Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Anthroposophical Life Gifts
GA 181

21 May 1918, Berlin

VII. Whitsuntide Lecture

In former years we have always at this season studied subjects connected with the Festival of Whitsuntide. I have often stated that we are now living at a time when the events which affect the march of humanity are so significant and so different from the ordinary trend of life in human history, that there is scarcely a possibility of making the ordinary festival observations—although indeed, even at the present, such are all too frequently made—if indeed, not for the definite object of forgetting what is now happening around us in such a catastrophic manner for humanity, yet with some such purpose in mind. We may however be allowed just to refer to the meaning of the revelation of Whitsuntide.

From the former lectures on Whitsuntide we know that the most important feature in the Whitsuntide event is, that the communal life of those who had taken part in the great Easter Event of mankind became individualized. The “fiery tongues” descended on the heads of each of them, and each one learnt in that language, which is like none other and for that reason comprehensible to all, to grasp what has streamed through the evolution of mankind as they Mystery of Golgotha. The fiery tongues descended on the head of each one. Formerly the souls of the individual disciples felt themselves—one might say—in the collective aura of the Mystery of Golgotha. Then through the event of Whitsuntide, that which they only comprehended through the life they lead in common, so passed over into their separate souls that each one gained illumination within himself. That is the most important thing, though naturally expressed in abstract form. We must realize this individualizing of the Easter message in the soul through the revelation of Whitsuntide, if we wish to understand it in the right sense. There is then the possibility to conceive, in the sense of this Whitsuntide proclamation, what Spiritual Science intends to do. For, in this Spiritual Science it is desired first and foremost that every human soul should find the spiritual germ of his own being within himself, which is able to illuminate it as regards the cosmic aims for which we must strive. The future life of mankind should so develop that men shall be, less inclined to turn their minds always towards the social structure which all have in common. We hope that every man will become ripe and capable of leading such a life of his own initiative, that his neighbor may be able to lead a similar life. Then an inner tolerance will prevail in the souls, and in the social structure “liberty” must be realized. In no other way can liberty be realized in the world; in no other way than by the message of Whitsuntide passing into the individual human souls.

We must work and cooperate in our souls, and must grasp what is offered by Spiritual Science in accordance with the model given in this Whitsuntide message. For that reason it may be said that in a certain sense Spiritual Science is a perennial, continuous and lasting Whitsuntide proclamation.

What the present time teaches us above all, if we wish to draw this teaching from it, is that we must furnish ourselves with patience. There are friends sitting here who have worked inwardly almost from the beginning of what we call our spiritual scientific movement. This is now more than 15 or 16, perhaps even 17 years ago; and really the thought should remain continually before our soul, how little, how very, very little has been really obtained in these 15-17 years. This should give rise to another thought; how greatly we should arm ourselves with patience, when we reflect what Spiritual Science might be to us, what it can become through us, that it can really lead to a kind of fresh impulse for human existence.

We should always compare what Spiritual Science may become, with what we have so scantily achieved in this decade and a half. Certainly, many have accepted what has been offered to mankind by Spiritual Science. But that is but the merest beginning, as has been stated in the numerous lectures which have been given. Spiritual Science is still faced with the other task—of really flowing into the social structure, into the whole life of the humanity of the present age. But if we wish to grasp this thought we must connect with another which sounds forth to us today at every hour, from all the happenings of the world, which presents a certain conflict into which the human soul is driven and which just in our present age—one might say—reaches a certain climax.

If we recollect the principal points of our spiritually scientific investigation, we shall everywhere find that it rests on the fact that super-sensible spiritual reality flows into the soul of man. Spiritual Science teaches us that in the course of humanity spiritual life continually streams into men, but that nevertheless what happens on Earth is only an “advance,” insofar as men understand how to awaken into external being what streams into them from the spiritual world. Such a thought should really be able to penetrate our whole feeling and experience. We must above all, be able to bring it into connection with what is known to us, for instance, as the Science of History; and we should be able to apply it to the present day from this point of view. We ought to be able to ask ourselves seriously (these things are of course hypotheses but they lead to realities in a true life of thought): What would have happened if Columbus, or anyone else fundamentally connected with the evolution of modern humanity—for instance Gutenberg, discoverer of the art of printing, or even Luther—had been born in the eighth or ninth century or at some other time in history? What would have become of those personalities who bear these names? They would certainly not have figured as they do in history today if they had been born in other times. Of course that could not have happened, for the evolution of the world has its karma; but the hypothetical consideration of such a possibility leads to realities. They would in all probability have become persons of whom external history does not speak. Yet, on the other hand, can you imagine that in such a case, at the approach of the modern age, the art of printing for instance would not have been discovered? Can you imagine that the Reformation would not have come about with the approach of this newer time? You can see from this that the principal thing is that we should look at the objective facts, at what has been imparted to mankind from the spiritual world, and that we should learn to a still greater degree than the present time can yet do, to look at man as an instrument, through whom reality may enter into Earth life from this virtual world.

I said that just at the present time man, in regard to these things, is placed in a sharp conflict. The present day does not recognize that such a thing as the streaming down of a spiritual stream of evolution into the events of the Earth can take place; it does not recognize that man is only an instrument, and it wishes to build up a social order which does not recognize this. It wishes to build up a social order which really only reckons with the quite personal man standing here on the Earth, and to fix attention on him. The most extreme caricature of the plan of only viewing man from the most individual point of view, is Leninism or Trotskyism, to which I have already alluded. This conception of society only recognizes the man who stands here on the Earth. I do not only mean by this the theoretical side alone—that would be the least harmful—I am referring to the consequences in life of this view. Men like Lenin or Trotsky seek—even in a sphere where it is least suitable—so to establish the framework of society as if nothing else came into consideration that the individual man of flesh and blood. That however is an ideal which has been forming for decades in the sphere of so-called socialism, and Leninism and Trotskyism are indeed only the latest grotesque flutterings of such a conception, which has been forming for a long time.

You see what our object must be? To find the way back again to the feeling of the Whitsuntide Event. Certainly, individual spiritual life was to arise illuminatingly in the different disciples on whose heads the flames descended; but that was to be spiritual life; for the greatest imaginable impulse towards the essential thing, as regards which man is but an instrument, was divided among the individual members.

There is also another meaning to this Whitsuntide proclamation, and it is the most important—the strengthening of the realization that a man does not lose his value when he allows the other aspect to count; viz, that the spirit is continually flowing into mankind, and that man has to form the instrument for the spirit streaming down into humanity. Man retains his personal value notwithstanding. That is something which we cannot only see theoretically today, but for which it is necessary to draw the consequences for life and to carry over into our way of thinking about the construction of the state, about moral and social life. The point is that a thought should have an awakening effect, and an “awakening” it certainly was when the flames descended on the head of each one of the disciples. To be asleep today to the events of the time, a state which is only too prevalent today, is a sinning against the events of the time. But in the cycle of evolution which we are now entering, we cannot possibly be awake to the events if we do not observe them with a certain inner mobility of soul-life, if we are not able to distinguish the essential, the right thing, from what is unessential and wrong. What floods us today, especially in reading the newspapers, cannot be regarded as all of like value; for in the columns of a thousand books and newspapers there may be two lines which are of tremendous fundamental importance, pointing in a highly indicative way to the origin of the “phenomena,” to use the expression of Goethe—to what is really going on. The rest may all be a waste of printer's ink. It is a question of awakening an inner feeling in one's self as to what is important and essential, and what is unimportant and unessential. This feeling arises in the soul, if a man unconsciously acquires a vision for the great world perspectives of the present day, which Spiritual Science can disclose; only he must absorb this into his feeling, must try gradually feel as he will when Spiritual Science becomes alive in him. It is certainly necessary to create an inner trust in what one feels inwardly, a much greater degree than men are accustomed to do today. Anyone who expects that what he acquires today points immediately too far-reaching events tomorrow, while not as a rule attaining a true observation. It may be something right and correct, but events may so discount this that perhaps it may only come to expression in a distant future. It is necessary for us to have the right attitude to the world, and have correct ideas as to what is taking place.

Thus, in the present stream of evolution extraordinarily important things are happening, which are already to be observed in external occurrences if we grasp these in the manner just indicated: viz. by distinguishing the essential from the nonessential, and by having the courage to do so.

What is happening today—I will only mention one thing—is the lessening importance of the outer British Empire, as such. What the world has up till now really known historically as Britain itself and which was specifically British, is now merging into Pan-Anglo-Americanism. That such a thing actually forms part of the developments which we have already indicated in different ways, does not contradict these developments. On the other hand it is of tremendous importance to grasp such a significant thought, for much depends on whether we take correct or false forces into our life of idea. The times can teach us much in this respect; that must be pointed out again and again. Certainly, the men at the fronts have become different. Everyone who is familiar with the facts is aware of that. This is not the place to discuss in what way they have changed. But among those who have lived at the front there are still many who think just as they did in July 1914, who have learned nothing since, who use exactly the same concepts as were used to then. When you talk with the men, they just say the same things as they might have said in July 1914. Yet no man today can be really awake if all his ideas have not acquired a different impression, a different value. For this reason the question will have to be put—everyone should put it to himself, as a quite serious and I might say Christian question of conscience: Where are the men to be found today who, before July 1914, held the possibility in view that that might happen which has come to pass up to the present day? I might formulate the question differently. In the cycle of lectures which I held before the war in Vienna, there is among other things an expression which runs thusly: The human social life bears something within it which can be compared to a cancer; a cancerous disease is in the life of humanity. That had to be realized at that time; but there are many people who have not yet realized it at the present time. I ask: In how profound a sense has it been understood that a “cancer” in human development was spoken of just at that time?

By this I only wish to point to the seriousness with which Spiritual Science ought to be taken if it is to be applied to the events of the present. Indeed one great reason why Spiritual Science is rejected is the fact that this seriousness required for Spiritual Science is frightfully inconvenient. The “theories” of Spiritual Science please many people, but the serious demands it makes on life is very, very inconvenient to many who otherwise like the theories. All this leads us perhaps to understand better what I must now introduce into these observations, and which it is important to grasp, if one wishes to understand Spiritual Science in its essentials.

If a man wishes to understand something in the world today, he really always has the feeling that the means to this understanding must somehow be sought in what belongs to the present day. But the spiritual element cannot be sought in the present alone. For instance, if one wishes to become acquainted with the spiritual aspects of the human being—the being of man, even between birth and death, can never be fathomed merely through knowledge of the man of today. Why? Suppose you have reached the age of 50 and you developed some kind of soul-life connected with the powers of the sentient soul. You will unconsciously conceive of it according to the ideas of the present day: :That is my sentient soul, which I have within me; it expresses itself when the sentient life of the soul is externalized. That however is not the case. Now your sentient soul developed between your 21st and 28 year, and what was in your soul at the time came to an end with the 28th year, but the after-effects continue; they go on working; you use them today when reviewing the powers of the sentient soul. You do not use the present powers of the sentient soul but the powers existing within it at that age. The past works on. It is not the case that the present time includes the whole of what is at work, for the past continues to work on. The spiritual world must be conceived as music, but as real music. You could not possibly grasp a melody if, when you heard the third note, you have lost the first; the first works on in the third, it works within it. In spiritual action something goes on working, not only because we hold it in our memory, but through its after-effects it works on in reality. The effects of former forces of spiritual life in the different parts of the soul are continually at work, as part of the spirit and soul nature, and in yet another sense. Our 21st to 22nd year works on within us still later; it is there because it was there in the past, not because it is there in the present. To form new ideas is uncomfortable to man, and what I have just disclosed is a new idea; it is nowhere to be found among the concepts of the present day. For instance you do not want to admit: “When I am old and gray-headed, or bald, I still speak and think with the forces of my youth, of my childhood.” Yet it is absolute truth that what you learnt at school, or where you spent your time from your 18th to your 28 year, works on through your whole life. You cannot replace it later by other powers, except as you make use of those sources which Spiritual Science opens up; that is the only means by which many things in life can be replaced. You will not find it difficult to understand that many people nowadays remain essentially unfruitful. That is connected with the present system of education. We can develop nothing except what was placed in us during our childhood, nothing but just what was placed in us through the ordinary powers by which we turn to man himself.

Much is required before we can grasp such ideas aright. I must declare over and over again from many different aspects that for this it is necessary above all for men once more to learn, in a much higher sense than they wish to today, to believe in life, to believe in the spiritual side of life. To-day it may perhaps occur to man to believe in his spiritual origin. It will be relatively easy to get him to believe that a spiritual element which proceeds from a spiritual world has united with what developed materially through heredity in the course of generations; but that does not suffice. What is necessary is that we should not only believe in the spiritual origin of a “part” of our life, but in the spiritual origin of our whole life. What does this imply?

Today we indeed believe from the evolutionary tendencies of mankind to which I have often referred that, as a rule, with the 20th year of our life we have brought our life to its perfection. We believe that we are then ready to be elected to a municipal assembly, to Parliament and so forth, because we are then capable of deciding on all subjects. Men believe they have long ago outgrown those bygone times when people waited for the fullness of years, in the belief that each new year of life brings new revelations. Today we expect that when the age of puberty is reached the soul-powers of the child are also transformed. For the other years of childhood we may have a like expectation, though perhaps not in such a strong degree. We look at evolution and are convinced that human life develops up to the 20s. From then we cease to believe in further development. We then believe ourselves to be ready for anything. We no longer expect the later years of life to bring new revelations. We cannot do so if we keep the usual ideas. We know however that humanity becomes younger in the course of evolution, that at the present day it never grows older than 27. The bodily development produces nothing further after that. Therefore what constitutes the further development must be drawn from the spirit. But when it is drawn from the spirit it unites with our soul. Just consider how few people today at the age of 22 admit that when they reach the age of 45, something can come about through inner revelation which could not have come earlier, for the simple reason that at an advanced age one has different experiences from those of youth. Who now believes in the productivity, the fruitfulness of old age? But although it is not believed in, it is nonetheless there; only people do not pay attention to the new revelations each new year brings. Just consider how much would be altered in human life, if the belief really became general, if all men believed that they must wait for old age, when they will learn things through their own experience which they could not have learnt before. Where is life full of expectation, full of hope to be found today? But if such a thought, such a feeling were carried into the everyday life of the community, just imagine what a tremendous significance this would have! What a tremendous significance it would have if in the life of men that consciousness were added to all the different “struggles for equality” which play such a part at the present time—the consciousness that for the simple reason that a man has reached the age of forty he may have learnt something which he could not have learned at 27. Imagine how a young man of 27 would regard one of 40 if that were a natural feeling! Of course it cannot be so today, because often today the men of 70 have not grown beyond the age of 27, and often just the most representative men are no older, though they are not aware of it. Thus one cannot demand this is a real requirement today.

