The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Lecture

[ 1 ] My dear friends! Since we have a single lecture today, it may well be a sort of interlude—with reflections that perhaps stray from the ongoing series, but which, as episodic in nature, must always be inserted here and there. We will, of course, continue with our ongoing reflections next Saturday.

[ 2 ] A common thread running through all the discussions we have been having here for years is how crucial it is that the individual who is capable of being moved by the impulses of spiritual science be able to do so to the extent that they develop a sense, a feeling for how this spiritual science relates to everything that humanity has brought to the surface in its development thus far—to the surface of spiritual life, but ultimately to all of life, for it is merely a trivial view to think that spiritual life could be a thing unto itself. In truth, all seemingly materialistic life in the world is nothing other than an effect of spiritual life.

[ 3 ] At first glance, it is difficult to see the connection between material life and spiritual life if, as is so often the case today, one views spiritual life merely as a collection of abstract philosophical, abstract scientific, and abstract religious concepts. For it will surely have become abundantly clear to you from the preceding remarks that even contemporary religious ideas are affected to the utmost degree by abstraction—by those ideas and feelings that are developed without any genuine spiritual life pulsating within them. Such an abstract spiritual culture cannot intervene in real, external life. Only that spiritual culture [which draws from the spiritual] can intervene in external life. And it will have to intervene more and more strongly in the future development of humanity if humanity is not to fall completely into decadence. Very few people recognize this today, because very few have a sense of what the spiritual actually is. Now, I have often emphasized that it is extraordinarily difficult, especially in these days, to speak about how spiritual science relates to the most diverse phenomena of the present that affect us so painfully today.

[ 4 ] A few years ago, we chose, so to speak, Goethe’s words as our motto: “Wisdom lies only in truth.” We certainly did not choose it out of such superficial impulses as often motivate such choices today; rather, we chose this motto out of the awareness that a person must be prepared in a certain way—in their entire soul, in their entire being—if they wish to take spiritual science into their soul in the right way and truly make it the driving force of their life. The entire preparation a person needs to enter into spiritual science in the right way, especially today, can be summed up in the saying: “Wisdom lies only in truth.” One must, however, take the word “truth” seriously and with dignity in every respect. Now, we have—at first glance, purely from an external perspective—entered, through what is characterized by this motto, into a phase of development—namely of European life, but also of life on Earth as a whole—that has shown how little souls are moved, especially in our present-day, much-praised contemporary culture, by what this motto is actually meant to express.

[ 5 ] What I am saying here, my dear friends, please do not take it to mean that it is directed specifically at our anthroposophical circles. That is by no means the case—you would be completely misunderstanding me if you thought so. Spiritual science is, after all, something that—at least initially—must recognize its relationship to the culture of the times in an ideal sense. And when we speak of certain things that make it very difficult within this culture of the times to approach spiritual science in the right way, then of course this is least of all meant to refer to that circle which, as an anthroposophical one, consciously strives to penetrate the spiritual needs of the present—that which must be healing for the present—while giving due recognition to all that the present has brought forth.

[ 6 ] We have found ourselves—from a purely external perspective, of course, since there are inner necessities underlying this that were by no means unforeseen— we have found ourselves in an age in which people, in general, within the current spiritual life that is coming to the surface and presenting itself to everyone’s inner eye, are by no means inclined to accept truth katexochen—truth in its most primordial and purest sense. What interests people most of all today, quite naturally, they by no means—not even for the innermost impulses of their own souls, nor even, or at least not usually, in the festive moments of their feelings—place in the light of truth; rather, they view it, especially today, in our present time, from the perspective of belonging to some national or other community. Consciously and unconsciously, people today judge according to such criteria, and the more hastily their judgment is formed—that is, the fewer genuine insights are incorporated into such a judgment—the more comfortable it is for the soul of today, the soul of the immediate present. This is why one so often encounters utterly untenable assessments of the great and the individual in the present, because these judgments are not based on any factual knowledge—nor do they even seek to be—and because they always strive to divert attention from what is actually at stake and to direct it toward something entirely different, which is not at all the issue.

[ 7 ] People speak today—and among ourselves it should go without saying that we must first clarify what constitutes a proper standard of judgment for what is happening around us—people speak today, for example, of the contrasts between peoples; they thus pass judgment on peoples. When one speaks as a member of a nation, one passes judgment on other nations, and one fails to understand those who do not pass such judgments but simply assess what is real. And when one passes such judgments on nations, one never—never!—hits upon anything real. But whoever assesses reality—namely, the facts, and in doing so must say this or that about this or that government, about this or that man in the government, about something that has taken place within this or that political context, whether one says it in a more everyday context or elevates it to a higher level of assessment — one judges him as if he had something entirely different in mind than he actually does. How often does it happen that someone passes judgment on a contemporary statesman who is involved in current affairs? If this statesman belongs to a particular people and a judgment is passed on him in the presence of someone who also belongs to that same people, then the person in question feels targeted, because he does not relate what is based on reality to that reality itself, but rather to—well, something that cannot be defined, that has no definition at all unless viewed within the reality of the spiritual sciences—he relates it to his people, as he says, or to some other people.

[ 8 ] And so it happens that strange judgments are circulating throughout the world today: People from certain nations judge other nations without realizing that such a judgment has absolutely no substance, that it does not go beyond mere words and therefore does not lead to any lived experience. Just consider what is required to pass judgment on an entire people! And how much judgment is passed today on entire peoples, my dear friends! Not only that, but people commit themselves wholeheartedly to their judgments without knowing the necessary background information—without even having the slightest inkling of even the most meager details. Now, it is true that one cannot expect everyone to be familiar with the source material, but one can expect everyone, when passing judgment, to consciously express their judgments with a certain degree of reserve—not to present them to the world as absolute judgments. But even if one does not go that far, one must be clear about the difference between a judgment with substance, a statement with substance, and a statement devoid of substance. And one can say: Today, the great sin of our culture lies in living in statements devoid of substance, without realizing just how devoid of substance these statements are. More than at any other time, we are experiencing today that the following holds true: Words are excellent for arguing; words can be used to construct a system. — But we experience more than that; we experience that history is made and politics are conducted with words that are devoid of content, and that is precisely what is so distressing—that there is so little inclination to recognize this. Only rarely does one encounter a genuine sense of what is actually at stake in this area.

[ 9 ] One can encounter such a sentiment even today, but it is rare. For example, I have recently come across statements that express a sense of the great shortcoming of our time:

But we are now hearing with astonishment from the prophets of the new age that the old words—liberty, equality, fraternity—were merely “commercial ideals” and are to be replaced by new ones. As Professor Kjellen recently stated, [...]

