The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Seventh Lecture

[ 1 ] Today I would like to add a number of points to the reflections we have been engaging in here recently regarding cosmic and human truths—but primarily truths of the kind we again discussed yesterday, which are connected to the nature of humanity’s development in our time. In order to supplement what has been presented from one perspective or another, it may be necessary today to insert here and there a remark that is only seemingly personal. As you know, I do this very rarely, but even when I do, it is always—as will be the case today—solely to clarify something strictly factual.

[ 2 ] We live in an age that demands something very specific of human beings. One might say it demands a decision that springs from the very depths of the human being. It must certainly be noted and understood that we are, in fact, only just entering the age of human freedom. And this upheaval in the intellectual, moral, and social spheres is nothing other than an expression of the fact that, through deeper forces of human development, humanity is to be led into the realm of freedom.

[ 3 ] We need only look at our own lives or the lives of peoples—to look at what is happening with an open mind—and we will realize that there are numerous factors through which the individual human being, entire peoples, communities of peoples, and groups of people are determined from the outside or—albeit unfreely—from within. This being carried along by circumstances—that is, after all, what has essentially been the true driving force of human development. But humanity must increasingly break free from this driving force. And the future of the Earth will consist in humanity increasingly developing what we must characterize today by saying: For the first time, humanity is truly faced with significant decisions.

[ 4 ] This “being faced with momentous decisions”—decisions that must be made from the very depths of the human breast, the human heart, and the human soul—is also reflected in the outward course of events. In fact, far too little attention is paid to the major upheavals that took place in all areas of political, social, intellectual, and scientific life during the second half of the 19th century.

[ 5 ] You see, signs pointing to this shift can be observed everywhere today, on both a large and small scale. Let’s take a very obvious example. You know that among the numerous enemies opposing the anthroposophical movement today are the clerics of this country [Switzerland], who clearly demonstrate that Jesuit power stands behind them—and that Jesuit power, in turn, is a force that carries some weight in this country. One need only consider what is evident today in various fields, and one will see how strongly this power is, for many people, intertwined with what they call “external religious education” and so on. For this country in particular, it might therefore be interesting to take a closer look at a remarkable document, which I had photographed because it is so fascinating. This document originates from Switzerland and was published there in 1847. I will read it aloud:

[ 6 ] “Dedicated as a lasting monument to the Swiss Army and its brave commanders in commemoration of November 24, 1847, when Jesuit rule in Switzerland came to an end.

[ 7 ] The Almighty has granted victory to the just cause. The days from the 12th to the 30th of November 1847—unforgettable to every Swiss soldier—during which the seven war-prepared Catholic Sonderbund cantons of Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zug, Fribourg, and Valais, following the decisions of the Diet on the 20th Heumonat and the 4th of Wintermonat 1847, were threatened on all sides by an imposing and battle-ready army of 100,000 men, and, under the command of General Wilhelm Heinrich Dufour of Geneva, surrendered one after another; these days rank among the most memorable events in Swiss history. With relatively few casualties in terms of dead and wounded, the astute and battle-hardened commander-in-chief, through his excellent strategic arrangements following several skirmishes, succeeded in... to completely subdue, within a few days, his Catholic brethren—who were enslaved by a tyrannical government and fanaticized and deluded by the hypocritical clergy, and who faced the Swiss troops, including the Landsturm, as an enemy army numbering over 80,000 men—to dismantle the Sonderbund, and to expel the Jesuits from Switzerland. “And the concluding sentence, which I find particularly interesting, reads: ‘God’s protective fatherly hand reigned over the army.’”

[ 8 ] You can see the protection afforded to the expulsion of the Jesuits at that time, and how people invoked God’s protective fatherly hand, praying that it might always watch over the Swiss people as it had done back then, when General Dufour succeeded in ridding Switzerland of the Jesuits. That was then! — 1847.

