Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Inner Impulses of Evolution, The Mexican Mysteries, The Knights Templar
GA 171

16 September 1916, Dornach

1. The Effects of Greece and Rome on Our Time

During the coming days I shall endeavor to continue the study we have made of the relationship of man with the universe. I want to take you today into a new and more general domain and speak to you of forces that are operative in human evolution, especially those that are working in the development of our own age. First, however, I must begin with a historical introduction that will, of course, accord with the points of view presented in the science of the spirit. We have, as you know, often emphasized the extent to which the ordinary method of observing the stream of history is no more than a fable convenue, and we have shown how it is only from spiritual scientific observation that clarification, can also be thrown upon the historical evolution of humanity.

You well know that when we study evolution in its main features, we have always to consider among the processes at work in the present, certain elements that have remained from the past. As you will have seen from recent studies, we call them luciferic or ahrimanic, depending upon their nature. Thus, our study will only lead to full comprehension when we take into account what is progressing in a normal and regular manner, and also what has remained from the past.

Today I would like to direct your attention again to the Greco-Latin age, the fourth post-Atlantean age of civilization, and to present certain things that can open the way to an understanding of how this earlier age works over into our own. Thus may we perceive how the forces of that age are still active today. This will help us to understand how man, standing in the midst of present evolution, can find his way through the various influences that are at work. Only when he does find his way and is thus in a position to know how to act aright at each moment of this life, is he worthy of being called a man.

Where actual concrete events are concerned, I am, of course, in a strange position today because of the possibility of misunderstanding, and, as we have frequently experienced lately, even a deliberately intentional one. Within the last three months I have been regarded by one party as a rabid Germanophile, whereas others say I have no understanding of the German nature and am able only to understand the classical world, the only world whose strengths I feel within myself. Accordingly, you will not be surprised to see that I am quite aware that there may be some difficulties in understanding me. Regardless of how it may be received, I continue to speak what I know to be the truth.

Today, then, we will turn our attention to the Greco-Latin age, which shines in all that has found its way into the present from Greece and Rome. Let us try to picture to ourselves what the Greek world means to us. So many ardent souls have a longing for this world, which has been the object of deep study by so many distinguished minds. In fact, everyone knows something of this world either from history or from the many remains of Greek culture. We know, on the one side something of Greece from history books in which the deeds of the Greeks and their social organizations are recorded. Such descriptions often start with the Trojan War and then proceed further to the Persian War, to the Peloponnesian War, and so on, leading finally to the fall of Greece to the Romans.

All such history is, however, only one chapter of the great world book of history that speaks to us of Greece that I have so often spoken of. Another chapter includes the poems of Homer, the poetical works of Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus insofar as they have come down to us, the songs of the great Pindar, our memories of the great art of Greece, and what is left of the Greek philosophy. That is the other chapter, which speaks about an infinite treasure of human experiences, feelings, points of view and ideas relating to the structure of the world. And running through all this, like light shining over it all are the Greek myths, those divine sagas that express so wonderfully in pictures what the Greeks were able to perceive of the secrets of the cosmos. And something from the Greek mysteries has also come down to us, and belongs indeed to this other chapter of Greek history. Here, anyone who wants to lift his soul into the sphere of the spirit will find far more to interest him than he will in the first chapter. Today, when we ask what the Greeks mean to us, we must give far more attention to this chapter than the first, which can only provide information of the past deeds for which the heroes became famous, but little of this remains that is of real significance for the soul at the present time. The contents of the second chapter, however, can become living for us, who enter willingly into that enthusiastic and creative element of the Greeks. This is the one side of the Greco-Latin epoch we can put before our soul.

Then we begin to see how Greece moves rapidly toward its full ripening in spiritual spheres. It is a wonderful experience to follow this in detail. Take Greek philosophy, that extract of the spiritual life of Greece. See how it develops from the great philosophers belonging to what Nietzsche called “The Tragic Age”—Thales, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaximander, Anaxagoras,—to Socrates, who heralded a new age, and finally to Plato, who raised man in such a wonderful way to spiritual ideals and ideal points of view. Then we come to Aristotle, who formed the most comprehensive and penetrating ideas so strongly that, centuries later, men who have had to rethink his thought after him are still unable to make full and right use of his ideas. We know that Goethe later changed the phrase, “Faust's entelechy”, in the last scene of Faust, into “Faust's immortal part.” The original Aristotelian idea found in “entelechy” expresses in a far more intimate way than “immortal part” the element of man's soul that passes through the gate of death. “Immortal part” is a negative expression whereas “entelechy” is positive. Goethe, however, realizing that “entelechy” would not give a clear idea of what was meant, later changed it to the more common term “immortal part.” Nevertheless, he had a feeling for the depth of the idea of entelechy. We are not yet done with this and similar ideas of the Greeks. They elaborated them in a truly plastic manner, taking them right out of reality, but the men of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, and also the early Middle Ages, had enough to do trying to understand the coarser ideas of outer material reality. Those more refined ideas, which according to Aristotle unite outer material reality with spiritual reality, were somewhat beyond their grasp.

Thus we see something wonderful and beautiful unfold in Greek life and culture. As this culture continued to progress, becoming almost overripe in part, it was conquered, in an outer sense by Rome. An extraordinary process, this so-called conquest of Greece by Rome! In these two streams of civilization we have what constitutes the fourth post-Atlantean age. An understanding of them can throw a flood of light in an external, exoteric way on what works and weaves inwardly during this epoch. Externally, Greece was subjected to Rome in such a way that the chronicle of their relationship forms a wonderfully interesting chapter in world history.

Now let us look at Rome, which stands in a different relation to our present age than does Greece. Many souls among us are seeking the Greek world. But we must look for it. We have to draw it up from the gray depths of the spirit, so to speak. It is not so with Rome, which survives in the whole European present with far more living strength than is usually believed. Recall, for example, how long the whole thinking of the peoples of European civilization and culture, and of those peoples who lived with it, was carried on in Latin. What vast significance Latin, this crystallized Romanism, still has today for those who have to prepare to take leading positions in life! How very many of the ideas and conceptions that we form in our souls are taken from the Roman world! To a large extent we still think in the style of the Romans. Nearly all legal thought, and a great many of our other concepts and ideas are conveyed in this way. Those who prepare themselves for leading positions in life have, in the course of their education, to absorb along with Latin a whole host of feelings and ideas belonging to the Roman age. The result is that our public life today is everywhere permeated with concepts and ideas that spring from Rome. People little realize the extent to which this is true.

The peasant may mutter against all this Latin influence but he, too, accepts it in the end. After all, he allows the Mass to be said to him in Latin. This Roman-Latin influence is, as it were, injected into the blood of those who are preparing themselves to take leading positions, and thus the thinking of the European upper classes who are involved in history, politics, law and government, is permeated to a high degree by Rome. This is true not only in the names and terms used, but also in the method and character. So you see that a European stands in a different relationship to the Roman stream, the other stream in the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, than to the first, the Greek stream.

Let us now place ancient Rome side by side with ancient Greece, which we must do if we really want to understand things rightly. Placed side by side, we can hardly find among the factors of recent evolution (I am taking Greece and Rome as belonging to modern times) a greater contrast in the sphere of the spirit. As we look at Greece from a certain distance in time, it seems to us to be immersed in fantasy, art and philosophy, radiant in its forms and inner significance, eloquent of soul and spirit. Rome, on the contrary, had nothing in its own nature of what is so deeply characteristic of Greece. The Romans were a people devoid of fantasy. Unlike the Greeks, their souls were not steeped in a profound realization of the directly cosmic nature of human life. In spite of the fact that the Greeks kept slaves, as a civilization Greek life reveals itself as one of exceptional freedom. Then we see this marvelously free Greek life made subject to Rome, a civilization utterly devoid of fantasy and imagination in every sphere of law, military and political culture. Were they to speak from Knowledge and not from a lack of it, even those who love the Roman element in modern history would confess that neither in the sphere of science nor of art was Rome in any way original. When Rome conquered Greece politically and militarily, it acquired Greek art and science. Even if we think of the greatest poets of Rome, compared with the greatness of Greek art and poetry, they are nothing but imitators.

Rome, however, became great in quite another sphere, one in which the Greeks were not much interested. Because of the peculiar constitution of the Romans, they developed such forceful perceptions and feelings in the legal, political and military domain that they still continue to work in the present.

This distinction between Greece and Rome is especially revealed when we consider the Greek and Roman languages in their inward spiritual aspects. Men who have looked more deeply into these things as, for instance, Herbart in the nineteenth century, were anxious that secondary education should not be so overwhelmed by the waves of that powerful stream of Rome as it has become. He wanted college students to learn Greek first rather than the customary Latin because in his opinion Latin deadened a man's soul to the more inward and intimate working of the Greek idiom. Nothing has as yet come of his suggestion, but it is still an ideal held by many teachers with insight today. As you know, our age is not guided by insight and it thus must bear the karma of that failing.

The Greek language repeatedly reveals a stream flowing behind the Greek spiritual life that comes from the old imaginations of the Egypto-Chaldean age. Our modern humanity is certainly not sensitive enough to feel this living element behind every Greek word, but for the Greek soul each word was rather an outer gesture of a full inner experience. Of course, imagination was no longer present to the same degree in the Greek as it was in the men of the Egypto-Chaldean age, but we can still detect in Greek words a strong feeling remaining from the inspiring force of the old imaginative ideation. An utter disregard of the mere word and a saturation of the language with soul can be felt in Greek. This inner soul element can still be sensed in those Greek words, which have been transmitted to us in the purest form. We see through the word; we do not just hear it but see through it to a soul process that takes place behind it. This comes to expression in the very sound and grammatical configurations of Greek.

With the Roman-Latin language it is quite another thing. Even in Roman mythology you can recognize a characteristic of the Roman-Latin idiom. In Greek mythology with its traditional names for the gods you will find everywhere behind these divine names the most concrete events of the myth and, living with these events, the gods. The gods themselves stand before us and we watch them pass. They show themselves to us in flesh and blood, as it were. (I am speaking, of course, of the soul.) But the divine names of the Romans—Saturnus, Jupiter, etc.—have almost become abstract concepts. The same is true of the entire Roman-Latin idiom. Much of what lies behind the Greek language has been lost, and attention is now focused on the word as it sounds and forms itself grammatically in speech. One lives in the word. The direct soul element, the kernel, the inner feeling that we sense in Greek has been cooled in Latin. It was not necessary for the Roman to hear behind his language the echoing of the life of imagination. Indeed it was no longer there. Instead, the Roman needed passions and emotions to bring his word into movement because Latin is essentially logical. For it to be something more than a stream of cold logic, it had to be continually kindled anew by the emotional element that was always behind Roman life and history. The second chapter, as I set it before you for Greece, is not to be found in the same way in the history of Rome. It is the content of the first chapter that essentially takes place here, and it is this that is still studied today by our young people as the determining factor in evolution.

To comprehend law and jurisprudence and to represent human relationships as they develop from the emotions has come to be the secret of Latin. We must observe such things without sympathy or antipathy if we want really to understand them. It is important to understand them because they play so large a part in our cultural life today.

Consider without sympathy or antipathy but purely historically what is absorbed by our youth when Roman history is studied. Of course, much is not put into words, but the unexpressed is received by the astral body and lives on in feeling and sentiments. What we today call “right” existed, no doubt, in one way or another before Roman civilization. Nevertheless, the way in which we understand right was, in a sense, a Roman discovery. The right that lends itself to being written down, that can be laid out in paragraphs, that can be minutely defined, etc., is an invention of the Romans.

Why should the Romans not have proclaimed to the world what right is and how to act in a right manner? This failure is directly illustrated by the fact that the Romans trace their history back to Romulus, who killed his brother and then collected all the available discontented persons and criminals and made them his first Roman citizens. They then propagated themselves through the rape of the Sabines. Therefore, it does seem that the Romans, thanks to the force that works by striving for the opposite, were indeed the people who were called to invent rights and extirpate wrongs. Here is a nation whose men trace themselves back to robbers, and the women to a rape! Many things in world history find their explanation in opposites.

The Romans gradually built a mighty empire and we see how the seven kings, who were more than myths, ruled and met their ends finally through pride. We move on to the time of the Republic, which people will never admit has so little interest or importance today. This is the period that still plays such a large part in the education of our youth. The fights between the patricians and the plebeians, the somewhat revolting struggle between Marius and Sulla, Rome trembling under Catiline, the endless and most terrible slave wars—this whole string of unpleasant events still largely provides the material for the education and culture of our young. Then we see how, while all this is taking place on Roman soil, Roman rule gradually spreads until Rome is transformed into an empire that strives to embrace the entire known world and, as a matter of fact, finally succeeds.

