The Role of Mythology in Schellings

Late Philosophy
L o illS

Dupre

Yale University

A study o f Schelling's late philosophy o f mythology, despite the re

new ed interest it presently enjoys, still needs som e justification. Why
should we spend tim e and effort on a dem anding philosophical text
based on often ou td ated an d inadequate historical inform ation ab o u t
myths? And why revisit a philosophy that claims to incorporate revela
tion. yet has b een criticized for bending revelation to its own preestab
lished concepts, while in th e process c o rru p tin g the m ethods o f th e
ology as well as o f philosophy? T h e answ er may be brief. Because
Schelling (1775-1854) was am ong th e first to recognize the myth as an
in d e p e n d e n t form of consciousness, irreducible to rational th ought o r
to a prcscientific in terp reta tio n o f n atu re o r history. For him , m ythol
ogy constituted an essentially religious p h enom enon, m arked by poly
theism but indispensable for the rise o f an inclusive m onotheism , that
is, to an idea o f G od that incorporates creation w ithin G ods Being.
D espite the undeniable flaws o f his work an d the enorm ou s progress
since m ade in this area, no o n e has yet surpassed the scope and intel
lectual d ep th of the two-volume treatise on myth w ritten d u rin g the
final twenty years o f Schellings career. Schelling understood that nei
th e r m ythology n o r revelation could be simply ju x tap o sed to ph ilo
sophical tru th . T h e two had to be integrated o r o n e w ould inevitably
exclude the other.
A first extensive discussion o f mythology appears in th e lectures on
th e Philosophy o f Art delivered in Je n a 1802-3 an d repeated in W urzburg
(1 8 04-5).' Following August W ilhelm Schlegels Lectures on Mythology,
1 F ried rich W ilhelm Jo se p h von Schelling, rhUawphie der Kuiui, in SammMthr tlM e , ed.
K. F. A. S chellin g (Stuttgart a n d A ugsburg: C otta Verlag, 1856-59). vol. 5 ; in F.nglish, The
I M&vtfthy o f Art. trans. Douglas W. S tott (M inneapolis: University o f M innesota Press. 1989).
T h e p a g e n u m b e rs o f th is tran slation a p p e a r a fte r th e referen ces to th e G erm an text. O th e r
w orks re fe rre d to in th b article a re hin/u/iniHg in die IhilMaphis d /r Mylhrdogie, in SiimmUitlu
W nkf, p t. 2. vol. I . com m only in d icated as vol. I I : 1hilmophie der Mylholugir, pt. 2. vol. 2.
in d ic a te d as vol. 12; rhHmophie drr OJfnihaning, |t. 2. vols. 3 a n d I. o r vols. 13 a n d 1 1
20 0 7 by T h e U niversity o f C h ic a g o . All rig h ts reserv ed .
0 0 2 2 - 1 1 8 9 /2 0 0 7 /8 7 0 1-0001510.00

The Journal of Religion

he lim ited the subject mainly to G reek myths because o f th e ir su p erio r
aesthetic quality (5:392). But the harm ony between finite form and
infinite content o f G reek mythology w eakened its religious significance.
Philosophy eventually took over part of the religious function o f the
myth. O n this an d on several o th e r issues Schclling was to ch an g e the
views expressed in the Philosophy of Art. Since o u r subject is mythology
ra th e r than art. we move directly to the great works that Schclling com
posed du rin g his final years of teaching. His perspective h ere is exclu
sively religious an d differs from the vaguely pantheistic philosophy o f
identity to which the Philosophy o f Art belongs.
In th e so-called positive philosophy o f his later years. Schelliug aban
do n ed the fundam ental principle of his earlier idealism, that th e m ind
itself contains the Absolute. T h e philosophical idea o r absolute Being
does indeed imply an intrinsic necessity. But such an ideal necessity
contains n eith er real existence n o r positive content. A philosophy built
upo n it could be no m ore than negative." O nly the A bsolute itself is
able to convert the idea o f what must he into the reality of what actually
is. Negative philosophy, though indispensable for und ersta n d in g the
m in d s relation to the A bsolute, m erely form s an introductio n to the
positive philosophy, according to which the A bsolute com m unicates it
self in mythology and revelation.
Schclling refers to the G od o f philosophy as Being itself (ens ipsum).
Such a definition conveys no inform ation alxm t G ods n atu re o r about
G ods relation to o th e r beings. (W hat com plicates Schellings argum ent
is that he uses the term Being indistinguishable fo r essence an d existence.
T h e read e r is frequently forced to figure out from the context which
o n e is in ten d ed .) But if G od is Being itself, all beings m ust be included
in the idea o f G od. To close the gap o f its ignorance about G od. p h i
losophy cannot afford to ignore the co n ten t of a possible revelation. It
oug h t to analyze the concept of revelation as it has historically p re
sented itself in various religions. T h e task of positive philosophy con
sists in seeking to u nderstand th e logic o f revelation an d mythology. It
oug h t to subject th e reports o f them to a critical investigation. At least
they reveal the presence o f a fundam ental hum an n eed fo r an intim ate
acquaintance with the G odhead as well as o f a belief that this n eed has
actually been m et. T h e purpose, then, o f Schellings philosophy o f
myth an d revelation is not to prove" the existence o f G od o r th e su
p ern atu ral n atu re o f th e alleged facts o f revelation, but to show their
ideal structures.
Has Schelliug not left the dom ain o f philosophy alto g eth er an d e n
tered that o f theology? How could an alleged m anifestation o f a reality
that lies beyond th e reach o f th e autonom ous m ind ever becom e a