[ 9 ] But it is not only these things; some others, too, have undergone significant changes over the course of the last half-century. And these changes have a very specific character. Their character is such that anyone who wishes to rely solely on the outcome of external events, as they have unfolded during this period, is bound to become confused. The best way to become confused—and to be unable to untangle oneself from certain tangles and knots—is simply to let these external events of the last half or two-thirds of the century take their course. If a person wants to find the right path today, they need a guiding direction that comes entirely from within—an impulse. And entangled within this chaos—whose very foundation is the confusion arising from relying solely on external events—are even the best aspirations of recent times. Of course, it must not be overlooked that in recent times, in the most diverse areas of life—particularly in the field of technology and the sciences related to it—great and significant progress has been made and triumphs celebrated, and that praise for the modern era in this regard is entirely justified. However, even if you take the finest scientific achievements of modern culture, the greatest technical advancements—if you take everything that has emerged as good from this tangled knot of modern culture—you can find much that is useful, much that is enlightening, and much that can advance humanity to a certain degree, particularly in material terms; but you cannot find anything—neither in the scientific, nor in the technical, nor in any other field, not even in those fields—I must emphasize this again and again—that have brought about good—that could shine into human souls from the external world in such a way that human beings themselves might receive a guiding impulse from these things coming from the external world. That is why spiritual science had to emerge precisely at this time, because it is meant to provide that which is not derived from the external world, but is drawn solely from the spiritual worlds—and drawn in such a way that, when it flows into the external world, it constitutes an impulse that has nothing to do with anything that can be derived from the external world even today. What is to be provided by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is an impulse carried from the spiritual worlds into this external world. People today thoroughly misunderstand us in this regard, and my discussions yesterday served to clarify matters from a certain perspective. I wanted specifically to point out that one must not say that we are introducing into that educational impulse—which is, admittedly, born of spiritual vision—or into our practical measures, anything that would be merely a theoretical worldview. I said yesterday how far reality is from what such a claim implies. But one must not say the opposite either, and this again relates to a correct understanding of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science: One must not say, as people generally imagine today, that any external activity stems from a theory or a program; one must not imagine that what we establish—whether in a field such as education or in a field such as practical economic life—arises from some kind of program, in the way people today imagine that things arise from programs.

[ 10 ] For example, a few days ago someone said to me: “Basically, this particular view of the ‘threefold social order’ would never have come about if this threefold division had not sprung from anthroposophy.” — I had to thoroughly correct such a statement, for it is in fact—and here I must interject a few personal remarks, which are, however, meant to be entirely objective and have a great deal to do with the matter at hand—that what you and others encounter today as the “threefold social order,” insofar as it was conceived by me, did not arise at all from an abstract thought, nor from a reflection on how social life should be organized so that something might emerge from that utopian character, as one finds it in various contemporary discussions. That is not how it came about. In a sense, spiritual insight has been the one current within me that simply flowed together naturally in life with the other currents; and in particular, the economic current—the economic perspective—has arisen entirely from the soil of its own life.

[ 11 ] I explained years ago where my view of modern economic life and economic necessities originated. I had to respond to this as well when I was told that this threefold division had been extracted from anthroposophy—in a sense, just as one today extracts from some program, through abstract logic, what one then presents as impulses. I spent my boyhood as the son of a low-ranking railroad official, at a time—in the 1860s and 1870s—when the railroads were, I might say, just beginning to emerge from a sort of semi-embryonic state. What eventually became the vast transportation system did not, in fact, come about until later. I took part in all the initiatives that were still influenced by the first major railway construction projects. I was thus directly under the influence of the burgeoning transportation sector. This perspective later merged with something else, which at the time led me to conceive of economic life in the way I had to—in the sense of the “Threefold Social Order.”

[ 12 ] We must bear in mind that, well into the 1970s, the most essential, the fundamental element of modern development was the transformation of transportation. Global transportation was what developed during that period. I was right in the midst of that era of global transportation, directly under the daily, hourly influence of the details that emerged alongside it. And then, in the last third of the 19th century—actually, not until the last quarter—came the great shift that led from global transportation to the global economy.

[ 13 ] The global economy is not the same thing as global trade. Global trade was what brought about the global economy in the first place. Global trade is merely the final stage in the development of the national economy. What is produced in each individual country—essentially, of course—is balanced out across the various countries through global trade; but there is a certain distinctiveness in production for each individual country. This has since changed under the influence of the transportation system itself. The world transitioned from global trade to the global economy. And the global economy only exists when raw materials are purchased on a massive scale in one country, shipped to another country, and industrially processed there. Thus, it is not only through trade but through the economy itself that one state, one country, becomes dependent on another, so that, in a sense, the economy itself spreads across the various countries. This expansion of the global economy—this, so to speak, unification of the world into a single global economy—occurred primarily during the final decades of the 19th century. And it came about, I would say, exactly as was most strikingly evident in the supply of Indian and American cotton to the European textile industries.

