Lecture I
In the course of these lectures I propose
to make some important additions to the enquiry which I
undertook here last week.
[ Note A ]
Our earlier investigation gave us a certain insight into the
impulses which determine the recent evolution of mankind.
What I now propose to add will emerge from a study of the
various turning points in modern history. We will endeavour
to study this recent history up to the moment when we shall
see how the human soul at the present day is related to the
universe, in respect of its evolution within the cosmos and
of its inner development in relation to the divine and its
ego development in relation to the Spirit. I should like to
show the connection between these things and the more or less
everyday occurrences which are familiar to you. Therefore I
will first take as my point of departure today — and
the reasons for this will be apparent tomorrow and the day
after tomorrow — the historical survey of the recent
evolution of mankind which was to some extent the background
to the observations on modern history, observations which I
suggested in my public lecture in Zürich yesterday.
[ Note B ]
From my earlier
lectures in which I discussed analogous themes you already
know that from the standpoint of spiritual science what is
usually called history must be seen as a complex of symptoms.
From this point of view what is usually taught as history,
the substance of what is called history in the scholastic
world, does not touch upon the really vital questions in the
evolutionary history of mankind; it deals only with
superficial symptoms. We must penetrate beneath the surface
phenomena and uncover the deeper layer of meaning in events
and then the true reality behind the evolution of mankind
will be revealed. Whilst history usually studies historical
events in isolation, we shall here consider them as
concealing a deeper underlying reality which is revealed when
they are studied in their true light.
A little
reflection will show how absurd, for example, is the oft
repeated assertion that modern man is the product of the
past, and this remark invites us to study the history of this
past. Recall for a moment the events of history as presented
to you at school and ask yourself what influence they may
have had, as history claims to show, upon your own sentient
life, upon the constitution of your soul! But the study of
the constitution of the soul in its present state of
development is essential to the knowledge of man, to the
knowledge of oneself. But history as usually presented does
not favour this self knowledge. A limited self knowledge
however is sometimes brought about indirectly. Yesterday, for
example, a gentleman told me that he had been given three
hours detention because in class one day he had forgotten
the date of the battle of Marathon. Clearly such an
experience works upon the soul and so might contribute
indirectly to a better understanding of the impulses which
lead to self knowledge! But the way in which history treats
of the battle of Marathon adds little to man's real
understanding of himself. None the less, a symptomatology of
history must take into account external facts, for the simple
reason that by the study and evaluation of these external
facts we can gain insight into what really takes place.
I will begin by
tracing the main features of contemporary history. The
history which we study at school usually begins with the
discovery of America and the invention of gunpowder and
opens, as you know, with the statement that the Middle Ages
have drawn to a close and that we now stand on the threshold
of the modern era. Now if such a study is to be fruitful, it
is important to turn our attention especially to the real and
fundamental changes in human evolution, to those decisive
turning-points in history when the life of the soul passes
from one stage of development to another stage. These moments
of transition usually pass unnoticed because they are
overlooked amid the tangled skein of events. Now we know from
the purely anthroposophical point of view that the last great
turning point in the history of civilization occurred in the
early years of the fifteenth century, when the fifth
post-Atlantean epoch began. The Greco-Latin epoch opened in
747 B.C. and lasted until the beginning of the fifteenth
century which ushered in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch.
Because people only take a superficial view of things they
usually fail to recognize that, during this period, the whole
of man's soul-life underwent modification. It is manifestly
absurd to regard the sixteenth century simply as a
continuation of the eleventh or twelfth centuries. People
overlook the radical change that occurred towards the
beginning of the fifteenth century and persisted in the
subsequent years. This point in time is of course only
approximate; but what is not approximate in life? Whenever
one stage of evolution which is to some extent complete in
itself passes over into another stage we must always speak of
approximation. It is impossible to determine the precise
moment when an individual arrives at puberty; the onset is
gradual and then runs its course to full physical maturity.
And the same applies, of course, to the year 1413 which marks
the birth of the Consciousness Soul. The new consciousness
develops gradually and does not immediately manifest itself
everywhere in full maturity and with maximum vigour. We
completely fail to understand historical change unless we
give due consideration to the moment when events take on a
new orientation.
When, looking
back to the period before the fifteenth century, we wish to
enquire into and compare the predominant condition of the
human soul at that time with the progressive transformation
of this psychic condition after the beginning of the
fifteenth century, we cannot help turning our attention to
the real situation which existed in civilised Europe
throughout the whole of the Middle Ages and which was still
intimately related to the whole psychic condition of the
Greco-Latin epoch. I am referring to the form which
Catholicism that was subject to the Papacy had gradually
developed over the centuries out of the Roman Empire. We
cannot understand Catholicism before the great turning point
which marks the birth of modern times unless we bear in mind
that it was a universalist impulse and that, as such, it
spread far and wide. Now mediaeval society was hierarchically
ordered; men were grouped according to social status, family
connections; they were organized in craft and merchant
guilds, etcetera. But all these social stratifications were
indoctrinated with Catholicism, and in the form that
Christianity had assumed under the impact of various impulses
of which we shall learn more in the following lectures (and
under the impact of those impulses which I mentioned in
earlier lectures). The expansion of Catholicism was
characterized by the form of Christianity which was
decisively influenced by Rome in the way I have
indicated.
