Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Aspects of Human Evolution
GA 176

17 July 1917, Berlin

Lecture VII

Let us now consider the implication of certain concepts we have obtained in our recent studies. Today, in the lecture to follow, I shall speak mainly about the nature of truth and the nature of the good. These issues we have been concerned with recently. But let us first look at something that belongs to those interconnections we spoke about last time and which to modern history must seem very strange. We saw in the previous lecture that it is possible to gain definite concepts as to how a present life on earth is connected with the preceding life on earth as well as with the one that will follow. I described that the I insofar as we are aware of it in the will acts across from our previous life on earth, and that insofar as we form a thought picture of the I this thought, with all it contains, is so delicately woven that it acts across to the next earth life. I compared it with the way in which the seed in this year's plant becomes the life in the plant of next year. We must regard as seed for our next life on earth every web of thought at the center of which is the I. So you see, when we enter our life on earth we do so with conditions determined by our previous life; but also, of course, with what comes as a result of the last life having been worked on between death and new birth. This can be said to be one group of concepts we have gained.

Let us now make a great leap to another group of concepts we also obtained recently, concerned with the course of man's lives on earth. Those considerations culminated in the insight we gained into the secret of mankind's present age. I described how man, after the Atlantean catastrophe, entered upon the ancient Indian epoch, at the beginning of which mankind's age was 56. What this signifies was also described. It means that at that time the individual human being continued to be capable of natural development right up to the age of 56 in a way possible now only in childhood. Up to that age man's soul and spirit went through a development parallel to that of his physical body. This now happens only in childhood when the development of soul and spirit is bound up with the growth and development of the body. This interdependence ceases when we reach the age that was indicated. The soul and spirit then become more independent and man's inner development no longer continues of itself.

The most important aspect of this is that we do not go through the middle of life, when the body begins to decline at the age of 35, still dependent on the body. Consequently we are not conscious of the Rubicon which we cross at that time. We do not experience what was experienced in the first post-Atlantean epoch, namely, the body's decline, its becoming sclerotic and calcified and the spirit becoming free of the body. At that time this took place in the course of natural development, without effort on man's part. As we know, during that epoch the age of mankind receded from 56 to 55, 54 and so on, so that at the end of the epoch his natural development continued only up to the age of 49. In the following, the ancient Persian epoch, mankind's age receded from 49 to 42. During the third, the Egyptian-Chaldean epoch, it receded from the age of 42 to that of 35, in the Graeco-Latin epoch from the .age of 35 to 28. This means that the Greeks and Romans remained capable of natural development up to that period in life which is bounded by the ages 28 and 35. I then placed before you the stupendous mystery that, as mankind's age had receded to 33, Christ Jesus, aged 33, united Himself with mankind. That moment the Mystery of Golgotha took place. This revelation is so wondrous that one is at a loss to find words to express the awe felt by the soul able fully to experience this fact so steeped in mystery.

The age of mankind continues to recede. As you know, since the fifteenth century we have been living in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. When it began, the age of mankind was 28 and by now has dropped to 27. This means that up to that age our soul and spirit are still in some way dependent upon our bodily-physical nature. After that age our natural development ceases; we can make no further progress merely through what our environment provides. If we are to progress, we must have an inner incentive to do so, and today that can only come from spiritual knowledge, as I have often explained. The impulse must arise from our feeling for what is spiritual in the world, from our knowledge of the spiritual aspect of things. In the last resort that can only arise through the Christ impulse. It is simply a fact that modern man, concerned only with what nature and society can provide him with, i.e., what the world can make of him, will remain a 27-year-old even if he lives to be a hundred. If he is to progress in his inner life, he must himself engender the impulse to do so; nothing more arises through the body's participation in his development. Thus through natural development modern man becomes 27 years old, and that is what is so characteristic of today's culture. Our culture, our civilization cannot be understood, especially in relation to earlier ones, unless this fact, verified by spiritual science, is kept firmly in mind.

This is something that is closely connected with the first group of spiritual facts of which we reminded ourselves today. As you will realize from the last lecture, we go through a certain evolution during the time between death and new birth; what is particularly at work then are the will impulses from the previous incarnation. What is accomplished between death and new birth we bring with us; it becomes experience in this life. However, the strange fact is that in the human being of today the reciprocal action between the astral body and the I that is soul and spirit on the one hand and the ether body on the other comes to a halt at the age of 27. We are so conditioned during life between death and new birth that we prepare and organize our new ether body in such a way that when it comes to live in the physical body, the I and astral body can still be active in it. At the beginning of the Graeco-Latin epoch, about 747 B.C., this vivifying effect of astral body on the ether body came to a halt when the person reached the age of 35, at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, at the age of 33. It now stops at the age of 27. This means that today, according to the evolution he has gone through before birth or conception, a person can through what nature itself provides and what he gains from society keep his ether body mobile up to the age of 27, so mobile that the astral body, with which the ether body is in reciprocal activity, can imbue it with fresh concepts and ideas, vivifying it enough to engender new feelings and perceptions. Our mental pictures of the world, our ideals can be enriched up to the age of 27 simply through the experiences that come to us. After that age it does no longer happen of itself; progress will only come about through our own inner impulses.

Many soul conditions, many inner dissatisfactions in life suffered by modern man are due to the comparatively early cessation of the reciprocal effect between astral and ether body, and consequently also the physical body. There is, especially in early life, a lively reciprocal activity in the lower region between the soul, i.e., the astral body, and the ether body. Then it ceases, and unless we quicken our conceptual life in the way described in the previous lecture, we can absorb only shadowy concepts. These concepts must not attain their full reality or they would constantly lame us. They would be like a plant seed that insisted upon growing into a complete plant straight away. Our concepts and mental pictures must remain seeds until the next incarnation. If upbringing and self-discipline did not modify this tendency, we would in fact always want more than life of itself could give us. Many people do suffer from this “wanting more than life can give.” Life can provide us only with concepts that will mature in our next incarnation. They must consequently remain shadowy in this one unless through inner impulses of the kind described in the last lecture, we enrich and stimulate our mental pictures, in fact our whole inner life. If we could recognize that we are nurturing the seed for our next incarnation, i.e., see life in a much wider perspective, we would attain much greater inner contentment. This is directly connected with what Pascal and later Lessing expressed and what has often since been emphasized, the fact that in seeking truth, we are in a certain sense satisfied.1 Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662. Penseés, in many English editions. From the German edition of Ewald Wasmuth, Heidelberg, 1954, pp. 240-241: “We not only know God and ourselves through Jesus Christ; but life and death we know only through him as well. Without Jesus Christ we would not understand our life, our death, God, or ourselves.” A passage which Pascal before him discussed at great length, Lessing expressed in a simpler, paradigmatic form, saying: “If God held truth in one hand and the striving after truth in the other, I would choose striving after truth.”2 Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, 1729–1781. The verbatim quote is: “If God held in his right hand all truth; and, in his left, the ever active drive for truth, even with the condition that I would eternally and always err, and said: ‘Choose!,’ I would fall humbly on his left and say, ‘Father, give! The pure truth is for you alone!,’ ” Eine Duplik (1778), in G.E. Lessings Sämtliche Schriften, Leipzig, 1897. These words contain a great deal. They imply that while incarnated in a human body we will always have the feeling that we do not attain complete truth. Truth lives in concepts, in mental pictures and these are interwoven with the I; while in a human body, we can have only the truth which is seed for a next incarnation. It must not be fixed but live and move in our striving. Before incarnation our ether body is so constituted that it contains the truth. However, incarnating causes truth as a whole to be reduced to a copy, a picture of truth, and it is this picture which is seed for the following incarnation.

Inner contentment we attain only when we can feel ourselves as a member of humanity as a whole. In practice it is not attained unless we develop the kind of living concepts of which we spoke last time. These concepts are not derived from the surface of life's events; they must be sought in the connections between them. No human being today will achieve inner contentment unless he takes a vivid interest in the world around him, but an interest directed towards the spirit and the spiritual connections in the environment. Those who merely want to brood within themselves will find in life only what makes us into the kind of 27-year-olds that correspond to the evolution we went through between the previous death and the birth of the incarnation we are in.

Man has to discover out of his own initiative his bonds with the environment. This is why in our age man encounters obstacles to freedom. He must kindle in himself interest for those spiritual aspects of life that cannot be discovered merely through sense observations; they must be sought in wider, more hidden connections, in ways I explained in the previous lecture. Much in what has just been said can help explain, not only our stand towards truth in our time, but also towards the good—the ethically and morally good. In the next lecture we shall go into more detail. Today we shall concern ourselves more with something that follows from these facts and can explain much that will help us understand our present time.

The spiritual scientist must deal with the facts he discovers differently from the way the natural scientist deals with his. From our considerations over the years you will realize that the spiritual scientist arrives at his discoveries through the faculties of imagination, inspiration and intuition. This means he is engaged in cognition that goes beyond the confines of the immediate sensory world into that realm of the spiritual world which reaches beyond what is perceived through physical senses. This realm is at the same time the spiritual background from which everything sense perceptible is governed. The science of the spirit gains its observations such as the fact that humanity becomes younger and younger from the spiritual realm accessible to the human faculty of knowledge. The age of the human being is receding the way I explained from that of 56 to the age of 27 in our present time, and 27 is the age where we remain unless we take our own progress in hand. These facts can be discovered only through spiritual science. They cannot be found through ordinary ethnology or anthropology, nor of course, through ordinary historical research into the course of events since the Atlantean catastrophe with the methods of natural science. All these things can be derived only from the spiritual world. You will understand that the spiritual investigator with his spiritual knowledge will have a somewhat different attitude to events than the natural scientist, and not only to external events and processes but to history and social procedures. How does the natural scientist set about his research? He has before him the objects and phenomena to be investigated, and he formulates his concepts and mental pictures accordingly. The concept, the mental picture, is the second; the law that governs what is investigated is what he discovers. Thus he goes from facts to the laws by which they are governed; the sense perception comes between the two. The facts are the first, then the mental pictures are added, then the law discovered and so on.

In regard to the spiritual world itself the spiritual researcher sets about his investigation in a similar way; here the investigation is not really different. It is in regard to the physical aspect that differences arise. The spiritual facts are directly understood as one takes hold of them. If one wants to discover what significance they have for the physical world, then the corresponding physical facts must be sought out afterwards. The spiritual aspect is given first; afterwards one seeks out the physical facts or conditions which it explains. By means of the spirit one explains what in life must be spiritually explained. Many find it extremely difficult to understand that in spiritual research the law comes first, and the law; i.e., the spiritual aspect, then points to the physical phenomenon to which it applies. The physical phenomenon supplies confirmation, as it were, of the law. Spiritual investigators used to express this difference somewhat formally, saying that natural-scientific investigation has to proceed inductively—from fact to concept, whereas spiritual-scientific investigation must proceed deductively—from concept to fact. In this light, let us look at an example which is of significance today.

Spiritual research reveals that man in general develops in our time, through what nature and society provide, up to the age of 27. Therefore, the typical modern person who keeps aloof from spiritual knowledge will progress in his development up to his 27th year. If he is a person of significance, someone with many interests and is full of energy, then his faculties will be well developed by the time he reaches the age of 27. This means he will have brought to maturity everything one can develop simply through the fact of having physically become 27 years old. His powers of thinking will have developed and so too, the impulse to be active in one or another sphere. His will power will have grown in strength simply because his muscles have grown stronger, and similar things apply to the nervous system, and so on. If he is responsive to what he can absorb from the human environment, he will, by the time he is 27 years old, have developed a sum of ideas and ideals; he will be concerned about social reform and so on. All this will live and develop in him up to his 27th year, so that by that time he will, one might say, be crammed full. Then it stops; it ceases to develop further, and from then on what he brings to bear on life is the insight and outlook he has attained by the age of 27. He may live to be a hundred years old, and if he is a significant person he will bring about significant things, but whatever he does will be based on the ideas and impulses of a 27-year-old. Thus he is a true representative of the time in which we live; one could say he is a product of our time. But if he has no interest in the spiritual aspect of life, and does not develop impulses of the kind that enable, not only the body but the soul to mature beyond the 27th year, then he refuses to participate in mankind's further evolution. As he does not kindle spiritual impulses in himself, he cannot bring them to bear on his environment. He is incapable of bringing into our time anything that contains seeds for mankind's further progress. All that he does bring is characteristic of the time. If he is a man of stature—and one can, of course, be such and still remain 27 years old—then he will provide our time with what is in complete agreement with a certain aspect of it, but it will provide no seed for the future.

How are we to picture to ourselves such a typical person of our time? What exactly would he be like? What we must now do is to bring our mental picture of such a person down into physical reality. We must look for a physical counterpart. We must, as it were, visualize where such a person could be encountered in social life. It would have to be in the midst of modern life. So in what circumstances would one find him? First of all, the 27th year of his life would be conspicuous, but conspicuous in the sense that from his 27th year onwards his position in society would enable him to carry out precisely the ideas and impulses of a 27-year-old. At the same time what he lacked, i.e., his inability to progress inwardly beyond that age would not be too noticeable. In other words, he must have the opportunity to remain the age of 27 in a fruitful manner. Had he reached the age of 27 and found no possibility to do anything significant with his impulses and ideas, then he would have grown older with something dead within him. If then at the age of say 31 he found himself in some public position, he would meanwhile have carried what had become lifeless and dissolute within him into that later age; he would be no true representative of our time. However, it is possible in present-day circumstances to visualize that in a democratic country, under so-called normal conditions, such a person would, at the age of 27 be voted into parliament. There he would have the perfect opportunity to influence social affairs; it would also be a certain peak in his career. For if someone of some significance enters parliament at the age of 27 that would mean an occupation for life. He is, as it were, stuck; he cannot change course. However, he is in a position to put into action, from his 27th year onwards, all he has developed within himself. Should he later be called from parliament to become a minister of state, then that would be a change of less significance than the one that brought him into parliament. As minister of state he can put into practice what, as a 27-year-old he brought into parliament. So we can say that a typical person of our age with political and social interests would be someone who at the age of 27 is voted into parliament, giving him the possibility to carry out in practice the ideas and impulses corresponding to his age.

Yet there are still other demands such a person must fulfill to be a true representative of our time. There are things in modern society that work against a human being's natural development. What develops naturally soon goes awry when the person is subjected to modern educational methods; the more so if he goes through some branch of university training that pushes him in a one-sided direction. What we are looking for is someone who represents the age, someone in whom what nature has bestowed develops as far as possible, up to the age of 27, unimpaired by modern training of the young. In other words, he must fulfill the requirement I laid down on the basis of spiritual science—you could say deduced from spiritual science—someone who at the age of 27 stands in the modern world with all that nature provides, fully developed, unimpaired by modern training, and who refuses to absorb any knowledge that provides seeds for the future. If such a person could be found in the modern world, his life would clarify many things. We would see in him demonstrated in practice what it means that mankind is in general 27 years old, that people anywhere who come to a standstill in their development at the age of 27, in a crude way weaken the seed of the future.

