Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

A Sound Outlook for To-day and a Genuine Hope for the Future
GA 181

30 July 1918, Berlin

VI. Problems of the Time I

To-day we will go rather further in outlining the connections we have tried to understand in the course of our recent studies.

The present time, with its many diverse currents, spiritual and material, is extremely difficult to understand; and the effort ends only in perplexity unless we make up our minds to recognise the causes as lying far, far back in the womb of history. Let us look back, as students of Spiritual Science, at the so-called fourth post-Atlantean period.

This begins, as we know, somewhere about the year 747 before the Mystery of Golotha, and closes with the beginning of the fifteenth century, about 1413 A.D. (The figures are of course to be taken approximately, as always in matters of this kind.) Within this period, as we observe it, we can perceive certain forces, connected with and related to each other, but differing fundamentally from all others working in previous and subsequent epochs. This period, in which the development of the Intellectual or Mind-Soul in man's being took place, can be divided into three smaller ones: the first, between the year 747 B.C. (which is the real date of the founding of Rome), ends about 27 B.C.; the second runs from 27 B.C. until about the end of the 7th century; (693 A.D.); the third and last from 693 to 1413 A.D. Since this date, since about 1413, we have the time which brings forth, in its own characteristic way, soul-forces already known to you to some extent. Just as this fourth Post-Atlantean epoch can be clearly distinguished from the three preceding ones (the ancient Indian, Persian, and Egypto-Chaldean) and must also be sharply distinguished from what followed it and what is still to come, so within it the growth is marked by noticeable moments, if we consider its progress through these three shorter periods.

From 747 to 27 B.C. the peoples inhabiting the countries around the Mediterranean come chiefly into prominence. We see a distinct form of soul-life developing among them. History hardly mentions it, because history has no neans of creating the ideas and conceptions which would fit it to deal with the really characteristic features. This epoch, which I have marked off, can be characterised by saying that it is the time when, for inner reasons of human evolution as a whole, the souls of men emancipate themselves from their connection with the universal Spiritual world. If we look back into Egyptian and Chaldean times, during the epoch of the Sentient-soul, we find in human consciousness a decided sense of kinship of the soul with the Cosmos. The Sentient-Soul in man's nature was then able to perceive that man is a member of the whole cosnos. We cannot rightly estimate what is characteristic of the Egyptian, Chaldean or Babylonian stages, unless we take into account the fact that man at that time actually experienced a feeling of kinship with the spiritual Cosmos. Just as the fingers on our hand feel themselves part of us, as it were, so the Egyptian or Chaldean felt himself to be a member of the spiritual Cosmos. A crisis, a veritable catastrophe, overtook mankind in the 8th century before Christ, and in respect of this feeling of kinship with the Cosmos human souls had owed their former feeling of belonging to the Cosmos to the atavistic, dream-like clairvoyance. They did not perceive as we do to-day. In the act of sense-perception they also perceived what profane science ignorantly calls “Animism”—the spiritual, the divine; and through this they felt themselves as belonging to the Spirit of the universe.

This relationship disappeared. The consequences were, on the one hand, numerous phenomena of decadence, but on the other, the whole marvellous culture of Greece, whose civilisation was founded on what man experiences when, as man, he begins to stand alone in the universe. We owe this civilisation to the fact that man no longer felt himself a member of the cosmos, but a totality as man, a being complete in himself. He had in a sense taken his own place in the cosmos, had begun to live a life of his own. If Greek civilisation had retained the soul-constitution for instance, of the Ancient Indian period, with its feeling of connection with the cosmos, it is impossible to imagine that this beautiful Greek civilisation could ever have arisen. All the splendour and glory displayed by Greek civilisation, unequalled elsewhere, developed in the time between the eighth and the first centuries before Christ. Humanity had withdrawn into the citadel of the soul, of the human soul in the true sense. This was the time when humanity began to move towards the Mystery of Golgotha. We must not forget that there is always something in the Mystery of Golgotha which cannot entirely dawn on human understending, even super-sensible understanding. There will always be something unconprehended. It is beyond the power of human conceptions, human feelings, human experiences, fully to grasp what was achieved by the entrance of the Christ into earthly evolution. Therefore the Mystery had, in a sense, so to take place that while it was in progress, human civilisation was not ready fully to share in it; it had to tale its course separately, side by side with ordinary human experience. That is fairly evident, even from history. How much did human civilisation around the Mediterranean notice of what happened in the far-off Jewish province of Palestine, with regard to Christ Jesus? How little did it enter into the consciousness of civilised humanity, even that of Tacitus, who was writing only a century after the Mystery of Golgotha!

On the one hand we have the current of human civilisation, and on the other the stream which brought with it the Mystery of Golgotha: the two run their course side by side. This could happen only because man, civilised man, at the time of the Divine Event, was severed from the Divine, was living a life which had no direct connection with the Spiritual. Thus on the earth itself there took place a spiritual event, which went its way side by side with human civilisation. Such a juxtaposition of outer civilisation with a Mystery-Event is unthinkable in any earlier period. It never had happened before, because in earlier times human civilisation knew and recognised itself as being in connection with happenings in the realm of the Divine-Spiritual. It is very distinctive, very rremarkable, that the secular culture which ran parallel with the Mystery of Golotha was remote from it; man had severed himself from it.

In the second period, which lasted from about 27 B.C. to 693 A.D., mid-European civilisation was not of a kind to enable secular culture to come to an understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. This may sound very strange, considering that Christianity had made itself at home in this secular culture and had spread over the civilisation of mid-Europe; but its expansion took place in the way I have described. The Mystery of Golgotha was isolated, was alone. Certainly, it was accepted as outer dogma to this extent: Christ had come, had called Apostles, had accomplished this or that for humanity, had said this or that about man's relation to the Divine. All this was readily accepted in its outer application by secular culture, but this outer recognition does not alter the fact that in reality all those who accepted Christianity in these early centuries were far removed from an inner understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. With the help of the Gnosis, or of all that had been carried over as treasures of wisdom from the ancient pagan world, they might have come near to facing the question: “What really happened in the Mystery of Golgotha?” They did not do so. They declared everything heresy which might have led to an understanding of it, and tried to accomplish the impossible, to put into trivial forms what never could be confined within such forms, what could be the object only of wisdom's highest aspiration—the Mystery of Golgotha.

Hence the organisations fostered during the early centuries of Christianity were not such as to help people to unite theyeselves with the Mystery; their effect was to encourage in the human soul something very remote from a genuine inner feeling of understanding and partaking in it. The “Church” was an organization rather for the non-understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. Anyone who follows up what the various councils, and more especially the intrigues of the Church, strove to accomplish, will find that all thse efforts went towards getting certain dogmatic ideas accepted, and towards inducing people co think of everything connected with the Mystery of Golgotha as law in no real relationship to the life of the human soul. All this led up to a certain point, which can be described, somewhat radically, in the following way. Men tried to accommodate themselves, here on earth, to certain ideas concerning the Mystery of Golgotha and its effects; but the most important thing was not the extent to which they could come to know about it and to absorb it into their souls. It was that they should be able to adopt this belief: “We grasp the fact that the Mystery of Golgotha was accomplished on its own account, independently of us, and Christ will take care that we are saved!” This tendency gained ground until the reality of spiritual events was relegated to a region quite outside the soul; sacred, spiritual events were not to be thought of as connected with what took place in any human breast; the two were to be as widely separated as possible. Within, this tendency lay the germ of a purpose—unexpressed of course, but active subconsciously—which emerged clearly for the first time at the Council of Constantinople in 869. The aim was to keep the human spirit away from any individual, personal concern with the spiritual, (which was restricted to the Mystery of Golgotha), and therefore from any inclination to understand the Mystery in terms of personal experience. It was to remain incomprehensible. So the Church was able to include more and more people of a purely secular frame of mind, who came to believe that the super-sensible was beyond the range of the human soul, and that human thinking should confine itself to the objects and activities of the physical world. No forces were to be developed out of the human soul which could lead to an independent understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. In certain decrees of this eighth Council of Constantinople it is clearly stated that European humanity might not—because the forces of the human soul were not equal to it—reflect on the realm wherein the life appertaining to the Mystery of Golgotha had taken its course.

In this middle period of the fourth Post-Atlantean epoch, lasting from 27 B.C. until 693 A.D. something was accomplished which may be described as the confirming of humanity in the belief that all human knowledge and experience is adapted, only for the palpable “this life”; the impalpable, supersensible realm the “beyond” as it is called, must be always withdrawn from their ken, inaccessible to direct perception. The entire history of those centuries can be understood only by keeping this cardinal fact in mind: The whole policy of the Catholic Church was directed to bringing men to the belief: “The soul can know only the things of this life; as regards the super-sensible, thou must approach this in a way which has nothing to do with thy intelligence or personal knowledge”. The effect of this was that after the close of this epoch, in the eighth and ninth centuries, a sort of obscurity descended on European humanity as regards the connection of the human soul with the super-sensible. And certain later phenomena, among which that of Bernard of Clairvaux is typical, can be explained only by the fact that such men remained in a sense beyond the physical, in “the other world”, their souls absorbed in what is inaccessible to rational human understanding. This enthusiasm for something which undoubtedly lies beyond all human comprehension must be seen in the entire disposition of soul in a Bernard of Clairvaux, if he is to be understood. In his personality we find many traits which are great and powerful in the it effects, for what is capable of a more or less distorted activity is equally capable of a beautiful, great and glorious one. Bernard had characteristics which clearly show him to be a product of that disposition of soul which developed in Western civilisation in the way I have described, during these particular centuries. Many other men resembled him; he is just a typical figure—as, for instance, when he spoke to his followers (who were very numerous) of all that would be bestowed on humanity by the “Crusade” he contemplated. Then came the failure of the whole attempt. How did this devout man speak of the failure? Somewhat this way: If everything, everything goes wrong, may the blame be on me alone, not on the Divine, which must be always right. Even when such a man was convinced of his connection with what he conceived of as the Divine-Spiritual power behind events, he separated the one from the other and said: “Lay the sin at my door: Providence is something that takes its own course in a realm beyond and apart from that of the human soul.

So, at the beginning of the third period of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch of civilisation, something akin to a darkening descended on humanity—best expressed by saying; that man's horizon no longer extended to the idea of a connection with spiritual currents and impulses. In philosophy of the centuries between the eighth and 15th one finds always the same aim—to prove that human ideas and concept should in no case attempt to grasp the course of spiritual reality, that spiritual reality can only be, and must be, a matter of Revelation, left to the teaching office of the church.—this was reduced to a convenient formula!

Thus had the power of the Church been built up. This power of the Church did not derive purely from theological impulse, but from the fact that man was banished to the physical life of the senses as regards the use of his own forces of knowledge and mental powers, and was not allowed to think of a knowledge of the super-sensible. Hence arose a conception of belief which was not in existence in the early centuries (although it is sometimes antedated), but developed later. It took this form: “Concerning the Divine-Spiritual only faith is possible—not knowledge.” This division between the “truth of Faith” and the “truth of knowledge” was actually made against certain significant historical backgrounds, which should be studied in connection with the things I have indicated.

We have been living since the 15th century, approximately since 1413 A.D., during a period (this will become evident in the third millennium), in which we are concerned in part with the heritage of all that has happened under such influence as I have described. On the one hand stand of the legacies from those days; on the other we have to deal with something coming to view in this, the fifth post-Atlantean period—something entirely new. In the fourth period, when we look back at it, we see that there was then a kind of severance of the human soul from the Divine-Spiritual, a banishment to purely external physical sense-transactions. That was the new thing in the fourth period. It did not exist in the Egypto-Chaldean epoch, as I have already pointed out. We now have to deal with an analogous novelty in our own epoch, and humanity's task,—having entered on an age in which self-consciousness must play an ever greater and greater part—is to distinguish between what is a legacy from time past, and what is newly added to it from our own time. Let us first look at the inheritance, legacy.

We have seen that it consists in man having been constrained to develop his soul-life apart from the super-sensible. Moreover there is another result of this, the more clearly to be seen the closer the events of history are surveyed; indeed, a searching review shows the facts to be unquestionable, admitting of no doubt whatsoever. This fact is that man, confining his soul-force to the sense-perceptible, was willing to be severed from the super-sensible, and finally—since the 15th century—arrived at rejecting the super-sensible altogether. The eighth Council of Constantinople in 869, is characterized by the wish to keep man and a super sensible apart; and from this separation, sponsored deliberately by the Church, spraying the rejection of the super-sensible—the believe arose that the super-sensible might be only a matter of imagination and have no reality. If one investigates the Genesis of modern materialism from an historical, psychological point of view, the Church must be held responsible for it. Of course the Church is only the outer expression of deeper forces working in man's evolution, but to notice how one thing arises from another enables one to understand the course of events. In the fourth post-Atlantean age, the orthodox man would say: “The human faculty of knowledge is adapted only for understanding what is connected with the realm of the senses. The super-sensible must be left to revelation, which may not be contested; to speak against revelation is heresy and can lead only to delusion.”

The modern Marxist, a modern Social Democrat, true scion of this view—which is nothing but the consequence of the Catholicism of earlier centuries—says: “All knowledge worthy of the name is concerned only with sense-perceptible, physical events; there is no ‘Spiritual Science’ because there is no such thing as spirit. ‘Spiritual’ Science is, at best, Social Science, the science of human communities”. Of course this tendency has come to fruition differently in various parts of the civilized world, but the differences are no more than nuances.

Hence, from the ninth century onwards, in the central and western countries of Europe, it becomes necessary to ensure that human soul-life should occupy itself with the super-sensible by “believing” in it, but should know of it only through revelation. The races and peoples of Central Europe were such that they had to be handled carefully; they could not be treated in the same simple way. To say to people: “Your human capacities are limited to eating and drinking and things of the outer world; the super-sensible is beyond you”—that could not be done in Western Europe; but it was done in Eastern Europe, and that is the reason for the cleavage between the Eastern and Western Churches. In Eastern Europe, people really were confined to the sense-world; that was where their capacities had to unfold. That which finally led to the Orthodox religion was to be developed in the Heights of Mystery-experience, quite untouched by anything to do with the senses. What man brought forth out of his human nature was set sharply apart from the true spiritual world, which lived only in the ritual that hovered loftily above mankind.

What was it that had to develop there? In varying shades, the point of view, the perception, better reality belonged only to the physical world of the senses. One might say that forces towards which man adopts an attitude of repression, do not develop, but atrophy. If, then, humanity was restrained for centuries from spiritually grasping the super-sensible, the power of doing so was bound in the end to disappear completely. It is what we find in the modern socialistic views of life, whose misfortune consists—not in their Socialism!—but in the fact that they entirely reject the spiritual-super-sensible, and are therefore obliged to confine themselves to a social structure which takes account only of the animal side of man's nature. This was prepared for by the paralyzing of man's super-sensible forces; hence it follows that men are driven into saying: “Care for our salvation shall not in any way make us unite our soul's knowledge experience with the stream that lives a life on its own—The stream which includes the Mystery of Golgotha”.—With what is this connected?

With the fact that in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch the Luciferic forces were especially active. They severed man from the cosmos, because their aim is invariably to isolate man in selfishness, to cut him off from the whole spiritual universe, as well as from the knowledge of his connection to the physical one. Hence, when this severance was at its height, there were no natural sciences. This was Lucifer's doing. The activity which separated sense-knowledge from dogma regarding the super-sensible, was therefore a Luciferic one. Over against it stands the Ahrimanic influence; and these two are the great adversaries of the human soul. The fact that the super-sensible forces of humanity have been allowed to atrophy—leading to a purely animal form of Socialism, now due to break over humanity in a devastating and destructive way—is to be traced to Luciferic forces. The new influence, developing in our age, is of a different nature, more Ahrimanic. The Luciferic element would isolate man, cut him off from the spiritual-super-sensible, and lead him to experience the illusion of being a totality in himself. On the other hand, the Ahrimanic element inspires man with fear of the spiritual, keeps him away from it, fosters in him the illusion that the spiritual cannot be attained by mankind. The Luciferic keeping away of man from the super-sensible might be described as of a more educational, cultured kind, whereas the Ahrimanic, founded on fear of the spiritual, is more ‘natural,’ arising in the age which began with 15th century. And as the Luciferic severance from the spiritual came especially to expression under the cover of Orthodox Christianity of the East, so the Ahrimanic fear, the holding back from the spiritual, makes itself felt especially in the culture of the West, and particularly in the element of American civilization.

