Karma of Untruthfulness II
GA 173b
26 December 1916, Dornach
Lecture XI
Yesterday I told you the story of Gerhard the Good—which most of you probably know—so that today we can illustrate various points in our endeavour to increase our understanding of the matters we are discussing. But before I interpret parts of this story for you, in so far as this is necessary, we must also recall a number of other things we have touched on at various times during these lectures. From what has been said over the past few weeks you will have seen that the painful events of today are connected with impulses living in the more recent karma of mankind, namely, the karma of the whole fifth post-Atlantean period. For those who want to go more deeply into these matters it is necessary to link external events with what is happening more inwardly, which can only be understood against the background of human evolution as seen by spiritual science.
To begin with, take at face value certain facts which I have pointed out a number of times. I have frequently said that, in the middle of the nineteenth century, an endeavour was made to draw the attention of modern mankind to the fact that there exist in the universe not only those forces and powers recognized by natural science but also others of a spiritual kind. The endeavour was to show that just as we take in with our eyes—or, indeed, with all our senses—what is visible around us, so are there also spiritual impulses around us, which people who know about such things can bring to bear on social life—impulses which cannot be seen with the eye but are known to a more spiritual science.
We know what path this more spiritual science took, so I need not go over it again. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, then, it was the concern of a certain centre to draw people's attention to the existence, as it were, of a spiritual environment. This had been forgotten during the age of materialism. You also know that such things have to be tackled with caution because a certain degree of maturity is necessary in people who take in such knowledge. Of course, not all those can be mature who come across, or are affected by, this knowledge in accordance with the laws of our time, which underlie public life. But part of what must be done at such a time can be the requirement to test whether the knowledge may yet be revealed publicly.
Now in the middle of the nineteenth century two paths were possible. One, even then, would have been what we could describe by mentioning our anthroposophical spiritual science, namely, to make comprehensible to human thinking what spiritual knowledge reveals about our spiritual environment. It is a fact that this could have been attempted at that time, in the middle of the nineteenth century, but this path was not chosen. The reason was, in part, that those who possessed this esoteric knowledge were prejudiced, because of traditions that have come down from ancient times, against making such things public. They felt that certain knowledge guarded by the secret brotherhoods—for it was still guarded at that time—should be kept within the circle of these brotherhoods. We have since seen that, so long as matters are conducted in the proper way, it is perfectly acceptable today to reveal certain things. Of course it is unavoidable that some malicious opponents should appear, and always will appear, in circles in which such knowledge is made known—people who are adherents for a time because it suits their passions and their egoism, but who then become opponents under all sorts of guises and make trouble. Also when spiritual knowledge is made known in a community, this can easily lead to arguments, quarrelling and disputes, of which, however, not too much notice can be taken, since otherwise no spiritual knowledge would ever be made known. But, apart from these things, no harm is done if the matter is handled in the right way.
But at that time this was not believed. So ancient prejudice won the day and it was agreed to take another path. But, as I have often said, this failed. It was decided to use the path of mediumistic revelation to make people recognize the spiritual world in the same way as they recognize the physical world. Suitable individuals were trained to be mediums. What they then revealed through their lowered consciousness was supposed to make people recognize the existence of certain spiritual impulses in their environment. This was a materialistic way of revealing the spiritual world to people. It corresponded to some extent to the conditions of the fifth post-Atlantean period, in so far as this is materialistic in character.
This way of handling things began, as you know, in America in the middle of the nineteenth century. But it soon became obvious that the whole thing was a mistake. It had been expected that the mediums would reveal the existence of certain elemental and nature spirits in the environment. Instead, they all started to refer to revelations from the kingdom of the dead. So the goal which had been set was not reached. I have often explained that the living can only reach the dead with an attitude which does not depend on lowering the consciousness. You all know these things. At that time this was also known and that is why, when the mediums began to speak of revelations of the dead, it was realized that the whole thing was a mistake. This had not been expected. It had been hoped that the mediums would reveal how the nature spirits work, how one human being affects another, what forces are at play in the social organism, and so on. It had been hoped that people would start to recognize what forces might be used by those who understand such things, so that people would no longer be dependent solely on one another in the way they are when only their sense perceptions come into play, but would be able to work through the total human personality. This was one thing that went wrong.
The other was that, in keeping with man's materialistic inclinations, it soon became obvious what would have begun to happen if the mediumistic movement had spread in the way it threatened to do. Use would have been made of the mediums to accomplish aims which ought only to be accomplished under the influence of natural, sense-bound reasoning. For some individuals it would have been highly desirable to employ a medium who could impart the means of discovering the knowledge which such people covet. I have told you how many letters I get from people who write: I have a lottery ticket; or, I want to buy a lottery ticket; I need the money for an entirely selfless purpose; could you not tell me which number will be drawn? Obviously, if mediums had been fully trained in the techniques of mediumship, the resulting mischief with this kind of thing would have been infinite, quite apart from everything else. People would have started to go to mediums to find a suitable bride or bridegroom, and so on.
Thus it came about that, in the very quarter that had launched the movement in order to test whether people were ready to take in spiritual knowledge, efforts were now made to suppress the whole affair. What had been feared in bygone times, when the abilities of the fourth post-Atlantean period still worked in people, had indeed now come to pass. In those days witches were burnt, simply because those people called witches were really no more than mediums, and because their connections with the spiritual world—though of a materialistic nature—might cause knowledge to be revealed which would have been very awkward for certain people. Thus, for instance it might have been very awkward for certain brotherhoods if, before being burnt at the stake, a witch had revealed what lay behind them. For it is true that when consciousness is lowered there can be a kind of telephone connection with the spiritual world, and that by this route all sorts of secrets can come out. Those who burnt the witches did so for a very good reason: It could have been very awkward for them if the witches had revealed anything to the world, whether in a good or a bad sense, but especially in a bad sense.
So the attempt to test the cultural maturity of mankind by means of mediums had gone awry. This was realized even by those who, led astray by the old rules of silence and by the materialistic tendencies of the nineteenth century, had set this attempt in train. You know, of course, that the activities of mediums have not been entirely curtailed, and that they still exist, even today. But the art of training mediums to a level at which their revelations could become significant has, so to speak, been withdrawn. By this withdrawal the capabilities of mediums have been made more or less harmless. In recent decades, as you know, the pronouncements of mediums have come to amount to not much more than sentimental twaddle. The only surprising thing is that people set so much store by them. But the door to the spiritual world had been opened to some degree and, moreover, this had been done in a manner which was untimely and a mistake.
In this period came the birth and work of Blavatsky. You might think that the birth of a person is insignificant, but this would be a judgement based on maya. Now the important thing is that this whole undertaking had to be discussed among the brotherhoods, so that much was said and brought into the open within the brotherhoods. But the nineteenth century was no longer like earlier centuries in which many methods had existed for keeping secret those things which had to be kept secret. Thus it happened that, at a certain moment, a member of one of the secret brotherhoods, who intended to make use in a one-sided way of what he learnt within these brotherhoods, approached Blavatsky. Apart from her other capacities Blavatsky was an extremely gifted medium, and this person induced her to act as a connecting link for machinations which were no longer as honest as the earlier ones. The first, as we have seen, were honest but mistaken. Up to this point the attempt to test people's receptivity had been perfectly honest, though mistaken. Now, however, came the treachery of a member of an American secret brotherhood. His purpose was to make one-sided use of what he knew, with the help of someone with psychic gifts, such as Blavatsky. Let us first look at what actually took place. When Blavatsky heard what the member of the brotherhood had to say, she, of course, reacted inwardly to his words because she was psychic. She understood a great deal more about the matter than the one who was giving her the information. The ancient knowledge formulated in the traditional way lit up in her soul a significant understanding which she could hardly have achieved solely with her own resources. Inner experiences were stimulated in her soul by the ancient formulations which stemmed from the days of atavistic clairvoyance and which were preserved in the secret brotherhoods, often without much understanding for their meaning on the part of the members. These inner experiences led in her to the birth of a large body of knowledge. She knew, of course, that this knowledge must be significant for the present evolution of mankind, and also that by taking the appropriate path this knowledge could be utilized in a particular way.
But Blavatsky, being the person she was, could not be expected to make use of such lofty spiritual knowledge solely for the good of mankind as a whole. She hit upon the idea of pursuing certain aims which were within her understanding, having come to this point in the manner I have described. So now she demanded to be admitted to a certain occult brotherhood in Paris. Through this brotherhood she would start to work. Ordinarily she would have been accepted in the normal way, apart from the fact that it was not normal to admit a woman; but this rule would have been waived in this case because it was known that she was an important individuality. However, it would not have served her purpose to be admitted merely as an ordinary member, and so she laid down certain conditions. If these conditions had been accepted, many subsequent events would have been very different but, at the same time, this secret brotherhood would have pronounced its own death sentence—that is, it would have condemned itself to total ineffectiveness. So it refused to admit Blavatsky. She then turned to America, where she was indeed admitted to a secret brotherhood. In consequence, she of course acquired extremely significant insights into the intentions of such secret brotherhoods; not those which strive for the good of mankind as a whole, disregarding any conflicting wishes, but those whose purposes are one-sided and serve certain groups only. But it was not in Blavatsky's nature to work in the way these brotherhoods wished. So it came about that, under the influence of what was termed an attack on the Constitution of North America, she was excluded from this brotherhood.
So now she was excluded. But of course she was not a person who would be likely to take this lying down. Instead, she began to threaten the American brotherhood with the consequences of excluding her in this way, now that she knew so much. The American brotherhood now found itself sitting under the sword of Damocles, for if, as a result of having been a member, Blavatsky had told the world what she knew, this would have spelt its death sentence. The consequence was that American and European occultists joined forces in order to inflict on Blavatsky a condition known as occult imprisonment. Through certain machinations a sphere of Imaginations is called forth in a soul which brings about a dimming of what that soul previously knew, thus making it virtually ineffective. It is a procedure which honest occultists never apply, and even dishonest ones only very rarely, but it was applied on that occasion in order to save the life—that is the effectiveness, of that secret brotherhood.
For years Blavatsky existed in this occult imprisonment, until certain Indian occultists started to take an interest in her because they wanted to work against that American brotherhood. As you see, we keep coming up against occult streams which want to work one-sidedly. Thus Blavatsky entered this Indian current, with which you are familiar. The Indian brotherhood was very interested indeed in proceeding against the American brotherhood, not because they saw that they were not serving mankind as a whole, but because they in turn had their own one-sided patriotically Indian viewpoint. By means of various machinations the Indian and the American occultists reached a kind of agreement. The Americans promised not to interfere in what the Indians wanted to do with Blavatsky, and the Indians engaged to remain silent on what had gone before.
You can see just how complicated these things really are when you add to all this the fact, which I have also told you about, that a hidden individual, a mahatma behind a mask, had been instituted in place of Blavatsky's original teacher and guide. This figure stood in the service of a European power and had the task of utilizing whatever Blavatsky could do in the service of this particular European power. One way of discovering what all this is really about might be to ask what would have happened if one or other of these projects had been realized.
Time is too short to tell you everything today, but let us pick out a few aspects. We can always come back to these things again soon.
Supposing Blavatsky had succeeded in gaining admission to the occult lodge in Paris. If this had happened, she would not have come under the influence of that individual who was honoured as a mahatma in the Theosophical Society—although he was no such thing—and the life of the occult lodge in Paris would have been extinguished. A great deal behind which this same Paris lodge may be seen to stand would not have happened, or perhaps it would have happened in the service of a different, one-sided influence. Many things would have taken a different course. For there was also the intention of exterminating this Paris lodge with the help of the psychic personality of Blavatsky. If it had been exterminated, there would have been nothing behind all those people who have contributed to history, more or less like marionettes. People like Silvagni, Durante, Sergi, Cecconi, Lombroso and all his relations, and many others would have had no occult backers behind them. Many a door, many a kind of sliding door, would have remained locked.
You will understand that this is meant symbolically. In certain countries editorial offices—I mean this as a picture!—have a respectable door and a sliding door. Through the respectable door you enter the office and through the sliding door you enter some secret brotherhood or other working, as I have variously indicated over the last few days, to achieve results of the kind about which we have spoken. So the intention was to abolish something from the world which would have done away with, at least, one stream which we have seen working in our present time. Signor d'Annunzio would not have given the speech we quoted.
Perhaps another would have been given instead, pushing things in a different direction. But you see that the moment things are not fully under control, the moment people are pushed about through a dimming of their consciousness, and when occultism is being used, not for the general good of mankind—and above all, in our time, not with true knowledge—but for the purpose of achieving one-sided aims, then matters can come to look very grave indeed.
Anyway, the members of this lodge were, from the standpoint of the lodge, astute enough not to enter into a discussion of these things. Later on, certain matters were hushed up, obscured, by the fact that Blavatsky was prevented by her occult imprisonment from publicizing the impulses of that American lodge and giving them her own slant, which she would doubtless otherwise have done. Once all these things had run their course, the only one to benefit from Blavatsky was the Indian brotherhood. There is considerable significance for the present time in the fact that a certain sum of occult knowledge has entered the world one-sidedly, with an Indian colouring. This knowledge has entered the world; it now exists. But the world has remained more or less unconscious of it because of the paralysis I have described.
Those who reckon with such things always count on long stretches of time. They prepare things and leave them to develop. These are not individuals, but brotherhoods in which the successor takes over from the predecessor and carries on in a similar direction with what has been started.
On the basis of the two examples I have given you, of occult lodges, you can see that much depended on the actual impulses not being made public. I do not wish to be misunderstood and I therefore stated expressly that the first attempt I described to you was founded on a certain degree of honesty. But it is extremely difficult for people to be entirely objective as regards mankind as a whole. There is little inclination for this nowadays. People are so easily led astray by the group instinct that they are not objective as regards mankind as a whole but pay homage to one group or another, enjoying the feeling of ‘belonging.’ But this is something that is no longer really relevant to the point we have reached in human evolution. The requirement of the present moment is that we should, at least to some degree, feel ourselves to be individuals and extricate ourselves, at least inwardly, from group things, so that we belong to mankind as human individuals. Even though, at present, we are shown so grotesquely how impossible this is for some people, it is nevertheless a requirement of our time.
For example, let me refer to what I said here a few days ago. A nation as a whole is an individuality of a kind which cannot be compared with human individualities, who live here on the physical plane and then go through their development between death and a new birth. Nations are individualities of quite a different kind. As you can see from everything we find in our anthroposophical spiritual science, a folk spirit, a folk soul, is something different from the soul of an individual human being. It is nonsense to speak in a materialistic sense, as is done today, of the soul of a nation while at the back of one's mind thinking of something resembling the soul of an individual—even though one, of course, does not admit this to oneself. Thus you hear people speak of ‘the French soul’; this has been repeatedly said in recent years. It is nonsense, plain nonsense, because it is an analogy taken from the individual human soul and applied to the folk soul. You can only speak of the folk soul if you take into account the complex totality described in the lecture cycle on the different folk spirits. But to speak in any other sense about the folk soul is utter nonsense, even though many, including journalists, do so—and they may be forgiven, for they do not know what they are talking about. It is mere verbosity to speak—as has been done—for instance of the ‘Celtic soul and the Latin spirit’. Maybe such a thing is just about acceptable as an analogy, but there is no reality in. We must be clear about the meaning of the Mystery of Golgotha. So often have we said that the Mystery of Golgotha was accomplished in such a way that what has been united with earth evolution ever since is there for all mankind, but that if an individual speaks of a mystical Christ within him, this is no more than idle talk. The Mystery of Golgotha is an objective reality, as you know from much that has been said here. It took place for mankind as a whole, which means for every individual human being. Christ died for all human beings, as a human being for human beings, not for any other kind of being. It is possible to speak about a Christian, about one whose attitude of mind is Christian, but it is complete nonsense to talk of a Christian nation. There is no reality in this. Christ did not die for nations, nations are not the individualities for whom He died. An individual who is close to the Being of the Mystery of Golgotha can be a Christian, but it is not possible to speak of a Christian nation. The true soul of a nation, its folk soul, belongs to planes on which the Mystery of Golgotha did not take place. So any dealings and actions between nations can never be interpreted or commented upon in a Christian sense.
I am pointing out these things simply because it is necessary that you in particular, my dear friends, should understand just how important it is today to arrive at clear-cut concepts. This can only be done by applying spiritual science, and yet mankind as a whole strives to fish in muddy waters with concepts that are utterly nonsensical and obscure. So the important thing is, above all, to arrive at clear-cut concepts, to see everything in relation to clear-cut concepts, and also to understand that in our time certain occult, spiritual impulses have been working, chiefly through human beings. This is fitting for the fifth post-Atlantean period.
Now if Blavatsky had been able to speak out at that time, certain secrets would have been revealed, secrets I have mentioned as belonging to certain secret brotherhoods and connected with the striving of a widespread network of groups. I said to you earlier that definite laws underlie the rise and evolution of peoples, of nations. These laws are usually unknown in the external, physical world. This is right and proper, for in the first place they ought to be recognized solely by those who desire to receive them with clean hands. What now underlies the terrible trials mankind is undergoing at present and will undergo in the future is the interference in a one-sided way, by certain modern brotherhoods, with the spiritual forces that pulse through human evolution in the region in which, for instance, nations, peoples, come into being. Evolution progresses in accordance with definite laws; it is regular and comes about through certain forces. But human beings interfere, in some part unconsciously, though if they are members of secret brotherhoods, then they do so consciously.
To be able to judge these things you need what yesterday I called a wider horizon; you need the acquisition of a wider horizon. I showed you the forces of which Blavatsky became the plaything, in order to point out how such a plaything can be tossed about, from West to East, from America to India. This is because forces are at work which are being managed by human beings for certain ends, by means of utilizing the passions and feelings of nationality, which have, however, in their turn first been manufactured. This is most important. It is important to develop an eye for the way in which a person who, because of the type of passions in her—in her blood—can be put in a certain position and be brought under the sway of certain influences. Equally, those who do this must know that certain things can be achieved, depending on the position in which the person is placed. Many attempts fail. But account is taken of long periods of time and of many possibilities. Above all, account is taken of how little inclination people have to pay attention to the wider—the widest, contexts.
Let us stop here and turn to yesterday's story. It tells us about the time around the tenth century, when the constitution of souls was still that of the fourth post-Atlantean period. We saw how the spiritual world intervened in the life of Emperor Otto of the Red Beard. His whole life is transformed because the spiritual world makes him aware of Gerhard the Good. From Gerhard the Good he is to learn the fear of God, true piety, and that one must not expect—for largely egoistic reasons—a blessing from heaven for one's earthly deeds. So he is told by the spiritual world to seek out Gerhard the Good. This is the one side: what plays in from the spiritual world.
Those who know that age—not as it is described by external history, but as it really was—are aware that the spiritual world did indeed play in through real visions such as that described in connection with Emperor Otto the Red, and that spiritual impulses definitely played a meaningful part. The one who wrote down this story says expressly that in his youth he had also written many other stories, as had other contemporaries of his. The man who wrote down the story of Gerhard the Good was Rudolf von Ems, an approximate contemporary of Wolfram von Eschenbach. He said he had written other stories as well but that he had destroyed them because they had been fairy tales. Yet he does not consider this story to be a fairy tale but strictly historical, even though externally it is not historical—that is it would not be included in today's history books which only take physical maya into account. In the way he tells it, it cannot be compared with external, purely physical history; and yet his telling is more true than purely physical history can be for, on the whole, that is only maya. He tells the story for the fourth post-Atlantean period.
You know, for I have repeatedly said this, that I am not taking sides in any way but simply reporting facts which are to provide a basis on which judgements may be formed. Only those who do not wish to be objective will maintain that what I shall attempt to say is not objective. Someone who does not wish to be objective cannot, of course, be expected to find objectivity in what is, in fact, objective. The fact that the spiritual world plays into human affairs is not the only important aspect of the story of Gerhard the Good. It is also significant that a leading personality receives from the spiritual world the impulse to turn to a member of the commercial world, the world of the merchant. It is indeed a historical fact that, in Central Europe, at that time the members of the ruling dynasty to which Otto the Red belonged did start to patronize the merchant classes in the towns. In Europe this was the time of the growth of commerce.
We should further take into account that at that time there were as yet no ocean routes between Orient and Occident. Trade routes were definitely still overland routes. Merchants such as Gerhard the Good who, as you know, lived in Cologne, carried their trade overland from Cologne to the Orient and back again. Any use of ships was quite insignificant. The trade routes were land routes. Shipping connections were not much more than attempts to achieve with the primitive ships of those days what was being done much more efficiently by land. So in the main the trade routes were overland, while shipping was only just beginning. That is what is characteristic of this time, for comprehensive shipping operations only came much later.
We have here a contrast arising out of the very nature of things. So long as Orient and Occident were connected by land routes, it was perfectly natural that the countries of Central Europe should take the lead. Life in these Central European countries was shaped accordingly. Much spiritual culture also travelled along these routes. It was quite different from what came later. As the centuries proceeded, the land routes were supplanted by ocean routes. As you know, England gradually took control of all the ocean connections which others had opened up. Spain, Holland and France were all conquered as far as their sea-faring capacities were concerned, so that in the end everything was held under the mighty dominance which encompassed a quarter of the earth's dry land, and gradually also all the earth's oceans.
You can see how systematic is this conquering, this almost exterminating, of other seafaring powers when you remember how I told you some time ago that in the secret brotherhoods, especially those which grew so powerful from the time of James I onwards, it was taught as an obvious truth that the Anglo-Saxon race—as they put it—will have to be given dominance over the world in the fifth post-Atlantean period. You will see how systematic the historical process has been when you consider what I have also mentioned and what was also taught: that this fifth post-Atlantean race of the English-speaking peoples will have to overcome the peoples of the Latin race.
To start with, the main thing is the interrelation between the English-speaking peoples and those whose languages are Latin in origin. Recent history cannot be understood without the realization that the important aim—which is also what is being striven for—is for world affairs to be arranged in such a way that the English-speaking peoples are favoured, while the influence of any peoples whose language is based on Latin fades out. Under certain circumstances something can be made to fade out by treating it favourably for a while, thus gaining power over it. This can then make it easy to engulf it.
