The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Before turning to other matters I must speak of certain wider conceptions that follow from our consideration of the recent development of human history. We attempted to examine this development from the stand-point of a symptomatology; we tried to show that what are usually called historical facts are not the essential elements in history, but that they are symbols of the true reality that lies behind them. This true reality, at least in the sphere of the historical evolution of mankind, is thus detached from what can be perceived in the phenomenal world, i.e. the so-called historical facts. If we do not regard the so-called historical facts as the true reality but seek in them manifestations of something that lies behind them then we discover of course a super-sensible element.

In studying history it is not easy to show the true nature of the super-sensible because people believe, when they discover certain thoughts or ideas in history, or when they record historical events, that they are already in touch with the super-sensible. We must be quite clear that whatever the phenomenal world presents to the senses, to the intellect or emotions cannot in any way be regarded as super-sensible. Therefore everything that is normally depicted as history belongs to the sensible world. Of course when we study the symptomatology of history we shall not regard the symptoms as having equal value; the study itself will show that, in order to arrive at the super-sensible reality behind the events, a particular Symptom is of capital importance, whilst other symptoms are perhaps of no importance.

I have already mentioned many of the more or less important symptoms manifested since mankind entered the epoch of the Consciousness Soul. I should now like to try to describe to you, step by step, a few characteristics of the super-sensible present in the background. Some I have already described. For of course a fundamental feature pulsing in the super-sensible is the entrance of mankind into the civilization of the Consciousness Soul, that is to say, the acquisition of the organs necessary for the development of the Consciousness Soul. That is the essential. But we have recently seen that the other pole, the complement to this inner elaboration of the Consciousness Soul, must be the aspiration to a revelation from the spiritual world. Men must realize that henceforth they will be unable to progress spiritually unless they open themselves to the new revelation of the super-sensible world.

Let us now consider these two poles of evolution. To a certain extent they have come to the fore in the centuries since 1413 when mankind entered the epoch of the Consciousness Soul. These two impulses will continue to develop, will assume a wide diversity of forms in the different epochs up to the third millennium and will be responsible for the manifold vicissitudes that befall mankind. Individuals will gradually become aware of this. In considering these two impulses in particular, we learn that fundamental changes have occurred since the fifteenth century. Today we are in a position to draw attention to these important developments. In the eighteenth century, and even in the early nineteenth century it would not have been possible to show the operation of these two impulses purely from the observation of external phenomena. They had not yet been operative for a sufficient length of time to show their full effect. Now such is their dynamic power that it is perceptible in external phenomena.

Let us now consider an essential fact which has an important bearing today. Whilst early indications were apparent only to those who were more or less acquainted with the true state of affairs—I am referring to the Russian Revolution in its last phase, namely from October 1917 to the peace negotiations of Brest-Litovsk—this extraordinarily interesting development which can easily be followed, since it lasted only a few months, is of immense importance to those who seriously wish to understand the historical symptoms, for this development is of course a historical symptom. In the final analysis the origin of the Russian Revolution is to be found in the deeper impulses of contemporary evolution. In this revolution it is a question of new ideas. For when we speak of real evolution in mankind we are concerned only with new ideas. Everything else—as we have already indicated, and we will recur to this later—is subject to a certain extent to the symptoms of death. It is a question of making new ideas effective. As you will have gathered from the many discussions which I have had upon this subject over recent decades—these new ideas must be able to capture the broad masses of peasantry in Eastern Europe. Of course we are dealing here with a passivity of soul, but a soul that, as you know, is receptive especially to new and modern ideas, for the simple reason that it bears within it the seed of the Spirit Self. Whereas, on the whole, the rest of the world's population bears within it the impulse to develop the Consciousness Soul, the broad mass of the Russian population, together with a few satellites, bears within it the seed from which the Spirit Self will be developed in the course of the sixth postAtlantean epoch. This necessitates, of course, very special circumstances. But this has an important bearing on what we are about to study next.

Now this idea—partly correct, partly false or wholly mistaken—this modern idea of something entirely new which was destined to capture the broad mass of the population could only come from those who had had the opportunity to be educated, namely from the ruling classes.

After the fall of Czarism the centre of the state was at first occupied by an element that was closely connected with a totally sterile class, the upper middle class—called in the West, heavy industry, etcetera. This could only be an interlude which we need not discuss, for this class is destitute of ideas and, as a class, is of course quite incapable of developing ideas. (When speaking of these matters I never indulge in personalities.)

Now at first those elements which were of middle class origin, together with a sprinkling of working class elements, formed the party of the left. They formed the leading wing of the so-called Social Revolutionaries and were gradually joined by the Mensheviks. They were men who—purely in terms of their numbers—could easily have played a leading part in determining the future course of the Russian Revolution. As you know events took a different course. The radical wing of the Russian Social Democratic party, the Bolsheviks, took over the helm. When they (the Bolsheviks) came to power, the Social Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks and their followers in the West were quite sure that the whole charade would not last more than a week before everything collapsed. Well, the Bolsheviks have now been in power more than a week and you can rest assured of this: if many prophets are bad prophets, then those who today base their predictions of historical events upon the outmoded world conceptions of certain middle classes are certainly the worst! What is the cause of this situation? This problem of the October Revolution, throughout the months following its outbreak and until today, is, in the terminology of physics, not a problem of pressure, but of suction. It is important that we can infer from the historical situation that we are dealing here not with a problem of pressure, but of suction. What do we understand by a problem of suction? As you know, when we create a vacuum by sucking out the air in the glass jar of an air pump and then remove the stopper, the air rushes in with a hissing sound. The air rushes in, not of its own volition, but because a vacuum has been created.

This was the situation of those elements which to some extent stood midway between the peasantry and the Bolsheviks, between the Social Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and the radical revolutionary groups of the extreme left, i.e. the Petrograd Soviet. What had happened was that the Mensheviks, though they had an overwhelming majority in the Provisional Government were totally destitute of ideas. They had not a word to say about the future of mankind. No doubt they cherished touching ethical sentiments and other romantic ideals, but, as I have often pointed out, ethical good intentions do not provide the impulses which can further the development of mankind. Thus a vacuum was created, an ideological vacuum, and the radical left wing rushed in. It is impossible to believe that, by their very nature, the most radical socialist elements who were alien to Russian tradition and culture were destined to take over in Russia. They could never have done so if the Social Revolutionaries and the various groups associated with them had had any ideas of how to give a lead. But you will ask: what ideas ought they to have had? A fruitful answer can only be found today by those who are no longer afraid to face this fact: for this section of the population the only fertile ideas are those which spring from spiritual experience. Nothing else avails.

It is true that these people have become more or less radical and will now deny their middle class origin, many at least will deny it, but there is no mistaking their origin. But the essential point is that this section of the population which created a vacuum, who were bereft of ideas, simply could not be induced to develop anything in the nature of positive ideas.

And this applies, of course, not only to Russia. But the Russian Revolution in its final phase—provisionally the final phase—demonstrates this fact with particular clarity to those who are prepared to study the matter. We see how, day after day, these people (i.e. the Mensheviks and their supporters) who have created a vacuum are gradually forced back and how others rush in to fill the vacuum, i.e. to replace them. But today this phenomenon is world-wide. The fact is that the section of the population which today stands politically between the right and the left has steadily refused to make the slightest effort to develop a positive Weltanschauung. In our epoch of the Consciousness Soul a creative Weltanschauung must of necessity be one which also promotes social cohesion.

It was this which from the very beginning permeated our Anthroposophical movement. It was not intended in any way to be a sectarian movement, but endeavoured to come to terms with the impulse of our time, with everything that is essential and important for mankind today. This was increasingly our goal. It is this which is most difficult to bring to men's understanding today for the simple reason that the belief persists (not in all, but in the majority) that what they are looking for in Anthroposophy, as they understand it, is a little moral uplift, something necessary for one's private and personal edification, something which insulates one from the serious matters which are settled in Parliament, in the Federal Councils, in this or that Corporation, or even round the beer table. What we must realize is that the whole of life must be impregnated with ideas which can be derived only from spiritual science.

Whilst this section of the population, i.e. the bourgeoisie, was indifferent to spiritual ideas, the proletariat showed and still shows today a lively interest in them. But as a consequence of the historical evolution of modern times the horizon of the proletariat is limited purely to the sensible world. It is prisoner of materialistic impulses and seeks to steer the evolution of mankind into utilitarian channels. The bourgeoisie knows only empty rhetoric, what it is pleased to call its Weltanschauung is simply verbiage, because it has no roots in contemporary life and is a survival from earlier times. The proletariat, on the other hand, because it is motivated by a totally new economic impulse lives therefore in realities, but only in realities of a sensible nature.

This provides us with an important criterion. In the course of the last few centuries the life of mankind has undergone a fundamental change; we have entered the machine age. The life of the middle class and the upper middle class has scarcely felt the impact of the machine age. For the new and powerful influences which have affected the life of the bourgeoisie in recent centuries belong to the pre-machine age ... for example, the introduction of coffee as the favourite beverage for cafe gossip. Equally the new banking practices, etcetera, introduced by the bourgeoisie are wholly unsuited to the new impulses of today. They are simply a hotchpotch of the ancient usages formerly practised in commercial life.

On the other hand the proletariat of today is the caste or class which is dominated by a modern impulse in the external life and to a certain extent is the creation of modern impulses themselves. Since the invention of the spinning jenny and the mechanical loom in the eighteenth century, the entire political economy of mankind has been transformed, and these inventions have been largely responsible for the birth of the modern proletariat. The proletariat is a creation of the modern epoch, that is the point to bear in mind. The bourgeois is not a creation of modern times. For the class or group which existed in earlier times and which could be compared with the proletariat of today did not belong to the third estate; it still formed part of the old patriarchal order. And the patriarchal order is totally different from the social order of the machine age. In this new order the proletarian is surrounded by a completely mechanized environment wholly divorced from living nature. He is entirely engaged in practical activities, but he thirsts for a Weltanschauung and he has endeavoured to model his conception of the universe on the pattern of a vast machine. For men see the universe as a reflection of their own environment. Now I have already pointed out there is an affinity between the theologian and the soldier. They see the universe as a battleground, the scene of the clash between the forces of good and evil, etcetera and leave it at that. Equally there is a close affinity between the jurist and the civil servant; they and the metaphysician see in the universe the realization of abstract ideas. Small wonder then that the proletarian sees the universe as a vast machine in which he is simply a cog. That is why he wishes to model the social order on the pattern of a vast machine.

But there was and still is a vast difference between, for example, the modern proletarian and the modern bourgeois—we can ignore the class which is already in decline. The modern bourgeois has not the slightest interest in deeper ideological questions, whereas the proletarian is passionately interested in them. It is true the modern bourgeois holds frequent meetings for an exchange of views, but for the most part they are so much hot air; the proletarian on the other hand discusses his daily life and working conditions and the daily output of mass production. When one passes from a middle class reunion to a proletarian meeting one has the following impression—In the former they spend time in discussing what a fine thing it would be if men lived in peace, if all were pacifists for example, or other fine sentiments of alike nature. But all this is merely verbal dialectic seasoned with a pinch of sentimentality. The bourgeoisie is not imbued with a desire to open a window on the universe, to realize their objectives from out of the mysteries of the Cosmos. When you attend a proletarian meeting you are immediately aware that the workers are talking of realities, even if they are the realities of the physical plane. They have the history of the working class at their finger-tips, from the invention of the mechanical loom and the spinning jenny until the present day. Every man has had dinned into him the history of those early beginnings and their subsequent development, and how the proletariat has become what it is today. How this situation arose is familiar ground to every worker who is actively involved in this development and who is not completely stupid, and there are few amongst this section of the population who haven't a good head on their shoulders.

One could give many typical instances of the obtuseness of the present bourgeoisie with regard to ideological questions. One need only recall how these people react when a poet presents on the stage figures from the super-sensible world (those who are not poets dare not take this risk for fear of being labelled visionaries). The spectators half accept these figures because there is no need to believe in them, because they are totally unreal—they are merely poetic inventions! This situation has arisen in the course of the development of the epoch of the Consciousness Soul. If we consider this situation spatially, we see the growth of a section of the population which, unless it takes heed, is increasingly in danger of ending completely in empty talk. But one can also consider this same situation in relation to time, and in this respect I have repeatedly called attention from widely different angles to certain important moments in time.

The epoch of the Consciousness Soul began approximately in 1413. In the forties of the nineteenth century, about 1840 or 1845, the first fifth of this era had already run its course. The forties were an important period. For the powers impelling world evolution foresaw a kind of crisis for this period. Externally this crisis arose because these years in particular were the hey-day of the so called liberal ideas. In the forties it seemed as if the impulse of the Consciousness Soul in the form of liberalism might breach the walls of reactionary conservatism in Europe. Two things concurred in these years. The proletariat was still the prisoner of its historical origins, it lacked self-assurance, confidence in itself. Only in the sixties was it ready to play a conscious part in historical evolution; before this one cannot speak of proletarian consciousness in the modern sense of the term. The social question of course existed before the sixties, but the middle class was totally unaware of it. At the end of the sixties an Austrian minister¹ of repute made the famous remark: ‘The social question ends at Bodenbach!’ Bodenbach, as you perhaps know, lies on the frontier between Saxony and Austria. Such was the famous dictum of a bourgeois minister!

In the forties therefore the proletarian consciousness did not yet exist. In the main, the bearer of the political life at that time was the bourgeoisie. Now the ideas which could have become a political force in the 1840's were exceedingly abstract. You are all familiar (at least to a certain extent I hope) with what are called the revolutionary ideas—in reality they were liberal ideas—which swept over Europe in the forties and unleashed the storm of 1848. As you know, the bearer of these ideas was the middle class. But all these ideas which were prevalent at the time and which were struggling to find a place in the historical evolution of mankind were totally abstract, sometimes merely empty words! But there was no harm in that, for in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul one had to go through the abstractive phase and apprehend the leading ideas of mankind first of all in this abstract form.

Now you know from your own experience and that of others that the human being does not learn to read or write overnight. In order to develop certain potentialities mankind also needs time to prepare the ground. And mankind was given until the end of the seventies to develop new ideas. Let us look at this a little more closely. Starting from the year 1845, add thirty-three years and we arrive at the year 1878. Up to this year, approximately, mankind was given the opportunity of becoming acclimatized to the reality of the ideas of the forties. The decades between the forties and the seventies are most important for an understanding of modern evolution, for it was in the forties that what are called liberal ideas, albeit in an abstract form, began to take root and mankind was given until the end of the seventies to apprehend those ideas and relate them to the realities of the time.

But the bearer of these ideas, the bourgeoisie, missed their opportunity. The evolution of the nineteenth century is fraught with tragedy. For those who listened to the speeches of the outstanding personalities of the bourgeoisie in the forties (and there were many such throughout thc whole civilized world) announcing their programme for a radical change in every sphere, the forties and fifties seemed to herald the dawn of a new age. But, owing to the characteristics of the middle class which I have already described, hopes were dashed. By the end of the seventies the bourgeoisie had failed to grasp the import of liberal ideas. From the forties to the seventies the middle class had been asleep and we cannot afford to ignore the consequence. The tide of events is subject to a pattern of ebb and flow and mankind can only look forward to a favourable development in the future if we are prepared to face frankly what occurred in the immediate past. We can only wake up in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul if we are aware that we have hitherto been asleep! If we are unaware when and how long we have been asleep, we shall not awake up, but continue to sleep on.

When the Archangel Michael took over his task as Time Spirit at the end of the seventies the bourgeoisie had not understood the political impact of liberal ideas. The powers which in this epoch intervened in the life of mankind began by obscuring the nature of these ideas. And if you take the trouble, you can follow this very clearly. How different was the configuration of the political life at the end of the nineteenth century from that envisaged in the forties! One cannot imagine a greater contrast than the ideas of 1840–1848 (which were certainly abstract, yet lucid despite their abstract nature), and the ‘lofty human ideals’, as they were called, in the different countries in the nineteenth century and even up to our own time, when they ended in catastrophe.

The temporal complement therefore to the spatial picture is this: in the most productive and fertile years for the bourgeoisie, from the forties to the end of the seventies, they had been asleep. Afterwards it was too late, for nothing could then be achieved by following the path along which the liberal ideal might have been realised in this period. Afterwards only through conscious experience of spiritual realities could anything be achieved. There we see the connection between historical events.

In the period between the forties and the seventies the ideas of liberalism, though abstract, were such that they tended to promote tolerance between men. And assuming for the moment that these ideas were realized, then we should see the beginning, only the first steps it is true, but nonetheless a beginning of a tolerant attitude towards others, a respect for their ideas and sentiments which is so conspicuously lacking today. And so in social life a far more radical, a far more powerful idea, an idea which has its source in the spirit, must lay hold of men. I propose first of all, purely from the point of view of future history, to indicate this idea and will then substantiate it in greater detail.

Only a genuine concern of each man for his neighbour can bring salvation to mankind in the future—I mean to his community life. The characteristic feature of the epoch of the Consciousness Soul is man's isolation. That he is inwardly isolated from his neighbour is the consequence of individuality, of the development of personality. But this separative tendency must have a reciprocal pole and this counterpole must consist in the cultivation of an active concern of every man for his neighbour.

This awakening of an active concern for others must be developed ever more consciously in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul. Amongst the fundamental impulses indicated in my book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. How is it achieved? you will find mentioned the impulse which, when applied to social life, aims at enhancing understanding for others. You will find frequent mention of ‘positiveness,’ the need to develop a positive attitude. The majority of men today will certainly have to foreswear their present ways if they wish to develop this positive attitude, for at the moment they have not the slightest notion what it means. When they perceive something in their neighbour which displeases them—I do not mean something to which they have given careful consideration, but something which from a superficial angle meets with their disapproval—they immediately begin to criticize, without attempting to put themselves in their neighbour's skin. It is highly anti-social from the point of view of the future evolution of mankind—this may perhaps seem paradoxical, but it is none the less true—to harbour these tendencies and to approach one's neighbour with undisguised sympathy or antipathy. On the other hand the finest and most important social attribute in the future will be the development of a scientific objective understanding of the shortcomings of others, when we are more interested in their shortcomings than in our concern to criticize them. For gradually in the course of the fifth, sixth and seventh cultural epochs the individual will have to devote himself increasingly and with loving care to the shortcomings of his neighbour. On the pediment of the famous temple of Apollo in Greece was inscribed this motto: ‘Know thyself’. Self knowledge in the highest sense could still be achieved at that time through introspection. But that is becoming progressively less possible. Today man has made little advance in self knowledge through introspection. Fundamentally men know so little of each other because they are concerned only with themselves, and because they pay so little attention to others, especially to what they call the shortcomings of others.

This can be confirmed by a purely scientific fact. Today when the scientist wants to discover the secrets of human, animal and plant life he does two things. I have often spoken of this and it is most important. First of all he carries out an experiment, following the same procedure for inorganic life as for organic life. But by experimentation he loses touch with living nature. He who is able to follow with true insight the results of experimentation knows that the experimental method is shot through with the forces of death. All that experimentation can offer, even the patient and painstaking work of Oskar Hertwig² for example, is dead-sea fruit. It cannot explain how a living being is fertilized, nor how it is born. By this method one can only explain the inorganic. The art of experimentation can tell us nothing of the secrets of life. That is the one side.

Today however there is one field of investigation which operates with very inadequate means and is as yet in its very early stages, but which is calculated to give valuable information about human nature, namely, the study of pathological conditions in man. When we study the case history of a man who is not quite normal we feel that we can be at one with him, that with sympathetic understanding we can break through the barrier that separates us from him and so draw nearer to him. By experimentation we are detached from reality; by the study of what are called today pathological conditions—malformations as Goethe so aptly called themwe are brought back to reality. We must not be repelled by them, but must develop an understanding for them. We must say to ourselves: the tragic element in life—without ever wishing it for anybody—can sometimes be most instructive, it can throw a flood of light upon the deepest mysteries of life. We shall only understand the significance of the brain for the life of the soul through a more intensive study of the mentally disturbed. And this is the training ground for a sympathetic understanding of others. Life uses the crude instrument of sickness in order to awaken our interest in others. It is this concern for our neighbour which can promote the social progress of mankind in the immediate future, whereas the reverse of positiveness, a superficial attitude of sympathy or antipathy towards others makes for social regression. These things are all related to the mystery of the epoch of the Consciousness Soul.

In every epoch of history mankind develops some definite faculty and this faculty plays an important role in evolution. Recall my words at the end of the last lecture. I said: men must be prepared to recognize more and more in the events of external history creation and destruction, birth and death, birth through impregnation with a new spiritual revelation, death through everything that we create. For the fundamental characteristic of the epoch of the Consciousness Soul is that, on the physical plane, we can only create if we are aware that everything we create is destined to perish. Death is inherent in everything we create. On the physical plane the most important achievements of recent time are fraught with death. And the mistake we make is not that our creations are fraught with death, but that we refuse to recognize that they are vehicles of death.

After the first fifth of the epoch of the Consciousness Soul has elapsed, people still say today: man is born and dies. They avoid saying, for it seems absurd: to what end is man born if he is destined to die? Why bring a man into the world when we know that death is his lot. In that event birth is meaningless! Now people do not say this, because nature in her wisdom compels them to accept birth and death in the sphere of external nature. In the sphere of history, however, they have not yet reached the stage when they accept birth and death as the natural order of things. Everything created in the domain of history, they believe, is without exception good and is destined to subsist for ever. In the epoch of the Consciousness Soul we must develop a sense that the external events of history are subject to birth and death, and that, whatever we create, be it a child's toy or an empire, we create in the knowledge that it must one day perish. Failure to recognize the impermanence of things is irrational, just as it would be irrational to believe that one could bear a child which was entitled to live on earth for ever.

In the epoch of the Consciousness Soul we must become fully aware that the works of man are impermanent. In the Graeco-Latin epoch this was not necessary, for at that time the course of history followed the natural cycle of birth and death. Civilizations rose and fell as a natural process. In the epoch of the Consciousness Soul it is man who weaves birth and death into the web of his social life. And in this epoch man can acquire a sense for this because in the GraecoLatin epoch this seed had been implanted in him under quite specific circumstances.

For a man of the middle Graeco-Latin epoch the most important moment in his development was the early thirties. These years were to some extent the focal point of two forces which are active in every man. The forces which operate in the symptoms of birth are active throughout the whole period from birth to death; but their characteristic features are manifested at birth. Birth is only one significant symptom of the activity of these forces; and the other occasions when the same forces are active throughout the whole of physical life are less important. In the same way, the forces of death begin to act at the moment of birth and when man dies they are especially evident. These two polar forces, the forces of birth and the forces of death, always maintain a kind of balance. In the Graeco-Latin epoch they were most evenly balanced when man reached the early thirties. Up to this age he developed his sentient life and afterwards, through his own efforts, his intellect. Before the thirties his intellectual life could only be awakened through teaching and education. And therefore we speak of the Graeco-Latin epoch as the era of the Rational or Intellectual Soul because the sentient life up to the age of thirty and the intellectual life which developed later were united. But this no longer applies in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul. Today intellectual development ceases before middle life. The majority of people one meets today, especially amongst the middle classes, do not mature after the age of twenty-seven; thereafter they are content to plough the same furrow. You can easily see what I mean by looking around you. How few people today have radically changed in any way since the age of twenty-seven. They have aged physically, their hair has turned grey, they have become decrepit ... (perhaps that is going a little too far), but, on the whole, man reckons that he has reached maximum potentiality by the age of twenty-seven. Let us take the case of a member of the so-called intellectual class. If he has had a sound training up to the age of twenty-seven he wants to establish himself; if he has gained a qualification he wants to make use of it and advance his career potential. Would you expect a man of average intelligence today to become a second Faust, that is to say, to study not only one faculty, but four faculties in succession up to the age of fifty? I do not mean that he should of necessity go to the university, perhaps there are better possibilities than the four faculties. A man who is prepared to continue his studies, to expand his knowledge, a man who remains plastic and capable of transformation is a rarity today. This was far more common amongst the Greeks, at least amongst the intellectual section of the population, because development did not cease in the early thirties. The forces inherited at birth were still very active. They began to encounter the forces leading to death; a state of equilibrium was established at the midway stage of life. Today this situation has come to an end; the majority hopes to be ‘made’ men, as the saying goes, by the age of twenty-seven. Yet at the end of their thirties they could recapture something of their youthful idealism and go forward to wider fields if they really wished to do so! But I wonder how many there are today who are prepared to make the readjustment necessary for the future evolution of mankind: to develop a constant readiness to learn, to remain plastic and to be ever receptive to change. This will not be possible without that active sympathy for others of which I have already spoken. Our hearts must be filled with a tender concern for our neighbour, with sympathetic understanding for his peculiarities. And precisely because this compassion and understanding must take hold of mankind it is so rarely found today.

What I have just described throws light upon an important fact of man's inner psychic development. The thread linking birth and death is broken to some extent between the ages of twenty-six to twenty-seven and thirty-seven to thirty-eight. In this decade of man's evolution the forces of birth and death are not fully in harmony. The disposition of soul which man needs, and which he could still experience in the Graeco-Latin epoch because the forces of birth and death were still naturally conjoined, this disposition of soul he must develop in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul because he is able to observe birth and death in the external life of history. In brief, our observation of external life must be such that we can face the world around us fearlessly and courageously, saying to ourselves: we must consciously create and destroy in all domains of life. It is impossible to create forms of social life that last forever. He who works for social ends must have the courage constantly to build afresh, not to stagnate, because the works of man are impermanent and are doomed to perish, because new forms must replace the old.

Now in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, the epoch of the Intellectual or Rational Soul, birth and death were active in man in characteristic fashion; as yet there was no need for him to be aware of them externally. Now, in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul he must perceive them externally; to this end he must again develop in himself something else, and this is very important.

Let us look at man schematically in relation to the fourth, fifth and sixth cultural epochs.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

In the fourth post-Atlantean epoch (the Graeco-Latin epoch) man was conscious of birth and death when he looked within himself. Today he must first perceive the forces of birth and death externally, in the events of history, in order to discover them within himself. That is why it is so vitally important that in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul man should have a clear understanding of forces of birth and death in their true sense, i.e. a knowledge of repeated lives on earth, in order to acquire an understanding for birth and death in the unfolding of history.

But just as man's consciousness of birth and death has passed from an inner experience to an external realization, so in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch he must develop within himself something which in the sixth post-Atlantean epoch beginning in the fourth millennium will once again be experienced externally, namely, evil. In the fifth post-Atlantean epoch evil is destined to develop in man; it will ray outwards in the sixth epoch and be experienced externally just as birth and death were experienced externally in the fifth epoch. Evil is destined to develop in man's inner being.

That is indeed an unpleasant truth! One can accept the fact that in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch man was familiar with birth and death as an inner experience and then perceived them in the cosmos as I pointed out in my lectures on the Immaculate Conception and the Resurrection, and the Mystery of Golgotha. Therefore mankind of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch is brought face to face with the phenomenon of the birth and death of Christ Jesus because birth and death were of vital importance in this epoch.

Today when Christ is destined to appear again in the etheric body, when a kind of Mystery of Golgotha is to be experienced anew, evil will have a significance akin to that of birth and death for the fourth post-Atlantean epoch! In the fourth epoch the Christ impulse was born out of the forces of death for the salvation of mankind. We can say that we owe the new impulse that permeated mankind to the event on Golgotha. Thus by a strange paradox mankind is led to a renewed experience of the Mystery of Golgotha in the fifth epoch through the forces of evil. Through the experience of evil it will be possible for the Christ to appear again, just as He appeared in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch through the experience of death.

In order to understand this—we have already given here and there a few indications of the Mystery of Evil—we must now say a few words about the relationship between the Mystery of Evil and the Mystery of Golgotha. This relationship will be the subject of our next lecture.

• 1. The Austrian Minister was Dr. Giskra (1820–79).
• 2. Oskar Hertwig (1849–1922). Director of the Anatomical-biological Institute in Berlin (1888–1921). Author of works on biology, zoology. Rejected Darwin's theory of sexual selection.

Even within the limits enjoined upon us by discretion at the present time when one speaks of these matters, one cannot discuss the Mystery of Evil without profound emotion. For here we touch upon one of the deepest mysteries of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, upon something which meets with little understanding today. Man's sensitivity to these things is but little developed as yet. Nonetheless, in all the so-called secret societies of recent times repeated attempts have been made to give certain indications, in the form of symbols, of the Mystery of Evil and the Mystery of Death which is related to it. But since the last third of the nineteenth century these symbolical representations have seldom been treated seriously, even in the Masonic communities, or have been treated in the manner I indicated here two years ago with reference to important events of the present day.^T1

The indications I gave on that occasion were not without a deeper motive, for he who understands these things knows what unplumbed depths of human nature we touch upon here. There is ample evidence that in reality the will to understand these things scarcely exists today. But the will to understand will assuredly come with time and we must ensure by every means at our command that it is awakened. When speaking of these matters one must sometimes give the impression of wanting to criticize certain aspects of the contemporary scene. Even what I said yesterday, for example on the subject of the ideological aspirations of the bourgeoisie since the last third of the nineteenth century can also be regarded as a criticism if taken superficially. Nothing of what is said here is intended as a criticism; I simply wish to characterize, so that we are aware of what forces and impulses have been operative. From a certain point of view it was necessary that these impulses should predominate. One could show that it was a historical necessity that the Bourgeoisie of Europe should remain asleep from the forties to the end of the seventies. Nonetheless the knowledge of this ‘cultural sleep’ ought to have a positive effect; it ought to awaken today certain impulses of cognition and volition which will prepare the ground for the future.

In the present epoch of the Consciousness Soul two mysteries (as I have already indicated, I can only speak of them within certain limits) are of particular importance for the evolution of mankind—the Mystery of Death and the Mystery of Evil. From a certain angle the Mystery of Death which is related to the Mystery of Evil during the present epoch, immediately raises the vital question: what is the meaning of death for human evolution?

I recently said once again that what passes for science today takes the line of least resistance in these questions. For most scientists death is simply cessation of life, irrespective of whether it is the death of a plant, animal or human being. Spiritual science however cannot take the easy road by treating everything alike. Otherwise the death of a man could be equated with the end of a watch, the death of a watch. For man death is something totally different from the socalled death of other beings. We can only understand the phenomenon of death against the background of those forces which are operative in the universe and which, when they lay hold of man, are responsible for his physical death. Certain forces, certain impulses are active in the universe: but for them man could not suffer death. Man is part of the universe; these forces also permeate man and when they are active in man they cause his death. The question now arises; what do these forces which are active in the universe accomplish apart from bringing death to man? It would be a mistake to imagine that their sole purpose is to bring death to man; that is only a secondary effect. It would never occur to anyone to say: the function of a railway engine is to wear down the rails. Yet that is what actually happens; the engine gradually wears down the rails, it cannot do otherwise. But that is not its function—it is designed for a different purpose. If one were to define a locomotive as a machine whose function is to wear down the rails, one would obviously be talking nonsense. Nonetheless there is no denying the fact that there is a connection between the wearing down of the track and the nature of the locomotive. It would be equally mistaken to say that the forces in the universe which bring death to man exist for this sole purpose. This is only a secondary effect. Their real function is to endow man with the capacity to develop the Consciousness Soul. You see how close is the connection between the Mystery of Death and the evolution of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, and how important it is that in this fifth post-Atlantean epoch the Mystery of Death should be revealed to all. For the task of the forces which as a secondary effect bring death to man is to implant in him, in the course of his evolution, not the Consciousness Soul, but the capacity to develop the Consciousness Soul.

This leads not only to an understanding of the Mystery of Death, but also encourages us to think precisely in matters of importance. In many respects modern thinking—and again this is not intended as a criticism, I merely wish to characterize—is, if I may use the familiar expression which is much to the point, simply ‘sloppy’ (schlampig). The thinking current in modern science is almost without exception typical of the kind of thinking that says: the function of the locomotive is to wear down the rails. Most scientific pronouncements today are on this level. Such thinking will prove to be inadequate if we wish to create in the future a state of affairs beneficial to mankind. And in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul this can only be achieved in full consciousness.

I must constantly remind you that this is a truth of profound importance for our time. We frequently hear of people who, drawing upon a seeming fund of wisdom, suggest various social and economic measures, in the belief that it is still possible today to make these recommendations without the help of spiritual science. Only those who think in contemporary terms, in conformity with the needs of the time, realize that all proposals for a future structure of society which are not grounded in spiritual science are a snare and delusion. Only those who are fully aware of this think in conformity with the needs of the time. Those who still listen to the various learned discourses on political economy which are devoid of spiritual content are asleep to the demands of our time.

These forces, which must be described as the forces of death, took possession of man's corporeal nature in earlier times—how, you will find in my book Occult Science. They first penetrated into his soul life at that time. For the remainder of his earth evolution man must assimilate these forces of death, and in the course of the present epoch their influence upon him will be such that he brings to full expression in himself the faculty of the Consciousness Soul.

The method I adopted when enquiring into the Mystery of Death, i.e. into the forces which are active in the universe and bring death to man, is equally valid for indicating the forces of evil. Even the forces of evil are not designed to promote evil actions within the human order—that again is only a secondary effect. If these forces did not exist in the universe man could not develop the Consciousness Soul; he would be unable to receive as he should in the course of his future evolution the forces of the Spirit Self, the Life Spirit and the Spirit Man. He must first pass through the stage of the Consciousness Soul if he wishes to receive after his own fashion the forces of the Spirit Seif, the Life Spirit and the Spirit Man. And to this end he must, in the course of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, i.e. up to the middle of the fourth millennium, fully unite his being with the forces of death. This lies within his power. But he cannot unite his own being with the forces of evil in the same way. The forces of evil in the cosmos are such that only in the Jupiter epoch will he be able to assimilate them as he now assimilates the forces of death. One can say therefore that the forces of evil act upon man with less intensity, they take possession of only a part of his being. In order to understand the nature of these forces of evil we must not look to their external effects, but must look for evil where it reveals its true nature, where it acts as it must of necessity act, because the forces which appear as evil in the universe also play into man. And here we touch upon something that can be spoken of only with deep emotion, something we can only express if we assume at the same time that it will be received with the greatest seriousness. If we wish to enquire into evil in man we must not look for it in the evil actions of society, but in evil tendencies. We must first of all ignore completely the consequences of these tendencies which are manifested more or less in a particular individual and turn our attention to the evil tendencies themselves. The question then arises: in which men are evil tendencies active in our present fifth post-Atlantean epoch, those tendencies which, in their secondary effects, are so clearly manifested in evil actions? Which men are subject to these evil tendencies?

We receive the answer to our question when we attempt to cross what is called the ‘threshold of the Guardian’ and to acquire a real understanding of the being of man. And the answer is this: since the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, evil tendencies are subconsciously present in all men. It is precisely this influx of evil tendencies into men that marks his entrance into the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. Expressed somewhat radically one could say with every justification: he who crosses the threshold of the spiritual world discovers that there is not a crime in the calendar to which every man, in so far as he belongs to the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, is not subconsciously prone. Whether in a particular case this tendency leads to an evil action depends upon wholly different circumstances and not upon the tendency itself. If we are to tell mankind the plain unvarnished truth today, we cannot escape unpalatable facts.

The pressing question then arises: what is the purpose of these forces which induce evil tendencies in man, what is the purpose of these forces in the universe when they first infiltrate man's being? They are certainly not present in the universe in order to provoke evil acts in human society. (The reason why they promote evil acts will be discussed later.) These forces of evil do not exist in the universe for the sole purpose of inducing man to commit criminal acts any more than the forces of death exist simply to bring death to man; their function is to awaken in man, when he is called upon to develop the Consciousness Soul, the tendency to open himself to the life of the spirit, as I described yesterday.

Man must assimilate these forces of evil which are operative in the universe. By so doing he implants in his being the seed which enables him to experience consciously the life of the spirit. The purpose of these forces of evil which are perverted by the social order is to enable man to break through to the life of the spirit at the level of the Consciousness Soul. If he did not open himself to these tendencies to evil he would not succeed in developing consciously the impulse to receive from the universe the spirit which henceforth must fertilize the whole sphere of cultural life if it is not to perish. Our best course is to consider first of all what is to become of those forces of which the evil actions of men are a caricature and to ask ourselves what is destined to happen in the course of the evolution of mankind under the influence of these forces which, at the same time, are the source of evil tendencies.

When one speaks of these things one must touch upon the very core of human evolution. At the same time they are related to the calamities that have overtaken mankind at the present time and will still befall it. For those disasters, like flashes of summer lightning, are harbingers of quite other things that are destined to overtake mankind—lightning flashes that today often reveal the reverse of what is destined to happen. These observations are not a reason for pessimism, but rather should serve to arouse us and stimulate us to action.

Perhaps we shall best achieve our purpose if we start from a concrete phenomenon. I spoke yesterday of an important impulse in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul—the development of an active concern on the part of every man for his neighbour. This mutual concern for each other must grow and develop in the course of man's subsequent evolution on earth, especially in four domains. First, as man prepares his future development, he will see his fellow man in a progressively different light. Today, when a little over a fifth of the epoch of the Consciousness Soul has run its course, man still shows little inclination to see his fellow man as he will have to learn to see him in the course of the epoch of the Consciousness Soul, up to the fourth millennium. Men still ignore the most important element in others, they have no real understanding of their neighbour. In this connection they have not taken full advantage of what art has implanted in their souls in the course of their different incarnations. Much can be learned by studying the development of art and on different occasions I have given many an indication of what can be learned from the evolution of art. If one observes the symptoms, as I have urged in these lectures, it is undeniable that in almost every branch of art artistic creation and appreciation are at a low ebb. Everything that has been undertaken in the field of art in recent decades clearly demonstrates that art is passing through a period of decadence. The most important contribution of art to the evolution of mankind is the training it provides for an understanding of future problems.

Every branch of culture, of course, has many ramifications and consequently all kinds of secondary effects, but art by its very nature embodies something that leads to a deeper and more concrete understanding of man. He who makes a thorough study of the artistic forms in painting and sculpture, or of the nature of the inner rhythms in music and poetryand the artists themselves often fail to do this today—he who has a deep inner experience of art is imbued with something which enables him to understand the human being in his picture-nature. In the epoch of the Consciousness Soul mankind must develop the capacity to comprehend man symbolically. You are already familiar with some of the basic principles of this symbolical understanding. When we look at the human head we are reminded of man's earliest beginnings. Just as a dream is seen as a memory of the sensible world and thereby receives its characteristic stamp, so for those who understand reality everything pertaining to the sensible world is an image of the spiritual. We must learn to perceive the spiritual archetype of man through his picture-nature. In future man will become to some extent transparent to his fellow man. The form of his head, his gait, will awaken in us an inner sympathy and understanding of a different nature from what we find in human tendencies today. For we shall only know man as an ego being when we have this conception of his picture-nature, when we can approach him with the fundamental feeling that what the physical eyes perceive of man bears the same relation to the true super-sensible reality of man as the picture painted on canvas bears to the reality which it depicts. We must develop this fundamental feeling in ourselves. We must approach man in such a way that we no longer see him as a combination of bones, muscles, blood, etcetera, but as the image of his eternal, spiritual being. Supposing a man walks past us; we would not recognize him if he did not awaken in us the realization of what he is as an eternal spiritual super-sensible being. This is how we shall see man and this is how we shall be able to see him in the future. When we perceive human forms and movements and all that is associated with them as an image of the eternal, we shall feel warmth or coldness and of necessity will gradually be filled with inner warmth or coldness. As we go through life we shall come to know man very intimately; towards some we shall feel warm, towards others cold. Worst of all will be the situation of those who evoke neither warmth nor coldness. We shall have an inner experience of others in the warmth ether that penetrates our etheric body; this will be the reaction of the enhanced interest that must be developed between men.

A second factor must provoke even more paradoxical emotions in contemporary man who has not the slightest desire to accept these new ideas. But perhaps in the not too far distant future this antipathy will be transformed into sympathy for the right understanding of man. This second phase of future development will bring a totally different understanding between men. In order to achieve this the two millennia from now until the end of the fifth postAtlantean epoch will not suffice; a longer period will be necessary, reaching into the sixth epoch. Then, to the knowledge of the ego will be added a special capacity, the capacity to feel, to sense in our neighbour when we approach him his relationship to the third Hierarchy, to the angels, archangels and archai. And this will be developed through an increasing recognition that man's response to language will be different from that of the present day. The evolution of language has already passed its zenith. In reality language has already become abstract.^T2 At the present time a wave of profound untruthfulness is sweeping over the world in that attempts are being made to create institutions on a linguistic basis. Men no longer have the relationship to language which reveals through language the being of man.

I have quoted on various occasions an example which may serve as a first step towards an understanding of this matter.^T3 I cited it again in a public lecture which I gave in Zürich because it is important to draw the attention of the public to these things. I pointed out in this lecture that a surprise awaits us when we compare the articles of Herman Grimm on the methodology of history (for he was a typical representative of Central European culture) with those of Woodrow Wilson. I carried out this comparative study most conscientiously and showed that it is possible to substitute certain passages of Woodrow Wilson for passages in Hermann Grimm, for the wording is almost identical. Equally one could exchange whole passages of Grimm on historical methodology for those of Wilson on the same subject. And yet there is a radical difference between the two which we perceive when we read them without concern for the content (for the content as such, taken literally, will have increasingly less importance for mankind in the course of their future evolution). The difference is this: in Grimm, everything, even the passages with which one may not agree, are the fruit of personal endeavour; he has wrestled with them sentence by sentence, step by step. In Wilson everything seems to be prompted by his own inner daimon which subconsciously possesses him. What is important is the source, the origin of these writings: in the one case it is directly at the threshold of consciousness, in the other case in the daimonic promptings which find their way from the subconscious into consciousness ... so that one can say: the writings of Wilson are in part the product of possession.

