LECTURE 2.
A CONTRIBUTION TO OUR
KNOWLEDGE OF THE
HUMAN
BEING.
Berlin,
29th January, 1918.
In our studies we have often called
attention to the aphorism written on the Greek Temple of Apollo,
‘Know thyself,’ which comes down to us along the ages. A
tremendous challenge to strive after human wisdom as well as cosmic
wisdom lies in this sentence. It receives a pregnant renewal, a
deepening through the impulse given by the Mystery of Golgotha. If
time admits we shall speak further of these matters in the course of
this winter. We must seek the path to the goal to which it
points.
To-day we shall start from an
apparently external consideration of man, from an external form, as
it were, of human self-knowledge, yet only apparently external, being
a specially powerful force when man makes use of it in order to
penetrate the inner nature of the human being. We shall start —
apparently only — from the external human
form.
We find a consideration of that outer
human form in what is approved to-day as science, but in a sense
somewhat unsatisfactory to the higher spiritual consideration. We
might say: Anyone who wishes to know man as man, finds but little
incitement to such knowledge in science, especially as practised at
the present time. What science brings forward, what calls for
discussion, can be seen from indications given in my book
Riddles of the Soul.
This book gives an essential and important
foundation for a far-seeing knowledge of the human being; but such a
foundation is not sought at the present time. Anatomy,
physiology, etc., to-day contribute very little to enquirers who wish
to penetrate seriously into the nature of man from a knowledge of his
outer form. At the present time an artistic study really gives far
more. It might be said that science leaves much unsatisfied. If a man
will only decide to seek actual substantial truth in art, especially
in an artistic consideration of the universe, he may find more truth
in that way than by recognised science. In future times there will be
a philosophy of life which will derive from Spiritual Science much
that man cannot fathom to-day, a philosophy which will unite a
scientific and an artistic perception of the world into a higher
synthesis and harmony, based on a certain need of human knowledge.
There will be much more clairvoyance in that than in the
clairvoyance of which most people dream to-day but only
dream.
On approaching the human form we at
once perceive something of the utmost importance to it when we direct
our attention — as we have doubtless all done more or less
— to its centre of support, the skeleton. We have all seen a
skeleton, and observed the difference between the head and the rest.
We have observed that the head, the chief part, is in a sense an
enclosed and isolated whole, which is, as it were, mounted on a
column above the limb system and the rest of the human organism. We
can very easily contrast the head resting on the skeleton, with the
rest of the human form. If we thus turn our attention to the most
superficial difference, it may strike us that the formation of the
head is more or less spherical, it is not a perfect sphere, but
spherically constructed. Now the investigator into Spiritual Science
must warn students not to expect external superficial analogies to
underlie a search for knowledge; but the concept of the human
head as approaching a spherical form is no superficial
observation, for man is really a kind of duality, and the
spherical formation of his head is in no wise accidental. We must
bear in mind what we actually have before us in the human head. The
first indications of what is intended here is given in
The Spiritual Guidance of Man,
where I showed how the human head
presents an image of the whole universe which surrounds us externally
as a spatial globe, a hollow sphere.
