Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Ancient Myths, Their Meaning and Connection with Evolution
GA 180

6 January 1918, Dornach

Lecture III

We have been endeavouring in these lectures to understand something of the course of mankind's evolution; we have sought to follow up the deeper foundations of such Myths as the Osiris-Isis Myth; we have further sought to find our way again, from a certain aspect, in the world of the Greek Gods. We have lightly touched upon the inner meaning of the concepts which perhaps do not come to clear expression, but which underlie the poetic myths of Egypt and Greece, and have sought to study, at any rate to indicate, the connection between the basis of these myths and the Old Testament doctrines. These Old Testament doctrines have sprung from a different spirit from that of the mythology of the Egyptians and the Greeks. We have seen that the Egyptian and Grecian mythologies in the manner of their structure, are derived from certain ancient experiences of mankind. They are based on a certain consciousness that humanity once possessed atavistic clairvoyance, and through the atavistic clairvoyance had stood in the same inner relation to the spirit pervading Nature, as later on man is related between birth and death to the things of the senses. We have seen that for this old atavistic knowledge the far-reaching world-conception, which was an inner experience, signified more than the mere sense-perception knowledge of the transitional humanity to which we still belong.

All that had arisen as pictures in the Egyptian and the Greek mythology, or better to say, contemplation of the Gods, is to be found in the Old Testament as actual doctrine, with the key-note of morality. In fact, the day before yesterday, as I spoke of the important difference between the mythology of Egypt and Greece and the Old Testament, I told you that the divine spiritual Beings who stand at the beginning of the Old Testament, the Elohim, Jahve, can only be thought of as together creating mankind. We can only think of them as producing through their deeds what we call earthly humanity. In fact the whole evolution of earthly man is only accomplished according to the fundamental deed of the Elohim, of Jahve. I said that that is not the case in Egyptian or Greek mythology. There men looked back into ancient times and said to themselves: the Gods Osiris, Isis, Zeus, Apollo, Mars, Pallas, who are now connected with the guidance of human destiny, they have arisen from other generations of Gods, but men were already in existence. The Egyptian and the Greek mythology traced man back to older times in which those Gods were not yet creating and ruling who were recognized in their own times. Thus men in Egypt and Greece ascribed to themselves a greater antiquity than that of the Gods then in power.

This is so fundamental and significant a difference that one must bear it well in mind. In the course of these studies we shall see to what an infinitely important and significant fact this conception points. In the Old Testament doctrine the Gods who were revered were at the same time the Gods who created the human race. Only because the Old Testament doctrine makes the Divine the creator of man, only through this was it possible for the Old Testament doctrine to insert at the same time the moral element, moral impulse, into the divine order and hence into the whole ordering of mankind, into Providence, one might say.

This is important for an understanding of the present-day world conception. For the world concepts of today are not derived in any very definite way from a uniform source; they have very different origins, and we bear much within us in which we believe, which we profess as modern men, that is directly rooted in Greek ideas. We bear much within us, especially the immediate present bears much in it, that points back to the Old Testament. The search of many human beings to find their right way among these often contradictory concepts and ideas, comes through the impulse that proceeds from the Mystery of Golgotha. This all lies as yet in our programme and we shall have to build it up in the time we are still vouchsafed to be together.

It is above all important that we can lay one thing as a foundation; I have already referred to it yesterday. We have often related that we are living, since the 15th century, in the fifth Post-Atlantean epoch, and in a certain connection, I said, certain impulses of the third Post-Atlantean epoch, the Egypto-Chaldean must reappear in the fifth, just as in the sixth Post-Atlantean epoch, certain impulses of the second, the Zarathustra, the Old Persian epoch will light up, and as in the last Post-Atlantean epoch, the seventh, certain impulses of the original Indian epoch will light up again. That is a law in the course of human evolution which points in a significant manner to the essentials standing spiritually before mankind up to the new catastrophe that is to come—like a catastrophe of nature.

Now we have seen in part what immense depth of human consciousness in ancient times is expressed in the fact that these ancient ages evolved the Osiris-myth. We have seen that this early age meant to say: there once lived a perception among men through which man could still directly experience the spiritual in his natural surroundings in his atavistic imaginations. That was the age in which Osiris ruled. But the new perceptions, the Typhon perceptions, those perceptions that have made the letter-script from the picture-script, those perceptions which from the primeval sacred language which men used to speak in common have formed the individually sounding languages, these perceptions of Typhon, they have slain what lived in humanity as the Osiris-impulse. So that since then Osiris is a Being at the side of men only when they are between death and a new birth.

We have then followed the Osiris-Isis Legend in its essentials, have seen how Osiris was regarded as a primeval ruler of Egypt who brought the Egyptians the most important of their arts, who ruled in Egypt throughout long ages, who also traveled from Egypt into other lands, and not by the sword but by persuasion brought them the benefits of the arts taught in Egypt. During his absence upon journeys, as he conferred on other lands the benefits with which he had instructed the Egyptians, Typhon, his wicked brother, introduced innovations into his own land of Egypt. And then as Osiris returned he was slain by Typhon despite the watchfulness of his consort Isis. Then Isis sought everywhere for Osiris. Through boys—so says the legend—it was revealed to her that the coffin had been carried away by the sea; she discovered it then in Byblos in Phoenicia and brought it back to Egypt. Typhon cut up the corpse into fourteen pieces. Isis collected the pieces; with the use of spices and by other means she was able to give each piece the appearance of Osiris again. She then induced the priests to accept a third of the land from her, and by being in possession of a third of the land, on the one hand they should keep the grave of Osiris secret, on the other hand institute the Osiris cult—that is to say, a memorial service of the ancient Osiris-time, to keep in memory that there had once been a different perception in humanity. This remembrance was thenceforward to be preserved and all sorts of secrets surrounded it. The time in which Typhon had slain Osiris was indicated to be the time in the November days of autumn when the sun sets in the seventeenth degree of Scorpio, and opposite in Taurus the moon appears in the Pleiades as full-moon.

Then it was related that Osiris once more betook himself from the Underworld, where he rules over the dead and judges them, to the Upperworld in order to instruct his son Horus, whom he had had by Isis. It is further related by the legend that Isis let herself be induced to set free Typhon, whom she had held imprisoned. Her son Horus, instructed by Osiris, grew so angry at this that he came in conflict with Isis his mother and seized the crown from her. Then it is related that either he himself, or, in other versions, Hermes, set cow-horns upon her head in place of the crown, and since then she has been portrayed with these.

Now you see Isis in ancient Egyptian myths standing there at the side of Osiris. And for the feeling of the old Egyptians she was not only a mysterious deity, a mysterious spirit-being who stood in inner relation with the ordering of the world, but one could say that Isis was the epitome of all the deepest thoughts the Egyptians were able to form about the archetypal forces working in nature and in man. If the Egyptian was to look up to the great mysteries in his surroundings, then he must look up to Isis who had a statue in the temple at Sais which has become famous. Beneath this statue, as is well known, stood the inscription that should express the being of Isis: ‘I am the All, I am the Past, the Present and the Future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil.’

Especially in the later period of the Egyptian civilization that was a central thought. And in gazing at the mysteries of Isis, one remembered the other mysteries of the ancient Osiris age. And in connection with Isis, with the Isis at the sight of whom the pious Egyptian trembled when he let the words work upon him: ‘I am the All, I am the Past, the Present and the Future, no mortal has yet lifted my veil;’ when these words worked upon him the Egyptian remembered at the same time that Isis was once united with Osiris, when Osiris still wandered upon earth. The laity looked at it as legendary. In the mysteries the Priests explained that the ancient Osiris time was that in which the old clairvoyance united man with the spirit of nature all about him.

For an understanding of the Osiris-Isis legend or myth at the present day, one must view it with the sensations and feelings which were in the soul, in the heart, of the Egyptian. We have done so in a few characteristic features to begin with. And through these characteristic features there is to stand before our soul's gaze that which once sounded over from ancient times into newer times, which lost its meaning through the Mystery of Golgotha, but must be again unriddled today—precisely for the better understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha. There must stand before our soul's gaze all the mystery that at first could only be divined when the Egyptian felt the words that gave the description of Isis: ‘I am the All, I am the Past, the Present and the Future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil.’ For, my dear friends, we will set opposite this Osiris-Isis myth another Osiris-Isis myth, quite another one. And in the relation of this other Osiris-Isis myth I must count upon your freedom from prejudice, your impartiality in the highest degree, in order that you do not misunderstand it. This other Osiris-Isis myth is in no way born out of foolish arrogance, it is born in humility; it is also of such a nature that perhaps it can only be related today in a most imperfect way. But I will try to characterize its features in a few words.

It is in the first place left to each one—though that can only be provisionally—to fix the time when this Osiris-Isis myth was related in a way that I can only relate today approximately, superficially, even banally. But, as I said, I will try to relate this other Osiris-Isis myth disregarding as much as possible many prejudices and calling upon your unbiased understanding. This other Osiris-Isis myth then has somewhat—I say ‘somewhat’—the following contents. ‘It was in the age of scientific profundity, in the midst of the land of Philisterium. Upon a hill in spiritual seclusion was erected a Building which was considered to be very remarkable in the land of Philisterium.’

(I should just like to say that the future commentator here adds a remark that by ‘the land of Philisterium’ not merely the very nearest environment is meant.)

If one wanted to use the language of Goethe one could say that the Building represented an ‘open secret’. For the Building was closed to none, it was open to all, and in fact everyone could see it at convenient times. But for the greater number of people saw nothing at all. Far the greater number of people saw neither what was built nor what this represented. Far the greater number of people stood—to use Goethe's words again—before an ‘open secret’, a completely open secret.

A statue was intended to be the central point of the Building. This statue presented a Group of beings: the Representative of Man, then—Luciferic and Ahrimanic figures. People looked at the statue and did not know in the age of scientific profundity in the land Philisterium that the Statue, in fact, was only the veil for an invisible statue. But the invisible statue was not noticed by people, for it was the new Isis, the Isis of a new age.

Some few persons of the land of scientific profundity had once heard of this remarkable connection between what was visible and what, as Isis-image, was concealed behind what was open and evident. And then in their profound allegorical-symbolical manner of speech they had put forward the assertion that this combination of the Representative of Man with Lucifer and Ahriman signified Isis. With this word ‘signified’, however, they not only ruined the artistic intention from which the whole thing was supposed to proceed—for an artistic creation does not merely signify something, but is something—but they completely misunderstood all that underlay it. For it was not in the least the point that the figures signified something, but that they already were what they appeared to be. And behind the figures was not an abstract new Isis, but an actual, real new Isis. The figures ‘signified’ nothing at all, but they were in fact, in themselves, that which they made themselves out to be. But they possessed the peculiarity that behind them there was the real being, the new Isis.

Some few who in special circumstances, in special moments, had nevertheless seen this new Isis, found that she is asleep. And so one can say: the real deeper-lying statue that conceals itself behind the external statue is the sleeping new Isis, a sleeping figure—visible—but seen by few. Many persons then turned in special moments to the inscription, which is plainly there at the spot where the statue stands in preparation, but which also has been read by few. And yet the inscription stands clearly there, just as clearly as the inscription once stood on the veiled form at Sais. In fact the inscription stands there: ‘I am Man, I am the Past, the Present and the Future. Every mortal should lift my veil.’

Another figure, as a visitor, once approached the sleeping figure of the new Isis, and then again and again. And the sleeping Isis considered this visitor her special benefactor and loved him. And one day she believed in a particular illusion, just as the visitor believed one day in a particular illusion: the new Isis had an offspring—and she considered the visitor whom she looked on as her benefactor, to be the father. He regarded himself as the father, but he was not. The spirit-visitor, who was none other than the new Typhon, believed that he could acquire a special increase of his power in the world if he took possession of this new Isis. So the new Isis had an offspring, but she did not know its nature, she knew nothing of the being of this new offspring. And she moved it about, she dragged it far off into other lands, because she believed that she must do so. She trailed the new offspring about, and since she had trailed and dragged it through various regions of the world it fell to pieces into fourteen parts through the very power of the world.

