The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Tenth Lecture

[ 1 ] Yesterday I told you the story of Good Gerhard—a story with which most of you are probably familiar—because I would like to build on it in a way that may help us understand the matters we are now seeking to comprehend. But before I can move on to a kind of interpretation of this story of Good Gerhard—to the extent that we need it—we must recall a few things that we have already touched upon in various ways in our previous reflections. As you have been able to see from what has been said in recent weeks, the painful events occurring in our time are connected to impulses that live within the karma of humanity in recent times—within the entire karma of the fifth post-Atlantean period. And for those who wish to understand these matters more deeply, it is essential that they be able to connect external events with certain inner processes—processes that can only be understood by viewing human development from the perspective of spiritual science.

[ 2 ] First, accept as fact certain points that I have already brought to your attention on several occasions; take the often-mentioned fact that in the mid-19th century, an effort arose to make modern humanity aware that the environment is governed not only by those forces and powers that can be recognized by the natural sciences, but that spiritual forces are also at work within it—that just as we perceive the sensory world through our eyes and our senses in general, spiritual impulses are at work in our surroundings, which people can also make use of and thus incorporate into social life if they know something about the things that cannot be perceived by the senses but are, in fact, the subjects of a spiritual science.

[ 3 ] We know the path this spiritual science has taken; we do not need to repeat it over and over again. Around the middle of the 19th century, the task was to draw people’s attention—from a certain center—to the fact that, so to speak, a spiritual environment exists. This had, after all, been forgotten during the age of materialism. You also know that this must be done with caution, because certain insights require a certain level of maturity on the part of people. Certainly, not everyone can be mature enough to be influenced by such insights—or to arrive at them—according to the laws of our time, which are subject to public opinion. But it may be necessary, for a certain period of time, to at least examine whether such insights can be presented to the public.

[ 4 ] In the mid-19th century, two paths could have been taken. One would have been to choose, even back then, the path that we can simply describe by referring to our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—the path of making comprehensible to human thinking what can be experienced through occult knowledge of the spiritual environment. This is indeed something that could have been attempted, but which was not attempted at that time, in the mid-19th century. People shied away from it, initially because of a certain prejudice against “esotericists” that had been handed down from ancient times, and which consists precisely in the belief that certain insights preserved within occult brotherhoods—as they were indeed preserved at that time—should not simply be shared with the public, but should remain within the circles of the occult brotherhoods. We can see, after all, that if things are done in the right way, they can certainly happen in our time. Apart from the fact that, from among the circles within which this knowledge has been disseminated, malicious opponents have emerged and will continue to emerge—people who, following their passions and selfishness, after having been followers for a time, become opponents under all sorts of guises and thereby cause discord—apart from that and from the fact that, when occult knowledge is disseminated within a community, this very easily leads to strife, quarrels, and discord—though one must not attach too much importance to this, for otherwise one could never disseminate occult knowledge—no harm can result if things are done correctly.

[ 5 ] But people did not believe that at the time. As I said, they clung to the old prejudice I mentioned and initially agreed to take a different path. This attempt, as I have often explained, has in fact failed. The path chosen was to bring the occult world to people’s recognition through mediumistic revelations in the same way as the physical world, by preparing suitable individuals to become mediums who, through what they brought to light by mediumistic means while in a state of subdued consciousness, were to lead people to recognize certain spiritual impulses in their surroundings. This was a materialistic approach to making the spiritual world accessible to people. In a sense, it corresponded to the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, insofar as this epoch has a materialistic character.

[ 6 ] As you know, this movement originated in America in the mid-19th century; but it very soon became clear that the whole thing was a mistake. Instead of what had been expected—namely, that the mediums would indicate the presence of certain elemental and nature spirits in the vicinity—they all claimed to receive revelations from the realm of the dead. Thus, the original objective was not achieved. As I have often explained: Human beings can only approach the dead by developing within themselves a form of perception that is not mediated by a subdued consciousness. Well, we know these things, of course. But of course this was also known at the time, and so when the mediums began, of their own accord, to speak of revelations from the dead, it was clear that the whole endeavor was a misstep. This was not what had been expected; rather, it had been anticipated that they would describe how nature spirits operate, how one person influences another, what forces are at work in the social organism, and so on. People had hoped that this would reveal which forces could be utilized by those who understand them, so that people would not be dependent on one another merely through the senses, but rather through the entirety of the human personality. That was one of the problems.

[ 7 ] The other factor was that, given people’s materialistic disposition, it very soon became clear what direction the media industry would have taken had it achieved the widespread influence that threatened to materialize. It would have led to the media being used to accomplish things that should only be accomplished under the influence of natural reason, which is bound to the sensory world. It would, of course, 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 one; I need the money for a completely selfless purpose—couldn’t you tell me which number will be drawn?”—Of course, if mediums had been fully trained in this regard, one could have engaged in unlimited nonsense along these lines, apart from everything else. People would have gone to mediums to get married, to have the right bride or groom pointed out to them, and so on.

[ 8 ] Consequently, the very same forces that had initiated the entire operation—in order to test whether people were ready to embrace the occult—now sought to curb the movement they had set in motion. It had turned out exactly as people had feared in earlier times, when the abilities of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch were still resonating within humanity. Witches were burned for the simple reason that the individuals labeled as witches were, in essence, also mediums, and because their connection to the spiritual world—albeit in a manner appropriate to materialism—could have revealed 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 lay behind this or that community. For it is indeed true that when consciousness is subdued, a sort of “telephone connection” to the spiritual world is established, and that all manner of secrets can come to light in this way. Those who burned the witches knew exactly why they were doing it: precisely because they feared that the world—whether for good or for ill, but above all, of course, for ill—might have learned from the witches’ own mouths what they knew. |

[ 9 ] The attempt to examine human culture through the media had thus failed. And even those who, seduced by the old precepts of silence and by the materialistic tendencies of the 19th century, had undertaken this attempt recognized this. As you know, it was not possible to completely restrict mediumship; it continued to exist and still exists today; but, in a sense, people have retreated from the art of training mediums to such a degree that their revelations become meaningful. By retreating, what mediums are now still capable of has become more or less harmless. And in more recent times, as you know, the mediums produce little more than some unctuous nonsense, and one can only marvel that people attach such great importance to it. Yet the gateway to the spiritual world had, in a sense, been opened—and in a way that was actually out of step with the times, that was a mistake.