We also find how alone the Roman feels, a quality of his soul that is apt to be overlooked. How do the deeds of a Caracalla or anyone else accord with the discovery of right for the good of humanity? We tend to forget that these Romans combined their sense of right and their self-control with a terrible slavery to which they subjected their colonies and the peoples they conquered. Looking at Rome from this standpoint for once, we see that we must not correct the facts, but rather many of the feelings we have acquired in our study of Roman history. If one were looking at the matter with sympathy or antipathy, but in such a way that one was biased by the too frequent sympathies and antipathies that prevail today, one might ask, “Did not the Romans later give Roman citizenship to their colonials?” Now, however, if you look at the motive behind this, you will see it in another light. It was Caracalla who did this, and he was not a man to whom one could attribute selfless motives. He was a man of characteristically Roman egoism. That says enough about the soul's life in ancient time. There were, of course, upright lawyers who devoted themselves to jurisprudence with all their souls. Papinian, for instance, was a noble man, but Caracalla had him murdered. One could go on to present many such examples that could correct our usual feelings.

In such ways as it could, this Roman civilization now took over Greece. Spiritually, Rome was conquered by Greece, but Greece had to pay for this conquest with its own downfall as a political community—one cannot say, “unity,” for that Greece never was. Bossuet rightly says—he marvels at his words but words can still be correct however one feels them, “One only hears of the greatness of the name of Rome.” In the very best time of Roman rule it was the greatness of the name, what had gone into the word and was felt as its quality that was important. As for social conditions, Rome shows us the infinite riches and treasures that flowed into it from its colonies, and side by side with this wealth, the terrible poverty of a large part of the population.

In the first era of its conquests Rome took over Greece. Then we see how Christianity pervaded Roman civilization, allowing itself to be over-spread with the formal element that belonged to Rome. All the institutions of early Christianity were received into the structure of Roman legal administration and, perpetuating the ancient Roman element, preserved in the forms of the Church. Everywhere it shows in its institutions forms that have developed in Rome. It also adopted Latin as a language and thus came to Latinize its thinking. With the expansion of Christianity, this Latin-Roman element spread over all of Europe.

As you know, after she had absorbed Greece and Christianity, a time came when Rome could no longer understand what she had received, and she no longer desired to understand them. They were felt to be foreign elements. At the time when Greece was conquered, the Grecian influence worked powerfully on Rome, but the Romans gradually strengthened their legal and political power. The Greek element was then felt to be a foreign body that it no longer wanted. As a final consequence, the Athenian schools of philosophy were closed by the Emperor Justinian, the sixth century ruler of the eastern Roman empire who codified the legal and political principles of Rome in the Corpus Juris Civilis. Justinian, who was a sort of incarnation of the Roman-Latin element, was the emperor who finally closed the schools and put an end to Greek philosophy, categorically forbidding its pursuit. He also put a stop to the original free expansion of Christianity by having the works of Origen, who united the wisdom of Greece with the depths of Christianity and also brought semi-occult communications into it, condemned by the Church.

So we see how Rome flowed into the institutions of Europe by way of the Church. The other political institutions fell into line with it—we can even say took their origin from it, because the European rulers set a high value on their title of “Defender of the Faith.” Later on, of course, when they wanted to divorce themselves from the Church, they dropped the title and founded a church of their own. Well, it is not always that people take things in such dead earnest. So the rulers styled themselves “Defender of the Faith,” “the most Christian of Monarchs,” etc. Public institutions developed right out of Roman thought and custom, and Rome infected everything, grafting its own nature onto European culture. After Justinian had laid down the code of Roman legal and political thought, had wiped out Greek philosophy and had had Origen condemned, Rome continued to live on in the institutions of Europe without the Greek content. After it had driven the very sap of its life, its spiritual content, out of itself, only the external remained, petrified in the word and grown strong and stubborn in external institutions. Occultists with insight have always had a certain feeling which still remains today, a feelings shared by those who have no reason to hide it. This is expressed in the statement: “The ghost of ancient Rome still lives in the institutions of Europe.”

Now we see over and over again in history how what has gone before is carried over into later events where it springs to life again in them. Thus, we find how Rome was fructified by Greece a second time. During the first time, the Republic was developing into an empire, and Greek art, philosophy and spiritual life flowed over into Rome. It was the age in which the Romans lived Greece, so to speak. They carried themselves like great lords and thought it an easy thing to take over the whole of Greek culture. They used well-educated Greeks, who indeed were slaves, for teachers of their children, which, by Roman standards was the way to acquire a conquered culture.

Then another epoch followed after an epoch of stagnation, of which even history tells us but little. It was an epoch when right was permeated by the Church, when the Church was impregnated by politics and law. There followed something like a renewal of Greek culture from Dante to the fall of freedom in Florence, the age of the Renaissance when Greece came to life again in Rome, especially through Raphael and others. But it was a re-naissance, not a “naissance,” a birth, and for a long time Europe could do no more than look back to this Renaissance, this rebirth. When Goethe went to Italy, he sought there not Rome but Greece. He tried everywhere to recognize in Roman culture the Greek way of thought and life. During the Renaissance, Christianity and Greece so merged that today we can no longer distinguish Christian from Greek in Renaissance art. In connection with Raphael's famous painting, “the School of Athens,” the question is often raised as to whether the central figures represent Plato and Aristotle or Peter and Paul. There are just as good reasons for the one view as for the other. So, in one of the most outstanding paintings of the Renaissance, one cannot tell whether the figures are Greek or Christian. The two elements have merged in such a way that the wonderful marriage between spiritual and material in the Greek life of thought can just as well be expressed by Peter and Paul as by Plato and Aristotle. Plato, whom many would like to see in this painting, is depicted by an old man who points with his hand to heavenly spheres, and by his side stands Aristotle with his conceptual world, who points down into the material world looking for the spiritual in it. We can, however, just as well see Peter in the figure pointing upward, and Paul in the one pointing down.

But during the Renaissance it is always for good reasons that we find this type of dichotomy. After the Renaissance, which was, as we have seen, a revival of Greece, something fresh and original had to come and this could only occur through a higher synthesis. Now, today, the two gestures, one pointing upward to the heavens and the other pointing down to the earth, will be found in the same person. Then we also need the luciferic and the ahrimanic in contrast to each other. What you see divided between two people in one of the greatest works of art of the Renaissance, you will have to see in the gestures of the figure of the representative of humanity in our group statue that is to be carved: both gestures!

The Middle Ages or the beginning of our new epoch required that re-animation of ancient Greece, the Renaissance. How many things since have derived their life from it. We see how, in a philosopher like Nietzsche, this Renaissance comes to life again in his best years. We see how wonderfully it lives in all the learning of Jacob Burckhardt. Right into modern times this Renaissance continues its influence, bringing a breath of early Greek times into our modern age.

We can truly say that while Greece was externally annihilated by Rome, much of the spiritual force of Greece has remained. The influence of the Greek heroes of the spirit lasted until about 333 A.D.; their coffin was started in the 4th century, and Justinian later only drove the nails into it. Then, these heroes of the spirit reappear at the time of the Renaissance as impulses of the spiritual world that have remained behind. Just as in the evolution of earth and man certain moon forces light up again at a particular time, thereby making possible the birth of human intelligence and language, so does the Greek world light up again in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to create the Renaissance.

We have here a living instance of how something that has remained over and continues to work on in a later time, even though luciferically, is nevertheless used for the progress of humanity. The Greece that reappears again in the Renaissance can indeed be called luciferic, for side by side with such figures as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael stand the side-figures of Pope Alexander VI, Caesar Borgia and the rest! Europe needed the Renaissance, which gave much to it. Thus, from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries onward we have again the two streams with which we began, though now they are disguised. One was called to life again in the Renaissance, the other has always been with us in Romanism, having only undergone many changes of form. The two streams now flow side by side again and both have a profound influence on mankind. In describing these things we must learn to look on the world and life in such a way that we see things quite objectively without associating sympathy or antipathy with the words used.

Many Renaissance ideas and conceptions come to us not so much from school but through our whole spiritual life. People do not think about these things, but Renaissance ideas live in everyone. They are a different element from the ideas and outlook of Romanism that have never disappeared but are always at work. The Renaissance was, in a way, the salvation of the imaginative element. It represents a liberation from the merely logical and the coldness of the Latin element, which, being so cold, always requires and emotional impulse to give it life. In contrast, we see the uprising, imaginative life that was brought to Europe Through the Renaissance and that had been brought over from ancient Greece. We shall see tomorrow what it really means that, as the fourth post-Atlantean age was passing over into the fifth, this imaginative life was rekindled. It stood as a kind of godfather to the birth of the fifth post-Atlantean age, which today must liberate itself from the Romanism we have described not through the use of emotional impulses, but through knowledge. We are not here belittling the greatness of this Romanism but things must be rightly balanced. The salvation and healing of evolution lies in balancing things correctly and not allowing them to go to extremes.

There are many ideas in the intellectual life of Europe that deceive and tempt men. They have remained behind from the civilization of Rome and they evoke complexes of ideas and feelings in the soul of which men are not always fully conscious. As I have said, one cannot say that the Romans absolutely invented political-legal thinking, although they did so in the sense of which we have been speaking today. In contrast to what the Greek saw among men through his living imagination, or from his inheritance of living imaginations, Rome formed a definite concept that first came to life in Romanism. It is a plant that grows entirely on political-legal soil. This is the concept of citizenship; man becomes a citizen, a Roman citizen. Therewith, the concept of man is given a legal-political coloring. What thus passed over into the blood of the European peoples with the citizen concept is intimately connected with what I described in the last lecture1Lecture given Sep. 11, 1916 contained in volume 272 of the bibliographic survey of Steiner's works. It was never published in English. as the “politicalization” of the world of thought. There have been lawyers in modern times who have based the connection of modern man with Rome simply on this citizen concept. By virtue of this, when it is livingly experienced, man takes his place in the community in a political and legal sense, even though he may not admit it to himself. Aristotle spoke of the Zöon politikon. He still connected the political with the Zöon, the animal. That was an altogether different kind of thinking, an imaginative thinking that was not yet political thinking, a politicalization of the concept.

So this political-legal element grows in our thought of man. People are often unconscious of how man is placed in a political-legal category through the natural association of ideas. In the word “civilization,” which I would call a monstrous concept since it is something that had its proper meaning only in an earlier time—in this monstrous conception of “civilization” we feel, though often unconsciously, our close connection with the essentially political and legal Roman world. “Civilization” is derived from civis, and within and behind it stands Romanism. All this boasting of civilization that we often hear today is nothing other than an unrealized Romanism that is often felt. It often happens that a man may use a word to express something lofty and great without having any notion of how, in using the word, he connects with the great forces in history. When one is able to perceive the whole political and judicial background of the word civilization, then to hear it spoken, is often enough to make one shudder.

These things must be said since the science of the spirit is not for the nursery as some people seem to think, but for revealing earnest knowledge of the world. In the presence of this knowledge many of the ideas man has taken for his idols and to which he prays fall from their altars. It is not the intention of spiritual science merely to bring the beings of the spiritual world near to man so that he may feel a kind of intimate intercourse with them as he might experience with poets, for instance. No, the science of the spirit is here for man himself to draw near to the spiritual world and its forces in all earnestness.

Erster Vortrag

Ich werde versuchen, in diesen Tagen die Betrachtungen über das Verhältnis des Menschen zum ganzen Universum weiter fortzusetzen, indem ich sie auf ein anderes Gebiet, auf ein allgemeineres Gebiet bringe und mir die Aufgabe setze, von einem bestimmten Gesichtspunkte aus auf die in der Menschheitsentwickelung und namentlich in der Entwickelung der Gegenwart wirksamen Kräfte zu sprechen zu kommen. Dazu brauche ich heute eine gewissermaßen historische, eine geschichtliche Einleitung, eine geschichtliche Einleitung allerdings von den Gesichtspunkten aus, die sich der Geisteswissenschaft ergeben. Wir haben es ja öfter betont, inwieferne die gewöhnliche geschichtliche Betrachtungsweise eigentlich Fable convenue ist, und wie erst von den Ausgangspunkten geisteswissenschaftlicher Betrachtung Klärung, Licht auch in das geschichtliche Werden der Menschheit kommen kann. Wir wissen ja, daß, wenn wir die Evolution im großen betrachten, wir immer in den Vorgängen, die in der Gegenwart spielen, mit erblicken müssen Zurückgebliebenes aus der Vergangenheit. Wir nennen, wie wir gesehen haben, dieses Zurückgebliebene der Vergangenheit luziferisch oder ahrimanisch, je nachdem es dieses oder jenes Wesens ist, worauf wir auch in den letzten Betrachtungen gedeutet haben. Allein erst, wenn man bei Dingen, die einem recht nahe liegen, die man in ihren Wirkungen unmittelbar in der Umgebung betrachten kann, das Zurückgebliebene und das im regelrechten Gange Fortschreitende betrachtet, kommt man zu einem völlig konkreten Verständnis.