Mythology in Schcllings Philosophy

subject o f philosophy? H e him self concedes: Most people un d erstan d
by philosophy a science which reason purely an d simply g en erates out
o f itself. From that standpoint, it is natural enough to co n sid er the
philosophy o f revelation an attem pt to present the ideas o f revealed
religion as necessary, p u re truths o f reason o r to reduce them to those"
(14:*i). To be sure, positive philosophy cannot lx? justified w ithin the
restrictions traditionally im posed o n philosophical though t. But the
question rem ains w hether these restrictions are valid. Why should p h i
losophy not investigate the logic" o f mythology an d revelation, as it
does with o th e r em pirical data? W ithout a positive philosophy, ultim ate
metaphysical questions co n cern in g the relation betw een the Absolute
an d that of which it is th e g round must rem ain unansw ered.
For Schelling, mythology constitutes part o f revelation, even though
it requires no su p ern atu ra l intervention. Myths a re natural processes
that aw aken the m ind to full self-consciousness. T hey also p rep are the
m ind's ability to receive a supernatural" revelation. Schelling's posi
tion considerably differs from that o f la ter students o f mythology. To
Paul Tillich, for instance, mythical thinking constitutes an early view o f
reality, which eventually will break down into a variety of fields: science,
metaphysics, and religion. Rationalist philosophers o f the early twen
tieth cen tu ry considered mythical thought a defective, prescientific way
o f thinking, which contains no tru th , but served as a n early substitute
fo r science.
In Schellings view, the myth belongs n e ith e r to science n o r to p h i
losophy. It is an early bu t essential stage o f the religious consciousness.
He restricted the mythical field to the genealogies o f the gods, as re
co rd ed in civilizations o f the N ear Fast. At a first stage of religion, the
sacred is not yet clearly differentiated from the nonsacred. It is followed
by a long p eriod o f polytheism , indispensable for p reparing th e idea
o f o n e G od inclusive of all reality. W ithout mythical polytheism the
m ind would never surpass the inclination to oppose God to all o th e r
form s o f being, as dogm atic theology still often continues to do.
Schelling assumes that all myths follow a sim ilar course, though not
all com plete th e e n tire process. A com plete cycle passes th ro u g h three
stages. Yet som e barely move beyond the first. He bases his analysis on
th e theory o f the th re e potencies (Polcnzcn), which dom inates his en tire
la ter metaphysics. T h e potencies are n eith er palpable realities n o r ab
stract concepts, but real an d effective (wirkliche) powers that hold the
m iddle between concrete an d abstract concepts. They a rc tru e univer
s a l , yet at the sam e tim e full realities" (Philosophic der Alylhologie, in
SammlUche Werkc, 12:115). In the Einlciluiig in dir Philosophic (1830, but
published only in 1980) Schelling describes them as the con d itio n s o f

The Journal of Religion

Being. T hey raise fundam ental metaphysical questions. W hat p receded
Being? W hat is n ee d ed for Being to I k *? Negative philosophy is unable
to answ er those questions. Hegel started his Logic with the co n cep t o f
Being. Positive philosophy com m ences with the conditions o f th e pos
sibility o f Being.
Schclliug distinguishes th re e such conditions, or. as he calls them ,
th re e metaphysical potencies. (A ) First is the sh eer possibility o f Being
(das Srinkonnen). This expression becom es intelligible only if o n e as
sum es. with Fichte an d Schelling. that a transcendent will m ust precede
actual Being. T h e first potency consists o f a preontological drive that
ren d ers Being not only possible but im perative: it is that which must
be (das Sein-miissende). (B) All u n co nditioned obedience to this call
would give rise to Being w ithout limits. This blind Being w ould destroy
any possibility of being this o r that. It would simply overwhelm th e re
ceptive A m om ent in such a way that no d ifferentiation, no p articular
reality, and no freedom could ever exist, /{would suppress A altogether.
For that reason Schelling calls the unrestricted second potency tvhat
ought not to be (das nicht-sein-sollende). H ence, for th e existence o f con
crete reality, a th ird condition must be fulfilled to limit the im pact o f
Ii an d ren d e r it com patible with A. (C ) T h e th ird potency, th en , con
sists in a capacity of reflection, a n ability o f the receptive subject to
w ithdraw into itself an d thereby to preserve its freedom to be this and
no t that. T his third potency restricts B's undifferentiated power: B still
rem ains the g ro u n d o f d ifferentiated reality, bu t it ceases to obliterate
it. Schelling refers to the outcom e o f the third potency as das als-solchesSeinkdnnende (what can exist as such) o r also das als-solches Seiendes,
which we might translate as Being w ithin the limits o f essence (UVjc/i ).
It is im portant to rem em ber that the potencies are not m om ents o f
Being, but conditions. H ence the undifferentiated infinite Being o f the
B potency m ust not be eq u a ted with G od's Being. W hereas G ods Being
is endow ed with an infinite n u m b e r o f attributes, the second potency
is m erely indefinite an d blind. T h e preceding description of the p o te n
cies appears in the recently published first version of the Philosophy of
Revelation (w ritten in 1831). O bscure as it may be. it is still clearer than
any o f the later versions.'* T h e general p attern o f the potencies retu rn s
at every stage of the positive philosophy, each time assum ing different
features.
In the en tire philosophy o f revelation (which includes mythology)
th e theory o f the potencies plays a significant part. Schelling denies
1 K rirdrich Schelling. V ijn sw n g tin rhitnvtfihic tier O/frntionnig (1831). c d . W aller K ihardi
(I la m b in g : Felix M cin er Verlag. 1992). 27-37.

*1

Mythology in Schcllings Philosophy

that a purely logical philosophy (exclusive o f revelation) is able to think
th e transition from u n d ifferentiated Being (li) to concrete, p articular
Being (C ). Negative philosophy conceives of Being as an em pty infinite.
But how can the finite be. if Being can be thought only as infinite? 3
Instead, a positive philosophy, receptive o f mythology and revelation,
conceives o f G od as infinite Being endow ed with, yet not divided by,
d eterm in ate attributes revealed in mythology. W ithout this revelation.
Soliciting im plies, metaphysics is unable to answ er its most fundam ental
question: Why is th e re Being (as we know it. i.e., differentiated ) rath er
than nothing? Parm enides, o u r first great m etaphysician, consistently
excluded th e possibility of d ifferentiated Being. To him . finitude and
determ in atio n were m ere illusions, forms o f 11011-Being. Schelling ar
gues that, after negative philosophy establishes the undifferen tiated
idea o f Being, the justification of d ifferentiated reality still requires an
idea o f the Absolute as including internal determ ination s, w ithout
which it would not be able to function as g round fo r the existence o f
particular realities. Negative philosophy is unable to provide such an
idea. For that reason Schelling declares it inadequate for dealing with
th e relation betw een G od an d the finite.
Only from the revelation of the A bsolute in mythology does philos
ophy learn that the A bsolute possesses in tern al determ inatio n s th at it
expresses in finite beings endow ed with an in d e p en d en t existence. Be
cause all beings rem ain im m anent in the all-encom passing A bsolute,
archaic speculation conceives o f th e A bsolute as Ixdng itself a plurality.
H ence th e rise of polytheism . In the m ythological process the potencies
p resen t the stages o f the m ind's process toward full God-consciousness,
which coincides with full self-consciousness. As the m ind gradually dis
covers the notion o f a totality o f Being, it first im agines this all-em
bracing totality in the prim itive picture of a prim ary god. Schelling calls
this mythical representation a negative concept: it possesses n o in n e r
tru th an d functions as a substitute fo r the real (i.e.. self-differentiated)
A bsolute. It is what is no t (das Nicht-Seiende) an d . in its relation to the
first potency o f consciousness, what ought not to lx? (das nichl-Seinsoltende).
Mythology, in S chelling's in terp reta tio n , represents the opposition
betw een th e m ultiple finite an d the all-com prehensive bu t indefinite
o n e as a struggle between gods. T h e mythical m ind seeks reconcilia
tion. but seldom finds it. W henever it succeeds, it usually presen ts the
reconciliation between the infinite and the finite in the form o f a young
' F ried rich Schelling. I j n t h l t i u g in riit lh il m o f tltv (1830), c d . W alter F.hrhardt (Stuttgart:
F ro m a n n -Ilo lzb o o g. 1989). 9 S -I0 0 . See P eter Koslow&i. I hil<nnfthim ifrr OffrHfxirung (Paderb o m : F. S ch o n in g . 2001). 603-1.