[ 10 ] It was during this entire period that Blavatsky was born and carried out her work. One might think that the birth of a human being is meaningless; but that would merely be a judgment born of Maya. — Well, what matters is that this entire matter had to be discussed within the brotherhoods, and that as a result, much was said and much was expressed within them. And because the 19th century was no longer like earlier centuries, when there were sufficient means to keep secret the things that were meant to be kept secret, it could happen that at a certain point in time, a member of an occult brotherhood, who intended to to exploit what he had heard in these brotherhoods for his own ends, approached Blavatsky and persuaded her—who, in addition to her other qualities, was above all an extraordinarily powerful medium—to act, so to speak, as the intermediary for machinations that were no longer as honest as the earlier ones. The first ones, as you have seen, were a mistake, but they were honest. Up until what I am now beginning to recount, the whole affair was an honest, albeit mistaken, attempt to test people’s receptivity. But now, in a sense, begins the no longer honest betrayal by a member of an American occult brotherhood, who pursued the goal of exploiting what he knew in a one-sided manner and sought to make use of a personality with such psychic predispositions as Blavatsky possessed. Let us now first consider the facts of what took place.

[ 11 ] When Blavatsky heard from the member what the matter was, she naturally had the opportunity to respond to it inwardly, because she was a psychic personality. That is to say, she understood much more about the matter than the person who conveyed the information to her did himself. The ancient traditions, clothed in formulaic language, kindled profound insights in her soul—insights she could hardly have attained through her own personal development alone. But as inner spiritual experiences were stirred within her by ancient formulas—which date back to the time of atavistic clairvoyance and are preserved in the occult brotherhoods, often without the members themselves understanding them—a vast store of knowledge was kindled within her, and she naturally knew that this knowledge must have significance for the development of modern humanity, and that one merely had to follow the right paths to apply this knowledge in a specific way.

[ 12 ] One could not expect Blavatsky herself—given her personality—to have the salvation of all humanity as her sole concern in the sense of the highest occultism; rather, she came to the idea of pursuing certain goals that she understood. She had arrived at this in the way I have described. She then requested admission into an occult brotherhood in Paris. She intended to work through this organization at first. Of course, under normal circumstances she would simply have been admitted—apart from the fact that admitting a woman would have been something of an anomaly; but in this case, that would have been overlooked, for it was known that one was dealing with a significant individual. But simply being admitted as an ordinary member would not have served her purposes, and so she set certain conditions. Had these conditions been met, many things would indeed have turned out differently, but at the same time, this occult brotherhood would have effectively signed its own death warrant in a certain sense—that is, it would have rendered itself ineffective. For this reason, Blavatsky was denied admission in Paris. She then turned to America, where she was indeed accepted into an occult brotherhood. And the result of this was that she naturally gained incredibly significant insights into what such occult brotherhoods seek—namely, those—let this be stated right away—that by no means intend to strive for the overall salvation of humanity without regard for any distinctions within it, but rather have one-sided intentions that serve certain groups. It was not in Blavatsky’s nature to act in the way these brotherhoods intended to act. And so it came to pass that, under the influence of what was called an “attack on the Constitution of North America,” she had to be expelled from that brotherhood.

[ 13 ] Now she had been expelled. But of course she was not the sort of person to simply accept everything with resignation; instead, she issued a very sharp threat: she would show the American Brotherhood what it meant to be expelled now that she knew so much. In fact, the American Brotherhood now found itself under the sword of Damocles. Had Blavatsky revealed to the world what she knew from having been a member, it would have been a death sentence for that American Brotherhood. The result was that American and European occultists joined forces to place Blavatsky in a state known as “occult imprisonment.” This means that, through certain machinations, a sphere of imaginings is evoked within a soul, causing a clouding of what the soul previously knew, thereby rendering that knowledge, so to speak, ineffective. It is a procedure that is never used by honest occultists and only very rarely by dishonest ones, but which was employed at that time to, so to speak, save the life—that is, the effectiveness—of that occult brotherhood.

[ 14 ] For years, Blavatsky remained in this occult captivity until certain Indian occultists took her under their wing; these individuals had an interest in working against the American Brotherhood. As you can see, one is always dealing with occult currents that operate in a one-sided manner. And so Blavatsky found herself in this Indian current, with which you are no doubt well acquainted. The Indian occultists had every interest in taking action against the American Brotherhood—not because they generally view the latter as failing to serve humanity on the whole, but because they, in turn, wanted to work against the American Brotherhood from their one-sided, one might say, Indian-patriotic standpoint. But through all sorts of machinations, a kind of compromise was reached 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.

[ 15 ] If one takes these things into account and adds to them what I have already pointed out to you—namely, that in place of the old teacher, Blavatsky’s “leader,” a “mask personality,” a “mask Mahatma” had been installed—one who was actually in the service of a European power and had the task of exploiting what could be accomplished through Blavatsky for the benefit of a specific European power—then one will see just how complicated these matters really are. One might be able to understand what this is really about by asking oneself: What would have happened if one or the other had actually come to pass?

[ 16 ] There isn’t enough time to tell you everything today, but let’s start by highlighting a few points. We can always come back to these matters later. — Let’s suppose that Blavatsky had succeeded in being admitted to the Paris occult lodge, as she had sought to do. Then she probably would not have fallen under the influence of the one who was later revered in the Theosophical Society as a Mahatma—which he was not—and this would have led to the demise of the Paris occult lodge. Then many of the events that the same Paris occult lodge is now behind would not have happened, or rather, they would likely have occurred in the service of a different bias. 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, then there would have been nothing behind all those people who have lived in history as more or less puppet figures. The Silvagnis, Durante, Sergi, Cecconi, the entire family of Signor Lombroso, and many others would have had no occult backers. And certain doors—which function like a kind of sliding door—would have remained closed. — You will understand that these things are meant somewhat symbolically: in certain countries, editorial offices—this is meant figuratively! — a proper door and a sliding door; through the proper door one enters the editorial office, through the sliding door into some occult brotherhood that operates as I have hinted at in various ways over the past few days, resulting in such things as we, too, have alluded to on several occasions. — So the aim was, first of all, to eliminate something from the world that would at least have diverted the course we have seen at work in the present. Signor d’Annunzio would then not have delivered the speech we have quoted.