Thus the new Isis had carried her offspring into the world and the world had dismembered it in fourteen pieces. When the spirit-visitor, the new Typhon, had come to know of this, he gathered together the fourteen pieces, and with all the knowledge of natural scientific profundity he again made a being, a single whole, out of the fourteen pieces. But in this being there were only mechanical laws, the law of the machine. Thus a being had arisen with the appearance of life, but with the laws of the machine. And since this being had arisen out of fourteen pieces, it could reproduce itself again, fourteen-fold. And Typhon could give a reflection of his own being to each piece, so that each of the fourteen offspring of the new Isis had a countenance that resembled the new Typhon.

And Isis had to follow all this strange affair, half-divining it; half-divining she could see the whole miraculous change that had come to her offspring. She knew that she had herself dragged it about, that she had herself brought all this to pass. But there came a day when in its true, its genuine form she could accept it again from a group of spirits who were elemental spirits of nature, could receive it from nature elementals.

As she received her true offspring which only through an illusion had been stamped into the offspring of Typhon, there dawned upon her a remarkable clairvoyant vision: she suddenly noticed that she still had the cow-horns of ancient Egypt, in spite of having become a new Isis.

And lo and behold, when she had thus become clairvoyant, the power of her clairvoyance summoned—some say Typhon himself, some say, Mercury. And he was obliged through the power of the clairvoyance of the new Isis to set a crown on her head in the place where once the old Isis had had the crown which Horus had seized from her, that is to say, on the spot where she developed the cow-horns. But this crown was merely of paper—covered with all sorts of writings of a profoundly scientific nature—still it was of paper. And she now had two crowns on her head, the cow-horns and the paper crown embellished with all the wisdom of scientific profundity.

Through the strength of her clairvoyance there one day arose in her the deep meaning, as far as the age could reach, of that which is described in St. John's Gospel as the Logos. There arose in her the Johannine significance of the Mystery of Golgotha. Through this strength the power of the cow-horns grasped the paper crown and changed it into an actual golden crown of genuine substance.

These then are the main features, my dear friends, that can be given of the new Osiris-Isis Legend. I will not of course make myself the commentator who explains this Osiris-Isis Legend. It is the other Osiris-Isis Legend. But it must set one thing definitely before our souls: Even though the power of action which is bound up with the new Isis statue is at first only weak, exploring and attempting, it is to be the starting point of something that is deeply justified in the impulses of the modern age, deeply justified in what this age is meant to become and must become.

In recent days we have spoken of how the Word has withdrawn, as it were, from the direct soul-experience from which it originally gushed forth as from a spring. We have seen how we live in the age of abstractions, where men's words and concepts have only an abstract meaning, where man stands far away from reality. The power of the Word, the power of the Logos, however, must be laid hold of again. The cow-horns of the ancient Isis must take on quite a different form.

It is difficult to say such things with the modern abstract words. For such things it is better if you try to bring them before the eye of your soul in such Imaginations as have been brought before you, and to work over these Imaginations as Imaginations. It is very important for the new Isis, through the power of the Word which is to be regained through spiritual science, to transform the cow-horns, so that even the paper crown which is written upon in the new deeply profound scientific method, that even the paper crown will become a genuine golden crown.

‘So one day someone came before the provisional form of the statue of the new Isis, and up above at the left was placed a figure of humorous deportment, which in its world-mood had something between seriousness, a serious idea of the world and, one might say, even a chuckling about the world. And lo and behold! as once upon a time someone stood opposite this figure in a specially favourable moment, the figure became alive and said quite facetiously: Humanity has only forgotten the matter, but centuries ago something was placed before the new humanity about the nature of the new humanity, in so far as this new humanity is still only master of the abstract word, the abstract concept, the abstract idea and is far removed from the reality. This new humanity keeps well to words and always asks: Is it a pumpkin or is it a flask? ... when it happens that a flask has been made from a pumpkin ... always clings to definitions, always stops short at words! In the 15th, 16th, 17th centuries—so said the chuckling being—mankind still had self-knowledge about this peculiar situation of taking words in a false sense, not relating them to their true reality, but taking them in their most superficial sense. Today, however, men themselves have already forgotten what was put before them for the benefit of their self-knowledge, in the 15th, 16th, 17th centuries.’

And the being went on chuckling and said: ‘What modern humanity should take as a real recipe for its abstract spirit is depicted on a tombstone in Mölln in the Lauenburg district. Because a tombstone stands there and on this tombstone is drawn an owl (Eule) which holds before itself a looking-glass (Spiegel). And it is related that Till Eulenspiegel, after he had wandered through the world with all sorts of buffoonery and pranks, was buried there. It is related that this Till Eulenspiegel existed, that he was born in the year 1300, went to Poland, even reached Rome and in Rome even had a wager with the Court-jesters over all sorts of odds and ends of wisdom, and committed all the other Till Eulenspiegelisms, which indeed are to be read in the literature about Till Eulenspiegel himself.’

Learned men—and the men who are scholars, are indeed very learned today and take everything with extraordinary gravity and significance—these have naturally discovered—they have discovered various things: for example, that there was no Homer, etc.—the scholars have naturally also discovered that there never was a Till Eulenspiegel. One of the chief reasons why the actual bones of the actual Till Eulenspiegel, who was only the representative of his age, are not supposed to lie beneath the tombstone in Lauenburg, on which is depicted the owl with the looking-glass, was because another tombstone had been found in Belgium upon which there was likewise an Owl with a mirror. Now the learned men naturally have said—for that is logical is it not, and logical are they all—how does it go in Shakespeare—for they are all honourable men—all, all, all!—logical are they all! They have said: if the same sign is found in Lauenburg and Belgium then naturally no Eulenspiegel existed at all.

Generally in life if one finds a second time what one has found a first time, one takes this as a reinforcement—but it is logical, is it not, in these things to take matters so. Well, we say, if I have one franc, then I have one franc. I believe it. So long as I only know that I have a franc, I believe it! But then I get another and I now have two. Now I believe that I have not one at all!—that is the same logic. This is the logic in fact that is to be found in our science—if I were to recount to you how everywhere it is to be found wry frequently! But what is the essential point of the Eulenspiegel-buffoonery? Read it up in the book: the essential thing of the Till Eulenspiegel-buffoonery always consists in the fact that Eulenspiegel is given some sort of commission, and that he takes it purely literally and naturally carries it out in the wrong way. For obviously if, for instance—to exaggerate somewhat—one were to say to Eulenspiegel (whom I now take as a representative figure) ‘Bring me a doctor,’ he would take the word literally and would bring a man who had graduated as doctor from a University. But he would perhaps bring a man who was—excuse the strong language—a perfect fool, he only went by the sound of the word. All the fooleries of Till Eulenspiegel are like this, he only goes by the wording. But this makes Till Eulenspiegel precisely the representative of the present age. Eulenspiegelism is a keynote in our modern times. Words today are far removed from their original source, ideas are often still farther removed, and people do not notice it, but behave in an Eulenspiegel way to what civilization happens to serve up. It was therefore possible for Fritz Mauthner in a philosophical dictionary to take all the philosophical concepts that he could find and convince one that all these philosophical concepts are actually merely words, that they no longer have a connection with any kind of actuality. People have no notion how far they are removed from reality in what today they call ideas, and even ‘ideals’. In other words: mankind does not know at all how it has made Eulenspiegel into its patron saint, how Eulenspiegel is still wandering through the different lands.

One of the fundamental evils indeed, of our time, rests on the fact that modern humanity flees from Pallas Athene, that is, from the Goddess of Wisdom, and clings to the symbol, the owl (Eule). And mankind no longer has the least idea of it—but it is true, as I have often shown, that the foundation of external knowledge is only a reflection—but, my dear friends, in a mirror one sees that which one is! And so the owl ... I mean the modern scientific profundity, sees in the glass, in the world-maya illusion just simply its own face.

Over such matters as these the being at the left above the modern Isis Statue chuckles and sniggers, and over many other matters which, out of a certain courtesy towards mankind, shall not be mentioned at the moment.

But, a feeling should be called forth that with the peculiarity of this presentation of human mysteries through the real existence of the Luciferic, Ahrimanic, in connection with the Representative of humanity itself, a state of consciousness is to be roused in mankind which wakes those very impulses in the soul which are necessary for the coming age.

‘In the Primal Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.’ But the word has become phrase, it has withdrawn from its beginning. The word sounds and resounds, but its connection with reality is not sought for; there is no endeavour among men to investigate the primary forces of what goes on around them. And one can only investigate these fundamental forces, in the sense of the present age, if one realizes that the essentiality which we call Luciferic and Ahrimanic, is really bound up with the microcosmic forces of man. And one can only understand reality today for the man living between birth and death, if one can form a few ideas of the other reality, which indeed we have often studied, that lies for man between death and a new birth. For the one reality is only the pole of the other reality, the inverted pole of the other reality.

We have spoken of how in ancient times, when human beings entered on the age of maturity, they not only experienced a change such as still occurs today in the change of voice or some other part of the bodily organism, but they also underwent an alteration of the soul. We have indicated how the ancient Osiris-Isis myth was in fact connected with the vanishing of the alteration of the soul. What then arose in humanity through those essences and forces of which we spoke yesterday, must come again differently, inasmuch as men experience the force of the word, the force of the thought, the force of the idea in a new form. It must not now be as if something arises through the forces of nature from the depths of the bodily organization—as in the change of voice in the boy—something which embellishes man with the power of the animal organization and functions invisibly upon his head as cow-horns. No, there must be a conscious grasping by man of what is meant by the Mystery of Golgotha, by the true power of the Word. A new element must draw into the human consciousness. This new element is radically different from the elements which people still enjoy describing today. This new element, however, has its significance for the social life, for the pedagogy of humanity, when pedagogy, or the theory of Education, comes out of the tragic state in which it exists today.

What does the deeply profound Eulenspiegelism—I should say ‘natural scientific profundity’—speak of principally when it speaks of man? Of what does even a great part of modern fiction speak? It speaks of the physical origin of man in connection with physical beings of the line of descent. Fundamentally the so-called modern, the much renowned modern theory of evolution is nothing but a conception placing the doctrine of physical descent in the centre. For the idea of heredity plays far the greatest role in the theory of evolution. It is a onesidedness. Men are thoroughly satisfied with such onesidedness, for people think nowadays that in this way one can be very learned. So one can, with quite arbitrary explanations of things, drawn apparently from deep logic, but in reality from misty vagueness.

Yesterday we saw an example of how whole literatures are written because men have lost the connection of a concept with the original experience from which the concept proceeded: the Cross-symbol. A whole literature has been written about it, the cross has been related to everything imaginable. We saw yesterday to what it must be related. The same has been done in regard to many other things and people think themselves very profound when they do it.

I will remind you of one case, my dear friends. Just think how infinitely important many men think themselves nowadays when they believe that they are speaking as we have spoken here today! There are a fair number of people who say—in fact they very frequently use the words—Oh, one can read it any moment in the papers (with respect be it spoken)—‘the Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life’. And with this, one thinks one has said something most profound. But one should inquire about the origin of such a saying. It goes back to those times when one had living concepts which indeed still had a connection with what had been undergone and experienced. When one talks today there is little connection—especially between the word and its place of origin. If you want to have a right connection between words and sentences and their origins, then I advise you to read the little book in which ‘Swiss-German Proverbs’ have now been collected. For one still finds in these popular proverbs an original harmonizing of what is said with the direct experience. The letter ... by this is meant, as you know, the letter-script in contradistinction to the ancient kind which the Imaginative life drew out of the spirit, as we described yesterday. This ancient spirit gave life, and the livingness in that epoch of human evolution resulted in the Imaginative atavistic clairvoyance. But there was a consciousness that this epoch must in turn be succeeded by another, that the letter must come which kills the ancient livingness.

And now bring that into connection with all that I have said about the actual nature of consciousness in connection with death. For it is the letter that kills but that also brings the consciousness which must be overcome again through another consciousness. The sort of disdainful rejection that modern journalistic folly attaches to the proverb ‘the letter kills but the spirit gives life’ is not what is meant, but the sentence is connected with impulses of man's evolution. It implies approximately: In ancient times, Imaginative times, Osiris times, the spirit kept the human soul in a state of dulled livingness, in later times the letter called forth consciousness. That is the interpretation of the sentence, that is what it originally meant. And in many instances. Just as in this one, men today are very ready with opinions, with arbitrary explanations, because they do not connect anything with them.

