Cneprrn I

THE , IDEA T HE RA T I O N A L AND THE NON-RATIONAL

O F' T HE, HO LY
An Inquiry into the non-rationalf actor
p is essentialto every theistic conceptionof God, and most
I of all to tlle Christian, that it designatcs and precisely
characterizesdeity by the attributes spirit, reason,purpose,
good will, supreme power, unity, selfhood. T_C-!e!UI9-9f
G.,o
e

in the rdea ol the diaine and its -i.e.

@. Now all theseattributes
reLation to the rational constitute clear and definite concepts: they can be graspedby
the intellcct; they can be analysedby thought; they even
BY admit of definition. An object that can thus be thought con-
ceptually may be termed rational. The nature of deity de-
RUDOLF OTTO scribed in the attributes above mentioned is, then, a rational
naturel and a religion which recognizesand maintains such
a view of God is in so far a 'rational' religion. Only on such
TRANSLATED BY terms is b-zliy' possible in contrast to mere feeling. And, of
Christianity at least it is false that 'feeling is all, the name
.loHN \V. HARVEY but soundand smoke';r-where 'name' standslor conception
or thought. Rather we count this the very mark and criterion
of a religion's high rank and superior value-that it should
have no lack of conteplions about God; that it should admit
knowledge-the knowledge that comes by faith----of the
transcendentin terms of conceptual thought, whether those
already mentioned or others which continue and develop
them. Christianitynot only possesses such conceptionsbut
possesses them in unique clarity and abundance, and this is,
though not the sole or even the chief, yet a very real signofits
superiority over religions of other forms and at other levels.
This must be assertedat the outsetand with the rnostpositive

@ emphasis.
But, when this is granted, we have to be on our guard
4gainst an error which t'ould lead to 499!g_a!d_S4ggded \(
A GAI,AXY BOOK interpretation of religion. This is the view that thg_gsgleg
r Goethc, Faat .
NewYork oxFoRD uNlvERSlrY PREss 1956
 TIIE RATIO NAL AND THA NO N- RA T I O N A L T I IE R ATION AL AN D TH E N ON - R ATION AL
of deiW can be Aiven completely and exhaustivelv in such It is not that which is commonly asserted,that
rationalism is
lrational' attributions as have been referred to above and in _{re denial, and its.oppositet}r" oiA;;i;;;"r.
others-Iike
them.ffi is. manilestly a wro{rg or"m.rnutiorr,
at least'a very s;peificial
{l1t
are prompted to it by the traditional language ofedification, di$ieglisn.Fo.th"ffi, u,
with its characteristic phraseologyand ideas; by the learned the occasional breach in the causal ;""r; i;;;;;;"";y
Being who himself instituted and must tt .
treatment of religious themes in sermon and theological b.'ir"lt." of
instruction; and further even by our Holy Scripturesthem- it-this theory is itself as massivelytutionui-r.
"."fo.. itlr'p."iUf"
selves. In all these casesthe'rational' element occupiesthe to be. Rationalists have often enough acquicsced^
possibility of the miraculous in this in the
foreground, and often nothing elseseemsto be presentat all. i."r.; if,.v fr*"'.""r,
But this is after all to be expected. All language, in so far ss themselvescontributed to frame a theory ;ii;_*;;..",
rlrgnqigts of words, prrrports to convey ideas or concepts;- anti-rationalists have becn often indiffereni to
the whole .oo_
the more clearly and troversy about miraclcs. The differencebetwe."
@s;-and .",ioiuti.*
nt-*"" qqd its- opposite is to be found elsewhere. ft
..r.f"* lar.ii
expositions ol religious truth in language inevitably tend to rather into a pe.culiardifference o_fazaliil in
the menJl atti
stressthe 'rational' attributes of God, lude atd emotigr-,aI.co.,tent of the .JG[Glife itseF All
But though the above mistakeis thus a natural one enough, dependsupon this: in ou, of god i_s tG non_rutionul
_id-e_a
it is none t}te lessseriously misleading. For so far are these
H!-qq,9"+_p9rl aeswhotly.1cFdg$b; the ratioJ,rr
?
-that Ur conversely,doesthe non_rationalitselfp-eponderateover
'lational' attributesfrom exhausting-theideiol dejiv,
t-heyin fact imply a non-rational or supr4-rational Subiectof the rational? Looking at the matter thus, we
see th;t the
They are 'essential' (and not common dictum, that orthodoxy itself has U."., tf,.
)yhich_lhqjlgfredicatq. moih." ot
merely 'accidental') attributes of that subject, but they are rationalism, is in somemeasure,$€ilfounded. fri,
Jr.pfy
also, it is important to not!c!, slntheticessentialattributes. preoccupied rvith doctrinf anJ ".i
,ilil;_s
That is to say
ll1,^.3"1::1,*as
or dogma, tor thesehave been no lessa concern ofthe
wildeJ
mystics. It is rather that orthodoxy found in the
fonstruaion
can be. comprehended in them: which rather requirescom- g{ dogma and doctrine no way io do justice
ao ,t ,rorr_
Yet, though it eludesthe rational aspcctof its subject. So far froir t"epi"g;i;;""_ "
@.
conceptual way of understanding, it must be in someway rational element in religion alive io the hea.i#ih""
;;i;i"".
er other within our grasp, elseabsolutely nothing could be experience,orthodox Christianity manilestly fbil;
;;:;"g_
assertedof it. And even mysticism, in speaking of it as zri .nize i1 v.1lu.e,and by this faiiure gave to the idea of God a
d.ppqrov,the ineffable, does not really mean to imply that one-sidedly intellectualistic and raiionalistic int".p..tutii.r.
absolutely nothing can be assertedofthe object ofthereligious This bias to rationalization still prevails,
;rfi; ;;;."_
consciousness;othen,'ise, mysticism could exist only in un- Iogy but in the scienceofcomparative religion "o,in
,"a
broken silence,whereaswhat hasgenerally been a character- from top to bottom of it. Th.r"oa..r, .tui"r,t; *.ri...f,
;i;'r-h.i;gy,
istic of the mystics is their copiouseloquence, and Lhosewho pursucrcsearchinro the rcligion
man' and attempt to reconstruct the .base"s, "a;;;l;l;""
Here for the first time we come up against the contrast o" .rJ,r.".ri
religion, are all victims to it. Men do not, of course,l;;1"r" of
between rationalism and profounder religion, and with this
contrast and its signswe shall be repeatedlyconcernedin what casesemploythoselofty ,rational' .on..pi, *t i.f,
*" iook,,
follows. We have here in fact the first and most distinctive our point ofdeparture; but they tend to take tt
mark of rationalism, with which all the rest are bound up. and their gradual .evolution' as setting tfr. *"i" "r" "o.r..o.,.f
p..ti"_
 TIIE RATI O NAL AND TI I E NO N. R A T I O N A L
their inquiry, and fashion ideas and notions of lower value,
which they regard aspaving the way for them. tlis always in
lLe,rtqsof concepts and ideas that the subject is pursued,
'lLatural' ones,moreover, such as havea place in the general
sphereof man's ideational life, and are not specifically'reli-
gious'. And then with a resolution and cunning which one
can hardly help admiring, men shut their eyesto that which
ilquite unique !n the religious experience,even in its most
primitive manifestations. Butit is rather a matter for astonish-
--frent
than for admiration ! For if there be any sinsle domain
that
it is that of the religious life. In truth the enemy has often
a keener vision in this matter than either the champion of
religion or the neutral and professedlyimpartial theorist.
For the adversarieson tlieir side know very well that the
entire 'pother about mysticism' has nothing to do with
'reason'and'rationality'.
And so it is salutarv that we should be incited to notice that
religion is not exclusively contained and exhaustivelycom-
series of'rational' assertions:and it is well
worth while to a relation of the different
This attempt we are now to make with respectto tl-lequite
distinctive category of tJre holy or sacred.
I
Cnaprrn II
. NUM E N ' AND THE'NUMINOUS'
'13'or,wEss'-'the holy'-is a categoryof interpretation and
I Ivaluation peculiarto the sphereofreligion. Itis,indeed,
applied by transferenceto another sphere-that of ethics-
but it is not itself derived from this. While it is complex, it
contains q._q_Uj:!g_!pggi_qcelement or 'moment', which setsit
[-w-gaveT6-Elt
word above, and w}4h rgrneln!.jl9lplggqe-an d.ppqrovor
ipdgljle-in the sense that it completel),eludesalrprehension
in..termsof concepts. The sametl-ringis true (to take a quite
different region ofexperience)of the categoryofthe beautiful.
Now thesestatementswould be untrue from the outset if
'the holy' were merely what is meant by the word, not only
in commonparlance, but in philosophical,and generally even
in theological usage. The fact is we have come to use the
urords'holy', 'sacred' (heilig)in an entirely derivative sense,
quite diflerent from that which they originally bore. We
generallytake 'holy' as meaning 'completely good'; it is the
absolutemoral attribute, denotingthe consummationof moral
goodness. fn this senseKant calls the rvill which remains
unwaveringly obedient to the moral law from tJre motive of
duty a'holy' will; here clearly we have simply the perJectu
moral w-iJl. In the same way we may speak of the holiness
or sanctity of duty or law, meaning merely that they are
imperative upon conduct and universally obligatory.
But this common usage of the term is inaccurate. It is
true that all this moral significanceis contained in- the.w-o1d
'holy', but it includes in addition-as even we cannot but
f."1-u_493! ry..p]g: rfugggling, and this it is now our task
to isolate. Nor is this merely a later or acquired meaning;
rather, 'holy', or at least the equivalent words in Latin and
Greek, in Semitic and other ancient languages,denoted first
and foremost only this overplus: if the ethical element was
presentat all, at any rate it was not original and never con-
s-ti-1qted
the whole meaning of the word. Aly one who usesit
to-day doesundoubtedly alwaysfeel 'the morally good' to be
6 'NuttlE x'argo rB r 'Nuur No u s '
'Nutrnu' AND TrrE tNUMlNous'
implied in 'holy' ; and accordingly in our inquiry into that
element which is separateand peculiar to the idea ofthe holy Omezhas given us 'ominous', and there is no reasonwhv from
it will be useful, at least for the temporary purpose of the numenwe should not similarly form a word .numinous'. I
investigation, to invent a specialicrm to stand6r lEe [oly' shall speak,then, ofa unique 'numinous' category of value
z and of a definitelv'numinous'stateoimind. wlicn:G-*"y,
mi@i... @. Thismentalstateis
It will be our endeavour to suggestthis unnamed Some- perfectly fd.qrzlru and ineducibl@; and there-
thing to the reader as far as we may, so that he may himself fo.., llk" ubrolot. ,
""..y
f..l it. ]vhile it admits ofbeing discussed,it cannot bestrictly defined.
real innemost core. and wift There is only one way to help another to an understanding
worthy of the name, It is pre-eminently a living force in the 9f it. H9 must be guided and led on by consideration
Semitic religions, and of these again in none has it such q4d discussionof the matter through thi ways of his own
vigour as in that of the Bible. Here, too, it has a name of its rrind, until he reach the point at which 'the numinous, in
own, viz. the Hebrew qdddsh,to which the Greek dyos and bi[r perforcebeginsto stir, to start into life and irrto conscious-
theLatin sanctus,and, more accurately still, sacer,are tJ:'ecor- ness. We can co-operatein this processby bringing before
responding terms. It is not, of course,disputed that these his notice all that can be found in other regionsof the mind,
terms in all three languagesconnote,aspart oftheir meaning, alriidy k.town and familiar, to resemble, ir again to afford
good,absolutegood.ness, when, that is, the notion has ripened somespecial confrast to, the particular experiencewe wish
and reached the highest stage in its development. And we to elqcidate. Then we must add: 'This X of ours is not pre-
then use the word 'holy' to translate them. But this 'holy' ciselyrrlr experience,but akin to this one and the opposite of
I that other. Cannot you now realize for yourselfwhat it is?'
meaning, gl lvhat we shall call the 'schematization',of what fn other words ggr )K cannot, shictly speaking,be taught, it
was a unique original feeling-response, which can be in iself can only be euo
ethically neutral and claims consideration in its own right. urat comes-ot the sDrnt'must be awakened.
And when this moment or element first emergesand begins
its long development, all those expressions(qaddsh,dyws,
sacer,&c.) mean beyond all question something quite other
than 'the good'. This is univenally agreedby contemporary
criticism, which rightly explains the rendering of qdd|shby
'good' as a mistranslation and unwarranted 'rationalization'
or 'moralization' of the term.
Accordingln it is worth while, as we have said, to find
a word to stand for this element in isolation, this 'extra' in
-the meaning of 'holy' above anil-Eeyffif tEC meaffi bT
'-+--
goodneis. By mgan-ol llllllllllllspecial_term
we dffiIft[e Edtter be
able, first, to keep the meaning clearly apart and distinct, and
secp4{, to apprehend and classify connectedly u'hatever sub-
ordlnate forms or stages of development it may show. For
this purpose I adopt a word coined from the Larn numen.