In those secret brotherhoods, about which I have spoken so often, little significance is attached to Central Europe, for they are clever enough to realize that Germany, for instance, owns only one thirty-third of the earth's land surface. This is very little indeed, compared with a whole quarter of the land surface plus dominance over the high seas. So not much importance is attached to Central Europe. A great deal of importance was attached, however—especially during the period when present events were being prepared—to the overcoming of all those impulses connected with the Latin races.
It is remarkable how short-sighted the modern historical view is and how little inclination there is to go more deeply into matters which are quite characteristic of situations. I have already pointed out that what has so long been practised as a pragmatic view of history is not important, reporting as it does on one event, followed by another, and another, and yet another. What is important is to recognize the facts characterized by the many interrelationships in the events which follow one another. What matters is to point out what is characteristic about the facts, namely, what reveals the forces lying behind maya. Pragmatic history must today give way to a history of symptoms.
Those who see through things in this way will be in a position to form judgements about certain events which differ considerably from those of people who reel off the events of world history—this fable convenue—one after the other, as is done in historical science today. Consider some of the things you know well in connection with some others about which I shall tell you. First of all, a simple fact: In 1618 the Thirty Years War began because certain ideas of a reformative kind developed within the Czech Slav element. Then certain aristocrats belonging to these Slav circles took up the movement and rebelled against what might be called the Counter-Reformation, namely, the Catholicism from Spain which was favoured by the Habsburgs. The first thing usually told about the Thirty Years War is the story of the rebels going to the town hall in Prague and throwing the councillors Martinitz and Slavata and the secretary Fabrizius out of the window. Yet this is quite insignificant. The only interesting point is perhaps that the three gentlemen did not hurt themselves because they fell onto a dunghill. These are not things which can bring the Thirty Years' War to life for us or show us its real causes.
The reformative party elected Frederick, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, as counter-King of Bohemia in 1619. Then followed, as you know, the battle of the White Mountain. Up to the election of the Elector Palatine, all the events were caused by the passionate feelings of these people for a reform movement, by a rebellion against arbitrary acts of power such as the closure or destruction of Protestant churches at Braunau and Kloster Grab. There is not enough time for me to tell you the whole story. But now think: Frederick, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, is elected King. Up to this point the events are based on human passions, human enthusiasm, it is even justified to say human idealism—I am quite happy to concede this.
But why, of all people, was the Elector Palatine of the Rhine chosen as King of Bohemia? It was because he was the son-in-law of James I, who stands at the beginning of the renewal of the brotherhoods! Here, then, we may discern an important finger in the pie if we are trying to look at history symptomatically. Attempts were being made to steer events in a particular direction. They failed. But you see that there is a finger in the pie. The most significant sign of what kind of impulses were to be brought to bear in this situation is that the son-in-law of one of the most important occultists, James I, was thrown into this position.
You see, the fact is that the whole of recent history has to do with the contrast between the ancient Roman-Latin element and that element, not of the English people—for they would get on perfectly happily with the world—but that element which, as I have described sufficiently, is to be made out of the English people if they fail to put up any resistance. It is the conflict between these two elements that is at work.
Meanwhile something else is manipulated, for a great deal can be achieved in one place by bringing about events in another.
Let us look at a later date. You might pick up a history book and read the history of the Seven Years War. Of course the history of this war is read just as thoughtlessly as any other. For to understand what is really going on and investigate what forces of history are playing a part, you have to look properly at the various links between the different circumstances. You have to consider, for instance, that at that time the southern part of Central Europe, namely Austria, was linked with every aspect of the Latin element and even had a proper alliance with France, whereas the northern part of Middle Europe—not at first, but later on—was drawn to what was to be made, by certain quarters, into the English-speaking, fifth post-Atlantean race.
When you look closely at the alliances and everything else that went on at that time—those things which were not maya, of course—you discover a war that is in reality being waged about North America and India between England and France. What went on in Europe was really only a weak mirror image of this. For if you compare everything that took place on the larger scale—do extend your horizons!—then you will see that the conflict was between England and France and that North America and India were already starting to have their effect. It was a matter of which of these two powers was cleverer and more able to direct events in such a way that dominion over North America or India could be snatched away from the other. At work in this were long-term future plans and the control of important impulses. It is true: The influence snatched by England from France in North America was won on the battle fields of Silesia during the Seven Years' War!
Watch how the alliances shift when the situation becomes a little awkward and difficult; watch the alliances from this point of view!
Now, another story. It is necessary to look at these things, and once one is not misunderstood, once it is assumed that one's genuine purpose is to gain a clear picture of what is going on in the world, once one strives to be objective, it will not be taken amiss when such stories are told; instead it will be understood that our concern is for comprehension and not for taking sides. In fact, it is precisely those people who feel they are affected by a particular matter who ought to be particularly glad to learn more about it. For then they are lifted above their blindness and given sight, and nothing is better for a person than real insight into how things work in the world. So let us now take an example which can show you a different side of how things work.
Through circumstances which you can look up in a history book, the kingdoms of Hanover and England were once linked. The laws of succession in the two countries were different—we need not go into this in detail—and as a result of this, when Victoria came to the throne of England, Hanover had to become separate. Another member of the English royal house had to take the throne of Hanover. The person elected, or rather the person jostled onto the throne of Hanover was Ernst August, Duke of Cumberland, who had previously been connected with the throne of England. So this Ernst August came to the throne of Hanover at the age of sixty-six. His character was such that, after his departure to become the king of Hanover, the English newspapers said: Thank goodness he's gone; let's hope he doesn't come back! He was considered a dreadful person because of the whole way he behaved. When you look at the impression he made on his contemporaries and those who had dealings with him, a certain type of character emerges which is striking for one who understands characters of this kind. The Hanoverians could not understand him. They found him coarse. He was indeed coarse, so coarse that the poet Thomas Moore said: He surely belonged to the dynasty of Beelzebub. But you know the saying: The German lies if he is polite. So they had a certain understanding for coarseness, but they did presuppose that someone who is coarse is at least honest. Ernst August, however, was always a liar as well as being coarse, and this the Hanoverians could not understand. He had other similar traits as well.
First, Ernst August repealed the Hanoverian constitution. Then he dismissed the famous ‘seven professors’ of Göttingen University. He had them sent straight out of the country, so that it was not until they reached Witzenhausen, which lay beyond his majesty's borders, that their students were permitted to take leave of them. I need not tell you the whole story. But what is the explanation? Those who seek no further for an explanation of this extraordinary mask merely find Ernst August coarse and dishonest. He even cheated Metternich, which is saying much indeed, and so on. But there is something remarkably systematic in all this. And the systematic aspect is not changed by the fact that he lived most of his life up to the age of sixty-six in England, where he was an officer of the Dragoons.
An explanation may be found in the fact that in his whole manner he was manifesting the impulses one has when one is a member of the so-called ‘Orange Lodge’. His whole manner was an expression of the impulses of the Orange Lodge, of which he was a member.
What we must do is learn to understand history symptomatically and widen our horizons. We need to develop a sense for what is important and what really gives insight. So I told you the tale of Gerhard the Good in order to demonstrate how, through such phenomena as the Orange Lodge, and so on, what had been Central Europe was quite systematically drawn over to the West. I am not uttering any reproach, for it was a historical necessity. But one ought to know it and not apply moral judgements to such things. What is essential is to develop the will to see things, to see how human beings are manipulated, to see where there might be impulses by which people are manipulated. This is the same as striving for the sense for truth. I have often stressed that this is not something that enables one to say: But I really believed it, it was my honest and sincere opinion! No indeed. One who possesses the sense for truth is one who unremittingly strives to find the truth of the matter, one who never ceases to seek the truth and who takes responsibility for himself even when he says something untrue out of ignorance. For, objectively, it is irrelevant whether something wrong is said knowingly or unknowingly. Similarly it is irrelevant whether you hold your finger in the candle flame through ignorance or on purpose; either way you burn it.
At this point we must understand what happened at the transition from the fourth post-Atlantean period-when commerce was still just under the influence of the spiritual world, as is indicated in the story of Gerhard the Good—to the fifth period, when everything commercial was drawn over into the occult sphere which is guided by the so-called ‘Brothers of the Shadow’. These brotherhoods guard certain principles. From their point of view it would be extremely dangerous if these principles should be betrayed. That is why they were so careful to prevent Blavatsky from making them public or causing them to pass over into other hands. They were, in fact, to be passed over from the West to the East; not to India but to the East of Russia.
Someone with a sense for what lies behind maya can understand that external institutions and external measures can have differing values, differing degrees of importance in the total context. Consider an incident in recent history. I have told you so many occult, spiritual things that I have, in a way, ‘done my time’ and am now free to go on and give you some indications out of more recent history. No one should say that I am taking this time away from that devoted to occult matters; these things are also important.
So let us take an example from more recent history. In 1909 a meeting was arranged between the King of Italy and the Tsar of Russia. So far there had not been much love lost between these two representatives, but from then on it was considered a good thing to manoeuvre them into each other's company. So the meeting at Racconigi took place. It was not easy to arrange. In the description of all the measures he had to take to prevent ‘incidents of an assassinatory nature’ you can read how difficult it was for poor Giolitti, who was Prime Minister at the time.
Then there was the question of finding a suitable personage who would pay Rome's homage to the Tsar. This had to be a personage of a particular kind. Such things have to be prepared well in advance so that when the right moment arrives they can be set in train on the spot. For a really ‘juicy’ effect to be achieved, not just any personage would do for the purpose of paying Rome's homage to the Tsar—the homage of the Latin West to the self-styled Slav East. It would have to be a special personage, even one who might not easily be persuaded to undertake this task. Now ‘by chance’, as the materialists would say, but ‘not by chance’, as those who are not materialists would say, a certain Signor Nathan—what a very Italian name!—was at that time the mayor of Rome. For many reasons his attitude was rather democratic and not at all one that would make him inclined to pay homage to the Tsar, of all people. He had only taken Italian citizenship shortly before becoming mayor of Rome. Before that he had been an English citizen. The fact that he was of mixed blood should be taken into account; he was the son of a German mother and had assumed the name of Nathan because his father was the famous Italian revolutionary Mazzini. This is a fact.
So persuading him to pay homage to the Tsar made it possible to say: See how thoroughly democracy has been converted. Here was someone who was not an ordinary person but one who had been anointed with all the oils of democracy, but—also someone who had been well prepared. From that moment onwards certain things start to become embarrassing. Today it is known, for example, that from that moment onwards all the correspondence within the Triple Alliance was promptly reported to St Petersburg! Human passions also played some part in the matter, since a special role was carried out in this reporting by a lady who had found a ‘sisterly’ route between Rome and St Petersburg. Such things can obviously be ascribed to coincidence. But those who want to see beyond maya will not ascribe them to coincidence but will seek the deeper connections between them. Then, when one seeks these deeper connections, one is no longer capable of lying as much, is no longer capable of deceiving people in order to distract them from the truth, which is what matters.
For instance—I am saying this in order to describe the truth—it would obviously have been most embarrassing for the widest circles if people's attention had been drawn to the fact that the whole invasion of Belgium would not have taken place if that sentence I have already mentioned, which could have been spoken by Lord Grey—Sir Edward Grey has now become a lord—if that sentence had really been spoken. The whole invasion of Belgium would not have taken place. It would have been a non-event, it would not have happened. But instead of speaking about the real cause, in so far as this is the cause because it could have prevented the invasion, it was obviously more comfortable to waste people's time by telling them about the ‘Belgian atrocities’. Yet these, too, would not have happened if Sir Edward Grey had taken this one, brief measure. In order to hide the simple truth something different is needed, something that arouses justified human passions and moral indignation. I am not saying anything against this. Something different is needed. It is a characteristic of our time, even today when it is particularly painful, to make every effort to obscure the truth, to blind people to the truth.
This, too, had to be prepared carefully. Any gap in the calculation would have made it impossible. The whole of the periphery, which had prudently been created for this very purpose, was needed.
But these things were very carefully prepared, both politically and culturally. Every possibility was reckoned with; and this was certainly necessary, since the most unbelievable carelessness sometimes prevailed, even in places where such a thing would be least expected. Let me give you an example, an objective fact, which will allow us to study this carelessness.
At one time Bismarck had a connection with a certain Usedom in Florence and Turin. I have told you before: Modern Italy came into being by roundabout means and actually owes her existence to Germany; but this is connected with all sorts of other things. What I am saying has profound foundations, and in politics all sorts of threads interweave. Thus at one time threads were woven which were to win over the Italian republicans. In short, at a certain time one such link existed between Bismarck and Usedom in Florence and Turin. Usedom was a friend of Mazzini and of others who enjoyed a certain prominence in nationalistic circles. Usedom was a man who posed very much as a wise person. He employed as his personal secretary somebody who was supposed to be a follower of Mazzini. Later it turned out that this personal secretary, of whom it had been said that he was initiated into Mazzini's secret societies, was nothing but an ordinary spy. Bismarck tells this tale quite naively and then adds, as an excuse for having been so mistaken: But Usedom was a high-grade Freemason. Many things could be told in this way and often it would turn out that those involved are totally innocent because the ones who pull the strings remain in the background.
You cannot maintain that there is no point in asking why such things are permitted to happen by the wise guides of world evolution—why human beings are, to a large degree, abandoned to such machinations, by making the excuse that there is no way of getting to the bottom of these things. For, indeed, if one only seeks them honestly, there are many ways of finding out what is going on. But we see, even in our own Society, how much resistance is put up by individuals when there is a question of following the simple path of truth. We see how many things which should be taken objectively in pursuit of knowledge, when they would best serve the good of mankind, are instead taken subjectively and personally. There are—are there not?—within our Society groups who have studied very attentively an essay of, I believe, 287 pages which they have taken utterly seriously and about which they are still puzzling, as to whether the writer—who is well enough known to us—might be right. In short, within our own circles we may sometimes discover why it is so difficult to see through things. Yet it is, in fact, not at all difficult to see through things if only one strives honestly for the truth. For years so much has been said within our Society. If you were to bring together all that has been said since 1902 you would see that it contains much that could help us to see through a great deal that is going on in the world. Yet our anthroposophical spiritual science has never been presented as belonging to a secret society. Indeed the most important things have always been dealt with in public lectures open to anybody. This is a contrast which should be noted.
I might as well say now: If certain streams within our Anthroposophical Society continue to exist and if, for the sake of human vanity, they continue to interpret to their own advantage certain things which have been said behind closed doors—for no more reason than one would exclude first-year students in a university from what is told to those in their second year—then, eventually there will be nothing esoteric left. If things are not taken perfectly naturally, if people continue to stand up and say: This is secret, that is very esoteric, this is occult, and I am not allowed to speak about this!—if this policy continues to be followed by certain streams in our Society, if they continually fail to understand that any degree of vanity must stop, then everything mankind must be told about today will have to be discussed in public. Whether it is possible to make known certain things, the needs of the moment will tell. But the Anthroposophical Society is only meaningful if it is a ‘society’, that is, if each individual is concerned to make a stand against vanity, against folly and vanity and everything else which clothes things in false veils of mysticism, serving only to puzzle other people and make them spiteful. The mysteriousness of certain secret brotherhoods has nothing to do with our Society, for we must be concerned solely with bringing about what is needed for the good of mankind. As I have often said, our enemies will become more and more numerous. Perhaps we shall discover what our enemies are made of by the manner in which they quarrel with us. So far we have had no honest opponents worth mentioning. They would, in effect, only be to our advantage! The kind of opposition we have met hitherto is perfectly obvious through their ways and means of operation. We might as well wait patiently to discover whether further opponents will be from within our circle, as is frequently the case, or from elsewhere! I have just had news of opposition from one quarter which will empty itself over us like a cold shower. A forthcoming book has been announced during some lectures. The author, a conceited fellow, has never belonged to our Society but has been entertaining the world with all sorts of double egos and such like. He has now used the opportunity of the various national hatreds and passions to mount an attack on our Anthroposophy of a kind which shows that his hands are not clean.
So we must not lose sight of these things and we must realize that it is up to us to hold fast to the direction which will lead to truth and knowledge. Even when we speak about current issues it must only be in pursuit of knowledge and truth. We must look things straight in the eye and then each individual may take up his own position in accordance with his feelings. Every position will be understandable, but it must be based on a foundation of truth.
This is a word which must occupy a special place in our soul today. So much has taken place in our time which has puzzled people and which should have shown them that it is necessary to strive for a healthy judgement based on the truth. We have experienced how the yearning for peace only had to make itself felt in the world for it to be shouted down. And we still see how people actually get angry if peace is mentioned in one quarter or another. They are angry, not only if one of the combatants mentions peace, but even if it is mentioned in a neutral quarter.
It remains to be seen whether the world will be capable of sufficient astonishment about these things. Experience so far has been telling, to say the least. In April and May 1915 a large territory was to have been voluntarily ceded, but the offer was rejected so that war could be waged. Since world opinion failed to form an even partially adequate judgement about this event, there seems to be really nothing for it but to expect the worst. We might as well expect the worst, because people seem bent on telling, not the truth, but what suits their purposes. Their thinking is strange and peculiar to a degree. Yet to tackle things properly the right points have to be found.
Let me read you a short passage written by an Italian before the outbreak of the present war, at a time when the Italians were jubilant about the Tripoli conflict—which I am not criticizing. I shall never say anything against the annexation of Tripoli by Italy, for these things are judged differently by those who know what is necessary and possible in the relationships between states and nations. They do not form judgements based on lies and express opinions steeped in all kinds of moralistic virtues. But here we have a man, Prezzolini, who writes about an Italy which pleases him, which has evolved out of an Italy which did not please him. He starts by describing what this Italy had come to, how it had gone down in the world, and he then continues—directly under the impression of the Tripoli conflict:
‘And yet, totally unaware of this economic risorgimento, Italy underwent at the same time the period of depression described above. Foreigners were the first to notice the reawakening. Some Italians had also expressed it, but they were windbags carrying on about the famous and infamous “primacy of Italy”. The book by Fischer, a German, was written in 1899, and that by Bolton-King, an Englishman, in 1901. To date no Italian has published a work comparable to these, even to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of “unification”. The exceptional good sense of these foreigners is notable for, truly, outsiders have neither wanted, nor do they now want, to know anything about modern Italy. Then, as now, people's judgement, or rather prejudgement of Italy amounted to saying: Italy is a land of the past, not the present; she should “rest on her past glory” and not enter into the present. They long for an Italy of archives, museums, hotels for honeymooners and for the amusement of spleen and lung patients—an Italy of organ-grinders, serenades, gondolas—full of ciceroni, shoe-shiners, polyglots and pulcinelli. Though they are delighted to travel nowadays in sleeping cars instead of diligences, they nevertheless regret a little the absence of Calabrese highwaymen with pistol and pointed velvet hat. Oh, the glorious Italian sky, defaced by factory chimneys. Oh, la bella Napoli, defamed by steamships and the unloading thereof; Rome filled with Italian soldiers; such regret for the wonderful days of Papal, Bourbon and Leopoldine Rome! These philanthropic feelings still provide the basis for every Anglo-Saxon and German opinion about us. To show how deeply they run, remember that they are expressed by people of high standing in other directions, such as Gregorovius and Bourget. The Italy who reformed herself and grew fat, the Italy who is seen to carry large banknotes in her purse—this is the Italy who has at last gained a proper self-confidence. We should forgive and understand her if she now reacts by going a little further than she ought in her enthusiasm. Ten years have hardly sufficed for the idea of the future and strength of Italy to pass from those who first saw it, to the populace at large who are now filled and convinced by it. It would have been in vain had our great thinkers piled up volumes of journals, statistical papers, philosophical works and books of modern art.’
This is the attitude, my dear friends! ‘It would have been in vain had our great thinkers piled up volumes of journals, statistical papers, philosophical works and books of modern art.’ All this would be worthless, he thinks, to raise up a people. This modern man has no faith in the worth and working of culture and spiritual values!
‘It would have been in vain had our great thinkers piled up volumes of journals, statistical papers, philosophical works and books of modern art; neither the people nor the foreigners would ever have been convinced, at least not before the passage of very many years.’
So this man has no confidence in creating spiritual culture in this way.
‘A great and brutal force was needed to smash the illusion and give every last and miserable village square a sense of national solidarity and upward progress.’
To what does he attribute the capacity to achieve what no spiritual culture could produce? He says:
‘It is the war which has served to do this.’
There you have it! This is what people believed. Tripoli was there and it had to be there. Moreover, they also said: War is needed to bring the nation to a point which it was not found necessary to reach by means of spiritual culture.
Indeed, my dear friends, such things speak to us when we place them side by side with another voice which says: We did not want this war; we are innocent lambs who have been taken by surprise. Even from this side comes the cry: To save freedom, to save the small nations, we are forced to go to war. This man continues:
‘We young people born around the year 1880 entered life in the world with the new century. Our land had lost courage. Its intellectual life was at a low ebb.’
These were the people born around the year 1880.
‘Philosophy: positivism. History: sociology. Criticism: historical method, if not even psychiatry.’
This may indeed be said in the land of Lombroso!
‘Hot on the heels of Italy's deliverers came Italy's parasites; not only their sons, our fathers, but also their grandsons, our elder brothers. The heroic tradition of risorgimento was lost; there was no idea to fire the new generation. Among the best, religion had sunk in estimation but had left a vacuum. For the rest it was a habit. Art was reeling in a sensuous and aesthetic frenzy and lacked any basis or faith. From Carducci, whom papa read to the accompaniment of a glass of Tuscan wine and a cheap cigar, they turned to d'Annunzio, the bible of our elder brothers, dressed according to the latest fashion, his pockets full of sweets, a ladies' man and vain braggart.’
Yet this marionette—of whom it is said here that he was ‘dressed according to the latest fashion, his pockets full of sweets, a ladies' man and vain braggart’—this marionette had made clear to the people at Whitsuntide in 1915 that they needed what no work of the spirit could give them!
