Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Kingdom of Childhood
GA 311

12 August 1924, Torquay

Lecture I

It affords me the deepest satisfaction to find that here in England you are ready to consider founding a school on Anthroposophical lines.1“The New School,” Streatham Hill, London, S.W.16, was opened in January 1925. In 1935 the name was changed to “Michael Hall.” In 1945 the school was moved to Kidbrooke Park, Forest Row, Sussex. This may truly signify a momentous and incisive event in the history of Education. In pronouncing such words as these one may well be accused of lack of humility, but there really is something very special underlying all that is to come about for the Art of Education as based on Anthroposophy. And I am overjoyed that an impulse has arisen to form the first beginnings of a College of Teachers, teachers who from the depths of their hearts do indeed recognise the very special quality of what we call Anthroposophical Education. It is no fanatical idea of reform that prompts us to speak of a renewal in educational life, but we are urged to do so out of our whole feeling and experience of how mankind is evolving in civilisation and cultural life.

In speaking thus we are fully aware of the immense amount that has been done for education by distinguished persons in the course of the nineteenth century, and especially in the last few decades. But although all this was undertaken with the very best intentions and every possible method has been tried, we are bound to state that a real knowledge of the human being was lacking. These ideas about education arose at a time when no real knowledge of man was possible owing to the materialism that prevailed in all departments of life and indeed had done so since the fifteenth century. When, therefore, people expounded their ideas on educational reform they were building on sand or on something even less stable; rules of education were laid down based on all sorts of emotions and opinions as to what life ought to be. It was impossible to know man in his wholeness and to ask the question: How can we bring to revelation in a man what lies, god-given, within his nature after he has descended from pre-earthly life into earthly life? This is the kind of question which can be raised in an abstract way, but which can only be answered concretely on the basis of a true knowledge of man in body, soul and spirit.

Now this is how the matter stands for present-day humanity. The knowledge of the body is highly developed. By means of Biology, Physiology and Anatomy we have acquired a very advanced knowledge of the human body; but as soon as we wish to acquire a knowledge of the soul, we, with our present-day views, are confronted with a complete impasse, for everything relating to the soul is merely a name, a word. For even with regard to such things as thinking, feeling and willing we find no reality in the ordinary Psychology of today. We still use the words thinking, feeling and willing, but there is no conception of what takes place in the soul in reference to these things. What the so-called psychologists have to say about thinking, feeling and willing is in reality mere dilettantism. It is just as though a physiologist were to speak in a general way of the human lungs or liver, making no distinction between the liver of a child and that of an old person. In the science of the body we are very far advanced. No physiologist would fail to note the difference between the lungs of a child and the lungs of an old man, or indeed between the hair of a child and the hair of an old man. He will note all these differences. But thinking, feeling and willing are mere words which are uttered without conveying any sense of reality. For instance it is not known that willing, as it appears in the soul, is young, while thinking is old; that in fact thinking is willing grown old, and willing is a youthful thinking in the soul. Thus everything pertaining to the soul contains youthfulness and old age, existing in man simultaneously.

Naturally, even in the soul of a young child we have the old thinking and the young willing together at the same time. There they are contemporaneous, and indeed these things are realities. But today no one knows how to speak of these realities of the soul in the same way as he can of the realities of the body, so that as teachers of children we are quite helpless. Suppose you were a physician and yet were unable to distinguish between a child and an old man! You would of course feel helpless. But as there is no science of the soul the teacher is unable to speak about the human soul as the modern physician can of the human body. And as for the spirit, there is no such thing! One cannot speak of it, there are no longer even any words for it. There is but the single word “spirit,” and that does not convey much. There are no other words in which to describe it.

In our present-day life we cannot therefore venture to speak of a knowledge of Man. Here one may easily feel that all is not well with our education; certain things must be improved upon. Yes, but how can we improve matters, if we know nothing at all of Man? Therefore all the ideas for the improvement of education may be inspired by the best will in the world, but they possess no knowledge of Man.

This can even be noticed in our own circles. For it is Anthroposophy which at the present time can help men to acquire this knowledge of man. I am not saying this from any sectarian or fanatical standpoint but it is so that he who seeks knowledge of man must find it in Anthroposophy. It is obvious that knowledge of the human being must be the basis for a teacher's work; that being so, he must acquire this knowledge for himself, and the natural thing will be that he acquires it through Anthroposophy. If, therefore, we are asked what the basis of a new method of education should be, our answer is: Anthroposophy must be that basis. But how many people there are, even in our own circles, who try to disclaim Anthroposophy as much as possible, and to propagate an education without letting it be known that Anthroposophy is at the back of it.

There is an old German proverb which says: Please wash me but don't make me wet! Many projects are undertaken in this spirit but we must above all both speak and think truthfully. So if anyone asks you how to become a good teacher you must say to him: Make Anthroposophy your foundation. You must not deny Anthroposophy, for it is only by this means that you can acquire your knowledge of Man.

We have no knowledge of Man in our present cultural life. We have theories, but no living insight, either into the world, life or men. A true insight will lead to a true practice in life, but we have no such practical life today. Do you know who are the most unpractical people at the present time? It is not the scientists, for although they are clumsy and ignorant of life, these faults can be clearly seen in them. But in those who are the worst theorists and who are the least practical in life these things are not observed. These are the so-called practical persons, the commercial and industrial men and bankers, the men who rule the practical affairs of life with theoretical thoughts. A bank today is entirely composed of thoughts arising from theories. There is nothing practical in A; but people do not notice this, for they say: It must be so, that is the way practical people work. So they adapt themselves to it, and no one notices the harm that is really being done in life because it is all worked in so unpractical a way. The “practical life” of today is absolutely unpractical in all its forms.

This will only be noticed when an ever increasing number of destructive elements enter our civilisation and break it up. If this goes on the World War will have been nothing but a first step, an introduction. In reality the World War arose out of this unpractical thinking, but that was only an introduction. The point now at stake is that people should not remain asleep any longer, more particularly in the domain of teaching and education. Our task is to introduce an education which concerns itself with the whole man, body, soul and spirit; and these three principles should be known and recognised.

Now in so short a course as that to be given here, we can only speak of the most important aspects of body, soul and spirit, in such a way as will give a direction to education and teaching. That is what we shall do. But the first requirement, as will be seen from the start, is that my hearers shall really endeavour to direct their observation, even externally, to the whole man.

How are the basic principles of education composed in these days? The child is observed, and then we are told, the child is like this or like that, and must learn something. Then one thinks how best to teach so that the child can learn such and such a thing quickly. But what is a child, in reality? A child remains a child for at most twelve years, or possibly longer, but that is not the point. The point is that he must always be thought of as becoming an older human being some day. Life as a whole is a unity, and we must not only consider the child but the whole of life; we must look at the whole human being.

Suppose I have a pale child in the school. A pale child should be an enigma to me, a riddle to be solved. There may be several reasons for his pallor, but the following is a possible one. The child may have come to school with some colour in his cheeks, and have become pale under my treatment of him. I must admit this, and be able to judge as to why he has become pale; I may perhaps come to see that I have given this child too much to learn by heart. I may have worked his memory too hard. If I do not admit this possibility, if I am a short-sighted teacher, having the idea that a method must be carried through regardless of whether the child grows rosy or pale thereby, that the method must just be persevered with, then the child will remain pale.

If, however, I were able to observe this same child at the age of fifty, I should probably find him suffering from terrible sclerosis or arterial hardening, the cause of which will be unknown. This is the result of my having overloaded the memory of the child when he was eight or nine years old. For you see, the man of fifty and the child of eight or nine belong together, they are one and the same human being. We must know what the result will be, forty or fifty years later, of our management of the child; for life is a unity, it is all connected. It is not enough merely to know the child, we must know the human being.

Again, I take great trouble to give a class as good definitions as I can, so that the concepts shall be firmly grasped, and the child will know: this is a lion, that is a cat, and so on. But is the child to retain these concepts to the day of his death? In our present age there is no feeling for the fact that the soul too must grow! If I furnish a child with a concept that is to remain “correct” (and “correctness” is of course all that matters!), a concept which he is to retain throughout his life, that is just as though I bought him a pair of shoes when he was three years old, and each successive year had shoes made of the same size. The child will grow out of them. This however is something that people notice and it would be considered brutal to try and keep his feet small enough to go on wearing the same sized shoes! Yet this is what we are doing with the soul. We furnish the child with ideas which do not grow with him. We give him concepts which are intended to be permanent; we worry him with fixed concepts that are to remain unchanged, whereas we should be giving him concepts capable of expansion. We are constantly squeezing the soul into the ideas we give the child.

These are some of the ways in which we may begin to answer the challenge that in education we must take the whole human being into consideration, the growing, living human being, and not just an abstract idea of man.

It is only when we have the right conception of man's life as a connected whole that we come to realise how different from each other the various ages are. The child is a very different being before shedding its first teeth from what it becomes afterwards. Of course, you must not interpret this in crudely formed judgments, but if we are capable of making finer distinctions in life, we can observe that the child is quite different before and after the change of teeth.

Before the change of teeth we can still see quite clearly at work the effects of the child's habits of life before birth or conception, in its pre-earthly existence in the spiritual world. The body of the child acts almost as though it were spirit, for the spirit which has descended from the spiritual world is still fully active in a child in the first seven years of its life. You will say: A fine sort of spirit! It has become quite boisterous; for the child is rampageous, awkward and incompetent. Is all this to be attributed to the spirit belonging to his pre-earthly life? Well, my dear friends, suppose all you clever and well-brought-up people were suddenly condemned to remain always in a room having a temperature of 144° Fahrenheit? You couldn't do it! It is even harder for the spirit of the child, which has descended from the spiritual worlds, to accustom itself to earthly conditions. The spirit, suddenly transported into a completely different world, with the new experience of having a body to carry about, acts as we see the child act. Yet if you know how to observe and note how each day, each week, each month, the indefinite features of the face become more definite, the awkward movements become less clumsy and the child gradually accustoms himself to his surroundings, then you will realise that it is the spirit from the pre-earthly world which is endeavouring to make the child's body gradually more like itself. We shall understand why the child is as he is, if we observe him in this way, and we shall also understand that it is the descended spirit which is acting as we see it within the child's body.