I quote this example in order to show you that it is no longer of significance today that the words should be identical. I always feel extremely sad when friends of our movement bring me articles of some pastor or professor and say: Do look at this, it sounds quite anthroposophical! Now in our present cultural epoch even a professor who dabbles in politics may well write things which, taken literally, of course are in keeping with the realities of our time. It is not the exact words that matter, but the region of the soul whence these things arise. It is important to discover behind the words their spiritual source. All that I have said here does not spring from a desire to lay down definite principles. It is the ‘how’ that matters. It is important that these words should be permeated by that Force which derives directly from the spirit. He who finds a verbal similarity between the articles of the pastor or professor and what I have said here without feeling that my words spring from a spiritual source and are imbued with spiritual substance because they reflect the totality of the anthroposophical Weltanschauung, he who ignores this ‘how,’ fails to understand me if he does not distinguish between modern opinions that smack of Anthroposophy and Anthroposophy itself.

It is of course not very pleasant to point to examples of this kind because the tendency today is often to take the opposite course. But when we speak in earnest, if our words are not intended simply as an anodyne, a kind of cultural soporific, it is a duty, it is a necessity even, not to shrink from selecting such examples, though they may be distasteful to many. For those who are in earnest about the future must be prepared to face the consequences for everyone if they ignore the fact that the world may be fated to have its organization determined by a half-baked American Professor. It is not easy to speak of realities today because many are satisfied with the life of illusion. Nonetheless one speaks of realities in those spheres where it is absolutely necessary, and where it is important, or at least should be important, for man to hear of them.

Men must learn to see through words; they will have to acquire the capacity to grasp the gesture in language. Before this epoch, before this fourth millennium has run its course, men will have learnt to listen to one another differently from the way they do at the present moment; they will find in language an external expression of man's relation to the third Hierarchy, to the angels, archangels and archai, a means whereby he can attain to the super-sensible, to the spirit.

And thus the soul of man will be heard through language and this will lead to a totally different community life. And a large part of the so-called forces of evil must be transformed so that it will be possible by listening to what a man says to hear the soul through the words. Then when the soul is heard through the words people will experience a peculiar sensation of colour and through this sensation of colour arising from language men of all nations will learn to understand one another. A particular sound will evoke the same sensation as the perception of the colour blue or of a blue surface. Another sound will evoke the same sensation as the perception of the colour red. The normal sensation of warmth we feel when we look at a man becomes to some extent colour when we listen to him. And we shall have to experience in ourselves what echoes from human lips to human ears on the wings of sounds. This will be experienced by man in the future.

Thirdly, men will experience inwardly the emotional reactions of others. In this respect language will play an important role—and not only language. When one man confronts another he will experience in his own respiration the emotional configuration of the other. In future time respiration will adapt itself to the affective life of the person who confronts us. In the presence of one man we shall breathe more rapidly, in the presence of another we shall breathe more slowly. According to the changing rhythm of our respiration we shall feel the kind of man with whom we are dealing. Think how the social life of the community will be cemented, how intimate corporate life will become! It will be a long time, no doubt, before this goal is achieved. It will take the whole of the sixth postAtlantean epoch and the early years of the seventh epoch before respiration is adapted to the life of the soul. And in the seventh epoch, a part of what is now the fourth stage of development will be realized. That is, when men belong to a community of their own volition, they will have to ‘digest’ one another, if you will pardon this crude expression. When we are compelled to will this or that in common with another, or will to want it, we shall have inner experiences akin to those which we have in a primitive form today when we consume a certain food. In the sphere of will men will have to ‘digest’ one another, in the sphere of feeling to ‘breathe’ one another; in the sphere of understanding through language they will have to experience one another through sensations of colour. And men will come to know one another as ego-beings when they learn to see each other as they really are.

But all these forces will be more inward, more related to the life of the soul. They will be fully developed only in the course of the Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan epochs. The earth evolution of mankind already demands psychic and spiritual indications of this development. The present age with its strange and calamitous development is the revolt of mankind against what is destined to follow from these developments which I have just described. Because in future all particularist tendencies in society must be abandoned, mankind rebels, and the trivial doctrine of national self determination is noised abroad. What we are witnessing today is a revolt against the divinely ordered course of evolution, a struggle to resist the inevitable. We must be aware of these things if we are to lay a firm foundation for an understanding of the Mystery of Evil. For evil is often a secondary effect of the force that must intervene in human evolution. When a locomotive that has to cover a long distance strikes a bad section of the track, it destroys the rails and comes to a halt. In its evolution mankind is moving towards the goals I have described to you. And it is the task of the Consciousness Soul to recognize that mankind must press forward consciously to these goals. But the present lines are badly laid and it will be some time before better lines are in position, for often people proceed to replace the old lines by others which are not a whit better.

But, as you see, spiritual science has no wish to be pessimistic. It sets out to show man where he really stands in evolution today. But it demands nonetheless that, at least for certain solemn moments of recollection, he can renounce certain current tendencies. And because men find it so difficult to make this sacrifice, because, in spite of everything, everyone immediately reverts to his old routine, it is extremely difficult to speak frankly on these matters today. For we touch upon here—and this is characteristic of our time—problems of the nature of evil which threaten to destroy mankind today and one must constantly exhort men to wake up.

Indeed, many things can only be discussed within certain limits and in consequence much will be omitted entirely or deferred to another occasion. Let us take an example that concerns us closely and do not take it amiss if I present it in the following way. A week ago I was asked to say something on the subject of the symptomatology of Swiss history. I have given the matter most careful thought from every angle. But if I, as a foreigner, were to embark upon the symptomatology of Swiss history from the fifteenth century until the present day in the presence of Swiss nationals here in Dornach, I would find myself in a very strange situation. Let me illustrate the problem from another angle. Suppose that in July of this year (1918) someone in Germany or even in Austria had described the events and personalities as people do today, imagine what an outburst there would have been if he had portrayed five, fifteen or thirty years ago, for example, the conditions in Austria today! I am aware, therefore, that I would cause grave offence if I were to speak of Swiss history as the Swiss will speak of it here in Switzerland twenty years hence. For people cannot do otherwise, given their innate conservatism, than close their ears to what must be said from the standpoint of the future. It is true that in many spheres ordinary people—and after all we must count ourselves amongst them—especially in spheres that touch them closely, are unwilling to hear the truth. They prefer an anodyne. I assure you that I would give offence if I did not temper to some extent the subject on which I have been asked to speak. In the light of further reflection I think it is best to leave matters alone for the present. For judgements which are passed now—and from which one would dissent to some extent—are reminders that, if we wish to portray certain events today, we should do as I did yesterday. When one criticizes the Russian revolution and when one describes the relationship of the bourgeoisie to the broad masses and to the more radical elements of the extreme left, any such criticism is regarded here in Switzerland as relatively harmless, as an edifying Sunday afternoon sermon and is tolerated. And then one can abandon oneself, I will not say to the illusion, but to the pious hope that what I have said will penetrate into a few souls and will prove more efficacious than the normal Sunday afternoon sermons ... although even in matters of moment, the experience of recent years has often demonstrated the contrary. But to comment on the immediate situation is not the task of one, who not being a Swiss national, would speak to the Swiss of their own history. When I gave a general survey of recent history in a public lecture in Zürich^T4 I had of course to speak with a certain reserve, although I did not hesitate to indicate the radical consequences which must be drawn from the facts. It is extremely convenient for the majority of people today to look upon Woodrow Wilson as a great man, as a benefactor of mankind. But if one denies this and speaks the truth, the truth is found to be unpalatable and one is regarded as a mischief-maker! And this has always been the case with those truths which are drawn from the well-spring of the super-sensible. But today we are living in the epoch of the Consciousness Soul and it is necessary that mankind should be aware of certain truths.

There is really no point in continually repeating the obvious—that people today are not receptive to spiritual ideas. The question is not whether people are receptive or not, but whether we ourselves take the necessary steps in order to bring before mankind the necessary truths when the opportunity arises. And in addition we should harbour no illusions about the receptivity of mankind to truths. We must be quite clear that, today especially, men are seldom receptive to what is vitally necessary for them ... and that they insist upon ordering the world in a way that does not correspond with the true evolutionary impulse of our epoch. Indeed one experiences the bitterest disappointments in this domain. But one accepts them without resentment, in order to learn from them what we are to do under certain circumstances.

I will speak later of these matters in greater detail. It would have been a splendid thing if only a few people could have been found in Central Europe who, from an understanding of certain Masonic impulses, could have realized the significance of what I said here two years ago on the subject of secret societies. But, inevitably, there was no response. One cannot imagine a more sterile attitude than that of Central European Masonry in recent decades. This is shown by the fact, frequently mentioned, that one meets with resistance when one refuses to amalgamate in any way the teachings of spiritual science with the Freemasonry of Central Europe. On the other hand when a super windbag, the so-called Nietzsche specialist, Horneifer, appeared and talked solemn nonsense about symbolism and the like, he was taken seriously in many quarters. The deeper reason for all this is that certain demands are made upon those who wish to take up spiritual science, and this is by no means easy! One finds today advocates of a renewal of the spirit who explain to people that they need only lie down on a couch and relax and the higher ego, God, and heaven knows what else will awaken in them and then there will be no need to wrestle with these terrible concepts of anthroposophically orientated spiritual science. One need only listen to one's inner voice, surrender passively, then the higher mystical ego will manifest itself and one will feel and experience the presence of God in oneself.

I have known statesmen who prefer to listen to these ‘pundits’ who recommend them to take the easy path to the higher ego rather than listen to the teachings of spiritual science. A friend told me recently that one of these pundits had said to him when he was still one of his disciples: you have no idea how stupid I am! Yet this very man who confessed to his stupidity in order to show that intelligence is not needed in order to introduce men to the primal sources of wisdom, this man has a large following everywhere. People prefer to listen to such men rather than to those who speak of the thorny path ahead if man is to understand the task of the Consciousness Soul, who tell us of four aspects of evolution or that men must experience one another through warmth, through a sensation of colour, through respiration, that they must ‘digest’ one another. In order to arrive at an understanding of this, one must swallow a whole library of books—a most unpleasant prospect! But people find this prospect unpalatable, most unpalatable! But if people find this prospect unpalatable, that is due to the impulse which is impelling our age towards catastrophe, to the tragedy of our time. This situation, however, is no cause for pessimism; rather is it a call to energetic action, to translate our knowledge into deeds. And this cannot be repeated too often.

I mentioned yesterday the problem of suction and pressure in connection with the Russian revolution. I leave it to each of you to ask yourselves if this problem after all is not a matter deserving of careful reflection. Otherwise people might say: It is true that in Russia the bourgeoisie failed to unite with the peasants, but here in Germany we are more fortunate, bourgeoisie and peasants will join forces and then socialism will come into its own. But they forget that many people in Russia said the same and it is precisely because people held this view that Russia collapsed.
We will continue our discussion tomorrow.

• T1. Kosmische und menschliche Geschichte, Vol II and Vol III (Bibl. Nrs. 171 and 172).
• T2. See Die Wissenschaft vom Werden des Menschen, August–September, 1918 (Bibl. Nr. 183).
• T3. 14th March, 1918, Das geschichtliche Leben der Menschheit und seine Rätsel (in Bibl. Nr. 67) and 30th March, 1918, Anthroposophischer Lebensgaben (in Bibl. Nr. 181).
• T4. Die Geschichte der Neuzeit im Lichte geisteswissenschaftlicher Forschung, 17th October, 1918 (included in Bibl. Nr. 73).

I have spoken to you from various points of view of the impulses at work in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. You suspect—for I could only draw your attention to a few of these impulses—that there are many others which one can attempt to lay hold of in order to comprehend the course of evolution in our epoch. In my next lectures I propose to speak of the impulses which have been active in the civilized world since the fifteenth century, especially the religious impulses. I will attempt therefore in the three following lectures to give you a kind of history of religions.

Today I should like to discuss briefly something which some of you perhaps might find superfluous, but which I am anxious to discuss because it could also be important in one way or another for those who are personally involved in the impulses of the present epoch. I should like to take as my starting point the fact that at a certain moment, I felt that it was necessary to lay hold of the impulses of the present time in the ideal which I put forward in my book The Philosophy of Freedom.

The book appeared, as you know, a quarter of a century ago and has just been reprinted. I wrote The Philosophy of Freedom—fully conscious of the exigencies of the time—in the early nineties of the last century. Those who have read the preface which I wrote in 1894 will feel that I was animated by the desire to reflect the needs of the time. In the revised edition of 1918 I placed the original preface of 1894 at the end of the book as a second appendix. Inevitably when a book is re-edited after a quarter of a century circumstances have changed; but for certain reasons I did not wish to suppress anything that could be found in the first edition.

As a kind of motto to The Philosophy of Freedom I wrote in the original preface: ‘Truth alone can give us assurance in developing our individual powers. Whoever is tormented by doubts finds his powers emasculated. In a world that is an enigma to him he can find no goal for his creative energies.’ ‘This book does not claim to point the only possible way to truth, it seeks to describe the path taken by one who sets store upon the truth.’

I had been only a short time in Weimar when I began to write The Philosophy of Freedom. For some years I had carried the main outlines in my head. In all I spent seven years in Weimar. The complete plan of my book can be found in the last chapter of my doctoral dissertation, Truth and Science. But in the text which I presented for my doctorate I omitted of course this last chapter.

The fundamental idea of The Philosophy of Freedom had taken shape when I was studying Goethe's Weltanschauung which had occupied my attention for many years. As a result of my Goethe studies and my publications on the subject of Goethe's Weltanschauung I was invited to come to Weimar and collaborate in editing the Weimar edition of Goethe's works, the Grand Duchess Sophie edition as it was called. The Goethe archives founded by the Grand Duchess began publication at the end of the eighties.

You will forgive me if I mention a few personal details, for, as I have said, I should like to describe my personal involvement in the impulses of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. In the nineties of the last century in Weimar one could observe the interweaving of two streams—the healthy traditions of a mature, impressive and rich culture associated with what I should like to call Goetheanism, and the traditional Goetheanism in Weimar which at that time was coloured by the heritage of Liszt. And also making its influence felt—since Weimar through its academy of art has always been an art centre—was what might well have provided important impulses of a far-reaching nature if it had not been submerged by something else. For the old, what belongs to the past, can only continue to develop fruitfully if it is permeated and fertilized by the new. Alongside the Goetheanism—which survived in a somewhat petrified form in the Goethe archives, (but that was of no consequence, it could be rejuvenated, and personally I always saw it as a living force)—a modern spirit invaded the sphere of art. The painters living in Weimar were all influenced by modern trends. In those with whom I was closely associated one could observe the profound influence of the new artistic impulse represented by Count Leopold von Kalkreuth,¹ who at that time, for all too brief a period, had been a powerful seminal force in the artistic life of Weimar. In the Weimar theatre also a sound and excellent tradition still survived, though marred occasionally by philistinism. Weimer was a centre, a focal point where many and various cultural streams could meet.

In addition, there was the activity of the Goethe archives which were later enlarged and became the Goethe-Schiller archives. In spite of the dry philological approach which lies at the root of the work of archives, and reflects the spirit of the time and especially of the outlook of Scherer,² an active interest on the more positive impulses of the modern epoch was apparent, because the Goethe archives became the magnet for international scholars of repute. They came from Russia, Norway, Holland, Italy, England, France and America and though many did not escape the philistinism of the age it was possible nonetheless to detect amongst this gathering of international scholars in Weimar, especially in the nineties, signs of more positive forces. I still vividly recall the eccentric behaviour of an American professor^T1 who was engaged on a detailed study of Faust. I still see him sitting crosslegged on the floor because he found it convenient to sit next to the bookshelf where he could immediately put his hand on the reference books he needed without having to return continually to his chair. I remember also the gruff Treitschke³ whom I once met at lunch and who wanted to know where I came from. (Since he was deaf one had to write everything down on slips of paper.) When I replied that I came from Austria he promptly retorted, characterizing the Austrians in his inimitable fashion: well, the Austrians are either extremely clever people or scoundrels! And so one could take one's choice; one could opt for the one or the other. I could quote you countless examples of the influence of the international element upon the activities in Weimar.

One also learned much from the fact that people also came to Weimar in order to see what had survived of the Goethe era. Other visitors came to Weimar who excited a lively interest for the way in which they approached Goetheanism, etcetera. I need only mention Richard Strauss⁴ who first made his name in Weimar and whose compositions deteriorated rather than improved with time. But at that time he belonged to those elements who provided a delightful introduction to the modern trends in music. In his youth Richard Strauss was a man of many interests and I still recall with affection his frequent visits to the archives and the occasion when he unearthed one of the striking aphorisms to be found in Goethe's conversations with his contemporaries. The conversations have been edited by Waldemar Freiherr von Biedermann⁵ and contain veritable pearls of wisdom. I mention these details in order to depict the milieu of Weimar at that time in so far as I was associated with it.

A distinguished figure, a living embodiment of the best traditions of the classical age of Weimar, quite apart from his princely origin, was a frequent visitor to the archives. It was the Grand Duke Karl Alexander whose essentially human qualities inspired affection and respect. He was the survivor of a living tradition for he was born in 1818 and had therefore spent the fourteen years of his childhood and youth in Weimar as a contemporary of Goethe. He was a personality of extraordinary charm. And in addition to the Duke one had also the greatest admiration for the Grand Duchess Sophie of the house of Orange who made herself responsible for the posthumous works of Goethe and attended to all the details necessary for their preservation. That in later years a former finance minister was appointed head of the Goethe Society certainly did not meet with approval in Weimar. And I believe that a considerable number of those who were by no means philistine and who were associated in the days of Karl Alexander with what is called Goetheanism would have been delighted to learn, in jest of course, that perhaps after all there was something symptomatic in the Christian name of the former finance minister who became president of the Goethe Society. He rejoiced in the Christian name of Kreuzwendedich.⁶

I wrote The Philosophy of Freedom when I was deeply involved in this milieu and I feel certain that it expressed a necessary impulse of our time. I say this, not out of presumption, but in order to characterize what I wanted to achieve and still wish to achieve with the publication of this book. I wrote The Philosophy of Freedom in order to give mankind a clear picture of the idea of freedom, of the impulse of freedom which must be the fundamental impulse of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch (and which must be developed out of the other fragmentary impulses of various kinds.) To this end it was necessary first of all to establish the impulse of freedom on a firm scientific basis. Therefore the first section of the book was entitled ‘Knowledge of Freedom.’ Many, of course, have found this section somewhat repugnant and unpalatable, for they had to accept the idea that the impulse of freedom was firmly rooted in strictly scientific considerations based upon freedom of thought, and not in the tendency to scientific monism which is prevalent today. This section, ‘Knowledge of Freedom,’ has perhaps a polemical character which is explained by the intellectual climate at that time. I had to deal with the philosophy of the nineteenth century and its Weltanschauung. I wanted to demonstrate that the concept of freedom is a universal concept, that only he can understand and truly feel what freedom is who perceives that the human soul is the scene not only of terrestrial forces, but that the whole cosmic process streams through the soul of man and can be apprehended in the soul of man. Only when man opens himself to this cosmic process, when he consciously experiences it in his inner life, when he recognizes that his inner life is of a cosmic nature will it be possible to arrive at a philosophy of freedom. He who follows the trend of modern scientific teaching and allows his thinking to be determined solely by sense perception cannot arrive at a philosophy of freedom. The tragedy of our time is that students in our universities are taught to harness their thinking only to the sensible world. In consequence we are involuntarily caught up in an age that is more or less helpless in face of ethical, social and political questions. For a thinking that is tied to the apron strings of sense perception alone will never be able to achieve inner freedom so that it can rise to the level of intuitions, to which it must rise if it is to play an active part in human affairs. The impulse of freedom has therefore been positively stifled by a thinking that is conditioned in this way.

The first thing that my contemporaries found unpalatable in my book The Philosophy of Freedom was this: they would have to be prepared first of all to fight their way through to a knowledge of freedom by self-disciplined thinking.

The second, longer section of the book deals with the reality of freedom. I was concerned to show how freedom must find expression in external life, how it can become a real driving force of human action and social life. I wanted to show how man can arrive at the stage where he feels that he really acts as a free being. And it seems to me that what I wrote twenty years ago could well be understood by mankind today in view of present circumstances.

What I had advocated first of all was an ethical individualism. I had to show that man can never become a free being unless his actions have their source in those ideas which are rooted in the intuitions of the single individual. This ethical individualism only recognized as the final goal of man's moral development what is called the free spirit which struggles free of the constraint of natural laws and the constraint of all conventional moral norms, which is confident that in an age when evil tendencies are increasing, man can, if he rises to intuitions, transmute these evil tendencies into that which, for the Consciousness Soul, is destined to become the principle of the good, that which is befitting the dignity of man. I wrote therefore at that time:

Only the laws obtained in this way are related to human action as the laws of nature are related to a particular phenomenon. These laws however are in no way identical with the impulses which govern our actions. If we wish to understand how a man's action arises from his moral will, we must first study the relation of this will to the action.

I envisaged the idea of a free community life such as I described to you recently from a different angle—a free community life in which not only the individual claims freedom for himself, but in which, through the reciprocal relationship of men in their social life, freedom as impulse of this life can be realized. And so I unhesitatingly wrote at that time:

To live in love of our action and to let live in the full understanding of the other's will is the fundamental maxim of free men. They know no other obligation than that with which their will intuitively puts itself in harmony; how they will direct their will in a particular case will be determined by their capacity for ideas.

With this ethical individualism the whole Kantian school, of course, was ranged against me, for the preface to my essay Truth and Science opens with the words: ‘We must go beyond Kant.’ I wanted at that time to draw the attention of my contemporaries to Goetheanism—the Goetheanism of the late nineteenth century however—through the medium of the so-called intellectuals, those who regarded themselves as the intellectual elite. I met with little success. And this is shown by the article^T2 which I recently wrote in the Reich and especially by my relations to Eduard von Hartmann.⁷ You can imagine the alarm of contemporaries who were gravitating towards total philistinism, when they read this sentence:^T3 When Kant apostrophizes duty:

‘Duty! thou sublime and mighty name, thou that dost embrace within thyself nothing pleasing, nothing ingratiating, but dost demand submission, thou that dost establish a law ... before which all inclinations are silent even though they secretly work against it,’ then, out of the consciousness of the free spirit, man replies: ‘Freedom! thou kindly and humane name, thou that dost embrace all that is morally pleasing, all that my human dignity most cherishes and that makest me the servant of nobody, that settest up no new law, but dost await what my moral love itself will recognize as law, because, in face of every law imposed upon it, it feels itself unfree ...’

Thus the underlying purpose of The Philosophy of Freedom was to seek freedom in the empirical, in lived experience, a freedom which at the same time should be established on a firm scientific foundation. Freedom is the only word which has a ring of immediate truth today. If freedom were understood in the sense I implied at that time, then everything that is said today about the world order would strike a totally different note. We speak today of all sorts of things—of peace founded on justice, of peace imposed by force and so on. But these are simply slogans because neither justice nor force bear any relationship to their original meaning. Today our idea of justice is completely confused. Freedom alone, if our contemporaries had accepted it, could have awakened in them fundamental impulses and brought them to an understanding of reality. If, instead of such slogans as peace founded on justice, or peace imposed by force, people would only speak of peace based on freedom, then this word would echo round the world and in this epoch of the Consciousness Soul might kindle in the hearts of men a sense of security. Of course in a certain sense this second, longer section had a polemical intention, for it was necessary to parry (in advance) the attacks which in the name of philistinism, cheap slogans and blind submission to authority could be launched against this conception of the free spirit.

Now although there were isolated individuals who sensed which way the wind was blowing in The Philosophy of Freedom, it was extremely difficult—in fact it was impossible—to find my contemporaries in any way receptive to its message. It is true—amongst isolated voices—that a critic of the time wrote in the Frankfurter Zeitung: ‘clear and true, that is the motto that could be written on the first page of this book,’ but my contemporaries had little understanding of this clarity and truth.

Now this book appeared at a time when the Nietzsche wave was sweeping over the civilized world—and though this had no influence on the contents, it was certainly not without effect upon the hope I cherished that the book might nonetheless be understood by a few contemporaries. I am referring to the first Nietzsche wave when people realized that Nietzsche's often unbalanced mind was the vehicle of mighty and important impulses of the age. And before Nietzsche's image had been distorted by people such as Count Kessler⁸ and Nietzsche's sister, in conjunction with such men as the Berliner, Karl Breysig and the garrulous Horneffer,^8a there was every hope that, after the ground had been prepared by Nietzsche, these ideas of freedom might find a certain public. This hope was dashed when, through the people mentioned above, Nietzsche became the victim of modern decadence, of literary pretentiousness and snobism—(I do not know what term to choose in order to make myself understood).

After having written The Philosophy of Freedom I had first of all to observe how things developed—I am not referring to the ideas contained in the book (for I knew that at first few copies had been sold), but to the impulses which had been the source of the ideas in The Philosophy of Freedom. I had the opportunity of studying this for a number of years from the vantage point of Weimar.

However, shortly after its publication, The Philosophy of Freedom found an audience, an audience whom many would now regard as lukewarm. It found limited support in the circles associated with the names of the American, Benjamin Tucker, and the Scottish-German or German-Scott, John Henry Mackay.⁹ In a world of increasing philistinism this was hardly a recommendation because these people were among the most radical champions of a social order based on freedom of the Spirit and also because when patronized to some extent by these people, as happened for a time in the case of The Philosophy of Freedom, one at least earned the right to have not only The Philosophy of Freedom, but also some of my later publications banned by the Russian censor! The Magazin für Literatur which I edited in later years found its way into Russia, but, for this reason, most of its columns were blacked out. But the movement with which the Magazin was concerned and which was associated with the names of Benjamin Tucker and J. H. Mackay failed to make any impression amid the increasing philistinism of the age. In reality that period was not particularly propitious for an understanding of The Philosophy of Freedom, and for the time being I could safely let the matter drop. It seems to me that the time has now come when The Philosophy of Freedom must be republished, when, from widely different quarters voices will be heard which raise questions along the lines of The Philosophy of Freedom.

You may say, of course, that it would have been possible nonetheless to republish The Philosophy of Freedom during the intervening years. No doubt many impressions could have been sold over the years. But what really matters is not that my most important books should sell in large numbers, but that they are understood, and that the spiritual impulse underlying them finds an echo in men's hearts.

In 1897 I left the Weimar milieu where I had been to some extent a spectator of the evolution of the time and moved to Berlin. After Neumann-Hofer had disposed of the Magazin I acquired it in order to have a platform for ideas which I considered to be timely, in the true sense of the word, ideas which I could advocate publicly. Shortly alter taking over the Magazin, however, my correspondence with J. H. Mackay was published and the professoriate who were the chief subscribers to the Magazin were far from pleased. I was criticized on all sides. ‘What on earth is Steiner doing with our periodical,’ they said, ‘what is he up to?’ The whole professoriate of Berlin University who had subscribed to the Magazin at that time, in so far as they were interested in philology or literature—the Magazin had been founded in 1832, the year of Goethe's death and amongst other things this was one of the reasons why the University professors had subscribed to the review—this professoriate gradually cancelled their subscriptions. I must admit that with the publication of the Magazin I had the happy knack of offending the readers—the readers and not the Zeitgeist.

In this context I should like to recall a small incident. Amongst the representatives of contemporary intellectual life who actively supported my work on behalf of Goetheanism was a university professor. I will mention only one fact ... those who know me will not accuse me of boasting when I say that this professor once said to me in the Russischer Hof in Weimar: ‘Alas, in comparison with what you have written on Goethe, all our trivial comments on Goethe pale into insignificance.’ I am relating a fact, and I do not see why under present circumstances these things should be passed over in silence. For after all the second half of the Goethean maxim remains true (the first half is not Goethean): vain self praise stinks, but people rarely take the trouble to find out how unjust criticism on the part of others smells.¹⁰

Now this professor was also a subscriber to the Magazin. You will remember the international storm raised by the Dreyfus affair at that time. Not only had I published in the Magazin^T4 information on the Dreyfus¹¹ case that I alone was in a position to give, but I had vigorously defended^T5 the famous article, J'accuse, which Zola had written in defence of Dreyfus. Thereupon I received from the professor who had sung my praises in divers letters (and even had these effusions printed) a postcard saying: ‘I hereby cancel my subscription to the Magazin once and for all since I cannot tolerate in my library a periodical that defends Emile Zola, a traitor to his country in Jewish pay.’ That is only one little incident: I could mention hundreds of a similar kind. As editor of the Magazin für Literatur I was brought in contact with the dark corridors of the time and also with the modern trends in art and literature.^T6 Were I to speak of this you would have a picture of many characteristic features of the time.

Somewhat naively perhaps I had come to Berlin in order to observe how ideas for the future might be received by a limited few thanks to the platform provided by the Magazin—at least as long as the material resources available to the periodical sufficed, and as long as the reputation which it formerly enjoyed persisted, a reputation which, I must confess, I undermined completely. But I was able in all innocence to observe how these ideas spread amongst that section of the population which based its Weltanschauung upon the writings of that pot-house philistine Wilhelm Bölsche¹² and similar popular idols. And I was able to make extremely interesting studier which, from many and various points of view, threw light upon what is, and what is not, the true task of our epoch.

Through my friendship with Otto Erich Hartleben¹³ I met at that time many of the rising generation of young writers who are now for the most part outmoded. Whether or not I fitted into this literary group is not for me to decide. One of the members of this group had recently written an article in the Vossische Zeitung which he tried to show in his pedantic way that I did not fit into this community and he looked upon me as an unpaid peripatetic theologian amongst a group of people who were anything but unpaid peripatetic theologians, but who were at least youthful idealists.

Perhaps the following episode will also interest you because it shows how I became for a time a devoted friend of Otto Erich Hartleben. It was during the time when I was still in Weimar. He always visited Weimar to attend the meetings of the Goethe Society; but he regularly missed them because it was his normal habit to get up at 2 in the afternoon and the meetings began at 10 a.m. When the meetings were over I used to call on him and usually found him in bed. Occasionally we would while away an evening together. His peculiar devotion to me lasted until the sensational Nietzsche affair in which I was involved severed our friendship. We were sitting together one evening and I recall how he warmed to me when, in the middle of the conversation, I made the epigrammatic remark: ‘Schopenhauer is simply a narrow-minded genius.’ Hartleben was delighted; and he was delighted with many other things I said the same evening so that Max Martersteig (who became famous in later years) jumped up at my remarks and said: ‘Don't provoke me, don't provoke me.’

It was on one of the evenings which I spent in those days in the company of the promising Otto Erich Hartleben and the promising Max Martersteig and others that the first Serenissimus anecdote was born. It became the source of all later Serenissimus anecdotes. I should not like to leave this unmentioned; it certainly belongs to the milieu of The Philosophy of Freedom, for the spirit of The Philosophy of Freedom pervaded the circle I frequented and I still recall today the stimulus which Max Halbe¹⁴ received from it (at least that is what he claimed). All these people had already read the book and many of the ideas of The Philosophy of Freedom have nonetheless found their way into the world of literature. The original Serenissimus anecdote from which all other Serenissimus anecdotes are derived did not by any means spring from a desire to ridicule a particular personality, but from that frame of mind that must also be associated with the impulse of The Philosophy of Freedom, namely, a certain humouristic attitude to life or—as I often say—an unsentimental view of life which is especially necessary when one looks at life from a deeply spiritual standpoint. This original anecdote is as follows:

His Serene Highness is visiting the state penitentiary and asks for a prisoner to be brought before him. The prisoner is brought in. His Highness then asks him a series of questions: ‘How long have you been detained here?’ ‘Twenty years’—‘Twenty years! That's a good stretch. Tell me, my good fellow, what possessed you to take up your residence here?’ ‘I murdered my mother.’ ‘I see, you murdered your mother; strange, very strange! Now teil me, my good fellow, how long do you propose to stay here?’ ‘As long as I live; I have been given a life sentence.’ ‘Strange! That's a good stretch. Well, I won't take up your valuable time with further questions.’ He turns to the prison Governor—‘See that the last ten years of the prisoner's life sentence are remitted.’

That was the original anecdote. It did not spring from any malicious intention, but from a humorous acceptance of that which, if necessary, also has its ethical value. I am convinced that if the personality at whom this anecdote—perhaps mistakenly—was often directed had himself read this anecdote he would have laughed heartily.

I was able therefore to observe how in the Berlin circle I have mentioned attempts were made to introduce something of the new outlook. But ultimately a touch of the Bölsche crept into everything. I am referring of course not only to the fat Bölsche domiciled in Friedrichshagen, but to the whole Bölsche outlook which plays a major part in the philistinism of our time. Indeed the vulgarity of Bölsche's descriptions is eminently suited to the outlook of our time. When one reads Bölsche's articles one is compelled to handle ordure or the like. And the same applies to his style. One need only pick up this or that article and we are invited to interest ourselves not only in the sexual life of the jelly fish, but in much else besides. This ‘Bölsche-ism’ has become a real tit-bit for the rising philistines in our midst today.

What I wrote one day in the Magazin was hardly the right way to launch it. Max Halbe's drama, Der Eroberer, had just been performed. It certainly is a play with the best of intentions, but for that reason fell flat in Berlin. I wrote a criticism which reduced Halbe to sheer despair, for I took all the Berlin newspapers to task and told the Berlin critics one and all what I thought of them. That was hardly the way to launch the Magazin. But this was a valuable experience for me. Compared with the Weimer days one learned to look at many things from a different angle. But at the back of my mind there always lurked this question: how could the epoch be persuaded to accept the ideas of The Philosophy of Freedom? If you are prepared to take the trouble, you will find that everything I wrote for the Magazin is imbued with the spirit of The Philosophy of Freedom. However, the Magazin was not written for modern bourgeois philistines. But, of course, through these different influences I was gradually forced out.

At that very moment the opportunity of another platform presented itself—that of the socialist working class. In view of the momentous questions which were stirring the consciousness of the world at the turn of the century, questions with which I was closely associated through J. H. Mackay and Tucker who had come to Berlin from America and with whom I spent many an interesting evening, I was glad of this opportunity of another platform. For many years I was responsible for the curriculum in various fields at the Berlin school for workers' education. In addition I gave lectures in all kinds of associations of the socialist workers. I had been invited not only to give these lectures, but also to conduct a course on how to debate. Not only were they interested in understanding clearly what I have discussed with you here in these lectures, but they were anxious to be able to speak in public as well, to be able to advocate what they deemed to be right and just. Exhaustive discussions were held on all sorts of topics and in widely different groups. And this again gave me an insight into the evolution of modern times from a different point of view. Now it is interesting to note that in these socialist circles one thing that is of capital importance for our epoch and for the understanding of this epoch was tabu. I could speak on any subject—for when one speaks factually one can speak today (leaving aside the proletarian prejudices) on any and every subject—save that of freedom. To speak of freedom seemed extremely dangerous. I had only a single follower who always supported me whenever I delivered my libertarian tirades, as the others were pleased to call them. It was the Pole, Siegfried Nacht. I do not know what has become of him—he always supported me in my defence of freedom against the totalitarian programme of socialism.

When we look at the present epoch and the new trends, we perceive that what is lacking is precisely what The Philosophy of Freedom seeks to achieve. On a basis of freedom of thought The Philosophy of Freedom establishes a science of freedom which is fully in accord with natural science, yet reaches beyond it. This section of the book makes it possible for really independent thinkers to be able to develop within the present social order. For if freedom without the solid foundation of a science of freedom were regarded as real freedom, then, in an age when evil is gaining ground (as I indicated yesterday), freedom would of necessity lead not to liberty, but to licence. What is necessary for the present epoch when freedom must become a reality can only be found in the firm inner discipline of a thinking freed from the tyranny of the senses, in genuine scientific thinking.

But socialism, the rising party of radicalism, which will assert itself even against the nationalists of all shades who are totally devoid of any understanding of their epoch, lacks any possibility of arriving at a science of freedom. For if there is one truth which is important for our epoch, it is this: socialism has freed itself from the prejudices of the old nobility, the old bourgeoisie and the old military caste. On the other hand it has succumbed all the more to a blind faith in the infallibility of scientific materialism, in positivism as it is taught today. This positivism (as I could show) is simply the continuation of the decree of the eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 869. Like an infallible and invisible pope this positivism holds in its iron grip the parties of the extreme left, including Bolshevism, and prevents them from attaining to freedom.

And that is the reason why, however much it seeks to assert itself, this socialism which is not rooted in the evolution of mankind, cannot do other than convulse the world for a long time, but can never conquer it. That is why it is not responsible for errors it has already committed and why others must bear the responsibility—those who have allowed it, or wished to allow it, to become not a problem of pressure, as I have shown,^T7 but a problem of suction.

It is this inability to escape from the tentacles of positivism, of scientific materialism, which is the characteristic feature of the modern labour movement from the standpoint of those whose criterion is the evolution of mankind and not either the antiquated ideas of the bourgeoisie or what are often called new social ideas of Wilsonism, etcetera.

Now I have often mentioned that there would be no difficulty in introducing spiritual ideas to the working class. But the leaders of the working class movement refuse to consider anything that is not rooted in Marxism. And so I was gradually pushed aside. I had attempted to introduce spiritual ideas and was to a certain extent successful, but I was gradually driven out.^T8 One day I was defending spiritual values in a meeting attended by hundreds of my students and only four members who had been sent by the party executive to oppose me were present; nonetheless they made it impossible for me to continue. I still vividly recall my words: ‘If people wish socialism to play a part in future evolution, then liberty of teaching and liberty of thought must be permitted.’ Thereupon one of the stooges sent by the party leadership declared: ‘In our party and its schools there can be no question of freedom, but only of reasonable constraint.’ These things I may add are profoundly symptomatic of the forces at work today.

One must judge the epoch by its most significant symptoms. One must not imagine that the modern proletariat is not thirsting for spiritual nourishment! It has an insatiable craving for it. But the nourishment which it is offered is, in part, that in which it firmly believes, namely positivism, scientific materialism, or in part an indigestible pabulum that offers stones instead of bread.

The Philosophy of Freedom was bound to meet with opposition here, too, because its fundamental impulse, the impulse of freedom has no place in this most modern movement, (i.e. socialism).

Before this period had come to an end I was invited to give a lecture before the Berlin Theosophical Society. A series of lectures followed during the winter and this led to my association with the Theosophical movement. I have spoken of this in the preface to my book, Die Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens und ihr Verhältnis zur modernen Weltanschauung.^T9 I must emphasize once again for this relationship with Theosophy has often been misunderstood—that at no time did I seek contact with the Theosophical Society; presumptuous as it may seem, it was the Theosophical Society which sought to make contact with me. When my book Mysticism and Modern Thought appeared not only were many chapters translated for the Theosophical Society, but Bertram Keightley and George Mead, who occupied prominent positions in the Society at the time, said to me: ‘This book contains, correctly formulated, everything we have to elaborate.’ At that time I had not read any of the publications of the Theosophical Society. I then read them, more or less as an ‘official’ only, although the prospect filled me with dismay.

But it was important to grasp the tendency of evolution, the impulse weaving and working in the life of the time. I had been invited to join the society; I could therefore join with good reason in accordance with my karma because I could perhaps find in the Theosophical Society a platform for what I had to say. I had of course to suffer much harassment. I should like to give an example which is symptomatic. One day when I attended a congress of the Theosophical Society for the first time I tried to put forward in a brief speech a certain point of view. It was at the time when the ‘entente cordiale’ had just been concluded and when everyone was deeply impressed by this event. I tried to show that in the movement which the Theosophical Society represents it is not a question of diffusing theosophical teachings from any random centre, but that the latest trends, the world over, should have a common meeting place, a kind of focal point. And I ended with these words: If we build upon the spirit, if we are really aiming to create a spiritual community in a concrete and positive fashion, so that the spirit which is manifested here and there is drawn towards a common centre, towards the Theosophical Society, then we shall build a different ‘entente cordiale.’

It was my first speech before the Theosophical Society of London and I spoke intentionally of this entente cordiale. Mrs. Besant declared—it was her custom to add a few pompous remarks to everything that was said—that the ‘German speaker’ had spoken very beautifully. But I did not have the meeting on my side; and my words were drowned in the flood of verbiage that followed—whereas the sympathies of the audience and what they wanted was more on the side of the Buddhist dandy, Jinaradjadasa. At the time this too seemed to me symptomatic. After I had spoken of something of historical significance, of the other entente cordiale, I sat down and the Buddhist pandit, Jinaradjadasa, came tripping down from his seat higher up in the auditorium—and I say tripping advisedly in order to describe his movements accurately—tapping with his walking stick on the floor. His speech met with the approval of the audience, but at the time all that I remembered was a torrent of words.

I have emphasized from the very beginning—you need only read the preface to my book Theosophy—that the future development of theosophy will follow the lines of thought already initiated by The Philosophy of Freedom. Perhaps I have made it difficult for many of you to find an unbroken line of continuity between the impulses behind The Philosophy of Freedom and what I wrote in later years. People found the greatest difficulty in accepting as true and reliable what I attempted to say and what I attempted to have published. I had to suffer considerable provocation. In this society which I had not sought to join, but which had invited me to become a member, I was not judged by what I had to offer, but by slogans and cliches. And this went on for some time until, at least amongst a small circle, I was no longer judged by slogans alone. Fundamentally, what I said or had published was relatively unimportant. It is true that people read it, but to read something does not mean that one has assimilated it. My books went through several editions, were reprinted again and again. But people judged them not by what I said or what they contained, but in terms of what they themselves understood, in the one case the mystical element, in another case the theosophical element, in a third case this, in a fourth case that, and out of this weiter of conflicting opinions emerged what passed for criticism. Under the circumstances it was neither an ideal, nor an encouraging moment to have The Philosophy of Freedom reprinted. Although this book presents, of course in an incomplete, imperfect and infelicitous fashion, a small contribution to the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, nonetheless it seeks to express the fundamental, significant and really powerful impulses of this epoch.

Now that The Philosophy of Freedom has been republished alter a quarter of a century I should like to emphasize that it is the fruit of a close and active participation in the life of the time, of an insight into our epoch, of the endeavour to detect, to apprehend what impulses are essential for our epoch. And now twenty-five years later, when the present catastrophe has overwhelmed mankind, I realize—you may perhaps attribute it to naivety—that this book is in the true sense of the word, timely; timely in the unexpected sense, that the contemporary world rejects the book in toto and often wants to know nothing of its contents.

