Lecture VII
In the course of our enquiries during the
next few days I should like to draw your attention to two
things which seemingly bear little relation to each other.
But when we have concluded our enquiries you will realize
that they are closely connected. I should like in fact to
touch upon certain matters which will provide points of view,
symptomatic points d'appui concerning the
development of religions in the course of the present fifth
post-Atlantean epoch. And on the other hand, I would also
like to show you in what respect the spiritual life that we
wish to cultivate may be associated with the building which
bears the name ‘Goetheanum.’
It seems to me
that the decisions taken in such a case have a certain
importance, especially at the present time. We are now at a
stage in the evolution of mankind when the future holds
unknown possibilities and when it is important to face
courageously an uncertain future and when it is also
important, from out of the deepest impulses, to take
decisions to which one attaches a certain significance. The
external reason for choosing the name ‘Goetheanum’ seems to
be this: I expressed the opinion a short time ago in public
lectures that, for my part, I should like the centre for the
cultivation of the spiritual orientation that I envisage to
be called for preference the Goetheanum. The name to be
decided upon had already been discussed last year; and this
year a few of our members decided to support the choice of
the name ‘Goetheanum.’ As I said recently there are many
reasons for this choice, reasons which I find difficult to
express in words. Perhaps they will become clear to you if I
start today from considerations similar to those which I
dealt with here last Sunday, by creating a basis for the
study of the history of religions which we will undertake in
these lectures.
You know of
course — and I would not touch upon personal matters if
they were not connected with revelant issues, and also with
matters concerning the Goetheanum — you know that my
first literary activity is associated with the name of Goethe
and that it was developed in a domain in which today, even
for those who refuse to open their eyes, who prefer to remain
asleep, the powerful catastrophic happenings of our time are
adumbrated. My view of Goethe from the standpoint of
spiritual science, and equally what I said recently in
relation to
The Philosophy of Freedom,
are of course
a personal matter; on the other hand, however, this personal
factor is intimately linked with the march of events in
recent decades. The origin of my
The Philosophy of Freedom
and of my Goethe publications is closely
connected with the fact that, up to the end of the eighties I
lived in Austria and then moved to Germany, first to Weimar
and then to Berlin, a connection of course that is purely
external. But when we reflect upon this external connection
we are gradually led, in the light of the facts, if we
apprehend the symptoms aright, to an understanding of the
inner significance. From the historical sketches I have
outlined you will have observed that I am obliged to apply to
life what I call historical symptomatology, that I must
comprehend history as well as individual human lives from out
of their symptoms and manifestations because they are
pointers to the real inner happenings. One must really have
the will to look beyond external facts in order to arrive at
their inner meaning.
Many people
today would like to learn to develop super-sensible vision,
but clairvoyance is difficult to achieve and the majority
would prefer to spare themselves the effort. That is why it
is often the case today that for those naturally endowed with
clairvoyance there is a dichotomy between their external life
and their clairvoyant faculty. Indeed, where this dichotomy
exists super-sensible vision is of little value and is seldom
able to transcend personal factors. Our epoch is an age of
transition. Every epoch, of course, is an age of transition.
It is simply a question of realizing what is transmitted.
Something of importance is transmitted, something that
touches man in his inmost being and is of vital importance
for his inner life. If we examine objectively what the
so-called educated public has pursued the world over in
recent decades, we are left with a sorry picturethe picture
of a humanity that is fast asleep. This is not intended as a
criticism, nor as an invitation to pessimism, but as a
stimulus to awaken in man those forces which will enable him
to attain, at least provisionally, his most important goal,
namely, to develop insight, real insight into things. Our
present age must shed certain illusions and see things as
they really are.
Do not begin by
asking: what must I do, what must others do? For the majority
of people today such questions are inopportune. The important
question is: how do I gain insight into the present
situation? When one has adequate insight, one will follow the
right course. That which must be developed will assuredly be
developed when we have the right insight or understanding.
But this entails a change of outlook. Above all men must
clearly recognize that external events are in reality simply
symptoms of an inner process of evolution occurring in the
field of the super-sensible, a process that embraces not only
historical life, but also every individual, every one of us
in the fullness of our being.
Let me quote
the example of Robert Hamerling
[ Note 1 ]
by way of illustration.
Today we are very proud that we can apply the law of
causality in all kinds of fields; but this is a fatal
illusion. Those who are familiar with Hamerling's life know
how important for his whole inner development was the
following circumstance. After acting for a short time as a
‘supply’ teacher in Graz (i.e. a kind of temporary post
before one is appointed to a permanent position in a
Gymnasium) he was transferred to Trieste. From there he was
able to spend several holidays in Venice. When we recall the
ten years which Hamerling spent on the Adriatic coast —
he divided his time between teaching in Trieste and visiting
Venice — we see how he was fired with ardent enthusiasm
for all that the south could offer him, how he derived
spiritual nourishment for his later poetry from his
experiences there. The real Hamerling, the Hamerling we know,
would have been a different person if he had not spent the
ten years in question in Trieste with the opportunity for
holidays in Venice!