What life must bring forth and what the future requires is that people should begin to look upon the spiritual as a reality. What is alone known to man today as “spirit”? On the whole, nothing but a mass of abstract concepts. Man acquires a mass of abstract concepts, such as are characterized by the fact that they can be quite well received up to the 27th year. But besides the fact that we live here on the Earth between birth and death and have at first a sprouting and budding life, then with our 28th year stand still in our development and then begin our descending life, we have also a real concrete spirituality, which changes just as the exterior man changes, but undergoes a reverse process to that of the outer man. The outer man grows old and wrinkled; but his etheric body, his formative-forces by, it becomes ever younger; only man does not trouble himself today about this formative-forces body which grows younger in old age. Men go about with bald heads and gray hair and do not know that they have a body of formative forces, which has a sprouting and budding life just when they begin to get gray, and which only than can give them certain things which could not be given earlier. Certainly this depends upon the character of the times. But the times in this respect need a reversal. Times need a change of ideas. One thing which must especially be brought about by the change is that thoughts should become more forceful and healthy and not cling to what only comes from outside; otherwise we shall become frightfully one-sided in all spheres. What we must do is to penetrate reality with our thoughts in all spheres. We cannot understand the historical life of man unless we are able to bring inner wisdom to bear on what is considered externally as wisdom. For various reasons connected with the schism, with the rent which is going on in human evolution, we have ceased to understand much that is great and which has still been found in an atavistic way. In many domains men today believe themselves to be original.

A long time ago I put a query in a lecture in Dornach as to what the public would say if at a performance of “Faust,” after Faust has risen against the Spirit of the Earth, the manager were to allow Wagner to appear in slightly altered form but otherwise exactly like Faust in external appearance. And yet something of the sort must be done someday. I will tell you the reason why. What do we read today in the books on Faust, what have people in their mind when they speak of this to which I refer about Wagner and Faust? You need only recollect the absurd declamations made by many “Fausts,” and the insipid tones which come from Wagner, to gain an idea of what lies before us; if besides this we think of the great Faust towering up to the heavens and the pedantic Wagner, who is always represented on the stage as limping a little, and so on. But what is really in question here? Faust despairs of the various sciences—it is already considers trivial today by many people who are not very “deep.” What strange things are considered “deep” today! How often among many other demands for an elucidation of the world of spirit, does one hear this: that one should consider among the deepest thoughts of Faust that of the “Omnipotent One” who “holds and contains me and thee and Himself,” in the conversation with Gretchen? People forget that Faust says this to the sixteen-year old Gretchen, and coins it for her intellect and sentiments. All humanity is willing to be catechized by being reduced to the standpoint of the 16-year-old Gretchen! I have even known professors of philosophy who consider these Gretchen-catechisms as the height of wisdom. At the beginning of the poem, Faust does not despair of all the sciences. But the main point lies in the fact that he turns from what is revealed to him through the sign of the macrocosm, of the cosmos. First of all he does not wish to know anything of the relations of man to the whole comprehensive great universe. He turns to the Earth-Spirit, to that which wishes to reveal to him that which man has from the forces of the Earth alone. What reveals itself to him out of the macrocosm is only a drama to him. He turns away from it. But the Earth-Spirit dismisses him. Faust believed he would be able to grasp through the Earth-Spirit something connected with his deepest being. The Earth-Spirit brings about his overthrow. Then come the words: “Thou resemblest the spirit whom thou understandest, not me!”

Now let us ask: Who is it whom Faust understands? He says himself: “Not thee—whom then?—whereupon Wagner enters. “All that thou hast developed till now is only a desire for feeling; what thou art already carrying within thee, behold it is Wagner!” That is the other nature of Faust. That is the dramatic, real answer! In the drama the development is shown by the facts. It had to be made comprehensible to Faust that in everything concrete which he had till then developed he is as yet nothing more than a Famulus, and just through this stage of self-knowledge he is to be led a step further. The reality might be represented if the two were to step onto the stage at the same time, side by side. That would need the courage to take much more seriously than before such words as: “Thou resemblest the spirit whom thou understandest, not me!—Not thee—whom then?” One would have to enter thoroughly into the situation in thought. Thus is it represented in a drama.

And again—let us consider something else. Faust has turned away from the sign of the macrocosm; he does not wish to experience the forces which bind man to the macrocosm, to the great cosmos. That was how the thoughts lived in the soul of Goethe himself, when he had written the first part of his Faust. When Faust had retrieved what he neglected in his youth—at least in the retrospect through the Easter-walk and all through the Easter-night—he passes beyond the stage of self-knowledge which he encountered in Wagner, and reaches the point of regaining what he had allowed to pass him by, which may be the Easter message to him. Read the sentences: Wagner does not wish it. The separate words are extraordinarily pregnant, for instance:

“As not all hope vanishes from the head
Which claims to empty husks,
which digs for treasure with the greedy hand
and is content if he finds earth-worms.”

It cannot possibly be otherwise: “all hope vanishes” from this head. That is the motive of self-observation. Faust only suffers the consequences, but he regains what he has neglected in his youth. He tries to regain it, and does regain it. Through this he is led a step higher. This justifies his asking once more the question: “Whom then?” Of the one who approaches him in the form of a poodle: Mephistopheles. But what is this? It is the counterforce of the human striving forces, which opposes man as Faust opposes the Earth-Spirit when he does not wish to have anything to do with the macrocosm. These are the Luciferic forces which come from the inner soul of man. For that reason Mephistopheles is at first decked out with Luciferic features, and the Mephistopheles of the first part of Faust's poem is essentially a Luciferic being.

But even at the end of the nineties Goethe was ready to grow out of what dated from his youth. Read the prologue in heaven. What is developed therein is no longer connected with the revelations of the Earth-Spirit; there Goethe already busies himself with the impulse which comes from the macrocosm. Goethe has grown beyond his own beginning, and now something enters his soul which is tremendously significant and important, and which, when we recognize it, allows us to look deeply into his soul. Goethe had the tradition of the Faust-legend, the tradition of the North-German myth. Mephistopheles was one of the characters in that. But when, compelled by Schiller, he further develops his Faust, then Mephistopheles—Goethe himself is not properly conscious of this—becomes a figure which worries him inwardly, with which he does not really come to rights. Jacob Minor, also an interpreter of Faust, who said many intelligent things, had a remarkable explanation for the fact that Goethe could not get on at all when he took up Faust again. He thinks that Goethe at about 50 years of age had grown “old”! I should like to know how anyone could write “Faust” at all if poetic power is exhausted at 50 and yet one has to bring into poetry the forces belonging to the years after 50—unless the powers of youth could flourish in a life such as Goethe understood how to lead. But his soul was worried about Mephistopheles, instinctively worried, and it did not allow him to go any further, because the conflict of Faust and Mephistopheles did not go well. Goethe had introduced Faust to the biggest questions of humanity and that did not now fit in with Mephistopheles, who has taken on a Luciferic character. In that character, one only has to contend with the forces which proceed from the sentient life, the life of feeling. As soon as Goethe develops the Prologue in Heaven, Faust is confronted with the macrocosm. It would be no longer possible to allow Faust to fight only with the powers living in the inner soul of man; it is no longer possible to give Mephistopheles only a Luciferic character: Goethe perceived this; and really not in order to be pedantic, but only to point out some important things, I should like to draw your attention to some little details.

“Of all Spirits who deny
Is the rogue is the least burdensome to me.”

Then there must be other spirits who deny! Yet in Faust there is but one: Mephistopheles. And consider how Mephistopheles says in the Prologue:

“Dearest to me are full, fresh cheeks,
To a corpse I am not at home.”

And recollect the end, when he really busies himself earnestly enough about the corpse. What does this mean? It signifies that Goethe perceived that what he had received from the myth, from the Faust-legend as the unitary Mephistopheles-figure, when one goes out into the macrocosm divides into two. Goethe possesses the power of feeling the twofold nature of Lucifer and Ahriman. He did not then get any further because there was not yet any Spiritual Science in his day. He was brought to a standstill. As, however, he had later to unite macrocosmic happenings with human happenings in the classical Walpurgis-night, and at the end where macrocosmic happenings and humanity's experience became woven into one, he had to make his Mephistopheles take on an Ahimanic character. To a great extent he succeeded in this. But really everything that Goethe himself said concerning his own personal relationship to his Faust is said under the impression that he would not be able to go on with it. If the Faust of the pedantic but nevertheless popular national drama of the Middle Ages is to be placed on the great cosmic stage, then it is necessary to divide Mephistopheles into a Luciferic and Ahrimanic being. For that reason Goethe could go no further. He then succeeded, as he was nearing the second part of the poem, by giving his Mephistopheles Ahrimanic features. A Luciferic being loves “fresh and rounded cheeks;” an Ahrimanic one has to do with the corpse, because it permeates our consciousness between birth and death with what we experience in our perceptive life. When we contemplate a personality like that of Goethe we recognize how it preserves the forces of youth, and with these he has constantly new and fresh life-experiences. Not because he has grown old did that appear which can be seen in such a remarkable manner in Goethe's life-history at the end of the nineties of the 18th century, but because he had passed through a crisis which brought certain forces of his youth to life again, made them arise anew, and made him experience them as a Whitsuntide miracle.

What I have just said about Faust is further developed in the pamphlet which is just about to be published: “Goethe's Faust as a measure of his esoteric cosmic conception.” This is to form the first part of a little book about to appear: “Goethe's Standard of the Soul” (Goethes Geistesart). The second part is to give Goethe's thoughts about his Faust, and the third part some development of thoughts on the “Fairytale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily.”

I mention this because I wish to draw your attention to the fact that it is really necessary to grasp with penetrative thoughts what is contained in the spiritual substance of humanity—also as regards the past; that we should take seriously what is to be found there. For the last four or five decades we have completely forgotten how to take in full earnest what is greatest in the past of humanity. A tremendous amount has been missed and lost in the last 40 to 50 years, and it is necessary for what was there spiritually to reappear, though certainly in a new form; for it was in some respects atavistic and could not break through a certain crust.

Goethe could not rise to the division of the Mephistophelian figure into two, a Luciferic and an Ahrimanic, the time was not yet ripe for that. But the sense of this cleavage lived in Goethe's nature. In that we must learn to believe in the whole of man's life, not only in his childhood. We must learn to be able to lead a life full of expectation. Imagine if one were curious and were to ask: What shall I be like when I am 50? How many people foster such thoughts today? How many lead a life in which they believe that ever new content streams into the human soul? What alterations would come about in the social life of mankind if this believe in the whole life were held! What simple thought could lead to this believe in the whole life of man. The thoughts contained in the question: Would there be any sense in living to the age of 70, if we had finished our development at 28. If that were so why then should we grow older? But for that some assistance from natural science is certainly necessary, so that what appears as Spiritual Science can be connected with what is by science today taken seriously.

Spiritual Science has really achieved very little in our movement; and yet it is not without prospects. One notices that on many occasions. One sees it best when (as not infrequently happens) young people, who are busy with their university studies come forward to find something which can link up there special studies with Spiritual Science. Young people, who are novices in life today, feel from their study of the sciences that each science can be led over into Spiritual Science. This may perhaps become the most fruitful germ possible; for people would then have to take things seriously. But difficulties arise immediately if these young people wish to write an essay for their Doctor's degree on what they learn from Spiritual Science and which might well be introduced into their studies. They are not allowed to do so; they cannot do what they want. Spiritual Science is really something essentially rich in prospects, but people are kept away from it, they are forced away from it. We must understand this too in the fullest sense of the words. I know a case in Berlin (it is so long ago that I can now mention it; more recent cases of the present day would not be so permissible) in which a Doctor's thesis was handed in, with which no other fault was found than that my “Christianity As Mystical Fact” was mentioned in it. It was a dissertation on philosophy, not on theology. The writer said: “What shall I do now? Paulsen will not take it; he said ‘You cannot introduce Steiner here.’” I could only answer: “Go to Münster and take your Doctor's degree under Gideon Spicker, perhaps you can test there.” It came off. We must look at things as they really are, must examine them closely. The points of view developed when a man seeks to build up his career on an academic basis are sometimes extremely remarkable. Thus a young University teacher, who certainly overcame this obstacle as you will hear immediately, became one in the following manner, of which he told me himself. He had written an aesthetic treatise on the works of a certain poet (I will not mention his name for the story might come out in some way or other); he then wrote a treatise on Schopenhauer, besides his Doctor's thesis, of course. Now he wished to become a university teacher. He went to the suggested University, to the professor mentioned, who liked him well and considered him a very able man; and he thought that this professor could easily arrange for him to become a teacher. This professor said: “I'm afraid this will not be possible—You have written a treatise on a poet, on an aesthetic question, but this poet lived in the 19th century; that is too recent. Then you have written one on Schopenhauer, that cannot be regarded as scientific.” Thereupon the young man said: “Then what am I to do?” The professor replied: “Take any old catalog of books of a former century and look up and aesthetician as unknown as possible, whom nobody knows—this will be very easy, for as there is no literature on the subject you will not need to study hard, write what will be easy to write, for you will simply look it up in a book-catalog.” The prospective teacher did so, looked up an old Italian Aesthetician about whom nothing had yet been written, and composed a treatise, which he considered extremely inadequate, in which the man who had to judge it also considered very poor, but it was sufficient foundation for becoming a teacher in the University! I did I mention this to blacken any one particular person. It is not a question of persons, I am only mentioning an example. For the man who had to judge the treatise laughed at what he had to recommend the other man to do on account of the prejudices of the times. The other who wished to become a teacher at the University laughed also! Two extremely nice people, one old and the other young, but the fault was not theirs! It lies in the mental substance in which our age is firmly fixed, against which one can only prevail with strong and powerful thoughts. And strong and powerful thoughts are only possible today if mankind is replenished from out of the spirit, if it will build on what Spiritual Science can give. Thus whether we direct our attention to Goethe or to the immediate present, this ever sounds forth to us from the immediate circumstances of the times; we must renew our world of ideas, we must renew our thoughts, so that they may oppose the present in a powerful manner. It depends on the Whitsuntide Mystery fulfilling itself in the soul of every individual and all humanity in our catastrophic times, revealing itself as a renewal of life; when men, illuminated by the Spirit, so stand to one another as individual beings that through their combined willing, thinking and growing, a spiritual structure of mankind can be formed. From man, from the individual man, must come what is necessary for the future. We must not wait for a universal message which mankind should follow. There will be no such message. But there will be the possibility of every single human soul being illumined by what can come from the spiritual world. Then through the social life of man will arise what is to arise and must arise.

