Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Anthroposophy has Something to Add to Modern Sciences
GA 73

7 November 1917, Zurich

II. Anthroposophy and the Science of History

It is strange that history became a science during a time that was really least suitable for this. You can see this if you look more closely. My position will therefore be somewhat different today from the way it was the day before yesterday, when I wanted to establish links between anthroposophy and psychology. With psychology it was a matter of extending the area of natural scientific thinking to the phenomena of the psyche at a time when the more recent way of scientific thinking entered into human evolution. It was a matter of covering a field of phenomena relating to the psyche which had been considered in a different way before. The reason was that many people who were particularly involved in working in the sciences gained the impression, quite rightly so, that the spirit which prevails in modern scientific research was the only truly scientific one.

Now we have to say that when the modern scientific method is applied to psychology it is certainly brought to bear on something which is given. A true psychology may have to find completely different ways of investigation, as we have seen, but the object of research is given directly in the human being even where the modern scientific method is applied to psychology.

This would seem to be very different in the science of history. If attention is drawn to the facts that need to be considered here, facts we might almost call paradoxical, consideration must be given to something that is relatively little known or considered, which is that the science of history, as it is called, is of fairly recent origin. In the 18th century, those who developed and represented the concept of science certainly did not accept history as a science. The science of history is essentially a 19th century creation. It thus arose at a time when scientific methods had come to be acknowledged as having reached a high point in their development. 18th century people did not see history the way we do today. Let me refer to a typical statement that the German philosopher Christian von Wolff made in the 18th century. One could cite many others to show that at the time scientists considered history to be the recording of events but not something that deserved to be called a science. Wolff wrote: ‘As historical works merely narrate what happened, it does not need much intellect and reflection to read them.’27Wolff, Christian (1679–1754), German philosopher. Rudolf Steiner was quoting from Fritz Mauthner’s Wörterbuch der Philosophy, 1. Bd., München & Leipzig 1910, S. 403. Methods of explanation, to put historical events in some order that made sense really, only came to be used to any greater extent in the course of the 19th century.

Among those who had come to be more and more immersed in the modern scientific way of thinking, it was Fritz Mauthner who in his big dictionary of philosophy expressed the opinion that the nature of history is such that it cannot be a science in the most radical terms. The article on history in this work is written very much from the point of view that ‘science’ is only possible in the study of the natural world. Reading it you find that the study of what we call ‘history’ is firmly said to be no science, and that it is even considered a paradox that, seeing that the methods developed in natural science were highly specific, history was to be called a science as well.

So far as people who think in the modern scientific way are concerned, one of the main premises on which they base their ideas as to what science is does not apply. What is the natural scientist’s aim in his investigations? He mainly wants to establish such a configuration of the conditions under which a natural phenomenon occurs that the natural event follows from this and he will be able to say: If conditions are similar or identical, the same phenomena must recur.

This focus on the repeatability of phenomena is particularly important to modern scientific thinkers. In their view a proper experiment must be such that one is, in a way, able to predict the results one is going to see under specific natural conditions.

Now we might indeed say that when such demands are made on history as a science, it is bound to fare badly. Let me give just a few examples. A strange view developed recently among people who wanted to think in historical terms, and it was refuted in a strange way, I would say in a highly realistic way. People who thought they had a degree of profound historical insight into social and economic situations developed the view—especially so at the beginning of the present war—that under the present economic and social conditions the war certainly could not last longer than four to six months at the most. The facts have radically disproved their assumption! Many people believed it to be a view with a solid foundation in science. How often do we hear, when people consider present events that are important in the life of humanity and which they therefore want to evaluate: ‘History teaches this, or that, about these events.’ People consider the events, want to form an opinion as to how they should relate to them, how they should think about the possible outcome; and you then hear people who have done some study of history say: ‘History teaches this or that!’ How often do we hear these words today in the face of the profoundly disturbing, tragic events that have come into human evolution. Well, if history teaches what those people think it teaches, namely that it will be impossible for these events to continue for more than four or six months, we can say that this knowledge drawn from history is strangely contradicted by the facts.

Another example, perhaps no less typical, is the following. A person who is certainly not without significance became professor of history in 1789. It was a time which we might call the dawn of historical studies. Schiller started to teach history in Jena in 1789. He gave his famous inaugural address on the philosophical and the external mechanistic approach to historical events.28Schiller, Friedrich von (1759–1805), German poet, historian and dramatist. Inaugural address, Jena 26 & 27 May 1789: What is universal history and what is the purpose of studying it? In the course of this address he said a strange thing, something he believed he had concluded from a philosophical approach to human history. He believed he had developed a view on what we can ‘learn from history’, saying: ‘The community of European states appear to have become one large family; sharing the same house they may bear malice towards one another, but one hopes they will no longer tear each other limb from limb.’ This was a ‘historical opinion’ given in 1789 by someone who had certainly made a name for himself. There followed the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars! And if the lessons history had to teach had been learned, we’d also have to consider the present time in wanting to verify the statement that the European states may bear malice towards one another but will no longer tear each other limb from limb! Again a strange refutation of what people meant when they said that we can learn from history in order to form an opinion on present or future events. It is possible to give countless instances of what is suggested here. This is the one thing people say.

The other is that history, the course of events, must be ‘scientifically penetrated’ from all possible points of view. Did the 19th century really fare well with these methods? People who thought of applying strict scientific methods to history would no doubt be least satisfied when they came to ask themselves if proved useful in any way to apply methods that have their full justification in natural science to historical developments, so that they might be considered ‘in the light of a science’.

We merely need to consider a few things. It will not be possible today—for it is certainly not my aim to criticize the science of history as such today—to go into every detail of the attempts that have been made to develop a method for history. There is the view that it is great men who make history; then the view that the great have been given their character and their powers by their environment. Another view is that historical facts can only be understood if we consider the economic and cultural background, thus letting events in human history emerge from that background, and so on.

Some examples of attempts to approach history with the way of thinking that has proved its value in natural science may serve to show how the attempt has really—well, if not failed completely at least given no satisfactory results. To start somewhere, let us take Herbert Spencer’s29Spencer, Herbert (1820–1923), English philosopher. See among other things his Principles of Biology, London 1864 ch. VI, par. 288f, and Principles of Psychology, London 1870-72, ch. IV, par. 238. attempt to apply the modern scientific approach to the evolution of human history. Spencer wanted to penetrate the whole of world evolution and the existing world with the thinking developed in natural science. He made a surprising discovery. He knew that the individual organism, a human organism, for instance, but also the organism of higher animals, develops from three elements of a cell—ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. Three elements or parts of a cell, therefore, from which the organism develops.

Herbert Spencer saw a similar process in the organism of evolving humanity, as it were. He assumed that different organic systems would develop from these elements as the historical organism of humanity evolves, just as the organic systems of the human body develop from the three elements of the cell. Spencer said that in the historical organism, too, you have something like an ectoderm, an endoderm and a mesoderm. This English philosopher developed the unusual view that in the historical evolution of humanity the warrior people, anything warlike in the world, developed from the ‘ectoderm’; peace-loving, working people from the ‘endoderm’ and the traders from the ‘mesoderm’. A ‘historical organism’ thus evolved from the interaction of these three kinds of people. According to Herbert Spencer, the most perfect community organism develops from the ‘ectoderm’ in the course of history; this is because the nervous system develops from the ectoderm in the human organism. This English philosopher thus saw the warrior class, the military element in a state, as developing from the ‘ectoderm’, analogous to the element that holds the potential for developing the nervous system in the individual human organism, and to his mind the most perfect country was the one that had the best developed warrior class. Just as the brain derives from the nervous system which derived from the ectoderm, so Herbert Spencer said that in a community the ruling class should come entirely from among the warriors. I merely want to mention this strange approach, and in view of the current situation make no further critical comments on Herbert Spencer’s militaristic theory concerning the historical evolution of society.

Another attempt at bringing ideas taken from natural science into the study of history was made by Auguste Comte30Comte, Auguste (1798–1857), French philosopher. Cours de Philosophic positive, Paris 1830-42; Système de politique positive, Paris 1851-54. Comte was a mathematician and also relied on mathematics and mechanics in structuring the body social. See above all ch. 16 in the second work.—I am limiting myself to the leading thinkers. He attempted to apply the laws of mechanics, of statics and dynamics, to developments in human history. Relationships between individual elements in a social system were considered under the heading of ‘historical statics’, whilst changes, movements or progression came under the heading of ‘historical dynamics’.

Many more such examples could be given. Taking a critical look at these and many other attempts it can be shown that it is hardly possible to get satisfactory results by transferring scientific ways of thinking, which are strictly controlled in their own fields, to a study of historical developments.

Individuals who lived in the dawn, we might say, of historical studies tried to bring something like explanatory principles to the subject. We only have to think of one of the most magnificent attempts from that period. It was made by Lessing in his famous small book, written when he was at the height of his mental powers.31Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim (1729–81), German writer and dramatist. Die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts (1780), see paragraphs 94-100 concerning the idea of repeated lives on earth. His attempt is particularly interesting because he tried to approach historical developments not in a natural scientific way but by using the concept of education, something, therefore, that also has an element of mind and spirit in it. Lessing thought that successive historical events could only be understood if one saw the way humanity lived in the progress of history as an education governed by historical powers that were active behind the developments we are able to perceive.

And it is interesting to see how Lessing established cohesion among successive historical phenomena. It was precisely because of the way he established this that people would say: ‘Ah well, Lessing was a great man, but he was past his best when he wrote his treatise on the education of the human race.’ This was because he tried to make the succession of historical events a kind of inner event, at least in theory to begin with. This led to the idea of repeated lives on earth for the human soul. He looked back into past periods of history and said: ‘The people who are alive today have lived many times before; in their souls they bring into this period the things they have taken up in earlier periods. The impulse which runs through historical evolution is something which lies in human souls.’

Taking this first of all as a hypothesis, we might at any rate say that infinitely many things in human evolution that would otherwise be riddles can be illuminated, even if only hypothetically, if we assume that human souls themselves take historical impulses from one period of history to the next. What has been a tissue of historical developments lacking in cohesion will then suddenly show itself to be a cohesive whole. This is the only way in which we can hope that individual historical data are no longer just there, side by side, but can truly be seen to arise one from the other, for we now have the principle that makes the one arise from the other.

The view Lessing expressed in his small book has not really been taken up, the reason being that the age of modern science was coming to its peak. For reasons which will be shown in the next lecture, people really had to be against the theory of repeated lives on earth in this age of modern science, and in this particular sphere it was quite right to be against it.

And so it happened that all kinds of attempts were made in the course of the 19th century. You need only think of Hegel’s attempt to see the whole of historical evolution as progressive awareness of human freedom, and so on.32Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770–1831), German philosopher. See his 'Vorlesungen über die Philosophic der Geschichte’ in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegels Werke, Berlin 1845, 9. Band, 3. Auflage, S. 24 (Introduction) and S. 546f. (Conclusion). We could refer to hundreds of attempts, showing that people tried over and over again to bring explanatory principles into historical evolution and thus make history into a science. There were, of course, also people like Schopenhauer, for example, who believed that nothing repeated itself in history, so that one could not speak of a science. History, he said, could only refer to successive data but there were no impulses in history that might serve as explanatory principles as is the case with the facts on which the laws of nature are based.33Schopenhauer, Arthur (1788–1860), German philosopher. See Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung II, para. 38 ‘Ueber Geschichte’ in Arthur Schopenhauers sämtliche Werke in zwölf Bänden. Mit Einleitung von Dr Rudolf Steiner. Stuttgart o.J. (1894), Bd 5, S. 286-295.

The powerful protest Friedrich Nietzsche made against history as such is still fresh in our minds. He spoke of ‘historicism’, meaning the acquisition not of the ideas of history but of a historical way of thinking, acquiring a way of thinking where people insist on ‘what history establishes’, wanting to work with this in their souls. In his view historicism sucks the soul dry, as it were, whilst there is need for the human soul to be productive and active in the present time, dealing with events as they come in a fruitful way. For Nietzsche, therefore, someone who only felt historical impulses was rather like a creature that must always go without sleep, which would mean that it could never bring fruitful vital energies into its development but would always only be consumed and worn down by something as destructive and enervating as living in historicism. Nietzsche’s treatise on history’s benefits and disadvantages in life is one of the most significant works to have arisen from his whole way of thinking.34Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm (1844–1900), German philosopher and writer. Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historic für das Leben. Zweite unzeitgemässe Betrachtung, Leipzig 1874.

These introductory words should merely serve to demonstrate how much the idea of history as a science is in dispute today, from all kinds of directions, and is so to quite a different degree as yet than psychology is, for instance. The question which must arise from all this is: Where do such things come from? On the premises on which the anthroposophically orientated science of the spirit is based we have to say: Because initially attention was not directed to the important fundamental question: What aspect of the human being are we concerned with when we speak of historical developments? Which part of the human being is involved in these historical developments? To answer the question we will need to look at the nature of the human being from the anthroposophical point of view, for this essential nature goes much further than our ordinary conscious mind is able to encompass.

My starting point—you’ll see later why I have chosen it—will be a look at the inner life of the human being and the rhythmical way in which it again and again goes out of our ordinary state of conscious awareness. We must allow that state of conscious awareness to alternate with the sleep state. We’ll be considering the subject in more detail when we come to consider the natural world from the spiritual scientific point of view in the next lecture. Today I merely want to refer to the aspects that can provide a basis for the study of history.

When sleep comes in the inner life, our conscious awareness is reduced to a level where we may almost speak of unconsciousness, though to someone able to observe this exactly, we are certainly not completely unconscious in our sleep. The world of sensory perceptions we have in full daytime conscious awareness and our world of feelings and active will come to a halt, they go down into the darkness of unconscious or subconscious life. Between the two states—waking and sleeping—lies the dream state.

This dream state is something most remarkable. 19th century philosophers tried to apply their minds, more used to natural science, to penetrating the nature of this mysterious dream world, which rises from the unconscious sleep state and is so very different from the experiences we gain in the world in our ordinary state of consciousness. The philosopher Johannes Volkelt, for instance, who wrote a book on dream fantasies35Volkelt, Johannes (1848–1930). Die Traum-Phantasie, Stuttgart 1875. in the 1870s, left the issue untouched as though it were a hot coal which one may pick up, only to drop it again immediately. Critics writing about his book who decided to take the matter seriously were actually accused of spiritualism.36Vischer, Friedrich Theodor (see note 4). He was accused of being a spiritualist because he gave consideration to Volkelt’s book. Altes und Neues. ‘Der Traum. Eine Studie zu der Schrift: Die Traumphantasie von Dr. Johann Volkelt’, Stuttgart 1881. It is amazing what things people can be accused of!

What is the nature of this dream world which rises from the depths of our sleep? What are those images that move and flow in our dreams? The question can really only be discussed if one has the level of conscious awareness of which I spoke the day before yesterday. Someone who progresses from ordinary conscious awareness to being able to gain insight in images, through inspiration and intuition, that is, someone who truly is able to let his soul be out of the body and live wholly in the world of the spirit, will be able to have insight into what happens in the human soul when it lives in dream images. I can, of course, only give a general idea today, referring to some of the results obtained in the science of the spirit. To take this further you will need to have recourse to my books.

Studying dream life with the methods we have been considering here you come to realize that the sphere in which the inner life finds itself during sleep—from going to sleep to waking up again—is indeed separate from our life in a physical body. This is something one gets to know with spiritual scientific methods. You come to know the condition of the soul when it is out of the body. We are therefore able to compare life in dream images to this state of being out of the body which can be scientifically investigated. And we then find that a dream is really much more of a composite than we tend to think.

Anything that lives in the soul when it is dreaming has nothing to do with our present time the way our waking daily life has to do with the present time. They are something which is developing in our organism, in the whole of our essential human nature, like a small seed in a growing plant. The seed developing in the plant is the physical cause of the next plant. Wrapped up in our dream images—if I may put it like that—something emerges from the dim depths of sleep in the human soul which is not physical but is the foundation in soul and spirit for the part of us that will go through the gates of death, entering into the spiritual world to live through a life between death and rebirth before it appears again.

This seed is weak, however, so weak that it does not find its inner content out of its own inherent powers. It therefore only contains things that relate to reminiscences, echoes of the world we have lived through in the present or in the past. Spiritual scientific investigation of dream life shows that as with many things, the feeling people have, though it may be superstitious, that the future may often be revealed in dreams, is indeed a truth which they can sense, yet it is also a dangerous superstition. It is dangerous because the soul as it develops for the future, that is, the eternal in our soul, actually lives in our dreams. We may have a feeling that the element in us which is dreaming may not hold the idea of, but certainly the living potential for, the future of the human being. The content of the dream is taken from reminiscences and so on which are interwoven in a chaotic way. It is therefore superstition to want to interpret the contents of a dream in any other way than by the spiritual scientific approach, yet we have to say that the principle in us which is dreaming does indeed have to do with the eternal nature of the human soul. It is therefore only the content of dream life which makes us cherish illusions.

Progressing from ordinary awareness to the awareness I called vision, we come to insights in images, to inspirations. With the contents of a mind that is gaining insight in visions we are in a world of the spirit. This is the world in which the soul lives when it is out of the body and dreaming. But it is there in a childlike way, I’d say, in a way that is not yet perfect. It is present in that world the way the seed is in the plant as the potential for the next plant. Through vision in images and inspiration a world shows itself to us in which the dreaming soul is also at home.

People usually think human beings dream only when they are asleep. This is the kind of error that must inevitably arise when one develops one’s ideas only in relation to the world outside the human being. But it is an error, an illusion. People who think more deeply, Kant among them,37Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804), German philosopher. See Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (1789), par. 5 ‘Von den Vorstellungen, die wir haben, ohne uns ihrer bewusst zu sein.’ have had some idea that the principle present in the soul in sleep and in dreams is there not only in sleep and in dreams but is present throughout life. When we wake up, part of our inner life does indeed enter into the realm where the concepts based on observations made by the physical senses are present. We are wholly taken up with these, giving them our attention, for it is like a powerful light that outshines everything else that lives in the soul. We see it as the only content of the mind in daytime waking consciousness, as it were. But that is an error. Whilst these contents fill our minds, other contents that are entirely the same as the dreams that emerge from sleep during the night live on in the subconscious depths of the soul. We dream on whilst awake, but are not aware that we are dreaming. And though it may sound odd, the following is also true: We do not only dream on; we also sleep on. In the waking state, our conscious mind is thus at three levels—up above, at the surface, as it were, waking daytime consciousness, down below, in the subconscious, an undercurrent of continuous dreaming; and still deeper down we go on sleeping.

We can also state with reference to what we dream and with reference to what we sleep! We dream with regard to everything that does not come to mind in ideas or in concepts that can be clearly stated, but is discharged in us as feeling. Feelings or emotions do not arise from a fully conscious, waking conscious state of mind; they rise up in us from a world where all is dream. It is not right to say that emotions arise from the interaction of ideas. Quite the contrary. Our ideas are filled with something that rises up from a deeper inner life where we dream on whilst in the waking state. Our passions and affects also rise from a life of waking dreams, though the fully conscious life of the mind makes this invisible. And our impulses of will continue to be such an enigma in the way they well forth from the inner life because they come from depths of soul where we are asleep even when we are in the waking state.

Our fully conscious ideas thus develop in waking consciousness up above; our feelings are like waves lapping up from a subconscious state, a daytime dream life; and our impulses of will rise up from a sleep life. The significance this has for the development of ideas in the sphere of social life and of rights, of ethical ideas, and the significance it has when it comes to freedom of will is something we will be considering in the last lecture.

Today the emphasis will be on something else, however. Some sharp minds have realized that we will never be able to explain passions, for example, unless we first seek an explanation for the dream world. Passions, even the best and noblest of them, only live in human beings because they dream even when awake, and what people dream does not come to conscious awareness but laps up into it from the region where dreaming takes place.

One feels some hesitation in the present-day climate in speaking about another finding made in the science of the spirit. It does rather go against accepted views, but then it is also a fact that many developments in science were initially controversial. They ultimately won through. Thus the Copernican view of the universe only came to be accepted by a certain element in our culture in 1822.38The Roman Catholic Church authorities resolved on 11 September 1822 and the Pope confirmed on 25 September 1822 that the printing and publication of works that teach the movement of the earth and non-movement of the sun would no longer be banned. The Index Congregation had resolved as early as 1757 to omit the decree which banned such books, without expressly permitting their printing and publication. Perhaps the science of the spirit, or anthroposophy, may also have to wait a long time to gain recognition, this time not by that particular element but by modern scientists.

What is really going on, if we study the river of human life, cannot be reached with the concepts we go through in the waking mind, for it does not live there. It may sound controversial, but the impulses that billow and move in history are only dreamt by human beings. The principle that drives history is no more lucid than a dream in the human soul, nothing else. It is perfectly scientific to speak of the dream of evolution. We can see this clearly once we come to realize that it needs the capacity for perceptive vision to gain insight into the actual impulses that drive history. We need to penetrate those impulses with living research based on vision in images and on inspiration. The human being is part of history and plays a role in it. We are therefore dealing with something that cannot be observed in a way that allows concepts to be developed which are like the concepts we use in modern science. We are dealing with concepts that really only come to ordinary conscious awareness out of our dreams.

It would be easy to raise the objection that the science of the spirit lives out of fantasies, attributing important impulses to the products of sheer fantasy and indeed dreams. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that may well be so, but if the reality is something that must live as a dream in the human soul, we have to go and find this reality in the actual sphere where it can be perceived.

The objection which people who are dedicated to the thinking used in natural science have raised against considering history a science has in fact been that one is dealing with isolated facts in history but would never be able to understand what a historical fact actually is, and that one could not get the kind of clear picture of it which one does with the facts of nature, facts on which natural science is based.

This is perfectly correct, also from the point of view of spiritual science; but we need to take a much deeper view in spiritual science. We would first of all say: If you consider what historical impulses really are, they are not given if you direct your usual rational mind to them, an mind relating to facts in the physical world. Historical facts are only given if we direct image-based and inspired perception to nonphysical impulses that are not to be found in the facts of the physical world.

The insights brought to human awareness through the science of the spirit did not, however, arise entirely out of nothing in more recent times. People who have been wrestling with problems of gaining insight and have gone through inner dramas in the process, have already had to turn their attention, even if only for brief moments, to the things that are now given system and order in the science of the spirit. Again I could give many examples of how one individual or another has in a sense ‘divined’ one thing or another. One example which I have also given in the book39Von Seelenrätseln (see note 1). due to be published shortly is the following.

In lectures given in 1869 which have since been published,40Fortlage, Carl. Acht psychologische Vorträge, Jena 1869, S. 35 (Erster Vortrag). the psychologist Carl Fortlage made a strange statement concerning the conscious mind and its connection with the phenomenon of death. He said: ‘If we call ourselves living creatures, ascribing a quality to ourselves which we share with animals and plants, we necessarily take the condition of being alive as one that never leaves us, continuing on in us whether we are asleep or awake. This is the vegetative life of nutrition in our organism, an unconscious life, a life of sleep. The brain is an exception in so far as during the intervals when we are awake this life of nutrition and sleep is dominated by the life of consumption. In those intervals the brain is exposed to a powerful process in which it is consumed. It therefore enters into a condition which would mean absolute debilitation or even death if it were to extend to all the other organs in the body.’

This is a magnificent flash of insight. Fortlage is saying no less than that if the processes that influence the human brain were to take hold of the rest of the body in full waking consciousness, they would destroy it. We are thus truly dealing with destructive processes in the human being when it comes to conditions relating to everyday conscious awareness. Fortlage had deep insight. He continued: ‘Conscious awareness is a lesser, partial death; death is a great, total state of conscious awareness, with the whole of our essential nature awakening in its inmost depths.

Here we see the connection between death and conscious awareness intuited in a truly magnificent way. Fortlage knew that if we divide the event which happens once, when death comes upon us, into ‘atoms’, as it were, ‘atoms of time’ in this case, these ‘atoms’ would be the events that happen continually in our waking consciousness. In developing conscious awareness we develop an ‘atomistic’ dying process; death is the same process as the one which affects the brain at every moment of conscious awareness, only on a larger scale. For Fortlage, too, death thus was nothing but conscious awareness of the spiritual world awakening all at once. Conscious awareness is all the time killing us off in small steps, and this dying process is necessary for our ordinary daytime conscious awareness. So if we have a human being before us we can say—and Fortlage’s feeling is fully confirmed on the basis of spiritual science—that the element of soul and spirit in this person is really something that consumes and destroys him. The vegetative life he has will hold destruction at bay until death comes. Once death comes, we have on the large scale what develops slowly, atom by atom, we might say, in life. Death is always in us, but we also have the vitality that fights death in us, and the soul enters into this vitality.

If we therefore consider the individual, living human being who stands before us in his body, this body is an outcome of the inner life. We are going to consider this in more detail in the third lecture. We have death; but for as long as the vital energies are active, death is continually prevented from coming in. It might be said to be lurking behind the phenomena and is indeed an important element in life, for life would only be at plant level if death did not kill this life off all the time, with conscious awareness arising in the body exactly because of this.

Once we get to know this peculiar relationship which death has to the vital energies in the human body, our perceptive vision grows sufficiently clear to allow us to form an opinion and indeed find meaning in the course of historical events. Normally they are told in history the way they have happened in the world, which is how history is usually presented.

What do events, fact following fact in the world, actually represent? Again I have to say something that may sound highly controversial. The facts of history do not relate to their soul content—which human beings only dream in the process of historical evolution—the way a body does that bears death within it, but rather like a body that is already dead, with the soul outside it. This means that historical facts no longer have soul in them. In human life, death comes when life in the body has run its course. The soul had been present everywhere in bodily life and then the body is alone, without the soul element. When it comes to historical facts the whole organism is mere dead body, a dead outer form compared to the historical impulses that are alive and active from one age to the next. This can only be perceived if we do not focus on the external facts but on the living principle, which is so alive that we cannot derive it from outer facts.

Let me use an analogy to make this still clearer. Let us assume someone believes—many people do believe this—that he only has to understand the facts of history as clearly as possible, the way we understand the facts in natural science, and he will be able to produce a science of history from the succession of such historical insights. Someone who believes this is like one who—however strange this may sound—if he had a dead human body before him would believe he should be able to extract the life of the soul from it in some way. It is not in there! Nor do historical facts hold the soul of history in them. We perceive historical facts with the rational mind which is bound to sensory perception and evolves from it. Yet we only see what is dead in historical developments when we use the rational mind. Human beings can only penetrate into historical evolution with their common awareness when they are dreaming; they can only see through historical evolution, through the actual inner life of history with imaginative and inspired awareness. Because of this, all available historical facts can only be presented in anecdotes and accounts. It is really true what the great Jacob Burckhardt41Burckhardt, Jacob Christopher (1818–1879), Swiss historian. See his published lectures Ueber das Studiuni der Geschichte, publ. posthumously by J. Oeri, Berlin and Stuttgart 1905, ch. 1 ‘Einleitung’, 1. ‘Unsere Aufgabe’. said: Philosophy is non-history, for philosophy sees one fact subordinate to another; and history is non-philosophy—this is the term he used—because it only has to do with coordination, with facts being put side by side.

This gives rise to a particular attitude in historical thinking. To arrive at truly historical thinking we must use the awareness in vision of spiritual science to gain a clear view of something which definitely can not be learned in the ordinary course of history, something which is there in the process but does not reveal itself at all in the external facts, just as the soul does not show itself in a dead body.

The question then is whether it is really possible to see, using imaginative and inspired insight, what truly lives in historical evolution. Well, having referred to so many peculiar things already, I will not hesitate to speak of some of the realities. One of them is the kind of vision which I characterized the day before yesterday and also dealt with in more detail in my books. With this vision, this imaginative, intuitive and inspired conscious awareness, we gain a view of human evolution that is to the external facts as the soul is to the dead human body. I want to speak in the most real terms possible, for I am after all giving an example.

