Enstasy2

The term ‘enstasis’ is usually (and incorrectly) attributed to Mircea Eliade, who used the word in his 1958 book Yoga: Immortality and Freedom (Eliade 1958, 76ff). Eliade’s first reference to the term appears to be in his 1948 book, Techniques du Yoga.

Lorsque la pensé devient définitievement immobile, lorsque l’oscillation même entre les modalités de la meditation ne trouble plus le citta…l’enstase de la vacuité totale, sans contenu sensorial et sans structure intellectuelle, état inconditionné (Eliade 1948, 106).

[When thought becomes absolutely immobile, when the oscillation itself between the modalities of meditation no long trouble the citta [mind]…the enstasis of total vacuity, without sensory content and without intellectual structure, an unconditioned state.] [my translation]

Eliade’s dissertation, published in various forms between 1932 and 1936, did not use the word ‘enstasis’ to describe the yogic experience. Instead, he used other categories, such as magical/mystical and abstract/concrete (Rennie, 1996). Dooyeweerd was already using the term ‘enstasis’ in 1931, which is prior to Eliade’s usage. And as we shall see, Catholic theologians like Olivier Lacombe also used the term before Eliade; it is likely that Eliade borrowed the term from these Catholic theologians, since they were also engaged in dialogue with Hinduism, and Eliade was aware of their work. And the theologian H.E.G. Paulus (1761-1851) used the term ‘enstasis’ as early as 1804. So it is certainly incorrect to say that Eliade coined the term.

But it is useful to look at Eliade’s usage. Eliade says the term ‘enstasis’ has several senses. As a kind of knowing, it grasps the object directly, without the help of categories or the imagination. As a yogic “state,” it makes possible the self-revelation of the Self (purusha). This “state” can be attained by concentrating on an object or an idea, in which case it is called “enstasis with support,” or “differentiated enstasis.” In the highest forms of such differentiated enstasis, the yogin experiences the happiness of eternal luminosity and consciousness of the Self, and realizes that he is other than his body. This leads to undifferentiated enstasis, which is without support–without any meditation or contemplation. But even this non-differentiated enstasis is not an absolute emptiness:

It would be wrong to regard this mode of being of the Spirit as a simple “trance” in which consciousness was emptied of all content. Nondifferentiated enstasis is not “absolute emptiness.” The “state” and the “knowledge” simultaneously expressed by this term refer to a total absence of objects in consciousness, not to a consciousness absolutely empty. For, on the contrary, at such a moment consciousness is saturated with a direct and total intuition of being; it does not mean a state that is void of all content (Eliade, 1958, 193).

Eliade’s emphasizes that enstasis is not absolute emptiness, and that it is not a trance state. Thus, those scholars who compare Eliade’s idea of enstasis to nirvikalpa samadhi or to the Buddhist experiences of emptiness (shunyata) are incorrect. For Eliade, enstasis is a state that has content; I suggest that it is more similar to sahaja samadhi. A discussion of the difference between nirvikalpa and sahaja samadhi is beyond the scope of this article. But in general, sahaja samadhi refers to the experience of one who is liberated but still engaged in life (Friesen 2001 and 2006d).

Eliade contrasts enstasis, which is inward [it means “standing within”], with ecstasy [ecstasis or extasis, “standing outside of oneself”]. Ecstasy involves seeking magical powers by going outside of oneself. Ecstasy is the state that is experienced by shamans (Eliade 1958, 327, 338-340, 371). Such ecstasy is very different from yogic enstasy:

For–to repeat–Yoga cannot be classed among the countless varieties of primitive mysticism to which the term shamanism is commonly applied. Yoga is not a technique of ecstasy; on the contrary, it attempts to realize absolute concentration in order to attain enstasis (Eliade 1958, 361).

As we shall see, this distinction between enstasy and ecstasy has a long history, going back at least as far as 1804.

2. Early Greek usage of ‘enstasis’

‘Enstasis’ is a Greek word, so in applying it to yoga, Eliade was using a non-Sanskrit term.

Early Greek thought used ‘enstasis’ to refer to an objection to a premise in a logical argument. It is finding an “instance” to counter the argument [2]. See Aristotle: “enstasis d' esti protasis protasei enantia” (Anal. prior. II, 28; II 26, 69a 37). This “stepping in” to an argument is not relevant to our purposes. What we are looking for is a use of the term ‘enstasis’ as a contrast to ecstasy.

