Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Polarities in the Evolution of Mankind
GA 197

9 March 1920, Stuttgart

Lecture III

There are a few things I want to add to the points we have been considering. They may help to make some of the ideas on which we must base our actions more real. I am looking for ideas that are less abstract than the vast majority of ideas by which people allow themselves to be governed today. We really need such concrete ideas, for they are the only ones that enter into the realm of feeling for human beings, and therefore into real life. They are the only ideas to fire the human will and human actions.

Looking at the world today we should really consider the most striking characteristic of social life in the civilized world to be that the smaller communities of past times have given way to quite large human communities. We need not go far back in human evolution to find that social communities extended only over limited territories. The civic communities of towns formed a relative whole, and fundamentally speaking it is only now, in quite recent times, that large empires have arisen, that the empire of English-speaking peoples has come about—I have characterized this a number of times. None of us should have any illusions concerning the consequences, particularly in Central Europe. It needs the point of view of spiritual science, however, to get the right ideas about these things, ideas that fully relate to reality. The spiritual-scientific point of view makes us go back to earlier stages of human development to see that then, too, people formed certain kinds of communities, though these should not be called ‘states’—as I have said on a number of occasions—for that would cause tremendous confusion. Instead, let us find some other, more neutral term. Let us say that ‘realms’ arose. Such realms were ruled by individuals, or by particular groups. Subsequently states developed out of this, and today states are taken so much for granted that no one would think of going against them—at least in certain areas no one would go against them.

What is worse, they are so much taken for granted that people are not even inclined to think about them.

Behind this, however, lies something that unites human beings in their inner soul life with the spiritual, the divine principle, as it came to be called during different stages of earth evolution.

If we go back to prehistoric times, times that only partly extend into historical times, we find that in those prehistoric times the idea of a ruler of the realm, as we may call it—whatever words we use do not really fit those earlier ideas—was quite different from what we take it to mean today. The idea of the ruler of an earthly realm came very close to what people knew to be their idea of a god. These things inevitably must seem highly paradoxical to modern minds, though that is only because modern minds are little inclined to take serious consideration of things that existed during the past in human evolution and do not fit in with the way of thinking that has become customary in Western Europe and in its appendage, America, over the last three or four hundred years.

Of course the way a ruler of the realm was introduced to his office, at least in many empires, was very different in those early partly prehistoric times. We need only go back as far as ancient Egypt, meaning the earlier, partly prehistoric times of ancient Egypt, or as far as Chaldea, and we shall find that it was considered a matter of course that regents were prepared for their office by the forerunners of our present-day priests. People had quite concrete ideas as to how a ruler should be prepared for office by the priesthood and its institutions. They felt that with this kind of preparation the person called to be regent truly became what the Chinese, still having a faint notion of this, called the Son of Heaven. There was an awareness that someone called to rule over some region had to be made a kind of Son of Heaven. What was in people's minds was however something quite different from the one and only idea we have today when we speak of training a person or preparing them for something. You can go to great lengths to explain that one should not train people for some office or other in this world by merely implanting intellectual knowledge into their souls, but that the whole person needs to be developed; practically all our ideas today on development, education and so on tend to be abstract to an extreme degree. People have the idea that only some aspect or other of the human being should be changed or transformed to advance him in his training, his preparation for some office. No one thinks that development should be such that the individual undergoes a complete change. Above all no one thinks that something objective should enter into the soul of that individual, something that was not there before. No one has that idea. I could characterize this more or less as follows: I am talking to someone who is the product of the natural and social life of the present day. He tells me this and that, I tell him this or that. The person who speaks to me bears a name: he is the product of the usual natural and social background that people have today. The same applies to me. That is really almost the only way in which we behave towards each other nowadays, the way in which we look at each other.

In the times of which I have been speaking that would have been a very alien notion. It was above all alien to people called to hold important offices, to be leaders within the human community. The external natural background—family origins, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and so on—was of no real concern if the people concerned had been properly prepared for their office. The things we look for and find in present-day individuals who have been raised to the highest spheres were then of no account. People felt that if they spoke to someone who had been properly trained in this respect it was not the ordinary ego that spoke to them: i.e. an ego born in some place or another, bearing the imprint of some social background or other. Instead they felt that something was speaking to them that had been made to come down from spiritual heights to take up its abode in a human individual thanks to the preparation and training given in the mystery cult. This must of course sound incredibly strange to present-day people. It is however necessary to stop harbouring confused notions about these things and to form ideas that have their basis in truth.

The idea was that education—not all training but the training of people called to high office—should enable spirits from the higher hierarchies to speak through these individuals, using them as their instruments. Those instruments were prepared by training, so that spirits of the higher hierarchies would be able to speak through them. There was general awareness of this, particularly when the population at large came to form an opinion about the identity of their ruler. Remnants of this still survive, for instance in the title Son of Heaven for the ruler of China. That was the level of human awareness in earliest Egyptian and Chaldean times. Spiritual science has established this. To the people at large their ruler was God. Basically they had no other concept of divinity. The preparation of the ruler had been such that the outer physical form was nothing, it merely made it possible for a god to move among human beings. The earliest inhabitants of what was later to become the kingdom of Egypt quite naturally accepted the fact that they were ruled by gods who walked on earth in human form. In this respect the earliest social awareness of human beings was entirely realistic. There was no recognition of a separate world beyond, of a separate spiritual world. The spiritual world existed in the same place as the world within which people moved on earth. In this world, where human beings walked the earth, not only ordinary human individuals were walking about in physical form but also gods. The divine world was right among them, made absolute and visible under the conditions regularly created through the mystery cult. When such a ruler wanted something, decreed something, it was a god who wanted it. To the minds of earliest humankind during that partly prehistoric period it would have been pointless to question whether something decreed by their ruler should or should not happen; it was after all a ‘god’ who wanted it.

Earliest humanity thus connected the spiritual hierarchies with everything that happened on earth. Those hierarchies were there in their midst; they were not something to which one first has to ascend by some kind of spiritual, inner means. No, they were present in the mysteries as the training given to physical bodies found suitable for preparation as dwelling places for spirits of the higher hierarchies, so that these might walk among human beings and be their rulers.

This may seem strange to modern minds, but modern minds will finally have to leave behind the narrow-minded views they hold today, ideas only three or four hundred years old as we know them today, and take a wider view. We cannot develop and think ahead to the future unless we broaden the tunnel vision which has evolved in almost every sphere of life. We must expand the time horizons we survey and consider larger evolutionary time spans than present-day history normally covers.

The things of the past, things that existed in historical and prehistoric evolution, do of course give way to other things as time progresses, but in certain areas they are retained. They are often retained by becoming external, continuing in an outer form and losing their inner meaning. The awareness of the godlike nature of the ruler that was a feature of earliest imperialism still comes up here or there in the present age, except that it no longer has any meaning, since mankind progresses and does not stand still.

Not long ago a Roman Catholic bishop addressed a pastoral to his diocese13Prince-Archbishop Johann Baptist Katschthaler, Salzburg, Austria. Pastoral of 2 February 1905 entitled 'Die dem katholischen Priester gebiihrende Ehre' (The honour due to Catholic priests), reprinted in Carl Mirbt Quellen zur Geschichte des Pabst-rums and des rdmischen Katholizismus (Sources relating to the history of the papacy and of Roman Catholicism) 5. Aufl. Tubingen 1934, S. 497 ff. The passage relating to the powers of consecration is given below.

‘Honour your priests, for they have the power of consecration. Catholic priests have this wonderful power of consecration, Protestant pastors do not. This power of consecration, to make the Body of the Lord be present, with the precious Blood, with the whole of His sacred humanity and His divine nature in the Bread and the Wine—that is a great and sublime power, a truly extraordinary power! Where in heaven is a power like that of the Catholic priest to be found? Among the angels? Or does the Mother of God have it? Mary conceived Christ, the Son of God, in her womb and gave birth to Him in the stable in Bethlehem. Yes. But consider what happens during Holy Mass! Does not the same thing happen, as it were, when the priest raises his hands in blessing during the consecration? Christ is really and truly made to be present, to be reborn, as it were, in the Bread and the Wine. Mary bore her child in Bethlehem, wrapping it in swaddling clothes; a priest does the same, as it were, placing the wafer on the corporal cloth. Mary brought her child into the world just once. But see, a priest does this not once, but many hundreds and thousands of times, each time he celebrates the Mass. There, in the stable, the child which Mary gave to the world was small, capable of suffering and mortal. Here, on the altar, in the hands of the priest, we have Christ in His glory, not capable of suffering and also immortal, sitting in heaven to the right of the Father, glorious and triumphant, perfect in every regard. Do priests merely make the Body and Blood be present? No. They sacrifice, offering sacrifice to the Heavenly Father. This is the same sacrifice that Christ brought by shedding His blood on Calvary and bloodlessly at the Last Supper. There the eternal High Priest Jesus Christ sacrificed His Flesh, His Blood and His very Life to the Heavenly Father; here, at the Mass, He does the same through his representative, the Catholic priest. He ordained priests to take His place so that they might continue the same sacrifice that He had brought. He has transferred to them the authority over His sacred humanity, giving them power over His body, as it were. A Catholic priest is able not only to make Him be present on the altar, lock Him up in the tabernacle, take Him out again and give Him to the faithful to eat, he is actually able to offer Him, the Son of God become Man, as a bloodless sacrifice for the living and the dead. Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father by whom heaven and earth were created and who sustains the whole world, submits to the Catholic priests in this respect.'=’ (Italics as in the original text given by Mirbt.)
in which he stated nothing more and nothing less than that a Roman Catholic priest conducting an act of worship was more powerful than Christ Jesus himself. Acting as the celebrant, the priest coerced Christ Jesus, the god of Christianity, to enter into the physical world as the priest performed the act of transubstantiation. The god might be willing or not, the act of transubstantiation forced him to take the route prescribed by the priest. It is really true that very recently a pastoral referred to the sublime power of the earth-born ‘priest god’ over the ‘inferior god’ who descended from cosmic heights and walked on the earth in the flesh of Jesus. Things like this have their origin in older times and have lost their meaning in the present age. Some people representing certain confessions know very well, of course, why they keep throwing such things into human minds. They have become just as meaningless as the words modern rulers write in albums: The king's wishes are the supreme law.14‘Suprema lex regis voluntas’. William II (see note 10) wrote this in the Golden Book of the City of Munich. See also J. von Kiirenberg War alles falsch? Das Leben Kaiser Wi/helms II. (Was it all wrong? A life of the emperor William II. Translated into English and published in 1954, but exact English title not known), Basle-Olten 1940; German edition S. 190. These things have happened in our times. Humanity, fast asleep, has said nothing at all about it and still says nothing now to things going on that bode ill for humankind, things one gets used to, things one does not want to see. Today we are altogether little prepared to take note of major events in human evolution.

That was a first stage in the evolution of human empires: when the ruler was the god. This way of looking at it was still very much alive in Roman times. Whichever way you may look at Nero, as a fool or a bloodhound, for the large majority of the Roman people Nero's dreadful tyranny merely made them marvel that a god could walk on earth in such a guise. Many of the citizens of imperial Rome never doubted that the figure of Nero was that of a god.

A second stage in the evolution of empires came with the transition from a ruler who was a god to one who ruled by the grace of God. During the earliest times of human evolution on the civilized earth the ruler was God. At the second stage the ruler stood for God; he was not indwelt by the god himself but inspired by God, given special grace. Everything he did would succeed because divine power—now no longer within him but in a realm close to the earthly realm—flowed into him, inspired him, filled him, and guided him in all he did.

To describe the essential nature of such a second stage ruler we have to say that the ruler was a symbol. At the first stage the ruler was a divine spirit walking on earth. At the second stage he represented what that spirit signified; he was the sign, the symbol in which the spirit came to expression. The ruler became the image of God.

