The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Tenth Lecture

[ 1 ] One cannot say that the present has no ideals. On the contrary, it has very, very many ideals. But these ideals are not effective. Why are they not effective? Just imagine—please forgive me for this somewhat strange image, but it does capture the essence of the matter—just imagine that a hen were ready to hatch an egg, but someone were to take that egg and incubate it with heat, allowing the little chick to emerge from the egg. All of that would be conceivable, but if, for example, one were to do this under the receptacle of an air pump, in a vacuum, do you think the chick hatching from the egg would thrive? In a sense, all the developmental stages inherent in evolution are present, but one thing is missing: the environment into which the chick in question must be placed so that it has the conditions necessary for life.

[ 2 ] That’s more or less how it is with all those beautiful ideals that are so frequently discussed today. They don’t just sound beautiful; they are, in fact, valuable ideals. But the present day is not concerned with understanding the true, real conditions of evolution, just as one must eventually come to understand them in light of present-day conditions. And so it happens that in the strangest of societies, one can formulate, advocate, and demand all manner of ideals, and yet nothing comes of it. After all, there were certainly enough societies with ideals at the beginning of the 20th century. But one cannot say that the last three years have been a fulfillment of these ideals. One should, however, learn something from such a fact, as has indeed been mentioned frequently in these reflections.

[ 3 ] Last Sunday, I gave you a brief overview of the spiritual development of the past decades. I asked you to bear in mind that what happens on the physical plane has been in preparation for a long time in the spiritual world. I pointed to something very specific there. I pointed out how, in the 1840s, a struggle began in the spiritual world immediately above ours—a metamorphosis of those struggles that are described by the ancient symbol as the battle of Saint Michael with the dragon. And I have described to you how this battle in the spiritual world unfolded up until November 1879—how, in other words, the spiritual world was engaged in a battle, a battle of Michael against the dragon—we know, of course, what is meant by this image—and how, after November 1879, victory was won in the spiritual world by Michael, and the dragon—that is, the Ahrimanic forces—were cast down into the sphere of human beings. Where are they now?

[ 4 ] Let us therefore bear in mind: Those forces from the school of Ahriman that waged a decisive battle in the spiritual world from 1841 to 1879 were cast down from the spiritual world into the realm of humanity in 1879. And since that time, they have found their stronghold, their field of activity—especially in the era in which we now live—in human thought, feeling, and the impulses of the will.

[ 5 ] Consider how infinitely much of what people think, of what they want and feel, is permeated by Ahrimanic forces in our time. Such events, which connect the spiritual and physical worlds, are part of the plan of our entire world order, and one must reckon with these concrete facts. What good is it to remain stuck in the abstract and, like a true abstract thinker, say: “Humanity must fight Ahriman.” — After all, nothing comes of such an abstract formula. People today sometimes have no inkling of the spiritual atmosphere in which they actually find themselves. One must face this fact in all its grave significance.

[ 6 ] Just consider this for a moment: that, as a member of the Anthroposophical Society, you are called to hear about these things and to engage with them in your thoughts and feelings. Then the full gravity of the matter will dawn on you; then it will become clear to you that, with the very best of your feelings and sensibilities, you have a task to fulfill, depending on where you stand in this so enigmatic, so questionable, so confusing present. Consider the following scenario: Suppose there were just a few people somewhere who had come together in a natural way to form a kind of friendly circle, and this circle of people were aware of such spiritual connections—and others like them—as I have just described to you, while vast numbers of people knew nothing of it. Rest assured that if this circle of people—which I have now hypothetically presented to your mind—were to resolve, for whatever underlying reasons, to put the power it gains through such knowledge to some use, then this small circle, along with the followers it attracts—often without those followers even realizing it—would be very powerful, and most powerful of all in relation to the unsuspecting, who want to know nothing of these things.

[ 7 ] As early as the 18th century, there was a certain circle of people who were entirely of this sort. That circle continues to this day. A certain circle of people knew about the events I have spoken to you about; they knew that such things would happen in the 19th century and well into the 20th century, just as I have described to you. However, this circle of people set out—as early as the 18th century—to carry out certain intentions that one might call self-serving for this circle, and to pursue certain impulses. To this end, they worked quite systematically.

