Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Spiritual Ground of Education
GA 305

16 August 1922, Oxford

I. The Necessity for a Spiritual Insight

My first words shall be to ask your forgiveness that I cannot speak to you in the language of this country. But as I lack practise I must needs formulate things in the language I can use. Any disadvantage this involves will be made good, I trust, in the translation to follow.

In the second place, allow me to say that I feel extra-ordinarily grateful to the distinguished committee which enables me to hold these lectures at this gathering in Oxford. I feel it an especial honour to be able to give these lectures here, in this venerable town. It was here, in this town, that I myself experienced the grandeur of ancient tradition, twenty years ago.

And now that I am about to speak of a method of education which in a sense may be called new, I should like to say: In our day novelty is sought by many simply qua novelty, but whoever strives for a new thing in any sphere of human culture must first win the right to do so by knowing how to respect what is old.

Here in Oxford I feel how the power of what lives in these old traditions inspires everything. And one who can feel this has perhaps the right also to speak of what is new. For a new thing, in order to maintain itself, must be rooted in the venerable past. Perhaps it is the tragedy and the great failing of our age that there is a constant demand for this new thing and that new thing, while so few people are inclined worthily to create the new from out of the old.

Therefore, I feel such deep thankfulness to Mrs. Mackenzie, the organiser of this conference, in particular, and to the whole committee who undertook to arrange the lectures here. I feel deep gratitude because this makes it possible to give expression to what, in a sense, is indeed a new thing in the environment of that revered antiquity which alone can sponsor it.

I am equally grateful for the very kind words of introduction which Principal Jacks spoke in this place yesterday.

And now I have already indicated, perhaps, the stand-point from which these lectures will be given: what will be said here concerning education and teaching is based on that spiritual-scientific knowledge which I have made it my life's work to develop.

This spiritual science was cultivated to begin with for its own sake; in recent years friends have come forward to carry it also into particular domains of practical life. Thus it was Emil Molt, of Stuttgart, who having acquaintance with the work in spiritual science going forward at the Goetheanum—(in Dornach, Switzerland)—wished to see it applied in the education of children at school. And this led to the founding of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart.

The pedagogy and didactic of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart was founded in that spiritual life which, I hold, must lead to a renewal of education in conformity with the spirit of our age: a renewal of education along the lines demanded by the spirit of the age, by the tasks and the stage of human development which belong to this epoch.

The education and curriculum in question is based entirely upon knowledge of man. A knowledge of man which spans man's whole being from his birth to his death. But a knowledge which aims at comprising all the super-sensible part of man's being between birth and death, all that bears lasting witness that man belongs to a super-sensible world.

In our age we have spiritual life of many kinds, but above all a spiritual life coming down to us from ancient times, a spiritual life handed down by tradition. Alongside of this spiritual life and in ever diminishing contact with it, we have the life that flows to us from the magnificent discoveries of modern natural science. In an age which includes the life-time of the great natural scientists, the leading spirits in natural science, we cannot, when speaking of spiritual life neglect the potent contribution to knowledge of man made by natural science itself.

Now this natural science can give us insight into the bodily nature of man, can give us insight into bodily, physio-logical functions during man's physical life. But this same natural science conducted as it is by experiment with external tools, by observation with external senses has not succeeded, for all its great progress, in reaching the essentially spiritual life of man. I do not say this in disparagement. It was the great task of natural science as systematised, for example, by such a personality as Huxley—it was the great service it rendered that for once it looked at nature with complete disregard of everything spiritual in the world.

Neither, therefore, can the knowledge of man we have in psychology and anthropology help us to a practical grasp of what is spiritual. We have, in our modern civilisation a life of the spirit, and the various religious denominations maintain and spread this life of the spirit. But this spiritual culture is not capable of giving answers to man's questions as to the nature of that eternity and immortality, the super-sensible life, to which he belongs. It cannot give us conviction. Conviction, when the isolation of our worldly life and worldly outlook makes us ask: “What is the eternal, super-sensible reality underlying the world of sense-perception?”

We may have beliefs as to what we were before birth in the womb of divine, super-sensible worlds. We may form beliefs as to what our souls will have to go through after passing the portal of death. And we may formulate such beliefs into a cult. This can warm our hearts and cheer our spirits. We can say to ourselves: “Man is a greater being in the whole universe than in this physical life between birth and death.” But what we achieve in this way remains a belief, it remains a thing we think and feel. It is becoming increasingly difficult to put in practice the great findings and tenets of natural science while still holding such spiritual beliefs. We know of the spirit, we no longer understand how to use the spirit, how to do anything with it, how to permeate our work and daily life with spirit.

What domain of life most calls for a dealing with the spirit? The domain of teaching and education. In education we must comprehend man as a whole; and man in his totality is body, soul and spirit. We must be able to deal with spirit if we would educate. In all ages it has been incumbent on man to take account of the spirit and work by its power: now above all, because we have made such advances in external science, this summons to work with the spirit is the most urgent. Hence the social question to-day is first and foremost a question of education. For to-day we may justly ask: What must we do to give rise to social organisation and social institutions less tragic than those of the present day, less full of menace? We can give ourselves no answer but this: First we must place into practical life, into the social community, men who are educated from out of the spirit, by means of a creative activity of the spirit.

The kind of knowledge we are describing pre-supposes a continuous doing in life, a dealing with life; hence it must seek out the spirituality within life and make this the basis of education throughout the differing life-epochs. For in a child the spirit is closer to the body than it is in the adult. We can see in a child how physical nature is formed plastically by the spirit. What precisely is the brain of a child when it is first born, according to our modern natural science? It is something like the clay which a sculptor takes up when he prepares a model. And now let us look at the brain of a seven year old child when we begin his primary education; it has become a wonderful work of art, but a work of art which must be worked upon further, worked upon right up to the end of school life. Hidden spiritual powers are working at the moulding of the human body. And we as educators are called upon to contribute to that work. Are called upon not only to observe the bodily nature, but—while we must never neglect the bodily nature—to observe in this bodily nature how the spirit is at work upon it. We are called upon to work with the unconscious spirit—to link ourselves not only with the natural, but with the divine ordering of the world.

When we confront education earnestly it is demanded of us not only to acknowledge God for the peace of our soul, but to will God's will, to act the intentions of God. To do this however, we need a spiritual basis for education. Of this spiritual basis for education I will speak to you in the following days.

We must feel when we observe child life how necessary it is to have a spiritual insight, a spiritual vision if we are adequately to follow what takes place in the child day by day, what takes place in his soul, in his spirit. We should consider how child life in its very earliest days and weeks differs totally from later childhood, let alone adulthood. We should call to mind what a large proportion of sleep a child needs in the early days of its life. And we must ask ourselves what takes place in that interchange between spirit and body when a child in early childhood needs nearly 22 hours sleep? The current attitude to such things, both in philosophy and practical life, is: Well it is not possible to see into the soul of a child, any more than one can see into the soul of an animal or of a plant; here we encounter limits of human knowledge.

The spiritual view which we are here representing does not say: Here are limits of human knowledge, of human cognition. It says: We must bring forth from the depths of human nature powers of cognition equal to observing man's complete nature, body, soul and spirit; just as we can observe the arrangement of the human eye or the human ear in physiology.

If in ordinary life we have not so far got this knowledge owing to our natural scientific education, we must set about building it up. Hence I shall have to speak to you of the development of a knowledge which can guarantee a genuine insight into the inner texture of child life. And devoted and unprejudiced observation of life itself goes far to bring about such an insight.

We look at a child. If our view is merely external we cannot actually find any definite points of development from birth on to about the twentieth year. We look upon everything as a continuous development.

It is not so for one who comes to the observation of child life equipped with the knowledge of which I shall have to speak in the next few days. Then the child is fundamentally a different being up to his seventh year or eighth year,—when the change of teeth sets in—from what he is later in life, from the change of teeth to about the fourteenth year, to puberty. And infinitely significant problems confront us when we endeavour to sink deep into the child's life and to ask. How does the soul and spirit work upon the child up to the change of teeth? How does the soul and spirit work upon the child when we have to educate and teach him in the elementary or primary school? How must we ourselves co-operate here with the soul and spirit?

We see for example how speech is developed instinctively during the first period of a child's life up to the change of teeth,—instinctively as far as the child is concerned, and instinctively as regards his surroundings. Nowadays we devote a good deal of thought to the question of how a child learns to speak (I will not go into the historical aspect of the origin of speech to-day.) But how does a child actually learn to speak? Has he some kind of instinct whereby he makes his own the sounds he hears about him? Or does he derive the impulse for speech from some other kind of connection with his surroundings? If, however, one looks more closely into the life of a child one can observe that all speech and all learning to speak rests upon the imitation of what the child observes in his surroundings by means of his senses—observes unconsciously. The whole life of the child up to his seventh year is a continuous imitation of what takes place in his environment. And the moment a child perceives something, whether it be a movement, or whether it be a sound, there arises in him the impulse of an inward gesture, to re-live what has been perceived with the whole intensity of his inner nature.

We only understand a child when we contemplate him as we should contemplate the eye or the ear of an older person. For the child is entirely sense-organ (i.e. a child up to the seventh year). His blood is driven through his body in a far livelier way than in later life. We can perceive by means of a fine physiology what the development of our sense-organs, for example the eye, depends on Blood preponderates in the process of development of the eye, in the very early years. Then, later, the nerve life in the senses preponderates more and more. For the development of the organism of the senses in man is a development from blood circulation to nerve activity. It is possible to acquire a delicate faculty for perceiving how the life of the blood gradually goes over into the life of the nerves.

