Materialism and the Task of Anthroposophy
GA 204
5 June 1921, Dornach
Lecture XVII
In the course of the last few days we had occasion to refer once again to the turning point in Western civilization in the fourth century A.D. with the example of John Scotus Erigena. In the present, when so many things are supposed to change, it is particularly important to understand clearly what really happened then to the human soul constitution. For it is a fact that we too are living in an extraordinarily significant moment in humanity's evolution; it is necessary for us to pay heed to the signs of the times and to listen to the voices of the spiritual world, so that out of the chaos of the present we may find a path into the future.
In the fourth century A.D., changes took place in the souls of those belonging to the leading nations and tribes, just as in our century changes in part have begun to develop, in part will still occur. And in John Scotus Erigena we have observed a personality who in a certain way was influenced by the aftereffects of humanity's world view prior to the fourth century A.D.
We shall now call to mind other things that also make evident this change of character. As far as can be done in a more outward manner, we will consider from this standpoint how the study of nature developed, in particular people's views of health and illness. We shall confine ourselves, first of all, to historical times. When we ask what the views concerning nature, particularly human nature in connection with health and illness were, and look back into the early Egyptian period, we can for the first time speak of any similarity between these ancient views and ours now. Yet, in regard to health, illness, and their natural causes, these ancient Egyptians held opinions still differing significantly from ours. The reason was that they thought of their relationship with nature quite differently from the way we think of it today. The ancient Egyptians certainly were not fully aware that they were gradually separating from the earth. They pictured their own bodies—and they naturally started by considering what we call “body” in an intimate connection with the forces of the earth. We have already mentioned in the last lecture how such a concept arises, how it is that the human being pictures himself in a certain sense closely bound inwardly to the earth through his body. I referred to the ancient soul forces in order to illustrate this. It was altogether clear to the ancient Egyptians that they had to see themselves as part of the earth, similarly to how the plants must be seen as belonging to the earth. Just as it is possible to trace the course of the sap or at least the earth's forces in plants more or less visibly, so people in ancient Egypt experienced the working of certain forces that, at the same time, held sway in the earth. Therefore, the human body was seen as belonging to the earth.
This could only be done because a view of the earth prevailed that was quite different from the view prevalent nowadays. The ancient Egyptians would never have thought of representing the earth as a mineral body the way we do it today. In a sense, they pictured the earth as a mighty organic being, a being not organized in quite the same way as an animal or man, but still, in a certain respect, an organism; and they considered the earth's masses of rock as a skeleton of sorts. They imagined that processes took place in the earth that simply extended into the human body.
The ancient Egyptians experienced a certain sensation when they mummified the human corpse after it had been discarded by the soul, when they tried to preserve the shape of the human body by mummification. In the formative forces proceeding from the earth and forming the human body, they beheld something like the will of the earth. They were trying to give permanent expression to this will of the earth. These Egyptians held views concerning the soul that seem somewhat alien to a person of today. We shall now try to characterize them.
It must be emphasized that when we go back to early Egyptian times, and even more so to the ancient Persian and Indian epochs, we find that, based on instinctive old wisdom, the doctrine of reincarnation—the return of the essential human entity in successive earth lives—was widespread. We are mistaken, however, in assuming that these ancient people were of the opinion that what we know as soul today is what always returns. Especially the Egyptian concept demonstrates that such a view did not exist. Instead, it must be pictured like this: The soul-spiritual being of man lives in spiritual worlds between death and a new birth. When the time approaches for this being to descend to the physical earth, it works formatively in the human body, in what comes through heredity from the successive generations. On the other hand, these ancient people did not think that what they bore in their consciousness during life between birth and death was the actual psycho-spiritual being that lives between death and a new birth and then shapes the human corporeality between birth and death. No, these people of antiquity pictured things differently. They said: When I find myself in the waking state from morning until evening, I know absolutely nothing of the soul-spiritual matters that are also my own affairs as a human being. I must wait until my own true being, which worked on me when I entered into earthly existence through birth, appears to me in half-sleep or in image-filled sleep, as was the case in these ancient times.
Thus, the ancient human being was aware that in his waking state he was not meant to experience his actual soul being; instead, he was to look upon his true soul entity as upon an external picture, something that came over him when he passed into the frequently described dreamlike, clairvoyant conditions. In a certain sense, the human being in former times experienced his own being as something that appeared to him like an archangel or angel. Only beginning in ancient Egypt, people started to think of this inner human essence as belonging directly to the soul.
If we try to characterize how the ancient Egyptians pictured this, we have to say the following. They thought: In a dream image, my soul-spiritual being appears to me in its condition between death and a new birth. It shapes the body for its use. When I look at the form of the body, I see how this soul-spirit being has worked like an artist on this body. I see much more of an expression of my soul-spiritual being in my body than if I look within. For that reason I shall preserve this body. As a mummy, its form shall be retained, for in it is contained the work the soul has done on the body between the last death and this birth. That is what I retain when I embalm the body and in the mummy preserve the image on which the soul-spiritual being has worked for centuries.
By contrast, the ancient Egyptians considered the experiences of the human being in the waking state between birth and death differently: This is really like a flame kindled within me, but it has very little to do with my true I. My I remains more or less outside my soul experiences in the waking state between birth and death. These soul experiences are actually a temporal, passing flame, enkindled in my body through my higher soul being. In death, they are extinguished once again. Only then does my true soul-spirit being shine forth, and I dwell in it until the new birth.
It is true that the ancient Egyptians imagined that in the life between birth and death they did not properly attain to an experience of the soul element. They viewed it as something that stood above them, enkindled their temporal soul element and extinguished it again; they saw it as something that took from the earth the earth's dust to form the body. In the mummy, they then tried to preserve this bodily form.
The ancient Egyptians really placed no special value on the soul element that experiences itself in the waking state between birth and death, for they looked beyond this soul nature to a quite different soul-spirit essence, which ever and again forms new bodies and passes through the period between death and a new birth. Thus, they beheld the interplay of forces between the higher human element and the earth. They really directed their attention to the earth, for to them, the earth was also the house of Osiris. Inner consciousness was something they overlooked.
The development of Greek culture, which began in the eighth century B.C., consisted precisely in man's placing an ever increasing value on this soul element that lights up between birth and death, something the ancient Egyptian still viewed as enkindled and subsequently dying flame. To the Greeks, this soul element became valuable. But they still had the feeling that in death something like an extinction of this soul element took place. This gave rise to the famous Greek saying I have characterized often from this viewpoint: "Better a beggar on earth than a king in the realm of shades." This saying was coined by the Greeks as they looked upon the soul element. To them, the latter became important, whereas it had been less significant for the ancient Egyptians. This development is connected with the view of health and illness held by the ancient Egyptians.
They thought that this soul-spiritual element, which does not really enter properly into human consciousness between birth and death, builds up the human body out of the earth elements, out of the water, the air, the solid substances of the earth, and the warmth. And since the ancient Egyptians believed that this human body was formed out of the earth, they set great store by keeping it pure. During the golden age of Egyptian culture, maintaining the body in a pure state was therefore something that was especially cultivated. The Egyptians thought very highly of this body. Hence, they felt that when the body became ill, its connection with the earth was in some way disturbed, in particular its relationship to the earth's water, and this relationship had to be restored. Therefore, there were hosts of physicians in Egypt who studied the relationship of the earthly elements to the human body. Their concern was to maintain people's health and, when it was disturbed, to restore it by means of water cures and climatic treatments. Already in the heyday of Egyptian civilization, specialized physicians were at work, and their activity was principally directed at the task of bringing the human body into the proper relation with the earth's elements.
Beginning with the eighth century B.C., particularly in Greek civilization, this changed. Now, the consciously experienced soul element became really important. People did not see it anymore in as close a connection with the earth as people in ancient Egypt had done. For the ancient Egyptians, the human body was in a sense something plantlike that grew out of the earth. For the Greeks, the psycho-spiritual element was the factor that held together the earth elements; they were more concerned with the way these elements in the body were held together by man's soul and spirit. On this basis developed the scientific views of Greece. We find them especially well expressed by Hippocrates, the famous Greek physician and contemporary of Phidias, Socrates, and Plato.1Hippocrates, 460–377 B.C., known already in antiquity as the greatest physician.
Phidias, 500–435 B.C., Greek sculptor in Athens, master of classical style.
Plato, 427–347 B.C., Greek philosopher, pupil of Socrates.
Socrates, 470–399 B.C., moral philosopher in Athens, developed Socratic dialog to teach his students to think for themselves. This view of the importance of the human soul element, which becomes conscious of itself between birth and death, is already clearly developed in Hippocrates, who lived in the fourth century B.C.
We would be very much mistaken, however, if we believed that this soul-spiritual element lived in Greek consciousness in the same way we experience it in our consciousness today. Just reflect on how poor, how abstractly poor this thing is that modern man calls his soul! When people speak of thinking, feeling, and willing, they picture them as quite nebulous formations. It is something that no longer affects the human being substantially. It had a substantial effect on the Greeks, for they had an awareness that this psycho-spiritual being actually holds together the elements of the body and causes their interplay. They did not have in mind an abstract soul element as people do today. They had in mind a full, rich system of forces that gives shape above all to the fluid element, bestowing on it the human form. The Egyptians felt: The soul-spirit being that finds its way from death to a new birth gives form to this fluid element. The Greeks felt: What I experience consciously as my soul element, this is what shapes the water; it has a need for air and then develops the circulatory organs in that form. It causes the conditions of warmth in the body and also deposits salt and other earthly substances in the body.
The Greeks actually did not picture the soul separately from the body. They imagined it molding the fluid body, bringing about the presence of air through inhaling and exhaling. They pictured the soul causing the conditions of warmth in the body, the body's warming and cooling processes, the breathing and movement of the fluids, the permeation of the fluids with the solid ingredients—actually representing only about 8% of the human body. The Greeks pictured all this in full vitality. They attached special importance to the shaping of the fluids. They imagined that in turn a fourfold influence was at work in these fluids due to the forces active in the four elements, earth, water, air, and warmth. This is how the Greeks pictured it.
In winter, human beings must shut themselves off from the outer world to a certain extent, they cannot live in intimate contact with it. They must rely on themselves. In winter, above all the head and its fluids make themselves felt. There the part of the fluids that is most waterlike works inwardly in the human being. In other words, for the Greeks this was phlegm or mucus. They believed all that is mucous in the human organism to be soul-permeated and particularly active in winter. Then came spring, and the Greeks found that the blood made itself felt through greater activity; the blood received greater stimulation than in winter. This is a predominantly sanguine time for human beings, emphasis is placed on what is centralized in the arteries leading to the heart and is active in the movement of fluids. In winter, it is the movement of the phlegm in the head, hence, this is the reason why the human being is then particularly inclined to any number of diseases of the mucous fluids. In spring, the blood circulation is especially stimulated.
The Greeks pictured all this in such a way that matter was not separated from the soul aspects. In a sense, blood and phlegm were half soullike, and the soul itself with its forces was something half physical in moving the fluids.
When summer approached, the Greeks imagined that the activity of bile (they called it yellow gall), which has its center in the liver, is particularly aroused. The Greeks still had a special view of what this is like in the human being. For the most part, people have lost this view. They no longer see how, in spring, the skin is colored by the blood's stimulation. They no longer notice the peculiar yellow tinge coming from the liver where this so-called yellow bile has its center. In the rosy flush of spring and the yellowish tinge of summer, the Greeks saw activities of the soul.