Such truths may be unpalatable today, but they are truths nevertheless, and we get very little farther by generalizing—however mystically or theosophically—about the connection of the human with the Divine, or whatever it may be called. We can progress only by recognizing the reality as it is. We can reduce our chaos to order only if we recognize the true characteristics of the different currents running side-by-side. These various currents, springing from their several assumptions, spread out locally, and so everything is confused in the hodgepodge called “modern civilization”. What I am now speaking of as “Americanism” (as collective concept, not applying to individual Americans), is fear of the spiritual, the longing to live only on the physical plane, or at most in what improves into that plane as coarse Spiritualism and such-like, which is not in the real sense, spiritual at all. The mark of Americanism is fear of the spiritual; it is by no means confined to America, but there it lives as a social characteristic, not simply a human one. Above all it is predominant in all science. Science has increasingly been founded on “fear of the spiritual”. Nothing in science is called “objective” unless it excludes as far as possible living conceptions engendered in the inwardness of the soul. No idea, no conception, engendered in the inwardness of the soul, is permitted to intrude into the observation of nature. This is allowed to embrace only what is dead, not the living that is spirit-inwoven. If, in the manner of Hegel, Shelling or Goethe—those genuine representatives of Mid-European thought—anyone introduces the “concept” into observation of nature, he is at once thought to be on the road to uncertainty, for no objective reality is ever expected to be attained through spiritual comprehension or experience. It is assumed that this means bringing in personal bias; that an experiment ceases to be objective directly anytime anything subjective enters into it. That is Ahrimanic. Science is universally “American” in so far as it clings to the fundamental axiom, “Everything subjective must be banished from an observation of Nature” . This is the fundamental result of the earlier severance from the spiritual in the fourth post-Atlantean period.

Thus a new element is added to this legacy—a new element which will make itself felt more and more as a destructive force alongside all that has to develop fruitfully—and consciously—in the future. It is essentially of an Ahrimanic nature; it is fear of the spiritual, and it brings havoc and disintegration into human civilization.

At the transition from the fourth to fifth post-Atlantean epoch, and during the fifth epoch, these impulses became more and more noticeable. With the discovery of America, and the transplantation into America of European ways, fear of this spiritual life appeared there, too; but on the other hand there arose what might be called a tension in human souls, for the native forces of the people in Europe were such that they could not fail to some extent to trace their own connection with the spirituality of the universe. A tension arose at the passing of the forth into the fifth post-Atlantean epoch of civilization, during the centuries in which what is known as “modern history” takes shape. Then came this tension caused by the suppressed spiritual element in the breast of man. Certain people decided that a barrier had to be put up against it, partly because they understood very well what was left of the old inheritance, and partly because they had a very pertinent grasp of the newly approaching Ahrimanic element. This was the genesis of that spiritual current—a much more influential one than most people think, as I mentioned from a different point of view in my last lecture—which tries to perpetuate this keeping of the human soul at a distance from the super-sensible: in other words Jesuitism. Its inner principle is to do everything possible in human evolution to keep man at a distance from any real, conscious connection with the super-sensible. Naturally, this was facilitated by presenting the super-sensible dogmatically as a realm into which human knowledge could not penetrate. But the Jesuit movement knows very well how to reckon with the other side; it wants no such inner relation between modern science and Americanism. In that respect Jesuitism is great: it recognizes the importance of physical science and makes a deep study of it. Jesuits are great spirits in the round of physical, material science, for Jesuitism reckons with the elemental tendency of mankind to fear the spiritual, a fear which must be overcome by leading human nature towards the spiritual world; and accounts on being able to impose this fear on society by saying to people, in so many words: “You cannot and shall not approach the spiritual; we are trustees of the spiritual and we will purvey it to you in the proper way.”

These two currents of thought, Americanism and Jesuitism, play into one another, as it were. This is not something to take casually; and all such matters we must look for the deeper impulses which are active in human evolution. If we try to identify the forces which have brought about the present catastrophe, we shall find it remarkable cooperation between Americanism—in a sense here given—and Jesuitism. And from a wider point of view we see, on the one hand, how the inheritance from earlier times still influences our mental life, and on the other, the advent of something new. If we specify these two impulses as the Luciferic and Ahrimanic, we describe precisely the opposition towards that which must be introduced into the development of mankind for its salvation as true spiritual life. Anyone who approaches with inner sympathy such a figure as Bernard of Clairvaux, who in a certain sense inclines towards the Luciferic, will take account of the following attitude: “Human knowledge is after all directed only towards the physical-material; therefore we direct the soul to seek the divine-spiritual in the fervor of elemental experience.” This is what kindles enthusiasm in a temperament of that kind. We might say that what lives in human souls as a tendency towards this virtual side, lives on in our own time, but there is also the other tendency—towards the dark and somber side. The 12th century had its Bernard of Clairvaux: ours have such figures as Lenin and Trotsky; as in the former century there was an active inclination towards the super-sensible, so now we find hatred for it, although expressed in different words and substance. That is the dark reverse side of those times: there the pouring of the human soul into the Divine mould, here the pouring of man's being into an animal mould, on which alone the social structure is to be built.

These matters can be understood only if one has a clear grasp of one fact, which is far away from present-day comprehension. Our time is credulous in respect of theories, taking the content of ideas and programms as gospel, as I have often remarked. It is reality that counts, not theories and programms. The modern follower of Marx, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, before the world-war, would of course have said: “This is what Marx teaches, Engels teaches, Lassalle teaches, and that is all one needs for salvation.” He was concerned only with the “content” of ideas and programms. In reality it is never a question of that, for ideas are never carried into life in accordance with their content, but by means of forces which are quite distinct from it. No one knows the truth unless he knows that ideas often have so little to do with reality that may arise independently of their content. A splendid programme can be devised, established on a sound scientific basis, fervently longed for as the Marxists longed for theirs, but all to no purpose. For an age as unspiritual as ours, this is playing with fire. Men believe that they are working to realize the content of their ideas, but anyone who knows how things happen in life knows that the reality is quite different. If ideas are not derived from spiritual knowledge they may enter into cultural life as sheer monstrosities—and this applies to the ideas of Marx, which are intended to banish the spirit. However find they may be, they become abortions. It is no use asking in the morning: “Why has it grown light through what has happened on the earth?” One has to turn away from abstract ideas and say: “Daylight has come because the sun is shining”. In going out beyond the Earth one sees the reason for the daylight. Similarly, if we want to understand “to-day”, we must look away from what is happening in the immediate present to what took place in a time long past. Bolshevism cannot be understood except by recognizing it as an after-the fact of the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869 A.D. You cannot understand it except as a result of the atrophy of the forces which man once had for apprehending the super-sensible world. In order really to understand the happenings of the outer world, in order to confront them, we must perceive this inner connection. For anyone observing the relations of events in history it is the most fearful thing to see how movements which set out to reform the world are concerned only with the “subject-matter” of ideas, and refuse to reckon with their reality, which exists quite independently of whether there content is beautiful or not. Suppose a child is born, a beautiful child; his mother may be charmed. Mothers are sometimes charmed, even when their children are not beautiful! He becomes a good for nothing, a ne'er-do-well, perhaps even a criminal. Is it therefore untrue to say that he was a beautiful child? Have people no right to say that he was? Does his childish beauty contradict the unforeseen things in his life? Just so there have been in many circles men with admirable ideas through which they wanted to reform the world, and these men were admired; yet the ideas became abortions! For ideas themselves are but dead things; they must be animated by being received into the vigorous life of the Spirit.

In reading modern socialistic publications one finds—if certain differences are left out of account—a great similarity between them and writings which express the standpoint of the Catholic Church, although the latter are differently expressed and deal with different realms. For instance, I recently read to you out of a certain brochure. Notice the kind of thought it expresses, it's thought-forms; compare what is said there with the rabid tendencies, whether cultured or not, which led gradually to Bolshevism; compared with the beginning of a publication byKautsky or Lenin; you'll find the same thoughts. One is the development of the other. Nowhere does one get a stronger feeling of Catholicism than in reading certain dogmatic socialist utterances. But something which Catholicism forbids—philosophizing about certain things—has become a passion, a principle: the principle of declaring that all learning comes from the bourgeoisie, and all spiritual development from class-warfare. This principle is the effect of the Catholic principle. Bolshevism may perhaps, in the form of its inception, have only a short existence: but all mankind will have to reckon long enough with what stands behind. Anyone who knows how it all hangs together would not be surprised that Bolshevism should have donned in the place where this way of thinking, in the bestial course it is followed, proceeded under cover of the Orthodox religion, so that the two streams were entirely separate.

We must fathom all these things if we want to be conscious of the necessity for approaching the spiritual life in the right way. Mystical talk about it is out of place to-day. What is needed to-day is to apply spiritual knowledge so as to look into reality and to discover the connections belonging to it; because from such knowledge alone in the correct grasp of the world's events arise; never from a past inheritance, or from fear, or from this elementary new thing I have described, which can but lead deeply into chaos. In this animalised Socialism we see displayed one result of what developed in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch. It has a Luciferic element in it; the Luciferic “Original Sin” is within it. But what is now developing is the penalty for that general incapacity of human faculties for turning to the super-sensible. These faculties have become truly impotent, and hatred and rejection of the super-sensible arise in their place. There is not merely hatred and original sin, but punishment for the forsaking of the super sensible. (This applies to much that is happening today).

The impulses active in human evolution take on various nuances, and events can be understood only in this light. The peoples of the Italian and Spanish peninsulas have come under the sway of Christianity, in the course of its expansion, as well as the peoples of modern France and the British Isles. We know something of what has been unfolded amongst them. We know that on the Spanish and Italian peninsulas the Sentient-Soul has blossomed forth, on French soil the Intellectual or Mind-Soul; here in Mid-Europe the Ego; and in Eastern Europe in the same way a civilization of the Spirit-is to be looked for, to be active only in the future and at present existing in germs which are now entirely hidden. Good mankind but look at Western Europe and understand its riddles through Spiritual Science. For instance, the characteristics of Italian regions (not those of single individuals, which of course grow out everywhere beyond the common norm) develop differently from those of French or British humanity. This last is so constituted that the nature of the people has a special connection with the Consciousness-Soul. Through living in the Consciousness-Soul man is banished to the physical plane, although not so strongly in the British Isles as in America. The result is that man, caught off first from the super-sensible by ecclesiastical developments, will be led back to union with the Cosmos; but it is only to the outer Cosmos that he is led by the Consciousness-Soul. Therefore the British people, as Britons, find their union with the cosmos only through economic principles. British thought is essentially economic, framed on economic lines. Anyone who grasps the connection of the Consciousness-Soul with the physical world will see this necessity; also that the French national character (not that of individuals), having an affinity with the Intellectual or Mind-Soul, develops chiefly political thinking and feeling; while the Italian and Spanish in the same way have the sensuous side of the mind developed, because the Sentient-Soul is directly connected with the nature of the people. I can only outline this, but it gives an idea of what lies in the characters of the peoples themselves.

If we look on the German essence, developing as it has in the midst of such a tragedy, we see that the Ego dwells within it. The whole of German history becomes clear if we consider this fact, which is disclosed from the super-sensible world. The Ego of man is the principle that is least externally developed; it has remained a man's most spiritual member. Thereby the German, inasmuch as he is connected through the Ego with the spiritual world, is linked with it in the most spiritual way. He cannot achieve any connection with the cosmos economically, politically, or sensuously; he can achieve it only in so far as it manifests in the soul-life of single individuals—as the Ego invariably does—and is then poured out over the people. It comes to expression most characteristically in what may be discerned as the essence of Goethe's genius, of Herder's and Lessing's, as something detached, a state higher than the physical-sensible. Hence comes a certain estrangement from the latter realm, a feeling of not really belonging to matter, when the physical-sensible alone is in question; hence the great amount of “Americanism”, and of the elements which I prefer not to particularise, poured out over Germany during the last decades, have alienated it from the original activity destined for its national Soul.

In a yet higher way Eastern Europe will be connected with the spiritual through its national characteristics—and will develop a still higher civilization and a spiritual sense, as a reaction from what is now taking shape there. But that is a matter of the future; it is not yet in evidence and must first evolve out of the animal character in which it is still confined.

The Western countries of Europe are directly connected by a lawful inheritance, so to speak, with the fourth post-Atlantean epoch. Something more recent, but opposed to “Americanism”, lies hidden in the German nature; a certain relation to the spiritual world, sought inwardly in the spiritual itself. The German Soul following its own peculiar nature, has no fear of the spiritual; rather an inclination towards it, such as is to be found, albeit in a higher form, in Goetheanism.—This is plain speaking, of course; but you know that these things are brought forward from knowledge—not from Chauvinism, nor said to please anyone here. You saw in the last lecture that I understand how not to speak flatteringly. One thing, however, must be said: within the German soul—though this is often forgotten in Middle Europe, there is a dormant relation of the human spirit to the super-sensible world which must be cultivated, and which is the exact opposite of everything else now manifesting on the earth. Could we but have recognized this, if only, alas, the last decades had not brought Americanism and Russian thoughts into this realm, how differently the impulse of science in Middle-Europe would have developed! You know for my other lectures that a science of soul and spirit might have flowed from Goetheanism—but it remained a disregarded impulse! Has it really been grasped at all? Not yet—although within its depths lies the true being of Germany, which is, as you will have gathered, a stranger to the others, for they are still to a great extent animated by the legacy of the old, as well as by the new. In Middle-Europe alone has something developed which has more or less emerged from the old and the new.

By many indications we see that Goetheanism is untouched by materialistic science. (Goethe is praised, of course, but an ex-finance Minister—Kreuzwendedich—is made President of the Goethe Society!) What exists in the true, inner element of the German nature will be experienced in other realms as a continual reproach. The easiest way to protect oneself against what by nature one cannot acknowledge, is to slander it. We must look frankly at this. Such a living reproach can be invasively described as “delinquency”. This is a subjective way of escaping from the reproach. Here we touch upon an important psychological fact. The slander will spread further and further, rooted in the uncomfortable feeling that the special relationship of this Ego to the Spiritual does exist. It is necessary, however, to see clearly in these domains, not to shun a clear view of them, as is done to-day. Had we not so much conventionalism and Americanism amongst us, we should discern that German Goetheanism and Americanism are two opposite poles, and we should know that to regard these two currents of the present day with an unprejudiced mind is the only correct attitude to maintain. We should reject all exaggerated patriotism and look facts fully in the face.

Then we should abjure the apotheosis of Americanism in which we have so long and old son, and perceive that this particular element will become more and more active is a real, deep-seeded evil, because fear of the Spiritual is its main characteristic. Those who say otherwise are short-sighted, not judging things in their real setting. Everything arising from the political attitude of the French, from the economic rigidity natural to the British, or from the elemental sensationalism—the so-called “sacred egoism”of the Italian people—all this, in view of the great events now playing their part, is but trivial compared to the especially evil element arising from Americanism.

There are three currents which through their inward relationship had the greatest power of destruction in human evolution, due to their having absorbed the inherited and the new, in different ways. First among them is what I call Americanism, which tends to produce greater and greater fear of the spirit, making the world a mere opportunity for living in the physical. It is quite different when Britain wants to make the world into a kind of commercial mart. Americanism would make it a physical dwelling equipped with all possible comfort, in which man can lead an agreeable and wealthy life. That is the political creed of Americanism, and whoever does not detect it is blind to the facts and merely shuts his eyes and ears. Man's connection with the Spiritual is bound to die out under such an influence. In these forces of Americanism lies what must actually bring the earth to an end, destruction dooming it at last to death , because the Spirit will be shut out from it.