[ 10 ] —I make a point of noting this, because it is already so necessary in the present: the professor is not German, but Swedish, and thus a neutral—

[...]who, in his essay on “The Ideas of 1914,” contrasts the old words of 1789 with the new ones of 1914. He calls them: order, duty, justice. On closer inspection, however, these supposedly new words are actually quite old and worn-out. What this juxtaposition reveals is the age-old struggle that characterizes human spiritual life: the struggle between an inner world of free personal activity and the outer world of rigid law and coercive measures. Even in Christ’s time, justice as the fulfillment of the law found its counterpart in mercy, just as duty found its counterpart in love, and legal order in voluntary discipleship.

However, Professor Kjellen does not envisage an unconditional abolition of the terms “freedom,” “equality,” and “fraternity”—which have become superfluous with the demise of the “Ancien Régime”—but rather a synthesis between them and the new terms of 1914: “order,” “duty,” and “justice.” But even this synthesis would be nothing new, for it had already been realized to some extent in 18th- and 19th-century England, to the extent that the imperfection of all human institutions allows.

The fact that this synthesis is no longer effective in the present merely proves that all values and counter-values, together with their temporary synthesis, become mere phrases as soon as the divine spark that makes them true and alive is extinguished. Liberty, equality, and fraternity represent one of the formulas that derive their effective power from social conscience; order, duty, and justice, on the other hand, require the suggestive power of authority in order to be effective. And it is only there—not in the dominance of a particular formula—that the deficiency which most profoundly determines the fate of modern humanity is revealed: for the rule of liberating values, the majority lacks the power of social conscience; for the rule of values imposed from without, it lacks authority.

Values that are not deeply rooted in human development can very quickly become mere platitudes and fall prey to abuse.

[ 11 ] And so on.

[ 12 ] I would say that one sometimes comes very close to such a feeling. But I myself need not be particularly surprised that such words strike me, so to speak, like an oasis in the desert of today’s life of clichés, for the words were written by an old friend of mine, Rosa Mayreder, and can be found in the November 1916 issue of the Internationale Rundschau; they point to much of what I discussed with her many years ago. Therefore, I need not be particularly surprised that this has come to my attention, but in a certain sense I was nevertheless pleased to hear how such a person continues to think, even if she cannot rise to a spiritual-scientific view of the world. Even if she remains stuck in unproductive criticism, she must still say:

All problems related to shaping the external world can be traced back to one thing—the problem of power.

[ 13 ] If only we would keep this in mind, my dear friends, we would rely much less on empty phrases today than we do.

At the heart of all the strife and turmoil that prevail in human affairs lies the struggle for power waged by individual groups and persons. This struggle for power between entire ethnic groups or political entities is, beyond all rhetoric, the true cause of every war. War is inseparable from the pursuit of power; anyone who wishes to combat war as such would first have to devalue the principle of power—as early Christianity, quite logically, did. The form in which the principle of power manifests itself today, however, is worse than any that has come before, for it threatens the human soul in its most beautiful and noble qualities. It can be described as the mechanization of life through the technical and economic domination of nature. It is the tragic fate of humankind that it always becomes a slave to its own creations, because it is unable to foresee their consequences. And so it happens that even where, through his ingenuity and inventiveness, he subjugates the elemental forces against which he once stood helpless, he merely becomes once again a slave to the unpredictable effects that these forces gain through their connection with the principle of power. Modern technology, which makes human life so much easier, and modern economics, which so infinitely increases man’s material resources, turn—as tools of modern imperialism—against the very essence of the person by herding people, condensed into a soulless mass, into the machinery of interests that drive civilized life. Human beings, too, become material and components of machinery; to the extent that they are suited to this, to that extent can they assert themselves. But the spiritual values that the past cultural epoch built up must perish in the process.

[...] At present, this culture survives only in countries that lie outside the sphere of imperialist competition, or in the countryside and in small towns, where there is still leisure and tranquility, a balance between productivity and demands—those indispensable prerequisites for a beautiful way of life that are being trampled underfoot in the centers of modern civilization by the murderous whirlwind of excess.

[ 14 ] Well, my dear friends, such voices are, after all, further proof that some people do recognize what is lacking in the present—though there certainly aren’t many of them! But when it comes to seizing the living impulse of spiritual science, people shy away from it. People do not want what is best suited to grasp reality as it is; they do not want to let it come near them. But this is essentially connected to the fact that a certain fundamental impulse of striving is missing, and in many respects, my dear friends, that is the fundamental impulse toward truth. The impulse to seek the truth in phrases that one absorbs and with which one imbues oneself—no matter how enthusiastic one may be about them—will never lead to the truth. To find the truth, one must have a sense for the facts, regardless of whether they are to be found on the physical plane or in the spiritual world. But just observe life; observe whether, today, the drive for truth has kept pace with the acumen that has flowed into external culture, with the tremendously admirable advances in which this external culture is embodied. On the contrary, one could say: In a certain sense, people have lost the willingness to examine whether what actually exists is in any way rooted in truth. Yet one must cultivate this sense of truth in everyday life; otherwise, one will not be able to carry it up into an understanding of the spiritual worlds.

[ 15 ] To help you see what I mean, I would like to use an example to illustrate that on the waves of our present civilization, it is not only the clichéd lie but the actual lie that surges and swells, intervening in life as a lie. You see, my dear friends, we can now look back on various events that are shaking all of Europe to its core. One must go back decades and have a precise understanding of the essential characteristics of the events that occurred during those decades if one is to form any judgment at all about what is currently shaking the world. One must go back decades, but one must also have an eye for reality.

[ 16 ] I have pointed out to you that in certain occult brotherhoods of the West—as I was able to verify in the 1890s—there was talk of the present world war, and that at that time the students of these occult brotherhoods were taught using maps that showed them how Europe was to be transformed by this world war. This world war was pointed out, particularly in English occult brotherhoods, as one that was bound to come—one that was literally brought about, one that was prepared for. I am referring entirely to facts here; and only for certain reasons, which I have already hinted at, do I refrain from showing you maps that I could easily draw for you and that certainly featured in the occult brotherhoods of the West.

[ 17 ] Now, these occult brotherhoods and everything associated with them were certainly anticipating major upheavals that are to take place—I say every sentence with the utmost deliberation—that are to take place between the Danube and the Aegean Sea, the Black Sea, and the Adriatic Sea, and that are to take place in connection with the great European war to which they alluded. And one of the statements that I would like to quote verbatim, in a certain sense—one of the statements that appeared there—is this: “If the dreams of the Pan-Slavists go just a little further, then various things will first come to pass in the Balkans—things that, in the view of these occult brotherhoods—are in the interest of European development.”

[ 18 ] This is a vast network [of interconnections], I would say, to which I would first like to draw your attention. These occult brotherhoods spoke time and time again of Pan-Slavic dreams. Not of cultural dreams, which would of course be fully justified—and who could have pointed out more thoroughly what lies in the soul of the East than we, in our spiritual science movement—not of cultural dreams, but of political dreams, of political upheavals. Well, you see, since these Pan-Slavic “dreams” have played such a role, we can certainly take a brief look at the realities of the physical plane that were at work there, of which I will cite just one example.