When someone tries to enter into the things which the mind in its ordinary awareness only dreams of, he will above all be able to delimit the historical process by finding important nodal points in historical life, just as one also finds specific sections in the individual human organism. Children get their second teeth in about their seventh year; they reach puberty at about 14. We can record such nodal points in an individual human life if we consider human physiology. These important changes mean a great deal more in the science of the spirit than they do in ordinary physiology, a science that never comes to an end in its studies. Similar insights are gained in history if one considers it from the spiritual scientific point of view. Thus—now quite apart from external facts, but merely by considering what happens in the spirit—we find that there was a period in European history, and human history in general, that started in about the 8th century BC and came to a conclusion in the 15th century AD. Events between these two points in time form a whole, in a certain respect, just as the life of the child does from his seventh year, when he gets his second teeth, to the time when he reaches puberty. One can establish a whole there, until a change occurs that makes a greater difference in the human organism than the events that happened in between. In the same way we can say that such major changes occurred in the 8th century BC and in about the 15th century AD. Seen from the point of view of historical study based on the science of the spirit, the period between them seems to have had a specific nature, special characteristics with regard to the spiritual reality that lay behind historical facts. This made the period a whole if we consider history from the points of view of spiritual science, something that belongs together.

I can, of course, only mention some aspects. Characterizing such things on the basis of spiritual science one can discover all kinds of details, and indeed things as real as the realities you get if you follow the system of plants in botany, and so on. Let me just present some general aspects.

During that period the life of humanity in general—to perceive this we have to consider the inner life of human beings, leaving aside physical facts—was such that the mind was still working much more by instinct than it does today. Anything people did in full awareness was still much more also an action of the body; it was still much more closely bound up with the living body. The mind still worked more by instinct. If you study the different things said in my books42Steiner R. Theosophy (various translations), chapter on the essential nature of the human being. you will find that the inner life is classified, if I may use this rather academic term, into the life of the sentient soul, which is at a very low level of consciousness, still almost unconscious; the rational or mind soul, which nevertheless works in such a way that its life does not develop in full conscious awareness but still has instinctive character; and then the spiritual soul, which has full conscious self-awareness of the I, emancipating the I from the life of the body, the rational mind being no longer instinctive but taking an independent, critical approach to things. The rational soul was especially active in the people of the period we are considering, that is, people living at the time when the Greek and then the Roman civilization was evolving. And the inner life of people at that time, which led to developments in social life, history, the sciences, the arts and religious life—all this took the course it did because the soul life was characteristically such that the rational mind was still acting by instinct.

These are the general principles, but we can see the truth of it in individual details. Inwardly, in the spirit, one can actually describe how the difference had to come. In Greece, the instinctive mental life developed more in the direction of the living body. Ancient Greeks would see the body as ensouled, and also understood the way in which such an ensouled body was part of social life. In Roman times, the impulse for Roman citizenship arose from this specific constitution of the soul, and so on.

Living through this in an inward way one comes to the significant moment of change that can be so clearly seen in the 15th century. Events naturally happen gradually. The impulses only emerge bit by bit. The change that came in the 15‘ century is clearly evident, however. Human nature was truly revolutionalized then. This is something which only someone who looks at things in such a way will discover; others will always think of a succession of events when in reality history moves in leaps and bounds. The mind then came to relate to human nature in a very different way. It became emancipated, gaining greater self-awareness. Thinking only became more materialistic and sensual because the rational mind had lost its connection with the subconscious. Human beings sought relationships at national level, structures of community life and relationships between countries, and developments in the other areas of civilization that would arise from this peculiar separation from the instinctive life, something we are not aware of in our ordinary conscious minds, only dreaming of the rational mind growing independent of the life of instincts.

Let me just mention some more general aspects. With the approach used in spiritual science it is possible to go back to the time before the 8th century BC. This takes us to a different major period which extends back as far as the 3rd millennium BC, a period that also had its special characteristics, details of which can be established.

We thus gradually find something behind the physical facts that can only be observed in form of images, with a mind inspired and able to perceive in visions. If we are able to do this—something which facts can never give us, gaining insight into things that people normally only dream as they observe the facts and use the thinking based on the observation of physical facts—we come to the process aspect of history. This lives in the human dream level of consciousness and can only be seen more clearly if we have imaginative and inspired awareness. It is this alone which can show the facts in their true light.

Looking at a dead body you have to say that it had significance when the soul was still in it. Just as the soul casts its light, as it were, on the dead body, so we live in the light that illumines the facts when we approach things of the spirit with perceptive vision. Individual facts find an explanation if we illuminate them out of what we have gained in this way.

History thus cannot develop as a science unless we develop perceptive vision. If you think it would be possible without it, you are like someone who lets a light fall on an object, then, using some kind of mechanism to rotate the light, lets it fall on a second object, and a third, and then says: The second object is illuminated as a consequence of the first being luminous; the third object is illuminated as a consequence of the second object being luminous. This would not be true. It is the same light which illuminates each object.

That is how it is with historical facts. Someone who tries to explain facts through other facts, coordinating them, putting them side by side is, as Jacob Burckhardt said quite rightly, like someone who deduces that the light which falls on the second object comes from the first. He should see that it is in fact the same light which falls on the first, the second and then the third object. The explanation for the historical fact lies in the world of the spirit, and it is from this world that we must throw light on facts that will otherwise remain dead, just as objects will not be luminous unless we let the light fall on them that shines on all.

This does call for a radical change in our approach to history, but that should not surprise us. History became a subject at a time when natural scientists were, quite rightly, rejecting anything subjective. People did at first apply the methods of natural science in a study of history that may be said to have evolved at the wrong time—which, of course, is not such a good thing to say—but history can only prosper if natural science is complemented with the science of the spirit.

Then, however, we will no longer search through history in an ethical way, nor in the way many others have done, using abstract ideas. Ideas cannot make things happen; ideas are entirely passive. We must look for the truly real spiritual entities and powers that are behind historical developments. These can only be studied if we have awareness in images.

Now it is remarkable—once you have this guideline, light is indeed cast on what people might sense from a sequence of events, whilst someone who merely looks at things side by side will not find an explanation. Historical development becomes a science when the science of the spirit strikes like lightning from above. If it is unable to strike, people will be presenting progressively more anecdotal, which is not scientific.

It is interesting to note that Jacob Burckhardt wrote that it was approximately at the point in time when in the science of the spirit we would put the beginning of the period of which I spoke today—except that these are not exact points in time, just as puberty, for example, continues for some years—in the 6th or 7th century BC that a common element showed itself that extended from China through Asia Minor to Europe, and this was a general religious movement. Outer history has the facts: Because there was such a change, those events happened! Light is thrown on them. And concerning the end of the period, for what happened after the 15th century, Jacob Burckhardt spoke of the religious movement connected with the name of Martin Luther—again very strange. Once again there were major changes, showing themselves in Europe and at the same time also in India. With the science of the spirit we can see how something which is beheld in the spirit creates a mirror image for itself in the facts, for it illuminates the facts. History changes from being an enumeration of facts to being a genuine science.

We have to say that in this respect, too, many people have been longing to find the right way. Herman Grimm43Grimm, Herman (1828–1901), German historian. Goethe, Vorlesungen, Berlin 1876, 8. Auflage Stuttgart und Berlin 1903, 2. Bd, S. 7ff (16. Vorlesung). tried to take a spiritual approach to history but did not reach the point where one sees into the world of the spirit with perception in images. He used all possible means to discover some kind of historical impulses behind the events that had happened. It was as if he was feeling his way and arrived at a classification which he would repeat many times in his lectures at the university. He said that such historical developments as there had been so far should be divided into a first millennium—starting approximately at the time I have given for the period I have been describing—and then a second and third millennium. You see, he was feeling his way. His ‘first two millennia’ covered everything I included in the Graeco-Latin period, which ran from the 8th century BC to the 15th century AD. And our present life, which will continue for many centuries and can be seen to be a coherent whole if one uses perception in images, he considered to be the ‘third millennium’. He tried to have at least a surrogate, I would say, for the vision that can be had in the spirit by saying that history is the ‘work of the nations’ creative imagination’.44In the story of his life (GA 28, various translations), chapter 14, Rudolf Steiner told of a talk with Herman Grimm: ‘He spoke to me of his idea of a “history of German creative imagination”, something which lived in his soul. I gained the impression at the time that he intended to write this. He did not get round to it. But he told me most beautifully how the continuous stream of historical evolution had its impulses in the creative imagination of the people, which in his view assumed the character of a living, active, supersensible genius.’ See also Steiner’s lecture ‘Die Weltanschauung eines Kulturforschers der Gegenwart, Herman Grimm, und die Geistesforschung’, Berlin, 16 January 1913, in Ergebnisse der Geistesforschung, GA Bibl.-Nr. 62, S. 249-285. Unable to find the spiritual reality that is the driving power in historical developments he believed ‘creative imagination’ to lie behind historical events. He thus made it an illusion, but reminded us that the real impulses in history are only dreamt through by human beings in their ordinary state of conscious awareness.

Anything we are able to grasp with the rational mind with regard to history can only be the dead aspect. Again it is interesting to consider historians who may be said to have still been using their rational minds in an instinctive way and who did not seek to bring in all kinds of ideas from natural science in an artificial way, the way Herbert Spencer did, but were like Gibbon,45Gibbon, Edward (1737–1794), English historian. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 6 vols, 1776-88. for instance, who did use the rational thinking which is also used in natural science, and were still doing so in an instinctive way. They were able—and this was something which puzzled Herman Grimm46Grimm Herman (see note 43). Wrote on Gibbon in 15 Essays, 1. Folge, 1. Auflage, Berlin 1874, S. 80.—to observe and describe the periods of decline particularly well; those were periods when little soul quality remained. Gibbon thus wrote of a time which did in fact have much by way of soul quality, inner development and growth to it, which was the period from the beginning of Christianity and throughout Roman history, but described the aspect which he called ‘decline’. Bringing his rational mind to bear, he described this whole evolution in the early Christian centuries as a decline. This is only natural, for when the rational mind is applied in the way in which it has to be applied in the study of nature, we can only see the decline in historical events. Gibbon was unable to see how something else, which had come into history out of the Christian impulses, was showing healthy growth in the midst of that decline. The way this works cannot be seen directly in historical events, however. It needs to be illuminated by the light provided through the science of the spirit.

Something else is also of interest, for example. Of course it is only possible to make history a science through the evolving science of the spirit. But the knowledge gained in the science of the spirit has always also come up in flashes of light in the heads of enlightened people, people of discernment. There is one really interesting phenomenon. In his historical and sociological lectures given at Basel University in the 1860s, Jacob Burckhardt would repeatedly refer to a historian, a historical philosopher from the first half of the 19th century who must have made quite an impression on him, even if he, Jacob Burckhardt, often went against his views. This was the philosopher Ernst von Lasaulx. He has never become widely known. Lasaulx wrote a strange book, and Burckhardt frequently spoke of this in his lectures.47Burckhardt (see note 41). Probably referring to his lectures Ueber das Studium der Geschichte. Lasaulx did have some feeling for the historical impulses that human beings normally only dream through, but since it was the age of modern science, he concerned himself with what I might call interpretation of the facts.48Lasaulx, Ernst von (1815–1861). Neuer Versuch einer alien, auf die Wahrheit der Tatsachen gegruendeten Philosophic der Geschichte, Muenchen 1856. Since he used his rational mind which was trained in modern science, he mainly focussed on the element of decline in the 19th century. There were, of course, also new developments in the 19th century. But these can only be seen with inspired and imaginative perception. At the very end of his book Lasaulx showed that he had some inkling of this. The things he said in his book are interesting beyond anything—forgive the words, but it is so. He considered European history from its beginning to the 19th century. And because of his modern scientific approach he was all the time describing decay, decline, the powers that really lead into the dying process. There are chapters in this book—if you read them they are like a description of powers of decline someone made prophetically in the 1850s, speaking of the powers that inevitably had to lead to the present situation, where the European nations of today are tearing each other limb from limb. We can say that no one else foresaw intuitively in such a deeply moving, magnificent way—his mind being focused on the element of decline—what has now proved itself to be such an outcome in the process of decline.

This kind of direct evidence is such that if you leave the sphere where you have direct vision of or dream the true historical impulses and instead consider only the separate external facts, it is as if you abandon waking consciousness and fall asleep, no longer seeing the element of growth and development, the pulse of which beats in history as the element that truly takes humanity forward. Once this principle of growth and development is recognized, history is lifted out of mere natural causality and assumes the rank of a science. We might say, therefore, that what Lessing felt dimly in his work, putting it clumsily, if you will forgive the expression, at the time and indeed incorrectly, is thus given a secure foundation. External facts show no cohesion. The element in which the human soul lives, lives as in a dream, becomes a continuous organic life in the spirit. I mean a life of spirit, however, if it is seen as the substance of history in the light of the science of the spirit.

You will then also discover, however, that the ordinary student is deceived if he considers historical development to be an organism. Doing this, one must often compare it with the development of an individual human life. In my young days I had a teacher who liked to compare the successive historical periods with human life—Persian and Chaldean history with the life of a young man; Greek life with the later part of youth; dawning full maturity with Roman life. The progression of history is often considered in analogy to human life. This is a distinct source of illusion regarding history. For if we come to see the evolution of the human soul in the course of historical development for humanity as a whole, that is, actually enter into the spiritual reality of historical developments, we can never perceive it the way we perceive the development of a human soul from childhood through youth to adult life and finally old age. The spiritual life which lies behind the facts of history does not develop in this way. It develops in another way. Once again we face a paradox. It seems paradoxical if it is put like this, though it is deeply rooted in the genuine spiritual scientific approach to which I am referring in these lectures.

It is possible to compare what shows itself, lives and can be observed as a whole in a given time in history with the periods in human life. Oddly enough, however, one should not compare the historical development with the development that goes from infancy and childhood through youth to adulthood but the reverse. You have to think of historical life going in the opposite direction. If you take the general state of mind for the period from the 8th century BC to the 15th century AD, for instance, this may be compared to the thirties in a human life. We can say that when people are in their thirties, the inner life connects with the body the way it did in the Graeco-Roman age that continued on into the 15th century (the constitution and inner relationship to essential human nature was different, of course). What followed in history cannot be compared to what follows on the thirties but to what went before. Compared to the life of a human individual, historical life thus goes from back to front.

In the course of its emancipation in our time, the rational mind does indeed relate to bodily life in a way that can be compared to the way the rational mind relates to bodily life for someone in his late twenties. A later period in history relates to the one that preceded it in such a way that we might dare to say the following. A young child learns from an older person who may well have worked in a more instinctive way through the things which the child is receiving in a later form. We always learn from people who have themselves been learning in their childhood. It is the same with successive periods of time when mind and spirit move on from one age to another. This progression in history becomes a phenomenon in the mind, though still at a dream level. Using Lessing’s idea of educating the human race, we are dealing not with education from childhood through youth and adulthood to ripe old age, but rather with retrograde education of the human race. And it is because of this that progress, as we may call it, is able to enter into historical development. Human beings are younger, as it were, in their inner approach to such things than they were in earlier times, and this also gives them a greater degree of freedom and of unawareness, a more childlike approach to other people, and this brings everything we normally call progress into world evolution.

In conclusion let me draw your attention to one phenomenon—we have been considering many things today—to demonstrate what I have been discussing—and that is the strange, significantly progressive relationship which came when Christianity spread from the nations of the Roman Empire, who had received it first, to the youthful Germanic nations. A strange phenomenon arose. How can we explain it? It can only be explained as follows. Throughout the historical evolution of Graeco-Roman life, which was the first to be taken hold of by the great impulses of Christianity, experience of life was at a later stage. Christianity therefore took the form we see in Gnosis and the development of other dogmas. When Christianity came to people whose experience of life was at a younger level—entirely in accord with the way the mind evolved in the course of history, as I have shown—it assumed other forms. It became more inward; religious awareness emancipated, as it were, from the instinctive rational mind; religion as Christian religion became more independent; and later on the religious and scientific ways of thinking and awareness separated completely.

The whole process becomes explicable if we take it as a phenomenon relating to conscious awareness, so that the German mind, which has its foundation in a different soul constitution, took over Christianity from the Roman one, we might say as a child does take something from an older person. Roman predecessors, not Roman ancestors, of course.

I have only been able to touch on some points, and I know as well as anyone else how many objections may be raised to these brief indications. To gain insight and understanding of what is meant here, it will be necessary to take up the development of spiritual science in a serious way, and on the other hand give serious consideration to all the mysteries and sphinx riddles that come up in the young science of history. In my fourth lecture, which will be next Wednesday, I will add the things needed for practical life, for social life, intervention in social life, and understanding of the things that touch us so deeply in immediate experience, bringing pleasure and pain, and events that are so much on our minds at the present time with all its tragic events. We will then consider the consequences for these things as they arise from the historical point of view.

I would like to conclude today’s discussion by pointing out how certain people with prophetic gifts instinctively also had this spiritual scientific thinking at an earlier time. They would instinctively come to the right conclusions regarding history. I am thinking of Goethe. He only considered historical problems occasionally, for instance in his history of the theory of colour, but he had a profound comprehension of history. Intuiting things, he formulated his perceptions in a different way from the one we have used here today. He was, however, able to gain the right approach to history because he had a feeling that humanity is really only going through historical developments in a dream, that is, experiencing them in the regions where feelings, affects, passions and emotions also arise. Goethe knew that all the concepts people produce relating to history, concepts similar to those used in natural science, cannot prove fruitful in human life, for they come from the region in our inner life where waking consciousness lives. This waking consciousness exists only for the world of nature, however. People live through historical events in the dream regions where passions, affects and emotions arise.

Before a human being thus comes alive in imaginative and inspired perception, and for as long as he considers historical developments in his ordinary state of mind, his soul and inner feelings can only be taken hold of by experience of history arising from the dream level of awareness. Abstract concepts and ideas coming from the rational approach used in natural science cannot really touch the human being. All this cannot bear fruit. The only fruitful perceptions are those that come from the same regions and are effective in the same regions where they are gained from history. This is the best thing about history. Because we dream it—Goethe did not conclude this but he sensed it—anything coming from history can also only take effect in the dream region of enthusiasm and the life of emotions. Goethe said that the best thing history is able to give us is the enthusiasm it arouses.49Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749–1832). See Sprüche in Prosa (aphorisms in prose) in Naturwissenschaftliche Schriften (see note 10), [Tr.: possibly in Goethean Science, Spring Valley: Mercury Press 1988. See also in Maxims and Reflections]. This is significant as a way not of formulating the science of history but of real understanding, born from a poet’s mind; this is something the science of the spirit must make its approach. For as long as we live in history with our ordinary way of thinking, we are not really involved in it. But if we meet it with enthusiasm and approach its phenomena in the way one does out of enthusiasm, we become involved in the life of history itself.

We shall only be able to learn from history the way we do from nature once we look at historical development with imaginative and inspired perception. To develop these thoughts further and apply them to nature and to social life will be our task in the lectures that follow.

Questions and answers

Following the lecture given in Zurich on 7 November 1917

Question. What is the situation as regards the materialistic view of history, with Marx, for example?

Well, with regard to this I have to say that in the science of the spirit, when we base ourselves on this science, the things I said in my previous lecture are and need to be taken very seriously. Speaking about the gradually developing inner approach to concepts as they are understood in relation to reality. I said that in our ordinary way of thinking we are satisfied once we have a concept that may be said to reflect reality. In the approach based on perception in images, we always have to seek to develop a whole number of concepts, which are like photographs taken from various angles. Anything established as a concept can never show the whole of reality, if we take the point of view of the spiritual world. Concepts can always only give one aspect of reality. That is also how it is with the most sublime philosophical ideas. In the ordinary way of thinking one is a pantheist or one is a monadist, to give you just two opposites. You recognize a divine principle that is alive and active in everything; this means you are a pantheist. Or, like the followers of Leibniz, for example, you recognize individual real monads; these interact to give the world as a whole.

A spiritual investigator cannot be a pantheist nor a monadist. Pantheism simply gives him a sum of concepts, and so does monadism. Both illuminate reality from different angles. Perhaps I may risk an analogy: a pantheist only concentrates on breathing out, a monadist on breathing in. Now we can’t keep life going if we only breathe either in or out, but need to have both. In the same way the spiritual reality can only be grasped if we come alive in our ideas and know how to let both pantheism and monadism illuminate reality for us. If someone is just a monadist, like Leibniz, this is to a spiritual investigator like someone who asphyxiates from too much air he has inhaled. You asphyxiate. And if someone is just a pantheist, this is to a spiritual investigator like someone who wanted to breathe in a room that has no air in it. If you take up the science of the spirit, the life of concepts comes alive to you. You have to think of this relationship to the world of concepts as being as alive as possible. For when such a living relationship is established, you are wholly and in a very real way inside the mutual conflict and harmonious reconciliation of concepts, entering into spiritual reality. With our ordinary way of thinking we live in our concepts in an abstract way. Even the simplest of concepts will thus relate to reality in a new way.

Let me give you an example. Today we learn at school that solids are impenetrable. The definition given is that they are impenetrable because a solid body occupies a space which no other body can occupy. A spiritual scientist cannot say this. He can never base himself on definition of concepts but only on characterization. In this case he would say that something which occupies a space in such a way that no other entity can be in that space is a material body. He therefore looks at things the other way round, and because his concept is a living one he only applies it within the limits where it can be applied. He does not state things in absolute terms. This happens with the simplest lines of thought if one really takes the leap which I would like to call the leap across the threshold to the spiritual, non-material world. This must be taken very seriously. People still want to talk in abstract terms today when they speak of the spiritual world. But the whole of our inner life, the way of thinking, changes its constitution when we enter into reality. You enter into the reality of concepts and live it through. You see, for someone who thinks in an abstract way a rose he has put in water in his room is, of course, something real. But it is not real at all. For in real life no rose can exist unless it grows on a rose bush and lives wholly in the context of that rose bush. A spiritual investigator is therefore always aware that things have to be considered in their existing context. He will know that a cut rose is unreal as a concept.

Now consider this extended to the whole shaping, the whole structure of our thinking and you’ll have an idea of the significant change experienced on crossing the threshold to the world of the spirit. There you find reality. There you get an inner idea of the full implications of concepts, an idea that comes alive to you. Messing around in the abstract world, which is what has to be done in natural science, you never realize how unreal the concepts are which you develop there.

On this kind of occasion I like to remember a lecture Professor Dewar gave in London at the beginning of the 20th century.50Dewar, Sir James (1842–1923), Scottish chemist and physicist. Inventor of thermos flask. It has not proved possible to trace the lecture to which Rudolf Steiner was referring.Dewar, Sir James (1842–1923), Scottish chemist and physicist. Inventor of thermos flask. It has not proved possible to trace the lecture to which Rudolf Steiner was referring. From the point of view of natural scientific thinking, it was a brilliant lecture. Taking the point of view of natural science, thinking in physical terms, he construed the end state of earth’s existence. This would come when so and so many million years had passed, temperatures had gradually changed, and so on. If you consider certain facts that present themselves today it is fairly easy to paint a picture of such an end state if you just draw the logical conclusions. Professor Dewar was quite ingenious in describing the way in which some substances which are not luminous today would then be luminous. If people applied certain substances to their walls, those walls would be giving off enough light that you could read your paper by them. It will be so cold by then, however, that one cannot imagine anyone printing papers then. Here we immediately come up against reality. But Dewar gave that picture. Things that would tear off today if you attached just a small weight, would have such powerful cohesion then that you could suspend tons of stuff from them, and so on. The whole had been properly thought through and it is certainly possible to construe an end state of the earth, with everything exactly described in physical terms. The lecture did of course make a great impression, for a physicist who was utterly familiar with physical concepts was here giving a descriptive picture of the earth’s end state that seemed very real indeed.

A spiritual scientist’s experience is that on hearing such a description he finds himself immediately guided towards concepts where a different light is thrown. What Professor Dewar was doing when he described this end state of the earth after millions of years, was arrived at in the same way as if you consider the consecutive states of the stomach and heart of a young person of 12, 13, 14 and 15 as it gradually changes, and then come to a logical conclusion as to what it will all be like in 200 or 300 years—the heart, the stomach, and so on. Now this may all be perfectly correct in natural scientific terms, that is, in abstract thinking. Only the individual will long since have been dead by then, and the stomach no longer there!

If we approach reality like this, side by side with the other view, which is truly ingenuous, and if we have living concepts, we can come to see that Professor Dewar’s description of the earth’s end state in some millions of years may be perfectly correct, but the earth will be dead by then and no longer in existence.

And it is the same thing if we go back 13, 12, 11 years and so on, to say how it was 150 years ago. Only the person was not yet alive then! This is the basis of Kant’s and Laplace’s theory,51Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804) considered the shape of nebulous stars representing other universes to be due to their rotation. Laplace, Pierre Simon, Marquis de (1749–1827) developed the nebular hypothesis of planetary origin. for they construed the beginnings of the earth quite brilliantly from the physical data, saying it was a nebula, and so on, from which everything arose. But the fact is that none of it existed at the time which one would have to assume for this.

This is where we move from abstract thinking to thinking in real terms. Having given a general characterization I may now say that the materialistic view of history with its concepts arose from a degree of necessity, considering that historical events were really only based on class struggles, with material interests brought into play. The concept of materialism does not have the same meaning in the materialistic view of history as it does in natural science. It developed because certain, entirely feasible concepts were created. One would, however, have to maintain a point of view where one asks: How much of historical development is covered by those concepts? They cover one stream only, a stream which in fact only came up in the 16th century.

People do not believe in authority today, of course they don’t! They have done away with that. Yes, but ‘science’ is a powerful authority at the least. And if you swear by a number of dogmas, everything else is folly and miserable nonsense. Years ago I used to lecture to working-class people, giving many lectures over the years, including lectures on history. I tried to characterize history the way it shows itself, using an undogmatic approach.52See Rudolf Steiner’s story of his life (note 44), ch. 28, and the volume of lectures entitled Über Philosophic, Geschichte and Literatur (GA 51). However, when I had gained a fairly faithful audience, which continued to grow—I can say this without boasting—some leading social democrats realized that I was not teaching orthodox Marxism, the orthodox materialistic view of history, but actually presented the peculiar view that the concepts of the materialistic approach to history only came to be used from the 16th century onwards. They actually could not be used before that. They came to be used out of the undercurrents in history itself, for that was the time when the rational mind emancipated, as I have shown. It was the time when human beings first emancipated from a more instinctive life and so on, with material interests providing the necessary counterthrust. We thus arrive at the materialistic view of history—even if only as one of the historical ingredients—which does allow us to throw a light on some of the phenomena. However, if we make this materialistic view the only one, we’ll not have history as a result, for many other impulses have not been taken into account. The concepts developed in Marxism must therefore be seen as one aspect, providing a snapshot of reality from one angle. This has to be complemented with views taken from other angles. - Those leading social democrats then stopped the lectures.

It is characteristic of the science of the spirit that it can do justice to impulses that have inner validity, impulses arising in one sphere of culture or another, and is able to perceive their relative value. Error will immediately arise if we make a one-sided aspect absolute, basing all our explanations on it. This is indeed the point.

Life is such, of course, that people will stick to a concept. People altogether prefer to live in concepts rather than reality, in abstractions rather than reality. They are much happier if they have some concepts, and all kinds of things can then be pegged into these. But reality is not like this. Just as to have a tree you need to photograph it from one point of view to get one aspect, and another point of view for another aspect—I have to keep coming back to this analogy—so it is with reality as a whole, if we really want to take it the way it really is.

It has to be said that with material interests having entered so powerfully into historical developments in the last three or four centuries it is only natural that a materialistic view of history developed, representing the view that the outer course of history can be studied using the crudest concepts which are only appropriate for the natural world. However, everything you get that way is dead, non-living. I will be speaking of this again in my fourth lecture when I will mainly be considering ethical and social life. The lack of reality would soon be evident if reality were approached solely with such concepts. Then you would see that such concepts, if they were to take root, would kill reality; they can prove fruitful, however, if we consider them to be merely one aspect.

This is what I wanted to say with reference to this question. I could of course go on for hours on the subject.

Rudolf Steiner was asked to speak again on the process on which the recall of memories is based. He had described this in his first lecture.