When autumn came, they said: Now, the fluids having their center in the spleen, the fluids of black bile, are particularly active. In this way, the Greeks pictured in the human being movements and effects of fluids that were directly under the influence of the soul. Unlike the Egyptians, the Greeks considered the human body by itself, apart from the whole of the earth. Thus, they came closer to the inner soul configuration of the human being as it is expressed between birth and death.
As this civilization progressed further, however, particularly as the Western element, the Latin-Roman element, gained ground, this view, which we find especially in Hippocrates who based his medical science on it, was to a certain extent lost. Hippocrates held that the soul-spiritual nature of man manifesting between birth and death causes these mixtures and separations of the fluids. When these do not proceed as the soul-spiritual influence intends them to go, the human being encounters illness. The soul-spiritual element actually always strives to make the activities of the fluids run their normal course. This is why the physician has the special task of studying the soul-spirit nature and the effect of its forces on the activities of the fluids in addition to observing the illness. If the activity of the physical body somehow tends to cause an abnormal mixture of fluids, then the soul element intervenes. It intervenes to the point of a crisis, when the outcome in the struggle between corporeal and soul-spiritual elements hangs in the balance. The physician must guide matters in such a way that this crisis occurs. Then, at some point in the body it will be evident that the bad fluid combination is trying to come out, to escape. Then it is the physician's task to intervene in a proper way in this crisis, which he has introduced in the first place, by removing the fluids that have accumulated in the way described above and that are resisting the influence of the soul-spiritual element. The physician accomplishes this either by means of purging or by bloodletting at the right moment.
Hippocrates' manner of healing was of a quite special kind and connected with this view of the human being. It is interesting that such a view existed that pictured an intimate relationship between the soul-spirit element as expressed between birth and death and the system of body fluids. Things changed, however, when the Latin-Roman influence continued this development.
This Roman element had less inclination for a full comprehension of the form and the system of fluids. This can be clearly seen in the case of the physician Galen2Galen, A.D. 129–199, outstanding physician in the days of the Roman emperors; personal physician to Marc Aurel. In his writings, he tried to compile all medical knowledge of antiquity. who lived in the second century A.D. The system of fluids that Hippocrates saw was no longer so transparent to Galen. You really have to picture it like this: Today, you watch how a retort in a chemistry laboratory is heated by a flame underneath, and you see the product of the substances inside. For Hippocrates, the effect of the soul-spiritual element in the fluids of the body was just as transparent. What took place in the human being was to him visible in a sensory-supersensory way. The Romans, on the other hand, no longer had a sense for this vivid view. They no longer considered the soul-spiritual element that dwells in man in its connection to the body. They turned their glance in a more abstract, spiritual direction. They only understood how the soul-spiritual being can experience this spirit within itself between birth and death.
The Greeks looked at the body, saw the soul-spiritual in the mixing and separating of the fluids and, to them, the sensory view in its clarity and vividness was the main thing. To the Romans, the essential thing was what a man felt himself to be, the feeling of self within the soul. To the Greeks, the view of how phlegm, blood, yellow, and black bile intermingle, how they are, in a manner of speaking, an expression of the earthly elements of air, fire, water, earth in the human being became something they saw as a work of art. Whereas the Egyptians contemplated the mummy, the Greeks looked upon the living work of art. The Romans had no sense for this, but they had an awareness for taking a stand in life, for developing inner consciousness, for allowing the spirit to speak, not for looking at the body but for making the spirit speak out of the soul between birth and death.
This is connected with the fact that at the height of Egyptian civilization, four branches of knowledge were especially cultivated in their ancient form: geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. In contemplating the heavenly element that formed the human body out of the earth, the Egyptians imagined that this body is molded in its spatial form according to the law of geometry; it is subject to the influences of the stars according to the laws of astrology. It is involved in activity from within according to the laws of arithmetic and is inwardly built up harmoniously according to the laws of music—music here conceived not merely as musical tone elements but as something that lives in harmonies in general. In the human being. as a product of the earth, in this mummified man, the Egyptians saw the result of geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. The Greeks lost sight of this. The Greeks replaced the lifeless, mummified element, which can be comprehended by means of geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music, with the living soul element, the inner forming, the artistic self-development of the human body.
This is why we note in Greek culture a certain decline of geometry as it had existed among the Egyptians. It now became a mere science, no longer a revelation. The same happened with astrology and arithmetic. At most, the inner harmony that forms the basis of all living things remains in the Greek concept of music.
Then, when the Latin element came to the fore, the Romans, as I said, pictured this soul-spiritual being as it is between birth and death together with the inner spirit now expressing itself not as something that could inwardly be seen but inwardly experienced, taking its stand in the world through grammar, through dialectics, and through rhetoric. Therefore, during the time when Greek culture was passing over into Latin culture, these three disciplines flourished. In grammar, man was represented as spirit through the word; in rhetoric, the human being was represented through the beauty and forming of the word; in dialectics, the soul was represented through the forming of thought. Arithmetic, geometry, astrology, and music continued to exist, but only as ancient legacies turned science. These disciplines, which in ancient Egypt had been very much alive, became abstract sciences. By contrast, the arts attached to man—grammar, rhetoric, dialectics—took on new life.
There is a great difference between the way a person thought of a triangle in ancient Egypt prior to Euclid and the way people thought of it after Euclid's time. The abstract triangle was not experienced in earlier times the way it was conceived later on. Euclid signified the decadence of Egyptian arithmetic and geometry. In Egypt, people felt universal forces when they envisaged a triangle. The triangle was a being. Now, all this became science, while dialectics, grammar and rhetoric became alive.
Schools were now established in accordance with the following thinking: Those people who want to be educated have to develop the spiritual potential in their already existent soul-spiritual human nature. As the first stage of instruction, they must master grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics. Then, they have to go through what remains only as a traditional legacy but forms the subjects of higher education: geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. These then were the seven liberal arts, even throughout the Middle Ages: grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. The arts that came more to the fore were grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics; the arts that were more in the background, conceived by the ancient Egyptians in a living manner as they stood on a relationship to the earth, were the subjects of higher learning.
This was the essential development between the eighth century B.C. and the fourth century A.D. Look at Greece in the fourth century or in the third or fifth centuries. Look at modern Italy. You find everywhere in full bloom this knowledge of the human being as a work of art, as a product of the soul-spiritual element, of life of the spirit through dialectics, rhetoric, and grammar. Julian Apostate3Julian Apostate, A.D. 332–363, nephew of Constantine the Great, Roman emperor from A.D. 361–363. was educated in approximately this way in the Athenian school of philosophers. This is how he saw the human being.
Into this age burst the beginning of Christianity. But by then all this knowledge was in a certain sense already fading. In the fourth century it had been in its prime, and we have heard that by John Scotus Erigena's time only a mere tradition of it existed. What lived in the Greeks based on the view I have just characterized, then was transmitted to Plato and Aristotle who expressed it philosophically. When the fourth century B.C. drew near, however, people understood Plato and Aristotle less and less. At most people could accept the logical, abstract parts of their teachings. People were engrossed in grammar, rhetoric, dialectics. Arithmetic, geometry, astrology, and music had turned into sciences. People increasingly found their way into a sort of abstract element, into an element where something that had formerly been alive was now to exist only as tradition. As the centuries passed, it became still more a tradition. Those who were educated in the Latin tongue retained in a more or less ossified state grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics. Formerly a person would have laughed if he had been asked whether his thinking referred to something real. He would have laughed, for he would have said: I engage in dialectics; I do not cultivate the art of concepts in order to engage in anything unreal. For there, the spiritual reality lives in me. As I engage in grammar, the Logos speaks in me. As I engage in rhetoric, it is the cosmic sun that sends its influences into me.
This consciousness of being connected with the world was lost more and more. Everything became abstract soul experiences, a development that was completed by Scotus Erigena's time. The ideas that had been retained from earlier times—from Plato and Aristotle—were only comprehended more or less logically. People ceased to find any living element in them.
When the Emperor Constantine4Constantine I., the Great, A.D. 288–337, Roman Emperor from A.D. 306–337. Made Christianity the state religion in 324. made Rome the ruling power under the pretext that he wished to establish the dominion of Christianity, everything became entirely abstract. It became so abstract that a person like Julian Apostate, who had been educated in the Athenian school of philosophy, was silenced. With an aching heart, he looked at what Constantine had done in the way of ossifying concepts and ancient living ideas, and Julian Apostate resolved to preserve this life that had still been evident to him in the Athenian schools of philosophers.
Later on, Justinian ruled from Byzantium, from Constantinople, which had been founded by Constantine.5Justinian I, see note 8, Lecture IV. He abolished the last vestiges of these Athenian philosophers' schools that still possessed an echo of living human knowledge. Therefore, the seven wise Athenians—Athenians they were not, they were a quite international group, men from Damascus, Syrians, and others gathered from all over the world—had to flee on order of Justinian. These seven wise men fled to Asia, to the king of the Persians,6“... to the king of the Persians ...”: Chosrau Nurshivan (king from A.D. 531–580) invited the sages from all over the world, particularly those versed in medicine, to Persia. He is frequently considered the founder of the academy of Gondishapur. where philosophers had had to escape to already earlier when Zeno, the Isaurian,7Zeno the Isaurian, A.D. 426–491, Byzantine emperor from A.D. 474–491, closed the school of philosophers in Edessa in 487. had dispersed a similar academy. Thus we see how this knowledge, the best of which could no longer be comprehended in Europe, the living experience that had existed in Greece, had to seek refuge in Asia.
What was later propagated in Europe as Greek culture was really only its shadow. Goethe allowed it to influence him and as a thoroughly lively human being, he was seized with such longing that he wished he could escape from what had been offered to him as the shadow of Greek culture. He traveled to the south in order to experience at least the aftereffects.
In Asia, people who were capable of doing so received of Plato and Aristotle what had been brought across to them. This is why during the sixth century Aristotle's work was translated based on the Asian-Arabic spirit. This gave Aristotle's philosophy a different form.
What had in fact been attempted here? The attempt had been made to take what the Greeks had experienced as the relationship between the soul-spiritual element and the body's system of fluids, what they had seen in full physical and soul-spiritual clarity and formative force, and to raise it up into the region where the ego could be fully comprehended. From this originated the form of science tinged with Arabism, which was especially cultivated in the academy of Gondishapur 8Gondishapur (Djundaisabur), city founded by the king of the Sassanides, Shapur I (242–272). It was the cultural center of the kingdom for a long period. throughout the whole declining age of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch. This form of science was brought in later centuries by Avicenna 9Ibn Sina Avicenna, 980–1037, Persian philosopher and physician, author of over 100 books. and Averroes 10Ibn Roshd Averroes, 1126–1198, Arabian philosopher and universal scientist. Physician from Cordova. Following Aristotelianism, he attempted to combine philosophy and faith. His rational faith led to his banishment. by way of Spain into Europe and eventually exerted a great influence on people such as Roger Bacon 11Roger Bacon, around 1216–1294, English Franciscan, called doctor mirabilis on account of his comprehensive knowledge. He included natural scientific perceptions in his theological manner of thought. and others. It was, however, a completely new element that the academy of Gondishapur meant to bestow on mankind in a manner that could not endure by way of the translation of Aristotle and certain mystery wisdom teachings, which then continued in directions of which we shall talk another time.
Through Avicenna and Averroes, something was introduced that was to enter human civilization with the beginning of the fifteenth century, namely, the struggle for the consciousness soul. After all, the Greeks had only attained to the intellectual or rational soul. What Avicenna and Averroes brought across, what Aristotelianism had turned into in Asia, so to speak, struggles with the comprehension of the human I, which, in a completely different way, has to struggle upward through the Germanic tribes from below to above—I have described this in the public lectures here during the course.12See note 2 to Lecture XVI. In Asia, on the other hand, the I was received like a revelation from above as a mystery wisdom. This gave rise to the view that for so long provoked such weighty disputes in Europe, namely, that man's ego is not actually an independent entity but is basically one with the divine universal being. The aim was to take hold of the ego. The I was supposed to be contained in what the Greek beheld as the being of body, soul, and spirit.