The Greeks also used ‘enstasis’ to refer to a ‘way of life’ (enstasis biou). Diogenes Laertes said that some people classified cynicism not as a school but as an enstasis biou, or way of life (Dawson, 127). Hadot says, “Cynicism was not a philosophy in the proper sense of the word, but a state of life (enstasis). But all philosophy was to be a new way of life” (Hadot, 103-4). This use of ‘enstasis’ points to philosophy in an ethical way. Dooyeweerd does not use the term in this way, although he also emphasizes that our pre-theoretical experience is governed by our world- and life view.

3. H.E.G. Paulus (1761-1851)

The first reference that I have found contrasting ‘enstasis’ with ecstasy is by the rationalist theologian Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus. Paulus was professor of Oriental languages at Jena. He later became professor of exegetical theology, where he applied his Oriental studies to Christian theology, and sought naturalistic explanations for the miracles referred to in the Bible. Paulus knew Schiller, Goethe and Herder. In 1843, he angered Schelling by publishing a transcript of Schelling’s lectures on the philosophy of revelation without Schelling’s authorization. [3]

What is surprising is that Paulus used the term ‘enstasis’ not in any spiritual sense, but in order to attempt to explain spirituality away. In 1800, in his Philologisch-Kritisch und Historischer Kommentar über das neue Testament, Paulus contrasts enstasis and ecstasis (Paulus 1800, Vol. 1, 15).[4] This occurs in a discussion about the vision of Zacharias recounted in Luke 1:11-22. Paulus refers to Zacharias’s vision as an enstasy [Enstase]. Paulus explains this vision by an analogy to dreams. When we are asleep, a person “turns within himself.” We are then unconscious of our own actions, and we engage in dialogue with other inner persons. People often mistake this internal dialogue as the actions of spirits. But within ourselves we are multiple [verfielfältigt], and our own thoughts can appear to us as the speech of different people. The dreamer receives questions and objections; he fears, hopes, doubts, etc. These events seem real as long as there is an interruption between our spirit (which makes judgments), and our sensation and fantasy. But we eventually learn to acknowledge that these intuitions are produced by ourselves and not due to any superhuman source. He continues

Nach dieser Analogie (der Leser vergegenwärtige sich nur die sonderbaren über seine inner Thätigkeit in Träumen gemachten psychologischen Erfahrungen!) vermag nun wohl jeder auch sich einen Gemüthszustand vorzustellen, wo nach einer gewissen Anspannung und darauf folgenden Ermattung des grobköplerlichen, ein ähnliches Zurückziehen des Geistes von den äussern Würklichkeit abmißt, und eine tiefe Richtung auf das inner Empfindungssytem auch im Zustand des Wachens möglich ist; einen Gemüthszustand, welchen man Ekstase (ein Versetzen außer sich) nennt und wohl eher eine Enstase (Versetzen in sich herein) hätte nennen sollen. Kommt hierauf jemand aus einem solchen In-sich-gekehrt-seyn in seinen gewöhnlichen Erfahrungskreis zurück, ohne einen solchen Uebergang, welches den Unterschied des äussern und innern fühlbar macht; so würde ja wohl ein solcher, mit dem größten Theil der Menschen, das, was in der Ekstase innerlich in ihm vorgegangen war, aber so viele Kennzeichen eines äußern Erfolgs hat und behält, als äußere Begebenheit, ohne nur an die Möglichkeit eines Irrthums zu denken (Paulus 1804, I, 74).

[By analogy (the reader need only bring to mind his strange inner capacity for psychological experiences made in dreams!), one may also conceive of a state of mind, where after a certain tension and consequent exhaustion of the gross body, there can in the state of wakefulness be a similar drawing back of the spirit from external reality, and a deep directedness to one’s inner sensory system. This is a state of mind which is often called ‘ecstasy’ [Ekstase], a displacement outside of oneself, but which should rather be called ‘enstasy’ [Enstase], a displacement within oneself. If someone returns to his ordinary sphere of experience from such a being turned within himself, without the kind of transition that makes perceptible the distinction between external and internal, then such a person, like the majority of humans, will continue to regard as an external event that which occurred in this inner ekstasis, which has and retains so many characteristics of an external result. And such a person will not think of the possibility that this was an error.] [my translation]

Note how Paulus contrasts ‘ecstasy’ (displacement outside of oneself) with ‘enstasy’ (displacement within oneself).

