The Art of Lecturing
GA 339
15 October 1921, Dornach
Lecture V
I have tried to characterize how one can formulate a lecture on the threefold order from out of one thought, and then arrange it in sections. What one can generally say concerning the whole social organism, as well as references to what can occur in the first two realms—namely that of the spiritual life and that of the judicial, the body politic-was contained in what I said.1The threefold social organism, as depicted by Rudolf Steiner, is composed of three parts: the two mentioned above and the economic realm. You will have understood from that, how:preparing oneself for the content of such a lecture, one can proceed.
Now, one can also prepare oneself for the form of delivery by immersing oneself into the thoughts and feelings. We shall perhaps understand each other best if I say that the preparation should be such that we try hard first to sense and then to utter what is related to the spiritual life in a more lyrical language (without, of course, resorting to singing, recitation, or some such thing),—in a lyrical manner of speech, with quiet enthusiasm, so that one demonstrates through the way of delivering the matters that everything one has to say concerning the spiritual life comes from out of oneself. One should by all means call forth the impression that one is enthusiastic about what one envisions for the spiritual part of the social organism. Naturally, it must not be false, mystical, sentimental enthusiasm; a made-up enthusiasm. We achieve the right impression if we prepare ourselves first in imagination, in inner experience—even so far as to modulation—how, approximately, something like that could be said. I say specifically, “how, approximately, something like that could be said,” for the reason that we should never commit ourselves word for word; rather what we prepare is, in a sense, a speech taking its course only in inward thoughts; and we are certainly ready to re-formulate what we finally come out and say.
But when we speak about rights-relationships, we should make the attempt to speak dramatically. That implies: when we lecture about the equality of men, discussing it by means of examples, we should try as much as possible to put ourselves into the other person's position with our thinking. For instance, we should call to mind the image of how a person who seeks work, asserts his right to work in the sense of Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage (the threefold social order). By making it evident that on one hand we are speaking from the other person's position, from out of his assertion of rights, we should then make it evident how through a slight change in the tone of voice we pass on to the topic of how one ought to meet such an assertion out of general humanitarian reasons. So it is dramatic speaking, very strongly modulated, dramatic lecturing, that calls forth the impression in listeners that one could think one's way into the souls of other persons; that is the manner we should employ in speaking about the rights-relationships.
When lecturing on economic conditions, the main point is that we speak directly from experience. If, in the spirit of the threefold social organism, one speaks about economic relationships, one should not permit the belief to arise that there even could be such a thing as a theoretical political economy. Instead, one should limit the main discussion to describing cases taken from the economic life itself; either cases that one repeats, or cases that one construes as to how they should be or could be. But with the latter cases—saying how they should or could be—one must never neglect to speak out of economic experience. Actually, when lecturing on the economic life, one should speak in an epic style. Particularly, when presenting what is written in the Kernpunkte, one should speak as if one had no preconceived ideas at all concerning the economic life, and had no notions that this should be thus and so; instead, one should speak as if one were informed on all and everything by the facts themselves.
One can evoke a certain feeling, for example, that it is correct to permit the transfer of the administratioa of monetary funds from one who is not involved in it himself anymore, to somebody who once again can participate in it. But one can only speak about something like that if one presents it to people by means of descriptions of what takes place if there are legacies merely due to blood-relationships, or what can take place when such a transfer is occasioned in the way it is described in the Kernpunkte. Only by placing such a matter before people in a living way, as if one were copying reality, can one speak in such a way that the speech truly stands within the economic life. And just in this way, one can make the idea of “associations”2See The Threefold Social Order for details on “Associations.” comprehensible and plausible. One will make it plausible that an individual person really knows nothing about the economic life; that if he wants to arrive at a judgement as to what must be done in the life of the economy, he is basically completely dependent on communicating with others. A sound economic view can only emerge from groups of people and one is therefore dependent on associations.
Then, one will perhaps meet with comprehension if one calls attention to the fact that much of what exists today actually came out of ancient, instinctive associations. Just consider for a moment how today's abstract market brings things together, whose combination and redistribution to the consumer cannot be surveyed at all. But how has one arrived at this market-relationship in the first place? Bascially, from the instinctive association of a number of villages located around a larger township, at a distance that one could travel back and forth on foot in one day, where people exchanged their products. One did not call that an association. One did not coin any word for it, but in reality it was an instinctive association. Those people who here came together for the market were associated with all of those who lived in the surrounding villages. They could count on a set circulation of goods that resulted from experience. Therefore they could regulate production according to consumption in truly alive relationships. There certainly existed such associative conditions in such primitive economies; they just didn't call themselves that.
All this has become impossible to over-see, with the enlargement of the economic territories. In particular, it has become senseless in regard to the world economy. The world economy which has come into being only in the last third of the 19th century, has reduced everything into an abstract realm; that is, it has reduced everything in the economic life to the turn-over of money or its monetary value, until this reduction has proven its own absurdity.
Indeed, when Japan fought a war with China and Japan won the war, one could very simply pay the war reparations by way of the Chinese Minister's handing a check to the Japanese Delegate, which the latter then deposited in a bank in Japan. This is an actual course of events. There were values contained in this check, which is money and has monetary value. It represented values. If you imagine how at that time everything should have been transported from one territory into the other this would have been a difficult process under modern-day conditions. But owing to the manner in which Japan and China were placed within the whole world economy, it could be done this way. However, all this has led itself to a point of absurdity. In the dealings between Germany and France, it has proven itself to be impossible.3Rudolf Steiner refers here to the war-reparations demanded of Germany by France. I am therefore of the opinion that the state of affairs can best be explained out of the economic relationships themselves, and then one can explain the necessity for the associative principle.
Once again, one should have to divide this subject matter regarding the economic life in a certain way, and one would have to pass on to several concluding sentences of which I have already said that they again should be conceived verbatim or at least almost word for word.
So, how will the preparation for a speech appear, in fact? Well, one should try one's best to get into the situation or the subject that the audience is prepared for, by formulating the opening sentences in a way one considers necessary. One will have greater difficulty in the case of completely unprepared listeners; less difficulty, if one addresses a group that one finds already involved in the matter, at least possessing the corresponding feelings concerning the assertions one makes. Then, one will neither write down the rest of the speech nor jot down mere catch-words. Experience shows that neither the verbatim composition nor the mere noting down of catch-words leads to a good speech. The reason for not writing down the speech is because it ties one down and easily causes embarrassment when the memory falters; this is most frequently the case when the speech is written down word for word. Catch-words easily mislead one to formulate the whole preparation too abstractly. On the other hand, if one needs to have such a support, what one should best write down and bring along as notes are a number of correctly formulated sentences that serve as catch-phrases. They do not make the claim that one delivers them in the same way as a part of the speech; instead, they indicate: first, second, third, fourth, and so on; they are extracts, so to speak, so that from one sentence perhaps ten or eight or twelve will result. But one should write such sentences down. One should therefore not write down, “spiritual life conceived as independent”; instead, “the spiritual life can only thrive if it freely works independently out of itself.” (Catch-phrases, with other words.) If you do something like this, you will then have the experience yourself that owing to such catch-phrases, you can in a relatively short time most readily attain to a certain facility of speaking freely, a speaking that only contains the ladder of catch-phrases.
Concerning the conclusion, it is often very good if, in a certain sense, at least gently, one leads back to,the beginning; if therefore the end, in a sense, contains something that, as a theme, was also contained in the beginning.
And then, such catch-phrases readily give one the opportinity to really prepare oneself in the way indicated above by having noted these sentences down on one's piece of paper. So, let us say, one ponders the following: what you have to say for the spiritual life must have a sort of lyrical nature within you; what you have to say concerning the rights-relationships must have a kind of dramatic character in your mind; and what concerns the economic life must live in your mind in a narrative, epic form; a quiet, narrative, epic character. Then, the desire, as well as the skill, to word the catch- phrases in the formulation that I have indicated, will indeed begin to arise instinctively. The preparation will result quite instinctively in such a way that the manner in which one speaks merges indeed into what one has to say concerning the subject. For this it is, however, necessary to have brought one's command of language to the level of instinct, so that one indeed experiences the speech-organs the way one would, for instance, feel the hammer, if one wanted to use the hammer for something. That can be achieved, if one practices a little speech-gymnastics.
It's true, isn't it, when one practices gymnastics, those are not movements that are later executed in real life; but they are movements that make one flexible and dextrous. Similarly, one should make the speech-organs pliable and adroit; but making the latter pliable and dextrous is something that must be accomplished so that it goes together with the inner soul life, and so that one learns to be aware of the sound in speaking. In the seminar courses that I held over two years ago in Stuttgart for the Waldorf school teachers, I put together a number of such speech exercises that I now want to pass on to you. They are mostly of a kind that, by their content, does not prevent one from learning to merge oneself purely into the element of speech; they are only designed for practicing speech-gymnastics. If one tries again and again to say these sentences aloud, but in such a way that one always probes: how does one best use his tongue, how does one best use his lips so as to produce this particular sequence of sounds?—then one makes oneself independent of speaking and, instead, places that much more value on mental preparation for lecturing.
I shall now read you a number of such sentences whose content is often senseless, but they are designed to make the speech-organs pliable and fit for public speaking.4The speech-exercises are rendered in the original German, since the emphasis is on their sound, primarily; a translation is often useless as well as extremely difficult.
Dass er dir log, uns darf es nicht loben.
(That he told lies, 'tis not to be lauded.)
This is the easiest one. Something a bit more complicated:
Nimm nicht Nonnen in nimmermuede Mühlen.
(Take not nuns in never-tired mills.)
One should increasingly try, along with the sequence of sounds, to make the organs of speech pliable; to bend, to hollow, to take possession of them.5In trying to illustrate how one must take hold of one's speech-organs via the exercises. Rudolf Steiner modifies the four words in a manner that is highly original and unusual, and untranslatable as well. But they thus indicate a living working, an active doing. “Gesehmeithgen,” to make pliable; “zu biegen,” to bend; “zu hohlen,” to make hollow; “zu erhabenen,” to have or possess by effort.
Another example:
Rate mir mehrere Rätsel nur richtig.
It is naturally not enough to say something like this once, or ten times; but again and again and again, because even if the speech-organs are already pliable, they can become still more so.
An example that I consider to be particularly useful is the following:
Redlich ratsam
Rüstet rühmlich
Riesig rächend
Ruhig rollend
Reuige Rosse
With this, one has the opportunity to regulate the breath in the pauses, something one has to pay attention to and that can be particularly well done through such an exercise.
In a similar way, not all the letters, nor all the sounds, have the same value for this practicing. You make progress if you take the following, for example:
Protzig preist
Bäder bruenstig
Polternd putzig
Bieder bastelnd
Puder patzend
Bergig brüstend
If you succeed in finding your way into this sequence of sounds, you gain much from it.
When one has done such exercises, then one can also try to do those exercises that cannot but result in bringing a mood into the speaking of the sounds. I have tried to give an example of how the sounds can pour into the mood in the following:
- Erfüllung geht (Fulfillment goes)
- Durch Hoffnung (Through hope)
- Geht durch Sehnen (Goes through longing)
- Durch Wollen (Through willing)
and now it passes more into the sounds, through which, here in particular, the mood in the sound itself is held fast:
- Wollen weht (Willing wafts)
- Im Webenden (In weaving)
- Weht im Bebenden (Wafts in billowing)
- Webt bebend (Weaves billowing)
- Webend bindend (Weaves binding)
- Im Finden (In finding)
- Findend windend (Finding winding)
- Kuendend (Calling)
You will always discover, when you do these exercises in particular, how you are able, without letting the breath disturb you, to regulate the breathing by simply holding yourself onto the sounds. In recent times, one has thought up all kinds of more or less clever methods for breathing and for all kinds of accompanying aspects of speaking and singing, but actually, all of those are no good, because speech with everything that belongs with it, with the breath, too, should by all means be learned through actual speaking. This implies that one should learn to speak in such a way that, within the boundaries that result from the sound sequence and the word relationships, the breath also regulates itself as a matter of course. In other words, one should only learn breathing during speech—in speaking itself. Therefore, the exercises of speech should be so designed that, in correctly feeling them regarding their sounds, one is obliged—not by the content but by the sounds—to formulate the breath correctly because he experiences the sound correctly.