[ 19 ] For decades on end—truly for decades on end—there was a “Slavic Charity Committee” that operated under the patronage of the Russian government. Isn’t that right? What could be better than a “Slavic Charitable Committee” under the patronage of a powerful government—what could be better? Well, my dear friends, since I have mentioned this committee, I would like to read you a short letter that has to do with it and is dated December 5, 1887. This letter reads as follows:

The president of the St. Petersburg Committee of the Slavic Charitable Society has appealed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, requesting weapons and ammunition for the Nabokov expedition.

[ 20 ] So not about undershirts and underwear for children, but about ammunition for a certain expedition that, at the time, was linked to the stirrings of revolution in the various Balkan countries! From this, you may perhaps see how what is truly a lie floats about in public life—the realized lie floats about in public life. A charity committee—harmless, of course, indeed commendable! But this committee conducts the business of various revolutionary committees linked to the Russian government, whose task is, in a certain way, to stir up trouble in the Balkan states. Perhaps I may add one more small note, just a brief remark—it would be easy for me to expand this note tenfold, twentyfold.

[ 21 ] At the head of a certain Balkan government in 1914—that fateful year of 1914—was a certain Mr. Pašič; one will surely still remember that name. That Mr. Pašič had been exiled from Serbia to another Balkan state somewhat earlier, when the Obrenović dynasty still ruled Serbia. One might ask, what was he doing there? Well, I do not wish to offer my own criticism of this gentleman, but I would like to read you a short letter. It reads as follows:

Confidential communication from the President of the Committee of the Slavic Charitable Society in St. Petersburg to the Acting Consul in Ruščuk, dated December 3, 1885, No. 4875.

[ 22 ] So that you don't think I'm making this up or telling an anecdote, I'll also give you the number from the file—No. 4875. So:

Following the communication from the Director of the Asian Department, I have the honor of hereby sending Your Excellency 6,000 rubles, with the humble request that this amount be paid to the Serbian émigré Nicola Pašič through the intermediary of his widow, Natalie Karavelov, who resides in Ruščuk. Please be so kind as to inform us of the receipt and delivery of the sum.

[ 23 ] You can see how even those who operated as the seemingly harmless “Slavic Charitable Society” played a certain role in Europe’s fateful events. Wouldn’t it be good to have an instinct for the truth, in the sense that one does not everywhere so thoughtlessly take things at face value—that is, based on names, or rather, on catchphrases—but rather develops the will to examine them a little more closely? Otherwise, one judges in a highly reckless manner, and recklessness in judgment is something that must lead one further and further away from the truth. Faced with this fact—that a frivolous judgment leads one away from the truth—there is never any excuse for claiming that one did not know this or that, for what we carry in our souls as a judgment is a fact and has an effect in the world. And everyone should be aware that what they carry in their soul has an effect in the world. For the most part, it is merely a reflection of that which, acting across the broad horizon of life, governs existence.

[ 24 ] Today—and I mention this only in passing—one hears all sorts of opinions about the various relationships between states, which are now referred to, in order to substitute a phrase for the truth, as “relations between peoples.” One can hear opinions today about the relationships between states, without the person judging these relationships making even the slightest effort to obtain the relevant documentation, even though it would sometimes be easy to find. Of course, what I am saying applies precisely to such matters, but it is not a characteristic of those who are united with us here in the Anthroposophical Society. But we are, after all, right in the midst of the world—or at least we find ourselves right in the midst of the world due to a most fateful circumstance, namely, that we constantly allow ourselves to be influenced by what certain people have called a “great power”: the press! And this influence of the press is truly the most fateful influence that can exist today, for it fundamentally distorts and clouds everything. How little would be written if those who write were truly called to write. How many people today write about the relationship between Romania and Russia, or between Romania and other countries! And it never even occurs to them to consider that the simplest prerequisite for a person today to say anything sensible about this relationship would be, for example, to read through the memoirs of the late King Carol. Anyone who writes without having done this is simply writing things that are not worth reading at all, not even by the most primitive of people. These are serious times, which is why only serious worldviews and outlooks on life can truly serve these times. And this is precisely about sensing, even if only a little, what I have often characterized as a necessary sensibility: above all, do not judge hastily, but rather place things side by side and observe them so that they speak to us—they will tell us all sorts of things over time. Familiarizing oneself with as much as possible—that is what best prepares one to truly penetrate the difficult and complex circumstances of contemporary life.

[ 25 ] You see, without intending to pass judgment, I’d like to tell a story—simply tell it—I don’t want to pass judgment, but rather to suggest how something like what I’m about to recount should be viewed in relation to other events. It is, of course, well known what a significant role the Romanian army played in the Russo-Turkish War. There came a moment in that war when Grand Duke Nicholas—who played an important role in that war at the time [just as his son of the same name does today]—wrote something along these lines to Romania, after a demand had previously been made to be allowed to march through Romanian territory:

Come to our aid; cross the Danube however you wish, on whatever terms you wish; but come quickly, for the Turks are about to finish us off.

[ 26 ] Then, as is well known, the intervention of the Romanian army brought about a favorable outcome for Russia. Afterward, King Carol of Romania also wished to participate in the formulation of the peace terms. This was not permitted, and since he adopted a rather forceful stance toward the Russian government, a very curious situation arose. Russian troops were still stationed in Bucharest, and it was very easy to see that the intention existed—given the circumstances I have just outlined to you, you will understand that such intentions could exist—that the intention existed to remove the king. And when he demanded that the Russian troops withdraw, the then-minister Gorčakov gave him an extraordinarily brusque—in fact, appalling—response. So he reflected on the matter—sometimes such people do reflect—and consoled himself with the thought that at least Tsar Alexander would not approve of such a thing and that this was merely the result of Gorčakov’s overreach. So he wrote to the Tsar and received a reply from him, the key passages of which I will read to you verbatim:

The embarrassing circumstances created by your ministers’ actions have not diminished the sincere interest I feel for you; I regret that I had to hint at the possible measures that your government’s stance would force me to take.

[ 27 ] I mention this fact only to give an example of how the events of the last few decades should be viewed in context, so that one or another judgment may emerge from them, for the events alone can lead to a truly meaningful judgment, and the events of the past few decades, in particular, are of such a nature that they cannot be assessed summarily, because far too many threads converge. But with every judgment, one must also consider where the impulses for judgment come from—whether, so to speak, the perspective is properly calibrated. In this regard, one can have the most painful experiences. And I must confess that, in the face of the many unkind remarks I encounter so frequently at present—precisely in connection with this fact—I have the painful realization of how little inclination there is in the world to view judgments from the right perspective, to frame them correctly in perspective. How little one is understood—and how little there is even a willingness to understand one—when one tries to judge things in such a way as to seek the correct perspective for one’s judgment.