Now supposing
some thoroughly philistine professor is writing a biography
of Hamerling and wanted to know how it was that Hamerling
came to be transferred to Trieste precisely at this decisive
moment in his life, and how a man without means, who was
entirely dependent upon his salary, happened to be
transferred to Trieste at this particular moment. I will give
you the external explanation. Hamerling, as I have said, held
at that time a temporary appointment (he was a supply
teacher, as we say in Austria) at the Gymnasium
[ Note 2 ]
in Graz. These supply teachers are anxious to find a permanent
appointment, and since this is a matter for the authorities,
the applicant for such a post has to send in his various
qualifications — written on one side of the application
form — enclosing testimonials, etcetera. The
application is then forwarded to a higher authority who in
turn forwards it to still higher authorities, etcetera,
etcetera. There is no need to describe the procedure further.
The headmaster of the Gymnasium in Graz where Hamerling
worked as a temporary assistant, was the worthy
Kaltenbrunner. Hamerling heard that there was a vacancy for a
master in Budapest. At that time the Dual Monarchy did not
exist and teachers could be transferred from Graz to Budapest
and from Budapest to Graz. Hamerling applied for the post in
Budapest and handed in his application, written in copper
plate, together with the necessary testimonials to the
headmaster, the worthy Kaltenbrunner, who placed it in a
drawer and forgot all about it. Consequently the post in
Budapest was given to another candidate. Hamerling was not
appointed because Kaltenbrunner had forgotten to forward the
application to the higher authorities, who, if they had not
forgotten to do so, would have forwarded it to their
immediate superiors and these in their turn to their
superiors, etcetera, until it reached the minister, when it
would have been referred back to the lower echelons and have
passed down the bureaucratic ladder. Thus another candidate
was appointed to the post in Budapest, and Hamerling spent
the ten years which were decisive for his life, not in
Budapest, but in Trieste, because sometime later a post feil
vacant here to which he was appointed — and because, of
course, the worthy Kaltenbrunner did not forget Hamerling's
application a second time!
From the
external point of view therefore Kaltenbrunner's negligence
was responsible for the decisive turning point in Hamerling's
life; otherwise Hamerling would have stagnated in Budapest.
This is not intended as a ctiticism of Budapest; but the fact
remains that Budapest would have been a spiritual desert for
Hamerling and he would have been unable to develop his
particular talents. And our biographer would now be able to
tell us how it was that Hamerling had been transferred from
Graz to Trieste — because Kaltenbrunner had simply
overlooked Hamerling's application.
Now this is a
striking incident and one could find countless others of its
kind in life. And he who seeks to measure life by the
yard-stick of external events will scarcely find causes, even
if he believes that he is able to establish causal
relationships, that are more closely connected with their
effects than the negligence of the worthy Kaltenbrunner with
the spiritual development of Robert Hamerling. I make this
observation simply to call your attention to the fact that it
is imperative to implant in the hearts of men this principle:
that external life as it unfolds must be seen simply as a
symptom that reveals its inner meaning.
In my last
lecture I spoke of the forties to the seventies as the
critical period for the bourgeoisie. I pointed out how the
bourgeoisie had been asleep during these critical years and
how the end of the seventies saw the beginning of those
fateful decades which led to our present situation.
[ Note A ]
I spent the first years of these decades in Austria. Now as an
Austrian living in the last third of the nineteenth century
one was in a strange position if one wished to participate in
the cultural life of the time. It is of course easy for me to
throw light on this situation from the standpoint of a young
man who spent his formative years in Austria and who was
German by descent and racial affiliation. To be a German in
Austria is totally different from being a German in the Reich
[ Note B ]
or in Switzerland. One must, of course, endeavour to
understand everything in life and one can understand
everything; one can adapt oneself to everything. But if, for
example, one were to raise the question: what does an
Austro-German feel about the social structure in which he
lives and is it possible for an Austro-German without first
having adapted himself to it, to have any understanding of
that peculiar civic consciousness one finds in Switzerland?
Then the answer to this question must be an emphatic no! The
Austro-German grew up in an environment that makes it totally
impossible for him to understand — unless he forced
himself to do so artificially — that inflexible civic
consciousness peculiar to the Swiss.
But these
national differentiations are seldom taken into account. We
must however give heed to them if we are to understand the
difficult problems in this domain which face us now and in
the immediate future. It was significant that I spent my
formative years in an environment where the most important
things did not really concern me. I would not mention this if
it were not in fact the most important experience of the
true-born German-Austrian. In some it finds expression in one
way, in others in another way. To some extent I lived as a
typical Austrian. From the age of eleven to eighteen I had to
cross twice a day the river Leitha which formed the frontier
between Austria and Hungary since I lived at Neudörfl in
Hungary and attended school in Wiener-Neustadt. It was an
hour's journey on foot and a quarter of an hour's by slow
train — there were no fast trains, nor are there any
today I believe — and each time I had to cross the
frontier. Thus one came to know the two faces of what is
called abroad ‘Austria.’ Formerly things were not so easy in
the Austrian half of the Empire. Today one cannot say things
are easier (that is unlikely), but different. Up till now one
had to distinguish two parts of the Austrian Empire.