What the verse below represents, points once again to the content of the mood. It has four lines; these four lines are arranged so that they are an ascent, as it were. Each line causes an expectation, and the fifth line is the conclusion and brings fulfilment. Now one should really make an effort to execute this speech movement that I have just characterized. The verse goes like this:
In den unermesslich weiten Raeumen,
In den endenlosen Zeiten,
In der Menschenseele Tiefen,
In der Weltenoffenbarung:
Suche des grossen Raetsels Loesung.
(In the immeasurably wide realms,
in the never-ending ages,
in the human soul's depths
in the world's revelation:
seek the great riddle's answer.)
There you have the fifth line representing the fulfillment of that escalating expectation that is evoked in the first four lines.
One can also attempt to, well, let me say, bring the mood of the situation into the sounds, into the mode of speaking, the how of speech. And for that I have formulated the following exercise. One should picture a sizable green frog that sits in front of him with its mouth open. In other words, one should imagine that one confronts a giant frog with an open mouth. And now, one should picture what sort of reactions, effects, one can have regarding this frog. There will be humor in the emotion as well as all that should be evoked in the soul in a lively manner. Then, one should address this frog in the following way:
Lalle Lieder lieblich
Lipplicher Laffe
Lappiger lumpiger
Laichiger Lurch
Picture to yourself: that a horse is walking across a field. The content does not matter. Naturally, you must now imagine that horses whistle! Now you express the fact that you have here in the following manner:
Pfiffig pfeifen
Pfaeffische Pferde
Pflegend Pfluege
Pferchend Pfirsiche
and then you vary that by saying it this way:
Pfiffig pfeifen aus Naepfen
Pfaeffische Pferde schluepfend
Pflegend Pfluege huepfend
Pferchend Pfirsiche knuepfend
And then—but please, do learn it by heart, so that you can fluently repeat the one version after the other—there is a third version. Learn all three by heart, and try to say them so fluently that during the speaking of one version you will not be confused by the other. That is what counts. Take as the third form:
Kopfpfiffig pfeifen aus Naepfen
Napfpfaeffische Pferde schluepfend
Wipfend pflegend Pfluege huepfend
Tipfend pferchend Pfirsiche knuepfend
Learn one after the other, so that you can do the three versions by heart, and that one never interferes when you say the other.
Something similar can be done with the following two verses:
Ketzer petzten jetzt klaeglich
Letztlich leicht skeptisch
and now the other version:
Ketzerkraechzer petzten jetzt klaeglich
Letztlich ploetzlich leicht skeptisch
Again, learn it by heart and say one after the other!
One can achieve smooth speech if one practices something like the following:
Nur renn nimmer reuig
Gierig grinsend
Knoten knipsend
Pfaender knuepfend
One has to accustom oneself to say this sound sequence, ‘Nur renn ...’. You will see what you gain for your tongue, your organs of speech, if you do such exercises.
Now, such an exercise that lasts a bit longer, through which this flexibility of speech can be attained—I believe actors have already discovered atterwards that this was the best way to make their speech pliable:
Zuwider zwingen zwar
Zweizweckige Zwacker zu wenig
Zwanzig Zwerge
Die sehnige Krebse
Maher suchend schmausen
Dass schmatzende Schrnachter
Schmiegsam schnellstens
Schnurrig schnalzen
And then: one occasionally requires presence of mind in direct speech. One can acquire it by something like the following:
Klipp plapp plick glick
Klingt Klapperrichtig
Knatternd trappend
Rossegetrippel
Then, for further acquisition of presence of mind in speaking, the following two examples can be placed together:
Schlinge Schlange geschwinde
Gewundene Fundewecken weg
The ‘Wecken weg’ is in there, too, but as a sound-motif, thus:
Gewundene Fundewecken
Geschwinde schlinge Schlange weg
The following example is useful for putting some muscle into speech, so that one is in a position, in speaking, to slap somebody down in a discussion sometimes (something that is quite necessary in speaking!):
Marsch schmachtender
Klappriger Racker
Krackle plappernd linkisch
Kink von vorne fort
Then, for somebody who stutters a little, the following two examples should still be mentioned:
Nimm mir nimmer
Was sich waesserig
Mit Teilen mitteilt
For everyone who stutters, this example is good. When stuttering, one can also say it in the way below:
Nimmer nimm mir
Waesserige Wickel
Was sich schlecht mitteilt
Mit Teilen deiner Rede
The point is, of course, that the person who stutters must make a real effort.
One should by no means believe that what I want to call speech-gymnastics, can or should only be practiced with sentences that are meaningful for the intellect. Because in those sentences that contain sense for the intellect, the attentiveness for the meaning instinctively outweighs anything else too much, so that we do not rely correctly on the sounds, the saying. And it is really necessary that, in a certain sense, we tear speaking loose from ourselves, actually manage to separate it from ourselves. In the same way as one can separate writing from one's self, one can also tear speaking loose from oneself.
There are two ways to write for the human being. One way consists of man's writing egotistically; he has the forms of the letters in his limbs, as it were, and lets them flow out of his limbs. One emphasized such a style of writing for a certain length of time—it is probably still the same today—when one gave lessons in penmanship for those who were to be employed in business offices or people like that. I have, for example, observed at one time how such a lesson in writing was conducted for employees of commercial establishments so that the persons in question had to develop every letter out of a kind of curve. They had to learn swinging motions with the hand; then they had to put these motions down on paper; this way, everything is in the hand, in the limbs; and one is not really present with anything but the hand in writing. Another form of writing is the one that is not egotistical; it is the unselfish style of writing. It consists of not really writing with the hand, as it were, but with the eye; one always looks at it and basically draws the letter. Thus, what is in the formation of the hand is of importance to a lesser degree: one really acts like one does when sketching, where one is not the slave of a handwriting. Instead, after a while, one has difficulty in even writing one's name the same way one has written it just the time before. For most people it is so terribly easy to write their name the way they have always written it. It flows out of their hand. But those persons who place something artistic into the script, they write with the eye. They follow the style of the lines with the eye. And there, the script indeed separates itself from the person. Then—while it is in a certain repect not desirable to practice that—a person can imitate scripts, vary scripts in different ways. I do not say that one should practice that especially, but I mean that it results as an extreme when one paints one's script, as it were. This is the more unselfish writing. Writing out of the limbs, on the other hand, is the more selfish, the egotistic way.
Speech is also selfish, in most people. It simply emerges out of the speech-organs. But you can gradually accustom yourselves to experience your speech in such a way that it seems as if it floated around you, as if the words flew around you. You can really have a sort of experience of your words. Then, speaking separates itself from the person. It becomes objective. Man hears himself speak quite instinctively. In speaking, his head becomes enlarged, as it were, and one feels the weaving of sounds and the words in one's surroundings. One gradually learns to listen to the sounds, the words. And one can achieve that particularly through such exercises. That way, there is in fact not just yelling into a room anymore—by yelling, I do not mean shouting out loud only; one can yell in whispering, too, if one actually speaks only for one's own sake, the way it emerges out of the speechorgans—instead one really lives, in speaking, with space. One feels the resonance in space, as it were. This has become a fumbling mischief in certain speech-theories—theories of speech-teaching or speech-study, if you will—of recent times. One has made people speak with body-resonance, with abdominal resonances, with nasal resonances, and so forth. But all these inner resonances are a vice. A true resonance can only be an experienced one. One experiences such a resonance not by the impact of the sound against the interior of the nose; instead one feels it only in front of the nose, outside. Thus, language in fact attains to abundance. And of course, the language of a speaker should be abundant. A speaker should swallow as little as possible.
Do not believe that this is unimportant for the speaker; it is rather of great significance for the speaker. Whether we present something in a correct way to people depends most certainly on what position we are able to take in regard to speech itself. One doesn't have to go quite so far as a certain actor who was acquainted with me, who never said “Freundrl” [Austrian dialect for “Friend”—note by translator] but always “Freunderl”, because he wanted to place himself into every syllable. He did that to the extreme. But one should develop the instinctive talent not to swallow syllables, syllable-forms, and syllable-formations. One can accomplish that if one tries to find one's way into rhythmic speech in such a way that, placing one's self into the whole sound-modulation, one recites to oneself:
Und es wallet und siedet und brauset und zischt,
Wie wenn Wasser mit Feuer sich mengt ...<
(Quote from Schiller's The Diver)
So: it is a matter of placing one's self not only into the sound as such but into the sound-modulation. into this “growing round” and the angularity of sound.
If somebody believes that he could become a speaker without putting any value on this, then he labors under the same misconception as a human soul that has arrived at the point between death and a new birth, when it once again will descend to the earth, and does not want to embody itself because it does not want to enter into the moulding of the stomach, the lungs, the kidney, and so forth. It is really a matter of having to draw on everything that makes a speech complete.
One should at least put some value on the organism of speech and the genius of language as well. One should not forget that valuing the organism of speech, the genius of language, is creative, in the sense of creating imagination. He who cannot occupy himself with language, listening inwardly, will not receive images, will not be the recipient of thoughts; he will remain clumsy in thinking, he will become one who is abstract in speaking, if not a pedant. Particularly, in experiencing the sounds, the imagery in speech-formation, in this itself lies something that entices the thoughts out of our souls that we need to carry before the listeners. In experiencing the word, something creative is implied in regard to the inner organization of the human being. This should never be forgotten. It is extremely important. In all cases, the feeling should pervade us how the word, the sequence of words, the word-formation, the sentence-construction, how these are related to our whole organism. Just as one can figure out a person from the physiognomy, one can even more readily—I don't mean from what he says but from the how of the speech—one can figure out the whole human being from his manner of speech.
But this how of his speech emerges out of the whole human being. And it is by all means a matter of focusing—delicately of course, not by treating ourselves like we were the patient—on the physical body. It is, for example, beneficial for somebody who, through education or perhaps even heredity, is predisposed to speaking pedantically; to try, with stimulating tea that he partakes of every so often, to wean himself from pedantry. As I have said, these things must be done with care. For one person, this tea is right; for another, the other tea is good. Ordinary tea, as I have repeatedly mentioned, is a very good diet for diplomats: diplomats have to be witty, which means having to chat at random about one thing after another, none of which must be pedantic, but instead has to exhibit the ease of switching from one sentence to another. This is why tea is indeed the drink of diplomats. Coffee, on the other hand, makes one logical. This is why, normally not being very logical by nature, reporters write their articles most frequently in coffee-houses. Now, since the advent of the typewriter, matters are a little different, but in earlier days, one could meet whole groups of journalists in coffee-houses, chewing on their pen and drinking coffee so that at last, one thought could align itself with the next one. Therefore, if one discovers that one has too much of what is of the tea-quality, then coffee is something that can have an equalizing effect. But, as was mentioned before, all this is not altogether meant, as a prescription, but pointing in that direction. And if somebody, for example, is predisposed to mix some annoying sound into his speech—let's say if somebody says, “he,” after every third syllable, or something like that—then I advise him to drink some weak senna-leaf-tea twice a week in the evening, and he will see what a beneficial effect that will have.
