ANDTHEIRRELATIONTOMODERNTHOUGHTI NCLUDINGMEISTERECKHART,TAULER, PARACELSUS,JACOBBOEHME, GIORDANOBRUNO, ANDOTHERS ... BY\Ph.D. (Vienna)AU T HO RISEDTRANSLATION T HE GE RMAN BYBERTRAMKEIGHTLEY, M.A. (Caneab.)G. P. PUTNAM'S SONSNEWYORKANDLONDON 'lkn(cJterbocJt er t:lr es s191 1C OPYRIGHT , I g HBYMAX GYSIMAX GYSI, Editor,H Ad ya r-;" Park Drive,Lond on, N. W.CONTENTSPAGEF OREWORD . vI NTRODUCTION IMEISTER ECKHART S2FRIENDSHIP WITH GOD [TAULER, SUSOAND RUYSBROECK] . 8 1C ARDINAL NICHOLAS OF CUSA 133AGRIPPA VON NETTESHEIM AND THEO-PHRASTUS PARACELSUS 182VALE NTI NE WEIGEL AND jACOB BOEHME 223G IORDANOBRUNOANDA NGELUSSILESIUS 246AFTERWORD. 269iiiFOREWORDTHEmatter which I amlaying beforethe public in t his book formed thecontent of lectures which I deliveredduring last winter at the TheosophicalLibrary inBerlin. Ihadbeenrequest edbyGrafin andGraf Brockdorff .t ospeakupon Mysticismbefore an audienceforwhomthematters thus dealt withcon-stit ute a vital question of the utmostimport ance. Ten years earlier I couldnot have ventured to fulfil such a re-quest . Not that therealmof ideas, towhich I nowgive expression, did notevent henliveactivelywithinme . Forthese ideas are al ready full y containedin my Philosophy of Freedom (Berlin,1894. Emil Felber) . But to give ex-vvi FOREWORDpression to this world of ideas III suchwiseas I doto-day, andt omakeit thebasisof an exposition asis done onthefollowing pages-to do this requiressomething quite other than merely tobe immovably convinced of the intel-lectual truthof theseideas. It demandsan intimate acquaintance wit hthis realmofideas, suchasonlymanyyearsoflifecan give. Only now, after having en-joyed that intimacy, do I venture tospeak in such wise as will be found inthisbook.Anyone who does not approach myworld of ideas wit hout preconceptionsissureto discover thereincontradictionafter contradiction. I have quite re-cently(Berlin, 1900. S. Cronbach) dedi-catedabook upont heworldconceptionsof the nineteenthcentury to that greatna turalist , Ernst Haeckel, and closed itFOREWORD viiwith a defence of his thought -world.In the following expositions, I speakabout theMystics, fromMaster EckharttoAngelus Silesius, with a full measure ofdevotion and acquiescence. Other " con-tradictions,"whichonecriticoranothermayfurther count upagainstme, Ishallnot mentionat all. It doesnot surpriseme tobecondemnedfromone sideas a., Mystic" and from the other as a"Materialist." When I find that theJ esuit Father Muller has solveda diffi-cultchemical probl em, andI therefore int his particular matter agree with himunreservedly, one can hardly condemnmeas anadherent ofJ esuitismwithoutbeing reckoned afool bythose whohaveinsight .Whoever goes his own road, as I do,must needs allow many a misunder-standing about himself t o pass. That,Vl11FOREWORDhowever, he can put up with easilyenough. For such misunderst andingsare, in themain, inevitable inhi s eyes ,whenherecalls the mental typeofthosewho misjudge him. I look back, notwithout humorous feelings, upon manya "critical" judgment that I have suf-fered inthecourse of myliterarycareer.At the outset, matters went fairl ywell.I wrote about Goethe and his philosophy.What I said there appeared to many tobeof such a naturethattheycouldfileitin their mental pigeon-holes. This theydidbysaying: "AworksuchasRudolfSteiner's Introductionto Goethe'sWritingsuponNatural Science may, without hesi-tation, bedescribedas thebest that hasbeenwrittenuponthisquestion. "When, later, I published an inde-pendent work, I had already grown agood bit more st upid. For nowa wellFOREWORD I Xmeaning criti c offered the advice: " Beforehegoes on reformingfurther andgiveshis Philosophy of Freedomto theworld,heshould bepressinglyadvi sed first t owork himself through to an understandingof these two philosophers [Hume andKant]." The critic unfortunately knowsonly so much as heis himself abl e toreadin Kant and Hume; practically, there-fore , hesimply advisesmetolearn toseenomore inthese thinkers than hehim-self sees. WhenI have attained that, hewill be satisfied with me. Then whenmyPhilosophyandFreedomappeared, Iwasfoundtobeasmuchinneedof cor-rect ion as the most ignorant beginner.This I received froma gentl eman whoprobably nothing else impelled t o thewritingofbooksexcept that hehadnotunderstood innumerable foreign ones.He gravely informs me that I should havexFOREWORDnoticed my mistakes if I had IC mademore thorough studies in psychology,logic, and the theory of knowledge";andhe