The principles governing those external social relationships also came to expression in the institutions which became established. In earliest times empires were so constituted that a number of people were governed by a divine spirit. This god would be similar to them in external appearance but utterly different inside. At the second stage we find empires where the leader or leaders represent the god or gods and are symbols for them.

At the early stage of human empires discussion as the whether the ruler, the god, was acting rightly or wrongly was beside the point. At the second stage it began to be possible to think whether something he had done was right or wrong. At the early stage everything the ruler did, thought or said was right, for he was the god. Then, at the second stage, some other spiritual sphere was felt to exist side by side with the earthly realm, one that has the god, the ruler given the grace of God, within it. The power streaming into the earthly realm, giving direction and orientation, was felt to come from that other realm. The institutions and human individuals in the earthly realm were the reflection of something streaming in from the realm of the higher hierarchies.

It is interesting to find out, for example, that Dionysius the Areopagite,15Dionysius the Areopagite (an Athenian converted by St Paul): ‘ the Heavenly and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies' and The hierarchy of the church,’ in Die angeblichen Schriften des Areopagiten Dionysius, übersetzt and mit Abhandlungen begleitet von J.G. V. Engelhardt (Writings ascribed to Dionyius the Areopagite, translated and provided with commentaries by J.G.V. Engelhardt), part 2, Sulzbach 1823. also called the pseudo-Dionysius, who was much more genuine than orthodox science imagines, presented the right theory concerning the way human empires were ruled by divine empires so that the conditions and institutions created among humans were a symbol of what existed in the divine realm. Dionysius the Areopagite wrote that there were heavenly hierarchies behind the human hierarchies on this earth. He stated very clearly that the social structure of the priestly hierarchy here on earth, from deacons and archdeacons all the way up to bishops, ought to show that the relationship of deacon to archdeacon is the same as that of angel to archangel, and so on. The earthly hierarchy should truly reflect the heavenly hierarchy. This refers to the second stage of empires. Something was able to evolve that was to govern human ideas until quite recent times. After all there existed in Central Europe until 1806 an institution that in its title gave expression to the way the heavenly and the earthly principle were seen to be one: the Holy Roman Empire, an empire seen to be based on the power of heaven. The words ‘of German nationality’ were added [to the German title] to show that the empire was also of earthly origin. The way the title evolved it is evident that a whole empire was formed in such a way that it should be seen to be the image of a heavenly institution.

Such were also the ideas behind St Augustine's City of God and Dante's work On Monarchy.16Aurelius Augustinus, De Civitate Dei. libri XII.

Dante Alighieri, De Monarchia.
If only people were not so limited in their ideas they could take a wider view when reading something like Dante's work and realize that Dante, who after all must be considered a great thinker, still had ideas in the 13th and 14th centuries that are radically different from our modern ideas. If we were to take such things in historical evolution seriously we would give up those narrow ideas that do not even go back as far as Dante but are just a few hundred years old. The ideas used by people nowadays to fill their heads with illusions, wanting to understand history by merely going back as far as ancient Greece, are limited ideas. Yet it is only possible to understand the whole structure of ancient Egypt, for instance, if we know that the ancient gods still walked on earth. In the times that followed gods no longer walked on the earth, but the institutions created on earth had to be an image, a symbol, of the divine world order.

Then something arose for example like the possibility to reflect on the lawfulness of things, to reflect on such things as the fact that the human intellect can arrive at a judgement as to what is lawful and what is not—all this only became possible during the second stage of imperial development. During the earliest stage it was pointless to reflect on what was lawful and what was not. People had to look to what the ruler said, for the god lived in him, he was the god. In the second stage, human judgement could be used to determine that there is something in a spiritual realm next to our own realm that we cannot reach as physical human beings but only as human beings of soul and spirit. Then people no longer believed, as they had believed in earlier times, that the divine could unite with the whole physical human being, that a human being could indeed become a god. At most—using mystical language to define the living truth about public institutions—people believed that the human soul element could unite with the god.

Basically it is true to say that no one nowadays is able to understand the way things were said in works written and published as late as the 13th and 14th centuries unless one knows that the people of that time had quite a different awareness, a feeling that some degree of divine inspiration was alive in those who were called and trained to hold special office. Oddly enough things referring to something rather serious will often become derisory expressions at a later point in time when the evolution of humankind has progressed. Someone saying ‘God shapes the back for the burthen’ nowadays would say this more or less as a joke. Yet though it may be said today partly as a joke, in the times when empires were at their second stage of development it certainly held true and was to the forefront of people's minds. It applied not only to people but within certain limits also to what was being done. Rituals were made to be such that the actions performed in them reflected what went on in the spiritual realms. The rituals performed were spiritual events reaching across into what went on in the physical world. People very much believed the spiritual realm to be adjoining the physical realm, but they also thought that it extended across into the earthly realm and that the symbol or sign of the spiritual realm was to be found in the earthly realm.

Very gradually people ceased to believe in the validity of this. An age was to follow where this awareness of the connection between earthly and spiritual things was to fade. In the days of Wycliffe, of Huss,17Wycliffe, John, English reformer.
Hus, or Huss, John, Bohemian reformer, burned when the Council of Constance condemned his and Wycliffe's writings.
people began to dispute things which it would have been unthinkable to dispute before. They were in disagreement on the significance of transubstantiation: whether this ritual act had anything to do with what went on in spiritual worlds. When people begin to disagree about such things, old ideas are coming to an end. People no longer know what to think; yet for centuries, indeed millennia, they had known exactly what to think. It always happens that certain things normal to a particular age continue to play a role in later ages. They are then out of place, anachronistic, luciferic. That is what has happened to the great, far-reaching symbols relating to a particular age when they showed how ritual acts and the like performed on earth Were connected with divine and spiritual happenings in the world. Those symbols persisted during later ages and certain secret societies preserved them in a luciferic way. Western secret societies in particular have been preserving such ancient symbols. They are traditional in those societies, though they have lost their real content. On the one hand, then, we see certain secret societies—Freemasons, Jesuit organizations and denominational groups have arisen from these—preserving, in a way, those symbols which only had meaning in an earlier age. On the other hand we see how words preserve ideas that belonged to an earlier age in a basically luciferic way. Words used In everyday life have also lost their original substance, lost the context of a way of thinking when those words were symbols of spiritual things. For the spiritual content is gradually lost and words become empty symbols, signs without meaning.

During a third period, at a third level of empire development, there was no longer any awareness of individuals being given the grace of God, of divine elements entering into earthly events, earthly speech. The spiritual realm was now entirely in the beyond. The opposite of what had existed at the first stage of empire development now held true. During the first stage the god lived on earth, went about in human form. During the third stage one can only think of the god being present in an invisible world that is not perceptible to the senses. Everything people were able to use to express their relationship with the realm of divine spirits lost its meaning. The word ‘god’ continues to be used. When the word ‘god’ was spoken in the distant past people were looking for something that appeared in human form, walking among human beings. It is not that human beings in those very early times were materialists. Materialists only became possible once the spiritual realm had been banished beyond the sense-perceptible world. During the earliest period of human evolution the spiritual world was right there among human beings. There would have been no need for someone living in ancient Egypt during its earliest times to say: The kingdom of the divine is at hand. He would take that to be self-evident. At the time when Christ Jesus appeared among men people first had to be told: ‘The Kingdom of the gods cometh not with observation… for, behold, it is within you.18TN. Luke 17:20-21. Rudolf Steiner was quoting from the Luther Bible, but saying 'gods' instead of 'God'.

We are now living in an age when it would be a nonsense to look to a person for anything but a straightforward development of what he was as a child, a development based on cause and effect. We live in an age when it would be sheer madness for someone to consider himself more than the straightforward further development of what was also there in his childhood. Eight thousand years ago, let us say, something was taken as a matter of course, was the general way of thinking; yet if anyone were to say the same thing today this would merely indicate that they are mad. The realities of those distant times have been reinterpreted in the modern way of thinking into that fictitious tale we call ‘history’. This spreads a veil over the radical metamorphosis we are able to discover when we consider human evolution in the light of truth. The things we often say today, things we reveal in our external life, exist because they once had relevance and were considered to be the truth. We still say things like ‘by the grace of God’—people have more or less tried to get out of the habit in recent years, but they have not succeeded very well with this—but we do not know, or pay no attention to the fact, that there was a time when this was a reality to human minds, when it was taken as a matter of course.

Here I am drawing your attention to things that give our public life its meaningless, conventional character. Things we put forward in the words we use, in our customs and indeed the way we judge issues in public life, relate to times when those words, even if they only became part of the vocabulary at a later date—they were modelled on the original language—were formed and used on quite a different basis. The words we use in public life today have been squeezed dry. With some it is immediately apparent, with others it was not apparent for a long time. In the distant past a token was hung upon a human body in magical body in magical rites, transforming it into an important magical aspect of the god walking on earth. This has become something trivial in the decorations given to people today. That is the kind of history humankind is unlikely to pursue. Not only words can become empty phrases and lose all meaning, as is the case with the most important words used in public life today; the objects hung around people's necks or pinned to their chests can show similar character in their relation to reality, like a word that is meaningless today but once had sacred meaning and substance to it.

We must realize that initially our evolution was such that an older awareness lost its substance and became empty and conventional. There can be no real new growth in our devastated public life of today unless we do so. We must look for new well-springs that will give real substance again to public life. We have no awareness of gods walking the earth in human form. We must therefore acquire the ability to recognise the spirit not in human form but in the form it has when we rise to spiritual vision. For us the gods no longer descend to sit on physical thrones. We must acquire the spiritual faculties that enable us to ascend in our vision to the thrones where gods are to be found who can only be alive to us in the spirit. We must learn to fill the abstract formulas we use with spiritual contents of our own experience. We must become able to face truths that are deeply disturbing to those who grasp them rightly. We must become able to see things as they are. Sometimes we fail to do so for periods extending over decades.

As Central Europeans we believe ourselves to be part of European civilization. What we should ask ourselves is what it is that has made our inner life, the life of our soul, so full of discord over the last fifty years or even longer. Let me say just one thing. When you look to the West you see in the first instance—we'll leave aside the rest—a nation falling into decadence, the French nation. One thing is important, however, among the French. When a member of this nation said: I am a Frenchman—this is what they have said to themselves for centuries—he said something that was in accord with the external facts; a permissible, truthful declaration made with reference to external life. Any of us who have ever talked to people who were young and German in the first half of the 19th century will be able to confirm the following. Herman Grimm19Grim, Herman, Fragmente (vol. 1), Berlin & Stuttgart, S. 212: ‘For the people of today [1891], it is no longer the Wars of Liberation fought against Napoleon I that are the last important historical event in their lifetime, but the Wars of Liberation fought against Austria and France in the 1860s and 1870s. We have been a nation where children had to be taught that they would never be permitted to act freely in influencing the destinies of their country. Today, however, Germans are compelled to act in this way. Fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable to make it part of education to tell children that they would one day be citizens of a great united German Empire and that their duties towards God, the Emperor and their country would one day also consist in having to elect someone to represent them in a German Parliament, basing their choice on their personal judgement of the country's needs. Just to utter such things would have sounded like high treason and might have ruined the life of the person who uttered them.’ for instance has repeatedly described what it meant, to people who were young when he was young in Germany, for someone to profess himself to be German in public life, not as an empty phrase but in reality. It would have been treason. People were Bavarians, Württembergians, Prussians, but to say ‘I am German’ would make them criminals. In the West there was a point to saying ‘I am a Frenchman’, people were permitted to be that in external life. It would have meant going to prison or being put beyond the pale in some other way if one had taken it into one's mind to say one was German, i.e. belonged to a united nation. People have forgotten about this now, but those are facts. And it is important to face up to these things. We shall not develop the right enthusiasm for such things, however, unless we fertilize our inner life by considering the great events of world history, seeing them in the right light—not that fabricated tale written in our handbooks and taught in our schools today, but the true history of the world that can be found by looking at things in the light of the spirit.