Paulus revised this passage in 1842. He retained the word ‘Enstase,’ but deleted some words and added others, also emphasizing others in italics. I think it is important to look at this change, too:

Nach dieser Analogie (der Leser vergegenwärtige sich nur die sonderbaren über seine inner Thätigkeit in Träumen gemachten psychologischen Erfahrungen!) vermag nun wohl jeder auch sich einen Gemüthszustand vorzustellen, wo ein ähnliches Zurückziehen des Geistes von den äußern Gegenständen, nach denen er sonst die Verhältnisse der äußern Wirklichkeit abmißt, und eine tiefe Richtung auf das inner Empfindungssytem auch im Zustand des Wachens möglich ist; einen Gemüthszustand, welchen man Ekstase (ein Versetzen außer sich) nennt und wohl eher Enstase (Versetzen in sich herein) nennen sollte. Kommt hierauf jemand aus einem solchen In-sich-gekehrt-seyn in seinen gewöhnlichen Erfahrungskreis zurück, ohne einen solchen Uebergang, wie zwischen dem träumenden und wachenden Thätigseyn das Erwachen ist; so wird ja wohl ein solcher, mit dem größten Theil der Menschen, das, was in der Ekstase innerlich in ihm vorgegangen war, aber so viele Kennzeichen eines äußern Erfolgs hat und behält, als äußere Begebenheit anzusehen fortfahren, ohne nur an die Möglichkeit eines Irrthums zu denken (Paulus 1842, I, 73-74).

[By analogy (the reader need only bring to mind his strange inner capacity for psychological experiences made in dreams!), one may also conceive of a state of mind, where there is a similar drawing back of the spirit from those external objects [Gegenständen] by which he would otherwise gauge his relation to external reality, to see that it is also possible in the state of being awake to have a deep directedness to one’s inner sensory system. This is a state of mind which is often called ‘ecstasy’ [Ekstase], a displacement outside of oneself, but which should rather be called ‘enstasy’ [Enstase], a displacement within oneself. If someone returns to his ordinary sphere of experience from such a being turned within himself, without the kind of transition of awakening that occurs between the activities of dreaming and waking, then such a person, like the majority of humans, will continue to regard as an external event that which occurred in this inner extasis, which has and retains so many characteristics of an external result. And such a person will not think of the possibility that this was an error.] [my translation]

Note that the revision deletes the idea of tension and exhaustion of the gross body. It adds that the spirit is drawn back not from reality, but from objects by which the person would otherwise gauge reality. And Paulus explains the transition that is missing as the ordinary transition between dreaming and waking.

Paulus uses the term ‘enstasis’ in another work dealing with the life of Christ, Das Leben Jesu, als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchistentums (Paulus 1828). In the section dealing with “Jesus’s Ascension in the Heavenly Blessedness” he says,

Wo nämlich der menschliche Geist sich zur innigsten Betrachtung des Vollkommnen oder Göttlichen, als dem Musterbilde im Wollen und Handeln, so lebhaft und anschaulich erhebt, dass ihm diese Alles Uebrige beherrschende und unterordnende Empfindung zunächst nicht als Etwas in und aus ihm selber Entstehendes erscheint, pflegt sie vielmehr ihn wie Etwas anderswoher, aus der höchsten Geisteshöhe, Gekommenes gleichsam zu überfallen und ihn seiner selbst vergessen zu machen. Dieser Geisteszustand entsteht in dem Menschen, wenn er durch irgend eine Art von Vollkommenheit, auch des Schönen, auch des Wahren, wie des Guten und Heiligen, sich bis zu anschauender Betrachtung erhebt.

Am meisten aber wird er “begeistert” oder er würkt und empfindet am meisten in sich selbst als ein reiner Geist, wenn seine Betrachtung und sein Wollen weg über jede Nebenrücksicht nur auf das heilige oder Willensvollkommene oder an sich Rechte und Gute die beharrliche Richtung nimmt. Alsdann scheint er sich wie ausser sich (extasiert) zu sein, während er gerade am meisten in sich (gleichsam in einer Enstasis, statt Ekstasis) ist und in der reinen Tiefe des Geistes sich der Möglichkeit bewusst wird, einzig und allein dem Wollen des Rechten, welches der Wille der Gottheit sein muss, sich unbedingt zu ergeben. Daraus ensteht alsdann eine Kraft aus der Höhe, die den Begeisterten mit Mut umkleidet, aber mit jenem besonnenen, immer nach Ueberzeugung strebenden Mut, mit welchem die Lehregesandten Jesu jetz bald überallhin ausgehen sollten. (Paulus 1828, 329)