The Catholicism
which emanated from Rome and developed after its own fashion
through the centuries was a universalist impulse, the most
powerful force animating European civilization. But it
counted upon a certain unconsciousness of the human soul, a
susceptibility of the human soul to suggestionism. It counted
upon those forces with which the human soul had been endowed
for centuries when it was not yet fully conscious — (it
has only become fully conscious in our present epoch). It
counted upon those who were only at the stage of the Rational
or Intellectual Soul and calculated that by its power of
suggestion it could slowly implant into their affective life
what it deemed to be useful. And amongst the educated classes
— which consisted of the clergy for the most part
— it counted upon a keen and critical intelligence
which had not yet arrived at the stage of the Consciousness
Soul. The development of theology as late as the thirteenth,
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries showed that it relied upon
a razor-sharp intelligence. But if you take the intelligence
of today as the measure of man's intelligence you will never
really understand what was meant by intelligence up to the
fifteenth century. Up to that time intelligence was to some
extent instinctive, it had not yet been impregnated with the
Consciousness Soul. Mankind did not yet possess the capacity
for independent reflection which came only with the
development of the Consciousness Soul. None the less men
displayed on occasions astonishing acumen to which many of
the mediaeval disputations bear witness, for many of these
disputations were debated with greater intelligence than the
doctrinal disputes of later theology. But this was not the
intelligence that was an expression of the Consciousness
Soul, it was the intelligence which, in popular parlance,
came from ‘on high’; esoterically speaking it was
a manifestation of the Angelos, a faculty not yet under man's
control. Independent thinking became possible only when he
achieved self dependence through the Consciousness Soul. When
a universalist impulse is diffused in this way through the
power of suggestion, as was the case with the Roman Papacy
and everything associated with it in the structure of the
Church, then it is much more the community, the Group Soul
element, everything that is related to the Group Soul that is
affected. And this spirit of self-dependence also affected
Catholicism, with the result that under the influence of
certain impulses of contemporary history this universalist
impulse of expanding Catholicism found in the Holy Roman
Empire of the German nation its battering ram. We will
discuss these matters from another standpoint later on. We
see how the expansion of universal Roman Catholicism was
prosecuted amid continuous conflict and contention with the
Roman Empire. One need only refer to the period of the
Carolingians and the Hohenstaufens
[ Note 1 ]
in the standard history books to find that the fundamental
issue was the incorporation of Europe into a universal
Christian church of Roman Catholic persuasion.
If we wish to
have a clear understanding of these matters from the point of
view of the dawning Consciousness Soul we must consider an
important turning point which, symptomatically, reveals the
waning of Catholic power which had dominated the Middle Ages.
And this turning point in modern history is the transference
of the Pope to Avignon in 1309.
[ Note 2]
Such a challenge to the papacy
would formerly have been impossible and shows that mankind
which formerly had been dominated by a universalist impulse
now begins to undergo a transformation. That a king or an
emperor could have entertained the idea of transferring the
residence of the Pope from Rome to some other city would have
been inconceivable in earlier times. In 1309 the matter was
quickly dealt with — the Pope was transferred to
Avignon and the next decades witnessed the endless quarrels
between popes and anti-popes associated with this
transference of the papal court. And a victim of this
conflict within the Church was the Order of the Templars,
[ Note 3 ]
which had been loosely
associated with the Papacy, though of course its relationship
to Christianity was totally different. The Order was
suppressed in 1312 shortly after the removal of the Pope to
Avignon. This is a turning point in modern history and we
must consider this turning point not only in respect of its
factual content, but as a symptom, if we wish gradually to
discover the reality concealed behind it.
Let us now turn
our attention to other symptoms of a similar kind at the time
of this turning point in history. As we survey the continent
of Europe we are struck by the fact that its life, largely in
the Eastern areas, is profoundly influenced by those events
which operate in the course of history after the fashion of
natural phenomena. I am referring to the continuous
migrations, beginning with the Mongol invasions
[ Note 4 ]
in the not far distant past,
which poured in from Asia and introduced an Asiatic element
into Europe. When we link an event such as the transference
of the Papacy to Avignon with these invasions from the East
we establish important criteria for a symptomatology of
history. Consider the following: in order to understand not
the inward and spiritual, but the external and human
tendencies and influences which were connected with the event
of Avignon and prepare the ground for it, you need not look
beyond a coherent complex of human acts and decisions. But
you will find no such coherent pattern of events when you
consider the time between the Mongol invasions and the later
penetration of the Turks into Europe. But when studying any
historical event, a complex of facts of this kind, you must
consider the following if you really wish to arrive at a
symptomatology of history.