Therefore for one who is initiated into the mysteries of the spirit there is nothing that can fill him with such wonder and delight as to observe a little child. In so doing one learns not of the earth, but of heaven; and this not only in the so-called “good children.” In their case, as a rule, the bodies have already become heavy, even in infancy. The spirit cannot properly take hold of the body; such children are quiet; they do not scream and rush about, they sit still and make no noise. The spirit is not active within them, because their bodies offer such resistance. It is very often the case that the bodies of the so-called good children offer resistance to the spirit.

In the less well-behaved children who make a great deal of healthy noise, who shout properly, and give a lot of trouble, the spirit is active, though of course in a clumsy way, for it has been transported from heaven to earth; but the spirit is active within them. It is making use of the body. We may even regard the wild screams of a child as most enthralling, simply because we thereby experience the martyrdom the spirit has to endure when it descends into a child-body.

Yes, my dear friends, it is easy to be a grown-up person—easy for the spirit, I mean, for the body has then been made ready, it no longer offers the same resistance. It is quite easy to be a full-grown person but extremely difficult to be a child. The child himself is not aware of this because his consciousness is not yet awake. It is still asleep, but if the child possessed the consciousness he had before descending to earth he would soon notice this difficulty: if the child were still living in this pre-earthly consciousness his life would be a terrible tragedy, a really terrible tragedy. For you see, the child comes down to earth; before this he has been accustomed to a spiritual substance from which he drew his spiritual life. He was accustomed to deal with that spiritual substance. He had prepared himself according to his Karma, according to the result of previous lives. He was fully contained within his own spiritual garment, as it were. Now he has to descend to earth. I should like to speak quite simply about these things, and you must excuse me if I speak of them as I would if I were describing the ordinary things of the earth. One can speak of them thus because they are so. Now when a human being is to descend, he must choose a body on the earth.

And indeed this body has been prepared throughout generations. Some father and mother had a son or a daughter, and these again a son or a daughter, and so on. Thus through heredity a body is produced which he must now occupy. He must draw into it and dwell therein; but in so doing he is suddenly faced with quite different conditions. He clothes himself in a body that has been prepared by a number of generations.

Of course, even from the spiritual world the human being can work on the body so that it may not be altogether unsuitable, yet as a rule the body received is not so very suitable after all. For the most part one does not fit at all easily into such a body. If a glove were to fit your hand as badly as the body generally fits the soul, you would discard it at once. You would never think of putting it on. But when you come down from the spiritual world needing a body, you just have to take one; and this body you retain until the change of teeth. For it is a fact that every seven or eight years our external physical substance is completely changed, at least in the essentials though not in all respects. Our first teeth for instance are changed, the second set remain. This is not the case with all the members of the human organism; some parts, even more important than the teeth, undergo change every seven years as long as a man is on the earth. If the teeth were to behave in the same way as these we should have new teeth at seven, fourteen, and again at twenty-one years of age, and so on, and there would be no dentists in the world.

Thus certain hard organs remain, but the softer ones are constantly being renewed. In the first seven years of our life we have a body which is given to us by outer nature, by our parents and so on; it is a model. The soul occupies the same relation to this body as an artist to a model which he has to copy. We have been gradually shaping the second body out of the first body up to the change of teeth. It takes seven years to complete the process. This second body which we ourselves have fashioned on the model given us by our parents only appears at the end of the first seven years of life, and all that external science says today about heredity and so forth is mere dilettantism compared to the reality. In reality we receive at birth a model body which is there with us for seven years, although during the very first years of life it begins to die out and fall away. The process continues, until at the change of teeth we have our second body.

Now there are weak individualities who are weakly when they descend to earth; these form their second body in which they live after the change of teeth, as an exact model of the first. People say that they take after their parents by inheritance, but this is not true. They make their own second body according to the inherited model. It is only during the first seven years of our life that our body is really inherited, but naturally we are all weak individualities and we copy a great deal. There are, however, also strong individualities descending to earth, and they too inherit a good deal in the first seven years. That one can see in the teeth. Their first teeth are still soft and subject to heredity, but when children have good strong second teeth that can crack things easily, then they are strong individualities, developing in the proper way. There are children who at ten years of age are just like children of four—mere imitators. Others are quite different, the strong individuality stirs within them. The model is used, but afterwards they form an individual body for themselves.

Such things must be noted. All talk of heredity will not lead you far unless you realise how matters stand. Heredity, in the sense in which it is spoken of by science, only applies to the first seven years of man. After that age, whatever he inherits he inherits of his own free will, we might say; he imitates the model, but in reality the inherited part is thrown off with the first body at the change of teeth.

The soul nature which came down from the spiritual world is very strong in us, and it is clumsy at first because it has to become accustomed to external nature. Yet in reality everything about a child, even the worst naughtiness, is very fascinating. Of course we must follow the conventions to some extent and not allow all naughtiness to pass unreproved; but we can see better in children than anywhere else how the spirit of man is tormented by the demons of degeneracy which are there in the world. The child has to enter a world into which he so often does not fit. If we were conscious of this process, we should see what a terribly tragic thing it is. When one knows something of Initiation, and is able to see consciously what lays hold of this body in the child, it really is terrible to see how he must find his way into all the complications of bones and ligaments which he has to form. It really is a tragic sight. The child himself knows nothing of this, and that is a good thing, for the Guardian of the Threshold protects him from any such knowledge.

But the teacher should know of it. He must look on with the deepest reverence, knowing that here a being whose nature is of God and the spirit has descended to earth. The essential thing is that we should know this, that we should fill our hearts with this knowledge, and from this starting point undertake our work as educators.

There are great differences between the manner of man which one is in the spiritual-soul life before descending to earth, and that which one has to become here below. The teacher should be able to judge of this because he has before him the child in whom are the after-effects of the spiritual world. Now there is one thing which the child has difficulty in acquiring, because the soul had nothing of this in the spiritual life.

On earth man is very little able to direct his attention to the inner part of his body; that is only done by the natural scientists and the physicians. They know exactly what goes on inside man within the limits of his skin, but you will find that most people do not even know exactly where their heart is! They generally point to the wrong place, and if in the course of his social life today it were required of a man to explain the difference between the lobes of the right and left lungs, or to describe the duodenum, very curious answers would be given. Now before he comes down into earthly life a man takes but little interest in the external world, but he takes so much the more interest in what he may call his spiritual inner being. In the life between death and a new birth man's interests are almost entirely centred on his inner spiritual life. He builds up his Karma in accordance with experiences from previous earth-lives and this he develops according to his inner life of spirit. This interest which he takes in it is very far removed from any earthly quality, very far removed from that longing for knowledge which, in its one-sided form, may be called inquisitiveness. A longing for knowledge, curiosity, a passionate desire for knowledge of the external life was not ours before our birth or descent to earth; we did not know it at all. That is why the young child has it only in so slight a degree.

What he does experience, on the other hand, is to live right in and with his environment. Before descending to earth we live entirely in the outer world. The whole world is then our inner being and there exist no such distinctions as outer and inner world. Therefore we are not curious about what is external, for that is all within us. We have no curiosity about it, we bear it within us, and it is an obvious and natural thing which we experience.

So in the first seven years of life a child learns to walk, to speak and to think, out of the same manner of living which he had before descending to earth. If you lay stress on arousing curiosity in a child with regard to some particular word, you will find that you thereby entirely drive out the wish he had to learn that same word. If you count on a longing for knowledge or curiosity you drive out of the child just what he ought to have. You must not reckon on a child's curiosity, but rather on something else, namely that the child becomes merged into you as it were, and you really live in the child. All that the child enjoys must live and be as though it were his own inner nature. You must make the same impression on the child as his own arm makes on him. You must, so to say, be only the continuation of his own body. Then later, when the child has passed through the change of teeth and gradually enters the period between the seventh and fourteenth years, you must observe how little by little curiosity and a longing for knowledge begin to show themselves; you must be tactful and careful, and pay attention to the way in which curiosity gradually stirs into being within him.

The small child is still but a clumsy little creature, who does not ask questions, and one can only make an impression upon him by being something oneself. He questions his environment as little as a sack of flour. But just as a sack of flour will retain any impressions you make upon it (especially if it is well ground), so too does the little child retain all his impressions, not because he is curious, but because you yourself are really one with him and make impressions on him as you would do with your fingers on a sack of flour.

It is only at the change of teeth that the situation alters. You must now notice the way the child begins to ask questions. “What is that? What do the stars see with? Why are the stars in the sky? Why have you a crooked nose, grandmother?” The child now asks all these questions; he begins to be curious about the things around him. You must have a delicate perception and note the gradual beginnings of curiosity and attention which appear with the second teeth. These are the years in which these qualities appear and you must be ready to meet them. You must allow the child's inner nature to decide what you ought to be doing with him; I mean, you must take the keenest interest in what is awakening with the change of teeth.