When times are grave it is most necessary to make the effort to look straight at the truth, to join forces with the truth. If we do not want to recognize the truth we deviate from what may be good for mankind. Therefore it is necessary to understand that precisely in these times serious words need to be spoken. For we are in a position today in which even one who is seven-eighths blind should see what is happening when the call for peace is shouted down. Someone who believes that you can fight for permanent peace while shouting down the call for peace might, conceivably, hold worthwhile opinions in some other fields; but he cannot be taken seriously with regard to what is going on. If, now that we are faced with this, we cannot commit ourselves to truth, then the prospects for the world are very, very bad indeed.
It is for me truly not a pleasant task to draw attention to much that is going on at present. But when you hear what is said on all sides, you realize the necessity. We must not lose courage, so long as the worst has not yet happened. But the spark of hope is tiny. Much will depend on this tiny spark of hope over the next few days. Much also depends on whether there are still people willing to cry out to the world the utter absurdity of such goings on—as has been done just now, even in the great cities of the world.
The world needs peace and will suffer great privation if peace is not achieved. And it will suffer great privation if credence continues to be given to those who say: We are forced to fight for permanent peace; and if these same people continue to meet every possibility for peace with scorn, however disguised in clever words. But we have reached a point, my dear friends, when even a Lloyd George can be taken for a great man by the widest circles! We may well say: Things have come a very long way indeed!
Yet these things are also only trials to test mankind. They would even be trials if what I permitted myself to express at the end of the Christmas lecture were to happen, namely, if it were to be recorded for all time that, in the Christmas season of the nineteen hundred and sixteenth year after the Mystery of Golgotha, the call for ‘peace on earth among men and women who are of good will’ was shouted down on the most empty pretexts. If the pretexts are not entirely empty, then they are indeed more sinister still. If this is the case, then it will be necessary to recognize what is really at work in this shouting down of every thought of peace: that it is not even a question of what is said in the periphery, but of quite other things. Then it will be understood that it is justified to say that what happens now is crucial for the fortune or misfortune of Europe.
I cannot go further tonight because of the lateness of the hour. But I did want to impress these words on your heart!
Elfter Vortrag
Ich habe Ihnen gestern die ja wohl den meisten bekannte Geschichte von dem Guten Gerhard erzählt, weil ich einiges daranknüpfen möchte, das uns zum Verständnis der Dinge, deren Verständnis wir jetzt suchen, nützlich sein kann. Bevor ich aber zu einer Art Interpretation dieser Geschichte von dem Guten Gerhard, soweit wir sie benötigen, übergehen kann, müssen wir uns einiges ins Gedächtnis rufen, das wir schon in den vorhergehenden Betrachtungen verschiedentlich berührt haben. Sie haben ja aus dem, was in diesen Wochen gesagt worden ist, ersehen können, daß das Schmerzliche, das in unserer Zeit geschieht, zusammenhängt mit Impulsen, die im Menschheitskarma der neueren Zeit, im ganzen Karma der fünften nachatlantischen Periode leben. Und für den, der die Dinge tiefer verstehen will, ist es schon notwendig, daß er das äußerlich Geschehende anzuknüpfen vermag an manches innerlich Geschehende, das man nur verstehen kann, wenn man die Menschheitsentwickelung im Sinne der Geisteswissenschaft ins Auge faßt.
Nehmen Sie gewisse Tatsachen, auf die ich Sie schon öfter hingewiesen habe, zunächst als solche; nehmen Sie die oft erwähnte Tatsache, daß in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts das Bestreben entstand, die Menschheit der neueren Zeit aufmerksam darauf zu machen, daß in der Umwelt nicht nur diejenigen Kräfte und Mächte walten, welche von der Naturwissenschaft erkannt werden können, sondern daß in ihr auch geistige Kräfte tätig sind, daß gerade so, wie wir durch unsere Augen, durch unsere Sinne überhaupt Sinnliches wahrnehmen, in unserer Umgebung geistige Impulse wirksam sind, deren sich die Menschen auch bedienen können und die sie so in das soziale Leben einführen können, wenn sie etwas von den Dingen wissen, die man nicht mit den Sinnen wahrnehmen kann, sondern die eben Gegenstände einer geistigen Wissenschaft sind.
Wir wissen, welchen Weg diese geistige Wissenschaft gemacht hat, das brauchen wir nicht immer zu wiederholen. Um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts handelte es sich also darum, von einem gewissen Zentrum aus die Menschen darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daß es gewissermaßen eine geistige Umgebung gibt. Dieses hatte man ja vergessen in der Zeit des Materialismus. Sie wissen auch, daß solches vorsichtig geschehen muß, weil zu gewissen Erkenntnissen ein gewisser Reifezustand der Menschen vorausgesetzt werden muß. Gewiß können nicht alle reif sein, auf die nach dem Gesetze unserer Zeit, das der Öffentlichkeit unterliegt, solche Erkenntnisse wirken, zu denen solche Erkenntnisse kommen. Aber es kann in der Notwendigkeit einer gewissen Zeit liegen, wenigstens zu prüfen, ob solche Erkenntnisse der Öffentlichkeit gegeben werden können.
Nun konnten in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts zwei Wege eingeschlagen werden. Der eine wäre gewesen, daß man schon dazumal den Weg gewählt hätte, den wir einfach damit bezeichnen können, daß wir auf unsere anthroposophisch orientierte Geisteswissenschaft hinweisen, der Weg, dem menschlichen Denken begreiflich zu machen, was durch okkulte Erkenntnis über die geistige Umgebung erfahren werden kann. Das ist in der Tat etwas, was auch hätte versucht werden können, was aber damals, in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, nicht versucht worden ist. Man schreckte davor zurück zunächst aus einem gewissen Vorurteil der «Esoteriker», das von alten Zeiten überliefert ist, und das eben darinnen besteht, daß man einfach gewisse, in okkulten Brüderschaften verwahrte Erkenntnisse — damals waren sie eben verwahrt - nicht einfach in der Öffentlichkeit mitteilen soll, sondern sie in den Kreisen der okkulten Brüderschaften lassen soll. Wir sehen ja, daß, wenn die Dinge in der richtigen Weise geschehen, sie durchaus in unserer Zeit geschehen können. Abgesehen davon, daß aus den Kreisen derer, innerhalb welcher diese Erkenntnisse verbreitet worden sind, sich böswillige Gegner gezeigt haben und immer wieder zeigen werden, Menschen, die ihren Leidenschaften, ihrem Egoismus folgend, nachdem sie eine zeitlang Anhänger waren, unter allerlei Masken Gegner werden und dadurch Mißhelligkeit hervorbringen — abgesehen davon und von dem Umstande, daß, wenn in einer Gemeinschaft okkulte Erkenntnisse verbreitet werden, dies sehr leicht zu Streit und Zank und Hader führt - man kann aber darauf nicht allzuviel geben, denn sonst könnte man niemals okkulte Erkenntnisse verbreiten —, können Schädigungen nicht eintreten, wenn die Dinge richtig gemacht werden.
Aber das glaubte man dazumal nicht. Man hielt sich, wie gesagt, an das bezeichnete alte Vorurteil und kam zunächst dahin überein, einen andern Weg einzuschlagen. Dieser Versuch ist nun, wie ich öfters auseinandergesetzt habe, eigentlich gescheitert. Man wählte den Weg, die okkulte Welt durch das Mittel der mediumistischen Offenbarungen geradeso bei den Menschen zur Anerkennung zu bringen wie die sinnliche Welt, indem man dazu geeignete Personen präparierte, Medien zu werden, die dann durch dasjenige, was sie auf medialem Wege bei herabgedämpftem Bewußtsein zutage förderten, die Menschen dazu bringen sollten, gewisse geistige Impulse in der Umwelt anzuerkennen. Das war ein materialistischer Weg, die geistige Welt den Menschen zugänglich zu machen. Er entsprach gewissermaßen dem fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum, insofern dieser ein materialistisches Gepräge hat.
Die Sache ging, wie Sie wissen, seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts von Amerika aus; aber es stellte sich sehr bald heraus, daß das Ganze ein Mißgriff war. Statt daß eingetreten wäre, was man erwartet hatte, nämlich daß die Medien angegeben hätten, daß gewisse elementare und Naturgeistigkeiten in der Umgebung sind, beriefen sich alle auf Offenbarungen aus dem Reiche der Toten. Damit war nun nicht erreicht, was man zunächst erreichen sollte. Ich habe ja öfter auseinandergesetzt: An die Toten kann der Mensch erst dadurch herankommen, daß er ein Anschauen in sich entwickelt, welches nicht durch herabgedämpftes Bewußtsein vermittelt ist. Nun, diese Dinge wissen wir ja. Aber man wußte das natürlich auch in der damaligen Zeit, und daher wußte man auch, als die Medien anfingen, von sich aus von Offenbarungen der Toten zu sprechen, daß die ganze Sache ein Mißgriff war. Man hatte das nicht erwartet, sondern man hatte erwartet, daß sie angeben werden, wie die Naturgeister wirken, wie ein Mensch auf den andern wirkt, welche Kräfte in dem sozialen Organismus sind und so weiter. Man hatte gehofft, daß man dadurch erkennen werde, welche Kräfte benützt werden können von dem, der sie kennt, damit Menschen nicht bloß so aufeinander angewiesen sind, wie es durch die Sinne der Fall ist, sondern wie es durch die ganze menschliche Persönlichkeit bedingt ist. Das war das eine Übel.
Das andere war, daß der materialistischen Anlage der Menschen gemäß sich sehr bald zeigte, zu welcher Tendenz das Medienwesen geführt hätte, wenn es die Ausbreitung gewonnen hätte, welche drohte. Es hätte dazu geführt, daß man die Medien dazu benützt hätte, um Dinge zu vollziehen, welche man nur unter dem Einflusse der naturgemäßen, an die Sinneswelt gebundenen Vernunft vollziehen soll. Es wäre natürlich für manche Menschen eine höchst begehrenswerte Sache geworden, wenn man ein Medium hätte anstellen können, welches einem angegeben hätte, wie man zu denjenigen Dingen kommen kann, die manche Leute begehren. Ich habe Ihnen erzählt, wie viele Briefe ich bekommen habe, in denen mir Leute schrieben: Ich habe ein Los, oder ich will ein Los kaufen, ich brauche das Geld für einen ganz selbstlosen Zweck; könnten Sie mir nicht sagen, welche Nummer gezogen wird? — Selbstverständlich, hätte man Medien technisch ganz ausgebildet, so hätte man einen unbegrenzten Unfug nach dieser Richtung treiben können, abgesehen von allem übrigen. Man würde zu Medien gegangen sein, um sich zu verheiraten, um sich die entsprechende Braut oder den entsprechenden Bräutigam sagen zu lassen und so weiter.
Daher kam es,daß man von derselben Seite, von welcher man die ganze Aktion eingeleitet hatte, um zu prüfen, ob die Menschen reif wären, Okkultes aufzunehmen, die in Gang gebrachte Bewegung nun wiederum zurückdämmen wollte. Es war nun eben doch so gegangen, wie man in älteren Zeiten, in denen noch die Fähigkeiten der vierten nachatlantischen Epoche in den Menschen nachwirkten, gefürchtet hatte, daß es gehen werde. Die Hexen verbrannte man aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil die als Hexen bezeichneten Persönlichkeiten ja im Grunde genommen auch Medien waren und weil durch ihre Verbindung mit der geistigen Welt, wenn auch auf eine dem Materialismus angemessene Weise, Dinge hätten herauskommen können, die gewissen Leuten höchst unangenehm gewesen wären. So zum Beispiel hätte es gewissen Gemeinschaften höchst unangenehm werden können, wenn eine Hexe, bevor man sie verbrannt hat, darauf aufmerksam gemacht hätte, was hinter der oder jener Gemeinschaft steckt. Denn richtig ist es ja, daß bei herabgedämpftem Bewußtsein gewissermaßen eine Art Telephonanschluß an die geistige Welt stattfindet, und daß allerlei Geheimnisse auf diese Weise herauskommen können. Diejenigen, die die Hexen verbrannt haben, wußten schon ganz genau, warum sie das taten: eben weil ihnen dasjenige hätte unangenehm werden können, was die Welt, sei es im Guten oder im Schlechten, vor allem natürlich im Schlechten, aus dem Munde der Hexen hätte erfahren können. |
Der Versuch, durch Medien die menschliche Kultur zu prüfen, war also mißglückt. Und das haben auch die gesehen, welche, durch die alten Gebote des Nichtsagens und durch die materialistischen Neigungen des 19. Jahrhunderts verführt, diesen Versuch gemacht haben. Sie wissen ja, daß man das Medienwesen nicht ganz einschränken konnte, daß es weiterexistierte, bis heute noch existiert; aber man hat gewissermaßen zurückgezogen die Kunst, die Medien bis zu einem solchen Grade auszubilden, daß ihre Offenbarungen bedeutsam werden. Indem man zurückgezuckt hat, wurde dasjenige, was nun die Medien noch vermögen, mehr oder weniger harmlos. Und in der neueren Zeit kommt, wie Sie wissen, durch Medien nicht viel anderes mehr heraus als etwas salbungsvolle Dinge, bei denen man nur verwundert ist, daß die Leute so großen Wert darauf legen. Das Tor in die geistige Welt war aber gewissermaßen eröffnet, noch dazu auf eine Weise, die eigentlich nicht zeitgemäß war, die ein Fehler war.
In diese ganze Zeit hinein fiel dieGeburt und das Wirken der Blavatsky. Man könnte meinen, die Geburt eines Menschen sei bedeutungslos; aber das wäre nur ein Maja-Urteil. - Nun, das, worauf es ankommt, ist, daß in den Brüderschaften dieseganze Aktion besprochen werden mußte, und daß dadurch innerhalb der Brüderschaften viel gesagt, viel ausgesprochen worden ist. Und weil das 19. Jahrhundert nicht mehr so war wie frühere Jahrhunderte, wo man genug Mittel hatte, um die Dinge, die geheimgehalten werden sollten, geheimzuhalten, konnte es geschehen, daß in einem bestimmten Zeitpunkte ein Mitglied einer okkulten Brüderschaft, welches die Absicht hatte, das in diesen Brüderschaften Gehörte in einseitiger Weise auszunützen, an die Blavatsky herankam und sie, die neben ihren andern Eigenschaften vor allen Dingen auch ein außerordentlich starkes Medium war, dazu veranlaßte, gewissermaßen das Vermittlungsglied zu sein für Machinationen, die nun nicht mehr so ehrlich waren wie die ersten. Die ersten waren, wie Sie gesehen haben, ein Irrtum, aber sie waren ehrlich. Bis zu dem, was ich jetzt beginne zu erzählen, war die ganze Sache ein ehrlicher, wenn auch ein irrtümlicher Versuch, die Aufnahmefähigkeit der Menschen zu prüfen. Jetzt aber beginnt gewissermaßen der nicht mehr ehrliche Verrat eines Mitgliedes einer amerikanischen okkulten Brüderschaft, welches den Zweck verfolgte, in einseitiger Weise auszunützen, was es wußte, und sich dazu einer psychisch so veranlagten Persönlichkeit, wie die Blavatsky es war, bedienen wollte. Stellen wir uns nun zunächst die Tatsachen vor Augen, die geschehen sind.
Als Blavatsky aus dem Munde des Mitgliedes hörte, um was es sich handelte, hatte sie selbstverständlich die Möglichkeit, innerlich darauf zu reagieren, weil sie eine psychische Persönlichkeit war. Das heißt, sie verstand viel mehr von der Sache als derjenige, der ihr die Mitteilungen machte, selber davon verstand. Die in formelhaftes Gewand gekleideten alten Überlieferungen entzündeten in ihrer Seele bedeutsame Erkenntnisse, die sie wohl kaum durch bloße Eigenentwickelung hätte erlangen können. Aber indem in ihr innere seelische Erlebnisse durch uralte Formeln angeregt wurden, die noch aus der Zeit des atavistischen Hellsehens stammen und in den okkulten Brüderschaften, oftmals ohne daß die Mitglieder sie verstehen, aufbewahrt werden, wurde eine große Summe von Wissen in ihr entzündet, und sie wußte natürlich auch, daß dieses Wissen eine Bedeutung haben muß für die neuzeitliche Menschheitsentwickelung, und daß man nur die richtigen Wege einzuschlagen hatte, um dieses Wissen in einer bestimmten Art zu verwerten.
Von der Blavatsky selber, von der Persönlichkeit der Blavatsky, konnte man nicht verlangen, daß sie nun im Sinne eines höchsten Okkultismus nur das Heil der gesamten Menschheit im Auge habe; sondern sie bekam die Idee, gewissen Zielen nachzugehen, die sie verstand. Dazu war sie auf die Weise gekommen, wie ich es geschildert habe. Da verlangte sie nun ihre Aufnahme in eine okkulte Brüderschaft in Paris. Durch diese wollte sie zunächst wirken. Natürlich wäre sie unter den gewöhnlichen Bedingungen einfach aufgenommen worden, abgesehen davon, daß es eine Art Abnormität gewesen wäre, eine Frau aufzunehmen; aber darüber hätte man sich in diesem Falle hinweggesetzt, denn man wußte, daß man es mit einer bedeutsamen Individualität zu tun hatte. Aber einfach als gewöhnliches Mitglied aufgenommen zu werden, hätte ihr nicht gedient, und so stellte sie denn gewisse Bedingungen. Hätte man diese Bedingungen erfüllt, dann würde vieles allerdings anders geworden sein, aber es hätte sich diese okkulte Brüderschaft zu gleicher Zeit in einer gewissen Beziehung das Todesurteil ausgestellt, das heißt, sie hätte sich eigentlich unwirksam gemacht. Daher verweigerte man in Paris der Blavatsky die Aufnahme. Dann wandte sie sich nach Amerika und wurde dort tatsächlich in einer okkulten Brüderschaft aufgenommen. Und die Folge davon war, daß sie natürlich ganz ungeheuer bedeutende Einblicke gewann in dasjenige, was solche okkulten Brüderschaften wollen, eben solche - das sei hier gleich gesagt —, die keineswegs im Sinne haben, ohne Ansehen von irgendwelchen Differenzierungen in der Menschheit das gesamte Heil der Menschheit anzustreben, sondern die einseitige, gewissen Gruppen dienende Absichten haben. So zu wirken, wie diese Brüderschaften wirken wollten, das lag nicht in der Natur derBlavatsky.Und so kam es denn dazu, daß sie unter dem Einflusse dessen,was man nannte eine Attacke auf die Verfassung Nordamerikas, von jener Brüderschaft ausgeschlossen werden mußte.
Nun war sie ausgeschlossen. Sie war aber natürlich nicht eine Persönlichkeit, die nun alles resigniert hinnahm, sondern sie hat sehr scharf gedroht: sie werde der amerikanischen Brüderschaft schon zeigen, was es bedeute, nachdem sie so viel weiß, nun ausgeschlossen zu werden. In der Tat stand die amerikanische Brüderschaft jetzt unter dem Damoklesschwert. Hätte die Blavatsky der Welt mitgeteilt, was sie dadurch, daß sie dadrinnen gewesen war, wußte, so wäre das für jene amerikanische Brüderschaft das Todesurteil gewesen. Die Folge war nun, daß sich amerikanische und europäische Okkultisten verbanden, um die Blavatsky in denjenigen Zustand zu versetzen, welchen man die okkulte Gefangenschaft nennt. Es bedeutet dies, daß durch gewisse Machinationen eine Sphäre von Imaginationen in einer Seele hervorgerufen wird, wodurch eine Trübung desjenigen eintritt, was die Seele vorher gewußt hat, wodurch das gewissermaßen unwirksam wird. Es ist das eine Prozedur, welche von ehrlichen Okkultisten niemals und selbst von unehrlichen Okkultisten nur sehr selten angewendet wird, die aber dazumal angewendet worden ist, um jener okkulten Brüderschaft gewissermaßen das Leben, das heißt, die Wirksamkeit zu retten.
Jahrelang befand sich die Blavatsky in dieser okkulten Gefangenschaft, bis sich ihrer gewisse indische Okkultisten annahmen, welche ein Interesse hatten, gegen die amerikanische Brüderschaft zu wirken. Sie sehen, man hat es da immer mit einseitig wirkenden okkulten Strömungen zu tun. Und so kam denn die Blavatsky in dieses Ihnen ja wohlbekannte indische Fahrwasser. Die indischen Okkultisten hatten alles Interesse daran, gegen die amerikanische Brüderschaft vorzugehen. Nicht weil sie die im allgemeinen so ansehen, daß sie der Menschheit nicht im großen und ganzen dienen, sondern weil sie wiederum von ihrem einseitigen, man könnte sagen, indisch-patriotischen Gesichtspunkte aus gegen die amerikanische Brüderschaft wirken wollten. Aber durch allerlei Machinationen kam zwischen gewissen indischen und amerikanischen Okkultisten eine Art von Ausgleich zustande. Die amerikanischen versprachen den indischen, nicht hineinzureden in dasjenige, was sie mit der Blavatsky machten, und die indischen verpflichteten sich dazu, über dasjenige zu schweigen, was vorangegangen war.
Wenn man diese Dinge in Betracht zieht und dazufügt, worauf ich Sie ja auch schon hingewiesen habe, daß an die Stelle des alten Lehrers, Führers der Blavatsky, eine Maskenpersönlichkeit, ein Masken-Mahatma gesetzt worden war, der aber eigentlich in den Diensten einer europäischen Macht stand und die Aufgabe hatte, dasjenige, was durch die Blavatsky bewirkt werden konnte, im Dienste einer bestimmten europäischen Macht zu verwerten, so wird man sehen, wie verwickelt diese Dinge eigentlich sind. Um was es sich in Wahrheit handelt, wird man vielleicht einsehen können, wenn man sich frägt: Was wäre denn geschehen, wenn das eine oder das andere verwirklicht worden wäre?