enumerates forthwith thebooksI ought to read to become as wise ashimself: IC Mill, Sigwart, Wundt, Riehl,Paulsen, B. Erdmann." What amusedme especially was this advice from amanwho was so IC impressed" withtheway he IC understood" Kant that hecould not even imagine howany mancould have read Kant and yet judgeotherwise than himself. He thereforeindicates to me the exact chapters inquestionin Kant's writings fromwhichI may be able to obtainanunderstandingof Kant as deep and as thorough ashis own.I havecitedhere a coupleof typicalcriticisms of my worldof ideas. Thoughin themselves unimportant , yet theyFOREWORD XIseemto me to point, as symptoms, tofacts which present themselves to-dayas serious obstacles in the pathof anyoneaimingat literaryactivityinregardto the higher problems of knowledge.Thus I must goonmyway, indifferent,whether onemangivesme thegoodad-vice toreadKant, or anotherhuntsmeas a heretic because Iagree with Haeckel.AndsoI havealsowrittenuponMysti-cism, wholly indifferent as tohow a faith-fur andbelievingmaterialist mayjudgeofme. I wouldonly like-so that prin-ters' ink may not bewasted wholly with-out need-toinformanyonewhomay,perchance advise me to readHaeckel'sRiddle of the Universe, that during thelast fewmonthsI havedelivered aboutthirtylectures uponthesaidwork.I hope to have shown in this bookthat onemay be a faithful adherent ofXlI FOREWORDthe scientific concepti on of t he worldandyet beableto seekout thosepathsto the Soul along which Mysticism,rightly understood, leads. I even gofurther andsay: OnlyhewhoknowstheSpirit, in the sense of true Mysticism, canattaina full underst andingof the factsof Nature. But one must not confusetrue Mysticismwith the "pseudo-mys-t icism "of ill-ordered minds. HowMys-t icism can err, I have shown in myPhilosophy of Freedom (page 131 etseq.).RUDOLF STEINER.BERLIN, September, 1901.MYSTICS OFTHE RENAISSANCEMystics of theRenaissanceINTRODUCTIONTHERE are certain magical formulsewhichoperatethroughout the cent uriesof Man 's mental history in ever newways. I n Greece one such formulawas regardedas anoracleof Apollo. Itruns: "KnowThyself." Suchsentencesseemto concealwithinthemanunend-ing life. One comes upon them when fol-lowingthemost diverse roadsinmentallife. The further one advances, the moreone penetrates into the knowledge oft hings , the deeper appears the significanceof these formulas. I n many a momentofour broodingandthinking, theyflashI2 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEout likelightning, illuminating our wholeinner being. In such moments therequickens within us a feeling as if weheardthe heart-beat of theevolutionofmankind. How close do we not feelourselves to personalities of the past,whenthefeelingcomes overus, throughone oftheirwingedwords, thattheyarerevealingtous that they, too, hadhadsuch moments!We feel ourselves then brought intointimate touch with these personalities.For instance, we learn to knowHegelintimately when, in the third volumeof his Lectures on the Philosophy ofHistory we come across the words:" Such stuff, one may say, the abst rac-tions that we contemplate when weallowthe philosophers to quarrel andbatt le inourst udy, andmakeit out tobet hus or so-mere verbal abst ract ions !, rINTRODUCTION3No! No! Theseare deeds of theworld-spirit andthereforeofdestiny. Thereinthe Philosophers arenearer tothe Masterthanarethosewhofeedthemselveswiththe crumbs of the spirit; they read orwritetheCabinet Ordersintheoriginalat once; they are constrained to writethem out along with Him. The Philoso-phersare theMystse who, at the crisisin the inmost shrine, were there andtookpart." When Hegel said this, he hadexperienced one of those moments justspoken of. He uttered the phrases when,in the course of his remarks, he hadreached the close of Greek philosophy;andthroughthemheshowedthat once,like a gleamof lightning, the meaningoftheNeoplatonicphilosophy, ofwhichhe was just treating, had flashed uponhim. In the instant of this flash, he hadbecome intimate with minds like Plotinus4 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEand Proklus; and we become intimatewithhim whenwereadhiswords.We become intimate, too, with thatsolitary thinker, thePastor ofZschopau,M. ValentinWeigel, when we read theopeningwords of his little book KnowThyself, written in1578: "We read in thewise men of oldthe useful saying, 'KnowThyself,' which, thoughit be right wellused about worldly manners, as thus:'regard well thyself, what thouart, seekin thine