Does a human being exist somewhere who had all the required qualities at the right age to make him a typical representative of our age? He does indeed; all the qualifications I deduced from spiritual considerations fit Lloyd George completely.3 David Lloyd George, 1863–1945, British statesman. Prime minister, 1916–1922. Look at the life of Lloyd George, not just from the external aspect but, as it were, from above, from the spiritual aspect, and you will find that everything fits. He was born in 1863, was orphaned early in life—you will be acquainted with these details—he was brought up by his uncle who was a cobbler and also a preacher in Wales. He was of Celtic stock and, especially when young, of a lively and alert disposition. His uncle, the preacher, was always there as an example, and he aspired to become a preacher himself. That was not possible because the sect to which his uncle belonged was not permitted to have salaried priests; everyone had to pursue a trade and preach without remuneration. Therefore, not even these conventions had any inhibiting effect. Already in youth he was an ardent lover of independence. The poverty was such that often there was no money for shoes, so he ran about barefoot, in fact experienced all degrees of destitution. He grew up without attending school regularly, so received no proper education, but simply accepted what life brought him. In the same irregular fashion he embarked on a career as a lawyer, not through official training but by getting employment at sixteen in a lawyer's office, and through keen observation and sound judgment he became a solicitor at the age of 27. Thus his attainments were achieved not through academic training but through what he could gain from life in the present. Life had also kindled in him a strong opposition to the many privileges birth and position bestow. It was with a certain fury that he had removed his cap in greeting to the local squire with whom he was obliged to meet several times a day.

Then what happens? In the year 1890 when Lloyd George, born 1863, is 27 years old, he becomes, through the death of a member of parliament, the candidate opposing the man to whom he hated raising his cap in daily greeting. He had been put forward as a candidate because of the attention caused by a series of urgent speeches he had made, inflaming the hearts and minds of his listeners, exhorting the liberation of Wales from English dominion. Celtic nationality, he said, was to be infused with new life, and in particular the Church should be freed of the organizing influence of the State. He drew so much attention that as a result he won a seat in parliament by a slight majority. This was in 1890. Lloyd George was just 27 years old and a member of parliament! Immediate life experiences had taught him what was needed in his time, and these experiences he brought with him into parliament. For two months this 27-year-old member carefully watched everything that was happening and said not a word. For two months, sitting with a hand behind his ear, with eyes that tended to converge but now and then could flash, he saw and heard everything that went on, whereupon he began the career of a much feared speaker in parliament. People like Churchill and Chamberlain who formerly had looked upon their opponent with a certain indifference, with a certain English impassiveness, became enraged when opposed by Lloyd George.4 Sir Winston Churchill, 1874–1965, British statesman, prime minister 1940–1945, 1951–1955. Arthur Neville Chamberlain, 1869–1940, British statesman, prime minister 1937–1940. After all, he was untutored, unacademic, but he also displayed penetrating logic and biting sarcasm when refuting an opponent, no matter how highly revered. He was close to Gladstone, but even he had to endure much from the sarcasm, the cutting remarks, and logical arguments Lloyd George was always ready to conduct.5 William Ewart Gladstone, 1809–1898, British statesman, prime minister four times between 1868 and 1894. Here we see the extraordinary versatility of someone taught by life itself. People not taught in this way tend to be one-sided, limited in things they can manage. Lloyd George was well informed about every subject and spoke in a way that enraged even the most distinguished members, rousing them from their habitual impassiveness.

It is indeed interesting to observe this great man as a representative of our time, to observe how he unites the characteristics of the 27-year-old with the strength of Celtic traits and makes the most of this combination. His caustic speeches against the Boer war, this wholly disgraceful affair, as he called it, are among his most outstanding. He constantly harangued parliament in even more vivid terms about what he called this vile, mean action of the war in South Africa. With Celtic fearlessness he continued to speak in public though he was once hit on the head with a cudgel so hard that he fell senseless to the ground. Another time he had to borrow a policeman's uniform and be smuggled through a side door because one dreaded the speech he was going to make. There had been no one like him in British political life, and he remained a severe critic well into the 20th century; naturally under a reactionary government a critic only. However, when the Campbell-Bannerman liberal government came to power early in the 20th century, everyone said how good it was to have a liberal government, but what was to be done about Lloyd George?6 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 1836–1908, British statesman, prime minister, 1905–1908. Well, in a democratic country what does one do in such a case? One hauls the person in question into the cabinet and gives him a portfolio he is sure to know nothing about. That was exactly what Campbell-Bannerman did with Lloyd George. He, who never had any opportunity to concern himself with trade, was given the Department of Trade, which he took over in 1905. He was a self-made man, molded by life, not by academic training. And what was the outcome? He became the most outstanding Minister of Trade Britain had ever had.

After a comparatively short time, spent studying his new task and which involved travels to Hamburg, Antwerp and Spain in order to study trade relations, he set about introducing a law concerning patents which was a blessing for the country. The bills he introduced and passed for reorganizing the Port of London were met with general approval, an issue over which many former Ministers of Trade had come to grief. The way he managed to settle a particularly critical railway dispute was universally applauded. In short, he proved to be a quite exceptionally efficient minister of trade. When the change of government came from Campbell-Bannerman to that of Asquith and Grey, Lloyd George naturally had to be kept in the cabinet.7 Sir Edward Grey, 1862–1933, British statesman. British foreign Minister, 1905–1914. Herbert Henry Asquith, 1852–1928, British statesman. By then it was the general opinion that Lloyd George could do anything. He was so truly a representative of his time that he was given the most important office, that of Chancellor of the Exchequer. With all his characteristics of a 27-year-old, with all his emotions stemming from his Celtic origin, Lloyd George became Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had of course retained all the emotions that used to well up in him when as a barefoot boy he had to greet the local squire. He did, however, score over that same squire in his bid for a seat in parliament. He also retained his strong feelings against everything to do with special privileges and the like. He remained as he had been at the age of 27.

Before Lloyd George's time as Chancellor there had been in England a magic cure for financial problems; it was called tariffs. Inland revenue is really a form of tariff, worked out so that the privileged pay as little possible, ensuring that poverty is widespread. As Lloyd George presented his first budget, the abuse hurled at him and his impossible budget must have created a precedent. The British press was, in fact, hurling at him the kind of abuse they at present are reserving for the Germans. Everything in his budget to do with raising taxes in areas that affected the more privileged came in for heavy criticism.

In parliament he faced vehement opposition, but he sat, as always, completely calm and unperturbed, hand behind the ear, eyes that sparkled and lips ready to curl in sarcasm. This was a man in complete accord with the age. Chancellors before him had produced budgets which had been given this or that name, but the budget he presented was so unique to him that in Britain it was known simply as the Lloyd George budget. With no education other than that of life itself, he represented to perfection the time of which he was himself a product. Everything that could be learned about taxation and how it worked in America, France, and Germany he had investigated and endeavored to evaluate. Here again he did not gain his knowledge from books but from practical life, from the way the issue was dealt with at that particular time.

What he achieved is really most interesting and quite remarkable. His complete confidence is again demonstrated when one year, as he came to present his annual balance sheet, it was found that there was a deficit. Deficits had previously always been dealt with by simply absorbing them; i.e., making an entry for the amount. However, Lloyd George said: “Well, there is a deficit, but we shall leave it and not enter it because through the measures I have taken various branches of trade and industry will be so profitable that the extra revenue will cover the deficit in time”—which shows his confidence in life, a confidence that stemmed from his accord with life. Most importantly, unlike others he dod not lose that confidence when things went wrong. And in regard to this matter things did go very wrong. The deficit remained, but the prosperity he had so confidently promised did not materialize. Yet he remained calm, being so completely adjusted to life. And what happened? Three of his greatest adversaries died, all exceedingly wealthy men. They had strongly opposed him because of his tax laws which had earned him the title “robber of the upper classes,” one of the many insults hurled at him. Well, three of his most powerful enemies died—and you may call it a coincidence, but the death duty he had already introduced was so high that the revenue from their estates made up the deficit.

In a remarkable way the tide gradually turned, and Lloyd George began to be praised. He lived according to his inner conscience and the way he was prompted by the environment, and nothing could be in more complete accord than the man who had remained aged 27 and mankind aged 27. However, the time came for his 1909 budget. By then he was of course considerably older, yet had remained aged 27 in the real sense. As he introduced new measures in every sphere in which he had influence, all aiming at fighting poverty and other social ills of the worst kind existing in Britain, it was not surprising that he met with much enmity. But, if one is in such accord with what lives in mankind and has the strength to experience it, the strength will also be found to cope. He sometimes had to listen for ten hours or more to speeches and continually had to intervene and often was opposed by the strongest members of parliament, some glaring at him through monocles while reviling him. Lloyd George remained calm, answering objections for ten hours if he had to, always with wit and ironic remarks that found their target. Thus he managed to introduce laws of immense benefit, such as care of the elderly, laws aiming at improving the population's health, such as effectively combatting drunkenness and the like. One could say that as representative of the time he fought everyone who did not represent his time.

In order to understand fully this whole issue, we must add to it another basic aspect of mankind's evolution. We must bear in mind that in the first, the ancient Indian epoch, man developed the ether body, in the ancient Persian epoch the sentient body. Then in the Egyptian-Chaldean epoch he developed the sentient soul, in the Graeco-Latin epoch the intellectual soul, and in our epoch the consciousness soul. However, in the present epoch no other people anywhere are in the position of the British, for they are especially constituted for the consciousness soul. We know that the Italian and Spanish peoples develop the sentient soul, the French the intellectual soul, the English people the consciousness soul, the Central Europeans the I, while the Russian people are preparing for the Spirit Self. The English people are therefore representative of the materialism of the epoch, because materialism is bound up with the development of the consciousness soul. Thus Lloyd George is also intimately connected with the consciousness soul; he is, as it were, predestined to be in every way the representative of our time. It is of immense significance that he, the typical 27-year-old, should emerge with the 27-year-old English people. That is why in everything he said he represented the English folk. But he also spoke as a representative of man-kind's present evolutionary stage, as one who has no inclination to further that evolution, but rather with bull-like tenacity wants to press on with what this evolution presently has to offer. Thus the English folk soul is coming to expression in a human being representing the age.

Lloyd George has been active in the British social system ever since 1890, when he was 27 years old, and has left his mark on every aspect of it. And it comes as no surprise that in the years leading up to the war he was heard saying that the British people were not to let themselves be confused by warmongers who continually tried to convince them that the Germans meant to invade England. There was to be no war and not a penny would be spent on arms. So again, this eminent representative of the British people expressed exactly what the British people felt. It also expresses the idealism of a 27-year-old. Whatever else was taking place at the time was more reminiscent of the other ideas as they had been in different ages. But Lloyd George expressed the un-warlike sentiment of the present age, particularly characteristic of the British people. He said there were three stages—which must be avoided at all cost—to sure ruin: to budget for war, to arm for war, and the war itself. This man, the eminent representative of our time, during the period of liberalism in Britain had imprinted it on all spheres of life. All that could be done in Britain in this respect he had done. He also dreamed of a world court of arbitration, which is a typical abstract ideal of a 27-year-old.

Everything I have explained so far about Lloyd George is connected with the fact that he possesses in an unspoiled way the qualities of the 27-year-old. This makes him the ideal representative of the English folk, and in fact, of everything from which the British people benefit and through which they in turn can benefit the world. But what Lloyd George cannot do is progress beyond the age of 27; he remains that age throughout his life in the sense I have explained. Consequently when something occurs under the influence of a different human age group with which he has no affinity, he is immediately thrown off balance. Someone who accepts only what nature and life of itself provide can have no understanding of something which issues from quite a different aspect of mankind's evolution. When one is able to look behind the scenes of world history it is an indisputable fact, though one that is little recognized, that what is represented by Lloyd George is what on the surface the British people want. And what they want is no war. This comes to expression perfectly in the sentiment which says that the three stages to certain ruin are to budget for war, arm for war and war itself. Though the war was not prevented, and thus permitted to occur by Britain, the real truth is that it was brought about by occult powers who manipulate those who govern as if they were marionettes.

One could point to the exact moment when these occult powers intervened, the moment they caught in their net those who were rulers or rather appeared to be. The occult powers who caused the war from Britain were behind well-known statesmen, and their impulses are most certainly not those of 27-year-olds. Rather they stem from ancient traditions and from a thorough knowledge of the forces inherent in the peoples of Europe. They have knowledge of where and when various peoples, or individuals, various leaders may be weak or strong. Their knowledge is exact and far-reaching, and has for centuries not only flowed through hidden channels but has been kept so secret that those in possession of it could drag others unawares into their net. Individuals like Asquith and also Grey were in reality mere puppets who themselves believed, right up to early August 1914, that at least for Britain there would be no war. They were sure they would do everything to prevent war, when suddenly they found themselves manipulated by occult powers, powers which originated from personalities quite other than those named. Over against these powers Lloyd George, having remained 27 years old, also became a mere puppet. This was because their influence originated from quite a different human life period than his; they could be so effective because of their ability to place ancient traditions in the service of British egoism. The influence of these powers swept like a wave over Britain engulfing also Lloyd George who, though a great man, is through and through a product of our time. Behind the impulses which from Britain laid the foundations for war existed an exact knowledge of the peoples of Europe and their political intentions. Those who know what took place in Britain also know that the content of what today is expressed in war slogans existed as an idea, as a plan, already in the 1880s and 90s, a plan that had to become reality.

Those with occult insight into Britain's political future and the future of the peoples of Europe were saying that the dominance of the Russian empire will be destroyed to enable the Russian people to exist. The Russian revolution in March 1917 was planned already at the end of the 1880s, and so were the channels through which events were guided and manipulated. This was something known only to that small circle whose secret activities sprang from impulses that were of considerably older origin than those of Lloyd George. The events that took place on the Balkans were all planned by human beings of whom it could be said that they were the “dark figures behind the scenes.” That these things happen, is destiny. When from Britain something intervened in the world situation which could not have arisen from the essentially British character represented by Lloyd George, the powers behind the scenes saw to it that he became Minister of Munitions! As long as he had been himself, Lloyd George's deepest convictions had been that the way to certain ruin was to budget for war, arm for war and war itself. Now that he is a puppet he becomes Minister of Munitions! All he retained of his own was his efficiency. He became a very able Minister of Munitions. The man who from deepest inner conviction had spoken against arms brought about that Britain became as well armed as all the other nations.

Here we see coming together the one who, having remained at age 27, so eminently represents mankind, and the dark powers behind the scenes, powers capable of overturning even the deepest convictions because all that lives in the physical world is governed by the spiritual realm; therefore it can be guided by a spirit which acts in accordance with the egoism of a certain group of people. Seldom perhaps have convictions been so completely reversed by the powers behind the scenes as those of Lloyd George have been. The reason lies in the fact that his convictions were so completely rooted in what had been prepared for this particular time as the essential “age 27 quality.” As long as the “age 27 quality” of this single human individuality was effective within mankind also aged 27, there was complete accord. However, just because that harmony was rooted solely in the present, the discord became all the greater when that other influence, based on ancient knowledge, asserted itself.

This extremely interesting interaction does certainly explain a great deal about present-day events; it can also help us to base our judgments on the facts of human evolution, rather than on sympathy or antipathy. The seriousness of certain things can be understood only when they are seen against the background of mankind's evolution as a whole. This also leads to a recognition of how essential it is to be aware of what goes on behind the surface of world history. As long as mankind's age had not receded below that of 28, up to the fifteenth century, evolution could go on without the individual acquainting himself with the guiding spiritual impulses behind historical events. Today it is necessary that we learn to know the influences at work beneath the surface. Such insight is essential especially in Central Europe. If one is to guard against the adversary, one must know the full extent of his might. The only way we can attain insight into mankind's evolution today is to acquaint ourselves, through spiritual knowledge, with the laws that govern that evolution. We understand our time even in regard to the individual human being only when we do so out of the spirit.