[ 28 ] I must admit—without wishing to express my own opinion one way or the other at this point—that outside of Germany I have hardly ever encountered a favorable judgment, a truly understanding and favorable judgment, about Germany—certainly judgments expressed with tremendous certainty, but not a truly understanding one. On the other hand, [I encountered] an immense number of extraordinarily favorable judgments about the regions surrounding Germany—I mention this merely as a fact! Of course, this does not surprise me—no one should think that I regard this as a fact that surprises me. That is by no means the case—on the contrary, I am not at all surprised by this, but I am merely trying to understand why it is so. But the point is to note that the willingness to adopt a perspective is entirely absent, that one does not even suspect that judgment requires a completely different, perspectival approach when, for example, one wishes to assess what lies all around us today—one does not even suspect this. One has absolutely no inkling of what it means that, within the region encompassing Central Europe, every single person is under attack or threatened as an individual—so that these are human affairs—whereas all around them, the issues at hand are matters of state and politics; one has absolutely no inkling that this requires an entirely different perspective for judgment.

[ 29 ] One judges like this on an equal footing, I would say, which makes no sense at all in this case. For, for example—as I said, I only want to speak about the formal aspects of judgments without expressing an opinion—for example, one does not take into account, in what is generally understood as a judgment throughout the world—and now I ask you to bear this in mind so that what happens here is not that one applies to a people something that is not at all meant in relation to that people— one does not take into account that what is called the British Empire has incorporated a quarter of the entire present-day landmass into its sphere of influence—a quarter, Russia a seventh—I do not think this figure is too high—and France a thirteenth. Added together, that amounts to roughly half of the landmass not covered by the sea! I understand, my dear friends, that the goodwill directed toward this side can, of course, be calculated by multiplying it—as the mathematician says—by a certain quotient, namely, size. One is, of course, dependent on whatever controls half the earth. I understand that. But the fact that people do not admit this to themselves, but instead resort to all sorts of moral formulas—that is, empty phrases—is what constitutes a troubling thought. The moment one were to say, “We have no choice but to go along with half the world,” everything would be quite all right; but people will be very careful not to say this. Just as an aside, I’d like to mention that Germany owns one thirty-third of the Earth’s land area, including all the colonies it has ever possessed. These things must certainly be taken into account.

[ 30 ] And now I ask you, my dear friends: Shouldn’t such things be taken into account in this assessment? What was mentioned earlier in the essay “Imperialism” naturally comes into consideration as the expansion of dominion over the territories of the earth. The greatest form of imperialism is, of course, British imperialism—I mean, there can be no dispute about that. I am not speaking now of my personal opinions; I am speaking only of what the facts indicate. Please do not misunderstand me as if I were trying in any way to offend anyone who belongs to a particular nation.

[ 31 ] Taking all this into account, it should come as no surprise to us that the British Empire—and this is something we must also be aware of and take into consideration—had the largest exports and, of course, still does. Now, a curious development occurred: Germany began to catch up with British exports. If one compares Germany’s export figures with those of the British Empire from just a few years ago, German exports were very small, while British exports were very large. But let me write the export figures for January through June 1914 on the board here. So, from January through June 1914, the figures were:

German exports: £1,045,000,000
British exports: £1,075,000,000

[ 32 ] Do you think that, had the World War not broken out, another year would have passed in the course of European developments, and then perhaps the figure for German exports would have been higher than the one shown below for British exports? That was not to be!

[ 33 ] You see, even without letting one’s feelings get involved in one way or another, one can still take a clear look at things. And far more important than subjective likes and dislikes—and above all, far more important than what is being sensationalized in such a devastating way by the daily press—is what individual people, who at least strive for objectivity, think about current events. You see, I also intend to delve a bit deeper into these matters from an occult perspective in the near future, but I would be neglecting my duty if I were to simply shed light on these matters from an occult standpoint without also pointing out what is a reality on the physical plane. I cannot make it that easy for you, my dear friends, by, so to speak, lifting my judgment up into a cloud cuckoo land so that no harm comes to anyone; rather, whatever is said about spiritual conditions must also shed some light on what one can and should know about the physical plane. And so let me point out something that may well interest you and that, given the now—as I believe—self-evident lack of prejudice among the friends present here, will not cause too great an offense. You will see—I must simply fulfill my duty conscientiously and provide such background information as well. Let me now point out something.

[ 34 ] Of course, there are certainly people today who strive to take a close look at things, to bring them into focus exactly as they happened. At first glance, one might think, well, everyone is biased. But you see, there are differences in that bias, and one should certainly take these differences into account. I would like—without intending to recommend the book or praise it—to simply mention the interesting fact that a small book has been published here in Switzerland: On the History of the Outbreak of War, Presented According to the Official Records of the Royal British Government by Dr. Jacob Ruchti. This work differs greatly from what one finds today all over half the globe regarding the so-called guilt of the Central Powers. It is presented in a strictly scholarly manner—even somewhat pedantically scholarly, as is done in history seminars—and relies primarily on documents from the British government. It reaches a conclusion that I will not repeat here out of consideration, because it differs greatly from the prevailing judgment found everywhere else around the European heartland. [But I would like to read one sentence from this work to you.] At the end it states:

But history cannot be falsified in the long run; legend cannot withstand scientific scrutiny; the dark web is brought to light and torn apart, no matter how artfully and finely it was woven.

[ 35 ] This paper, which was written in the History Department of a Swiss university, even received an award from the University of Bern. So today there is a paper, awarded a prize by a Swiss university, that attempts to present things differently from how they are very often portrayed today from the periphery. That is, after all, a fact worth considering, because no one would dare accuse the Department of History at the University of Bern of, say, being bribed or anything of the sort.

[ 36 ] I would like to mention one more fact. For some time now, there has been a very interesting discussion between Monsieur Clemenceau, Mister Archer, and Georg Brandes—as people now write, with an accent [on the last syllable]; this was not customary before the war. Georg Brandes is Danish, a Danish writer. Most of you will be familiar with him, as he is one of the most celebrated European writers. Do not think, my dear friends, that I am mentioning him today out of any particular fondness, for to me he is one of the most unsympathetic writers; he is among the writers I can least stand. Now, without further introduction, I would like to read to you the latest article that Brandes wrote in connection with a dispute with Grey, Archer, and Clemenceau, but, as I said, I am counting on the fact that what I have assumed with regard to our circle will prove true—namely, that one can distinguish and should not believe that I am trying to patch up the reputation of any particular people—after all, I am not expressing my own opinion, but merely reading to you. Georg Brandes writes—Brandes with an accent; Clemenceau was [the first] to start using this accent:

Since I have encountered personal insinuations—some in foreign newspapers, others in those anonymous letters from which the flower of the Danish plebs sends forth its fragrance—let me simply state the following once and for all: I have the honor of being a member of three prestigious London clubs; I served as president of one and vice president of another; I am an honorary member of three scientific societies and hold an honorary doctorate from a Scottish university. I am thus bound to Great Britain by strong ties; I am deeply indebted to England’s literary and artistic world, and I have always felt powerfully drawn to British life and spirit.