Nun ist die Zeit zu kurz, um Ihnen alles heute schon zu erzählen, aber greifen wir zunächst einzelnes heraus. Wir können ja auf die Dinge demnächst wieder zurückkommen. — Nehmen wir einmal an, es wäre der Blavatsky gelungen, in der Pariser okkulten Loge aufgenommen zu werden, wie sie es angestrebt hat. Dann würde sie wohl nicht unter den Einfluß desjenigen gekommen sein, der dann in der Theosophical Society als ein Mahatma verehrt worden ist, der er aber nicht war, und es wäre dazu gekommen, der Pariser okkulten Loge das Lebenslicht auszublasen. Dann wäre vieles nicht geschehen, wohinter jetzt dieselbe Pariser okkulte Loge steht, beziehungsweise es wäre wahrscheinlich im Dienste einer andern Einseitigkeit geschehen. Es hätte dann manches einen andern Verlauf nehmen müssen, als es genommen hat. Denn es bestand schon die Absicht, die psychische Persönlichkeit der Blavatsky dazu zu verwenden, die Pariser Loge auszumerzen. Und wäre diese damals ausgemerzt worden, dann hätte hinter all diesen in der Geschichte mehr oder weniger als Marionettenfiguren lebenden Menschen nichts gestanden. Die Silvagni, Durante, Sergi, Cecconi, die ganze Verwandtschaft von Signor Lombroso und manche andern hätten keine okkulten Hintermänner gehabt. Und manche Türe, die wie eine Art von Schiebetüre wirkt, wäre geschlossen geblieben. — Sie werden verstehen, daß die Dinge etwas symbolisch gemeint sind: in gewissen Ländern haben Redaktionen - es ist bildlich gemeint! - eine anständige Türe und eine Schiebetüre; durch die anständige Türe kommt man in die Redaktion, durch die Schiebetüre in irgendeine okkulte Brüderschaft, die so wirkt, wie ich es in den letzten Tagen in verschiedener Weise angedeutet habe, als deren Resultat dann solche Dinge entstehen, wie wir sie ja auch verschiedentlich angedeutet haben. — Es handelte sich also darum, zunächst etwas aus der Welt zu schaffen, was wenigstens jene Richtung abgelenkt hätte, welche wir in der Gegenwart wirksam gesehen haben. Der Signor d’ Annunzio würde dann die Rede nicht gehalten haben, die wir angeführt haben.
Nun, vielleicht wäre aber eine andere gehalten worden, die nur die Dinge in eine andere Richtung geschoben hätte. — Aber Sie sehen, daß in dem Augenblicke, wo nicht mit völliger Beherrschung der Dinge, also irgendwie mit herabgedrängtem Bewußtsein Menschen geschoben werden, daß dann, wenn Okkultismus in Betracht kommt, dem es nicht um das allgemeine Heil der Menschheit und in unserer Zeit vor allen Dingen nicht um wirkliche Erkenntnis, sondern darum zu tun ist, gewisse Spezialziele zu erreichen, daß dann die Dinge unter Umständen schon ein schlimmes Aussehen bekommen können.
Also wie gesagt, man war in dieser Loge gescheit genug, vom Standpunkte dieser Loge aus nicht einzugehen auf die Sache. Später sind gewisse Dinge wiederum, ich möchte sagen, vertuscht, vernebelt worden dadurch, daß die Blavatsky durch ihre okkulte Gefangenschaft verhindert worden ist, die Impulse jener amerikanischen Loge in einer gewissen Färbung, wie sie es ja zweifellos auch wiederum getan haben würde, zu publizieren. Gedient wurde durch die Blavatsky, nachdem alle diese Vorgänge sich abgespielt hatten, eigentlich nur dem indischen Okkultismus. Und daß eine gewisse Summe von okkulten Erkenntnissen gerade einseitig indischer Färbung in die Welt gekommen ist, das hat schon für die neuere Zeit eine ganz bestimmte Bedeutung. Die ist ja in die Welt gekommen, die ist da. Aber mehr oder weniger unbewußt ist der Welt geblieben, was auf die angedeutete Art paralysiert worden ist.
Die mit solchen Dingen rechnen, machen stets große Zeiträume für sich geltend. Sie bereiten die Dinge vor, lassen sie sich entwickeln; denn es sind nicht einzelne Menschen, sondern Brüderschaften, in denen der Nachfolger dem Vorfahren die Dienste abnimmt, um dasjenige, was begonnen ist, in derselben Richtung fortzusetzen.
Sie sehen, daß bei den zwei Beispielen, die ich Ihnen von okkulten Logen sagte, viel darauf ankam, daß ihre eigentlichen Impulse nicht in die Öffentlichkeit kommen. Ich möchte nicht mißverstanden werden und habe deshalb ausdrücklich gesagt: Eine gewisse Ehrlichkeit lag‘ dem ersten Versuch, den ich Ihnen charakterisiert habe, zugrunde. Aber es ist außerordentlich schwierig für die Menschen, wirklich objektiv menschlich zu sein, weil in der neueren Zeit wenig Neigung vorhanden ist, objektiv menschlich zu sein. Es lassen sich die Leute leicht durch das Gruppenhafte verführen, nicht objektiv menschlich zu sein, sondern einseitig dieser oder jener Gruppe zu huldigen, sich als Mitglied dieser oder jener Gruppe zu fühlen. Aber das ist an sich etwas, was nicht mehr völlig stimmt zu dem Momente der Menschheitsentwickelung, an dem wir nun einmal angelangt sind. Der fordert, daß der Mensch, wenigstens bis zu einem gewissen Grade, sich als eine Individualität fühlt, sich wenigstens innerlich loslöst von dem Gruppenmäßigen und lernt, als Mensch der Menschheit anzugehören. Zeigt auch gerade unsere Gegenwart in so grotesker Weise, wie unmöglich das gewissen Menschen ist, so ist es dennoch eine Forderung unserer Zeit.
Nehmen Sie ein Beispiel, knüpfen Sie an dasjenige an, was ich vor einigen Tagen hier sagte: daß, wenn wir Völker überschauen, wir es mit Individualitäten zu tun haben, die man nicht vergleichen darf mit der Individualität eines Menschen, wie er hier auf dem physischen Plane lebt und seine Entwickelung durchmacht zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt. Man hat es bei Völkern mit andern Individualitäten zu tun. Das, was man Volksgeist, Volksseele nennen kann, ist, wie Sie aus alldem, was Sie in unserer anthroposophisch orientierten Geisteswissenschaft finden, ersehen können, etwas anderes, als was die Seele eines einzelnen Menschen ist. Und mit materialistischem Geist, wie es heute geschieht, von der Seele eines Volkes zu sprechen, indem man doch immer den Untergrund hat, daß man etwas Ähnliches meint wie die Seele eines Menschen, wenn man sich das natürlich auch nicht gesteht, das ist im Grunde genommen ein Unfug. So kann heute das Wort gehört werden «die französische Seele», man hat das in den letzten Jahren immer wieder und wieder gehört. Es ist ein Unsinn, ein ganz gewöhnlicher Unsinn, weil es nur ein Analogon ist, das man von der individuellen Menschenseele nimmt und auf die Volksseele überträgt. Man kann von der Volksseele nur sprechen, wenn man den ganzen Zusammenhang nimmt, der Ihnen in dem Vortragszyklus über die verschiedenen Volksgeister gegeben ist. Aber in einem andern Sinne, etwa in dem Sinne davon zu reden, wie eben viele heute es tun, selbst Journalisten — bei denen man nur sagen kann, es soll ihnen verziehen werden, denn sie wissen nicht, was sie reden -, in diesem Sinne von der Volksseele zu reden, ist eben ein völliger Unsinn. Es ist eine bloße Tirade, wenn zum Beispiel geredet wird von der «keltischen Seele und dem lateinischen Geist». Als Analogie mag so etwas angehen, aber eine Realität ist damit nicht ins Auge gefaßt.
Wir müssen uns darüber klar sein, was das Mysterium von Golgatha bedeutet. Wir haben es ja so oft ausgesprochen: Das Mysterium von Golgatha hat sich so vollzogen, daß dasjenige, was seit dem Mysterium von Golgatha mit der Erdenevolution verbunden ist, zwar für die Gesamtmenschheit da ist, wenn aber der einzelne von einem mystischen Christus in sich spricht, so ist das ein bloßes Geschwätz. Das Mysterium von Golgatha ist eine objektive Realität, wie Sie ja aus vielem wissen, was hier gesagt worden ist. Aber das, was für die ganze Menschheit ist, ist so gemeint, daß dabei der einzelne Mensch in Betracht kommt als Mensch. Der Christus ist gestorben für alle Menschen, aber als Mensch und für die Menschen, nicht für irgendwelche andere Wesensart. Man kann daher von einem Christen sprechen, von der christlichen Gesinnung des einzelnen Menschen, aber es ist ein völliger Unsinn, etwa von einem christlichen Volk zu sprechen. Das hat keine Realität. Christus ist nicht für die Völker gestorben, die Völker sind nicht die Individualitäten, die dabei in Betracht kommen. Christlich kann ein einzelner Mensch sein, der mit dem Wesen des Mysteriums von Golgatha verbunden ist; aber man kann nicht von einem christlichen Volke sprechen. Dasjenige, was den Völkern als wirkliche Seele zugrunde liegt, gehört Plänen an, auf denen sich das Mysterium von Golgatha nicht vollzogen hat. Was sich als Aktionen zwischen Völkern abspielt, kann niemals in einem christlichen Sinne gedeutet oder kommentiert werden.
Ich mache auf solche Dinge nur deshalb aufmerksam, weil es notwendig ist, daß gerade Sie einsehen, meine lieben Freunde, wie sehr man heute darauf halten muß, zu reinlichen Begriffen zu kommen. Man kann das nur, wenn man die Dinge geisteswissenschaftlich betrachtet, währenddem das Bestreben der Menschheit ist, mit möglichst unsinnigen Begriffen, mit unreinlichen Begriffen im trüben zu fischen. Es handelt sich also vor allen Dingen darum, zu reinlichen Begriffen zu kommen, die Dinge wirklich im Sinne von reinlichen Begriffen anzusehen und zu verstehen, daß in unserer Zeit, aber vorzugsweise durch Menschen, schon gewisse okkulte, gewisse geistige Impulse wirkten. Das entspricht dem fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum.
Nun handelt es sich darum, daß vor allen Dingen, wenn Blavatsky damals hätte sprechen können, gewisse Geheimnisse herausgekommen wären, auf die ich schon hingedeutet habe, Geheimnisse gewisser okkulter Brüderschaften, die zusammenhängen mit dem ganzen Wollen weitausgedehnter Gruppen. Ich habe Ihnen gesagt: Gesetze liegen dem Entstehen und der Entwickelung dessen zugrunde, was man ein Volkstum nennen kann. Diese Gesetze kennt man in der äußeren physischen Welt gewöhnlich nicht. Und das ist zunächst gut, denn sie sollen nur erkannt werden von dem, der sie mit reinlichen Händen empfangen will. Das Eingreifen in dasjenige, was pulst als geistige Kräfte in der Menschheitsentwickelung auf dem Boden, auf dem sich zum Beispiel Volkstümer entwickeln, das Eingreifen in einseitiger Weise, wie es gewisse Brüderschaften der Neuzeit tun, das ist es eben, was mit den schwersten Prüfungen der ganzen Menschheit in der Gegenwart und in der Zukunft zusammenhängt. Alles, was in der Evolution geschieht, geschieht ja gesetzmäßig, geschieht regelmäßig, geschieht nach gewissen Kräften. Die Menschen greifen ein, zum Teil unbewußt, und wenn sie Mitglieder von okkulten Brüderschaften sind, bewußt.
Zur Beurteilung dieser Dinge gehört eben, was ich gestern einen weiteren Horizont genannt habe, die Gewinnung eines weiteren Horizontes. Ich habe Ihnen noch einmal dasjenige vor Augen geführt, wovon die Blavatsky gewissermaßen der Spielball war, um Sie darauf aufmerksam zu machen, wie solch ein Spielball von Westen nach Osten geworfen wird, von Amerika nach Indien, weil schon Kräfte durch menschliche Handhabung im Spiele sind, um das oder jenes dadurch zu bewirken, daß man sich der, ich möchte sagen, volkstummäßig verankerten Leidenschaften und Gefühle der Menschen, die man aber auch zuerst zubereitet, bedient. Das ist also sehr wichtig. Es kommt dabei darauf an, den Blick für die Dinge zu haben, den Blick, zu sehen, wie ein Mensch durch die Art von Leidenschaften, die in ihm sind, die in seinem Blute sind, an eine bestimmte Stelle gestellt, in diesem oder jenem Sinne gewissen Einflüssen ausgesetzt werden kann. Dazu muß man natürlich wissen, daß von der Stelle aus, an die man ihn dann stellt, gewisse Dinge erreicht werden können. Vieles mißlingt; aber man rechnet eben mit großen Zeiträumen, und man rechnet da, wo solche Dinge in Betracht kommen, mit vielen Möglichkeiten. Vor allen Dingen rechnet man damit, wie wenig die Menschen geneigt sind, ein wenig den Sinn zu richten auf die großen Zusammenhänge.
Nun unterbrechen wir uns hier und sehen wir uns unsere gestrige Geschichte ein bißchen an. Da wird uns erzählt aus der Zeit etwa des 10. Jahrhunderts, wo also noch die Seelenverfassung des vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraumes herrschend war. Wir haben gesehen, wie bei dem Kaiser Otto mit dem roten Barte die geistige Welt hereinwirkt. Sein ganzes Leben wird umgewandelt dadurch, daß er von der geistigen Welt aus aufmerksam gemacht wird auf den Guten Gerhard. Von diesem Guten Gerhard soli er lernen Gottesfurcht, wahre Frömmigkeit, und daß man nicht erwarten soll, für dasjenige, was man auf der Erde hier getan hat, einen recht egoistischen Segen vom Himmel zu erhalten. Aber er wird von der geistigen Welt aus hingewiesen darauf, diesen Guten Gerhard aufzusuchen. Das ist das eine: das Hereinspielen der geistigen Welt.
Wer die Zeit wirklich kennt, nicht nur aus der äußeren Geschichte, wie man sie heute darstellt, sondern so, wie sie war, der weiß, daß solches Hereinspielen der geistigen Welt in realen Visionen, wie das erzählt wird von diesem Kaiser Otto dem Roten, in der damaligen Zeit gang und gäbe war, und daß die geistigen Impulse durchaus ihre bedeutungsvolle Rolle gespielt haben. Derjenige, der diese Geschichte aufgeschrieben hat, sagt nun ausdrücklich folgendes: Er habe in seiner Jugend noch viele andere Geschichten geschrieben, wie es auch andere seiner Zeitgenossen getan haben. Der Mann, der die Geschichte vom Guten Gerhard niedergeschrieben hat, ist ungefähr ein Zeitgenosse des Wolfram von Eschenbach: Rudolf von Hohenems. Er sagt, daß er noch anderes geschrieben hat, aber das habe er alles vernichtet, und zwar aus dem Grunde, weil das Märchengeschichten gewesen wären. Diese Geschichte aber, die ja im äußeren Sinne auch nicht historisch ist, das heißt, nicht in unseren heutigen, nur die physische Maja in Betracht ziehenden Geschichtsbüchern stehen könnte, die betrachtet er als streng historisch, als kein Märchen. Er erzählt sie zwar so, daß man sie nicht vergleichen kann mit der äußeren, rein physischen Geschichte; aber er erzählt wahrer als die äußere, rein physische Geschichte sein kann, die ja im Grunde genommen Maja ist. Er erzählt eben für den vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum.
Sie wissen, denn ich habe es gerade bei diesen Auseinandersetzungen immer wiederholt, es handelt sich da nicht um Parteinahme für das oder jenes, sondern um die Darstellung von Tatsachen, die die Unterlagen bilden sollen, um die Dinge beurteilen zu können. Nur derjenige, der nicht objektiv sein will, wird der Darstellung, die ich versuchen werde, Nichtobjektivität vorwerfen. Von jemandem, der nicht objektiv sein will, ist natürlich nicht zu verlangen, daß er dasjenige, was objektiv ist, als objektiv ansieht. Nicht nur darauf kommt es an bei dieser Erzählung von dem Guten Gerhard, daß die geistige Welt hereinspielt, sondern darauf, daß aus der geistigen Welt einer leitenden, führenden Persönlichkeit der Impuls gegeben wird, sich an ein Mitglied der kommerziellen Welt, der Kaufmannswelt zu wenden. Und in der Tat, das Historische an der Sache ist, daß in Mitteleuropa in jener Zeit bei den Mitgliedern jenes Hauses, aus dem der Rote Otto war, gerade das Kaufmännische der Städte protegiert worden ist. Es war für Europa die Zeit des Heranwachsens des kaufmännischen Wesens.
Nun müßten wir in Betracht ziehen, daß wir in eine Zeit versetzt werden, in welcher von einer Seeverbindung zwischen dem Orient und dem Okzident nicht gesprochen werden konnte; die Handelswege waren durchaus Landwege. Solche kommerziellen Leute wie der Gute Gerhard, der, wie Sie wissen, in Köln wohnte, vermittelten auf Landwegen die Handelsverbindungen von Köln bis hinüber in den Orient und wieder zurück. Wenn sie Schiffe benützten, so war dies im Grunde genommen von untergeordneter Bedeutung; das Wesentliche waren die Landwege. Daher waren auch die Schiffsverbindungen im Grunde genommen nichts anderes als, ich möchte sagen, Versuche, mit den Mitteln der primitiven Schiffahrt das zu erreichen, was in viel umfänglicherer Art damals auf Landwegen vonstatten ging. Wir haben es also hauptsächlich mit den Landwegen zu tun, und erst mit den allerersten Anfängen der Schiffahrt. Das ist eben das Charakteristische, daß wir auf diesen Zeitpunkt gewiesen werden. Die umfängliche Schiffahrt kam erst viel später.
Und nun sehen Sie, wie da ein ganz aus der Natur der Dinge herauskommender Gegensatz geschaffen wird. Es ist ganz natürlich, daß, solange die Landwege die Vermittlung bildeten zwischen dem Orient und dem Okzident, die mitteleuropäischen Länder tonangebend waren; das ist ganz selbstverständlich. Das Leben in diesen mitteleuropäischen Ländern richtete sich auch nach diesen Dingen ein. Es war ganz anders als später. Und vieles ist auf diesem Wege auch mit Bezug auf die geistige Kultur vermittelt worden. In den folgenden Jahrhunderten wurden die Landwege durch die Seeverbindung abgelöst. Die weitere Entwickelung war nun, wie Sie wissen, so, daß England allmählich diese Seeverbindungen aus verschiedenen Händen in einer Hand zusammengefaßt hat. - Die Spanier, die Holländer, die Franzosen sind als seefahrende Völker überwunden worden, und alles ist zusammengefaßt worden unter der immensen Herrschaft, die ein Viertel der gesamten trokkenen, das heißt, nicht vom Meere bedeckten Erdoberfläche umfaßt, und allmählich dazu auch die Herrschaft über das Meer.
Wenn Sie dazu annehmen, daß richtig ist, was ich Ihnen vor einiger Zeit gesagt habe, daß in den heranwachsenden und namentlich seit Jakob I. besonders groß werdenden okkulten Brüderschaften seit Jahrhunderten wie eine selbstverständliche Wahrheit gelehrt worden ist, daß an die angelsächsische Rasse — so sagt man eben in diesem Zusammenhange, das habe ich schon auseinandergesetzt — alle Weltherrschaft der fünften nachatlantischen Zeit übergehen müsse, so werden Sie System finden in diesem Überwinden und gewissermaßen Ausrotten der Seeherrschaft der andern. Und wenn man dazunimmt, was ich auch schon angedeutet habe, daß gelehrt wurde und wird: Diese fünfte nachatlantische Rasse der englisch sprechenden Völker, wie man sagt, muß überwinden die Völker der lateinischen Rasse, — so werden Sie das Systematische in den geschichtlichen Vorgängen schon sehen.
Die Hauptsache, auf die es ankommt, ist zunächst das Wechselspiel zwischen den englisch sprechenden Völkern und den irgendwie lateinisch sprechenden Völkern. Man versteht die neuere Geschichte nicht, wenn man nicht weiß, daß es vor allen Dingen darauf ankommt - und daß die Dinge so dirigiert werden —, zugunsten der englisch sprechenden Bevölkerung die Weltenerscheinungen so einzurichten, daß der Einfluß der in irgendeiner Weise lateinisch sprechenden Bevölkerung aufhört. Unter gewissen Umständen kann man solch ein Aufhören am besten dadurch bewirken, daß man eine Zeitlang den andern fördert und ihn dadurch in seine Gewalt bekommt. Dadurch kann man vielleicht am besten dazu beitragen, daß man ihn aufsaugrt.
In jenen okkulten Brüderschaften, auf die ich in verschiedener Weise gedeutet habe, wird Mitteleuropa keine besondere Bedeutung beigemessen; denn so gescheit ist man auch, um zu wissen, daß zum Beispiel Deutschland nur ein Dreiunddreißigstel der gesamten trockenen, das heißt, vom Lande bedeckten Erde besitzt. Das ist wirklich recht wenig im Vergleich zu einem Viertel der gesamten, vom Lande bedeckten Erde, wobei noch die Herrschaft über das Meer dazukommt. Mitteleuropa ist also nicht die Gegend, auf die man einen besonderen Wert legt. Einen besonderen Wert legte man jedoch, insbesondere in den Zeiten, in denen sich vorbereitete, was in der Gegenwart geschieht, auf die Überwindung aller derjenigen Impulse, die sich im Lateinertum zur Ausbildung bringen.
