The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fifth Lecture

[ 1 ] Yesterday I attempted to describe to you the nature of the stage of human development we have now reached. I tried to show you how, in the course of human development, humanity has now reached a point where it is absolutely dependent on what we call the science of initiation. This means that, first, the various fields of knowledge within human cultural life must be permeated by this science of initiation; and second, social thinking and social feeling must be permeated by those feelings and sensations that arise for the human soul from consciousness: there is a spiritual revelation, a supersensible revelation—one need only turn toward it.

[ 2 ] One might well be convinced that many people will come and say: Yes, but history has been studied thoroughly, and whatever the humanities might reveal about the character of the present era—as it has developed out of previous eras—is not something history actually addresses.

[ 3 ] Yes, she does not speak of it because, uninfluenced by true spiritual insight, she does not inquire into her true motivations and powers. To know what speaks through history, one must first understand how to interpret history correctly.

[ 4 ] The point is that the three successive post-Atlantean periods—the Proto-Indian, the Proto-Persian, and the Egyptian-Chaldean—are periods in which, in a sense, humanity has become younger and younger in the sense described yesterday, that is to say, during the second period, humanity was no longer capable of development in those years in which it had still been capable of development during the first period, and so on. During the Greco-Latin period—that is, the period that began in the 8th century B.C. and ended in the 15th century—people remained capable of development well into their early thirties. When this period came to a close in the 15th century, people were clearly capable of development well beyond the age of twenty-eight. Today, as we have emphasized, the capacity for development extends only up to the age of twenty-seven and is steadily declining.

[ 5 ] Now, simply because of their physical constitution, human beings cannot enter into a relationship with the spiritual world until they reach their thirties. Do not misunderstand me! Of course, if a person turns to spiritual science, they can attain this connection even earlier today; but if a person is to receive spiritual forces from the universe through their own development, which is bound to the physical body, this can only happen if they remain capable of development well into their thirties. They do not. Therefore, from this point on, there can be no question of humanity’s development progressing along natural lines. It can only progress if humanity is enriched by the science of initiation.

[ 6 ] Now, I have already hinted to you in one of my previous lectures that there are indeed initiates in parts of Western civilization, particularly in Anglo-American regions. But what is peculiar about these initiates is that, from their point of view, they actually intend to promote as the science of initiation only that which can gradually bring about British-American world domination across the globe. As strange as that sounds, it is true. And one can say: Every single assertion that comes from this side bears a mark from which the knowledgeable person can tell that this is the case. Above all, the various ways in which the science of initiation is practiced in Western regions point to all these things.

[ 7 ] As you have seen, within certain limits—and I emphasize “certain”—we do not hold back here when it comes to certain truths of initiation. And if you look closely at what has been presented to you over the years, you will find—if you follow these matters with true vigilance—a whole series of important initiatory truths that are capable of leading not merely a part of humanity, but all of humanity across the Earth, beyond the current crisis and toward genuine further development. But you will always find people—especially among Western initiates—who disapprove of and condemn the fact that as much as has been communicated here is being made public today. This stems from a distorted view of the science of initiation. To help you understand this distorted view, I must preface today’s remarks with the following:

[ 8 ] The science of initiation is directed, without exception, toward the individual human being. Even when it speaks to a group of people, it is in reality addressed to the individual. One cannot present the true science of initiation in the same way that it was conveyed to people in earlier times. The Catholic Church, for example, has carried this approach into the present day; incidentally, it is not only the Catholic Church, but also certain political factions that still employ the same method today. They have operated in such a way that—if I may put it this way—they draw upon the mass psyche, appealing to what instills something into a human community in a certain—I would say—hypnotic way. You know, as a rule, that if one uses the appropriate means, it is easier to teach things to an assembly than to each individual one wishes to address. There is some truth to such mass hypnosis.