I have never received even the slightest token of honor of any kind from the German Empire or Austria-Hungary—not even the smallest fourth-class red bird; I have never been a member of any German association or scientific society, and I have never received the slightest distinction from a German university.

[ 37 ] I have also never heard—although I have heard many things along these lines—that any German society has ever been inclined to award Georg Brandes a prize, though they have certainly been eager to rail against him!

As a result of my remarks about North Schleswig, I have been viciously attacked in the German press for nearly twenty years.

So it really cannot be claimed that I was bribed to defend Germany’s cause.

[ 38 ] That’s absolutely true, that’s true! Well, my dear friends, that’s a brief introduction. I’d like to add: Brandes was a very close friend of Clemenceau’s. I myself once saw a bench in Austria on which—as I was told—Clemenceau and Brandes had sat in the most beautiful, affectionate harmony while visiting the country estate of a family of friends, and on which the two names “Clemenceau and Brandes” were engraved. Ever since then, in this beautiful Silesian retreat, that bench has been called the “Clemenceau-Brandes Bench.” Georg Brandes once gave a lecture in Budapest in which he said:

Since I do not speak Hungarian, I will not be able to address you in Hungarian, and since I am no more fond of the German language than you are, I will not address you in German either; therefore, I will deliver my lecture to you in French.

[ 39 ] As you can see, there is not the slightest reason for a German to develop any particular fondness for Georg Brandes. Georg Brandes says:

So it cannot really be claimed that I have been bribed to champion Germany’s cause. If I have spoken impartially about what I consider to be the truth, that must surely be based on qualities other than the fact that I—as Mr. Clemenceau has so frivolously insinuated—am seeking the Emperor’s favor.

[ 40 ] I don't know if, now that this sentence has been written, one or two names have been struck from this list! Brandes continues:

Mr. Archer proceeds from the basic premise that only the Central Powers (certain men within those powers) were to blame for the war and had prepared for it. It is the same basic premise that one encounters time and again among the Allies: that the inadequate preparation for war proves that one side is the lamb and the other the wolf.

In my view, the lack of preparedness for war on the part of a continental power in the summer of 1914 proves nothing more than a certain carelessness, negligence, disorganization, and lack of foresight on the part of the authorities responsible. For this reason, a nation may very well have hoped to gain possession of provinces that had been forcibly seized through war. It is quite conceivable that such a war had long been regarded by public opinion as a sacred duty, and that, despite this, the authorities had been negligent enough to fail to keep their military affairs in order.

And what applies to a land power applies no less to a naval power.

I.

On November 27, 1911, a question was raised in the British Parliament as to whether the Morocco Agreement between Britain and France of April 1904—whether interpreted by the French or British government—could be construed as encompassing, under certain circumstances, military support on land or at sea, and what those circumstances might be. The answer amounted to the fact that diplomatic support did not entail military or naval support. On the same day, Sir Edward Grey stated: “Let us try to dispel all suspicion regarding secret agreements. We have submitted to the House of Commons all the unpublished articles of the 1904 agreement with France. There are no other obligations whatsoever.” We ourselves have not entered into a single secret agreement of any kind since taking office.” On August 3, 1914, Sir Edward Grey read aloud in Parliament, among other things, the following passage from a document he had sent to the French ambassador in London on November 22, 1912: “You have pointed out that, should either government have serious grounds to expect an unprovoked attack by a third power, it might be of importance to it to know whether, in such a case, the government in question could count on the armed assistance of the other. I agree with you that, should either government have serious reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third power or something (“something”) threatening general peace (an extremely broad definition), it should immediately discuss with the other whether both governments should act jointly to prevent the attack and preserve peace, and what measures they would have to take jointly in such a case.” The same speech states: “We are not party to the Franco-Russian Alliance. We do not even know the terms in which it is drafted.”

[ 41 ] Brandes adds in parentheses:

(A most curious statement.)

In February 1913, Lord Hugh Cecil said in the Address Debate: “It is a fairly widespread belief that the country has entered into a commitment—not exactly a treaty, but a commitment based on an assurance given by the Ministry—to operate with a significant armed force in Europe.” Mr. Asquith interrupted the speaker at this point, saying: “I feel compelled to state that this is untrue.”

On March 24, 1913, the Prime Minister was again asked whether British troops could, under certain circumstances, be mobilized to land on the continent. He replied: “As has been repeatedly emphasized, this country has no obligations—unknown to the public or to Parliament—that could compel it to participate in any war.”

Agreed [...]

[ 42 ] — as Georg Brandes asks —

[...] Does this response correspond to the truth? When rumors resurfaced the following year, Sir Edward Grey replied on April 28, 1914: “The situation is now the same as the Prime Minister stated in his reply of March 24, 1913.” In response to a further inquiry on June 11, 1914, Sir Edward Grey replied: “There are no unpublished agreements that would prevent or restrict Parliament or the government in their freedom to decide whether Great Britain should enter the war.”

[ 43 ] And Georg Brandes adds:

One can certainly call that sophistry without exaggeration.

After all, there was the letter to M. Cambon dated November 22, 1912, which, though written in the dreadful bureaucratic style of diplomatic language, unambiguously committed England to participating in any military venture that Russia might persuade France to undertake.

[ 44 ] Style is, in fact, something that causes you terrible pain.

Even more peculiar was the conclusion of the Foreign Minister’s speech, in which he stated: “However, if any agreement were to be reached that would make it necessary to withdraw or amend the Prime Minister’s statement from last year, it would, in my opinion, have to be submitted to Parliament, and I take it for granted that this would indeed happen.”

[ 45 ] And Brandes adds:

The whole world knows it didn't happen.

II.

These passages, taken from parliamentary speeches, prove that Great Britain was not unprepared for a war with Germany.

Mr. Archer considers it a settled fact that Germany ardently desired a war with Great Britain.

As is well known, it has been proven that England’s declaration of war came so unexpectedly to the German government that it caused consternation. One might call the German government naive on this point, but there is no doubt that it was taken completely by surprise. As C. H. Norman has convincingly demonstrated, Kaiser Wilhelm had some reason to hope for England’s neutrality. In 1900–1901, he had prevented a European coalition that sought to force England to grant peace to the South African republics on favorable terms. He had demonstrated his friendship toward England by refusing to receive in Berlin the Boer delegation, which had been celebrated throughout Europe; he had, as he explicitly stated in the well-known interview published in the Daily Telegraph in 1908, “rejected the request from Russia and France to join them in taking steps with England to bring the Boer War to an end.”