Vierzehnter Vortrag

Zu der Zeit des Jahres, in der wir leben, haben wir in früheren Jahren Betrachtungen angestellt, die an das Pfingstfest anknüpften. Nun habe ich schon öfter gesagt, daß wir gegenwärtig in einer Zeit leben, in welcher die Ereignisse, die in den Gang der Menschheit eingreifen, so bedeutsame und von dem gewöhnlichen Lebensgang der menschlichen Geschichte abweichende sind, daß kaum die Möglichkeit vorliegt, zu solchen gewöhnlichen Festesbetrachtungen zu kommen, welche sogar in der Gegenwart nur allzuhäufig, wenn auch nicht zu dem Ziele, so doch aus dem Sinne heraus angestellt werden, dasjenige zu vergessen, was an so Katastrophalem für die Menschheit sich jetzt um uns herum ereignet. Aber es wird vielleicht doch hingewiesen werden dürfen auf den Sinn gerade der Pfingstverkündigung.

Wir wissen aus früheren Pfingstbetrachtungen, daß das Allerwichtigste an dem Pfingstereignis dies ist, daß ein gemeinsames Leben derjenigen, die an dem großen Osterereignis der Menschheit teilgenommen haben, sich individualisierte. Die feurigen Zungen gingen auf das Haupt eines jeden hernieder, und ein jeder lernte in derjenigen Sprache, die keiner andern Sprache gleich und deshalb allen verständlich ist, dasjenige auffassen, was als Mysterium von Golgatha durch die Menschheitsentwickelung hindurchgeströmt ist. Die feurigen Zungen gingen auf das Haupt eines jeden hernieder. Es war schon früher so, daß die Seelen der einzelnen Jünger sich fühlten wie, man könnte sagen, in einer Gesamtaura des Mysteriums von Golgatha. Dann ging ihnen durch das Pfingstereignis dasjenige, was sie nur durch ihr Gemeinschaftsleben erkennend wußten, in die Einzelseele so über, daß jeder einzelne von sich aus die Erleuchtung hatte. Das ist das Wichtigste, natürlich in abstrakter Form ausgesprochen. Man muß diese Individualisierung der Osterbotschaft durch die Pfingstverkündigung in der Seele erfühlen, wenn man sie im richtigen Sinne verstehen will. Dann aber hat man gerade die Möglichkeit, das, was durch die Geisteswissenschaft gewollt wird, so recht im Sinne dieser Pfingstverkündigung aufzufassen. Denn als ein Hervorstechendstes wird ja in dieser Geisteswissenschaft gewollt, daß eine jede Menschenseele in sich selbst den Geisteskern ihres Wesens finde, der sie erleuchten kann über die anzustrebenden Weltenziele. Dadurch soll sich das Zukunftsleben der Menschheit entwickeln, daß die Menschen weniger darauf angewiesen sind, immer auf das hinzu[sehen], was ihnen an gemeinschaftlicher Struktur, an sozialer Struktur gegeben ist, sondern darauf wollen wir hoffen, daß die Menschen reif und fähig werden, jeder aus sich heraus ein solches Leben zu führen, daß der andere neben ihm ein gleiches Leben führen könne. Dann wird eine innere Toleranz die Seelen ergreifen, und in der sozialen Struktur wird die Freiheit verwirklicht werden können. Auf keine andere Weise ist die Freiheit in der Welt zu verwirklichen, als auf diese, das heißt auf keine andere, als indem die Pfingstbotschaft übergeht in die einzelnen Menschenseelen.

Wie man mitarbeiten muß in der Seele, wie man mitergreifen muß das durch Geisteswissenschaft Gebotene, dafür ist die Pfingstbotschaft ein Vorbild. Daher möchte man sagen: Eine perennierende, eine immerwährende, dauernde Pfingstverkündigung ist die Geisteswissenschaft selbst von einem gewissen Gesichtspunkte.

Was uns die Gegenwart vor allen Dingen lehren kann, wenn wit diese Lehre auf unserem eigenen Boden ziehen wollen, das ist, daß wir uns mit Geduld ausstatten müssen. Es sitzen Freunde hier, die ziemlich vom Anfange unserer Bestrebungen an innerlich mitgearbeitet haben an dem, was wir unsere geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung nennen. Es sind jetzt reichlich fünfzehn bis sechzehn, auch wohl siebzehn Jahre her, und es sollte eigentlich vor unserer Seele unablässig der Gedanke stehen: wie wenig, wie unendlich wenig in diesen fünfzehn bis siebzehn Jahren eigentlich erreicht worden ist. Und daraus sollte sich der andere Gedanke ergeben, wie sehr wir uns mit Geduld wappnen müssen, wenn wir daran denken, daß das, was uns Geisteswissenschaft sein kann, was sie durch uns werden kann, wirklich zu einer Art Neubelebung des menschlichen Daseins führen kann.

Was Geisteswissenschaft werden kann - wir sollten es doch immer vergleichen mit dem, was wir so herzlich weniges in den anderthalb Jahrzehnten erreicht haben. Gewiß, viele haben das aufgenommen, was durch die Geisteswissenschaft der Menschheit dargeboten wird. Aber das ist ja nur das Allergeringste, wie aus zahlreichen Betrachtungen, die wir angestellt haben, hervorgeht. Die Geisteswissenschaft hat schon noch die andere Aufgabe: wirklich hineinzufließen in die soziale Struktur, in das ganze Leben der Menschheit der Gegenwart. Aber wenn wir diesen Gedanken fassen wollen, müssen wir ihn doch mit einem andern noch verbinden, mit einem andern, der uns heute und zu jeder Stunde aus allen Weltereignissen heraustönt, der einen gewissen Konflikt darstellt, in den die Menschenseele hineingetrieben wird und der gerade in unserer gegenwärtigen Zeit, man möchte sagen, zu einem gewissen Höhepunkt getrieben ist.

Erinnern wir uns an die Hauptpunkte unserer geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung, so werden Sie überall finden, daß diese geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung gerade darauf beruht, daß übersinnliche, geistige Wirklichkeit in des Menschen Seele hereinfließt. Sie läßt uns erkennen, diese Geisteswissenschaft, daß im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung fortwährend geistiges Leben in die Menschen einströmt, daß jedoch das, was auf Erden geschieht, insofern nur ein Fortschritt ist, als die Menschen das, was aus der geistigen Welt in sie einströmt, zum äußeren Dasein zu erwecken verstehen. Aber ein solcher Gedanke müßte eigentlich unser ganzes Fühlen und Empfinden durchdringen können. Wir müssen ihn vor allen Dingen in Zusammenhang bringen können mit dem, was uns zum Beispiel als Geschichtswissenschaft bekannt ist, und wir müßten ihn dann von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus auf die Gegenwart anwenden können. Wir müßten uns zum Beispiel fragen können, aber mit Ernst fragen können — diese Dinge sind natürlich Hypothesen, aber sie führen auf Wirklichkeiten in einem realen Gedankenleben -: Was wäre geworden, wenn etwa Kolumbus oder irgend jemand anderer, der wesentlich mit der Entwickelung der neueren Menschheit verbunden ist, zum Beispiel Gutenberg, der Erfinder der Buchdruckerkunst, oder sagen wir selbst Luther, im 9. oder im 8. Jahrhundert, kurz, zu einer andern historischen Zeit geboren worden wären? Was wäre dann mit denjenigen Persönlichkeiten geworden, die diese Namen tragen? - Ganz gewiß wären sie, wenn sie in andere Zeiten geboren worden wären, dasjenige nicht geworden, als was sie uns heute in der Geschichte erscheinen, Natürlich kann das nicht sein, die Weltenentwickelung hat ihr Karma; aber die hypothetische Betrachtung einer solchen Sache führt auf Wirklichkeiten. Sie wären wahrscheinlich Persönlichkeiten geworden, von denen die äußere Geschichte nicht spricht. Aber dennoch können Sie sich auf der andern Seite nicht vorstellen, daß in solchem Falle im Herannahen der neueren Zeit zum Beispiel die Buchdruckerkunst nicht erfunden worden wäre, und daß im Heraufkommen dieser neueren Zeit die Reformation nicht gekommen wäre, können Sie sich auch nicht vorstellen. Daraus aber ersehen Sie, daß die Hauptsache das ist, daß wir auf das hinblicken, was aus der geistigen Welt heraus der Menschheit sich mitteilt, und daß wir lernen, in einem viel größeren Maße noch als es die Gegenwart überhaupt vermag, den Menschen als ein Instrument anzusehen, durch welches das Geistige aus der geistigen Welt in das Erdenleben hereintritt.

Ich sagte, gerade in der Gegenwart ist der Mensch mit Bezug auf diese Dinge in einen scharfen Konflikt hineingestellt. Die Gegenwart erkennt nicht an, daß so etwas stattfindet wie ein Hinunterrinnen eines geistigen Entwickelungsstromes in die Erdenereignisse; sie erkennt nicht an, daß der Mensch ein bloßes Instrument ist, und sie will eine Gesellschaftsordnung aufbauen, welche dies nicht anerkennt. Sie will eine Gesellschaftsordnung aufbauen, die eigentlich nur mit dem ganz persönlichen Menschen, der hier auf der Erde steht, rechnet, und [nur] diesen ganz persönlichen Menschen ins Auge fassen. Die äußerste Karikatur, die nur den allerindividuellsten Menschen ins Auge faßt, ist der neulich schon erwähnte Leninismus oder Trotzkismus. Diese Gesellschaftsanschauung kennt nur den Menschen, der hier auf der Erde steht. Ich meine damit nicht allein das Theoretische - das wäre das wenigste —, sondern ich meine die Lebenskonsequenzen. Solch ein Lenin oder Troizki suchen — sogar auf einem Gebiete, wo es am wenigsten hinpaßt — die Gesellschaftsstruktur so einzurichten, als ob eben nichts anderes in Betracht käme, als der einzelne fleischliche Mensch. Das aber ist ein Ideal, das sich auf dem Gebiete des sogenannten Sozialismus seit Jahrzehnten herangebildet hat, und Leninismus und Trotzkismus sind ja nur die letzten fratzenhaften Wehen einer solchen Anschauung, die sich eben seit langem herangebildet hat.

Sie sehen, worauf es ankommt: den Weg wieder zurückzufinden zu dem Sinn des Pfingstereignisses. Gewiß, bei den einzelnen Jüngern, auf deren Köpfe sich die Flammen gesenkt hatten, sollte individuelles geistiges Leben erleuchtend auferstehen. Aber es sollte geistiges Leben sein, durch das sich verteilt auf die einzelnen Glieder das größt denkbare Maß des Sachlichen, für das der Mensch nur ein Instrument ist.

Der Sinn dieser Pfingstverkündigung ist aber zugleich noch etwas anderes, und das ist das Wichtigste: die Bekräftigung dessen, daß der Mensch seinen Wert dadurch nicht verliert, daß er für den fortwährend in die Menschheit hineinfließenden Geist ein Instrument bildet. Dann behält also der Mensch trotzdem seinen persönlichen Wert. Das ist etwas, was man heute nicht nur theoretisch einsehen kann, sondern demgegenüber es notwendig ist, die Lebenskonsequenzen zu ziehen und es überzuführen in die Art, wie man denkt über Staatenbildung, über Moral und gesellschaftliches Leben. Darauf kommt es an, daß ein Gedanke weckend ist, und ein Aufwecken war es ja, als sich die Flammen auf das Haupt eines jeden einzelnen der Jünger heruntersenkten. Und ein Verschlafen der Zeitereignisse, das heute nur zu furchtbar verbreitet ist, ist ein Sich-Versündigen gegen die Zeitereignisse. Man kann aber in dem Entwickelungszyklus, in dem wir jetzt angekommen sind, ganz unmöglich zu einem Aufwachen gegenüber den Ereignissen kommen, wenn man nicht mit einer gewissen inneren Beweglichkeit des Seelenlebens die Ereignisse betrachtet, wenn man nicht vermag, Wesentliches, Richtiges zu unterscheiden von Unwesentlichem und Unrichtigem. Was uns heute überflutet, besonders an Zeitungslektüre, das kann nicht so aufgenommen werden, daß alles gleich ist; sondern in tausend Buch- oder Zeitungsspalten können zwei Zeilen sein, die von ungeheurer, wesentlicher Bedeutung sind, die hindeuten urphänomenal bezeichnend — wenn ich den Goetheschen Ausdruck gebrauchen will - auf das, was eigentlich vorgeht. Und das andere kann alles verschwendete Druckerschwärze sein. Worauf es ankommt, das ist, daß man eine innere Empfindung in sich auferwecken muß gegenüber dem Wichtigen und Wesentlichen und gegenüber dem Unwichtigen und Unwesentlichen. Diese Empfindung ergibt sich in der Seele, wenn man unbewußt das gewinnt, was einem in der Gegenwart entgegentritt an großen Weltenperspektiven, welche die Geisteswissenschaft eröffnen kann. Er soll nur dies in sein Empfinden einfügen, soll nur versuchen, allmählich so zu fühlen, wie er fühlen wird, wenn die Geisteswissenschaft in ihm lebendig wird. Es ist dann allerdings notwendig, daß man sich das innere Vertrauen zu dem, was man gewissermaßen innerlich erfühlt, in einem viel größeren Maße verschafft, als es heute die Menschen gewohnt sind. Wer nämlich erwartet, daß sich das, was er heute bekommt, gleich morgen an weithin leuchtenden Ereignissen zeigt, der wird in der Regel nicht zurechtkommen mit einer wahren Beobachtung. Es kann etwas richtig sein, aber es können sich die Ereignisse kaschieren, daß dies vielleicht erst in einer fernen Zukunft zum Ausdruck kommt. Aber dafür ist es notwendig, daß wir uns in einer richtigen Weise in die Welt hineinstellen, dafür ist es wichtig, daß wir richtige Vorstellungen haben über das, was geschieht.