Yet, people could not harmonize the above with the I. This is the reason for Avicenna's conception that what constitutes the individual soul originates with birth and ends with death. As we have seen, the Greeks struggled with this idea. The Egyptians viewed it only in this way—the individual soul is enkindled at birth, extinguished at death. People were still wrestling with this conception when they considered the actual soul element between birth and death, the true soul element. The I, on the other hand, could not be transitory in this manner. Therefore, Avicenna said: Actually, the ego is the same in all human beings. It is basically a ray from the Godhead which returns again into the Godhead when the human being dies. It is real, but not individually real. A pneumatic pantheism came about, as if the ego had no independent existence but was only a ray of the deity streaming between birth and death into what the Greeks viewed as the soul-spiritual nature. In a manner of speaking, the transitory soul element of man is ensouled with the eternal element through the ray of the Godhead between birth and death. This is how people imagined it.
This shows to some extent how people of that age struggled with the approach of the I, the consciousness of the ego, the consciousness soul. This is what occurred in the span of time between the eighth century B.C. and the fifteenth century A.D., the middle of which is the fourth century A.D. People were placed in a condition where the concrete experience, which still dwelled in the mixing and the separating fluids and beheld the soul element in the corporeal being, was replaced. A purely abstract state of mind, directed more toward man's inner being, replaced this vivid element of perception.
It is indeed possible to say that until the fourth century A.D., Greek culture predominated in Romanism. Romanism only became dominant when it had already declined. In a sense, Rome was predestined to exert its activity only in its dead element, in its dead Latin language, in which it then prepared the way for what entered human evolution in the fifteenth century. This is how the course of civilization must be observed. For, once again, we are now faced with having to seek the way toward knowing of the approach of spiritual revelations from the higher worlds. Once again, we must learn to struggle, just as people struggled then.
We must be clear about the fact that what we possess as natural science came to us by way of the Arabs. The knowledge we have acquired through our sciences must be lifted up to Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition. In a certain sense, however, we must also steel our faculties by means of observing the things of the past, so that we acquire the strength to attain what we need for the future. This is the mission of anthroposophical spiritual science. We must recall this again and again, my dear friends. We should acquire quite vivid perceptions of how differently the Greeks thought about soul and corporeal aspects. It would have sounded ridiculous to them if one had listed seventy-two or seventy-six chemical elements. They perceived the living effect of the elements outside and of the fluids within.
We live within the elements. Insofar as the body is permeated by the soul, the human being with his body lives within the four elements the Greeks spoke about. We have arrived at the point where we have lost sight of the human being, because we can no longer view him in the above manner and focus only on what chemistry teaches today in the way of abstract elements.
Siebzehnter Vortrag
[ 1 ] Wir haben im Laufe der letzten Tage durch das spezielle Beispiel der Persönlichkeit des Johannes Scotus Erigena noch einmal hinweisen können auf jenen Wendepunkt, der in der abendländischen Zivilisation eingetreten ist um das 4. nachchristliche Jahrhundert. Und gerade in unserer Gegenwart, wo sich so viele Dinge wenden sollen, ist es außerordentlich notwendig, sich klarzumachen, was eigentlich dazumal geschah mit der ganzen Seelenverfassung der Menschen. Denn es ist schon einmal so, daß wir in der Gegenwart wiederum in einen außerordentlich wichtigen Momente der Menschheitsentwickelung leben, daß wir nötig haben, gewissermaßen auf die Zeichen der Zeit, auf die Stimmen der geistigen Welt hinzuschauen und hinzuhorchen, damit wir aus dem Chaos der Gegenwart heraus einen Weg in die Zukunft finden können.
[ 2 ] In diesem 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert sind Veränderungen mit den Menschenseelen, die den führenden Völkern und Volksstämmen angehörten, geschehen, wie sie eben durchaus in unserem Jahrhunderte sich zum Teil schon wieder angebahnt haben, zum Teil wieder geschehen werden. Und in Johannes Scotus Erigena hat sich uns eine Persönlichkeit gezeigt, die in gewisser Weise unter den Nachwirkungen desjenigen gestanden hat, was noch vor dem 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert als menschliche Anschauung vorhanden war.
[ 3 ] Nun wollen wir uns einmal andere Dinge vergegenwärtigen, an denen man den Charakterumschwung auch sehen kann. Betrachten wir einmal von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus, soweit das, ich möchte sagen, in mehr äußerlicher Weise geschehen kann, die Entwickelung des Naturkundlichen, vor allem der Anschauungen des Menschen über Gesundheit und Krankheit. Wir wollen damit zunächst innerhalb der geschichtlichen Zeit stehenbleiben und kommen dann, wenn wir uns fragen, wie sich die Ansichten über die Natur, namentlich die Natur des Menschen in Zusammenhang mit Gesundheit und Krankheit für den Menschen selbst darstellen, in die ältere ägyptische Zeit zurück. Daß man überhaupt von einer Ähnlichkeit der Anschauungen mit den unsrigen sprechen kann in bezug auf die angedeutete Frage, ist eigentlich doch erst bei den alten Ägyptern der Fall. Aber diese alten Ägypter hatten dann namentlich über Gesundheit und Krankheit und deren natürliche Grundlagen ganz andere Anschauungen, als wir sie heute haben, weil sie den Zusammenhang mit der Naturumgebung ganz anders dachten, als wir das heute denken. Der alte Ägypter hatte im Grunde genommen gar nicht das volle Bewußtsein davon, daß er von der Erde allmählich abgesondert ist. Er stellte den eigenen Leib - und der Ägypter sah ja zunächst auf dasjenige, was wir Leib nennen, beim Menschen hin -, er stellte den menschlichen Leib in inniger Verbindung mit den Kräften der Erde dar. Wir haben schon vorigen Freitag davon gesprochen, wie eine solche Vorstellung zustande kommt, daß sich der Mensch mit der Erde gewissermaßen leiblich innig verbunden denkt. Ich habe Sie auf die alten Kräfte hingewiesen, um Ihnen das zu veranschaulichen. Aber der alte Ägypter war sich ganz und gar klar darüber, daß er sich doch in einer gewissen ähnlichen Beziehung zur Erde rechnen müsse, wie, sagen wir, die Pflanzen zur Erde gerechnet werden müssen. Wie man in der Pflanze mehr oder weniger sichtbarlich die Säfte oder wenigstens die Kräfteverhältnisse von der Erde in die Pflanze hineinverfolgen kann, so fühlte man im alten Ägypten im Menschen gewisse Kräfte walten, die zu gleicher Zeit in der Erde walteten. Man rechnete den menschlichen Leib zur Erde.
[ 4 ] Man konnte das nur aus dem Grunde tun, weil man über die Erde eine ganz andere Anschauung hatte, als man über diese Erde heute hat. Die Erde sich so als einen mineralischen Körper vorzustellen, wie wir das heute tun, das wäre einem alten Ägypter gar nicht eingefallen. Er stellte sich gewissermaßen die Erde als ein großes organisches Wesen vor, als ein Wesen, das zwar nicht ganz so organisiert ist wie ein Tier oder wie ein Mensch, das aber doch in einer gewissen Beziehung ein Organismus ist, und er stellte sich vor unter den Gesteinsmassen der Erde etwas wie eine Art Knochensystem der Erde. Er stellte sich vor, daß in der Erde Vorgänge geschähen, die einfach sich in den menschlichen Leib hinein fortsetzten.
[ 5 ] Sehen Sie, der alte Ägypter empfand ja etwas dabei, wenn er den menschlichen Leichnam, nachdem er abgelegt war von der Seele, mumifizierte, wenn er Mumien bildete, wenn er gewissermaßen die Form des menschlichen Leibes erhalten wollte. Er sah gewissermaßen in den formbildenden Kräften, die von der Erde ausgehen und einen menschlichen Leib plastisch gestalten, er sah in ihnen etwas wie den Willen der Erde, und er wollte, daß dieser Wille der Erde dauernd zum Ausdrucke kommt. Er hatte über das Seelische Anschauungen, dieser Ägypter, die dem heutigen Menschen wiederum etwas ferne liegen. Wir müssen sie heute einmal charakterisieren.
[ 6 ] Sehen Sie, wir müssen ja betonen, daß wir, wenn wir zurückkommen in die älteren ägyptischen Zeiten, aber namentlich in die urpersischen und in die urindischen Zeiten, daß wir da weit verbreitet finden aus der instinktiven alten Weisheit heraus die Lehre von der Reinkarnation, von der Wiederkehr der eigentlichen menschlichen Wesenheit in aufeinanderfolgenden Erdenleben. Aber wir tun Unrecht, wenn wir glauben, daß etwa diese alten Menschen der Meinung gewesen wären, dasjenige, was uns heute als Seele bewußt ist, das wäre dasjenige, was immer wiederkehrt. Gerade die ägyptische Anschauung zeigt es uns, daß diese Anschauung nicht so bestand, sondern wir müssen uns vorstellen, das Geistig-Seelische des Menschen lebt in geistigen Welten zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt. Wenn die Zeit heranrückt für das Geistig-Seelische, wo es heruntersteigen soll auf die physische Erde, dann wirkt es von sich aus gestaltend dasjenige, was hervorgeht durch die Vererbung in den Generationen als menschlicher Leib. Aber während des Lebens zwischen Geburt und Tod stellten sich diese alten Menschen nicht vor, daß dasjenige, was sie in ihrem Bewußtsein tragen, die eigentlich geistig-seelische Wesenheit sei, welche zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt lebt und dann zwischen der Geburt und dem Tode formt an dem menschlichen Leibe. Nein, sie stellten sich die Sache anders vor, diese alten Menschen. Sie sagten sich: Wenn ich im vollen Wachzustande bin vom Morgen bis zum Abend, weiß ich überhaupt nichts von den geistig-seelischen Angelegenheiten, die auch meine Angelegenheiten als Mensch sind. Ich muß abwarten, bis mir im Halbschlaf oder, wie es ja in diesen alten Zeiten der Fall war, in dem von Bildern erfüllten Schlafe mein eigenes wahres Wesen erscheint, welches an mir gebaut hat, als ich hereingetreten bin in das irdische Dasein durch die Geburt.
[ 7 ] Also der alte Mensch war sich bewußt, er habe im eigentlichen Wachzustande gar nicht sein wirkliches Seelisches zu erleben, sondern er müsse dieses wirkliche Seelische wie ein Äußeres anschauen als Bild, das ihn überkommt, wenn er in die Ihnen öfter geschilderten traumhaft-hellseherischen Zustände übergehe. Sein eigenes Wesen empfand der alte Mensch in einer gewissen Weise als etwas, das ihm wie ein Erzengel oder wie ein Engel erschien. Und daß man in einer gewissen Weise dieses menschliche Innere im Wachzustande als zum Seelenhaften unmittelbar gehörend betrachtete, das war eigentlich erst im alten Ägypten der Fall. Aber wenn wir charakterisieren sollen, wie der alte Ägypter sich das vorstellte, so müssen wir das Folgende sagen.