How does such an enigmatic figure as Lloyd George come to be just in the key position at this time? The answer to this question is important if one is to understand what is taking place. However, even when the individual is a representative of mankind, he can only be understood through the science of the spirit. Everything concerning Lloyd George's future will be of interest, just as everything concerning his past is of interest. Every step taken by him since 1890 has been significant. So, too, is the way he was there in the background at the outbreak of war, reflected, as it were, in the surface of events. Interesting is also the way he has become the pivot around which so many things in the world revolve, including what emerges from Woodrow Wilson, another one aged 27.8 Woodrow Wilson, 1856–1924, note 3 to Lecture I. Not least of interest is the fact that Lloyd George's inner convictions, despite their strength, were obliterated in the face of spiritual influences and powers of a dubious nature. How will Lloyd George be superseded? What is his future?9 David Lloyd George, see note 3, fell from power as Prime Minister in 1922 in connection with the Irish Question. He was a minister in various cabinets from 1909–1916, and Prime Minister from December 1916–1922. The liberal party which he led lost its influence thereafter. Lloyd George's role as a prominent politician was also at an end. These questions are also of interest. We must wait and see.

Siebenter Vortrag

Wir wollen jetzt nach und nach Vorstellungen bewerten, die wir in unseren letzten Betrachtungen gewonnen haben. Im ganzen werde ich Ihnen zu sprechen haben in dieser und den folgenden Betrachtungen von dem Wesen des Wahren, von dem Wesen des Guten, auf das ich schon in den verflossenen Ausführungen hingedeutet habe. Aber heute werden wir gewissermaßen episodisch etwas aus diesen Zusammenhängen heraus, die wir durchgeführt haben, zu betrachten haben, das der Zeitgeschichte sehr bemerkenswert sein muß. Zunächst haben Sie aus den letzten Vorträgen, die ich hier gehalten habe, gesehen, daß man sich sehr wohl ganz bestimmte Begriffe und Vorstellungen machen kann über den Zusammenhang unseres gegenwärtigen Erdenlebens mit dem früheren Erdenleben und mit demjenigen Erdenleben, das auf das unsrige, auf das jetzige folgen wird. Ich habe Ihnen ja dargestellt, daß in unserem Wollen, sofern wir das Ich selber in unserem Wollen wahrnehmen, wie herüberwirkt unser letztes Erdenleben. Und insofern wir uns den Gedanken des Ich bilden, ist dieser Gedanke mit allem, was er enthalten kann, so fein gewoben, daß er hinüberwirkt, wie wir wissen, in das nächste Erdenleben — wie ich Ihnen gesagt habe -, wie der Keim, der jetzt in einer Pflanze ist in diesem Jahr, hinüberwirkt für das Leben der Pflanze im nächsten Jahr. Also gewissermaßen den Keim zum nächsten Erdenleben haben wir in allem zu suchen, das wir an Gedanken weben, so aber, daß das Gewebe im Mittelpunkt die IchVorstellung, den Ich-Gedanken hat. Daraus ersehen Sie, daß wir, indem wir in unser Erdenleben eintreten, gewissermaßen mit all den Vorbedingungen hereinkommen, die uns vom vorigen Erdenleben kommen; aber auch selbstverständlich mit alledem, was aus uns gemacht wird in der Zeit, in der das vorige Erdenleben gewissermaßen verarbeitet wird zwischen dem Tode und der neuen Geburt, also derjenigen Geburt, durch die wir in das jetzige Erdenleben eingetreten sind. Das ist die eine Gruppe, möchte ich sagen, der Vorstellungen, die wir gewonnen haben.

Jetzt nehmen Sie mit einem großen Sprung eine andere Gruppe, eine Gruppe von Vorstellungen, die wir gewonnen haben über den Verlauf des Menschenlebens auf der Erde, eine Betrachtung, die gegipfelt hat in dem, wir dürfen uns sagen, wunderbaren Geheimnis von dem Gesamtlebensalter der Menschheit in der Gegenwart. Wir haben ja ausgeführt, daß die Menschen, als die atlantische Katastrophe vorüber war, in das erste nachatlantische Zeitalter, in die altindische Zeit eintraten, daß da die Menschen als ganzes Geschlecht ein Alter von der Mitte der fünfziger Jahre, 56 Jahre hatten und so weiter. Und wir haben auch des genaueren ausgeführt, was das zu bedeuten hat. Das hat zu bedeuten, daß in der damaligen Zeit die Menschen entwickelungsfähig blieben, so wie wir jetzt nur in der Kindheit entwickelungsfähig sind, bis in das 56. Jahr hinein, welches sie also durchmachten, wie wir den Parallelismus durchmachen zwischen der seelisch-geistigen und der physisch-leiblichen Entwickelung in der Kindheit, wo mit dem Sichentwickeln, Sichentfalten unseres Leibes, mit unserem Wachsen, mit unserer ganzen Entwickelung die seelisch-geistige Entwickelung zusammenhängt. So also wie wir da einen Parallelismus zwischen der seelisch-geistigen und der physisch-leiblichen Entwickelung durchmachen, dann aber aufhören, wenn wir ein gewisses Alter erreicht haben — wir haben ja angeführt welches —, diesen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Seelisch-Geistigen und dem Physisch-Leiblichen als etwas Wirkliches in uns zu tragen. Das Seelisch-Geistige wird dann unabhängiger, und wir können uns durch das, was von selbst kommt, nicht weiter entwickeln. Wir können so vor allen Dingen nicht die Mitte des Menschenlebens, das 35. Lebensjahr in Abhängigkeit vom Leibe durchmachen; der Leib gibt dann nichts mehr her. Wir erleben also gar nicht in uns selber den Rubikon, der da überschritten wird, und vor allen Dingen dasjenige nicht, was in dieser ersten nachatlantischen Periode erlebt worden ist: wir erleben nicht den ganzen Abstieg, das Zusammensinken, das Sklerotisieren, das Verkalken des Leibes und damit das Freiwerden des Geistes, ohne daß man etwas dazu tut, wie durch Naturentwickelung. Das leben wir nicht mit. Aber dazumal lebte man es mit. Wir wissen dann, daß dieses Lebensalter der Gesamtmenschheit hinunterstieg; die Menschen wurden 55, 54, 53, 50 und so weiter Jahre alt, bis sie am Ende der ersten Epoche nur entwickelungsfähig blieben bis zum 49. Lebensjahr. Dann, in der urpersischen Zeit, machte das Menschengeschlecht die Lebensjahre vom 49. bis 42. Jahr durch, in der dritten, der ägyptisch-chaldäischen Periode, vom 42. bis zum 35. Jahre, in der griechisch-lateinischen vom 35. bis 28. Jahre. So daß also die Griechen und die Römer entwickelungsfähig blieben bis in die Zeit, die eben begrenzt wird vom 28. bis 35. Lebensjahr. Und wir haben uns da vor die Seele geführt das große, ich möchte sagen, das ganz unglaublich große Geheimnis, daß, als die Menschheit heruntergegangen ist auf 33 Jahre, ihr entgegenlebte der Christus Jesus, daß gerade in das von oben heruntergehende 33. Lebensjahr das Mysterium von Golgatha hereinfällt: der dreiunddreißigjährige Christus Jesus. Das ist etwas so Wunderbares, daß man eigentlich gar nicht Worte findet, um das auszudrücken, was die Seele da empfinden kann, wenn sie diese geheimnisvolle Wahrheit voll in sich auszuleben vermag.

Dann geht das Lebensalter der Menschheit herunter; wir leben, wie Sie wissen, seit dem fünfzehnten Jahrhundert im fünften Zeitalter. Es hat begonnen damit, daß die Menschheit 28 Jahre alt wurde, daß sie jetzt als solche 27 Jahre alt ist, das heißt, daß wir bis zu unserem 27. Jahr noch in irgendeiner Weise abhängig sind mit dem SeelischGeistigen vom Physisch-Leiblichen, daß wir aber dann durch die Tatsachen, die uns umgeben, selbst nicht gewissermaßen durch Naturentwickelung weiterkommen, sondern, wenn wir dann weiterkommen sollen, dann müssen wir einen inneren Seelenimpuls zu diesem Weiterkommen haben, und der kann heute, wie ich es des weiteren ausgeführt habe, nur aus der geistigen Erkenntnis kommen, aus dem Erfühlen und Erleben desjenigen, was man über die geistigen Vorgänge wissen kann, und was in sachgemäßer Weise nur durch den Christus-Impuls kommt. So daß es einfach richtig ist, daß heute ein Mensch — und wenn er hundert Jahre alt werden würde -, wenn er sich nur dem überläßt, was Natur und Sozialität hergeben, was die Welt von selbst aus einem macht, unter diesen Einflüssen nicht älter wird als 27 Jahre. Und wenn er hundert Jahre alt wird, er bleibt eben dann stehen und ist angewiesen auf dasjenige in seiner weiteren Entwickelung, was er in die Seele hineinimpulsiert, ohne daß es von selbst, durch das Mitmachen der Leibesentwickelung kommen kann. So werden also die heutigen Menschen gewissermaßen von selbst 27 Jahre alt; und das ist das Charakteristische für die heutige Kulturentwickelung. Man versteht diese heutige Kulturentwickelung nur, namentlich in ihrem Zusammenhang mit früheren Kulturstufen, wenn man diese Tatsache, die die Geisteswissenschaft zu konstatieren vermag, sich wirklich vor die Seele schreibt.

Es hängt dieses zusammen mit gewissen Dingen der ersten Gruppe von geisteswissenschaftlichen Wahrheiten, die wir heute wiederholentlich vor unsere Seele geführt haben. Wir machen eine gewisse Entwickelung durch in der Zeit zwischen dem Tode und einer neuen Geburt. In dieser Entwickelung wirken, wie Sie aus meinen Betrachtungen das letzte Mal ersehen haben, namentlich die Willensimpulse der vorhergehenden Inkarnation. Was wir da durchmachen zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt, was wir also gewissermaßen mitgebracht haben in dieses Leben hinein, das leben wir jetzt in diesem Leben aus. Nun ist das Eigentümliche vorliegend, daß für einen Menschen der Gegenwart die Wechselwirkung zwischen dem astralischen Leibe und dem Ich, also dem eigentlich Seelischen und Geistigen, und dem Ätherleibe eben stockt mit dem 27. Jahr. Wir werden in der Zeit zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt so zubereitet, daß wir unseren neuen Ätherleib konstituieren, organisieren können, daß in diesen Ätherleib und über diesen Ätherleib auch in den physischen Leib hineinwirken können das Ich und der astralische Leib. Für einen Menschen im Anfang der griechisch-lateinischen Zeit, also etwa für die Zeit des Jahres 747 vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha, da war es so, daß dieses Stoppen, diese Zeit, wo der Astralleib nicht mehr belebend auf den Ätherleib wirken kann, das 35. Lebensjahr war. Um die Zeit des Mysteriums von Golgatha war es das 33. Lebensjahr. Jetzt ist es das 27. Lebensjahr. So daß also ein Mensch, der sich ganz demjenigen überläßt, was heute die Natur selbst hergibt und von außen, von der Sozialität in uns einströmt, bis zum 27. Jahr infolge der Entwickelung, die er durchgemacht hat vor seiner Geburt, beziehungsweise vor seiner Empfängnis, den Ätherleib so beweglich hält, daß der Astralleib, der mit diesem Ätherleib in Wechselwirkung ist, immer diesen Ätherleib zu neuen Begriffen, zu neuen Vorstellungen, zu neuen Empfindungen beleben kann. Wir können von selbst durch dasjenige, was uns zukommt bis zum 27. Jahr, unsere Vorstellungen über die Welt, unsere Ideale bereichern. Alles das hört mit dem 27. Lebensjahr auf, von selbst zu kommen. Das muß dann, wenn es überhaupt fortdauern soll, durch die inneren Impulse angeregt werden.

Mit dieser für den Gegenwartsmenschen verhältnismäßig frühen Einstellung der Wechselwirkung zwischen Astralleib und Ätherleib und dadurch auch mit dem physischen Leibe, mit diesem verhältnismäßig frühen Stoppen, hängen viele Zustände, die die Seele des gegenwärtigen Menschen durchmacht, zusammen, viele Unbefriedigtheiten. In früher Jugend haben wir, in den untersten Regionen namentlich, eine rege Wechselwirkung zwischen unserem Seelischen, also dem astralischen Leibe und unserem Ätherleibe. Dann stoppt das, und wir können eigentlich, wenn wir nicht so, wie ich das letzte Mal es beschrieben habe, unsere Vorstellungen, unsere Begriffe beleben, nur schattenhafte Begriffe in uns aufnehmen. Denn, würden diese Begriffe voll lebendig sein, dann würden sie uns fortwährend lähmen. Sie würden dann so sein, wie wenn der Keim fortwährend eine Pflanze sein wollte und sich zur ganzen Pflanze auswachsen wollte. Unsere Vorstellungen und Begriffe können das nicht. Sie müssen Keime bleiben für das nächste Erdenleben, für die nächste Inkarnation. Wir wollen da, wenn wir dies nicht in unsere Erziehung, in unsere Selbstzucht aufnehmen, eigentlich immer mehr haben, als uns das Leben geben kann. Und an diesem «mehr haben wollen, als das Leben geben kann» kranken heute verhältnismäßig viele Menschen. Das Leben kann uns, wenn wir unseren Vorstellungen und unseren Empfindungen nicht durch innere Impulse solche Anregungen geben, wie ich es das letzte Mal beschrieben habe, nur solche Begriffe geben, die erst in der nächsten Inkarnation zur Reife kommen, die also schattenhaft in der gegenwärtigen Inkarnation sind. Das verspüren wir. Würden wir das recht durchschauen, daß wir den Keim für die nächste Inkarnation ausbilden, würden wir also unser Leben in einen größeren Zusammenhang hineinstellen, dann würden wir zu einer viel größeren Lebensbefriedigtheit kommen. Das ist aber notwendig, und das hängt zusammen mit etwas, was seit Pascal,und erneuert durch Lessing, immer wiederum betont worden ist. Wir suchen Wahrheit und wir fühlen: in der Wahrheit sind wir in gewissem Sinne befriedigt. Aber Lessing hat den Satz, den vor ihm schon Pascal in einer viel ausführlicheren Weise ausgesprochen hat, in schöner paradigmatischer Weise ausgesprochen, indem er sagte: Wenn Gott in der einen Hand die volle Wahrheit hätte, in der anderen Hand das Streben nach Wahrheit, so würde er das Streben nach Wahrheit wählen. - Hinter dem steckt sehr viel. Hinter dem steckt nämlich das, daß wir eigentlich inkarniert in einem Menschenleibe immer ein Gefühl haben müssen, daß wir niemals die volle Wahrheit haben. Denn wir können im Menschenleibe nur das von der Wahrheit haben — denn die Wahrheit lebt ja in Begriffen, in Vorstellungen, die vom Ich durchzogen sind —, was Keim für die folgende Inkarnation ist. Es muß also das, was als Wahrheit in uns lebt, so leben, daß es in Beweglichkeit ist, im Streben sich befindet. Bevor wir in diese Inkarnation eingetreten sind, haben wir uns unseren Ätherleib so zubereitet, daß er die Wahrheit enthielt. Aber unsere Inkarnation besteht gerade darin, daß sie die volle Wahrheit ablähmt bis zur Kopie, bis zu einem Bilde der Wahrheit, und dieses Bild ist Keim für die nächste Inkarnation.