[ 14 ] It was precisely the cotton industry where one could observe, in a characteristic way, the transformation of global trade into the global economy. And during the time when one could still clearly see how this was taking place, I spent eight years as a tutor in a household through which only cotton from India and America was shipped to Europe—a household frequented exclusively by cotton agents and manufacturers of goods made from cotton— and life there revolved entirely around the interests that encompass everything derived from these commodities. I was fully immersed in it because I never regarded these external matters as trivial or suggested that one should retreat into a mystical twilight to escape them; I took a deep interest in them, especially when those dispatches arrived that had to be deciphered using codes. A telegram arrived that read “Drahtzieher.” You then had to look up “Drahtzieher” in the code book, and it meant: Such-and-such a company is offering so many bales of cotton at such-and-such a price. — From the word “Drahtzieher,” one could glean all sorts of information that, under certain circumstances, could lead to a very significant business venture.

[ 15 ] During this time, while I was intensely interested in the patterns of the American and Indian cotton that was arriving—which was really piled up very high in the office, each with its own specifications, with its little strip of paper on which very interesting things were written—while I was carefully studying these—please forgive me for making this personal remark, but it is related to the factual matter in a certain way—I was also studying Goethe’s “Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily,” and the two proceeded entirely in parallel. And, essentially, what I gained at that time from studying “The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily” was what then, after three times seven years—after twenty-one years—led to my first Mystery, “The Gate of Initiation.”

[ 16 ] I just wanted to cite these few examples; I could add many others. But I had to reply to the man who told me that my views on economic life stemmed from—as he naturally assumed—an abstract form of anthroposophy, that I had indeed been involved in the transportation industry, written waybills—and even made ink blots on them, aside from the marks I had to write on the waybills—that I have witnessed the cotton industry and the cotton trade firsthand, and that my economic views have emerged from these very things, which are closely connected to the very nerve center of modern life. These are not mere theories; they are truly drawn from life. And I have only this one feeling: that one can draw these things from life if one has the good will to truly observe life. One must, however, also observe life in those areas that some people despise, if one wishes to arrive at what can truly be a practice of life—what can prove to be practical in life. And it was precisely from all that emerged from the practice of life—from being immersed in the practice of life, even from the tangled knots of the practice of life—that these things could be drawn out. For among those people who opposed me at that time were some who were still experiencing, in the course of their lives, the aftereffects of the great crisis of 1873.

[ 17 ] However, it was precisely at that time that those strange connections between worldview and external economic life became apparent—connections that are to be overcome precisely through our way of thinking about spiritual life on the one hand and economic life on the other. The director of the railroad where my father was employed at the time was a man named Bontoux. This Bontoux was, I might say, something of a demigod in the community where I lived back then. Mrs. Bontoux, whom people—for reasons I do not know—called simply “the Baroness,” was regarded as an exceptionally devout woman, and from a certain point of view, they really were exceptionally devout people; Bontoux then left his post as general director of the Southern Railway, joined a consortium—a large enterprise that stretched its tentacles from France all the way to Serbia—and his “piety” enabled him to conduct massive business deals, though not in the service of worldly powers, but rather of those pious powers to which he had otherwise devoted himself whenever he held a prayer book in his hand. — Then the whole thing came crashing down, and the famous Bontoux scandal erupted—from which a certain ecclesiastical community had wisely withdrawn its involvement at just the right moment, leaving Bontoux to take the fall alone. But at that time, it was very clear that certain worldview ideas were being carried over, so to speak, into financial ventures, and one could learn very well from that what one should not do. Admittedly, some people cannot imagine that this was learned in the right way and that it led to a completely different understanding of the connection between anthroposophy and *Kommender Tag* and *Futurum* than Bontoux’s understanding of the connection between the Catholic Church and the Serbian Bank.