So gehen eigentlich in der gegenwärtigen Strömung der Entwickelung außerordentlich wichtige Dinge vor sich, die schon an den äußerlichen Ereignissen zu beobachten sind, wenn man diese äußerlichen Ereignisse so ins Auge fassen wird, wie ich es eben angedeutet habe: daß man das Wesentliche von dem Unwesentlichen unterscheidet, daß man den Mut dazu hat, das Wesentliche von dem Unwesentlichen zu unterscheiden.

Was heute geschieht - ich will nur eines herausheben -, das ist, daß sich in einer merkwürdigen Art vorbereitet die Bedeutungslosigkeit des äußeren britischen Reiches, die Lähmung desjenigen, was bisher die Welt eigentlich historisch als Britentum gekannt hat, indem das, was spezifisch britisch war, übergeht auf den Pan-Anglo-Amerikanismus. Das entwickelt sich in der unmittelbarsten Gegenwart. Es entwickelt sich etwas, was dahin tendiert, daß das Britentum verschwindet in den Pan-Anglo-Amerikanismus. Eine solche Sache liegt durchaus in jener Entwickelung, die wir auch schon in der verschiedensten Weise angedeutet haben, widerspricht ihr nicht. Aber auf der andern Seite ist es von einer ungeheuren Wichtigkeit, einen solchen tragenden Gedanken wirklich ins Auge zu fassen, denn es hängt etwas davon ab, ob man in sein Vorstellungsleben hinein richtige oder falsche Kräfte nimmt. Die Zeit kann uns in dieser Beziehung viel lehren, darauf muß man immer wieder und wieder hinweisen. Gewiß, die Menschen an den Fronten sind andere geworden. Das weiß jeder, der mit den Tatsachen bekannt ist. In welcher Weise sie sich umgewandelt haben, das zu erörtern, ist hier nicht der Ort. Aber unter denen, die innerhalb der Fronten gelebt haben, sind diejenigen doch noch außerordentlich zahlreich, die so denken wie im Juli 1914, die seitdem nichts gelernt haben, die genau dieselben Begriffe anwenden, die man im Juli 1914 angewendet hat. Wenn man mit den Menschen spricht, ist es so, daß sie einem dasselbe sagen, was sie auch im Juli 1914 hätten sagen können. Aber eigentlich kann der kein wacher Mensch heute sein, für den nicht jeder Begriff eine andere Prägung, eine andere Wertigkeit bekommen hat. Und aus diesem Grunde wird die Frage gestellt werden müssen — aber diese Frage sollte sich jeder als eine ganz ernste und, ich möchte sagen, christliche Gewissensfrage stellen -: Wo sind die Menschen heute zu finden, die vor dem Juli 1914 die Möglichkeit sich so recht vor Augen geführt haben, daß das kommen könnte, was nun bis zum heutigen Tage gekommen ist? Ich könnte - und Sie wissen, ich sage es nicht aus Albernheit - die Frage auch anders formulieren. In dem Vortragszyklus, den ich vor dem Kriege in Wien gehalten habe, findet sich neben anderem ein Ausdruck, der da lautet: Das gesellschaftliche menschliche Leben trägt jetzt etwas in sich, was man mit einem Karzinom vergleichen kann, was eine Krebskrankheit ist im Leben der Menschheit. Das mußte man damals ins Auge fassen. Aber viele Menschen sind es, die das bis heute noch nicht ins Auge gefaßt haben. Ich frage: Wie tief ist es verstanden worden, daß damals von dem Karzinom in der menschlichen Entwickelung gesprochen worden ist?

Ich will damit nur hinweisen auf den Ernst, mit dem Geisteswissenschaft aufgenommen werden sollte, wenn sie auf die Ereignisse der Gegenwart angewendet werden soll. Es ist ja zum großen Teil die Ursache, warum Geisteswissenschaft so zurückgewiesen wird, darin zu suchen, daß den Menschen dieser Ernst, mit dem die Geisteswissenschaft gemeint ist, furchtbar unbequem ist. Die Theorien der Geisteswissenschaft gefallen ja manchen, aber der Ernst, der in ihr liegt gegenüber den Forderungen des Lebens, ist vielen, denen die Theorien gefallen, höchst, höchst unbequem. Das alles führt uns unmittelbar dahin, vielleicht etwas genauer zu verstehen, was ich jetzt in diese Betrachtungen auch einschalten muß, was wichtig ist ins Auge zu fassen, wenn man Geisteswissenschaft in den Fundamenten verstehen will.

Wenn heute der Mensch etwas in der Welt verstehen will, hat er eigentlich immer das Gefühl: Die Mittel zu diesem Verständnis müssen irgendwie in dem Gegenwärtigen gesucht werden. Aber das Geistige kann nicht allein in dem Gegenwärtigen gesucht werden. Wenn man sich zum Beispiel in bezug auf das Geistige mit dem Menschen bekanntmachen will, so kann nicht einmal das Wesen des Menschen zwischen Geburt und Tod nur durch die Erkenntnis des gegenwärtigen Menschen erreicht werden. Warum? Nehmen Sie an, Sie seien fünfzig Jahre alt geworden - es kann selbstverständlich auch ein anderes Jahr sein - und Sie entwickeln in Ihrer Seele irgendein Leben, das zusammenhängt mit den Kräften der Empfindungsseele. Da werden Sie unwillkürlich aus dem Vorstellen der Gegenwart heraus die Anschauung haben: Das ist meine Empfindungskeele, die ich dadrinnen habe; die äußert sich, wenn sich das Empfindungsleben der Seele äußert. Das ist aber ganz und gar nicht wahr. Sondern Ihre Empfindungsseele kam zur Entwickelung in der Zeit von Ihrem einundzwanzigsten bis achtundzwanzigsten Lebensjahr, und was damals in der Seele war und mit dem achtundzwanzigsten Jahre für die Gegenwart aufhörte, in der Seele zu sein, das wirkt nach; das gebrauchen Sie heute, wenn Sie die Kräfte der Empfindungsseele ins Auge fassen. Nicht die jetzigen Kräfte der Empfindungsseele, sondern die Kräfte von damals gebrauchen Sie. Das Vergangene wirkt. Es ist nicht wahr, daß alles in der Gegenwart sich erschöpft, was wirkt; sondern das Vergangene wirkt nach. Die geistige Welt muß aufgefaßt werden wie eine Musik, aber noch wie eine reale Musik. Sie könnten unmöglich eine Melodie auffassen, wenn Sie beim dritten Tone den ersten verloren hätten; im dritten Ton wirkt der erste weiter fort, er wirkt darinnen. Im geistigen Wirken ist es so, daß etwas nicht nur nachwirkt durch das Behalten im Gedächtnis, sondern daß es in der Realität nachwirkt. Die Wirkungen vergangener Kräfte des geistigen Lebens in den einzelnen Seelenteilen sind wie die Teile des GeistigSeelischen fortwährend da, aber in noch anderem Sinne. Unser einundzwanzigstes, zweiundzwanzigstes Jahr wirkt in uns noch später, es ist da; und es ist da, insofern es in der Vergangenheit da war, nicht insofern es in der Gegenwart da ist. Neue Vorstellungen sich zu bilden — und was ich Ihnen eben jetzt entwickelt habe, ist eine neue Vorstellung, sie findet sich nirgends unter den Vorstellungen der Gegenwart -, neue Vorstellungen sich zu bilden, ist den Menschen unbequem. Sie wollen sich zum Beispiel nicht sagen: Wenn ich ein Greis bin und graue Haare und eine Glatze bekommen habe, so rede und denke ich dennoch immer mit den Kräften meiner Jugend, meiner Kindheit. — Und einfach wahr ist es: Was die Schule in Ihnen veranlaßt hat, wie Sie Ihre Zeit vom achtzehnten bis achtundzwanzigsten Jahr zubringen, das wirkt durch das ganze Leben hindurch. Sie können es später nicht durch andere Kräfte ersetzen, sondern nur, indem Sie sich zu denjenigen Quellen wenden, welche die Geisteswissenschaft eröffnet. Das ist das einzige Mittel, wodurch manches im Leben ersetzt werden kann. Sie werden es nicht unbegreiflich finden, daß eigentlich jetzt viele Menschen im Grunde genommen unfruchtbar bleiben. Das hängt mit dem Erziehungssystem zusammen. Wir können ja nicht irgend etwas entwickeln, was nicht während unserer Kindheit in uns gelegt ist, wenn es eben nicht durch die gewöhnlichen Kräfte, durch die wir uns an den Menschen selbst wenden, in uns hineingelegt ist.

Um solche Vorstellungen richtig zu fassen, dazu gehört gar vieles. Dazu gehört vor allen Dingen - ich muß das von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten aus immer wieder und wieder betonen -, daß die Menschen wiederum lernen, in einem viel höheren Sinne, als sie es heute wollen, an das Leben zu glauben, an die Geistigkeit des Lebens zu glauben. Es wird heute dem Menschen verhältnismäßig einleuchten, vielleicht an seine geistige Herkunft zu glauben. Er wird verhältnismäßig leicht dazu zu bringen sein, daran zu glauben, daß sich mit dem, was sich in der Vererbung durch die Generationen als Materielles entwickelt-hat, ein Geistiges verbunden hat, das aus einer geistigen Welt herkommt. Aber das genügt nicht. Was notwendig ist, das ist, daß wir nicht nur an die geistige Herkunft eines Stückes von unserem Leben glauben, sondern an die geistige Herkunft unseres ganzen Lebens. Wie das?

Heute glauben wir ja aus den Entwickelungstendenzen der Menschheit heraus, die ich öfter angeführt habe, daß wir mit dem zwanzigsten Lebensjahre im allgemeinen unser Leben bis zur Vollendung getrieben haben. Wir glauben, daß wir in den Zwanzigerjahren reif sind, in eine Stadtverordnetenversammlung, in die Parlamente und dergleichen gewählt zu werden, weil wir da eben über alles entscheiden können. Jene Zeiten glauben ja die Menschen längst überwunden zu haben - die aber, wie wir wissen, vorhanden waren -, wo man auf ein höheres Alter gewartet hat, in der Voraussetzung, daß jedes neue Jahr des Lebens auch neue Offenbarungen bringt. Für das Kind erwarten wir heute, wenn die Geschlechtsreife eintritt, daß auch die Seelenfähigkeit sich umändert. Wenn auch nicht in so radikaler Weise, so tun wir das doch für die andern Jahre der Kindheit. Wir schauen der Entwickelung zu und sind überzeugt: Bis in die Zwanzigerjahre entwickelt sich das Menschenleben. Aber dann hören wir auf, weiter an ein Entwickeln zu glauben. Wir denken, wir seien fertig; wir erwarten von den späteren Jahren des Lebens nicht, daß in jedem neuen Jahre uns neue Offenbarungen kommen. Wir können es auch nicht, wenn wir bei den gewöhnlichen Anschauungen bleiben. Aber wir wissen, daß die Menschheit im Laufe der Entwickelung immer jünger wird, und heute wird sie nicht älter als siebenundzwanzig Jahre. Dann gibt die leiblich-körperhafte Entwickelung nichts mehr her. So muß das, was zur Weiterentwickelung beitragen soll, aus dem Geiste geholt werden. Aber wenn es aus dem Geiste geholt wird, verbindet es sich mit unserer Seele. Fragen Sie nur einmal, wie wenige Menschen dies heute zugeben werden, daß wenn Sie heute ein zweiundzwanzigjähriger junger Dachs sind, und dann fünfundvierzig Jahre alt werden, sich einfach dadurch, daß man im höheren Alter eben anderes durchmacht als in der Jugend, mit fünfundvierzig Jahren durch innere Offenbarung etwas ergeben kann, was sich früher nicht hätte ergeben können. Wer glaubt denn an die Produktivität, an die Fruchtbarkeit des Alters? Und weil man daran nicht glaubt, deshalb ist sie auch nicht da; denn man ist nicht darauf aufmerksam, wie jedes neue Jahr auch neue Offenbarungen bringt. Aber bedenken Sie, wieviel sich im Menschenleben dadurch ändern würde, wenn dieser Glaube wirklich allgemein würde, wenn alle Menschen glauben würden: Ich muß warten auf das Älterwerden, dann werde ich durch mich selbst Dinge erfahren, die ich früher nicht habe erfahren können. Erwartungsvolles Leben, hoffnungsvolles Leben - wo ist es denn heute? Aber solch ein Gedanke, solch eine Empfindung, übergegangen gedacht in das menschliche Gemeinschaftsleben: Denken Sie einmal, was für eine ungeheure Bedeutung dieses hätte! Welche ungeheure Bedeutung es hätte, wenn zu all den verschiedenen «Gleichheitsdemolierungen» — möchte ich es nennen -, die in der heutigen Zeit spielen, im Zusammenleben der Menschen das Bewußtsein hinzukäme: Einfach dadurch, daß man vierzig Jahre alt geworden ist, kann man etwas erfahren haben, was man mit siebenundzwanzig Jahren noch nicht erfahren kann. Denken Sie, wie dann ein Siebenundzwanzigjähriger zu einem Vierzigjährigen stehen könnte, wenn das eine naturgemäße Empfindung wäre! Natürlich kann es heute nicht sein, weil heute oft die Siebzigjährigen nicht älter sind als siebenundzwanzig, und oft gerade die Repräsentativsten nicht älter sind — und es nicht bemerken. Also man kann es heute nicht als eine reale Forderung verlangen.

