysippus imparted to the Stoa. But even now there is a look of the\nStoa in Socialism, when it is that of the higher order and the narrower\nappeal, when its tendency is the Roman-Prussian and entirely unpopular\ntendency to self-discipline and self-renunciation from sense of great\nduty; and a look of Buddhism in its contempt for momentary ease and\n_carpe diem_. And, on the other hand, it has unmistakably the Epicurean\nlook in that mode of it which alone makes it effective downward and\noutward as a popular ideal, in which it is a hedonism (not indeed of\neach-for-himself, but) of individuals in the name of all.\n\nEvery soul has religion, which is only another word for its existence.\nAll living forms in which it expresses itself\u2014all arts, doctrines,\ncustoms, all metaphysical and mathematical form-worlds, all ornament,\nevery column and verse and idea\u2014are ultimately religious, and _must_ be\nso. But from the setting-in of Civilization they _cannot_ be so any\nlonger. As the essence of every Culture is religion, so\u2014and\n_consequently_\u2014the essence of every Civilization is irreligion\u2014the two\nwords are synonymous. He who cannot feel this in the creativeness of\nManet as against Velasquez, of Wagner as against Haydn, of Lysippus as\nagainst Phidias, of Theocritus as against Pindar, knows not what the\nbest means in art. Even Rococo in its worldliest creations is still\nreligious. But the buildings of Rome, even when they are temples, are\nirreligious; the one touch of religious architecture that there was in\nold Rome was the intrusive Magian-souled Pantheon, first of the mosques.\nThe megalopolis itself, as against the old Culture-towns\u2014Alexandria as\nagainst Athens, Paris as against Bruges, Berlin as against N\u00fcrnberg\u2014is\nirreligious[445] down to the last detail, down to the look of the\nstreets, the dry intelligence of the faces.[446] And, correspondingly,\nthe ethical sentiments belonging to the form-language of the megalopolis\nare irreligious and soulless also. Socialism is the Faustian world-\nfeeling become irreligious; \u201cChristianity,\u201d so called (and qualified\neven as \u201ctrue Christianity\u201d), is always on the lips of the English\nSocialist, to whom it seems to be something in the nature of a \u201cdogma-\nless morale.\u201d Stoicism also was irreligious as compared with Orphic\nreligion, and Buddhism as compared with Vedic, and it is of no\nimportance whatever that the Roman Stoic approved and conformed to\nEmperor-worship, that the later Buddhist sincerely denied his atheism,\nor that the Socialist calls himself an earnest Freethinker or even goes\non believing in God.\n\nIt is this extinction of living inner religiousness, which gradually\ntells upon even the most insignificant element in a man\u2019s being, that\nbecomes phenomenal in the historical world-picture at the turn from the\nCulture to the Civilization, the _Climacteric_ of the Culture, as I have\nalready called it, the time of change in which a mankind loses its\nspiritual fruitfulness for ever, and building takes the place of\nbegetting. Unfruitfulness\u2014understanding the word in all its direct\nseriousness\u2014marks the brain-man of the megalopolis, as the sign of\nfulfilled destiny, and it is one of the most impressive facts of\nhistorical symbolism that the change manifests itself not only in the\nextinction of great art, of great courtesy, of great formal thought, of\nthe great style in all things, but also quite carnally in the\nchildlessness and \u201crace-suicide\u201d of the civilized and rootless strata, a\nphenomenon not peculiar to ourselves but already observed and deplored\u2014\nand of course not remedied\u2014in Imperial Rome and Imperial China.[447]\n\n VII\n\nAs to the living representatives of these new and purely intellectual\ncreations, the men of the \u201cNew Order\u201d upon whom every decline-time\nfounds such hopes, we cannot be in any doubt. They are the fluid\nmegalopolitan Populace, the rootless city-mass (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af, as Athens\ncalled it) that has replaced the People, the Culture-folk that was\nsprung from the soil and peasantlike even when it lived in towns. They\nare the market-place loungers of Alexandria and Rome, the newspaper-\nreaders of our own corresponding time; the \u201ceducated\u201d man who then and\nnow makes a cult of intellectual mediocrity and a church of\nadvertisement;[448] the man of the theatres and places of amusement, of\nsport and \u201cbest-sellers.\u201d It is this late-appearing mass and _not_\n\u201cmankind\u201d that is the object of Stoic and Socialist propaganda, and one\ncould match it with equivalent phenomena in the Egyptian New Empire,\nBuddhist India and Confucian China.\n\nCorrespondingly, there is a characteristic form of public effect, the\n_Diatribe_.[449] First observed as a Hellenistic phenomenon, it is an\nefficient form in _all_ Civilizations. Dialectical, practical and\nplebeian through and through, it replaces the old meaningful and far-\nranging Creation of the great man by the unrestrained Agitation of the\nsmall and shrewd, ideas by aims, symbols by programs. The expansion-\nelement common to all Civilizations, the imperialistic substitution of\nouter space for inner spiritual space, characterizes this also. Quantity\nreplaces quality, spreading replaces deepening. We must not confuse this\nhurried and shallow activity with the Faustian will-to-power. All it\nmeans is that creative inner life is at an end and intellectual\nexistence can only be kept up materially, by outward effect in the space\nof the City. Diatribe belongs necessarily to the \u201creligion of the\nirreligious\u201d and is the characteristic form that the \u201ccure of souls\u201d\ntakes therein. It appears as the Indian preaching, the Classical\nrhetoric, and the Western journalism. It appeals not to the best but to\nthe most, and it values its means according to the number of successes\nobtained by them. It substitutes for the old thoughtfulness an\n_intellectual male-prostitution_ by speech and writing, which fills and\ndominates the halls and the market-places of the megalopolis. As the\nwhole of Hellenistic philosophy is rhetorical, so the social-ethic\nsystem of Zola\u2019s novel and Ibsen\u2019s drama is journalistic. If\nChristianity in its original expansion became involved with this\nspiritual prostitution, it must not be confounded with it. The essential\npoint of Christian missionarism has almost always been missed.[450]\nPrimitive Christianity was a _Magian_ religion and the soul of its\nFounder was utterly incapable of this brutal activity without tact or\ndepth. And it was the Hellenistic practice of Paul[451] that\u2014against the\ndetermined opposition of the original community, as we all know\u2014\nintroduced it into the noisy, urban, demagogic publicity of the Imperium\nRomanum. Slight as his Hellenistic tincture may have been, it sufficed\nto make him outwardly a part of the Classical Civilization. Jesus had\ndrawn unto himself fishermen and peasants, Paul devoted himself to the\nmarket-places of the great cities and the megalopolitan form of\npropaganda. The word \u201cpagan\u201d (man of the heath or country-side) survives\nto this day to tell us who it was that this propaganda affected _last_.\nWhat a difference, indeed what diametrical opposition, between Paul and\nBoniface the passionate Faustian of woods and lone valleys, the joyous\ncultivating Cistercians, the Teutonic Knights of the Slavonic East!\n_Here_ was youth once more, blossoming and yearning in a peasant\nlandscape, and not until the 19th Century, when that landscape and all\npertaining to it had aged into a world based on the megalopolis and\ninhabited by the masses, did Diatribe appear in it. A true peasantry\nenters into the field of view of Socialism as little as it did into\nthose of Buddha and the Stoa. It is only now, in the Western\nmegalopolis, that the equivalent of the Paul-type emerges, to figure in\nChristian or anti-Christian, social or theosophical \u201ccauses,\u201d Free\nThought or the making of religious fancy-ware.\n\nThis decisive turn towards the one remaining kind of life\u2014that is, life\nas a fact, seen biologically and under causality-relations instead of as\nDestiny\u2014is particularly manifest in the ethical passion with which men\nnow turn to philosophies of digestion, nutrition and hygiene. Alcohol-\nquestions and Vegetarianism are treated with religious earnestness\u2014such,\napparently, being the gravest problems that the \u201cmen of the New Order,\u201d\nthe generations of frog-perspective, are capable of tackling. Religions,\nas they are when they stand new-born on the threshold of the new\nCulture\u2014the Vedic, the Orphic, the Christianity of Jesus and the\nFaustian Christianity of the old Germany of chivalry\u2014would have felt it\ndegradation even to glance at questions of this kind. Nowadays, one\n_rises_ to them. Buddhism is unthinkable without a bodily diet to match\nits spiritual diet, and amongst the Sophists, in the circle of\nAntisthenes, in the Stoa and amongst the Sceptics such questions became\never more and more prominent. Even Aristotle wrote on the alcohol-\nquestion, and a whole series of philosophers took up that of\nvegetarianism. And the only difference between Apollinian and Faustian\nmethods here is that the Cynic theorized about his own digestion while\nShaw treats of \u201ceverybody\u2019s.\u201d The one disinterests himself, the other\ndictates. Even Nietzsche, as we know, handled such questions with relish\nin his _Ecce Homo_.\n\n VIII\n\nLet us, once more, review Socialism (independently of the economic\nmovement of the same name) as the Faustian example of Civilization-\nethics. Its friends regard it as the form of the future, its enemies as\na sign of downfall, and both are equally right. We are all Socialists,\nwittingly or unwittingly, willingly or unwillingly. Even resistance to\nit wears its form.\n\nSimilarly, and equally necessarily, all Classical men of the Late period\nwere Stoics unawares. The whole Roman people, as a body, has a Stoic\nsoul. The genuine Roman, the very man who fought Stoicism hardest, was a\nStoic of a stricter sort than ever a Greek was. The Latin language of\nthe last centuries before Christ was the mightiest of Stoic creations.\n\n_Ethical Socialism is the maximum possible of attainment to a life-\nfeeling under the aspect of Aims_;[452] for the directional movement of\nLife that is felt as Time and Destiny, when it hardens, takes the form\nof an intellectual machinery of means and end. Direction is the living,\naim the dead. The passionate energy of the advance is generically\nFaustian, the mechanical remainder\u2014\u201cProgress\u201d\u2014is specifically\nSocialistic, the two being related as body and skeleton. And of the two\nit is the generic quality that distinguishes Socialism from Buddhism and\nStoicism; these, with their respective ideals of Nirvana and Ataraxia,\nare no less mechanical in design than Socialism is, but they know\nnothing of the latter\u2019s dynamic energy of expansion, of its will-to-\ninfinity, of its passion of the third dimension.\n\nIn spite of its foreground appearances, ethical Socialism is _not_ a\nsystem of compassion, humanity, peace and kindly care, but one of will-\nto-power. Any other reading of it is illusory. The aim is through and\nthrough imperialist; welfare, but welfare in the expansive sense, the\nwelfare not of the diseased but of the energetic man who ought to be\ngiven and must be given _freedom to do_, regardless of obstacles of\nwealth, birth and tradition. Amongst us, sentimental morale, morale\ndirected to happiness and usefulness, is _never_ the final instinct,\nhowever we may persuade ourselves otherwise. The head and front of moral\nmodernity must ever be Kant, who (in this respect Rousseau\u2019s pupil)\nexcludes from his ethics the motive of Compassion and lays down the\nformula \u201c_Act_, so that....\u201d All ethic in this style expresses and is\nmeant to express the will-to-infinity, and this will demands conquest of\nthe moment, the present, and the foreground of life. In place of the\nSocratic formula \u201cKnowledge is Virtue\u201d we have, even in Bacon, the\nformula \u201cKnowledge is Power.\u201d The Stoic takes the world as he finds it,\nbut the Socialist wants to organize and recast it in form and substance,\nto fill it with _his own_ spirit. The Stoic adapts himself, the\nSocialist commands. He would have the whole world bear the form of _his_\nview, thus transferring the idea of the \u201cCritique of Pure Reason\u201d into\nthe ethical field. This is the ultimate meaning of the Categorical\nImperative, which he brings to bear in political, social and economic\nmatters alike\u2014act as though the maxims that you practise _were to become\nby your will the law for all_. And this tyrannical tendency is not\nabsent from even the shallowest phenomena of the time.\n\nIt is not attitude and mien, but activity that is to be given form. As\nin China and in Egypt, life only counts in so far as it is deed. And it\nis the mechanicalizing of the organic concept of Deed that leads to the\nconcept of _work_ as commonly understood, _the civilised form of\nFaustian effecting_. This morale, the insistent tendency to give to Life\nthe most active forms imaginable, is stronger than reason, whose moral\nprograms\u2014be they never so reverenced, inwardly believed or ardently\nchampioned\u2014are only _effective_ in so far as they either lie, or are\nmistakenly supposed to lie, in the direction of this force. Otherwise\nthey remain mere words. We have to distinguish, in all modernism,\nbetween the popular side with its _dolce far niente_, its solicitude for\nhealth, happiness, freedom from care, and universal peace\u2014in a word, its\nsupposedly Christian ideals\u2014and the higher Ethos which values deeds\nonly, which (like everything else that is Faustian) is neither\nunderstood nor desired by the masses, which _grandly idealizes the Aim\nand therefore Work_. If we would set against the Roman \u201cpanem et\ncircenses\u201d (the final life-symbol of Epicurean-Stoic existence, and, at\nbottom, of Indian existence also) some corresponding symbol of the North\n(and of Old China and Egypt) it would be _the_ \u201c_Right to Work_.\u201d This\nwas the basis of Fichte\u2019s thoroughly Prussian (and now European)\nconception of State-Socialism, and in the last terrible stages of\nevolution it will culminate in the _Duty to Work_.\n\nThink, lastly, of the Napoleonic in it, the \"_\u00e6re perennius_,\" the will-\nto-duration. Apollinian man looked _back_ to a Golden Age; this relieved\nhim of the trouble of thinking upon what was still to come. The\nSocialist\u2014the dying Faust of Part II\u2014is the man of historical care, who\nfeels the Future as his task and aim, and accounts the happiness of the\nmoment as worthless in comparison. The Classical spirit, with its\noracles and its omens, wants only to _know_ the future, but the\nWesterner would _shape_ it. _The Third Kingdom is the Germanic ideal._\nFrom Joachim of Floris to Nietzsche and Ibsen\u2014arrows of yearning to the\nother bank, as the Zarathustra says\u2014every great man has linked his life\nto an eternal _morning_. Alexander\u2019s life was a wondrous paroxysm, a\ndream which conjured up the Homeric ages from the grave. Napoleon\u2019s life\nwas an immense toil, not for himself nor for France, but for the Future.\n\nIt is well, at this point, to recall once more that each of the\ndifferent great Cultures has pictured _world-history_ in its own special\nway. Classical man only saw himself and his fortunes as statically\npresent with himself, and did not ask \u201cwhence\u201d or \u201cwhither.\u201d Universal\nhistory was for him an impossible notion. This is the static way of\nlooking at history. Magian man sees it as the great cosmic drama of\ncreation and foundering, the struggle between Soul and Spirit, Good and\nEvil, God and Devil\u2014a strictly-defined happening with, as its\nculmination, _one single Peripeteia_\u2014the appearance of the Saviour.\nFaustian man sees in history a tense unfolding towards an _aim_; its\n\u201cancient-medi\u00e6val-modern\u201d sequence is a _dynamic_ image. He _cannot_\npicture history to himself in any other way. This scheme of three parts\nis not indeed world-history as such, general world-history. But it _is_\nthe image of world-history as it is conceived in the Faustian style. It\nbegins to be true and consistent with the beginning of the Western\nCulture and ceases with its ceasing; and Socialism in the highest sense\nis logically the crown of it, the form of its conclusive state that has\nbeen implicit in it from Gothic onwards.\n\nAnd here Socialism\u2014in contrast to Stoicism and Buddhism\u2014becomes tragic.\nIt is of the deepest significance that Nietzsche, so completely clear\nand sure in dealing with what should be destroyed, what transvalued,\nloses himself in nebulous generalities as soon as he comes to discuss\nthe Whither, the Aim. His criticism of decadence is unanswerable, but\nhis theory of the Superman is a castle in the air. It is the same with\nIbsen\u2014\u201cBrand\u201d and \u201cRosmersholm,\u201d \u201cEmperor and Galilean\u201d and \u201cMaster-\nbuilder\u201d\u2014and with Hebbel, with Wagner and with everyone else. And\ntherein lies a deep necessity; for, from Rousseau onwards, Faustian man\nhas nothing more to hope for in anything pertaining to the grand style\nof Life. Something has come to an end. The Northern soul has exhausted\nits inner possibilities, and of the dynamic force and insistence that\nhad expressed itself in world-historical visions of the future\u2014visions\nof millennial scope\u2014nothing remains but the mere pressure, the passion\nyearning to create, the form without the content. This soul was Will and\nnothing but Will. It needed an aim for its Columbus-longing; it _had_ to\ngive its inherent activity at least the illusion of a meaning and an\nobject. And so the keener critic will find a trace of Hjalmar Ekdal in\nall modernity, even its highest phenomena. Ibsen called it the lie of\nlife. There is something of this lie in the entire intellect of the\nWestern Civilization, so far as this applies itself to the future of\nreligion, of art or of philosophy, to a social-ethical aim, a Third\nKingdom. For deep down beneath it all is the gloomy feeling, not to be\nrepressed, that all this hectic zeal is the effort of a soul that may\nnot and cannot rest to deceive itself. This is the tragic situation\u2014the\ninversion of the Hamlet motive\u2014that produced Nietzsche\u2019s strained\nconception of a \u201creturn,\u201d which nobody really believed but he himself\nclutched fast lest the feeling of a mission should slip out of him. This\nLife\u2019s lie is the foundation of Bayreuth\u2014which _would be_ something\nwhereas Pergamum _was_ something\u2014and a thread of it runs through the\nentire fabric of Socialism, political, economic and ethical, which\nforces itself to ignore the annihilating seriousness of its own final\nimplications, so as to keep alive the illusion of the historical\nnecessity of its own existence.\n\n IX\n\nIt remains, now, to say a word as to the _morphology of a history of\nphilosophy_.\n\nThere is no such thing as Philosophy \u201cin itself.\u201d Every Culture has its\nown philosophy, which is a part of its total symbolic expression and\nforms with its posing of problems and methods of thought an intellectual\nornamentation that is closely related to that of architecture and the\narts of form. From the high and distant standpoint it matters very\nlittle what \u201ctruths\u201d thinkers have managed to formulate in words within\ntheir respective schools, for, here as in every great art, it is the\nschools, conventions and repertory of forms that are the basic elements.\nInfinitely more important than the answers are the _questions_\u2014the\nchoice of them, the inner form of them. For it is the _particular_ way\nin which a macrocosm presents itself to the understanding man of a\n_particular_ Culture that determines _a priori_ the whole necessity of\nasking them, and the way in which they are asked.\n\nThe Classical and the Faustian Cultures, and equally the Indian and the\nChinese, have each their proper ways of asking, and further, in _each_\ncase, all the great questions have been posed at the very outset. There\nis no modern problem that the Gothic did not see and bring into form, no\nHellenistic problem that did not of necessity come up for the old Orphic\ntemple-teachings.\n\nIt is of no importance whether the subtilizing turn of mind expresses\nitself here in oral tradition and there in books, whether such books are\npersonal creations of an \u201cI\u201d as they are amongst ourselves or anonymous\nfluid masses of texts as in India, and whether the result is a set of\ncomprehensible systems or, as in Egypt, glimpses of the last secrets are\nveiled in expressions of art and ritual. Whatever the variations, the\ngeneral course of philosophies as organisms is the same. At the\nbeginning of every springtime period, philosophy, intimately related to\ngreat architecture and religion, is the intellectual echo of a mighty\nmetaphysical living, and its task is to establish critically the sacred\ncausality in the world-image seen with the eye of faith.[453] The basic\ndistinctions, not only of science but also of philosophy, are dependent\non, not divorced from, the elements of the corresponding religion. In\nthis springtime, thinkers are, not merely in spirit but actually in\nstatus, _priests_. Such were the Schoolmen and the Mystics of the Gothic\nand the Vedic as of the Homeric[454] and the Early-Arabian[455]\ncenturies. With the setting-in of the Late period, and not earlier,\nphilosophy becomes urban and worldly, frees itself from subservience to\nreligion and even dares to make that religion itself the object of\nepistemological criticism. The great theme of Brahman, Ionic and Baroque\nphilosophies is the problem of knowing. The urban spirit turns to look\nat itself, in order to establish the proposition that there is no higher\njudgment-seat of knowing beyond itself, and with that thought draws\nnearer to higher mathematics and instead of priests we have men of the\nworld, statesmen and merchants and discoverers, tested in high places\nand by high tasks, whose ideas about thought rest upon deep experience\nof life. Of such are the series of great thinkers from Thales to\nProtagoras and from Bacon to Hume, and the series of pre-Confucian and\npre-Buddha thinkers of whom we hardly know more than the fact that they\nexisted.\n\nAt the end of such series stand Kant and Aristotle,[456] and after them\nthere set in the Civilization-philosophies. In every Culture, thought\nmounts to a climax, setting the questions at the outset and answering\nthem with ever-increasing force of intellectual expression\u2014and, as we\nhave said before, ornamental significance\u2014until exhausted; and then it\npasses into a decline in which the problems of knowing are in every\nrespect stale repetitions of no significance. There is a metaphysical\nperiod, originally of a religious and finally of a rationalistic cast\u2014in\nwhich thought and life still contain something of chaos, an unexploited\nfund that enables them effectively to create\u2014and an ethical period in\nwhich life itself, now become megalopolitan, appears to call for inquiry\nand has to turn the still available remainder of philosophical creative-\npower on to its own conduct and maintenance. In the one period life\n_reveals_ itself, the other has life as its _object_. The one is\n\u201ctheoretical\u201d (contemplative) in the grand sense, the other perforce\npractical. Even the Kantian system is in its deepest characters\n_contemplated_ in the first instance and _only afterwards_ logically and\nsystematically formulated and ordered.\n\nWe see this evidenced in Kant\u2019s attitude to mathematics. No one is a\ngenuine metaphysician who has not penetrated into the form-world of\nnumbers, who has not lived them into himself as a symbolism. And in fact\nit was the great thinkers of the Baroque who created the analytical\nmathematic, and the same is true, _mutatis mutandis_, of the great pre-\nSocratics and Plato. Descartes and Leibniz stand beside Newton and\nGauss, Pythagoras and Plato by Archytas and Archimedes, at the summits\nof mathematical development. But already in Kant the philosopher has\nbecome, as mathematician, negligible. Kant no more penetrated to the\nlast subtleties of the Calculus as it stood in his own day than he\nabsorbed the axiomatic of Leibniz. The same may be said of Aristotle.\nAnd thenceforward there is no philosopher who is counted as a\nmathematician. Fichte, Hegel and the Romantics were entirely\nunmathematical, and so were Zeno[457] and Epicurus. Schopenhauer in this\nfield is weak to the point of crudity, and of Nietzsche the less said\nthe better. When the form-world of numbers passed out of its ken,\nphilosophy lost a great convention, and since then it has lacked not\nonly structural strength but also what may be called the _grand style_\nof thinking. Schopenhauer himself admitted that he was a hand-to-mouth\nthinker (_Gelegenheitsdenker_).\n\nWith the decline of metaphysics, ethics has outgrown its status as a\nsubordinate element in abstract theory. Henceforth it _is_ philosophy,\nthe other divisions being absorbed into it and practical living becoming\nthe centre of consideration. The passion of pure thought sinks down.\nMetaphysics, mistress yesterday, is handmaid now; all it is required to\ndo is to provide a foundation for practical views. And the foundation\nbecomes more and more superfluous. It becomes the custom to despise and\nmock at the metaphysical, the unpractical, the philosophy of \u201cstone for\nbread.\u201d In Schopenhauer it is for the sake of the fourth book that the\nfirst three exist at all. Kant merely _thought_ that it was the same\nwith him; in reality, pure and not applied reason is still his centre of\ncreation. There is exactly the same difference in Classical philosophy\nbefore and after Aristotle\u2014on the one hand, a grandly conceived Cosmos\nto which a _formal_ ethic adds almost nothing, and, on the other, ethics\nas such, as programme, as necessity with a desultory _ad hoc_ metaphysic\nfor basis. And the entire absence of logical scruple with which\nNietzsche, for instance, dashes off such theories makes no difference\nwhatever to our appreciation of his philosophy proper.\n\nIt is well known[458] that Schopenhauer did not proceed to Pessimism\nfrom his metaphysic but, on the contrary, was led to develop his system\nby the pessimism that fell upon him in his seventeenth year. Shaw, a\nmost significant witness, observes in his \u201cQuintessence of Ibsenism\u201d\nthat one may quite well accept Schopenhauer\u2019s philosophy and reject his\nmetaphysics\u2014therein quite accurately discriminating between that which\nmakes him the first thinker of the new age and that which is included\nbecause an obsolete tradition held it to be indispensable in a complete\nphilosophy. No one would undertake to divide Kant thus, and the attempt\nwould not succeed if it were made. But with Nietzsche one has no\ndifficulty in perceiving that his \u201cphilosophy\u201d was through-and-through\nan inner and very early experience, while he covered his metaphysical\nrequirements rapidly and often imperfectly by the aid of a few books,\nand never managed to state even his ethical theory with any exactitude.\nJust the same overlay of living seasonable ethical thought on a stratum\nof metaphysics required by convention (but in fact superfluous) is to be\nfound in Epicurus and the Stoics. We need have no doubt after this as to\nwhat is the essence of a Civilization-philosophy.\n\nStrict metaphysics has exhausted its possibilities. The world-city has\ndefinitely overcome the land, and now its spirit fashions a theory\nproper to itself, directed of necessity outward, soulless. Henceforward,\nwe might with some justice replace the word \u201csoul\u201d by the word \u201cbrain.\u201d\nAnd, since in the Western \u201cbrain\u201d the will to power, the tyrannical set\ntowards the Future and purpose to organize everybody and everything,\ndemands practical expression, ethics, as it loses touch more and more\nwith its metaphysical past, steadily assumes a _social-ethical_ and\n_social-economic_ character. The philosophy of the present that starts\nfrom Hegel and Schopenhauer is, so far as it represents the spirit of\nthe age (which, e.g., Lotze and Herbart do not), a _critique of\nsociety_.\n\nThe attention that the Stoic gave to his own body, the Westerner devotes\nto the body social. It is not chance that Hegelian philosophy has given\nrise to Socialism (Marx, Engels), to Anarchism (Stirner) and to the\nproblem-posing social drama (Hebbel). Socialism is political economy\nconverted into the ethical and, moreover, the _imperative_ mood. So long\nas a metaphysic existed (that is, till Kant) political economy remained\na science. But as soon as \u201cphilosophy\u201d became synonymous with practical\nethics, _it replaced mathematics as the basis of thought about the\nworld_\u2014hence the importance of Cousin, Bentham, Comte, Mill and Spencer.\n\nTo choose his material at will is not given to the philosopher, neither\nis the material of philosophy always and everywhere the same. There are\nno eternal questions, but only questions arising out of the feelings of\na particular being and posed by it. _Alles Verg\u00e4ngliche ist nur ein\nGleichnis_ applies also to every genuine philosophy as the intellectual\nexpression of this being, as the actualization of spiritual\npossibilities in a form-world of concepts, judgments and thought-\nstructures comprised in the living phenomenon of its author. Any and\nevery such philosophy is, from the first word to the last, from its most\nabstract proposition to its most telltale trait of personality, a thing-\nbecome, mirrored over from soul into world, from the realm of freedom\ninto that of necessity, from the immediate-living into the dimensional-\nlogical; and on that very account it is mortal, and its life has\nprescribed rhythm and duration. _The choice of them, therefore, is\nsubject to strict necessity._ Each epoch has its own, important for\nitself and for no other epoch. It is the mark of the born philosopher\nthat he sees his epoch and his theme with a sure eye. Apart from this,\nthere is nothing of any importance in philosophical production\u2014merely\ntechnical knowledge and the industry requisite for the building up of\nsystematic and conceptual subtleties.\n\nConsequently, the distinctive philosophy of the 19th Century is _only_\nEthics and social critique in the productive sense\u2014nothing more. And\nconsequently, again, its most important representatives (apart from\nactual practitioners) are the _dramatists_. They are the real\nphilosophers of Faustian activism, and compared with them not one of the\nlecture-room philosophers and systematics counts at all. All that these\nunimportant pedants have done for us is, so to write and rewrite the\nhistory of philosophy (and what history!\u2014collections of dates and\n\u201cresults\u201d) that no one to-day knows what the history of philosophy is or\nwhat it might be.\n\nThanks to this, the deep organic unity in the thought of this epoch has\nnever yet been perceived. The essence of it, from the philosophical\npoint of view, can be precised by asking the question: In how far is\nShaw the pupil and fulfiller of Nietzsche? The question is put in no\nironic spirit. Shaw is the one thinker of eminence who has consistently\nadvanced in the same direction as that of the true Nietzsche\u2014namely,\nproductive criticism of the Western morale\u2014while following out as poet\nthe last implications of Ibsen and devoting the balance of the artistic\ncreativeness that is in him to practical discussions.\n\nSave in so far as the belated Romanticist in him has determined the\nstyle, sound and attitude of his philosophy, Nietzsche is in every\nrespect a disciple of the materialistic decades. That which drew him\nwith such passion to Schopenhauer was (not that he himself or anyone\nelse was conscious of it) that element of Schopenhauer\u2019s doctrine by\nwhich he destroyed the great metaphysic and (without meaning to do so)\nparodied his master Kant; that is to say, the modification of all deep\nideas of the Baroque age into tangible and mechanistic notions. Kant\nspeaks in inadequate words, which hide a mighty and scarcely\napprehensible intuition, an intuition of the world as appearance or\nphenomenon. In Schopenhauer this becomes the world as brain-phenomenon\n(Gehirnph\u00e4nomen). The change-over from tragic philosophy to\nphilosophical plebeianism is complete. It will be enough to cite one\npassage. In \u201cThe World as Will and Idea\u201d Schopenhauer says: \u201cThe will,\nas thing-in-itself, constitutes the inner, true and indestructible\nessence of the man; in itself, however, it is without consciousness. For\nthe consciousness is conditioned by the intellect and this is a mere\naccident of our being, since it is a function of the brain, and that\nagain (with its dependent nerves and spinal cord) is a mere fruit, a\nproduct, nay, even a parasite of the rest of the organism, inasmuch as\nit does not intervene directly in the latter\u2019s activities but only\nserves a purpose of self-preservation by regulating its relations with\nthe outer world.\u201d Here we have exactly the fundamental position of the\nflattest materialism. It was not for nothing that Schopenhauer, like\nRousseau before him, studied the English sensualists. From them he\nlearned to misread Kant in the spirit of megalopolitan utilitarian\nmodernity. The intellect as instrument of the will-to-life,[459] as\nweapon in the struggle for existence, the ideas brought to grotesque\nexpression by Shaw in \u201cMan and Superman\u201d\u2014it was because this was his\nview of the world that Schopenhauer became the fashionable philosopher\nwhen Darwin\u2019s main work was published in 1859. In contrast to Schelling,\nHegel and Fichte, he was a philosopher, and the only philosopher, whose\nmetaphysical propositions could be absorbed with ease by intellectual\nmediocrity. The clarity of which he was so proud threatened at every\nmoment to reveal itself as triviality. While retaining enough of formula\nto produce an atmosphere of profundity and exclusiveness, he presented\nthe civilized view of the world complete and assimilable. His system is\n_anticipated Darwinism_, and the speech of Kant and the concepts of the\nIndians are simply clothing. In his book \u201cUeber den Willen in der Natur\u201d\n(1835) we find already the struggle for self-preservation in Nature, the\nhuman intellect as master-weapon in that struggle and sexual love as\nunconscious selection according to biological interest.[460]\n\nIt is the view that Darwin (via Malthus) brought to bear with\nirresistible success in the field of zoology. The economic origin of\nDarwinism is shown by the fact that the system deduced from the\nsimilarities between men and the higher animals ceases to fit even at\nthe level of the plant-world and becomes positively absurd as soon as it\nis seriously attempted to apply it with its will-tendency (natural\nselection, mimicry) to primitive organic forms.[461] Proof, to the\nDarwinian, means to the ordering and pictorial presentation of a\nselection of facts so that they conform to his historico-dynamic basic\nfeeling of \u201cEvolution.\u201d Darwinism\u2014that is to say, that totality of very\nvaried and discrepant ideas, in which the common factor is merely the\napplication of the causality principle to living things, which therefore\nis a _method and not a result_\u2014was known in all details to the 18th\nCentury. Rousseau was championing the ape-man theory as early as 1754.\nWhat Darwin originated is only the \u201cManchester School\u201d system, and it is\nthis _latent political element in it that accounts for its popularity_.\n\nThe spiritual unity of the century is manifest enough here. From\nSchopenhauer to Shaw, everyone has been, without being aware of it,\nbringing the same principle into form. Everyone (including even those\nwho, like Hebbel, knew nothing of Darwin) is a derivative of the\nevolution-idea\u2014and of the shallow civilized and not the deep Goethian\nform of it at that\u2014whether he issues it with a biological or an economic\nimprint. There is evolution, too, in the evolution-idea itself, which is\nFaustian through and through, which displays (in sharpest contrast to\nAristotle\u2019s timeless entelechy-idea) all our passionate urgency towards\ninfinite future, our _will_ and sense of _aim_ which is so immanent in,\nso specific to, the Faustian spirit as to be the _a priori_ form rather\nthan the discovered principle of our Nature-picture. And in the\nevolution of evolution we find the same change taking place as\nelsewhere, the turn of the Culture to the Civilization. In Goethe\nevolution is upright, in Darwin it is flat; in Goethe organic, in Darwin\nmechanical; in Goethe an experience and emblem, in Darwin a matter of\ncognition and law. To Goethe evolution meant inward fulfilment, to\nDarwin it meant \u201cProgress.\u201d Darwin\u2019s struggle for existence, which he\nread _into_ Nature and not out of it, is only the plebeian form of that\nprimary feeling which in Shakespeare\u2019s tragedies moves the great\nrealities against one another; but what Shakespeare inwardly saw, felt\nand actualized in his figures as destiny, Darwinism comprehends as\ncausal connexion and formulates as a superficial system of utilities.\nAnd it is this system and not this primary feeling that is the basis of\nthe utterances of \u201cZarathustra,\u201d the tragedy of \u201cGhosts,\u201d the problems\nof the \u201cRing of the Nibelungs.\u201d Only, it was with terror that\nSchopenhauer, the first of his line, perceived what his own knowledge\nmeant\u2014that is the root of his pessimism, and the \u201cTristan\u201d music of his\nadherent Wagner is its highest expression\u2014whereas the late men, and\nforemost among them Nietzsche, face it with enthusiasm, though it is\ntrue, the enthusiasm is sometimes rather forced.\n\nNietzsche\u2019s breach with Wagner\u2014that last product of the German spirit\nover which greatness broods\u2014marks his silent change of school-\nallegiance, his unconscious step from Schopenhauer to Darwin, from the\nmetaphysical to the physiological formulation of the same world-feeling,\nfrom the denial to the affirmation of the aspect that in fact is common\nto _both_, the one seeing as will-to-life what the other regards as\nstruggle for existence. In his \u201cSchopenhauer als Erzieher\u201d he still\nmeans by evolution an inner ripening, but the Superman is the product of\nevolution as machinery. And \u201cZarathustra\u201d is _ethically_ the outcome of\nan unconscious protest against \u201cParsifal\u201d\u2014which _artistically_ entirely\ngoverns it\u2014of the rivalry of one evangelist for another.\n\nBut Nietzsche was also a Socialist without knowing it. Not his\ncatchwords, but his instincts, were Socialistic, practical, directed to\nthat welfare of mankind that Goethe and Kant never spent a thought upon.\nMaterialism, Socialism and Darwinism are only artificially and on the\nsurface separable. It was this that made it possible for Shaw in the\nthird act of \u201cMan and Superman\u201d (one of the most important and\nsignificant of the works that issued from the transition) to obtain, by\ngiving just a small and indeed perfectly logical turn to the tendencies\nof \u201cmaster-morale\u201d and the production of the Superman, the specific\nmaxims of _his own_ Socialism. Here Shaw was only expressing with\nremorseless clarity and full consciousness of the commonplace, what the\nuncompleted portion of the Zarathustra would have said with Wagnerian\ntheatricality and woolly romanticism. All that we are concerned to\ndiscover in Nietzsche\u2019s reasoning is its _practical_ bases and\nconsequences, which proceed of necessity from the structure of modern\npublic life. He moves amongst vague ideas like \u201cnew values,\u201d \u201cSuperman,\u201d\n\u201cSinn der Erde,\u201d and declines or fears to shape them more precisely.\nShaw does it. Nietzsche observes that the Darwinian idea of the Superman\nevokes the notion of breeding, and stops there, leaves it at a sounding\nphrase. Shaw pursues the question\u2014for there is no object in talking\nabout it if nothing is going to be _done_ about it\u2014asks how it is to be\nachieved, and from that comes to demand the transformation of mankind\ninto a stud-farm. But this is merely the conclusion implicit in the\nZarathustra, which Nietzsche was not bold enough, or was too fastidious,\nto draw. If we _do_ talk of systematic breeding\u2014a completely\nmaterialistic and utilitarian notion\u2014we must be prepared to answer the\nquestions, who shall breed what, where and how? But Nietzsche, too\nromantic to face the very prosaic social consequences and to expose\npoetic ideas to the test of facts, omits to say that his whole doctrine,\nas a derivative of Darwinism, presupposes Socialism and, moreover,\nsocialistic _compulsion_ as the _means_; that any systematic breeding of\na class of higher men requires as condition precedent a strictly\nsocialistic ordering of society; and that this \u201cDionysiac\u201d idea, as it\ninvolves a _common_ action and is not simply the private affair of\ndetached thinkers, is democratic, turn it how you may. It is the climax\nof the ethical force of \u201cThou shalt\u201d; to impose upon the world the form\nof his will, Faustian man sacrifices even himself.\n\nThe breeding of the Superman follows from the notion of \u201cselection.\u201d\nNietzsche was an unconscious pupil of Darwin from the time that he wrote\naphorisms, but Darwin himself had remoulded the evolution-ideas of the\n18th Century according to the Malthusian tendencies of political\neconomy, which he projected on the higher animal-world. Malthus had\nstudied the cotton industry in Lancashire, and already in 1857 we have\nthe whole system, only applied to men instead of to beasts, in Buckle\u2019s\nHistory of English Civilization.\n\nIn other words, the \u201cmaster-morale\u201d of this last of the Romantics is\nderived\u2014strangely perhaps but very significantly\u2014from that source of all\nintellectual modernity, the atmosphere of the English factory. The\nMachiavellism that commended itself to Nietzsche as a Renaissance\nphenomenon is something closely (one would have supposed, obviously)\nakin to Darwin\u2019s notion of \u201cmimicry.\u201d It is in fact that of which Marx\n(that other famous disciple of Malthus) treats in his _Das Kapital_, the\nbible of political (not ethical) Socialism.[462] That is the genealogy\nof \u201cHerrenmoral.\u201d The Will-to-Power, transferred to the realistic,\npolitical and economic domain, finds its expression in Shaw\u2019s \u201cMajor\nBarbara.\u201d No doubt Nietzsche, as a personality, stands at the\nculmination of this series of ethical philosophers, but here Shaw the\nparty politician reaches up to his level as a thinker. The will-to-power\nis to-day represented by the two poles of public life\u2014the worker-class\nand the big money-and-brain men\u2014far more effectually than it ever was by\na Borgia. The millionaire Undershaft of Shaw\u2019s best comedy is a\nSuperman, though Nietzsche the Romanticist would not have recognized his\nideal in such a figure. Nietzsche is for ever speaking of\ntransvaluations of all values, of a philosophy of the \u201cFuture\u201d (which,\nincidentally, is merely the Western, and not the Chinese or the African\nfuture), but when the mists of his thought do come in from the Dionysiac\ndistance and condense into any tangible form, the will-to-power appears\nto him in the guise of dagger-and-poison and never in that of strike and\n\u201cdeal.\u201d And yet he says that the idea first came to him when he saw the\nPrussian regiments marching to battle in 1870.\n\nThe drama, in this epoch, is no longer poetry in the old sense of the\nCulture days, but a form of agitation, debate and demonstration. The\nstage has become a moralizing institution. Nietzsche himself often\nthought of putting his ideas in the dramatic form. Wagner\u2019s Nibelung\npoetry, more especially the first draft of it (1850), expresses his\nsocial-revolutionary ideas, and even when, after a circuitous course\nunder influences artistic and non-artistic, he has completed the \u201cRing,\u201d\nhis Siegfried is still a symbol of the Fourth Estate, his Br\u00fcnhilde\nstill the \u201cfree woman.\u201d The sexual selection of which the \u201cOrigin of\nSpecies\u201d enunciated the theory in 1859, was finding its musical\nexpression at the very same time in the third act of \u201cSiegfried\u201d and in\n\u201cTristan.\u201d It is no accident that Wagner, Hebbel and Ibsen, all\npractically simultaneously, set to work to dramatize the Nibelung\nmaterial. Hebbel, making the acquaintance in Paris of Engels\u2019s writings,\nexpresses (in a letter of April 2, 1844) his surprise at finding that\nhis own conceptions of the social principle of his age, which he was\nthen intending to exemplify in a drama _Zu irgend einer Zeit_, coincided\nprecisely with those of the future \u201cCommunist Manifesto.\u201d And, upon\nfirst making the acquaintance of Schopenhauer (letter of March 19,\n1857), he is equally surprised by the affinity that he finds between the\n_Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_ and tendencies upon which he had based\nhis Holofernes and his _Herodes und Mariamne_. Hebbel\u2019s diaries, of\nwhich the most important portion belongs to the years 1835-1845, were\n(though he did not know it) one of the deepest philosophical efforts of\nthe century. It would be no surprise to find whole sentences of it in\nNietzsche, who never knew him and did not always come up to his level.\n\nThe _actual and effective_ philosophy of the 19th Century, then, has as\nits one genuine theme the Will-to-Power. It considers this Will-to-Power\nin civilized-intellectual, ethical, or social forms and presents it as\nwill-to-life, as life-force, as practical-dynamical principle, as idea,\nand as dramatic figure. (The period that is _closed_ by Shaw corresponds\nto the period 350-250 in the Classical.) The rest of the 19th-Century\nphilosophy is, to use Schopenhauer\u2019s phrase, \u201cprofessors\u2019 philosophy by\nphilosophy-professors.\u201d The real landmarks are these:\n\n 1819. Schopenhauer, _Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_. The will to\n life is for the first time put as the only reality (original force,\n Urkraft); but, older idealist influences still being potent, it is put\n there to be negatived (zur Verneinung empfohlen).\n\n 1836. Schopenhauer, _Ueber den Willen in der Natur_. Anticipation of\n Darwinism, but in metaphysical disguise.\n\n 1840. Proud\u2019hon, _Qu\u2019est-ce que la Propri\u00e9t\u00e9_, basis of Anarchism.\n Comte, _Cours de philosophic positive_; the formula \u201corder and\n progress.\u201d\n\n 1841. Hebbel, \u201cJudith,\u201d first dramatic conception of the \u201cNew Woman\u201d\n and the \u201cSuperman.\u201d Feuerbach, _Das Wesen des Christenthums_.\n\n 1844. Engels, _Umriss einer Kritik des National\u00f6konomie_, foundation\n of the materialistic conception of history. Hebbel, _Maria Magdalena_,\n the first social drama.\n\n 1847. Marx, _Mis\u00e8re de la Philosophie_ (synthesis of Hegel and\n Malthus). These are the _epochal years_ in which economics begins to\n dominate social ethic and biology.\n\n 1848. Wagner\u2019s \u201cDeath of Siegfried\u201d; Siegfried as social-ethical\n revolutionary, the Fafnir hoard as symbol of Capitalism.\n\n 1850. Wagner\u2019s _Kunst und Klima_; the sexual problem.\n\n 1850-1858. Wagner\u2019s, Hebbel\u2019s and Ibsen\u2019s Nibelung poetry.\n\n 1859 (year of symbolic coincidences). Darwin, \u201cOrigin of Species\u201d\n (application of economics to biology). Wagner\u2019s \u201cTristan.\u201d Marx, _Zur\n Kritik der politischen \u00d6konomie_.\n\n 1863. J. S. Mill, \u201cUtilitarianism.\u201d\n\n 1865. D\u00fchring, _Wert des Lebens_\u2014a work which is rarely heard of, but\n which exercised the greatest influence upon the succeeding generation.\n\n 1867. Ibsen, \u201cBrand.\u201d Marx, _Das Kapital_.\n\n 1878. Wagner \u201cParsifal.\u201d First dissolution of materialism into\n mysticism.\n\n 1879. Ibsen \u201cNora.\u201d\n\n 1881. Nietzsche, _Morgenr\u00f6the_; transition from Schopenhauer to\n Darwin, morale as biological phenomenon.\n\n 1883. Nietzsche, _Also sprach Zarathustra_; the Will-to-Power, but in\n Romantic disguise.\n\n 1886. Ibsen, \u201cRosmersholm.\u201d Nietzsche, _Jenseits von Gut und B\u00f6se_.\n\n 1887-8. Strindberg, \u201cFadren\u201d and \u201cFr\u00f6ken Julie.\u201d\n\n From 1890 the conclusion of the epoch approaches. The religious works\n of Strindberg and the symbolical of Ibsen.\n\n 1896. Ibsen, \u201cJohn Gabriel Borkman.\u201d Nietzsche, _Uebermensch_. 1898.\n Strindberg, \u201cTill Damascus.\u201d\n\n From 1900 the last phenomena.\n\n 1903. Weininger, _Geschlecht und Charakter_; the only serious attempt\n to revive Kant within this epoch, by referring him to Wagner and\n Ibsen.\n\n 1903. Shaw, \u201cMan and Superman\u201d; final synthesis of Darwin and\n Nietzsche.\n\n 1905. Shaw, \u201cMajor Barbara\u201d; the type of the Superman referred back to\n its economic origins.\n\nWith this, the ethical period exhausts itself as the metaphysical had\ndone. Ethical Socialism, prepared by Fichte, Hegel, and Humboldt, was at\nits zenith of passionate greatness about the middle of the 19th Century,\nand at the end thereof it had reached the stage of repetitions. The 20th\nCentury, while keeping the _word_ Socialism, has replaced an ethical\nphilosophy that only Epigoni suppose to be capable of further\ndevelopment, by a praxis of economic everyday questions. The ethical\ndisposition of the West will remain \u201csocialistic\u201d but its theory has\nceased to be a problem. And there remains the possibility of a third and\nlast stage of Western philosophy, that of a physiognomic scepticism. The\nsecret of the world appears successively as a knowledge problem, a\nvaluation problem and a form problem. Kant saw Ethics as an object of\nknowledge, the 19th Century saw it as an object of valuation. The\nSceptic would deal with _both_ simply as the historical expression of a\nCulture.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n FAUSTIAN AND APOLLINIAN\n NATURE-KNOWLEDGE\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n FAUSTIAN AND APOLLINIAN NATURE-KNOWLEDGE\n\n\n I\n\nHelmholtz observed, in a lecture of 1869 that has become famous, that\n\u201cthe final aim of Natural Science is to discover the motions underlying\nall alteration, and the motive forces thereof; that is, to resolve\nitself into Mechanics.\u201d What this resolution into mechanics means is the\nreference of all qualitative impressions to fixed quantitative base-\nvalues, that is, to the _extended_ and to _change of place_ therein. It\nmeans, further\u2014if we bear in mind the opposition of becoming and become,\nform and law, image and notion\u2014the referring of the seen Nature-picture\nto the imagined picture of a single numerically and structurally\nmeasurable Order. The specific tendency of all Western mechanics is\ntowards an intellectual _conquest by measurement_, and it is therefore\nobliged to look for the essence of the phenomenon in a system of\nconstant elements that are susceptible of full and inclusive\nappreciation by measurement, of which Helmholtz distinguishes _motion_\n(using the word in its everyday sense) as the most important.\n\nTo the physicist this definition appears unambiguous and exhaustive, but\nto the sceptic who has followed out the history of this scientific\nconviction, it is very far from being either. To the physicist, present-\nday mechanics is a logical system of clear, uniquely-significant\nconcepts and of simple, necessary relations; while to the other it is a\n_picture_ distinctive of the structure of the West-European spirit,\nthough he admits that the picture is consistent in the highest degree\nand most impressively convincing. It is self-evident that no _practical_\nresults and discoveries can prove anything as to the \u201ctruth\u201d of the\n_theory_, the _picture_.[463] For most people, indeed, \u201cmechanics\u201d\nappears as the self-evident synthesis of Nature-impressions. But it\nmerely appears to be so. For what is motion? Is not the postulate that\neverything qualitative is reducible to the motion of unalterably-alike\nmass-points, essentially Faustian and not common to humanity?\nArchimedes, for example, did not feel himself obliged to transpose the\nmechanics that he saw into a mental picture of motions. Is motion\ngenerally a purely mechanical quantity? Is it a word for a visual\nexperience or is it a notion derived from that experience? Is it the\nnumber that is found by measurement of experimentally-produced facts, or\nthe picture that is subjected to that number, that is signified by it?