It is indeed so: since the matters that come to expression in a lecture, in a speech, must come out of the whole person, diet must by no means be overlooked. This is not only the case in an obvious sense. Of course, one can hear by the speech whether it comes from a person who has let endless amounts of beer flow down his gullet, or something like that. This is an obvious case. He who has an ear for speech knows very well whether a given speaker is a tea-drinker or a coffee-drinker, whether he suffers from constipation or its opposite. In speech, everything is expressed with absolute certainty, and all of that has to be taken into consideration. One will gradually develop an instinct for these matters if one becomes sensitive to language in one's surroundings the way I have described it.
However, the various languages lend themselves in different ways, and in varying degrees, to being heard in the surroundings. A language such as the Latin tongue is particularly suitable for the above purpose. The same with the Italian. I mean by this, to be heard objectively by the one who is speaking himself. The English language, for example, is little suited for this, because this language is very similar to the script that flows out of the limbs. The more abstract the languages are, the less suitable they are to be heard inwardly and to become objective. Oh, how in former times the German Nibelungen song sounded:
Uns ist in alten maeren
Wunders vil geseit
von heleden lobebaeren,
von grôzer arebeit;
von freude unt hôchgezîten,
von weinen unde klagen,
von küener recken strîten
müget ir nu wunder hoeren sagen.Ez wuohs in Buregonden
ein vil edel magedîn,
daz in allen landen
niht schoeners mohte sîn,
Kriemhilt geheizen;
diu wart ein schoene wîp,
Dar umbe muosen degene
vil Verliesen dën lîp.
That hears itself while one is speaking! Through such things one must learn to experience language. Naturally, languages become abstract in the course of their development. Then one must bring the concrete substance into it from within, permeate it with the obvious. Abstractly placed side by side, what a difference:
Uns ist in alten maeren wunders vil geseit
and
Uns wird in alten Märchen Wunderbares viel erzählt
and so forth!
But if one becomes accustomed to listening, this can certainly also be brought into the more modern language, and there, much can be done in speech towards the latter's becoming something that has its own genius. But for that, such exercises are required, so that listening in the spirit and speaking out of the spirit fit into one another. And so, I want to repeat the verse one more time:
Erfuellung geht
Durch Hoffnung
Geht durch Sehnen
Durch Wollen
Wollen weht
Im Webenden
Weht im Bebenden
Webend bindend
Im Finden
Findend windend
Kuendend.
Only by placing the sound into various relationships, does one arrive at an experiencing of the sound, the metamorphosis of the sound, and the looking at the word, the seeing of the word.
Then, when something like what I have described today as creating a disposition through catch-sentences, as our inner soul-preparation, is united with what we can in the above way gain out of the language, then it all works toward public speaking.
One more thing is required besides all the others I have already mentioned: responsibility! This implies that one should be aware that one does not have the right to set all of one's ill-mannered speech-habits before an audience. One should learn to feel that for a public appearance one does require education of speech, a going-out of one's self, and plasticity in regard to speech. Responsibility towards speech! It is very comfortable to remain standing and to speak the way one normally does, and to swallow as much as one is used to swallow; to swallow (verschlucken), to squeeze (quetschen), and to bend (biegen) and break (brechen), and to pull (dehnen) at the words just the way it suits one. But one may not remain with this squeezing (Quetschen) and pushing (Druecken) and pulling (Dehnen) and cornering (Ecken) and similar speech-mannerisms. Instead, one must try to come to the aid of one's speaking even in regard to the form. If one supports one's speaking in this manner, one is quite simply also led to the point where one addresses an audience with a certain respect. One approaches public speaking with a certain reserve and speaks to an audience with respect. And this is absolutely necessary. One can accomplish this if, on the one side, one perfects the soul-aspect; and, on the other side, formulates the physical in the way I have demonstrated in the second part of the lecture. Even if one only has to give occasional talks, such matters still play an important part.
Say, for example, that one has to give discussions on the building, the Goetheanum. Since one naturally cannot make a separate preparation for each discussion, one should basically, in that case, properly prepare oneself, the way I have explained it, at least twice a week for the talk in question. One should actually only extemporize, if one practices the preparation, as it were, as a constant exercise.
Then one will also discover how, I should like to say, the outer form unites itself with the substance. And we shall have to speak about this point in particular one more time tomorrow: about the union of the form-technique with the soul-technique.
The course is brief, unfortunately; one can barely get past the introduction. But I would find it irresponsible not to have said what I did say in particular in the course of these lectures.
Fünfter Vortrag
Versucht habe ich zu charakterisieren, wie man etwa einen Dreigliederungsvortrag aus einem Gedanken heraus formen und dann auch einteilen kann. In dem, was ich sagte, war ja enthalten sowohl das Allgemeine, was man vorbringen kann über den gesamten sozialen Organismus, wie auch Hinweise darauf, was in den ersten zwei Gliedern vorkommen kann, nämlich bei der Besprechung des geistigen Lebens und bei der Besprechung des rechtlich-staatlichen Organismus. Sie werden daraus gesehen haben, wie man, inhaltlich sich vorbereitend für einen solchen Vortrag, vorgehen kann.
Nun, man kann sich aber auch, indem man sich in die Gedanken und Empfindungen hineinlebt, auf das Wie vorbereiten, und wir werden uns vielleicht am besten verstehen, wenn ich sage, daß die Vorbereitung auf das Wie so sein soll, daß wir uns bemühen, schon zu empfinden und dann auch zu sprechen dasjenige, was sich bezieht auf das geistige Leben, in einer mehr lyrischen Sprache — ohne daß wir selbstverständlich ins Singen oder dergleichen oder ins Rezitieren verfallen -, in einer lyrischen Sprache, in ruhiger Begeisterung, so daß man verrät durch die Art und Weise, wie man die Dinge vorbringt, daß alles, was man über das Geistesleben zu sagen hat, aus einem selbst heraus kommt. Man soll durchaus die Vorstellung hervorrufen, daß man begeistert ist für das, was man verlangt für den geistigen Teil des sozialen Organismus. Natürlich darf es nicht falsch-mystische, sentimentale Begeisterung, nicht gemachte Begeisterung sein. Das erreichen wir, wenn wir uns eben zuerst bloß in der Vorstellung, im inneren Erleben bis auf den Ton hin vorbereiten darauf, wie etwa so etwas gesagt werden könnte. Ich sage ausdrücklich: wie etwa so etwas gesagt werden könnte — aus dem Grunde, weil wir uns niemals wortwörtlich binden sollen, sondern was wir vorbereiten, ist gewissermaßen eine bloß in Gedanken sich abspielende Rede, und wir sind durchaus darauf gefaßt, das, was wir dann sagen, wiederum in anderer Formulierung zu sagen.
Wenn wir aber reden über Rechtsverhältnisse, da sollten wir schon den Versuch machen, dramatisch zu sprechen. Das heißt: Wenn wir sprechen über die Gleichheit der Menschen, diese durch Beispiele erörternd, sollten wir versuchen, uns möglichst hineinzudenken in den anderen Menschen. Wir sollten etwa die Vorstellung vor unsere Seele rufen, wie derjenige, der eine Arbeit sucht, das Recht für diese Arbeit geltend macht im Sinne der «Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage». Und wir sollten dann gewissermaßen, indem wir auf der einen Seite bemerklich machen, daß wir aus dem anderen heraus reden, aus seiner rechtlichen Forderung, wir sollten dann bemerklich machen, wie wir durch eine leise Änderung der Stimmlage dazu übergehen, wie man aus allgemein menschlichen Gründen heraus solch eine Forderung erfüllen müsse. Also dramatisches Sprechen, sehr stark moduliertes dramatisches Sprechen, das die Empfindung bei den Zuhörern hervorruft, man könne sich in die Seele von anderen Menschen hineindenken, das wird dasjenige sein, was wir verwenden sollten beim Sprechen über Rechtsverhältnisse.
Und beim Sprechen über wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse, da handelt es sich ja hauptsächlich darum, daß wir durchaus aus den Erfahrungen heraus sprechen. Man sollte überhaupt, wenn man im Sinne der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus über wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse spricht, gar nicht den Glauben aufkommen lassen, daß es so etwas wie eine theoretische Nationalökonomie auch nur geben könnte. Man soll vielmehr das Hauptsächlichste darauf beschränken, Fälle aus dem wirtschaftlichen Leben selber zu beschreiben, seien es Fälle, die man nachbeschreibt, oder seien es Fälle, die man sich zusammenstellt, wie sie etwa sein sollten oder sein könnten. Aber bei den letzteren Fällen wie sie etwa sein sollten oder sein könnten — soll man niemals außer acht lassen, aus der wirtschaftlichen Erfahrung heraus zu sprechen. Man soll eigentlich, wenn man über das wirtschaftliche Leben spricht, episch sprechen. Gerade wenn man das vorbringt, was in den «Kernpunkten der sozialen Frage» steht, soll man so sprechen, wie wenn man eigentlich über das wirtschaftliche Leben gar keine Vormeinungen hätte, gar nicht meinte, das soll so sein oder das soll anders sein, son dem wie wenn man sich alles, alles von den Tatsachen sagen ließe.
Man kann ja eine gewisse Empfindung hervorrufen, daß es zum Beispiel richtig ist, Kapitalverwaltungen übergehen zu lassen von demjenigen, der nicht mehr selbst daran beteiligt ist, an jemanden, der wiederum beteiligt sein kann. Man kann aber über so etwas auch nur sprechen, wenn man es vor die Menschen hinstellt an der Hand von Beschreibungen dessen, was geschieht, wenn bloße Blutserbverhältnisse sind, und dessen, was geschehen kann, wenn ein solches Übergehen stattfindet, wie es in den «Kernpunkten der sozialen Frage» beschrieben ist. Man kann nur dadurch, daß man dieses recht lebendig, wie wenn man die Wirklichkeit abschriebe, vor die Menschen hinstellt, so sprechen, daß das Sprechen im wirtschaftlichen Leben wirklich drinnensteht. Und gerade dadurch wird man auch den Assoziationsgedanken begreiflich, plausibel machen. Man wird plausibel machen, daß der einzelne Mensch eigentlich gar nichts weiß über das Wirtschaftsleben, daß er im Grunde genommen ganz darauf angewiesen ist, wenn er zu einem Urteil über das kommen will, was im Wirtschaftsleben zu geschehen hat, sich mit anderen zu verständigen, so daß eigentlich immer nur aus Menschengruppen ein wirkliches wirtschaftliches Urteil hervorgehen kann und man also angewiesen ist auf die Assoziationen.
Man wird dann vielleicht auf Verständnis stoßen, wenn man darauf aufmerksam macht, daß ja vieles von dem, was heute besteht, eigentlich aus alten instinktiven Assoziationen hervorgegangen ist. Bedenken sie nur einmal, wie der heutige abstrakte Markt Dinge zusammenbringt, deren Zusammenkommen und wiederum Weiterverteiltwerden an den Konsumenten gar nicht überschaut werden kann. Aber wie ist man denn überhaupt zu diesem Marktverhältnis gekommen? Im Grunde genommen aus der instinktiven Assoziation heraus, indem eine Anzahl von Dörfern in solch einer Entfernung, daß man hin- und zurückgehen kann im Tage, um einen größeren Ort herum waren und da die Leute ihre Produkte austauschten. Das nannte man nicht eine Assoziation. Man sprach überhaupt kein Wort aus; aber in Wirklichkeit war es eine instinktive Assoziation. Diejenigen Leute, welche hier sich zum Markt vereinigten, waren assoziiert mit all denen, die in den Dörfern herum wohnten. Sie konnten rechnen auf einen bestimmten Absatz, der sich erfahrungsgemäß ergab. Daher konnten sie nach dem Konsum die Produktion regeln in ganz lebendigen Zusammenhängen. In solchen primitiven Wirtschaften waren durchaus assoziative Verhältnisse, die sich nur nicht als solche aussprachen, vorhanden.