[ 9 ] True wisdom of initiation cannot make use of these means, which are certainly effective. It must speak in such a way that it addresses each individual person and appeals to the power of conviction within each individual. The manner of speaking that the science of initiation—which stands today at the pinnacle of human development—must employ has not yet existed. Therefore, the way in which I speak, for example, here and in my books, is still an abomination to some people today, precisely because the very manner of speaking strictly adheres to the rule of appealing only to the power of conviction within each individual.

[ 10 ] This also establishes an important social principle, which I have already alluded to in another context in recent days and which you will find systematically and fundamentally applied in my book *The Philosophy of Freedom*. If one wishes to appeal to the individual solely through ethical and moral impulses, then one cannot seek to organize on the basis of general abstractions; one cannot group people together like herd animals in order to give them some common directive. Rather, one can only address the individual and then wait for the right thing to come to pass—because each individual, in his or her place within the whole, wants what is right— the right thing will also come to pass in the whole.

[ 11 ] The social morality of the future cannot be based on any principle other than this principle of general human behavior. For example, when I published my *Philosophy of Freedom*, a review appeared in the *Athenaeum* stating that such a view leads to theoretical anarchism. But it leads to anarchism only if we fail to make people into real human beings—that is, if people insist on being subhuman, if they insist on being held together by the same principles that bind the members of an animal group. Lions are held together as lions simply by virtue of their lion-like form, as are hyenas and dogs; but the evolution of humanity is moving toward a future in which groups of people—whether bound by ties of blood or by ideological ties—will no longer be organized like flocks of sheep, but rather in which what arises from human interaction will actually stem from the power of individualities.

[ 12 ] A few days ago, I used a comparison here that may sound somewhat grotesque, but which I believe can shed light on the whole matter. I don’t know if there aren’t also people who would find it particularly liberating if one were to find signs everywhere reading: “Regulation of such-and-such authority: Anyone walking forward in this direction must give way to the other person walking in the opposite direction. — Even in crowded cities, people generally still get along with one another on the street; they pass each other by. Out of their reason, out of the impulse they carry within themselves, they do not constantly push one another aside. Humanity is moving toward this ideal. That it fails to recognize this is its misfortune. What matters is to carry within oneself the guidelines for one’s actions—even in important matters—so that the other person can rely on them, even without a common law that reduces both to subhumans and trains them to behave in such a way that the other can coexist alongside them.

[ 13 ] This work toward individuality is precisely what is linked to the most important impulses in human development. One will never be able to bring about such human individualities if one can only pass on to them what constitutes, for example, current knowledge of nature, or current social science, or current social motives. A human being can only attain the kind of individuality I have just spoken of if a body of thought is awakened within them that stems from the science of initiation. Only through their relationship to the supersensible can human beings be filled with such thoughts that make them free individuals, who can also act with the greatest possible freedom within the social order. Everything depends precisely on humanity opening its heart and mind to what comes from the science of initiation.

[ 14 ] Deep trust must become the most important social motive of the future. People must be able to rely on one another. Otherwise, things will not move forward. What I have just told you will seem self-evident to anyone who is serious about the welfare of all humanity—provided they are sufficiently initiated into supersensible matters—to the extent that they must say: Either this happens, or humanity will plunge into the abyss. There is no third option.

[ 15 ] One might say that it is impossible to imagine a social order based on general trust. To that one can only reply: Well, if you can’t imagine that, then you’ll just have to imagine this: Humanity is headed for the swamp. — These matters are serious, and they must be taken seriously as such.

[ 16 ] In a certain abstract sense, the initiates of Western countries are also aware of this. However, they say the following: We possess the science of initiation to a certain degree; we could make it public. — They would, however, publish only that science of initiation which leads to the goals I have indicated; moreover, we are now moving in a realm that is just as applicable to the true science of initiation as it is to the one-sided version. — The initiates of Western countries can therefore say: We possess the science of initiation; we can publish it, but it is such that it is directed only at the individual. — Now the great anxiety, the terrible fear, begins for these people. They say: “Yes, if in the future we speak only to individuals, then we will unleash a war of all against all, for then people will not be organized; then everything will be based on general trust; then people will be drawn into a war of all against all.” This fear looms before them. That is why they want to keep the most important truths of initiation—I would say—in the darkroom and let humanity walk toward the future in an apparent light, yet asleep.