And as it is with a single sense (e.g. the eye), so it is with the whole human being. The child needs so much sleep because it is entirely sense-organ. Because it could not otherwise endure the dazzle and noise of the outer world. Just as the eye must shut itself against the dazzling sunlight, so must this sense-organ: child—for the child is entirely sense-organ—shut itself off against the world, so must it sleep a great deal. For whenever it is confronted with the world, it has to observe, to hold inward converse. Every sound of speech arises from an inward gesture.

What I am now saying from out of a spiritual knowledge is—let me say—open to-day to scientific demonstration. There is a scientific discovery—and, forgive the personal allusion, but this discovery has dogged me all through my life and is just as old as I am myself, it was made in the year in which I was born. Now the discovery is to the effect that human speech depends on the left parietal con-volution of the brain. This is developed plastically in the brain. But the whole of this development takes place during childhood by means of these plastic forces of which I have spoken. And if we contemplate the whole connection which exists between the gestures of the right arm, and the right hand (which preponderate in normal children), we shall see how speech forms itself from out of gesture by imitation of the environment through an inner, secret connection between blood, nerves and the convolution of the brain: (of left-handed children and their relation to the generality of children I shall have something to say later; they form an exception, but they prove very well how what builds up the power of speech is bound up with every single gesture of the right arm and hand, even down to minutest details).

If we had a more delicate physiology than our physiology of to-day, we should be able to discover for each time of life, not only the passive but the active principle. Now the active principle is particularly lively in this great organ of sense, the child. Thus a child lives in its environment in the manner in which, in later years our eye dwells in its environment. Our eye is especially formed from out the general organisation of the head. It lies, that is, in a cavity apart, so that it can participate in the life of the outer world. In the same way the child participates in the life of the outer world, lives entirely within the external world—does not yet feel itself—but lives entirely in the outer world.

We develop nowadays a form of knowledge, called intellectual knowledge, which is entirely within us. It is the form of knowledge appropriate to our civilisation. We believe that we can comprehend the outer world, but the thoughts and the logic to which alone we grant cognitive value dwell within ourselves. And a child lives entirely outside of himself. Have we the right to believe that with our intellectual mode of knowledge we can ever participate in that experience of the outer world which the child has?—the child who is all sense-organ? This we cannot do. This we can only hope to achieve by a cognition which can go right out of itself, which can enter into the nature of all that lives and moves. Intuitional cognition is the only cognition which can do this. Not intellectual knowledge which leaves us within ourselves; which makes us ask of every idea: is it logical? No, but a knowledge by means of which the spirit penetrates into the depths of life itself—intuitional knowledge. We must consciously acquire an intuitional knowledge, then only shall we be practical enough to do with spirit what has to be accomplished with the child in his earliest years.

Now, as the child gradually accomplishes the changing of teeth, when in place of the inherited teeth there appear those which have been formed during the first period of life (1-7)—there comes about a change in the child's whole life. Now no longer is he entirely sense-organ, but he is given up to a more psychical element than that of the sense impressions. The child of primary school age now no longer absorbs what he observes in his surroundings, but rather that which lives in what he observes. The child enters upon the stage which must be based mainly on the principle of authority, the authority a child meets with in his educators or teachers. Do not let us deceive ourselves into thinking that a child between seven and fourteen, whom we are educating, does not adopt from us the judgments we give expression to. If we compel a child to listen to a judgment expressed in a certain phrase, we are giving him something which rightly belongs only to a later age. What the true nature of the child demands of us is to be able to believe in us, to have the instinctive feeling: ‘Here stands one beside me who tells me something. He can tell things because he is so connected with the whole world that he can tell. For me he is the mediator between myself and the whole universe. This is how the child confronts his teacher and educator—not of course outspokenly but instinctively. For the child the adult is the mediator between the divine world and himself in his helplessness. And only when the educator is conscious that he must be such an authority as a matter of course, that he must be such as the child can look up to in a perfectly natural way, can he be a true educator.

Hence we have found in the course of our Waldorf School teaching and our Waldorf School education that the question of education is principally a question of teachers. What must the teacher: be like in order to be a natural authority, the mediator between the divine order of the world and the child? Well, what has the child become? Between the 7th and 14th or 15th year from being sense-organ the child has become all soul. Not spirit as yet—not such that he sets the highest value on logical connections, on intellect; this would cause inner ossification in his soul. It is far more significant for a child between seven and fourteen years to tell him about a thing in a kindly, loving way, than to demonstrate by proof. Kindly humour and geniality in a lesson have far more value than logic. For the child does not yet need logic. For the child does not yet need logic. The child needs us, needs our humanity.

Hence in the Waldorf School we set the greatest importance on the teachers of children from seven to fourteen years being able to give them what is appropriate to their age with artistic love and loving art. For it is fundamental to the education of which we are speaking that one should know the human being, that one should know what each age demands of us in respect of education and instruction. What is demanded by the first year? What is demanded up to the seventh year? What is required of the primary school period? The way of educating children up to the tenth year must be quite different, and different again must be the way we introduce them to human knowledge between 10 and 14. To have in our souls a lively image of the child's nature in every single year, nay, in every single week,—this constitutes the spiritual basis of education.

Thus we can say: As the child is an imitator, a ‘copy-cat’ in his early years, so, in his later years he becomes a follower, one who develops in his soul according to what he is able in his psychic environment to experience in soul. The sense organs have now become independent. The soul of the child has actually only just come into its own. We must now treat this soul with infinite tenderness. As teacher and educator we must come into continually more intimate contact with what is happening day by day in the child's soul.

In this introductory talk to-day I will indicate only one thing. There is, namely, for every child a critical point during the age of school attendance; roughly between the 9th and 11th year there is a critical moment, a moment which must not be over-looked by the teacher. In this age between the 9th and 11th year there comes for every child—if he is not abnormal—the moment when he says to himself: ‘How can I find my place within the world?’ One must not suppose that the question is put just as I have said it. The question arises in indefinite feelings, in unsatisfied feelings. The question shows itself in the child's having a longing for dependence on a grown-up person. Perhaps it will take the form of a great love and attachment felt for some grown-up person. But we must understand how rightly to observe what is happening in the child at this critical time. The child suddenly finds himself isolated. He seeks something to hold on to. Up till now he has accepted authority as a matter of course. Now he begins to ask: What is this authority? Our finding or not finding the right word to say at this moment will make an enormous difference to the whole of the child's later life.

It is enormously important that the physician observing a childish illness should say to himself: What is going on in the organism are processes of development which are not significant only for the child—if they do not go rightly in the child the man will suffer the effects when he is old. Similarly must we realise that the ideas, sensations or will impulses we give the child must not be formulated in stiff concepts which the child has only to heed and learn: the ideas, the impulses and sensations which we give the child must be alive as our limbs are alive. The child's hand is small. It must grow of its own accord, we may not constrain it. The ideas, the psychic development of the child are small and delicate, we must not confine them within hard limits as if we assumed that the child must retain them in thirty years' time when grown-up—in the same form as in childhood. We must so form the ideas we bring the child that they can grow. The Waldorf School does not aim at being a school, but a preparatory school; for every school should be a preparatory school to the great school of manhood, which is life itself. We must not learn at school for the sake of performance, but we must learn at school in order to be able to learn further from life. Such must be the basis of what may be called a spiritual physiological pedagogy and didactics. One must have a sense and feeling for bringing to the child living things that can continue with him into later life. For that which is fostered in a child often dwells in the depths of the child's soul imperceptibly. In later life it comes out. One can make use of an image—it is only by way of image, but it rests upon a truth: There are people who at a certain time of their lives have a beneficent influence upon their fellow men. They can—if I may use the expression—bestow blessing. There are such people,—they do not need to speak, they only need to be there with their personality which blesses. The whole course of a man's life is usually not observed, otherwise notice would be taken of the upbringing of such people—of people like this who later have the power of blessing; it may have been the conscious deed of some one person, or it may have been unconscious on the part of teacher and educator:—Such people have been brought up as children to learn reverence, to learn, in the most comprehensive meaning of the word, to pray—to look up to something;—and hence they could will down to something. If one has learned at first to look up, to honour, to be entirely surrounded by authority, then one has the possibility to bless, to work down, oneself to become an authority, an unquestioned authority.

These are the things which must not merely live as precepts in the teacher, but must pass into him, become part of his being—going from his head continuously into his arms. So that a man can do deeds with his spirit, not merely think thoughts. These things must come to life in the teacher. In the next few days I will show how this can come about in detail throughout each single year of school life between seven, and fourteen. But before all things I wanted to explain to-day how a certain manner of inner life, not merely an outlook on life but an inner attitude must form the basis of education.

Then, when the child has outgrown the stage of authority, when he has attained puberty and through this has physio-logically quite a different connection with the outer world than before, he also attains in soul and body (in his bodily life in its most comprehensive sense) a quite different relation-ship to the world than he had earlier. This is the time of the awakening of Spirit in Man. This now is the time when the human being seeks out the rational and logical aspect in all verbal expression. Only now can we hope to appeal with any success to the intellect in our education and instruction. It is immensely important that we do not consciously or unconsciously call upon the intellect prematurely, as people are so prone to do to-day.

And now let us ask ourselves: What is happening when we observe how the child takes on authority, everything that is to guide and lead his soul. For a child does not listen to us in order to check and prove what we say. Unconsciously the child takes up as an inspiration what works upon his soul, what, through his soul, builds and influences his body. And we can only rightly educate when we understand the wonderful, unconscious inspiration, which holds sway in the whole life of a child between seven and fourteen, when we can work into the continuous process of inspiration. To do this we' must acquire still another power of spiritual cognition, we must add to Intuition, Inspiration itself. And when we have led the child on its way as far as the 14th year we make a peculiar discovery. If we attempt to give the child things that we have conceived logically—we become wearisome to him. To begin with he will listen, when we thus formulate every-thing in a logical way; but if the young man or maiden must re-think our logic after us, he will gradually become weary. Also in this period we, as teachers need something besides pure logic. This can be seen from a general example.

