The Rudolf Steiner Archive

To give you, gentlemen, a more complete picture, I would like to take a closer look at what actually happens in the human body every day during certain processes. For one can only understand higher processes if one really recognizes certain lower processes. Therefore, today I would like to look again at the whole process of nutrition, both from the physical, material side and from the spiritual side.

We eat; when we eat, we first put the food in our mouths. We enjoy solid and liquid food, we take in air through breathing, through the lungs. So we enjoy solid and liquid food. But we can only use liquids in our bodies. Therefore, the solid food must be dissolved into a liquid in the mouth. This is done in the mouth. This can only be achieved in the mouth, on the palate, because small organs, known as glands, are found throughout the palate and in the oral cavity. These glands continuously produce saliva.

So you have to imagine that there are such small glands, for example, on the side of the tongue. These are small formations that are arranged in such a way that, when you look at them closely under the microscope, they look like small grapes; they are composed of cells in this way. These glands secrete saliva. The saliva dissolves the food and permeates it. The food must be salivated in the mouth, otherwise it is no good in the human organism.

Now, an activity is taking place – this salivating, this permeation of the food with saliva – and we perceive this activity, we grasp it in taste. We taste the food during the salivating through the sense of taste. Just as we perceive colors through the eye, we perceive the taste of the food through the sense of taste.

So we can say: the food is mixed with saliva in the mouth and tasted. Through taste, we become aware of the food. And through the mixing with saliva, the food is prepared so that it can be absorbed by the other body. But there must be a certain substance in the saliva of the mouth, otherwise food could not be prepared so that it is then suitable for the stomach. There must be a certain substance in it. This substance is actually present and is called ptyalin. So the ptyalin is expelled from the salivary glands in the mouth. And this ptyalin is the substance that first processes the food so that it can be used by the stomach.

Then, through the esophagus, through the throat, the food that has been salivated and processed by the ptyalin enters the stomach. In the stomach, they must be processed further. For this, there must be another substance in the stomach. This is secreted by the stomach, produced. Just as saliva with ptyalin is produced in the mouth, so too is a kind of saliva produced in the stomach. Only this gastric saliva already contains a slightly different substance. The gastric saliva once again coats the food in the stomach. So we can say that instead of ptyalin, the stomach contains pepsin.

Now, you see, in the stomach of an adult human being, and even in that of a seven-year-old child, no more taste develops. But the baby still tastes the food in the stomach just as the adult tastes the food in the mouth. So you have to go to the soul of the infant if you want to see through the human being. The adult, at most, gets an idea of this taste in the stomach when the stomach is already a bit ruined and the story from the stomach goes down instead of up. Then a person already gets an idea that there is a taste in the stomach. I assume that at least some of you have already gone through this, that something that has already been in the stomach comes back up into the mouth, and they will know that it really tastes worse than anything or at least most of the things you eat. And what would taste like what comes back from the stomach, you would certainly not find extraordinarily tasty. You don't eat things that would taste like what comes back from the stomach. But the taste that is in the chyme that comes back must have formed. It forms in the stomach. Right, in the mouth the food is only pepticized; in the stomach it is enteropepticized. And the consequence of that is that it tastes different. Taste is a very complicated thing.

Suppose you are very sensitive and you drink water. In general, if it is not contaminated water, it will not taste bad. But if you let a lot of sugar melt on your tongue, and your tongue is attuned to it, you may find that the water tastes sour. Taste is a very individual thing. But the way an adult experiences it is not formed in the mouth, but in the stomach. Of course, a child does not feel or think yet, so it does not know taste in the same way that an adult knows the taste of something in their mouth. Therefore, the child must be given foods that do not taste too bad in the stomach. And that is precisely the mother's milk or milk in general, because the child is related to the milk, and it does not get a taste that is too bad in the stomach. It is born out of the body that can produce milk. So the child feels related to the milk. Therefore, the milk does not taste bad to it. However, if the child were to receive other foods too early, it would find them disgusting. Adults no longer do this because their taste has become coarser. But the child would find it disgusting because it is not related to them, because they are external foods.

Now, you see, from the stomach, after the food has been mixed with saliva in the stomach with the pepsin, the food goes into the intestines, into the small intestine, large intestine and so on, and the food pulp spreads out in the intestines.

I can write here by the stomach: childish taste.

If the chyme were to spread and nothing were to happen to it, it would become a hard, stony mass in the intestines and would destroy the person. But something else is done to this chyme.

What is done there is done first by a gland. In the mouth we have glands, in the stomach glands, and now there is a large gland behind the stomach. So when the stomach is there, behind the stomach, if you look at the human being from the front, there is a fairly large gland, and in front of this gland is the stomach. So this gland is behind the stomach. And this gland, which is called the pancreas, now in turn secretes a kind of saliva, and the saliva goes through fine channels into the intestines. So that the food is mixed with saliva a third time in the intestines. And the substance that is secreted in this pancreas is even transformed in the human being. First, the pancreas secretes it. There it is almost like the pepsin of the stomach. But then, on its way into the intestines, it changes. It becomes sharper. The food must now be treated more sharply than before. And this sharper kind of salivary substance secreted by the pancreas is called trypsin. So, we have the pancreas as the third. It secretes trypsin – at least it secretes something that becomes the pungent juice of trypsin in the intestines. This means that the chyme is secreted a third time. So something new happens to it again.

This can no longer be perceived by the consciousness of the human being in the head, as I told you last time, but what arises from the chyme is now perceived, tasted or felt by the liver and thought by the kidneys. So everything that happens in the intestines is thought by the kidneys and perceived by the liver. There is therefore a soul in the kidneys and liver, and it perceives in the same way as a person perceives through the head. Only he knows nothing about it. At most, as I told you last time, when he dreams; then the story comes to consciousness in a pictorial form. The way the chyme winds its way through the intestines like a snake, always mixing with the trypsin, has a stimulating effect, and in the dream the person perceives it as snakes. So what the person perceives is a transposition into an unclear, unclear soul life.

Now, the liver perceives the story with the ptyalin, pepsin, trypsin – I have to say it that way because, unfortunately, science has given things such awful names. And if you are already being received quite unpleasantly by science if one wants to explain things clearly, then science would be turned upside down if one wanted to give things new names; one could do it, but in order to avoid turning science upside down unnecessarily, one does not do it, continues to use the old names ptyalin, pepsin, trypsin. So it is the case that the substances are now being secreted by the saliva for the third time. And this is based on liver feeling (see diagram on page 104).

What this has to do with the liver feeling, gentlemen, you can understand by remembering what it is like – if you have ever done it – to bring a very sharp onion to your nose. Right, the tears come. If you bring horseradish to your nose, the tears come too. Why is that? It is because the horseradish or the onion acts on the lacrimal glands, and the lacrimal glands then secrete bitter tears. Yes, you see, gentlemen, the chyme that passes through the intestines is about the same as the onion or horseradish, and the liver secretes bile just as the eyes secrete tears. The onion must be perceived if it is to produce tears; it must be felt. So the liver feels this chyme and secretes bile, which is added to it. This is the fourth.

Now, after the mouth has worked through the ptyalin, the stomach through the pepsin, and the pancreas through the trypsin, the bile is added to the chyme in the intestines by the liver. And only then does thinking come through the kidneys.

When the chyme has been prepared in this way, with saliva four times, it then passes through the intestinal walls into the lymphatic vessels and from there into the blood. So we can say that an extraordinarily complicated life process takes place in the human body. From the mouth to the blood, the chyme is constantly being transformed so that it can be digested in the right way, not only by the stomach but by the whole human body.

But now this is done in a different way. You can tell yourself, if you think about it, gentlemen, if you were to do all of this in a chemical laboratory, even if you were a very clever professor, you would not be able to do it if you first had to chew the food with your mouth saliva, then with your stomach saliva, then with your intestinal saliva and finally with your bile! All this happens inside you, you do it all the time every day. But if you were to do it in a laboratory, you wouldn't be able to. Although people have brains, what happens in their stomachs in an understandable way is much more intelligent than people on earth are. And it is a very wise, very intelligent process that takes place there. You can't easily imitate it.

But you will have even more respect for this process when I describe its details. What does a person eat? A person eats plant substances, animal substances, mineral substances, and thus he gets very different substances into his mouth and his stomach and his intestines, which have to be converted, changed by the saliva.

Imagine you are eating potatoes. What does a potato consist of? The potato consists mainly of what you have in starch. You also know that starch is prepared from potatoes. So you actually eat starch when you eat potatoes. That is one of the first things you eat; we eat starch. There are many starch-like things. The potato consists almost entirely of starch, only interspersed with a few liquids, namely water. And that is why the potato looks the way it does – because it is alive, not dead. The potato is actually living starch. But that is why, as I have told you, it has to be killed. So there it is, pure starch. There is starch in all plants; whatever you eat from the plant kingdom – it contains starch.

What else do you eat? Whether you take it from the plant kingdom or from the animal kingdom, you eat protein. You eat protein in the ordinary egg; there you have it as it is, only slightly killed. But you eat protein that is added to muscle meat or plants. You actually eat protein all the time. So the second is protein and protein-like substances.

And the third thing you eat, which is different from starch and protein, is fat. Fats are different substances from starch and protein. There are fewer fats in plants than in animals. There are so-called vegetable fats. Man needs fats either from the vegetable or from the animal kingdom if he is to nourish himself properly. So fats are the third thing in what man takes in as food.

And fourthly, there are the salts. Man must always either eat food that naturally has enough salts or at least contains salts, or you know, people put a salt shaker on the table, and depending on the situation, they take the salt out of the salt shaker either with their fingers or with the small horn spoon or with the tip of a knife and add it to the soup or to the other food. This is eaten. We need this. It is the fourth thing that is eaten; I have to write salts because there are different salts.

All of this enters the intestines, and all of it is changed in the intestines.

Now, gentlemen, what comes out of all this? The fact that the food is well prepared by the saliva of the mouth and the saliva of the stomach means that it can be mixed with saliva in the intestines for a third time, and it does not harden, but it transforms, it becomes something else.

What does starch become? Starch becomes sugar. So when you eat starch, your stomach converts it into sugar. We don't need to eat sugar if we have it in us, for the simple reason that we make it ourselves if we produce enough of it. But it is the case with humans that they cannot make everything, even though human nature is very capable. And so it develops too little sugar, and in some people even far too little sugar. And then extra sugar has to be added to the food, or it is added so that what would otherwise be prepared by the intestines in normal life actually enters the intestines already prepared. And the intestines make sugar out of starch. This is a great skill.

One more thing: you know that people with weak stomachs do better when they eat soft-center eggs than when they eat very hard eggs. And what's more, if the eggs have already gone a bit stinky, they go bad even more quickly. The egg white is a good food, but if we put it into the intestines in a stinky state, this egg white would also go stinky and unusable in us. We cannot use the protein in our intestines as it is out there. This protein must also be converted, and above all, it must be dissolved. If you put it in water, it will not dissolve. Something completely different must be present for it to dissolve. And trypsin dissolves protein particularly well. So protein is converted into liquid protein.