[That is to say, where the human spirit, in its most inner contemplation of what is perfect or divine, as its ideals for willing and acting, elevates itself in such a vivid and graphic way so that this feeling, which dominates and subordinates everything else, appears chiefly not as something arising in and from himself, but much rather as something coming from elsewhere, from the highest spiritual heights; at the same time it overcomes the one who receives this feeling, making him forget himself. This state of the spirit occurs in someone when he elevates himself to intuitive contemplation by some kind of perfection, such as the Beautiful, the True, or the Good.

But usually he is “inspired,” or he usually acts and feels in himself as a pure spirit when his contemplation and his will, without any distraction, directs itself only to what is holy or perfectly willed, or what is Just and Good in itself. He then appears to be outside of himself (in ecstasy), whereas he usually is just within himself (as though in an enstasis instead of ekstasis), and in the pure depth of his spirit he becomes aware of the possibility to give himself, individually and alone, to unconditionally desire justice, which must be the will of God. From this then arises a power from on High, which clothes the inspired one with courage. It is with this courage that the disciples of Jesus would soon go out everywhere.] [my translation]

Paulus therefore suggests that what appears to be an ecstasy is usually an enstatic state, entered into quite naturally as a result of inner contemplation. So Paulus thinks that Zacharias was dreaming while awake, and that in this way he mistakenly imagined the incense at the altar to be an angel.

An example of someone using ‘ecstasy’ for what Paulus calls ‘enstasy’ can be found in the writings of Heinrich Philipp Conrad Henke. In his Museum für Religionswissenschaft in ihrem ganzen Umfange (1806), Henke comments about the vision of the Apostle Paul recorded in Acts:

Acts 9:17-18; 22:12-13. Ja, Paulus war in einer tiefen Contemplation versunken, die, ich aus anthropologsichen Gründen annehme, in seine bekannte Entzückung und Extase ueberging. Wenn man nun einen Versunkenen, der nur im Anschauen eines Objekts verloren ist, und selbst das Bewußtsein seiner Individualität verliert is, und seine Sinne allen äußern Eindrücken verschließt, zu sich selbst, zum Bewußtsein seiner Persönichkeit, zum Bewußtsein der Außenwelt, (die einander gegenseitig bedingen) bringen will; was hat man da zu thun? (Henke, III, 235).

[Acts 9:17-18; 22:12-13. Yes, Paul was sunk in deep contemplation, which on anthropological grounds I understand proceeded to his well-known rapture and ecstasy. When one is confronted with someone in such a reverie, who is lost merely in contemplation of an object, and who has even lost consciousness of his individuality, and who has closed his senses to all external impressions, what is one to do? How is one to bring him to himself, to the consciousness of his personality, to consciousness of the outer world (which determine each other reciprocally)?] [my translation]

Henke says that one must shake the person out of his dream by calling him by name. This is what happened in Paul’s case; the first word of Ananias is “Saul adelphe” (Acts 22:13). And Paul saw again (aneblepe). “Er bekam das verlorene Gesicht wider” [He recovered his lost sight]. Henke does not use the word ‘enstasis’ to describe this inner absorption, but the idea is there. It is H.E.G. Paulus who first uses the word ‘enstasis.’ But Paulus is also emphatic that the vision produced is an error.

Paulus’s naturalistic explanation of miracles was continued by others in the nineteenth century, such as Robert Lewins, whose theory of hylozoism denied any mind/body dualism:

The Stoic and Christian Palingenesia, Pentecostal descent of the Paraclete, and all analogous raptures or Enstases of Saints and Martyrs “raising their longing eyes on high as though it were a bliss to die,” can be nothing else than this hyperneurotic condition of the supreme nerve centres, and therefore a natural physiological phenomenon. The ecstatic or enstatic rhapsody of the emancipated Baccalaureus in Part II. of Goethe’s Faust, translated by Miss Naden at page 173 of her Modern Apostle, and the quasi-divine vision of her Modern Apostle himself, on which she–through the medium of Ella–throws cold water, to say nothing of Calenturèe, Mirage of the Desert, and other cognate physiological states, are all instances of the same cerebro-cosmic exaltations, and Mount Tabor-like transfigurations (Lewins, 1890, 81). [5]