Let us assume
for the moment that here is Europe and here is Asia. The
columns of the invading armies are advancing towards Europe.
One of these columns, let us assume, has penetrated as far as
this frontier. On the one side are the Mongols and later the
Turks; on the other side the Europeans. When considering the
event of Avignon you find a complex of acts and decisions
taken by men. There is no such complex across the frontier.
You have to consider two aspects, the one on this side of the
frontier, the other on the other side. For the Europeans the
Mongolian wave that sweeps across the frontier resembles a
natural phenomenon of which one sees only the external
effects. The invaders pour across the frontier, invade the
neighbouring territory and harass the inhabitants; behind
them lies a whole culture of the soul of which they are the
vehicle. Their own inner life lies behind the frontier. But
this psychic life does not reach beyond the frontier which
acts as a kind of sieve through which passes only energies
akin to the elemental forces of nature. These two aspects
— the inner aspect which is found amongst those who
live behind this frontier and the aspect which shows only its
external face to the Europeans — these are not to be
found, of course, in the episode of Avignon, where everything
forms a single complex, a composite whole. Now an occurrence
such as these Asiatic invasions closely resembles what one
sees in nature. Imagine you are looking at the world of
nature ... You see the colours, you hear the sounds —
but these are external trappings. Behind lies the spirit,
behind are the elemental beings which are active up to the
point where the frontier begins. (See
diagram.) You see with your eyes, hear with your ears,
you experience by touch — and behind lies the spirit
which does not cross the frontier, does not manifest itself.
Such is the situation in nature, but in history it is not
quite the same, though somewhat similar. The psychic element
behind history does not manifest itself, we see only its
external appearance.
It is most
important to bear in mind this strange intermediate zone,
this no man's land, where peoples or races clash, revealing
to each other only their external aspects — this
strange intermediate zone (which must also be reckoned among
the symptoms) between actual universal experience of the
human soul such as we see in the event of Avignon and the
genuine impressions of nature. All the historical twaddle
which has come to the fore recently, and which has no idea of
the operation of this intermediate zone, cannot arrive at a
true history of civilization. For this reason, neither Buckle
nor Ratzel
[ Note 5 ]
(I mention two historians of widely divergent outlook), could
arrive at a true history of civilization because they started
from the preconceived idea: of two events, if one follows from
the other, then the later event must be considered as the effect
and the earlier event the cause — the common sense view
that is generally accepted.
When we
consider this event as a symptomatic event in the recent
evolution of mankind, then, as we shall see in later
lectures, it will provide a bridge from the symptoms to
reality.
Now from the
complex of facts we see emerging in the West of Europe a more
or less homogeneous configuration at first, which later gives
birth to France and England. Leaving aside for the moment the
external elements such as the channel, which is simply a
geographical factor separating the two countries, it is
difficult at first to distinguish between them. In the period
when modern history begins French culture was widespread in
England. English kings extended their dominion to French
territory, and members of the respective dynasties each laid
claim to the throne of the other country. But at the same
time we see emerging one thing, which throughout the Middle
Ages was also associated with what the universalist impulse
of Catholicism had to some extent relegated to the
background. I mentioned a moment ago that at this time
communities were already in existence; families were cemented
by the blood-tie to which they clung tenaciously; men were
organized in craft guilds or corporations, etcetera. All
these organizations were permeated by the powerful and
authoritative universalist Catholic impulse moulded by Rome
which dominated them and set its seal upon them. And just as
this Roman Catholic impulse had relegated the guilds and
other corporate bodies to a subordinate role, so too national
identity suffered the same fate. At the time when Roman
Catholicism exercised its greatest dynamic power national
identity was not regarded as the most important factor in the
structure of the human soul. Consciousness of nationality now
began to be looked upon as something vastly more important
than it had been when Catholicism was all powerful. And
significantly it manifested itself in those countries I have
just mentioned. But whilst the general idea of nationhood was
emerging in France and England an extremely significant
differentiation was taking place at the same time. Whilst for
centuries these countries had shared a common purpose,
differences began to emerge in the fifteenth century. The
first indications are seen in the appearance of Joan of Arc
in 1429, a most important turning point in modern history. It
was this appearance of Joan of Arc which gave the impetus and
if you consult the manuals of history you will see how
important, powerful and continuous this impetus was —
which led to the differentiation between the French and the
English character.