The second destructive element is not only that of Catholicism, but all Jesuitism, which in essence is virtually allied to Americanism. If the latter is the cultivation of the impulse to build up fear of the spirit, so the former seeks to awaken the belief that one should not seek contact with the spirit, which it deems impossible; it wishes Spiritual blessings to be dispensed by those who are called into the teaching office of the Catholic Church. This influence seeks to atrophy forces in human nature which incline to the super-sensible.

The particular indications of the third stream can be seen arising in a terrible form in the East: a social state based on a purely animal, physical socialism. Without plastering it with dogmas, we call it “Bolshevism”, and it will not easily be overcome by mankind.

These are the three distinctive elements in the modern development of humanity. To bring knowledge to bear upon them, so that the events of the present day may be met in the right way, it is possible only through Spiritual Science.

Zwanzigster Vortrag

Ich werde heute einiges weiter skizzieren aus dem Zusammenhange heraus, den wir im Laufe der letzten Betrachtungen schon zu verstehen versucht haben. Die Gegenwart mit ihren verschiedensten Strömungen, geistigen, materiellen Strömungen zu verstehen, ist ja außerordentlich schwierig, und man sollte gar nicht glauben, daß man sie verstehen könnte, diese verworrene Gegenwart, ohne den Willen, dasjenige zu erkennen, was sich für diese Gegenwart im Grunde genommen lange, lange im Schoße der Geschichte vorbereitet hat. Wir wollen heute in dem Sinne, wie wir das aus unserer Geisteswissenschaft heraus versuchen können, zurückschauen auf den sogenannten vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum.

Sie wissen, wir müssen diesen Zeitraum beginnen lassen ungefähr mit dem Jahre 747 vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha, und er schließt für uns mit dem Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts, etwa mit dem Jahre 1413. Wir blicken also auf diesen Zeitraum - die Zahlen sind natürlich so aufzunehmen, wie überhaupt in bezug auf diese Dinge die Zahlen -, weil wir in diesem Zeitraum gewisse zusammengehörige, miteinander verwandte Kräfte sehen, die sich von all den Kräften, die im vorhergehenden und im nachfolgenden Zeitraum herrschen, ganz wesentlich unterscheiden. Dieser Zeitraum, den wir die Entwickelung der Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele in der Menschennatur nennen, kann uns wiederum in drei kleinere Epochen zerfallen: in einen Zeitraum, den wir etwa so begrenzen können, daß wir ihn beginnen lassen etwa 747 vor Christus — das ist ja auch die wahre Begründuneszahl von Rom und schließen etwa im Jahre 27 vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha. Der zweite kleinere Zeitraum würde sich dann erstrecken von diesem Jahre 27 bis etwa zum Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts, bis zum Jahre 693 nach Begründung des Christentums; und der letzte, der dritte kleinere Zeitraum in diesem größeren, umschließt die Zeit von 693 bis etwa 1413. Seit jenem Zeitpunkte, seit etwa 1413, stehen wir dann in derjenigen Zeit drinnen, die unserer Seelenentwickelung die uns ja in ihrer Eigenart bis zu einem gewissen Grade schon bekannten Seelenkräfte gibt. So wie man den vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum in bezug auf die Seelenentwickelung der Menschheit scharf abgrenzen kann von den drei vorhergehenden, dem urindischen, dem urpersischen und dem ägyptisch-chaldäischen, und wie man ihn wieder scharf abgrenzen kann von dem, was darauf schon gefolgt ist und noch kommen muß, so kann man auch wieder innerhalb dieses Zeitraumes schon charakteristische Momente hervorheben für die Entwickelung der Kulturmenschheit, insofern sie im Prozeß der Fortentwickelung der Menschheit innerhalb dieser kleineren angegebenen Zeiträume in Betracht kommen.

Für den Zeitraum von 747 bis 27 vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha kommen ja selbstverständlich vorzugsweise jene Völker in Betracht, die um das Mittelmeer herum wohnen. Bei diesen Völkern sehen wir eine ganz bestimmte Seelenverfassung sich ausbilden. Die Geschichte sagt wenig über diese Seelenverfassung, weil die Geschichte in diesem Falle sich die Ideen, die Begriffe nicht verschaffen will, um auf das eigentlich Charakteristische dabei einzugehen. Will man diesen Zeitraum, den ich eben begrenzt habe, charakterisieren, so kann man sagen: Die Menschenseelen entwickeln sich in dieser Zeit aus inneren Gründen der menschheitlichen Entwickelung heraus so, daß sie sich gewissermaßen als Seelen von dem Zusammenhange mit der allgeistigen Welt lösen. Wenn wir ins Ägyptertum, ins Chaldäertum zurückgehen — das ist ja der Zeitraum der Empfindungsseele -, so finden wir da für das menschliche Bewußtsein ein ausgesprochenes Gefühl der Zusammengehörigkeit dieser Menschenseele mit dem Kosmos vor. Die Empfindungsseele in der Menschennatur verspürte damals, daß der Mensch ein Glied des ganzen Kosmos ist. Man kommt nicht mit der Charakteristik dessen zurecht, was man als ägyptische, als chaldäische, babylonische Entwickelung kennt, wenn man nicht berücksichtigt, daß damals der Mensch gewissermaßen mit der Empfindung, mit der sinnlichen Empfindung aus der Weltenbeobachtung etwas hereinnahm, was in ihm dieses Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl mit dem geistigen Kosmos ausdrückte. So wie unsere Finger an der Hand sich gleichsam als eins mit uns selber fühlen, so fühlte sich noch der ägyptische, der chaldäische Mensch als ein Glied des geistigen Kosmos. Mit Bezug auf dieses kosmische Gefühl war im 8. Jahrhundert vor unserer Zeitrechnung eine Krisis, eine richtige Katastrophe über die Menschheit hereingekommen. Die Menschenseelen hatten ja ihr früheres Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl mit dem Kosmos ihrem alten atavistischen, mehr traumhaften Hellsehen verdankt. Die Menschen nahmen in jenen alten Zeiten nicht so wahr, wie wir heute wahrnehmen. Sie nahmen - die profane, aber in diesem Sinne nichts wissende Wissenschaft nennt es « Animismus» -, indem sie mit den Sinnen wahrnahmen, zugleich das Geistige, das Göttliche wahr. Dadurch fühlten sie sich im Zusammenhange mit dem Geiste des Kosmos.

Dieser Zusammenhang schwand. Auf der einen Seite hatte dieses Schwinden viele Dekadenzerscheinungen zur Folge, auf der andern Seite hatte es aber auch die ganze wunderbare griechische Kultur zur Folge. Denn diese griechische Kultur, die vorzugsweise auf das begründet war, was der Mensch als Mensch, als isoliert im Weltenall dastehender Mensch erlebt, diese griechische Kultur ist dem Umstande zu verdanken, daß der Mensch sich nicht mehr als ein Glied des Kosmos fühlte, sondern als eine menschliche Totalität, als etwas in sich Abgeschlossenes als Mensch. Er hatte sich gewissermaßen herausgestellt im Kosmos, er hatte 'ein Totalleben in sich selbst begonnen. Wenn über das griechische Geistesleben dieselbe Seelenverfassung ausgegossen wäre, die aus alten Zeiten, zum Beispiel im Indertum, zurückgeblieben war, und die noch eine gewisse Zusammengehörigkeit mit dem Kosmischen hatte, so könnten Sie sich nicht denken, daß unter diesem Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl mit dem Kosmos die schöne griechische Kultur hätte entstehen können. Alles, was in der griechischen Kultur als Glanz und Glorie zum Vorschein gekommen ist, was auf andern Gebieten in weniger erfreulicher Art sich herausgebildet hat, das alles hat sich herausgebildet in der Zeit vom 8. bis 1. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert. Die Menschheit hat sich in das Seelische, in das rein Menschliche zurückgezogen. In dieses Zeitalter hinein fiel dann die Hinbewegung der Menschheit zu dem Mysterium von Golgatha. Vergessen wir nicht, daß das Mysterium von Golgatha immer etwas haben muß, was gewissermaßen nicht ganz in das menschliche, auch nicht in das menschliche übersinnliche Verständnis aufgehen kann. Es wird immer ein ungelöster Rest bleiben. Was sich mit dem Eintritt des Christus in die Erdenentwickelung vollzogen hat, das kann, wie ich bei verschiedenen früheren Betrachtungen ausgeführt habe, nicht vollständig in menschliche Begriffe, auch nicht einmal in menschliche Gefühle und Empfindungen sich auflösen. Damit aber hängt es zusammen, daß dieses Mysterium von Golgatha sich gewissermaßen so entwickeln mußte, daß die Kulturmenschheit während dieses Ereignisses dazu vorbereitet war, dieses Mysterium von Golgatha nicht eigentlich so voll mitzuerleben, son‚dern es neben dem eigenen menschlichen Erleben für sich verfließen zu lassen. Denken Sie doch einmal, daß dieses neben dem eigentlichen menschlichen Erleben für sich Verfließenlassen historisch als ziemlich deutlich zutage tritt. Wieviel hat denn eigentlich die Kulturmenschheit um das Mittelmeer herum von dem berücksichtigt, was da in der entfernten Judenprovinz Palästina sich mit dem Christus Jesus abgespielt hat? Wie wenig ist das noch in das Bewußtsein der Kulturmenschheit eingeflossen, selbst für Tacitus, der ein Jahrhundert nach dem Mysterium von Golgatha geschrieben hat!

Auf der einen Seite haben wir die Strömung der Kulturmenschheit und auf der andern Seite jene Strömung, innerhalb welcher das Mysterium von Golgatha spielt. Beide vollziehen sich gewissermaßen nebeneinander. Das konnte nur dadurch geschehen, daß, während sich das göttliche Ereignis vollzog, der Mensch, der Kulturmensch sich von dem Göttlichen abgeschnürt hatte, ein Leben lebte, das mit dem Geistigen keinen unmittelbaren Zusammenhang hatte. So geschah auf dem Erdenrund selbst ein geistiges Ereignis, das eigentlich neben der menschlichen Kultur einhergeht. Ein solches Verhältnis des Nebeneinanderlebens von äußerer Kultur und einem Mysterienereignis ist in allen früheren Kulturperioden der Menschheit ganz undenkbar. Niemals spielte sich dergleichen früher ab, weil die Menschheitskultur sich früher im Zusammenhang wußte mit dem, was göttlich-geistig vorgeht. Das ist sehr charakteristisch, sehr bedeutsam, daß eigentlich die profane Kultur, welche mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha parallel ablief, diesem Ereignisse fernstand, daß der Mensch sich abgeschnürt hatte.

Und im zweiten Zeitraume, der also etwa 27 vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha beginnt und 693 nach ihm abschließt, ist eigentlich die ganze mitteleuropäische Kultur darauf angelegt, die profane Kultur in Wahrheit doch nicht an das Verständnis des Mysteriums von Golgatha herankommen zu lassen. Es könnte sehr sonderbar aussehen, was ich sage, wenn man doch bedenkt, daß das Christentum sich in diese europäische Profankultur eingelebt hat, daß es sich über die mitteleuropäische Kultur ausgebreitet hat. Aber die Ausbreitung ist in dem Sinne erfolgt, wie ich es schon neulich charakterisiert habe. Das Mysterium von Golgatha war einsam für sich. Gewiß, in äußerlich dogmatischer Weise nahm man in die profane Kultur allerlei herüber, was sich so ausdrückt: Der Christus war da, hat Apostel gehabt, hat dieses oder jenes für die Menschheit eingeholt, hat über die Beziehung des Menschen zum Göttlichen dieses und jenes gesagt. Man nahm in Form von äußeren Sätzen dies in die Profankultur recht sehr auf, aber neben diesem Aufnehmen in äußerlicher Weise war das andere doch durchaus geltend: daß eigentlich diese ganze Menschheit, welche gerade in diesen Jahrhunderten das Christentum aufnahm, sich von dem innerlichen Verständnis des Mysteriums von Golgatha gerade fernhielt. Mit Hilfe der Gnosis, mit Hilfe mancher Vorbereitung durch das, was aus dem alten Heidentum an Weisheitsschätzen überliefert war, hätte man sich gerade dem nähern können: Was ist da eigentlich mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha geschehen? Man hat es nicht getan. Man hat eigentlich alles für Ketzerei erklärt, was zum Verständnis des Mysteriums von Golgatha hätte führen können, und man versuchte mehr oder weniger in triviale Formeln hineinzugießen, was sich niemals in triviale Formeln hineingießen läßt, was in bezug auf das Mysterium von Golgatha nur mit den höchsten Inhalten des Weisheitsstrebens erfaßt werden kann.

So waren die Einrichtungen, die in den ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen Entwickelung gepflogen wurden, eigentlich nicht dazu da, sich mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha zu verbinden, sondern in der Menschenseele etwas leben zu lassen, was dem wirklichen inneren verständnisvollen Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha eigentlich recht ferne blieb. Die Kirche war eher eine Einrichtung zum Nichtverstehen des Mysteriums von Golgatha als zum Verstehen. Wer verfolgt, was die verschiedenen Konzilien, was überhaupt die kirchlichen Machinationen in diesen Zeiten zu bewirken sich bestrebt haben, der findet, daß all das, was so angestrebt worden ist, dahin ging, gewisse dogmatische Vorstellungen ins menschliche Leben hereinzunehmen, aber über diejenigen Dinge, die mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha zusammenhängen, doch so zu denken, daß diese sich eigentlich unabhängig vom menschlichen Seelenleben vollziehen. Es tendiert alles nach einem gewissen Punkte hin, nach jenem Punkt, den man etwa, wenn man etwas radikal charakterisiert, in der folgenden Weise schildern könnte. Man kann sagen: Die Menschen suchten sich hier auf der Erde mit gewissen Vorstellungen über das Mysterium von Golgatha und seine Wirkungen einzurichten. Aber das Wichtigste war ihnen nicht, was sie wissen konnten, was sie in ihre Seele aufnahmen, sondern das Wichtigste war ihnen, daß sie die Voraussetzung haben können: Was wir Menschen auch begreifen, das Mysterium von Golgatha hat sich für sich selbst vollzogen, und der Christus sorgt schon dafür, daß wir selig werden! — Und die Tendenz ging dahin, die Realität der geistigen Ereignisse immer mehr und mehr in ein Jenseits des Seelischen abzuschieben, nicht die eigentlichen -— wenn ich den Ausdruck gebrauchen darf — geistig-heiligen Ereignisse im Zusammenhange mit dem zu denken, was sich in der Menschenbrust abspielt, sondern beide möglichst zu trennen. In dieser Tendenz lag ein selbstverständlich nicht ausgesprochenes, aber unbewußt wirkendes Ziel, ein Ziel, das dann beim achten Konzil in Konstantinopel im Jahre 869 erst recht herausgekommen ist. Das Ziel, es lag darinnen, den Menschengeist von seiner individuellen, seiner persönlichen Beschäftigung mit dem Geistigen, das man ja jetzt auf das Mysterium von Golgatha beschränken wollte, abzuhalten, also von der Hinneigung, von der individuellen und empfindungsgemäßen Hinneigung zum Verständnisse des Mysteriums von Golgatha. Unverstanden sollte es bleiben. Dadurch konnte sich die Kirche nach und nach dazu entwickeln, Menschen unter sich zu haben, die nur Profanverständnis haben, die immer mehr und mehr zu dem Glauben kommen: Über das Übersinnliche kann man überhaupt nicht nachdenken, denn das Übersinnliche entzieht sich den Kräften der eigenen Menschenseele. Das menschliche Nachdenken soll sich nur ‘ auf das beschränken, was hier in der physischen Welt lebt. - Aus den Menschenseelen heraus sollten sich keine Kräfte entwickeln, die für sich selbst geeignet sein könnten, Verständnis zu suchen für das Mysterium von Golgatha. In gewissen Beschlüssen gerade des achten Konzils von Konstantinopel liegt klar ausgesprochen, daß die Menschen Europas nicht nachdenken sollten — weil die menschlichen Seelenkräfte nicht heranreichen an das Gebiet -—, nicht nachdenken sollten über das Gebiet, in welchem das Leben verflossen ist, dem das Mysterium von Golgatha angehört.