This does not prove that it is false what the modern profound scientific method has to say about the idea of heredity, it is only that the other pole must be added when one speaks of heredity. If man points to his childhood, and back from childhood to birth, if he asks himself ‘What do I carry within me?’—then the answer is: what parents and ancestors have carried within them and transmitted to me! There is, however, another way of looking at the human being which present-day man does not as yet practise, which the man of the future must practise, and which must be put in the centre of pedagogy, the art of Education. This is not the looking back at having been younger, but the right consideration of the fact that with every day in life one becomes older. As a matter of fact modern mankind only understands that one has once been young. It does not really understand how to grasp realistically that one gets older with every day. For they do not know the word that must be added to the word heredity when one sets the becoming-older opposite the having-been-young. If one looks to one's childhood one speaks of what one has inherited; in the same way, when one looks towards the getting-older one can speak of the other pole; as of the Gate of Birth, so one can speak of the Gate of Death. There arises the one question: What have we gained through our forefathers by entering this life through the Gate of Birth? There arises the other question: What perhaps do we lose, what becomes different in us through the fact that we are approaching coming times, that we get older with every day? What is it like when we consciously experience the becoming-older-with-every day?

That, however, is a demand on our age. Humanity must learn to become older consciously with every day. For if man learns consciously to become older with every day, then this really means a meeting with spiritual beings, just as it means a descent from physical beings, that one is born and possesses inherited qualities.

I will speak next of how these things are connected: of that important inner impulse which must draw near the human soul, if the soul is to find what is so necessary for the future, what alone can round out and complete the one-sided teachings of Natural Science.

Then you will see why the new Isis Myth can stand beside the old Osiris-Isis Myth, why both together are necessary for the men of today; why other words must be combined with the words which resound from the Statue of Isis at Sais in ancient Egypt: ‘I am the All; I am the Past, the Present, the Future; no mortal has lifted my veil’ ... Other words must sound into these; they may no longer echo one-sidedly into the human soul today but in addition must resound the words: ‘I am Man, I am the Past, the Present and the Future. Every mortal should lift my veil.’

Today I have set before you more riddles than solutions. We will, however, speak of them further and the riddles will then be solved in manifold ways.

Zehnter Vortrag

Wir haben versucht in diesen Tagen, einiges über den Entwickelungsgang der Menschheit zu verstehen. Wir haben gesucht, die tieferen Grundlagen solcher Mythen zu verfolgen, wie die Osiris-Isismythe eine ist; wir haben ferner versucht, uns von einem gewissen Gesichtspunkte aus wiederum in der griechischen Götterwelt zurechtzufinden. Und wir haben mit einigem die innere Bedeutung der Anschauungen gestreift, die vielleicht nicht klar zum Ausdrucke kommen, aber zugrunde liegen den Mythendichtungen Ägyptens und Griechenlands, und haben die Beziehungen dessen, was diesen Mythen zugrunde liegt, zu den alttestamentlichen Lehren, wenigstens andeutend ins Auge zu fassen versucht. Diese alttestamentlichen Lehren sind aus anderem Geiste entsprungen als die Götterlehren der Ägypter und der Griechen. Wir haben gesehen, daß die Götterlehren der Ägypter und der Griechen, so wie sie aufgebaut sind, herstammen aus gewissen alten geistigen Erfahrungen der Menschheit, aus einem gewissen Bewußtsein heraus, daß die Menschheit einmal atavistisches Hellsehen gehabt hat und durch das atavistische Hellsehen mit dem Geiste, der die Natur durchdringt, in einer so innigen Beziehung gestanden hat, wie später die Menschheit nur in Beziehung steht zwischen Geburt und Tod mit dem äußerlich Sinnenfälligen. Wir haben gesehen, daß für diese alte atavistische Erkenntnis die umfassende Anschauung von der Welt, welche innerliche Erfahrung war, mehr zu bedeuten hatte als dasjenige, was die bloß sinnenfällige Anschauung der Übergangsmenschheit, zu der wir auch noch gehören, in bezug auf Erkenntnis sein kann.

Alles, was sich gewissermaßen abgesetzt hat an Vorstellungen in der ägyptischen, in der griechischen Götterlehre, Götteranschauung besser gesagt, das ist mit dem moralischen Grundton eben als eigentliche Lehre im Alten Testamente zu finden. Ich sagte Ihnen ja vorgestern, als ich von einem wichtigen Unterschiede der ägyptischen, der griechischen Götterlehre und des Alten Testamentes sprach: Diejenigen geistig-göttlichen Wesenheiten, welche am Ausgangspunkt des Alten Testamentes stehen, die Elohim, Jahve, sie können nur gedacht werden als den Menschen mitschaffend; sie können nur so gedacht werden, daß durch ihre Taten dasjenige entstanden ist, was wir Erdenmenschheit nennen, und daß die gesamte Entwickelung der Erdenmenschheit erst nach der Grundtat der Elohim beziehungsweise Jahves, sich auf Erden vollzieht. Das ist bei der ägyptischen, bei der griechischen Götterlehre nicht so. Da sehen die Menschen zurück in alte Zeiten und sie sagen sich: Die Götter Osiris, Isis, Zeus, Apollo, Mars, Pallas, die jetzt mit der Lenkung der menschlichen Geschicke zusammenhängen, die sind entstanden aus andern Göttergenerationen heraus; aber die Menschen waren immer schon da. Die ägyptische, die griechische Götterlehre führte die Menschen zurück auf alte Zeiten, in denen noch nicht diejenigen Götter schaffend und herrschend waren, die eben von diesen Zeiten anerkannt werden. Die Menschen schrieben sich also in Ägypten und Griechenland ein höheres Alter zu, als das Herrschaftsalter ihrer entsprechenden Götter ist.

Das ist ein so fundamentaler, ein so bedeutsamer Unterschied, daß man ihn zunächst wohl ins Auge fassen muß. Wir werden im Laufe dieser Betrachtungen sehen, auf was für eine unendlich wichtige, bedeutsame Tatsache diese Anschauung hinzielt. Bei der alttestamentlichen Götterlehre liegt die Sache so, daß die verehrten Götter zu gleicher Zeit die für das Menschengeschlecht schöpferischen Götter sind. Nur dadurch, daß die alttestamentliche I.ehre das Göttliche zum Menschlich-Schöpferischen macht, nur dadurch ist es der alttestamentlichen Lehre möglich geworden, das moralische Element, den moralischen Impuls in die Götterordnung und dadurch in die ganze Menschenordnung, wir könnten sagen, in die Vorstellung mit aufzunehmen.

Es ist dies wichtig zum Verständnis der Weltanschauungen der Gegenwart. Denn die Weltanschauungen der Gegenwart stammen nicht in sehr eindeutiger Weise von irgendeinem einheitlichen Ursprung ab, sondern die Weltanschauungen der Gegenwart haben sehr verschiedene Ursprünge, und manches tragen wir in uns, an das wir glauben, zu dem wir uns bekennen als Menschen der Gegenwart, welches unmittelbar im griechischen Anschauen wurzelt. Manches tragen wir in uns, insbesondere die unmittelbare Gegenwart trägt vieles in sich, welches zurückweist auf die alttestamentliche Götterlehre. Das Suchen der Menschen, das Suchen vieler Menschen geht nach einem Sich-Zurechtfinden in diesen oftmals einander widersprechenden Vorstellungen und Begriffen durch den Impuls, der von dem Mysterium von Golgatha ausgeht. Das alles ist gewissermaßen noch Programm für uns, und wir werden es in dieser Zeit, die uns noch gegönnt ist zusammenzusein, auszubauen haben.

Wichtig ist vor allen Dingen, daß wir eines zugrunde legen können. Ich habe schon gestern darauf hingedeutet. Wir leben — das haben wir öfter erwähnt - seit dem 15. Jahrhundert im fünften nachatlantischen Zeitalter; und in einer gewissen Beziehung, sagte ich, müssen gewisse Impulse des dritten nachatlantischen Zeitalters, des ägyptisch-chaldäischen Zeitalters, wiederum aufgehen in dem fünften, geradeso wie in dem sechsten nachatlantischen Zeitalter gewisse Impulse des zweiten, des Zarathustrazeitalters, des urpersischen, aufleuchten werden, und wie im letzten nachatlantischen Zeitalter, im siebenten, gewisse Impulse des urindischen Zeitalters wieder aufleuchten werden. Das ist ein Gesetzmäßiges im menschlichen Entwickelungsgange, das in bedeutungsvoller Weise hinzielt auf dasjenige, was im wesentlichen der Menschheit geistig bevorsteht bis zu der neuen Katastrophe, die kommen muß, einer Naturkatastrophe ähnlich.

Nun haben wir zum Teil schon gesehen, welch ungeheure Tiefe des menschlichen Bewußtseins in alten Zeiten sich darinnen ausdrückt, daß diese alten Zeiten die Osirismythe ausgebildet haben. Wir haben gesehen, daß dieses alte Zeitalter sagen wollte: Es lebte einst unter den Menschen eine Anschauung, wodurch der Mensch das Geistige in seiner Naturumgebung noch unmittelbar in seinen atavistischen Imaginationen erleben konnte. - Das war die Zeit, in der Osiris herrschte. Aber die neuen Anschauungen, die Typhonanschauungen, jene Anschauungen, die aus der Bilderschrift die Buchstabenschrift gemacht haben, jene Anschauungen, die aus den uralten heiligen Sprachen, welche die Menschen gemeinschaftlich gesprochen haben, die einzelnen Lautsprachen gebildet haben, diese typhonischen Anschauungen, diese Anschauungen Typhons, die haben dasjenige, was in der Menschheit als der Osirisimpuls lebte, getötet, so daß der Osiris seither als eine Wesenheit bei den Menschen nur dann ist, wenn sie zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt sind.

Wir haben dann im wesentlichen die Osiris-Isislegende verfolgt, haben gesehen, wie Osiris als ein uralter Herrscher Ägyptens betrachtet wird, der den Ägyptern die wesentlichsten ihrer Künste gebracht hat, der durch lange Zeiten hindurch in Ägypten geherrscht hat, der auch von Ägypten aus in andere Länder gezogen ist, und nicht durch das Schwert, sondern durch die Überredung die Wohltaten der in Ägypten gelehrten Künste nach andern Ländern gebracht hat. Während seiner Abwesenheit auf Reisen also, als er nach andern Ländern die Wohltat brachte, durch die er die Ägypter unterwies, führte in seinem eigenen Lande, in Ägypten, Typhon, sein böser Bruder, Neuerungen ein. Und als dann Osiris wieder zurückkam, wurde er trotz der Wachsamkeit seiner Gattin Isis von Typhon getötet. Isis suchte dann den Osiris überall. Durch Knaben - so erzählt die Legende - wurde ihr verraten, daß der Sarg fortgeschwommen sei. Sie entdeckte ihn dann in Byblos in Phönizien, sie brachte ihn zurück nach Ägypten. Typhon zerstückelte den Leichnam in vierzehn Stücke. Isis sammelte die Stücke; sie konnte jedem Stück durch Spezereien und andere Mittel wiederum das Aussehen des Osiris geben. Sie bewog dann die Priester, ein Drittel des Landes von ihr in Besitz zu nehmen und dafür, daß sie ein Drittel des Landes in Besitz nahmen, sollten sie auf der einen Seite das Grabmal des Osiris geheimhalten, auf der andern Seite den Osirisdienst einrichten, das heißt den Erinnerungsdienst an die alte Osiriszeit, daran, daß einstmals ein anderes Anschauen in der Menschheit vorhanden war. Es sollte diese Erinnerung fortan gefeiert werden. Umflossen war diese Erinnerung von allerlei Geheimnissen. Hingedeutet war auf die Zeit, in der Typhon den Osiris getötet hat, als die Zeit, in welcher die Sonne in den Novembertagen des Herbstes untergeht im siebzehnten Grade des Skorpion, und der Mond, auf der entgegengesetzten Seite, im Stier, in den Plejaden als Vollmond erschienen war.