[ 17 ] These issues are, after all, very much relevant today, ever since modern civilization reached the height of materialism in the mid-19th century and people have had to ask themselves: How far will we go with the science of initiation? — Until now, they have not dared to share a true science of initiation with humanity beyond certain small circles.

[ 18 ] Now, a certain process of education that humanity has undergone must not come to an end, yet it is already in the process of coming to an end today, thanks to a completely misguided theology. You can trace this process of education not by studying that “fable convenue” commonly called “history,” but by studying real history. People today actually have no idea how the meanings of certain terms have changed over time. People speak of Catholicism, the Empire, the aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie, and believe that if they find the same words in the 14th century, they mean roughly the same thing—perhaps just something slightly different with a minor nuance. As long as one is not clear about the fact that what “Catholicism,” “the Empire,” “the bourgeoisie,” and “aristocracy” meant in the 14th century has absolutely nothing in common with what we mean by these words today, one does not truly know history. One must be absolutely clear about how people’s state of mind has actually changed dramatically over the course of just a few centuries.

[ 19 ] What, essentially, was the basis—up through the 15th century, and in its aftereffects even beyond—for what emerged from the general education of humanity and took effect in the consciousness of the souls of the civilized world? All of this was based on the fact that, throughout those centuries, people were able to take the supersensible into their imaginative life—not in the way it is to be taken in today through spiritual science, but in the way they were able to do so at that time, in accordance with their still atavistic states of consciousness. A fundamental fact filled the human souls. It was the fundamental fact connected to the Mystery of Golgotha. People knew, in the way of that time: The Christ Being had descended from super-earthly heights, had become incarnated in the human being Jesus of Nazareth, and with the Mystery of Golgotha, something had taken place that could not occur according to the ordinary laws discoverable through the knowledge of nature. — In the concepts and ideas people formed about the Mystery of Golgotha, there were such ideas and concepts that went beyond the earthly sphere.

[ 20 ] Such ideas give rise to thought forms that are entirely different from those held by the average person today. The thoughts that people have today do not penetrate at all into the realm of the supersensible. The thoughts that people formed by connecting to the Mystery of Golgotha in the way I have just described were capable of evoking thought-forms that had a reality in the supersensible realm. Therefore, one can also characterize the present time by saying: Humanity has gradually lost the ability to form such thought-forms that have significance in the supersensible realm. — Consequently, it is impossible to create social orders on Earth that would advance human progress. Therefore, all the social ideas that have been introduced into humanity since roughly the 16th century bear a character that can be described as follows: We encounter social institutions that correspond to the thought-forms of the modern era. Such social institutions are all destined to collapse; that is, they function for a time, then they collapse. They lack the inner power to evolve further. — This is, in fact, the secret of recent development. No matter how willingly people may establish social institutions based on the structure of the external world that has emerged since the 16th century, all these social institutions already carry the seed of their own destruction within them from the moment of their creation, because they are not connected to thought forms that have a reality in the supersensible. As long as there are no people in the present who understand this, there can be no talk of social progress at all in the present. It does not matter whether one derives social ideas in an abstract manner, perhaps from some spiritual fantasy. That is not the point at all. In my *Key Points of the Social Question*, there is not, for example, a lengthy chapter on spiritual science from which social laws are then deduced; rather, attention is drawn from reality itself to what must happen. What matters is not that one deduces social life from some spiritual fantasy, but that one is oneself filled with thoughts rooted in the supersensible. For it is this inner fulfillment that ensures that everything one thinks has a reality in the supersensible.

[ 21 ] Paradoxical as it may sound, and to put it quite frankly, one can say the following: Imagine a person—I mean a “statesman” (a word that is currently spoken in quotation marks)—who says all sorts of clever things—that is, the kinds of things people today call clever—but who has never established a connection with the supersensible world. If what he says were actually put into practice, it would carry within it the seed of death. — Another person speaks. If one does not know that he is engaged in spiritual science, one would not even notice it from his speech; he simply speaks about things in a somewhat different way. From what he says, for example, about social issues, one need not even realize that he is engaged in spiritual science, but the fact that he is engaged in spiritual science is what gives his ideas their real impetus.

