The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. Spiritual Science and Modern Education

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! I would like to express my sincere thanks to the organizers for this event. As you can imagine, anyone who devotes their entire being to the dissemination of what is known as Spiritual Science must also be deeply passionate about this field and believe that it has a specific role to play within universal education and the entire civilization of our time. The fact that this educational course is taking place strikes me as particularly worthy of gratitude, for it is precisely in the field of education that Spiritual Science can perhaps be explored best and most readily. It is also through the field of education that it will become apparent how little this Spiritual Science is the concern of a few dreamers and idealists or of any particular sect, but rather how it aims to be a source of guidance for all of humanity. Therefore—and I may well express this in these few words—I am truly and sincerely grateful to those who have organized these lectures, and I also thank you, who intend to attend them, and hope that over the course of the next few days we will be able to discuss important matters concerning humanity.

[ 2 ] In today’s lecture, I will take the liberty of offering a sort of introduction—a hint as to the direction the topic I have chosen will take. Now, I ask you not to draw the conclusion from the way I have phrased my topic that I—as some unreasonable radical might perhaps do—intended by this phrasing to imply that educational science, as it developed particularly during the 19th century and up to the present day, is worthless, and that it had been waiting for Spiritual Science to, so to speak, first bring it into being. This belief certainly did not underlie the formulation of the topic. On the contrary, the starting point is actually a very different sentiment for what I wish to draw attention to in these lectures. I firmly believe that educational science—which, particularly during the 19th century, had such outstanding figures among its representatives, whose influence certainly extends into contemporary pedagogical practice—can indeed attain a certain degree of perfection. I believe that anyone who, for one reason or another, is compelled today to explore a wide variety of sciences and to learn how these sciences are represented theoretically and practically, how they intersect with life, and who then also engages with educational science—that person must, in comparing educational science with the other sciences—as strange as this may sound, I would like to express this as my own experience—must arrive at the following conclusion: in its current form, it actually contains the most meticulous principles—some indisputable formulations of what should fundamentally underlie educational practice—so that when one considers the will and the judicious grasp of educational necessities, one actually gains only the very best impression of this pedagogical science. It is precisely this point from which I wish to proceed, as I by no means underestimate—to name just one example—the effectiveness of a mind such as Herbart’s.

[ 3 ] I myself became quite intimately acquainted with the Herbartian movement. After all, I spent the first half of my life in Austria, growing up there until I was nearly 30; and in Austria, Herbartian pedagogy had actually come to set the tone for the entire state education system, which Exner and others had organized at that time. Herbartians were active in the field of pedagogy at all Austrian universities, so that throughout my life, Herbartian pedagogy—I would say—came to me in its most minute details. But even if I extend my consideration from Herbartian pedagogy to other educational movements that extend from the recent past into the present, I would also like to say: In fact, there is much to be pleased about in all areas of pedagogical thought and sensibility. This is a trend—I would say—that we encounter when it comes to viewing pedagogy as one of the most important links in our entire civilization.

[ 4 ] The other point, however, is this: that in fact—and while this has always been the case to a certain extent, it has never been as pronounced as it is today—the entire field of pedagogical art and pedagogical thought is being subjected to extensive criticism. We see how, time and again, both laypeople and experts harshly criticize pedagogy, while on the other hand it is sometimes skillfully—and sometimes not particularly skillfully—defended, just as it has come to be and as it prevails today. When we see everything that is said by people who, for example, found rural boarding schools and speak there of a complete renewal of the very essence of education, and when we then observe how the broadest circles are taking part in such discussions, we must also say: As people look at what is actually being achieved through—I’ll say it quite openly—the greatness of our educational science, we sometimes cannot entirely dismiss the criticism that is being voiced.

[ 5 ] One actually finds oneself right in the middle between these two perspectives. Added to this is another, much more comprehensive one. And I truly do not believe I am overstepping the bounds of an introductory lecture for an educational course by drawing attention to this peculiarity as well.

