is not the mediator between Ormuzd and Abriman by establishing peace and leaving each to
remain as it was； it does not partake of good and evil both； like an unblest middle thing； but it
stands on the side of Ormuzd and strives with him against the evil。 Ahriman is sometimes called the
first…born son of the Light； but Ormuzd only remained within the Light。 At the creation of the
visible world； Ormuzd places on the earth in his incomprehensible kingdom of Light； the firm
arches of the heavens which are above yet surrounded on every side with the first original Light。
Midway to the earth is the high hill Albordi； which reaches into the source of Light。 Ormuzd's
empire of Light extended uninterruptedly over the firm vault of the heavens and the hill Albordi；
and over the earth too； until the third age was reached。 Then Ahriman； whose kingdom of night
was formerly bound beneath the earth； broke in upon Ormuzd's corporeal world and ruled in
common with him。 Now the space between heaven and earth was divided into light and night。 As
Orniuzd had formerly only a spiritual kingdom of light； Ahriman had only one of night； but now that
they were intermingled he placed the terrestrial light thus created in opposition to the terrestrial
night。 From this time on； two corporeal worlds stand opposed； one pure and good； and one
impure and evil； and this opposition permeates all nature。 On Albordi； Ormuzd created Mithra as
mediator for the earth。 The end of the creation of the bodily world is none other than to reinstate
existence； fallen from its creator； to make it good again； and thus to make the evil disappear for
ever。 The bodily world is the battle…ground between good and evil； but the battle between light
and darkness is not in it self an absolute and irreconcilable opposition； but one which can be
conquered； and in it Ormuzd； the principle of Light； will be the conqueror。
I would remark of this； that when we consider the elements in these ideas which bear some further
connection with Philosophy； the universal of that duality with which the Notion is necessarily set
forth can alone be interesting and noteworthy to us； for in it the Notion is just the immediate
opposite of itself； the unity of itself with itself in the 〃other：〃 a simple existence in which absolute
opposition appears as the opposition of existence； and the sublation of that opposition。 Because
properly the Light principle is the only existence of both； and the principle of Darkness is the null
and void； … the principle of Light identifies itself with Mithra； which was before called the highest
existence。 The opposition has laid aside the appearance of contingency； but the spiritual principle
is not separate from the physical； because the good and evil are both determined as Light and
Darkness。 We thus here see thought breaking forth from actuality； and yet not such a separation as
only takes place in Religion； when the supersensuous is itself again represented in a manner
sensuous； notionless and dispersed； for the whole of what is dispersed in sensuous form is
gathered together in the one single opposition； and activity is thus simply represented。 These
determinations lie much nearer to Thought； they are not mere images or symbols； but yet these
myths do not concern Philosophy。 In them Thought does not take the first place； for the myth…form
remains predominant。 In all religions this oscillation between form and thought is found； and such a
combination still lies outside Philosophy。
This is also so in the Sanchuniathonic Cosmogony of the Phoenicians。 These fragments； which are
found in Eusebius （Pr？par。 Evang。 I。 10）； are taken from the translation of the Sanchuniathon from
Phoenician into Greek made by a Grammarian named Philo from Biblus。 Philo lived in the time of
Vespasian and ascribes great antiquity to the Sanchuniathon。 It is there said； 〃The principles of
things are found in Chaos； in which the elements exist undeveloped and confused； and in a Spirit of
Air。 The latter permeated the chaos； and with it engendered a slimy matter or mud which
contained within it the living forces and the germs of animals。 By mingling this mud with the
component matter of chaos and the resulting fermentation； the elements separated themselves。 The
fire elements ascended into the heights and formed the stars。 Through their influence in the air；
clouds were formed and the earth was made fruitful。 From the mingling of water and earth； through
the mud converted into putrefying matter； animals took their origin as imperfect and senseless。
These again begot other animals perfect and endowed with senses。 It was the crash of thunder in a
thunderstorm that caused the first animals still sleeping in their husks to waken up to life。〃7
The fragments of Berosus of the Chaldeans were collected from Josephus； Syncellus and Eusebius
under the title Berosi Chaldaica； by Scaliger； as an appendix to his work De emendatione
lemporum； and they are found complete in the Greek Library of Fabricius （T。 xiv。 pp。 175…211）。
Berosus lived in the time of Alexander； is said to have been a Priest of Bel and to have drawn