C n e p rrn IIf
T H E EL EME N T S IN T H E 'N UMINOUS'
Creature-Fceling
r-|rnr reader is invited to direct his mind to a moment of
l
L deeplv-iblt religiousexperience,as little aspossiblequali-
fied by other forms of consciousness.Who€ver cannot do this,
Whoqv€r knows no such moments in his experience, is re-
quested to read no farther; for it is not easyto discussques-
ggng of lgligious plychology with one who can recollect the
c.-motions ofhis adolescence,the discomfortsofindigestion, or,
say, social feelings, but cannot recall any intrinsically reli-
gious feelings, We do not blame such an one, when he tries
for himself to advance as far as he can with the help of such
principles ofexplanation ashe knows,interpreting 'aisthetics'
in terms of sensuouspleasure, and 'religion' as a function of
the gregarious instinct and social standards,or as something
more primitive still. But the artist, who for his part has an
intimate personalknowledge of the distinctive element in the
aesthetic experience, will decline his theories with thanlc,
and the religious man will reject them even more uncom-
promisingly.
Next, in the probing and analysisof such statesof the soul
as that of solemn worship, it will be well if regard be paid to
what is unique in them rather than to what they have ia
common with other similar states. To bg_"optjgJoEblpj:
onejling; to be morally ullifted by the contemplation of a
good deed is another; and it is not to their common features,
but to those e..!.ements
of emotiona t thgrefore only def,nable through itself. Tt may perhaps help
that we would have at le.
As Christians we undoubtedly here first meet with feelings
familiar enough in a weaker form in other departments of
experience,suth as feelingsofgratitude, trust, love, reliance,
humble submission,and dedication. But this doesnot by any
I to plead with God for the men of Sodom,he says (Gen. xviii.
means exhaust the content of religious worship. Not in any
of these have we got the special features of the quite urlique
p. In what
does this consist?
THE ELEM ENTS I N THE'Nult t t xous' g
Schleiermacherhasthe credit ofisolating a very important
element in such an experience. This is the '&li.S_"ol_de:
pendence'. But this important discoveryof Schleiermacher
is open to criticism in more than one respect.
In the first place, the leeling or emotion which he really
has in mind in tiis phraseis in its specificquality not a'feel-
ing of dependence'in the 'natural' senseof the word. As
such, other domains of life and other regions of experience
than the religious occasionthe feeling, as a senseof personal
insufficiencvand impotence,a consciousness of being deter-
mined by circumstancesand environment. The feeling of
which Schleiermacherwrote hasan undeniableanalogy with
tbes9_$Al$_qfuSi"d: t}.ey serveas an indication to it, and its
44!ury_!q3y.bgelucidatedby them, so tlat, by following the
diryclion in which they point, the feeling itself may be spon-
t_aneouslyfelt. But the feeling is at the same time also
gq4!i!41ty-elv different fiom such analogous states of mind.
Schleiermacherhimself, in a way, recognizesthis by distin-
guishing the f-eelingof pious or religiousdependencefrom all
other feelinqsof depeqdence.I_Iismistakeis i1 6aking the
d-lqqiqcfonmerely that between'absolute' and 'relative' de-
pendence, and therefore a difference of degree and not of
intrinsic quality. What he overlooksis that, in giving the
feeling the name 'feeling of dependence'at all, we are really
employing what is no more than a very closeanalogy. Any-
one who comparesand conhaststhe t\.vostatesof mind intro-
spectivelywill find out, I think, what I mean. It cannot be
elpresqg! by means of anything else,just because it is so
_pdmary and elementary a datum in our psychical life, and
e
'moment' or element of religious feeling of w-hich we are
.speakingis most activelv present. \{hen Abraham ventures
z7): 'Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the
Lord, which am but dust and ashes.' There you have a self-
confesed 'feeling of dependence',which is yet at the same
tirne far more thaq and sometl-ringother tJran, nvrel2 afeeling
of dependence. Desiring to give it a name of its owa, I
 .T'TU U IWOU S'
IO T HE E L E M EN T s IN T H E ' x rl tr(tN ous' THE EL EM EN TS IN TH E II

uroposeto call it 'creature-consciousness'

or creature-feeling. Now this object is just what we have already spoken of as
It i; themd iird ovaiwlelma 'the numinous'. For the 'creature-feeling' and the senseof
bv lts own nothlngness ln contrast to that whrch rs suDreme dcoendence to arise in the mind the 'numen' must
above all creatures. as
a numenoraesens- the
It is easilyseenthat, once again, qhisphrase,whatever it is, Abraham. There must be l-elt a
i:; r,ot a conceptual explanation of the matter. All that this new ins the charactet of a 'numen' to which
term, 'creature-fecling', can express,ir tlg mind turns
g!!Slnlo ngqfngness "S!9-g!1Cbqg!C-
before an overpowering, absolutemight other words) these feelinqscan only arise in the mind as
- ; - - -- - ,;- ,- ----
ef some kind i whereas eve@
this overpowering might, a character which cannot be ex- t!_s!lgd iggrlay.
pressedvirballv, and can@gh The numinous is thus felt as objective and outsidethe self.
the tone and content of@ And We have now to inquire more closely into its nature and the
this responsemust be directly experiencedin oneselfto be modesof its manifestation.
q4dentood.
ir dcbarrcd by his cmpiricist and pragmatist standpoint from coming to a
We have now to note a second defect in tl-reformulation of rccognition of facultics of Lnowledgc and potcntialiti€s of thought in the sPirit
Schleiermacher'sprinciple. The religiouscategorydiscovered itsclf, and he is thcrcforc obliged to havc tccoursc to somewhat singular and
mysterious hypothcscs to cxplain this fact. But hc graspsthc fact itself clearly
by him, by whose means he professes to determine the real cnough and is sufficicnt ofa realist not to cxplain it away. But this 'feeling of
content ofthe religious emotion, is merely a category of sef rcality', the fceling of a 'numinous' oD;actobjectively givcn, must be posited as
valuation, in the senseofself-depreciation.According to hrm a primary imrncdiate datum of consciousncss,and the 'feeling of depcndencc'
is then a corscqucncc, following very closely upon it, viz. a dcprcciation of drc
the religious emotion would be directly and primarily a sort flrrJ'r.! in bis ou! cycs. Thc latter presuppos.s the forod,
ofsef-consciousness, a feeling concerningoneselfin a special,
deterrnined relation, viz. one's dependence.Thus, according
to Schleiermacher,f can onlv comeupon t}le verv fact ofc_od
as the result of an