If there had been any understanding of the purpose of this book—to lay the foundations of ethical individualism and of a social and political life—if people had really understood its purpose, then they would know that there exist today ways and means of directing human evolution into fertile channels—different from other paths—whilst the worst possible path that one could follow would be to inveigh against the revolutionary parties, to grumble perpetually and retail anecdotes about Bolshevism! It would be tragic if the bourgeoisie could not overcome their immediate concern for what the Bolsheviks have done here and there, for the way in which they behave towards certain people; for, in reality, that is beside the point. The real issue is to ascertain whether the demands formulated by the Bolsheviks are in any way justified. And if one can find a conception of the world and of life that dares to say that, if you follow the path indicated here, you will attain what you seek to achieve by your imperfect means, and much else besides(and I am convinced that, if one is imbued with The Philosophy of Freedom, one dares to say that)—then light would dawn. And to this end the experience of a Weltanschauung founded on freedom is imperative. It is necessary to be able to grasp the fundamental idea of ethical individualism, to know that it is founded on the realization that man today is confronted with spiritual intuitions of cosmic events, that when he makes his own not the abstract ideas of Hegel, but the freedom of thought which I tried to express in popular form in my book The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception, he is actually in touch with cosmic impulses pulsating through the inner being of man.

Only through spiritual experiences is it possible to grasp the idea of freedom and to begin to regenerate those impulses which at the present time end in every case in a blind alley. The day when we realize that it is a waste of words to discuss such empty concepts as law, violence, etcetera, that the idea of freedom can only lead to reality when apprehended through spiritual experiences, that day will herald a new dawn for mankind. To this end people must overcome their deep-seated apathy; they must abandon the practice, common amongst scientists today, of descanting on all kinds of social questions, on the various quack remedies for social and political amelioration. What they seek to achieve in this domain they must learn to establish on a firm, solid foundation of spiritual science. The idea of freedom must be anchored in a science of freedom.

It was evident to me that the proletariat is more receptive to a spiritual outlook than the bourgeoisie which is steeped in Bölsche-ism. One day for example aller Rosa Luxemburg¹⁵ had spoken in Spandau on ‘science and the workers’ before an audience of workers accompanied by their wives and children—the hall was full of screaming children, babes in arms and even dogs—I addressed the meeting. At first I intended to say only a few words, but finally my speech lasted one and a quarter hours. Taking up the thread of her theme I pointed out that a real basis already existed, namely, to apprehend science spiritually, i.e. to seek for new forms of life from out of the spirit. When I touched upon such questions I always found a measure of support. But hitherto everything has failed owing to the indolence of the learned professions, the scientists, doctors, lawyers, philosophers, teachers, etcetera on whom the workers ultimately depend for their knowledge. We met with all sorts of people Hertzka¹⁶ and his Treiland, Michael Flürscheim and many others who cherished ambitious social ideals. They all failed, as they were bound to fail, because their ideas lacked a spiritual basis, a basis of free, independent scientific thinking. Their ideas were the product of a thinking corrupted by its attachment to the sensible world such as one finds in modern positivism. The day that sees an end to the denial of the spirit, a denial that is characteristic of modern positivism, the day when we recognize that we must build upon a thinking freed from the tyranny of the senses, upon spiritual investigation, including all that is called science in the ethical, social and political domain, that day will mark the dawn of a new humanity. The day that no longer regards the ideas I have attempted to express here today, albeit so imperfectly, as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, but as ideas that will find their way to the hearts and souls of mankind today, that day will herald a new dawn! People listen to all sorts of things, even to Woodrow Wilson; they do more than listen to him. But that which is born of the spirit of human evolution finds little response in the hearts and souls of men. But a way must be found to evoke this response. Mankind must realize how the world would be transformed if the meaning of freedom were understood, freedom not in the sense of licence, but freedom born of a free spirit and a firmly disciplined mind. If people understood what freedom and its establishment would signify for the world, then the light which many seek today would lighten the prevailing darkness of our time.

This is what I wanted to say to you with reference to historical ideas. My time is up; there are many other things I wished to say, but they can wait for another occasion. I ask your indulgence for having included in my lecture many personal experiences of a symptomatic nature that I have undergone in my present incarnation. I wanted to show you that I have always endeavoured to treat objectively the things which concern me personally, to consider them as symptoms which reveal what the age and the spirit of the age demand of us.

• 1. Count Leopald von Kalkreuth (1855–1928). Landscape and portrait painter. Professor at the Weimar Art School, 1885–90.
• 2. W. Scherer (1841–86). Pioneer of philological approach to the study of literature. Professor of German languages, Berlin.
• T1. Thomas Calvin, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Columbia.
• 3. H. von Treitsche (1834–96). Historiographer of the Prussian state. A Patriot and nationalist. Published the Preussische Jahrbücher (1866–89).
• 4. R. Strauss (1864–1949). Director State Opera, Vienna, 1918. Famous for Choral works, Lieder, chamber music, ballet and opera.
• 5. Waldemar von Biedermann (1817–1903). Goethe scholar. Edited a collection of Goethe's Gespräche (1889–96) 10 vols.
• 6. Kreuzwendedich Frieherr von Rheinbaben (1855–1921). 1901–9, Prussian Finance Minister; 1913–21, President of the Goethe Society.
• T2. Luziferisches und Ahrimanisches in ihrem Verhältnis zum Menschen.
• 7. Eduard von Hartmann (1842–1906). Philosophie des Unbewussten, 1869. See Rudolf Steiner's Riddles of Philosophy, Part II and his Briefe, Vol II, 1953.
• T3. p. 143 of the 1964 edition of The Philosophy of Freedom.
• 8. Harry Graf Kessler (1868–1937); K. Breysig (1855–1940), historian.
• 8a. E. Horneffer (b. 1871). A disciple of Nietzsche, professor in Giessen. Emphasized pedagogic value of Graeco-Roman culture.
• 9. Benjamin Tucker published in America a periodical: Liberty, the Pioneer Organ of Anarchism. J. H. Mackay (1864–1933). Belonged to the literary Bohemia of Berlin. Popularized ‘individual anarchism’, cf. his novel Die Anarchisten, 1891. The hero is the mouthpiece of the author. An aggressive socialist. Dealt with in detail in R. Steiner's Gesammelte Aufästze zur Kulturgeschichte (1887–1901).
• 10. About the expression: ‘vain self-praise stinks’ Goethe commented: ‘That may be; but the public has no nose for the smell of others' unjust criticism.’
• T4. p. 143 of the 1964 edition of The Philosophy of Freedom.
• 11. Dreyfus (1859–1935). Jewish officer falsely accused of treason and transported to Devil's Island. Rehabilitated 1906.
• T5. 19th February, 1898, Emil Zola und die Jugend (see Bibl. Nr. 31 for this and other articles).
• T6. See Die Veröffentlichungen aus dem literarischen Frühwerk R. Steiners Heft V, VIII, IX.
• 12. W. Bölsche (1862–1939). Disciple of Zola; tried to link poetry and science. Scientific popularisor. Best known for Das Liebesleben in der Natur, 3 vols.
• 13. O. E. Hartleben (1864–1905). Dramatist, novelist and lyric poet. Attacked moral conventions and believed in the free personality.
• 14. M. Halbe (1865–1944). Dramatist and novelist. Nostalgia for lost youth, attachment to homeland, W. Prussia. (See R. Steiner's Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Dramaturgie, 1889–1900).
• T7. See Lecture IV.
• T8. See Chapter XXVIII, The Course of My Life, Anthroposophic Press, New York, 1951.
• T9. Mysticism and Modern Thought, Anthroposophical Publishing Co., London and Anthroposophie Press, New York, 1928 and as Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age, Rudolf Steiner Publications, New Jersey, 1960.
• 15. Rosa Luxemburg (1870–1919). Radical Socialist, worked for overthrow of existing regime. Opposed to war 1914. Author of ‘Spartakus’ letters 1916. Drafted programme of newly formed Communist party 1918. With K. Liebknecht fomented Spartakus rebellion, January, 1919. Finally shot by counter revolutionaries.
• 16. Theodor Herzka (1845–1924). National economist. Wished to establish settlement co-operatives in various countries, e.g. Africa, and to redistribute land in order to break the monopoly of landed proprietors.

In the course of our enquiries during the next few days I should like to draw your attention to two things which seemingly bear little relation to each other. But when we have concluded our enquiries you will realize that they are closely connected. I should like in fact to touch upon certain matters which will provide points of view, symptomatic points d'appui concerning the development of religions in the course of the present fifth post-Atlantean epoch. And on the other hand, I would also like to show you in what respect the spiritual life that we wish to cultivate may be associated with the building which bears the name ‘Goetheanum.’

It seems to me that the decisions taken in such a case have a certain importance, especially at the present time. We are now at a stage in the evolution of mankind when the future holds unknown possibilities and when it is important to face courageously an uncertain future and when it is also important, from out of the deepest impulses, to take decisions to which one attaches a certain significance. The external reason for choosing the name ‘Goetheanum’ seems to be this: I expressed the opinion a short time ago in public lectures that, for my part, I should like the centre for the cultivation of the spiritual orientation that I envisage to be called for preference the Goetheanum. The name to be decided upon had already been discussed last year; and this year a few of our members decided to support the choice of the name ‘Goetheanum.’ As I said recently there are many reasons for this choice, reasons which I find difficult to express in words. Perhaps they will become clear to you if I start today from considerations similar to those which I dealt with here last Sunday, by creating a basis for the study of the history of religions which we will undertake in these lectures.

You know of course—and I would not touch upon personal matters if they were not connected with revelant issues, and also with matters concerning the Goetheanum—you know that my first literary activity is associated with the name of Goethe and that it was developed in a domain in which today, even for those who refuse to open their eyes, who prefer to remain asleep, the powerful catastrophic happenings of our time are adumbrated. My view of Goethe from the standpoint of spiritual science, and equally what I said recently in relation to The Philosophy of Freedom, are of course a personal matter; on the other hand, however, this personal factor is intimately linked with the march of events in recent decades. The origin of my The Philosophy of Freedom and of my Goethe publications is closely connected with the fact that, up to the end of the eighties I lived in Austria and then moved to Germany, first to Weimar and then to Berlin, a connection of course that is purely external. But when we reflect upon this external connection we are gradually led, in the light of the facts, if we apprehend the symptoms aright, to an understanding of the inner significance. From the historical sketches I have outlined you will have observed that I am obliged to apply to life what I call historical symptomatology, that I must comprehend history as well as individual human lives from out of their symptoms and manifestations because they are pointers to the real inner happenings. One must really have the will to look beyond external facts in order to arrive at their inner meaning.

Many people today would like to learn to develop super-sensible vision, but clairvoyance is difficult to achieve and the majority would prefer to spare themselves the effort. That is why it is often the case today that for those naturally endowed with clairvoyance there is a dichotomy between their external life and their clairvoyant faculty. Indeed, where this dichotomy exists super-sensible vision is of little value and is seldom able to transcend personal factors. Our epoch is an age of transition. Every epoch, of course, is an age of transition. It is simply a question of realizing what is transmitted. Something of importance is transmitted, something that touches man in his inmost being and is of vital importance for his inner life. If we examine objectively what the so-called educated public has pursued the world over in recent decades, we are left with a sorry picture—the picture of a humanity that is fast asleep. This is not intended as a criticism, nor as an invitation to pessimism, but as a stimulus to awaken in man those forces which will enable him to attain, at least provisionally, his most important goal, namely, to develop insight, real insight into things. Our present age must shed certain illusions and see things as they really are.

Do not begin by asking: what must I do, what must others do? For the majority of people today such questions are inopportune. The important question is: how do I gain insight into the present situation? When one has adequate insight, one will follow the right course. That which must be developed will assuredly be developed when we have the right insight or understanding. But this entails a change of outlook. Above all men must clearly recognize that external events are in reality simply symptoms of an inner process of evolution occurring in the field of the super-sensible, a process that embraces not only historical life, but also every individual, every one of us in the fullness of our being.

Let me quote¹ by way of illustration. Today we are very proud that we can apply the law of causality in all kinds of fields; but this is a fatal illusion. Those who are familiar with Hamerling's life know how important for his whole inner development was the following circumstance. After acting for a short time as a ‘supply’ teacher in Graz (i.e. a kind of temporary post before one is appointed to a permanent position in a Gymnasium) he was transferred to Trieste. From there he was able to spend several holidays in Venice. When we recall the ten years which Hamerling spent on the Adriatic coast—he divided his time between teaching in Trieste and visiting Venice—we see how he was fired with ardent enthusiasm for all that the south could offer him, how he derived spiritual nourishment for his later poetry from his experiences there. The real Hamerling, the Hamerling we know, would have been a different person if he had not spent the ten years in question in Trieste with the opportunity for holidays in Venice!

Now supposing some thoroughly philistine professor is writing a biography of Hamerling and wanted to know how it was that Hamerling came to be transferred to Trieste precisely at this decisive moment in his life, and how a man without means, who was entirely dependent upon his salary, happened to be transferred to Trieste at this particular moment. I will give you the external explanation. Hamerling, as I have said, held at that time a temporary appointment (he was a supply teacher, as we say in Austria) at the Gymnasium² in Graz. These supply teachers are anxious to find a permanent appointment, and since this is a matter for the authorities, the applicant for such a post has to send in his various qualifications—written on one side of the application form—enclosing testimonials, etcetera. The application is then forwarded to a higher authority who in turn forwards it to still higher authorities, etcetera, etcetera. There is no need to describe the procedure further. The headmaster of the Gymnasium in Graz where Hamerling worked as a temporary assistant, was the worthy Kaltenbrunner. Hamerling heard that there was a vacancy for a master in Budapest. At that time the Dual Monarchy did not exist and teachers could be transferred from Graz to Budapest and from Budapest to Graz. Hamerling applied for the post in Budapest and handed in his application, written in copper plate, together with the necessary testimonials to the headmaster, the worthy Kaltenbrunner, who placed it in a drawer and forgot all about it. Consequently the post in Budapest was given to another candidate. Hamerling was not appointed because Kaltenbrunner had forgotten to forward the application to the higher authorities, who, if they had not forgotten to do so, would have forwarded it to their immediate superiors and these in their turn to their superiors, etcetera, until it reached the minister, when it would have been referred back to the lower echelons and have passed down the bureaucratic ladder. Thus another candidate was appointed to the post in Budapest, and Hamerling spent the ten years which were decisive for his life, not in Budapest, but in Trieste, because sometime later a post feil vacant here to which he was appointed—and because, of course, the worthy Kaltenbrunner did not forget Hamerling's application a second time!

From the external point of view therefore Kaltenbrunner's negligence was responsible for the decisive turning point in Hamerling's life; otherwise Hamerling would have stagnated in Budapest. This is not intended as a ctiticism of Budapest; but the fact remains that Budapest would have been a spiritual desert for Hamerling and he would have been unable to develop his particular talents. And our biographer would now be able to tell us how it was that Hamerling had been transferred from Graz to Trieste—because Kaltenbrunner had simply overlooked Hamerling's application.

Now this is a striking incident and one could find countless others of its kind in life. And he who seeks to measure life by the yard-stick of external events will scarcely find causes, even if he believes that he is able to establish causal relationships, that are more closely connected with their effects than the negligence of the worthy Kaltenbrunner with the spiritual development of Robert Hamerling. I make this observation simply to call your attention to the fact that it is imperative to implant in the hearts of men this principle: that external life as it unfolds must be seen simply as a symptom that reveals its inner meaning.

In my last lecture I spoke of the forties to the seventies as the critical period for the bourgeoisie. I pointed out how the bourgeoisie had been asleep during these critical years and how the end of the seventies saw the beginning of those fateful decades which led to our present situation.^T1 I spent the first years of these decades in Austria. Now as an Austrian living in the last third of the nineteenth century one was in a strange position if one wished to participate in the cultural life of the time. It is of course easy for me to throw light on this situation from the standpoint of a young man who spent his formative years in Austria and who was German by descent and racial affiliation. To be a German in Austria is totally different from being a German in the Reich^T2 or in Switzerland. One must, of course, endeavour to understand everything in life and one can understand everything; one can adapt oneself to everything. But if, for example, one were to raise the question: what does an Austro-German feel about the social structure in which he lives and is it possible for an Austro-German without first having adapted himself to it, to have any understanding of that peculiar civic consciousness one finds in Switzerland? Then the answer to this question must be an emphatic no! The Austro-German grew up in an environment that makes it totally impossible for him to understand—unless he forced himself to do so artificially—that inflexible civic consciousness peculiar to the Swiss.

But these national differentiations are seldom taken into account. We must however give heed to them if we are to understand the difficult problems in this domain which face us now and in the immediate future. It was significant that I spent my formative years in an environment where the most important things did not really concern me. I would not mention this if it were not in fact the most important experience of the true-born German-Austrian. In some it finds expression in one way, in others in another way. To some extent I lived as a typical Austrian. From the age of eleven to eighteen I had to cross twice a day the river Leitha which formed the frontier between Austria and Hungary since I lived at Neudörfl in Hungary and attended school in Wiener-Neustadt. It was an hour's journey on foot and a quarter of an hour's by slow train—there were no fast trains, nor are there any today I believe—and each time I had to cross the frontier. Thus one came to know the two faces of what is called abroad ‘Austria.’ Formerly things were not so easy in the Austrian half of the Empire. Today one cannot say things are easier (that is unlikely), but different. Up till now one had to distinguish two parts of the Austrian Empire. Officially one half was called, not Austria, but ‘the Kingdoms and “lands” represented in the Federal Council’, i.e. Cis-Leithania, which included Galicia, Bohemia, Silesia, Moravia, Upper and Lower Austria, Salzburg, the Tyrol, Styria, Carniola, Carinthia, Istria and Dalmatia. The other half, Trans-Leithania,³ consisted of the ‘lands’ of the Crown of St. Stephen, i.e. what is called abroad Hungary, which included also Croatia and Slavonia. Then, after the eighties, there was the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, occupied up to 1909 and later annexed, which was jointly administered by the two halves of the Empire.

Now in the area where I lived, even amongst the most important centres of interest, I did not find anything which really interested me between the ages of eleven and eighteen. The first important landmark was Frohsdorf, a castle inhabited by Count de Chambord, a member of the Bourbon family, who had made an unsuccessful attempt in 1871 to ascend the throne of France under the name of Henry V. There were many other peculiarities attaching to him. He was an ardent supporter of clericalism. In him, and in everything associated with him, one could perceive a world in decline, one could catch the atmosphere of a world that was crumbling in ruins. There were many things one saw there, but they were of no interest. And one felt: here is something which was once considered to be of the greatest importance and which many today still regard as immensely important. But in reality it is a bagatelle and has no particular importance.

The second thing in the neighbourhood was a Jesuit monastery, a genuine Jesuit monastery. The monks were called Redemptorists,⁴ an offshoot of the Jesuits. This monastery was situated not far from Frohsdorf. One saw the monks perambulating, one learned of the aims and aspirations of the Jesuits, one heard various tales about them, but this too was of no interest. And again one felt: what has all this to do with the future evolution of mankind? One felt that these monks in their black cowls were totally unrelated to the real forces which are preparing man's future development.

The third thing in the locality where I lived was a masonic lodge. The local priest used to inveigh against it, but of course the lodge meant nothing to me for one was not permitted to enter. It is true the porter allowed me on one occasion to look inside, but in strict secrecy. On the following Sunday, however, I again heard the priest fulminating against the lodge. In Brief, this too was something that did not concern me.

I was therefore well prepared when I matured and became more aware to be influenced by things which formerly held no interest for me. I regard it as very significant and a fortunate dispensation of my karma that, whilst I had been deeply interested in the spiritual world in my early years, in fact I lived my early life on the spiritual plane, I had not been forced by external circumstances into the classical education of the Gymnasium. All that one acquires through a humanistic education I acquired later on my own initiative. At that time the standard of the Gymnasium education in Austria was not too bad; it has progressively deteriorated since the seventies and of recent years has come perilously close to the educational system of neighbouring states. But looking back today I am glad that I was not sent to the Gymnasium in Wiener-Neustadt. I was sent to the Realschule and thus came in touch with a teaching that prepared the ground for a modern way of thinking, a teaching that enabled me to be closely associated with a scientific outlook. I owed this association with scientific thinking to the fact that the best teachers—and they were few and far betweenin the Austrian Realschule, which was organized on the most modern lines, were those who were connected in some way with modern scientific thinking.

This was not always true of the school in Wiener-Neustadt. In the lower classes—in the Austrian Realschule religious instruction was given only in the four lower classes—we had a teacher of religion who was a very pleasant fellow, but was quite unfitted to bring us up as devout and pious Christians. He was a Catholic priest and that he was hardly fitted to inspire piety in us is shown by the fact that three young boys who used to call for him everyday after school were said to be his sons. But I still hold him in high regard for everything he taught in class apart from his religious instruction. He imparted this religious instruction in the following way: he called an a pupil to read a few pages from a devotional work; then it was set for homework. One did not understand a word, learned it by heart and received high marks, but of course one had not the slightest idea of the contents. His conversation outside the classroom was sometimes beautiful and stimulating and above all warm and friendly.

Now in such a school one passed through the hands of a succession of teachers of widely different calibre. All this is of symptomatic significance. We had two Carmelites as teachers, one was supposed to teach us French, the other English. The latter in particular scarcely knew a word of English; in fact he could not string together a complete sentence. In natural history we had a man who had not the faintest understanding of God and the world. But we had excellent teachers for mathematics, physics, chemistry and especially for projective geometry. And it was they who paved the way for this inner link with scientific thinking. It is to this scientific thinking that I owed the impulse which is fundamentally related to the future aims of mankind today.

When, after struggling through the Realschule one entered the University, one could not avoid—unless one was asleep—taking an interest in public affairs and the world around. Now the Austro-German—and this is important—arrives at a knowledge of the German make-up in a totally different way from the Reich German.⁵ One could have, for example, a superficial interest in Austrian state-affairs, but one could scarcely feel a real inner relationship to them if one were interested in the evolution of mankind. On the other hand, as in my own case, one could have recourse to the achievements of German culture at the end of the eighteenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth century and to what I should like to call Goetheanism. As an Austro-German one responds to this differently from the Reich German. One should not forget that once one has become inured to the natural scientific outlook through a modern education one outgrows a certain artificial milieu which has spread over the whole of Western Austria in recent time. One outgrows the clerical Catholicism to which the people of Western Austria only nominally adhere, an extremely pleasant people for the most part—I exclude myself of course. This clerical Catholicism has never touched their lives deeply.

In the form it has assumed in western Austria this clerical Catholicism is a product of the Counter-Reformation, of the ‘Hausmacht’ policy of the Hapsburgs. The ideas and impulses of Protestantism were fairly widespread in Austria, but the Thirty Years' War and the events connected with it enabled the Hapsburgs to initiate a counter Reformation and to impose upon the extremely gifted and intelligent Austro-German people that terrible obscurantism, which must be imposed when one diffuses Catholicism in the form which prevailed in Austria as a consequence of the Counter Reformation. Consequently men's relationship to religion and religious issues becomes extremely superficial. And happiest are those who are still aware of this superficial relationship. The others who believe that their faith, their piety is honest and sincere are unwittingly victims of a monstrous illusion, of a terrible lie which destroys the inner life of the soul.

With a Background of natural science it is impossible of course to come to terms with this frightful psychic mishmash which invades the soul. But there are always a few isolated individuals who develop themselves and stand apart from it. They find themselves driven towards the cultural life which reached its zenith in Central Europe at the end of the eighteenth and in the early nineteenth century. They came in touch with the current of thought which began with Lessing, was carried forward by Herder, Goethe and the German Romantics and which in its wider context can be called Goetheanism.

In these decades it was of decisive importance for the Austro-German with spiritual aspirations that—living outside the folk community to which Lessing, Goethe, Herder etcetera belonged, and transplanted into a wholly alien environment over the frontier—he imbibed there the spiritual perception of Goethe, Schiller, Lessing and Herder. Nothing else impressed one; one imbibed only the Weltanschauung of Weimar classicism—and in this respect one stood apart, isolated and alone. For again one was surrounded by those phenomena which did not concern one.

And so one was associated with something that one gradually felt to be second nature, something, however, that was uprooted from its native soil and which one cherished in one's inmost soul in a community which was interested only in superficialities. For it was anomalous to cherish Goethean ideas at a time when the world around was enthusiasticbut the words of enthusiasm were pompous and artificial, without any suggestion of sincere and honest endeavourabout such publications (and I could give other examples) as the book of the then Crown Prince Rudolf An illustrated history of Austria. The book in fact was the work of ghost writers. One had no affinity with this trash, though, it is true, one belonged outwardly to this world of superficiality. One treasured in one's soul that which was an expression of the Central European spirit and which in a wider context I should like to call Goetheanism.

This Goetheanism, with which I associate the names of Schiller, Lessing, Herder and also the German philosophers, occupies a singularly isolated position in the world. And this isolation is extremely significant for the whole evolution of modern mankind for it causes those who wish to embark upon a serious study of Goetheanism to become a little reflective.

Looking back over the past one asks oneself: what have Lessing, Goethe and the later German Romantics, approximately up to the middle of the nineteenth century, contributed to the world? In what respect is this contribution related to the historical evolution prior to Lessing's time? Now it is well known that the emergence of Protestantism out of Catholicism is intimately connected with the historical evolution of Central Europe. We see, an the one hand, in Central Europe, in Germany for example—I have already discussed the same phenomenon in relation to Austria—the survival of the universalist impulse of Roman Catholicism. In Austria its influence was more external, as I have described, in Germany more inward. Now there is a vast difference between the Austrian Catholic and the Bavarian Catholic, and many of these differences which have survived date back to the remote past. Then came the invasion of Catholic culture by Protestantism or Lutheranism, which in Switzerland took the form of Calvinism or Zwinglianism.⁶ Now a high proportion of the German people, especially the Reich Germans, was Lutheran. But strangely enough there is no connection whatsoever between Lutheranism and Goetheanism! It is true that Goethe had studied both Lutheranism and Catholicism, though somewhat superficially. But when one considers the ferment in Goethe's soul, one can only say that throughout his life it was a matter of indifference to him whether one professed Catholicism or Protestantism. Both confessions could be found in his entourage, but he was in no way connected with them. To this aperçu the following can be added. Herder⁷ was pastor and later General Superintendent in Weimar. As pastor, of course, he had received much from Luther externally and was familiar with his teachings; he was aware that his outlook and thinking had nothing in common with Lutheranism and that he had entirely outgrown the Lutheran faith. Thus, in everything associated with Goetheanism—and I include men such as Herder and others—we have in this respect a completely isolated phenomenon. When we enquire into the nature of this isolated phenomenon we find that Goetheanism is a crystallization of all kinds of impulses of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. Luther did not have the slightest influence on Goethe; Goethe, however, was influenced by Linnaeus,⁸ Spinoza and Shakespeare, and on his own admission these three personalities exercised the greatest influence upon his spiritual development.

Thus Goetheanism stands out as an isolated phenomenon and that is why it can never become popular. For the old entrenched positions persist; not even the slightest attempt was made to promote the ideas of Lessing, Schiller, and Goethe amongst the broad masses of the population, let alone to encourage the feelings and sentiments of these personalities. Meanwhile an outmoded Catholicism on the one hand, and an outmoded Lutheranism on the other hand, lived on as relics from the past. And it is a significant phenomenon that, within the cultural stream to which Goethe belonged and which produced a Goethe, the spiritual activities of the people are influenced by the sermons preached by the Protestant pastors. Amongst the latter are a few who are receptive to modern culture, but that is of no help to them in their sermons. The spiritual nourishment offered by the church today is antediluvian and is totally unrelated to the demands of the time; it cannot lend in any way vitality or vigour. It is associated, however, with another aspect of our culture, that aspect which is responsible for the fact that the spiritual life of the majority of mankind is divorced from reality. Perhaps the most significant symptom of modern bourgeois philistinism is that its spiritual life is remote from reality, all its talk is empty and unreal.

Such phenomena, however, are usually ignored, but as symptoms they are deeply significant. You can read the literature of the war-mongers over recent decades and you will find that Kant is quoted again and again. In recent weeks many of these war-mongers have turned pacifist, since peace is now in the offing. But that is of no consequence; philistines they still remain, that is the point. The Stresemann⁹ of today is the same Stresemann of six weeks ago. And today it is customary to quote Kant as the ideal of the pacifists. This is quite unreal. These people have no understanding of the source from which they claim to have derived their spiritual nourishment.

That is one of the most characteristic features of the present time and accounts for the strange fact that a powerful spiritual impulse, that of Goetheanism, has met with total incomprehension. In face of the present catastrophic events this thought fills us with dismay. When we ask: what will become of this wave—one of the most important in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch—given the atmosphere prevailing in the world today, we are filled with sadness.

In the light of this situation the decision to call the centre which wishes to devote its activities to the most important impulses of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch the ‘Goetheanum’ irrespective of the fate which may befall it, has a certain importance. That this building shall bear the name ‘Goetheanum’ for many years to come is of no consequence; what is important is that the thought even existed, the thought of using the name ‘Goetheanum’ in these most difficult times.

Precisely through the fact I have mentioned to you, Goetheanism in its isolation could become something of unique importance when one lived at the aforesaid time in Austria where one's interests were limited. For if people had understood that Goetheanism was something which concerned them, the present catastrophe would not have arisen. This and many other factors enabled isolated individuals in the German-speaking areas of Austria—the broad masses live under the heel of the Catholicism of the CounterReformation—to develop a deep inner relationship to Goetheanism. I made the acquaintance of one of these personalities, Karl Julius Schröer¹⁰ who lived and worked in Austria. In every field in which he worked he was inspired by the Goethe impulse. History will one day record what men such as Karl Julius Schröer thought about the political needs of Austria in the second half of the nineteenth century. These people who never found a hearing were aware to some extent how the present situation could have been avoided, but that it was nevertheless inevitable because no one would listen to them.

On arriving in Imperial Germany one had above all the impression, when one had developed a close spiritual affinity with Goethe, that there was nowhere any understanding of this affinity. I came to Weimar in autumn 1889—I have already described the pleasing aspects of life in Weimar—but what I treasured in Goethe (I had already published my first important book on Goethe) met with little understanding or sympathy because it was the spiritual element in him that I valued. Outwardly and inwardly life in Weimar was wholly divorced from any connection with Goethean impulses. In fact these Goethean impulses were completely unknown in the widest circles, especially amongst professors of the history of literature who lectured on Goethe, Lessing and Herder in the universities—unknown amongst the philistines who perpetrated the most atrocious biographies of Goethe. I could only find consolation for these horrors by reading the publications of Schröer and the excellent book of Herman Grimm which I came across relatively early in my life. But Herman Grimm was never taken seriously by the universities. They regarded him as a dilettante, not as a serious scholar.

No genuine university scholar of course has ever made the effort to take K. J. Schröer seriously; he is always treated as a light-weight. I could give many examples of this. But one should not forget that the literary world with its many ramifications—including, if I may say so, journalism—has been under the influence of a bourgeoisie that has been declining in recent decades, a bourgeoisie which is fast asleep and which, when it embarks upon spiritual activities, has no understanding of their real meaning. Under these circumstances it is impossible of course to arrive at any understanding of Goetheanism. For Goethe himself is, in the best sense of the word, the most modern spirit of the fifth postAtlantean epoch.

Consider for a moment his unique characteristics. First, his whole Weltanschauung—which can be raised to a higher spiritual level than Goethe himself could achieve—rests upon a solid scientific foundation. At the present time a firmly established Weltanschauung cannot exist without a scientific basis. That is why there is a strong scientific substratum to the book with which I concluded my Goethe studies in 1897. (The book has now been republished for reasons similar to those which led to the re-issue of The Philosophy of Freedom.) The solid body of philistines said at that time (it was a time when my books were still reviewed, the title of the book is Goethe's Conception of the World:^T3 in reality he ought to call it ‘Goethe's conception of nature.’ The so-called Goethe scholars, the literary historians, philosophers and the like failed to realize that it is impossible to present Goethe's Weltanschauung unless it is firmly anchored in his conception of nature.

A second characteristic which shows Goethe to be the most modern spirit of the fifth post-Atlantean age is the way in which that peculiar spiritual path unfolds within him which leads from the intuitive perception of nature to art. In studying Goethe it is most interesting to follow this connection between perception of nature and artistic activity, between artistic creation and artistic imagination. One touches upon thousands of questions—which are not dry, theoretical questions, but questions instinct with life, when one studies this strange and peculiar process which always takes place in Goethe when he observes nature as an artist, but sees it on that account no less in its reality, and when he works as an artist in such a way that, to quote his own words, one feels art to be something akin to the continuation of divine creation in nature at a higher level.

A third characteristic typical of Goethe's Weltanschauung is bis conception of man. He sees him as an integral part of the universe, as the crowning achievement of the entire universe. Goethe always strives to see him, not as an isolatcd being, but imbued with the wisdom that informs nature. For Goethe the soul of man is the stage on which the spirit of nature contemplates itself. But these thoughts which are expressed here in abstract form have countless implications if they are pursued concretely. And all this constitutes the solid base on which we can build that which leads to the supreme heights of spiritual super-sensible perception in the present age. If one points out today that mankind as a whole has failed to give serious attention to Goethe—and it has failed in this respect—has failed to develop any relation ship to Goetheanism, then it is certainly not in order to criticize, lecture or reproach mankind as a whole, but simply to invite them to undertake a serious study of Goetheanism. For to pursue the path of Goetheanism is to open the doors to an anthroposophically orientated spiritual science. And without Anthroposophy the world will not find a way out of the present catastrophic situation. In many ways the safest approach to spiritual science is to begin with the study of Goethe.

All this is related to something else. I have already pointed out that this shallow spiritual life which is preached from the pulpit and which then becomes for many a living lie of which they are unconscious—all this is outmoded. And fundamentally the erudition in all the faculties of our universities is equally outmoded. This erudition becomes an anomaly where Goetheanism exists alongside it. For a further characteristic feature of Goethe's personality is his phenomenal universality. It is true that in various domains Goethe has sowed only the first seeds, but these seeds can be cultivated everywhere and when cultivated contain the germ of something great and grandiose, the great modern impulse which mankind prefers to ignore, and compared with which modern university education in its outlook and attitude is antediluvian. Even though it accepts new discoveries, this modern university education is out of date. But at the same time there exists a true life of the spirit, Goetheanism, which is ignored. In a certain sense Goethe is the universitas litterarum, the hidden university, and in the sphere of the spiritual life it is the university education of today that usurps the throne. Everything that takes place in the external world and which has led to the present catastophe is, in the final analysis, the result of what is taught in our universities. People talk today of this or that in politics, of certain personalities, of the rise of socialism, of the good and bad aspects of art, of Bolshevism, etcetera; they are afraid of what may happen in the future, they envisage such and such occupying a certain post, and there are those who six weeks ago said the opposite of what they say today ... such is the state of affairs. Where does all this originate? Ultimately in the educational institutions of the present day. Everything else is of secondary importance if people fail to see that the axe must be laid to the tree of modern education. What is the use of developing endless so-called clever ideas, if people do not realize where in fact the break with the past must be made.

I have already spoken of certain things which did not concern me. I can now teil you of something else which did not concern me. When I left the Realschule for the university I entered my name for different lecture courses and attended various lectures. But they held no interest for me; one felt that they were quite out of touch with the impulse of our time. Without wishing to appear conceited I must confess that I had a certain sympathy for that universitas, Goetheanism, because Goethe also found that his university education held little interest for him. And at the royal university of Leipzig in the (then) Kingdom of Saxony, and again at Strasbourg university in later years, he took virtually no interest in the lectures he attended. And yet everything, even the quintessence of the artistic in Goethe rests upon the solid foundation of a rigorous observation of nature. In spite of all university education he gradually became familiar with the most modern impulses, even in the sphere of knowledge. When we speak of Goetheanism we must not lose sight of this. And this is what I should have liked to bring to men's attention in my Goethe studies and in my book Goethe's Conception of the World. I should have liked to make them aware of the real Goethe. But the time for this was not ripe; to a large extent the response was lacking. As I mentioned recently the first indications were visible in Weimar where the soil was to some extent favourable. But nothing fruitful came of it. Those who were already in entrenched positions barred the way to those who could have brought a new creative impulse. If the modern age were imbued in some small measure with Goetheanism, it would long for spiritual science, for Goetheanism prepares the ground for the reception of spiritual science. Then Goetheanism would again become a means whereby a real regeneration of mankind today could be achieved. One cannot afford to take a superficial view of our present age.

After my lecture in Basel yesterday^T4 I felt that no honest scientist could deny what I had to say on the subject of super-sensible knowledge if he were prepared to face the facts. There are no logical grounds for rejecting spiritual knowledge; the real cause for rejection is to be found in that barbarism which in all regions of the civilized world is responsible for the present catastrophe. It is profoundly symbolic that a few years ago a Goethe society had nothing better to do than to appoint as president a former finance minister—a typical example of men's remoteness from what they profess to honour. This finance minister who, as I said recently, bears, perhaps symptomatically, the Christian name ‘Kreuzwendedich’ believes of course, in his fond delusion, that he pays homage to Goethe. With a background of modern education he has no idea and can have no idea how far, how infinitely far removed he is from the most elementary understanding of Goetheanism.

The climate of the present epoch is unsuited to a deeper understanding of Goetheanism. For Goetheanism has no national affiliation, it is not something specifically German. It draws nourishment from Spinoza, from Shakespeare, from Linnaeus—none of whom is of German origin. Goethe himself admitted that these three personalities exercised a profound influence upon him—and in this he was not mistaken. (He who knows Goethe recognizes how justified this admission is.) Goetheanism could determine men's thinking, their religious life, every branch of science, the social forms of community life, the political life ... it could reign supreme everywhere. But the world today listens to windbags such as Eucken¹¹ or Bergson and the like ... (I say nothing of the political babblers, for in this realm today adjective and substantive are almost identical).

What we have striven for here—and which will arouse such intense hatred in the future that its realization is problematical, especially at the present time—is a living protest against the alienation of spiritual life today from reality. And this protest is best expressed by saying: what we wanted to realize here is a Goetheanum. When we speak here of a Goetheanum we bear witness to the most important characteristics and also to the most important demands of our time. And amid the philistine world of today this Goetheanum at least has been willed and should tower above this present world that claims to be civilized.

Of course, if the wishes of many contemporaries had been fulfilled, one could perhaps say that it would have been more sensible to speak of a Wilsonianum,¹² for that is the flag under which the present epoch sails. And it is to Wilsonism that the world at the present time is prepared to submit and probaly will submit.

Now it may seem strange to say that the sole remedy against Wilsonism is Goetheanism. Those who claim to know better come along and say: the man who talks like this is a utopian, a visionary. But who are these people who coin this phrase: he is an innocent abroad—who are they? Why, none other than those worldly men who are responsible for the present state of affairs, who always imagined themselves to be essentially ‘practical’ men. It is they of course who refuse to listen to words of profound truth, namely, that Wilsonism will bring sickness upon the world, and in all domains of life the world will be in need of a remedy and this remedy will be Goetheanism.

Permit me to conclude with a personal observation on the interpretation of my book Goethe's Conception of the World which has now appeared in a second edition. Through a strange concatenation of circumstances the book has not yet arrived; one is always ready to make allowances, especially at the present time. It was suggested by men of ‘practical’ experience some time ago, months ago in fact, that my books The Philosophy of Freedom and Goethe's Conception of the World should be forwarded here direct from the printers and so avoid going via Berlin and arrive here more quickly. One would have thought that those who proffered this advice were knowledgeable in these matters. I was informed that The Philosophy of Freedom had been despatched, but after weeks and weeks had not arrived. For some time people had been able to purchase copies in Berlin. None was to be had here because somewhere on the way the matter had been in the hands of the ‘practical’ people and we unpractical people were not supposed to interfere. What had happened? The parcel had been handed in by the ‘practical’ people of the firm who had been told to send it to Dornach near Basel. But the gentleman responsible for the despatch said to himself: Dornach near Basel; that is in Alsace, for there is a Dornach there which is also near Basel ... there is no need to pay foreign postage, German stamps will suffice. And so, on ‘practical’ instructions the parcel went to Dornach in Alsace where, of course, they had no idea what to do with it. The matter had to be taken up by the unpractical people here. Finally, after long delays when the ‘practical’ gentleman had satisfied himself that Dornach near Basel is not Dornach in Alsace, The Philosophy of Freedom arrived. Whether the other book, Goethe's Conception of the World, instead of being sent from Stuttgart to Dornach near Basel has been sent by some ‘practical’ person via the North Pole, to arrive finally in Dornach after travelling round the globe, I cannot say. In any case, this is only one example that we have experienced personally of the ‘practical’ man's contribution to the practical affairs of daily life.

This is what I was first able to undertake personally in a realm that lay close to my heart—more through external circumstances than through my own inclination—in order to be of service to the epoch. And when I consider what was the purpose of my various books, which are born of the impulse of the time, I believe that these books answer the demands of our epoch in widely divergent fields. They have taught me how powerful have been the forces in recent decades acting against the Spirit of the age. However much in their ruthlessness people may believe that they can achieve their aims by force, the fact remains that nothing in reality can be enforced which runs counter to the impulses of the time. Many things which are in keeping with the impulses of the time can be delayed; but if they are delayed they will later find scope for expression, perhaps under another name and in a totally different context. I believe that these two books, amongst other things, can show how, by observing one's age, one can be of service to it. One can serve one's age in every way, in the simplest and most humble activities. One must simply have the courage to take up Goetheanism which exists as a Universitas liberarum scientiarum alongside the antediluvian university that everyone admires today, the socialists of the extreme left most of all.