Officially one half was called, not Austria, but ‘the
Kingdoms and “lands” represented in the Federal Council’,
i.e. Cis-Leithania,
[ Note 3 ]
which included Galicia, Bohemia,
Silesia, Moravia, Upper and Lower Austria, Salzburg, the
Tyrol, Styria, Carniola, Carinthia, Istria and Dalmatia. The
other half, Trans-Leithania,
[ Note 3 ]
consisted of the ‘lands’ of
the Crown of St. Stephen, i.e. what is called abroad Hungary,
which included also Croatia and Slavonia. Then, after the
eighties, there was the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
occupied up to 1909 and later annexed, which was jointly
administered by the two halves of the Empire.
Now in the area
where I lived, even amongst the most important centres of
interest, I did not find anything which really interested me
between the ages of eleven and eighteen. The first important
landmark was Frohsdorf, a castle inhabited by Count de
Chambord, a member of the Bourbon family, who had made an
unsuccessful attempt in 1871 to ascend the throne of France
under the name of Henry V. There were many other
peculiarities attaching to him. He was an ardent supporter of
clericalism. In him, and in everything associated with him,
one could perceive a world in decline, one could catch the
atmosphere of a world that was crumbling in ruins. There were
many things one saw there, but they were of no interest. And
one felt: here is something which was once considered to be
of the greatest importance and which many today still regard
as immensely important. But in reality it is a bagatelle and
has no particular importance.
The second
thing in the neighbourhood was a Jesuit monastery, a genuine
Jesuit monastery. The monks were called Redemptorists,
[ Note 4 ]
an offshoot of the Jesuits. This monastery was situated not far
from Frohsdorf. One saw the monks perambulating, one learned
of the aims and aspirations of the Jesuits, one heard various
tales about them, but this too was of no interest. And again
one felt: what has all this to do with the future evolution
of mankind? One felt that these monks in their black cowls
were totally unrelated to the real forces which are preparing
man's future development.
The third thing
in the locality where I lived was a masonic lodge. The local
priest used to inveigh against it, but of course the lodge
meant nothing to me for one was not permitted to enter. It is
true the porter allowed me on one occasion to look inside,
but in strict secrecy. On the following Sunday, however, I
again heard the priest fulminating against the lodge. In
Brief, this too was something that did not concern me.
I was therefore
well prepared when I matured and became more aware to be
influenced by things which formerly held no interest for me.
I regard it as very significant and a fortunate dispensation
of my karma that, whilst I had been deeply interested in the
spiritual world in my early years, in fact I lived my early
life on the spiritual plane, I had not been forced by
external circumstances into the classical education of the
Gymnasium. All that one acquires through a humanistic
education I acquired later on my own initiative. At that time
the standard of the Gymnasium education in Austria was not
too bad; it has progressively deteriorated since the
seventies and of recent years has come perilously close to
the educational system of neighbouring states. But looking
back today I am glad that I was not sent to the Gymnasium in
Wiener-Neustadt. I was sent to the Realschule
[ Note 2 ]
and thus came in touch with a teaching that prepared the ground
for a modern way of thinking, a teaching that enabled me to be
closely associated with a scientific outlook. I owed this
association with scientific thinking to the fact that the
best teachers — and they were few and far betweenin the
Austrian Realschule, which was organized on the most modern
lines, were those who were connected in some way with modern
scientific thinking.
This was not
always true of the school in Wiener-Neustadt. In the lower
classes — in the Austrian Realschule religious
instruction was given only in the four lower classes —
we had a teacher of religion who was a very pleasant fellow,
but was quite unfitted to bring us up as devout and pious
Christians. He was a Catholic priest and that he was hardly
fitted to inspire piety in us is shown by the fact that three
young boys who used to call for him everyday after school
were said to be his sons. But I still hold him in high regard
for everything he taught in class apart from his religious
instruction. He imparted this religious instruction in the
following way: he called an a pupil to read a few pages from
a devotional work; then it was set for homework. One did not
understand a word, learned it by heart and received high
marks, but of course one had not the slightest idea of the
contents. His conversation outside the classroom was
sometimes beautiful and stimulating and above all warm and
friendly.
Now in such a
school one passed through the hands of a succession of
teachers of widely different calibre. All this is of
symptomatic significance. We had two Carmelites as teachers,
one was supposed to teach us French, the other English. The
latter in particular scarcely knew a word of English; in fact
he could not string together a complete sentence. In natural
history we had a man who had not the faintest understanding
of God and the world. But we had excellent teachers for
mathematics, physics, chemistry and especially for projective
geometry. And it was they who paved the way for this inner
link with scientific thinking. It is to this scientific
thinking that I owed the impulse which is fundamentally
related to the future aims of mankind today.
When, after
struggling through the Realschule one entered the University,
one could not avoid — unless one was asleeptaking an
interest in public affairs and the world around. Now the
Austro-German — and this is important — arrives
at a knowledge of the German make-up in a totally different
way from the Reich German.