It is quite unthinkable for a present-day protestant Christian to consider that people once felt it to be true to say ‘the god walked on the earth and the ruler was the god’ and ‘there is no kingdom on this earth where gods are still to be found, for the ways in which one is made a god are in the realm where the supersensible dwells, within the Mystery’. In the early times of Egyptian history, which in part was still prehistoric, the Mystery was indeed something supersensible. It was only when the mysteries were made into churches that the church became the symbol for the supersensible.

Present-day humanity has no wish to look to the points of origin of its historical development. It lives like someone who has reached the age of forty-five and has forgotten what life was like as a boy or a girl, at most remembering back as far as his or her twenty-fifth year. Try and visualize what it would mean for the inner soul life of someone of forty-five to remember nothing that happened before the age of twenty-five. Yet that is the state of mind humankind is in now, it is the state of mind in which the people arise who are to be the leaders of humanity. Out of this state of mind something is attempted that is to give the orientation for a social system. The most important thing is that human beings come to see humanity as a living organism with a memory that should not be trodden to death, a memory reaching back to things that still have their effect in the present day, and because of the way they do take effect, literally ask for something new to be poured into them.

We merely need to strike this note a few times and we shall see that there is need for something in the present time that makes all the empty words that are flashing up all around come to nothing. It would be good if a sufficiently large number of of people were to realize how serious the present situation is, and out of this realization were to arrive at something that is really new. The sad thing is that People today have been given great tasks and yet would most of all like to sleep through those tasks. The particular task given to the anthroposophical movement for decades now has basically been to shake humanity out of its sleep, to point out that humanity needs to be given something today that truly changes the present state of soul to the same extent as the dreamer's state of soul changes to being fully awake and alive for the day, when he wakes in the morning.

This I intend to be the conclusion to the two aspects of history seen in the light of spiritual science I discussed during my present stay in this city. If only something could emerge from our anthroposophical movement that would truly fire our social ideas, filling them with warmth and energy. Social impulses are needed in the present age, that is so obvious when we look at events that we really should not fail to see it. These social impulses can only come to fruition if a new spirit is poured into human evolution. This should be realized particularly by the people who from one side or another come to join the anthroposophical movement. On the soil of this anthroposophical movement truthfulness and alertness are necessary, real alertness. Modern civilized society has got into the habit of being asleep in public life. Today people are so much asleep one might fall into severe doubt on seeing the external course followed by people in the pursuit of their affairs—were it not for the fact that one stands within spiritual life and perceives the course taken by spiritual affairs behind the Physical world. The external course people pursue in their events clearly spells it out that people fight shy of having any part in the search for truth in the phenomenal world. They are so glad they do not have to look at the events that are happening. You can see that when people are told of something happening somewhere today, they stand there on their two feet and give no indication of having heard something that is of profound significance for the way events will go. People hear of deeply significant things that must inevitably lead to ruin, to decline and fall, and they do not even feel indignation. Things are going on in the world, intentions are alive in German lands that should horrify people—yet they do not. Anyone incapable of being horrified at these things also lacks the power to develop a sense of truth.

It has to be pointed out that healthy indignation over things that are not healthy should be the source and origin of enthusiasm, of the new truths that are needed. It is actually less important to convey truths to people than it is to bring fiery energy into their lethargic nervous systems. Fiery energy is needed today, not mystical sleep. Longing for mystical peace and quiet is not of the essence today but rather dedication to the spirit. Union with the divine has to be actively sought today and not in mystical indolence and comfort.

This has to be pointed out. We must find a way of making it possible again for our minds to connect a divine principle with our outer reality. We shall only be able to do this if we consider without bias how people found their gods walking the earth in the earliest empires. We must find a way in which our human souls can walk in the spirit in spiritual worlds, that we may find gods again.

Dritter Vortrag

Ich möchte die Betrachtungen, die wir in diesen Tagen hier angestellt haben, heute noch durch einiges ergänzen, das geeignet sein kann, in manche Begriffe, aus denen heraus in der Gegenwart gehandelt werden soll, Wirklichkeit einzufüllen, das, ich möchte sagen, geeignet sein kann, Begriffe zu finden, die weniger abstrakt sind als fast alle Begriffe, von denen sich die Menschheit heute beherrschen läßt. Solche Begriffe haben wir gar sehr notwendig, denn nur solche Begriffe gehen ein in die Empfindungswelt des Menschen und dadurch in das wirkliche Leben, nur solche Begriffe können auch befeuern das menschliche Wollen und Handeln.

Wir überblicken heute die Welt und sollten eigentlich als eigentümlichstes Kennzeichen des sozialen Lebens über die zivilisierte Welt hin das betrachten können, daß sich an die Stelle früherer kleinerer menschlicher Zusammenhänge größere menschliche Zusammenhänge gestellt haben. Wir brauchen ja nicht weit in der Menschheitsentwickelung zurückzugehen, um zu finden, daß soziale Zusammenhänge nur über ein geringes Territorium ausgebreitet waren. Wir finden, daß Städtegemeinschaften eine verhältnismäßige Einheit bildeten, und im Grunde genommen erst in der neuesten Zeit entstehen die großen imperialistischen Gemeinschaften, aus denen heraus sich das ergeben hat, was Ihnen ja auch schon öfter charakterisiert worden ist: das Imperium der englisch sprechenden Bevölkerung. Es sollte sich über die Folgen dieser Geschehnisse eigentlich gerade in Mitteleuropa heute kein Mensch irgendwelchen Illusionen hingeben. Aber ordentliche, wirklichkeitsgesättigte Begriffe über diese Dinge sind doch nur zu haben, wenn man geisteswissenschaftliche Gesichtspunkte einnehmen will. Diese geisteswissenschaftlichen Gesichtspunkte führen uns in ältere Zustände der Menschheitsentwickelung zurück und zeigen uns, wie auch da gewisse Zusammenhänge sich offenbarten unter den Menschen, die man aber, wie ich auch schon öfter erwähnte, nicht «Staaten» nennen sollte, weil man dadurch ungeheure Konfusionen hervorruft, sondern die man mit irgendeinem andern, mehr gleichgültigen Worte belegen sollte: sagen wir, «Reiche» sind entstanden. Und solche Reiche wurden regiert von einzelnen Menschen, von einzelnen Menschengemeinschaften. Aus ihnen hat sich dann etwas ergeben, was im weiteren Fortgang zu Staatenbildungen führte, die man heute als etwas so Selbstverständliches ansieht, daß man an ihnen nicht rütteln will — wenigstens auf gewissen Gebieten will man nicht an ihnen rütteln -, und, was noch schlimmer ist, über die man, weil man sie als etwas Selbstverständliches ansieht, gar nicht einmal nachdenken will.

Alledem liegt aber etwas zugrunde, was den Menschen verbindet, innerlich verbindet in seinem Seelenleben mit dem Geistig-Göttlichen, wie er es in den verschiedenen Zeiten der Erdenentwickelung genannt hat.

Geht man in halb vorgeschichtliche Zeiten zurück, in Zeiten, die nur noch so hereinragen in das geschichtliche Leben, so findet man, daß in diesen vorgeschichtlichen Zeiten der Begriff eines Reichsregierers, sagen wir - denn all unsere Worte sind ja doch für diese älteren Begriffe nicht zutreffend —, ganz anders geformt war, als wir heute geneigt sind, ihn zu verstehen. Der Begriff eines Regierers eines irdischen Reiches größeren oder kleineren Kalibers wurde sehr nahe herangebracht an das, was der Mensch als seinen Gottesbegriff erkannte. Damit kommt man ja zu Dingen, die dem heutigen Menschen außerordentlich paradox vorkommen müssen. Das ist aber nur deshalb, weil dieser heutige Mensch so wenig geneigt ist, wirklich einzugehen auf dasjenige, was einmal da war in der Menschheitsentwickelung und was sich nicht deckt mit den seit drei bis vier Jahrhunderten gewohnt gewordenen Begriffen des Abendlandes oder seines Anhanges Amerika.

Allerdings, in jenen älteren Zeiten, die halb vorhistorische sind, wurde auch, wenigstens in vielen Imperien, der Reichsregierer auf eine andere Art in sein Amt eingeführt, als das in späteren Zeiten geschehen ist. Wir brauchen nur in das alte Ägypten, aber in die älteren, die halb vorhistorischen Zeiten des alten Ägypten zurückzugehen, oder in das alte Chaldäa, so finden wir überall, daß es als eine Art Selbstverständlichkeit angesehen wird, daß die Vorläufer der heutigen Priesterschaft die Regenten für ihr Amt vorbereiteten. Man hatte ganz konkrete Vorstellungen über diese Art des Vorbereitens eines Regierers durch die Priesterschaft und ihre Einrichtungen. Man hatte die Vorstellung, daß durch diese Vorbereitung aus dem zur Regentschaft Berufenen wirklich etwas wird, was sich noch als letzte Andeutung erhalten hat in der chinesischen Benennung «Sohn des Himmels». Man hatte das Bewußtsein, man mußte eine Art «Sohn des Himmels» machen aus demjenigen, der zum Regierer irgendeines Gebietes berufen war oder berufen wurde. Aber bei diesen Dingen hatte man nicht die Vorstellung, die man heute einzig und allein eigentlich aufbringt, wenn von menschlicher Erziehung oder von der Vorbereitung des Menschen zu irgend etwas die Rede ist. Wenn man sich auch wiederum viel Mühe gibt, darauf hinzuweisen, daß man den Menschen nicht nur so erziehen sollte für das eine oder andere Amt in der Welt, daß man Intellektualistisches in sein Wesen, in seine Seele hineinpfropft, sondern daß man den ganzen Menschen entwickele, so haben doch fast alle unsere heutigen Begriffe von Entwickelung, von Erziehung und dergleichen etwas im höchsten Grade Abstraktes. Man hat die Vorstellung, daß eigentlich nur irgend etwas im Menschenwesen selbst im Sinne eines Fortschrittes geändert oder verwandelt werden soll beim Erziehen, beim Vorbereiten zu einem Amt. Man hat nicht die Vorstellung, daß bei einer solchen Entwickelung aus dem Menschen etwas ganz anderes werden soll, als er vorher war. Vor allen Dingen hat man nicht die Vorstellung, daß etwas Objektives in den Menschen einfließen soll, was vorher nicht in ihm war. Die Vorstellung hat man nicht, die ich etwa in der folgenden Art charakterisieren könnte: Ich rede mit einem Menschen, der nun einmal aus dem heutigen natürlichen und sozialen Leben heraus entstanden ist. Er sagt zu mir dies oder jenes, ich sage zu ihm dies oder jenes. Er spricht zu mir als der Träger eines Namens, der aus den gewöhnlichen staatlich-bürgerlichen Zusammenhängen stammt, aus denen der Mensch heute nun einmal herauswächst. Ich spreche zu ihm ebenso. — Es ist dieses ja fast die einzige Art, wie wir uns als Menschen heute zueinander verhalten und wie wir jeden Menschen unter uns ansehen.

Dies war für die Zeiten, von denen ich hier sprach, im Grunde genommen etwas ganz Fremdes. Vor allen Dingen war es etwas Fremdes für die Menschen, die zu wichtigen Ämtern, zur Führung innerhalb der Menschheit selbst berufen waren. Da war der äußerliche Naturzusammenhang, Abstammung, Vater, Mutter, Großvater, Großmutter und dergleichen etwas nicht weiter in Betracht Kommendes, wenn die Betreffenden in der richtigen Weise für ihr Amt vorbereitet waren. Da war aber auch nicht dasjenige maßgebend, was wir heute in einem, auch zu den höchsten Sphären emporgehobenen Gegenwartsmenschen suchen und finden, sondern da war man sich bewußt: Spricht man mit einem in dieser Beziehung richtig erzogenen Menschen, so redet durch diesen Menschen gar nicht das gewöhnliche Ich, das da oder dort geboren ist, das durch diesen oder jenen bürgerlichen Zusammenhang abgestempelt ist, sondern es redet etwas, was durch die Vorbereitung, durch die Erziehung innerhalb der Mysterienkultur veranlaßt worden ist, herunterzukommen aus geistigen Höhen und Wohnung zu nehmen in dem betreffenden Menschen. Selbstverständlich spricht man mit solchen Dingen etwas für den heutigen Menschen ungeheuer Paradoxes aus. Aber es ist heute nötig, über solche Dinge sich nicht mehr konfusen, sondern wahrheitsgemäßen Begriffen hinzugeben.