Dann wurde erzählt, daß sich Osiris noch einmal von der Unterwelt, wo er fortan über die Toten herrscht, wo er der Totenrichter ist, begeben hat in die Oberwelt, um seinen Sohn Horus, den er mit Isis hatte, zu unterweisen. Es wird weiter von der Legende erzählt, daß Isis sich doch habe bewegen lassen, den Typhon freizugeben, den sie gefangengehalten hatte. Darüber erzürnte der von Osiris unterrichtete Sohn Horus so stark, daß er mit der Mutter, mit der Isis, in Streit kam und ihr die Krone entriß. Dann wird erzählt, daß er ihr entweder selber, in anderer Version auch, daß der Hermes ihr an Stelle der Krone Kuhhörner aufgesetzt hätte, mit denen sie seither abgebildet wird.

Nun, Sie sehen da Isis in der altägyptischen Mythe an der Seite des Osiris stehen. Und Isis war für die Anschauung der alten Ägypter nicht nur eine geheimnisvolle Gottheit, nicht nur ein geheimnisvolles Geisteswesen, das mit dem Weltenregiment in innigem Zusammenhange stand, sondern Isis war auch, ich möchte sagen, der Inbegriff alles Tiefen, das die Ägypter zu denken vermochten über die Urkräfte, die im Natürlichen und im Menschendasein wirkten. Wenn der Ägypter aufschauen sollte zu dem, was die großen Geheimnisse in seiner Umgebung sind, dann sollte er aufblicken zu Isis, welche ein Standbild hatte in dem Tempel zu Sais, das berühmt geworden ist. Unter diesem Standbilde stand bekanntlich die Inschrift, die ausdrücken sollte das Wesen der Isis: Ich bin das All, ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft; meinen Schleier hat noch kein Sterblicher gelüftet.

Das war insbesondere im Spätzeitalter der ägyptischen Kultur ein Mittelpunktsgedanke dieser ägyptischen Kultur. Und im Anblicke der Geheimnisse der Isis erinnerte man sich an die andern Geheimnisse der alten Osiriszeit. Und mit der Isis in Zusammenhang, mit der Isis, vor deren Anblick der ägyptische Bekenner erschauerte, wenn er die Worte auf sich wirken ließ: Ich bin das All, ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft; meinen Schleier hat noch kein Sterblicher gelüftet -, wenn der Ägypter diese Worte auf sich wirken ließ, dann gedachte er wohl auch zu gleicher Zeit, daß Isis einmal verbunden war mit Osiris, als Osiris noch auf Erden wandelte. Der profane Mensch stellte sich die Sache legendenhaft vor. In den Mysterien sprachen die Priester davon, daß die alte Osiriszeit diejenige war, in welcher das alte Hellsehen den Menschen mit dem Geiste der Natur ringsherum verband.

Mit diesen Empfindungen und Gefühlen, die in der Seele, die im Herzen des Ägypters waren, muß man heute zur Orientierung für die Gegenwart die Osiris-Isislegende oder -mythe nun ins Auge fassen. Wir haben es zunächst in einigen Grundzügen getan. Und durch diese Grundzüge soll, möchte ich sagen, vor unserem Seelenblicke stehen dasjenige, was einmal herübergetönt hat aus alten Zeiten in neuere Zeiten, was durch das Mysterium von Golgatha zwar seinen Sinn verloren hat, aber heute wiederum enträtselt werden muß, gerade zum besseren Verständnisse des Mysteriums von Golgatha. Vor unserem Seelenblick muß stehen all das Geheimnisvolle, das zunächst nur geahnt werden kann, wenn der Ägypter die Worte empfand, die die Charakteristik der Isis abgaben: Ich bin das All, ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft; meinen Schleier hat noch kein Sterblicher gelüftet. - Denn wir wollen gegenüber dieser OsirisIsismythe eine andere Osiris-Isismythe stellen, eine ganz andere. Und indem diese erzählt wird, diese andere Osiris-Isismythe, muß im hohen Grade auf Ihre Vorurteilslosigkeit, auf Ihre Unbefangenheit, muß darauf gerechnet werden, daß Sie ja nicht mißverstehen diese andere Osiris-Isismythe. Sie ist keineswegs aus albernem Hochmut geboren, sie ist in Demut geboren; sie ist auch so geartet, daß sie vielleicht heute nur in höchst unvollkommener Weise erzählt werden kann. Aber ich werde versuchen, ihre Züge mit einigen Worten zu charakterisieren.

Es ist zunächst - obwohl das nur vorläufig sein kann - jedem überlassen, wann er die Zeit ansetzen will, in der diese Osiris-Isismythe so erzählt wird, wie ich sie nur annähernd, oberflächlich, möchte ich sagen, banal heute erzählen kann. Aber wie gesagt, ich will mich bemühen, diese andere Osiris-Isismythe zu erzählen, mich dabei möglichst über manche Vorurteile hinwegsetzend und appellierend an Ihr vorurteilsloses Verständnis. Diese andere Osiris-Isismythe hat also etwa, ich sage etwa, folgenden Inhalt.

Es war in der Zeit der wissenschaftlichen Tiefgründigkeit, mitten im Lande Philisterium. Da wurde errichtet auf einem geisteseinsamen Hügel ein Bau, den man im Lande Philisterium sehr merkwürdig fand. — Ich möchte noch sagen: Der kommende Kommentator fügt da eine Anmerkung hinzu, daß mit dem Lande Philisterium nicht bloß etwa die allernächste Umgebung gemeint ist. - Wenn man in der Sprache Goethes reden wollte, so könnte man sagen, der Bau stellte dar ein «offenbares Geheimnis». Denn der Bau war niemandem verschlossen; der Bau war allen zugänglich, und es konnte ihn im Grunde genommen jeder bei günstiger Gelegenheit sehen. Aber die allergrößte Mehrzahl der Leute sah gar nichts. Die allergrößte Mehrzahl der Leute sah weder, was gebaut ist, noch was das Gebaute vorstellte. Die allergrößte Mehrzahl der Leute stand -um eben wieder im goetheschen Sinne zu reden - vor einem offenbaren Geheimnis, einem ganz offenbaren Geheimnis.

Als Mittelpunkt des Baues war ein Standbild gedacht. Dieses Standbild stellte dar eine Gruppe von Wesenheiten: den Menschheitsrepräsentanten, dann Luziferisches, Ahrimanisches. Die Menschen schauten sich dieses Standbild an und wußten in dem Zeitalter der wissenschaftlichen Tiefgründigkeit innerhalb des Landes Philisterium nicht, daß dieses Standbild im Grunde genommen nur der Schleier ist für ein unsichtbares Standbild. Aber das unsichtbare Standbild, das merkten die Leute nicht; denn dieses unsichtbare Standbild, das war die neue Isis, die Isis eines neuen Zeitalters.

Einige aus dem Lande der wissenschaftlichen Tiefgründigkeit hatten einmal gehört von diesem merkwürdigen Verhältnisse desjenigen, was offenbar war, zu dem, was als Isisbild verborgen war hinter dem Offenbaren. Und dann hatten sie in ihrer tiefgründigen, allegorisch-symbolischen Sprechweise die Behauptung aufgestellt: diese Zusammenstellung des Menschheitsrepräsentanten und Luzifer und Ahriman bedeutete die Isis. Mit diesem Worte «bedeutete» haben sie aber nicht nur das künstlerische Wollen ruiniert, aus dem die Sache hervorgegangen sein sollte - denn Künstlerisches bedeutet nicht nur etwas, sondern ist etwas -, sie haben auch die ganze Sachlage, die zugrunde liegt, vollständig verkannt. Denn es handelte sich gar nicht darum, daß die Gestalten etwas bedeuteten, sondern die Gestalten waren schon das, als was sie sich gaben. Und hinter den Gestalten war nicht eine abstrakte neue Isis, sondern eine wirkliche, reale neue Isis. Die Gestalten bedeuteten sie gar nicht, sondern die Gestalten waren eben für sich das, als was sie sich gaben. Aber sie hatten in sich die Eigentümlichkeit, daß hinter ihnen das reale Wesen, die neue Isis, war.

Einige, welche in besonderer Lage, in besonderen Augenblicken diese neue Isis doch gesehen hatten, haben gefunden, daß sie schläft. Und so kann man sagen: Das wirkliche tiefere Standbild, das sich hinter dem äußeren, offenbaren Standbilde verbirgt, ist die schlafende neue Isis, eine schlafende Gestalt, sichtbar, aber von wenigen gesehen. Manche wandten sich dann in besonderen Augenblicken zur Aufschrift, die deutlich dasteht, aber auch von wenigen in dem Ort, wo das Standbild in Vorbereitung steht, zunächst gelesen worden ist; und doch steht die Aufschrift deutlich da, ebenso deutlich, wie einstmals die Aufschrift auf dem verschleierten Bilde zu Sais gestanden hat. Die Aufschrift steht nämlich da: Ich bin der Mensch. Ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft. Meinen Schleier sollte jeder Sterbliche lüften.

Einstmals nahte sich der schlafenden Gestalt der neuen Isis zum ersten Male und dann immer wieder und wiederum eine andere Gestalt, wie ein Besucher. Und die schlafende Isis hielt diesen Besucher für ihren besonderen Wohltäter und liebte ihn. Und sie glaubte eines Tages an eine besondere Illusion, ebenso wie der Besucher eines Tages an eine besondere Illusion glaubte: die neue Isis bekam einen Sprossen — und sie hielt den Besucher, den sie für ihren Wohltäter hielt, für den Vater. Der hielt sich selber für den Vater, aber er war es nicht. Der geistige Besucher, der kein anderer war als der neue Typhon, er glaubte, daß er dadurch in der Welt einen besonderen Zuwachs seiner Macht erhalten könnte, daß er sich dieser neuen Isis bemächtige. So hatte die neue Isis einen Sprossen. Aber sie erkannte sein Wesen nicht, sie wußte nichts von der Wesenheit dieses neuen Sprossen. Und sie verschleppte ihn, sie trug ihn hinaus weit in die Lande, weil sie glaubte, daß sie das so tun müsse. Sie verschleppte den neuen Sprossen, und da sie ihn durch verschiedene Gegenden der Welt geschleppt hatte, verschleppt hatte, da zerfiel er wie durch die Gewalt der Welt selber in vierzehn Stücke.

So hatte die neue Isis ihren Sprossen hinausgetragen in die Welt, und die Welt hatte den Sprossen zerstückelt in vierzehn Stücke. Als dieses der Geistbesucher erfahren hatte, der neue Typhon, da hat er die vierzehn Stücke zusammengesucht, und mit all den Kenntnissen der naturwissenschaftlichen Tiefgründigkeit hat er aus diesen vierzehn Stücken wiederum eines gemacht, ein Wesen. Aber in diesem Wesen war nur mechanische Gesetzmäßigkeit, nur maschinenmäßige Gesetzmäßigkeit. So war ein Wesen entstanden mit dem Schein des Lebens, das aber maschinenmäßige Gesetzmäßigkeit hatte. Und dieses Wesen, weil es aus vierzehn Stücken entstanden ist, konnte sich wiederum vervierzehnfachen. Und Typhon konnte jedem Stück einen Abglanz seiner eigenen Wesenheit geben, so daß jedem der vierzehn Sprossen der neuen Isis ein Antlitz ward, das dem neuen Typhon glich.

Und Isis mußte ahnend all dies Wunderbare verfolgen; ahnend konnte sie all dieses Wunderbare schauen, was mit ihrem Sprossen vor sich gegangen war. Sie wußte: sie hat ihn selber verschleppt, sie hat selber das alles herbeigeführt. Aber es kam ein Tag, da konnte sie ihn in seiner wahren Gestalt, in seiner echten Gestalt von den Händen einer Reihe von Geistern, die Elementargeister der Natur waren, entgegennehmen, konnte ihn zurückerhalten von Elementargeistern der Natur.