And while liquid protein is being formed, something else is formed in the human organism; through the action of this intestinal saliva of the pancreas, something else is formed. As much fun as it is, alcohol is formed. Man develops alcohol within himself. You don't need to drink any alcohol at all; you have a source of alcohol within yourself. Alcohol is formed in the intestines. And when people become drunkards, it is only because their liver becomes too greedy. It is not satisfied with the alcohol that is produced in the intestines; it demands more alcohol, and that is how people become drunkards.

You see, people who knew this even cited it as a reason for drinking wine and beer. They said: There are those who are anti-alcoholic; but a person cannot be anti-alcoholic because he makes alcohol in his own intestines. — Well, but that does not, of course, justify the fact that you have to become a drunkard and drink too much alcohol. Because if you now drink too much alcohol, that is, give in to the liver in its greed for alcohol, then it becomes sick, then it degenerates through it all, proliferates. The liver must be active. The liver enlarges and the small glands become bloated. And when the liver has to work to produce bile, it does not produce proper bile. The chyme is not properly permeated with bile in the intestines. It enters the lymph vessels and blood vessels as improper chyme. This enters the heart and also attacks the heart. That is why people who drink too much beer have a diseased liver, one that looks very different from those who drink little or even those who limit themselves to the little alcohol in the human intestines, which in itself is actually enough. The degenerated liver and the degenerated heart are a result of excessive alcohol consumption. Hence the beer heart that a large number of the Munich population have. But the liver is also always degenerate. You see, you understand the degeneration and the various diseases when you look in this way at the various stages of the chyme in the organism.

Now I have told you what happens when the egg white is liquefied. Alcohol penetrates into the protein and prevents it from becoming stinky. You know that when you want to store something alive, you also store it in alcohol, because alcohol, as they say, preserves the thing. It can sustain itself. The protein can also sustain itself in the organism by being placed in alcohol by the organism itself. This is extraordinarily clever.

But the processes that take place are so delicate that a human being could not do all this. If, let us say, he wants to preserve some human limb or a small organism, to preserve a small creature, he puts it in alcohol and displays it in his scientific cabinet. But trypsin does this in a much more delicate and ingenious way in the human intestine; it breaks down alcohol and converts the protein into alcohol.

And what happens to the fats? Yes, gentlemen, the fats go into the intestines and are converted again by what is secreted by the pancreas, in combination with the bile. And two substances are formed from the fat. One of these substances is glycerine. You know glycerine from the outside, but you produce it inside yourself every day. The other substance is acid. So fats are broken down into glycerol and acids, all kinds of fatty acids.

And only the salts that remain similar remain unchanged; at most they are dissolved so that they are made easier to digest. But they actually remain as they are absorbed. So the salts remain salts (see diagram on page 106).

So, with the corresponding foods, we eat starchy substances, protein-like substances, fatty substances and salt substances. And after we have digested, instead of starch and protein and fat, we have inside us: sugar, dissolved, liquid protein, glycerine, acids and salts.

And what happens to what we have eaten? We have something completely different inside us than what we ate. We have truly transformed the story.

You see, there was a doctor here in Switzerland a few centuries ago – but he travelled a lot – whom science today rather despises, but who still had an idea of all these processes. That was Paracelsus. He was a professor in Basel. But the guys threw him out because he knew more than they did. He is still generally reviled today. He fell off a rock and smashed his head, despite being a very clever person. He spent the last years of his life in Salzburg. He was a doctor. If he had been an honorable citizen, a city councilor of Salzburg, as they say today, they would have remembered him fondly. But he was a person who knew more than the others. And so they said: He was a drunkard, was drunk and fell over the rock. - Well, that is the way of the world. So he knew something about the world and always pointed out in a strong way how there is a transforming power inside man. But that has been forgotten for centuries since that time.

And what happens to all that is inside? Here science again succumbs to a great illusion. You see, science says: All that is now being produced as sugar, liquid protein, alcohol, glycerine, fatty acids and salts, all that goes into the blood vessels and from there into the heart, and from the heart it is driven through the blood vessels into the rest of the organism. Of course, I would like to say, with the thickest that is still there – everything is liquid, but even among liquids there are thick liquids – but with the thickest that is still there, it can be so, and it is so: it passes into the veins and from there supplies the body. But, gentlemen, haven't you noticed that when there was a glass of water and you put sugar in the glass and then drank it, that it is not only sweet at the bottom where the sugar was? The whole glass of water is sweet, isn't it! The sugar, when it is liquefied, dissolves in all the water. And the same goes for salt. In that glass of water in there, there are no veins for the sugar or salt to enter from all sides, but it is absorbed.

Now, some time ago I told you that a human being actually consists of 90 percent water, or at least fluid. It is living water, but it is water. Now, do the substances that are there all need the veins to pass into the whole body? When sugar is made in the intestines, does it first need the veins to pass into the whole body? Man consists of water so that the sugar can spread through him.

Yes, people have said: If a person becomes a drunkard, then all the alcohol a person consumes goes through the intestines to the heart and from there to the entire body.

So we can say: the chyme, which now consists of sugar, liquid protein, glycerine, acids, salts, passes into the whole body; only the thickest part passes through the veins into the whole body. And so it happens that salts are deposited in the head, that salts are deposited in all the other organs, which do not pass through the Blur at all, but go directly into these organs.

Now, you see, if it were the case that a person would constantly feel all the salt that is deposited in his head, then he would have a constant headache. Too much salt in the head gives headaches. Perhaps you have heard of migraine. I have spoken about it here before. One can explain things differently at different levels. What is migraine? Migraine consists of the fact that this whole distribution is out of order and too much salt, namely uric acid salts, is deposited in the head. Instead of the uric acid salts being excreted in the urine, they remain in the head during a migraine because the other foods are not properly prepared and retain the salts. Migraine is not such a noble disease at all, although it is usually noble people who suffer from it. Migraine is a very nasty disease. That which should be secreted in the urine remains on the right side of the head because it is already deteriorating in the stomach. So that which works on the left side of the organism works on the right side of the head. I will show why this is so in the near future.

And so it happens that the story, which should actually go out through the urine, is deposited on the right side of the head.

How much salt can a person take? Well, remember what I told you before. Remember that I said: the brain water is in the head. The mere fact that the brain water is inside makes the brain so light that it can exist in the human being at all. Because a body that is simply in the air has a certain heaviness, a certain weight. But when we put it in water, it becomes lighter. If that were not the case, one could not swim. And you see, the brain, if it were not in water, would weigh about 1500 grams. I have told you this before: because the brain floats in water, it weighs only 20 grams. That's how much lighter it is; 20 grams is the only thing it weighs! But the more salts that are deposited in the brain, the heavier it becomes, because the salts increase the weight of the brain. It then becomes just too heavy due to the salts.

Now we can say: In humans, when salts are deposited in the brain, the salt is made lighter – the whole brain is made lighter (by the buoyancy). But now think about how this is different in humans than in animals. You have to imagine that the human being has his head set on top of his whole organism. There the head has a proper supporting surface. It is different with animals. The head does not have this supporting surface; instead, the head is directed purely forward. What follows from this? Well, in humans, the pressure exerted by the head, although it is very light, is absorbed by the body. In animals, it is not absorbed by the body. You see, this is the main difference between humans and animals.

Naturalists are always pondering how man has developed from animals. It is all very well to think like that, but you can't look at man that way. You can't say: the animal has so and so many bones, and man has just as many bones. The monkey has so and so many bones, and man has just as many. So it's all the same. You can't say that. In the case of the ape, the head still hangs over at the front, however upright it walks, even if it is an orangutan or a gorilla. Man is already designed so that the head sits on the body, so that the entire pressure is absorbed by the body. What happens there?

Well, something very peculiar happens. We have sugar, liquid protein, glycerine, acids, salts in us. The salts go from the stomach up to the head and are deposited there, and then have to go back again, going back through the body if there are too many of them. But with regard to the other substances, something else has to happen in the body. And there, while the substances are going up, a new transformation takes place. This happens simply because the body intercepts the force of gravity. Some of the substances become lighter and lighter, while another part settles as a thick substance. Just as when you dissolve something, a sediment also settles; so, as it were, sediment forms everywhere on the way from the stomach to the head; the finest parts go up and are converted by this gravity, which has been made lighter. And what is created when the lightest parts of the food, which go up to the head, are converted? A kind of phosphorus is created from the food. And it is actually the case that a kind of phosphorus is produced from the food, so that the food does not simply penetrate into the head. A lot of it penetrates up, sugar, glycerine and so on, all kinds of things penetrate up, but some of it is converted into phosphorus before it comes up.

You see, gentlemen, in our heads we have salts that have been absorbed almost unchanged from the outside world, and we have phosphorus that has been spread out in a finely dispersed state, actually much finer than air. And these are the main substances found in the human head: salts and phosphorus. The others are only there so that he can survive as a living being. But the most important ones are salts and phosphorus. So we can say: in the human head, the most important things are salt and phosphorus.

Now, in a way that I will show you in a moment, it can be demonstrated that if a person does not have the right amount of salt in his head, he cannot think properly. You have to have the right amount of salt in your head so that you can think properly. Salt in the head is what you have to use to think. This is in addition to what I have already told you about thinking. Things in man are just complicated.

And if we simply have too much phosphorus in us, that is, eat too fiery foods, then we become a terrible fidget who wants to attack everything, who always wants to want. Because we have phosphorus, the will is there. And if we have too much phosphorus, then this will starts to fidget. And if the organism is such that it sends too much phosphorus up into the head through its entire composition, then the person not only starts fidgeting and, as they say, fidgets around nervously in the world – this has nothing to do with nerves, but with phosphorus – but he starts raging and becomes a madman, becomes raving mad. We need a little phosphorus in us so that we can want anything at all. But if we create too much phosphorus in ourselves, we go mad.

Now gentlemen, just think about it, when someone gives you salt, how you make it think. I would advise you to take a salt shaker and try to make it think! You do it all the time; in your mind you do use salt to think. And then, please rub off a little phosphorus from a match, rub it off a little so that it becomes very fine, then light it at the bottom and try to burn it. It should now want to burn, that is, it should evaporate, but it doesn't want to! But you do this to yourself all the time. Do you not now say to yourself that there is something in you that is truly more intelligent than our stupid head, which can do very little, which cannot turn salt into a thinking being or phosphorus into a volitional being? And that is the part of us that can be called the soul-spiritual. That is the living, weaving, what can be called the soul-spiritual. It is in there inside of us, uses the salt in the head for thinking, and uses the phosphorus, which rises like a smoke, very fine, to will.