\nAnd if one day physics should really succeed in reaching its supposed\naim, in devising a system of law-governed \u201cmotions\u201d and of efficient\nforces behind them into which everything whatsoever appreciable by the\nsenses could be fitted\u2014would it thereby have achieved \u201cknowledge\u201d of\nthat which occurs, or even made one step towards this achievement? Yet\nis the form-language of mechanics one whit the less dogmatic on that\naccount? Is it not, on the contrary, a vessel of the myth like the root-\nwords, not proceeding from experience but shaping it and, in this case,\nshaping it with all possible rigour? What is force? What is a cause?\nWhat is a process? Nay, even on the basis of its own definitions, has\nphysics a specific problem at all? Has it an object that counts as such\nfor all the centuries? Has it even one unimpeachable imagination-unit,\nwith reference to which it may express its results?\n\nThe answer may be anticipated. Modern physics, as a science, is an\nimmense system of _indices_ in the form of names and numbers whereby we\nare enabled to work with Nature as with a machine.[464] As such, it may\nhave an exactly-definable end. But as a piece of _history_, all made up\nof destinies and incidents in the lives of the men who have worked in it\nand in the course of research itself, physics is, in point of object,\nmethods and results alike an expression and actualization of a Culture,\nan organic and evolving element in the essence of that Culture, and\nevery one of its results is a symbol. That which physics\u2014which exists\nonly in the waking-consciousness of the Culture-man\u2014thinks it finds in\nits methods and in its results was already there, underlying and\nimplicit in, the choice and manner of its search. Its discoveries, in\nvirtue of their imagined content (as distinguished from their printable\nformul\u00e6), have been of a purely mythic nature, even in minds so prudent\nas those of J. B. Mayer, Faraday and Hertz. In every Nature-law,\nphysically exact as it may be, we are called upon to distinguish between\nthe nameless number and the naming of it, between the plain fixation of\nlimits[465] and their theoretical interpretation. The formul\u00e6 represent\ngeneral logical values, pure numbers\u2014that is to say, objective space\u2014and\nboundary-elements. But formul\u00e6 are dumb. The expression _s_ = \u00bd_gt_\u00b2\nmeans nothing at all unless one is able mentally to connect the letters\nwith particular words and their symbolism. But the moment we clothe the\ndead signs in such words, give them flesh, body and life, and, in sum, a\nperceptible significance in the world, we have overstepped the limits of\na mere _order_. \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 means image, vision, and it is this that makes a\nNature-law out of a figure-and-letter formula. Everything exact is in\nitself _meaningless_, and every physical observation is so constituted\nthat it _proves the basis of a certain number of imaged\npresuppositions_; and the effect of its successful issue is to make\nthese presuppositions more convincing than ever. Apart from these, the\nresult consists merely of empty figures. But in fact we do not and\ncannot get apart from them. Even if an investigator puts on one side\nevery hypothesis that he knows as such, as soon as he sets his _thought_\nto work on the supposedly clear task, he is not controlling but being\ncontrolled by the unconscious form of it, for in living activity he is\nalways a man of his Culture, of his age, of his school and of his\ntradition. Faith and \u201cknowledge\u201d are only two species of inner\ncertitude, but of the two faith is the older and it dominates all the\nconditions of knowing, be they never so exact. And thus it is theories\nand not pure numbers that are the support of all natural science. The\nunconscious longing for that genuine science which (be it repeated) is\npeculiar to the spirit of Culture-man sets itself to apprehend, to\npenetrate, and to comprise within its grasp the world-image of Nature.\nMere industrious measuring for measuring\u2019s sake is not and never has\nbeen more than a delight for little minds. Numbers may only be the key\nof the secret, no more. No significant man would ever have spent himself\non them for their own sake.\n\nKant, it is true, says in a well-known passage: \u201cI maintain that in each\nand every discipline of natural philosophy it is only possible to find\nas much of true science as is to be found of mathematics therein.\u201d What\nKant has in mind here is pure delimitation in the field of the become,\nso far as law and formula, number and system can (at any particular\nstage) be seen in that field. But a law without words, a law, consisting\nmerely of a series of figures read off an instrument, cannot even as an\nintellectual operation be completely effective in this pure state. Every\nsavant\u2019s experiment, be it what it may, is at the same time an instance\nof the _kind_ of symbolism that rules in the savant\u2019s ideation. All Laws\nformulated in words are Orders that have been activated and vitalized,\nfilled with the very essence of the one\u2014and only the one\u2014Culture. As to\nthe \u201cnecessity\u201d which is a postulate in all exact research, here too we\nhave to consider two kinds of necessity, viz., a necessity within the\nspiritual and living (for it is Destiny that the history of every\nindividual research-act takes its course when, where and how it does)\nand a necessity within the known (for which the current Western name is\nCausality). If the pure numbers of a physical formula represent a causal\nnecessity, the existence, the birth and the life-duration of a theory\nare a Destiny.\n\nEvery fact, even the simplest, contains _ab initio_ a theory. A fact is\na uniquely-occurring impression upon a waking being, and everything\ndepends on whether that being, the being for whom it occurs or did\noccur, is or was Classical or Western, Gothic or Baroque. Compare the\neffect produced by a flash of lightning on a sparrow and on an alert\nphysical investigator, and think how much more is contained in the\nobserver\u2019s \u201cfact\u201d than in the sparrow\u2019s. The modern physicist is too\nready to forget that even words like quantity, position, process, change\nof state and body represent specifically Western images. These words\nexcite and these images mirror a feeling of significances, too subtle\nfor verbal description, incommunicable to Classical or to Magian or to\nother mankind as like subtleties of their thought and feeling are\nincommunicable to us. And the character of scientific facts as such\u2014that\nis, the mode of their becoming known\u2014is completely governed by this\nfeeling; and if so, then also _a fortiori_ such intricate intellectual\nnotions as work, tension, quantity of energy, quantity of heat,\nprobability,[466] every one of which contains a veritable scientific\nmyth of its own. We think of such conceptual images as ensuing from\nquite unprejudiced research and, subject to certain conditions,\ndefinitively valid. But a first-rate scientist of the time of Archimedes\nwould have declared himself, after a thorough study of our modern\ntheoretical physics, quite unable to comprehend how anyone could assert\nsuch arbitrary, grotesque and involved notions to be Science, still less\nhow they could be claimed as necessary consequences from actual facts.\n\u201cThe scientifically-justified conclusions,\u201d he would have said, \u201care\nreally so-and-so\u201d; and thereupon he would have evolved, on the basis of\nthe same elements made \u201cfacts\u201d by _his_ eyes and _his_ mind, theories\nthat our physicists would listen to with amazed ridicule.\n\nFor what, after all, are the basic notions that have been evolved with\ninward certainty of logic in the field of our physics? Polarized light-\nrays, errant ions, flying and colliding gas-particles, magnetic fields,\nelectric currents and waves\u2014are they not one and all Faustian visions,\nclosely akin to Romanesque ornamentation, the upthrust of Gothic\narchitecture, the Viking\u2019s voyaging into unknown seas, the longings of\nColumbus and Copernicus? Did not this world of forms and pictures grow\nup in perfect tune with the contemporary arts of perspective oil-\npainting and instrumental music? Are they not, in short, our passionate\ndirectedness, our passion of the third dimension, coming to symbolic\nexpression in the imagined Nature-picture as in the soul-image?\n\n II\n\nIt follows then that all \u201cknowing\u201d of Nature, even the exactest, is\nbased on a religious faith. The pure mechanics that the physicist has\nset before himself as the end-form to which it is his task (and the\npurpose of all this imagination-machinery) to reduce Nature, presupposes\na _dogma_\u2014namely, the religious world-picture of the Gothic centuries.\nFor it is from this world-picture that the physics peculiar to the\nWestern intellect is derived. There is no science that is without\nunconscious presuppositions of this kind, over which the researcher has\nno control and which can be traced back to the earliest days of the\nawakening Culture. _There is no Natural science without a precedent\nReligion._ In this point there is no distinction between the Catholic\nand the Materialistic views of the world\u2014both say the same thing in\ndifferent words. Even atheistic science has religion; modern mechanics\nexactly reproduces the contemplativeness of Faith.\n\nWhen the Ionic reaches its height in Thales or the Baroque in Bacon, and\nman has come to the urban stage of his career, his self-assurance begins\nto look upon critical science, in contrast to the more primitive\nreligion of the countryside, as the superior attitude towards things,\nand, holding as he thinks the only key to real knowledge, to explain\nreligion itself empirically and psychologically\u2014in other words, to\n\u201cconquer\u201d it with the rest. Now, the history of the higher Cultures\nshows that \u201cscience\u201d is a transitory spectacle,[467] belonging only to\nthe autumn and winter of their life-course, and that in the cases of the\nClassical, the Indian, the Chinese and the Arabian thought alike a few\ncenturies suffice for the complete exhaustion of its possibilities.\nClassical science faded out between the battle of Cann\u00e6 and that of\nActium and made way for the world-outlook of the \u201csecond\nreligiousness.\u201d[468] And from this it is possible to foresee a date at\nwhich our Western scientific thought shall have reached the limit of its\nevolution.\n\nThere is no justification for assigning to this intellectual form-world\nthe primacy over others. Every critical science, like every myth and\nevery religious belief, rests upon an inner certitude. Various as the\ncreatures of this certitude may be, both in structure and in sound, they\nare not different in basic principle. Any reproach, therefore, levelled\nby Natural science at Religion is a boomerang. We are presumptuous and\nno less in supposing that we can ever set up \u201cThe Truth\u201d in the place of\n\u201canthropomorphic\u201d conceptions, for no other conceptions but these exist\nat all. Every idea that is possible at all is a mirror of the being of\nits author. The statement that \u201cman created God in his own image,\u201d valid\nfor every historical religion, is not less valid for every physical\ntheory, however firm its reputed basis of fact. Classical scientists\nconceived of light as consisting in corporeal particles proceeding from\nthe source of light to the eye of the beholder. For the Arabian thought,\neven at the stage of the Jewish-Persian academies of Edessa, Resa\u00efna and\nPombaditha (and for Porphyry too), the colours and forms of things were\nevidenced without the intervention of a medium, being brought in a magic\nand \u201cspiritual\u201d way to the seeing-power which was conceived as\nsubstantial and resident in the eyeball. This was the doctrine[469]\ntaught by Ibn-al-Haitan, by Avicenna and by the \u201cBrothers of\nSincerity.\u201d[470] And the idea of light as a force, an _impetus_, was\ncurrent even from about 1300 amongst the Paris Occamists who centred on\nAlbert of Saxony, Buridan and Oresme the discoverer of co-ordinate\ngeometry. Each Culture has made its own set of images of processes,\nwhich are true only for itself and only alive while it is itself alive\nand actualizing its possibilities. When a Culture is at its end and the\ncreative element\u2014the imaginative power, the symbolism\u2014is extinct, there\nare left \u201cempty\u201d formul\u00e6, skeletons of dead systems, which men of\nanother Culture read literally, feel to be without meaning or value and\neither mechanically store up or else despise and forget. Numbers,\nformul\u00e6, laws _mean_ nothing and _are_ nothing. They must have a body,\nand only a _living_ mankind\u2014projecting its livingness into them and\nthrough them, expressing itself by them, inwardly making them its own\u2014\ncan endow them with that. And thus there is no absolute science of\nphysics, but only individual sciences that come, flourish and go within\nthe individual Cultures.\n\nThe \u201cNature\u201d of Classical man found its highest artistic emblem in the\nnude statue, and out of it logically there grew up a _static of bodies,\na physics of the near_. The Arabian Culture owned the arabesque and the\ncavern-vaulting of the mosque, and out of this world-feeling there\nissued _Alchemy_ with its ideas of mysterious efficient substantialities\nlike the \u201cphilosophical mercury,\u201d which is neither a material nor a\nproperty but some thing that underlies the coloured existence of metals\nand can transmute one metal into another.[471] And the outcome of\nFaustian man\u2019s Nature idea was _a dynamic of unlimited span, a physics\nof the distant_. To the Classical therefore belong the conceptions of\n_matter and form_, to the Arabian (quite Spinozistically) the idea of\n_substances_ with visible or secret _attributes_,[472] and to the\nFaustian the idea of _force and mass_. Apollinian theory is a quiet\nmeditation, Magian a silent knowledge of Alchemy the means of Grace\n(even here the religious source of mechanics is to be discerned), and\nthe Faustian is from the very outset a _working hypothesis_.[473] The\nGreek asked, what is the essence of visible being? We ask, what\npossibility is there of mastering the invisible motive-forces of\nbecoming? For them, contented absorption in the visible; for us,\nmasterful questioning of Nature and methodical experiment.\n\nAs with the formulation of problems and the methods of dealing with\nthem, so also with the basic concepts. They are symbols in each case of\nthe one and only the one Culture. The Classical root-words \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ae, \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, are not translatable into our speech. To render \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\nby \u201cprime-stuff\u201d is to eliminate its Apollinian connotation, to make the\nhollow shell of the word sound an alien note. That which Classical man\nsaw before him as \u201cmotion\u201d in space, he understood as \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, change\nof position of bodies; we, from the way in which we experience motion,\nhave deduced the concept of a _process_, a \u201cgoing forward,\u201d thereby\nexpressing and emphasizing that element of directional energy which our\nthought necessarily predicates in the courses of Nature. The Classical\ncritic of Nature took the visible juxtaposition of states as the\noriginal diversity, and specified the famous four elements of\nEmpedocles\u2014namely, earth as the rigid-corporeal, water as the non-rigid-\ncorporeal and air as the incorporeal, together with fire, which is so\nmuch the strongest of all optical impressions that the Classical spirit\ncould have no doubt of its bodiliness. The Arabian \u201celements,\u201d on the\ncontrary, are ideal and implicit in the secret constitutions and\nconstellations which define the phenomenon of things for the eye. If we\ntry to get a little nearer to this feeling, we shall find that the\nopposition of rigid and fluid means something quite different for the\nSyrian from what it means for the Aristotelian Greek, the latter seeing\nin it different degrees of bodiliness and the former different magic\nattributes. With the former therefore arises the image of the _chemical_\nelement as a sort of magic substance that a secret causality makes to\nappear out of things (and to vanish into them again) and which is\nsubject even to the influence of the stars. In Alchemy there is deep\nscientific doubt as to the plastic actuality of things\u2014of the \u201csomata\u201d\nof Greek mathematicians, physicists and poets\u2014and it dissolves and\ndestroys the soma in the hope of finding its essence. It is an\niconoclastic movement just as truly as those of Islam and the Byzantine\nBogomils were so. It reveals a deep disbelief in the tangible figure of\nphenomenal Nature, the figure of her that to the Greek was sacrosanct.\nThe conflict concerning the person of Christ which manifested itself in\nall the early Councils and led to the Nestorian and Monophysite\nsecessions is an _alchemistic_ problem.[474] It would never have\noccurred to a Classical physicist to investigate things while at the\nsame time denying or annihilating their perceivable form. And for that\nvery reason there was no Classical chemistry, any more than there was\nany theorizing on the substance as against the manifestations of Apollo.\n\nThe rise of a chemical method of the Arabian style betokens a new world-\nconsciousness. The discovery of it, which at one blow made an end of\nApollinian natural science, of mechanical statics, is linked with the\nenigmatic name of Hermes Trismegistus,[475] who is supposed to have\nlived in Alexandria _at the same time as Plotinus and Diophantus_.\nSimilarly it was just at the time of the definite emancipation of the\nWestern mathematic by Newton and Leibniz that the Western chemistry[476]\nwas freed from Arabic form by Stahl (1660-1734) and his Phlogiston\ntheory. Chemistry and mathematic alike became pure analysis. Already\nParacelsus (1493-1541) had transformed the Magian effort to make gold\ninto a pharmaceutical science\u2014a transformation in which one cannot but\nsurmise an altered world-feeling. Then Robert Boyle (1626-1691) devised\nthe analytical method and _with it the Western conception of the\nElement_. But the ensuing changes must not be misinterpreted. That which\nis called the founding of modern chemistry and has Stahl and Lavoisier\nat its turning-points is anything but a building-up of \u201cchemical\u201d ideas,\nin so far as chemistry implies the alchemistic outlook on Nature. It is\nin fact the _end_ of genuine chemistry, its dissolution into the\ncomprehensive system of pure dynamic, its assimilation into the\nmechanical outlook which the Baroque age had established through Galileo\nand Newton. The elements of Empedocles designate states of bodiliness\n(bezeichnen ein k\u00f6rperliches Sichverhalten) but the elements of\nLavoisier, whose combustion-theory followed promptly upon the isolation\nof oxygen in 1771, designate energy-systems accessible to human will,\n\u201crigid\u201d and \u201cfluid\u201d becoming mere terms to describe tension-relations\nbetween molecules. By our analysis and synthesis, Nature is not merely\nasked or persuaded but forced. The modern chemistry is a chapter of the\nmodern physics of Deed.\n\nWhat we call Statics, Chemistry and Dynamics\u2014words that as used in\nmodern science are merely traditional distinctions without deeper\nmeaning\u2014are really the _respective physical systems of the Apollinian,\nMagian and Faustian souls_, each of which grew up in its own Culture and\nwas limited as to validity to the same. Corresponding to these sciences,\neach to each, we have the mathematics of Euclidean geometry, Algebra and\nHigher Analysis, and the arts of statue, arabesque and fugue. We may\ndifferentiate these three kinds of physics (bearing in mind of course\nthat other Cultures may and in fact do give rise to other kinds) by\ntheir standpoints towards the problem of motion, and call them\nmechanical orderings of states, secret forces and processes\nrespectively.\n\n III\n\nNow, the tendency of human thought (which is always causally disposed)\nto reduce the image of Nature to the simplest possible quantitative\nform-units that can be got by causal reasoning, measuring and counting\u2014\nin a word, by mechanical differentiation\u2014leads necessarily in Classical,\nWestern and every other possible physics, to an atomic theory. Of Indian\nand Chinese science we know hardly more than the fact they once existed,\nand the Arabian is so complicated that even now it seems to defy\npresentation. But we do know our own and the Apollinian sciences well\nenough to observe, here too, a deeply symbolical opposition.\n\nThe Classical atoms are _miniature forms_, the Western _minimal quanta_,\nand quanta, too, of energy. On the one hand perceptibility, sensuous\nnearness, and on the other, abstractness are the basic conditions of the\nidea. The atomistic notions of modern physics\u2014which include not only the\nDaltonian or \u201cchemical\u201d atom but also the electrons[477] and the quanta\nof thermodynamics\u2014make more and more demands upon that truly Faustian\npower of _inner vision_ which many branches of higher mathematics (such\nas the Non-Euclidean geometries and the Theory of Groups) postulate, and\nwhich is not at the disposal of laymen. A quantum of action is an\nextension-element conceived without regard to sensible quality of any\nkind, which eludes all relation with sight and touch, for which the\nexpression \u201cshape\u201d has no meaning whatever\u2014something therefore which\nwould be utterly inconceivable to a Classical researcher. Such, already,\nwere Leibniz\u2019s \u201cMonads\u201d[478] and such, superlatively, are the\nconstituents of Rutherford\u2019s picture of the atom as positively-charged\nnucleus with planetary negative electrons, and of the picture that Niels\nBohr has imagined by working these in with the \u201cquanta\u201d of Planck.[479]\nThe atoms of Leucippus and Democritus were different in form and\nmagnitude, that is to say, they were purely plastic units,\n\u201cindivisible,\u201d as their name asserts, but only plastically indivisible.\nThe atoms of Western physics, for which \u201cindivisibility\u201d has quite\nanother meaning, resemble the figures and themes of music; their being\nor essence consisting in vibration and radiation, and their relation to\nthe processes of Nature being that of the \u201cmotive\u201d to the\n\u201cmovement.\u201d[480] Classical physics examines the aspect, Western the\nworking, of these ultimate elements in the picture of the Become; in the\none, the basic notions are notions of stuff and form, in the other they\nare notions of capacity and intensity.\n\n_There is a Stoicism and there is a Socialism of the atom_, the words\ndescribing the static-plastic and the dynamic-contrapuntal ideas of it\nrespectively. The relations of these ideas to the images of the\ncorresponding ethics is such that every law and every definition takes\nthese into account. On the one hand\u2014Democritus\u2019s multitude of confused\natoms, put there, patient, knocked about by the blind chance that he as\nwell as Sophocles called \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7, hunted like \u0152dipus. On the other hand\u2014\nsystems of abstract force-points working in unison, aggressive,\nenergetically dominating space (as \u201cfield\u201d), overcoming resistances like\nMacbeth. The opposition of basic feelings makes that of the mechanical\nNature-pictures. According to Leucippus the atoms fly about in the void\n\u201cof themselves\u201d; Democritus merely regards shock and countershock as a\nform of change of place. Aristotle explains individual movements as\naccidental, Empedocles speaks of love and hate, Anaxagoras of meetings\nand partings. All these are elements also of Classical tragedy; the\nfigures on the Attic stage are related to one another just so. Further,\nand logically, they are the elements of Classical politics. There we\nhave minute cities, political atoms ranged along coasts and on islands,\neach jealously standing for itself, yet ever needing support, shut-in\nand shy to the point of absurdity, buffeted hither and thither by the\nplanless orderless happenings of Classical history, rising to-day and\nruined to-morrow. And in contrast\u2014the dynastic states of our 17th and\n18th Centuries, political fields of force, with cabinets and great\ndiplomats as effective centres of purposeful direction and comprehensive\nvision. The spirit of Classical history and the spirit of Western\nhistory can only be really understood by considering the two souls as an\nopposition. And we can say the same of the atom-idea, regarded as the\nbasis of the respective physics. Galileo who created the concept of\nforce and the Milesians who created that of \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, Democritus and\nLeibniz, Archimedes and Helmholtz, are \u201ccontemporaries,\u201d members of the\nsame intellectual phases of quite different Cultures.\n\nBut the inner relationship between atom-theory and ethic goes further.\nIt has been shown how the Faustian soul\u2014whose being consists in the\novercoming of presence, whose feeling is loneliness and whose yearning\nis infinity\u2014puts its need of solitude, distance and abstraction into all\nits actualities, into its public life, its spiritual and its artistic\nform-worlds alike. This pathos of distance (to use Nietzsche\u2019s\nexpression) is peculiarly alien to the Classical, in which everything\nhuman demanded nearness, support and community. It is this that\ndistinguishes the spirit of the Baroque from that of the Ionic, the\nculture of the Ancien R\u00e9gime from that of Periclean Athens. And this\npathos, which distinguishes the heroic doer from the heroic sufferer,\nappears also in the picture of Western physics as _tension_. It is\ntension that is missing in the science of Democritus; for in the\nprinciple of shock and countershock it is denied by implication that\nthere is a force commanding space and identical with space. And,\ncorrespondingly, the element of Will is absent from the Classical soul-\nimage. Between Classical men, or states, or views of the world, there\nwas\u2014for all the quarrelling and envy and hatred\u2014no inner tension, no\ndeep and urging need of distance, solitude, ascendancy; and consequently\nthere was none between the atoms of the Cosmos either. The principle of\ntension (developed in the potential theory), which is wholly\nuntranslatable into Classical tongues and incommunicable to Classical\nminds, has become for Western physics fundamental. Its content follows\nfrom the notion of energy, _the Will-to-Power in Nature_, and therefore\nit is for us just as necessary as for the Classical thought it is\nimpossible.\n\n IV\n\n_Every atomic theory, therefore, is a myth and not an experience._ In it\nthe Culture, through the contemplative-creative power of its great\nphysicists, reveals its inmost essence and very self. It is only a\npreconceived idea of criticism that extension exists in itself and\nindependently of the form-feeling and world-feeling of the knower. The\nthinker, in imagining that he can cut out the factor of Life, forgets\nthat knowing is related to the known as direction is to extension and\nthat it is only through the living quality of direction that what is\nfelt extends into distance and depth and becomes space. The cognized\nstructure of the extended is a projection of the cognizing being.\n\nWe have already[481] shown the decisive importance of the _depth-\nexperience_, which is identical with the awakening of a soul and\ntherefore with the creation of the outer world belonging to that soul.\nThe mere sense-impression contains only length and breadth, and it is\nthe living and necessary act of interpretation\u2014which, like everything\nelse living, possesses direction, motion and irreversibility (the\nqualities that our consciousness synthesizes in the word Time)\u2014that\n_adds_ depth and thereby fashions actuality and world. Life itself\nenters into the experiences as third dimension. The double meaning of\nthe word \u201cfar,\u201d which refers both to future and to horizon, betrays the\ndeeper meaning of this dimension, through which extension as such is\nevoked. The Becoming stiffens and passes and is at once the Become; Life\nstiffens and passes and is at once the three-dimensional Space of the\nknown. It is common ground for Descartes and Parmenides that thinking\nand being, i.e., imagined and extended, are identical. \u201cCogito, ergo\nsum\u201d is simply the formulation of the depth-experience\u2014I cognize, and\ntherefore I am in space. But in the style of this cognizing, and\ntherefore of the cognition-product, the prime-symbol of the particular\nCulture comes into play. The perfected extension of the Classical\nconsciousness is one of sensuous and bodily presence. The Western\nconsciousness achieves extension, after its own fashion, as\ntranscendental space, and as it thinks its space more and more\ntranscendentally it develops by degrees the abstract polarity of\nCapacity and Intensity that so completely contrasts with the Classical\nvisual polarity of Matter and Form.\n\nBut it follows from this that in the known there can be no reappearance\nof living time. For this has already passed into the known, into\nconstant \u201cexistence,\u201d as Depth, and hence duration (i.e., timelessness)\nand extension are identical. Only the knowing possesses the mark of\ndirection. The application of the word \u201ctime\u201d to the imaginary and\nmeasurable time-dimension of physics is a mistake. The only question is\nwhether it is possible or not to avoid the mistake. If one substitutes\nthe word \u201cDestiny\u201d for \u201ctime\u201d in any physical enunciation, one feels at\nonce that pure Nature does not contain Time. The form-world of physics\nextends just as far as the cognate form-world of number and notion\nextend, and we have seen that (notwithstanding Kant) there is not and\ncannot be the slightest relation of any sort between mathematical number\nand Time. And yet this is controverted _by the fact of motion_ in the\npicture of the world-around. It is the unsolved and unsolvable problem\nof the Eleatics\u2014being (or thinking) and motion are incompatible; motion\n\u201cis\u201d not (is only \u201capparent\u201d).\n\nAnd here, for the second time, Natural science becomes dogmatic and\nmythological. The words Time and Destiny, for anyone who uses them\ninstinctively, touch Life itself in its deepest depths\u2014life as a whole,\nwhich is not to be separated from lived-experience. Physics, on the\nother hand\u2014i.e., the observing Reason\u2014_must_ separate them. The\nlivingly-experienced \u201cin-itself,\u201d mentally emancipated from the act of\nthe observer and become object, dead, inorganic, rigid, is now \u201cNature,\u201d\nsomething open to exhaustive mathematical treatment. In this sense the\nknowledge of Nature is an activity of _measurement_. All the same, we\nlive even when we are observing and therefore the thing we are observing\n_lives with us_. The element in the Nature-picture in virtue of which it\nnot merely from moment to moment _is_, but in a continuous flow with and\naround us _becomes_, is the copula of the waking-consciousness and its\nworld. This element is _called_ movement, and it contradicts Nature as a\npicture, but it represents the _history_ of this picture. And therefore,\nas precisely as Understanding is abstracted (by means of words) from\nfeeling and mathematical space from light-resistances (\u201cthings\u201d[482]),\nso also physical \u201ctime\u201d is abstracted from the impression of motion.\n\nPhysics investigates Nature, and consequently it knows time only as a\nlength. But the physicist _lives_ in the midst of the _history_ of this\nNature, and therefore he is forced to conceive motion as a\nmathematically determinable magnitude, as a concretion of the pure\nnumbers obtained in the experiment and written down in formul\u00e6.\n\u201cPhysics,\u201d says Kirchhoff, \u201cis the complete and simple description of\nmotions.\u201d That indeed has always been its object. But the question is\none not of motions _in_ the picture but of motions _of_ the picture.\nMotion, in the Nature of physics, is nothing else but that\n_metaphysical_ something which gives rise to the consciousness of a\nsuccession. The known is timeless and alien to motion; its state of\nbecomeness implies this. It is the _organic sequence_ of knowns that\ngives the impression of a motion. The physicist receives the word as an\nimpression not upon \u201creason\u201d but upon the whole man, and the function of\nthat man is not \u201cNature\u201d only but the whole world. And that is the\nworld-as-history. \u201cNature,\u201d then, is an expression of the Culture in\neach instance.[483] All physics is treatment of the motion-problem\u2014in\nwhich the life-problem itself is implicit\u2014not as though it could one day\nbe solved, _but in spite of, nay because of, the fact that it is\ninsoluble_. The secret of motion awakens in man the apprehension of\ndeath.[484]\n\nIf, then, Nature-knowledge is a subtle kind of self-knowledge\u2014Nature\nunderstood as picture, as mirror of man\u2014the attempt to solve the motion-\nproblem is an attempt of knowledge to get on the track of its own\nsecret, its own Destiny.\n\n V\n\nOnly physiognomic tact can, if creative, succeed in this, and in fact it\nhas done so from time immemorial in the arts, particularly tragic\npoetry. It is the thinking man who is perplexed by movement; for the\ncontemplative it is self-evident. And however completely the former can\nreduce his perplexities to system, the result is systematic and not\nphysiognomic, pure extension logically and numerically ordered, nothing\nliving but something become and dead.\n\nIt is this that led Goethe, who was a poet and not a computer, to\nobserve that \u201cNature has no system. It has Life, it is Life and\nsuccession from an unknown centre to an unknowable bourne.\u201d For one who\ndoes not live it but knows it, Nature has a system. But it is only a\nsystem and nothing more, and motion is a contradiction in it. The\ncontradiction may be covered up by adroit formulation, _but it lives on\nin the fundamental concepts_. The shock and countershock of Democritus,\nthe entelechy of Aristotle, the notions of force from the \u201cimpetus\u201d of\n14th-Century Occamists to the quantum-theory of radiation, all contain\nit. Let the reader conceive of the motion _within_ a physical system as\nthe _ageing_ of that system (as in fact it is, as lived-experience of\nthe observer), and he will feel at once and distinctly the fatefulness\nimmanent in, the unconquerably organic content of, the word \u201cmotion\u201d and\nall its derivative ideas. But Mechanics, having nothing to do with\nageing, should have nothing to do with motion either, and consequently,\nsince no scientific system is conceivable without a motion-problem in\nit, a complete and self-contained mechanics is an impossibility.\nSomewhere or other there is always an organic starting-point in the\nsystem where immediate Life enters it\u2014an umbilical cord that connects\nthe mind-child with the life-mother, the thought with the thinker.\n\nThis puts the fundamentals of Faustian and Apollinian Nature-science in\nquite another light. No \u201cNature\u201d is pure\u2014there is always something of\nhistory in it. If the man is ahistorical, like the Greek, so that the\ntotality of his impressions of the world is absorbed in a pure point-\nformed present, his Nature-image is static, self-contained (that is,\nwalled against past and future) in every individual moment. Time as\nmagnitude figures in Greek physics as little as it does in Aristotle\u2019s\nentelechy-idea. If, on the other hand, the Man is historically\nconstituted, the image formed is dynamic. Number, the definitive\nevaluation of the become, is in the case of ahistoric man Measure, and\nin that of the historical man Function. One measures only what is\npresent and one follows up only what has a past and a future, a course.\nAnd the effect of this difference is that the inner inconsistencies of\nthe motion-problem are covered up in Classical theories and forced into\nthe foreground in Western.\n\nHistory is eternal becoming and therefore eternal future; Nature is\nbecome and therefore eternally past.[485] And here a strange inversion\nseems to have taken place\u2014the Becoming has lost its priority over the\nBecome. When the intellect looks back from _its_ sphere, the Become, the\naspect of life is reversed, the idea of Destiny which carries aim and\nfuture in it having turned into the mechanical principle of cause-and-\neffect of which the centre of gravity lies in the past. The spatially-\nexperienced is promoted to rank above the temporal living, and time is\nreplaced by a length in a spatial world-system. And, since in the\ncreative experience extension follows from direction, the spatial from\nlife, the human understanding imports life _as a process_ into the\ninorganic space of its imagination. While life looks on space as\nsomething functionally belonging to itself, intellect looks upon life as\nsomething _in_ space. Destiny asks: \u201cWhither?\u201d, Causality asks:\n\u201cWhence?\u201d To establish scientifically means, starting from the become\nand actualized, to search for \u201ccauses\u201d by going back along a\nmechanically-conceived course, that is to say, by treating becoming as a\nlength. But it is not possible to live backwards, only to think\nbackwards. Not Time and Destiny are reversible, but only that which the\nphysicist calls \u201ctime\u201d and admits into his formul\u00e6 as divisible, and\npreferably as negative or imaginary quantities.\n\nThe perplexity is always there, though it has rarely been seen to be\noriginally and necessarily inherent. In the Classical science the\nEleatics, declining to admit the necessity of thinking of Nature as in\nmotion, set up against it the logical view that thinking is a being,\nwith the corollary that known and extended are identical and knowledge\nand becoming therefore irreconcilable. Their criticisms have not been,\nand cannot be, refuted. But they did not hinder the evolution of\nClassical physics, which was a necessary expression of the Apollinian\nsoul and as such superior to logical difficulties. In the \u201cclassical\u201d\nmechanics so-called of the Baroque, founded by Galileo and Newton, an\nirreproachable solution of the motion-problem on dynamic lines has been\nsought again and again. The history of the concept of force, which has\nbeen stated and restated with all the tireless passion of a thought that\nfeels its own self endangered by a difficulty, is nothing but the\nhistory of endeavours to find a form that is unimpeachable,\nmathematically and conceptually, for motion. The last serious attempt\u2014\nwhich failed like the rest, and of necessity\u2014was Hertz\u2019s.\n\nWithout discovering the true source of all perplexities (no physicist as\nyet has done that), Hertz tried to eliminate the notion of force\nentirely\u2014rightly feeling that error in all mechanical systems has to be\nlooked for in one or another of the basic concepts\u2014and to build up the\nwhole picture of physics on the quantities of time, space and mass. But\nhe did not observe that it is Time itself (which as direction-factor is\npresent in the force-concept) that is the organic element without which\na dynamic theory cannot be expressed and with which a clean solution\ncannot be got. Moreover, quite apart from this, the concepts force, mass\nand motion constitute a dogmatic unit. They so condition one another\nthat the application of one of them tacitly involves both the others\nfrom the outset. The whole Apollinian conception of the motion-problem\nis implicit in the root-word \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, the whole Western conception of it in\nthe force-idea. The notion of mass is only the complement of that of\nforce. Newton, a deeply religious nature, was only bringing the Faustian\nworld-feeling to expression when, to elucidate the words \u201cforce\u201d and\n\u201cmotion,\u201d he said that masses are points of attack for force and\ncarriers for motion. So the 13th-Century Mystics had conceived of God\nand his relation to world. Newton no doubt rejected the metaphysical\nelement in his famous saying \u201chypotheses non fingo,\u201d but all the same he\nwas metaphysical through and through in the founding of his mechanics.\n_Force is the mechanical Nature-picture of western man; what Will is to\nhis soul-picture and infinite Godhead in his world-picture._ The primary\nideas of this physics stood firm long before the first physicist was\nborn, for they lay in the earliest religious world-consciousness of our\nCulture.\n\n VI\n\nWith this it becomes manifest that the physical notion of Necessity,\ntoo, has a religious origin. It must not be forgotten that the\nmechanical necessity that rules in what our intellects comprehend as\nNature is founded upon another necessity which is organic and fateful in\nLife itself. The latter creates, the former restricts. One follows from\ninward certitude, the other from demonstration; that is the distinction\nbetween tragic and technical, historical and physical logic.\n\nThere are, further, differences within the necessity postulated and\nassumed by science (that of cause-and-effect) which have so far eluded\nthe keenest sight. We are confronted here with a question at once of\nvery great difficulty and of superlative importance. A Nature-knowledge\nis (however philosophy may express the relation) a function of knowing,\nwhich is in each case knowing in a particular style. A scientific\nnecessity therefore has the style of _the appropriate intellect_, and\nthis brings morphological differences into the field at once. It is\npossible to see a strict necessity in Nature even where it may be\nimpossible to express it in natural laws. In fact natural laws, which\nfor us are self-evidently the proper expression-form in science, are not\nby any means so for the men of other Cultures. They presuppose a quite\nspecial form, the distinctively Faustian form, of understanding and\ntherefore of Nature-knowing. There is nothing inherently absurd in the\nconception of a mechanical necessity wherein each individual case is\nmorphologically self-contained and never exactly reproduced, in which\ntherefore the acquisitions of knowledge cannot be put into consistently-\nvalid formul\u00e6. In such a case Nature would appear (to put it\nmetaphorically) as an unending decimal that was also non-recurring,\ndestitute of periodicity. And so, undoubtedly, it was conceived by\nClassical minds\u2014the feeling of it manifestly underlies their primary\nphysical concepts. For example, the proper motion of Democritus\u2019s atoms\nis such as to exclude any possibility of calculating motions in advance.\n\nNature-laws are forms of the known in which an aggregate of individual\ncases are brought together as a unit of higher degree. Living Time is\nignored\u2014that is, it does not matter whether, when or how often the case\narises, for the question is not of chronological sequence but of\nmathematical consequence.[486] But in the consciousness that no power in\nthe world can shake this calculation lies our will to command over\nNature. That is Faustian. It is only from this standpoint that miracles\nappear as breaches of the laws of Nature. Magian man saw in them merely\nthe exercise of a power that was not common to all, not in any way a\ncontradiction of the laws of Nature. And Classical man, according to\nProtagoras, was only the measure and not the creator of things\u2014a view\nthat unconsciously forgoes all conquest of Nature through the discovery\nand application of laws.\n\nWe see, then, that the causality-principle, in the form in which it is\nself-evidently necessary for us\u2014the agreed basis of truth for our\nmathematics, physics and philosophy\u2014is a Western and, more strictly\nspeaking, a Baroque phenomenon. It cannot be proved, for every proof set\nforth in a Western language and every experiment conducted by a Western\nmind presupposes itself. In every problem, the enunciation contains the\nproof in germ. The method of a science is the science itself. Beyond\nquestion, the notion of laws of Nature and the conception of physics as\n\u201cscientia experimentalis,\u201d[487] which has held ever since Roger Bacon,\ncontains _a priori_ this specific kind of necessity. The Classical mode\nof regarding Nature\u2014the alter ego of the Classical mode of being\u2014on the\ncontrary, does _not_ contain it, and yet it does not appear that the\nscientific position is weakened in logic thereby. If we work carefully\nthrough the utterances of Democritus, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle (in whom\nis contained the whole sum of Classical Nature-speculation), and, above\nall, if we examine the connotations of key-terms like \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7,\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, we look with astonishment into a world-image totally unlike\nour own. This world-image is self-sufficing and therefore, for this\ndefinite sort of mankind, unconditionally true. And causality in our\nsense plays no part therein.\n\nThe alchemist or philosopher of the Arabian Culture, too, assumes a\nnecessity within his world-cavern that is utterly and completely\ndifferent from the necessity of dynamics. There is no causal nexus of\nlaw-form but only _one_ cause, God, immediately underlying _every_\neffect. To believe in Nature-laws would, from this standpoint, be to\ndoubt the almightiness of God. If a rule seems to emerge, it is because\nit pleases God so; but to suppose that this rule was a necessity would\nbe to yield to a temptation of the Devil. This was the attitude also of\nCarneades, Plotinus and the Neo-Pythagoreans.[488] _This_ necessity\nunderlies the Gospels as it does the Talmud and the Avesta, and upon it\nrests the technique of alchemy.\n\nThe conception of number as function is related to the dynamic principle\nof cause-and-effect. Both are creations of the same intellect,\nexpression-forms of the same spirituality, formative principles of the\nsame objectivized and \u201cbecome\u201d Nature. In fact the physics of Democritus\ndiffers from the physics of Newton in that the chosen starting-point of\nthe one is the optically-given while that of the other is abstract\nrelations that have been deduced from it. The \u201cfacts\u201d of Apollinian\nNature-knowledge are things, and they lie on the surface of the known,\nbut the facts of Faustian science are relations, which in general are\ninvisible to lay eyes, which have to be mastered intellectually, which\nrequire for their communication a code-language that only the expert\nresearcher can fully understand. The Classical, static, necessity is\nimmediately evident in the changing phenomena, while the dynamic\ncausation-principle prevails beyond things and its tendency is to\nweaken, or to abolish even, their sensible actuality. Consider, for\nexample, the world of significance that is connected, under present-day\nhypotheses, with the expression \u201ca magnet.\u201d\n\nThe principle of the Conservation of Energy, which since its\nenunciation by J. R. Mayer has been regarded in all seriousness as a\nplain conceptual necessity, is in fact a redescription of the\n_dynamic_ principle of causality by means of the physical concept of\nforce. The appeal to \u201cexperience,\u201d and the controversy as to whether\njudgment is necessary or empirical\u2014i.e., in the language of Kant (who\ngreatly deceived himself about the highly-fluid boundaries between the\ntwo), whether it is _a priori_ or _a posteriori_ certain\u2014are\ncharacteristically Western. Nothing seems to us more self-evident and\nunambiguous than \u201cexperience\u201d as the source of exact science. The\nFaustian experiment, based on working hypotheses and employing the\nmethods of measurement, is nothing but the systematic and exhaustive\nexploitation of this \u201cexperience.\u201d But no one has noticed that a whole\nworld-view is implicit in such a concept of \u201cexperience\u201d with its\naggressive dynamic connotation, and that there is not and cannot be\n\u201cexperience\u201d in this pregnant sense for men of other Cultures. When we\ndecline to recognize the scientific results of Anaxagoras or\nDemocritus as experiential results, it does not mean that these\nClassical thinkers were incapable of interpreting and merely threw off\nfancies, but that we miss in their generalizations that causal element\nwhich for us _constitutes_ experience in our sense of the word.\nManifestly, we have never yet given adequate thought to the\n_singularity_ of this, the pure Faustian, conception of experience.\nThe contrast between it and faith is obvious\u2014and entirely superficial.\nFor indeed exact sensuous-intellectual experience is in point of\nstructure completely congruent with that heart-experience (as we may\nwell call it), that illumination which deep religious natures of the\nWest (Pascal, for instance, whom one and the same necessity made\nmathematician and Jansenist) have known in the significant moments of\ntheir being. Experience means to us an _activity_ of the intellect,\nwhich does not resignedly confine itself to receiving, acknowledging\nand arranging momentary and purely present impressions, but seeks them\nout and calls them up in order to overcome them in their sensuous\npresence and to bring them into an unbounded unity in which their\nsensuous discreteness is dissolved. Experience in our sense possesses\nthe tendency _from particular to infinite_. And for that very reason\nit is in contradiction with the feeling of Classical science. What for\nus is the way to acquire experience is for the Greek the way to lose\nit. And therefore he kept away from the drastic method of experiment;\ntherefore his physics, instead of being a mighty system of worked-out\nlaws and formul\u00e6 that strong-handedly override the sense-present\n(\u201conly knowledge is power\u201d), is an aggregate of impressions\u2014well\nordered, intensified by sensuous imagery, clean-edged\u2014which leaves\nNature intact in its self-completeness. Our exact Natural science is\nimperative, the Classical is \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 in the literal sense, the result\nof passive contemplativeness.\n\n VII\n\nWe can now say without any hesitation that the form-world of a Natural\nscience corresponds to those of the appropriate mathematic, the\nappropriate religion, the appropriate art. A deep mathematician\u2014by which\nis meant not a master-computer but a man, any man, who feels the spirit\nof numbers living within him\u2014realizes that through it he \u201cknows God.\u201d\nPythagoras and Plato knew this as well as Pascal and Leibniz did so.\nTerentius Varro, in his examination of the old Roman religion (dedicated\nto Julius C\u00e6sar), distinguished with Roman seriousness between the\n_theologia civilis_, the sum of officially-recognized belief, the\n_theologia mythica_, the imagination-world of poets and artists, and the\n_theologia physica_ of philosophical speculation. Applying this to the\nFaustian Culture, that which Thomas Aquinas and Luther, Calvin and\nLoyola taught belongs to the first category, Dante and Goethe belong to\nthe second; and to the third belongs scientific physics, inasmuch as\nbehind its formul\u00e6 there are images.\n\nNot only primitive man and the child, but also the higher animals\nspontaneously evolve from the small everyday experiences an image of\nNature which contains the sum of technical indications observed as\nrecurrent. The eagle \u201cknows\u201d the moment at which to swoop down on the\nprey; the singing-bird sitting on the eggs \u201cknows\u201d the approach of the\nmarten; the deer \u201cfinds\u201d the place where there is food. In man, this\nexperience of all the senses has narrowed and deepened itself into\nexperience of the eye. But, as the habit of verbal speech has now been\nsuperadded, understanding comes to be abstracted from seeing, and\nthenceforward develops independently as reasoning; to the instantly-\ncomprehending _technique_ is added the reflective _theory_. Technique\napplies itself to visible near things and plain needs, theory to the\ndistance and the terrors of the invisible. By the side of the petty\nknowledge of everyday life it sets up belief. And still they evolve,\nthere is a new knowledge and a new and higher technique, and to the myth\nthere is added the cult. The one teaches how to know the \u201cnumina,\u201d the\nother how to conquer them. For theory in the eminent sense is religious\nthrough and through. It is only in quite late states that scientific\ntheory evolves out of religious, _through men having become aware of\nmethods_. Apart from this there is little alteration. The image-world of\nphysics remains mythic, its procedure remains a cult of conjuring the\npowers in things, and the images that it forms and the methods that it\nuses remain generically dependent upon those of the appropriate\nreligion.