A very great deal is awakening then. The child is curious, but not with an intellectual curiosity for as yet it has no reasoning powers; and anyone who appeals to the intellect of a child of seven is quite on the wrong lines; but it has fantasy and this it is with which we must deal. It is really a question of developing the concept of a kind of “milk of the soul” For you see, after birth the child must be given bodily milk. This constitutes its food and every other necessary substance is contained in the milk that the child consumes. And when he comes to school at the age of the changing of the teeth it is again milk that you must give him, but now, milk for the soul. That is to say, your teaching must not be made up of isolated units, but all That the child receives must be a unity; when he has gone through the change of teeth he must have “soul milk.” If he is taught to read and write as two separate things it is just as though his milk were to be separated chemically into two different parts, and you gave him one part at one time and the other at another. Reading and writing must form a unity. You must bring this idea of “soul milk” into being for your work with the children when they first come to school.

This can only come about if, after the change of teeth, the children's education is directed artistically. The artistic element must be in it all. Tomorrow I will describe more fully how to develop writing out of painting and thus give it an artistic form, and how you must then lead this over artistically to the teaching of reading, and how this artistic treatment of reading and writing must be connected, again by artistic means, with the first simple beginnings of Arithmetic. All this must thus form a unity. Such things as these must be gradually developed as “soul milk” which we need for the child when he comes to school.

And when he reaches the age of puberty he will require “spiritual milk.” This is extremely difficult to give to present-day humanity, for we have no spirit left in our materialistic age. It will be a difficult task to create “spiritual milk,” but if we cannot succeed in creating it we shall have to leave our boys and girls to themselves at the so-called hobbledehoy stage, for there is no “spiritual milk” in our present age.

I just wanted to say these things by way of introduction and to give you a certain direction of thought; tomorrow we will continue these considerations and go more into details.

Erster Vortrag

Meine lieben Freunde! Es gereicht mir wirklich zur tiefsten Befriedigung, daß Sie hier in England nun so weit sind, um an die Begründung einer Schule im anthroposophischen Sinne denken zu können. Es bedeutet dies ja in Wirklichkeit einen außerordentlichen, tiefen Einschnitt in die Geschichte des Erziehungswesens. Spricht man einen solchen Satz aus, so ist es ja sehr leicht, daß man für das Aussprechen eines solchen Satzes der Unbescheidenheit geziehen wird. Aber es liegt bei allem, was aus anthroposophischen Untergründen für die Erziehungs- und Unterrichtskunst hervorgehen soll, auch wirklich heute etwas Eigentümliches zugrunde. Und ich möchte es mit allergrößter Freude begrüßen, daß der erste Stamm eines Lehrerkollegiums hier sich wirklich bereit gefunden hat, aus dem Innersten der Seele heraus anzuerkennen, daß bei dem, was wir anthroposophische Pädagogik nennen, etwas Besonderes zugrunde liegt. Wir sprechen, wenn wir von anthroposophischer Pädagogik reden, wirklich nicht aus einem fanatischen Reformgedanken heraus von der Notwendigkeit einer Erneuerung des Erziehungswesens, sondern wir sprechen aus der Empfindung und dem Erleben der Kulturentwickelung der Menschheit heraus.

Wir sprechen so, daß wir uns bewußt sind, es ist viel, sehr viel von ausgezeichneten Menschen im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts und namentlich in den letzten Jahrzehnten für die Erziehungskunst geschehen. Allein es ist dasjenige, was aus den besten, aus den allerbesten Absichten hervorgegangen ist, so geschehen, daß man sagen muß: Man hat alles mögliche auf dem Gebiete des Erziehungswesens versucht, aber ohne wirkliche Menschenerkenntnis. Es fiel das Denken über menschliche Erziehung hinein in eine Zeit, in der es einfach wegen des Materialismus, der auf allen Gebieten herrschte und eigentlich seit dem 15. Jahrhundert geherrscht hat, keine wirkliche Menschenerkenntnis hat geben können. Und so hat man eigentlich immer, wenn man erzieherische Reformgedanken geäußert hat, auf Sand oder etwas noch mehr ohne Grund Dastehendes gebaut; man hat aus allerlei Emotionen heraus, aus Urteilen, die man sich bildete über die Art, wie das Leben sein soll, Erziehungsgrundsätze aufgestellt. Man hat aber durchaus nicht die Möglichkeit gehabt, den Menschen in seiner Ganzheit zu kennen und sich zu fragen: Wie muß man dasjenige, was in der Menschenwesenheit gottgegeben drinnensteckt, nachdem der Mensch aus seinem vorirdischen Leben in das irdische Leben herabgegangen ist, im Menschen zur Offenbarung bringen? Das ist im Grunde genommen die Frage, die man zunächst abstrakt aufwerfen kann, die man aber konkret nur dann beantworten kann, wenn man eine wirkliche Erkenntnis des Menschen nach Leib, Seele und Geist zugrunde legt.

Nun liegt ja für die heutige Menschheit die Sache so: Die Leibeserkenntnis ist außerordentlich weit ausgebildet. Wir haben aus Biologie, Physiologie, Anatomie heraus eine sehr, sehr ausgebildete Leibeserkenntnis des Menschen. Aber schon wenn wir zur Seelenerkenntnis kommen wollen, stehen wir mit den gegenwärtigen Anschauungen vor einer völligen Unmöglichkeit; denn alles das, was sich auf die Seele bezieht, ist heute Name, Wort. Man greift selbst bei diesen Dingen wie Denken, Fühlen und Wollen schon - wenn man auf die gewöhnliche Psychologie der heutigen Zeit hinsieht nicht mehr auf Wirklichkeit. Die Worte sind geblieben: Denken, Fühlen, Wollen; aber eine Anschauung von dem, was eigentlich in der Seele waltet, für das, was man mit Denken, Fühlen und Wollen anspricht, ist nicht vorhanden. Denn, sehen Sie, was heute sogenannte Psychologen über Denken, Fühlen und Wollen reden, das alles ist ja in Wirklichkeit dilettantisch. Sie reden so etwa, wie wenn ein Physiologe vom Menschen im allgemeinen reden würde, von menschlicher Lunge, menschlicher Leber, und nie unterscheiden würde zwischen kindlicher Leber und Greisenleber. In der Leibeswissenschaft ist man da ja sehr weit. Kein Physiologe wird ermangeln, den Unterschied zu berücksichtigen zwischen einer kindlichen Lunge und einer Greisenlunge oder gar zwischen einem kindlichen Haar und dem Haare des alten Menschen. Das wird man alles unterscheiden. Aber bei Denken, Fühlen und Wollen, da spricht man nur Worte aus, man ergreift nichts in Wirklichkeit. Man weiß zum Beispiel nicht, daß das Wollen jung ist, so wie es in der Seele auftritt, das Denken alt, daß also das Denken ein altes Wollen, das Wollen ein junges Denken ist in der Seele, so daß man in alledem, was man in der Seele hat, Jugend und Alter gleichzeitig hat beim Menschen.

Gewiß, in der Zeit hintereinander haben wir in der Seele das alte Denken neben dem jungen Wollen schon beim Kinde. Da sind sie gleichzeitig. Ja, solche Dinge, die sind Realitäten. Aber kein Mensch weiß heute irgend etwas über diese Realität der Seele in demselben Sinne zu sagen, wie über die Realitäten des Leibes. Daher steht man als Erzieher völlig hilflos dem Kinde gegenüber. Denken Sie sich nur einmal, wenn Sie als Arzt nicht unterscheiden könnten zwischen einem Kinde und einem Greis, Sie wären natürlich hilflos. Der Lehrer aber ist, weil es eine Wissenschaft von der Seele gar nicht gibt, gar nicht in der Lage, über die Seele des Menschen so zu sprechen, wie heute der Arzt sprechen kann vom Leibe des Menschen. Und Geist - ja, da ist überhaupt nichts, davon kann man nicht reden, da sind nicht einmal Worte mehr da. Ein einziges Wort, Geist, aber das besagt nicht mehr viel; mehr Worte dafür sind eigentlich nicht da.

Also von einer Menschenerkenntnis im Sinne unserer Gegenwart kann eigentlich zunächst gar nicht die Rede sein. Da kann man nun leicht fühlen: Es geht nicht alles mit rechten Dingen zu in der Erziehung. Man muß das oder jenes verbessern. Ja, aber wie soll man etwas verbessern, wenn man gar nichts weiß über den Menschen? Daher sind die Erziehungsreformgedanken, die da aufgetreten sind, alle vom allerbesten Willen beseelt, aber es ist keine Menschenerkenntnis vorhanden.

Das merkt man selbst bis in unsere Kreise herein. Denn was kann heute dem Menschen zur Menschenerkenntnis verhelfen? Anthroposophie! Das ist gar nicht aus einem sektiererischen, fanatischen Untergrunde heraus gesagt. Wenn heute einer Menschenerkenntnis haben will, muß er eben Anthroposophie in sich aufnehmen. Wenn man aber aus Menschenerkenntnis - und das ist doch natürlich - unterrichten soll, muß man sich diese Menschenerkenntnis erwerben. Was ist das Natürliche? Daß man sie sich durch Anthroposophie erwirbt. Fragt also heute jemand über die Grundlage einer neuen Pädagogik, was muß man ihm sagen? Anthroposophie, die ist die Grundlage einer neuen Pädagogik! Ja, aber nun bestreben sich sehr viele Menschen unter uns selber, Anthroposophie möglichst zu verleugnen und die Pädagogik ohne Anthroposophie propagieren zu wollen; sie möchten nichts merken lassen, daß Anthroposophie dahinter ist.

Es gibt ein deutsches Sprichwort, das heißt: Wasch mir den Pelz, aber mache mir ihn nicht naß. So sind sehr viele Bestrebungen, die auf diesem Gebiete unternommen werden. Wahr muß man reden und denken vor allen Dingen. Deshalb müßte man heute, wenn jemand fragt: Wie kann ich ein guter Pädagoge werden? sagen: Du mußt von der Anthroposophie ausgehen. Du darfst sie nicht verleugnen, du mußt dir Menschenerkenntnis durch Anthroposophie erwerben.