Man hatte eben die Vorstellung, die Erziehung müsse so sein — nicht jede Erziehung, sondern die Erziehung derjenigen, die zu wichtigen Ämtern berufen waren -, daß aus diesen Menschen fortan Wesen der höheren Hierarchien sprechen, die sich in ihnen nur ein Werkzeug schaffen. Man muß dieses Werkzeug durch die Erziehung zubereiten, dann kann es geeignet werden dazu, daß Wesen der höheren Hierarchien durch dieses Werkzeug sprechen.Und was so gepflogen wurde, ging in das allgemeine Bewußtsein über und machte sich in diesem insbesondere geltend, wenn beurteilt wurde durch das allgemeine Volksbewußtsein, wer der Herrschende, der Regierende ist. Es haben sich eben nur solche Überreste wie die Benennung des Regierers von China als «Sohn des Himmels» aus diesen Zeiten erhalten, in denen aber ein Menschheitsbewußtsein vorhanden war, wie es eben auffindbar ist für geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung in den ältesten ägyptischen und chaldäischen Zeiten. Da war für das allgemeine Volksbewußtsein der Herrscher der Gott. Und einen andern göttlichen Begriff hatte man im Grunde genommen nicht. Der Herrscher wurde so vorbereitet, daß die äußerliche menschliche Gestalt bei ihm nichts war, daß sie nur die Gelegenheit dazu gab, daß unter den Menschen sich ein Gott bewegte. Es war ganz selbstverständlich für die ältesten Bewohner des späteren ägyptischen Reiches, anzuerkennen mit ihrem Bewußtsein, daß sie von Göttern regiert werden, die in Menschengestalt auf der Erde wandeln. In diesem Sinne war das älteste soziale Bewußtsein der Menschen auf der einen Seite ein durchaus realistisches. Man erkannte nicht an irgendein besonderes Jenseits, eine besondere geistige Welt. Die geistige Welt war da, wo auch die Welt war, in der die irdischen Menschen wandelten; aber in dieser Welt, in der die irdischen Menschen wandelten, wandelten in Fleischesgestalt nicht nur gewöhnliche Menschen, sondern auch die Götter. Die göttliche Welt war mitten drinnen, aber absolut sichtbar unter den Verhältnissen, die man durch die Mysterienkultur zu schaffen gewohnt war. Wenn dieser Regierende etwas verfügte, etwas wollte, dann wollte es ein Gott. Und im Bewußtsein der ältesten Menschheit dieser halb vorhistorischen Epoche wäre es ein Unsinn gewesen, darüber zu diskutieren, ob nun das geschehen solle oder nicht, was durch den Regierenden gewollt wurde; denn es war ja ein «Gott», der da wollte.

So verband ältestes Menschheitsbewußtsein mit dem, was auf irdischem Boden geschah, die geistige hierarchische Ordnung. Die war da mitten unter den Menschen. Die war nicht etwas, zu dem man erst hinaufsteigt durch irgendwelche geistigen, innerlichen Mittel. Nein, sie war da in den Mysterien als gehandhabte Erziehung für diejenigen Leiber, die zu präparieren man geeignet fand, damit in ihnen die Wesen der höheren Hierarchien Wohnung nehmen und unter den Menschen wandeln und regieren können.

So paradox das dem Gegenwartsmenschen erscheint, dieser Gegenwartsmensch muß endlich dazu kommen, aus seinen bornierten Begriffen, die nur drei bis vier Jahrhunderte alt sind, so wie er sie heute faßt, herauszukommen, und diese Begriffe zu erweitern. Denn man kann nicht mehr in die Zukunft hinüberdenkend sich entwickeln, wenn man nicht dasjenige, was heute zu dem Borniertsein geworden ist auf fast allen Gebieten des Lebens, erweitert dadurch, daß man den Zeithorizont, den die Menschheit überblickt, ausdehnt, daß man größere Entwickelungsspannen überblickt, als heute der Mensch gewohnt ist, geschichtlich zu überblicken.

Das, was einmal da war in ältesten Zeiten, in der historischen, in der vorhistorischen Entwickelung, das wird allerdings im weiteren Fortgang durch anderes ersetzt, aber es erhält sich auf gewissen Gebieten. Es erhält sich oftmals auch so, daß es sich veräußerlicht, sich fortträgt in äußerer Form und seinen inneren Sinn verliert. Dasjenige, was dem ältesten Imperialismus eigen ist: das Bewußtsein davon, daß der Herrschende der Gott ist, setzt sich in die Gegenwart herein da oder dort noch fort, nur daß es den Sinn nicht mehr hat, weil eine Menschheitsentwickelung und nicht ein Menschheitsstillstand stattfindet.

Es ist noch nicht lange her, da erschien an einem gewissen Orte ein Hirtenbrief eines katholischen Bischofs. Der setzte nicht mehr und nicht weniger auseinander, als daß der katholische Priester in seinen Kultushandlungen mächtiger sei als der Christus Jesus. Denn indem der Priester auf dem Altar die heilige Handlung zelebriere, zwinge er den Christus Jesus, den Gott des Christentums, hereinzutreten in die irdische Welt, wenn der Priester die Transsubstantiation vollzieht. Der Gott mag wollen oder nicht, er muß durch die Transsubstantiation den Weg nehmen, den ihm der Priester vorschreibt. Auf diese Übermacht des irdischen «Priestergottes» über den aus kosmischen Höhen heruntersteigenden und im Fleische des Jesus auf der Erde wandelnden «Untergott» hat in jüngster Zeit noch ein Hirtenbrief durchaus hingewiesen. Solche Dinge stammen eben aus älteren Zeiten und sind in unseren Zeiten sinnlos geworden. Gewisse Vertreter gewisser Bekenntnisse wissen ganz gut, warum sie solche Dinge aber wiederum in die Menschheit hineinwerfen. Sie sind ebenso sinnlos geworden, wie wenn Herrscher jüngster Zeiten in Stammbücher hineingeschrieben haben: Des Königs Wille ist oberstes Gesetz. - Wir haben auch diese Dinge erlebt. Die schlafende Menschheit hat zu all diesen Dingen geschwiegen, wie sie auch jetzt wiederum schweigt zu den Dingen, die zum Unheil der Menschheit vorgehen, an die man sich gewöhnt, die man nicht sehen will — wie man überhaupt heute kaum irgend etwas von den wichtigeren Vorgängen innerhalb der Menschheitsentwickelung sehen will.

Das ist eine erste Phase in der Entwickelung der irdischen Imperien, daß der Herrschende der Gott ist. In einer ziemlichen Lebendigkeit geht diese Anschauung noch hinein in das Römertum. Wenn man auch den Nero darstellen mag, ob man ihn darstellt als den Narren oder den Bluthund, für große Kreise des römischen Volkes bedeutete die furchtbare Tyrannis des Nero nichts anderes, als daß sie staunten darüber, daß ein Gott in solcher Gestalt auf der Erde herumwandeln kann. Einen Zweifel, daß das ein Gott sei, gab es für zahlreiche Bewohner des römischen Imperiums gegenüber der Gestalt des Nero nicht.

Ein zweites Stadium in der Entwickelung der Imperien ist der Übergang der Gottwesenhaftigkeit des Herrschenden zu der Gottbegnadetheit des Herrschenden. Der Herrschende war der Gott in der ersten Zeit der Menschheitsentwickelung der zivilisierten Erde. Der Herrschende bedeutet den Gott; er ist nicht von der Wesenheit des Gottes durchdrungen, aber er ist inspiriert, begnadet von Gott. Was er tut, gedeiht dadurch, daß die göttliche Kraft, die jetzt schon nicht mehr in ihm ist, sondern in einem Reich, das neben dem irdischen Reich steht, in ihn hereinströmt, ihn inspiriert, ihn durchdringt, seine Handlungen dirigiert.

Wollen wir einen Begriff finden für dasjenige, was so der Herrscher der zweiten Stufe irdischer Imperien ist, so müssen wir sagen: der Herrschende ist ein Symbolum. Auf der ersten Stufe war der Herrschende ein göttliches Wesen, das auf der Erde wandelte. Auf der zweiten Stufe ist er dasjenige, was das Wesen bedeutet; er ist das Zeichen, das Bild, durch das sich das Wesen ausdrückt. Der Herrschende ist das Bild des Gottes.

Was sich so in den äußeren sozialen Verhältnissen zur Geltung bringt, das drückt sich dann aber auch aus in den Einrichtungen, in den Institutionen. Während in den ältesten Zeiten die Imperien das Gefüge haben, daß eine Anzahl von Menschen dirigiert wird von einem göttlichen Wesen, das äußerlich ihnen gleich aussieht, innerlich aber von ihnen sehr verschieden ist, das ihr Gott ist, sehen wir auf der zweiten Stufe der Imperien, wie der Führende oder die Führenden den Gott oder die Götter bedeuten, deren Symbole sind.

Wie auf der ersten Stufe menschlicher Imperien Diskussionen darüber, ob dasjenige, was der Herrschende, der Gott tut, berechtigt oder unberechtigt ist, ein Unsinn sind, beginnt auf der zweiten Stufe die Möglichkeit, darüber nachzudenken, ob irgend etwas von ihm Getanes recht oder unrecht ist. Auf der ersten Stufe der Imperien ist immer recht, was der Herrschende tut, was der Herrschende denkt, was der Herrschende spricht, denn er ist der Gott. Erst auf der zweiten Stufe wird neben dem, was als irdisches Reich den Gott in sich enthält, den Gottbegnadeten in sich enthält, noch irgend etwas Geistiges vermutet, das neben diesem irdischen Reiche besteht und aus dem in das irdische Reich die Kraft hereinströmt, die das irdische Reich dirigiert und orientiert. Und die Einrichtungen und menschlichen Wesenheiten dieses irdischen Reiches bilden dasjenige ab, was von dem Reiche der höheren Hierarchien hereinströmt.

Es ist interessant zu verfolgen, wie zum Beispiel bei dem sogenannten Pseudo-Dionysios, bei Dionysios dem Areopagiten, der viel echter ist als die echte Wissenschaft sich träumen läßt, die richtige Theorie auftritt von dieser Art der Beherrschung menschlicher Imperien durch die göttlichen Imperien, so daß dasjenige, was unter den Menschen waltet und eingerichtet wird, Sinnbild, Symbol ist desjenigen, was im göttlichen Reich vorhanden ist. Wir sehen, wie Dionysios der Areopagite davon spricht, daß es himmlische Hierarchien gibt gewissermaßen hinter demjenigen, was hier auf der Erde als Menschenhierarchie herumwandelt. Dionysios der Areopagite macht ausdrücklich darauf aufmerksam: Das, was hier in der Priesterhierarchie von den Diakonen, den Archidiakonen bis hinauf zu den Bischöfen angeordnet ist, das muß eine solche Form haben in der sozialen Struktur, daß da sich ausdrückt: So wie der Diakon zum Archidiakon, so steht in der Ordnung der Engel zum Erzengel und so weiter. Die irdische Hierarchie ist ein getreues Abbild der himmlischen Hierarchie. Wir sehen da den Hinweis auf die zweite Stufe des Imperiums. Da konnte sich das entwickeln, was dann bis in gar nicht so weit zurückliegende Zeiten das menschliche Bewußtsein beherrschte. Denken Sie doch nur einmal, daß es bis zum Jahre 1806 in Mitteleuropa etwas gegeben hat, was diese «Zusammendenkung», möchte ich sagen, des Himmlischen und des Irdischen in dem Namen zum Ausdruck brachte: Das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation. Indem überhaupt dieser Name entstanden ist «das Heilige Römische Reich», dasjenige also, was in sich die Kraft des Himmels trägt, «Deutscher Nation», dasjenige, was aus dem Irdischen hervorging, indem dieser Name entstanden ist, zeigt sich, wie ein ganzes Reich sich gebildet hat so, daß es als Abdruck einer himmlischen Einrichtung gedacht sein sollte.