[ 8 ] Er dachte sich: Mein Geistig-Seelisches, das erscheint mir im Traumbilde, wie es ist zwischen Tod und neuer Geburt. Das baut sich seinen Leib auf. Wenn ich den Leib ansehe in seiner Form, dann sehe ich, wie dieses Geistig-Seelische als Künstler an dem Leibe gearbeitet hat. Ich habe eigentlich an meinem Leibe viel mehr einen Ausdruck meines Geistig-Seelischen, als wenn ich in mein Inneres hineinschaue. Deshalb will ich auch diesen Leib konservieren. Deshalb soll er als Mumie in seiner Form erhalten bleiben, denn dasjenige, was zwischen dem letzten Tode und dieser Geburt die Seele sich erbaut hat an diesem Leibe, das ist in dieser Form enthalten. Das erhalte ich, wenn ich den Leib konserviere und als Mumie das Bild festhalte, an dem Jahrhunderte das Geistig-Seelische gearbeitet hat. Dagegen von dem, was der Mensch im Wachzustande erlebte zwischen Geburt und Tod, sagte sich der Ägypter: Das ist eigentlich etwas wie eine Flamme, das ist etwas, was entzündet wird in mir, aber das hat sehr wenig zu tun mit meinem eigentlichen Ich. Dieses Ich ist eigentlich etwas, was sich außerhalb hält, mehr oder weniger außerhalb meiner seelischen Erlebnisse im Wachzustande zwischen Geburt und Tod. Diese seelischen Erlebnisse im Wachzustande zwischen Geburt und Tod, sie sind eigentlich eine vorübergehende Flamme. Sie werden angefacht in meinem Leibe durch mein höheres Seelisches; aber sie erlöschen wiederum mit dem Tode, und dann erst leuchtet mein wahrhaft Geistig-Seelisches auf. Dann lebe ich in meinem Geistig-Seelischen bis zu der neuen Geburt.
[ 9 ] Es war schon so, daß der alte Ägypter sich vorstellte, er komme im Leben zwischen der Geburt und dem Tode gar nicht so recht zum Erleben seines Seelischen. Er sah in diesem Seelischen gewissermaßen etwas, was über ihm stand, was sein zeitliches Seelisches anfachte und auch wieder auslöschte, und was aus der Erde heraus den Erdenstaub nimmt, um den Leib zu formen; diese Form wollte er dann erhalten in der Mumie.
[ 10 ] Der alte Ägypter legte auf das Seelische, das im Wachzustande zwischen Geburt und Tod sich erlebte, eigentlich keinen besonderen Wert, denn er sah über dieses Seelische hinaus auf ein ganz anderes Geistig-Seelisches, das Leiber immer wieder aufbaut, das dann die Zeit durchmacht zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt. Und so sah er ein Wechselspiel der Kräfte zwischen dem, was höheres Menschliches ist, und der Erde. Er sah eigentlich auf die Erde hin; die Erde war ihm ja auch das Haus des Osiris. Er sah über dasjenige, was inneres Bewußtsein war, hinweg.
[ 11 ] Und darinnen besteht gerade die griechische Entwickelung, die im 8. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderte begann, daß der Mensch immer mehr und mehr Wert legte auf dieses zwischen Geburt und Tod auflebende Seelische, das der alte Ägypter noch wie eine angefachte und auslöschende Flamme ansah. Dem Griechen wurde wert dieses Seelische. Nur hatte er noch ein Gefühl, der Grieche, daß mit diesem Seelischen wirklich im Tode etwas wie ein Auslöschen geschieht. Daher das berühmte griechische Wort, das ich ja öfter von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus schon charakterisiert habe: Lieber ein Bettler auf der Erde, als ein König im Reiche der Schatten. - Diesen Ausspruch machte der Grieche, indem er auf das Seelische sah. Ihm wurde das Seelische wichtig, während es für den Ägypter noch weniger wichtig war. Und damit hing dann bei den Ägyptern zusammen die Ansicht, die sie über Gesundheit und Krankheit hatten, daß sie sich sagten, von dem eigentlich Geistig-Seelischen, das gar nicht recht hereinkommt in den bewußten Menschen zwischen Geburt und Tod, von diesem Geistig-Seelischen wird der menschliche Leib aus dem Erdenelemente entnommen, aus dem Wasser der Erde, der Luft, aus dem Festen der Erde, aus der Wärme der Erde. Da sich der alte Ägypter so sagte, daß dieser menschliche Leib aus der Erde gebildet wird, so hielt er darauf, diesen menschlichen Leib rein zu halten. Und in der Blütezeit der ägyptischen Kultur war daher das Reinhalten des Leibes etwas, was ganz besonders kultiviert wurde. Der Ägypter hielt viel auf diesen Leib, und er sagte sich: Wenn der Leib krank wird, so ist in einer gewissen Weise sein Verhältnis zur Erde gestört, so setzt er sich nicht in das richtige Verhältnis zum Wasser der Erde namentlich, und es muß dieses Verhältnis zum Wasser der Erde hergestellt werden. In Ägypten gab es daher ganze Scharen von Ärzten, welche das Verhältnis des Irdischen zum menschlichen Leibe studierten, und welche damit beschäftigt waren, die Gesundheit der Menschen zu erhalten und herzustellen, wenn sie gestört war, gerade durch die Anwendung von Wasserkuren, von Luftkuren. Spezialärzte waren in der Blütezeit der ägyptischen Kultur schon tätig, und diese Tätigkeit der Ärzte bezog sich ganz besonders darauf, den menschlichen Leib in das richtige Verhältnis zu dem irdischen Elemente zu bringen.
[ 12 ] Das wurde dann, vom 8. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert angefangen, namentlich für die griechische Zivilisation anders. Da wurde das Seelische, das man bewußt erlebt, wirklich wichtig. Aber man sah dieses Seelische nicht mehr so in Verbindung mit der Erde wie der alte Ägypter es gesehen hatte. Gewissermaßen war schon für den alten Ägypter der menschliche Leib etwas Pflanzenhaftes, das aus der Erde herauswuchs. Für den Griechen war das Geistig-Seelische dasjenige, was zusammenhielt die Elemente, und er kümmerte sich mehr um dieses Zusammenhalten der im Leibe befindlichen Elemente durch das Geistig-Seelische des Menschen. Und daraus entstanden dann die naturwissenschaftlichen Anschauungen des Griechentums, die wir insbesondere stark ausgeprägt finden bei dem Zeitgenossen des Phidias, Sokrates, Platos: bei Hippokrates, dem berühmten griechischen Arzt. Bei ihm, der im 4. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderte gelebt hat, sehen wir schon klar ausgebildet dieses Wichtighalten des menschlichen Seelischen, wie es seiner selbst bewußt wird zwischen Geburt und Tod.
[ 13 ] Aber wir würden ganz fehlgehen, wenn wir glauben wollten, daß in dem griechischen Bewußtsein dieses Geistig-Seelische so lebte, wie wit es heute im Bewußtsein haben. Bedenken Sie nur, wie arm eigentlich für den heutigen Menschen, wie abstrakt arm für den heutigen Menschen dasjenige ist, was er seine Seele nennt. Denken, Fühlen, Wollen - es sind recht nebelhafte Gebilde, die sich der Mensch vorstellt, wenn er von Denken, Fühlen, Wollen spricht. Es ist etwas, was gar nicht mehr inhaltsvoll auf den Menschen wirkt. Bei dem Griechen hat es inhaltsvoll gewirkt, weil er ein Bewußtsein davon hatte, daß dieses Geistig-Seelische eigentlich die Elemente des Leibes zusammenhält, durcheinanderbrodeln macht. Er hatte gar nicht ein solches abstrakt Seelisches im Auge, wie der Mensch es heute hat, sondern er hatte im Auge ein recht vollinhaltliches Kräftesystem, das namentlich das flüssige Element formt, das dem flüssigen Element die Menschenform gibt. Der Ägypter sagte sich: Diesem flüssigen Element gibt das Geistig-Seelische, das von dem Tod zu einer neuen Geburt sich lebt, die Form. —- Der Grieche sagte sich: Dasjenige, was ich bewußt erlebe, dieses Seelische, das gibt dem Wasser die Form, das ist dasjenige, was sein Bedürfnis nach Luft hat und was die Zirkulationsorgane dann einformt, was die Wärmeverhältnisse des Körpers bewirkt, und was auch Salz und sonstiges Irdische im Körper ablagert. — So stellte sich der Grieche die Seele eigentlich nicht getrennt vom Körper vor, sondern er stellte sie sich vor, wie sie den wässerigen Leib bildet, wie sie in dem Leib die Luft, das Ein- und Ausatmen macht, wie sie in dem Leib die Wärmeverhältnisse bewirkt, dieses Warm- und Kaltwerden des Leibes, dieses Atmen, dieses überhaupt Bewegen der Säfte, dieses Durchsetzen der Säfte mit den festen Bestandteilen, die ja nur etwa acht Prozent im menschlichen Leibe ausmachen - das stellte sich der Grieche in voller Lebendigkeit vor. Und insbesondere auch auf dieses Gestalten der Säfte legte er einen großen Wert. Er stellte sich vor, daß auch in diesen Säften selbst, durch alles dasjenige, was in den vier Elementen Wasser, Erde, Luft und Wärme wirkt, wiederum ein Vierfaches wirkt. Das stellte er sich zunächst vor, der Grieche. Im Winter muß der Mensch sich gewissermaßen abschließen von der äußeren Welt, da kann er nicht mit der äußeren Welt in innigem Kontakt leben; da ist er auf sich selbst zurückgewiesen. Während des Winters macht sich insbesondere der Kopf mit seinen Säften geltend. Da ist es dasjenige in den Säften, was am meisten wasserähnlich ist, was im Menschen innerlich wirkt. Mit anderen Worten ist das für den Griechen dasjenige, was als Phlegma, als Schleim wirkt. Dieses Schleimige im menschlichen Organismus, das sah er, seelisch durchsetzt, namentlich im Winter wirksam. Dann kam der Frühling und der Grieche fand: da macht sich das Blut in größerer Regsamkeit geltend, da kommt das Blut in stärkere Erregung als während des Winters, da ist vorzugsweise sanguinische Zeit für den Menschen; da ist es dasjenige, was in den Adern zum Herzen hin sich zentralisiert, was im Menschen besonders als Säftebewegung tätig ist. Im Winter die schleimige Bewegung des Kopfes, weshalb der Mensch da auch zu allerlei Erkrankungen gerade der Schleimsäfte neigt; im Frühling die Blutbewegung in besonderer Erregung.
[ 14 ] Das alles stellte sich der Grieche so vor, daß für ihn die Stoffe nicht gesondert waren vom Seelischen. Es war gewissermaßen ein halb Seelisches, das Blut, der Schleim, und ein halb Körperliches die Seele selbst in ihren Kräften, wie sie da die Säfte bewegte.
[ 15 ] Kam dann der Sommer heran, stellte sich der Grieche vor, daß die Gallentätigkeit insbesondere - er nannte sie gelbe Galle -, welche in der Leber ihren Mittelpunkt hat, in besondere Erregung kommt. Der Grieche hatte noch eine besondere Anschauung, wie das bei dem Menschen selber ist. Diese Anschauung haben ja die Menschen schon zum großen Teil verloren. Sie sehen nicht mehr, wie sich die Haut verfärbt im Frühling von dieser Bluterregung, sie sehen nicht mehr den eigentlichen gelben Schimmer, der von der Leber kommt, in welcher die gelbe Galle ihren Mittelpunkt hat. Der Grieche sah in dem, was sich da rosig färbte im Frühling, gelblich im Sommer, in dem sah er eine Seelentätigkeit.