Take a scientist such as Ernst Haeckel who lived entirely in external nature. He was himself tremendously interested in all his microscopic studies, in all he built up. If this is taught to pupils, they learn it but they cannot develop the same interest for it. We as teachers must develop something different from what the child has in himself. If the child is coming into the domain of logic at the age of puberty, we (in our turn) must develop imagery, imagination. If we ourselves can pour into picture form the subjects we have to give the children, if we can give them pictures, so that they receive images of the world and the work and meaning of the world, pictures which we create for them, as in a high form of art—then they will be held by what we have to tell them.

So that in this third period of life we are directed to Imagination, as in the other two to Intuition and Inspiration. And we now have to seek for the spiritual basis which can make it possible for us as teachers to work from out of Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition—which can make it possible not merely to think of spirit, but to act with spirit.

This is what I wished to say to you by way of introduction.

Die spirituelle Grundlage der Erziehung I

Meine ersten Worte sollen die Bitte um Entschuldigung sein, daß ich in der Sprache dieses Landes nicht werde diese Vorträge halten können. Allein da es mir an Übung fehlt, so muß ich eben in derjenigen Sprache die Dinge formulieren, in der ich das vermag. Die folgende Übersetzung wird ja hoffentlich das wieder gutmachen können, was in dieser Beziehung mangelt.

Als zweites gestatten Sie mir zu sagen, daß ich außerordentlich dankbar sein muß dem verehrten Komitee, das mir gestattet, diese Vorträge zu halten innerhalb dieser Oxforder Versammlung. Ich rechne es mir zur ganz besonderen Ehre an, in der altehrwürdigen Stadt hier diese Vorträge halten zu dürfen. Es ist ja die Stadt, in welcher ich selber, als ich vor 20 Jahren sie besuchen durfte, fühlte, welche Gewalt altehrwürdige Überlieferung ausströmt aus all dem, was man hier wahrnehmen kann.

Und nun, wenn ich mir gestatten werde, über eine Erziehungsmethode zu sprechen, welche in einem gewissen Sinne neu genannt werden darf, so möchte ich auf der anderen Seite sagen, daß das Neue ja in unserer Zeit von so vielen Menschen einfach als Neues angestrebt wird. Allein, wer Neues auf irgendeinem Gebiete der menschlichen Zivilisation anstreben will, muß sich eigentlich dazu erst Recht und Berechtigung holen dadurch, daß er das Alte in entsprechendem Sinne zu würdigen und zu verehren weiß.

Hier in Oxford fühle ich alles inspirierend durch die Gewalt desjenigen, was heute noch lebendig ist aus diesen alten Traditionen. Und nur derjenige, der solches fühlen kann, hat vielleicht die Berechtigung, auch über Neues zu sprechen. Denn nur dasjenige Neue kann in der Welt bestehen, das seine Wurzeln in dem Altehrwürdigen pflegt. Es ist ja vielleicht gerade die Tragik und das tiefe Elend unserer Zeit, daß fortwährend davon gesprochen wird: man will dieses, man will jenes Neue, und daß so wenige Menschen geneigt sind, dieses Neue aus dem Alten heraus würdig zu gestalten.

Deshalb fühle ich einen so innigen Dank vor allen Dingen gegenüber Mrs. Mackenzie, der Hauptveranstalterin dieser Versammlung, und gegenüber dem ganzen Komitee, welche sich der Aufgabe, die Vorträge hier einzurichten, hingeben; ich fühle so innigen Dank, weil eben dadurch möglich wird, etwas, was ja in gewissem Sinne als Neues gemeint ist, in dem Milieu des Altehrwürdigen, durch das es erst sanktioniert werden kann, auszusprechen.

Ebenso dankbar bin ich für die sehr liebenswürdigen einleitenden Worte, welche gestern Prinzipal Jacks hier gesprochen hat.

Damit habe ich vielleicht zunächst etwas angedeutet aus der Gesinnung heraus, aus der diese Vorträge gehalten werden sollen: Dasjenige, was hier über Erziehungswesen und über Unterrichtswesen zunächst von mir gesagt werden soll, ruht ja auf der Grundlage derjenigen spirituellen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis, welche auszubilden ich mir zur Aufgabe meines Lebens gemacht habe.

Diese spirituelle Erkenntnis, sie wurde zunächst um ihrer selbst willen gepflegt, und in den letzten Jahren haben sich Freunde dieser Weltanschauung gefunden, um sie auch einzuführen in die einzelnen Gebiete des praktischen Lebens. Und so war es in Stuttgart Emil Molt, welcher aus der Anschauung desjenigen, was durch das Goetheanum, die Freie Hochschule für spirituelle Wissenschaft in Dornach in der Schweiz, gewollt wird, das angewendet sehen wollte auf eine Erziehungs- und Unterrichtsanstalt für die Kinder im volksschulpflichtigen Alter. Und so kam es zu der Einrichtung der Waldorfschule in Stuttgart.

Der Pädagogik und Didaktik dieser Waldorfschule in Stuttgart wurde nun jenes spirituelle Leben zugrunde gelegt, von dem ich meine, daß es aus dem Geiste unserer Zeit heraus zu einer Fortführung des Erziehungswesens führen muß, gerade so, wie es der Geist für unsere Zeit, wie es die Aufgaben und wie es die Stufe der Menschheitsentwickelung innerhalb unserer Zeitepoche fordern.

Das Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesen, welches hier gemeint ist, ist durchaus gebaut auf Menschenerkenntnis, auf einer Menschenerkenntnis, die über den ganzen Menschen sich ausdehnt von seiner Geburt bis zu seinem Tode, die aber auch erfassen will alles dasjenige, was an übersinnlichem Wesen innerhalb dieses Lebens zwischen Geburt und Tod sich auslebt als Zeuge davon, daß der Mensch einer übersinnlichen Welt angehört.

Wir haben in unserer Zeit allerdings auch spirituelles Leben; spirituelles Leben vor allen Dingen aber, wie es uns überkommen ist aus alten Zeiten, spirituelles Leben, das wir traditionell fortpflanzen. Wir haben neben diesem spirituellen Leben, immer mehr und mehr, in einer geringen organischen Verbindung damit, jenes Leben, das uns aus der großartigen naturwissenschaftlichen Einsicht unserer neueren Zeit erquillt. Wir dürfen in dem Zeitalter, in dem gelebt haben die großen Naturforscher der Gegenwart, die tonangebenden Geister der Naturerkenntnis, wir dürfen heute auch, wenn wir von dem spirituellen Leben sprechen, nicht außer acht lassen dasjenige, was eindringlich zeigt für die Menschenerkenntnis die Naturwissenschaft selber.

Diese Naturwissenschaft, sie kann uns Aufschluß geben über das Körperliche des Menschen, sie kann uns Aufschluß geben über den Verlauf der körperlichen, der physiologischen Funktionen während des physischen Lebens des Menschen. Aber diese naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnis, so wie wir sie treiben, indem wir mit äußeren Werkzeugen experimentieren, indem wir mit äußeren Sinnen beobachten, sie hat gerade in der Zeit, in der sie so groß geworden ist, nicht vermocht, in das eigentliche spirituelle Leben des Menschen tiefer hineinzudringen. Das ist kein Tadel, den ich damit aussprechen will; das war die große Aufgabe der Naturwissenschaft, wie wir sie zum Beispiel, ich möchte sagen, in einer großen Systematik zusammengestellt finden bei einer Persönlichkeit wie Huxley. Das ist die große Leistung, daß sie einmal die Natur angesehen hat, ganz unbekümmert um alles dasjenige, was etwa in der Welt an Geistigem lebt.

Dafür haben wir auch eine Menschenerkenntnis, die nicht übergehen kann zu der unmittelbar praktischen Handhabung des Geistigen. Wir haben ein spirituelles Leben in unserer gegenwärtigen Zivilisation, und die verschiedenen Religionsbekenntnisse pflanzen dieses spirituelle Leben fort. Wir haben aber kein solches spirituelles Leben, das dem Menschen etwas zu sagen vermag, wenn er die bange Frage richtet nach dem Ewigen, nach dem Unvergänglichen, nach dem Übersinnlichen, dem er angehört; wir haben kein spirituelles Leben, das uns, mit anderen Worten, zu geben vermag Überzeugungen, Überzeugungen, wenn wir einsam dastehen in der Welt mit unserem physischen Leben, mit unserer physischen Lebensauffassung und nun fragen: Was liegt zugrunde an Ewigem, an Übersinnlichem dieser ganzen Sinneswelt?

Wir können uns dann Überzeugungen bilden darüber, was wir waren vor der Geburt im Schoße der göttlichen, übersinnlichen Welt. Wir können Überzeugungen bilden von demjenigen, was unsere Seele wird durchzumachen haben, wenn sie durch die Pforte des Todes gegangen ist. Wir können dasjenige, was wir so als Überzeugungen fassen, in Formeln bringen. Es kann, ich möchte sagen, warm in unser Herz, in unser Gemüt hereinströmen. Wir können sagen: Der Mensch ist mehr im ganzen Weltenall, als er ist in diesem physischen Leben zwischen Geburt und Tod.

Allein dasjenige, was wir auf diese Weise gewinnen, es bleibt Überzeugung, es bleibt etwas, was wir denken und fühlen können. Es wird immer schwieriger und schwieriger, die großartigen Überzeugungen, die uns zu diesem Spirituellen hinzu die Naturwissenschaft gibt, in die Handhabung, in die Praxis des Lebens hineinzuführen. Wir wissen vom Geiste; wir verstehen es nicht mehr, mit dem Geiste zu tun, mit dem Geiste zu handeln, unsere Lebenspraxis, das alltägliche Leben mit dem Geiste zu durchdringen.