Aus solchen Ideen ist auch hervorgegangen so etwas wie der «Gottesstaat» des heiligen Augustinus, ist hervorgegangen das Buch des Dante «Über die Monarchie». Würden die Menschen heute nur nicht so kurzdenkend sein, wie sie sind, so würden sie sich umsehen bei so etwas wie dieser Beschreibung der Monarchie von Dante, und sie würden dann sehen, daß Dante, den man doch selbstverständlich für einen großen Geist halten muß, noch im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert Begriffe hat, die radikal verschieden sind von den Begriffen, die der heutige Mensch hat. Und wenn man solche Dinge ernst nehmen würde in der geschichtlichen Entwickelung, würde man aufhören mit jenen bornierten Begriffen, die nicht einmal bis zu Dante zurückreichen, sondern nur ein paar Jahrhunderte alt sind, mit denen der heutige Mensch sich seine Illusionen in den Kopf setzt und, nur bis ins Griechentum zurückgehend, die Entwickelung begreifen will. Während er zum Beispiel für die älteren Zeiten des Ägyptertums die ganze Struktur nur begreifen kann, wenn er weiß: Für die alten Menschen wandelten die Götter auf der Erde herum; für die Zeiten, die darauf folgten, wandelten zwar nicht die Götter herum, aber es mußte dasjenige gebildet sein auf Erden, was ein Symbolum, ein Abbild der göttlichen Weltenordnung ist.

Und dasjenige, was dann entstehen konnte, die Möglichkeit zum Beispiel über so etwas nachzudenken wie über das Recht, nachzudenken darüber, daß man durch menschlichen Verstand etwas herausfinden kann wie ein Urteil über das Rechte und Unrechte, das wurde ja erst möglich in der zweiten Phase der Imperienentwickelung. In der ältesten Phase war es ein Unsinn, nachzudenken darüber, was recht oder unrecht sein konnte. Man hatte hinzuschauen auf dasjenige, was der Herrschende sagte, denn in ihm lebte der Gott, das heißt, er war der Gott. Jetzt, in der zweiten Phase, handelte es sich darum, daß man durch menschliches Urteil feststellen konnte: In dem angrenzenden geistigen Reiche ist etwas, was man nicht durch seinen physischen Menschen erreicht, sondern durch den seelisch-geistigen Menschen. Man glaubte jetzt nicht mehr, wie man in den älteren Zeiten geglaubt hat, daß das Göttliche sich mit dem ganzen physischen Menschen vereinigen könne, daß der Mensch selber ein Gott werden könne; man glaubte höchstens — wenn man dasjenige, was in den öffentlichen Einrichtungen lebte, mystisch ausdrückt -, daß das Seelische des Menschen sich mit dem Gotte vereinigen könne.

Im Grunde genommen versteht heute niemand die Ausdrucksweise der Schriften, die noch im 13., 14. Jahrhundert geschrieben und veröffentlicht wurden, der nicht weiß, wie da in den Menschen in ganz anderer Weise, als das heute der Fall sein kann, das Bewußtsein lebte: In gewissen Menschen, die zu einem Amt berufen und erzogen werden, lebt wirklich etwas von göttlicher Inspiration. - Es ist ja die Eigentümlichkeit, daß Dinge, die oftmals auf etwas sehr Ernstes zurückgehen, später, wenn die Entwickelung der Menschheit weitergegangen ist und andere Formen angenommen hat, zum Spottausdruck werden. Wenn heute zum Beispiel einer sagt: Wem Gott ein Amt gibt, dem gibt er auch den Verstand -, so sagt er es im Grunde genommen nur mit einem etwas humoristischen Gefühl. Aber dasjenige, was heute mit einem humoristischen Gefühl durchtränkt wird, das war in den Zeiten der zweiten Stufe der Imperienentwickelung durchaus etwas Wahres, etwas Richtiges, war etwas das Bewußtsein der Menschen Erfüllendes. Und dasjenige, was vom Menschen galt, galt auch von dem, was innerhalb gewisser Grenzen getan wurde. Die Kultushandlungen wurden so ausgestaltet, daß das, was durch sie geschah, Bilder darstellte von dem, was in den geistigen Reichen geschah. Kultushandlungen, die vollzogen wurden, waren geistiges Geschehen, das hineinragte in physisch-irdisches Geschehen. Man dachte sich durchaus, daß das geistige Reich neben dem irdischen sei, aber man dachte sich, daß es hineinragte in das irdische Reich, daß im irdischen Reiche das Symbolum zu finden sei, das Zeichen für das geistige Reich.

Erst nach und nach hörte man auf, das als etwas Gültiges im Bewußtsein zu haben. Und wir sehen ein Zeitalter heraufkommen, in dem hinschwindet dieses Bewußtsein des Zusammenhanges des Irdischen mit dem Geistigen. Zu Wiclifs, zu Hus’ Zeiten beginnen die Menschen über etwas zu streiten, über das zu streiten früher ein Unding gewesen wäre: über die Bedeutung der Transsubstantiation, das heißt über den Zusammenhang dieser Kultushandlung mit etwas, was in geistigen Welten sich abspielt. In Zeitaltern, in denen man über solche Dinge zu streiten beginnt, hören die alten Bewußtseinsinhalte auf; man weiß nicht mehr, wie man die Sachen aufzufassen hat, die man durch Jahrhunderte oder Jahrtausende aufzufassen wußte. Immer bleiben gewisse Dinge, die in einem gewissen Zeitalter die normalen sind, in spätere Zeitalter hinein wirksam. Da werden sie das Deplazierte, da werden sie das Anachronistische, das Luziferische. Und so sind geblieben die großen, weittragenden Symbole, die hinweisen in ein gewisses Zeitalter, auf den Zusammenhang der irdischen Kultushandlungen oder ähnlicher Dinge mit dem göttlich-geistigen Geschehen der Welt. Diese Symbole haben sich verpflanzt in spätere Zeiten, wurden luziferisch konserviert von gewissen Geheimgesellschaften. Namentlich konservierten solche alten Symbole westliche Geheimgesellschaften. Sie sind da traditionell, diese Symbole, aber sie haben ihren Inhalt verloren. Und so sehen wir auf der einen Seite in gewissen Geheimgesellschaften, deren Ausläufer zum Beispiel die Freimaurergemeinschaften, die Jesuitengemeinschaften, die Bekenntnisgemeinschaften sind, in gewisser Weise die Symbole bewahrt, aber es ist das etwas, was einen Sinn eben nur für ein voriges Zeitalter hatte. Wir sehen aber auch in den Worten im Grunde genommen nur luziferisch bewahrt dasjenige, was für ältere Zeitalter eine Bedeutung hatte. Auch in den Worten, die man im öffentlichen Leben anwendet, verliert sich der alte substantielle Gehalt, verliert sich auch das Bewußtsein, daß diese Worte Zeichen sind für ein Geistiges. Denn das Geistige entschwindet allmählich, das Wort wird zum leeren Symbol, zum leeren Zeichen.

Im dritten Zeitalter, auf der dritten Stufe der Imperienbildung, hörte nun auch auf das Bewußtsein von der Gottbegnadetheit eines Menschen, von der Durchdringung irdischen Geschehens, irdischen Sprechens mit dem Göttlichen. Es wird das geistige Reich völlig in ein Jenseits verwiesen. Das Gegenbild tritt ein von dem, was auf der ersten Stufe der Imperienbildung vorhanden war: Der Gott lebte auf der Erde auf der ersten Stufe, er ging in Menschengestalt herum; der Gott ist nur zu denken in der unsichtbaren, übersinnlichen Welt auf der dritten Stufe. Und alles dasjenige, was die Menschen einmal gehabt haben, um ihre Beziehungen vom Göttlich-Geistigen auszudrücken, verliert den Sinn. Man spricht weiterhin aus das Wort «Gott». Wenn man das Wort «Gott» vor Zeiten ausgesprochen hat, so suchte man etwas, was äußerlich die Menschengestalt hatte, was unter den physischen Menschen wandelte. Nicht als ob die ältesten Menschen Materialisten gewesen wären. Materialisten konnten erst entstehen, nachdem man die geistige Welt ins Übersinnliche abgeschoben hatte. In der ältesten Periode menschlicher Entwickelung war die geistige Welt mitten unter den Menschen. Für einen Bewohner des ältesten Ägypten hätte man nicht erst zu sagen gebraucht: Das Reich des Göttlichen ist mitten unter uns —, denn das war ihnen eine Selbstverständlichkeit. Für das Zeitalter, in dem der Christus Jesus unter den Menschen erschien, mußte man den Menschen erst sagen: Das Reich der Götter kommt nicht mit äußeren Gebärden, es ist mitten unter uns.

Und jetzt leben wir in einem Zeitalter, in dem es unsinnig geworden ist, in einem Menschen irgend etwas anderes zu suchen als die geradlinige, auf Ursache und Wirkung gebaute Fortentwickelung seines Kindheitswesens. Wir leben in einem Zeitalter, in dem es ein Wahnsinn ist, wenn sich der Mensch für etwas anderes hält als für das, was die geradlinige Fortentwickelung desjenigen ist, was auch seine Kindschaft umschließt. Was eine Selbstverständlichkeit war vor, sagen wir achttausend Jahren, was dazumal lebte als allgemeines Bewußtsein, heute behauptet, ist es ein Symptom dafür, daß der Mensch, der es behauptet, ein Verrückter ist. Und nur indem man dasjenige, was in den älteren Zeiten das Wirkliche war, nach dem Muster des gegenwärtigen Denkens uminterpretiert in diese Fable convenue, die wir «Geschichte» nennen, nur dadurch breitet man sich einen Schleier über diese radikale Metamorphose, die man finden kann, wenn man wirklich der Wahrheit gemäß die menschliche Entwickelung betrachtet. Dasjenige, was wir heute vielfach aussprechen, was wir heute zeigen im äußeren Leben, ist dadurch entstanden, daß es sich einmal bezog auf etwas, was als Wirklichkeit angeschaut worden ist. Wir sprechen heute noch Worte, wie zum Beispiel «von Gottes Gnaden» - in den letzten Jahren haben sich die Menschen das mehr oder weniger abzugewöhnen versucht, es ist ihnen aber schlecht gelungen -, aber wir wissen nicht, oder wir beachten nicht, daß das einmal für das Bewußtsein der Menschheit eine volle Realität, eine Selbstverständlichkeit bedeutete.