The Journal of Religion

god who com es to share th e lot o f sulTcring hum anity and th ereb y to
redeem the race. In the en d he becom es victorious over th e oppressive
old god an d restores th e autonom y o f th e finite.
In the Philosophy of Mythology, th e n , Schelling describes the historical
process th rough which the m ind becom es aware o f itself an d o f its
transcendent dim ension. T h ough the process is divinely guided, the
m ind m ust rely entirely on its n atu ral powers. T h e key to the religious
significance o f the myth lies in Schellings concept o f m onotheism . In
th e past som e scholars considered archaic religions that possessed no
polytheistic p an th eo n to lx* m onotheistic." A few even assum ed th at a
pristine revelation had preceded the spread o f polytheism . T h e myth
ological process thereby cam e to lx* seen as a co rru p tio n o f the p ri
meval divine truth. C ontrary to this opinion. Schelling m aintained that
polytheism , rath er than im plying a decline o f the religious conscious
ness. constituted a necessary phase in the m ind's ascent to a spiritual
idea o f God and to full self-recognition. T h e alleged m onotheism was
e ith e r a prim itive kind o f pantheism , to o vague to distinguish between
th e sacred and the nonsacred. o r a theological dualism that conceived
o f G od as a Being opposed to all o th e r lx*ings. T hat dualism has sur
vived in dogm atic theories o f the m odern age. which envision the link
between God an d the finite to be no m ore than an act o f effective
causality. Such a conception conflicts with the idea, adm itted by the
sam e theologians, that G od is Being (esse ipsurn) and. as such, must in
som e way include all that is.
In Schellings view, the idea o f G od as Spirit, so strongly asserted in
th e fourth G ospel, requires a m ore intim ate relation than that o f causal
d ep e n d en ce. As Spirit, G od m ust be present in the inm ost natu re o f
Mis creatures. T h e intrinsic goal o f polytheistic m ythologies, then,
served the purpose o f reintegrating the m ultiplicity o f creatio n within
th e divine unity. T h e m ythological theogouies, far from being m ean
ingless stories, p rep are the m ind for the acceptance of a tru e, that is,
a d ifferentiated m onotheism . Still polytheism becam e necessary only
because the m ind had lost its prim eval state o f innocence. W ithout an
exodus from th e original state of innocence, th e re w ould be n o history.
T herefore that first step o f m ankind is th e prim eval event" (13:385).
O riginally the potencies m aintained a relation o f harm onious bal
ance that the Kail disturbed. In the Kalio f its n atu re we know no m ore
than about the period that preceded it the hum an m ind arro g ated to
itself control over the potencies (13:360-61). It thereby disrupted the
m ind's harm ony with itself and with n atu re. H um ans attem p tin g to b e
com e like God" fell into a condition o f GoUentfremdung, which was also
a stale o f Selbslenl/rrmdung (alienation from G od an d from oneself) - But

Mythology in Schilling's Philosophy

in accepting this state o f alienation hum anity w ould eventually redis
cover the tru e God. M ythology describes the process o f that retu rn .
How did polytheism start? S ch illin g argues that th e original co n d i
tion o f cu ltu re was no m ore m onotheistic than polytheistic. O n e might
describe it as pantheistic, were it no t that prem ythical hum ans lacked
th e kind o f reflectiveness that pantheism requires. S ch illin g pictures
th e ir condition as being dom inated by th e all-absorbing blind reality
o f the second potency. H e refers to it as th e reign o f U ratios (th e sky)
w ho. according to H esiod, was the oldest of th e G reek gods. In giving
this u n d eterm in ed religious aw areness the nam e of a G reek god the
p o et appears to m ake it p a ri o f a theogony, which it is not. T h e wan
d e rin g nom ads h e re presented, strangers to themselves an d to th e lands
th rough which they passed, recognized no gods, not even the astral
bodies that guided them on th e ir ways. T h e stars m erely served as bea
cons o f light in an u n d ifferentiated sacred space. Those "Sabists." as
Schclling calls them , were m onotheistic only insofar as their religion
recognized no distinctions. Everything was sacred and hence n o th in g
in particular was.
In th e next stageto which U ranos form ed th e transitio n th e (fi
nite) principle o f the first potency (/l) rebels against this crushing
weight o f undifferentiated Being am i starts a struggle fo r survival. In
th e language o f theogony, the struggle ends with a w eakening o f the
oppressor. T h e myth achieves this eith er by placing a fem ale principle
next to the oppressive m ale, o r by h aring the m ale o n e castrated. U ra
nia is th e G reek nam e H erodotus, the fifth-century BC historian, gives
to the goddess who at this p o in t em erges everywhere in the N ear East.
Schelling describes the lim e o f U rania as mostly o n e o f peaceful co
existence betw een m ale an d fem ale divinities (13:392). Yet powerful
goddesses such as Mvliita (in Assyria), Astarte, o r Cybelc (in Phrygia
an d I.vdia) gradually deprived the m ale god o f all his power. Eventually
they achieved a total victory over the m ale god.
G reek mythology used a m ore drastic im age for the fem inization o f
U ranos. T h e autocratic god killed all U ranias children as soon as they
w ere born. Yet Kronos, secretly born, conspired with his m o th er to
em asculate his father. O ne version of the myth p resented an even m ore
radical account of the fem inization. Kronos threw the genitals o f his
fath er into the ocean an d ou t o f the foam arose A phrodite, a second
fem ale power, which fu rth e r m arginalized the oppressive male. Driven
from his central position to the periphery, th e autocratic single god is
no longer capable o f preventing the rise of divine multiplicity. T he
intro d u ctio n o f fem ale deities has op en ed the d o o r to a new line o f
gods. W hen Kronos, a m ore reflective representation o f U ranoss blind