[ 8 ] People today, in vast numbers, go about their lives as if asleep, without a thought, paying no attention at all to what is actually happening in the very large circles that exist right alongside them. In this regard, people today are particularly prone to many illusions. Just consider how people today naturally say: “Oh, how effective our communication is, how it brings people together! How everyone learns about one another! How different this is from earlier times!”—Recall everything that is said along these lines. One need only consider individual facts in a meaningful and reasonable way to find that, in this regard, the present reveals some very peculiar things. Who believes, for example—I’m only citing all this as an example, merely as evidence—that literary works today cannot become known to the widest possible circles through the press, which understands everything and reports on everything? Who seriously believes that today’s significant, profoundly impactful, epoch-making literary works can remain unknown? One must surely hear about them in some way. The curious thing is that what we respectfully call “the press” today did not begin its rise until the last third of the 19th century; the press had, of course, already made a start in this direction before then, even if it was not yet what it is today. And yet [even though the press wrote nothing about it], a literary phenomenon could have been epoch-making across all of Central Europe at that time—more epoch-making than all the well-known writers such as Spielhagen, Gustav Freytag, Paul Heyse, and others I could name who had many, many print runs—a literary phenomenon that was more widely read and had a much greater impact than anything we know of: For no work actually had such a broad readership in this last third of the 19th century as Dreizehnlinden by Wilhelm Weber. Now I ask you: How many people are sitting here who do not even know that there is a Dreizehnlinden by Weber? — That is how people live side by side today, despite the press. In this Dreizehnlinden, written in beautiful, poetic language, ideas are embodied that were profoundly impactful. Yes, they live on today in thousands upon thousands of minds.

[ 9 ] I mentioned this to illustrate that it is indeed possible for the masses to be completely unaware of events that are, after all, momentous and taking place right under their noses. Yes, you can be certain that if there happens to be someone here who hasn’t read the book Dreizehnlinden—and I suspect there are some among our friends—you can be absolutely certain: you’ve already spent time in your life with three or four people who have read Dreizehnlinden. It is precisely these barriers between people that often prevent even those closest to us from discussing the most important matters at all. People don’t open up to one another. Even those closest to us don’t discuss the most important matters. And just as it is with such a trifling matter—for of course what I have mentioned here is a trifle in the context of world history—so it is on a larger scale. There are simply things happening in the world that a large part of humanity does not fully grasp.

[ 10 ] And something like this also took place in the 18th century, when a society laid the groundwork for certain ideas and certain views that take root in people’s minds and become active forces—active forces in the realm of what such societies desire—and which then spill over into social life, determining how people relate to one another. People do not know where the things that live in their emotions, in their feelings, and in their impulses of will come from. But those who understand the context of development know how to bring forth these impulses and emotions. This was also the case with a book—perhaps not exactly that book, but with the ideas underlying it, which originated from such a society in the 18th century, where the role of the Ahrimanic entity in the various animals is described. Of course, the Ahrimanic entity was called the devil there, and the text described the various manifestations of the devilish in the individual animal species. The Age of Enlightenment flourished particularly in the 18th century. The Enlightenment is still flourishing today. The very clever people—who, after all, mainly make up the ranks of “media people”—resolve the matter with a joke, saying: “Once again, some…—now I’ll leave it at that—has written a book claiming that animals are devils!” — Yes, but to propagate such ideas in the 18th century in such a way that they take root in many human minds—to propagate them in such a way that one observes the actual laws of human development in the process—that has an effect; it really does have an effect. For it is significant that when Darwinism emerged in the 19th century, when the idea took hold among a large number of people that humans had gradually evolved from animals, and when, at the same time, another large number of people harbored the belief that animals were devils. This creates a curious harmony. All of this is there; all of this actually exists! But people write stories, and these stories contain all sorts of things; only the real, active forces are not included in them.