[ 17 ] Well, perhaps another course of action would have been taken, one that would simply have pushed things in a different direction. — But you see that the moment people are driven—not with complete mastery over things, — that is, when people are being driven by a consciousness that has been suppressed in some way—that when occultism comes into play—which is not concerned with the general welfare of humanity and, in our time above all, not with true knowledge, but rather with achieving certain specific goals—then, under certain circumstances, things can already take a very bad turn.

[ 18 ] So, as I said, the members of that lodge were wise enough not to address the matter from the lodge’s perspective. Later, certain things were, I would say, covered up or obscured by the fact that Blavatsky, through her occult captivity, was prevented from publicizing the impulses of that American lodge in a certain light—as she undoubtedly would have done again. After all these events had taken place, Blavatsky actually served only Indian occultism. And the fact that a certain body of occult knowledge—specifically one with a one-sided Indian flavor—has come into the world has a very specific significance for modern times. It has indeed come into the world; it is here. But what has been paralyzed in the manner described has remained more or less unconscious to the world.

[ 19 ] Those who plan for such things always take a long-term view. They lay the groundwork and allow things to develop on their own; for it is not individual people, but brotherhoods, in which the successor takes over the duties of the predecessor in order to continue what has been begun in the same direction.

[ 20 ] As you can see, in the two examples I gave you regarding occult lodges, it was crucial that their true motives not be made public. I do not wish to be misunderstood, which is why I explicitly stated: A certain degree of honesty underlay the first attempt I described to you. But it is extraordinarily difficult for people to be truly objective and humane, because in modern times there is little inclination to be objective and humane. People are easily led astray by groupthink—not to be objectively human, but to side one-sidedly with this or that group, to feel themselves to be members of this or that group. But this, in and of itself, is something that no longer fully corresponds to the stage of human development we have now reached. This stage demands that human beings, at least to a certain degree, feel themselves to be individuals, detach themselves—at least inwardly—from group-oriented thinking, and learn to belong to humanity as human beings. Even if our present time demonstrates in such a grotesque way just how impossible this is for certain people, it is nonetheless a demand of our time.

[ 21 ] Take an example; build on what I said here a few days ago: that when we look at peoples, we are dealing with individualities that cannot be compared to 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 different kinds of individualities. What might be called the national spirit or national soul 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 mindset, as is done today—while always implying, even if one does not admit it, that one means something similar to the soul of a human being—is, at the root of it, nonsense. Thus, one hears the phrase “the French soul” today; this has been heard time and again in recent years. It is nonsense, utter nonsense, because it is merely an analogy taken from the individual human soul and applied to the national soul. One can speak of the national soul only if one takes into account the entire context presented to you in the lecture series on the various national spirits. But to speak of the national soul in another sense—for example, in the way many do today, even journalists (about whom one can only say that they should be forgiven, for they do not know what they are talking about)—to speak of the national soul in this sense is simply utter nonsense. It is mere rhetoric when, for example, people speak of the “Celtic soul and the Latin spirit.” Such a statement may serve as an analogy, but it does not capture any reality.

[ 22 ] We must be clear about what the Mystery of Golgotha means. We have, after all, said it so often: The Mystery of Golgotha took place in such a way that what has been connected with Earth’s evolution since the Mystery of Golgotha is indeed there for all of humanity; yet when the individual speaks of a mystical Christ within himself, that is mere idle talk. The Mystery of Golgotha is an objective reality, as you know from much of what has been said here. But what is meant by “for all of humanity” is that the individual human being is considered 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 utter nonsense to speak, for example, 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 account here. An individual human being can be Christian if he or she is connected to the essence of the Mystery of Golgotha; but one cannot speak of a “Christian people.” That which underlies the peoples as their true soul belongs to planes on which the Mystery of Golgotha did not take place. What unfolds as interactions between peoples can never be interpreted or commented on in a Christian sense.

[ 23 ] I draw attention to such things only because it is necessary—especially for you, my dear friends—to realize how important it is today to arrive at clear concepts. This is only possible if one views things from the perspective of spiritual science, whereas humanity’s tendency is to fish in murky waters using concepts that are as nonsensical and impure as possible. The most important thing, therefore, is to arrive at clear concepts, to view things truly in the sense of clear concepts, and to understand that in our time—but primarily through human beings—certain occult, certain spiritual impulses have already been at work. This corresponds to the fifth post-Atlantean epoch.

[ 24 ] The point is that, above all, if Blavatsky had been able to speak at that time, certain secrets would have come to light—secrets I have already alluded to—regarding certain occult brotherhoods that are connected to the collective will of far-reaching groups. I have told you: Laws underlie the emergence and development of what one might call a national character. These laws are generally unknown in the outer physical world. And that is a good thing for the time being, for they are meant to be recognized only by those who wish to receive them with pure hands. Interfering with what pulsates as spiritual forces in human evolution—on the very ground where, for example, national cultures develop—interfering in a one-sided manner, as certain modern brotherhoods do—that is precisely what is connected to the most severe trials facing all of humanity, both in the present and in the future. Everything that happens in evolution occurs according to laws, occurs regularly, and occurs under the influence of certain forces. People intervene, partly unconsciously, and—if they are members of occult brotherhoods—consciously.