Es ist ganz merkwürdig, wie kurzsichtig die historische Betrachtung der heutigen Zeit ist, wie wenig man geneigt ist, auf die charakteristischen Dinge einzugehen. Ich habe schon darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß es auf dasjenige, was die Geschichtsbetrachtung, die man so lange eine pragmatische hat sein lassen, berichtet, das heißt: jetzt geschieht das, dann das, dann das und dann das, und so folgen die Dinge aufeinander -, daß es darauf nicht ankommt; sondern es handelt sich darum, die in den verschiedenen Beziehungen charakteristischen Tatsachen innerhalb der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse zu erkennen. Auf die charakteristischen Tatsachen hinzuweisen, auf dasjenige, was, ich möchte sagen, in der Maja verrät die dahinterliegenden Kräfte, darauf kommt es an. Die pragmatische Geschichtsbetrachtung von heute muß abgelöst werden von einer symptomatischen Geschichtsbetrachtung.
Wer die Dinge durchschaut, wird gewisse Erscheinungen ganz anders beurteilen können als derjenige, der die Geschichten, die man Weltgeschichte nennt, diese Fable convenue, nur so hintereinander liest, wie sie eben in der heutigen Geschichtswissenschaft erzählt werden. Nehmen Sie gewisse Dinge, die Sie gut kennen, mit andern zusammen, auf die ich Sie aufmerksam machen will. Zunächst eine einfache Tatsache: Im Jahre 1618 hat, wie bekannt, der Dreißigjährige Krieg damit begonnen, daß aus dem tschechischen Slawentum heraus sich eine gewisse Art von reformatorischen Ideen bildeten. Dann haben sich diesen Slawenkreisen angehörige Adlige der Bewegung angenommen und sich aufgebäumt gegen dasjenige, was man die Gegenreformation nennen kann: gegen den vom Hause Habsburg, das ja aus Spanien stammte, begünstigten Katholizismus. Was gewöhnlich als erstes erzählt wird von dem Dreißigjährigen Kriege: daß die Aufständischen sich zum Prager Rathaus begaben und die Ratsherren Martinitz und Slawata und den Geheimschreiber Fabrizius hinterher zum Fenster hinauswarfen — das ist von keiner großen Bedeutung. Diese Sache ist höchstens dadurch interessant, daß sich alle drei Herren nichts Besonderes getan haben, weil sie gerade auf einen Misthaufen gefallen sind. Das sind aber nicht die Dinge, die den Dreißigjährigen Krieg wirklich anschaulich machen können, die ihn in seinen Untergründen erkennen lassen.
Die reformatorisch gesinnten Leute wählten sich einen Gegenkönig, den Kurfürsten Friedrich von der Pfalz, der 1619 zum König von Böhmen gewählt wurde. Dem folgte, wie Sie wissen, die Schlacht auf dem Weißen Berge. Bis zur Wahl des Kurfürsten ging alles aus gewissen Leidenschaften der Menschen nach einer reformatorischen Bewegung hervor, aus einem Sich-Aufbäumen gegen Gewaltmaßregeln, die man gegen diese Reformatoren durch die Schließung beziehungsweise Zerstörung von protestantischen Kirchen in Braunau und Kloster Grab ergriffen hatte. Ich kann natürlich nicht die ganze Geschichte erzählen, dazu reicht unsere Zeit nicht aus. Aber nun bedenken Sie: Der Kurfürst Friedrich von der Pfalz wird gewählt. Bis dahin, daß sich die einen eigenen König wählen, sind es menschliche Leidenschaften, menschliche Enthusiasmen, meinetwillen, ich will es Ihnen konzedieren, auch menschliche Idealismen gewesen — mit vollem Recht kann das gesagt werden -, welche den Ereignissen zugrunde lagen.
Aber warum wurde nun gerade der Kurfürst von der Pfalz zum König von Böhmen gewählt? Das erklärt sich Ihnen, wenn Sie wissen, daß er der Schwiegersohn Jakobs 1. ist, Jakobs I., der am Ausgangspunkt der Erneuerung der Brüderschaften steht! Sie sehen: Hier kommt eine Hand ins Spiel, die man wohl berücksichtigen muß, wenn man die symptomatische Geschichte ins Auge faßt; hier kommt ins Spiel, daß von einer gewissen Seite her die Dinge nach einer ganz gewissen Richtung gelenkt werden sollten. Nun, damals ist es ja mißlungen. Aber man sieht, wie der Finger im Spiel ist. Wichtiger als alle andern Zusammenhänge ist für dasjenige, was an Impulsen hier hat hineingeworfen werden sollen, daß der Schwiegersohn eines der bedeutendsten okkultistischen Menschen, Jakobs I., just an diesen Platz geworfen wurde.
Es handelt sich eben darum, daß wir es in der ganzen neueren Geschichte zu tun haben mit einem Gegensatz zwischen dem alten romanisch-lateinischen Wesen und demjenigen Wesen — ich sage nicht des englischen Volkes, dieses würde mit der Welt sehr gut auskommen -, aber demjenigen, das von der Seite, die ich ja genugsam charakterisiert habe, aus diesem englischen Volke gemacht wird oder gemacht werden soll, wenn es sich nicht dagegen wehrt. Um den Gegensatz dieser zwei Elemente handelt es sich.
Und das andere wird geschoben. Denn man kann an dem einen Punkt der Erde viel erreichen, wenn man an einem andern Orte manche Ereignisse hervorruft.
Nehmen wir einen späteren Zeitpunkt. Sie können heute ein Geschichtsbuch in die Hand nehmen und die Geschichte des Siebenjährigen Krieges lesen. Nun, diese Geschichte des Siebenjährigen Krieges wird selbstverständlich auch gedankenlos gelesen. Denn will man erkennen, um was es sich handelt, will man die historischen Mächte erforschen, die da im Spiele sind, dann muß man die verschiedenen Verkettungen der Umstände eben richtig ins Auge fassen. Man muß ins Auge fassen, wie damals der südliche Teil von Mitteleuropa, Osterreich, ganz in Verbindung war mit allem Lateinischen, sogar ein richtiges Bündnis mit Frankreich hatte, wie dagegen der nördliche Teil von Mitteleuropa — zunächst allerdings nicht, aber später — herangezogen worden ist von dem, das von einer gewissen Seite her eben zu der englisch sprechenden fünften nachatlantischen Rasse gemacht werden sollte.
Betrachten Sie die Bündnisse und alles dasjenige, was, von der Maja abgesehen, dazumal geschehen ist, so haben Sie den Krieg, der in Wirklichkeit geführt wurde zwischen England und Frankreich um Nordamerika und Indien. Und was in Europa geschah, ist eigentlich nur ein schwaches Spiegelbild davon. Denn vergleichen Sie alles dasjenige, was sich abgespielt hat im Großen - erweitern Sie Ihren Horizont! —, dann werden Sie sehen, daß dazumal der Kampf wütete zwischen England und Frankreich, und Nordamerika und Indien spielten eben schon hinein. Es handelte sich darum, wer von diesen beiden Mächten der Gescheitere ist, die Verhältnisse so zu dirigieren, daß er dem andern die Herrschaft über Nordamerika beziehungsweise Indien abspenstig macht. Darinnen spielen große Voraussichten, darinnen spielt die Beherrschung bedeutsamer Impulse. Und wahr ist es: Der Einfluß, der von England aus in Nordamerika erzielt worden ist, der Frankreich abgewonnen worden ist, der ist auf den schlesischen Schlachtfeldern im Siebenjährigen Kriege erfochten worden!
Betrachten Sie, wie sich die Bündnisse ändern, wenn die Dinge etwas penibel werden, und verfolgen Sie von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus die Bündnisse!
Ich will Ihnen eine andere Geschichte erzählen. Es ist notwendig, solche Dinge ins Auge zu fassen, denn sobald man nicht mißverstanden wird, sondern sobald vorausgesetzt wird, daß es sich darum handelt, sich wirklich über die Dinge der Welt aufzuklären, sobald man sich nur selber bestrebt, ein bißchen objektiv zu sein, wird man nicht übelnehmen, wenn solche Dinge erzählt werden, sondern man wird verstehen, daß es sich um Verständnis handelt, und durchaus nicht um eine Parteinahme. Im Grunde genommen müßte oft gerade derjenige, der glaubt, von einer solchen Sache betroffen zu sein, am allerfrohesten sein, diese Sache kennenzulernen. Denn er wird dadurch über die Blindheit hinweggehoben und sehend gemacht, und nichts ist für den Menschen wohltätiger, als wirklich die Zusammenhänge der Welt sehend zu durchschauen. Nehmen wir noch ein Beispiel, das Ihnen von einer andern Seite her zeigen kann, wie die Dinge wirken.
Durch Verhältnisse, die Sie in der Geschichte nachlesen können, waren früher die Königreiche Hannover und England miteinander verbunden. Aber da waren verschiedene Thronfolgegesetze und so weiter — auf solche Dinge brauchen wir uns nicht einzulassen —, es genügt zu wissen, daß, als die Königin Viktoria auf den englischen Thron kam, Hannover abgetrennt werden mußte. Ein anderes Mitglied des englischen Königshauses mußte auf den Thron von Hannover kommen. Man wählte, oder man dirigierte die Sache so, daß Ernst August, Herzog von Cumberland, auf diesen Thron von Hannover, der vorher mit dem Thron von England verbunden war, bugsiert wurde. Dieser Ernst August kam also auf den Thron von Hannover, sechsundsechzig Jahre war er alt. Sein Charakter war so, daß die englischen Zeitungen, nachdem er England verlassen hatte, um als Majestät von Hannover sein Amt anzutreten, geschrieben haben: Es ist gut, daß er fort ist, hoffentlich kommt er nicht wieder! — Er galt eben durch seine ganze Art, durch die Art seines Auftretens, als eine geradezu fürchterliche Persönlichkeit. Und wenn man sich ansieht, wie er wirkte, welchen Eindruck er namentlich auf seine Zeitgenossen machte, auf diejenigen, die mit ihm zu tun hatten, so kommt ein gewisses Charakterbild heraus, das demjenigen auffällt, welcher einen Sinn hat für solche Charaktere. Die Hannoveraner konnten ihn eigentlich nicht verstehen; die fanden ihn grob. Nun, grob war er auch, so grob, daß Thomas Moore, der Dichter, sagt: Er gehörte ganz sicher zu der Dynastie der Beelzebuben. — Aber Sie wissen, man sagt: Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist. — Man hat zuweilen Verständnis für Grobheiten, aber man setzt voraus, daß, wenn einer schon grob wird, er dann wenigstens wahr ist. Aber Ernst August war immer verlogen, wenn er grob war, und das konnte man in Hannover nun ganz und gar nicht verstehen. Solche Züge finden sich bei ihm noch mehr.
Zunächst hat Ernst August in Hannover das Staatsgrundgesetz aufgehoben. Er brachte es auch dazu, daß die berühmten «Göttinger Sieben» die Universität Göttingen verlassen mußten. Er hat sie gleich über die Grenze schaffen lassen und erst in Witzenhausen, also jenseits der Hannoveraner Grenze seiner Majestät Ernst Augusts, durften die Studenten von ihnen Abschied nehmen. Diese ganze Geschichte brauche ich Ihnen nicht zu erzählen; aber wo liegt die Erklärung? Wer nach keiner weiteren Erklärung für diese sonderbare Maske sucht, findet Ernst August grob und unwahr. Er hat ja sogar den Metternich übers Ohr gehauen, und das will viel sagen, und so weiter. Aber in alledem ist doch ein merkwürdiges System. Und dieses System änderte sich nicht, trotzdem er sein Leben bis zum sechsundsechzigsten Jahre zum großen Teil in Deutschland verbracht hat —- er war Dragoneroffizier.
Wer eine Erklärung dafür sucht, der findet sie darinnen, daß er in seiner Art jene Impulse anwendete, die man hat, wenn man Mitglied der sogenannten «Orangeloge» ist; denn sein ganzes Gebaren war eine Umsetzung der Impulse der Orangeloge, deren Mitglied er war.
Symptomatisch die Geschichte kennenzulernen, den Horizont zu erweitern, darauf kommt es an. Einen Sinn dafür entwickeln, was wichtig ist, was wirklich aufklärt, darauf kommt es an. Und so werden Sie begreifen, daß ich die Geschichte vom «Guten Gerhard» erzählt habe aus dem Grunde, um Ihnen zu zeigen, wie durch solche Dinge wie Orangelogen und so weiter dasjenige, was Mitteleuropa war, ganz systematisch hinübergezogen wurde. Das tadele ich nicht; es war eine historische Notwendigkeit. Aber einsehen soll man es, und soll nicht mit moralischen Urteilen in diesen Dingen kommen. Sehen soll man die Dinge, wie sie in Wirklichkeit sind! Alles kommt darauf an, daß man sich den Willen aneignet, die Dinge zu sehen, zu sehen, wie Menschen geschoben werden, zu sehen, wo Impulse liegen können, durch welche Menschen geschoben werden. Das ist aber eigentlich identisch mit dem Sich-Aneignen des Sinnes für Wahrheit; denn ich habe es oftmals betont, nicht darauf kommt es an, daß man sagt: Ja, ich habe das geglaubt, das war meine ehrliche, aufrichtige Meinung! — Nein, Wahrheitssinn hat derjenige, der unablässig danach strebt, die Wahrheit zu erforschen in einer Sache, der nicht nachläßt, die Wahrheit zu erforschen, und der sich verantwortlich erklärt für sich selber auch dann, wenn er irgend etwas aus Unwissenheit falsch sagt. Denn für das Objektive ist das ebenso gleichgültig, ob man etwas aus Wissenheit oder aus Unwissenheit falsch sagt, wie es gleichgültig ist, ob man aus Unverstand oder aus irgendeinem Mutwillen den Finger in die Flamme steckt; man verbrennt sich in beiden Fällen.
Es handelt sich also darum, daß man begreift, wie mit dem Übergange aus dem vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum, wo das Kommerzielle gerade noch unter den Impulsen aus der geistigen Welt stand, so wie es in dem «Guten Gerhard» angedeutet ist, wie man mit diesem Übergange das Kommerzielle in ein anderes Okkultes hinübergezogen hat, in dasjenige Okkulte, das geleitet wird von den sogenannten «Brüdern des Schattens». Diese hüten gewisse Grundsätze. Es wäre aber vom Standpunkt dieser Leute aus sehr gefährlich, wenn diese Grundsätze verraten würden. Daher dazumal die Sorgfalt, mit der man vermieden hat, daß Blavatsky die Dinge verraten konnte, oder daß diese durch sie in andere Hände gespielt werden konnten. Wohl sollten sie vom Westen nach dem Fernen Osten gespielt werden, aber zunächst nicht nach Indien, sondern nach einem andern, nämlich dem russischen Osten.
Wenn man einen Sinn hat für das, was hinter der Maja liegt, so kann man begreifen, daß äußere Einrichtungen, äußere Maßnahmen gewissermaßen verschiedene Wertigkeit, verschiedenes Gewicht haben im ganzen Zusammenhang. Nehmen wir einen Fall aus der neueren Geschichte. Ich habe Ihnen ja so viel Okkultes erzählt, daß ich gewissermaßen meine Zeit abgesessen habe und ich Ihnen jetzt auch aus der neueren Geschichte noch einige Notizen geben kann. Das ist über die Zeit hinaus. Es soll niemand sagen können, ich nähme etwas von der Zeit, die dem Okkultismus gewidmet ist; aber auch diese Dinge sind wichtig.
Nehmen wir also ein Beispiel aus der neueren Geschichte. 1909 wurde die Zusammenkunft des italienischen Königs mit dem russischen Zaren arrangiert. Bis dahin war nicht viel von Freundschaft zu spüren zwischen diesen beiden Repräsentanten, aber von da ab fand man es gut, die beiden zusammenzuschieben. Die Zusammenkunft von Racconigi fand statt. Es war nicht leicht, und wenn Sie nachlesen, was der Giolitti, der damalige Ministerpräsident, alles hat anstellen müssen, um «attentatliche Unzukömmlichkeiten» zu vermeiden, dann werden Sie sehen, daß es dem armen Giolitti dazumal nicht gerade leicht geworden ist.
Nun aber handelte es sich darum, die geeignete Persönlichkeit zu finden, welche dem Zaren die Huldigung von Rom überbrachte. Das mußte eine besonders geartete Persönlichkeit sein. Solche Dinge sind von langer Hand vorbereitet, damit sie im rechten Momente, ich möchte sagen aus nächster Nähe, nur herandirigiert zu werden brauchen. Jeden Beliebigen konnte man ja, wenn eine «saftige» Wirkung erzielt werden sollte, nicht nehmen zur Huldigung von Rom an den Zaren, des lateinischen Westens an den soi-disant slawischen Osten. Das mußte schon eine besondere Persönlichkeit sein; es mußte sogar eine Persönlichkeit sein, die nicht leicht dazu zu bringen war. Nun, es war dazumal «zufällig» muß man selbstverständlich sagen, wenn man Materialist ist, aber «nicht zufällig» wird man sagen, wenn man eben nicht Materialist ist —, es war Signor Nathan - ein italienischer Name! — dazumal auf dem Bürgermeisterposten von Rom. Er hatte allen Grund, recht demokratisch gesinnt zu sein, möglichst wenig so gesinnt zu sein, um just dem Zaren Reverenz zu erweisen. Er war, kurz bevor er Bürgermeister von Rom geworden war, überhaupt erst italienischer Bürger geworden, denn bis dahin war er englischer Staatsbürger gewesen. Die Blutsmischung mußte berücksichtigt werden: Er war der Sohn einer deutschen Mutter und hat den Namen Nathan angenommen, weil der Vater Mazzini war, der berühmte italienische Revolutionär. Ja, es ist schon so.
Nun konnte man, wenn man den zur Reverenz an den Zaren brachte, sagen: Die Demokratie habe sich gründlich bekehrt. Es hat es nicht ein gewöhnlicher Mensch getan, sondern jemand, der mit allen Salben der Demokratie geschmiert war, aber — der auch gut präpariert war. Und gewisse Dinge beginnen von jener Zeit an penibel zu werden. So zum Beispiel weiß man heute, daß von jener Zeit ab die Korrespondenz, die innerhalb des Dreibunds geführt wurde, immer pünktlich nach Petersburg übermittelt worden ist! — Nicht ganz unbeteiligt sind auch wiederum menschliche Leidenschaften, indem bei dieser Übermittlung eine Dame eine ganz besondere Rolle spielt, die sich einen «geschwisterlichen» Weg geschaffen hatte zwischen Rom und Petersburg. Solche Dinge kann man, wenn man will, selbstverständlich dem Zufall zuschreiben; aber derjenige, der die Maja durchschauen will, wird sie nicht dem Zufall zuschreiben, sondern wird tiefere Zusammenhänge unter ihnen suchen. Und dann, wenn man solche tieferen Zusammenhänge sucht, wird man nicht mehr so viel lügen können, wie man lügt, wird nicht mehr so viel die Menschen betäuben können, damit sie abgelenkt werden von der Wahrheit, von demjenigen, worauf es ankommt.
Denn es wäre selbstverständlich - und ich sage das nur, um die Wahrheit zu charakterisieren — weitesten Kreisen unangenehm gewesen, die Menschen darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daß die ganze belgische Invasion nicht stattgefunden hätte, wenn jener Satz, von dem ich schon gesprochen habe, von Lord Grey - jetzt ist er eben auch Lord -, von Sir Edward Grey ausgesprochen worden wäre. Da wäre die ganze Geschichte in Belgien nicht passiert, damit wäre sie aus der Welt geschafft gewesen, sie wäre nicht geschehen. Statt aber diesen wirklichen Ursprung der Sache, der insofern der Ursprung ist, als er die Sache hätte verhindern können, ins Auge zu fassen, war es selbstverständlich bequemer, den Leuten die Zeit damit zu vertreiben, daß man über die «belgischen Greuel» sprach. Die wären aber auch nicht passiert, wenn dazumal die einzige kurze Maßnahme von Sir Edward Grey geschehen wäre, Aber um über die einfache Wahrheit Nebel zu verbreiten, braucht man natürlich etwas anderes, was zu den menschlichen Leidenschaften, zu berechtigten Leidenschaften, zum Moralischen spricht. Gewiß, es soll gar nichts dagegen eingewendet werden. Man braucht etwasanderes. Und das Charakteristische unserer gegenwärtigen Zeit ist gerade, daß bis zum heutigen Tag — und jetzt ist es besonders schmerzlich — alle Anstrengungen gemacht werden, um die Wahrheit zu verhüllen, um die Menschen über die Wahrheit hinwegzubetäuben.
Auch das mußte sorgsam vorbereitet werden. Denn gäbe es irgendwo ein Loch in der Rechnung, dann wäre das ja nicht möglich geworden. Man mußte eben die ganze Peripherie haben, die man sich deshalb wohlweislich auch geschaffen hat.
Aber die Dinge wurden alle sehr sorgfältig vorbereitet, sowohl politisch wie kulturell. Und gerechnet wurde mit Mannigfaltigem. Und man konnte auch mit Mannigfaltigem rechnen, denn es herrscht zuweilen die unglaublichste Sorglosigkeit in diesen Dingen, sogar an Stellen, wo man sie eigentlich gar nicht vermuten würde. Nehmen Sie nur einen solchen Fall, wo man wirklich die Sorglosigkeit studieren kann, eine objektive Tatsache.