Das ist es aber, was das Leben bringen muß, und was die Zukunft fordert: daß die Menschen anfangen, das Geistige wieder als eine Realität anzusehen. Was ist heute dem Menschen als Geist einzig und allein bekannt? Im großen und ganzen nichts anderes als eine Summe von abstrakten Begriffen. Zu einer Summe von abstrakten Begriffen kommt der Mensch, von solchen abstrakten Begriffen, die eben gerade dadurch charakteristisch sind, daß sie bis zum siebenundzwanzigsten Jahre ganz gut aufgenommen werden können. Aber mit dem, daß wir hier auf der Erde leben zwischen Geburt und Tod, zuerst sprieBendes, sprossendes Leben haben, dann mit dem achtundzwanzigsten Jahre stehenbleiben in dieser Entwickelung, und dann vom fünfunddreißigsten Jahre ab unser absteigendes Leben beginnen: mit dem ist ja eine reale, konkrete Geistigkeit verbunden, die sich ebenso verändert, wie sich der äußere Mensch verändert; und diese konkrete geistige Realität macht so ziemlich einen entgegengesetzten Gang durch als der äußere Mensch. Der äußere Mensch wird alt, wird runzelig, aber sein Ätherleib, sein Bildekräfteleib wird immer jünger; nur kümmert sich der Mensch heute nicht um diesen im Alter jüngerwerdenden Bildekräfteleib. Die Menschen gehen herum, haben Glatzen und graue Haare, und sie wissen nicht, daß sie einen Bildekräfteleib haben, der sprießendes, sprossendes Leben gerade dann hat, wenn sie anfangen, graue Haare zu bekommen, der ihnen gerade dann Dinge geben kann, die ihnen früher nicht gegeben werden konnten. Das ist allerdings durch den Zeitcharakter bedingt. Aber die Zeit braucht in dieser Beziehung Umkehr. Die Zeit braucht Wandelung der Begriffe. Eines, was in dieser Wandelung der Gedanken besonders gegeben sein muß, ist das, daß die Gedanken wieder ein bißchen kräftig und gesund werden, daß sie nicht haften an dem, was sich nur von außen darbietet; sonst kommen wir auf allen Gebieten auf die furchtbarsten Einseitigkeiten hinaus. Mit dem Gedanken die Wirklichkeit durchdringen auf irgendeinem Gebiete, das ist es, worauf es ankommt. Wir können auch das geschichtliche Leben der Menschen nicht verstehen, wenn wir nicht imstande sind, demjenigen, was äußerlich an Weisheit läuft, die innere Weisheit entgegenzubringen. Wir haben ja durch verschiedene Gründe, die mit dem Riß, mit dem Sprung, der in der Menschheitsentwickelung ist, zusammenhängen, aufgehört, manches Große zu verstehen, was noch in atavistischer Weise gefunden worden ist. Auf manchen Gebieten glauben die Menschen heute, originell zu sein.

Ich habe vor längerer Zeit einmal in Dornach in einem Vortrage die Frage aufgeworfen, was ein Publikum sagen würde, wenn ein Theaterregisseur es bei einer «Faust»-Aufführung unternehmen würde, nachdem Faust dem Erdgeist gegenüber zusammengestürzt ist, den Wagner ein klein wenig verändert, aber sonst in der äußeren Erscheinung genau ebenso wieFaust auftreten zu lassen. Und dennoch, so etwas müßte man einmal machen. Ich will Ihnen den Grund sagen, weshalb man es machen müßte.

Was liest man heute in den «Faust»-Erklärungen, was haben die Leute im Bewußtsein, wenn sie auch von dieser Sache, die ich da meine zwischen Wagner und Faust, sprechen? Sie brauchen sich nur an die wahnwitzigen Deklamationen mancher «Fäuste» zu erinnern und an die abgeschmackten Töne, die von den «Wagners» kommen, dann werden Sie eine Vorstellung bekommen von dem, was hier vorliegt, wenn man noch dazu immer nur denkt an den großen, in die Wolkenhöhen hinaufragenden Faust und an den pedantischen Wagner, der auf der Bühne auch noch immer so dargestellt wird, daß er ein bißchen humpelt und so weiter. Aber was liegt denn eigentlich vor? Faust verzweifelt an den verschiedenen Wissenschaften. Das betrachtet man ja zumeist schon als etwas Allertiefstes, obwohl es eigentlich im Grunde genommen für viele Menschen, die gar nicht sehr tief sind, heute schon eine Trivialität ist. Aber was betrachtet man nicht alles als Tiefstes? Wie oft hört man gegenüber mancherlei andern Forderungen an ein Begreifen der Geisteswelt die aufstellen, man solle sich doch an die tiefsten Faust-Gedanken halten, zum Beispiel von dem Allerhalter, der mich und dich und sich selbst faßt und erhält, in dem Gespräch Fausts mit Gretchen. Man bedenkt nicht, daß doch Faust diese Worte dem sechzehnjährigen Gretchen sagt und sie auf deren Verstand und Empfindungsweise münzt. Die ganze Menschheit läßt sich gerne katechisieren, indem sie sich auf den Standpunkt des sechzehnjährigen Gretchens herunterschraubt. Auch Philosophieprofessoren habe ich schon kennengelernt, die diese Gretchen-Katechismen als die höchste Weisheit hinstellen. - Aber auch das ist es nicht am Anfange der Dichtung, daß Faust an allen Wissenschaften verzweifelt. Sondern der springende Punkt liegt darin, daß Faust sich abwendet von dem, was sich ihm offenbart von dem Zeichen des Makrokosmos, der ganzen Welt. Er will zunächst nichts wissen von den Beziehungen des Menschen zu dem ganzen umfassenden großen All. Er wendet sich zum Erdgeist, zu dem, was ihm offenbaren will, was der Mensch nur aus den Kräften der Erde hat. Was sich ihm aus dem Makrokosmos offenbart, das ist ihm ein Schauspiel, «aber ach, ein Schauspiel nur!» Da wendet er sich ab. Aber der Erdgeist weist ihn von sich. Faust glaubte durch den Erdgeist irgend etwas ergreifen zu können, was mit seinem tiefsten Wesen zusammenhängt. Der Erdgeist bringt ihn zum Niederstürzen. Und dann die Worte: «Du gleichst dem Geist, den du begreifst, nicht mir!»

Nun frage man: Wer ist es, den der Faust begreift? Er selbst sagt: «Nicht dir! - Wem denn?» — und herein tritt Wagner. Alles, was du bisher entwickelt hast, ist bloßes Gefühlsstreben; was du schon in dir trägst, schaue es an - in Wagner! Das ist die andere Natur des Faust. Das ist die dramatische, wirkliche Antwort! Im Drama wird die Entwickelung durch die Tatsachen gegeben. Faust soll es begreiflich gemacht werden, daß er im Grunde genommen in allem Konktreten, das er bis dahin entwickelt hat, noch nicht mehr ist als sein Famulus, und gerade durch diese Etappe der Selbsterkenntnis soll er ein Stück weitergeführt werden. Man könnte gerade die Realität darstellen, wenn man die zwei ganz gleich auf die Bühne nebeneinandertreten ließe. Aber dazu müßte man den Mut haben, solche Worte wie die: «Du gleichst dem Geist, den du begreifst, nicht mir!» - «Nicht dir! Wem denn?» - viel ernster zu nehmen als bisher. Dann müßte man sich mit seinen Gedanken ganz hineinfinden in die Situation. Und so ist sie im Drama dargestellt.

Und wiederum - betrachten wir etwas anderes. Faust hat sich von dem Zeichen des Makrokosmos abgewendet. Er will nicht die Kräfte erleben, die den Menschen an den Makrokosmos, an das ganze All binden. So lebte es im Grunde genommen in Goethes Seele selbst, als er die ersten Teile seines «Faust» geschrieben hatte. Und als Faust das nachgeholt hat, was er in seiner Jugend versäumt hat, wenigstens in der Rückschau durch den Osterspaziergang und durch die Osternacht überhaupt, da kommt er über die Etappe der Selbsterkenntnis, die ihm in Wagner entgegengetreten ist, hinaus und kommt dazu, das, was er hatte vorübergehen lassen, was ihm die Osterbotschaft sein kann, nachzuholen. Lesen Sie die Sätze; Wagner will es nicht. Die einzelnen Worte sind außerordentlich prägnant, zum Beispiel:

Wie nur dem Kopf nicht alle Hoffnung schwindet,
Der immerfort an schalem Zeuge klebt,
Mit gierger Hand nach Schätzen gräbt,
Und froh ist, wenn er Regenwürmer findet!

Es kann gar nicht anders sein, als daß diesem Kopf «alle Hoffnung schwindet». Das ist das Motiv der Selbstbeobachtung. Faust zieht nur alle Konsequenzen, aber er holt nach, was er in seiner Jugend versäumt hat. Er holt es nach und kann es nachholen. Dadurch wird er eine Stufe höher geführt. Dadurch rechtfertigt es sich, daß jetzt noch einmal die Frage aufgestellt wird: «Wem denn?» Dem, der ihm im «Pudel» entgegenkommt: Mephistopheles. Aber was ist dies? Dies ist diejenige Gegenkraft der menschlich strebenden Kräfte, die sich dem Menschen so entgegenwirft, wie Faust sich dem Erdgeist entgegenwirft, da er mit dem Makrokosmos nichts zu tun haben will. Das sind die luziferischen Kräfte, die aus des Menschen Innerem herauskommen. Daher ist Mephistopheles zunächst mit luziferischen Zügen ausgestaltet, und das ist im wesentlichen der Mephistopheles des ersten Teiles der Faust-Dichtung: ein luziferisches Wesen.

Aber schon am Ende der neunziger Jahre war Goethe daran, über das, was aus seiner Jugend stammte, hinauszuwachsen. Denn lesen Sie den «Prolog im Himmel»: Was darin entwickelt wird, ist nicht mehr an die Offenbarungen des Erdgeistes gebunden; da beschäftigt sich Goethe schon mit dem Impuls, der aus dem Makrokosmos ‚ hereinkommt. Goethe ist über seinen eigenen Anfang hinausgewachsen. Und jetzt tritt etwas in seine Seele, was ungeheuer bedeutungsvoll und wichtig ist, und was uns, wenn man es erkennt, tief hineinschauen läßt in die Goethe-Seele.

Goethe hatte die Tradition der Faust-Sage, die Tradition der nordischen, deutschen Mythe. Da war der Mephistopheles da. Aber in dem Augenblick, da er, gedrängt durch Schiller, den «Faust» weiterführt, da wird Mephistopheles - Goethe bringt es sich nicht recht zum Bewußtsein — eine Figur, die ihn innerlich wurmt, mit der er nicht recht zu Rande kommt. - Jakob Minor, der auch ein «Faust»-Erklärer ist und manches Geistreiche gesagt hat, hatte eine merkwürdige Erklärung dafür gefunden, daß Goethe gar nicht vorwärtskam, als er den «Faust» wieder aufnahm. Er meint nämlich, daß Goethe, als er gegen die Fünfzigerjahre stand, alt geworden wäre. Ich möchte nur wissen, wie es sein sollte, daß man überhaupt einen «Faust» schreiben könnte, wenn die Dichterkraft mit den Fünfzigern versiegen würde und man doch die Kräfte der Jahre nach fünfzig auch in die Dichtung hineinbringen müßte, wenn nicht dem Menschen Jugendkraft erblühen könnte aus einem Leben, wie es Goethe zu führen verstand. Aber Mephistopheles wurmte in seiner Seele, instinktiv wurmte er ihn. Und der ließ ihn nicht weiterkommen, weil der Konflikt FaustMephistopheles nicht recht ging. Goethe hatte einmal den Faust an die größten Menschheitsfragen herangeführt, und das ging jetzt nicht mit dem Mephistopheles. Dieser hatte einen luziferischen Charakter angenommen. Da hat man es nur mit den Kräften zu tun, die aus dem Gefühls- und Empfindungsleben herauskommen. In dem Augenblick aber, wo Goethe den «Prolog im Himmel» entwickelt, da steht Faust dem Makrokosmos gegenüber. Da geht es nicht mehr, daß man Faust bloß mit denjenigen Mächten kämpfen läßt, die im Inneren des Menschen leben; da geht es nicht mehr, dem Mephistopheles bloß den luziferischen Charakter zu lassen. Das spürte Goethe. Und wirklich nicht, um pedantisch zu werden, sondern um auf Wichtiges hinzuweisen, möchte ich auf einige Kleinigkeiten aufmerksam machen. Denken Sie, daß der Herr im «Prolog im Himmel» sagt:

Von allen Geistern, die verneinen,
Ist mir der Schalk am wenigsten zur Last.

Dann muß es noch andere Geister geben, die verneinen. Aber im «Faust» ist nur der eine: Mephistopheles. Und denken Sie, daß Mephistopheles im «Prolog» sagt:

Am meisten lieb’ ich mir die vollen frischen Wangen,
Für einen Leichnam bin ich nicht zu Haus.