[ 25 ] Assessing these matters requires precisely what I referred to yesterday as a broader perspective—the acquisition of a broader perspective. I have once again brought to your attention the very thing of which Blavatsky was, so to speak, the pawn, in order to make you aware of how such a pawn is tossed from West to East, from America to India, because forces are already at play through human manipulation, aiming to bring about this or that by appealing to the I might say, the passions and feelings of people that are rooted in the folk tradition—passions and feelings that are first prepared and then exploited. This is therefore very important. What matters here is having an eye for these things—the ability to see how a person, through the kind of passions that are within them, that are in their blood, can be placed in a specific position and, in one sense or another, exposed to certain influences. To do this, of course, one must know that certain things can be achieved from the position to which one then places them. Much goes wrong; but one must reckon with long periods of time, and where such things come into play, one must reckon with many possibilities. Above all, one must reckon with how little people are inclined to direct their attention even slightly toward the larger context.

[ 26 ] Now let’s pause here and take a brief look at yesterday’s story. It tells us about the time around the 10th century, when the spiritual constitution of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch still prevailed. We have seen how the spiritual world influences Emperor Otto, the one with the red beard. His entire life is transformed by the fact that the spiritual world draws his attention to Good Gerhard. From this Good Gerhard, he is to learn the fear of God, true piety, and that one should not expect to receive a purely selfish blessing from heaven for what one has done here on earth. But he is directed from the spiritual world to seek out this Good Gerhard. That is one aspect: the influence of the spiritual world.

[ 27 ] Anyone who truly understands that era—not merely from external history as it is presented today, but as it actually was—knows that such manifestations of the spiritual world in real visions, as recounted in the story of Emperor Otto the Red, were commonplace at that time, and that spiritual impulses certainly played a significant role. The person who wrote down this story now explicitly states the following: In his youth, he had written many other stories, just as others of his contemporaries had done. The man who wrote down the story of Good Gerhard was roughly a contemporary of Wolfram von Eschenbach: Rudolf von Hohenems. He says that he wrote other things as well, but that he destroyed them all, specifically because they were fairy tales. This story, however—which, in an external sense, is not historical either, meaning it could not appear in our modern history books that consider only the physical Maya—he regards as strictly historical, not a fairy tale. He tells it in such a way that it cannot be compared with external, purely physical history; yet he tells it more truthfully than external, purely physical history can be—which, after all, is essentially Maya. He tells it specifically for the fourth post-Atlantean epoch.

[ 28 ] As you know—because I have repeatedly emphasized this during these debates—this is not a matter of taking sides for one thing or another, but rather of presenting facts that are intended to serve as the basis for evaluating the situation. Only someone who does not wish to be objective will accuse the account I am about to present of being biased. Of course, one cannot expect someone who does not wish to be objective to recognize what is objective as such. What is important in this account of “Good Gerhard” is not only that the spiritual world plays a role, but also that an impulse is given from the spiritual world—through a guiding, leading figure—to reach out 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 Red Otto belonged were precisely the ones who promoted the commercial life of the cities. For Europe, it was the era in which the commercial spirit was coming of age.

[ 29 ] Now we must take into account that we are transported to a time when there was no such thing as a maritime connection between the East and the West; trade routes were exclusively overland. Businesspeople like Good Gerhard—who, as you know, lived in Cologne—facilitated trade connections via land routes from Cologne all the way to the Orient and back again. If they used ships, this was, in essence, of secondary importance; the land routes were what mattered most. Therefore, the maritime connections were, in essence, nothing more than—I would say—attempts to achieve, by means of primitive seafaring, what was taking place on a much larger scale via land routes at that time. We are thus primarily concerned with overland routes, and only with the very earliest beginnings of shipping. This is precisely what is characteristic: that we are directed to this point in time. Extensive shipping did not begin until much later.

[ 30 ] And now you can see how a contrast arises that stems entirely from the nature of things. It is entirely natural that, as long as land routes served as the link between the Orient and the Occident, the Central European countries set the tone; that goes without saying. Life in these Central European countries was also shaped by these circumstances. It was quite different from what it became later. And much was also transmitted in this way with regard to spiritual culture. In the centuries that followed, overland routes were replaced by sea routes. As you know, the subsequent development was such that England gradually consolidated these sea routes, which had been in various hands, into a single authority. — The Spanish, the Dutch, and the French, as seafaring nations, were overcome, and everything was brought under the immense dominion that encompasses a quarter of the total land area—that is, the part of the Earth’s surface not covered by the sea—and gradually, dominion over the sea as well.

[ 31 ] If you assume that what I told you some time ago is correct—namely, that in the occult brotherhoods, which have been growing and have become particularly large since the time of James I, it has been taught for centuries as a self-evident truth that the Anglo-Saxon race—as is said in this context, as I have already explained—must assume world domination during the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, then you will find a logical pattern in this overcoming and, in a sense, eradication of the maritime dominance of the others. And if one adds to this what I have already hinted at—namely, that it has been and continues to be taught that this fifth post-Atlantean race of English-speaking peoples, as it is said, must overcome the peoples of the Latin race—then you will already see the systematic nature of these historical events.

[ 32 ] The main point at issue, first and foremost, is the interplay between the English-speaking peoples and the Latin-speaking peoples, in one form or another. One cannot understand recent history without realizing that what matters above all—and that this is how events are directed—is to shape world affairs in favor of the English-speaking population in such a way that the influence of the Latin-speaking population, in whatever form, ceases. Under certain circumstances, the best way to bring about such an end is to promote the other group for a time and thereby bring it under one’s control. This may be the best way to ensure that it is absorbed.

[ 33 ] In those occult brotherhoods to which I have alluded in various ways, no particular significance is attached to Central Europe; for they are wise enough to know that, for example, Germany possesses only one thirty-third of the total land area—that is, the portion of the Earth covered by land. That is really quite little compared to a quarter of the total land-covered Earth, not to mention the dominance over the seas. Central Europe is therefore not the region to which special importance is attached. However, special importance was attached—especially in the times when the events of the present were being prepared—to overcoming all those impulses that find expression in Latin culture.