I’ll be coming to this again in my next lecture and can therefore be fairly brief now. Above all I’d like to say that people are mistaken in thinking that an idea I have gained now from something perceived—let us say I see an object and form an idea of it at the same time—will remain. All I gain, the after effect which remains when I turn my eyes away from the object, is mere mirror image and not something that will come back again. Something is there and it is then truly lost, just as a mirror image of me is lost once I have walked past the mirror. It is wrong, therefore, to imagine a reservoir in the soul into which the ideas might go, to be fetched up again later from this reservoir. Ideas do not remain, they are gone!

Yet when I form an idea, a subconscious process happens at the same time. This is subconscious where our ordinary conscious awareness is concerned but can be observed imaginatively. This process is responsible for what happens in the organism when occasion arises for something to be recalled. If I gain an idea of an object because it influences my senses, the idea arises; if I have an idea that arises from memory, it is exactly the same, except that it is not the material object out there which makes am impression on me, letting me develop the idea on the basis of that object. Instead I am looking inside, as it were, at what has been taken in unconsciously, and develop my idea from this.

Let me present it in a schematic way. I form the idea ‘ten’; after some time the idea ‘ten’ comes up again; but it is not true that it is the same idea, that it has gone away and then come back again. What has remained is an unconscious engram. This unconscious engram, which has developed in parallel to the process of forming an idea, will remain. This is what I perceive when I have the idea again. So if ‘ten’ comes up, it is the result of an outside stimulus; when it comes up again, it is the result of an inner stimulus. Anything I remember I perceive from within. It is a process we can observe very well in the science of the spirit and which is very useful in education. Attentive teachers can observe it; all they need to do is to give their powers of attention the right direction.

Just consider how we learn things by heart. Observe it carefully. And you will simply see all the things people do to make sure the parallel process takes place! The idea is taken in, but they want the parallel process to go in such a way that it is drummed into something that remains subconscious. Observe when things are drummed in: the ideas will not lead to memory in some way, but a process which must arise to support the mere forming of an idea and does indeed lie in the subconscious sphere. And this way of working in the subconscious—just watch someone learning a poem by rote, all the things that are done to help the process—is something which a spiritual scientist observes directly. The light which is thus gained makes us see. Some people do all kinds of things when they learn by rote, striking their foreheads, and so on, and this certainly has nothing to do with their experience of the idea. If you go into the matter you’ll find that this is an important border region between psychology and physiology. The next time we meet we will see how physiology with a spiritual scientific orientation can discover things there.

Just to indicate the direction, therefore I would say that ideas are first of all formed in a primary process under the influence of something perceived outside, stimulated by an object on the outside; or else as a memory, with the stimulus coming from inside. On the one occasion I am reading with my eyes looking outwards, as it were, and the other time I am looking inwards. If I read a book twice in succession, the idea is gained from the same book, but these are successive acquisitions.

Perhaps this will serve to characterize the situation. More will be added when I speak of the human being as part of the natural world in my third lecture.

Question. Surely the higher forms of conscious awareness must differ between individuals?

As I said the last time, it is easy to think this way—that one person develops these states of higher awareness in a different form than someone else does. This should not let us shy away from entering into what I have called the drama of perceptive insight. The individual aspect is only an intermediate state. One does indeed go through a powerfully individualistic period, but one is aware of this and overcomes it. After this one comes to the objective inner aspect. It is only if we do not observe accurately that we may say that one person says one thing, another something else. It is not like that. The differences are no greater than the differences you get, for example, when two travellers describe the same region. One of them concentrates on one thing, the other on something else. The descriptions do not seem similar at all; yet they describe the same region, and it would be nonsense to think that the descriptions are therefore not leading to objectivity, or that the travellers themselves had not considered things objectively. I would therefore say that certainly, one may easily think of an individualized experience in higher states of awareness. But that is only an intermediate state. In reality we come to the objective spirit if we are able to exclude the subjective element in an imagination, just as we overcome subjectivity in the study of nature and come to see it objectively. Read in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Occult Science how this subjective element is excluded as one comes to live in higher states of conscious awareness. You will see that this leads to an objective spiritual view in the inner life just as we come to gain an objective view of nature in the outside world. It truly is the case that in natural science, the subjective element is excluded as we consider the outside world, and in the science of the spirit, the subjective element is excluded as we consider the realm of the spirit.

Geisteswissenschaftliche Ergebnisse über die Entwickelung der Menschheit und Ihrer Kulturformen

Es ist merkwürdig, daß die Geschichte als Wissenschaft in einer Zeit entstanden ist, die — bei genauerem Zusehen merkt man dieses — eigentlich am wenigsten geeignet war, die Geschichte zur Wissenschaft zu gestalten. Daher bin ich bei den heutigen Auseinandersetzungen in einer etwas anderen Lage als vorgestern, da ich die Fäden ziehen wollte von der Anthroposophie zur Seelenwissenschaft. Bei der Seelenwissenschaft, Psychologie, handelte es sich, als das naturwissenschaftliche Denken der neueren Zeit in die Menschheitsentwickelung hereinbrach, darum, auszudehnen gewissermaßen den Bereich der naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungsart auf die Seelenerscheinungen. Es handelte sich darum, zu erobern das Gebiet der Seelenerscheinungen, das in früheren Zeiten anders bearbeitet worden ist, über das anders gedacht worden ist, durch die naturwissenschaftliche Methode. Dies aus dem Grunde, weil in dieser neueren Zeit bei vielen, welche vor allen Dingen berufen waren, Wissenschaft zu bearbeiten, der Eindruck gerechtfertigterweise entstanden ist, daß der Geist, der in der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung herrscht, der einzig wahrhaft wissenschaftliche sei.

Nun muß man sagen, indem die naturwissenschaftliche Anschauungsart auf die Seelenwissenschaft angewendet worden ist, hat sie sich immerhin an etwas betätigt, das ein Gegebenes ist. Wenn auch wahre Seelenwissenschaft, wie wir vorgestern gesehen haben, zu ganz anderen Forschungsarten kommen muß, so ist gewissermaßen das Objekt, der Gegenstand der Seelenforschung, auch für die naturwissenschaftliche Methode unmittelbar in dem Menschen gegeben.

Ganz anders scheint dieses mit Bezug auf die Geschichtswissenschaft zu sein. Und indem man versucht, auf die hier in Betracht kommenden, man könnte fast sagen, paradoxen Tatsachen aufmerksam zu machen, muß man darauf hinweisen, was eigentlich wenig bekannt ist, wenigstens wenig bedacht wird, daß dasjenige, was man Wissenschaft der Geschichte nennt, keine sehr alte Sache ist.

Im 18. Jahrhundert haben diejenigen, die den Begriff der Wissenschaft geprägt und vertreten haben, Geschichte keineswegs noch als Wissenschaft gelten lassen. Geschichtswissenschaft ist im Grunde genommen eine Schöpfung des 19. Jahrhunderts. Sie ist damit eigentlich entstanden in einer Zeit, in der gerade die naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden in einer besonderen Blüte zur Anerkennung gebracht worden sind. In der Art und Weise, wie man heute zur Geschichte steht, stand man im i8. Jahrhundert noch nicht. Ich will nur einen charakteristischen Ausspruch des Philosophen Wolff über die Geschichte anführen, noch aus dem 18. Jahrhundert, einen Ausspruch, dem man viele an die Seite setzen könnte, die da bezeugen, daß dazumal unter wissenschaftlichen Leuten Geschichte galt als eine Aufzeichnung von Begebenheiten, aber nicht als irgend etwas, was den Namen Wissenschaft verdient. Wolff sagte im 18. Jahrhundert: «Da die historischen Schriften bloß erzählen, was geschehen ist, so braucht es nicht viel Verstand und Nachdenken, dieselben zu lesen.» Erklärungsmethoden, Methoden, durch welche Zusammenhang und Ordnung in die Aufeinanderfolge der geschichtlichen Tatsachen kommen soll, das wurde eigentlich erst gang und gäbe im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts,

Die Anschauung, daß Geschichte durch ihre Natur, durch ihr Wesen gar keine Wissenschaft sein könne, ist immerhin unter den Leuten, die sich immer mehr und mehr hineingewöhnt haben in die naturwissenschaftliche Denkweise, in radikalster Weise zum Ausdrucke gekommen bei Fritz Mauthner, der ja bekanntgeworden ist durch seine sprachkritischen Studien, durch sein großes «Wörterbuch der Philosophie», das er in den letzten Jahren geschrieben hat. Wer in diesem Wörterbuch den Artikel «Geschichte» liest, der so recht aus dem Bewußtsein heraus geschrieben sein will, daß nur auf dem Gebiete der Naturerkenntnis «Wissenschaft» möglich ist, wer diesen Artikel über «Geschichte» liest, wird finden, daß in radikaler Weise dem, was man Geschichte nennt, der Charakter einer Wissenschaft abgesprochen wird, daß es sogar als etwas Paradoxes hingestellt wird, nachdem man die Naturerkenntnisse zu solch besonders ausgeprägten Methoden gebracht hat, Geschichte daneben als eine Wissenschaft gelten zu lassen.

Schon einer der Hauptumstände, an denen der modern naturwissenschaftlich Denkende seine Begriffe von Wissenschaft sich zurechtrückt, trifft für diesen naturwissenschaftlich Denkenden gegenüber der Geschichte nicht zu: Was will der Naturforscher, indem er forscht? Er will heute hauptsächlich die Bedingungen, unter denen irgendeine Naturerscheinung zustande kommt, in eine solche Zusammenstellung bringen, daß das Naturereignis so folgt, daß er sagen kann: Wenn ähnliche oder identische Bedingungen wieder eintreten, so müssen auch dieselben Erscheinungen eintreten.

Auf diese Art, die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Wiederholung der Erscheinungen zu richten, weist der naturwissenschaftlich Denkende der Gegenwart ganz besonders hin. Er verlangt von einem richtigen Experiment, daß es so einzurichten ist, daß man in einer gewissen Weise dazu kommt, voraussagen zu können, was unter gewissen gegebenen Naturbedingungen eintreten müsse.

Nun kann man allerdings sagen: Wenn man diese Anforderungen an die Geschichte als Wissenschaft stellt, so kommt sie in einer gewissen Weise schlecht weg! Ich will nur auf ein paar Beispiele hinweisen. In den letzten Zeiten hat sich allmählich bei Leuten, die geschichtlich denken wollten, eine eigentümliche Anschauung herausgebildet, die auf eine merkwürdige Weise, ich möchte sagen, auf eine tatkräftige Weise widerlegt worden ist. Bei Menschen, wenn sie glaubten, einen gewissen historisch tiefen Blick zu haben für soziale und ökonomische Zusammenhänge innerhalb des menschlichen Werdens, hat sich die Ansicht herausgebildet — die besonders im Beginne des gegenwärtigen Krieges stark geltend gemacht worden ist —, daß unter den gegenwärtigen ökonomischen und sozialen Verhältnissen dieser Krieg jedenfalls nicht länger als höchstens vier bis sechs Monate dauern könne. Nun, man muß sagen, die Widerlegung dieser Anschauung hat sich durch die Tatsachen als eine radikale herausgestellt! Viele Menschen hielten diese Behauptung für eine durchaus tief wissenschaftlich begründete. Wie oft hört man, wenn die Menschen den gegenwärtigen Ereignissen gegenüberstehen, die wichtig für das menschliche Leben sind und die sie deshalb beurteilen wollen, wie oft hört man: Die Geschichte lehrt dies oder jenes über diese Ereignisse. —- Die Menschen treten diesen Ereignissen gegenüber, wollen ein Urteil haben, wie sie sich verhalten sollen, wie sie zu denken haben über den eventuellen Verlauf; dann hört man von denjenigen, die sich etwas mit der Geschichte befaßt haben: Die Geschichte lehrt dies oder jenes! — Wie oft hört man heute gegenüber den gegenwärtigen erschütternden, tragischen Ereignissen, die über die Menschheitsentwickelung hereingebrochen sind, wie oft hört man heute sagen, wenn dies oder jenes auftritt: Die Geschichte lehrt dies oder jenes. - Nun, wenn die Geschichte so lehrt, wie diejenigen gemeint haben, daß sie lehre, die die Unmöglichkeit voraussagten, daß diese Ereignisse länger als vier bis sechs Monate dauern, dann kann man sagen: Dies, das Wissen, das aus der Geschichte geschöpft wird, widerlegt sich durch die Tatsachen in einer merkwürdigen Weise!

Ein anderes Beispiel, das vielleicht nicht minder bezeichnend ist, möchte ich anführen. Ein wahrhaft nicht unbedeutender Mensch trat 1789 sein Lehramt der Geschichte an. Es war die Zeit, in der gerade, ich möchte sagen, die Morgenröte des Geschichtsstudiums als Wissenschaft auftrat. 1789 trat in Jena Schiller sein Lehramt der Geschichte an. Er hielt die berühmt gewordene Antrittsrede über die philosophische und die äußerliche mechanistische Behandlung der geschichtlichen Ereignisse. Im Laufe dieser Antrittsrede sprach er einen merkwürdigen Satz aus, den er glaubte geschöpft zu haben aus einer philosophischen Betrachtungsweise des menschlichen Geschehens, also desjenigen, was man als «Geschichte» bezeichnet. Er glaubte, sich eine Ansicht gebildet zu haben über dasjenige, was man «aus der Geschichte lernen» kann, und er sagte: «Die europäische Staatengesellschaft scheint in eine große Familie verwandelt; die Hausgenossen können einander anfeinden, aber hoffentlich nicht mehr zerfleischen.» 1789 ist dieses gesprochen als ein sogenanntes historisches Urteil von einem wahrhaft nicht unbedeutenden Menschen. Darauf folgten die Französische Revolution, die Napoleonischen Kriege! Und wenn dasjenige, was man aus der Geschichte lernen kann, wirklich damit gelernt wäre, dann würde auch unsere heutige Zeit noch herangezogen werden können bei der Bewahrheitung einer solchen Lehre: Die europäischen Staaten können sich zwar anfeinden, aber nicht mehr zerfleischen!

Auch hier eine merkwürdige Widerlegung desjenigen, was man will, wenn man behauptet, aus der Geschichte, so wie sie aufgefaßt ist, könne man lernen für ein Urteil, wenn man sich den Tatsachen der Gegenwart oder Zukunft gegenüberstellt. Beweise für das, was damit angedeutet ist, könnten unzählige aufgebracht werden. Das ist das eine. Das andere aber ist: von allen möglichen Gesichtspunkten her die Geschichte, den Lauf der geschichtlichen Ereignisse, «wissenschaftlich zu durchdringen». War dieses 19. Jahrhundert mit diesen Methoden ganz besonders glücklich? Gerade diejenigen, die glaubten, die strengen wissenschaftlichen Methoden auf die Geschichte anzuwenden, könnten am wenigsten befriedigt sein, wenn es sich darum handelte, sich zu fragen, ob wirklich etwas Besonderes dabei herauskommt, solche Methoden, wie sie in der Naturwissenschaft mit Recht üblich sind, auf das geschichtliche Werden anzuwenden, um dieses geschichtliche Werden «im Lichte einer Wissenschaft» zu sehen.

Man braucht nur einiges sich vorzuhalten. Es ist mir heute nicht möglich — da ich ja ganz andere Absichten habe, als die Geschichtswissenschaft also solche zu kritisieren -, auf alle Einzelheiten der Versuche einzugehen, die gemacht worden sind, um zu einer geschichtlichen Methode zu kommen, Es gibt die Anschauung, daß die Geschichte gemacht wird von den großen Männern; dann die Anschauung, daß die großen Männer selber ihren Charakter, ihre Kräfte erhalten haben durch das sogenannte Milieu. Es gibt auch die Anschauung, daß die geschichtlichen Tatsachen nur dann verstanden werden, wenn man die ökonomisch-kulturellen Verhältnisse zugrunde legt, also dasjenige, was in der Menschheitsentwickelung geschieht, hervorgehen läßt aus den ökonomisch sozialen Untergründen und so weiter.

Nur an ein paar Beispielen, in denen versucht worden ist, mit der Denkweise, die sich in der Naturwissenschaft so bewährt hat, an das Geschichtliche heranzutreten, soll gezeigt werden, wie der Versuch doch eigentlich, ich will nicht sagen, gescheitert ist, aber zu Unbefriedigendem geführt hat. Da haben wir —- um von irgend etwas auszugehen — den Versuch, aus einem umfassenden wissenschaftlichen Streben heraus auch die geschichtliche Evolution der Menschheit zu behandeln, bei dem Engländer Herbert Spencer. Er, der mit naturwissenschaftlichem Denken die ganze Weltenentwickelung und alles Sein durchdringen wollte, er versucht naturwissenschaftliche Begriffe anzuwenden auf die Geschichte, auf das geschichtliche Werden. Da ist er auf etwas sehr Merkwürdiges gekommen. Er weiß, daß sich der einzelne Organismus, zum Beispiel der menschliche Organismus, aber auch der Organismus der höheren Tiere, indem er aus der Zelle allmählich herauswächst, aus drei Gliedern der Zelle entwickelt: aus dem Ektoderm, dem Entoderm, dem Mesoderm; das sind drei Teile, Glieder einer Zelle, aus denen sich der Organismus entwickelt.

Nun sieht Herbert Spencer auch in dem, was sich geschichtlich entwickelt, gewissermaßen in dem Organismus der sich entwickelnden Menschheit einen ähnlichen Prozeß wie den, der stattfindet, wenn sich der natürliche Organismus aus der Zelle heraus entwickelt. Und wie sich einzelne Organsysteme des menschlichen Organismus zum Beispiel entwickeln aus diesen Gliedern der Zelle, die ich angeführt habe, so nimmt solches Herbert Spencer auch an für die Entwicklung des geschichtlichen Organismus der Menschheit. Er sagt: Auch da ist etwas vorhanden wie ein Ektoderm, ein Entoderm und ein Mesoderm. — Und zwar entwickelt Herbert Spencer, der englische Philosoph, die merkwürdige Ansicht: im geschichtlichen Werden der Menschheit entwickelt sich aus dem, was man Ektoderm des geschichtlichen Prozesses nennen kann, der kriegerische Stand, alles, was kriegerisch ist in der Welt; aus dem Entoderm entwickelt sich der friedliebende und arbeitende Stand; aus dem Mesoderm der Handelsstand; und aus dem Zusammenwirken dieser drei Stände entsteht dasjenige, was «geschichtlicher Organismus» ist. So daß im Sinne des Philosophen Herbert Spencer derjenige Gemeinschaftsorganismus der vollkommenste ist, der sich am meisten, am vollkommensten im Lauf der Geschichte aus dem Ektoderm heraus bildet; denn aus dem Ektoderm heraus bildet sich im menschlichen Organismus nämlich das Nervensystem. Und da Herbert Spencer, der englische Philosoph, den kriegerischen Stand, das Militärwesen eines Staates hervorgehend sich denkt aus dem Ektoderm, dem also, was entspricht der Entwickelungsanlage für das menschliche Nervensystem, so ist im Sinne Herbert Spencers dasjenige staatliche Gemeinwesen das allervollkommenste, das den vollkommenst ausgebildeten Kriegerstand hat. Wie das Gehirn aus dem Nervensystem herausgenommen wird, das dem Ektoderm entstammt, so fordert Herbert Spencer für das Gemeinwesen, daß die Regierenden nur aus dem Kriegerstand entnommen werden! Ich will diese Merkwürdigkeit nur erwähnen und mit Rücksicht auf die gegenwärtige Zeit keine weiteren kritischen Bemerkungen an diese Herbert Spencersche militaristische Theorie von der Entwicklung der menschlichen Gesellschaft in der Geschichte knüpfen.

Ein anderer Versuch, das geschichtliche Werden zu durchdringen mit Vorstellungen, die der naturwissenschaftlichen Anschauungsart entnommen sind, liegt vor — ich erwähne nur Spitzen der Denkerentwickelung — bei Auguste Comte. Da wird wiederum versucht, die Gesetze der Mechanik, der Statik und Dynamik anzuwenden auf das, was unter Menschen im geschichtlichen Werden geschieht: Die Verhältnisse der einzelnen Glieder des Staates, der im geschichtlichen Werden ist, werden in einer «sozialen Statik», in einer «historischen Statik» behandelt; dasjenige, was sich verändert, was sich bewegt, was vorwärtsschreitet, wird als «historische Dynamik» angesehen.

Und so könnte man vieles, vieles anführen. Es würde sich, wenn man kritisch eingehen wollte auf diese Versuche und auf noch viele andere, zeigen, wie wenig es gelingt, irgend etwas Befriedigendes dadurch herauszubekommen, daß man gerade naturwissenschaftliche Vorstellungen, die auf ihrem Gebiete streng gesichert sind, überträgt auf die Betrachtung des geschichtlichen Werdens.

In anderer Art haben Menschen, die gewissermaßen in der Morgenröte, bei der Begründung der Geschichte als Wissenschaft standen, wiederum versucht, etwas wie Erklärungsprinzipien in das geschichtliche Werden hineinzubringen. Man braucht sich nur zu erinnern an einen der großartigsten Versuche in der Zeit der Entstehung einer geschichtlichen Anschauung, der durch Lessing gemacht worden ist in seinem berühmten kleinen Werke, das er auf der Höhe seiner geistigen Entwickelung geschrieben hat, in seiner «Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts». Dieser Versuch ist ja ganz besonders interessant aus dem Grunde, weil da versucht wird, nicht äußerlich mit naturwissenschaftlicher Denkweise an das geschichtliche Werden heranzukommen, sondern den Begriff der Erziehung, also etwas, worinnen immerhin Geistiges verflochten ist, anzuwenden auf das geschichtliche Werden. Lessing stellt sich vor, daß man die aufeinanderfolgenden Tatsachen des geschichtlichen Werdens nur dadurch verstehe, daß man dieses Hinleben der Menschheit durch die Geschichte auffaßt als eine «Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts», die geleitet wird von gewissen historischen Mächten, die hinter dem äußeren Geschehen walten.

Und interessant ist es, auf welche Art Lessing Zusammenhang hineinbringt in den fortlaufenden Gang der historischen Erscheinungen. Man hat, gerade weil er diesen Zusammenhang auf eine bestimmte Art hineinbringt, wie das so einmal geschieht, gesagt: Nun ja, Lessing war ja ein großer Mann, aber die Abhandlung über die «Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts», die hat er eben geschrieben, als er schon nicht mehr auf der Höhe stand — weil er versuchte, den Lauf der geschichtlichen Ereignisse wirklich auf seelische Art zu einem inneren Ereignis zu machen, wenigstens zunächst hypothetisch. Da kam er auf die Idee der wiederholten Erdenleben der menschlichen Seele. Er schaute zurück in die verschiedenen Epochen und sagte: Die Menschen, die gegenwärtig leben, sie haben oftmals gelebt; in ihren Seelen tragen sie herüber in diese Epoche, was sie in früheren Epochen aufgenommen haben. Da ist dasjenige, was sich als Impuls durchzieht durch die geschichtliche Entwickelung, das, was in den Seelen selber liegt.

Man könnte, wenn man das auch zunächst nur als Hypothese ansehen will, immerhin darauf hinweisen, wie unendlich vieles, was sonst rätselhaft erscheinen muß in der Entwickelungsgeschichte der Menschheit, aufgehellt werden kann, wenn auch nur hypothetisch, dadurch, daß man als die Träger der historischen Impulse von einer Epoche in die andere hinüber die Menschenseelen selber annimmt. Dadurch wird auf einmal das sonst zusammenhanglose Gewebe im geschichtlichen Werden zu einem zusammenhängenden. Nur dadurch könnte gehofft werden, daß die einzelnen Tatsachen des geschichtlichen Werdens nicht mehr nebeneinander stehen, sondern sich wirklich auseinander ergeben, weil dasjenige da ist, was sie auseinander hervorbringt.

Die Anschauung, die Lessing in diesem kleinen Werke: «Die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts» geltend gemacht hat, hat eigentlich keine Fortsetzung erfahren aus dem Grunde, weil ja dann das naturwissenschaftliche Zeitalter zu seinem Höhepunkte heranrückte, und dieses Zeitalter zunächst aus Gründen heraus, die in dem nächsten Vortrage noch zutage treten werden, abgeneigt sein mußte — die naturwissenschaftliche Vorstellungsweise in ihrer Sphäre hat von sich aus ganz recht, wenn sie diese Abneigung hat — der Annahme der wiederholten Erdenleben.

Und so kam es denn, daß dann im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts alle möglichen Versuche gemacht worden sind. Man braucht nur zu erinnern an den Versuch Hegels, die ganze Entwickelung der Weltgeschichte aufzufassen als einen Fortschritt des menschlichen Bewußtseins der Freiheit und so weiter. Es könnten Hunderte und aber Hunderte von Versuchen angeführt werden, wodurch gezeigt würde, wie immer wieder und wiederum ein Anlauf dazu genommen worden ist, Erklärungsprinzipien in das geschichtliche Werden hineinzubringen und dadurch Geschichte zu einer Wissenschaft zu gestalten.

Daneben hat es allerdings auch immer Geister gegeben wie zum Beispiel Schopenhauer, welcher der Ansicht war, daß in der Geschichte sich eben nichts wiederholt und daher von einer Geschichtswissenschaft überhaupt nicht die Rede sein könne, weil die Geschichte nur erzählen könne, was als aufeinanderfolgende Tatsachen geschieht, nicht aber irgendwelche Impulse finden könne, die als Erklärungsprinzipien in der Geschichte walten wie in den natürlichen Tatsachen die Naturgesetze.

Und in frischer Erinnerung ist ja noch der gewaltige Protest, den Friedrich Nietzsche vorgebracht hat gegen die Geschichte als solche, indem er zu zeigen versuchte, daß durch die Aneignung nicht der Geschichte in ihren Ideen, sondern der geschichtlichen Denkweise, durch die Aneignung jener Denkweise, welche pocht auf dasjenige, «was die Geschichte ergibt», und das weiter in den Seelen verarbeiten will, daß dadurch die Menschenseele, die produktiv und tätig sein soll in der Gegenwart, die fruchtbar gegenübersteht den Ereignissen, die an sie herantreten, daß diese Menschenseele durch den «Historismus», wie Nietzsche sagt, wie ausgesogen wird. So daß derjenige, der nur historische Impulse in sich fühlt, für Nietzsche ein Mensch war, der einem Wesen gleicht, welches sich immerfort des Schlafes enthalten müßte, dadurch niemals befruchtende Lebenskräfte in seine Entwickelung aufnehmen könnte, sondern immer nur sich verzehren lassen müßte von dem, was eben verzehrend und zerstörend auf den Menschen wirkt wie das Leben im Historismus. Diese Abhandlung Nietzsches über «Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben», ist eine der bedeutsamsten aus der ganzen Denkweise Nietzsches heraus.

Diese einleitenden Worte sollten nur der Tatsache gelten, wie strittig Geschichte heute als Wissenschaft ist nach den verschiedensten Seiten, in ganz anderem Maße noch strittig als zum Beispiel Seelenwissenschaft oder Psychologie. Die Frage muß entstehen aus alledem heraus: Woher kommt so etwas? — Aus den Voraussetzungen, die zugrunde gelegt werden der anthroposophisch orientierten Geisteswissenschaft, muß darauf geantwortet werden: Weil zunächst die Aufmerksamkeit auf diesem Gebiete nicht gelenkt worden ist auf die große, grundlegende Frage: Womit im Menschen haben wir es denn überhaupt zu tun, wenn von geschichtlichem Werden die Rede ist? Was ist denn vom Menschen beteiligt an diesem geschichtlichen Werden? Was wirkt denn im Menschen, wenn er eingesponnen ist, eingewoben ist in das geschichtliche Werden? — Um diese Frage zu beantworten, muß man allerdings einige geisteswissenschaftliche Einblicke gewinnen in das Wesen des Menschen, insofern dieses Wesen viel weiter geht, als das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein reicht.