4. Abbé Jean Hermann Janssens (1863-1853)

In 1818, Jean H. Janssens, a Belgian Catholic theologian, responded to Paulus’s ideas of enstasis and ekstasis. Janssens wrote his response in Latin, in his Hermeneutica sacra. Janssens summarizes Paulus’s views of the vision of Zacharias:

Zacharias diu desideraverat infantem Deo Messiaeque consecrandum. Suo tempore ad templi officia vocatus, incensoque Deo oblato Enstasi, (f) se tradit, desieriumque nanciscendi infantem ei recurrit. In hac Enstasi videt inter spissum ardentis incensi fumum ad dexteram altaris aliquid, quod ipsi caelestis species evadit (Janssens 1818, Vol. II, 149).
(f) “Enstasis ab en = in et isthmi= sto.”

This footnote (f) by Janssens specifically explains the term ‘Enstasi,’ which is Greek and not Latin: “Enstasis ab en = in et isthmi= sto.” Janssens thus translates the Greek roots to Latin. The meaning of those roots is “to stand within.” The fact that he gave this footnote indicates that Janssens believed that the word was rare or newly coined.

In 1928, Janssens’ Hermeneutica Sacra was translated into French by J.J. Pacaud. In his translation, Pacaud changed the word ‘enstasi’ to ‘extase.’ The translator also omitted the footnote of the Greek derivation of ‘enstasi’ (Janssens 1828, 167). And so in this way, the distinction between enstasis and ekstasis was obscured, at least for a while. But some of the terms that were used in this French translation would later be used for discussions of ‘enstasis.’ Pacaud translated the first passage I have cited from Janssens in this way:

Long-temps Zacharie avoit désiré un enfant qu’il se proposoit de consacrer à Dieu et au Messie. Son tour étant venu de se rendre au temple pour ses fonctions, après avoir offert de l’encens à Dieu, il tombe en extase, et ce désir d’avoir un fils, qui l’avoit occupé tant d’années, se présente de nouveau à son esprit et à son coeur. Pendant son extase, et à travers la fumée épaisse de l’encense qui brûle, il voit à la droite de l’autel quelque chose qui prend à ses yeux la forme et l’apparence dun être céleste (Janssens 1828, 167).

[Zacharias had long wished for a child, whom he proposed to consecrate to God and to the Messiah. When his turn came to serve his duties at the temple, having offered incense to God, he fell into an ecstasy [sic], and the desire to have a son, which had occupied him for so many years, presented itself anew to his spirit and his heart. During his ecstasy [sic], and through the dense smoke of the burning incense, he saw to the right of the altar something that to his eyes took the form and appearance of a celestial being.] [my translation]

Janssens used ‘enstasis’ twice more in his book of 1818. Again, the later French translation mistranslates the term as ‘extase.’ Janssens uses the word ‘enstaseos’ on p. 151 of the Latin text.

Here is the original Latin, with the French translation, and my translation of the French:

Visio Zacharieae per intuitionem animae psychologice explicari potest. Eaedem enim sunt operationes animae tempore somnii ac tempore ecstaseos seu potius enstaseos; nam tempore somnii anima modo secum ipsa loquitur, modo alios secum loquentes credit. Haec autem etiam fieri possunt extra somnium tempore enstaseos. Si somnia rariora essent, et cum expergefacitone, sine sensibili discordantia cohaereent, illa vix a connectione aliarum rerum post ipsa contingentium discerneremus, immo potius connecteremus. In narratione autem visionis Zachariae nihil occurrit, quod ipsi differentiam internas cogitationes mentis inter ac operationes exteriores indicare potuisset.

Whereas Janssens used both ‘ecstatic’ [ecstaseos] and ‘enstatic’ [enstaseos],’ the French translation uses only ‘ecstasy’ [extase].