[ 22 ] So the point is that today it is not enough to rely on abstract logic; instead, we must speak of reality. For today we have already reached a stage in human development where, let’s say, a journalist can write the most beautiful things that people admire, because they say: “Yes, when I read this, it’s pure spiritual science!” — But that’s not what it’s about at all! Today it’s no longer about the actual words themselves, but rather about the wellspring of the soul from which such things arise; it’s about what a person carries within themselves as substance!

[ 23 ] If I am to draw a comparison from an entirely different field, let it be the one I have often used before: There are poets today who write with remarkable ease, crafting beautiful verses that are worthy of admiration. Nevertheless, it is also true that ninety-nine percent of the poetry written today is superfluous. — But there are others whose verses are like stammering; yet these verses, which sound like stammering, may stem from a genuine reservoir of humanity—that is, a reservoir of the spirit—whereas those that are admired—simply because languages have advanced to the point where any fool today can create something admirable out of language—may be nothing more than worthless clatter of words.

[ 24 ] Today it is absolutely necessary to go beyond the mere wording to the underlying motive; that is, not to remain in the abstract, not to read merely according to the wording, but to immerse oneself fully in life and judge phenomena from within life itself. And so the point is that spiritual science, as understood here, must above all have a fertilizing effect on the various branches of life; otherwise, what must happen will not come to pass.

[ 25 ] When two people talk to each other, they communicate through language. But in a time that is, relatively speaking, not very long ago, language was something entirely different from what it is today. When people communicate through language today, they actually become, to a greater or lesser extent, slaves to language. In the past, people learned a great deal through the “genius of language,” and they did not actually think much for themselves; they let language do the thinking for them. This continued only until the period I described to you yesterday began. Today, a person can make progress only if they can emancipate their thinking and feeling from language. Language today functions, so to speak, like a mechanism in which we are trapped, and instead of us, Ahriman is increasingly taking over the development of language. It is actually Ahriman who speaks today when people speak. And people must gradually accustom themselves to understanding one another from a source entirely different from the mere wording of languages. One must be immersed much more deeply in life to understand other people today than in the age when the wings of language still carried what people had exchanged with one another. Today, that is no longer contained on the wings of language. Today, one can essentially be a person completely devoid of true insight. But since language—every civilized language of today—has gradually developed sentence forms, phrases, even entire theories that are already embedded in language—one need only alter what is already in the language slightly to end up with something that appears to be one’s own creation; in reality, one has essentially just shuffled around a bit what was already there.

[ 26 ] It would be very easy today—as grotesque as this may sound to you—to conduct the following experiment. Take the statements of thoroughly bourgeois professors—philosophy professors, natural science professors, and the like—who lean only slightly in one direction or the other toward materialism; take what these people have said over the course of the last few decades, in the second half of the 19th century, and with just a little shift in thinking, the following can very easily be achieved. Take, for example, any treatise by a fairly respectable philosopher—a run-of-the-mill philosopher from the second half of the 19th century—who has commented on this or that social issue; you can then remove certain adjectives and replace them with others found in a different sentence. You can shake things up a bit—and out of this emerges Comrade Trotsky’s worldview! To be a Trotsky today—with a worldview—you don’t need to be able to think for yourself at all; you just need to let the language think within you in the way I’ve just described. But since language has, in a certain sense, emancipated itself from them, it is not human beings who are at work here; rather, Ahrimanic forces are at work in human culture.