In this way, one passes from the physical to the soul and into the spiritual if one observes correctly. But what does today's science do? It stops at the belly. At most, it knows that sugar and so forth are produced in the belly; but afterwards it loses track of things as they spread out further, and knows nothing of what happens next. That is why science cannot tell us anything about the soul and spirit. This science must be supplemented and expanded. We must not limit ourselves to the stomach and think of the head only as something that is put on. But one does not see how salts and phosphor have come up. One believes that it is the same in the head as in the stomach. The whole thing depends on the fact that today's science only knows something about the stomach, but only that something arises there, but does not know that the liver perceives and the kidneys think. It does not know that either. It does not know that because it does not know anything about the head either. So it does not look for it there, and considers what is on the dissecting table to be the complete liver. But it is not the complete liver, because the soul has lost it when it was in the state in which it was simply cut out of the body. As long as the soul is inside, you cannot cut it out of the body. So you see that a serious science must continue where today's science must stop. That is what matters. That is why we built the Goetheanum here, so that science does not just know something incomplete about the gut, but can explain something about the whole body. Then it will also be a real science.

Now, gentlemen, in order to understand the human being even better than we already do, let us also look at the earth for once. When people on earth come together, the life of the human being as a physical human life cannot really be considered in isolation; rather, one must also consider the earth.

When you visit a natural history museum, you sometimes find the remains of animals and plants that lived on earth a long time ago. You can imagine, of course, that all kinds of things happen in the earth until these old animals and plants are destroyed in a certain respect. You can also consider that, for example, of certain animals in the earth, only bones are preserved at most, whereas the muscles, soft tissues, heart and other vessels are lost or destroyed very quickly. Therefore, only the fossilized bones, that is, the bones that fill with other material after the death of the animals , that is, when mud gets into them, that therefore only these hardenings, these petrifications, can be found, dug up, and that, so to speak, from what one has there, which is mostly only bone remains, one has to form an idea of what the Earth once looked like. Because you can also imagine that today's conditions on Earth could not have existed at the time when completely different animals and plants lived, because otherwise today's would not have emerged. So the Earth must have looked quite different at one time. You will be able to deduce that from what I am telling you today.

You see, around 1810, a naturalist named Cuvier, who lived in the first half of the 19th century, was said to be able to visualize what the whole animal looked like when he was given a bone. If you really study the shape of the bones, for example if you only have a single forearm bone, you can get an idea of what the whole thing must have looked like, because every single bone shape changes immediately when the whole body changes. So even from the individual bones, one can determine what the whole body looked like. Apart from the fact that we sometimes have whole skeletons of animals that once lived on earth, we have such individual bones, and one can get an idea from them of what the earth must have looked like.

I will now begin to describe a state of the earth that existed on earth in very early times, many thousands of years ago. I will describe this state to you in narrative form. We will get to know the details more precisely later, but now I will simply tell you how it once looked on the earth that we walk on today. You all know it in its present state.

That was the case. Imagine the earth, I will draw a piece of it here (see drawing); but this earth did not yet have such solid mountains as it has today, but this earth was actually like the outermost surface of the earth is when it has rained for weeks on end, yes, much more muddy. So the surface of the earth was not as solid as it is today, but it was much more muddy. If there had been people of today's kind back then, they would have either had to swim – but then they would have been constantly in the mud, that is, terribly dirty – or they would have had to constantly sink. So people in their present form did not yet exist at that time. It was a muddy, very muddy earth, and all sorts of things were in the muddy earth.

If you go out there today and pick up a stone, a stone like the one Mr. Erbsmehl once brought, or if you go deeper into Switzerland and take even harder stones, you have to imagine that they were all dissolved in the muddy earth at that time, like when you dissolve salt in water. Because in this muddy soil were all kinds of acids that dissolved everything. So, in short, it was a very strange mud that made up this soil. And above this soil, there was not yet an air like today's, not an air that only contained oxygen and nitrogen, but one in which all kinds of acids were in a gaseous state. Even sulfuric acid was in it, sulfuric acid vapors and nitric acid vapors; that was all in this air. From this you can already see that man in his present form could not have lived there. Of course, these vapors were weak, but they were in this air. And this air also had the peculiarity that it was roughly the same as if you were to slip into an old oven today and feel the warmth that is being prepared for baking bread around you. So it would have been a bit uncomfortable for today's people if they had been inside this air, which also smelled of sulfuric acid and was quite warm.

But there was another air above that. It was a bit warmer than the air below and it formed clouds. These clouds that were formed there, they kept producing lightning and huge thunder because they also contained all kinds of sulfuric acid and nitric acid and all kinds of other substances. So it kept flashing with huge lightning. That was approximately the area around the earth.

I would like to call what was up there, because it was an awfully warm air, fire-air, because we have names. It was not glowing – that is only a false idea of today's science – it was not glowing, it was not warmer than such an oven. Such a fire temperature was up there; it then became a little cooler the further down you came. So I would just like to call this air up there fire air, and what was down there, earth mud.

This gives us a rough idea of what the earth was like in the beginning. Below was a greenish-brownish mud, which sometimes became as thick as a horse's hoof, but then it dissolved again. What is winter today was back then when the mud became so thick, almost like a horse's hoof, it solidified. And in summer, when the sun shone from the outside, it dissolved again and became liquid mud. And up there was just that warm air, which contained all sorts of things that later fell out. It was only later that the air cleared.

Now, another state has arisen from this state, in which very strange animals lived. So you see, all kinds of animals lived up there in the fire air. They looked like this: they had a scaly tail, but it was flat, so that the tail served them well for flying in the fire air. And then they had wings like a bat, and a head like that too. And they flew around up there in the air when the fire air no longer had such harmful vapors in it. These animals were particularly well suited for this – of course, when the storms were particularly severe, when there was terrible thunder and lightning, then they also felt uncomfortable; but when things became gentler, when there was just a little crackling up there and a soft lightning, they liked to live in this lightning, in this soft flashing. They flew around and were even capable of spreading something like an electrical emanation around them and sending it further down to earth. So that if a person had been down there, he would even have noticed from these electrical radiations: there is a flock of birds up there again. They were small dragon birds that spread electrical radiations around them and actually had their existence in the fire air in there.

You see, these birds, these dragon birds that were there, they were really very, very finely organized. They had very fine senses. The eagles and vultures that later emerged from them, after these guys had transformed, only retained the strong eyes from what these old guys had. But these guys sensed everything, especially with their bat-like wings, which were terribly sensitive, almost as sensitive as our eyes. With these wings they could perceive; they sensed everything that was going on. So, for example, when the moon was shining, they had such a sense of well-being in their wings that they moved their wings; just as a dog wags its tail when it is happy, so these guys moved their wings. They felt good in the moonlight. They roamed around and particularly liked making little fire clouds around themselves, as only the fireflies in the grass have preserved today. When the moon shone, they were up there like glowing clouds. And if there had been people back then, they would have seen such flocks of glowing balls and glowing clouds up there.

And when the sun shone – yes, back then it was the case that they then lost the desire to spread luminous bodies! They withdrew more into themselves, and then they actually processed what they had absorbed from the air – all the substances that they absorbed were still dissolved in the air. They nourished themselves by absorbing. They then digested this in the sun. They were just strange creatures. And they were once really present in the fire air of the earth.

If you now go further back in time, to the point where the earth started to form mud, you will find animals that are characterized by the fact that they were of gigantic size, gigantic... (gap in the text), when you consider these animals that once lived on the earth, half swimming and half wading in the mud. Now, there are already remains of these animals that can also be seen in natural science museums. These giants that once existed are called ichthyosaurs, fish dinosaurs. These ichthyosaurs were animals that can be said to have already lived on Earth. These ichthyosaurs looked particularly strange. They had a kind of head (it is drawn) like a dolphin, but the snout was not so hard - so it was a dolphin's head. Then they had a body like a huge, but slender lizard, with terribly thick scales. And in the head, they had huge teeth like a crocodile. They had crocodile teeth, like all these strange triangular crocodile teeth. Then they had something like whale fins – they moved half-swimming, half-walking; these were very soft, and they could also waddle and wade in the mud with them.

So they had something like whale fins, a huge body, then a head like a dolphin, with a pointed snout forward, crocodile teeth. And the strangest thing was that they had huge eyes that now glowed. One would have seen electrical points there in the clouds. The glowing birds flew especially in the moonlight. And when dusk came, if one could have seen it, one would have been able to make the encounter, which is highly unpleasant for today's people, with a giant light that would have come towards one, with a body larger than today's whales, with fins that swam on in this muddy water and sometimes stood up when it was harder. This muddy water sometimes became as hard as the hooves of horses. You could stand on it. They moved on like this: they formed these fins into hands; they were so internally mobile. They splashed over these horny layers, which were like deserts, and swam over them again where they were softer. Then they groped over them again, and afterwards, when they came to something softer again, they moved away by swimming. And if any human being had traveled in those days in any kind of boat – he couldn't have walked, it wouldn't have been possible – he might have encountered a giant animal like this, which he could have climbed up on with a ladder. It was like climbing a mountain today. You could have encountered a whole herd of cattle! There was something completely different there once.

All this can be seen; just as Cuvier recognized an entire animal from a single bone, today we can see how these ichthyosaurs, of which remains still exist, alive, and what they could do with their huge fins, that they had such a huge eye that shone like a giant lantern from afar, so that one could have avoided it. So they moved up and over the muddy earth and in the muddy earth.

And still a little deeper, so that they waded and bathed with real pleasure in the mud and always looked terribly dirty, so greenish-brownish dirty, were other animals. These other animals sometimes just stuck their huge heads out into the softer mud, but otherwise they waddled around in it, relying mainly on the mud having hardened a little. Only sometimes did they come to the surface, sticking their heads out. And that was something quite remarkable.

These other animals, those with the huge eye, are called ichthyosaurs today in their remains. But then there were those that were a bit more terrestrial, the plesiosaurs. The plesiosaurs also had a kind of whale-like, belly-like body, heads like lizards, so a kind of whale body and heads like lizards; but their eyes were more on the sides, while the ichthyosaurs had their huge glowing eyes right at the front. The plesiosaurs had a whale body, but it was also completely covered with scales. And the strange thing was that, because they were already more sluggish, they tended to settle more and more on what looked like somewhat firmer giant boats in the muddy earth. They already had four legs, clumsy four legs, with which they could even walk quite comfortably. They no longer had fins like the ichthyosaurs, on which they leaned. The ichthyosaurs braced themselves on their fins when they came upon something hard, and where they braced themselves, the fins spread out; so they used them as feet. But these plesiosaurs had hand-like feet. And from the remains, we can see that they must have had terribly strong ribs.

This was the state of things as they once were on Earth, how the plesiosaurs led a lazy life down there, how the ichthyosaurs swam around on the Earth and flew – for the animals with the fins could also fly quite low – and above them, in the twilight and in the moonlight, these ever-shining luminary clouds, which were actually dragon-bird stars. So that's what it looked like.

