Goethe's Conception of the World
GA 6
Foreword to the First Edition
[ 1 ] The thoughts expressed in this book are intended to set forth the fundamental principles which I have observed in Goethe's conception of the world. In the course of many years I have studied again and again what is presented by this world-conception. It especially fascinated me to contemplate the revelations which Nature had made in regard to her laws and her being to Goethe's delicate organs of sense and of spirit. I learnt to understand why it was that Goethe treasured these revelations so highly that he sometimes accounted them of more value than his poetic genius. I entered into the feelings that flowed through Goethe's soul when he said that “nothing induces us to think about ourselves so intensely as when we see after long intervals, highly significant objects or striking scenes in Nature and compare the impression remaining with the present effect. Then we shall notice, on the whole, that the object stands out in greater relief; that if we previously experienced joy and sorrow, serenity and distraction in contemplating the objects, we now, with controlled egoism, recognise their claim that their characteristics and qualities, in so far as we penetrate them, shall be understood and prized in a higher degree. The artistic eye affords the former way of perceiving; the latter befits the investigator of Nature, and although at the beginning it was not without a certain pain, I could not but ultimately account it a happy circumstance that, whereas the one sense threatened gradually to abandon me, the other developed in eye and mind with all the greater power.”
We must acquaint ourselves with the impressions made upon Goethe by the phenomena of Nature if we would understand the full import of his poems. The secrets he learned by listening to the being and becoming of Creation live in the Poet's artistic productions and become intelligible only to those who pay attention to what he says in reference to Nature. Those who know nothing about Goethe's observations of Nature cannot fathom the depths of his art.
[ 2 ] These were the feelings that prompted me to concern myself with Goethe's Nature studies. First of all they afforded opportunity for the maturing of the ideas which more than ten years previously I had expressed in the volumes of Kürschner's Deutsche Nationalliteratur. What I then began, in the first, I have elaborated in the three following volumes of Goethe's Natural Scientific Writings, the last of which has just been published. I was prompted by the same feelings when, several years ago, I undertook the pleasant task of supervising the publication of some of Goethe's Natural Scientific writings for the great Weimar edition. The thoughts I brought to this work and those which I worked out while engaged on it form the content of this present book. I am able to say in the fullest sense of the word that this content has been a matter of experience with me. I have tried to approach Goethe's ideas from many starting-points. I have called forth all the opposition to his world-conception that was slumbering within me in order to preserve my own individuality in the presence of the power of his unique personality. And the more my own self-achieved world-conception developed, the more was I convinced that I understood Goethe. I tried to find a light which should also illumine certain spaces in Goethe's soul that were obscure even to himself. I wanted to find between the lines of his writings, elements which would make him fully intelligible to me. I tried to discover forces that dominated his spirit, of which he, however, was not himself conscious. I wanted to penetrate into the essential qualities and tendencies of his soul.
[ 3 ] When it is a question of a psychological study of a personality, our age likes to leave ideas in a mystical semi-obscurity. Clarity and definite thought in such matters is nowadays regarded as prosaic intellectualism. It is considered more ‘profound’ to speak of the one-sided mystical depths of soul life, of daemonic forces within the personality. I must confess that, to me, this enthusiasm for mistaken mystical psychology is superficial. It exists in men whom the content of the world of ideas leaves unmoved. They are incapable of fathoming the depths of this content and do not sense the warmth that streams from it. They therefore seek this warmth in vagueness. A man who is able to enter the luminous spheres of the world of pure thought experiences therein something that is nowhere else to be found. Personalities like that of Goethe can only be understood when one is able to lay hold of the ideas which dominate them in all their clarity. Those who love a pseudo-mysticism in psychology may perhaps find my mode of thinking cold. Is it to my discredit that I cannot identify real profundity with obscurity and indefiniteness? I have tried to present the ideas which dominated Goethe as living forces in all the purity and clarity in which they appeared to me. It is possible that the lines and colouring which I have adopted may seem to many to be too simple. I am, however, of opinion that we best characterise greatness when we attempt to portray it in all its monumental simplicity. Flourishes and ornamentations only confuse perception. The essential thing to me, so far as Goethe is concerned, is not the mass of secondary thoughts induced in him by some relatively unimportant experience, but the fundamental trend and direction of his mind. Even if here and there this mind may strike bye-paths, one main direction is always present, and it is this that I have tried to follow. If there are people who think that the regions which I have traversed are icy cold, I can only say to them that they have surely left their hearts behind them.