Und erinnern Sie sich an den Schluß, wo er sich um den Leichnam wahrhaftig ernst genug bemüht. Was liegt da vor? Das, daß Goethe spürte: was er von der Mythe, von der Faust-Sage empfangen hatte als die einheitliche Mephistophelesfigur, das spaltet sich, wenn man hinausgeht in den Makrokosmos, in zwei. In Goethe lebte es, zwiespältig zu empfinden: luziferisch und ahrimanisch. Er ist dann darin nicht weitergekommen, weil es Geisteswissenschaft zu seiner Zeit noch nicht gab. Aber das brachte ihn zum Stocken. Als er jedoch später makrokosmisches Geschehen und Menschheitsgeschehen zu verbinden hatte in. der «Klassischen Walpurgisnacht», und am Schlusse, wo sich makrokosmisches Allgeschehen und Menschheitserleben in eins verweben, da mußte sein Mephistopheles einen ahrimanischen Charakter annehmen. Das ist ihm bis zu einem hohen Grade gelungen. Aber alles eigentlich, was Goethe selbst über sein persönliches Verhältnis zu seinem «Faust» gesagt hat, steht unter dem Eindruck: Es geht nicht weiter. Wenn man von dem mittelalterlichen, pedantischen, aber trotzdem volkstümlichen Drama den Faust auf die große Weltenbühne hinausstellt, so hat man nötig, den Mephistopheles zu spalten in ein luziferisches und ein ahrimanisches Wesen. Deshalb wollte es bei Goethe nicht weitergehen. Es ist ihm dann gelungen — selbstverständlich will ich Goethe nicht korrigieren -, indem er sich immer mehr dem zweiten Teile der Dichtung näherte, seinem Mephistopheles ahrimanische Züge zu geben. Ein luziferisches Wesen liebt die «vollen frischen Wangen»; ein ahrimanisches hat es mit dem «Leichnam» zu tun, weil es mit dem, was wir in unserem Wahrnehmungsvermögen erleben, auch unser Bewußtsein zwischen Geburt und Tod durchdringt. Gerade wenn man eine Persönlichkeit ansieht wie die Goethesche, so erkennt man, wie eine solche Persönlichkeit die Jugendkräfte beibehält, aber mit diesen Jugendkräften immer neue und neue Lebenserfahrungen macht. Nicht weil er alt geworden war, ist das eingetreten, was in einer so merkwürdigen Weise für das Ende der Neunzigerjahre des 18. Jahrhunderts aus Goethes Lebensgeschichte hervorgeht, sondern weil er eine Krisis durchmachte, die gewisse Kräfte seiner Jugend zu neuer Auferstehung brachte, sie auferstehen ließ, sie ihn recht als Pfingstwunder erleben ließ. Was ich jetzt über «Faust» gesagt habe, ist weiter ausgeführt in der Schrift, die jetzt wieder erscheinen soll: «Goethes «Faust» als Bild seiner esoterischen Weltanschauung». Diese soll den ersten Teil eines demnächst erscheinenden Büchelchens bilden: «Goethes Geistesart»; der zweite sollen Goethes Gedanken über seinen «Faust» sein, und der dritte Teil einige Gedankenausführungen über das «Märchen von der grünen Schlange und der schönen Lilie».

Ich habe dies eben angeführt aus dem Grunde, weil ich darauf aufmerksam machen will, daß es wirklich nötig ist, dasjenige — aber auch das Vergangene -, was die Geistessubstanz der Menschheit enthält, mit eindringlichen Gedanken einmal zu erfassen, daß wir ernst nehmen, was da ist. Denn wir haben seit vier bis fünf Jahrzehnten vollständig verlernt, gerade das Größte in der Menschheitsvergangenheit mit vollem Ernste aufzunehmen. Furchtbar viel ist in den letzten vierzig bis fünfzig Jahren versäumt worden, und notwendig ist es, daß das, was geistig da wat, in einer allerdings erneuerten Gestalt auftrete; denn es war in manchen Teilen atavistisch, und da konnte es in vieler Beziehung eine gewisse Kruste nicht durchbrechen.

Goethe konnte nicht zur Spaltung der Mephistophelesfigur in eine luziferische und eine ahrimanische kommen, dazu war die Zeit noch nicht reif. Aber es lebte diese Zwiespältigkeit in Goethes Natur. Kurz, lernen müssen wir, an das ganze Menschenleben zu glauben, nicht bloß an die Kindheit. Lernen müssen wir, ein erwartungsvolles Leben führen zu können. Denken Sie sich, wenn man darauf neugierig wäre: Was wird mit mir sein, wenn ich nun einmal fünfzig Jahre alt sein werde? Wie viele Menschen hegen heute solche Gedanken? Wie viele führen ein Leben, daß sie daran glauben, daß immer neuer Inhalt in die Menschenseele hineinströmt? Welche Veränderungen würden auch im sozialen Leben der Menschheit vor sich gehen, wenn dieser Glaube an das ganze Leben die Menschen ergriffe! Und welcher einfache Gedanke könnte es sein, der zu diesem Glauben an das ganze Menschenleben hinführt? Der Gedanke, der in der Frage besteht: Hätte es denn einen Sinn, daß wir im Durchschnitt siebzig Jahre alt werden, wenn wir mit achtundzwanzig Jahren mit unserer Entwickelung fertig wären? Warum sollten wir dann älter werden? Aber dazu sind allerdings einige naturwissenschaftliche Hilfen nötig, damit das, was als Geisteswissenschaft auftritt, mit dem verbunden werden kann, was man heute wissenschaftlich ernst nimmt.

Geisteswissenschaft, sagte ich -— und damit knüpfe ich an den Anfang der heutigen Betrachtung wieder an -, hat eigentlich innerhalb unserer Bewegung herzlich wenig erreicht. Und doch ist sie nicht aussichtslos. Das merkt man bei vielen Gelegenheiten. Man merkt es am besten dann, wenn der Fall eintritt —- und der ist in den letzten Jahren nicht selten eingetreten —, daß jüngere Menschen, die gerade in den Universitätsstudien stehen, herankommen, um irgend etwas ‚zu finden, was ihre besonderen Studien an die Geisteswissenschaft anknüpfen kann. Die jungen Leute, die heute Lebensanfänger sind, fühlen aus ihren Wissenschaften heraus, daß jede Wissenschaft übergeleitet werden kann in Geisteswissenschaft. Das werden vielleicht die fruchtbarsten Keime, die sich da ergeben könnten; denn man müßte die Dinge ernst nehmen. Aber die Schwierigkeiten ergeben sich sogleich, wenn nun diese jungen Leute mit dem, was sie von der Geisteswissenschaft in ihre Studien hineintragen wollen und was durchaus sachlich hineingetragen werden könnte, zum Beispiel eine Doktordissertation schreiben wollen. Die bringen sie nicht durch; sie können nicht realisieren, was sie wollen. Geisteswissenschaft.ist im Grunde genommen sachlich etwas sehr Aussichtsvolles, aber man hält die Leute ab, zwingt sie weg davon. Auch das muß man im vollsten Sinne des Wortes einsehen. Ich weiß einen Fall - es ist schon lange her, so daß ich es erzählen kann; die allerletzten Fälle der Gegenwart würden sich dazu nicht schicken -, wo hier in Berlin eine Doktordissertation eingereicht worden ist, in der keine andere Sünde zu finden war, als daß mein Buch «Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache» erwähnt war. Es war eine philosophische, nicht eine theologische Dissertation. Der Betreffende sagte: Was soll ich nun tun? Paulsen nimmt es nicht, er erklärte: Das können Sie nicht machen, daß Sie hier Steiner anführen. — Ich konnte dem Betreffenden nur antworten: Gehen Sie nach Münster, machen Sie Ihr Rigorosum bei Gideon Spicker,; da geht es vielleicht. — Es ging auch. Man muß die Dinge in ihrer Wirklichkeit betrachten, muß ins einzelne hineinschauen. Die Gesichtspunkte, die heute entwickelt werden, wenn einer seinen Lebensweg auf einem akademischen Untergrund aufzubauen sucht, sind ja zuweilen höchst merkwürdige. So erzählte mir einmal ein angehender Privatdozent - der allerdings auf eine Weise über diese Klippe hinweggekommen ist, die Sie gleich hören werden -, daß er es durch das geworden ist, was er mir selbst in folgender Weise erzählte: Er hatte eine ästhetische Abhandlung geschrieben über die Werke eines Dichters - ich will ihn nicht nennen, sonst könnte man die Sache durch irgendwelche Hilfsmittel erraten -; dann hatte er eine Abhandlung über Schopenhauer geschrieben und außerdem eine Doktordissertation selbstverständlich. Nun wollte er Privatdozent werden. Er ging an der entsprechenden Universität zu dem betreffenden Professor, der ihn gut leiden mochte und ihn für einen sehr befähigten Menschen hielt, und er glaubte, daß dieser Professor es auf eine leichte Weise bewirken könnte, daß er Privatdozent würde. Da sagte dieser Professor: Wissen Sie, das geht nicht; Sie haben jetzt eine Abhandlung geschrieben über einen Dichter, über eine ästhetische Frage. Aber dieser Dichter hat im 19. Jahrhundert gelebt. Das ist zu neu. Dann haben Sie über Schopenhauer geschrieben. Das kann von uns nicht als wissenschaftlich angesehen werden. — Der Betreffende sagte darauf: Was soll ich denn aber tun? — Und der Professor antwortete ihm: Nehmen Sie sich einmal irgendein älteres Bücherverzeichnis aus einem älteren Jahrhundert, und schlagen Sie sich einen möglichst unbekannten Ästhetiker auf, den kein Mensch kennt, und schreiben Sie das wird Ihnen sehr leicht werden, denn es gibt darüber keine Literatur, Sie brauchen nicht viel zu studieren -, schreiben Sie, was leicht zu schreiben ist, weil Sie ihn aus einem Bücherverzeichnis einfach auffinden. — Nun, dieser angehende Privatdozent nahm ein altes Bücherverzeichnis, schlug einen alten italienischen Ästhetiker auf, über den noch nichts geschrieben war, und verfaßte eine Abhandlung, die er als höchst ungenügend hielt, und die auch der als höchst ungenügend hielt, der sie zu beurteilen hatte. Aber sie war die genügende Unterlage, um Privatdozent zu werden!

Ich will dies nicht erwähnen, um die eine oder andere Persönlichkeit anzuschwärzen. Es handelt sich auch nicht um Persönlichkeiten, denn ich erzähle ein Beispiel, das mit Persönlichkeiten nichts zu tun hat. Denn der Mann, der die betreffende Dissertation zu beurteilen hatte, lachte über das, was er dem andern aus den Vorurteilen der Zeit heraus aufzuerlegen hatte. Und der andere, der Privatdozent werden wollte, lachte auch. Zwei außerordentlich nette Menschen, ein älterer und ein jüngerer. An den Menschen braucht es nicht zu liegen. Es liegt an der geistigen Substanz, in der unser Zeitalter steckt, und der gegenüber man nur aufkommen kann mit starken und kräftigen Gedanken. Und starke und kräftige Gedanken sind heute nur möglich, wenn die Menschheit aus dem Geiste heraus befruchtet wird, wenn wirklich nur auf dem gebaut wird, was Geisteswissenschaft geben kann. Also, ob man den Blick auf Goethe, ob man ihn auf die unmittelbare Gegenwart richtet, das ist es, was uns immer wieder aus den unmittelbaren Zeitverhältnissen entgegentönt: Erneuerung unserer Vorstellungswelt, Erneuerung unserer Empfindungswelt, Erneuerung unserer Gedanken, die sich in starker Weise der Gegenwart entgegenstellen. Davon hängt es ab, daß sich am einzelnen das Pfingstwunder erfüllt in der Seele, und daß sich dieses Pfingstwunder an der ganzen Menschheit, in unserer katastrophalen Gegenwart, als Lebenserneuerung erzeigt, indem die Menschen, erleuchtet durch den Geist, sich als individuelle Wesen so gegenüberstehen, daß durch das Zusammenwollen, durch das Zusammensinnen und Zusammenwachsen sich eine geistige Struktur der Menschheit bilden kann. Aus dem Menschen, aus dem Individuellen muß kommen, was für die Zukunft notwendig ist. Nicht dürfen wir warten auf eine allgemeine Botschaft, der die Menschheit zu folgen hätte. Solche Botschaft wird es nicht geben. Aber die Möglichkeit wird es geben, daß in jeder einzelnen Menschenseele das aufleuchtet, was aus der geistigen Welt kommen kann. Dann aber wird durch das Zusammenleben der Menschen das entstehen, was entstehen soll und was entstehen muß.

Fourteenth Lecture

At this time of year, we have in previous years made reflections connected with the feast of Pentecost. I have often said that we are now living in a time when events that intervene in the course of humanity are so significant and deviate so much from the ordinary course of human history that it is hardly possible to arrive at such ordinary festive reflections, which even in the present are all too often made, if not with the aim, then at least out of a desire to forget what is happening around us that is so catastrophic for humanity. But perhaps it may be permissible to point out the meaning of the Pentecost proclamation.

We know from previous Pentecost reflections that the most important thing about the Pentecost event is that the communal life of those who participated in the great Easter event of humanity became individualized. The fiery tongues descended upon the head of each one, and each one learned to understand, in a language that was unlike any other language and therefore understandable to all, what had flowed through human evolution as the mystery of Golgotha. The tongues of fire descended upon the heads of each one. It had already been the case that the souls of the individual disciples felt as if they were, so to speak, in a collective aura of the mystery of Golgotha. Then, through the event of Pentecost, what they had known only through their community life passed into their individual souls in such a way that each individual had enlightenment on his own. That is the most important thing, expressed in abstract form, of course. One must feel this individualization of the Easter message through the proclamation of Pentecost in one's soul if one wants to understand it in the right sense. But then one has the opportunity to understand what spiritual science aims at in the true sense of this proclamation of Pentecost. For the most outstanding aim of spiritual science is that every human soul should find within itself the spiritual core of its being, which can enlighten it about the goals of the world to which it should aspire. The future life of humanity is to develop in such a way that people are less dependent on always looking to what is given to them in terms of communal structure and social structure. Instead, we hope that people will become mature and capable of leading such a life out of themselves that others can lead the same life alongside them. Then an inner tolerance will take hold of souls, and freedom will be realized in the social structure. There is no other way to realize freedom in the world than this, that is, by the message of Pentecost passing into the individual human souls.