[489]\n\nFrom the later days of the Renaissance onward, the notion of God has\nsteadily approximated, in the spirit of every man of high significance,\nto the idea of pure endless Space. The God of Ignatius Loyola\u2019s\n_exercitia spiritualis_ is the God also of Luther\u2019s \u201cein\u2019 feste Burg,\u201d\nof the Improperia of Palestrina and the Cantatas of Bach. He is no\nlonger the Father of St. Francis of Assisi and the high-vaulted\ncathedrals, the personally-present, caring and mild God felt by Gothic\npainters like Giotto and Stephen Lochner, but an impersonal principle;\nunimaginable, intangible, working mysteriously in the Infinite. Every\nrelic of personality dissolves into insensible abstraction, such a\ndivinity as only instrumental music of the grand style is capable of\nrepresenting, a divinity before which painting breaks down and drops\ninto the background. This God-feeling it was that formed the scientific\nworld-image of the West, its \u201cNature,\u201d its \u201cexperience\u201d and therefore\nits theories and its methods, in direct contradiction to those of the\nClassical. The force which moves the mass\u2014that is what Michelangelo\npainted in the Sistine Chapel; that is what we feel growing more and\nmore intense from the archetype of Il Ges\u00f9 to the climax in the\ncathedral fa\u00e7ades of Della Porta and Maderna, and from Heinrich Sch\u00fctz\nto the transcendent tone-worlds of 18th-Century church music; that is\nwhat in Shakespearian tragedy fills with world-becoming scenes widened\nto infinity. And that is what Galileo and Newton captured in formul\u00e6 and\nconcepts.\n\nThe word \u201cGod\u201d rings otherwise under the vaulting of Gothic cathedrals\nor in the cloisters of Maulbronn and St. Gallen than in the basilicas of\nSyria and the temples of Republican Rome. The character of the Faustian\ncathedral is that of the _forest_. The mighty elevation of the nave\nabove the flanking aisles, in contrast to the flat roof of the basilica;\nthe transformation of the columns, which with base and capital had been\nset as self-contained individuals in space, into pillars and clustered-\npillars that grow up out of the earth and spread on high into an\ninfinite subdivision and interlacing of lines and branches; the giant\nwindows by which the wall is dissolved and the interior filled with\nmysterious light\u2014these are the architectural actualizing of a world-\nfeeling that had found the first of all its symbols in the high forest\nof the Northern plains, the deciduous forest with its mysterious\ntracery, its whispering of ever-mobile foliage over men\u2019s heads, its\nbranches straining through the trunks to be free of earth. Think of\nRomanesque ornamentation and its deep affinity to the sense of the\nwoods. The endless, lonely, twilight wood became and remained the secret\nwistfulness in all Western building-forms, so that when the form-energy\nof the style died down\u2014in late Gothic as in closing Baroque\u2014the\ncontrolled abstract line-language resolved itself immediately into\nnaturalistic branches, shoots, twigs and leaves.\n\nCypresses and pines, with their corporeal and Euclidean effect, could\nnever have become symbols of unending space. But the oaks, beeches and\nlindens with the fitful light-flecks playing in their shadow-filled\nvolume are felt as bodiless, boundless, spiritual. The stem of the\ncypress finds conclusive fulfilment of its vertical tendency in the\ndefined columniation of its cone-masses, but that of an oak seems, ever\nrestless and unsatisfied, to strain beyond its summit. In the ash, the\nvictory of the upstriving branches over the unity of the crown seems\nactually to be won. Its aspect is of something dissolving, something\nexpanding into space, and it was for this probably that the World-Ash\nYggdrasil became a symbol in the Northern mythology. The rustle of the\nwoods, a charm that no Classical poet ever felt\u2014for it lies beyond the\npossibilities of Apollinian Nature-feeling\u2014stands with its secret\nquestions \u201cwhence? whither?\u201d its merging of presence into eternity, in a\ndeep relation with Destiny, with the feeling of History and Duration,\nwith the quality of Direction that impels the anxious, caring, Faustian\nsoul towards infinitely-distant Future. And for that reason the organ,\nthat roars deep and high through our churches in tones which, compared\nwith the plain solid notes of aulos and cithara, seem to know neither\nlimit nor restraint, is the instrument of instruments in Western\ndevotions. Cathedral and organ form a symbolic unity like temple and\nstatue. The history of organ-building, one of the most profound and\nmoving chapters of our musical history, is a history of a longing for\nthe forest, a longing to speak in the language of that true temple of\nWestern God-fearing. From the verse of Wolfram von Eschenbach to the\nmusic of \u201cTristan\u201d this longing has borne fruit unceasingly. Orchestra-\ntone strove tirelessly in the 18th Century towards a nearer kinship with\nthe organ-tone. The word \u201cschwebend\u201d\u2014meaningless as applied to Classical\nthings\u2014is important alike in the theory of music, in oil-painting, in\narchitecture and in the dynamic physics of the Baroque. Stand in a high\nwood of mighty stems while the storm is tearing above, and you will\ncomprehend instantly the full meaning of the concept of a force which\nmoves mass.\n\nOut of such a primary feeling in the existence that has become\nthoughtful there arises, then, an idea of the Divine immanent in the\nworld-around, and this idea becomes steadily more definite. The\nthoughtful percipient takes in the impression of motion in outer Nature.\nHe feels about him an almost indescribable _alien life_ of unknown\npowers, and traces the origin of these effects to \u201cnumina,\u201d to The\nOther, inasmuch as this Other also possesses Life. Astonishment at\n_alien motion_ is the source of religion and of physics both;\nrespectively, they are the elucidations of Nature (world-around) by the\nsoul and by the reason. The \u201cpowers\u201d are the first object both of\nfearful or loving reverence and of critical investigation. There is a\nreligious experience _and_ a scientific experience.\n\nNow it is important to observe how the consciousness of the Culture\nintellectually concretes its primary \u201cnumina.\u201d It imposes significant\nwords\u2014_names_\u2014on them and there conjures (seizes or bounds) them. By\nvirtue of the Name they are subject to the intellectual power of the man\nwho possesses the Name, and (as has been shown already) the whole of\nphilosophy, the whole of science, and everything that is related in any\nway to \u201cknowing\u201d is at the very bottom nothing but an infinitely-refined\nmode of _applying the name-magic of the primitive to the \u201calien.\u201d_ The\npronouncement of the right name (in physics, the right concept) is an\nincantation. Deities and basic notions of science alike come into being\nfirst as vocable names, with which is linked an idea that tends to\nbecome more and more sensuously definite. The outcome of a _Numen_ is a\n_Deus_, the outcome of a notion is an idea. In the mere naming of\n\u201cthing-in-itself,\u201d \u201catom,\u201d \u201cenergy,\u201d \u201cgravitation,\u201d \u201ccause,\u201d \u201cevolution\u201d\nand the like is for most learned men the same sense of deliverance as\nthere was for the peasant of Latium in the words \u201cCeres,\u201d \u201cConsus,\u201d\n\u201cJanus,\u201d \u201cVesta.\u201d[490]\n\nFor the Classical world-feeling, conformably to the Apollinian depth-\nexperience and its symbolism, the individual body was \u201cBeing.\u201d Logically\ntherefore the form of this body, as it presented itself in the light,\nwas felt as its essence, as the true purport of the word \u201cbeing.\u201d What\nhas not shape, what is not a shape, is not at all. On the basis of this\nfeeling (which was of an intensity that we can hardly imagine) the\nClassical spirit created as counter-concept[491] to the form of \u201cThe\nOther\u201d _Non-Form_ viz., stuff, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae, \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, that which in itself possesses\nno being and is merely complement to the actual \u201cEnt,\u201d representing a\nsecondary and corollary necessity. In these conditions, it is easy to\nsee how the Classical pantheon inevitably shaped itself, as a higher\nmankind side by side with the common mankind, as a set of perfectly-\nformed bodies, of high possibilities incarnate and present, but in the\nunessential of stuff not distinguished and therefore subject to the same\ncosmic and tragic necessity.\n\nIt is otherwise that the Faustian world-feeling experiences depth. Here\nthe sum of true Being appears as pure efficient Space, which _is_ being.\nAnd therefore what is sensuously felt, what is very significantly\ndesignated the plenum (das Raumerf\u00fcllende), is felt as a fact of the\nsecond order, as something questionable or specious, as a resistance\nthat must be overcome by philosopher or physicist before the true\ncontent of Being can be discovered. Western scepticism has never been\ndirected against Space, always against tangible things only. Space is\nthe _higher_ idea\u2014force is only a less abstract expression for it\u2014and it\nis only as a counter-concept to space that mass arises. For mass is what\nis _in_ space and is logically and physically dependent upon space. From\nthe assumption of a wave-motion of light, which underlies the conception\nof light as a form of energy, the assumption of a corresponding mass,\nthe \u201cluminiferous \u00e6ther\u201d necessarily followed. A definition of mass and\nascription of properties to mass follows from the definition of force\n(and not vice versa) with all the necessity of a symbol. All Classical\nnotions of substantiality, however they differed amongst themselves as\nrealist or idealist, distinguish a \u201cto-be-formed,\u201d that is, a Nonent,\nwhich only receives closer definition from the basic concept of form,\nwhatever this form may be in the particular philosophical system. All\nWestern notions of substantiality distinguish a \u201cto-be-moved,\u201d which\nalso is a negative, no doubt, but one polar to a different positive.\n_Form and non-form, force and non-force_\u2014these words render as clearly\nas may be the polarities that in the two Cultures underlie the world-\nimpression and contain all its modes. That which comparative philosophy\nhas hitherto rendered inaccurately and misleadingly by the one word\n\u201cmatter\u201d signifies in the one case the substratum of shape, in the other\nthe substratum of force. No two notions could differ more completely.\nFor here it is the feeling of God, a _sense of values_, that is\nspeaking. The Classical deity is superlative shape, the Faustian\nsuperlative force. The \u201cOther\u201d is the Ungodly to which the spirit will\nnot accord the dignity of Being; to the Apollinian world-feeling this\nungodly \u201cother\u201d is substance without shape, to the Faustian it is\nsubstance without force.\n\n VIII\n\nScientists are wont to assume that myths and God-ideas are creations of\nprimitive man, and that as spiritual culture \u201cadvances,\u201d this myth-\nforming power is shed. In reality it is the exact opposite, and had not\nthe morphology of history remained to this day an almost unexplored\nfield, the supposedly universal mythopoetic power would long ago have\nbeen found to be limited to particular periods. It would have been\nrealized that this ability of a soul to fill its world with shapes,\ntraits and symbols\u2014like and consistent amongst themselves\u2014belongs most\ndecidedly not to the world-age of the primitives but exclusively to the\nspringtimes of _great_ Cultures.[492] Every myth of the great style\nstands at the beginning of an awakening spirituality. It is the first\nformative act of that spirituality. Nowhere else is it to be found.\nThere\u2014it _must_ be.\n\nI make the assumption that that which a primitive folk\u2014like the\nEgyptians of Thinite times, the Jews and Persians before Cyrus,[493] the\nheroes of the Mycen\u00e6an burghs and the Germans of the Migrations\u2014\npossesses in the way of religious ideas is not yet myth in the higher\nsense. It may well be a sum of scattered and irregular traits, of cults\nadhering to names, fragmentary saga-pictures, but it is not yet a divine\norder, a mythic organism, and I no more regard this as myth than I\nregard the ornament of that stage as art. And, be it said, the greatest\ncaution is necessary in dealing with the symbols and sagas current to-\nday, or even those current centuries ago, amongst ostensibly primitive\npeoples, for in those thousands of years every country in the world has\nbeen more or less affected by some high Culture alien to it.\n\nThere are, therefore, as many form-worlds of great myth as there are\nCultures and early architectures. The antecedents\u2014that chaos of\nundeveloped imagery in which modern folk-lore research, for want of a\nguiding principle, loses itself\u2014do not, on this hypothesis, concern us;\nbut we _are_ concerned, on the other hand, with certain cultural\nmanifestations that have never yet been thought of as belonging to this\ncategory. It was in the Homeric age (1100-800 B.C.) and in the\ncorresponding knightly age of Teutonism (900-1200 A.D.), that is, the\n_epic_ ages, and neither before nor after them, that the great world-\nimage of a new religion came into being. The corresponding ages in India\nand Egypt are the Vedic and the Pyramid periods; one day it will be\ndiscovered that Egyptian mythology did in fact ripen into _depth_ during\nthe Third and Fourth Dynasties.\n\nOnly in this way can we understand the immense wealth of religious-\nintuitive creations that fills the three centuries of the Imperial Age\nin Germany. What came into existence then was _the Faustian mythology_.\nHitherto, owing to religious and learned preconceptions, either the\nCatholic element has been treated to the exclusion of the Northern-\nHeathen or vice versa, and consequently we have been blind to the\nbreadth and the unity of this form-world. In reality there is no such\ndifference. The deep change of meaning in the Christian circle of ideas\nis identical, as a creative act, with the consolidation of the old\nheathen cults of the Migrations. It was in this age that the folk-lore\nof Western Europe became an entirety; if the bulk of its material was\nfar older, and if, far later again, it came to be linked with new outer\nexperiences and enriched by more conscious treatment, yet it was then\nand neither earlier nor later that it was vitalized with its symbolic\nmeaning. To this lore belong the great God-legends of the Edda and many\nmotives in the gospel-poetry of learned monks; the German hero-tales of\nSiegfried and Gudrun, Dietrich and Wayland; the vast wealth of chivalry-\ntales, derived from ancient Celtic fables, that was simultaneously\ncoming to harvest on French soil, concerning King Arthur and the Round\nTable, the Holy Grail, Tristan, Percival and Roland. And with these are\nto be counted\u2014beside the spiritual transvaluation, unremarked but all\nthe deeper for that, of the Passion-Story\u2014the Catholic hagiology of\nwhich the richest floraison was in the 10th and 11th Centuries and which\nproduced the Lives of the Virgin and the histories of SS. Roch, Sebald,\nSeverin, Francis, Bernard, Odilia. The _Legenda Aurea_ was composed\nabout 1250\u2014this was the blossoming-time of courtly epic and Icelandic\nskald-poetry alike. The great Valhalla Gods of the North and the mythic\ngroup of the \u201cFourteen Helpers\u201d in South Germany are contemporary, and\nby the side of Ragnar\u00f6k, the Twilight of the Gods, in the V\u00f6luspa we\nhave a Christian form in the South German Muspilli. This great myth\ndevelops, like heroic poetry, at the _climax_ of the early Culture. They\nboth belong to the two primary estates, priesthood and nobility; they\nare at home in the cathedral and the castle and not in the village\nbelow, where amongst the people the simple saga-world lives on for\ncenturies, called \u201cfairy-tale,\u201d \u201cpopular beliefs\u201d or \u201csuperstition\u201d and\nyet inseparable from the world of high centemplation.[494]\n\nNowhere is the final meaning of these religious creations more clearly\nindicated than in the history of Valhalla. It was not an original German\nidea, and even the tribes of the Migrations were totally without it. It\ntook shape just at _this_ time, instantly and as an inward necessity, in\nthe consciousness of the peoples newly-arisen on the soil of the West.\nThus it is \u201ccontemporary\u201d with Olympus, which we know from the Homeric\nepos and which is as little Mycen\u00e6an as Valhalla is German in origin.\nMoreover, it is only for the two higher estates that Valhalla emerges\nfrom the notion of Hel; in the beliefs of the people Hel remained the\nrealm of the dead.[495]\n\nThe deep inward unity of this Faustian world of myth and saga and the\ncomplete congruence of its expression-symbolism has never hitherto been\nrealized, and yet Siegfried, Baldur, Roland, Christ the King in the\n\u201cHeliand,\u201d are different names for one and the same figure. Valhalla and\nAvalon, the Round Table and the communion of the Grail-templars, Mary,\nFrigga and Frau Holle mean the same. On the other hand, the external\nprovenance of the material motives and elements, on which mythological\nresearch has wasted an excessive zeal, is a matter of which the\nimportance does not go deeper than the surface. As to the meaning of a\nmyth, its provenance proves _nothing_. The \u201cnumen\u201d itself, the primary\nform of the world-feeling, is a pure, necessary and unconscious\ncreation, and it is not transferable. What one people takes over from\nanother\u2014in \u201cconversion\u201d or in admiring imitation\u2014is a name, dress and\nmask for its own feeling, never the feeling of that other. The old\nCeltic and old Germanic myth-motives have to be treated, like the\nrepertory of Classical forms possessed by the learned monk, and like the\nentire body of Christian-Eastern faith taken over by the Western Church,\nsimply as the material out of which the Faustian soul in these centuries\ncreated a mythic architecture of its own. It mattered little whether the\npersons through whose minds and mouths the myth came to life were\nindividual skalds, missionaries, priests or \u201cthe people,\u201d nor did the\ncircumstance that the Christian ideas dictated its forms affect the\ninward independence of that which had come to life.\n\nIn the Classical, Arabian and Western Cultures, the myth of the\nspringtime is in each case that which we should expect; in the first\nstatic, in the second Magian, in the third dynamic. Examine every detail\nof form, and see how in the Classical it is an attitude and in the West\na deed, there a being and here a will that underlies them; how in the\nClassical the bodily and tangible, the sensuously-saturated, prevails\nand how therefore in the mode of worshipping the centre of gravity lies\nin the sense-impressive _cult_, whereas in the North it is space, force\nand therefore a religiousness that is predominantly dogmatic in\ncolouring that rule. These very earliest creations of the young soul\ntell us that there is relationship between the Olympian figures, the\nstatue and the corporeal Doric temple; between the domical basilica, the\n\u201cSpirit\u201d of God and the arabesque; between Valhalla and the Mary myth,\nthe soaring nave and instrumental music.\n\nThe Arabian soul built up its myth in the centuries between C\u00e6sar and\nConstantine\u2014that fantastic mass of cults, visions and legends that to-\nday we can hardly even survey,[496] syncretic cults like that of the\nSyrian Baal and of Isis and Mithras not only transported to but\ntransformed in Syrian soil; Gospels, Acts of Apostles and Apocalypses in\nastonishing profusion; Christian, Persian, Jewish, Neoplatonist and\nManich\u00e6an legends, and the heavenly hierarchy of angels and spirits of\nthe Fathers and the Gnostics. In the suffering-story of the Gospels,\n_the very epic of the Christian nation_, set between the story of\nJesus\u2019s childhood and the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Zoroaster-\nlegend that is contemporary with it, we are looking upon the hero-\nfigures of Early Arabian epic as we see Achilles in the Classical and\nSiegfried and Percival in the Faustian. The scenes of Gethsemane and\nGolgotha stand beside the noblest pictures of Greek and Germanic saga.\nThese Magian visions, almost without exception, grew up under the\npressure of the dying Classical which, in the nature of things unable to\ncommunicate its spirit, the more insistently lent its forms. It is\nalmost impossible now to estimate the extent to which given Apollinian\nelements had to be accepted and transvalued before the old Christian\nmyth assumed the firmness that it possessed in the time of Augustine.\n\n\n IX\n\nThe Classical polytheism, consequently, has a style of its own which\nputs it in a different category from the conceptions of any other world-\nfeelings, whatever the superficial affinities may be. This mode of\npossessing gods without godhead has only existed once, and it was in the\none Culture that made the statue of naked Man the whole sum of its art.\n\nNature, as Classical man felt and knew it about him, viz., a sum of\nwell-formed bodily things, could not be deified in any other form but\nthis. The Roman felt that the claim of Yahweh to be recognized as sole\nGod had something atheistic in it. One God, for him, was no God, and to\nthis may be ascribed the strong dislike of popular feeling, both Greek\nand Roman, for the philosophers in so far as they were pantheists and\ngodless. Gods are bodies, \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of the perfectest kind, and plurality\nwas an attribute of bodies alike for mathematicians, lawyers and poets.\nThe concept of \u03b6\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd was valid for gods as well as for men;\nnothing was more alien to them than oneness, solitariness and self-\nadequacy; and no existence therefore was possible to them save under the\naspect of eternal propinquity. It is a deeply significant fact that in\nHellas of all countries star-gods, the numina of the Far, are wanting.\nHelios was worshipped only in half-Oriental Rhodes and Selene had no\ncult at all. Both are merely artistic modes of expression (it is as such\nonly that they figure in the courtly epos of Homer), elements that Varro\nwould class in the _genus mythicum_ and not in the _genus civile_. The\nold Roman religion, in which the Classical world-feeling was expressed\nwith special purity, knew neither sun nor moon, neither storm nor cloud\nas deities. The forest stirrings and the forest solitude, the tempest\nand the surf, which completely dominated the Nature of Faustian man\n(even that of pre-Faustian Celts and Teutons) and imparted to their\nmythology its peculiar character, left Classical man unmoved. Only\nconcretes\u2014hearth and door, the coppice and the plot-field, this\nparticular river and that particular hill\u2014condensed into Being for him.\nWe observe that everything that has farness, everything that contains a\nsuggestion of unbounded and unbodied in it and might thereby bring space\nas Ent and divine into the felt Nature, is excluded and remains excluded\nfrom Classical myth; how should it surprise, then, if clouds and\nhorizons, that are the very meaning and soul of Baroque landscapes, are\ntotally wanting in the Classical backgroundless frescoes? The unlimited\nmultitude of antique gods\u2014every tree, every spring, every house, nay\nevery part of a house is a god\u2014means that every tangible thing is an\n_independent_ existence, and therefore that none is functionally\nsubordinate to any other.\n\nThe bases of the Apollinian and the Faustian Nature-images respectively\nare in all contexts the two opposite symbols of _individual thing_ and\n_unitary space_. Olympus and Hades are perfectly sense-definite places,\nwhile the kingdom of the dwarfs, elves and goblins, and Valhalla and\nNiflheim are all somewhere or other in the universe of space. In the old\nRoman religion \u201cTellus Mater\u201d is not the all-mother but the visible\nploughable field itself. Faunus _is_ the wood and Vulturnus _is_ the\nriver, the name of the seed _is_ Ceres and that of the harvest _is_\nConsus. Horace is a true Roman when he speaks of \u201csub Jove frigido,\u201d\nunder the cold sky. In these cases there is not even the attempt to\nreproduce the God in any sort of image at the places of worship, for\nthat would be tantamount to duplicating him. Even in very late times the\ninstinct not only of the Romans but of the Greeks also is opposed to\nidols, as is shown by the fact that plastic art, as it became more and\nmore profane, came into conflict more and more with popular beliefs and\nthe devout philosophy.[497] In the house, Janus is the door as god,\nVesta the hearth as goddess, the two functions of the house are\nobjectivized and deified at once. A Hellenic river-god (like Achelo\u00fcs,\nwho appears as a bull,) is definitely understood as being the river and\nnot as, so to say, dwelling in the river. The Pans[498] and Satyrs are\nthe fields and meadows as noon defines them, well bounded and, as having\nfigure, having also existence. Dryads and Hamadrayads _are_ trees; in\nmany places, indeed, individual trees of great stature were honoured\nwith garlands and votive offerings without even the formality of a name.\nOn the contrary, not a trace of this localized materiality clings to the\nelves, dwarfs, witches, Valkyries and their kindred the armies of\ndeparted souls that sweep round o\u2019nights. Whereas Naiads _are_ sources,\nnixies and hags, and tree-spirits and brownies are souls that are only\nbound to sources, trees and houses, from which they long to be released\ninto the freedom of roaming. This is the very opposite of the plastic\nNature-feeling, for here things are experienced merely as spaces of\nanother kind. A nymph\u2014a spring, that is\u2014assumes human form when she\nwould visit a handsome shepherd, but a nixy is an enchanted princess\nwith nenuphars in her hair who comes up at midnight from the depths of\nthe pool wherein she dwells. Kaiser Barbarossa sits in the Kyffh\u00e4user\ncavern and Frau Venus in the H\u00f6rselberg. It is as though the Faustian\nuniverse abhorred anything material and impenetrable. In things, we\nsuspect other worlds. Their hardness and thickness is merely appearance,\nand\u2014a trait that would be impossible in Classical myth, because fatal to\nit\u2014some favoured mortals are accorded the power to see through cliffs\nand crags into the depths. But is not just this the secret intent of our\nphysical theories, of each new hypothesis? No other Culture knows so\nmany fables of treasures lying in mountains and pools, of secret\nsubterranean realms, palaces, gardens wherein other beings dwell. The\nwhole substantiality of the visible world is denied by the Faustian\nNature-feeling, for which in the end nothing is of earth and the only\nactual is Space. The fairy-tale dissolves the matter of Nature as the\nGothic style dissolves the stone-mass of our cathedrals, into a ghostly\nwealth of forms and lines that have shed all weight and acknowledge no\nbounds.\n\nThe ever-increasing emphasis with which Classical polytheism somatically\nindividualized its deities is peculiarly evident in its attitude to\n\u201cstrange gods.\u201d For Classical man the gods of the Egyptians, the\nPh\u0153nicians and the Germans, in so far as they could be imagined as\nfigures, were as real as his own gods. Within his world-feeling the\nstatement that such other gods \u201cdo not exist\u201d would have no meaning.\nWhen he came into contact with the countries of these deities he did\nthem reverence. The gods were, like a statue or a polis, Euclidean\nbodies having locality. They were beings of the near and not the general\nspace. If a man were sojourning in Babylon, for instance, and Zeus and\nApollo were far away, all the more reason for _particularly_ honouring\nthe local gods. This is the meaning of the altars dedicated \u201cto the\nunknown gods,\u201d such as that which Paul so significantly misunderstood in\na Magian monotheistic sense at Athens.[499] These were gods not known by\nname to the Greek but worshipped by the foreigners of the great seaports\n(Pir\u00e6us, Corinth or other) and therefore entitled to their due of\nrespect from him. Rome expressed this with Classical clearness in her\nreligious law and in carefully-preserved formul\u00e6 like, for example, the\n_generalis invocatio_.[500] As the universe is the sum of things, and as\ngods are things, recognition had to be accorded even to those gods with\nwhom the Roman had not yet practically and historically come into\nrelations. He did not know them, or he knew them as the gods of his\nenemies, but they _were_ gods, for it was impossible for him to conceive\nthe opposite. This is the meaning of the sacral phrase in Livy, VIII, 9,\n6: \u201cdi quibus est potestas nostrorum hostiumque.\u201d The Roman people\nadmits that the circle of its own gods is only momentarily bounded, and\nafter reciting these by name it ends the prayer thus so as not to\ninfringe the rights of others. According to its sacral law, the\nannexation of foreign territory involves the transfer to Urbs Roma of\nall the religious obligations pertaining to this territory and its gods\u2014\nwhich of course logically follows from the _additive_ god-feeling of the\nClassical. Recognition of a deity was very far from being the same as\nacceptance of the forms of its cult; thus in the Second Punic War the\nGreat Mother of Pessinus[501] was received in Rome as the Sibyl\ncommanded, but the priests who had come in with her cult, which was of a\nhighly un-Classical complexion, practised under strict police\nsupervision, and not only Roman citizens but even their slaves were\nforbidden under penalty to enter this priesthood. The reception of the\ngoddess gave satisfaction to the Classical world-feeling, but the\npersonal performance of her despised ritual would have infringed it. The\nattitude of the Senate in such cases is unmistakable, though the people,\nwith its ever-increasing admixture of Eastern elements, had a liking for\nthese cults and in Imperial times the army became in virtue of its\ncomposition a vehicle (and even the chief vehicle) of the Magian world-\nfeeling.\n\nThis makes it the easier to understand how the cult of deified men could\nbecome a _necessary_ element in this religious form-world. But here it\nis necessary to distinguish sharply between Classical phenomena and\nOriental phenomena that have a superficial similarity thereto. Roman\nemperor-worship\u2014i.e., the reverence of the \u201cgenius\u201d of the living\nPrinces and that of the dead predecessors as \u201cDivi\u201d\u2014has hitherto been\nconfused with the ceremonial reverence of the Ruler which was customary\nin Asia Minor (and, above all, in Persia,)[502] and also with the later\nand quite differently meant Caliph-deification which is seen in full\nprocess of formation in Diocletian and Constantine. Actually, these are\nall very unlike things. However intimately these symbolic forms were\ninterfused in the East of the Empire, in Rome itself the Classical type\nwas actualized unequivocally and without adulteration. Long before this\ncertain Greeks (e.g., Sophocles, Lysander and, above all, Alexander) had\nbeen not merely hailed as gods by their flatterers but felt as gods in a\nperfectly definite sense by the people. It is only a step, after all,\nfrom the deification of a thing\u2014such as a copse or a well or, in the\nlimit, a statue which represented a god\u2014to the deification of an\noutstanding man who became first hero and then god. In this case as in\nthe rest, what was reverenced was the perfect shape in which the world-\nstuff, the un-divine, had actualized itself. In Rome the consul on the\nday of his triumph wore the armour of Jupiter Capitolinus, and in early\ndays his face and arms were even painted red, in order to enhance his\nsimilarity to the terra-cotta statue of the God whose \u201cnumen\u201d he for the\ntime being incorporated.\n\n\n X\n\nIn the first generations of the Imperial age, the antique polytheism\ngradually dissolved, often without any alteration of outward ritual and\nmythic form, into the Magian monotheism.[503] A new soul had come up,\nand it lived the old forms in a new mode. The names continued, but they\ncovered other numina.\n\nIn all Late-Classical cults, those of Isis and Cybele, of Mithras and\nSol and Serapis, the divinity is no longer felt as a localized and\nformable being. In old times, Hermes Propyl\u00e6us had been worshipped at\nthe entrance of the Acropolis of Athens, while a few yards away, at the\npoint where later the Erechtheum was built, was the cult-site of Hermes\nas the husband of Aglaure. At the South extremity of the Roman Capitol,\nclose to the sanctuary of Juppiter Feretrius (which contained, not a\nstatue of the god, but a holy stone, _silex_[504]) was that of Juppiter\nOptimus Maximus, and when Augustus was laying down the huge temple of\nthe latter he was careful to avoid the ground to which the numen of the\nformer adhered.[505] But in Early Christian times Juppiter Dolichenus or\nSol Invictus[506] could be worshipped \u201cwheresoever two or three were\ngathered together in his name.\u201d All these deities more and more came to\nbe felt as a single numen, though the adherents of a particular cult\nwould believe that they in particular knew the numen in its true shape.\nHence it is that Isis could be spoken of as the \u201cmillion-named.\u201d\nHitherto, names had been the designations of so many gods different in\nbody and locality, now they are _titles_ of the One whom every man has\nin mind.\n\nThis Magian monotheism reveals itself in all the religious creations\nthat flooded the Empire from the East\u2014the Alexandrian Isis, the Sun-god\nfavoured by Aurelian (the Baal of Palmyra), the Mithras protected by\nDiocletian (whose Persian form had been completely recast in Syria), the\nBaalath of Carthage (Tanit, Dea C\u00e6lestis[507]) honoured by Septimius\nSeverus. The importation of these figures no longer increases as in\nClassical times the number of concrete gods. On the contrary, they\nabsorb the old gods into themselves, and do so in such a way as to\ndeprive them more and more of picturable shape. Alchemy is replacing\nstatics. Correspondingly, instead of the image we more and more find\nsymbols\u2014e.g., the Bull, the Lamb, the Fish, the Triangle, the Cross\u2014\ncoming to the front. In Constantine\u2019s \u201cin hoc signo vinces\u201d scarcely an\necho of the Classical remains. Already there is setting in that aversion\nto human representation that ended in the Islamic and Byzantine\nprohibitions of images.\n\nRight down to Trajan\u2014long after the last trait of Apollinian world-\nfeeling had departed from the soil of Greece\u2014the Roman state-worship had\nstrength enough to hold to the Euclidean tendency and to _augment_ its\nworld of deities. The gods of the subject lands and peoples were\naccorded recognized places of worship, with priesthood and ritual, in\nRome, and were themselves associated as perfectly definite individuals\nwith the older gods. But from that point the Magian spirit began to gain\nground even here, in spite of an honourable resistance which centred in\na few of the very oldest patrician families.[508] The god-figures as\nsuch, as bodies, vanished from the consciousness of men, to make way for\na transcendental god-feeling which no longer depended on sense-\nevidences; and the usages, festivals and legends melted into one\nanother. When in 217 Caracalla put an end to all sacral-legal\ndistinctions between Roman and foreign deities and Isis, absorbing all\nolder female numina, became actually the first goddess of Rome[509] (and\nthereby the most dangerous opponent of Christianity and the most\nobnoxious target for the hatred of the Fathers), then Rome became a\npiece of the East, a religious diocese of Syria. Then the Baals of\nDoliche, Petra, Palmyra and Edessa began to melt into the monotheism of\nSol, who became and remained (till his representative Licinius fell\nbefore Constantine) God of the Empire. By now, the question was not\nbetween Classical and Magian\u2014Christianity was in so little danger from\nthe old gods that it could offer them a sort of sympathy\u2014but it was,\nwhich of the Magian religions should dictate religious form to the world\nof the Classical Empire? The decline of the old plastic feeling is very\nclearly discernible in the stages through which Emperor-worship passed\u2014\nfirst, the dead emperor taken into the circle of State gods by\nresolution of the Senate (Divus Julius, 42 B.C.), a priesthood provided\nfor him and his image removed from amongst the ancestor-images that were\ncarried in purely domestic celebrations; then, from Marcus Aurelius, no\nfurther consecrations of priests (and, presently, no further building of\ntemples) for the service of deified emperors, for the reason that\nreligious sentiment was now satisfied by a general \u201ctemplum divorum\u201d;\nfinally, the epithet Divus used simply as a _title_ of members of the\nImperial family. This end to the evolution marks the victory of the\nMagian feeling. It will be found that multiple names in the inscriptions\n(such as Isis-Magna Mater-Juno-Astarte-Bellona, or Mithras-Sol Invictus-\nHelios) come to signify titles of one sole existent Godhead.[510]\n\n\n XI\n\nAtheism is a subject that the psychologist and the student of religion\nhave hitherto regarded as scarcely worth careful investigation. Much has\nbeen written and argued about it, and very roundly, by the free-thought\nmartyr on the one hand and the religious zealot on the other. But no one\nhas had anything to say about the _species_ of atheism; or has treated\nit analytically as an _individual and definite_ phenomenon, positive and\nnecessary and intensely symbolic; or has realized how it is limited in\ntime.\n\nIs \u201cAtheism\u201d the _a priori_ constitution of a certain world-\nconsciousness or is it a voluntary self-expression? Is one born with it\nor converted to it? Does the unconscious feeling that the cosmos has\nbecome godless bring in its train the consciousness that it is so, the\nrealization that \"Great Pan is dead\"? Are there early atheists, for\nexample in the Doric or the Gothic ages? Has this thinker or that been\ndenounced as atheist with injustice as well as with passion? And can\nthere be civilized men who are _not_ wholly or at any rate partially\natheist?\n\nIt is not in dispute (the word itself shows it in all languages) that\natheism is essentially a negation, that it signifies the foregoing of a\nspiritual idea and therefore the precedence of such an idea, and that it\nis not the creative act of an unimpaired formative power. But what is it\nthat it denies? In what way? And who is the denier?\n\nAtheism, rightly understood, is the necessary expression of a\nspirituality that has accomplished itself and exhausted its religious\npossibilities, and is declining into the inorganic. It is entirely\ncompatible with a living wistful desire for real religiousness[511]\u2014\ntherein resembling Romanticism, which likewise would recall that which\nhas irrevocably gone, namely, the Culture\u2014and it may quite well be in a\nman as a creation of his feeling without his being aware of it, without\nits ever interfering with the habits of his thought or challenging his\nconvictions. We can understand this if we can see what it was that made\nthe devout Haydn call Beethoven an atheist after he had heard some of\nhis music. Atheism comes not with the evening of the Culture but with\nthe dawn of the Civilization. It belongs to the great city, to the\n\u201ceducated man\u201d of the great city who acquires mechanistically what his\nforefathers the creators of the Culture had lived organically. In\nrespect of the Classical feeling of God, Aristotle is an atheist\nunawares. The Hellenistic-Roman Stoicism is atheistic like the Socialism\nof Western and the Buddhism of Indian modernity, reverently though they\nmay and do use the word \u201cGod.\u201d\n\nBut, if this late form of world-feeling and world-image which preludes\nour \u201csecond religiousness\u201d is universally a negation of the religious in\nus, the structure of it is different in each of the Civilizations. There\nis no religiousness that is without an atheistic opposition belonging\nuniquely to itself and directed uniquely against itself. Men continue to\nexperience the outer world that extends around them as a cosmos of well-\nordered bodies or a world-cavern or efficient space, as the case may be,\nbut they no longer livingly experience the sacred causality in it. They\nonly learn to know it in a profane causality that is, or is desired to\nbe, inclusively mechanical.[512] There are atheisms of Classical,\nArabian and Western kinds and these differ from one another in meaning\nand in matter. Nietzsche formulated the dynamic atheism on the basis\nthat \u201cGod is dead,\u201d and a Classical philosopher would have expressed the\nstatic and Euclidean by saying that the \u201cgods who dwell in the holy\nplaces are dead,\u201d the one indicating that boundless space has, the other\nthat countless bodies have, become godless. But _dead_ space and _dead_\nthings are the \u201cfacts\u201d of physics. The atheist is unable to experience\nany difference between the Nature-picture of physics and that of\nreligion. Language, with a fine feeling, distinguishes wisdom and\nintelligence\u2014the early and the late, the rural and the megalopolitan\nconditions of the soul. Intelligence even sounds atheistic. No one would\ndescribe Heraclitus or Meister Eckart as an intelligence, but Socrates\nand Rousseau were intelligent and not \u201cwise\u201d men. There is something\nroot-less in the word. It is only from the standpoint of the Stoic and\nof the Socialist, of the typical irreligious man, that want of\nintelligence is a matter for contempt.\n\nThe spiritual in every living Culture is religious, has religion,\nwhether it be conscious of it or not. That it exists, becomes, develops,\nfulfils itself, _is_ its religion. It is not open to a spirituality to\nbe irreligious; at most it can play with the idea of irreligion as\nMedicean Florentines did. But the megalopolitan _is_ irreligious; this\nis part of his being, a mark of his historical position. Bitterly as he\nmay feel the inner emptiness and poverty, earnestly as he may long to be\nreligious, it is out of his power to be so. All religiousness in the\nMegalopolis rests upon self-deception. The degree of piety of which a\nperiod is capable is revealed in its attitude towards toleration. One\ntolerates, either because the form-language appears to be expressing\nsomething of that which in one\u2019s own lived experience is felt as divine,\nor else because that experience no longer contains _anything_ so felt.\n\nWhat we moderns have called \u201cToleration\u201d in the Classical world[513] is\nan expression of the _contrary_ of atheism. Plurality of numina and\ncults is inherent in the conception of Classical religion, and it was\nnot toleration but the self-evident expression of antique piety that\nallowed validity to them all. Conversely, anyone who demanded exceptions\nshowed himself _ipso facto_ as godless. Christians and Jews counted, and\nnecessarily counted, as atheists in the eyes of anyone whose world-\npicture was an aggregate of individual bodies; and when in Imperial\ntimes they ceased to be regarded in this light, the old Classical god-\nfeeling had itself come to an end. On the other hand, respect for the\nform of the local cult whatever this might be, for images of the gods,\nfor sacrifices and festivals was always expected, and anyone who mocked\nor profaned them very soon learned the limits of Classical toleration\u2014\nwitness the scandal of the Mutilation of the Hermae at Athens and trials\nfor the desecration of the Eleusinian mysteries, that is, impious\ntravestying of the sensuous element. But to the Faustian soul (again we\nsee opposition of space and body, of conquest and acceptance of\npresence) _dogma_ and not visible ritual constitutes the essence. What\nis regarded as godless is opposition to doctrine. Here begins the\nspatial-spiritual conception of heresy. A Faustian religion by its very\nnature cannot allow any freedom of conscience; it would be in\ncontradiction with its space-invasive dynamic. Even free thinking itself\nis no exception to the rule. After the stake, the guillotine; after the\nburning of the books, their suppression; after the power of the pulpit,\nthe power of the Press. Amongst us there is no faith without leanings to\nan Inquisition of some sort. Expressed in _appropriate_ electrodynamic\nimagery, the field of force of a conviction adjusts all the minds within\nit according to its own intensity. Failure to do so means absence of\nconviction\u2014in ecclesiastical language, ungodliness. For the Apollinian\nsoul, on the contrary, it was contempt of the cult\u2014\u1f00\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 in the\nliteral sense\u2014that was ungodly, and here its religion admitted no\nfreedom of _attitude_. In both cases there was a line drawn between the\ntoleration demanded by the god-feeling and that forbidden by it.\n\nNow, here the Late-Classical philosophy of Sophist-Stoic speculation (as\ndistinct from the general Stoic disposition) was in opposition to\nreligious feeling. And accordingly we find the people of Athens\u2014that\nAthens which could build altars to \u201cunknown gods\u201d\u2014persecuting as\npitilessly as the Spanish Inquisition. We have only to review the list\nof Classical thinkers and historical personages who were sacrificed to\nthe integrity of the cult. Socrates and Diagoras were executed for\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1; Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Aristotle, Alcibiades only saved\nthemselves by flight. The number of executions for cult-impiety, in\nAthens alone and during the few decades of the Peloponnesian War, ran\ninto hundreds. After the condemnation of Protagoras, a house-to-house\nsearch was made for the destruction of his writings. In Rome, acts of\nthis sort began (so far as history enables us to trace them) in 181 B.C.\nwhen the Senate ordered the public burning of the Pythagorean \u201cBooks of\nNuma.\u201d[514] This was followed by an uninterrupted series of expulsions,\nboth of individual philosophers and of whole schools, and later by\nexecutions and by public burnings of books regarded as subversive of\nreligion. For instance, in the time of C\u00e6sar alone, the places of\nworship of Isis were five times destroyed by order of the Consuls, and\nTiberius had her image thrown into the Tiber. The refusal to perform\nsacrifice before the image of the Emperor was made a penal offence. All\nthese were measures against \u201catheism,\u201d in the _Classical_ sense of the\nword, manifested in theoretical or practical contempt of the visible\ncult. Unless we can put our Western feeling of these matters out of\naction we shall never penetrate into the essence of the world-image that\nunderlay the Classical attitude to them. Poets and philosophers might\nspin myths and transform god-figures as much as they pleased. The\ndogmatic interpretation of the sensuous data was everyone\u2019s liberty. The\n_histories_ of the gods could be made fun of in Satyric drama and\ncomedy\u2014even that did not impugn their Euclidean existence. But the\nstatue of the god, the cult, the plastic embodiment of piety\u2014it was not\npermitted to any man to touch these. It was not out of hypocrisy that\nthe fine minds of the earlier Empire, who had ceased to take a myth of\nany kind seriously, punctiliously conformed to the public cults and,\nabove all, to the cult\u2014deeply real for all classes\u2014of the Emperor. And,\non the other hand, the poets and thinkers of the mature Faustian Culture\nwere at liberty \u201cnot to go to Church,\u201d to avoid Confession, to stay at\nhome on procession-days and (in Protestant surroundings) to live without\nany relations with the church whatever. But they were not free to touch\npoints of dogma, for that would have been dangerous within any\nconfession and any sect, including, once more and expressly, free-\nthought. The Roman Stoic, who without faith in the mythology piously\nobserved the ritual forms, has his counterpart in those men of the Age\nof Enlightenment, like Lessing and Goethe, who disregarded the rites of\nthe Church but never doubted the \u201cfundamental truths of faith.\u201d\n\n\n XII\n\nIf we turn back from Nature-feeling become form to Nature-knowledge\nbecome system, we know God or the gods as the origin of the images by\nwhich the intellect seeks to make the world-around comprehensible to\nitself. Goethe once remarked (to Riemer): \u201cThe Reason is as old as the\nWorld; even the child has reason. But it is not applied in all times in\nthe same way or to the same objects. The earlier centuries had their\nideas in intuitions of the fancy, but ours bring them into notions. _The\ngreat views of Life were brought into shapes, into Gods; to-day they are\nbrought into notions._ Then the productive force was greater, now the\ndestructive force or art of separation.\u201d The strong religiousness of\nNewton\u2019s mechanics[515] and the almost complete atheism of the\nformulations of modern dynamics are of like colour, positive and\nnegative of the same primary feeling. A physical system of necessity has\nall the characters of the soul to whose world-form it belongs. The Deism\nof the Baroque belongs with its dynamics and its analytical geometry;\nits three basic principles, God, Freedom and Immortality, are in the\nlanguage of mechanics the principles of inertia (Galileo), least action\n(D\u2019Alembert) and the conservation of energy (J. R. Mayer).\n\nThat which nowadays we call quite generally physics is in reality an\nartifact of the Baroque. At this stage the reader will not feel it as\nparadoxical to associate the mode of representation which rests on the\nassumption of distant forces and the (wholly un-Classical and anything\nbut na\u00efve) idea of action-at-a-distance, attraction and repulsion of\nmasses, specially with the Jesuit style of architecture founded by\nVignola, and to call it accordingly the Jesuit style of physics; and I\nwould likewise call the Infinitesimal Calculus, which of necessity came\ninto being just when and where it did, the Jesuit style of mathematic.\nWithin this style, a working hypothesis that deepens the technique of\nexperimentation is \u201ccorrect\u201d; for Loyola\u2019s concern, like Newton\u2019s, was\nnot description of Nature but _method_.\n\nWestern physics is by its inward form dogmatic and not ritualistic\n(kultisch). Its content is the _dogma of Force_ as identical with space\nand distance, the theory of the mechanical Act (as against the\nmechanical Posture) in space. Consequently its tendency is persistently\nto overcome the apparent. Beginning with a still quite Apollinian-\nsensuous classification of physics into the physics of the eye (optics),\nof the ear (acoustics) and of the skin-sense (heat), it by degrees\neliminated all sense-impressions and replaced them by abstract systems\nof relations; thus, under the influence of ideas concerning dynamical\nmotion in an \u00e6ther, radiant heat is nowadays dealt with under the\nheading of \u201coptics,\u201d a word which has ceased to have anything to do with\nthe eye.\n\n\u201cForce\u201d is a mythical quantity, which does not arise out of scientific\nexperimentation but, on the contrary, defines the structure thereof _a\npriori_. It is only the Faustian conception of Nature that instead of a\nmagnet thinks of a magnetism whose field of force includes a piece of\niron, and instead of luminous bodies thinks of radiant energy, and that\nimagines personifications like \u201celectricity,\u201d \u201ctemperature\u201d and\n\u201cradioactivity.