[ 4 ] If I am reproached with describing only those aspects of Goethe's view of the world to which my own thinking and feeling lead me, I can make no other reply than that I only wish to regard another personality as it appears to me in accordance with my own being. I do not place great value on the objectivity of exponents who are willing to efface themselves when they are describing the ideas of others. I believe that they can only give us lifeless, colourless pictures. A conflict always lies at the basis of every true presentation of another's world-conception; and one who is wholly conquered will not be the best exponent. The other power must compel respect but one's own weapons must perform their task. I have therefore stated unreservedly that in my view there are limitations to the Goethean mode of thought; there are regions of knowledge which have remained closed to it. I have indicated the direction which observation of world phenomena must take if it would penetrate to those regions which Goethe did not enter, or around which he wandered with uncertain feet when he ventured into them. Interesting as it is to follow the paths of a great mind, I only want to follow anyone so far as he furthers me. What is of value is life, self-activity, not contemplation or knowledge. The historian pure and simple is weak and powerless. Historical cognition saps the energy and elasticity of individual activity. A man who wants to understand everything will in himself be of little account. Goethe has said that only what is fruitful is true. To the extent to which Goethe is fruitful for our age—to that extent ought we to penetrate his world of thought and perception. And I think that the following exposition will show that innumerable, as yet undiscovered treasures lie hidden in his world of thought and feeling. I have indicated where modern science has remained behind Goethe. I have spoken of the poverty of the modern world of ideas and have held up in contrast to it the wealth and abundance of that of Goethe. In Goethe's thought there are germs which modern natural science ought to bring to maturity. His mode of thought might well be a model for modern natural science which has at its disposal a greater abundance of material for observation than he had. It has, however, permeated this material with meagre, inadequate concepts only. I hope that my exposition will show how little the modern scientific mode of thought is qualified to criticise Goethe and how much it could learn from him.
RUDOLF STEINER
Vorrede zur 1. Ausgabe
[ 1 ] Die Gedanken, die ich in diesem Buche ausspreche, sollen die Grundlage festhalten, die ich in der Weltanschauung Goethes beobachtet habe. Im Lauf vieler Jahre habe ich immer wieder und wieder das Bild dieser Weltanschauung betrachtet. Besonderen Reiz hatte es für mich, nach den Offenbarungen zu sehen, welche die Natur über ihr Wesen und ihre Gesetze den feinen Sinnes- und Geistesorganen Goethes gemacht hat. Ich lernte begreifen, warum Goethe diese Offenbarungen als so hohes Glück empfand, daß er sie zuweilen höher schätzte als seine Dichtungsgabe. Ich lebte mich in die Empfindungen ein, die durch Goethes Seele zogen, wenn er sagte, daß «wir durch nichts so sehr veranlaßt werden über uns selbst zu denken, als wenn wir höchst bedeutende Gegenstände, besonders entschiedene charakteristische Naturszenen, nach langen Zwischenräumen endlich wiedersehen und den zurückgebliebenen Eindruck mit der gegenwärtigen Einwirkung vergleichen. Da werden wir denn im ganzen bemerken, daß das Objekt immer mehr hervortritt, daß, wenn wir uns früher an den Gegenständen empfanden, Freud und Leid, Heiterkeit und Verwirrung auf sie übertrugen, wir nunmehr bei gebändigter Selbstigkeit ihnen das gebührende Recht widerfahren lassen, ihre Eigenheiten zu erkennen und ihre Eigenschaften sofern wir sie durchdringen, in einem höhern Grade zu schätzen wissen. Jene Art des Anschauens gewährt der künstlerische Blick, diese eignet sich dem Naturforscher, und ich mußte mich, zwar anfangs nicht ohne Schmerzen, zuletzt doch glücklich preisen, daß, indem jener Sinn mich nach und nach zu verlassen drohte, dieser sich in Aug' und Geist desto kräftiger entwickelte.» Die Eindrücke, welche Goethe von den Erscheinungen der Natur empfangen hat, muß man kennen, wenn man den vollen Gehalt seiner Dichtungen verstehen will. Die Geheimnisse, die er dem Wesen und Werden der Schöpfung abgelauscht hat, leben in seinen künstlerischen Erzeugnissen und werden nur demjenigen offenbar, der hinhorcht auf die Mitteilungen, die der Dichter über die Natur macht. Der kann nicht in die Tiefen der Goetheschen Kunst hinuntertauchen, dem Goethes Naturbeobachtungen unbekannt sind.