It might easily appear as if these remarks are motivated by personal animosity and therefore I always hesitate to express them. One is of course a target for the obvious accusation—‘Aha, this fellow abuses universities because he failed to become a university professor!’ ... One must put up with this facile criticism when it is necessary to show that those who advocate this or that from a political, scientific, political-economic or confessional point of view of some kind or other fail to put their finger an the real malady of our time. Only those point to the real malady who draw attention to the pernicious dogma of infallibility which, through the fatal concurrence of mankind has led to the surrender of everything to the present domination of science, to those centres of official science where the weeds grow abundantly, alongside a few healthy plants of course. I am not referring to a particular individual or particular university professor (any more than when I speak of states or nations I am referring to a particular state or nation)—they may be excellent people, that is not the point. The really important question is the nature of the system.

And how serious this situation is, is shown by the fact that the technical colleges which have begun to lose a little of their natural character now assume university airs and so have Bone rapidly downhill and become corrupted by idleness.

I want you to consider the criticisms I have made today as a kind of interlude in our anthroposophical discussions. But I think that the present epoch offers such a powerful challenge to our thoughts and sentiments in this direction that these enquiries must be undertaken by us especially because, unfortunately, they will not be undertaken elsewhere.

Our present age is still very far removed from Goetheanism, which certainly does not imply studying the life and works of Goethe alone. Our epoch sorely needs to turn to Goetheanism in all spheres of life. This may sound utopian and impractical, but it is the most practical answer at the present time. When the different spheres of life are founded an Goetheanism we shall achieve something totally different from the single achievement of the bourgeoisie today—rationalism. He who is grounded in Goetheanism will assuredly find his way to spiritual science. This is what one would like to inscribe in letters of fire in the souls of men today.

This has been my aim for decades. But much of what I have said from the depths of my heart and which was intended to be of service to the age has been received by my contemporaries as an edifying Sunday afternoon sermonfor in reality those who are happy in their cultural sleep ask nothing more. We must seek concretely to discover what the epoch demands, what is necessary for our age—this is what mankind so urgently needs today. And above all we must endeavour to gain insight into this, for today insight is all important. Amidst the vast confusion of our time, a confusion that will soon become worse confounded, it is futile to ask: what must the individual do? What he must do first and foremost is to strive for insight and understanding so that the infallibility in the domain that I referred to today is directed into the right channel.

My book Goethe's Conception of the World was written specially in order to show that in the sphere of knowledge there are two streams today: a decadent stream which everyone admires, and another stream which contains the most fertile seeds for the future, and which everyone avoids. In recent decades men have suffered many painful experiences—and often through their own fault. But they should realize that they have suffered most—and worse is still to follow—at the hands of their schoolmasters of whom they are so proud. It appears that mankind must needs pass through the experiences which they have to undergo at the hands of the world schoolmaster, for they have contrived in the end to set up a schoolmaster as world organizer. Those windbags who have persuaded the world with their academic twaddle are now joined by another who proposes to set the world to right with empty academic rhetoric.

I have no wish to be pessimistic. These words are spoken in order to awaken those impulses which will answer Wilsonism with Goetheanism. They are not inspired by any kind of national sentiment, for Goethe himself was certainly not a nationalist; his genius was universal. The world must be preserved from the havoc that would follow if Wilsonism were to replace Goetheanism!

• 1. R. Hamerling (1830–89). Early work lyrical poems. Homunculus (1888) attacked the soullessness of the epoch. Philosophy opposed to monism and pessimism.
• 2. The Gymnasium prepared pupils for the Abitur and the University. Main subjects Greek and Latin; two foreign languages, usually French and English, included in the curriculum.
• T1. i.e. the war of 1914–18
• T2. i.e. Imperial Germany.
• 3. Realschule. Here emphasis an Mathematics and Natural Sciences. This type of school had a vocational bias.
• 4. Leitha and Leithania. The Leitha a tributory of the Danube. Up till 1918 formed the frontier between Austria and Hungary. The Austrian half of the Empire called Cis-Leithania, the Hungarian half, Trans-Leithania. See The Hapsburg Empire by C. S. Macartney, 1968.
• 5. Redemptorists. St. Alfonso de Liguori (1696–1787) founded the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Members of this congregation called Redemptionists. Undertook missionary work in the dioceses around Naples, heard confession and supervised schools. St. Alfonso beatified 1816 and canonized 1839.
• 6. The ‘Reich German’ refers to the German who was born and lived in Imperial Germany pre-1918.
• 7. Gottfried Herder (1744–1807). A seminal influence in theology, history, philosophy and pedagogy. Friend of Goethe. See any history of German literature.
• 8. Karl von Linnä or Linnaeus (1707–78). Swedish naturalist. Inventor of artificial system of plant classification.
• 9. Gustav Stresemann (1878–1929). National liberal politician. Post-1918 advocated a policy of reconciliation. Chancellor 1923. Foreign Minister 1923–9. Nobel Peace Prize 1926.
• 10. K. J. Schröer (1825–1900). Literary historian. Professor of history of literature at the Technische Hochschule in Vienna. Teacher of R. Steiner. See latter's Course of my Life.
• T3. Anthroposophical Publishing Co., London and Anthroposophic Press, New York, 1928.
• T4. Rechtfertigung der übersinnlichen Erkenntnis durch die Naturwissenschaft, 31st October, 1918 (see Bibl. Nr. 72).
• 11. R. Eucken (1846–1929). Professor of Philosophy, Jena. Pioneer of idealist metaphysics.
  
  H. Bergson (1859–1941). Professor at Collge de France. Famous for his book Creative Evolution and the idea of the elan vital as the fundamental stuff of the Universe.
• 12. Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924). Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy. President U.S.A. 1912–20. Author of the ‘Fourteen Points’ as basis for peace 1918. Idea of a ‘League of Nations’ stemmed from him; also of a world government to prevent future wars.

We have attempted so far to throw light from many different points of view upon the characteristic features of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch in which we are now living and which began in the early fifteenth century (1413) and will end in the middle of the fourth millennium. Now many of the symptomatic events of today are closely associated with the events which occurred at the beginning of this epoch. For reasons which will become evident in the course of the following lectures and which are connected with the whole of human evolution, the fifth post-Atlantean epoch can be subdivided into five stages. We have now reached a moment of particular importance, the decisive turning point when the first fifth of this epoch passes over into the second fifth.

I propose to give you a general survey of the impulses which have determined the history of religions, in so far as they are symptomatic of this fifth post-Atlantean epoch. Many things which I shall say in the course of this survey cannot be more than pointers or indications. For when we embark upon a serious study of the religious impulses of mankind the facts we have to consider are so difficult to convey owing to the limitations of language that we can only discuss them approximately; we can only hint at them. And you must therefore endeavour to read between the lines of what I shall say today and tomorrow, not because I wish to be a mystery monger, but because language is too powerless to express adequately the multiplicity and variety of impulses of spiritual reality. Above all I must call your attention today to the fact that he who studies these things from the standpoint of spiritual science must really be prepared to think and reflect. Today mankind has more or less lost the habit of thinking. I do not mean, of course, the thinking that is the proud boast of modern science, but the thinking which is capable of distinguishing precisely between different forms of reality. In order to be able to study what we are now called upon to examine, I must remind you that I have already spoken of the two currents in the evolution of mankind. I do not know whether all those present here listened so carefully to the expressions I coined in the course of my previous lectures that they have already noticed what I wish to underline especially today, so that no misunderstanding shall arise in the following observations.

In the evolution of post-Atlantean humanity I emphasized one thing in particular, namely that mankind of the postAtlantean epoch matures progressively at an ever earlier age. In the first post-Atlantean epoch, that of ancient India, men remained capable of developing physically up to the age of fifty; in the ancient Persian epoch development ceased at an earlier age, and in the Egypto-Chaldaean epoch at an even earlier age. In the Graeco-Latin epoch development was only possible up to the age of thirty-five and in our present epoch, as a consequence of natural development, men cease to develop beyond the age of twenty-eight. Any further development must be derived from spiritual impulses. Then, in the sixth post-Atlantean epoch, mankind will be unable to develop after the age of twenty-one—and so on. With the passage of time, therefore, mankind matures physically at an ever earlier age.

It is important to bear in mind that this evolution I have just mentioned involves the whole of mankind. In relation to this first current of evolution, as I shall call it, we can say that mankind is at the stage of development which the individual experiences between the ages of twenty-eight and twenty-one. These are the years when the Sentient Soul especially is developed. We are therefore at a stage in evolution when mankind as a whole is in process of developing especially the Sentient Soul. Such is the one current of evolution.

Now I have already spoken of another current of evolution. In this second evolution, in the first post-Atlantean epoch, that of ancient India, the individual developed his etheric body; in the second post-Atlantean epoch, that of ancient Persia, he developed the sentient body; in the Egypto-Chaldaean epoch the sentient soul, in the Graeco-Latin epoch the intellectual or mind soul, and in the present epoch the consciousness soul. Such is the second current of evolution. The first current of evolution which concerns the whole of mankind runs its course concurrently with the second evolution which concerns the isolated individual within the body of mankind. To repeat, the isolated individual develops the Consciousness Soul in the present epoch.

The third current of evolution to be considered is that which shows the development of the different peoples over the whole earth. In this context I have already pointed out that the Italian people, for example, develops in particular the Sentient Soul, the French people the Intellectual or Mind Soul and the English speaking peoples the Consciousness Soul. This is the third current of evolution. These currents are loosely intermingled and I am unable to point to any particular principle that is characteristic of our present epoch.

These three currents of evolution meet and cross in every human being; they invade every individual soul. The world order is by no means simple! If, for your benefit, you want the world order to be explained in the simplest terms, then you must become either professor or King of Spain. You will recall the legend of the King of Spain who declared, when a much less complicated cosmic system than the one envisaged here was explained to him: had God entrusted the ordering of the world to him he would not have made it so complicated, he would have simplified things. And certain textbooks or other popular encyclopaedias have always followed the principle that truth of necessity must be simple! This principle is not adopted of course on rational grounds, but solely for reasons of convenience, I might even say, out of general human indolence. By systematic arrangement where everything is classified or catalogued one comes no nearer to reality. And those facile, I might even say, slick concepts much favoured today in the domain of the official sciences are light-years away from true reality.

If we wish to understand all that plays into the souls of men of this fifth post-Atlantean epoch we must bear in mind the part-evolution that intervenes in the total evolution of mankind. For this part-evolution proceeds slowly and gradually. In order to examine briefly the religious development of this epoch it will be necessary to keep this threefold evolution to some extent in the background. About the time when the fifth post-Atlantean epoch began, not only many things, but also the religious life of mankind was caught up in a movement that has repercussions, a movement that is by no means concluded today. We must have a profound understanding of this movement if men really wish to make use of the Consciousness Soul. For only when men arrive at a clear insight and understanding of what is happening in evolution will they be able to participate in the further development of mankind on earth.

Towards the beginning of the fifteenth century the first stirrings of the religious impulses are perceptible. Let us first look at these religious impulses in Europe for having seen them at work in Europe we shall also have a picture of their impact upon the rest of the world. The first religious stirrings had long been prepared—since the tenth century or even the ninth century in the spiritual life of Europe and the near East. And this was due to the fact that the after effect of the Christ impulse manifested itself in the civilized world in a very special way. This Christ impulse, as we know, is a continuous process. But this abstract statement—that the Christ impulse is a continuous process—says in reality very little. We must also ascertain in what way it acquires a distinct and separate character, in what way, in its differentiations, it is then modified, or better still, in what way it is metamorphosed and assumes widely different forms.

That which began to awaken at the beginning of the fifteenth century and which still exercises a profound influence on men today—often unconsciously and without their suspecting it—is related to the catastrophic events of the present time. And this is explained by the fact that from the ninth and tenth centuries onwards it was possible for the ‘people of the Christ’ to emerge in a certain territory within the civilized world, a people that was endowed with the special inborn capacity to become the vehicle of the Christ revelation for future generations. We express a profound truth when we say that in this epoch and in readiness for later times a people had been specially prepared by world events to become the People of the Christ.

This situation arose because, in the ninth century, that which continued to operate as the Christ impulse acquired, to some extent, a separate character in Europe and this differentiation is seen in the fact that certain souls showed themselves capable of receiving directly the revelation of the Christ impulse (i.e. this particular form of the Christ impulse), and that these souls were diverted towards Eastern Europe. And the consequence of the controversy between the Patriarch Photius¹ and Pope Nicholas I was that the Christ impulse in its particular intensity was diverted to the East of Europe.

As you know this led to the famous filioque controversy—the question whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only. But I do not wish to enter into disputes over dogma. I want to discuss that which has a lasting influence—that differentiation, that metamorphosis of the Christ impulse which is characterized by the fact that the inhabitants of Eastern Europe were receptive to the continual influx of the Christ impulse, to the continuous presence of the ‘breath’ of Christ. This particular form (or metamorphosis) of the Christ impulse was diverted to the East and in consequence, the Russian people, in the widest sense of the term, became, within the framework of European civilization, the People of the Christ.

It is particularly important to know this at the present time. Do not say in face of present events^T1 that such a truth seems strange, for that would be to misunderstand the fundamental principle of spiritual wisdom, namely, that, paradoxically, external events often contradict their inner truth. That this contradiction may occur here and there is not important; what is important is that we recognize which are the inner processes, the true spiritual realities. For example, we have here the map of Europe (points to a diagram on the blackboard); we see sweeping eastwards since the ninth century that spiritual wave which led to the birth of the People of the Christ.

What do we mean by saying that the People of the Christ arose in the East? We mean by this—and it can be verified by studying the symptoms in external history; you will find, if you bear in mind the inner processes and not the external facts which often contradict reality that this statement is fully confirmed—we mean by this that a territory has been set apart in the East of Europe where lived men who were directly united with the Christ impulse. The Christ is ever present as an inner aura impregnating the thinking and feeling of this people.

One cannot find perhaps any clearer or more direct proof for what I have said here than the personality of Solovieff, the most outstanding Russian philosopher of modern times. Read him and you will feel—despite the peculiar characteristics of Solovieff which I have already discussed from other points of view—you will feel how there streams into him directly what could be called the Christ inspiration. This inspiration acts so powerfully within him that he cannot imagine the entire structure of social life otherwise than ordained by Christ the King, the Invisible Christ as sovereign of the social community. To Solovieff everything is imbued with the Christ, every single action performed by man is permeated with the Christ impulse which penetrates even into the muscular system. The philosopher Solovieff is the purest and finest representative of the People of the Christ.

Here is the source of the entire Russian evolution up to the present day. And when we know that the Russian people is the People of the Christ we shall also be able to understand, as we shall see later, the present evolution in its present form. That is the one metamorphosis prepared by the People of the Christ one example of the differentiations of the Christ impulse.

The second differentiation of the Christ impulse was the work of Rome which, having diverted the authentic and continuous metamorphosis of the Christ impulse towards the East, transformed the spiritual sovereignty of Christ into the temporal sovereignty of the Church and decreed that everything relating to Christ had been revealed once and for all at the beginning of our era, that it had been a unique revelation never to be repeated. And this revelation had been entrusted to the Church and the task of the church was to bear witness to this revelation before the world. As a consequence, the Christian revelation became at the same time a question of temporal power and was taken over by the ecclesiastical authorities. It is important to bear this in mind because it meant no less than that the Christ impulse was thereby in part emasculated. The Christ impulse in its totality resides in the People of the Christ who transmit it in such a way that the Christ impulse actually continues to exercise a direct influence at the present time. The Church of Rome has interrupted this continuity, it has concentrated the Christ impulse upon a historical event at the beginning of our era and has attributed everything of a later date to tradition or written records, so that henceforth everything will be administered by the Church.

Thus, amongst the peoples over whom the Church of Rome extended its influence, the Christ impulse was dragged down from the spiritual heights (in the East it had always remained at this level) and was put at the service of political intrigue and was caught up in that tangled relationship between politics and the Church which, as I have already described to you from other points of view, was characteristic of the Middle Ages. In Russia, although the Czar had been nominated ‘father’ of the Russian Orthodox Church, this troubled alliance between politics and the Church did not really exist, it was only apparent in external events. An important secret of European evolution is here concealed. The real confusion of questions of power and problems of ecclesiastical administration originated in Rome.

This confusion of Power politics and ecclesiastical administration, by reason of inner grounds of historical evolution, had reached a critical stage for the Christ impulse towards the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. As you already know this epoch is the epoch of the Consciousness Soul when the personality asserts itself and seeks to become self-reliant. Consequently it is particularly difficult, after the birth of the autonomous personality, to come to terms with the question of the personality of Christ Jesus himself. Throughout the Middle Ages and up to the fifteenth century the Church had maintained its dogmas concerning the union of the divine and spiritual with the human and physical in the person of Christ. These dogmas of course had assumed different forms without provoking hitherto deepseated spiritual conflicts. In those countries where Roman Catholicism had spread, these conflicts arose at a time when the personality, seeking to arrive at inner understanding of itself, also sought enlightenment upon the personality of Christ Jesus. In reality the controversies of Hus, Wyclif, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, of the Anabaptists Kaspar Schwenkfeld, Sebastian Frank and others revolved round this question. They wanted clarification upon the relationship between the divine and spiritual nature of Christ and the human and physical nature of Jesus. This was the central question and of course it created a great stir. It raised many doubts about that current of evolution which had blunted the unbroken influence of the Christ impulse to such an extent that the Christ impulse was limited to a single event at the beginning of our era and was to be transmitted henceforth only by the Church authorities. And so we can say: ‘all those who came under the influence of Rome became the People of the Church.’ Churches and sects, etcetera, were founded which had a certain importance.

But sects were also founded in Russia you will reply. Now to employ the same word which has different connotations in different areas is to lose all sense of reality. A study of Russian sects shows that they do not bear the slightest resemblance to the religious sects in the territories which at one time had been under the influence of the Church of Rome. It is not a question of designating things by the same term; what matters is the reality pulsating through them.

For reasons I have already mentioned, the life and aspirations of men at the beginning of the fifteenth century are characterized by a spirit of Opposition to the uniformity of the Roman Church which operated through suggestionism.

This assault of personality again provokes a reaction—the counter-thrust of Jesuitism which comes to the support of the Romanism of the Church. Jesuitism in its original sense (though everything today, if you will forgive the brutal expression, is reduced to idle gossip and Jesuitism is on everyone's lips) is only possible within the Roman Catholic Church. For fundamentally Jesuitism is based on the following: whilst in the true People of the Christ the revelation of the Christ impulse remains in the super-sensible world and does not descend into the physical world (Solovieff wishes to spiritualize the material world, not to materialize the spiritual world), the aim of Jesuitism is to drag down the Kingdom of God into the temporal world and to awaken impulses in the souls of men so that the Kingdom of God operates on the physical plane in the same way as the laws of the physical world. Jesuitism, therefore, aspires to establish a temporal sovereignty in the form of a temporal kingdom of the Christ. It wishes to achieve this by training the members of the Jesuit order after the fashion of an army. The individual Jesuit feels himself to be a spiritual soldier. He feels Christ, not as the spiritual Christ who acts upon the world through the medium of the Spirit, but he feels Him—and to this end he must direct his thoughts and feelings—as a temporal sovereign whom he serves as one serves an earthly King, or as a soldier serves his generalissimo. The ecclesiastical administration, since it is concerned with spiritual matters, will, of course, be different from that of a secular military regime; but the spiritual order must be subject to strict military discipline. Everything must be so ordained that the true Christian becomes a soldier of the generalissimo Jesus. In essence this is the purpose of those exercises which every Jesuit practises in order to develop in himself that vast power which the Jesuit order has long possessed and which will still be felt in its decadent forms in the chaotic times that lie ahead. The purpose of the meditations prescribed by Ignatius Loyola² and which are faithfully observed by Jesuits is to make the Jesuit first and foremost a soldier of the generalissimo Jesus Christ.

Here are a few samples. Let us take, for example, the spiritual exercise of the second week. The exercitant must always begin with a preliminary meditation in which he evokes in imagination ‘the Kingdom of Christ.’ He must visualize this Kingdom with Christ as supreme commander in the vanguard leading his legions, whose mission is to conquer the world. Then follows a preliminary prayer; then the first preamble.

‘1. It consists in a clear representation of the place; here I must see with the eyes of imagination the synagogues, towns and villages which Christ our Lord passed through on His mission.’

All this must be visualized in a complete picture so that the novice sees the situation and all the separate representations as something which is visibly present to him.

‘2. I ask for the grace which I desire. Here I must ask of our Lord the grace that I should not be deaf to His call, but should be prompt and diligent to fulfil His most holy will.’

Then follows the actual exercise. (What I have quoted so far were preparatory exercises.) The first part again includes several points. The soul is very carefully prepared.

‘ Point 1. I conjure up a picture of a terrestrial King chosen by God our Lord Himself to whom all Christians and all princes render homage and obedience.’

The exercitant must hold this before him in his imagination with the same intensity as a sensory representation.

‘Point 2. I observe how the King addresses all his subjects and says to them: “It is my will to conquer all the territories of the infidels. Therefore whosoever would go forth with me must be content with the same food as myself, the same drink and clothing, etcetera. He must also toil with me by day and keep watch with me by night so that he may share in the victory with me, even as he shared in the toil.”’

This strengthens the will, in that sensible images penetrate directly into this will, illuminate it and spiritualize it.

‘Point 3. I consider how his faithful subjects must answer a King so kind and so generous, and consequently how the man who would refuse the appeal of such a King would be deserving of censure by the whole world and would be regarded as an ignoble Knight.’

The exercitant must clearly recognize that if he is not a true soldier, a warrior of this generalissimo, then the whole world will look upon him as unworthy.

Then follows the second part of this exercise of the ‘second week.’

‘The second part of this exercise consists in applying the previous example of the terrestrial King to Christ our Lord in accordance with the three points mentioned above.

‘Point 1. If we regard an appeal of the terrestrial King to his subjects as deserving of our consideration, then how much more deserving of our consideration is it to see Christ our Lord, the Eternal King, and the whole world assembled before Hirn, to see how He appeals to all and each one in particular saying:

“It is my will to conquer the whole world and to subjugate my enemies and thus enter into the glory of my Father. Whoever therefore will follow me must be prepared to labour with me, so that, by following me in suffering, he may also follow me in glory.”’

‘Point 2 To consider that all who are endowed with judgement and reason will offer themselves entirely for this arduous service.’

‘Point 3 Those who are animated by the desire to show still greater devotion and to distinguish themselves in the total service of their eternal King and universal Lord will not only offer themselves wholly for such arduous service, but will also fight against their own sensuality, their carnal lusts and their attachment to the world and thus make sacrifices of higher value and greater importance, saying:

“Eternal Lord of all things, with Thy favour and help, in the presence of Thy infinite Goodness and of Thy glorious Mother and of all the saints of the heavenly Court, I present my body as a living sacrifice and swear that it is my wish and desire and my firm resolve, provided it is for Thy greater service and praise, to imitate Thee in enduring all injustice, all humiliation and all poverty, both actual and spiritual, if it shall please Thy most holy Majesty to choose me and admit me to this life and to this state.”

‘This exercise should be practised twice a day, in the morning on rising and one hour before lunch or dinner.’

‘For the second week and the following weeks it is very beneficial at times to read passages from The Imitation of Christ or from the Gospels and lives of the Saints’ to be read in conjunction with those meditations which train especially the will through visualization. One must know how the will develops when it is under the influence of these Imaginations—this martial will in the realm of the Spirit which makes Christ Jesus its generalissimo! The exercise speaks of the ‘heavenly Court which one serves in all forms of submission and humility.’ With these exercises, which through the imagination train especially the will, is associated something which exercises a powerful influence upon the will when it is continually repeated. For the schooling of Jesuits is above all a schooling of the will. It is recommended to repeat daily the above meditation in the following weeks as a basic meditation and where possible in the same form, before the selected daily meditation, before the ‘contemplation.’ Let us take, for example, the fourth day. We have the normal preliminary prayer then a first preamble.

‘We visualize the historical event—Christ summons and assembles all men under His standard, and Lucifer, on the other hand, under his standard.’

One must have an exact visual picture of the standard. And one must also visualize two armies, each preceded by its standard, the standard of Lucifer and the standard of Christ.

‘2. You form a clear picture of the place; here a vast plain round about Jerusalem, where stands Christ our Lord, the sole and supreme commander of the just and good, with His army in battle order; and another plain round about Babylon where stands Lucifer, chief of the enemy forces.’

The two armies now face each other—the standard of Lucifer and the standard of Christ.

‘3. I ask for what I desire: here I ask for knowledge of the lures of the evil adversary and for help to preserve myself from them; also for knowledge of the true life of which our sovereign and true commander is the exemplar, and for grace to imitate Him.’

Now follows the first part of the actual exercise: the standard of Lucifer; the exercitant therefore directs his spiritual eye of imagination upon the army which follows the standard of Lucifer.

‘Point 1. Imagine you see the chief of all the adversaries in the vast plain around Babylon seated on a high throne of fire and smoke, a figure inspiring terror and fear.’

‘Point 2. Consider how he summons innumerable demons, scattering them abroad, some to one City, some to another and thus over the whole earth without overlooking any province, place, station in life or any single individual.’

This despatch of demons must be visualized concretely and in detail.

‘Point 3. Consider the address he makes to them, how he enjoins upon them to prepare snares and fetters to bind men. First, they are to tempt men to covet riches, as he (Lucifer) is accustomed to do in most cases, so that they may the more easily attain the vain approbation of the world and then develop an overweening pride.’

‘Accordingly, the first step will be riches, the second fame, the third pride. And from these three steps Lucifer seduces man to all the other vices.’

Second Part. The standard of Christ

‘In the same way we must picture to ourselves on the opposing side, the sovereign and true commander, Christ our Lord.

‘Point 1. Consider Christ our Lord, beautiful and gracious to behold, standing in a lowly place, in a vast plain about the region of Jerusalem.’

‘Point 2. Consider how the Lord of the whole world chooses so many persons, apostles, disciples, etcetera, and sends them forth into all lands to preach the Gospel to men of all stations in life and of every condition.’

‘Point 3. Consider the address which Christ our Lord holds in the presence of all His servants and friends whom He sends on this crusade, recommending them to endeavour to help all, first urging upon them to accept the highest spiritual poverty, and, if it should find favour in the eyes of His divine Majesty and if, should he deign to choose them, to accept also actual poverty; secondly to desire humiliation and contempt, for from these two things, poverty and humiliation, springs humility.’

‘Accordingly there are three steps: first, poverty as opposed to riches, secondly, humiliation and contempt as opposed to worldly fame, thirdly, humility as opposed to pride. And from these three steps the ambassadors of Christ shall lead men to the other virtues.’

The spiritual exercises are practised in this way. As I have already said, what matters is that a temporal kingdom, and organized as such, must be represented as the army of Christ Jesus. Jesuitism is the most consistent, the best, and moreover extremely well organized expression, of what I referred to as the second current—the impulse of the People of the Church. We shall find in effect that fundamentally this impulse of the People of the Church is to reduce the unique revelation which occurred at Jerusalem to the level of a temporal Kingdom. For the end and object of the exercises is ultimately to bring the exercitant to choose himself as soldier serving under the banner of Christ and to feel himself to be a true soldier of Christ. That was the message entrusted to Ignatius Loyola through a revelation of a special kind. He first performed heroic deeds as a soldier, then as he lay on a sick bed recovering from his wounds was led as a result of meditations (I will not say by what power) to transform the martial impulse which formerly inspired him into the impulse to become a soldier of Christ. It is one of the most interesting phenomena of world history to observe how the martial qualities of an outstandingly brave soldier are transformed through meditations into spiritual qualities.

Where the continuous influence which the Christ impulse had exercised within the People of the Christ had been blunted, it is clear that Jesuitism had to assume this extreme form. And the question arises: is there not another form of Christianity diametrically opposed to that of Jesuitism? In that event a force would have to emerge in the territory occupied by the People of the Church. From the different reactions of Lutheranism, Zwinglianism,³ Calvinism, Schwenkfeldism and the Anabaptists, from this chaos and fragmentation, a force would have to emerge which not only follows the line of Jesuit thought (for Jesuitism is only an extreme expression of Catholic dogma)—but which is diametrically opposed to Jesuitism, something which seeks to break away from this community of the People of the Church, whilst Jesuitism seeks to be ever more deeply involved in it. Jesuitism wishes to transform the Christ impulse into a purely temporal sovereignty, to found a terrestrial state which is at the same time a Jesuit state, and which is governed in accordance with the principles of those who have volunteered to become soldiers of the generalissimo Christ. What could be the force which is the antithesis of Jesuitism?

The counter-impulse would be that which seeks, not to materialize the spiritual, but to spiritualize the material world. This impulse is a natural endowment amongst the true People of the Christ and finds expression in Solovieff⁴ though often tentatively. Within the territory of the true People of the Church there exists something which is radically opposed to Jesuitism, something which rejects any direct intervention of the spiritual in power politics and external affairs, and wishes the Christ impulse to penetrate into the souls of men, and indirectly through these souls to operate in the external world. Such an impulse might well appear in the People of the Church—because, in the meantime, much might tend in this direction; but it would seek to direct evolution in such a way that the spiritual Christ impulse penetrates only into the souls and remains to some extent esoteric, esoteric in the best and noblest sense of the term. Whilst Jesuitism wishes to tranform everything into a temporal kingdom, this other current would simply regard the temporal kingdom as something which, if need be, must exist on the physical plane, something, however, which unites men so that they can lift up their souls to higher realms. This current which is the polar opposite of Jesuitism is Goetheanism.

The aim of Goetheanism is the exact opposite of that of Jesuitism. And you will understand Goetheanism from a different angle if you consider it as by nature diametrically opposed to Jesuitism. That is why Jesuitism is, and ever will be the sworn foe of Goetheanism. They cannot coexist; they know each other too well and Jesuitism is well informed on Goethe. The best book on Goethe, from the Jesuit standpoint of course, is that of the Jesuit father, Baumgartner.⁵ What the various German professors and the Englishman, G. H. Lewes,⁶ have written about Goethe is pure dilettantism compared with the three volumes by Baumgartner. He knows what he is about! As an adversary he sees Goethe with a more critical eye. Nor does he write like a German Professor of average intelligente or like the Englishman, Lewes, who depicts a man who was indeed born in Frankfurt in 1749; he is said to have lived through the same experiences as Goethe, but the man he depicts is not Goethe. But Baumgartner's portrait is reinforced with the forces of will derived from his meditations. Thus Goetheanism, which is destined to play a part in the future, is linked to something which is directly associated with the epoch beginning with the fifteenth century and leading via the Reformation to Jesuitism.

I will discuss the third current tomorrow. I have described to you today the People of the Christ, the People of the Church and the third current which interpenetrates them and then the reciprocal action of these currents, in order to give you an insight into recent religious developments through a study of their symptoms. I will say more of this tomorrow.

• 1. Photius (815–869). Patriarch of Constantinople and author of the great schism between the Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome. This schism finally centred on the ‘filioque’ controversy. The Western Church added filioque (‘and the Son’) to the Constantinopolitan Creed, the so called double Procession of the Holy Ghost. Photius refused the insertion of filioque in the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox Church sees in Photius the champion of their cause against Rome. The addition of filioque became a dogma of the Roman Church in the fourth Lateran Council 1215.
• T1. i.e. the Russian Revolution.
• 2. Ignatius Loyola(1491–1556). Wounded at siege of Pamplona 1521 and during convalescence read devotional books. 1522 retired to Manresa, devoted himself to prayer and meditation. Sketched the fundamentals of the Spiritual Exercises. Took the monastic vows, gathered a few companions (e.g. Francis Xavier, Peter Favre) who became nucleus of the Society of Jesus. The Spiritual Exercises is a book of devotion and a training manual. Approved by Pope Paul 1540. Loyola beatified 1609, canonized 1622. See R. Fülop Müller, Power and Secrets of the Jesuits, 1930; Father J. Brodrick, The Origin of the Jesuits, 1940; and Ignatius Loyola, the Pilgrim rears, 1956.
• 3. Zwingli and Calvin—see notes to Lecture VI.
  
  Kaspar von Schwenkfeld (1489–1561). An Evangelical sectarian. His followers formed communities in Silesia and Pennsylvania.
  
  Anabaptists. A Christian sect of the Reformation which rejected infant baptism and believed in the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Associated with the peasant revolts in Saxony 1521. Leaders executed, banished or expelled.
• 4. Vladimir Solovieff (1853–1900). Russian theologian, philosopher and poet. His philosophy has a profound mystical quality. Opposed to Slavophil nationalism and the despotic state. See N. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, 1947. (This book useful on the interpretation of the Russian make-up, cf. Lecture I of this course); N. L. Lossky, History of Russian Philosophy, 1953.
• 5. Alexander Baumgartner (1841–1910). Catholic literary historian. Member of the Jesuit Order. His book Goethe 1885 emphasizes the Catholic point of view.
• 6. George Henry Lewes (1871–78). Best known for the Life and Works of Goethe, 2 voll, 1855.

Let us resume our observations of yesterday. I showed how, in the main, through factors I have mentioned, the People of the Christ was diverted eastwards and how, as a consequence of other factors, the Peoples of the Church developed in the centre of Europe and spread from there in a westward direction. I then pointed out how the various conflicts which arose at the turning-point which marked the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch were connected with this basic fact. I also showed how, within that territory where the true People of the Church developed, through the fact that the Christ impulse to some extent no longer exercised a lasting influence, but was associated with a definite moment in time and had to be transmitted through tradition and written records, there arose the troubled relationship between Christianity and the politically organized church, subject to the Roman pontiff; and how then other individual churches submitted to Rome. These other churches, though manifesting considerable differences from the papal church have, however, many features in common with it—in any case certain things which are of interest to us in this context and which seem to indicate that the state church of the Protestants is closer to the Roman Catholic Church than to the Russian Orthodox Church, in which however the dependence of the church upon the state was never the essential factor. What was of paramount importance in the Russian church was the way in which the Christ impulse, in unbroken activity, expressed itself through the Russian people. I then showed how the radical consequence of this dragging down of the Christ impulse into purely worldly affairs was the establishment of Jesuitism, and how Goetheanism^T1 appeared as the antithesis of Jesuitism.

This Goetheanism endeavours to promote a countermovement, somewhat akin to Russian Christianity. It seeks to spiritualize that which exists here on the physical plane, so that, despite the circumstances on the physical plane, the soul unites with the impulses which sustain the spiritual world itself, impulses which are not brought down directly to the plane of sensible reality, as in Jesuitism, but are mediated by the soul. As was his custom, Goethe seldom expressed his most intimate thoughts on this subject. But if we wish to know them we must again refer to that passage in Wilhelm Meister to which I have already drawn attention in another context. It is the passage where Wilhelm Meister enters Jarno's castle and is shown a picture gallery depicting world history, and in the framework of this world history the religious evolution of mankind. Wilhelm Meister is led by the guide to a picture where history is portrayed as ending with the destruction of Jerusalem. He drew the attention of the guide to the absence of any representation of the Divine Being who had been active in Palestine immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem. Wilhelm was then led into a second gallery where he was shown what was missing in the first gallery—the life of Christ up to the Last Supper. And it was explained to him that all the different religions represented in the first gallery up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem were related to the human being in so far as he was a member of an ethnic group. All these scenes represented an ethnic or folk religion. What he had seen in the second gallery, however, was related to the individual, was addressed to the individual; it was a personal and private matter. It could only be revealed to the individual, it could not be an ethnic religion for it was addressed to the human being, to the individual as such.

Wilhelm Meister then remarked that he still missed here, i.e. in the second gallery, the story of Christ Jesus from the time of the Last Supper until His Death and Ascension. He was then led to a third and highly secret gallery where these scenes were represented. But at the same time the guide pointed out to him that these representations were a matter of such intimacy that one had no right to portray them in the profane fashion in which they were usually presented to the public. They must appeal to the innermost being of man.

Now one can claim with good reason that what was still valid in Goethe's day, namely, that the representation of the Passion of Christ Jesus should be withheld from the public, no longer applies today. Since that time we have passed through many stages of development. But I should like to point out that Goethe's whole attitude to this question is revealed in this passage from Wilhelm Meister. Goethe shows quite clearly that he wishes the Christ impulse to penetrate into the inmost recesses of the soul; he wishes to dissociate it from the national impulse, from the national state. He wishes to establish a direct relationship between the individual soul and the Christ impulse. This is extremely important for an understanding not only of Goethe, but of Goetheanism. For, as I said recently, in relation to external culture, Goethe and the whole of Goetheanism are in reality isolated, but when one bears in mind the more inward religious development of civilized mankind one cannot say the same of the progress of evolution. Goethe, for his part, represents in a certain respect the continuation of something else. But in order to understand how Goethe is to some extent opposed to everything that is usually manifested in the Church of Central Europe, we must now consider a third impulse.

This third impulse is localized more to the West, and to a certain extent is the driving force behind the nations—one cannot say that it inspires them. That which emerged in its extreme form as Jesuitism, as the militia of the generalissimo Jesus Christ, is deeply rooted in the very nature of the civilized world. In order to understand this we must turn our attention to the controversy dating back to the fourth century which was felt long afterwards. From your knowledge of the history of religions you will recall that, in its triumphal march from East to West, Christianity assumed diverse forms and amongst them those of Arianism and Athanasianism. The peoples—Goths, Langobards and Franks—who took part in what is mistakenly called the migration of nations were originally Arians.

Now the doctrinal conflict between the Arians and Athanasians¹ is probably of little interest to you today, but it played a certain part and we must return to it. It arose from a conflict between Arius and Athanasius which began at Alexandria and was given new impetus in Antioch. Athanasius maintained that Christ is a God, like God the Father, that a Father-God therefore exists and that Christ is of the same nature and substance as the Father from all eternity. This doctrine passed over into Roman Catholicism which still professes today the faith of Athanasius. Thus at the root of Roman Catholicism is the belief that the Son is eternal and of the same nature and substance as the Father.

Arius opposed this view. He held that there was a supreme God, the Father, and that the Divine Son, i.e. Christ, was begotten of the Father before all ages. He was a separate being from the Father, different in substance and nature, the perfect creature who is nearer to man than the Father, the mediator between the Creator, who is beyond the reach of human understanding, and the creature.

Strange as it may seem this appears at first sight to be a doctrinal dispute. But it is a doctrinal dispute only in the eyes of modern man. In the first centuries of Christianity it had deeper implications, for Arian Christianity, based on the relationship between the Son and the Father, as I have just indicated, was something natural and self-evident to the Goths and Langobards—all those peoples who first took over from Rome after the fall of the empire. Instinctively they were Arians. Ulfilas's translation of the Bible shows quite clearly that he was an adherent of Arius. The Goths and Langobards who invaded Italy were also Arians, and only when Clovis was converted to Christianity did the Franks accept Christianity. They adopted somewhat superficially the doctrine of Athanasius which was foreign to their nature, for they had formerly been Arians at heart. And when Christianity hoisted its Banner under the leadership of Charles the Great² everyone was instructed in the creed of Athanasius. Thus the ground was prepared for the transition to the Church of Rome. A large part of the barbarian peoples, Goths, Langobards, etcetera, perished; the ethnic remnants who survived were driven out or annihilated by the Athanasians. Arianism lived on in the form of sects; but as a tribal religion it ceased to be an active force.

Two questions now arise: first, what distinguishes Arianism from Athanasianism? Secondly, why did Arianism disappear from the stage of European history, at least as far as any visible symptoms are concerned? Arianism is the last offshoot of those conceptions of the world which, when they aspired to the divine, still sought to find a relation between the sensible world and the divine-spiritual, and which still felt the need to unite the sense-perceptible with the divinespiritual. In Arianism we find in a somewhat more abstract form the same impulse that we find in the Christ impulse of Russia—but only as impulse, not in the form of sacramentalism and cultus. This form of the Christ impulse had to be abandoned because it was unsuited to the peoples of Europe. And it was also extirpated by the Athanasians for the same reason.

In order to have a clearer understanding of these questions we must consider what was the original constitution of soul of the different peoples of Europe. The original psychic make-up of the peoples who took over from the Roman Empire, who, it is said, invaded and settled in its territory (which is not strictly true, but I have not the time at present to rectify this misconception), the psychic disposition of the so-called Teutonic peoples was originally of a different nature. These peoples came from widely different directions and mingled with an autochthonous population of Europe which is rightly called the Celtic population. Vestiges of this Celtic population can still be found here and there amongst certain ethnic groups. Today when there is a wish to preserve national identity, people are intent upon preserving at all costs the Celtic element wherever they find it, or imagine they have found it. In order to form a true picture of the national or folk element in Europe we must imagine a proto-European culture, a Celtic culture, within which the other cultures developed—the Teutonic, the Romanic (i.e. of the Romance peoples), the Anglo-Saxons, etcetera.

The Celtic element has survived longest in its original form in the British Isles, especially in Wales. It is there that it has retained longest its original character. And just as a certain kind of religious sentiment had been diverted towards the East, with the result that the Russian people became the People of the Christ, so too, by virtue of certain facts which you can verify in any text-book of history a certain impulse emanated in the West from the British Isles. It is this impulse, an echo of the original Celtism, which ultimately determined the form of the religious life in the West, just as other influences determined that of the East and Central Europe.

Now in order to understand these events we must consider the question: what kind of people were the Celts? Though widely differentiated in many respects, they had one feature in common—they showed little interest in the relationship between nature and mankind. They imagined man as insulated from nature. They were interested in everything pertaining to man, but they had no interest in the way in which man is related to nature, how man is an integral part of nature. Whilst in the East, for example, in direct contrast to Celtism, one always feels profoundly the relation between man and nature, that man is to some extent a product of nature, as I showed in the case of Goethe, the Celt, on the other hand, had little understanding for the relationship between human nature and cosmic nature. He had a strong sense for a common way of life, for community life. But amongst the ancient Celts this corporate life was organized on the authoritarian principle of leaders and subordinates, those who commanded and those who obeyed. Essentially its structure was aristrocratic, anti-democratic, and in Europe this can be traced to Celtic antiquity. It was an organization based on aristocracy and this was its fundamental character.