[ 11 ] What must be taken into account is the following: Just as an animal can thrive only in the air, and not beneath the evacuated chamber of an air pump, so ideas and ideals can thrive only when people immerse themselves in the real atmosphere of spiritual life. For this to happen, however, this spiritual life must truly confront us in its reality. Today, however, people love generalities—true generalities; they love them especially. And so one easily overlooks—even though it is a fact—that Ahrimanic forces have had to descend since 1879 from the spiritual world into the realm of human beings, that they have had to permeate human intellectuality, human thinking, feeling, and perception. Nor does one establish the proper relationship to these forces by simply putting forward the abstract formula: “One must fight these forces.”—Yes, but what do people actually do to fight them? They do nothing more than someone who urges the stove to be nice and warm without putting wood in it or lighting a fire. Above all, one must realize that now, since these forces have descended to Earth, one must live with them; that they are here; that one must not close one’s eyes to them; and that they become most powerful when one closes one’s eyes to them. It is precisely the case that these Ahrimanic forces, which have taken hold of the human intellect, become most powerful when one wants to know nothing about them and learn nothing from them.

[ 12 ] If the ideal of so many people could be achieved— to study only the natural sciences and to derive social laws from the laws of nature, to take into account only everything “real,” as they say—meaning, however, the sensory realm—and not to think at all of cultivating the spiritual, if this ideal were to succeed on the broadest scale, then the Ahrimanic forces would have the field entirely to themselves, for then people would know nothing of them. Then a monistic religion in the Haeckelian sense would be established, and they would have the best field of activity. For that would suit them perfectly: if people knew nothing of them, they could work in the subconscious of human beings.

[ 13 ] Thus, the Ahrimanic forces can gain support by promoting a wholly naturalistic religion. Had David Friedrich Strauss been able to fully realize his ideal of establishing this Philistine religion—for the sake of which Nietzsche wrote the book David Friedrich Strauss: The Confessor and the Writer—then the Ahrimanic forces would feel even more at home today than they do. But that is only one aspect; the Ahrimanic forces can also thrive very well in another way. They can thrive by cultivating precisely those elements they wish to spread among people today: prejudice, ignorance, and fear of the spiritual life. Nothing promotes the Ahrimanic forces as much as prejudice, ignorance, and fear of the spiritual life.

[ 14 ] But just look at how many people today have made it their mission to foster prejudice, ignorance, and fear of the spiritual powers. I said yesterday in my public lecture: It was not until 1835 that the decrees against Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and so on were repealed. Catholics were therefore not allowed to study the Copernican worldview or anything of the sort until 1835. Ignorance in this regard was actively encouraged. This was a powerful boost to the Ahrimanic forces. It was a great service rendered to the Ahrimanic forces; they were able to prepare well for their campaign, which was to follow starting in 1841.

[ 15 ] Regarding this sentence I have just spoken, I should actually add another one to make it complete. However, no one who is truly initiated into these matters can yet utter that other sentence today. But if you sense what lies beneath the surface of such a sentence, you may perhaps get a glimpse of what I mean.

[ 16 ] The scientific worldview is a purely Ahrimanic phenomenon; but one does not combat it by refusing to learn anything about it, but rather by bringing it into consciousness wherever possible and getting to know it as well as possible. One cannot do Ahriman a greater service than by ignoring scientific views or fighting them unwisely. Anyone who offers unwise criticism of scientific views is not fighting Ahriman but rather promoting him, because they are spreading deception and darkness over a field where light should be shining.

[ 17 ] People must gradually come to realize that every single thing has two sides. People today are very clever, aren’t they—boundlessly clever—and so these clever people of the present conclude: In the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, the Greco-Latin era, people still held the “superstition” that one could foresee the future from the flight of birds, the entrails of animals, and various other things. Well, the people who did that were, of course, “fools.”—Admittedly, no one today who dismisses the matter knows how it was actually done. Nor does anyone today speak any differently than in the example I recently gave you, where the person in question had to admit that a prophecy from a dream had come true, but then said: “Well, that was just a coincidence!” — But according to the fundamental conditions of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, there really was such a science that had something to do with the future. People in that era did not believe that one could make a difference in social development using the same principles as are applied today. Otherwise, they would not have—whether one agrees with it or not, that is beside the point—discovered grand social perspectives extending far into the future if they had not possessed a certain science of the future. Do you believe that today, in what people accomplish in the realm of social life and politics, they are still drawing upon what emerged from that ancient science of the future? This science of the future, however, can never be gained through observation of what is outwardly present to the senses. It can never be gained according to the model of natural science, for what can be observed outwardly through the senses is the science of the past. And now I will reveal to you a very important, very essential law of the universe: If you merely observe the world through the senses, just as modern natural science observes the world, then you are observing only past laws that continue to propagate; you are actually observing nothing more than the corpse of the past. Natural science contemplates life that has died.