But this is entirely opposed to the

! This is so manifcsdy bornc out by expcriencc that it must bc about tlrc fiist
thing to fotcc itself upon the notice of psychologists analysing the facts of rcli-
gion. Thcrc is a certain naivetC in the following passagefrom \\tilliam Jamcs's
VarLtics of Rcligiotts Expcri.ncc (p. 58), where, alluding to the origin of thc
Crecian repr€sentationsofthe gods, he says:'As regards the origin ofthe Grcek
gods, we need not at present seek an opinion. But the whole array of our
instances leads to a conclusion somethrng likc this: It is as if thcre wcre in thc
hrrman consciousness d senscoJ /.al;tt, a f..ling oJ objcdirc ptescne, a pctceplion ol
athatwctio y a,.lL" sotwthing thcrc" , motc dc4 and more geucral than any of thc
spccial and particular "scnses" by which thc currcnt psychology supposcs €r.ist-
cnt realitics to bc originally rcvcaled.' (Thc italics are James's ou,n.) Jamce

i

CneprE,n IV
.M YS TE RIUM
TRE ME NDUM'
TheAnaQsisof 'Tranendwn'
1 1 p said above that the nature of the numinous can only
V ! be suggestedby mcansof the specialway in wbich it is
reflected in the mind in terms of feeling. 'Its nature is such
that it grips or stirs the human mind with this and that deter-
minate affective state.' We have now to attempt to give a
further indication of thesedeterminatestates. We must once
again endeavour, by adducing feelingsakin to them for the
purpose of analogy or contrast, and by the use of metaphor
and symbolic expressions,to make the statesof mind we are
investigating ring out, as it were, of themselves.
Let us consider the deepestand most fundamental element
in all strong and sincerelyfelt religiousemotion. Faith unto
salvation, trust, love-all theseare there. But over and above
theseis an element which may also on occasion,quite apart
from them, profoundly affect us and occupy the mind with a
wellnigh bewildering strength. Let us follow it up with every
effort of sympathy and imaginative intuition wherever it is to
be found, in the lives of those around us, in sudden, strong
ebullitions of personal piety and the frames of mind such
ebullitions evince, in the fixed and ordered solemnities of
rites and liturgies, and again in the atmospherethat clings
to old religious monumentsand buildings, to temples and to
churches. If we do so we shall find we are dealing with
something for which there is only one appropriate expression,
'mysteriumtremendum'.The feeling of it may at times come
sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tran-
quil mood of deepestworship. It may passover into a more
set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it rvere,
thrillingly vibrant and resonant,until at last it diesaway and
the soul resumesits 'profane', non-religiousmood of everyday
experience, It may bunt in sudden eruption up from the
depths of the soul with spasmsand con'ulsions, or lead to the
strangest excitements, to intoxicated fienzy, to transport, and
'uvstrnluu TREMENDUM- r3
to ecstasv. It has its wild and demonic forms and can sink to
an almost grisly horror and shuddering' It has its crude,
barbaric ariteced.t ts and early manifestations, and again it
mav be developed into sornethingbeautilul and pure and
gloiiorls. It may becomethe hushed,trembling, -andspeech-
Iess humility of the creature in the presence of--whom. or
what? In the presenceof that which is an2ster2inexpressible
and above all creaturcs.
It is again evident at once that here too our attempted
formulation by means of a concept is once more a merely
negative one. Conceptu ally mlsleriumdenotes merely that
wh-ichis hidden and esoteric,that whichisbeyond conception
or understanding,extraordinary and unfamiliar' The term
does not define ihe object more positively in its qualitative
character. But though what is inunciated in the word is
ncgativc, what is meant is sometling aholutely and intensely
ooiitive.'This pure positive we can experiencein feelings,
ieelineswhich oiur discussioncan help to make clear to us, in
so faias it arousesthem actually in our hcarts'
r. nu Elenrnt oJ Awefulness
To get light upon the positive 'quale'of the,object of these
feeling-s,*" analysi more closelyour phrase mysterium
tremenrlum, ^rr.t
and we will begin first with the adjective'
Tremoris in itself merely the perfectlyfamiliar and 'natu-
ral' emotion offar. But here the term is taken, aptly enoygh
but still only by analogy, to denote a quite specific kind.of
emotional risponse,whol1y distinct from that of being afraid,
though it so lar resemblesit that the analogy of fear may
be us-edto throw light upon its nature- There are in some
lansuaqesspecialexpressionswhich denote,either exclusively
o, In iil. fi.st instu.tce, this 'fear' that is more than fear
orooer. The Hcbrew hiqdtsh(hallow) is an example' To
:keep a thing holy in the heart' mears to mark it off by a
feeling ofpeculiar dread, not to be mistakenfor any ordinary
dreadl that is, to appraiseit by the categoryofthe numinous'
But tlie Old Testament throughout is rich in parallel expres-
sions for this feeling. Specialiy noticeable is the'En^4hof
Yahweh ('fear of God'), which Yahweh can pour forth,
 r4 t My s rE R ru M
T R E M EN D uMT
dispatching almost like a daemon, and which seizesupon a
man with paralysing effect. It is closely related to the Eeipo,
ravm\v of the Greeks. Compare Exod. xxiii. e7 : 'I will send
my fear before thee, and will destroyall the people to whom
thou shalt come. . .'; alsoJob ix. 34; xiii. zr ('let not hisfear
terrify me'; 'Iet not thy dread make me afraid'). Here we
have a terror fraught with an inward shuddering such asnot
even the most menacing and overpowering created thing can
instil, It hassomethingspectralin it.
In the Greek language we have a correspondingterm in
oepctor6s.The early Christians could clearly feel that the title
oepdoris (augustus)was one that could not fittingly be given
to any creature, not even to the emperor. They felt that to
call a rr'an oepaordswas to give a human being a name proper
only to the numen,to rank him by the category proper only
to tll.e numen,and that it therefore amounted to a kind of
idolatry. Of modern languagesEnglish has the words 'awe',
'aweful', which in their deeper and most special senseap-
proximate closely to our meaning. The phrase, 'he stood
aghast', is also suggestivein this connexion, On the other
hand, German has no native-grown expressionofits own for
the higher and riper form of the emotion we are considering,
unless it be in a word like erschauern, which does suggestit
fairly well. It is far otherwise with its cruder and more
debasedphases,where such termsasgrausenand Schauer, and
the.more popular and telling gruseln('grue'), grdsen,and
grtisslich('grisly'), very clearly designatethe numinous ele-
ment. In my examination of Wundt's Animism I suggested
the term Scfrea(dread) ; but the special 'numinous' quality
(making it 'awe' rather;than 'dread' in the ordinary sense)
would then, of course,have to be denoted by inverted com-
mas. 'Religious dread' (or 'awe') would perhaps be a better
designation. Its antecedentstageis'daemonic dread' (cf. the
horror ofPan) with its queer perversion,a sort of abortive
offshoot, the 'dread of ghosis'. It fint begins to stir in the
. feeling of 'something uncanny', 'eerie', or 'weird'. It is this
feeling which, emerging in the mind of primeval man, forms
the starting-point fot the entire religious development in
history. 'Daemons' and 'gods' alike spring fiom this roo! and
TREMENDUM' r5
'uvsrrnluu
all the products of 'mythological apperception' or 'fantasy'
are nothing but different modesin which it hasbeen objecti-
fied. And all ostensibleexplanationsof the origin of religion
in terms of animism or magic or folk-psychologyare doomed
from tlle outset to wander astray and miss the real goal of
their inquiry, unlessthey recognizethis fact of our nature-
primary, unique, underivable from anything else-to be the
basic factor and the basic impulse underlying the entire
processof religious evolution.t
Not only is the sayingofluther, that the natural man can-
not fear God perfectly, correctfrom the standpointofpsycho-
logy, but we ought to go farther and add that the natural man
is quite unable even to 'shuddet' (grauen)or feel horror in
the real senseof the word. For 'shuddering' is something
more than 'natural', ordinary fear. It implies that the
mystcriousis already beginning to loom beforethe mind, to
touch the feelings. It implies the fint application of a cate-
gory of valuation which hasno place in the everydaynatural
world ofordinary experience,and is only possibleto a being
in whom has been awakeneda mental predisposition,unique
in kind and different in a definite way from any 'natural'
faculty. And this newly-revealed capacitn even in the crude
and violent manifestationswhich are all it atfirst evinces.bears
witness to a completely new function of experience and
standard of valuation, only belonging to the spirit of man.
Before going on to considerthe elementswhich unfold as
the'tremendum' develops,let usgive a little furtherconsideration
to the first crude, primitive forms in which this 'numinous
dread' or azzeshows itselL lt is the mark which really
characterizesthe so-called'religion of primitive man', and
t Cf. my papers in lluologbchzRundschau, r gro, vol- i, on'Myth and Religion
in lVundt's Vijlkalrychologir', and in D.uk.h. Lit falurz.ilung, Igro, No. 38,
I find in more recent investigations, especially those of R. R. Marctt and N.
Sdderblom, a very welcome confirmation of thc positions I thcre maintained.
It is true that lreither of them calls attcntion quite as prcciselyas, in this matter,
psycbologistsneed to do, to the unique character of the relgious 'awe' and is
qualitative distinction from all 'natural' feelings. But Marctt morc particularly
comeswithin a haii's breadth of what I tale to be thc truth about the mattcr.
Cf. his Thrzshold aJ Rcligion (LorLdon, rgog), and N. S6dcrblom's Das l4/ndcn dcs
Gotlzsglaubcns (Leipzig, r9r5), also my review of the latter h Thal. Litetaiur-
ztitung, Ja\\, tgr,S,
16 'lrysrnnruM tnnunltouu,
there it appears as 'daemonic dread'. This crudely nar=ve and
primordial emotional disturbance, and the fantasticimages
to which it givcs rise, are later overborneand oustedby mJre
highly dcveloped forms of the numinous emorion,with all its
mysteriously impelling power, But even when this has long
attained its higher and purer mode ofexpressionit is possibli
for_the primitive typesof excitation that were formerly a part
of it to break out in the soul in all thcir orisinal naivet6and
so to be experienced afresh. That this is sJis shown bv the
potent attraction aEainand again exercisedby the elementof
horror and 'shudder' in ghost stories, even among pen;ons
ofhigh all-round education. It is a remarkablefaci that the
physical reaction to which this unique 'dread' ofthe uncanny
givesrisc is also unique, and is noi found in the caseofany
'natural' fear or terror. We say: 'my blood ran icy cold',
and 'my flesh crept'. The 'cold blood' feeling may be a
symptom of ordinary, natural fear, but there is sometiing
non-natural or supernatural about the symptomof'creeping
fiesh'. And any one who is capable of mbre prcciseintro-
spection must recognize that the distinction bctwcensuch a
'dread' and natural fear is not simply one of degreeand
intensity. The awe or 'dread, may indeed be so overwhelm-
ingly great that it sccmsto penetrate to tJrevery marrow,
making the man's hair bristle and his limbs quake. But it
may also steal upon him almost unobservedas the gentlestof
agitations, a mere fleeting shadow passingacrosshis mood.
It has therefore nothing to do with intensity, and no natural
fear passesover into it merely by being intensified. I may be
beyond all measure afraid and terrified without there being
even a trac€ of tJrefeeling of uncanninessin my emotion.
We should seethe factsmore clearly if psychologyin general
would make a more decisive endeavour to examine and
classifythe feelings and emotions according to their qualita-
tive differences. But the far too rough division of elementary
feelingsin general into pleasuresand pains is still an obstacle
to this. In point of fact 'pleasures' no more than other
feelings are differentiated merely by degreesol'interuity:
they show vcry definite and specificdifferences. It makesa
specific difference to the condition of mind whether the soul
' I r t Ys r r n l u u TREMENDUM' r7
is merely iu a state ofpleasure, orjoy, or aestheticrapturq or
moral exaltation, or finally in the religious bliss that may
come in worship. Such states certainly show resemblances
one to anotier, and on that account can legitimately be
brought under a common class-concept('pleasure'), which
servesto cut them offfrom other psychicalfunctions, generic-
ally different. But this class-concept,so far from turning the
various subordinate speciesinto merely different degreesof
the samething, can do nothing at all to throw light upon the
essenceof each several state of mind rvhich it includes.
Though the numinous emotion in its completestdevelop-
ment showsa world of difference from the mere 'daemonic
dread', yet not even at the highest level does it belie its
pedigree or kindred. Even when the wonhip of 'daemons'
has long since reached the higher level of wonhip of'gods',
these gods still retain as numinasomething of the 'ghost' in the
impress they make on the feelings of the worshipper, viz. the
peculiar quality of the 'uncanny' and 'aweful', which sur-
vives with the qualiry of exaltednessand sublimity or is
slrnbolized by means of it. And this element, softened
though it is, does not disappear even on the highest level of
all, where the worship of God is at its purest. Its disappear-
ance would be indeed an essentialloss. The 'shudder' re-
appearsin a form ennobled beyond measurewhere the soul,
held speechfess, trembles inwardly to the farthest fibre ofits
being. It invades the mind mightily in Christian worship
with the words: 'Holy, holy, holy'; it breaks forth from the
hy.rrn of Tersteegen:
God Himself is present:
Heart, be stilled beforeHim:
Prostrateinwardly adoreHim.
The 'shudder' has here lost its crazy and bewildering note,
but not the ineffable something that holds the mind. It has
become a mystical ar,r'e,and setsfree as its accompaniment,
that 'creature-feetng' that has
reflectedin self-consciousness,
already been described as the feeling of personalnothingness
and submergencebefore the awe-inspiring object directly
experienced.
r8 'rvr:rSfE'nrUU f neUeXpUtrt'
The referring of this feeling numinous trcmor to its object
in the numen brings into relief a property of the latter which
plays an important part in our Holy Scriptures, and which
has been the occasion of many difficulties, both to com-
mentators and to theologians, from its puzzling and baffiing
nature. l'his is the <ippi (orgl), the Wrath of Yahweh, which
recurs in the New Testament as 3pyi10<o0,and which is
clearly analogousto the idea occurring in many religions ofa
mysterious ira deorum. To pass through the Indian Pantheon
of gods is to find deities who seemto be made up altogether
out ofsuch an dpyrj;and even the higher Indian gods ofgrace
and pardon have frequently, beside their merciful, their
'wrath' form. But as regards the 'wrath of Yahweh', the
strange features about it have for long been a matter for
constant remark. In the first place, it is patent from many
passagesof the Old Testament that this 'wrath' has no con-
cern whatever with moral qualities. There is something very
bafling in the way in which it 'is kindled' and manifested.
It is, as has been well said, 'like a hidden force ofnature', like
stored-up electricity, discharging itself upon anyone who
comes too near. It is 'incalculable' and'arbitrarv'. Anvone
who is accustomedto think of deity only by its raiional attri-
butes must seein this 'wrath' mere caprice and wilful passion.
But such a view would have been emphatically rejected by
the religious men of the Old Covenant, for to tlem the Wrath
of God, so far fiom being a diminution of His Godhead, ap-
pears as a natural expression of it, an element of'holiness'
itselq and a quite indispensable one. And in this tlrey are
entirely right. This dpl is nothing blut tJiretremendumitself,
apprehended and expressedby the aid of a naive analogy
'from the domain of natural experience,in this casefrom the
ordinary passionallife of men, But naive as it may be, the
analogy is most disconcertingly apt and striking; so much so
that it will always retain its value and for us no lessthan for
the men of old be an inevitable way of expressingone element
in the religious emotion. It cannot be doubted that, despite
the protest of Schleiermacher and Ritschl, Christianity also
has something to teach of the 'wrath of God'.
It will be again at once apparent that in the use of this
'trrvs1:enruu TREMENDUM' r9
word we are not concernedwith a genuine intellectual 'cou-
cept', but only with a sort of illustrative substitute for a
concept. 'Wrath' here is the 'ideogram' of a unique emo-
tionaf moment in religious experience, a moment whose
singularly daunting and' awe-inspiring character must be
gravelydisturbing to thosepenonswho will recognizenothing
in the divine nature but goodness,gentleness,love, and a
sort ofconfidential intimacy, in a word, only those aspectsof
God which turn towards the world of men.
This dpyj is thus quite wrongly spoken of as 'natural'
wrath: rather it is an entircly non- or super-natural, t.e.
numinous, quality. The rationalization processtakes place
when it begins to be filled in with elementsderived from the
moral reason: righteousnessin requital, and punishment for
moral transgression. But it should be noted that the idea of
the wrath of God in the Bible is always a synthesis, in which
the original is combinedwith the later meaning thathas come
to fill it in. Something supra-rational throbs and gleams'
palpable and visible, in the 'trath of God', prompting to
a senseof'terror' that no 'natural' anger can arouse.
Besidethe 'w-rath' or 'anger' of Yahweh standsthe related
expressionJealousyofYahweh'. The state of mind denoted
by the phrase 'being jealous;fozYahweh' is also a numinous
state of mind, in which features of the tremendum pass over
into t}le man who has experience of it.
('mcjestas')
z, Tlu element of 'Oaerpoweringness'
We have been attempting to unfold the implications of that
aspect of the mlsteriurntremendurn indicated by the adjective,
and the result so far may be summarized in two words, con-
stituting, as before, what may be called an 'ideogram',
rather than a concept proper, viz. 'absolute unapproach-
ability'.
It will be felt at once that there is yet a further element
which must be added, that, namely, of 'might" 'power',
'absolute overpoweringness'.lVe will take to represent this
the term majestas,majesty-the more readily because any'
one with a feeling for languagemust detect a last faint trace
of the numinous still clinging to the word. The tremmdun