\u201d[516]\n\nThat this \u201cforce\u201d or \u201cenergy\u201d is really a numen stiffened into a concept\n(and in nowise the result of scientific experience) is shown by the\noften overlooked fact that the basic principle known as the First Law of\nThermodynamics[517] says nothing whatever about the nature of energy,\nand it is properly speaking an incorrect (though psychologically most\nsignificant) assumption that the idea of the \u201cConservation of Energy\u201d is\nfixed in it. Experimental measurement can in the nature of things only\nestablish a _number_, which number we have (significantly, again) named\n_work_. But the dynamical cast of our thought demanded that this should\nbe conceived as a _difference_ of energy, although the absolute value of\nenergy is only a figment and can never be rendered by a definite number.\nThere always remains, therefore, an undefined additive constant, as we\ncall it; in other words, we always strive to maintain the image of an\nenergy that our inner eye has formed, although actual scientific\npractice is not concerned with it.\n\nThis being the provenance of the force-concept, it follows that we can\nno more define it than we can define those other un-Classical words Will\nand Space. There remains always a felt and intuitively-perceived\nremainder which makes every personal definition an almost religious\n_creed_ of its author. Every Baroque scientist in this matter has his\npersonal inner experience which he is trying to clothe in words. Goethe,\nfor instance, could never have defined his idea of a world-force, but to\nhimself it was a certainty. Kant called force the phenomenon of an ent-\nin-itself: \u201cwe know substance in space, the body, only through forces.\u201d\nLaplace called it an unknown of which the workings are all that we know,\nand Newton imagined immaterial forces at a distance. Leibniz spoke of\n_Vis viva_ as a quantum which together with matter formed the unit that\nhe called the monad, and Descartes, with certain thinkers of the 18th\nCentury, was equally unwilling to draw fundamental distinctions between\nmotion and the moved. Beside _potentia_, _virtus_, _impetus_ we find\neven in Gothic times peri-phrases such as _conatus_ and _nisus_, in\nwhich the force and the releasing cause are obviously not separated. We\ncan, indeed, quite well differentiate between Catholic, Protestant and\nAtheistic notions of force. But Spinoza, a Jew and therefore,\nspiritually, a member of the Magian Culture, could not absorb the\nFaustian force-concept at all, and it has no place in his system.[518]\nAnd it is an astounding proof of the secret power of root-ideas that\nHeinrich Hertz, the only Jew amongst the great physicists of the recent\npast, was also the only one of them who tried to resolve the dilemma of\nmechanics by _eliminating_ the idea of force.\n\nThe force-dogma is the one and only theme of Faustian physics. That\nbranch of science which under the name of Statics has been passed from\nsystem to system and century to century is a fiction. \u201cModern Statics\u201d\nis in the same position as \u201carithmetic\u201d and \u201cgeometry,\u201d which, if the\nliteral and original senses of the words be kept to, are void of meaning\nin modern analysis, empty names bequeathed by Classical science and only\npreserved because our reverence for all things Classical has hitherto\ndebarred us from getting rid of them or even recognizing their\nhollowness. There _is_ no Western statics\u2014that is, no interpretation of\nmechanical facts that is natural to the Western spirit bases itself on\nthe ideas of form and substance, or even, for that matter, on the ideas\nof space and mass otherwise than in connexion with those of time and\nforce.[519] The reader can test this in any department that he pleases.\nEven \u201ctemperature,\u201d which of all our physical magnitudes has the most\nplausible look of being static, Classical and passive, only falls into\nits place in our system when it is brought into a force-picture, viz.,\nthe picture of a quantity of heat made up of ultra-swift subtle\nirregular motions of the atoms of a body, with temperature as the _mean\nvis viva_ of these atoms.\n\nThe Late Renaissance imagined that it had revived the Archimedean\nphysics just as it believed that it was continuing the Classical\nsculpture. But in the one case as in the other it was merely preparing\nfor the forms of the Baroque, and doing so out of the spirit of the\nGothic. To this Statics belongs the picture-subject as it is in\nMantegna\u2019s work and also in that of Signorelli, whose line and attitude\nlater generations regarded as stiff and cold. With Leonardo, dynamics\nbegins and in Rubens the movement of swelling bodies is already at a\nmaximum.\n\nAs late as 1629 the spirit of Renaissance physics appears in the theory\nof magnetism formulated by the Jesuit Nicolaus Cabeo. Conceived in the\nmould of an Aristotelian idea of the world, it was (like Palladio\u2019s work\non architecture) foredoomed to lead to nothing\u2014not because it was\n\u201cwrong\u201d in itself but because it was in contradiction with the Faustian\nNature-feeling which, freed from Magian leading-strings by the thinkers\nand researchers of the 14th Century, now required forms of its very own\nfor the expression of its world-knowledge. Cabeo avoided the notions of\nforce and mass and confined himself to the Classical concepts of form\nand substance\u2014in other words, he went back from the architecture of\nMichelangelo\u2019s last phase and of Vignola to that of Michelozzo and\nRaphael\u2014and the system which he formed was complete and self-contained\nbut without importance for the future. A magnetism conceived as a state\nof individual bodies and not as a force in unbounded space was incapable\nof symbolically satisfying the inner eye of Faustian man. What we need\nis a theory of the Far, not one of the Near. Newton\u2019s mathematical-\nmechanical principles required to be made explicit as a dynamics pure\nand entire, and this another Jesuit, Boscovich,[520] was the first to\nachieve in 1758.\n\nEven Galileo was still under the influence of the Renaissance feeling,\nto which the opposition of force and mass, that was to produce, in\narchitecture and painting and music alike the element of grand movement,\nwas something strange and uncomfortable. He therefore limited the idea\nof force to contact-force (impact) and his formulation did not go beyond\nconservation of momentum (quantity of motion). He held fast to mere\nmoved-ness and fought shy of any passion of space, and it was left to\nLeibniz to develop\u2014first in the course of controversy and then\npositively by the application of his mathematical discoveries\u2014the idea\nof genuine _free and directional forces_ (living force, activum thema).\nThe notion of conservation of momentum then gave way to that of\nconservation of living forces, as quantitative number gave way to\nfunctional number.\n\nThe concept of mass, too, did not become definite until somewhat later.\nIn Galileo and Kepler its place is occupied by volume, and it was Newton\nwho distinctly conceived it as _functional_\u2014the world as function of\nGod. That mass (defined nowadays as the constant relation between force\nand acceleration in respect of a system of material points) should have\nno proportionate relation whatever to volume was, in spite of the\nevidence of the planets, a conclusion inacceptable to Renaissance\nfeeling.\n\nBut, even so, Galileo was forced to inquire into the _causes_ of motion.\nIn a genuine Statics, working only with the notions of material and\nform, this question would have had no meaning. For Archimedes\ndisplacement was a matter of insignificance compared with form, which\nwas the essence of all corporeal existence; for, if space be Nonent,\nwhat efficient can there be external to the body concerned? Things are\nnot functions of motion, but they move themselves. Newton it was who\nfirst got completely away from Renaissance feeling and formed the notion\nof distant forces, the attraction and repulsion of bodies across space\nitself. Distance is already in itself a force. The very idea of it is so\nfree from all sense-perceptible content that Newton himself felt\nuncomfortable with it\u2014in fact it mastered him and not he it. It was the\nspirit of Baroque itself, with its bent towards infinite space, that had\nevoked this _contrapuntal and utterly un-plastic_ notion. And in it\nwithal there was a contradiction. To this day no one has produced an\nadequate definition of these forces-at-a-distance. No one has ever yet\nunderstood what centrifugal force really is. Is the force of the earth\nrotating on its axis the cause of this motion or vice versa? Or are the\ntwo identical? Is such a cause, considered _per se_, a force or another\nmotion? What is the difference between force and motion? Suppose the\nalterations in the planetary system to be workings of a centrifugal\nforce; that being so, the bodies ought to be slung out of their path\n[tangentially], and as in fact they are not so, we must assume a\ncentrifugal force as well. What do all these words mean? It is just the\nimpossibility of arriving at order and clarity here that led Hertz to do\naway with the force-notion altogether and (by highly artificial\nassumptions of rigid couplings between positions and velocities) to\nreduce his system of mechanics to the principle of contact (impact). But\nthis merely conceals and does not remove the perplexities, which are of\nintrinsically Faustian character and rooted in the very essence of\ndynamics. \u201cCan we speak of forces which owe their origin to motion?\u201d\nCertainly not; but can we get rid of _primary_ notions that are _inborn_\nin the Western spirit though indefinable? Hertz himself made no attempt\nto apply his system practically.\n\nThis _symbolic_ difficulty of modern mechanics is in no way removed by\nthe potential theory that was founded by Faraday when the centre of\ngravity of physical thought had passed from the dynamics of matter to\nthe electrodynamics of the \u00e6ther. The famous experimenter, who was a\nvisionary through and through\u2014alone amongst the modern masters of\nphysics he was not a mathematician\u2014observed in 1846: \u201cI assume nothing\nto be true in any part of space (whether this be empty as is commonly\nsaid, or filled with matter) except forces and the lines in which they\nare exercised.\u201d Here, plain enough, is the directional tendency with its\nintimately organic and historic content, the tendency in the knower to\nlive the process of his knowing. Here Faraday is metaphysically at one\nwith Newton, whose forces-at-a-distance point to a mythic background\nthat the devout physicist declined to examine. The possible alternative\nway of reaching an unequivocal definition of force\u2014viz., that which\nstarts from World and not God, from the object and not the subject of\nnatural motion-state\u2014was leading at the very same time to the\nformulation of the concept of Energy. Now, this concept represents, as\ndistinct from that of force, a quantum of directedness and not a\ndirection, and is in so far akin to Leibniz\u2019s conception of \u201cliving\nforce\u201d unalterable in quantity. It will not escape notice that essential\nfeatures of the mass-concept have been taken over here; indeed, even the\nbizarre notion of an atomic structure of energy has been seriously\ndiscussed.\n\nThis rearrangement of the basic words has not, however, altered the\nfeeling that a world-force with its substratum does exist. The motion-\nproblem is as insoluble as ever. All that has happened on the way from\nNewton to Faraday\u2014or from Berkeley to Mill\u2014is that the religious deed-\nidea has been replaced by the irreligious work-idea.[521] In the Nature-\npicture of Bruno, Newton and Goethe something divine is working itself\nout in acts, in that of modern physics _Nature is doing work_; for every\n\u201cprocess\u201d within the meaning of the First Law of Thermodynamics is or\nshould be measurable by the expenditure of energy to which a quantity of\nwork corresponds in the form of \u201cbound energy.\u201d\n\nNaturally, therefore, we find the decisive discovery of J. R. Mayer\ncoinciding in time with the birth of the Socialist theory. Even economic\nsystems wield the same concepts; the value-problem has been in relation\nwith quantity of work[522]] ever since Adam Smith, who _vis-\u00e0-vis_\nQuesney and Turgot marks the change from an organic to a mechanical\nstructure of the economic field. The \u201cwork\u201d which is the foundation of\nmodern economic theory has purely dynamic meaning, and phrases could be\nfound in the language of economists which correspond exactly to the\nphysical propositions of conservation of energy, entropy and least\naction.\n\nIf, then, we review the successive stages through which the central idea\nof force has passed since its birth in the Baroque, and its intimate\nrelations with the form-worlds of the great arts and of mathematics, we\nfind that (1) in the 17th Century (Galileo, Newton, Leibniz) it is\npictorially formed and in unison with the great art of oil-painting that\ndied out about 1630; (2) in the 18th Century (the \u201cclassical\u201d mechanics\nof Laplace and Lagrange) it acquires the abstract character of the\nfugue-style and is in unison with Bach; and (3) with the Culture at its\nend and the civilized intelligence victorious over the spiritual, it\nappears in the domain of pure analysis, and in particular in the theory\nof functions of several complex variables, without which it is, in its\nmost modern form, scarcely understandable.\n\n XIII\n\nBut with this, it cannot be denied, the Western physics is drawing near\nto the limit of its possibilities. At bottom, its mission as a\nhistorical phenomenon has been to transform the Faustian Nature-feeling\ninto an intellectual knowledge, the faith-forms of springtime into the\nmachine-forms of exact science. And, though for the time being it will\ncontinue to quarry more and more practical and even \u201cpurely theoretical\u201d\nresults, results as such, whatever their kind, belong to the superficial\nhistory of a science. To its deeps belong only the history of its\nsymbolism and its style, and it is almost too evident to be worth the\nsaying that in those deeps the essence and nucleus of our science is in\nrapid disintegration. Up to the end of the 19th Century every step was\nin the direction of an inward fulfilment, an increasing purity, rigour\nand fullness of the dynamic Nature-picture\u2014and then, that which has\nbrought it to an optimum of theoretical clarity, suddenly becomes a\n_solvent_. This is not happening intentionally\u2014the high intelligences of\nmodern physics are, in fact, unconscious that it is happening at all\u2014but\nfrom an inherent historic necessity. Just so, at the same relative\nstage, the Classical science inwardly fulfilled itself about 200 B.C.\nAnalysis reached its goal with Gauss, Cauchy and Riemann, and to-day it\nis only filling up the gaps in its structure.\n\nThis is the origin of the sudden and annihilating doubt that has arisen\nabout things that even yesterday were the unchallenged foundation of\nphysical theory, about the meaning of the energy-principle, the concepts\nof mass, space, absolute time, and causality-laws generally. This doubt\nis no longer the fruitful doubt of the Baroque, which brought the knower\nand the object of his knowledge together; it is a doubt affecting the\nvery possibility of a Nature-science. To take one instance alone, what a\ndepth of unconscious Skepsis there is in the rapidly-increasing use of\nenumerative and statistical methods, which aim only at _probability_ of\nresults and forgo in advance the absolute scientific exactitude that was\na creed to the hopeful earlier generations.\n\nThe moment is at hand now, when the possibility of a self-contained and\nself-consistent mechanics will be given up for good. Every physics, as I\nhave shown, must break down over the motion-problem, in which the living\nperson of the knower methodically intrudes into the inorganic form-world\nof the known. But to-day, not only is this dilemma still inherent in all\nthe newest theories but three centuries of intellectual work have\nbrought it so sharply to focus that there is no possibility more of\nignoring it. The theory of gravitation, which since Newton has been an\nimpregnable truth, has now been recognized as a temporally limited and\nshaky hypothesis. The principle of the Conservation of Energy has no\nmeaning if energy is supposed to be infinite in an infinite space. The\nacceptance of the principle is incompatible with any three-dimensional\nstructure of space, whether infinite or Euclidean or (as the Non-\nEuclidean geometries present it) spherical and of \u201cfinite, yet\nunbounded\u201d volume. Its validity therefore is restricted to \u201ca system of\nbodies self-contained and not externally influenced\u201d and such a\nlimitation does not and cannot exist in actuality. But symbolic infinity\nwas just what the Faustian world-feeling had meant to express in this\nbasic idea, which was simply _the mechanical and extensional re-ideation\nof the idea of immortality and world-soul_. In fact it was a feeling out\nof which knowledge could never succeed in forming a pure system. The\nluminiferous \u00e6ther, again, was an ideal postulate of modern dynamics\nwhereby every motion required a something-to-be-moved, but every\nconceivable hypothesis concerning the constitution of this \u00e6ther has\nbroken down under inner contradictions; more, Lord Kelvin has proved\nmathematically that there _can_ be no structure of this light-\ntransmitter that is not open to objections. As, according to the\ninterpretation of Fresnel\u2019s experiments, the light-waves are\ntransversal, the \u00e6ther would have to be a rigid body (with truly quaint\nproperties), but then the laws of elasticity would have to apply to it\nand in that case the waves would be longitudinal. The Maxwell-Hertz\nequations of the Electro-magnetic Theory of Light, which in fact are\npure nameless numbers of indubitable validity, exclude the explanation\nof the \u00e6ther by any mechanics whatsoever. Therefore, and having regard\nalso to the consequences of the Relativity theory, physicists now regard\nthe \u00e6ther as pure vacuum. But that, after all, is not very different\nfrom demolishing the dynamic picture itself.\n\nSince Newton, the assumption of constant mass\u2014the counterpart of\nconstant force\u2014has had uncontested validity. But the Quantum theory of\nPlanck, and the conclusions of Niels Bohr therefrom as to the fine\nstructure of atoms, which experimental experience had rendered\nnecessary, have destroyed this assumption. Every self-contained system\npossesses, besides kinetic energy, an energy of radiant heat which is\ninseparable from it and therefore cannot be represented purely by the\nconcept of mass. For if mass is defined by living energy it is _ipso\nfacto_ no longer constant with reference to thermodynamic state.\nNevertheless, it is impossible to fit the theory of quanta into the\ngroup of hypotheses constituting the \u201cclassical\u201d mechanics of the\nBaroque; moreover, along with the principle of causal continuity, the\nbasis of the Infinitesimal Calculus founded by Newton and Leibniz is\nthreatened.[523] But, if these are serious enough doubts, the ruthlessly\ncynical hypothesis of the Relativity theory strikes to the very heart of\ndynamics. Supported by the experiments of A. A. Michelson, which showed\nthat the velocity of light remains unaffected by the motion of the\nmedium, and prepared mathematically by Lorentz and Minkowski, its\nspecific tendency is to _destroy the notion of absolute time_.\nAstronomical discoveries (and here present-day scientists are seriously\ndeceiving themselves) can neither establish nor refute it. \u201cCorrect\u201d and\n\u201cincorrect\u201d are not the criteria whereby such assumptions are to be\ntested; the question is whether, in the chaos of involved and artificial\nideas that has been produced by the innumerable hypotheses of\nRadioactivity and Thermodynamics, it can hold its own as a _useable_\nhypothesis or not. But however this may be, _it has abolished the\nconstancy of those physical quantities into the definition of which time\nhas entered_, and unlike the antique statics, the Western dynamics knows\n_only_ such quantities. Absolute measures of length and rigid bodies are\nno more. And with this the possibility of absolute quantitative\ndelimitations and therefore the \u201cclassical\u201d concept of mass as the\nconstant ratio between force and acceleration fall to the ground\u2014just\nafter the quantum of action, a product of energy and time, had been set\nup as a new constant.\n\nIf we make it clear to ourselves that the atomic ideas of Rutherford and\nBohr[524] signify nothing but this, that the numerical results of\nobservations have suddenly been provided with a picture of a planetary\nworld within the atom, instead of that of atom-swarms hitherto favoured;\nif we observe how rapidly card-houses of hypothesis are run up nowadays,\nevery contradiction being immediately covered up by a new hurried\nhypothesis; if we reflect on how little heed is paid to the fact that\nthese images contradict one another and the \u201cclassical\u201d Baroque\nmechanics alike, we cannot but realize that the _great style of ideation\nis at an end_ and that, as in architecture and the arts of form, a sort\nof craft-art of hypothesis-building has taken its place. Only our\nextreme maestria in experimental technique\u2014true child of its century\u2014\nhides the collapse of the symbolism.\n\n\n XIV\n\nAmongst these symbols of decline, the most conspicuous is the notion of\nEntropy, which forms the subject of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.\nThe first law, that of the conservation of energy, is the plain\nformulation of the essence of dynamics\u2014not to say of the constitution of\nthe West-European soul, to which Nature is necessarily visible only in\nthe form of a contrapuntal-dynamic causality (as against the static-\nplastic causality of Aristotle). The basic element of the Faustian\nworld-picture is not the Attitude but the Deed and, mechanically\nconsidered, the Process, and this law merely puts the mathematical\ncharacter of these processes into form as variables and constants. But\nthe Second Law goes deeper, and shows a _bias_ in Nature-happenings\nwhich is in no wise imposed _a priori_ by the conceptual fundamentals of\ndynamics.\n\nMathematically, Entropy is represented by a quantity which is fixed by\nthe momentary state of a self-contained system of bodies and under all\nphysical and chemical alterations can only increase, never diminish; in\nthe most favourable conditions it remains unchanged. Entropy, like Force\nand Will, is something which (to anyone for whom this form-world is\naccessible at all) is inwardly clear and meaningful, but is formulated\ndifferently by every different authority and never satisfactorily by\nany. Here again, the intellect breaks down where the world-feeling\ndemands expression.\n\nNature-processes in general have been classified as irreversible and\nreversible, according as entropy is increased or not. In any process of\nthe first kind, free energy is converted into bound energy, and if this\ndead energy is to be turned once more into living, this can only occur\nthrough the simultaneous binding of a further quantum of living energy\nin some second process; the best-known example is the combustion of\ncoal\u2014that is, the conversion of the living energy stored up in it into\nheat bound by the gas form of the carbon dioxide, if the latent energy\nof water is to be translated into steam-pressure and thereafter into\nmotion.[525] It follows that in the world as a whole entropy continually\nincreases; that is, the dynamic system is manifestly approaching to some\nfinal state, whatever this may be. Examples of the irreversible\nprocesses are conduction of heat, diffusion, friction, emission of light\nand chemical reactions; of reversible, gravitation, electric\noscillations, electromagnetic waves and sound-waves.\n\nWhat has never hitherto been fully felt, and what leads me to regard the\nEntropy theory (1850) as the beginning of the destruction of that\nmasterpiece of Western intelligence, the old dynamic physics, is the\ndeep opposition of theory and actuality which is here for the first time\nintroduced into theory itself. The First Law had drawn the strict\npicture of a causal Nature-happening, but the Second Law by introducing\nirreversibility has for the first time brought into the mechanical-\nlogical domain a tendency belonging to immediate life and thus in\nfundamental contradiction with the very essence of that domain.\n\nIf the Entropy theory is followed out to its conclusion, it results,\n_firstly_, that in theory all processes must be reversible\u2014which is one\nof the basic postulates of dynamics and is reasserted with all rigour in\nthe law of the Conservation of Energy\u2014but, _secondly_, that in actuality\nprocesses of Nature in their entirety are irreversible. Not even under\nthe artificial conditions of laboratory experiment can the simplest\nprocess be exactly reversed, that is, a state once passed cannot be re-\nestablished. Nothing is more significant of the present condition of\nsystematics than the introduction of the hypotheses of \u201celementary\ndisorder\u201d for the purpose of smoothing-out the contradiction between\nintellectual postulate and actual experience. The \u201csmallest particles\u201d\nof a body (an image, no more) throughout perform reversible processes,\nbut in actual things the smallest particles are in disorder and mutually\ninterfere; and so the irreversible process that alone is experienced by\nthe observer is linked with increase of entropy by taking the mean\nprobabilities of occurrences. And thus theory becomes a chapter of the\nCalculus of Probabilities, and in lieu of exact we have statistical\nmethods.\n\nEvidently, the significance of this has passed unnoticed. Statistics\nbelong, like chronology, to the domain of the organic, to fluctuating\nLife, to Destiny and Incident and not to the world of laws and timeless\ncausality. As everyone knows, statistics serve above all to characterize\npolitical and economic, that is, historical, developments. In the\n\u201cclassical\u201d mechanics of Galileo and Newton there would have been no\nroom for them. And if, now, suddenly the contents of that field are\nsupposed to be understood and understandable only statistically and\nunder the aspect of Probability\u2014instead of under that of the _a priori_\nexactitude which the Baroque thinkers unanimously demanded\u2014what does it\nmean? It means that the object of understanding is ourselves. The Nature\n\u201cknown\u201d in this wise is the Nature that we know by way of living\nexperience, that we live in ourselves. What _theory_ asserts (and, being\nitself, must assert)\u2014to wit, this ideal irreversibility that never\nhappens in actuality\u2014represents a relic of the old severe intellectual\nform, the great Baroque tradition that had contrapuntal music for twin\nsister. But the resort to statistics shows that the force that that\ntradition regulated and made effective is exhausted. Becoming and\nBecome, Destiny and Causality, historical and natural-science elements\nare beginning to be confused. Formul\u00e6 of life, growth, age, direction\nand death are crowding up.\n\nThat is what, from this point of view, irreversibility in world-\nprocesses has to mean. It is the expression, no longer of the physical\n\u201ct\u201d but of genuine _historical_, inwardly-experienced Time, which is\nidentical with Destiny.\n\nBaroque physics was, root and branch, a _strict systematic_ and remained\nso for as long as its structure was not racked by theories like these,\nas long as its field was absolutely free from anything that expressed\naccident and mere probability. But directly these theories come up, it\nbecomes _physiognomic_. \u201cThe course of the world\u201d is followed out. The\nidea of the end of the world appears, under the veil of formul\u00e6 that are\nno longer in their essence formul\u00e6 at all. Something Goethian has\nentered into physics\u2014and if we understand the deeper significance of\nGoethe\u2019s passionate polemic against Newton in the \u201cFarbenlehre\u201d[526] we\nshall realize the full weight of what this means. For therein intuitive\nvision was arguing against reason, life against death, creative image\nagainst normative law. The critical form-world of Nature-_knowledge_\ncame out of Nature-_feeling_, God-feeling, as the evoked contrary. Here,\nat the end of the Late period, it has reached the maximal distance and\nis turning to come home.\n\nSo, once more, the imaging-power that is the efficient in dynamics\nconjures up the old great symbol of Faustian man\u2019s historical passion,\nCare\u2014the outlook into the farthest far of past and future, the back-\nlooking study of history, the foreseeing state, the confessions and\nintrospections, the bells that sounded over all our country-sides and\nmeasured the passing of Life. The ethos of the word Time, as we alone\nfeel it, as instrumental music alone and no statue-plastic can carry it,\nis directed upon an _aim_. This aim has been figured in every life-image\nthat the West has conceived\u2014as the Third Kingdom, as the New Age, as the\ntask of mankind, as the issue of evolution. And it is figured, as the\ndestined end-state of all Faustian \u201cNature,\u201d in Entropy.\n\nDirectional feeling, a relation of past and future, is implicit already\nin the mythic concept of force on which the whole of this dogmatic form-\nworld rests, and in the description of natural processes it emerges\ndistinct. It would not be too much, therefore, to say that entropy, as\nthe intellectual form in which the infinite sum of nature-events is\nassembled as a _historical and physiognomic_ unit, tacitly underlay all\nphysical concept-formation from the outset, so that when it came out (as\none day it was bound to come out) it was as a \u201cdiscovery\u201d of scientific\n_induction_ claiming \u201csupport\u201d from all the other theoretical elements\nof the system. The more dynamics exhausts its inner possibilities as it\nnears the goal, the more decidedly the historical characters in the\npicture come to the front and the more insistently the organic necessity\nof Destiny asserts itself side by side with the inorganic necessity of\nCausality, and Direction makes itself felt along with capacity and\nintensity, the factors of pure extension. The course of this process is\nmarked by the appearance of whole series of daring hypotheses, all of\nlike sort, which are only apparently demanded by experimental results\nand which in fact world-feeling and mythology imagined as long ago as\nthe Gothic age.\n\nAbove all, this is manifested in the bizarre hypotheses of atomic\ndisintegration which elucidate the phenomena of radioactivity, and\naccording to which uranium atoms that have kept their essence unaltered,\nin spite of all external influences, for millions of years and then\nsuddenly without assignable cause explode, scattering their smallest\nparticles over space with velocities of thousands of kilometres per\nsecond. Only a few individuals in an aggregate of radioactive atoms are\nstruck by Destiny thus, the neighbours being entirely unaffected. Here\ntoo, then, is a picture of history and not \u201cNature,\u201d and although\nstatistical methods here also prove to be necessary, one might almost\nsay that in them mathematical number has been replaced by\nchronological.[527]\n\nWith ideas like these, the mythopoetic force of the Faustian soul is\nreturning to its origins. It was at the outset of the Gothic, just at\nthe time when the first mechanical clocks were being built, that the\nmyth of the world\u2019s end, Ragnar\u00f6k, the Twilight of the Gods, arose. It\nmay be that, like all the reputedly old-German myths Ragnar\u00f6k (whether\nin the V\u00f6luspa form or as the Christian Muspilli) was modelled more or\nless on Classical and particularly Christian-Apocalyptic motives.\nNevertheless, it is the expression and symbol of the Faustian and of no\nother soul. The Olympian college is historyless, it knows no becoming,\nno epochal moments, no aim. But the passionate thrust into distance is\nFaustian. Force, Will, has an aim, and where there is an aim there is\nfor the inquiring eye an end. That which the perspective of oil-painting\nexpressed by means of the vanishing point, the Baroque park by its\n_point de vue_, and analysis by the _n_th term of an infinite series\u2014the\nconclusion, that is, of a willed directedness\u2014assumes here the form of\nthe concept. The Faust of the Second Part is dying, for he has reached\nhis goal. What the myth of G\u00f6tterd\u00e4mmerung signified of old, the\nirreligious form of it, the theory of Entropy, signifies to-day\u2014_world\u2019s\nend as completion of an inwardly necessary evolution_.\n\n XV\n\nIt remains now to sketch the last stage of Western science. From our\nstandpoint of to-day, the gently-sloping route of decline is clearly\nvisible.\n\nThis too, the power of looking ahead to inevitable Destiny, is part of\nthe historical capacity that is the peculiar endowment of the Faustian.\nThe Classical died, as we shall die, but it died unknowing. It believed\nin an eternal Being and to the last it lived its days with frank\nsatisfaction, each day spent as a gift of the gods. But we know our\nhistory. Before us there stands a last spiritual crisis that will\ninvolve all Europe and America. What its course will be, Late Hellenism\ntells us. The tyranny of the Reason\u2014of which we are not conscious, for\nwe are ourselves its apex\u2014is in every Culture an epoch between man and\nold-man, and no more. Its most distinct expression is the cult of exact\nsciences, of dialectic, of demonstration, of causality. Of old the\nIonic, and in our case the Baroque were its rising limb, and now the\nquestion is what form will the down-curve assume?\n\nIn this very century, I prophesy, the century of scientific-critical\nAlexandrianism, of the great harvests, of the final formulations, a new\nelement of inwardness will arise to overthrow the will-to-victory of\nscience. Exact science must presently fall upon its own keen sword.\nFirst, in the 18th Century, its methods were tried out, then, in the\n19th, its powers, and now its historical r\u00f4le is critically reviewed.\nBut from Skepsis there is a path to \u201csecond religiousness,\u201d which is the\nsequel and not the preface of the Culture. Men dispense with proof,\ndesire only to believe and not to dissect.\n\nThe individual renounces by laying aside books. The Culture renounces by\nceasing to manifest itself in high scientific intellects. But science\nexists only in the living thought of great savant-generations, and books\nare nothing if they are not living and effective in men worthy of them.\nScientific results are merely items of an intellectual tradition. It\nconstitutes the death of a science that no one any longer regards it as\nan event, and an orgy of two centuries of exact scientific-ness brings\nsatiety. Not the individual, the soul of the Culture itself has had\nenough, and it expresses this by putting into the field of the day ever\nsmaller, narrower and more unfruitful investigators. The great century\nof the Classical science was the third, after the death of Aristotle;\nwhen Archimedes died and the Romans came, it was already almost at its\nend. Our great century has been the 19th. Savants of the calibre of\nGauss and Humboldt and Helmholtz were already no more by 1900. In\nphysics as in chemistry, in biology as in mathematics, the great masters\nare dead, and we are now experiencing the _decrescendo_ of brilliant\ngleaners who arrange, collect and finish-off like the Alexandrian\nscholars of the Roman age. Everything that does not belong to the\nmatter-of-fact side of life\u2014to politics, technics or economics\u2014exhibits\nthe common symptom. After Lysippus no great sculptor, no artist as man-\nof-destiny, appears, and after the Impressionists no painter, and after\nWagner no musician. The age of C\u00e6sarism needed neither art nor\nphilosophy. To Eratosthenes and Archimedes, true creators, succeed\nPosidonius and Pliny, collectors of taste, and finally Ptolemy and\nGalen, mere copyists. And, just as oil-painting and instrumental music\nran through their possibilities in a few centuries, so also dynamics,\nwhich began to bud about 1600, is to-day in the grip of decay.\n\nBut before the curtain falls, there is one more task for the historical\nFaustian spirit, a task not yet specified, hitherto not even imagined as\npossible. There has still to be written a _morphology of the exact\nsciences_, which shall discover how all laws, concepts and theories\ninwardly hang together as forms and what they have meant as such in the\nlife-course of the Faustian Culture. The re-treatment of theoretical\nphysics, of chemistry, of mathematics as a sum of symbols\u2014this will be\nthe definitive conquest of the mechanical world-aspect by an intuitive,\nonce more religious, world-outlook, a last master-effort of physiognomic\nto break down even systematic and to absorb it, as expression and\nsymbol, into its own domain. One day we shall no longer ask, as the 19th\nCentury asked, what are the valid laws underlying chemical affinity or\ndiamagnetism\u2014rather, we shall be amazed indeed that minds of the first\norder could ever have been completely preoccupied by questions such as\nthese. We shall inquire whence came these forms that were prescribed for\nthe Faustian spirit, why they had to come to our kind of humanity\nparticularly and exclusively, and what deep meaning there is in the fact\nthat the numbers that we have won became phenomenal in just this\npicture-like disguise. And, be it said, we have to-day hardly yet an\ninkling of how much in our reputedly objective values and experiences is\nonly disguise, only image and expression.\n\nThe separate sciences\u2014epistemology, physics, chemistry, mathematics,\nastronomy\u2014are approaching one another with acceleration, converging\ntowards a complete identity of results. The issue will be a fusion of\nthe form-worlds, which will present on the one hand a system of numbers,\nfunctional in nature and reduced to a few ground-formul\u00e6, and on the\nother a small group of theories, denominators to those numerators, which\nin the end will be seen to be myths of the springtime under modern\nveils, reducible therefore\u2014and at once of necessity reduced\u2014to\npicturable and physiognomically significant characters that are the\nfundamentals. This convergence has not yet been observed, for the reason\nthat since Kant\u2014indeed, since Leibniz\u2014there has been no philosopher who\ncommanded the problems of _all_ the exact sciences.\n\nEven a century ago, physics and chemistry were foreign to one another,\nbut to-day they cannot be handled separately\u2014witness spectrum analysis,\nradioactivity, radiation of heat. Fifty years ago the essence of\nchemistry could still be described almost without mathematics, and to-\nday the chemical elements are in course of volatilizing themselves into\nthe mathematical constants of variable relation-complexes, and with the\nsense-comprehensibility of the elements goes the last trace of magnitude\nas the term is Classically and plastically understood. Physiology is\nbecoming a chapter of organic chemistry and is making use of the methods\nof the Infinitesimal Calculus. The branch of the older physics\u2014\ndistinguished, according to the bodily senses concerned in each, as\nacoustics, optics and heat\u2014have melted into a dynamic of matter and a\ndynamic of the \u00e6ther, and these again can no longer keep their frontiers\nmathematically clear. The last discussions of epistemology are now\nuniting with those of higher analysis and theoretical physics to occupy\nan almost inaccessible domain, the domain to which, for example, the\ntheory of Relativity belongs or ought to belong. The sign-language in\nwhich the emanation-theory of radioactivity expresses itself is\ncompletely de-sensualized.\n\nChemistry, once concerned with defining as sharply as possible the\nqualities of elements, such as valency, weight, affinity and reactivity,\nis setting to work to get rid of these sensible traits. The elements are\nheld to differ in character according to their derivation from this or\nthat compound. They are represented to be complexes of different units\nwhich indeed behave (\u201cactually\u201d) as units of a higher order and are not\npractically separable but show deep differences in point of\nradioactivity. Through the emanation of radiant energy degradation is\nalways going on, so that we can speak of the _lifetime_ of an element,\nin formal contradiction with the original concept of the element and the\nspirit of modern chemistry as created by Lavoisier. All these tendencies\nare bringing the ideas of chemistry very close to the theory of Entropy,\nwith its suggestive opposition of causality and destiny, Nature and\nHistory. And they indicate the paths that our science is pursuing\u2014on the\none hand, towards the discovery that its logical and numerical results\nare identical with the structure of the reason itself, and, on the\nother, towards the revelation that the whole theory which clothes these\nnumbers merely represents the symbolic expression of Faustian life.\n\nAnd here, as our study draws to its conclusion, we must mention the\ntruly Faustian theory of \u201caggregates,\u201d one of the weightiest in all this\nform-world of our science. In sharpest antithesis to the older\nmathematic, it deals, not with singular quantities but with the\naggregates constituted by all quantities [or objects] having this or\nthat specified morphological similarity\u2014for instance all square numbers\nor all differential equations of a given type. Such an aggregate it\nconceives as a new unit, a new _number of higher order_, and subjecting\nit to criteria of new and hitherto quite unsuspected kinds such as\n\u201cpotency,\u201d \u201corder,\u201d \u201cequivalence,\u201d \u201ccountableness,\u201d and devising laws\nand operative methods for it in respect of these criteria. Thus is being\nactualized a last extension of the function-theory.[528] Little by\nlittle this absorbed the whole of our mathematic, and now it is dealing\nwith variables by the principles of the Theory of Groups in respect of\nthe character of the function and by those of the Theory of Aggregates\nin respect of the values of the variables. Mathematical philosophy is\nwell aware that these ultimate meditations on the nature of number are\nfusing with those upon pure logic, and an algebra of logic is talked of.\nThe study of geometrical axioms has become a chapter of epistemology.\n\nThe aim to which all this is striving, and which in particular every\nNature-researcher feels in himself as an impulse, is the achievement of\na pure numerical transcendence, the complete and inclusive conquest of\nthe visibly apparent and its replacement by a language of imagery\nunintelligible to the layman and impossible of sensuous realization\u2014but\na language that the great Faustian symbol of Infinite space endows with\nthe dignity of inward necessity. The deep scepticism of these final\njudgments links the soul anew to the forms of early Gothic\nreligiousness. The inorganic, known and dissected world-around, the\nWorld as Nature and System, has deepened itself until it is a pure\nsphere of functional numbers. But, as we have seen, number is one of the\nmost primary symbols in every Culture; and consequently the way to pure\nnumber is the return of the waking consciousness to its own secret, the\nrevelation of its own formal necessity. The goal reached, the vast and\never more meaningless and threadbare fabric woven around natural science\nfalls apart. It was, after all, nothing but the inner structure of the\n\u201cReason,\u201d the grammar by which it believed it could overcome the Visible\nand extract therefrom the True. But what appears under the fabric is\nonce again the earliest and deepest, the Myth, the immediate Becoming,\nLife itself. The less anthropomorphic science believes itself to be, the\nmore anthropomorphic it is. One by one it gets rid of the _separate_\nhuman traits in the Nature-picture, only to find at the end that the\nsupposed pure Nature which it holds in its hand is\u2014humanity itself, pure\nand complete. Out of the Gothic soul grew up, till it overshadowed the\nreligious world-picture, the spirit of the City, the alter ego of\nirreligious Nature-science. But now, in the sunset of the scientific\nepoch and the rise of victorious Skepsis, the clouds dissolve and the\nquiet landscape of the morning reappears in all distinctness.\n\nThe final issue to which the Faustian wisdom tends\u2014though it is only in\nthe highest moments that it has seen it\u2014is the dissolution of all\nknowledge into a vast system of morphological relationships. Dynamics\nand Analysis are in respect of meaning, form-language and substance,\nidentical with Romanesque ornament, Gothic cathedrals, Christian-German\ndogma and the dynastic state. One and the same world-feeling speaks in\nall of them. They were born with, and they aged with, the Faustian\nCulture, and they present that Culture in the world of day and space as\na historical drama. The uniting of the several scientific aspects into\none will bear all the marks of the great art of counterpoint. _An\ninfinitesimal music of the boundless world-space_\u2014that is the deep\nunresting longing of this soul, as the orderly statuesque and Euclidean\nCosmos was the satisfaction of the Classical. That\u2014formulated by a\nlogical necessity of Faustian reason as a dynamic-imperative causality,\nthen developed into a dictatorial, hard-working, world-transforming\nscience\u2014is the grand legacy of the Faustian soul to the souls of\nCultures yet to be, a bequest of immensely transcendent forms that the\nheirs will possibly ignore. And then, weary after its striving, the\nWestern science returns to its spiritual home.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n See pp. 55 et seq.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n See p. 126.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n Primitive languages afford no foundations for abstract ordered\n thought. But at the beginning of every Culture an inner change takes\n place in the language that makes it adequate for carrying the highest\n symbolic tasks of the ensuing cultural development. Thus it was\n _simultaneously with the Romanesque style_ that English and German\n arose out of the Teutonic languages of the Frankish period, and\n French, Italian and Spanish out of the \u201clingua rustica\u201d of the old\n Roman provinces\u2014languages of _identical_ metaphysical content though\n so dissimilar in origin.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n See p. 262.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n See p. 172.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n That is, discussion of the doctrines of the Eleatic school regarding\n unity and plurality, the Ent and Nonent, focussed themselves, in Zeno,\n down to the famous paradoxes concerning the nature of motion (such as\n \u201cAchilles and the Tortoise\u201d) which within the Greek discipline were\n unanswerable. Their general effect was to show that motion depended\n upon the existence of an indefinitely great plurality, that is, of\n infinitely small subdivisions as well as infinitely great quantities,\n and, the denial of this plurality being the essential feature of the\n Eleatic philosophy, its application to motion was bound to produce\n \u201cparadoxes.\u201d\n\n The enunciations, with a brief but close critique, will be found in\n the Ency. Brit., XI ed., Article _Zeno of Elea_. Here it suffices to\n draw attention to the difficulties that are caused by the absence (or\n unwelcome presence) of time and direction elements, not only in the\n treatment of plurality itself (which is conceived of indifferently as\n an augmentation or as a subdivision of the finite magnitude) but\n especially in the conclusion of the \u201carrow\u201d paradox and in the very\n obscure enunciation of Paradox 8.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 296 et seq.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n De Boer, _Gesch. d. Philos. im Islam_ (1901), pp. 93, 108.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n A detailed summary will be found in Ency. Brit., XI ed., article\n _Kabbalah_, by Dr. Ginsburg and Dr. Cook.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n See Windelband, _Gesch. d. neueren Philosophie_ (1919), I, 208; also\n Hinnebert, _Kultur der Gegenwart_, I, V (1913), p. 484.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n See Ency. Brit., XI ed., article _Cartesianism_ (V, 421).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 296.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n When, therefore, in the present work also, precedence is consistently\n given to Time, Direction and Destiny over Space and Causality, this\n must not be supposed to be the result of reasoned proofs. It is the\n outcome of (quite unconscious) tendencies of life-feeling\u2014the only\n mode of origin of philosophic ideas.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n See p. 201.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 363.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n In the German, \u201cVor allem aber sein eignes Ich.\u201d (But in Luther\u2019s\n Bible, characteristically, \u201cAuch dazu sein eigen Leben.\u201d)\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n _Barnasha._ The underlying idea is not the filial relation, but an\n impersonal coming-up in the field of mankind.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 and \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 imply, to have the intention, or wish, or\n inclination (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae means counsel, council, plan, and \u1f10\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9 has no\n equivalent noun). _Voluntas_ is not a psychological concept but, like\n _potestas_ and _virtus_, a thoroughly Roman and matter-of-fact\n designation for a practical, visible and outward asset\u2014substantially,\n the _mass_ of an individual\u2019s being. In like case, we use the word\n energy. The \u201cwill\u201d of Napoleon is something very different from the\n energy of Napoleon, being, as it were, lift in contrast to weight. We\n must not confuse the outward-directed intelligence, which\n distinguishes the Romans as civilized men from the Greeks as cultured\n men, with \u201cwill\u201d as understood here. C\u00e6sar is _not_ a man of will in\n the Napoleonic sense. The idioms of Roman law, which represent the\n root-feeling of the Roman soul far better than those of poetry, are\n significant in this regard. Intention in the legal sense is _animus_\n (_animus occidendi_); the wish, directed to some criminal end, is\n _dolus_ as distinct from the unintended wrongdoing (_culpa_).\n _Voluntas_ is nowhere used as a technical term.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n The Chinese soul \u201cwanders\u201d in its world. This is the meaning of the\n East-Asiatic perspective, which places the vanishing point in the\n _middle_ of the picture instead of in the depth as we do. The function\n of perspective is to subject things to the \u201cI,\u201d which in ordering\n comprehends them; and it is a further indication that \u201cwill\u201d\u2014the claim\n to command the world\u2014is absent from the Classical make-up that its\n painting denies the perspective background. In Chinese perspective as\n in Chinese technique (see Vol. II, p. 627), _directional_ energy is\n wanting, and it would not be illegitimate to call East-Asiatic\n perspective, in contrast with the powerful thrust into depth of _our_\n landscape-painting, a perspective of \u201cTao\u201d; for the world-feeling\n indicated by that word is unmistakably the operative element in the\n picture.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n Obviously, atheism is no exception to this. When a Materialist or\n Darwinian speaks of a \u201cNature\u201d that orders everything, that effects\n selections, that produces and destroys anything, he differs only to\n the extent of one word from the 18th-Century Deist. The _world-\n feeling_ has undergone no change.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n Lines 525-534:\n\n \u03a7\u039f. \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2;\n \u03a0\u03a1. \u03bf\u1f54\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, etc.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n Iliad, XXII, 208-215.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n The great part played by learned Jesuits in the development of\n theoretical physics must not be overlooked. Father Boscovich, with his\n system of atomic forces (1759), made the first serious advance beyond\n Newton. The idea of the equivalence of God and pure space is even more\n evident in Jesuit work than it is in that of the Jansenists of Port\n Royal with whom Descartes and Pascal were associated.