One
would like to look with the understanding that seeks also to
under stand men's aberrations, upon the flames of hatred
that are kindling. Too strong, for many a one, is the
impression he receives when he compares what is currently
being experienced with what seemed to him already achieved for
the pre sent by the development of mankind. Men who
understood how to speak out about these achievements of mankind
from a full inner participation, have found words to do so like
those spoken by the fine German contemplator of art Herman
Grimm, who died in the year 1901. He compares man's experience
in earlier time with what the present brings to this
experience. He says: “Sometimes it feels to me as if one
were transposed into a new existence, and had taken along only
the most needful spiritual hand-baggage. As if fully altered
conditions of life were compelling one to fully new
thought-work. For distances are no longer something that
separates people. With the ease of child's play our thoughts
circle the compass of the earth's surface, and fly from
every single person to every other person, wherever he be. The
discovery and exploitation of new forces of nature unites all
peoples to incessant shared work. New experiences, under whose
pressure our view of all things visible and invisible alters in
uninterrupted change, force upon us new ways of
observing, also for the history of the evolution of
mankind.” Before the outbreak of this war, every European
person had, in his individual way, such sensations in his soul.
And now: what has been made, for the time of this war, of what
stirred people to these sensations. Is it not as if mankind
were to be shown how the world looks when much that is fruit of
development ceases to take effect? And yet also: does the war
by its horrors not show what the conflicts of peoples, fought
out with the means brought by the newest developments, must
lead to?
Confusing can be the sensations that arise out of the
experiences. One would like to understand out of the presence
of this confusion why it is that many people cannot comprehend
that war itself brings war's horrors and suffering, and
why they decry the opponent as a “barbarian” when a
bitter necessity forces upon him the use of the means of battle
created by the modern age.
Words of hate-filled condemnation of German essential being,
now spoken by leading personalities among the peoples with
which Germany currently lives at war: how do they sound to a
soul that senses as true expression of German feeling what the
already mentioned Herman Grimm, shortly before the entry of
this century, characterized as a fundamental trait in the
understanding of the life will of modern humanity. He wrote:
“The solidarity of moral convictions of all men is today
the church that connects us all. We seek more passionately than
ever for a visible expression of this community. All really
earnest strivings of the masses know only this one goal. Here
the separation of nations already exists no longer. We feel
that over against the ethical world view, no national
difference prevails. We would all sacrifice ourselves for our
Fatherland; but we are far from longing for, or bringing about,
the moment when this could happen by war. The assurance that
keeping peace is the most sacred wish of all of us is no lie.
`Peace on earth and good will to men' permeates us. The
inhabitants of our planet, taken all together as a unity, are
filled with a delicate sensibility understandable to all
... people as a totality acknowledge themselves as subject to
an invisible court of judgment, throning as if in the clouds,
before which they regard not being allowed to stand vindicated
as a calamity, and to whose judicial procedure they seek
to adapt their internal disputes. With anxious striving they
here seek their right. How are the French of today at pains to
make out their intended war against Germany to be a moral
requirement, whose acknowledgement they demand from the other
peoples, indeed from the Germans them selves.”
Herman Grimm's life work is grounded in such a way with all its
roots in the German life of the spirit, that one can say: when
he utters such a thought, it is as if he were permeated by the
consciousness that he is speaking on the spiritual charge
of his people. That he is using words with which he would be
al lowed to have the certainty: if the German people as a
whole could express it self, it would use such words to
express its attitude as to how it conceives of its own willing
within the entirety of mankind. Herman Grimm does not want to
say that what is present of such an attitude in the present
life of mankind could prevent wars. He does speak of having to
have the thought that the French want a war against Germany.
However, that this attitude will prove its power, even right
through wars, that had to be Herman Grimm's conviction, when he
brought to expression thoughts like those quoted. Opponents of
the German people currently speak as if they held it to be
proven that the only cause of this war lay merely in this: that
the Germans lack the understanding for such an attitude.
As if the result of this war would have to be that the Germans
are forced to an understanding of such an attitude. As if among
the Germans, authoritative minds had set themselves the task of
obliterating this attitude in their people.
One
now hears some names of German personalities spoken in a
hate-filled manner. Not only by journalists, also by spiritual
leaders of the peoples living at war with Germany. Indeed, such
voices also come from countries with which Germany has no war.