So vollzog sich gerade in diesem mittleren Zeitraum des vierten nachatlantischen Zeitabschnittes von etwa 27 vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha bis 693 nach demselben für die Menschheit das, daß man sagen kann: Diese Menschheit sollte zu dem Glauben bestimmt werden, daß alles menschliche Erkennen, alles menschliche Empfinden nur für das sinnenfällige Diesseits berechnet sei; das Nichtsinnenfällige, das Übersinnliche oder, wie man es nennen will, Jenseitige sollte dem menschlichen Empfinden und Erkennen, dem unmittelbaren erkenntnismäßigen Empfinden entzogen werden. Die ganze Geschichte dieser Jahrhunderte versteht man eigentlich nur, wenn man dieses eben Charakterisierte eigentlich ins Auge faßt. Alle Maßnahmen der katholischen Kirche in jenen Jahrhunderten waren darauf angelegt, den Menschen zu dem Glauben zu bringen: Dein seelisches Erkennen ist nur für das Diesseits berechnet; was das Übersinnliche betrifft, so mußt du es auf eine Weise an dich herankommen lassen, die nichts mit deinem Verständnis, mit deinem Eigenerkennen zu tun hat. — Das hat bewirkt, daß dann nach dem Ende dieses Zeitraumes, also im 8., 9. Jahrhundert, eine Art Verfinsterung der europäischen Menschheit eingetreten ist in bezug auf den Zusammenhang der Menschenseele mit dem Übersinnlichen. Und solche Erscheinungen, wie ich sie geschildert habe, unter denen eine solche wie später Bernhard von ClJairvaux typisch ist, die erklären sich gerade daraus, daß sie gewissermaßen jenseits bleiben von allem Physisch-Sinnlichen und demjenigen die Seele ganz hingeben, woran das natürliche menschliche Verständnis nicht heranreicht. Dieser Enthusiasmus für das, was doch jenseits alles menschlichen Verstehens liegt, muß hinzugedacht werden zu der ganzen Seelenverfassung eines Bernhard von Clairvaux, so wie man sie versteht. Man kann gerade in dieser Persönlichkeit manche Züge finden, die groß und gewaltig wirken, weil alles, was einen mehr oder weniger verzerrten Zug haben kann, auch einen schönen, einen großen, gloriosen Zug haben kann. Aber man wird bei Bernhard eben Züge finden, die in seinem Seelencharakter ganz deutlich anzeigen, daß er herausgeboren ist aus jener Seelenstimmung, die sich in der geschilderten Weise in den angegebenen Jahrhunderten innerhalb der abendländischen Kultur entwickelt hat. Man könnte außer Bernhard von Clairvaux manche andere Gestalt nennen, er ist nur eine typische Figur, so zum Beispiel, wenn er seinen Anhängern deren Kreis war ein großer - davon spricht, was alles mit dem von ihm beabsichtigten Kreuzzug der Menschheit beschert sein sollte. Dann kam das Mißlingen der ganzen Sache. Und wie spricht er, dieser gottinnige Mensch, gerade über dieses Mißlungene? Ungefähr so: Wenn alles, alles schlimm ausgeht, so möge das Urteil über den schlimmen Ausgang mich treffen, aber nicht das Göttliche, denn das muß immer recht haben. — Selbst da, wo sich der Mensch im Zusammenhange wissen konnte mit dem, was er als göttlich-geistige Kraft hinter den Erscheinungen denkt — das eine sondert er von den andern ab -, da sagt er: Die Sünde möge mich treffen; das Richtige ist etwas, was für sich verläuft, was gewissermaßen jenseits des Stromes verfließt, in welchen die Menschenseele eingespannt ist.

So war mit dem Beginne dieses dritten Zeitabschnittes des vierten nachatlantischen Kulturzeitraumes etwas wie eine Verfinsterung über die Menschheit gekommen. Die drückt sich am besten darin aus, daß man hinblickt, wie die Menschheit in ihren Begriffen keinen Zusammenhang mehr mit den realen geistigen Strömungen und Impulsen zu erkennen vermochte. Man lerne nur die Philosophie der Jahrhunderte zwischen dem 8. und 15. Jahrhundert kennen, wie sie überall darauf hinzielt, nachzuweisen, daß man mit den menschlichen Ideen und Begriffen auf keinen Fall das zu erfassen versuchen sollte, was in der geistigen Wirklichkeit vor sich geht, wie das - man hatte es glücklich auf eine Formel gebracht - der Offenbarung überlassen werden muß, wie das dem Lehramt der Kirche überlassen werden muß.

So hatte sich die Macht der Kirche herausgebildet. Diese Macht der Kirche ist nicht bloß aus theologischen Impulsen heraus entstanden, sondern sie hatte sich dadurch herausgebildet, daß die Menschen darauf verwiesen worden sind, ihre eigenen Erkenntniskräfte, ihre eigenen Seelenkräfte nur auf das physisch-sinnliche Leben zu beziehen und nicht an eine Erkenntnis des Übersinnlichen zu denken. Daraus entwickelte sich der spätere, in den ersten Jahrhunderten durchaus noch nicht vorhandene — man datiert ihn nur zurück — Glaubensbegriff. Dieser Glaubensbegriff besagt: Über das Geistig-Göttliche könne man nur einen Glauben haben - kein Wissen. Diese Trennung zwischen Glaubenswahrheit und Wissenswahrheit bildete sich tatsächlich aus gewissen geschichtlichen Hintergründen heraus, die bedeutsam sind, und die man in solchen Dingen suchen muß, wie wir sie angeführt haben.

Nun leben wir seit dem 15. Jahrhundert, approximativ seit dem Jahre 1413, in einem Zeitraume - das wird erst das 3. Jahrtausend zeigen -, in dem wir es zu tun haben zum Teil mit der Erbschaft alles desjenigen, was unter solchen Einflüssen, die ich hier charakterisiert habe, geschehen ist. Mit Erbstücken aus der damaligen Zeit haben wir es auf der einen Seite zu tun, und auf der andern Seite haben wir es weiter mit etwas zu tun, was sich als ganz Neues in diesem fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum bildet. In jenem vierten Zeitraume, wenn wir ihn überblicken, haben wir es zu tun mit einer Art Abschnürung der Menschenseele vom Geistig-Göttlichen, mit einem Verwiesenwerden auf die bloß äußeren physisch-sinnlichen Vorgänge. Das war damals für diesen vierten Zeitraum auch neu. Ich habe ja vorhin angedeutet, daß es im ägyptisch-chaldäischen Zeitalter nicht vorhanden war. Mit einem solchen ähnlichen Neuen haben wir es auch in unserem Zeitraume zu tun, und die Aufgabe der Menschheit — die Menschheit ist ja allmählich in ein Zeitalter eingetreten, in welchem die Bewußtheit eine immer größere Rolle spielen muß -, die Aufgabe der Menschheit wäre, dies alles eben einzusehen, einzusehen, was auf der einen Seite Erbschaft ist aus der eben charakterisierten vergangenen Zeit, und was auf der andern Seite neu aus unserem Zeitalter entsteht. Wollen wir einmal zuerst auf die Erbschaft hinblicken.

Wir haben gesehen, daß diese Erbschaft darin besteht, daß der Mensch sich gewissermaßen gezwungen fühlt, sein Seelisches abseits von dem Übersinnlichen zu entwickeln. Und Erbschaft davon ist wieder etwas anderes, was Sie, wenn Sie die historischen Vorgänge immer genauer und genauer überblicken werden, auch gerade immer besser einsehen werden. Gerade durch genaues Überblicken wird die Sache nicht etwa irgendwie einem Zweifel unterworfen, sondern gerade in die Bewahrheitung hineingestellt. Sie werden nämlich sehen, wie das, was sich damals herausbildete, daß man die menschliche Seelenkraft im Sinnlichen erhalten, von dem Übersinnlichen abschließen will, dann im fünften nachatlantischen Kulturzeitraum seit dem 15. Jahrhundert - sich dahin entwickelte, dieses Übersinnliche überhaupt abzulehnen. Damals wollte man gewissermaßen das Übersinnliche vom Menschen fernhalten, und dadurch ist gerade das achte Konzil zu Konstantinopel vom Jahr 869 charakterisiert. Nun entwickelte sich aus diesem Fernhalten, das sich gerade die Kirche zur Aufgabe machte, die Ablehnung des Übersinnlichen. Es entwickelte sich der Glaube, daß das Übersinnliche überhaupt nur von Menschen ausgedacht sei, daß es keine Wirklichkeit habe. Will man historisch-psychologisch den Ursprung des neueren Materialismus wirklich verstehen, so muß man ihn bei der Kirche suchen. Natürlich ist die Kirche auch nur der äußere Ausdruck für tiefere, in der Menschheitsentwickelung wirkende Kräfte, aber man erwirbt sich eine Erkenntnis dieser Menschheitsentwickelung, wenn man genauer zusieht, wie das eine aus dem andern wirklich entsteht. Der Rechtgläubige im vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum sagte: Das menschliche Erkenntnisvermögen ist nur dazu bestimmt, die sinnlichen Zusammenhänge zu verstehen; das Übersinnliche muß der Offenbarung überlassen sein, da darf nicht hineingeredet werden; denn alles was hineingeredet wird, ist Ketzerei und kann nur zu einem Irrwahn führen. -— Der moderne Marxist, der moderne Sozialdemokrat, welcher der rechte Sohn dieser Anschauung ist, die nichts anderes ist als die Konsequenz des Katholizismus aus den früheren Jahrhunderten, der sagt: Alle Wissenschaft, die dieses Namens würdig ist, kann nur von sinnlich-physischen Ereignissen handeln; Geisteswissenschaft gibt es nicht, weil es keinen Geist gibt; Geisteswissenschaft ist höchstens Gesellschaftswissenschaft, Wissenschaft vom menschlichen Zusammenleben. — Natürlich hat sich in den verschiedensten Gebieten der Kulturländer diese eben charakterisierte Tendenz ausgelebt, aber das nur als Nuance.

So ist es nötig geworden, daß vom 9. Jahrhunderte ab in den mittleren und westlichen Ländern Europas darauf Rücksicht genommen wurde, daß sich das menschliche Seelenleben in einer gewissen Weise doch mitbetätigt, indem es glaubt an das Übersinnliche und nichts von ihm weiß als durch Offenbarung, aber an das Übersinnliche glaubt. Die Rassen- und Volkseigenschaften Mitteleuropas waren so, daß man auf sie Rücksicht nehmen mußte, daß man sie nicht einfach so lassen konnte. Den Leuten sagen: Eure menschlichen Kräfte müssen sich beschränken auf Essen und Trinken, und was sonst in der Welt geschieht, das andere lebt über euch -, ganz so konnte man es in Westeuropa nicht machen; man tat das aber in Osteuropa, und das ist der Sinn der Kirchenspaltung zwischen Ost- und Westeuropa. In Osteuropa wurde der Mensch wirklich auf die Sinneswelt beschränkt, dort sollten sich seine Kräfte entwickeln. Und innerhalb der Mysterienhöhen, ganz unberührt vom Sinnlichen, sollte sich das entwickeln, was dann zur orthodoxen Religion führte. Da wurde wirklich streng getrennt das, was der Mensch über sein Menschentum herausbrachte, und das, was die wirkliche geistige Welt war, die einzig und allein schwebte und lebte in dem über den Menschen schwebenden Kultus.

Was mußte sich da entwickeln? Es mußte sich, wiederum in verschiedenen Nuancen, die Anschauung, die Empfindung entwickeln: Bedeutung, Wirklichkeit hat eigentlich nur das Sinnlich-Physische. Man könnte sagen: Kräfte, die nicht geübt werden, sondern die man so behandelt, daß sich der Mensch ihnen gegenüber in der Weise verhält, sie in sich abzusperren, solche Kräfte entwickeln sich auch nicht, die verkümmern. Hatte man also den Menschen durch Jahrhunderte hindurch davon abgehalten, in seinem Geist das Übersinnliche zu erfassen, so wurden seine Kräfte auch immer ungeübter, um dieses Übersinnliche zu erfassen, und es entschwand ihm vollständig. Und dieses vollständige Verschwinden finden wir in den modernen sozialistischen Weltanschauungen, deren Unglück nicht in ihrem Sozialismus, sondern darin besteht, daß sie das Geistig-Übersinnliche vollständig ablehnen und sich daher beschränken müssen auf die bloße soziale Struktur des Animalischen im Menschen. Diese bloße soziale Struktur des Animalischen im Menschen ist vorbereitet worden durch das Lahmlegen der übersinnlichen Kräfte des Menschen. Sie hat sich dadurch ergeben, daß die Menschen gezwungen sind, sich zu sagen: Wir wollen gar nicht unsere Seele erkennend und erlebend mit dem verbinden, was den Strom seines Lebens für sich lebt, so daß unsere Seligkeit durch es bewirkt wird und worin das Mysterium von Golgatha eingespannt ist.

Womit hängt das zusammen? Es hängt damit zusammen, daß gerade in diesem vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum ganz besonders stark die luziferischen Kräfte wirkten. Sie lösten den Menschen los von dem Kosmos; denn diese Kräfte sind immer darauf aus, den Menschen egoistisch zu isolieren, ihn loszuschnüren vom ganzen geistigen Kosmos, auch in seinem Wissen vom Zusammenhang mit dem physischen Kosmos. Daher gab es keine Naturwissenschaften, als diese Loslösung in der höchsten Blüte stand. Luziferisches ist das. Daher muß man sagen: Was damals wirkte in der Trennung sinnlichen Wissens und übersinnlicher Dogmatik, das ist luziferische Art. Dem Luziferischen steht entgegen das Ahrimanische. Das sind die zwei Gegner der menschlichen Seele. Dieses Verkümmernlassen der übersinnlichen Menschenkräfte -— was dann zur rein animalischen Form des Sozialismus geführt hat, der jetzt verheerend und zerstörend über die Menschheit hereinbrechen muß - ist auf luziferische Kräfte zurückzuführen. Das Neue, was sich in unserem Zeitalter entwickelt, ist anderer Natur; das ist mehr ahrimanischer Natur. Das Luziferische will den Menschen isolieren, abschnüren vom Geistig-Übersinnlichen, will ihn in sich selbst die Illusion einer Totalität erleben lassen. Das Ahrimanische dagegen jagt dem Menschen Furcht ein vor dem Geistigen, läßt ihn nicht an das Geistige herankommen, gibt ihm die Illusion, daß das Geistige doch nicht vom Menschen erreicht werden kann. Muß die luziferische Abhaltung des Menschen vom Übersinnlichen mehr erzieherischer, kulturerzieherischer Art sein, so ist die ahrimanische Abhaltung vom Übersinnlichen, die auf der Furcht vor dem Geistigen beruht, mehr eine natürliche, die in dem Zeitalter seit dem 15. Jahrhundert besonders hervorbricht. Und wie die luziferische Abschnürung vom Geistigen in dem Leben unter der Decke des orthodoxen Christentums des Ostens besonders zum Ausdruck kommen konnte, so die ahrimanische Furcht, die Zurückhaltung vor dem Geistigen besonders in dem Element der westlichen Kultur und besonders auch in dem Element der amerikanischen Kultur.