Thus we see the
emergence of nationalism as the architect of the community
and at the same time this differentiation which is so
significant for the evolution of modern mankind. This turning
point is marked by the appearance of Joan of Arc in 1429. At
the moment when the impulse of the Papacy is compelled to
release from its clutches the population of Western Europe,
at that moment the consciousness of nationality gathers
momentum in the West and shapes its future. Do not allow
yourselves to be misled in this matter. As history is
presented today you can, of course, find in the past of every
people or nation a consciousness of nationality. But you do
not attach any importance to the potent influence of this
force. Take, for example, the Slav peoples: under the
influence of modern ideas and currents of thought they will
of course trace back as far as possible the origin of their
national sentiments and forces. But in the period of which we
are speaking the national impulses were particularly active
so that, in the territories I have just mentioned, there was
an epoch when these impulses underwent a profound
modification. And this is what matters. If we wish to
apprehend reality we must make strenuous efforts to achieve
objectivity. Another symptomatic fact which also reveals the
emergence of the Consciousness Soul — like the one I
have just mentioned — is the strange fashion in which
the Italian national consciousness developed out of the
levelling influence of the Papacy which, as we have seen,
relegated the national impulse to a subordinate role, an
influence which had hitherto pervaded the whole of Italy.
Fundamentally it was the national impulse which emancipated
the people of Italy from papal sovereignty at this time. All
these facts are symptoms which are inherent in the epoch
when, in Europe, the civilization of the Consciousness Soul
seeks to emerge from the civilization of the Rational and
Intellectual Soul.
At the same
time — we are anticipating of course — we see the
beginning of the conflict between Central and Eastern Europe.
What emerged from what I described as the ‘battering
ram’ of the Papacy, from the Holy Roman Empire of the German
nation, came into conflict with Slav expansionism.
The most
diverse historical symptoms bear witness to this interaction
between Central and Eastern Europe. In history one must not
attach so much importance to princely families or personages
as modern historians are wont to do. After all only a
Wildenbruch
[ Note 6 ]
could throw dust in people's eyes by pretending that the
farce played out between Louis the Pious and his sons had
historical significance. Only a Wildenbruch could present
these family feuds in his dramas as historically important.
They have no more significance than any other domestic
gossip; they have nothing to do with the evolution of
mankind. It is only when we study the symptomatology of
history that we develop a feeling for what is really
important and what is relatively unimportant in the evolution
of mankind. In modern times the conflict between Central and
Eastern Europe has important implications. But in reality
Ottokar's conflict with Rudolf
[ Note 7 ]
is only an indication; it is a
pointer to what actually happened. On the other hand it is
most important not to take a narrow view of this conflict. We
must realize that, during this continuous confrontation, a
colonizing activity began which carried the peasants from
Central to Eastern Europe and in later years from the Rhine
to Siebenbürgen. These peasant migrations, through the
mingling of Central and Eastern European elements, had a
profound influence upon the later development of life in
these areas. Thus the Slavs whose expansionist policy came
into conflict with what had developed in Central Europe out
of the Holy Roman Empire were continuously infiltrated by
Central European colonists moving eastwards. And from this
strange process emerged that which later became the Hapsburg
power. But another consequence of this ferment in Europe was
the formation of certain centres which developed a particular
cast of mind within the urban communities. The main period
when the towns throughout Europe developed their specifically
urban outlook lies between the thirteenth and the fifteenth
centuries. What I have described in a previous lecture
[ Note C ]
penetrated into these towns; in these towns men were able to
develop their individual characteristics.
Now it is a
remarkable and significant phenomenon that after the separate
development of France and England, there emerged in England
at this time, after slow and careful preparation, that which
later became the system of parliamentary government in
Europe. As a result of the long civil wars which lasted from
1452–1480, we see developing, amongst manifold external
symptoms, the historical symptom of embryonic parliamentary
government. When the era of the Consciousness Soul opened in
the early fifteenth century people wanted to take their
affairs into their own hands. They wanted to debate, to
discuss, to have a say in future policies and to shape
external events accordingly — or at least liked to
imagine that they shaped events. This spirit of independence
— as a result of the disastrous civil wars in the
fifteenth century — developed in England out of that
configuration which was markedly different from what had also
arisen in France under the influence of the national impulse.
Parliamentary Government in England developed out of the
national impulse. We must clearly recognize that, through the
birth of parliamentary government as a consequence of the
English civil wars in the fifteenth century, we see the
interplay, or, if you like, the interpenetration, the
interfusion of the emergent national idea on the one hand,
and on the other hand an impulse clearly orientated towards
that which the Consciousness Soul seeks to realize. And for
reasons that we shall see later, it is precisely because of
these events that the impulse of the Consciousness Soul
breaks through in England and assumes the character of that
national impulse; hence its peculiarly English flavour or
nuance. We have now considered many of the factors which
shaped Europe at the beginning of the age of the
Consciousness Soul.