[ 27 ] What I have just told you is something one can experience. One simply has to keep one’s inner spiritual eyes open to such things. For those who work not with words but with thoughts, language today is a truly dreadful instrument. Indeed, writing is not easy today for those who work with thoughts. For if you want to write down a sentence, it won’t come easily to you, because so many people have written similar sentences. Time and again, the sentence seeks to take shape from the totality of the psyche, but you must first become its enemy in order to truly shape what lies within your soul into a coherent sentence. Anyone working for the public today who cannot sense this hostility of language is always in danger of surrendering to the logic of language and devising beautiful programs out of language itself.

[ 28 ] The need to give this idea its due must begin today in the struggle with language. Nothing is more dangerous today than for a person to always let themselves be carried along by language, in the sense that “this is how you express this, and that is how you express that.” — For when a stereotypical way of expressing oneself exists—when one can say, “You can only say it this way”—one actually enters into the familiar flow of speech and does not work from the original thought.

[ 29 ] Our schools come across as terrible in this regard. Teachers, who correct virtually every seemingly clumsy but at least original thought to conform to convention, are committing grave crimes in the classroom. One should actively seek out every clumsy but substantively individual sentence that any boy or girl writes down in school. Class discussions should be built around these, and we should certainly not use that accursed red ink to replace what springs from youthful individuality today with conventionalism. For today, the most important thing is to pay attention to what springs from youthful individuality. Perhaps it will reveal itself in a way that is not always comfortable for us, a way we are quick to regard as flawed. If one were to correct Goethe’s early letters with the eye of a high school teacher, then many things would have to be corrected! The Austrian poet Robert Hamerling received the lowest grade in “German composition” on his teaching certification exam! And there is, after all, some truth to what Hebbel wrote in his diary—I’ve mentioned it often: He wanted to write a play based on the premise that a high school teacher in the upper grades has a student in his class who is Plato reincarnated, with whom he reads Plato in class; and the high school teacher discovers that this “reincarnated Plato” doesn’t understand the very least thing about Plato! The poet Friedrich Hebbel jotted down this plot for a play that was never actually staged. But there is some truth to it.

[ 30 ] Now we must be clear about the fact that, at all times, seduced by the lingering Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces, human beings have resisted the normal progress of humanity. Today we are faced with the necessity of seeking something entirely new from spiritual life to save humanity. No wonder people are resisting in the most vehement way, resorting to all manner of logical follies and immoralities. And so, for a long time now, I have had to speak, in a sense, pro domo as an appendix to our consideration of the times.

[ 31 ] About eight days ago, I told you here about the slanderous, mean-spirited manner in which a large portion of the German press is currently reporting on matters that are, in fact, well known in terms of their source, but which are being used with all their might to turn against precisely what emanates from anthroposophically oriented spiritual science and what is socially connected to it. This is a very immediate example—I would say, one experienced “right here at home”—of just how vigorously the opposing forces are mobilizing. But there is a specific reason why I would like to describe this matter to you in somewhat greater detail today. To that end, I would like to draw your attention once again to what has happened. What happened was that a series of German newspapers suddenly published a defamatory article, which can be summarized in the following sentences. I have, of course, read these sentences aloud. But let us bring them to mind once more, for they are truly worthy of serving as a characteristic example of certain cultural parasites of the present day:

[ 32 ] “Rudolf Steiner as a Political Informant. The well-known theosophical charlatan Dr. Rudolf Steiner, who influences a following of millions of men and women, founded an association for the threefold social order in Stuttgart in the spring of 1919, which was originally intended to be merely a religious -communist community, but then came into political contact with the Bolsheviks and Communists and is now engaging in a very strange and repugnant form of political agitation. We have learned the following about this from Dresden: ‘It is clearly evident from authentic reports’”—please take note of this phrase, ‘it is clearly evident from authentic reports’! — “that the League for the Threefold Social Order is compiling a list of the names of all officers allegedly acting in a reactionary manner and is gathering evidence against them—based on witness testimony—regarding acts contrary to international law, which is then to be forwarded to the Entente for the purpose of extradition. Mr. Steiner and his comrades are completely indifferent to the accuracy of such accusations, and the fact that they do not even shy away from deliberately false statements is proven by a passage in a letter that reads: ‘Accusations of theft are to be avoided, since falsehood is easier to prove in this case.’ Likewise, one must not make accusations that are too implausible, such as the mutilation of children.”