Ich möchte, um auseinanderzusetzen, was ich jetzt hier zu sagen habe, um einen Ausgangspunkt für eine Geschichtsbetrachtung zu gewinnen, anknüpfen - Sie werden gleich nachher sehen, aus welchem Grunde ich das tue — an eine Betrachtung über das menschliche Seelenleben, insofern dieses menschliche Seelenleben rhythmisch immer wieder und wieder heraustritt aus dem, was man den gewöhnlichen Bewußtseinszustand nennt. Wir müssen ja den gewöhnlichen Bewußtseinszustand im Leben abwechseln lassen mit dem Schlafzustand. Wir werden, vom geisteswissenschaftlichen Standpunkt die Natur betrachtend, das nächste Mal über dieses Thema noch genauer zu reden haben; heute will ich nur dasjenige erwähnen, was Grundlage für eine Geschichtsbetrachtung werden kann.

Wenn der Schlaf in unser Seelenleben hereintritt, dann dämpft sich das Bewußtsein so weit herunter, daß wir annähernd sprechen können von Bewußtlosigkeit, obwohl für den, der genau betrachten kann, im Schlafe durchaus nicht völlige Bewußtlosigkeit vorhanden ist. Was im gewöhnlichen Tagesleben der Inhalt unserer Wahrnehmungswelt, der Inhalt unserer Welt des Fühlens und Wollens ist, das hört auf, das tritt in das Dunkel eines unbewußten oder unterbewußten Dahinlebens hinunter. Zwischen den beiden Zuständen, zwischen dem Wachzustand und dem Schlafzustande, liegt der 'Traumzustand.

Dieser Traumzustand ist etwas höchst Merkwürdiges. Die Philosophie selbst hat im 19. Jahrhundert von ihren mehr naturwissenschaftlichen Vorstellungen angenäherten Begriffen aus versucht, in die Natur dieser rätselvollen Traumeswelt, die aus dem bewußtlosen Zustande des Schlafes aufsteigt und so unähnlich ist dem äußeren Erlebnis des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins, hineinzudringen. Aber auch da ist etwas ganz Merkwürdiges eingetreten. Der Philosoph Johannes Volkelt zum Beispiel, der sich in den siebziger Jahren bequemt hat, ein Buch über die Traumphantasie zu schreiben, er ließ die Sache liegen wie eine glühende Kohle, die jemand anfaßt und die er gleich wiederum wegwirft. Kritiker, die dann über dieses Buch «Die Traum-Phantasie» geschrieben haben, sind, nur weil sie sich überhaupt eingelassen haben, die Sache ernst zu nehmen, des Spiritismus beschuldigt worden. Wessen beschuldigt man heute die Menschen nicht alles!

Was ist denn eigentlich diese rätselvoll aus den Untergründen des Schlafens heraufsteigende Traumeswelt? Was sind die Bilder, die da auf und ab wogen im Traume? Diese Frage läßt sich allerdings auch nur mit jenem Bewußtsein, von dem ich vorgestern hier sprach, mit dem schauenden Bewußtsein, erörtern. Derjenige, der aufsteigt von dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein zu dem, was ich vorgestern hier erörtert habe als die imaginative Erkenntnis, die inspirative Erkenntnis, die intuitive Erkenntnis, der also mit seiner vom Leibe getrennten Seele, wie ich es auseinandergesetzt habe, aufsteigt, wirklich in der geistigen Welt zu leben, der erst kann zu einer Anschauung kommen über dasjenige, was eigentlich vorgeht in der menschlichen Seele, wenn sie in Traumbildern lebt. Ich kann natürlich heute nur anregen, manches aus den Ergebnissen der Geisteswissenschaft anführen; die weiteren Ausführungen werden Sie schon verfolgen müssen in meinen Büchern.

Wenn man mit den Methoden, die vorgestern hier erörtert worden sind, das Traumleben erforscht, dann kommt man dazu, einzusehen, daß dasjenige, in dem gewissermaßen das Seelische während des Schlafes vom Einschlafen bis zum Aufwachen verläuft, tatsächlich getrennt ist vom physisch-leiblichen Leben. Dieses Getrenntsein vom physisch-leiblichen Leben lernt man eben erkennen durch die geisteswissenschaftlichen Methoden. Man lernt erkennen, in welcher Verfassung die Seele ist, wenn sie getrennt ist vom Leibe. Daher kann man auch vergleichen das Leben in den Traumbildern mit diesem wissenschaftlich erforschbaren Getrenntsein vom Leibe. Und man findet dann, daß der Traum eigentlich eine viel zusammengesetztere Erscheinung ist, als man gewöhnlich meint.

Was in der Seele lebt, indem die Seele träumt, das ist in der Tat etwas, was nicht nur mit unserer Gegenwart zu tun hat, so wie das wache Tagesleben mit der Gegenwart zu tun hat, sondern es ist dasjenige, was in der Tat, in unserem Organismus, in unserem Gesamtmenschenwesen sich ausbildet wie der kleine Keim in der wachsenden Pflanze. Was als Keim in der wachsenden Pflanze sich entwickelt, ist die physische Ursache für die nächste Pflanze. Was in die Traumbilder eingewickelt — wenn ich den Ausdruck gebrauchen darf - in der menschlichen Seele aus der Dumpfheit des Schlafes heraustritt, das ist jetzt nicht physisch, das ist geistig-seelisch die Grundlage für dasjenige, was durch die Pforte des Todes geht, was eintritt dann in die geistige Welt und durchmacht das Leben zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt, um wieder zu erscheinen.

Aber es ist ein schwacher geistig-seelischer Keim, es ist ein so schwacher geistig-seelischer Keim, daß er aus seinen eigenen ihm innewohnenden Kräften nicht zu einem seelischen Inhalte kommt. Daher kommt er nur zu dem Inhalte, der sich aus Reminiszenzen, aus Anklängen an die durchlebte Welt, gegenwärtig oder vergangen durchlebte Welt, knüpft. Derjenige, der geisteswissenschaftlich den Traum untersucht, der sagt sich: Wie in so vielen Dingen, so steckt in dem ahnungsvollen, aber abergläubischen Bewußtsein, daß sich im Traume oftmals die Zukunft enthüllen könne, auf der einen Seite eine geahnte Wahrheit, aber auf der anderen Seite ein gefährlicher Aberglaube; dies letztere aus dem Grunde, weil in dem, was im Traume lebt, ich möchte sagen substantiell, wirklich, die Seele, wie sie sich in die Zukunft hinein entwickelt, vorhanden ist, wirklich das Ewige unserer Seele vorhanden ist. Dasjenige, was träumt, von dem kann man schon ahnen, daß es in sich zwar nicht die Vorstellung, wohl aber die lebendige Anlage für die Zukunft des Menschen enthält. Der Inhalt des Traumes, der wird genommen aus den chaotisch verwobenen Reminiszenzen und dergleichen. Während es also Aberglaube ist, den Inhalt des Traumes irgendwie anders deuten zu wollen als im geisteswissenschaftlichen Sinne, muß man sagen, daß dasjenige, was träumt, in der Tat mit dem ewigen Wesen der Menschenseele zu tun hat, so daß nur der Inhalt des Traumeslebens dasjenige ist, was den Menschen in Illusionen wiegt.

Kommt man aus dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein zu dem, was ich vorgestern charakterisiert habe als das schauende Bewußtsein, dann gelangt man, wie ich gesagt habe, zu Imaginationen, zu Inspirationen. Und man ist mit diesem Inhalte des schauenden Bewußtseins drinnen in einer geistigen Welt. Man ist also auch drinnen in jener Welt, in welcher die Seele lebt, wenn sie außer dem Leibe ist und träumt. Dann ist sie aber, ich möchte sagen, auf eine kindliche Weise, auf eine noch unvollkommene Weise, dann ist sie so darinnen, wie der Pflanzenkeim in der Pflanze ist, der ja erst die Anlage zur nächsten Pflanze ist. In der Imagination, in der Inspiration enthüllt sich die Welt, in der auch die träumende Seele drinnen ist.

Nun glaubt man gewöhnlich, der Mensch träume nur, wenn er schläft. Das ist nun auch ein solcher Irrtum, wie er sich selbstverständlich ergeben muß, wenn man seine Begriffe nur aus der äußeren Welt bildet. Aber es ist eben ein Irrtum, es ist eine Illusion. Und tiefere Denker, unter anderen Kant, aber auch viele andere, sie haben schon geahnt, daß dasjenige, was die Seele im Schlafe, im Traume durchsetzt, keineswegs bloß im Schlafe, bloß im Traume anwesend ist, sondern daß es das ganze Leben durchzieht. Wachen wir auf, dann allerdings ist ein Teil unseres Seelenlebens in die Welt versetzt, der da vorliegen die äußeren Beobachtungen der Sinne, der da vorliegen diejenigen Begriffe, die sich anknüpfen an diese äußeren Beobachtungen der Sinne. Von diesem Bewußtseinsinhalte sind wir ganz eingenommen, dem sind wir ganz hingegeben; den betrachten wir, weil er gleichsam als das starke Licht alle schwächeren Inhalte, die in unserer Seele leben, immer überstrahlt, den betrachten wir gewissermaßen als den einzigen Inhalt unseres wachen Tagesbewußtseins. Aber das ist ein Irrtum! Denn während wir erfüllt sind von diesem wachen Tagesbewußstseinsinhalte, leben in den Tiefen unserer Seele unterbewußt solche Inhalte fort, die ganz gleich sind den Träumen, die in der Nacht aus dem Schlaf auftauchen. Wir träumen fort während des Wachens, nur werden wir das Träumen nicht gewahr! Und so paradox es klingt, auch das andere ist richtig: Wir träumen nicht nur fort, wir schlafen fort. So daß unser Bewußtsein stets ein dreifaches im Wachzustande ist: oben, auf der Oberfläche gleichsam, das wache Tagesbewußtsein, unten, im Unterbewußten, ein Unterstrom des fortdauernden Träumens, und tiefer ein Fortschlafen.

Und wir können auch angeben, in bezug auf was wir träumen, in bezug auf was wir schlafen! Wir träumen nämlich mit Bezug auf alles dasjenige, was nicht in Vorstellungen, in deutlich zu machenden Begriffen in unsere Seele herauftaucht, sondern was sich entlädt in uns als Gefühl. Die Gefühle steigen in uns nicht auf aus irgendeinem vollbewußten, wachbewußten Zustande, sie steigen auf aus einer Welt in uns, die nur geträumt wird. Es ist nicht richtig, wenn gemeint wird, wie manche Herbartschen Philosophen meinen, daß sich die Gefühle aus Zusammenwirkung von Vorstellungen ergeben. Nein, im Gegenteil, die Vorstellungen werden durchsetzt mit demjenigen, was aufsteigt aus einem tieferen Seelenleben, das in einem Fortträumen während des Wachzustandes besteht. Auch die Leidenschaften, die Affekte, steigen aus einem Leben des wachen Träumens, das nur übertönt wird von dem vollbewußten Seelenleben, herauf. Und unsere Willensimpulse, sie bleiben, ich möchte sagen, so rätselhaft in ihrem Hervorquellen aus dem Seelenleben, weil sie aus dem Seelengrunde heraufkommen, in dem wir auch im wachen Zustande schlafend sind.

So daß unsere vollbewußten Vorstellungen sich oben entwickeln im Wachbewußtsein, unsere Gefühle heraufschlagen wie Wogen aus einem unterbewußten Zustande, aus einem Traumes-Tagesleben, und die Willensimpulse gar heraufschlagen aus einem Schlafesleben. Was das für eine Bedeutung hat für die Bildung von sozialen, von Rechtsvorstellungen, von ethischen Vorstellungen, was das für eine Bedeutung hat für die Frage der Willensfreiheit — wir werden dann beim letzten Vortrage über diese Dinge sprechen.

Heute aber soll uns vorzugsweise etwas anderes interessieren. Einzelne scharfsinnige Geister haben schon bemerkt, daß man niemals zum Beispiel die Leidenschaften erklären kann, wenn man nicht an die Erklärung der Traumeswelt herangeht, weil Leidenschaften nur dadurch im Menschen leben, auch die besten, edelsten Leidenschaften, daß der Mensch träumt während des Wachens, und das Geträumte nicht in der Weise des wachen Bewußtseins heraufkommt, sondern hineinwogt in dieses wache Bewußtsein aus der Region, in der eben geträumt wird.

Nun ergibt sich ein anderes geisteswissenschaftliches Resultat, das man in der Gegenwart fast noch ungern ausspricht, weil es so sehr allen gewohnten Begriffen widerspricht; aber vieles, das im Lauf der Menschheitsentwickelung in die Wissenschaft eingetreten ist, das ist eben zunächst ein Paradoxon gewesen. Es hat sich dann doch durchgesetzt. Die Kopernikanische Weltanschauung ist ja von einer gewissen geistigen Richtung her erst im Jahre 1822 als eine erlaubte Weltanschauung angesehen worden. Warum sollte nicht das, was als Geisteswissenschaft oder Anthroposophie auftritt, vielleicht auch so lange warten müssen, bis es, jetzt nicht von dieser Richtung, sondern von der modernen Wissenschaft anerkannt wird?

Dasjenige, was wirklich verläuft, wenn man den Strom des Menschenlebens betrachtet, das ist nicht etwas, was mit den Begriffen, die im Wachbewußtsein durchgemacht werden, durchlebt wird, sondern was für die Geschichte vorliegt, was in der Geschichte kraftet und wirkt, lebt gar nicht in dem menschlichen Wachbewußtsein, so paradox das klingt, sondern die Impulse, die durch die Geschichte walten und wogen, werden von der Menschheit nur geträumt. Nicht heller und nicht anders durchzieht dasjenige, was den Lauf der Geschichte vorwärts treibt, die menschliche Seele als ein Traum. Von dem Traume des Werdens zu sprechen, ist völlig wissenschaftlich. Das zeigt sich gerade, wenn man eben erkennt, daß erst von dem schauenden Bewußtsein Einblick gewonnen werden kann in das, was eigentlich geschichtliche Impulse sind, wenn man diese geschichtlichen Impulse durchdringt mit dem imaginativen, mit dem inspirierten Forschungsleben, Indem der Mensch der Geschichte angehört, insofern er in diese Geschichte eingreift, hat er es nicht zu tun mit irgend etwas, was man so beobachten kann, daß es auf Begriffe gebracht werden kann, wie die Begriffe sind, mit denen die Naturwissenschaft zu tun hat, sondern der Mensch hat es zu tun mit solchen Begriffen, die eigentlich das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein nur von dem Traume her kennt.

Man könnte nun leicht gegen Geisteswissenschaft einwenden: Also ist die Geisteswissenschaft etwas Phantastisches, denn sie führt wichtige Impulse zurück auf reine Phantasieprodukte, sogar auf Traumprodukte. Ja, sehr verehrte Anwesende, das mag schon sein, aber wenn die Wirklichkeit so ist, daß sie eben in der menschlichen Seele als Traum leben muß, so muß diese Wirklichkeit da erfaßt werden, wo sie eben wahrgenommen werden kann!

Gerade von naturwissenschaftlichem Denken her hat man gegen die Geschichte als Wissenschaft eingewendet, daß Geschichte es ja nur zu tun habe mit einzelnen Tatsachen, aber man komme nie dahinter, was eigentlich eine geschichtliche Tatsache sei, man könne sie nicht so klar und deutlich vor sich haben, wie man eine naturwissenschaftliche Tatsache, eine Naturtatsache vor sich hat.

Auch geisteswissenschaftlich ist dieses durchaus richtig; aber geisteswissenschaftlich muß die Sache noch wesentlich vertieft werden. Der Geisteswissenschaftler sagt also zunächst: Blickst du auf dasjenige hin, was eigentlich geschichtliche Impulse sind, so sind sie ja gar nicht gegeben dann, wenn man den gewöhnlichen Verstand, der es mit äußeren Tatsachen zu tun hat, auf diese richtet; dann sind da die geschichtlichen Tatsachen gar nicht gegeben. Die geschichtlichen Tatsachen sind erst gegeben, wenn man das imaginative und das inspirierte Bewußtsein auf übersinnliche Impulse richtet, die gar nicht in den äußeren Tatsachen liegen.

Was so Geisteswissenschaft an die Oberfläche des menschlichen Denkens bringt, so ganz aus dem Nichts herausgeholt ist es allerdings nicht in der neueren Zeit. Sondern diejenigen Menschen, die mit Erkenntnisproblemen gerungen haben, die Erkenntnisdramen in sich durchgemacht haben, die haben schon, wenn auch nur als einzelne Lichtblitze, zuweilen ihre Aufmerksamkeit hinwenden müssen auf dasjenige, worauf die Geisteswissenschaft nun systematisch geordnet kommt. Und da könnte ich wiederum viele Beispiele anführen, wie gewissermaßen divinatorisch der eine oder andere, der ein um Erkenntnis Ringender war, auf mancherlei gekommen ist, was durch Geisteswissenschaft zur Klarheit gebracht wird. Von diesem ein Beispiel, das ich auch angeführt habe in meinem Buche, das demnächst erscheinen wird: «Von Seelenrätseln.»

Der Psychologe Fortlage hat in seinen Psychologievorträgen, die er 1869 gehalten hat, eine sehr merkwürdige Stelle über das menschliche Bewußtsein und seinen Zusammenhang mit dem Phänomen des Todes. Er sagt: «Wenn wir uns lebendige Wesen nennen, und so uns eine Eigenschaft beilegen, die wir mit Tieren und Pflanzen teilen, so verstehen wir unter dem lebendigen Zustand notwendig etwas, das uns nie verläßt und sowohl im Schlaf als im Wachen stets in uns fortdauert. Dies ist das vegetative Leben der Ernährung unseres Organismus, ein unbewußtes Leben, ein Leben des Schlafes. Das Gehirn macht hier dadurch eine Ausnahme, daß dieses Leben der Ernährung, dieses Schlafleben bei ihm in den Pausen des Wachens überwogen wird von dem Leben der Verzehrung. In diesen Pausen steht das Gehirn einer überwiegenden Verzehrung preisgegeben und gerät folglich in einen Zustand, welcher, wenn er sich auf die übrigen Organe miterstreckte, die absolute Entkräftigung des Leibes oder den Tod zu Wege bringen würde.»

Das ist ein großartiger Lichtblick, indem Fortlage nichts Geringeres sagt als dieses: Würden die Vorgänge, die auf das menschliche Gehirn wirken, in vollem Wachbewußtsein den ganzen übrigen Leib ergreifen, so würden sie ihn zerstören; wir haben es also in Wahrheit mit Abbauprozessen im Menschen zu tun, wenn wir es mit den Verhältnissen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins zu tun haben. Es war ein tiefer Lichtblick Fortlages, wenn er weiterfährt: «Das Bewußtsein ist ein kleiner und partieller Tod, der Tod ist ein großes und totales Bewußtsein, ein Erwachen des ganzen Wesens in seinen innersten Tiefen.»

Dieser Zusammenhang zwischen Tod und Bewußtsein kommt hier ahnungsvoll großartig heraus. Fortlage weiß: wenn man dasjenige, was einmal geschieht, indem der Tod uns überfällt, gleichsam in «Atome» zerlegt, jetzt in «Zeitatome», so bilden diese «Atome» die fortwährenden Geschehnisse unseres wachen Bewußtseins. Indem wir unser waches Bewußtsein entfalten, entwickeln wir ein atomistisches Sterben, und der Tod ist nur, gewissermaßen ins große getrieben, dasjenige, was wir in jedem Augenblicke des wachen Bewußtseins über unser Gehirn kommend haben; so daß der Tod auch für Fortlage nichts anderes ist als die auf einmal erfolgende Erweckung eines Bewußtseins für die geistige Welt, während das fortlaufende Bewußtsein uns fortwährend im kleinen abtötet, wie wir es für das gewöhnliche tagwache Bewußtsein brauchen. Stehen wir also einem Menschen gegenüber, so können wir sagen — und was Fortlage ahnte, durch die Geisteswissenschaft wird es vollständig bestätigt —: Was als Seelisch-Geistiges in diesem Menschen lebt, das ist eigentlich ein Aufzehrendes, ein Zerstörerisches; und dasjenige, was in ihm lebt als vegetatives Leben, das hält nur die Zerstörung so lange auf, bis der Tod eintritt. Wenn der Tod eintritt, so tritt nur im großen Maßstabe das auf, was während des bewußten Lebens langsam, ich möchte sagen atomistisch, sich entwickelt. Wir tragen den Tod fortwährend in uns, nur daß wir neben dem Tod das gegen ihn kämpfende Leben in uns tragen, und dieses kämpfende Leben eben von der Seele durchsetzt ist.

So ist es, wenn wir den einzelnen lebenden Menschen betrachten, welcher mit seinem Leibe vor uns so steht, daß dieser Leib — wir wollen im dritten Vortrag genauer über die Sache sprechen — ein Ergebnis des Seelenlebens ist. Da haben wir den Tod, der aber, so lange die Lebenskräfte walten können, fortwährend gehindert wird hereinzukommen, der, ich möchte sagen, hinter den Erscheinungen lauert, ja geradezu eine wesentliche Beziehung des Lebens ist, weil die Erscheinung des Lebens bloßes Pflanzenleben wäre, wenn der Tod nicht dieses Leben fortwährend abtötete und dadurch gerade leiblich das Bewußtsein zustande käme.

Lernt man diese eigentümliche Beziehung des Todes zu dem menschlichen Leibesleben kennen, dann erst erhellt sich das schauende Bewußtsein so, daß es ein Urteil gewinnen kann, ja einen Sinn gewinnen kann für dasjenige, was eigentlich im Verlauf der historischen Tatsachen vorliegt, jener Tatsachen, welche die gewöhnliche Geschichtserzählung eben aufführt, die da geschehen äußerlich, und die so erzählt werden können, wie man zumeist Geschichte erzählt.

Was liegt in diesem äußerlichen Geschehen vor, in den aufeinanderfolgenden Tatsachen? Wiederum muß etwas außerordentlich Paradoxes gesagt werden: Zu ihrem seelischen Inhalte, der von dem Menschen nur geträumt wird im Verlaufe des geschichtlichen Werdens, verhalten sich die äußeren geschichtlichen Tatsachen nun nicht wie ein Leib, der den Tod in sich trägt, sondern wie ein schon toter Leib, aus dem die Seele bereits heraußen ist. Das heißt, in den «historischen Tatsachen» ist die Seele nie drinnen! Während im menschlichen Leben der Tod eintritt, wenn das Leibesleben abgelaufen ist — nachdem also die Seele das Leibesleben durchzogen hatte und dann der Leib, ohne das Seelische, allein ist -, ist der gesamte Organismus der historischen Tatsachen ein bloßer toter Leib, ein äußerer toter Leib gegenüber dem, was innerlich als geschichtliche Impulse von Zeitalter zu Zeitalter wallt und lebt, und was nur erfaßt werden kann, wenn man den Blick nicht richtet auf die äußeren Tatsachen, sondern wenn man den Blick richtet auf dasjenige, was lebt, was so lebt, daß es nicht sich ergeben kann aus den äußeren Tatsachen.

Durch einen Vergleich möchte ich mich noch weiter klarmachen. Nehmen wir an, irgend jemand glaubt — viele Menschen glauben das ja —, er brauche nur die Tatsachen der Geschichte so recht klar aufzufassen, wie man naturwissenschaftliche Tatsachen auffaßt, so müsse man aus der Aufeinanderfolge dieser geschichtlichen Auffassungen wirklich eine Wissenschaft der Geschichte herstellen können. Der das glaubt, würde dasselbe glauben — wirklich, so paradox das auch klingt —, wie jemand, der der Ansicht wäre, wenn er einen toten, verstorbenen Menschenleib vor sich hätte, so müßte er aus dem das seelische Leben irgendwie herausholen können. Es ist nicht drinnen! Ebensowenig ist in den historischen Tatsachen dasjenige drinnen, was Seele der Geschichte ist. Die historischen Tatsachen sehen wir mit jenem Verstande, der an die äußere Wahrnehmung gebunden ist und sich entwickelt aus dem, was an die äußere Wahrnehmung gebunden ist; aber mit diesem Verstande sehen wir nur, was tot ist an dem geschichtlichen Werden. Eindringen kann der Mensch mit dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein in das geschichtliche Werden nur als Träumender; durchschauen kann er dieses geschichtliche Werden, das eigentlich seelische Leben in der Geschichte, nur mit dem imaginativen, mit dem inspirierten Bewußtsein. Daher ist es so, daß von dem, was als geschichtliche Tatsache vorliegt, überhaupt nur Erzählungen, nur Aufzählungen geliefert werden können, daß es wirklich wahr ist, was der große Jacob Burckhardt gesagt hat: Philosophie ist Nichtgeschichte, denn Philosophie stellt die einzelne Tatsache unter die andere, und Geschichte ist Nichtphilosophie — Jacob Burckhardt hat das Wort gebraucht —, weil sie es nur mit der Koordination, mit der Nebeneinanderstellung der Tatsachen zu tun hat.

Daraus aber geht hervor ein ganz bestimmtes Verhalten im historischen Denken, daraus, daß man dies, was eben auseinandergesetzt worden ist, zugrunde legt: man muß, wenn man wirklich historisch denken will, klar auf das kommen — durch schauendes, durch geisteswissenschaftliches Bewußtsein —, was im gewöhnlichen geschichtlichen Verlauf durchaus nicht erfahren werden kann, was in dem Werden drinnen ist, aber in den äußeren Tatsachen sich gar nicht zeigt, ebensowenig wie sich die Seele in einem toten Menschenleibe zeigt.

Es entsteht die Frage: Kann man dasjenige, was in dem geschichtlichen Werden eigentlich lebt, wirklich durch imaginative, durch inspirierte Erkenntnis anschauen? Nun, ich will, nachdem ich schon so viele Paradoxa gesagt habe, nicht zurückhalten damit, auch noch auf einiges Konkrete aufmerksam zu machen, wie dieses Schauen, das ich vorgestern charakterisierte, genauer noch in meinen Büchern, wie dieses schauende, dieses imaginative, dieses intuitive, inspirierte Bewußtsein zu einer gewissen Anschauung über das menschliche Werden kommt, zu dem sich aber die äußeren Tatsachen nur verhalten wie der tote Menschenleib zu der Seele. Ich will möglichst konkret sprechen, weil ich ja ein Exempel, ein Beispiel anführe.

Wer versucht, in dasjenige einzudringen, wovon das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein nur träumt, der gelangt dazu, vor allen Dingen das geschichtliche Werden abzugrenzen, so daß er an gewissen Punkten hauptsächlichste, ich möchte sagen, Knotenpunkte des geschichtlichen Lebens findet, wie wir auch im einzelnen menschlichen Organismus bestimmte Abschnitte finden. Gegen das siebente Jahr zu bekommt das Kind neue Zähne; um das vierzehnte Jahr herum wird es geschlechtsreif. Solche Einschnitte haben wir in das individuelle Menschenleben zu verzeichnen, wenn wir es physiologisch betrachten. Für die Geisteswissenschaft bedeuten diese Einschnitte noch viel mehr als für die gewöhnliche physiologische Wissenschaft, die eben mit ihren Betrachtungen nicht zu Ende kommt. Zu ähnlichen Einsichten kommt die geisteswissenschaftliche Betrachtung über das geschichtliche Werden. Und da ergibt sich — jetzt ganz abgesehen von den äußeren Tatsachen, allein durch Hinschauen auf dasjenige, was geistig abläuft —, daß abgegrenzt ist ein Zeitraum im europäischen, überhaupt im geschichtlichen Menschenwerden, der etwa beginnt im 8. Jahrhundert vor der christlichen Zeitrechnung, und der da schließt im 135. Jahrhundert der christlichen Zeitrechnung. Was da eingeschlossen ist zwischen diesen zwei Zeitpunkten, das ist in gewisser Beziehung so ein Ganzes, wie das Leben eines Kindes vom siebenten Jahre, wo es die zweiten Zähne bekommt, bis zur Geschlechtsreife. Wie man da ein Ganzes formen kann, so daß dann ein Umschwung stattfindet, der bedeutungsvoller in den menschlichen Organismus eingreift als die dazwischenliegenden Ereignisse, so muß man sagen, solche Einschnitte waren da im 8. Jahrhundert vor der christlichen Zeitrechnung und im i5. Jahrhundert etwa, nachdem die christliche Zeitrechnung eingetreten war. Dieses Zeitalter erscheint, mit besonderem Charakter, mit besonderen Eigentümlichkeiten in bezug auf die geistige Wirklichkeit, die den geschichtlichen Tatsachen zugrunde liegt, der geisteswissenschaftlich-geschichtlichen Betrachtung als ein Ganzes, als ein Zusammengehöriges.