Behind all
this, concealed as it were in the background, a virtual
enigma to Europe, we see developing the later configuration
of Russia, rightly regarded as an unknown quantity because it
bears within it the seeds of the future. But first of all it
is born of tradition, or, at least, of that which does not
come from the Consciousness Soul and certainly not from the
human soul. ... None of the three elements which helped to
fashion the configuration of Russia originated in the Russian
soul. The first was the heritage of Byzantium, of Byzantine
Catholicism; the second was that which had streamed in
through the mingling of Nordic and Slav blood; the third was
that which was transmitted by Asia. None of these three
elements was the creation of the Russian soul; but it was
these elements which moulded that strange, enigmatic
structure which developed in the East and was concealed from
the happenings in Europe.
Let us now try
to find the common characteristic of all these things, of all
these symptoms. They have one common characteristic which is
very striking. We need only compare the real driving forces
in human evolution today with those of former times and we
perceive a significant difference which will indicate to us
the quintessential character of the culture of the
Consciousness Soul and that of the Rational and Intellectual
Soul.
In order to see
this situation in clearer perspective we can compare it with
the impulse of Christianity which in every man must spring
from the inmost depths of his being, an impulse which passes
over into the events of history, but which springs from man's
inner life. In the evolution of the earth Christianity is the
most powerful impulse of this nature. We can, of course,
consider impulses of lesser import, for example, those which
influenced Roman civilization throughout the Augustan age, or
we need only glance at the rich efflorescence of the Greek
soul. We see everywhere new creative impulses entering into
the evolution of mankind. In this respect, however, our
present epoch brings to birth nothing new; at best we can
speak of a rebirth, a revival of the past, for all the
impulses which are operative here no longer spring from the
human soul. The first thing that strikes us is the national
idea, as it is often called — more correctly one should
speak of the national impulse. It is not a creation of the
individual soul, but is rooted in what we have received from
inheritance, in what is already established. What emerges
from the manifold spiritual impulses of Hellenism is
something totally different. This national impulse is a
rightful claim to something which is already present like a
product of nature. As member of a national group man creates
nothing of himself; he merely underlines the fact that, in a
certain sense, he has developed naturally like a plant, like
a member of the natural order. I intentionally called your
attention earlier on to the fact that Asia's contribution to
Europe (and only its external aspect was perceptible to
European culture) was something natural and spontaneous. The
irruption of the Mongols, and later of the Osmanlis
[ Note 8 ]
into Europe, though
their influence was considerable, did not lead to any
creative impulse in Europe. Russia too produced no creative
impulse, nothing that was particularly characteristic of the
Russian soul. This was the work solely of the Byzantine and
Asiatic element, this mixture of Nordic and Slav blood. In
these peoples it is given facts, facts of nature which
determine the lives of men — nothing in reality is
created by the human soul. Let us bear this in mind, for it
will serve as a point of departure for what is to follow.
From the fifteenth century on the demands of mankind are of a
totally different character.
Hitherto we
have considered the external facts of history; let us now
turn to the more inward happenings which are related more to
the impulse of the Consciousness Soul which is breaking
through the shell of the human soul. Let us consider, for
example, the Council of Constance
[ Note 9]
and the burning of Hus. In Hus
we see a personality who stands out, so to speak, like a
human volcano. The Council of Constance which passed sentence
on him opened in 1414, in the early years of the fifteenth
century which marked the birth of the Consciousness Soul. Now
in the annals of modern history Hus stands out as a symbol of
protest against the suggestionism of the universalist impulse
of Catholicism. In Jan Hus the Consciousness Soul itself
rebels against all that the Rational or Intellectual soul had
received from this universalist Catholic impulse. And this
was not an isolated phenomenon — we could show how this
ground had already been prepared by the struggle of the
Albigenses against Catholic domination. In Savanarola in
Italy and in others we see the revolt of the autonomous
personality who wishes to arrive at his religious faith by
relying upon his own judgement and rejects the suggestionism
of papal Catholicism. And this same spirit of independence
persists in Luther, in the emancipation of the Anglican
Church from Rome (an extremely interesting and significant
phenomenon), and in the Calvinist influence in certain
regions of Europe. It is like a wave that sweeps over the
whole of civilized Europe; it is an expression of the inner
life, something more inward than the other influences,
something which is already more closely linked with the soul
of man, but in a different way from before.
After all, what
do we admire in Calvin, in Luther when we consider them as
historical figures? What do we admire in those who liberated
the Anglican Church from Roman Catholic tutelage? — Not
new creative ideas, not fresh spiritual insights, but the
energy with which they endeavoured to pour traditional ideas
into a new mould. Whereas these traditional ideas had
formerly been accepted by the Rational or Intellectual Soul
which was more instinctive or less conscious, they had now to
be accepted by the Consciousness Soul which is autonomous.