Welches Gebiet des Lebens ist es am meisten, das uns auffordert, mit dem Geiste zu tun? Es ist das Erziehungs-, es ist das Unterrichtswesen. In der Erziehung müssen wir den ganzen Menschen ergreifen, und der ganze Mensch ist Körper, Seele und Geist. Wir müssen mit dem Geiste tun können, wenn wir erziehen, wenn wir unterrichten wollen.

Hat zu allen Zeiten der Menschheitsentwickelung diese Forderung über der Menschheit gestanden, so dürfen wir sagen: Jetzt gerade, weil wir auf dem Gebiete der äußerlichen Naturerkenntnis so weit gekommen sind, jetzt gerade am allermeisten steht die Forderung vor uns, mit dem Geiste tun zu können, Darum ist die soziale Frage heute in erster Linie eine Erziehungsfrage. Denn wir wollen mit Recht heute fragen: Was soll geschehen, damit soziale Ordnungen, soziale Institutionen unter uns entstehen, die minder tragisch sind als die heutigen, die minder bedrohlich sind als die heutigen? — Wir können uns keine andere Antwort geben als die: Wir müssen zunächst Menschen in das praktische Leben, in die soziale Gemeinschaft hineinstellen, die aus dem Geiste heraus, aus dem Tun im Geiste erzogen sind.

Eine solche Erkenntnis, die zu gleicher Zeit fortwährendes Tun im Leben ist, strebt diejenige Spiritualität im Leben an, welche zur Basis gemacht werden soll - nach der Meinung, die hier vertreten wird - für die Erziehung der verschiedenen Lebensalter des Menschen. Denn in der Kindheit, da steht der Geist näher dem Leibe des Menschen als beim Erwachsenen. In der Kindheit, da sehen wir, wie die physische Natur plastisch ausgebildet wird vom Geiste. Was ist gerade nach unserer heutigen Naturerkenntnis das Gehirn des Kindes, wenn es geboren wird? Es ist fast wie der Bildestoff, den der Bildhauer übernimmt, wenn er ein Bildhauerwerk bereitet.

Und schauen wir uns das Gehirn eines siebenjährigen Kindes an, das wir für die Volksschulerziehung übernehmen: es ist ein wunderbares Kunstwerk geworden, aber ein Kunstwerk, an dem weitergearbeitet werden muß, weitergearbeitet werden muß bis zum Ende der Volksschule. Geheimnisvolle spirituelle Kräfte arbeiten zunächst an der Plastik des menschlichen Leibes, und wir als Erzieher werden mitberufen, zu arbeiten, werden mitberufen, nicht bloß das Leibliche anzuschauen, sondern, obzwar wir niemals das Leibliche vernachlässigen dürfen, dieses Leibliche auch so anzuschauen, wie der Geist daran arbeitet, mit dem unbewußten Geiste bewußt mitzuarbeiten, uns einzufügen nicht nur in die natürliche, sondern in die göttliche Weltenordnung.

Indem wir ernsthaft der Erziehung gegenüberstehen, werden wir aufgefordert, nicht nur Gott zu erkennen für die Befriedigung unserer Seele, sondern mit Gott zu wollen, aus den göttlichen Absichten heraus zu handeln. Dazu aber brauchen wir eine spirituelle Basis für die Erziehung. Von dieser spirituellen Basis der Erziehung möchte ich Ihnen in den nächsten Tagen sprechen.

Man muß fühlen an der Beobachtung des kindlichen Lebens, wie spirituelle Einsicht, wie spirituelle Anschauung notwendig ist, um sachgemäß zu verfolgen, was mit dem Kinde, mit der Seele, mit dem Geiste des Kindes von Tag zu Tag geschieht. Wir müssen denken, wie ganz andersartig das kindliche Leben ist in den allerersten Lebenstagen und Lebenswochen als dasjenige des späteren Kindes, und namentlich dasjenige des Erwachsenen. Wir müssen uns erinnern, welches Ausmaß von Schlaf das Kind zunächst in seiner ersten Lebenszeit braucht. Wir müssen die Frage aufwerfen: Was geschieht in dem Wechselspiel zwischen Geist und Körper, wenn das Kind fast 22. Stunden in seiner ersten Lebenszeit des Schlafes bedürftig ist? Für solche Dinge spricht sich die heutige Philosophie, auch die heutige Lebenspraxis so aus, daß sie sagt: Nun, man kann eben in die Seele des Kindes nicht voll hineinschauen, wie man in die Seele eines Tieres, wie man in das innere Leben der Pflanze auch nicht hineinschauen kann. Da sind eben Grenzen des menschlichen Erkennens.

Diejenige spirituelle Anschauung, die hier gemeint ist, sie sagt nicht: Hier sind Grenzen der menschlichen Erkenntnis -, sie sagt: Es müssen so viele Erkenntniskräfte aus den Tiefen der Menschennatur hervorgeholt werden, daß wir auch die Möglichkeit gewinnen, so wie wir die "Einrichtung eines menschlichen Auges, eines menschlichen Ohres physiologisch betrachten, so auch den ganzen Menschen nach Körper, Seele und Geist in seinem Sein, in seiner Entwickelung zu beobachten.

Haben wir im gewöhnlichen Leben gerade durch unsere naturwissenschaftliche Erziehung in der Gegenwart diese Erkenntnis nicht, so müssen wir sie eben ausbilden. Daher werde ich zu sprechen haben zu Ihnen über die Ausbildung jener Erkenntnisse, die eine eigentliche Einsicht in das innere Gewebe des kindlichen Lebens gewähren können. Und zu dieser Einsicht zwingt auch schon eine Beobachtung, die nur unbefangen sich dem Leben hingibt.

Wir sehen das Kind. Wenn wir es so äußerlich anschauen, so finden wir eigentlich keine einschneidenden Entwickelungspunkte in dem Leben des Kindes von der Geburt bis etwa zum 20. Jahre. Wir fassen alles so auf wie eine kontinuierliche Entwickelung.

So ist es nicht für denjenigen, der ausgerüstet mit der Erkenntnis, von der ich in den nächsten Tagen hier sprechen werde, an die Beobachtung des kindlichen Lebens herantritt. Da ist das Kind innerlich im Grunde ein ganz anderes Wesen bis etwa zu seinem 7., 8. Jahre, wo der Zahnwechsel beginnt, als es ist im späteren Leben von dem Zahnwechsel bis etwa zum 14., 15. Jahre mit der Geschlechtsreife. Und unendlich bedeutungsvolle Rätsel gehen uns auf, wenn wir versuchen, ganz tief uns in das Leben des Kindes hineinzuversenken und uns zu fragen: Wie arbeitet das Geistig-Seelische an dem Kinde bis zum Zahnwechsel hin? Wie arbeitet das Geistig-Seelische an dem Kinde, wenn wir es gerade in der Volksschule, in der Elementarschule zu erziehen, zu unterrichten haben? Wie haben wir da selbst mit dem Geistig-Seelischen mitzuarbeiten?

Wir sehen zum Beispiel, wie in dem ersten Lebensalter des Kindes bis zum Zahnwechsel hin instinktiv - instinktiv für das Kind, instinktiv auch für die Umgebung des Kindes — die Sprache ausgebildet wird. Wir denken heute vielfach darüber nach, ich will heute nicht sprechen von dem Historischen in der Entstehung der Sprache, sondern nur von dem Sprechenlernen des Kindes, wie eigentlich das Kind sprechen lernt, ob es gewissermaßen einen Instinkt hat, sich in den Klang, den es von der Umgebung hört, hineinzufinden, oder ob aus irgendwelchem anderen Zusammenhang mit der Umgebung der Trieb, Sprache zu entwickeln, besteht. Sieht man aber genauer in das Leben des Kindes hinein, so merkt man, daß alle Sprache, alles Sprechenlernen auf der Nachahmung beruht desjenigen, was das Kind durch seine Sinne in der Umgebung beobachtet, unbewußt beobachtet. Das ganze Leben des Kindes bis zum 7. Jahre ist ein fortwährendes Imitieren desjenigen, was in der Umgebung vor sich geht. Und in dem Augenblick, wo das Kind irgend etwas wahrnimmt, sei es eine Bewegung, sei es einen Klang, entsteht in ihm der Drang nach innerlicher Gebärde, nach Nacherleben desjenigen, was wahrgenommen wird aus seiner ganzen Innerlichkeit heraus.

Wir verstehen das Kind nur, wenn wir es so betrachten, wie wir beim späteren Menschen das Auge oder das Ohr betrachten. Das Kind ist ganz Sinnesorgan. Sein Blut wird noch in einer viel lebendigeren Weise durch seinen ganzen Körper getrieben, als es später der Fall ist. Und wir merken gerade durch eine feine Physiologie, worauf die Ausbildung unserer Sinnesorgane, zum Beispiel des Auges beruht. Das Auge entwickelt sich dadurch, daß in ihm zuerst das Blut präponderiert, die Blutzirkulation, in den allerersten Lebensjahren des Menschen. Dann überwiegt später immer mehr und mehr das Nervenleben in den Sinnen, und eine Entwickelung von Blutzirkulation zum Nervenleben hin ist die Entwickelung des Sinneslebens im Menschen. Man kann sich eine feine Beobachtungsgabe aneignen dafür, wie allmählich im Menschen übergeht das Blutleben ins Nervenleben.