Solche Wahrheiten mögen heute unbequem sein, aber sie sind eben Wahrheiten, und wir kommen heute nicht dadurch vorwärts, daß wir im Allgemeinen herumreden -— wenn auch noch so mystisch oder theosophisch - von dem Zusammenhang des Menschen mit dem Göttlichen, oder wie sonst die Frage heißen möge. Sondern nur dadurch kommen wir vorwärts, daß wir die Wirklichkeit erkennen, wie sie ist. Nur dadurch können wir wieder eine Ordnung in unserem Chaos finden, daß wir die verschiedenen nebeneinander lebenden Strömungen in ihrer Eigenart erkennen. Denn ihrerseits entwickeln sich die verschiedenen Strömungen aus ihren Voraussetzungen, lokal, und verbreiten sich dann, und in dem modernen Kuddelmuddel, den man dann Kultur nennt, geht doch alles durcheinander. -— Was ich jetzt nennen möchte «Amerikanismus», das Amerikanische als Kollektivbegriff - nicht auf die einzelnen Amerikaner bezüglich -, das ist die Furcht vor dem Geistigen, ist die Sehnsucht, nur mit dem physisch-sinnlichen Plan zu leben, höchstens noch mit dem, was von unten herauf in diesen physisch-sinnlichen Plan an Grobgeistigem, Spiritistischem und dergleichen hereinkommt, was nicht ein wirklich Geistiges ist. Furcht vor dem Geistigen ist es, was den Amerikanismus charakterisiert. Aber der Amerikanismus lebt nun nicht etwa bloß in Amerika — da lebt er ganz und gar im sozialen Pol willenhaft, nicht menschlich -, er lebt vor allem in aller Wissenschaft. Diese Wissenschaft hat nämlich in diesem Zeitraume seit dem 15. Jahrhundert immer mehr und mehr auch dasjenige herausgebildet, was man nennen könnte «Furcht vor dem Geistigen». Als objektive Wissenschaft wird ja nur dasjenige bezeichnet, was womöglichst nicht mit lebendigen, im Inneren der Seele erzeugten Begriffen sich befaßt. Was irgendwie eine Idee, ein Begriff ist, die im Inneren der Seele erzeugt werden, darf nicht in die Naturbeobachtung eingreifen. Es darf nur das Tote der Naturbeobachtung, nicht das durchgeistigte Lebendige in die Wissenschaft eingehen. Wenn man, ich will sagen, etwa in Hegelscher Weise, was eine richtige mitteleuropäische Weise ist — aber auch in Schellingscher Weise, in Goethescher Weise -, den Begriff in die Naturbetrachtung einführt, dann glaubt man sogleich, daß man dadurch ins Unsichere komme; denn man traut sich nicht zu, etwas objektiv Wirkliches im geistigen Erfassen, im geistigen Erleben zu erfahren. Man glaubt, da könne nur Willkür leben, da komme man gleich ins Nichtobjektive hinein, wenn man irgend etwas Subjektives in die Erfahrungen hineinträgt. Das ist ahrimanisch. Die Wissenschaft ist universalistisch-amerikanisch, insofern sie diesen Grundsatz hat, alles Subjektive aus der Naturbetrachtung herauszuwerfen. Das ist das, was sich elementar herausgebildet hat aus dieser früheren Abschnürung des Geistigen im vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum.

So haben wir zu jenem Erbstück das Neue hinzugefügt, jenes Neue, das sich in die Zukunft hinein neben dem, was sich als fruchttragend entwickeln muß, aber bewußt entwickeln muß, immer mehr und mehr als ein Zerstörendes geltend macht. Dieses Neue ist im wesentlichen ahrimanischer Natur, ist Furcht vor dem Geistigen und wirkt zerstörend, wirkt auflösend auf alle Menschheitskultur, die doch eben im Geistigen fußen muß.

An der Wende des vierten zum fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum, besonders im fünften, kamen gerade diese Impulse, die ich jetzt charakterisiert habe, immer mehr und mehr heraus. Mit der Entdeckung Amerikas und der Verpflanzung europäischen Wesens nach Amerika entwickelte sich drüben jene Furcht vor dem geistigen Leben. Aber auf der andern Seite entstand, ich möchte sagen, eine Spannung in den Menschenseelen; denn die Volkskräfte Europas waren nicht so, daß sie nicht aus sich heraus von dem Zusammenhange mit dem Geistigen des Kosmos doch etwas verspürt hätten. Es entstand eine Spannung gewissermaßen an der Wende zwischen dem vierten und dem fünften nachatlantischen Kulturzeitraum, in den Jahrhunderten, in denen sich das herausbildete, was man als neuere Geschichte bezeichnet. Da entstand diese Spannung des unterdrückten Geistigen in der Menschenbrust. Dem mußte ein Damm entgegengesetzt werden, teilweise, indem man gut verstand, was als altes Erbgut vorhanden war, und teilweise, indem man das neuherankommende Ahrimanische sehr sachgemäß ins Auge faßte. Da entstand dann jene Geistesströmung, die doch einen viel größeren Einfluß hat, als die meisten Menschen denken - ich habe schon das letzte Mal von einem andern Gesichtspunkte aus darauf hingewiesen -, jene Geistesströmung, die sich bemüht, dieses Zurückgehaltenwerden der Menschenseele von dem Übersinnlichen zu perpetuieren, fortzusetzen. Es entstand, mit andern Worten, der Jesuitismus. Sein inneres Prinzip besteht darin, alles das in der Menschheitsentwickelung zu tun, was den Menschen fernhalten kann von dem Zusammenhange mit dem Übersinnlichen, von dem wirklichen Zusammenhange mit dem Übersinnlichen. Selbstverständlich wird man um so mehr dieses Getrenntsein dadurch erreichen, daß man dieses Übersinnliche gerade von jesuitischer Seite strikte dogmatisch als etwas hinstellt, woran das menschliche Erkennen nicht rühren kann. Aber das jesuitische Vorgehen rechnet auf der andern Seite damit sehr gut, und es will keine innere Verwandtschaft als die zwischen der modernen Wissenschaft und dem Amerikanismus, zwischen moderner Wissenschaft und Jesuitismus. Darin ist der Jesuitismus ja groß: die physische Wissenschaft tief bedeutsam zu treiben. Die Jesuiten sind große Geister auf dem Felde der physisch-sinnlichen Wissenschaft, denn der Jesuitismus rechnet mit diesem elementaren Hang der Menschennatur - der eben überwunden werden muß durch die Hinlenkung der Menschennatur auf die geistige Welt -: Furcht zu haben vor dem Geistigen. Und er rechnet damit, daß man diese Furcht sozialisieren kann dadurch, daß man gewissermaßen dem Menschen sagt: Du kannst und sollst nicht an das Geistige heran; wir verwalten dir das Geistige, wir bringen es in der rechten Weise an dich heran.

Diese beiden Strömungen — Amerikanismus und Jesuitismus arbeiten gewissermaßen ineinander; nur dürfen Sie es nicht leicht nehmen, sondern müssen bei alledem die tiefer wirksamen Impulse in der Menschheitsentwickelung suchen. Wer nach den Kräften suchen wird, welche die jetzige Katastrophe herbeigeführt haben, der wird ein merkwürdiges Zusammenarbeiten finden von Amerikanismus in dem hier gemeinten Sinne — und Jesuitismus. Wenn man dies alles überblickt, dann findet man, wie auf der einen Seite Erbschaft aus früheren Zeiten in unserem Kulturleben wirkt, und wie auf der andern Seite Neues dazutritt. Indem man dies bezeichnet als das Luziferische auf der einen Seite, als das Ahrimanische auf der andern Seite, bezeichnet man gerade das Gegnerische gegenüber dem, was als richtiges Geistesleben zur Rettung der Menschheit in die Entwickelung der Menschheit hineingegossen werden muß. Wer mit innigem Anteil nun an eine solche Gestalt herangeht, wie es Bernhard von Clairvaux ist, der gewissermaßen nach der einen Seite hintendiert, der rechnet damit: Das menschliche Erkennen ist doch nur auf das PhysischSinnliche gerichtet, also richten wir die Seele auf das Geistig-Göttliche in Inbrunst, in elementarem Erleben. Dadurch kommt etwas Enthusiastisches in diese Natur hinein. - Man könnte sagen: Was da nach der einen Seite, nach dem Geistigen in den Menschenseelen lebt, das lebt nach der andern Seite auch in unserer Zeit, aber nach der dunkeln, nach der finstern Seite. Das 12. Jahrhundert hatte seinen Bernhard von Clairvaux, und unser Jahrhundert hat solche Gestalten wie Lenin und Trotzki. Wie dort die Hinneigung zum Übersinnlichen wirkte, so lebt in diesen Gestalten der Haß gegen das Übersinnliche, wenn das auch in andern Worten, in andern Inhalten zum Ausdruck kommt. Das ist die finstere Kehrseite jener Zeiten: dort das Eingießen der Menschenseele in das Göttliche, hier das Eingießen des Menschenwesens in das Animalische, das allein eine soziale Struktur erhalten soll.

Diese Dinge versteht man allerdings nur, wenn man sich über eines ganz klar ist, was allerdings dem Verständnis der Gegenwart recht fern liegt. Diese unsere Gegenwart ist theoriengläubig, denn sie glaubt an den Inhalt dessen, was Ideen und Programme sind. Ich habe das des öfteren besprochen. Aber nie kommt es auf den Inhalt von Theorien und Programmen an, sondern auf die Wirksamkeit kommt es an. Der moderne Marxist würde vor diesem Weltkrieg, um die Wende des 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert, natürlich gesprochen haben: So lehrt Marx, so lehrt Eingels, so Lassalle; das ist noch alles, was man erstreben muß. Denn er weiß, daß man dies erstreben muß zum Heile der Menschheit und so weiter. Man nahm eben den Inhalt von Programmen und Ideen. Darauf aber kommt es in Wirklichkeit nie an, denn Ideen führen sich nie im Leben ihrem Inhalte nach aus, sondern durch Kräfte, die abgesehen von ihrem Inhalte in ihnen sind. Und nur der kennt die Wirklichkeit, der weiß, daß die Ideen mit der Wirklichkeit oft so wenig zu tun haben, daß sie entstehen neben dem, was die Ideen an Inhalt haben. Man kann ein sehr schönes Programm entwerfen, kann es wissenschaftlich sehr gut fundieren, dann kann man glühen für sein Programm, wie es die Marxisten für das ihrige getan haben. Aber darauf kommt es nicht an; das ist für eine Zeit, die so ungeistig ist wie die unserige, das Spielen mit dem Feuer. Die Menschen glauben dann, für den Inhalt der Ideen zu wirken. Wer aber weiß, wie es im Leben zugeht, der weiß auch, daß die Wirksamkeiten ganz andere sind. Ideen werden sogar Mißgeburten im Kulturleben, wenn sie nicht vom geistigen Verständnis aufgenommen werden. Aber die Ideen des Marxismus können nicht vom geistigen Verständnis aufgenommen werden, da sie den Geist austreiben wollen. Sie müssen, wenn sie noch so schön sind, Mißgeburten werden. Nur wenn man von der Idee absieht und am Morgen nicht fragt: Warum ist es hell geworden durch das, was auf der Erde geschehen ist? — sondern wenn man sich sagt: Es ist hell geworden, weil die Sonne scheint -, wenn man also aus der Erde hinausgeht, kann man sich erklären, warum es hell geworden ist. So muß man von dem, was in der unmittelbaren Gegenwart geschieht, zu demjenigen hingehen, was in einer fernen Vergangenheit vor sich gegangen ist, um sich das erklären zu können, was heute geschieht. Sie verstehen den Bolschewismus nicht, wenn Sie nicht wissen, wie er als eine Nachwirkung des achten ökumenischen Konzils vom Jahre 869 geworden ist. Sie verstehen ihn nicht, wenn Sie ihn nicht verstehen als ein Erzeugnis der Verkümmerung der geistigen Kräfte für die übersinnliche Welt. Das ist der innere Zusammenhang, den man haben muß, wenn man das, was in der äußeren Welt geschieht, wirklich so verstehen will, daß man sich ihm gegenüberstellen kann. Für den, der die Zusammenhänge in der Geschichte durchschaut, ist es das Fürchterlichste, wenn er so etwas sieht wie Bewegungen, die sich anmaßen, die Welt reformieren zu wollen, und die nur mit den Inhalten von Ideen rechnen, die nicht eingehen wollen auf die Wirksamkeit der Ideen, ganz abgesehen von dem schönen oder unschönen Inhalt der Ideen. -— Ein Kind wird geboren. Es ist ein schönes Kind. Die Mutter kann entzückt sein von ihm. Mütter sind manchmal sogar entzückt, wenn die Kinder nicht schön sind. Es wird ein Taugenichts, wird ein Tunichtgut, wird vielleicht ein Verbrecher. Ist es deshalb vielleicht nicht doch wahr, daß das Kind schön war? Hat man nicht ein Recht, es schön zu nennen? Steht dieser Schönheit vielleicht entgegen, daß Dinge eintreten im Leben, die man sich nicht vorgestellt hat? So leben in gewissen Kreisen von Menschen Ideeninhalte, die sie bewunderten, durch die sie die Welt reformieren wollten. Diese Ideen wurden zu Mißgeburten! Denn Ideen sind an sich etwas Totes; sie müssen erst belebt werden, indem sie einfließen in das lebendige Geistesleben.

Wer moderne sozialistische Schriften liest, der wird, wenn er von gewissen Differenzen absieht, eine große Ähnlichkeit finden zwischen ihnen und — wenn es auch auf andere Weise ausgedrückt ist, und namentlich über andere Gebiete gesprochen wird — zwischen den Schriften derjenigen, die aus dem Kirchenprinzip des Katholizismus heraus schreiben. Ich habe Ihnen zum Beispiel letzthin aus einer Broschüre vorgelesen. Nehmen Sie die Gedankenformen dieser Broschüre, die Art des Denkens; vergleichen Sie das, was da ausgesprochen ist, mit wütenden, allmählich zum Bolschewismus hingehenden Kulturtendenzen oder Unkulturtendenzen; vergleichen Sie es mit dem, was Anfang ist, sagen wir einer Kautskyschen Schrift oder einer Leninschen Schrift: Sie werden dieselben Gedanken finden. Das eine ist ein Entwickelungsprodukt aus dem andern. Man fühlt sich nirgends «katholischer» angesprochen, als wenn man gewisse dogmatische sozialistische Schriften liest. Nur ist das, was beim Katholizismus verboten ist, über gewisse Dinge zu philosophieren, zur Leidenschaft, zum Prinzip geworden, zum Prinzip: alle Wissenschaft nur aus dem Bourgeoistum heraus zu erklären und alle geistige Entwickelung nur aus dem Klassenkampf. Dieses Prinzip ist Wirkung des katholischen Prinzipes. Der Bolschewismus wird in der Form, wie er aufgetreten ist, vielleicht nur ein kurzes Dasein haben; aber mit dem, was hinter ihm steckt, wird die ganze Menschheit sehr lange zu tun haben, und für den, der die Zusammenhänge kennt, ist es kein Wunder, daß der Bolschewismus seine erste Morgenröte an der Stätte gezeigt hat, wo dieses menschliche Denken, wie es animalisch verläuft, unter der Decke des Kultusministers der orthodoxen Religion gelebt hat, so daß die eine Strömung ganz abgesondert war von der andern.

Alle diese Dinge muß man durchschauen, damit man ein Bewußtsein bekommt von der Notwendigkeit, sich in der richtigen Art dem geistigen Leben zu nähern. Alles mystische Herumreden ist heute nicht am Platze. Heute ist am Platze, die geistige Erkenntnis dazu zu verwenden, um in die Wirklichkeit hineinzuschauen und diejenigen Zusammenhänge zu entdecken, die da bestehen; denn nur aus der Erkenntnis der Zusammenhänge kann ein richtiges Eingreifen ins Weltengeschehen hervorgehen, nicht aus den Erbstücken und nicht aus jenem Furchthaben und aus dem elementaren Neuen, das ich dargestellt habe, das nur weit in das Chaos führen muß. In dem animalisch gearteten Sozialismus hat man zu sehen die eine Ausgestaltung desjenigen, was sich im vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum gebildet hat. Darin ist etwas Luziferisches enthalten: die luziferische Erbsünde ist darinnen. Aber was sich jetzt entwickelt, das ist schon wie die Strafe für diese Erbsünde, das ist schon die Strafe in der Weise, daß jene Fähigkeiten, denen man gebot, sich nicht auf das Übersinnliche anwenden zu lassen, wirklich unfähig geworden sind, auf das Übersinnliche angewendet zu werden und einen Haß und Abscheu vor dem Übersinnlichen haben. Das ist nicht mehr bloß Haß und Erbsünde, das ist schon Strafe für das Sich-Abwenden vom Übersinnlichen. Das gilt für vieles, was jetzt geschieht.