[ Note 5 ]
One could have, for example, a
superficial interest in Austrian state-affairs, but one could
scarcely feel a real inner relationship to them if one were
interested in the evolution of mankind. On the other hand, as
in my own case, one could have recourse to the achievements
of German culture at the end of the eighteenth and at the
beginning of the nineteenth century and to what I should like
to call Goetheanism. As an Austro-German one responds to this
differently from the Reich German. One should not forget that
once one has become inured to the natural scientific outlook
through a modern education one outgrows a certain artificial
milieu which has spread over the whole of Western Austria in
recent time. One outgrows the clerical Catholicism to which
the people of Western Austria only nominally adhere, an
extremely pleasant people for the most part — I exclude
myself of course. This clerical Catholicism has never touched
their lives deeply.
In the form it
has assumed in western Austria this clerical Catholicism is a
product of the Counter-Reformation, of the ‘Hausmacht’ policy
of the Hapsburgs. The ideas and impulses of Protestantism
were fairly widespread in Austria, but the Thirty Years' War
and the events connected with it enabled the Hapsburgs to
initiate a counter Reformation and to impose upon the
extremely gifted and intelligent Austro-German people that
terrible obscurantism, which must be imposed when one
diffuses Catholicism in the form which prevailed in Austria
as a consequence of the Counter Reformation. Consequently
men's relationship to religion and religious issues becomes
extremely superficial. And happiest are those who are still
aware of this superficial relationship. The others who
believe that their faith, their piety is honest and sincere
are unwittingly victims of a monstrous illusion, of a
terrible lie which destroys the inner life of the soul.
With a
Background of natural science it is impossible of course to
come to terms with this frightful psychic mishmash which
invades the soul. But there are always a few isolated
individuals who develop themselves and stand apart from it.
They find themselves driven towards the cultural life which
reached its zenith in Central Europe at the end of the
eighteenth and in the early nineteenth century. They came in
touch with the current of thought which began with Lessing,
was carried forward by Herder, Goethe and the German
Romantics and which in its wider context can be called
Goetheanism.
In these
decades it was of decisive importance for the Austro-German
with spiritual aspirations that — living outside the
folk community to which Lessing, Goethe, Herder etcetera
belonged, and transplanted into a wholly alien environment
over the frontier — he imbibed there the spiritual
perception of Goethe, Schiller, Lessing and Herder. Nothing
else impressed one; one imbibed only the
Weltanschauung of Weimar classicism — and in
this respect one stood apart, isolated and alone. For again
one was surrounded by those phenomena which did not concern
one.
And so one was
associated with something that one gradually felt to be
second nature, something, however, that was uprooted from its
native soil and which one cherished in one's inmost soul in a
community which was interested only in superficialities. For
it was anomalous to cherish Goethean ideas at a time when the
world around was enthusiasticbut the words of enthusiasm were
pompous and artificial, without any suggestion of sincere and
honest endeavourabout such publications (and I could give
other examples) as the book of the then Crown Prince Rudolf
An illustrated history of Austria. The book in fact was the
work of ghost writers. One had no affinity with this trash,
though, it is true, one belonged outwardly to this world of
superficiality. One treasured in one's soul that which was an
expression of the Central European spirit and which in a
wider context I should like to call Goetheanism.
This
Goetheanism, with which I associate the names of Schiller,
Lessing, Herder and also the German philosophers, occupies a
singularly isolated position in the world. And this isolation
is extremely significant for the whole evolution of modern
mankind for it causes those who wish to embark upon a serious
study of Goetheanism to become a little reflective.
Looking back
over the past one asks oneself: what have Lessing, Goethe and
the later German Romantics, approximately up to the middle of
the nineteenth century, contributed to the world? In what
respect is this contribution related to the historical
evolution prior to Lessing's time? Now it is well known that
the emergence of Protestantism out of Catholicism is
intimately connected with the historical evolution of Central
Europe. We see, an the one hand, in Central Europe, in
Germany for example — I have already discussed the same
phenomenon in relation to Austriathe survival of the
universalist impulse of Roman Catholicism. In Austria its
influence was more external, as I have described, in Germany
more inward. Now there is a vast difference between the
Austrian Catholic and the Bavarian Catholic, and many of
these differences which have survived date back to the remote
past. Then came the invasion of Catholic culture by
Protestantism or Lutheranism, which in Switzerland took the
form of Calvinism or Zwinglianism.
[ Note 6 ]
Now a high proportion
of the German people, especially the Reich Germans, was
Lutheran. But strangely enough there is no connection
whatsoever between Lutheranism and Goetheanism! It is true
that Goethe had studied both Lutheranism and Catholicism,
though somewhat superficially. But when one considers the
ferment in Goethe's soul, one can only say that throughout
his life it was a matter of indifference to him whether one
professed Catholicism or Protestantism. Both confessions
could be found in his entourage, but he was in no way
connected with them. To this aperçu the following can be
added. Herder
[ Note 7 ]
was pastor and later General Superintendent
in Weimar. As pastor, of course, he had received much from
Luther externally and was familiar with his teachings; he was
aware that his outlook and thinking had nothing in common
with Lutheranism and that he had entirely outgrown the
Lutheran faith. Thus, in everything associated with
Goetheanism — and I include men such as Herder and
others — we have in this respect a completely isolated
phenomenon. When we enquire into the nature of this isolated
phenomenon we find that Goetheanism is a crystallization of
all kinds of impulses of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch.