So aber, wie es beim einzelnen Sinn ist, so beim ganzen Menschen. Das Kind muß so viel schlafen, weil es ganz Sinnesorgan ist, weil es die Außenwelt noch nicht mit ihrem Blenden, mit ihren Lauten vertragen würde. Wie das Auge sich schließen muß, wenn das blendende Sonnenlicht herandringt, so muß sich dieses Sinnesorgan Kind — denn das Kind ist ganz Sinnesorgan — abschließen gegenüber der Welt, muß viel schlafen; denn dann, wenn es der Welt gegenübergestellt ist, muß es beobachten, innerlich reden. Jeder Laut der Sprache entsteht aus der innerlichen Gebärde.

Das, was ich hier sage aus einer spirituellen Erkenntnis heraus, das ist, ich möchte sagen, naturwissenschaftlich heute schon voll zu belegen. Es gibt eine naturwissenschaftliche Entdeckung - gestatten Sie mir, weil diese Entdeckung mich ja während meines ganzen Lebens verfolgt hat, die persönliche Bemerkung, daß diese naturwissenschaftliche Entdeckung so alt ist wie ich selber; sie ist in dem Jahre gemacht worden, wo ich geboren bin -, diese naturwissenschaftliche Entdeckung besteht darin, daß des Menschen Sprache beruht auf der Ausbildung der linken Schläfenwindung im Gehirn. Die wird plastisch im Gehirn ausgebildet. Aber diese Ausbildung geschieht durchaus während des kindlichen Alters selber aus jener Plastik heraus, von der ich Ihnen gesprochen habe. Und wenn wir den ganzen Zusammenhang betrachten, der besteht zwischen der Gebärde des rechten Armes und der rechten Hand, die präponderieren bei denjenigen Kindern, die das normal bilden — über Linkshänder werde ich noch zu sprechen haben, inwiefern sie sich zu den Allgemeinen verhalten; sie machen eine Ausnahme; aber gerade sie sind Beweise, wie das, was Sprechenlernen bedeutet, zusammenhängt mit jeder Gebärde, bis ins einzelnste hinein mit dem rechten Arm und der rechten Hand -, so werden wir sehen, wie durch einen inneren geheimnisvollen Zusammenhang von Blut, Nerven und der Windung des Gehirns aus der Gebärde heraus durch Imitation der Umgebung, die Sprache sich bildet.

Wenn wir schon eine feinere Physiologie hätten, als wir sie heute haben, so würden wir für jedes Alter nicht nur das Passive, sondern auch das Aktive entdecken. Aber dieses Aktive ist besonders regsam in diesem großen Sinnesorgan, das das Kind ist. Daher lebt das Kind so in seiner Umgebung, wie im späteren Leben unser Auge in der Umgebung lebt. Unser Auge ist besonders herausgestaltet aus der allgemeinen Kopforganisation, liegt, ich möchte sagen, in einer besonderen Höhlung, damit es das Leben der Außenwelt mitmachen kann. Das Kind macht so das Leben der Außenwelt mit, lebt ganz in der Außenwelt drinnen, ist noch nicht in sich, fühlt noch nicht sich, lebt ganz mit der Außenwelt.

Wir entwickeln heute mit Recht innerhalb unserer Zivilisation eine Erkenntnis, die eine sogenannte intellektualistische Erkenntnis ist, die ganz in uns lebt. Wir glauben die Außenwelt zu erfassen. Aber alle Gedanken, vor denen wir, und vor deren Logik wir allein gelten lassen die Erkenntnis, sie leben ja ganz in uns. Und das Kind lebt ganz außerhalb seiner selbst. Dürfen wir glauben, daß wir mit unserer intellektualistischen Erkenntnis jemals herankommen an dasjenige, was das Kind, das ganz Sinnesorgan ist, mit der Außenwelt erlebt? Das dürfen wir niemals. Das dürfen wir nur hoffen von der Erkenntnis, die selber ganz aus sich herausgehen kann, ganz untertaucht in das Wesen desjenigen, was lebt und west. Eine solche Erkenntnis ist nur die intuitive Erkenntnis, nicht die intellektuelle, mit der wir in uns bleiben, wo wir uns bei jeder Idee fragen: Ist sie auch logisch? - es ist eine Erkenntnis, mit der der Geist hinunterdringt in die Tiefen des Lebens selber, eine intuitive Erkenntnis. Wir müssen uns bewußt aneignen eine intuitive Erkenntnis, dann werden wir erst selbst so praktisch, damit wir mit dem Geiste tun können dasjenige, was mit dem Kinde zu geschehen hat zunächst in den ersten Lebensjahren.

Dann aber, wenn das Kind seinen Zahnwechsel nach und nach überwindet, wenn an die Stelle derjenigen Zähne, die noch vererbt sind, diejenigen treten, die schon aus der ersten Lebensepoche heraus mit ihre Formung erhalten haben, dann tritt für das ganze Leben des Kindes das ein, daß es nicht mehr bloß Sinnesorgan ist, sondern hingegeben ist an etwas Seelischeres als an jeden äußeren Sinneseindruck. Dann tritt gerade für das Volksschulalter der Elementarschule das für das Kind ein, daß es beginnt, nun aus der Umgebung nicht mehr nur dasjenige aufzunehmen, was es beobachtet, sondern das, was in dem Beobachten lebt. Für das Kind tritt dasjenige Alter ein, das vorzugsweise gebaut sein muß auf jene Autorität, in der das Kind gegenüber seiner erziehenden und unterrichtenden Umgebung lebt.

Geben wir uns keiner Täuschung darüber hin, daß das Kind, wenn wir es ansprechen zwischen dem 7. und 14. Jahre, von uns nicht vernimmt das Urteil, das sich in einem Satze ausspricht. Wenn wir das Kind zwingen, das Urteil zu erlauschen, das sich in einem Satze ausspricht, so bringen wir ihm etwas bei, was erst einem späteren Lebensalter angehört. Dasjenige, was das Kind durch seine Wesenheit von uns verlangt, das ist, daß es an uns glauben kann, daß es das instinktive Gefühl haben kann: Da steht einer neben mir, der sagt mir etwas. Er kann es sagen, er steht mit der ganzen Welt so in Verbindung, daß er es sagen kann. Der ist für mich der Vermittler zwischen mir und dem ganzen Kosmos. So steht das Kind, natürlich nicht ausgesprochen, aber instinktiv dem anderen Menschen, namentlich dem lehrenden und erziehenden Menschen gegenüber. Er ist ihm der Vermittler zwischen der göttlichen Welt und zwischen ihm selber in seiner Ohnmacht. Und nur, wenn sich der Erzieher bewußt wird, daß er selbstverständliche Autorität sein muß, daß er dasjenige sein muß, zu dem das Kind hinaufsehen kann in einer ganz selbstverständlichen Weise, dann wird er Erzieher sein.

Daher haben wir gefunden während unseres Waldorfschul-Unterrichtes und unserer Waldorfschul-Erziehung, daß die Erziehungsfrage in der Hauptsache eine Lehrerfrage ist: Wie hat der Lehrer zu sein, um sein zu können eine selbstverständliche Autorität, der Vermittler zwischen der göttlichen Weltordnung und dem Kinde?

Nun, was ist da das Kind geworden? Zwischen dem 7. Jahre ungefähr und dem 14., 15. Jahre ist das Kind aus dem Sinnesorgan ganz Seele geworden, noch nicht Geist, noch nicht so, daß es den Hauptwert auf den logischen Zusammenhang, auf das Intellektualistische legt; da würde es innerlich in der Seele verknöchern. Für das Kind zwischen dem 7. und 14. Jahre hat es eine viel größere Bedeutung, wenn wir vermögen in liebevoller Weise ihm irgend etwas beizubringen, als es ihm zu beweisen. Es hat viel größeren Wert, wenn wir Gemüt durch irgendeine Lehre gehen lassen können, als Logik; denn das Kind braucht noch nicht die Logik, das Kind braucht uns, braucht unsere Menschlichkeit.

Deshalb legen wir in der Waldorfschule gerade im Volksschulalter zwischen dem 6., 7. und 14. Jahre alles darauf an, daß der Lehrer mit einer künstlerischen Liebe und liebevollen Kunst dasjenige an das Kind heranzubringen vermag, was in dieses Lebensalter des Menschen hineingehört. Denn darauf beruht jene Erziehungskunst, die hier gemeint ist, daß man den Menschen kennt, kennt, was jedes Lebensalter von uns fordert in bezug auf Erziehung und Unterricht: Was fordern die ersten Jahre? Was ist gefordert bis zum 7. Jahre? Was kann das Volksschulalter verlangen? - Ganz anders müssen wir das Kind erziehen bis zum 10. Jahre, ganz anders wiederum vom 10. bis 14. Jahre, seine Menschenerkenntnis sich erwerben lassen. Daß wir das Wesen des Kindes in jedem einzelnen Jahre, ja jeder einzelnen Woche in unserer eigenen Seele lebendig machen, das ist dasjenige, was spirituelle Basis für die Erziehung bilden muß.

Und so können wir sagen: wie das Kind in den ersten Jahren ein Imitator, ein Nachahmer ist, so wird es in den späteren Jahren einFolger, einer, welcher sich nach dem, was er seelisch zu erleben vermag, auch seelisch entwickelt. Jetzt sind die Sinnesorgane selbständig geworden, und die Seele ist wesenhaft im Kinde eigentlich erst aufgetaucht. Unendlich zart müssen wir diese Seele nun behandeln, fort und fort, als Lehrer und Erzieher in einen innigen Kontakt kommen mit demjenigen, was jeden Tag in der Seele des Kindes vor sich geht.