'uYstn,nI u Irl tnnueNpuu'
may then be rendered more adequately trcmmda majcstas,
or 'aweful majesty'. This second element of majesty may
continue to be vividly preserved, where the fint, tiat of
unapproachabitty, recedesand dies away, as may be seen,
for example, in mysticism. It is especiallyin relation to this
element of majesty or absolute overpowcringnessthat the
creature-consciousness, of which we have already spoken,
comes upon the scene, as a sort of shadow or subjective
reflection of it. Thus, in contrast to 'the overpowering' of
which we are conscious as an object over against the self,
there is the feeling of one's own submergence,of being but
'dust and ashes'and nothingness. And this forms the numi-
nous raw material for the feeling of religious humility,!
Here we must revert onceagain to Schleiermacher'sexpres-
sion for what we call 'creature-feeling', viz. the'feeling of
dependence'. We found fault with this phrase beforeon the
ground that Schleiermacher thereby takes as basisand point
of departure what is merely a secondaryeffect; that he sets
out to teach a consciousness of the religious objut only by way
of an inference from the shadow it castsupon refconscious-
ness. We have now a further criticism to bring against it,
and it is this. By 'feeling of dependence' Schleiermacher
means consciousnessof Deizgeonditioned (as effect by cause),
and so he develops the implications of this logically enough
in his sectionsupon Creation and Preservation. On the side
of the deity the correlate to 'dependence' would thus be
'causality', i.e. God's character as all-causing and all-condi-
tioning. But a senseof this does not enter at all into thac
immediate and first-hand religious emotion which we have
in the moment of worship, and which we can recover in a
measurefor analysis; it belongson the contrary decidedly to
the rationalside of the idea of God; its impiications admit of
preciseconceptual determination; and it springsfrom quitc
a distinct source. The diflerence between the'feeling of
dependence'of Schleiermacher and that which finds typical
utterance in the words of Abraham already cited might be
expressedas that betwien the consciousness of creatednes(
and
r Cf. R. R. Marctt, 'The Birth of Humility', in 77c Thrcshold
of tulfuin,
2rd cd., tg!4. [Tr,] 2 Gcschafcatuit.
'Mystsnrul\.r TREMDNDUM' 2l
the consciousness of creaturehold.tIn the one case you have
the creature as the work of the divine creative act; in the
other, impotence and general nothingnessas against-over-
powering might, dust and ashesas against 'majesty'. In the
L.r" h.t the fact of having been crcated; in the
"ur""yo,i
other, the statusof " the creature. And as soon as speculative
thousht has come to concern itself with this latter type of
consc"iousness-as soonasit hascorneto analysethis 'majesty'
-we ale introduced to a set of ideas quite different from
those of creation or preservation- \{e come upon t}re ideas,
fint, of the annihilation of self, and then, as its comPlement,
of the transcendent as the sole and entire reality. These are
the characteristic notes of mysticism in all its forms, however
otherwise various in content' For one of the chiefest and
most general features of mysticism is just this self'depreciation
(so pllidy parallel to the caseof Abraham), the estimation of
tfr. iaq of the perso.tal 'I', as something not pefectly or
essentiallyreal, ;r even as mere nullity, a self-depreciation
which comes io demand its own fulfi'Iment in practice in
reiectins the delusion of selfhood, and so makes for the
of the self. And on the other hand mysticism
"tioiftiU'tio"
leads to a valuation of the transcendentobject of its reference
as that which through plenitude ofbeing stands supremeand
absolute, so that the hnite self contrasted uith it becomes
consciousevenin its nullity that 'I am naught, Thou art all''
There is no thought in this of any causal relation between
God, the creator,ind the self, the creature' The p^ointfrom
which speculation starts is not a 'consciousnessof absolute
dependince'-of myself as result and effect of a divine cause
the
-io" th.t would in point of fact lead to insistenceupon
reality ofthe self; it siarts fiom a consciousnessof the absolute
,np.tio.ity or suPremacy of a power other than myself, and
it is only as it fatl'sback upon ontological terms to achieveits
end-terms generally borrowed fiom natural science-that
that elemeni of the tremendun,originally aPprehended as
;pl..rit.tde of power', becomestransmuted into'plenitude of
beine'.
Tiis leads again to the mention of mysticism' No mere
I Guclibfli4h*tit'
 ' ttlYsTrRIur"t r nnunno uM'
inquiry into the genesisof a thing can throw any light upon
its essential nature, and it is hence immaterial to us how
mysticism historically arosc. But essentiallymysticism is the
stressingto a very high degree, indeed the overstressing,of
the non-rational or supra-rational elemens in religion; and it
is only intelligible when so understood. The various phases
and factors of the non-rational may receivevarying emphasis,
and the type of mysticism will differ according as some or
othen fall into the background, What we have been analys-
ing, however, is a feature that recurs in all forms of mysticism
everywhere, and it is nothing but the 'crcature-consciousness'
stressedto the utmost and to excess,the expressionmeaning,
if we may repeat the contrast already made, not 'feeling of
our createdness'but 'feeling ofour creaturehood',that is, the
consciousness of the littleness of every creaturein face of that
which is above all creatures.
A characteristic common to all types of mysticism is the
Idtntifuation, in different degrees of completeness,of the
personal self with the transcendent Reality. This identifica-
tion has a source ofits own, with which we are not here con-
cerned, and springs from 'moments' of religious experience
which would require separate treatment. 'Identification'
alone, however, is not enough for mlnticism; it must be f den-
tification with the Something that is at once absolutely
supreme in power and reality and wholly non-rational. And
it is among the mystics that we most encounterthis element
of religious consciousness.R6cijac has noticed this in his
Essai sur lesJondements dc la connaissancen)stique (Pais, rBgT).
He writes (p. 9o) :
Le mysticismecommencepar la crainte,par le sentimentd'une
dominationuniverselle, inaincible,et devient plus tard un ddsir
d'union avec ce qui domine ainsi.
And some very clear examples of this taken from the reli-
gious experience of the present day are to be found in W.
James (op. crt.,p. 66):
The perfect stillnessof the night wasthrilled by a more solemn
silence. The darknessheld a presencethat wasall the more felt
becauseit was not seen. I could not anv morehavedoubtedthat
'vYs'rrRIuru rtruexnuu' 2Z
.EIcwas there than that I was. Indeed, I felt myself to be, if
possible,the lessreal of the two-
This exampleis particularly instructive asto the relation of
mysticismto the 'feelingsof identification', for the experience
here recountedwas on the point of passinginto it.r
g. Thz Elementof 'Energy' or Urgerryt
There is, finally, a third element comprised in thoseof te-
mendumand, majestas,awefulnessand majesty, and this I
venture to call the 'urgency' or 'energy' of the numinous
object. It is particularly vividly perceptible in the ripfi or
'wrath'; and it everywhereclothes itself in symbolical ex-
pressions-vitality, passion, emotional temper, will, force,
movement,z excitement, activity, impetus. These features
are typical and recur again and again from the daemonic
level up to the idea of the 'living' God, We have here tJ:e
factor that has everywheremore than any other prompted
the fiercest opposition to the 'philosophic' God of mere
rational speculation,who can be put into a definition. And
for their part the philosophers have condemned these ex-
pressions of the energy of the numen, whenever tltey are
brought on to the scene,as sheeranthropomorphism. In so
far as tleir opponents have for the most part themselves
failed to .."og.rir. that the terms they have borrowed fiom
the sphereof human conative and afective life have merely
value as analogies,the philosophers are right to condemn
them. But they are wrong, in so far as, this error notwith-
standing,theseterms stood for a genuine aspectof the divine
nature-its non-rational aspect-a due consciousnessof
which servedto protect religion itselffrom being 'rationalized'
away.
For wherever men have been contending for the 'living'
God or for voluntarism, there, we may be sure, have been
non-rationalistsfighting rationalists and rationalism, It r.r'as
sowith Luther in his controveny with Erasmus; and Luther's
omnipotentia Dei in his De SeraoArbitio is nothing but the
r Comparc too the cxperience on p.
7o: '. . .lAhat I felt on thcsc occasion:
was a temporary loss of my own identity'.
' Thc 'mobilitas Dci' of Lactantius.
24 'Ir.rvsrrntuM rnruruouu'
union of 'majesty'-in the senseof absolute supremacy-
with this 'energy', in the senseofa force that knows not stint
nor stay, which is urgent, active, compelling, and alive. In
mysticism,too, this element of 'energy' is a very living and
vigorousfactor, at any rate in tl-re'voluntaristic' mysticism,
the mysticism of love, where it is very forcibly seenin that
'consuming fire' of love whose burning shength the mystic
can hardly bear, but begsthat the heat that has scorchedhim
may be mitigated, lest he be himself destroyed by it. And in
this urgency and pressure the mystic's 'love' claims a per-
ceptible kinship with the 6Wi itself, the scorching and con-
suming wrath of God; it is the same'energy', only differently
directed. 'Love', saysone ofthe mystics,'is nothing elsethan
quenchedwrath.'
The element of'energy' reappearsin Fichte's speculations
on the Absolute as the gigantic, never-resting, active world-
stress,and in Schopenhauer'sdaemonic 'Will'. At the same
time both these writers are guilty of tlr.e same error that is
already found in myth; they transfer 'natural' attributes,
which ought only to be used as 'ideograms' for what is itself
properly beyond utterance, to the non-rational as real quali-
fi.cations of it, and they mistake symbolic expressionsof
feelings lor adequate concepts upon which a 'scientific'
structure of knowledge may be based.
In Goethe, aswe shall seelater, the sameelement of energy
is emphasizedin a quite unique way in his strange descrip-
tions of the experiencehe calls 'daemonic'.
Cneprpx. V
TH E AN ALYSIS OF 'M YST ER IU M '
Einb.gtif.tdt Gou isrkrin Cou.
'A God comprchcndcdis ao God.' (fensrmcrx.)
I A JE gaveto the objecttowhich the numinousconsciousness
YY is directed the name mltsteiumtremendurn, and we then
set ourselvesfirst to determine the meaning of the adjective
tremendum-whichwe found to be itself only justified by
analogy-because it is more easily analysed than the sub-
stantivc idea m7slerium.\Nehave now to turn to *ris, and try,
as best we man by hint and suggestion, to get to a clearer
apprehensionof what it implies.
4. Tlu'Whol$ Otha'
It might be thought that the adjective itself gives an ex-
planation of the substantive; but this is not so. It is not
merely analytical; it is a synthetic attribute to it; i.e. tremen-
dum adds sometling not necessarily inherent irt mysteium.
It is true that t}re reactiors in consciousnessthat correspond
to the one readily and spontaneously overflow into those that
correspondto t}re other; in fact, anyonesensitive to the use
of words would commonly feel that the idea of 'mystery'
(m2steiun)is socloselybound up with its synthetic quali$ing