\n\n (Boscovich\u2019s atomic theory is discussed by James Clerk Maxwell in\n Ency. Brit., XI ed., XVIII, 655\u2014a reference that, for more general\n reasons, no student of the Faustian-as-scientist should fail to follow\n up.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n Luther placed practical activity (the day\u2019s demands, as Goethe said)\n at the very centre of morale, and that is one of the main reasons why\n it was to the deeper natures that Protestantism appealed most\n cogently. Works of piety devoid of directional energy (in the sense\n that we give the words here) fell at once from the high esteem in\n which they had been sustained (as the Renaissance was sustained) by a\n relic of _Southern_ feeling. On ethical grounds monasticism\n thenceforth falls into ever-increasing disrepute. In the Gothic Age\n entry into the cloister, the renunciation of care, deed and will, had\n been an act of the loftiest ethical character\u2014the highest sacrifice\n that it was possible to imagine, that of _life_. But in the Baroque\n even Roman Catholics no longer felt thus about it. And the\n institutions, no longer of renunciation but merely of inactive\n comfort, went down before the spirit of the Enlightenment.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd meant in the older Greek \u201cvisage,\u201d and later, in Athens,\n \u201cmask.\u201d As late as Aristotle the word is not yet in use for person.\n \u201cPersona,\u201d originally also a theatre-mask, came to have a juristic\n application, and in Roman Imperial times the pregnant Roman sense of\n this word affected the Greek \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u1ff6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd also. See R. Hirzel, _Die\n Person_ (1914), pp. 40 et seq.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n See pp. 127 et seq.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n W. Creizenach, _Gesch. d. neueren Dramas_ (1918), II, 346 et seq.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n See p. 265.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n We too have our anecdote, but it is of our own type and diametrically\n opposed to the Classical. It is the \u201cshort story\u201d (_Novelle_)\u2014the\n story of Cervantes, Kleist, Hoffmann and Storm\u2014and we admire it in\n proportion as we are made to feel that its motive is _possible only\n this once, at this time and with these people_, whereas the mythic\n type of anecdote, the Fable, is judged by precisely opposite criteria.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n See pp. 143 et seq.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n The Fates of the Greeks are represented as spinning, measuring out and\n cutting the thread of a man\u2019s destiny, but not as weaving it _into the\n web_ of his life. It is a mere dimension.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n See p. 129.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n The evolution of meaning in the Classical words _pathos_ and _passico_\n corresponds with this. The second was formed from the first only in\n the Imperial period, and carried its original sense in the \u201cPassion\u201d\n of Christ. It was in the early Gothic times, and particularly in the\n language of the Franciscan \u201cZealots\u201d and the disciples of Joachim of\n Floris, that its meaning underwent the decisive reversal. Expressing\n thenceforward a condition of profound excitement which strained to\n discharge itself, it became finally a generic name for all spiritual\n dynamic; in this sense of strong will and directional energy it was\n brought into German as _Leidenschaft_ by Zesen in 1647.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n The Eleusinian mysteries contained no secrets at all. Everyone knew\n what went on. But upon the believers they exercised a strange and\n overpowering effect, and the \u201cbetrayal\u201d consisted in profaning them by\n imitating their holy forms outside the temple-precinct. See, further,\n A. Dieterich, _Kleine Schriften_ (1911), pp. 414 et seq.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 345 et seq.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n The dancers were goats, Silenus as leader of the dance wore a\n horsetail, but Aristophanes\u2019s \u201cBirds,\u201d \u201cFrogs\u201d and \u201cWasps\u201d suggest\n that there were still other animal disguises.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n See pp. 283 et seq.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n As the student of cultural history to-day is not necessarily familiar\n with technical Greek, it may be helpful to reproduce from Cornish\u2019s\n edition of Smith\u2019s \u201cGreek and Roman Antiquities,\u201d s.v. \u201cTragoedia,\u201d\n the following paragraph, as clear as it is succinct:\n\n \u201cTragedy is described by Aristotle (_Poet._, VI, 2) as effecting by\n means of pity and terror that purgation [of the soul] (\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) which\n belongs to [is proper for] such feelings.\u201d... Tragedy excites pity and\n terror by presenting to the mind things which are truly pitiable and\n terrible. When pity and terror are moved, as tragedy moves them, by a\n worthy cause, then the mind experiences that sense of relief which\n comes from finding an outlet for a natural energy. And thus the\n impressions made by Tragedy leave behind them in the spectator a\n temperate and harmonious state of the soul. Similarly Aristotle speaks\n of the enthusiastic worshippers of Dionysus as obtaining a \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, a\n healthful relief, by the \u201clyric utterance of their sacred frenzy.\u201d\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n The evolution of ideals of stage-presentation in the minds of\n \u00c6schylus, Sophocles and Euripides successively is perhaps comparable\n with that of sculptural style which we see in the pediments of \u00c6gina,\n of Olympia and of the Parthenon.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n It must be repeated that the Hellenistic shadow-painting of Zeuxis and\n Apollodorus is a modelling of the individual body for the purpose of\n producing the plastic effect on the eye. There was no idea of\n rendering space by means of light and shade. The body is \u201cshaded\u201d but\n it _casts no shadow_.\n\n (Contrast with this Dante\u2019s exact and careful specification of the\n time-of-day in every episode of the _Purgatorio_ and the _Paradiso_,\n sublimely imaginative as these poems are.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n The great mass of Socialists would cease to be Socialists if they\n could understand the Socialism of the nine or ten men who to-day grasp\n it with the full historical consequences that it involves.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n See p. 239 et seq.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n See p. 68.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 363, note.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n As we increase the powers of the telescope we find that the number of\n newly appearing stars falls off rapidly towards the edges of the\n field.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n The thrill of big figures is a feeling peculiar to Western mankind. In\n the Civilization of to-day this significant passion for gigantic sums,\n for indefinitely big and indefinitely minute measurements, for\n \u201crecords\u201d and statistics, is playing a conspicuous part.\n\n (Our very notation of number is ceasing to rest on sense-standards.\n Science has carried number, as ordinarily written, so high and so low\n that it now uses a _movable base_ for its numerical statements. For\n example, a number in astronomy is written, not as 3,450,000,000 but as\n 3.45 \u00d7 10^9, one relating to ordinary experience as 3.45 (i.e., 3.45 \u00d7\n 10^0) and one in electromagnetic theory, not as 0.00000345 but as 3.45\n \u00d7 10^{-6}. Under this system the conceptual unit may be as large or as\n small, compared with the unit of daily experience, as the region of\n thought in which the calculation is taking place requires. And\n different conceptual worlds can be connected as to number [say, a\n number of kilometres brought into an order of thought that deals with\n millimetres] by simply changing the ten-power.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n In stellar calculations even the mean radius of the earth\u2019s orbit\n (1.493 \u00d7 10^{13} cm.) hardly suffices as unit, as the distance of a\n star of one second parallax is already 206,265 such units away from\n us; star-distances are reckoned therefore either in light-years or in\n terms of the unit distance of a star of this standard parallax.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n As early as the second millennium before Christ they worked from\n Iceland and the North Sea past Finisterre to the Canaries and West\n Africa. An echo of these voyagings lingers in the Atlantis-saga of the\n Greeks. The realm of Tartessus (at the mouth of the Guadalquivir)\n appears to have been a centre of these movements (see Leo Frobenius,\n _Das unbekannte Afrika_, p. 139). Some sort of relation, too, there\n must have been between them and the movements of the \u201csea peoples,\u201d\n Viking swarms which after long land-wanderings from North to South\n built themselves ships again on the Black Sea or the \u00c6gean and burst\n out against Egypt from the time of Rameses II (1292-1225). The\n Egyptian reliefs show their ship-types to have been quite different\n from the native and the Ph\u0153nician; but they may well have been similar\n to those that C\u00e6sar found afterwards among the Veneti of Brittany. A\n later example of such outbursts is afforded by the Varyags or\n Varangians in Russia and at Constantinople. No doubt more light will\n shortly be thrown on the courses of these movement-streams.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n Here there is no need to postulate firearms (as distinct from\n gunpowder used in fireworks) in the Chinese Culture. The archery of\n the Chinese and Japanese was such as only the British 14th-century\n archery could match in the Western and nothing in the Classical.\n\n It should be noted also that it was in our 14th Century that\u2014quite\n independently of gunpowder\u2014archery and the construction of siege-\n engines reached their zenith in the West. The \u201cEnglish\u201d bow had long\n been used by the Welsh, but it was left to Edward I and Edward III to\n make it the tactical weapon par excellence.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 626 et seq.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n Half as long again as Nelson\u2019s _Victory_ and about the same length as\n the last wooden steam three-deckers (e.g., _Duke of Wellington_) of\n the mid-19th Century.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 207 et seq., and Chapter IV B.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 80.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n I.e., adherents of the various syncretic cults. Sec Vol. II, pp. 212\n et seq.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n This applies even more forcibly to the other \u201clong-range\u201d episode,\n that of the Ten Thousand (Xenophon, _Anabasis_ I).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n In this place it is exclusively with the conscious, religio-\n philosophical morale\u2014the morale which can be known and taught and\n followed\u2014that we are concerned, and not with the racial rhythm of\n Life, the habit, Sitte, \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, that is unconsciously present. The\n morale with which we are dealing turns upon _intellectual_ concepts of\n Virtue and Vice, good and bad; the other, upon ideals in the _blood_\n such as honour, loyalty, bravery, the feeling that attributes nobility\n and vulgarity. See Vol. II, 421 et seq.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n The original is here expanded a little for the sake of clarity.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n After what has been said above regarding the absence of pregnant words\n for \u201cwill\u201d and \u201cspace\u201d in the Classical tongues, the reader will not\n be surprised to hear that neither Greek nor Latin affords exact\n equivalents for these words action and activity.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 293 et seq.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n \u201cHe who hath ears to hear, let him hear\u201d\u2014there is no claim to power in\n these words. But the Western Church never conceived its mission thus.\n The \u201cGlad Tidings\u201d of Jesus, like those of Zoroaster, of Mani, of\n Mahomet, of the Neo-Platonists and of all the cognate Magian religions\n were mystic benefits _displayed_ but in nowise imposed. Youthful\n Christianity, when it had flowed into the Western world, merely\n imitated the missionarism of the later Stoa, itself by that time\n thoroughly Magian. Paul may be thought of as urgent; the itinerant\n preachers of the Stoa were certainly so, as we know from our\n authorities. But _commanding_ they were not. To illustrate by a\n somewhat farfetched parallel\u2014in direct contrast to the physicians of\n the Magian stamp who merely proclaimed the virtues of their mysterious\n arcana, the medical men of the West seek to obtain for their knowledge\n the _force of civil law_, as for instance in the matter of vaccination\n or the inspection of pork for trichina.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n For the Buddhist Four Truths see Ency. Brit., XI ed., Vol. IV, p. 742.\n English translation of Kant\u2019s _Kritik der praktischen Vernunft_ by T.\n K. Abbott.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n See p. 201.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n See p. 205 and 222 et seq.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 334.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n The philosophy and dogma of charity and almsgiving\u2014a subject that\n English research seems generally to have ignored\u2014is dealt with at\n length in Dr. C. S. Loch\u2019s article _Charity and Charities_, Ency.\n Brit., XI ed.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n Not only as local sovereigns enforcing order, like the good Bishop\n Wazo of Li\u00e9ge who fought down his castled robber-barons one by one in\n the middle of the 11th Century, but even as high commanders for the\n Emperor in distant Italy. The battle of Tusculum in 1167 was won by\n the Archbishops of K\u00f6ln and Mainz. English history, too, contains the\n figures of warlike prelates\u2014not only leaders of national movements\n like Stephen Langton but strong-handed administrators and fighters.\n The great Scots invasion of 1346 was met and defeated by the\n Archbishop of York. The Bishops of Durham were for centuries\n \u201cpalatines\u201d; we find one of them serving _on pay_ in the King\u2019s army\n in France, 1348. The line of these warlike Bishops in our history\n extends from Odo the brother of William the Conqueror to Scrope,\n archbishop and rebel in Henry IV\u2019s time.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n A paraphrase of the opening of \u201cJohn Tanner\u2019s Revolutionist\u2019s\n Handbook,\u201d Ch. V.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 116 et seq.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n Rousseau\u2019s _Contrat Social_ is paralleled by exactly equivalent\n productions of Aristotle\u2019s time.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n The first on the atheistical system of Sankhya, the second (through\n Socrates) on the Sophists, the third on English sensualism.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 441 et seq.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n It was many centuries later that the Buddhist ethic of life gave rise\n to a religion for simple peasantry, and it was only enabled to do so\n by reaching back to the long-stiffened theology of Brahmanism and,\n further back still, to very ancient popular cults. See Vol. II, pp.\n 378, 285.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n The articles _Buddha_ and _Buddhism_ in the Ency. Brit., XI ed., by T.\n W. Rhys Davids, may be studied in this connexion.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n See \u201cThe Questions of King Milinda,\u201d ed. Rhys Davids.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n Of course, each Culture naturally has its own kind of materialism,\n conditioned in every detail by its general world-feeling.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n To begin with, it would be necessary to specify _what_ Christianity\n was being compared with it\u2014that of the Fathers or that of the\n Crusades. For these are two different religions in the same clothing\n of dogma and cult. The same want of psychological _flair_ is evident\n in the parallel that is so fashionable to-day between Socialism and\n early Christianity.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n The term must not be confused with _anti_-religious.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n Note the striking similarity of many Roman portrait-busts to the\n matter-of-fact modern heads of the American style, and also (though\n this is not so distinct) to many of the portrait-heads of the Egyptian\n New Empire.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 122 et seq.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n The original is here very obscure; it reads: \u201c... es ist der\n \u2018Gebildete,\u2019 jener Anh\u00e4nger eines Kultus des geistigen Mittelmasses\n und der Offentlichkeit als Kultst\u00e4tte.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n See P. Wendland, _Die hellenist.-r\u00f6m. Kultur_ (1912), pp. 75 et seq.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 318 et seq.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 269 et seq.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n Compare my _Preussentum und Sozialismus_, pp. 22 et seq.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 324 et seq., 368 et seq.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 345. It is possible that the peculiar style of\n Heraclitus, who came of a priestly family of the temple of Ephesus, is\n an example of the form in which the old Orphic wisdom was orally\n transmitted.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 307.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n Here we are considering only the scholastic side. The mystic side,\n from which Pythagoras and Leibniz were not very far, reached its\n culminations in Plato and Goethe, and in our own case it has been\n extended beyond Goethe by the Romantics, Hegel and Nietzsche, whereas\n Scholasticism exhausted itself with Kant\u2014and Aristotle\u2014and degenerated\n thereafter into a routine-profession.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n Zeno the Stoic, not to be confused with Zeno of Elea, whose\n mathematical fineness has already been alluded to.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n _Neue Paralipomena_, \u00a7 656.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n Even the modern idea that unconscious and impulsive acts of life are\n completely efficient, while intellect can only bungle, is to be found\n in Schopenhauer (Vol. II, cap. 30).\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n In the chapter \u201cZur Metaphysik der Geschlechtsliebe\u201d (II, 44) the idea\n of natural selection for the preservation of the genus is anticipated\n in full.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 36 et seq.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n This began to appear in 1867. But the preliminary work _Zur Kritik der\n politischen \u00d6konomie_ came out in the same year as Darwin\u2019s\n masterpiece.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n Vol. II, p. 625. See, for example, Leonard, _Relativit\u00e4ts-Prinzip,\n Aether, Gravitation_ (1920), pp. 20 et seq.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 369 et seq., 624 et seq.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n See p. 57.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n E.g., in Boltzmann\u2019s formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:\n \u201cthe logarithm of the probability of a state is proportional to the\n entropy of that state.\u201d Every word in this contains an entire\n scientific concept, capable only of being sensed and not described.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 369.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 382 et seq.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n E. Wiedermann, _Die Naturwissensch. bei den Arabern_ (1890). F.\n Struntz, _Gesch. d. Naturwissensch. im Mittelalter_ (1910), p. 58.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n An order of encyclop\u00e6dists and philosophers; see Ency. Brit., XI ed.,\n Vol. II, p. 278a.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n M. P. E. Berthelot, _Die Chemie im Altertum u. Mittelalter_ (1909),\n pp. 64 et seq. (The reference is evidently to a German version;\n Berthelot published several works on the subject, viz., _Les origines\n de l\u2019Alch\u00e9mie_ [1885]; _Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de la chimie des\n anciens et du moyen \u00e2ge_ [1889]; _Collection des anciens alchimistes\n grecs_ [1887, translations of texts]; _La chimie au moyen \u00e2ge_\n [1893].\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n For the metals, \u201cmercury\u201d is the principle of substantial character\n (lustre, tensility, fusibility), \u201csulphur\u201d that of the attributive\n generation (e.g., combustion, transmutation). See Struntz, _Gesch. d.\n Naturwissensch. im Mittelalter_ (1910), pp. 73 et seq.\n\n (It seems desirable to supplement this a little for the non-technical\n reader, by stating, however roughly and generally, the principle and\n process of transmutation as the alchemist saw them. All metals consist\n of mercury and sulphur. Remove \u201cmateriality\u201d from common mercury (or\n from the mercury-content of the metal under treatment) by depriving it\n (or the metal) of \u201cearthness,\u201d \u201cliquidness\u201d and \u201cairiness\u201d (i.e.,\n volatility) and we have a prime, substantial (though not material) and\n stable thing. Similarly, remove materiality from sulphur (or the\n sulphur-content of the metal treated) and it becomes an elixir,\n efficient for generating attributes. Then, the prime matter and the\n elixir react upon one another so that the product on reassuming\n materiality is a different metal, or rather a \u201cmetallicity\u201d endowed\n with different characters and attributes. The production of one metal\n from another thus depends merely on the modalities of working\n processes.\u2014_Tr._)\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 370, 627.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 314 et seq.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n See the article under this heading, and also that under _Alchemy_,\n Ency. Brit., XI ed.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n During the Gothic age, in spite of the Spanish Dominican Arnold of\n Villanova (d. 1311), chemistry had had no sort of creative importance\n in comparison with the mathematical-physical research of that age.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n For even Helmholtz had sought to account for the phenomena of\n electrolysis by the assumption of an atomic structure of electricity.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n Which in their physical aspect are individual centres of force,\n without parts or extension or figure. (For their metaphysical aspect,\n see Ency. Brit., XI edition. Article _Leibniz_, especially pp. 387-8.\u2014\n _Tr._)\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n M. Born, _Aufbau der Materie_ (1920), p. 27.\n\n (So many books and papers\u2014strict, semi-popular and frankly popular\u2014\n have been published in the last few years that references may seem\n superfluous, the more so as the formulation of this central theory of\n present-day physics. The article _Matter_ by Rutherford in the Ency.\n Brit., XIIth edition (1922), and Bertrand Russell, _The A.B.C. of\n Atoms_, are perhaps the clearest elementary accounts that are\n possible, having regard to the scientist\u2019s necessary reservations of\n judgment.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n See p. 231.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n See p. 172.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n See p. 121 and Vol. II, pp. 11 et seq.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n See p. 169.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n See p. 166 and Vol. II, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n See p. 152.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n See p. 116 et seq., pp. 151 et seq.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 369 et seq.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n J. Goldziher, _Die islam. und j\u00fcd. Philosophie_ (\u201cKultur der\n Gegenwart,\u201d I, V, 1913), pp. 306 et seq.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 27 et seq., 427 et seq.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n And it may be asserted that the downright faith that Haeckel, for\n example, pins to the names atom, matter, energy, is not essentially\n different from the fetishism of Neanderthal Man.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n See p. 126.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n Compare Vol. II, pp. 38 et seq.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 305.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 343 et seq., and p. 346.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n E. Mogk, _Germ. Mythol._, Grundr. d. Germ. Philos., III (1900), p.\n 340.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 241 et seq., 306 et seq.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n See p. 268.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n The pantheistic idea of Pan, familiar in European poetry, is a\n conception of later Classical ages, acquired in principle from Egypt.\u2014\n _Tr._\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n Few passages in the Acts of the Apostles have obtained a stronger hold\n on _our_ imagination than Paul\u2019s meeting with the altar of \u201cthe\n Unknown God\u201d at Phalerum (Acts XVII, 23). And yet we have perfectly\n definite evidence, later than Paul\u2019s time, of the plurality of the\n gods to whom this altar was dedicated. Pausanias in his guide-book (I,\n 24) says: \u201chere there are ... altars of the gods styled Unknowns, of\n heroes, etc.\u201d (\u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff4\u03c9\u03bd ...\n \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.). Such, however, is the force of our fixed idea that even Sir\n J. G. Frazer, in his \u201cPausanias and Other Studies,\u201d speaks of \u201cThe\n Altar to the Unknown God which St. Paul, and Pausanias after him,\n saw.\u201d More, he follows this up with a description of a dialogue\n \u201cattributed to Lucian\u201d (2nd Cent. A.D.) in which the Unknown God of\n Athens figures in a Christian discussion; but this dialogue (the\n Philopatris) is almost universally regarded as a much later work,\n dating at earliest from Julian\u2019s time (mid-4th Cent.) and probably\n from that of Nicephorus Phocas (10th Cent.).\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n Wissowa, _Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer_ (1912), p. 38.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n See Ency. Brit., XI ed., article _Great Mother of the Gods_.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n In Egypt Ptolemy Philadelphus was the first to introduce a ruler-cult.\n The reverence that had been paid to the Pharaohs was of quite other\n significance.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n See Vol. II, pp. 241 et seq.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n Significantly enough, the formula of the oath sworn by this stone was\n not \u201cper Jovis lapidem\u201d but \u201cper Jovem lapidem.\u201d\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n The Erechtheum, similarly, was a group of cult-sites, each refraining\n from interference with the others.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n Juppiter Dolichenus was a local deity of Doliche in Commagene, whose\n worship was spread over all parts of the Empire by soldiers recruited\n from that region; the tablet dedicated to him which is in the British\n Museum was found, for example, near Frankfurt-on-Main.\n\n Sol Invictus is the Roman official form of Mithras. Troop-movements\n and trade spread his worship, like that of Juppiter Dolichenus, over\n the Empire.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n To whom the inhabitants of \u201cRoman\u201d Carthage managed to attach even\n Dido.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n Wissowa, _Kult. und. Relig. d. R\u00f6mer_ (1912), pp. 98 et seq.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. der R\u00f6mer_ (1912), p. 355.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n The symbolic importance of the Title, and its relation to the concept\n and idea of the Person, cannot here be dealt with. It must suffice to\n draw attention to the fact that the Classical is the only Culture in\n which the Title is unknown. It would have been in contradiction with\n the strictly somatic character of their names. Apart from personal and\n family names, only the technical names of offices actually exercised\n were in use. \u201cAugustus\u201d became at once a personal name, \u201cC\u00e6sar\u201d very\n soon a designation of office. The advance of the Magian feeling can be\n seen in the way in which courtesy-expressions of the Late-Roman\n bureaucracy, like \u201cVir clarissimus,\u201d became permanent titles of honour\n which could be conferred and cancelled. In just the same way, the\n names of old and foreign deities became titles of the recognized\n Godhead; e.g., Saviour and Healer (Asklepios) and Good Shepherd\n (Orpheus) are titles of Christ. In the Classical, on the contrary, we\n find the secondary names of Roman deities evolving into independent\n and separate gods.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n Diagoras, who was condemned to death by the Athenians for his\n \u201cgodless\u201d writings, left behind him deeply pious dithyrambs. Read,\n too, Hebbel\u2019s diaries and his letters to Elise. He \u201cdid not believe in\n God,\u201d but he prayed.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 376.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 244.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n Livy XL, 29.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n In the famous conclusion of his \u201cOptics\u201d (1706) which made a powerful\n impression and became the starting-point of quite new enunciations of\n theological problems, Newton limits the domain of mechanical causes as\n against the Divine First Cause, whose perception-organ is necessarily\n infinite space itself.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n As has been shown already, the dynamic structure of our thought was\n manifested first of all when Western languages changed \u201cfeci\u201d to \u201cego\n habeo factum,\u201d and thereafter we have increasingly emphasized the\n dynamic in the phrases with which we fix our phenomena. We say, for\n instance, that industry \u201cfinds outlets for itself\u201d and that\n Rationalism \u201chas come into power.\u201d No Classical language allows of\n such expressions. No Greek would have spoken of Stoicism, but only of\n the Stoics. There is an essential difference, too, between the imagery\n of Classical and that of Western poetry in this respect.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n The law of the equivalence of heat and work.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n See p. 307.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n Original: \u201cKeine dem abendl\u00e4ndischen Geist nat\u00fcrliche Art der Deutung\n mechanischer Tatsachen, welche die Begriffe Gestalt und Substanz\n (allenfalls Raum und Masse) statt Raum, Zeit, Masse, und Kraft\n zugrunde liegt.\u201d\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n See foot-note, p. 314.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n See p. 355.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n See Vol. II, p. 618.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n See M. Planck, _Entstehung und bisherige Entwicklung der\n Quantentheorie_ (1920), pp. 17-25.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n Which in many cases have led to the supposition that the \u201cactual\n existence\u201d of atoms has now at last been proved\u2014a singular throw-back\n to the materialism of the preceding generation.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n This sentence follows the original word for word and phrase for\n phrase. Its significance depends wholly on the precise meaning to be\n attached to such words as \u201cdead,\u201d \u201cfree,\u201d \u201clatent,\u201d and to attempt any\n sharper formulation of the processes in English would require not only\n the definition of these (or other) basic terms but also extended\n description of what they imply.\n\n The Second Law of Thermodynamics is something which is _absorbed by_,\n rather than specified for, the student. Elsewhere in this English\n edition, indications have been frequently given to enable the ordinary\n student to follow up matters referred to more allusively in the text.\n But in this difficult domain such minor aids would be worthless. All\n that is possible is to recommend such students to make a very careful\n study of some plain statement of the subject like Professor Soddy\u2019s\n \u201cMatter and Energy\u201d (especially chapters 4 and 5) and to follow this\n up\u2014to the extent that his mathematical knowledge permits\u2014in the\n articles _Energy_, _Energetics_ and _Thermodynamics_ in the Ency.\n Brit., XI ed.\u2014_Tr._\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n See foot-note, p. 157.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n The application of the idea of \u201clifetime\u201d to elements has in fact\n produced the conception of \u201chalf-transformation times\u201d [such as 3.85\n days for Radium Emanation.\u2014_Tr._].\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n The text of this paragraph has been slightly condensed, as in such a\n field as this of philosophical mathematics partial indications would\n serve no useful purpose. The mathematical reader may refer to the\n articles _Function_, _Number_, and _Groups_ in the Ency. Brit., XI\n ed.\u2014_Tr._\n\n\n\n\n INDEX\n\n Prepared by DAVID \u039c. MATTESON\n\n Aachen Minster, and style, 200\n Abaca, Evaristo F. dall\u2019, sonatas, 283\n Abel, Niels H., mathematic problem, 85\n Absolutism, contemporary periods, table iii\n Abydos, 58_n._;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Abyssinia, cult-buildings, 209\n Academy, contemporaries, table i\n Acanthus motive, history, 215\n Achelo\u00fcs, as god, 403\n Achilles, archetype, 203, 402\n Acre, battle, 150\n Acropolis, contemporaries, table ii. _See also_ Parthenon\n Act, and portrait, 262, 266, 270\n Action, in Western morale, 342\n Actium, battle, 381\n Activity, as Western trait, 315, 320;\n as quality of Socialism, 362-364\n Actuality, as test of philosophy, 41;\n significance, 164\n Adam de la Hale. _See_ La Hale\n Addison, Joseph, type, 254\n Adolescence, initiation-rites as symbol, 174_n._\n Adrastos, cult, 33_n._\n \u00c6gina temple, sculpture, 226, 244\n \u00c6schines, portrait statue, 270\n \u00c6schylus, tragic form and method, 129, 320, 321;\n and architecture, 206;\n and motherhood, 268;\n and deity, 313;\n morale, 355\n \u00c6sthetics, and genius in art, 128\n \u00c6ther, contradictory theories, 418\n Agamemnon, contemporaries, table iii\n Aggregates, theory, 426\n Aglaure, cult, 406\n Ahmes, arithmetic, 58\n Ahriman, Persian Devil, 312\n Aim, and direction, 361;\n nebulousness, 363\n Aksakov, Sergei, and Europe, 16_n._\n Albani, Francesco, linear perspective, 240;\n colour, 246\n Albani villa, garden, 240\n Albert of Saxony, Occamist, 381\n Alberti, Leone B., gardening, 240\n Alcamenes, contemporary mathematic, 78;\n period, 284\n Alchemy, as symbol, 248;\n as Arabian physics, 382, 383;\n process of transmutation, 382_n._;\n and substance, 383;\n and mechanical necessity, 393\n Alcibiades, and Napoleon, 4;\n and Classical morale, 351;\n condemnation, 411\n Alcman, music, 223\n Alembert, Jean B. le R. d\u2019, mathematic, 66, 78;\n and time, 126;\n mechanics and deism, 412\n Alexander the Great, analogies, 4;\n and Dionysus legend, 8;\n romantic, 38;\n and economic organization, 138;\n expedition as episode, 147;\n himself as epoch, 149;\n as conqueror, 336;\n morale, 349;\n as paradox, 363;\n deification, 405;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Alexander I of Russia, and Napoleon, 150\n Alexandria, as a cultural left-over, 33, 73_n._, 79;\n contemporaries, 112;\n collections of University, 136_n._;\n as irreligious, 358\n Alfarabi, and extension, 178;\n and dualism, 306;\n contemporaries, table i\n Algebra, defined, significance of letter-notation, 71;\n Diophantus and Arabian Culture, 71-73;\n Western liberation, 86;\n contemporaries, table i.\n _See also_ Mathematics\n Algiers, origin of French war, 144_n._\n Alhambra, courtyard, 235\n Alien, and \u201cproper\u201d, 53\n Alkabi, and extension, 178\n Alkarchi, contemporaries, table i\n Al-Khwarizmi, mathematic, 72;\n contemporaries, table i\n Alkindi, and dualism, 307;\n contemporaries, table i\n Allegory, motive and word, 219_n._\n Almighty, philosophical attitude toward, 123. _See also_ Religion\n Alphabet, and historical consciousness, 12_n._ _See also_ Language\n Alsidzshi, mathematic, 72\n Altar of the Unknown God, Paul\u2019s error, 404\n Amarna art, contemporaries, table ii\n Ambrosian chants, and Jewish psalmody, 228\n Amenemhet III, pyramid, 13;\n portrait, 108, 262\n Amida, and Arabian art, 209\n Analogies, superficial and real historical, 4, 6, 27, 38, 39;\n necessity of technique, 5\n Analysis, and Classical mathematic, 69;\n in Western mathematic, 74, 75;\n inadequacy as term, 81;\n and earlier mathematics, 84;\n contemporaries, table i.\n _See also_ Mathematics\n Anamnesis, and comprehension of depth, 174\n Ananke, and Tyche, 146\n Anarchism, basis, 367, 373\n Anatomy, in Classical and Western art, 264;\n Michelangelo and Leonardo, 277\n Anaxagoras, and ego, 311;\n on atoms, 386;\n and mechanical necessity, 392, 394;\n condemnation, 411\n Anaximander, and chaos, 64;\n popularity, 327\n Ancestral worship, cultural basis, 134, 135_n._\n Ancient History, as term, 16\n Anecdote, and Classical tragedy, 318;\n Western, 318_n._\n Angelico, Fra, and the antique, 275\n Anthesteria, 135_n._\n Antigone, and Kriemhild, 268\n Antiphons, and Jewish psalmody, 228\n Antisthenes, character of Nihilism, 357;\n and diet, 361\n Antonello da Messina, Dutch influence, 236\n Apelles, contemporaries, table ii\n Aphrodisias Temple in Caria, as pseudomorphic, 210\n Aphrodite, as goddess, 268;\n in Classical art, 268\n Apocalypses, and world-history, 18_n._;\n contemporaries, table i\n Apollinian soul, explained, 183. _See also_ Classical Culture\n Apollo Didym\u00e6us Temple, form-type, 204\n Apollo of Tenea, contemporaries, table ii\n Apollodorus of Athens, unpopularity, 35;\n painting, 283, 325_n._\n Apollodorus of Damascus, Roman architecture, 211\n Apollonius Perg\u00e6us, and infinity, 69;\n mathematic, 90\n Appius Claudius, contemporaries, table iii\n Arabesque, algebraic analogy, 72;\n period, 108;\n spun surface, 196;\n character, 203, 212;\n as symbol, 215, 248;\n end-art, 223;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Arabian Culture, and polar idea of history, 18;\n mathematic, significance of algebra, 63, 71-73;\n expressions, 72;\n and Late-Classical, 73, 209, 212, 214;\n and Marycult, 137;\n prime symbol, cavern, 174, 209, 215;\n soul and dualism, 183, 305-307, 363;\n \u201cinside\u201d architectural expression, 184, 199, 200, 224;\n religious expression, 187, 188, 312, 401;\n and Russian art, 201;\n autumn of style, 207;\n art as single phenomenon, 207-209;\n art research, 209;\n dome space-symbolism, 210-212;\n ornamentation, 212;\n fetters, 212;\n emancipation, hurry, 213;\n and mosaic, 214;\n arch-column, 214;\n Acanthus motive, 215;\n and portraiture, 223, 262;\n architecture in Italy, 235;\n music, 228;\n and Renaissance, 235;\n gold as symbol, 247;\n political concept, 335;\n will-lessness, 309, 311;\n art and spectator, 329;\n and world-history, 363;\n nature idea, chemistry, 382-384, 393;\n religion in Late-Classical, 407;\n spiritual epochs, table i;\n art epochs, table ii\n Arabian Nights, as symbol, 248\n Arbela, battle, 151\n Arcadians, provided history, 11\n Arch, and column, 214, 236\n Arch\u00e6ology, and historical repetition, 4;\n cultural attitude, 14, 132, 254;\n significance, 134.\n Archery, Eastern and Western, 333_n._\n Archimedes, style, 59;\n and infinity, 69;\n mathematical limitation, 84, 90;\n contemporaries, 112, 386;\n and metaphysics, 366;\n and motion, 377;\n as creator, 425\n Architecture, ahistoric symbolism of Classical, 9, 12_n._;\n symbolism of Egyptian, 69, 189, 202;\n transition to and from Arabian, 72, 73;\n Rococo as music, 87, 231, 285;\n as early art of a Culture, mother-art, 128, 224;\n undurable basis of Classical, 132, 198;\n column, and arch, 166, 184, 204, 214, 236, 260_n._, 345;\n dimension and direction, cultural relation, 169_n._, 177, 184, 205,\n 224;\n symbolism in Chinese, 190, 196;\n imitation and ornament, becoming and become, 194-198, 202;\n history of techniques and ideas, 195;\n of Civilization period, 197;\n stage of Russian, 201;\n Classical, feeble development of style, 204;\n pseudomorphic Late-Classical, basilica, 209, 212, 214;\n Arabian, dome type, 208, 210-212;\n Western fa\u00e7ade and visage, 224;\n cathedral and infinite space, forest character, 198-200, 224, 396;\n Arabian in Italy, 235;\n place of Renaissance, 235;\n Michelangelo and Baroque, 277;\n and cultural morale, 345;\n contemporary cultural epochs, table ii.\n _See also_ Art; Baroque; Egyptian Culture; Doric; Gothic; Romanesque\n Archytas, irrational numbers and fate, 65_n._;\n and higher powers, 66;\n contemporaries, 78, 90, 112, table i;\n and metaphysics, 366\n Arezzo, school of art, 268\n Aristarchus of Samos, and Eastern thought, 9;\n and heliocentric system, 68, 69, 139\n Aristogiton, statue, 269_n._\n Aristophanes, and burlesque, 30, 320_n._\n Aristotle, ahistoric consciousness, 9;\n entelechy, 15;\n contemporaries, 17, table i;\n and philosophy of being, 49_n._;\n mechanistic world-conception, 99, 392;\n and deity, 124, 313;\n tabulation of categories, 125;\n as collector, 136_n._;\n as Plato\u2019s opposite, 159;\n on tragedy, 203, 318, 320, 321, 351;\n on body and soul, 259;\n on Zeuxis, 284;\n and inward life, 317;\n and philanthropy, 351;\n and Civilization, 352;\n and diet, 361;\n culmination of Classical philosophy, 365, 366;\n and mathematics, 366;\n on atoms, 386;\n as atheist, 409;\n condemnation, 411\n Arithmetic, Kant\u2019s error, 6_n._;\n and time, 125, 126.\n _See also_ Mathematics\n Army, Roman notion, 335\n Arnold of Villanova, and chemistry, 384_n._\n Art and arts, irrational polar idea, 20;\n as sport, 35;\n and future of Western Culture, 40;\n as mathematical expression, 57, 58, 61, 62, 70;\n Arabian, relation to algebra, 72;\n and vision, 96;\n causal and destiny sides, 127, 128;\n Western, and \u201cmemory,\u201d 132_n._;\n mortality, 167;\n religious character of early periods, 185;\n lack of early Chinese survivals, 190_n._;\n as expression-language, 191;\n and witnesses, 191;\n imitation and ornament, 191-194;\n their opposition, becoming and become, 194-196;\n typism, 193;\n so-called, of Civilization, copyists, 197, 293-295;\n meaning of style, 200, 201;\n forms and cultural spirituality, 214-216;\n as symbolic expression of Culture, 219, 259;\n expression-methods of wordless, 219_n._;\n sense-impression and classification, 220, 221;\n historical boundaries, organism, 221;\n species within a Culture, no rebirths, 222-224;\n early period architecture as mother, 224;\n Western philosophical association, 229;\n secularization of Western, 230;\n dominance of Western music, 231;\n outward forms and cultural meaning, 238;\n and popularity, 242;\n space and philosophy, 243;\n cultural basis of composition, 243;\n symptom of decline, striving, 291, 292;\n trained instinct and minor artists, 292, 293;\n cultural association with morale, 344;\n contemporary cultural epochs, table ii.\n _See also_ Imitation; Ornament; Science; Style; arts by name\n Aryan hero-tales, contemporaries, table i\n Asklepios, as Christian title, 408_n._\n Astrology, cultural attitude, 132, 147\n Astronomy, Classical Culture and, 9;\n heliocentric system, 68, 139;\n dimensional figures, 83;\n cultural significance, 330-332\n Ataraxia, Stoic ideal, 343, 347, 352, 361\n Atheism, and \u201cGod\u201d, 312_n._;\n as definite phenomenon, position, 408, 409;\n cultural basis of structure, 409;\n and toleration, 410, 411\n Athene, as goddess, 268\n Athens, and Paris, 27;\n culture city, 32;\n as religious, 358\n Athtar, temples, 210\n Atlantis, and voyages of Northmen, 332_n._\n Atmosphere, in painting, 287\n Atomic theories, Boscovich\u2019s, 314_n._;\n cultural basis, 384-387, 419;\n disintegration hypotheses, 423\n Augustan Age, Atticism, 28_n._\n Augustine, Saint, and time, 124, 140;\n and Jesus, 347;\n contemporaries, table i\n Augustus, as epoch, 140;\n statue, 295\n Aurelian, favourite god, 406;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Avalon, and Valhalla, 401\n Avesta. _See_ Zend Avesta\n Aviation, Leonardo\u2019s interest, 279\n Avicenna, on light, 381;\n contemporaries, table i\n Axum, empire, and world-history, 16, 208, 209_n._, 223\n\n Baader, Franz X. von, and dualism, 307\n Baal, shrines as basilicas, 209_n._;\n cults, 406, 407;\n contemporaries, table i\n Baalbek, basilica, 209_n._;\n Sun Temple as pseudomorphic, 210\n Babylon, and time, 9, 15;\n geographical science, 10;\n place in history, 17;\n autumnal city, 79\n Baccio della Porta. _See_ Bartolommeo\n Bach, John Sebastian, contemporaries, 27, 112, 417, table ii;\n as analysist, 62;\n contemporary mathematic, 78;\n fugue, 230;\n and dominance of music, 231;\n and popularity, 243;\n pure music, 283;\n ease, 292;\n ethical passion, 355;\n God-feeling, 394\n Bachofen, Johann J., Classical ideology, 28;\n on stone, 188\n Backgrounds, in Renaissance art, 237;\n in Western painting, 239;\n in Western gardening, 240.\n _See also_ Depth-experience\n Bacon, Francis, Shakespeare controversy, 135_n._\n Bacon, Roger, world-conception, 99;\n and mechanical necessity, 392;\n contemporaries, table i\n B\u00e4hr, Georg, architecture, 285\n Baghdad, autumnal city, 79;\n contemporary cities, 112;\n philosophy of school, 248, 306, 307;\n contemporaries of school, table i\n Ballade, origin, 229\n Bamberg Cathedral, sculpture, 235\n Barbarossa, symbolism, 403\n Baroque, mathematic, 58, 77;\n musical association, 87, 228_n._, 230;\n as stage of style, 202;\n sculpture as allegory, 219_n._;\n origin, 236;\n depth-experience in painting, 239;\n in gardening, 240;\n portraits, 265;\n Michelangelo\u2019s relation, 277;\n philosophy, reason and will, 308;\n soul, 313, 314;\n contemporaries, table ii.\n _See also_ Art\n Bartolommeo, Fra (Baccio della Porta), and line, 280;\n dynamic God-feeling, 394\n Basilica, as pseudomorphic type, 209, 210;\n and Western cathedral, 211, 224;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Basilica of Maxentius (Constantine), Arabian influences, 212\n Basra School, philosophy, 248, 306;\n contemporaries, table i\n _Basso continuo._ _See_ Thoroughbass.\n Baths of Caracalla, Syrian workmen, 211, 212\n Battista of Urbino, portrait, 279\n Baudelaire, Pierre Charles, sensuousness, 35;\n autumnal accent, 241;\n and the decadent, 292\n Bayle, Pierre, and imperialism, 150\n Bayreuth. _See_ Wagner\n Beauty, transience, cultural basis, 194;\n as Classical r\u00f4le, 317\n Become, Civilization as, 31, 46;\n philosophers, 49_n._;\n explained, relationships, 53;\n and learning, 56;\n and extension, 56;\n and mathematical number, 70, 95;\n relation to nature and history, 94-98, 102, 103;\n and symbolism, 101;\n and causality and destiny, 119;\n and problem of time, 122;\n and mortality, 167;\n in art, 194.\n _See also_ Becoming; Causality; Nature; Space\n Becoming, and history, 25, 94-98, 102, 103;\n philosophers, 49_n._;\n explained, relationships, 53;\n intuition, 56;\n and direction, 56;\n and chronological number, 70;\n relation to nature and destiny and causality, 119, 138, 139;\n and mathematics, 125, 126;\n in art, 194.\n _See also_ Become; Destiny; History; Time\n Beech, as symbol, 396\n Beethoven, Ludwig van, contemporary mathematic, 78, 90;\n and pure reason, 120;\n and imagination, 220;\n orchestration, 231;\n inwardness, \u201cbrown\u201d music, 251, 252, 252_n._;\n music as confession, 264;\n period, 284;\n straining, 291;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Bell, as Western symbol, 134_n._\n Bellini, Giovanni, and portrait, 272, 273\n Benares, autumnal city, 99\n Benedetto da Maiano, and ornament, 238;\n and portrait, 272\n Bentham, Jeremy, and imperialism, 150;\n and economic ascendency, 367;\n contemporaries, table i\n Berengar of Tours, controversy, 185\n Berkeley, George, on mathematics and faith, 78_n._\n Berlin, megalopolitanism, 33;\n as irreligious, 79, 358\n Berlioz, Hector, contemporaries, table ii\n Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint, contemporaries, 400, table i\n Bernini, Giovanni Lorenzo, architecture, 87, 231, 244, 245;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Bernward, Saint, as architect, 107_n._, 206\n Berry, Duke of, Books of Hours, 239\n Beyle, Henri. _See_ Stendhal\n Bible, and periodic history, 18;\n as Arabian symbol, 248.\n _See also_ Christianity\n Biedermeyer, contemporaries, table ii\n Binchois, \u00c9gide, music, 230\n Binomial theorem, discovery, 75\n Biography, and portraiture, 12;\n Cultures and, 13, 14;\n and character, 316;\n and Western tragedy, 318.\n _See also_ Portraiture\n Biology, and preordained life-duration, 108;\n in politics, 156;\n as weakest science, 157;\n and Civilization, 360\n Bismarck, F\u00fcrst von, wars and cultural rhythm, 110_n._;\n and destiny, 145;\n morale, 349\n Bizet, Georges, \u201cbrown\u201d music, 252\n Blood, Leonardo\u2019s discovery of circulation, 278\n Blue, symbolism, 245, 246\n Boccaccio, Giovanni, and Homer, 268_n._\n Body, as symbol of Classical Culture, 174;\n and geometrical systems, 176_n._;\n in Arabian philosophy, 248;\n and soul, Classical expression, 259-261.\n _See also_ Sculpture; Spirit\n B\u00f6cklin, Arnold, act and portrait, 271_n._;\n painting, 289, 290\n Boehme, Jakob, contemporaries, table i\n Bogomils, iconoclasts, 383\n Bohr, Niels, and mass, 385, 419\n Boltzmann, Ludwig, on probability, 380_n._\n Boniface, Saint, as missionary, 360\n Book, and cult-building, 197_n._\n Books of Hours, Berry\u2019s, 239\n Books of Numa, burning, 411\n Boomerang, and mathematical instinct, 58\n Borgias, Hellenic sorriness, 273\n Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe, and physics, 314_n._, 415\n Botticelli, Sandro, Dutch influence, 236;\n goldsmith, 237;\n and portrait, 271, 272\n Boucher, Fran\u00e7ois, and body, 271\n Boulle, Andr\u00e9 C., Chippendale\u2019s ascendency, 150_n._\n Bourbons, analogy, 39\n Boyle, Robert, and element, 384\n Brahmanism, transvaluation, 352;\n Buddhist interpretation of Karma, 357;\n contemporaries of Brahmanas, table i.\n _See also_ Indian Culture\n Brain, and soul, 367\n Bramante, Donato d\u2019Angnolo, plan of St. Peter\u2019s, 184\n Brancacci Chapel, 237, 279\n Brass musical instruments, colour expression, 252_n._\n Bronze, and Classical expression, 253;\n patina, 253;\n Michelangelo and, 276\n Brothers of Sincerity, on light, 381;\n contemporaries, table i\n Brown, symbolism of studio, 250, 288;\n Leonardo and, 280\n Bruckner, Anton, end-art, 223;\n \u201cbrown\u201d music, 252\n Bruges, loss of prestige, 33;\n as religious, 358\n Brunelleschi, Filippo, linear perspective, 240;\n and antique, 275_n._;\n architecture, 313\n Bruno, Giordano, world, 56;\n martyrdom, 68;\n and vision, 96;\n esoteric, 326;\n astronomy, 331;\n contemporaries, table i\n Brutus, M. Junius, character, 5\n Buckle, Henry T., and evolution, 371\n Buddhism, and Civilization, end-phenomenon, materialism, 32, 352, 356,\n 357, 359, 409;\n and state, 138;\n Nirvana, 178, 357, 361;\n morale, 341, 347;\n scientific basis of ideas, 353;\n moral philosophy, 355;\n as peasant religion, 356_n._;\n and Christianity, 357;\n and contemporaries, 357, 358, 361, table i;\n and diet, 361.