Als sie ihren wahren Sprossen, der nur durch eine Illusion zum Sprossen des ’Typhon gestempelt worden war, zurückerhalten hatte, da ging ihr ein merkwürdiges hellseherisches Gesicht auf, da merkte sie plötzlich, daß sie noch die Kuhhörner vom alten Ägypten hatte, trotzdem sie eine neue Isis geworden war.

Und siehe da, als sie so hellsichtig geworden war, rief die Kraft ihrer Hellsichtigkeit - einige sagen den Typhon selbst, einige sagen den Merkur herbei. Und der war gezwungen, durch die Kraft der Hellsichtigkeit der neuen Isis, ihr eine Krone an dieselbe Stelle ihres Hauptes aufzusetzen, wo einstmals die alte Isis jene Krone gehabt hat, die ihr Horus herabgerissen hatte, an dieselbe Stelle also, wo sie die Kuhhörner bekommen hat. Aber diese Krone war aus eitlem Papier, beschrieben mit allerlei tiefgründiger Wissenschaftlichkeit, aber sie war aus Papier. Und sie hatte jetzt zwei Kronen auf dem Kopf: die Kuhhörner und die Krone aus Papier, mit aller Weisheit der wissenschaftlichen Tiefgründigkeit geziert.

Durch die Kraft ihrer Hellsichtigkeit ging ihr eines Tages auf die tiefste Bedeutung, die das Zeitalter erreichen konnte, desjenigen, was im Johannes-Evangelium als der Logos bezeichnet wird; es ging ihr die Johanneische Bedeutung des Mysteriums von Golgatha auf. Durch diese Kraft ergriff die Macht der Kuhhörner die papierene Krone und wandelte sie in eine wirkliche Goldkrone aus echter Weisheit um.

Das sind so die Züge, die angegeben werden können von dieser neuen Osiris-Isislegende. Ich will mich selbstverständlich nicht selber zum Kommentator, zum Erklärer dieser Osiris-Isislegende machen. Sie ist die andere Osiris-Isislegende. Aber sie soll eines vor unsere Seele stellen: Wenn auch heute das Können, das verbunden ist mit dem neuen Isis-Standbilde, nur erst ein schwaches, versuchendes und tastendes ist, es soll der Ausgangspunkt von etwas sein, das tief berechtigt ist in den Impulsen der neueren Zeit, das tief berechtigt ist in dem, was dieses Zeitalter soll und was dieses Zeitalter werden muß.

Wir haben gerade in diesen Tagen davon gesprochen, wie das Wort gewissermaßen sich entfernt hat von dem unmittelbar seelischen Erlebnis, dem das Wort ursprünglich entquollen ist. Wir haben gesehen, wie wir im Zeitalter der’Abstraktionen leben, wo die Worte, die Vorstellungen der Menschen nur noch abstrakte Bedeutung haben, wo der Mensch der Wirklichkeit ferne steht. Die Kraft des Wortes, die Kraft des Logos muß aber wieder ergriffen werden. Die Kuhhörner der alten Isis müssen sich in eine ganz andere Gestalt verwandeln.

Solche Dinge kann man schwer mit den heutigen abstrakten Worten sagen. Für solche Dinge ist es besser, wenn Sie versuchen, sie in diesen Imaginationen, die Ihnen vorgeführt worden sind, vor Ihr Seelenauge zu führen und diese Imaginationen etwas zu verarbeiten als Imaginationen. Es ist sehr bedeutsam, daß die neue Isis durch die Kraft des Wortes, wie sie wieder errungen werden soll durch die Geisteswissenschaft, die Kuhhörner umwandelt, so daß selbst die papierene Krone, die mit der neuen, tiefgründigen Wissenschaftlichkeit beschrieben ist, daß selbst die papierene Krone eine echte Goldkrone wird.

Eines Tages kam dann einmal jemand vor die vorläufige Gestalt des Standbildes der neuen Isis, und links oben war eine humoristisch gehaltene Figur angebracht, die in ihrer Weltenstimmung etwas hat zwischen Ernst, Ernst im Vorstellen über die Welt und, man könnte sagen, sogar Kichern über die Welt. Und siehe da, als einstmals jemand in einem besonders günstigen Augenblicke dieser Figur sich gegenüberstellte, da wurde sie lebendig und sagte ganz humorvoll: Die Menschheit hat die Sache nur vergessen, aber schon vor Jahrhunderten ist vor die neuere Menschheit hingestellt worden etwas über die Natur der neueren Menschheit, insoferne diese neuere Menschheit nur das abstrakte Wort, den abstrakten Begriff, die abstrakte Idee noch meistert und von der Wirklichkeit sehr weit entfernt ist; insofern diese neue Menschheit sich an Worte hält und immer frägt: Ist es ein Kürbis oder ist es eine Flasche? - wenn eben zufällig aus einem Kürbis eine Flasche gemacht worden ist, immer sich an Definitionen hält, immer bei den Worten stehenbleibt! Im 15., 16., 17. Jahrhundert - so sagte das kichernde Wesen -, da hat die Menschheit noch Selbsterkenntnis gehabt über dieses eigentümliche Verhältnis, die Worte in falschem Sinne zu nehmen, sie nicht auf ihre wahre Wirklichkeit zu beziehen, sondern sie in ihrem alleroberflächlichsten Sinne zu nehmen. In dem Zeitalter des Wilsonianismus hat aber die Menschheit selbst dasjenige schon vergessen, was einstmals zu ihrer guten Selbsterkenntnis im 15., 16., 17. Jahrhundert vor sie hingestellt worden ist.

Und das Wesen kicherte weiter und sagte: Das, was die moderne Menschheit als ein eigentliches Rezept für ihren abstraktiven Geist entgegennehmen sollte, das ist abgebildet auf einem Leichenstein in Mölln im Lauenburgischen. Da steht nämlich ein Leichenstein, und auf diesem Leichenstein ist gezeichnet eine Eule, die einen Spiegel sich vorhält. Und es wird erzählt, daß Till Eulenspiegel, nachdem er mit allerlei Streichen die Welt durchzogen hat, dort begraben worden ist. Es wird erzählt, daß es diesen Till Eulenspiegel gegeben habe. Er wäre geboren worden im Jahre 1300, wäre nach Polen gezogen, wäre sogar nach Rom gekommen, hätte in Rom sogar mit den Hofnarren einen Wettstreit gehabt über allerlei Weisheitskram, und hat all die übrigen Till-Eulenspiegeleien begangen, die ja aus den Schriften über Till Eulenspiegel selber zu lesen sind.

Die Gelehrten - und die Menschen, die Gelehrte sind, sind ja heute sehr gelehrt, nehmen alles außerordentlich tief und bedeutsam -, die haben selbstverständlich gefunden, sie haben verschiedenes gefunden, zum Beispiel, daß es keinen Homer gegeben hat. Die Gelehrten haben natürlich auch gefunden, daß es keinen Till Eulenspiegel gegeben hat. Einer der Hauptgründe, warum unter dem Leichenstein im Lauenburgischen, auf dem sich die Eule mit dem Spiegel befindet, nicht die wirklichen Gebeine des wirklichen Till Eulenspiegel liegen sollen, der nur der Repräsentant seines Zeitalters gewesen wäre, einer der hauptsächlichsten Gründe war der, daß man einen andern Leichenstein gefunden hat in Belgien, worauf auch eine Eule mit einem Spiegel war. Nun haben die Gelehrten selbstverständlich gesagt - denn das ist ja logisch, nicht wahr, und logisch sind sie alle; wie ist es nur bei Shakespeare: Ehrenwerte Menschen sind sie alle, alle, alle, logisch sind sie alle - sie haben gesagt: Wenn sich dieselbe Signatur in Lauenburg und in Belgien befindet, so hat es natürlich keinen Eulenspiegel gegeben.

Sonst nimmt man im Leben, wenn man ein zweites Mal das findet, was man ein erstes Mal gefunden hat, dies oftmals als Bekräftigung aber logisch ist es, nicht wahr, in diesen Dingen die Sache so zu nehmen: Na, sagen wir, wenn ich einen Franken habe, dann habe ich einen Franken. Ich glaube es. Solange ich nur weiß, daß ich einen Franken habe, glaube ich es! Da kriege ich aber einen andern dazu, nun habe ich zwei. Nun glaube ich, daß ich gar keinen mehr habe! — Das ist dieselbe Logik. Diese Logik findet sich nämlich in unserer Wissenschaft. Wenn ich sie Ihnen hererzählen würde, wo überall sie findet sich sehr häufig!

Aber worinnen besteht denn eigentlich das Wesentlichste der Eulenspiegel-Streiche? Lesen Sie in dem Buche nach. Das Wesentliche der Till-Eulenspiegel-Streiche besteht nämlich immer darinnen, daß dem Eulenspiegel irgend etwas aufgetragen wird. Er nimmt die Sache bloß nach dem Worte und führt sie dann natürlich verkehrt aus. Denn selbstverständlich, wenn - in etwas übertragenem Sinne sei das gesprochen -, wenn man zum Beispiel sagen würde zu dem Eulenspiegel, den ich jetzt bloß als repräsentative Figur nehme: Bring mir einen Doktor -, da würde er das bloße Wort nehmen, und er würde einen Menschen bringen, der von einer Universität graduiert ist als Doktor, aber er würde vielleicht einen Menschen bringen, der — verzeihen Sie das harte Wort - ganz blitzdumm ist; er hat die Sache nur dem Wortlaute nach genommen. Alle Streiche des Till Eulenspiegel sind so, daß er die Sache dem Wortlaute nach nimmt. Damit aber ist Till Eulenspiegel geradezu der Repräsentant des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters. Die Eulenspiegelei ist ein Grundton in unserer gegenwärtigen Zeit. Die Worte sind heute weit entfernt von ihrer Ursprungsstelle, die Begriffe sind oftmals noch weiter entfernt von ihrer Ursprungsstelle, und die Menschen merken das nicht, weil sie sich eulenspiegelartig verhalten zu demjenigen, was nun einmal die Kultur heraufgetragen hat. Daher konnte es ja kommen, daß Fritz Mauthner in einem philosophischen Wörterbuch alle philosophischen Begriffe, an die er herankommen kann, vornimmt, und von allen diesen philosophischen Begriffen einen überzeugt, daß sie eigentlich bloße Worte sind, daß sie gar nicht mehr in Verbindung stehen mit irgendeiner Wirklichkeit. Die Menschheit weiß gar nicht, wie weit sie sich mit dem, was sie heute Ideen und oftmals sogar Ideale nennt, von der Realität entfernt. Mit andern Worten, die Menschheit weiß gar nicht, wie sie Eulenspiegel zu ihrem Schutzheiligen gemacht hat, wie Eulenspiegel noch immer die Länder durchwandelt.

Eines der Grundübel unserer Zeit ruht eben darinnen, daß die gegenwärtige Menschheit die Pallas Athene flieht, das ist die Göttin der Weisheit, und sich an das Symbolum hält: an die Eule. Und zwar ahnt die Menschheit nichts mehr davon, aber wahr ist es doch: Dasjenige, was uns als Grundlage der äußeren Erkenntnis entgegentritt, ist nur ein Spiegelbild - das haben wir ja oftmals ausgeführt -, aber in einem Spiegel sieht man das, was man ist! Und so sieht die Eule will sagen die moderne wissenschaftliche Tiefgründigkeit - in dem Spiegel, in der Weltenmaja, eben nur ihr eigenes Eulengesicht.

Solche Sachen kicherte das Wesen links oben über dem modernen Isis-Standbilde, und noch manches andere, das gegenwärtig aus einer gewissen Courtoisie gegenüber der Menschheit verschwiegen wird. Aber ein Gefühl sollte hervorgerufen werden, daß mit der Eigenart dieser Darstellung der Menschengeheimnisse durch die Wesenhaftigkeit des Luziferischen, Ahrimanischen, im Zusammenhange mit der Repräsentanz der Menschheit selbst, ein Bewußtseinszustand in der Menschheit erregt werden soll, der gerade diejenigen Impulse in der Seele weckt, die notwendig sind für das kommende Zeitalter.