Ich möchte heute in dieser einleitenden Rede nur auf das eine hinweisen: es gibt zum Beispiel für jedes Kind während des schulpflichtigen Alters, so zwischen dem 9. und 11. Jahre, einen kritischen Punkt, einen Punkt, der nicht übersehen werden darf von dem Erzieher. In diesem Alter zwischen dem 9. und 11. Jahre kommt für jedes Kind, wenn es nicht unternormal ist, der Punkt, wo vor seiner Seele die Frage auftaucht: Wie finde ich mich in die Welt hinein? — Man darf nicht denken, daß diese Frage so gestellt wird, wie ich es eben jetzt besprochen habe. Die Frage tritt auf in unbestimmtem Fühlen, in unbefriedigtem Fühlen; die Frage tritt so auf, daß das Kind ein größeres Anlehnungsbedürfnis an einen Erwachsenen fühlt, die Frage tritt auf vielleicht so, daß sie sogar in einem starken Liebeshange zu einem Erwachsenen sich hervortut. Aber wir müssen in der richtigen Weise zu beobachten verstehen, was in diesem kritischen Punkt in dem Kinde vorgeht. Es fühlt sich plötzlich vereinsamt. Es sucht plötzlich Anschluß. Bisher hat es die Autorität als selbstverständlich hingenommen. Jetzt beginnt es zu fragen: Was ist es denn mit dieser Autorität? -— Ob man in diesem Augenblicke das rechte Wort findet oder nicht findet, davon hängt ungeheuer viel ab für das ganze spätere Leben des Menschen.

So wie es ungeheuer wichtig ist, daß der Arzt, wenn er eine Kinderkrankheit beobachtet, weiß, was da vorgeht im Organismus, das sind Entwickelungsprozesse, die nicht nur für das Kind Bedeutung haben gehen sie im Kinde nicht in der richtigen Weise vor sich, so spürt das der Mensch noch als Greis -, so müssen wir uns bewußt werden: was wir in dem Kinde anregen an Vorstellungen, an Empfindungen, an Willensimpulsen, das darf nicht in steife Begriffe gefaßt sein, die das Kind sich nur merken soll, nur lernen soll; diejenigen Vorstellungen, diejenigen Empfindungsimpulse, die wir dem Kinde vermitteln, sie sollen leben so, wie unsere Glieder leben. Die Hand des Kindes ist klein. Sie muß sich selbständig entwickeln: wir dürfen sie nicht einzwängen. Die Vorstellungen, die seelische Entwickelung des Kindes, sie sind klein und zart. Wir dürfen sie nicht in scharfe Konturen fassen, von denen wir etwa voraussetzen, daß das Kind als Erwachsener nach dreißig Jahren noch diese Vorstellungen hat, wie das Kind sie hatte. Wir müssen die Vorstellungen, die wir dem Kinde beibringen, so gestalten, daß sie wachsen können. Die Waldorfschule soll keine Schule sein, sondern eine Vorschule sein, weil jede Schule eine Vorschule sein soll zu der großen Schule, die das Leben selber für den Menschen ist. Wir müssen eigentlich in der Schule nicht lernen, damit wir es können, sondern wir müssen in der Schule lernen, damit wir vom Leben immer lernen können. Das ist dasjenige, was einer, ich möchte sagen, spirituell-physiologischen Pädagogik und Didaktik zugrunde liegen muß. Man muß Sinn und Gefühl haben für dasjenige, was man an das Kind heranbringt als ein Lebendiges, als etwas, was in das spätere Alter hineinreichen kann. Denn dasjenige, was im Kind ausgebildet wird, verhält sich manchmal auf dem Seelenuntergrund des Kindes so, daß man es nicht bemerkt. Im späteren Lebensalter kommt es heraus. Man kann ein Bild gebrauchen; es soll nur ein Bild sein, das aber auf Wahrheit beruht: es gibt Menschen, die in einem bestimmten Lebensalter wohltätig wirken auf ihre Mitmenschen. Sie können — wenn ich es so aussprechen darf - segnen. Solche Menschen gibt es. Sie brauchen gar nicht zu sprechen, sie brauchen nur da zu sein mit ihrer segnenden Persönlichkeit. Man beobachtet gewöhnlich den Menschen nicht in seinem ganzen Leben, sonst würde man folgendes bemerken: Wie sind solche Menschen, die später segnen können, in ihrer Kindheit erzogen worden, vielleicht bewußt von dem oder jenem, vielleicht hat es sich instinktiv auch für den Erzieher und Unterrichter gegeben. Sie waren so erzogen, daß sie als Kinder verehren gelernt haben, daß sie als Kinder beten gelernt haben im umfassenden Sinne des Wortes, hinaufzuschauen zu etwas - dann können sie hinunterwollen zu etwas. Hat man erst gelernt, hinaufschauen, verehren, in Autorität ganz gehüllt sein, dann hat man die Möglichkeit, zu segnen, hinunterzuwirken, selber Autorität zu werden, selbstverständliche Autorität zu werden.

Das sind die Dinge, die nun nicht als Grundsätze bloß leben, die durchaus in den Lehrer übergehen sollen, in sein ganzes Wesen, indem sie aus dem Kopf fortwährend in die Arme gehen, und er aus dem Geiste tun, und nicht aus dem Geiste bloß denken soll, die in dem Lehrer Leben gewinnen müssen.

Wie das im einzelnen vom 7. bis 14. Jahre durch alle Schuljahre der Fall sein kann, das will ich dann in den nächsten Tagen darstellen. Aber vor allen Dingen das wollte ich heute aussprechen, wie eine gewisse Art und Weise nicht einer Lebensanschauung bloß, sondern eines innerlichen Lebens selber die spirituelle Basis der Erziehung sein muß. Dann erst, wenn der Mensch diese Autorität überwunden hat, wenn der Mensch geschlechtsreif geworden ist und auf diese Weise physiologisch ein ganz anderes Verhältnis zur Außenwelt gewinnt als früher, gewinnt er auch in seinem seelischen und leiblichen, in seinem körperlichen Leben im umfassendsten Sinne ein ganz anderes Verhältnis zur Außenwelt als früher. Jetzt erst erwacht der Geist im Menschen. Jetzt erst sucht der Mensch in allem Sprachlichen das Urteilhafte, das Logische. Jetzt erst können wir hoffen, daß wir den Menschen so erziehen und unterrichten können, daß wir an seinen Intellekt appellieren. Das ist ungeheuer wichtig, daß wir nicht, wie es heute so sehr beliebt ist, auf den Intellekt bewußt oder unbewußt zu früh reflektieren.

Und wiederum, wenn wir uns nun fragen: Was wirkt in dem Kinde, wenn wir sehen, wie es nun auf Autorität hin dasjenige aufnimmt, was seine Seele lenken und leiten soll? - Nun, das Kind hört nicht zu, um logisch zu prüfen, was wir sagen. Das Kind nimmt unbewußt dasjenige, was in seine Seele hineinwirkt, was von der Seele aus auch am Leibe bildet und kraftet, es nimmt es auf wie eine Inspiration. Und nur, wenn wir die unbewußte, die wunderbare Inspiration, die im ganzen Leben des Kindes vom 7. bis 14. Jahre waltet, verstehen, wenn wir hineinwirken können in dieses fortwährend Inspiriertsein, dann können wir erziehen. Dazu müssen wir uns wiederum eine spirituelle Erkenntnis erwerben, und der Intuition hinzufügen die Inspiration.

Und haben wir das Kind so weit, daß es das 14. Jahr erreicht hat, dann machen wir eine eigentümliche Entdeckung. Wenn wir dem Kinde dasjenige, was es nun logisch auffassen soll, auch unmittelbar logisch beibringen, so wird es ihm langweilig; es hört zunächst zu, wenn wir in dieser Weise alles logisch gestalten; wenn der junge Mann und das junge Mädchen uns unsere Logik nur nachdenken sollen, so werden sie nach und nach müde. Wir brauchen selbst noch in dieser Lebensepoche als Lehrer etwas anderes als bloße Logik. Wir können das im großen beobachten.

Nehmen Sie einen solchen Forscher, der ganz in der äußeren Natur lebt, wie Ernst Haeckel. Er selber interessiert sich ungeheuer für alles dasjenige, was er mikroskopiert, was er ausbildet. Wird es übertragen auf die Schüler, so lernen sie es, aber sie können nicht mehr dasselbe Interesse entwickeln. Wir müssen als Lehrer etwas anderes auch in uns haben, als das Kind in sich hat. Dringt das Kind mit der Geschlechtsreife zur Logik vor, so müssen wir das Bildhafte, die Imagination in uns tragen. Wenn wir selber dasjenige, was wir dem jungen Menschen beibringen sollen, vermögen in das Bild zu gießen, so daß er Bilder, die wir wie in einer höheren Kunst ausbreiten, Bilder von der Welt und ihrem Wert und Sinn gewinnt, wenn wir diese Bilder ausbreiten und den Zuhörenden, den zu Erziehenden und zu Unterrichtenden die Logik entwickeln lassen, dann ergreift ihn dasjenige, was wir zu sagen haben.

So daß wir gewiesen werden in dieser dritten Lebensepoche auf die Imagination, ebenso wie zuerst auf die Intuition und auf die Inspiration. Und wir müssen nun suchen nach jener spirituellen Basis, welche uns nun auch, wenn wir Lehrer sein sollen, in die Lage versetzt, aus Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition heraus zu arbeiten, Geist zu tun, nicht bloß Geist zu denken.

Das ist dasjenige, was ich als eine Einleitung vorbringen wollte.

The Spiritual Basis of Education I

My first words should be an apology for not being able to give these lectures in the language of this country. However, as I lack practice, I must express myself in the language I am able to use. I hope that the following translation will make up for what is lacking in this respect.

Secondly, allow me to say that I am extremely grateful to the esteemed committee for allowing me to give these lectures at this Oxford gathering. I consider it a very special honor to be able to give these lectures in this venerable city. It is the city where, when I had the opportunity to visit it 20 years ago, I myself felt the power of venerable tradition emanating from everything that can be perceived here.