Now, the plesiosaurs were lazy creatures. But, you know, there was a reason for that. The Earth itself was lazier back then than it is today. Today, the Earth rotates around its axis in twenty-four hours. Back then, it took much longer; the Earth itself was lazier. It moved more slowly around itself, and that's how everything else came about. The fact that the air is so pure today depends entirely on our earth rotating on its own axis in twenty-four hours, which means that it has become more industrious over time.

The most uncomfortable time – if you judge it from today's human point of view – the most uncomfortable time should have been for these dragon-birds, because they had a hard time. They did not see it as a bad time, but they had a huge desire and longing for what you could actually understand when you hear it told today, as if these dragon-birds had had a very bad time. That was the case. Imagine the ichthyosaur with its huge eye crawling, flying, swimming through the very warm air; but the eye, it glowed very brightly. This glowing eye attracted these birds up there like a lamp attracts a midge. You have the same phenomenon on a small scale. If you light a lamp and there is a mosquito in the room, it flies towards it and is immediately burnt. Now, these birds up there were completely mesmerized by the giant eye of the ichthyosaurs, and they plunged down, and the ichthyosaurs could eat them. So the ichthyosaurs lived on what was buzzing around in the air above them.

If a person could have walked around on this strange earth in those days, they would have said: These are giant creatures and they eat fire. — Because that's what it looked like, exactly what it looked like, like giant creatures rushing around, flying around and eating fire that would have flown to them from the air.

And these plesiosaurs – I told you, they stuck their heads out like that; their eyes also glowed, and when a bird was swooping down, they also got something.

So it all fits together when you look at the reality. A dog that you feed poorly will also show you its strong ribs. The ichthyosaurs ate all the fire from the plesiosaurs; the plesiosaurs only got the worst firebirds and therefore had such prominent ribs. You can still see today that these plesiosaurs were poorly fed in ancient times.

But I said you would think: the birds up there, those beautiful, glowing birds – because they were beautiful – those beautiful glowing birds, they didn't have it comfortable. But that was what they liked, and they felt good when they could plunge into the jaws of an ichthyosaurus. That's what they considered bliss. Just as the Turks wanted to go to paradise, so these birds considered it their bliss to plunge into the jaws of an ichthyosaurus.

But really, gentlemen, I would say, it almost became more uncomfortable for the fire-eater itself – it had to eat them because it needed them for food – but it almost became more uncomfortable for the fire-eater itself than for the others that entered its belly. The firebirds plunged into it as if into their bliss; but the ichthyosaurus became quite uncomfortable in there in his belly because all kinds of electricity developed in there. And under the influence of this fire-eating and this electricity that developed in the giant stomach that almost filled the entire Ichthyosaurus—it had almost nothing else on the surface, mainly it was filled by a giant stomach—the Ichthyosaurs gradually became weak. It took quite a long time – even the fish nature can endure a lot; I said the other day about the human nature that it can endure a lot, but also the fish nature, especially an ichthyosaurus, can of course endure even more – but little by little the ichthyosaurs became more and more weak. They developed all kinds of weaknesses. Their eyes no longer shone as brightly. They were no longer as attracted to birds. And eating hurt them more and more. These ichthyosaurs got more and more stomach aches. What did that mean? In the world, everything means something.

You see, while these ichthyosaurs were developing on Earth and eating this fire, and this fire was being digested in their stomachs, their stomachs were transformed; eventually they were no longer a real stomach. And finally it came to the point that all these ichthyosaurs themselves took on a different form. They transformed.

Modern science will only tell you: There were once other animals, and they changed. That is no better than telling people: Once upon a time, a god came down and took a piece of earth and formed Adam out of it. You can understand one as well as the other.

But what I am telling you now is easy for you to understand. Because the fact that the ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs ate the dragon birds has completely transformed their insides and they have become different animals. This was also the case because the earth was turning faster and faster - not as fast as it is today, but faster than before, when it was very sluggish - and because the air was letting more and more harmful substances fall down, which were then combined with the earth. In particular, everything sulfurous was absorbed into the earth. The air became increasingly purer, not like today's air, but already considerably purer. It only became a kind of watery air in the later state, always interspersed with dense water vapors, with fog vapors. In the early days, the air was actually much purer because it was warmer. Later it cooled down and was terribly foggy. It was actually a fog over the earth that never really stopped, not even under the influence of the sun; it was a foggy layer over the earth. The mud gradually became a little thicker, and the later stones began to crystallize out. The mud became thicker, but it was still there. At the bottom there was still some thick stuff, and in between there was always some thin stuff, brownish-greenish muddy stuff, and above it was a foggy air.

In this foggy air, huge plants appeared, really huge plants. If you go into the forest today and look at the ferns, they are tiny today. But many, many thousands of years ago, similar to these ferns, there were huge plants, with weak roots in the muddy, spongy earth, plants that towered high and formed a kind of forest where the mud of the earth had already become somewhat thicker. So that later a state of the earth came, which was already a bit thicker. There were already all kinds of rocks – they had become solid, not very strong, a bit coarser, like wax – and in between there was mud everywhere, and out of that grew these huge fern trees, these giant trees. Where there was quite a bit of rock below, such giant forests with giant trees emerged. Then there was free space again – then it was different again. With these giant forests with huge trees that had emerged in nature for the Earth, the Ichthyosaurus and the Plesiosaurus would no longer have been able to do much. It was already too hard for the Plesiosaurus down there, and although it was still soft enough, it was too hard for the Ichthyosaurus and the Plesiosaurus would have become even more dirty: a crust would have formed around the scales. They could no longer have lived. But all these animals had already been contaminated by their fire-eating. When they came to this later Earth – but the later always means thousands and thousands of years – yes, it looked quite different. There were animals in the mud (it is drawn) that are also preserved in remains, so that we can get an idea of what these critters looked like. These critters, first of all, had a huge belly and a huge stomach, but they had a head that looked something like this, but much more clumsy, like the head of a modern-day seal. The eyes had already turned blackish, while the eyes of the earlier animals were luminous. They already had four feet, quite clumsy feet. But in addition, these creatures were completely covered with very fine hair, and the feet were actually more like clumsy hands.

And these critters led a strange life in this earth. They were on the solid earth at certain times, but deep down in the mud, and in this mud they moved. And mainly their breasts moved. They had huge breasts that were half lungs and half breasts. It was as if the lungs were still all the way out. At certain times they came and waddled and swam up to these forests and ate the fern trees. So the animals went from being fire-eaters to being plant-eaters. These animals were here (it is being drawn) and were covered as if by women's hair, they had giant heads, heads like clumsy seal heads. If you had gone for a walk back then, you could have seen these animals, as they always lived down there, breathing under water, always coming out, sitting on the banks, going to the forests. There they ate quite a lot with their huge mouths of what today you could not have eaten as food in one meal; they mainly ate a lot away from these giant forests. These are the animals that, as I said, are still around today and are called manatees today... (gap in the text).

And how did these animals actually come about? Yes, you see, it was because the earlier animals ate the air-breathing animals. And through the electrical forces, their bodies were transformed. The sea cows did not exactly develop from the ichthyosaurs I have described, but they did develop from similar animals. What they used to eat has become their outer form. What they took in internally has become their external form. Through eating, these animals have transformed.

This must now be said about today's natural science. You see, everything used to be much softer on the earth than it is today; these animals have taken on the forms that were formed in them by what they ate from the air animals.

And these dragon birds, for their part, had to change their shape again because the substances in the air were no longer the same as they used to be. They fell closer to the ground, and that is where the later birds gradually emerged.

But down below, another form has always emerged through eating. For example, from such an animal, as this Plesiosaurus was, an animal emerged that had four legs, like four huge columns (it is drawn), but on it there was also a huge belly, a head that was also similar to a seal head, Plump, it had a tail. It was also a giant animal. It was really very large. If you step on a very small wren with your feet, it is naturally underneath. This animal could have stepped on an ostrich, it was that large, it could have simply stepped on it to death. The largest animals of today would have behaved towards these animals then as the mice do now towards the larger animals. There are also remains of this animal. This animal is called Megatherium.

These animals also moved slowly, according to their constitution, just as one also moves on four pillars, and they fed on what happened to fly into their mouths, into those huge mouths, which also had crocodile teeth, but somewhat weaker ones. Some animals still survived, so there were still animals crawling around that looked like dinosaurs, like crocodiles. But these megatheriums simply trampled them to death when they came. Yes, that's how it once was!

And only now, after all this had happened, did the air gradually free itself from these water vapors - because everything that lived in water vapors - and the time came when the sun was actually sun could really have an effect on the earth, because the sun's rays were stopped earlier because the air was like an ocean, albeit a thin one, but it was like an ocean; the sun's rays were stopped. So that it was only in later times that the sun's rays came down on the earth.

Yes, gentlemen, you also have to look at this story a little more inwardly! These animals that were down there, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs – later on, manatees, megatheriums – well, they were pretty stupid animals. The ichthyosaurus was still the smartest, but the others were actually really stupid. But you can't say that about these dragon birds that were up there. I have already told you: they had an extremely fine sense. You may say: we humans are clever, we would not fly into the jaws of the ichthyosaurs like those dragon birds. But I don't think so. If you had lived in the time of the dragon birds, you would have flown into it too. But these birds were intelligent. And these birds, they had a very fine sense of the moon and the sun, just like our eyes, and these dragon birds felt it with their whole body, especially with their wings, which - only on a small scale - are imitated today in the wings of bats, which are also extraordinarily sensitive.

Now, these animals perceived the sun and the moon; the moon, as I have already explained, in such a way that they created something like an electromagnetic shell around it that was luminous. And when the moon shone on this fiery air, they also began to shine, shimmer, and flicker in the air with their own luminosity, like a St. John's nightingale. But they felt all that. And you don't need to use your imagination, but can proceed quite scientifically and thus also know that these animals perceived the starry sky as something different than if there had been no stars. They felt so at home in the starry sky that they felt very comfortable in their wings when the stars shone on them, and that's how those wings became speckled.

Today, we can even verify this story to a certain extent if we pay close attention. Of course, very little of these birds, which had very soft bodies, has been preserved, and they are almost impossible to find in fossils; but wing imprints can be found. Those who are really good at studying fossils, especially limestone fossils, softer fossils, will find such wing imprints. But of course you have to be open-minded, not as uptight as a professor. So if it's a dragonfly wing that has made an impression – of course there's nothing left of the wing, but the imprint in the limestone – if you look more closely, you can see that there are all kinds of stars that have been imprinted. They are the traces of the impression made by the stars in the night sky on these bat wings. They sensed whether it was day or night.

