The Karma of Materialism
GA 176
11 September 1917, Berlin
7. Luther I
When spiritual science investigates mankind's evolution it arrives at results which in many respects differ considerably from those presented by natural science. This applies more especially to the human soul. The view obtained through spiritual knowledge of the human soul's evolution during hundreds and thousands of years differs from the view that is possible merely through natural-scientific investigation. Looking back into earlier ages we recognize that man once possessed atavistic clairvoyance and that this made his consciousness different from what it is today. However, we must also recognize that a residue of this clairvoyance persisted right into later centuries to a far greater extent than is realized. It is particularly important to be aware of the fact that right up to the 14th, 15th, 16th and even into the 17th century a vestige of the ancient clairvoyance was still in evidence. Not with its former strength, it is true, but although weakened, it was clearly a remnant of the former atavistic clairvoyance and could be encountered over the greater part of the earth.
I have spoken in earlier lectures of the fact that even today there are people who possess atavistic clairvoyance. The reason not much is known about it is because people are usually too embarrassed to confess to their fellow men that revelations from spiritual realms enter their consciousness. I described some instances of this kind in the last lecture. However, the difference is very great between what people could still experience directly from the spiritual world in the 16th and 17th centuries and what is possible since then. And even in the 17th century most people would not have been able to describe what appeared to their clairvoyant vision to the extent of being able to say that they had seen such and such a being. Their consciousness in spiritual experiences was not strong enough to grasp the situation sufficiently to form mental pictures of it. But though the consciousness was subdued, spiritual beings did still enter into man's will, into his feeling and also into his conceptual life. This was the case to a far greater extent than is imagined today. At the present time it is really extraordinarily difficult for someone who is able to look into the spiritual world and is conversant with the nature of what is to be experienced there, to speak freely about it to his fellow men. As I have often mentioned, one's contemporaries would receive too great a shock were one to describe certain, even elementary, facts concerning man's relationship to the spiritual world. Naturally it can cause clashes of views when an initiate, from his knowledge of the spiritual world, is obliged to say the very opposite to what his contemporaries, owing to their materialistic convictions, can accept as truth.
This situation had not yet arisen in the 14th, 15th, 16th or even 17th centuries. Much of the literature from this period is interpreted quite wrongly. This is not only because modern people think they know better than their predecessors, they also no longer understand their attitude to life. This fact comes to expression in curious ways. For example it is quite extraordinary to witness the way modern philosophers, in their writings or when lecturing, castigate the Scholastics of the Middle Ages. They go out of their way to demonstrate how far they themselves have advanced beyond i what they see as prejudiced, pedantic and narrow ideas of the Scholastics. But in truth, compared to the Scholastics, the modern philosophers are incredibly ignorant and they completely misunderstand the Scholastics. What is not realized is that at the time of Thomism, when a philosopher was engaged in the subtle art of ideation, of defining and elaborating the finer points, he was in contact with the spiritual world. It must be realized that for example Thomas Aquinas,26Thomas Aquinas 1225–1274 Scholastic Philosopher in the 13th Century, attained the concepts and ideas he elaborated in his writings in a completely different way from the way ideas are acquired today. One must think of his books as being inspired by a spirit from the Hierarchy of the Angeloi and that he recorded what came from a higher consciousness.
A modern philosopher would find dreadful the idea of having to sit down and wait till his Angel inspired him before writing what he was to communicate to the world; that with his Angel by his side he was to be the mouthpiece, the physical human mediator for what the Angel proclaimed concerning a higher world. Yet in no other way is it possible to understand what is coming into being, what is becoming. What I am now saying is of the greatest importance and I beg you to take special note of it. Only by listening to what is inspired into us or vouchsafed through Imagination can we come to understand what is coming into being. In our ordinary consciousness, since the 16th, 17th but especially since the 18th century, we have no relationship whatever to what is evolving, coming into existence. We look directly at things, but how much of what we see do we take into our consciousness? Let us say we look at a blossoming rose; in no instance, at no moment do we see the actual coming-into-being of the rose. From the formation of the seed to the extinction of the rose what we see is the dying, the fading away. That we see the red rose at all is due to the fact that we grasp its dying aspect. The coming-into-being aspect of things can be grasped only if one is able to listen to higher beings or receive impressions from them. No one, except higher beings who at present do not incarnate in a physical body, can perceive the becoming of the rose. In the very lowest realm of perception, the subjective light, which is almost as dull as the old clairvoyance was and, when it occurs, still is, do we see something of the becoming of the rose. But not when we look at it with physical eyes and grasp what we see conceptually.
This illustrates that an essential characteristic of our materialistic age is that only what is dying, what is going towards extinction, enters our consciousness. That was not the case at the time of the Scholastics nor even in the 17th century.
In the early part of the 17th century a little-known philosopher, Henry More,27Henry More 1614–1687 English Philosopher. born 1614, lived in England. When we look at his external life we see him as a living proof that man does not develop his individuality from inherited qualities alone. He brings with him characteristics, not found in parents or earlier ancestors, from former lives on earth. Henry More's parents and relations were all strict orthodox Calvinists, but already as a small boy he fought Zwingli's rigid teaching of predestination. Henry More rejected it emphatically although no one in his environment maintained anything contrary to this rigid doctrine. He had also another distinguishing characteristic. When one studies his writings, which are very interesting, one discovers the remarkable fact that he spoke of the inner presence of the spiritual world in human consciousness quite differently from the way people spoke of it later. He was a philosopher of the 17th century yet he knew that only through a more receptive consciousness than the ordinary one which only grasps the dying aspect, can man unite with that living reality which expresses itself in inspired consciousness as processes of becoming. In such inspired consciousness man can know about the processes of becoming whereas otherwise he can know only about what is connected with processes of dying. What is perceived everywhere through present-day consciousness is the dying aspects of things and even Henry More was not altogether clear that he had communed with spiritual beings. When he attempted to grasp his experiences in conceptual form; i.e. form mental pictures of them, these pictures would vanish in the very process of forming them just like a dream vanishes as we wake up. Thus he could not bring his experience of meeting spiritual beings into clear consciousness; he would forget as we forget a dream. Only dimly was he aware of their presence in his inner life but the effect of these experiences remained with him.
A very interesting thought, well known to us, was expressed also by Henry More. The thought that if one wants to reach certain higher knowledge one must learn to regard one's whole being as a member of a higher organism. Just as a finger is a member of the hand and loses its existence if separated from the hand, so too is man nothing, if torn out of his organic connection with the whole cosmos. With the finger this is more obvious. However if the finger could walk freely over our body it might well also succumb to the illusion of being an independent organism. Certainly the earth is there for man, but man is equally, in the adjoining spiritual world, a member of the greater organism of the earth. Man cannot tear himself out of this connection anymore than the finger can tear itself from the hand. I have often expressed this thought as an antidote to man's misplaced and all too prevalent conceit. In Henry More it rose as a sudden revelation. The reason was because he did have a dim knowledge, like a half-forgotten dream, of man's interconnection with the whole cosmos although he could not bring it into conscious conceptual form.
When one tries to discover what helped Henry More to formulate what lived so beautifully in his soul one finds that he had been deeply impressed by a certain booklet. This small book: the “Theologia Germanica” had also made a great impression on someone else; namely Luther28Martin Luther 1483–1546 Inaugurator of German Reformation who made it available to wider circles in Germany. Henry More became a student of the “Theologia Germanica” by “the man from Frankfurth.” You will find more on this subject in my book “Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age.”
The question may have arisen in your mind why it should be that in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and even 17th centuries people appear who know of the spiritual world through direct communion. The reason is the following: Those who in these centuries knew most about man's connection with the spiritual world had been on earth, if not in their last incarnation then as a rule in the last but one, at a time when preparation for Christianity was being made in the secret schools, in the Mysteries. Individuals such as Henry More were present on earth in the centuries prior to the Mystery of Golgotha. They then had an intermediate incarnation in the 7th, 8th or 9th century but this later incarnation had much less impact on them than that received in the previous one from the teaching in the mysteries. These teachings, preparing for the Mystery of Golgotha, made a deeper, more intense, impression on their soul. That is why so much of great significance was said concerning Christianity during those later centuries. Through their communion with the spiritual world these individuals derived an insight into the world's coming-into-being which, since the 17th century has no longer been possible. From then onwards one had to draw ever more on external accounts alone; these accounts, however, only describe what is in the process of decline. Spiritual knowledge is needed to bring insight once more to what is in the process of becoming. The preparation for Christianity, which lasted more than half a millennium during the tragic centuries leading up to the Mystery of Golgotha, made an enormous impression on these spirits. What they carried over into the later incarnation was an impulse of feeling, an inner mood of soul which they were able to give conceptual form.
European cultural development, between the 14th and 17th centuries, takes on a deeper significance when studied with this background in mind. One comes to realize that very spiritual concepts and ideas concerning Christianity and the Bible are to be found in this period. These concepts and ideas often seem strange today because they originated from spiritual experiences. To turn his attention to the essential aspect of that period is of special interest for man today. The period between the 14th and 17th centuries is really like a mighty retrospect. Forces were still present in man's soul through which experience could arise of the surging weaving life of the spiritual world. We enter the minds of those who lived in that period when, in contemplating them, we do not forget this retrospective quality of their consciousness.