Among these German personalities is for example the historian
of the German people, Heinrich von Treitschke. The Germans who
form thoughts about the scientific significance and the essence
of the personality of Treitschke pronounce the most divergent
value judgments concerning him. From what points of view these
judgments are passed, whether they are justified or
unjustified, does not matter at this moment; concerning the
voices of the opponents of the German essential being,
quite another point of view is defining. These opponents want
to see in Treitschke a personality who has affected the present
German generation in such a way that the German people
currently holds itself to be in all directions the most gifted
of peoples, which therefore wants to force the others to
subordinate themselves to its leadership, and sets the
attainment of power above all justice. Were Treitschke still
alive, and heard the judgments of the opponents of the German
essential being concerning his person, he could remember words
he wrote down in 1861, as the expression of his deepest
sensibility, in the treatise on Freeness. He there spoke
his mind about such people as set a limit right away to their
respect and tolerance for alien opinions, when in such
opinions something confronts them that does not please them. In
such people — Treitschke opines — the thought
conceals itself in a veil of passion, and he says: as long as
such a manner of replacing judgment with the cliché born
of passion is still alive, “there is yet alive in us,
even if in a milder form, the fanatical spirit of those zealots
of old who used to mention alien opinions only in order
to prove that their authors had earned themselves rightful
claims to the Lake of Hell.” A man who as Frenchman among
Frenchmen, as Italian among Italians, had worked the way
Treitschke did as German among Germans: he would not appear to
the Germans as a seducer of the French or Italians.
Treitschke was an historian and politician, who out of a
strong, decided feeling sense, gave all his judgments an
imprint that had the effect of sharpness. Those judgments too
had such an imprint which he pronounced, out of love for his
people, about the Germans. But all these judgments were carried
by the feeling: not only his soul was speaking thus, but the
course of German history. At the close of the Foreword of Part
Five of his German History in the Nineteenth Century
stand the words: “as surely as man only understands what
he loves, just as surely can only a strong heart that senses
the fortunes of the Father land like suffering and
happiness of its own experience, give inner truth to the
historical narrative. In this might of heart and mind, and not
merely in the perfected form, lies the greatness of the
historians of antiquity.” Some judgments that Treitschke
uttered about what the German people has experienced at the
hands of other peoples sound like harsh condemnation of these
other peoples. How statements of Treitschke's that go in this
direction are to be understood, only he recognizes who also
looks at the harshness of the judgments with which Treitschke
often passes verdict upon what he finds reprehensible within
his own people. Treitschke had the deepest love for his people,
which was noble fire in his heart; but he believed it does no
harm when one passes verdict most brusquely where one most
loves. It would be thinkable that enemies of the German people
could turn up who assembled from Treitschke's works a
collection of pronouncements, then took away from these
pronouncements the color of love they have with Treitschke, and
daubed them with their color of hatred: they could thereby
prepare word weapons against the German people. These word
weapons would not be worse, either, than those with which they
shoot at a distorted image of Treitschke in order to
wound the German people. Herman Grimm, who knew how to
appreciate Treitschke, and was well acquainted with him and his
personal manner, spoke some time after his death the words:
“Few have been so loved, but also so hated, as he.”
Treitschke was grouped by Grimm with the German historians
Curtius and Ranke to a trinity of German teachers, about which
he expressed himself thus: “They were friendly and
confiding in their intercourse. They sought to further their
listeners. They acknowledged merit where they met it. They did
not seek to suppress their opponents. They had no party and no
fellow partisans. They spoke their minds. In their bearing lay
something exemplary. They saw in science the highest flowering
of the German spirit. They stood up for its dignity.”
There is a thorough discussion of Treitschke's German
History by Herman Grimm. Whoever reads it must come to the
recognition that Herman Grimm counted Treitschke among those
who, regarding the relation the German people wants to
have to other peoples, thought no differently from himself.