Now I don't need to describe much more to you, so you will say to yourself: Yes, the whole story here looks an awful lot like what I recently described to you about the liver and kidneys! — Man still carries in his present belly a kind of replica of what has happened on the whole earth. And these dragon birds were like the eyes that the earth itself had. That is to say – I can only tell you this at the end today – the whole Earth was a fish, an animal, and all these giant animals lived in the Earth and walked around and waddled around, like the white blood cells in us. We are still such an Earth. The white blood corpuscles, which, by the way, although they are small, are not even dissimilar in shape to these animals in the past, sometimes look almost like these animals in their smallness. So the whole Earth was a giant fish, a giant animal, and these dragon birds were the movable eyes with which the Earth looked out into the space of the stars, the space of the sun, the space of the worlds and perceived it.

That the Earth is dead today is only a later development. Originally, the Earth was alive, as we are alive. And what I have described to you as megatheria, sea cows, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs and so on, yes, that looked an awful lot like what goes around in our bodies today as white blood cells, only in giant sizes. And what I have described as dragon-birds, again looks very much like what goes on in our eyes, only it is immobile.

And so we can say: the Earth was once a giant animal that, in keeping with its size, was rather lazy, only turning slowly on its axis in space, but which looked out into space through these dragon birds, which were only movable eyes, and looked at all this. And what I have described to you, this fire-eating and so on, that also looks very similar to what happens in the stomach and intestines. And the dragon birds, they look very similar to the opposite of the white blood cells, the brain cells, as I have described them, which extend into the eyes.

In short, you can understand the earth if you see it as a dead animal. The earth is a dead animal. And only when the earth had lost its own life could the other beings, to which, as I will describe to you, man also came, live on earth.

It is just as if we as humans were to die and the white blood cells were to change into independent entities. That is how it was with this huge animal, with the earth, once. And today we stand before this huge corpse. You need not be surprised if today's geologists, who can only study the dead, merely study the corpse. Today's geologists only study the corpse of the earth. Science everywhere does the same, studying only the dead. It lays the corpse on the dissecting table. But if you want to understand something, you really have to go back to the living. The earth was once alive, flying through space, albeit very sluggishly, like a giant animal, and able to see out through the eyes it had everywhere, which were the mobile little kite birds. With them, it looked out into space.

We will continue our examination of this next time. It is a very interesting subject.

It will be necessary, gentlemen, to take a closer look at the subject we have been discussing. Last time, I was able to show you what strange creatures once populated the Earth and how these truly remarkable creatures behaved. I was finally able to point out to you that the whole Earth itself was once a living being.

You see, when we look at all the animals that once lived on Earth – last time I spoke to you about ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, megatheriums and sirenians – look at all these animals, of which remains are still present in the various museums, we find that they have one peculiarity: they are mostly covered on the outside with a scale armor and have powerful, thick forearms, paws. So, of course, you could not only have gone for a walk on such an animal – they were big enough for that – but you could also have beaten it with a mighty hammer, and the animal would not have been very uncomfortably affected by any of it, because the whole animal was surrounded by such a scale armor. In the small, however, only as very small dwarfs, only the turtles or crocodiles of these ancient animals have survived today. I would like to say that in the small format, turtles and crocodiles are what these animals once were in their huge size. So you have to imagine that these ancient animals had such a horn-like coat consisting of individual horn plates.

Now we have to get an idea of where these animals actually got this horn-like coat from. We have to study history from a very young age, not as a human being from a very young age, but how history develops from a very young age. Imagine that a dog wounds itself somewhere. The animals have strange healing instincts. You will have already seen what a dog does when it wounds itself somewhere. When a dog has a wound somewhere, the first thing it does is lick it; it covers it with saliva. And then, once it has covered it with saliva, it likes to lie in the sun and let the sun shine on it. And what happens then? A kind of scab forms over the wound. So that one can say: If this is the dog's wound (see drawing), then he covers it with saliva so that the wound is coated with saliva over its entire surface. Then he lets the sun shine on it, and the sun makes a hard crust out of what it brews there, together with the saliva, and underneath it heals. So the dog has a very strange healing instinct. It does the right thing based on its instinct.

Now we can expand a little on what we have observed. We can look at another strange phenomenon that will lead us to understand something like this wound healing here. You know, we breathe in the air. When we breathe in the air, we get oxygen inside. The oxygen spreads throughout our body. And when the oxygen spreads throughout our body, we can live. We would suffocate immediately if we could not get the oxygen. But what do we do for it? We are not exactly very grateful people for the air that gives us oxygen. We are actually quite ungrateful beings towards the air, because we combine carbon with this oxygen in ourselves, and that becomes carbonic acid, and we breathe that out again. This is actually quite ungrateful towards our environment, because we are constantly polluting the air. If someone were to stand in carbonic acid, they would suffocate. What is made of the beautiful, good breathing air inside us is what we use to pollute our environment. We constantly spread carbonic acid gas around us, in which no being – not a human being, but also not a living being that is animal-like – could live. So you see, animal life actually basically consists of the fact that it itself constantly draws what it needs to live from its surroundings, but returns the deadly substance to its surroundings. That is what animal life consists of.

However, with this animal life, things would soon go badly on the present earth if all creatures behaved as indecently as humans and animals. You see, humans and animals pollute the air. And if all creatures behaved as indecently as humans and animals, then our earth would have been destroyed long ago, with nothing left to live on; then our earth would have long since become one big cemetery. But the good thing is that plants don't behave indecently. They do the opposite. Just as we absorb oxygen and pollute the air all around, so plants absorb carbon dioxide and retain the carbon, while releasing the oxygen. So that actually only because there are plants and especially forests on earth, life on earth can exist. If there were no forests on earth, or if large companies - some of them are already doing it - were to cut down the forests, life on earth would become much less healthy. That is precisely the point, that we need the forests on earth. If we only look at the wood, then of course we are gradually making life on earth impossible by cutting down the forests. So we can say: on earth it is arranged in such a way that people and animals actually behave quite indecently, because they pollute everything, and the plants and the forests, in turn, make everything tidy.

Yes, you see, gentlemen, that is the way it is on Earth now, but it was not always like that on Earth. We just have to be clear about the fact that the Earth has changed, that it was quite different in the time I was talking about last Wednesday; you have realized that. Because when you go for a walk now, you won't come across an ichthyosaurus up on the Gempen, as you might have done back then. That is no longer the case. But the earth is constantly changing and will also look quite different in the future than it does today. But what can we see from all that we have learned now? We can say: That which is inside a person, what he gives of himself, cannot sustain him. He must get something else; on the present earth he must get what the plants give him in order to live. We cannot live on what we have inside us alone, it destroys us.

So you can see this quite clearly: that which is useful inside a person destroys us when it comes from outside. Inside, we would be quite ill if we had too much oxygen. But from the outside, oxygen must be supplied continuously.

So what is harmful on the inside is beneficial when it comes from the outside. What is beneficial on the inside is harmful when it comes from the outside. You see, gentlemen, it is so important to realize that what is beneficial internally is harmful when it comes from outside, and what is harmful internally is beneficial when it comes from outside. This is so important that if you do not understand this, you do not understand anything.

Now we can say: We now know from contemporary life that something completely different must approach us from the outside than we have within us. Something completely different must approach us from the outside.

Let us now go back to the old days, having acquired a few concepts from the present. Let us go back and imagine ourselves in the time when the ichthyosaurs walked on the earth, half walking, half swimming, and when the plesiosaurs hopped around on the earth. We place ourselves in this time. Yes, but that was also a time that was preceded by another. Now, what was it like on Earth in those ancient times, before there were ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs?

Yes, gentlemen, according to the remains we have from this ancient, very ancient time, the animals that existed back then were even clumsier than the later ones. You know, a plesiosaur – you can see this if you look at one in any museum – with its huge size, with its heavy scale armor, as heavy as a knight's armor in the Middle Ages, and with that it was a little uncomfortable to move, and with its clumsy legs – they were terribly clumsy creatures. So, you know, they weren't exactly nimble guys. But these clumsy creatures still had something that resembled feet, which were like fins that they could use to swim and even to hold on to something. So, after all, I would say that was already a kind of modern era. But the animals that existed before these clumsy ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and megatheriums were much more clumsy, because actually didn't have much more than a soft body with all sorts of things thrown together in it: a bit at the front that looked a bit like a head, a fairly long tail at the back, and a huge, huge scaly armor over it.

If you have ever seen an oyster, for example, then you can imagine that a turtle is a bit like a dwarf. Inside it has only the whole mucus-like body, and a shell around it. Now, if you imagine the shell a little differently, the scales like those of a turtle and inside it also a soft oyster body, then you get roughly the animals that were once on Earth before the ichthyosaurs and megatheriums were on Earth.

The Earth was very thick then, much thicker than milk. Everything that is now mountains was dissolved. So it was a very thick thing. In this thick sauce - the whole Earth was an awfully thick sauce in space - swam such a giant oyster. Compared to it, our whole carpentry here would have been a dwarf. They were such giant oysters that if you had drawn today's France on its back, it would have comfortably fit on it. The oldest of these animals were so huge because the Earth was also still huge. So once upon a time there were giant animals that actually consisted only of a slimy mass and that could only move like oysters, except that the oysters must have been in much thinner water. And these slimy animals, which had a huge tortoise shell, swam in this thick earth.

So you see, the earth was really something like this, like if you imagine a huge thick soup today and dumplings in it. But you have to imagine the dumplings as being very thick on one side, so that you would break your teeth if you bit into them on that side, and very soft on the other. You could then lift one side of these dumplings off; then you would get something like a hat. And the other side, that would be very soft, you could eat that. This was much softer for these animals than the one they swam in, than this thick earth. Therefore, it was also the case with these animals, as it is today only certain very small animals have preserved themselves. You will have seen snails crawling before. When the snails crawl, you can follow the trail of these snails; it is full of this slime - you will have seen that - that the snail leaves behind. Today, the sun dries up the slime. Today it is not very important. But think of the ancient times, when the earth was not as solid. These animals also left this slime in the thick earth soup, and it mixed with this thick earth soup. So these animals have always been very useful in this thick earth soup.

Today, such things can only be traced in very small traces when you walk on the path and it has rained a lot. You can see this especially here at the Goetheanum: then the earthworms crawl out. You will have seen this already, during special rainy seasons the earthworms crawl out everywhere. Where are the earthworms otherwise? They are usually inside the earth, crawling inside the earth and making holes where they crawl through. You see, if it were not for these earthworms, our fields would be much less fertile. Because what these earthworms leave behind in the earth makes the soil fertile. We must not imagine that anything in nature is unnecessary.

And so it was with these giant oysters in ancient times. They constantly secreted what they gave off as mucus into the earth soup, and thereby always refreshed this earth soup, always, always refreshed it.

But the story is this: in today's soil – yes, however much the snails and earthworms mix in what they secrete – in today's soil, it dies again. What the earthworms provide in the form of dung is very useful in the arable soil, and in a sense what the snails provide in the form of dung is also useful in the arable soil. Not only in the arable soil, but in the meadows, what is on the earth, where the snail slime sinks in, is a very, very good fertilizer. But you see, what goes into the earth through today's animals does not come to life.