Neither France nor Russia ever dared to contradict this.

[ 46 ] I could add a few more things from that Daily Telegraph interview that would speak even more strikingly than what Georg Brandes says here; but I don’t want to add anything myself!

The Kaiser was therefore not particularly eager for a war with England at that time. And it would be no easy task to convince any thinking person that, six years after the publication of that interview, he was suddenly eager to go to war with the entire world. His government miscalculated; it didn’t count on the unexpected—that much is clear. But it did not want war with England in 1914, and the unchecked popular hatred of the English, which erupted in such a repulsive manner in Germany, stemmed precisely from the surprise of encountering an unexpected, an extraordinarily strong enemy in Great Britain.

German diplomacy did everything in its power to secure England’s neutrality even at the last moment. It proceeded cautiously. The German Chancellor offered Sir Edward Goschen to guarantee the inviolability of French territory should Germany succeed in defeating France and Russia. Sir Edward Grey rejected the offer, as Germany was unwilling to extend the assurance to the French colonies as well.

Prince Lichnowsky, the German envoy in London, then asked whether England would agree to remain neutral if the Germans did not violate Belgium’s neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused to give this assurance; he wanted to retain a free hand. (“I did not think we could give a promise of neutrality on that condition alone.”) Would he make such a promise if Germany guaranteed the integrity of both France and its colonies? No, he did not wish to commit himself. Would he, then, be willing to specify the conditions under which he might be inclined to promise neutrality? Not that either. (“The ambassador pressed me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse definitively any promise to remain neutral on similar terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.”)

When Sir Edward Grey later claimed that Prince Lichnowsky had certainly exceeded his authority in making these offers, it was only because the British Foreign Secretary is and remains convinced that Germany at that time had an insatiable desire to go to war simultaneously against Russia, France, England, and Belgium.

[ 47 ] Well, my dear friends, please forgive me for making a brief digression here. As you can see from what has just been read, it would have taken only a single sentence from Grey—just one sentence from him—to prevent the violation of Belgium’s neutrality—a single sentence! But I do not blame Grey in the least, for he is the puppet of entirely different powers, of which I would like to speak later—on the contrary, I regard him as a thoroughly honest, though extraordinarily dull-witted man, but I do not know to what extent it is permissible to pass such judgments today. One might add: It would have taken just a single sentence, and the war in the West would never have happened at all. These are things the world will one day come to know.

[ 48 ] I think these things do carry some weight, after all, because they are facts. Brandes continues:

As has been explained earlier and as common sense would suggest, Germany was prepared for a German-Russian war should one arise from Austria’s invasion of Serbia. It intended to leave France (and Belgium as well) unmolested if they remained neutral. But France, as is well known, was firmly resolved to come to Russia’s aid—a policy on whose wisdom the future will pass judgment, but which has so far led to ten million people spending seven days a week miserably slaughtering one another.

The British Foreign Office had secretly—without Parliament’s knowledge—committed Great Britain to coming to France’s aid in the event of a European war. English public opinion might perhaps, as a result of the new but strong sympathies for France, have approved of this commitment had it been known. Yet it certainly would not have approved of the compulsion to which England was subjected, had it known the full extent of the situation; for, given France’s relationship with Russia—the only power that had nothing to lose in a war—England was to be forced into war. Russia’s manpower is so vast that the loss of human life in war is of little consequence, and if national passions were unleashed and the war led to victory, this could only serve to strengthen the conservative government.

III.

[ 49 ] Had public opinion in Great Britain been aware of the political situation as it actually was, it would have recognized that the outcome of the conflict could not bode well for the freedom or the welfare of humanity. If the Allies were to prevail, this would merely pave the way for a tremendous increase in Russia’s power—the triumph of a system of government that is the antithesis of Britain’s. For the Russian people, who have won the hearts of Europe, this victory would not promise any progress. I. I do not believe that my esteemed opponent, Mr. Archer, can detest Prussian militarism any more than I do. He is constrained by the two long and vulnerable borderlines between Germany and Russia on the one hand, and Germany and France on the other.

[ 50 ] Come on, that's coming from someone who's never even caught the tiniest “red bird,” not even a fourth-rate one!

What makes him excusable in the eyes of France is the fact that the French occupied Berlin perhaps twenty times, while the Germans were in Paris only twice. He is off-putting because of his caste system and his arrogance. Yet he is hardly much worse than the militarism of other countries.

[ 51 ] So says Georg Brandes, who doesn’t have even the slightest “red bird”—not even a fourth-rate one!

At the time of the Dreyfus Affair, Europe—including England—watched with concern to see what forms French militarism might take. As for Russian militarism, [...]

[ 52 ] —I say this, like Georg Brandes, of course, with all my heart—

[...] in 1900, the idyllic and amiable Russians—for whom my esteemed friend Wells raves so much and who have also won over the rest of us—cold-bloodedly slaughtered the entire Chinese population in Blagovesensk and the surrounding area. The Cossacks tied the Chinese together by their braids and drove them out onto the river in boats that were unable to carry them. When the women threw their children onto the shore and begged that at least the children be spared, they impaled the little ones on their bayonets.

“Not even the Turks have ever been guilty of anything worse than this mass murder in Blagovesöensk,” wrote Mr. F. E. Smith, the former British press censor, in 1907—the very year in which England and Russia agreed to the treaty that both guaranteed and undermined Persia’s independence.

The same English writer confirmed the account that the correspondent of The Times gave at the time of Japanese militarism. On November 21, 1894, the Japanese army stormed Port Arthur, and for four days the soldiers slaughtered the civilian population—men, women, and children—with the utmost barbarity: “From dawn until well into the night, the days were filled with murder, looting, and mutilation—with every conceivable form of unspeakable cruelty—until the place presented such a scene of horror that every survivor will remember it with a shudder until the day they die.”

[ 53 ] These things that Georg Brandes says—who doesn’t have the slightest “red bird” of the fourth order—were, of course, well known to the person who wrote: “War itself brings the horrors of war, and one should not be surprised if modern means are used in war.” — But I heard recently that this very sentence in my pamphlet was held against me in particular. It can only be held against one by people who know nothing at all about history and who do not know what the consequences of such a thing are. Georg Brandes goes on to say:

So it doesn’t really matter which nationality gives militarism its character. It’s pretty much the same everywhere. I wish Mr. Archer would read a lecture that Dr. Vöhringer gave in Hamburg on January 30, 1915, about German Africa. From it, he would learn what the German residents of Cameroon—about fifty men and women who were taken by surprise by the declaration of war—had to endure when British officers had them imprisoned and placed under the command of Black men who mistreated them. They suffered from hunger and thirst. When they asked for water, it was handed to them in garbage pails, and a British officer said, “It doesn’t matter whether the German pigs have something to drink or not.” They were not even given water for washing on the journey from Lago[s] to England.