Daher möchte ich heute Ihre Blicke zunächst zurückrichten nach dem griechisch-lateinischen Zeitraum, also nach der vierten nachatlantischen Periode, und möchte einiges von dem beibringen, was das Verständnis eröffnen kann für die Art, wie dieser griechisch-lateinische Zeitraum in unsere Zeit hereinwirkt, wie gewissermaßen die Kräfte dieses griechisch-lateinischen Zeitraumes noch tätig sind, wie sie in einer gewissen Beziehung mitten unter uns sind, um daraus zu verstehen, wie sich der Mensch der Gegenwart gegenüber den Einflüssen der Evolution, in der wir ja natürlich immer mitten drinnenstehen, zurechtfinden kann. Denn nur dadurch, daß man sich zurechtfindet, ist man im wahren Sinne des Wortes Mensch, ist man im wahren Sinne des Wortes imstande zu begreifen, was man sogar in jedem einzelnen Augenblicke des Lebens als das Richtige zu tun hat. Allerdings, wenn es sich um konkrete Fragen handelt solcher Art, wie sie heute besprochen werden sollen, so bin ich in der Gegenwart in einer eigentümlichen Lage, da die Möglichkeit des Mißverständnisses, und zwar zumeist sogar des willentlichen, absichtlichen Mißverständnisses, ja sich so vielfach gezeigt hat. Ungefähr in demselben Vierteljahre wurde ich von der einen Seite her als ein wütender Pangermanist bezeichnet, und von der anderen Seite her wurde gesagt, daß ich nichts verstünde von wahrem Deutschtum und eigentlich nur romanisches Wesen in mir als Kräfte fühlte und nur romanisches Wesen verstehen könnte. Wenn man in dieser Weise verstanden wird, so ist es begreiflich, daß man etwas von der Schwierigkeit des Verständnisses, der Verständigung ahnt, und man kann ja dann doch nichts anderes tun, als das zu sagen, was man für wahr erkannt hat, ganz ohne auf das eine oder andere zu achten, wenn es sich darum handelt, die Wahrheit selber zu formulieren.

So also wollen wir unsere Blicke zurückwenden nach dem griechisch-lateinischen Zeitraum, nach diesem Zeitraum, der zu uns herüberleuchtet zunächst durch alles das, was zurückgeblieben ist vom Griechentum, und durch alles das, was sich hereingelebt hat in die Gegenwart aus dem Römertum. Führen wir uns einmal vor die Seele, was man empfinden kann als das griechische Wesen, dieses griechische Wesen, welches immer wieder und wiederum die Sehnsucht so vieler ausgezeichneter Seelen bildet, in welches sich immer wieder und wiederum so viele vertiefen wollen. Einiges vom griechischen Wesen weiß ja wohl jeder, entweder aus der Geschichte oder aus dem vielen sonstigen, das als Denkmäler da ist vom griechischen Wesen. Da hat man von diesem griechischen Wesen auf der einen Seite das, was in den Geschichtsbüchern steht. In diesen Geschichtsbüchern wird oftmals erzählt, was man die griechischen Taten nennen könnte, auch einiges von den griechischen sozialen Einrichtungen. Angefangen wird oftmals beim Trojanischen Krieg; es wird weitergeschritten bis in die späteren Zeiten des Griechentums, zu den Perserkriegen, in noch spätere Zeiten des Griechentums, zum Peloponnesischen Krieg und so weiter, bis zum Untergang des Griechentums durch die Römer. Das alles ist aber, ich möchte sagen, nur das eine Kapitel in dem großen Weltenbuche, das uns über griechisches Wesen spricht. Ein anderes Kapitel ist alles das, was wir ja auch öfter von der einen oder der anderen Seite her berührt haben in unseren Betrachtungen, was wir haben in den Gesängen Homers, in den Dichtungen des Äschylos, Sophokles, Euripides, soweit sie auf uns gekommen sind, was wir haben in den Gesängen des großen Pindar und in den Erinnerungen an die große griechische Kunstwelt, was wir haben an Hinterlassenschaft der griechischen Philosophie.

Das ist, ich möchte sagen, das andere Kapitel, ein Kapitel, aus dem uns spricht ein unendlicher Reichtum menschlicher Erlebnisse, menschlicher Empfindungen und Gefühle, menschlicher Anschauungen, ein unendlicher Reichtum von Vorstellungen über den Weltenbau. Und in das alles spielt hinein, gewissermaßen es überglänzend, überstrahlend, was wir an griechischen Mythen, an griechischen Göttersagen haben, und von dem wir ja so oft gehört haben, wie es in bildhafter Form in wunderbarer Art ausdrückt, was die Griechen erschauen konnten in bezug auf die Weltengeheimnisse. Auch einiges von dem ist an unsere Seele herangetreten, was das griechische Mysterienwesen ist. Und all das gehört eben zu diesem anderen Kapitel des Griechentums, zu jenem Kapitel, welches den Menschen, der zum Geistigen aufblicken will, viel mehr interessieren muß als das erste Kapitel. Und wenn wir heute sprechen von dem, was uns die Griechen sind, so ist natürlich viel mehr ins Auge zu fassen dieses zweite Kapitel als das erste, das uns ja doch nur Nachricht geben kann von den vergänglichen Taten, aus denen vielleicht der Ruhm der Helden spricht, aber die doch nur weniges hinterlassen haben von dem, was irgendwie für heute noch eine Bedeutung hat der Menschenseele gegenüber, während all das, was im zweiten Kapitel vom Griechentum aus zu uns herüber spricht, heute noch für den Menschen, der da will, lebendig werden kann, indem er eintreten kann selbst in das Begeisternde, eintreten kann in das Schöpferische dieses Griechentums. So können wir die eine Seite der griechisch-lateinischen Zeit uns vor unsere Seele stellen.

Dann sehen wir, wie dieses Griechentum immer mehr und mehr entgegeneilt seiner Reife gerade auf geistigen Gebieten. Das ist wunderbar zu sehen, wenn man es im einzelnen wirklich sachgemäß verfolgen will. Man braucht nur gewissermaßen den Extrakt des Geisteslebens zu nehmen, man braucht nur zu nehmen die griechische Philosophie, wie sie hervorgeht aus den alten großen Philosophen, die Nietzsche «das tragische Zeitalter der Griechen» genannt hat: Thales, Anaximander, Heraklit, Parmenides, Anaxagoras. Wir blicken dann hin zu dem, der in einer wunderbaren Weise ein neues Zeitalter eingeleitet hat, Sokrates, und zu dem endlich, der anknüpfend an Sokrates die Menschheit in einer unerhörten Weise heraufgehoben hat zu geistigen Idealen, geistigen ideellen Anschauungen, zu Plato. Dann tritt uns derjenige entgegen, der doch trotz allem, was die Menschheit später gedacht hat, die umfassendsten, die eindringlichsten Begriffe schon gefaßt hat, zu Aristoteles, der diese Begriffe so stark gefaßt hat, daß Jahrhunderte und Jahrhunderte nachher das noch nachzudenken hatten, was Aristoteles gedacht hat, und daß wir mit unserem Denken in der Außenwelt noch lange nicht so weit sind, mit allen Begriffen des Aristoteles schon rechnen zu können. Goethe hat erst später in seinem «Faust» eingesetzt: «Faustens Unsterbliches»; zuerst hatte er im Manuskript stehen: «Faustens Entelechie» — Entelechie, diesen aristotelischen Begriff, der in einer viel intimeren Weise das Menschlich-Seelische, das durch die Pforte des Todes geht, ausdrückt, als selbst das Wort «Unsterbliches», das ein negatives Wort ist, während Entelechie ein positives Wort ist. Aber Goethe hat wohl selber gefühlt, als er schrieb: «Faustens Entelechie wird von den Engeln himmelwärts getragen» -, daß die neuere Menschheit wenig Konkretes sich vorstellt bei dem Ausdruck Entelechie; daher hat er den gebräuchlicheren Ausdruck «Faustens Unsterbliches» dann an die Stelle gesetzt. Aber er hat etwas gefühlt von der Tiefe des Entelechiebegriffs. Dieser Begriff und mancher andere Begriff, sie sind noch nicht gehoben, weil das Griechentum, als es zu seiner Reife schritt, wirklich die Begriffe fein plastisch ausarbeitete und aus der Wirklichkeit heraus holte, und die Menschheit des fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraums und auch schon in der Einleitung dieses Zeitraums im ersten Mittelalter, viel zuviel zu tun hatte, gröbere Begriffe für die äußere materielle Wirklichkeit zu verstehen, und die feineren Begriffe, welche die äußere materielle Wirklichkeit im Sinne des Ariistoteles verbinden mit der geistigen Wirklichkeit, zunächst gar nicht ordentlich sich vor die Seele schaffen konnte.

So sehen wir ein Wunderbares sich entfalten in dem gesamten griechischen Kulturleben. Und als dieses griechische Kulturleben seiner Reife entgegengeht, als das Griechentum immer weiter und weiterschreitet, man möchte sagen, in einzelnen Teilen dann überreif wird, da wird es gewissermaßen, wie man so sagt, erobert, äußerlich überwunden von dem Römertum. Es ist ein merkwürdiger Prozeß, wie dieses Griechentum von dem Römertum, wie man sagt, überwunden wird. Und in den beiden Kulturströmungen, dem Griechentum und dem Römertum, haben wir das, was den vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum zusammensetzt, so daß das Verständnis dieser beiden Kulturströmungen äußerlich, exoterisch erläutern kann dasjenige, was innerlich wirkt und webt in diesem vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraum. Unterworfen also wird äußerlich das Griechentum vom Römertum, unterworfen wird es so, daß man in dem ganzen Prozeß, der sich nun abspielt zwischen dem Griechentum und dem Römertum, ein weltgeschichtlich interessantestes Faktum vor sich hat.

Zunächst das Römertum. Anders als das Griechentum steht das Römertum im Verhältnisse zur Gegenwart. Es gibt viele Seelen, welche das Griechentum suchen; aber man muß es suchen, man muß es sich gewissermaßen immer erst herausholen aus einer grauen Geistestiefe. So ist es nicht mit dem Römertum. Dieses Römertum lebt in einer Weise viel stärker, als man gewöhnlich glaubt, in unserer gesamten europäischen Gegenwart weiter fort, lebt noch. Wir brauchen nur daran zu denken, wie lange Zeit überhaupt alles Denken der europäischen Völker, der an der europäischen Kultur teilnehmenden Völker, in lateinischer Sprache gepflogen wurde. Wir brauchen nur daran zu denken, welche Bedeutung für diejenigen, die heute sich vorbereiten für führende Lebensstellungen, noch immer die lateinische Sprache hat, das heißt, das bis in unsere Tage herein kristallisierte Römertum; wieviel von Vorstellungen, Empfindungen, von Seelenformationen aus dem Römertum unmittelbar aufgenommen wird! Unendlich viel wird gedacht im Stile des Römertums. Juristerei wird zum großen Teil nur im Stile des Römertums gedacht. Aber auch viele andere Begriffe sind heute noch so geformt, daß sie im Stil des Römertums geformt sind. Und eben gerade diejenigen, die für führende Stellungen sich vorbereiten, sie müssen durch eine solche Erziehung, durch eine solche Schulung hindurchgehen, daß sie mit der römisch-lateinischen Sprache eine große Fülle von Empfindungen dieser Welt aufnehmen, so daß unser öffentlichesLeben überall durchzogen ist von Begriffen, die aus dem römisch-lateinischen Wesen stammen, viel mehr, als der einzelne glaubt. Der Bauer murrt vielleicht gegen dieses lateinische Wesen, aber zuletzt nimmt er es hin; er läßt sich ja sogar auch die Messe in lateinischer Sprache vortragen. Und wie lange ist es her, daß die europäischen Völker sich gestemmt haben gegen das Übermaß desjenigen, was an Einflüssen vom lateinischen Wesen, vom römisch-lateinischen Wesen ausgegangen ist? Bis ins Blut hinein dringt dieses römisch-lateinische Wesen bei denjenigen, die zu führenden Stellungen sich vorbereiten. Und was die obere Schicht der europäischen Menschen denkt in bezug auf Geschichtliches, Politisches, Juristisches, auch das Verwaltungsmäßige, das ist nicht bloß dem Namen nach, sondern der Denkweise nach im hohen Grade durchsetzt von römisch-lateinischem Wesen. Also anders als zum Griechentum steht der europäische Mensch zum römisch-lateinischen Wesen, zu der anderen Strömung, zu der zweiten Strömung des vierten nachatlantischen Zeitraums.