But in the time I am talking about now, when these giant oysters deposited their products in the earth soup, there really was something very strange – something like that still happens today. Right, fertilization in certain lower animals, even in fairly high animals, does not occur in the same way as in higher animals and in humans, but fertilization occurs, let's say, in certain fish-like or even amphibian-like or toad-like animals, in such a way that the eggs are laid, laid somewhere, so that there is a clump of eggs somewhere that the female has laid; and the male then simply drops his seminal fluid on top of them, outside the female, and only then are the eggs fertilized, outside the female. This still happens today. So you can say: the female lays the eggs somewhere and goes away. The male finds these eggs, fertilizes them, and also goes away. So fertilization takes place externally. But it cannot happen, nothing comes of it, unless the sun shines on these fertilized eggs. If the sun does not shine on them, then nothing comes of it, they die. But if the sun shines on these fertilized eggs, then new animals come of it. This still happens today.

In the time when these giant oysters swam around in the earth soup, this mucus, when it entered the earth, had the effect that such huge animals developed again and again from the earth itself. The old ones died, but the new animals developed out of the earth itself. The earth itself continually gave birth to such extremely clumsy but gigantic animals. So the earth was such that it was itself fertilized by what these animals secreted. So you can imagine: once there was one earth life; the earth was completely one living being. But this life had to be maintained by the mucus secreted by these animals up above. If this thick soup of the earth had been alone, these thick animals here would soon have died out too. They secreted, and through that the life of the earth was continually maintained, so that the earth continually drove such animals out of itself. They then fertilized the earth itself again, and it could now again grow such animals out of itself.

But these animals, they could not have secreted this slime if something else had not been there. You see, the earth was an awfully thick soup; but I told you: the slime of the animals was much thinner than this earth soup, much thinner. How did it come about that the animals could have such thin slime? That would have been quite impossible, that the animals could have a thinner slime than the earth itself. The earth was also a pulp, a slime, but a very thick one; but these thinner lumps of slime were constantly emerging. How did they come about?

You see, gentlemen, if you have only a glass of water and in it a liquid, water in which salt is dissolved, it can happen that the salt falls down. The salt collects as a sediment at the bottom; but then the water is thinner. Only when the salt was dissolved was the water thick. Now the water has become thinner because the salt is out. So later you have thinner water above, and much thicker salt water below. And if I could turn this glass over now – no, if I did that, of course all the salt water would just flow out, and the story would not have formed. But with these ancient animals, it was like that, it turned itself over. With these old critters, it was like this: there was the thick earth; something had formed there. There was the scale armor on top and slime further down. What was the scale armor? That was nothing other than what had separated out from the thick earthen mass. Just as salt separates downward from water, so this thick, very thick mass, which then formed a scale armor like that of turtles, separated upward from the thickness of the earthen mass, but upward, so that the thinner part remained below. And so this inverted glass, or head, could lift itself out of the water. Only the salt came to the top.

And what happened to this salt? Yes, gentlemen, now we go back to what the dog does when it has a wound. When the dog has a wound, it licks it off. Then it lets the sun shine on it; then it becomes thick and kills whatever is in the wound. Otherwise, bacteria would get in and the wound would get bigger, and the whole dog would be destroyed. You see, a scab forms, a scab of what is inside. The mucus that the dog brings to the wound is something internal; when the sun shines on it, it thickens the mucus through the warmth.

It was the same with these animals in those ancient times. The sun shone on this thick earth soup, and because the sun shone on it, such thickening occurred in some places as it occurs on a wound in a dog. These were the shells. And because a thickening formed, there was a thinner mass of mucus underneath. And so these giant oysters were formed. But, you see, these giant oysters could not have formed at all if the sun had not shone. It would have been impossible. So now we have the strange fact that we have the Earth – I will draw this very small now –; the Sun shines on the Earth during the day, and the Sun brings out these giant oysters from the Earth. So we can say: Once upon a time, the Earth was a thick soup, and because the Sun shone on it from the outside, such animals formed.

But all that would have been of no use at the time, because now the earth, when these animals left their thin slime behind them as they swam through the soup, could have been fertilized. That would have been of no use. Yes, so the earth must have been something else in its interior. It must have been similar to an egg. Only in this way could it have been fertilized. Is that not obvious? The earth was once, so to speak, like an egg. Only in this way could it have been fertilized.

We have to study what it is like with such an egg so that it can be fertilized, because we come to a state of the earth when there was a thick earth soup. The beings that could fertilize, I mean, the male beings, we found them in the old days; but if the earth should have been the generally female being – we have not yet found that, we now have to look for it again. We have to figure out how the earth could have such a huge egg.

You see, gentlemen, if you want to come up with something like that, it means looking at the world a little. And strangely enough, I will now have to draw your attention to a completely different area first, to something that still exists today, but really, I would say, in such a rarefied state that many people are not aware of it in their consciousness. But it is really not just out of a certain sense of mystery that poets, when they want to depict the development of love between two lovers, have them go out into the moonlight. There is something about moonlight that has an extraordinary effect on the human imagination.

You may think that this is not really part of it, but it is. Moonlight drives out the imagination of man. And you see, it is something quite remarkable that moonlight drives out the imagination of man. When people who are currently scholars sometimes have such a surge of cleverness, they sometimes come up with very cute things, nice things. For example, a while ago in Paris there was a scholar who said to himself: With all the medicines we now have in medicine, you can do so terribly little for people, and – it is really quite strange that a Parisian scholar has finally come up with it – if you wanted to make people healthier, you could do something different. And, gentlemen, be amazed: the scholar in Paris advised people to read Goethe's “Faust” a lot – it will make them healthier than absorbing all that stuff that only stimulates the mind – because Goethe's “Faust” stimulates the imagination, and imagination is healthy. Even a materialistic scholar has found reading Goethe's “Faust” so good because it stimulates the imagination that he said: Today's people are so clever, they only use their minds; but the mind actually makes you sick. But if people would read “Faust” and put themselves in all the images that are in “Faust,” they would be much healthier.

So the scholar wanted people to imbibe a little of the healthy power of growth. People should imbibe a little of the healthy power of growth! Yes, you see, that was a moment of insight, of which today's science has few. Today's science had a healthy moment. This is healthy because it encourages you to digest better. It is really true: a person digests better when they study Goethe's “Faust” than when they study all the learned works. There they ruin their stomachs. With Goethe's “Faust” the stomach becomes healthier and healthier; but so do the other organs. And what is the reason for this? Well, because Goethe's “Faust” comes from the imagination, not from the intellect.

Imagine, when a person lets themselves be inspired by the moon, then their imagination is stimulated. So, the moon stimulates the growth forces in humans. But today this is the case to a very small extent. Isn't it true that a person feels a little warmed inside, so he feels his growth forces stimulated inwardly when he goes for a moonwalk? That's true. But it doesn't come into consideration much.

But the moon is connected to everything that life means to a person. I can give you a small fact that shows extremely strongly how the moon is connected with life. You see, today, when people are paying attention to some things that people once knew - remember, for example, what I told you here about the Roman Janus head with the two faces - you can imagine that people used to know more than they do today. They may not have been “smarter,” but they knew more. Isn't that so? Today, when everything that people once knew has been buried by people's cleverness, today one says, “Well, a human child is carried for nine months.” But medicine, which sometimes, just as it has preserved the Latin language, has also preserved old ideas – today's doctors don't want to know anything about it, but sometimes these old ideas are still there – says: the child is carried for ten months. Where does that come from, gentlemen? Well, if you do the math: a lunar month has about 28 days; ten times 28 = 280 days. A month as we have it today, calculated at 30 days, if you take that nine times, you have about the same = 270 days. This means that the nine months we have today are ten lunar months. That is the same time. In the past, people used to count in lunar months when talking about the gestation period of a child in the womb.

Where did this come from, gentlemen? Because it was still known that the development of the child in the womb is connected to the moon. It is connected to the moon. It was once known and can now be established again through anthroposophical studies that it is the moon that causes the child to be able to develop as a living being in the first place.

But this moon only affects female beings in the human and animal kingdom because they are designed to be affected. The moon no longer has an effect on the earth. It no longer produces eggs there. And yet, if you study the matter properly, you come to the conclusion that it is not only in a subtle sense that the imagination is stimulated and that our growth forces and we are set in motion when we go for a walk on the moon. The moon has a revitalizing effect in us, but it has such a strong revitalizing effect in the human and animal female body that it actually equips the child or the animal with growth forces.

Yes, you see, the moon, shining down from the sky, does not cause the earth itself to grow, because the earth is already far too dead today. So this earth, which could once be fertilized, must have been more alive.

And now you remember that I told you that what is inside a person, when it comes in from the outside, is harmful. So the moon, which shines down on the earth today, can no longer bring forth life. Why? Because its light comes from the outside, just as when the air that we ourselves have given off comes from the outside. Then it can no longer invigorate us internally. Today, the moon can no longer do anything with the earth itself. Today, the moon can only do something in the animal and human body because it is protected.

But where must the moon have been at one time so that it could make the earth itself a living being? It cannot make it a living being outside of the earth. It must have been inside the earth! Just as carbonic acid, when it is outside, can no longer make us alive, but must be inside, must develop itself alive inside, so the moonlight must not have been outside once, but inside the earth.

So imagine, gentlemen: back then, when these beings were there, the moon was not outside the earth at all, but inside it, dissolved in the thick soup. It was not yet limited at all, but it was in there, an even thicker ball. It could make the whole earth into an egg. It just comes to mind that the moon, which today only affects the imagination and the female fertilized body, that the moon, which is up in the sky today, was once inside the earth.

But then it must also have come out at some time. And you see, gentlemen, here we come to the tremendously important moment in the evolution of the earth: the moon, which is always outside today, was once inside the earth. The earth excreted it. It now surrounds it from the outside.

If we study the entire body of the earth, something remarkable comes to light. If we study the body of the Earth, we actually see that the body of the Earth consists of water, and the continents, the land masses, are floating in this water, just as these giant animals once swam in it. Europe, Asia, Africa are floating in the water, just as these giant animals once swam in the Earth soup, in the thick Earth soup. And when we study what it looks like – you know, it doesn't look the same – then we can still see today from the hollowing out of the earth and the shifting of the continents that the moon once flew out of where the Pacific Ocean is today. The moon was once inside the earth, flew out. It first hardened on the outside.

We are now looking back at an ancient state of the earth. Then the earth still had its moon inside its body. The moon made it into a mother with its substance, and the paternal substance was evoked by the sun, because the sun continually produced such lumps of slime, which surrounded it on the outside with a thick coat of horn. That was caused by the sunbeam. And these floating lumps of slime have continually fertilized what was at the bottom of the earth soup and what was kept alive by the moon. So that the earth was a huge egg and was continually fertilized by what the sun had done.