In reviewing these things we must
observe something which for the man of to-day lies far from the most
essential kind of observation, something which he always employs, but
not where it is of the utmost importance. It would not occur to
anyone who takes a compass, a magnetic needle in hand, to seek in the
needle itself the cause of its pointing with one end to the North and
with the other to the South; the physicist feels himself compelled to
regard the magnetic force proceeding from the needle, and the
directing magnetic force coming from the North Pole of the earth, as
a whole. The cause of what takes place in the small space of the
needle is sought in the great universe. Yet this is not done in other
cases where it should be done, and where it is of importance. If
anyone — especially a scientist — observes that one
living being is formed within another living being, as, for instance,
the egg is formed in the body of the hen, he sees there how something
forms in the smallest space; but what does not usually strike him is
to apply what he knows of the magnetic needle and say, that the
reason why the germ of the egg develops in the body of the hen lies
in the entire cosmos, not in the hen. Exactly as the great universe
has a part in the magnetic needle, so too the whole cosmos has a
share in the hen's body, — no matter what other processes also
take part in it — the whole cosmos in its spherical form
co-operate. The processes that can be traced back through the line of
heredity to the fore-fathers, only co-operate when the germ of the
egg is formed in the maternal organism. That of course is heresy in
the eyes of official science, but it is a truth. The forces of the
cosmos co-operate in the most varied ways. Just as it is true that in
the case of man (empirical embryology proves this) the head, in its
germinal rudiments is formed from the whole universe, — the
human head forms first in the maternal organism — so too is it
true that, on the other hand, the original causative forces for this
formation work from the whole cosmos, and man's head is an image of
it. That to which the head is attached (the skeleton), if carefully
observed, is seen in its configuration, its form, to be more
connected with the line of heredity, with the father and mother,
grandfather and grandmother, than with the cosmos outside. Thus even
in relation to his origin, his development, man is primarily a dual
being. On the one side his form is fashioned from the cosmos, which
comes to light in the spherical form of his head, on the other, he is
formed from the whole line of heredity, which can be seen in the rest
of the organism attached to the head. The whole of man's outer
formation shows him to be of a hybrid nature, it shows that he has a
twofold origin.
A consideration of this kind has more
than one significance, if by means of it we learn two quite different
facts. Anyone studying men under the direction of ordinary official
science, studying the development of the germ through the microscope
— seeing only what is within its range (as though one wished to
see by the magnetic needle itself why it is capable of pointing North
and South) — lives in a mass of thought which make him
immovable and unserviceable for outer life, especially if he proceeds
accordingly in outer science. If man applies such thoughts to social
science, they do not suffice; or they lead him to world
schoolmastering, which in other words may be called Wilsonism. This
is a question of what sort of thinking is called up in us, what
thought-forms arise when we devote ourselves to certain thoughts. To
‘know’ about things is of less significance; the
important point is the particular kind of knowledge, and of what
service it is. If one has an open mind to see man's connection with
the whole universe, thoughts will arise which lead to the ethical,
juridical consideration of the world, which ought really to be
the highest, but which to-day is considered somewhat strange. Thus we
see, there are certain impulses required to seek such knowledge
as is here meant, other than the satisfaction of — I will not
say inquisitiveness — but of mere desire for
knowledge.
Thus man stands before us as a
compound being, a hybrid. This has a much deeper significance still.
To-day I only wished to strike the keynote which is to call forth in
us a feeling of the reality of what we are
studying.
Let us adhere to the fact that in the
further course of our life the head — which we have just
encountered as an image of the whole cosmos — is really the
intermediary for knowledge (I will not say the instrument, for that
would not be quite correct). The head however is not the only
intermediary. Let us keep to knowledge or perception of the world.
The head acts as intermediary for this, but so does the rest of the
man. As regards its origin, the rest of the man differs very much
from the head, it is something quite different; thus man, in so far
as he is a being of perception, consists of a head-man and a
heart-man; because in the heart everything else is concentrated. We
are, in fact, two men; a head-man, who stands with discernment in his
relation to the world, and a heart man. The difference is, that as
surely as he inveighs against that world, he uses his head solely in
order to know. What is really at the root of this! To draw a parallel
between head-knowledge and heart-knowledge would not lead to much.
One able to understand with the heart what the head knows, would be
‘warmer’ in his knowledge than another. There would be a
difference between the two men, but the difference would not be very
great. If, however, facts were approached with the practical
knowledge of Spiritual Science, they would appear in a very different
light. We acquire knowledge, perception; it gradually comes to us.
Then the following happens. Our relation to the world through our
head, our perception and knowledge, takes place in a certain respect
quickly; and the way in which we confront the world with the rest of
our organism takes place slowly. Our head hurries on with its
knowledge, the rest of the organism does not. This has a profoundly
deep significance. In scholastic education we see only the training
of the head; nowadays people only receive education for the head.
This can be done by scholastic training, for, if the head has taken
part slowly in the development of knowledge, only in exceptional
cases does it close as late as the 20th year of life — in the
case of most people it does not keep open so long. The head is then
ready with its knowledge, its assimilation of the world. The rest of
the organism needs the whole time up to death for this assimilation.