«Im Urbeginne war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und ein Gott war das Wort.» Aber das Wort, es ist zur Phrase geworden, das Wort, es hat sich entfernt von seinem Anfang. Das Wort, es klingt und tönt, aber es wird nicht gesucht seine Verbindung mit der Wirklichkeit; es ist nicht das Bestreben in den Menschen, die Grundkräfte desjenigen, was um sie herum vorgeht, wirklich zu erforschen. Und man kann diese Grundkräfte im Sinne des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters auch nur dann erforschen, wenn man darauf kommt, daß mit den mikrokosmischen Kräften des Menschen die Wesenheit, die wir als luziferische und ahrimanische bezeichnen, wirklich verbunden ist. Man kann heute die Wirklichkeit nur verstehen für den Menschen, der zwischen Geburt und Tod lebt, wenn man sich einige Begriffe machen kann von derjenigen Wirklichkeit, die wir jetzt auch öfter betrachtet haben, die zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt für den Menschen liegt. Denn die eine Wirklichkeit ist nur der Pol der andern Wirklichkeit, der umgekehrte Pol der andern Wirklichkeit.

Wir haben darauf hingewiesen, wie in alten Zeiten die Menschen, wenn sie in das Reifezeitalter eingetreten sind, nicht nur eine Veränderung erfahren haben, wie sie noch heute im physischen Reifezeitalter eine Veränderung ihrer Stimme oder ihrer sonstigen Leibesorganisation erfahren, sondern auch eine Veränderung ihrer Seele erfahren haben. Wir haben darauf hingewiesen, wie die alte Osiris-Isismythe gerade mit dem Hinschwinden der Veränderung der Seele zusammenhing. Was da aufgetreten ist in der Menschheit durch jene Kräfteessenzen, von denen wir gestern gesprochen haben, das muß in anderer Form wiederkommen, indem die Menschen in einer neuen Gestalt die Kraft des Wortes erleben, die Kraft des Gedankens, die Kraft der Idee; jetzt nicht so, als wie wenn durch Naturkräfte aus der innersten Leibesorganisation - gleich wie beim Stimmverändern der Knaben — etwas heraufsteigt, was den Menschen ausziert mit der Kraft der animalischen Organisation und auf seinem Haupte unsichtbar als Kuhhörner fungiert, sondern es muß dasjenige, was gemeint ist mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha, was gemeint ist mit der wahren Kraft des Wortes, bewußt von den Menschen ergriffen werden. Ein neues Element muß einziehen in das menschliche Bewußtsein. Grundverschieden ist dieses neue Element von den Elementen, die man heute noch gerne bezeichnet. Aber dieses neue Element hat seine Bedeutung für das soziale Leben, es hat seine Bedeutung für die Menschheitspädagogik, wenn Pädagogik oder Erziehungsiehre aus dem traurigen Zustand hinauskommen sollen, in dem sie sich heute befinden.

Wovon redet die tiefgründige Eulenspiegelei — will sagen, naturwissenschaftliche Tiefgründigkeit -, wovon redet sie hauptsächlich, wenn sie vom Menschen redet? Wovon redet selbst ein großer Teil der neueren Dichtung? Sie redet von dem physischen Ursprunge des Menschen im Zusammenhange mit physischen Entitäten der Abstammung. Im Grunde genommen ist ja die sogenannte moderne, die vielgerühmte moderne Entwickelungslehre nichts anderes als eine Anschauung, die in den Mittelpunkt rückt die physische Abstammungslehre. Denn der Begriff der Vererbung spielt die allergrößte Rolle in dieser Entwickelungslehre. Es ist eine Einseitigkeit. Die Menschen sind sehr zufrieden mit solcher Einseitigkeit, denn die Menschen glauben heute, daß man dabei sehr gelchrt sein kann. Man kann es auch mit ganz willkürlichen, scheinbar aus tiefer Logik, aber in Wirklichkeit aus Luftigkeit geholten Ausdeutungen von Dingen.

Wir haben gestern ein Beispiel gesehen, wie ganze Literaturen geschrieben werden, weil die Menschen den Zusammenhang einer Vorstellung mit dem ursprünglichen Erlebnis, aus dem die Vorstellung hervorgegangen ist, verloren haben: das Kreuzessymbolum. Eine ganze Literatur ist darüber geschrieben worden, auf alles mögliche ist das Kreuz bezogen worden. Worauf es zu beziehen ist, wir haben es gestern gesehen. Mit manchem andern werden die Dinge geradeso gemacht, und die Menschen kommen sich tiefsinnig vor, wenn sie solche Dinge machen.

Ich erinnere Sie an eines, denken Sie nur einmal, wie unendlich bedeutend kommen sich heute manche Menschen vor, wenn sie glauben, in einer ähnlichen Weise zu sprechen, wie heute hier gesprochen worden ist. Es gibt genügend Leute, die sagen, die sogar sehr häufig das Wort brauchen - ach, man kann es, mit Respekt zu vermelden, in den Zeitungen alle Augenblicke lesen: Der Buchstabe tötet, der Geist aber macht lebendig. - Damit meint man, etwas sehr Tiefsinniges gesagt zu haben. Aber man sollte nach dem Ursprunge eines solchen Wortes fragen. Er führt zurück in diejenigen Zeiten, in denen man lebendige Vorstellungen gehabt hat, die eben noch mit den Erfahrungen, mit den Erlebnissen zusammenhängen. Wenn man heute redet, da ist wenig Zusammenhang, insbesondere zwischen dem Worte und seiner Ursprungsstätte. Wollen Sie noch rechten Zusammenhang haben zwischen Wort und Sätzen und Ursprungsstätten, dann rate ich Ihnen, lesen Sie das Büchelchen, in dem «Schweizerdeutsche Sprichwörter» gesammelt sind; denn in diesen volkstümlichen Sprichwörtern findet man noch ein urtümliches Zusammenklingen desjenigen, was gesagt wird, mit dem unmittelbaren Erlebnis. Der Buchstabe, mit ihm ist nämlich dasjenige gemeint, was als Buchstabenschrift gekommen ist gegenüber dem Alten, welches in der gestern geschilderten Weise das imaginative Leben aus dem Geiste herausgeholt hat. Dieser alte Geist machte lebendig, und die Lebendigkeit hatte in jener Entwickelungsepoche des Menschen das imaginative atavistische Hellsehen zur Folge. Aber ein Bewußtsein war vorhanden, daß diese Epoche von einer andern abgelöst werden muß, daß der Buchstabe kommen muß, der die alte Lebendigkeit tötet.

Und jetzt bringen Sie das in Zusammenhang mit alldem, was ich gesagt habe über das eigentliche Wesen des Bewußtseins im Zusammenhang mit dem Tode. Da ist es der Buchstabe, der tötet, der aber auch das Bewußtsein bringt, das nur wieder überwunden werden muß durch ein anderes Bewußtsein. Nicht das Wegwerfende ist gemeint, das die heutige Journalistentorheit in dem Spruch hat: Der Buchstabe tötet, der Geist aber macht lebendig -, sondern der Satz hängt zusammen mit Entwickelungsimpulsen der Menschheit. Er besagt ungefähr: In alten Zeiten, in imaginativen Zeiten, in den Osiriszeiten, erhielt der Geist die Menschenseele in dumpfer Lebendigkeit; der Buchstabe rief in späteren Zeiten das Bewußtsein hervor. Das ist die Interpretation des Satzes, das bedeutete er ursprünglich. Und so wie in diesem Falle sind die Menschen heute in vielen Fällen sehr, sehr mit Einsichten zur Hand, mit willkürlichen Deutungen, weil sie keinen Zusammenhang haben damit.

Das begründet nicht, daß die Dinge falsch sind, welche die moderne tiefgründige Wissenschaftlichkeit über den Vererbungsbegriff findet, sondern daß der andere Pol hinzukommen muß, wenn man von der Vererbung spricht. Weist man auf seine Kindheit und von seiner Kindheit auf seine Geburt zurück, frägt man sich: Was trage ich in mir? - dann ist die Antwort: Was Eltern und Voreltern in sich getragen haben und auf mich übertragen haben! - Es gibt aber auch noch ein anderes Hinschauen auf den Menschen, das nur der Gegenwartsmensch noch nicht übt, das der Zukunftsmensch üben muß, das in den Mittelpunkt der Pädagogik, der Erzichungskunst treten muß: das ist nicht das Zurückblicken auf das Jünger-gewesen-Sein, sondern das richtige Hinblicken auf die Tatsache, daß man mit jedem Tag älter wird im Leben. Im Grunde versteht die neuere Menschheit nur, daß man einmal jung gewesen ist. Sie versteht nicht - in Wirklichkeit nicht — realistisch aufzufassen, daß man mit jedem Tage älter wird. Denn sie weiß nicht das Wort, das hinzutreten muß zu dem Worte der Vererbung, wenn man gegenüber dem Jünger-gewesen-Sein das Älterwerden stellt. Sieht man auf seine Kindheit, so spricht man von dem, was man ererbt hat. Ebenso kann man, wenn man auf sein Älterwerden blickt, von dem andern Pol sprechen, kann wie von der Pforte der Geburt, so von der Pforte des Todes sprechen. Da entsteht die eine Frage: Was haben wir gewonnen durch die Voreltern, indem wir durch das Tor der Geburt eingetreten sind in dieses Leben? - Da entsteht die andere Frage: Was verlieren wir vielleicht, was wird in uns anders dadurch, daß wir den kommenden Zeiten entgegengehen, daß wir mit jedem Tag älter werden? Wie wird es, wenn wir bewußt erleben das Mit-jedem-Tag-Älterwerden?

Das aber ist eine Anforderung an unser Zeitalter. Lernen muß die Menschheit, bewußt mit jedem Tag älter zu werden. Denn lernt man bewußt mit jedem Tag das Älterwerden, dann bedeutet das wirkliche Wissen: ein Zusammentreten mit geistigen Wesenheiten, wie es ein Herkommen von physischen Wesenheiten bedeutet, daß man geboren ist und vererbte Eigenschaften hat. Doch, wie diese Dinge zusammenhängen, davon werde ich das nächste Mal sprechen, von jenem wichtigen inneren Impuls, der an die Menschenseele herantreten muß, wenn die Menschenseele das finden soll, was sie für die Zukunft so notwendig hat, was allein eine ganze, volle Ergänzung dessen sein kann, was die Naturwissenschaft auf der einen Seite bringt.

Dann werden Sie sehen, warum an die Seite der alten Osiris-Isismythe die neue Isismythe treten kann, und warum für den Menschen der Gegenwart beide zusammen notwendig sind; warum hinzugefügt werden muß zu den Worten, die vom alten Ägypten herüberklingen vom Standbilde zu Sais: Ich bin das All, ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart, die Zukunft; meinen Schleier hat noch kein Sterblicher gelüftet -, warum hineintönen muß in diese Worte ein anderes, warum heute diese Worte nicht mehr einseitig nur an die menschliche Seele heranklingen dürfen, sondern dazu klingen müssen die Worte: Ich bin der Mensch. Ich bin die Vergangenheit, die Gegenwart und die Zukunft. Meinen Schleier sollte jeder Sterbliche lüften.

Ich habe Ihnen heute mehr Rätsel vor die Seele gestellt als Lösungen. Wir werden aber davon weiter sprechen, und die Rätsel werden sich in mannigfaltiger Weise dann schon lösen.

Tenth Lecture

In recent days, we have attempted to understand something of the course of human development. We have sought to trace the deeper foundations of myths such as the Osiris-Isis myth; we have also attempted to find our way, from a certain point of view, into the Greek world of gods. And we have touched upon some of the inner meaning of the views that may not be clearly expressed but underlie the mythological writings of Egypt and Greece, and have attempted to grasp, at least in outline, the relationship between what underlies these myths and the teachings of the Old Testament. These Old Testament teachings sprang from a different spirit than the Egyptian and Greek teachings about the gods. We have seen that the Egyptian and Greek teachings about the gods, as they are structured, originate from certain ancient spiritual experiences of humanity, from a certain awareness that humanity once possessed atavistic clairvoyance and, through this atavistic clairvoyance, stood in such an intimate relationship with the spirit that permeates nature as humanity later stands only in relation to birth and death with the externally perceptible. We have seen that for this ancient atavistic knowledge, the comprehensive view of the world, which was an inner experience, meant more than what the merely sense perception of transitional humanity, to which we still belong, can be in terms of knowledge.