own bosom, judge thyself andlay no blame on others,' a saying, Irepeat, which, though thus used of humanlife andmanners, maywell andappro-priatelybeappliedbyus tothenaturalandsupernatural knowing of the wholeman;soindeed, thatmanshall not onlyconsider himself and thereby rememberhow he should bear himself before people,but that he shall also know his own, t- '/ /, r '0'(I NTRODUCTION5nature, innerandouter , inspirit andinNature; whencehe comethandwhereofheis made, towhat end heis ordained."So, frompointsof viewpeculiartohim-self, Val entinWeigel attainedtoinsightwhich inhis mindsummeditself upinthis oracleof Apollo.A similar path toinsight and alikere-lation_to t he saying" Know Thyself" maybe ascribed to aseries of deep-naturedthinkers, beginning withMaster Eckhart(1250-1327) , and ending with AngelusSilesius (1624-1677), amongwhommaybefoundalso Valentin Weigel himself.All thesethinkers havein common ast rong senseof the fact that in man' sknowing of himself there rises a sunwhichilluminates somet hingverydiffer-ent fromthemereaccidental, separatedpersonality of thebeholder. 'What Spi-noza became consciousof inthe ethereal6 MYSTICS OFTHERENAISSANCEheightsof purethought,-viz. , that "thehumansoul possesses anadequateknow-ledge of t he Eternal and Infinit e BeingofGod ,"-that same consciousnesslivedinthemas immedi atefeeling; and self-knowl edgewasto themt hepathleadingto t his Et ernal and Infinit e Being. Itwas clear to themthat self-knowledgeinit strueformenriched manwith a newsense, whichunlocked for hima worldstandingin relationt othe world acces-sible tohimwithout this newsense asdoes the worldof one possessing physicalsightt o t hat of ablindman.I t would be difficult t ofind a bett erdescription of the import of t his new sensethant heonegivenby] . G. Ficht einhisBerlinLectures (1813) :" Imaginea worldof men bornblind,t owhomall objects and t heir rel ationsare known only through t he sense ofINTRODUCTION7touch. Goamongst themandspeakt othem of colours and other relations,which arerenderedvisibleonlythroughlight . Either you are talking to themof nothing,-and if they say this, it isthe luckier, for thus you will soon seeyour mistake, and, if you cannot opentheir eyes, cease your useless talking,-or, for some reason or other, theywillinsist upon giving somemeaning or otherto what you say; then they can onlyinterpret it in relation to what theyknow by touch. They will seek tofeel, they will imagine they do feellight and colour, and the other inci-dents of visibility, they will inventsomethingfor themselves, deceivethem-selves with somethingwithin theworldof touch, which they will call colour.Then they will misunderstand, distort,and misinterpret it ."8 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEThe same thing applies to what thethinkerswe arespeaking of sought after.Theybeheldanewsenseopening inself-knowledge, and this sense yi elded, ac-cording to their experiences, views ofthings which are simply non-existentfor one who does not see in self-knowledgewhat distinguishes it fromall other kindsof knowing. One in whom this new sensehasnot beenopened, believesthat self-knowing, or self-perception, is the samething as perception through the outersenses, or through any other meansacting from without. He thinks: "Know-ingis knowing, perceiving is perceiving."Onlyintheonecasetheobj ect issome-thinglyingintheworldoutside, intheother this obj ect is his own soul. Hefinds wordsmerely, or at best, abstrac tt hought s, inthat which for t hose who seemore deeply is t he very foundation ofINTRODUCTION9t heir inner life; namely, in the propo-sition: that in every other kind ofknowingor perception wehavetheob-ject perceivedoutsideofourselves, whi lein self-knowledge or self-perceptionwestand wit hin that object ; that we seeeveryother object comingto us alreadycompleteandfinishedoff, whilein our-selves we, as actors and creators, are weav-ing that which we observe within us.This may appear t o be nothing but amerelyverbal explanation, perhapsevenatriviality; itmayappear, ont heot herhand, asahigherlightwhichilluminat esevery othercognition. Onetowhomitappears in t he first way, is in the po-sitionof ablind man, to whom one says :t here is a glittering object. He hears thewords, but for him the glitter is not there.Hemight unit e inhimself the whole sumof knowledge of his time; but if he10 MYSTresOFTHERE NAISSANCEdoes not feel andrealisethesignificanceof self-knowledge, thenit is all, in thehigher sense, a