Bismarck unterhielt zu einer bestimmten Zeit mit einem gewissen Usedom in Florenz und in Turin eine Verbindung. Ich habe ja auseinandergesetzt: Das moderne Italien ist eigentlich auf einem Umweg entstanden und verdankt seine Existenz in Wirklichkeit Deutschland; aber das hängt mit vielen Dingen zusammen. Die Dinge, die ich sage, haben ihre tiefen Untergründe, und in der Politik spielen mannigfaltige Fäden. So spielten auch einmal Fäden, durch die gerade die italienischen Republikaner gewonnen werden sollten, kurz, es gab zu einer gewissen Zeit eine solche Verbindung zwischen Bismarck und Usedom in Florenz und Turin. Jener Usedom war ein Freund von Mazzini, ein Freund von andern Leuten, welche namentlich in Volkskreisen eine gewisse Bedeutung hatten. Ein Mann war dieser Usedom, der eigentlich recht sehr den weisen Menschen posierte, und der sich einen angeblichen Mazzinisten als Privatsekretär anstellte. Nun kam aber später heraus, daß dieser Privatsekretär, von dem es hieß, daß er ein in dieGeheimnisse der Mazzini-Geheimbünde Eingeweihter sei, ein ganz gewöhnlicher Spion war. Bismarck erzählt diese Geschichte ganz naiv und fügt zu seiner Entschuldigung, daß er so hereingefallen ist, dazu: Aber Usedom war ein hoher Freimaurer. — Und so könnte man sehr vieles erzählen, wobei sich oftmals herausstellen würde, daß die Menschen, die daran beteiligt sind, höchst unschuldig sind, weil die eigentlichen — gestatten Sie den trivialen Ausdruck — Drahtzieher im Hintergrunde stehen.
Man kann nicht fragen: Wie kommt es, daß solche Dinge von der weisen Weltenlenkung zugelassen werden, daß die Menschheit gewissermaßen übergeben ist solchen Machinationen, da man doch hinter die Dinge nicht kommen kann? Es gibt eben so viele Gelegenheiten, wenn man sie nur ehrlich aufsucht, um dahinterzukommen. Aber wir sehen es ja an unserer eigenen Gesellschaft, wieviel Widerstand von den einzelnen geleistet wird, wenn es sich darum handelt, den einfachen Gang der Wahrheit zu gehen. Wir sehen, wie viele Dinge, die objektiv im Erkenntnissinne genommen werden sollten und dann gerade am besten zum Heile der Menschheit dienen würden, in subjektiv-persönlichem Sinne aufgefaßt werden. Und immerhin bestehen halt doch innerhalb unserer Gesellschaft, ich möchte sagen Kollegien, welche mit großer Aufmerksamkeit ein gewisses, ich glaube zweihundertsiebenundachtzig Seiten umfassendes Schriftstück zusammen gelesen und es völlig ernst genommen haben, die noch immer daran kauen, um dahinterzukommen, inwieweit eigentlich jener Mann, der ja hier genügend bekannt ist, im Rechte sei. Kurz, wir können innerhalb unserer eigenen Reihen manchmal schon Entdeckungen machen, die ein Licht darauf werfen, warum es manchen so schwer ist, die Dinge zu durchschauen; während es gar nicht schwierig ist, die Dinge zu durchschauen, wenn man wirklich ehrliches Wahrheitsstreben hat. Denn schon die ganzen Jahre hindurch wurde in unseren Kreisen vieles gesagt. Wenn man dasjenige zusammenhält, was seit dem Jahre 1902 vorgebracht worden ist, dann wird man schon sehen, daß man darinnen etwas hat, was einem wohl dienen kann, manches in der Welt zu durchschauen. Und unsere anthroposophisch orientierte Geisteswissenschaft ist nicht etwa als ein absoJuter Geheimbund aufgetreten, sondern diejenigen Dinge, auf die es ankommt, sind immer in öffentlichen Vorträgen vor aller Welt behandelt worden. Das ist gerade der Gegensatz, auf den man wohl achten muß.
Und das darf ich schon heute sagen: Wenn gewisse Strömungen in unserer Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft fortbestehen sollten, die namentlich dahingehen, im Sinne der menschlichen Eitelkeit dasjenige auszumünzen, was zunächst rein aus dem Grunde in abgeschlossenem Kreise gehalten wird, aus dem zum Beispiel auch an Universitäten man nicht die ganze Welt für den zweiten Jahrgang einlädt, sondern nur diejenigen, die schon den ersten Jahrgang gehört haben, dann wird es nichts Esoterisches mehr geben. Wenn man die Dinge nicht in diesem selbstverständlichen Sinne nimmt, sondern weiter vor die Welt hintritt und sagt: Das ist geheim, das ist ganz esoterisch, das ist okkult, das darf ich nicht sagen! — wenn diese Politik in gewissen Strömungen unserer Gesellschaft weiter verfolgt wird, wenn nicht ein Sinn sich entwickelt dafür, daß alle Eitelkeitsnuance aufhören muß, dann wird eben alles vor aller Welt verhandelt werden müssen, was der Menschheit heute mitgeteilt werden muß. Ob dann manches mitgeteilt werden kann, das werden die Notwendigkeiten ergeben. Aber die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft hat nur dann einen Sinn, wenn sie «Gesellschaft» ist, das heißt, wenn es sich wirklich jedem Einzelnen darum handelt, Front zu machen gegen alle Eitelkeiten, gegen alles dasjenige, was durch Torheit und Eitelkeit mit einem falschen mystischen Schleier umhüllt wird, und was zu nichts anderem taugt, als die andern Menschen stutzig und gehässig zu machen. Um das Geheimnisvolle, wie gewissen okkulten Brüderschaften, darf es unserer Gesellschaft nicht zu tun sein, sondern lediglich um die Vollbringung desjenigen, was zum Heil der Menschheit notwendig ist. Die Feinde werden, das habe ich oft gesagt, zahlreicher und zahlreicher werden. Vielleicht wird gerade daran, wie sich die Welt reibt mit unserer Gesellschaft, sich zeigen, welcher Art die Feinde sind. Ehrliche Gegnerschaft haben wir im Grunde noch gar nicht gefunden; die würde ja nur fördern können! Solche Gegnerschaft, wie wir sie gefunden haben, braucht man sich nur anzuschauen auf ihr «Wie», auf die Art und Weise, die Mittel, durch welche sie wirkt. Ob die Gegner aus unseren Kreisen selber sind, was sehr häufig der Fall ist, oder aus andern: Wir können es ruhig abwarten! Soeben wurde eine Gegnerschaft angekündigt, die ein Sturzbad über uns vergießen soll. Ein Buch wird in Vorträgen angekündigt, in dem jemand, der allerdings nie in unserer Gesellschaft war und der als eitler Tropf die Welt von allerlei Doppel-Ichen unterhalten hat, die Gelegenheit der verschiedenen nationalen Verhetzungen und Leidenschaften dazu benutzt, um gegen unsere Anthroposophie in einer Weise aufzutreten, die eben nicht reine Finger zeigt.
Diese Dinge also müssen wir uns vor Augen halten und uns klar darüber sein, daß wir streng die Richtung festhalten müssen nach der Wahrheit und nach der Erkenntnis. Auch wenn wir von zeitgenössischen Dingen sprechen, kann es sich für uns nur um Erkenntnis der Wahrheit handeln. Den Dingen muß ins Auge geschaut werden; dann mag jeder nach seinem Empfinden diesen oder jenen Standpunkt einnehmen. Jeden Standpunkt wird man verstehen können, aber der Standpunkt muß auf Grundlage der Wahrheit gebildet werden.
Das ist schon ein Wort, das wir uns insbesondere heute vor die Seele schreiben müssen. Denn vieles ist in unserer Zeit geschehen, das die Menschen stutzig machen und sie darauf aufmerksam machen sollte, daß es notwendig ist, ein gesundes, wahrheitsgemäßes Urteil zu gewinnen. Wir haben es erlebt, daß, kaum daß die Sehnsucht nach Frieden durch die Welt gegangen ist, diese Sehnsucht nach Frieden bebrüllt wurde. Und wir sehen vorläufig noch, wie die Leute direkt böse werden, wenn heute von dieser oder jener Seite von Frieden gesprochen wird. Nicht nur, daß sie böse werden, wenn von einer kriegführenden Seite her von Frieden gesprochen wird, sondern sie werden sogar böse, wenn von neutraler Seite von Frieden gesprochen wird.
Man wird sehen, ob die Welt genügend wird erstaunen können über diese Dinge. Man hat ja dabei schon ganz besondere Erfahrungen gemacht. Denn nachdem das Urteil, das sich die Welt bildet, hinweggegangen ist über das Ereignis vom April und Mai des Jahres 1915, wo freiwillig ein weites Territorium abgetreten werden sollte, was jedoch ausgeschlagen wurde, nur um Krieg führen zu können, und nicht die Möglichkeit gefunden worden ist, darüber auch nur ein einigermaßen zutreffendes Urteil zu finden, da kann man allerdings aufs Schlimmste gefaßt sein. Man kann deshalb aufs Schlimmste gefaßt sein, weil es den Menschen eigentlich gar nicht darauf ankommt, das zu sagen, was ist, sondern das zu sagen, was ihnen in den Kram paßt. Die Denkweisen sind ja kurios, die Denkweisen sind ganz eigentümlich. Man muß aber die Dinge an den rechten Punkten fassen.
Ich will Ihnen eine kleine Stelle vorlesen, die vor dem Ausbruch dieses Weltkrieges von einem Italiener in der Zeit geschrieben worden ist, als Italien über den Tripolis-Krieg jubelte, den ich nicht beurteile. Ich werde niemals etwas dagegen haben, daß Italien sich Tripolis angeeignet hat; diese Dinge beurteilt derjenige, der weiß, was im Staatenund Völkerverkehr eben das Notwendige und Mögliche ist, anders, als jene Lügen-Urteilenden, die heute mit allerlei moralischen Tugenden über diese Dinge urteilen. Aber da habe ich einen Menschen — Prezzolini heißt er — der über ein Italien schreibt, über das er sich freut, und das sich entwickelt hat aus einem Italien, über das er sich nicht freute. Er beschreibt zuerst, was aus diesem Italien eigentlich geworden war, wie es herabgekommen war, und fährt dann fort — also unmittelbar unter dem Eindrucke des Tripolis-Krieges:
«Und dennoch durchlebte Italien, vollkommen unbewußt dieser wirtschaftlichen Wiedergeburt, zur gleichen Zeit die Periode der oben geschilderten Niedergeschlagenheit. Die ersten, welche das Wiedererwachen bemerkten, waren die Fremden. Allerdings waren auch schon Italiener aufgetreten, aber Phrasendrescher mit dem berühmten und berüchtigten «Primat von Italien» auf den Lippen. Das Buch des Deutschen Fischer stammt von 1899, das des Engländers Bolton King von 1901. Auch heute noch hat kein Italiener, nicht einmal zur fünfzigjährigen Feier der «Einheit», ein Werk herausgebracht, das diesen gleichkommt. Die eigentümliche Klugheit dieser Ausländer ist besonders beachtenswert, weil wirklich die Fremden von einem modernen Italien weder etwas wissen wollten noch wollen. In bezug auf Italien bestand damals wie noch heute ein Urteil oder vielmehr Vorurteil: Italien sei ein Land der Vergangenheit und nicht der Gegenwart, es müsse «in der Vergangenheit ruhen», aber nicht in die Gegenwart eintreten. Man wünschte ein Italien der Archive, Museen, Gasthäuser für Hochzeitsreisen oder zur Zerstreuung von Spleen- oder Lungenkranken, ein Italien der Drehorgeln, der Serenaden und Gondelfahrten, voll von Ciceroni, Stiefelputzern, Polyglotten und Polichinellen. Diese Fremden waren viel glücklicher, wenn sie in Sleeping cars reisen konnten als in der Diligence, aber sie bedauerten es ein wenig, daß sie nicht hier und da an einer Straßenecke einen Kalabreser Straßenräuber trafen mit der Donnerbüchse und dem Sammethut in der Form eines Zuckerhutes. Oh, der schöne italienische Himmel, verdorben durch Fabrikschornsteine; oh - la bella Napoli -,schimpfiert durch Dampfschiffe und das Ausladen derselben; und Rom mit den italienischen Soldaten; welches Bedauern für die schönen Zeiten des päpstlichen, bourbonischen und leopoldinischen Roms! Diese menschenfreundlichen Gefühle bilden noch immer die Grundlage jedes angelsächsischen und deutschen Urteils über uns, und um zu sagen, wie tief sie waren, genügt es, daran zu erinnern, daß sie von Leuten ausgesprochen wurden, die in andern Hinsichten hervorragend waren, wie Gregorovius und Bourget. Das Italien, das sich reformierte und feist wurde, das anfing einen und den andern großen Kassenschein in seiner Brieftasche zu haben, hat erst heutigen Tages das richtige Bewußtsein von sich selbst gewonnen. Und wenn es aus Reaktion etwas weiter darin geht, als es mit seinen Begeisterungen dürfte, so muß man es verzeihen und verstehen. Zehn Jahre sind notwendig gewesen und haben kaum genügt, damit von den ersten, die die Zukunft und Kraft Italiens voraussahen, die Idee auf die Menge überging, die jetzt davon durchdrungen und überzeugt ist. Umsonst würden unsere großen Denker Bände von Zeitschriften, statistische Bücher, philosophische Werke und Bücher neuester Kunst aufgehäuft haben.»
Hier haben wir die Gesinnung, meine lieben Freunde! «Umsonst würden unsere großen Denker Bände von Zeitschriften, statistische Bücher, philosophische Werke und Bücher neuester Kunst aufgehäuft haben.» Das alles taugt nichts, meint er, um ein Volk wirklich zu heben. Keinen Glauben hat dieser moderne Mensch mehr an die geistige Wirksamkeit, an die Wirksamkeit des Geistigen!
«Umsonst würden unsere großen Denker Bände von Zeitschriften, statistische Bücher, philosophische Werke und Bücher neuester Kunst aufgehäuft haben; das Volk würde nie zu dieser Überzeugung gekommen sein und der Fremde auch nicht, wenigstens nicht in vielen Jahren.»
Also geistige Kultur auf diese Weise schaffen, dazu hat der Mann kein Vertrauen.
«Das große und brutale Faktum war nötig, das die Phantasiegebilde zerschlägt und in jedem noch so kleinen und elenden Marktflecken die nationale Solidarität und denWiederaufschwung verspüren läßt.»
Und wem schreibt er nun die Fähigkeit zu, dasjenige herbeizuführen, was keine geistige Kultur erzeugen kann? Er sagt:
«Und hierzu hat der Krieg gedient.»
Hier haben Sie es! Da haben Sie den Glauben, den man hatte. Tripolis war da; man hatte es haben müssen, und man sagt weiter: Man braucht den Krieg, um dahin zu kommen, wohin man durch eine geistige Kultur zu kommen nicht notwendig fand.
Ja, meine lieben Freunde, solche Dinge sprechen, wenn man sie damit zusammenhält, daß dann von solcher Seite her eine Stimme kommt, die sagt: Wir haben diesen Krieg nicht gewollt, wir sind höchst unschuldige Lämmer, wir sind überfallen worden. — Denn sogar von dieser Seite kommt der Ruf: Um die Freiheit zu retten, um die kleinen Völker zu retten, sind wir gezwungen worden, in den Krieg zu ziehen. — Der Mann sagt:
«Wir ungefähr im Jahre 80 geborenen jungen Leute traten dem Leben der Welt mit dem neuen Jahrhundert entgegen. Unser Land war mutlos geworden. Die intellektuelle Welt auf sehr niedrigem Standpunkt.»
Also das sind die ungefähr im Jahre 1880 geborenen Leute.
«Die Philosophie: Positivismus; die Geschichte: Soziologie; die Kritik: historische Methode, wenn nicht gar Psychiatrie.»
Das kann man in dem Lande des Lombroso schon sagen!
«Auf die Befreier Italiens waren die Aussauger Italiens gefolgt; nicht nur ihre Söhne, unsere Väter, sondern auch die Enkel, unsere älteren Brüder. Die heroische Tradition der Wiedererhebung war verloren, und keine Idee erhob die neuen Generationen. Die Religion war bei den Besten gesunken, hatte aber eine Leere gelassen. Bei den andern war sie Gewohnheit. Die Kunst schwankte in einem sinnlichen und ästhetischen Taumel ohne Grund und ohne Glauben; von Carducci, den der Papa las, mit eingeschaltetem Toskaner Wein und mit einer Fuhrknechtszigarre, ging man auf d’Annunzio über, der jetzt das Evangelium des älteren Bruders ist, der nach der letzten Mode gekleidet ist, mit den Taschen voll Zuckerwerk, Frauenjäger und eitler Prahler.»
Dennoch, diese Marionette, von der hier gesagt wird, daß sie «nach der letzten Mode gekleidet, mit den Taschen voll Zuckerwerk, Frauenjäger und eitler Prahler» ist, diese Marionette hat dann am Pfingstfest 1915 den Leuten klargemacht, daß sie nun wiederum dasjenige brauchen, was irgendein Geisteswerk nicht geben kann!
In ernsten Zeiten ist es schon notwendig, daß man sich dazu entschließt, auf die Wahrheit hinzuschauen, und sich gewissermaßen der Wahrheit zu verbinden. Denn wenn man die Wahrheit nicht erkennen will, so irrt man ab von demjenigen, was der Menschheit wirklich heilsam sein kann. Deshalb muß es verstanden werden, daß gerade in diesen Tagen ernste Worte gesprochen werden. Denn wir sind doch in einer Lage, in der, man könnte sagen, der Siebenachtelblinde sehend werden könnte, wenn er erlebt, daß schon der Ruf nach Frieden bebrüllt wird. Wer glauben kann, daß man für einen dauerhaften Frieden kämpft, wenn man den Ruf nach Frieden bebrüllt, der kann in verschiedenen Gebieten des Lebens vielleicht noch ein einigermaßen gerades Urteil haben; aber in bezug auf dasjenige, was geschieht, kann er nicht zurechnungsfähig sein. Und wenn man demgegenüber nicht fühlt die Verpflichtung zur Wahrheit, dann kann es noch sehr, sehr schlimm in der Welt werden.
Es ist für mich wahrhaftig keine sympathische Aufgabe, auf manches gerade in dieser Zeit aufmerksam zu machen. Wenn man aber vernimmt, was von überall her tönt, dann fühlt man die Notwendigkeit. Man muß den Mut nicht sinken lassen, solange das Unheil nicht völlig geschehen ist; aber das Fünkchen der Hoffnung ist klein: Es hängt von diesem Fünkchen der Hoffnung für die nächsten Tage sehr viel ab; und auch davon hängt sehr viel ab, daß es noch Menschen gibt, welche die ganze Absurdität von solchen Dingen in die Welt hinausschreien, wie es in diesen Tagen selbst von hervorragenden Weltstädten aus geschehen ist.
Die Welt braucht Frieden, und sie wird viel entbehren, wenn sie jetzt keinen Frieden hat. Und sie wird viel entbehren, wenn weiter Menschen in der Welt Glauben finden, die da sagen: Wir sind gezwungen, für einen dauernden Frieden zu kämpfen -, und jeder Möglichkeit, zu einem Frieden zu gelangen, mit Hohnworten, die sie nur in geschickter Weise verbrämen, begegnen. Aber wir sind ja an dem Zeitpunkt angekommen, meine lieben Freunde, wo man selbst einen Lloyd George in weitestem Umkreise für einen großen Mann halten kann! Wir dürfen sagen: Es ist eben weit gekommen!
Aber diese Dinge sind doch nur Prüfungen der Menschheit. Selbst dann wären sie nur eine Prüfung, wenn das eintreten würde, was ich mir beim Weihnachtsvortrage am Schluß zu sagen gestattete, wenn eintreten würde, daß alle Zukunft sagen müßte: In der Weihnachtstimmung des neunzehnhundertsechzehnten Jahres nach dem Mysterium von Golgatha hat man den Ruf «Friede auf Erden unter Menschen, die eines guten Willens sind» unter den eitelsten Vorwänden bebrüllt -, oder, wenn es nicht eitelste Vorwände sind, dann muß es eben etwas Schlimmeres sein. Dann muß man an diesem Bebrüllen jedes Friedensgedankens erkennen, um was es sich handelt: Daß es sich wirklich nicht um das handelt, was man in der Peripherie sagt, sondern um ganz andere Dinge. Dann wird man begreifen, daß man schon davon reden kann, daß es sich heute um Glück oder Unglück von Europa handelt. Nun, das kann ich heute wegen der vorgeschrittenen Zeit nicht weiter ausführen. Aber ich wollte noch diese Worte an Ihr Herz legen!
Eleventh Lecture
Yesterday I told you the story of Good Gerhard, which is probably familiar to most of you, because I would like to add a few things that may be useful in understanding the things we are now seeking to understand. But before I can move on to a kind of interpretation of the story of Good Gerhard, as far as we need it, we must recall a few things that we have already touched upon in various ways in the previous reflections. From what has been said in recent weeks, you have been able to see that the painful events of our time are connected with impulses that live in the karma of humanity in recent times, in the entire karma of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. And for those who want to understand things more deeply, it is necessary to be able to connect what is happening externally with many things happening internally, which can only be understood if one considers human development in the sense of spiritual science.
Take certain facts that I have often pointed out to you, and accept them for what they are. Take the often-mentioned fact that in the middle of the 19th century, an effort arose to make modern humanity aware that not only those forces and powers recognized by natural science are at work in the environment, but that spiritual forces are also active in it. that just as we perceive sensory phenomena through our eyes and senses, spiritual impulses are at work in our environment which people can also make use of and thus introduce into social life if they know something about things that cannot be perceived with the senses but are the objects of a spiritual science.
We know what path this spiritual science has taken; we do not need to repeat that here. Around the middle of the 19th century, the task was to draw people's attention from a certain center to the fact that there is, so to speak, a spiritual environment. This had been forgotten during the age of materialism. You also know that this must be done cautiously, because a certain degree of maturity is required in people before they can attain certain insights. Certainly, not everyone can be mature enough to be affected by such insights, which are subject to the laws of our time and are subject to public scrutiny. But it may be necessary, at least for a certain period of time, to examine whether such insights can be made available to the public.