[ 18 ] These things are all drawn directly from life. And the fact that one can learn from life—that one should not approach life with theoretical dogmas—is precisely what should come from a correctly understood anthroposophy. Anthroposophy differs from other worldviews—or at least is meant to differ—in that it can be selfless; that is, it does not constantly harp on its dogmas, but rather actually provides guidance for coming to know life in all its fullness and breadth. Only in this way can it fulfill the most important, the most fundamental demands and necessities of human development today.

[ 19 ] Anyone who looked with open eyes at what could be experienced by truly delving into what was happening saw confusion everywhere; they saw that confusion was very much alive even among the good people, and that one was bound to be lost if one relied solely on drifting along with what the outer world offered. Into this, the impulse from the realms of the spirit had to flow—an impulse which, I would say, is called upon to provide direction from an entirely different source to that which cannot receive this direction from the outside, not even where the good of this outer world exists.

[ 20 ] This is precisely what defines the profession of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. But just consider the driving force at work in this era, when external events everywhere—whether in scientific life, in other cultural spheres, or in practical life—are forming an inextricable tangle. Consider the necessity in this era of finding, precisely from spiritual foundations, something that can provide direction in the world today.

[ 21 ] But consider also how, on the other hand, these things gave rise to yet another impulse within human beings. This is it: When a person now surrenders to the current of these inextricable knots, he is tempted not to take charge of his own guidance with his soul, but to give himself over to the confusing external world, to let himself be carried along by the flow of that confusing external world. — It has been possible to see, to one’s great sorrow, how people under this influence became increasingly less and less independent, how, on the one hand, they felt the urge to form their own judgments, but as their own judgments they ultimately shaped only what was imposed upon them from the tangled, chaotic external life through paths unknown to them. People want to be independent because the demand for freedom lives in their subconscious. People also imagine themselves to be independent, but they surrender themselves—because independence, that is, freedom, today means a powerful stirring of the inner self, and they do not want this stirring—to the current that flows in the manner just described. In this way, they fall prey to Ahrimanic influences in particular—to that which, using all manner of beautiful and elegantly phrased words, aims toward the spiritual, yet is rooted in nothing other than personal egotism and the craving to have this personal egotism sustained by social life.

[ 22 ] The most important characteristic of the present day is that people are, at heart, steeped in selfishness, and that when they speak of social demands, what they really mean is: How can society best support selfishness? — Basically, people talk about social life but mean selfish life. They want a social life in which selfishness can flourish best.

[ 23 ] However, the “Threefold Social Order” could not speak in such terms. It could not speak of a paradise. It must leave that to the Lenins and Trotskys and so on. It can only speak of what is organically possible within the social body, of what is viable, of what can happen, of what can come to pass. And that is what we must strive to achieve. For if we want to delude ourselves and pursue illusions, we will certainly not be able to make any progress.

[ 24 ] We must get into the habit of not viewing life as a whole from the perspective of an abstract principle, but rather of immersing ourselves in life and observing its details with full engagement, regardless of whether they seem to pertain entirely to spiritual matters or entirely to material ones. A major upheaval once took place because, in a sense, the economic life of the entire world had become a single entity, and humanity could not understand this, could not bear it. People merely paid lip service to it; they did not understand it inwardly. Certainly, much has been written about the global economy, but it was all just empty rhetoric, for this talk of the global economy—this way of viewing it—has not always been truly internalized. And so it came to pass that people were initially driven into the global economy, yet they did not understand how to organize their lives accordingly, and now live in a world that is erecting barrier after barrier, seeking to preserve impossible national economies through all manner of barriers— customs and passport barriers in the most dreadful way—in other words, seeking to preserve something that, in essence, has long since ceased to exist.