[ 2 ] Solche Empfindungen drängten mich zu der Beschäftigung mit Goethes Naturstudien. Sie ließen zunächst die Ideen reifen, die ich vor mehr als zehn Jahren in Kürschners «Deutscher Nationallitteratur» mitteilte. Was ich damals in dem ersten anfing, habe ich ausgebaut in den drei folgenden Bänden der naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften Goethes, von denen der letzte in diesen Tagen vor die Öffentlichkeit tritt. Dieselben Empfindungen leiteten mich, als ich vor mehreren Jahren die schöne Aufgabe übernahm, einen Teil der naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften Goethes für die große Weimarische Goethe-Ausgabe zu besorgen. Was ich an Gedanken zu dieser Arbeit mitgebracht und was ich während derselben ersonnen habe, bildet den Inhalt des vorliegenden Buches. Ich darf diesen Inhalt als erlebt im vollsten Sinne des Wortes bezeichnen. Von vielen Ausgangspunkten aus habe ich mich den Ideen Goethes zu nähern gesucht. Allen Widerspruch, der in mir gegen Goethes Anschauungsweise schlummerte, habe ich aufgerufen, um gegenüber der Macht dieser einzigen Persönlichkeit die eigene Individualität zu wahren. Und je mehr ich meine eigene, selbst erkämpfte Weltanschauung ausbildete, desto mehr glaubte ich Goethe zu verstehen. Ich versuchte ein Licht zu finden, das auch die Räume in Goethes Seele durchleuchtet, die ihm selbst dunkel geblieben sind. Zwischen den Zeilen seiner Werke wollte ich lesen, was mir ihn ganz verständlich machen sollte. Die Kräfte seines Geistes, die ihn beherrschten, deren er sich aber nicht selbst bewußt wurde, suchte ich zu entdecken. Die wesentlichen Charakterzüge seiner Seele wollte ich durchschauen.
[ 3 ] Unsere Zeit liebt es, die Ideen da, wo von psychologischer Betrachtung einer Persönlichkeit die Rede ist, in einem mystischen Halbdunkel zu lassen. Die gedankliche Klarheit in solchen Dingen wird gegenwärtig als nüchterne Verstandesweisheit verachtet. Man glaubt tiefer zu dringen, wenn man von einseitig mystischen Abgründen des Seelenlebens, von dämonischen Gewalten innerhalb der Persönlichkeit spricht. Ich muß gestehen, daß mir diese Schwärmerei für verfehlte mystische Psychologie als Oberflächlichkeit erscheint. Sie ist bei Menschen vorhanden, in denen der Inhalt der Ideenwelt keine Empfindungen erzeugt. Sie können in die Tiefen dieses Inhaltes nicht hinabsteigen, sie fühlen die Wärme nicht, die von ihm ausströmt. Deshalb suchen sie diese Wärme in der Unklarheit. Wer imstande ist, sich einzuleben in die hellen Sphären der reinen Gedankenwelt, der empfindet in ihnen das, was er sonst nirgends empfinden kann. Persönlichkeiten wie die Goethes kann man nur erkennen, wenn man die Ideen, von denen sie beherrscht sind, in ihrer lichten Klarheit in sich aufzunehmen vermag. Wer eine falsche Mystik in der Psychologie liebt, wird vielleicht meine Betrachtungsweise kalt finden. Ob es aber meine Schuld ist, daß ich das Dunkle und Unbestimmte nicht mit dem Tiefsinnigen für ein und dasselbe halten kann? So rein und klar, wie mir die Ideen erschienen sind, die in Goethe als wirksame Kräfte gewaltet haben, versuche ich sie darzustellen. Vielleicht findet auch mancher die Linien, die ich gezogen habe, die Farben, die ich aufgetragen habe, zu einfach. Ich meine aber, daß man das Große am besten charakterisiert, wenn man es in seiner monumentalen Einfachheit darzustellen versucht. Die kleinen Schnörkel und Anhängsel verwirren nur die Betrachtung. Nicht auf nebensächliche Gedanken, zu denen er durch dieses oder jenes Erlebnis von untergeordneter Bedeutung veranlaßt worden ist, kommt es mir bei Goethe an, sondern auf die Grundrichtung seines Geistes. Mag dieser Geist auch da und dort Seitenwege ein schlagen: eine Haupttendenz ist immer zu erkennen. Und sie habe ich zu verfolgen gesucht. Wer da meint, daß die Regionen, durch die ich gegangen bin, eisig sind, von dem meine ich, er habe sein Herz zu Hause gelassen.