\n _See also_ Religion\n Burckhardt, Jacob, Classical ideology, 28;\n on Renaissance, 234\n Buridan, Jean, Occamist, 381\n Burlesque, Classical, 30, 320\n Busts, Classical, as portraits, 269, 272\n Buxtehude, Dietrich, organ works, 220\n Byron, George, Lord, and Civilization, 110\n Byzantinism, as Civilization, 106;\n and portraiture, 130_n._;\n style, 206;\n Acanthus motive, 215;\n allegorical painting, 219_n._;\n contemporaries, tables ii, iii.\n _See also_ Arabian Culture\n Byzantium, tenement houses, 34_n._\n\n Cabeo, Nicolaus, theory of magnetism, 414\n Caccias, character, 229\n C\u00e6sar, C. Julius, analogies, 4, 38;\n and newspaper, 5;\n and democracy, 5;\n conquest of Gaul, 36_n._;\n practicality, 38;\n and calendar and duration, 133;\n and economic organization, 138;\n and destiny, 139;\n bust, 272;\n morale, 349;\n Divus Julius, 407;\n contemporaries, table iii\n C\u00e6sarism, and money, 36;\n contemporary periods, table iii\n Calchas, cult, 185\n Calculus, and Classical astronomy, 69;\n limit-idea, 86;\n Newtonian and Leibnizian, 126_n._;\n and religion, 170;\n as Jesuit style, 412;\n basis threatened, 419.\n _See also_ Mathematics\n Calderon de la Barca, Pedro, plays as confession, 264\n Calendar, C\u00e6sar\u2019s, 133\n Caliphate, Diocletian\u2019s government, 72, 212;\n deification of caliph, 405\n Callicles, ethic, 351\n Calvin, John, predestination and evolution, 140_n._, 141;\n and Western morale, 348;\n variety of religion, 394;\n contemporaries, table i\n Can Grande, statue, 272\n Cann\u00e6, as climax, 36\n Canning, George, and imperialism, 149_n._\n Cantata, and orchestra, 230\n Canzoni, character, 229\n Caracalla, and citizenship and army, 335, 407\n Carcassonne, restoration, 254_n._\n Cardano, Girolamo, and numbers, 75\n Care, and distance, 12;\n cultural attitude, relation to state, 136, 137;\n and maternity, 267\n Carissimi, Giacomo, music, pictorial character, 230, 283\n Carneades, and mechanical necessity, 393\n Carstens, Armus J., naturalism, 212\n Carthage. _See_ Punic Wars\n Carthaginians, and geography, 10_n._, 333\n Castle, and cathedral, 195, 229\n Catacombs, art, 137_n._, 224\n Categories, tabulation, 125\n Catharine of Siena, Saint, and Gothic, 235\n Cathedral, as ornament, 195;\n and castle, 229;\n forest-character, 396;\n contemporaries, table ii.\n _See also_ Gothic; Romanesque\n Cato, M. Porcius, Stoicism and income, 33\n Cauchy, Augustin Louis, notation, 77;\n mathematic problem, 85;\n and infinitesimal calculus, 86;\n mathematical position, 90;\n goal of analysis, 418;\n contemporaries, table i\n Causality, history and Kantian, 7;\n and historiography, 28;\n and number, 56;\n and pure phenomenon, 111_n._;\n and destiny and history, limited domain, 117-121, 151, 156-159;\n and space and time, 119, 120, 142;\n and principle, 121;\n and grace, 141;\n and reason, 308;\n and Civilization, 360;\n and destiny in natural science, 379;\n and mechanical necessity, 392-394.\n _See also_ Become; Destiny; Nature; Space\n Cavern, as symbol, 200, 209, 215, 224\n Celtic art, as Arabian, 215\n Centre of time, and history, 103\n Ceres, materiality, 403\n Cervantes, Miguel de, tragic method, 319\n Ceylon, Mahavansa, 12\n C\u00e9zanne, Paul, landscapes, 289;\n striving, 292\n Ch\u00e6ronea, issue at battle, 35\n Chalcedon, Council of, and Godhead, 209, 249\n Chaldeans, astronomy, Classical reaction, 147\n Chamber-music, as summit of Western art, 231\n Chan-Kwo period, contemporaries, table iii\n Character, and person, 259;\n and will, Western ego, 314, 335;\n Cultures and study, 316;\n gesture as Classical substitute, 316;\n in Western tragedy, Classical contrast, 317-326.\n _See also_ Morale; Soul\n Chardin, Jean B. S., and French tradition, 289\n Chares, Helios and gigantomachia, 291\n Charity. _See_ Compassion\n Charlemagne, analogies, 4, 38;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Charles XII of Sweden, analogy, 4\n Chartres Cathedral, sculpture, 235, 261\n Chemistry, thoughtless hypotheses, 156_n._;\n no Classical, 383;\n Western so-called, 384;\n as Arabian system, 384, 393;\n new essence, entropy, 426.\n _See also_ Natural science\n Cheops, dynasty, 58_n._\n Chephren, dynasty, 58_n._;\n tomb-pyramid, 196, 203\n Chian, contemporaries, table iii\n Children, Western portraiture, 266-268. _See also_ Motherland.\n Chinese Culture, historic feeling, 14;\n imperialism, 37;\n philosophers, 42, 45;\n time-measurement, 134_n._;\n ancestral worship, 135_n._;\n and care, 136;\n attitude toward state, 137;\n economic organization, 138;\n destiny-idea, landscape as prime symbol, 190, 196, 203;\n lack of early art survivals, 190_n._;\n and tutelage, 213;\n music, 228;\n gardening, 240;\n bronzes, patina, 253_n._;\n portraiture, 260, 262;\n Civilization, 295;\n soul, perspective as expression, 310_n._;\n passive morale, 315, 341, 347;\n and discovery, 333, 336;\n political epochs, table iii.\n _See also_ Cultures\n Chippendale, Thomas, position, 150_n._\n Chivalry, southern type, 233_n._\n Chorus, in art-history, 191;\n in Classical tragedy, 324\n Chosroes-Nushirvan, art of period, 203\n Ch\u00f3u Li, on Ch\u00f3u dynasty, 137\n Ch\u00f3u Period, and care, 137;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Christianity, comparisons, 4;\n Eastern, and historical-periods, 22_n._;\n and poor Stoics, 33_n._;\n as Arabian, 72, 402;\n Mary-cult, Madonna in art, 136, 267, 268;\n destiny in Western, 140;\n architectural expression of early, 208-211;\n colour and gold as symbols, 247-250;\n in Western art, spiritual space, 279;\n dualism in early, 306;\n \u201cpassion\u201d, 320_n._;\n Eastern, and home, 335;\n Western transformation of morale, 344, 347, 348;\n and Buddhism, 357;\n of Fathers and Crusades, 357_n._;\n missionarism, 360;\n God-man problem as alchemistic, 383;\n and mechanical necessity, miracles, 392, 393;\n elements of Western, 399-401;\n foreign gods as titles, 408_n._\n _See also_ Religion\n Chronology, relation of Classical Culture, 9, 10;\n as number, 97, 153_n._;\n and the when, 126;\n and arch\u00e6ology, 134.\n _See also_ History\n Chrysippus, and Stoicism, 33, 358;\n and corporeality, 177\n Chuang-ts\u00fc, practical philosophy, 45\n Chun-Chiu Period, contemporaries, table iii\n Cicero, M. Tullius, analogy, 4\n Cimabue, Giovanni, and nature, 192;\n and Byzantine art, 238;\n and Francis of Assisi, 249_n._;\n and portraiture, 273\n Cimarosa, Domenico, ease, 292\n Cistercians, soul, 360\n Citizenship, Classical concept, 334. _See also_ Politics\n Civilization, defined, as destiny of a Culture, 31-34, 106, 252, 353,\n 354;\n and the \u201cbecome\u201d, 31, 46;\n and megalopolitanism, 32, 35;\n money as symbol, 34-36;\n and economic motives, 35;\n imperialism, 36;\n destiny of Western, 37, 38;\n and scepticism, 46, 409;\n Alexander-idea, 150;\n English basis of Western, 151, 371;\n Western, effect on history, 151;\n so-called art, 197, 293-295;\n style histories, 207;\n Western painting, _plein-air_, 251, 288, 289;\n and gigantomachia, 291;\n Manet and Wagner, 293;\n transvaluation of values, striving, 351, 353;\n Nihilism and inward finishedness, 352;\n manifestations, 353, 354;\n problematic and plebeian morale, 354, 355;\n and irreligion, 358;\n diatribe as phenomenon, 359;\n and biological philosophies, philosophical essence, 361, 367;\n natural science, 417;\n contemporary spiritual epochs, table i;\n contemporary art epochs, table ii;\n contemporary political epochs, table iii.\n _See also_ Cultures\n Clarke, Samuel, and imperialism, 150\n Classical Culture, philosophy, culmination, 3, 45;\n ahistoric basis, 8-10, 12_n._, 97, 103, 131-135, 254, 255, 264, 363;\n and chronology, 9, 10_n._;\n and geography, 10_n._;\n religious expression, bodied pantheon, later monotheistic tendencies,\n 10, 11, 13, 187, 312, 397, 398, 402-408;\n and mortality, funeral customs, 13, 134;\n portraiture, 13, 130, 264, 265, 269, 272;\n and arch\u00e6ology, 14;\n and measurement of time, 15;\n mathematic, 15, 63-65, 69, 77, 83, 84, 90;\n contemporary Western periods, 26;\n Western views, ideology, 27-31, 76, 81, 237, 238, 243, 254, 270, 323;\n \u201cClassical\u201d and \u201cantike\u201d, 28_n._;\n civilization, Rome, Stoicism, 32-34, 36, 44, 294, 352;\n cosmology, astronomy, 63, 68, 69, 147, 330;\n cultural significance of mathematic, 65-67, 70;\n and algebra, 71;\n surviving forms under Arabian Culture, 72, 73, 208;\n opposition to Western soul, 78;\n and space, 81-84, 88, 175_n._;\n \u201csmallness\u201d, 83;\n relation to proportion and function, 84, 85;\n popularity, 85, 254, 326-328;\n and destiny-idea, dramatic illustration, 129, 130, 143, 146, 147,\n 317-326, 424;\n care and sex attitude, family and home, 136, 266-268, 334-337;\n attitude toward state, 137, 147;\n and economic organization, 138;\n actualization of the corporeal only, sculpture, 176-178, 225, 259-\n 261;\n soul, attributes, 183, 304, 305;\n architectural expression, 184, 198, 224;\n weak style, 203;\n art-work and sense-organ, 220;\n and music, 223, 227;\n and form and content, 242;\n and composition, 243;\n colour, 245-247;\n nature idea, statics, 263, 382-384, 392;\n and discovery, 278;\n painting, 287;\n will-less-ness, 309, 310;\n lack of character, gesture as substitute, 316;\n art and time of day, 325;\n morale, ethic of attitude, 341, 342, 347, 351;\n and \u201caction\u201d, 342_n._;\n cult and dogma, 401, 410;\n and strange gods, 404;\n scientific periods, 424;\n spiritual epochs, table i;\n art epochs, table ii;\n political epochs, table iii.\n _See also_ Art; Cultures; Renaissance; Science\n Classicism, and dying Culture, 108;\n defined, 197;\n period in style, 207\n Claude Lorrain, landscape as space, 184;\n \u201csinging\u201d picture, 219;\n and ruins, 254;\n colour, 246, 288;\n period, 283;\n landscape as portrait, 287\n Cleanliness, cultural attitude, 260\n Cleisthenes, contemporaries, table iii\n Cleomenes III, contemporaries, table iii\n Cleon, and economic organization, 138\n Clepsydra, Plato\u2019s, 15\n Clock, and historic consciousness, 14;\n religious aspect, 15_n._;\n cultural attitude, 131, 134\n Clouds, in paintings, 239\n Cluniac reform, and architecture, 185\n Clyt\u00e6mnestra, and Helen, 268\n Cnidian Aphrodite, 108, 268\n Cnossos art, 224_n._, 293;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Cobbett, William, population theory, 185_n._\n Cognition, and nature, 94, 102, 103\n Colleoni, Bartolommeo, statue, 238, 272\n Colosseum, and real Rome, 44;\n form type, 204;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Colossus of Rhodes, and gigantomachia, 291\n Colour, Goethe\u2019s theory, 157_n._, 158_n._;\n and depth-experience, 242;\n Classical and Western use, symbolism, 245-247;\n Western blue and green, 245;\n Arabian Culture and gold, 247-249;\n brushwork and motion-quality, 249;\n studio-brown, as symbol, 250, 288;\n Leonardo\u2019s sense, 280;\n _plein-air_, 288.\n _See also_ Painting\n Columbus, Christopher, and Spanish ascendency, 148;\n and Leonardo, 278;\n and space and will, 310, 337;\n spiritual result, 334\n Column, as symbol, 166, 184, 214, 260_n._, 345;\n Classical orders, 204;\n and arch, 214, 236\n Compass, symbolism, 333\n Compassion, times and meaning, 347-351;\n and Socialism, 362\n Composition in art, cultural basis, 243\n Comprehension, qualities, 99\n Comte, Auguste, provincialism, 24;\n and economic ascendency, 367, 373;\n contemporaries, table i\n Confession, as Western symbol, 131, 140, 261, 264;\n absence in Renaissance art, 273\n Confucius, and actuality, 42;\n and analogies, 357\n Conic sections, contemporaries, table i\n Conquest, as Western concept, 336\n Consciousness, phases, 154\n Consecutives in church music, 188\n Conservation of energy, and causality, 393;\n and first law of thermodynamics, 413;\n and concept of infinity, 418;\n and entropy, 420-424\n Constable, John, significance of colour, 251;\n and impressionism, 288\n Constantine the Great, and artistic impotence, 294;\n as caliph, 405;\n religion, 407\n Constantinople. _See_ Byzantium; Haggia Sophia\n Consus, materiality, 403\n Contemplation, defined, 95\n Contemporaneity, intercultural, 26, 112, 177, 202_n._, 220;\n number paradigm, 90;\n Classical sculpture and Western music, 226, 283, 284, 291;\n in physical theories, 386;\n spiritual epochs, table i;\n culture epochs, table ii;\n political epochs, table iii\n Contending States, period in China, homology, 111\n Content, and form, 242, 270\n Contrition, sacrament as Western symbol, 261, 263\n Conversion, impossibility, 345\n Copernicus, Classical anticipation of system, 68, 139;\n and destiny, 94;\n discovery and Western soul, 310, 330, 331\n Corelli, Arcangelo, sonatas, 226, 283;\n and dominance of music, 231;\n colour expression, 252_n._;\n Catholicism, 268_n._\n Corinth, and unknown gods, 404\n Corinthian column, contemporaries, table ii. _See also_ Column\n Corneille, Pierre, and unities, 323\n Corot, Jean B. C., colour, 246, 289;\n and nude, 271;\n impressionism, 286;\n landscape as portrait, 287;\n ease, 292\n Cosmogonies, contemporaries, table i\n Cosmology, cultural attitude, 63, 68, 69, 147, 330-332.\n _See also_ Astronomy\n Counterpoint, and Gothic, 229;\n and fugue, 230.\n _See also_ Music\n Counter-Reformation, Michelangelo and spirit, 275\n Couperin, Fran\u00e7ois, pastoral music, 240;\n colour expression, 252_n._\n Courbet, Gustave, landscapes, 288-290\n Courtyards, Renaissance, 235\n Cousin, Victor, and economic ascendency, 367\n Coysevox, Antoine, sculpture, 232;\n decoration, 245\n Cranach, Lucas, and portraiture, 270\n Crassus Dives, M. Licinius, and city of Rome, 34\n Cremation, as cultural symbol, 134\n Cresilas, and portraiture, 130_n._, 269\n Crete, inscriptions, 12_n._;\n Minoan art, 198\n Cromwell, Oliver, and imperialism, 149;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Crusades, symbolism, 15_n._, 198;\n and Trojan War, 27;\n Christianity, 357_n._;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Ctesiphon, school, 63\n Cult and dogma, cultural attitudes, 401, 410, 411;\n in natural science, 412\n Cultures, Spengler\u2019s morphological theory, xi;\n obligatory stages, symbols, 3, 4, 6, 38, 39;\n superficial and real analogies, 4, 6, 27, 38;\n theory of distinct cycles, 21, 22, 31, 78;\n divergent viewpoints, 23, 46, 131;\n as organisms, mortality, 26, 104, 109, 167;\n contemporary periods, 26, 112, 177, 202_n._, 220;\n Civilization as destiny, 31-34, 106, 252, 353, 354;\n symmetry, 47;\n and notion of the world, language, 55;\n physiognomic meaning as essence of history, 55, 101, 104, 105;\n mathematical aspects, separation, 57-63, 67, 70;\n and universal validity, 60, 146, 178-180, 202, 287;\n number-thought and world-idea, 70;\n stages, 106, 107;\n application of term \u201chabit\u201d or \u201cstyle\u201d, 108, 205;\n recapitulation in life of individuals, 110;\n homologous forms, 111;\n separate destiny-ideas, 129, 145;\n comparative study, 145_n._;\n as interpretation of soul, 159, 180, 302-304, 307, 313, 314;\n cultural and intercultural macrocosm, 165;\n particular, and nature, 169;\n kind of extension as symbol, 173-175;\n actualization of depth-experience, 175;\n plurality of prime symbols, 179, 180;\n tutelage, 213;\n art forms and spiritualities, 214-216;\n arts of form as symbolic expression, 219;\n significance of species of art, 222-224;\n as bases of morale, 315, 345-347;\n and times of day, 325;\n and nature-law, 377-380, 382, 387;\n scientific period, 381;\n religious springtimes, 399-402;\n renunciation, second religiousness, 424;\n characteristics of seasons, table i;\n contemporary art epochs, table ii;\n contemporary political epochs, table iii.\n _See also_ Arabian; Art; Chinese; Classical; Egyptian; History;\n Indian; Macrocosm; Morphology; Nature; Spirit; Western\n Cupid, as art motive, 266\n Cupola. _See_ Dome\n Curtius Rufus, Quintus, biography of Alexander, 4\n Cusanus, Nikolaus. _See_ Nicholas of Cusa\n Cuyp, Albert, landscape as portrait, 287\n Cyaxares, and Henry the Fowler, 4\n Cybele, cult, 406\n Cynics, practicality, 45;\n morale, 203, 342;\n and digestion, 361;\n contemporaries, table i\n Cypress, as symbol, 396\n Cyrenaics, practicality, 45;\n contemporaries, table i\n\n Dante Alighieri, historical consciousness, 14, 56, 142, 159;\n influence of Joachim of Floris, 20;\n and vision, 96;\n homology, 111;\n and popularity, 243;\n and confession, 273;\n and psychology, 319;\n and time of day, 325_n._;\n esoteric, 328;\n morale, 355;\n variety of religion, 394;\n contemporaries, table i\n Danton, Georges, adventurer, 149\n Darwinism and evolution, and Socialism, 35, 370-372;\n and practical philosophy, 45;\n morphology and vision, 104_n._, 105;\n Goethe and, 111_n._;\n and teleology, 120;\n and destiny, 140;\n and cultural art-theory, 141_n._;\n and usefulness, 155;\n and biological politics, 156;\n nature and God, 312;\n anticipation, Darwin\u2019s political-economic application, 369-373;\n contemporaries, table i\n Daumier, Honor\u00e9, act and portrait, 271_n._;\n and grand style, 290\n David, Pierre Jean, naturalism, 212\n Dea C\u00e6lestis, 406\n Death, and historical consciousness, 13;\n and become, 54, 167;\n Cultures and funeral customs, 134, 135, 185;\n and space, 166;\n and world-fear and symbolism, 166;\n stone as emblem, 188;\n and ornament, 195\n Decoration, architectural, 196;\n Gothic, and bodilessness, 199;\n Arabian, 208, 212;\n mosaic, 214;\n Acanthus motive, 215.\n _See also_ #Ornament#\n Dedekind, Richard, notation, 77, 95\n Definitions, and destiny, xiv;\n fundamental, 53-56\n Deism, cause, 187, 412;\n concept, 312_n._;\n Baroque, and mechanics, 412.\n _See also_ Religion\n Deities, cultural basis, 312. _See also_ Religion\n Delacroix, Ferdinand V. E., and impressionism, 288;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Delphi, Polygnotus\u2019s frescos, 243\n Demeter cult, 83;\n spring festivals, 320;\n contemporaries, table i\n Demeter of Knidos, statue, 136\n Demetrius of Alopeke, and portraiture, 130, 269\n Democracy, decay by formalism, 35;\n contemporary periods, table iii.\n _See also_ Politics\n Democritus, and corporeality, 177;\n and ego, 311;\n cosmology, 331;\n atoms, 385;\n Leibniz as contemporary, 386;\n and motion, 389;\n and mechanical necessity, 392-394;\n contemporaries, table i\n Demosthenes, statue, 270\n Depth-experience, significance, 168, 169, 172-174;\n and number, 171;\n and time, 172, 173;\n realization as cultural symbol, 173-175;\n in Western painting, 239, 246;\n in Western gardening, 240;\n and destiny, 241;\n and philosophy in art, 243;\n in portrait, 263, 266;\n and impressionism, 285-287;\n and will, 311;\n in Socialism, 361;\n and natural science, 380, 386, 394;\n Western God-feeling, 395;\n cathedral and organ, 396.\n _See also_ Destiny; Space\n Desargues, Girard, mathematic, 75\n Descartes, Ren\u00e9, civic world-outlook, 33;\n and actuality, 42;\n style, 61;\n mathematics and religion, 66;\n relation to Classical mathematic, 69;\n and new number-idea, 74, 75, 81, 88, 90, 126, 188;\n contemporaries, 112, table i;\n and Jansenists, 314_n._;\n as thinker, 366;\n thinking and being, 387;\n on force, 413\n Des Pr\u00e8s, Josquin, music, 230\n Destiny, and pessimism, xiv;\n historical, 3, 4, 6, 38-41;\n as logic of time, 7;\n acceptance, 40, 44;\n in World War, 47;\n fulfilment of Western mathematic, 90;\n of a Culture, 106, 145;\n and causality, 117-121;\n soul and predestination, 117;\n organic logic, 117;\n and time and space, 119, 120;\n and idea, 121;\n in art, revolts, 127, 128, 233;\n separate cultural ideas, illustrations, 129-131, 145-149, 189, 190,\n 424;\n in Western Christianity, 140, 141;\n and incident, 138-141, 144;\n and nature, 142;\n Classical \u201cfate\u201d, body and personality, 143, 147;\n youth, 152;\n and Western depth-experience, 241;\n patina as symbol, 253;\n and motherhood, 267;\n Western, and painting, 276_n._;\n ethic and soul\u2019s view, 302, 346, 355;\n and will, 308;\n and Civilization, 360;\n and causality in natural science, 379;\n and decay of exact science, 422-424.\n _See also_ Becoming; Causality; Civilization; History; Time\n Devil, disappearance, 187;\n and Arabian dualism, 312, 363\n Diadochi, period as episode, 149, 151\n Diagoras, character of atheism, 408_n._;\n condemnation, 411\n Diatribe, as phenomenon of Civilization, 359\n Dido, cult, 406_n._\n Diet, and Civilization, 361\n Diez, Feodor, significance of colour, 252\n Differential calculus, as symbol, 15. _See also_ Calculus\n Dimension, abstract notion, 89;\n significance of depth, 168;\n singularity, 169_n._\n Dinzenhofer, Kilian I., architecture, 285\n Diocletian, as caliph, 72, 212, 405;\n as epoch, 149;\n and Mithras 406\n Diogenes, morale, 203;\n and deity, 313;\n Indian kinship, 347, 357\n Dionysiac movement, Alexander and legend, 8;\n contemporaries, homology, 27, 110, table i;\n as revolt, 233, 356;\n spring festival, 320, 321, 324\n Dionysius I, contemporaries, table iii\n Diophantus, algebra, and Arabian Culture, 63, 71-73, 383\n Dipylon vases, 73, 107, 196\n Direction, and time and becoming, 54, 56;\n and extension, 99, 172;\n and dimension, 169_n._;\n and will, 308;\n and aim, 361.\n _See also_ Time\n Discant, music, 229\n Discobolus, Myron\u2019s, 263, 265\n Discovery, as Western trait, 278, 279, 332;\n and space and will, 310, 337;\n spiritual results, 334\n Divinities. _See_ Religion\n Dogma and cult, cultural attitude, 401, 410, 411;\n in natural science, 412\n Doliche, Baal, 407\n Dome, as Arabian art expression, 210\n Dome of the Rock, characteristics, 200\n Dominicans, influence of Joachim of Floris, 20\n Domitian, contemporaries, table iii\n Donatello, and Gothic, 225_n._;\n \u201cDavid\u201d, 265;\n and portrait, 272\n Doric, column as symbol, 9, 195;\n and Gothic, 27;\n timber style, 132;\n and Ionic, 205;\n and Egyptian, 213;\n Western exclusion, 345;\n contemporaries, table ii, iii.\n _See also_ Architecture; Column\n Dostoyevski, Feodor M., and Europe, 16_n._;\n Raskolnikov\u2019s philosophy, 309;\n and compassion, 350\n Drama, cultural basis, Classical and Western, 128-131, 141_n._, 143,\n 147, 148, 203, 255, 317-322, 347;\n German, 290;\n development of Classical, 320, 321;\n cultural basis of form, unities, 322, 323;\n undeveloped Western, 323;\n Classical elimination of individuality, 323;\n chorus, 324;\n and time of day, 324;\n attitude toward scene, 325;\n and cultural basis of morale, 347;\n and philosophy of Western activism, 368, 372;\n Classical, and atomic theory, 386\n Dresden, architecture, 207, 285;\n chamber music, 232\n Droem, autumnal accent, 241\n Dryads, passivity, 336;\n materiality, 403\n Dschang Yi, and imperialism, 37\n Dualism, in Arabian Culture, 305-307, 363;\n and will and reason, 309;\n in religion, 312\n D\u00fchring, Eugen Karl, position in Western ethics, 373\n D\u00fcrer, Albrecht, historical heads, 103;\n colour, 245, 250;\n and act and portrait, 270\n Dufay, Guillaume, music, in Italy, 230, 236\n Duns Scotus, historical place, 72;\n contemporaries, table i\n Dunstaple, John, music, 230\n Duration. _See_ Life\n Durham, palatinate, 349_n._\n Dyck, Anthony van. _See_ Van Dyck\n Dynamics, as Western system, 384, 393. _See also_ Natural science\n\n Eckhardt, Meister, on imitation, 191;\n mysticism, 213;\n egoism, 335;\n wisdom and intellect, 409;\n contemporaries, table i\n Economic motives. _See_ Money\n Economic organization, cultural attitude toward care, 138\n Economics, and Western practical ethics, 367-369.\n _See also_ Politics; Socialism\n Eddas, space-expression, 185, 187;\n and Western religion, 400, 423;\n contemporaries, table i\n Edessa, school, 63, 381;\n and Arabian art, 209;\n Baal, 407\n Edfu, temple, 294\n Edward I of England, and archery, 333_n._\n Edward III of England, and archery, 333_n._\n Egoism, in Western Culture, 262, 302, 309, 335\n Egyptian Culture, historic aspect, 12;\n and immortality, 13;\n and pure number, 69;\n historical basis, funeral custom, 135;\n and care, 136;\n and Mary-cult, 137;\n attitude toward state, 137;\n economic organization, 138;\n stone as symbol, 188;\n destiny-idea, path as prime symbol, 188, 189;\n architectural expression, 189, 202;\n brave style, 201-203;\n and tutelage, 213;\n streets, 224;\n art composition, 243;\n sculpture, 248_n._, 266;\n and portrait, 262;\n Civilization, 294, 295;\n view of soul, 305;\n morale, 315;\n and discovery, 332;\n and Socialism, 347;\n and man-deification, 405_n._;\n art epochs, table ii;\n political epochs, table iii.\n _See also_ Cultures; arts by name, especially Architecture\n Egyptianism, contemporary periods, table iii\n Eichendorff, Joseph von, poetry, 289\n Eleatic philosophy, and motion, 305_n._, 388, 390\n Elements, cultural concepts of physical, 383, 384. _See also_ Atomic\n theories; Natural science\n Eleusinian mysteries, dramatic imitation, 320\n Elis, treaty, 10_n._\n Emigration, cultural attitude, 336\n Empedocles, elements, 327, 383, 384;\n on atoms, 386\n Emperor-worship, 405, 407, 411\n Empire style, as Classicism, 207;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Encyclopedists, contemporaries, table i\n Energy, and _voluntas_, 310_n._\n Engels, Friedrich, and Hegelianism, 367;\n position in Western ethics, 373\n England, Manchester system and Western Civilization, 29, 151, 371;\n imperialism and Napoleonic epoch, 149-151\n Enlightenment, Age of, and movement, 155;\n effect on monasticism, 316_n._;\n and tolerance, 343;\n and cult and dogma, 411\n Entelechy, ahistoric aspect, 15\n Entropy, theory, formulations, 420;\n effect, 421-424\n Epaminondas, and invented history, 11\n Ephesus, Council of, and Godhead, 209\n Epic, and religion, 399-402\n Epictetus, and Jesus, 347\n Epicureanism, practicality, 45;\n morale, 315;\n and will, 341, 342;\n contemporaries, table i\n Epicurus, Indian kinship, 347;\n character of Nihilism, 357;\n and Socialism, 358;\n and mathematics, 366;\n and ethics, 367;\n contemporaries, table i\n Epigoni, and Socialism, 374\n Epistemology, and history, 119, 355\n Epochs, personal and impersonal, 148. _See also_ Incident; Destiny\n Epos, contemporaries of popular, table i\n Erastosthenes, as creator, 425\n Erechtheum, in style history, 108, 207\n Eroticism. _See_ Sex\n Esoterics, in Western Culture, 326-329.\n _See also_ Popularity\n Etching, Leonardo\u2019s relation, 281;\n as Western art, 290\n Ethics, relation to Culture, 354;\n period in philosophy, 365-367;\n socio-economic character of Western, 367-369;\n dramatical presentation of Western, 368, 372;\n evolution theory, aspects, 369-372;\n landmarks of Western, 373, 374;\n exhaustion of period, 374.\n _See also_ Metaphysics; Morale; Philosophy\n Etruscan, round-buildings, 211_n._;\n contemporaries of discipline, table i\n Eucharist, cultural significance, 185, 186;\n as centre of Western Christianity, 247\n Euclid, mathematical style, 59, 64, 65;\n limitation of geometry, 67, 88;\n mathematical position, 90;\n parallel axiom, 176_n._\n _See also_ Geometry\n Eudoxus, and higher powers, 66;\n and infinity, 69, 69_n._;\n and mathematic, 78, 90\n Euler, Leonhard, mathematic, 78, 90;\n and differentials, 86;\n and time, 126;\n contemporaries, 231, table i\n Euripides, unpopularity, 35;\n foreshadowing by, 111;\n end-art, 223;\n tragic method, 319\n Europe, as historical term, 16_n._\n Evolution. _See_ Darwinism\n Exhaustion-method of Archimedes, 69\n Experience, and historical sense, 10;\n lived and learned, 55;\n in Western concept of nature, 393;\n and faith, 394;\n and theory, 395\n Experiment, and experience, 393\n Exploration. _See_ Discovery\n Expressionism, farce, 294\n Extension, and direction, 99, 172;\n and reason, 308.\n _See also_ Space\n Eyck, Jan van, portraits, 272, 309;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Eye, in sculpture, 329\n\n Fa\u00e7ades, cultural significance, 224;\n Renaissance, 235\n Fact, and theory, 378\n Fairies, cultural attitude, 336, 403\n Faith, and Western mathematic, 78.\n _See also_ Religion\n Family, Western portraits, 266;\n Civilization and race-suicide, 359.\n _See also_ Motherhood\n Faraday, Michael, and theory, 100, 378, 416\n Farnese Bull, theatrical note, 291\n Fate, cultural attitude, 129.\n _See also_ Destiny\n Faunus, materiality, 403\n Faustian soul, explained, 183. _See also_ Western Culture\n Fauxbourdon, music, 229\n Fayum, 58_n._\n Fear, and Classical and Western tragedy, 321\n Federigo of Urbino, portrait, 279\n Feeling, and \u201cproper,\u201d 53\n Fermat, Pierre de, relation to Classical mathematic, 69;\n mathematic style, 74, 75, 90;\n problem, 76, 77;\n contemporaries, table i\n Feudalism, contemporary periods, table iii\n Feuerbach, Anselm von, act and portrait, 271_n._\n Feuerbach, Ludwig A., provincialism, 24;\n position in Western ethics, 373;\n contemporaries, table i\n Fichte, Johann G., basis of Socialism, 362, 374;\n esoteric, 369;\n and mathematics, 374;\n contemporaries, table i\n Fifty-year period, cultural rhythm, 110\n Fischer von Erlach, Johann B., architecture, 285\n Flaminius, C., and economic motive, 36;\n and imperialism, 37\n Fleury, Andre, Cardinal de, policy, 4, 349\n Florence, culture city, loss of prestige 29, 33;\n cathedral, 184, 238;\n and Arabian Culture, 211;\n and Renaissance, 233-238;\n and Northern art, 236;\n character as state, 273.\n _See also_ Renaissance; Savonarola\n Fluxions, significance of Newton\u2019s designation, 15_n._\n Fontainebleau, park, 240\n Force, as undefinable Western concept, numen, 390, 391, 398, 402, 412-\n 417;\n stages of concept, 417;\n contradictions, 418.\n _See also_ Natural science\n Forest, and Western cathedrals, 396\n Form, and law, 97;\n and music, 219;\n and content, 242, 270\n Forum of Nerva, craft-art, 198, 215\n Forum of Trajan, ornament, 215\n Fouquet, Nicolas, and gardening, 241\n Four-part movement, 231\n Fourteen Helpers, 400\n Fourth dimension, and Classical mathematic, 66;\n and time and space, 124\n Fox, Charles James, contemporaries, table iii\n Fragonard, Jean H., and music, 232\n France, and maturity of Western Culture, 148, 150;\n _plein-air_ painting, 288, 289\n Francesca, Piero della, and static space, 237;\n perspective, 240;\n and artistic change, 279, 287\n Francis of Assisi, art influence, 249_n._;\n morale, 348;\n God-feeling, 395;\n contemporaries, table i\n Francis I of France, and imperial crown, 148\n Franciscans, influence of Joachim of Floris, 20\n Fran\u00e7ois Vase, composition, 244\n Frau Holle, and Mary-cult, 267\n Frau Venus, symbolism, 403\n Frazer, Sir J. G., error on \u201cUnknown God\u201d, 404_n._\n Frederick the Great, and analogy, 4;\n on chance, 142_n._;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Frederick William I of Prussia, and Socialism, 138;\n Egyptian kinship, 347\n Frederick William IV of Prussia, and German unity, 145\n Free will, and destiny, 140, 141. _See also_ Will\n Freedom, and historical destiny, 39\n Freiburg Minster, Viking Gothic, 213\n French Revolution, incident and destiny in, 148, 149\n Frescobaldi, Girolamo, music, 230\n Frescos, Classical, and time of day, 225, 283, 325;\n Renaissance, 237, 275;\n displacement by oil, 279.\n _See also_ Painting\n Fresnel, Augustin J., light theory, 418\n Friedrich, Kaspar D., and grand style, 289\n Frigga, and Mary-cult, 267\n Fronde, contemporaries, table iii\n Front, cultural basis of architectural, 224\n Fugue, style and theme, 230, 231\n Function, as symbol of Western Culture, 74-78;\n and proportion, 84;\n contrast with Classical construction, 85;\n basis of Western number, thought, 86, 87;\n Goethe\u2019s definition, 86_n._;\n expansion in groups, aggregates, 89, 90, 426.\n _See also_ Mathematics\n Funeral customs, as cultural symbol, 134, 135, 158\n Future, youth as, 152;\n cultural relation, 363\n\n Gabrieli, Andrea, music, 252\n Gabrieli, Giovanni, music, 226\n Galen, as copyist, 425\n Galileo, and natural philosophy, 7;\n on nature and mathematics, 57;\n and static idea, 236, 412;\n dynamic world-picture, 311;\n deeds of science, 355;\n concept of force, 386, 415, 417;\n and motion-problem, 390;\n God-feeling, 396;\n contemporaries, table i\n Gama, Vasco da, spiritual result, 334\n Gardening, as Chinese religious art, 190;\n Western, perspective, 240, 241;\n Renaissance, 241;\n English, and ruins, 254\n Gaugamela, battle, 151\n Gaul, C\u00e6sar\u2019s conquest, 36_n._\n Gauss, Karl F., style, 59;\n artist-nature, 61;\n mathematical position, 78, 85, 90, 176_n._;\n and nonperceptual geometry, 88;\n contemporaries, 112, table i;\n and dimension, 170, 172;\n and popularity, 327;\n and metaphysics, 366;\n goal of analysis, 418\n Gaza, temple, 211\n Gedon, Frau, Leibl\u2019s portrait, 252_n._, 266_n._\n Generations, spiritual relation, 110_n._\n Geography, Classical Culture and, 10_n._;\n influence on historical terms, 16_n._\n _See also_ Discovery\n Geology, and mineralogy, 96\n Geometry, Kant\u2019s error, 6_n._, 170, 171;\n art expression, 61;\n limitation of Classical, 67, 83, 88;\n Descartes and infinite, 74;\n Western mathematic and term, 81;\n Western liberation, 86, 170_n._;\n and arithmetic, 125, 126;\n systems and corporeality, 176_n._;\n and popularity, cultural basis, 327.\n _See also_ Mathematics\n George, Henry, autumnal accent, 241\n Gerbert. _See_ Sylvester II\n G\u00e9ricault, Jean L. A. T., and grand style, 290\n Germany, union as destiny, 144;\n and music and architecture, 285;\n diversion from music to painting, 289\n Germigny des Pr\u00e8s, church as mosque, 201\n Gernrode Cathedral, simplicity, 196;\n and antique, 275_n._\n Gesture, as Classical symbol, 316;\n in Classical tragedy, 317\n Gesu, Il, church at Rome, fa\u00e7ade, 313;\n God-feeling, 395\n Ghassanid Kingdom, 215\n Ghiberti, Lorenzo, and Gothic, 225_n._, 235, 238\n Ghirlandaio, Il, Dutch influence, 236\n Giacomo della Porta, architecture, 314;\n God-feeling, 395\n Gigantomachia, and decline of art, 291\n Giorgione, Il, and impressionism, 239;\n clouds, 240;\n colour, 251, 252;\n and body, 271\n Giotto, childlike feeling, 212;\n technique, 221;\n and fresco-art, 237;\n and Francis of Assisi, 249_n._;\n Gothic, 235, 274;\n God-feeling, 395;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Giovanni Pisano, sculpture, 212, 235, 238, 263\n Glass painting, Gothic and Venetian, 252;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Gluck, Christopher W., contemporary mathematics, 78, 90;\n character of arias, 219_n._;\n music, 260;\n period, 284\n Gnostics, music, 228;\n dualism, 248, 306;\n contemporaries, table i\n Gobelins, and music, 232\n God, Western, and will, 312. _See also_ Religion\n G\u00f6rres, Jakob J. von, and dualism, 307\n Goes, Hugo van der, in Italy, 236\n Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, and living nature and vision, vii, 95, 96,\n 105, 111_n._, 113, 140, 154, 389;\n influence on Spengler, xiv;\n historic consciousness, 14, 142, 159;\n on life, 20;\n on mankind, 21;\n and world-as-history, 25, 99, 104;\n as Classicist, 30;\n and Darwinism, 35, 111_n._, 370;\n and actuality, 42, 43;\n as philosopher, 49_n._, 365_n._;\n on becoming and become, 49_n._, 53;\n and intuition, 56;\n on vision and observation, 61;\n and mathematics, 61, 65, 75;\n and Plato\u2019s Ideas, 70;\n on function, 86_n._;\n on form and law, 97;\n on symbols, 102_n._;\n on historiography, 103;\n and morphology, 104_n._, 111;\n on blossoming of art, 107;\n display of individuality, 110;\n foreshadowing by, 111;\n and causal effort, nature-studies, 118, 155-157, 422;\n on reasonable order, 123;\n and the Almighty, 124;\n dramatic form, 129, 318;\n destiny in life, 139, 145, 146, 281;\n and imperialism, 149;\n theory of colour, 157_n._, 158_n._, 246;\n as Kant\u2019s opposite, 159;\n and style as organism, 205;\n and imagination, 220;\n Northern pantheism, 250, 251_n._;\n on soul and body, 259;\n lyrics, 286;\n and confession, 300;\n as biographer, 316;\n and time of day, 324;\n Faust as symbol of Civilization, 354;\n ethical passion, 355;\n variety of religion, 394;\n and cult and dogma, 411;\n on application of reason, 412;\n and world-force, 413, 417;\n contemporaries, table i\n G\u00f6tterd\u00e4mmerung, Christian form, 400\n Gold, and Arabian Culture, 247;\n contrasting Classical use, 253_n._\n Golden Age, cultural basis of concept, 363\n Golden Legend, contemporaries, 400\n Gorgias, autumnal accent, 207\n Gospels, contemporaries, table i\n Gothic, and Doric, 27;\n architecture, and depth-experience, 177, 184, 185, 187, 198-200;\n cathedrals as ornament, 195;\n sculpture, nude, cathedral groups, 196, 197, 227, 231, 261, 266, 272;\n as stage of style, 202;\n and Arabian, borrowings, 211, 213;\n musical association, 229, 230;\n aliveness, 233;\n in Italy, and Renaissance, 234-238;\n esoteric, 243;\n Italian, and Francis of Assisi, 249_n._;\n and later Western expression, 252;\n and nature, 264;\n philosophy, will and reason, 308;\n God-feeling, 395;\n forest, cathedral, and organ, 396;\n contemporaries, tables ii, iii.\n _See also_ Art; Western Culture\n Goujon, Jean, sculpture, 244\n Government. _See_ Politics\n Goya y Lucientes, Francisco, technique, 221;\n act and portrait, 271_n._, 264;\n ease, 292;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Goyen, Jan van, landscape as portrait, 287\n Gracchi, and economic organization, 138;\n as incident, 139\n Grace, and destiny, 140, 141\n Granada, and Arabian Culture, 216\n Grassmann, Hermann G., religion and mathematic, 70\n Gravitation, shaky hypothesis, 418\n Great Mother of Pessinus, Rome and cult, 405\n Greco, El, clouds, 240\n Greece, and Europe, 16_n._ _See also_ Classical Culture\n Green, symbolism, 245, 246\n Gregory VII, pope, morale, 349\n Grote, George, narrow Classicalism, 29\n Groups, as culmination of Western mathematic, 89, 90, 427\n Gr\u00fcnewald, Matthias, clouds, 240;\n colour, 246, 250, 288;\n and Renaissance, 274\n Guardi, Francesco, painting, 207, 220\n Guercino, Giovanni F. B., colour, 246;\n and musical expression, 250\n Guido d\u2019 Arezzo, music, 228\n Guido da Siena, and Madonna, 267\n Guilhem of Poitiers, professionalism, 229_n._\n Gundisapora, school, 63\n Gunpowder, relation to Baroque, 278_n._, 333\n Gymnastics, and sport, 35\n\n Habit, applied to a Culture, 108\n Hadrian, analogy, 4;\n Pantheon as Arabian, 211\n Hadrian\u2019s Villa, type, 211_n._\n Haeckel, Ernst H., and Civilization, 252;\n faith in names, 397_n._\n Hageladas, contemporaries, table ii\n Hagia Sophia, period, 108;\n miracle, 130_n._;\n character, 184, 200;\n mosque as resumption, 211;\n acanthus motive, 215\n Halo, history, 130_n._\n Hals, Frans, musical expression, 250;\n period, 283\n Hamadryads, materiality, 403\n Han Dynasty, importance, 94;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Handel, George F., and dominance of music, 231;\n colour expression, 252_n._;\n Catholicism, 268_n._;\n oratorios, 283\n Hannibal, contemporaries, 112, table iii;\n historical position, 144;\n ethical exception, 349\n Happiness, and Classical ethic, 351\n Harakiri, and Greek suicide, 204_n._\n Hardenberg, Karl A. von, reorganization of Prussia, 150_n._\n Harmodius, statue, 269_n._\n Haroun-al-Raschid, analogies, 38;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Hauran, basilica type, 210, 210_n._\n Haydn, Joseph, contemporary mathematic, 78, 90;\n orchestration, 231;\n colour expression, 252_n._;\n and Praxiteles, 284;\n period, 284;\n ease, 291;\n as religious, 358\n Hebbel, Friedrich, provincialism, 24;\n and practical philosophy, 45;\n on research and vision, 102;\n and cultural contrasts, 128;\n as dramatist, 143, 290;\n causal effort, 156;\n and Civilization, 352;\n nebulous aim, 363;\n and Hegelianism, 367;\n and economic ethics, 370, 371, 373;\n character of atheism, 408_n._\n Hegel, Georg W. F., and history, 19, 22;\n and mystic philosophy, 365_n._;\n and mathematics, 366;\n and critique of society, 367, 374;\n esoteric, 369;\n contemporaries, table i\n Heimarmene, in Classical tragedy, 320\n Hei, and Valhalla, 400\n Helen, and Kriemhild, 268\n Helios, as god, 147_n._, 402\n Hellenism, contemporaries, tables i, ii\n Hellenistic art period, contemporaries, table ii\n Helmholtz, Hermann L. F. von, time and mathematic, 64;\n on natural science and mechanics, 377;\n on electrolysis, 385_n._;\n Archimedes as contemporary, 386\n Henry the Fowler, and Cyaxares, 4\n Henry the Lion, morale, 349\n Hera, Samian temple, 225_n._\n Heracles, Vatican torso, 255\n Heracles legends, contemporaries, table i\n Heraclitus, morale, 268_n._, 315, 343;\n popularity, 327;\n and Stoicism, 356;\n wisdom and intellect, 409\n Her\u00e6a, treaty, 10_n._\n Her\u00e6um of Olympia, timber construction, 132\n Herbart, Johann F., ethics, 367\n Herder, Johann G. von, and history, 19\n Hermes, cults, 406\n Hermes Trismegistus, and chemistry, 383\n Herodotus, ahistoric consciousness, 9, 146\n Hersfeld, and antique, 275_n._\n Hertz, Heinrich, and theory, 378;\n and motion-problem, 391, 414, 416\n Hesiod, contemporaries, table i\n Hilda, Saint, passing-bell, 134_n._\n Hildesheim Cathedral, simplicity, 196;\n and antique, 275_n._\n Hipparchus, as scientist, 9, 330\n Hippasus, irrational numbers and fate, 65_n._\n History, Spengler and morphology, xi;\n and destiny and causality, experiencing and thinking, 3, 118, 121,\n 151;\n repetitions of expression-forms, 4, 27;\n needed technique of analogies, 5;\n consciousness, 8;\n historic and ahistoric Cultures, 8-12, 97, 103, 132-136, 254, 255,\n 264, 363;\n consciousness and attitude toward mortality, 13;\n concept of morphology, 5-8, 26, 39, 100, 101;\n form and form feeling, 15, 16;\n irrational culminative division scheme, 16-18, 22;\n origin of the scheme, 18;\n Western development of it, 19, 20, 94;\n theory of distinct Cultures, 21, 22;\n provincialism of Western thinkers, 22-25;\n world-as-history, thing-becoming, 25, 95;\n single riddle, 48;\n time essence, 49;\n and intuition, 56;\n definite sense and nature, 55, 57, 94;\n and Culture, 55;\n detached view, 93;\n research and vision, 96, 102, 105, 142;\n anti-historical and ahistorical, 97_n._;\n chronology, 97;\n as original world-form, 98;\n \u201cscientific, possibility, 98, 153, 154;\n and mechanistic world-conception, 99;\n and direction and extension, 99, 100;\n portraiture of Cultures, 101, 104, 105;\n memory-picture, 103;\n elements of form-world, 103, 104;\n phenomena, 105, 106;\n future task, organic culture-history, 105, 159;\n stages of a Culture, 106-108;\n preordained durations, 109;\n homology, 111;\n cultural contemporaneousness, 112;\n enlarged possibilities, restoration and prediction, 112, 113;\n teleology and materialistic conception, 121;\n cultural basis of viewpoint, 131;\n cultural symbols, clock;\n bell, funeral customs, museums, 131, 134-136;\n cultural feeling of care, 136-138;\n judgment and life, 139;\n incident and destiny, Western examples, 143, 148;\n grandiose demand of Western, 145;\n incidental character of Classical, 146, 147;\n as actualizing of a soul, 147;\n impersonal and personal epochs, 148;\n effect of Civilization-period, 152;\n and happening, 153;\n causal harmonies, 153, 154, 158;\n confusion in causal method, 155-157;\n physiognomic investigation, 157;\n symbolism, 163;\n of styles, 205;\n and cultural art expression, 249, 253;\n and portrait, 264;\n and will, 308;\n and action, 343;\n cultural opposition, 386;\n in natural science, 389.\n _See also_ Becoming; Destiny; Nature; Politics; Spirit; Time\n Hittites, inscriptions, 12_n._\n Hobbema, Meyndert, colour, 246\n Hobbes, Thomas, and actuality, 42\n H\u00f6lderlin, Johann C. F., narrow Classicalism, 28_n._;\n autumnal accent, 241;\n and confession, 264;\n lyrics, 286;\n and fatherland, 335\n Hoffmann, Ernst T. A., \u201cJohannes Kreisler\u201d, 276_n._, 285\n Hogarth, William, position, 150_n._, 283\n Holbein, Hans, colour, 250;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Holy Grail legend, cultural significance, 186, 198;\n elements, 213\n Holy Roman Empire, contemporaries, table iii\n Home, Henry, on ruins, 254_n._\n Home, significance of term, 33_n._;\n cultural basis of conception, 83, 334-337.\n _See also_ Politics\n Homer, contemporaries, 27, table i;\n soul, 203, 305;\n religion, 268_n._;\n gods, 312, 313;\n popularity, 328;\n and Classical ethics, 349\n Homology, historical application, 111, 112\n Horace, and duration, 65_n._, 132\n Horizon, and mathematics, 171;\n in Western landscape painting, 239, 242\n Horn, Georg, and term Middle Age, 22\n Horoscopes, cultural attitude, 147\n Houdon, Jean A., sculpture as painting, 245\n Hucbald, music, 228\n Hugo van der Goes. _See_ Goes\n Huguenot wars, character, 33\n Humboldt, Alexander von, Ethical Socialism, 374\n Hus, John, contemporaries, table i\n Hwang-Ti, contemporaries, table iii\n Hygiene, as phenomenon of Civilization, 361\n Hyksos Period, contemporaries, 111, tables ii, iii;\n feebleness, 149\n Hyksos Sphinx, 108, 262\n Hypsicles, as Arabian thinker, 63\n\n Iamblichus, on statues of gods, 216;\n contemporaries, table i\n Ibn-al-Haitan, on light, 381\n Ibn Kurra, contemporaries, table i\n Ibsen, Henrik, world-conception, 20;\n provincialism, 24, 33_n._;\n sex problem, 35;\n unpopularity, 35;\n and practical philosophy, 45;\n causal effort, 156;\n tragic method, 318;\n and morale, 346;\n and Civilization, 352;\n character of Nihilism, 357;\n journalism, 360;\n nebulous aim, 363, 364;\n and socio-economic ethics, 372-374\n Iconoclasts, Arabian principle, 262;\n contemporaries, table i\n Idea, and destiny, 121\n Idolatry, Arabian iconoclasm, 262;\n Classical attitude, 403\n Iliad, spatial aspect, 198\n Ilya Murometz, Russian saga, 201_n._\n Image, cultural basis of idea, 216\n Imagination, music as channel, 220\n Imitation, qualities and aim, 191-194;\n opposition to ornament, 194-196;\n period in architecture, 197;\n in music, 228.\n _See also_ Ornament\n Imperialism, negative character of Roman, 36;\n and Civilization, 36;\n Western destiny, 37, 38;\n origin of Western, Napoleon\u2019s relation, 148;\n cultural attitude, 336;\n cultural contemporaries, table iii\n Impressionism, as space, 184;\n beginning, 239;\n Leonardo\u2019s relation, 277;\n full meaning, 285-287;\n later _plein-air_, 288;\n in Wagner\u2019s music, 292\n Improvisation, as manifestation, 195\n Incident, world, 142;\n and destiny, 138-144;\n and cause, 142;\n and style of existence, 142-147;\n as basis of Western tragedy, 143;\n historical use, 143.\n _See also_ Destiny\n India, Napoleon and, 150\n Indian Culture, ahistorical basis, 11, 12, 133;\n anonymous philosophy, 12;\n mathematic, 84, 178;\n sex attitude, 136;\n attitude toward state, 137;\n morale, passive, 315, 341, 347;\n Buddhism and Civilization, 352;\n spiritual epochs, table i.\n _See also_ Buddhism; Cultures\n Indo-Iranian art period, contemporaries, table ii\n Infinity, and Classical mathematic, 69;\n in Western Culture, 74-76, 81-84;\n and new notation, 76-78;\n limit as a relation, 86;\n and Western science, 418, 427.\n _See also_ Depth-experience; Space\n Innocent III, pope, and Western morale, 348\n Inquisition, and Western faith, 410\n Integral calculus. _See_ Calculus\n Intellect, and nature, 157. _See also_ Will\n Intelligence, and atheism, 409\n Interregnum, Germanic, period as episode, 149\n Intuition, and learning, 55, 56\n Ionic, and Doric, 205;\n contemporaries, tables ii, iii.\n _See also_ Architecture; Column\n Irak, synagogue music, 228\n Irrationalism, cultural attitude, 64-66, 68, 83\n Isis, motherhood, 137;\n cult, 406, 407\n Islam, analogy to Mohammed, 39;\n Mohammed as epoch, 149;\n architectural expression, 208, 209, 211;\n iconoclasm, 262;\n and home, 335;\n Mohammed\u2019s unimposed mystic benefits, 344_n._;\n Puritanism, 356;\n Mohammed\u2019s contemporaries, table i;\n fatalism period, table i.\n _See also_ Arabian Culture; Religion\n Issus, battle, mosaic, 214\n Italy, liberation as episode, 151;\n and music, 230\n I-Wang, contemporaries, table iii\n\n Jacobins, and reason and will, 308\n Jacopo della Quercia, and ornament, 238\n Jahn, Friedrich L., and gymnastics, 35_n._\n James, Henry, on ruins, 254_n._\n Jansenism, and theoretical science, 66, 314_n._;\n Puritanism, 356;\n contemporaries, table i\n Janus, materiality, 403\n Japan, harakiri, 204_n._;\n art and the nude, 262_n._\n Jason of Pher\u00e6, contemporaries, table iii\n Jesuitism, and Baroque architecture, 313;\n style in science, 412.\n _See also_ Loyola\n Jesus, as Son of Man, 309;\n and Arabian morale, 344, 347;\n unimposed glad tidings, 344_n._\n _See also_ Christianity\n Joachim of Floris, world-conception, 19, 229, 261;\n and \u201cpassion\u201d, 320_n._;\n contemporaries, table i\n John, Saint, and world-history, 18_n._;\n dualism in Gospel, 306\n Journalism, as phenomenon of Civilization, 360\n Judaism, architectural expression, 209, 211_n._;\n psalmody, 228;\n Kabbala, dualism, 248, 307, 312;\n and home 335.\n _See also_ Arabian Culture\n Judgment, and necessity, 393\n Julius II, pope, Raphael\u2019s portrait, 272\n Juppiter Dolichenus, cult, 406_n._\n Juppiter Feretrius, temple and oath, 406\n Juppiter Optimus Maximus, cult, 406\n Jurisprudence, esoteric Western, 328\n Justinian, period of fulfilment, 107;\n and Hagia Sophia, 130_n._\n Justus van Gent, in Italy, 236\n\n Kabbala, dualism, 248, 307\n Kalaam, determinism, 307\n Kant, Emmanuel, and space and time, 6_n._, 7, 64, 122, 124-126, 143,\n 169, 170, 173-175;\n and history, 19;\n provincialism, 23;\n contemporaries, 27, table i;\n final Western systematic philosophy, 45, 365-367;\n as philosopher of Being, 49_n._;\n and nature and mathematics, 57, 64, 68, 78, 366, 379;\n _a priori_ error, 59;\n mechanistic world-conception, 99;\n and causality and destiny, 118-120, 151;\n and the Almighty, 124;\n and incident, 143;\n as Goethe\u2019s opposite, 159;\n on knowledge of thought, 299;\n egoism, 310, 335;\n esoteric, 327;\n and compassion, 350, 362;\n and ethics, 354, 355;\n and materialism, 368;\n on judgment, 393;\n on force, 413\n Karlstadt, Andreas R., contemporaries, table i\n Karma, Buddhist interpretation, 357\n Karnak, contemporaries, table ii\n Katharsis, Classical, 322, 347.\n _See also_ Drama\n Kelvin, Lord, and \u00e6ther, 418\n Kepler, Johan, mathematic and religion, 71, 330;\n horoscope for Wallenstein, 147;\n deeds of science, 355;\n and mass, 415\n Kirchhoff, Gustav R., on physics and motions, 388\n Kishi, church architecture, 201_n._\n Kismet, 129, 307.\n _See also_ Destiny\n Klein, Felix, and groups, 90\n Kleist, Heinrich B. W. von, as dramatist, 290\n Kleisthenes of Sikyon, tyranny, 33\n Knowledge, comparative forms, 59, 60;\n virtue and power, 362;\n and feeling, 365;\n as naming of numina, 397\n Kriemhild, and Helen, 268\n Krishna worship, and sex, 136_n._\n Kwan-tsi, and actuality, 42\n\n Lagrange, Comte, mathematic, 66, 78, 90;\n on mechanics, 124;\n and force, 417;\n contemporaries, table i\n La Hale, Adam de, operetta, 229\n Landscape, as Chinese prime symbol, 174, 190, 196, 203;\n horizon in painting, 239;\n Western gardening, 240;\n Baroque, as portrait 270_n._, 287;\n _plein-air_, 288, 289;\n and dramatic scene, 326\n Lanfranc, controversy, 185\n Langton, Stephen, as warrior, 349_n._\n Language, of Culture, 55;\n word and number, 57;\n beginning of word-sense, 57;\n paired root-words, 127;\n personality-idea in Western, 262, 302, 309, 310, 413_n._;\n as cultural function, 302_n._\n _See also_ Names; Writing\n Laoco\u00f6n group, theatrical note, 291;\n and Pre-Socratic philosophy, 305\n Lao-tse, and imperialism, 37;\n and actuality, 42.\n Laplace, Marquis Pierre de, mathematic, 78, 90;\n contemporaries, 112, table i;\n and force, 413, 417\n Lasso, Orlando, style, 230\n Lateran Council, and Western Christianity, 247\n Latin, as Stoic creation, 361\n Lavoisier, Antoine L., chemistry, 384, 426\n Law, and form, 97\n League of Nations, Chinese ideas, 37\n Learning, and intuition, 55, 56\n Legends, contemporary, table i\n Legnano, battle, a symbol, 349\n Leibl, Wilhelm, significance of colour, 252;\n portraiture, 266;\n and body, 271;\n and grand style, 289-291;\n etching, 290;\n striving, 292\n Leibniz, Baron von, and actuality, 42;\n mathematics, metaphysics, and religion, 56, 66, 70, 126, 366, 394;\n relation to Classical mathematic, 69;\n calculus, 75, 78, 82, 84, 90;\n and vision, 105;\n and Nicholas of Cusa, 236;\n esoteric, 327;\n and mystic philosophy, 365_n._;\n monads as quanta of action, 385;\n Democritus as contemporary, 386;\n and force, 413, 415-417;\n contemporaries, table i\n Leipzig, battle, issue, 35\n Lenbach, Franz von, copyist, 295\n Le N\u00f4tre, Andr\u00e9, gardening, 240_n._, 241\n Leo III, pope, and iconoclasm, 262\n Leochares, contemporary mathematic, 90\n Leonardo da Vinci, astronomical theory, 69;\n spirituality, 128;\n Dutch influence, 236;\n and background, 237;\n and impressionism, 239, 287;\n and sculpture, 244;\n colour, 246;\n and body, 271;\n and portrait, 272;\n as dissatisfied thinker, 274;\n discovery as basis of art, 277-279;\n and circulation of the blood, 278;\n and aviation, 279;\n Western soul and technical limitation, 279-281;\n and dynamics, 414\n Lessing, Gotthold E., world-conception, 20;\n and cultural contrasts, 128;\n and Aristotle\u2019s philanthropy, 351;\n and cult and dogma, 411\n Lessing, Karl F., colour, 252\n Leucippus, atoms, 135, 385, 386\n Li, contemporaries, table iii\n Licinian Laws, myth, 11\n Life, and soul and world, 54;\n duration, specific time-value, 108;\n duration applied to Culture, 109;\n Classical Culture and duration, 132;\n and willing, 315.