[ 34 ] It is quite remarkable how short-sighted the historical view of the present day is, how little people are inclined to address the defining characteristics. I have already pointed out that what matters is not what the historical account—which for so long has been allowed to remain purely pragmatic—reports, that is: this happens now, then that, then that, and then that, and so on—but rather, it is a matter of recognizing the facts that are characteristic in their various relationships within the sequence of events. Pointing out the characteristic facts—that which, I would say, reveals the underlying forces in the phenomenon—is what matters. Today’s pragmatic view of history must be replaced by a symptomatic view of history.

[ 35 ] Anyone who sees through things will be able to assess certain phenomena quite differently from someone who simply reads the stories—what is called world history, this fable convenue—one after another, just as they are currently recounted in modern historical scholarship. Consider certain things you know well, along with others to which I wish to draw your attention. First, a simple fact: In 1618, as is well known, the Thirty Years’ War began when a certain kind of reformist ideas took shape among the Czech Slavs. Then nobles belonging to these Slavic circles took up the cause of the movement and rose up against what might be called the Counter-Reformation: against Catholicism, which was favored by the House of Habsburg, which, after all, originated in Spain. What is usually recounted first about the Thirty Years’ War—that the rebels made their way to Prague City Hall and subsequently threw Councilors Martinitz and Slawata and the secretary Fabrizius out the window—is of little significance. This incident is interesting, at most, in that none of the three gentlemen suffered any particular harm, since they happened to land on a manure heap. But these are not the things that can truly bring the Thirty Years’ War to life, that reveal its underlying currents.

[ 36 ] The Reformers elected an anti-king, Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, who was elected King of Bohemia in 1619. This was followed, as you know, by the Battle of White Mountain. Up until the election of the Elector, everything stemmed from certain human passions in the wake of a Reformation movement—from a rebellion against the repressive measures taken against these Reformers through the closure or destruction of Protestant churches in Braunau and Kloster Grab. 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. Up to the point where some chose their own king, it was human passions, human enthusiasm—and, if you will, I’ll concede to you, even human idealism—that underlay these events; this can rightly be said.

[ 37 ] But why was the Elector Palatine, of all people, elected King of Bohemia? This becomes clear when you realize that he is the son-in-law of James I—the very James I who stands at the starting point of the renewal of the brotherhoods! You see: here a hand comes into play that one must certainly take into account when considering this telling history; here it becomes evident that, from a certain quarter, things were to be steered in a very specific direction. Well, it failed back then. But one can see how a hand is at work. More important than all other connections, in terms of the impulses that were meant to be introduced here, is the fact that the son-in-law of one of the most significant occult figures, James I, was placed precisely in this position.

[ 38 ] The point is precisely that throughout recent history we have been dealing with a contrast between the old Romance-Latin nature and that nature—I am not referring to the English people, for they would get along very well with the world—but rather to that nature which, from the perspective I have sufficiently characterized, is being forged from this English people, or is intended to be forged, if they do not resist it. This is the conflict between these two elements.

[ 39 ] And the other is pushed aside. For one can achieve a great deal in one part of the world by setting certain events in motion elsewhere.

[ 40 ] Let’s consider a later time. Today, you can pick up a history book and read about the Seven Years’ War. Well, this history of the Seven Years’ War is, of course, also read without much thought. For if one wants to understand what it is all about, if one wants to explore the historical forces at play there, then one must properly take into account the various chains of circumstances. One must consider how, at that time, the southern part of Central Europe—Austria—was fully connected with the entire Latin world, even having a genuine alliance with France, whereas the northern part of Central Europe—not initially, but later—was drawn into what, from a certain perspective, was to be made into the English-speaking fifth post-Atlantic race.

[ 41 ] If you consider the alliances and everything else that happened back then—aside from the Maja—you have the war that was actually fought between England and France over North America and India. And what happened in Europe is really only a faint reflection of that. For if you compare everything that unfolded on a grand scale—broaden your horizons!—you will see that at that time the struggle raged between England and France, and North America and India were already factored into it. The issue was which of these two powers was the wiser in directing the situation in such a way as to wrest control of North America or India from the other. Great foresight was at play here, as was the mastery of significant forces. And it is true: the influence that England gained in North America—which was wrested from France—was won on the Silesian battlefields during the Seven Years’ War!

[ 42 ] Consider how alliances change when things get a little tricky, and keep an eye on them from this perspective!

[ 43 ] I want to tell you another story. It is necessary to consider such things, because as soon as one is not misunderstood—but rather, as soon as it is assumed that the aim is truly to gain insight into the ways of the world—as soon as one merely strives to be a little objective, one will not take offense when such things are told, but will understand that it is a matter of understanding, and by no means a matter of taking sides. When all is said and done, it is often precisely the person who believes they are affected by such a matter who should be the happiest to learn about it. For in this way they are lifted out of their blindness and made to see, and nothing is more beneficial to a person than truly seeing through the interconnections of the world. Let’s take another example that can show you from a different angle how things work.

[ 44 ] Due to circumstances you can read about in history, the kingdoms of Hanover and England were once linked. But there were different laws of succession and so on—we need not go into such details—it suffices to know that when Queen Victoria ascended the English throne, Hanover had to be separated. Another member of the English royal family had to ascend the throne of Hanover. They chose—or rather, arranged matters so that—Ernst August, Duke of Cumberland, was installed on this throne of Hanover, which had previously been linked to the throne of England. So this Ernst August ascended the throne of Hanover at the age of sixty-six. His character was such that, after he had left England to assume his duties as His Majesty of Hanover, the English newspapers wrote: “It is good that he is gone; hopefully he will not return!” — He was regarded, precisely because of his entire demeanor and the way he carried himself, as a downright dreadful personality. And when one considers how he came across, what impression he made—particularly on his contemporaries and those who had dealings with him—a certain character portrait emerges that is striking to anyone with a keen sense for such personalities. The people of Hanover couldn’t really understand him; they found him crude. Well, he was crude, too—so crude that Thomas Moore, the poet, said: “He certainly belonged to the dynasty of Beelzebubs.” — But you know, they say: “In Germany, people lie when they’re being polite.” — One can sometimes be understanding of rudeness, but one assumes that if someone is going to be rude, at least they’re being truthful. But Ernst August was always insincere when he was rude, and that was something people in Hanover simply could not understand at all. Such traits are even more evident in him.