If for example we want to understand Luther it is essential to keep in mind what I have just said. Recently a very interesting book: Luther's Creed by Ricarda Huch29Ricarda Huck 1864–1947 has appeared. The reason why the book is so interesting is mainly because it is written completely out of present-day consciousness; that it is also inadequate makes it somewhat disappointing. The periodical: “North and South” contains in the July issue an article about this book entitled: “Ricarda Huch and the Devil.” The article points out that with our consciousness as it is today we cannot really comprehend the way man's mind worked in an earlier epoch. This fact makes it all the more interesting to see how Ricarda Huch deals with Luther's belief in demons. Unlike those who, when requested for an opinion concerning Luther's belief in demons, are too cowardly to voice one, she tries to treat him fairly. Others usually dismiss the issue by saying: Well, Luther was certainly a great man but his talk about demons, his belief in the devil stemmed from the fact that he shared the general superstitions of his time.
An opinion of this kind is just about as helpful as that of the honest professor who, reading with his students what Lessing had written about a drama performance, explained that Lessing had not really been able to think through what he had written; and the professor added: “Well, if only I myself had more time!” It is through this kind of superior attitude that it is concluded that Luther had shared in the superstition of his time. The fact is that no one can understand Luther who does not realize that what, out of the spirit and consciousness of his time, was called “the devil”—we would say Ahriman and Lucifer—was for him actual spiritual experience. When he spoke of these matters at Wartburg or anywhere else it was always from direct experience. Try to compare and bring together what Luther says and you will inevitably come to the conviction that only someone who has actually seen the devil, who has met him in direct experience, can speak as Luther did. Moreover he was well aware that: “Small folk never see the devil even when he has them by the collar.” Ricarda Huch agrees, with much good will but purely theoretically, against the superior attitude of the academics who, in their cleverness, know that the devil does not exist. They conclude that Luther was superstitious as were others at his time and one must excuse and forgive the great man.
Ricarda Huch does not agree with those who hold such a superior view of great spirits of the past. However it is obvious that she has no personal experience of what the devil looks like. She does believe in him although she has never seen him; so how does she visualize the devil? She believes in his existence because she knows that there are things which neither natural science nor physiology can explain, things which must come from the devil. She too feels that some excuses must be made for Luther for she says: "One ought not to imagine that Luther believed the devil walked about the streets complete with horns and tail." However, like others, she sees what she calls the devil as a combination of certain evil traits and characteristics such as stupidity, pride, untruthfulness and so on. But these are mere abstract concepts and Ricarda Huch thought Luther used his pictorial expressions in that sense. Luther was obliged to use pictures because there is no other way to express spiritual experiences. Yet he was directly acquainted with the devil through the inner battles which unavoidably must be fought when man comes face to face with the devil.
Luther clothed his experiences in pictures in the way one otherwise clothes them in words. Only the most obtuse thinkers could possibly maintain that the words one uses to depict an event contain the event itself. Yet this is precisely the objection levelled against me by professor Dessoir when he says that I have derived the various stages of mankind's evolution, not from reality, but from mental pictures. Such things are rather prevalent; in this particular case it stems from lack of insight, from utter ignorance. In the second chapter of my forthcoming book, dealing especially with moral corruption in academic circles, you will see what kind of people are among those who teach in public places of learning. These people who help shape the present, contribute to its dreadful miseries. They also create a situation in which the Royal Academy of Science awards its prize to the shoddy history of psychology submitted by Dessoir. If you read what Dessoir's colleagues have themselves said about this slatternly superficial treatise you will get an idea of the kind of literature that circulates and even wins awards in the academic world.
Luther lived at a time when the possibility still existed to have awareness of the spiritual world. All the devilry of Ahriman he experienced directly; he could not put these experiences into ordinary words because words are designed for physical things. Spiritual experiences must be described in pictures, in Imaginations. However, Imagination does express the reality of what is perceived and experienced super-sensibly. This Ricarda Huch does not understand. She thinks that though Luther spoke of the devil one must not take it to mean that when someone with spiritual sight comes among people he will, in numerous cases, find Ahriman, hunchbacked and with horns, looking at him from where he sits firmly entrenched between their shoulders. But Luther's descriptions were based on experience, and the pictures he uses are his way of describing these experiences. His personality was not such a gentle one as that of Ricarda Huch who believes he merely used symbolic pictures for man's evil upsurging passions.
One can ask what it is that gives Luther's doctrine—as it is usually called—the power it has. The answer lies in the fact that it is no mere doctrine, it must be understood very differently if one is to do it justice. In one's imagination Luther, standing there in the 17th Century, must be visualized as looking back with inner sight to a time when communion was being cultivated with the spiritual world, to a time when he himself cultivated such communion precisely in the realm of the ahrimanic. To recognize Ahriman is to free oneself from him; the danger lies in not recognizing him—you can read more about this aspect of Ahriman in my Four Mystery Dramas. To come face to face with Ahriman, the way Luther did, is to set oneself free. What Luther says can seem incomprehensible unless one recognizes that he is describing actual experiences; when it is realized then the power of his words is greatly enhanced. Even when we find certain aspects of what he said unpalatable his words strike us as genuine because he saw things in a much wider context than is normally possible today.
It is an interesting and highly significant phenomenon that Luther should appear, embodying the fruits of what was taught in the pre-Christian Mysteries. Luther was one of the greatest participants in those Mysteries that prepared the way for the founding of Christianity. What he absorbed in these Mysteries remained quite unimpaired by the later intermediate incarnation and was the source and strength of his power in his incarnation as Luther. But what was Luther's most significant revelation concerning his direct experience of Ahriman?
We must keep in mind that the essentially ahrimanic age begins only after Luther. Though people are not aware of it, present-day natural-scientific knowledge is saturated by Ahriman. The characteristic feature of today's materialistic outlook is that every concept is prompted by Ahriman. Luther was destined, at a significant turning point to make man aware of this fact. However when someone is able to look into the spiritual world he sees things in a different light from those who cannot do so. Furthermore the spiritual world affects man differently once he becomes conscious of it.
We begin to understand Luther's peculiar position once we realize that the powerful force he brought over from an earlier evolutionary stage could not be effective in later epochs. He was destined to rescue for mankind a view of Christianity before it had been weakened by unrecognized ahrimanic influences. That is the reason for the breadth of his vision and the strength of his consciousness of Ahriman.
Someone once wrote a book in which he had collected all the contradictions to be found in Luther's writings. Luther read the book and wrote a reply which is included in a letter to Melanchthon. Luther's comment was: “The silly ass only speaks of contradictions because he understands neither side of a contradiction, he does not understand that one can honour someone as a Prince yet at the same time speak of him as a devil and oppose him.”—Luther's letter to Melanchthon, where he speaks of this, is most interesting, for it also reveals his relationship to his own time. He used other expressions which would not be used today but are entirely comprehensible in view of his acquaintance with the spiritual world. These expressions are not, as historians suggest, merely a product of his time. Those who call Luther's expressions cynical or frivolous do so out of their own cynicism or frivolity.
What is important in relation to these things is to recognize that individual aspects of something may recur, although the greater issue itself is not repeated. This applies also to Scholasticism; people will only learn to relate to it when they rediscover in it the more subtly differentiated thinking than the one cultivated today. The way the spirit came to expression in Luther will never be repeated. He must be accepted just as he is, as a historical phenomenon. It would be a mistake to imagine that anyone could repeat Luther's life. What one should do is to make so thorough a study of Luther, as he appears in history, that one comes to recognize what it was that revealed itself through him in this particular incarnation. One must attempt to see beyond the individual who was active in the mysteries preparing for Christianity and then had an intermediate incarnation before appearing as Luther. We need to see that we are not dealing here only with a certain individuality but that in this one phenomenon the whole trend and law of mankind's evolution is expressed. It could happen because of his former conscious experience—even though as Luther this knowledge had become subconscious—of that realm where he encountered the devil; i.e., Ahriman.
In general Luther is seen the way academics see him: theologians are usually academics. His direct experience of the spiritual world is disregarded and his talk of the devil is seen as the weakness of a great man. But in truth the weakness lies in those who speak in this way about Luther.
Then came—and here we see how evolution runs its course—the time after Luther when Ahriman permeated the materialistic view of life. Though man was not conscious of it this was the case especially in the 19th Century. From the eastern part of Europe the possibility will first emerge for man to know once more the realm he enters when he attains insight beyond the physical plane. This seems a strange fact when we at present look towards the East. We see there aspects revealing both the baseness and the greatness of Russian nature. Over several years we have described what is preparing itself in Russia. It is indeed a remarkable experience to watch what takes place there; one has to say that these people are children still. They really are children and when they are not children they are possessed.
How can one escape the realization that Kerensky30Alexander Feodorowitsch Kerensky b. 1881 Russian Politician is possessed? Naturally he considers himself far above such a superstitious idea that Ahriman has taken possession of him. But Ahriman has learned to produce from Western science a thinking which is utterly alien to the East, alien because it is a thinking related only to processes of dying. Not only does Western thinking understand nothing about the Russian people; Easterners themselves—that is, the leading people in the East—who try to judge Russians with Western thinking do not understand the Russians. There is in the Russian people still something childlike, something that points to the future. And in the future it is destined to develop into the ability to look once more into the spiritual world, to develop a relationship once more with the spiritual world.
What is preparing in Russia for the future is in complete contrast to the preparations that were made for our own epoch at the time of the Great Luther. Our age looks back, it makes manifest a force working from the past. We are looking at something very remarkable in the contrast between Luther's experience of his time and for example the childlike experience of a Russian like Soloviev31Wladimir Soloviev 1853–1900 Russian Philosopher and Poet during the time leading up to the revolution. We are seeing two opposite poles which are related as North to South, or if an abstract comparison is wanted, as positive and negative electricity. Two opposite directions of thoughts and views; unable to understand each other. It is obvious from the way Soloviev speaks that he is remote from any understanding of Luther, and if we remain with Luther it is quite impossible to understand Soloviev. We must widen our horizon to encompass both positive and negative.