[ 6 ] Over the past five to six years—even if this has been less noticeable in Switzerland than in other parts of Europe—we have gone through a difficult period; in any case—and every Swiss person will readily admit this—a period that people ten years ago could not have had a mental image of. Just ask yourself whether people ten years ago could have ever imagined that what has now befallen Europe would come to pass. We must not forget what has emerged today—I would say as a consequence of the terrible hardships of war—namely, chaos in social conditions across a large part of Europe. And anyone who believes that this chaos has already reached a turning point and that things will soon improve is mistaken. In terms of these chaotic conditions, we are, in essence, only at the beginning. And so one must ask: Is it really only due to external circumstances that we have fallen into this chaos of European social and public affairs? Must we not, upon impartial reflection, conclude: It cannot be due to the circumstances, for circumstances are created by people; it must be due to the people themselves.

[ 7 ] If one looks more closely, one very soon discovers that the problem lies with people themselves; that this is why today—at a time when there are the loudest calls for the social structuring of our social relations—there are so few truly social sentiments, but rather, for the most part, antisocial ones. And truly, can one help but admit that all this has come about despite the excellence of pedagogical principles, despite all that has been accomplished in a commendable manner and is inspired by the best of intentions? We must say: Despite everything, we have not been able to bring modern humanity to the point where one person can truly treat another with understanding. We have witnessed the rise of an era in which people have truly not been stingy with praise for how wonderfully far we have come. But we have also come to know thoroughly how this era has driven itself to absurdity. Shouldn’t there at least be a longing in our hearts to examine whether it is not precisely through this art of education that this generation—which is today so at odds with one another in Europe—has been raised? This certainly warrants closer scrutiny. And if one looks a little more closely, one finds this: It is simply impossible not to feel genuine reverence for the great figures of 19th-century pedagogy—Herbart, Ziller, Diesterweg, Pestalozzi, and so on—I need not mention the individual names to you—but on the other hand, one must also say: Yes, we have an exemplary science of education, but education, more than any other field, involves something other than merely an excellent science; education is precisely about the fact that this science can transcend into a true art; that pedagogy can become art.

[ 8 ] If, just to clarify, one wants to consider the matter in comparison with art, one can say: There can be an exquisite sense of aesthetics, exquisite knowledge of how to go about things in music, sculpture, or painting, and this science of painting, this science of sculpture, this science of composition—it can be magnificent; but it is quite another matter to actually be able to apply this science. Indeed, one might say: The person who applies them—the sculptor, the painter, the musician—usually even harbors a genuine aversion to the principles that have been devised. For them, the point is not that these principles enter their imagination at all, but rather that these principles live in their hands, in their entire being, so that they can take on a living form within them. In the science of education, the situation is not quite the same as in any other aesthetic discipline. In the science of education, everything must be more conscious; everything must be much more permeated by mental images than, say, in painting, music, or sculpture. Nevertheless, what we understand to be right in education must be able to permeate our entire being if we are to become pedagogical artists.

[ 9 ] And it is precisely in this area that I believe Spiritual Science can help. And it is this assistance—which Spiritual Science can provide to education—that I would like to discuss in this course. It is not that I believe the principles of educational science need to be reformed, but rather I believe that in order to apply these correct principles—whether in an individual case of education or in the context of a large class—in a truly practical way, it is necessary for these principles to be enlivened and permeated by what, in fact, only Spiritual Science can provide. Spiritual Science is something that seeks to permeate all areas of contemporary scientific knowledge. Spiritual Science is something that is meant to provide a renewal for everything that our contemporary culture strives for; this contemporary culture, which—even though many people today believe we are already in the midst of a sort of regression toward idealism—has in fact emerged from materialism and still fully embodies the materialism of the latter half of the 19th century. All branches of human intellectual activity—indeed, one might almost say all branches of human cultural activity—have taken their present form through this materialistic contemporary mindset. This materialistic contemporary mindset does not manifest itself in an equally harmful way in every area: where it exists, materialism must exert its most harmful influence in the field of education.

[ 10 ] This is what I merely wish to hint at by way of introduction today, but it will become evident throughout the entire course of these lectures. Spiritual Science is often misunderstood today, and for that reason I feel it necessary to say at least a few words to clarify any points that might be misunderstood. For before I am in a position to demonstrate to you what Spiritual Science can contribute to the proper application of an excellent pedagogical science—by transforming pedagogical knowledge into pedagogical skill—I must first address, in detail, the misunderstandings surrounding Spiritual Science. And in doing so, I do not wish to speak in abstract terms, but would like to address these issues as concretely as possible.