Menschenerkenntnis haben wir ja im heutigen Zivilisationsleben nicht. Wir haben Theorien, aber wir haben keine lebendige Einsicht, weder in die Welt, noch in das Leben, noch in den Menschen. Wirkliche Einsicht führt zur Lebenspraxis. Aber wir haben heute keine Lebenspraxis. Wissen Sie, wer die allerunpraktischsten Leute heute sind? Die allerunpraktischsten Leute sind nicht die Wissenschafter, die sind ungeschickt und lebensfremd, nur bemerkt man es bei denen; aber bei denen, die die stärksten Theoretiker sind, die am meisten lebensunpraktisch sind, bei denen bemerkt man das nämlich nicht. Das sind die sogenannten Praktiker, die kommerziellen und industriellen Leute, die Bankleute; das sind die Leute, die heute die praktischen Lebenszusammenhänge beherrschen aus theoretischen Gedanken heraus. Eine Bank ist heute ganz aus theoretischen Gedanken heraus gebildet. Es ist gar nichts Praktisches darinnen. Nur bemerken die Leute das nicht, weil sie sagen: So muß es sein, so machen es die praktischen Leute. Dann schickt man sich halt da hinein. Man merkt nicht, welchen Schaden das im Leben wirklich anrichtet, weil es ganz unpraktisch wirkt. Das praktische Leben ist heute ganz unpraktisch; auf allen Gebieten ist gerade das praktische Leben ganz unpraktisch.

Und merken werden es die Leute nur, wenn immer mehr und mehr zerstörende Elemente in die Zivilisation hineinkommen und sie auflösen. Der Weltkrieg ist, wenn es so bleibt, nur ein Anfang gewesen, eine Introduktion. Der Weltkrieg ging in Wirklichkeit aus dieser Unpraxis hervor, aber er war nur eine Einleitung. Es handelt sich darum, daß nicht fortgeschlafen werde. Und am wenigsten geht es, daßß man auf dem Gebiet des Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesens weiterschläft. Da handelt es sich wirklich darum, daß man eine Erziehung aufnimmt, die auf den ganzen Menschen nach Leib, Seele und Geist geht, und daß daher auch wirklich Leib, Seele und Geist zunächst erkannt werden.

Nun kann es sich ja in einem kurzen Kursus, wie er hier gehalten werden soll, nur darum handeln, die wichtigsten Dinge, die sich auf Leib, Seele und Geist beziehen, so zu gestalten, daß sie gerade auf das Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen hinauslaufen. Das wollen wir tun. Nur ist das erste Erfordernis, das gleich vom Anfang an einzusehen ist, daß man wirklich sich bemüht, auch äußerlich die Blicke auf den ganzen Menschen hinzurichten.

Wie bildet man heute Erziehungsgrundsätze? Man schaut auf das Kind, sagt sich, das Kind ist das und das, das Kind soll etwas lernen. Man denkt nach, wie man es am besten unterrichtet, damit es schnell dies und jenes lernt. Ja, was ist denn ein Kind? Ein Kind ist ein Kind doch höchstens zwölf Jahre, meinetwillen auch zwanzig Jahre lang, darauf kommt es mir jetzt nicht an, aber einmal wird es doch etwas anderes, einmal wird es ein älterer Mensch. Das ganze Leben ist eine Einheit, und wir haben nicht bloß auf das Kind zu sehen, sondern auf das ganze Leben; wir haben auf den ganzen Menschen zu sehen.

Nehmen wir nun an, ich habe ein blasses Kind in der Schule sitzen. Ein blasses Kind muß für mich ein Rätsel sein, das ich zu lösen habe. Es können viele Gründe sein, aber es kann der Fall so liegen: Das Kind ist noch mit etwas rosigem Gesicht in die Schule gekommen, es ist unter meiner Behandlung blaß geworden. Ich gestehe mir das. Ja, da muß ich jetzt beurteilen können, warum das Kind blaß geworden ist. Ich werde vielleicht darauf kommen, daß ich diesem Kind zuviel Gedächtnismaterial gegeben habe. Ich habe das Gedächtnis des Kindes zu stark angestrengt. Komme ich nicht ab, bin ich ein pädagogisch Kurzsichtiger und bilde mir ein, eine Methode müsse durchgeführt werden, ganz gleichgültig, ob das Kind blaß oder rot wird dabei, dann bleibt das Kind blaß.

Wenn ich aber jetzt in die Lage käme, dieses Kind zu beobachten, wenn es fünfzig Jahre alt sein wird, dann wird dieser Mensch wahrscheinlich unter einer furchtbaren Sklerose leiden, wird eine Arterienverkalkung haben, von der man nicht wissen wird, wovon sie kommt. Sie kommt davon, daß ich das Gedächtnis des Kindes mit acht, neun Jahren überladen habe. Ja, sehen Sie, der Fünfzigjährige und der Acht-, Neunjährige gehören zusammen, das ist doch ein Mensch. Wir müssen wissen, was aus etwas, was wir mit dem Kinde machen, nach fünfzig oder vierzig Jahren wird, denn das Leben ist eine Einheit, das Leben gehört zusammen. Bloß das Kind zu kennen genügt nicht; wir müssen den Menschen kennen.

Und wiederum, denken Sie, plage ich mich damit, einer Klasse möglichst gute Definitionen beizubringen, daß die Begriffe ganz fest sitzen, daß das Kind weiß, das ist ein Löwe, das eine Katze und so weiter. Ja, soll das Kind nun immer bis zu seinem Tode diese Begriffe beibehalten können? Wir haben ja heute gar keine Ahnung davon, daß auch das Seelische wachsen muß. Wenn ich einem Kind einen Begriff beibringe, der nun ein für allemal richtig sein soll - was ist nicht alles richtig? -, und es soll ihn das ganze Leben hindurch behalten können, ist das gerade so, wie wenn ich ihm mit drei Jahren Schuhe kaufe und alle folgenden Schuhe jetzt nur so groß machen will, wie die Schuhe, die ich ihm mit drei Jahren kaufte. Das Kind wächst darüber hinaus. Da merkt man die Sache, und es würde als eine Barbarei angesehen werden, wenn ich ihm so kleine Schuhe kaufen wollte und den Fuß so klein halten wollte, daß er immer in den Schuh des Dreijährigen hineinpaßt! Aber mit der Seele tun wir das. Wir geben dem Kind Begriffe, die nicht wachsen mit dem Kind. Wir geben ihm Begriffe, die bleiben sollen, plagen es mit bestimmten Begriffen, die bleiben sollen, während wir dem Kinde Begriffe geben sollen, die wachsen können. Wir drücken die Seele fortwährend in die Begriffe hinein, die das Kind bekommen hat.

Das sind Dinge, die in der alleroberflächlichsten Weise zusammenhängen mit der Forderung, man soll den ganzen Menschen, den wachsenden, lebendigen Menschen in der Pädagogik ins Auge fassen, nicht irgendeinen abstrakten Begriff des Menschen.

Wenn man die richtige Anschauung hat, daß das ganze Menschenleben ein zusammenhängendes ist, kommt man erst darauf, wie verschieden wiederum die einzelnen Lebensalter sind. Das Kind bis zum Zahnwechsel ist ja ein ganz anderes Wesen als das Kind nach dem Zahnwechsel. Natürlich darf man dabei nicht grobe Urteile, grobe Anschauungen zugrunde legen. Wenn man sich unter dem Menschen nur ein zweibeiniges Wesen vorstellt, das oben den Kopf und in dessen Mitte seine Nase hat, wird man sagen, das Kind hat auch vor dem Zahnwechsel zwei Beine und in der Mitte des Gesichtes eine Nase und so weiter. Aber wenn man die Fähigkeit hat, feinere Unterschiede im Leben zu beobachten, dann wird man vor und nach dem Zahnwechsel im Kinde ein ganz verschiedenes Wesen finden.

Vor dem Zahnwechsel ist an dem Kinde wirklich deutlich noch wahrzunehmen, wie dasjenige nachwirkt, richtig nachwirkt, was das Kind als Lebensgewohnheiten vor der Geburt, beziehungsweise vor der Konzeption in dem vorirdischen Leben in der geistigen Welt hatte. Der Körper des Kindes tut da fast so, als ob er Geist wäre; denn der Geist, der heruntergestiegen ist aus der geistigen Welt, ist noch voll tätig in dem Kinde in den ersten sieben Lebensjahren. Sie werden sagen: Schöner Geist! Der ist ja ganz und gar tobsüchtig geworden, denn das Kind tobt, es benimmt sich ungeschickt, kann doch nichts. Das soll alles der Geist sein vom vorirdischen Leben? Ja, denken Sie nur daran, wenn Sie ganz ausgebildete, geschickte Menschen wären und plötzlich verurteilt wären, fortwährend in einem Raum, sagen wir von 62 Grad Celsius zu leben, Sie könnten es nicht. Sie könnten das noch weniger, als der Geist des Kindes, der heruntergestiegen ist aus den geistigen Welten und sich jetzt in irdischen Verhältnissen benehmen soll, sich da zu benehmen weiß. Weil er in eine ganz andere Welt versetzt ist, weil der Geist plötzlich, was er vor dem Erdenleben nicht hatte, einen Leib an sich zu tragen hat, benimmt er sich so, wie sich das Kind eben benimmt. Aber dennoch, wer zu beobachten versteht, wie nach und nach aus der unbestimmten Gesichtsphysiognomie des Kindes mit jedem Tag, mit jeder Woche, mit jedem Monat mehr das Bestimmte herauskommt, wie aus den ungeschickten Bewegungen nach und nach die geschickten Bewegungen werden, wie das Kind sich ganz einlebt in die Umgebung, der weiß, das ist der Geist, der heruntergestiegen ist aus der vorirdischen Welt, der den Körper allmählich sich ähnlich zu machen versucht. Wir werden begreifen, warum das Kind so ist, wenn wir so beobachten. Wir werden aber auch begreifen, daß es wirklich der heruntergestiegene Geist ist, der in dem Körper des Kindes so wirkt, wie wir das eben in dem Kinde wirksam sehen.