I wanted to place these important issues before you. When next we meet I shall attempt to present Luther as a self-contained individuality—not only as he appeared in his time but as he appears within mankind's evolution as a whole—from a point of view obtainable only through Anthroposophy.
Siebenter Vortrag
Ich sagte schon, daß ich Ergänzungen zu den verschiedenen Betrachtungen, die im Laufe dieses Winters hier angestellt worden sind, in diesen Sommerabenden hier vorbringen will. Einiges namentlich, das Ihhen von einer gewissen Seite her das schon Vorgebrachte in einer besonderen Weise ergänzen wird, glaube ich heute und dann wohl ein letztes Mal am nächsten Dienstag hier zu entwickeln.
Wenn man geisteswissenschaftlich die Entwickelung der Menschheit betrachtet, so bekommt man, wie Sie wissen, eine Anschauung über diese Entwickelung, die in vieler Beziehung recht sehr von dem abweicht, was die bloße Naturwissenschaft feststellen kann. Namentlich über die Entwickelung der Menschenseele selbst, oder besser gesagt, der Menschenseelen im Laufe der Jahrhunderte und Jahrtausende, bekommt man durch die Geisteswissenschaft eine andere Anschauung als durch die bloße naturwissenschaftliche Betrachtung. Nicht nur daß, wenn wir in ältere Zeiten zurückblicken, ein altes atavistisches Hellsehen vorhanden war, wie uns ja bekannt ist, welches in ganz anderer Weise ein Bewußtsein im Menschen erzeugte, als das heutige Bewußtsein ist, wie ich es Ihnen das letzte Mal ausführte, sondern es ist so, daß weit in spätere Zeiten herein, in spätere Jahrhunderte herein, Reste vom alten Hellsehen viel reicher vorhanden waren, als man sich auch nur vorstellt. Namentlich muß man nicht außer acht lassen, daß bis ins vierzehnte, fünfzehnte, sechzehnte und auch noch siebzehnte Jahrhundert — wenn auch abgeschwächt, herabgelähmt — über den größten Teil der Erde hin bei den Menschen zwar nicht ausgesprochenes atavistisches Hellsehen, aber deutlich in seinen Nachwirkungen sich zeigendes atavistisches Hellsehen vorhanden war. Und ich habe ja in früheren Betrachtungen ausgeführt, daß bis zum heutigen Tage bei vielen Menschen durchaus atavistisches Hellsehen vorhanden ist, daß man das nur nicht weiß, weil die Menschen heute sich genieren, vor den meisten ihrer Mitmenschen zu gestehen, wie in ihr Bewußtsein hereingetreten sind Offenbarungen von geistigen Welten in der Art, wie wir dies das letzte Mal kennengelernt haben. Es ist doch ein großer Unterschied zwischen dem, was die Menschenseelen bis ins sechzehnte, siebzehnte Jahrhundert herein erleben, und demjenigen, was die Seelen in späteren Zeiten bis in unsere Tage herein von der geistigen Welt unmittelbar erleben können. Im siebzehnten Jahrhundert gibt es viele Menschen, die nicht die Gegenstände des hellseherischen Schauens so unmittelbar würden beschreiben können, daß sie sagen würden: Ich habe diese geistige Wesenheit gesehen, habe jene geistige Wesenheit gesehen, — weil ihre Bewußtseinskraft nicht stark genug war, wenn solche geistige Wesenheiten vor sie hintraten, um sie wirklich auch aufzufassen, in die Vorstellungskraft hereinzubringen. Die Bewußtseinskräfte waren herabgedämpft, aber trotzdem war es für jene Zeit noch so, daß sich die Wesenheiten der geistigen Welt viel mehr, als man dies heute ahnt, für die Menschen in ihr Wollen, Fühlen und Vorstellen hereinbegaben. In unserer Zeit ist es ja für den, der in das Schauen der geistigen Welt und in die Eigentümlichkeit dessen, was dort geschaut wird, eingeweiht ist, wirklich recht schwer, in ganz unbefangener Weise zu seinen Mitmenschen zu sprechen. Denn die Zeitgenossen würden, wie ich oft ausgeführt habe, einen viel zu starken Schock empfangen, wenn man gewisse, auch nur elementare Verhältnisse über die Erkenntnis des Menschen zur geistigen Welt darstellen würde. Denn mit so vielem, was die Menschen heute aus ihrem Materialismus heraus glauben, steht es so, daß der Eingeweihte aus seiner Erkenntnis der geistigen Welt heraus das Gegenteil davon sagen muß. Das gibt natürlich alle möglichen Kollisionen mit dem, was die Zeitgenossen über irgend etwas aus ihrem materialistischen Empfinden heraus als eine Wahrheit annehmen.
So war es noch nicht im vierzehnten, fünfzehnten, sechzehnten, nicht einmal im siebzehnten Jahrhundert. Es kommt davon her, daß vieles von dem, was heute als Literatur vorhanden ist, aus der Zeit des vierzehnten bis siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, ganz falsch aufgefaßt wird, wirklich falsch aufgefaßt wird. Nicht nur, daß man glaubt, man wisse die Sachen anders und besser als jene Leute, sondern ihre ganze Art, sich zum Leben zu stellen, versteht man nicht mehr. Nun ist es eigentümlich, wie dies zutage tritt.
Es ist auf der einen Seite, man möchte schon sagen, ein merk würdiges Schauspiel, wenn die modernen Philosophen in ihren Schriften und Vorträgen immer wieder und wieder über die Scholastiker des Mittelalters sich ergehen und sich nicht genug tun können darüber, wie weit sie über all das vorurteilsvolle, aber auch pedantische kleinliche Begriffszeug der Scholastiker hinaus sind. Die Wahrheit ist aber die, daß die modernen Philosophen der Scholastik gegenüber unendlich naiv sind, sie überhaupt ganz falsch verstehen. Denn bedenken Sie: In der Zeit der Scholastiker, während des Thomismus’ und so weiter, war auch der, welcher als Philosoph wirkte, wenn er seine Begriffe in feiner Begriffskunst ausprägte, im Zusammenhange mit der geistigen Welt. Man kann zum Beispiel bei Thomas von Aguino im dreizehnten Jahrhundert nicht sagen, was in seinen Büchern steht, sei auf eine solche Art gewonnen, wie heute Begriffe und Vorstellungen gewonnen werden. Das wäre falsch vorgestellt. Sondern was in seinen Büchern steht, müssen Sie sich so vorstellen, daß ihn fortwährend ein Geist aus der Hierarchie der Angeloi dazu inspiriert, und daß er dasjenige niederschreibt, was aus dem Bewußtsein eines höheren Geistes kommt. In der heutigen Zeit erscheint es für einen Philosophen geradezu als etwas Greuliches, wenn man ihm zumuten wollte, daß er sich nun hinsetzen sollte, warten, bis sein Engel ihn inspiriert, um dann dasjenige niederzuschreiben, was er dadurch der Menschheit sagen kann, daß gewissermaßen sein Engel neben ihm sitzt, und er der Verkündiger und Bote desjenigen ist, was der Engel verkündet, was es als eine höhere Welt gibt, was er für die physische Welt offenbaren läßt durch den Mund eines physischen Menschen. Aber nur auf diese Weise kann man alles Entstehende, alles Werdende begreifen. Und ich sage jetzt etwas außerordentlich Bedeutsames und Wichtiges und wäre sehr glücklich, wenn Sie dieses Wichtige so recht ins Auge fassen würden: Nur auf die Weise, ‚daß man zuhört, geistig, wie das einen inspiriert oder Imaginationen spendet, kann man über Werden, über Entstehen reden. Mit unserem jetzigen Bewußtsein seit dem sechzehnten, siebzehnten, besonders aber seit dem achtzehnten Jahrhundert, hängen wir überhaupt mit dem Werden nicht zusammen. Wir gehen direkt an die Dinge heran, aber was nehmen wir heute in unser Bewußtsein von den Dingen auf? Wir sehen zum Beispiel eine blühende Rose. Niemals aber, in keinem Augenblicke können wir das Werden wirklich sehen; sondern vom Anfange an, von der Keimbildung an, ist es immer das Absterbende, das Vergehende draußen, das wir wahrnehmen. Daß ich die rote Rose von mir aus wahrnehme, hängt damit zusammen, daß ich den vergehenden Teil auffasse. Werdendes kann man nur aufnehmen, wenn man zuhören kann, oder Eindrücke empfangen kann von höheren Wesen. Einzig und allein höhere Wesen, die nicht in einem physischen Leibe in der jetzigen Zeit sich inkarnieren, können das, was an dieser Rose Werdendes ist, wahrnehmen. In dem niedersten Wahrnehmungsgebiete, dem subjektiven Lichte, das fast so dumpf wie das alte Hellsehen war, und, wenn es eintritt, heute noch ist, nehmen wir etwas von dem Werden der Rose wahr; aber nicht wenn wir sie mit dem physischen Auge ansehen, und das Angesehene mit unserem begrifflichen Wesen in unserem Bewußtsein erleben.