We might say that in this respect the rate of the head is
approximately three times as quick as that of the rest of the
organism; the latter has more time and moves three times as slow; the
rate is quite different. Hence one who through knowledge has the gift
of clearly observing such things, is aware that having grasped
something through the head it must wait until he has united it with
the whole man. In order to receive something really full of
life, after this absorption through the head has lasted about a day,
a man must wait three or four days until he has completely absorbed
it. The scientific spiritual investigator will never recount what he
has received with the head alone, but what he has grasped with the
whole man. That has an uncommonly comprehensive and profound
significance. According to existing arrangements, we can only give
our children a kind of head-knowledge; we do not give them a
knowledge compatible with the rest of the organism. It stops at
head-knowledge; a knowledge so prepared that it must be quickly
accepted by the head and remembered later. Where it is a matter of
education, however, one does not always remember later. One is
thankful if the knowledge holds out even till the final examination.
A knowledge in which the whole of the rest of the organism can be
used would, under all circumstance, develop love, joy and
appreciation for it when one remembered it later. How to mould
education so that a man may look back upon his school time with
warmth and joy, and may wish himself back, is connected with one of
the deepest secrets of the mysteries of humanity.
In this domain there is a tremendous
amount to be done. Anyone acquainted with such things, knows
that everything now presented to children in particular, is
previously so prepared that the rest of the organism does not receive
it, and thus no future pleasure is prepared. This is connected with
the fact that man's soul ages comparatively early in our time. One of
the Mysteries of man is that when the head is 28 years old, the rest
of his organism which follows in its development is only a third or
fourth of this age. It maintains a rate three or four times as slow
(other connections we have yet to learn). If we were to approach
these mysteries as educators, a child might receive something so
fruitful, so flourishing, that it would last until its death. Thus if
he had received such things up to 25 years, and the time needed for
this elaboration by the remaining organism was three times that
period, it might take 75 years. Knowledge acquired by the head alone
has not unlimited significance for man's whole being; it requires the
inner deliberate experience gained by man in his whole being. Public
life, however, is averse to this to-day, it will only accept
head-wisdom. One can easily reckon the whole significance of what is
intended by saying that up to 15 years of age a man might absorb
through his head a certain number of ideas which, if directed to the
administration of public affairs, would render him fit at 45 years of
age to be chosen for state service of parliament, for he ought
not to offer himself until he has become a whole man. Thus we may say
that if at 15 years of age he can produce ideas of sufficient force
to be elaborated by his whole nature, at 45 he would be mature enough
to be chosen for the town council or parliament. The mode of view of
the ancients, who possessed a living wisdom from the Mysteries, was
based on such things. To-day, on the contrary, the endeavour is to
set the age limit as low as possible, for everyone is regarded as
being as mature at 20 as man used to be at 80. Insistent demands,
however, cannot decide these things, but only true
knowledge.
These things have a pregnant
application to life. The whole of our modern public life takes into
account only what people are as regards their heads; yet, while they
have social relations only with the head (let us reflect that all
social relations are only head-relations) such social relations are
wholly unsuited to form a social life. For whence comes the head? The
human head is not of this earth, but is brought forth from the
cosmos. One cannot attend to earthly affairs with the head. One
cannot be a nationalist with the head, or belong to any one part of
the earth. With the head we can only determine what belongs to the
whole universe. To be able to decide what belongs to the earth, we
must grow together throughout life with what belongs to the earth,
and what makes us citizens of the earth and not of the heavens. These
things must be so. What may underlie public decisions must be drawn
forth from deeper knowledge, beyond that of man himself. Further, we
must bear in mind what Goethe expressed as ‘The thought of
metamorphosis;’ this has a deep significance and far
wider application than Goethe himself could make in his
time.
Our head is formed from the cosmos.