\n _See also_ Death\n Light and shadow, cultural art attitude, 242_n._, 283, 325_n._\n Light theories, electro-magnetic, 156_n._;\n Newton\u2019s, and Goethe\u2019s theory of colour, 157_n._, 158_n._;\n cultural basis, 381;\n contradictory, 418\n Limit, as a relation, 86\n Linden, as symbol, 396\n Lingam. _See_ Phallus\n Lingayats, sect, 136_n._\n Ling-yan-si, Saints, 260\n Linois, Comte de, and India, 150_n._\n Lippi, Filippino, Dutch influence, 236\n Liszt, Franz, Catholicism, 268_n._;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Literature. _See_ Art; Drama; History; Poetry; writers by name,\n especially Dante; Goethe; Ibsen\n Livy, on strange gods, 405\n Lochner, Stephen, God-feeling, 395\n Locke, John, and imperialism, 150;\n contemporaries, table i\n Loggia dei Lanzi, artistic sentiment, 272\n Logarithms, liberation, 88\n Logic, organic and inorganic, 3, 117;\n of time and space, 7;\n and mathematics, convergence, 57, 427;\n and morale, 354.\n _See also_ Causality\n Logicians, contemporaries, table i\n Lokoyata, contemporaries, table i\n London, culture city, 33\n Loredano, doge, portrait, 272\n Lorentz, Hendrik A., and Relativity, 419\n Lorenzo de\u2019 Medici, and music, 230\n Lotze, Rudolf H., ethics, 367\n Louis XIV, uncleanliness, 260;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Louisiana, Napoleon\u2019s project, 150\n Loyola, Ignatius, and style of the Church, 148;\n architectural parallel, 314;\n and Western morale, 348;\n God-feeling, 394, 395;\n and method, 412\n Lucca, and Arabian Culture, 216\n Lucian, and Philopatris dialogue, 404_n._\n Lucullus, L., army, 36\n Ludovisi Villa, garden, 240\n Lully, Raymond, music, 283\n Luther, Martin, and \u201cknow\u201d, 123;\n and destiny, 141;\n as epoch, 149;\n and works, 316_n._;\n and Western morale, 348, 349, 355;\n God-feeling, 394, 395;\n contemporaries, table i\n Luxor, contemporaries, table ii\n Lycurgus, myth, 11\n Lysander, deification, 405\n Lysias, portrait, 270\n Lysicrates, Monument of, acanthus motive, 215\n Lysippus, contemporary mathematic, 90;\n sculpture, 226, 260_n._;\n period, 284;\n canon, 287;\n straining, 291;\n irreligion, 358;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Lysistratus, and portraiture, 269\n\n Machault, Guillaume de, and counterpoint, 229_n._\n Machiavellism, and mimicry, 371\n Macpherson, James, autumnal accent, 241\n Macrocosm, idea, 163-165;\n cultural and intercultural, 165;\n expression, 180;\n and style-problem, 214-216.\n _See also_ History; Morphology; Nature; Symbolism; World-conceptions\n Maderna, Stefano, sculpture, 244;\n God-feeling, 395\n Madonna, in Western art, 136, 267, 280.\n _See also_ Marycult; Motherhood\n Madrid, culture city, 32, 109\n Madrigals, character, 229\n M\u00e6cenas, park, 34\n Magdeburg Cathedral, Viking Gothic, 213\n Magian soul, explained, 183. _See also_ Arabian Culture\n Magnetism, Cabeo\u2019s theory, 414\n Magnitude, emancipation of Western mathematic, 74-78;\n and relations, 84, 86\n Mahavansa, as historical work, 12\n Mainz Cathedral, and styles, 205\n Makart, Hans, copyist, 295\n Malatestas, Hellenic sorriness, 273\n Malthus, Thomas R., and Darwinism, 350, 369, 371\n Manchester system, and Western Civilization, 151, 371;\n and Darwinism, 369\n Mand\u00e6ans, as Arabian, 72;\n music, 228;\n contemporaries, table i\n Manet, \u00c9douard, unpopularity, 35;\n and body, 271;\n landscapes, 288;\n _plein-air_ painting, 288-290;\n weak style, 291;\n striving, 292;\n and Wagner, 292;\n irreligion, 358\n Mani, and mystic benefits, 344_n._;\n and Jesus, 347;\n contemporaries, table i\n Manich\u00e6anism, as Arabian, 72;\n architectural expression, 209, 211;\n music, 228;\n dualism, 306;\n and home, 335\n Mankind, as abstraction, 21, 46\n Mantegna, Andrea, technique, 221, 239;\n and colour, 242;\n and portrait, 271;\n and statics, 414\n Marble, and later Western sculpture, 232, 276_n._;\n Greek use, 248_n._, 253;\n Michelangelo\u2019s attitude, 276.\n _See also_ Stone\n Marcellus II, pope, and Church music, 268_n._\n Marcion, and Jesus, 347;\n contemporaries, table i\n Marcus Aurelius, and monotheistic tendency, 407\n Mar\u00e9es, Hans, significance of colour, 252;\n portraiture, 266, 271, 271_n._, 309;\n and grand style, 289, 290;\n striving, 292\n Marenzio, Luca, music, 251\n Marius, C., and economic motive, 36;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Mars Ultor, temple, ornament, 215\n Marseillaise, morale, 355\n Marsyas, Myron\u2019s, lack of depth, 226\n Marwitz, Friedrich A. L. von der, and Hardenberg, 150_n._\n Marx, Karl, and practical philosophy, 45;\n and earlier and final Socialism, 138;\n and superficially incidental, 144;\n character of Nihilism, 352, 357;\n and Hegelianism, 367;\n socio-economic ethics, 372, 373;\n contemporaries, table i\n Mary-cult, as symbol, 136;\n Madonna in Western art, 267, 280\n Masaccio, and artistic change, 237, 279, 287\n Mashetta, castle, fa\u00e7ade, 215\n Mask, and Classical drama, 316, 317_n._, 318, 323\n ass, Western functional concept, 415;\n effect of quantum theory, 419\n Materialism, and Goethe\u2019s living nature, 111_n._;\n Buddhism as, 356;\n in Western ethics, 368;\n and Socialism, 370\n Mathematics, spatial concept, 6_n._, 7;\n plurality, cultural basis, 15, 59-63, 67, 70, 101, 314;\n position, 56;\n and extension, 56;\n and nature, 57;\n wider-culture vision and analogy, 57, 58;\n beginning of number-sense, 59;\n as art, 61, 62, 70;\n vision, 61;\n of Classical Culture, positive, measurable numbers, 63-65, 69, 77;\n and time and becoming, 64, 125, 126;\n symbolism in Classical, 65-67, 70;\n religious analogy, 66, 70, 394;\n and empirical observation, 67;\n character of Arabian, 71-73;\n primitive levels, 73;\n Western, and infinite functions, 74-76;\n Western need of new notation, 76;\n as expression of world-fear, 79-81;\n and Western meaning of space, 81-84, 88;\n and proportion and function, 84;\n construction _versus_ function, 85;\n virtuosity, 85;\n and physiognomic morphology, 85;\n Western, and limit as a relation, 86;\n Western abstraction, 86, 87;\n Western conflict with perception limitations, 87, 170, 171;\n culmination of Western, groups, 89, 90, 426;\n paradigm of Classical and Western, 90;\n and the how, what, and when, 126;\n cultural relation to art, 129, 130;\n Classical sculpture and Western music as, 284;\n impressionism, 286;\n vector and Baroque art, 311;\n esoteric Western, 328;\n and philosophy, 366;\n replacement by economics, 367;\n theory of aggregates, and logic, 426;\n cultural contemporary epochs, table i.\n _See also_ Nature; Number; branches by name\n Matter. _See_ Body; Natural science\n Matthew Passion. _See_ Sch\u00fctz, Heinrich\n Maxwell-Hertz equations, 418\n Maya Culture. _See_ Mexican\n Mayer, Julius Robert, and theory, 378;\n and conservation of energy, 393, 412, 417\n Mazarin, Jules, Cardinal, morale, 349\n Mazdaism, as Arabian, 209;\n architectural expression, 211;\n and pneuma, 216;\n music, 228;\n contemporaries, table i\n Mazdak, contemporaries, table i\n Meander, motive, 316, 345\n Mechanics, and fourth dimension, 124.\n _See also_ Motion; Natural science\n Medi\u00e6val History, as term, 16, 22\n Medicis, Hellenic sorriness, 273\n Megalopolitanism, and Civilization of a Culture, 32-35, 38;\n and systematism, 102.\n _See also_ Civilization\n Melody, Classical and Western, 227\n Memlinc, Hans, in Italy, 236;\n and Renaissance, 274\n Memory, conception, 103;\n as organ of history, 132;\n as term, 132\n Mencius, practical philosophy, 45\n Mendicant Orders, as exception, 348\n Menes, contemporaries, table iii\n Menzel, Adolf F. E., and body, 271;\n impressionism, 286;\n and grand style, 290, 291\n Merovingian-Carolingian Era, contemporary art epochs, table ii\n Mesopotamia, synagogues, 210\n Messenians, provided history, 11\n Metaphysics, and scientific research, 154;\n and symbolism, 163;\n Western and pairs of concepts, 311;\n basis of Classical, 311;\n period in philosophy, 365-367.\n _See also_ Ethics; Philosophy.\n Mexican (Maya) Culture, and historical scheme, 16, 18;\n and time measurement, 134_n._;\n ornament, 196;\n and tutelage, 213\n Meyer, Eduard, on Spengler, x;\n on Classical Culture and geography, 10_n._\n Meyerbeer, Giacomo, Rossini on Huguenots, 293\n Michelangelo, liberation of architecture, beginning of Baroque, 87,\n 206, 225_n._, 313;\n materiality, obsession by the architectural, 128;\n St. Peter\u2019s, 206, 238;\n and passing of sculpture, 223, 244;\n anticipations, 263;\n and physiognomy of muscles, 264;\n nude, and portrait, 272;\n sonnets, 273;\n as dissatisfied thinker, 274;\n unsuccessful quest of the Classical, 275-277, 281;\n and marble, 276;\n architecture as final expression, 277;\n and popularity, 327;\n God-feeling, 395;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Michelozzo, Bartolommeo di, and Classical, 415\n Michelson, Albert A., experiments, 419\n Middle Kingdom, contemporaries, tables i-iii\n Milesians, physical theory, 386\n Miletus, form-type of Didym\u00e6um, 204;\n and Egypt, 225\n Milinda, King, and Nagasena, 356\n Military art, Western, 333_n._\n Mill, John Stuart, and economic ascendency, 367, 373\n Millennianism, as Western phenomenon, 363, 423\n Mineralogy, and geology, 96\n Minerva Medica, Syrian workmen, 211\n Ming-Chu, contemporaries, table iii\n Ming-ti, contemporaries, table iii\n Minkowski, Hermann, imaginary time, 124_n._;\n and Relativity, 419\n Minnes\u00e4nger, rules, 193;\n imitative music, 229\n Mino da Fiesole, and portrait, 272\n Minoan art, character, 198;\n contemporaries, 241\n Minstrels, imitative music, 229\n Mirabeau, Comte de, and imperialism, 149;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Miracles, cultural attitude toward, 392, 393\n Missionarism, Stoic, 344_n._;\n and diatribe, 360\n Mithraists, and pneuma, 216;\n form-language of mithr\u00e6a, 224;\n music, 228;\n cult in Rome, 406, 406_n._\n Mitylene, episode and Classical time-sense, 133_n._\n Moab, Castle of Mashetta, 215\n Modern History, as irrational term, 16-18\n M\u00f6rike, Eduard, poetry, 289\n Mohammed. _See_ Islam\n Moissac, church ornamentation, 199\n Moli\u00e8re, tragic method, 318\n Mommsen, Theodor, on Classical historians, 11;\n narrow Classicalism, 28\n Monasticism, and Western morale, 316_n._;\n order-movement, 343;\n mendicant orders, 348\n Money, Roman conception, 33;\n as hall-mark of Civilization, 34-36\n Monophysites, Islam as heir, 211;\n as alchemistic problem, 383;\n contemporaries, table i\n Monteverde, Claudio, music, 226, 230, 249, 283\n Morale, plurality, cultural basis, no conversions, 315, 345-347;\n Western, and activity, 315;\n and analysis, 341;\n Western moral imperative, 341, 342;\n intellectual and unconscious concepts, 341_n._;\n Western purposeful motion, ethic of deed, 342-344, 347;\n Western Christian, 344, 348;\n and art, 344;\n morphology, 346;\n compassion, cultural types of manly virtue, 347-351;\n real and presumed, phrases and meanings, 348;\n Classical, and happiness, 351;\n instinctive and problematic, tragic and plebeian, 354, 355;\n end phenomena, cultural basis, 356-359;\n Civilization and diatribe, 359, 360;\n and diet, 361;\n qualities and aim of Socialism, 361-364;\n and cultural atomic theories, 386.\n _See also_ Ethics; Spirit\n Moravians, as exception, 348\n Morphology, Spengler and historical, xi;\n concept of historical, 5-8, 26, 39;\n historical, and symbolism, 46;\n historical, ignored, 47;\n symmetry, 47;\n historical and natural, 48;\n historical, Western study of comparative, 50, 159;\n comparative, knowledge forms, 60;\n of mathematical operations, 85;\n systematic and physiognomic, 100, 101, 121;\n of world-history explained, 101;\n of Cultures, 104;\n historical homology, 111, 112;\n element of causal and destiny, 121;\n of morales, 346;\n of history of philosophy, 364-374;\n of exact sciences, 425\n Mortality. _See_ Death\n Mosaic, as cultural expression, 214;\n and Arabian gold background, 247;\n eyes, 329;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Mosque, architectural characteristics, 200, 210;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Motherhood, cultural attitude, meaning, 136, 137;\n and destiny, portraiture, 267\n Mo-ti, practical philosophy, 45\n Motion, and fourth dimension, 124;\n Eleatic difficulty, 305_n._;\n and natural science, 377, 387-391.\n _See also_ Natural science\n Motion pictures, and Western character, 322\n Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, contemporary mathematic, 78, 90;\n period, 108, 284;\n orchestration, 231;\n colour expression, 252_n._;\n ease, 292;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Mummies, as symbol, 12, 13, 135\n Murillo, Bartolom\u00e9, period, 283\n Murtada, and will, 311\n Museums, as historical symbols, 135;\n change in meaning of word, 136\n Music, thoroughbass and geometry, 61;\n mathematical relation, 62, 63;\n of Baroque period, 78;\n and proportion and function, 84;\n bodilessness of Western, development, 97, 177, 230, 231, 283;\n history of instruments, 195;\n Western church, as architectural ornament, 196, 199;\n as art of form, 219, 221_n._;\n and allegory, 219_n._;\n as channel for imagination, 220;\n Classical, 223, 227, 252_n._;\n form-ideal of Western, 225;\n technical contrast of Classical and Western, 227_n._;\n word and organism, cultural basis, 227, 228;\n Arabian, 228;\n Chinese, 228;\n imitation and ornament, 228;\n ornamental and imitative Western, 229;\n secularization, thoroughbass, 230;\n of Renaissance, 234;\n Flemish influence in Italy, 236;\n and horizon in painting, 239;\n pastoral, and gardening, 240;\n esoteric Western, 243;\n as Western prime phenomenon, 244, 281-284;\n and Western painting, 250, 251;\n instruments and colour expression, 252;\n instrumental as historical expression, 255;\n and uncleanliness, 260_n._;\n and portrait, 262, 266;\n Catholic, 268_n._;\n Michelangelo\u2019s tendency, 277;\n Western, and Classical free sculpture, 283, 284;\n climacteric instruments, 284;\n and Rococo architecture, 285;\n impressionism, 285, 286;\n and later German school of painting, 289;\n Wagner and death of Western, 291, 293;\n his impressionism, 292;\n and Western soul, 305;\n and Western concept of God, 312;\n and character, 314;\n place of organ, 396;\n Western contemporary natural science, 417;\n contemporary cultural epochs, table ii.\n _See also_ Art\n Muspilli, and Northern myths, 400, 423\n Mutazilites, contemporaries, table i\n Mycen\u00e6, funeral customs, 135;\n contemporaries, tables, ii, iii\n Mycerinus, dynasty, 58_n._\n Myron, sculpture as planar art, 225, 226, 283;\n Discobolus, 263, 264\n Mysteries, Classical, 320. _See also_ Religion\n Mysticism, art association, 229;\n and dualism, 307;\n cultural culmination, 365_n._;\n and concept of force, 391;\n contemporaries, table i\n Myth, natural science as, 378, 387\n Mythology, significance in Classical Culture, 10, 11, 13;\n origin, 57.\n _See also_ Religion\n\n Nagasena, materialism, 356\n Names, as overcoming fear, 123;\n concretion of numina, 397\n Napoleon I, analogies, 4, 5;\n romantic, 38;\n imperialism, 42, 149-151;\n as destiny and epoch, 142, 144, 149;\n egoism, 336;\n morale, 349;\n and toil for future, 363;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Napoleonic Wars, and cultural rhythm, 110_n._\n Nardini, Pietro, orchestration, 231\n Natural science, mechanics and motion, cultural basis of postulate,\n 377, 378;\n fact and theory, cultural images, 378-380;\n Western, and depth-experience, tension, 380, 386, 387;\n and religion, cultural basis, 380-382, 391, 411, 412, 416;\n scientific period of a Culture, 381;\n cultural relativity, 382;\n cultural nature ideas and elements, 382-384;\n statics, chemistry, dynamics, cultural systems, 384;\n cultural atomic theories, 384-387;\n thinking-motion problem, system and life, 387-389;\n mechanical and organic necessity, 391;\n cultural attitude on mechanical necessity, 392-394;\n things and relations, 393;\n conservation of energy and Western concept of experience, 393;\n theory and religion, Western God-feeling, 395;\n naming of notions, 397;\n and atheism, 409;\n Western dogma of undefinable force, provenance, stages, 412-417;\n as to Western statics, 414, 415;\n mass concept of Civilization, work-idea, 416, 417;\n disintegration of exact, contradictions, 417-420;\n physiognomic effect of irreversibility theory, 420-424;\n effect of radioactivity, 423;\n decay, 424;\n morphology, convergence of separate sciences, 425-427;\n anthropomorphic return, 427.\n _See also_ Nature\n Natural selection, and Western ethics, Superman, 371. _See also_\n Darwinism\n Naturalism, antiquity, 33, 207, 288;\n in art, 192\n Nature, contrast of historical morphology, 5, 7, 8;\n definite sense, and history, 55, 57, 94-98, 102, 103;\n and learning, 56;\n mathematics as expression, 57;\n as late world-form, 98;\n mechanistic world-conception, 99, 100;\n systematic morphology, 100;\n and causality and destiny, 119, 121, 142;\n cultural viewpoints, 131, 263;\n timelessness, 142, 158;\n historical overlapping, living harmonies, 153, 154, 158;\n and intellect, 157;\n personal connotations, 169;\n soul as counter-world, 301;\n and reason, 308.\n _See also_ Causality; History; Mathematics; Natural science; Space;\n Spirit\n Naucratis, and Miletus, 225_n._\n Naumann, Johann C., architecture, 285\n Nazz\u00e2m, on body, 248;\n contemporaries, table i\n Necessity, mechanical and organic, 391\n Nemesis, character of Classical, 129, 320. _See also_ Destiny\n Neo-Platonists, as Arabian, 72;\n and pneuma, 216;\n and body, 248;\n dualism, 306;\n unimposed mystic benefits, 344_n._\n Neo-Pythagoreans, and body, 248;\n and mechanical necessity, 393\n Nerva, forum, 198, 215\n Nestorianism, and art, 209, 211;\n music, 228;\n and home, 334;\n as alchemistic problem, 383;\n contemporaries, table i\n Neumann, Karl J., on Roman myths, 11\n New York City, and megalopolitanism, 33\n Newton, Sir Isaac, and \u201cfluxions\u201d, 15_n._;\n artist-nature, 61;\n mathematic and religion, 70, 396, 412;\n mathematical discoveries, 75, 78, 90;\n and time and space, 124, 126;\n light theory, and Goethe\u2019s theory, 157_n._, 158_n._, 422;\n dynamic world-picture, 311;\n deeds of science, 355;\n and motion-problem, 390, 391;\n and metaphysics, 366;\n and force and mass, 415, 417;\n contemporaries, table i\n Nibelungenlied, and Homer, 27;\n esoteric, 328;\n and Western Christianity, 400-402\n Nic\u00e6a, Council of, and Godhead, 249\n Nicephorus Phocas, and Philopatris dialogue, 404_n._\n Nicholas of Cusa, astronomical theory, 69;\n religion and mathematic, 70;\n musical association, 236;\n contemporaries, table i\n Nicholas of Oresme, and beginning of Western mathematic, 73, 74, 279;\n art association, 229;\n Occamist, 381\n Niese, Benedictus, on Roman myths, 11\n Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, influence on Spengler, xiv, 49_n._;\n provincialism, 24;\n Classical ideology, 28, 28_n._;\n on city life, 30;\n unpopularity, 35;\n practical philosophy, 45;\n and historical unity, 48;\n and detachment, 93;\n and Wagner, 111, 291, 370;\n on history and definition, 158;\n on art witnesses, 191;\n autumnal accent, 241;\n on Greeks and colour, 245;\n on \u201cbrown\u201d music, 252;\n on Greeks and body, 260;\n will and reason, 308;\n and morale, 315, 342, 346;\n and home, 335;\n actuality of \u201cMann\u201d, 347, 350;\n and Civilization, 352;\n character of Nihilism, 357;\n and diet, 361;\n nebulous aim, 363, 364;\n and mystic philosophy, 365_n._;\n and mathematics, 366;\n ethics and metaphysics, 367;\n materialism, 368;\n and evolution and Socialism, 370-372;\n position in Western ethics, 373, 374;\n on pathos of distance, 386;\n dynamic atheism, 409;\n contemporaries, table i\n Niflheim, lack of materiality, 403\n Nihilism, and finale of a Culture, 352;\n cultural manifestations, 357\n Nirvana, ahistoric expression, 11, 133;\n and zero, 178;\n conception, 347, 357, 361.\n _See also_ Buddhism\n Nisibis, and Arabian art, 209\n Northmen, discoveries, 330\n Norwich Cathedral, simplicity, 196\n Notre-Dame, Madonna of the St. Anne, 263\n Nude, in Classical art, necessity, 130, 260-262, 317;\n cultural basis of feeling, 216, 270, 272;\n as element of Classical Culture only, 225\n N\u00fcrnberg, loss of prestige, 33;\n church statuary, 103;\n church and styles, 205;\n as religious, 358\n Numa, cult, 185;\n contemporaries, table i\n Number, chronological and mathematical, 6, 7, 70, 97;\n defined, 67;\n numbers and mortality, 70;\n Arabian indeterminate, 72;\n Western Culture and functional, 74, 75, 90;\n Western attitude and notation, 76, 332_n._;\n symbolism, 82, 165;\n astronomical, 83, 332_n._;\n cultural attitudes, 88;\n and the become, 95;\n and numbering, 125;\n Indian conception, 178;\n functional, and causality, 393.\n _See also_ Mathematics\n Numina, naming, 397. _See also_ Religion\n Nyaya, contemporaries, table i\n\n Oak, as symbol, 396\n Occamists, physical theory, 381, 389\n Odo, Bishop, as warrior, 349_n._\n Odysseus, as enduring, 203\n Okeghem, Joannes, music, 130;\n and popularity, 243\n Oken, Lorenz, and dualism, 307\n Old Kingdom, and care, 137;\n contemporaries, tables ii, iii\n Old Nordic art, as Arabian, 215\n Oldach, Julius, act and portrait, 271_n._\n Omar, Mosque of, characteristics, 200_n._\n Ommayad period, homology, 111\n Opera, and orchestra, 230\n Oracle, Classical, 147\n Oratorio, and orchestra, 230\n Orchomenos, funeral customs, 135\n Oreads, passivity, 336\n Oresme. _See_ Nicholas of Oresme\n Organ, and Western devotions, 396\n Origen, and dualism, 306;\n morale, 348;\n contemporaries, table i\n Ormuzd, Persian God, 312\n Ornament, qualities and aim, 191-194;\n opposition to imitation, 194-196;\n building and its symbolic decoration, 196;\n pictorial period, 197;\n and Civilization, 197, 294;\n in music, 228, 230, 231;\n Renaissance, 233_n._, 238.\n _See also_ Decoration; Imitation\n Orpheus, cult, 185;\n as Christian title, 408_n._;\n contemporaries of discipline and movement, table i\n Otto the Great, egoism, 336\n Owen, Sir Richard, and morphology, 111\n\n Pachelbel, Johann, organ works, 220\n Pacher, Michael, colour, 250\n Paderborn Cathedral, simplicity, 196\n P\u00e6onius, Nike, 263;\n period, 284\n P\u00e6stum, temple, 224, 235\n Paewati worshippers, sect, 136_n._\n Painting, perspective and geometry, 61;\n allegorical, 219_n._;\n and form-ideal of Classical sculpture and Western music, 226, 232;\n word and organism, 227;\n Flemish influence in Italy, 236;\n Renaissance fresco to Venetian oil, line to space, 237, 279-281;\n development of background in Western, 239;\n form and content, outline and colour, 242;\n cultural expression and popularity, 243;\n oil, as Western prime phenomenon, period, 244, 281-283;\n Classical and Western colours, 245-247;\n outdoor and indoor, 247;\n symbolism in brushwork, 249;\n of Western Civilization, 251;\n Baroque portraits, 265;\n and destiny of Western art, 276_n._;\n Leonardo and discovery, spiritual space, 277-280;\n Western studio-brown, pictorial chromatics, 250, 288;\n Classical limitation, 283, 287;\n full meaning of Impressionism, 285-287;\n 19th Century episode, _plein-air_, 288;\n German school and grand style, 289;\n Baroque and concept of vector, 311;\n and time of day, 325;\n Western, and spectator, 329;\n Western, and contemporary natural science, 417;\n contemporary cultural epochs, table ii.\n _See also_ Art; Portraiture\n Palazzo Farnese, style, 205;\n Michelangelo\u2019s cornice, 275\n Palazzo Strozzi, style, 234;\n and artistic sentiment, 272\n Palermo, and Arabian Culture, 211, 216\n Palestrina, Giovanni da, style, 220, 230, 323;\n and popularity, 243;\n Michelangelo\u2019s heir, 274, 277;\n God-feeling, 395\n Palladio, Andrea, style, 30, 414\n Palma, Jacopo, colour, 252\n Palmyra, basilica, 209_n._;\n Baal, 407\n Pan, idea, 403\n Panama Canal, Goethe\u2019s prophecy, 42\n \u201cPanem et circenses\u201d, as symbol, 362\n Pantheon, as mosque, 72, 211\n Paolo Veronese, clouds, 240;\n colour, 252\n Papacy, contemporaries, table iii\n Paracelsus, Philippus, and chemistry, 384\n Parallel axiom, 83, 88, 176_n._\n Paris, and Athens, 27;\n culture city, 33;\n autumnal city, 79;\n Flemish influence, 236_n._;\n as irreligious, 358\n Paris, Peace of (1763), and imperialism, 150\n Park. _See_ Gardening\n Parmenides, civic world-outlook, 33;\n thinking and being, 387\n Parthenon, Three Fates as type, 268;\n horse\u2019s head, Rubens contrast, 271;\n popularity, 327\n Pascal, Blaise, and actuality, 42;\n faith and experience, 66, 394;\n mathematic, and Archimedes, 69, 75, 90, 126;\n and predestination, 141;\n and Jansenists, 314_n._;\n and Western morale, 348;\n contemporaries, table i\n Passion, in Christian cult, 320_n._\n Passivity, as Classical trait, 315, 320;\n and pathos, 320_n._\n Past, and passing, 166\n Pastels, and music, 232\n Paterculus, C. Velleius, view of art, 205\n Path. _See_ Way\n Pathos, and passion, 320_n._\n Patina, symbolism, 253\n Patriotism, cultural concept, 334-337\n Patristic literature, contemporaries, table i\n Paul, Saint, and world-history, 18_n._;\n and dualism, 306;\n and will, 344;\n and diatribe, 360;\n error on \u201cUnknown God\u201d, 404\n Paulicians, and art, 209, 211;\n iconoclasm, 262;\n contemporaries, table i\n Paulinzella Monastery, simplicity, 196;\n and antique, 275_n._\n Pausanias, culture, 254_n._;\n on altars to unknown gods, 404_n._\n Pazzi, chapel, 313\n Peace, Classical and Western conception, 275_n._\n Peasant, as Culture relic, 354\n Peloponnesian War, as epoch, 149\n Pepi. _See_ Phiops\n Perception, and \u201calien\u201d, 53;\n Western transcendency, 87-89;\n space and time as forms, 169-171, 173\n Percival, archetype, 402\n Pergamene art, modernity, 111;\n composition, 244, 260;\n gigantomachia, 291, 352;\n actuality, 364;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Pericles, homology, 111;\n portrait, 130_n._, 269;\n and economic organization, 138;\n morale, 349\n Peripatos, contemporaries, table i\n Persians, architectural expression, 209;\n and home, 335;\n contemporary art periods, table ii.\n _See also_ Arabian Culture\n Perspective, Classical attitude, 109;\n Western painting and gardening, 240-242;\n as soul-expression, 310_n._;\n Western, and astronomy, 330\n Perugino, technique, 249;\n and portraiture, 272;\n and artistic change, 279;\n simplicity, 280\n Pessimism, and Spengler\u2019s theories, xiv, 40\n Peter the Great, and Europe, 16_n._\n Peterborough Cathedral, simplicity, 196\n Petra, Baal, 407\n Petrarch, Francesco, analogy, 4;\n historic consciousness, 14;\n narrow Classicalism, 29, 275\n Petrinism, Tolstoi\u2019s connection, 309\n Phallus, as symbol, cult, 136, 267, 320\n Phidias, contemporary mathematic, 78, 90;\n and portraiture, 130_n._;\n and soulless body, 225, 267;\n popularity, 243;\n and self-criticism, 264;\n and marble, 276;\n and Handel, 284;\n period, 284;\n as religious, 358;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Philanthropy, Aristotle\u2019s, 351\n Philippe de Vitry, and counterpoint, 229_n._\n Philo, and body, 248;\n and Jesus, 347\n Philopatris dialogue, source, 404_n._\n Philosopher\u2019s Stone, as symbol, 248, 307\n Philosophy, truth and individual attitude, xv;\n natural and historical, 7, 8;\n anonymous Indian, 12;\n provincialism, 22, 23;\n epochal limitations, cultural boundaries, 41, 46, 364, 367;\n test of value, actuality, 41-43;\n present-day Western, and cultural destiny, 43-45;\n development of Western practical, 45;\n scepticism as final Western, 45, 374;\n of becoming and become, 49_n._;\n and mathematics, 56, 64, 366;\n Kant\u2019s postulates, 59;\n comparative forms of knowledge, 60;\n and names, 123;\n scientific, of time, 124;\n tabulation of categories, 125;\n and death, 166;\n Western art association, 229;\n of Culture and Civilization, 354, 355;\n cultural questions, early posing, 364;\n course within each Culture, 364;\n metaphysical and ethical periods, 365-367.\n _See also_ Ethics; Metaphysics; Spirit\n Phiops, Western contemporary, 202_n._;\n statue, 265\n Phlogiston theory, Stahl\u2019s, 384\n Ph\u0153nicians, and discovery, 65, 333\n Phrynichus, fine, 321\n Physics, cautious hypotheses, 156;\n Jesuits and theoretical, 314_n._;\n and popularity, cultural basis, 327, 328.\n _See also_ Natural science\n Physiognomy. _See_ Destiny; Portraiture\n Picturesqueness, and historical expression, 255\n Piero della Francesca. _See_ Francesca\n Pigalle, Jean B., sculpture, 244\n Pindar, as religious, 358\n Pine, as symbol, 396\n Piombo, Sebastiano del. _See_ Sebastiano\n Pir\u00e6us, and unknown gods, 404\n Pisano, Giovanni. _See_ Giovanni\n Pisistratid\u00e6, as period of fulfilment, 107\n Planck, Max, atomic theory, 385, 419\n Plane, significance in Egyptian architecture, 189\n Plastic. _See_ Sculpture\n Plato, ahistoric consciousness, 9, 14;\n and clepsydra, 15;\n provincialism, 22;\n and actuality, 42;\n philosopher of the becoming, 49_n._;\n metaphysics and mathematics, 56, 67, 69, 71, 84, 90, 366;\n and the irrational, 66;\n and Goethe\u2019s \u201cmothers\u201d, 70;\n and mechanistic world-conception, 99;\n foreshadowing by, 111;\n and the Almighty, 124;\n Kant on, 125;\n as Aristotle\u2019s opposite, 159;\n anamnesis, 174;\n and idolatry 268_n._;\n on soul, 304, 305;\n and ego, 311;\n and ethics, 354;\n and mystic philosophy, 365_n._;\n and science and religion, 394;\n contemporaries, table i\n _Plein-air_, as Civilization painting, 252;\n characterized, 288\n Pliny, on Mesopotamian temples, 210_n._;\n on Lysistratus, 269;\n on Lysippus, 287;\n as collector, 425\n Plotinus, world, 56;\n and philosophical transition, 72;\n and vision, 96;\n homology, 111;\n and body, 248;\n and dualism, 306;\n and Jesus, 347;\n and Arabian Culture, 383;\n and mechanical necessity, 393;\n contemporaries, table i\n Plutarch, as biographer, 14, 316;\n and dualism, 306\n Pneuma, as Arabian principle, 216, 329;\n and eyes in Arabian art, 329.\n _See also_ Dualism\n P\u00f6ppelmann, Daniel, architecture, 285\n Poetry, infinite space in Western, 185;\n Western, as confession, 264, 273;\n Western and Classical lyric, 286, 324.\n _See also_ Drama; Literature\n Poincar\u00e9, Henri, on mathematical vision, 61_n._\n Point, and Western geometry, 74, 82, 89\n _Point de vue_, in Rococo parks, 240\n Polar discovery, as symbol, 335\n _Polis_, as Classical symbol, 83, 147, 334\n Polish, as symbol in art, 248_n._\n Politics, inadequate basis for historical deductions, 46;\n under Classical Culture, 83, 147, 334;\n meaning of the state, 137;\n spatial aspect of Western, 198;\n origin of Arabian state, 212;\n Renaissance attitude, 273;\n cultural conception, 334-337;\n and atomic theories, 386;\n contemporary cultural epochs, table iii.\n _See also_ Imperialism; Philosophy; Socialism\n Pollaiuolo, Antonio, Dutch influence, 236;\n goldsmith, 237\n Polybius, ahistoric consciousness, 10\n Polycletus, contemporary Western music, 27,112, 177, 284;\n contemporary mathematic, 78;\n sculpture, canon, 177, 225, 226, 231, 260_n._, 283, 284;\n present-day appeal, 255;\n and self-criticism, 264;\n and statue of Augustus, 295;\n and fresco, 321\n Polycrates, contemporaries, table iii\n Polygnotus, contemporaries, 112, table ii;\n frescoes, background, colour, 147, 183, 221, 243, 245, 283, 330\n Pombaditha, academy, 381\n Pompeii, wall-paintings, 287\n Pompey the Great, army, 36\n Pope, Alexander, type, 254\n Popularity, cultural basis, 85, 243, 326-328, 362;\n in colour, 246\n Porcelain, and Western music, 231\n Porphyry, and \u201cantique\u201d, 20_n._;\n academy, 281\n Port Royal, contemporaries, table i.\n _See also_ Jansenism\n Porta, Baccio della. _See_ Bartolommeo\n Porta, Giacomo della. _See_ Giacomo\n Portinari altar, 236\n Portraiture, and biography, 12;\n character of Classical, nude sculpture, 13, 260, 261, 264, 265, 269,\n 272;\n cultural basis and expression, character and attitude, 101, 104, 216,\n 260, 317;\n portrait as Western expression, 130, 261-266;\n and Arabian Culture, 223;\n and Gothic, 261, 266;\n and confession, 264;\n contrast of act and portrait, 262, 266, 270, 271;\n depth-experience, impressionism, 266, 287;\n child and group portraits, motherhood, 266-268;\n Renaissance, 271-273;\n Leonardo\u2019s relation, 281;\n landscape as, 270_n._, 287;\n Roman statues, 295;\n and will, 309;\n American, as irreligious, 358_n._\n _See also_ Soul\n Portuguese, and discovery, 333\n Poseidon, temple of, as model, 224\n Posidonius, and dualism, 306;\n as collector, 425\n Potsdam, architecture, 207\n Poussin, Nicolas, musical analogy, 220;\n colour, 246;\n period, 283\n Prag, loss of prestige, 33\n Praxiteles, contemporary mathematic, 90;\n sculpture, 226, 270;\n Hermes, 264;\n and womanhood, 268;\n and Haydn, 284;\n period, 284;\n ease, 291\n Predestination. _See_ Destiny\n Present, and becoming, 54;\n significance in Classical Culture, 63, 65-67\n Pre-Socratics, philosophy, 41, 175, 305;\n and mathematics, 366;\n contemporaries, table i\n Prime phenomena, Goethe\u2019s living nature, vii, 95, 96, 105, 111_n._,\n 113, 140, 154, 389;\n in history, 105;\n and destiny, 121;\n of Western Culture, 244.\n _See also_ Symbols\n Principle, and causality, 121\n Proclus, and Jesus, 347\n Procopius, courtier, 207\n Progress, as phenomenon of Civilization, 352, 361\n Prohibition, and Civilization, 361\n Proper, and alien, 53\n Proportion, and function, 84\n Propyl\u00e6a, popularity, 327\n Protagoras, conception of man, 311, 392;\n popularity, 327;\n and Classical morale, 351;\n and Stoicism, 356;\n problem, 365;\n condemnation, 411\n Protestantism, colour symbolism, 250;\n of etching, 290;\n and works, 316_n._;\n as symbol, 343.\n _See also_ Reformation.\n Proud\u2019hon, Pierre Joseph, position in Western ethics, 373\n Providence, and destiny, 141\n Provinces, defined, 33\n Provincialism, philosophical and historical, 22-25\n Prussia, great periods, 36;\n English basis of reorganization, 150_n._\n Psalmody, Jewish, 228\n Pseudomorphosis, Late-Classical style, 209-212, 214;\n and image, 216;\n music, 228\n Psychologists, period, contemporaries, table i\n Psychology, \u201cscientific\u201d, and soul, 299-303, 313;\n as counter-physics, 301;\n and will and _soma_, 319\n Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and ruler-cult, 405\n Ptolemy, L. Claudius, relation of Copernicus, 139_n._;\n as copyist, 425\n Puget, Pierre, sculpture, 244\n Punic Wars, as classic, 36;\n and cultural rhythm, 110_n._;\n homology, 111;\n intensity, 333\n Purcell, Henry, pictorial music, 283\n Pure reason, and destiny, 120\n Puritanism, as common cultural feature, 112;\n and destiny, 141;\n and imperialism, 148;\n cultural contemporary epochs, table i\n Putto, as art motive, 266\n Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre, and religious painting, 288_n._\n Pygmalion and Galatea, and marble, 276\n Pyramids, period, 58_n._, 203\n Pyrrho, contemporaries, table i\n Pyrrhus, Roman war, 36\n Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, analogy, 39;\n and actuality, 42;\n mathematical vision, 57, 58;\n and Classical mathematic, 61, 62, 64;\n new number, and fate, 65_n._, 82, 90;\n mathematic and religion, 70, 394;\n contemporaries, 112, table i;\n and Copernicus, 330;\n and mystic philosophy, 365_n._;\n and metaphysics, 366\n\n Quadratures, and Archimedes\u2019 method, 69\n Quantum theory, effect, 419\n Quattrocento, and Gothic, 221.\n _See also_ Renaissance\n Quercia, Jacopo della. _See_ Jacopo\n Quesnay, Fran\u00e7ois, economic theory, 417\n\n Race-suicide, as phenomenon of Civilization, 359\n Radioactivity, effect on natural science, 423\n Ragnar\u00f6k, Muspilli as contemporary, 400;\n and world\u2019s end, 400\n Rameses II, analogy, 39;\n and artistic impotence, 44, 294;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Ranke, Leopold von, and analogy, 4, 5;\n and historical tact, 22;\n on historical vision, 96\n Raphael Sanzio, Madonnas, 136, 268, 280;\n technique, 221, 278;\n and Titian, 227;\n and background, 237;\n popularity, 243;\n colour, 245;\n and confession, 264;\n and portrait, 272;\n as dissatisfied thinker, 274;\n and fresco and oil, line and space, 279, 280\n Raskolnikov. _See_ Dostoevsky\n Rationalism, and chance, 142_n._;\n contemporaries of English, table i\n Ravenna, and Arabian Culture, 206, 211, 216, 235;\n mosaics, 221, 247, 329\n Rayski, Louis F. von, art and portrait, 271_n._\n Reason, and will, 308\n Red, symbolism, 246\n Reformation, conflicts in Germany, 33;\n and Dionysiac movement, 111;\n as common cultural epoch, 112;\n class-opposition to Renaissance, 229;\n contemporaries, table i\n Reims Cathedral, 224;\n statuary, 267\n Relations, and magnitudes, 84, 86\n Relativity theory, and time, 124_n._;\n effect on natural science, 419;\n domain, 426\n Relief, Egyptian, 189, 202;\n and Classical round sculpture, 225.\n _See also_ Sculpture\n Religion, reality of Classical, 10, 11, 13;\n relation of clock and bell, 15_n._, 134_n._;\n and number, 56;\n mathematical cultural analogy, 66, 70;\n stage in a Culture, 108, 399-402;\n second period, sequel to Civilization, 108, 424-428;\n Western, and \u201cmemory\u201d, 132_n._;\n and death, 166;\n birth of Western soul, 167;\n and early art periods, 185;\n cultural expression, 185-188, 399, 401;\n Egyptian, 188;\n Chinese, 190;\n and imitation, 191;\n architecture as ornament, 195;\n Russian, 201_n._;\n Arabian architecture, 208;\n Classical, and art, 268;\n and _plein-air_ painting, 288_n._;\n revelation and dualism, 307;\n cultural soul-elements, and deities, 312;\n and Classical drama, 320;\n and astronomy, 330;\n relation to Civilization, 358;\n and hygiene, 361;\n and philosophy, 365;\n and natural science, 380-382, 391, 411, 416;\n Western experience and faith, 394;\n varieties, 394;\n and theory, 395;\n God-feelings, 395;\n depth-experience in Western, cathedral, organ, 395-397;\n naming of numina, 397;\n Classical bodied pantheon, 398, 402;\n Western deity as force, unitary-space symbol, 398, 403, 413;\n of primitive folk, 399;\n elements of Western, 399-401;\n Classical, and strange gods, 404;\n late Classical, dislocation and monotheism, Arabian ascendency, 406-\n 408;\n cult of deified men, 405, 407, 411;\n atheism as phenomenon, 408-411;\n cult and dogma, cultural attitude, 410, 411;\n contemporary cultural epochs, table i.\n _See also_ Death; Soul; Spirit; creeds and sects by name\n Rembrandt, portraiture, and confession, 101, 103, 130, 140, 264, 266,\n 269, 281, 300;\n contemporaries, 112, table ii;\n inwardness, colour, 183, 251-253;\n etchings, nights, 187, 246, 290;\n musical counterpart, 220;\n and horizon, 239;\n esoteric, 243;\n depth, 244;\n and body, 271;\n period, 283;\n impressionism, 287, 288;\n and psychology, 319\n Renaissance, contemporaries, 27, table ii;\n mathematic, 71;\n relation to Classical, as revolt, illusion, 28_n._, 132_n._, 232-234,\n 237, 238, 252, 266, 272-274, 279, 323;\n homology, 111;\n and beautiful, 194;\n and Western style, 202, 205, 206, 221, 223, 225, 244;\n and Arabian and Gothic, 212, 234-238;\n and polychrome sculpture, 226;\n class-opposition to Reformation, 229;\n ornament, 233_n._, 238;\n fa\u00e7ades and courtyards, 235;\n arch and column, 236;\n park, 241;\n and popularity, 243, 328;\n and patina, 253;\n and child-figures, 266;\n and portrait, 271-273;\n and spiritual development, 273;\n leaders as dissatisfied thinkers, 274, 281;\n Michelangelo, 275-277, 281;\n Raphael, 279, 280;\n Leonardo, 277-281;\n and background, 237;\n and statics, 414\n Renoir, Pierre A., striving, 292\n Resa\u00efna, academy, 381\n Research, and vision, 95, 96, 102, 105, 142;\n historical and scientific data, 154;\n metaphysical, 163\n Restorations, Western attitude toward, 254\n Resurrection, change in meaning, 135_n._\n Rhine River, as historic, 254_n._\n Rhodes, Cecil, analogy, 4;\n and imperialism, 37, 38;\n morale, 349, 351\n Rhodes, as \u201cVenice of Antiquity\u201d, 49;\n and Helios, 402\n Richelieu, Cardinal, morale, 349;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Riegl, Alois, on Arabian art, 208, 215\n Riemann, Georg F. B., artist-nature, 61;\n relation to Archimedes, 69;\n religion and mathematic, 70;\n notation, 77;\n and boundlessness, 88;\n mathematical position, 90;\n goal of analysis, 418;\n contemporaries, table i\n Riemenschneider, Tilmann, and portraiture, 270\n Robespierre, Maximilien, adventurer, 149;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Rococo, as stage of style, 202;\n architecture and music, 231, 232, 285;\n parks, 240;\n contemporaries, table ii.\n _See also_ Baroque\n Rodin, Auguste, sculpture as painting, 244, 245\n Rogier van der Weyden, in Italy, 236\n Roman Catholicism, colour symbolism, 247-249;\n and music, 268_n._;\n monasticism, 316_n._, 343, 348;\n esoteric dogma, 328;\n prelates and manly virtue, 349.\n _See also_ Christianity; Jesuitism\n Roman law, and cultural-language, 310_n._\n Romanesque, simplicity, 196;\n as stage of style, 201, 202;\n and Classical, 275_n._\n Romanticism, defined, 197;\n and mysticism, 365_n._;\n and mathematics, 366\n Rome, city, megalopolitanism, 32, 34\n Rome, empire, and Classical Culture, 8;\n imperialism, 36-38, 336;\n and Arabian Culture, 72, 207, 208;\n army and citizenship, 325;\n emperor-worship, 405, 407, 411;\n and toleration, 411.\n _See also_ Classical Culture\n Rondanini Madonna, as music, 277\n Rondeau, origin, 229\n Roof, as Arabian expression, 210\n Rore, Cyprian de, in Italy, 236;\n music, 251, 252\n Rossellino, Antonio, and portrait, 272\n Rossini, Gioachino, Catholicism, 268_n._;\n on Meyerbeer, 293\n Rottmann, Karl, and grand style, 289\n Rousseau, Jean Jacques, and naturalism, 33, 207, 288;\n and superficially incidental, 144;\n and imperialism, 149, 150;\n autumnal accent, 207;\n and Civilization, 352;\n contemporaries, 353_n._, table i;\n and compassion, 362;\n and Darwinism, 369;\n intellect and wisdom, 409\n Rubens, Peter Paul, colour, 253;\n and body, 270, 271_n._, 278;\n and dynamics, 414\n Ruins, as Western expression, 254\n Ruler-cult, 405, 411\n Runge, Otto P., and grand style, 289\n Russia, and the West, 16_n._;\n stage of art, 201;\n architecture, 211;\n ignored art, 223;\n will-less soul, 309;\n culture and charity, 350\n Rutherford, Sir Ernest, atoms as quanta of action, 385, 419\n Ruysdael, Jakob, colour, 246;\n period, 283\n\n Sab\u00e6ans, and early Christian designs, 22_n._, 209_n._;\n temple-form, 210_n._;\n art, 223;\n art contemporaries, table ii\n Sahu-r\u00ea, pyramid, 203\n St. Denis, royal tombs, 261, 264\n St. Lorenz Church, N\u00fcrnberg, and styles, 205\n St. Mark, Venice, origins, 211\n St. Patroclus, Soest, arcade-porch, 205\n St. Paul without the Walls, as Pseudomorphic, 210, 210_n._\n St. Peter\u2019s, Rome, as Baroque, 206, 238\n St Pierre et St Paul, Moissac, ornamentation, 199\n St. Priscilla, catacombs, paintings, 137\n St. Vitale, Ravenna, characteristics, 200\n Sainte-Chapelle, Paris, boundlessness, 199\n Saints, contemporary legends, 400, table i\n Saivas, Lingayats, 136_n._\n Saktas, 136_n._\n Salamanca, loss of prestige, 33\n Salvation Army, as exception, 348\n Samarra, contemporaries, table ii\n Samnites, Roman war as classic, 36, 151_n._\n Samos, Hera of Cheramues, 225_n._\n Sangallo, Antonio da, Palazzo Farnese fa\u00e7ade, 275\n Sankhya, and Buddhism, 353_n._, 356;\n contemporaries, table i\n Sant\u2019 Andrea, Pistora, Pisano\u2019s Sibyls, 263\n Santa Maria Novella, Florence, style, 234;\n Flemish paintings, 236\n Sassanids, and Arabian state, 212;\n art 223;\n music, 228\n Satyrs, materiality, 403\n Savonarola, Girolamo, and art tendencies, 233;\n and Renaissance, 328;\n and Western morale, 348;\n contemporaries, table i\n Scarlatti, Alessandro, character of arias, 219_n._\n Scene, dramatic, cultural basis, 325\n Scepticism, as last stage of Western philosophy, 45, 374\n Scharnhorst, Gerhard von, army reforms, 150_n._\n Schelling, Friedrich von, and dualism, 307;\n esoteric, 369;\n contemporaries, table i\n Schiller, Johann C. F., tragic form, 147;\n banality, 155\n Schirazi, and dualism, 307\n Schl\u00fcter, Andreas, architecture, 244, 245, 285\n Sch\u00f6ngauer, Martin, colour, 250\n Scholasticism, art association, 229;\n will and reason, 305;\n and dualism, 307;\n cultural culmination, 365_n._;\n contemporaries, table i\n Schopenhauer, Arthur, and history, 7, 29, 97_n._;\n provincialism, 23, 24;\n practical philosophy, 45, 368;\n and mathematics, 67, 125, 366;\n will, and reason, 308, 342;\n and Civilization, 352;\n and ethics, 354, 373;\n pessimism and system, 366, 370;\n and critique of society, 367;\n and Darwinism, 369, 372, 373;\n contemporaries, table i\n Schroeter, Manfred, on criticism of Spengler, x\n Sch\u00fctz, Heinrich, Matthew Passion, 199, 244;\n and imagination, 220;\n pictorial music, 283;\n God-feeling, 395\n Science, of history, 153, 154;\n esoteric Western, 328.\n _See also_ Art; Mathematics; Natural science; Nature\n Scipio, P. Cornelius, and economic organization, 138;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Scopas, and self-criticism, 264;\n and body, 270;\n period, 284\n Scott, Sir Walter, as historian, 96\n Scrope, Richard, as warrior, 349_n._\n Sculpture, and proportion and function, 84;\n Classical, as become, 97;\n cultural basis, 216, 225;\n form-ideal of Classical, picture-origin, 225;\n polychrome, 226;\n music-origin of Rococo, 231;\n Gothic, 231, 261;\n use of marble, 232, 249_n._, 253, 276;\n Renaissance, 235, 237, 238, 253;\n position in Western Culture, 244;\n Egyptian, polish, 248_n._, 266;\n bronze, 253, 276;\n Classical expression of body as soul, 260, 261, 305;\n Michelangelo\u2019s attitude, 275-277, 281;\n free Classical, and Western music, 283, 284;\n Classical, and time of day, 325;\n Classical, and spectator, 329;\n contemporary cultural periods, table ii.\n _See also_ Art; Portraiture\n Sebastiano del Piombo, and Raphael, 272\n Second religiousness, period in a Culture, xi, 108, 424-428;\n of Rome, 306\n Selene, as goddess, 147_n._, 402\n Seleucus, astronomical theory, 68\n Seljuk art, contemporaries, table ii\n Semper, Gottfried, on style, 221\n Seneca, L. Ann\u00e6us, Stoicism and income, 33;\n and Baroque drama, 317\n Sentinum, battle, 151\n Septimius Severus, favourite god, 406\n Serapis, cult, 406\n Serenus, as Arabian thinker, 63\n Servius Tullius, myth, 11\n Sesostris, court, 81;\n as name, 206;\n autumn of Culture, 207\n Sethos I, contemporaries, table iii\n S\u00e8vres ware, and Wedgwood, 150_n._\n Sex, naturalism, 24, 33, 207, 288;\n problem of Civilization, 35;\n cultural attitude, 136;\n historical aspects, 137\n Sforzas, Hellenic sorriness, 273\n Shaftesbury, Earl of, and imperialism, 150\n Shakespeare, William, tragic form and method, vision, 129, 130,\n 141_n._, 142, 143, 220, 319;\n Bacon controversy, 135_n._;\n and motive, 156;\n as dramatist of the incidental, 142, 146;\n and historical material, 255;\n and Classical drama, 323;\n and time of day, 324;\n scenes, 325;\n God-feeling, 330, 395;\n ethical passion, 347, 355;\n and evolution, 370\n Shang Period, contemporaries, table iii\n Shaw, George Bernard, sex problem, 35;\n and history, 255_n._;\n and morale, 346, 368, 369, 373, 374;\n superman, 350;\n and diet, 361;\n on Schopenhauer, 367;\n and Socialism and Darwinism, 371, 372\n Shih-huang-ti, career, 112_n._\n Shiva, cult, 136_n._\n Short story, Western, 318_n._\n Siegfried, archtype, 402;\n contemporaries, table i\n Siena, and counter-Renaissance, 234;\n school, 268\n Signorelli, Luca de\u2019, and Classicism, 221;\n and body and colour, 239, 242, 278;\n act and portrait, 270, 271;\n and statics, 414\n Sikyon, Adrastos cult, 33_n._\n Silesian wars, and cultural rhythm, 110_n._\n Simone Martini, and Gothic, 235\n Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo\u2019s frescos, 263, 275, 395\n Sistine Madonna, 268, 280\n Six Classical Systems, contemporaries, table i\n Skyscraper, and gigantomachia, 291\n Sluter, Klaus, sculpture, 263\n Smith, Adam, economic theory, 417\n Soaring, as Western term, 397\n Socialism, and Civilization, 32;\n and Darwinism, 35, 370-372;\n and economic motives, 36, 355;\n and imperialism, 37;\n Frederick William I\u2019s practice, 138;\n ethical, defined, esoteric, 328_n._, 342, 347, 351, 355, 374;\n scientific basis of ideas, 353;\n as end-phenomenon, 356, 357;\n and contemporaries, immaturity, 357, 358, 361;\n irreligion, 359, 409;\n necessity, 361;\n dynamic qualities, and compassion, 361;\n and work, 362;\n and future, 363;\n tragedy of nebulous aim, 363;\n and lie of life, 364;\n and political economy, 367;\n contemporaries, table i\n Sociology, biological, 155;\n and Western ethics, 367, 368\n Socrates, ahistoric consciousness, 14;\n ethic, 347;\n and Civilization, 352;\n and Stoicism, 353_n._;\n intellect and wisdom 409;\n condemnation, 410;\n contemporaries, table i\n Soest, church, 205\n Sol Invictus, cult, 406, 406_n._, 407\n Sonata, movement, 231\n Sophists, scientific basis, 353_n._, 356;\n and diet, 361;\n contemporaries, table i\n Sophocles, ahistoric consciousness, 9;\n tragic form and method, 129, 130, 141_n._, 143, 146, 318, 321, 330,\n 386;\n statue, 269;\n deification, 405\n Soul, and world and life, 54;\n mathematic expression, 101;\n of Cultures, inner image, 106, 303;\n and predestination, 117;\n individual, and macrocosm, 165, 259;\n cultural designations and attributes, 183;\n man as phenomenon, cultural expression, 259;\n Classical \u201cbody\u201d expression, 259-261;\n Western expression in portrait, 261-266;\n knowledge and faith, 299, 300;\n as image of counter-world, 300;\n and \u201cexact\u201d science, 301, 302, 313;\n culture-language, 302;\n cultural basis of systematic psychology, 303, 304, 307, 313, 314;\n Classical static and Western dynamic, 304, 305;\n Arabian dualism, 305;\n will and reason, outer world parallels, 308;\n Western will-culture, egoism, 308-312, 314;\n and cultural religious concepts, 312, 358;\n cultural basis of morale, 315;\n dynamic, and biography, 315, 316;\n Classical gesture, beauty, 316;\n and cultural forms of tragedy, 317-326;\n popularity, cultural basis, 326-329;\n cultural relation to universe, 330-332;\n and to discovery, 332-337;\n and brain, 367.\n _See also_ Morale; Portraiture; Spirit\n Space, and natural morphology, 6, 7;\n and the become, 56;\n relation to Classical and Western Cultures, 64, 81-84, 88;\n world-fear and creative expression, 79-81;\n multi-dimensional, symbolism, 88, 89, 165;\n direction and extension, 99, 172;\n and causality and destiny, 119, 120;\n awareness, 122;\n and scientific time, 124, 125;\n time as counter-concept, 126, 170, 172;\n and death, 166;\n world-experience and depth, 168, 169, 172;\n perception or comprehension, 169-172;\n cultural symbolism in depth-experience, 173-175;\n cultural prime symbols, 174-178, 337;\n Classical use of term, 175_n._;\n cultural basis of concepts, 179, 310;\n and architectural and religious expression of Culture, 183-188, 198-\n 200;\n Egyptian and Chinese experiencing, 189-191, 201-203;\n Western arts and prime phenomenon, 281, 282;\n extension and reason, 308.\n _See also_ Become; Causality; Depth-experience; Nature; Time\n Spain, period of ascendency, incident and destiny, 148, 150\n Spaniards, and discovery, 333\n Spanish-Sicilian art, contemporaries, table ii\n Spanish Succession War, and cultural rhythm, 110_n._;\n as epoch, 149\n Sparta, myth, 11;\n and music, 223\n Spencer, Herbert, and economic ascendency, 367;\n contemporaries, table i\n Spengler, Oswald, reception of book, ix;\n basis of philosophy, xiii-xv, 49_n._\n Speyer Cathedral, 185, 224\n Spinoza, Baruch, and dualism, 307;\n and force, 413\n Spirit, and soul in Arabian dualism, 306.\n _See also_ Body; History; Morale; Nature; Philosophy; Religion; Soul\n Spirit land, cultural conception, 333\n Spirit-wall, 203\n Spitzweg, Karl, significance of colour, 252\n Sport, and Civilization, 35\n Stahl, Georg Ernst, chemical theory, 384\n Stained glass. _See_ Glass painting\n Stamitz, Johann K., Classical contemporary, 177;\n and four-part movement, 231;\n period, 284\n State. _See_ Politics\n Statics, as Classical system, 384, 393;\n no Western concept, 414.\n _See also_ Natural science\n Statistics, and probability, 421\n Steamship, Classical anticipation, 334\n Stendhal, and psychology, 319\n Stipel, and zero, 178_n._\n Stirner, Max, and morale, 346;\n and Hegelianism, 367;\n contemporaries, table i\n Stoicism, and Civilization, 32, 352;\n and money, 33, 36;\n practicality, 45;\n homology, 111;\n and state, 138;\n and corporeality, 177;\n weak soul, 203;\n ethic, 315, 347, 355, 367;\n and will, 344_n._, 347;\n scientific basis of ideas, 353;\n as end-phenomenon, 356, 357;\n and contemporaries, 357, 358, 361, table i;\n irreligion, 359, 409;\n and diet, 361\n Stone, as symbol, 188, 195, 206;\n polish, 248_n._\n _See also_ Architecture; Marble; Sculpture\n Strassburg Minister, Arabian influence, 213\n Streets, cultural attitude, 109;\n Western aspect and depth-experience, 224, 241;\n Egyptian aspect, 224_n._\n Strindberg, August, provincialism, 24, 33_n._;\n sex problem, 35;\n and morale, 346, 374;\n and Civilization, 352\n String music, in Western Culture, 231, 252_n._\n Strzygowski, Josef, on Arabian art, 184, 209\n Style, as cultural emanation, 108, 200, 202;\n brave Egyptian, 201-203;\n Chinese, 203;\n weak Classical, 203-205;\n history as organism, cultural basis, 205;\n stages of each style, 206;\n history of Arabian, 207-214;\n and technical form of arts, 220;\n in natural science, 387, 391\n Suez Canal, Goethe\u2019s prophecy, 42\n Sufism, contemporaries, table i\n Suhrawardi, on body, 248\n Suicide, cultural attitude, 204\n Sulla, incident, 139;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Sunda, islands of, Roman knowledge, 334\n Superman, in Nietzsche and Shaw, 350, 369, 370;\n natural selection, 371\n Sutras, contemporaries, table i\n Sylvester II, pope, and clock, 15_n._\n Symbolism, in living thought, xiii;\n symbols of a culture, 4, 13, 31;\n in historical morphology, 7, 46;\n clock and bell, 14, 131, 134_n._;\n money and Civilization, 34;\n in the become, 101;\n actuality, 101, 168;\n symbols (names) and fear, 123, 193, 397;\n of funeral customs, 134, 135;\n of museums, 135;\n of world-history, 163;\n symbols defined, 163;\n spatiality, 165;\n and knowledge of death, 166;\n kind of extension as cultural symbol, 173-175;\n cultural prime symbols, plurality, 174, 179, 180, 189, 190, 196, 203,\n 337;\n writing as cultural symbol, 197_n._;\n window, 199, 210, 224;\n in colour and gold, 245-249;\n as replacing images, 407\n Synagogues, patterns, 211_n._\n Syncretism, architectural expression, 209;\n cults, 228;\n contemporaries, table i\n Syracuse, culture city, 32;\n and Plato, 42\n Syria, music of sun-worship, 228;\n contemporaries of art, table ii.