Damit deute ich Ihnen aber auf diejenigen Tatsachen hin, welche unserem Öffentlichen Leben den Charakter des Phrasenhaften, des Konventionellen geben. Denn dasjenige, was wir durch unsere Sprache, unsere Sitten, sogar durch unser Urteil im öffentlichen Leben geltend machen, das alles weist zurück auf Zeiten, in denen man diese Worte, auch wenn sie erst in der späteren Sprache entstanden sind — sie sind der ursprünglichen Sprache nachgebildet worden -, in einem ganz andern Sinne bildete und gebrauchte. Ausgepreßt sind heute die Worte, die wir für das öffentliche Leben verwenden. Manchen Worten und Zeichen sieht man es an, manchen hat man es lange nicht angesehen. Daß dasjenige, was einstmals, durch magische Handlungen zu einem wichtigen magischen Teil des auf der Erde wandelnden Gottes umgewandelt, ein dem menschlichen Leibe umgehängtes Zeichen war, zu der Nichtigkeit des modernen Ordens wurde, das ist eine Geschichte, die wenig verfolgt wird von der Menschheit. Nicht bloß dasjenige, was sich im Worte ausdrückt, kann Phrase werden, wie unsere wichtigsten, auf das öffentliche Leben bezüglichen Worte Phrasen sind, sondern auch das, was in Gegenständen an den Menschen angehängt ist, kann einen ähnlichen Charakter tragen mit Bezug auf sein Verhältnis zur Wirklichkeit, wie das Wort, das heute leer ist und das einstmals einen geheiligten, substantiellen Inhalt hatte.

Ehe man aber nicht einsieht, daß unsere Entwickelung zunächst eine solche gewesen ist, daß ein älteres Bewußtsein seine Substanz verloren hat, phrasenhaft und konventionell geworden ist, kann ein wirklicher . Aufbau unseres heute zerstörten öffentlichen sozialen Lebens nicht stattfinden. Wir müssen uns nach neuen Quellen umsehen, welche wiederum Inhalt bringen in dieses unser öffentliches Leben. Für unser Bewußtsein wandeln die Götter nicht in Menschengestalt herum. Deshalb müssen wir uns die Fähigkeit erwerben, das zu erkennen, was nicht Menschengestalt hat, sondern was diejenige Gestalt hat, die man nur anschauen kann, wenn man sich zur Geistesschau erhebt. Da für unser Bewußtsein die Götter nicht mehr heruntersteigen auf die physischen Throne, müssen wir uns die spirituellen Fähigkeiten erwerben, um zu denjenigen Thronen schauend hinaufzusteigen, auf denen die Götter, die nur im Geistigen für uns leben können, vorhanden sind. Wir müssen fähig werden, unsere phrasenhaften Abstraktionen zu durchtränken mit einem erlebten geistigen Inhalt. Wir müssen fähig werden, diesen Wahrheiten, die für den, der sie richtig erfaßt, erschütternd sind, ins Antlitz zu schauen. Wir müssen fähig werden, die Dinge so zu sehen, wie sie sind. Das tun wir manchmal nicht einmal über eine Zeitspanne von Jahrzehnten hin. Wir glauben, wir leben innerhalb der europäischen Zivilisation, wenn wir Mitteleuropäer sind. Wir sollten uns fragen: Was machte denn eigentlich unser inneres seelisches Leben zu einem so zwiespältigen in den letzten fünfzig Jahren oder noch etwas länger?

Nun, ich möchte nur auf eines hinweisen: Wenn Sie nach Westen sehen, so sehen Sie zunächst — vom übrigen wollen wir nicht sprechen ein in der Dekadenz befindliches Volk, das französische Volk. Aber eines hat innerhalb dieses französischen Volkes eine Bedeutung. Wenn der Angehörige des französischen Volkes sagte: Ich bin ein Franzose — er hat sich das durch Jahrhunderte gesagt -, so hat er damit etwas ausgesprochen, was mit den äußeren Tatsachen übereinstimmend war und ein erlaubtes, wahrhaftiges Bekenntnis gegenüber dem äußeren Leben war. Diejenigen unter uns, die noch gesprochen haben mit Menschen, die ihre Jugend in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts als Deutsche erlebt haben, die könnten mir das Folgende bestätigen: Herman Grimm zum Beispiel hat es wiederholt charakterisiert, was es eigentlich bedeutet hat für die Menschen, die in seiner Jugend eben auch noch jung waren innerhalb Deutschlands, daß dazumal derjenige, der hätte gestehen wollen im äußeren Leben: Ich bin ein Deutscher, ich bekenne mich dazu — nicht als Phrase, sondern als Realität -, ein Staatsverbrecher war. Man war Bayer, Württemberger, Preuße, aber man war ein Verbrecher, wenn man sagte: Ich bin ein Deutscher. - Es hatte einen Inhalt im Westen, zu sagen: Ich bin Franzose —, denn man durfte es sein im äußeren Leben. Es hatte einen Inhalt, durch den man ins Gefängnis kam oder sonst unmöglich gemacht wurde, wenn man sich hätte beifallen lassen zu sagen, man sei ein Deutscher, man gehöre also einer zusammengehörigen Nation an. Die heutige Menschheit hat das vergessen; aber diese Dinge sind ja Realitäten. Und es kommt darauf an, daß man diesen Dingen ins Antlitz schaut. Aber man wird nicht den nötigen Enthusiasmus für solche Dinge aufbringen, wenn man nicht sein inneres Leben befruchtet an den großen, richtig gesehenen Erscheinungen der Weltgeschichte, nicht jener Fable convenue, die in unseren heutigen Handbüchern steht, die auf unseren Schulen gelehrt wird, sondern jener wirklichen Weltgeschichte, die durch eine geistige Betrachtung gewonnen werden kann.

Für einen heutigen normalen Evangelischen ist es ganz undenkbar, daß es einmal für Menschen einen Sinn gehabt haben könnte, zu sagen, «der Gott wandelte auf der Erde und der Herrscher war der Gott» und «es gibt nicht irgendein sinnliches Reich, wo noch Götter sind, denn diejenigen Vorgänge, durch die man zum Gotte wird, die sind in dem Reiche, wo das Übersinnliche seine Wohnung hat, innerhalb des Mysteriums». Das Mysterium war noch in den ersten Zeiten der halb vorhistorischen ägyptischen Geschichte ein wirklich Übersinnliches, und erst als die Mysterien zu Kirchen umgestaltet wurden, wurde die Kirche zum Symbol des Übersinnlichen.

Eine Menschheit wie die heutige, die nicht hinschauen will zu den Ausgangspunkten ihrer historischen Entwickelung, die lebt ihr Leben so wie ein Mensch, der fünfundvierzig Jahre alt geworden ist und vergessen hat, was er in seiner Knaben- oder Mädchenzeit erlebt hat, wie ein Mensch, der fünfundvierzig Jahre alt geworden ist und sich höchstens bis zum fünfundzwanzigsten Jahr zurückerinnert. Malen Sie sich einmal aus, was es für das innere Seelenleben eines Menschen für eine Folge hätte, wenn er fünfundvierzigjährig nichts wüßte von alledem, was dem fünfundzwanzigsten Jahr vorangegangen ist. Das ist aber die Geistesverfassung der gegenwärtigen Menschheit und aus dieser Geistesverfassung heraus entstehen heute diejenigen, die Menschheitsführer sein wollen. Aus dieser Geistesverfassung wird heute dasjenige versucht, was einer sozialen Struktur eingefügt werden soll als richtende Kraft. Was vor allen Dingen notwendig ist, das ist, daß der Mensch die Menschheit kennenlerne als einen lebendigen Organismus, in dem ein Gedächtnis vorhanden ist, das nicht totgetreten werden darf, das zurückblickt auf Dinge, die noch in die Gegenwart hereinwirken, aber durch die Art, wie sie wirken, geradezu herausfordern, daß sich etwas Neues in sie ergieße.

Wenn man nur einmal ein paar solcher Töne anschlägt, dann sieht man, daß für die Gegenwart etwas notwendig ist, dem gegenüber all das Phrasengedresche, das heute von vielen Seiten aufflackert, eine Nichtigkeit ist. Und man möchte schon, daß einmal eine genügend große Anzahl von Menschen den Ernst der gegenwärtigen Zeit einsähe und die Kraft fände, aus diesem Ernst heraus nun wirklich zu einem Neuen zu kommen. Das ist ja das recht Betrübliche, daß die Menschen der Gegenwart große Aufgaben haben und am liebsten diese großen Aufgaben verschlafen möchten. Das war im Grunde genommen seit Jahrzehnten die Aufgabe, die gerade durch die anthroposophische Bewegung gestellt werden sollte: die schläfrige Menschheit aufzurütteln, hinzuweisen darauf, daß der Menschheit heute etwas gegeben werden muß, was wirklich die Seelenverfassung gegenüber derjenigen, die jetzt besteht, so umgestaltet, wie sich am Morgen beim Aufwachen die träumende Seelenverfassung in die des vollwachen Tageslebens umgestaltet.

Das ist dasjenige, wodurch ich die beiden geisteswissenschaftlichen historischen Betrachtungen, die ich während meiner diesmaligen Anwesenheit vor Ihnen angestellt habe, heute abschließen wollte. Wenn doch von dem, was anthroposophische Bewegung ist, ausgehen könnte das, was unsere sozialen Anregungen wirklich befeuern, durchwärmen, durchkraften müßte! Daß die Menschheit soziale Impulse braucht in der Gegenwart, das tritt ja so stark hervor für die Betrachtung der Erscheinungen, daß es wirklich nicht wieder verkannt werden dürfte. Daß diesen sozialen Impulsen nur entsprochen werden kann, wenn neuer Geist in die Menschheitsentwickelung gegossen wird, das sollten gerade diejenigen einsehen, die sich von irgendeiner Seite her zur anthroposophischen Bewegung bekennen. Dazu ist aber auf dem Boden dieser anthroposophischen Bewegung eben Wahrhaftigkeit und Wachsamkeit notwendig, wirkliche Wachsamkeit. An das Schlafen im öffentlichen Leben hat sich die neuere Kulturmenschheit gewöhnt. Und heute ist dieses Schlafen so stark, daß man manchmal, wenn man eben nicht im geistigen Leben drinnenstehen und den Gang der geistigen Angelegenheiten hinter diesem Physischen sehen würde, aus dem äußeren Gang, dem sich die Menschen hingeben in der Verfolgung ihrer Angelegenheiten, recht sehr in Zweifel versetzt werden könnte. Dieser äußere Gang, dem sich die Menschen hingeben in der Verfolgung ihrer Ereignisse, er spricht es ja förmlich aus, daß die Menschen es scheuen, an der Ergreifung des Wahrhaftigen in den Erscheinungen irgendwie noch teilzunehmen. Man ist so froh, wenn man nicht hinzuschauen braucht auf die Vorgänge, die geschehen! Man sieht es heute, wie die Menschen sich sagen lassen: Da und dort geschieht das und das! — Sie stehen da auf ihren Beinen, ohne sich irgendwie etwas davon merken zu lassen, daß sie von Dingen gehört haben, die eine tiefe Bedeutung haben für den Weitergang der Ereignisse. Die Menschen hören heute von den bedeutsamsten Dingen, die in die Zerstörung, in den Niedergang hineinführen müssen, und sie können nicht einmal entrüstet sein darüber. Jetzt wiederum gehen Dinge durch die Welt, Absichten gehen durch deutsche Gegenden, über die die Menschen entsetzt sein sollten — und sie sind es nicht! Wer aber über diese Dinge nicht entsetzt sein kann, der hat auch nicht die Kraft, den Sinn für die Wahrheit zu entwickeln.

Das ist dasjenige, worauf heute hingewiesen werden muß, daß eine gesunde Entrüstung über dasUngesunde der Quellpunkt sein muß für die Begeisterung, für die neuen notwendigen Wahrheiten. Es ist heute sogar weniger notwendig, daß man den Menschen Wahrheiten überliefert, als es notwendig ist, daß man in diese lethargischen Nervensysteme Feuerkraft hineinbringt. Denn Feuerkraft ist heute dem Menschen notwendig, nicht mystische Schläferei. Nicht Sehnsucht nach mystischer Ruhe, sondern Dienen dem Geistigen, das ist es, um was es sich heute handelt. Die Verbindung mit dem Göttlichen muß heute in der Aktivität, nicht in der mystischen Faulheit und Bequemlichkeit gesucht werden.