[ 33 ] Now, of course, this piece—which is, sentence by sentence, the most mendacious and slanderous thing imaginable—is making the rounds in a number of German newspapers! One can be astonished by all sorts of things in it, but let’s single out one fact. There is talk of letters that are said to have been written and which are cited as authentic documents. In the issue of *Dreigliederung* that has not yet been published, I explicitly pointed out that I am well aware of the dubious sources from which such things originate. But now I would like to read you a charming document from which you will see what the “authentic” foundations are for those people who spread such things around.

[ 34 ] After this whole barrage of nastiness had subsided, and after I had also received confirmation from various other sources of what I already knew about those murky sources, I received the following letter from a friend. This letter has only just reached me, but it was written—please bear this in mind—before these newspaper articles appeared. So the contents of this letter were established before the newspaper articles appeared. I ask that you take this fact into account. The letter reads:

[ 35 ] “A long-standing member of our Anthroposophical Society, who is currently still an active officer, has seen the two letters that are circulating among the authorities and are, of course, causing quite a stir. These letters are addressed ‘To IRD or R in Berlin,’ so they are presumably directed to the same recipient; however, it is impossible to say whether they were written by the same author, as there is no signature. The first letter mentions the Steiner League and Freemasons, stating that in the near future the Steiner League will distribute leaflets written in such a way as to appear to come from the monarchists, but which in reality are intended to ridicule the monarchist and anti-Semitic movements. In other words: the Steinerbund would attempt to combat this movement under the guise of the monarchists. These leaflets had already been printed, and a different fictitious signature was planned for each district.”

[ 36 ] So you see, there are factories producing forged letters! These letters are actually in circulation. It goes on to say:

[ 37 ] “The second letter makes the following proposal: Since there are still many monarchist-minded officers in the army, it is absolutely necessary to neutralize them, specifically through the following shameless means. A search should be conducted among the members of the unit to which the officer in question belonged during the campaign for people who, under oath, are to testify to as many misdeeds of the officer in question as possible. It is further specified, however, that these must be credible offenses—not, for example, the rape of women, infanticide, or similar acts. This list of offenses should then be forwarded to the Entente by a Mr. Grelling”—that is the only name mentioned in the letter—“and the Entente would then demand the immediate extradition of the individuals in question.”

[ 38 ] The person in question read both letters with his own eyes.

[ 39 ] So this is the letter referred to in this newspaper clipping—the letter that is probably circulating in countless copies and bears the inscription: “To such-and-such an office in Berlin!” So first the letters are forged and fabricated, and then newspaper articles are written. That is the method being used in this battle!

[ 40 ] I would like to know if there are other factors involved—just to make it clear—that it is necessary today to wake up! — From what has happened in recent years, a moral foundation for humanity has emerged—one that is, admittedly, rooted in the impossibilities that preceded it, and which is now bearing such fruit.

[ 41 ] Today, we can’t afford to keep sleeping; we must recognize the quagmire we’re stuck in. If these matters were not discussed bluntly, it could easily be the case that even within our own ranks there would still be people who, for example, would say: “Shouldn’t we rather write to all those fine gentlemen who forge letters and then use those forged letters to fabricate newspaper articles, in order to change their minds?” — What really matters today is to open our eyes and see what kind of people are walking among us—people with whom one would sully oneself if one were to seriously associate with them. These matters must not simply be ignored; this must be said again and again. The connections must be pointed out. Do you believe it can go unpunished that, for example, in those Jesuit publications—the ones containing the false claims I’ve already mentioned to you—the rumor has been spread for years that I am a runaway priest, only to then simply retract such a claim with the words: “That is something we heard, but which could not be substantiated”? — Do you believe one has the right to say to such a Jesuit priest: “You have retracted what you spread”? — No, one must tell him: “You have violated your duty in the most irresponsible manner by putting something out into the world without verifying it, and your retraction means absolutely nothing.” — Today, we must take morality seriously—especially those of us who still understand what morality is. Traveling throughout the entire civilized world, we have heard almost nothing but lies over the past five years, and we are still living with the aftermath of those lies. It is necessary to take these matters seriously.