Daher gibt es für den, der in die geistigen Geheimnisse eingeweiht ist, eigentlich nichts Reizvolleres, als das Kind zu beobachten. Man lernt ja, wenn man das Kind beobachtet, nicht die Erde, man lernt den Himmel kennen. Und nicht bloß in den sogenannten artigen Kindern. Bei den artigen Kindern ist es meistens so, daß ihnen der Körper schwer wird. Schon im Kindheitsalter wird ihnen der Körper schwer. Der Geist kann ihn nicht recht in Empfang nehmen; die Kinder sind still, sie schreien nicht. Die Kinder sitzen viel, sie toben nicht. Der Geist ist in ihnen untätig, weil der Körper solchen Widerstand bietet. Bei sogenannten braven Kindern ist es oftmals so, daß der Körper dem Geiste Widerstand bietet.

In Kindern, die nicht so brav sind, sondern die ordentlich toben, ordentlich sich ausschreien, die einem Mühe machen, in denen regt sich der Geist, natürlich auf ungeschickte Art, denn er ist vom Himmel auf die Erde versetzt, aber er regt sich eben. Er braucht den Leib. Man kann tatsächlich das wüste Geschrei eines Kindes zuweilen furchtbar entzückend finden, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil man dabei erfährt, welches Martyrium zunächst der Geist durchmacht, wenn er in einen kindlichen Körper hinunterkommt.

Ja, Erwachsener zu sein, das ist leicht, für den Geist nämlich. Da hat man sich den Körper schon durchaus zubereitet. Da bietet der Körper nicht mehr so viel Widerstand. Erwachsener zu sein ist ganz leicht. Kind zu sein, das ist außerordentlich schwierig. Das Kind merkt es nur nicht, weil das Bewußtsein noch nicht erwacht ist, das schläft noch. Aber mit dem Bewußtsein, das vor dem Herunterstieg auf die Erde da war, mit dem würde das Kind es schon bemerken. Wenn das Kind in diesem Bewußtsein darinnen wäre, dann wäre des Kindes Leben eine furchtbare Tragik, eine ganz furchtbare Tragik. Denn sehen Sie, da steigt man herunter auf die Erde; man ist gewöhnt an eine geistige Substanz, aus der man vor dem Herunterstieg auf die Erde sein Geistleben hatte. Da ist man gewöhnt, diese geistige Substanz zu handhaben. Die hat man sich ganz selbst zubereitet nach seinem Karma, nach den Ergebnissen voriger Erdenleben. Da steckt man drinnen, sozusagen in seinem eigenen geistigen Bekleidungsstück. Jetzt soll man heruntersteigen auf die Erde. - Ich möchte ganz populär reden über solche Dinge, und Sie müssen mir verzeihen, wenn ich sie darstelle, wie sie sich eben dem darstellen, der darüber so redet, wie über die gewöhnlichen Dinge der Erde; man kann so reden, weil sie so sind. - Jetzt soll man heruntersteigen; man soll sich einen Körper auf der Erde wählen.

Ja, dieser Körper ist einem von Generationen zubereitet. Da haben ein Vater und eine Mutter einen Sohn oder eine Tochter bekommen, diese wiederum einen Sohn oder eine Tochter und so fort. Das gibt dann einen Körper durch Vererbung. Den soll man beziehen. In den soll man einkehren. Da kommt man plötzlich in ganz andere Verhältnisse herein. Man zieht sich solch einen Körper an, der einem durch die Generationenfolge zubereitet worden ist.

Gewiß, man wirkt schon von der geistigen Welt herunter, damit man nicht einen völlig unpassenden Körper bekommt, aber man bekommt einen ziemlich unpassenden Körper zumeist. Man paßt zumeist gar nicht hinein in einen solchen Körper. Wenn nur ein klein wenig ein Handschuh auf einer Hand so wenig passen würde, wie in der Regel ein Körper auf eine Seele paßt, so würden Sie diesen Handschuh in alle Ecken des Himmels werfen. Es würde Ihnen gar nicht einfallen, den Handschuh anzuziehen. Aber wenn Sie aus der geistigen Welt heruntersteigen und einen Körper haben wollen, dann müssen Sie eben einen nehmen. Und diesen Körper haben Sie nun bis zum Zahnwechsel. Denn es ist so, daß eigentlich alle sieben bis acht Jahre unsere äußere physische Materie ganz ausgetauscht wird, im wesentlichen wenigstens, nicht für alles. Die Zähne, die wir zuerst bekommen, werden gewechselt, dann bleiben sie uns. Es ist das nicht mit allen Gliedern des menschlichen Organismus der Fall. Wichtigere Glieder noch als die Zähne werden alle sieben Jahre ausgetauscht, solange der Mensch auf Erden ist. Würden die Zähne sich ebenso verhalten, dann würden wir wie mit 7 Jahren, so mit 14, mit 21 Jahren und so fort wieder Zähne bekommen, und es gäbe keine Zahnärzte auf der Erde.

Gewisse Organe, die hart sind, bleiben dann. Aber gerade die weicheren Organe werden immer erneuert. In den ersten sieben Lebensjahren hat man ja einen Körper, den einem eben die äußere Natur der Eltern und so weiter übergibt. Es ist ein Modell. Man ist mit seiner Seele gegenüber diesem Körper wie der Künstler gegenüber einem Modell, das er nachahmen soll. Der zweite Körper, den man mit dem Zahnwechsel herauszieht aus dem ersten - nach und nach natürlich, es geht durch alle sieben Jahre hindurch -, den hat man sich erst selber gemacht nach dem Modell, das einem von den Eltern gegeben worden ist. Den Körper, den man sich selber macht, hat man erst nach sieben Jahren. Alles, was heute die äußere Wissenschaft von der Vererbung und so weiter sagt, ist ja dilettantisch gegenüber der Wirklichkeit. In Wirklichkeit bekommen wir einen Modellkörper, den wir sieben Jahre an uns haben. Natürlich fängt er schon in den ersten Lebensjahren an, sich abzutöten und abzustoßen. Aber das geht weiter, und wenn wir den Zahnwechsel haben, bekommen wir den zweiten Körper.

Nun gibt es schwache Individualitäten; sie kommen schwach herunter und bilden sich den zweiten Körper, den sie nach dem Zahnwechsel an sich tragen, genau nach dem ersten. Wir sagen, die bilden sich genau nach den Eltern. Das ist gar nicht wahr. Den zweiten Körper bilden sie sich nach dem Modell. Nur in den ersten sieben Lebensjahren haben wir Vererbtes in uns. Natürlich sind wir alle schwache Individualitäten und bilden sehr viel nach. Aber es gibt auch starke Individualitäten, die kommen herunter, haben in den ersten sieben Lebensjahren viel vererbt. Sie können das an den Zähnen sehen. Die ersten Zähne sind noch so, daß man ihnen die Zahmheit ansieht in der Vererbung. Die zweiten Zähne, die knacken schon ganz ordentlich, die haben ihre entsprechenden Höcker. Das sind starke Individualitäten, die sich ganz ordentlich ausbilden. Dann haben Sie Kinder, die sind mit zehn Jahren noch so wie andere mit vier, Abbilder. Andere Kinder sind mit zehn Jahren ganz verändert. Die starke Individualität regt sich. Das Modell wird benützt, aber nachher bildet man einen selbständigen Körper aus.

Auf solche Dinge muß man hinschauen. Mit all diesen Dingen von Vererbung kommt man nicht weiter, wenn man nicht hineinsieht, wie die Dinge sind. Vererbung im eigentlichen Sinne, wie sie die Wissenschaft heute vertritt, gilt nur für die ersten sieben Jahre des Menschen. Wenn er nachher etwas erbt, erbt er es freiwillig, könnte man sagen; er macht es nämlich nach dem Modell. In Wirklichkeit wird das Vererbte mit dem ersten Körper, mit dem Zahnwechsel abgestoßen.

Wir haben außerordentlich stark das Seelische, das heruntergestiegen ist aus der geistigen Welt, das ungeschickt ist, weil es sich erst hineinfinden muß in das äußere Naturhafte. Aber in Wahrheit ist alles, ja, das Ungezogenste bei dem Kinde so entzückend. Natürlich müssen wir schon ein bißchen Philister sein, daß wir nicht alle Ungezogenheiten durchlassen. Wie der Geist geplagt wird von den Dämonen auf der Welt, die ausarten, das merkt man am meisten am Kinde. Das Kind muß in eine Welt hinein, in die es oft durchaus nicht hineinpaßt. Das ist eine furchtbare Tragik, wenn man das bewußt durchführt. Wenn man das bewußt durchführen müßte, wenn man etwas von Initiation kennt und mit Bewußtsein sieht, was im Kinde diesen Körper ergreift, muß man sagen: Das ist ja im Grunde genommen etwas ganz Schreckliches, in all dieses Knochengezüchte, in all dieses Sehnengezüchte, das man erst formen muß, sich hineinzufinden; das ist etwas furchtbar Tragisches. Das Kind weiß nur nichts davon, und das ist gut, weil der Hüter der Schwelle es behütet, daß es etwas davon weiß.