[ 45 ] First, Ernst August repealed the State Constitution in Hanover. He also forced the famous “Göttingen Seven” to leave the University of Göttingen. He had them taken straight across the border, and it was only in Witzenhausen—that is, beyond the Hanoverian border of His Majesty Ernst August—that the students were allowed to bid them farewell. I don’t need to recount this whole story to you; but where is the explanation? Anyone who seeks no further explanation for this peculiar facade will find Ernst August crude and untruthful. He even pulled the wool over Metternich’s eyes—and that’s saying a lot—and so on. But there is a peculiar pattern to all of this. And this pattern did not change, even though he spent most of his life—until the age of sixty-six—in Germany; he was a dragoon officer.

[ 46 ] Anyone seeking an explanation for this will find it in the fact that, in his own way, he acted on the impulses one feels when one is a member of the so-called “Orange Lodge”; for his entire demeanor was a manifestation of the impulses of the Orange Lodge, of which he was a member.

[ 47 ] It’s important to learn about history and broaden your horizons—that’s what matters. It’s important to develop a sense of what is important and what truly enlightens—that’s what matters. And so you will understand that I told the story of “Good Gerhard” for the very reason of showing you how, through things like the Orangelogen and so on, what Central Europe once was was quite systematically eroded. I do not condemn that; it was a historical necessity. But one should recognize it, and should not pass moral judgment on these matters. One must see things as they really are! Everything depends on cultivating the will to see things—to see how people are driven, to see where the impulses lie that drive people. But this is actually identical to cultivating a sense of truth; for, as I have often emphasized, what matters is not simply saying: “Yes, I believed that; that was my honest, sincere opinion!” — No, a sense of truth is possessed by the person who ceaselessly strives to investigate the truth in a matter, who does not slacken in seeking the truth, and who takes responsibility for themselves even when they say something wrong out of ignorance. For the objective reality, it makes no difference whether one says something wrong out of ignorance or out of knowledge, just as it makes no difference whether one sticks one’s finger into the flame out of stupidity or out of some kind of malice; one gets burned in both cases.

[ 48 ] The point, then, is to understand how, with the transition from the fourth post-Atlantean epoch—when commercial life was still, just barely, under the influence of the spiritual world, as implied in Good Gerhard, how this transition drew the commercial realm into a different occult realm—the one guided by the so-called “Brothers of the Shadow.” These Brothers uphold certain principles. However, from these people’s point of view, it would be very dangerous if these principles were betrayed. Hence the care taken at that time to prevent Blavatsky from revealing these matters, or from passing them on to others through her. They were indeed to be passed from the West to the Far East, but initially not to India, but to another region—namely, the Russian East.

[ 49 ] If one has a sense of what lies behind the Maya, one can understand that external institutions and measures have, so to speak, different values and different weights within the overall context. Let’s 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 also give you a few notes from recent history. This goes beyond the scope of that time. No one should be able to say that I am taking time away from what is devoted to the occult; but these things are important as well.

[ 50 ] So let’s 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 leaders, but from that point on, it was deemed a good idea to bring them together. The meeting in Racconigi took place. It wasn’t easy, and if you read about all the measures Giolitti, the prime minister at the time, had to take to avoid “assassination-related complications,” you’ll see that poor Giolitti didn’t exactly have it easy back then.

[ 51 ] But now the task was to find the right person to convey Rome’s homage to the Tsar. This had to be a person of a special kind. Such matters are prepared well in advance so that, at the right moment—I might say, at close range—they need only be set in motion. After all, if a “dramatic” effect was to be achieved, one could not simply choose just anyone to convey Rome’s homage to the Tsar—that of the Latin West to the so-called Slavic East. It had to be a special individual; it even had to be someone who would not be easily persuaded to do so. Well, at that time it was “by chance”—one must of course say, 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 the time. He had every reason to be quite democratically minded—and as little as possible in that vein—precisely to pay homage to the Tsar. Shortly before becoming mayor of Rome, he had only just become an Italian citizen; until then, he had been a British citizen. His mixed heritage 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 is.

[ 52 ] Now, when one paid homage to the Tsar, one could say: Democracy had undergone a thorough conversion. It was not an ordinary person who did this, but someone who was anointed with all the ointments of democracy—and 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, the correspondence conducted within the Triple Alliance was always transmitted punctually to St. Petersburg! — Human passions, too, are not entirely uninvolved, in that a certain lady played a very special role in this transmission, having forged a “sibling-like” connection between Rome and St. Petersburg. Such things can, of course, be attributed to chance if one so wishes; but anyone who wishes to see through the Maya 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 does now, nor will one be able to lull people into a stupor to distract them from the truth—from what really matters.

[ 53 ] For it would, of course—and I say this only to describe the truth—have been unwelcome to the broadest circles to draw people’s attention to the fact that the entire Belgian invasion would not have taken place if that statement I have already mentioned—made by Lord Grey (who is, after all, also a lord) and by Sir Edward Grey—had been uttered. The whole affair in Belgium would not have happened; it would have been out of the way, it would not have occurred. But instead of facing up to this real origin of the matter—which is the origin insofar as it could have prevented the matter—it was, of course, more convenient to keep people occupied by talking about the “Belgian atrocities.” But those atrocities would not have happened either if Sir Edward Grey’s single, brief measure had been taken back then. However, to cast a veil of confusion over the simple truth, one naturally needs something else—something that appeals to human passions, to justified passions, to moral sentiments. Certainly, there is nothing to be said against that. Something else is needed. And what is characteristic of our present age is precisely that, to this very day—and this is particularly painful—every effort is being made to conceal the truth, to lull people into ignoring the truth.

[ 54 ] That, too, had to be carefully prepared. After all, if there had been even a single flaw in the plan, it wouldn't have been possible. You simply had to have the entire infrastructure in place, which is why you wisely set about creating it in the first place.

[ 55 ] But everything was prepared very carefully, both politically and culturally. And they anticipated a wide range of possibilities. And they had good reason to anticipate a wide range of possibilities, because at times there is the most incredible carelessness in these matters, even in places where one would least expect it. Just take a case like this, where one can really study that carelessness—an objective fact.