Und nun stellen wir einmal das Römertum neben das Griechentum hin, wie man es muß, wenn man wirklich verstehen will. Man kann sich kaum unter den Fakten der neueren historischen Entwickelung, wenn ich das Griechentum und Römertum zur neueren rechne, stärkere Gegensätze denken, trotz aller anderen Gegensätze auf dem Gebiet des Geistes, als das Griechentum und das Römertum. Das Griechentum obzwar das nicht genau gesprochen ist, aber mit einem Ausdruck der Gegenwart, der heute verstanden wird -, so wie es uns erscheint von einem gewissen Distanzpunkte aus, ganz in Phantasie und künstlerisch-philosophisches Wesen getaucht, ganz erglänzend in Formen und inneren Bedeutungen, ganz sprechend von Seele und Geist. Dagegen das Römertum - nichts von alledem durch sein eigenes Wesen, nichts von alledem, was gerade, wenn man das Griechentum an sich betrachtet, das tief Bedeutsame am Griechentum ist. Die Römer, ein Volk - als Volk — ohne Phantasie, ohne jene Ergriffenheit von unmittelbar kosmischem menschlichen Leben, in die alles griechische Seelenleben getaucht war. Das unerhört freie Leben der Griechen — wenn auch das Sklaventum in Griechenland ausgebreitet war, als Volkskultur zeigt das griechische Leben Freiheit in unerhörter Weise —, das freie griechische Leben unterjocht von dem Römertum, unterjocht von einer rein juristisch-phantasielosen, soldatisch-phantasielosen, politisch-phantasielosen Kultur! Diejenigen, die selbst das Römertum in der neueren Zeit lieben, aber es kennen und aus Kenntnis und nicht aus Unkenntnis sprechen, die wissen, daß das Römertum weder auf dem Gebiete der Wissenschaft, noch auf dem Gebiete der Kunst irgendwie originell war. Herübergenommen von Griechenland hat das Römertum, nachdem es das Griechentum politisch, soldatisch überwunden hatte, dasjenige, was im Griechentum lebte an Kunst, an Wissenschaft. Und selbst die größten römischen Dichter, sie sind wirklich nichts anderes, verglichen mit der Geistesgröße der griechischen Kunst und griechischen Dichtung, als Nachahmer, bloße Nachahmer.

Und nun wird dieses Römertum groß auf ganz anderen Gebieten. Es wird eben gerade groß auf denjenigen Gebieten, um die sich die Griechen weniger kümmerten, für die sich die Griechen weniger interessiert haben: es wird groß auf juristischem, auf politischem, auf soldatischem Gebiete. Es entwickelt Anschauungen, Empfindungen auf diesen Gebieten, die eben durch die eigentümliche Artung des römischen Volkes so stark sind, daß sie so lange fortwirken, wie wir heute verzeichnen konnten. Insbesondere zeigt sich der Unterschied des Griechentums und des Römertums dann, wenn man innerlich, dem Geistigen nach, die griechische Sprache und die römisch-lateinische Sprache betrachtet. Geister, die tiefer gesehen haben, wie im 19. Jahrhundert Herbart, wollten daher, daß der Gymnasialunterricht anders eingerichtet werde als er unter der mächtig fortstürmenden Welle des Römertums geworden ist. Dieser Gymnasialunterricht ist ja so, daß man zunächst Lateinisch lernt und dann Griechisch. Herbart wollte, daß man zuerst Griechisch lernt und dann Lateinisch, weil er der ganz richtigen Meinung war, daß man für das Seelenhafte, innerlich intim Wirkende des griechischen Idioms abgestumpft wird, wenn man vorher Lateinisch lernt. Es ist bisher nicht dazu gekommen, aber es ist ein Ideal vieler einsichtiger Pädagogen in der Gegenwart. Aber von Einsicht wird ja die Gegenwart nicht geleitet, und sie hat das Karma der Einsichtslosigkeit zu tragen.

Die griechische Sprache zeigt als Sprache überall, daß hinter dem griechischen Geistesleben dasjenige steht, was hereingeflossen ist aus den alten Imaginationen des ägyptisch-chaldäischen Zeitraumes. Allerdings, die heutige Menschheit ist ja oftmals nicht sehr geeignet dazu, zu fühlen hinter jedem griechischen Wort dieses Lebendige, das da war in der griechischen Seele. Da war das Wort in der Tat mehr eine äußere Gebärde für ein volles, inhaltsvolles Erleben. Gewiß, die Imagination, das bildhafte, visionelle Vorstellen war nicht mehr in dem Grade bei den Griechen vorhanden wie im ägyptisch-chaldäischen Zeitraum. Aber den Worten merkt man noch an, daß ein Nachempfinden, ein starkes inneres Nacherfühlen in der griechischen Seele lebt von dem, was das alte imaginative Vorstellen durchweht hat. Und in das Wort drängt sich überall hinein, ich möchte sagen, ein Nichtachten des bloßen Wortes in der griechischen Sprache, ein noch Gesättigtsein von Seelenhaftigkeit. Den besten überlieferten griechischen Worten merkt man diese Seelenhaftigkeit an. Man schaut durch das Wort hindurch; man hört nicht das Wort unmittelbar, sondern schaut durch das Wort hindurch auf einen Seelenprozeß, der sich abspielt. In der Lautung und in der grammatikalischen Konfiguration der griechischen Sprache ist dieses ausgedrückt.

Anders ist das bei der römisch-lateinischen Sprache. Dasjenige, was Sie verfolgen können mit Bezug auf die Mythologie, ist ein Charakteristikon des lateinisch-römischen Idioms selber. Nehmen Sie die griechischen Mythen mit den Götternamen, die überliefert sind: Sie werden überall hinter den Götternamen die konkretesten mythischen Begebenheiten finden. Und wiederum in den mythischen Begebenheiten drinnen werden die Götter lebendig, so daß sie vor uns stehen, an uns vorübergehen, daß sie sich unmittelbar - vergleichsweise gesprochen — wie Fleisch und Blut, aber seelisch gemeint, uns darbieten. Nehmen Sie die Götternamen der Römer, den Saturnus, den Jupiter: fast zu abstrakten Begriffen sind sie geworden. Das, was dahintersteht im Griechentum, hat sich verloren, zu abstrakten Begriffen sind sie geworden. Und so ist es mit dem römisch-lateinischen Idiom. Vieles von dem, was hinter der griechischen Sprache liegt, hat sich verloren. Und das Wort selber, wie es lautet, wie es in der Sprache grammatikalisch sich bildet, das Wort selbst ist dasjenige geworden, auf das man die Aufmerksamkeit richtet, in dem man lebt. Das unmittelbar Seelenhafte, das kernhaft Gemütsinnige, das die griechische Sprache hat, das ist in der lateinischen Sprache selber einem Kälteren gewichen. Daher bedurfte es im lateinisch-römischen Wesen hinter der Sprache nicht jenes Nachklanges von imaginativem Leben — das war ja nicht mehr da -, sondern es bedurfte des Affektes, der Leidenschaft, der Emotion, um gewissermaßen die Worte in Bewegung zu bringen. Denn die lateinische Sprache ist im vollsten Sinne eine logische Sprache, und damit sie nicht bloß logisch kalt verläuft, muß dasjenige, was in ihr ausgedrückt wird, fortwährend angefacht werden von dem Emotionellen, das immer hinter dem römischen Leben ist und das in der ganzen römischen Geschichte lebt. Dieses ganze zweite Kapitel, das ich angeführt habe, findet sich nicht in der gleichen Art in der römisch-lateinischen Geschichte. In dieser römisch-lateinischen Geschichte sind die Dinge, die das erste große Kapitel ausfüllen, die Hauptsache. Und diese Hauptsache lernen zunächst auch unsere jungen Leute als das Tonangebende in der Welt, in der menschlichen Entwickelung. Und Juristerei zu fassen und menschliche Zusammenhänge, wie sie sich aus der Emotion herausleben, darzustellen, das ist gewissermaßen das Geheimnis der lateinischen Sprache geworden.

Man muß solche Dinge heute schon ohne Sympathie und Antipathie betrachten, wenn man sie wirklich verstehen will; denn es ist wichtig, diese Dinge zu verstehen, weil sie eine so große Rolle eben gerade in unserem Bildungsleben spielen, weil sie sich so hineingenistet haben in unser Bildungsleben. Bedenken wir, aber wie gesagt ganz ohne Sympathie und Antipathie, rein historisch, welche Dinge eigentlich aufgenommen werden von dem jugendlichen Gemüte, indem römische Geschichte studiert wird. Vieles bleibt ja unausgesprochen; aber das Unausgesprochene wird ja erst recht vom astralischen Leibe aufgenommen und lebt dann in den Empfindungen, lebt in den Gefühlen der Menschen weiter. Das, was wir heute Recht nennen, gewiß, es war in der einen oder in der anderen Weise vor der römischen Kultur da; aber so, wie wir heute das Recht verstehen, ist es gewissermaßen eine Erfindung der Römer. Jenes Recht, das sich besonders gut eignet, geschrieben zu werden, jenes Recht, das sich besonders gut eignet, in Paragraphen die Dinge abzuteilen, hübsch einzuteilen, Begriffe über- und unterzuschachteln, es ist eine Erfindung des römischen Volkes. Und warum hätten die Römer denn nicht der Welt sagen sollen, was Recht ist und wie man recht handelt? Das wird ja doch, nicht wahr, unmittelbar illustriert, warum sie das haben tun sollen, wenn man bedenkt, daß sie ihre eigene Geschichte zurückführen auf Romulus, der seinen Bruder erschlagen hatte, der alle diejenigen, die etwas ausgefressen hatten in der Nachbarschaft, zusammensammelte, um daraus die ersten römischen Bürger zu machen; daß sie zurückführen die Möglichkeit, ihr Geschlecht fortzupflanzen, auf den Raub der Sabinerinnen! Also scheint ja doch wirklich, mit Hilfe jener Macht, die dadurch schafft und wirkt, daß sie den Widerstand in der richtigen Weise betätigt, dieses Volk in der Tat berufen worden zu sein zur Erfindung des Rechts, zur Ausrottung des Unrechts, dieses Volk, das sich selbst zurückführt — die Männer auf Räuber und die Frauen auf Frauenraub! Durch den Gegensatz, durch den Kontrast erklärt sich ja mancherlei in der Weltgeschichte. Man muß diese Dinge, wie gesagt, ohne Sympathien und Antipathien betrachten, so betrachten, wie sie sind.

Nun gründen die Römer nach und nach ein großes Reich. Wir sehen, wie zuerst unter dem Einflusse von alter magischer Weisheit die sieben Könige wirtschaften, die mehr sind als eine bloße Mythe - das haben wir oft hervorgehoben -, wie aber zuletzt diese sieben Könige im Übermute endigen. Wir gehen dann die Zeiten der Republik durch, von denen sich die Menschheit noch immer nicht gesteht, wie wenig interessant eigentlich für einen Gegenwartsmenschen doch diese Zeiten der römischen Republik im Grunde sind. Das heißt, obwohl sie so wenig interessant sind, so wenig bedeutungsvoll für den Menschen der Gegenwart, bilden sie ja immerhin noch einen großen Teil desjenigen, womit man die Jugend heute bildet: diese Kämpfe der Patrizier und Plebejer, diese Kämpfe, die dann zu jenen Tatsachen geführt haben, innerhalb welcher wir den wenig erfreulichen Streit zwischen Marius und Sulla sehen, in welchem wir sehen, wie Rom erzittert vor dem Catilina, sehen die unendliche Reihe von Sklavenkämpfen der furchtbarsten Art. Diese ganze Reihe, sie steht heute vielfach da als das Bildungsmittel für unsere Jugend.