Whoever from an enemy country reviles a German personality such
as lived in Treitschke, and brands him a seducer of the younger
generation, lacks a judgment about how a German who sensed
“the fortunes of the Fatherland like suffering and
happiness of his own experience” had to speak to Germans
who, for an understanding of their own history, have to look at
experiences in the past that Herman Grimm (in his book on
Michelangelo, 16th printing) characterizes with the words:
“For thirty years Germany, which was unable to tip the
scales as a nation of its own, was the battlefield for the
peoples bordering around us, and after the foreigners who had
thus waged war upon each other on our ground had finally made
peace, the old indefinite situation returned.” In Herman
Grimm's Goethe book, there is about these experiences, with the
same reference: “the Thirty Years' War, this terrible
disease brought in to us from without and nourished
artificially,” made “all the young shoots of our
forward development wilt and die off.” What a short time
had just elapsed since the German people had freed itself from
the effect of the suffering that Europe had brought it through
the Thirty Years' War, when in the beginning of the Nineteenth
Century the other destiny experience came to pass, which
coincided with a flourishing of German spiritual life. Were
they the words of a man in whose heart the sufferings of
his people resonated “like suffering of his own
experience,” or were they words of a seducer of the
people, with which Treitschke spoke of the spirits whose
working coincided with Germany's destiny experience of the
beginning of the Nineteenth Century? He speaks about these
spirits thus: “They guarded our people's very Own, the
sacred fire of Idealism, and we have them pre-eminently to
thank that there was still a Germany even when the German
Empire had vanished, that in the midst of affliction and
bondage the Germans were still permitted to believe in
themselves, in the imperishability of German essential being.
From the educational molding through and through of the free
personality is sued our political freedom, issued the
independence of the German state.” Do the opponents of
German essential being demand that Treitschke should have said:
history teaches that the Germans “are permitted to
believe in the imperishability of German essential
being” because for all the past and the future they can
keep themselves convinced that French, English, Italians,
Russians have never fought and will never fight for anything
else than for “right and freedom” of peoples?
Should the other Germans who are presently called Germany's
seducers give the Germans the advice: build not on what
in hard wars has gotten you “right and freedom;”
you will have “right and freedom” because with
those who surround you, the sense for “right and freedom
of peoples” shines resplendent in bright light?
Only, you must not believe that you are allowed to think of
your “right as a people” other than in the sense of
what you are deemed entitled to by the peoples who encircle
you. You must only never call anything else your “freedom
as a people” but what these peoples will show you by
their behavior that you “as a people are free to
do?”
Where the sensations are rooted which those who belong to
“Europe's Middle” have in the present war, the
author of this brief writing would like to state. The facts he
wants to discuss are, in their general basic features,
certainly known to every reader. It does not lie in the
author's intention to speak in this direction about what is not
yet known. He would only like to point toward certain
connections in which what has long been known stands.
If
opponents of the German people should perhaps read this brief
writing, they will quite comprehensibly say: so speaks a
German, who can naturally bring no understanding toward the
opinion of other peoples. Whoever judges in this way does not
comprehend that the paths the author of this contemplation
seeks in order to discuss the coming about of this war are
quite independent of how much of the essential being of a
non-German people he understands or does not understand. He
wants to speak in such a way that if the reasons he puts
forward for what is claimed are any good, his thoughts can be
right, even if he, with respect to an understanding of the
special quality and the value of non German peoples, as
far as they may be closed to a German, were the pure fool.
When, for example, he refers to what a Frenchman says about the
intentions of the French for war, and on that basis forms a
judgment about the coming about of the war, then this judgment
could be right, even if a Frenchman were to believe he had to
deny in him any understanding of French special quality. When
he forms judgments about the English political ideal, it does
not come into question how the Englishman for himself thinks or
senses, but what the actions are like in which this political
ideal lives itself out, and what the German in particular
experiences through these actions. For himself, to be sure, the
author is convinced that in this brief writing there will lie
no occasion to judge what understanding he brings toward this
or that non-German folk quality.
The
author of the brief writing believes that what he allows
himself to pronounce as a German about the feeling of
“Middle Europe,” he may say, for he spent the first
three decades of his life in Austria, where he lived as an
Austrian German by descent, nationality, and upbringing; and
for the other — almost just as long — time of this
life, he has been permitted to be active in Germany.
Perhaps someone who knows the one or the other of the author's
writings will seek of one who stands at the vantage point of
the science of the spirit, as it is meant in these writings,
“higher points of view” in the following
discussions than he finds. Especially those will be unsatisfied
who expect to find here some thing about how the present
war events can be judged “on the basis of the
eternal, highest truths of all being and life.” To
such “disappointed ones,” who will perhaps turn up
precisely among the friends of the author, he would like to say
that the “highest eternal truths” are of course
valid everywhere, thus also for the present events, but that
this contemplation was not undertaken in the intention of
showing how one can bear witness to these “higher
truths” with respect to these events as well, but in
another intention, the intention of speaking of these events
themselves. [The author hopes to be able to give other things
about the present time and the peoples of Europe soon in
a second brief writing. The thoughts written down here are
concentrated from lectures the author held in several places in
recent months.]
|