[ 42 ] Here you can see quite clearly, using an example, how things stand. If karma does not make it so obvious to us that the individual is, at the same time, absolutely decisive for the collective, then there will always be people who are willing to compromise—who, for example, still treat slanderers like Ferriere as human beings with whom one can engage on equal terms, whereas he belongs to the dregs of humanity, writing down unscrupulously whatever he accepts without verification. Such things are no longer permissible today for anyone who wishes to stand on solid ground.

[ 43 ] If I didn’t happen to have this example of how something comes about at hand right now, people wouldn’t so easily believe me that there are factories today that produce forged letters, on the basis of which “they” then treat people in public the way they did in this newspaper article.

[ 44 ] But this happens over and over again today, and a large part of what you read consists of nothing but the fruits of this moral swamp; and today, it is simply part of a healthy, serious, and honest worldview to be aware of these things and to deal with them accordingly. People today are not permitted to compromise with those who engage in slander in this way. For one cannot justify this by saying: “One must be benevolent toward all people—love for all people!” — Love toward such people means the utmost lack of love toward those who are slandered and defamed. After all, the point is to know where one’s love should be directed. For loving crime can never lead to the healing of humanity. That such things were bound to happen could have been foreseen. But one could foresee it not only from the way certain quarters have been operating. You need only open the Jesuit literature that has been unleashed since the Church’s condemnation of the anthroposophical writings in July 1919. You need only look into the eyes of the people who write these things and examine what kind of approach to the truth these people have; then you will naturally see everything that must ultimately lead into such quagmires. I do not wish to speak today about the very murky sources that are very well known to me and through my familiarity with which I also know how all these things are connected and how they are only the beginning.

[ 45 ] I only hope that as few people as possible are naive enough to believe that refutations can accomplish anything here. Those people aren’t concerned with asserting this or that, but only with making some sensational claim through which they can belittle others. They couldn’t care less about what they’re actually claiming.

[ 46 ] But we must take into account not only that there are many such people among us today who work in this way, but also that for decades now, stemming from a general apathy, the general public has shown a widespread tolerance toward these activities—a refusal to look at how public opinion is actually formed today. Yet this is the most important part of what can lead to improvement. As long as people of the caliber of the Jesuit Zimmermann or the university professor Dessoir are not treated appropriately, there can be no recovery. The people who stand opposite them and fail to treat them as they deserve are even more culpable than these individuals. For these individuals are conducting their business in these matters, albeit in as sordid a manner as Professor Dessoir. I described this to you some time ago. But the point is that we must finally wake up. For a book by Dessoir or a critique by Zimmermann leads directly to these swamps that I have described to you. I had no choice but to cite this with the intention of pointing out the symptoms of the forces at work in our time to suppress every legitimate spiritual endeavor. And so I would also like to mention the fact that I was recently given an article here that was supposedly intended for the Brockhaus Conversational Encyclopedia, for which that notorious Dessoir—notorious only to us! — was supposed to write articles on anthroposophy; at the very same time that he had me write these articles through an intermediary, he was working on his book, that disgraceful book. But imagine now the scenario that this article were to be lying here in our local archive! It would eventually be found there as an article purported to have originated from me. Then someone might say: “Yes, Steiner copied that article in the archive from Dessoir’s entry in the encyclopedia and claimed it as his own!” — Such absurdities can occur if one isn’t vigilant! First, literary thieves can steal one’s work, and then it can appear somewhere in such a way that not the one who created it, but the one who stole it, is regarded as the author—and the actual author is regarded as the thief!

[ 47 ] The moral question must be addressed from many different angles today; but it will not be addressed in a fruitful way by anyone who does not stand on the foundation of a sound spiritual science. That is what I also wanted to share with you in the appendix to today’s lecture, drawing on contemporary history.