Und dann sehen wir, während sich das auf dem römischen Boden selber zuträgt, dieses Römertum sich immer mehr und mehr ausbreiten, so daß es zum Imperium wird, gewissermaßen die ganze damalige bekannte Welt zu umfassen strebt und nach und nach auch wirklich umfaßt. Aber wir sehen, wie der Römer sich allein fühlt, fühlt in einer Weise, bei der man manchmal nicht recht nachdenkt, wenn man sie heute überblickt. Wie gut stimmen die Taten, nun, sagen wir eines Caracalla oder anderer, zu der Erfindung des Rechtes für die Menschheit? Man beachtet heute viel zuwenig, wie diese Römer Recht und Macht auf sich vereinigt haben bei furchtbarster Knechtung ihrer Kolonien und furchtbarster Knechtung derjenigen Völker, über die sie nach und nach ihre Eroberung ausgedehnt haben. Aber da die Geschichte Roms so bekannt ist, ist es doch gut — weil es leicht ist -, sie von einem reiferen Standpunkt, den man schon einnehmen kann, einmal zu durchschauen. Man wird dann gewiß nichts in den Darstellungen zu korrigieren haben, denn die werden schon richtig gegeben in der Geschichte, aber man wird manches an den Gefühlen, die man dabei einzusaugen gekriegt hat, zu korrigieren haben. Man kann allerdings Gefühle korrigieren; denn man könnte ja zum Beispiel sagen, wenn man nicht ohne Sympathie oder Antipathie die ganze Sache betrachtet, sondern mit der sehr häufigen Sympathie und Antipathie: Ja, aber haben denn die Römer nicht aus sich heraus später das römische Bürgerrecht den Bewohnern ihrer Kolonien gegeben? — Nun, auf die Motive geschaut, nimmt sich das doch sonderbar aus, denn der Caracalla war es, dem man sehr selbstlose Motive nicht gerade zuzutrauen hat, sondern römisch-egoistische Motive, der den Kolonisten das römische Bürgerrecht gegeben hat. Das spricht genug für die Art und Weise, wie die Seelen lebten im alten Römertum. Es gab allerdings edle Juristen, die mit Seelenhaftigkeit sich der Jurisprudenz gewidmet haben, wie zum Beispiel den Papinian, ein edler Mann; aber Caracalla hat ihn hinmorden lassen. Und so könnte man noch viele Beispiele anführen, die schon zu einer Korrektur der Empfindung führen würden.

Herübergenommen in der Weise, wie es eben konnte, hat das Römertum das Griechentum. Das Griechentum floß ein in das Römertum. Geistig ist durchaus das Römertum von dem Griechentum überwunden worden. Aber das Griechentum mußte diese Überwindung mit seinem Untergang bezahlen, mit seinem Untergang als politische, man kann nicht sagen Einheit, denn die Griechen waren nie eine politische Einheit, sondern als politische Gemeinschaft, mit seinem Untergang als politische Gemeinschaft. Bossuet sagt mit Recht, allerdings indem er seine Bewunderung an diese Worte knüpft, aber Worte können ja richtig sein und man kann sie in verschiedener Weise empfinden: Das einzige, wovon man reden hört, ist die Größe des römischen Namens. Gerade in den besten Zeiten des Römertums ist es die Größe des römischen Namens, das, was in das Wort ausgeflossen ist, das, was das Wort als solches, als Eigenschaft fühlt und empfindet. Und so zeigt denn auch, sozial gefaßt, das Römertum ungeheuren Reichtum, der aus den Kolonien zusammenfließt in Rom, und daneben ungeheure Armut eines großen Teiles der Bevölkerung.

In der ersten Zeit der Eroberung nimmt das Römertum das Griechentum hinüber. Dann sehen wir, wie in das Römertum sich vorschiebt das Christentum, wie das Christentum sich in das Römertum hineinschiebt und wie das Christentum seinerseits über sich ergehen lassen muß das Formale, das da liegt in dem römischen Wesen. Man könnte sagen: Hinein wächst alles das, was Institution ist des ersten Christentums, in die Struktur des römischen Juristisch-Verwaltungsmäßigen. Und so wird das alte Römertum in der Kirchenbildung konserviert, bewahrt. Dieses Kirchentum zeigt in seinen Institutionen gerade in allem die Formen, die aus dem Römertum heraus gebildet sind, nimmt auch die lateinische Sprache auf, um in der lateinischen Sprache zu denken und damit, mit der Ausbreitung des Christentums, das römisch-lateinische Wesen über Europa mit auszubreiten. Allerdings, als dann das Römertum aufgenommen hatte Griechentum und Christentum, kam eine Zeit, wo man empfand, daß man eigentlich das Aufgenommene nicht versteht, wo man es nicht wollte, wo man es wie einen Fremdkörper empfand. Zunächst wirkte es mächtig in der Zeit, als man das Griechentum eroberte; aber allmählich fühlte sich das Römertum in seinem juristischen, politischen Wesen erstarkt und empfand in den Formen drinnen das Griechentum als etwas, was man nicht mehr haben wollte. Und eine Folge davon ist ja, daß dann im 6. Jahrhundert der oströmische Kaiser Justinian, der das ganze politisch-juristische Wesen des Römertums kodifizieren ließ im Corpus juris civilis, so daß alles beieinander war, was gerade im politisch-juristischen Wesen das Römertum hervorgebracht hat, daß Justinian, der wie eine Inkarnation des römisch-lateinischen Wesens war, trotzdem er drüben im oströmischen Reiche herrschte, daß er es war, der die athenischen Philosophenschulen nun endgültig schloß, auflöste und die griechische Philosophie ertötete, ihren Betrieb nicht mehr gestattete. Er war es, der auch die ursprüngliche freie Entfaltung des christlichen Wesens ertötete, indem er hauptsächlich es bewirkte, daß Origenes, der die Weisheit des Griechentums verbunden hat mit der Tiefe des Christentums, der noch okkultes, also halb geisteswissenschaftliches Gut in das Christentum hineingebracht hat, von der Kirche verdammt wurde. Es bewirkte dieses Justinian.

Und so sehen wir, wie ausfließt in die Institutionen Europas das Römertum auf dem Umwege durch die Kirche, der sich dann die anderen politischen Institutionen anpassen, gewissermaßen sich aus ihr ergeben, indem die Herrscher ein besonderes Gewicht darauf legen, sich zu nennen «Defensor fidei» — wenn sie auch nachher, als sie sich scheiden lassen wollten, diesen Titel ablegten und eine eigene Kirche gründeten! Nun ja, diese Dinge betrachtet man nicht immer so mit aller Gründlichkeit. Also solche Herrscher, sie nennen sich Defensor fidei, sie nennen sich den «allerchristlichsten König» und so weiter. Die Institutionen des öffentlichen Lebens entwickeln sich herein aus dem Römertum. Das Römertum infiziert gewissermaßen alles, impft sein Wesen der europäischen Bildung ein. Und so sehen wir denn, wie in den europäischen Institutionen, nachdem Justinian den großen Kodex des römisch-juristisch-politischen Denkens angelegt hatte, nachdem er die griechische Philosophie ausgerottet hatte, nachdem er den Origenes hat verdammen lassen, so sehen wir, wie fortlebt in Europa das Römertum ohne den Inhalt des Griechentums; wie gewissermaßen das Äußerliche, das im Wort erstarrt und in der äußeren Institution erstarkt, bleibt, wie das fortlebt, und wie es herausgedrängt hat das inhaltsvolle, geistig vollsaftige Griechentum.

Die einsichtigen Okkultisten aller Jahrhunderte haben daher immer ein gewisses Gefühl gehabt, das sie erhalten haben, das einstimmig ist unter denjenigen, die es nicht kaschieren wollen aus gewissen Gründen heraus; sie haben das rechte Gefühl gehabt, daß fortlebte auf vielen Gebieten, wie man sagte, das Gespenst, der «Revenant» des alten Römertums in den europäischen Institutionen.

Aber wir sehen immer wieder und wiederum, wie ins Folgende das Vorhergehende hineinspielt, wie es wieder auflebt. Und so sehen wir, daß noch ein zweites Mal das Römertum von dem Griechentum befruchtet wird. Das erste Mal war es ja in der Zeit, als die Republik sich ins Kaisertum hinüberentwickelte in Rom, wo griechische Kunst, griechische Philosophie, griechisches Geistesleben hinüberfloß nach Rom, wo gewissermaßen die Römer das Griechentum lebten. Sie verhielten sich ja wie die großen Herren und machten es sich leicht, dieses Griechentum herüberzunehmen: die philosophisch gebildeten Griechen wurden großenteils als Erzieher der Söhne römischer Bürger angestellt, als Sklaven eigentlich. So erhält man eine Kultur, die man überwunden hat, so nimmt man sie herüber nach römischen Begriffen.

Dann wiederum folgt eine besondere Epoche nach einer Epoche der Stagnation, nach einer Epoche, von der die Geschichte sogar nur weniges verzeichnet, weil diese Epoche lebte in einer verkirchlichten Jurisprudenz und judiziell gewordenen Kirche, in einer verpolitisierten Kirche; dann folgte wie ein Wiederaufleben des Griechentums die Zeit von Dante bis zum Untergang der florentinischen Freiheit, die Zeit, die wir bezeichnen als die Zeit der Renaissance, wo das Griechentum wiederum auflebt im Römertum, wo die Römer wiederum griechisch werden, wo insbesondere Raffael und die anderen, in deren Mitte Raffael steht, Griechisches wiederum aufleben lassen im Römertum. Aber es ist eine Renaissance; es ist keine Naissance, es ist eine Renaissance. Und lange genug mußte Europa zurückblicken zu dieser Renaissance. Als Goethe nach Italien ging, suchte er nicht römisches Wesen auf studieren Sie das, was Goethe in Italien erlebte; was suchte er? Griechisches Wesen in Italien! Überall suchte er durch das Römertum hindurch griechische Art und Weise zu erkennen. Wahrhaftig, so zusammenwachsen vergleichsweise — ich will das mehr als Bild sagen, was ich jetzt sagen werde -, so zusammenwachsen konnten wiederum in der Renaissance Griechentum und Christentum, daß jetzt die Nachwelt gar nicht mehr unterscheiden kann Griechentum und Christentum in den Schöpfungen der Renaissance. Gestritten wird, wie ich Ihnen öfter schon gesagt habe, ob das berühmte Bild Raffaels «Die Schule von Athen», wie es genannt wird, wirklich in den Mittelfiguren Plato und Aristoteles darstelle, oder ob es darstellt Petrus und Paulus. Für das eine wie für das andere sprechen gewichtige Gründe; das eine wie das andere wurde vertreten, so daß an einem der hervorragendsten der Bilder nicht zu unterscheiden ist, ob man es mit griechischen oder mit christlichen Gestalten zu tun hat. Aber es ist eben so zusammengewachsen, daß jene wunderbare Ehe, welche im griechischen Geistesleben geschlossen war zwischen dem Geistigen und dem Materiellen, daß jene wunderbare Ehe sich ebenso ausdrücken läßt durch Plato und Aristoteles, wie durch Petrus und Paulus. In dem Plato, den manche sehen wollen in dem Bilde, das man «Die Schule von Athen» nennt, sehen wir den Greis, der hinaufhebt die Hand ins himmlische Reich, neben ihm stehend Aristoteles mit seiner begrifflichen Welt, hinunterweisend nach der materiellen Welt, um den Geist in der Materie zu suchen. Ebensogut kann man in dem Hinaufweisenden den Petrus, in dem Hinunterweisenden den Paulus sehen. Aber immer ist während dieser Renaissance rechtmäßig die Sache auf zwei Personen verteilt.

Gegenüber der Renaissance, die ein Wiederaufleben des Griechentums war, muß etwas Ursprüngliches wieder kommen. Das kann nur kommen durch Synthese, durch die höhere Synthese. Sie ist dadurch gegeben, daß in derselben Person die eine wie die andere Geste sein wird: die Geste hinauf zum Himmlischen, die Geste hinunter zum Irdischen. Dann braucht man allerdings das Luziferische und das Ahrimanische, einander kontrastierend. Was Sie sehen in einem der größten Kunstwerke der Renaissance auf zwei Personen verteilt, müssen Sie in unserer Gruppe, die geschaffen werden soll, sehen in der einen Person des Menschheitsrepräsentanten: die eine wie die andere Geste!