[ 18 ] Imagine, for a moment, that this—shown schematically—is our field of observation (see drawing, white), that which unfolds before our eyes, our ears, and our other senses. Imagine that this here (see diagram, yellow) represents all the laws of nature that can be discovered. Then these laws of nature no longer describe what is actually there, but rather what was already there, what has passed within it, and what remains only as something frozen in time. Rather than these laws, you must find what the eyes cannot observe, what physical ears cannot hear: a second world of laws (see diagram, purple). In reality, it is within, but it points toward the future.

[ 19 ] The world is just like this: imagine you take a plant (a drawing is made). The way a plant looks today is not its true nature; for there is something mysterious within it that you cannot yet see, something that will only become visible to the eye next year: the seed. But it is already there inside, invisible within. So in the world that lies before us, the future is invisibly contained within it—the entire future. But the past is contained within it in such a way that it has already withered, dried up, died—it is a corpse. The entire observation of nature presents only the image of the corpse, only the past. Certainly, one misses this past when one looks solely at the spiritual; that is true, but to grasp total reality, one must include the invisible as well.

[ 20 ] How is it that, on the one hand, people put forward a Kant-Laplacean theory, while on the other hand they talk about the end of the world like Professor Dewar—as I recounted yesterday in my public lecture—who envisions an end of the world where people will read newspapers in temperatures of several hundred degrees below zero, with walls painted with glowing egg white; milk will be solid. I’d just like to know how they’ll milk it once it’s solid! These are all impossible notions, just as the entire Kant-Laplace theory is an impossible notion. As soon as these theories venture beyond the immediate field of observation, they fail. Why? Because they are theories of corpses, theories of the dead.

[ 21 ] Today, intelligent people say: The Greek and Roman sacrificial priests were either scoundrels and charlatans or superstitious fools, for, of course, no reasonable person can believe that one can learn anything about the future from the flight of birds or from sacrificial animals. — But people in the future will be just as capable of looking down on the ideas of the present—the ones people today are so proud of—if they feel just as clever as today’s generation does when it comes to the Roman sacrificial priests. And they will say: The Kant-Laplace theory! Dewar! They had some strangely superstitious ideas! They observed a few millennia of Earth’s development and then drew conclusions about the Earth’s initial and final states. What foolish superstition that was back then! There were such strange, superstitious people who described how the Sun and planets broke away from a primordial nebula and then began to rotate. One could say far worse things about these ideas of the Kant-Laplace theory and about these notions of the end of the Earth than what people today say about predicting the future based on sacrificial animals or the flight of birds and the like.

[ 22 ] How exalted are those people today who have so fully embraced the spirit and mindset of scientific thought; how they look down upon the ancient myths and fairy tales—that childish age of humanity when people clung to dreams! How far we have progressed in contrast: today we know how everything is governed by a certain law of causality; we have indeed come a long way. — But all those who judge in this way fail to realize one thing: that all of today’s science would not exist—precisely where it is justified—if mythical thinking had not preceded it. Yes, you can have today’s science just as you can have a plant that has only stems, leaves, and flowers, but no roots down below—you don’t need them.

[ 23 ] Anyone who speaks of modern science as something that rests absolutely within itself is speaking just as if he wanted to let a plant flourish based solely on its upper parts. Everything that modern science is has grown out of myth; myth is the root. And it provokes a veritable hellish cackle of derision among certain elemental spirits who observe such things from other worlds when today’s very clever professors look down upon the ancient mythologies, the ancient myths, and all the tenets of ancient superstition, and have no idea that, with all their cleverness, they have grown out of these myths, that they could not have a single valid thought of the present without these myths having existed. And another thing causes a veritable hellish cackle of derision among these same elemental spirits—here one can even say, in the literal sense, a hellish cackle of derision, for the Ahrimanic forces are only too pleased that they are given the opportunity for such a cackle of derision—namely, when these people believe that now they have the Copernican theory, now they have Galileanism, now they have this glorious law of the conservation of energy. That will never change; it will remain so for all time. — A short-sighted judgment! Just as the myth relates to our conceptions, so do the conceptions of nineteenth- and twentieth-century science relate to what will come a few centuries later. This will be overcome just as myth was overcome. Do you believe that people in the year 2900 will think about the solar system in the same way that people do today? That would be academic superstition; it must never be the belief of an anthroposophist.