Das sind die Dinge, auf die einmal hingewiesen werden muß. Denn heute muß gesucht werden, wie wir in unser Bewußtsein die Möglichkeit hineinbringen, ein Göttliches wiederum mit dem Äußerlich-Wirklichen zu verbinden. Und wir können das nur, wenn wir ohne Vorurteil hinschauen, wie in den Imperien der ersten Art die Menschen die auf Erden wandelnden Götter gefunden haben. Wir müssen die Möglichkeit finden, als Menschenseelen spirituell wandeln zu können in geistigen Welten, damit wir wieder Götter finden!

Third Lecture

I would like to supplement the considerations we have made here in recent days with a few additional points that may be useful in fleshing out some of the concepts that are currently guiding our actions. I would say that these points may be useful in finding concepts that are less abstract than almost all of the concepts that dominate humanity today. We have a great need for such concepts, for only such concepts enter into the world of human feeling and thus into real life; only such concepts can also fuel human will and action.

We survey the world today and should actually be able to regard the most distinctive feature of social life throughout the civilized world as the fact that larger human communities have replaced the smaller human communities of the past. We need not go far back in human development to find that social relationships were spread over only a small territory. We find that urban communities formed a relative unity, and that it is only in recent times that the large imperialist communities have emerged, from which has developed what has already been characterized to you on several occasions: the empire of the English-speaking population. No one should be under any illusions about the consequences of these events, especially in Central Europe today. But proper, realistic concepts about these things can only be obtained if one is willing to take a spiritual-scientific point of view. These perspectives from the humanities take us back to earlier stages of human development and show us how certain connections also revealed themselves among people back then, which, as I have already mentioned several times, should not be called “states,” because this causes tremendous confusion, but should be described with some other, more neutral term: let us say, “empires” arose. And such empires were ruled by individual human beings, by individual communities of human beings. From these, something emerged which, in the further course of events, led to the formation of states, which today are regarded as something so self-evident that no one wants to question them — at least in certain areas — and, what is even worse, because they are regarded as something self-evident, no one even wants to think about them.

Underlying all this, however, is something that connects human beings, connects them inwardly in their soul life with the spiritual-divine, as he has called it in the various periods of Earth's development.

If we go back to semi-prehistoric times, to times that only just protrude into historical life, we find that in these prehistoric times the concept of a ruler of a kingdom, let us say — for all our words are, after all, inadequate for these older concepts — was formed quite differently from the way we are inclined to understand it today. The concept of a ruler of an earthly empire of greater or lesser caliber was brought very close to what man recognized as his concept of God. This leads us to things that must seem extremely paradoxical to modern man. But this is only because modern man is so little inclined to really enter into what once existed in human evolution and what does not correspond to the concepts of the West or its appendage, America, which have become familiar over the last three or four centuries.

However, in those older times, which are semi-prehistoric, at least in many empires, the ruler of the empire was introduced into office in a different way than in later times. We need only go back to ancient Egypt, but to the older, semi-prehistoric times of ancient Egypt, or to ancient Chaldea, to find everywhere that it was regarded as a matter of course that the precursors of today's priesthood prepared the rulers for their office. People had very concrete ideas about this type of preparation of a ruler by the priesthood and its institutions. They believed that this preparation would truly transform the person called to rule into something that is still hinted at in the Chinese term “Son of Heaven.” There was an awareness that one had to make a kind of “Son of Heaven” out of those who were called or appointed to rule over a particular territory. But in these matters, people did not have the idea that we have today when we talk about human education or preparing people for something. Even though much effort is made to point out that people should not be educated solely for one office or another in the world, that intellectualism should not be grafted onto their nature or soul, but that the whole person should be developed, almost all of our present-day concepts of development, education, and the like are highly abstract. One has the idea that, in education and preparation for a position, only something in the human being itself should be changed or transformed in the sense of progress. One does not have the idea that such development should result in the human being becoming something completely different from what he was before. Above all, one does not have the idea that something objective should flow into the human being that was not there before. One does not have the idea that I could characterize in the following way: I am talking to a person who has emerged from today's natural and social life. He says this or that to me, I say this or that to him. He speaks to me as the bearer of a name that comes from the ordinary state-civilian context from which human beings today grow out of. I speak to him in the same way. — This is almost the only way we relate to each other as human beings today and how we view every person among us.

This was something completely foreign to the times I am talking about here. Above all, it was foreign to people who were called to important offices, to leadership within humanity itself. There was the external connection with nature, ancestry, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, and the like, which was not taken into consideration if the persons concerned were properly prepared for their office. But what we seek and find today in contemporary human beings, even those elevated to the highest spheres, was not decisive either. Instead, people were aware that When you talk to someone who has been properly educated in this respect, it is not the ordinary ego that speaks through them, the ego that was born here or there, that is stamped by this or that bourgeois context, but something that has been caused by preparation, by education within the mystery culture, to come down from spiritual heights and take up residence in the person concerned. Of course, when you talk about such things, you are expressing something that is incredibly paradoxical for people today. But today it is necessary to no longer be confused about such things, but to devote ourselves to truthful concepts.

The idea was that education — not all education, but the education of those who were called to important offices — had to be such that from then on, beings from the higher hierarchies would speak through these people, who were merely creating a tool for themselves. This tool must be prepared through education, then it can become suitable for beings of higher hierarchies to speak through it. And what was practiced in this way passed into the general consciousness and became particularly evident when the general consciousness of the people judged who was the ruler, the governor. Only remnants such as the designation of the ruler of China as “Son of Heaven” have survived from these times, in which, however, a human consciousness existed, as can be found in spiritual scientific research in the oldest Egyptian and Chaldean times. For the general consciousness of the people, the ruler was God. And basically, there was no other concept of the divine. The ruler was prepared in such a way that his external human form was nothing, that it only provided the opportunity for a god to move among the people. It was quite natural for the earliest inhabitants of what later became the Egyptian Empire to acknowledge with their consciousness that they were ruled by gods who walked the earth in human form. In this sense, the earliest social consciousness of human beings was, on the one hand, entirely realistic. They did not believe in any special afterlife or spiritual world. The spiritual world was where the world in which earthly human beings walked was; but in this world in which earthly human beings walked, it was not only ordinary human beings who walked in flesh and blood, but also the gods. The divine world was right in the middle of it, but absolutely visible under the conditions that people were accustomed to creating through the mystery cults. When this ruler decreed something, wanted something, then it was a god who wanted it. And in the consciousness of the oldest humanity of this semi-prehistoric epoch, it would have been nonsense to discuss whether what the ruler wanted should happen or not; for it was a “god” who wanted it.

Thus, the oldest human consciousness connected what happened on earth with the spiritual hierarchical order. It was there in the midst of human beings. It was not something that one first had to ascend to through some spiritual, inner means. No, it was there in the mysteries as an education for those bodies that were considered suitable for preparation, so that the beings of the higher hierarchies could take up residence in them and walk and rule among humans.

As paradoxical as this may seem to contemporary human beings, they must finally come to terms with their narrow-minded concepts, which are only three or four centuries old, as they understand them today, and expand these concepts. For one cannot develop by thinking ahead into the future if one does not expand what has become narrow-minded in almost all areas of life today by extending the time horizon that humanity can survey, by surveying greater spans of development than humans are accustomed to surveying historically today.

What once existed in the most ancient times, in historical and prehistoric development, is indeed replaced by other things as time goes on, but it persists in certain areas. It often persists in such a way that it becomes externalized, carries itself away in outward form, and loses its inner meaning. That which is characteristic of the oldest imperialism, the consciousness that the ruler is God, continues here and there in the present, only that it no longer has any meaning because human development is taking place and not a standstill of humanity.

Not long ago, a pastoral letter from a Catholic bishop appeared in a certain place. It stated, no more and no less, that the Catholic priest is more powerful in his acts of worship than Christ Jesus. For when the priest celebrates the sacred act on the altar, he compels Christ Jesus, the God of Christianity, to enter the earthly world when the priest performs transubstantiation. Whether God wants to or not, through transubstantiation He must take the path prescribed for Him by the priest. A recent pastoral letter has pointed out this supremacy of the earthly “priest-god” over the “subordinate god” who descends from cosmic heights and walks on earth in the flesh of Jesus. Such things originate from older times and have become meaningless in our times. Certain representatives of certain creeds know very well why they throw such things back into humanity. They have become just as meaningless as when rulers of recent times wrote in family registers: The king's will is supreme law. We have also experienced these things. Sleeping humanity has remained silent about all these things, just as it is now silent about the things that are happening to the detriment of humanity, things to which we have become accustomed, things we do not want to see — just as we hardly want to see anything at all of the more important processes within human evolution today.

This is the first phase in the development of earthly empires, when the ruler is God. This view still persisted with considerable vitality in Roman times. Even if one wishes to portray Nero as a fool or a bloodhound, for large sections of the Roman people Nero's terrible tyranny meant nothing other than that they were amazed that a god could walk the earth in such a form. Numerous inhabitants of the Roman Empire had no doubt that Nero was a god.

A second stage in the development of empires is the transition from the godhood of the ruler to the divine inspiration of the ruler. The ruler was the god in the early stages of human development on civilized earth. The ruler represents God; he is not imbued with the essence of God, but he is inspired, gifted by God. What he does prospers because the divine power, which is no longer in him but in a realm that stands alongside the earthly realm, flows into him, inspires him, permeates him, and directs his actions.

If we want to find a term for what the ruler of the second stage of earthly empires is, we must say: the ruler is a symbol. In the first stage, the ruler was a divine being who walked on earth. In the second stage, he is that which the being signifies; he is the sign, the image through which the being expresses itself. The ruler is the image of God.

What thus comes to the fore in external social relations is also expressed in the institutions. While in the earliest times empires were structured in such a way that a number of people were ruled by a divine being who looked the same as them on the outside but was very different from them on the inside, who was their god, at the second stage of empires we see how the leader or leaders represent the god or gods of whom they are symbols.

Just as in the first stage of human empires, discussions about whether what the ruler, the god, does is justified or unjustified are nonsense, in the second stage the possibility arises of considering whether anything he does is right or wrong. On the first level of empires, whatever the ruler does, thinks, or says is always right, because he is God. Only at the second stage, in addition to what the earthly realm contains within itself as God, as the divine gift, is something spiritual assumed to exist alongside this earthly realm, from which the power that directs and guides the earthly realm flows into it. And the institutions and human beings of this earthly realm reflect what flows in from the realm of the higher hierarchies.

It is interesting to observe how, for example, in the so-called Pseudo-Dionysius, Dionysius the Areopagite, who is much more genuine than real science allows itself to dream, the correct theory arises of this kind of domination of human empires by divine empires, so that what prevails and is established among human beings is a symbol of what what exists in the divine realm. We see how Dionysius the Areopagite speaks of heavenly hierarchies existing, as it were, behind what we see here on earth as the human hierarchy. Dionysius the Areopagite expressly points this out: What is arranged here in the priestly hierarchy from the deacons and archdeacons up to the bishops must have such a form in the social structure that it expresses: Just as the deacon is to the archdeacon, so is the angel to the archangel, and so on. The earthly hierarchy is a faithful reflection of the heavenly hierarchy. We see here a reference to the second stage of the empire. This allowed something to develop that dominated human consciousness until not so long ago. Just think that until 1806 there was something in Central Europe that expressed this “combining of thoughts,” as I would call it, of the heavenly and the earthly in its name: The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The very fact that this name came into being, “the Holy Roman Empire,” that is, that which carries within itself the power of heaven, “of the German Nation,” that which arose from the earthly, shows how an entire empire was formed in such a way that it was to be thought of as the imprint of a heavenly institution.