Daraus kann man sehen, daß ein wesentliches Kennzeichen unseres materialistischen Zeitalters dies Ist: daß nur alles, was erstirbt, was vergeht, für das materialistische Zeitalter ins Bewußtsein herein zu bekommen ist. Das war eben noch nicht so zum Beispiel in der Scholastikerzeit, auch sogar noch nicht einmal so im siebzehnten Jahrhundert.
Im siebzehnten Jahrhundert lebte in England ein wenig bekannter Philosoph, Henry More. Dieser Mann, der im Anfang des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, im Jahre 1614, geboren ist, muß uns, wenn wir sein äußeres Leben betrachten, einfach wie der leibhaftige Beweis dafür erscheinen, daß die Menschen ihre Individualität nicht durch Vererbung ausbilden, sondern dadurch, daß sie die Eigenschaften, die nicht in ihren Eltern und Voreltern allein liegen, die Eigenschaften ihres vorigen Erdenlebens mitbringen. Die Eltern und Voreltern dieses Henry More waren orthodoxe Calvinisten, und als ganz kleiner Knabe bekämpfte More bereits die starre Prädestinationslehre, Vorbestimmungslehre Zwinglis, wies sie streng ab, ohne daß irgend jemand in seiner Umgebung gewesen wäre, der das Gegenteil dieser starren Vorbestimmungslehre Calvins und Zwinglis behauptet hätte. Aber Henry More hatte noch etwas anderes als Eigentümlichkeit: Wenn man seine Schriften, die sehr interessant sind, studiert, so findet man das Merkwürdige, daß er von der inneren Gegenwart der geistigen Welt im menschlichen Bewußtsein ganz anders spricht, als man dies bei späteren Leuten findet. Er weiß, auch noch als Philosoph des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, daß der Mensch dadurch allein, daß er ein fruchtbareres Bewußtsein als das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein für das Sterben der Welt hat, mit dem wirklichen Wesenhaften zusammenkommt, das sich über das Werden, über das Entstehen im inspirierten Bewußtsein ausspricht und dadurch in die Lage kommt, über Werden und Entstehen etwas zu wissen, während man sonst nur etwas wüßte über alles, was innerhalb des Daseins immer mit dem Vergehenden zusammenhängt. Die Nuance des Vergehens nimmt man durch das heutige Bewußtsein überall wahr. Aber ganz ausgesprochen ist es schon bei Henry More nicht, daß er mit geistigen Wesenheiten verkehrt hat. Er konnte den Verkehr mit geistigen Wesenheiten nicht mehr ganz in seine Vorstellungsmasse hereinbekommen. Die Vorstellungsmassen reißen ab. Wie ein Traum, den wir in der Nacht träumen, beim Aufwachen abreißt, so daß wir ihn nicht behalten, sondern ihn wieder vergessen, so konnte er die Vorstellung, daß ihm die geistigen Wesenheiten begegnet waren, nicht ins Bewußtsein hereinbringen. Er hatte nur ein abgedämpftes Bewußtsein davon, daß die geistigen Wesenheiten in seinem Seelischen auflebten; aber die Wirkungen dieser Teilnahme der Seele an der geistigen Welt waren in ihm vorhanden. Sehr interessant ist bei Henry More ein Satz, der uns ja sehr geläufig ist, den wir öfters gehört haben, der Satz: Man muß, wenn man zu einer gewissen höheren Erkenntnis kommen will, lernen, sich selbst als ganzer Mensch so anzusehen, daß man ein Glied eines höheren Organismus ist. Wie der Daumen ein Glied an unserer Hand ist, und wie er sein Dasein verliert, wenn man ihn von der Hand abschneidet, so ist auch der Mensch nichts, wenn er herausgerissen ist aus einem gewissen organischen Zusammenhang mit dem Kosmos; nur daß es beim Daumen auffälliger ist als beim Menschen. Könnte aber der Daumen an unserem Körper spazieren gehen, so würde er sich wohl auch der Illusion hingeben, er wäre ein selbständiger Organismus. Die Erde als solche ist zwar für den Menschen da, aber gleich in der nächstangrenzenden höheren Welt ist der Mensch ein Glied des großen Erdenorganismus, kann sich nicht von ihm losreißen, so wenig wie der Daumen sich von der Hand losreißen kann. Und diesen Satz, den wir oft erwähnen, um im Menschen den törichten Egoismus zu bekämpfen, der eine so große Rolle spielt, finden wir, wie in der Seele plötzlich auftretend, bei Henry More. Warum? Weil er mit der geistigen Welt so verkehrte, daß er sie zwar nicht sich vorstellungsgemäß zum Bewußtsein bringen kann, aber wie bei einem Traum, an den man sich noch erinnern kann, das Wissen hat von dem lebendigen Leben des Menschen mit dem Ganzen des Kosmos.
Wenn man herauszubekommen versucht, was Henry More getan hat, um das auszubilden, was in seiner Seele recht schön veranlagt war, dann findet man, daß er ganz besonders tiefe Eindrücke von einem gewissen Büchelchen bekommen hat, das auch auf einen anderen Mann einen großen Eindruck gemacht hat, der es deshalb dem deutschen Volke in einem größeren Kreise geschenkt hat: ich meine die «Theologia Deutsch» von einem Frankfurter. — Ich habe in meiner Schrift über die Mystik auch darüber gesprochen. — Luther hat sie wieder herausgegeben. Henry More war ein Student der Theologia Deutsch. Lesen Sie, was ich in meinem Buche über die Mystik darüber gesagt habe.
Die Frage wird jetzt vielleicht vor Ihre Seele hintreten: Was liegt da eigentlich vor, daß im dreizehnten, vierzehnten, fünfzehnten, sechzehnten und noch im siebzehnten Jahrhundert Menschen auftreten, welche von einem unmittelbaren Verkehr mit der geistigen Welt wissen?
Was vorliegt, ist dies: die, welche in diesen Jahrhunderten am meisten von dem Zusammenhange des Menschen mit der geistigen Welt wissen, sie waren, wenn auch nicht in der letzten, so doch in der Regel in der vorletzten Inkarnation auf der Erde in der Zeit vorhanden, in welcher das Christentum in den Geheimschulen, in den Mysterien gerade vorbereitet worden ist. Daher werden wir sagen können: So ähnliche Geister wie Henry More waren in einem Leben in den Jahrhunderten vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha vorhanden, hatten dann ein Zwischenleben im siebenten, achten, neunten Jahrhundert; diese Zwischeninkarnation hat ihnen aber weniger gegeben, als ihnen dasjenige an Eindrücken gegeben hat, was bei ihren früheren Inkarnationen aus jenen Mysterien kommen konnte, welche vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha da waren, aber dieses durch ihre Lehren vorbereiteten. Das saß viel tiefer und intensiver in den Seelen. Daher manches so tiefe Wort, das gerade in dieser Zeit über das Christentum gesagt wird. Aus dem Verkehr mit der geistigen Welt schöpfen diese Menschen über eine Entstehung der Welt eine Erkenntnis, die vom siebzehnten Jahrhundert an nicht mehr geschöpft werden konnte. Von da an kann man ja immer mehr nur die äußere .Historie heranziehen; die enthält aber nur das Vergehende. Da bedarf es dann wieder der Geisteswissenschaft, um die Erkenntnis des Entstehenden wiederzubringen. Wie das Christentum in den großen tragischen Jahrhunderten, wie es damals mehr als ein halbes Jahrtausend vorbereitet wurde, das machte auf diese Geister einen ungeheueren, einen tiefen Eindruck, und sie behielten davon eigentlich nur einen Gemütsimpuls, den sie in Vorstellungen zu bringen vermochten. Den aber drückten sie aus.
Es ist sehr bedeutsam, gerade von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus einmal die Zeit vom vierzehnten bis siebzehnten Jahrhundert in der europäischen Geistesentwickelung an seiner Seele vorüberziehen zu lassen, einmal zu sehen, wie heute manchmal ganz fremde, weil sehr vergeistigte, aus geistiger Erfahrung stammende Vorstellungen auch über das Christentum und über die Bibel in diesen Zeiten zu finden sind. Es ist schon für den heutigen Menschen außerordentlich interessant, den Blick auf das zu werfen, was in dieser Zeit das eigentlich Bedeutsame ist. Denn diese Zeit, von der ich da spreche, die Zeit vom vierzehnten bis zum siebzehnten Jahrhundert, ist wie die Zeit einer gewaltigen Rückschau. In der Seele sind noch die Kräfte vorhanden, durch welche das in ihr heraufziehen kann, was in der geistigen Welt wogt und webt. Und recht versenken wir uns in die Geister der damaligen Zeit, wenn wir diesen rückschauenden Charakter des Bewußtseins nicht vergessen, indem wir diese Geister ins Auge fassen.