[ 56 ] At one point, Bismarck maintained a connection with a certain Usedom in Florence and Turin. As I have explained, modern Italy actually came into being through a roundabout route and in reality owes its existence to Germany; but this is connected to many factors. The things I say have deep underlying causes, and in politics, many threads are at play. Thus, at one time, there were also threads at play intended specifically 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 held a certain influence, particularly among the masses. This Usedom was a man who actually posed quite a bit as a wise man and who hired a supposed Mazzinian as his private secretary. But it later came to light that this private secretary—who was said to be initiated into the secrets of Mazzini’s secret societies—was in fact a completely ordinary spy. Bismarck recounts this story quite naively and adds, in his defense for having been so easily duped: “But Usedom was a high-ranking Freemason.” — And one could recount many such stories, in which it would often turn out that the people involved are entirely innocent, because the actual—if you’ll pardon the trite expression—puppet masters are pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

[ 57 ] One cannot ask: How is it that such things are permitted by the wise governance of the world, that humanity is, so to speak, at the mercy of such machinations, since one cannot get to the bottom of things? There are just as many opportunities—if one only seeks them out honestly—to get to the bottom of things. But we see it in our own society, after all, how much resistance is put up 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 serve best for the good of humanity—are instead interpreted in a subjective, personal sense. And yet, after all, there are groups within our society—I would say collegia—who have read a certain document together with great attention—one that, I believe, comprises two hundred eighty-seven pages—and have taken it completely seriously; they are still mulling it over to figure out to what extent that man, who is, after all, well known here, is actually in the 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 truly has an honest quest for truth. For throughout all these years, much has been said in our circles. If one takes stock of what has been put forward since 1902, one will see that there is something there that can indeed help one to see through many things in the world. And our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has not presented itself as some kind of secret society; rather, the matters that really matter have always been discussed in public lectures before the whole world. This is precisely the contrast to which one must pay close attention.

[ 58 ] And I can say this already today: If certain tendencies within our Anthroposophical Society were to persist—namely, those that, out of human vanity, seek to publicize what is initially kept within a closed circle for purely practical reasons—just as, for example, universities do not invite the whole world to attend the second year of a course, but only those who have already taken the first year—then there will be nothing esoteric left. If one does not take things in this self-evident sense, but instead steps out into the world and says: “This is secret, this is entirely esoteric, this is occult—I must not speak of it!” — if this policy continues to be pursued in certain currents of our society, if no sense develops that every trace of vanity must cease, then everything that needs to be communicated to humanity today will simply have to be discussed in full view of the whole world. Whether certain things can then be communicated will be determined by necessity. But the Anthroposophical Society only has a purpose if it is a “society”—that is, if every single individual is truly committed to taking a stand against all vanity, against everything that is shrouded in a false mystical veil through folly and vanity, and which serves no other purpose than to make other people suspicious and resentful. Our Society must not be concerned with the mysterious, as certain occult brotherhoods are, but solely with accomplishing what is necessary for the salvation of humanity. The enemies, as I have often said, will become more and more numerous. Perhaps it is precisely in the way the world clashes with our Society that the nature of these enemies will become apparent. We have not really encountered any honest opposition yet; that would only serve to help us! As for the kind of opposition we have encountered, one need only look at its “how”—at the manner and the means by which it operates. Whether the opponents come from within our own circles—which is very often the case—or from elsewhere: we can calmly wait and see! Opposition has just been announced that is intended to pour a cold shower over us. A book is being promoted in lectures in which someone—who, admittedly, has never been part of our Society and who, as a vain fool, has entertained the world with all sorts of self-aggrandizing nonsense—is using the opportunity presented by various national animosities and passions to attack our anthroposophy in a way that is anything but constructive.

[ 59 ] 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 gaining knowledge of the truth. We must look things squarely in the eye; then everyone may take this or that position according to their own judgment. Every point of view can be understood, but it must be based on the truth.

[ 60 ] This is indeed a phrase we must take to heart, especially today. For much has happened in our time that should give people pause and make them realize the necessity of forming a sound, truthful judgment. We have seen that, no sooner had the longing for peace swept through the world than this very longing was drowned out by shouting. And for the time being, we still see how people immediately become angry when talk of peace comes from one side or the other. Not only do they get angry when a belligerent side speaks of peace, but they even get angry when a neutral side speaks of peace.

[ 61 ] It remains to be seen whether the world will be sufficiently astonished by these events. After all, we have already had some very unusual experiences in this regard. For once the world’s judgment has swept past the events of April and May 1915—when a vast territory was to be voluntarily ceded, a proposal that was rejected solely to enable the waging of war—and since no way has been found to arrive at even a reasonably accurate assessment of those events, one can certainly brace oneself for the worst. One can therefore brace oneself for the worst because people are not really concerned with stating what is, but rather with saying whatever suits their purposes. Their ways of thinking are indeed curious; their ways of thinking are quite peculiar. But one must grasp things at the right points.

[ 62 ] 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 celebrating the Tripoli War—a war on which I will not pass judgment. I will never object to Italy’s annexation of Tripoli; such matters are judged differently by those who understand what is necessary and possible in international relations than by those who pass false judgments, who today pass moral judgments on these matters based on all sorts of moral virtues. But here I have a man—his name is Prezzolini—who writes about an Italy that he rejoices in, and which has developed from an Italy that he did not rejoice in. He first describes what had actually become of that Italy, how it had fallen into decline, and then continues—that is, immediately under the impression of the Tripoli War:

[ 63 ] “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 the foreigners. Admittedly, some Italians had already made their voices heard, but they were mere windbags with the famous and infamous “primacy of Italy” on their lips. The book by the German Fischer dates from 1899, and that by the Englishman Bolton King from 1901. Even today, no Italian—not even on the fiftieth anniversary of “Unification”—has published a work that matches these. The peculiar wisdom of these foreigners is particularly noteworthy because, in truth, the foreigners neither wanted nor want to know anything about a modern Italy. With regard to Italy, there was then—as there still is today—a judgment, or rather a prejudice: Italy is a country of the past and not of the present; it must “rest in the past,” but not step into the present. People wanted an Italy of archives, museums, and inns for honeymoons or for the recreation of those suffering from melancholy or lung ailments—an Italy of barrel organs, serenades, and gondola rides, full of ciceroni, shoe shiners, polyglots, and Polichinelles. These foreigners were much happier when they could travel in sleeping cars than in stagecoaches, but they regretted a little that they didn’t encounter a Calabrian highwayman here and there on a street corner, with his musket and velvet hat shaped like a sugar loaf. Oh, the beautiful Italian sky, marred by factory chimneys; oh—“la bella Napoli”—disgraced by steamships and their unloading; and Rome with its Italian soldiers—what a pity for the good old days of papal, Bourbon, and Leopoldine Rome! These philanthropic sentiments still form the basis of every Anglo-Saxon and German judgment about us, and to convey just how deep they ran, 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 grew prosperous, that began to carry one or another large banknote in its wallet, has only today gained a true sense of self. And if, out of reaction, it goes a little further in this than its enthusiasm might warrant, one must forgive and understand it. It took ten years—and even that was barely enough—for the idea to spread from the first few who foresaw Italy’s future and strength to the masses, who are now imbued with 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.”

[ 64 ] Here we have the mindset, my dear friends! “Our great thinkers would not have amassed volumes of journals, statistical books, philosophical works, and books on the latest art for nothing.” All of that is useless, he says, for truly uplifting a people. This modern man no longer has any faith in the power of the mind, in the power of the spiritual!

[ 65 ] “Otherwise, our great thinkers would have amassed volumes of journals, statistical books, philosophical works, and books on the latest art; the people would never have come to this realization, nor would the foreigner, at least not for many years.”

[ 66 ] So, the man has no faith in creating intellectual culture in this way.

[ 67 ] “This immense and brutal reality was necessary to shatter the figments of the imagination and to instill a sense of national solidarity and recovery even in the smallest and most wretched of market towns.”

[ 68 ] And to whom does he attribute the ability to bring about that which no spiritual culture can produce? He says:

[ 69 ] “And that is what the war was for.”

[ 70 ] There you have it! There you have the faith people used to have. Tripoli was there; one simply had to have it, and people go on to say: You need war to get to where you didn’t feel it was necessary to get through intellectual culture.

[ 71 ] Yes, my dear friends, when you consider such things in conjunction with the fact that a voice comes from that side saying: “We did not want this war; we are utterly innocent lambs; we have been attacked.” — For even from this side comes the cry: “To save freedom, to save the small nations, we have been forced to go to war.” — The man says:

[ 72 ] “We, a group of young people born around the year 80, stepped into the world as the new century dawned. Our country had lost its spirit. The intellectual world was at a very low ebb.”

[ 73 ] So these are the people born around 1880.

[ 74 ] “Philosophy: positivism; history: sociology; criticism: the historical method, if not psychiatry.”

[ 75 ] You can certainly say that in Lombroso's country!

[ 76 ] “The exploiters of Italy had followed in the footsteps of Italy’s liberators; not only their sons—our fathers—but also their grandsons—our older brothers. The heroic tradition of rebirth was lost, and no idea inspired the new generations. Religion had waned among the best, but had left a void. Among the others, it was mere habit. Art wavered in a sensual and aesthetic frenzy without foundation and without faith; from Carducci, whom Papa read while sipping Tuscan wine and smoking a cart driver’s cigar, we moved on to d’Annunzio, who is now the gospel of the older brother—dressed in the latest fashion, with pockets full of candy, a womanizer, and a vain braggart.”

[ 77 ] Nevertheless, this puppet—described here as “dressed in the latest fashion, with pockets full of candy, a womanizer, and a vain braggart”—made it clear to the people at the 1915 Pentecost festival that they once again needed something that no intellectual endeavor could provide!

[ 78 ] In serious times, it is indeed necessary to resolve to look toward the truth and, in a sense, to connect with it. For if one refuses to recognize the truth, one strays from that which can truly be healing for humanity. That is why it must be understood that serious words are being spoken precisely in these days. For we are, after all, in a situation in which—one might say—even someone who is seven-eighths blind could regain their sight if they witnessed the cry for peace being bellowed out. Anyone who can believe that one is fighting for lasting peace by shouting for peace may still possess a reasonably sound judgment in various areas of life; but with regard to what is actually happening, they cannot be considered of sound mind. And if, in contrast, one does not feel a commitment to the truth, then things could still become very, very bad in the world.

[ 79 ] It is truly no pleasant task for me to draw attention to certain matters, especially at this time. But when one hears what is being said from all sides, one feels the necessity. We must not lose heart as long as the disaster has not yet fully unfolded; but the spark of hope is small: a great deal depends on this spark of hope for the coming days; and a great deal 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 happened in recent days even from prominent cosmopolitan cities.

[ 80 ] The world needs peace, and it will lose much if it does not have peace now. And it will lose much if people around the world continue to find faith in those who say: “We are forced to fight for lasting peace”—and who meet every possibility of achieving peace with words of scorn, which they merely dress up in clever language. But we have indeed reached the point, my dear friends, where even a Lloyd George can be considered a great man by the widest circle of people! We may say: Things have certainly come a long way!

[ 81 ] But these things are merely trials for humanity. Even then, they would be nothing more than a trial if what I allowed myself to say at the end of my Christmas lecture were to come to pass—if it were to happen that everyone in the future would have to say: In the Christmas spirit of the year 1916, following the Mystery of Golgotha, the cry “Peace on earth among people of good will” was bellowed under the most vain of pretexts—or, if these are not the most vain of pretexts, then it must be something even worse. Then, from this bellowing that drowns out every thought of peace, one must recognize what is really at stake: that it is truly not about what is said on the periphery, but about entirely different things. Then one will understand that we can already speak of the happiness or misfortune of Europe today. Well, I cannot elaborate further on this today because it is getting late. But I wanted to impress these words upon your hearts!