[ 25 ] What we are experiencing today is nothing other than a failure to understand what has come to pass, because life in the last third of the 19th century and in the first two decades of the 20th century essentially presented confusing tangles that one could not allow oneself to be swept up in outwardly. From this surrender to chaos, to these confusing knots, ultimately arose what is now so frequently manifesting itself in the hostility toward anthroposophy. This hostility is indeed assuming the most incredible dimensions today, both in scope and, in particular, in intensity. And one can say: From what surrenders to the outer world in the negative sense I have indicated—I have, after all, also pointed out the positive sense of surrendering to the world, namely, by being able to live with the bales of cotton as well—from this, all the things that arise today in such a strange way emerge. Can’t one actually already see—if one considers things purely from the outside—from the very way these things are expressed, what spirit animates them, if one can even speak of animation at all? [The following is read aloud:] “It was said of Steiner’s Goetheanum in Dornach: ‘We did not regret our visit, however, and we would advise anyone who wishes to form an opinion of Dr. Steiner to see this temple, this reflection of his spirit, with their own eyes. What does this man take himself to be, and what does he take others to be, that he dares to have every whim, every feverish dream of his mind cast in concrete, carved in wood, etched in glass, and painted on the wall?””

[ 26 ] And finally, a peculiar little group has recently joined forces with all sorts of people—the chauvinists, the extreme socialists, notably the leadership of socialism, and so on. Admittedly, this is not an entirely recent development, for one could already observe the aspirations of this little group as early as 1912, 1913. For what I have just read to you is followed by some very peculiar statements: “These are only very small samples of hostile attacks”—and now the author expresses his opinion as to where these hostile attacks come from—“under the influence of Uranus. We see that there is no shortage of scorn and mockery even now. But the warning from a hate-filled opponent gives particular cause for thought.”

[ 27 ] I’ll read those aloud. But the little group that has thus allied itself with the other various opponents is that of the astrologers, and behind this lies a very special kind of wickedness—which, admittedly, is completely unconscious to many—because one can do a great deal with these things, and because there is something particularly provocative about them. But things do seem very strange when you put them all together. For example, there is an attack that contains the words: “We consider it very necessary to keep a watchful eye on Rudolf Steiner. The man who, relying on Judaism, communists, and idealistic eccentrics, wanted to become Minister of Culture in Württemberg during the revolutionary period, certainly has not given up his role on the political stage of our immediate homeland.”

[ 28 ] So here we are talking about a communion with Judaism and communists. Let’s counter this with another argument. It is good to compare these things, for in the comparison, certain details may come to light: “All the founders of religions to date, such as Christ, Buddha, and all the sages and prophets” —I do not believe I have ever even remotely laid claim to such a title, but my opponents seem to do so—"never placed much value on outward appearances, earthly treasures, palaces, or temples; on the contrary, they remained without significant possessions, instructed people without outward pomp, guided them to higher spiritual levels, or taught them to pray in the quiet privacy of their own rooms! They have established their spiritual ideas and wise teachings without needing the material support of wealthy commercial councilors.”

[ 29 ] So you see, on the one hand, there is solidarity with the Communists and with the Jewish community; on the other hand, there is solidarity with wealthy commercial councilors. The only thing missing is solidarity with particularly influential generals! This must be emphasized, since these things need to be said, and, as it seems to me, no one else is saying them: I know that neither those described here as communists nor those described as commercial councilors—even if generals were mentioned as well—would take it amiss if I said that it would certainly be necessary to examine closely whether I myself would have needed anyone at all, be it from among these “communists,” these “commercial councilors,” or these “generals,” I would have needed at all? — I could have done without them all, and one would first have to investigate whether I went to them or they came to me. That is what must be considered first and foremost; it is something that certainly warrants serious consideration.

[ 30 ] And one more thing. If, on the one hand, it is truly said that Rudolf Steiner can rely only on Judaism, communists, and so on—and, on the other hand, that the founders of previous religions have established their spiritual ideas and wise teachings without needing the material support of wealthy commercial councilors— then one could say that this sounds very similar to the slander spread by the Jesuits in 1908, claiming that I was a particularly dangerous Freemason, while at the same time another slander emerged claiming that I was a Jesuit myself. — That’s how “well” people know you! But one should really pause to consider whether perhaps what is most necessary to focus on today lies within the communist, the Jew, and the wealthy commercial councilor alike: the human being. Today, it is the human being that matters, and what we must seek is the human being in every form. For the old party stereotypes—such as “Communists”—the old ethnic groupings—such as “Jews”—and, finally, even the old titles of “Commercial Councilor” mean next to nothing today, when we must force our way with all our might into the realm of universal humanity.