\n _See also_ Arabian Culture\n\n Taboo, idea, 80;\n effect of naming, 123;\n side of art, 127.\n _See also_ Religion\n Tacitus, Cornelius, ahistoric consciousness, 10, 11;\n limited background, 132, 133\n Talleyrand-P\u00e9rigord, Charles de, on life before 1789, 207\n Talmud, dualism, 306;\n determinism, 307;\n and nature, 393;\n contemporaries, table i\n Tanis, Hyksos Sphinx, 108, 262\n Tanit, as deity, 406\n Tao, principle, 14, 190, 203, 228;\n perspective, 311_n._\n Tarquins, myth, 11;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Tartessus, realm, 332_n._\n Tartini, Giuseppe, orchestration, 231;\n violin story, 276_n._\n Tasso, Torquato, and fixed scene, 325\n Taygetus, Mount, Lycurgus as local god, 11\n Technics, and future of Western Culture, 41, 44\n Technique, and theory, 395\n Teleology, as caricature, 120\n Telephus Frieze. _See_ Pergamene\n Telescope, as Western symbol, 331\n Tell-el-Amarna, art, 193_n._, 293\n Tellez, Gabriel. _See_ Tirso de Molina\n Tellus Mater, materiality, 403\n Temperature, and dynamics, 414\n Templum, as cult-plan, 185\n Tension, as Western principle, 386\n Ten Thousand, expedition, as episode, 147, 336_n._\n Terpander, music, 223\n Thales, and problem of knowing, 365, 381\n Thalestas, music, 223\n Thebes, autumnal city, 99\n Themistocles, ahistoric consciousness, 9;\n morale, 349\n Theocritus, irreligion, 358\n Theory, and fact, 378;\n and religion, 395\n Theosophy, conversion, 346\n Theotokos, and Mary-cult, 137_n._, 267, 268\n Theresa, Saint, and Western morale, 348\n Thermodynamics, first law and energy, 413;\n second law, entropy, 420\n Theseus legends, contemporaries, table i\n Thing-become. _See_ Become\n Thing-becoming. _See_ Becoming\n Thinite Period, contemporaries, tables ii, iii\n Thinker, defined, xiii\n Third Kingdom, as Western conception, 363;\n and lie of life, 364\n Thirty Years\u2019 War, as epoch, 149\n Thoma, Hans, painting, 289\n Thomas Aquinas, influence of Joachim of Floris, 20;\n and destiny, 141;\n ethic, 309;\n religion, 394;\n contemporaries, table i\n Thoroughbass, and geometry, 61;\n rise, 230\n Thorwaldsen, Albert, sculpture, 245\n Thothmes, workshop, 193_n._\n Thucydides, ahistoric consciousness, 9;\n limited background, 10, 132, 133_n._\n Thunder-pattern, 196\n Thuthmosis III, maturity of culture, 94;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Tiberius, as episode, 140;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Tiepolo, Giovanni Battista, painting, 283;\n ease, 292\n Time, and historical morphology, 6;\n and history, problems, 49, 95, 103, 158;\n and direction, 54, 56;\n and mathematics, 64, 125, 126;\n enigma, as word, effect of naming, 79, 121-123;\n direction and extension, 99, 172;\n and destiny and causality, 119, 120;\n unawareness, 122;\n mechanical conception, 122;\n \u201cspace of time\u201d, 122_n._;\n and Relativity, 124_n._, 419;\n and space, scientific explanation, counter-concept, 124-126, 170;\n ahistoric and historic drama, cultural basis, 130;\n cultural symbolism of clock, 131, 134;\n and cause and incident, 142;\n as feeling, 154;\n and nature, 158, 387-391;\n past and transience, 166;\n direction and dimension, 169_n._;\n and depth, 172, 173;\n and imitation and ornament, 193-195, 197;\n direction and will, 308;\n direction and aim, 361.\n _See also_ Becoming; Destiny; History; Space\n Time of day, cultural attitude, 324, 325\n Tintoretto, background, 239\n Tiresias, cult, 185\n Tirso de Molina, and unities, 323\n Tiryns, funeral customs, 135\n Titian, period, 108;\n technique, brushwork, 221, 249;\n and Raphael, 227;\n and colour, 242, 252;\n and popularity, 243;\n portraits as biography, 264;\n and body, 271;\n Baroque, 274;\n impressionism, 286;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Title, symbolic importance, 408_n._\n Toleration, cultural attitude, 343, 404, 410, 411\n Tolstoi, Leo, and Europe, 16_n._;\n provincialism, 24;\n on notion of death, 166;\n philosophy, 309\n Totem, side of art, 128. _See also_ Religion; Taboo\n Tragedy. _See_ Drama\n Trajan, analogy, 39;\n and Arabian art, 211;\n forum, 215;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Transcendentalism, Western, 311\n Transience, notion, 166\n Trecento, so-called Renaissance, 233_n._\n Trent, Council of, Jesuit domination, 148;\n and Western Christianity, 247;\n and church music, 268_n._;\n and Western morale, 348\n Trigonometry, contemporaries, table i. _See also_ Mathematics\n Trinity, as physical problem, 383\n Trojan War, and Crusades, 10_n._, 27\n Troubadours, imitative music, 229\n Truth, relativity, cultural basis, xiii, 41, 46, 60, 146, 178-180, 304,\n 313, 345\n Tscharvaka, contemporaries, table i\n Tsin, contemporaries, 37, table iii\n Turfan, Indian dramas, 295\n Turgot, Anne R. J., economic theory, 417\n Tuscany. _See_ Florence; Renaissance\n Tusculum, battle, 349_n._\n Twelfth Night, 325\n Twilight of the Gods, Christian form, 400\n Tyche, as deity, 146\n Tzigane music, improvisation, 195\n\n Uhde, Fritz K. H. von, and religious painting, 288_n._\n Ulm Minster, as model, 224\n Unities, dramatic, Classical and Western attitude, 323\n Universe, cultural attitude, 330-332\n Upanishads, contemporaries, table i\n Usefulness, cult, 155, 156\n Uzzano bust, Donatello\u2019s, 272\n\n Vaishnavism, 136_n._\n Valcashika, contemporaries, table i\n Valhalla, conception, 186, 187;\n history, 400;\n and unitary space, 403\n Valkyries, and unitary space, 403\n Valmy, battle, Goethe and significance, 149\n Van Dyck, Anthony, musical expression, 250\n Varangians, movement-stream, 333_n._\n Varro, M. Terentius, classification of gods, 11;\n on religions, 394\n Varyags, movement-stream, 333_n._\n Vasari, Giorgio, on imitation, 192\n Vase-painting, Classical, and time of day, 226, 325;\n Renaissance, 237\n Vatican, Raphael\u2019s frescoes, 237, 279;\n Michelangelo\u2019s, 263, 275, 395\n Vaux-le-Vicomte, park, 241\n Vector, concept and Baroque art, 311;\n and motion, 314\n Vedanta doctrine, 352, 355;\n contemporaries, table i\n Vedas, homology, 111;\n contemporaries, table i\n Vegetarianism, and Civilization, 361\n Velasquez, Diego, musical expression, 250;\n and body, 271;\n period, 283;\n as religious, 358\n Venice, and Arabian Culture, 211, 216, 235;\n art ascendency, 224;\n school of painting, 227, 281;\n music, 230, 236, 282;\n and Renaissance, 273.\n _See also_ Titian\n Venus and Rome, temple, 211\n Verlaine, Paul, autumnal accent, 241\n Vermeer, Jan, technique, 221;\n colour, 251, 253;\n period, 283\n Veronese, Paolo. _See_ Paolo\n Verrocchio, Andrea, sculpture, Colleone statue, 235, 238, 272;\n goldsmith, 237;\n and portrait, 271;\n anti-Gothic, 275_n._\n Versailles, park, 241\n Vesta, materiality, 403\n Viadana, Lodovico, music, 230\n Vienna, master-builders, 207;\n chamber music, 232\n Vieta, Fran\u00e7ois, significance of algebraic notation, 71\n Vignola, Giacomo, architecture, liberation, 87, 313, 412\n Village Sheikh, statue, 265\n Violin, as Western symbol, 231, 252_n._\n Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene E., and restorations, 254_n._\n Virtue, cultural concepts of manly, 348. _See also_ Truth\n Vishnu, and Krishna, 136_n._\n Vision, and history and art, 95, 96, 102, 142\n Vitruvius, and arch and column, 204\n V\u00f6lusp\u00e1, unitary space, 185. _See also_ Eddas\n Voltaire, contemporary mathematics, 66;\n and imperialism, 150;\n contemporaries, table i\n _Voluntas_, meaning, 310_n._\n Vulturnus, materiality, 403\n\n Wagner, Richard, sensuousness, 35;\n and popularity, 35, 327;\n foreshadowing by, 111;\n modernity, 111;\n and imagination, 220;\n end-art, 223, 425;\n impressionism, and endless space, 282, 286, 292;\n and form and size, 291, 352;\n striving, 292;\n and psychology, 319;\n and Civilization, 352;\n character of Nihilism, 357;\n irreligion, 358;\n nebulous aim, 363, 364;\n and lie of life, 364;\n and Nietzsche, 370;\n and socio-economic ethics, 370, 372, 373;\n forest-longing, 397\n Wallenstein, Albrecht von, horoscope, 147;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Walther von der Vogelweide, lyrics, 324\n Wang-Cheng, contemporaries, table iii\n Wang H\u00fc, imperialism, 37\n Washington, George, contemporaries, table iii\n Washington, D. C., contemporaries, 112\n Wasmann, Rudolf F., act and portrait, 271_n._;\n and grand style, 289\n Watteau, Jean A., period, 108;\n \u201csinging\u201d picture, 219, 232, 283;\n colour, 246, 247, 253;\n contemporaries, table ii\n Way, as Egyptian prime symbol, 174, 189, 201\n Wazo of Li\u00e9ge, Bishop, as warrior, 349_n._\n Wedgwood ware, and S\u00e8vres, 150_n._\n Weierstrass, Karl T. W., on poetry in mathematics, 62;\n and time, 126\n Weimar, culture city, 29, 139\n Weininger, Otto, position in Western ethics, 374\n Western Culture, clock and bell as symbols, 14, 15_n._, 131, 134;\n mathematic, function, 15, 62, 68, 74-78, 87-90;\n irrational idea of historical culmination in, 16-20, 39;\n provincialism, 22-25, 39;\n Classical contemporary of present period, 26;\n destiny, acceptance, 32, 37-41, 44, 336;\n philosophy of decline, 45, 46;\n World War as type of change, 46-48;\n infinite space as prime symbol, art expression, 81, 86, 87, 89, 174-\n 178, 184-187, 198-201, 224, 229-232, 239-242, 281-285, 337;\n and popularity, 85, 243, 326-328, 362;\n historic basis, destiny-idea, 97, 129, 130, 133-135, 143, 145, 363;\n morphological aspect, 100;\n dramatic form, 129;\n expression of soul, portrait, 130, 260-266, 304;\n and care and sex, 136;\n attitude toward state, 137;\n economic organization, 138;\n religious expression, 140, 185-188, 312, 398-401;\n Franco-Spanish period of maturity, 148, 150_n._;\n English basis of Civilization, 151, 371;\n final test of foreseeing destiny, 159;\n birth of soul, attributes, 167, 183;\n literary expression, 185-188;\n art-work and sense-organ, imagination, 220;\n secularization of arts, 230;\n form and content, 242;\n position of sculpture, 244;\n colour symbol, 245-247, 250;\n brushwork as symbol, 249;\n unity, 252;\n and motherhood, 266-268;\n languages, 302_n._;\n as will-culture, 308-312;\n and time of day, 324;\n significance of astronomy, 330-332;\n and discovery, 332-337;\n aspects of ethics, 367-369;\n culture and dogma, 410;\n spiritual epochs, table i;\n art epochs, table ii;\n political epochs, table iii.\n _See also_ Art; Civilization; Cultures; History; Nature; Politics;\n Spirit\n Weyden, Rogier van der. _See_ Rogier\n Wilhelm, Meister, painting, 263\n Will, free will and destiny, 140, 141;\n unexplainable, 299;\n as Western concept, 302, 304, 308-313;\n and reason, 308;\n and Western concept of God, 312;\n and character, 314;\n and life, 315;\n and Western morale, 341-345, 373\n Willaert, Adrian, music, in Italy, 236, 252\n Winckelmann, Johann J., narrow Classicalism, 28_n._\n Wind instruments, colour expression, 252_n._\n Window, cultural significance, 199, 210, 224\n Woermann, Karl, on catacomb Madonna, 137_n._\n Wolfram von Eschenbach, world-outlook, 142;\n forest-longing, 186, 397;\n and Grail, 213_n._;\n and popularity, 243;\n tragic method, 319, 324\n Woodwind instruments, colour expression, 252_n._\n Word, relation to number, 57.\n _See also_ Language; Names\n Work, Protestant works, 316_n._;\n and deed, 355;\n and Socialism, 362;\n Western concept, 413\n World, and soul and life, 54\n World-Ash Yggdrasil, as symbol, 396\n World conceptions, historical and natural, overlapping, 98-100, 102,\n 103, 119, 153, 154, 158;\n (diagram), 154;\n symbolic, 163-165;\n happening and history, 153.\n _See also_ History; Macrocosm; Nature\n World-end, as symbol of Western soul, 363, 423\n World-fear, creative expression, 79-81\n World-longing, development, and world-fear, 78-81\n World War, and Spengler\u2019s theories, ix, xv;\n as type of historical change of phase, 46-48, 110_n._;\n contemporaries, table iii\n Writing, alphabet and historical consciousness, 12_n._;\n as ornament, 194_n._, 197_n._\n _See also_ Language\n W\u00fcrzburg, Marienkirche and style, 200;\n master-builders, 207\n Wu-ti, contemporaries, table iii\n\n Yahweh, dualism, 312, 402\n Yang-chu, practical philosophy, 45\n Yellow, symbolism, 246\n Yggdrasil, as symbol, 396\n Yoga doctrine, 355;\n contemporaries, table i\n Youth, and future, 152\n\n Zama, as marking a period, 36\n Zarathustra. _See_ Zoroaster\n Zarlino, Giuseppe, music, 230, 282\n Zend Avesta, dualism, 306, 307;\n and nature, 393;\n contemporaries, table i\n Zeno, of Elea. _See_ Eleatic philosophy\n Zeno, the Stoic, ethic, 347, 354;\n character of Nihilism, 357;\n and mathematics, 366;\n contemporaries, table i\n Zenodorus, as Arabian thinker, 63\n Zero, Classical mathematic and, 66-68;\n and theory of the limit, 86;\n cultural conception, 178\n Zeuxis, painting, light and shadow, 207, 242_n._, 283, 325_n._\n Zola, Emile, journalism, 360\n Zoroaster, Nietzsche\u2019s \u201cZarathustra\u201d, 30, 342, 363, 370, 371;\n unimposed mystic benefits, 344_n._;\n Arabian epic, 402.\n _See also_ Zend Avesta\n Zwinger, of Dresden, in style history, 108, 207, 285\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n TABLES\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n TABLE I. \u201cCONTEMPORARY\u201d SPIRITUAL EPOCHS\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502 _INDIAN_ \u2502 _CLASSICAL_ \u2502 _ARABIAN_ \u2502 _WESTERN_\n \u2502 (from 1500) \u2502 (from 1100) \u2502 (from 0.) \u2502 (from 900)\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =SPRING.= \u2502 I. BIRTH OF A MYTH OF THE GRAND STYLE, EXPRESSING A NEW GOD-FEELING.\n \u2502 WORLD-FEAR. WORLD-LONGING\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _(Rural-intuit- \u25021500-1200 \u25021100-800 \u25020-300 \u2502900-1200\n ive. Great crea- \u2502Vedic religion \u2502Hellenic-Ital- \u2502 Primitive \u2502German Catholicism\n tions of the \u2502 \u2502 ian \u201cDemeter\u201d \u2502 Christianity \u2502Edda (Baldr)\n newly-awakened \u2502 \u2502 religion of \u2502 (Mandaeans, \u2502Bernard of Clairvaux,\n dream-heavy Soul.\u2502 \u2502 the people \u2502 Gnosis, Sync- \u2502 Joachim of Floris,\n Super-personal \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 retism Marcion,\u2502 Francis of Assisi\n unity and ful- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502(Mithras, Baal) \u2502Popular Epos\n ness)_ \u2502Aryan hero- \u2502Homer \u2502Gospels. Apoca- \u2502 (Siegfried)\n \u2502 tales \u2502 \u2502 lypses \u2502Western legends of the\n \u2502 \u2502Heracles and \u2502Christian, Maz- \u2502 Saints\n \u2502 \u2502 Theseus \u2502 daist and \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 legends \u2502 pagan legends \u2502\n \u2502 II. EARLIEST MYSTICAL-METAPHYSICAL SHAPING OF THE NEW WORLD-OUTLOOK\n \u2502 ZENITH OF SCHOLASTICISM\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Preserved in \u2502Oldest (oral) \u2502Origen (d. 254),\u2502Thomas Aquinas (d.\n \u2502oldest parts of \u2502Orphic, Etruscan\u2502Plotinus (d. \u25021274), Duns Scotus (d.\n \u2502the Vedas \u2502discipline \u2502269), Mani (d. \u25021308), Dante (d. 1321)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502276), Iamblichus\u2502and Eckhardt (d. 1329)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502(d. 330) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502After-effect; \u2502Avesta, Talmud. \u2502Mysticism.\n \u2502 \u2502Hesiod, \u2502Patristic \u2502Scholasticism\n \u2502 \u2502Cosmogonies \u2502literature \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =SUMMER.= \u2502 III. REFORMATION: INTERNAL POPULAR OPPOSITION TO THE GREAT SPRINGTIME\n \u2502 FORMS\n =(Ripening \u2502Brahmanas. \u2502Orphic movement.\u2502Augustine (d. \u2502Nicolaus Cusanus (d.\n consciousness. \u2502Oldest parts of \u2502Dionysiac \u2502430) \u25021464)\n Earliest urban \u2502Upanishads (10th\u2502religion. \u201cNuma\u201d\u2502Nestorians \u2502John Hus (d. 1308)\n and critical \u2502and 9th \u2502religion(7th \u2502(about 430) \u2502Savonarola, Karlstadt,\n stirrings)= \u2502Centuries) \u2502Century) \u2502Monophysites \u2502Luther, Calvin (d.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502(about 450) \u25021564)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Mazdak (about \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502500) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 IV. BEGINNING OF A PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL FORM OF THE WORLD-FEELING.\n \u2502 OPPOSITION OF IDEALISTIC AND REALISTIC SYSTEMS\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Preserved in \u2502The great Pre- \u2502Byzantine, \u2502Galileo, Bacon,\n \u2502Upanishads \u2502Socratics (6th \u2502Jewish, Syrian, \u2502Descartes, Bruno,\n \u2502 \u2502and 5th \u2502Coptic and \u2502Boehme, Leibniz. 16th\n \u2502 \u2502Centuries) \u2502Persian \u2502and 17th Centuries\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502literature of \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u25026th and 7th \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Centuries \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n V. FORMATION OF A NEW MATHEMATIC CONCEPTION OF NUMBER AS COPY\n AND CONTENT OF WORLD-FORM\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502(lost) \u2502Number as \u2502The indefinite \u2502Number as Function\n \u2502 \u2502magnitude \u2502number (Algebra)\u2502(analysis)\n \u2502 \u2502(proportion) \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502Geometry. \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502Arithmetic \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502Pythagoreans \u2502(development not\u2502Descartes, Pascal,\n \u2502 \u2502(from 540) \u2502yet \u2502Fermat (_ca._ 1630)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502investigated) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Newton and Leibniz\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502(_ca._ 1670)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n VI. PURITANISM. RATIONALISTIC-MYSTIC IMPOVERISHMENT OF RELIGION\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502(lost) \u2502Pythagorean \u2502Mohammed (622) \u2502English Puritans\n \u2502 \u2502 society \u2502 Paulicians and \u2502 (from 1620)\n \u2502 \u2502 (from 540) \u2502 Iconoclasts \u2502French Jansenists\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (from 650) \u2502 from 1640)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Port Royal\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =AUTUMN.= \u2502VII. \u201cENLIGHTENMENT.\u201d BELIEF IN ALMIGHTINESS OF REASON. CULT OF \u201cNATURE.\u201d\n \u2502 \u201cRATIONAL\u201d RELIGION\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =(Intelligence \u2502Sutras; Sankhya;\u2502Sophists of \u2502Mutazilites \u2502English Ration-\n of the City. Zen-\u2502 Buddha; later \u2502 the 5th Cen- \u2502 \u2502 alists (Locke)\n ith of strict \u2502 Upanishads \u2502 tury \u2502Sufism \u2502French Encyc-\n intellectual cre-\u2502 \u2502Socrates (d. \u2502 \u2502 lopaedists\n ativeness)= \u2502 \u2502 399) \u2502Nazzam, \u2502 (Voltaire)\n \u2502 \u2502Democritus (d. \u2502 Alkindi \u2502 Rousseau\n \u2502 \u2502 _ca._ 360) \u2502 (about 830) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 VIII. ZENITH OF MATHEMATICAL THOUGHT. ELUCIDATION OF THE FORM-WORLD OF\n \u2502 NUMBERS\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502(lost) \u2502Archytas (d. \u2502(not invest- \u2502Euler (d. 1763),\n \u2502 \u2502 365) \u2502 igated) \u2502 Lagrange (d. 1813),\n \u2502 \u2502Plato (d. 346) \u2502(Theory of \u2502 Laplace (d. 1827)\n \u2502(Zero as \u2502(Conic Sections)\u2502 number. \u2502(The Infinitesimal\n \u2502 number) \u2502 \u2502Spherical \u2502 problem)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Trigonometry) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 IX. THE GREAT CONCLUSIVE SYSTEMS\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502_Idealism_ }\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 { Schelling\n \u2502 Yoga, Vedanta }\u2502Plato (d. \u2502Alfarabi (d. \u2502Goethe {\n \u2502_Epistemology_ }\u2502 346) \u2502 950) \u2502 { Hegel\n \u2502 Valcashika }\u2502Aristotle (d. \u2502Avicenna (d. \u2502Kant {\n \u2502_Logic_ Nyaya }\u2502 322) \u2502 _ca._1000) \u2502 { Fichte\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =WINTER.= \u2502 X. MATERIALISTIC WORLD-OUTLOOK. CULT OF SCIENCE, UTILITY AND PROSPERITY\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =(Dawn of Mega- \u2502Sankhya, \u2502Cynics, Cyr- \u2502Communistic, \u2502Bentham, Comte,\n lopolitan Civ- \u2502Tscharvaka \u2502 enaics \u2502 atheistic, \u2502 Darwin\n ilization. Ex- \u2502(Lokoyata) \u2502Last Soph- \u2502 Epicurean sects\u2502Spencer, Stirner,\n tinction of \u2502 \u2502 ists (Pyr- \u2502 of Abbassid \u2502 Marx\n spiritual cre- \u2502 \u2502rhon) \u2502 times. \u201cBreth- \u2502Feuerbach\n ative force. \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ren of Sincer- \u2502\n Life itself be- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ity\u201d \u2502\n comes problem- \u2502 XI. ETHICAL-SOCIAL IDEALS OF LIFE. EPOCH OF \u201cUNMATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY.\u201d\n atical. Ethical- \u2502 SKEPSIS\n practical tend- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n encies of an \u2502Tendencies \u2502Hellenism \u2502Movements \u2502Schopenhauer,\n irreligious and \u2502in Buddha\u2019s \u2502 \u2502 in Islam \u2502 Nietzsche\n unmetaphysical \u2502time \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Socialism,\n cosmopolitan- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Anarchism\n ism)= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Hebbel, Wag-\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ner, Ibsen\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 XII. INNER COMPLETION OF THE MATHEMATICAL FORM-WORLD. THE CONCLUDING\n \u2502 THOUGHT\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502(lost) \u2502Euclid, \u2502Alchwarizmi \u2502Gauss (d. 1855)\n \u2502 \u2502Apollonius \u2502(800) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502(about 300) \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Ibn Kurra (850) \u2502Cauchy (d. 1857)\n \u2502 \u2502Archimedes \u2502Alkarchi, \u2502Riemann (d. 1866)\n \u2502 \u2502(about 250) \u2502Albiruni (10th \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Century) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 XIII. DEGRADATION OF ABSTRACT THINKING INTO PROFESSIONAL LECTURE-ROOM\n \u2502 PHILOSOPHY. COMPENDIUM LITERATURE\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502The \u201cSix Class- \u2502Academy, Peri-, \u2502Schools of \u2502Kantians.\n \u2502 ical Systems\u201d \u2502 patos, Sto- \u2502 Baghdad and \u2502\u201cLogicians\u201d\n \u2502 \u2502 ics, Epicur- \u2502 Basra \u2502 and \u201cPsycho-\n \u2502 \u2502 eans \u2502 \u2502 logists\u201d\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 XIV. SPREAD OF A FINAL WORLD-SENTIMENT\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Indian Buddhism \u2502Hellenistic- \u2502Practical \u2502Ethical Socialism from\n \u2502 \u2502Roman Stoicism \u2502fatalism in \u25021900\n \u2502 \u2502from 200 \u2502Islam after 1000\u2502\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n TABLE II. \u201cCONTEMPORARY\u201d CULTURE EPOCHS\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502_EGYPTIAN_ \u2502_CLASSICAL_ \u2502_ARABIAN_ \u2502_WESTERN_\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =PRE-CULTURAL PERIOD.= CHAOS OF PRIMITIVE EXPRESSION FORMS. MYSTICAL SYMBOLISM AND\n NA\u00cfVE IMITATION\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Thinite Period \u2502Mycenean Age \u2502Persian- \u2502Merovingian-\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Seleucid \u2502 Carolingian\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Period \u2502 Era\n \u2502(3400-3000) \u2502(1600-1700) \u2502(500-0) \u2502(500-900)\n \u2502 \u2502Late-Egyptian \u2502Late-Classical \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 (Minoan) \u2502 (Hellenistic)\u2502\n \u2502 \u2502Late-Babylonian \u2502Late-Indian \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 (Asia Minor) \u2502 (Indo- \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Iranian) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =EXCITATION= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =CULTURE.= LIFE-HISTORY OF A STYLE FORMATIVE OF THE ENTIRE INNER-BEING. FORM-\n LANGUAGE OF DEEPEST SYMBOLIC NECESSITY\n =I. EARLY PERIOD=\u2502OLD KINGDOM \u2502DORIC \u2502EARLY-ARABIAN \u2502GOTHIC\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 FORM-WORLD. \u2502\n =(Ornament and \u2502(2900-2400) \u2502(1100-500) \u2502(Sassanid, \u2502(900-1500)\n architecture as \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Byzantine, \u2502\n elementary \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Armenian, \u2502\n expression of the\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Syrian, \u2502\n young world- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Sab\u00e6an, \u2502\n feeling.) (The \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u201cLate- \u2502\n \u201cPrimitives\u201d)= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Classical\u201d \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 and \u201cEarly \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Christian\u201d \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (0-500) \u2502\n \u2502 _1. Birth and Rise. Forms sprung from the Land, unconsciously\n \u2502 shaped_\n \u2502Dynasties IV-V. \u250211th to 9th \u25021st to 3rd \u250211th to 13th\n \u2502 \u2502 Centuries \u2502 Centuries \u2502 Centuries\n \u2502(2930-2625) \u2502 \u2502Cult interiors \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Basilica, \u2502Romanesque and\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Cupola \u2502 Early-Gothic\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (Pantheon as \u2502 vaulted\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Mosque) \u2502 cathedrals\n \u2502Geometrical \u2502Timber building \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Temple style \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Pyramid temples \u2502Doric column \u2502Column-and-arch\u2502Flying buttress\n \u2502Ranked plant- \u2502Architrave \u2502Stem-tracery \u2502Glass-painting,\n \u2502 columns \u2502 \u2502 filling \u2502 Cathedral\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 blanks \u2502\n \u2502Rows of flat- \u2502Geometric \u2502Sarcophagus \u2502sculpture\n \u2502 relief \u2502 (Dipylon) style\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Tomb statues \u2502Burial urns \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _2. Completion of the early form-language. Exhaustion of possibilities.\n Contradiction_\n \u2502VI Dynasty \u25028th and 7th \u25024-5th Centuries\u250214-15th\n \u2502 (2625-2574) \u2502 Centuries \u2502 \u2502 Centuries\n \u2502Extinction of \u2502End of archaic \u2502End of Syrian, \u2502Late Gothic and\n \u2502 pyramid-style \u2502 Doric-Etruscan \u2502 Persian, and \u2502 Renaissance\n \u2502 and epic- \u2502 style \u2502 Coptic \u2502\n \u2502 idyllic relief\u2502 \u2502 pictorial art\u2502\n \u2502 style \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Floraison of \u2502Proto-Corinthian-\u2502Rise of mosaic-\u2502Floraison and\n \u2502 archaic \u2502 Early-Attic \u2502 picturing and\u2502 waning of\n \u2502 portrait- \u2502 (mythological) \u2502 of arabesque \u2502 fresco and\n \u2502 plastic \u2502 vase \u2502 \u2502 statue. From\n \u2502 painting \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Giotto\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (Gothic) to\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Michelangelo\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (Baroque).\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Siena,\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 N\u00fcrnberg. The\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Gothic\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 picture from\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Van Eyck to\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Holbein.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Counterpoint\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 and oil-\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 painting\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =II. LATE PERIOD \u2502MIDDLE KINGDOM \u2502IONIC \u2502LATE-ARABIAN \u2502BAROQUE\n (Formation of \u2502(2150-1800) \u2502(650-350) \u2502 FORM-WORLD \u2502(1500-1800)\n a group of arts \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (Persian-Nest-\u2502\n urban and con- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 orian, Byz- \u2502\n scious, in the \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 antine-Arm- \u2502\n hands of individ-\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 enian, Islam- \u2502\n uals) (\u201cGreat \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ic Moorish) \u2502\n Masters\u201d)= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (500-800) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _3. Formation of a mature artistry_\n \u2502XIth Dynasty. \u2502Completion of \u2502Completion of \u2502The pictorial\n \u2502 Delicate and \u2502 the temple- \u2502 of the mosque-\u2502 style in\n \u2502 telling art \u2502 body (Peri- \u2502 interior (Cen-\u2502 architecture\n \u2502(Almost no \u2502 pteros,stone) \u2502 tral dome of \u2502 from Michel-\n \u2502 traces left) \u2502The Ionic col- \u2502 Hagia Sophia) \u2502 angelo to Ber-\n \u2502 \u2502 umn \u2502 \u2502 nini (d. 1680)\n \u2502 \u2502Reign of fresco- \u2502Zenith of mos- \u2502Reign of oil-\n \u2502 \u2502 painting till \u2502 aic painting \u2502 painting from\n \u2502 \u2502 Polygnotus \u2502 \u2502 Titian to Rem-\n \u2502 \u2502 (460) \u2502 \u2502 brandt (d.\n \u2502 \u2502Rise of free \u2502Completion of \u2502 1664)\n \u2502 \u2502 plastic \u201cin \u2502 the carpet- \u2502Rise of music\n \u2502 \u2502 the round\u201d \u2502 like arabesque\u2502 from Orlando\n \u2502 \u2502 (\u201cApollo of \u2502 style (Machat-\u2502 Lasso to H.\n \u2502 \u2502 Tenea\u201d to \u2502 ta) \u2502 Sch\u00fctz (d.\n \u2502 \u2502 Hageladas) \u2502 \u2502 1671)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _4. Perfection of an intellectualized form-language_\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502XIIth Dynasty \u2502Maturity of \u2502Ommayads \u2502Rococo\n \u2502 (2000-1788) \u2502 Athens (480- \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 350) \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Pylon-temple, \u2502The Acropolis \u2502(7th-8th \u2502Musical\n \u2502 Labyrinth \u2502 \u2502 Century) \u2502 architecture\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (\u201cRococo\u201d)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Character- \u2502Reign of \u2502Complete \u2502Reign of\n \u2502 statuary and \u2502 Classical \u2502 victory of \u2502 classical\n \u2502 historical \u2502 plastic from \u2502 featureless \u2502 music from\n \u2502 reliefs \u2502 Myron to \u2502 arabesque \u2502 Bach to\n \u2502 \u2502 Phidias \u2502 over \u2502 Mozart\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 architecture \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 also \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502End of strict \u2502 \u2502End of\n \u2502 \u2502 fresco and \u2502 \u2502 classical\n \u2502 \u2502 ceramic \u2502 \u2502 oil-painting\n \u2502 \u2502 painting \u2502 \u2502 (Watteau to\n \u2502 \u2502 (Zeuxis) \u2502 \u2502 Goya)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _5. Exhaustion of strict creativeness. Dissolution of grand form. End of the Style.\n \u201cClassicism\u201d and \u201cRomanticism\u201d_\n \u2502Confusion after \u2502The age of \u2502\u201cHaroun-al- \u2502Empire and\n \u2502 about 1750 \u2502 Alexander \u2502 Raschid\u201d \u2502 Biedermeyer\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (about 800) \u2502\n \u2502(No remains) \u2502The Corinthian \u2502\u201cMoorish Art\u201d \u2502Classicist\n \u2502 \u2502 column \u2502 \u2502 taste in\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 architecture\n \u2502 \u2502Lysippus and \u2502 \u2502Beethoven,\n \u2502 \u2502 Apelles \u2502 \u2502 Delacroix\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =CIVILIZATION.= \u2502EXISTENCE WITHOUT INNER FORM. MEGALOPOLITAN ART AS A COMMONPLACE:\n \u2502 LUXURY, SPORT, NERVE-EXCITEMENT: RAPIDLY-CHANGING FASHIONS IN\n \u2502 ART (REVIVALS, ARBITRARY DISCOVERIES, BORROWINGS)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _1. \u201cModern Art.\u201d \u201cArt problems.\u201d Attempts to portray or to excite the megalopolitan\n consciousness. Transformation of Music, architecture and painting into mere craft-\n arts_\n \u2502Hyksos Period \u2502Hellenism \u2502Sultan \u250219th and 20th\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 dynasties of \u2502 Centuries\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 9th-10th \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Century \u2502\n \u2502(Preserved only \u2502Pergamene Art \u2502 \u2502Liszt, Berlioz,\n \u2502 in Crete; \u2502 (theatricality)\u2502 \u2502 Wagner\n \u2502 Minoan art) \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502Hellenistic \u2502Prime of \u2502Impressionism\n \u2502 \u2502 painting modes \u2502 Spanish- \u2502 from\n \u2502 \u2502 (veristic, \u2502 Sicilian art \u2502 Constable to\n \u2502 \u2502 bizarre, \u2502 \u2502 Leibl and\n \u2502 \u2502 subjective) \u2502 \u2502 Manet\n \u2502 \u2502Architectural \u2502Samarra \u2502American\n \u2502 \u2502 display in the \u2502 \u2502 architecture\n \u2502 \u2502 cities of the \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 Diadochi \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _2. End of form-development. Meaningless, empty, artificial, pretentious\n architecture and ornament. Imitation of archaic and exotic motives_\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502XVIII Dynasty \u2502Roman Period \u2502Seljuks (from \u2502From 2000\n \u2502 (1580-1350) \u2502 (100-0-100) \u2502 1050) \u2502\n \u2502 Rock temple of\u2502 Indiscriminate \u2502 \u201cOriental \u2502\n \u2502 Dehr-el-Bahri.\u2502 piling of all \u2502 Art\u201d of the \u2502\n \u2502 Memnon- \u2502 three orders. \u2502 Crusade \u2502\n \u2502 Colossi. Art \u2502 Fora, theatres \u2502 period \u2502\n \u2502 of Cnossos and\u2502 (Colosseum). \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Amarna \u2502 Triumphal \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 arches \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n _3. Finale. Formation of a fixed stock of forms. Imperial display by means of\n material and mass. Provincial craft-art_\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502XIX Dynasty \u2502Trajan to \u2502Mongol Period \u2502From 2000\n \u2502 (1350-1205) \u2502 Aurelian \u2502 (from 1250) \u2502\n \u2502Gigantic \u2502Gigantic fora, \u2502Gigantic \u2502\n \u2502 buildings of \u2502 therm\u00e6, \u2502 buildings \u2502\n \u2502 Luxor, Karnak \u2502 colonnades, \u2502 (e.g. in \u2502\n \u2502 and Abydos. \u2502 triumphal \u2502 India) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 arches \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Small-art (beast\u2502Roman provincial \u2502Oriental craft-\u2502\n \u2502 plastic, \u2502 art (ceramic, \u2502 art \u2502\n \u2502 textiles, \u2502 statuary, arms)\u2502 (rugs,arms, \u2502\n \u2502 arms) \u2502 \u2502 implements) \u2502\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n TABLE III. \u201cCONTEMPORARY\u201d POLITICAL EPOCHS\n \u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2564\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\u2550\n \u2502_EGYPTIAN_ \u2502_CLASSICAL_ \u2502_CHINESE_ \u2502_WESTERN_\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =PRE-CULTURAL PERIOD.= PRIMITIVE FOLK. TRIBES AND THEIR CHIEFS. AS YET NO\n \u201cPOLITICS\u201d AND NO \u201cSTATE\u201d\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502Thinite Period \u2502Mycenean Age \u2502Shang Period \u2502Frankish Period\n \u2502(Menes) \u2502(\u201cAgamemnon\u201d) \u2502 \u2502(Charlemagne)\n \u25023400-3000 \u25021600-1100 \u2502(1700-1300) \u2502(500-900)\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n =CULTURE.= NATIONAL GROUPS OF DEFINITE STYLE AND PARTICULAR WORLD-FEELING. \u201cNATIONS.\u201d\n WORKING OF AN IMMANENT STATE-IDEA\n I. EARLY PERIOD. _Organic articulation of political existence. The two prime classes\n (noble and priest)._\n _Feudal economics; purely agrarian values_\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =1. Feudalism. \u2502OLD KINGDOM \u2502DORIC PERIOD \u2502EARLY CHOU \u2502GOTHIC PERIOD\n Spirit of country- \u2502 (2900-2400) \u2502 (1100-650) \u2502 PERIOD \u2502 (900-1500)\n side and country- \u2502Feudal conditions\u2502The Homeric \u2502 (1300-800) \u2502 Roman-German\n man. The \u201cCity\u201d \u2502 of IV Dynasty \u2502 king \u2502The central \u2502 Imperial per-\n only a market or \u2502Increasing power \u2502 \u2502 (Wang) \u2502 iod\n stronghold. Chiv- \u2502 of feudatories \u2502Rise of the \u2502 pressed \u2502Crusading nob-\n alric-religious \u2502 and priest- \u2502 nobility \u2502 hard by the \u2502 ility\n ideals. Struggles \u2502 hoods \u2502(Ithaca. Et- \u2502 feudal nob- \u2502Empire and\n of ideals. Strug- \u2502The Pharaoh as \u2502ruria, Sparta) \u2502 ility \u2502 Papacy\n gles of vassals \u2502 incarnation of \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n amongst them- \u2502 Ra \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n selves and a- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n gainst overlord= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =2. Crisis and \u2502VI Dynasty. \u2502Aristocratic \u2502934-904. I-Wang \u2502Territorial\n dissolution of \u2502 Break-up of the\u2502 synoecism \u2502 and the vassals\u2502 princes\n patriarchal forms \u2502 Kingdom into \u2502 Dissolution of\u2502 \u2502 Renaissance\n From feudalism to \u2502 heritable \u2502 kinship into \u2502 842. \u2502 towns.\n aristocratic State=\u2502 principalities.\u2502 annual offices\u2502 Interregnum \u2502 Lancaster and\n \u2502 VII and VIII \u2502 Oligarchy \u2502 \u2502 York\n \u2502 Dynasties, \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 1254\n \u2502 interregnum \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Interregnum\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n II. LATE PERIOD. _Actualizing of the matured State-idea. Town versus countryside. Rise of\n Third Estate (Bourgeoisie)._\n _Victory of money over landed property_\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =3. Fashioning of a\u2502MIDDLE KINGDOM \u2502IONIC PERIOD \u2502LATE CHOU PERIOD \u2502BAROQUE PERIOD\n world of States of \u2502 (2150-1800) \u2502 (650-300) \u2502 (800-500) \u2502 (1500-1800)\n strict form. \u2502 XIth Dynasty. \u2502 6th Century. \u2502 Period of the \u2502 Dynastic\n Frondes= \u2502 Overthrow of \u2502 First \u2502 \u201cProtectors\u201d \u2502 family power,\n \u2502 the baronage by\u2502 Tyrannis. \u2502 (Ming-Chu 685- \u2502 Fronde\n \u2502 the rulers of \u2502 (Cleisthenes, \u2502 591) and the \u2502 (Richelieu,\n \u2502 Thebes. \u2502 Periander, \u2502 rulers of \u2502 Wallenstein,\n \u2502 Centralized \u2502 Polycrates, \u2502 Thebes. \u2502 Cromwell)\n \u2502 bureaucracy- \u2502 the Tarquins.)\u2502 congresses of \u2502 about 1630.\n \u2502 state \u2502 The City- \u2502 princes (-460) \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 State. \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =4. Climax of \u2502XIIth Dynasty \u2502The pure Polis \u2502Chun-Chiu per- \u2502Ancien R\u00e9gime.\n the State-form \u2502 (2000-1788) \u2502 (absolutism of \u2502 iod (\u201cSpring\u201d \u2502 Rococo.\n (\u201cAbsolutism\u201d) \u2502Strictest cent- \u2502 the Demos). \u2502 and \u201cAutumn\u201d), \u2502Court nobility\n Unity of town and \u2502 ralization of \u2502 Agora politics \u2502 590-480 \u2502 of Versailles.\n \u201cSociety.\u201d The \u2502 power \u2502Rise of the \u2502Seven powers \u2502 Cabinet poli-\n \u201cthree estates\u201d)= \u2502Court and fin- \u2502 tribunate \u2502Perfection of \u2502 tics\n \u2502 ance nobility \u2502Themistocles, \u2502 social forms \u2502Habsburg and\n \u2502 \u2502 Pericles \u2502 (Li) \u2502 Bourbon.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502Louis XIV.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Frederick the\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Great\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =5. Break-up of \u25021788-1680. Rev- \u25024th Century. \u2502480. Beginning \u2502End of XVIII\n the State-form \u2502 olution and \u2502 Social revol- \u2502 of the Chan- \u2502 Century. Rev-\n (Revolution and \u2502 military govern-\u2502 ution and Sec- \u2502 Kwo period \u2502 olution in Ame-\n Napoleonism). \u2502 ment. Decay of \u2502 ond Tyrannis \u2502 \u2502 ica and France\n Victory of the \u2502 the realm. Small\u2502 (Dionysius I, \u2502 \u2502 (Washington,\n city over the \u2502 potentates, in \u2502 Jason of Phe- \u2502441. Fall of \u2502 Fox, Mira-\n countryside (of \u2502 some cases \u2502 rae, Appius \u2502 the Chou dyn- \u2502 beau, Robes-\n the \u201cpeople\u201d \u2502 sprung from the \u2502 Claudius the \u2502 asty \u2502 pierre)\n over the priv- \u2502 people \u2502 Censor) \u2502Revolutions and \u2502\n ileged, of the \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 annihilation- \u2502_Napoleon_\n intelligentsia \u2502 \u2502_Alexander_ \u2502 wars \u2502\n over tradition, \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n of money over \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n policy)= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n\n =CIVILIZATION.= THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, NOW ESSENTIALLY URBAN IN CONSTITUTION,\n DISSOLVES INTO FORMLESS MASS. MEGALOPOLIS AND PROVINCES. THE FOURTH\n ESTATE (\u201cMASSES\u201d), INORGANIC, COSMOPOLITAN\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =1. Domination of \u25021680 (1788) \u2502300-100. Politi-\u2502480-230. Period \u25021800-2000. XIXth\n Money (\u201cDemocracy\u201d)\u2502 -1580. Hyksos \u2502 cal Hellenism. \u2502 of the \u201cContend-\u2502 Century. From\n Economic powers \u2502 period. Deepest \u2502 From Alexander \u2502 ing States\u201d \u2502 Napoleon to the\n permeating the pol-\u2502 decline.Dicta- \u2502 to Hannibal and\u2502288. The Imperial\u2502 World-War.\n itical forms and \u2502 tures of alien \u2502 Scipio royal \u2502 title \u2502 \u201cSystem of the\n authorities= \u2502 generals (Chian)\u2502 all-power; from\u2502The imperialist \u2502 Great Powers,\u201d\n \u2502After 1600 \u2502 Cleomenes III \u2502 statesmen of \u2502 standing arm-\n \u2502 definitive \u2502 and C. Flamin- \u2502 Tsin \u2502 ies, constit-\n \u2502 victory of the \u2502 ius (220) to \u2502From 289 incorp- \u2502 utions. XXth-\n \u2502 rulers of \u2502 C. Marius, rad-\u2502 oration of the \u2502 Century trans-\n \u2502 Thebes \u2502 ical demagogues\u2502 last states in \u2502 ition from\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 the Empire \u2502 constitutional\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 to informal\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 sway of indivi-\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 duals. Annihi-\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 lation\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 wars.Imperialism\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Imperialism\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =2. Formation of \u25021580-1350. \u2502100-0-100. Sulla\u2502 \u2502\n C\u00e6sarism. Victory \u2502XVIIIth Dynasty \u2502to Domitian \u2502250-0-26. House }\u2502\n of force-politics \u2502 \u2502 \u2502of Wang-Cheng }\u2502\n over money. In- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502and Western Han }\u25021000-1200\n creasing primitive-\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Dynasty }\u2502\n ness of political \u2502Thuthmosis III \u2502C\u00e6sar, Tiberius \u2502221. Augustus }\u2502\n forms. Inward de- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 -title (Shi) }\u2502\n cline of the nat- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502of Emperor }\u2502\n ions into a form- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Hwang-Ti }\u2502\n less population, \u2502 \u2502 \u2502140-80. Wu-ti }\u2502\n and constitution \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n thereof as an Imp- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n erium of gradually-\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n increasing crudity \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n of despotism= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n =3. Maturing of the\u25021350-1205. XIXth \u2502100-300. Trajan \u250225-220 A.D. }\u2502\n final form. Private\u2502Dynasty \u2502 to Aurelian \u2502 Eastern Han }\u2502after 1200\n and family policies\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Dynasty }\u2502\n of individual \u2502Sethos I \u2502Trajan, Septi- \u250258-71. Ming-ti }\u2502\n leaders. The world \u2502 \u2502 mius Severus \u2502 \u2502\n as spoil. Egyptic- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n ism, Mandarinism, \u2502Rameses II \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Byzantinism. His- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n tory less stiffen- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n ing and enfeeble- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n ment even of the \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n imperial machin- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n ery, against young \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n peoples eager for \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n spoil, or alien \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n conquerors. Primi- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n tive human condi- \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n tions slowly \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n thrust up into the \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n highly-civilized \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n mode of living= \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\nThe use of an extra \u2018S\u2019 in the name of \u2018Hagia S Sophia\u2019 on p. 200 is\nquestionable. If it is an abbreviation of \u2018Saint\u2019 as it is a line early,\nit is redundant here given the word \u2018Hagia\u2019, meaning the same thing.\n\nOn p. 407, footnotes 508 and 509 refer to the same work, _Religion und\nKultus der R\u00f6mer_. However the citation of the first note is garbled, as\n_Kult. und. Relig. d. R\u00f6mer_.\n\nIn the Index, a reference to the effect on natural science of the\nRelativity Theory was corrupted as \u201819;4\u2019. The proper page is p. 419,\nand the reference is corrected.\n\nThe page reference to a note on Goethe and Materialism should have been\nto p. 111, not p. 211.\n\nThe page references in footnote 486 most likely refer to Volume II,\nsince the two pages mentioned contain no pertinent material.\n\nThere are a number of index entries which refer to footnotes on a given\npage while the topics appear in the main text. This would seem to\nindicate that the preparation of the Index was not reviewed after the\nfinal version of the text was complete. These references have been\namended to direct the reader to the correct page:\n\nIntercultural Contemporaneity (multiple times) (p. 112), Frescos (p.\n225), Tasso (p. 325),\n\nThe reference to Saint John and world-history as a note on p. 18 seems\nincorrect. Footnote 13 on that page refers to the Apostle Paul. The\nreference is left unlinked.\n\nOn p. vi of the Index, a cross-referenced \u2018Motherland\u2019 topic is missing.\n\nMinor punctuation lapses in the Index have been corrected without\nfurther notice.\n\nOther errors deemed most likely to be the printer\u2019s have been corrected,\nand are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the\noriginal.\n\n xvii.18 Geometry and arith[e]metic Removed.\n 8.4 lead to a naturalistic[,] Chronology Removed.\n 8.27 there is certain[t]ly no world-history Removed.\n 12.29 unparallel[l]ed in art-history Removed.\n 25.19 all these arbit[r]ary> and narrow schemes Inserted.\n 26.39 occurring f[u/o]r us Replaced.\n 37.20 and theor[i/e]tically Replaced.\n 62.42 de [s]oudainet\u00e9 et de certitude absolue Added.\n 82.30 The Greek m[e/a]thematicians Replaced.\n 126.35 approached these question[s] Added.\n 128.18 a glad materialization of the sp[i]ritual. Inserted.\n 129.39 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 [\u1f10\u03af/\u03b5\u1f34]\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c4[\u1f40\u03c5/\u03bf\u1f50]\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c3[\u03c5/\u1f7a]\u03bd Replaced.\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7.\n 129.41 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 ... [\u1f05/\u1f03] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u2019 Replaced.\n 133.43 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c3[\u03ccu/o\u1fe6]\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc[\u03b5/\u1f72]\u03bd [\u1f25/\u1f21] \u039c\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 Replaced.\n \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5)\n 134.36 \u201cHandbook of Early Christian Antiquities)\u201d[.] Added.\n 134.43 \u201cHandbook of May on Antiquities.[\u201d] Added.\n 150.41 was th[o]roughly English in spirit Inserted.\n 191.22 (mitschwingen i[n/m] Lebenstakte) Replaced.\n 200.16 Hagia [S ]Sophia in Constantinople Removed.\n 212.30 Here there was no brill[i]ant instant Inserted.\n 213.42 Ency. Brit., XI Ed.[)] Added.\n 227.28 to the harp[is/si]chord Transposed.\n 269.24 absorbed philos[o]pher Inserted.\n 269.38 impor[t]ant and significant Inserted.\n 270.34 comp[a]re his unbridled dynamism Inserted.\n 271.43 Oldach, Wasmann[,] Rayski and many another Inserted.\n 277.18 he shattere[e]d the canon Removed.\n 288.39 it is so th[o]roughly irreligious Inserted.\n 290.31 something of Rembrandt\u2019s p[ro/or]traiture Transposed.\n 299.6 Every professed philos[o]pher Inserted.\n 302.27 the essen[s/c]e of the soul Replaced.\n 307.16 of _our_ Nature-picture[.] Added.\n 307.40 Ges[s/c]h. d. neueren Philosophie Replaced.\n 313.42 \u03bf\u1f54\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd[ ]\u03b5\u03ba\u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd Inserted.\n 318.6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0[\u1ff6/\u03c9]\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1[[\u03b1/\u03ac]\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Replaced.\n 330.25 that would not i[n/m]pugn the primacy Replaced.\n 333.43 quite independently of gunpow[d]er Inserted.\n 355.8 oppressive actualiti[t]es Removed.\n 360.18 sp[i]ritual prostitution Inserted.\n 363.31 what should be dest[r]oyed Inserted.\n 373.30 der politischen [O/\u00d6]konomie Replaced.\n 400.36 Mo[v/r]eover, it is only Replaced.\n 410.2 in its attitude to[r]wards toleration Removed.\n a.iii.20 _See_ Bart[h]olommeo Removed.\n a.v.41 Calculus, and Classical astro[mon/nom]y Transposed.\n a.vi.17 ancest[o]ral worship Removed.\n a.xii.33 Western math[e]matic and term Inserted.\n a.xiii.47 wi[ds/sd]om and intellect Transposed.\n a.xxv.45 intellect and wi[ds/sd]om Transposed.\n a.xxviii.38 Tartini, G[ui/iu]seppe Transposed.\n a.xxix.42 [\u2018/\u201c]space of time\u201d Replaced.\n a.xxxi.11 Wey[ ]den, Rogier van der. Removed.\n t3.20 dis[s]olution of Inserted.","title":"The decline of the West, Volume 1 : $b Form and actuality","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":231688}