[ 54 ] I did not bore anyone in my pamphlet with the account of such facts, but I was criticized for not falling in line with the prevailing sentiment. It was not what I said in the pamphlet that was contested—as was also evident from Edouard Schur’s “polite” letter⁶—but rather what is not in the pamphlet, what is being said all around. That is what this pamphlet was resented for: that it did not rant and rave the way everyone else is ranting and raving all around! Georg Brandes goes on to say:

This is what English militarism looks like. Is it really so much better than Prussian militarism, when the English, like other nations of the world, have allowed their national pride to run so high as to border on madness?

IV.

Would Mr. Archer and other distinguished men in and outside Great Britain now finally let me—and all of us who have been dragged into this endless inquiry—be free from the question of who bears the blame for the war and upon whom that blame must be exacted as a result of its outcome, and instead turn their attention to the only important and decisive question—namely, how to find a way out of this hell, of which one can truly say, as in Macbeth:

O horror, horror, horror! Tongue nor heart
Cannot conceive nor name thee.

The belligerents are insatiable. After all, it was decided in Paris to carry the trade war to the very end, even if the war of arms were to end. Is this madness never to end?

The war must, in any case, end with an agreement; and since the war was of an economic nature, the agreement must also be an economic one. As a free-trade power, England has shown the way to the entire world. Agreements regarding tariff issues will be inevitable, and the parties will be compelled to make mutual concessions and strive for greater freedom of trade in order to ultimately achieve global free trade.

A man from the country that suffered most severely from the war from the very beginning—a Belgian manufacturer from Charleroi, Mr. Henri Lambert—has spoken the liberating words that pave the way for peace, namely, that the only wise and far-sighted policy—in this case, tariff policy—is to be fair and to allow one’s counterpart to survive as well. He pointed out that a lasting improvement in European conditions could only be achieved if the party seeking peace were compelled to abolish or at least reduce tariffs—but only on the condition of full and fair reciprocity. The abolition of tariffs seems to be the only reasonable and effective means of eliminating the competitive tactic known in economic competition—which the English call “dumping” and which they so passionately reproach the Germans for.

Tariff agreements will be inevitable even in the unlikely event that the war were to continue until a victory that annihilates the enemy—a victory for which millions upon millions of people would still have to be sacrificed on the battlefields or perish at home from wounds, disease, and deprivation. Suppose the victor were to decide (as demanded by the Paris Economic Conference) to impose such a disadvantage on the vanquished in terms of tariffs that the latter would be economically reduced to a lower level; this would constitute a relapse of humanity into the system of international slavery!

The oppressed would then, of course, strive with all their might to rise again, exploit every dispute among the victors, and have freed themselves within half a century. After all, alliances do not last half a century.

Europe’s peaceful future therefore rests on free trade. Free trade is, as Cobden said, the best peacemaker. It seems to be even more than that: the only possible peacemaker.

In earlier times, old horses that had to turn a treadmill had their eyes gouged out. Thus, with their eyes blinded to the reality all around them, the unfortunate peoples of Europe now turn the treadmill of war—both out of necessity and of their own free will.

[ 55 ] This is a neutral judgment, but the judgment of a person who does not judge based on clichés, but who, in his judgment, presents a number of facts and demonstrates the possibility of weighing these facts against one another in the proper way. My aim was not to express an opinion, but to point out what is necessary in our time if truth is to be sought. Why should it be impossible to suspend judgment—at least within one’s own soul—if one lacks the time or the will to engage with the facts in the appropriate manner? Spiritual science can show us that the judgments passed today—which are so often couched in the words, “We are fighting for the freedom and rights of even the small nations”—are in fact the most irresponsible of phrases. They are so simply by their very nature, for anyone who knows even a little about reality knows that such talk is the same as if a shark were to try to conclude a peace treaty with those little sea fish that are destined to be eaten by it. Of course, it will not be understood immediately—perhaps only after some reflection—that much of today’s talk is exactly the same as if one were to stand up and say: Why don’t the sharks enter into a contract with the little fish they intend to eat regarding an “inter-fish”—as one says today, “interstate”—“inter-fish” fishing rights? — Those people who speak today of the need for peace to come say that the killing will only stop when there is a prospect that peace will now reign forever. One can hardly imagine anything more absurd than this view: to keep killing until, through the very act of killing, one has brought about a situation where there can be no more war! Today, one hardly needs to be an occultist to know: Once this war in Europe has come to an end in one way or another, only a few years will pass before a far more furious, far more devastating war outside Europe will shake the world to its core.

[ 56 ] But who today cares about things based on reality? People would rather listen to statesmen declaiming that this or that must be achieved for the sake of freedom and the rights of even the smallest nations. People even listen when lawyers who have become presidents by title—who may well be quite skilled at conducting trials in the “Romanian” style—speak, appearing [magnificently] in their togas like an Ottoman prince, a fact that goes unnoticed only because in this case we speak of a “republic.” What is one to say when people listen to lectures given by such individuals on artistic and literary matters—such as the relationships between the legends, myths, and literary materials of Western and Central Europe—not to mention facts like those I mentioned recently, namely that Maeterlinck, to loud applause, called Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, and a few others—I don’t even know who all—“mediocre minds”! But, my dear friends, I do not wish to influence your judgment in the least; I merely wish to point out that perspectives are necessary for judgment, and that a judgment, if it is to be true, truly requires quite different elements than those often applied today.

[ 57 ] One must be clear about this—and this should be emphasized once again—that the population crammed together in Central Europe must be assessed from a completely different perspective, because the people there are under existential pressure, whereas what surrounds them—only insofar as they are belligerent powers, of course—must be judged solely in terms of state and politics for a long time to come, at least until certain conditions arise, should the war continue for years to come—must be judged solely in terms of state and politics. For Central Europe, what is at stake is the intellectual heritage, the development of the soul, and the intellectual legacy produced over centuries. It would be utter nonsense to believe that the situation all around us could be anything like that; to say such a thing would simply be thoughtless. Certainly, there is much to criticize everywhere, but it is quite another matter whether—to compare the big with the small—one criticizes the things that take place within a besieged fortress or among a besieging army all around it. But I have not yet heard a judgment from the periphery that would take such things into account in any way.

[ 58 ] And so as not to be one-sided, I would like to point out one more thing in closing. When one wants to be fair, one always takes some credit for judging both sides equally by saying: Well, it’s like this here, it’s like that there, and so on. But one never asks oneself: Is that really the case here and there? A Swiss newspaper recently published articles that, in a completely abstract way, pointed out that this and that were being said here and there, that lies were being told here and there, and so on, in order to be fair to both sides. But what if what was said there weren’t true? The articles spoke of the hypocrisy of the World War, but the articles themselves are completely hypocritical—precisely because of the way they are written. I will now read something to you—I should say, I do so with fear and trembling—that has been excerpted from a random German magazine to illustrate the difference, for what is written all around us is, after all, well known, and it is well known that this is truly not written out of goodwill toward the peoples of Central Europe. For even where one finds, I might say, less scathing judgments, one still finds more than enough that is far from friendly toward the national character that, after all, produced Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, and so on.