The message of Pentecost is a model for how we must work in our souls, how we must grasp what is offered to us through spiritual science. Therefore, one might say that, from a certain point of view, spiritual science itself is a perennial, everlasting, and lasting proclamation of Pentecost.

What the present can teach us above all, if we want to apply this teaching on our own ground, is that we must arm ourselves with patience. There are friends sitting here who, from the very beginning of our endeavors, have worked inwardly on what we call our spiritual scientific movement. It is now a good fifteen to sixteen, perhaps even seventeen years ago, and the thought should constantly be before our souls: how little, how infinitely little has actually been achieved in these fifteen to seventeen years. And from this should arise the other thought: how much we must arm ourselves with patience when we think that what spiritual science can be for us, what it can become through us, can really lead to a kind of revival of human existence.

What spiritual science can become — we should always compare it with the very little we have achieved in the past decade and a half. Certainly, many have taken up what spiritual science offers humanity. But that is only the smallest part, as numerous observations we have made show. Spiritual science has another task: to really flow into the social structure, into the whole life of humanity today. But if we want to grasp this idea, we must connect it with another, one that resounds today and at every hour from all world events, one that represents a certain conflict into which the human soul is driven and which, especially in our present time, one might say has been driven to a certain climax.

If we recall the main points of our spiritual scientific research, we will find everywhere that this spiritual scientific research is based precisely on the fact that supersensible, spiritual reality flows into the human soul. This spiritual science enables us to recognize that, in the course of human evolution, spiritual life continually flows into human beings, but that what happens on earth is only progress insofar as human beings understand how to bring into external existence what flows into them from the spiritual world. But such a thought should actually be able to permeate our entire feeling and perception. Above all, we must be able to relate it to what we know, for example, as historical science, and we should then be able to apply it to the present from this point of view. We should be able to ask ourselves, for example, but ask seriously — these things are of course hypotheses, but they lead to realities in a real life of thought —: What would have happened if Columbus or anyone else who was significantly involved in the development of modern humanity, for example Gutenberg, the inventor of printing, or let's say Luther himself, had been born in the 9th or 8th century, in short, at a different time in history? What would have become of the personalities who bear these names? Certainly, if they had been born in other times, they would not have become what they appear to us today in history. Of course, this cannot be; the world's development has its karma; but the hypothetical consideration of such a thing leads to realities. They would probably have become personalities of whom external history does not speak. But on the other hand, you cannot imagine that in such a case, for example, the art of printing would not have been invented as the modern era approached, nor can you imagine that the Reformation would not have come about with the advent of this modern era. From this you can see that the main thing is that we look at what is communicated to humanity from the spiritual world, and that we learn, to a much greater extent than the present is capable of, to regard human beings as instruments through which the spiritual enters earthly life from the spiritual world.

I said that, especially in the present, human beings are caught up in a sharp conflict with regard to these things. The present does not recognize that something like a spiritual stream of development flows down into earthly events; it does not recognize that human beings are mere instruments, and it wants to build a social order that does not recognize this. It wants to build a social order that actually only reckons with the completely personal human being who stands here on earth, and [only] considers this completely personal human being. The most extreme caricature, which only considers the most individual human being, is the Leninism or Trotskyism already mentioned recently. This view of society only knows the human being who stands here on earth. I do not mean this in a purely theoretical sense — that would be the least of it — but I mean the consequences for life. Such people as Lenin or Trotsky seek — even in an area where it is least appropriate — to organize the social structure as if nothing else were possible except the individual physical human being. But that is an ideal that has developed over decades in the realm of so-called socialism, and Leninism and Trotskyism are only the last grotesque convulsions of such a view, which has been developing for a long time.

You see what is important: to find the way back to the meaning of the Pentecost event. Certainly, individual spiritual life was to be illuminated in the individual disciples upon whose heads the flames had descended. But it was to be spiritual life through which the greatest conceivable measure of the objective, for which man is only an instrument, was distributed among the individual members.

But the meaning of this Pentecost proclamation is also something else, and that is the most important thing: the affirmation that human beings do not lose their value by being instruments of the spirit that continually flows into humanity. Human beings therefore retain their personal value. This is something that can not only be understood theoretically today, but it is also necessary to draw the consequences for life and to translate it into the way we think about state formation, morality, and social life. What matters is that a thought is awakening, and it was indeed an awakening when the flames descended upon the heads of each of the disciples. And to sleep through the events of the times, which is all too common today, is to sin against the events of the times. However, in the cycle of development in which we now find ourselves, it is quite impossible to wake up to events unless one views them with a certain inner flexibility of soul life, unless one is able to distinguish the essential and true from the unessential and untrue. What floods us today, especially when reading newspapers, cannot be taken in as if everything were the same; rather, in a thousand columns of books or newspapers, there may be two lines that are of tremendous, essential importance, that point in a primal, phenomenal way — to use Goethe's expression — to what is actually going on. And the rest may all be wasted ink. What matters is that one must awaken within oneself an inner feeling for what is important and essential and for what is unimportant and insignificant. This feeling arises in the soul when one unconsciously gains what one encounters in the present in the great world perspectives that spiritual science can open up. One should only incorporate this into one's feelings, should only try to gradually feel as one will feel when spiritual science becomes alive within one. It is then necessary, however, to acquire a much greater degree of inner confidence in what one feels inwardly than people are accustomed to today. For those who expect that what they receive today will immediately manifest itself tomorrow in brilliant events will generally not be able to cope with true observation. Something may be right, but events may conceal it, so that it may only come to expression in the distant future. But for this it is necessary that we place ourselves in the world in the right way; for this it is important that we have correct ideas about what is happening.

Thus, in the current stream of development, extraordinarily important things are taking place that can already be observed in external events, if one looks at these external events in the way I have just indicated: that one distinguishes the essential from the non-essential, that one has the courage to distinguish the essential from the non-essential.

What is happening today – I want to highlight just one thing – is that the insignificance of the external British Empire is being prepared in a remarkable way, the paralysis of what the world has hitherto known historically as Britishness, in that what was specifically British is passing over into Pan-Anglo-Americanism. This is developing in the immediate present. Something is developing that tends toward the disappearance of Britishness into pan-Anglo-Americanism. Such a thing is entirely consistent with the development we have already indicated in various ways; it does not contradict it. But on the other hand, it is of tremendous importance to really take such a fundamental idea into consideration, because it depends on whether one introduces right or wrong forces into one's imagination. Time can teach us a lot in this regard, and this must be pointed out again and again. Certainly, the people on the front lines have changed. Everyone who is familiar with the facts knows this. This is not the place to discuss how they have changed. But among those who have lived within the front lines, there are still an extraordinary number who think as they did in July 1914, who have learned nothing since then, who use exactly the same concepts that were used in July 1914. When you talk to people, they say the same things they could have said in July 1914. But no alert person today can fail to see that every concept has taken on a different meaning, a different value. And for this reason, the question must be asked—but this question should be asked by everyone as a very serious and, I would say, Christian question of conscience: Where are the people to be found today who, before July 1914, were able to see clearly that what has now come to pass could happen? I could—and you know I am not saying this out of silliness—formulate the question differently. In the series of lectures I gave in Vienna before the war, there is, among other things, an expression that reads: Social human life now carries within it something that can be compared to a carcinoma, which is a cancerous disease in the life of humanity. That had to be faced at the time. But there are many people who have not yet faced up to this fact. I ask: How deeply has it been understood that at that time there was talk of a carcinoma in human development?

I only want to point out the seriousness with which spiritual science should be taken if it is to be applied to the events of the present. The reason why spiritual science is so rejected is largely to be found in the fact that the seriousness with which spiritual science is meant is terribly uncomfortable for people. The theories of spiritual science appeal to many, but the seriousness with which they confront the demands of life is extremely uncomfortable for many of those who like the theories. All this leads us directly to a perhaps more precise understanding of what I must now include in these considerations, something that is important to bear in mind if we want to understand spiritual science in its foundations.

When people today want to understand something in the world, they always have the feeling that the means to this understanding must somehow be sought in the present. But the spiritual cannot be sought in the present alone. If, for example, one wants to become acquainted with the spiritual in relation to human beings, not even the essence of the human being between birth and death can be attained solely through the knowledge of the present human being. Why? Suppose you have reached the age of fifty—it could of course be any other age—and you develop in your soul a kind of life that is connected with the forces of the sentient soul. Then you will involuntarily have the view, based on your conception of the present, that this is your sentient soul that you have within you, which expresses itself when the sentient life of the soul expresses itself. But that is not true at all. Rather, your sentient soul developed between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-eight, and what was in your soul at that time and ceased to be in your soul at the age of twenty-eight continues to have an effect; you use it today when you consider the forces of the sentient soul. It is not the present powers of the sentient soul that you use, but the powers of that time. The past continues to have an effect. It is not true that everything that has an effect is exhausted in the present; rather, the past continues to have an effect. The spiritual world must be understood like music, but like real music. You could not possibly understand a melody if you lost the first note when you heard the third; the first note continues to have an effect in the third note, it continues to work within it. In spiritual activity, something does not merely continue to have an effect through being retained in memory, but it continues to have an effect in reality. The effects of past forces of spiritual life in the individual parts of the soul are like the parts of the spiritual soul, continually present, but in a different sense. Our twenty-first and twenty-second years continue to work in us even later; they are there, insofar as they were there in the past, not insofar as they are there in the present. Forming new ideas — and what I have just explained to you is a new idea, it is not to be found anywhere among the ideas of the present — forming new ideas is uncomfortable for human beings. You do not want to say to yourself, for example: When I am an old man and have gray hair and a bald head, I will still speak and think with the powers of my youth, of my childhood. And it is simply true: what school has caused you to do during the years from eighteen to twenty-eight will have an effect throughout your whole life. You cannot replace it later with other forces, but only by turning to the sources that spiritual science opens up. That is the only means by which many things in life can be replaced. You will not find it incomprehensible that many people today remain essentially unproductive. This has to do with the education system. We cannot develop anything that is not laid within us during childhood, if it is not laid within us through the ordinary forces we turn to in human beings themselves.

There is much involved in correctly grasping such ideas. Above all, it is necessary—and I must emphasize this again and again from various points of view—that people learn once more to believe in life in a much higher sense than they do today, to believe in the spirituality of life. Today, it is relatively easy for people to believe in their spiritual origin. It will be relatively easy to persuade them to believe that what has developed materially through inheritance over the generations is connected to something spiritual that comes from a spiritual world. But that is not enough. What is necessary is that we believe not only in the spiritual origin of a part of our life, but in the spiritual origin of our entire life. How is that possible?

Today, based on the evolutionary tendencies of humanity, which I have often mentioned, we believe that by the age of twenty we have generally lived our lives to the fullest. We believe that in our twenties we are mature enough to be elected to city councils, parliaments, and the like, because that is where we can decide everything. People believe that they have long since overcome those times – which, as we know, did exist – when people waited for a higher age, on the assumption that each new year of life also brings new revelations. Today, we expect that when a child reaches sexual maturity, its soul capacity will also change. Even if not in such a radical way, we do this for the other years of childhood. We watch the development and are convinced that human life develops until the twenties. But then we stop believing in further development. We think we are finished; we do not expect new revelations to come to us in each new year of our later life. We cannot do so if we remain with the usual views. But we know that humanity becomes younger and younger in the course of its development, and today it does not grow older than twenty-seven years. Then the physical-bodily development has nothing more to give. So what is to contribute to further development must be drawn from the spirit. But when it is drawn from the spirit, it connects with our soul. Just ask how few people today would admit that if you are a twenty-two-year-old young man today and then reach the age of forty-five, simply because you experience different things in old age than you did in youth, something may come to light through inner revelation at the age of forty-five that could not have come to light earlier. Who believes in the productivity, in the fruitfulness of old age? And because people do not believe in it, it does not exist; for they are not aware of how each new year brings new revelations. But consider how much would change in human life if this belief really became universal, if all people believed: I must wait for old age, then I will experience things through myself that I could not have experienced before. A life full of expectation, a life full of hope — where is that today? But such a thought, such a feeling, transferred into human community life: just think what an enormous significance this would have! What tremendous significance it would have if, in addition to all the various “demolitions of equality” — as I would like to call them — that are taking place in our time, the following awareness were to arise in human coexistence: simply by reaching the age of forty, one can have experienced something that one cannot yet experience at the age of twenty-seven. Think how a twenty-seven-year-old might then relate to a forty-year-old if that were a natural feeling! Of course, this cannot be the case today, because today seventy-year-olds are often no older than twenty-seven, and often the most representative ones are no older — and do not notice it. So one cannot demand this as a real requirement today.