[ 4 ] Will man mir den Vorwurf machen, daß ich nur diejenigen Seiten der Goetheschen Weltanschauung schildere, auf die mich mein eigenes Denken und Empfinden weist, so kann ich nichts erwidern, als daß ich eine fremde Persönlichkeit nur so ansehen will, wie sie mir nach meiner eigenen Wesenheit erscheinen muß. Die Objektivität derjenigen Darsteller, die sich selbst verleugnen wollen, wenn sie fremde Ideen schildern, schätze ich nicht hoch. Ich glaube, sie kann nur matte und farbenblasse Bilder malen. Ein Kampf liegt jeder wahren Darstellung einer fremden Weltanschauung zu Grunde. Und der völlig besiegte wird nicht der beste Darsteller sein. Die fremde Macht muß Achtung erzwingen; aber die eigenen Waffen müssen ihren Dienst tun. Ich habe deshalb rückhaltlos ausgesprochen, daß nach meiner Ansicht die Goethesche Denkweise Grenzen hat. Daß es Erkenntnisgebiete gibt, die ihr verschlossen geblieben sind. Ich habe gezeigt, welche Richtung die Beobachtung der Welterscheinungen nehmen muß, wenn sie in die Gebiete dringen will, die Goethe nicht betreten hat, oder auf denen er, wenn er sich in sie begeben hat, unsicher herumgeirrt ist. So interessant es ist, einem großen Geiste auf seinen Wegen zu folgen; ich möchte jedem nur so weit folgen, als er mich selbst fördert. Denn nicht die Betrachtung, die Erkenntnis, sondern das Leben, die eigene Tätigkeit ist das Wertvolle. Der reine Historiker ist ein schwacher, ein unkräftiger Mensch. Die historische Erkenntnis raubt die Energie und Spannkraft des eigenen Wirkens. Wer alles verstehen will, wird selbst wenig sein. Was fruchtbar ist, allein ist wahr, hat Goethe gesagt. Soweit Goethe für unsere Zeit fruchtbar ist, soweit soll man sich in seine Gedanken- und Empfindungswelt einleben. Und ich glaube, aus der folgenden Darstellung wird hervorgehen, daß unzählige noch ungehobene Schätze in dieser Gedanken- und Empfindungswelt verborgen liegen. Ich habe auf die Stellen hingedeutet, an denen die moderne Wissenschaft hinter Goethe zurückgeblieben ist. Ich habe von der Armut der gegenwärtigen Ideenwelt gesprochen und ihr den Reichtum und die Fülle der Goetheschen entgegengehalten. In Goethes Denken sind Keime, welche die moderne Naturwissenschaft zur Reife bringen sollte. Für sie könnte dieses Denken vorbildlich sein. Sie hat einen größeren Beobachtungsstoff als Goethe. Aber sie hat diesen Stoff nur mit spärlichem und unzureichendem Ideengehalt durchsetzt. Ich hoffe, daß aus meinen Ausführungen hervorgeht, wie wenig Eignung die moderne naturwissenschaftliche Denkweise dazu besitzt, Goethe zu kritisieren, und wie viel sie von ihm lernen könnte.
Rudolf Steiner
Preface to the 1st edition
[ 1 ] The thoughts that I express in this book are intended to capture the basis that I have observed in Goethe's world view. Over the course of many years, I have looked at the picture of this world view again and again. I was particularly fascinated by the revelations that nature made to Goethe's fine sensory and spiritual organs about its essence and its laws. I learned to understand why Goethe regarded these revelations as such great happiness that he sometimes valued them more highly than his gift for poetry. I empathized with the feelings that ran through Goethe's soul when he said that "nothing causes us to think so much about ourselves as when, after long intervals, we finally see again highly significant objects, especially strikingly characteristic scenes of nature, and compare the impression left behind with the present impression. We shall then notice, on the whole, that the object becomes more and more prominent, that if we formerly felt ourselves in the objects, transferred joy and sorrow, mirth and confusion to them, we now, with subdued independence, do them their due justice, recognize their peculiarities, and appreciate their qualities to a higher degree as far as we penetrate them. That way of seeing is afforded by the artistic eye, this is suited to the naturalist, and I had to praise myself, not without pain at first, but happily at last, that, while that sense threatened to leave me little by little, this one developed all the more vigorously in my eyes and mind." The impressions which Goethe received from the phenomena of nature must be known if the full content of his poetry is to be understood. The secrets that he eavesdropped on the nature and development of creation live in his artistic products and are only revealed to those who listen to the poet's messages about nature. He who is unfamiliar with Goethe's observations of nature cannot dive into the depths of Goethe's art.