Consider the matter from Spiritual Science: we must say that
throughout the time between death and rebirth in the cosmos itself we
work in advance on the head. In a sense the head is the grave of the
soul, respecting what the soul was before birth or conception. The
activity we exercised in the spiritual life between death and rebirth
there comes to rest; and to this, which is in a sense formed out of
the spiritual world, there is then added that which belongs to the
line of heredity. What then is this? It is still something connected
with the head. As before remarked, all in man except the head is the
germ of the head in the next incarnation. The whole of the remaining
organism is something that can pass over to the head at the next
incarnation. When we pass through the gate of death, the forces
developed throughout life wrest themselves free from the rest of the
organism but remain in the same forms borne by the rest of the
organism during life; man carries these during the time between death
and rebirth, and transforms them into his future head. Thus in our
head we have always something which is a heritage from the former
incarnation; and in the rest of our organism something which
works determinately for the formation of our head in the coming
incarnation. In this respect also we are of a twofold
nature.
If we consider man as regards his
cosmic relations, we find that in reality he does not only arise and
develop in the divisions of time and space which we have before us in
outer physical view, but stands in a tremendously great relationship.
It is especially fascinating not only to look, as Goethe did, at a
bone of the vertebral column and then at the bones of the
head, saying that the bones of the head are only transformed
vertebrae; but to see that all pertaining to the head is also part of
the rest of the organism. It needs, however, an exceptionally
unbiased observation to recognise not only the nose, for instance,
and all belonging to the head as having been thus remodelled, but
that also all belonging to the rest of the organism, though at
a younger stage of metamorphosis, has in an earlier metamorphosis all
been changed to what now meets us in the head.
In matters of educational science the
consequences of such a view are extremely important; and some
day man's thinking will turn to the knowledge of Spiritual Science,
when momentous demands for a practical educational science
arise.
One thing especially is significant.
In life we grow old, but in reality we can only say that our physical
body grows old; for, strange as it may seem, the etheric body, the
nearest spiritual part of our being, grows younger. The older we grow
the younger becomes our etheric body; and as we become wrinkled and
bald as regards the physical body, we become — at least the
etheric body does — chubby and blooming. As external nature
provides that our physical body shall grow old, we must certainly
take care that our etheric body is provided with youthful
forces. We can only do this if through the head we introduce
such sustenance of spiritual ideas that they suffice for working into
the whole life. The investigator of Spiritual Science can have some
idea of how children ought to be taught in earliest childhood that
man is an image of the whole universe, an image of the divinely wise
cosmic ordering; and this should be grasped directly and simply, not
by reciting Bible words imperfectly understood. All this must be
drawn from the spirit or sources of Spiritual Science, then there
will be a richer head-wisdom than that of to-day. During man's
lifetime that will be a source of rejuvenation, whereas our present
system of education is quite the contrary. If to-day in spite of
early education, we are in the fortunate position not to be terribly
bad-tempered, it is because the present method of providing for the
head (which was prepared approximately 400 hundred years ago and has
now reached its zenith) has not yet been able to ruin so much of what
still remain, as hereditary culture from older times. If, however,
we continue to instruct the head only, we are going the right way to
become really bad-tempered. In the last years before the war there
was a great leaning towards ‘sanatoria,’ great measures
were taken to do away with ‘nervous conditions.’ This is
all connected with the fact that the head is not given what the whole
man needs. I have mentioned how seldom one finds the right thing
done for these things, for I remember an occasion a few years ago
when I went to visit someone at a sanatorium. We arrived at mid-day.
All the patients walked past us. Some of these were remarkable
persons; their nervous condition was partly written on their faces
and partly on their fidgeting hands and feet. I then made the
acquaintance of the most fidgety and nervous of them all — the
medical superintendent. It must be said that a medical director
cannot find a cure for his patients if he is himself the one who
needs it most. In other respects he was an extremely loveable man;
but he was an example of those who, in their youth at any rate, have
not absorbed what can keep them young throughout their lives. Such
things cannot be changed by any kind of isolated reform, nor can the
relationships be changed that way; they can only be improved when the
whole social organism is improved. Therefore attention must be
directed to that. The great cosmic laws have provided that man as a
solitary individual cannot gratify his egoism in such spheres, but
can, as it were, only find his welfare when he seeks it together with
others.