[ 16 ] Und wenn der Herbst kam, dann sagte er: Da sind insbesondere diejenigen Säfte in Tätigkeit, die in der Milz ihren Mittelpunkt haben, die Säfte der schwarzen Galle. Und so sah der Grieche im Menschen eine Säftebewegung, eine Säftewirkung unmittelbar unter dem Einfluß des Seelischen. Er nahm gewissermaßen den menschlichen Leib gegenüber den Ägyptern aus dem Erdganzen heraus. Er betrachtete ihn für sich selber. Er kam dadurch mehr zu dem Innerseelischen des Menschen, wie es sich äußert zwischen Geburt und Tod.
[ 17 ] Aber als dann diese Zivilisation weiter vorrückte, als namentlich sich mehr geltend machte das westliche Element, das lateinische, das römische Element, da ging bis zu einem gewissen Grad verloren diese Anschauung, die wir besonders bei Hippokrates finden, der darauf seine Heilkunde basierte. Er sagte sich, das GeistigSeelische des Menschen, wie es sich äußert zwischen Geburt und Tod, bewirkt so diese Mischungen und Entmischungen des Säftesystems; wenn das nun nicht so weit geht, wie es das Geistig-Seelische will, so ist die Krankheit da. Aber das Geistig-Seelische, das hat eigentlich immer das Bestreben, normal diesen Gang zu gestalten. Daher hat der Arzt die besondere Aufgabe, dieses Geistig-Seelische in seinem Kräfteeinflusse auf die Säftewirkungen zu studieren und die Krankheit zu beobachten. Ist irgendwie die Bestrebung im menschlichen Leibe, die Säftemischung unnormal zu machen, dann greift das Seelische ein, greift ein bis zur Krisis, wo es auf der Kippe steht, ob das Leibliche oder das Seelisch-Geistige siege. Der Arzt muß die Sache so wenden, daß es zu dieser Krisis kommt. Dann zeigt sich das an irgendeiner Stelle, daß heraus will, was schlechte Säftemischung ist. Dann muß man in der Krisis, die man eingeleitet hat, in der richtigen Weise eingreifen, entweder dadurch, daß man die Säfte, die sich in dieser Weise zusammengezogen haben, und die nicht dulden den Einfluß von seiten des Geistig-Seelischen, daß man diese entweder durch Purgieren entfernt, oder durch Aderlaß im richtigen Moment herausbringt.
[ 18 ] Es war ein ganz besonderes, eben mit dieser Anschauung des Menschen zusammenhängendes Heilen des Hippokrates, und es ist interessant, wie da ein inniges Zusammendenken von Geistig-Seelischem, wie es sich äußert zwischen Geburt und Tod, und dem Säftesystem, als Anschauung da war. Aber das wurde anders, als dann das lateinisch-römische Element diese Entwickelung fortsetzte.
[ 19 ] Dieses römische Element, das hatte weniger Sinn für das plastische Erfassen der Form, für das plastische Erfassen der Säftemischung. Bei einem Arzt wie Galen, der im 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert lebte, sieht man es schon ganz genau, ihm ist dieses Säftesystem, das Hippokrates eben gesehen hat, nicht mehr so durchsichtig. Sehen Sie, man muß sich das schon so vorstellen: Wenn Sie heute im chemischen Laboratorium eine Retorte sehen, unter der die Flamme ist und Sie sehen da das Produkt der Stoffe darinnen so durchsichtig in der Wirkung des Geistig-Seelischen in den Säften des Leibes, so durchsichtig, sinnlich-übersinnlich durchsichtig war für Hippokrates dasjenige, was im Menschen vorging. Aber für dieses Plastisch-Anschauliche hatten die Römer keinen Sinn mehr. Sie wendeten dasjenige, was als Geistig-Seelisches im Menschen lebte, nicht mehr nach dem Leibe hin, sondern nach dem Abstrakten, nach dem Geistigen. Aber nur so erfaßten sie es, wie eben das Geistig-Seelische zwischen Geburt und Tod dieses Geistige in sich erleben kann. So wie der Grieche hinschaut auf den Leib, wie er in der Säftemischung und Entmischung das Geistig-Seelische geschaut hat, wie für ihn die sinnliche Anschauung in ihrer Plastik das Wesentliche war, so wurde für den Römer dasjenige, als was der Mensch sich fühlt, das Wesentliche: das seelische Sich-Fühlen. Für den Griechen war es das Anschauen dessen, wie Phlegma, wie Blut, wie schwarze und gelbe Galle durcheinandergehen, wie diese im Menschen gewissermaßen der Ausdruck sind des Irdischen, von Luft, Feuer, Wasser, Erde, das, was man im Menschen als ein Kunstwerk anschaut. Während der Ägypter die Mumie anschaute, schaute der Grieche das lebendige Kunstwerk an. Bei dem Römer war kein Sinn da für das, sondern für das Sich-auf-seine-Beine-Stellen, innerliches Bewußtsein entwickeln, den Geist sprechen lassen, nicht den Leib anschauen, den Geist sprechen lassen aus dem Seelischen zwischen Geburt und Tod.
[ 20 ] Das aber ist verbunden damit, daß bei den Ägyptern in der Blütezeit ihrer Kultur namentlich vier Wissenszweige in der alten Form ganz besonders lebten, das waren die Geometrie, die Astrologie, die Arithmetik und die Musik. Indem der Ägypter auf dasjenige hinschaute, was gewissermaßen als ein Überirdisches aus der Erde heraus den Leib bildete, stellte er sich vor: Dieser Leib wird gebildet in seinen Raumesformen nach dem Gesetz der Geometrie; er steht unter dem Sterneneinflusse nach dem Gesetze der Astrologie; er betätigt sich von innen heraus nach dem Gesetz der Arithmetik, und er ist innerlich harmonisch gebaut nach dem Gesetz der Musik, wobei das Musikalische nicht bloß das Tonlich-Musikalische ist, sondern überhaupt das in Harmonien sich Auslebende. Im Menschen selber, der da eine Wirkung der Erde war, in diesem Mumienmenschen sah der Ägypter das Ergebnis von Geometrie, Astrologie, Arithmetik und Musik. Das trat für den Griechen zurück. Der Grieche setzte an die Stelle des, ich möchte sagen, Leblosen, Mumienhaften, das man begreifen kann durch Geometrie, Astrologie, Arithmetik und Musik, er setzte das lebendige, das seelisch-lebendige, innerliche, plastisch Sich-Gestalten, künstlerische Sich-Formen des menschlichen Leibes.
[ 21 ] Daher sehen wir in einer gewissen Weise untergehen in der griechischen Kultur Geometrie, wie sie vorhanden war bei den Ägyptern. Sie wird zur bloßen Wissenschaft; sie ist nicht mehr Offenbarung. Ebenso verhält es sich mit der Astrologie, ebenso mit der Arithmetik. Höchstens das innere Harmonische, das dem Lebendigen zugrunde liegt, bleibt noch in der griechischen Auffassung der Musik.
[ 22 ] Und als dann das Lateinische an die Stelle trat, da, wie gesagt, stellte sich der Römer sein Geistig-Seelisches vor, wie es ist zwischen Geburt und Tod, mit dem innerlichen Geistigen, aber so wie es sich ausdrückt jetzt nicht innerlich anschaubar, sondern innerlich erlebbar, sich selber auf die Erde hinstellend durch Grammatik, durch Dialektik und dutch Rhetorik. Daher glänzte auf in den Zeiten, in denen das Griechische überging in das Lateinische, Grammatik: das Sich-Darstellen des Menschen als Geist durch das Wort; Rhetorik: das Sich-Darstellen des Menschen durch das Schöne des Wortes, durch das Formen des Wortes; Dialektik: das Sich-Darstellen der Seele durch das Formen des Gedankens. Und nur wie eine alte Erbschaft zur Wissenschaft geworden waren noch Arithmetik, Geometrie, Astrologie und Musik. Diese Dinge, die im alten Ägypten sehr lebendig waren, die wurden abstrakte Wissenschaften. Dagegen lebendig wurde das, was an dem Menschen haftet: Grammatik, Rhetorik, Dialektik. Es ist ein großer Unterschied zwischen dem, wie im alten Ägypten der voreuklidischen Zeit ein Dreieck empfunden wurde, und dem, wie es später, nach Euklid, empfunden wurde. Das abstrakte Dreieck, das haben die nicht so empfunden, wie es nachher empfunden wurde. Euklid bedeutet die Dekadenz der ägyptischen Arithmetik und Geometrie. Da empfand man Weltenkräfte, wenn man sich ein Dreieck vorstellte. Da war das Dreieck eine Wesenheit. Jetzt wurde das alles Wissenschaft. Und lebendig wurden Dialektik und Grammatik und Rhetorik.
[ 23 ] Und nun gestaltete es sich so, daß die Schulen in der Weise gebildet wurden, daß man sagte: Derjenige, der ein gebildeter Mensch werden will, der muß das Geistige in dem vorausgehenden GeistigSeelischen des eigenen Menschen ausbilden. Er muß zunächst absolvieren als erste Stufe des gebildeten Unterrichts Grammatik, Rhetorik, Dialektik; dann dasjenige, was nur als Erbschaft da ist, was Gegenstand des höheren Unterrichts bildete, aber was doch eben als Erbschaft, als Überlieferung da ist: Geometrie, Astrologie, Arithmetik, Musik. Und das waren dann auch noch später durch das ganze Mittelalter hindurch die sieben freien Künste: Grammatik, Rhetorik, Dialektik, Geometrie, Astrologie, Arithmetik und Musik. Dasjenige, was mehr hervortrat: Grammatik, Rhetorik, Dialektik, dasjenige, was mehr im Hintergrunde war, was der alte Ägypter noch lebendig erfaßte, als er mit der Erde im Zusammenhang stand, das war damals das höhere Unterrichten, Gegenstand des höheren Unterrichtens, und das war das Wesentliche, was sich ausbildet zwischen dem 8. vorchristlichen und dem 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert. Schauen Sie noch auf Griechenland hin im 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert oder auch weiter hinaus im 3., im 5. Jahrhundert, schauen Sie hinüber nach dem heutigen Italien. Sie finden überall, daß da in der Hochblüte steht dieses Wissen von dem Menschen als einem plastischen äußeren Kunstwerke, einem Ergebnis des Geistig-Seelischen, einem Leben des Geistigen durch Dialektik, Rhetorik, Grammatik. So etwa ist Julian Apostata in der athenischen Philosophenschule gebildet worden. So sah er das Menschenwesen an.