Wenn wir uns so hineinstellen als einzelner Mensch in die ganze Menschheit, dann kann erst Befriedigung in unsere Seele einziehen. In der Praxis kommt sie nicht, ohne daß wir solche lebendigen Begriffe entwickeln, wie ich das letzte Mal vorgeführt habe, ohne daß wir gewissermaßen Begriffe, die nicht an der Oberfläche des Lebens liegen, in uns eigentlich aufnehmen, die uns weit auseinanderliegende Zusammenhänge des Lebens offenbaren. Zur Befriedigung wird in der Gegenwart kein Mensch kommen, der nicht ein lebendiges Interesse an seiner Umwelt hat, aber ein solches Interesse, das nach dem Geiste und den geistigen Zusammenhängen der Umwelt sucht. Wer nur in sich hineinbrüten will, findet in sich nichts anderes als das, was uns heute bis zum 27. Jahr beschert werden kann gemäß unserer Entwickelung zwischen dem vorigen Tode und dieser Geburt. Dadurch ist dieses Zeitalter auch dasjenige, das der Freiheit entgegenstreben muß, weil der Mensch aus sich selbst heraus dasjenige finden muß, was seine Seele mit der Umwelt zusammenwachsen läßt, was ihn Interesse finden läßt für diese Umwelt, aber Interesse, das nicht bloß durch die Sinne kommt, sondern auf die Weise aus weiten Zusammenhängen kommt, wie ich es das letzte Mal dargestellt habe.

In diesen Dingen liegt viel - und wir werden das nächste Mal noch von diesem Vielen reden -, viel von dem, was uns aufklären kann in unserer Stellung zu der Wahrheit in der Gegenwart, und auch von dem, was uns aufklären kann über unsere Stellung zu dem Guten, dem Sittlich-Guten, dem Ethischen in der Gegenwart. Heute soll uns mehr etwas interessieren, das uns über mancherlei aufklären kann, das gerade aus diesen Wahrheiten heraus für ein Verständnis unserer unmittelbaren Gegenwart folgen kann.

Der Geisteswissenschafter muß es ja eigentlich mit seinen Wahrheiten ganz anders machen als der Naturwissenschafter. Durch die Betrachtungen von Jahren her haben Sie gesehen, daß der Geisteswissenschafter durch Imagination, Inspiration, Intuition zu seinen Wahrheiten kommt, das heißt, daß er sich durch diejenigen Erkenntnisse betätigt, die über die unmittelbare Sinneswelt hinausführen — sich führen läßt in das Gebiet der geistigen Welt, welches über dasjenige hinausgeht, was wir mit den Sinnen wahrnehmen, wovon aber dieses Sinnlich-Wahrnehmbare als von seinem geistigen Untergrunde überall beherrscht, regiert wird. Also die Geisteswissenschaft muß ihre Wahrheiten holen aus den geistigen Regionen, die dem menschlichen Erkenntnisvermögen zugänglich sind. Solche Wahrheiten wie diese von der Verjüngung des Menschengeschlechtes, von dem Zurückgehen der Lebensalter, wie ich sie Ihnen entwickelt habe, vom 56. bis zum 27. Jahr, das wir als Menschen der Gegenwart erreichen können, wenn wir uns nicht selbst weiterbringen, solche Wahrheiten, die man nicht auf dem Wege der gewöhnlichen Ethnographie, der gewöhnlichen Anthropologie findet, die muß man aus der geistigen Welt herausholen. Eine bloß geschichtliche Betrachtung der Hergänge seit der atlantischen Katastrophe nach der Methode, wie die Naturwissenschaft vorgeht, würde natürlich diese Zusammenhänge nicht ergeben können. Also aus dem Geiste muß man diese Dinge herholen. Daher — das werden Sie begreiflich finden -— wird auch gerade bezüglich der Außenwelt, also der Natur- und Geschichtswelt, der Welt der natürlichen Vorgänge und der Welt der sozialen Vorgänge, der Geisteswissenschafter mit seinen Wahrheiten sich etwas anders verhalten müssen als der Naturwissenschafter. Wie geht denn der Naturwissenschafter eigentlich vor? Nun, er hat die Naturtatsachen, die Naturerscheinungen vor sich, danach bildet er sich seine Begriffe und Vorstellungen. Der Begriff, die Vorstellung ist das zweite. Das Gesetz ist das, wozu er kommt. Er geht also von der Tatsache zu dem Gesetz. Das Sinneswahrnehmen steht in der Mitte. Die Tatsachen nehmen wir wahr. Dann bilden wir uns die Vorstellung, das Naturgesetz und so weiter.

Der Geistesforscher wird es ja in einer ähnlichen Weise mit Bezug auf die geistige Welt machen müssen; da ist die Forschung eigentlich nicht verschieden, aber in bezug auf das äußere Sinnliche werden sich doch Unterschiede ergeben. Man weiß ja zunächst die Tatsachen, indem man sie in der geistigen Welt ergreift. Will man also die Bedeutung dieser geistigen Tatsachen in der äußeren Sinneswelt suchen, so muß man die äußeren Lebenstatsachen hinterher suchen. Man hat zuerst das Geistige gegeben, dann sucht man dazu jene Sinnestatsache oder Lebenstatsache, welche durch dasjenige erklärt wird, was man im Geiste ergriffen hat. Aus dem Geiste heraus erklärt man das, was aus dem Leben geistig erklärt werden sollte. Das ist für manchen ungeheuer schwierig zu verstehen, daß man mit Bezug auf das Geistige zuerst das Gesetz haben muß, und dann weist einen das Gesetz auf die Tatsache. Die Tatsache liefert gewissermaßen eine Bestätigung des Gesetzes. Ältere Geistesforscher haben das immer dadurch ausgesprochen, daß sie gesagt haben — wenn ich diesen schulmäßigen Ausdruck, der ja nichts zur Sache tut, Ihnen vorführen soll —: Die äußere Naturbetrachtung geht induktiv vor, von der Tatsache zum Begriff, die Geisteswissenschaft muß deduktiv vorgehen, vom Begriff zur Tatsache. Nehmen wir von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus ein Beispiel, das uns ja heute in der Gegenwart ganz besonders naheliegen muß.

Wir haben aus der geistigen Erkenntnis heraus gefunden, daß die Menschheit in der Gegenwart im allgemeinen durch das, was Natur und Sozialität durch sich selber hergeben, 27 Jahre alt wird. Der typische Mensch der Gegenwart also, der sich fern hält von geisteserkennerischen Impulsen, der typische Mensch der Gegenwart entwickelt sich bis zum 27. Lebensjahr. Ist er ein großer, ein bedeutender Mensch, ein Mensch, in dem viel von Leben sprudelt und wirkt, so wird er sich stark bis zum 27. Jahr entwickeln, das heißt, er wird alles dasjenige, was man heute als Mensch einfach dadurch entwickeln kann, daß man physisch 27 Jahre alt wird, alles dasjenige wird er, mit Bezug auf Denkkraft, mit Bezug auf Impulsivität des Wirkens in der Zeit, werden. Solchen Willen wird er entwickeln, wie man ihn dadurch entwickelt, daß die Muskeln bis zum 27. Jahr heranwachsen, die Nerven sich ausbilden und so weiter. Und dann, wenn er außerdem empfänglich ist für das, was die Sozialität, das Menschenleben hergibt, dann wird er sich bis zum 27. Jahr so entwickeln eine Summe von Ideen, von Idealen, was für soziale Reformen man alles machen wolle. Die leben bis zum 27. Jahre, damit wird er bis zum 27. Jahr, wenn ich so sagen darf, vollgepfropft sein; dann stoppt es, dann bleibt ihm das, dann wird er das von da ab ins Leben überführen wollen. Und er mag nun 100 Jahre alt werden — und ist er ein großer Mann, dann wird er tief Einschneidendes, Bedeutungsvolles ausführen —, aber er wird 27 Jahre alte Ideen, Impulse ins Leben einführen. Er wird also gerade so recht ein Repräsentant der Gegenwart sein, er wird ein Mensch sein, von dem man sagen kann: Das ist einer, den die Gegenwart hervorbringen mußte wie ihr eigenes Produkt, der aber ablehnt, mit der Fortentwickelung der Menschheit zu gehen, wenn er keine inneren GeistImpulse aufnimmt, die inneren Geist-Impulse, die einen wiederum hinausführen über das 27. Jahr, wo man, wie mit den Jahren, so auch mit der Seele weiterlebt. Es müssen geistige Impulse aufgenommen werden. Die wird ein solcher Mensch nicht aufnehmen können, und sie also auch nicht in die Gegenwart hineintragen können. Er wird nichts von dem in die Gegenwart hineintragen können, was den Keim enthält für eine zukünftige Entwickelung der Menschheit. Er wird just dasjenige hineintragen, was unmittelbar charakteristisch ist für die Gegenwart. Und wenn er ein recht großer Mann ist - man kann auch ein großer Mann sein, selbstverständlich, indem man siebenundzwanzigjährig bleibt -, dann wird er das in die Gegenwart hineintragen, was dieser Gegenwart auf einem bestimmten Gebiet voll entspricht, was gerade zu ihr paßt, was aber keine Keime für die Zukunft enthält. Das wird er hineintragen.

Wie könnten wir uns denn einen solchen Menschen vorstellen in der Gegenwart, solch einen typischen Menschen? Wie könnten wir uns ihn vorstellen? Sehen Sie, jetzt machen wir den Weg von der geistigen Erfassung einer Vorstellung herunter in die Wirklichkeit; jetzt steigen wir herunter. Wir suchen gleichsam auf, wo das in der Wirklichkeit da ist. Jetzt wollen wir einmal suchen, wo der Mensch stehen könnte, wo er sein könnte, wo er uns gewissermaßen sinnlich im sozialen Leben entgegentreten könnte. Das könnte in der Gegenwart, nach den Verhältnissen der Gegenwart sein. Wie müßte denn ein solcher Mensch sich in die Gegenwart hineinstellen? So müßte er sich in die Gegenwart hineinstellen, daß erstens selbstverständlich das 27. Jahr ein springender Punkt in seinem Leben ist, ein besonders hervorragender Punkt, aber ein solcher Punkt, daß er gewissermaßen vom 27. Jahre ab hineingestellt ist ins Leben so, daß er just das Siebenundzwanzigjährige ins Leben überführen kann, nichts mehr und nichts weniger, daß alles so veranlagt ist in seiner sozialen Lebensstellung, daß er das ausführen kann, daß aber nicht die Mängel des Nicht-weiter-Kommens allzu stark gleich hervortreten. Er müßte also gewissermaßen Gelegenheit haben, auf fruchtbare Art stehen bleiben zu können beim 27. Jahr. Denn würde er 27 Jahre alt sein mit seinen Ideen und Impulsen und nachher nichts Besonderes bedeuten in der sozialen Welt - nun, so würde er 28, 29 Jahre alt werden, und er hätte gleichsam etwas Totes in sich. Würde er dann mit 30, 31 Jahren zu besonderen sozialen Verhältnissen kommen, so würde er dann das, was inzwischen tot geworden, was versumpft ist, hineintragen ins 28., 30., 31. Jahr, er würde nicht voll das 27. Jahr hineintragen, er würde nicht voll ein Repräsentant unserer Zeit sein. Ja, innerhalb unserer gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse könnten wir uns also denken, daß da, wo jetzt vielgerühmte normale Verhältnisse für das Leben der Gegenwart existieren, also in demokratisch regierten Staaten, solch ein Mann mit 27 Jahren ins Parlament gewählt wird, denn da hat er vollständig die Gelegenheit, nunmehr in ein soziales Verhältnis hineinzukommen, welches gewissermaßen einen Abschluß bedeutet. Denn, tritt er als bedeutender Mann mit 27 Jahren ins Parlament ein, und betätigt er sich, so engagiert er sich gewissermaßen für das Leben: so nimmt man ihn; er kann nicht in verschiedener Weise umsatteln, er hat sich festgelegt. Er wird also wirklich vom 27. Jahr ab das ins Leben tragen, was er bis dahin in sich entwickelt hat. Wird er dann später- wovon die Vor- und Nachteile die Mitteleuropäer jetzt kennenlernen wollen — aus dem Parlament zur Ministerschaft berufen, so wird das kein so wichtiger Abschnitt sein, als der, wo er ins Parlament gekommen ist, sondern er wird als Minister das realisieren, was er ins Parlament getragen hat, wenn er gerade mit 27 Jahren hereingekommen ist. So daß Sie also sagen können: Der typischste Mensch der Gegenwart mit Bezug auf sozialpolitisches Leben wäre ein Mensch, der mit 27 Jahren in ein Parlament gewählt worden ist, und zwar in ein demokratisches Parlament, welches einem solchen Menschen auch die Gelegenheit gibt, seine siebenundzwanzigjährigen Impulse in der Sozialität auszuleben.

Aber noch andere Anforderungen werden wir vielleicht stellen müssen an einen solchen Repräsentanten. In unserer Zeit herrschen über die freie Entwickelung des Menschen — diejenige Entwickelung, wo das zur Entfaltung kommt, was die Natur selbst hergibt — beeinträchtigende Formen. Wenn einer regelrecht Gymnasiast wird, dann geht es schon schief mit dem, was die Natur von selbst hergeben soll. Wenn er noch gar irgendeine Fakultät in der heutigen normalen Weise durchlebt, dann geht es noch schiefer, dann wird er in eine einseitige Richtung hineingedrängt. Wir wollen aber einen Repräsentanten ansehen, einen Menschen, der das hineinbringt in die Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit, was von selber kommt, der eine möglichst ungehinderte, nicht durch die Norm der Gegenwart behinderte Jugendentwickelung bis zum 27. Jahr durchmachte. So daß der Geisteswissenschafter, wenn er einen Menschen, der so recht die Gegenwart mit all ihrer Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit und mit dem Willen, es ganz abzulehnen, heranzukommen an etwas, was Entwickelung für die Zukunft in sich aufnimmt, suchen wollte, er sich einen Menschen suchen würde, der alle diese Eigenschaften hat und diese Lebensverhältnisse durchmacht, die ich aus der Geisteswissenschaft heraus selber — nennen Sie es meinetwillen: konstruiert habe -, der Geisteswissenschafter wird sagen deduziert habe. Und wenn ein solcher in der Gegenwart da sein würde, so würde uns das Dasein eines solchen Menschen ungeheuer viel erklären, denn wir würden begreifen, daß dieser Mensch da ist, um die Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit der Menschheit einmal so recht vorzuleben, zur vollen Tatsache zu machen, daß die Menschen an irgendeiner Stelle gewissermaßen stoppen sollen bei 27 Jahren, in grober Weise ablähmen sollen die Keime für die Zukunft.