Now there was a time when this aristocratic, Celtic, monarchical element flourished. The king as leader surrounded by his vassals, etcetera, this is a product of Celtism. And the last of such leaders who, in his own interests, still relied upon the original Celtic impulses was King Arthur with his Round Table in Wales. Arthur with his twelve Knights whose duty, so it is recorded—though this should not be taken literally—was to slay monsters and overcome demons. All this bears witness to the time of man's union with the spiritual world. The manner in which the Arthurian legend sprang up, the many legends associated with King Arthur, all this shows that the Celtic element lived on in the monarchical principle. Hence the readiness to accept commands, injunctions and direction from the King.

Now the Christ of Ulfilas, the Christ of the Goths was strongly impregnated with Arianism. He was a Christ for all men, for those who, in a certain sense, felt themselves as equals, who accepted no class differences, no claims to aristocracy. At the same time he was a last echo of that instinctive feeling in the East for the communion between man and the cosmos, between man and nature. Nature was to some extent excluded from the social structure of the Celtic monarchical system.

These two streams converged first of all in Europe (I cannot now enter into details, I can only discuss the main features). Then they were joined to a third stream. As a result of this confluence Arianism at first gained ground; but since it was a survival of a conception that linked nature and man, it was not understood by those who, as heirs of the Teutonic and Frankish peoples, were still influenced by purely Celtic impulses. They understood only a monarchical system such as their own. And therefore the need arose, still perceptible in the Old Saxon religious epic Heliand, to portray the Christ as a royal commander, a sovereign chief, as a feudal lord with his liege men. This reinterpretation of the Christ as a royal commander stemmed from the inability to understand what came over from the East and from the need to venerate Christ as both a spiritual and temporal King.

The third stream came from the South, from the Roman Empire. It had already been infected earlier with what one might perhaps call today the bureaucratic mentality. The Roman Empire—(it was not a state; it could best be described as a structure akin to a state) is very like—but different, in that the different territories are geographically remote from each other and different conditions determine the social structure—this Roman Empire is very like what emerged from the monarchical system though starting from different principles. Formerly a republic, it developed into an imperial organization, into an empire akin to what developed out of the various kingdoms of the Celtic civilization, but with a Teutonic flavouring.

Now the intellectual and emotional attitude towards social life which originated in the South, in the Roman Empire—because it envisaged an external structure on the physical plane—could never really find any common ground with Arianism which still survived as an old instinctive impulse from the East. This Roman impulse needed, paradoxically, something that was incomprehensible, something that had to be decreed. And as kings and emperors governed by decree, so too the Papacy. The doctrine of Athanasius could be brought home to mankind by appealing to certain feelings which were especially developed in the peoples I have mentioned; after all, these sentiments exist in everyone to some extent. The faith professed by Athanasius contains little that appeals to human feeling or understanding; if it is to be incorporated in the community it must be imposed by decree, it must have the sanction of law after the fashion of secular laws. And so it came to pass: the strange incomprehensible doctrine of the identity of the Father and the Son, who are co-equal and co-eternal, was later understood to imply that this doctrine transcended human logic; it must become an article of faith. It is something that can be decreed. The Athanasian faith can be imposed by decree. And since it was directly dependent upon authoritarian directives it could be introduced into an ecclesiastical organization with political leanings. Arianism, on the other hand, appealed to the individual; it could not be incorporated in an ecclesiastical organization, nor be imposed by decree. But authoritarian directives were important for the reasons I have mentioned.

Thus that which came from the south, from Athanasianism with its authoritarian tendency, merged with an instinctive need for an organization directed by a leader with twelve subordinates. In Central Europe these elements are interwoven. In Western Europe, in the British Isles and later also in America, there survived however a certain remnant of the old aristocratic outlook such as existed in the feudal nobility, in the old aristocracy, in that element which is responsible for the social structure and introduces the spiritual into the social life. That the spiritual element was regarded as an integral part of the social life is evident from the Arthurian legend which relates that it was the duty of the Knights of the Round Table to slay monsters and to wage war on demons. The spiritual therefore is operative here; it can only be cultivated if it is not imposed by decree, but is a spontaneous expression and is consciously directed. Thus, whilst the People of the Church developed in Central Europe there arose in the West, especially amongst the English-speaking peoples, what may be called the ‘People of the Lodges,’ to give a name to this third stream. In the West there had existed originally a tendency to form societies, to promote in these societies a spirit of organization. But in the final analysis an organization is only of value if it is created imperceptibly by spiritual means, otherwise it must be imposed by decree. And this is what happened in Central Europe; it was more in the society which later developed as a continuation of Celtism, in the English-speaking peoples, that attempts were made to rule in conformity with the lodges. Thus arose the ‘People or Peoples of the Lodges’ whose conspicuous feature is not the organization of mankind as a whole, but rather the division of mankind into separate groups and orders.

The division into orders stems from this continuation of the feudal element which is associated with the legend of King Arthur. In history things are interwoven. One can never understand a new development if one imagines that the effect follows directly from the cause. In the course of development things interpenetrate. And it is a strange fact that, in relation to its mode of representation and to everything that is active in the human soul, the principle of the lodges (of which freemasonry is a grotesque caricature) is inwardly related to Jesuitism. Though Jesuitism is bitterly hostile to the lodges, there is nevertheless great similarity in their mode of representation. And a Celtic streak in Ignatius Loyola certainly contributed to his consummate achievement.

In the East therefore the People of the Christ arose; they were the bearer of the continuous Christ impulse. For the man of the East accepts as a matter of course that throughout his life he receives the continuous influx of the Christ impulse. For the People of the Christ in Central Europe this impulse has become blunted or emasculated because it has been associated with a unique event at the beginning of our era and was later supplemented by the promulgation of decrees, state decrees, and by traditional transmission in conformity with Catholic doctrine. In the West, in the system of the Lodges, the Christ impulse was at first very much in question and so became still further emasculated. Thus the modes of thinking which really originate in this lodge impulse, which stems from Celtism and is a last echo of Celtism, gave birth to deism and what is called modern Aufklärung.³ It is extremely interesting to see the vast difference between the attitude of a member of the People of the Church in Central Europe to the Christ impulse and that of a citizen of the British Empire. But I must ask you not to judge this difference of attitude by the isolated individual, for obviously the impulse of the Church has spread also to England and one must accept things as they are in reality; one must take into account those people who are associated with what I have described as the lodge impulse which has invaded the state administration especially in the whole of the West.

The question is: What then is the relationship of the member of the People of the Christ to Christ? He knows that when he is really at one with himself he finds the Christ impulse—for this impulse is present in his soul and is continuously active in his soul. The member of the People of the Church speaks, perhaps, like Augustine who, at the age of maturity, in answer to the question, how do I find the Christ? replied: ‘The Church tells me who is the Christ. I can learn it from the Church, for the Church has preserved in its tradition the original teaching about the Christ.’—He who belongs to the People of the Lodges—I mean the true member of the Lodges—has a different approach to the Christ from the People of the Church and the People of the Christ. He says to himself: history speaks of a Christ who once existed. Is it reasonable to believe in such a Christ? How can the influence of Christ be justified historically before the bar of reason? This, fundamentally, is the Christology of the Aufklärung which demands that the Christ be vindicated by reason.

Now in order to understand what is involved here we must be quite clear that it is possible to know God without the inspiration of the Christ impulse. One need only be slightly mentally abnormal—just as the atheist is a person who is physically ill in some respect—to arrive at the idea of God or admit the existence of God by way of speculation or of mysticism. For deism is the fundamental belief of Aufklärung. One arrives directly at the belief of the Aufklärung that a God exists.

Now for those who are heirs of the People of the Lodges it is a question of finding a rational justification for the existence of Christ alongside the universal God. Amongst the various personalities characteristic of this rational approach I have selected Herbert of Cherbury⁴ who died in 1648, the year of the peace of Westphalia. He attempted to find a rational justification for the Christ impulse. A true member of the Russian people, for example, i.e. of the People of the Christ, would find a rational approach to the Christ impulse unthinkable. That would be tantamount to demanding of him to justify the presence of his head upon his shoulders. One possesses a head—and equally surely one possesses the Christ impulse. What people such as Cherbury want to know is something different: is it reasonable to accept alongside the God, to the idea of whom enlightened thinking leads, the existence of a Christ? One must first study man from a rational point of view in order to find a justification for this approach.

Not every member of the People of the Lodges of course responds in this way! The philosophers express their views in definite, clear-cut concepts; but others are not given to reflection; but all those who are in any way connected with the impulse of the Peoples of the Lodges, instinctively, emotionally and in the conclusions they unconsciously draw, adopt this rational approach. Cherbury started from an examination of the common factor in the different religions. Now this is a typical trick of the Aufklärung. Since they themselves cannot arrive at the spirit, at least as far as the Christ impulse is concerned, but only at the abstract notion of the god of deism, they ask: is it natural for man to discover this or that? Cherbury, who had travelled widely, endeavoured first of all to discover the common factor in the different religions. He found that they had a great deal in common and he tried to summarize these common factors in five propositions. These five propositions are most important and we must examine them closely.

The first proposition states: A God exists. Since the various peoples belonging to widely differing religions instinctively admit the existence of a God, he finds it natural therefore to admit that a God exists.

Secondly: The God demands veneration. Again a common feature of all religions.

Thirdly: This veneration must consist in virtue and piety.

Fourthly: There must be repentence and expiation of sins.

Fifthly: In the hereafter there is a justice that rewards and punishes.

As you see, there is no mention of the Christ impulse. But in these five propositions one finds the most one can know when one relies only upon the religious impulse emanating from the Lodges. Aufklärung is a further development of this way of looking at things. Hobbes, Locke⁵ and others constantly raised the question: since there is a tradition which speaks of Jesus Christ, is it reasonable to believe in His existence? And finally they are prepared to say: what is written in the Gospels, what is handed down by tradition on the subject of Christ Jesus agrees with the fundamental tenets common to all religions. It seems that the Christ wished to collate the common factors in all religions, that a divinely inspired personality (this can be envisaged more or less) had once existed who taught what is best in all religions. The Aufklärer found this to be reasonable. And Tindal who lived from 1647–1733 wrote a book entitled Christianity as Old as Creation. This book is very important for it gives us an insight into the nature of Aufklärung which was subsequently diluted by Voltaireism etcetera. Tindal wanted to show that in reality all men, the more enlightened men, have always been Christians, and that Christ simply embodied the best in all religions.

Thus the Christ is reduced to the status of a teacher: whether we call Him Messiah or Master, or what you will, He is nothing more than a teacher. It is not so much the fact of the Christ that is important, but that He exists and dwells amongst us, that He offers a religious teaching embodying the most precious element, the element which is common to the religions of the rest of mankind.

The idea I have just expressed may of course assume widely different forms, but the basic form persists—the Christ is teacher. When we consider the typical representatives of the People of the Christ, the People of the Church and the People of the Lodges, representatives who show wide variations, when we seek the reality behind the appearance, then we can say that for the People of the Christ: Christ is Spirit and therefore He is in no way concerned with any institutions on the physical plane. But the mystery of His incarnation remains. For the People of the Church: Christ is King, a conception which may assume various nuances. And this conception lives on also in the People of the Lodges, but in its further development it is modified and becomes: Christ is the Teacher.

We must bear in mind these different aspects of the European consciousness for they are deeply rooted not only in the individual, but also in what has developed spiritually in Europe in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch and also in many of the social forms. They are the principal nuances assumed by the Christ impulse. Much more could be said on this subject; I can only give a brief outline today since my time is short.

Let us now return to the three forms of evolution of which I spoke yesterday. In its present stage of development the whole of mankind is now living in the Sentient Soul, corresponding to the age of twenty-eight to twenty-one in man. Every single man, qua individual, develops the Consciousness Soul today in the course of the post-Atlantean epoch. Finally a third evolution unfolds within the folk-souls of which I spoke yesterday. We have, on the one hand, the historical facts and the influence they exert, and on the other hand the folk-souls with their different religious nuances. As a result of this interaction, for the People of the Christ: Christ is the Spirit; for the People of the Church: Christ is the King; for the People of the Lodges: Christ is the Teacher. These different responses are determined by the different folk characteristics. That is the third evolution.

In external reality things always interpenetrate—they work upon each other and through each other. If you ask who is representative of the People of the Lodges, of the deism of the Aufklärung then, strangely enough, a perfect example is Harnack⁶ in Berlin! He is a much more representative example than anyone on the other side of the Channel. In modern life things are much confused. If we wish to understand events and trace them back to their origin we must look beyond externalities. We must be quite clear that the third stream of evolution which is linked to the national element is connected with what I have described here. But because of the presence of the other evolutionary currents a reaction always follows, the assault of the Consciousness Soul upon this national element, and this assault manifests itself at diverse points. It starts from different centres. And one of these waves of assault is Goetheanism which, in reality, has nothing to do with what I have just described, and yet, when considered from a particular angle, is closely related to it. Parallel with the Arthurian current there developed early on the Grail current which is the antithesis of the Arthurian current. He who wishes to visit the Temple of the Grail must follow dangerous and almost inaccessible paths for sixty miles. The Temple lies remote and well concealed; one learns nothing there unless one asks. In brief, the purpose of this whole Grail impulse is to restore the link between the inmost core of the human soul (where the Consciousness Soul awakens) and the spiritual world. It is (if I may say so) an attempt artificially to lift up the sensible world to the spiritual world which is instinctive in the People of the Christ. The following diagram shows this strange interpenetration of the religious impulses of Europe. We have here an impulse which still exists today instinctively, in embryo and undeveloped, in the People of the Christ (red); philosophic spirits such as Solovieff come to accept this Christ impulse as something self-evident.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

On account of its ethnographical and ethnic situation, Central Europe is not disposed to accept the Christ impulse as something self-evident; it had to be imposed artificially. And so we have an intervention of the current of the Grail radiating in the direction of Europe—a Grail current that is not limited therefore to the folk element. This Grail atmosphere was active in Goethe, in the depths of his subconscious. If you look for this Grail atmosphere you will find it everywhere. Goethe is not an isolated phenomenon in this respect and therefore he is linked with what preceded him in the West. He has nothing in common with Luther, German mysticism and its forerunners; this was in part a formative influence and helped to shape him as a man of culture. It is the Grail atmosphere which leads him to distinguish three stages in man's relation to religion: first the religion of the people; secondly, the religion of the philosophers portrayed in the second gallery, and finally the most intimate religion in the third gallery, the religion which touches the inmost depths of the soul and embraces the mysteries of death and resurrection. It is the Grail atmosphere which inspires him to exalt the religious impulse active in the sensible world and not to drag it down after the fashion of the Jesuits. And paradoxical as it may seem today the Grail atmosphere is found today in Russia. And the future role that the Russian soul will play in the sixth post-Atlantean epoch depends upon this unconquerable spirit of the Grail in the Russian people.

So much for the one side. Let us now consider the other side. Here we have those who regard the Christ impulse neither as an inspiration, as in the East, nor as a living force transmitted by tradition and the Scriptures, but as something rational. It is in this form that it spread within the Lodges and their ramifications. (In the diagram I indicate this by the colour green.) Later it became politicized in the West and is the last offshoot of the Arthurian current. And just as the Christ impulse in the Russian people is continued in the Grail quest and irradiates all men of good will in the West, so the other current penetrates into all members of the People of the Church and takes on the particular colouring of Jesuitism. That the Jesuits are the sworn enemy of that which emanates from the Lodges is not important: anyone and anything can be the declared enemy of the outlook of the Lodges. It is a historical fact that the Jesuits have not only infiltrated the Lodges, that high-ranking Jesuits are in contact with the high dignitaries of the Lodges, but that both, though active in different peoples, have a common root, though the one gave birth to the Papacy, the other to freedom, rationalism, to the Aufklärung. I have now given you a kind of picture of what may be called the working of the evolution of the Consciousness Soul. I described to you earlier the three stages of evolution proceeding from the East to the West which are based on the ethnic element. That they assumed the form of Aufklärung in the West, as a consequence of interaction, is due to the fact that every individual is involved in the evolution of the Consciousness Soul.

Then we have a third current of evolution in which the whole of mankind is involved and by virtue of which mankind ceases to develop physically at an ever earlier age. Today mankind as a whole is at the ‘age’ of the Sentient Soul, i.e. between the ages of twenty-eight and twenty-one. This applies to the whole of mankind.

In describing the first current, the ethnic current when folk or tribal religions arise within Christianity such as the religion of the Christ, the religion of the Church and the religion of the Lodges, we are speaking from the standpoint of the evolution of peoples (or nations) which I usually characterize as follows: the Italian peoples = the Sentient Soul; the French peoples = the Intellectual or Mind Soul, etcetera. We have described how the Consciousness Soul develops in every individual in the course of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. In this consciousness we have the element that streams into religion. But from that moment begins the interaction with the other current, with the evolution of the Sentient Soul (common to all men) which follows a parallel course and is a far more unconscious process than that of the evolution of the Consciousness Soul.

If you study how a man like Goethe—though the impulses are often subconscious—nevertheless determines consciously his religious orientation, you see the working of the Consciousness Soul. But at the same time another element is at work in modern mankind, an element which finds powerful expression in the instinctive life, in unconscious impulses, and is intimately associated with the evolution of the Sentient Soul. And this is the trend towards socialism which is now in its early stages and will end in the way I have described. The initial impetus, it is true, is always given by the Consciousness Soul (as I have already indicated); but the development of socialism is the mission of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch and will end in the fourth millennium when it will have fulfilled its purpose. This is owing to the fact that mankind collectively is at the age of the Sentient Soul, corresponding to the age of twenty-eight to twenty-one in man. Socialism is not a matter of party politics, although there are many parties within the community, within the body social. Socialism is not a party political question as such, but a movement which of necessity will gradually develop in the course of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. And when this epoch has run its course an instinctive feeling for socialism will be found in all men in the civilized world.

In addition to the interaction of these currents in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch there is also at work that which lies in the depths of the subconscious, the desire to find the right social structure for all mankind from now until the fourth millennium. From a deeper point of view it is not in the least surprising that socialism stirs up all sorts of ideas which could be highly dangerous when one recalls that they derive their impulses from the depths of the subconscious, that everything is in a state of ferment and that the time is still far distant before it will come into its own. But there are rumblings beneath the surface—not, it is true, in the souls of men at present, i.e. in the astral body—but in the etheric body, in the temperaments of men. And people invent theories to explain these stirrings in the temperaments of men particularly. If these theories do not explain, as does spiritual science, what lies behind maya, then these theories, whether they are the theories of Bakunin,⁷ Marx, Lassalle and the like, are simply masks, disguises, veils that conceal reality. One only becomes aware of the realities when one probes deeply into human evolution as we have attempted to do in this survey. All that is now taking place (i.e. in 1918) in the external world are simply tempestuous preparations for what after all is now smouldering, one may say, not in the souls of men, but in their temperaments. You are all socialists and you are often unaware how deeply impregnated you are with socialism because it is latent in your temperament, in the subconscious. But it is only when we are aware of this fact that we overcome that nebulous and ridiculous search for self-knowledge which looks inward and finds only a caput mortuum, a spiritual void, an abstraction. Man is a complex being and in order to understand him we must understand the whole world. It is important to bear this in mind.

Consider from this point of view the evolution of mankind in the course of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. First, the People of the Christ in the East with its fundamental impulse: Christ is Spirit. It is in the nature of this people to give to the world through Russianism, as if with elemental force and from historical necessity, that for which the West of Europe could only have prepared the ground. To the Russian people as such has been assigned the mission to develop the essential reality of the Grail as a religious system up to the time of the sixth post-Atlantean epoch, so that it may then become a cultural ferment for the whole world. Small wonder then that when this impulse encounters the other impulses the latter assume strange forms.

What are these other impulses? Christ is King and Christ is Teacher. One can scarcely call ‘Christ is Teacher’ an impulse, for, as I have already said, the Russian soul does not really understand what it means, does not understand that one can teach Christianity and not experience it in one's soul. But as for the conception ‘Christ is King’—it is inseparable from the Russian people. And we now see the clash between two things which never had the slightest affinity, the clash between the impulse ‘Christ is Spirit’ and Czarism, an oriental caricature of the principle which seeks to establish temporal sovereignty in the domain of religion. ‘Christ is King and the Czar is his representative’—here we have the association of the Western element manifested in Czarism with something that is completely alien to Czarism, something that, through the agency of the Russian folk soul, permeates the sentient life of the Russian people.

A characteristic feature of external physical reality is that those things which inwardly are often least related to each other must rub off on each other externally. Czarism and Russianism have always been strangers to each other, they never had anything in common. Those who understand the Russian nature, especially its piety, must have found the attitude to the elimination of Czarism as something self-evident when the time was ripe. But remember that this conception ‘Christ is Spirit’ touches the deepest springs of our being, that it is related to the highest expression of the Consciousness Soul and that, whilst socialism is smouldering beneath the surface, it collides with that which dwells in the Sentient Soul. Small wonder then that the expansion of socialism in Eastern Europe assumes forms that are totally incomprehensible: a chaotic interplay of the culture of the Consciousness Soul and the culture of the Sentient Soul.

Much that occurs in the external world becomes clear and comprehensible if we bear in mind these inner relationships. And it is vital for mankind today and for its future evolution that it does not neglect, out of complacency or indolence, its essential task, namely, to comprehend the situation in which we now find ourselves. People have not understood this situation, nor have they attempted to understand it. Hence the chaos, the terrible catastrophe which has overtaken Europe and America. We shall not find a way out of the present catastrophic situation until men begin to see themselves as they are and to see themselves objectively in the context of present evolution and the present epoch. We cannot afford to ignore this.

That is why it is so important to me that people should realize that the Anthroposophical Movement, as I envisage it, must be associated with an awareness of the great evolutionary impulses of mankind, with the immediate demands of our time. It is tragic that the present age shows little inclination to understand and to consider the Anthroposophical Weltanschauung precisely from this point of view.

I should now like to round off what I said last week in connection with The Philosophy of Freedom by a consideration of more general points of view. From what I have said you will realize that the rise of socialism^T2 at the present time is a movement deeply rooted in human nature, a movement that is steadily gaining ground. For those endowed with insight the present negative reactions to the advance of socialism are simply appalling. Despite its ominous rumblings, despite its noisy claims to recognition, it is evident that socialism, this international movement which is spreading throughout the world, prefigures the future and that what we are now seeing, the creation of all kinds of national states and petty national states at the present time, is a retrograde step that inhibits the evolution of mankind. The dictum ‘to every nation its national state’ is a terrible obstacle to an understanding of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. Where this will end nobody knows; but this is what people are saying! At the same time this outlook is entirely permeated with the backward forces of the Arthurian impulse, with the desire for external organization. The antithesis to this is the Grail quest which is intimately related to Goethean principles and aims at individualism, at autonomy in the domain of ethics and science; it concerns itself especially with the individual and his development and not with groups which have lost their significance today and which must be eliminated by means of international socialism because that is the trend of evolution.

And for this reason one must also say: in Goetheanism with its individualism—you will recall that I emphasized the individualism in Goethe's Weltanschauung in my early Goethe publications and also in my book Goethe's Weltanschauung when I showed that this individualism is a natural consequence of Goetheanism—in this individualism, which can only culminate in a philosophy of feedom, there lies that which of necessity must lead to the development of socialism. And so we can recognize the existence of two poles—individualism and socialism—towards which mankind tends in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. In order to develop a right understanding of these things we must ascertain what principle must be added to socialism if socialism is to follow the true course of human evolution. The socialists of today have no idea what, of necessity, socialism entails and must entail—the true socialism that will be achieved to some extent only in the fourth millennium if it develops in the right way. It is especially important that this socialism be developed in conjunction with a true feeling for the being of the whole man, for man as a tripartite being of body, soul and spirit. The religious impulses of the particular ethnic groups will contribute in their different ways to an understanding of this tripartite division of man. The East and the Russian people to the understanding of the spirit; the West to an understanding of the body; Central Europe to an understanding of the soul. But all these impulses are interwoven of course. They must not be systematized or classified, but within this tripartite division the real principle, the true impulse of socialism must first be developed.

The real impulse of socialism consists in the realization of fraternity in the widest sense of the term in the external structure of society. True fraternity of course has nothing to do with equality. Take the case of fraternity within the same family: where one child is seven years old and his brother is newly born there can be no question of equality. One must first understand what is meant by fraternity. On the physical plane the present state-systems must be replaced throughout the whole world by institutions or organizations which are imbued with fraternity. On the other hand, everything that is connected with the Church and religion must be independent of external organization, state organization and organizations akin to the state; it must become the province of the soul and be developed in a completely free community. The evolution of socialism must be accompanied by complete freedom of thought in matters of religion.

Present-day socialism in the form of social democracy has declared that ‘religion is a private matter’. But it observes this dictum about as much as a mad bull observes fraternity when it attacks someone. Socialism has not the slightest understanding of religious tolerance, for in its present form socialism itself is a religion; it is pursued in a sectarian spirit and displays extreme intolerance. Socialism therefore must be accompanied by a real flowering of the religious life which is founded upon the free communion of souls on earth.

Just think for a moment how radically the course of evolution has thereby been impeded. There must be opposition to evolution at first, so that one can then work for a period of time towards the furtherance of evolution; this, in its turn, will be followed by a reaction and so on. I spoke of this in discussing the general principles of history. I pointed out that nothing is permanent, everything that exists is doomed to perish. Think of the opposition to this parallel development of freedom of thought in the sphere of religion and in the sphere of external social life, a development that can only be realized within the state community! If socialism is to prevail the religious life must be completely independent of the state organization; it must inspire the hearts and souls of men who are living together in a community, completely independent of any kind of organization. What mistakes have been made in this domain! ‘Christ is the Spirit’—and alongside this, the terrible ecclesiastical organization of Czarism! ‘Christ is the King’—complete identification of Czarism and religious convictions!^T3 And not only has the Roman Catholic Church established itself as a political power, it has also managed, especially in the course of recent centuries, indirectly through Jesuitism, to infiltrate the other domains, to participate in their organization and to imbue them with the spirit of Catholicism. Or take the case of Lutheranism. How has it developed? It is true that Luther was the product of that impulse^T4 of which I have already spoken here on another occasion—he is a typical Janus who turns one face to the fourth post-Atlantean epoch and the other to the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, and in this respect he is animated by an impulse in conformity with our time. Luther appears on the stage of history—but what happens then? What Luther wanted to realize in the religious sphere is associated with the interests of the petty German princes and their Courts. A prince is appointed bishop, head of synod, etcetera. Thus we see harnessed together two realms which should be completely independent of each other. Or to take another example—the stateprinciple which permeates the external organization of the state is impregnated with the Catholic religious principle, as was the case in Austria, the Austria which is now disintegrating; and to this, fundamentally, Austria's downfall must be attributed. Under other leadership, especially that of Goetheanism, it would have been possible to restore order in Austria.

On the other hand, amongst the English-speaking population in the West the princes and the aristocracy have everywhere infiltrated the Lodges. It is a characteristic feature of the West that one cannot understand the state organization unless we bear in mind that it is permeated with the spirit of the Lodges—and France and Italy are thoroughly infected by it—any more than one can understand Central Europe unless one realizes that it is impregnated with Jesuitism. We must bear in mind therefore that grievous mistakes have been made in respect of freedom of thought and social equality that must necessarily accompany socialism.

The development of socialism must be accompanied by another element in the sphere of the spiritual life—the emancipation of all aspiration towards the spirit, which must be independent of the state organization, and the removal of all fetters from knowledge and everything connected with knowledge. Those ‘barracks’ of learning called universities, which are scattered throughout the world are the greatest impediment to the evolution of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. Just as there must be freedom in the sphere of religion, so, too, in the sphere of knowledge all must be free and equal, everyone must be able to play his part in the further development of mankind. If the socialist movement is to develop along healthy lines, privileges, patents and monopolies must be abolished in every branch of knowledge. Since, at the present time, we are still very far from understanding what I really mean, there is no need for me to show you in any way how knowledge could be freed from its fetters, and how every man could thus be induced to participate in evolution. For that will depend upon the development of far reaching impulses in the sphere of education, and in the whole relationship between man and man. Ultimately all monopolies, privileges and patents which are related to the possession of intellectual knowledge will disappear; man will have no other choice but to affirm in every way and in all domains the spiritual life that dwells in him and to express it with all the vigour at his command. At a time when there is a growing tendency for the universities, for example, to claim exclusive rights in medicine, when in widely different spheres people wish to organize everything with maximum efficiency, at such a time there is no need to discuss spiritual equality in detail, for at present this is far beyond our reach and most people can safely wait until their next incarnation before they arrive at a complete understanding of what is to be said on the subject of this third point. But the first steps of course can be undertaken at all times.

Since we are involved in the modern world and the modern epoch, all we can do is to be aware of the impulses at work, especially socialism and what must accompany it—freedom of religious thought, equality in the sphere of knowledge. Knowledge must become equal for all, in the sense of the proverb which says that in death all men are equal, death is the great leveller; for knowledge, even as death, opens the door to the super-sensible world. One can no more acquire exclusive rights for death than one can acquire exclusive rights for knowledge. To do so nevertheless is to produce not men who are vehicles of knowledge, but those who have become the so-called vehicles of knowledge at the present time. These words in no way refer to the individual; they refer to what is important for our time, namely, the social configuration of our time. Our epoch especially which saw the gradual decline of the bourgeoisie has shown how all rebellion against that which runs counter to evolution is increasingly ineffective today. The Papacy firmly sets its face against evolution. When, in the seventies, the ‘Old Catholics’⁸ rejected the dogma of papal infallibility, this consummation of papal absolutism, life was made difficult for them (and is still made difficult for them today); meanwhile they could render valuable service by their resistance to papal absolutism.

If you recall what I have said you will find that, at the present time, there exists on the physical plane something which in reality belongs to the soul life and to the spiritual life of men whilst on the external physical plane fraternity seeks to manifest itself. That which does belong directly to the physical plane, i.e. freedom, has manifested itself on the physical plane and has organized it. Of course in so far as men live on the physical plane and freedom dwells in the souls of men, it belongs to the physical plane; but where people are subject to organizations on this plane there is no place for freedom. On the physical plane, for example, religions must be able to be exclusively communities of souls and must be free from external organization. Schools must be organized on a different basis, and above all, they must not become state-controlled schools. Everything must be determined by freedom of thought, by individual needs. Because in the world of reality things interpenetrate it may happen that today socialism, for example, often denies its fundamental principle. It shows itself to be tyrannical, avid for power and would dearly like to take everything into its own hands. Inwardly, it is, in reality, the adversary of the unlawful prince of this world who appears when one organizes externally the Christ impulse or the spiritual in accordance with state principles, when, in the external organization, fraternity alone does not suffice.

When we discuss vital and essential questions of the contemporary world we touch upon matters which mankind finds unpalatable today. But it is important that these problems should be thoroughly understood. It is only by gaining a clear understanding of these problems that we can hope to escape from the present calamitous situation. I must repeat again and again that we shall only be able to contribute to the true evolution of mankind by acquiring knowledge of the impulses which can be found in the way I have described.

When I discussed here a week ago my book The Philosophy of Freedom I tried to show how, as a result of my literary activities, I was rejected everywhere. You will recall no doubt that in many fields my work met with opposition. Even when I attempted in the recent fateful years to draw attention to Goetheanism I was ignored on all sides. Goetheanism does not mean that one writes or says something on the subject of Goethe, but it is also Goetheanism to search for an answer to the question: What is the best solution, anywhere in the world at the present time, when all nations are at each others throats? But here too I felt myself ignored on all sides. I do not say this out of pessimism, for I know the workings of Karma much too well for that. Nor do I say it because I would not do the same again tomorrow if the opportunity presented itself. I must say it because it is necessary to apprise mankind of many things, because only by insight into reality can mankind, for its part, find the impulses appropriate to the present age.

Must it then be that men will never succeed in finding the path to the ‘light’ by awakening that which dwells in their hearts and their inmost souls? Must they then come to the ‘light’ through external constraint? Must everything collapse about their ears before they begin to think? Should not this question be raised afresh every day? I do not ask that the individual shall do this or that—for I know only too well that little can be done at the present moment. But what is necessary is to have insight and understanding, to avoid false judgement and the passive attitude which refuses to see things as they really are.

A remark which I read in the Frankfurter zeitung this morning made a strange impression upon me. It was an observation of a man whom I knew intimately some eighteen or twenty years ago and with whom I have discussed many different questions. I read in the Frankfurter zeitung an article by this man; it was from the pen of Paul Ernst,⁹ poet and dramatist, whose plays have been performed on the public stage. I knew him intimately at that time. It was a short article on moral courage and in it I read a sentence—it is indeed very encouraging to find such a sentence today, but one must constantly raise the question: must we suffer the present catastrophe for such a sentence to be possible? A cultured German, a man who is German to the core writes: in Germany people have always maintained that we are universally hated. I should like to know (he writes) who on earth really hated the creative genius of Germany? And then he recalls that in recent years it is the Germans themselves who have shown the greatest antipathy to the creative genius of Germany.

And in particular they harbour a real inner antipathy to Goetheanism. I do not say this in order to criticize in any way, and certainly not—you would hardly expect this of me—to say something that would in any way imply making concessions to Wilsonism. It is tragic when things happen only under constraint, whereas they could be truly beneficial if they were the fruit of freedom. For today that which must be the object of freedom must stem from free thoughts. I must constantly reiterate that I say these things not in order to evoke pessimism, but in order to appeal to your hearts and souls so that you, in your turn, may appeal to the hearts and souls of others and so awaken insight—and therefore understanding! What has suffered most in recent years is judgement that has allowed itself to be clouded by submission to authority. How happy people are, the world over, that they have a schoolmaster for their idol (i.e. Wilson), that they no longer need to think for themselves! This must not be accounted a virtue or defect of any particular nation. It is something that is now widespread and must be resisted: we must endeavour to support our judgements with sound reasoning. One does not form judgements by getting up an one's hind legs and pronouncing judgements indiscriminately. Those who are often the leading personalities today—and I have already spoken of this in a different context—are the worst possible choice, the products of the particular circumstances of our time. We must be aware of this. It is not a question of clinging to slogans such as democracy, socialism etcetera; what is important is to perceive the realities behind the words.

That is what one feels, what comes to mind at the present time when one sees so clearly that the few who are shaken out of their complacency awaken only under constraint, when compelled to do so by constraint. That is why one says to oneself: what matters is judgement, insight and understanding. In order to gain insight into the evolution of nations we must bear in mind these deeper relationships. We must have the courage to say to ourselves: all our knowledge of ethnology and everything that is concerned with the social organization is valueless unless one is aware of these things. We must summon up the courage to say this and it is of this courage that I wanted to speak. I have spoken long enough, but I felt that it was important to show the direct connection between the deeper European impulses and those of the present time.

As you are aware one can never know from one day to the next how long one is permitted to remain in a particular place—one may be compulsorily directed at the behest of the authorities. Whatever happens—one never knows how long we may be together—in any case, though I may have to leave very soon, the present lecture will not be the last. I will see to it that I can speak to you again here in Dornach.

• T1. Goethestudien und Goetheanische Denkmethoden (in Bibl. Nr. 36).
• 1. Arianism and Athanasianism. The doctrinal conflict between Arius (250–336) and Athanasius (d. 373) arose over the question of the divine Sonship of Christ. Arius maintained the Son was not God, that He was not of divine substance and not eternal, but a creation ‘begotten of God’. Athanasius defended the Godhead of the Son. Christ was truly the Son and truly God. Arianism remained the official religion of the eastern halfof the Roman Empire down to 378. The Athanasian doctrine, accepted by the Western Church at first, rejected by the Council of Antioch 341, but later supported by emporers Constantine II and Constans. The victory of the Nicene doctrine assured by the support of the Church Fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. The second Council of Constantinople 381 confirmed the Nicene faith and in 383 Arianism was proscribed. See Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion.
• 2. Ulfilas, the Teutons and the Heliand. The migrations of the early Christian era led to tribal groupings. The Teutonic tribes (Germanic peoples or Germans) were composed of N. Teutons, E. Teutons (Goths, Vandals and Burgundians) and W. Teutons (Franks, Saxons, Langobards).
  
  The ‘Migration of the Peoples’ (375–568) led to attacks upon the frontiers of the Roman Empire.
  
  Ulfilas or Wulfila (310–383). A Visigothic bishop; translated part of the Bible into Gothic. (Codex Argenteus at Uppsala.) Major influence in conversion of Visigoths to Arian christianity.
  
  The Langobard Kingdom in Italy lasted from 568–772.
  
  Clovis d. 511 captured Gaul for the Arian Visigoths. Was baptized 496, established a Frankish national church and so won support for Roman Catholicism.
  
  Charles the Great overthrew the Langobards, Frisians and Saxons and united Germany under a single ruler. He was crowned in St. Peters 800 by Pope Leo III. The alliance of the Papacy and the Carolingians ensured the victory of Catholic Christianity.
  
  Other influences in the diffusion of Christianity were the monasteries, poetic works such as the Muspilli (830), the Heliand (circa 830) in which Christ is portrayed as King and warrior, his disciples as vassals. The purpose of the poem was frankly didactic. (This complicated period of history should be studied in some standard work.)
• 3. Aufklärung or Enlightenment. A rationalist movement originating in England and associated with the names of Locke, Hobbes, Hume and Newton; in France with Voltaire and the Encyclopedists; in Germany with Lessing, Wolff, Nicolai and Kant. ‘Sapere aude’ said Kant—dare to be wise, have the courage to use your reason. See Kant, Was ist Aufklärung?
• 4. Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1583–1648) was called the ‘father of deism’. The five propositions in De Veritate 1624 were tenets of ‘natural religion’. He wished to show that Christianity and its doctrines were reasonable.
• 5. John Locke (1632–1704). In philosophy an empiricist; forerunner of the Enlightenment. See An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690.
  
  Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). Philosopher: mathematicalmechanical conception of nature. Universe and man envisaged as complex machines. Politically, he looked to enlightened despotism; cf. Leviathan, 1651.
• 6. A. van Harnack (1851–1930). Protestant theologian and exegete; leading patristic scholar of the nineteenth century. Chief of the liberal Ritschl school of theology. Followed scientific-historical method, emphasis on ‘source study’. History of Dogma, 7 vols.; What is Christianity?
• 7. M. A. Bakunin (1814–76). Russian revolutionary and anarchist. Co-founder of the first International.
• T2. See Soziale und antisoziale Triebe im Menschen, [Social and Anti-Social Forces in the Human Being] Bern, 12th December, 1918 (in Bibl. Nr. 186).
• T3. Note—the stenogram is unclear.
• T4. See 17th and 18th September, 1917, Das Karma des Materialismus (in Bibl. Nr. 176).
• 8. The Old Catholics. Party of reform in the R. C. Church who rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility and of Immaculate Conception. Movement founded by Döllinger in Munich 1871.
• 9. Paul Ernst (1866–1933). Neo-classic poet, novelist and dramatist. Strove to unite classical form and modern thought; cf. Der Weg zur Form, 1906. Wrote books connected with the war and its aftermath, Der Zusammenbruch des deutschen Idealismus, 1920.

This is a part of Steiner's Lectures on Spiritual Essence and its Working. It is the fifth of a cycle of nine lectures, From Symptom to Reality in Modern History. This lecture is also known as Concerning Death and Evil, or The Supersensible Element in the Study of History. It is from the volume titled: Historical Symptomology.

Even within the limits in which it is permissible to speak to-day, we in the fifth Post-Atlantean period of civilisation this period of the Spiritual Soul¹ in which we are living cannot refer without deep emotion to those things which concern the mystery of evil. For in so doing we touch upon one of the deepest secrets of this fifth Post-Atlantean period, and any discussion of it comes up against the immaturity of human facilities: the right powers of feeling for such things are as yet little developed in present-day mankind. It is true that in the past certain hints or indications of the mystery of evil, and of that other mystery which is connected with it—the mystery of death—were attempted again and again in picture form. But these pictorial, imaginative descriptions have been taken very little in earnest, especially during the last decades—since the last third of the nineteenth century. Or else they have been cultivated in the way of which I spoke here nearly two years ago, in relation to very important events of the present time. What I said then had also a deeper motive, for anyone who has knowledge will be well aware what untold depths of the human being must be sounded when one begins to speak of these things. Alas, many signs have shown how little real good-will there is even now for an understanding of such things. The will to understand will come in time, and we must see that it does come. In every possible way we must see that it does come.

In speaking of these matters, we cannot always avoid the appearance of wishing to pass criticism on the present time in one way or another. Even what I lately said about the configuration of philosophical strivings within the bourgeoisie or middle class, especially since the last third of the nineteenth century (though it also applies to a considerably longer time)—even this may be regarded as mere criticism by those who wish to take it superficially. Nevertheless, all that I bring forward here is intended not as mere criticism, but as a simple characterisation, so that human beings may see what kind of forces and impulses have been holding sway. From a certain point of view, they were after all inevitable. One could even prove that it was necessary for the middle classes of the civilised world to sleep through the period from the eighteen-forties to the end of the eighteen-seventies. This cultural sleep of the bourgeoisie could indeed be presented as a world-historic necessity. Nevertheless, a candid recognition of the fact should have some positive effect upon us, kindling certain impulses in knowledge and in will—true impulses towards the future.

Two mysteries (as I said, we can speak of these things only within certain limits)—two mysteries are of special importance for the evolution of mankind during the epoch of the Spiritual Soul, in which we have been living since the beginning of the fifteenth century. They are the mystery of death and the mystery of evil. For the present epoch, the mystery of death is closely connected, from a certain side, with the mystery of evil. Taking the mystery of death to begin with, we may ask this very significant question: How stands it with death altogether, in relation to the evolution of mankind?