Everything that has, so to speak, been set apart in the Egyptian and Greek doctrines of the gods, or rather in their view of the gods, can be found with the same moral undertone as the actual teaching in the Old Testament. I told you the day before yesterday, when I spoke of an important difference between the Egyptian and Greek doctrines of the gods and the Old Testament: The spiritual-divine beings who stand at the starting point of the Old Testament, the Elohim, Yahweh, can only be thought of as co-creators with human beings; they can only be thought of as having brought into being through their deeds what we call earthly humanity, and that the entire development of earthly humanity only takes place on earth after the fundamental deed of the Elohim or Yahweh. . This is not the case in Egyptian or Greek theology. There, people look back to ancient times and say to themselves: The gods Osiris, Isis, Zeus, Apollo, Mars, Pallas, who are now connected with the guidance of human destinies, arose from other generations of gods; but human beings have always been there. The Egyptian and Greek theology of the gods led people back to ancient times when the gods recognized by those times were not yet creative and ruling. So, in Egypt and Greece, people attributed to themselves a higher age than the age of rule of their corresponding gods.

This is such a fundamental, such a significant difference that it must first be taken into account. In the course of these considerations, we will see what an infinitely important, significant fact this view points to. In the Old Testament doctrine of the gods, the revered gods are at the same time the creative gods of the human race. Only by making the divine human and creative has Old Testament theology made it possible to incorporate the moral element, the moral impulse, into the order of the gods and thus into the entire human order, into our conception of the world, so to speak.

This is important for understanding contemporary worldviews. For contemporary worldviews do not derive in a very clear way from any single source, but rather have very different origins, and we carry within us many things that we believe in and profess as contemporary human beings, which are directly rooted in the Greek way of seeing. We carry some things within us, especially the immediate present carries much that goes back to the Old Testament doctrine of God. The search of human beings, the search of many human beings, is for a way of finding their way in these often contradictory ideas and concepts through the impulse that emanates from the mystery of Golgotha. All of this is still, in a sense, our program, and we will have to develop it further in the time we are still allowed to be together.

Above all, it is important that we can base ourselves on something. I already pointed this out yesterday. As we have often mentioned, we have been living in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch since the 15th century; and in a certain sense, I said, certain impulses of the third post-Atlantean epoch, the Egyptian-Chaldean age, must again emerge in the fifth, just as in the sixth post-Atlantean age certain impulses from the second, the Zarathustra age, the ancient Persian age, will shine forth, and as in the last post-Atlantean age, the seventh, certain impulses from the ancient Indian age will shine forth again. This is a law of human development that points in a meaningful way to what essentially lies ahead for humanity spiritually until the new catastrophe that must come, similar to a natural catastrophe.

Now we have already seen in part what tremendous depths of human consciousness are expressed in ancient times in the fact that these ancient times developed the Osiris myth. We have seen that this ancient age wanted to say: There once lived among human beings a view through which human beings could still experience the spiritual in their natural environment directly in their atavistic imaginations. That was the time when Osiris ruled. But the new views, the Typhon views, those views that turned pictorial writing into letter writing, those views that formed the individual spoken languages out of the ancient sacred languages that people spoke in common, these Typhon views, these views of Typhon, killed what lived in humanity as the Osiris impulse, so that since then Osiris has only been present as a being among humans when they are between death and a new birth.

We then essentially followed the Osiris-Isis legend and saw how Osiris is regarded as an ancient ruler of Egypt, who brought the Egyptians the most essential of their arts, who ruled Egypt for a long time, who also moved from Egypt to other countries, and who brought the benefits of the arts taught in Egypt to other countries, not by the sword, but by persuasion. During his absence on his travels, when he was bringing the benefits he had taught the Egyptians to other countries, his evil brother Typhon introduced innovations in his own country, Egypt. And when Osiris returned, he was killed by Typhon despite the vigilance of his wife Isis. Isis then searched everywhere for Osiris. According to legend, she was told by boys that the coffin had been carried away by the tide. She then discovered it in Byblos in Phoenicia and brought it back to Egypt. Typhon cut the body into fourteen pieces. Isis gathered the pieces and, using spices and other means, restored each piece to the appearance of Osiris. She then persuaded the priests to take a third of the land into her possession and, in return for taking a third of the land, they were to keep the tomb of Osiris secret on the one hand and, on the other hand, establish the Osiris cult, that is, the cult of remembrance of the ancient Osiris time, of the fact that there was once a different view of humanity. This memory was to be celebrated from then on. This memory was surrounded by all kinds of secrets. It was hinted at the time when Typhon killed Osiris, when the sun sets in the seventeenth degree of Scorpio in the November days of autumn, and the moon, on the opposite side, appeared as a full moon in Taurus, in the Pleiades.

Then it was said that Osiris once again left the underworld, where he now rules over the dead and is the judge of the dead, and went to the upper world to instruct his son Horus, whom he had had with Isis. The legend goes on to say that Isis was persuaded to release Typhon, whom she had imprisoned. This enraged Horus, who had been taught by Osiris, so much that he quarreled with his mother, Isis, and snatched the crown from her. Then it is said that he himself, or in another version, Hermes, placed cow horns on her head in place of the crown, with which she has been depicted ever since.

Now, you see Isis standing beside Osiris in the ancient Egyptian myth. And Isis was not only a mysterious deity in the view of the ancient Egyptians, not only a mysterious spirit being who was intimately connected with the world order, but Isis was also, I would say, the embodiment of all the depths that the Egyptians were capable of thinking about the primal forces at work in nature and in human existence. When the Egyptians looked up to the great mysteries surrounding them, they looked up to Isis, who had a statue in the temple at Sais that had become famous. As is well known, beneath this statue was an inscription that was intended to express the essence of Isis: I am the All, I am the past, the present, and the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil.

This was a central idea of Egyptian culture, especially in its late period. And in view of the mysteries of Isis, people remembered the other mysteries of the ancient Osiris period. And in connection with Isis, with Isis, at whose sight the Egyptian believer shuddered when he let the words sink in: I am the universe, I am the past, the present, and the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil — when the Egyptian let these words sink in, he probably also remembered at the same time that Isis was once connected with Osiris when Osiris still walked on earth. The profane person imagined the matter as a legend. In the mysteries, the priests spoke of the ancient time of Osiris as the time when ancient clairvoyance connected people with the spirit of nature around them.

With these feelings and emotions that were in the soul and heart of the Egyptians, we must now consider the Osiris-Isis legend or myth as a guide for the present. We have done this in a few basic strokes. And through these basic strokes, I would say, we can see before our spiritual eyes that which once sounded down from ancient times into more recent times, which lost its meaning through the mystery of Golgotha, but which must now be unraveled again, precisely for a better understanding of the mystery of Golgotha. Before our soul's gaze must stand all that is mysterious, which can initially only be guessed at when the Egyptians felt the words that characterized Isis: I am the All, I am the past, the present, and the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil. For we want to contrast this Osiris-Isis myth with another Osiris-Isis myth, a completely different one. And in telling this other Osiris-Isis myth, we must rely heavily on your lack of prejudice, on your impartiality, and we must hope that you will not misunderstand this other Osiris-Isis myth. It is by no means born of foolish arrogance, it is born of humility; it is also such that it can perhaps only be told in a highly imperfect manner today. But I will try to characterize its features in a few words.

It is initially—although this can only be provisional—up to each individual to decide when to set the time in which this Osiris-Isis myth is told as I can tell it today, only approximately, superficially, I would say, banally. But as I said, I will endeavor to tell this other Osiris-Isis myth, setting aside as many prejudices as possible and appealing to your unprejudiced understanding. This other Osiris-Isis myth has, I would say, the following content.

It was in the age of scientific profundity, in the middle of the land of Philistia. There, on a hill desolate of spirit, a building was erected which was considered very strange in the land of Philistia. — I would like to add that the coming commentator adds a note that the land of Philistia does not merely refer to the immediate surroundings. - If one wanted to speak in Goethe's language, one could say that the building represented an “open secret.” For the building was not closed to anyone; the building was accessible to all, and basically anyone could see it when the opportunity arose. But the vast majority of people saw nothing at all. The vast majority of people saw neither what was being built nor what the building represented. The vast majority of people stood—to use Goethe's words again—before an obvious secret, a completely obvious secret.

A statue was intended to be the centerpiece of the building. This statue represented a group of beings: the representative of humanity, then Luciferic and Ahrimanic beings. The people looked at this statue and, in that age of scientific profundity within the land of Philistia, did not know that this statue was basically only a veil for an invisible statue. But the people did not notice the invisible statue, for this invisible statue was the new Isis, the Isis of a new age.

Some people from the land of scientific profundity had once heard of this strange relationship between what was apparent and what was hidden behind the apparent as the image of Isis. And then, in their profound, allegorical-symbolic way of speaking, they had asserted that this combination of the representative of humanity, Lucifer, and Ahriman meant Isis. With the word “represented,” however, they not only ruined the artistic intention from which the work was supposed to have emerged—for art does not merely represent something, it is something—they also completely misunderstood the whole situation underlying it. For it was not at all a question of the figures representing something; the figures were already what they appeared to be. And behind the figures there was not an abstract new Isis, but a real, actual new Isis. The figures did not signify her at all, but the figures were precisely what they appeared to be. But they had the peculiarity that behind them was the real being, the new Isis.

Some who, in a special situation, at special moments, had nevertheless seen this new Isis, found that she was asleep. And so one can say: The real, deeper statue, hidden behind the outer, visible statue, is the sleeping new Isis, a sleeping figure, visible but seen by few. Some then turned at special moments to the inscription, which stands clearly, but which was initially read by only a few in the place where the statue is being prepared; and yet the inscription stands there clearly, just as clearly as the inscription once stood on the veiled image at Sais. The inscription reads: I am the human being. I am the past, the present, and the future. Every mortal should lift my veil.

Once, a figure approached the sleeping figure of the new Isis for the first time, and then again and again, and then another figure, like a visitor. And the sleeping Isis considered this visitor to be her special benefactor and loved him. And one day she believed in a special illusion, just as the visitor one day believed in a special illusion: the new Isis had a child—and she considered the visitor, whom she believed to be her benefactor, to be the father. He considered himself to be the father, but he was not. The spiritual visitor, who was none other than the new Typhon, believed that by seizing this new Isis, he could gain special power in the world. So the new Isis had a sprout. But she did not recognize his nature; she knew nothing of the essence of this new sprout. And she carried him away, she carried him far away into the land, because she believed she had to do so. She carried away the new offspring, and since she had carried him through various regions of the world, he fell apart into fourteen pieces, as if by the power of the world itself.

Thus the new Isis had carried her offspring out into the world, and the world had torn him into fourteen pieces. When the spirit visitor, the new Typhon, learned of this, he gathered the fourteen pieces together and, with all his knowledge of the profound depths of natural science, made one being out of these fourteen pieces. But in this being there was only mechanical lawfulness, only machine-like lawfulness. Thus a being arose with the appearance of life, but with machine-like lawfulness. And this being, because it arose from fourteen pieces, could again multiply itself fourteenfold. And Typhon was able to give each piece a reflection of his own being, so that each of the fourteen offspring of the new Isis was given a face that resembled the new Typhon.

And Isis had to watch all these wonders with foreboding; with foreboding she could see all these wonders that had happened to her offspring. She knew that she herself had carried him away, that she herself had brought all this about. But a day came when she was able to receive him in his true form, in his real form, from the hands of a row of spirits who were elemental spirits of nature, and she was able to get him back from the elemental spirits of nature.

When she had regained her true offspring, who had only been stamped as the offspring of Typhon through an illusion, a strange clairvoyant vision dawned on her, and she suddenly realized that she still had the cow horns from ancient Egypt, even though she had become a new Isis.