But this did not lead to the birth of new ideas, a new
confession of faith. Time-honoured ideas are called in
question, but no new symbol is found to replace them. The
further we look back into the past — just think of the
wealth of symbols created by man! Truly, a symbol such as the
symbol of the Eucharist had to be created one day by the soul
of man. In the age of Luther and Calvin there were endless
disputes over the Eucharist as to whether it should be
administered in both kinds or in one kind! But an autonomous
impulse, an individual creation of the human soul was nowhere
to be found. The dawning of the Consciousness Soul signifies
a new relationship to these problems but does not herald the
birth of new impulses.
When this new
epoch dawns the budding Consciousness Soul is operative in it
and manifests itself in historical symptoms. On the one hand
we see the national impulses at work, on the other hand we
see, striking at the very roots of religious faith, the
revolt of the personality that strives for autonomy because
the Consciousness Soul seeks to burst its bonds. And we must
study the effects of these two forces when we consider the
further development of the two representative national
states, France and England. These forces gather strength, but
are clearly differentiated and show how the two impulses,
that of nationalism and that of personality, react upon each
other differently in France and England. They create nothing
new, but show the traditional past under new forms as the
basis for the historical structure of Europe. This
reinforcement of the national impulse is particularly evident
in England where the personal element that in Hus, for
example, assumed the form of religious pathos, unites with
the national element, and the impulse of personality, of the
Consciousness Soul, increasingly paves the way for
parliamentary government, so that in England everything takes
on a political aspect. In France — by contrast —
despite the national element that exercises a powerful
influence by reason of the native temperament and other
things — the independence, the autonomy of the
personality predominates and gives another nuance. Whilst
England lays greater emphasis upon the national element, in
France the active tendency is visibly more towards the
element of personality. One must make a close study of these
things.
That these
forces act objectively — they are in no way connected
with the arbitrary actions of man — can be seen in the
case where the one impulse is operative, but bears no fruit;
it remains sterile because it finds no external support and
because the counter-impulse is still sufficiently powerful to
neutralize it. In France the national impulse had such a
powerful impact that it was able to liberate the French
people from the authority of the Pope and this explains why
it was France that compelled the Pope to reside at Avignon
and why in France the ground was prepared for the
emancipation of the personality. In England too the national
impulse exercised a powerful influence, but at the same time,
as a natural inheritance, the impulse of personality was
equally strong. In the field of culture the whole nation was
to a large extent free from Roman influence and developed its
own doctrinal structure. In Spain the same impulse was at
work but could neither penetrate the existing national
element, nor, like the personality, overcome the power of
suggestionism. Here everything remained in an embryonic state
and became decadent before it had time to develop.
External
events, what are usually called historical facts, are in
reality only symptoms. This is obvious after a moment's
reflection. In 1476 an important battle was fought on Swiss
soil. The defeat of Charles the Bold in the battle of Murten
was an extremely significant symptom, for it gave the death
blow to chivalry that was closely associated with the Papacy.
In the battle of Murten we see a trend that was already
spreading through the whole of civilized Europe at that time,
a trend that to some extent only came to light in a typically
representative phenomenon (i.e. the battle of Murten).
When a
phenomenon of this nature emerges on the surface it meets
with counter-pressure from the past. The normal course of
evolution, as you know, is always accompanied by Luciferic
and Ahrimanic forces which derive from backward impulses and
seek to assert themselves. Every normal impulse entering into
mankind must fight against the subtle invasion of Luciferic
and Ahrimanic forces. Thus the impulse that was clearly
manifest in Hus, Luther, Calvin and Wyclif had to battle with
these forces. A symptom of this struggle is seen in the
revolt of the United Netherlands and in the
Luciferic-Ahrimanic personality of Philip of Spain. And one
of the most significant turning points of modern times was
the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. With this defeat
those forces which, emanating from Spain, had offered the
strongest resistance to the emancipation of the personality
were finally eliminated. The Dutch wars of independence and
the defeat of the Armada are external symptoms and nothing
more. In order to arrive at the underlying reality we must be
prepared to probe beneath the surface, for when these
‘waves’ are thrown up we are the better able to
see the inner reality of events. The wave of 1588, when the
Armada was defeated, illustrates how the personality which,
in the process of emancipation, seeks to develop within
itself the Consciousness Soul, rose in revolt against the
petrified forms inherited from the Rational or Intellectual
soul.