And now, if I may be permitted to speak about a method of education that can be called new in a certain sense, I would like to say on the other hand that in our time so many people simply strive for the new. However, anyone who wants to strive for something new in any area of human civilization must first obtain the right and justification to do so by knowing how to appreciate and revere the old in an appropriate sense.

Here in Oxford, I feel inspired by the power of what is still alive today from these ancient traditions. And only those who can feel this may have the right to speak about the new. For only that which has its roots in the venerable old can survive in the world. Perhaps it is precisely the tragedy and deep misery of our time that people constantly talk about we want this, we want that new thing, and that so few people are inclined to shape this new thing out of the old in a dignified way.

That is why I feel such heartfelt gratitude above all to Mrs. Mackenzie, the main organizer of this gathering, and to the entire committee, who have devoted themselves to the task of arranging the lectures here; I feel such deep gratitude because this makes it possible to express something that is, in a certain sense, meant to be new, in the milieu of the venerable, through which it can first be sanctioned.

I am equally grateful for the very kind introductory words spoken here yesterday by Principal Jacks.

With this, I have perhaps hinted at the spirit in which these lectures are to be given: what I am about to say here about education and teaching is based on the spiritual scientific knowledge that I have made it my life's work to develop.

This spiritual knowledge was initially cultivated for its own sake, and in recent years friends of this worldview have come together to introduce it into the individual areas of practical life. And so it was Emil Molt in Stuttgart who, based on his understanding of what is intended by the Goetheanum, the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach, Switzerland, wanted to see this applied to an educational and teaching institution for children of compulsory school age. And so the Waldorf School in Stuttgart was established.

The pedagogy and didactics of this Waldorf school in Stuttgart were now based on that spiritual life which, in my opinion, must lead to a continuation of the educational system in keeping with the spirit of our time, just as the spirit of our time, the tasks and the stage of human development within our epoch demand.

The education and teaching system referred to here is based entirely on knowledge of human beings, on a knowledge of human beings that extends over the whole human being from birth to death, but which also seeks to grasp everything that is lived out in the supersensible realm within this life between birth and death as evidence that human beings belong to a supersensible world.

In our time, we also have spiritual life; above all, however, spiritual life as it has been handed down to us from ancient times, spiritual life that we traditionally perpetuate. Alongside this spiritual life, we have, more and more, in a slight organic connection with it, the life that springs from the magnificent scientific insights of our modern age. In the age in which the great natural scientists of the present day, the leading minds of natural science, have lived, we must not, when we speak of spiritual life, ignore what natural science itself emphatically shows us about human nature.

This natural science can give us insight into the physical nature of human beings; it can give us insight into the course of physical, physiological functions during the physical life of human beings. But this scientific knowledge, as we pursue it by experimenting with external tools and observing with our external senses, has not been able to penetrate more deeply into the actual spiritual life of human beings, especially at a time when it has become so great. This is not a criticism I wish to express; that was the great task of natural science, as we find it, for example, systematically compiled in the work of a personality such as Huxley. It is a great achievement that it once looked at nature, completely unconcerned with everything that lives in the spiritual world.

In return, we have a knowledge of human beings that cannot be transferred to the immediate practical handling of the spiritual. We have a spiritual life in our present civilization, and the various religious denominations perpetuate this spiritual life. But we do not have a spiritual life that can say anything to people when they anxiously ask about the eternal, the imperishable, the supersensible, to which they belong; In other words, we have no spiritual life that can give us convictions when we stand alone in the world with our physical life, with our physical view of life, and now ask: What is the basis of the eternal, the supersensible, of this whole sensory world?

We can then form convictions about what we were before birth in the bosom of the divine, supersensible world. We can form convictions about what our soul will have to go through when it has passed through the gate of death. We can put what we grasp as convictions into formulas. It can, I would say, flow warmly into our hearts, into our minds. We can say: Man is more in the whole universe than he is in this physical life between birth and death.

But what we gain in this way remains a conviction, it remains something we can think and feel. It is becoming increasingly difficult to incorporate the great convictions that science gives us about the spiritual into our daily lives and practices. We know about the spirit, but we no longer understand how to deal with the spirit, how to act with the spirit, how to permeate our daily lives with the spirit.

Which area of life most challenges us to deal with the spirit? It is education, it is teaching. In education, we must embrace the whole human being, and the whole human being is body, soul, and spirit. We must be able to deal with the spirit if we want to educate, if we want to teach.

If this demand has always been made of humanity throughout its development, we can say that now, precisely because we have come so far in the field of external knowledge of nature, now more than ever we are faced with the demand to be able to do with the spirit. That is why the social question today is first and foremost a question of education. For we are right to ask today: What must happen so that social orders and social institutions arise among us that are less tragic than today's, less threatening than today's? We can give no other answer than this: We must first place into practical life, into the social community, people who have been educated out of the spirit, out of activity in the spirit.

Such an insight, which is at the same time continuous action in life, is the aim of the spirituality in life which, in our opinion, should form the basis for the education of the different ages of human life. For in childhood, the spirit is closer to the human body than in adulthood. In childhood, we see how the physical nature is plastically formed by the spirit. According to our current understanding of nature, what is the brain of a child when it is born? It is almost like the material that a sculptor takes on when he prepares a sculpture.

And if we look at the brain of a seven-year-old child whom we take on for elementary school education, we see that it has become a wonderful work of art, but a work of art that needs to be worked on further, worked on until the end of elementary school. Mysterious spiritual forces first work on the plasticity of the human body, and we as educators are called upon to work, called upon not only to look at the physical, but, although we must never neglect the physical, to look at the physical in such a way that the spirit works on it, to consciously cooperate with the unconscious spirit, to fit ourselves not only into the natural world order, but also into the divine world order.

By taking education seriously, we are called upon not only to recognize God for the satisfaction of our soul, but to will with God, to act out of divine intentions. For this, however, we need a spiritual basis for education. I would like to speak to you about this spiritual basis of education in the coming days.

Observing the life of a child, one must feel how necessary spiritual insight and spiritual perception are in order to properly follow what happens to the child, to the soul, to the spirit of the child from day to day. We must consider how completely different the life of a child is in the very first days and weeks of life from that of the older child, and especially that of the adult. We must remember how much sleep a child needs in the first period of its life. We must ask the question: What happens in the interaction between mind and body when a child needs almost 22 hours of sleep in the first period of its life? Today's philosophy, and today's way of life, respond to such questions by saying: Well, we cannot fully see into the soul of a child, just as we cannot see into the soul of an animal or into the inner life of a plant. There are limits to human knowledge.

The spiritual view referred to here does not say: Here are the limits of human knowledge — it says: We must draw so many powers of knowledge from the depths of human nature that we also gain the ability to observe the whole human being in terms of body, soul, and spirit in its being and in its development, just as we observe the physiological structure of the human eye or the human ear.

If we do not have this knowledge in our everyday lives, precisely because of our scientific education in the present, then we must develop it. Therefore, I will have to talk to you about the development of those insights that can grant a real understanding of the inner fabric of a child's life. And even an observation that is simply devoted to life without prejudice compels us to this insight.

We see the child. When we look at it externally, we do not actually find any decisive points of development in the life of the child from birth to about the age of 20. We perceive everything as a continuous development.

This is not the case for those who approach the observation of childhood life equipped with the knowledge I will be discussing here over the next few days. The child is fundamentally a completely different being internally until around the age of 7 or 8, when the change of teeth begins, than it is in later life from the change of teeth until around the age of 14 or 15, when sexual maturity begins. And infinitely meaningful mysteries open up to us when we try to immerse ourselves deeply in the life of the child and ask ourselves: How does the spiritual-soul work on the child until the change of teeth? How does the spiritual-soul work on the child when we have to educate and teach it in elementary school? How can we ourselves work with the spiritual-soul aspect?

We see, for example, how in the first years of a child's life, up to the change of teeth, language is developed instinctively — instinctively for the child, instinctively also for the child's environment. Today, we think a lot about this. I don't want to talk about the history of the development of language, but only about how children learn to speak, how they actually learn to speak, whether they have a kind of instinct to find their way into the sounds they hear around them, or whether the urge to develop language comes from some other connection with their environment. But if we look more closely at the life of the child, we notice that all language, all learning to speak, is based on imitation of what the child observes through its senses in its environment, observes unconsciously. The whole life of the child up to the age of 7 is a continuous imitation of what is going on in its environment. And the moment the child perceives something, be it a movement or a sound, it feels an urge to express itself internally, to relive what it has perceived from its entire inner being.

We can only understand the child if we view it in the same way as we view the eye or the ear in later life. The child is entirely sensory organ. Its blood is pumped through its entire body in a much more lively way than is the case later in life. And it is precisely through a subtle physiology that we notice what the development of our sensory organs, for example the eye, is based on. The eye develops because blood circulation predominates in it during the very first years of human life. Later, nerve activity increasingly predominates in the senses, and the development of the senses in humans is the development of blood circulation toward nerve activity. One can acquire a keen power of observation for how gradually the blood life in humans transitions into nerve life.

But just as it is with the individual sense, so it is with the whole human being. The child must sleep so much because it is entirely a sensory organ, because it cannot yet tolerate the outside world with its glare and its sounds. Just as the eye must close when the dazzling sunlight approaches, so this sensory organ, the child — for the child is entirely a sensory organ — must shut itself off from the world and sleep a lot; for when it is confronted with the world, it must observe and speak inwardly. Every sound of speech arises from the inner gesture.