In verschiedenen Nuancen, sagte ich, lebt sich das aus, was so als Impulse durch die Menschheitsentwickelung geht. Nur indem man diese Nuancen versteht, kann man heute das verstehen, was geschieht.

Die Völker der italienischen, der spanischen Halbinsel sind ergriffen worden von dem sich ausbreitenden Christentum, ebenso die Völker des heutigen Frankreich und die Völker der heutigen britischen Inseln. Wir wissen schon einiges von dem, was sich dort ausgebreitet hat. Wir wissen, daß auf der spanischen, auf der italienischen Halbinsel vorzugsweise die Empfindungsseele sich erhalten habe, in französischen Gegenden die Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele, in den britischen Gegenden die Bewußtseinsseele, hier in Mitteleuropa das Ich, und in Osteuropa kommt in ähnlicher Weise eine Kultur des Geistselbst in Betracht, das aber erst in der Zukunft wirksam sein kann und jetzt erst ganz verborgene Keime hat. Würde man doch einmal diesen Westen Europas anschauen, um ihn zu verstehen, so wie ihn die Geisteswissenschaft enträtseln kann! Die Charaktere zum Beispiel des italienischen Gebietes — nicht als Charakter des einzelnen Menschen, der natürlich überall über das Volksmäßige hinauswächst -, diese Charaktere entwickeln sich anders als die der französischen oder der britischen Menschheit. Die britische Menschheit ist so geartet, daß das Volksmäßige seinen Zusammenhang mit der Bewußtseinsseele hat. Von gewissen Gesichtspunkten aus habe ich das längst charakterisiert. Durch das Leben in der Bewußtseinsseele aber wird der Mensch gerade herausgetrieben auf den physischen Plan, auf den britischen Inseln nicht so stark wie in Amerika, er wird aber doch auf den physischen Plan herausgetrieben. Die Folge ist, daß der Mensch, den die kirchliche Entwickelung erst von dem Übersinnlichen abschnürte, nun wieder zusammengeführt wird mit dem Kosmischen. Aber er wird nur mit dem äußerlich Kosmischen zusammengeführt, wenn es sich um die Bewußtseinsseele handelt. Die Folge davon ist, daß eigentlich der britische Mensch, als Brite, mit dem Kosmos nur zusammenwächst durch ökonomische Prinzipien. Das britische Denken ist im wesentlichen das ökonomische, das Denken in ökonomischen Kategorien. Wer den inneren Zusammenhang der Bewußtseinsseele mit der physischen Welt erkennt, begreift dies als Notwendigkeit; er begreift auch als eine Notwendigkeit, daß der französische Volkscharakter — nicht der des einzelnen Franzosen -, der an die Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele herankommt, vorzugsweise das politische Denken, das politische Empfinden entwickelt, Italiener und Spanier in ähnlicher Weise das Animalische, weil dort die Empfindungsseele unmittelbar von dem Volksmäßigen ergriffen wird. Ich kann dies nur skizzieren, aber es drückt das aus, was in den Volkscharakteren selber lebt.

Blicken wir auf das deutsche, auf dieses in so tragischer Entwickelung drinnen stehende deutsche Wesen, so ergreift dort das Volksmäßige das Ich. Die ganze deutsche Geschichte wird hell, wenn man diese Tatsache ins Auge faßt, die aus der übersinnlichen Welt sich enthüllt. Dieses Ich des Menschen ist ja das, was am wenigsten nach außen heute entwickelt ist, was am geistigsten geblieben ist. Daher hängt der Deutsche, indem er durch das Ich mit der geistigen Welt zusammenhängt, am geistigsten mit ihr zusammen. Er kann nicht durch seine Wesenheit ökonomisch und politisch und animalisch mit dem Kosmos zusammenhängen. Er kann nur so mit dem Kosmischen zusammenhängen, wie’ es sich im geistigen Leben, im Seelenleben einzelner Individualitäten - das Ich lebt ja immer in den Individualitäten - offenbart und dann über das Volk sich ergießt. Da ist die deutsche Entwickelung doch am charakteristischsten zum Ausdruck kommend in dem, was als Substantialität im Goetheanismus, im Herderianismus, im Lessingianismus sich zeigt, etwas, was eine Stufe höher abgemacht wird, als das Physisch-Sinnliche. Daher auch eine gewisse Fremdheit gegenüber dem Physisch-Sinnlichen, ein Gefühl, daß man dieses Substantielle nicht recht dazugehörig hält, wenn es sich bloß um das Physisch-Sinnliche handelt, und daher die letzten Jahrzehnte so viel Amerikanismus und auf der andern Seite so viel von dem, was ich nicht näher bezeichnen will, über Deutschland ergossen haben und es seinem ursprünglichen volksmäßigen Wirken entfremdet haben.

Auf eine noch höhere Weise wird der Osten Europas in seinem Volkstum mit dem Geistigen zusammenhängen und eine noch höhere Kultur in geistiger Beziehung entwickeln - ein Gegenschlag gegenüber dem, was sich eben jetzt aus den angegebenen Gründen ausbildet. Aber das ist Sache der Zukunft, ist heute noch nicht vorhanden, ist noch im Animalischen beschlossen, aus dem es sich erst herausentwickeln muß.

Durchaus wie in rechter Erbschaft aus dem Alten hängen die westlichen Länder Europas mit dem vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraume zusammen. Etwas, was neuer ist, aber was entgegengesetzt ist dem Amerikanismus, liegt schon im deutschen Wesen: eine’ gewisse Beziehung zur geistigen Welt, die innerhalb des Geistigen selbst gesucht wird. Der deutsche Mensch hat, wenn er seiner ureigenen Natur folgt, nicht Furcht vor dem Geistigen, sondern jene Hinneigung zum Geistigen, die wir zum Beispiel im Goetheanismus typisch, wenn auch auf höherer Stufe, ausgeprägt finden.

Wenn man solche Dinge sagt, muß man sie freilich radikal aussprechen. Aber Sie wissen, nicht aus Chauvinismus, sondern aus der Erkenntnis heraus werden solche Sachen hier angeführt. Es ist wahrhaftig nicht gesagt, um irgend jemand heute zuliebe zu reden. Sie haben das letzte Mal gesehen, daß ich auch verstehe, nicht zuliebe zu reden. Aber das eine muß doch gesagt werden: Innerhalb dessen, was in Mitteleuropa vielfach vergessen ist, was aber doch deutsches Wesen ist, liegt eine Beziehung des Menschengeistes zur übersinnlichen Welt veranlagt, die ausgebildet werden muß, die das volle Gegenteil ist von allem übrigen, was sich auf der Erde heute zeigt. Oh, würden wir das anerkennen, würden nicht die letzten Jahrzehnte leider eher den Amerikanismus auf diesem Gebiete gebracht haben und das Russentum, so würde sich der Betrieb der Wissenschaft in Mitteleuropa in anderer Weise entwickelt haben. Sie wissen aus meinen andern Ausführungen, eine wie geistige, wie spirituelle Wissenschaft aus dem Goetheanismus hätte werden können. Aber der Goetheanismus blieb auch eine jenseitige Strömung. Ist er eigentlich erfaßt worden? Bis jetzt nicht. Aber er ist das richtige deutsche Wesen in allem, was ihm zugrunde liegt. Dieses Wesen ist, wie Sie aus der heutigen Charakteristik sehen können, fremd den andern. Die andern sind sehr, sehr verquickt mit den Erbstücken und mit dem Neuen. Nur in diesem Mitteleuropa hat sich etwas entwickelt, was mehr oder weniger sich herausgeschält hat aus den Erbstücken und aus dem Neuen.

Wie der Goetheanismus unberührt bleibt von der materialistischen Wissenschaft -— man lobt selbstverständlich Goetbe, aber man macht, wie ich gesagt habe, den ehemaligen Finanzminister Kreuzwendedich mit Vornamen, zum Präsidenten der Goethe-Gesellschaft —, das kann man an mancherlei Dingen sehen. Man wird gerade das, was in diesem eigentlichen inneren Element des Deutschtums vorhanden ist, auf den andern Gebieten wie einen fortwährenden Vorwurf empfinden müssen; denn man rettet sich am besten gegen dasjenige, was man durch seine Natur nicht anerkennen kann, indem man es verlästert. Dem muß man rückhaltlos ins Auge schauen. Was als ein lebendiger Vorwurf da ist, demgegenüber ist es am besten, man stellt es als Verbrechertum hin. Dadurch rettet man sich subjektiv vor der Tatsache, daß es wie ein Vorwurf da ist. Man berührt damit eine wichtige psychologische Tatsache. Die Verlästerung wird immer weiter und weiter gehen, aber sie wird ihre Gründe darin haben, daß es unbehaglich ist, daß diese sonderbare Stellung dieses Ich zum Geistigen vorhanden ist. Aber die Notwendigkeit ist da, auf diesen Gebieten klar zu sehen, das klare Sehen nicht zu fliehen, wie es gemacht wird. Würden wir nicht selbst so viel Philistertum, so viel Amerikanismus in uns haben, so würden wir es einsehen, daß dies zwei Gegenpole sind: deutscher Goetheanismus und Amerikanismus, und wir würden dann wissen, daß wir uns zu den Strömungen der Gegenwart nur dann in der richtigen Weise verhalten können, wenn wir eben in diese Strömungen ganz vorurteilsfrei hineinschauen. Wir sollten uns eigentlich gerade jeden Chauvinismus abgewöhnen, wir sollten völlig nur auf das Objektive sehen.

Aber gerade dann würden wir von jeder Verhimmelung des Amerikanismus, dem wir uns ja auch hinlänglich hingegeben haben, zurückkommen und würden gerade deshalb, weil die Furcht vor dem Geistigen das charakteristische Element im Amerikanismus ist, einsehen, daß in den gegenwärtigen katastrophalen Ereignissen das amerikanische Element als das eigentlich radikale Böse immer mehr und mehr wirken wird. Kurzsichtige sind es, die anderes über die Dinge sagen, weil sie nicht aus den Zusammenhängen heraus urteilen. Alles, was aus der politischen Lage der Franzosen, alles, was aus der rein ökonomischen Starrheit, die dem Britischen naturgemäß ist, alles, was aus dem animalischen Furor, diesem «heiligen Egoismus», des italienischen Volkes fließt, das ist im Hinblick auf die großen Angelegenheiten, die sich abspielen, eine Kleinigkeit gegenüber dem eigentlich bösen Element, das aus dem Amerikanismus aufgeht. Denn es gibt drei Strömungen, die durch ihre innere Verwandtschaft das Zerstörerische für die Menschheitsentwickelung haben. Dadurch, daß sie in ‚verschiedener Weise die Erbstücke und dasNeue aufgenommen haben, wie ich es heute skizzenhaft zu charakterisieren versuchte, dadurch sind sie das Zerstörerische. Vorzugsweise in drei Strömungen liegt dieses Zerstörerische: Erstens in alledem, was man Amerikanismus nennt, denn das tendiert immer mehr und mehr dahin, die Furcht vor dem Geiste auszubilden, die Welt nur zu einer Gelegenheit zu machen, in ihr physisch leben zu können. Es ist doch etwas ganz anderes, wenn das Britentum die Welt zu einer Art Handelshaus machen will. Der Amerikanismus will sie eigentlich zu einer möglichst mit Komfort ausgestatteten physischen Wohnung machen, in der man bequem und reich leben kann. Und in der Welt bequem und reich leben zu können, das ist das politische Element des Amerikanismus. Wer das nicht durchschaut, sieht die Dinge nicht, sondern will sich selbst betäuben. Unter dem Einfluß dieser Strömung muß aber der Zusammenhang des Menschen mit der geistigen Welt ersterben. In diesen amerikanischen Kräften liegt das, was wesentlich die Erde zum Ende führen muß, liegt das Zerstörerische, was zuletzt die Erde zum Tode bringen muß, weil der Geist davon abgehalten werden soll. Das zweite Zerstörerische ist nicht bloß der katholische, sondern aller Jesuitismus, denn der ist im wesentlichen mit dem Amerikanismus verwandt. Ist der Amerikanismus die Pflege der amerikanischen Strömung, welche die Furcht vor dem Geist ausbilden will, so sucht der Jesuitismus den Glauben zu erwecken: nicht tasten an den Geist, an den wir nicht heran können, und die geistigen Güter von denen verwalten lassen, die dazu durch das Lehramt der katholischen Kirche berufen sind. Und diese Strömung will die Kräfte in der Menschennatur verkümmern lassen, die nach dem Übersinnlichen gehen. Und das Dritte ist das, was heute in einzelnen Symptomen im Osten so furchtbar herauf > zieht, was aber doch seinen Grund hat in dem rein das Animalische sozialisierenden Sozialismus; es ist das — das Wort soll damit nicht gleich irgendwie dogmatisiert werden -, was man als Bolschewismus bezeichnet, den die Menschheit nicht leicht überwinden wird.

Das sind die drei zerstörerischen Elemente der modernen Menschheitsentwickelung. Ihnen Erkenntnis entgegenzubringen, damit man in der richtigen Weise sich den Ereignissen der Gegenwart gegenüberstellt, das ist doch nur auf geisteswissenschaftlichem Boden möglich. Darüber möchte ich heute über acht Tage sprechen.

Twentieth Lecture

Today I will outline a few more points from the context that we have already attempted to understand in the course of our recent considerations. It is extremely difficult to understand the present with its various spiritual and material currents, and one should not believe that it is possible to understand this confused present without the will to recognize what has been preparing for this present for a long, long time in the womb of history. Today, in the sense in which we can attempt to do so from our spiritual science, we want to look back at the so-called fourth post-Atlantean period.

You know that we must let this period begin approximately with the year 747 before the Mystery of Golgotha, and for us it ends with the beginning of the 15th century, around the year 1413. We therefore look at this period—the numbers are to be taken as they are in relation to these things—because we see certain related forces in this period that differ significantly from all the forces that prevailed in the preceding and following periods. This period, which we call the development of the intellectual or emotional soul in human nature, can in turn be divided into three smaller epochs: a period that we can roughly limit by letting it begin around 747 BC — which is also the true founding date of Rome — and ending around the year 27 before the Mystery of Golgotha. The second smaller period would then extend from this year 27 to about the end of the 7th century, until the year 693 after the founding of Christianity; and the last, the third smaller period in this larger one, encompasses the time from 693 to about 1413. Since that time, since about 1413, we have been in the time in which our soul development gives us soul forces that are already familiar to us to a certain degree in their unique nature. Just as the fourth post-Atlantean period can be sharply distinguished from the three preceding ones, the primordial Indian, the primordial Persian, and the Egyptian-Chaldean, in terms of the soul development of humanity, and just as it can be sharply distinguished from what has already followed and what is yet to come, so too can characteristic moments be highlighted within this period for the development of cultural humanity, insofar as they come into consideration in the process of humanity's further development within these smaller periods of time.