blind knowledge.The world, outsideofandindependentof us, exists for us by communicatingitself to our consciousness. What is thusmadeknownmustneedsbeexpressedinthe language peculiar to ourselves. Abook, the contents of whichwereofferedina languageunknowntous, wouldforus be without meaning. Similarly, theworldwould be meaningless for us didit not speak to us inour owntongue; andthe same language which reaches usfromthings, we also hear fromwithinourselves. But in that case, it is we our-selves whospeak. Thereallyimportantpoint ist hat weshouldcorrectlyappre-hend the transposition which occurs whenwecloseour perceptionagainst ext ernalthings andlistenonlyt o that whichthenrI NTRODUCTION 1 1speaks from within. But to do thisneeds this newsense. If it has notbeenawakened, we believe that in what isthustold usaboutourselves we are hear-ingonly about somethingexternaltous ;we fancy that somewherethere is hiddensomething whichis speakingtousinthesame way asexternal things speak. Butif we possess this new sense, then weknow thattheseperceptionsdiffer essen-t ially from those relating to externalt hings. Then we realise that this newsense does not leave what it perceivesoutside of itself, as the eye leaves theobject it sees; but that it cantake upits obj ect whollyintoitself, leaving noremainder. IfI seeathing, that thingremainsoutsideofme ; ifI perceive my-self, then I myself enter into my per-cept ion. Whoever seeks for somethingmoreofhimselft hanwhat isperceived,m MYSTICSOF THERENAISSANCEshows therebythatfor himtherealcon-tent inthe perceptionhas not cometolight. Johannes Tauler (1300-1361), hasexpressed this truth in the apt words:"IfI were akingandknewit not, thenshouldI be noking. IfI donot shineforthfor myself inmyown self-percep-tion, then formyself Idonot exist. Butiffor myself I doshineout, thenI pos-sess myself alsoinmy perception, in myown most deeplyoriginal being. Thereremainsnoresidueofmyself leftoutsideof myperception."J. G. Fichte, in the following words,vigorously points to the difference be-tween self-perception and every otherkind of perception: " The majority ofmencouldbe moreeasil ybroughtt o be-lieve themselves a lump of lava in themoon than an ' ego.' Wh oever is notat one with himself as to this, under-INTRODUCTION13stands nothorough-going philosophy andhas need of none. Nature, whose ma-chine he is, will guide himin all thethingshehasto dowithout anysort ofadded help from him. For philosophising,self-relianceisneeded, andthisone canonlygive to oneself. We ought not towant tosee without the eye; but alsoweought not tomaintainthat it isthe eyewhichsees."Thustheperceptionofoneself is alsothe awakening of oneself. Inour cog-nition we combine the being of thingswith our own being. The communi-cations, whichthingsmaketous inourown language, become members of ourown selves. An object in front of meis not separatedfromme, once I haveknown it. What I amable to receivefromit becomespart andparcel of myownbeing. If, now, I awakenmy own14 MYSTICS OFTHERE NAI SSANCEself, ifI becomeawareofthecontent ofmyowninner being, thenI alsoawakent o a higher mode of being, that whichfromwit hout I have made part of myown being. The light t hat falls uponme at my awakening falls also uponwhatever I have made myownfromt hethings of the outside world . A lightspringsupwit hinme and iiluminesme,and wit hmeall thatI have cognised oft he world. Whatever I might know wouldremain blind knowledge, did not thislight fall upon it. I mi ght search theworld through and through wit h myperception ;st ill t he worldwouldnot bethatwhichinme it must become, unlessthat percepti onwere awakenedinmet oahigher modeofbeing.That whi ch I add to things throught hisawakeningisnot anewidea, isnotan enrichment of t he content of myINTRODUCTIONISknowing; it isanupliftingoftheknow-ledge, oft hecognit ion, t o ahigherlevel,whereeverythingissuffusedwithanewglory. So longasIdo not raise my con-sciousness tothis level, all knowledge con-tinuestobefor me, inthehighersense,valueless. Thethingsaretherewithoutmy presence. They have their beingin themselves. What possible meaningcouldtherebe in mylinkingwiththeirbeing, which they have outside and apartfromme, another spiritual existence inaddit ion, which repeats the things overagainwithinme?Ifonlyamererepeti-ti onof thingswereinvolved, it wouldbesenselessto carryit out. But, really, amere repetition is only involved so long asIhave not awakened, along with my ownself, themental content of