Yes, gentlemen, if history had gone on like that, it would have created a rather uncomfortable situation on Earth. The moon would have flown out. The earth would have become barren, and eventually everything would have died. What has been done there? Although the moon's flight out has caused the earth to die, something of the old fertilizing has been preserved in the maternal animal and human body. Before that, there was no birth at all in the way that there is now, right? Just as when you make a new loaf of bread, you take some of the old yeast and then add it, so there is still some of the old substance that you took from the moon remaining in the female bodies, so that it can be fertilized. What is fertilized there, what becomes an egg inside, is only a replica of the old earth egg. So it is no wonder that when the child is born, the moon story still haunts it, and even the time during which the child is carried is determined by the moon. Isn't it true that the baron's son must also stretch himself according to the inheritance his father leaves him? The fertilized egg must do the same, which actually comes from the old moon soup. It must still be guided by the moon, because that is where the inheritance comes from.

In general, you see, in older times people knew much more about these things. I will give you the reasons why once more. In older times, people knew much more about these things, and they said: Sol, the sun, is masculine. It does, after all, represent the masculine. This is still the case in Latin. Sol, the sun, is masculine. Luna, the moon, is feminine; in Latin it is a feminine word. Sol, the solar, fertilizes Luna, the feminine. In the German language the story is completely reversed; we say the sun and the moon, whereas in reality the sun represents the masculine and the moon the feminine. That is how confused the story has become. If we wanted to speak correctly, we would actually have to say in German: der Sonn und die Mond.

But the ancient Latins already made a joke about it and said — this is just a joke with which I want to conclude today's reflection; I just wanted to give you something here that will be much more evident next time — the ancient Latins said: First we have such a moon (see drawing); then the moon always waxes, becoming like this, and then it waxes, becoming like this; then it wanes again, becoming like this. And you see, if we take these words in the Romance languages, for example in French, we can turn this (see drawing, waning crescent) into a C, and this ( waxing moon, first quarter) into a D; but then we get croitre = to wax. But when it is waning, the moon is not waxing when it makes a C! On the other hand, when it is decroitre = waning, it waxes. So that when we look up at the sky, the moon tells us, “I am waxing,” when it is actually waning, and vice versa. This is where the saying comes from: the moon is a liar. It lies to you.

But there is a deeper meaning to this. People gradually became embarrassed to talk about the moon-related because the moon-related is connected to the origin of man. It gradually became something that was not talked about. And people lost the ability to talk about the moon-related in the right way. That is why the moon also became a liar. When you looked at it, it no longer said anything to people that they could relate to. Doctors gradually stopped talking about the fact that a child remains in the mother's womb for ten lunar months and started talking about the nine solar months, which are then roughly the same length of time. But in reality it is ten lunar months, not nine solar months. This is connected with the moon and comes from the fact that the earth once carried the moon in its belly, gave birth to the moon and threw it out into space.

Now, gentlemen, think about this: after all, I am not telling you anything different from what someone would tell you today when they talk about an old nebula, about a vapor from which the Earth was separated, and from which the Moon emerged. But that is all just a mechanical, materialistic thought! No amount of vapors could ever give rise to anything living. But what I have told you is not an old vapor. You can create as much vapor in the boiler as you like and allow something to split off – but what I am telling you leads you back to reality. And that is the reality, not the vapor from which Jupiter is said to have split off and the Earth; and when the Earth was still the same as Jupiter, it threw out the Moon. The real moon is connected with the whole growth and even with the reproduction of man, as I said, and the earth once had its own power of reproduction in it, was maternal earth, and was fertilized by the animals that were up there with their shells, and by the sunshine. The moon force in the earth has been fertilized by the sunshine. Yes, you can see how we gradually move out of the earth into space.

Of course, I am making a bit of a demand on your attention, but you can see that you can actually learn something real from it.

Last time I talked to you about the moon flying out of the earth and how that is connected to life on earth in the first place. I can already imagine that you will have many questions. We can deal with them next Saturday. Think about some of them by then. But today I still have a few things to discuss. Some questions may arise.

We have said: As long as the moon was inside the earth, what can be called the reproductive power of animal beings was quite different than later, after the moon had flown out. I have told you that in the time when the moon was still inside the earth, the moon gave the earth those forces that are, so to speak, maternal forces, feminine forces. So we can imagine that there was a time when the moon was still inside the earth. I will sketch this out for you very schematically.

When the moon was still inside the earth, it was not in the center, but a little to the outside (see drawing, left). If you look at the Earth today, you will also notice that on one side, more towards where Australia is located, there is a lot of water on the Earth, while on the side where Europe and Asia are located, there is a lot of land. So the Earth actually does not have land and water equally distributed, but the Earth is such that on one side it actually has the most land and on the other side the most water. So the material on Earth is not evenly distributed (see drawing $.149, right). It was also not evenly distributed when the moon was still inside the Earth. The moon was just lying on the side where the Earth has the inclination to be heavy. Of course, if there is a solid material, it is heavy there. So I have to draw it the way I have marked it there with white chalk.

Now you have to imagine that at that time fertilization took place in such a way that the moon, which was inside the earth, gave these giant creatures the strength to, so to speak, provide reproductive material. You can't say that back then the animals would have laid real eggs. These giant oysters were actually just a slimy mass themselves, and they just secreted a piece of themselves. So that such a gigantic oyster, as I described to you last time, which could originally have been as large as the whole of France, had a mighty shell on which one could have walked around, and towards the interior of the earth a mass of slime. The lunar forces worked on this slime, and a piece of it was secreted. That then swam further into the earth. And when the sun shone on it again – I have explained this to you vividly using the example of the dog – an egg shell was formed, and because this egg shell was formed, the slimy mass of the oyster was again inclined to secrete a piece of itself, and then a new animal could arise. So the female forces came from the moon, which was in the earth, and the male forces from the sun, which shone on the earth from the outside. Now, gentlemen, I am describing a very specific time, the time when the moon was still inside the earth.

Now you have to imagine the following. Today, when the moon is outside, outside the earth, it has a completely different effect. You also know that when carbonic acid is inside a person – I told you this last time – it has a completely different effect than when it is outside, where it is a poison. If you recall animal reproduction today, you must say: the animals have to produce eggs, and these eggs must then be fertilized in some way. So what the moon used to give when it was inside the earth is now in the animals. The animals have these lunar forces within them.

And the moon also gives forces from the outside. I told you last time: even poets know that the moon gives forces to the earth. But these are forces that stimulate the imagination, that make you more alive inside. These are forces that no longer affect reproduction, but that radiate in from the outside and can no longer effect reproduction at all.

So you have to imagine it: what the moon was able to give the earth when it was still inside, these reproductive powers, the animals have appropriated them, inherited them, and now they plant them from one animal to another. So when you look at the eggs of the animals, you have to say to yourself: the lunar forces are inside. But those lunar forces are still inside that worked when the moon was still in the earth. Today the moon can no longer do much other than stimulate the head. So today the moon works on the head. But in those days it worked precisely on reproduction. You see, that is a considerable difference. It makes a big difference whether something is inside the earth or outside of it.

Reproduction is a very strange thing. But again, we have to say that all understanding of nature depends on understanding reproduction. Because through it, the individual animals and the individual plants still arise today. If it were not for reproduction, everything would have died long ago. If you want to understand anything about nature, you have to understand reproduction. But reproduction is something peculiar on earth.

Just imagine: the elephant has the peculiarity of only being able to produce a single young at around fifteen or sixteen years of age. Take an oyster, on the other hand; it is a small, slimy animal. If you imagine this as being huge, you will have roughly the same creatures that I showed you for that time. So, you can learn something from an oyster. But the oyster is not like the elephant, which has to wait so many years to produce a young one. A single oyster can produce a million oysters in a year. So an oyster has a different relationship to reproduction than an elephant.

Now, gentlemen, another interesting animal is the aphid. You know that it occurs on the leaves of trees and can be found as a rather harmful population of the plant world. People suffer a lot from it. An aphid is, as you know, much smaller than an elephant, but it can produce several thousand million offspring in just a few weeks – a single aphid! An elephant, for example, needs about fifteen or sixteen years to produce a single offspring, but the aphid can reproduce in just a few weeks to produce several million from a single individual.

And then there are tiny animals called vortices. If you look at them through a microscope, they are just a tiny lump of mucus, and they have a thread that they wriggle along. They are very interesting animals, but they consist only of a tiny lump of mucus, like if you took a thread out of an oyster, and they swim around like that. These little Vorticelles are now able to produce a hundred and forty trillion offspring in four days – a single one! – so many zeros would be needed to write it on the blackboard. The only thing that can compete with that now is Russian currency!

So you see, there is a considerable difference in reproductive capacity between an elephant, which has to wait fifteen or sixteen years to produce a single young, and such a small Vorticella, which in four days multiplies to such an extent that one hundred and forty trillion offspring grow.

So you see, there are really very significant natural secrets here. And there is a very interesting French tale, which on the surface doesn't have much to do with it, but inwardly it does. There was an important French poet — his name was Racine. And this Racine, it took him seven years to write a play like “Athalie”. So he wrote a play like 'Athalie' in seven years. And in his time there was another poet who was terribly proud compared to Racine and said: Racine needs seven years to write a play; I write seven plays in one year! And so he came up with a fable, a story, and this story, this fable goes: the pig and the lion were once arguing; and the pig, who was proud, said to the lion: I have seven young ones every year, but you, lion, you only produce one in a year. — Then the lion said: Yes, but the only one is a lion, and your seven are pigs. And with that, didn't Racine want to brush the poet aside. He didn't exactly want to tell him that his plays were pigs, but he compared them, because he said: Well, you do seven plays like that every year, but in seven years I do one Athalie – which is world-famous today.

You see, you can say: Even in a fable like that, in a story like that, there is something to be said for taking fifteen or sixteen years, like an elephant, to have a young one, rather than being a Vorticelle, which reproduces in four days to have a hundred and forty trillion young. People already talk a lot about the fact that rabbits have so many young; if they only started talking about the Vorticelle – it's impossible to imagine such a reproductive capacity!

Now, we have to find out why such tiny animals produce so many young, while it takes an elephant so long.

Now I have told you: the sun is the actual basis for fertilization. So, even today, we still need the sun for fertilization. And I have also told you: if there is a heavenly body outside, like the moon, it only affects the head at most, but no longer affects the abdominal organs, so no longer directly affects the reproductive powers. Today, the reproductive powers must be inherited from one being to another. But, gentlemen, in a certain sense, what happens in today's reproduction is still dependent on the moon. And I will explain this to you in the following way, by going back to the sun again.

You see, we have to ask ourselves: Why does an elephant need fifteen or sixteen years to develop its reproductive ability to the point where it can have a calf? Now you all know that the elephant is a pachyderm, and because it is a pachyderm, it takes so long. A thick skin allows the sun's forces to pass through it less strongly than if you were a plant louse and were very soft and the sun's forces could get in everywhere. So the elephant's low fertility is actually related to its thick skin.