attribute 'aweful' (tremendun)that one can hardly say the
former without catching an echo of the latter, 'mystery'
almost of itself becorning 'aweful mystery' to us. But the
passagefrom the oneidea to the other need not by any means
be always so easy. The elements of meaning implied in
'alvefulness'and 'mysteriousness' are in themselvesdefinitely
different. The latter may so far preponderate in the religious
consciousness, may stand out so vividly, that in comparison
with it the former almost sinks out of sight; a case which
again could be clearly exemplified from some forms of
mysticism. Occasionally, on the other hand, the revene
happens, an'd the tremendum may in turn occupy the mind
without the m\stzrium.
This latter, then, needs special consideration on its own
 . M YSTERI U M ,
26 THE ANALYSI S OF
account. We need an for the mental reaction
peculiar to il: , such a massivestructure oftheory and such a plausiblefabric
though, as it is strictly applicable only to a 'natural' state of
d Both imaginative 'myth', when developedinto a system,and
'$cpot:,. Stulor is plainly a different thing from tremor; -it
sie"ifi.s bt""k *o. L$!t9!g3C!nb,
4lSa4lqgntAolute.r Taken, indeed, in its purely natural
sense,mysterium would first mean merelya sccretor a mystery
in the senseofthat which is alien to us, uncomprehendedand
unexplained; and so far mystciumis itself merely an ideo-
gram, an analogical notion taken from the natural sphere,
illustrating, but incapable of exhaustivcly rendering, our
leal meaning. Taken in the religious sense,that which is
'!qy$g4g5Jt-to give it perhaps the most striking expres-
sion-lre-'.ttl'olly-glLhgr' (1drepov,atryad,alienum),that which
is quite beyond the sBberqof thg-!D-uj[ tlrg inle]ligible, and
the familiar, which therefore falls quite_oltside the limits. of
th"'."@{.Il4g I4s mind wi-th
blank wonder and astonishment.
This is already to be observedon the lowest and earliest
level of the religion of primitive man, where the numinous
consciousness is but an inchoatestirring ofthe feelings. \\rhat
is really characteristic of this stageis not-as the theory of
Animism would have us believe-that mcn are here con-
cerned with curious entities, called 'souls'or 'spirits', rvhich
happen to be invisible. B&Pr9!cn!4!iensof spirits and.similar
conggplro.Il!4tCI4qrer o,4q4!d 4!!.eq4!ymoder qf:r4uonal i2-
r.!g iggqe_d"gtt qxperie"ce, !9 whigh !\E 3lgjlqsiglgrv.
ft-"V t." in somewiy or otherit little rnatters how,
^tttr"ptt
to guess the riddle it propounds, and their effect is at the
sanie time alwaysto weakenand deadenthe experienceitself'
They are the sourcefrom which springs,not religion, but the
t Compare also obstupefaure.Still more exact €quivalents are ihc Grcek
\ip.pos aia Bappci". The sound 0 a p P (thanb) exccllently depicts this statc of
mind of blank, staring wondcr' And the difference bctwccn the momenls of
stupol tremot s vely 6nely suggcsted by rhc passagc, Mark x' 3z (d' iny'a,
^r.d,On the othcr hand, what was said above ofthc facitity and raPidity
p. r5B).
withwhich tic two moments mergc and blend is also markedly true of 0rippos,
which then bccomes a classical tcrm for the (ennobled) awe of thc n\rminous
in gencral. So Mark xvi- 5 is rightly tlanslated by Luthcr'und sie eBtsetzten
sici', and by thc English Authorir.d V.oioo 'and thcy werc atrrigbtcd'-
TrrE ANALYSTSor 'uystrntuut
rationalization of religion, which often endsby constructing
of interpretation, that the rmystery' is frankly excluded.r
intellectualist Scholasticism,when worked out to its com-
pletion, are methods by which the fundamental fact of re-
ligious experienceis, as it wcre, simply rolled out so thin and
flat as to be linally eliminated altogcther.
Even on the lowest level of religious development the
essentialcharacteristic is therelore to be sought elsewhere
than in the appearance of'spirit' representations. It lies
rather, we repeat, ig-a p_erg!!41!4gqqnt'_o_f consciousness,to-
wl!, ths,!tup7! lefo1q ro4qthlng 'wtrglly other', whetller such
?4_9!heI_b9_na_qf C{lprnll o1 jd4er4on ol'deva', or be left
U!!hgg! a!L4ame. Nor doesit make any difference in this
respect whether, to interpret and preservetheir apprehension
of this 'other', men coin original imagery of their own or
adapt imaginations drawn from the rvorld of legend, the
fabrications of fancy apart from and prior to any stinings of
daemonic dread.
In accordance with laws of which we shall have to speak
again later, this feeling or corrsciousnessofthe 'wholly other'
w-i!!,e!E!h {s_e!119,_el,lqmetllqes be indirectly aroused by
lleans of obiects whi readv_luzzling gpo4 the
'@sing o1a11q9q{149 qh.qt1gtcr;
such asextraordinary phenomenaor astonishingoccurrences
or things in inanimate nature, in the animal world, or among
men. Bu!_bglg_sqre_melle we are dealing with a case of
e$""i",i. rd;i iv-4l t-ihe-numin-
ous' a4d the 'natural' moments of consciousness-andnot
merely with the gradual enhancementof one of them-the
'natural'-till it becomesthe other. As in the caseof 'natural
fear'and 'daemonic dread'already considered,so here the
transition from natural to daemonicamazementis not a mere
matter of degree. But it is only.uatblheJatlet tlgt-Se sqsr-
plelqlr!4ry_extrt9ss1t:1r-vtystqia!!lperfe-cly larmonizes, as will
r A spirit or soul that has been conccivcd and comprchended no longcr
prompts to 'shuddcring', as is provcd by Spiritualism- But it thercby ccaics to
bc of intcrcst for the psychology ofrcligion,
28 r HE A N A L YS IS o F ' M Ys rER ru M '
trglelt pg!1aps rnore clearly in the caseof the adjectival form
'!sy$c4ous'. No one says,strictty and in earnest,ofa piece
ofclockwork that is be1'ondhis grasp,or of a sciencethat he
cannot understand: 'Ihat is "mysterious" to me.'
It might be obiected that the mvsteriou! is !9!qqih14,C
ryhichj-s and-remains absolutely.-aniliavariably-beyoudour
uqdg$L4l|ding, whereasthat which merely eludesour under-
standing for a time but is perfectly intelligible in principle
should be called, not a 'mystery', but merely a 'problem'.
But this is by no means an adequateaccount of the matter.
comprehension.not only becauseour knowledge has certatn
irremovable li but becausein it we come upon some-
fore recoil in a wonder that strikesus chill and
Thtr *ry b. r""di-.tiil 6y i tonsideration of that
"l"u."t
Cegraded oflshoot and travesty of the genuine 'numinous'
driad or awe, the fear of ghosts. Let us try to analysethis
experience, We have already specifiedthe peculiar feeling-
element of'dread' aroused by the ghost as that of'grue',
grisly horror.2 Now this 'grue' obviously contributes some-
thing to the attraction which ghost-storiesexercise,in so far,
namely, as the relaxation oftension ensuing upon our release
from it relieves the rnind in a pleasant and agreeableway.
So far, however, it is not really the ghost itself that givesus
pleasure.but thg lbq1-lfat *c afe,rid qf it' But obviouslythis
quite insuficient to explain the ensnaring attraction of the
ghost-story. The ghost's real attraction rather consistsin
-s
this, that o!!1self and- in,an. u4qolqlnqlt.dcgqq it -e4tlc,esJhe
imagination, awabgging-strong interest ,arld curiosity; it is
I In ConJcssiotLs, ii. 9. r, Augustine very striLingly suggests this stifening,
benumbing element ofthc'wholly other'and its contrast to the rational aspcct
of the numcn 1the dirsimilc and the sinilc:
'Quid est illud, quod interlucet mihi et percutit cor meum sinc laesionc?
Et inhorresco et inard esco. Inluttcsa, in quantum dissirnili.r ei sum. Inzldesco,
in quantum simils €i sum.'
('!Vhat is that which glcams through me and smitcs my hcart without
wounding it? I am both a-shuddcr and a-glow. A-shudder, in so far as I am
unlike it, a-glow in so far as I anr like it.')
2
Erut.In, giisefl.
TrrE ANALysrs oF 'IltysrE nruM' 29
But it doesthis,
@,fancy. 'dnd
not-Eccinse-it ia 'sofimilg long white' (as someone
oncedefineda ghost),nor yet throughanyof thepositiveand
conceptualattributeswhich fanciesabout ghostshave in-
vented, but because iq is a thingthat 'doesnit really exist at
4Lgg_fyhgllgth4_sjqgthiqg,rvhich hasno ptace in our
gchemeofreality but belongs to an absolutelydifferent one,
and which at the same time arousesan inepressible interest
-the
in mind.
But that which is perceptibly true in tlle fear of ghosts,
which is, after all, only a caricatureofthe genuinething, is in
a far stronger sensetrue ofthe 'daemonic,experienceitsel{ of
which the fear of ghosts is a mere off*hoot. And while,
' following this main line of development,this element in the
numinous consciousness, the feeling of the ,wholly other', is
heightened and clarified, its higher modes of manifestation
come into being, which set the numinous obiect in confast
not only to everything wonted and familiar (i.e. in the end,
r to nature in general), thereby turning it into the ,super-
natural', but finally to the world itself,and therebv exalt it to
the 'supramundane', that which is above the whole world-
oroer.
In mysticism we have in the 'beyond' (int<ewa) again the
strongest stressingand over-stressinEof those non-rational
elements which are already inhereni in all religion. Mysti-
cism continues to its extreme point this contrasting of tlre
numinous object (the numen), as the .wholly othei,, with
ordinary experience.Not content with contrastinEit l,ith all
that is of nature or this world, mysticismconcluJes by con-
-trastingit with Beingitselfand all that 'is', and finally aitually
calls it 'that which is nothing'. By this ,nothing' is meant not
only that of which nothing can be predicated,but that which
is absolutely and intrinsically other than and opposite of
gv-qrythingthat is and can be thought. But while exaggerat-
ing to the point of paradox is negationand contra;i-the
only mcans open to conceptual thought to apprehend the
rylsterium-mr-sticism at the same time retaini the boitizte
qualityof the'rvholly other' as a very living factor in ie over-
brimming religious emotion.
 . M YSTERI U I T '
3o THE ANALYSI S OF
But what is true of the strange 'nothingness' of our mystics
and the sinyatd,the'vo!d'
holds good equally of the sunlt:am
and'eirptineis' of the Buddhist mystics. This aspirationfor
the 'void' and for becoming void, no lessthan the aspiration
ofour western mysticsfor 'nothing' and lor becomingnothing,
must seem a kind of lunacy to anyone who has no inner
sympathy for the esotericlanguage and ideogramsof mysti
cism, and lacks the matrix from which these come neces-
sarily to birth. To such an one Buddhism itself will be simply
a mLrbid sort of pessimism. But in fact the 'void' of the
eastern,like t-he'nothing' of the western,mysticis a numi-
nous ideogram of the 'wholly other'.
These Lrms 'supernatural' and 'transcendent'rgive the
appearance of poiitive attributes, and, as ap-plied.to the
*yrt.tion., tlrey appear to d iv estthe m2steiumof its originally
negative meaning-ind to turn it into an affirmation' On tlre
sidi of conceptual thought this is nothing more than fPPear-
ance, for it is obvious that the two terms in question are
merely negative and exclusive attributes with reference to
'nature' aid the world or cosmosrespectively. But on the
side of the feeling-contentit is otherwise;tlrat ls in ve.rytruth
positive in the highest degree, though here too, as beforg,
i-t cannot be rencl"cred.*!ti.it i.t conceptual terms' It is
thro"gt this positive feeling-contentthat the conceptsof the
'transiendent' and'supernatural' becomeforthwith designa-
tions for a unique 'wholly other' reality and quality, some-
thing of whose special character we canfeel, without being