Nun, gibt es einen solchen Menschen, der just die Eigenschaft und Lebensjährigkeit an sich trägt, die ihn zum typischen Repräsentanten der Gegenwart machen? Ja, einen solchen Menschen gibt es, und das ist Lloyd George. Für ihn stimmt alles, was ich Ihnen aus der geisteswissenschaftlichen Betrachtung hier deduziert habe. Betrachten Sie von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus jetzt, nachdem Sie gewissermaßen den Weg nicht durch äußere Betrachtung, sondern von oben, vom Geiste herunter gemacht haben, betrachten Sie jetzt das Leben dieses Lloyd George: 1863 geboren, früh verwaist — Sie kennen ja ungefähr dieses Leben -, zu seinem Oheim gekommen, der Schuster und Prediger war in Wales, keltischen Geblütes, also mit lebhafter innerer Regsamkeit gerade in den Jugendjahren. Seinen Oheim, den Schuster, der Prediger war, fortwährend vor sich, selber nach dem Ideal des Predigers hinstrebend, aber nicht Prediger werden könnend, also nicht einmal durch diese Schablone und Normen eingeengt, weil diese Sekte, zu der der Oheim gehörte, keinen honorierten Pfarrer halten darf, da muß jeder ein Handwerk ausüben und das Predigen frei betreiben. Der Junge wird ein glühender Verehrer der Unabhängigkeit. Er hat nicht so viel, daß ihm immer Schuhe gekauft werden könnten, er läuft barfuß herum, macht alle Stadien des armen Kerls durch und wächst so heran, indem er nicht regelrecht zur Schule geht, nicht eine regelrechte Bildung auf. nimmt, sondern das, was das Leben von selber gibt, an sich herankommen läßt, auch nicht im regelrechten Sinne nunmehr eine Advokatenlaufbahn durchmacht, sondern als Sechzehnjähriger einfach in eine Advokaten-Amtsstube eintritt, sich da durch sein gesundes Urteil hervortut und mit 27 Jahren Sollizitator wird. Also nicht auf dem Wege der akademischen Bildung, sondern aus der Lebenspraxis, aus dem, was das Leben dem Menschen der Gegenwart selber hergibt; so wächst er heran, vom Leben geschult. Vom Leben auch mit allen Impulsen gegen jegliches Privilegium, das Geburt oder Stellung verleiht, ausgestattet. Mit einer gewissen Wut den Hut ziehend vor dem vorgesetzten Gutsbesitzer der Gegend, dem er jeden Tag ein paarmal begegnen muß.

Und was geschieht? Im Jahre 1890 — 1863 ist Lloyd George geboren, 1890 ist er 27 Jahre alt - wird er dadurch, daß ein Mitglied des Parlamentes stirbt, als Gegenkandidat gegen den Mann, auf den er eine Wut hat, weil er ihn täglich grüßen mußte, aufgestellt, weil er sich ausgezeichnet hat durch eine Reihe eindringlicher Reden, die wie Feuer den Menschen in die Seele zogen, welche dahin wirkten, daß Wales sich freimachen muß aus der englischen Umklammerung, daß die Nationalität der Kelten ein neues Aufleben erfahren muß, daß die Kirche vor allen Dingen niemals mit dem Staate in einem organisatorischen Konnex stehen darf, sondern frei gegenüber dem Staate stehen muß. Weil er sich so ausgezeichnet hatte, erringt er sich mit einer geringen Majorität den Parlamentssitz 1890, mit 27 Jahren! Das Leben hat ihn gelehrt aus unmittelbarer Anschauung, was für seine Gegenwart notwendig war. Das trägt er ins Parlament hinein. Zwei Monate schaut sich der Siebenundzwanzigjährige alles an, redet kein Wort. Aber mit seinen Augen, die stets eine etwas konvergierende Achsenstellung nehmen und dann funkeln können, mit der Hand hinter dem Ohr, um möglichst genau zuzuhören, hört er zwei Monate alles das an, was die Situation bietet. Und von da ab beginnt er ein gefürchteter Redner des Parlaments zu sein. Leute, die vorher eigentlich mit einer gewissen Gleichgültigkeit, mit englischer Gelassenheit auf ihren Opponenten geschaut haben, wie Churchill oder Chamberlain, wurden wütend, wenn ihnen Lloyd George als Opponent entgegentrat, denn er war als Ungelehrter, als Unakademiker, von einer eindringlichen Dialektik und von einer sarkastischen Art, jeden zurückzuweisen, auch wenn der Betreffende noch so hoch in seinem Ansehen stand. Gladstone stand er am nächsten, dennoch hatte selbst Gladstone von Lloyd George mancherlei auszuhalten durch seinen Sarkasmus, durch das Treffende, das Zielsichere der Dialektik, mit der Lloyd George bei jeder Gelegenheit aufzutreten verstand. Hier zeigt sich das Merk würdige eines durch das Leben belehrten Menschen: die Vielseitigkeit. Menschen, die nicht durch das Leben belehrt worden sind, werden einseitig, wissen nur über das oder jenes Bescheid. Lloyd George wußte über alles Bescheid und sprach so, daß selbst die angesehensten Leute, die er angriff, in Wut kamen, aufgeregt wurden, während sie früher in englischer Gelassenheit dasaßen.

Es ist also gerade interessant, den großen Mann als Repräsentanten der Gegenwart zu sehen, den zu studieren, der mit dem siebenundzwanzigjährigen Charakter das Keltentum verbindet, also diesen siebenundzwanzigjährigen Charakter mit der ganzen Kraft des Keltentums auslebt. Am angesehensten sind die Reden geworden, in denen er in beißender Art den Burenkrieg zurückwies, die ganze Schändlichkeit, wie er es immer nannte, die ganze Niederträchtigkeit des südafrikanischen Krieges, die er in immer neuen und neuen Worten dem Parlament vor die Seele rückte. Und unerschrocken, keltisch unerschrocken, trat er auf, so daß er einmal nach einer Rede mit einem Knüppel so auf den Kopf geschlagen wurde, daß er zu Boden sank. Ein andermal mußte ihm ein Polizeimann seine Uniform geben, daß er durch eine Hintertüre gebracht werden konnte, weil man sagte, der Lloyd George würde über einen Gegenstand reden, und man sich davor fürchtete. Ein Mensch, wie er tatsächlich innerhalb der englischen Verhältnisse, wie sie damals in den neunziger Jahren waren, vorher nicht da war! Ein scharfer Kritiker bis ins zwanzigste Jahrhundert herein. Selbstverständlich unter reaktionären Regierungen nur ein Kritiker. Aber als im Beginn des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts das erste liberale Ministerium Campbell-Bannerman kam, da sagte man sich: Ja, es wäre schon alles schön, liberal zu regieren, aber was machen mit Lloyd George? Was macht man in einem solchen Falle — Mitteleuropa will sich ja jetzt von solchen Dingen eine genauere Kenntnis erwerben, wie Sie vielleicht gehört haben -, was macht man in einem solchen Falle in demokratischen Ländern? Man holt den Betreffenden auch ins Ministerium hinein, indem man ihm ein Portefeuille gibt, von dem man glaubt, er verstehe nichts davon. Das machte das Ministerium Campbell-Bannerman mit Lloyd George. Man gab Lloyd George, just ihm, der niemals Gelegenheit hatte, mit Handel sich zu beschäftigen, das Handelsportefeuille. Nun hatte Lloyd George das Handelsportefeuille von 1905 an inne. Lloyd George war ein selbstgemachter Mann, ein Mann, den das Leben gemacht hat, nicht ein Akademiker. Was war die Folge davon? Er wurde einer der ausgezeichnetsten Handelsminister, die England gehabt hat.

Nach verhältnismäßig kurzen Studien, zu denen auch Reisen nach Hamburg, Antwerpen, Spanien gehörten, um da die Handelsverhältnisse zu studieren, ging er daran, ein Patentgesetz zu machen, das ein Segen für das Land ist. Ebenso gelang ihm ein Gesetz zur Regulierung des Hafens von London, ein Gesetz, an dem sich viele Handelsminister vor ihm schon verblutet hatten. Das brachte er so zustande, daß man damit zufrieden war. Ihm gelang auch, die Beilegung einer damals sehr akut gewordenen Eisenbahnkrisis zu bewirken. Kurz, er hat sich als Handelsminister ganz außerordentlich bewährt. Und es kam die Ablösung des liberalen Ministeriums Campbell-Bannerman durch Asquith-Grey. Lloyd George mußte man selbstverständlich im Ministerium haben! Aber man hatte sich ja jetzt schon überzeugt: Lloyd George ist ein Mensch, der alles kann. So richtig der Repräsentant der Zeit, also gibt man ihm auch den wichtigsten Posten: man macht ihn zum Schatzkanzler. Also Lloyd George war nun Schatzkanzler.

Nun denken Sie sich: mit aller Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit, die er behielt, mit allen Emotionen des Keltentums, mit allen Emotionen, die er aufgenommen hat, indem er immer als barfüßiger Junge den Gutsherrn grüßen mußte — der allerdings nachher mit geringer Majorität durchgefallen ist —, mit allen Emotionen gegen alles, was Privilegium und dergleichen heißt — denn er alterte nicht, er blieb das, was er bis zum 27. Jahr gewesen war -—, mit all dem wurde jetzt Lloyd George Schatzkanzler. Bis dahin hatte man in England geradezu ein Zaubermittel für alles finanzielle Wesen: das war dasjenige, was man die Tarifgesetzgebung nannte. Steuergesetzgebung war eigentlich Tarifgesetzgebung, und diese bestand darin, daß alles dasjenige, was privilegiert war, möglichst wenig besteuert wurde, und daß durch die ganze Tarifgesetzgebung der Pauperismus im eminentesten Maße gefördert wurde. Man kann sagen, wenn man irgendwo eine Schule suchen will für jene Methode, zu schimpfen, die jetzt gewisse englische Zeitungen gegen die Deutschen betreiben, wenn man irgendwo eine Schule suchen will, die durchgemacht wurde, so war es dazumal, als Lloyd George zuerst mit seinem ganz neuen Budget-Entwurf, den er machte, hervortrat. Dazumal machten die englischen Journalisten eine Schule durch, indem sie Lloyd George und sein unmögliches Budget beschimpften. Alles mögliche wurde ihm vorgeworfen, was nur eben jetzt auf dem Gebiete eine Steigerung hat, das ich Ihnen eben angedeutet habe. Und die heftigste Opposition fand der Mann im Parlamente selbst, wo er immer so saß, daß sich seine Lippen allmählich zu einem gewissen Sarkasmus zu ziehen verstanden, dauernd, aber immer weiter mit der Hand hinter dem Ohr und mit den etwas zusammengehenden, aber strahlenden Augen, mit absoluter Ruhe und Sicherheit. Denn dieser Mann hatte als Mensch sich in die Gegenwart hineingestellt. Es hat vor ihm auch Finanzminister gegeben, Budgetfabrikanten, die haben Budgets fabriziert, die diesen oder jenen Namen tragen, aber das Budget des Lloyd George war so individuell, daß man es in England einfach Lloyd-George-Budget hieß. So sehr war dieser Mann herausgewachsen aus der Gegenwart und so sehr stellte er sich repräsentativ hinein. Und nichts gab es für ihn an Schule als nur das Leben. Alles das, was man sammeln kann aus den Steuer-Erfahrungen von Amerika, von Frankreich, von Deutschland, das hat er zusammengesammelt und versucht, es zu verwerten. Also auch selbst in seinem Studium, in seinem am Leben sich vollziehenden Studium, nicht hinter Büchern, sondern hinter dem, was die Sozietät in der Gegenwart selber hergibt, bleibend. Sehr interessant, wirklich, ganz merkwürdig! Aber nun denken Sie, so fühlt sich der Mann in seiner Gegenwart drinnen, daß er eines Jahres, als er den Budget-Abschluß vorzulegen hatte, ein gewisses Defizit hatte. Niemals hatte man früher sich zu einem Defizit anders verhalten, als indem man die Deckung aufgenommen hat, also einen Posten für die Deckung aufgenommen hat. Lloyd George hat gesagt: Ja, es ist ein Defizit da, aber wir lassen es, wir setzen nichts dafür ein, denn durch dasjenige, was ich getan habe, werden die verschiedenen Zweige, denen das zugute gekommen ist, so prosperieren, daß wir einfach durch diese Prosperierung der verschiedenen Lebenszweige das Defizit zur rechten Zeit gedeckt haben werden. Also dieser Mann wußte auch mit dem Leben zu leben. Er glaubte auch an das Leben, weil er sich mit dem Leben verankert fühlte. Und was die Hauptsache ist: Mancher glaubt an das Leben, aber er hört auf zu glauben, wenn die Sache beginnt schief zu gehen. Und die Sache, die ich eben angeführt habe, die ging schief. Das Defizit wurde stehen gelassen, ein Deckungsposten nicht aufgenommen, es ging schief. Es prosperierte eben nicht so, wie er rein aus Vertrauen gesagt hatte. Aber er blieb ruhig, er war fest verankert in dem Leben der Gegenwart. Und was geschah? Drei seiner größten, seiner geldschwersten Feinde starben. Sie waren seine mächtigsten Gegner, weil er das Steuergesetz so ausgebildet hatte, daß man ihn einen Dieb an der englischen Lordschaft nannte; das war so einer der Ausdrücke, die man ihm an den Kopf geworfen hat. Na, also drei seiner mächtigsten Feinde starben. Aber er hatte vorher schon die Erbschaftssteuer so hoch geschraubt, daß - nennen Sie es jetzt einen Zufall - von der Hinterlassenschaft seiner mächtigsten Feinde so viel abgeführt werden mußte, daß das Defizit gedeckt war.

Es war merkwürdig, wie sich gewissermaßen nach und nach das Blatt wendete, wie man nach und nach anfing, den Lloyd George zu loben. Allerdings, der Mensch lebt ja wirklich durch die Art, wie sich sein Verhältnis zur Natur in ihm selbst und zur Umgebung gestaltet, und man kann sich nichts denken, was besser zusammenpaßt, als der siebenundzwanzigjährig Bleibende und die siebenundzwanzigjährige Menschheit. Wenn man so zusammenstimmt, wenn man 28, 29 Jahre und so weiter geworden ist, und also sein Budget 1909 vorgelegt hat - da war er ja natürlich eigentlich schon älter; er war aber nach den Theorien, die ich aufgestellt habe, weiter 27 Jahre alt -, wenn man so zusammenstimmt mit dem, was in der Menschheit einen umgibt, und die Kraft hat, dieses Zusammenstimmen zu durchleben, dann bekommt man eben auch die Kraft, die sich ausleben kann. Und so kam es immer wieder und wiederum vor, daß — weil ja selbstverständlich Lloyd George, der auf allen Gebieten, auf die er Einfluß hatte, Neuerungen einführte, die sich alle in der Richtung bewegten, den Pauperismus zu bekämpfen, gewisse Dinge zu bekämpfen, die wirklich soziale Schäden schlimmster Art in England waren —, daß er da angefeindet wurde. Zuweilen mußte er zehn Stunden lang Reden anhören und immer wieder und wiederum eingreifen; die stärksten Männer des Parlaments verloren, wenn sie ein Monokel hatten, ihr Monokel aus den Augen, so schimpften sie. Lloyd George blieb ruhig, antwortete zehn Stunden lang, wenn es sein mußte, mit seiner dialektischen Schlagfertigkeit, mit seinem Sarkasmus überall treffend. Und so hatte er denn auf diese Weise Gesetze durchgebracht, die tief, tief einschneidend sind ins soziale Leben: ein Altersversorgungsgesetz und ähnliche Gesetze, Gesetze, die in hygienischer Weise wirkten, die gegen die Trunksucht in nützlicher Weise wirkten. Also der Mann stellte sich als Repräsentant der Gegenwart allen Nicht-Repräsentativen, ich möchte sagen, allein mit seinen Schultern entgegen.