The Journal of Religion

power, repeated the habits of his fath er an d devoured his own ch ild ren .
Zeus, th e son w ho had escaped his fath er's infanticidal drive, at the
next birth o f a sibling swathed a heavy stone in bandages an d . in lieu
o f the infant, fed him to the voracious Kronos.
While the fem ale gods m erely w eakened the pow er o f the suprem e
m ale god in the m ythologies o f Egypt an d G reece, Schelling claims
(with insufficient evidence. I think) that in the Assvrian-Babylonian re
ligions th e goddesses simply replaced the male god. T h is dram atic rev
o lution did not pass w ithout causing a feeling of guilt in th e p eople for
having ab an d o n ed the old god. Schelling detects a symbol o f half
hea rted rep en tan ce in a selective form of tem ple prostitution described
by H erodotus. O n a day consecrated to Mylitta, th e Assyrian goddess,
m arried w omen had to s u rre n d e r themselves, once in a lifetim e, to the
first m an who asked them , at any price he oflered. T hus th e nation
attem p ted to expiate its guilt for allowing itself to be seduced by the
new goddess and thus to break the an c ien t covenant. Schelling com
pares th e m otivation o f this custom with the charge of adultery by
which the H ebrew prophets den o u n ced Israels tu rn in g to foreign
gods. In the Book llosea Vahweh even orders th e p ro p h et to m arry a
prostitute to den o u n c e the p eo p le's adultery with o th e r gods.
T h e fem ale cults o f the N ear East were closely linked to the seasons
o f nature. Still Schelling rejects a naturalist reading o f the m yth, as if
it m erely symbolized fertility processes. Even the celebrations o f the
seasons had a spiritual significance, he argues. T hey prep are d an aware
ness of God as all-encom passing Absolute. Mis in terp reta tio n follows an
earlier, mainly N eoplatonic tradition. In his treatise o f the Egyptian
myth o f Isis and Osiris. Plutarch wrote: We oppose all those uncouth
m inds that so readily equate the activities o f the gods e ith e r with sea
sonal changes in atm osphere, o r with harvest, sowing, o r lab o r in the
fields. They speak o f the burial o f O siris' when the seeding grain lies
buried in the earth an d o f the resurrection an d reappearance o f Osiris*
w hen the seeds lxgin to sp ro u t (Dr hide el Osiride, 377B).
N onetheless, the link with nature rem ained strong. As th e religious
consciousness advanced, representations of the divine moved u p from
lifeless structures (huge boulders o r m ountains) to anim als whose sen
sitive awareness m ore directly reflects divine life (ibid., 382A). Even the
theologicallv progressive Egyptian mythology still abounds with anim al
symbols. Those prim itive form s never disappear com pletely. The h u
m anized G reek mythology co n tin u ed to preserve sacred m ountains,
m onsters, an d hybrids, not to m ention Zeus's anim al disguises as a
swan, a bull, o r a serpent.
In areas w here the fem ale victors- h a d been less than absolute o r

Mythology in Schcllings Philosophy

w here it was eventually overcom e, a young m ale, eith er god o r half-god,
e n te re d th e scene as a liberator of the oppressed. Me m ediated between
th e gods and the people. In G reek mythology this mysterious figure,
Dionysus, had been at work long before he received a nam e and a
specific place in the theogony. A sim ilar god appears in Egyptian, Per
sian, and Phoenician m ythologies. T h e ir behavior is identical. T he
young god first places him self in the service of th e old god who. though
relegated to th e sidelines, retains m uch power, at least w here h e has
no t been replaced by divine m atriarchies. Soon the old god com es to
suspect him of u n d erm in in g his authority an d tests his loyalty by im
posing dangerous tasks u p o n him . Such were the works o f H eracles (a
sim ilar half-god, possibly o f P hoenician origin). T h e servant survives
his trials and. th rough the good works he has accom plished, wins the
favor o f the hum ans whose harsh lot he shared. Yet eventually h e is
killed an d thereby pacifies the old god. W hen in som e way he is brought
back to life, the old god is finally forced to recognize the pow er o f the
newcom er, even though he may no t acknowledge his divinity.
C onvinced that all myths followed a com m on p attern . Schelling
te n d ed to eq u a te the various m ediating gods of the N ear East with the
G reek Dionysus. H e followed H erodotus, who had referred to th e Egy|>tian O siris and to the P hoenician M clkarih as Dionysus. As long as the
first god. whom we also call the rral god. absolutely closes him self to
(th e new com er], th e young o n e cannot ap p e ar as god. but only as an
unintelligible m iddle-lxdng betw een god an d m en. So he appears as
the h idden god, negated an d hum bled, who must first m erit his divin
ity" (13:394). To Schelling, this m ediating god prophetically announces
the G od-m an o f revelation (13:347-45). In his fam ous poem Brot und
Wein," llo ld erlin had in veiled term s com pared Christ to Dionysus: he
had com e to proclaim the en d o f the ancient gods, but to com fort us
o f their absence, had left us his gifts. Schelling also regards the suffer
ing an d dying gods, Dionysus, M clkarth, an d O siris, as prophetic figures
o f Christ.
Mythology, th e n , had been indispensable fo r discovering th e tru th o f
m onotheism . Yet m isinterpreting its instrum ental role, hum ans con
verted th e potencies active in the m in d s response to the Absolute into
in d e p en d en t, divine substances. By thus tu rn in g the in tern al forces o f
the m ind into gods, they actually arrested th e process o f religious d e
velopm ent. Most m ythologies rem ained frozen in the struggle between
the two first potencies, as if engaged in an u n ending fight between
divinities.
In that respect. Mazdaism, the noble religion o f ancient Persia, con
stitutes an exception. Schelling ju d g e d it to approach m onotheism , as

The Journal of Religion

he understood th e term . U nfortunately, being almost entirely reduced
to G reek sources w ritten well after th e founding tim e o f the m ovem ent
an d long before the sul)staniial changes it underw ent in the Sassanian
kingdom , he knew little o f the origins o f Mazdaism. We now know, o r
think we know, that Z arathustra, an Iranian sage who lived som e n ine
h u n d red years before the present era, in his poem s an d serm ons con
verted an old Indo-lraniau collection o f beliefs and rituals in to a sim
ple, highly m oral religion. Mis d o ctrin e has often been in terp rete d as
a dualism in which two ultim ate principles. O rm uzd the good an d Ahrim an th e evil o ne, were locked in a p erm an en t struggle. In fact, evil
was to Ik* perm anently overcom e by the o n e principle o f good. Despite
his inadequate sources. Schelling perceived th e m onotheistic n atu re o f
Z arathustra's thought.
A fter the p ro p h e ts death, Mazdaism began to slide toward a com
m on polytheistic religion. At som e point, th e suprem e god. A huraMazda (th e wise L ord), was believed to have bad a fem ale consort,
A nahita. C onsidering the original purity o f the Mazda faith. Schelling
surm ises that she may have e n tered the Persian religion u n d e r th e in
fluence o f nearby Assyrian-Bahylonian fem ale cults. In th e H ellenistic
age, w hen Mazdaism began to be called Zoroastrism (after th e Greek
nam e o f its p ro p h et), th e young god M ithra. not nam ed in th e original
sources Inn m entioned in the Indian Rg-Yeda hymns, cam e to play a
cen tral role in Iranian mythology. His m ediating function may be com
pared to that o f O siris an d Dionysus. A god of light, usually rep resen ted
with th e sun. he was believed to have overcom e the opposition between
O rm u zd s kingdom of light and A hrim ans reign o f darkness. Eventu
ally he appears to have m erged with Ahura-M azda him self a n d , as allinclusive A bsolute, to have co n tain ed both light and darkness.
As th e cult spread d u rin g th e H ellenistic an d Rom an periods, a lux
uriant p an th eo n grew around the figure of M ithra. But the co re o f the
m yth, the young god who passes (the iransilus) through great pain and
d angers to cap ture an d kill the wild bull, rem ained rem arkably stable.
Som e scholars have in terp rete d this bull as the prim eval anim al, from
whose body sprang plants, grains, an d anim als to serve h u m an needs.
O th ers identify th e bull with the zodiac figure Taurus that is visible
d u rin g the dark period of the year an d in the spring m ust yield to the
new light. In e ith e r case. M ithra appears as a hum ble god w ho labors
in the service o f hum ans and, after his full divinization, incorporates
the qualities o f all gods w ithin himself. Even in this later mythical form
Mazdaism differs from o th e r m ythologies in that it bypasses th e struggle
betw een the old e r an d th e younger gods. M ithra does not light Alntra10