For the period from 747 to 27 before the Mystery of Golgotha, it is of course primarily those peoples living around the Mediterranean who come into consideration. In these peoples we see a very specific soul state developing. History says little about this soul constitution because, in this case, history does not seek to acquire the ideas and concepts necessary to address what is actually characteristic of it. If we want to characterize the period I have just defined, we can say that during this time, human souls develop for inner reasons of human evolution in such a way that they detach themselves, as it were, from their connection with the all-spiritual world. If we go back to Egyptian and Chaldean times—which is the period of the sentient soul—we find that human consciousness had a distinct feeling of belonging between the human soul and the cosmos. The sentient soul in human nature felt at that time that human beings were part of the whole cosmos. It is impossible to understand the characteristics of what we know as Egyptian, Chaldean, and Babylonian development without taking into account that at that time human beings took in, through their senses, something from their observation of the world that expressed this feeling of belonging to the spiritual cosmos. Just as our fingers on our hands feel as if they are one with ourselves, so the Egyptian and Chaldean people still felt themselves to be a member of the spiritual cosmos. With regard to this cosmic feeling, a crisis, a real catastrophe, came upon humanity in the 8th century BC. The human soul owed its former sense of belonging to the cosmos to its old atavistic, more dreamlike clairvoyance. In those ancient times, people did not perceive things as we do today. They perceived—what profane but ignorant science calls “animism”—the spiritual, the divine, at the same time as they perceived with their senses. This made them feel connected to the spirit of the cosmos.

This connection faded. On the one hand, this fading led to many signs of decadence, but on the other hand, it also led to the whole wonderful Greek culture. For this Greek culture, which was based primarily on what man experiences as a human being, as a human being standing alone in the universe, this Greek culture owes its existence to the fact that man no longer felt himself to be a member of the cosmos, but rather a human totality, something self-contained as a human being. He had, in a sense, emerged from the cosmos and begun a total life within himself. If the same state of mind that had remained from ancient times, for example in Hinduism, and which still had a certain connection with the cosmic, had been poured out over Greek intellectual life, you could not imagine that the beautiful Greek culture could have arisen under this feeling of belonging to the cosmos. Everything that came to light in Greek culture as splendor and glory, everything that developed in other areas in a less pleasing way, all of that developed in the period from the 8th to the 1st century BC. Humanity withdrew into the soul, into the purely human. It was during this age that humanity's movement toward the mystery of Golgotha took place. Let us not forget that the mystery of Golgotha must always have something that cannot be fully comprehended by human understanding, not even by human supersensible understanding. There will always remain an unsolved remnant. What took place with the entry of Christ into the earth's evolution cannot, as I have explained in various earlier reflections, be completely dissolved into human concepts, not even into human feelings and sensations. But this is connected with the fact that the mystery of Golgotha had to develop in such a way that cultural humanity was prepared during this event not to experience this mystery of Golgotha so fully, but to let it pass by alongside their own human experience. Just think how clearly this passing by alongside actual human experience is evident in history. How much did the civilized world around the Mediterranean actually take into account what happened in the distant Jewish province of Palestine with Christ Jesus? How little of this has entered the consciousness of the civilized world, even for Tacitus, who wrote a century after the mystery of Golgotha!

On the one hand, we have the stream of human culture, and on the other, the stream within which the mystery of Golgotha plays out. Both are taking place, so to speak, side by side. This could only happen because, while the divine event was taking place, human beings, cultural human beings, had cut themselves off from the divine and were living a life that had no direct connection with the spiritual. Thus, a spiritual event took place on earth itself, which actually runs parallel to human culture. Such a relationship between the coexistence of outer culture and a mystery event is completely unthinkable in all earlier cultural periods of humanity. Nothing like this ever happened before, because human culture used to be aware of its connection with what was happening on the divine-spiritual level. It is very characteristic and very significant that the profane culture that ran parallel to the Mystery of Golgotha was actually far removed from this event, that human beings had cut themselves off.

And in the second period, which thus begins about 27 years before the Mystery of Golgotha and ends 693 years after it, the whole of Central European culture is actually designed to prevent profane culture from truly approaching an understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. What I am saying may seem very strange when one considers that Christianity has become established in this profane European culture and has spread throughout Central European culture. But this spread has taken place in the sense I characterized recently. The Mystery of Golgotha stood alone. Certainly, in an outwardly dogmatic way, all kinds of things were taken into profane culture, which are expressed as follows: Christ was there, he had apostles, he obtained this or that for humanity, he said this or that about the relationship between human beings and the divine. This was taken up quite extensively in profane culture in the form of external statements, but alongside this external uptake, something else was also very much in force: that the whole of humanity, which took up Christianity in these centuries, actually kept itself away from an inner understanding of the mystery of Golgotha. With the help of Gnosis, with the help of some preparation through the treasures of wisdom handed down from ancient paganism, it would have been possible to approach the question: What actually happened in the mystery of Golgotha? This was not done. Everything that could have led to an understanding of the mystery of Golgotha was declared heresy, and attempts were made to pour into more or less trivial formulas what can never be poured into trivial formulas, what can only be grasped in relation to the mystery of Golgotha with the highest contents of the striving for wisdom.

Thus, the institutions that were established in the first centuries of Christian development were not actually intended to connect with the mystery of Golgotha, but rather to allow something to live in the human soul that remained quite distant from a true inner sense of understanding and belonging to the mystery of Golgotha. The Church was more an institution for not understanding the mystery of Golgotha than for understanding it. If you look at what the different councils, what the church machinations in those times were trying to do, you'll find that everything they were aiming for was to bring certain dogmatic ideas into human life, but to think about the things connected with the mystery of Golgotha in such a way that they actually happen independently of human soul life. Everything tends toward a certain point, toward that point which, if one were to characterize it radically, could be described in the following way. One could say: Here on earth, human beings sought to settle themselves with certain ideas about the mystery of Golgotha and its effects. But the most important thing for them was not what they could know, what they took into their souls, but rather that they could have the prerequisite: whatever we humans may understand, the mystery of Golgotha has been accomplished for itself, and Christ is already ensuring that we will be saved! — And the tendency was to relegate the reality of spiritual events more and more to a realm beyond the soul, not to think of the actual — if I may use the expression — spiritual-sacred events in connection with what is happening in the human breast, but to separate the two as much as possible. This tendency had an unspoken but unconsciously effective goal, a goal that then came to the fore at the Eighth Council of Constantinople in 869. The goal was to keep the human spirit from its individual, personal preoccupation with the spiritual, which was now to be limited to the mystery of Golgotha, that is, from the inclination, the individual and emotional inclination to understand the mystery of Golgotha. It was to remain incomprehensible. This allowed the Church to gradually develop a following of people who had only a profane understanding and who increasingly came to believe that it was impossible to think about the supersensible, because the supersensible eludes the powers of the human soul. Human thinking should be limited to what lives here in the physical world. No forces should develop out of human souls that could be suitable for seeking understanding of the mystery of Golgotha. Certain resolutions of the Eighth Council of Constantinople clearly state that the people of Europe should not think — because the human soul forces are not sufficient — about the realm in which life has passed, to which the mystery of Golgotha belongs.

Thus, during this middle period of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, from about 27 before the mystery of Golgotha to 693 after it, the following happened to humanity: This humanity was destined to believe that all human knowledge, all human feeling, was calculated only for the sense world of the here and now; that which is not perceptible to the senses, the supersensible or, if you will, the beyond, was to be withdrawn from human feeling and knowledge, from immediate cognitive feeling. The entire history of these centuries can only be understood if one actually takes into account what has just been characterized. All the measures taken by the Catholic Church in those centuries were designed to bring people to believe that their spiritual knowledge was only meant for this world; as for the supersensible, they had to let it come to them in a way that had nothing to do with their understanding or their own knowledge. This resulted in a kind of eclipse of European humanity in relation to the connection between the human soul and the supersensible world at the end of this period, i.e., in the 8th and 9th centuries. And phenomena such as those I have described, of which Bernard of Clairvaux is a typical example, can be explained precisely by the fact that they remain, as it were, beyond everything physical and sensual and surrender the soul completely to that which natural human understanding cannot grasp. This enthusiasm for what lies beyond all human understanding must be added to the whole soul state of a Bernard of Clairvaux, as we understand it. It is precisely in this personality that one can find many traits that appear great and powerful, because everything that can have a more or less distorted trait can also have a beautiful, great, glorious trait. But in Bernard, one will find traits that clearly indicate in his soul character that he was born out of that mood of the soul that developed in the manner described in the centuries indicated within Western culture. One could name many other figures besides Bernard of Clairvaux; he is only a typical figure. For example, when he speaks to his followers—whose circle was large—about all that his intended crusade for humanity was to bring about. Then the whole thing failed. And how does this godly man speak about this failure? Something like this: If everything, everything turns out badly, then let the judgment for the bad outcome fall on me, but not on the divine, for the divine must always be right. — Even where man could know himself to be connected with what he thinks of as the divine-spiritual force behind appearances — he separates the one from the other — even there he says: Let sin fall on me; what is right is something that proceeds independently, that flows, as it were, beyond the stream in which the human soul is caught.

Thus, with the beginning of this third phase of the fourth post-Atlantean cultural epoch, something like an eclipse came over humanity. This is best expressed by the fact that humanity was no longer able to recognize any connection between its concepts and the real spiritual currents and impulses. One need only study the philosophy of the centuries between the 8th and 15th centuries, which everywhere aims to prove that human ideas and concepts should in no way be used to try to grasp what is happening in spiritual reality, as this must be left to revelation, as it has been happily formulated, and must be left to the teaching authority of the Church.

This is how the power of the Church had developed. This power of the Church did not arise merely from theological impulses, but had developed as a result of people being instructed to relate their own powers of cognition, their own soul forces, only to physical-sensory life and not to think of any knowledge of the supersensible. From this developed the later concept of faith, which did not yet exist in the first centuries—it can only be dated back—and which states that one can only have faith in the spiritual-divine, not knowledge. This separation between the truth of faith and the truth of knowledge actually arose from certain historical backgrounds that are significant and must be sought in such things as we have mentioned.

Now, since the 15th century, approximately since 1413, we have been living in a period — as the third millennium will show — in which we are dealing in part with the legacy of everything that has happened under the influences I have characterized here. On the one hand, we are dealing with heirlooms from that time, and on the other hand, we are dealing with something that is forming as something completely new in this fifth post-Atlantean period. When we look back on that fourth period, we see that we are dealing with a kind of severing of the human soul from the spiritual-divine, with a relegation to merely external physical-sensory processes. This was also new for that fourth period. I indicated earlier that this did not exist in the Egyptian-Chaldean age. We are also dealing with something similarly new in our age, and the task of humanity — humanity has gradually entered an age in which consciousness must play an increasingly important role — the task of humanity would be to understand all this, to understand what on the one hand is a legacy from the past we have just characterized, and what on the other hand is new and emerging from our own age. Let us first look at the legacy.

We have seen that this inheritance consists in the fact that human beings feel compelled, as it were, to develop their soul life apart from the supersensible. And this inheritance is something else again, which you will understand better and better as you gain a more and more accurate overview of historical events. It is precisely through a precise overview that the matter is not somehow subjected to doubt, but rather placed in the context of truth. You will see how what emerged at that time, namely the desire to preserve the human soul force in the sensory realm and to separate it from the supersensible, then developed in the fifth post-Atlantean cultural epoch since the 15th century into a rejection of the supersensible altogether. At that time, people wanted to keep the supersensible away from human beings, and this is precisely what characterized the Eighth Council of Constantinople in 869. Now, out of this keeping away, which the Church made its task, the rejection of the supersensible developed. The belief developed that the supersensible was only invented by human beings, that it had no reality. If one really wants to understand the historical and psychological origins of modern materialism, one must look to the Church. Of course, the Church is only the outer expression of deeper forces at work in human evolution, but one gains an understanding of this human evolution by looking more closely at how one thing really arises from another. The orthodox believer in the fourth post-Atlantean period said: Human cognitive ability is only intended to understand sensory connections; the supersensible must be left to revelation; one must not interfere with it, for everything that is interfered with is heresy and can only lead to delusion. The modern Marxist, the modern social democrat, who is the true son of this view, which is nothing other than the consequence of Catholicism from earlier centuries, says: All science worthy of the name can only deal with sensual-physical events; there is no spiritual science because there is no spirit; spiritual science is at most social science, the science of human coexistence. — Of course, this tendency, which has just been characterized, has played itself out in the most diverse areas of civilized countries, but only as a nuance.

Thus, from the 9th century onwards, it became necessary in the central and western countries of Europe to take into account that the human soul does indeed participate in a certain way, in that it believes in the supernatural and knows nothing about it except through revelation, but believes in the supernatural nonetheless. The racial and ethnic characteristics of Central Europe were such that they had to be taken into account; they could not simply be ignored. Telling people: Your human powers must be limited to eating and drinking, and whatever else happens in the world, that is something else that lives above you — you couldn't do that in Western Europe; but you did do that in Eastern Europe, and that is the meaning of the schism between Eastern and Western Europe. In Eastern Europe, human beings were really limited to the sensory world; that was where their powers were supposed to develop. And within the heights of the mysteries, completely untouched by the sensory world, that which would then lead to the orthodox religion was to develop. There was a really strict separation between what man brought forth through his humanity and what was the real spiritual world, which alone floated and lived in the cult hovering above man.

What had to develop there? Again, in various nuances, the view, the feeling had to develop: meaning and reality actually only exist in the sensory-physical realm. One could say: forces that are not exercised, but which are treated in such a way that human beings behave toward them in such a way as to shut them off within themselves, do not develop either; they wither away. So if people had been prevented from grasping the supersensible in their minds for centuries, their powers to grasp the supersensible became increasingly untrained, and it disappeared completely. And we find this complete disappearance in modern socialist worldviews, whose misfortune lies not in their socialism, but in the fact that they completely reject the spiritual-supersensible and must therefore limit themselves to the mere social structure of the animal in man. This mere social structure of the animal in man has been prepared by the paralysis of man's supersensible powers. It has come about because people are forced to say to themselves: We do not want to connect our soul, with its powers of cognition and experience, with that which lives the stream of its life for itself, so that our bliss is brought about through it and in which the mystery of Golgotha is woven.

What does this have to do with it? It has to do with the fact that the Luciferic forces were particularly strong in this fourth post-Atlantean period. They detached human beings from the cosmos, for these forces always seek to isolate human beings egoistically, to untie them from the entire spiritual cosmos, including their knowledge of their connection with the physical cosmos. Therefore, there were no natural sciences when this separation was at its height. This is what is Luciferic. Therefore, we must say that what was at work at that time in the separation of sensory knowledge and supersensible dogmatism was of a Luciferic nature. Opposed to the Luciferic is the Ahrimanic. These are the two opponents of the human soul. This allowing of the supersensible human forces to atrophy—which then led to the purely animalistic form of socialism that must now break upon humanity in a devastating and destructive way—can be traced back to Luciferic forces. The new thing that is developing in our age is of a different nature; it is more of an Ahrimanic nature. The Luciferic wants to isolate human beings, cut them off from the spiritual-supersensible, and let them experience within themselves the illusion of totality. The Ahrimanic, on the other hand, instills fear of the spiritual in human beings, prevents them from approaching the spiritual, and gives them the illusion that the spiritual cannot be attained by human beings after all. While the Luciferic keeping of human beings away from the supersensible must be more of an educational, cultural-educational nature, the Ahrimanic keeping away from the supersensible, which is based on fear of the spiritual, is more natural and has been particularly prominent since the 15th century. And just as the Luciferic separation from the spiritual found particular expression in life under the cover of orthodox Christianity in the East, so the Ahrimanic fear, the reluctance to approach the spiritual, found particular expression in the element of Western culture and especially in the element of American culture.