Nun müssen wir, wenn wir die Sache vollständig verstehen wollen, dazu eine andere Grundwahrheit nehmen. Wir müssen uns ja klarwerden darüber, daß wir als besonders in der Entwickelung liegend haben in der ersten, der urindischen Zeit für die Menschheit den Ätherleib, dann in der urpersischen den Empfindungsleib, in der ägyptisch-chaldäischen die Empfindungsseele, in der griechisch-lateinischen Zeit die Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele; wir haben die Bewußtseinsseele. Aber alle anderen Völker sind ja in der gegenwärtigen Zeitepoche nicht in der Lage der Engländer, die wiederum unter den Völkern der Erde gerade für die Bewußtseinsseele beschaffen sind. Wir wissen: die Empfindungsseele wird ausgebildet durch die italienisch-spanischen Völker, die Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele durch die französischen Völker, die Bewußtseinsseele bei den Engländern, das Ich bei uns in Mitteleuropa, und vorbereitet wird das Geistselbst bei den Russen. Also die Engländer sind gewissermaßen die Repräsentanten der materialistischen Gegenwart, die mit der Ausbildung der Bewußtseinsseele zusammenhängt. Lloyd George hängt wiederum in innigster Weise zusammen, ich möchte sagen, er ist prädestiniert nach jeder Richtung hin, repräsentativ für die Gegenwart zu sein. Siebenundzwanzigjährig, innerhalb des englischen Volkes siebenundzwanzigjährig, das will Ungeheures sagen! Daher ist dasjenige, was er sprach, allerdings wie herausgesprochen nicht nur aus der allgemeinen Menschheitsentwickelung der Gegenwart — wenn man sie so auffaßt, daß man sie nicht weiter führen will, sondern gerade dasjenige, was sie in der Gegenwart hat, in stierhafter Stärke aufdrängen will —, sondern auch noch von einem repräsentativen Engländer gesprochen. Also die englische Volksseele, ausgesprochen durch einen repräsentativen Menschen der Gegenwart!

So wirkte er seit dem Jahre 1890, seit seinem 27. Lebensjahr. Überall in dem, was sich sozial in England ausgelebt hat, sind die Spuren von Lloyd George zu finden. Daher braucht man sich nicht zu verwundern, wenn man gerade in den Jahren, die schon nahe an den Krieg herangingen, von ihm hörte, daß sich die Engländer nicht betäuben lassen sollen von denjenigen, die als Kriegsfurien fortwährend den Engländern vorreden, die Deutschen wollten Invasionen in England; sie sollen solche Dinge nicht glauben, sie sollten nicht von jedem Penny, der dem Staate zufließt, einen halben Penny zu Rüstungen abgeben. Das war ganz aus der Gesinnung des Engländers und des repräsentativen Menschen heraus gesprochen. Das ist auch ganz aus dem siebenundzwanzigjährigen Ideal heraus gesprochen. Denn die anderen Dinge waren alle Reminiszenzen anderer Ideale, von anderen menschlichen Lebensaltern. Der Mann sprach seine unmittelbare Gegenwart aus, die unmittelbare unkriegerische Gegenwart, zu der gerade das englische Volk gekommen ist. Drei Stufen, sagte er, gibt es zum Ruin, vor diesen drei Stufen muß man sich hüten. Das prägte er immer wieder und wiederum den Leuten ein. Die erste Stufe zum Ruin ist der Schutzzoll, die zweite die Rüstungen, die dritte der Krieg! Das war Lloyd Georges Leitspruch: zum Ruin wird man geführt erstens durch den Schutzzoll, zweitens durch die Rüstungen, drittens durch den Krieg. Nun denken Sie sich: dieser Mann, der außerdem für das richtig abstrakte siebenundzwanzigjährige Ideal des Weltenschiedsgerichtes schwärmte, dieser Mann hat sozusagen in der liberalen Zeit Englands das Gepräge gegeben für all dasjenige, was eben das liberale England durch den Liberalismus sich hat geben können gerade durch einen repräsentativen Menschen. Nun ja, zu alledem, was ich Ihnen jetzt auseinandergesetzt habe in bezug auf Lloyd George, gehört das, daß er der repräsentative Mensch der Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit ist. Daher wird er all dasjenige gerade in der richtigen Weise in sich haben, mit alledem, was ich Ihnen bisher erzählt habe, für das, was eben repräsentativ für das Engländertum ist, für das auch, was gut ist für das Engländertum, und wodurch das Engländertum der Welt nützen kann. Aber er ist nicht imstande, mit seinen Lebensjahren vorwärtszugehen. Es ist im Sinne dessen, was ich ausgeführt habe, daß er bei der Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit stehen bleibt. Kommt also etwas, was aus anderen menschlichen Lebensaltern heraus wirkt, dann ist er sofort aufgeworfen, denn da hat er keinen Zusammenhang. Wie sollte er, der dasjenige ablehnt, was das Leben nicht von selber gibt, einen Zusammenhang mit demjenigen haben, was von anderen Ecken der Menschheitsentwickelung heraus kommt. Und damit hängt es zusammen, was für den, der heute hinter die Kulissen der Weltgeschichte schaut, eine absolute Wahrheit ist, wenn diese Wahrheit auch so wenig erkannt wird: dasjenige, was an der Oberfläche des englischen Volkes, des Volkstums lebt, was das Engländertum als solches wollte, dafür ist Lloyd George der Repräsentant. Und das wollte vor allen Dingen dasjenige, was im Sinne der Worte liegt: Zum Ruin führen erstens der Schutzzoll, zweitens die Rüstungen, drittens der Krieg; das heißt, das wollte keinen Krieg. Denn, trotzdem der Krieg im wesentlichen von England nicht verhindert wurde, also herbeigeführt worden ist, so ist es doch die Wahrheit, daß er von Mächten herbeigeführt worden ist, die wir geradezu als okkulte Mächte ansehen müssen, die wir geradezu ansehen als diejenigen, welche die herrschenden Männer an Drähte nahmen. Ich möchte sagen, wir können die Momente nachweisen, wo diese okkulten Mächte eingegriffen haben, wo diese okkulten Mächte die herrschenden, die scheinbar herrschenden Männer an ihre Drähte genommen haben. Diejenigen, die von England aus den Krieg gemacht haben, stehen hinter denen, die als Staatsmänner mit Namen genannt werden. Und sie wirken aus Impulsen heraus, die wahrhaftig nicht siebenundzwanzigjährig sind, sondern die aus alten Traditionen der Menschheit heraus sind, die aus der gründlichsten Kenntnis der Völkerkräfte Europas heraus entsprungen sind, aus der Erkenntnis alles dessen, wo die verschiedenen Völker, die verschiedenen Menschen, die verschiedenen Staatsleitungen stark und schwach sein können, aus genauer, intimer Erkenntnis heraus, aber aus einer Erkenntnis heraus, die durch Jahrhunderte aus ganz geheimen Kanälen geflossen ist, und auch im geheimen lebt, denn diejenigen, die sie inne hatten, die nahmen eben die anderen an die Schnüre. So ein Grey, so ein Asquith waren in Wahrheit nur Marionetten, die selber bis Anfang August 1914 geglaubt haben, daß kein Krieg für England kommen würde, daß sie alles tun wollten, damit kein Krieg kommen könne, und die sich plötzlich gezogen, gestoßen von okkulten Mächten sahen. Diesen Mächten gegenüber, die noch in ganz anderen Persönlichkeiten ihren Ursprung haben als in denen, deren Namen genannt werden, diesen Mächten gegenüber, die aus ganz anderen menschlichen Lebensaltern heraus wirkten, weil sie aus alten Traditionen heraus wirkten, und diese alten Traditionen in den Dienst des englischen Egoismus nahmen, diesen Impulsen gegenüber bedeutet auch der 27 Jahre alt bleibende Lloyd George nur eine Marionette. Und dasjenige, was unter dem Einfluß dieser Mächte wirkt, das wird eine Welle sein, die auch für England über Lloyd George hinweggeht, der ein großer Mann ist, der aber eben ein Repräsentant, durchaus ein Repräsentant der Gegenwart ist. Während hinter den Impulsen, die von England aus diesem Kriege zugrunde liegen, eine genaue Kenntnis der europäischen Völker- und Staatsimpulse liegt, so daß derjenige, der wußte, was in England vorgeht, auch wußte, daß alles das, was jetzt als Schlagwort herrscht, schon geherrscht hat als Idee, die sich verwirklichen mußte, in den achtziger, neunziger Jahren.

Derjenige, der wußte, was diejenigen reden, welche wirklich von der Politik der Zukunft in England redeten, welche aus der okkulten Erkenntnis des europäischen Völker-Werdens redeten, der wußte, daß diese so redeten: Das russische Reich wird in seinen Herrschaftsverhältnissen zugrunde gehen, damit das russische Volk wird leben können. Ende der achtziger Jahre war die Formel für dasjenige da, was sich im März 1917 als russische Revolution vollzog, und die Fäden waren auch da, von denen das gelenkt und geleitet ist. Aber das wußte nur jener kleine Kreis, der durch seine geheimen Verrichtungen älter wurde, als eben auch Lloyd George wurde. Alle die Vorgänge auf dem Balkan waren in Formeln geprägt von denjenigen Menschen, die wir «die dunklen Hintermänner» nennen können. Es ist eben das Schicksal, daß solche Dinge erlebt werden müssen. Denn, als etwas ganz anderes auch von England aus eingriff, als das eigentlich englische Wesen, welches schon durch Lloyd George repräsentiert wurde, da wurde Lloyd George, der, solange er er selbst war, aus den tiefsten Impulsen heraus den Ruin der Menschheit sah in Schutzzoll, Rüstungen und Krieg, als er die Marionette wurde derjenigen, die hinten ziehen — Munitionsminister! Er behielt nur seine Tüchtigkeit. Er wurde ein tüchtiger Munitionsminister. Der Mann, der gegen die Rüstungen aus innerster Überzeugung gesprochen hat, brachte es zustande, daß England so gerüstet wird, wie die anderen gerüstet sind. |

Da sehen wir, das Zusammentreffen des siebenundzwanzigjährig bleibenden Repräsentanten der Gegenwart mit den dunklen Mächten, die dahinter stehen können, die selbst Überzeugungen, wenn sie noch so tief wurzeln, umkrempeln, weil dasjenige, was nur hier innerhalb des sinnlichen Lebens lebt, immer dirigiert wird von dem Geistigen, also auch dirigiert werden kann von einem Geiste, der im Sinne des Egoismus irgendeiner Gruppe wirkt. Es gab vielleicht wenige Fälle in der Welt, in denen Überzeugungen so in ihr Gegenteil umgekrempelt wurden, wie die Überzeugung des Lloyd George durch die jetzt hinter ihm stehenden Mächte umgekehrt worden ist. Warum? Weil diese Überzeugungen absolut in dem wurzeln, was für den Zeitpunkt der Gegenwart zupräpariert ist in der Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit. Solange die Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit der einzelnen Menschenindividualität in der siebenundzwanzigjährigen Menschheit drinnen wirkte, harmonisierten sie vollständig, in dem Augenblick, wo das andere kam, das auf uralten Studien, auf uralter Weisheit beruhte, da wurde es gerade aus dem Grunde aus den Angeln gehoben, weil es eben nur in der Gegenwart wurzelte.

Ein interessanter Zusammenhang, ein ungeheuer interessanter Zusammenhang! Ein Zusammenhang, der uns, ich denke schon, einiges erklärt über die Vorgänge der Gegenwart, der uns darüber hinwegführt, aus Sympathie und Antipathie heraus zu urteilen, sondern der es uns möglich macht, auf Grundlage von Tatsachen und vom Entwickelungsgang der Menschheit aus ein Urteil zu gewinnen über dasjenige, was vorgeht. Wenn man nämlich weiß, wie die Dinge, die vorgehen, in der ganzen Menschheitsentwickelung verankert sind, dann erst versteht man den Ernst gewisser Ereignisse. Aber man versteht auch, wie notwendig es wird, in dasjenige hineinzuschauen, was hinter den Kulissen der äußeren Weltgeschichte vorgeht. Ja, bis zu dem 28. Menschheitsjahr, bis in das fünfzehnte Jahrhundert, durfte sich die Menschheit so entwickeln, daß die Menschen sich nicht einließen auf die leitenden, führenden Geistesimpulse, von denen die Geschichte abhängt. Heute ist es notwendig, daß die Menschen dasjenige kennenlernen, was wirkt, dasjenige, was wahrhaftig als Impulse unter der Oberfläche wirkt. Und dies haben wir insbesondere in Mitteleuropa notwendig. Denn man muß den Feind in all seinen Kräften erst kennenlernen, wenn man sich gegen ihn in der richtigen Weise schützen will. Erkenntnis desjenigen, was vorgeht, haben wir notwendig. Es gibt aber keine andere Möglichkeit, wirklich in die Untergründe der gegenwärtigen Menschheitsentwickelung hineinzuschauen als durch die Gesetze, welche Geisteswissenschaft für diese Menschheitsentwickelung uns erklärt. Bis in die einzelnen menschlichen Individuen herein verstehen wir unsere Zeit nur, wenn wir sie aus dem Geiste heraus verstehen können.

Wie kommt es, daß eine sonst so rätselvolle Persönlichkeit, wie dieser Lloyd George ist, an diesem Platze gerade steht? Diese Frage muß beantwortet werden, denn man muß wissen, mit was man es zu tun hat. Man lernt aber heute den einzelnen Menschen, auch wenn er für die Menschheit repräsentativ ist, nur durch die Geisteswissenschaft kennen. Interessant wird an diesem Lloyd George alles sein, wie schon alles interessant war. Interessant war jeder Schritt, den er seit dem Jahre 1890 unternommen hat. Interessant war die Art und Weise, wie er beim Kriegsausbruch im Hintergrunde gestanden hat, wie er an die Oberfläche gespielt worden ist, wie er jetzt zu einer Art von Achse geworden ist, um die sich so viel in der Welt dreht, sogar der andere Siebenundzwanzigjährige, der Wilson, sich dreht. Und interessant ist es, wie die Innerlichkeit dieses Lloyd George gegenüber geistigen, wenn auch fragwürdigen geistigen Kräften und Mächten versagen mußte. Und interessant wird es sein, wie Lloyd George einmal gestürzt werden wird, was seine Zukunft sein wird. Darauf wollen wir warten.

Seventh Lecture

We will now gradually evaluate the ideas we have gained in our recent reflections. In these and the following reflections, I will speak to you about the nature of truth and the nature of goodness, which I have already touched upon in my previous lectures. But today, we will take a somewhat episodic look at something from the connections we have established, something that must be very remarkable in contemporary history. First of all, you have seen from the last lectures I have given here that it is quite possible to form very definite concepts and ideas about the connection between our present earthly life and our former earthly life, and with the earthly life that will follow our present one. I have shown you that in our will, insofar as we perceive the I itself in our will, our last earthly life has an effect. And insofar as we form the thought of the I, this thought, with everything it can contain, is so finely woven that it carries over, as we know, into the next earthly life — as I have told you — just as the seed that is now in a plant this year carries over into the life of the plant next year. So, in a sense, we must seek the seed for our next earthly life in everything we weave in our thoughts, but in such a way that the weave has the concept of the I, the I-thought, at its center. From this you can see that when we enter our earthly life, we come in, as it were, with all the preconditions that come to us from our previous earthly life; but also, of course, with everything what is made of us during the time when the previous earthly life is, so to speak, processed between death and the new birth, that is, the birth through which we entered our present earthly life. That is one group, I would say, of the ideas we have gained.