[ 11 ] You will have heard—at least many of you—that the Spiritual Science does not have it as easy as contemporary external anthropology when it comes to observing human beings, the very people with whom we are primarily concerned in education. This modern, “external” anthropology, so to speak, simplifies the problems we face with regard to human beings. And one then sees—I would say—a kind of superstition when one hears that Spiritual Science needs to identify supersensible aspects of the human being; that in the growing child one can already see not only how this human being develops in general, but how, to begin with—to put it roughly—four aspects of the human being develop.

[ 12 ] Given our advanced understanding of nature and the worldview derived from it, it is easy today to laugh when we hear Spiritual Science say that the human being consists of a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, and a distinct “I”-being. I can understand this laughter quite well. I can understand how, out of misunderstanding, people make fun of these things. But in reality, one is making fun at the expense of a truly fruitful further development of humanity and at the expense of an art of education that truly focuses on the human being. I must admit, however, that you are right: When you hear that here and there, in a sectarian manner, Theosophists gather in groups and then someone—who has read it in a book or heard it in lectures—tells people: “Human beings consist of a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, and the ‘I’”—then this is truly a highly unproductive science, and it is something one might even have a right to mock in a certain way. For if it remains the case that people propagate these things in a sectarian manner, as a kind of religious creed, then nothing of particular significance actually comes of it for the culture of humanity or for real life. These things only yield something when one takes them—I would say—as guiding forces for viewing life in a richer way than is possible when one bases one’s view solely on the abstract concept of the human being or the growing child.

[ 13 ] It is certainly true, if we consider the most abstract level, that educators have an exceptionally sound principle when they say that human beings must be developed according to their individuality; that one must study which powers gradually emerge from the human essence in the developing child; and that, through the art of education, one must, so to speak, develop that which is striving to emerge from the human essence. This is an excellent principle, but it must not remain an abstraction; it must not remain merely a principle that one regards as excellent while merely having the good will to apply it. No, the principle has meaning only if it can truly be brought to life, if life itself truly offers the opportunity to view the developing human being—from the first year of life through adulthood—in such a way that one can actually see the forces that are emerging.

[ 14 ] If you take only the concept of the human being provided by modern anthropology—the one you can derive from science today—then you simply fail to notice what is actually coming to light in the human being, what is striving to emerge from within the human being. These are merely guidelines that are hinted at when one says: Human beings consist of a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, and an “I.” For then one says: You must apply the mode of observation to which we have become accustomed today—derived from materialistic natural science—only to the physical human being; but you must also take other perspectives into account when considering human beings. You must view the human being as a far more complex being, and you must develop an insight into how something emerges from human nature that is not encompassed by the mere laws of nature—something we can grasp only through the higher aspects of human nature.

[ 15 ] What does it actually mean when we say: “The human being consists of four parts”? You see, this points to something that is, in essence, self-evident to every educator who has studied psychology; yet it is so familiar to them that this familiarity has not yet led to a truly deep insight into the whole human being. It is well known, after all, how much has been discussed by psychologists—including educational psychologists—regarding the fact that we must view the human soul—to put it very cautiously—as a threefold metamorphosis consisting of thinking, feeling, and willing. You know how much has been debated throughout the 19th century and right up to the present day regarding whether the will is the primary force and thinking, so to speak, emerges from the nature of the will, or whether thinking—or a mental image—lies at the foundation. You know, for example, that in Herbart’s pedagogy a certain intellectualism prevails, such that the will is regarded, so to speak, merely as a kind of resultant of the efforts of imagination and so on. Precisely when one looks impartially at the entire manner of discussing thinking, feeling, and willing, one realizes that something is missing from these discussions. A genuine insight into human nature is lacking. And it is precisely this genuine insight into human nature that Spiritual Science seeks. It seeks to help us regain the ability to perceive human nature in its totality.

[ 16 ] Unless we are crude materialists, we speak of the fact that human beings have not only an external physical body but also a soul, and we attribute thinking, feeling, and willing to the soul. But aren’t you familiar with the discussions taking place today that time and again boil down to this: that one cannot really form a mental image of how the soul is connected to the body, or how the soul affects the body and the body affects the soul? Fundamentally, all people who take these matters seriously struggle with this question. But it does not occur to them that perhaps the entire question, as it is usually posed, is not entirely correct. It does not occur to them that perhaps the entire approach might need to be changed.