[ 24 ] What people today are justified in thinking—what they truly regard as a source of a certain grandeur in the present age—they owe precisely to the fact that something like Greek mythology developed during the Greek era. Of course, there would be nothing more delightful for an enlightened person of today than to be able to think: Oh, if only those Greeks had been fortunate enough to have possessed our modern science! — But if the Greeks had possessed our modern science, what the Greeks themselves possessed—the lore of the Greek gods, the world of Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Plato, and Aristotle—would not have existed; Wagner would be a mere Faust compared to the Wagners who would then be walking around today! Human thought would have withered and degenerated; all our thinking would be barren, for whatever vitality there is in our thinking stems from the fact that it is rooted in Greek myth—in the myth of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch in general. And anyone who believes that the myth was simply false and that today’s thinking is correct is like a person who finds it unnecessary to first cut roses from the rosebush if one wants a bouquet of roses. Why shouldn’t the roses be able to spring up directly?

[ 25 ] These are all simply unreal notions in which people live—people who believe themselves to be among the most enlightened of all, especially today. This fourth post-Atlantean epoch, with its development of myth, with its formation of ideas that for modern people resemble dreams more than sharply defined scientific concepts—this entire way of thinking characteristic of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch—is the foundation for what we are today. But what we think today, what we are capable of developing today, must in turn be the foundation for the next epoch. But it can only be so if it does not merely develop in the direction of withering away, but rather if it seeks to develop in the direction of life. Life, however, is breathed into what exists today when one attempts to bring what once was into consciousness and to recognize what gives one an alert consciousness, what makes one an alert personality.

[ 26 ] Since 1879, it has been the case that when someone goes to school, absorbs a scientific mindset and way of thinking there, then adopts a worldview in line with this scientific way of thinking, and now believes that only what unfolds in the sensory world can truly be called while everything else is, after all, merely a figment of the imagination—if someone thinks this way—and how many people think this way today—then Ahriman has the upper hand, and the Ahrimanic forces thrive. For these Ahrimanic forces, which have, so to speak, established their strongholds in human minds since 1879—what are they, really? They are not human beings; they are angels, but angels who have fallen behind—angels who have strayed from their path of development, who have forgotten how to fulfill their task in the adjacent spiritual world. If they were able to do so, they would not have been cast down in 1879. They have fallen because they cannot fulfill their task up above. Now they want to fulfill their task with the help of people’s minds, their brains. In people’s brains, they are one level deeper than where they actually belong. What is called “monistic thinking” today is not actually done by human beings. What is called “economic science” today is often of the kind I described again yesterday. If one articulates what was written at the beginning of the war—that the war must be over in four months—I mean, if a scientist articulates it; if one merely parrots it, it doesn’t matter so much—what is going on in people’s minds? All of these are, after all, angelic thoughts nesting in people’s minds—thoughts of angels who have fallen behind. Yes, the human intellect is indeed to be increasingly claimed by such forces that seek to take possession of it so that they can live out their lives. You cannot stand up against this by burying your head in the sand and playing ostrich politics, but only by consciously engaging with what is happening. It is not by being unaware of what, for example, the monists think that one can stand up against this, but rather by knowing it—and also by knowing that it is Ahrimanic science, that it is the science of backward angels that nests in people’s minds—by being aware of the truth and of reality.