Es brauchte das Mittelalter oder die beginnende Neuzeit diese Renaissance, dieses Wiederaufleben des Griechentums. Und wie viel schreibt sich doch an lebendigem Leben, wie es seither verflossen ist, von dieser Renaissance her! Wir sehen, wie bei einem Philosophen wie Nietzsche diese Renaissance wieder auflebt in seinen besten Jahren; wir sehen, wie sie aus der Gelehrsamkeit des Jacob Burckhardt heraussprießt in einer so wunderbaren Weise. Bis in die neueste Zeit wirkt sie nach, diese Renaissance, und sie stellt sich wie etwas aus der früheren griechischen Zeit Herübergehendes hinein in diese neuere Zeit. Man kann sagen: Das Griechentum ist äußerlich vernichtet worden von dem Römertum, aber viele Sprossen griechischer Geisteskräfte sind geblieben. Ungefähr bis zum Jahre 333 — denn Justinian hat nur noch den Sarg vernagelt, der zu zimmern begonnen wurde seit dem 4. Jahrhundert — haben sie noch gereicht, hereingereicht, diese griechischen Geisteshelden. Und so wie zurückgebliebene Triebe der geistigen Welt kommen sie wieder hervor in der Renaissancezeit. Man möchte sagen: Wie in der großen Evolution gewisse Mondenkräfte zu einer bestimmten Zeit wiederum aufleuchten, ohne deren Aufleuchten die menschliche Vernunft und die menschliche Sprache nicht hätten geboren werden können, so leuchtet das Griechentum wie ein zurückgebliebener Faktor wiederum auf im 15., 16. Jahrhundert und bildet die Renaissance. Da haben wir ein lebendiges Beispiel, wie dasjenige, was zurückgeblieben ist und was in einer späteren Zeit dennoch als Luziferisches wirkt, zum Fortschritte der Menschheit gewendet wird in der Gesamtvernunft des Werdens. Gewiß, das zurückgebliebene Griechentum, das in der Renaissance erscheint, man kann es als etwas Luziferisches ansprechen, und es hat ja alle Nebenerscheinungen von Luziferischem erzeugt, wenn wir neben den Gestalten von Leonardo, von Michelangelo, von Raffael solche Gestalten sehen wie Alexander VI., den Papst, oder wie Cesare Borgia und die anderen, die als die Begleiterscheinung dieser Renaissance erscheinen.

Europa brauchte diese Renaissance, denn diese Renaissance bot Europa recht, recht viel. Und so haben wir denn wiederum, vom 15., 16. Jahrhundert ab erst recht, wenn auch jetzt in einer verhüllteren Gestalt, die beiden Strömungen: die eine, die wieder erneuert war in der Renaissance, die andere, die eigentlich immer fortgewirkt hat und geblieben ist im Romanismus, die nur die mannigfaltigsten Formen und Veränderungen durchgemacht hat. Und so laufen sie in der neueren Zeit wiederum nebeneinander, die beiden Strömungen, tief einschneidend nebeneinander, haben eine außerordentlich große Bedeutung. Und man muß, wenn man so etwas bespricht, sich schon bekanntmachen mit einer Lebens- und Weltenauffassung, die imstande ist, nicht bei den Worten gleich Sympathien und Antipathien zu empfinden, sondern objektiv zu charakterisieren, wirklich die Dinge anzusehen.

Wir haben viele Renaissancevorstellungen, viele Renaissancebegriffe, die weniger auf dem Wege der Schulung der Jugend als auf dem Wege des mehr geistigen Lebens zu den Menschen kommen. Wiederum weiß man von diesen Sachen nicht viel; aber sie leben bei jedem, diese Renaissancebegriffe, und sie sind ein anderes Element als das, was eigentlich nie verschwunden ist, sondern sich immer nur fortgebildet hat als die Begriffe und Anschauungen des Romanismus. Eine Art imaginativen Elementes, eine Rettung des imaginativen Elementes liegt in der Renaissance, ein Sich-Entwinden dem bloßen Logischen, ein Sich-Entwinden dem Kalten des Latinismus, der den emotionellen Nachschub immer braucht, um sich zu beleben, weil er in sich selber kalt ist.

Dem stellt sich alles das gegenüber, was als erhebendes Lebenselement durch die Renaissance wiederum Europa zugefügt worden ist: imaginatives Leben. Und dieses imaginative Leben mußte ja herübergebracht werden aus dem Griechentum; denn wir werden morgen sehen, was gerade das bedeutete, daß angefacht wurde imaginatives Leben, schon als die neue Zeit begann, schon als der vierte in den fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraum herüberwuchs; was es bedeutete, daß die Renaissance gewissermaßen Pate gestanden hat bei der Geburt des fünften nachatlantischen Zeitraums. Dieser fünfte nachatlantische Zeitraum muß sich entwinden — indem er nicht gleich wiederum eben allerlei Gefühlsbegriffe anwendet, sondern indem er erkennt, er muß sich entwinden dem Romanismus, in der Bedeutung, wie wir versuchten, es heute zu schildern. Die Größe dieses Romanismus wird ja dadurch nicht verkleinert. Aber in dem Gleichklang, in dem Waagehalten und richtigen Abwägen liegt das Heil der Evolution, nicht in dem Sich-Wenden zu dem einen oder zu dem anderen einseitigen Extrem. Viele Begriffe leben innerhalb der europäischen Menschheit, die Verführer und Versucher sind, weil sie vom römisch-lateinischen Wesen geblieben sind, und weil sie wie versucherische Begriffe leben, indem sie einen Begriffs- und Empfindungskomplex in die Seele hereinbringen, dessen man sich nicht immer vollständig bewußt ist. Gewiß - ich wies schon darauf hin —, man kann nicht sagen, die Römer hätten das politisch-judizielle Element völlig erfunden; aber in der Art haben sie es doch erfunden, wie wir es heute charakterisieren wollten. Und gegenüber dem, was der Grieche an den Menschen gesehen hat aus seinen lebendigen Imaginationen oder beziehungsweise aus den Erbschaften aus lebendigen Imaginationen heraus, hat der Romanismus einen bestimmten Begriff gebildet, der in dieser Bedeutung erst im Romanismus auflebt und der eine Pflanze ist, die ganz aus juristisch-politischem Boden herauswächst, wenn man die Sache richtig versteht: das ist der Begriff des römischen Civis, des römischen Bürgers; der Mensch wird zum Civis, zum römischen Bürger. Damit wird dem Menschenbegriff ein Politisch- Juristisches beigefügt, eingefügt dem Menschenbegriffe ein juristisch-politisches Element. Und mit dem, was ich das letzte Mal als Politisierung der Begriffswelt bezeichnet habe, hängt das, was ins Blut der europäischen Völker übergegangen ist mit dem Civisbegriffe, innig zusammen. Und es hat Juristen gegeben in der neueren Zeit, welche die Zusammengehörigkeit der neueren Menschheit mit dem Römertum einfach auf den Civisbegriff gründeten, durch den, wenn er lebendig empfunden wird, sich der Mensch hineinstellt auf politisch-juristische Weise in seine Gemeinschaft. Wenn er es sich auch nicht gesteht, mit diesem Begriffe stellt er sich auf politisch-juristische Weise in die Menschheit hinein. Von «Zoon politikon» sprach noch Aristoteles; er setzte das Politische noch mit dem Zoon, mit dem Tiere zusammen. Ja, das war überhaupt noch ein ganz anderes, imaginatives Denken, das war noch nicht ein politisches Denken; das war noch nicht ein Politisieren der Begriffe.

Und so bildete sich denn jenes Element, das man bezeichnet mit einer rein politisch-juristischen Kategorie. Man ist sich dessen nicht bewußt, daß man dieses Element bezeichnet mit einer juristisch-politischen Kategorie, aber man stellt damit die Menschen durch Wahlverwandtschaft der Begriffe und Ideen hinein in ein politisch-juristisches Element, indem man die Zusammengehörigkeit mit dem politisch-juristischen Römertum in all dem erfühlt, wenn auch oftmals unbewußt erfühlt, was man in der neueren Zeit bezeichnet mit dem Begriffsungetüm — denn alles das, was für eine frühere Zeit Bedeutung hat, in spätere Zeit versetzt, kann auch zum Ungetüm werden -, das sich auf dem Civisbegriff aufbaut, mit dem Worte, hinter dem ein Begriffsungetüm lebt, mit dem Worte «Zivilisation», mit dem solcher Unfug getrieben wird. Und in alledem, was hinter dem Wort Zivilisation steckt, steckt Romanismus. Das Pochen auf Zivilisation in der Art und Weise, wie es heute vielfach geschieht, ist unverstandener Romanismus, oftmals nur erfühlter Romanismus, wie es oftmals vorkommt, daß man mit einem Worte, hinter dem man etwas besonders Hohes aussprechen will, etwas ausspricht, bei dem man gar nicht weiß, wie sehr man sich damit abhängig macht von historischen Mächten. Für denjenigen, der den ganzen politisch-judiziellen Hintergrund dessen schaut, was in dem Worte Zivilisation liegt, für den bewirkt das Aussprechen des Wortes Zivilisation, wie es heute geschieht, oftmals etwas wie eine Art von Gänsehaut, wie eine Art von geheimem Gruseln, Grauen. Solche Dinge muß man schon aussprechen, denn Geisteswissenschaft ist nicht für die Kinderstube, wie es vielfach die Welt meint, sondern Geisteswissenschaft ist für ernstes Weltenerkennen. Vor diesem ernsten Weltenerkennen werden wirklich viele Begriffe, welche die Menschheit heute als ihre Götzen anbetet, von ihren Altären fallen. Das muß Geisteswissenschaft einsehen, denn sie ist nicht für die Kinderstube. Sie ist nicht dazu da, die Wesen der geistigen Welt zu einer Art von vertrautem Umgang bloß zu machen, den man gern hat, wie man mit Dichtern verkehrt, sondern die Geisteswissenschaft ist dazu da, um in allem Ernste sich der geistigen Welt und ihren Kräften zu nähern.

Morgen wollen wir dann diese Betrachtungen weiterleiten und ins Geistige hineinzustellen wissen.

First Lecture

Over the next few days, I will attempt to continue my reflections on the relationship between human beings and the entire universe by shifting the focus to a different, more general area and setting myself the task of discussing the forces at work in human evolution, particularly in the present day, from a specific perspective. To do this, I need today a kind of historical introduction, but one based on the points of view that arise from spiritual science. We have often emphasized how the usual historical approach is actually a fable convenue, and how only from the starting points of spiritual scientific observation can clarification and light be brought into the historical development of humanity. We know that when we look at evolution in the big picture, we always have to see in the processes taking place in the present something left behind from the past. As we have seen, we call this remnant of the past Luciferic or Ahrimanic, depending on whether it is one or the other of these beings, which we also interpreted in our last reflections. Only when we look at things that are quite close to us, whose effects we can observe directly in our surroundings, and consider what has been left behind and what is progressing in the normal course of events, do we arrive at a completely concrete understanding.

Therefore, I would like to direct your attention back to the Greek-Latin period, that is, to the fourth post-Atlantean period, and teach you some things that may help you understand how this Greek-Latin period continues to influence our time, how, in a sense, the forces of this Greek-Latin period are still at work, how they are in a certain relationship with us, in order to understand how the human being of the present can find his way in the influences of evolution, in which we are, of course, always in the midst. For only by finding one's way can one be a human being in the true sense of the word, can one be capable in the true sense of the word of understanding what one must do as the right thing in every single moment of life. However, when it comes to concrete questions of the kind we are going to discuss today, I find myself in a peculiar situation at present, since the possibility of misunderstanding, and in most cases even of deliberate misunderstanding, has shown itself so often. In roughly the same quarter of a year, I was described on the one hand as a rabid pan-Germanist, and on the other hand it was said that I understood nothing of true Germanness and actually felt only Romanic elements as forces within me and could understand only Romanic elements. When one is understood in this way, it is understandable that one senses something of the difficulty of understanding and communication, and one can do nothing else but say what one has recognized as true, without paying any attention to one thing or another, when it comes to formulating the truth itself.

So let us turn our gaze back to the Greek-Latin period, to this period which shines down on us, first of all through all that has remained of Greek culture, and then through all that has lived its way into the present from Roman culture. Let us bring to mind what we can perceive as the Greek essence, this Greek essence that again and again forms the longing of so many distinguished souls, into which so many again and again want to immerse themselves. Everyone knows something about the Greek essence, either from history or from the many other things that remain as monuments to the Greek essence. On the one hand, there is what is written about the Greek essence in history books. These history books often recount what could be called the deeds of the Greeks, as well as some of their social institutions. They often begin with the Trojan War and continue through to the later periods of Greek civilization, the Persian Wars, and even later periods of Greek civilization, the Peloponnesian War, and so on, until the downfall of Greek civilization at the hands of the Romans. But all of this, I would say, is only one chapter in the great book of the world that tells us about the Greek character. Another chapter is everything that we have often touched upon from one side or the other in our reflections, what we have in the songs of Homer, in the poems of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, insofar as they have come down to us, what we have in the songs of the great Pindar and in the memories of the great Greek art world, what we have in the legacy of Greek philosophy.