As I said again only the other day, that which calls itself Science nowadays takes these things far too easily. Death, for the majority of scientists, is merely the cessation of life. Death is regarded merely from this standpoint, whether it be in plant or animal or man. Spiritual Science cannot take things so easily, treating all things in the same standardised way. After all, we might even conceive as death the stopping of a clock—the death of the clock. Death, for man, is, in effect, something altogether different from the so-called death of other creatures. But we can learn to know the phenomenon of death in its reality only when we see it against the background of the forces which are active in the great Universe, and which—inasmuch as they also take hold of man—bring him physical death. In the great Universe certain impulses hold sway. Man belongs to the Universe; these forces therefore permeate man, too, and inasmuch as they are active within man, they bring him death. But we must now ask ourselves: These forces which are active in the great Universe—what is their function, apart from the fact that they bring death to man? It would be altogether wrong to imagine that the forces which bring death to man exist in the Universe for that express purpose. In reality this is only a collateral effect—as it were a by-product of these forces.

After all, in speaking of the railway system it will occur to no-one to say that the purpose of the engine is to wear out the rails! Nevertheless, the engine will spoil the rails in course of time; indeed it cannot help doing so. But its purpose in the railway system is altogether different. And if a man defined it thus: An engine is a machine which has the task of wearing out the rails—he would of course be talking nonsense, though it cannot he disputed that the wearing out of the rails belongs to the essence of the railway engine. It would be just as wrong for anyone to say that those forces in the Universe which bring death to man are there for this express purpose. Their bringing of death to man is only a collateral effect—an effect they have alongside their proper task.

What then is the proper task of the forces that bring death to man? It is this: To endow man with the full faculty of the Spiritual Soul. You see, therefore, how intimately the mystery of death is connected with the fifth Post-Atlantean age, and how important it is that in this fifth Post-Atlantean age the mystery of death should be quite generally unveiled. For the proper function of the very forces which—as a by-product of their working—bring death to man, is this: To instill, to implant into his evolution the faculty for the Spiritual Soul. I say once more, the faculty for the Spiritual Soul—not the Spiritual Soul itself.

This will not only lead you towards an understanding of the mystery of death; it will also show you what it is to think exactly on these important matters. Our modern thinking—I say this once again not by way of criticism, but as a pure characterisation—our modern thinking is in many respects (if I may use the unpleasant term—it is an apt one) altogether slovenly. And this applies especially to what goes by the name of science and scholarship. It is often no better than saying: The object of the railway engine is to wear out the rails. The pronouncement of modern science on one subject or another are often just of this quality—and this quality simply will not do if we are to bring about a wholesome condition for humanity in future. And in the epoch of the Spiritual Soul this can be achieved only in full consciousness. Again and again I must emphasise this; it is a truth deeply significant for our time.

How often do we see men arising here or there, making this or that proposal for the social and economic life out of a specious wisdom, and always with the mistaken idea that it is still possible to make constructive proposals for the social life without calling in the aid of Spiritual Science. He alone thinks in accordance with the times who knows that every attempted proposal concerning the social configuration of mankind in future is the merest quackery unless it is founded on Spiritual Science. Only he who realises this, in all its implications, is thinking truly in accordance with the times. Those who still pay heed to all manner of professorial wisdom on social economics—arising on the basis of an unspiritual science—are passing through the present time asleep.

The forces which we must describe as the forces of death took hold of the bodily nature of man in a far distant epoch. How they did so, you may read in my book, An Outline of Occult Science.

Only now are they finding their way into his soul-nature. For the remainder of earthly evolution, man must receive these forces of death into his own being. In the course of the present age they will work in him in such a way that he brings to full manifestation in himself the faculty of the Spiritual Soul.

Having put the question thus, having spoken in this way about the mystery of death—that is, about the forces that are at work in the great Universe, and bring death to man—I may now also refer in a similar manner to the forces of evil. These, too, are not such that we can simply say: “They bring about evil actions within the human order.” This again is only a collateral effect.

If the forces of death did not exist in the Universe, man would not be able to evolve the Spiritual Soul, he would not be able to receive,—as he must receive, in the further course of his earthly evolution—the forces of the Spirit-Self, Life-Spirit and Spirit-Man. Man must pass through the Spiritual Soul if he wishes to absorb in his own way the forces of Spirit-Self, Life-Spirit and Spirit-Man. To this end he must completely unite the forces of death with his own being during the course of the fifth Post-Atlantean age, that is to say, by the middle of the third millennium A.D. And he can do so. But he cannot unite the forces of evil with his being in the same way. I say again not in the same way. The forces of evil are so ordered in the great Universe in the Cosmos that man will be able to receive them into his evolution only during the Jupiter period, even as he now receives the forces of death.

We may say therefore: The forces of evil work upon man with a lesser intensity, taking hold only of a portion of his being. If we would penetrate into the essence of these forces, we must not look at their external consequences. We must look for the essence of evil where it is present in its own inherent being; that is to say, where it works in the way in which it must work, because the forces that figure in the Universe as “evil” enter also into man. Here we come to something of which I said just now that one can speak of it only with deep emotion and then only under one essential condition: that these things are received with the deepest, truest earnestness. If we would seek out the evil in man, we must seek for it not in the evil actions that are done in human society, but in the evil inclinations—in the tendencies to evil. We must, in the first place, altogether abstract our attention from the consequences of these inclinations—consequences which appear in any individual man to a greater or lesser extent. We must direct our gaze to the evil inclinations. If we do so, then we may put this question: In what men do these evil inclinations work during our own fifth post-Atlantean period—those inclinations which, when they come to expression in their side-effects, are so plainly visible in evil actions? Who are the men concerned?

My dear friends, we receive an answer to this question when we try to pass the so-called Guardian of the Threshold and learn truly to know the human being. Then we receive the answer, and it is this: Since the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantean period, evil inclinations—tendencies to evil—are subconsciously present in all men. Nay, the very entry of man into the fifth Post-Atlantean age—which is the age of modern civilisation—consists in his receiving into himself the tendencies to evil. Radically, but none the less truly, spoken, this may be stated: He who crosses the threshold into the spiritual world will undergo the following experience: There is no crime in all the world, but that every single human being, inasmuch as he belongs to the fifth Post-Atlantean age, has in his subconsciousness the inclination towards it—I say again, the inclination. Whether in one case or another the inclination to evil leads to an external evil action depends on quite other circumstances than on the inclination itself. You see, my dear friends, if one is obliged in our time to tell humanity the plain unvarnished truth, the truths one has to tell are by no means comfortable.

What, then, is the real purpose of these forces which bring about the evil inclinations in man? What do they seek to achieve in the Universe, when to begin with they instil themselves into the nature of man? Of a truth, they are not present in the Universe for the express purpose of bringing about evil actions in human society. They do bring them about, for reasons which we still have to consider. But just as little as the forces of death are there in the Universe in order to make man die, so, too, the forces of evil are not there in the Universe in order to entice him into criminal actions. They are there in the Universe for a very different purpose: when man is summoned to develop the conscious Spiritual Soul, their function is to call forth in him the inclination to receive the spiritual life. In the great Universe these forces of Evil hold sway. Man must receive them, and in receiving them he implants in himself the seed, the tendency to experience the spiritual life through the conscious Spiritual Soul. These forces, therefore, which are perverted in the human social order, do not exist in order to call forth evil actions. On the contrary, they exist in order that man, when he reaches the stage of the Spiritual Soul, may break through into the spiritual life. If man did not receive into himself those inclinations to evil of which I have just spoken, he would never come to the point where, out of his own Spiritual Soul, he has the impulse to receive from the Universe, the Spirit: which from henceforward must fertilise all cultural life, unless indeed this is to die away.

We shall do best if, to begin with, we turn our attention to what is intended to become of those forces whose caricature you see in the evil actions of man. We shall do best to ask ourselves: What is intended to take place in the future evolution of mankind under the influence of these very forces which are at the same time the forces responsible for the evil inclinations of man?

You see, when we think of these things we come very near the central nerve of the evolution of humanity. At the same time, all these things are connected with the disasters which have overtaken mankind to-day. All the disasters that have come upon us at the present time, and are destined to come in the near future, are like the signs of an approaching storm. They are merely the signs of quite other things that are about to come over humanity—signs which at the present stage often show the very reverse of what is coming. These things are said, not to encourage pessimism, but as a call to awakening, an impulse to strong actions.

Perhaps the best way of attaining our present purpose is to start from something concrete. I recently said: An essential impulse in human evolution during the age of the Spiritual Soul must be the growth of interest between man and man. The interest which one man takes in another must become ever greater and greater. This interest must grow for the remainder of earthly evolution—and especially in four domains. The first is this: Man as he evolves towards the future will behold and see his fellow-men in new and ever changing ways. To-day, although he has passed through rather more than a fifth of the age of the Spiritual Soul, man is little inclined as yet to see his fellow-man as he must learn to see him in the course of this epoch, which as you know, will continue into the third millennium. To-day men see one another in such a way that they overlook what is most important; they have no real vision of their fellow-men. In this respect men have yet to make full use of all that has been instilled into their souls, through various incarnations, by the influence of Art. Much can be learned from the evolution of Art; I have often given indications as to the lessons we can learn from it.

It can scarcely be denied—if we cultivate the symptomatic understanding of history which I have called for in recent lectures—that artistic creation and enjoyment are declining in almost all domains of Art. All that has been attempted in Art during the last few decades reveals very clearly, to anyone who has true feeling, that Art as such is in a period of decay. The most important element of the artistic life which must pass into the evolution of humanity in future is the education which human beings can receive from it for certain ways of understanding which will be necessary for the future.

Needless to say, every branch of culture has many different branches and concomitant effects. We may say, however, that all Art contains an element tending towards a deeper and more real knowledge of man. Anyone who truly enters, for instance, into the artistic forms created in painting or sculpture, or into the essence of the inner movements pulsating through music and poetry—anyone who experiences Art in a truly inward way (which artists themselves often fail to do nowadays) will imbue himself with something that enables him to comprehend man from a certain point of view—I mean, to comprehend him pictorially. This must come to humanity in the present age of the Spiritual Soul: the faculty to perceive men pictorially. You have already heard the elements of this. Look at the human being—behold his head: it points you back into the past. Even as a dream is understood as a reminiscence of outer physical life and thence receives its signature, so for one who sees things in their reality, all physical things are as pictures—images of something spiritual. We must learn to see through the picture-nature of man to his spiritual archetype. And this will happen as we go on into the future; man will, as it were, become transparent to his fellow-man. The way his head is formed, the way he walks: all this will be seen with an inner insight and sympathy altogether different from what the men of today are as yet inclined to evolve. For the only way to learn to know the human being in his Ego is to cultivate this understanding of his picture-nature, and thus to approach him with the underlying feeling that everything outer physical eyes can see of him is related to the true super-sensible reality of man, as a picture painted on canvas is to the reality it represents.

This underlying feeling must be gradually developed; this must be learned. Man will meet man not so as to perceive in him merely the organisation of bone, muscle, blood and so forth. No, he will learn to feel in the other man the image of his eternal and spiritual being. Behold, the human being passes by us, and we shall not imagine that we can understand him unless this that passes by us awakens in us the deeper vision of what he is as an eternal and spiritual man.

In this way we shall learn to see the human being. And we shall really be able to see him thus. For everything we see when we perceive human forms, human movements, and all that goes with them as a picture of the eternal, will make us either warm or cold. It will have to fill us either with inner warmth or with inner cold. We shall go through the world learning to know men in a very deep and tender way. One man will make us warm, another will make us cold. Worst of all will be those who make us neither warm nor cold. Thus we shall have an inner experience in the warmth-ether which penetrates our etheric body. This will be the reflex of the heightened interest which must be evolved as between man and man.

The second thing to which I must now refer will call forth still stranger feelings in the man of to-day, who has indeed no inclination at all to receive such things as these. (Although, in a none too distant future, this very antipathy may change into sympathy for these things). The second is this: men will understand one another quite differently. In the two thousand years which still have to pass until the end of the fifth Post-Atlantean age, this, above all, will happen—it is true the two thousand years will not entirely suffice; what I now refer to will continue into the sixth Post-Atlantean age—but during the present age the following development will occur: Besides the recognition of the Ego, of which I have just spoken, there will arise a faculty to feel and apprehend in man, even as we meet him, his relationship to the third Hierarchy—the Angels, Archangels and Archai. This will come about through a growing recognition of the quite different way in which men are now related to speech and language, compared with how it was in earlier times.

The evolution of language has already passed its zenith. Language has indeed become an abstract thing; and all the efforts that are being made to classify societies in accordance with the languages of peoples represent merely a wave of deepest untruthfulness now passing over the earth. For men no longer have that relationship to language which sees through the language to the human being—to the inner being of man.

On various occasions, as a first step towards an understanding of this matter, I have cited an example. I repeated it recently during a public lecture in Zürich, for the time has come to bring these things before a wider public. In Dornach, too, I have drawn attention to the same point—how surprising it is to compare the essays on Historic Method by Hermann Grimm, who stood so fully within the German mid-European culture of the nineteenth century, with essays on the same subject by Woodrow Wilson. I have carried out the experiment with great care: it is possible to take over certain sentences from Woodrow Wilson and insert them bodily in Hermann Grimm's essays, for they are almost word-for-word identical with sentences in Hermann Grimm. Again, whole sentences on Historic Method by Hermann Grimm can be transplanted into the lectures subsequently published by Woodrow Wilson. And yet there is a radical difference between the two—a difference which we notice as we read. Not indeed a difference in content: literal content will be of far less importance for mankind as we evolve towards the future. The difference is this: in Hermann Grimm, everything—even passages with which one cannot agree—has been struggled for, it has been conquered step by step, sentence by sentence. In Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, it is as though his own inner demon, by which he is possessed in his subconsciousness, had instilled it all into his consciousness. On the one hand the things spring forth directly, at the surface of consciousness; on the other, they are “inspirations” imparted by a demon out of the subconscious into the conscious life. Indeed, we must say that what comes from Woodrow Wilson's side derives from a certain state of possession.

I give this example to show that word-for-word agreement is no longer the important thing today. I always feel it with intense pain when friends of our cause bring me quotations from this or that person, or this or that professor, saying, “Look, this is quite anthroposophical—I beg you to see how anthroposophical it is.” In our period of civilisation it is even possible for a Professor, dabbling in politics; to write on an important matter something that agrees word-for-word with that which springs from a knowledge of realities; but the word-for-word agreement is not the point. What matters is the region of the human soul from which things spring. We must look through the words of speech to the region whence things derive.

All that is said here is said not merely in order to formulate certain statements. The important thing is that the way of saying it is permeated by that inner force which proceeds directly from the Spirit. Anyone who discovers word-for-word agreements without feeling how the things here said proceed from the fountain-head of the Spirit, and are permeated by it inasmuch as they are placed into the whole context of the Anthroposophical world-conception—anyone who cannot detect the how of what is said—has utterly failed to recognise what is here intended, even if he notes a word-for-word agreement with some choice pronouncement of external wisdom.

It is of course not very comfortable to have to point to such examples, for the inclinations of mankind to-day frequently go in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, it is a duty and responsibility laid upon one to-day, if one is speaking in all earnestness and does not want merely to call forth a kind of torpor, making the lectures a pleasant soporific. One must not shrink from choosing such examples as are unpleasant to many people. Surely there should be willingness to listen to a serious warning of what it will really mean for the world if people fail to notice that the world is about to have its order drawn up for it by a weak-minded American Professor! It is indeed uncomfortable to speak of actualities to-day. Many people find the very opposite convenient and pleasant. In any case, one speaks of actualities only in those domains of life where it is absolutely necessary, and where it concerns men closely—or should do so any rate—to listen to these things.

To see through the veils of language: this must come over humanity in future. Men must acquire the faculty to perceive the inner gesture in speech. This age will not come to an end—certainly the last stages of it will go on into the following epoch—but the third millennium will not pass by till men have come to this: they will no longer listen to another man who speaks to them as they listen to him nowadays. They will find expressed in speech and language the human being's dependence on the third Hierarchy—on the Angels, Archangels and Archai. In speech they will find an expression of that whereby a man penetrates into the spiritual—into the super-sensible. Then they will hear through speech into the soul of man. Needless to say, we shall have an altogether different social life when men can hear through speech the inner soul of man. Much indeed of the force of so-called evil will have to be transmuted in this way, by man becoming able to hearken to the things another man is saying and to hear, through his speech, his soul. Then, when the soul is heard through speech, there will come over man a wonderful feeling of colour, and through this feeling of colour in speech men will learn to understand one another internationally. Quite as a matter of course one sound will call forth the same feeling as the sight of a blue colour, and another sound the same feeling as the sight of a red colour. Thus, what will only be felt as warmth when one sees the human being, will grow as it were into colour when one listens to his speech. One will have to enter with intimate sympathy into the sound of the speech which is borne from human lips to human ear. That is the second thing which is approaching.

The third thing is this: Men will experience very intimately in themselves the expressions of and configurations of feeling in other men. Much of this will be brought about through speech, but not through speech alone. When one man meets another, he will experience the state of feeling of the other in himself, in his own breathing. As we approach the future of earthly evolution, in the time to which I now refer, our breathing will attune itself to the life of feeling of the other man. One man will cause us to breathe more quickly, another man more slowly;and according as we breathe more quickly or more slowly we shall feel what kind of a man we are meeting. Think how the social community of men will live and grow together; think how intimate the social life of man will tend to become! Certainly it will take still longer for this kind of breathing to become a part of the soul of man—the whole of the sixth epoch of civilisation and part of the seventh. And in the seventh epoch a little will be achieved of the fourth thing, to which I will now refer.

In so far as men belong to a human community by their own act of will, then in the realm of will they will have—forgive the hard saying—to digest one another. Inasmuch as we shall have to will, or will to will, one thing or another in association with this man or that, we shall have inner experiences similar to those we now have, still a very primitive form, when we consume one food-stuff or another. In the sphere of willing, men will have to digest one another. In the sphere of feeling, they will have to breathe one another. In the sphere of understanding through speech, they will have to feel one another in living colours. Lastly, as they learn really to see one another, they will learn to know one another as Ego-beings.

All these forces, however, will reside more in the inner realm of the soul; for their full development, the Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan periods of evolution will have to follow. Nevertheless, Earth-evolution will require of mankind the first suggestions of these things—suggestions in the soul and spirit. And the present time, with all its strange catastrophes, is but an inner rebellion of mankind against what is to accompany the things I have now mentioned. In future, all the tendencies making for social separation have to be overcome, and mankind to-day, rising in rebellion against this need, is flinging out over the world the cheap catch-word that men should group themselves in nations. It is an instinctive rebellion against the Divinely-willed course of human evolution; a distorting of things into the very opposite of what will none the less ensue. We must see through these things if we would gain a foundation for understanding the so-called mystery of evil. For evil is in many ways a collateral effect of what has to enter into the evolution of mankind. An engine making a long journey will smash the rails if it comes to a place where they are badly laid, and for the moment its own progress will be delayed. Humanity is in course of evolution towards such goals as I have now described. It is the mission of the age of the Spiritual Soul to recognise these goals, so that humanity may strive towards them consciously. But for the moment the permanent way is badly laid, and a fairly long time will pass before it gets better, for many people are setting to work just now to replace the faulty rails—and not by any means with better ones.

Yet, as you see, Spiritual Science tends to no kind of pessimism. Its aim is to enable Man to recognise the path of evolution on which he really is. It does, however, require, at least for certain special occasions, that one should lay aside some of the habitual inclinations of to-day. Alas, almost at once, everyone falls back into the old ruts, and that is what makes it so very difficult to speak of such things without reserve. For in doing so—and this lies in the very nature of our time—we touch upon public issues in respect of which mankind is bent on hurling itself into the abyss, and we must continually utter this warning, this call to awakening.

• 1. Bewusstseinsseele, sometimes translated also as Consciousness Soul.

It is quite plausible, and probably also plausible to you, that at this moment many things are being prepared that will have a significant impact on European development, that, so to speak, decisive turns are imminent. This may justify our discussing today, both in retrospect and in aphorisms — I must emphasize that it is not possible otherwise in terms of the development over time — some of the events that are connected with the bringing about of the current catastrophic events. We will certainly try, because it is appropriate within our anthroposophical movement, to use what I will have to say, so to speak, as a summary of aphoristically presented historical remarks, in order to then perhaps tie in more far-reaching spiritual-scientific, spiritual-scientific-historical considerations tomorrow. However, it cannot be assumed that each of you has at hand the material for further perspectives, insofar as they can be gained from spiritual-scientific foundations, the actual, outwardly evident material. Therefore, I would like to discuss some of this actual material here today, without making any demands on you. It is indeed necessary that a feeling develops for the fact that humanity will gradually have no inner right to pass over contemporary history indifferently and to let happen whatever happens, but that in our age of the development of the consciousness soul, the other feeling must assert itself, namely that each of us should have our eyes open and, with an alert consciousness, should at least follow the events that are happening without prejudice. It is natural that not everyone is placed in a position from which they can somehow make use of such knowledge. But none of us can know when we might be called upon, on a smaller or larger scale, to advise or influence this or that, for which we then need an open, unprejudiced knowledge of events.

Now, however, much of what are recent events will quickly become obsolete in their connection with the rest of historical development; some of the most significant recent events will be of little importance for the further progress of even the external history of civilization in the world. But in the future it will be necessary to face what is happening with open eyes and an alert mind. Therefore, it will be good to follow some of the past events in order to get a feeling, a sense of how to face the events.

By way of introduction, I would just like to say that over the course of time during which these catastrophic events have been taking place, outwardly visible, clearly visible even to the sleepy, in the form of the so-called war of the last four and a half years, I have spoken many a word to you, here or there, to shed light on this or that. And so I would like to say by way of introduction that I now, at this moment, at this time, when decisive facts are taking place that are crucial for the assessment of the whole situation, although not decisive in the sense of bringing about a conclusion - I would certainly not want to bring about that belief that we are on the verge of a conclusion - but where, in a certain sense, decisive facts are taking place that are crucial for the assessment of the whole situation, I would like to emphasize that I am exactly in the same position with regard to the illumination of events as I was at the beginning of the onset of the so-called war catastrophe. For one of the most significant facts that mankind has been able to observe in the course of these last few years is this: how endlessly strong, how immeasurably strong it was possible to corrupt human judgment in all its aspects, to lead this human judgment into wrong channels, namely by always endeavoring from different sides to get the maxims of judgment, the directions of judgment, from the wrong quarters. It is true that during the course of these years judgments have been passed from the most diverse areas of interest. Every so-called nation had its own area of interest and passed judgment with more or less, but mostly with less, knowledge of the facts that had taken place. And this false direction, in which these judgments were moving, was often nourished and often used by the relevant authorities, at least by the questionable relevant authorities – but one could ask: where were the others in the last four and a half years? — this false direction, in which these judgments were moving, was often nourished and often used to achieve this or that.

Above all, from the outbreak of this so-called war to the present day, the so-called question of guilt has played a major role in these events from the most diverse points of view, one could say from the most diverse interests. In the judgments of people here and there, this so-called question of guilt has played a significant role. But it cannot be said that this so-called question of guilt has played any kind of favorable role. It is precisely this question of guilt and the way in which this question of guilt has guided public judgment that has had such an enormously corrupting effect on the intellectual and moral judgment of people. And there is an infinite amount to be made good, and it can only be done by spiritual science if the corruption that has occurred in relation to intellectual and moral judgment throughout the civilized world is to be even partially corrected. In this context, one thing must not be left unmentioned. Among the various judgments that have been passed, there are some that have been passed in so-called good faith, if not always with a true conscience, with a true conscience that is aware of the responsibility towards the word. They are judgments that have been passed in so-called good faith, even on the basis of what was known at the time, so that no charges should be brought against either of the judges. But above all, the course of events itself will not initially have a corrupting effect on the judgment. The course of events will perhaps be more likely to influence the judgments in an unfavorable sense, and it would be particularly appropriate for an anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement to correct many things in itself and in others simply by really moving the whole level of judgment, the whole level of assessment, out of those spheres in which judgments have been made about the whole world so far and to place them in a completely different light.

Above all, it is important that, encouraged by the course of events, a large number of people will now agree with those who can say: We have always said it, on the part of the Central Powers of Europe, a war has been staged without them being provoked in any way. The Central Powers must be blamed. Well, directing the judgment in this direction has not the slightest meaning in view of the real facts. And if one wanted to start from the immediate question of guilt – I am now talking about an immediate question of guilt – then a fair judgment would certainly not be able to address the question from the point of view just mentioned. The question: Did the Central Powers bear any blame for the outbreak of this war? – this question actually has no serious meaning in reality. And if one objects to it, it is mainly because bringing the verdict in this direction has no actual tangible content and meaning.

It makes least sense in terms of the facts, which must come to light at some point. For example, the fact that the Central Powers were planning to wage a preventive war, that a so-called preventive war was to be waged. This point of view, which would have the Central Powers say: the war will come anyway, so it might as well come under less favorable conditions for us, so we'd better start it sooner, because then we have a certain advantage – this point of view does not make the slightest bit of sense in the face of the facts. There can be absolutely no question of arriving at a judgment about the situation by directing one's judgment in this direction. In such a matter, it is really a matter of looking the facts in the eye without prejudice. And there one must - and I do it today aphoristically - of course point out details, those details that are symptomatically serious. Of course I cannot go back to Adam and Eve. In order to give a historical account, one is always tempted to do so to some extent when one wants to express something. But I cannot go back to Adam and Eve. I will say only a few things at first and extend my considerations over a short period of time.

This leads us to a kind of disposition of our aphoristic reflections, in that the starting point, I might say the impetus for this so-called war, was the ultimatum fabricated in Austria and sent to Serbia. It may therefore be useful to link the historical symptoms to this starting point of the so-called military events under consideration. Well, this starting point leads us back to the 1870s. We cannot look at what happened between Austria and Serbia without going back to the so-called occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1878. This occu of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1878, which marked the beginning of a certain Austrian policy, which in its further course actually led to what can be called the Austro-Serbian ultimatum. The so-called Congress of Berlin had emerged from the turmoil that had arisen in Europe as a result of the Russo-Turkish War in the 1870s. And this Congress of Berlin, among other 'deeds, and mainly under the influence of British policy at the time, also gave Austria the mandate to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina for the time being.

Basically, much of what has happened in the Balkans is connected with this occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary. Therefore, the question must be raised: How did it actually come about that Austria could be induced to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina? — This even has something to do with the causes of the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War. To the southeast, Balkan Slavic peoples border on Austria-Hungary. But Austria-Hungary itself has a Slavic population to the southeast. It has the southern Slavs, it has the Croats, it has the Slavs, who, especially the latter, the Croats and the Slavs, feel very close to the Serbs. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, which until the 1770s were in a somewhat dubious, but nevertheless in a relationship of subservience to Turkey, the Slavic and Turkish populations were mixed. This led to unrest, which initially appeared to the European world as unrest directed against the rule of the Turks. Of course, I would have to be much more detailed if I wanted to do more than sketch, but I just want to sketch a few things for you. Now it is interesting to find out how these riots actually came about at the time, the last suppression of which was to consist in the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria. Because the way these unrest came about is of extraordinary importance in terms of contemporary history.

If the Herzegovscans and the inhabitants of Bosnia, the Bosniaks, had been left to their own devices at the time, it is unlikely that the unrest that particularly worried Europe would have broken out. But such things happened often under the old regime, which was not just the old regime in that place, but was basically the old regime throughout the civilized world until now. Certainly, unrest had broken out among the Bosniaks and the Herzegovans; they were not satisfied with Turkish rule. But if they had been left to their own devices, there would have been no need to stir up unrest in Europe. What actually happened was certainly the result of the instigation of numerous meetings held in Vienna by generals and sub-generals of the most diverse, and in particular Slavic, nations. For those who were mainly involved in the uprising that preceded the Russo-Turkish war in those questionable provinces were mostly people from neighboring Austria and Dalmatia, that is, Dalmatians and Dalmatian-Austrian Montenegrins who had been sent to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Vienna arranged it so that the Dalmatian population was sent to neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina, causing unrest. The necessary ammunition and war material were also transported through the numerous passes. The government behaved in such a way at the time that, in order to be justified in the eyes of Europe, it stationed gendarmes at a pass to intercept any person carrying a little ammunition who was crossing the pass into Bosnia , at the same time that people were sent over from Dalmatia and also from Trieste and were allowed to pass quietly through other passes with ammunition and war material.

Then the unrest was staged, and the corresponding stock exchange telegrams were always sent from Trieste to Europe about the course of these terrible riots. And when the journalists of the “Neue Freie Presse” - you know that journalists not only want to interview important personalities, but also events - came over, the events were staged for them. They were placed in a place where it was possible to present large rebel masses, more than had been sent. But that was arranged, you see – I am drawing a plan (it is being drawn) –: the brave journalists are standing there, and the insurgents are passing by. But the arrangements were made in such a way – you know, like in the theater: they go out there and in there again – that they were led past three times. That is how such an earth-shattering uprising was staged! Of course, the journalists could also state the enormous number they saw there. What else could the European public, which does not believe in authority but does believe in newspapers, do but know that there are enormous numbers of insurgents and that something must be done about it.

Well, things then led to the military involvement and to the Berlin Congress. And so Austria-Hungary was given the mandate to restore order in these provinces, where everything is so restless and where one must always fear that unrest will break out. And it was not given the annexation – it was already the time when one could not bring oneself to make radical decisions – it was given the occupation. That is such a half or quarter thing. It was the beginning of something that in a sense was bound to happen in Central Europe, as a result of the differences that had arisen between the Central European population, the North German population and Austria, and the South German states in 1866, which had led to a situation in which Berlin's policy was to push Austria, as the Habsburg Empire, more towards the east, towards the Slavs. And you can believe that a man like me, who was right in the middle of it, just when the decisive feelings among the Germans of Austria were developing about these events, that he is now, after so many years, I can almost say decades, able to talk about this matter in an unbiased way. The fact that the Germans of Austria were being pushed to the wall had to be seen as a side effect of this pushing over of the Habsburg Empire to the Slavic East. This was, of course, in the spirit and style of Berlin politics, again for the reason that there cannot be two empires in Central Europe with a decidedly German coloration; therefore, Austria was to be given a more Slavic coloration.

But this meant that certain preconditions were in place that, if they had been steered in the right direction, would have been extremely suitable for turning this so-called Danube Monarchy into a European entity with a grand mission. One could not imagine anything more beautiful than to see the Austrian Germans pushed against the wall by this tendency to slowly push the Habsburg monarchy over to the east – but they would have been able to create their own destiny – if, at the right moment in world history, a true mission had been instilled into this framework that had emerged. It can truly be said that this would have been of the utmost importance, not only for Europe, but for the entire civilized world. Because there was good material in this area of Europe. We must not forget the following: the Germans of Austria themselves are so predisposed – I have already pointed out some of their character traits – that any imperialistic impulse is as far from them as possible. It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that one could hold a vote, not only on the word, but on what imperialism as an impulse is: one would truly find very few people among the real German-Austrian population who have any idea that one could turn to such a thing. That is why the German-Austrian population resisted the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with all their might, which, albeit a kind of sham, was still a kind of attack on an Austrian-imperialist policy that was actually an historical impossibility because Austria is not such that it could ever have developed an imperialist policy out of its own essence. This German-Austrian population, as I said the other day, lived, corrupted by clericalism, in many respects a kind of plant-like existence. But it is precisely from this vegetative existence that strong individualities have the potential to develop. And in terms of spirituality, not a little has developed in individualities precisely from these German areas of Austria, even in the period when, from Germany, German-Austria was pushed to the wall because they wanted to Slavicize the Habsburg Empire.

Now we must not forget that within this territory there is an exceptionally strong chauvinistic element that bears the specific character of chauvinism: this is the Magyar element, which has always sought to implement its chauvinism in the most ruthless way and has also known how to implement it. This has always been a very bad addition, and it would have been so even if the Austrian framework had been filled with a mission of some kind. But then, for Austria, there are the most diverse Slavs, the most diverse Slavic population, and this Slavic population of Austria has not in the least had any imperialistic policy in its tendencies in the period under consideration for the preparation of the present catastrophic events, in which it certainly plays a very large part. The Slav population, including the Polish part of the Austro-Slav population, was very far from any imperialistic policy. And I will never forget the speech that Otto Hausner, the Polish liberal member of parliament at that time, held in 1879 against the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, precisely from the point of view of condemning imperialistic policy.

What the Slavs in Austria were doing was essentially always, however, national – that is the bad thing about it – but national cultural policy. They wanted to advance as nations, to develop what lies in their nature as peoples, not in a chauvinistic way – that distinguishes them or at least always distinguished them from the Magyars. If someone had known how to combine everything that was in the nature of the various peoples of Austria and what was included in the framework of Austria into one mission, then something really great and significant could have come of it. Because the Slavic population of Austria was never, not even at the beginning of this world war, inclined to enter into any kind of confederation with the Slavic population of Russia. The Slavic population of Austria, perhaps with the exception of the Poles, who would have liked to have their own separate empire, but the other Slavic population of Austria, was, especially in the early days of the war – and this war had various phases that are not yet being taken into account and distinguished – not at all inclined towards Russia. What the Slavic population of Austria wanted, as expressed by their leaders, was a Slavic cultural policy of the Austro-Slavic peoples, perhaps with some extension to the Balkan Slavs, but decidedly directed against tsarism. Of course, individual phenomena deviate from this, but on the whole they are not important; but that is why, basically, the rapid and major turn of the Austrian Slavs towards Russia only happened with the fall of tsarism. The fall of tsarism had an enormously decisive effect for Austria, because with a tsarist Russia, the Slavs of Austria could never have been united in their sympathies, and that is what mattered; because the Czechoslovak question became one of the most important in the course of events.

Now Austria did not understand how to see all this and unite it into one mission, and that was Austria's tragic fate. They just did not understand it at all. Now, of course, there was a great ferment among the Slavic population of Austria, which aimed to realize what I have just hinted at: liberation of the Slavs as a nation in such a way that they could freely develop their talents within the framework of Austria. Unfortunately, all this was not turned into a great cultural mission, but in Austria, under the influence of the Habsburg power politics and clericalism, it was forced into a policy that Moriz Benedikt, not without reason, called an “Aryan policy”. It is hard to describe it differently. It is a policy that is a confused mixture of sloppy military organization, even sloppier bureaucracy, a not quite completed but also rather sloppy pedantry, and so on.

This is precisely the kind of thing that I could recently say was none of my business. But now, we must not forget: such fermentations, which then know no territorial boundaries, are material for coming events. Isn't it true that if, say, the Czechs are fermenting somewhere, if you want something there, then some great powers can, as it were, race for the sympathies of such a community — also for the real sympathies that then lead to something. Great Powers that have nothing to do there take possession of such a region. This gives rise to unnatural conditions in the world. In the example I have chosen, the Czechs sympathize with a Great Power from which they expect support in their aspirations, with a Great Power with which they could not otherwise develop any further sympathy. As a result of these given preconditions, those who were clever, those who understood politics in the old sense, had numerous opportunities for scheming, if one wanted this or that. This created fuel for conflicts, which one could then use. Well, the long-standing Austrian Prime Minister, Count Taaffe, who was entrusted with the task of bringing about a so-called policy of reconciliation between the various peoples of Austria, himself described the basic character of his own policy: “fortwursteln”. Yes, it is perhaps difficult to translate, “fortwursteln”; so it means: to carry on as before, without any idea of how to proceed. You just go on and on and on until the cart can go no further.“—”Muddling through” was what Count Taaffe called the essence of his own policy. Then others came and took over from Count Taaffe, but they also muddled on. They always looked upon conciliation in such a way that they granted a university to one nationality, and some other time granted some kind of a provincial committee or something similar to the other nationality, founded a bank or the like. In this way they only confused the nationalities more and alienated them from a real mission that could have been found and would also have been understood if it had only really been carried out.

And so it went on until the unfortunate year of 1914. It cannot even be said that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was much more than an external cause for what was then presented as a so-called ultimatum from Austria-Hungary to Serbia. For it had long since ceased to be the case that such events as those that had now befallen us were directly decided by the fact that these or those contradictions existed. These or those antagonisms were only used to achieve quite different things. Now, if one wants to answer the question: Did anyone within Austria want the war that came? — then one would direct the question in the completely wrong direction if one wanted to accuse one or the other people of Austria, or even if one wanted to accuse the Austrian government. For the Austrian government in 1914: an emperor well over eighty years old, no longer capable of thought, for whom waging war was not really a priority; a pathologically incompetent foreign minister, Count Berchtold, who was well suited to being pushed around, but who could not be expected to have the initiative to unleash any kind of war. And those who surrounded him as his creatures, especially in his more immediate office, were certainly not very likely to start a war either. So anyone looking for blame for this war within the Austrian government or within the Hofburg in Vienna is actually taking the question in a completely wrong direction, because such incompetence does not start wars. I am not saying this out of emotion, nor am I saying it to pass judgment on anything, but as a summary of facts.

But we must not forget the other side. We can also look at the situation from a different perspective. We must be clear about the fact that underlying everything that has happened in recent years was the possibility of war, a possibility of war that could have been realized in a variety of ways. And this possibility of war lies, I would say, in an historical development itself. I have often spoken of this here. It simply lies in the fact that the English-speaking population of the world, under certain conditions, strives for world domination. This is a fact that must be accepted as a fact. But it is not true that, in the face of such a fact, all people who do not belong to it do not strive for world domination, but they have all sorts of aspirations, and thus many things can happen. So that simply through the presence of English imperialism, which has emerged ever more visibly and visibly in the twentieth century in particular, of course, all sorts of opportunities for war have arisen. These opportunities for war were, of course, always something that could be used by those people who needed wars. Now the situation in Austria was such that there were financial circles in Vienna and Austria which for several years had been hoping to be able to boost their economy by means of a war. It may be said that it is, of course, extremely easy for the Entente governments to prove that they did not cause the war. Nothing could be easier than that, but it does not mean much, because that is not the issue. The real instigators of the war, especially in this period, were not those in government office in any country, but the powers behind them. I spoke at length here a year ago about the major powers that were now completely behind it.

Now these big business circles could use all kinds of differences and disharmony that existed to direct world history, so to speak. Of course, there were such consortia in Vienna as well. They were the real driving forces there. I would not even want to examine the origin of such consortia. Such consortia do not even have to be from one's own country, they can come from elsewhere. But territorially, such consortia were there in any case. In a certain respect, they were the driving forces. And since everything that was fermenting in the Slavic population of both Austria and the broader East could always be used, and the whole non-existent mission of Austria could be used, it was of course possible to exploit such existing tendencies if one wanted to contribute something to bringing about some kind of war. The differentiations and aspirations of the Slavic peoples of Austria and the East were certainly very, very strongly involved in this, but basically they were also only used as objects, as what one used.

If we look at the next ones to push, then basically they are financial powers, capital powers, not so much in the usual sense as big capital powers, founding capital powers and the like. That was what was behind it. Of course, for decades this has been the ruling force in contemporary humanity. More than anyone who is asleep can believe, the international world of finance, the world of the founders in the big, stands behind the events of the last decades. Isn't it true, the powers I have spoken of here, in turn used the world of finance, but the world of finance gave the next pushes. And it was from this financial world that what had been present for years as a combustible material in Austria also went off. There was a favorable time for the possibility that financial powers, who were very clear about their chances of winning but otherwise very, very much in the dark, could arrange something. A propitious time had arisen. And the way in which this catastrophe occurred shows that an extraordinarily propitious time had arisen for these powers. They also knew how to exploit this propitious time in the right way. One has only to think of what it means when the machinery of entire empires can be set in motion to achieve something purely commercial. In modern times such things have been prepared for a long time, and the time was particularly favorable just at the outbreak of our military disaster. Much has been stirred up that had been lying dormant in the subconscious of the nations, but one cannot imagine anything more devilishly ingenious than the exploitation of the world economic situation in recent decades by international financial powers.

You see, the power of the Central European empires and, in fact, of the Russian Empire – for England not the power of the empire, but the power of finance – has actually gradually become impotent. The empires did not really mean anything special, nothing that brought about decisions in the course of world history. Decisions in the course of world history were brought about by the transactions of the great capital powers, the international great capital powers, which used the empires as instruments. And for that, just as 1914 approached, the world economy was extremely favorable. Austria gradually came to be only the instrument of financial consortia. But Germany, too, came to be only the instrument of financial syndicates. This was brought about by the fact that in Austria an old man sat on the so-called throne, who was hardly capable of taking in what was going on around him, who no longer knew what was going on around him, who could be persuaded could be persuaded to do anything that was made to appear plausible to him from the outside. These circumstances, as I have described them to you, this muddling through, had gradually made it possible to install the most absolute incompetence in the ministries. For if one wanted a menagerie of nothing but incompetents, one needed only to put together the various Austrian ministries of recent times. That was a good field that could be used as an instrument. For one needed only to direct things so that a respectable army organization was used in such a way that a financial consortium could promise itself a corresponding world transaction through this use. Behind what happened in Austria in July and August 1914, there were financial powers, which perhaps did not even originate in Austria itself, but for whom Austria was an instrument to achieve certain things. Count Berchtold could really be pushed wherever you wanted, like a chess piece, if you were a real financial chess player. That was one thing.

The other thing was that, due to the unfortunate circumstances of the last few decades, the German Reich had gradually become an instrument for financial and industrial operations. The most erroneous thing that one can do when raising blame or other questions on this occasion is to believe that a German government was a powerful government that wanted something on its own. It really did not want anything special. For most of those in Germany, in the so-called government of Germany, could be added to the others I have just mentioned, and they would not differ so much from them, especially in terms of their political qualities. In addition, there was another circumstance. The fact that a very insignificant, actually highly insignificant ruler in terms of his intellectual qualities, was staged in a kind of - one may use the word again, which has been used frequently today - theater policy. And no less than the old Austrian emperor, the German emperor, who is quite wrongly regarded by many as important, was the appropriate instrument within the world economic situation that I have indicated and characterized. The greatest error to which civilized humanity has succumbed is that some important personage would have sat on the German imperial throne – one cannot speak of a German imperial throne under constitutional law, but you know what I mean. That was definitely not the case. So here, too, the industrial world, which is more to the fore here, but in conjunction with the financial world, provided the actual pushers. Thirdly, of course, it should be noted that no less insignificant was the Russian ruler, who was an instrument in just the same way and could now be used for all sorts of not only financial and industrial powers, but also for many other dark forces. In addition to all this, the expansion of imperialism of the English-speaking empires was behind all that was taking place in the world economy. This must not be overlooked. Because all the contradictions that I have just listed are influenced by other contradictions, such as the European impasse, which can be described as the Alsace-Lorraine question, and the like. These factors all play a role to a certain extent. But the thing that could have led to war from all these angles, if one had wanted it, is the transformation of English politics, which had become so liberal in the mid-nineteenth century, into English imperialism in the twentieth century.