[ 24 ] In diese Zeit schlug hinein der Anfang des Christentums. Aber er schlug hinein, als das schon alles in gewissem Sinne im Abglimmen doch war. Im 4. Jahrhunderte war es ja auf seinem Höhepunkte, und wir haben gesehen, wie schon bei Johannes Scotus Erigena nur eine Erbschaft davon vorhanden war. Es ist ja dasjenige, was da gelebt hat zum Beispiel im Griechen aus einer solchen Anschauung heraus, wie ich sie Ihnen charakterisiert habe, es ist ja das dann übergegangen auf Plato, auf Aristoteles, die das philosophisch ausgesprochen haben. Aber als das 4. nachchristliche Jahrhundert heranrückte, verstand man immer weniger den Plato und den Aristoteles. Man konnte höchstens das Logische, das Abstrakte herübernehmen. Man lebte in Grammatik, in Rhetorik, in Dialektik. Arithmetik, Geometrie, Astrologie und Musik waren Wissenschaften geworden. Man lebte sich immer mehr und mehr schon herein in eine Art Abstraktionselement, man lebte sich schon hinein in ein Element, wo dasjenige, was früher lebendig war, nur wie eine Erbschaft noch da sein sollte. Und als die Jahrhunderte weitergingen, da wurde es immer mehr Erbschaft. Diejenigen, die dann sich innerhalb der lateinischen Sprache ausbildeten, sie behielten zurück, ich möchte sagen, mehr oder weniger verknöchert, Grammatik, Rhetorik, Dialektik, während vorher der Mensch gelacht hätte darüber, wenn man ihn gefragt hätte, ob denn dasjenige, was er denkt, auf etwas Reales hinweist; er würde gelacht haben, denn er sagte: Ich treibe ja Dialektik, ich treibe doch nicht die Kunst der Begriffe, um irgend etwas Irreales zu treiben. Da lebt doch in mir die geistige Realität. Indem ich Grammatik treibe, spricht in mir der Logos. Indem ich Rhetorik treibe, ist es die Weltensonne, die in mich hereinwirkt. - Das Bewußtsein, so zusammenzuhängen mit der Welt, das ging immer mehr und mehr verloren. Die Dinge wurden abstrakte Seelenerlebnisse, wie sie es ja schon vollends sind bei Johannes Scotus Erigena. Und dasjenige, was erhalten geblieben war aus den älteren Zeiten der Plato, Aristoteles -, sie wurden eben nur mehr oder weniger noch logisch aufgefaßt. Man fand nicht das Lebendige in ihnen.
[ 25 ] Und als nun der Kaiser Konstantin das Römische zum Herrschenden machte unter dem Vorwande, daß er das Christentum zum Herrschenden machen wollte, da wurde vollends alles abstrakt, da wurde es so abstrakt, daß man verstummte, wie der in der athenischen Philosophenschule gebildete Julian der Apostat, der mit blutendem Herzen hinschaute auf dasjenige, was Konstantin angerichtet hatte an Verknöcherung der Begriffe, Verknöcherung des alten Lebendigen; und er, der Julian Apostata, nahm sich vor, dieses Leben zu erhalten, das ihm noch erschienen ist in den athenischen Philosophenschulen.
[ 26 ] Aber von jenem Byzanz und von jenem Konstantinopel aus, das von Konstantin begründet ist, herrschte später Justinian, der die letzten Reste dieser athenischen Philosophenschulen, wo noch ein Nachklang war lebendigen Menschenwissens, aufgehoben hat, so daß die sieben weisen Athener - Athener waren sie nicht, sie waren eigentlich ganz international, Damasker, Syrier und andere, sie waren aus aller Welt hier zusammen -, die sieben weisen Männer fliehen mußten auf das Gebot des Justinian. Sie flüchteten hinüber nach Asien zum König der Perser, wohin sich vorher schon Philosophen flüchten mußten, als Zeno der Isaurier eine ähnliche Akademie aufgelöst hatte. Und wir sehen, wie in Asien drüben Zuflucht sucht dasjenige, was in Europa, namentlich in seinem Besten nicht mehr verstanden werden konnte: das lebendige Erleben, wie es im Griechentum war.
[ 27 ] Dasjenige, was als Griechentum dann später in Europa tradiert worden ist, das ist ja nur der Schatten des Griechentums. Goethe hat ihn auf sich wirken lassen und hat selber als ein vollebendiger Mensch eine solche Sehnsucht bekommen, daß er hätte herausfahren wollen aus dem, was ihm da als der Schatten des Griechentums dargeboten worden ist. Er ging hinunter nach dem Süden, um wenigstens die Nachklänge noch erleben zu können.
[ 28 ] Und drüben in Asien, da empfingen die Leute, die dazu fähig waren, dasjenige, was ihnen hinübergebracht war von Plato und Aristoteles. Und da kam es dann dazu, daß, als das 6. Jahrhundert herangerückt war, man aus asiatisch-arabischem Geiste heraus den Aristoteles übersetzt hatte. Da hatte der Aristoteles eine andere Gestalt bekommen.
[ 29 ] Was war da eigentlich versucht worden? Es war versucht worden, dasjenige, was der Grieche erlebt hatte als den Zusammenhang zwischen dem Geistig-Seelischen und dem Säftesystem des Leibes in voller geistig-seelisch-leiblicher Plastizität und Gestaltungskraft, was der Grieche so gesehen hatte, dahin hinaufzuheben, wo die Ichheit voll erfaßt werden konnte. Und dadurch entstand dann jene arabisierende Wissenschaft, welche besonders gepflegt wurde in der Akademie von Gondishapur und in der ganzen niedergehenden Zeit des 4. nachatlantischen Zeitraums, und die auch durch Avicenna, durch Averroës herübergebracht worden ist in den späteren Jahrhunderten über Spanien nach Europa, und die dann auf solche Leute wie Roger Bacon und so weiter einen großen Einfluß ausgeübt hat. Aber es war ein völlig neues Element, was in einer Weise, die nicht bestehen konnte, die Akademie von Gondishapur der Menschheit geben wollte auf dem Umwege durch die Übersetzung des Aristoteles und durch gewisse Mysterienweisheiten, die aber dann Wege genommen haben, von denen wir ein andermal sprechen wollen. Und was dann durch Avicenna, durch Averroës herübergebracht worden ist, es war das Ringen um dasjenige, was dann vom Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts an in die Zivilisation der Menschheit eintreten sollte; es war das Ringen um die Bewußtseinsseele, denn die Griechen haben es nur bis zur Verstandes- oder Gemütsseele gebracht. Und dasjenige, was dann Avicenna und Averroës herübergebracht haben, was gewissermaßen der Aristoteles in Asien geworden war, das ringt mit dem Verständnis des menschlichen Ich, das auf eine ganz andere Art - ich habe es in den öffentlichen Vorträgen hier während des Kurses dargestellt -, durch die germanischen Völkerschaften von unten nach oben sich durchzuringen hat. In Asien drüben wurde es als eine Mysterienweisheit wie eine Offenbarung von oben empfangen und es entstand jene Ansicht, welche in Europa so lange so schwerwiegende Disputationen hervorgerufen hat: daß das Ich des Menschen eigentlich nicht eine selbständige Wesenheit ist, sondern daß es im Grunde genommen mit dem göttlichen Allsein vereinigt ist. Das Ich wollte man ergreifen. Das Ich sollte sein in dem, was der Grieche angeschaut hat als leiblich-seelisch-geistige Wesenheit.
[ 30 ] Aber man konnte den Einklang nicht finden zwischen dem und nun auch noch dem Ich. Daher bei Avicenna die Vorstellung: Dasjenige, was individuelle Seele ist, entsteht mit der Geburt, es endet mit dem Tode. Der Grieche hatte ja, wie wir sahen, damit gerungen. Der Ägypter stellte es sich überhaupt so vor, daß es mit der Geburt aufglimmt, mit dem Tode erlischt. Mit dieser Vorstellung rang man noch immer, wenn man das eigentliche Seelische zwischen Geburt und Tod, das wahre Seelische ansah. Aber das Ich konnte nicht in dieser Weise vergänglich sein. Daher sagte sich Avicenna: das Ich ist eigentlich in allen Menschen eines nur, und es ist im Grunde der eine Strahl der Gottheit, und es geht wiederum in die Gottheit zurück, wenn der Mensch stirbt. Es ist real, aber es ist nicht individuell-real. Ein pneumatischer Pantheismus entstand, als ob das Ich keine Selbständigkeit hätte, sondern als ob das Ich gewissermaßen nur ein Strahl der Gottheit sei, der hineinstrahlt zwischen Geburt und Tod in dasjenige, was der Grieche als geistig-seelisch angesehen hat. Gewissermaßen wird das vergängliche Seelische des Menschen durch den Strahl der Gottheit mit dem Ewigen durchseelt zwischen Geburt und Tod. So dachte man sich das.
[ 31 ] Das ist etwas von dem, was Ihnen zeigt, wie da rang die Zeit mit dem Hereinkommen des Ich, des Bewußtseins vom Ich, der Bewußtseinsseele. sehen Sie, das ist es, was sich zugetragen hat in dem Zeitraume zwischen dem 8. vorchristlichen und dem 15. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert, wovon die Mitte das 4. nachchristliche Jahrhundert war. Da waren die Menschen hineingestellt in die Ablösung des Konkreten, das noch ganz gelebt hat in der Säftemischung und Entmischung, das im leiblichen Wesen das Seelische geschaut hat, in dem Ablösen dieses plastischen Elementes durch ein nur Abstraktes, durch ein mehr Auf-das-Innere-Gerichtetes. Man kann schon sagen: bis zum 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert hat im Römertum noch das Griechentum geherrscht. Eigentlich wurde das Römertum erst herrschend, als es schon untergegangen war. Es war in gewissem Sinne dazu prädestiniert, in seinem Toten erst zu wirken, in seiner toten lateinischen Sprache, in der es dann vorbereitet hatte dasjenige, was hereinkam in die menschliche Entwickelung im 15. Jahrhundert. Man muß den Gang der Zivilisation in dieser Weise ansehen. Denn jetzt stehen wir ja wieder davor, daß wir uns den Weg suchen sollen zum Wissen des Hereinkommens von geistigen Offenbarungen aus höheren Welten. Wir müssen lernen wiederum zu ringen, wie dazumal gerungen worden ist.
[ 32 ] Nun muß man sich eben klar sein darüber: dasjenige, was wir in der Naturwissenschaft haben, das haben wir auf dem Umwege durch die Araber bekommen, und wir müssen hinaufheben dasjenige, was wit durch die Naturwissenschaften bekommen haben, zur Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition. Wir müssen gewissermaßen aber auch unsere Kraft stählen an der Beobachtung desjenigen, was vergangen ist, damit wir sie haben zum Erringen dessen, was wir brauchen für die Zukunft. Das ist die Aufgabe anthroposophischer Geisteswissenschaft. An das müssen wir immer von neuem uns erinnern, meine lieben Freunde, und wir sollen ganz anschauliche Vorstellungen bekommen von dem, wie ein Grieche ganz anders von dem Seelischen und von dem Leiblichen dachte. Ihm wäre es lächerlich erschienen, wenn man ihm zweiundsiebzig oder sechsundsiebzig chemische Elemente aufgezählt hätte. Er sah das lebendige Wirken von den Elementen draußen, von den Säften drinnen.
[ 33 ] Der Mensch lebt mit in den Elementen. Der Mensch lebt schon mit seinem Leibe, insofern der Leib von Seele durchdrungen ist, in den vier Elementen, von denen der Grieche sprach, und man ist dazu gekommen, den Menschen zu verlieren, weil man ihn nicht mehr so ansehen kann, weil man hinschaut auf dasjenige, was die Chemie an abstrakten Elementen heute liefert.
Seventeenth Lecture
[ 1 ] Over the past few days, using the specific example of the personality of John Scotus Erigena, we have once again been able to point to the turning point that occurred in Western civilization around the 4th century AD. And especially in our present time, when so many things are about to change, it is extremely necessary to understand what actually happened to the whole state of mind of human beings at that time. For it is true that we are once again living in an extremely important moment in human development, that we need to look and listen to the signs of the times, to the voices of the spiritual world, so that we can find a way out of the chaos of the present and into the future.
[ 2 ] In this 4th century after Christ, changes took place in the souls of the people who belonged to the leading nations and tribes, changes that are now, in part, already beginning to take place again in our century and will, in part, happen again. And in John Scotus Erigena, we see a personality who, in a certain sense, stood under the influence of what was still present as human perception before the 4th century AD.