Luther did not have the slightest influence on Goethe;
Goethe, however, was influenced by Linnaeus,
[ Note 8 ]
Spinoza and Shakespeare, and on his own admission these three
personalities exercised the greatest influence upon his
spiritual development.
Thus
Goetheanism stands out as an isolated phenomenon and that is
why it can never become popular. For the old entrenched
positions persist; not even the slightest attempt was made to
promote the ideas of Lessing, Schiller, and Goethe amongst
the broad masses of the population, let alone to encourage
the feelings and sentiments of these personalities. Meanwhile
an outmoded Catholicism on the one hand, and an outmoded
Lutheranism on the other hand, lived on as relics from the
past. And it is a significant phenomenon that, within the
cultural stream to which Goethe belonged and which produced a
Goethe, the spiritual activities of the people are influenced
by the sermons preached by the Protestant pastors. Amongst
the latter are a few who are receptive to modern culture, but
that is of no help to them in their sermons. The spiritual
nourishment offered by the church today is antediluvian and
is totally unrelated to the demands of the time; it cannot
lend in any way vitality or vigour. It is associated,
however, with another aspect of our culture, that aspect
which is responsible for the fact that the spiritual life of
the majority of mankind is divorced from reality. Perhaps the
most significant symptom of modern bourgeois philistinism is
that its spiritual life is remote from reality, all its talk
is empty and unreal.
Such phenomena,
however, are usually ignored, but as symptoms they are deeply
significant. You can read the literature of the war-mongers
over recent decades and you will find that Kant is quoted
again and again. In recent weeks many of these war-mongers
have turned pacifist, since peace is now in the offing. But
that is of no consequence; philistines they still remain,
that is the point. The Stresemann
[ Note 9 ]
of today is the same
Stresemann of six weeks ago. And today it is customary to
quote Kant as the ideal of the pacifists. This is quite
unreal. These people have no understanding of the source from
which they claim to have derived their spiritual
nourishment.
That is one of
the most characteristic features of the present time and
accounts for the strange fact that a powerful spiritual
impulse, that of Goetheanism, has met with total
incomprehension. In face of the present catastrophic events
this thought fills us with dismay. When we ask: what will
become of this wave — one of the most important in the
fifth post-Atlantean epoch — given the atmosphere
prevailing in the world today, we are filled with
sadness.
In the light of
this situation the decision to call the centre which wishes
to devote its activities to the most important impulses of
the fifth post-Atlantean epoch the ‘Goetheanum’ irrespective
of the fate which may befall it, has a certain importance.
That this building shall bear the name ‘Goetheanum’ for
many years to come is of no consequence; what is important is
that the thought even existed, the thought of using the name
‘Goetheanum’ in these most difficult times.
Precisely
through the fact I have mentioned to you, Goetheanism in its
isolation could become something of unique importance when
one lived at the aforesaid time in Austria where one's
interests were limited. For if people had understood that
Goetheanism was something which concerned them, the present
catastrophe would not have arisen. This and many other
factors enabled isolated individuals in the German-speaking
areas of Austria — the broad masses live under the heel
of the Catholicism of the CounterReformation — to develop
a deep inner relationship to Goetheanism. I made the
acquaintance of one of these personalities, Karl Julius
Schröer
[ Note 10 ]
who lived and worked in Austria. In every
field in which he worked he was inspired by the Goethe
impulse. History will one day record what men such as Karl
Julius Schröer thought about the political needs of
Austria in the second half of the nineteenth century. These
people who never found a hearing were aware to some extent
how the present situation could have been avoided, but that
it was nevertheless inevitable because no one would listen to
them.
On arriving in
Imperial Germany one had above all the impression, when one
had developed a close spiritual affinity with Goethe, that
there was nowhere any understanding of this affinity. I came
to Weimar in autumn 1889 — I have already described the
pleasing aspects of life in Weimar — but what I
treasured in Goethe (I had already published my first
important book on Goethe) met with little understanding or
sympathy because it was the spiritual element in him that I
valued. Outwardly and inwardly life in Weimar was wholly
divorced from any connection with Goethean impulses. In fact
these Goethean impulses were completely unknown in the widest
circles, especially amongst professors of the history of
literature who lectured on Goethe, Lessing and Herder in the
universities — unknown amongst the philistines who
perpetrated the most atrocious biographies of Goethe. I could
only find consolation for these horrors by reading the
publications of Schröer and the excellent book of Herman
Grimm which I came across relatively early in my life. But
Herman Grimm was never taken seriously by the universities.
They regarded him as a dilettante, not as a serious
scholar.
No genuine
university scholar of course has ever made the effort to take
K. J. Schröer seriously; he is always treated as a
light-weight. I could give many examples of this. But one
should not forget that the literary world with its many
ramifications — including, if I may say so, journalism
— has been under the influence of a bourgeoisie that
has been declining in recent decades, a bourgeoisie which is
fast asleep and which, when it embarks upon spiritual
activities, has no understanding of their real meaning. Under
these circumstances it is impossible of course to arrive at
any understanding of Goetheanism. For Goethe himself is, in
the best sense of the word, the most modern spirit of the
fifth postAtlantean epoch.