Now, in the middle of the 19th century, two paths could have been taken. One would have been to choose the path that we can simply describe as pointing to our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, the path of making comprehensible to human thinking what can be experienced through occult knowledge about the spiritual environment. This is indeed something that could have been attempted, but it was not attempted at that time, in the middle of the 19th century. People shied away from it at first because of a certain prejudice against “esotericists” that had been handed down from ancient times and consisted precisely in the idea that certain insights preserved in occult brotherhoods — at that time they were indeed preserved — should not simply be communicated to the public, but should be kept within the circles of the occult brotherhoods. We can see that when things are done in the right way, they can certainly happen in our time. Apart from the fact that malicious opponents have emerged and will continue to emerge from the circles within which this knowledge has been disseminated, people who, following their passions and egoism, after having been followers for a while, under all kinds of masks, and thereby cause discord — apart from that and from the fact that when occult knowledge is disseminated in a community, this very easily leads to strife and quarrel and discord — but one cannot attach too much importance to this, for otherwise one could never disseminate occult knowledge — no harm can come if things are done correctly.
But people did not believe that at the time. As I said, they held fast to the old prejudice and initially agreed to take a different path. This attempt has now, as I have often explained, actually failed. The path chosen was to bring the occult world to human recognition by means of mediumistic revelations, just as the sensory world is recognized, by preparing suitable individuals to become mediums who, through what they brought to light by means of mediumship while in a state of reduced consciousness, were to lead people to recognize certain spiritual impulses in their environment. This was a materialistic way of making the spiritual world accessible to people. In a sense, it corresponded to the fifth post-Atlantean period, insofar as this period has a materialistic character.
As you know, this began in America in the mid-19th century, but it soon became apparent that the whole thing was a mistake. Instead of what was expected, namely that the mediums would indicate that certain elemental and natural spirits were present in the environment, they all referred to revelations from the realm of the dead. This did not achieve what was initially intended. I have often explained that human beings can only approach the dead by developing a way of seeing within themselves that is not mediated by a dulled consciousness. Well, we know these things. But of course people knew this at that time too, and so when the mediums began to speak of revelations from the dead, they knew that the whole thing was a mistake. They had not expected this, but had expected them to describe how nature spirits work, how one human being works on another, what forces are at work in the social organism, and so on. It was hoped that this would reveal the forces that could be used by those who knew them, so that people would not be dependent on each other merely through the senses, but through the whole human personality. That was one evil.
The other was that, in accordance with the materialistic disposition of human beings, it very soon became apparent what tendency mediumship would have led to if it had gained the spread that threatened. It would have led to the use of mediumship to accomplish things that should only be accomplished under the influence of natural reason bound to the sensory world. It would naturally have become a highly desirable thing for some people if they could have employed a medium that would have told them how to obtain the things that some people desire. I have told you how many letters I have received in which people wrote to me: I have a lottery ticket, or I want to buy a lottery ticket, I need the money for a completely selfless purpose; could you not tell me which number will be drawn? — Of course, if mediums had been technically well trained, one could have carried on with unlimited nonsense in this direction, apart from everything else. People would have gone to mediums to get married, to have the right bride or groom chosen for them, and so on.
That is why the same people who had initiated the whole campaign to test whether people were ready to accept the occult now wanted to dampen the movement that had been set in motion. It had turned out just as had been feared in earlier times, when the abilities of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch were still having an effect on people. Witches were burned for the simple reason that the personalities designated as witches were, in essence, also mediums, and because their connection with the spiritual world, albeit in a manner appropriate to materialism, could have brought out things that would have been highly unpleasant for certain people. For example, it could have been highly unpleasant for certain communities if a witch, before being burned, had drawn attention to what was behind this or that community. For it is true that when consciousness is dulled, a kind of telephone connection to the spiritual world takes place, and all kinds of secrets can come out in this way. Those who burned the witches knew exactly why they were doing it: precisely because what the world, whether good or bad, but above all bad, of course, could have learned from the mouths of the witches could have been unpleasant for them.
The attempt to test human culture through mediums was therefore unsuccessful. And this was also recognized by those who, seduced by the old commandments of silence and by the materialistic tendencies of the 19th century, made this attempt. You know that it was not possible to completely restrict the media, that it continued to exist and still exists today; but the art of developing the media to such a degree that their revelations become significant has been withdrawn, so to speak. By pulling back, what the media are now capable of has become more or less harmless. And in recent times, as you know, the media has produced little more than unctuous things that make one wonder why people attach so much importance to them. But the door to the spiritual world had been opened, so to speak, and in a way that was actually out of step with the times, which was a mistake.
The birth and work of Blavatsky took place during this entire period. One might think that the birth of a human being is meaningless, but that would only be a Maya judgment. - Well, what matters is that this entire action had to be discussed in the brotherhoods, and that as a result, much was said and expressed within the brotherhoods. And because the 19th century was no longer like earlier centuries, when there were sufficient means to keep secret the things that were to be kept secret, it could happen that at a certain point in time a member of an occult brotherhood, who had the intention of exploiting in a one-sided manner what he had heard in these brotherhoods, approached Blavatsky and who, among her other qualities, was above all an extraordinarily strong medium, to act as a kind of intermediary for machinations that were no longer as honest as the first ones. The first ones, as you have seen, were a mistake, but they were honest. Up to the point where I am now beginning to tell you, the whole thing was an honest, albeit mistaken, attempt to test people's receptivity. Now, however, begins, so to speak, the dishonest betrayal of a member of an American occult brotherhood, which pursued the goal of exploiting what it knew in a one-sided manner and wanted to use a psychically predisposed personality such as Blavatsky for this purpose. Let us first consider the facts of what happened.
When Blavatsky heard from the member what it was all about, she naturally had the opportunity to react inwardly, because she was a psychic personality. That is to say, she understood much more about the matter than the person who gave her the information understood himself. The ancient traditions, clothed in formulaic garb, ignited significant insights in her soul that she could hardly have attained through her own development alone. But as her inner spiritual experiences were stimulated by ancient formulas which still date back to the time of atavistic clairvoyance and are preserved in occult brotherhoods, often without the members understanding them, a great deal of knowledge was ignited in her, and she naturally knew that this knowledge must have significance for the modern development of humanity, and that one only had to take the right steps to utilize this knowledge in a certain way.
One could not expect Blavatsky herself, given her personality, to have only the salvation of all humanity in mind in the sense of a higher occultism; instead, she came up with the idea of pursuing certain goals that she understood. She had arrived at this idea in the manner I have described. She then requested admission to an occult brotherhood in Paris. She wanted to work through this brotherhood at first. Of course, under normal circumstances she would have been accepted without difficulty, apart from the fact that it would have been somewhat unusual to accept a woman; but in this case that would have been overlooked, because it was known that she was a significant individual. However, simply being accepted as an ordinary member would not have served her purpose, and so she set certain conditions. If these conditions had been met, many things would certainly have turned out differently, but at the same time this occult brotherhood would have signed its own death warrant, that is, it would have rendered itself ineffective. For this reason, Blavatsky was refused admission in Paris. She then turned to America, where she was indeed accepted into an occult brotherhood. The result was that she naturally gained tremendously important insights into what such occult brotherhoods want, namely — let this be said right away — they have no intention of striving for the salvation of all humanity without regard for any differences among human beings, but rather have one-sided intentions that serve certain groups. It was not in Blavatsky's nature to act as these brotherhoods wanted to act. And so it came about that, under the influence of what was called an attack on the constitution of North America, she had to be expelled from that brotherhood.
Now she was expelled. But she was not, of course, a person who accepted everything with resignation; instead, she made very sharp threats: she would show the American brotherhood what it meant to be expelled after knowing so much. In fact, the American brotherhood now stood under the sword of Damocles. If Blavatsky had told the world what she knew from having been inside, it would have been a death sentence for that American brotherhood. The result was that American and European occultists joined forces to put Blavatsky into a state known as occult imprisonment. This means that through certain machinations, a sphere of imaginations is created in a soul, causing a clouding of what the soul previously knew, rendering it, so to speak, ineffective. It is a procedure that is never used by honest occultists and only very rarely by dishonest ones, but it was used at that time to save the life, so to speak, of that occult brotherhood, that is, its effectiveness.
For years, Blavatsky was held captive in this occult prison until certain Indian occultists took her under their wing, who had an interest in working against the American brotherhood. You see, we are always dealing with one-sided occult currents. And so Blavatsky ended up in this Indian environment that you are well acquainted with. The Indian occultists had every interest in working against the American brotherhood. Not because they generally regarded them as not serving humanity on the whole, but because they wanted to work against the American brotherhood from their one-sided, one might say Indian-patriotic, point of view. But through all kinds of machinations, a kind of balance was achieved between certain Indian and American occultists. The Americans promised the Indians not to interfere in what they were doing with Blavatsky, and the Indians undertook to remain silent about what had gone before.
If one considers these things and adds to them what I have already pointed out, namely that the old teacher, Blavatsky's leader, had been replaced by a mask personality, a mask Mahatma, who was actually in the service of a European power and had the task of exploiting what what Blavatsky was able to achieve in the service of a certain European power, then you will see how complicated these things really are. What this is really about can perhaps be understood if you ask yourself: What would have happened if one or the other had been realized?
Now, time is too short to tell you everything today, but let us first pick out a few points. We can come back to these things again soon. Let us assume that Blavatsky had succeeded in being accepted into the Paris occult lodge, as she had intended. Then she would probably not have come under the influence of the person who was revered in the Theosophical Society as a Mahatma, which he was not, and it would have led to the Paris occult lodge being wiped out. Then much of what the same Paris occult lodge now stands for would not have happened, or it would probably have happened in the service of another one-sided cause. Many things would then have had to take a different course than they did. For there was already the intention to use Blavatsky's psychic personality to eradicate the Paris lodge. And if it had been eradicated at that time, there would have been nothing behind all these people who lived more or less as puppet figures in history. The Silvagnis, Durantes, Sergis, Cecconis, the entire family of Signor Lombroso, and many others would have had no occult backers. And many doors that appear to be a kind of sliding door would have remained closed. — You will understand that these things are meant somewhat symbolically: in certain countries, editorial offices have — figuratively speaking! — a proper door and a sliding door; through the proper door you enter the editorial office, through the sliding door you enter some occult brotherhood, which operates as I have indicated in various ways over the last few days, resulting in things such as we have also indicated in various ways. — So it was a matter of first getting rid of something that would at least have diverted the direction we have seen taking effect at present. Signor d'Annunzio would then not have made the speech we quoted.
Well, perhaps another speech would have been given, one that would only have pushed things in a different direction. — But you see that at the moment when people are being pushed around without complete control of things, that is, with their consciousness somehow suppressed, when occultism comes into play, which is not concerned with the general welfare of humanity and, in our time, above all not with real knowledge, but with achieving certain special goals, then things can take a turn for the worse under certain circumstances.
So, as I said, the members of this lodge were wise enough not to get involved in the matter from the standpoint of the lodge. Later, certain things were, I would say, covered up, obscured by the fact that Blavatsky was prevented by her occult imprisonment from publishing the impulses of that American lodge in a certain coloration, as she would undoubtedly have done again. After all these events had taken place, Blavatsky actually only served Indian occultism. And the fact that a certain amount of occult knowledge, with a one-sided Indian coloring, has come into the world has a very specific significance for the more recent period. It has come into the world, it is there. But what has been paralyzed in the manner I have indicated has remained more or less unconscious to the world.
Those who reckon with such things always claim long periods of time for themselves. They prepare things, allow them to develop; for it is not individual human beings, but brotherhoods in which the successor takes over the services of his predecessor in order to continue what has been begun in the same direction.
You see that in the two examples I gave you of occult lodges, it was very important that their actual impulses did not become public knowledge. I do not want to be misunderstood, and that is why I expressly said that a certain honesty lay at the basis of the first attempt I described to you. But it is extremely difficult for people to be truly objectively human, because in recent times there has been little inclination to be objectively human. People are easily led astray by group mentality into not being objectively human, but rather into paying homage to one group or another, feeling themselves to be members of this or that group. But this is something that is no longer entirely appropriate at the stage of human development we have now reached. It demands that human beings, at least to a certain degree, feel themselves to be individuals, detach themselves at least inwardly from the group, and learn to belong to humanity as human beings. Even though our present situation shows in such a grotesque way how impossible this is for certain people, it is nevertheless a requirement of our time.
Take an example, follow up on what I said here a few days ago: that when we look at peoples, we are dealing with individualities that cannot be compared with the individuality of a human being as he lives here on the physical plane and undergoes his development between death and a new birth. With peoples, we are dealing with other individualities. What we might call the spirit of a people, the soul of a people, is, as you can see from everything you find in our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, something different from the soul of an individual human being. And to speak of the soul of a people with a materialistic spirit, as is done today, while always having the underlying assumption that one means something similar to the soul of a human being, even if one does not admit this, is basically nonsense. Thus, today one can hear the phrase “the French soul,” which has been heard again and again in recent years. It is nonsense, utter nonsense, because it is merely an analogy taken from the individual human soul and transferred to the soul of a people. One can only speak of the soul of a people if one takes into account the entire context provided in the lecture cycle on the various national spirits. But in another sense, for example in the sense in which many people speak today, even journalists — whom one can only forgive because they do not know what they are talking about — in this sense, to speak of the national soul is complete nonsense. It is mere ranting when, for example, people talk about the “Celtic soul and the Latin spirit.” Such things may be acceptable as analogies, but they do not reflect reality.
We must be clear about what the mystery of Golgotha means. We have said it so often: The mystery of Golgotha took place in such a way that what has been connected with the evolution of the earth since the mystery of Golgotha is indeed there for the whole of humanity, but when the individual speaks of a mystical Christ within himself, this is mere chatter. The mystery of Golgotha is an objective reality, as you know from much that has been said here. But what is for the whole of humanity is meant in such a way that the individual human being is taken into consideration as a human being. Christ died for all human beings, but as a human being and for human beings, not for any other kind of being. One can therefore speak of a Christian, of the Christian attitude of the individual human being, but it is complete nonsense to speak of a Christian people. That has no reality. Christ did not die for the peoples; the peoples are not the individualities that are taken into consideration here. An individual human being who is connected with the essence of the mystery of Golgotha can be Christian, but one cannot speak of a Christian people. What lies at the foundation of the peoples as their real soul belongs to plans in which the mystery of Golgotha did not take place. What happens as actions between peoples can never be interpreted or commented on in a Christian sense.
I draw your attention to such things only because it is necessary that you, my dear friends, understand how important it is today to arrive at clear concepts. This can only be done by viewing things from a spiritual scientific perspective, whereas the striving of humanity is to fish in murky waters with concepts that are as nonsensical and impure as possible. It is therefore a matter of coming to clear concepts, of seeing things truly in terms of clear concepts, and of understanding that in our time, but preferably through human beings, certain occult, certain spiritual impulses have already been at work. This corresponds to the fifth post-Atlantean period.
Now, the point is that, above all, if Blavatsky had been able to speak at that time, certain secrets would have come to light, secrets of certain occult brotherhoods that are connected with the entire will of far-reaching groups. I have told you that laws underlie the emergence and development of what can be called a national character. These laws are not usually known in the outer physical world. And that is good for the time being, because they are only to be recognized by those who want to receive them with clean hands. Interfering in what pulsates as spiritual forces in human evolution on the ground where, for example, ethnic groups develop, interfering in a one-sided way, as certain brotherhoods of modern times do, is precisely what is connected with the most severe trials of the whole of humanity in the present and in the future. Everything that happens in evolution happens according to law, happens regularly, happens according to certain forces. Human beings intervene, partly unconsciously, and when they are members of occult brotherhoods, consciously.
In order to judge these things, it is necessary to have what I called yesterday a broader horizon, the acquisition of a broader horizon. I have once again brought before your eyes that of which Blavatsky was, in a sense, the plaything, in order to draw your attention to how such a plaything is thrown from West to East, from America to India, because forces are already at work through human manipulation to bring about this or that by making use of, I would say, the passions and feelings of people that are rooted in the folk culture, but which are also first prepared and exploited. This is very important. It is essential to have an eye for these things, to see how a person, through the passions that are within them, that are in their blood, can be placed in a certain position and exposed to certain influences in this or that sense. To do this, one must of course know that certain things can be achieved from the position in which one places them. Much fails, but one reckons with long periods of time, and where such things come into consideration, one reckons with many possibilities. Above all, one reckons with how little people are inclined to direct their minds toward the greater connections.
Now let us pause here and look a little at yesterday's story. We are told about the time around the 10th century, when the soul state of the fourth post-Atlantean period still prevailed. We have seen how the spiritual world influences Emperor Otto with the red beard. His whole life is transformed by the spiritual world drawing his attention to Good Gerhard. From this Good Gerhard, he was to learn the fear of God, true piety, and that one should not expect to receive a selfish blessing from heaven for what one has done here on earth. But he was instructed by the spiritual world to seek out this Good Gerhard. That is one thing: the intervention of the spiritual world.
Those who truly know the times, not only from external history as it is presented today, but as they really were, know that such interference from the spiritual world in real visions, as recounted by Emperor Otto the Red, was commonplace at that time, and that spiritual impulses played a significant role. The person who wrote down this story now expressly states the following: In his youth, he wrote many other stories, as did others of his time. The man who wrote down the story of Good Gerhard is roughly a contemporary of Wolfram von Eschenbach: Rudolf von Hohenems. He says that he wrote other things, but destroyed them all because they were fairy tales. However, he considers this story, which is not historical in the external sense, i.e., it could not be found in our present-day history books, which only take into account the physical Maya, to be strictly historical and not a fairy tale. He tells it in such a way that it cannot be compared with external, purely physical history; but he tells it more truthfully than external, purely physical history can be, which is basically Maja. He is telling it for the fourth post-Atlantean period.
You know, because I have repeated it again and again in these discussions, that this is not a matter of taking sides for one thing or another, but of presenting facts that are intended to form the basis for judging things. Only those who do not want to be objective will accuse me of non-objectivity in the presentation I am about to attempt. Of course, one cannot expect someone who does not want to be objective to regard what is objective as objective. What is important in this story of Good Gerhard is not only that the spiritual world plays a role, but also that the spiritual world gives a leading personality the impulse to turn to a member of the commercial world, the world of merchants. And indeed, the historical aspect of the matter is that in Central Europe at that time, the members of the house to which Otto the Red belonged were promoting commerce in the cities. It was a time when commerce was growing in Europe.
Now we must consider that we are transported to a time when there was no sea connection between the Orient and the Occident; trade routes were entirely overland. Commercial people such as Good Gerhard, who, as you know, lived in Cologne, mediated trade connections from Cologne to the Orient and back again by land. If they used ships, this was basically of secondary importance; the land routes were essential. Therefore, the shipping connections were basically nothing more than, I would say, attempts to achieve by primitive means of navigation what was being done on a much larger scale by land at that time. So we are mainly dealing with land routes, and only with the very beginnings of shipping. That is precisely what is characteristic of this period. Extensive shipping did not come about until much later.
And now you can see how a contrast arises entirely from the nature of things. It is quite natural that, as long as land routes were the means of communication between the Orient and the Occident, the countries of Central Europe set the tone; that is quite obvious. Life in these Central European countries was also organized around these things. It was very different from later times. And much was also conveyed in this way with regard to intellectual culture. In the following centuries, land routes were replaced by sea connections. As you know, the further development was such that England gradually consolidated these sea connections from various hands into one. The Spanish, the Dutch, and the French were overcome as seafaring peoples, and everything was brought together under the immense rule that encompassed a quarter of the entire dry, that is, not covered by the sea, surface of the earth, and gradually also the rule over the sea.
If you agree with what I told you some time ago, that in the growing and, especially since James I, particularly large occult brotherhoods, it has been taught for centuries as a self-evident truth that the Anglo-Saxon race—as it is said in this context, which I have already explained—must take over all world domination in the fifth post-Atlantean era, then you will find a system in this overcoming and, in a sense, eradication of the sea power of the others. And if you add to this what I have already indicated, that it was and is taught that this fifth post-Atlantean race of English-speaking peoples must overcome the peoples of the Latin race, you will see the systematic nature of historical events.
The main thing that matters is, first of all, the interaction between the English-speaking peoples and the Latin-speaking peoples in one way or another. One cannot understand recent history without knowing that it is of paramount importance — and that things are being directed in such a way — to arrange world events in favor of the English-speaking population so that the influence of the Latin-speaking population, in whatever form, ceases. Under certain circumstances, the best way to achieve this cessation is to promote the other for a while and thereby gain control over them. This is perhaps the best way to contribute to their absorption.
In those occult brotherhoods to which I have referred in various ways, Central Europe is not accorded any special significance; for they are wise enough to know that Germany, for example, possesses only one thirty-third of the total dry land, that is, of the land covered by land. That is really very little compared to a quarter of the entire land-covered earth, to which the dominion over the sea must be added. Central Europe is therefore not the area to which particular value is attached. However, particular importance was attached, especially in the times when what is happening today was being prepared, to overcoming all the impulses that were developing in Latin culture.
It is quite remarkable how short-sighted the historical view of the present day is, how little inclination there is to dwell on characteristic features. I have already pointed out that what matters is not what the view of history, which has been pragmatic for so long, reports, that is: now this happens, then that, then that, and then that, and so things follow one another—but rather it is a matter of recognizing the facts that are characteristic of the various relationships within the successive events. What matters is to point out the characteristic facts, what I would call the underlying forces revealed in the Maya. Today's pragmatic view of history must be replaced by a symptomatic view of history.
Those who see through things will be able to judge certain phenomena quite differently from those who read the stories that are called world history, this fable convenue, just as they are told in today's historical science. Take certain things that you know well and combine them with others that I would like to draw your attention to. First, a simple fact: in 1618, as is well known, the Thirty Years' War began with the emergence of a certain kind of reformatory ideas from among the Czech Slavs. Then nobles belonging to these Slavic circles took up the movement and rebelled against what can be called the Counter-Reformation: against Catholicism, which was favored by the House of Habsburg, which came from Spain. What is usually recounted first about the Thirty Years' War—that the rebels went to Prague City Hall and threw the councilors Martinitz and Slawata and the secret secretary Fabrizius out of the window—is of no great significance. This event is interesting at most in that none of the three gentlemen suffered any harm, as they fell onto a dung heap. But these are not the things that can really illustrate the Thirty Years' War, that reveal its underlying causes.