Aber der Lehrer soll davon wissen. Er soll mit einer ungeheuren Ehrfurcht vor dem Kinde stehen und wissen: Da ist ein Göttlich-Geistiges auf die Erde heruntergestiegen. Daß wir dieses wissen, mit diesem unser Herz durchdringen und von da aus Erzieher werden, darauf kommt es an.

Es gibt große Unterschiede zwischen der Art, wie der Mensch im geistig-seelischen-vorirdischen Leben ist, bevor er heruntersteigt auf die Erde, und wie er dann immer weiter werden muß. Der Lehrer soll das beurteilen können, weil er ja in dem Kinde die Nachwirkungen der geistigen Welt vor sich hat. Nun gibt es etwas, was sich das Kind schwer aneignen kann, weil die Seele es im geistigen Leben gar nicht hat.

Sehen Sie, auf der Erde gelangt der Mensch äußerst wenig dazu, Aufmerksamkeit zu verwenden auf sein körperliches Inneres. Das tun ja nur die Naturforscher und die Ärzte. Die wissen, wie es im Innern des Menschen innerhalb der Haut genau beschaffen ist. Bei den meisten Menschen findet man, daß sie nicht einmal ordentlich wissen, wo das Herz ist. Sie zeigen gewöhnlich an die unrichtige Stelle. Und wenn man gar von einem Menschen auf Erden im sozialen Leben verlangen würde, er solle einem sagen, wie der rechte Lungenflügel sich vom linken unterscheidet, oder er solle den Zwölffingerdarm beschreiben, dann würde man merkwürdige Antworten bekommen. Dagegen hat der Mensch, bevor er ins irdische Leben heruntersteigt, für seine Außenwelt außerordentlich wenig Interesse; um so mehr Interesse aber für das, was man da sein geistiges Inneres nennen kann. In dem Leben zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt hat man fast ausschließlich Interesse für das geistige Innenleben. Man bildet sich nach Erlebnissen der vorigen Erdenleben das Karma aus. Und das bildet man sich ja nach dem geistigen Innenleben aus. Dieses Interesse, das man da hat, ist von einer irdischen Eigenschaft, von der Wißbegierde, die in ihrer einseitigen Ausbildung Neugierde genannt werden kann, außerordentlich weit entfernt. Wißbegierde, Neugierde, Erpichtsein auf die Erkenntnis des äußeren Lebens hat man nicht vor der Geburt, vor dem Heruntersteigen auf die Erde; man kennt das gar nicht. Das hat daher das Kind auch noch sehr wenig.

Dagegen hat das Kind etwas, was Leben in der Umgebung ist. Wenn man noch nicht heruntergestiegen ist auf die Erde, lebt man eigentlich ganz in der Außenwelt. Die ganze Welt ist das Innere. Es gibt keinen solchen Unterschied zwischen Äußerem und Innerem. Daher ist man auch nicht auf Äußeres neugierig. Alles ist Inneres. Aber da ist man nicht neugierig darauf. Das trägt man in sich, es ist eine Selbstverständlichkeit, in der man lebt.

Im Grunde genommen lernt das Kind in den ersten sieben Lebensjahren Gehen, Sprechen und Denken noch ganz so, wie man sich verhalten hat, bevor man auf die Erde heruntergestiegen ist. Und legen Sie es daraufhin an, daß das Kind auf irgendein Wort neugierig sein soll, so werden Sie sehen, daß Sie dem Kind die Lust, dieses Wort zu lernen, ganz austreiben. Wenn Sie auf die Wißbegierde, auf die Neugierde rechnen, treiben Sie dem Kinde gerade dasjenige aus, was es soll. Sie dürfen gar nicht auf die Neugierde rechnen, vielmehr auf etwas anderes: daß das Kind naturhaft in Ihnen selber aufgeht, daß Sie in dem Kinde leben. Alles, was das Kind genießt, lebt, muß so sein, als ob es sein eigenes Inneres wäre. Sie müssen ganz auf das Kind den Eindruck machen, wie der Arm des Kindes auf das Kind einen Eindruck macht. Sie müssen nur die Fortsetzung seines eigenen Körpers sein. Dann müssen Sie achtgeben, wenn das Kind den Zahnwechsel passiert, allmählich in das Lebensalter eintritt zwischen dem 7. und 14. Jahre, wie nach und nach die Neugierde, die Wißbegierde herauskommt und wie man da taktvoll und vorsichtig sein muß, achtgeben muß, wie sich die Neugierde nach und nach regt.

Das kleine Kind ist noch ein Plumpsack, ein Sack, der nicht neugierig ist, auf den man Eindruck machen muß dadurch, daß man selber etwas ist. Gerade so wenig, wie ein Mehlsack neugierig ist auf seine Umgebung, gerade so wenig ist das kleine Kind neugierig. Aber wie alles, was Sie in dem Mehlsack an Eindrücken machen, festgehalten wird, insbesondere wenn das Mehl gut gemahlen ist, so bleibt beim kleinen Kind auch alles festgehalten, nicht weil es neugierig ist, sondern so, wie Sie beim Mehlsack mit dem Finger einen Eindruck machen, weil Sie eine Einheit ausmachen mit ihm.

Das wird erst mit dem Zahnwechsel anders. Da müssen Sie achtgeben, wie das Kind fragt: Was ist denn das? Womit gucken die Sterne? Warum sind die Sterne am Himmel? Warum hast du eine krumme Nase, Großmutter? Nach allem frägt dann das Kind. Es wird neugierig auf die Umgebung. Aber da muß man eine feine Empfindung haben, wie nach und nach Neugierde und Aufmerksamkeit herauskommen. Und mit den Zähnen kommen sie heraus. Das sind die Lebensjahre, in denen sie herauskommen. Und dann muß man dem entgegenkommen. Man muß das Kind urteilen lassen über dasjenige, was man mit ihm machen soll; das heißt, man muß das lebhafteste Interesse haben für dasjenige, was jetzt mit dem Zahnwechsel im Kinde erwacht.

Und es erwacht außerordentlich viel. Neugierig ist es nun nicht vom Verstande aus - das Kind hat mit sieben Jahren noch keinen Verstand, wer mit dem Verstande rechnen will, rechnet ganz falsch beim siebenjährigen Kinde -, aber Phantasie hat es, und auf die Phantasie muß man rechnen. Es kommt da wirklich darauf an, daß man den Begriff entwickeln kann: «seelische Milch». Denn sehen Sie, nach der Geburt müssen Sie dem Kinde körperliche Milch geben. Das ist ein Nahrungsmittel, das alles übrige für das Kind in Mischung enthält. Das Kind nimmt die Milch auf und hat damit die ganze Nahrung. Jetzt müssen Sie dem Kinde nichts einzelnes geben, alles muß seelische Milch sein. Wenn das Kind den Zahnwechsel durchgemacht hat und in die Schule hereinkommt, muß alles, was man ihm darbietet, eine Einheit sein: seelische Milch. Das Kind einmal lesen lernen, einmal schreiben lernen lassen, ist gerade so, wie wenn Sie die Milch erst chemisch in zwei Teile spalten und ihm dann das eine und dann das andere eingeben würden. Lesen, Schreiben, alles muß eine Einheit sein. Seelische Milch - der Begriff muß erfunden werden für die Kinder, wenn sie in die Volksschule hereinkommen.

Das kann nur dann geschehen, wenn man den Unterricht und die Erziehung vom Zahnwechselalter an künstlerisch einrichtet. Da soll das Künstlerische alles durchdringen. Künstlerische Gestaltung des Schreibunterrichts, so daß er aus dem Malen hervorgeht - ich werde das morgen noch ausführlicher beschreiben -, künstlerische Gestaltung in der Überführung des Schreibens, das aus dem Malen herauskommt zum Lesen, künstlerische Gestaltung des Lesens und Schreibens mit dem, was das Kind in einfacher Weise errechnen soll - das alles muß eine Einheit sein. Solche Dinge müssen erst herausgebildet werden wie «seelische Milch». Die brauchen wir für das Kind, wenn es in die Volksschule kommt.

Und wenn das Kind geschlechtsreif wird, braucht es «geistige Milch». Die bringen wir der heutigen Menschheit schon ganz besonders schwer bei, denn Geist haben wir gar keinen mehr im materialistischen Zeitalter. Wenn wir nun auch noch Milch ausbilden sollen, geistige Milch, so ist das ganz besonders schwer, und dann müßten wir schon die Boys und Girls in den sogenannten Lümmel- und Flegeljahren sich selbst überlassen, denn wir haben ja nicht geistige Milch.

Damit wollte ich Ihnen heute nur eine Einleitung geben, um Sie zunächst auf den Weg zu bringen. Wir wollen dann morgen in den Betrachtungen fortfahren und uns auf die Einzelheiten einlassen.

First Lecture

My dear friends! It gives me the deepest satisfaction that you here in England are now ready to consider establishing a school based on anthroposophical principles. In reality, this represents an extraordinary and profound turning point in the history of education. When one utters such a sentence, it is very easy to be accused of immodesty. But everything that is to emerge from anthroposophical foundations for the art of education and teaching is based on something truly unique today. And I would like to welcome with the greatest joy the fact that the first group of teachers here has truly found it in their hearts to recognize that there is something special underlying what we call anthroposophical education. When we speak of anthroposophical education, we are not really speaking out of a fanatical desire for reform, out of a sense of the necessity for a renewal of the educational system, but rather out of a feeling for and experience of the cultural development of humanity.