Mythology in Schcllings Philosophy

Mazda: he incorporates him . Not w ithout reason does Schelling regard
Mazdaism as having prep are d the religions o f the future.
T h e coining o f Dionysus an d his P hoenician. Egyptian, and Persian
co u n terp arts introduces the th ird potency, which reconciles th e first
an d the second. T h e struggle between the two form er principles has
e n d e d in a defeat o f the dom inant principle (in G reek m ythology rep
resented by K ronos). T h e dom inant godw hether Kronos o r Cvbele
being exclusive o f all others, lacked the com plexity o f a spiritual reli
gion. With the advent o f th e m ediating gods, the celestial kingdom
acq u ired a spiritual, that is. a com plex, inclusive quality. T h e new gods
still rem ain m aterial* substances, but they differ from the old ones in
that they directly p rep are a different in terp reta tio n o f the mythological
process. In them the th ree potencies rem ain active at each o f th e three
m om ents. T h e struggle against the dom inant principle h ere en d s in a
final reconciliation (13:395101).
T h re e religions com pleted, each in a different way. the cycle o f the
potencies: the Egyptian, the Indian, and the G reek. T hey directly p re
pared a spiritual m onotheism . T he Egyptian strongly em phasized the
struggle betw een th e old an d the new gods. H ere also H erodo tu s served
as S chelling's principal source of inform ation, though P lutarch 's trea
tise on Isis and Osiris assisted him in perceiving som e of th e m eaning
o f the historian's confused narrative. Typlton. com parable to the
Kronos o f the Greeks, was originally the god o f th e desert, w ho with
b u rn in g winds dried u p th e fertile land. T h e benevolent O siris restores
fertility by in u n d a tin g it with th e Nile. Typhon kills the young god and
disperses the m em bers o f his body. Isis. O siriss sister (o r brid e), col
lects an d reassem bles them . B rought back to life, O siris defeats Typhon
and. according to o n e version of the myth, kills him . while Isis, who
h ere appears as Typhon's spouse, lam ents his death. In a n o th e r version,
Osiris, now Isiss spouse and b ro th e r o f Typhon. com m its adultery with
Typhon's wife Nephtys. Isis's changing role in these different versions
illustrates the am bivalence created by the young g o d s com ing: people
p refer him but still fear the old god. In the en d the myth takes a sig
nificant tu rn : Typhon m erges with bis young antagonist O siris and in
this reconciliation the myth reaches w hat Schelling considers to lx- tinth ird potency.
In the Egyptian myth the gods begin to lose th e ir fixed, substantial
identity an d to present the im personal powers o f the religious con
sciousness. W hen Typhon m erges with Osiris, he reveals that b e was not
th e aboriginal oppressive, undifferentiated substance, but m erely a po
tency' o f Being confronting a n o th e r potency an d b o u n d to u nite with
it in a third one. Osiris also gives up his substantial identity in o rd er

The Journal of Religion

to becom e a symbol o f spiritual unity. At this final stage, th e god. as
well as the o n e with whom he m erges, becom es truly the one who rnusl
be (tier sein ioUende). T h e most significant episode in the story is the
dispersion o f O siris's limbs. It symbolizes the plurality that must en ter
into the tru e (i.e., all-inclusive) idea o f God. It also suggests th at to
fulfill th e ir ideal function th e gods must lay down their earthly lives.
Tvphon an d Osiris, it now appears, were no m ore than opposite facets
o f the sam e reality. T h e tension am ong the mythical characters was
m erely a m eans to restore the divine unity. T h e goal is th e rep aratio n
o f th e original unity, o f the m onotheism that was given with th e essence
o f m an an d that had to be raised to a h igher level (aufgehoben] in o rd e r
to be recognized not as a |x>teutial o r m aterial (m onotheism ), but as
an actual unity o f (k>d an d consciousness" (12:374).
T h e O siris myth seem ed headed for a spiritual idea o f God. Yet at
th e en d Kgyptian mythology retu rn s to its earlier, m aterial rep resen ta
tions. even though the thinking that had m otivated the story had al
ready moved well beyond them . Precisely where th e myth seem s to at
tain its spiritual conclusion, it exposes its p erm anent inadequacy.
Instead o f opening up into a vision o f the o n e G od who contains all
things w ithin Himself, the myth once again descends into a coarsely
m aterial representation o f the multiplicity o f beings im m anent in God.
A fter the concept was ready to assert th e spiritual n atu re o f G od. the
m aterial principle intervenes and breaks up the spiritual unity. T he
unity dissolves in an abu n d an ce of anim als an d half-animals. With these
anim al gods the myth regresses to an earlier stage w hen the gods, afraid
o f Tvphon, hid themselves in anim al bodies. But the appearan ce o f
dogs, ibises, and hawks seem s singularly in ap p ro p riate after th e com
pletion o f the O siris myth.
T h e fact that Egyptian religion retained its mythical form allowed it
to celebrate th e yearly recessions and expansions o f the Nile. Myths
develop in tim e, bu t they never attain a historical ending. T h e events
never cease to repeat themselves. Even the old gods, suppressed from
th e present, never fully disappear. T hey still enjoy a m odest veneration
an d rem ain objects of a vague fear. Next to the large tem ples d ed icated
to Morns, th e son o f Osiris an d Isis, who incarnates the third potency
an d the en d o f the mythical struggle, small ones w ere erected for Tvphon. Egypt never ab an d o n ed its mythology, but constantly co rrected
it.
Schclliug saw o n e such correction in th e existence o f agenneloi (un
b o rn ), prem ythical o r m etaphysical" gods who, though presen ted in
h u m an forms, are products o f thought rath er than o f the mythical
im agination. A m ong them was A nnin, th e Zeus o f T hebe" (as H ero d