The reform-minded people elected an anti-king, Elector Frederick V, Elector Palatine, who was elected King of Bohemia in 1619. This was followed, as you know, by the Battle of White Mountain. Until the election of the Elector, everything arose from certain passions of the people for a reformatory movement, from a rebellion against the violent measures taken against these reformers through the closure or destruction of Protestant churches in Braunau and the Grab monastery. Of course, I cannot tell the whole story; we do not have enough time for that. But now consider this: Elector Frederick of the Palatinate is elected. Until the point where they elect their own king, it is human passions, human enthusiasm, and, for my part, I will concede, human idealism—and this can be said with complete justification—that underlie the events.
But why was the Elector Palatine elected King of Bohemia? This becomes clear when you know that he was the son-in-law of James I, who was at the forefront of the renewal of the brotherhoods! You see: here a hand comes into play that must be taken into account when considering this symptomatic history; here it comes into play that, from a certain point of view, things were to be steered in a very specific direction. Well, it failed at that time. But you can see how the finger is at work. More important than all other connections for what was supposed to be thrown in here as an impulse is that the son-in-law of one of the most important occultists, James I, was thrown into this very place.
The point is that throughout recent history we have been dealing with a contrast between the old Roman-Latin nature and the nature — I am not referring to the English people, who would get along very well with the world — but the nature that is being created, or is intended to be created, from the side I have sufficiently characterized, if the English people do not resist it. This is the contrast between these two elements.
And the other is pushed aside. For one can achieve a great deal at one point on earth if one brings about certain events in another place.
Let us take a later point in time. Today, you can pick up a history book and read about the Seven Years' War. Now, this history of the Seven Years' War is, of course, also read without reflection. For if one wants to understand what it is about, if one wants to explore the historical forces at play, then one must correctly grasp the various chains of circumstances. One must consider how, at that time, the southern part of Central Europe, Austria, was completely connected with everything Latin, even had a real alliance with France, while the northern part of Central Europe—not at first, but later—was drawn in by those who, from a certain point of view, wanted to turn it into the English-speaking fifth post-Atlantean race.
Consider the alliances and everything that happened at that time, apart from the Maya, and you will see the war that was actually waged between England and France over North America and India. And what happened in Europe is actually only a faint reflection of this. For compare everything that took place on a large scale — broaden your horizons! —, then you will see that at that time the struggle raged between England and France, and North America and India were already involved. It was a question of which of these two powers was the more clever in directing circumstances in such a way as to wrest control of North America or India from the other. Great prospects are at stake here, as is the control of significant impulses. And it is true: the influence that England has gained in North America, which was won from France, was won on the battlefields of Silesia in the Seven Years' War!
Consider how alliances change when things become a little delicate, and follow the alliances from this point of view!
I will tell you another story. It is necessary to consider such things, because as soon as one is not misunderstood, but as soon as it is assumed that it is a matter of really enlightening oneself about the things of the world, as soon as one strives to be a little objective, one will not take offense when such things are told, but one will understand that it is a matter of understanding and not at all of taking sides. In fact, it is often precisely those who believe themselves to be affected by such a thing who should be most happy to learn about it. For it lifts them out of their blindness and enables them to see, and nothing is more beneficial to human beings than to truly see and understand the connections in the world. Let us take another example that shows you how things work from a different angle.
Due to circumstances that you can read about in history, the kingdoms of Hanover and England were formerly connected. But there were different laws of succession to the throne and so on—we need not go into such things here—it is enough to know that when Queen Victoria came to the English throne, Hanover had to be separated. Another member of the English royal family had to ascend the throne of Hanover. A choice was made, or rather the matter was arranged so that Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, was maneuvered onto the throne of Hanover, which had previously been linked to the throne of England. This Ernest Augustus thus ascended the throne of Hanover at the age of sixty-six. His character was such that, after he had left England to take up his office as His Majesty of Hanover, the English newspapers wrote: “It is good that he is gone, and let us hope he does not return!” His whole manner, his demeanor, made him appear to be a truly formidable personality. And when one considers his actions and the impression he made on his contemporaries, on those who had dealings with him, a certain character emerges that is striking to anyone with an appreciation for such characters. The people of Hanover could not really understand him; they found him coarse. Well, he was coarse, so coarse that Thomas Moore, the poet, said he definitely belonged to the dynasty of Beelzebubs. But you know what they say: in German, you lie when you are polite. Sometimes one can understand coarseness, but one assumes that if someone is going to be coarse, they should at least be truthful. But Ernst August was always dishonest when he was rude, and that was something people in Hanover could not understand at all. Such traits can be found even more in him.
First of all, Ernst August abolished the constitution in Hanover. He also managed to get the famous “Göttingen Seven” to leave the University of Göttingen. He had them taken across the border and only allowed the students to say goodbye to them in Witzenhausen, beyond the Hanover border of His Majesty Ernst August. I don't need to tell you the whole story, but where is the explanation? Anyone who looks for no further explanation for this strange mask will find Ernst August rude and untruthful. He even pulled the wool over Metternich's eyes, and that says a lot, and so on. But there is a strange system at work here. And this system did not change, even though he spent most of his life in Germany until the age of sixty-six—he was a dragoon officer.
Anyone looking for an explanation for this will find it in the fact that he applied in his own way the impulses that one has when one is a member of the so-called “Orange Lodge”; for his entire behavior was a realization of the impulses of the Orange Lodge, of which he was a member.
It is important to learn about history, to broaden one's horizons. It is important to develop a sense of what is important, what really enlightens. And so you will understand that I told the story of “Good Gerhard” in order to show you how things like the Orange Lodge and so on systematically destroyed what Central Europe used to be. I do not condemn this; it was a historical necessity. But one should understand it and not make moral judgments in such matters. One should see things as they really are! Everything depends on acquiring the will to see things, to see how people are pushed, to see where the impulses lie that push people. But this is actually identical with acquiring a sense of truth; for I have often emphasized that it is not important to say: Yes, I believed that, that was my honest, sincere opinion! No, the sense of truth belongs to those who strive unceasingly to investigate the truth in a matter, who do not give up investigating the truth, and who take responsibility for themselves even when they say something wrong out of ignorance. For the objective, it is just as irrelevant whether one says something wrong out of knowledge or ignorance as it is irrelevant whether one sticks one's finger in a flame out of ignorance or out of some kind of willful mischief; in both cases, one burns oneself.
It is therefore a matter of understanding how, with the transition from the fourth post-Atlantean period, when commerce was still under the influence of the spiritual world, as indicated in “Good Old St. Gerhard,” , how with this transition the commercial was drawn over into another occult, into the occult that is guided by the so-called “Brothers of the Shadow.” These guard certain principles. But from the standpoint of these people, it would be very dangerous if these principles were betrayed. Hence the care taken at that time to prevent Blavatsky from betraying these things or allowing them to fall into other hands. They were indeed to be transferred from the West to the Far East, but not initially to India, but to another place, namely the Russian East.
If one has a sense of what lies behind Maya, one can understand that external institutions and measures have, so to speak, different values and different weights in the overall context. Let us take a case from recent history. I have told you so much about the occult that I have, so to speak, served my time, and I can now give you a few more notes from recent history. This is beyond the scope of time. No one should be able to say that I am taking time away from the occult, but these things are also important.
Let us take an example from recent history. In 1909, a meeting was arranged between the Italian king and the Russian tsar. Until then, there had been little sign of friendship between these two representatives, but from then on it was considered a good idea to bring them together. The meeting in Racconigi took place. It was not easy, and if you read about what Giolitti, the prime minister at the time, had to do to avoid “attentional inconveniences,” you will see that it was not exactly easy for poor Giolitti at the time.
Now, however, it was a matter of finding the right person to convey Rome's homage to the Tsar. It had to be someone of a special character. Such things are prepared well in advance so that at the right moment, I would say at close range, they only need to be directed. If a “juicy” effect was to be achieved, one could not take just anyone to pay homage to the Tsar, the Latin West to the soi-disant Slavic East. It had to be a special personality; it even had to be a personality that was not easily persuaded. Well, it was “by chance” at that time, one must say, of course, if one is a materialist, but “not by chance,” one will say if one is not a materialist—it was Signor Nathan—an Italian name!—who was mayor of Rome at that time. He had every reason to be quite democratic, to be as little inclined as possible to pay homage to the Tsar. Shortly before becoming mayor of Rome, he had only just become an Italian citizen, having previously been a British citizen. The mixture of blood had to be taken into account: he was the son of a German mother and had taken the name Nathan because his father was Mazzini, the famous Italian revolutionary. Yes, that's how it was.
Now, when he was brought to pay homage to the Tsar, one could say that democracy had been thoroughly converted. It was not done by an ordinary person, but by someone who was steeped in all the trappings of democracy, but who was also well prepared. And certain things began to become meticulous from that time on. For example, we know today that from that time on, correspondence within the Triple Alliance was always forwarded to Petersburg on time! Human passions also played a role, in that a lady who had established a “sisterly” relationship between Rome and Petersburg played a very special role in this transmission. Such things can, of course, be attributed to chance, if one wishes; but those who want to see through Maja will not attribute them to chance, but will seek deeper connections between them. And then, when one seeks such deeper connections, one will no longer be able to lie as much as one lies, one will no longer be able to stupefy people so much that they are distracted from the truth, from what really matters.
For it would have been unpleasant, of course – and I say this only to characterize the truth – for the widest circles to draw people's attention to the fact that the whole Belgian invasion would not have taken place if that sentence I have already mentioned had been uttered by Lord Grey – now he is also a lord – by Sir Edward Grey. The whole story in Belgium would not have happened, it would have been swept under the carpet, it would not have taken place. But instead of looking at the real origin of the matter, which is the origin insofar as it could have prevented the matter, it was of course more convenient to pass the time by talking about the “Belgian atrocities.” But they would not have happened either if Sir Edward Grey had taken the only brief measure available to him at the time. However, in order to obscure the simple truth, one naturally needs something else that appeals to human passions, to justified passions, to morality. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with that. But something else is needed. And the characteristic feature of our present age is precisely that, to this day—and this is particularly painful—every effort is being made to conceal the truth, to stupefy people about the truth.
This, too, had to be carefully prepared. For if there had been a flaw anywhere in the plan, it would not have been possible. It was necessary to have the entire periphery, which was therefore wisely created.
But everything was very carefully prepared, both politically and culturally. And they took many factors into account. And they could take many factors into account, because there is sometimes the most incredible carelessness in these matters, even in places where you would not expect it. Take, for example, a case where you can really study this carelessness, an objective fact.
At a certain time, Bismarck maintained a connection with a certain Usedom in Florence and Turin. I have already explained that modern Italy actually came into being by a roundabout route and owes its existence in reality to Germany, but that has to do with many things. The things I am saying have deep roots, and there are many threads at play in politics. For example, there were once strings that were supposed to win over the Italian republicans; in short, at a certain time there was such a connection between Bismarck and Usedom in Florence and Turin. This Usedom was a friend of Mazzini, a friend of other people who were of some importance, particularly in popular circles. This Usedom was a man who actually posed as a very wise person and who hired a supposed Mazzinian as his private secretary. However, it later emerged that this private secretary, who was said to be initiated into the secrets of Mazzini's secret societies, was a very ordinary spy. Bismarck tells this story quite naively and adds in his defense that he was taken in because Usedom was a high-ranking Freemason. — And so one could tell many stories, in which it would often turn out that the people involved are completely innocent, because the real — allow me the trivial expression — puppet masters are behind the scenes.
One cannot ask: How is it that such things are allowed by the wise powers that govern the world, that humanity is, as it were, handed over to such machinations, since one cannot get to the bottom of things? There are just as many opportunities to find out, if one only seeks them honestly. But we see in our own society how much resistance is offered by individuals when it comes to following the simple path of truth. We see how many things that should be taken objectively in the sense of knowledge, and which would then best serve the good of humanity, are interpreted in a subjective, personal sense. And after all, there are still groups within our society, I would say collegial bodies, which have read a certain document, I believe comprising two hundred and eighty-seven pages, with great attention and taken it completely seriously, and which are still mulling it over in order to find out to what extent this man, who is well known here, was actually right. In short, we can sometimes make discoveries within our own ranks that shed light on why it is so difficult for some people to see through things, whereas it is not at all difficult to see through things if one has a genuine desire for truth. For many things have been said in our circles over the years. If you put together everything that has been said since 1902, you will see that there is something there that can help you to understand many things in the world. And our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has not presented itself as some kind of secret society, but rather the things that matter have always been discussed in public lectures before the whole world. That is precisely the contrast that one must be aware of.
And I can already say this today: If certain tendencies continue to exist in our Anthroposophical Society, tendencies that are aimed at exploiting, out of human vanity, that which is initially kept within a closed circle for good reason—for example, that universities do not invite the whole world to attend the second year of lectures, but only those who have already attended the first year—then there will be nothing esoteric left. If we do not take things in this self-evident sense, but instead go out into the world and say: This is secret, this is completely esoteric, this is occult, I must not say it! — if this policy is pursued in certain currents of our society, if no sense develops that all nuances of vanity must cease, then everything that needs to be communicated to humanity today will have to be negotiated in front of the whole world. Whether some things can then be communicated will be determined by necessity. But the Anthroposophical Society only has meaning if it is a “society,” that is, if every individual is truly concerned with taking a stand against all vanity, against everything that is shrouded in a false mystical veil by foolishness and vanity, and which serves no purpose other than to make other people suspicious and resentful. Our society must not be concerned with the mysterious, such as certain occult brotherhoods, but solely with accomplishing what is necessary for the salvation of humanity. The enemies will become more and more numerous, as I have often said. Perhaps it will be precisely in the way the world rubs against our society that the nature of our enemies will become apparent. We have not yet encountered any honest opposition; that would only encourage us! The opposition we have encountered can be recognized by its “how,” by the manner and means by which it operates. Whether the opponents come from our own circles, which is very often the case, or from elsewhere, we can wait and see! An opposition has just been announced that is supposed to pour a cold shower over us. A book is being announced in lectures in which someone who has never been in our society and who, as a vain fool, has entertained the world with all kinds of double selves, is using the opportunity of various national incitements and passions to attack our anthroposophy in a way that is not purely finger-pointing.
We must therefore keep these things in mind and be clear that we must strictly adhere to the path of truth and knowledge. Even when we speak of contemporary issues, for us it can only be a matter of knowing the truth. We must look things in the eye; then everyone can take this or that position according to their own feelings. Every point of view can be understood, but the point of view must be based on truth.
This is something we must take to heart, especially today. For much has happened in our time that should make people pause and realize that it is necessary to arrive at a healthy, truthful judgment. We have seen that, no sooner had the longing for peace swept through the world than this longing for peace was shouted down. And we are still seeing how people become downright angry when peace is mentioned today by one side or the other. Not only do they become angry when peace is spoken of by a warring party, but they even become angry when peace is spoken of by a neutral party.
We shall see whether the world will be sufficiently astonished by these things. We have already had some very special experiences in this regard. For once the world has passed judgment on the events of April and May 1915, when a large territory was to be voluntarily ceded but this was rejected solely in order to wage war, and no possibility has been found to arrive at even a reasonably accurate assessment of the situation, one can certainly expect the worst. One can therefore expect the worst because people do not really care about saying what is true, but rather about saying what suits them. The ways of thinking are curious, the ways of thinking are very peculiar. But one must grasp things at the right points.
I would like to read you a short passage written by an Italian before the outbreak of this world war, at a time when Italy was rejoicing over the Tripoli War, which I do not judge. I will never object to Italy's annexation of Tripoli; such matters are judged differently by those who know what is necessary and possible in international relations than by those who pass false judgments and condemn such actions on the basis of moral virtues. But here I have a man—his name is Prezzolini—who writes about an Italy he is happy about, an Italy that has developed from an Italy he was not happy about. He first describes what had actually become of this Italy, how it had fallen into decline, and then continues—under the immediate impression of the Tripoli War:
"And yet, completely unaware of this economic rebirth, Italy was at the same time going through the period of despondency described above. The first to notice the revival were foreigners. Italians had already appeared, but they were mere windbags with the famous and notorious ‘primacy of Italy’ on their lips. The book by the German Fischer dates from 1899, that by the Englishman Bolton King from 1901. Even today, no Italian, not even on the fiftieth anniversary of “unity,” has produced a work that comes close to these. The peculiar wisdom of these foreigners is particularly noteworthy because foreigners really knew nothing about modern Italy and did not want to know anything about it. At that time, as today, there was a judgment, or rather a prejudice, about Italy: that it was a country of the past and not of the present, that it must “rest in the past” and not enter the present. People wanted an Italy of archives, museums, inns for honeymoons or for the amusement of those suffering from spleen or lung disease, an Italy of barrel organs, serenades and gondola rides, full of Ciceroni, boot shiners, polyglots and Polichinelli. These foreigners were much happier traveling in sleeping cars than in stagecoaches, but they regretted a little that they did not meet a Calabrian highwayman here and there on a street corner with his blunderbuss and velvet hat in the shape of a sugar loaf. Oh, the beautiful Italian sky, spoiled by factory chimneys; oh, la bella Napoli, reviled by steamboats and their unloading; and Rome with its Italian soldiers; what regret for the beautiful times of papal, Bourbon, and Leopoldine Rome! These philanthropic feelings still form the basis of every Anglo-Saxon and German judgment about us, and to show how deep they were, it suffices to recall that they were expressed by people who were outstanding in other respects, such as Gregorovius and Bourget. The Italy that reformed itself and became prosperous, that began to have one or two large banknotes in its wallet, has only today gained a true awareness of itself. And if, in reaction, it goes a little further than its enthusiasm would allow, we must forgive and understand it. Ten years have been necessary, and they have hardly been enough for the idea to spread from the first people who foresaw Italy's future and strength to the masses, who are now imbued with it and convinced of it. Our great thinkers would have piled up volumes of journals, statistical books, philosophical works, and books on the latest art in vain."
Here we have the sentiment, my dear friends! “Our great thinkers would have piled up volumes of journals, statistical books, philosophical works, and books on the latest art in vain.” All of this is useless, he believes, for truly uplifting a people. This modern man no longer has any faith in the power of the mind, in the effectiveness of the intellectual!
“Our great thinkers would have piled up volumes of magazines, statistical books, philosophical works, and books on the latest art for nothing; the people would never have come to this conviction, nor would foreigners, at least not for many years.”
This man has no faith in creating spiritual culture in this way.
“The great and brutal fact was necessary to shatter the fantasies and allow national solidarity and revival to be felt in every market town, no matter how small and miserable.”
And to whom does he attribute the ability to bring about what no intellectual culture can produce? He says:
“And this is what the war has served.”
There you have it! There you have the belief that people had. Tripoli was there; people had to have it, and they go on to say: War is necessary to get to where intellectual culture did not consider it necessary to go.
Yes, my dear friends, such things are said when they are held together with the idea that a voice comes from that side saying: We did not want this war, we are innocent lambs, we have been attacked. — For even from that side comes the cry: To save freedom, to save the small nations, we have been forced to go to war. The man says:
“We young people, born around the year 80, entered the world with the new century. Our country had become despondent. The intellectual world was at a very low level.”
So these are the people born around 1880.
“The philosophy: positivism; the history: sociology; the criticism: historical method, if not psychiatry.”
You can say that in Lombroso's country!
"The liberators of Italy were followed by the exploiters of Italy; not only their sons, our fathers, but also their grandsons, our older brothers. The heroic tradition of revival was lost, and no idea inspired the new generations. Religion had declined among the best, but it had left a void. For the others, it was a habit. Art vacillated in a sensual and aesthetic frenzy without reason or faith; from Carducci, whom Papa read, accompanied by Tuscan wine and a cart driver's cigar, people moved on to d'Annunzio, who is now the gospel of the older brother, dressed in the latest fashion, with his pockets full of candy, a womanizer and a vain braggart."
Nevertheless, this puppet, described here as “dressed in the latest fashion, with pockets full of candy, a womanizer and a vain braggart,” this puppet then made it clear to the people at Pentecost 1915 that they now needed once again what no intellectual work could give them!
In serious times, it is necessary to decide to look at the truth and, in a sense, to commit oneself to the truth. For if one does not want to recognize the truth, one strays from what can truly be beneficial to humanity. Therefore, it must be understood that serious words must be spoken, especially in these days. For we are in a situation where, one might say, the seven-eighths blind could see if they experienced that the cry for peace is already being shouted. Anyone who can believe that one is fighting for lasting peace by shouting for peace may still have a reasonably sound judgment in various areas of life, but they cannot be considered sane with regard to what is happening. And if, on the other hand, one does not feel obliged to tell the truth, then things can become very, very bad in the world.
It is truly no pleasant task for me to draw attention to certain things, especially at this time. But when one hears what is being said everywhere, one feels it is necessary. We must not lose heart as long as the disaster has not yet come to pass; but the spark of hope is small: much depends on this spark of hope for the coming days; and much also depends on the fact that there are still people who cry out to the world about the utter absurdity of such things, as has been done in recent days even from prominent cities around the world.
The world needs peace, and it will suffer greatly if it does not have peace now. And it will suffer greatly if people continue to believe that we are forced to fight for lasting peace, while they respond to every opportunity for peace with scornful words that they cleverly disguise. But we have reached the point, my dear friends, where even a Lloyd George can be considered a great man in the widest circles! We can say: Things have come a long way!
But these things are only tests for humanity. Even then, they would only be a test if what I allowed myself to say at the end of my Christmas lecture were to come true, if the whole future were to say: In the Christmas spirit of the year nineteen hundred and sixteen, after the mystery of Golgotha, the cry “Peace on earth among men of good will” was shouted under the most vain pretexts—or, if they are not the most vain pretexts, then it must be something worse. Then one must recognize from this shouting down of every thought of peace what is really going on: that it is not really about what is being said on the periphery, but about something completely different. Then one will understand that one can already speak of the happiness or unhappiness of Europe today. Well, I cannot elaborate further on this today because of the late hour. But I wanted to leave these words with you!