And lo and behold, when she had become so clairvoyant, the power of her clairvoyance called forth—some say Typhon himself, some say Mercury. And he was forced, by the power of the clairvoyance of the new Isis, to place a crown on her head in the same place where the old Isis had once worn the crown that Horus had torn from her, in the same place where she had received the cow horns. But this crown was made of vain paper, inscribed with all kinds of profound scientific knowledge, but it was made of paper. And she now had two crowns on her head: the cow horns and the crown of paper, adorned with all the wisdom of scientific profundity.

Through the power of her clairvoyance, one day she realized the deepest meaning that the age could attain of what is called the Logos in the Gospel of John; the Johannine meaning of the mystery of Golgotha dawned upon her. Through this power, the power of the cow horns seized the paper crown and transformed it into a real golden crown of true wisdom.

These are the features that can be identified in this new Osiris-Isis legend. I do not, of course, wish to comment on or explain this Osiris-Isis legend myself. It is the other Osiris-Isis legend. But it should make one thing clear to our souls: even if today the ability associated with the new statue of Isis is only weak, tentative, and groping, it should be the starting point for something that is deeply justified in the impulses of the new age, that is deeply justified in what this age should be and what this age must become.

We have just been talking about how words have, in a sense, become detached from the immediate spiritual experience from which they originally sprang. We have seen how we live in an age of abstractions, where words and ideas have only abstract meaning, where people are far removed from reality. But the power of the word, the power of the Logos, must be recaptured. The cow horns of the ancient Isis must be transformed into something completely different.

Such things are difficult to express with today's abstract words. For such things, it is better if you try to bring them before your mind's eye in the images that have been presented to you and process these images as images. It is very significant that the new Isis, through the power of the word, as it is to be regained through spiritual science, transforms the cow horns so that even the paper crown, which is inscribed with the new, profound science, becomes a real gold crown.

One day, someone came before the provisional form of the statue of the new Isis, and in the upper left corner there was a humorous figure, whose mood was somewhere between seriousness, seriousness in contemplating the world, and, one might say, even giggling at the world. And lo and behold, when someone once stood opposite this figure at a particularly favorable moment, it came to life and said quite humorously: Humanity has simply forgotten, but centuries ago something was placed before the newer humanity about the nature of the newer humanity, insofar as this newer humanity only masters the abstract word, the abstract concept, the abstract idea and is very far removed from reality; insofar as this new humanity sticks to words and always asks: Is it a pumpkin or is it a bottle? – when, by chance, a bottle has been made from a pumpkin, always sticking to definitions, always dwelling on words! In the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, said the giggling creature, humanity still had self-knowledge about this peculiar tendency to take words in the wrong sense, not to relate them to their true reality, but to take them in their most superficial sense. In the age of Wilsonianism, however, humanity itself has forgotten what was once presented to it in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries as its good self-knowledge.

And the being continued to chuckle and said: What modern humanity should accept as a real recipe for its abstract mind is depicted on a gravestone in Mölln in Lauenburg. There is a gravestone there, and on this gravestone is drawn an owl holding up a mirror. And it is said that Till Eulenspiegel, after traveling the world playing all kinds of pranks, was buried there. It is said that Till Eulenspiegel really existed. He was born in 1300, moved to Poland, even came to Rome, where he competed with the court jesters in all kinds of wisdom, and committed all the other Till Eulenspiegel pranks that can be read about in the writings about Till Eulenspiegel himself.

The scholars – and people who are scholars are very learned today, taking everything extremely deeply and meaningfully – have of course found various things, for example that there was no Homer. The scholars have also found, of course, that there was no Till Eulenspiegel. One of the main reasons why the real remains of the real Till Eulenspiegel, who was only a representative of his age, are not supposed to lie under the tombstone in Lauenburg with the owl and the mirror, is that another tombstone was found in Belgium with an owl and a mirror on it. Now, of course, the scholars have said – because that is logical, isn't it, and they are all logical; just like in Shakespeare: They are all honorable people, all of them, all of them, they are all logical – they have said: If the same signature is found in Lauenburg and in Belgium, then of course there was no Eulenspiegel.

Otherwise, in life, when you find something a second time that you found the first time, you often take it as confirmation, but it is logical, isn't it, to take things this way in these matters: Well, let's say if I have a franc, then I have a franc. I believe it. As long as I know that I have a franc, I believe it! But then I get another one, and now I have two. Now I believe that I don't have any more! — That's the same logic. This logic can be found in our science. If I were to tell you where it can be found, you would find it very often!

But what is the essence of Eulenspiegel's pranks? Read about it in the book. The essence of Till Eulenspiegel's pranks always lies in the fact that Eulenspiegel is asked to do something. He takes the task literally and then, of course, carries it out in the opposite way. For it goes without saying that if — in a figurative sense — someone were to say to Eulenspiegel, whom I am now taking as a representative figure: Bring me a doctor, he would take the words at face value and bring someone who has graduated from a university with a doctorate, but he would probably bring someone who is—forgive the harsh word—completely stupid; he has only taken the matter at face value. All of Till Eulenspiegel's pranks are like this: he takes things at face value. This makes Till Eulenspiegel the very representative of the present age. Eulenspiegelism is a fundamental tone of our present time. Words today are far removed from their original meaning, concepts are often even further removed from their original meaning, and people do not notice this because they behave like Eulenspiegel toward what culture has brought about. This is why Fritz Mauthner was able to take all the philosophical concepts he could find in a philosophical dictionary and convince everyone that they were merely words, that they no longer had any connection to reality. Humanity has no idea how far removed it is from reality with what it today calls ideas and often even ideals. In other words, humanity has no idea how it made Eulenspiegel its patron saint, how Eulenspiegel still roams the lands.

One of the fundamental evils of our time lies precisely in the fact that contemporary humanity flees from Pallas Athena, the goddess of wisdom, and clings to the symbol of the owl. Humanity no longer has any inkling of this, but it is nevertheless true: what confronts us as the basis of external knowledge is only a reflection—we have often explained this—but in a mirror one sees what one is! And so the owl, that is to say, modern scientific profundity, sees in the mirror, in the world Maya, only its own owl face.

Such things chuckled the being at the top left above the modern statue of Isis, and many other things that are currently being kept secret out of a certain courtesy towards humanity. But the intention was to evoke a feeling that the peculiar nature of this representation of human mysteries through the essence of the Luciferic and Ahrimanic, in connection with the representation of humanity itself, was intended to arouse a state of consciousness in humanity that would awaken precisely those impulses in the soul that are necessary for the coming age.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” But the Word has become a phrase, the Word has strayed from its beginning. The Word sounds and resounds, but no one seeks its connection with reality; there is no striving in human beings to truly explore the fundamental forces of what is happening around them. And one can only explore these fundamental forces in the sense of the present age if one comes to realize that the microcosmic forces of the human being are truly connected with the beings we call Luciferic and Ahrimanic. Today, we can only understand reality for human beings living between birth and death if we can form some concept of the reality that we have now considered more frequently, which lies between death and a new birth for human beings. For one reality is only the pole of the other reality, the opposite pole of the other reality.

We have pointed out how, in ancient times, when people entered the age of maturity, they experienced not only a change such as we still experience today in the physical age of maturity, in their voice or other aspects of their physical organization, but also a change in their soul. We have pointed out how the ancient Osiris-Isis myth was connected precisely with the disappearance of the change in the soul. What occurred in humanity through those forces we spoke of yesterday must return in another form, in that human beings will experience in a new form the power of the word, the power of thought, the power of the idea; not now as as if something rises from the innermost organization of the body through natural forces — just as in the voice change of boys — which adorns the human being with the power of the animal organization and functions invisibly on his head as cow horns, but rather what is meant by the mystery of Golgotha, what is meant by the true power of the word, must be consciously grasped by human beings. A new element must enter human consciousness. This new element is fundamentally different from the elements that people still like to refer to today. But this new element has its significance for social life, it has its significance for human education if pedagogy or educational theory are to emerge from the sad state in which they find themselves today.

What is profound Eulenspiegelism — that is to say, scientific profundity — talking about when it talks about human beings? What is a large part of modern poetry talking about? It talks about the physical origin of human beings in connection with physical entities of descent. Basically, the so-called modern, much-praised theory of evolution is nothing more than a view that focuses on the physical theory of descent. For the concept of heredity plays the greatest role in this theory of evolution. It is a one-sided view. People are very satisfied with such one-sidedness, because people today believe that one can be very clever with it. One can also interpret things in a completely arbitrary manner, seemingly based on deep logic, but in reality based on frivolity.

Yesterday we saw an example of how entire literatures are written because people have lost the connection between an idea and the original experience from which the idea arose: the symbol of the cross. An entire literature has been written about it, and the cross has been applied to everything imaginable. We saw yesterday what it refers to. Things are done in the same way with many other things, and people feel profound when they do such things.

I remind you of one thing: just think how infinitely important some people feel today when they believe they are speaking in a similar way to how we have spoken here today. There are enough people who say this, who even use the phrase very frequently—oh, one can read it in the newspapers every minute, with all due respect: “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” This is meant to sound very profound. But one should ask about the origin of such a phrase. It leads back to a time when people had vivid ideas that were still connected to their experiences and what they had lived through. When we speak today, there is little connection, especially between words and their origins. If you want to find a real connection between words and sentences and their origins, then I advise you to read the little book that contains a collection of Swiss German proverbs; for in these popular proverbs you will still find a primitive harmony between what is said and the immediate experience. The letter refers to what came as written language in contrast to the old way, which, as described yesterday, drew imaginative life out of the spirit. This old spirit brought things to life, and in that epoch of human development, this liveliness resulted in imaginative, atavistic clairvoyance. But there was an awareness that this epoch had to be replaced by another, that the letter had to come, which kills the old liveliness.

And now bring this into connection with everything I have said about the actual nature of consciousness in connection with death. There it is the letter that kills, but also brings consciousness, which must only be overcome by another consciousness. This does not mean discarding, as the foolishness of today's journalists implies in the saying: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. Rather, the sentence is connected with the developmental impulses of humanity. It means something like this: In ancient times, in imaginative times, in the times of Osiris, the spirit gave the human soul a dull vitality; in later times, the letter brought forth consciousness. That is the interpretation of the sentence; that is what it originally meant. And just as in this case, people today are in many cases very, very quick to offer insights and arbitrary interpretations because they have no connection with it.

This does not mean that the findings of modern, profound science on the concept of heredity are wrong, but rather that the other pole must be added when speaking of heredity. If one looks back to one's childhood and from one's childhood to one's birth, one asks oneself: What do I carry within me? The answer is: What my parents and ancestors carried within themselves and passed on to me! But there is also another way of looking at human beings, which only the people of the present do not yet practice, which the people of the future must practice, which must become the focus of education and the art of upbringing: this is not looking back on having been younger, but looking correctly at the fact that with each day we grow older in life. Basically, modern humanity only understands that one was once young. It does not understand — in reality — that one grows older with each passing day. For it does not know the word that must be added to the word “inheritance” when one contrasts being young with growing older. When we look back on our childhood, we speak of what we have inherited. In the same way, when we look at our aging, we can speak of the other pole, we can speak of the gate of death as we speak of the gate of birth. This raises one question: What have we gained from our ancestors by entering this life through the gate of birth? This raises another question: What might we lose, what will change in us as we move toward the future, as we grow older with each passing day? What will it be like when we consciously experience growing older with each passing day?

But this is a challenge for our age. Humanity must learn to grow older consciously with each passing day. For if we consciously learn to grow older with each passing day, this means true knowledge: a coming together with spiritual beings, just as being born and having inherited characteristics means coming from physical beings. But how these things are connected, I will speak about next time, about that important inner impulse that must approach the human soul if the human soul is to find what it so badly needs for the future, what alone can be a complete and full complement to what natural science brings on the one hand.

Then you will see why the new myth of Isis can stand alongside the old myth of Osiris and Isis, and why both are necessary for people today; why the following must be added to the words that echo from ancient Egypt from the statue at Sais: I am the universe, I am the past, the present, the future; no mortal has yet lifted my veil—why must another sound ring out in these words, why must these words no longer appeal only to the human soul, but must be accompanied by the words: I am man. I am the past, the present, and the future. Every mortal should lift my veil.

Today I have presented you with more riddles than solutions. But we will talk about them further, and the riddles will then be solved in many different ways.