[ 59 ] So I “happened” to come across an article by Alexander von Gleichen-Rußwurm on human dignity. It was prompted by the fact that—as you may have heard—Germans have been called barbarians, and are still called barbarians even in the periphery. Von Gleichen-Rußwurm takes no particular offense at the use of the word “barbarians”—on the contrary, he quite nicely explains what the Greeks and Romans understood by “barbarians” and that they certainly didn’t even mean anything that bad by it. But I don’t want to go into that. He discusses the various peoples; it’s really the kind of article one finds in abundance today, written by people in Central Europe who would be comparable, for example, to Maeterlinck—please forgive me! Gleichen-Rußwurm distinguishes between peoples and governments, and he does so at times with words—I’m merely relaying them; I’m not uttering them myself—he does so with words that are, of course, terrible if the person in question feels offended as a member of the people, but I believe there is no one among us who feels that way; we are all anthroposophists and can understand such things.

[ 60 ] I’m not reading aloud the words that the person in question says about governments, but rather I’m reading the article aloud—I wouldn’t be reading it aloud otherwise if it hadn’t just fallen into my hands— I’m reading it aloud to show that Gleichen-Rußwurm, who is not such a famous man but is roughly Maeterlinck’s equal in intelligence, did not shy away from truly not pulling the wool over the eyes of his own people within the fortress, but rather from saying what a courageous and serious-minded person has to say. Of course, it goes without saying that what is said within the fortress should not actually reach the outside world, because, strictly speaking, it is none of its business. If one thinks with a modicum of tact, one will understand what I mean by this. Well, Gleichen-Rußwurm says:

One cannot readily draw conclusions about the general psychological well-being of an entire nation based on a few tragic outliers and their actions, wherever and however the war may have unleashed them.

The Russian people are good-natured and gentle, regardless of what the Cossacks—who are of a different ethnic background—may do. The criminal government of the Tsarist regime brought about the war, but the country’s greatest poet, Tolstoy, who will always remain worthy of our reverence, preached his abhorrence of war in moving words.

The atrocities of the French mob, the folly of its ministers, and the uneducated remarks of Parisian journalists and writers do not undo the fact that France is the homeland of the saint of charity, Vincent de Paul—who still has many followers today—nor do they in any way prevent the majority of the people from being both hardworking and peace-loving.

England remains Shakespeare’s homeland; it has given the world tender poets, self-sacrificing philanthropists, and philosophers of the highest caliber; yet it is ruled by liars and cheats, and the English, who are the most self-assured about their culture, have, through their manner of waging war, brought forth the crown of the most hideous modern barbarism.

Italy’s spineless bandit government deserves contempt. Even to the country’s friends, everything associated with the Third Italy was unpleasant and repulsive; yet since Goethe, we have received such rich treasures from the country’s ancient culture, artistic sensibility, and beauty that we keep them unforgotten and continue to cherish them fruitfully in our hearts.

The hatred of our enemies may well have saved what is most precious about our very being. The bitterness now inflicted upon us, the realization of an unprecedented aversion from all sides, resembles the warning that the slave had to whisper to the triumphant conqueror: “Remember that you are mortal!”

It protects us—even when uttered by a lowly mouth—from allowing magnanimity to lead to arrogance, and from letting the joy of victory degenerate into “hubris,” that very presumption against which Greek poets warned their heroes.

Schiller, concerned for human dignity, believed that noble people are judged not only by what they do, but by what they are.

A noble people, however, acts in the same way.

[ 61 ] As you can see, one can hold very disparaging views about those involved in current events without resorting to denigrating entire peoples. But judgments of this kind—which could be multiplied a hundredfold—simply exist! And once a statistical comparison is made between how other peoples were judged in Central Europe from August 1914 onward and how they were judged in the surrounding regions, a remarkable insight into the history of ideas and cultural history will emerge—though we are still a long way from that.

[ 62 ] Mr. Leadbeater is now busy comparing crime statistics from Germany and England and writes in large print in The Theosophist about how many times more criminals there are in Germany than in England. Then, in one of the subsequent issues, a reader points out to him that he forgot to include a figure in his statistics—it is simply listed under a different heading—a figure that completely invalidates his argument. I believe he counts only 12,000 criminals for England and overlooks 146,000; for Germany, however, he lists them all. But while the article presenting these statistics—which he cites to portray Germany as the country with the greater number of criminals—appears in very large print in The Theosophist, the rebuttal is tucked away at the very back in very small print—in minuscule letters. Such statistics will one day be replaced by other statistics, and then some of what this Bernese prize-winning essay, “On the History of the Outbreak of War,” says will indeed prove to be true:

But history cannot be falsified in the long run; legend cannot withstand scientific scrutiny; the dark web is brought to light and torn apart, no matter how artfully and finely it was woven.

[ 63 ] My dear friends, I had to preface things in this way if I am to speak next time about certain matters—some of which have already come to light and which, as I would like to point out once again, certainly cannot be handled as conveniently as one might imagine. After all, I have no need to express this or that opinion; the occultist becomes accustomed to viewing the facts purely and unadulteratedly and presenting them as they are. And I know very well what—certainly no one from this circle, I think—but many outsiders, especially today, would immediately counter regarding atrocities and so on—all sorts of things that are, quite understandably, without the necessary perspective, recounted and taken up again and again. I am familiar with and aware of these objections, but I also know how short-sighted it is to raise them, and how little the person raising them has any idea of how things actually stand and how the various questions of guilt are distributed.

[ 64 ] You see, my dear friends, when we had that dispute—if you can call it that—with Mrs. Besant, she managed to place all the blame on us. At that time—according to the account of someone who had been devoted to her until then but had since fallen away from her—she acted according to the following principle: If someone is attacked by another and the victim cries out “Help, help!” then one tells the person crying for help that he is doing something unjustified, because he is not allowing himself to be slaughtered voluntarily. — That, more or less, was the objection Mrs. Besant raised at the time. But some judgments passed in the present are of a similar nature; they are worth no more than that. One can have the most remarkable experiences in this regard. Well-meaning, benevolent people who, in ordinary life, would never pass such a judgment as they do on matters about which they—pardon me! — know nothing about, namely political matters — these people lack clarity in their judgments. And that is what this is all about, my dear friends: the fundamental condition for forming a judgment at all, not the passing of this or that judgment in this or that direction.

[ 65 ] So next Saturday, we'll meet here again at 7 o'clock.