Das alles ist mit der Vergrößerung der wirtschaftlichen Territorien unüberschaubar geworden, und insbesondere dann sinnlos geworden gegenüber der Weltwirtschaft. Die Weltwirtschaft, zu der es ja erst gekommen ist im letzten Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts, die hat ja alles ins Abstrakte, das heißt, im wirtschaftlichen Leben auf den bloßen Geld- oder Geldeswertumsatz reduziert, bis sich eben dieses Reduzieren ad absurdum geführt hat.
Nicht wahr, als Japan mit China Krieg geführt und Japan den Krieg gewonnen hatte, da konnte man sehr einfach die Kriegsentschädigung zahlen, indem einfach der chinesische Minister dem japanischen Gesandten einen Check übergab, den der japanische Gesandte dann in Japan auf eine Bank geben konnte. Das ist ein tatsächlicher Vorgang. Da waren eben Werte darinnen in diesem Check, der Geld und Geldeswert eben ist. Es waren Werte darinnen. Wenn Sie sich vorstellen, daß das dazumal alles von dem einen Territorium in das andere hätte übergeführt werden sollen, es wäre unter den neuzeitlichen Verhältnissen eben schwer gegangen. Aber so konnte man durch die ganze Art und Weise, wie Japan und China in die ganze Weltwirtschaft hineingestellt waren, das machen. Aber das hat sich ja selbst ad absurdum geführt. In dem Handel zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich hat sich das nicht mehr als möglich erwiesen. Ich meine also, man kann aus den wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhängen heraus am besten die Dinge erörtern, und dann die Notwendigkeit des assoziativen Prinzips darlegen.
Dann wird man sich diesen Stoff gerade mit Bezug auf das Wirtschaftsleben auch in einer gewissen Weise wiederum zu gliedern haben, und wird dann überzugehen haben zu einigen Schlußsätzen, von denen ich schon gesagt habe, daß sie wiederum wortwörtlich verfaßt werden sollen oder wenigstens nahezu wörtlich.
Wie wird sich denn also eigentlich die Vorbereitung für eine Rede ausnehmen? Nun, man suche möglichst in die Situation oder in dasjenige, worauf die Zuhörerschaft vorbereitet ist, hineinzukommen dadurch, daß man die ersten Sätze so gestaltet, wie man es eben für notwendig hält. Man wird größere Mühe haben bei ganz unvorbereiteten Zuhörern, kleinere Mühe, wenn man zu einem Kreis spricht, den man schon in der Sache drinnenstehend findet, wenigstens in den entsprechenden Empfindungen, von den Forderungen, die man erhebt. Dann wird man den übrigen Teil der Rede weder aufschreiben, noch wird man bloße Schlagworte hinschreiben. Die Erfahrung zeigt, daß die wörtliche Ausarbeitung ebensowenig zu einer guten Rede führt wie das bloße Aufschreiben von Schlagworten. Das Aufschreiben aus dem Grunde nicht, weil es einen bindet und dadurch leicht Verlegenheit bringt, wenn das Gedächtnis holpert, was gerade dann am leichtesten der Fall ist, wenn die Rede wortwörtlich aufgeschrieben ist. Schlagworte verleiten sehr leicht dazu, die ganze Vorbereitung zu abstrakt zu gestalten. Dagegen ist dasjenige, was man am besten aufschreibt und auch als Manuskript mitbringt, wenn man nötig hat, sich an so etwas zu halten, eine Reihe richtig formulierter Sätze als Schlagsätze, die nicht den Anspruch darauf machen, daß man sie auch so sagt als einen Bestandteil der Rede, sondern die dastehen: erstens, zweitens, drittens, viertens und so weiter, die gewissermaßen Extrakte geben, so daß aus einem Satz vielleicht zehn oder acht oder zwölf werden. Aber man schreibe sich solche Sätze auf. Man schreibe sich also nicht etwa auf «Geistesleben als selbständig», sondern «Das Geistesleben kann nur gedeihen, wenn es frei aus sich heraus selbständig wirkt». Also Schlagsätze. Sie werden dann, wenn Sie so etwas tun, selbst die Erfahrung machen, daß man durch solche Schlagsätze am allerbesten in verhältnismäßig kurzer Zeit in eine gewisse Möglichkeit des freien Sprechens, das eben nur die Leiter der Schlagsätze hat, hineinkommt.
Für den Schluß ist es oftmals sehr gut, wenn man in einer gewissen Weise, wenigstens leise, zum Anfang wiederum zurückführt, wenn also der Schluß in einer gewissen Weise etwas hat, was als Motiv schon im Anfang enthalten war.
Und dann geben einem solche Schlagsätze leicht die Möglichkeit, nun wirklich sich so vorzubereiten, wie vorhin angedeutet wurde, indem man sich auf seinem Blättchen diese Schlagsätze aufgeschrieben hat. Also, sagen wir, man überlegt sich: Was du für das geistige Leben zu sagen hast, muß in dir eine Art lyrischen Charakter haben; was du für das Rechtsleben zu sagen hast, muß in dir eine Art dramatischen Charakter haben; das für das Wirtschaftsleben muß in dir einen erzählend-epischen Charakter, einen ruhig erzählend-epischen Charakter haben. - Dann wird in der Tat schon instinktiv ein wenig die Sucht hervorgehen und auch die Kunst hervorgehen, in der Formulierung der Schlagsätze so etwas auszubilden, wie ich es angedeutet habe. Es wird die Vorbereitung ganz gefühlsmäßig so erfolgen, daß in der Tat die Art, wie man redet, hineinwächst in das, was man inhaltlich zu sagen hat.
Dazu ist aber allerdings notwendig, daß man nun gewissermaßen das, was Sprachbeherrschung sein soll, bis, ich möchte sagen, zum Instinkt gebracht hat, daß man also tatsächlich die Sprachorgane so fühlt, wie man etwa den Hammer fühlen würde, wenn man irgend etwas mit dem Hammer machen wollte. Das kann man dann erreichen, wenn man ein wenig Sprachturnen übt.
Nicht wahr, wenn man Turnen übt, so sind das auch nicht Bewegungen, welche dann im wirklichen Leben ausgeübt werden, aber es sind Bewegungen, die einen geschmeidig, geschickt machen. Und so soll man auch die Sprachorgane geschmeidig, biegsam machen. So aber, daß dieses Geschmeidig-, Biegsammachen mit dem inneren Seelenleben zusammenhängt, so daß man fühlen lernt den Laut im Sagen. Ich habe in dem seminaristischen Kursus, den ich den Waldorflehrern in Stuttgart vor jetzt mehr als zwei Jahren gehalten habe, eine Reihe von solchen Sprachübungen zusammengestellt, die ich Ihnen hier auch mitteilen möchte. Sie sind nun so, daß sie zumeist durch ihren Inhalt nicht davon abhalten, rein in das Sprachelement sich hineinzuleben, sondern daß sie lediglich darauf ausgehen, ein Sprachturnen zu üben. Wenn man diese Sätze versucht, immer wieder und wiederum sich laut zu sagen, aber so zu sagen, daß man immer probiert: Wie machst du es am besten mit der Zunge, wie am besten mit den Lippen, daß du gerade diese Lautfolge herausbringst? —, dann macht man sich unabhängig von dem Sprechen selber, und dann kann man um so mehr auf das seelische Vorbereiten für das Sprechen Wert legen.
Ich werde Ihnen also eine Reihe von solchen, für das Inhaltliche Sprachorgane geschmeidig zum Reden zu gestalten.
Daß er dir log, uns darf es nicht loben
ist das Einfachste. Ein schon etwas Komplizierteres:
Nimm nicht Nonnen in nimmermüde Mühlen
Und man soll immer mehr versuchen, angemessen der Lautfolge die Sprachorgane zu geschmeidigen, zu biegen, zu hohlen, zu erhabenen. Ein anderes Beispiel:
Rate mir mehrere Rätsel nur richtig
Es genügt natürlich nicht, einmal oder zehnmal so etwas zu sagen, sondern immer wieder und wiederum. Denn wenn die Sprachorgane auch schon biegsam sind, sie können noch immer biegsamer werden.
Ein Beispiel, von dem ich glaube, daß es ganz besonders nützlich ist, ist das Folgende:
Redlich ratsam
Rüstet rühmlich
Riesig rächend
Ruhig rollend
Reuige Rosse
Dabei hat man auch zugleich die Gelegenheit, in den Zwischenpausen den Atem in Ordnung zu bringen, worauf man sehen muß, und was insbesondere durch solch eine Übung sehr gut gemacht werden kann.
In einer ähnlichen Weise — es haben nicht alle Buchstaben, nicht alle Laute den gleichen Wert für dieses Turnen — kommen Sie vorwärts, wenn Sie zum Beispiel das Folgende haben:
Protzig preist
Bäder brünstig
Polternd putzig
Bieder bastelnd
Puder patzend
Bergig brüstend
Wenn es Ihnen gelingt, nach und nach sich hineinzufinden in diese Lautfolge, so haben Sie viel davon.
Hat man solche Übungen gemacht, dann kann man auch versuchen, diejenigen Übungen zu machen, die dann notwendig darauf hinauslaufen, schon Stimmung hineinzubringen in das Sprechen der Laute. Ich habe ein Beispiel, wie das Lauten in die Stimmung hinein sich ergießen kann, versucht, in dem Folgenden zu geben:
Erfüllung geht
Durch Hoffnung
Geht durch Sehnen
Durch Wollen
und jetzt kommt es mehr ins Lauten hinein, wodurch gerade hier die Stimmung im Laut selber festgehalten wird:
Wollen weht
Im Webenden
Weht im Bebenden
Webt bebend
Webend bindend
Im Finden
Findend windend
Kündend
Sie werden immer sehen, wenn Sie gerade diese Übungen machen, wie Sie in der Lage sind, ohne daß Sie der Atem stört, den Atem zu regulieren, wenn Sie sich einfach an das Lauten halten. Man hat in der neueren Zeit allerlei mehr oder weniger pfiffige Methoden für das Atmen und für alles mögliche, was die Begleittatsachen sind des Sprechens und Singens, ausgedacht. Allein das alles sind eigentlich Nichtsnutzigkeiten, denn Sprechen soll mit allem, was dazugehört, auch mit dem Atmen, durchaus im Sprechen selbst gelernt werden. Das heißt, man soll lernen so zu sprechen, daß in den Notwendigkeiten, die die Lautfolge, die Wortzusammenhänge ergeben, auch der Atem sich wie selbstverständlich mitreguliert. Man soll also nur im Sprechen auch das Atmen beim Sprechen lernen. Es sollen also die Sprechübungen so sein, daß man, wenn man sie richtig fühlt dem Lauten nach, nicht dem Inhalte, sondern dem Lauten nach, genötigt ist, durch dieses Richtigfühlen des Lautens auch den Atem richtig zu gestalten.