[ 17 ] It is precisely when we observe the growing child that we come to see, through the child’s development, how the spiritual takes shape within the physical. Anyone who is attuned only to outward form—as it appears so wondrous and enigmatic on the one hand, and so appealing to the human senses on the other—in the child, as we observe it day by day in the first weeks of life, as we observe it week by week, month by month, year by year in the years that follow—anyone who observes this transformation and has an appreciation for how the soul manifests itself must ask the question: How, in fact, is what we develop in the soul connected to the physical in its outward manifestation? For it is evident that the soul is at work within the physical; one sees this especially in the child. But modern science is not strong enough—I would say it has too blunt a tool—to approach this question: How does the soul work within the physical body? — in the proper way. Certain phenomena are simply not being properly considered by science today. And as we observe the first years of a child’s life, we see a phenomenon that presents us with new mysteries every day; we need only observe it.

[ 18 ] We observe this phenomenon when a child gets its first baby teeth around the end of its first year of life or a little later. We see how these baby teeth eventually fall out and are replaced by permanent teeth starting around the age of seven. This phenomenon, to be sure, is described in great detail by modern science, but modern science simply lacks the true capacity to investigate what this phenomenon actually means and what it signifies in the overall development of the human being. Furthermore, we see how the growing child then develops toward sexual maturity, and how this entry into sexual maturity brings about a complete revolution in the physical and psychological life of the human being. We know, when we think of elementary school, that the most important aspects of elementary education are contained precisely in the period from the change of teeth to sexual maturity. But science and all of life today lack the power to penetrate what is actually happening in the realm that we now call—not one-sidedly the physical and bodily, nor one-sidedly the psychological, but rather the psychological-physical aspect of the human being.

[ 19 ] It simply boils down to our acquiring a more precise, more intimate art of observing the human being. Just try observing more intimately for once. About a year after birth—or perhaps a little later—the human organism begins to form its first teeth from within itself, from its entirety—truly not merely from the upper and lower jaws, but from its entirety. This is something that takes place within the mysterious nature of the human being. But this is something that repeats itself once more, on average around the age of seven. There, however, we see how the organism needs a much longer time to push this hardest of structures—the tooth—out of itself than it did to push out the baby teeth in early childhood.

[ 20 ] You see, when considering such things from a physical perspective, one must not limit oneself to the methods of modern natural science. One must also recognize how, during this period—week by week, from the emergence of the baby teeth to the emergence of the permanent teeth—the entire being of the human being undergoes a transformation, including in the soul. Just as during this period other forces arise from the human being and take effect in the soul, so too do they do so somewhat later, between the change of teeth and sexual maturity. One must consider the human being in his or her entirety, and then one will find that the entire soul life unfolds in a different way before the change of teeth than after it. And if one has a sense of what actually emerges after the change of teeth, one will say to oneself: Let us perceive the thinking, intellectual nature in the human being, and let us try to fathom what emerges—up to the change of teeth and during the change of teeth—of the human, intellectual nature, of the imaginative nature! If one looks at it impartially, one must actually say: A great deal emerges there. Jean Paul, who also reflected deeply on pedagogy, was not wrong in pointing out that the first years of life have a greater influence on a person than the three years of academic study. Back then, there were only three. It is indeed true that, when we look at the development of the intellect, the most important years for shaping a person’s intellectual capacity—for shaping their power of judgment—are the first years of life up until the change of teeth. One need only try to cultivate a genuine sense of observation for the changes taking place in the soul during this time. Try also to think back as far as your clear memory will take you, and try to realize how little it extends beyond the period of tooth replacement—how little, in other words, a person is capable, before that period, of accumulating within themselves firmly formed concepts that are then incorporated into memory. Then one can quite literally say: the less the organism needs to employ those powerful forces—which it no longer needs later on to form hard teeth a second time—the more it is able to transform what it takes in intellectually into fixed mental images that remain in its memory.