That, I would say, is the other chapter, a chapter that speaks to us of an infinite wealth of human experiences, human sensations and feelings, human views, an infinite wealth of ideas about the structure of the world. And into all this plays, in a manner of speaking, outshining and outradiating it, what we have in Greek myths, in Greek legends of the gods, and of which we have so often heard how it expresses in a wonderful, pictorial form what the Greeks were able to see in relation to the secrets of the world. Some of what the Greek mysteries are has also touched our souls. And all this belongs to this other chapter of Greek culture, to that chapter which must be of much greater interest to people who want to look up to the spiritual than the first chapter. And when we speak today of what the Greeks are to us, we must naturally consider this second chapter much more than the first, which can only tell us of the transitory deeds that may have given rise to the fame of heroes, but which have left little behind that is still of any significance to the human soul today, whereas all that in the second chapter speaks to us from Greek culture can still come alive today for those who want it, by allowing themselves to enter into the inspiring, creative spirit of Greek culture. In this way, we can place one side of the Greek-Latin era before our souls.

Then we see how this Greek culture rushed more and more toward its maturity, especially in the spiritual realms. This is wonderful to see if one really wants to follow it in detail in a proper way. One need only take, as it were, the essence of spiritual life, one need only take Greek philosophy as it emerges from the great philosophers of antiquity, whom Nietzsche called “the tragic age of the Greeks”: Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras. We then look to the one who, in a wonderful way, ushered in a new age, Socrates, and finally to the one who, following on from Socrates, raised humanity in an unprecedented way to spiritual ideals, spiritual idealistic views, to Plato. Then we encounter the one who, despite everything that humanity later thought, formulated the most comprehensive, most compelling concepts, Aristotle, who formulated these concepts so powerfully that centuries and centuries later people still had to think about what Aristotle had thought, and that with our thinking in the external world we are still far from being able to reckon with all of Aristotle's concepts. Goethe only later inserted in his “Faust”: “Faust's immortal”; at first he had written in the manuscript: ‘Faust's entelechy’ — entelechy, this Aristotelian concept, which expresses in a much more intimate way the human soul that passes through the gate of death than even the word ‘immortal,’ which is a negative word, whereas entelechy is a positive word. But Goethe himself probably felt, when he wrote: “Faust's entelechy is carried heavenward by the angels,” that modern humanity has little concrete idea of what is meant by the term entelechy; hence he replaced it with the more common expression “Faust's immortality.” But he sensed something of the depth of the concept of entelechy. This concept and many others have not yet been elevated because, as it matured, Greek culture really worked out the concepts in a finely plastic way and drew them out of reality, and the humanity of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, and even in the introduction to this epoch in the early Middle Ages, had far too much to do to understand the coarser concepts of external material reality, and could not at first properly form in their minds the finer concepts which, in the sense of Aristotle, connect external material reality with spiritual reality.

Thus we see something wonderful unfolding in the entire Greek cultural life. And as this Greek cultural life approaches maturity, as Greek culture progresses further and further, one might say, in individual parts, it becomes overripe, and then it is, as it were, conquered, outwardly overcome by Roman culture. It is a remarkable process, how this Greek culture is, as they say, overcome by Roman culture. And in the two cultural currents, Greek culture and Roman culture, we have what constitutes the fourth post-Atlantean period, so that an understanding of these two cultural currents can explain, externally, exoterically, what is working and weaving internally in this fourth post-Atlantean period. So, outwardly, Greek culture is subjugated by Roman culture, and it is subjugated in such a way that the entire process now taking place between Greek and Roman culture is one of the most interesting facts in world history.

First, Roman culture. Unlike Greek culture, Roman culture is related to the present. There are many souls who seek Greek culture, but one must seek it; one must, so to speak, always first extract it from a gray spiritual depth. This is not the case with Roman culture. This Roman culture lives on in our entire European present in a much stronger way than is commonly believed; it is still alive. We need only think of how long all the thinking of the European peoples, of the peoples participating in European culture, was conducted in Latin. We need only think of the importance that the Latin language still has for those who are preparing themselves today for leading positions in life, that is, the Roman spirit that has crystallized down to our own day; how much of ideas, feelings, and soul formations are directly absorbed from the Roman spirit! An infinite amount is thought in the style of Roman culture. Law is largely thought only in the style of Roman culture. But many other concepts are still shaped today in such a way that they are formed in the style of Roman culture. And it is precisely those who are preparing for leading positions who must undergo such an education, such training, that they absorb a great wealth of feelings about this world through the Roman-Latin language, so that our public life is permeated everywhere by concepts that originate from the Roman-Latin essence, much more than the individual believes. The farmer may grumble against this Latin essence, but in the end he accepts it; he even allows the Mass to be said in Latin. And how long ago was it that the European peoples rebelled against the excesses of the influences that emanated from the Latin essence, from the Roman-Latin essence? This Roman-Latin nature penetrates to the very core of those who are preparing themselves for positions of leadership. And what the upper strata of European society thinks about history, politics, law, and even administration is not only in name but also in its way of thinking highly imbued with Roman-Latin nature. So, unlike the Greeks, European people relate to the Roman-Latin essence, to the other current, to the second current of the fourth post-Atlantean period.

And now let us place Roman culture alongside Greek culture, as we must if we really want to understand. Given the facts of recent historical development, if I include Greek and Roman culture in the recent period, it is difficult to imagine stronger contrasts than those between Greek and Roman culture, despite all other contrasts in the realm of the spirit. Greek culture, although this is not precisely stated, but with an expression of the present that is understood today—as it appears to us from a certain distance, completely immersed in imagination and artistic-philosophical essence, completely resplendent in forms and inner meanings, completely expressive of soul and spirit. Roman culture, on the other hand, has none of this in its own essence, none of what is so deeply significant about Greek culture when one considers Greek culture in itself. The Romans, as a people, had no imagination, no sense of the immediate cosmic human experience that permeated all Greek spiritual life. The incredibly free life of the Greeks—even if slavery was widespread in Greece, Greek life as a popular culture shows freedom in an incredible way—the free Greek life subjugated by Roman culture, subjugated by a purely legalistic, unimaginative, soldierly, unimaginative, politically unimaginative culture! Those who love Roman culture in modern times, but who know it and speak from knowledge and not from ignorance, know that Roman culture was in no way original, either in the field of science or in the field of art. Taken over from Greece, Roman culture, after it had overcome Greek culture politically and militarily, took what was alive in Greek culture in terms of art and science. And even the greatest Roman poets are really nothing more than imitators, mere imitators, compared to the intellectual greatness of Greek art and Greek poetry.

And now this Roman culture is becoming great in completely different areas. It is becoming great precisely in those areas that the Greeks cared less about, that the Greeks were less interested in: it is becoming great in the legal, political, and military spheres. It develops views and feelings in these areas that are so strong, precisely because of the peculiar nature of the Roman people, that they continue to have an effect as long as we have been able to observe today. The difference between Greek and Roman culture is particularly evident when one considers the Greek language and the Roman-Latin language from an inner, spiritual perspective. Minds that saw more deeply, such as Herbart in the 19th century, therefore wanted secondary school education to be organized differently than it had become under the powerful wave of Romanism. In secondary school, one first learns Latin and then Greek. Herbart wanted Greek to be learned first and Latin second, because he was quite right in thinking that learning Latin first dulls the soulful, inner workings of the Greek idiom. This has not yet come to pass, but it is the ideal of many discerning educators today. But the present day is not guided by insight, and it has to bear the karma of its lack of insight.

The Greek language shows everywhere that behind Greek intellectual life stands that which flowed in from the ancient imaginations of the Egyptian-Chaldean period. Admittedly, today's humanity is often not very well suited to feeling behind every Greek word the living reality that existed in the Greek soul. There, the word was in fact more of an outward gesture for a full, meaningful experience. Certainly, imagination, pictorial, visionary thinking was no longer present in the Greeks to the same degree as in the Egyptian-Chaldean period. But you can still see in the words that a strong inner empathy lives in the Greek soul from what once permeated the ancient imaginative conception. And everywhere in the word there is, I would say, a disregard for the mere word in the Greek language, a saturation of soulfulness. This soulfulness can be seen in the best Greek words that have been handed down. One looks through the word; one does not hear the word directly, but looks through the word at a soul process that is taking place. This is expressed in the sound and grammatical configuration of the Greek language.

This is different in the Roman-Latin language. What you can trace with reference to mythology is a characteristic feature of the Latin-Roman idiom itself. Take the Greek myths with the names of the gods that have been handed down: everywhere you will find the most concrete mythical events behind the names of the gods. And in turn, within the mythical events, the gods come to life, so that they stand before us, pass by us, and present themselves to us directly — comparatively speaking — as flesh and blood, but in a spiritual sense. Take the names of the Roman gods, Saturn, Jupiter: they have become almost abstract concepts. What lies behind them in Greek culture has been lost; they have become abstract concepts. And so it is with the Roman-Latin idiom. Much of what lies behind the Greek language has been lost. And the word itself, as it sounds, as it is formed grammatically in the language, the word itself has become that to which one directs one's attention, in which one lives. The immediately soulful, the core of the heart, which the Greek language has, has given way to something colder in the Latin language itself. Therefore, in the Latin-Roman essence behind the language, there was no need for that echo of imaginative life — it was no longer there — but there was a need for affect, passion, emotion, in order to set the words in motion, so to speak. For the Latin language is, in the fullest sense, a logical language, and in order that it should not remain merely coldly logical, what is expressed in it must be continually stirred by the emotional element that is always behind Roman life and that lives throughout Roman history. This entire second chapter that I have cited is not found in the same way in Roman-Latin history. In Roman-Latin history, the things that fill the first great chapter are the main thing. And this main thing is also what our young people learn first as the dominant feature of the world and of human development. And to grasp jurisprudence and to portray human relationships as they arise from emotion has, in a sense, become the secret of the Latin language.

Today, one must view such things without sympathy or antipathy if one really wants to understand them; for it is important to understand these things because they play such a large role in our educational life, because they have become so ingrained in our educational life. Let us consider, however, as I said, without any sympathy or antipathy, purely historically, what things are actually absorbed by the youthful mind when studying Roman history. Much remains unspoken, but the unspoken is absorbed by the astral body and lives on in people's feelings and emotions. What we call law today certainly existed in one form or another before Roman culture, but the way we understand law today is, in a sense, an invention of the Romans. That law which is particularly well suited to being written down, that law which is particularly well suited to dividing things into paragraphs, to classifying them neatly, to superimposing and subdividing concepts, is an invention of the Roman people. And why should the Romans not have told the world what is right and how to act rightly? The reason why they should have done so is immediately apparent when one considers that they trace their own history back to Romulus, who killed his brother, gathered together all those who had committed misdeeds in the neighborhood, and made them the first Roman citizens; that they trace the possibility of propagating their race back to the abduction of the Sabine women! So it really seems that, with the help of that power which creates and works by exerting resistance in the right way, this people was indeed called upon to invent the law, to eradicate injustice, this people which traces its origins back to robbers and the abduction of women! Many things in world history can be explained by contrast and opposition. As I have said, one must view these things without sympathy or antipathy, as they are.

Now the Romans gradually establish a great empire. We see how, under the influence of ancient magical wisdom, the seven kings, who are more than mere myth—as we have often emphasized—first rule, but how these seven kings ultimately end in hubris. We then go through the times of the Republic, about which humanity still does not admit how little interesting these times of the Roman Republic actually are for a contemporary person. That is to say, although they are so uninteresting, so insignificant for the people of today, they still form a large part of what young people are taught today: these struggles between the patricians and the plebeians, these struggles that led to the events in which we see the unpleasant conflict between Marius and Sulla, in which we see Rome trembling before Catiline, we see the endless series of slave revolts of the most terrible kind. This whole series stands today in many ways as the educational tool for our youth.

And then we see, while this is happening on Roman soil itself, that Roman culture spreads more and more, so that it becomes an empire, striving to encompass the entire known world of that time and gradually actually doing so. But we see how the Roman feels alone, feels in a way that we sometimes do not really think about when we look at it today. How well do the deeds of, say, Caracalla or others, correspond to the invention of law for humanity? Today, far too little attention is paid to how these Romans combined law and power with the most terrible enslavement of their colonies and the most terrible enslavement of those peoples over whom they gradually extended their conquest. But since the history of Rome is so well known, it is good—because it is easy—to examine it from a more mature standpoint, which we can already adopt. We will certainly have nothing to correct in the accounts, for they are already correctly given in history, but we will have to correct some of the feelings we have absorbed in the process. One can, however, correct feelings; for one could say, for example, if one does not view the whole thing without sympathy or antipathy, but with the very common sympathy and antipathy: Yes, but did not the Romans later grant Roman citizenship to the inhabitants of their colonies of their own accord? Well, looking at the motives, it does seem strange, because it was Caracalla, who cannot exactly be credited with very selfless motives, but rather with Roman-egoistic motives, who granted Roman citizenship to the colonists. That speaks volumes about the way people lived in ancient Rome. There were, however, noble lawyers who devoted themselves to jurisprudence with soulfulness, such as Papinian, a noble man; but Caracalla had him murdered. And one could cite many more examples that would lead to a correction of this perception.