12

Mythology in Schelling's Philosophy

otus calls him ), adored in th e huge tem ple o f K arnak. Schelling ranks
them with th e Sabist" cults o f the beginning. But th e ir cult co n tinuing
until the C hristian era rath er seem s to indicate that Egyptian religion
resists being com pressed w ithin his rigorous mythical interp retatio n .
Schelling regards Vedic mythology also as com plete." Its gods rep
resent all th ree potencies. Yet. according to the Philosophy o f Mythology,
they rem ain in d e p en d en t o f each o th e r an d thereby fail to resolve the
tensions that divide them . Brahm a, th e passionate, rash, an d blind god
(12:448). whom Schelling com pares to Typhon, has been com pletely
relegated to th e past. Virtually no tem ples a re dedicated to him . and
he receives little cubic atten tio n . Shiva, the destroyer who replaces him .
never becam e m ore than a destructive principle. T h e religious m ind,
dissatisfied with these negative deities, simply moved on to a th ird , spir
itual godhead. V ishnu, the god o f Being (Sattwa) an d o f light, who
incarnates the th ird potency bu t has little to do with the o th e r two gods
o f the suprem e triad.
Iu S chelling's presen tatio n . Indian mythology developed in a direc
tion opposite to th e Egyptian an d the G reek. Both co n tin u ed to m ain
tain a cult for the god o f the beginning, while Indian religion, ab an
d o n in g the original principle altogether, shifted w ithout transition to
a spiritual principle. It thereby lost the foundational principle, the
g ro u n d of the en tire process (13:403). T h e ab ru p t move to a spiritual
unity may have satisfied a spiritual elite, but not the ordinary believer.
Indian mythology could not have survived in such a thin spiritual atm o
sp h ere, and people reverted to m ore m aterial gods.
S chelling's purely mythological and overly simplistic treatm en t o f
H induism fails to account for m uch in Indian religion that was barely
co n n e cted with the th ree gods. N or does the alleged in d e p en d en ce o f
th e th re e principal gods explain the uni<|uc status o f H induism . In fact,
by Schelling's own account, a very real relation does exist between
Brahm a, Shiva, and Vishnu. T h e balanced, differentiated pow er o f
V ishnu could not exist w ithout Shivas destruction o f Brahm a's auto
cratic "m onism ." A text q u o te d from the P uranas (mostly w ritten be
tw een the first and the ten th century AI)) describes th e ir intim ate re
latedness: As light shows a difference, g reater o r less, accord in g to its
nearness o r distance from fire, so is th ere a variation in the energy o f
B rahm an [the A lolute. distinct from Brahm a, th e suprem e god].
Brahm a. Vishnu, an d Shiva are his ch ief energies. . . . V ishnu is the
highest an d most im m ediate o f all the energies o f B rahm an. O n him
this en tire universe is woven and interw oven: from him is the world and
the world is in him : an d he is the whole universe" (V ishnu, 1:22).
Let us assum e, however, that the link betw een Vishnu an d th e o th e r

13

The Journal of Religion

two gods is to o weak to support V ishnus spiritual piety. Does that ex
plain why he becom es fragm ented into an infinite n u m b e r o f avatars,
as Schclling maintains? In the P uranas Vishnu appears in th e guise o f
th e young s h ep h erd Kama, c e n te r o f num erous epic com positions, o r
o f K rishna, the god of the M ahabharata's war an d of the epiphany o f
th e Bhagavad Gita. T h e theory of the potencies provides little assistance
fo r u n derstanding this fragm entation. As fo r the Vedanta, th e mystical
com pletion o f th e Veda, it is not so m uch an in terp reta tio n o f Indian
m ythology as an attem pt to free th e religious m ind o f myth altogether.
An even m ore forceful rejection of mythology appears in B uddhism .
T h e early, practical T heravada as well as th e later, m ore metaphysical
Mahayana abstained from any kind o f thcogony, as Schclling duly notes.
Was Buddhism a twig o f the mythically sober Iranian religion to which
it. particularly in South India, appears close, o r did it originate in the
ascetic a n d / o r mystical trends o f the Vedanta? In eith er case it rem ains
far from the structural principles o f the Philosophy of Mythology, although
no t m ore so than C hinese religion." which, by Schcllings own adm is
sion. possesses n e ith e r au to ch th o n o u s myths n o r gods! R ather th an at
tem pting an artificial explanation to save his elusive schem a, the a u th o r
proposes an ingenious hypothesis to account for this absence.
Myth, he had often asserted, requires the conscious identity o f a peo
ple. But the inhabitants o f the gigantic C hinese Em pire never regarded
themselves as a" people, but ra th e r as hum anity itself. T h e ir enorm ous
territory and su p erio r institutions presented no occasion fo r com paring
themselves with o thers. Schclling m aintains that only with th e begin
ning of a national consciousness do people ab a n d o n th e prim itive state
that precedes mythology. This requires that they reject the exclusive
d om inance o f the all-encom passing sacred. C hina followed a d ifferent
direction: its people never developed a thcogonie rebellion. Instead
they transferred th e ir traditional religious expressions o f respect and
subm ission to the Em pire. Not even the idea o f heaven, so p ro m in en t
in C hinese culture, refers to a transcendent power: it constituted an
integral part o f the social universe. T h e ir religio astralis in rrm publiram
(12:531) allowed the em p e ro r to rule by the heavenly m otions. This
civil religion, in which the secular becam e sacred, prevented C hinese
cu ltu re from passing th rough a theogonic process to reach selfconsciousness.
Finally. Schclling turns to G reek mythology, the o n e that had p ro
vided the m odel for his theory' since the early Philosophy of Art. He
regards it as the most spiritual because it im m ediately prepares the
transition to the true" idea o f G od. H e notes that G reek mythology,
m ore than any other, displays a certain rationality. H esiods history o f