Daß man dies, was ich jetzt sage, ins Auge fasse, ist vor allen Dingen nötig, wenn man zum Beispiel Luther verstehen will. Es ist in der letzten Zeit ein immerhin ganz interessantes Buch von Ricarda Huch erschienen, «Luthers Glaube»; deshalb ein sehr interessantes Buch, weil es doch aus einer gewissen Vertiefung des gegenwärtigen Bewußtseins heraus immerhin geschrieben ist, und nur auf der anderen Seite in vieler Beziehung ein höchst unbehagliches, weil innerlich ungenügendes Buch ist. Mit Bezug darauf ist dann im Juli-Heft der Zeitschrift «Nord und Süd» ein Aufsatz erschienen, der da hieß: «Ricarda Huch und der Teufel» -, und in dem darauf aufmerksam gemacht wird, wie es die heutige Zeit nötig hat, auf das hinzublicken, was geistig lebt in dem Bewußtsein der Menschen in einer Art, wie es das unmittelbare Bewußtsein der Gegenwart gar nicht mehr zu verstehen in der Lage ist. Deshalb ist es interessant, bei Ricarda Huch ganz besonders den Dämonenglauben, den Teufelsglauben Martin Luthers ins Auge zu fassen. Sie möchte diesem Teufelsglauben Luthers gerecht werden, sie möchte nicht mit denjenigen Menschen gehen, die heute im landläufigen Sinne darüber reden, denn die Menschen sind heute sehr feig, und wenn sie Stellung zu nehmen haben zu einem Buche, das vom Teufelsglauben Luthers handeln will, so sagen sie wohl: Luther war gewiß ein großer Mann, aber daß er von dem Teufel gesprochen und an ihn geglaubt hat, das rührt eben von den Schwächen seiner Zeit her, da hat er den Aberglauben seiner Zeit geteilt. Solche Weisheit ist jedoch nicht viel mehr wert, als die Weisheit jenes biederen Gymnasialprofessors, der einmal mit seinen Knaben las, was Lessing in der «Hamburgischen Dramaturgie» über das Drama geschrieben hat und seinen Schülern dann auseinandersetzte, daß Lessing eigentlich nicht in der Lage gewesen wäre, diein der «Hamburgischen Dramaturgie» angeschlagenen Gedanken zu Ende zu denken. «Ja, wenn ich nur mehr Zeit hätte!» sagte der Professor. Und aus einer solchen Überlegung kommt auch das überlegene Wissen, daß Luther den Aberglauben seiner Zeit geteilt habe. Aber dennoch: niemand kann Luther recht verstehen, der nicht weiß, daß die Bewußtseinserfassung dessen, was man aus dem Geiste seiner Zeit heraus den Teufel nennt, wir nennen es heute Ahriman und Luzifer, für ihn wirkliche geistige Erlebnisse sind, nicht bloß an der einen Stelle auf der Wartburg, sondern überall, wo Luther von diesen Dingen spricht. Suchen Sie nur einmal diese Dinge im Zusammenhange aufzufassen, Sie können nicht anders, als zu der Überzeugung kommen: So spricht nur ein Mensch von dem Teufel, der ihn gesehen hat, der ihn geschaut hat, und der da weiß: «Den Teufel spürt das Völkchen nie, und wenn er sie beim Kragen hätte.» Ricarda Huch polemisiert in außerordentlicher theoretischer Gutwilligkeit gegen diesen Dessoirismus, ich meine, gegen dieses Professorentum, das so gescheit ist, daß es weiß: den Teufel gibt es nicht, also ist der Luther doch ein abergläubischer Mensch ganz im Stile seiner Zeit gewesen; das müsse man dem großen Manne entschuldigen und verzeihen.
Ricarda Huch geht nicht mit denjenigen, die so von oben herab über die großen Geister der Vorzeit urteilen. Aber Ricarda Huch weiß offenbar aus eigener Anschauung nichts darüber, wie der Teufel ausschaut. Sie glaubt an den Teufel, obwohl sie ihn nie geschaut hat. Wie glaubt sie an den Teufel? So glaubt sie an ihn, daß sie weiß, daß gewisse Dinge offenbar nicht aus naturwissenschaftlihen Tatsachen kommen, nicht aus menschlicher Physiologie, sondern vom Teufel kommen. Aber nun glaubt sie Luther doch etwas entschuldigen zu müssen. Sie sagt: Man solle sich nur nicht vorstellen, wenn man von Luther als einem abergläubischen Menschen spricht, daß Luther geglaubt habe, daß der Teufel so mit Hörnern und mit einem Schwanz auf der Straße herumgehe, Auch für sie ist die Zusammenfassung der Merkmale gewisser übler Triebe das, was sie den Teufel nennt, der als dummer Teufel, als stolzer Teufel und als lügnerischer Teufel auftritt. Sie redet von Abstraktionen, redet von Begriffen und glaubt, Luther hätte auch das getan, weil äußerlich das, was Ricarda Huch für ein bloßes Bild hält, von Luther auch gebraucht wird. Aber Luther muß dieses Bild gebrauchen, weil man sich nur dadurch über das ausdrücken kann, was man in der geistigen Welt erfährt. Luther hatte aber einen vollen Umgang mit dem Teufel. Er mußte ihn kennenlernen durch die Seelenkämpfe, die man erleben muß, wenn man dem Teufel Aug’ in Auge gegenübersteht. Und was er da erlebte, das faßte er in Bilder, wie man das, was man sonst erlebt, in Worte faßt. Wenn die Leute so dumm sind wie Professor Dessoir, und auch so korrupt, so könnten sie jemandem, der sich durch Worte ausspricht, vorwerfen, er glaube, in den Worten lägen die Dinge, die man aussprechen will. Genau dasselbe wirft mir Professor Dessoir vor, wo er sagt, ich leitete irgendwelche Entwickelungszustände der Menschheit aus Bildern und nicht aus Wirklichkeiten her. Man sollte nicht glauben, daß solch eine Sache überhaupt auftritt, aber sie tritt hier nicht bloß aus Uneinsicht auf, sondern auch aus Ignoranz. Besonders da, wo das zweite Kapitel meiner demnächst erscheinenden Schrift sich mit der unmöglichen, moralisch korrupten Gelehrsamkeit beschäftigt, die heute die Zeit mit sich bringt und die das furchtbare Elend der Zeit mitbewirkt, da werden Sie sehen, was für Leute heute in der offiziellen Wissenschaft herumspazieren, was aber nicht hindert, daß die Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, wie ich Ihnen das schon erzählt habe, den Preis erteilt hat jenem Schmachtlappen einer Geschichte der Psychologie, den Herr Dessoir auf ihr Preisausschreiben hin eingeschickt hatte, und den er dann selbst zurückgezogen hat. Untersuchen Sie einmal, was die braven Kollegen Dessoirs über die Lotterigkeit und Oberflächlichkeit dieses wissenschaftlichen Schmachtlappens einer Psychologiegeschichte vorgebracht haben, dann werden Sie einen Begriff bekommen, was dann, selbst wenn wissenschaftlich-akademische Prämien vorliegen, durch die offizielle Wissenschaft spazierengehen kann.
Luther stand da in einem Zeitalter, in welchem er in seiner Seele den Zusammenhang mit der geistigen Welt hatte. Alles, was als ahrimanische Teufelei in der Welt erlebt werden kann, war für ihn eine Wirklichkeit. Das war es. Was er so erlebt hat, läßt sich nicht in gewöhnlichen Worten ausdrücken, denn die bezeichnen ja physische Dinge. Man muß es in Bildern ausdrücken, in Imaginationen. Aber die Imaginationen drücken wahrhaftig das aus, was man schaut und sieht. Das begreift Ricarda Huch nicht. Sie glaubt, wenn Luther vom Teufel spricht, so müsse man nicht gleich annehmen, daß, wenn man als schauender Mensch zahlreichen anderen Menschen entgegentritt, der bucklige Ahriman fest mit seinen Hörnern dem andern zwischen den Schultern sitze und mit seinem Kopfe hervorgucke. Diese Dinge hatte Luther aber gewußt, und die Bilder, die er gebraucht, sind nur Ausdrucksformen für bestimmte Erlebnisse. Er selbst ist nicht von der Art der Gutmütigen, wie Ricarda Huch, die da glauben, daß er nur Symbole gebraucht hat für das, was im Menschen aufsteigende, absteigende Kräfte, verkehrte Leidenschaften und so weiter seien.
Worin liegt die Kraft, die von Luthers Lehre, wie man sie oft nennt, ausgegangen ist? Aber Luthers Lehre ist keine bloße Lehre. Man wird ihr erst gerecht, wenn man sie als etwas anderes als eine Lehre ansieht, wenn man sich vergegenwärtigt: da steht Luther, und diese Seele schaut zurück in jene Zeiten, in welchen die Menschen den Umgang mit der spirituellen Welt gepflogen haben, und er selber pflegt den Umgang mit der spirituellen Welt gerade auf jenem Gebiete, welches ahrimanisch ist. Wenn man Ahriman sieht — lesen Sie nach, was in meinen Mysteriendramen darüber enthalten ist -, dann ist das gerade die Befreiung von ihm; wenn man ihn nicht sieht, ist das das Schlimme. Ihn zu sehen, so wie Luther ihn gesehen hat, das ist die Befreiung. Ungeheuer gewinnt die Kraft, die von Luther ausstrahlt, wenn man ganz im positiven Erfahrungssinne der geistigen Welt die Dinge nimmt, die sonst eigentlich ganz unverständlich sind. Und auch da, wo er manches Wort sagt, das uns nicht gefallen kann, wird dies ganz natürlich erscheinen, weil Luther über einen viel weiteren Horizont hin die Dinge zu sehen vermag, als normalerweise irgendein heutiger Mensch.
Es ist interessant, daß diese Erscheinung, Luther, nun auftritt als diejenige, welche am intensivsten dasjenige zusammenpreßt, was Ergebnis von jenen früheren Mysterien ist; bedeutsam ist es. Und eines der größten Mysterienmitglieder in der vorchristlichen Zeit, unbeschadet einer späteren Inkarnation, war Luther schon in jenen vorbereitenden Mysterien, und aus dem, was er in jenen Mysterien vor der Entstehung des Christentums aufgenommen hat, schöpfte er die Kraft, welche dann von ihm ausstrahlte.