Now take a big leap and consider another group, a group of ideas we have gained about the course of human life on earth, a view that has culminated in what we may call the wonderful mystery of the total age of humanity in the present. We have explained that when the Atlantean catastrophe was over, human beings entered the first post-Atlantean epoch, the ancient Indian period, and that at that time human beings as a whole had an average age of 56, and so on. And we have also explained in more detail what this means. It means that at that time, people remained capable of development, just as we are now only capable of development in childhood, until the age of 56, which they thus went through, just as we go through the parallelism between the soul-spiritual and the physical-bodily development in childhood, where the development and unfolding of our body with our growth, with our entire development, is connected with our soul-spiritual development. So just as we undergo a parallelism between the soul-spiritual and the physical-bodily development, but then cease to do so when we reach a certain age — we have already mentioned which one — we cease to carry this connection between the soul-spiritual and the physical-bodily as something real within us. The spiritual-soul aspect then becomes more independent, and we cannot develop further through what comes of itself. Above all, we cannot go through the middle of human life, the age of 35, in dependence on the body; the body then has nothing more to give. So we do not experience within ourselves the Rubicon that is crossed, and above all we do not experience what was experienced in this first post-Atlantean period: we do not experience the whole descent, the collapse, the sclerotization, the calcification of the body and thus the liberation of the spirit, without doing anything about it, as if through natural development. We do not experience this. But in those days people did experience it. We then know that the age of the whole of humanity declined; people lived to be 55, 54, 53, 50, and so on, until at the end of the first epoch they remained capable of development only until the age of 49. Then, in the ancient Persian period, the human race lived from the age of 49 to 42, in the third, the Egyptian-Chaldean period, from 42 to 35, and in the Greek-Latin period from 35 to 28. Thus, the Greeks and Romans remained capable of development until the period limited by the ages of 28 to 35. And we have brought before our souls the great, I would say, the utterly incredible mystery that when humanity descended to 33 years of age, Christ Jesus lived toward it, that precisely in the 33rd year descending from above, the mystery of Golgotha falls in: the thirty-three-year-old Christ Jesus. This is something so wonderful that one cannot really find words to express what the soul can feel when it is able to live this mysterious truth fully within itself.

Then the age of humanity declines; as you know, we have been living in the fifth age since the fifteenth century. It began when humanity reached the age of 28, and now it is 27 years old, which means that until our 27th year we are still dependent in some way with our soul and spirit on the physical body, but then, through the facts that surround us, we do not progress through natural development, but if we are to progress, we must have an inner soul impulse to progress, and today, as I have explained further, this can only come from spiritual knowledge, from feeling and experiencing what can be known about spiritual processes, and this can only come in the proper way through the Christ impulse. So it is simply true that today a person — even if they were to live to be a hundred years old — if they were to surrender themselves only to what nature and social life offer, to what the world makes of them of its own accord, would not grow older than 27 years under these influences. And if they do live to be a hundred, they simply remain at that stage and are dependent in their further development on what they have impelled into their souls, without this being able to come about by itself through participation in physical development. Thus, in a sense, people today grow old at the age of 27, and this is characteristic of the present stage of cultural development. One can only understand this present cultural development, especially in its connection with earlier stages of culture, if one truly takes to heart this fact, which spiritual science is able to establish.

This is connected with certain things in the first group of spiritual scientific truths that we have repeatedly brought before our souls today. We undergo a certain development in the time between death and a new birth. As you saw from my remarks last time, the will impulses of the previous incarnation have a particular effect in this development. What we go through between death and a new birth, what we have, so to speak, brought with us into this life, we now live out in this life. Now, what is peculiar here is that for a person of the present, the interaction between the astral body and the I, that is, the actual soul and spirit, and the etheric body, comes to a standstill at the age of 27. In the time between death and a new birth, we are prepared in such a way that we can constitute and organize our new etheric body, so that the I and the astral body can also work into the physical body through this etheric body. For a human being at the beginning of the Greco-Latin period, that is, around the time of 747 BC, this pause, this period when the astral body can no longer have a life-giving effect on the etheric body, was at the age of 35. Around the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, it was the age of 33. Now it is the age of 27. So that a human being who surrenders himself completely to what nature itself gives today and to what flows into us from outside, from social life, keeps the etheric body so mobile until the age of 27, as a result of the development he has undergone before his birth or before his conception, keeps his etheric body so mobile that the astral body, which interacts with this etheric body, can always enliven this etheric body with new concepts, new ideas, and new feelings. Through what comes to us up to the age of 27, we can enrich our ideas about the world and our ideals. All this ceases to come automatically at the age of 27. If it is to continue at all, it must then be stimulated by inner impulses.

Many conditions that the soul of contemporary human beings goes through, many dissatisfactions, are connected with this relatively early cessation of the interaction between the astral body and the etheric body, and thus also with the physical body. In early youth, especially in the lowest regions, we have a lively interaction between our soul, that is, the astral body, and our etheric body. Then this stops, and unless we enliven our ideas and concepts as I described last time, we can only take in shadowy concepts. For if these concepts were fully alive, they would continually paralyze us. They would then be like a seed that continually wanted to be a plant and grow into a whole plant. Our ideas and concepts cannot do that. They must remain seeds for the next earthly life, for the next incarnation. If we do not incorporate this into our education and self-discipline, we actually always want more than life can give us. And relatively many people today suffer from this “wanting more than life can give.” If we do not give our ideas and feelings such stimulation through inner impulses, as I described last time, life can only give us concepts that will only come to maturity in the next incarnation, which are therefore shadowy in the present incarnation. We sense this. If we were to see clearly that we are forming the seed for our next incarnation, and if we were to place our lives in a larger context, we would achieve a much greater satisfaction in life. But this is necessary, and it is connected with something that has been emphasized again and again since Pascal, and renewed by Lessing. We seek truth and we feel that in truth we are satisfied in a certain sense. But Lessing expressed in a beautiful, paradigmatic way what Pascal had already said before him in a much more detailed manner, when he said: If God had the full truth in one hand and the pursuit of truth in the other, he would choose the pursuit of truth. There is a lot behind this. Behind this lies the fact that, incarnated in a human body, we must always have the feeling that we never have the whole truth. For in the human body we can only have that part of the truth — since truth lives in concepts and ideas that are permeated by the ego — which is the seed for the next incarnation. So what lives in us as truth must live in such a way that it is mobile, that it is striving. Before we entered this incarnation, we prepared our etheric body so that it contained the truth. But our incarnation consists precisely in the fact that it refines the full truth to a copy, to an image of the truth, and this image is the seed for the next incarnation.

When we place ourselves as individual human beings within the whole of humanity, only then can satisfaction enter our souls. In practice, this does not happen unless we develop such living concepts as I demonstrated last time, unless we actually take in concepts that do not lie on the surface of life, concepts that reveal to us the widely disparate connections of life. No one in the present will find satisfaction unless they have a living interest in their environment, but an interest that seeks the spirit and spiritual connections of the environment. Those who only want to brood within themselves will find nothing more than what can be given to us today up to the age of 27, according to our development between the previous death and this birth. This makes this age the one that must strive toward freedom, because human beings must find within themselves what allows their souls to grow together with their environment, what allows them to find interest in this environment, but interest that does not come merely through the senses, but comes in the way I described last time, from broad connections.

There is much in these things — and we will talk more about this next time — much that can enlighten us about our position in relation to truth in the present, and also about our position in relation to goodness, moral goodness, and ethics in the present. Today we are more interested in something that can enlighten us about many things that can follow from these truths for an understanding of our immediate present.

The humanities scholar must actually deal with his truths in a completely different way than the natural scientist. Through years of observation, you have seen that the humanities scholar arrives at his truths through imagination, inspiration, intuition, that is, that they are guided by insights that lead beyond the immediate sensory world — into the realm of the spiritual world, which goes beyond what we perceive with our senses, but which is everywhere dominated and governed by its spiritual foundation. Thus, spiritual science must draw its truths from the spiritual regions that are accessible to human cognition. Truths such as those concerning the rejuvenation of the human race, the decline in the age of life, as I have explained to you, from 56 to 27 years, which we as human beings of the present can reach if we do not advance ourselves, such truths, which cannot be found by means of ordinary ethnography or anthropology, must be drawn from the spiritual world. A merely historical consideration of the events since the Atlantean catastrophe, using the methods of natural science, would naturally not be able to reveal these connections. So these things must be drawn from the spirit. Therefore — as you will understand — the spiritual scientist must behave somewhat differently with his truths than the natural scientist, especially with regard to the external world, that is, the world of nature and history, the world of natural processes and the world of social processes. How does the natural scientist actually proceed? Well, he has the facts of nature, the phenomena of nature before him, and then he forms his concepts and ideas. The concept, the idea, is the second thing. The law is what he arrives at. So he goes from the fact to the law. Sensory perception stands in the middle. We perceive the facts. Then we form the idea, the law of nature, and so on.

The spiritual researcher will have to proceed in a similar way with regard to the spiritual world; the research is not really different, but there will be differences in relation to the external senses. One first knows the facts by grasping them in the spiritual world. So if we want to find the meaning of these spiritual facts in the external sensory world, we must search for the external facts of life. First we have the spiritual, then we search for the sensory fact or fact of life that is explained by what we have grasped in the spirit. From the spirit we explain what should be explained spiritually from life. It is extremely difficult for some people to understand that, with regard to the spiritual, one must first have the law, and then the law points one to the fact. The fact provides, as it were, a confirmation of the law. Older spiritual researchers always expressed this by saying — if I may use this scholastic expression, which is irrelevant here —: The observation of external nature proceeds inductively, from fact to concept; spiritual science must proceed deductively, from concept to fact. Let us take an example from this point of view that must be particularly close to us today.

We have discovered through spiritual knowledge that humanity in the present generally reaches the age of 27 through what nature and sociality offer of themselves. The typical person of the present, who keeps away from spiritual impulses, the typical person of the present, develops until the age of 27. If he is a great, significant person, a person in whom life bubbles and works, he will develop strongly until the age of 27, that is, he will become everything that one can develop today as a human being simply by reaching the physical age of 27. He will become everything that can be achieved in terms of thinking power and impulsiveness of action in time. He will develop the kind of will that is developed by the growth of the muscles until the age of 27, the development of the nerves, and so on. And then, if he is also receptive to what social life and human life have to offer, by the age of 27 he will have developed a sum of ideas, of ideals, of all the social reforms he wants to make. These ideas live on until the age of 27, so that by the age of 27, if I may say so, he will be full of them; then it stops, then he is left with them, and from then on he will want to put them into practice in his life. And he may live to be 100 years old—and if he is a great man, he will accomplish something profound and meaningful—but he will be bringing 27-year-old ideas and impulses into life. He will therefore be a true representative of the present, he will be a person of whom one can say: This is someone whom the present had to produce as its own product, but who refuses to go along with the further development of humanity if he does not take up inner spiritual impulses, the inner spiritual impulses that lead one beyond the age of 27, where one continues to live on, as with the years, so also with the soul. Spiritual impulses must be taken up. Such a person will not be able to take these in, and therefore will not be able to carry them into the present. He will not be able to carry into the present anything that contains the seed for the future development of humanity. He will carry into it precisely that which is immediately characteristic of the present. And if he is a truly great man—one can, of course, be a great man while remaining twenty-seven years old—then he will carry into the present what fully corresponds to this present in a certain area, what fits it perfectly, but what contains no seeds for the future. That is what he will carry into the present.

How could we imagine such a person in the present, such a typical person? How could we imagine him? You see, now we are moving from the intellectual grasp of an idea down into reality; now we are descending. We are searching, as it were, for where this is in reality. Now let us look for where this person might stand, where he might be, where he might encounter us, so to speak, sensually in social life. That could be in the present, according to the conditions of the present. How would such a person have to place himself in the present? He would have to place himself in the present in such a way that, first of all, the age of 27 is naturally a turning point in his life, a particularly outstanding point, but a point such that, from the age of 27 onwards, he is placed in life in such a way that he can transfer precisely what he has learned at the age of 27 into life, nothing more and nothing less, that everything is so predisposed in his social position that he can carry this out, but that the shortcomings of not getting ahead do not stand out too strongly. He would therefore have to have the opportunity, so to speak, to remain in a fruitful position at the age of 27. For if he were to reach the age of 27 with his ideas and impulses and then come to mean nothing special in the social world, he would reach the age of 28 or 29 with something dead within him, as it were. If he then came into special social circumstances at the age of 30 or 31, he would carry into his 28th, 30th, and 31st years what had become dead and stagnant in the meantime; he would not carry his 27th year fully into these years, he would not be a full representative of our time. Yes, within our present circumstances, we could imagine that where much-praised normal conditions for contemporary life exist, that is, in democratically governed states, such a man would be elected to parliament at the age of 27, because there he would have every opportunity to enter into a social relationship that would, in a sense, represent a conclusion. For if he enters parliament as an important man at the age of 27 and becomes active, he commits himself, as it were, to life: that is how he is accepted; he cannot change course in various ways, he has committed himself. From the age of 27, he will therefore really carry into life what he has developed within himself up to that point. If he is then later—the advantages and disadvantages of which Central Europeans now want to learn about—called from parliament to become a minister, this will not be as important a stage as when he entered parliament, but as a minister he will realize what he brought to parliament when he entered at the age of 27. So you can say that the most typical person of the present day in terms of social and political life would be someone who was elected to parliament at the age of 27, and to a democratic parliament that gives such a person the opportunity to live out his 27-year-old impulses in society.

But we may have to make other demands of such a representative. In our time, the free development of the human being — the development in which what nature itself provides comes to fruition — is hampered by various factors. If someone becomes a typical high school student, then what nature is supposed to provide on its own goes awry. If he goes through any faculty in the normal way today, things go even more wrong, and he is pushed in a one-sided direction. But let us look at a representative, a person who brings into his twenty-seventh year what comes naturally, who has undergone a youth development that is as unhindered as possible, unimpeded by the norms of the present, until the age of 27. So that if a scholar of the humanities wanted to find a person who truly embraces the present with all its twenty-seven years and with the will to completely reject it, to arrive at something that incorporates development for the future, he would look for a person who has all these qualities and has gone through these life circumstances, which I myself have constructed from spiritual science — call it what you will — the spiritual scientist would say has deduced. And if such a person were to exist in the present, the existence of such a person would explain an enormous amount to us, for we would understand that this person is here to truly exemplify the twenty-seven years of humanity, to make it a complete fact that human beings should, in a sense, stop at the age of 27, and that the seeds for the future should, in a rough way, wither away.

Now, is there such a person who has precisely the characteristics and age that make him a typical representative of the present? Yes, there is such a person, and that is Lloyd George. Everything I have deduced for you here from a spiritual-scientific perspective applies to him. Now, from this point of view, after you have, so to speak, made your way not through external observation but from above, from the spirit, consider the life of this Lloyd George: Born in 1863, orphaned at an early age — you know roughly what his life was like — he came to live with his uncle, who was a shoemaker and preacher in Wales, of Celtic descent, and therefore possessed of a lively inner energy, especially in his youth. His uncle, the cobbler who was a preacher, was constantly before him, striving himself toward the ideal of the preacher but unable to become one, and thus not even constrained by this template and these norms, because the sect to which his uncle belonged did not allow its members to hold paid positions as ministers; everyone had to practice a trade and preach freely. The boy becomes an ardent admirer of independence. He does not have enough money to always buy shoes, he runs around barefoot, goes through all the stages of a poor boy's life, and grows up without going to school regularly or receiving a proper education. He does not pursue a career as a lawyer in the traditional sense, but simply enters a law office at the age of sixteen, where he distinguishes himself through his sound judgment and becomes a solicitor at the age of 27. So not through academic education, but through practical experience, through what life itself gives to the people of the present; this is how he grows up, schooled by life. Equipped by life with all the impulses against any privilege conferred by birth or position. With a certain anger, he takes off his hat to the local landowner, whom he has to meet several times a day.