[ 21 ] Today I would like to begin by merely hinting at this matter. You can see from what I have just said that, to begin with, these forces in the body—which, in a sense, culminate in the emergence of the permanent teeth—run parallel to the establishment of those forces in the soul that transform mental images, which would otherwise be forgotten, into fixed concepts that then remain and become a treasure in the human soul. I would like to present what I intend to say today, for now, merely as a question; it will become clear to us in the coming days. After all, we must ask: Does not the mental image perhaps have something to do precisely with these forces that come into play during tooth development? Is it not precisely as if, during the first seven years until the teeth are replaced, the child had to use certain physical forces—had to pour the soul into the body—so that the teeth could emerge? — Once this process is complete, a metamorphosis takes place; the child then transforms these forces, and they actually become powers of the soul’s imagination. Do we not see how the soul—the imaginative soul—is at work in tooth formation? — And when tooth formation—that is, the use of certain soul forces in the imaginative soul—is exhausted after the teeth have come in, these very same forces make themselves felt in the soul.

[ 22 ] Just think for a moment how little people today are inclined to examine such metamorphoses using the methods of natural science! How much we rack our brains today over the question: How are body and soul connected? But we must first look at those areas where the soul is active within the body. If we ask ourselves: Is it perhaps the mental image of the soul that is so clearly expressed in the structure of the teeth? Do we not see the soul at work within the body there, and do we not recognize how it then spares itself this activity and manifests itself in another way—namely, purely as a soul force? It is truly a matter of returning to healthier mental images—ones we held in the past, before materialism in its present form became widespread—namely, to actually see how the spiritual-soul aspect works within the physical-bodily realm.

[ 23 ] In fact, something most remarkable is true: Materialism has the peculiarity that it gradually loses the ability to understand matter and its phenomena. It is not merely that materialism loses its connection with the spirit; no, its tragic fate lies in the fact that it is ultimately condemned precisely to fail to understand the material world. We have seen materialism emerge: It has no way of looking into the physical realm with the same forces—the ones you later recall, the ones you later engage with in thought, the very same forces that are at work in the physical realm in the formation of teeth. It is not that materialism merely misunderstands the spiritual—it misunderstands the physical even more profoundly, in that it fails entirely to see how the spiritual-psychic works upon the physical.

[ 24 ] This is precisely what Spiritual Science aims to achieve: a true understanding of what is at work within the human being. Materialism is, in fact, doomed to fail in understanding the material realm; for the material realm is that in which the spiritual is constantly at work, and the materialistic perspective cannot trace this work within the spiritual-soul aspect of the human being. One would have to believe that the greatest harm would be done if human beings were to cease thinking, if they were to become animals, were materialism to completely misunderstand the spiritual! After all, no one can admit that when one thinks, one is not immersed in some form of spirituality! But that is precisely the fate of materialism: that it fails to understand the physical-bodily realm.

[ 25 ] Now, it is not the case that one can simply be satisfied with this abstract principle: The very same forces that are at work in the mental image are also at work in the development of the teeth. Rather, once one knows this, one observes the child in an entirely different way; and above all, one does not merely observe the child differently in one’s intellect, but one relates to the child in an entirely different way through one’s feelings, one’s sensibilities, and all one’s impulses of will. In the following lectures, you will see how these things, which truly arise from the spiritual-soul realm, are not merely abstract principles, but can be applied directly in the present.

[ 26 ] And further: We see, particularly during elementary school—that crucial period in a child’s development when memory is already at work and we can already rely on it—how infinitely important it is for the child to perceive the teacher and the educator as an authority, an authority that the child has chosen for itself, freely and willingly. It is a complete misunderstanding of human nature not to acknowledge that the longing to have an authority figure by one’s side is one of the fundamental forces and feelings of a child’s life from ages 6 or 7 to 14 or 15. We will see how it is one of the most profoundly significant elements of human life that a person can in this way have an authority—freely chosen by their own feelings—outside of themselves and beside them.

[ 27 ] But anyone who has once sharpened their perception to recognize that there is a certain connection between the soul-spiritual and the physical up until the period of tooth replacement will then notice something extraordinarily important for the period that follows. You see, it takes us a certain amount of time as human beings to get our first baby teeth. That is a short period. Then it takes us a longer time before we can replace them with our permanent teeth. We will hear in the course of these lectures how the permanent teeth are connected to the individual in a much deeper way than the baby teeth, which are based more on inheritance from our ancestors. But truly, it is not only with teeth that we, as it were, reappropriate from our own nature what we first received through heredity; the same is true for something else as well—above all, for human language. And I would like to point out something right at the outset, which of course can only be elaborated upon in greater detail in the lectures: The mystery of the development of human language is, in its most essential aspect, actually hidden from today’s scientific way of thinking—from all of modern science. It is not understood that, just as one acquires one’s first teeth through a kind of inheritance from one’s parents, one acquires language through a kind of external influence from the environment—through the principle of imitation, which, however, becomes an organic principle.