[ 3 ] Now let us consider other things in which this change of character can also be seen. Let us look at the development of natural history, especially man's views on health and disease, from this point of view, insofar as this can be done in a more external way, so to speak. Let us first remain within the historical period and then, when we ask ourselves how views of nature, especially the nature of human beings in relation to health and illness, were presented to human beings themselves, we will go back to the ancient Egyptian period. That one can speak of a similarity between their views and ours in relation to the question raised is actually only the case with the ancient Egyptians. But these ancient Egyptians had completely different views on health and illness and their natural foundations than we have today, because they thought about the connection with the natural environment in a completely different way than we do today. The ancient Egyptian did not, in essence, have full awareness that he was gradually being separated from the earth. He placed his own body — and the Egyptian looked first at what we call the body in humans — he placed the human body in intimate connection with the forces of the earth. Last Friday we already talked about how such an idea comes about, that human beings think of themselves as being intimately connected with the earth in a physical sense. I pointed out the ancient forces to you in order to illustrate this. But the ancient Egyptians were quite clear that they had to consider themselves to be in a certain similar relationship to the earth as, say, plants must be considered to be in relation to the earth. Just as one can trace the juices or at least the forces from the earth into the plant in a more or less visible way, so in ancient Egypt one felt certain forces at work in human beings that were at the same time at work in the earth. The human body was considered to be part of the earth.
[ 4 ] This was only possible because people had a completely different view of the earth than we do today. It would never have occurred to an ancient Egyptian to imagine the earth as a mineral body, as we do today. They imagined the earth as a large organic being, not quite as organized as an animal or a human being, but nevertheless an organism in a certain sense, and they imagined something like a skeletal system beneath the earth's rock masses. They imagined that processes were taking place in the earth that simply continued into the human body.
[ 5 ] You see, the ancient Egyptians felt something when they mummified the human corpse after it had been separated from the soul, when they made mummies, when they wanted to preserve the form of the human body, so to speak. They saw, as it were, the formative forces emanating from the earth and shaping the human body, they saw in them something like the will of the earth, and they wanted this will of the earth to be permanently expressed. These Egyptians had views about the soul that are somewhat foreign to us today. We must try to characterize them today.
[ 6 ] You see, we must emphasize that when we go back to the older Egyptian times, but especially to the ancient Persian and Indian times, we find widespread, based on instinctive ancient wisdom, the teaching of reincarnation, of the return of the actual human being in successive earthly lives. But we are wrong to believe that these ancient people thought that what we today are conscious of as the soul is what returns again and again. The Egyptian view in particular shows us that this was not the case, but that we must imagine that the spiritual-soul life of the human being lives in spiritual worlds between death and a new birth. When the time approaches for the spiritual-soul element to descend to the physical earth, it works from within to shape what emerges through heredity in the generations as the human body. But during their lives between birth and death, these ancient people did not imagine that what they carried in their consciousness was the actual spiritual-soul being that lives between death and a new birth and then forms the human body between birth and death. No, these ancient people imagined things differently. They said to themselves: When I am fully awake from morning to evening, I know nothing at all about the spiritual-soul matters that are also my affairs as a human being. I must wait until, in a state of half-sleep or, as was the case in those ancient times, in sleep filled with images, my own true being appears to me, which built me when I entered earthly existence through birth.
[ 7 ] So the ancient human being was aware that in the actual waking state he did not experience his real soul life at all, but had to view this real soul life as something external, like an image that came over him when he passed into the dreamlike clairvoyant states I have often described to you. The ancient human being perceived his own being in a certain way as something that appeared to him like an archangel or an angel. And it was actually only in ancient Egypt that this human inner being was regarded in a certain way as belonging directly to the soul. But if we are to characterize how the ancient Egyptians imagined this, we must say the following.
[ 8 ] He thought to himself: My spiritual-soul nature appears to me in dream images as it is between death and new birth. It builds up its body. When I look at the body in its form, I see how this spiritual-soul nature has worked on the body as an artist. I actually have much more of an expression of my spiritual-soul life in my body than when I look inside myself. That is why I want to preserve this body. That is why it should be preserved as a mummy in its form, because what the soul has built up in this body between the last death and this birth is contained in this form. I preserve this when I preserve the body and, as a mummy, capture the image on which the spiritual-soul has worked for centuries. On the other hand, the Egyptians said of what humans experience in the waking state between birth and death: This is actually something like a flame, something that is ignited within me, but it has very little to do with my actual self. This self is actually something that remains outside, more or less outside my soul experiences in the waking state between birth and death. These soul experiences in the waking state between birth and death are actually a temporary flame. They are kindled in my body by my higher soul, but they die out again with death, and only then does my true spiritual soul shine forth. Then I live in my spiritual soul until the new birth.
[ 9 ] It was already the case that the ancient Egyptians imagined that in life between birth and death they did not really experience their soul life. They saw in this soul something that stood above them, something that kindled their temporal soul and then extinguished it again, something that took the dust of the earth to form the body; they wanted to preserve this form in the mummy.
[ 10 ] The ancient Egyptians did not actually attach any particular value to the soul that experienced itself in the waking state between birth and death, because they saw beyond this soul to a completely different spiritual-soul that constantly rebuilds bodies and then passes through the time between death and a new birth. And so they saw an interplay of forces between what is higher in human beings and the earth. They actually looked to the earth; for them, the earth was also the home of Osiris. They looked beyond what was inner consciousness.
[ 11 ] And this is precisely what constitutes the Greek development that began in the 8th century BC, namely that human beings placed more and more value on this soul life that revives between birth and death, which the ancient Egyptians still regarded as a flame that is kindled and then extinguished. The Greeks valued this soul life. Only the Greeks still had the feeling that something like extinction really happens to this soul at death. Hence the famous Greek saying, which I have often characterized from this point of view: Better to be a beggar on earth than a king in the realm of shadows. The Greeks made this statement by looking at the soul. The soul became important to him, while it was even less important to the Egyptians. And this was connected with the Egyptians' view of health and illness, which led them to say that the spiritual soul, which does not really enter into the conscious human being between birth and death, from this spiritual-soul element the human body is taken from the earthly elements, from the water of the earth, from the air, from the solid earth, from the warmth of the earth. Since the ancient Egyptians said that the human body is formed from the earth, they insisted on keeping this human body pure. And in the heyday of Egyptian culture, keeping the body pure was therefore something that was particularly cultivated. The Egyptians thought highly of this body, and they said to themselves: When the body becomes ill, its relationship to the earth is disturbed in a certain way, so that it does not establish the right relationship to the water of the earth in particular, and this relationship to the water of the earth must be restored. In Egypt, there were therefore whole groups of doctors who studied the relationship between the earthly and the human body and who were concerned with maintaining and restoring people's health when it was disturbed, precisely through the use of water cures and air cures. Specialist doctors were already active in the heyday of Egyptian culture, and their work focused particularly on bringing the human body into the right relationship with the earthly elements.
[ 12 ] This then changed, starting in the 8th century BC, particularly in Greek civilization. The soul, which is consciously experienced, became really important. But this soul was no longer seen as connected to the earth in the same way as the ancient Egyptians had seen it. In a sense, even for the ancient Egyptians, the human body was something plant-like that grew out of the earth. For the Greeks, it was the spiritual-soul element that held the elements together, and they were more concerned with this cohesion of the elements within the body through the spiritual-soul element of the human being. This then gave rise to the scientific views of Greek culture, which we find particularly strongly expressed in the contemporaries of Phidias, Socrates, and Plato: in Hippocrates, the famous Greek physician. In him, who lived in the 4th century BC, we already see clearly formed this emphasis on the importance of the human soul as it becomes conscious of itself between birth and death.
[ 13 ] But we would be quite mistaken if we were to believe that this spiritual-soul life existed in the Greek consciousness as we have it in our consciousness today. Just consider how poor, how abstractly poor, is what we call our soul for the human being of today. Thinking, feeling, willing—these are quite nebulous constructs that people imagine when they speak of thinking, feeling, and willing. It is something that no longer has any meaningful effect on people. For the Greeks, it had a meaningful effect because they were aware that this spiritual-soul element actually holds the elements of the body together and causes them to bubble and boil. They did not have in mind such an abstract soul as humans do today, but rather a very concrete system of forces that shapes the liquid element and gives it human form. The Egyptians said to themselves: this liquid element is given form by the spiritual-soul element, which lives from death to a new birth. The Greek said to himself: That which I consciously experience, this soul, gives form to water; it is that which has a need for air and which then shapes the organs of circulation, which causes the body's heat conditions, and which also deposits salt and other earthly substances in the body. — Thus, the Greeks did not actually imagine the soul as separate from the body, but rather imagined it as forming the watery body, as causing the air to enter and exit the body, as causing the body's temperature, this warming and cooling of the body, this breathing, this movement of the juices, this mixing of the juices with the solid components, which make up only about eight percent of the human body—the Greeks imagined this in all its vitality. And they attached great importance to this shaping of the juices in particular. They imagined that within these juices themselves, through everything that works in the four elements of water, earth, air, and heat, a fourfold effect was at work. That was what the Greeks imagined at first. In winter, human beings must, in a sense, shut themselves off from the outer world; they cannot live in intimate contact with the outer world; they are thrown back upon themselves. During winter, the head with its juices is particularly active. It is that in the juices which is most like water that works within the human being. In other words, for the Greeks, this is what acts as phlegm, as mucus. They saw this mucus in the human organism as being imbued with the soul and particularly active in winter. Then spring came, and the Greeks found that the blood became more active, that it became more excited than during the winter, that this was a predominantly sanguine time for humans; that it was what centralized in the veins toward the heart, what was particularly active in humans as sap movement. In winter, the slimy movement of the head, which is why humans are prone to all kinds of diseases of the mucous juices; in spring, the movement of the blood is particularly excited.
[ 14 ] The Greeks imagined all this in such a way that, for them, substances were not separate from the soul. It was, in a sense, half soul, the blood and mucus, and half body, the soul itself in its powers, as it moved the juices.
[ 15 ] When summer approached, the Greeks imagined that the activity of the bile—which they called yellow bile—centered in the liver, became particularly excited. The Greeks had a special view of how this was in humans themselves. People have largely lost this view. They no longer see how the skin changes color in spring due to this blood agitation; they no longer see the actual yellow glow that comes from the liver, where the yellow bile is centered. The Greeks saw in what turned rosy in spring and yellowish in summer, they saw a soul activity.
[ 16 ] And when autumn came, they said: Now those juices are particularly active which have their center in the spleen, the juices of black bile. And so the Greeks saw in human beings a movement of juices, an effect of juices directly under the influence of the soul. In contrast to the Egyptians, he took the human body out of the whole earth, so to speak. He considered it in itself. In this way he came more to the inner soul of the human being, as it expresses itself between birth and death.
[ 17 ] But as this civilization advanced, as the Western element, the Latin, the Roman element, became more influential, this view, which we find particularly in Hippocrates, who based his medicine on it, was lost to a certain extent. He said that the spiritual-soul element in human beings, as it manifests itself between birth and death, causes these mixtures and separations in the fluid system; if this does not proceed as far as the spiritual-soul element wants, then illness arises. But the spiritual-soul element always strives to shape this process normally. Therefore, the physician has the special task of studying this spiritual-soul aspect in its influence on the effects of the fluids and of observing the disease. If there is somehow an effort in the human body to make the mixture of fluids abnormal, then the soul intervenes, intervenes until a crisis arises, where it is touch and go whether the physical or the spiritual-soul aspect will prevail. The physician must turn the situation around so that this crisis occurs. Then it will become apparent at some point that the bad mixture of fluids wants to escape. Then, in the crisis that has been brought about, one must intervene in the right way, either by removing the fluids that have contracted in this way and do not tolerate the influence of the spiritual-soul, either by purging them or by bleeding them at the right moment.