Ich kann natürlich nur einzelne Punkte anführen. Man kann, indem man solche Dinge geisteswissenschaftlich charakterisiert, auf alle möglichen Einzelheiten kommen; man kann geradezu zu solchen Konkretheiten kommen, wie man zu Konkretheiten der Wahrnehmung kommt, wenn man die Reihe der Pflanzen verfolgt in der Botanik und dergleichen. Ich will nur einige allgemeine Gesichtspunkte anführen.

In diesem Zeitalter lebte der Mensch als Ganzes so — aber man muß, um das zu erkennen, ihn innerlich seelisch betrachten, abgesehen von den Tatsachen -, daß sein Verstand noch viel instinktiver wirkte, als er in unserem Zeitalter wirkt. Was der Mensch aus seinem Verstande, aus seinem Bewußtsein heraus tat, das war noch inniger zugleich eine Tat des Leibes, war noch inniger verknüpft mit dem Leibe. Der Verstand war noch instinktiver. Wenn Sie die einzelnen Feststellungen in meinen Büchern studieren, so werden Sie darauf kommen, daß das seelische Erleben des Menschen eingeteilt wird, wenn ich den schulmäßigen Ausdruck gebrauchen darf, für die Geisteswissenschaft: in das Leben der «Empfindungsseele», der dumpfesten, fast noch im Unbewußten lebenden Seele; der «Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele», die aber doch noch so wirkt, daß dasjenige, was in ihr lebt, nicht vollbewußt sich entwickelt, sondern noch einen instinktiven Charakter hat; und dann der «Bewußtseinsseele», die das Ich im vollen Selbstbewußtsein erlebt, die das Ich emanzipiert von dem Leibesleben, wo der Verstand nicht mehr instinktiv auftritt, sondern losgelöst, kritisch sich den Dingen gegenüberstellt. Von diesen Seelengliedern, wenn man es so nennen kann, war in dem Menschen dieses Zeitalters, das ich innerhalb seiner Grenzen charakterisiert habe, also in dem Menschen der griechischen Zeit, in dem Menschen der Zeit der römischen Entwickelung insbesondere die Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele tätig. Die wirkte. Und dasjenige, was im menschlichen Seelenleben auf und ab wogte und zu sozialen, zu geschichtlichen, zu wissenschaftlichen, zu künstlerischen Gestaltungen, zu religiösen Lebensgestaltungen führte, all das wirkte so, wie es wirkte, aus dem Grunde, weil die Seele dieses Eigentümliche in sich hatte, daß der Verstand noch instinktiv wirkte.

Das, was ich so in allgemeinen Prinzipien darstelle, das kann aber bis in konkrete Einzelheiten verfolgt werden. Man kann geradezu innerlich geistig beschreiben, wie der Unterschied auftreten mußte: wie sich in Griechenland das instinktive Verstandesleben mehr nach der Leibesseite hin entwickelte, wie der Grieche den Leib dadurch durchseelt auffaßte, sich auch so wie ein durchseelter Menschenleib in das soziale Leben hineinstellte, wie man dann hinüberkommt in das Römische, wo der Impuls zum römischen Bürgertum auftrat aus dieser besonderen Konstitution der Seele heraus und so weiter. Dann erlebt man, wenn man dieses innerlich imaginativ durchlebt, jenen bedeutsamen Einschnitt, der im i5. Jahrhundert klar stattfindet. Die Dinge geschehen natürlich so, daß sie sich allmählich entwickeln. Nach und nach kommen erst die Impulse heraus. Aber genau ist der Einschnitt gegeben im i5. Jahrhundert. Da geschieht wirklich eine Art Revolutionierung der Menschennatur. Nur derjenige, der eben die Dinge so betrachtet, kommt darauf, die anderen glauben immer, daß alles so sukzessive vor sich geht, während tatsächlich im geschichtlichen Werden große Vorstöße geschehen. Da wird der Verstand in einer ganz anderen Weise zur Menschennatur gestellt. Er emanzipiert sich, er gliedert sich mehr dem Selbstbewußtsein ein. Wenn das Denken materialistisch und sinnlicher wird, kommt das nur daher, daß der Verstand nicht mehr mit dem Unterbewußten in Verbindung steht. Der Mensch trachtet nach solchen staatlichen Zusammenhängen, nach solchen Strukturen des Gemeinschaftslebens, nach solchen Beziehungen der Staaten untereinander, nach solchem Ausleben der übrigen Kulturverhältnisse, wie sie entspringen aus diesem eigentümlichen, von dem menschlichen gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein eben nicht gewußten, sondern nur geträumten Loslösen des verständigen vom instinktiven Leben, aus dem Selbständigwerden des Verstandes vom instinktiven Leben.

Nur einiges Allgemeinere gebe ich an. Und so kann man zurückgehen in der geisteswissenschaftlichen Betrachtung hinter das 8. Jahrhundert vor unserer Zeitrechnung. Man kommt dann zu einem anderen Abschnitt, der zurückgeht bis in das 3. Jahrtausend vor unserer Zeitrechnung, von dem man wiederum Besonderes, Charakteristisches findet, von dem man Einzelheiten finden kann.

So findet man allmählich hinter den Tatsachen etwas, was eben nur in Imaginationen, nur im inspirierten, im schauenden Bewußtsein beobachtet werden kann. Und dann, wenn man dies, was keine Tatsachen als solche geben können, erfaßt hat, was sonst von dem Menschen eben für gewöhnlich in den Tatsachenbeobachtungen und in dem Verstande, der der äußeren Tatsachenbeobachtung angehört, nur geträumt wird, dann hat man das Werdende in der Geschichte. Denn dieses Werdende lebt im Traumbewußtsein der Menschheit und wird nur aufgehellt durch das imaginative und inspirierte Bewußtsein. Hat man dies erfaßt, dann erst bekommen die Tatsachen ihre entsprechende Beleuchtung.

Wie man, wenn man einen toten Leib vor sich hat, von diesem toten Leib sagen muß: er hatte seine Bedeutung, als die Seele noch in ihm war — wie die Seele gewissermaßen ihr Licht hinwirft auf den toten Leib, so ist es, daß wir allein, indem wir das Geistige mit dem schauenden Bewußtsein erfassen, leben in dem Lichte, das nun die Tatsachen bestrahlt. Die einzelne Tatsache bekommt ihre Erklärung, wenn wir sie aus dem heraus beleuchten, was wir auf diese Art gewinnen.

So kann Geschichte als Wissenschaft nicht entstehen ohne schauendes Bewußtsein. Wer glaubt, Geschichte könne entstehen ohne schauendes Bewußtsein, der gleicht einem Menschen, der da einen Gegenstand beleuchten läßt von einem Lichte, dann durch irgendeine Drehvorrichtung das Licht auf einen zweiten Gegenstand fallen läßt, dann durch die Drehvorrichtung weiter das Licht auf einen dritten Gegenstand fallen läßt, und dann sagt: Der zweite Gegenstand ist beleuchtet, das ist die Folge des Leuchtens des ersten Gegenstandes; der dritte Gegenstand ist beleuchtet, das ist die Folge des Leuchtens des zweiten Gegenstandes. — Das ist nicht wahr! Jeder Gegenstand wird beleuchtet vom Lichte aus.

So ist es mit der geschichtlichen Tatsache. Derjenige, der Versuche macht, die Tatsachen auseinander zu erklären, indem er sie — wie Jacob Burckhardt sehr richtig sagt — koordiniert, nebeneinanderstellt, der gleicht dem, der das Licht auf seinem zweiten Gegenstand von dem Lichte auf den ersten herleitet, während er es herleiten müßte von dem gemeinsamen Lichte, das erst auf den ersten, dann auf den zweiten, dann auf den dritten Gegenstand fällt. Dasjenige, was die geschichtliche Tatsache erklärt, das liegt in der geistigen Welt, und wir müssen aus der geistigen Welt heraus die Tatsachen beleuchten, die sonst tot bleiben, geradeso wie die Gegenstände nicht leuchten, wenn wir sie nicht mit dem ihnen gemeinsamen Lichte beleuchten.

Es ist in der Tat ein radikaler Umschwung, der gefordert wird für die Geschichtsbetrachtung, allein es ist auch nicht zu verwundern. Es ist eben die Geschichte entstanden in dem Zeitalter, das auf dem naturwissenschaftlichen Gebiete mit Recht alles ablehnte, was nur dem Subjektiven angehört. Und man hat zunächst angewendet auf diese, man möchte sagen, wie zur Unzeit entstandene Geschichte — das ist natürlich ein nicht ganz gutes Wort — die naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden, während gerade Geschichte nur gedeihen kann, wenn sich die Naturwissenschaft ergänzt durch Geisteswissenschaft.

Dann aber wird man allerdings nicht mehr in ethischer Weise oder in der Weise, wie es viele andere gemacht haben, nach abstrakten Ideen in der Geschichte suchen. Ideen können nichts bewirken, Ideen sind etwas ganz Passives. Man wird nach den wirklich realen geistigen Entitäten und Mächten suchen, die hinter dem geschichtlichen Werden stehen und die nur durch das imaginative Bewußtsein erforscht werden können.

Sehr merkwürdig nun: hat man nämlich diese Richtlinie, dann fällt in der Tat wirklich Licht auf das, was geahnt werden kann in der Aufeinanderfolge der Tatsachen, was aber den, der die Tatsachen nur nebeneinander betrachtet, nicht zu Erklärungen führen kann. Das geschichtliche Werden wird, wie durch Blitzschläge von oben, zu einer Wissenschaft, wenn die Geisteswissenschaft einschlägt. Es wird immer mehr unwissenschaftlich bloß erzählt werden, wenn Geisteswissenschaft nicht einschlagen kann.

Es ist interessant: Jacob Burckhardt macht darauf aufmerksam, daß ungefähr in dem Zeitalter, in dem die Geisteswissenschaft den Anfang der Periode ansetzen muß, von der ich heute gesprochen habe — nur daß natürlich, so wie sich zum Beispiel die Geschlechtsreife auch über einige Jahre hin erstreckt, diese Zeitpunkte nicht ganz genau stimmen —, er weist darauf hin, daß in der Zeit vom 6., 7. Jahrhundert vor Christi Geburt ein gemeinsames Ereignis von China durch Vorderasien bis nach Europa herein, nämlich eine allgemeine religiöse Bewegung zu bemerken ist. Die äußere Geschichte kennt die Tatsachen: Weil da ein solcher Umschwung sich vollzogen hat, geschehen diese Tatsachen! Das Licht fällt auf sie. Und für das Ende, was da geschieht nach dem i5. Jahrhundert, gibt Jacob Burckhardt wiederum an - sehr merkwürdig — die an den Namen Luthers sich knüpfende religiöse Bewegung. Wiederum tritt eine solche Erschütterung ein, die bemerkbar ist in Europa, aber auch zu gleicher Zeit in Indien. Wie sich dasjenige, was im Geistigen erschaut wird, äußerlich in den Tatsachen ein Spiegelbild schafft, wie es die Tatsachen beleuchtet, das tritt durch Geisteswissenschaft hervor. Geschichte wird aus einer Tatsachenaufzählung eine wirkliche Wissenschaft.

Man muß sagen: auch auf diesem Gebiete ist die Sehnsucht vieler Menschen nach dem Richtigen gegangen. Herman Grimm, der versuchte, die Geschichte zu vergeistigen, der aber nicht fortschritt bis zu dem Punkte, wo das imaginative Bewußtsein hineinschaut in die geistige Welt, er versuchte mit allen Mitteln irgend etwas als geschichtliche Impulse zu finden, was sich hinter den gewöhnlichen Tatsachen abspielt. Er kam dadurch, wie tastend, zu einer merkwürdigen Einteilung, die er in seinen Vorlesungen immer wiederholte. Er sagte, er müsse einteilen das bisherige geschichtliche Werden in ein erstes Jahrtausend — ungefähr läßt er das beginnen in dem Zeitpunkte, den ich für die Epoche angegeben habe, die ich eben beschrieben habe -, dann in ein zweites Jahrtausend und in ein drittes Jahrtausend. Herman Grimm tastet eben. Er faßt als die «ersten zwei Jahrtausende» das zusammen, was ich für den griechisch-lateinischen Zeitraum-der ja vom 8. Jahrhundert vor Christo bis zum i5. Jahrhundert nach Christo dauert — angegeben habe. Und das jetzige Leben, in dem wir drinnenstehen, das noch viele Jahrhunderte andauern wird und ein ebenso zusammengehöriges Ganzes ist, welches imaginativ erkannt werden kann, und die Tatsachen herausgestaltet aus sich, dieses Zeitalter faßt Herman Grimm als das «dritte Jahrtausend» auf. Und er versucht, wenigstens, ich möchte sagen, ein Surrogat für das geistig Geschaute zu haben, in dem er die Geschichte auffassen will als «Phantasiie-Arbeit der Völker». Weil er nicht auf die geistige Realität kommen kann, auf dasjenige, was wirkt im geschichtlichen Werden, faßt er dasjenige, was hinter den äußeren Erscheinungen ist, auf als «Phantasie-Arbeit». Er macht es also dadurch zwar zur Illusion, erinnert aber daran, daß eigentlich die wirklichen historischen Impulse von den Menschen des gewöhnlichen Bewußtseins nur durchträumt werden.

Daher ist aus dem, was vom geschichtlichen Werden überhaupt äußerlich mit dem Verstande zu erfassen ist, auch wirklich nur das Tote zu erfassen. Und wiederum ist es interessant, daß gerade Historiker, die so recht mit dem Verstande arbeiten, die, ich möchte sagen, diesen Verstand noch instinktiv anwenden, die nicht so wie Herbert Spencer durch allerlei künstlich hineinzutragende naturwissenschaftliche Vorstellungen diesen Verstand anwenden, sondern etwa wie der Historiker Gibbon, solche, die zwar den Verstand anwenden, der auch in der Naturwissenschaft angewendet wird, aber ihn doch noch instinktiv anwenden, daß sie dazu kommen — was für Herman Grimm ein sonderbares Rätsel war -, besonders gut zu beobachten und zu beschreiben die Verfallszeiten der menschlichen geschichtlichen Entwickelung, wo wenig Seelisches drinnen ist. So beschreibt Gibbon von einer Zeit, in der sogar viel Seelisches, Seelisch-Werdendes, Seelisch-Wachsendes ist, von der Zeit vom Beginne des Christentums durch die römische Entwickelung das, was er «decline», Niedergang nennt, das Verfallende. Weil er den Verstand auf die Erscheinungen richtet, beschreibt er dieses ganze Werden in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten als einen Verfall. Das ist sehr natürlich, weil der Verstand, wenn er sich so betätigt, wie er sich an der Natur betätigen muß, im Laufe der äußeren Erscheinungen nur den Verfall sehen kann. Gibbon kann nicht sehen, was sich in der Zeit, in der das eine zerfällt, das andere wächst und gedeiht, was sich durch die christlichen Impulse in die Geschichte hineinfindet. Wie das aber arbeitet, das kommt nicht an den äußeren Tatsachen unmittelbar zum Ausdruck, sondern nur, wenn man es beleuchtet mit dem Lichte, das durch die Geisteswissenschaft kommt.

Interessant ist zum Beispiel noch ein anderes. Es ist wirklich erst unter der heraufkommenden Geisteswissenschaft möglich, Geschichte zu einer Wissenschaft zu machen. Aber natürlich ist dasjenige, was durch die Geisteswissenschaft erworben ist, bei erleuchteten Köpfen, die Distinktionsvermögen haben, immer in Lichtblitzen zutage getreten. Und sehr interessant ist eine Erscheinung: Jacob Burckhardt macht in seinen geschichtlich-soziologischen Vorträgen, die er an der Basler Universität in den sechziger Jahren gehalten hat, wiederholt aufmerksam auf einen Historiker, historischen Philosophen der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, der, man kann schon sagen, wenn auch Jacob Burckhardt oftmals gegen ihn polemisiert, einen starken Eindruck auf ihn gemacht haben muß. Man sieht das aus dem ganzen Gedankengang Jacob Burckhardts. Das ist der Philosoph Ernst von Lasaulx. Er ist ziemlich unbekannt geblieben. Lasaulx hat ein merkwürdiges Buch geschrieben, gerade dasjenige, auf welches auch Burckhardt wiederholt in seinen Vorträgen hinweist: «Neuer Versuch einer alten, auf die Wahrheit der Tatsachen gegründeten Philosophie der Geschichte.» Nun gewiß, Lasaulx, der ausgestattet war mit einem gewissen ahnenden Durchschauen desjenigen, was sonst als geschichtliche Impulse von den Menschen nur durchträumt wird, Lasaulx hat aber doch selbstverständlich im naturwissenschaftlichen Zeitalter hingesehen auf das, was ich nennen möchte Interpretation der Tatsachen. Und weil er den naturwissenschaftlich geschulten Verstand angewendet hat, so hat er vorzugsweise hingesehen wiederum auf den «decline» im 19. Jahrhundert, auf das Niedergehende. Es ist im 19. Jahrhundert natürlich auch Aufgehendes. Das kann aber nur gesehen werden mit dem inspirierten und imaginativen Bewußtsein. Daß so etwas da ist — erst am Schlusse des Buches von Lasaulx tritt es wie ahnend auf. Aber was er ausführt in diesem Buche, oh, es ist maßlos — verzeihen Sie den sonderbaren Ausdruck -, maßlos interessant! Er geht die europäische Geschichte durch von ihrem Anfang bis ins 19. Jahrhundert hinein. Überall beschreibt er, wegen der eben geschilderten besonderen Richtung — er bildete sich an der Naturwissenschaft heran —, das Verfallende, das Niedergehende, die Kräfte, die eigentlich ins Sterben hineinführen. Nun gibt es Kapitel in diesem Buche — wenn man sie liest, so sind sie genau wie eine Beschreibung von Niedergangstendenzen, die prophetisch jemand in den fünfziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts von den Kräften machte, die führen mußten zu dem gegenseitigen Zerfleischen der europäischen Nationen der Gegenwart. Man kann sagen, nirgends wird in einer ergreifenderen, großartigeren Weise vorausgeahnt — weil der Verstand gerichtet ist auf das Niedergehende dasjenige, was sich jetzt als solches Ergebnis des Niedergehenden herausgestellt hat.

Das sind solche unmittelbaren Beweise, daß, wenn man gewissermaßen aus dem Anschauen oder Erträumen der wahren geschichtlichen Impulse heraus sich begibt in das Betrachten nur der besonderen äußeren Tatsachen, es dann ist, wie wenn man aus dem wachen Bewußtsein einschläft und nicht mehr sieht, was als Wachsendes, Gedeihendes, als dasjenige, was den Menschen wirklich vorwärtsbringt, die Geschichte durchpulst. Durch die Erkenntnis dieses Wachsenden, Gedeihenden, wird aber auch die Geschichte herausgehoben aus aller bloßen Naturkausalität. Dadurch, daß man sie geisteswissenschaftlich betrachtet, wird die Geschichte heraufgehoben zum Range einer Wissenschaft, so daß man sagen könnte: Was Lessing in seiner «Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts» geahnt hat, was er noch, verzeihen Sie den Ausdruck, unbeholfen und auch unrichtig, illusorisch ausgesprochen hat, das wird erst auf eine sichere Grundlage gestellt; während die äußeren Tatsachen keinen Zusammenhang zeigen. Dasjenige, in dem die Menschenseele lebt, träumend lebt, das wird ein fortlaufend organisch-geistiges Leben, aber ich meine ein Geistesleben, wenn es geisteswissenschaftlich als der Inhalt der Geschichte betrachtet wird.

Und dann kommt man allerdings auch darauf, wie der gewöhnliche Betrachter dadurch getäuscht wird, daß er dieses Werden in der Geschichte wie einen Organismus betrachtet. Dadurch, daß man es wie einen Organismus betrachtet, muß man es oft vergleichen mit dem Werden des einzelnen Menschenlebens. Ich selber habe in meiner Jugend einen Lehrer gehabt, der sehr gerne die einzelnen aufeinanderfolgenden geschichtlichen Perioden mit dem einzelnen Menschenleben verglichen hat: Persische Geschichte, chaldäische Geschichte mit dem Jünglingsleben, mit dem späteren Jünglingsleben das griechische Leben, das erwachende Mannesalter mit dem römischen Leben. Und so wird oft die fortlaufende Geschichte vorgestellt durch Analogie mit dem Menschen. Das ist die Quelle für eine starke geschichtliche Illusion. Denn wenn wir auch in der Weise, wie ich es angedeutet habe, dazu kommen, die Entwickelung der Menschenseele im Verlauf des historischen Werdens in der Gesamtmenschheit drinnen zu betrachten, so können wir das, gerade wenn wir uns so in die geistige Realität des geschichtlichen Werdens hineinleben, dann niemals so wahrnehmen, wie wir wahrnehmen die Entwickelung der Menschenseele von der Kindheit durch das Jünglings- oder Jungfrauenleben, weiter durch das Mannes-, Frauenleben und so fort bis in das Greisenleben hinein. So entwickelt sich dieses hinter den historischen Tatsachen stehende geistige Leben eben nicht, sondern es entwickelt sich anders. Da kommt wiederum ein Paradoxon heraus. Wird es so hingestellt, erscheint es eben paradox, wenn es schon tief begründet ist in der wirklichen geisteswissenschaftlichen Betrachtung, auf die ich in diesen Vorträgen hinweise.

Man kann schon dasjenige, was in einem solchen Zeitraum, der sich als Ganzes darstellt, lebt und darin beobachtet werden kann, vergleichen mit den Perioden im Menschenleben. Aber man muß dann merkwürdigerweise den Verlauf des geschichtlichen Werdens, so sonderbar das klingt, nicht vergleichen mit dem Werden vom Säugling durch das Kind, durch den Jüngling zum Mann, sondern umgekehrt. Man muß das geschichtliche Leben umgekehrt verlaufend denken! Wenn man zum Beispiel die Gesamtgeistesverfassung des Zeitraums vom 8. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert bis zum i$.nachchristlichen Jahrhundert vergleicht mit einem Stück individuellen Menschenlebens, so kann man es vergleichen mit den Dreißigerjahren des Menschenlebens. Man kann sagen: in den Dreißigerjahren des Menschenlebens ist, obzwar in anderer Konstitution, in anderer Stimmung zu dem Menschenwesen, dasjenige, was in der Seele lebt, an den Leib so gebunden, wie es in dieser griechisch-römischen Zeitperiode bis ins is. Jahrhundert hinein war; und was dann darauf folgt, das läßt sich dann nicht vergleichen mit dem, was auf die Dreißigerjahre folgt, sondern was ihnen vorangeht. In der Tat, gegenüber dem einzelnen Menschenleben geht das geschichtliche Leben zurück!

Indem der Verstand in unserem Zeitalter sich emanzipiert, nimmt er in der Tat ein Verhältnis zum Leibesleben an, das sich vergleichen läßt mit dem Verhältnis des Verstandes zum Leibesleben in den späteren Zwanzigerjahren des einzelnen Menschenlebens. Eine folgende Geschichtsperiode verhält sich zu der früheren so, daß man den Vergleich wagen darf: Wie das Kind, das noch jung ist, lernt von dem Älteren, der vielleicht dasjenige, was das Kind in einer späteren Form aufnimmt, noch instinktiver in sich verarbeitet hat — wir lernen ja immer von denjenigen, die wieder selber in der Kindheit gelernt haben -, so ist es auch in den aufeinanderfolgenden Zeitaltern beim Bewußtseinsübergang von einem Zeitalter zu einem anderen Zeitalter; und dieser Verlauf der Geschichte wird selber eine Bewußtseinserscheinung, die allerdings im 'Traumesleben abläuft. Wir haben es nicht zu tun im Lessingschen Sinne mit einer Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts, die so verläuft: von der Kindheit durch das Jünglings- und Mannesalter zum Greisenalter, sondern wir haben es im Gegenteil mit einer rückläufigen Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts zu tun. Und gerade durch diese rückläufige Erziehung kommt das in das geschichtliche Werden hinein, was man als einen Fortschritt bezeichnen kann. Weil der Mensch als Seele in späteren Zeitaltern gleichsam jünger an solche Dinge herantritt als in früheren Zeitaltern, entwickelt er auch einen größeren Grad von Freiheit, einen größeren Grad von Unbewußtheit, Kindhaftigkeit gegenüber seinen Mitmenschen, wodurch alles, was gewöhnlich als Fortschritt bezeichnet wird, in die Weltenentwickelung hineinkommt.

Zum Schluß will ich nur noch auf eine Erscheinung aufmerksam machen aus dem vielen, was heute schon angeführt werden könnte zum Belege für das, was ich ausgeführt habe: dieses eigentümliche, bedeutungsvoll fortschreitende Verhältnis, das eintritt, indem das Christentum von den Völkern des römischen Reiches, die es zuerst aufgenommen haben, übergeht auf die jungen germanischen Völker. Da tritt eine eigentümliche Erscheinung ein. Wie ist sie erklärlich? Nur dadurch ist sie erklärlich, daß im Ganzen der geschichtlichen Entwickelung das griechisch-römische Leben, das zuerst von den großen Impulsen des Christentums ergriffen worden ist, in einem späteren Stadium des Erlebens war und daher dieses Christentum so ausgebildet hat, wie wir es in der Gnosis, in den sonstigen Dogmenbildungen ausgebildet finden. Indem dann das Christentum an ein jüngeres Stadium des Erlebens herantritt, also von einem älteren auf ein jüngeres übertritt- ganz entsprechend der Bewußtseinserscheinung des geschichtlichen Werdens, die ich angeführt habe —, nimmt es andere Formen an; da wird es innerlicher; da emanzipiert sich gleichsam das religiöse Bewußtsein von dem instinktiven Verstande; da wird die Religion als christliche Religion selbständiger; da trennen sich später vollständig das religiöse und das wissenschaftliche Bewußtsein.

Der ganze Gang wird dadurch erklärlich, daß man die Sache als ein Bewußtseinsphänomen auffaßt so, daß das Bewußtsein der germanischen Völker, das in einer anderen Seelenkonstitution begründet ist, das Christentum übernimmt — ich möchte sagen, wie das Kind von einem Älteren — von den römischen Vorgängern, nicht von irgendwelchen Vorfahren, sondern von den römischen Vorgängern.

Das alles sind ja gewiß nur einzelne Andeutungen, und ich weiß jedenfalls ebensogut wie jemand, der diese einzelnen Andeutungen sehr anfechtbar findet, wieviel eingewendet werden kann gegen solche Andeutungen. Aber nur derjenige, der sich wirklich ernstlich befaßt mit der Entwickelung der Geisteswissenschaft, andererseits aber mit all den Rätsel- und Sphinxfragen, welche die junge Wissenschaft der Geschichte aufwirft, der wird allmählich in das Verständnis desjenigen eindringen, was mit diesen Anregungen heute gemeint ist. Und eine Ergänzung für das praktische Leben, für das äußere soziale Leben, für das Eingreifen in das soziale Leben, für das Verständnis der Tatsachen, die uns aus diesem unmittelbaren Leben heraus so berühren, daß sie unser Leid und unsere Freude ausmachen, der Ereignisse, die da jetzt in dieser tragischen Zeit so besonders nahe an unsere Seele herantreten — Konsequenzen für solche Dinge aus dieser historischen Anschauung heraus, sie sollen in dem vierten Vortrage am nächsten Mittwoch dann zutage treten.