14

Mythology in Schclling's Philosophy

the gods raised thcogony into an intelligible system. A concern fo r ra
tionality appears also in H erodotus, who claim ed that th e G reeks first
gave nam es to the gods. Yet the religious reason never becam e abstract.
At every stage, the G reeks recu rred to im ages an d often earthy rep re
sentations for expressing a n ideal content. This balance between ma
terial form and spiritual significance gave G reek myths a natural ap ti
tude for being tu rn e d into poetry. Indeed, they form ed th e original
co n ten t o f G reek poetry.
T h e story o f the gods starts with Chaos, a n ideal concept as well as a
physical one. From Chaos H esiod moves directly to Gaia (th e F.arth),
the first fem ale principle and the source o f the mythical process. She
bears U ranos, but also the m ountains, the sea. an d the Titans, am ong
them Kronos and Rhea, his future wife. In a second generatio n , Gaia
bears th e Cyclops, whom Zeus later used in his battle against th e Titans.
T hese prim itive creatures populated the earth before it becam e civi
lized. T h e G reeks despised them yet never forgot them . They moved
them to the past, bu t that past rem ained vitally linked to th e present
an d even to th e future. Thus Kronos. th e h o rrib le ancestor, was still
n ee d ed to understand Dionysus, the latest o f th e gods.
In Schcllings view, th e m any gods owed th e ir origin to the disinte
gration o f the o n e hom ogeneous reality principle. As Kronos. who p re
sented that principle, started losing his power, it broke down in to a
n u m b e r of increasingly m ore spiritual principles, which to g eth er
form ed a harm onious universe. "G reek mythology consists in the soft
d ea th , the tru e euthanasia o f the real principle which, after its dep ar
tu re an d dem ise, still leaves a beautiful, fascinating world o f ap p ear
ances in its place" (13:405). T h e am biguous figure o f D em eter therein
occupies a central position. She stands between the real world o f the
past, dom inated by the oppressive pow er o f Kronos. and the ideal world
o f th e future (12:031). Still, the m em ory of the sim ple life o f th e age
o f Kronos (in Latin, S aturnus) continued to evoke nostalgia in the
G reek m ind. It was rem em bered as the golden age, a time w hen no
b o rd e r stones divided the fields and when the earth was recognized to
be a com m on possession.
Surprisingly, it was D em eter, the rem em brance o f the past, w ho in
troduced people to agriculture, the beginning o f h igher civilization.
Indeed, this is how she was com m only rem em bered. Yet she was much
m ore than a seasonal goddess. T h e G reek m ysteries revolved aro u n d
her. Obviously, agriculture requires no foundation in mysteries. Nor
was h e r d au g h ter Persephone, abducted to the underw orld , a m ere
im age o f th e seed buried in the g round to reem erge after six m onths

The Journal of Religion

as a living plant. W hile distressedly seeking h e r daughter, D cm etcr is.
in Schellings view, looking for the lost god o f the beginnings.
T h e Kleusinian mysteries enact the goddesss errin g search, h e r res
ignation. and. at last, the advent of h e r son Dionysus. This god o f the
fu tu re conclud ed the m ythical cycle, even though at an earlier stage
Dionysus had very m uch been part of the polytheistic struggle, lie even
had been killed. Yet he had risen to new life an d in the en d was to
survive all gods. His m other. D em eter, symbolized the transition from
the dom inion o f the old god. th e o n e who should no t be ( drr nichl srin
solIif). to th e h ig h e r potency of the new god who oug h t to be ( drr sein
sollte) (12:634).
P ersephone plays herein' a significant role. T he myths relating to
P ersephone co ntain the key to the en tire mythologya key provided
by mythology itself. . . . T h e origins o f mythology present in th e Per
sep h o n e doctrine move into the innerm ost dep th s o f h u m an existence"
(12:181). She represents th e dangerous odyssey o f freedom as it begins
to assert itselfwith tragic consequences an d eventual com prom ises.
H er life begins in a state o f innocence, yet she is vaguely aware o f h e r
ability to move out of this prim eval state. As sh e tests h e r freedom by
w andering off on h e r own, th e god o f the underw orld abducts h e r to
his kingdom of darkness. In response to the pleas o f h e r m other, Hades
allows h e r to spend half a year al>ove g round an d half a year with him
in the underw orld. Beyond the obvious seasonal reference o f the myth
lies a profound aw areness o f th e destiny o f freedom , which moves from
innocence to fall to rebirth. Consciousness has to die to its natural life
in o rd e r to attain spiritual awareness.
Yet a third god plays a m ajor part in the Kleusinian mysteries: Dio
nysus. In G reek mythology he appears in th ree different im persona
tions. First as the ch th o n ian Zagreus, the wild son o f Zeus an d Per
sephone, still very m uch a figure of the rustic, prim itive age. T he
second Dionysus, the so-called T h eb an Bacchus, son o f Zeus an d the
nym ph Sem ele, incarnates th e joy and revel 17 that accom panies the
liberation from the old god. In his m u rd e r (sim ilar to O siriss) by rag
ing m aenads who tore th e limbs off his body, Schelling sees a symbol
o f th e fragm entation into many gods. It is, however, the third Dionysus,
Iakchos. the son o f Zeus and D em eter, who stands central in th e mys
teries (see 13:465-83). Iakchos assum es som e features of the first and
th e second Dionysus. T h e h ie ro p h an t still referred to him as Zagreus.
an d the suffering and death of Bacchus played a considerable part in
th e holy ritual. Yet, as we shall see, his significance lies elsew here. He
is the god of the future.
T h e mysteries form the transition from mythology to revealed reli

16

Mythology in Schclling's Philosophy

gion: ill them th e esoteric m eaning o f the myth becom es revealed. De
m eter. reconciled to h e r fate, the loss of P ersephone an d o f th e old
god. resolves th e existential tensions rep resen ted by th e struggling
gods. T h e dram atic presentation o f the m ysteries forced th e partici
pants to confront the initial te rro r that lay hidden in the mythical nar
ratives. Yet in th e en d the initiation prom ised lasting beatitu d e after
d ea th . T h e rein in g o f P ersephone's d escent to H ades concluded in an
e n c o u n te r with the god o f life. H ades an d Dionysus are o ne. Plutarch
had cryptically w ritten. W hile reenacting the mythical events, th e mys
teries liberated the initiates from the endless con tin u an ce an d oppres
sive m ateriality of the mythical process.
T h e initiation into the m ysteries has often been coni|>ared with an
introduction to philosophy. In the Phaedrus, Plato likens the goal o f
philosophy to that o f th e mysteries, namely, to move from th e material
to a spiritual realm where d eath has no m ore pow er over life. Still the
m ysteries contain no philosophy. T hey have m ore in com m on with the
G reek tragedy, which was believed to have originated in songs th at com
m em orated th e suffering and death o f Dionysus. T h e classical dram a
still began with a sacrifice to the g o d o f th e mysteries. All that evoked
pity an d fear in the tragedy, hum an fate with its unprcdictivcness and
inevitable en d , th e initiates intensely experienced while participating
in the trials o f th e suffering god.
Why were th e m ysteries secret? T h e stories o f D em eter an d Dionysus
w ere universally known. T h e ir im ages appeared everyw here, poets had
sung their adventures, and playwrights had presented them o n the
stage. So, how could what was publicly known lx* kept secret? Schelling
linked the secret to Dionysus's third im personation, lakchos. the
th ird Dionysus, popularly d epicted as a child at D em eters breast, was
called "the god who com es, the god o f the future. T hat future had to
rem ain secret, fo r th e prom ise it held o f th e god who was to b rin g the
theogonic process to an en d th re aten e d no t only the national gods but
also the state itself, which rested on them . T h e mystery was revealed
only to the initiates. Even the gods should not h ea r about it. It was to
be "shown." not told. W hoever betrayed it risked capital punishm ent.
Even Aeschylus, the great dram atist, narrowly escaped death because
he allegedly had revealed the secret o f the mystery w hen, thro u g h the
m outh o f Prom etheus. in the play that bore his nam e, lie had p redicted
that Zeus would lose his throne.
Such was S chclling's in terp reta tio n o f the still unsolved problem o f
th e secrecy o f the mysteries. Today it im presses us as highly speculative
an d probably incorrect. T h e mysteries almost certainly con tain ed no
prophecy' o f future m onotheism . At most they may have suggested that