The Roman Empire adopted Greek culture in whatever way it could. Greek culture flowed into Roman culture. Spiritually, Roman culture was completely overcome by Greek culture. But Greek culture had to pay for this conquest with its downfall, with its downfall as a political entity—one cannot say unity, for the Greeks were never a political unity, but rather a political community—with its downfall as a political community. Bossuet says rightly, albeit linking his admiration to these words, but words can be correct and one can perceive them in different ways: The only thing one hears people talk about is the greatness of the Roman name. Even in the best times of Romanism, it is the greatness of the Roman name that has flowed into the word, that is felt and perceived by the word as such, as a characteristic. And so, socially speaking, Romanism displays the immense wealth that flows into Rome from the colonies, and alongside it the immense poverty of a large part of the population.

In the early days of the conquest, Romanism absorbs Greek culture. Then we see how Christianity pushes its way into Roman culture, how Christianity pushes itself into Roman culture, and how Christianity, for its part, must endure the formalism inherent in the Roman character. One could say that everything that constitutes the institution of early Christianity grows into the structure of the Roman legal and administrative system. And so the old Roman culture is preserved and conserved in the formation of the Church. This Christianity shows in its institutions precisely those forms that were developed out of Roman culture, and it also adopts the Latin language in order to think in Latin and thus, with the spread of Christianity, to spread the Roman-Latin essence throughout Europe. However, when Romanism had absorbed Hellenism and Christianity, a time came when people felt that they did not really understand what they had absorbed, when they did not want it, when they felt it was a foreign body. At first, it had a powerful effect at the time when Greek culture was conquered, but gradually Roman culture grew stronger in its legal and political essence and perceived Greek culture in its forms as something that was no longer wanted. And one consequence of this is that in the 6th century, the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian, who had the entire political and legal essence of Romanism codified in the Corpus juris civilis, so that everything that Romanism had produced in its political and legal essence was brought together, that Justinian, who was like an incarnation of the Roman-Latin essence, even though he ruled over the Eastern Roman Empire, that it was he who finally closed down the Athenian schools of philosophy, dissolved them, and killed Greek philosophy, no longer allowing it to operate. It was he who also killed the original free development of the Christian essence by mainly causing Origen, who had combined the wisdom of Greek culture with the depth of Christianity and brought occult, i.e., semi-spiritual-scientific, elements into Christianity, to be condemned by the Church. Justinian brought this about.

And so we see how Romanism flows into the institutions of Europe via the detour through the Church, to which the other political institutions then adapt, surrendering themselves to it, as it were, by the rulers placing particular emphasis on calling themselves “Defensor fidei” — even if they later, when they wanted to divorce themselves, renounced this title and founded their own church! Well, these things are not always considered with such thoroughness. Such rulers call themselves Defensor fidei, they call themselves the “most Christian king” and so on. The institutions of public life develop out of Romanism. Romanism infects everything, so to speak, instilling its essence into European education. And so we see how, in European institutions, after Justinian had established the great code of Roman legal and political thought, after he had eradicated Greek philosophy, after he had condemned Origen, we see how Romanism lives on in Europe without the content of Hellenism; how, in a sense, the external, which has solidified in words and grown strong in external institutions, remains, how it lives on, and how it has pushed out the richly meaningful, spiritually succulent Hellenism.

The discerning occultists of all centuries have therefore always had a certain feeling, which they have retained, which is unanimous among those who do not want to conceal it for certain reasons; they have had the right feeling that, as it were, the ghost, the “revenant” of ancient Romanism lived on in many areas of European institutions.

But we see again and again how the past plays into the future, how it revives. And so we see that Roman culture is fertilized a second time by Greek culture. The first time was during the transition from the Republic to the Empire in Rome, when Greek art, Greek philosophy, and Greek intellectual life flowed into Rome, where the Romans lived Greek culture, so to speak. They behaved like great lords and found it easy to adopt this Greek culture: the philosophically educated Greeks were largely employed as tutors to the sons of Roman citizens, as slaves in effect. This is how one acquires a culture that one has overcome, by adopting it according to Roman concepts.

Then, after a period of stagnation, a period of which history records very little because it was lived in a jurisprudence that had become ecclesiastical and a church that had become judicial, a period in a politicized church, there followed, like a revival of Greek culture, the period from Dante to the fall of Florentine freedom, the period we call the Renaissance, when Greek culture revived in Roman culture, when the Romans became Greek again, when Raphael in particular and the others around him revived Greek culture in Roman culture. But it is a Renaissance; it is not a birth, it is a rebirth. And Europe had to look back long enough to this Renaissance. When Goethe went to Italy, he did not seek to study the Roman essence. Study what Goethe experienced in Italy; what was he looking for? The Greek essence in Italy! Everywhere he looked, he sought to recognize the Greek way of life through Roman culture. Truly, to grow together in comparison—I want to say what I am about to say more as an image—Greece and Christianity were able to grow together again in the Renaissance to such an extent that posterity can no longer distinguish between Greece and Christianity in the creations of the Renaissance. As I have often told you, there is a dispute as to whether Raphael's famous painting, “The School of Athens,” as it is called, really depicts Plato and Aristotle in the central figures, or whether it depicts Peter and Paul. There are weighty reasons for both sides; both views have been defended, so that in one of the most outstanding paintings it is impossible to distinguish whether we are dealing with Greek or Christian figures. But it has grown together in such a way that the wonderful marriage that was concluded in Greek intellectual life between the spiritual and the material can be expressed just as well by Plato and Aristotle as by Peter and Paul. In Plato, whom some people want to see in the painting called “The School of Athens,” we see the old man raising his hand toward the heavenly realm, standing next to him Aristotle with his conceptual world, pointing down to the material world in order to seek the spirit in matter. One could just as well see Peter in the figure pointing upward and Paul in the figure pointing downward. But during this Renaissance, the matter was always legitimately divided between two persons.

Opposite the Renaissance, which was a revival of Greek culture, something original must come back. This can only come through synthesis, through higher synthesis. This is achieved by the fact that in the same person there will be both gestures: the gesture upward toward the heavenly, the gesture downward toward the earthly. Then, of course, you need the Luciferic and the Ahrimanic, contrasting with each other. What you see distributed between two people in one of the greatest works of art of the Renaissance, you must see in our group, which is to be created, in the one person of the representative of humanity: one gesture and the other!

The Middle Ages or the beginning of the modern era needed this Renaissance, this revival of Greek culture. And how much of the life that has passed since then can be attributed to this Renaissance! We see how this Renaissance revives in the best years of a philosopher like Nietzsche; we see how it springs forth in such a wonderful way from the scholarship of Jacob Burckhardt. This Renaissance continues to have an effect even in the most recent times, and it appears as something from the earlier Greek period that has carried over into this newer era. One could say that Greek culture was outwardly destroyed by Roman culture, but many shoots of Greek intellectual power remained. Until about the year 333—for Justinian merely nailed shut the coffin that had begun to be built in the 4th century—these Greek intellectual heroes still had an influence. And just like leftover shoots from the spiritual world, they pop up again in the Renaissance. You could say that just like certain lunar forces reappear at a certain time in the big evolution, without which human reason and human language couldn't have been born, Greek culture reappears like a leftover factor in the 15th and 16th centuries and forms the Renaissance. Here we have a living example of how that which has been left behind and yet still acts as a Luciferic force in a later age is turned toward the progress of humanity in the overall reason of becoming. Certainly, the backward Greek culture that appears in the Renaissance can be described as something Luciferic, and it did indeed produce all the side effects of Luciferic forces when, alongside the figures of Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael, we see figures such as Alexander VI, the Pope, or Cesare Borgia and others who appear as accompanying phenomena of this Renaissance.

Europe needed this Renaissance, because this Renaissance offered Europe a great deal. And so, from the 15th and 16th centuries onwards, we once again have the two currents, albeit now in a more veiled form: one that was renewed in the Renaissance, and the other that has actually always continued to have an effect and has remained in Romanism, which has only undergone the most diverse forms and changes. And so, in more recent times, the two currents run side by side again, deeply incisive, and are of extraordinary importance. And when discussing such things, one must familiarize oneself with a view of life and the world that is capable of not immediately feeling sympathy or antipathy toward words, but rather of characterizing them objectively and really looking at things.

We have many Renaissance ideas, many Renaissance concepts that come to people less through the education of youth than through a more spiritual life. Again, not much is known about these things, but these Renaissance concepts live in everyone, and they are a different element from what has never actually disappeared, but has only ever developed further as the concepts and views of Romanism. A kind of imaginative element, a rescue of the imaginative element, lies in the Renaissance, a breaking away from mere logic, a breaking away from the coldness of Latinism, which always needs emotional replenishment to enliven itself because it is cold in itself.

This is contrasted by everything that was brought back to Europe by the Renaissance as an uplifting element of life: imaginative life. And this imaginative life had to be brought over from Greek culture, for tomorrow we shall see what it meant that imaginative life was kindled at the very beginning of the new era, at the transition from the fourth to the fifth post-Atlantean epoch; what it meant that the Renaissance was, in a sense, the godfather of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. This fifth post-Atlantean epoch must extricate itself — not by immediately applying all kinds of emotional concepts, but by recognizing that it must extricate itself from Romanism, in the sense we have tried to describe today. This does not diminish the greatness of Romanism. But the salvation of evolution lies in harmony, in keeping things in balance and weighing them correctly, not in turning to one or the other one-sided extreme. Many concepts live within European humanity that are seductive and tempting because they have remained from the Roman-Latin essence and because they live as tempting concepts by introducing into the soul a complex of concepts and feelings of which one is not always fully aware. Certainly, as I have already pointed out, one cannot say that the Romans completely invented the political-judicial element, but they did invent it in the way we would characterize it today. And in contrast to what the Greeks saw in human beings from their vivid imaginations or, rather, from the legacy of vivid imaginations, Romanism formed a specific concept that only came to life in Romanism in this sense and which is a plant that grows entirely out of legal and political soil, if one understands the matter correctly: it is the concept of the Roman civis, the Roman citizen; man becomes a civis, a Roman citizen. This adds a political-legal element to the concept of man, a legal-political element is inserted into the concept of man. And what I last referred to as the politicization of the conceptual world is closely connected with what has passed into the blood of the European peoples with the concept of civis. And there have been lawyers in more recent times who based the unity of modern humanity with Romanism simply on the concept of civis, through which, when it is felt alive, man places himself in his community in a political and legal manner. Even if he does not admit it to himself, with this concept he places himself in humanity in a political and legal manner. Aristotle still spoke of “zoon politikon”; he equated the political with the zoon, with the animal. Yes, that was still a completely different, imaginative way of thinking; it was not yet political thinking; it was not yet a politicization of concepts.

And so that element was formed which is designated by a purely political-legal category. People are not aware that they are describing this element with a legal-political category, but by doing so they place people into a political-legal element through the elective affinity of concepts and ideas, sensing the connection with political-legal Romanism in all of this, even if this is often felt unconsciously. which in more recent times is referred to with a monstrous term — for everything that has meaning in an earlier time can also become a monster when transferred to a later time — which is based on the concept of civis, with the word behind which a monstrous concept lives, with the word “civilization,” with which such nonsense is perpetrated. And in everything that lies behind the word civilization lies Romanism. The insistence on civilization in the way it is often done today is misunderstood Romanism, often only felt Romanism, as it often happens that with a word behind which one wants to express something particularly lofty, one expresses something without even knowing how much one is making oneself dependent on historical powers. For those who see the entire political and judicial background of what lies behind the word civilization, saying the word civilization today often causes something like goose bumps, a kind of secret shudder, horror. Such things must be said, because spiritual science is not for the nursery, as the world often thinks, but spiritual science is for serious world knowledge. In the face of this serious world knowledge, many concepts that humanity today worships as its idols will fall from their altars. Spiritual science must recognize this, because it is not for the nursery. It is not there to make the beings of the spiritual world into a kind of familiar acquaintance that one likes to have, as one does with poets, but spiritual science is there to approach the spiritual world and its forces with all seriousness.

Tomorrow we will continue these reflections and try to place them in the spiritual realm.