able to givc it clear conceptual expression.
r Literally, supramu td anel. ibcrucltlidt
Cneprrn VI
5 . T HE ELEMENT OF FASCINATION
rlrnn qualitative contentof the numinous expcrience,to
I which 'the mysterious' stands as form, is in one of its
aspectsthe element of daunting 'awefulness' and 'majesty',
which has already been dealt wittr in detail; but it is dear
that it has at the sametime anothcr aspect,in which it shows
itself as something uniquely attractive and faseinating.
These two qualities, the daunting and the fascinating,now
combine in a strange harmony ofcontrasts, and the resultant
dual character of the numinous consciousness, to which the
entire religious development bears witness, at any rate fiom
t}le level of the 'daemonic dread' onwards, is at once the
strangest and most notewortiy phenomenon in the whole
history of religion. The daemonic-divine object may appear
to the mind an object of horror and dread, but at the same
time it is no lesssomething that allures with a potent charm,
and the creature, who trembles before it, utterly cowed and
cast down, has always at the sametime the impulse to tum to
it, nay even to make it somehowhis own. The'mystery'is
for him not merely something to be wondered at but some-
thing that entrances him; and beside that in it which be-
wilders and confounds, he feels a something that captivates
and transports him with a strange ravishment, rising often
enough to the pitch of dizzy intoxication; it is the Dionpiac-
element in the numen.
Theideas and conceptswhich are the parallels or'schcmata'
on the rational side of this non-rational element of 'fascina-
tion' are love, mercy, pity, comfort; these are all 'natural'
elements of the common psychical life, only they are here
thought as absolute and in completeness.But important as
theseare for the experienceof religious bliss or felicity, they
do not by any means exhaust it. It is just the sameas with
the oppositeexperienceof religibus infelicity-the experience
of the Spyi or 'wrat}l' of God:-both alike contain funda-
mentaUy non-rational eiements. Bliss or beatitude is more,
far more, than the mcle natural feeling of being comforted,
 T1IE ELD, M ENT O F FASCI NAT I O N
32
ofreliance, of the joy oflove, howeverthesemay be height-
ened and enhancid. Just as 'wrath', taken in a purdy
rational or a purely ethical sense,doesnot exhaustthat pro-
found elemenl of atoefulncsswhich is lockcd in the mystery of
deity, so neither does 'graciousness'exhaust the profound
element of wonderfulnessand rapture which lies in the
mysterious beatific experience of deity. The term 'gracc'
may indeed be taken as its aptestdesignation,but then only
in ihe sensein which it is reilly applied in the languageof
the mystics, and in which not only the 'gracious intent' but
'someihi.rg more' is meant by the word. This 'something
more' has its antecedent phasesvery far back in the history
of relisions.
It niay well be possible, it is even probable, that in the 6nt
stage ol its development the religious consciousnessstarted
with only one of its poles-the 'daunting' aspectof the numen
-and so at first to;k shape only as 'daemonic dread'. But
if this did not point to something beyond itself, if it were not
but one 'moment' of a completer experience,pressingup
gradually into consciousness,then no transition would be
possibleto the feelingsofpositive self-surrenderto the numen.
The only type of woiship that could result from dris 'dread'
alone would be that of &na,rciofla,'and dnory€neu,taking
the form of expiation and propitiation, the averting or the
appcasement of the 'wrath' of the numen. It can never ex-
piiin ho* it is that 'the numinous' is the object ofsearch and
iesire and yearning, and that too for its own sake and not
only for the sake of the aid and backing that men expect
from it in the natural sphere. It can never explain how this
takes place, not only in the forms of'rational' religious
worshiip, but in those queer 'sacramental' observancesand
rituals and procedures of communion in which the human
being secksto get tie numen into his possession.
RJligions prictice may manilest itself in thosenormal and
easily intelligible forms rvhich occupysoprominent a placein
the history of religion, such forms as propitiation,,petition'
sacrifice, thanksgiving, &c. But besidesthesethere is a series
ofstrange proceedingswhich areconstantlyattracting greater
and greiter attention, and in which it is claimed that we may
TI{E EL EM EN T OF FASC IN ATION 33
recognize, besidesmere religion in general, the particular
roots of m)'sticism. I refer to those numerouscurious modes
ofl behaviour and fantastic forms of mediation. by means of
which the primitive religious man attempts to master 'the
mysterious', and to fill himself and even to identify himself
with it. These modesof behaviour fall apart into two classes.
On the one hand the 'magical' identification of the self with
the numen proceeds by means of various transactions, at
once magical and devotional in character-by formula,
ordination, adjuration, consecration, exorcism, &c.: on
the other hand are the 'shamanistic' rvaysofprocedure, pos-
session,indwelling, self-fulfilment in exaltation and ecstasy.
All these have, indeed, their starting-points simply in
magic, and their intention at first was certainly simply to
appropriate the prodigious force of the numen for the natural
ends ofman. But the processdoes not rest there. Possession
of and bv t}le numen becomesan end in itself; it begins to be
sought for its own sake; and the wildest and most artificial
methods of asceticismare put into practice to attain it. In a
word, the uita rcligiosabegins; and to remain in thesestrange
and bizarre statesofnuminous possession becomesa good in
itself, even a way of salvation, wholly different from the
profane goods pursued by means of magic. Here, too, corn-
mencesthe processof development by which the experience
is matured and purified, till finally it reachesits consumma-
tion in the sublimest and purest statesof the 'life witi n the
Spirit' and in the noblest mysticism. Widcly various as these
stat€s are in themselves, yet they have this element in
common, that in them the m2steriunis experienced in its
essential,positive, and specific character, as something that
bestows upon man a beatitude beyond compare, but one
whosereal nature he can neither proclaim in speechnor con-
ceive in thought, but may knorv only by a direct and living
experience. It is a bliss which embracesall those blessings
that are indicated or suggcstedin positive fashion by any
'doctrine of salvation', and it quickens all of them through
and through; but these do not exhaust it. Rather by its all-
pervading, penetrating glow it makes of thesevery blessings
more than the intellect can conceive in them or affi.rm of
34 TIIE EL E M EN T O F F A SC IN A TION
them. It gives the peace that passesunderstanding, and of
which the tongue can only stammer brokenly. Only fiom
afar, by metaphors and analogies,do we come to apprehend
what it is in itself, and even so our notion is but inadequate
and confused.
'Eye hath not secn,nor ear heard, neitherhave enteredinto
the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love him.' lVho doesnot feel the exalted sound of
these words and the 'Dionysiac' element of transport and
fervour in them? It is instructive that in such phrasesas
these,in which consciousness would fain put its highest con-
summation into words, 'all images fall away' and the mind
turns from them to grasp expressionsthat ale purely negative.
And it is still more instructive that in reading and hearing
such words their merely negative character simply is not
noticed I that we can let whole chains of such negationsen'
rapture, even intoxicate us, and that entire hymns-and
deeply impressive hymns-have been composed,in which
there is really nothing positive at all ! All tlfs teachesus the
independence of the positive content of this experiencefrom
the implications of its overt conceptual expression,and how
it can be firmly grasped, thoroughly understood, and pro-
foundly appreciated, purely in, with, and from the feeling
itself.
Mere love, mere trust, for all the glory and happinessthey
bring, do not explain to us that moment of rapture that
breathes in our tenderestand most heart-felt hymns ofsalva-
tion, as also in such eschatologicalhyrnns of longing as that
Rhyme ofSt. Bernard in which the very versesseemto dance.
Urbs Sion unica, mansiomystica,condita coelo,
Nunc tibi gaudeo,nunc tibi lugeo,tristor, anhelo,
Te, quia corporenon queo'pectoresaepepenetro;
Sed caro terrea, terraque carnear mox cado retro.
Nemo retexere, nemoque promere sustinet ore,
quo tua moenia, quo capitolia plena nitore.
Id queo dicere, quo modo tangere pollice coelum'
IJt mare currerc, sicut in aere figere telum'
Opprimit omne cor ille tuus decor, O Sion, O Pax.
Urbs sine trmporer nulla potest fore laus tibi mendax.
TIIE DLEMENT Otr FASCINATION
35
O nov_amansio, te pia concio, genspia munit,
Provehit, excitat, auget, identitat, efficit, ,roiti
This is where-the living .something more' of the
. fascinans,
the element offascination, is to be found. It lives io lessin
those-tenseextollings of the blessingofsalvation, which recur
in all religions of salvation, and Jtand in such remarkable
contrast the relatively meagre and frequently childish
import of-to-
that which is revealed in them by conceot or bv
image. Everywhere salvation is something rvhor.
is often-very little apparent, is even wholliy obscure, -"u.i.rg
to the
'natural' man; on the contrary, sofar as hi understantls it, he
tends to-find-it highly tedious and uninteresting, sometimes
downright distasteful and repugnant to his riature, as he
would, for instance,find the beatific vision ofGod in our own
doctrine of salvation, or the henlsisof ,God all in all, among
the mystics. 'So far as he understands',be it noted; but then
he doesnot understand it in the least. Becausehe lacks the
inward teachingofthe Spirit, he must needsconfound what
rs onereclhrm asan expressionfor the experienceofsalvation
-a-mere ideogram of what is felt, whoseimport it hints at by
analogy-with 'natural' concepts,as though it were itself
iust
such an one. And so he'wandlrs ever fariirer from the eJal,.
It is not only in t_hereligious feeling of longing tha"t the
moment of fascination is a living factor. It is already alive
and presentinthe moment of .solemnity',both in the gathered
concentration and humble submergenceof private dlvotion,
when the mind is exalted to the holn urrd i., the common
rvorship of the congregation, where this is practised with
earnestness and deep sincerity, as, it is to be feired. is with us
a thing rather desired than realized. It is this and nothing
else that in the solemn moment can fill the soul so full and
r 'O Sion, thou city. sole and
,
ncavens,
single, mrstic mansion hidden away in the
now I rejo)cc in thec, no\v I moan for thee and mourn and yearn for
jhcc; th:: oltel I plss-rhrough in the heart, as I crnnot in rhc b"ay, U"f l.i"g
but earthly flcsh and flcshly earti soon I fall back. None can aisci*. or .r"..,
in--speechw_hatpl€nary radiance fills thy walls and thy citadcls. f .." iittf.
tell ofit at I can touch the skics with my 6ngcr, or run upon th. oi ""
dart stand still inrhe air. This thy splendour overwhelmi every hcart,
".. "
(J reacet (, tunclcssCtty, Do prarsecan bclie thcc.
O-J.Sion,
O new dwelling_place. tlcc
thc concours€ and people of thc faithful crccls and exahs, inspi.." .ij irr"i.u"o,
joi.u! to itscli aud makca coEplet end oDc.,