17

The Journal of Religion

Dionysus, the god o f the fu tu re , would b ring the titling divine hierarchy
to an en d . Schelling was undoubtedly right, however, abou t th e con
solation the mysteries b rought to the deep-seated m elancholy that, d e
spite an exuberant vitality, possessed the H ellenic m ind. Even in its
most confident creativityin d e ed , th ere particularlyo n e senses a sad
aw areness o f the irredeem able finitude of existence. T h e mysteries
prom ised a b etter life after death.
S chelling's exclusively religious in terp reta tio n of the myth has found
scarce approval am ong contem porary scholars. In deed, for som e, such
as C laude I.evi-Strauss, religion has hardly anything to do with myth: it
consists in symbolic m odels o f social structures em ployed by th e savage
m in d to justify the existing ones o r to prom ote alternative ones. LeviStrauss's theory has introduced new elem ents, but it has left out the
religious significance of myths, which m ost scholars (particularly Mircea Kliade) continue to recognize in o n e way o r another. W hether o r
no t the prim ary significance o f th e myth is religious does not affect
Schellings thesis, that it constitutes a necessary stage in th e m ind's
developm ent tow ard transcendence. It prepares th e idea o f a G od who.
ra th e r than excluding finite beings, includes them w ithin Himself.
S chelling's decision to build a general theory o f myth on th e limited
basis o f N ear Eastern an d G reek mythologies, while om itting O ceanian,
G erm anic, and Slavic ones, is indefensible. Vet what has been m ost se
riously attacked from the beginning is th e philosophical schem e, in
sufficiently supported by em pirical evidence, w ithin which he has com
pelled all myths. H e thereby w eakened the success o f his inten d ed
project, namely, to explore the internal logic o f the myth.
In his Philosophy of Rnielation Schelling attem pted to show that C hris
tianity. the only revelation he considered, was the ultim ate goal o f my
thology an d the fulfillm ent o f prom ises im plicit in the mysteries. In
that p rofound but controversial work, h e applied the theory o f th e po
tencies to C hristian m onotheism and, once again, gave that theory a
different, trinitarian in terp reta tio n . T h e history o f polytheistic religion
is no m ore than an episode in G ods in tratrin itarian dram a. It consti
tutes th e first act o f th e Son's attem p t to re tu rn hum anity to its divine
destination, before appearing in risible form the Sou directs hum anity
in its mythical search fo r a spiritual m onotheism . T h e potencies, which
in various m ythologies stood in opposition to o n e another, thereby
gradually move toward integration and unity. G od does not in terfere
with this essentially natural process. Inn acts as its natural moving
power. To the ancient C hristian claim that the O ld Testam ent prej>ared
Israel for the appearance o f the Messiah. Schelling adds th e o n e that
pagan mythology induced the nations to wait for the god who comes."

18

Mythology in Schcllings Philosophy

In m ost m ythologies he detects a longing fo r liberation from a blind,
oppressive power. W hat paganism in terp rete d as the crushing pow er o f
an ancient god h e com pares to L u th er's w rath o f G od and to B ochm e's
Unwill.
To som e Rom antics. C hristianity itself ap p eared to be no m ore than
a continuation of th e myth o f th e lilxTating god and Christ a new im
personation o f Dionysus, lint according to Schelling. o n e fundam ental
difference separates the C hristian revelation from the myth: w hereas
myth is entirely a product o f the creative im agination, revelation rests
o n a historical basis (14:229-33). Sagas an d legends may have em b el
lished its historical core. But they could do so only because th e history
possessed an extraordinary significance. Schelling does not define the
ex ten t to which legend and mythology could infiltrate the sources o f
revelation w ithout je o p ard izin g the message itself. He adm its th e pres
en c e o f mythical elem ents in th e O ld Testam ent. T h e proph ets fought
an unceasing battle against the influence o f th e myths o f the N ear Hast.
But he draws a sh arp line between the C hristian G ospel an d th e con
tinuing presence o f myth in th e H ellenistic culture. His unqualified
defense o f the historical tru th o f Christianity m ade his theory vulner
able to the attacks o f David Friedrich Strauss. B runo Bauer, an d R udolf
B ultm ann.
C ontem porary philosophers have objected to Schellings m eth o d .
T hus W alter Schulz, in a classic study,1claims that Schellings "positivephilosophy rem ained essentially idealist and as negative as Fichte's
an d H egels. W hat Schelling ascribes to divine revelation has in fact
been p red eterm in ed by th e philosophical structure o f his own theory.
T h e allegedly real G od o f revelation still rem ains the God o f philoso
phy. Schelling would probably reply that positive philosophy is indeed
philosophy, but philosophy m ediated by faith. Viewed from th at per
spective, his positive philosophy might not be essentially different
from A nselm s fides quaerens inteUeclum. Still, it would be h ard to deny
that the theory of potencies, which Schelling im poses upon revelation,
basically determ ines the nature of its co n ten t. What at the lx*ginning
still appears to be a m eth o d fo r u n d ersta n d in g th e co n ten t o f mythol
ogy an d revelation soon turns into the co n ten t itself. Symptom atic o f
this dom ination by philosophy is that Schelling unreservedly eq u ates
th e C hristian idea o f reconciliation with the philosophical category o f
m ediation.
O u r final ju d g m en t on th e Philosophy of Mythology, then, m ust rem ain
* W aller S chulz, Dir Vollrnitunf itrs tiniluhrn IHmlismus in ilrr Sfttitfrhilmopkir SrM /ings (Pfullin g cn : N csk r. 1975).

19

The Journal of Religion

a conditional one. To the ex ten t that Schellings theory assum ed a gen
uinely receptive attitude with respect to myth and revelation, rath er
than p red eterm in in g it by philosophical categories, we may regard it
as legitim ate. But the traditional nam e o f such an enterprise has been
theology, no t philosophy. To the extent that philosophy a priori defines
th e limits o f mythology and revelationas it definitely did in th e theory
o f the potencies it was indeed philosophy, but not positive philosophy.

20