We speak in the knowledge that much, very much, has been achieved in the art of education by outstanding individuals throughout the 19th century and especially in recent decades. However, what has emerged from the best, the very best intentions, has happened in such a way that one must say: Everything possible has been tried in the field of education, but without real knowledge of human nature. Thinking about human education fell into a time when, simply because of the materialism that prevailed in all areas and had actually prevailed since the 15th century, there could be no real knowledge of human nature. And so, whenever ideas for educational reform were expressed, they were actually built on sand or something even more groundless; educational principles were established on the basis of all kinds of emotions and judgments that people formed about the way life should be. But they had no way of knowing the human being in his or her entirety and asking themselves: How can we bring to light in human beings that which is God-given within their nature after they have descended from their pre-earthly life into earthly life? This is basically the question that can be raised abstractly at first, but which can only be answered concretely if it is based on a real understanding of human beings in body, soul, and spirit.

Now, for humanity today, the situation is this: knowledge of the body is extremely well developed. We have a very, very well-developed knowledge of the human body from biology, physiology, and anatomy. But when we come to knowledge of the soul, we are faced with a complete impossibility with current views; for everything that relates to the soul is today a name, a word. Even with things like thinking, feeling, and willing, if we look at the ordinary psychology of today, we no longer refer to reality. The words remain: thinking, feeling, willing; but there is no understanding of what actually reigns in the soul, of what is addressed by thinking, feeling, and willing. For, you see, what so-called psychologists talk about today in relation to thinking, feeling, and willing is, in reality, amateurish. They talk as if a physiologist were talking about humans in general, about human lungs, human livers, and never distinguished between a child's liver and an old person's liver. In the science of the body, we have come a long way. No physiologist would fail to take into account the difference between a child's lungs and an old person's lungs, or even between a child's hair and an old person's hair. We distinguish between all these things. But when it comes to thinking, feeling, and willing, one only utters words; one does not grasp anything in reality. For example, one does not know that the will is young as it appears in the soul, that thinking is old, that thinking is therefore an old will, and that the will is a young thinking in the soul, so that in all that one has in the soul, one has both youth and age at the same time in human beings.

Certainly, in the succession of time, we already have old thinking alongside young willing in the soul of a child. They are there at the same time. Yes, such things are realities. But no one today knows anything about this reality of the soul in the same sense as they know about the realities of the body. Therefore, as educators, we are completely helpless when it comes to children. Just imagine if, as a doctor, you were unable to distinguish between a child and an old person; you would naturally be helpless. But because there is no science of the soul, teachers are not in a position to talk about the human soul in the same way that doctors today can talk about the human body. And spirit – yes, there is nothing at all, one cannot talk about it, there are not even words for it. A single word, spirit, but that doesn't mean much anymore; there are actually no more words for it.

So, in the first place, there can be no question of human knowledge in the sense of our present day. It is easy to feel that not everything is right in education. This or that needs to be improved. Yes, but how can one improve anything if one knows nothing about human beings? That is why the ideas for educational reform that have emerged are all inspired by the very best of intentions, but there is no knowledge of human beings.

You can see this even in our circles. For what can help people today to gain knowledge of human beings? Anthroposophy! This is not said from a sectarian, fanatical underground. If someone wants to have knowledge of human nature today, they must take in anthroposophy. But if one is to teach from knowledge of human nature – and that is natural, of course – one must acquire this knowledge of human nature. What is natural? That one acquires it through anthroposophy. So if someone asks today about the basis of a new pedagogy, what should we say? Anthroposophy is the basis of a new pedagogy! Yes, but now many people among us strive to deny anthroposophy as much as possible and want to propagate pedagogy without anthroposophy; they don't want to let on that anthroposophy is behind it.

There is a German proverb that says: Wash my fur, but don't get it wet. This is how many efforts in this field are undertaken. Above all, one must speak and think truthfully. Therefore, if someone asks today: How can I become a good educator? one should say: You must start from anthroposophy. You must not deny it; you must acquire knowledge of human nature through anthroposophy.

We do not have knowledge of human nature in today's civilization. We have theories, but we have no living insight, neither into the world, nor into life, nor into human beings. Real insight leads to practical life experience. But we have no practical life experience today. Do you know who the most impractical people are today? The most impractical people are not scientists, who are clumsy and alienated from life, but you notice it in them; it is those who are the strongest theorists, who are most impractical in life, in whom you do not notice it. They are the so-called practitioners, the commercial and industrial people, the bankers; they are the people who today dominate practical life contexts based on theoretical ideas. A bank today is formed entirely from theoretical ideas. There is nothing practical about it. Only people don't notice this because they say: That's how it has to be, that's how practical people do it. So you just go along with it. People do not notice the damage this really causes in life, because it seems completely impractical. Practical life today is completely impractical; in all areas, practical life is completely impractical.

And people will only notice it when more and more destructive elements enter civilization and dissolve it. If things continue this way, the world war will have been only a beginning, an introduction. The world war actually arose from this impracticality, but it was only a prelude. The point is that we must not continue to sleep. And the least we can do is to continue sleeping in the field of teaching and education. The point is really that we must take up an education that addresses the whole person, body, soul, and spirit, and that therefore body, soul, and spirit must first be recognized.

Now, in a short course such as the one to be held here, it can only be a matter of presenting the most important things relating to body, soul, and spirit in such a way that they lead directly to teaching and education. That is what we want to do. However, the first requirement, which must be recognized from the outset, is that one must really strive to focus one's gaze on the whole human being, even externally.

How are educational principles formed today? We look at the child and say to ourselves, the child is this and that, the child should learn something. We think about how best to teach them so that they learn this and that quickly. Yes, but what is a child? A child is a child for a maximum of twelve years, or even twenty years for that matter, it doesn't matter to me right now, but at some point it becomes something else, at some point it becomes an older person. Life as a whole is a unity, and we must not only look at the child, but at life as a whole; we must look at the whole person.

Let's assume that I have a pale child sitting in my class. A pale child must be a mystery to me that I have to solve. There could be many reasons for this, but it could be the case that the child came to school with a slightly rosy complexion and has become pale under my care. I admit that. Yes, I now have to be able to assess why the child has become pale. I might come to the conclusion that I have given this child too much material to memorize. I have strained the child's memory too much. If I don't let up, I am pedagogically short-sighted and imagine that a method must be carried out, regardless of whether the child turns pale or red in the process, then the child remains pale.

But if I were now to observe this child when he is fifty years old, he will probably suffer from terrible sclerosis and have arteriosclerosis, the cause of which will be unknown. It is because I overloaded the child's memory when he was eight or nine years old. Yes, you see, the fifty-year-old and the eight- or nine-year-old belong together; they are one person. We need to know what will become of something we do with the child after fifty or forty years, because life is a unity; life belongs together. It is not enough to know the child; we must know the person.

And again, do you think I am tormenting myself by trying to teach a class the best possible definitions, so that the concepts are firmly established, so that the child knows that this is a lion, that is a cat, and so on? Yes, should the child be able to retain these concepts until the day they die? Today, we have no idea that the soul must also grow. If I teach a child a concept that is supposed to be correct once and for all – what is correct anyway? – and they are supposed to be able to retain it throughout their entire life, it is just like buying them shoes at the age of three and then wanting all subsequent shoes to be the same size as the shoes I bought them at the age of three. The child grows beyond that. We realize this, and it would be considered barbaric if I wanted to buy them such small shoes and keep their feet so small that they would always fit into the shoes of a three-year-old! But we do this with the soul. We give the child concepts that do not grow with the child. We give them concepts that are supposed to remain, we plague them with certain concepts that are supposed to remain, while we should be giving children concepts that can grow. We constantly press the soul into the concepts that the child has been given.

These are things that are connected in the most superficial way with the demand that pedagogy should take into account the whole human being, the growing, living human being, and not some abstract concept of the human being.

If one has the correct view that the whole of human life is interconnected, one realizes how different the individual stages of life are. The child up to the change of teeth is a completely different being from the child after the change of teeth. Of course, one must not base this on crude judgments or crude views. If one imagines a human being as merely a two-legged creature with a head on top and a nose in the middle, one will say that a child also has two legs and a nose in the middle of its face before its teeth change, and so on. But if one has the ability to observe finer differences in life, one will find a completely different being in the child before and after its teeth change.

Before the change of teeth, it is still clearly perceptible in the child how what the child had as habits of life before birth, or rather before conception in the pre-earthly life in the spiritual world, continues to have an effect, a real effect. The child's body acts almost as if it were spirit, for the spirit that has descended from the spiritual world is still fully active in the child during the first seven years of life. You will say: Beautiful spirit! But it has become completely frenzied, for the child rages, behaves clumsily, and can do nothing. Is all this supposed to be the spirit from pre-earthly life? Yes, just think if you were fully educated, skilled people and were suddenly condemned to live continuously in a room at, say, 62 degrees Celsius; you could not do it. You would be even less able to do so than the spirit of the child, who has descended from the spiritual worlds and now has to behave in earthly circumstances, knows how to behave there. Because he has been transported into a completely different world, because the spirit suddenly has to carry a body on himself, which he did not have before earthly life, he behaves just as the child behaves. But nevertheless, anyone who knows how to observe how, day by day, week by week, month by month, the child's vague facial physiognomy gradually becomes more defined, how clumsy movements gradually become skillful movements, how the child becomes completely accustomed to its surroundings, knows that this is the spirit that has descended from the pre-earthly world, trying to gradually make itself similar to the body. We will understand why the child is like this when we observe it in this way. But we will also understand that it is really the descended spirit that is working in the child's body in the way we see it working in the child.

Therefore, for those who are initiated into spiritual mysteries, there is actually nothing more fascinating than observing children. When you observe children, you do not learn about the earth, you learn about heaven. And not only in so-called well-behaved children. With well-behaved children, it is usually the case that their bodies become heavy. Already in childhood, their bodies become heavy. The spirit cannot really receive it; the children are quiet, they do not cry. The children sit a lot, they do not romp around. The spirit is inactive in them because the body offers such resistance. With so-called well-behaved children, it is often the case that the body offers resistance to the spirit.