36 T I I A E L D ME N T O F F AS C IN AT ION
keepit so inexpressiblytranquil. Schleiermacher'sassertionr
true of it,'as of-the numinous consciousness
i, f.rt
^p. really occur alone on its
seieral.'viz. that it cannot -own
with rational
;;;;;;;, - .*..p, combined and penetrated
o,
S",, if this be admitted,lt is upon otler grounds
it u" thot" adduced by Schleiermacher; while, on the other
"f.-""".
hand, it may occupy a more or lesspredominant place.and
i.ud io .tut.t of iuim (i"uxtd as well as of transport'
3u1 in all
whi"h it a/rnostof ieelf wnoity nUs the soul'
rn"ttifota forms in which it is aroused in us, whether
.r.h^tolosicul promiseofthe coming kingdom ofGod and-the
transcend"entblissofParadise, or in the guiseofan entry into
inui U."tin" reality that is 'above the world'; whether
present
come first in expectancy or pre-intimation or in a
.*oU."." ('When I but haic Thee, I ask no quesdon of
ft"i""" in all theseforms, outwardly diversebut
inwardly akin, it appearsas a strange and mighty propulsion
""a.utth');
towards an ideal goodknown only to religion.and.inits nature
i,i"Jr*""t"Uy n"on-rational, which the mind knows of in
vearninq and p.eserrtiment, recognizing it for what it is
ir.ti"a irt" ou.i"u." and inadequale symbols which are
onlv expression. And this shows that above and beyond
,raio.r"i being lies hidden the ultimate and highestpart ofour
iti"t., *fti"fi can find no satisfactionin the mere allaling
psychical,or intellectual imp-ulses
the need.sof our sensuous,
ih. *Vstics called it the basisor ground ofthe soul'
We iaw that in the caseof the element of the mysterious the
".""i"S""
and. transcendent
'whollf other' led on to the supernatural
urra ttt.t above these appeared the 'beyond' (iaerervo) of
through the non-rational side of religion
tuir.J ao its highist power and stressedto excess' is
-y.ti"i.m, It
;;;;1" tlte cas"eof tie element of 'fascination' ; here, too' is
oorribt" a transition into mysticism' At its highest point
L.tt tf." fascinating becomesthe 'overabounding', 'e-'iuber-
u.rti,' th" mystical ';oment' rvhich exactly correspondsupon
this iine to ihe dzlr.rvo upon the other line of approlclr'
*triJ ir to be understood-accordingly' But while this
of *r" 1o.r"t-uUounding' is specially characteristic of mysti'
I Glubathhrc, | 5' ' dzt Abctsclutarylkla.
TIr E EL EM EN T OF FASC TN ATION
37
cism, a trace of it survivesin all truly felt statesof religious
in beatitude,however restrained and kept within measure by
other factors. This is seenmost clearly from the psychology
of those great experiences-of grace, conversion, second
birth-in which the religious experience appears in its pure
intrinsic nature and in heightenedactivity, so as to be more
cleally graspedthan in the lesstypical form of piety instilled
in by education. The hard core of such experiencesin their
the Christian form consistsof the redemption from guilt and
in bondageto sin, and we shall have prcsently to sce that this
also doesnot occur without a participation of non-rational
elements.But leaving this out of account, what we have here
it to point out is the unutterablenessof what has been yet
genuinelyexperienced,and how such an experiencemay pass
into blisful excitement,rapture, and exaltation verging often
on the bizerre and the abnormal.r This is vouched for by the
autobiographicaltestimony of the 'converted' from St. Paul
onward. William James has collected a great number of
thcse, without, however, himself noticing the non-rational
elementthat thrills in them.
its Thus, one writes
our . . . Forthe momentnothingbut an ineffablejoy and exaltation
remained.It is impossible fully to describethe experience.It lvas
of
like theeffectof somegreatorchestra,u'hen all the separatenotes
and havemeltedinto one swellingharmony, tlat leavesthe listener
conscious of nothing savethat his soul is being wafted upwards
and almmt bunting with its own emotion. (VarieliesoJReligious
Expuiew, p. 66.)
And another:
being
the . . . The more I seekwordsto expressthis intimate intercou$e,
the moreI feelthe impossibilityofdescribingthe thing by any of
our usualimages. (Ibid., p. 68.)
of
I This may be found fatal to the attempt to construct a'rcligion within thc
limits of pure reason', or 'of humanity'; but, none the less,the matter is as wc
havc describcd it, as far as concerns thc psychological inquiry into religion,
and
which asks,not what it is within thc aforementioned limits, but what it is in
its own esscntial nalure, And for that matt€r this proceeding of coDstructing a
feeling
'humanity'prior to and apart from the most ccntral and potent of humar
capacitics is like nothing so much as the attcmpt to framc a standard idea of the
human body after having prcviously cut off the head.
38 THE ELEMENToF FAscrNATroN
And almost with the precision of dogma, a third (Jonathan
Edwards) indicates the qualitative difference of the ex-
perienceof beatitude from other 'rational' joy:
The conceptionswhich the saintshave of the loveliness of God
and rhat kind of delight which they ec<perience in it are quite
peculiarand entirely different from anything which a natural
man can possess or of which he can form any proper notion.
(Ibid.,p. rz9.)
Cf. also pp. rg2, 225; and the testimony of Jacob Boehme
givenon p.4r7. Also this of Boehme:
But f can neither write nor tell ofwhat sort of Exaltationthe
triumphingin the Spirit is. It canbe comparedwith nought,but
that when in the midst of death Me is born. and it is like the
resurrectionof the dcad.
With the mystics these experiencespass up wholly into the
'over-abounding'. 'O that I could tell you what the heart
feels,how it burns and is consumedinwardly! Only, I find
no words to expressit. I can but say: Might but one little
drop of what I feel fall into Hell, HeIl would be transformed
into a Paradise.' So saysSt, Catherire of Genoa; and all the
multitude of her spiritual kindred tesdry to the sameeffect.
What we Christians know as the experiencesofgrace and
the second birth have their parallels also in the religions of
high spiritual rank beyond the borders of Christianity. Such
are the breaking out of the saving 'Bodhi', the opening ofthe
'heavenly eye', th e Jfidna,by I {aarasprasdda,whichisvictorious
over the darknessofnescienceand shinesout in an experience
with which no other can be measured. And in all thesethe
entirely non-rational and specific element in tie beatific
experience is immediately noticeable. The qualitative
character of it varies widely in all these cases,and is again
in them all very different from its parallels in Christianity;
still in all it is very similar in intensity, and in all it is a
'salvation' and an absolute 'fascination', which in contrast
to all that admits of 'natural' expression or comparison
is deelly imbued with the 'over-abounding' ('exuberant')
nature of the numen.
And this is also entirely true of the rapture of Nirvana,
TI I E ELEM ENT O F FASCI NATI O N
39
which is only in appearancea cold and negative
state. It is
onty conceptuzlly that .Nirvana' is a negati;; it is feltincon_
sciousnessas in the strongestdegreep"ositive;
t ;..;;;;
'fascination' by which its votarieJ are a. .r..i.Ju*uy "
as are the Hindu or the Christian by -".t th" .o...rpo.dino
objectsof their.wonhip. I recall vividly a
wrrn a buddhrst monl<. He had been putting "."".;";i;i;;;
before me
and pertinaciously the argum;,; f;; ;i"
Telh,?{iTlly
lJudrrhrst'theologyof negation',the doctrini ofAnd.tman
'entrre emptincss,.lVhen he had and
made an end, I askedhim,
what.then Nirvanaitself is; and after a lone pu"ra
.u*"'u.
tast lhe slngleanswcr,low and restrained:iBtrs_unspeak_
able'. And the hushedrestraint of that answer,,h.
,;i;-r;;iy
ofhis voice, demeanour,and gesture,made more clear
what
was meant than the words themselves.
And.so we maintain, on the one hand, followine
the zra
eminenttae et cawalitatis,that th€ divine is i"a."a tfr.-frigfr.*,
strongest,best,Ioveliest,and dearestthat man can
thfik ;f:
but.we asserton the other, following the oia neeation;-;al.
(;od, rs not mn_ely the ground and superlative of-all that can
oe tnought; He is in Himself a subject on His own
account
and in Himself,
In,the adjective6evdsthe Greeklanguagepossesses
a word
peculiarly difficult to translate, and "sta;d;g {b;-;;
il..
p.eculiarlydifficult_tograsp in ali its strangeviiaiio^.
La
rt we askwhencethis difficulty arises,the answer plain:
is it
is,becauseacrvtisis simply r-he'numinous
t-"rriv
a tower level,iu an arrestedform, attenuatedbyrhetorical
"i.i"*"'rt or
poetic usage). Consequently6eydsis the .q"iu"t.oioi};r
ancr rremendus. lt may mean evil or imposing, potent and
strange, queer and marvellous, honifying an-d iascinating
divine and daemonic, and a source oi..i..gy,.
Sophocl",
m€ans to awakenthe feeling of ,numinor, throueh the
wfiole gamut ol-itsphasesat the contemplation "i", of mai.
the
creature of marvel, in the choric ,ong oi th. Antigone:
zolid rd 6eryd,rorl8iy dv0p6rov6<v6repovtz!\et.
This line defiestranslation,just becauseour language
has no
40 THE ELEM ENT O F FASCI NATIO N