[ 28 ] One learns language from one’s surroundings during the first years of life. But this language that one learns—the language the child still speaks until the age of 4, 5, or 6—relates to the whole person in the same way that baby teeth relate to the whole person. And what a person actually has in terms of language after reaching sexual maturity—after turning 14 or 15—what they speak, what is at work within them as they speak: this is acquired a second time, newly acquired and developed by the person, just as the principle of tooth retention is developed a second time. This manifests externally in a boy’s development through the change in his voice—in a girl’s development, it is more directed toward the inner life, but it is also present. Because these forces work differently in the boy’s larynx, this also becomes apparent externally. This is a revelation of how, especially during these crucial elementary school years, processes take place within the whole human being—not merely in the human body and not merely in the human soul, but in the human soul-body, in the body-soul— things are constantly taking place from year to year, from month to month, that are connected with the inner assimilation of what has already been acquired externally from the environment as language in early childhood. Whoever knows how the soul-spiritual works in the human being up to the age of 14 or 15, whoever can observe this in the elementary schoolchild through immediate, instinctive intuition—for that person, this observation becomes immediate life. One says to oneself: There is this one student—he produces guttural sounds in this way, labial sounds in this way, palatal sounds in this way; that one produces palatal sounds more easily, that one labial sounds, and so on. This becomes a very intensive science, but one that, in all its details, points to what is developing in the child as the soul-physical and physical-soul aspects.

[ 29 ] And between the ages of 7 and 15, the changes in language—which one usually pays no attention to—become precisely what has such a magnificent effect on the soul in language, if one has a keen sense of observation for it. This escapes one’s notice if one sharpens one’s sense of observation only on what one learns today without the help of Spiritual Science. For whoever is able to observe here will discover the following: In the first years of life, up until the change of teeth, one sees how the mental image, as it were, withdraws during the change of teeth, so that once the change of teeth is complete, the mental image can then take shape! While the mental image, so to speak, withdraws from the physical and becomes an independent aspect of the soul, it is later—usually foreshadowed beforehand, but particularly from the change of teeth until sexual maturity—that the will, what we call the will, withdraws from the child’s entire organism and localizes itself in the larynx and speech organs. Just as the life of imagination pushes inward and becomes an independent element of the soul, so too does the element of will localize itself in what develops from speech and its organs in the 14th and 15th years—in some children, of course, somewhat earlier. One can see in the organic transformation that takes place in the boy’s larynx—we will have more to say later about what corresponds to this in girls—the very point toward which the will culminates.

[ 30 ] In other words, when one views things from a Spiritual Science perspective, mental images and will cease to be the kinds of abstractions they usually are. From these abstractions, however, one cannot bridge the gap to the physical realm, which is of an entirely different nature. But if one truly learns to observe—and, in particular, to recognize how fundamentally different the nature of a child is, in whom one sees how labial sounds are acquired differently from palatal sounds, and differently from glottal sounds, and so on—then one learns to look closely at these things; then one learns to recognize how a mental image works within the body during the first seven years of life. One learns to recognize the outward physical manifestation of a spiritual-soul aspect, and one learns to recognize the localization of the nature of the will within the nature of the larynx; one learns to observe the way the will shoots into human speech. The will is developed, and a mental image ceases to be an abstraction but becomes something we observe in the real processes of life. Just as we observe the force of gravity in water cascading down a mountain, and just as we observe the speed of the water in relation to gravity and the forces resisting it, so do we learn to recognize how the physical body develops from week to week precisely out of the spiritual-psychic realm, once we learn to observe this spiritual-psychic aspect at work within the physical body.