thesethingsuponahigher level. Whenthisoccurs,thenI havenot merelyrepeatedwithin16 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEmyself the being of things, but I havebrought it toa newbi rth on a higherlevel. With the awakening of my self,thereis accomplishedaspirit ual re-birthof the things of the world.What the things revealinthis re-birthdid not previously belong to them. There,without, stands thetree. I take it up in-to my consciousness. I throw myinnerlight upon that whichI havethuscon-ceived. Thetree becomesinme morethan it is outside. That in it which findsentrance through the gate of the sensesistakenup into a conscious content. Anideal replica of the tree is within me, andthat has infinitelymoretosay about thetree than what the tree itself, outside, cantell me. Then, for the first t ime thereshinesout fromwithinme, t owards t hetree, whatthe t reeis. The t ree is nowno longer the isolatedbeingthat it is outINTRODUCTION17there in space. I t becomes a link IIIthe entire conscious worldthat lives inme. I t links its content with other ideasthat are inme. It becomes amember ofthewhole worldof ideas that embracesthe vegetable kingdom; it takes itsplace, further, in the series of all thatlives.Another example: I throw a stoneinahorizontal directionawayfromme.I t movesinacurvedlineand after sometime falls to the ground. I see it insuccessive moments of time indifferentplaces. Through observation and re-flectionI acquirethe following: Duringits motion the stone is subject to differentinfluences. If it were subject only totheinfluenceoftheimpulsewhichI im-parted to it, it would go on flying forever in a straight line, without alteringits velocity. But now the earth exerts an2I S MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEinfluence uponit . It attracts the stonet owards itself. If, instead of throw-ingthestone, I had simplylet it go, itwould have fallen vertically to earth;and itsvelocity in doingso would haveconstantlyincreased. Fromthemutualinteraction of these twoinfluences arisesthat which I actuallysee.Let us assume that I could not int houghtseparate thetwoinfluences, andfromthis orderly combination put to-gether again in thought what I see: inthat case, the matter would endwiththeact ual happening. It would be mentallyablind staring atwhat happened; aper-ceptionof thesuccessivepositionswhichthestoneoccupies. But inactual fact ,matters do not stop there. The wholeoccurrence takes place twice. Once out-side , andthenmyeyeseesit; thenmymind causes the whole happening t oINTRODUCTION19repeat itselfagain, in a mental or con-sciousmanner. Myinnersensemust bedirected upon the mental occurrence,whichmyeye does not see, andthenitbecomes clear to that sense that I, bymy own inner power,awaken that occur-rence as a mental one.Again, another sentence of J. G.Fichte's may be quoted which bringsthis fact clearly before the mind."Thus the new sense is the sense forthe spirit; that for which there existsonly spirit and absolutely nothingelse,andforwhichalsothe'other,' the givenbeing, assumes the formof spirit andtransforms itself into spirit, for whichtherefore being in its own proper formhas actually disappeared. . .. Therehas been the faculty of seeing withthis sense ever since men have existed,andall thatis great andexcellent inthe20 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEworld, which alone upholds humanity,originates in what has been seen by meansof this sense. It is, however, not thecase that this sense has been perceivedor known in its difference and its con-trast with that other, ordinary sense.The impressions of thetwosenses meltedintoone another, lifefell apartinto thesetwo halves without a bond of union."Thebondof unionis createdbythefact that the inner sense grasps in itsspirituality the spiritual element whichit awakens in its intercourse with theouter world. That which we t ake upinto our consciousness from outsidethings thereby ceases to appear as amere meaningless repetition. It appearsas something new over against that whichonlyexternal perceptioncangive. Thesimpleoccurrenceoft hrowingt hest one,andmy perceptionthereof, appear inaINTRODUCTIONhigher light when Imakeclear tomyselfthe kind of task which my inner sensehas to performinregard to thewholething. In order to fit together in thoughtthe two influences and their modes ofaction, anamount of mental content isneeded which I must already haveac-quiredwhen I cognise the flying stone.I therefore apply a spiritual contentalready