Consider for a
moment his unique characteristics. First, his whole
Weltanschauung — which can be raised to a higher
spiritual level than Goethe himself could achieve —
rests upon a solid scientific foundation. At the present time
a firmly established Weltanschauung cannot exist without a
scientific basis. That is why there is a strong scientific
substratum to the book with which I concluded my Goethe
studies in 1897. (The book has now been republished for
reasons similar to those which led to the re-issue of
The Philosophy of Freedom.)
The solid body of philistines said at
that time (it was a time when my books were still reviewed,
the title of the book is
Goethe's Conception of the World
[ Note C ]):
in reality he ought to call it ‘Goethe's conception of
nature.’ The so-called Goethe scholars, the literary
historians, philosophers and the like failed to realize that
it is impossible to present Goethe's Weltanschauung unless it
is firmly anchored in his conception of nature.
A second
characteristic which shows Goethe to be the most modern
spirit of the fifth post-Atlantean age is the way in which
that peculiar spiritual path unfolds within him which leads
from the intuitive perception of nature to art. In studying
Goethe it is most interesting to follow this connection
between perception of nature and artistic activity, between
artistic creation and artistic imagination. One touches upon
thousands of questions — which are not dry, theoretical
questions, but questions instinct with life, when one studies
this strange and peculiar process which always takes place in
Goethe when he observes nature as an artist, but sees it on
that account no less in its reality, and when he works as an
artist in such a way that, to quote his own words, one feels
art to be something akin to the continuation of divine
creation in nature at a higher level.
A third
characteristic typical of Goethe's Weltanschauung is
bis conception of man. He sees him as an integral part of the
universe, as the crowning achievement of the entire universe.
Goethe always strives to see him, not as an isolatcd being,
but imbued with the wisdom that informs nature. For Goethe
the soul of man is the stage on which the spirit of nature
contemplates itself. But these thoughts which are expressed
here in abstract form have countless implications if they are
pursued concretely. And all this constitutes the solid base
on which we can build that which leads to the supreme heights
of spiritual super-sensible perception in the present age. If
one points out today that mankind as a whole has failed to
give serious attention to Goethe — and it has failed in
this respect — has failed to develop any relation ship to
Goetheanism, then it is certainly not in order to criticize,
lecture or reproach mankind as a whole, but simply to invite
them to undertake a serious study of Goetheanism. For to
pursue the path of Goetheanism is to open the doors to an
anthroposophically orientated spiritual science. And without
Anthroposophy the world will not find a way out of the
present catastrophic situation. In many ways the safest
approach to spiritual science is to begin with the study of
Goethe.
All this is
related to something else. I have already pointed out that
this shallow spiritual life which is preached from the pulpit
and which then becomes for many a living lie of which they
are unconscious — all this is outmoded. And
fundamentally the erudition in all the faculties of our
universities is equally outmoded. This erudition becomes an
anomaly where Goetheanism exists alongside it. For a further
characteristic feature of Goethe's personality is his
phenomenal universality. It is true that in various domains
Goethe has sowed only the first seeds, but these seeds can be
cultivated everywhere and when cultivated contain the germ of
something great and grandiose, the great modern impulse which
mankind prefers to ignore, and compared with which modern
university education in its outlook and attitude is
antediluvian. Even though it accepts new discoveries, this
modern university education is out of date. But at the same
time there exists a true life of the spirit, Goetheanism,
which is ignored. In a certain sense Goethe is the
universitas litterarum, the hidden university, and in the
sphere of the spiritual life it is the university education
of today that usurps the throne. Everything that takes place
in the external world and which has led to the present
catastophe is, in the final analysis, the result of what is
taught in our universities. People talk today of this or that
in politics, of certain personalities, of the rise of
socialism, of the good and bad aspects of art, of Bolshevism,
etcetera; they are afraid of what may happen in the future,
they envisage such and such occupying a certain post, and
there are those who six weeks ago said the opposite of what
they say today ... such is the state of affairs. Where does
all this originate? Ultimately in the educational
institutions of the present day. Everything else is of
secondary importance if people fail to see that the axe must
be laid to the tree of modern education. What is the use of
developing endless so-called clever ideas, if people do not
realize where in fact the break with the past must be
made.
I have already
spoken of certain things which did not concern me. I can now
teil you of something else which did not concern me. When I
left the Realschule for the university I entered my name for
different lecture courses and attended various lectures. But
they held no interest for me; one felt that they were quite
out of touch with the impulse of our time. Without wishing to
appear conceited I must confess that I had a certain sympathy
for that universitas, Goetheanism, because Goethe
also found that his university education held little interest
for him. And at the royal university of Leipzig in the (then)
Kingdom of Saxony, and again at Strasbourg university in
later years, he took virtually no interest in the lectures he
attended. And yet everything, even the quintessence of the
artistic in Goethe rests upon the solid foundation of a
rigorous observation of nature. In spite of all university
education he gradually became familiar with the most modern
impulses, even in the sphere of knowledge. When we speak of
Goetheanism we must not lose sight of this. And this is what
I should have liked to bring to men's attention in my Goethe
studies and in my book
Goethe's Conception of the World.