[ 31 ] Please regard what I am saying simply as a guide for observing human development; a guide for truly being able to look into what is taking place within the developing human being. This is the somewhat more uncomfortable, complicated way in which Spiritual Science speaks of the human being—in contrast to modern natural science, which simply fails to take into account that this human being is a wondrous being who draws together the laws of the entire world and who, in turn, contains within himself a world—a small world in relation to the great world. When we say: A human being consists of the physical body, and furthermore of the etheric body—this means: You should learn to observe not merely the corpse or the like externally, in a natural-scientific, anatomical way, physiologically—but that you must learn to observe how this person is a soul-spiritual being, and how this soul-spiritual aspect—whether you call it the etheric body or whatever you wish to call it—works within the physical body. For through this one learns to recognize how it first works in the formation of the body—in the formation of teeth, which arises from the whole body—and then works at the root of mental images, so that these mental images can become lasting. And so we can say: It is actually during the change of teeth that the etheric body is first born; until the change of teeth, it still acts within the physical body; there it shapes that which culminates in the change of teeth. Then it becomes free and works in the formation of mental images that can remain as memories. And later we speak of the independent “I,” which is concentrated primarily in the will, but which also announces itself in the development of language—in the properly observed development of language. We speak of the will being recognized not simply by comparing it psychically with a mental image, but by observing how it is active in the formation of language as something entirely concrete. In this formation of the will, we recognize the development of the “I” that must be pursued individually, and right in the midst of it we see that which lies between the etheric body and the “I”—that which finds expression precisely in language—and which must be given special attention in the art of education during the early elementary school years.

[ 32 ] Here we see what the true soul of the human being actually is. It lives within the developing child in such a way that, when the child enters elementary school and is under the influence of the forces of tooth replacement, the intellectual aspect has not yet emerged at all; but the volitional aspect shoots into the physical body week by week, month by month during elementary school, where it becomes localized. If one knows this, then the elementary school curriculum will include what is appropriate for this stage, so that it fosters this shaping of the will into the intellect. Only when one understands in this way what the will and the intellect are, and can also observe how, in many children, month by month and year by year, the will—which is localized in speech—and the intellect—which has withdrawn into the spiritual-soul realm—work together, only then does one understand what must be done regarding the child’s physical and soul education and instruction; only then does one regard pedagogy as an art and recognize how one must first understand the material—human nature. Just as a sculptor has clay or metal and must work with it, just as one must work with colors and so on, so too must the pedagogical artist understand how to work the will into the intellect, how to act in order to bring about, through the will—which develops under the guidance of the elementary school teacher until sexual maturity—the proper interweaving, the proper artistic, plastic shaping of the intellect that has been formed by the age of seven.

Q&A

[ 33 ] It is, of course, quite natural that in a lecture series such as this, not everything can be covered in the first lecture; that some points, which are only hinted at in the introduction, will become clear in the course of the subsequent lectures; and that, therefore, questions may be asked that will be answered in the context of the following lectures. Nevertheless, I would like to ask that questions be posed today as well. You could, of course, write down your questions, and then it will be possible to structure the subsequent lectures so that the questions are answered in context as the course progresses. So it is by no means unnecessary or superfluous to ask such questions today—or especially tomorrow, when you will have had time to reflect on a few things.

[ 34 ] A written inquiry has already been submitted here, requesting guidance on how to handle a boy who is gifted solely in mathematics and the natural sciences, is in his third age—that is, past puberty—and has absolutely no aptitude for foreign languages.

[ 35 ] Well, that is precisely the kind of question that is closely related to many of the topics I will be discussing in detail. In the upcoming lectures, I will discuss these particular specialized talents in detail and will also show how, on the one hand, such specialized talents can be put to use in the service of the human being’s overall development, and, on the other hand, how they can be harmonized through a specifically pedagogical approach. So, in detail, much will be said about this in the near future. However, so as not to be entirely discourteous to the person who asked the question, I would like to say the following on this subject.