[ 2 ] Such feelings urged me to occupy myself with Goethe's studies of nature. They initially allowed the ideas that I shared more than ten years ago in Kürschner's "German National Literature" to mature. What I began then in the first one, I have expanded in the three following volumes of Goethe's natural scientific writings, the last of which is currently being published. The same sentiments guided me when, several years ago, I took on the wonderful task of compiling a part of Goethe's scientific writings for the great Weimar Goethe edition. The thoughts I brought with me to this work and what I conceived during it form the content of the present book. I may describe this content as experienced in the fullest sense of the word. I have tried to approach Goethe's ideas from many starting points. I have called up all the contradictions that lay dormant in me against Goethe's way of looking at things in order to preserve my own individuality in the face of the power of this single personality. And the more I developed my own, self-won world view, the more I believed I understood Goethe. I tried to find a light that would also illuminate the spaces in Goethe's soul that remained dark to him. I wanted to read between the lines of his works, which would make him completely understandable to me. I wanted to discover the forces of his mind that dominated him but of which he himself was not aware. I wanted to see through the essential traits of his soul.
[ 3 ] Our time loves to leave ideas in a mystical semi-darkness where there is talk of psychological observation of a personality. Clarity of thought in such matters is currently despised as sober intellectual wisdom. One believes to penetrate deeper when one speaks of one-sided mystical abysses of the soul life, of demonic forces within the personality. I must confess that this enthusiasm for misguided mystical psychology seems superficial to me. It is present in people in whom the content of the world of ideas does not generate any sensations. They cannot descend into the depths of this content, they do not feel the warmth that emanates from it. Therefore they seek this warmth in obscurity. Those who are able to settle into the bright spheres of the pure world of thought feel in them what they cannot feel anywhere else. You can only recognize personalities like Goethe's if you are able to absorb the ideas that dominate them in their bright clarity. Those who love a false mysticism in psychology will perhaps find my way of looking at things cold. But is it my fault that I cannot regard the dark and indeterminate as one and the same with the profound? As pure and clear as the ideas that have appeared to me as active forces in Goethe, I try to portray them. Perhaps some may find the lines I have drawn, the colors I have applied, too simple. But I think that the best way to characterize the great is to try to depict it in its monumental simplicity. The little flourishes and appendages only confuse the viewer. What matters to me in Goethe is not the incidental thoughts to which he was prompted by this or that experience of secondary importance, but the basic direction of his spirit. This spirit may also take side paths here and there: a main tendency can always be recognized. And I have tried to follow it. Whoever thinks that the regions through which I have passed are icy, I think he has left his heart at home.
[ 4 ] If I am accused of only describing those aspects of Goethe's view of the world to which my own thoughts and feelings point me, I can only reply that I only wish to view a foreign personality as it must appear to me according to my own nature. I do not value the objectivity of those actors who want to deny themselves when they portray foreign ideas. I believe they can only paint dull and colorless pictures. A struggle underlies every true depiction of a foreign world view. And the completely defeated one will not be the best actor. The foreign power must compel respect; but one's own weapons must do their duty. I have therefore stated unreservedly that, in my opinion, Goethe's way of thinking has its limits. That there are areas of knowledge which have remained closed to it. I have shown what direction the observation of world phenomena must take if it is to penetrate into areas which Goethe did not enter, or in which, when he did enter, he wandered uncertainly. As interesting as it is to follow a great mind on its paths, I would like to follow each one only as far as it encourages me. For it is not the contemplation, the knowledge, but the life, one's own activity that is valuable. The pure historian is a weak, ineffective person. Historical knowledge robs us of the energy and vigor of our own work. He who wants to understand everything will be little himself. Goethe said that only what is fruitful is true. Insofar as Goethe is fruitful for our time, we should immerse ourselves in his world of thought and feeling. And I believe that it will become clear from the following account that countless as yet untapped treasures lie hidden in this world of thought and feeling. I have pointed out the places where modern science has lagged behind Goethe. I have spoken of the poverty of the present world of ideas and contrasted it with the richness and abundance of Goethe's world. There are seeds in Goethe's thinking that modern science should bring to maturity. This thinking could be exemplary for it. It has more observational material than Goethe. But it has only interspersed this material with sparse and inadequate ideas. I hope that my remarks will show how little aptitude modern scientific thinking has for criticizing Goethe, and how much it could learn from him.