Auf das Inhaltliche wiederum der Stimmung geht schon dasjenige, was nun der folgende Spruch ist. Er hat vier Zeilen. Diese vier Zeilen sind so angeordnet, daß sie gewissermaßen ein Aufstieg sind. Jede Zeile erregt eine Erwartung. Und die fünfte Zeile ist der Abschluß und bringt Erfüllung. Nun soll man sich bemühen, diese Sprechbewegung, die ich eben charakterisiert habe, wirklich auszuführen. Der Spruch heißt:
In den unermeßlich weiten Räumen,
In den endenlosen Zeiten,
In der Menschenseele Tiefen,
In der Weltenoffenbarung:
Suche des großen Rätsels Lösung
Da haben Sie die fünfte Zeile als die Erfüllung jener stufenweisen Erwartung, die in den vier ersten Zeilen angeschlagen ist.
Nun kann man auch versuchen, schon, ich möchte sagen, die Stimmung der Situation in das Lauten, in die Sprechart, in das Wie des Sprechens hineinzubringen. Und dazu habe ich folgende Übung geformt. Man stelle sich vor einen recht großen grünen Frosch, der vor einem sitzt mit offenem Mund. Also einen riesigen Frosch stelle man sich vor mit offenem Mund, dem man gegenübersteht. Und nun stelle man sich vor, was man für Affekte haben kann gegenüber diesem Frosch. In dem Affekt wird Humor drinnen sein, manches andere drinnen sein; das rufe man recht lebhaft in der Seele hervor. Dann spreche man diesen Frosch so an:
Lalle Lieder lieblich
Lipplicher Laffe
Lappiger lumpiger
Laichiger Lurch
Stellen Sie sich einmal vor: einen Acker, darüber gehe ein Pferd. Auf den Inhalt kommt es nicht an. Sie müssen sich natürlich jetzt vorstellen, daß die Pferde pfeifen! Nun sprechen Sie die Tatsache, die Sie hier haben, folgendermaßen aus:
Pfiffig pfeifen
Pfäffische Pferde
Pflegend Pflüge
Pferchend Pfirsiche
und dann variieren Sie das, indem Sie so sprechen:
Pfiffig pfeifen aus Näpfen
Pfäffische Pferde schlüpfend
flegend Pflüge hüpfend
Pferchend Pfirsiche knüpfend
Und dann - aber bitte, lernen Sie es auswendig, so daß Sie recht geläufig die eine und die andere Form hintereinander sagen können noch eine dritte Form. Lernen Sie alle drei auswendig, und versuchen Sie, sie so geläufig zu sprechen, daß Sie niemals die eine Form im Aussprechen der anderen beirrt. Darauf kommt es hier an. Als dritte Form nehmen Sie:
Kopfpfiffig pfeifen aus Näpfen
Napfpfäffische Pferde schlüpfend
Wipfend pflegend Pflüge hüpfend
Tipfend pferchend Pfirsiche knüpfend
Also das hintereinander, so daß man auswendig die drei Formen kann, so daß Sie niemals das eine in dem anderen stört.
Ein Ähnliches können Sie dann etwa mit den folgenden zwei Sprüchen machen:
Ketzer petzten jetzt kläglich
Letztlich leicht skeptisch
und nun die andere Form:
Ketzerkrächzer petzten jetzt kläglich
Letztlich plötzlich leicht skeptisch
Wiederum auswendig lernen und hintereinander sprechen!
Man kann die Sprache geschmeidig kriegen, wenn man etwa das Folgende übt:
Nur renn nimmer reuig
Gierig grinsend
Knoten knipsend
Pfänder knüpfend
Man muß sich gewöhnen, diese Lautfolge zu sagen: Nur renn.... Sie werden schon sehen, was Sie für Ihre Zunge, Ihre Sprachorgane haben, wenn Sie solche Übungen machen.
Nun eine etwas länger dauernde, eine solche Übung, wodurch dieses Geschmeidigwerden im Sprechen hervorgerufen werden kann - ich glaube, es haben ja hinterher schon Schauspieler gefunden, daß sie auf diese Weise am besten ihre Sprache geschmeidig machen -:
Zuwider zwingen zwar
Zweizweckige Zwacker zu wenig
Zwanzig Zwerge
Die sehnige Krebse
Sicher suchend schmausen
Daß schmatzende Schmachter
Schmiegsam schnellstens
Schnurrig schnalzen
Dann: Man braucht zuweilen Geistesgegenwart im unmittelbaren Sprechen. Man kann sie sich durch folgendes etwa ausbilden:
Klipp plapp plick glick
Klingt Klapperrichtig
Knatternd trappend
Rossegetrippel
Dann: zum weiteren Geistesgegenwärtigsein im Sprechen die folgenden zwei Beispiele, die zusammengestellt werden können:
Schlinge Schlange geschwinde
Gewundene Fundewecken weg
Da ist auch das «Wecken weg» drinnen. Dann aber dasselbe Motiv als Lautmotiv so:
Gewundene Fundewecken
Geschwinde schlinge Schlange weg
Dann zu dem Kräftigmachen der Sprache, daß man die Sprache so hat, daß man auch einmal einem eins in der Diskussion herunterhauen kann — so etwas ist schon in der Sprache nötig! -, das folgende Beispiel:
Marsch schmachtender
Klappriger Racker
Krackle plappernd linkisch
Flink von vorne fort
Dann wären für jemanden, der etwas stottert, die folgenden zwei Beispiele noch anzuführen:
Nimm mir nimmer
Was sich wässerig
Mit Teilen mitteilt
Es ist für jeden Stotterer gerade dieses Beispiel gut. Man kann es auch in der folgenden Weise dann sagen beim Stottern:
Nimmer nimm mir
Wässerige Wickel
Was sich schlecht mitteilt
Mit Teilen deiner Rede
Es kommt natürlich darauf an, daß sich der Stotterer Mühe gibt. Man soll durchaus nicht glauben, daß man das, was ich Redeturnen nennen möchte, nur an für den Verstand sinnvollen Sätzen üben kann oder auch nur üben soll. Denn an den für den Verstand sinnvollen Sätzen überwiegt zunächst unbewußt-instinktiv zu stark die Aufnerksamkeit für den Sinn, als daß wir richtig rechneten mit dem Lauten, mit dem Sagen. Und es ist schon notwendig, daß wir, wenn wir reden wollen, auch darauf Rücksicht nehmen, daß wir das Reden in einem gewissen Sinne losbringen von uns selber, wirklich losbringen von uns selber. Geradeso wie man die Schrift losbringen kann von sich selber, so kann man ja auch das Reden losbringen von sich selber.
Es gibt zweierlei Arten, zu schreiben bei einem Menschen. Die eine Art besteht darinnen, daß der Mensch egoistisch schreibt, daß er gewissermaßen die Buchstabenformen in seinen Gliedern hat und sie aus den Gliedern herausfließen läßt. Auf ein solches Schreiben hat man insbesondere eine Zeitlang — wahrscheinlich ist es auch jetzt noch der Fall - dann viel gesehen, wenn man für kaufmännisch Anzustellende oder ähnliche Leute Schreibunterricht gegeben hat. Ich habe zum Beispiel einmal beobachtet, wie ein solcher Schreibunterricht für kaufmännische Angestellte so erteilt worden ist, daß die Betreffenden jeden Buchstaben aus einer Art Kurve heraus entwickeln mußten. Sie mußten Schwingen lernen mit der Hand, dann das Schwingen zu Papier bringen, so daß alles in der Hand, in den Gliedern ist, und man eigentlich mit nichts anderem als mit der Hand dabei ist beim Schreiben. Eine andere Art, zu schreiben, ist die nichtegoistische, die selbstlose Art des Schreibens. Sie besteht darin, daß man eigentlich nicht mit der Hand, sondern mit dem Auge schreibt, also immer hinschaut und im Grunde genommen den Buchstaben zeichnet, so daß das im geringen Maße in Betracht kommt, was in der Gliederung der Hand liegt, daß man eigentlich ebenso verfährt wie beim Zeichnen, wo man also nicht eine Handschrift hat, deren Sklave man ist, sondern wo man nach und nach Mühe hat, selbst seinen Namen noch ebenso zu schreiben, wie man ihn sonst geschrieben hat. Den meisten Menschen ist es ja so furchtbar leicht, ihren Namen so zu schreiben, wie man ihn sonst geschrieben hat. Er kommt ihnen aus der Hand. Aber die Menschen, die etwas Künstlerisches in die Schrift hineinlegen, die schreiben mit dem Auge. Sie verfolgen die Strichführung mit dem Auge. Da sondert sich in der Tat die Schrift ab vom Menschen. Da kann dann der Mensch — obwohl es nicht wünschenswert ist in einer gewissen Beziehung, das zu praktizieren — Schriften nachahmen, in verschiedener Weise Schriften variieren. Ich sage nicht, daß man das besonders praktizieren soll, aber ich sage, daß es als ein Extrem herauskommt, wenn man die Schrift malt. Das ist das selbstlosere Schreiben. Das Schreiben heraus aus den Gliedern dagegen ist das selbstische, das egoistische.
Auch die Sprache ist bei den meisten Menschen egoistisch. Sie kommt einfach aus den Sprachorganen heraus. Sie können sich aber allmählich angewöhnen, Ihre Sprache so zu empfinden, als wenn sie eigentlich um Sie herumhauchte, als wenn die Worte um Sie herumflögen. Sie können wirklich eine Art Empfindung von Ihren Worten haben. Da sondert sich das Sprechen vom Menschen ab. Es wird objektiv. Der Mensch hört sich ganz instinktiv selber sprechen. Es wird gleichsam im Sprechen sein Kopf größer, und man fühlt um sich herum das Weben der Laute und der Worte. Man lernt allmählich hinhören auf die Laute, auf die Worte. Und das kann man eben gerade durch solche Übungen erreichen. Dadurch aber wird dann in der Tat nicht bloß hineingebrüllt in einen Raum - ich meine mit Brüllen jetzt nicht bloß laut schreien; man kann auch lispelnd brüllen, wenn man nur für sich selber eigentlich redet, so wie es aus den Sprachorganen herauskommt —, sondern man lebt im Sprechen wirklich mit dem Raum. Man fühlt gewissermaßen im Raume die Resonanz. Das ist bei gewissen Sprachtheorien — Sprachlehr- oder Sprachlerntheorien, wenn Sie wollen - in der neueren Zeit zum stammelnden Unfug geworden, indem man die Leute mit Körperresonanzen sprechen läßt, Bauchresonanzen, Nasenresonanzen und so weiter. Alle diese inneren Resonanzen sind aber eine Untugend. Eine wirkliche Resonanz kann nur eine erlebte sein. Die fühlt man aber dann nicht etwa in dem Anstoßen des Lautes ans Innere der Nase, sondern die fühlt man erst vor der Nase, außen. So daß tatsächlich die Sprache etwas bekommt vom Vollen. Voll werden soll überhaupt die Sprache des Redners. Der Redner soll möglichst wenig verschlucken.
Glauben Sie nicht, daß dies für den Redner unbedeutend ist, sondern es ist höchst bedeutend für den Redner. Denn ob wir in der richtigen Weise etwas an die Menschen heranbringen, das hängt durchaus davon ab, wie wir in der Lage sind, uns zur Sprache selbst zu verhalten. Man braucht ja nicht gleich soweit zu gehen wie ein mir einst befreundeter Schauspieler, der niemals Freunderl sagte, sondern immer Freunderl, weil er sich in jede Silbe hineinlegen wollte. Das tat er bis zum Extrem. Aber man soll schon die instinktive Begabung entwickeln, nicht Silben, nicht Silbenformen, nicht Silbengestaltungen zu verschlucken. Das kann man, wenn man versucht, in rhythmische Sprache sich so hineinzufinden, daß man sie sich vorsagt mit einem Hineinlegen in die ganze Lautgestaltung:
Und es wallet und siedet und brauset und zischt,
Wie wenn Wasser mit Feuer sich mengt...