Beschließen möchte ich diese heutigen Auseinandersetzungen damit, daß ich darauf hinweise, wie prophetisch angelegte Naturen, Naturen, welche — ohne daß die Geisteswissenschaft in ihrem Zeitalter schon da war — dieses geisteswissenschaftliche Denken instinktiv voraus in sich hatten, wie solche Naturen instinktiv auch das Richtige trafen, indem sie auf die Geschichte der Menschheit hinblickten. Ich blicke da auf Goethe, der sich ja nur vereinzelt mit geschichtlichen Problemen befaßt hatte, zum Beispiel in seiner Geschichte der Farbenlehre, der aber ein tiefes Verständnis für die Geschichte hatte. Indem er mit ahnendem Seelenvermögen hinblickte auf die Geschichte, formulierte er das, was sich ihm ergab, noch nicht so, wie das heute hier formuliert worden ist. Aber daß die Menschheit eigentlich das geschichtliche Werden mit dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein nur durchträumt, also es in den Regionen erlebt, woraus auch Gefühle, woraus Affekte, woraus Leidenschaften, Gemütsbewegungen entstehen, indem Goethe dieses, was heute gesagt worden ist, ahnte, konnte er sich zur Geschichte in der richtigen Weise stellen. Er wußte: was auch die Geschichte aufbringen kann an Begriffen, die naturwissenschaftlich gearteten Begriffen ähnlich schauen, das gibt eigentlich nur Unfruchtbares für das Menschenleben; denn das entspringt aus derselben Region des Seelenlebens, in der das wache Bewußtsein lebt. Dieses wache Bewußtsein ist aber nur für das Naturdasein da; Geschichtliches wird vom Menschen erlebt in den Traumregionen, aus denen Leidenschaften, Affekte, aus denen Gemütsbewegungen aufsteigen. Bevor daher der Mensch sich einlebt in das imaginative, in das inspirierte Bewußtsein, so lange er im geschichtlichen Werden drinnensteht mit dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein, kann seine Seele, sein Gemüt auch nur ergriffen werden von dem, was aus dem Traumbewußtsein heraus als Erfahrung des Geschichtlichen kommt. Ergriffen werden kann der Mensch nicht von dem, was abstrakte Begriffe, was Ideen sind, die aus demselben Verstande heraus stammen, der über die Naturtatsachen sich ergeht. Das alles bleibt unfruchtbar. Fruchtbar wird nur, was gerade aus denselben Regionen herauskommt und in denselben Regionen wirkt, in denen es aus der Geschichte herausgeholt wird. Das ist das beste an der Geschichte. Weil Geschichte geträumt wird — Goethe folgert es nicht, er ahnt es -, so kann das, was aus der Geschichte kommt, auch nur in der Traumregion des Enthusiasmus, der Gemütsbewegungen wirken. Und Goethe sagt: Das Beste, was uns die Geschichte geben kann, ist der Enthusiasmus, den sie erregt. — Damit aber haben wir in bedeutungsvoller Weise zwar nicht eine Formulierung der geschichtlichen Wissenschaft, aber eine lebendige Erfassung desjenigen gegeben, aus dichterischem Gemüt heraus, was zur Anschauung erhoben werden muß durch die Geisteswissenschaft. Solange wir in der Geschichte mit dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein leben, sind wir eigentlich nicht an ihr beteiligt. Insofern unser Enthusiasmus in ihr steckt und wir uns zu ihren Erscheinungen so stellen, wie sich Enthusiasmus dazu stellen kann, nehmen wir am geschichtlichen Leben selber teil.

So wie wir aus der Natur lernen, können wir aber aus der Geschichte erst lernen, wenn wir das geschichtliche Werden anschauen mit dem imaginativen, mit dem inspirierten Bewußtsein. Diese Betrachtungen dann auszudehnen auf die Natur und auf das soziale Leben, das wird die Aufgabe der nächsten Vorträge sein.

Fragenbeantwortung

Frage: Wie steht es mit der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung, mit Marx zum Beispiel?

Nun, bei einer solchen Gelegenheit muß ich darauf hinweisen, daß von der Geisteswissenschaft, eben aus geisteswissenschaftlichen Untergründen heraus, das völlig ernst genommen wird, werden muß, was ich im vorigen Vortrage gesagt habe über die Stellung, die die Seele nach und nach zu dem bekommt, was man Begriffe in ihrem Verhältnis zu der Wirklichkeit nennt. Ich sagte: im gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein ist man zufrieden, wenn man einen Begriff gewissermaßen als Abbild der Wirklichkeit hat; im schauenden Bewußtsein muß man immer nach einer ganzen Anzahl von Begriffen streben, die sich so verhalten wie von verschiedenen Seiten her aufgenommene Photographien. Was in Begriffe gefaßt wird, kann niemals gegenüber der geistigen Welt irgendwie erschöpfend die Wirklichkeit darstellen, sondern nur immer einen Aspekt der Wirklichkeit. So ist es auch mit den höchsten philosophischen Begriffen: Vor dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein ist man Pantheist, oder man ist Monadist, um nur diese zwei Gegensätze zu erwähnen. Man erkennt ein Göttliches, das alles durchwebt und durchlebt; man ist Pantheist; oder man erkennt, wie etwa die Leibnizianer, einzelne reale Monaden, die in ihrem Zusammenwirken das Weltenganze ergeben.

Der Geisteswissenschafter kann weder Pantheist noch Monadist sein, weil er einfach im Pantheismus eine Summe von Begriffen, im Monadismus eine Summe von Begriffen hat, die beide von verschiedenen Seiten aus die Wirklichkeit beleuchten, so daß, wenn ich einen Vergleich wagen darf, ich sagen möchte: wer Pantheist ist, der sieht nur aufs Ausatmen, wer Monadist ist, sieht nur aufs Einatmen. Wie man den Lebensprozeß nicht unterhalten kann durch Einatmen oder durch Ausatmen, sondern durch Einatmen und Ausatmen, so kann die geistige Wirklichkeit nur begriffen werden, indem man in seinem Begriffsleben lebendig wird und sowohl pantheistisch wie monadistisch sich die Wirklichkeit zu beleuchten versteht. Wenn man bloßer Monadist ist wie Leibniz, so gilt das für den Geisteswissenschafter so, als wenn man an zuviel eingeatmeter Luft erstickt. Man erstickt. Wenn man bloßer Pantheist ist, so gilt das für den Geisteswissenschafter so, wie wenn man in einem luftleeren Raume atmen wollte. Also zu dem Begriffsleben bekommt man als Geisteswissenschafter ein lebendiges Verhältnis. Man muß dieses lebendige Verhältnis so lebendig wie möglich denken. Denn wenn sich dieses lebendige Verhältnis zum Begriffsleben einstellt, dann lebt man in dem gegenseitigen Kämpfen und Sich-Harmonisieren der Begriffe, das in die geistige Wirklichkeit eintaucht, ganz darinnen, auf reale Weise; während man mit dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein in seinen Begriffen auf abstrakte Weise lebt. Schon die einfachsten Begriffe ändern sich dadurch in ihrem Verhältnis zur Wirklichkeit.

Ich will ein Beispiel anführen. Man kann heute in der Schule lernen: Die Körper sind undurchdringlich. Und das wird als Definition angeführt: die Undurchdringlichkeit besteht darin, daß in dem Raum, in dem ein Körper ist, ein anderer nicht sein kann. — So kann ein Geisteswissenschafter den Satz nicht sagen. Ein Geisteswissenschafter kann niemals von einer begrifflichen Definition ausgehen, sondern nur von einer begrifflichen Charakteristik. Er sagt in diesem Falle: Dasjenige, welches sich so verhält, daß es einen Raum in der Art ausfüllt, daß kein anderes Wesen in diesem Raume drinnen sein kann, ist ein materieller Körper. — Das heißt, er kehrt die Sache gerade um, er geht aus davon, seinen Begriff nur in den Grenzen anzuwenden, weil er ihn lebendig hat, in denen er anzuwenden ist. Er verabsolutiert nicht die Begriffe. Das stellt sich in den allereinfachsten Denkoperationen ein, wenn man wirklich den Sprung macht, den ich nennen möchte: den Sprung über die Schwelle der geistigen Welt. Man muß das wirklich sehr ernst nehmen. Die Menschen möchten heute noch so im Abstrakten herumreden, wenn von der geistigen Welt die Rede ist. Aber die ganze Seelenkonstitution, die ganze Art zu denken, wird eine andere, wenn man in die Wirklichkeit eintritt. Die Begriffe werden erlebt, so daß man ihre Wirklichkeit durchlebt. Sehen Sie: ein abstrakt denkender Mensch, für den ist eine Rose, die er im Zimmer in Wasser gestellt hat, selbstverständlich eine Wirklichkeit. Aber das ist gar keine Wirklichkeit. Denn im wirklichen Leben kann eine Rose nicht da sein, ohne daß sie am Rosenstrauch ist und im ganzen Zusammenhang mit dem Rosenstrauch entsteht. Der Geisteswissenschafter ist sich also immer bewußt, daß er, wo etwas mit etwas anderem zusammengehört, es im Zusammenhange zu denken hat. Er weiß: der Begriff Rose als abgeschnittene Rose ist ein unwirklicher Begriff.

Denken Sie sich das ausgedehnt auf die ganze Formung, auf die ganze Struktur des Denkens, dann werden Sie einen Begriff bekommen von dem bedeutungsvollen Umschwung, der eintritt, wenn die Schwelle zur geistigen Welt überschritten ist. Da bekommt man eben die Wirklichkeit. Da bekommt man ein inneres, erlebbares Vorstellen von der Tragweite der Begriffe. Denn man kommt gar nicht darauf, wenn man im Abstrakten herumwirtschaftet, wie die Naturwissenschaft es muß, wie man da zu unwirklichen Begriffen kommt. Ich erinnere bei einer solchen Gelegenheit gern an einen Vortrag, den Professor Dewar im Beginne des Jahrhunderts in London gehalten hat, einen sehr geistvollen Vortrag vom Standpunkte des naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens. Von dem Standpunkte dieses naturwissenschaftlichen, physikalischen Denkens aus konstruiert Professor Dewar einen Endzustand des Erdenseins, zu dem die Erde gekommen sein wird, wenn so und so viele Millionen von Jahren verflossen sein werden, die Temperatur nach und nach eine andere geworden ist und so weiter. Wenn man gewisse Tatsachen verfolgt, wie man sie heute vor sich hat, so kann man ganz gut, indem man die Konsequenzen zieht, zu einer solchen Ausmalung eines Endzustandes kommen. Professor Dewar schildert sehr geistreich, wie gewisse Stoffe, die heute noch nicht leuchten, dann leuchten werden; werden mit gewissen Stoffen die Wände beschmiert, so werden die Wände so leuchten, daß man dabei Zeitungen lesen kann. — Allerdings wird es so kalt sein, daß man nicht weiß, wer die Zeitungen drucken wird. Da hapert die Sache schon in der Wirklichkeit. Aber Dewar gebraucht dieses Bild. Was heute abreißt, wenn man nur ein kleines Gewicht daranhängt, wird eine so starke Kohäsion haben, daß Zentnerlasten daran angehängt werden können und so weiter. Das Ganze ist sehr richtig ausgedacht, und man kann, wenn man darauf eingeht, einen Endzustand des Erdenzustandes konstruieren, alles physikalisch exakt darstellen. Der Vortrag konnte wirklich selbstverständlich einen großen Eindruck machen, weil ein Physiker, der tief vertraut ist mit den physikalischen Begriffen, den Endzustand der Erde anschaulich, ich möchte fast sagen, handgreiflich anschaulich malte.

Der Geisteswissenschafter erlebt etwas bei einer solchen Schilderung; denn er wird sofort zu den anders beleuchteten Begriffen geführt. Denn, was der Professor Dewar da macht, indem er diesen nach Millionen von Jahren eintretenden Endzustand der Erde schildert, das ist doch auf dieselbe Weise gewonnen, wie wenn Sie die aufeinanderfolgenden Zustände des Magens und des Herzens eines Menschen im dreizehnten Jahre, im vierzehnten, fünfzehnten, sechzehnten Jahre — wie es sich so langsam verändert — in Rechnung setzen und dann konsequent weiter schließen würden, wie nach zwei-, dreihundert Jahren das Ganze ausschauen wird, das Herz, der Magen und so weiter. Das kann alles sehr richtig sein, im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne gedacht, abstrakt gedacht. Nur just ist der Mensch dann längst gestorben, der Magen ist nicht mehr da! Indem sich diese Realitätsgesinnung hinstellt neben das andere, sehr Geistvolle, lebt man in lebendigen Begriffen, kann man dahin kommen, einzusehen, daß das zwar ganz richtig ist, was der Professor Dewar schildert als Endzustand der Erde in einigen Millionen von Jahren - nur daß die Erde gestorben ist bis dahin, nicht mehr da ist. Genauso ist es aber, wenn man zurückrechnet, dreizehn, zwölf, elf Jahre und so weiter, wie das war vor hundertfünfzig Jahren. Der Mensch hat noch nicht gelebt! So macht es nämlich die KantLaplacesche Theorie, indem sie den Anfangszustand aus physikalischen Unterlagen heraus sehr fein und geistvoll konstruiert als Nebelzustand und so weiter, aus dem sich alles heraus ergibt — nur just für den Zeitpunkt, für den man das ansetzen muß, war das alles noch nicht da!

Das ist der Übergang von abstraktem Denken in reales Denken. Und indem ich das im allgemeinen charakterisiert habe, darf ich jetzt sagen, daß so etwas wie die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung mit ihren Begriffen mit einer gewissen Notwendigkeit aufgetreten ist, daß sich, was geschichtlich geschieht, eigentlich nur auf Klassenkämpfen aufbaut, auf dem Ausleben der materiellen Interessen. Der Begriff des Materialismus hat ja in der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung nicht denselben Sinn wie der Begriff des Materialismus in der Naturwissenschaft. Er ist entstanden, indem gewisse durchaus mögliche Begriffe gebildet worden sind. Aber man müßte den Standpunkt einhalten: Wieviel vom geschichtlichen Werden kann man mit diesen Begriffen umfassen? Man umfaßt eben eine Strömung dabei, eine Strömung, die sogar erst im 16. Jahrhundert heraufkommt!

Die Menschen sind heute nicht autoritätsgläubig, selbstverständlich! Denn den Autoritätsglauben haben sich die Menschen abgewöhnt! Aber, ja — «die Wissenschaft» ist mindestens eine starke Autorität. Und wenn man auf eine gewisse Anzahl von Dogmen schwört, dann ist alles andere Torheit, Unsinn, Jämmerlichkeit. Ich habe einmal vor Jahren durch Jahre hindurch Vorträge gehalten in Arbeiterkreisen, viele Vorträge, auch geschichtliche Vorträge, in denen ich die Geschichte so zu charakterisieren versuchte, wie sie sich eben einem undogmatischen Denken ergibt. Aber nachdem ich eine ziemlich treue Zuhörerschaft, die sich immer mehr vermehrte — ich darf das schon sagen ohne Eitelkeit —, bekommen hatte, da wurden gewisse sozialdemokratische Führer aufmerksam auf die Sache, daß da nicht orthodoxer Marxismus, orthodoxe materialistische Geschichtsauffassung gelehrt, daß da sogar die merkwürdige Ansicht vertreten werde, daß die Begriffe, welche die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung in sich faßt, erst vom 16. Jahrhundert ab eine Anwendung gewinnen, daß vorher die Anwendung gar nicht möglich ist, daß sie gerade aus den Untergründen der Geschichte heraus eine Anwendung gewinnen, weil da der Verstand, wie ich es gezeigt habe, sich emanzipiert, weil da der Mensch überhaupt erst dazu kommt, sich zu emanzipieren von einem gewissen instinktiven Leben und so weiter, daß die materiellen Interessen dafür die Widerlage liefern, so daß man — wenn auch nur als Teil der historischen Ingredienzien — zu der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung kommt, und immerhin doch diese oder jene Erscheinung von ihr aus beleuchten kann. Wenn man aber diese materialistische Geschichtsauffassung allein zugrunde legt, so bekommt man dabei keine Geschichte; man läßt eben das andere weg, was an anderen Impulsen vorhanden ist; so muß man auch die Begriffe, die der Marxismus aufgebracht hat, als etwas betrachten, was wiederum ein Aspekt ist, was eine Photographie der Wirklichkeit von einer gewissen Seite her liefert, die man ergänzen muß durch Aspekte von anderen Seiten. Und diese sozialdemokratischen Führer machten dann diesen Vorträgen ein Ende! Das ist gerade das Eigentümliche der Geisteswissenschaft: daß sie gerecht werden kann den innerlich gültigen Impulsen, die auf dem oder jenem geistigen Gebiete auftreten, daß sie gerade ihre relative Berechtigung einsehen kann, wie aber der Irrtum sogleich entsteht, wenn man einen einseitigen Aspekt verabsolutiert und ihn zum allgemeinen Erklärungsprinzip macht. Das ist es, worauf es ankommt.

Es verläuft natürlich das Leben so, daß die Menschen sich versteifen auf einen Begriff. Die Menschen wollen überhaupt lieber in Begriffen leben als in der Wirklichkeit, lieber in Abstraktionen leben als in der Wirklichkeit. Man ist viel mehr zufrieden, wenn man ein paar Begriffe hat, in die alles mögliche hineingepfahlt werden kann. Aber die Wirklichkeit ist nicht so. So wie man eben - den Vergleich muß ich immer wieder gebrauchen — einen Baum nur bekommt, wenn man ihn auf einen Aspekt hin von einem gewissen Gesichtspunkte aus photographiert, auf einen anderen Aspekt hin von einem anderen Gesichtspunkte aus photographiert, so ist es auch mit der gesamten Wirklichkeit, wenn sie eben als Wirklichkeit erfaßt werden will.

Man muß sagen, daß es ja, weil materielle Interessen in das geschichtliche Werden im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte so mächtig eingetreten sind, ganz natürlich ist, daß auch eine materialistische Geschichtsauffassung heraufkam, eine Vertretung der Ansicht, daß der äußere Verlauf der Geschichte mit den gröbsten, nur für das Naturdasein passenden Begriffen zu erfassen ist. Aber man erfaßt da erst recht nur Totes, nur Unlebendiges. Ich komme auf solche Dinge noch zu sprechen im vierten Vortrage, wo ich mehr auf das ethische, soziale Leben einzugehen habe. Und das Unwirkliche würde sich sofort zeigen, wenn nun wirklich die Wirklichkeit einzig und allein mit solchen Begriffen beglückt würde. Da würde man schon sehen, wie diese Wirklichkeit durch solche Begriffe, wenn sie sich einleben würden, ertötet würde; während sie, wenn man sie als einen bloßen Aspekt betrachtet, fruchtbar werden können.

Das ist, was ich in Anlehnung an diese Frage sagen möchte. Natürlich könnte ich noch stundenlang über die Sache fortsprechen.

Dr. Steiner wird ersucht, den Vorgang, der dem Erinnern zugrunde liegt, den er im ersten Vortrage schilderte, nochmals beleuchten zu wollen.

Nun, da ich ohnedies auf solche Dinge im nächsten Vortrage noch einmal zu sprechen komme, so werde ich mich in der Beantwortung der Frage etwas kürzer fassen können. Wir haben auch nur noch ein paar Minuten Zeit. Da möchte ich vor allen Dingen sagen, daß es eine irrtümliche Vorstellung ist, wenn man glaubt, das, was ich als gegenwärtige Vorstellung habe, die ich an einer Wahrnehmung gewinne — sagen wir also zum Beispiel: Ich sehe einen Gegenstand an, stelle ihn auch vor zu gleicher Zeit -, bleibe erhalten. Was ich da gewinne, was ich noch als eine Nachwirkung habe, wenn ich den Gegenstand aus dem Auge lasse, das ist ein bloßes Spiegelbild, das ist nichts, was wieder auftreten kann; das ist etwas, was da ist und dann wirklich vergeht, so wie das Spiegelbild vergangen ist, wenn ich an dem Spiegel vorbeigehe und außer den Bereich des Spiegels komme. Also es ist eine irrtümliche Vorstellung, sich ein Reservoir der Seele zu denken, in das etwa hineingehen würden die Vorstellungen, die dann wiederum herausgeholt würden aus diesem Reservoir. Die Vorstellungen verweilen nicht, die Vorstellungen bleiben nicht! Sondern während ich vorstelle, geht zugleich ein unterbewußter Prozeß, der aber imaginativ beobachtet werden kann, also ein fürs gewöhnliche Bewußtsein unterbewußter Prozeß vor sich; und dieser unterbewußte Prozeß, der bewirkt im Organismus dasjenige, was wieder abläuft durch neue Veranlassungen, wenn erinnert wird. Wenn ich eine Vorstellung an einem Gegenstand dadurch gewinne, daß der Gegenstand auf meine Sinne wirkt, dann entsteht die Vorstellung; wenn ich eine Vorstellung habe, die ich als Erinnerungsvorstellung gewinne, so ist es genau ebenso, nur daß nicht der äußere materielle Gegenstand mir den Eindruck macht, und ich mir auf Grund des äußeren Gegenstandes die Vorstellung bilde, sondern ich schaue gewissermaßen in mein Inneres hinein, auf das, was unbewußt aufgenommen worden ist, und bilde mir danach die Vorstellung. Wenn ich das schematisch ausdrücken will: ich bilde mir jetzt eine Vorstellung «zehn»; nach einiger Zeit taucht die Vorstellung «zehn» wieder auf; es ist aber nicht wahr, daß die Vorstellung «zehn» dieselbe ist — daß sie vergangen ist und nachher wieder da ist. Was bleibt, ist ein unbewußtes Engramm, dieses unbewußte Engramm, das sich als Parallelprozeß gebildet hat, während ich die Vorstellung hatte, das bleibt; und das nehme ich wahr, wenn ich wiederum vorstelle. Wenn also «zehn» auftritt, so tritt es auf als Ergebnis einer Anregung von außen; wenn «zehn» wieder auftritt, tritt es auf als Ergebnis einer Anregung von innen, und ich nehme von innen heraus wahr, was ich erinnere. Das ist der Vorgang, den man geisteswissenschaftlich sehr gut beobachten kann, der pädagogisch gut verwertet werden kann, der auch beobachtet werden kann von einem aufmerksamen Pädagogen, wenn er nur sein Aufmerksamkeitsvermögen in einer entsprechenden Weise orientiert hat.

Denken Sie doch nur einmal daran, wie auswendig gelernt wird. Beobachten Sie da genau. Da können Sie es handgreiflich haben: was man alles für Veranstaltungen macht, daß der Parallelprozeß sich abspielt! Die Vorstellung ist aufgenommen, aber man will den Parallelprozeß sich so abspielen lassen, daß man ihn gewissermaßen einpaukt in etwas, was unterbewußt bleibt. Sie können beim Einpauken beobachten: die Vorstellungen werden nicht irgendwie zur Erinnerung führen, sondern ein Prozeß, der als Unterstützungsprozeß des bloßen Vorstellens entstehen muß und wirklich im Unterbewußten liegt. Und dieses Arbeiten im Unterbewußten — sehen Sie nur, wenn jemand ein Gedicht einpaukt, was da alles zu Hilfe genommen wird! —, der Geisteswissenschafter beobachtet es direkt. Und mit dem Lichte, das gewonnen wird, sieht man. Manche Einpaukende nehmen sogar alles Mögliche zu Hilfe, schlagen sich an die Stirne und so weiter, was durchaus nicht mit dem Erlebnis der Vorstellung zusammenhängt! Gehen Sie auf den Prozeß näher ein, so werden Sie sehen, daß hier ein wichtiges Grenzgebiet berührt ist zwischen Psychologie und Physiologie. Wir werden das nächste Mal auch sehen, wie die geisteswissenschaftlich orientierte Physiologie da auf etwas kommen kann.

So daß ich richtungsgemäß definieren möchte: Das Vorstellen entsteht zunächst, als primäres Vorstellen, unter dem Einflusse einer äußeren Wahrnehmung, vom äußeren Gegenstand angeregt; oder als Erinnerung, angeregt von innen; so daß ich das eine Mal nach außen gewissermaßen lese, das andere Mal nach innen lese. Wenn ich zweimal hintereinander ein Buch lese, so ist es auch aus demselben Buche erworben, aber es sind aufeinanderfolgende Erwerbungen.

Also das ist dasjenige, was eventuell zur Charakteristik dienen kann. Dazu wird einiges kommen, wenn ich im dritten Vortrag den Menschen als Naturwesen bespreche.

Frage: Werden die höheren Bewußtseine nicht individuell verschieden sein?

Es ist, wie ich schon das letzte Mal sagte, sehr naheliegend, daß man zu dieser Anschauung kommt: daß der eine, in dem er diese Bewußtseinszustände entwickelt, zu anderen Formen kommt als der andere; aber dieses darf durchaus nicht zurückschrecken lassen vor dem Verfolgen dessen, was ich das Erkenntnisdrama genannt habe; denn das Individualistische ist nur ein Zwischenzustand. Man geht allerdings durch eine starke individualistische Periode durch, ist sich aber ihrer bewußt, so daß man sie überwindet. Dann gelangt man ins objektive Innere hinein. Und nur weil man ungenau betrachtet, kommt es, daß man glaubt: der eine behaupte das, der andere jenes. So ist es nicht. Die Verschiedenheiten sind nicht größer, als schließlich auch die Verschiedenheiten sind, wenn zwei Reisende eine und dieselbe Gegend beschreiben: der eine lenkt seinen Blick auf das, der andere auf jenes; die Beschreibungen sehen sich gar nicht ähnlich; dennoch beschreiben sie dieselbe Gegend; und es wäre ein Unsinn, zu glauben, daß man deshalb durch ihre Beschreibung nicht zur Objektivität geführt würde, oder daß sie selber nicht der Objektivität gegenübergestanden wären. Ich habe deshalb gesagt: Gewiß, es liegt nahe, an individualistische Ausprägung des Erlebens der höheren Bewußtseinszustände zu denken; aber das ist eben nur ein Zwischenzustand. In Wahrheit kommt man ebenso, wie wenn man das Subjektive im Anschauen der Natur überwindet und zur objektiven Natur hinauskommt, zum objektiven Geist, wenn man das Subjektive in der Imagination auszuschalten vermag. Und wenn Sie in «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?» und in der «Geheimwissenschaft im Umriß» lesen, wie dieses Subjektive ausgeschaltet wird beim Hinaufleben in die anderen Bewußtseinszustände, so werden Sie sehen, daß man da innerlich ebenso zu einem objektiven Geistigen kommt, wie man äußerlich zu einem objektiven Natürlichen kommt. Es wird wirklich nach außen das Subjektive ausgeschaltet in der Naturwissenschaft, nach dem Geistigen zu das Subjektive ausgeschaltet in der Geisteswissenschaft.

Humanities findings on the development of humanity and its cultural forms

It is remarkable that history as a science emerged at a time that — upon closer inspection — was actually the least suitable for shaping history into a science. Therefore, in today's debates, I find myself in a somewhat different position than the day before yesterday, when I wanted to draw parallels between anthroposophy and the science of the soul. When modern scientific thinking burst onto the scene of human development, the science of the soul, or psychology, was concerned with extending the scope of scientific thinking to the phenomena of the soul. It was a matter of conquering the field of soul phenomena, which in earlier times had been dealt with differently, thought about differently, by means of the scientific method. This was because in modern times, many of those who were primarily called upon to work in science had justifiably come to believe that the spirit that prevails in scientific research is the only truly scientific one.

Now, it must be said that by applying the scientific way of thinking to the science of the soul, it has at least been working on something that is a given. Even if true science of the soul, as we saw the day before yesterday, must resort to completely different types of research, the object, the subject of soul research, is, in a sense, also immediately given in human beings for the scientific method.

The situation seems to be quite different with regard to historical science. And in attempting to draw attention to the almost paradoxical facts that come into consideration here, it must be pointed out that what is actually little known, or at least little considered, is that what is called the science of history is not a very old thing.

In the 18th century, those who coined and advocated the concept of science did not consider history to be a science at all. Historical science is basically a creation of the 19th century. It thus actually emerged at a time when scientific methods were enjoying a particular heyday of recognition. The way we view history today was not yet the case in the 18th century. I would like to quote a characteristic statement about history by the philosopher Wolff, still from the 18th century, a statement that could be accompanied by many others that testify to the fact that, at that time, history was regarded by scientists as a record of events, but not as something worthy of the name of science. Wolff said in the 18th century: “Since historical writings merely recount what has happened, it does not take much understanding or reflection to read them.” Methods of explanation, methods by which context and order are to be brought into the sequence of historical facts, only really became commonplace in the course of the 19th century.