I should have liked to make them aware of the
real Goethe. But the time for this was not ripe; to a large
extent the response was lacking. As I mentioned recently the
first indications were visible in Weimar where the soil was
to some extent favourable. But nothing fruitful came of it.
Those who were already in entrenched positions barred the way
to those who could have brought a new creative impulse. If
the modern age were imbued in some small measure with
Goetheanism, it would long for spiritual science, for
Goetheanism prepares the ground for the reception of
spiritual science. Then Goetheanism would again become a
means whereby a real regeneration of mankind today could be
achieved. One cannot afford to take a superficial view of our
present age.
After my
lecture in Basel yesterday
[ Note D ]
I felt that no honest scientist
could deny what I had to say on the subject of super-sensible
knowledge if he were prepared to face the facts. There are no
logical grounds for rejecting spiritual knowledge; the real
cause for rejection is to be found in that barbarism which in
all regions of the civilized world is responsible for the
present catastrophe. It is profoundly symbolic that a few
years ago a Goethe society had nothing better to do than to
appoint as president a former finance minister — a
typical example of men's remoteness from what they profess to
honour. This finance minister who, as I said recently, bears,
perhaps symptomatically, the Christian name ‘Kreuzwendedich’
believes of course, in his fond delusion, that he pays homage
to Goethe. With a background of modern education he has no
idea and can have no idea how far, how infinitely far removed
he is from the most elementary understanding of
Goetheanism.
The climate of
the present epoch is unsuited to a deeper understanding of
Goetheanism. For Goetheanism has no national affiliation, it
is not something specifically German. It draws nourishment
from Spinoza, from Shakespeare, from Linnaeus — none of
whom is of German origin. Goethe himself admitted that these
three personalities exercised a profound influence upon
him — and in this he was not mistaken. (He who knows
Goethe recognizes how justified this admission is.)
Goetheanism could determine men's thinking, their religious
life, every branch of science, the social forms of community
life, the political life ... it could reign supreme
everywhere. But the world today listens to windbags such as
Eucken
[ Note 11 ]
or
Bergson
[ Note 11 ]
and the like ... (I say nothing of the
political babblers, for in this realm today adjective and
substantive are almost identical).
What we have
striven for here — and which will arouse such intense
hatred in the future that its realization is problematical,
especially at the present time — is a living protest
against the alienation of spiritual life today from reality.
And this protest is best expressed by saying: what we wanted
to realize here is a Goetheanum. When we speak here of a
Goetheanum we bear witness to the most important
characteristics and also to the most important demands of our
time. And amid the philistine world of today this Goetheanum
at least has been willed and should tower above this present
world that claims to be civilized.
Of course, if
the wishes of many contemporaries had been fulfilled, one
could perhaps say that it would have been more sensible to
speak of a Wilsonianum,
[ Note 12 ]):
for that is the flag under which the
present epoch sails. And it is to Wilsonism that the world at
the present time is prepared to submit and probaly will
submit.
Now it may seem
strange to say that the sole remedy against Wilsonism is
Goetheanism. Those who claim to know better come along and
say: the man who talks like this is a utopian, a visionary.
But who are these people who coin this phrase: he is an
innocent abroad — who are they? Why, none other than
those worldly men who are responsible for the present state
of affairs, who always imagined themselves to be essentially
‘practical’ men. It is they of course who refuse to listen to
words of profound truth, namely, that Wilsonism will bring
sickness upon the world, and in all domains of life the world
will be in need of a remedy and this remedy will be
Goetheanism.
Permit me to
conclude with a personal observation on the interpretation of my book
Goethe's Conception of the World
which has
now appeared in a second edition. Through a strange
concatenation of circumstances the book has not yet arrived;
one is always ready to make allowances, especially at the
present time. It was suggested by men of ‘practical’
experience some time ago, months ago in fact, that my books
The Philosophy of Freedom
and
Goethe's Conception of the World
should be forwarded here direct
from the printers and so avoid going via Berlin and arrive
here more quickly. One would have thought that those who
proffered this advice were knowledgeable in these matters. I
was informed that
The Philosophy of Freedom
had been despatched, but after weeks and weeks had not arrived. For
some time people had been able to purchase copies in Berlin.
None was to be had here because somewhere on the way the
matter had been in the hands of the ‘practical’ people and we
unpractical people were not supposed to interfere. What had
happened? The parcel had been handed in by the ‘practical’
people of the firm who had been told to send it to Dornach
near Basel. But the gentleman responsible for the despatch
said to himself: Dornach near Basel; that is in Alsace, for
there is a Dornach there which is also near Basel ... there
is no need to pay foreign postage, German stamps will
suffice. And so, on ‘practical’ instructions the parcel went
to Dornach in Alsace where, of course, they had no idea what
to do with it. The matter had to be taken up by the
unpractical people here. Finally, after long delays when the
‘practical’ gentleman had satisfied himself that Dornach near
Basel is not Dornach in Alsace,
The Philosophy of Freedom
arrived. Whether the other book,
Goethe's Conception of the World,
instead of being sent from
Stuttgart to Dornach near Basel has been sent by some
‘practical’ person via the North Pole, to arrive finally in
Dornach after travelling round the globe, I cannot say. In
any case, this is only one example that we have experienced
personally of the ‘practical’ man's contribution to the
practical affairs of daily life.