In children who are not so well-behaved, but who romp around properly, scream properly, who cause trouble, the spirit stirs, naturally in a clumsy way, because it has been transferred from heaven to earth, but it stirs nonetheless. It needs the body. One can actually find the wild cries of a child terribly delightful at times, for the simple reason that one experiences the martyrdom that the spirit initially goes through when it descends into a child's body.

Yes, being an adult is easy, for the spirit, that is. The body has already been thoroughly prepared. The body no longer offers so much resistance. Being an adult is very easy. Being a child is extremely difficult. The child just doesn't notice it because consciousness has not yet awakened; it is still asleep. But with the consciousness that was there before descending to earth, the child would already notice it. If the child were in this consciousness, then the child's life would be a terrible tragedy, a very terrible tragedy. For you see, one descends to earth; one is accustomed to a spiritual substance from which one had one's spiritual life before descending to earth. One is accustomed to handling this spiritual substance. One has prepared it oneself according to one's karma, according to the results of previous earth lives. One is inside it, so to speak, in one's own spiritual garment. Now you have to descend to earth. I would like to talk about such things in a very popular way, and you must forgive me if I describe them as they appear to someone who talks about them as if they were ordinary earthly things; one can talk about them in this way because that is how they are. Now you have to descend; you have to choose a body on earth.

Yes, this body has been prepared for us by generations. A father and mother had a son or daughter, who in turn had a son or daughter, and so on. This then gives us a body through inheritance. We are to take up residence in it. We are to enter into it. Suddenly we find ourselves in completely different circumstances. We put on a body that has been prepared for us through the succession of generations.

Certainly, one already works from the spiritual world so that one does not receive a completely unsuitable body, but one usually receives a rather unsuitable body. Most of the time, you don't fit into such a body at all. If a glove fit your hand as poorly as a body usually fits a soul, you would throw that glove into all corners of heaven. It would not even occur to you to put on the glove. But when you descend from the spiritual world and want to have a body, you have to take one. And you now have this body until your teeth change. For it is so that every seven to eight years our outer physical matter is completely replaced, at least in essence, not for everything. The teeth we first get are changed, then they remain with us. This is not the case with all parts of the human organism. Parts that are even more important than the teeth are replaced every seven years as long as the person is on earth. If the teeth behaved in the same way, we would get new teeth at the age of 7, then again at 14, at 21, and so on, and there would be no dentists on earth.

Certain organs that are hard remain. But it is precisely the softer organs that are constantly being renewed. In the first seven years of life, we have a body that is handed down to us by the external nature of our parents and so on. It is a model. One's soul is to this body as an artist is to a model that he is supposed to imitate. The second body, which one pulls out of the first with the change of teeth – gradually, of course, it goes through all seven years – one has first made for oneself according to the model given to one by one's parents. One only has the body that one makes for oneself after seven years. Everything that external science says today about heredity and so on is amateurish compared to reality. In reality, we receive a model body that we have for seven years. Of course, it begins to die and be rejected in the first years of life. But this continues, and when we change teeth, we receive the second body.

Now there are weak individualities; they come down weak and form the second body, which they carry after the change of teeth, exactly like the first. We say that they form themselves exactly like their parents. That is not true at all. They form their second body according to the model. Only in the first seven years of life do we have hereditary traits in us. Of course, we are all weak individualities and imitate a great deal. But there are also strong individualities that come down and have inherited a lot in the first seven years of life. You can see this in their teeth. The first teeth are still such that you can see their gentleness in their heredity. The second teeth, which crack quite nicely, have their corresponding cusps. These are strong individualities that develop quite nicely. Then you have children who, at the age of ten, are still like others at the age of four, copies. Other children are completely changed at the age of ten. The strong individuality stirs. The model is used, but afterwards one forms an independent body.

You have to look at things like this. With all these things about heredity, you won't get anywhere if you don't look into how things really are. Heredity in the true sense, as science represents it today, only applies to the first seven years of a person's life. If they inherit something afterwards, you could say they inherit it voluntarily; they do it according to the model. In reality, what is inherited is rejected with the first body, with the change of teeth.

We have an extraordinarily strong sense of the soul that has descended from the spiritual world, which is clumsy because it first has to find its way into the external natural world. But in truth, everything, even the most unruly behavior in children, is so delightful. Of course, we have to be a little philistine so that we don't let all the naughtiness pass. How the spirit is tormented by the demons in the world that degenerate is most noticeable in children. The child has to enter a world in which it often does not fit in at all. That is a terrible tragedy when one consciously carries it out. If one had to do this consciously, if one knew something about initiation and saw with awareness what takes hold of the child's body, one would have to say: This is, in fact, something quite terrible, in all this breeding of bones, in all this breeding of tendons, which one must first form, find one's way into; this is something terribly tragic. The child knows nothing of this, and that is good, because the guardian of the threshold protects it from knowing anything of it.

But the teacher should know about it. They should stand before the child with tremendous reverence and know: something divine and spiritual has descended to earth. It is important that we know this, that we let it penetrate our hearts and that we become educators from this point onwards.

There are great differences between the way a person is in their spiritual-soul-pre-earthly life before they descend to earth and the way they must then continue to develop. The teacher should be able to judge this, because they have before them the after-effects of the spiritual world in the child. Now there is something that is difficult for the child to acquire because the soul does not have it at all in spiritual life.

You see, on earth, human beings pay very little attention to their physical interior. Only natural scientists and doctors do that. They know exactly what is inside human beings beneath the skin. Most people do not even know where the heart is located. They usually point to the wrong place. And if you were to ask someone on earth in social life to tell you how the right lung differs from the left, or to describe the duodenum, you would get some strange answers. In contrast, before descending into earthly life, human beings have very little interest in their external world; but all the more interest in what can be called their spiritual inner life. In the life between death and a new birth, one is almost exclusively interested in one's spiritual inner life. One develops karma based on experiences from previous earthly lives. And this is developed according to one's spiritual inner life. This interest is extremely far removed from an earthly characteristic, from the thirst for knowledge, which in its one-sided development can be called curiosity. Before birth, before descending to earth, one does not have a thirst for knowledge, curiosity, or eagerness for knowledge of outer life; one does not know such things at all. Therefore, the child also has very little of this.

On the other hand, the child has something that is life in its surroundings. Before descending to earth, one actually lives entirely in the outer world. The whole world is the inner world. There is no such difference between the outer and the inner. Therefore, one is not curious about the outer world. Everything is internal. But you are not curious about it. You carry it within you; it is a matter of course in which you live.

Basically, in the first seven years of life, the child learns to walk, talk, and think in the same way as one behaved before descending to earth. And if you then try to make the child curious about a particular word, you will see that you completely drive out the child's desire to learn that word. If you count on the child's thirst for knowledge, on its curiosity, you drive out precisely what it is supposed to have. You must not count on curiosity at all, but rather on something else: that the child naturally merges with you, that you live in the child. Everything that the child enjoys and experiences must be as if it were its own inner self. You must make an impression on the child just as the child's arm makes an impression on the child. You must simply be the continuation of its own body. Then you must be careful when the child is teething, gradually entering the age between 7 and 14, as curiosity and a thirst for knowledge gradually emerge, and you must be tactful and careful, paying attention to how curiosity gradually stirs.

The small child is still a sack, a sack that is not curious, on which you must make an impression by being something yourself. Just as a sack of flour is not curious about its surroundings, so too is the small child not curious. But just as everything you do to the flour sack is retained, especially if the flour is well ground, so too is everything retained in the small child, not because it is curious, but because, just as you make an impression on the flour sack with your finger, you form a unity with it.

This only changes when the teeth change. Then you have to pay attention to how the child asks: What is that? How do the stars see? Why are the stars in the sky? Why do you have a crooked nose, Grandma? The child asks about everything. It becomes curious about its surroundings. But you have to be sensitive to how curiosity and attention gradually emerge. And with the teeth, they emerge. These are the years of life when they emerge. And then you have to respond to that. You have to let the child decide what you should do with them; that is, you have to take a keen interest in what is now awakening in the child with the change of teeth.

And an extraordinary amount awakens. It is not curious from an intellectual point of view – a seven-year-old child does not yet have an intellect, and anyone who wants to rely on the intellect is completely wrong when it comes to seven-year-old children – but it does have imagination, and you have to rely on that imagination. It is really important to be able to develop the concept of “spiritual milk.” You see, after birth, you have to give the child physical milk. This is a food that contains everything else the child needs in one mixture. The child takes in the milk and thus has all the nourishment it needs. Now you don't have to give the child anything separately, everything must be spiritual milk. When the child has gone through the change of teeth and enters school, everything you offer him must be a unity: spiritual milk. Teaching the child to read and then to write is just like splitting the milk chemically into two parts and then feeding them one part and then the other. Reading, writing, everything must be a unity. Spiritual milk — this concept must be invented for children when they enter elementary school.

This can only happen if teaching and education are artistically organized from the age of tooth replacement onwards. Artistry should permeate everything. Artistic design of writing lessons, so that they emerge from painting – I will describe this in more detail tomorrow – artistic design in the transition from writing, which emerges from painting, to reading, artistic design of reading and writing with what the child should calculate in a simple way – all this must be a unity. Such things must first be developed, like “spiritual milk.” We need this for the child when it enters elementary school.

And when the child reaches puberty, it needs “spiritual milk.” We find it particularly difficult to teach this to people today, because we no longer have any spirit in this materialistic age. If we are now also supposed to develop milk, spiritual milk, this is particularly difficult, and then we would have to leave the boys and girls in their so-called loutish and boorish years to their own devices, because we do not have spiritual milk.

I just wanted to give you an introduction today to get you started. We will then continue our reflections tomorrow and go into the details.