The view that history, by its very nature, cannot be a science at all has found its most radical expression among people who have become increasingly accustomed to the scientific way of thinking in Fritz Mauthner, who has become known for his linguistic studies and his great “Dictionary of Philosophy,” which he has written in recent years. Anyone who reads the article “History” in this dictionary, which seems to have been written out of the conviction that “science” is only possible in the field of natural knowledge, will find that what we call history is radically denied the character of a science, that it is even presented as something paradoxical after natural science has been developed into such highly specialized methods, to allow history to be considered a science alongside it.

One of the main circumstances on which modern scientific thinkers base their concepts of science does not apply to these scientific thinkers in relation to history: What does the natural scientist want to achieve by conducting research? Today, he mainly wants to compile the conditions under which a natural phenomenon occurs in such a way that the natural event follows, so that he can say: if similar or identical conditions occur again, the same phenomena must also occur.

In this way, by focusing attention on the repetition of phenomena, the scientific thinker of the present day makes a very special point. He demands that a proper experiment be designed in such a way that it is possible, in a certain sense, to predict what must occur under certain given natural conditions.

Now, of course, one could say that if these requirements are imposed on history as a science, it comes off rather badly in a certain sense! I would like to point out just a few examples. In recent times, a peculiar view has gradually developed among people who wanted to think historically, a view that has been refuted in a remarkable way, I would say, in an energetic way. People who believed they had a certain historically profound insight into social and economic relationships within human development developed the view—which was particularly strongly asserted at the beginning of the current war—that under the current economic and social conditions, this war could in any case not last longer than four to six months at most. Well, it must be said that the refutation of this view has proved to be radical in light of the facts! Many people considered this assertion to be thoroughly scientifically grounded. How often, when people are confronted with current events that are important for human life and which they therefore want to assess, how often do we hear: History teaches this or that about these events. People face these events and want to have an opinion on how they should behave, how they should think about the possible course of events; then you hear from those who have studied history: History teaches this or that! — How often do we hear today, in response to the current shocking, tragic events that have befallen human development, how often do we hear today, when this or that occurs: History teaches this or that. Well, if history teaches what those who predicted that these events would not last longer than four to six months meant it to teach, then one can say: This knowledge drawn from history is refuted by the facts in a remarkable way!

I would like to cite another example that is perhaps no less significant. A truly significant figure took up his teaching position in history in 1789. It was a time when, I would say, the dawn of the study of history as a science was just beginning. In 1789, Schiller took up his teaching position in history in Jena. He gave his now famous inaugural lecture on the philosophical and external mechanistic treatment of historical events. In the course of this inaugural lecture, he uttered a remarkable sentence, which he believed he had derived from a philosophical view of human events, i.e., what we call “history.” He believed he had formed an opinion about what can be “learned from history,” and he said: “European society seems to have been transformed into one big family; the members of the household may be hostile to one another, but hopefully they will no longer tear each other apart.” In 1789, this was spoken as a so-called historical judgment by a truly significant person. This was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars! And if what can be learned from history had really been learned, then our present day could also be used to verify such a lesson: European states may be hostile to each other, but they no longer tear each other apart!

Here, too, is a curious refutation of what one wants when one claims that history, as it is understood, can be used to make judgments when confronted with the facts of the present or the future. Countless examples could be cited to prove this point. That is one thing. The other thing, however, is to “scientifically penetrate” history, the course of historical events, from all possible points of view. Was the 19th century particularly successful with these methods? Precisely those who believed in applying strict scientific methods to history could be the least satisfied when it came to asking themselves whether anything special really came of applying such methods, which are rightly common in the natural sciences, to historical development in order to see this historical development “in the light of science.”

One need only consider a few things. It is not possible for me today—since I have quite different intentions than to criticize historical science as such—to go into all the details of the attempts that have been made to arrive at a historical method. There is the view that history is made by great men; then there is the view that great men themselves have acquired their character and their powers through their so-called milieu. There is also the view that historical facts can only be understood if one takes economic and cultural conditions as a basis, i.e., if one allows what happens in human development to emerge from the economic and social underpinnings, and so on.

Just a few examples in which attempts have been made to approach history using the way of thinking that has proven so successful in the natural sciences will show how the attempt has actually, I won't say failed, but led to unsatisfactory results. To start with something, we have the attempt by the Englishman Herbert Spencer to treat the historical evolution of humanity from a comprehensive scientific perspective. He, who wanted to penetrate the entire development of the world and all of existence with scientific thinking, attempted to apply scientific concepts to history, to historical development. In doing so, he came up with something very remarkable. He knows that the individual organism, for example the human organism, but also the organism of higher animals, gradually grows out of the cell and develops from three parts of the cell: the ectoderm, the endoderm, and the mesoderm; these are three parts, parts of a cell, from which the organism develops.

Now Herbert Spencer also sees in what develops historically, in a sense in the organism of developing humanity, a process similar to that which takes place when the natural organism develops from the cell. And just as individual organ systems of the human organism develop, for example, from these parts of the cell that I have mentioned, Herbert Spencer assumes the same for the development of the historical organism of humanity. He says: There, too, there is something like an ectoderm, an endoderm, and a mesoderm. — Herbert Spencer, the English philosopher, develops the remarkable view that in the historical development of humanity, what can be called the ectoderm of the historical process develops into the warrior class, everything that is warlike in the world; the endoderm develops into the peace-loving and working class; from the endoderm, the commercial class; and from the interaction of these three classes arises what is called the “historical organism.” Thus, according to the philosopher Herbert Spencer, the most perfect community organism is the one that develops most completely from the ectoderm in the course of history; for it is from the ectoderm that the nervous system is formed in the human organism. And since Herbert Spencer, the English philosopher, conceives of the warrior class, the military of a state, as emerging from the ectoderm, that is, from what corresponds to the developmental basis for the human nervous system, then, in Herbert Spencer's view, the most perfect state community is the one that has the most perfectly developed warrior class. Just as the brain is taken from the nervous system, which originates from the ectoderm, Herbert Spencer demands that the rulers of the community be taken only from the warrior class! I will only mention this peculiarity and, in view of the present time, will not make any further critical remarks on Herbert Spencer's militaristic theory of the development of human society in history.

Another attempt to penetrate historical development with ideas taken from the natural sciences can be found—I mention only the pinnacles of intellectual development—in Auguste Comte. Here, too, an attempt is made to apply the laws of mechanics, statics, and dynamics to what happens among humans in historical development: The relationships between the individual members of the state, which is in historical development, are treated in a “social statics,” in a “historical statics”; that which changes, that which moves, that which progresses, is regarded as “historical dynamics.”

And so one could cite many, many examples. If one were to critically examine these attempts and many others, it would become apparent how little success can be achieved by transferring scientific concepts, which are rigorously established in their own field, to the study of historical development.

In a different way, people who were, so to speak, at the dawn of history as a science, tried again to introduce something like explanatory principles into historical development. One need only recall one of the greatest attempts at the time of the emergence of a historical view, made by Lessing in his famous little work, written at the height of his intellectual development, in his “Education of the Human Race.” This attempt is particularly interesting because it attempts not to approach historical development externally with a scientific way of thinking, but to apply the concept of education, something in which the spiritual is interwoven, to historical development. Lessing imagines that the successive facts of historical development can only be understood by viewing humanity's journey through history as an “education of the human race” guided by certain historical forces that govern external events.

And it is interesting to see how Lessing brings context into the continuous course of historical events. Precisely because he brings this context in a certain way, as it happens, people have said: Well, Lessing was a great man, but he wrote the treatise on the ‘education of the human race’ when he was no longer at his peak — because he tried to turn the course of historical events into an inner event in a spiritual way, at least hypothetically at first. Then he came up with the idea of the repeated earthly lives of the human soul. He looked back at the different epochs and said: The people who are alive today have lived many times before; in their souls they carry over into this epoch what they have absorbed in earlier epochs. There is that which runs through historical development as an impulse, that which lies in the souls themselves.

Even if one initially regards this as only a hypothesis, one could nevertheless point out how much of what otherwise must appear mysterious in the history of human development can be clarified, albeit only hypothetically, by assuming that human souls themselves are the carriers of historical impulses from one epoch to another. This suddenly turns the otherwise disjointed fabric of historical development into a coherent one. Only in this way can we hope that the individual facts of historical development no longer stand side by side, but really emerge from each other, because there is something that brings them forth.

The view that Lessing put forward in his short work “The Education of the Human Race” has not really been continued, because the age of natural science was approaching its peak, and this age, for reasons that will become apparent in the next lecture, had to be averse to it — the scientific way of thinking in its sphere is quite right in its aversion — to the assumption of repeated earthly lives.

And so it came to pass that in the course of the 19th century, all kinds of attempts were made. One need only recall Hegel's attempt to understand the entire development of world history as a progress of human consciousness of freedom and so on. Hundreds and hundreds of attempts could be cited that show how, again and again, attempts have been made to introduce explanatory principles into historical development and thereby turn history into a science.

On the other hand, there have always been minds such as Schopenhauer, who believed that nothing repeats itself in history and that therefore there can be no such thing as a science of history, because history can only recount what happens as a succession of facts, but cannot find any impulses that govern history as explanatory principles, as natural laws govern natural facts.

And we still have fresh memories of Friedrich Nietzsche's vehement protest against history as such, in which he attempted to show that by appropriating not history in its ideas, but the historical way of thinking, by appropriating that way of thinking which insists on “what history yields” and wants to process it further in the soul, that the human soul, which should be productive and active in the present, which should be fruitful in the face of the events that approach it, that this human soul is, as Nietzsche says, sucked dry by “historicism.” So that, for Nietzsche, anyone who feels only historical impulses within themselves was a person who resembled a being that would always have to refrain from sleep, and thus could never absorb fertilizing life forces into their development, but would always have to be consumed by that which has a consuming and destructive effect on humans, such as life in historicism. This essay by Nietzsche on “The Use and Abuse of History for Life” is one of the most significant in Nietzsche's entire body of thought.

These introductory words should only apply to the fact that history as a science is so controversial today from various sides, even more controversial than, for example, psychology or the science of the soul. The question that arises from all this is: Where does this come from? Based on the premises underlying anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, the answer must be: Because, initially, attention in this field has not been directed to the big, fundamental question: What are we actually dealing with in human beings when we talk about historical development? What part of the human being is involved in this historical development? What is at work in the human being when he or she is woven into historical development? — In order to answer this question, it is necessary to gain some spiritual scientific insights into the nature of the human being, insofar as this nature goes far beyond the reach of ordinary consciousness.

In order to explain what I have to say here, and to gain a starting point for a consideration of history, I would like to take up — you will see in a moment why I am doing this — to a consideration of the human soul life, insofar as this human soul life rhythmically emerges again and again from what is called the ordinary state of consciousness. We must allow the ordinary state of consciousness in life to alternate with the state of sleep. Looking at nature from a spiritual scientific point of view, we will have to talk about this topic in more detail next time; today I just want to mention what can become the basis for a historical perspective.

When sleep enters our soul life, consciousness is dampened to such an extent that we can almost speak of unconsciousness, although for those who can observe closely, sleep is by no means a state of complete unconsciousness. What in ordinary daily life is the content of our world of perception, the content of our world of feeling and willing, ceases and descends into the darkness of an unconscious or subconscious existence. Between the two states, between the waking state and the sleeping state, lies the ‘dream state’.

This dream state is something highly remarkable. In the 19th century, philosophy itself attempted to penetrate the nature of this mysterious dream world, which arises from the unconscious state of sleep and is so dissimilar to the external experience of ordinary consciousness, using concepts closer to its more scientific ideas. But something very strange happened there too. The philosopher Johannes Volkelt, for example, who in the 1870s deigned to write a book on dream fantasy, left the matter lying like a burning coal that someone touches and immediately throws away again. Critics who then wrote about this book, Die Traum-Phantasie (Dream Fantasy), were accused of spiritualism simply because they took the trouble to take the matter seriously. What are people not accused of today!

What exactly is this mysterious world of dreams that rises up from the depths of sleep? What are the images that surge up and down in dreams? This question can only be discussed with the consciousness I spoke of here the day before yesterday, with the seeing consciousness. Those who ascend from ordinary consciousness to what I discussed here the day before yesterday as imaginative knowledge, inspirational knowledge, intuitive knowledge, who ascend with their soul separated from their body, as I have explained, to live truly in the spiritual world, only they can come to an understanding of what actually happens in the human soul when it lives in dream images. Of course, today I can only suggest that you consider some of the findings of spiritual science; you will have to follow the further explanations in my books.

If one investigates dream life using the methods discussed here the day before yesterday, one comes to realize that what the soul experiences during sleep, from falling asleep to waking up, is in fact separate from physical life. This separation from physical life can be recognized through spiritual scientific methods. One learns to recognize the state of the soul when it is separated from the body. One can therefore compare life in dream images with this scientifically researchable separation from the body. And one then finds that dreams are actually a much more complex phenomenon than is commonly believed.

What lives in the soul when the soul dreams is in fact something that not only has to do with our present, just as waking daily life has to do with the present, but it is that which in fact develops in our organism, in our entire human being, like the small seed in the growing plant. What develops as a seed in the growing plant is the physical cause of the next plant. What emerges from the dullness of sleep, wrapped in dream images — if I may use the expression — in the human soul, is not physical, but is spiritually and soulfully the basis for that which passes through the gate of death, which then enters the spiritual world and goes through the life between death and a new birth in order to reappear.

But it is a weak spiritual-soul germ, it is such a weak spiritual-soul germ that it cannot arrive at spiritual content from its own inherent powers. Therefore, it only arrives at content that is linked to reminiscences, to echoes of the world it has lived through, the present or past world. Those who study dreams from a spiritual scientific perspective say to themselves: as in so many things, the premonitory but superstitious belief that dreams can often reveal the future contains, on the one hand, a suspected truth, but on the other hand, a dangerous superstition; the latter because in what lives in dreams, I would say substantially, really, the soul as it develops into the future is present, the eternal nature of our soul is really present. One can already sense that what dreams contains not the idea itself, but the living seed for the future of human beings. The content of the dream is taken from the chaotically interwoven reminiscences and the like. So while it is superstition to want to interpret the content of dreams in any way other than in the spiritual-scientific sense, it must be said that what dreams does indeed have to do with the eternal essence of the human soul, so that only the content of dream life is what lulls people into illusions.

If one moves from ordinary consciousness to what I characterized the day before yesterday as contemplative consciousness, then, as I said, one arrives at imaginations and inspirations. And with this content of contemplative consciousness, one is inside a spiritual world. So one is also inside that world in which the soul lives when it is outside the body and dreaming. But then it is, I would say, in a childlike way, in an as yet imperfect way; it is there in the same way as the seed is in the plant, which is only the beginning of the next plant. In imagination, in inspiration, the world is revealed in which the dreaming soul is also present.

Now, it is commonly believed that human beings only dream when they are asleep. This is a mistake, of course, which is inevitable if one forms one's concepts solely from the external world. But it is a mistake, it is an illusion. Deeper thinkers, including Kant, but also many others, have already suspected that what permeates the soul in sleep, in dreams, is by no means only present in sleep, only in dreams, but that it permeates the whole of life. When we wake up, a part of our soul life is transferred into the world, namely the external observations of the senses and the concepts that are linked to these external observations of the senses. We are completely absorbed by this content of consciousness, we are completely devoted to it; we consider it, because it always outshines, as it were, all the weaker contents that live in our soul, and we consider it, in a sense, as the only content of our waking daytime consciousness. But that is a mistake! For while we are filled with this waking daytime consciousness, in the depths of our soul there continue to live subconsciously contents that are quite similar to the dreams that emerge from sleep at night. We continue to dream while awake, only we are not aware of the dreaming! And as paradoxical as it sounds, the other is also true: we not only continue to dream, we continue to sleep. So that our consciousness is always threefold when we are awake: above, on the surface, so to speak, is our waking daytime consciousness; below, in the subconscious, is an undercurrent of continuous dreaming; and deeper still is continued sleep.

And we can also specify what we dream about and what we sleep about! For we dream about everything that does not arise in our soul in the form of ideas, in concepts that can be made clear, but rather what is discharged in us as feeling. Feelings do not arise in us from any fully conscious, waking state; they arise from a world within us that is only dreamed. It is not correct to say, as some Herbartian philosophers believe, that feelings arise from the interaction of ideas. No, on the contrary, ideas are permeated with what arises from a deeper soul life that consists of continuous dreaming during the waking state. Even passions and emotions arise from a life of waking dreams that is only drowned out by the fully conscious life of the soul. And our impulses of will remain, I would say, so mysterious in their emergence from the life of the soul because they arise from the depths of the soul, where we are also asleep even in the waking state.

So that our fully conscious ideas develop above in waking consciousness, our feelings surge up like waves from a subconscious state, from a dream-day life, and the impulses of the will even surge up from a sleep life. What significance this has for the formation of social, legal, and ethical ideas, what significance it has for the question of free will — we will talk about these things in the last lecture.

Today, however, we are primarily interested in something else. Some astute minds have already noticed that it is impossible to explain passions, for example, without approaching the explanation of the dream world, because passions, even the best and noblest passions, live in human beings when they dream while awake, and that what is dreamed does not come up in the manner of waking consciousness, but surges into this waking consciousness from the region where dreaming takes place.

Now another spiritual-scientific result emerges, which is still almost reluctantly spoken of in the present day because it so greatly contradicts all familiar concepts; but much of what has entered science in the course of human development was initially a paradox. It then prevailed after all. The Copernican worldview was only accepted as a legitimate worldview by a certain intellectual movement in 1822. Why should what appears as spiritual science or anthroposophy not also have to wait until it is recognized, not by this movement, but by modern science?

What really happens when one considers the flow of human life is not something that is experienced through the concepts that are gone through in waking consciousness, but rather what is present in history, what is powerful and effective in history, does not live in human waking consciousness at all, paradoxical as it may sound, but the impulses that rule and surge through history are only dreamed by humanity. What drives the course of history forward does not permeate the human soul any more clearly or differently than a dream. To speak of the dream of becoming is entirely scientific. This becomes clear when one realizes that insight into what historical impulses actually are can only be gained through contemplative consciousness, when one penetrates these historical impulses with imaginative, inspired research. Insofar as human beings belong to history, insofar as they intervene in this history, they are not dealing with anything that can be observed in such a way that it can be reduced to concepts, such as the concepts with which natural science deals, but rather with concepts that ordinary consciousness actually only knows from dreams.

One could now easily object to spiritual science: So spiritual science is something fantastical, because it traces important impulses back to pure products of the imagination, even to products of dreams. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that may well be, but if reality is such that it must live in the human soul as a dream, then this reality must be grasped where it can be perceived!

From a scientific point of view, one has objected to history as a science on the grounds that history only deals with individual facts, but one can never get to the bottom of what a historical fact actually is; one cannot see it as clearly and distinctly as one sees a scientific fact, a fact of nature.

This is also quite correct from a spiritual scientific point of view, but from a spiritual scientific perspective, the matter must be explored in much greater depth. The spiritual scientist therefore says first of all: if you look at what are actually historical impulses, they are not given at all when you direct the ordinary intellect, which deals with external facts, towards them; then the historical facts are not given at all. Historical facts only exist when one directs one's imaginative and inspired consciousness toward supersensible impulses that do not lie in external facts at all.

What spiritual science brings to the surface of human thinking is not, however, taken entirely out of thin air in modern times. Rather, those people who have struggled with problems of knowledge, who have gone through dramas of knowledge within themselves, have already had to turn their attention, even if only as individual flashes of insight, to what spiritual science is now systematically organizing. And here I could again cite many examples of how, in a sense, one or the other of those who struggled for knowledge divinely arrived at various things that are brought to clarity through spiritual science. Here is one example, which I also cited in my book, which will be published shortly: “Von Seelenrätseln” (On the Mysteries of the Soul).

In his psychology lectures given in 1869, the psychologist Fortlage made a very remarkable statement about human consciousness and its connection with the phenomenon of death. He says: "When we call ourselves living beings and thus attribute to ourselves a characteristic that we share with animals and plants, we necessarily understand the living state to be something that never leaves us and continues within us both in sleep and in wakefulness. This is the vegetative life of nourishing our organism, an unconscious life, a life of sleep. The brain is an exception in that this life of nourishment, this life of sleep, is dominated by the life of consumption during the intervals of wakefulness. During these intervals, the brain is exposed to excessive consumption and consequently enters a state which, if it extended to the other organs, would bring about the absolute exhaustion of the body or death."

This is a great ray of hope, in that Fortlage says nothing less than this: if the processes that affect the human brain were to take hold of the rest of the body in full waking consciousness, they would destroy it; so in truth, we are dealing with processes of degradation in humans when we deal with the conditions of ordinary consciousness. It was a profound ray of hope from Fortlage when he continues: “Consciousness is a small and partial death; death is a great and total consciousness, an awakening of the whole being in its innermost depths.”

This connection between death and consciousness comes out here in a prescient and magnificent way. Fortlage knows that if we break down what happens when death overtakes us into “atoms,” or “time atoms,” these “atoms” form the continuous events of our waking consciousness. By unfolding our waking consciousness, we develop an atomistic dying, and death is, in a sense, only that which we have coming over our brain in every moment of waking consciousness, driven to extremes; so that death, even for Fortlage, is nothing other than the sudden awakening of consciousness to the spiritual world, while continuous consciousness continually kills us off in small doses, as we need it for ordinary waking consciousness. So when we stand before a human being, we can say—and what Fortlage suspected is completely confirmed by spiritual science—that what lives in this human being as soul and spirit is actually something consuming, something destructive; and that which lives in him as vegetative life only delays the destruction until death occurs. When death occurs, what develops slowly, I would say atomistically, during conscious life, occurs only on a large scale. We carry death within us all the time, except that alongside death we carry the life that fights against it, and this fighting life is permeated by the soul.

This is how it is when we consider the individual living human being who stands before us with his body, in such a way that this body — we will talk about this in more detail in the third lecture — is a result of the life of the soul. There we have death, which, however, as long as the life forces can prevail, is constantly prevented from entering, which, I might say, lurks behind appearances, and is indeed an essential relationship of life, because the appearance of life would be mere plant life if death did not constantly kill this life and thereby bring about consciousness in the physical body.

Only when we learn about this peculiar relationship between death and human bodily life does our conscious awareness become so clear that we can form a judgment indeed, can gain a sense of what actually lies behind the course of historical events, those events which ordinary historical narratives recount, which take place externally and can be recounted in the way history is usually recounted.

What is present in these external events, in the successive facts? Once again, something extremely paradoxical must be said: The external historical facts do not relate to their spiritual content, which is only dreamed of by human beings in the course of historical development, like a body that carries death within itself, but like a body that is already dead, from which the soul has already departed. This means that the soul is never present in “historical facts”! While in human life death occurs when the life of the body has ended — that is, after the soul has passed through the life of the body and the body is then alone, without the soul — the entire organism of historical facts is a mere dead body, an external dead body in contrast to what surges and lives internally as historical impulses from age to age, and which can only be grasped if one does not focus on the external facts, but rather on that which lives, which lives in such a way that it cannot be derived from the external facts.

I would like to clarify this further by means of a comparison. Let us assume that someone believes — as many people do — that all one needs to do is to understand the facts of history as clearly as one understands scientific facts, and that it should then be possible to create a science of history from the succession of these historical views. Anyone who believes this would believe the same thing — as paradoxical as it may sound — as someone who thought that if they had a dead, deceased human body in front of them, they would somehow be able to extract the spiritual life from it. It is not there! Nor is the soul of history contained in historical facts. We see historical facts with the intellect that is bound to external perception and develops from what is bound to external perception; but with this intellect we see only what is dead in historical becoming. With ordinary consciousness, human beings can penetrate historical becoming only as dreamers; he can only see through this historical development, the actual spiritual life in history, with imaginative, inspired consciousness. That is why, of what is available as historical fact, only narratives, only enumerations can be provided, and why it is really true what the great Jacob Burckhardt said: Philosophy is non-history, because philosophy places one individual fact beneath another, and history is non-philosophy — Jacob Burckhardt used this term — because it deals only with the coordination, with the juxtaposition of facts.

But this leads to a very specific approach to historical thinking, based on what has just been discussed: if one really wants to think historically, one must clearly arrive at — through contemplation, through spiritual-scientific consciousness — what cannot be experienced in the ordinary course of history, what is contained in becoming but does not show itself in external facts, just as little as the soul shows itself in a dead human body.

The question arises: Can one really see what actually lives in historical becoming through imaginative, inspired knowledge? Well, having already stated so many paradoxes, I will not hold back from pointing out some concrete examples of how this seeing, which I characterized the day before yesterday, and more precisely in my books, how this seeing, this imaginative, this intuitive, inspired consciousness comes to a certain view of human becoming, to which, however, external facts relate only as the dead human body relates to the soul. I want to speak as concretely as possible, because I am giving an example.

Anyone who attempts to penetrate what ordinary consciousness only dreams of will, above all, arrive at a delimitation of historical becoming, so that at certain points they will find the most important, I would say, junctures of historical life, just as we find certain sections in the individual human organism. Around the age of seven, the child gets new teeth; around the age of fourteen, it reaches sexual maturity. We can observe such turning points in individual human life when we look at it from a physiological point of view. For spiritual science, these turning points mean much more than for ordinary physiological science, which does not go far enough in its observations. Spiritual scientific observation of historical development comes to similar conclusions. And here it becomes apparent — quite apart from external facts, simply by looking at what is happening spiritually — that there is a distinct period in European, indeed in historical human development, which begins around the 8th century BC and ends in the 135th century AD. What is enclosed between these two points in time is, in a certain sense, as much a whole as the life of a child from the age of seven, when it gets its second teeth, to sexual maturity. In order to form a whole in such a way that a change takes place which has a more significant impact on the human organism than the events in between, it must be said that such turning points occurred in the 8th century BC and in the 15th century AD, after the Christian era had begun. This age appears, with its special character and peculiarities in relation to the spiritual reality underlying historical facts, as a whole, as something that belongs together, when viewed from a spiritual-scientific-historical perspective.

Of course, I can only mention a few points. By characterizing such things from a spiritual-scientific perspective, one can arrive at all kinds of details; one can arrive at such concrete details as one arrives at concrete details of perception when one follows the series of plants in botany and the like. I will only mention a few general points of view.

In that age, human beings lived as a whole in such a way — but in order to recognize this, one must consider them inwardly, spiritually, apart from the facts — that their intellect still functioned much more instinctively than it does in our age. What human beings did out of their intellect, out of their consciousness, was at the same time more intimately an act of the body, more intimately connected with the body. The intellect was more instinctive. If you study the individual statements in my books, you will come to the conclusion that the spiritual experience of human beings is divided, if I may use the academic expression, for spiritual science: into the life of the “sentient soul,” the dullest soul, still living almost in the unconscious; the “intellectual or emotional soul,” which still functions in such a way that what lives within it does not develop fully consciously, but still has an instinctive character; and then the “conscious soul,” which experiences the ego in full self-consciousness, which emancipates the ego from physical life, where the intellect no longer acts instinctively, but detachedly and critically confronts things. Of these soul members, if one may call them that, it was the intellectual or emotional soul that was active in the human beings of the age I have characterized within its limits, that is, in the human beings of the Greek era, in the human beings of the era of Roman development in particular. That was what was active. And that which ebbed and flowed in human soul life and led to social, historical, scientific, artistic creations, to religious ways of life, all this worked as it did because the soul had this peculiarity in itself, that the intellect still worked instinctively.

What I am describing here in general principles can, however, be traced in concrete detail. One can describe inwardly and spiritually how the difference had to arise: how in Greece the instinctive life of the intellect developed more toward the physical side, how the Greeks understood the body as being imbued with soul, how they also placed themselves in social life as human beings imbued with soul, how one then moves over to the Roman world, where the impulse toward Roman citizenship arose out of this particular constitution of the soul, and so on. Then, when one experiences this inwardly imaginatively, one experiences that significant turning point that clearly took place in the 15th century. Things happen, of course, in such a way that they develop gradually. The impulses only emerge little by little. But the turning point is definitely in the 15th century. A kind of revolution in human nature really takes place then. Only those who look at things in this way come to this conclusion; others always believe that everything happens gradually, whereas in fact there are great leaps forward in historical development. The intellect is placed in a completely different position in relation to human nature. It emancipates itself and becomes more integrated into self-consciousness. When thinking becomes materialistic and sensual, it is only because the intellect is no longer connected to the subconscious. Human beings strive for such state structures, such structures of community life, such relationships between states, such an expression of the remaining cultural conditions, as they arise from this peculiar detachment of intellectual life from instinctive life, which is not known by ordinary human consciousness but only dreamed of, from the independence of the intellect from instinctive life.