[ 31 ] But it seems that those who are particularly possessed by Ahriman are the ones who are in tune with all sorts of things—except for what truly seeks to bring a spiritual impulse into the confused course of human development today. And so one can certainly listen calmly when it is said: “Planetary influences from Saturn and Uranus may have a calamitous effect on the individual, bringing him grave worries or hostilities—but—the individual is thereby compelled to master and overcome his lower ego life and ultimately bring it to maturity for the service of humanity. The celestial influences of 1921 will therefore — like all people with a similar root horoscope — either shake him emotionally, forcing him to greater spiritual effort, deepening, and concentration — or, if the astral influences are not spiritually utilized, bring him severe material damage, painful losses, or physical illness. — Some people born in late February during critical years may also face personal danger, which is always more clearly evident from their individual natal charts.”

[ 32 ] Well, it is by no means necessary to conclude from the influences of Uranus and Saturn that one must master the ego life and the like; for I have tried to describe to you the underlying reasons from which, for example, the “Threefold Social Order” and works such as *The Gate of Initiation* arose, and I myself can calmly look upon everything that comes from the influences of Saturn and Uranus. These are not the things that cause me concern. Quite different things concern me. And as long as the following is a factor, there can certainly be some cause for concern. But the things associated with it should be viewed in a different light.

[ 33 ] A particularly hate-filled opponent is quoted here, who says the following: “Spiritual sparks of fire, hissing like lightning after the wooden mousetrap [meaning the Goetheanum], are thus abundant, and it will take quite a bit of Steiner’s wisdom to act so that one day a real spark of fire does not bring an inglorious end to the splendor of Dornach.”

[ 34 ] This very clearly points to something the world would like to see here on the Dornach Hill!

[ 35 ] And then this little crowd gets together and looks for reasons to attribute such threatening statements entirely to the effects of Uranus near the Sun, and so on. So these attacks are not only extensive in scope; they are also imbued with a peculiar intensity. And above all, as far as I am concerned, I would like to say: Where Uranus’s influences manifest themselves in this way, they clearly show that they cannot exactly be coming from a good source! By their very nature, they reveal what kind of spirit they are born of.

[ 36 ] But on the other hand, we must be absolutely clear about this: If, out of the “spiritual sparks” that are said to be “sufficiently present,” a longing arises for the “physical spark,” then this calls for the growing concern of those who may be attached with some affection to what has come into being here outwardly, and to what is connected with it. It is truly necessary to devote some care to preserving the work that has now truly been brought together through the labor and sacrifices of many. For there are indeed enough people today who view this work with hatred, driven by their idealistic—or even criminal—will!

[ 37 ] You might say I shouldn’t have read this aloud. — Oh no, my dear friends, that’s out of the question! The others will certainly see to it that this becomes known to the rest of the world. But I must take some responsibility for ensuring that it also becomes known among you—who perhaps feel somewhat differently about such matters, at least most of you. For otherwise, due to customs that have taken root in the widest circles of this very hall, it might remain hidden from our friends. After all, so much, unfortunately, remains hidden. But a glimmer of this should penetrate the awareness of our friends—for today, something very intense and filled with hatred is already asserting itself against what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science seeks.

[ 38 ] And it wasn't just to make a joke when I had to say yesterday: our opponents are a different breed in many ways; and they will prove to be a different breed indeed if we do not also try to be vigilant, to be guardians of what has been achieved through many sacrifices and much hard work.

[ 39 ] For if, as is the case today, evil manages to find so many guardians, then surely it should also be possible for that which we must, after all, regard as good to find its guardians as well! Be faithful guardians of the spiritual heritage, about which we have once again had to say today, in light of certain circumstances: It was not brought into the world by any subjective idea alone; it was brought into this world through the observation of life, through the perception of the demands that are human—the most important human demands of our age—and which become ever more important the closer we approach the near future. Be on guard against all those who wish to destroy this work, which is so necessary for humanity! For this will to destroy is very, very strong in many people today. Be strong yourselves, for that which lives in the spiritual movement that also brought about this building here did not arise out of chaos; it is an impulse that was brought into the chaos. And if one only comes close to it, one will feel: there is power, there is life. Be guardians, true guardians of that which you seem to have chosen as your own by placing yourselves within this anthroposophically oriented spiritual-scientific movement.