Such ideas also gave rise to something like St. Augustine's “City of God” and Dante's book “On Monarchy.” If only people today were not so short-sighted as they are, they would look at something like Dante's description of monarchy and see that Dante, whom we must of course consider a great mind, still had concepts in the 13th and 14th centuries that were radically different from those of today. And if one took such things seriously in historical development, one would stop using those narrow-minded concepts that do not even go back to Dante, but are only a few centuries old, with which people today fill their heads with illusions and, going back only as far as Greek times, try to understand development. For example, when considering the early period of Egyptian civilization, one can only understand the entire structure if one knows that, for the ancient people, the gods walked the earth; in the period that followed, the gods did not walk the earth, but something had to be created on earth that was a symbol, an image of the divine world order.

And what could then arise, the possibility, for example, of thinking about something like the law, of thinking about the fact that through human reason one can discover something like a judgment about right and wrong, that only became possible in the second phase of the development of empires. In the earliest phase, it was nonsense to think about what could be right or wrong. One had to look at what the ruler said, because God lived in him, that is, he was God. Now, in the second phase, it was a matter of being able to determine through human judgment that there is something in the neighboring spiritual realm that cannot be attained through the physical human being, but only through the soul-spiritual human being. People no longer believed, as they had in earlier times, that the divine could unite with the whole physical human being, that the human being himself could become a god; at most, they believed — if one expresses in mystical terms what lived in the public institutions — that the soul of the human being could unite with God.

Basically, no one today understands the language of the writings that were still being written and published in the 13th and 14th centuries unless they know how consciousness lived in people in a completely different way than it does today: in certain people who are called to and educated for a particular office, something of divine inspiration really lives. It is a peculiarity that things that often have very serious origins later become objects of ridicule as human development progresses and takes on other forms. For example, if someone today says, “To whom God gives an office, He also gives understanding,” they are basically saying it with a somewhat humorous feeling. But what is imbued with a humorous feeling today was, in the times of the second stage of empire development, something entirely true, something right, something that fulfilled people's consciousness. And what was true of human beings was also true of what was done within certain limits. The cultic acts were designed in such a way that what happened through them represented images of what was happening in the spiritual realms. The cultic acts that were performed were spiritual events that protruded into physical, earthly events. People believed that the spiritual realm existed alongside the earthly realm, but they also believed that it extended into the earthly realm, that the symbol, the sign of the spiritual realm, could be found in the earthly realm.

Only gradually did people cease to hold this belief in their consciousness. And we see an age dawning in which this awareness of the connection between the earthly and the spiritual is fading away. In the time of Wycliffe and Hus, people began to argue about something that would have been unthinkable in earlier times: the meaning of transubstantiation, that is, the connection between this ritual act and something that takes place in spiritual worlds. In ages when people begin to argue about such things, the old contents of consciousness cease to exist; people no longer know how to understand things that they have known how to understand for centuries or millennia. Certain things that are normal in a certain age always remain effective in later ages. There they become out of place, anachronistic, Luciferic. And so the great, far-reaching symbols have remained, pointing to a certain age, to the connection between earthly cultic acts or similar things and the divine-spiritual events of the world. These symbols have been transplanted into later times and preserved in a Luciferic form by certain secret societies. Such old symbols have been preserved in particular by Western secret societies. These symbols are traditional, but they have lost their content. And so, on the one hand, we see certain secret societies, whose offshoots include, for example, the Masonic lodges, the Jesuit communities, and the confessional communities, preserving the symbols in a certain way, but it is something that only had meaning in a previous age. But we also see in words, basically, only a Luciferic preservation of what had meaning in earlier ages. Even in the words used in public life, the old substantial content is lost, as is the awareness that these words are signs of something spiritual. For the spiritual gradually disappears, the word becomes an empty symbol, an empty sign.

In the third age, on the third stage of empire building, the awareness of the divine nature of human beings, of the permeation of earthly events and earthly speech with the divine, also ceased. The spiritual realm is completely relegated to the hereafter. The opposite of what existed in the first stage of empire building emerges: God lived on earth in the first stage, walking around in human form; in the third stage, God can only be conceived in the invisible, supernatural world. And everything that people once had to express their relationship with the divine-spiritual loses its meaning. People continue to use the word “God.” When the word “God” was spoken in ancient times, people were looking for something that outwardly had human form, something that walked among physical human beings. It was not that the earliest humans were materialists. Materialists could only arise after the spiritual world had been relegated to the supersensible realm. In the earliest period of human development, the spiritual world was in the midst of human beings. For an inhabitant of ancient Egypt, it would not have been necessary to say, “The realm of the divine is in our midst,” because that was self-evident to them. In the age when Christ Jesus appeared among human beings, it was first necessary to tell people, “The realm of the gods does not come with outward signs; it is in our midst.”

And now we live in an age in which it has become absurd to seek anything else in a human being than the straightforward development of his childhood nature, based on cause and effect. We live in an age in which it is madness for a human being to consider himself to be anything other than the straightforward development of that which also encompasses his childhood. What was taken for granted eight thousand years ago, what was then the general consciousness, is now claimed to be a symptom of the insanity of those who claim it. And only by reinterpreting what was real in earlier times according to the pattern of present-day thinking into this fable convenue that we call “history” can we spread a veil over this radical metamorphosis that can be found when we truly look at human development in accordance with the truth. What we often say today, what we show in our outer life, has come about because it once referred to something that was regarded as reality. We still use words such as “by the grace of God” — in recent years, people have tried more or less to wean themselves off this, but with little success — but we do not know, or we do not realize, that this once meant complete reality, a matter of course, for the consciousness of humanity.

With this I am pointing out to you the facts that give our public life its character of phraseology and convention. For what we assert through our language, our customs, even through our judgments in public life, all of this points back to times when these words, even if they originated in a later language — they have been modeled on the original language — were formed and used in a completely different sense. Today, the words we use for public life are empty. This can be seen in some words and signs, while others have not been noticed for a long time. The fact that what was once transformed by magical acts into an important magical part of the God walking on earth, a sign hung around the human body, has become the nothingness of the modern order is a story that has been little explored by humanity. Not only can that which is expressed in words become a phrase, as our most important words relating to public life are phrases, but also that which is attached to human beings in objects can have a similar character in relation to reality as the word which is empty today and which once had a sacred, substantial content.

But until we realize that our development has been such that an older consciousness has lost its substance and become phraseological and conventional, a real reconstruction of our present-day destroyed public social life cannot take place. We must look for new sources that will bring content back into our public life. For our consciousness, the gods do not walk around in human form. Therefore, we must acquire the ability to recognize that which does not have human form, but rather that which can only be seen when one rises to spiritual vision. Since the gods no longer descend to physical thrones for our consciousness, we must acquire the spiritual abilities to ascend to those thrones where the gods, who can only live for us in the spiritual realm, are present. We must become capable of saturating our phraseological abstractions with experiential spiritual content. We must become capable of looking these truths, which are shocking to those who grasp them correctly, in the face. We must become capable of seeing things as they are. We sometimes fail to do this even over a period of decades. We believe that we live within European civilization if we are Central Europeans. We should ask ourselves: What has made our inner spiritual life so ambivalent over the last fifty years or so?

Well, I would just like to point out one thing: When you look to the West, what you see first — let's not talk about the rest — is a people in decadence, the French people. But one thing is significant within this French people. When a member of the French people said, “I am French” — and they have said this for centuries — they were expressing something that corresponded to external facts and was a permissible, truthful confession to the outside world. Those of us who have spoken with people who lived through the first half of the 19th century as Germans can confirm the following: Herman Grimm, for example, repeatedly described what it actually meant for people who were young in Germany during his youth that at that time, anyone who wanted to admit in public that I am a German, I profess myself to be one—not as a phrase, but as reality—was a state criminal. One was Bavarian, Württemberger, Prussian, but one was a criminal if one said: I am a German. It had meaning in the West to say: I am French—because one was allowed to be one in public life. It had a meaning that could land you in prison or otherwise ruin your life if you allowed yourself to say that you were German, that you belonged to a nation that belonged together. Today's humanity has forgotten that, but these things are realities. And it is important to look these things in the face. But one will not be able to muster the necessary enthusiasm for such things if one does not enrich one's inner life with the great, correctly perceived phenomena of world history, not the fable convenue that is found in our textbooks today and taught in our schools, but the real world history that can be gained through spiritual contemplation.

For a normal Protestant today, it is completely unthinkable that it could once have made sense for people to say, “God walked on earth and the ruler was God” and “there is no sensual realm where gods still exist, for the processes through which one becomes a god are in the realm where the supersensible has its dwelling, within the mystery.” In the early days of semi-prehistoric Egyptian history, the mystery was truly supernatural, and it was only when the mysteries were transformed into churches that the church became a symbol of the supernatural.

A humanity like today's, which does not want to look at the starting points of its historical development, lives its life like a person who has reached the age of forty-five and has forgotten what he experienced in his boyhood or girlhood, like a person who has reached the age of forty-five and can remember back to the age of twenty-five at most. Imagine what the consequences would be for the inner life of a person if, at the age of forty-five, they knew nothing of what had happened before the age of twenty-five. But this is the state of mind of the present human race, and it is out of this state of mind that those who want to be leaders of humanity arise today. Out of this state of mind, attempts are being made today to introduce something into the social structure as a guiding force. What is necessary above all is for human beings to get to know humanity as a living organism in which there is a memory that must not be trampled to death, that looks back on things that still have an effect on the present, but which, through the way they work, virtually challenge something new to pour into them.

If one strikes a few such notes, one sees that something is necessary for the present, in comparison to which all the empty rhetoric that flares up today from many sides is nothing. And one would like to see a sufficiently large number of people recognize the seriousness of the present time and find the strength to really come up with something new out of this seriousness. It is indeed very sad that the people of the present have great tasks to perform and would prefer to sleep through them. This has basically been the task of the anthroposophical movement for decades: to shake up sleepy humanity, to point out that humanity today needs something that will truly transform the state of the soul from what it is now to what it will be when we wake up in the morning and the dream state of the soul is transformed into the state of fully awake daily life.

This is what I wanted to conclude with today, after the two spiritual-scientific historical observations I have made during my time here with you. If only what is really fueling, warming, and energizing our social initiatives could come from the anthroposophical movement! That humanity needs social impulses in the present is so clearly evident from observing the phenomena that it really should not be misunderstood. That these social impulses can only be met if a new spirit is poured into human development should be recognized by those who profess the anthroposophical movement from whatever quarter. But this requires truthfulness and vigilance, real vigilance, on the basis of this anthroposophical movement. The modern cultural humanity has become accustomed to sleeping in public life. And today this sleep is so strong that sometimes, if one were not standing within the spiritual life and seeing the course of spiritual affairs behind the physical, one could be led into considerable doubt by the outward course to which people devote themselves in the pursuit of their affairs. This outward course of action, to which people devote themselves in the pursuit of their affairs, clearly shows that people shy away from participating in any way in grasping the truth in appearances. People are so happy when they do not have to look at the events that are happening! You see it today, how people let themselves be told: This and that is happening here and there! — They stand there on their feet, without letting on in any way that they have heard of things that have a profound meaning for the further course of events. People today hear about the most significant things that must lead to destruction and decline, and they cannot even be indignant about it. Now, again, things are happening in the world, intentions are circulating in German regions that should horrify people — and they are not! But those who cannot be horrified by these things also do not have the strength to develop a sense of truth.

This is what must be pointed out today: that healthy indignation at what is unhealthy must be the source of enthusiasm for the new truths that are necessary. Today, it is even less necessary to impart truths to people than it is to bring firepower into these lethargic nervous systems. For firepower is what people need today, not mystical slumber. Not a longing for mystical peace, but service to the spiritual—that is what matters today. The connection with the divine must be sought today in activity, not in mystical laziness and comfort.

These are the things that must be pointed out. For today we must seek how we can bring into our consciousness the possibility of connecting the divine with the external reality. And we can only do this if we look without prejudice at how people in the empires of the first kind found the gods walking on earth. We must find the possibility of being able to walk spiritually in spiritual worlds as human souls, so that we may find gods again!