I will only mention a few general points. And so, in spiritual scientific observation, one can go back beyond the 8th century BC. One then comes to another section, which goes back to the 3rd millennium BC, from which one can again find special, characteristic features, from which one can find details.

Thus, behind the facts, one gradually finds something that can only be observed in imagination, in inspired, contemplative consciousness. And then, when one has grasped this, which cannot be given as facts as such, which is otherwise usually only dreamed of by human beings in their observations of facts and in the mind that belongs to the observation of external facts, then one has what is becoming in history. For this becoming lives in the dream consciousness of humanity and is only illuminated by imaginative and inspired consciousness. Only when one has grasped this do the facts receive their corresponding illumination.

Just as, when we have a dead body before us, we must say of this dead body: it had its meaning when the soul was still in it — just as the soul, in a sense, casts its light on the dead body, so it is that we alone, by grasping the spiritual with our contemplative consciousness, live in the light that now illuminates the facts. The individual fact is explained when we illuminate it from what we gain in this way.

Thus, history as a science cannot arise without contemplative consciousness. Anyone who believes that history can arise without contemplative consciousness is like a person who illuminates an object with a light, then uses some kind of rotating device to direct the light onto a second object, then uses the rotating device to direct the light onto a third object, and then says: The second object is illuminated, which is the result of the first object shining; the third object is illuminated, which is the result of the second object shining. — That is not true! Every object is illuminated by the light itself.

The same is true of historical facts. Those who attempt to explain the facts by coordinating them, by juxtaposing them, as Jacob Burckhardt very correctly says, are like those who derive the light on their second object from the light on the first, whereas they should derive it from the common light that first falls on the first object, then on the second, then on the third. That which explains historical fact lies in the spiritual world, and we must illuminate the facts from the spiritual world, which otherwise remain dead, just as objects do not shine if we do not illuminate them with the light they have in common.

It is indeed a radical change that is required for the consideration of history, but it is not surprising. History arose in an age that rightly rejected everything in the field of natural science that belonged solely to the subjective realm. And initially, natural scientific methods were applied to this history, which one might say arose at an inopportune time — that is, of course, not quite the right word — while history can only flourish when natural science is complemented by spiritual science.

But then, of course, one will no longer search for abstract ideas in history in an ethical way or in the way that many others have done. Ideas cannot bring about anything; ideas are something completely passive. One will search for the truly real spiritual entities and powers that stand behind historical development and that can only be explored through imaginative consciousness.

Now, it is very strange: if one has this guideline, then light is indeed shed on what can be sensed in the sequence of facts, but which cannot lead to explanations for those who only look at the facts side by side. Historical development becomes a science, as if struck by lightning from above, when spiritual science strikes. If spiritual science cannot strike, it will increasingly be told in an unscientific way.

It is interesting: Jacob Burckhardt points out that around the time when spiritual science must set the beginning of the period I have spoken about today — except that, of course, just as sexual maturity extends over several years, these dates are not entirely accurate — he points out that in the period from the 6th to the 7th century BC, a common event can be observed from China through the Near East to Europe, namely a general religious movement. 7th centuries BC, a common event can be observed from China through the Near East to Europe, namely a general religious movement. External history knows the facts: because such a change took place, these facts occurred! The light falls on them. And for the end, what happens after the 15th century, Jacob Burckhardt again points — very curiously — to the religious movement associated with the name of Luther. Once again, such an upheaval occurs, which is noticeable in Europe, but also at the same time in India. How that which is seen in the spiritual realm creates a mirror image in the external world, how it illuminates the facts, this becomes apparent through spiritual science. History is transformed from a list of facts into a real science.

It must be said that in this field, too, many people's longing for what is right has been fulfilled. Herman Grimm, who attempted to spiritualize history but did not progress to the point where imaginative consciousness looks into the spiritual world, tried by all means to find something as historical impulses that take place behind the ordinary facts. In doing so, he arrived, as if groping, at a curious division, which he repeated again and again in his lectures. He said that he had to divide the historical development to date into a first millennium — he roughly lets this begin at the point in time that I have indicated for the epoch I have just described — then into a second millennium and a third millennium. Herman Grimm is just feeling his way. He sums up as the “first two millennia” what I have indicated as the Greek-Latin period, which lasts from the 8th century BC to the 15th century AD. And the present life in which we find ourselves, which will continue for many centuries and is an equally coherent whole that can be recognized imaginatively, and the facts that emerge from it, Herman Grimm conceives of this age as the “third millennium.” And he attempts, at least, I would say, to have a surrogate for the spiritually perceived, in that he wants to understand history as the “imagination of the peoples.” Because he cannot grasp spiritual reality, that which is at work in historical development, he understands that which lies behind external appearances as “imagination.” In doing so, he turns it into an illusion, but reminds us that the real historical impulses are actually only dreamed through by people of ordinary consciousness.

Therefore, from what can be grasped externally with the intellect from historical development, only the dead can really be grasped. And again, it is interesting that it is precisely historians who work so well with the intellect, who, I would say, still use this intellect instinctively, who do not use it in the way Herbert Spencer does, by introducing all kinds of artificial scientific ideas, but rather, like the historian Gibbon, those who use the intellect that is also used in science, but still use it instinctively, that they come to the conclusion—which was a strange mystery to Herman Grimm—that it is particularly good to observe and describe the periods of decline in human historical development, where there is little soulfulness. Thus Gibbon describes a time in which there is even much soulfulness, soulfulness in the making, soulfulness in growth, from the time of the beginning of Christianity through Roman development, what he calls “decline,” decay. Because he focuses his intellect on appearances, he describes this entire development in the first Christian centuries as a decline. This is very natural, because when the intellect functions as it must in relation to nature, it can only see decline in the course of external appearances. Gibbon cannot see what is growing and flourishing at the same time as one thing is decaying, what is finding its way into history through Christian impulses. But how this works is not immediately apparent from the external facts, but only when illuminated by the light that comes through spiritual science.

Another example is also interesting. It is really only with the emergence of spiritual science that it has become possible to make history a science. But of course, what has been gained through spiritual science has always come to light in flashes of insight among enlightened minds with the power of discernment. And one phenomenon is very interesting: in his historical-sociological lectures, which he gave at the University of Basel in the 1860s, Jacob Burckhardt repeatedly draws attention to a historian and historical philosopher of the first half of the 19th century who, even though Jacob Burckhardt often polemicizes against him, must have made a strong impression on him. This can be seen from Jacob Burckhardt's entire train of thought. That philosopher is Ernst von Lasaulx. He has remained relatively unknown. Lasaulx wrote a remarkable book, the very one to which Burckhardt repeatedly refers in his lectures: “A New Attempt at an Old Philosophy of History Based on the Truth of Facts.” Now, certainly, Lasaulx, who was endowed with a certain intuitive insight into what people otherwise only dream of as historical impulses, Lasaulx, of course, in the age of natural science, looked at what I would call the interpretation of facts. And because he applied his scientifically trained mind, he looked primarily at the “decline” in the 19th century, at what was coming to an end. Of course, there is also something rising in the 19th century. But this can only be seen with an inspired and imaginative consciousness. That something like this exists—it only appears as a premonition at the end of Lasaulx's book. But what he describes in this book is, oh, it is immeasurably — forgive the strange expression — immeasurably interesting! He goes through European history from its beginnings to the 19th century. Everywhere he describes, because of the particular direction just described — he was trained in the natural sciences — the decay, the decline, the forces that actually lead to death. Now there are chapters in this book — when you read them, they are exactly like a description of the tendencies toward decline that someone in the 1850s prophetically made about the forces that would lead to the mutual destruction of the European nations of the present. It can be said that nowhere else is this anticipated in a more moving, magnificent way — because the mind is focused on what is declining, on what has now turned out to be the result of this decline.

Such is the immediate evidence that when one departs, as it were, from observing or dreaming about the true historical impulses and proceeds to consider only the particular external facts, it is as if one falls asleep from waking consciousness and no longer sees what pulsates through history as growth, as prosperity, as that which really advances humanity. Through the recognition of this growth, this prosperity, history is also lifted out of all mere natural causality. By viewing it from a spiritual scientific perspective, history is elevated to the rank of a science, so that one could say: what Lessing sensed in his “Education of the Human Race,” what he expressed, forgive the expression, clumsily and also incorrectly, illusory, is only now being placed on a secure foundation; while the external facts show no connection. That in which the human soul lives, lives dreaming, becomes a continuous organic-spiritual life, but I mean a spiritual life when it is viewed spiritually as the content of history.

And then, of course, one also realizes how the ordinary observer is deceived by viewing this becoming in history as an organism. By viewing it as an organism, one must often compare it with the becoming of the individual human life. In my youth, I myself had a teacher who liked to compare the individual successive historical periods with the individual human life: Persian history, Chaldean history with the life of a young man, Greek life with the later life of a young man, and the awakening of manhood with Roman life. And so, the continuous flow of history is often presented by analogy with human beings. This is the source of a strong historical illusion. For even if we come to view the development of the human soul in the course of historical becoming within humanity as a whole in the way I have suggested, we can never perceive it in the same way as we perceive the development of the human soul from childhood through adolescence, then through manhood and womanhood, and so on into old age, precisely when we immerse ourselves in the spiritual reality of historical development. This spiritual life behind the historical facts does not develop in this way, but develops differently. This again leads to a paradox. Presented in this way, it seems paradoxical, even though it is deeply rooted in the real spiritual scientific observation to which I refer in these lectures.

One can compare what lives and can be observed in such a period, which presents itself as a whole, with the periods in human life. But then, strangely enough, one must not compare the course of historical development, as odd as it may sound, with the development from infant to child to youth to man, but vice versa. One must think of historical life as proceeding in reverse! If, for example, one compares the overall spiritual mood of the period from the 8th century BC to the 1st century AD with a piece of individual human life, one can compare it with the thirties of human life. One can say that in the thirties of human life, although in a different constitution and with a different attitude toward human beings, what lives in the soul is bound to the body in the same way as it was in the Greco-Roman period up to the 1st century AD. And what follows then cannot be compared with what follows the thirties, but rather with what precedes them. In fact, compared to the individual human life, historical life goes backwards!

As the intellect emancipates itself in our age, it indeed assumes a relationship to physical life that can be compared to the relationship of the intellect to physical life in the later twenties of an individual human life. A subsequent historical period relates to the earlier one in such a way that one may venture the comparison: Just as a child, who is still young, learns from someone older, who may have processed what the child will later absorb in a more instinctive way — we always learn from those who themselves learned in childhood — so it is in successive ages with the transition of consciousness from one age to another; and this course of history itself becomes a phenomenon of consciousness, albeit one that takes place in the ‘dream life’. We are not dealing, in Lessing's sense, with an education of the human race that proceeds as follows: from childhood through youth and manhood to old age. On the contrary, we are dealing with a retrograde education of the human race. And it is precisely through this retrograde education that what can be described as progress enters into historical development. Because human beings as souls approach such things in later ages as if they were younger than in earlier ages, they also develop a greater degree of freedom, a greater degree of unconsciousness, childishness toward their fellow human beings, through which everything that is usually called progress enters into world development.

Finally, I would just like to draw attention to one phenomenon among the many that could already be cited today as evidence for what I have explained: this peculiar, significantly progressive relationship that arises when Christianity passes from the peoples of the Roman Empire, who first accepted it, to the young Germanic peoples. A peculiar phenomenon occurs here. How can it be explained? It can only be explained by the fact that, in the overall course of historical development, Greco-Roman life, which was first seized by the great impulses of Christianity, was at a later stage of experience and therefore developed this Christianity in the way we find it developed in Gnosticism and other dogmatic formations. Then, as Christianity approaches a younger stage of experience, that is, as it passes from an older to a younger stage—entirely in accordance with the phenomenon of consciousness in historical development that I have described—it takes on other forms; it becomes more inward; religious consciousness, as it were, emancipates itself from instinctive understanding; religion as Christian religion becomes more independent; later, religious and scientific consciousness separate completely.

The whole process can be explained by understanding the matter as a phenomenon of consciousness, in such a way that the consciousness of the Germanic peoples, which is based on a different constitution of the soul, adopts Christianity—I would say, like a child from an older person—from their Roman predecessors, not from any ancestors, but from their Roman predecessors.

All of this is certainly only individual suggestions, and I know as well as anyone who finds these individual suggestions highly questionable how much can be objected to such suggestions. But only those who are seriously concerned with the development of spiritual science, on the one hand, and with all the riddles and sphinx questions raised by the young science of history, on the other, will gradually penetrate into the understanding of what is meant by these suggestions today. And a supplement for practical life, for external social life, for intervention in social life, for understanding the facts that affect us so deeply in our immediate lives that they constitute our suffering and our joy, the events that are now so particularly close to our souls in these tragic times — the consequences for such things from this historical perspective will then come to light in the fourth lecture next Wednesday.

I would like to conclude today's discussions by pointing out how prophetic natures, natures which — without spiritual science already existing in their time — instinctively had this spiritual scientific thinking within them, how such natures also instinctively hit the mark by looking at the history of humanity. I am thinking here of Goethe, who only dealt with historical problems sporadically, for example in his History of Color Theory, but who had a deep understanding of history. Looking at history with his intuitive soul, he formulated what he saw, though not in the way it has been formulated here today. But because humanity actually only dreams through historical development with its ordinary consciousness, that is, experiences it in the regions from which feelings, emotions, passions, and moods arise, Goethe, by sensing what has been said today, was able to approach history in the right way. He knew that whatever concepts history may produce that resemble scientific concepts are actually fruitless for human life, because they spring from the same region of the soul in which waking consciousness lives. But this waking consciousness is only there for natural existence; history is experienced by human beings in the dream regions from which passions, emotions, and moods arise. Therefore, as long as human beings remain within historical development with their ordinary consciousness, before they become attuned to imaginative, inspired consciousness, their souls and minds can only be moved by what comes out of dream consciousness as an experience of history. Human beings cannot be moved by abstract concepts, by ideas that originate in the same mind that deals with the facts of nature. All that remains fruitless. Only what comes from the same regions and works in the same regions from which it is drawn from history becomes fruitful. That is the best thing about history. Because history is dreamed — Goethe does not conclude this, he senses it — what comes from history can only work in the dream region of enthusiasm, of emotions. And Goethe says: The best thing history can give us is the enthusiasm it arouses. — In this way, we have not provided a formulation of historical science in a meaningful way, but we have provided a lively understanding of what must be elevated to contemplation through spiritual science, based on a poetic mind. As long as we live in history with ordinary consciousness, we are not really involved in it. To the extent that our enthusiasm is invested in it and we approach its phenomena with enthusiasm, we participate in historical life itself.

Just as we learn from nature, we can only learn from history when we view historical development with imaginative, inspired consciousness. Extending these observations to nature and social life will be the task of the next lectures.

Question and Answers

Question: What about the materialistic view of history, with Marx for example?

Well, on such an occasion I must point out that spiritual science, precisely because it is based on spiritual science, takes completely seriously, and must take seriously, what I said in the previous lecture about the position that the soul gradually acquires in relation to what are called concepts in their relationship to reality. I said: in ordinary consciousness, one is satisfied when one has a concept as a kind of image of reality; in contemplative consciousness, one must always strive for a whole number of concepts that behave like photographs taken from different angles. What is grasped in concepts can never represent reality in any way that is exhaustive in relation to the spiritual world, but only ever one aspect of reality. The same is true of the highest philosophical concepts: in ordinary consciousness, one is either a pantheist or a monadist, to mention only these two opposites. One recognizes a divine principle that permeates and animates everything; one is a pantheist; or one recognizes, as the Leibnizians do, for example, individual real monads, which in their interaction constitute the whole of the world.

The spiritual scientist can be neither a pantheist nor a monadist, because he simply has in pantheism a sum of concepts, and in monadism a sum of concepts, both of which illuminate reality from different sides, so that, if I may venture a comparison, I would say: those who are pantheists see only the exhalation, those who are monadists see only the inhalation. Just as the process of life cannot be sustained by inhaling or exhaling alone, but only by inhaling and exhaling, so spiritual reality can only be understood by becoming alive in one's conceptual life and knowing how to illuminate reality both pantheistically and monadistically. If one is a mere monadist like Leibniz, this is as bad for the spiritual scientist as suffocating from inhaling too much air. One suffocates. If one is a mere pantheist, this is as bad for the spiritual scientist as trying to breathe in a vacuum. So, as a spiritual scientist, one develops a living relationship to conceptual life. One must think of this living relationship as vividly as possible. For when this living relationship to conceptual life arises, one lives in the mutual struggle and harmonization of concepts, which immerses one in spiritual reality, completely within it, in a real way; whereas with ordinary consciousness one lives in one's concepts in an abstract way. Even the simplest concepts change in their relationship to reality as a result.

Let me give an example. Today, one can learn in school that bodies are impenetrable. And this is given as a definition: impenetrability consists in the fact that in the space occupied by one body, another cannot exist. — A spiritual scientist cannot say this. A spiritual scientist can never start from a conceptual definition, but only from a conceptual characteristic. In this case, he says: That which behaves in such a way that it fills a space in such a way that no other being can be inside this space is a material body. — That is, he turns the matter around, he starts from applying his concept only within the limits in which it can be applied, because he has it alive. He does not absolutize the concepts. This occurs in the simplest operations of thought, when one really makes the leap that I would like to call: the leap over the threshold of the spiritual world. One must take this very seriously. People today still want to talk in abstract terms when they talk about the spiritual world. But the whole constitution of the soul, the whole way of thinking, becomes different when one enters into reality. The concepts are experienced, so that one lives through their reality. You see, for a person who thinks abstractly, a rose placed in water in a room is, of course, a reality. But that is not reality at all. For in real life, a rose cannot exist without being on the rose bush and arising in connection with the rose bush as a whole. The spiritual scientist is therefore always aware that when something belongs together with something else, he must think of it in context. He knows that the concept of a rose as a cut rose is an unreal concept.

If you extend this to the whole formation, to the whole structure of thinking, you will get an idea of the significant change that occurs when the threshold to the spiritual world is crossed. That is where you get reality. There you get an inner, experiential idea of the significance of concepts. For when you deal with abstractions, as natural science must, you cannot even imagine how you arrive at unreal concepts. On such an occasion, I like to recall a lecture given by Professor Dewar in London at the beginning of the century, a very spirited lecture from the standpoint of scientific thinking. From the standpoint of this scientific, physical thinking, Professor Dewar constructs an end state of the Earth's existence, which the Earth will have reached when so many millions of years have passed, the temperature has gradually changed, and so on. If one follows certain facts as they are today, one can quite easily arrive at such a description of a final state by drawing the consequences. Professor Dewar describes very wittily how certain substances that do not glow today will glow then; if certain substances are smeared on the walls, the walls will glow so brightly that one will be able to read newspapers. — However, it will be so cold that it is unclear who will print the newspapers. This is where the idea falls short in reality. But Dewar uses this image. What breaks off today when only a small weight is attached to it will have such strong cohesion that hundredweight loads can be attached to it, and so on. The whole thing is very well thought out, and if you go along with it, you can construct a final state of the Earth, representing everything physically and accurately. The lecture naturally made a great impression, because a physicist who is deeply familiar with physical concepts painted a vivid, I would almost say tangible, picture of the final state of the Earth.

The humanities scholar experiences something when listening to such a description, because he is immediately led to the concepts illuminated in a different light. For what Professor Dewar is doing here, by describing the final state of the Earth after millions of years, is achieved in the same way as if you were to take into account the successive states of a human being's stomach and heart at the ages of thirteen, at the age of fourteen, fifteen, sixteen – how it changes so slowly – and then consistently conclude what the whole thing will look like after two or three hundred years, the heart, the stomach, and so on. All of this may be very correct, thought of in a scientific sense, thought of abstractly. But by then, the person will have long since died, and the stomach will no longer be there! By placing this realistic view alongside the other, very spiritual one, one lives in living concepts and can come to realize that what Professor Dewar describes as the final state of the earth in a few million years is quite correct – except that by then the earth will have died and will no longer be there. But it is exactly the same when one counts back thirteen, twelve, eleven years and so on, as it was a hundred and fifty years ago. Man has not yet lived! This is what the Kant-Laplace theory does, constructing the initial state very finely and ingeniously from physical data as a nebular state and so on, from which everything emerges — only at the very moment when one must assume this, none of it was there yet!

This is the transition from abstract thinking to real thinking. And having characterized this in general terms, I can now say that something like the materialist conception of history, with its concepts, has emerged with a certain necessity, namely that what happens historically is actually based only on class struggles, on the expression of material interests. The concept of materialism in the materialist conception of history does not have the same meaning as the concept of materialism in natural science. It arose when certain entirely possible concepts were formed. But one would have to maintain the point of view: How much of historical development can be encompassed by these concepts? One encompasses a current, a current that only emerged in the 16th century!

People today do not believe in authority, of course! For people have weaned themselves off belief in authority! But, yes — “science” is at least a strong authority. And if one swears by a certain number of dogmas, then everything else is folly, nonsense, wretchedness. Years ago, I gave lectures in workers' circles, many lectures, including historical lectures, in which I tried to characterize history as it appears to undogmatic thinking. But after I had gained a fairly loyal audience, which grew steadily — I can say that without vanity — certain Social Democratic leaders became aware of the fact that unorthodox Marxism and an orthodox materialistic view of history were being taught, that the strange view was even being put forward that the concepts embodied in the materialistic view of history only gained application from the 16th century onwards, that before that their application was not possible at all, that they gained application precisely from the underground of history, because, as I have shown, the intellect emancipates itself there, because it is there that man first comes to emancipate himself from a certain instinctive life and so on, that material interests provide the basis for this, so that one arrives at the materialist conception of history, even if only as part of the historical ingredients, and can nevertheless illuminate this or that phenomenon from it. But if one bases oneself solely on this materialistic view of history, one does not obtain history; one leaves out the other impulses that are present. Thus, one must also regard the concepts that Marxism has brought forth as something that is, in turn, one aspect, providing a photograph of reality from a certain side, which must be supplemented by aspects from other sides. And these Social Democratic leaders then put an end to these lectures! This is precisely what is unique about spiritual science: that it can do justice to the internally valid impulses that arise in this or that spiritual field, that it can recognize their relative validity, but also how error immediately arises when one absolutizes a one-sided aspect and makes it a general principle of explanation. That is what matters.

Of course, life is such that people become fixated on a concept. People generally prefer to live in concepts rather than in reality, to live in abstractions rather than in reality. One is much more satisfied when one has a few concepts into which all kinds of things can be pigeonholed. But reality is not like that. Just as—I have to use this comparison again and again—you can only get a tree if you photograph it from a certain point of view in one aspect and from another point of view in another aspect, so it is with reality as a whole if it is to be grasped as reality.

It must be said that, because material interests have become so powerful in the course of historical development over the last three to four centuries, it is only natural that a materialistic view of history has also emerged, a view that the external course of history can be grasped using the crudest concepts suitable only for natural existence. But this approach captures only what is dead, only what is lifeless. I will return to such matters in the fourth lecture, where I will discuss ethical and social life in greater detail. And the unreality of this approach would become immediately apparent if reality were to be described solely in terms of such concepts. One would already see how this reality would be killed by such concepts if they were to become established; whereas, if one regards them as a mere aspect, they can become fruitful.

That is what I would like to say in response to this question. Of course, I could continue talking about this for hours.

Dr. Steiner is asked to shed light once again on the process underlying memory, which he described in the first lecture.

Well, since I will be returning to such matters in the next lecture anyway, I will be able to be somewhat briefer in answering the question. We only have a few minutes left. First of all, I would like to say that it is a mistaken idea to believe that what I currently perceive, what I gain from a perception — let's say, for example, I look at an object and imagine it at the same time — remains intact. What I gain there, what I still have as an aftereffect when I take my eyes off the object, is merely a reflection, something that cannot reappear; it is something that is there and then really disappears, just as the reflection disappears when I walk past the mirror and leave its field of vision. So it is a mistaken idea to think of a reservoir of the soul into which ideas would enter and from which they would then be retrieved. Ideas do not linger, ideas do not remain! Rather, while I imagine, a subconscious process takes place at the same time, which can be observed imaginatively, that is, a process that is subconscious to ordinary consciousness; and this subconscious process causes in the organism what happens again through new causes when it is remembered. When I gain an idea of an object through the object acting on my senses, then the idea arises; if I have an idea that I gain as a memory, it is exactly the same, except that it is not the external material object that makes an impression on me, and I form the idea on the basis of the external object, but rather I look, as it were, into my inner self, at what has been unconsciously absorbed, and form the idea on that basis. If I want to express this schematically: I now form a concept of “ten”; after some time, the concept of ‘ten’ reappears; but it is not true that the concept of “ten” is the same—that it has passed and then returned. What remains is an unconscious engram, this unconscious engram that was formed as a parallel process while I had the idea; that remains, and I perceive it when I imagine again. So when “ten” appears, it appears as the result of an external stimulus; when “ten” reappears, it appears as the result of an internal stimulus, and I perceive from within what I remember. This is the process that can be observed very well in spiritual science, that can be put to good use in education, and that can also be observed by an attentive educator, provided he has oriented his attention in an appropriate manner.

Just think about how memorization works. Observe it closely. You can see it in action: everything that is done for events, so that the parallel process takes place! The idea is absorbed, but the parallel process is allowed to take place in such a way that it is, so to speak, drummed into something that remains subconscious. You can observe during the cramming process: the ideas will not somehow lead to memory, but rather a process that must arise as a supporting process of mere imagination and really lies in the subconscious. And this work in the subconscious—just look at all the things that are used to help someone cram a poem!—the humanities scholar observes it directly. And with the light that is gained, one sees. Some people who are cramming even use all kinds of aids, tapping their foreheads and so on, which has nothing to do with the experience of imagination! If you look more closely at the process, you will see that it touches on an important border area between psychology and physiology. Next time, we will also see how physiology oriented toward spiritual science can come up with something here.

So I would like to define it in terms of direction: Imagination arises first as primary imagination under the influence of external perception, stimulated by the external object; or as memory, stimulated from within; so that in one case I read outwardly, so to speak, and in the other case I read inwardly. When I read a book twice in succession, it is also acquired from the same book, but these are successive acquisitions.

So that is what may serve as a characteristic. I will add to this when I discuss the human being as a natural being in the third lecture.

Question: Won't the higher consciousnesses be individually different?

As I said last time, it is very obvious that one comes to this view: that one person, in developing these states of consciousness, arrives at different forms than another; but this should not deter us from pursuing what I have called the drama of knowledge; for individualism is only an intermediate state. One does indeed go through a strongly individualistic period, but one is aware of it, so that one overcomes it. Then one enters into the objective interior. And it is only because one looks at things imprecisely that one believes that one person asserts this and another asserts that. This is not the case. The differences are no greater than the differences that ultimately exist when two travelers describe the same region: one directs his gaze to this, the other to that; the descriptions are not at all similar; yet they describe the same region; and it would be nonsense to believe that their descriptions would not lead one to objectivity, or that they themselves were not faced with objectivity. I have therefore said: Certainly, it is obvious to think of individualistic expressions of the experience of higher states of consciousness; but that is only an intermediate state. In truth, just as one overcomes the subjective in observing nature and arrives at objective nature, one arrives at the objective spirit when one is able to eliminate the subjective in the imagination. And when you read in “How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds” and in “An Outline of Esoteric Science” how this subjectivity is eliminated when ascending into other states of consciousness, you will see that one arrives at an objective spiritual realm internally in the same way that one arrives at an objective natural realm externally. The subjective is truly eliminated externally in natural science, and internally in spiritual science.