What I am saying here from spiritual insight is, I would say, already fully verifiable by science today. There is a scientific discovery — allow me, because this discovery has followed me throughout my life, to make the personal remark that this scientific discovery is as old as I am myself; it was made in the year I was born — this scientific discovery consists in the fact that human speech is based on the development of the left temporal lobe in the brain. It is formed plastically in the brain. But this formation takes place entirely during childhood itself from the plasticity I have spoken to you about. And if we consider the whole connection that exists between the gestures of the right arm and the right hand, which predominate in children who develop normally – I will talk about left-handed people later, in terms of how they relate to the general population; they are an exception; but they are proof that learning to speak is connected with every gesture, down to the smallest detail, with the right arm and the right hand. We will see how, through an inner, mysterious connection between blood, nerves, and the convolutions of the brain, language is formed from gestures through imitation of the environment.

If we had a more refined physiology than we have today, we would discover not only the passive but also the active for every age. But this active is particularly lively in this great sensory organ that is the child. Therefore, the child lives in its environment as our eye lives in its environment in later life. Our eye is specially designed from the general organization of the head, lying, I would say, in a special cavity so that it can participate in the life of the outside world. The child thus participates in the life of the outside world, lives entirely in the outside world, is not yet within itself, does not yet feel itself, lives entirely with the outside world.

Today, within our civilization, we rightly develop a kind of knowledge that is intellectual, that lives entirely within us. We believe we can grasp the outside world. But all the thoughts before which we stand, and whose logic we alone accept as knowledge, live entirely within us. And the child lives entirely outside of itself. Can we believe that with our intellectual knowledge we can ever approach what the child, which is entirely sensory organ, experiences with the outside world? We can never do that. We can only hope for knowledge that can go entirely out of itself, completely submerged in the essence of that which lives and breathes. Such knowledge is only intuitive knowledge, not intellectual knowledge, with which we remain within ourselves, where we ask ourselves with every idea: Is it also logical? It is knowledge with which the mind penetrates down into the depths of life itself, intuitive knowledge. We must consciously acquire intuitive knowledge, only then will we become practical enough to be able to do with our minds what needs to be done with children, especially in the first years of life.

But then, when the child gradually overcomes its tooth change, when the teeth that are still inherited are replaced by those that have already been formed during the first phase of life, then the child's whole life changes: it is no longer merely a sensory organ, but is devoted to something more spiritual than any external sensory impression. Then, especially at the elementary school age, the child begins to absorb from its surroundings not only what it observes, but also what lives in the observation. The child enters an age that must be built primarily on the authority in which the child lives in relation to its educational and teaching environment.

Let us not delude ourselves that when we address a child between the ages of 7 and 14, they hear from us the judgment that is expressed in a sentence. If we force the child to listen to the judgment that is expressed in a sentence, we are teaching them something that belongs to a later stage of life. What the child demands of us through its very nature is that it can believe in us, that it can have the instinctive feeling: there is someone standing next to me who is telling me something. He can say it, he is connected to the whole world in such a way that he can say it. For me, he is the mediator between me and the whole cosmos. This is how the child, not verbally of course, but instinctively, relates to other people, especially those who teach and educate them. They are the mediator between the divine world and the child in their powerlessness. And only when the educator becomes aware that he must be a natural authority, that he must be someone the child can look up to in a completely natural way, will he be an educator.

That is why we have found during our Waldorf school teaching and our Waldorf school education that the question of education is mainly a question of the teacher: How must the teacher be in order to be a natural authority, the mediator between the divine world order and the child?

Now, what has become of the child? Between the ages of about 7 and 14 or 15, the child has become entirely soul, not yet spirit, not yet placing the main value on logical connections, on intellectualism; that would cause the soul to ossify internally. For children between the ages of 7 and 14, it is much more important that we teach them something in a loving way than that we prove it to them. It is much more valuable if we can let their minds go through some kind of teaching than through logic, because children do not yet need logic; children need us, they need our humanity.

That is why, in Waldorf schools, we make every effort, especially in elementary school between the ages of 6, 7, and 14, to ensure that the teacher is able to bring to the child, with artistic love and loving art, what belongs to this age of human life. For the art of education referred to here is based on knowing human beings, knowing what each age of life demands of us in terms of education and teaching: What do the first years demand? What is required up to the age of 7? What can elementary school age demand? We must educate the child quite differently up to the age of 10, and again quite differently from 10 to 14, allowing them to acquire knowledge of human nature. Bringing the essence of the child to life in our own souls in each individual year, indeed each individual week, is what must form the spiritual basis for education.

And so we can say: just as the child is an imitator in the early years, so in later years it becomes a follower, one who develops spiritually according to what it is capable of experiencing spiritually. Now the sense organs have become independent, and the soul has actually only just emerged in the child. We must now treat this soul with infinite tenderness, constantly coming into intimate contact with what is going on in the child's soul every day as teachers and educators.

In this introductory speech today, I would like to point out just one thing: for every child of school age, between 9 and 11 years old, there is a critical point that must not be overlooked by the educator. At this age, between 9 and 11, every child, unless they are below normal, reaches the point where the question arises in their soul: How do I find my place in the world? — One must not think that this question is asked in the way I have just described. The question arises in an undefined feeling, in an unsatisfied feeling; the question arises in such a way that the child feels a greater need to lean on an adult; the question arises perhaps in such a way that it even manifests itself in a strong attachment to an adult. But we must understand how to observe in the right way what is going on in the child at this critical point. It suddenly feels lonely. It suddenly seeks connection. Until now, it has accepted authority as a matter of course. Now it begins to ask: What is this authority? Whether or not the right words are found at this moment depends enormously on the whole of the person's later life.

Just as it is immensely important for a doctor observing a childhood illness to know what is happening in the organism—these are developmental processes that are not only important for the child; if they do not proceed in the right way in the child, the person will still feel the effects in old age—so we must be aware that that what we stimulate in the child in terms of ideas, feelings, and impulses of will must not be expressed in rigid concepts that the child is only supposed to memorize, only supposed to learn; the ideas and impulses of feeling that we convey to the child should live as our limbs live. The child's hand is small. It must develop independently: we must not constrain it. The ideas, the spiritual development of the child, are small and delicate. We must not constrain them into sharp contours, assuming that the child will still have these ideas as an adult thirty years later, just as the child had them. We must shape the ideas we teach the child in such a way that they can grow. The Waldorf school should not be a school, but a preschool, because every school should be a preschool for the great school that is life itself for human beings. We should not actually learn in school so that we can do things, but we must learn in school so that we can always learn from life. This is what must underlie, I would say, spiritual-physiological pedagogy and didactics. One must have a sense and feeling for what one brings to the child as something alive, as something that can extend into later life. For what is formed in the child sometimes behaves in such a way in the child's soul that one does not notice it. It comes out later in life. One can use an image; it is only an image, but it is based on truth: there are people who, at a certain age, have a beneficial effect on their fellow human beings. They can — if I may put it this way — bless. Such people exist. They do not need to speak at all, they only need to be there with their blessing personality. One does not usually observe people throughout their entire lives, otherwise one would notice the following: How were such people, who are later able to bless, brought up in their childhood? Perhaps consciously by this or that person, perhaps it happened instinctively for the educator and teacher. They were raised in such a way that as children they learned to revere, that as children they learned to pray in the comprehensive sense of the word, to look up to something – then they can want to look down on something. Once you have learned to look up, to revere, to be completely enveloped in authority, then you have the opportunity to bless, to work downwards, to become authority yourself, to become natural authority.

These are the things that now do not merely exist as principles, but which must be transferred to the teacher, to his whole being, by continually passing from his head to his arms, and he must act from the spirit, and not merely think from the spirit; they must come to life in the teacher.

How this can be the case in detail from the ages of 7 to 14 throughout all school years is what I will describe in the next few days. But above all, I wanted to express today how a certain way of life, not merely a view of life, but an inner life itself, must be the spiritual basis of education. Only when the human being has overcome this authority, when the human being has reached sexual maturity and in this way gains a completely different relationship to the outside world than before, does he also gain a completely different relationship to the outside world than before in his soul and physical life in the most comprehensive sense. Only now does the spirit awaken in the human being. Only now does the human being seek the judicious and the logical in everything linguistic. Only now can we hope to educate and teach the human being in such a way that we appeal to their intellect. It is tremendously important that we do not, as is so popular today, consciously or unconsciously reflect on the intellect too early.

And again, if we now ask ourselves: What is at work in the child when we see how it now takes in authority, what influences the child that should guide and direct its soul? Well, the child does not listen in order to logically examine what we say. The child unconsciously takes in what influences its soul, what also forms and strengthens the body from the soul; it takes it in like inspiration. And only when we understand the unconscious, wonderful inspiration that prevails throughout the child's life from the ages of 7 to 14, when we can influence this constant inspiration, can we educate. To do this, we must again acquire spiritual knowledge and add inspiration to intuition.

And when we have brought the child to the age of 14, we make a peculiar discovery. If we teach the child what it should now understand logically in a directly logical way, it becomes bored; they listen at first when we present everything logically in this way; but if we expect young men and women to simply reflect on our logic, they gradually become tired. Even at this stage of life, we as teachers need something more than mere logic. We can observe this on a large scale.

Take a researcher such as Ernst Haeckel, who lives entirely in the external world of nature. He himself is immensely interested in everything he observes under the microscope, everything he studies. When this is transferred to the students, they learn it, but they can no longer develop the same interest. As teachers, we must also have something else within us that the child does not have. When the child reaches sexual maturity and advances to logic, we must carry the pictorial, the imagination, within us. If we ourselves are able to pour what we are to teach young people into images, so that they gain images of the world and its value and meaning, which we spread out as in a higher art, if we spread out these images and allow the listeners, those being educated and taught, to develop logic, then what we have to say will seize them.

So that in this third stage of life we are guided by imagination, just as we were first guided by intuition and inspiration. And we must now search for that spiritual basis which, if we are to be teachers, will enable us to work out of imagination, inspiration, and intuition, to do spirit, not just to think spirit.

That is what I wanted to say by way of introduction.