stored upwithin me to somethingthatconfrontsmeintheexternalworld.And this occurrence in the externalworld fitsitself intothe spiritual contentalreadypresent. It reveals itself in itsown special individuality as anexpres-sion of this content.Through the understanding of myinner sense, there is thus di sclosed t ome the nature of the relation thatobtains between the content of thissense and the things of t he external22 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEworld. Fichte would say that withoutthe understanding of this sense, t heworldfalls apart for meinto t wo halves :int othings outsideof me, and int opic-tures of t hese things within me. Thetwo halves become united when theinner self understands it self and con-sequentl yrecognises clearly what sort ofillumination it throws upon things inthe cognitive process. AndFicht e coul dalsoventure tosaythatthisinnersensesees only Spirit. For it perceives howtheSpirit enlightens thesense-worldbymaking it part andparcel of the spirit ualworld. The innersense causes the outersense-world to arise within itself as aspirit ua l being on ahigherlevel. Anex-ternalobject is complet elyknown whenthereisnopartof it whichhasnot thusundergone a spirit ual re-bi rth. Thusevery external object fits it self into a'v /, )INTRODUCTION23spirit ual content, which, when it hasbeengraspedbythe inner sense, sharesthe destiny of self-knowledge. The spiri-tual content, which belongstoan obj ectthrough its illumination from withi n,merges itself wholly, like the very self,into theworld of ideas, leaving no re-mainder behind.These developments contain nothingwhich is susceptible or even in need oflogical proof. They are nothing butthe results of inner experience. Who-ever calls into question this content ,shows only that he is lacking in thisinner experience. It is impossible t odispute with him; as little could onediscuss colour with a blindman.It must not, however, be contendedthat this inner experience is made pos-sible only throughthe special endowmentofafew chosenpeople. It is acommon24 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEproperty. Every one can enter uponthe path to this experience who doesnot of hisownwill shut himself againstit. This closing up of oneself againstit, is, however, common enough. And indealingwithobjectionsraisedinthis di-rection, one alwayshas thefeelingt hatit is not so much a matter of peoplebeing unable to attain this inner ex-perience, as of their having hopelesslyblockedtheentrance to itwithall kindsof logical spiders' webs. Itisalmost asif some one lookingthrougha telescopeand discovering a new planet shouldyet denyitsexistencebecausehis calcu-lations haveshown that therecanbenoplanet in that position.Butwithall thisthereisst illinmostpeopl e the clearly marked feeling t hatall that reallyliesinthebeingofthingscannot becomplet elygiveninwhat t heINTRODUCTIONouter senses and the analysing under-standing can cognise. They then be-lieve that the remainder so left over mustbejust asmuchintheexternal worldasarethethings of our perceptions them-selves. Theythinkthat theremust besomething which remains unknown tocognition. What they ought to attainby againperceiving with theinner sense,on ahigher pl ane, the very object whichtheyhavealreadycognisedandgraspedwith the understanding,-this they trans-fer as something inaccessible and unknownintotheexternal world. Thentheytalkof the limits of knowledgewhich preventour reaching the "thing-in-itself." Theyt alkof theunknown " being "of things.That thisvery" being " of t hingsshinesout whenthe inner sense lets it s lightfall upon the things, is what they willnot recognise. The famous " Tgnora-26 MYSTICSOFTHERENAISSANCEbimus " speechofthe scientist, DuBoi s-Reymond, in the year 1876, furnisheda particularly blatant example of thiserror. vVe are supposed to be able toget in everydirectiononlysofar as tobe able to see in all natural processesthemanifestations of "matter." What"matter" itself is, we are supposed tobeunabletoknow. DuBois-Reymondcontendsthat weshall never succeedinpenetratingtowherever it is that" mat-ter" leadsits ghostlylife inspace. Thereason why we cannot get there lies,however, inthe fact thatthereis nothingwhatsoever t o be looked for there. Who-ever speakslikeDuBois-Reymondmusthave a feeling that the knowledge ofNature yi elds results which point t o asomet hingfurther andother which Na-ture-knowledgeitselfcannot give. Buthe refuses t ofollow theroad ,- theroad1. I -, .