La vision de Zacharie peut s’expliquer psychologiquement par une intuition de l’âme. Il y a identité entre l’état de l’âme pendant un songe, et celui où elle est dans une extase: car, dans le songe, l’âme tantôt s’entretient avec elle-même, tantôt croit entendre les auitres lui parler. La même chose peut arriver hors l’état de songe, et pendant un extase. Si les rêves étoient plus rares, et ci se qui s’y est passé pouvoit, au moment du réveil, se lier avec les choses réelles sans une incohérence sensible, à peine les distinguiserions-nous des circonstances qui les suivent, ou plutôt nous n’en ferions qu’une série de fait non interrompus. Or, il n’y a dans la vision de Zacharie rien qui eût pu l’avertire d’une différence, d’un défaut de liaison entre les circonstances extériores et ce qui s’étoit passé dans son esprit (Janssens 1828, 170).

[The vision of Zacharias can be explained psychologically as an intuition of the soul. There is an identity between the state of the soul during a dream and the state where it is in an ecstasy [sic]: for, in a dream, the soul sometimes talks to itself, and sometimes believes it speaks with others. The same thing can happen outside of the dream state during an ecstasy [sic]. If the dreams are more exceptional, it can happen that at the moment of waking, they are linked with real things without any noticeable incoherence that would allow us to distinguish the dream from the circumstances that follow; we may rather only notice a series of non interrupted facts.] [my translation]

And on p. 156 of the 1818 Latin text:

D.G. Paulus in argumento psychologico homines supponit non tales quales eos natura formavit sed quales ejus exagitat imaginatio illos sibi repraesentat. Profecto si homines in se collecti, su in enstasi, credent, se vedere et audire, quae nec vident nec audiunt, nec hunc errorem postea animadvertent, collectio animi seu enstasis, cum somnio comparari poterit, sed tum homines vigiles somniabunt; quare D.G. Paulus multo expedituius fecisset, si breviter dixisset, Zachariam totam visionem somniasse.

The 1928 French translation:

Paulus, dans son argument psychyologique, ne suppose pas les hommes tel que la nature les a faits, mais tels que les lui présente son imagination échauffée. Assurément, si les hommes tout entiers absorbés en eux-mêmes, c’est-à-dire plongés dans une profonde extase, croient voir et entendre ce qu’ils ne voient ni n’entendent réelement, et qu’ensuite ils ne s’aperçoivent pas de l’erreur qui les a abusés, cette préoccupation de leur esprit ou cette extase pourra être comparée à un songe, et ces hommes auront rêvé tout éveillés; ainsi Paulus auroit eu plutôt fait de dire tout uniment que cette vision n’avoit été qu’un rêve de Zacharie. (Janssens 1828, 175).

[In his psychological argument, Paulus does not consider humans as nature as made him, but rather as they have been presented to him by his over-heated imagination. Certainly, if humans are entirely absorbed within themselves, that is to say, plunged in a profound ecstasy [sic] and who then believe that they see and hear that which they do not really see and hear, and if they thereafter do not perceive the error that has deceived them, this preoccupation of their spirit or this ecstasy [sic] could be compared to a dream, and these people would be dreaming while awake; thus Paulus would rather simply say that this vision was nothing but a dream of Zacharias]. [my translation]

Even though the translator uses ‘ecstasy’ instead of ‘the original ‘enstasy,’ his descriptions of the state are frequently used in later literature: to plunge into a state of enstasy, the description of enstasy as an “intuition of the soul” or “being absorbed in oneself.”

Go to Historical Sources Part Two

Endnotes

[2] The Latin is instantia or ‘instance.’ Arthur Schopenhauer, in The Art of Controversy, gives an example of the use of such an instance: “all ruminants are horned” is a proposition which may be upset by the single instance of the camel.

[3] Friedrich Schelling: Paulus-Nachschrift (Die endlich offenbar gewordene positive Philosophie der Offenbarung oder Entstehungsgeschichte, wörtlicher Text, Beurtheilung und Berichtigung der von Schellingischen Entdeckungen über Philosophie überhaupt, Mythologie und Offenbarung des dogmatischen Christentums im Berliner Wintercursus von 1841–42.

[4] In Vol. 1, p. 15 of the first edition (1800), Paulus contrasts ‘Ekstase’ [“ein Versetzen ausser sich,” or “displacement outside of oneself”] with ‘Enstase’ [“Versetzen in sich herein,” or “displacement within oneself”]. This is found in the second edition (1804), Vol. I, p. 24. Unless otherwise noted, I will cite from the second edition of 1804.

[5] The word ‘enstatic’ appears to be by Lewins. Naden’s version of Faust does not use the word on page 173.

Revised Nov 10/11 Endnote 4, typos.