It is absurd to
regard historical evolution as a temporal series of causes
and effects, the present as the consequence of the past,
cause — effect, cause — effect, etcetera. That is
extremely convenient, especially when one takes the academic
approach to historical research. It is so very convenient
— simply to stagger along step by step from one
historical fact to the next. But if one is not blind or
asleep, if one looks at things with an open mind, the
historical symptoms themselves show how absurd such an
approach is.
Let us take an
historical symptom which is most illuminating from a certain
point of view. All the new developments from the fifteenth
century onwards which are characterized by the impulses I
have already indicated — the rise of nationalism, the
awakening of personality — all this evoked conflicts
and antagonisms which led to the Thirty Years' War. The
account of this war as presented by history is seldom dealt
with from the standpoint of symptomatology. It can hardly be
treated after the fashion of café chatter. After all it
was of little importance for the destiny of Europe that
Martinitz, Slavata and Fabricius
[ Note 10 ]
were thrown out of the window
of the royal palace in Prague and would have been killed had
there not been a dungheap beneath the window which saved the
lives of the emperor's emissaries. In reality the dungheap is
supposed to have consisted of scraps of paper that the
servants of the Hradschin had thrown out of the window and
had left lying there until they finally formed a pile of
rubbish. This anecdote provides a pleasant topic for cafe
chatter, but one cannot pretend that it has any bearing on
the evolution of mankind!
When we begin
to study the Thirty Years' War — I need hardly remind
you that it began in 1618 — it is important to bear in
mind that the cause of the war lies solely in confessional
differences, in what had developed in opposition to the old
Catholicism, to the old Catholic impulses. Everywhere serious
conflicts had arisen through this antagonism between the
recent development of personality and the suggestionism of
the old Catholicism. When the conflict was brought to an end
by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648
[ Note 11 ]
we ask ourselves the question: how did
matters stand in 1648 in respect of this conflict between
Protestantism and Catholicism? What had come of it? What
changes had taken place in the course of thirty years?
Nothing strikes us more forcibly than the fact that in this
conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism and in
everything connected with it the situation in 1648 was
exactly the same as it had been in 1618. Though, meanwhile,
certain issues which had been the source of discord had been
modified somewhat, the situation in Central Europe had
remained unchanged since the outbreak of hostilities. But the
intervention of foreign powers which was in no way connected
with the causes of the conflict of 1618, this intervention,
after the powers had found scope for their activity, gave a
totally different complexion to the political forces in
Europe. The political horizon of those who had been involved
in the war was completely transformed. But the results of the
peace of Westphalia, the changed situation in relation to the
past, this had nothing whatsoever to do with the causes of
the conflict in 1618.
This fact is
extremely important, especially in the case of the Thirty
Years' War, and illustrates how absurd it is to consider
history, as is the usual practice, in terms of cause and
effect. However, the consequence of these developments was
that England and France owed their leading position in Europe
to the outcome of this war. But their supremacy was in no way
connected with the causes which provoked the war. And a most
important factor in the march of modern history is this:
following upon the Thirty Years' War the national impulses,
in conjunction with the other impulses which I have described
elsewhere, develop in such a way that France and England
become the representative national states. There is much talk
at the present time of the national principle in the East;
but we must not forget that this principle passed from the
West to the East. Like the trade winds, the national impulse
flowed from West to East and we must bear this clearly in
mind.
Now it is
interesting to see how the same impulse — the national
impulse in conjunction with the emancipation of the
personality — assumes a totally different form in the
two countries, where, as we saw, they began to be clearly
differentiated in 1429. In France the emancipation of the
personality within the national group develops in such a way
that it turns inward. That is to say, if the national element
is represented by the red line in the diagram below and on
the one side of the line is the individual human being, and
on the other side mankind, then in France the development of
the national impulse is orientated towards man, towards the
individual, in England towards mankind. France modifies the
national element within the nation state in such a way that
the national element tends to transform the inner being of
man, to make him other than he is. In England the personal
element transcends nationalism and seeks to embrace the whole
world and to promote everywhere the development of the
personality. The Frenchman wishes rather to develop the
personal element in the soul, the Englishman to extend the
principle of personality to the whole of mankind. Here we see
two entirely different trends — in both cases the basis
is the national element. In the one case the national impulse
turns inwards, towards the individual soul; in the other it
is directed outwards, towards the soul of mankind. In England
and France therefore we have two parallel streams with two
sharply contrasting tendencies. Only in France therefore,
where the inner life of the personality was deeply
influenced, could the political and social configuration
which developed as I have described lead to the Revolution
— via Louis XIV, etcetera. In England the national
impulse led to a sober liberalism, because here it expressed
itself externally, whilst in France it expressed itself
inwardly, in the inner life of man.