Thus it appears to me, as it must to
everyone who does not live absorbed in material things (as is
customary to-day) but is able to look beyond to the super-sensible
from which must come the reformation of the world in the near future
— it appears to me that in this sphere, as well as in others,
Spiritual Science can be introduced into life in such a way that it
will come to pass that men can, in an upright, honourable way, work
out something in the concrete to which Spiritual Science can give the
impulse. As I have often said, there is no need to press towards
visionary clairvoyance, but we must learn to understand man as a
likeness of the cosmic spiritual nature, then spirituality will come
of itself. It is impossible to understand man in his entirety without
investigating the spiritual underlying his nature and keeping
that in view. One thing is necessary; — I have often
emphasised this — the renunciation of intellectual laziness, a
fault so terribly persistent in relation to all questions of the
philosophy of life. Our whole study of Spiritual Science shows us
that man must go forward step by step, that he must be disposed to go
into details and thence build up a whole, so that starting, as it
were, from the nearest sensible, he can rise to the super-sensible.
This he can easily do, for anyone who regards the human head in the
right way sees in it something modelled from the whole universe, and
in the rest of the organism something also organised into the
universe in order to come back in the next incarnation. By rightly
observing what is obvious to the senses, one can rightly arrive at
the super-sensible. One must, however, be willing to admit that if one
wishes to understand the construction of man, the same trouble must
be taken as would he necessary — e.g., if one wished to
understand the mechanical action of a watch; one would have to
bear in mind the connection of the wheels, etc. Yet it is supposed
that one can talk of man's highest being without the requisite
trouble being taken to gain knowledge of man's nature. It is very
frequently pleaded that ‘Truth must be very simple’
— and the accusation is made against Spiritual Science that it
is very complicated. Man longs to acquire in five minutes
— or in less time — what is necessary for the knowledge
of his highest being; whereas he is by nature a complicated being,
his greatness in the universe is due to that very fact, and we must
overcome the tendency to indolence in respect of knowledge if we
really wish to penetrate to the human entity. In our time there is no
understanding of what is needful for one who wishes to put himself in
a position to penetrate even dimly the whole complexity of human
nature; for because we only cultivate head-wisdom, because we do not
wish the whole man to elaborate what the head learns, nothing is
given to the head which can be worked upon by the rest of the man,
and we thereby place man in the social order in such a position that
his earthly life cannot become a reflection of a super-sensible
spiritual life. We are subject to a remarkable cleavage, one not like
the others already mentioned, but an injurious cleavage which must be
overcome.
Human life has changed in course of
evolution. To observe this we need only go back four centuries,
indeed not so far. Anyone acquainted with the spiritual history of
life — not the ordinary historical literature — knows how
tremendously the life and thought of the 18th century differed from
that of the 19th. We need only go a little way back to see how the
whole of human life has changed in four centuries. Human thinking has
wholly changed, ideas formed before the 20th century have gradually
become more and more abstract, they have become ideas of the head.
When we compare the rich ideas of the 13th and 14th centuries with
the natural science of this 19th century, we find an impressive
difference in the abstract ideas, the dry conformity to law of the
present day. There is a very interesting book by Valentine of
Bâle, containing very interesting matter. A short while
ago a Swedish scholar wrote a book on ‘Matter,’ quoting
various things from Valentine, and his judgment is ‘Let him who
can, understand it; no one can.’ We very readily believe that
he could not, for, read with the ideas derived from modern physics
and chemistry, Valentine is quite incomprehensible. This is connected
with such facts as the good old practical wisdom of life: ‘The
morning has both God and gold in its hand,’ which has been
changed in course of time to ‘The early bird catches the
worm.’ The good European saying has been
Americanised.