[ 27 ] Of course, we express this here using the appropriate terms—Ahrimanic forces—because we take these things seriously. You know, you cannot speak this way when addressing people out there who are completely unprepared today. For that is precisely one of the barriers. You cannot reach people that way; but of course you can find ways and means to speak to other people in such a way that what is truth can seep in. On the other hand, if there were no place at all where the truth could be spoken, then one would have no possibility of allowing it to seep into outer, profane science. There must, after all, be at least a few places where the truth can be spoken in its original, authentic form. But we must never forget that even when people today have truly found a connection to spiritual science, they often face insurmountable difficulties in building a bridge over to the realm of Ahrimanic science. I have met many people who were very knowledgeable in this or that field of Ahrimanic science—who were either good natural scientists or good Orientalists, and so on—and who then also found a connection to our spiritual research. Oh, I have gone to great lengths to encourage such people to now build that bridge. What would have happened if a physiologist or a biologist—with all the specialized knowledge that can be acquired in these fields today—had worked through physiology and biology from a spiritual perspective, so that one wouldn’t necessarily have to use our specific terminology, but would have approached these individual sciences in our spirit! I’ve tried this with Orientalists. Certainly, on the one hand, these people can be devoted followers of anthroposophy; on the other hand, they are Orientalists and approach the subject in the way Orientalists do. But they do not want to build a bridge between the two. Yet that is precisely what the present age so desperately needs, what is so intensely necessary; for, as I said, the Ahrimanic forces are quite at home when natural science is practiced as if it were a mere reflection of the external world. But when one approaches things with spiritual science and with the attitude that flows from spiritual science, the Ahrimanic forces are less at ease. This spiritual science, after all, encompasses the whole human being. One becomes a different person through it; one learns to feel and will differently; one learns to relate to the world in a different way.

[ 28 ] It is true what the initiates have always said: When that which comes from spiritual wisdom flows through human beings, it is a great terror of darkness and a consuming fire for the Ahrimanic forces. It is indeed a comfort to the Ahrimanic angels to dwell in the minds that are today filled with Ahrimanic science; but those minds that are permeated with spiritual wisdom are perceived by the Ahrimanic angels as a consuming fire, as a great terror of darkness. If we take such a matter in all its seriousness, we feel this: When we assert ourselves with spiritual wisdom, then we go through the world in such a way that we establish a proper relationship with the Ahrimanic forces, that through what we do we ourselves build up what must be there, that for the healing of the world we establish the site of the consuming sacrificial fire, the site where the terror of darkness shines upon the harmful Ahrimanic forces.

[ 29 ] Immerse yourself in such ideas, immerse yourself in such feelings! Then you will awaken and look at the things taking place out there in the world, look at what is happening out there in the world. In the 18th century, the last remnants of the old atavistic science actually died out. The followers of the “unknown philosopher” Saint-Martin, the student of Jakob Böhme, possessed some elements of the old atavistic wisdom, but they also possessed much of a foreknowledge of what was to come—which has already come to pass in our time. And it was often said in these circles that from the last third of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, a body of knowledge would radiate that is rooted in the same sources, in the same soil, where certain human maladies are rooted — I spoke of this last Sunday — where views will prevail that are rooted in falsehood, where feelings will prevail that are rooted in selfishness.

[ 30 ] Observe with a seeing eye—the eye that becomes seeing through the sensations we have spoken of today—what surges and flows through the present moment! Perhaps some of what you experience will wound your heart. But that does no harm, for clear insight—even if it hurts—will bear good fruit today, the kind needed to emerge from the chaos into which humanity has plunged.

[ 31 ] The first—or one of the first—things must be the science of education. And in the field of the science of education, one of the foremost principles must be precisely the one that is most frequently violated today. More important than anything you can teach a boy or girl, a young man or a young woman, and consciously instill in them, is that which flows unconsciously into people’s souls during their formative years. I spoke of this just in my previous public lecture: that memory is something that develops in the subconscious as a parallel phenomenon to conscious soul life. This must be taken into account, especially in education. The educator must impart to the soul not only what the child understands, but also what the child does not yet understand—that which extends in a mysterious way into the child’s soul and which—and this is important—will then be drawn out in later life.

[ 32 ] We are moving ever closer to a time when people will need more and more memories of their youth throughout their lives—memories they cherish, memories that make them happy. Education must learn to provide these systematically. It will be detrimental to the education of the future if, later in life, people have to look back on how much they struggled during their school years and their formative years; if they recall those times with reluctance; if their school and formative years are not a wellspring from which they can continually learn, learn, and learn anew. But if one has already learned everything there is to learn from the curriculum as a child, there is nothing left for later.

[ 33 ] If you consider this, you will see how fundamentally different the guiding principles of life must become in the future compared to what is considered right today. It would be good for humanity if the sad experiences of the present were not ignored by so many, but if people would use these sad experiences to familiarize themselves as much as possible with the idea: Much, much must change! Humanity has become too complacent in recent times to grasp this idea in its full depth and, above all, in its full intensity.