And what happens? In 1890 — Lloyd George was born in 1863, in 1890 he was 27 years old — he is nominated as a candidate against the man he hates because he has to greet him every day, because he has distinguished himself through a series of powerful speeches which fired people's souls like fire, which had the effect of making Wales want to free itself from English control, of reviving Celtic nationality, and of ensuring that the church would never be organizationally connected to the state, but would remain independent of the state. Because he had distinguished himself in this way, he won a seat in parliament in 1890 with a small majority, at the age of 27! Life had taught him from direct observation what was necessary for his present situation. He brought this with him to Parliament. For two months, the 27-year-old observed everything without saying a word. But with his eyes, which always took on a slightly converging position and then sparkled, with his hand behind his ear to listen as closely as possible, he spent two months listening to everything the situation had to offer. And from then on, he became a feared speaker in Parliament. People who had previously regarded their opponents with a certain indifference, with English composure, such as Churchill or Chamberlain, became angry when Lloyd George faced them as an opponent, because he was uneducated, unacademic, with a forceful dialectic and a sarcastic way of rejecting everyone, no matter how highly regarded they were. He was closest to Gladstone, yet even Gladstone had to put up with a lot from Lloyd George because of his sarcasm and the accuracy and precision of the dialectic with which Lloyd George knew how to present himself on every occasion. This shows the hallmark of a person who has been taught by life: versatility. People who have not been taught by life become one-sided and know only about this or that. Lloyd George knew about everything and spoke in such a way that even the most respected people he attacked became angry and agitated, whereas previously they would have sat there with English composure.

It is therefore particularly interesting to see this great man as a representative of the present, to study him, who combines the Celtic character with his twenty-seven-year-old personality, and thus lives out this twenty-seven-year-old personality with all the power of the Celtic spirit. His most respected speeches were those in which he bitterly rejected the Boer War, the whole shamefulness, as he always called it, the whole wickedness of the South African war, which he brought home to Parliament in ever new words. And he appeared fearless, Celtic fearless, so that once, after a speech, he was struck on the head with a club so hard that he sank to the ground. On another occasion, a policeman had to give him his uniform so that he could be taken out through a back door because it was said that Lloyd George was going to speak on a subject that people feared. A man such as he had never before existed in English society as it was in the 1890s! He was a sharp critic well into the twentieth century. Under reactionary governments, of course, he was only a critic. But when the first liberal ministry, Campbell-Bannerman, came to power at the beginning of the twentieth century, people said: Yes, it would be all well and good to govern liberally, but what to do with Lloyd George? What do you do in such a case—Central Europe now wants to gain a more precise understanding of such things, as you may have heard—what do you do in such a case in democratic countries? You bring the person in question into the ministry by giving him a portfolio that you believe he knows nothing about. That is what the Campbell-Bannerman ministry did with Lloyd George. They gave Lloyd George, of all people, who had never had the opportunity to deal with trade, the trade portfolio. Lloyd George now held the trade portfolio from 1905 onwards. Lloyd George was a self-made man, a man made by life, not an academic. What was the result? He became one of the most distinguished trade ministers England has ever had.

After relatively brief studies, which included trips to Hamburg, Antwerp, and Spain to study trade relations, he set about drafting a patent law that was a blessing for the country. He also succeeded in passing a law regulating the port of London, a law that many trade ministers before him had struggled with. He accomplished this in such a way that everyone was satisfied. He also succeeded in resolving a railway crisis that had become very acute at the time. In short, he proved himself to be an extraordinary minister of trade. Then came the replacement of the liberal Campbell-Bannerman ministry by Asquith-Grey. Lloyd George had to be in the ministry, of course! But everyone was already convinced: Lloyd George was a man who could do anything. He was truly representative of the times, so he was given the most important post: he was made Chancellor of the Exchequer. So Lloyd George was now Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Now imagine: with all the passion of his 27 years, with all the emotions of his Celtic heritage, with all the emotions he had absorbed as a barefoot boy who had to greet the lord of the manor — who, incidentally, was later rejected by a narrow majority — with all his emotions against everything that smacked of privilege and the like — for he did not grow old, he remained what he had been until the age of 27 — with all this, Lloyd George now became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Until then, England had had a veritable magic potion for all financial matters: it was what was known as tariff legislation. Tax legislation was actually tariff legislation, and this consisted of taxing everything that was privileged as little as possible and promoting pauperism to the highest degree through the entire tariff legislation. One might say that if one were looking for a school of thought for the method of ranting that certain English newspapers are now employing against the Germans, if one were looking for a school that had gone through this, it was back then, when Lloyd George first came forward with his completely new budget draft. At that time, English journalists went through a phase of reviling Lloyd George and his impossible budget. He was accused of everything imaginable, which is now only intensifying in the area I have just mentioned. And the man found the fiercest opposition in Parliament itself, where he always sat in such a way that his lips gradually took on a certain sarcasm, constantly, but always with his hand behind his ear and his eyes slightly narrowed but shining, with absolute calm and confidence. For this man had placed himself in the present as a human being. There had been finance ministers before him, budget makers who had produced budgets bearing this or that name, but Lloyd George's budget was so individual that in England it was simply called the Lloyd George budget. So much had this man grown out of the present and so much did he represent it. And there was nothing for him at school but life itself. He gathered everything that could be gleaned from the tax experiences of America, France, and Germany, and tried to put it to good use. This was also true of his studies, which he pursued throughout his life, not behind books, but behind what society itself had to offer in the present. Very interesting, really, quite remarkable! But now imagine how this man felt in his current situation when, one year, he had to present the budget and found that there was a certain deficit. In the past, the only way to deal with a deficit was to cover it, i.e., to create a new item in the budget to cover it. Lloyd George said: Yes, there is a deficit, but we will leave it, we will not allocate anything to it, because what I have done will cause the various branches that have benefited from it to prosper so much that we will simply have covered the deficit at the right time through this prosperity in the various branches of life. So this man also knew how to live with life. He also believed in life because he felt anchored in life. And what is most important: some people believe in life, but they stop believing when things start to go wrong. And the thing I just mentioned went wrong. The deficit was left unaddressed, a covering item was not included, and it went wrong. It did not prosper as he had said it would, based purely on trust. But he remained calm, he was firmly anchored in the life of the present. And what happened? Three of his greatest, most wealthy enemies died. They were his most powerful opponents because he had designed the tax law in such a way that he was called a thief of the English lordship; that was one of the expressions that was thrown at him. So three of his most powerful enemies died. But he had already raised inheritance tax so high that – call it a coincidence – so much had to be paid from the estates of his most powerful enemies that the deficit was covered.

It was strange how, little by little, the tide turned, how people gradually began to praise Lloyd George. However, man really does live by the way he relates to nature within himself and to his surroundings, and one cannot imagine anything more fitting than the 27-year-old who remained 27 and the 27-year-old humanity. When you are in such harmony, when you have reached the age of 28, 29, and so on, and have presented your budget for 1909—he was of course actually older then, but according to the theories I have put forward, he was still 27—when you are in such harmony with what surrounds you in humanity and have the strength to live through this harmony, then you also gain the strength to live it out. And so it happened again and again that—because Lloyd George, of course, introduced innovations in all areas where he had influence, all of which were aimed at combating pauperism, combating certain things that were really social evils of the worst kind in England—he was treated with hostility. At times he had to listen to speeches for ten hours and intervene again and again; the strongest men in Parliament lost their monocles, if they had them, as they railed. Lloyd George remained calm, responding for ten hours if necessary, with his dialectical quick-wittedness and his sarcasm always hitting the mark. And in this way he pushed through laws that had a profound, profound impact on social life: a pension law and similar laws, laws that had a hygienic effect, that had a useful effect against alcoholism. So this man stood as the representative of the present against all those who were not representative, I would say, alone with his shoulders.

Now, if we want to understand the matter completely, we must take another fundamental truth into account. We must realize that we have developed particularly in the first, the primordial Indian period for humanity, the etheric body, then in the primordial Persian period the sentient body, in the Egyptian-Chaldean period the sentient soul, in the Greek-Latin period the intellectual or emotional soul; we have the consciousness soul. But all other peoples in the present epoch are not in the same position as the English, who among the peoples of the earth are particularly suited to the consciousness soul. We know that the sentient soul is developed by the Italian-Spanish peoples, the intellectual or emotional soul by the French peoples, the conscious soul by the English, the ego by us in Central Europe, and the spiritual self is being prepared by the Russians. So the English are, in a sense, the representatives of the materialistic present, which is connected with the development of the consciousness soul. Lloyd George, in turn, is intimately connected, I would say he is predestined in every way to be representative of the present. Twenty-seven years old, twenty-seven years old among the English people, that is tremendous! Therefore, what he said was not only spoken out of the general development of humanity at present — if one understands it in such a way that one does not want to take it further, but wants to impose precisely what it has in the present with stubborn strength — but also spoken by a representative Englishman. Thus, the English national spirit, expressed by a representative man of the present!

This was his influence from 1890, from the age of 27. Traces of Lloyd George can be found everywhere in the social life of England. It is therefore not surprising that, especially in the years leading up to the war, he said that the English should not allow themselves to be stupefied by those who, like war hawks, constantly told them that the Germans wanted to invade England; they should not believe such things, they should not give half a penny of every penny that went to the state for armaments. This was spoken entirely from the heart of the Englishman and the representative of the people. It was also spoken entirely from the ideal of a twenty-seven-year-old. For the other things were all reminiscences of other ideals, of other stages of human life. The man spoke of his immediate present, the immediate non-warlike present that the English people had just arrived at. There are three stages, he said, leading to ruin, and one must beware of these three stages. He repeatedly impressed this upon the people. The first step to ruin is protective tariffs, the second is armaments, the third is war! That was Lloyd George's motto: ruin is brought about first by protective tariffs, second by armaments, third by war. Now think about it: this man, who was also enthusiastic about the truly abstract twenty-seven-year ideal of the world court of justice, this man, so to speak, shaped everything that liberal England was able to achieve through liberalism during the liberal era, precisely through a representative figure. Well, to everything I have now explained to you about Lloyd George, it belongs that he is the representative figure of the twenty-seven-year-old. Therefore, he will have all that in the right way within himself, with everything I have told you so far, for what is representative of England, for what is good for England, and through which England can be of use to the world. But he is not able to move forward with his years of life. It is in the sense of what I have explained that he remains at the age of twenty-seven. So if something comes along that has an effect from other stages of human life, he is immediately thrown off balance, because he has no connection with it. How could he, who rejects what life does not give of itself, have any connection with what comes from other corners of human development? And this is connected with what is an absolute truth for those who look behind the scenes of world history today, even if this truth is so little recognized: Lloyd George is the representative of what lives on the surface of the English people, of the English national character, of what England as such wanted. And above all, this was what lay behind the words: protectionist tariffs, armament, and war would lead to ruin; in other words, he did not want war. For although the war was not essentially prevented by England, and was therefore brought about, it is nevertheless true that it was brought about by powers which we must regard as occult powers, which we must regard as those who pulled the strings of the ruling men. I would say that we can prove the moments when these occult powers intervened, when these occult powers took the ruling men, the apparently ruling men, by the strings. Those who waged war from England stand behind those who are named as statesmen. And they act out of impulses that are truly not twenty-seven years old, but that come from ancient traditions of humanity, that have sprung from the most thorough knowledge of the forces of the peoples of Europe, from the knowledge of all that makes the various peoples, the different peoples, the different governments can be strong and weak, from precise, intimate knowledge, but from a knowledge that has flowed through very secret channels over centuries and also lives in secret, because those who possessed it took the others by the strings. A Grey, an Asquith, were in truth only puppets who, until the beginning of August 1914, believed that no war would come to England, that they would do everything in their power to prevent war, and who suddenly found themselves pulled and pushed by occult forces. Faced with these forces, which have their origins in personalities quite different from those whose names are mentioned, faced with these forces, which operated from completely different stages of human life because they operated from ancient traditions and placed these ancient traditions in the service of English egoism, faced with these impulses, even Lloyd George, who remained 27 years old, is only a puppet. And what is at work under the influence of these powers will be a wave that will also sweep over England, over Lloyd George, who is a great man, but who is also a representative, indeed a representative of the present. Behind the impulses that led England into this war lies a precise knowledge of the impulses of the European peoples and states, so that anyone who knew what was going on in England also knew that everything that now prevails as a slogan already prevailed as an idea that had to be realized in the 1880s and 1890s.

Anyone who knew what those who were really talking about the politics of the future in England were talking about, who were talking from the occult knowledge of the development of the European peoples, knew that they were saying this: The Russian Empire will perish in its ruling relations so that the Russian people can live. At the end of the 1880s, the formula was there for what took place in March 1917 as the Russian Revolution, and the threads were also there that guided and directed it. But only that small circle knew this, a circle that grew older through its secret activities, just as Lloyd George grew older. All the events in the Balkans were shaped by those people whom we can call “the dark forces behind the scenes.” It is simply fate that such things must be experienced. For when something quite different intervened from England, something other than the true English character already represented by Lloyd George, then Lloyd George, who, as long as he was himself, saw the ruin of humanity in protective tariffs, armaments, and war, became the puppet of those who pull the strings behind the scenes—the Minister of Munitions! He retained only his efficiency. He became an efficient Minister of Munitions. The man who spoke out against armament out of his deepest conviction brought about the arming of England to the same extent as the others.

Here we see the clash between the 27-year-old representative of the present and the dark forces behind him, which can overturn even the most deeply rooted convictions, because that which lives only here within the realm of the senses is always directed by the spiritual, and can therefore also be directed by a spirit which acts in the sense of the egoism of some group. There have perhaps been few cases in the world in which convictions have been turned upside down as the convictions of Lloyd George have been reversed by the powers now behind him. Why? Because these convictions are absolutely rooted in what is prepared for the present moment in the twenty-seven-year cycle. As long as the twenty-seven years of individual human individuality were at work within the twenty-seven years of humanity, they harmonized completely, but the moment something else came along, based on ancient studies and ancient wisdom, it was thrown off balance precisely because it was rooted only in the present.

An interesting connection, an enormously interesting connection! A connection that, I think, explains a great deal about the events of the present, that leads us beyond judging out of sympathy or antipathy, but enables us to form a judgment based on facts and on the course of human development about what is happening. For when we know how the things that are happening are anchored in the whole development of humanity, only then can we understand the seriousness of certain events. But we also understand how necessary it is to look into what is going on behind the scenes of world history. Yes, until the 28th year of humanity, until the fifteenth century, humanity was allowed to develop in such a way that people did not engage with the guiding, leading spiritual impulses on which history depends. Today it is necessary for people to learn about what is at work, what is truly working as impulses beneath the surface. And this is particularly necessary in Central Europe. For one must first know the enemy in all his powers if one wants to protect oneself against him in the right way. We need to know what is going on. But there is no other way to really look into the depths of the present development of humanity than through the laws that spiritual science explains to us for this development of humanity. We can only understand our time down to the individual human beings if we can understand it out of the spirit.

How is it that such an otherwise enigmatic personality as Lloyd George stands in this place? This question must be answered, for one must know what one is dealing with. Today, however, one can only get to know the individual human being, even if he is representative of humanity, through spiritual science. Everything about Lloyd George will be interesting, as everything has been interesting so far. Every step he has taken since 1890 has been interesting. It was interesting how he stood in the background at the outbreak of the war, how he was brought to the surface, how he has now become a kind of axis around which so much in the world revolves, even the other twenty-seven-year-old, Wilson. And it is interesting how Lloyd George's inner nature had to fail in the face of intellectual, albeit questionable, intellectual forces and powers. And it will be interesting to see how Lloyd George will one day be overthrown, what his future will be. Let us wait and see.