term t}rat can isolate distinctly and gather into one word the
total numinous impression a thing may make on the mind.
The nearest that German can get to it is in the expression
dasUngeheuerc (monstrous),while in English 'weird' is perhaps
the closestrendering possible. The mood and attitude repre-
sented in the foregoing verse might then be fairly well
rendered by such a translation as:
Much thereis that is weird; but noughtis weirderthanman.
The German ungeheuer is not by derivation simply 'huge', in
quantity or quality;-this, its common meaning, is in fact a
rationalizing interpretation ofthe real idea; it is that which
is not geheuer,i.e. approximately, the uncannlt-in a word, the
numinous. And it is just this elementof the uncanny in man
that Sophocleshas in mind. If this, its fundamental meaning,
be really and thoroughly felt in consciousness, then the word
could be taken as a fairly exact expressionfor the numinous
in its aspects of mystery, awefulness,majesty, augustness,
and 'energy'; nay, even the aspect of fascination is dimly
felt in it.
The variations of meaning in the German word ungefuuer
can be wcll illustrated from Goethe.r He, too, usesthe word
first to denote the huge in size-what is too vast for our
faculty ofspace-perception,suchasthe immeasurablevault of
the night sky. In other passages the word retains its original
non-rational colour more markedly; it comes to mean the
uncanny, the fearful, the dauntingly 'other' and incompre-
hensible, that which arousesin \s sluplr and 0dppos;and
finally, in the wonderful words of Faust which I have put
at the beginning of this book, it becomesan almost exact
synonym for our 'numinous' under all its aspects.
Das Schaudernist der MenschheitbestesTeil.
Wie auch die \{elt ihm dasGeftihl verteuere,
Ergriffen fithlt er ticf daslJngeheuere.z
' C,f. Wilh.lnt Mc;skrs Waddcrjalw,Bk.l, ch. ro; llTahlamt:andttrhalt n, 2. rsi
Dichtung und Walvluit, 2- g. 4. 2o.
2 Awc is thc b6t of man: howe'er thc world's
Misprizing of thc fceling would prevent us,
Dccply wc fcd, oncc grippc4 the wcird Portcntous.
(Gozrne, Faafl, Sccond Part, Act r, Sc. v.)