Now, of course, all this created all sorts of, I might say, powder kegs, into which one only had to add the spark. It also created those peculiar ideas with which the financial chess piece pushers mainly count. You see, one must not forget: when the idea came more and more to certain financial people in Austria that a war would be good for us, they thought above all of this: we can achieve what we want in business transactions and their consequences, and what will follow from them if we wage a Balkan war. There were, of course, two significant eventualities in the prospect of a Balkan war. One of these was this: how could such a financier in Vienna, for whom war was quite pleasant, for example, how might he speculate? He said to himself: Is it likely that we, if we use Austria as our instrument, will be attacked by Russia? Is that likely? It is just as likely as it is unlikely. It does not have to be. You take a risk, but it is not unreasonable to take that risk, because it is not impossible under all circumstances for us to be left alone by Russia if, for example, we invade Serbia. That was the one thing that had to be considered. The person in question said to himself: It is not at all certain that Czarist Russia will attack us, because there is a certain solidarity of dynastic interests, and if no other powers intervene in Russia, which perhaps cannot be taken into account to such an extent , it is not entirely unlikely that the Tsar, out of dynastic solidarity with the Emperor of Austria, with the Austrian dynasty, will indeed mobilize and make a huge show of force, but only so that he can say that he is the protector of the Slavs. He will not strike anyway. He will perhaps, however, take the risk that his mobilization will prevent the Austrians from going too far. But you also know that in 1914 there was much talk of a private letter that the Austrian Emperor had written, or that was written to the Austrian Emperor – how can one say? You can't say, but you might understand from what I mean – wasn't there much talk of such a private letter being written to the Russian Tsar? That is in line with such considerations. Well, that was certainly the consideration of such a financier.

Then such a financier said to himself: Yes, so we must try everything to make possible what can be, to use the instrument of government, the Reichsinstrument. — But now, isn't it true, Count Berchtold certainly didn't have great abilities, but he certainly had a terrible fear. By being pushed in this way, he must have been terribly afraid. And now, from an external point of view – of course, one must always consider the deeper motives in such matters, the historical motives, but one must first gain an external understanding of these things – what happened was disastrous. Not true, I must point out the other nasty thing that such a financier had to consider. He had to say: Yes, but what will happen to this German Reich, with which we are allied? To risk that this German Reich realizes the alliance, is actually disastrous for Austria. Because if the German Reich strives to realize the alliance, then there is a world war. Then you are crushed, then you risk too much. It was certainly much more important to the financial circles not to bring the matter into any kind of confusion with the German Reich. But there is a certain distance between the intention of the financial people and what Count Berchtold was supposed to do, who was seized by fear. And the other people who had to deal with Count Berchtold were naturally no less afraid, were they? Well, there is a certain distance, and in the pursuit of this distance, the question arose in Berlin as to whether, if Russia were to attack, the alliance would be considered as given. They asked the very person who was always in the hands of German and international industrialism and international and German financial circles; they asked the Kaiser. Now one of this Kaiser's peculiarities was to speak without thinking, to blurt things out, to blurt things out for the sake of prestige. And here too, of course, the intention of industrialists and financiers lay behind the matter.

This whole constellation led to the fact that, of course in a non-binding way, because it was not a government act, the emperor performed a great deed, he would not allow himself to be belittled this time, and he would, if Russia was to be mobilized in any way, certainly mobilize and so on. Now, one must not forget that this particular person could very easily be made into an instrument of other circles, because there were whole circles around this person who were constantly concerned with keeping this person in a good mood, distracting him from what he should be doing.

Not true, whoever was sensible among the German people never gave much credence to the words of this person. The foreign countries have done the German people the greatest injustice with all these judgments about this imperial capital, regardless of whether some were enchanted by the German Emperor or whether some later, especially during the war, considered him a devil – he was much too insignificant for both, he is much too insignificant. The foreign countries have done the German people the greatest injustice with all these judgments, and will presumably continue to do so. For even the most devoted surroundings, those surroundings that are particularly accustomed to the not quite straight back, this loyal environment testified in its behavior best of all to how things actually are. One need only recall the palace revolution in Berlin in 1908. This palace revolution in Berlin in 1908, which has an extraordinary amount to do with this world conflict when one considers the external historical events, actually expresses, I would say, everything that has to be said at this point in the discussion. It is what I mean, the famous Daily Telegraph affair. An English journalist from the Daily Telegraph wanted to interview Kaiser Wilhelm. Perhaps Kaiser Wilhelm found this a little boring, and so he told the journalist: oh, he has already talked so much about his relationship with England. He then told him a few things and advised him to put together the other things he had already said about England. And so the journalist put together a detailed interview.

This interview is a masterpiece of politics. In this interview — I can only characterize it in terms of its meaning, otherwise it would be too detailed — it was said: You English are actually all crazy chickens, because you judge me and my politics quite wrongly. If you wanted to get the truth, you would have to realize that there is only one real friend of the English in the whole of Germany, and that is me; otherwise you are actually the most hated people in the rest of Germany. And you should not believe that I have ever done anything against English politics. Because just think about this: When the Boer War broke out, I took a look at the situation with the Boers, then I took a pen and quickly sketched out the campaign that the English would have to wage against the Boers in order to bring it to a successful conclusion. Then I handed the map I had drafted to my general staff. They further elaborated it; you can still find it in your archives over there. I was actually able to see how the English war against the Boers was waged and how it progressed according to the map I had drawn up. Besides, you should not believe that I have ever done anything against English politics, because I have been offered alliances by France and Russia; they have given me the order not to talk about it, but I told my grandmother, and from that you can see how I actually love the English and how I really am England's only friend. It is only thanks to me that this alliance between France, Germany and Russia has not come about. And if you think that I am building a fleet against you, you are mistaken; my fleet is to serve the interests of Japan in the Pacific Ocean. Well, this whole interview was written up by the English journalist and shown to Wilhelm II, who liked it very much. He sent it to Prince Bülow, who was his so-called Chancellor at the time. Prince Bülow was just on summer vacation in Norderney and said: Oh yes, that's a thick interview from H.M.; he can't expect me to spoil my summer vacation reading his superfluous remarks. What H.M. says, I don't need to deal with that first. He gave it to a junior official without any special instruction. And the matter soon came to light because the English journalist actually published it in the Daily Telegraph. And now the story was complete, wasn't it, a prime example of German politics. It then came about that even the conservatives revolted against H.M., and that it was very close to abdication at the time. But then he declared himself willing to say no more, which was expressed in such a way that he would continue to ensure the continuity of politics. It was just a different way of putting it. Well, that lasted three months, then he started talking again; it was the same old story. That's just to give you a sense of his character. But now we must not forget: All these things had led to a situation that can be characterized as follows: financial syndicates in Central Europe, who had become very familiar with the history, had carried out machinations in which Austria and Germany were to be used as instruments. These machinations were quite ordinary business machinations, and they competed with English business combinations. That was the antagonism. That antagonism was there. It is quite natural: in England no one could understand that Central European financial consortia wanted to make transactions, wanted to make enterprises, which only England is entitled to make. No, that is quite natural, no one there can understand it! One also understands that no one can understand it.

But all these things had led to the Russian mobilization, of which one could not really know what was wanted. How could one have known what was wanted there! The tsar certainly did not know what was wanted; others wanted this, others wanted that. Things went haywire.

Now, one must not forget: in Berlin, a government that was actually non-existent, that was completely out of touch with the course of events, that had been pursuing such bad policies for years as was somehow possible, and that had arrived at the point in 1914 that it did not govern at all, that it allowed to happen what happened. A terrible situation was there; a truly terrible situation was there. Actually, the entire burden of the events was now dumped on the German military leadership. One must not forget that: the entire burden of the events and the entire responsibility for the events was dumped on the German military leadership. Because whatever is said about any conference proposals and the like that have been made by the Entente Powers, all of it is nonsense, it could never have led to anything, because what it could have led to could never have been accepted by the Central Powers in their then condition. Of course, it is very easy to prove from the course of these conference proposals and so on that the governments of the Entente are innocent of the outbreak of war. But this proof does not do the slightest bit of good. It is a 'triviality with which you can go peddling, claiming all sorts of things, but in doing so you take all the questions at issue in absolutely the wrong direction.

We must know exactly, hour by hour, what happened in Berlin in the last days of July 1914 and perhaps even in the first days of August. And the opportunity will arise to speak to the world about what happened in Berlin from hour to hour, and it will be seen that what happened there happened under no impulse other than that of: What should be done in this terrible situation that has arisen? — If there had been a government that had an overview of things, the circumstances would naturally have been quite different. If there had been a monarch who had done the least, who had even participated in the slightest in the decision, who had not kept himself completely aloof from any initiative, although he was present, then of course everything would have turned out differently. But everything was left to its own devices, except for the military command, which of course could only have the single obligation of doing its duty. So that what has been done, if normal conditions had existed, could never have looked like any declaration of war.

It has been said many times recently - but there are very few people, actually really terribly few people, who know the circumstances exactly - that in Berlin they slid into the war more than they wanted it. It is true that we did slip into it. We must not forget that in a certain respect it was only natural that the military command, at the moment when the entire responsibility was resting on it, said to itself: Every hour lost means an enormous loss. One must take into account that the German army was still in no way in a condition to be able to carry out what an expert could have great confidence in, that it would come through what was bound to happen. For it was known that at the moment the alliance was invoked, everything else would follow automatically. — And it did follow automatically, and it was taken for granted that it followed automatically. But one must not forget that precisely those who knew the circumstances well thought that not a moment could be lost, could not afford to lose a moment, for the simple reason that after all that had happened in the various preceding years, one could not possibly believe that this army could have grown in any way. The most formidable world coalition, which one conjured up, of course, when one decided to go to war. One must not forget: By the end of September, this army had already run out of ammunition! Two days before the declaration of war on Russia, an urgent request had been received by the Ministry of War from the Foreign Office to reduce the orders for ammunition. After all, these are not things that you do when you are planning a preventive war, are they? And such things could be listed by the hundreds and thousands if one did not know anyway that no one was thinking of a preventive war.

But it comes into consideration, because it was taken for granted in this terrible situation of the mobilized Russian Empire with the allied France, that this German army was indeed a dubious instrument. Because one must not forget: For many years, under the aegis of General von Schlieffen, the training of this army was carried out in the most incredible way. The matter was only improved as nonsense when Moltke became Chief of General Staff. Because this army was drilled in such a way that the Kaiser always led divisions under General Schlieffen during the large maneuvers, without having a clue about anything in the conduct of war or the like. All the orders were given in such a way that, of course, His Majesty would win. So you just have to imagine how you could train an army if you had to make those theatrical coups, so that everyone in the division where His Majesty was not present would necessarily have to order things in such a way that he would suffer a defeat so that His Majesty could win. Such things cannot be improved in a short time, but rather require a great deal of work. This, of course, creates the mood that one must take action when one is dependent on it, yes, to do something where the appointed authorities do nothing at all. So that what happened in Berlin in July 1914 also happened in the first days of August 1914 is not even remotely what one might consider, as Harden does, a textbook case of a preventive war, but rather, in the most eminent sense, it is what must be called: something happens through people who have been pushed into impossible situations under tremendously difficult circumstances. One may condemn as one wants: since in warfare success decides when one is victorious, so of course failure decides when one is defeated, when one does not achieve what one expects with any military cause. It is quite natural that from that moment on – I say this quite impartially, perhaps also exposing myself to the danger that such a judgment will be found strange – when the invasion of Belgium could not achieve anything, when it was destroyed by the days of the Battle of the Marne, this invasion was a mistake. Someone may think so from some philistine point of view, but it has never been judged differently. And when America and the Entente conclude a peace—well, it won't be peace, but something like that, we would have to find a new name for the things—then we will see that it is not about different points of view, but about the points of view that have always been at stake in the course of human development, when such things were considered, where questions of power and the like were decided. The other thing corrupts judgment in the most terrible way. But one must not forget that it is historically verifiable, as I have emphasized here several times, and that will have to be historically proven one day, and it can be historically proven. And I dare say that I should not be afraid to say that, among the many things I have endeavored to do in the last years, was that a simple presentation of the real events of July 28, 29, 30, 31 and August 1 in Berlin should be given to the world without judgment. I did not achieve it. But much would have been achieved if this simple presentation had actually been given.

One can prove with such evidence, as I have already shown here, to the point of almost indisputable certainty, but with this simple presentation one would be able to show to the point of full certainty, to the point of the most absolute certainty, that if the English government had seriously wanted to, the invasion of Belgium could have been avoided. Please, not in any other way than how I say it! I have always been careful not to express this in any other way. I am not saying that the English government did anything different with regard to this question, and above all I am not saying anything about Germany's relationship to the invasion of Belgium. But that is what can be strictly proven before the world, that if the English government had wanted, if above all Sir Grey, Lord Grey, who does not exactly resemble Count Berchtold, but who was also quite foolish, had wanted, the invasion of Belgium would not have taken place. That is something that can be proven simply by a straightforward account of the events.

Of course, this does not blunt what one can form as an opinion about this incursion into Belgium, but it perhaps raises the question in the other direction: why was it not prevented, since it could have been prevented? - Because it is precisely after this moment, when it became clear in Berlin that the incursion into Belgium would not be prevented from England, that all events actually begin to take on an irrational character. From that point on, it is no longer possible to follow events with any kind of rationality.

These are a few aphorisms. It is getting late; we will continue the discussion tomorrow.

Today I will again present similar reflections as yesterday. From many points of view, these reflections are certainly not what is called purely anthroposophical, but I think we live in a time and in circumstances where the very ground of the anthroposophical spiritual science movement on which we stand is the ground on which such reflections must be made — not only should and can be made, but must be made in the present. I would like to refrain from passing judgment on this occasion as well – I say: as far as possible – and only provide material for assessment, insofar as such an assessment seems necessary to me, for those who feel compelled to judge the current conditions. Yesterday I started from the assumption that in view of the present catastrophic events, the question of guilt, in the usual sense of the word, tends to divert the whole judgment into false and incorrect channels. For judgment is led astray the moment emotions, sympathies and antipathies of any kind are allowed to enter into such momentous matters as this catastrophe. This must be said, although it is so natural that such sympathies and antipathies should enter in, so natural, indeed, that I would almost say it is self-evident. But one can still try to find at least some directions from the facts in order to judge, to find directions to the judgment that must develop gradually, to the judgment that seeks its basis in the tragedy and in the doom of current events, and not always again and again only by asking: “Was there or was there not at such and such a time and place any thought of the coming war, or any intention of making war?” or similar questions.

When considering such matters, it must be clearly understood that in most cases such a judgment has no real substance. For what does it mean when someone somewhere has heard – one has, of course, heard many such things – that a war must come out of these or those conditions? The question in such cases is always whether at some point, where, for example, there is a desire for war, one is also in a position to carry that desire through, to bring about the war, or to do anything significant to bring it about. Innumerable people here and there may have desired war; if they were incapable of doing anything to bring it about, then their words are mere verbiage. In order to understand the events of the present, it is necessary to understand what it really means to view history symptomatically. No one can weigh the motives and the facts and get a healthy direction for their judgment if they do not at least strive in this direction, because in the present, all events are extremely complicated. And when you pick up a fact here or a rumor there, it is always a matter of assessing the weight that such a fact or such a rumor can have within the context of events. Even when listing the facts, one must pay particular attention to what I have in mind.

You see, for anyone who wants to recognize – and actually everyone in the present should strive to recognize the right thing in this area – it was also a matter of worrying about the right things, of asking the right question about the events, which of course prevented some people from using the measure of passion they had within them.

I have had many opportunities to ask questions and learn about things in this regard. For example, I have genuinely waited for a definitive answer wherever possible, and I have asked the question not just a few times within the borders of Germany but also to Austrian people: What is actually the real goal of this so-called war, as stated by the responsible authorities? — Only once did I get a very vague answer from any responsible authority, and I saw that actually everywhere within the German and Austrian borders where one could ask about a so-called war goal, one knew nothing about a war goal. The only thing I was ever given as a vague answer was that people wanted freedom of the seas. That is the only thing I was ever answered.

Now, of course, I know that one can answer: Yes, but the Pan-Germans, what extensive war aims they had set up - and so on. Yes, one must not forget that in such times many people say many things, that agitation is carried out. But there was never any possibility that what was said, for example, by the Pan-German side, could be taken seriously for any other purpose than to incite and spread folly. It is extremely important to weigh things up, to know, for example, that in Central Europe, especially at the beginning of the war, those who were in a position to contribute something, to do something in the direction of the war or to refrain from doing something in the direction of the war, had no real war aim. This fact alone gives a direction to the judgment when one knows that, especially in the early days of the war, people had absolutely no idea what they were actually fighting for. Who would be in a position to imagine that one would decide to start a war out of the blue when one has no idea what to do with that war! Because even the vague answer I got, about the freedom of the seas, was actually just a makeshift answer because the person in question didn't know anything else and this was something that could at least be said in shame. That is one thing that I would like to put before your soul like a factual context.

Another thing seems important to me and will become more and more important and more and more important when assessing the situation, the more one wants to judge objectively about things. Yesterday I explained that the actual decision on what should or should not be done in Germany at the end of July and the beginning of August was unfortunately entirely in the hands of the military leadership, which could only make the decision based on strategic considerations, namely according to the circumstances and the situation. Thus one cannot even speak of a single will in German politics, for example, in late July and early August and the period before that. One cannot speak of an overall will or of any single will that was somehow connected with this catastrophe. One can say, quite simply, that there was no political goal, no political thought, no political idea at all in Central Europe. That is certainly a strange fact. But it is a fact that must be taken into account. There were military ideas about how to wage war if it came. True, military ideas in a healthy situation are always based on so-called conditional sentences: “if it comes,” because the military should never have to decide whether or not to take action when war breaks out. Sound thinking about the relationship between politics and warfare is something that has certainly not been cultivated in the last four years. For example, I have repeatedly heard to my dismay that in the area of the Central European states, Clausewitz's sentence has been repeated: war is the continuation of politics by other means. Well, there is no more foolish sentence than this, because it is constructed according to the logical pattern of the sentence: Divorce is the continuation of marriage by other means. But this sentence was quoted everywhere as a clever sentence – I mean the former – and understood everywhere as a clever sentence.

In view of this relationship between politics and warfare in Central Europe, it seems important to me that the world be made aware of what the German military leadership actually wanted if it came to war. The German military leadership had its assumptions, the assumptions for a strategic undertaking if it should come to war, based on the following information. The basis for the army command was this: if war should break out due to some European complication, the alliance relationships are such that two alliance areas will face each other and automatically join forces; the Central Powers – which Italy was always believed to be part of, in a foolish but honest way – will face the Central Powers – Russia-France-England on the other side. One could not think differently, given the various alliances, as far as they were known. After that, the strategic plan had to be formulated, so to speak. And where did this strategic plan go? It is important to bear in mind the fact: What did the military leadership want? The military leadership wanted the following: it wanted to penetrate France through Belgium as far as necessary to render the Russo-French alliance ineffective. The army command did not want to do more than cause France to renounce the alliance with Russia with regard to the conduct of the war. In view of the structure of the German military system, which I partially characterized yesterday, nothing more could be expected than a purely strategic transit through Belgium, which would naturally result in Belgium being fully compensated for this transit, and nothing more than a likewise, in so far as it caused destruction, indemnifiable incursion into France, such as annexation of French territory and the like. It was only a matter of, as it were, keeping France out of a possible two-front war. Strategically, nothing more was to be gained from the west.

Of course, this was only to be carried out as long as there was no effective connection between France and England. In this respect, the responsible German people indulged in the indeed irresponsible thought that they would succeed in preventing England from establishing any kind of connection with France. The moment that connection was established, the whole plan of campaign to the west was of course thrown overboard. This is the one thing that must be taken into account. And one must bear in mind that for someone who was subject to any kind of responsibility at all, this was the only thing that mattered. On the other side, to the east, it was also not a matter of annexation, but of maintaining what was philistinely called the status quo ante. So that - it may or may not be contested - in the first period after the outbreak of this catastrophic military involvement, in the center of Europe, no one thought otherwise than that it was a defensive war. Then various events occurred which, I might say, have completely clouded the judgment.

You see, there are various things to be touched upon, which, of course, can only be properly considered if one has the will to deal with them appropriately. First of all, I would like you not to lose sight of the fact that, quite apart from the machinations of the forces to which I referred yesterday, of financial and industrial groups and the like – but you may believe that in all parts of the world one is no more innocent or guilty than the other, quite apart from these things, as a result of the various antecedents, I would say, the outbreak of war was looming before Europe, and when it came to the question: must the German army, in purely military terms, intervene? — then one must not lose sight of a scene, for example, which has also become publicly known, although I do not know whether it has been given much consideration. On July 26, the Chief of Staff of the German Army returned to Berlin from an extended stay at a spa in Carlsbad. This must be borne in mind, because it provides a basis for judging the situation when the person who, due to the circumstances, was solely responsible for the outbreak of war – because that is how the matter stands for Germany's involvement in the war – is simply caught off guard until four days before the decision; and the fact that this personality was taken completely by surprise by the events is one of those things that can one day be proven historically. One would hope that the time for the historical proof of this fact comes quite soon. For me, it is to a great extent a basis for judgment when I know that the personality who then decided solely and exclusively on the basis of the circumstances: Do we have to attack now or not? – is in a position four days before not to be able to care about the whole situation in Europe, but to be in the bath, carefree and unconcerned about the circumstances outside the state. He was also outside the state at that point in time, July 5, 1914, which is considered to be a particularly decisive one, when a conference is said to have taken place in Potsdam and at which the German military leadership is said to have issued an ultimatum, as it were, regarding the war. Yes, he was already absent at that point in time, was not in Berlin. With regard to this July 5, I have tried very hard to find out what it is all about. I have only ever been able to find people who were said to have been present at this conference. I do not deny that something took place on July 5th; but I absolutely deny that something took place that was an inauguration of the war, that had the prospect of success if it had not been for the constellation that I characterized yesterday. For many threads run side by side. The thread that led to the involvement of Central Europe, let us say Germany, in the war does not tie in with any earlier day than July 28 at the earliest. Other threads go back further. However, what has happened does not lie in the continuation of these threads, although it is very easy to be tempted to look for what should have happened in their continuation.

I will then show such a thread as an example, but I want to say beforehand: people have been named who are supposed to have taken part in this conference on July 5. - All one could find were alibis for these people! One was somewhere in the Black Forest on July 5, the other was at the North Sea, and so on; although I am not denying that others, whose alibis were not sought, were present. But I just want to point out the wrong track that the judgment very often moves along. Look, I will give you an example of how easy it is to go astray if you are not objective and want to go down the wrong path with such things. It is the following: In Berlin, as indeed all over the world, there was of course a warmongering party. This warmongering party worked through its organs. On a certain day, close to the outbreak of war, a special edition of a newspaper appeared in Berlin that was published by a warmongering party and that contained information to the effect that war had been decided upon by the Crown Council. That was an extra edition that was distributed. This extra edition was quickly telegraphed to St. Petersburg at the moment it was distributed, so that a certain mood was created in St. Petersburg by the publication of the content of this paper. It is now peculiar that as soon as it became known in government circles, in these absolutely inactive government circles, in these incompetent government circles: This paper has been published – it was immediately confiscated everywhere. It was immediately corrected that no such decision had been made, that there could be no question of such a Crown Council, that in fact no decision had even been made on mobilization for the time being. This telegram, which contained the denial of the telegram that had been sent to create a mood, was held up at the Berlin main post office for six hours, and only sent to St. Petersburg after six hours.

So you see that there were indeed all sorts of people at work who also had good connections and who could also ensure that what they wanted to create as sentiment in St. Petersburg, but which had no basis at all in the relevant place, had time to create sentiment. And yet the whole clique involved was incapable of spinning a thread that could have led to war if it had been continued. For in the end, the only thing that really moved Germany to proceed with mobilization was the news – one only has to put together the bare facts, without embellishing them with the kind of things one likes to embellish the facts with – that Russia was mobilizing its entire army. It has become known through its connection with the telephone exchanges at the borders. I say: it has become so well known that three such messages were received. It was only after three messages had been received, all stating the same thing: Russia is mobilizing, that the following occurred, which must be presented as a very dry, sober fact if one really intends to get to know the facts. The fact took place that some kind of aide to the Chief of Staff was called upon to draw up a memorandum for the Emperor, in which the necessity of mobilization in the face of the Russian mobilization was to be discussed. In the room where this happened, there is a desk set into the corner of a niche so that one can stand behind it. The Chief of Staff stood in the niche with his hands clasped, saying, “If we are now forced to strike, then we must be clear about the fact that the nations of Europe will tear each other apart for years.”

This is a simple scene. You can, of course, trace it back to ways of thinking within military circles or the like. But that is really not what is important when weighing the facts. What is important is to be able to look at the facts calmly and objectively. When I am in a position to present the facts to the world step by step – it can be done hour by hour – purely and simply, without any judgment, only then will it be possible to consider a judgment on this tragic matter for humanity in general. For this, however, it is necessary that one relate the facts from hour to hour, especially on the fateful Saturday before the outbreak of war in Berlin in the period between half past three in the afternoon and half past ten at night. There one can follow every step, there one can follow all the details. And the simple narrative is the only thing that is suitable to make judgment possible for the world. Perhaps I may say today that, among the various efforts I myself have made and which I have outlined, the first point was to decide to present these facts to the world in Central Europe, without saying anything other than: This and this has happened. In addition to everything that went with it, this has been presented to various people – I will have to prove this in a documentary way – presented to various people in all its details. People capable of judgment have said something to me with reference to this first point, which of course I had to judge differently than those “people capable of judgment” who said it. But today there is absolutely no reason to keep quiet about such judgments that have been made, the judgments that have been made about it, when I have said again and again: Just think how the whole situation would have to change for the world if what was being prevented were to happen, including in Central Europe. People in positions of responsibility answered me that all this could perhaps come to pass, that tremendous disaster would be averted, but if one did what I actually wanted, then something else would have to happen. And that which they described as being bound to happen has now occurred after a long time – namely only yesterday!

For the person who is dealing with reality, if things are approached at the right end, they contain that which then takes place of its own accord through the logic of the facts. Things are more complicated in this area than the careless judges, who have often spoken or still speak about these things, are in any way aware. And anyone who would like to go into these things in the sense of an appropriate, realistic judgment must unflinchingly go into what was and what is, and not into what one or the other sympathy or one or the other emotion gives. |

Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the entire decision that was then brought about had already been taken after the Battle of Marne on September 9, 1914. I am not afraid from calmly admitting that I did not immediately see that it was like that, that I did not see right after the Battle of the Marne that what had been brought about was really meant to bring about what has now been brought about. I only realized this at a later point in time, at the point in time when I then tried to do this or that in order to give events this or that direction. I must say that I do not shrink from admitting that it only became clear to me later. For it was not at all easy, historically and truthfully, and at the same time in such a way that the matter in question was properly done at the relevant time within this catastrophic period, to behave. When I published my 'Thoughts During the Time of War', I compiled what could be written without taking into account underlying occult knowledge, what could be deduced from a simple modern historical perspective. You will probably notice that I had stopped writing – although at the time I still believed that I would be able to continue writing at a later point in time – when I came to Italy in the presentation. But I want to suggest that it is not so easy for someone who takes things seriously and realistically to come to a judgment as it is for many other people. I have only outlined what was possible to judge. And I would like to say: It simply did not succeed in penetrating with the judgment into what the position of Italy resulted. I wrote this little book, 'Reflections on the War', mainly for the people of Central Europe, not to achieve anything in the world, but for the people of Central Europe, and soon after I had written this little book, the situation became clear to me as a result of the Marne defeat. And I resisted with all my might, ever to let a further edition of this booklet appear, although it was not only suggested to me, but the incentive was also very present. But anyone who seriously reflects on such matters knows that in such a world situation as it is, in which we were and still are, it is not only a matter of saying what is right, but also of doing this or that at the right time or refraining from doing it at the right time. It is not just a matter of having the urge to speak one's mind, but rather of saying not only what one means, but also paying attention to whether what one means should be said or not.

With this, I would also like to point out to you how necessary it is to limit and restrict yourself when it comes to gaining the right judgment about this terrible catastrophe for humanity or to bringing it in the right direction. We must not forget that this war – as I already mentioned yesterday in a sentence – has different phases, that actually since 1916 this war is no longer the same as it was at the beginning, at its starting point. It has become something quite different. And I have often suffered from the fact that during these four years people have ultimately held the same views as they did at the beginning, even though world events have changed completely in many respects. This so-called war has gradually been steered in a completely different direction. We must not forget: If you want to follow the paths into which this war has been steered, then you must not forget another eventuality, which the Viennese war party in particular had in mind. Didn't I tell you yesterday: those people who stood behind the completely incompetent government and the decrepit emperor, those people who were actually responsible for what happened in Austria, those people who are purely financial circles, they reckoned that the dynastic circumstances in Russia would lead to nothing more than a mobilization in Russia. They thought they could do their little deals in the Balkans, and Russia would not seriously mobilize after all. And if it did mobilize, they thought, it would only — well, you know, there is a terrible expression that is used over and over again in politics — it would only be intended as a “bluff”. They would say “bluffing”. It is the most frivolous thing one can imagine, but the expression “bluff” is something that is quite common in diplomacy, for example. Only there, in this area, was there a certain difference between Austria and Germany. As you know, Austria did not declare war on Russia until August 7, almost a week after Germany declared war on Russia. All this points to machinations, which I cannot go into here for lack of time, but which will all come to light one day. It does, however, indicate that Austria was reckoning with a completely different kind of behavior than Germany. In Germany, they were counting on nothing other than: if Russia mobilizes, we must mobilize as well. But given the nature of the German military administration, mobilization today means starting a war tomorrow. There was no other way to look at it. Anyone familiar with the circumstances knows that Germany should either not have mobilized at all as a kind of response to the Russian mobilization, or it should have proceeded with a declaration of war the following day.

From a military point of view, which unfortunately was the only one considered, this was simply a matter of course. But that was only the case at the beginning. In the course of time, a different eventuality presented itself, especially for those in Austria who were pursuing a warlike policy. They were counting on being able to come to an agreement with the Entente and to stop the matter at the right moment. And the various negotiations that have taken place, especially between Austria and the Entente, if fully described, could fill books. These negotiations began relatively early. As you may have gathered from the newspapers, these negotiations have not yet reached their conclusion, because the Habsburg dynasty hopes to be reinstated in some form or other with the help of the Entente. The only question will be whether the Entente finds it in its interest to support the Habsburg dynasty in any way, because all the questions that will be decided will be decided on the basis of power. find a term for something that is not there, to reinstate the Habsburg Dynasty in some way for some reason in this context of nations that were formerly united under Austria. If that should be in the interest of the Entente, then it will naturally also happen in some form. One must not forget that. But that started very early on, and that means a substantially different phase of the war when something like that happens. Anyone who considers how this war ended for Austria will not be surprised when they are told that it was already clear in 1916 that Austria needed peace under all circumstances. There could be no doubt about that, under all circumstances and under all conditions, that it is simply nonsense to continue the war in any way, even if the conditions are the harshest. That is shown by the course of events, I don't mean so much what has happened, but I simply mean the state in which the Austrian army returned. All these facts, taken together, naturally made it clear even to well-meaning people in Austria that they could expect a great deal if a rapprochement with the Entente could be achieved to save Austria from a great disaster. One person sees what well-meaning people let go, the other sees what ill-meaning people let go and forms their judgment depending on the direction of their emotions at the time.

Another fact comes into consideration for this alone. It comes into consideration that such things essentially influenced the whole direction, the whole movement of the military catastrophe, that naturally factions also arose within Austria. Some wanted to relate to Germany in one way, others in another, mutual resentment, to name only a few factors, which of course there is not enough time to enumerate today. The result was that from the moment just characterized, one had to deal with a completely different phase of the war catastrophe than before. One could not simply continue with the convenient judgment: Well, the Central Powers are just allies, and the circumstances under which they were involved in the war as allies in 1914 must be adhered to even after the continuation of the war. — That was simply not true. The tragedy for Central Europe lies in many things. For example, it lies in the unfortunate alliance that then emerged with Turkey. The dissolution of this alliance, both with Turkey and with Bulgaria, has taken place slowly and gradually. Anyone who was aware of the events knows that the Turks could just as easily have disengaged earlier, and the same goes for the Bulgarians. The time came when the Turks withdrew, even after they had been given 40 million in gold, because 40 million in gold was given to the Turks by Germany before they withdrew. Before retreating, Bulgaria was supplied with 250,000 uniforms. All these things were done just like that. They show how little people really understood the situation, because it seems to me unlikely that they would have given the Turks 40 million in gold if they had known what they could have known with a little reflection: that the Turks would soon retreat.

I am only hinting at this – because I would have to multiply what I am saying a hundredfold – that this whole military catastrophe has gradually entered a channel that is quite different from the starting point; which made it necessary to completely reverse and transform the judgment if one wanted to be guided by the facts. And soon it became clear that in the course of this military catastrophe all, all the drowsiness and misdeeds of the bourgeoisie, which had been dormant for decades, came to light. And that is an important thing. Trotsky talked a lot of nonsense and did even more harm in the world, but he uttered one sentence with regard to this military catastrophe that began to come true relatively soon. That is the sentence: “The leading circles” – by which he meant those who, throughout the world, of course, not just in Central Europe, were involved in this outbreak of war – “have only the choice between permanent war or revolution; there is no third way.” It is true that world events have been so shaped and directed – and this is where the responsibility of the masses of the civilized world begins – that we have finally been driven into a dead end, where there is only one choice: either hold on tightly or face revolution. Well, you have seen how tenaciously they held on to the war, because as long as it lasts, the revolution is not there. The moment it is over, the revolution will show itself here or there.

You may remember that I have often said something along these lines here over the past few years. I told you, for example, a very, very long time ago, at the very time when it was appropriate: in contrast to what people are now saying, it is much more important to emphasize what happened in Russia, for example, within Russia. — What happened within Russia immediately after the overthrow of the tsarist regime was much more important than what happened on the so-called scene of the world war. And so it became more important again to look at what stood out from the Czechoslovaks who asserted themselves in Russia, as I emphasized in another place where it was appropriate, than to look at all the other things that one looked at in a convenient way, even though, of course, this convenient way was of course challenged by many a tragedy or in other ways.

And this brings me to a question that I have been asked again and again recently, and from a wide variety of quarters: about the possible course of action that could be taken now that things have come to this pass. I do not believe that what I say today will fall on more fertile ground than what I have said over the years; but still, everyone has their task. My task is to say things, and I will not fail to take the opportunity to say what I not only consider to be right, but also appropriate to say, to you and also to the world, when it is appropriate.

You see, what is approaching – we can speak quite freely about this matter here, where we are among ourselves, so to speak – is undoubtedly a conflict between the proletariat, which, as I myself mentioned in my recent public lecture in Basel, has grown out of modern industrialism in the last few centuries, and the old classes of humanity. Well, I have already expressed myself to some extent when I said, in connection with my Philosophy of Freedom, what I would have considered most necessary in recent years and still consider today. But I would like to say the following: The point at issue is to recognize that a current is emerging as if with a certain elementary necessity. By this current I mean the social movement, or the sum of social demands that arise from the proletariat. It is not a matter of passing judgment on this current, but rather of really delving into what is drawing it, what is simply drawing it as a fact. That is what it is about. Criticizing it is something one can do if one wants to, but it is not much more valuable than a perhaps very justified but still only private opinion. What really matters is that a way be found for the masses of the non-proletarian population of the entire civilized world to gain a perspective on what is looming. Many questions that have been put to me have been along these lines. And that is what must now lie before the souls of men: to gain a position. Now, I can only say: with regard to the social movement, as it has developed out of this catastrophic war, we have only developed out of it in its present form, entered a stage where it can truly no longer be a matter of making abstract programs, putting together so and so many points, saying one should do this or that. That might have been a possibility three, two, or even one year ago. Today, it is no longer an option. Today, I can only answer someone who asks me about this by saying that today it can only be a matter of finding out what needs to be done at each individual place where one is employed, especially if one is a humanities scholar, by looking at the situation realistically, and that one also finds the means and ways to do what needs to be done.

In this situation, it is of course a good thing to consider objectively and carefully what has been neglected, especially by the bourgeois circles. It is easy to understand the abstract sentence: the bourgeois circles must find a way to align themselves with the proletariat if there is to be no terrible catastrophe. But the sentence is quite abstract, it does not say anything specific. What it is about is something completely different. This maneuvering, which is necessary and must happen, will not be easy. For the bourgeois classes, in particular, have, over the years, neglected to do tremendous things, which has led to their now lacking much in order to directly maneuver with the proletariat. The bourgeois classes, in their majority, have no idea of the mental state of the proletariat. What draws them together are mass instincts. But these mass instincts must be truly understood; they must be truly considered as they are by nature. And in the face of this situation, one must not have the belief that understanding of these mass instincts, which are coming to the fore today, will come by itself. With a patriarchal way of thinking, with what bourgeois circles today call understanding of such things, not even the slightest thing is being done. Bourgeois circles understand little more about social issues, even after they have dealt with them in one direction or another, than that people are hungry and cry out for bread because that is what they do when they are hungry. That is what they have in common with the proletariat today. They have done nothing at all in recent decades to truly strive for spiritual community with the proletariat, to initiate spiritual community. I may consider myself an expert in this matter because I do not just say what I say out of study; for anyone who, like myself, has emerged from the proletariat knows how the proletariat lives and thinks, I might say in all possible fields; and anyone who has then occupied himself with as much as a human being can occupy himself with the thoughts that have formed the proletariat over decades, and with the feelings that emanate from this proletariat, may speak about this matter.

It must be borne in mind and well taken into account that in the course of the last decades, the proletarian circles have used every free moment from their work to acquire ideas, concepts, and then also feelings and impulses about capital and the capitalist economy, about wages and surplus value, about materialistic historical development, about entrepreneurship and working-class identity. And one must not forget, if one wants to steer one's own perceptions in the right direction, that in the last decades, in the time when workers, insofar as they come into consideration, sat evening after evening acquiring economic concepts for something they call a revolution, but which could also have been a reform - in the time, what did bourgeois circles do? During that time, the bourgeois circles played cards or listened to so-called entertaining plays or read newspapers, well, or had similar useful pastimes. As a result, the bourgeois population has finally reached the state that exists today in terms of human understanding: the state of complete inability to understand the proletarian.

This situation could be maintained as long as elementary mass instincts were not unleashed. It cannot be maintained if elementary mass instincts are unleashed. For the whole course of the movement is such that one cannot think of a shunting without being inside the soul of the proletarian. He who has really been able to follow the development of the proletariat knows that all the various patriarchal machinations that have emanated from the economic leaders have been most intensely rejected by the soul of the proletarians. What people in bourgeois circles thought they were doing for the benefit of the workers has been firmly rejected in the depths of the proletarian soul and even perceived as a kind of insult if it has a patriarchal character. But in the field of economic interrelations, the proletarian has acquired knowledge that he has today, has acquired a judgment with which he walks around as a content of his soul, and of which the member of the bourgeois class has not the slightest idea, not the slightest inkling. For it has come about that today the proletarian laborer knows more about the functions of capital, about entrepreneurship and wage relations, about materialistic historical development than a university professor of economics, whose profession it is to know something about these things.

This is the situation that must be properly understood before anything else. For only if we look at it correctly will we understand what is meant when I say that anyone who wants to come to terms with what is emerging now needs to speak a completely new language. Everything that has been thought in bourgeois circles so far must be transformed into a completely different language; because what must be established must be trust. They must be able to speak from the soul of the people, and in every single place they must be able to speak from the soul of the people and, above all, act. They cannot do this with abstract program points, but only if they place themselves in the context of what is happening today, or are placed in it, if that is the right thing to do. But for the time being everything that is right is rejected, no preparations are being made on any point to undertake anything in this direction. Because today it is not about demanding abstract programs, but today it can only be about developing the most personal work out of an understanding of the situation in the specific individual case. That is the only thing that can be done.

What can be said in general is as follows. You see, because everything that bourgeois circles have overslept has been done in proletarian circles, and was neither the subject of school education nor of salon conversations or the like, most people today do not know much about the things that one must be able to think about. Now only two things are possible today: either you reflect on certain social values from the point of view of the proletariat of today, or you reflect on them from the point of view of spiritual science. If you have been involved in the spiritual science movement for years and have applied your time correctly in it, then you are simply thinking correctly about what can confront you today in a concrete case, and only then are you in a position to establish a relationship of trust, which is of primary importance. Because with what the commoner can say today, he must be rejected everywhere, because the proletarian speaks a much more advanced language. The bourgeois must learn to speak an even more advanced language. But first he must want to do so.

You see, what is necessary is to focus on the three types of economic values, which are the three main types and around which the real issues revolve. What must be dealt with today through thought and action are these three types of economic values. But you can only communicate with each other, and only act in accordance with what emerges as an elementary current, if you have the will to engage with the language that the proletariat speaks and if you can consider and apply your truly more appropriate and realistic judgment. The three types are the so-called entrepreneurial profit, capital gain, rent and wages. There are no other types of economic values. All economic values fall properly into one of these three categories: either entrepreneurial profit, rent or wages. The proletariat is opposed to these three types of economic values to a certain extent. It wants to eliminate the harmful aspects – in its opinion harmful aspects – that these three types of economic values have, by bringing about the socialization of the means of production and land, and by transferring control to the actual proletariat, control in the various social spheres, because the proletariat has lost confidence in the other classes. Yes, today one cannot speak about this merely theoretically, one can only speak about it realistically. One can only speak in such a way that one considers: How far have the conditions developed? – And by conditions I mean in particular: How far have the thoughts and feelings of the proletarian masses developed? One can, if one has gone through this or that economic theory, consider one or the other to be correct, but that says nothing at all about reality, about what is to be done. For what has to be done today, only the fact that is in the minds of the proletarian masses says something unique. And that is very uniform, it has developed very uniformly over decades, and above all, it must be reckoned with.