This
phenomenon, strangely enough, manifests itself also
geographically, especially when we consider another turning
point in modern history as symptom — the defeat of
Napoleon, who was a product of the French Revolution, by the
English at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. What is revealed
to us here? Napoleon, a strange representative it is true,
but nonetheless a representative of the French makeup,
signifies the withdrawal inwards — and geographically
too, the withdrawal to the continent of Europe. If the
following diagram represents Europe — Napoleon,
precisely as a consequence of the battle of Trafalgar, is
thrust back towards Europe (see arrow) and England is thrust
outwards towards the whole world in the opposite direction.
At the same time let us not forget that these two tendencies
have need of conflict, they must try conclusions with each
other. And this is what happened in the struggle for
supremacy in North America, which in some respects is a
consequence of this turning point in 1805. Looking back a few
decades before this date we see how the specifically French
nuance, Romanism, is ousted in the interests of the world by
the Anglo-Saxon element in North America.
Thus you can
sense, if you really wish to, the forces which are at work
here; like the magician's apprentice the impulse of the
Consciousness Soul conjures up national impulses which
implant themselves in mankind in divers forms and with
different nuances. We can only understand these things if we
study the impulse of the Consciousness Soul in all its
aspects, avoiding all prejudice and keeping our eyes open for
what is important and what is unimportant and also for what
is more or less characteristic so that from our observation
of external symptoms we can then penetrate to the inner
pattern of reality. For external appearances often belie the
inner impulse of the personality, especially in an epoch when
the personality is self-dependent. And this, too, becomes
apparent when we study symptomatically the development of
modern history. What is taught as history in our schools is
quite unreal. The real facts are as follows: here is the
surface movement of the water, here is the current (shaded red in the diagram.)
Now there are
times when there breaks through into historical events
— like the waves thrown up here, sometimes with the
violence of a volcanic eruption — what lies beneath the
surface. At other times, events emerge on the surface, and
isolated historical events betray what lies beneath the
surface. As symptoms they are especially characteristic. But
sometimes there are symptoms where one must totally ignore
external appearances when looking at the symptomatic
fact.
Now there is a
personality who is especially characteristic of the emergence
of the impulse of the Consciousness Soul in Western Europe,
both on account of his personal development and on account of
the place he occupies in contemporary history. At the
beginning of the seventeenth century he was involved in this
differentiation between the French impulse and the English
impulse, a differentiation that had exercised a widespread
influence upon the rest of Europe. In the seventeenth century
this differentiation had been effective for some time and had
become more pronounced. The personality who appeared on the
stage of history at this time was a strange individual, whom
we can depict in the following way: one could say that he was
extremely generous, filled with deep and genuine gratitude
for the knowledge imparted to him, infinitely grateful, in
fact a model of gratitude for the kindness men showed towards
him. He was a scholar who combined in his person almost the
entire erudition of his day, a personality who was extremely
peace-loving, a sovereign indifferent to the intrigues of the
world, wholly devoted to the ideal of universal peace,
extremely prudent in decisions and resolutions, and most
kindly disposed towards his fellow men. Such is the portrait
that one could sketch of this personality. If one takes a
partial view, it is possible to portray him in this way and
this is the external view that history presents.
It is also
possible to portray him from another angle which is equally
partial. One could say that he was an outrageous spendthrift
without the slightest notion of his financial resources, a
pedant, a typical professor whose erudition was shot through
with abstractions and pedantry. Or one could say that he was
timid and irresolute, and whenever called upon to defend some
principle he would evade the issue out of pusillanimity,
preferring peace at any price. It could also be said of him
that he was shrewd or crafty and wormed his way through life
by artfully choosing the path that always guaranteed success.
Or that he endeavoured to establish relationships with others
as children are wont to do. His friendships betrayed a
frankly childish element which, in his veneration for others
and in the adulation others accorded him, was transformed
into romantic infatuation. One can adopt either of these
points of view. And in fact there were some who described him
from the one angle, others from the other angle, and many
from both angles. Such was the historical personality of
James I
[ Note 12 ]
who reigned
from 1603 to 1625. Whichever point of view we take, in both
cases the cap fits perfectly. In neither case do we know what
he really felt or thought as a typical representative of
contemporary evolution. And yet, precisely in the epoch when
James I was King of England a hidden current rises to the
surface and the symptoms manifested at that time are
characteristic of the underlying reality. We will speak more
of this tomorrow.
Translator's Notes:
Note A:
Das Geschichtsleben der Menschheit, Dornach,
October, 1918. Lectures included in Die
Polarität von Dauer und Entwickelung im
Menschenleben (Bibl. Nr. 184).
Note B:
Die Geschichte der Neuzeit im Lichte der
Geisteswissenschaftlicher Forschung 17th October,
1918 (included in Bibl. Nr. 73).
Note C:
Die Geschichte des Mittelalters bis zu den grossen
Erfindungen und Entdeckungen, Berlin, October
— December, 1904.
|