Was hat er denn vor allen Dingen mit Bezug auf die Offenbarung, seines Schauens Ahrimans, der Welt zu sagen?
Vergegenwärtigen wir uns: das ahrimanische Zeitalter beginnt hinterher. Die Naturwissenschaft hat heute Ahriman, und in ihren Erkenntnissen lebt unbewußt Ahriman. Das ist das Charakteristische der heutigen materialistischen Weltordnung, daß in allen ihren Begriffen das Ahrimanische lebt. Und Luther ist dazu ausersehen, an einem wichtigsten Wendepunkte vor der Welt diese Wahrheit hinzustellen. Aber wer in die geistige Welt hineinsieht, sieht anderes als die, welche dazu nicht imstande sind, und anders wirkt diese Welt, als wenn sie unbewußt bleibt.
Wenn man auf diese Weise in Luther die große gewaltige Kraft sieht, die aus alten Entwickelungen herüberstrahlt und die nicht wirken kann in dem darauf folgenden Zeitalter, dann versteht man die Stellung, die Position Luthers. Er ist derjenige, der für die Menschheit eine solche Auffassung des Christentums retten sollte, welche nicht vom unbewußten Ahrimanischen angekränkelt ist. Daher tritt das bewußte Ahrimanische so stark bei ihm auf und daher auch die Weite des Horizontes.
Es hat einmal jemand ein Buch geschrieben, in welchem alle Widersprüche, die sich bei Luther in seinen verschiedenen Schriften finden, zusammengefaßt sind. Es gibt ein solches Buch, in dem man die Widersprüche in den Lutherschen Schriften finden kann. Luther hat das Buch selbst noch gelesen, und er hat darauf eine Antwort geschrieben, die in einem Briefe an Melanchthon enthalten ist. Er meint da: Solch ein Esel redet nur deshalb von Widersprüchen, weil er weder das eine noch das andere Teil vom Widerspruche versteht, und er versteht auch nicht, daß man einen, der dabei auch ein Fürst ist, verehren und zu gleicher Zeit vom Teufel sprechen kann und sich gegen ihn auflehnen. — Die Stelle, wo Luther in seinem Briefe an Melanchthon darüber redet, ist sehr interessant; es spricht sich darin seine Stellung seiner Zeit gegenüber aus. Er gebraucht ja auch noch andere Ausdrücke, welche heute manchmal nicht wiederholt werden können, die aber vollständig verständlich sind und nicht, wie die Literarhistoriker sagen, aus der Zeit heraus nur zu begreifen sind, sondern die vollständig verständlich sind aus dem Umgang mit der geistigen Welt, wie Luther ihn hatte. Wer Luthers Ausdrücke zynisch oder frivol nennt, der tut dies nur aus seiner eigenen Frivolität oder seinem eigenen Zynismus heraus. Worauf es ankommt, das ist, daß man aus solchen Dingen einmal erkennt, daß sich zwar Einzelnes wiederholt, aber das Große wiederholt sich nicht. Der Unfug wiederholt sich, denn der ist der Zeit unterworfen. Das Große wiederholt sich nicht. Und auch zur Scholastik werden sich die Menschen erst wieder stellen können, wenn sie an der Scholastik wieder studieren werden, wie ein anderes, feineres, besonders feiner ausgegliedertes Denken möglich ist, als man es heute pflegt. Und besonders ein solcher Geist, wie er in Luther aufgetaucht ist, kann sich nicht wiederholen. Er muß als historische Erscheinung, unmittelbar wie er dasteht, genommen werden. Falsch ist es zu glauben, daß irgend jemand Luther nachleben kann. Sondern worauf es ankommt, ist, daß man sich in ihn vertieft, daß man versucht, an seiner historischen Persönlichkeit zu studieren, was sich da einmal abgespielt hat, wie nicht nur diese eine Individualität Luther, die in jenen vorbereitenden Mysterien vor dem Christentum zu finden ist, nachher in einer anderen Inkarnation gelebt hat und dann später als Luther erschienen ist, da ist, sondern daß sich in der Tat der ganze Entwickelungs- und Gesetzesgang der Menschheit in dieser einen Erscheinung ausspricht.
Alles das aber hängt davon ab, daß Luther in seiner Zeit noch ein volles Erfahrungswissen hatte von jenen Regionen der Welt, wohin er den Teufel, wir würden sagen Ahriman, versetzt. Doch dieses Wissen ging hinunter in unterbewußte Regionen. Es hat ziemlich überhand genommen, auch Luther so anzusehen, wie die Professoren ihn ansehen. Denn manchmal sind die Theologen auch Professoren. Und diese Betrachtung hat ziemlich überhand genommen, die nicht davon ausgeht, die unmittelbare Erfahrung Luthers in der geistigen Welt zu nehmen, sondern die davon ausgeht, wenn er vom Teufel spricht, zu meinen, es sei dies nur die Schwäche des großen Mannes gewesen. Es ist aber nur die Schwäche derer, die heute über Luther reden, wenn so von ihm gesprochen wird.
Dann kam - und das ist der Sinn der Entwickelung - die Zeit, welche dann auf Luther folgte, in welcher in materiellem Anschauen und Leben der Welt, am stärksten im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, unbewußt Ahriman lebte, ohne daß die Menschen es wußten. Und erst vom Osten her wird wieder die Möglichkeit kommen, daß man wissen wird, in was der Mensch sich hineinlebt, wenn er den physischen Plan überschreitet. Sehr merkwürdig, wenn man nach dem heutigen Osten sieht, auf diese höchst merkwürdigen Erscheinungen des russischen Lebens, der russischen Schändlichkeit, der russischen Größe, alle dem, was aufgeht im Osten. Wir haben ja viele Jahre hindurch das, was wird, was sich vorbereitet im Russentum, geschildert. Es ist merkwürdig, wenn man darauf hinblickt und sich sagt: Ja, diese Menschen sind heute noch Kinder. Das sind sie auch. Und die, welche nicht Kinder sind, sind besessen. -— Was glauben Sie: Kerenskij ist besessen, obwohl er selbstverständlich über solches Vorurteil hinausgekommen ist, daß der Bucklige in ihm sitzt! Nur hat der Bucklige gelernt, aus der westlichen Todeswissenschaft heraus ein Denken zu erzeugen, welches nicht das östliche Denken ist. Und nicht nur, daß das westliche Denken vom Russentum nichts versteht, sondern die, welche im Osten selbst das Russentum mit westlichem Denken beurteilen wollen, die führenden Leute im Osten verstehen selbst das Russentum nicht! Denn es liegt etwas, was noch kindlich ist, in ihm, etwas nach vorwärts. Und es muß für die Zukunft dahin kommen, wieder hineinzuschauen in die geistige Welt, wieder Beziehung zu dieser geistigen Welt zu bekommen: das Gegenteil von dem großen, unser Zeitalter vorbereitenden Luther. Unser Zeitalter sieht zurück, es kündet davon, was an Kraft wirkt von dem, was zurückliegt.
Da sehen Sie geistig etwas sehr Merkwürdiges: Da sehen Sie einfach in den Gegensatz hinein zwischen Luther und etwa, wie kindlich die russische Revolutionsreife auftreten wird bei Solowjow. Da sehen wir zwei entgegengesetzte Pole, etwas, was sich verhält wie Nord und Süd, wie positive und negative Elektrizität, wenn man es mit etwas Abstraktem vergleichen will, zwei Gedanken- und Vorstellungsrichtungen, die sich nicht verstehen können. Denn wie Solowjow redet, so ist er weit davon entfernt, Luther zu verstehen; und wenn man bei Luther stehenbleiben will, so ist es ganz unmöglich, Solowjow zu verstehen. Da aber müssen wir uns dazu verstehen, unsern Horizont zu erweitern, zu dem Positiven das Negative hinzunehmen zu können.
Ich möchte diese gewichtige Betrachtung auf Ihre Seelen legen und hoffen, daß wir das nächste Mal noch beisammen sein werden. Dann werde ich die einzelne Individualität Luther als geschlossene Individualität darzustellen versuchen, wie sie sich ergibt nicht nur aus der Zeit, sondern aus dem ganzen Entwickelungsgange der Menschheit, aber von einem Gesichtspunkte, der nur durch die Anthroposophie gefunden werden kann.
Seventh Lecture
I have already said that I intend to present additions to the various considerations that have been made here during the course of this winter on these summer evenings. There are a few things in particular that I believe will supplement what has already been said in a special way from a certain point of view, and I intend to develop these today and then, probably for the last time, here next Tuesday.