upon the archives of the temple at Babylon。 He says； 〃The original god is Bel and the goddess
Omoroka （the sea）； but beside them there were yet other gods。 Bel divided Omoroka in two； in
order to create from her parts heaven and earth。 Hereupon he cut off his own head and the human
race originated from the drops of his divine blood。 After the creation of man； Bel banished the
darkness； divided heaven and earth； and formed the world into its natural shape。 Since certain
parts of the earth seemed to him to be insufficiently populated； he compelled another god to lay
hands upon himself； and from his blood more men and more kinds of animals were created。 At
first the men lived a wild and uncultivated life； until a monster〃 （called by Berosus； Oannes） 〃joined
them into a state； taught them arts and sciences； and in a word brought Humanity into existence。
The monster set about this end with the rising of the sun out of the sea； and with its setting he again
hid himself under the waves。〃
ii。What belongs to Mythology may in the second place make a pretence of being a kind of
Philosophy。 It has produced philosophers who availed themselves of the mythical form in order to
bring their theories and systems more prominently before the imagination； for they made the
thoughts the content of the myth。 But the myth is not a mere cloak in the ancient myths； it is not
merely that the thoughts were there and were concealed。 This way happen in our reflecting times；
but the first poetry does not start； from a separation of prose and poetry。 If philosophers used
myths； it was usually the case that they had the thoughts and then sought for images appropriate to
them； Plato has many beautiful myths of this kind。 Others likewise have spoken in myths； as for
example； Jacobi； whose Philosophy took the form of the Christian Religion； through which he gave
utterance to matter of a highly speculative nature。 But this form is not suitable to Philosophy。
Thought which has itself as object； must have raised itself to its own form； to the form of thought。
Plato is often esteemed on account of his myths； he is supposed to have evinced by their means
greater genius than other philosophers were capable of。 It is contended here that the myths of
Plato are superior to the abstract form of expression； and Plato's method of representation is
certainly a wonderful one。 On closer examination we find that it is partly the impossibility of
expressing himself after the manner of pure thought that makes Plato put his meaning so； and also
such methods of expression are only used by him in introducing a subject。 When he comes to the
matter in point； Plato expresses himself otherwise； as we see in the Parmenides； where simple
thought determinations are used without imagery。 Externally these myths may certainly serve when
the heights of speculative thought are left behind； in order to present the matter in an easier form；
but the real value of Plato does not rest in his myths。 If thought once attains power sufficient to
give existence to itself within itself and in its element； the myth becomes a superfluous adornment；
by which Philosophy is not advanced。 Men often lay hold of nothing but these myths。 Hence
Aristotle has been misunderstood just because he intersperses similes here and there； the simile
can never be entirely in accord with thought； for it always carries with it something more。 The
difficulty of representing thoughts as thoughts always attaches to the expedient of expression in
sensuous form。 Thought； too； ought not to be concealed by means of the myth； for the object of
the mythical is just to give expression to and to reveal thought。 The symbol is undoubtedly
insufficient for this expression； thought concealed in symbols is not yet possessed； for thought is
self…revealing； and hence the myth does not form a medium adequate for its conveyance。 Aristotle
（Metaphysics III。 4） says； 〃It is not worth while to treat seriously of those whose philosophy takes
a mythical form。〃 Such is not the form in which thought allows itself to be stated； but only is a
subordinate mode。
Connected with this； there is a similar method of representing the universal content by means of
numbers； lines and geometric figures。 These are figurative； but not concretely so； as in the case of
myths。 Thus it may be said that eternity is a circle； the snake that bites its own tail。 This is only an
image； but Mind does not require such a symbol。 There are people who value such methods of
representation； but these forms do not go far。 The most abstract determinations can indeed be thus
expressed； but any further progress brings about confusion。 Just as the freemasons have symbols
which are esteemed for their depth of wisdom … depth as a brook is deep when one cannot see
the bottom … that which is hidden very easily seems to men deep； or as if depth were concealed
beneath。 But when it is hidden； it may possibly prove to be the case that there is nothing behind。
This is so in freemasonry； in which everything is concealed to those outside and also to many
people within； an