[ 18 ] Hippocrates' healing was very special, connected with this view of the human being, and it is interesting how there was an intimate connection between the spiritual-soul aspect, as it manifests itself between birth and death, and the humoral system. But that changed when the Latin-Roman element continued this development.
[ 19 ] This Roman element had less sense for the plastic grasping of form, for the plastic grasping of the mixture of humors. In a physician like Galen, who lived in the 2nd century AD, you can see this very clearly: the system of humors that Hippocrates had seen is no longer so transparent to him. You see, you have to imagine it like this: if you see a retort in a chemical laboratory today, with a flame underneath it, and you see the product of the substances inside, so transparent in the effect of the spiritual-soul forces in the fluids of the body, then what was going on inside human beings was just as transparent, sensually-supersensually transparent, for Hippocrates. But the Romans no longer had any sense of this plastic, vivid imagery. They no longer directed what lived as spiritual and soul life in human beings toward the body, but toward the abstract, toward the spiritual. But this was the only way they could grasp how the spiritual and soul life can experience this spiritual life within itself between birth and death. Just as the Greek looked at the body, just as he saw the spiritual and soul life in the mixture and separation of the humors, just as for him the sensory perception in its plasticity was the essential thing, so for the Roman the essential thing became what man feels himself to be: the soul feeling itself. For the Greeks, it was the observation of how phlegm, blood, black and yellow bile mix together, how these are, in a sense, the expression of the earthly in human beings, of air, fire, water, earth, that which one sees in human beings as a work of art. While the Egyptians looked at the mummy, the Greeks looked at the living work of art. The Romans had no sense of this, but rather of standing on their own two feet, developing inner consciousness, letting the spirit speak, not looking at the body, letting the spirit speak from the soul between birth and death.
[ 20 ] This is connected with the fact that during the heyday of their culture, four branches of knowledge were particularly alive in the ancient form among the Egyptians, namely geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. By looking at what, in a sense, formed the body from the earth as something supernatural, the Egyptians imagined: This body is formed in its spatial forms according to the laws of geometry; it is subject to the influence of the stars according to the laws of astrology; it acts from within according to the laws of arithmetic, and it is harmoniously constructed internally according to the laws of music, whereby the musical is not merely the tonal-musical, but everything that lives out in harmonies. In man himself, who was an effect of the earth, in this mummy-man, the Egyptian saw the result of geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. This receded for the Greeks. The Greeks replaced what I would call the lifeless, mummified aspect, which can be understood through geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music, with the living, soulful, inner, plastic self-formation, the artistic shaping of the human body.
[ 21 ] Therefore, in a certain sense, we see geometry as it existed among the Egyptians decline in Greek culture. It becomes mere science; it is no longer revelation. The same is true of astrology and arithmetic. At most, the inner harmony that underlies all living things remains in the Greek conception of music.
[ 22 ] And when Latin took its place, as I said, the Romans imagined their spiritual and soul life as it is between birth and death, with the inner spiritual, but not as it is now expressed internally, but as it can be experienced internally, placing itself on earth through grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. That is why, in the times when Greek was passing into Latin, grammar shone forth: the self-expression of man as spirit through the word; rhetoric: the self-expression of man through the beauty of the word, through the shaping of the word; dialectic: the self-expression of the soul through the shaping of thought. And only arithmetic, geometry, astrology, and music had become science, like an old inheritance. These things, which were very much alive in ancient Egypt, became abstract sciences. On the other hand, what is inherent in human beings became alive: grammar, rhetoric, dialectics. There is a great difference between how a triangle was perceived in ancient Egypt in the pre-Euclidean era and how it was perceived later, after Euclid. They did not perceive the abstract triangle in the same way as it was perceived later. Euclid signifies the decadence of Egyptian arithmetic and geometry. When people imagined a triangle, they perceived world forces. The triangle was an entity. Now all this became science. And dialectics, grammar, and rhetoric came to life.
[ 23 ] And now it came about that schools were formed in such a way that it was said: Anyone who wants to become an educated person must develop the spiritual in the preceding spiritual-soul life of his own human being. First, as the first stage of educated instruction, he must complete grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics; then that which is only there as a legacy, which formed the subject of higher education, but which is nevertheless there as a legacy, as a tradition: geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. And these were then, later on, throughout the Middle Ages, the seven liberal arts: grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, geometry, astrology, arithmetic, and music. What stood out more: grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, that which was more in the background, that which the ancient Egyptians still grasped vividly when they were connected with the earth, that was then the higher education, the subject of higher education, and that was the essential thing that developed between the 8th century BC and the 4th century AD. Look at Greece in the 4th century AD or even further back to the 3rd and 5th centuries, look across to Italy today. You will find everywhere that this knowledge of man as a plastic external work of art, a result of the spiritual-soul life, a life of the spirit through dialectic, rhetoric, and grammar, is in its heyday. This is how Julian Apostata was educated in the Athenian school of philosophy. This is how he viewed human beings.
[ 24 ] The beginning of Christianity struck at this time. But it struck when everything was already in a sense in decline. In the 4th century, it was at its peak, and we have seen how, even in John Scotus Erigena, only a legacy of it remained. It is what lived, for example, in the Greeks from such a view as I have characterized it for you; it then passed on to Plato and Aristotle, who expressed it philosophically. But as the fourth century AD approached, Plato and Aristotle were understood less and less. At best, one could take over the logical, the abstract. People lived in grammar, rhetoric, dialectics. Arithmetic, geometry, astrology, and music had become sciences. People were increasingly living in a kind of abstract world, where what had once been alive now existed only as a legacy. And as the centuries passed, it became more and more of a legacy. Those who then educated themselves in the Latin language retained, I would say, more or less ossified, grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics, whereas previously people would have laughed if asked whether what they thought pointed to anything real; they would have laughed because they said: I practice dialectics, I do not practice the art of concepts in order to pursue something unreal. The spiritual reality lives in me. When I practice grammar, the logos speaks in me. By practicing rhetoric, it is the sun of the world that works within me. The awareness of being connected to the world was increasingly lost. Things became abstract experiences of the soul, as they already are in Johannes Scotus Erigena. And what remained from the older times of Plato and Aristotle was only understood more or less logically. One did not find the living in them.
[ 25 ] And when Emperor Constantine made Roman rule supreme under the pretext of wanting to make Christianity supreme, everything became completely abstract, so abstract that people fell silent, like Julian the Apostate, who had been educated in the Athenian school of philosophy who looked with a bleeding heart upon what Constantine had done in ossifying concepts, ossifying the old living things; and he, Julian the Apostate, resolved to preserve this life that still appeared to him in the Athenian schools of philosophy.
[ 26 ] But from that Byzantium and from that Constantinople founded by Constantine, Justinian later ruled, who abolished the last remnants of these Athenian philosophical schools, where there was still an echo of living human knowledge, so that the seven wise Athenians—they were not Athenians, they were actually quite international, Damascenes, Syrians, and others, they were from all over the world here—the seven wise men had to flee at Justinian's command. They fled to Asia to the king of Persia, where philosophers had already had to flee when Zeno the Isaurian dissolved a similar academy. And we see how, over in Asia, that which could no longer be understood in Europe, especially in its best form, sought refuge: the living experience as it was in Greek culture.
[ 27 ] What was later handed down in Europe as Greek culture is only a shadow of Greek culture. Goethe let it work on him and, as a man full of life, developed such a longing that he wanted to break out of what was presented to him as the shadow of Greek culture. He went down to the south to at least experience the echoes.
[ 28 ] And over in Asia, the people who were capable of doing so received what had been brought to them by Plato and Aristotle. And then, when the 6th century approached, Aristotle was translated from the Asian-Arabic spirit. Aristotle had taken on a different form.
[ 29 ] What was actually attempted there? An attempt was made to elevate what the Greeks had experienced as the connection between the spiritual-soul and the system of bodily fluids in full spiritual-soul-bodily plasticity and creative power, what the Greeks had seen, to a level where the self could be fully grasped. This gave rise to the Arabized science that was particularly cultivated in the Academy of Gondishapur and throughout the declining period of the fourth post-Atlantean epoch, and which was also brought over to Europe in later centuries via Spain by Avicenna and Averroës, exerting a great influence on people such as Roger Bacon and others. But it was a completely new element that the Academy of Gondishapur wanted to give to humanity in a way that could not last, by way of the translation of Aristotle and certain mysteries of wisdom, which then took paths that we will discuss another time. And what was then brought over by Avicenna and Averroës was the struggle for what was to enter human civilization from the beginning of the 15th century onwards; it was the struggle for the conscious soul, for the Greeks had only brought it as far as the intellectual or emotional soul. And what Avicenna and Averroës then brought over, what Aristotle had become in Asia, so to speak, struggles with the understanding of the human ego, which in a completely different way — I have described this in the public lectures here during the course — has to struggle its way up from below through the Germanic peoples. In Asia, it was received as a mystery wisdom, like a revelation from above, and this gave rise to the view that caused such serious disputes in Europe for so long: that the human ego is not actually an independent entity, but is fundamentally united with the divine whole. People wanted to grasp the ego. The ego was to be found in what the Greeks regarded as the physical, soul, and spiritual entity.
[ 30 ] But it was impossible to find harmony between this and the ego. Hence Avicenna's idea that the individual soul arises at birth and ends with death. As we have seen, the Greeks had struggled with this. The Egyptians imagined that it flared up at birth and died out at death. People still struggled with this idea when they considered the actual soul between birth and death, the true soul. But the ego could not be transitory in this way. Therefore, Avicenna said: the ego is actually one in all human beings, and it is basically the one ray of the deity, and it returns to the deity when the human being dies. It is real, but it is not individually real. A pneumatic pantheism arose, as if the ego had no independence, but as if the ego were, in a sense, only a ray of the deity shining between birth and death into what the Greeks regarded as spiritual-soul. In a sense, the transitory soul of man is imbued with the eternal between birth and death by the ray of the deity. That is how people thought.
[ 31 ] This is something that shows you how the time struggled with the arrival of the I, of consciousness of the I, of the conscious soul. You see, this is what happened in the period between the eighth century BC and the fifteenth century AD, with the fourth century AD at its center. People were caught up in the replacement of the concrete, which was still very much alive in the mixture and separation of bodily fluids, which saw the soul in the physical being, in the replacement of this plastic element by something purely abstract, by something more inwardly directed. One can say that until the 4th century AD, Greek culture still prevailed in Roman civilization. In fact, Roman civilization only became dominant after it had already declined. In a certain sense, it was predestined to have an effect only in its death, in its dead Latin language, in which it had then prepared what was to come into human development in the 15th century. One must view the course of civilization in this way. For now we are once again faced with the task of finding the way to knowledge of the coming of spiritual revelations from higher worlds. We must learn to struggle again as people struggled in the past.
[ 32 ] Now we must be clear about this: what we have in natural science, we have obtained indirectly through the Arabs, and we must lift up what we have obtained through natural science to imagination, inspiration, and intuition. But we must also, in a sense, steel our strength by observing what has passed, so that we have it to achieve what we need for the future. That is the task of anthroposophical spiritual science. We must always remember this, my dear friends, and we should form very clear ideas of how a Greek thought quite differently about the soul and the body. It would have seemed ridiculous to him if someone had listed seventy-two or seventy-six chemical elements. He saw the living activity of the elements outside and of the juices inside.
[ 33 ] Human beings live in the elements. Man already lives with his body, insofar as the body is permeated by the soul, in the four elements of which the Greeks spoke, and we have come to lose sight of man because we can no longer see him in this way, because we look at what chemistry today provides in the form of abstract elements.