This is what I
was first able to undertake personally in a realm that lay
close to my heart — more through external circumstances
than through my own inclination — in order to be of
service to the epoch. And when I consider what was the
purpose of my various books, which are born of the impulse of
the time, I believe that these books answer the demands of
our epoch in widely divergent fields. They have taught me how
powerful have been the forces in recent decades acting
against the Spirit of the age. However much in their
ruthlessness people may believe that they can achieve their
aims by force, the fact remains that nothing in reality can
be enforced which runs counter to the impulses of the time.
Many things which are in keeping with the impulses of the
time can be delayed; but if they are delayed they will later
find scope for expression, perhaps under another name and in
a totally different context. I believe that these two books,
amongst other things, can show how, by observing one's age,
one can be of service to it. One can serve one's age in every
way, in the simplest and most humble activities. One must
simply have the courage to take up Goetheanism which exists
as a Universitas liberarum scientiarum alongside the
antediluvian university that everyone admires today, the
socialists of the extreme left most of all.
It might easily
appear as if these remarks are motivated by personal
animosity and therefore I always hesitate to express them.
One is of course a target for the obvious accusation
— ‘Aha, this fellow abuses universities because he
failed to become a university professor!’ ... One must put
up with this facile criticism when it is necessary to show
that those who advocate this or that from a political,
scientific, political-economic or confessional point of view
of some kind or other fail to put their finger an the real
malady of our time. Only those point to the real malady who
draw attention to the pernicious dogma of infallibility
which, through the fatal concurrence of mankind has led to
the surrender of everything to the present domination of
science, to those centres of official science where the weeds
grow abundantly, alongside a few healthy plants of course. I
am not referring to a particular individual or particular
university professor (any more than when I speak of states or
nations I am referring to a particular state or nation)
— they may be excellent people, that is not the point.
The really important question is the nature of the
system.
And how serious
this situation is, is shown by the fact that the technical
colleges which have begun to lose a little of their natural
character now assume university airs and so have Bone rapidly
downhill and become corrupted by idleness.
I want you to
consider the criticisms I have made today as a kind of
interlude in our anthroposophical discussions. But I think
that the present epoch offers such a powerful challenge to
our thoughts and sentiments in this direction that these
enquiries must be undertaken by us especially because,
unfortunately, they will not be undertaken elsewhere.
Our present age
is still very far removed from Goetheanism, which certainly
does not imply studying the life and works of Goethe alone.
Our epoch sorely needs to turn to Goetheanism in all spheres
of life. This may sound utopian and impractical, but it is
the most practical answer at the present time. When the
different spheres of life are founded an Goetheanism we shall
achieve something totally different from the single
achievement of the bourgeoisie todayrationalism. He who is
grounded in Goetheanism will assuredly find his way to
spiritual science. This is what one would like to inscribe in
letters of fire in the souls of men today.
This has been
my aim for decades. But much of what I have said from the
depths of my heart and which was intended to be of service to
the age has been received by my contemporaries as an edifying
Sunday afternoon sermonfor in reality those who are happy in
their cultural sleep ask nothing more. We must seek
concretely to discover what the epoch demands, what is
necessary for our age — this is what mankind so
urgently needs today. And above all we must endeavour to gain
insight into this, for today insight is all important. Amidst
the vast confusion of our time, a confusion that will soon
become worse confounded, it is futile to ask: what must the
individual do? What he must do first and foremost is to
strive for insight and understanding so that the
infallibility in the domain that I referred to today is
directed into the right channel.
My book
Goethe's Conception of the World
was written
specially in order to show that in the sphere of knowledge
there are two streams today: a decadent stream which everyone
admires, and another stream which contains the most fertile
seeds for the future, and which everyone avoids. In recent
decades men have suffered many painful experiences —
and often through their own fault. But they should realize
that they have suffered most — and worse is still to
follow — at the hands of their schoolmasters of whom
they are so proud. It appears that mankind must needs pass
through the experiences which they have to undergo at the
hands of the world schoolmaster, for they have contrived in
the end to set up a schoolmaster as world organizer. Those
windbags who have persuaded the world with their academic
twaddle are now joined by another who proposes to set the
world to right with empty academic rhetoric.
I have no wish
to be pessimistic. These words are spoken in order to awaken
those impulses which will answer Wilsonism with Goetheanism.
They are not inspired by any kind of national sentiment, for
Goethe himself was certainly not a nationalist; his genius
was universal. The world must be preserved from the havoc
that would follow if Wilsonism were to replace Goetheanism!
Translator's Notes:
Note A:
i.e. the war of 1914–18
Note B:
i.e. Imperial Germany.
Note C:
Anthroposophical Publishing Co., London and Anthroposophic
Press, New York, 1928.
Note D:
Rechtfertigung der übersinnlichen Erkenntnis durch die
Naturwissenschaft, 31st October, 1918 (see Bibl. Nr. 72).
|