With regard to the description and
comprehension of Nature, those older times were permeated with what
comes from the whole man. To-day it is head-knowledge. Therefore on
the one side it is abstract, dry, and does not fill a man's whole
life to the end, yet on the other side it is very spiritual. This
dual nature is really present, so that we actually do engender what
is most spiritual; for these abstract ideas are the most spiritual
that can be, yet they are incapable of grasping the Spirit. It is
astonishingly easy to perceive the cleavage in which man is involved
through the spiritual ideas he has developed. It is precisely in them
that he has become so remarkably materialistic. When these ideas come
in the right way, however, materialism never arises from them. The
simple existence of abstract ideas is the first refutation of
materialism. In this duality we live. We have been tremendously
intellectualised for four centuries, and in this spiritual, which we
only possess in the abstract, we must find again the living
spiritual. We have risen to objective concepts; we must get back to
Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition. We have cast aside what has
been handed down to us of old primeval wisdom in Imagination,
Inspiration and Intuition. We must now recover it, after having so
wholly discarded the richness of the knowledge of man's whole being.
This is a truth which will fill us with a sense of the seriousness of
Spiritual Science.
The object of these two somewhat
introductory lectures is to show how, from the most external
observation of man, an impulse may arise to apply one's intelligence
to that which spiritually underlies the world. In the pursuit of
these impulses and ideas something will come to humanity which to-day
is so terribly lacking: viz., INNER SINCERITY. Man cannot really
strive fruitfully after the Spirit if he does not do so in inner
sincerity, and he will never go astray if he acquires knowledge
through life's experience; true harmony is only possible between
head-wisdom and heart-wisdom when man adopts the right relationship
towards life. The man of to-day does not wish to lead head-wisdom
over to heart-wisdom, because the latter not only takes longer, but
even reacts against the former, and thrusts it back when it is
untrue. In this way the rest of the man then makes itself felt as a
kind of conscience. The humanity of the present, with a bias towards
the head-wisdom only, shrinks from this.
In conclusion, a few directly
practical remarks — since when we are thus gathered together we
must contemplate the efforts of spiritual science in the whole
world.
Spiritual Science can only flourish
if people take it in sincerity, with earnestness; for it is
just this which at the present time can satisfy man's deepest needs.
It must meet those qualms of conscience which easily arise when the
heart says ‘no’ to the head — as it always does
when the spiritual is not sought, or when knowledge is only sought
from pure egoism, greed, ambition, etc. For this reason it is
necessary to allow no compromise in any quarter. Spiritual Science
must be followed positively for its own sake; no compromise can be
made with half and half incomplete things; it is too serious a
matter. I may perhaps here introduce a few personal remarks, though
not intended personally. A great proportion of the opposition to
Spiritual Science can only be understood when man has in view its
origin and development. Here or there someone appears, for instance,
who turns furiously against Spiritual Science. There are other cases,
but in many instances opposition arises as in the following concrete
case.
Once, when I was in
Frankfort-on-Main, to give lectures, someone telephoned that a
gentleman wished to speak to me. I had no objection, and said that I
could see him then and there. He came, and said, ‘I have been
travelling about after you for a long time, hoping to speak with
you.’ I had nothing either for or against that, and he then
talked of all sorts of other things. Spiritual Science,
however, can only be taken seriously, and much that ‘shows
off’ and wishes to appear clever, must be rejected. No
compromise can be made. I was not discourteous to this man, but I
sent him away letting him see that I would take no further notice of
him. I was convinced that he talked much nonsense, for which he hoped
to find support in me. (What I am now relating is for the purpose of
describing certain occurrences.) I had to send the man away. He said
much that was extremely flattering, but the only question was whether
his aspirations for Spiritual Science were at all genuine. Soon after
advertisements appeared in Switzerland announcing that this man was
to speak of the ‘demoniacal,’ ‘devilish’
character of Steiner's Spiritual Science. I might relate the
subsequent history of this matter, but I shall not do so. This is one
of the ways that opposition shows itself. Often people come forward
who really seek some kind of connection with Spiritual Science and
whose quest must be disregarded.
In connection with this I may mention
that our friend Dr. Rittelmeyer wrote a short time ago in a
periodical, an article on the attitude of Spiritual Science to
religion, endeavouring to reply to many other prejudices
against spiritual science, in a way worthy of appreciation and
thanks. Now Dr. Johannes Müller, who is well known, has felt it
his duty to write a series of three articles in the same paper
against Dr. Rittelmeyer. It is really not my task to go into what Dr.