Also: sich hineinlegen nicht nur in den Laut als solchen, sondern auch in die Lautgestaltung, in dieses Runden und Eckigen des Lautes.
Wenn jemand glaubt, er könne ein Redner werden, ohne auf dieses Wert zu legen, so lebt er in demselben Irrtum wie eine Menschenseele, die zwischen Tod und neuer Geburt an dem Punkte angekommen ist, auf die Erde herunterzusteigen und die sich nicht verleiblichen will, weil sie nicht eingehen will auf Gestaltungen des Magens, der Lunge, der Niere und so weiter. Es handelt sich durchaus darum, daß zum Reden alles herangezogen werden muß, was die Rede tatsächlich fertig gestaltet.
Man soll also auf den Organismus der Sprache und ihren Genius immerhin Wert legen. Man soll nicht vergessen, daß dieses Wertlegen auf den Organismus der Sprache, auf den Genius der Sprache bildschöpferisch ist. Wer sich nicht innerlich hörend mit der Sprache beschäftigt, dem kommen nicht Bilder, dem kommen nicht Gedanken, der bleibt ungelenk im Denken, und er wird ein Abstraktling im Sprechen, wenn nicht gar ein Pedant. Gerade an dem Erleben des Lautlichen, des Bildhaften in der Sprachformung selbst liegt etwas, was herauslockt aus unserer Seele auch die Gedanken, die wir brauchen, um sie vor die Zuhörer hinzutragen. Es liegt eben in dem Erleben des Wortes etwas Schöpferisches mit Bezug auf den inneren Menschen. Das sollte niemals außer acht gelassen werden. Das ist außerordentlich wichtig. Es sollte uns überhaupt durchaus die Empfindung beherrschen, wie das Wort, die Wortfolge, die Wortgestaltung, die Satzgestaltung, wie diese zusammenhängen mit unserer ganzen Organisation. Geradeso wie man aus der Physiognomie den Menschen gewissermaßen erraten kann, so kann man natürlich erst recht — ich meine jetzt nicht aus dem, was er uns sagt, sondern aus dem Wie der Sprache — den ganzen Menschen erfühlen aus dem Wie der Sprache.
Aber dieses Wie der Sprache kommt aus dem ganzen Menschen heraus. Und es handelt sich durchaus auch darum, daß wir, in leichter Weise natürlich, nicht indem wir uns so behandeln wie einen Patienten, sondern in leichter Weise, auch den physischen Leib ins Auge fassen. Es ist zum Beispiel für jemanden, der durch Erziehung oder vielleicht sogar durch Vererbung dazu veranlagt ist, pedantisch zu sprechen, gut, wenn er versucht, durch anregenden Tee, den er ab und zu zu sich nimmt, sich die Pedanterie abzugewöhnen. Diese Dinge müssen, wie gesagt, vorsichtig gemacht werden. Für den einen ist dieser Tee, für den anderen ein anderer Tee gut. Der gewöhnliche Tee, der ist ja, wie ich öfter erwähnt habe, eine sehr gute Diplomatenkost: weil die Diplomaten geistreich sein müssen, das heißt, unzusammenhängend eins hinter dem anderen plappern müssen, und das darf nur ja nicht pedantisch sein, sondern das muß die Leichtigkeit des Übergangs von einem Satz zum anderen aufweisen. Daher ist schon der 'Tee das Diplomatengetränk. Der Kaffee aber, der macht logisch. Daher schreiben Journalisten ihre Artikel, weil sie gewöhnlich von Natur aus nicht sehr logisch sind, sehr häufig in Kaffeehäusern. Jetzt, seit der Schreibmaschinenzeit, sind ja die Dinge etwas anders; aber früher konnte man in ganzen Trupps Journalisten in Kaffeehäusern antreffen, an der Schreibfeder knuspernd und Kaffee trinkend, damit ein Gedanke nun wirklich auch an den anderen sich anreihen konnte. Also, wenn man findet, daß man zuviel von dem Teeartigen hat, dann ist der Kaffee etwas, das ausgleichend wirken kann. Aber wie gesagt, das alles ist eben nicht ganz arzneimäßig gemeint, aber doch in der Richtung liegend. Und wenn zum Beispiel jemand veranlagt ist, irgendwelche störenden Laute in die Rede hineinzumischen — sagen wir, wenn jemand «he» sagt nach jeder dritten Silbe oder dergleichen, dann rate ich ihm, etwas schwachen Sennesblättertee zweimal in der Woche abends zu trinken, und er wird sehen, was das für eine günstige Wirkung ausübt.
Es ist schon so: Da die Dinge, die in der Rede, in der Sprache zum Ausdruck kommen, aus dem ganzen Menschen kommen müssen, darf da durchaus nicht die Diät vernachlässigt werden. Es ist das nicht bloß im groben der Fall. Natürlich hört man es der Rede an, wenn sie von einem Menschen kommt, der endlose Mengen Bier durch seine Kehle hat strömen lassen, oder dergleichen. Das ist im groben der Fall. Wer ein Ohr hat für das Sprechen, der weiß ganz gut, ob irgendein Sprecher ein Teetrinker oder ein Kaffeetrinker ist, ob er an Obstipationen oder am Gegenteil leidet. In der Sprache drückt sich alles mit einer absoluten Sicherheit aus, und auf all das muß durchaus Rücksicht genommen werden. Man wird allmählich instinktiv sich auf diese Dinge einlassen, wenn man so, wie ich es sagte, die Sprache in der Umgebung fühlt.
Allerdings, die verschiedenen Sprachen neigen in verschiedener Art, in verschiedenem Grade dazu, so in der Umgebung gehört zu werden. Eine Sprache wie die lateinische, die eignet sich besonders dazu, gehört zu werden. Das Italienische auch. Ich meine jetzt, vom Sprecher selbst als objektiv gehört zu werden. Wenig eignet sich zum Beispiel die englische Sprache dazu, weil diese als Sprache sehr ähnlich ist dem Schreiben, das aus den Gliedern heraus fließt. Je abstrakter die Sprachen werden, desto weniger eignen sie sich dazu, innerlich gehört zu werden, objektiv zu werden. Wie tönt noch in älteren Zeiten das deutsche Nibelungenlied:
Uns ist in alten maeren | wunders vil geseit |
von heleden lobebaeren, | von grôzer arebeit; |
von freude unt hôchgezîten, | von weinen unde klagen, |
von küener recken strîten | müget ir nu wunder hoeren sagen. |
Ez wuohs in Buregonden | ein vil edel magedîn, |
daz in allen landen | niht schoeners mohte sîn, |
Kriemhilt geheizen; | diu wart ein schoene wîp, |
Dar umbe muosen dëgene | vil verliesen dën lìp. |
Das hört sich, indem man spricht! An solchen Dingen muß man lernen, die Sprache zu empfinden. Natürlich, es werden die Sprachen im Laufe ihrer Entwickelung abstrakt. Man muß dann mehr von innen heraus das Konkrete hineinbringen, das Sinnenfällige hineinbringen. Abstrakt nebeneinandergestellt, was ist für ein Unterschied:
Uns ist in alten maeren | wunders vil geseit |
und
Uns wird in alten Märchen | Wunderbares viel erzählt |
und so weiter!
Es kann aber natürlich, wenn man sich an das Hören gewöhnt, dieses auch in die neuere Sprache hineingebracht werden, und da kann viel in der Sprache darauf hingewirkt werden, daß die Sprache wirklich etwas wird, was einen eigenen Genius hat. Aber es gehören eben solche Übungen dazu, um aufeinander einschnappen zu machen das Hören im Geiste und das Sprechen aus dem Geiste. Und da will ich denn noch einmal die eine Formel anführen:
Erfüllung geht
Durch Hoffnung
Geht durch Sehnen
Durch Wollen
Wollen weht
Im Webenden
Weht im Bebenden
Webt bebend
Webend bindend
Im Finden
Findend windend
Kündend.
Nur eben dadurch, daß man den einen Laut in verschiedene Zusammenhänge hineinstellt, kommt man zum Empfinden des Lautes, zur Metamorphose des Lautes und zum Anschauen des Wortes, zum Schauen des Wortes.
Wenn sich dann so etwas, wie ich es heute dargestellt habe im Dispositionenmachen durch Schlagsätze, als unsere innerlich seelische Vorbereitung mit dem vereinigt, was wir in dieser Weise aus der Sprache heraus gewinnen, dann geht es eben zu dem Reden hin.
Eines braucht man noch zu dem Reden außer all den Dingen, die ich schon erwähnt habe: Verantwortlichkeit! Das heißt, man soll fühlen, daß man kein Recht hat, alle seine Sprachungezogenheiten auskramen zu dürfen vor einem Publikum. Man soll fühlen lernen, daß man zum öffentlichen Auftreten Spracherziehung, ein Herausgehen aus sich selbst und ein Plastizieren in bezug auf die Sprache eben schon nötig hat. Verantwortlichkeit gegenüber der Sprache! Es ist ja bequem, dabei stehenzubleiben, zu sprechen, wie man eben spricht, und zu verschlucken, wieviel man gewohnt ist, zu verschlucken, zu quetschen und biegen und brechen und drücken und dehnen die Worte, wie es einem bequem ist. Aber man darf eben bei diesem Quetschen und Drücken und Dehnen und Ecken und Ähnlichem nicht stehenbleiben, sondern muß ’versuchen, auch in diesem Formalen seinem Reden zu Hilfe zu kommen. Man wird eben einfach, wenn man in dieser Weise seinem Reden zu Hilfe kommt, auch dazu geführt, mit einem gewissen Respekt vor dem Publikum zu sprechen, mit einer gewissen Scheu an das Sprechen heranzugehen, mit Respekt vor dem Publikum zu sprechen. Und das ist durchaus nötig. Das kann man, wenn man das Seelische auf der einen Seite ausarbeitet, und das mehr Physische, das ich heute im zweiten Teil der Auseinandersetzung gegeben habe, auf der anderen Seite. Auch wenn man nur Gelegenheitsreden zu halten hat, so kommen durchaus derlei Dinge stark in Betracht.
Sagen wir zum Beispiel, man hat den Bau, das Goetheanum, zu erörtern. Dann sollte man im Grunde genommen, weil man natürlich nicht zu jeder Erörterung eine Extravorbereitung machen kann, sich wenigstens zweimal in der Woche zu der entsprechenden Rede entsprechend vorbereiten, wie ich es auseinandergesetzt habe. Man sollte eigentlich nur aus dem Stegreif reden, wenn man gewissermaßen das Vorbereiten als eine ständige Übung übt.
Dann wird man auch finden, wie sich, ich möchte sagen, das Formale mit dem Inhaltlichen verbindet. Und gerade über diesen Punkt werden wir dann morgen nochmals zu sprechen haben: über die Verbindung der formalen Praxis mit der seelischen Praxis.
Der Kurs ist ja leider kurz; man kann kaum über die Einleitung hinauskommen. Aber ich würde es unverantwortlich finden, gerade dasjenige nicht gesagt zu haben, was ich im Verlaufe dieser Vorträge gesagt habe.