Such truths may be uncomfortable today, but they are truths nonetheless, and we will not make progress today by talking in general terms—however mystical or theosophical—about the connection between human beings and the divine, or whatever else the question may be called. We will only make progress by recognizing reality as it is. Only by recognizing the different currents living side by side in their own unique way can we find order in our chaos again. For the different currents develop from their own premises, locally, and then spread, and in the modern muddle that we call culture, everything gets mixed up. What I would now like to call “Americanism,” the American as a collective concept—not referring to individual Americans—is the fear of the spiritual, the longing to live only on the physical-sensory plane, at most with what comes up from below into this physical-sensory plane in the form of coarse spirituality, spiritualism, and the like, which is not truly spiritual. Fear of the spiritual is what characterizes Americanism. But Americanism does not live only in America — there it lives entirely in the social pole, willful, not human — it lives above all in all science. For in this period since the 15th century, science has increasingly developed what might be called “fear of the spiritual.” Only that which deals as little as possible with living concepts generated within the soul is designated as objective science. Anything that is somehow an idea, a concept generated within the soul, must not interfere with the observation of nature. Only the dead aspects of nature may enter into science, not the spiritualized living aspects. If one introduces the concept into the observation of nature, for example in the Hegelian way, which is a correct Central European way — but also in the Schellingian way, in the Goethean way — then one immediately believes that this leads to uncertainty, because one does not trust oneself to experience anything objectively real in spiritual comprehension, in spiritual experience. One believes that only arbitrariness can exist there, that one immediately enters the non-objective realm if one introduces anything subjective into experience. That is Ahrimanic. Science is universalistic-American insofar as it has this principle of excluding everything subjective from the observation of nature. This is what has emerged in an elementary form from this earlier severing of the spiritual in the fourth post-Atlantean period.

Thus, we have added something new to this legacy, something new that, alongside what must develop fruitfully but consciously, is asserting itself more and more as a destructive force in the future. This new element is essentially of an Ahrimanic nature, is fear of the spiritual, and has a destructive, dissolving effect on all human culture, which must be based on the spiritual.

At the turn of the fourth to the fifth post-Atlantean period, especially in the fifth, the impulses I have just characterized became increasingly apparent. With the discovery of America and the transplantation of the European spirit to America, a fear of spiritual life developed there. But on the other hand, I would say that a tension arose in human souls, for the forces of the European peoples were not such that they could not sense something of their connection with the spiritual in the cosmos. A tension arose, so to speak, at the turn of the fourth and fifth post-Atlantean cultural epochs, in the centuries in which what we call modern history took shape. This tension of the suppressed spiritual arose in the human breast. A dam had to be built against it, partly by understanding well what was present as old hereditary material, and partly by taking a very objective view of the new Ahrimanic forces that were emerging. This gave rise to a spiritual current that has a much greater influence than most people think—I already pointed this out last time from a different perspective—a spiritual current that strives to perpetuate this holding back of the human soul from the supersensible. In other words, Jesuitism arose. Its inner principle consists in doing everything in human development that can keep people away from the connection with the supersensible, from the real connection with the supersensible. Of course, this separation will be achieved all the more by the Jesuits strictly dogmatically presenting the supersensible as something that human knowledge cannot touch. But the Jesuit approach calculates very well on the other side, and it wants no inner kinship other than that between modern science and Americanism, between modern science and Jesuitism. This is where Jesuitism is great: in pursuing physical science with deep significance. The Jesuits are great minds in the field of physical and sensory science, because Jesuitism reckons with this elementary tendency of human nature—which must be overcome by directing human nature toward the spiritual world—namely, the fear of the spiritual. And it reckons that this fear can be socialized by telling people, in a manner of speaking: You cannot and must not approach the spiritual; we will administer the spiritual for you, we will bring it to you in the right way.

These two currents — Americanism and Jesuitism — work together in a sense; but you must not take this lightly. Instead, you must seek the deeper impulses at work in human development. Anyone who seeks the forces that have brought about the present catastrophe will find a remarkable collaboration between Americanism, in the sense I mean here, and Jesuitism. When one surveys all this, one finds how, on the one hand, the legacy of earlier times is at work in our cultural life and how, on the other hand, something new is coming into it. By describing this as the Luciferic on the one side and the Ahrimanic on the other, we are describing precisely the opposite of what must be poured into human development as the right spiritual life for the salvation of humanity. Anyone who approaches a figure such as Bernard of Clairvaux with deep sympathy, who tends toward one side, so to speak, expects that human knowledge is directed only toward the physical and sensory, and therefore directs the soul toward the spiritual and divine with fervor and elemental experience. This brings something enthusiastic into this nature. One could say: what lives on the one hand in the spiritual in human souls also lives on the other hand in our time, but on the dark, the gloomy side. The 12th century had its Bernard of Clairvaux, and our century has figures such as Lenin and Trotsky. Just as the inclination toward the supersensible worked there, so the hatred of the supersensible lives in these figures, even if it is expressed in different words and with different content. That is the dark side of those times: there, the pouring of the human soul into the divine; here, the pouring of the human being into the animal, which alone is to receive a social structure.

However, these things can only be understood if one is quite clear about something that is, admittedly, quite foreign to our present understanding. Our present age believes in theories because it believes in the content of ideas and programs. I have discussed this many times. But it is never the content of theories and programs that matters; what matters is their effectiveness. Before this world war, at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, the modern Marxist would naturally have said: This is what Marx teaches, this is what Engels teaches, this is what Lassalle teaches; this is all that one must strive for. For he knows that one must strive for this for the good of humanity and so on. They simply took the content of programs and ideas. But that is never what matters in reality, because ideas never carry out their content in life, but rather through forces that are separate from their content. And only those who know that ideas often have so little to do with reality that they arise alongside what the ideas have as content know reality. One can draw up a very fine program, base it very well scientifically, and then be enthusiastic about it, as the Marxists have been about theirs. But that is not what matters; in a time as unspiritual as ours, it is playing with fire. People then believe they are working for the content of the ideas. But anyone who knows how life works also knows that the effects are quite different. Ideas even become monstrosities in cultural life if they are not accepted by intellectual understanding. But the ideas of Marxism cannot be accepted by intellectual understanding because they seek to drive out the spirit. No matter how beautiful they may be, they must become monstrosities. Only if one disregards the idea and does not ask in the morning, “Why has it become light because of what has happened on earth?” — but instead says to oneself, “It has become light because the sun is shining” — only then, when one steps outside, can one explain why it has become light. Thus, one must go from what is happening in the immediate present to what happened in the distant past in order to explain what is happening today. You will not understand Bolshevism unless you know how it came about as an aftereffect of the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869. You cannot understand it if you do not understand it as a product of the atrophy of the spiritual forces for the supersensible world. This is the inner connection that one must have if one really wants to understand what is happening in the outer world in such a way that one can face it. For those who see through the connections in history, it is most frightening to see movements that presume to reform the world and rely solely on ideas that do not take into account the effectiveness of ideas, quite apart from the beauty or ugliness of their content. A child is born. It is a beautiful child. The mother may be delighted with it. Mothers are sometimes even delighted when their children are not beautiful. It grows up to be a good-for-nothing, a ne'er-do-well, perhaps even a criminal. Is it not true, then, that the child was beautiful? Does one not have the right to call it beautiful? Does this beauty perhaps stand in the way of things happening in life that one did not imagine? In certain circles of people, there are ideas that they admired and through which they wanted to reform the world. These ideas became monstrosities! For ideas are in themselves something dead; they must first be brought to life by flowing into the living spirit.

Anyone who reads modern socialist writings will, if they disregard certain differences, find a great similarity between them and — even if expressed in a different way and referring to other areas — between the writings of those who write from the principle of Catholicism. I recently read to you from a brochure, for example. Take the thought forms of this brochure, the way of thinking; compare what is expressed there with angry cultural tendencies or tendencies toward barbarism that are gradually leading to Bolshevism; compare it with what is at the beginning of, say, a Kautsky or a Lenin text: you will find the same thoughts. One is a product of the development of the other. Nowhere does one feel more “Catholic” than when reading certain dogmatic socialist writings. Only what is forbidden in Catholicism, namely to philosophize about certain things, has become a passion, a principle: to explain all science solely from bourgeoisie and all spiritual development solely from class struggle. This principle is the effect of the Catholic principle. Bolshevism, in the form in which it has appeared, will perhaps only have a short existence; but with what lies behind it, the whole of humanity will have to grapple for a very long time, and for those who know the connections, it is no wonder that Bolshevism showed its first dawn in the place where this human thinking, as it proceeds in an animalistic manner, lived under the cover of the cult minister of the orthodox religion, so that one current was completely separate from the other.

All these things must be understood in order to gain an awareness of the necessity of approaching spiritual life in the right way. All mystical talk is out of place today. Today it is appropriate to use spiritual knowledge to look into reality and discover the connections that exist there; for only from the knowledge of these connections can a correct intervention in world events arise, not from inherited ideas, not from fear, and not from the elementary newness that I have described, which can only lead far into chaos. In animalistic socialism, we see one form of what has developed in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch. There is something Luciferic in it: the Luciferic original sin is contained within it. But what is now developing is already like the punishment for this original sin; it is already the punishment in the sense that those abilities which were commanded not to be applied to the supersensible have become truly incapable of being applied to the supersensible and have a hatred and aversion to the supersensible. This is no longer just hatred and original sin; it is already punishment for turning away from the supersensible. This applies to much of what is happening now.

In various nuances, I said, what is passing through human evolution as impulses is being lived out. Only by understanding these nuances can we understand what is happening today.

The peoples of the Italian and Spanish peninsulas were moved by the spread of Christianity, as were the peoples of present-day France and the British Isles. We already know something about what spread there. We know that on the Spanish and Italian peninsulas, the sentient soul has been preserved, in French regions the intellectual or emotional soul, in British regions the conscious soul, here in Central Europe the I, and in Eastern Europe a culture of the spirit itself is emerging in a similar way, but this can only be effective in the future and is still in its infancy. If only we would look at Western Europe in order to understand it, as spiritual science can unravel it! The characters of the Italian region, for example — not as the character of the individual human being, who naturally transcends the national character everywhere — these characters develop differently from those of the French or British people. The British people are such that the national character is connected with the consciousness soul. I have long since characterized this from certain points of view. But through life in the consciousness soul, the human being is driven out onto the physical plane, not as strongly on the British Isles as in America, but he is nevertheless driven out onto the physical plane. The result is that human beings, who were first cut off from the supersensible by the development of the church, are now being reunited with the cosmic. But they are only reunited with the external cosmic when it comes to the consciousness soul. The result of this is that the British person, as a Briton, actually only grows together with the cosmos through economic principles. British thinking is essentially economic, thinking in economic categories. Anyone who recognizes the inner connection between the consciousness soul and the physical world understands this as a necessity; they also understand as a necessity that the French national character — not that of the individual Frenchman — which is connected to the intellectual or emotional soul, develops political thinking and political feeling, while Italians and Spaniards develop the animalistic in a similar way, because there the emotional soul is directly affected by the national character. I can only sketch this, but it expresses what lives in the national characters themselves.

If we look at the German character, which is undergoing such a tragic development, we see that the national character grips the ego. The whole of German history becomes clear when we consider this fact, which is revealed by the supernatural world. This ego of man is, after all, what is least developed outwardly today, what has remained most spiritual. Therefore, because the German is connected to the spiritual world through the ego, he is most spiritually connected to it. He cannot be connected to the cosmos economically, politically, or animalistically through his nature. He can only be connected to the cosmic as it reveals itself in spiritual life, in the soul life of individual personalities—the ego always lives in individual personalities—and then pours out over the people. The German development finds its most characteristic expression in what appears as substantiality in Goetheanism, Herderianism, and Lessingianism, something that is placed one step higher than the physical-sensory. Hence also a certain estrangement from the physical-sensory, a feeling that this substantiality does not really belong there when it is merely a matter of the physical-sensory, and hence why so much Americanism and, on the other hand, so much of what I do not wish to describe in detail have poured over Germany in recent decades and alienated it from its original folk life.

In an even higher way, Eastern Europe will be connected to the spiritual in its folklore and develop an even higher culture in spiritual terms—a counterstroke to what is now developing for the reasons I have mentioned. But that is a matter for the future; it does not yet exist today; it is still contained in the animal realm, from which it must first develop.

Just as in a true inheritance from the past, the western countries of Europe are connected with the fourth post-Atlantean epoch. Something newer, but opposite to Americanism, already lies in the German nature: a certain relationship to the spiritual world, which is sought within the spiritual itself. When following their true nature, Germans do not fear the spiritual, but rather have an inclination toward the spiritual, which we find typically expressed, albeit at a higher level, in Goetheanism, for example.

When one says such things, one must of course express them radically. But you know that such things are said here not out of chauvinism, but out of recognition. It is truly not said to please anyone today. You saw last time that I also understand not to speak to please. But one thing must be said: within what has been largely forgotten in Central Europe, but which is nevertheless part of the German character, there lies an inherent relationship between the human spirit and the supersensible world, which must be developed and which is the complete opposite of everything else that is evident on earth today. Oh, if we would recognize this, if the last decades had not unfortunately brought Americanism and Russianism into this field, the work of science in Central Europe would have developed in a different way. You know from my other remarks how a spiritual science could have developed out of Goetheanism. But Goetheanism also remained a current from the beyond. Has it actually been grasped? Not yet. But it is the true German essence in everything that underlies it. This essence, as you can see from today's characterization, is foreign to others. The others are very, very entangled with their inherited traditions and with the new. Only in Central Europe has something developed that has more or less emerged from the inherited traditions and from the new.

How Goetheanism remains untouched by materialistic science—one praises Goethe, of course, but, as I have said, one makes the former finance minister Kreuzwendedich, by his first name, president of the Goethe Society—can be seen in many things. One will have to perceive precisely that which is present in this inner element of Germanness as a constant reproach in other areas; for the best way to defend oneself against that which one cannot acknowledge by nature is to slander it. One must look this squarely in the eye. The best way to deal with a living reproach is to portray it as criminal behavior. In this way, one saves oneself subjectively from the fact that it exists as a reproach. This touches on an important psychological fact. The slander will go on and on, but its reason will lie in the discomfort caused by the strange position of the ego in relation to the spiritual. But there is a need to see clearly in these areas and not to flee from clear seeing, as is being done. If we did not have so much philistinism, so much Americanism in ourselves, we would realize that these are two opposite poles: German Goetheanism and Americanism, and we would then know that we can only relate to the currents of the present in the right way if we look at these currents without any prejudice. We should actually rid ourselves of all chauvinism and look only at the objective.

But then we would come back from our idolization of Americanism, to which we have also devoted ourselves sufficiently, and precisely because fear of the spiritual is the characteristic element of Americanism, we would realize that in the current catastrophic events, the American element will increasingly come to be seen as the truly radical evil. It is the short-sighted who say otherwise, because they do not judge from the context. Everything that flows from the political situation of the French, everything that flows from the purely economic rigidity that is natural to the British, everything that flows from the animalistic fury, this “holy egoism” of the Italian people, is, in view of the great events that are taking place, a trifle compared to the truly evil element that is emerging from Americanism. For there are three currents which, through their inner affinity, have a destructive effect on the development of humanity. It is because they have absorbed the old and the new in different ways, as I have tried to characterize today in a few words, that they are destructive. This destructive element is found primarily in three currents: First, in everything that is called Americanism, because it tends more and more to foster fear of the spirit and to make the world merely an opportunity to live physically. It is quite something else when the British want to turn the world into a kind of trading house. Americanism actually wants to make it a physical dwelling place equipped with as much comfort as possible, where one can live comfortably and richly. And to be able to live comfortably and richly in the world is the political element of Americanism. Those who do not see through this do not see things as they are, but want to numb themselves. Under the influence of this current, however, the connection between human beings and the spiritual world must die. These American forces contain what must essentially lead the earth to its end, the destructive force that must ultimately bring the earth to death because the spirit must be prevented from reaching it. The second destructive force is not merely Catholicism, but all Jesuitism, for it is essentially related to Americanism. If Americanism is the cultivation of the American current, which seeks to instill fear of the spirit, then Jesuitism seeks to awaken faith: do not touch the spirit, which we cannot reach, and let the spiritual goods be administered by those who are called to do so by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. And this current wants to stifle the forces in human nature that strive for the supernatural. And the third is what is emerging so terribly today in individual symptoms in the East, but which has its roots in socialism that socializes the purely animalistic; it is what — and the word should not be dogmatized in any way — is called Bolshevism, which humanity will not easily overcome.

These are the three destructive elements of modern human development. Recognizing them so that we can face the events of the present in the right way is only possible on the basis of spiritual science. I would like to speak about this in eight days' time.