Johannes Müller has written, for it has been my endeavour
throughout many years not to talk of him, with the motive of keeping
Spiritual Science free from superficial pursuits and any entanglement
in compromise. This is best attained by not worrying or at
least not troubling to speak about what ostensibly must work
by its own merit, if it is to work at all. I have never mentioned Dr.
Johannes Müller in any particular connection. In our time there
is not much feeling for truth or untruth in these domains. Looking
over Johannes Müller's articles, it will be seen that they
contain much that is called forth either by carelessness or what
might be called objective untruth. They are full of it. These things
must be kept well in mind. In the book,
Riddles of the Soul,
I have described one such case: the false statements of Dessoir.
I am now very curious, for something must inevitably follow from what
a professor of the Berlin University is proved to have written. Let
people but read the second article in
Riddles of the Soul
upon Professor Dessoir's method of working. Of course anyone who now
writes on Dessoir without taking into account the article before us
is accessory to these things; but to-day people will not take these
things seriously; they excuse themselves by saying ‘I have not
read it,’ as if someone who made a statement had not properly
given his attention to the matter. Now it can easily be proved that
Johannes Müller's accusations are untrue: namely, that my
lectures pander to man's love of sensation. In any town where
Spiritual Science has as yet no footing, very few people as a rule
attend my lectures; where many come, it is because in such places
Spiritual Science has been made known and worked for. I will not go
further into the matter than to allude to the last part of Johannes
Müller's article, which launches forth, saying that I speak of a
‘Divine Drama’ through which man is to be saved, and the
like, and where he fills a column and a-half by quoting a few
sentences from
Christianity as Mystical Fact,
which he tears out of their context as they strike him, until through
his omissions, what he quotes becomes absolute nonsense. In my book on
Christianity I said the very opposite of what he quotes of the
‘Divine Drama’
and its magic. Johannes Müller excuses himself by
saying that he was not able to understand my writings. Of that I am
confident! Without understanding this book in the very least, he has
undertaken to criticise it! I have often called attention to the fact
that this book places the Mystery of Golgotha in contradistinction to
all other Mysteries, as the central point of Evolution. Of this
Johannes Müller has no perception. I should never expect him to
understand my book, I do not think he could; yet he criticises it. It
is remarkable that this book was published in 1902; so that in 1906
it had been under discussion for four years. It was known that in the
first edition I had set forth my relation to Natural Science on the
one side and to Philosophy on the other.
Christianity as Mystical Fact
has since become known. Now if it was not known to Johannes
Müller, that is his affair; but I mention that it was known in 1906,
and was just as much connected with my general philosophy of life as
Philosophy of Spiritual Activity,
for instance. Anyone who formed an opinion of me in 1906 ought to do so
from the whole aspect of my conception of the universe, and should not
really select fragments. In the year 1906, it is a fact that
Christianity as Mystical Fact
was four years old. In that year, however, Johannes Müller's book on
The Sermon of the Mount
was sent to me. The dedication of that book is: ‘To Dr.
Steiner, in grateful remembrance of
Philosophy of Spiritual Activity,
Mainberg, 17. viii. 1906.’ This is one
of those circumstances which I am compelled to ignore, for it
was not possible to compromise in the direction of which I have
spoken, and I considered it within my duty when approached in this
way, to be silent, instead of saying: ‘I see your meaning on
this or that point.’ Sometimes, however, silence annoys people
more than anything else. I said that one should look for the
opposition to Spiritual Science in its real relations. I could tell
of even more annoying things, but anyone who now reads Dr. Johannes
Müller's articles against our friend Dr. Rittelmeyer, will
perhaps do well not to look for the opposition in these things alone,
but in other things too, such as the few just cited. One must seek
everywhere for much more sincere reasons than those lying on the
surface. It is vexing when one man approaches another with ‘in
grateful remembrance of the
Philosophy of Spiritual Activity,’
and the other turns away and gives no answer.
I did not wish to keep from you this
slight contribution to the psychology of Johannes Müller, so
that you might see matters more clearly than through his articles
alone.
|