When one considers the development of humanity from a spiritual scientific perspective, one gains, as you know, a view of this development that in many respects differs greatly from what can be established by natural science alone. In particular, spiritual science gives us a different view of the development of the human soul itself, or rather, of human souls over the course of centuries and millennia, than mere scientific observation. Not only that, but when we look back to earlier times, we find that there was an ancient atavistic clairvoyance, as we know, which produced a consciousness in human beings that was quite different from the consciousness we have today, as I explained to you last time. But it is also true that, well into later times, into later centuries, remnants of the old clairvoyance were much more abundant than one can even imagine. In particular, we must not forget that until the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and even seventeenth centuries—albeit in a weakened, crippled form—atavistic clairvoyance existed throughout most of the world, not as an explicit atavistic clairvoyance, but clearly evident in its aftereffects. And I have already explained in earlier considerations that atavistic clairvoyance is still present in many people today, but that we are not aware of it because people today are embarrassed to admit to most of their fellow human beings how revelations from spiritual worlds, such as we last experienced, have entered their consciousness. There is a great difference between what human souls experienced up until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and what souls in later times, up until our own day, can experience directly from the spiritual world. In the seventeenth century, there were many people who could not describe the objects of clairvoyant vision so directly that they could say, “I saw this spiritual being, I saw that spiritual being,” because their consciousness was not strong enough when such spiritual beings appeared before them to really grasp them and bring them into their imagination. The powers of consciousness were dampened, but nevertheless, for that time, the beings of the spiritual world entered into the will, feeling, and imagination of human beings much more than we can imagine today. In our time, it is really quite difficult for those who are initiated into the vision of the spiritual world and into the peculiarities of what is seen there to speak to their fellow human beings in a completely unbiased manner. For, as I have often explained, our contemporaries would receive too great a shock if certain even elementary facts about human knowledge of the spiritual world were presented to them. For so much of what people today believe out of their materialism is such that the initiate, out of his knowledge of the spiritual world, must say the opposite. This naturally leads to all kinds of collisions with what people today accept as truth based on their materialistic perceptions.
This was not yet the case in the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, or even seventeenth centuries. This stems from the fact that much of what exists today as literature from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries is completely misunderstood, truly misunderstood. Not only do people believe that they know things differently and better than those people, but they no longer understand their whole way of approaching life. Now, it is peculiar how this comes to light.
On the one hand, it is, one might say, a remarkable spectacle when modern philosophers in their writings and lectures repeatedly indulge in the scholastics of the Middle Ages and cannot get enough of how far they have progressed beyond all the prejudiced, but also pedantic and petty concepts of the scholastics. The truth, however, is that modern philosophers are infinitely naive when it comes to scholasticism; they misunderstand it completely. For consider this: in the age of the scholastics, during Thomism and so on, even those who worked as philosophers, when they refined their concepts in the fine art of conceptualization, did so in connection with the spiritual world. In the case of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, for example, one cannot say that what is written in his books was arrived at in the same way that concepts and ideas are arrived at today. That would be a misconception. Instead, you must imagine that what is written in his books is inspired by a spirit from the hierarchy of angels, and that he writes down what comes from the consciousness of a higher spirit. In today's world, it seems downright gruesome to a philosopher to expect him to sit down, wait until his angel inspires him, and then write down what he can tell humanity through his angel sitting next to him, as it were, and that he is the herald and messenger of what the angel proclaims, what exists as a higher world, which he reveals to the physical world through the mouth of a physical human being. But only in this way can one understand everything that arises, everything that becomes. And I am now saying something extremely significant and important, and I would be very happy if you would really take this important point to heart: Only by listening spiritually to what inspires you or gives you imagination can you talk about becoming, about coming into being. With our present consciousness since the sixteenth, seventeenth, but especially since the eighteenth century, we are not connected with becoming at all. We approach things directly, but what do we take into our consciousness of things today? For example, we see a rose in bloom. But never, not for a moment, can we really see its becoming; rather, from the beginning, from the formation of the germ, it is always the dying, the passing away that we perceive outside. The fact that I perceive the red rose depends on my perception of the passing part. Becoming can only be perceived if one can listen or receive impressions from higher beings. Only higher beings who are not incarnated in a physical body in the present time can perceive what is becoming in this rose. In the lowest realm of perception, the subjective light, which was almost as dim as the old clairvoyance and still is today when it occurs, we perceive something of the becoming of the rose; but not when we look at it with our physical eyes and experience what we see with our conceptual being in our consciousness.
From this we can see that an essential characteristic of our materialistic age is that only what dies, what passes away, can enter into consciousness in the materialistic age. This was not yet the case, for example, in the scholastic period, nor even in the seventeenth century.
In the seventeenth century, there lived in England a little-known philosopher named Henry More. This man, who was born at the beginning of the seventeenth century, in 1614, must appear to us, when we consider his outer life, as the living proof that human beings do not develop their individuality through heredity, but through the qualities that are not found in their parents and ancestors alone, the qualities they bring with them from their previous earthly lives. The parents and ancestors of this Henry More were orthodox Calvinists, and as a very young boy, More already fought against the rigid doctrine of predestination, Zwingli's doctrine of predetermination, rejecting it strictly, without anyone in his environment having asserted the opposite of this rigid doctrine of predestination of Calvin and Zwingli. But Henry More had something else besides this peculiarity: if one studies his writings, which are very interesting, one finds the remarkable fact that he speaks of the inner presence of the spiritual world in human consciousness in a completely different way than one finds in later writers. Even as a philosopher of the seventeenth century, he knows that by virtue of having a more fertile consciousness than the ordinary consciousness of the dying world, man comes into contact with the real essence that expresses itself through becoming and emergence in inspired consciousness, and thereby gains the ability to know something about becoming and arising, whereas otherwise one would only know something about everything that is always connected with passing away within existence. The nuance of passing away is perceived everywhere in today's consciousness. But even Henry More does not explicitly state that he has been in contact with spiritual beings. He could no longer fit his interactions with spiritual beings entirely into his conceptual framework. His conceptual framework broke down. Like a dream we dream at night, which breaks off when we wake up, so that we do not retain it but forget it again, he could not bring the idea that he had encountered spiritual beings into his consciousness. He had only a dim awareness that spiritual beings were alive in his soul, but the effects of this participation of the soul in the spiritual world were present in him. Very interesting in Henry More is a sentence that is very familiar to us, which we have heard often, the sentence: If one wants to attain a certain higher knowledge, one must learn to regard oneself as a whole human being, as a member of a higher organism. Just as the thumb is a member of our hand and loses its existence when cut off from the hand, so too is the human being nothing when torn out of a certain organic connection with the cosmos; only that this is more noticeable in the case of the thumb than in the case of the human being. But if the thumb could walk around on our body, it would probably also succumb to the illusion that it was an independent organism. The earth as such is indeed there for human beings, but in the next higher world, which is immediately adjacent, human beings are a member of the great earth organism and cannot tear themselves away from it, any less than the thumb can tear itself away from the hand. And this sentence, which we often mention in order to combat the foolish egoism that plays such a large role in humans, we find, as if suddenly appearing in the soul, in Henry More. Why? Because he was so attuned to the spiritual world that, although he could not bring it to consciousness in a conceptual way, he had the knowledge of the living life of human beings with the whole cosmos, as in a dream that one can still remember.
If one tries to find out what Henry More did to develop what was so beautifully predisposed in his soul, one finds that he was particularly deeply impressed by a certain little book which also made a great impression on another man, who therefore presented it to the German people in a wider circle: I mean the “Theologia Deutsch” by a Frankfurt author. I also spoke about this in my writing on mysticism. Luther republished it. Henry More was a student of Theologia Deutsch. Read what I said about it in my book on mysticism.
The question may now arise in your mind: What is it that caused people in the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and even seventeenth centuries to claim to have direct contact with the spiritual world?
What is at hand is this: those who knew most about the connection between human beings and the spiritual world in those centuries were, if not in their last incarnation, then at least in their penultimate incarnation on earth, at the time when Christianity was being prepared in the secret schools, in the mysteries. Therefore, we can say that spirits similar to Henry More existed in a life in the centuries before the mystery of Golgotha, then had an intermediate life in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries; but this intermediate incarnation gave them less than what they had gained in impressions during their earlier incarnations from those mysteries that existed before the mystery of Golgotha, but which had been prepared by their teachings. This sat much deeper and more intensely in the souls. Hence some of the profound words that are being said about Christianity at this very time. From their contact with the spiritual world, these people draw a knowledge of the origin of the world that could no longer be gained from the seventeenth century onwards. From then on, one can only refer more and more to external history, but that contains only what is passing away. Spiritual science is then needed again to bring back the knowledge of what is coming into being. How Christianity developed during the great tragic centuries, how it was prepared for more than half a millennium, made an enormous, profound impression on these minds, and they retained only an emotional impulse, which they were able to express in ideas. But they did express it.
It is very significant, especially from this point of view, to let the period from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century in European spiritual development pass before one's soul, to see how ideas that are sometimes completely foreign to us today because they are very spiritual, stemming from spiritual experience, can also be found in these times, even about Christianity and the Bible. It is extremely interesting for people today to take a look at what was actually significant during this period. For the period I am talking about, from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, is like a time of tremendous retrospection. The forces are still present in the soul through which what is surging and weaving in the spiritual world can rise up within it. And we immerse ourselves rightly in the spirits of that time when we do not forget this retrospective character of consciousness by contemplating these spirits.