[ 36 ] The one-sided aptitude of boys—which is also present, albeit rarely, in girls— but it is so rare that those affected usually even have detailed biographies that can be studied, because they go on to become famous mathematicians—this one-sided aptitude for mathematics and the natural sciences is based essentially on the fact that a seemingly quite insignificant human organ is finely developed. Perhaps most of you know that in families such as the Bernoulli family, for example, individual family members were particularly gifted in mathematics across eight generations. On the other hand, as you know, there were also quite a few Bachs—both great and small—in the Bach family who were exceptionally gifted in music. With such a talent for mathematics and for the mathematical structuring of the natural sciences—sometimes boys who are particularly gifted in physics and mathematics are not suited for observation, say, in botany or zoology, they are sometimes good crystallographers at the same time, but they are not very gifted when it comes to observing the actual physical properties of minerals—all of this can be experienced in the most varied nuances—there, a seemingly insignificant organ is particularly well-developed, namely the so-called three semicircular canals in the human ear. These three small ossicles, arranged perpendicular to one another, can be attuned in humans in such a way that they impart a very pronounced sense of space and numbers—or, less commonly, not to such a degree—so that this gift is particularly connected to this. Now, however, if the human organism is—if I may put it this way—particularly developed in this specific area, this means that this special gift is derived from the actual auditory organ itself. Namely, within the auditory organ—in the entirety of the auditory organ—are integrated the actual organs of hearing, which in turn have an inner connection with the organs of speech, as well as the organs responsible for the sense of balance and the sense of number. These are, so to speak, fused together. If a person is developed one-sidedly toward the ossicles, which are evident in the three semicircular canals, this talent comes at the expense of the other talents for hearing speech sounds and so on, and especially for perceiving the structure of speech. This ability has been neglected, and the result is that precisely those children who are mathematically gifted tend to be less gifted in language. The only solution is to try, so to speak, to start earlier with these very children—as soon as one notices that their mathematical aptitude might be leaning too heavily toward one-sidedness—by approaching speech learning in such a way that, as much as possible, without placing too much emphasis on intellectual aspects, that is, without placing too much emphasis on grammatical structure and the like, to base language learning on the rhythmic aspects of language. If one tries to have such children memorize—without their focusing particularly on the content, but rather simply taking joy in the rhythm of the language—poems in the foreign language, short poems, and only then to translate what they had previously absorbed merely phonetically into understanding, that is, to draw understanding from what they already carry within themselves—then one discovers that, if one begins early enough, they can indeed overcome this one-sidedness. It is absolutely necessary, as we shall see in the following lectures—we have certainly adopted this practice at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart—it is absolutely necessary, especially around the ages of seven and eight, not to begin with an intellectual education, but with an education that delves more into the artistic realm. So, for example, one does not teach writing in an intellectual way based on the shapes of letters, but rather teaches it gradually through a kind of primitive drawing. This develops the will more than the intellect, whereas today’s approach to writing appeals too strongly to the intellect; in this way, the whole person is engaged. This helps to balance out individual, one-sided talents to a certain extent. This is how it can be achieved.

[ 37 ] If the question now arises as to how to awaken the memory for the orthographic word image, I believe—and I will speak at length about this in the coming lectures—that it is necessary to carefully observe the diversity of human faculties in the three successive stages of life: up to the change of teeth, up to sexual maturity, and then beyond sexual maturity into the 20th year of life. One must develop a sense of observation for these three stages of life in terms of the diversity of their specific life forces. For one will notice—and I believe I am particularly well-qualified to speak on this matter for reasons you may discern between the lines of what I am about to say— one can observe that people who, up until the age of fifteen, have absolutely no sense of orthographic and, in particular, grammatical word structure or sentence structure—not even in their native language, let alone in a foreign language—will, if treated in such a way that they are made aware of rhythm and meter, catch up on their own after the age of fifteen, as if from the depths of the soul. It is therefore truly quite inappropriate to place too much emphasis on holding back children—who otherwise show promise—simply because they do not demonstrate any particular aptitude for orthographic word formation, grammar, or the like. If you study what Goethe wrote during his boyhood and how, with very little guidance, he had become quite intimately familiar with grammar—and especially with spelling—by the time he was already quite grown up, you will surely arrive at a very different judgment than the one people very often hold when they see that a boy or girl who has already turned thirteen still cannot even spell correctly. Instead of constantly lamenting that they cannot spell correctly, and constantly asking, “What should we do to help them learn to spell correctly?” — it would be much more helpful to reflect on: “Where, then, do their true abilities actually lie, if they aren’t there?” — and to seek out precisely the area where their true abilities lie, in order to then find a way to bridge the gap and eventually instill in them what needs to be instilled in such people.

[ 38 ] You will always find that if you place a strong emphasis on the artistic element in the education of children who are primarily gifted in mathematics, this will always balance things out.