Above all, it must be clear that certain things must be pursued sympathetically if the bourgeoisie is to come to terms with the proletariat at all. Entrepreneurial profit – the tendency of the working class is to shape entrepreneurial profit in such a way that nothing flows from it into private gain. But this is one thing on which it would be entirely possible to reach an understanding with the proletariat. If you were to follow all the channels, all the rivulets into which that which is capital pours in the economic body, and then, when capital takes the form of entrepreneurial profit, if you follow all that, and if you say to yourself at the same time: This has has caused the most bitter mistrust of the proletariat towards the bourgeoisie, namely towards the big bourgeoisie, that the entrepreneur's profit has been included in the private acquisition to the greatest extent possible - there will be no arguing about that in the future - then you are on the right track. But then, if we show understanding for what the proletariat wants on this point, we will also find ways and means to prevent the serious social damage that will inevitably follow if the proletariat's radical demands for a reduction in entrepreneurial profit are met. Unfortunately, the situation is such that, based on the knowledge that the bourgeoisie has of these things, it is usually not possible to discuss with the proletariat, because this knowledge is not available, because the bourgeoisie today knows nothing about the channels and functions through which something like entrepreneurial profit – the profit of the entrepreneur from a factory, or the profit of the entrepreneur from something else – is poured out. Since the proletarian necessarily lacks the foresight into which one or the other social arrangement leads, he only fights the damage that has gradually been caused by the behavior of the bourgeoisie in relation to entrepreneurial profit, but he certainly only causes destruction and ruin. It would be the task of the bourgeoisie to come to an agreement on these points. If they could agree on these details, then those who, because of their previous position in the economic system, held leading positions in the economic system and therefore alone had the knowledge to continue the continuity of economic life, would automatically be placed in leading positions by the will of the proletariat; whether through workers' and soldiers' councils or other councils, they would automatically get there. But there must be the possibility of really negotiating with the people. If there is the possibility of negotiating, so that the people know: Aha, he himself knows what we actually want, but he knows even more - then comes what must come: trust, which cannot exist today. Because the situation can never arise that, when the proletarians simply have to believe: Well, now they have the upper hand, and the bourgeois, who have behaved in such and such a way so far, now want to sit down at the table too — that they will immediately let them sit down out of good nature; that will not happen, but it must be supported by trust. And the difficulty is that in the broadest circles there is actually no possibility of speaking a common language. One can have the most diverse views, but one must be able to speak a common language.

Then, however, it must be clear that not only the entrepreneur's profit, but also the rent will be substantially contested. Now it is precisely the rent that has led to the worst excesses, and out of the instincts of the masses, not only the entrepreneur's profit will be fought, but of course the rent will also be fought. Now it is quite clear that only someone who has an overview of the functions of rent can see into these things again. And the point is that today it is easy, if you speak the language of the proletariat, to at least get it to the point of discussion – understanding will develop only slowly and gradually, mutual understanding – and to get it to a certain kind of trust.

Isn't it the case with entrepreneurial profit that one realizes that one really does not consider the entrepreneurial profit as a basis for private gain, but that everything that is entrepreneurial profit is only related to one relationship that one has to manage the matter, that one has to economize with the matter, and that the entrepreneurial profit must not in the future be allowed to enter into private acquisition, into all that which is private acquisition. The point of the pension is that the world cannot live without it, because the whole of spiritual life, education, teaching and everything must be maintained from the pension in the broadest sense, and in addition, people who are unable to work and the sick, the elderly and the like must actually be maintained from the pension. If we talk about these things in an appropriate way, it would of course be important to at least get into a fruitful discussion, but we must also be clear about the fact that it is impossible to get into a fruitful discussion if we do not know that the only real justification for a pension is that it is directed in the ways I have just mentioned.

The third is wages, which the proletariat wants to regulate in such a way that no surplus value arises that flows into anything other than the entrepreneur's profit, which cannot be converted into private income, and the justified rent. Of course, it is a horror for the bourgeois population, who are completely ignorant in this area, to gain insight into the fact that no one really has anything to fear, even in the slightest, if the following really exists in principle: that everyone receives the proceeds of their labor, that the economic structure is actually such that every worker transforms labor into the proceeds of their labor. It is not an ideal, as you can see from my essay 'Geisteswissenschaft and the Social Question'; but today it is not a question of an ideal, but of what alone can be achieved in the immediate future. And there it is a matter of actually awakening an understanding of what the minimum of added value is, and withholding only the minimum of added value from the wage, which will then no longer be a wage, but simply compensation for labor.

In the most just way, one might even say, in the most equitable way, the social structure would be formed, of course, little by little, if one wanted nothing else but to maneuver with real understanding in these three directions. For one would then, first of all, bring about what is most necessary: one would bring about the possibility of a continuity of economic life. And that is above all necessary. That is the one thing that was not possible in the field of Bolshevism in Russia and that will never be possible unless there is a change in the sense indicated. It is not possible otherwise than in the sense indicated.

In these three directions, it is important, above all, to create such an understanding that a movement according to the rule occurs in these three directions. Only in this way is it possible for the capable leaders of economic life – and this is urgently necessary if immense disaster is to be averted; the capable, not the incapable, must of course be excluded – to really remain in this economic life. It is impossible to win over the proletariat for the continuity of economic life under any other circumstances than when one is able to speak to them in a language they understand. The continuity of economic life must be maintained. And then an understanding must be created for what the inner connections are.

You see, one connection that must play a particularly important role in the near future, if we are to avoid immeasurable misfortune that can and may be prevented despite the course of the world, is this: Everything that is proletariat today is nourished in its thinking by the perverse scientific and other arguments of the bourgeoisie in the last few centuries – and especially in the last century. The proletariat has inherited everything that the bourgeoisie has produced in terms of thinking and imagination. The proletariat is only in the world in a different way and draws different conclusions from it. The origin of what the Bolsheviks do lies in today's university education, in the form that the education system has taken, precisely because of the bourgeois classes. For the proletarians have learned nothing other than what the bourgeois classes have produced. They are simply drawing the consequences from it in their own way. Therefore it is necessary, above all, to create an understanding for this in the proletariat itself, how they actually live on the fallen chunks of useless bourgeois thinking and now want to create a movement that can only be impotent because it arises from the barren bourgeois thinking. This understanding must be awakened, but it cannot be awakened in any other way than by realizing that a complete reversal must now take place in the bourgeoisie itself, precisely with regard to this point, with regard to the intellectual life, with regard to the educational system. The whole way in which the educational system is organized is simply unsuitable for the new era, and it is imperative that the continuity of economic life be maintained until everything that interferes with our economy in an unhealthy way has been overcome by the unhealthy bourgeois hustle and bustle of life.

You have to take into account the fact that people need to understand the issues in an understandable way. You have to realize that money as such is nothing at all. True values are only labor. Money is never anything other than a labor voucher. But the final consequences of these things are not drawn. I will take an example from the education of today itself. You see, there are the young foxes, the students, I mean, who have to – well, I will pick out one example – write dissertations. It is really the case that dissertations have to be written, for my sake about the dot over the i in the documents of Innocent IV. I know a man who has had a certain reputation all his life for having written a dissertation on the swear words in Properz, or on the parentheses of the Greek playwrights, and so on. I could give you countless examples. But these are only examples that could be multiplied a million times over, not only increased a hundred or a thousand times over in the most diverse fields. Yes, these things must no longer be treated as belletristic, but must be placed in an economic perspective in accordance with the demands of our time. The young fox sits for a whole year over his dissertation, which, parenthetically, is about Homer, for my sake. Isn't it? He sits over it for a whole year. It can be a so-called diligent, clean piece of work. But what does that mean? It means that the student spends a year working on it, eating and drinking and dressing. What he eats and drinks and with what he clothes himself, that must be worked by so and so many people. The social structure must be there for real work to be transformed in such a way that this young student, who is busy with oxen, can eat and drink and clothe himself for a year in order to write about the swear words in Properz or about the parenthesis in Homer. If someone could give you even a rough idea of how real human labor is transformed in this way into absolutely useless stuff, worthless in every respect, then you would be doing a tremendously charitable deed. But these are the things that need to be understood, that what one does not even think about, except to treat it with a smile, that this must be put into an economic perspective. Because we have arrived at the time when all things must be put into an economic perspective. The commoner who does not understand what it means to abuse human labor in order to make it possible for a young person to eat and drink and clothe himself for a whole year over the act of putting Properz's swear words into a system, the person who does not grasp this also does not find the way to effect the shunting I spoke of.

But this also testifies to the other thing that is necessary: on the one hand, to arrange things so that there is real continuity in economic life, and on the other hand, to create understanding, especially among the proletariat, that one wants to cultivate such a spiritual life together with the proletariat, which does not find economic expression in an unhealthy way, but in a healthy way. Once this basis has been established, when, for example, the proletarian knows: You agree with me, I can use you, because you know how to do this or that because you have learned what I have not yet learned – otherwise people people need you, they won't let you sit with them. Once the proletarian realizes that the bourgeois understands such things, then he will bring about the possibility of establishing the continuity of economic life, simply for such reasons. There is no other way, no other way to do it. But then he will be amenable if he agrees that entrepreneurial profit should not be allowed to become private gain in an unhealthy way, because it is only because entrepreneurial profit can become private gain that it is possible for foxes at the universities, by converting entrepreneurial profit into their food and drink – entrepreneurial profit, which is surplus value of labor – the swear words in Properz or the parenthesis in Homer can be brought into a system. But that is only said comparatively, because it could be multiplied a thousandfold or a millionfold.

But only by doing so will one evoke understanding, understanding then in a roundabout way, for that which is particularly necessary on a spiritual path and which is in danger of being completely destroyed if one does not take action – because the opposite of what is necessary on the spiritual path will follow from the proletariat – and that is: the freedom of individuality. It is being crushed out of the proletariat. The freedom of individuality, which makes it possible for abilities to be used, for talents to be realized, for man to be a free human being in relation to everything he produces or participates in spiritually, all this cannot be realized from the premises of today's proletarian views. But it could be made comprehensible if one were to decide to really speak the new language that is necessary. This is what should be clarified today, I would even say, is urgently necessary, and insight should be gained into it. And if you gain insight, you will see what has been neglected, creating a deep divide between the proletarian, who used his time as I have indicated to you, and the bourgeoisie, who basically remained ignorant of these things.

This shows you, however, that you can't do anything with abstract programs and so-called ideals, no matter how beautiful they sound, today, that today you simply have to get to know what people want. But you don't get to know that by negotiating with them, because they are, of course, far from revealing anything about themselves when you negotiate with them. One must not only negotiate with them, not only live with them, one must learn to think with them, one must learn to feel with them. And then one must have a sense of obligation and duty to actually use what one has been given by karma in the right way. The extent to which the terrible storms that are now upon us can become good will depend entirely on whether or not people begin to understand things like the ones I have inaugurated with my Philosophy of Freedom or the like. Isn't that right, everyone does what they can, what lies within their karma, within their direction. Of the things I have done myself, I would like to emphasize the production of thoughts that can give structure to social life, and which I hoped at the beginning of the nineties, a quarter of a century ago, would resonance, and today, after a quarter of a century, I hope again that they might find a resonance, now that the second edition has been published, and perhaps find a resonance not only despite, but because of the difficult times that are now beginning.

The other thing I do not want to leave unmentioned is that I was only able to gain insights in the field of which I have been speaking to you today, as indeed in the field of spiritual science in general, because I never in my life sought any position that was connected with the failing state enterprise. I have never been associated with any external employment in a state, nor with any social position based on the monopolization of education. Because the monopolies on education must all be seen as fundamentally contributing to today's catastrophe, the monopoly of doctors and so on, and whatever else is associated with it. Because freedom in relation to the spiritual is only not harmful if the spiritual remains in the spiritual. As soon as, which is happening today and has been happening for a long time, the spiritual, that is, the acquisition of abilities, is somehow conflated with the possibility of making private profit from entrepreneurial profit, so that private profit drawn from entrepreneurship can somehow play a role in the utilization of the spiritual – all that happens in this way is something that can only cause the deepest damage to what is necessary in the future. All these things that I am touching on are in turn connected with fundamental things that play into all of life. The most intimate connection has been established between intellectual abilities and entrepreneurial profit in the field of journalism, which, it must be said with respect, dominates the world today and on which so much else depends.

I would have to continue speaking for a long time if I wanted to tell you more. But I have already taken up a great deal of your time today and hopefully we will be able to talk further about this in the next few days, although one cannot know now whether some necessity will arise overnight to leave here, or something like that. Today, when days mean decades, one can only say: the moment must be seized and the necessary must be done in the moment. — So that must also be reckoned with within our innermost circle. But I hope that we will be able to continue the discussion on Friday at the latest. If anything should happen, I will make sure that we can at least discuss some other things that we would like to say in this area here. Otherwise, we will continue our deliberations on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and then achieve what I was unable to achieve today: to examine the fates of nations today and the social question on an even deeper, spiritual-scientific-anthroposophical basis.

You have recently seen a eurythmy performance of Fercher von Steinwand's “Choir of Archetypal Dreams” (Choir of Primordial Dreams). Fercher von Steinwand's next poem, which follows on from the “Choir of Archetypal Dreams”, is now being prepared for a eurythmic performance: the “Chor der Urtriebe” (Choir of Primordial Instincts). It is perhaps desirable for you to familiarize yourselves with the ideas of the poem first, because during the eurythmic performance, your attention will be very much taken up by the simultaneous absorption of the eurythmic and the poem. To make it possible for you to familiarize yourself with the text before the eurythmy performance, Dr. Steiner will recite the first and second paragraphs of the Chorus of Primordial Drives before the lecture today and then continue with it tomorrow.

In these reflections, I have tried to tie in a few episodes from the significant developmental events of the present, which should then offer the opportunity to provide further perspectives from our spiritual scientific point of view. Today, I would also like to present one or two more episodes to you with reference to our current events, so that within these three lectures today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, we may be able to arrive at some perspectives that must be important to everyone in the present. I would like to start today with a general observation. Among the many terrible and catastrophic events that have befallen humanity in recent years, two things in particular should be mentioned. One is that a kind of strengthening of humanity in relation to the feeling for actual truth should arise from the observation of what has been experienced. And the second should be: a certain ability to learn from world events, from the world as such, should arise from the tragedy that has taken place and will continue to take place.

These are the two things that should be gained from the observation of the past four and a half years. I said that humanity should develop a feeling for actual truth, for the truth within the world of facts. We have seen, if we wanted to see, if we were concerned to see, that over the years – by which I do not mean that it was not the case to some extent before, only it was not so noticeable – that over more than four years humanity throughout the civilized world has gradually become dulled to the observation of actual reality, of the truth that lives in events. How often is it necessary, within the circle of those who have joined together in our movement, to speak of the significance, the actual significance of truth! On the other hand, how difficult it is to awaken any understanding for the genuine image of truth, in so far as truth is not merely an abstraction but a reality. And how great are the temptations to withdraw from the vision of real truth. Mankind will also want to be informed about the last four years and about what preceded them, because at least out of the chaos something like the urge to get to know the events will develop. Today – I wanted to point this out in particular in the last reflections I made here – today few people really have a need to know the truth about the last few years. But that is not what I mean so much as devotion to reality. People love to live in illusions. Between illusions and untruths there is only a very narrow gulf, and it is very easy to cross over from illusions into the realm of downright falsehood. Whether this lie is conscious or unconscious is of little consequence when it comes to realities. The temptations are simply very great to introduce into one's world of ideas at the point where one should practice devotion to the truth, to switch on the illusion and then very soon just the untruth.

It should now be clear to the spiritual scientist that only a life lived in truth can educate, develop, build up and promote growth, whereas everything that is a life of untruth destroys and isolates. A life of untruth is always connected with selfishness. That which is so obstructive to the penetration of the truth prevailing in the facts is the spinning of one's own subjective comfort, namely, of the life of imagination, but also of the life of feeling. One does not want to rise above the illusions that everything, everything is so that one is relieved of thinking, of natural thinking.

The individual is placed in this mood, which very easily becomes the general mood, and if he has to make use of a certain form in a time that is not very favorable to the truth, he is then understood with great difficulty. Those who have been forced to have one or the other examined by the actual circumstances in the last four years, and who have been forced to take brutal realities into account, have naturally been poorly understood. But how difficult it is to develop this leaning towards the truth in the facts can be seen from the fact that it would have been truly quite uncomfortable for many people to adjust their thinking to something like what was, for example, put forward by me in that Vienna Cycle of lectures, to which I have recently referred here again; who spoke of what has been going on within humanity for decades, as of a carcinoma disease, a cancer disease that takes place in the social life of human beings. And I said at the time: Truly, only the obligation to say something like that can cause one to utter it. But at the same time I said: One would like to shout out to the world what lies within. But it is uncomfortable to hear, and it was uncomfortable for people to hear, before this catastrophe befell them, that it would happen. Of course, it was inconvenient for a large number of people to be made aware, let us say, two years ago, that events could take no other course than the one they have now taken. That this course of events is a very inconvenient one for the so-called Central Powers is already obvious today. That it will be quite unpleasant for the Entente, that will become apparent over the course of a few years, but it is not so obvious today; therefore it is still an inconvenient truth today. Of course, pretty much anywhere in the world today, something unpleasant could happen to the person who would say more clearly than has already been said here what it is all about, just as something unpleasant would have happened to someone in other areas if they had put the worship of Hindenburg and Ludendorff in the right light two years ago.

These are things that only play a role on a large scale. But there are things that occur in human life every day, they show themselves from person to person everywhere. And after all, what takes place on a large scale, what are known as the great events, are nothing more than the accumulation of what takes place on a small scale from person to person every day, in everyday life. For one thing, there is a certain tendency for people not to want to look at the truth. Of course, people talk a lot about truth. But I have never seen greater love for illusion than in those people who use the word truth all the time, just as I have never seen greater egoism than in those people who constantly say that they really only want this or that impersonal thing.

That is one thing: the necessity to develop a sense of truth, insofar as truth lies in facts. The other thing is to learn from world events. One's heart can bleed when one sees the necessity to learn precisely from the events of recent years, and when one sees how relatively little has been learned by people. When one considers things, it often seems as if centuries lie between the year 1914 and the present year, and one can still meet people today who judge exactly the same way today as they judged these or those things in 1914. Of course, a certain basic foundation of things remains untouched, but I am sure you will understand when I say that one must have learned to judge certain things differently. —- One can well understand that the same things are meant that have just come to light through such events as the last four years.

What many people could learn already is the necessity of leaning towards a spiritual view of the world. From all that is happening, especially in the field of social life, from the social complications that have finally emerged from this world catastrophe, and from the social chaos that will develop from this world catastrophe, the necessity for humanity to turn to spiritual, to spiritual world contemplation will arise above all. This is already making itself felt today in that those people who, for some time, will be at the top in this whirling dance that has now begun are the very ones who are most fiercely opposed to all spiritual life, to all spiritual contemplation of the world. But it is precisely in this terrible rejection that the real seed for the evocation of the longing for spiritual world contemplation lies. It will not be possible to achieve a social structure full of light in the future without turning one's gaze to what today's order, today's chaos, has produced. But insight into what has happened – and the present chaos is only the result of what has happened in the course of human development – can only be gained through spiritual science as a source of spiritual light.

In order to gain some control over the great proletarian questions that arise – I am not even talking about being able to solve them – one must ask oneself: What is the significance of the classes to which the proletariat, for example, looks back when it perceives itself as a class: the class of the old nobility, the bourgeoisie, and finally the class of the proletariat itself? — Definitions do not get to the bottom of things. Nor does observing how the aristocratic class behaved over the centuries, what became of it, how the bourgeoisie behaved, how the proletariat came into being. Nor does this alone lead to an understanding of what has flowed into the human social order by drawing its tributaries from other classes, especially from these three classes.

The nobility in its most diverse forms - yes, ultimately one understands what is connected with the nobility as a class only if one is able to shed light on it in a spiritual-scientific way. Only in this way is it possible to say: those people who have developed in the caste of the nobility are, of course, not only those human individuals who descend from certain ancestors according to the continuity of blood and have thereby secured certain privileges in the world on the basis of certain events, which are more or less known to you, but the members of this caste are also souls, at least for the most part souls, who have sought to embody themselves in precisely those bodies that were born into the caste. In the future, we will have to acquire the ability to look at the human being not only as a physical-bodily creature, but also in connection with the spiritual world behind him, in which he has the source of his soul. We will gradually have to develop the feeling that we do not know the human being if we do not grasp his connection with the spiritual world behind him.

One can now really make a spiritual effort to answer the question: Where does it actually come from, what has entered into humanity through the nobility? — Indeed, in the present time one has quite a few opportunities to deal with such questions in a spiritual way; at least one had the opportunity to do so. That will all come to an end now. The world has railed much against so-called Prussian-German militarism; now Prussian Germany itself rails against Prussian-German militarism. The railing may be justified from this or that point of view; the reasons that have been advanced by one side or the other, for and against, have mostly been very ugly and certainly very few true reasons, and still are not. And for the seeker of truth, it depends much more on the reasons than on the abstract vote or non-vote. But much more important than this pro and contra is the fact that eighty percent, actually more than eighty percent, of the commanding positions in the Prussian-German army are occupied by nobles, by good old nobles, leading positions, in the highest leading positions, eighty percent, over eighty percent; so that, without allowing sympathies and antipathies to prevail, one can answer the question of where, for example, what has come into humanity through the nobility comes from. Whether this is an opportunity for humanity to speak in favor or against, I will not go into that, as I said above, but what has happened can be reduced to the question: How does it actually relate to the whole process of evolution, to the whole development of humanity? — For one can, for example, raise the question precisely with regard to this militarism, what has happened through it in the course of the last decades and the last four and a half years, since it is led in its majority precisely by aristocrats. The question that I raised above can be answered: How do the impulses of the nobility relate to the overall development of humanity? And everywhere you look, even spiritually, even if you try to explore the connection between the human soul and the spiritual worlds, everywhere you look, you find that what humanity has experienced anywhere and anytime through its nobility is the effect of an old human karma, the effect of impulses that were once brought into human development by this or that. In order that certain things may befall people because of earlier collective human complications, nobility in this or that field was essentially there for that purpose, now seen spiritually; the effect of old debts, one might say. One must go back into the past everywhere if one wants to understand the impulses that work socially in nobility in terms of their significance for humanity.

Once one has begun a deeper consideration of things at the point where I have indicated it to you, then one is driven to also touch the other pole. And the other pole is the proletariat. Here the situation is reversed. All the difficulties for humanity that are caused by the proletariat, all the complications that are brought into humanity by the proletariat, all this points to the future, gives future karma, and will have to be dealt with by humanity in the future.

The former, that the nobility is, so to speak, the executive power with regard to old guilt, this realization can lead to a feeling of responsibility for what must happen today through the proletariat. After all, what happens through the proletariat is, to a large extent, caused by the bourgeoisie through the detour of the spiritual life. In order to understand the latter thoroughly, one must try to consider the bourgeoisie's middle position between the nobility and the proletariat.

You see, the nobility is usually averse to an actual scientific treatment of world events. They are not averse to knowing something about world events, but they do not want to come to an understanding of world events through scientific research and scientific thought. He would much rather enter the secrets of the world by authority, without the effort of thinking – I say all this without sympathy or antipathy, just to characterize – not through knowledge. There is no doubt that the comfortable way in which people try to enter the secrets of the world through spiritualism, for example, finds numerous followers in aristocratic circles. Well, you may say: of course not only the nobility are spiritualists. — That is really true, but in the other classes there are as many people opposed to the spiritualists who at least have a certain aspiration to enter the spiritual world by applying their own thinking, to do science. Within the nobility, people who are scientifically striving are not on the side of those who want to enter the spiritual world in a spiritualistic or mystical way – well, there are different ways, not all of which need to be characterized. On the other hand, whatever a nobility class somehow claims in the world must always be supported in some military way. A nobility class is inconceivable without military support. These are some examples – there are, of course, many other characteristic peculiarities of the nobility class – but these are the ones that are of radical importance.

As for the bourgeoisie, which stands between the nobility and the proletariat, it can be said that with the bourgeoisie there arises a certain striving to make knowledge scientific, to bring scientific form to the ideas that want to enter the spiritual world. The power of the bourgeoisie is based on the possession of the means of production, the tools and the like. I select individual things to say in order to establish certain prospects for tomorrow or the day after, but you will see that what I select has a certain significance.

What is particularly characteristic is what one class always takes over from the next one up. Thus, for example, the bourgeoisie takes over militarism from the nobility. But the interesting thing is that the bourgeoisie everywhere tends to democratize militarism. The nobleman needs an army at his disposal to keep him. How he achieves this is of no concern to him. The bourgeois, by the very nature of his relationship to his means of living and existence, is also dependent on the support of an army, but he must take this army from the same people that he puts to his means of production. Therefore, he becomes a fan of universal conscription. And, isn't it true, in the time when the bourgeoisie gradually emerged and developed, you were obviously a fool if you couldn't enthuse about universal conscription, because that was simply the greatest advance of the time, universal conscription, the so-called democratization of militarism and so on.

What the proletariat in turn took from the previous class is the science of the bourgeoisie, bourgeois science. The proletarian today – at least insofar as he is scientifically educated, and there are very many of them – he knows how to appreciate certain subconscious or unconscious things in man. He knows well how a certain thinking and a certain form of thinking comes from a person's class or caste. For example, the proletarian knows very well that if you are a member of the nobility, you think differently because you belong to the caste of the nobility than if you are a bourgeois or if you are a proletarian. The entire formation of thought is different, the instincts that flow into the thought forms and form these thought forms are different. Bourgeois science, it takes the standpoint that truth is truth, there can only be one truth, and believes in the absoluteness of its judgments. The proletarian does not do that, because he knows the dependence of what a person thinks on his caste, on his class.

Now, of course, there is also a certain basic foundation of truths that do not depend on caste, for me, certain elementary mathematical concepts and the like. Of course, even purely mathematical-mechanical astronomy is not dependent on caste. But everything that relates to social and historical life, and especially the formation and use of individual scientific ideas, depends on the caste. Proletarian science has seen through this. Proletarian science looks into many of the subconscious thoughts of people. But it takes over, this proletarian science takes over bourgeois thinking, takes over, so to speak, lock, stock, and barrel, what bourgeois education, bourgeois intelligence has conquered, and popularizes it. Exactly as the bourgeoisie has democratized the militarism of the nobility, so the proletariat popularizes bourgeois science, or rather, the bourgeois scientific method, in a completely blind faith.

From this you can already see that the proletariat, with regard to its entire thinking, is the heir to what the bourgeoisie has done with regard to human thought, with regard to human scientific achievements. This will prove to be an extremely important fact in the near future, and it would be extremely necessary to be able to learn to pay attention to such things. Otherwise, people will want to live in comfortable illusions, which are only separated from the lie by a narrow gap, about the most important things that are creeping up.

There is nothing, for example, that is more detrimental to the truth, in the sense in which I spoke of the truth earlier, than nationalism. But nationalism is precisely part of the program that will be seen as a particularly beneficial program in the near future. It belongs to the program of the near future. Therefore, when this nationalism wants to build – for in reality it can only destroy – it will have to be experienced that the illusions, which are separated from the lie by a narrow chasm, will continue to exist. For as much nationalism as arises in the world, so much untruth will there be in the world, especially towards the future. And so there will be many sources of new untruths. Untruth has ruled the world in many respects. But it will not be able to rule once humanity has taken in those impulses, those currents, which today emerge chaotically in the proletarian masses and which, as you have seen - I presented this to you recently from spiritual scientific documents - correspond to one of the three great currents in the development of humanity.

Actual events are essentially connected with these things. But people have been reluctant, especially in recent decades, to look into the world in such a way as to really see what is real. One could only look into the world without looking at the spirit if one did not want to miss what is real. You see, everything that has happened in recent years goes back, basically, to spiritually transparent power dynamics in the civilized world. There was actually nothing more dreadful in the course of these sad events than talking from this or that so-called national or other point of view. Most of the time, people were talking about things that had nothing at all to do with the course of events. The strange thing was that the leading statesmen also spoke in such a way that their speeches had little to do with the course of events. One should not treat so lightly the things that are touched upon here, that is to say, what might be called the fate of human beings, insofar as these human beings are crowded together in groups, in groups of nations, for example. For here one touches on circumstances that are fundamentally and deeply connected with the spiritual, and one should not speak of them as superficially as one often does.

Above all, it should not be overlooked that certain terms mean quite different things in different parts of the world. Just think that people everywhere, let us say, speak of the state. But it is not important to have a certain concept of the state, but rather to associate at least something with this concept of the different emotional nuances that are attached to this state here or there, and above all to get away from the unfortunate amalgamation of state and nation and the people, that unfortunate confusion which is a fundamental characteristic of Wilsonianism, which always confuses the state and the nation and the people, and even wants to found states on nations, thereby perpetuating the lie, at least in certain circles, at least if it were possible.

We must look at the specific, real issues everywhere. In the course of these reflections, I have shown you how a certain configuration of Central Europe is connected with those old suggestions, based on group instincts, that emanated from Roman Catholicism, from Rome. You see, what was the old imperial idea of Central Europe, which died in 1806, was closely connected with this specter of the old Roman Empire, as spiritual science says. Until then, there was more or less, really more or less nominally, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, which only disappeared in 1806. It did not actually disappear, but was only abolished. For this Holy Roman Empire, which more or less favorably or unfavorably held together or divided the various German tribes over long periods of time, this imperial impulse of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation has actually gradually been transferred to the Habsburg power, and that is what has been blessed with the Austro-Hungarian state structure. But a state that existed in the shadow of Habsburg power means something different from a state that, let us say, has developed since the fifteenth or sixteenth century, as it has actually formed as a state more in connection with the people in England or France. Where the state has no real substance, in what was the Habsburg Empire, where different peoples were held together under the aspect of the Habsburg power and this Habsburg power had them like a mantle, like an old treasure, there was something deeply medieval, namely the emperorship from the old Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. What the Habsburgs were was the oldest Middle Ages, and unfortunately also thoroughly connected with the oldest Middle Ages in terms of Romanism, in terms of that Catholicism that had been revived or at least made lifelike by the Counter-Reformation and which has produced all those conditions of which I have already spoken to you here, which has contributed so much to the lulling to sleep, to the dimming, but also to other evil effects within the Central European world.

This Habsburg empire of the oldest medieval type was confronted by a most modern one, which had gradually become completely modern, something of the most modern character: the Prussian-Hohenzollerian empire, that Prussian-Hohenzollerian empire which represented Americanism within the German being, Wilsonianism before Wilson. That is the great, enormous difference: this most modern character of Prussian-Hohenzollern Americanism, masked as an empire, and the medieval Habsburg empire, which was forged together from the outside. It is necessary to study these things if one wants to understand what has happened and what will happen.

What emerged as Hohenzollern-Prussian Americanism had a very specific peculiarity: it developed exactly the same impulses that developed, for example, in the British Empire, but it developed all these impulses in the opposite way. You see, there are three currents, handed down from ancient times, arising in the present: the aristocratic, the bourgeois, and the proletarian. Nowhere else, I might say, have these three currents, the aristocratic, the bourgeois, and the proletarian, developed in such a pure form, side by side, yet separate, as in the British Empire and also within the so-called Germany – which is not an official name, there is no Germany under constitutional law, there never has been under constitutional law – that is, in the so-called German Reich. So in both areas, but in the exact opposite sense, these three currents developed. In the British Empire, it all developed in such a way that the nobility, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat came together, always striving towards a common tendency. There is good old nobility, but it knew how to balance with the demands of the bourgeoisie, namely with the demands of the material and financial bourgeoisie. You are not only a nobleman, you also become a wealthy nobleman, a rich person in the modern sense. You can have your income from industry and be a good, old, respected nobleman. But you manage everything so that the proletarian in his undertakings does not deviate too much from what the others want. It always comes together in some way.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

Within the new German state structure, everything diverged. There were also three currents, but they developed in such a way that they diverged in the following sense: you had industry forming large-scale industry, which had its own current; you had the old nobility in the Prussian landed gentry – the two may have pushed together, but it was also afterwards! the proletariat, which increasingly became the opponent of the bourgeoisie and set itself the task of taking up the class struggle against the bourgeoisie in the most eminent sense. All this developed apart. Anyone who has studied historical events in this respect will find this particularly interesting. And all this within a framework that was bound to burst. For what had been constructed as so-called Germany – as I said, which never existed under constitutional law – bore the stamp of Bismarck, the stamp of a man for whom modern big industry never became a reality, who never knew it, who never reckoned with it, who constructed the framework he constructed to exclude the development of big industry. Now the whole Americanism of big industry developed into it and burst the framework. It was already blown up in itself long before this war catastrophe occurred.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

To study these conditions with an unbiased eye, with scientific objectivity, in peace, humanity in the mad whirl in which it had fallen in all possible fields, truly had no peace. Because one is not very inclined to go into realities. One must actually seek to achieve realities. One must have a sense for realities, perhaps not only a sense, but also an instinct for realities; for the trend of the times is to deny realities, not to engage with realities at all. You see, the people who looked at where the Inn flows, the Moldau flows, the Danube flows, the Leitha flows, they did not distinguish much between two fundamentally different things: between the German-Austrian people and the Habsburg Empire. That merged. And again, when people visited Austria, where the German-Austrian people lived, who are now heading towards such a tragic fate – how did they get to know what lives within the actual people? As a traveler to Austria, you got to know – as a writer once stated – the “Aryan” attitude, which was very closely connected with sloppiness. When you arrived at a train station, well, you were instructed to go there because you had a connection. You went there, and if you were supposed to arrive at the right time, you certainly did not arrive at the right time. Not true, you were never sure if you relied on the trains that you would arrive at the right time, but you were, as the person said, safe everywhere you went, that you would get a good cup of coffee. But that is just a superficiality. What was there in this area of Central Europe and from which a certain brutality was to stop, was precisely the possibility of developing strong spiritual individuals from a certain background of nationality.

You see, little was printed by Fercher von Steinwand in the 1880s. I lived in Vienna with some friends, younger writers. Once, the conversation turned to Fercher von Steinwand, and I knew some of his poems. It was around the time when I was editing the “Deutsche Wochenschrift” in Vienna. Hamerling had pointed out Fercher von Steinwand with great understanding and sincere goodwill. Then some friends said to me: Yes, we can find Fercher, Of course, I was quickly willing to find Fercher von Steinwand. You could only find him by going to a secluded restaurant on Singerstraße in Vienna. That is a street that goes from the opera house towards Stephansplatz. Yes, you see, among all kinds of brothers, who you could already call “brothers,” there was Fercher's fine, spiritualized face in the middle. This German from the Carinthian region, entirely descended in terms of the way he forms his thoughts, this German-Austrian area, and yet precisely that connection to the world of ideas, as it is a spiritual connection and as he actually only lives in this way in this way. Fercher von Steinwand also had great political ideas, but he was not suited to somehow put these political ideas into practice according to the practices that took place in such fields. He was not at all. There are such people everywhere, even if they are not as talented as Fercher von Steinwand, who, precisely in this area, are connected to the spiritual world, who have carried within themselves for a long time a certain feeling for impulses that live there. But it was uncomfortable to listen to such people.

I must say that I was often with Fercher von Steinwand. He always seemed to me to be like one of those gypsies who wander around the world, but the aristocrat among gypsies, like their leader, with great ideas in his head, and who spoke of great ideas as if he had been among them himself. One evening, as we were sitting together, I said to him, just as I had just edited the “Deutsche Wochenschrift”: “Tell me, Mr. Fercher, couldn't you give us something that has not yet been printed?” Surely you still have all sorts of poetry that has not yet been printed; I would be happy to publish it in the weekly magazine.” — ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘I have all sorts of funny things lying around that I still have.’ And so he gave me this ‘Choir of Primal Instincts,’ which he had had in his desk for a long time and which I published at the time.

This Fercher von Steinwand is one of those individuals who have truly emerged from the folklore of Central Europe. I would like to give you a little insight into the way Fercher von Steinwand was connected to his folklore.

On April 4, 1859, Fercher von Steinwand gave a lecture at the Dresden Antiquarian Society, in the presence of the then Crown Prince Georg (this book still says: present King of Saxony), all ministers and many officers of the highest rank – I ask you to note the latter in particular – in front of all these people, Fercher von Steinwand, so please: in 1859, on April 4, gave a lecture, and on the Gypsies at that. This lecture on the Gypsies contains an extraordinary amount, not so much because of the subtle observations Fercher von Steinwand makes about the Gypsies, but because of the great psychological insights into the psychology of nations that he presents in connection with the Gypsy question. He believes that the gypsies are Indo-Europeans. And now his gaze wanders – as I said, he gave this speech, from which I will now read a piece to you, before Crown Prince Georg of Saxony, before all the ministers and before high military dignitaries – to the Germans, and he said in the course of this speech:

“We Germans, who for a long time did not believe that such a dark genius was possible on earth, had to pay for our bright trust in the world and world order one after the other on inglorious battlefields. We Germans have the unfortunate virtue of respecting a foreign people to the point of foolishly disregarding ourselves, even if they have little or nothing praiseworthy about them, as a striking peculiarity.”

Now I will skip what he says next.

"But our virtue suddenly turns to vice as soon as a great event comes crashing before our doorstep, without stirring up our suffering and troublesome nature and overcoming our ingrained unnatural fear of the divine hint of history, which has often led us to the guillotine of doom. The gods are more hostile to no one than to the Philistine, and nowhere under the sun are there small-time merchants who would not be bullied by a big-time merchant. Like every future, our German future may be a mystery to us. But this one is not as impenetrable as we usually think. We are already coming up with real solutions to this German puzzle, solutions that we can prophetically call prophetic with reference to our homeland.

All this in a speech about the Gypsies. He ties his observations to being a Gypsy, Fercher von Steinwand.

"Let us look a little over the Atlantic Ocean! Let us turn our gaze to São Jorge dos Ilheus or let us travel in our thoughts up the Rio Contas, where we encounter German settlements. “With quiet contempt – so Emperor Max, who is a man of feeling and creative spirit, so something far better than the Emperor of Mexico – ”with quiet contempt, the new shoots look at the old mainland. The gaunt children with the pale, sallow faces, the forget-me-not blue eyes and the straw-yellow, spiky hair particularly caught my eye and vividly reminded me of the descendants of our German villages. I approached two older boys and spoke to them in German; they looked up at me shyly and could not answer me, only uttering their own German names with difficulty. They were children of German immigrants, of whom there are many in Ilheus. Not without a feeling of indignation, I found that even they were complete Brazilians, unable to speak their mother tongue even with their own parents. And then the Germans wonder why they have no independent position anywhere, that they, instead of dominating, are a kind of halfway house between slaves and free people. What a disgrace for German parents to communicate with their children in foreign languages! How the family relationship must suffer when the weak mother must struggle with her own blood in foreign expressions! – This fact, which can be found everywhere, may be a major reason for the gloomy melancholy that weighs heavily and worryingly on the faces and natures of all German colonists. During my trip, I did not see a single cheerful German emigrant; they all bore a secret pain. Sometimes the children benefit from the broken existence of their parents, but their lack of character almost always leads them to abandon the foreign and closed nationalities. This is the pain that weighs on the minds of these strangers. — Two pale men with haggard features were walking along the path; a few German words proved their transatlantic origin. They answered in the language of their homeland, but the sound was no longer full and pure, the dull tone had something tired and sad about it; their figures were also without energy and elasticity, as if they were people who missed their calling, did not feel at home, for whom the French expression dépaysé applies in the fullest sense. Most German emigrants present such a picture of melancholy; the secret worm gnaws at all of them.”

Is that not the air of the gipsies wafting over from the banks of the Rio Contas? And that dreadful Melusine, what whispers she in our ears? A word from our German future, an icy greeting from her for a speedy reunion. Yes, this future is already approaching eerily on our horizon.

This was spoken in 1859!

"Yes, this future is already approaching eerily on our horizon, looking over the banks and mountains into the depths of our lands, gaunt enough, like the genius of death with the pallor of death on its face. We have no right to expect otherwise.

What we say has no marrow; what we do has no core; what we create artistically has neither the sound nor the nobility of the great outdoors. It seems as if we have set ourselves the task of teasing art with barren idiosyncrasy, with sober folksiness, with forced naturalism. What we think or contribute to history has enough room in the hollow cone of a sleepyhead."

Thus spoke that which really spoke out of this folklore. And that is present, that still lives today. It can only be brutalized. That has also been sufficiently brutalized in the course of recent years. It will also have to be conceded at some point what national self-awareness is in select individuals; perhaps it did not live best under the aegis of people like Clemenceau, but perhaps under a different aegis.

From time to time, one must also look at things apart from the phrases that dominate the world, and in world-historical moments this is perhaps also necessary. When Fercher von Steinwand speaks of his people in reference to gypsy characterizations, there is perhaps something melancholically pessimistic about it when it comes out exactly as it did in this speech, but that is not how it is meant, it is truly not meant that way. Something of these “gypsies” must go into world mission. This is rejected today, this is denied today. This denial is closely connected with Wilsonianism, but the facts will teach the world otherwise. And so that from some side there is already protest against what will certainly be connected with much worldly infallibility and much worldly belief in authority in the near future, so that there may be protest against this – perhaps the world will say: Gypsy -Protest is taking place here — I have expressed my wish and my thoughts that this building, as a protest against what will happen in the coming years to all of civilized humanity, so-called civilized humanity, should be called the Goetheanum. This is not just to connect with Goethe in some superficial, easy way, but it is out of the impulse of our time.

We will continue this discussion tomorrow.