Fifth Lecture
I have attempted to characterize how one can form a threefold lecture from a thought and then also structure it. What I said included both general points that can be made about the entire social organism and references to what can occur in the first two members, namely in the discussion of spiritual life and in the discussion of the legal-state organism. You will have seen from this how one can proceed in preparing the content for such a lecture.
Now, one can also prepare for the how by immersing oneself in thoughts and feelings, and we will perhaps understand each other best if I say that the preparation for the how should be such that we strive to already feel and then also speak that relates to spiritual life in a more lyrical language — without, of course, falling into singing or reciting — in a lyrical language, with quiet enthusiasm, so that the way in which one presents things reveals that everything one has to say about spiritual life comes from within oneself. One should definitely convey the impression that one is enthusiastic about what one demands for the spiritual part of the social organism. Of course, it must not be false mystical, sentimental enthusiasm, not feigned enthusiasm. We achieve this when we first prepare ourselves, merely in our imagination, in our inner experience, down to the tone of voice, for how something like this could be said. I say explicitly: how something like this could be said — for the reason that we should never commit ourselves to specific words, but what we prepare is, in a sense, a speech that takes place only in our minds, and we are quite prepared to say what we then say in a different formulation.
But when we talk about legal relationships, we should try to speak dramatically. That means: when we talk about the equality of human beings, discussing this with examples, we should try to empathize with other people as much as possible. We should, for example, call to mind the idea of someone looking for work asserting their right to this work in the sense of the “Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage” (Key Points of the Social Question) . And then, in a sense, by pointing out on the one hand that we are speaking from the other person's perspective, from their legal claim, we should then point out how, by slightly changing the tone of our voice, we are moving on to how such a claim must be fulfilled for general human reasons. So dramatic speech, very strongly modulated dramatic speech, which evokes the feeling in the listeners that one can empathize with the souls of other people, that is what we should use when speaking about legal relationships.
And when speaking about economic conditions, it is mainly a matter of speaking from experience. When speaking about economic conditions in the sense of the threefold social organism, one should not give rise to the belief that such a thing as theoretical economics could even exist. Rather, one should confine oneself mainly to describing cases from economic life itself, whether they are cases that one describes or cases that one compiles, as they should or could be. But in the latter cases, such as how they should or could be, one should never neglect to speak from economic experience. When talking about economic life, one should actually speak epically. Especially when presenting what is written in the “Key Points of the Social Question,” one should speak as if one had no preconceived notions about economic life, as if one did not think that things should be this way or that way, but rather as if one were letting the facts speak for themselves.
One can certainly evoke a certain feeling that it is right, for example, to transfer capital management from someone who is no longer involved in it to someone who can be involved again. But one can only talk about such a thing if one presents it to people on the basis of descriptions of what happens when there are mere blood ties and what can happen when such a transfer takes place, as described in the “Key Points of the Social Question.” Only by presenting this to people in a very vivid way, as if copying reality, can one speak in such a way that the speech is truly embedded in economic life. And it is precisely in this way that one can make the idea of association understandable and plausible. One will make it plausible that the individual human being actually knows nothing about economic life, that he is basically completely dependent on communicating with others if he wants to come to a judgment about what is to happen in economic life, so that a real economic judgment can actually only ever emerge from groups of people and one is therefore dependent on associations.
One may then encounter understanding if one points out that much of what exists today has actually emerged from old instinctive associations. Just consider how today's abstract market brings together things whose convergence and redistribution to consumers cannot be fully grasped. But how did this market relationship come about in the first place? Basically, it arose from an instinctive association, in that a number of villages were located at such a distance from each other that it was possible to walk there and back in a day, and people exchanged their products there. This was not called an association. No one said a word about it, but in reality it was an instinctive association. The people who gathered here at the market were associated with all those who lived in the surrounding villages. They could count on a certain amount of sales, which was based on experience. Therefore, they could regulate production according to consumption in very lively contexts. In such primitive economies, associative relationships existed, but they were not expressed as such.
All this has become unmanageable with the expansion of economic territories, and has become particularly meaningless in relation to the global economy. The global economy, which only came into being in the last third of the 19th century, has reduced everything to the abstract, that is, in economic life to the mere turnover of money or monetary value, until this reduction has been taken to absurd extremes.
Isn't it true that when Japan went to war with China and Japan won the war, it was very easy to pay the war reparations by simply having the Chinese minister hand the Japanese envoy a check, which the Japanese envoy could then deposit in a bank in Japan. That is a real event. There were values in that check, which is money and monetary value. There were values in it. If you imagine that at that time everything would have had to be transferred from one territory to another, it would have been difficult under modern conditions. But because of the way Japan and China were positioned in the global economy, it was possible to do so. But that has led to absurdity. In trade between Germany and France, this has no longer proved possible. So I think it is best to discuss things from an economic perspective and then explain the necessity of the associative principle.
Then this material will have to be structured in a certain way, particularly with regard to economic life, and we will then have to move on to some concluding sentences, which, as I have already said, should be written word for word, or at least almost word for word.
So what does the preparation for a speech actually look like? Well, try to get into the situation or what the audience is prepared for by structuring the first sentences as you deem necessary. It will be more difficult with a completely unprepared audience, and less difficult when speaking to a group that is already familiar with the subject matter, at least in terms of the relevant sentiments and the demands being made. Then you will neither write down the rest of the speech nor will you write down mere slogans. Experience shows that writing out a speech word for word is just as unlikely to result in a good speech as writing down mere slogans. Writing it out word for word is not a good idea because it ties you down and can easily cause embarrassment if your memory falters, which is most likely to happen when the speech is written down word for word. Slogans very easily lead to the entire preparation being too abstract. On the other hand, what is best to write down and bring with you as a manuscript, if you need to stick to something like that, is a series of correctly formulated sentences as key phrases, which do not claim to be said as part of the speech, but which stand there: first, second, third, fourth, and so on, which provide extracts, so that one sentence might become ten or eight or twelve. But write down such sentences. So don't write down “spiritual life as independent,” but rather “Spiritual life can only flourish if it acts freely and independently.” So, key phrases. If you do this, you will find that such key phrases are the best way to achieve, in a relatively short time, a certain possibility of free speech, which only the ladder of key phrases can provide.
For the conclusion, it is often very good to return to the beginning in a certain way, at least quietly, so that the conclusion has something that was already contained in the beginning as a motif.
And then such striking phrases easily give you the opportunity to really prepare yourself, as indicated earlier, by writing down these striking phrases on your piece of paper. So, let's say you consider: what you have to say about intellectual life must have a kind of lyrical character in you; what you have to say about legal life must have a kind of dramatic character in you; what you have to say about economic life must have a narrative-epic character in you, a calm narrative-epic character. Then, in fact, the addiction will instinctively emerge a little, and the art of formulating the catchphrases in the way I have suggested will also emerge. The preparation will take place quite emotionally, so that the way one speaks will indeed grow into what one has to say in terms of content.
To do this, however, it is necessary to have brought what should be mastery of language to, I would say, the level of instinct, so that one actually feels the organs of speech in the same way as one would feel a hammer if one wanted to do something with it. This can be achieved by practicing a little speech gymnastics.
When you practice gymnastics, the movements you do are not the ones you will use in real life, but they are movements that make you supple and agile. In the same way, you should make your speech organs supple and flexible. But in such a way that this flexibility and suppleness is connected with the inner life of the soul, so that one learns to feel the sound in speech. In the seminar course I held for Waldorf teachers in Stuttgart more than two years ago, I compiled a series of such speech exercises, which I would like to share with you here. They are designed in such a way that their content does not distract from immersing oneself purely in the linguistic element, but rather that they are solely aimed at practicing speech exercises. If you try to say these sentences aloud again and again, but in such a way that you always try to find the best way to use your tongue and lips to produce this particular sequence of sounds, then you become independent of the speech itself, and you can place all the more emphasis on preparing yourself mentally for speaking.
I will therefore give you a series of such phrases to help you make your speech organs supple for speaking.
That he lied to you is not something we should praise.
That is the simplest. Here is something a little more complicated:
Do not take nuns into tireless mills
And one should always try more and more to make the speech organs supple, bend them, hollow them, and raise them in accordance with the sequence of sounds. Another example:
Guess several riddles correctly for me
Of course, it is not enough to say something like this once or ten times, but again and again. For even if the organs of speech are already flexible, they can still become more flexible.
An example that I believe is particularly useful is the following:
Honestly advisable
Equip gloriously
Huge revenge
Rolling calmly
Repentant horses
This also gives you the opportunity to catch your breath during the breaks, which is something you need to pay attention to and which can be done very well with this kind of exercise.
In a similar way — not all letters and sounds have the same value for this exercise — you will make progress if you have the following, for example:
Ostentatiously praising
Baths rutting
Noisy and cute
Boringly tinkering
Powder smearing
Mountainous boasting
If you manage to gradually find your way into this sequence of sounds, you will benefit greatly from it.
Once you have done exercises like these, you can also try the exercises that are necessary to bring mood into the pronunciation of the sounds. I have tried to give an example of how sounds can pour into the mood in the following:
Fulfillment comes
Through hope
Goes through longing
Through wanting
and now it comes more into the sound, which is where the mood is captured in the sound itself:
Wanting blows
In the weaving
Blows in the trembling
Weaves trembling
Weaving binding
In finding
Finding twisting
Announcing
When you do these exercises, you will always see how you are able to regulate your breath without it disturbing you, if you simply stick to the sounds. In recent times, all kinds of more or less clever methods have been devised for breathing and for all kinds of things that accompany speaking and singing. . But all of these are actually useless, because speaking, with everything that goes with it, including breathing, should be learned entirely through speaking itself. This means that one should learn to speak in such a way that, in the necessities that arise from the sequence of sounds and the connections between words, the breath also regulates itself as a matter of course. So one should only learn to breathe while speaking by speaking. The speech exercises should therefore be such that, when one feels them correctly according to the sound, not the content, but the sound, one is compelled to regulate one's breathing correctly through this correct feeling of the sound.
The following saying already addresses the content of the mood. It has four lines. These four lines are arranged in such a way that they are, in a sense, an ascent. Each line arouses an expectation. And the fifth line is the conclusion and brings fulfillment. Now one should endeavor to really carry out this speech movement that I have just characterized. The saying is:
In the immeasurably vast spaces,
In the endless times,
In the depths of the human soul,
In the revelation of the world:
Seek the solution to the great mystery
Here you have the fifth line as the fulfillment of the gradual expectation set forth in the first four lines.
Now you can also try to bring the mood of the situation into the sound, the way of speaking, the manner of speaking. And for this I have devised the following exercise. Imagine a rather large green frog sitting in front of you with its mouth open. So imagine a huge frog with its mouth open, facing you. And now imagine what feelings you might have towards this frog. Your feelings will include humor and many other things; evoke these feelings vividly in your soul. Then speak to this frog as follows:
Lalle Lieder lieblich
Lipplicher Laffe
Lappiger lumpiger
Laichiger Lurch
Imagine this: a field with a horse walking across it. The content is not important. Of course, you must now imagine that the horses are whistling! Now express the fact that you have here as follows:
Whistling whistles
Whistling horses
Caring plows
Penning peaches
and then vary it by saying:
Whistling whistles from bowls
Whistling horses slipping
Caring plows hopping
Penning peaches knotting
And then—but please, learn it by heart so that you can say one form after the other fluently, and even a third form. Learn all three by heart, and try to speak them so fluently that you never confuse one form with another when pronouncing them. That's what matters here. For the third form, take:
Whistling cleverly from bowls
Bowl-whistling horses slipping
Waving, tending, plows jumping
Tipfend pferchend Pfirsiche knüpfend
So, one after the other, so that you can memorize the three forms, so that you never confuse one with the other.