It is necessary above all to contemplate what I am now saying if one wants to understand Luther, for example. A very interesting book by Ricarda Huch has recently been published, “Luther's Faith”; it is a very interesting book because it is written from a certain deepening of contemporary consciousness, but on the other hand, in many respects it is a highly uncomfortable book because it is inwardly inadequate. In reference to this, an essay appeared in the July issue of the magazine “Nord und Süd” entitled “Ricarda Huch and the Devil,” , which draws attention to how necessary it is in today's world to look at what lives spiritually in people's consciousness in a way that the immediate consciousness of the present is no longer able to understand. That is why it is particularly interesting to examine Ricarda Huch's belief in demons, Martin Luther's belief in the devil. She wants to do justice to Luther's belief in the devil; she does not want to go along with those people who talk about it today in the conventional sense, because people today are very cowardly, and when they have to take a stand on a book that deals with Luther's belief in the devil, they say: Luther was certainly a great man, but the fact that he spoke of the devil and believed in him stems from the weaknesses of his time, when he shared the superstitions of his age. Such wisdom, however, is not worth much more than the wisdom of that honest high school teacher who once read to his boys what Lessing wrote about drama in his “Hamburgische Dramaturgie” and then explained to his students that Lessing was not actually capable of thinking through the ideas he put forward in the “Hamburgische Dramaturgie.” “Yes, if only I had more time!” said the professor. And from such a consideration comes the superior knowledge that Luther shared the superstitions of his time. But still, no one can truly understand Luther who does not know that the awareness of what, in the spirit of his time, was called the devil—we call it Ahriman and Lucifer today—was for him a real spiritual experience, not only at one point on the Wartburg, but everywhere Luther speaks of these things. Just try to understand these things in context, and you cannot help but come to the conclusion that only a person who has seen the devil, who has looked at him and knows that “the little people never feel the devil, even when he has them by the throat,” can speak like this. Ricarda Huch polemicizes with extraordinary theoretical goodwill against this Dessoirism, I mean against this professorial attitude that is so clever that it knows: the devil does not exist, so Luther was just a superstitious man in the style of his time; one must excuse and forgive the great man for that.
Ricarda Huch does not agree with those who judge the great minds of the past from on high. But Ricarda Huch obviously knows nothing from her own experience about what the devil looks like. She believes in the devil even though she has never seen him. How does she believe in the devil? She believes in him so much that she knows that certain things obviously do not come from scientific facts, not from human physiology, but from the devil. But now she feels she must excuse Luther somewhat. She says: One should not imagine, when speaking of Luther as a superstitious man, that Luther believed that the devil walked around in the streets with horns and a tail. For her, too, the summary of the characteristics of certain evil instincts is what she calls the devil, who appears as a stupid devil, a proud devil, and a lying devil. She speaks of abstractions, speaks of concepts, and believes that Luther did the same because outwardly what Ricarda Huch considers a mere image is also used by Luther. But Luther must use this image because it is the only way to express what one experiences in the spiritual world. But Luther had full dealings with the devil. He had to get to know him through the soul struggles one must experience when one stands face to face with the devil. And what he experienced there, he captured in images, just as one captures in words what one otherwise experiences. If people are as stupid as Professor Dessoir, and also as corrupt, they could accuse someone who expresses himself through words of believing that the things one wants to express are contained in the words themselves. Professor Dessoir accuses me of exactly the same thing when he says that I derive certain stages of human development from images and not from reality. One should not believe that such a thing could happen at all, but here it arises not only from a lack of insight, but also from ignorance. Especially in the second chapter of my forthcoming book, which deals with the impossible, morally corrupt scholarship that characterizes our times and contributes to the terrible misery of our age, you will see what kind of people are parading around in official science today, which does not prevent the Royal Academy of Sciences, as I have already told you, from awarding the prize to that sentimental drivel of a history of psychology that Mr. Dessoir submitted to its competition and then withdrew himself. Take a look at what Dessoir's good colleagues have said about the sloppiness and superficiality of this scientific drivel of a history of psychology, and you will get an idea of what can pass for official science, even when scientific and academic prizes are at stake.
Luther stood there in an age in which he had a connection with the spiritual world in his soul. Everything that can be experienced as Ahrimanic devilry in the world was a reality for him. That was it. What he experienced cannot be expressed in ordinary words, because they describe physical things. It must be expressed in images, in imaginations. But imaginations truly express what one sees and perceives. Ricarda Huch does not understand this. She believes that when Luther speaks of the devil, one must not immediately assume that when one encounters numerous other people as a clairvoyant, the hunchbacked Ahriman sits firmly between their shoulders with his horns and peeks out with his head. But Luther knew these things, and the images he uses are only expressions of certain experiences. He himself is not of the good-natured kind, like Ricarda Huch, who believe that he only used symbols for what are ascending and descending forces, perverted passions, and so on in human beings.
What is the source of the power that emanated from Luther's teaching, as it is often called? But Luther's teaching is not merely a teaching. It can only be understood when it is seen as something other than a teaching, when one realizes that Luther stands there, and this soul looks back to those times when people were in contact with the spiritual world, and he himself is in contact with the spiritual world precisely in that realm which is Ahrimanic. When one sees Ahriman — read what is contained in my Mystery Dramas — then that is precisely the liberation from him; when one does not see him, that is the terrible thing. To see him as Luther saw him is liberation. The power that radiates from Luther gains tremendous strength when one takes things that are otherwise completely incomprehensible in the positive sense of experience from the spiritual world. And even where he says things that we may not like, this will seem quite natural, because Luther is able to see things from a much broader perspective than any person today.
It is interesting that this phenomenon, Luther, now appears as the one who most intensely compresses the result of those earlier mysteries; this is significant. And one of the greatest members of the mysteries in pre-Christian times, regardless of a later incarnation, was Luther already in those preparatory mysteries, and from what he absorbed in those mysteries before the emergence of Christianity, he drew the power that then radiated from him.
What does he have to say to the world, above all, with regard to the revelation of his vision of Ahriman?
Let us remember: the Ahrimanic age begins afterwards. Natural science today has Ahriman, and Ahriman lives unconsciously in its findings. This is the characteristic feature of today's materialistic world order, that the Ahrimanic lives in all its concepts. And Luther is destined to present this truth at one of the most important turning points before the world. But those who look into the spiritual world see something different from those who are incapable of doing so, and this world has a different effect than if it remained unconscious.
If we see in Luther the great, powerful force that shines forth from ancient developments and cannot be effective in the following age, then we understand Luther's position. He is the one who was to save for humanity a conception of Christianity that is not tainted by the unconscious Ahrimanic. That is why the conscious Ahrimanic appears so strongly in him, and that is also why his horizon is so broad.
Someone once wrote a book summarizing all the contradictions found in Luther's various writings. Such a book exists in which one can find the contradictions in Luther's writings. Luther himself read the book and wrote a response, which is contained in a letter to Melanchthon. He says there: Such a fool speaks of contradictions only because he understands neither one part nor the other of the contradiction, and he also does not understand that one can revere someone who is also a prince and at the same time speak of him as the devil and rebel against him. The passage where Luther talks about this in his letter to Melanchthon is very interesting; it expresses his position at that time. He also uses other expressions that cannot be repeated today, but which are completely understandable and not, as literary historians say, only comprehensible in the context of the time, but are completely understandable from Luther's interaction with the spiritual world. Anyone who calls Luther's expressions cynical or frivolous does so only out of their own frivolity or cynicism. What matters is that we recognize from such things that although individual things repeat themselves, the big picture does not. Nonsense repeats itself because it is subject to time. The great does not repeat itself. And people will only be able to return to scholasticism when they study it again and discover that a different, more refined, and particularly more finely differentiated way of thinking is possible than is practiced today. And especially a spirit such as that which emerged in Luther cannot be repeated. It must be taken as a historical phenomenon, just as it stands. It is wrong to believe that anyone can live like Luther. What matters is that we immerse ourselves in him, that we try to study his historical personality, what happened there, how not only this one individuality of Luther, which can be found in those preparatory mysteries before Christianity, lived in another incarnation and then later appeared as Luther, but that in fact the entire course of human development and law is expressed in this one phenomenon.
But all this depends on Luther still having full experiential knowledge in his time of those regions of the world where he banished the devil, whom we would call Ahriman. But this knowledge sank into the subconscious regions. It has become quite prevalent to view Luther as the professors view him. For sometimes theologians are also professors. And this view has gained considerable ascendancy, which does not proceed from Luther's immediate experience in the spiritual world, but assumes that when he speaks of the devil, it was only the weakness of the great man. But it is only the weakness of those who speak of Luther today when they speak of him in this way.
Then came – and this is the meaning of the development – the time that followed Luther, in which Ahriman lived unconsciously in the material view and life of the world, most strongly in the nineteenth century, without people knowing it. And only from the East will the possibility arise again that people will know what they are living into when they transcend the physical plane. It is very remarkable when one looks at the East today, at these highly remarkable phenomena of Russian life, Russian wickedness, Russian greatness, everything that is emerging in the East. For many years we have described what is becoming, what is preparing itself in Russian life. It is remarkable when one looks at it and says to oneself: Yes, these people are still children today. They are. And those who are not children are possessed. What do you think: Kerensky is possessed, even though he has obviously overcome such a prejudice that the hunchback is sitting inside him! It's just that the hunchback has learned to use Western death science to produce a way of thinking that is not Eastern thinking. And it's not just that Western thinking doesn't understand Russianness, but those in the East who want to judge Russianness with Western thinking, the leading people in the East, don't understand Russianness themselves! For there is something childlike in it, something forward-looking. And in the future, it must come to look again into the spiritual world, to regain a relationship with this spiritual world: the opposite of the great Luther who prepared our age. Our age looks back, it proclaims the power that is at work from what lies behind.
Here you see something very strange spiritually: you simply see the contrast between Luther and, for example, how childishly the Russian revolution will appear in Soloviev. We see two opposite poles, something that behaves like north and south, like positive and negative electricity, if you want to compare it with something abstract, two directions of thought and imagination that cannot understand each other. For the way Soloviev speaks shows that he is far from understanding Luther; and if one wants to remain with Luther, it is quite impossible to understand Soloviev. But here we must agree to broaden our horizons, to be able to accept the negative alongside the positive.
I would like to leave this weighty consideration with you and hope that we will be together again next time. Then I will try to portray Luther's individuality as a complete individuality, as it emerges not only from his time but from the entire course of human development, but from a point of view that can only be found through anthroposophy.