But that is what life must bring, and what the future demands: that people begin to regard the spiritual as a reality again. What is the only thing known to people today as spirit? On the whole, nothing more than a sum of abstract concepts. Man arrives at a sum of abstract concepts, abstract concepts that are characteristic precisely because they can be easily absorbed up to the age of twenty-seven. But with the fact that we live here on earth between birth and death, first having a sprouting, budding life, then coming to a standstill in this development at the age of twenty-eight, and then beginning our descending life from the age of thirty-five: this is connected with a real, concrete spirituality that changes just as the outer human being changes; and this concrete spiritual reality undergoes a course that is almost the opposite of that of the outer human being. The outer human being grows old and wrinkled, but his etheric body, his formative body, becomes younger and younger; only today, human beings do not concern themselves with this formative body that becomes younger in old age. People walk around with bald heads and gray hair, and they do not know that they have an image-forming body that is bursting with life precisely when they begin to get gray hair, that can give them things that could not be given to them before. This is, of course, due to the nature of time. But time needs to be reversed in this respect. Time needs a change of concepts. One thing that must be particularly present in this change of thinking is that thoughts become a little stronger and healthier again, that they do not cling to what is only presented from the outside; otherwise we will end up with the most terrible one-sidedness in all areas. What matters is to penetrate reality with our thoughts in every area. We cannot understand the historical life of human beings if we are unable to counteract what appears outwardly as wisdom with inner wisdom. For various reasons connected with the rift, the break in human evolution, we have ceased to understand many great things that have been found in an atavistic way. In some areas, people today believe they are being original.

Some time ago, in a lecture in Dornach, I raised the question of what an audience would say if, during a performance of Faust, a theater director were to have Faust collapse before the Earth Spirit, after Wagner had changed him a little, but otherwise leave him exactly the same as Faust in outward appearance. And yet, something like this should be done. I will tell you why it should be done.

What do we read today in the explanations of Faust? What do people have in mind when they talk about this thing I mean between Wagner and Faust? You only need to remember the insane declamations of some Faust performances and the trite sounds that come from the “Wagners,” and you will get an idea of what is at hand here, if you always think of the great Faust towering up into the clouds and the pedantic Wagner, who is still portrayed on stage as limping a little and so on. But what is actually at stake here? Faust despairs of the various sciences. This is usually regarded as something very profound, although it is actually trivial for many people who are not very profound at all. But what is not considered profound? How often do we hear, in response to various other demands for an understanding of the spiritual world, that we should stick to Faust's deepest thoughts, for example, about the sustainer who holds me, you, and himself, in Faust's conversation with Gretchen. People do not consider that Faust says these words to the sixteen-year-old Gretchen and tailors them to her understanding and way of feeling. The whole of humanity likes to be catechized by lowering itself to the level of the sixteen-year-old Gretchen. I have even met philosophy professors who present these Gretchen catechisms as the highest wisdom. But that is not the point at the beginning of the poem, that Faust despairs of all sciences. The crucial point is that Faust turns away from what is revealed to him by the signs of the macrocosm, the whole world. At first, he wants to know nothing about the relationship between man and the whole comprehensive universe. He turns to the Earth Spirit, to that which wants to reveal to him what man has only from the forces of the earth. What is revealed to him from the macrocosm is a spectacle, “but alas, only a spectacle!” So he turns away. But the earth spirit rejects him. Faust believed that through the earth spirit he could grasp something connected with his deepest being. The earth spirit causes him to fall. And then the words: “You resemble the spirit you understand, not me!”

Now ask yourself: Who is it that Faust understands? He himself says: “Not you! — Then who?” — and Wagner enters. Everything you have developed so far is mere emotional striving; look at what you already carry within you — in Wagner! That is the other nature of Faust. That is the dramatic, real answer! In drama, development is provided by the facts. Faust must be made to understand that, in essence, he is still no more than his famulus in everything concrete that he has developed up to that point, and it is precisely through this stage of self-knowledge that he must be taken a step further. One could depict reality precisely by having the two appear side by side on stage. But to do so, one would have to have the courage to take words such as these much more seriously than before: “You resemble the spirit you understand, not me!” – “Not you! Then who?” Then one would have to immerse oneself completely in the situation with one's thoughts. And that is how it is portrayed in the drama.

And again, let us consider something else. Faust has turned away from the sign of the macrocosm. He does not want to experience the forces that bind man to the macrocosm, to the whole universe. This was basically how Goethe felt when he wrote the first parts of his “Faust.” And when Faust makes up for what he missed in his youth, at least in retrospect through the Easter walk and through Easter night in general, he goes beyond the stage of self-knowledge that he encountered in Wagner and comes to make up for what he had let pass, what the Easter message can be for him. Read the sentences; Wagner does not want to. The individual words are extremely concise, for example:

How can all hope not fade from the head,
Which clings constantly to stale evidence,
Digging greedily for treasures,
And is happy when it finds earthworms!

It cannot be otherwise than that “all hope disappears” from this head. That is the motive for self-observation. Faust merely draws all the consequences, but he makes up for what he missed in his youth. He makes up for it and is able to do so. This takes him one step higher. This justifies the question being asked once again: “To whom?” To the one who comes to meet him in the “Poodle”: Mephistopheles. But what is this? This is the counterforce of the human striving forces, which opposes man in the same way that Faust opposes the earth spirit, since he wants nothing to do with the macrocosm. These are the Luciferic forces that come out of the inner being of man. That is why Mephistopheles is initially endowed with Luciferic traits, and this is essentially the Mephistopheles of the first part of the Faust poem: a Luciferic being.

But already at the end of the 1890s, Goethe was beginning to outgrow what had come from his youth. For read the “Prologue in Heaven”: what is developed there is no longer bound to the revelations of the earth spirit; Goethe is already concerned with the impulse that comes in from the macrocosm. Goethe had outgrown his own beginnings. And now something entered his soul that was immensely significant and important, and which, once recognized, allows us to look deeply into Goethe's soul.

Goethe had the tradition of the Faust legend, the tradition of the Nordic, German myth. There was Mephistopheles. But at the moment when, urged on by Schiller, he continues “Faust,” Mephistopheles becomes—Goethe does not quite realize it—a figure who gnaws at him inwardly, whom he cannot quite come to terms with. Jakob Minor, who is also a Faust commentator and has said many witty things, found a curious explanation for Goethe's inability to make any progress when he resumed work on Faust. He believes that Goethe had grown old by the time he reached his fifties. I would just like to know how it is possible to write a “Faust” at all if poetic power dries up in one's fifties and one must bring the powers of the years after fifty into one's poetry, unless the power of youth can blossom in a life such as Goethe knew how to lead. But Mephistopheles gnawed at his soul, instinctively gnawed at him. And he would not let him go on, because the conflict between Faust and Mephistopheles did not work. Goethe had once introduced Faust to the greatest questions of humanity, and that was now impossible with Mephistopheles. He had taken on a Luciferian character. Here one is dealing only with forces that arise from the life of feelings and sensations. But at the moment when Goethe develops the “Prologue in Heaven,” Faust stands opposite the macrocosm. It is no longer possible to let Faust fight only with the forces that live within human beings; it is no longer possible to let Mephistopheles have only a Luciferian character. Goethe sensed this. And really, not to be pedantic, but to point out something important, I would like to draw attention to a few minor details. Consider that the Lord says in the “Prologue in Heaven”:

Of all the spirits who deny,
The mischievous one is the least of my burdens.

Then there must be other spirits who deny. But in “Faust” there is only one: Mephistopheles. And consider that Mephistopheles says in the “Prologue”:

I love full, fresh cheeks best,
I am not at home with a corpse.

And remember the end, where he is truly serious in his efforts to obtain the corpse. What is going on here? That Goethe sensed that what he had received from the myth, from the Faust legend, as the unified figure of Mephistopheles, splits into two when one goes out into the macrocosm. In Goethe, there lived a dual feeling: Luciferic and Ahrimanic. He did not get any further with this because spiritual science did not yet exist in his time. But that brought him to a standstill. However, when he later had to connect macrocosmic events and human events in the “Classical Walpurgis Night,” and at the end, where macrocosmic universal events and human experience are woven into one, his Mephistopheles had to take on an Ahrimanic character. He succeeded in this to a high degree. But everything Goethe himself said about his personal relationship to his Faust is marked by the impression that it cannot go any further. If one takes the medieval, pedantic, but nevertheless popular drama and places Faust on the great world stage, one is forced to split Mephistopheles into a Luciferic and an Ahrimanic being. That is why Goethe could not go any further. He succeeded — I do not wish to correct Goethe, of course — by approaching the second part of the poem more and more and giving his Mephistopheles Ahrimanic traits. A Luciferic being loves “full, fresh cheeks”; an Ahrimanic being has to do with the “corpse” because it permeates our consciousness between birth and death with what we experience in our perception. When you look at a personality like Goethe's, you see how such a personality retains its youthful energy, but uses this energy to gain ever new experiences of life. It was not because he had grown old that what emerged in such a remarkable way from Goethe's life story at the end of the 1790s, but because he went through a crisis that brought certain forces of his youth to a new resurrection, allowing them to rise again and enabling him to experience them as a true miracle of Pentecost. What I have now said about Faust is further elaborated in the work that is now to be republished: Goethe's Faust as a picture of his esoteric worldview. This is to form the first part of a small book that will be published shortly: “Goethe's Mind”; the second part will be Goethe's thoughts on his Faust, and the third part will be some thoughts on the “Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily.”

I have just mentioned this because I want to draw attention to the fact that it is really necessary to grasp with penetrating thought that which contains the spiritual substance of humanity – including the past – and to take seriously what is there. For in the last four or five decades we have completely forgotten how to take seriously the greatest things in human history. A great deal has been neglected in the last forty to fifty years, and it is necessary that what is spiritually present should appear in a renewed form, for in some respects it was atavistic and in many ways unable to break through a certain crust.

Goethe could not split the figure of Mephistopheles into a Luciferic and an Ahrimanic part; the time was not yet ripe for that. But this duality lived in Goethe's nature. In short, we must learn to believe in the whole of human life, not just in childhood. We must learn to lead a life full of expectation. Imagine, if you were curious: What will become of me when I am fifty years old? How many people today entertain such thoughts? How many lead a life in which they believe that ever new content flows into the human soul? What changes would take place in the social life of humanity if this belief in the whole of life were to take hold of people! And what simple thought could lead to this belief in the whole of human life? The thought that is contained in the question: Would it make any sense for us to live to an average age of seventy if we were fully developed at the age of twenty-eight? Why should we grow older? But this requires some help from natural science, so that what appears as spiritual science can be connected with what is taken seriously by science today.

Spiritual science, I said — and here I return to the beginning of today's reflection — has actually achieved very little within our movement. And yet it is not hopeless. This can be seen on many occasions. It is most evident when the case arises — and this has not been uncommon in recent years — that younger people who are currently studying at university come looking for something that can connect their particular studies to spiritual science. Young people who are just starting out in life today feel from their studies that every science can be transferred to the humanities. This could perhaps be the most fruitful seeds that could emerge, because we need to take things seriously. But difficulties arise immediately when these young people want to incorporate what they have learned from the humanities into their studies, and what could certainly be incorporated in a factual way, for example, in a doctoral dissertation. They cannot get through it; they cannot realize what they want. Spiritual science is, in essence, something very promising, but people are discouraged from it, forced away from it. This, too, must be understood in the fullest sense of the word. I know of a case—it was a long time ago, so I can tell you about it; the most recent cases would not be appropriate here—where a doctoral dissertation was submitted here in Berlin in which the only sin to be found was that my book Christianity as Mystical Fact was mentioned. It was a philosophical, not a theological dissertation. The person concerned said: What should I do now? Paulsen won't accept it, he said: You can't do that, you can't quote Steiner here. — I could only reply to the person concerned: Go to Münster, do your oral examination with Gideon Spicker; maybe it will work there. — And it did work. One must look at things in their reality, one must look into the details. The perspectives that are developed today when someone seeks to build their life on an academic foundation are sometimes highly peculiar. A prospective private lecturer once told me—although he managed to overcome this obstacle in a way that you will hear about in a moment—that he had become what he was by doing what he himself told me in the following way: He had written an aesthetic treatise on the works of a poet—I won't name him, otherwise you might be able to guess who it was by some means or other—then he had written a treatise on Schopenhauer and, of course, a doctoral dissertation. Now he wanted to become a private lecturer. He went to the relevant university to see the professor in question, who liked him well and considered him a very capable person, and he believed that this professor could easily arrange for him to become a private lecturer. But the professor said, “You know, that won't work. You've written a treatise on a poet, on an aesthetic question. But this poet lived in the 19th century. That's too recent. Then you wrote about Schopenhauer. We can't consider that scientific.” The man replied, “But what am I supposed to do?” — And the professor replied: Take any old book catalog from an earlier century, find an aesthetician who is as unknown as possible, whom no one knows, and write about him. That will be very easy for you, because there is no literature on him, you don't need to study much — write what is easy to write, because you can simply find him in a book catalog. “Well, this aspiring private lecturer took an old book catalog, found an old Italian aesthetician about whom nothing had been written, and wrote a treatise that he considered highly inadequate, and which was also considered highly inadequate by those who had to judge it. But it was sufficient to become a private lecturer!”

I do not mention this to denigrate one personality or another. Nor is it a question of personalities, for I am recounting an example that has nothing to do with personalities. For the man who had to assess the dissertation in question laughed at what he had to impose on the other man out of the prejudices of the time. And the other man, who wanted to become a private lecturer, laughed too. Two extremely nice people, one older and one younger. It is not the fault of the people. It is due to the intellectual substance of our age, which can only be countered with strong and powerful thoughts. And strong and powerful thoughts are only possible today if humanity is fertilized by the spirit, if we build solely on what the humanities can offer. So, whether one looks at Goethe or at the immediate present, this is what echoes back to us again and again from the immediate circumstances of our time: renewal of our world of ideas, renewal of our world of feelings, renewal of our thoughts, which stand in stark contrast to the present. It depends on this that the miracle of Pentecost is fulfilled in the soul of each individual, and that this miracle of Pentecost manifests itself in the renewal of life for all of humanity in our catastrophic present, in that human beings, enlightened by the spirit, face each other as individual beings in such a way that, through their will to be together, through their thinking together and growing together, a spiritual structure of humanity can form. What is necessary for the future must come from human beings, from the individual. We must not wait for a general message that humanity must follow. There will be no such message. But there will be the possibility that what can come from the spiritual world will shine forth in every single human soul. Then, through the coexistence of human beings, what is to come into being and what must come into being will come into being.