You can do something similar with the following two sayings:
Heretics now snitched pitifully
Ultimately slightly skeptical
and now the other form:
Heretic criers now snitched pitifully
Ultimately suddenly slightly skeptical
Again, memorize and recite them one after the other!
You can make the language sound smooth by practicing the following, for example:
Just run, never regret
Grinning greedily
Cutting knots
Tying pledges
You have to get used to saying this sequence of sounds: Just run.... You will see what you have for your tongue and your speech organs when you do exercises like this.
Now for a slightly longer exercise that can help you achieve this suppleness in speech—I believe that actors have found that this is the best way to make their speech more supple:
Zuwider zwingen zwar
Zweizweckige Zwacker zu wenig
Zwanzig Zwerge
Die sehnige Krebse
Sicher suchend schmausen
Daß schmatzende Schmachter
Schmiegsam schnellstens
Schnurrig schnalzen
Then: Sometimes you need presence of mind when speaking spontaneously. You can train yourself to do this with the following:
Klipp plapp plick glick
Sounds right
Clattering trapping
Horse tripping
Then: for further presence of mind when speaking, the following two examples, which can be combined:
Snake slither swiftly
Winding Fundewecken away
There is also the “Wecken weg” in there. But then the same motif as a sound motif like this:
Winding Fundewecken
Swiftly sling snake away
Then, to make the language powerful, so that you have the language to be able to knock someone down in a discussion—something like that is necessary in language!—the following example:
March languishing
Rattling rascal
Crackling babbling awkwardly
Quickly away from the front
Then, for someone who stutters a little, the following two examples could also be mentioned:
Never take from me
What is watery
Communicates with parts
This example is good for every stutterer. You can also say it in the following way when stuttering:
Never take me
Watery wraps
That communicate poorly
With parts of your speech
Of course, it is important that the stutterer makes an effort. One should not believe that what I would like to call speech gymnastics can or should only be practiced with sentences that make sense to the mind. For in sentences that make sense to the mind, the attention to meaning initially unconsciously and instinctively predominates too strongly for us to calculate correctly with the sounds, with the saying. And it is necessary that, when we want to speak, we also take into account that we must, in a certain sense, detach speech from ourselves, truly detach it from ourselves. Just as one can detach writing from oneself, one can also detach speech from oneself.
There are two ways of writing for a person. One way is that the person writes selfishly, that he has, so to speak, the letter forms in his limbs and lets them flow out of his limbs. One has seen a lot of this kind of writing, especially for a while — and it is probably still the case today — when teaching writing to commercial employees or similar people. For example, I once observed how such writing lessons were given to commercial employees in such a way that the students had to develop each letter from a kind of curve. They had to learn to swing their hands, then transfer the swing to paper, so that everything is in the hand, in the limbs, and you are actually writing with nothing but your hand. Another way of writing is the non-egoistic, selfless way of writing. It consists of writing not with the hand, but with the eye, always looking and basically drawing the letters, so that the structure of the hand is taken into account to a small extent, so that one actually proceeds in the same way as when drawing, where one does not have a handwriting of which one is a slave, but where one gradually has difficulty even writing one's own name as one has always written it. For most people, it is so terribly easy to write their name as they have always written it. It comes naturally to them. But people who put something artistic into their writing write with their eyes. They follow the strokes with their eyes. In this way, writing actually separates itself from the person. Then the person can — although it is not desirable to practice this in a certain respect — imitate writing, vary writing in different ways. I am not saying that one should practice this in particular, but I am saying that it comes out as an extreme when one paints writing. That is the more selfless form of writing. Writing that comes from the limbs, on the other hand, is the selfish, egotistical form.
Language is also selfish in most people. It simply comes out of the speech organs. But you can gradually get used to feeling your speech as if it were actually breathing around you, as if the words were flying around you. You can really have a kind of feeling for your words. Then speech separates itself from the person. It becomes objective. People instinctively hear themselves speak. Their heads become larger, as it were, when they speak, and they feel the weaving of sounds and words around them. They gradually learn to listen to the sounds, to the words. And you can achieve this precisely through such exercises. But then you are not just shouting into a room — and by shouting I don't just mean shouting loudly; you can also shout with a lisp if you are only really talking to yourself, as it comes out of your vocal organs — but you really live with the room when you speak. You feel the resonance in the room, so to speak. In recent times, this has become stammering nonsense in certain language theories — language teaching or language learning theories, if you like — by having people speak with body resonances, belly resonances, nose resonances, and so on. But all these internal resonances are a vice. Real resonance can only be experienced. However, you don't feel it when the sound hits the inside of your nose, but rather in front of your nose, on the outside. So that speech actually gets something from the fullness. The speaker's speech should be full. The speaker should swallow as little as possible.
Do not think that this is insignificant for the speaker; it is highly significant for the speaker. For whether we convey something to people in the right way depends entirely on how we are able to relate to language itself. You don't have to go as far as an actor who was once a friend of mine, who never said “Freunderl” but always “Freunderl,” because he wanted to put himself into every syllable. He did this to the extreme. But one should develop the instinctive ability not to swallow syllables, syllable forms, or syllable structures. This can be achieved by trying to find one's way into rhythmic language by reciting it to oneself, putting one's whole being into the sound structure:
And it billows and boils and roars and hisses,
As when water mixes with fire...
So: immerse yourself not only in the sound as such, but also in the sound formation, in the roundness and angularity of the sound.
If someone believes they can become an orator without attaching importance to this, they are living in the same error as a human soul who, between death and new birth, has arrived at the point of descending to earth and does not want to incarnate because they do not want to accept the formations of the stomach, the lungs, the kidneys, and so on. It is absolutely essential that everything that actually shapes speech be brought to bear on speech.
One should therefore attach importance to the organism of language and its genius. One should not forget that this attachment to the organism of language, to the genius of language, is creative. Those who do not engage with language by listening inwardly will not have images or thoughts; they will remain clumsy in their thinking and become abstract in their speech, if not pedantic. It is precisely in the experience of the sound and the imagery in the formation of language itself that there is something that draws out of our soul the thoughts we need to convey to our listeners. There is something creative in the experience of the word in relation to the inner human being. This should never be ignored. It is extremely important. We should be completely dominated by the feeling of how the word, the sequence of words, the formation of words, the formation of sentences, how these are connected with our entire organization. Just as one can, in a sense, guess a person's character from their physiognomy, so one can, of course, even more so — I do not mean from what they say to us, but from the way they speak — sense the whole person from the way they speak.
But this manner of speech comes from the whole person. And it is also important that we take the physical body into account, in a light-hearted way, of course, not by treating ourselves like patients, but in a light-hearted way. For example, for someone who is predisposed to speak pedantically due to their upbringing or perhaps even heredity, it is good if they try to break the habit of pedantry by drinking stimulating tea from time to time. As I said, these things must be done with caution. One type of tea is good for one person, another type of tea is good for another. Ordinary tea, as I have often mentioned, is a very good diplomat's food: because diplomats have to be witty, that is, they have to babble incoherently one thing after another, and this must not be pedantic, but must show the ease of transition from one sentence to another. That is why tea is the diplomat's drink. Coffee, on the other hand, makes you logical. That's why journalists, who are usually not very logical by nature, very often write their articles in coffee houses. Now, since the advent of typewriters, things are a little different, but in the past you could find whole groups of journalists in coffee houses, crunching on their quills and drinking coffee so that one thought could really follow another. So, if you find that you have too much of the tea-like stuff, then coffee is something that can have a balancing effect. But as I said, all this is not meant to be medicinal, but it is along those lines. And if, for example, someone has a tendency to mix disturbing sounds into their speech—say, if someone says “he” after every third syllable or something like that—then I advise them to drink some weak senna leaf tea twice a week in the evening, and they will see what a beneficial effect it has.
It is true that since the things that are expressed in speech and language must come from the whole person, diet must not be neglected. This is not only the case in general terms. Of course, you can hear it in someone's speech if they have consumed endless amounts of beer or similar beverages. That is the case in general terms. Anyone who has an ear for speech knows very well whether a speaker is a tea drinker or a coffee drinker, whether they suffer from constipation or the opposite. Everything is expressed with absolute certainty in language, and all of this must be taken into account. One gradually becomes instinctively attuned to these things when, as I said, one feels the language in one's surroundings.
However, different languages tend in different ways and to varying degrees to be heard in their surroundings. A language such as Latin is particularly suited to being heard. Italian too. I mean now, to be heard objectively by the speaker himself. The English language, for example, is less suitable for this because it is very similar to writing, which flows from the limbs. The more abstract languages become, the less suitable they are for being heard internally, for becoming objective. How the German Nibelungenlied still sounds in older times:
We have heard in ancient tales | many wonders told |
of heroes praised, | of great toil; |
of joy and high feasts, | of weeping and lamentation, |
of brave warriors' battles | you may now hear wonderful tales. |
There lived in Burgundy | a very noble maiden, |
who in all the lands | could not be more beautiful, |
Kriemhilt was called; | she grew into a beautiful woman, |
That is why many | lost their lives for her. |
That sounds like speaking! You have to learn to feel the language in such things. Of course, languages become abstract in the course of their development. You then have to bring in the concrete, the obvious, more from within. Juxtaposed abstractly, what is the difference:
In old tales | many wonders are told |
and
In old tales we are told | Many wonderful things |
and so on!
But of course, once you get used to listening, this can also be brought into the newer language, and much can be done in the language to ensure that it really becomes something with its own genius. But it takes exercises like these to bring together listening in the spirit and speaking from the spirit. And here I would like to quote the formula once again:
Fulfillment goes
Through hope
Goes through longing
Through wanting
Wanting blows
In the weaving
Blows in the trembling
Weaves trembling
Weaving binding
In finding
Finding, twisting
Announcing.
Only by placing a single sound in different contexts can one arrive at a feeling for the sound, at a metamorphosis of the sound, and at a viewing of the word, at a seeing of the word.
When something like what I have described today in the preparation of dispositions through striking sentences is united with our inner spiritual preparation with what we gain in this way from language, then it leads to speech.
In addition to all the things I have already mentioned, there is one more thing you need for speaking: responsibility! That means you should feel that you have no right to bring out all your linguistic bad habits in front of an audience. You should learn to feel that public speaking requires linguistic training, stepping outside yourself, and shaping your language. Responsibility toward language! It is convenient to stick with what you are used to, to speak the way you speak, and to swallow, squeeze, bend, break, press, and stretch words as you see fit. But one must not stop at squeezing and pressing and stretching and bending and the like, but must try to help one's speech in this formal way as well. When you help your speech in this way, you are simply led to speak with a certain respect for the audience, to approach speaking with a certain shyness, to speak with respect for the audience. And that is absolutely necessary. You can do that by working out the spiritual aspect on the one hand, and the more physical aspect, which I have given today in the second part of the discussion, on the other. Even if you only have to give occasional speeches, such things are definitely worth considering.
Let's say, for example, you have to discuss the building, the Goetheanum. Then, basically, because you can't make extra preparations for every discussion, you should prepare for the relevant speech at least twice a week, as I have explained. One should really only speak off the cuff if one practices preparation as a constant exercise, so to speak.
Then one will also find how, I would say, the formal connects with the content. And it is precisely this point that we will have to discuss again tomorrow: the connection between formal practice and spiritual practice.
Unfortunately, the course is short; it is hardly possible to get beyond the introduction. But I would find it irresponsible not to have said what I have said in the course of these lectures.