You can also tell by the fact that Think back to those huge floating oysters. Yes, a second oyster would never come into being if it only depended on the sun shining on that scale armor, on that thick skin! But this oyster, as I told you, releases a little mucus; the mucus does not yet have an oyster shell, so the sun can come upon it. And by drying the mucus and thereby creating a new oyster, it has a fertilizing effect on that oyster. Yes, when the sun's rays come from the outside, gentlemen, they can only create shells. How is it that the forces of the sun can still have a fertilizing effect?

You see, we have to look at something else to help you understand how the story actually fits together. You may know that when the farmers have harvested the potatoes, they dig quite deep pits and put the potatoes in them. Then they cover the pits again. And then later, when the winter is over, they dig up the potatoes from these pits again, because they have remained good in there. If they had simply kept the potatoes in the cellar, they would have perished. They stay quite good in there.

Where does this actually come from? It is a very interesting thing. The farmers don't know much about it. But, gentlemen, if you were a potato yourself and were buried in this pit, you would actually feel extremely good in there, if you didn't need something to eat. You see, the warmth of the sun in summer remains in there, and what the sun shines on the earth in summer, that draws more and more downwards. And if you dig into the earth in January, the warmth of the sun and all the other solar forces from summer are still there at a depth of one and a half meters.

That is the strange thing. In summer, the sun is out and warms from the outside, and in winter, the sun's power moves down and can be found further down. But it cannot go very deep down; it flows back up again. If you were a potato and were lying down there, you would be quite comfortable; you wouldn't need to heat up, because first of all there is still the warmth from the summer inside, and secondly it comes up quite warmly from below because the solar forces radiate back again. And these potatoes are actually terribly comfortable. It is only there that they really enjoy the sun. In summer they don't get much of the sun, it's even unpleasant for them. If they had heads, they would get headaches when the sun shines on them; it is actually unpleasant for the potatoes. But in winter, when they are buried in the earth, they can really enjoy the sun.

From this you can see that the sun does not only work when it shines on something, but it continues to work when its energy is absorbed and stopped by something.

Yes, gentlemen, now a peculiarity occurs. I have told you: When a body is outside the earth, it has a killing effect, either - like carbonic acid - like a poison, or like the sun here, which produces dandruff when it shines on it; it hardens the living being on which it shines. But in winter, it is not true that the sun works from the outside; it works from inside the earth. There it leaves its strength behind, working in the interior of the earth. And there it also renews the reproductive forces in the interior of the earth, so that the reproductive forces today, in our time, also come from the sun, but not from direct sunlight, but from what remains in the earth and then radiates back in winter.

It is a very interesting thing. It is just like when we breathe in carbon dioxide: then it is a poison. But when the carbon dioxide is inside our body and goes through the blood, we need it. Because if we had no carbon, we would have nothing at all inside us. We need it inside; then it is beneficial; from the outside it is a poison. Sunlight from the outside causes peeling in animals; sunlight absorbed from within and reflected back generates life and makes the animals capable of reproduction.

But, gentlemen, now imagine that you are not a potato but an elephant. You would have an awfully thick skin and would only let a little of the warmth that the earth has from the sun in. That is why it would take you an awfully long time to produce an elephant calf if you were an elephant. But imagine you were a plant louse or an oyster; in that oyster you would be just a mass of mucus near the earth's surface. The elephant is not such a mass of mucus. The elephant is closed off on all sides by its skin, so it lets this warmth, which comes from below, into itself only very slowly.

Now, you see, it is like this: animals like aphids, which also live close to the ground and on plants, have no thick skin at all; they can absorb what evaporates from the earth with the spring with terrible ease, so their reproductive powers are always quickly refreshed. And the vortices even more so, because they live in the water and water retains the warmth of the sun much more intensely, so that the stored solar warmth in the vortices produces the hundred and forty billion at the right season; that is, when they have absorbed enough of what the warmth of the sun is in the water, they can reproduce themselves terribly quickly. So we can say: Today, the Earth gives its beings the ability to reproduce by storing the forces of the sun within itself during the winter.

Now let us move on from there to the plants. You see, with plants it is like this: you know that plants also reproduce through so-called cuttings. So when a plant grows out of the earth, you can cut a cutting somewhere. You have to cut it out properly, then you can plant it and it will grow into a plant. Certain plants reproduce in this way. Where does that come from? The reason why plants have the power to reproduce even through a piece of themselves is because they have the seed in the earth during the winter. That is a very important thing for plants. If you want to somehow encourage plants to grow properly, it is the case, isn't it, that they actually have to be in the ground during the winter. They have to grow out of the ground at all. There are summer fruits, and we could talk about them later. But in the main, the plants have to develop their seeds in the soil, and then they can grow. Sometimes you can also make bulbous plants grow in water, but you have to take special measures for that, don't you. In nature, it is mainly the case that plants have to be placed in the soil and have to get their strength to grow from there.

What happens, gentlemen, when a seed is placed in the earth? There this seed is really placed in the beneficence of absorbing these forces given by the sun to the earth. The plant seed, in particular, really absorbs these forces that come from the sun into the earth.

With animals, it is much more difficult. Those animals that are actually in the earth, such as earthworms and the like, also easily absorb this power. That is why they all reproduce very prolifically, all the animals that are either very close to the earth or in the earth. Worms are also such that they have an awful lot of offspring, and for example just such worms, which unfortunately can also get into the human intestines, produce an awful lot of offspring, and man must constantly exert his own powers so that these worms do not produce an awful lot of offspring. So that if you have worms inside you, you have to use almost all your vital forces to kill these horror stories that you have inside you.

Yes, but plants are able to grow out of the ground (see drawing); down there is the root, then they grow out of the ground, and then they have the leaves, then they develop the flowers and new seeds. But, gentlemen, you know very well that when the flower begins to develop, the plant no longer grows upwards. That is very interesting. The seed of the plant, the germ, is placed in the soil; the stalk grows out of it, leaves, green leaves, and then the flower comes. There the growth is stopped, and the plant now quickly produces the seed. If it did not produce the seed quickly, the sun would use all its strength on these petals, which would be infertile. The plant would get a huge, beautiful flower at the top, with many colors, but the seed would not be able to develop. The plant finally gathers all its strength to produce the seed quickly.

You see, the sun that comes from outside has the peculiarity of making plants beautiful. When we find beautiful plants in the meadow, it is the external sun with its rays that brings out these beautiful colors. But it would make the plants die with it, just as it makes the oyster die with the oyster shell, dries up.

That is why you can see this all over the world. You can see this effect of the sun particularly well when you come to hot, equatorial regions; there all the birds are in the most wonderful colors. That is the effect of the external sun. These feathers are all beautifully colored, but they no longer contain any life force. The life force is most dead in the feathers.

And so it is with the plant. When it grows out of the ground, it has abundant life force. Then it loses more and more of it and in the end it has to gather all its strength; it still puts the very little bit of life force into the seed. And the sun makes beautiful leaves, colorful flowers, but in doing so it kills the plant. There is nothing of reproductive capacity in the colored petals.

But what does the plant do when its seed is placed in the earth? It does not just allow itself to be placed in the earth, but it brings forth growth in the leaves; it brings that forth. If I draw something green, the forces of the sun, that is, warmth, light and so on, develop it. So the forces of the sun rise up in the plant. The plant takes these with it in the seed, while the solar forces that come from outside kill the plant, so that a very beautiful flower arises. But in the middle of it all there is still the seed, which comes from the solar warmth stored up in the middle of winter. The seed does not come from this year's sun. That is just a misconception. The beautiful blossom comes from this year's sun; but the seed comes from the solar warmth of the previous year, which still has the strength that the sun first gave to the earth. The plant carries this through its entire body.

This would not be so easy for animals. The animal depends on the fact that this solar warmth comes more from outside, more from the earth, and is only refreshed. This is because the animal does not absorb the forces of the sun as directly as the plant. But the plant carries the warmth of the previous year's sun through its own body up to the seed in the flower, which has accumulated in the earth.

If you look at this story correctly – it is extraordinarily interesting, wonderfully interesting – then you say to yourself: plants and animals reproduce. They could not reproduce if the sun did not work. If there were no sun, they could not reproduce. But the sun, which is out there in the sky, apart from the earth, it is precisely what kills the ability to reproduce. It is the same as with carbonic acid: when we inhale carbonic acid, it kills us; when we have it inside us, it invigorates us. When the earth receives the sun's rays from outside, its animals and plants are killed; when the earth can give the animals and plants from its interior what is in the sun, they are invigorated and stimulated to reproduce. You can see that in plants; they develop seeds capable of reproduction only from the power of the sun, which they take with them from before, from the previous summer. What makes the plant beautiful this year comes from this year's sun. It is like that in general: the inner life grows from the past, and one becomes beautiful through the present,

Now, gentlemen, the elephant with its thick skin, but the little warmth from the earth and the little sun inside, which he gets from the earth, would be of little use to him, because he is a pachyderm. These forces do not pass through him so easily. He must have stored up a great deal of his own semen from earlier. He has stored up lunar forces. He needs them, of course, for maternal, for female reproduction. He has stored them up. The moon has emerged from the earth, and the animals that reproduce have the lunar forces within them.

You see, there is something that must be taken into account. Of course, someone could come and say: There is such a stupid fellow who says about the former, the earlier lunar forces, that such old forces still live in the eggs, in the reproductive forces. This stupid fellow claims that the present reproductive forces are from the past. – I would simply say to that person: Have you never seen that something that is alive now has something in it that is from the past? – I would show him a boy who looks so much like his father that he is, as they say, the spitting image. Yes, if you then go back – the father could even have already died; someone could have known the father when the father himself was a boy as small as the boy is now, and the person in question could say: Yes, the boy is the spitting image of his father. – But he looks just like him, the way the father was when he himself was a little boy. What you saw there thirty or forty years ago is still in the little boy now! The forces of the past are always still in what lives in the present. And so it is with the reproductive forces. What is in the present comes from the past.

You know, it was considered a particularly strong superstition that the moon should affect the weather. Well, there is also a great deal of superstition in that. But once upon a time there were two scholars in Germany, at the University of Leipzig, one of whom – his name was Fechner – said to himself: perhaps there is a grain of truth in this superstition that the moon affects the weather. So he made a note of what the weather was like at full moon and what the weather was like at new moon, and found that There is a difference; it rains more when the moon is full than when it is new. That is what he found out. You don't have to believe that yet. Such notes are not very convincing. In real science, you have to work much, much more precisely. But he did say that you just have to continue such investigations and see if it doesn't come out that the moon affects the weather.

Now at the same University of Leipzig was another man who thought he was much cleverer – Schleiden was his name. He said: Now even my colleagues are starting to talk about the moon having an effect on the weather. Gosh, that's not true, we have to fight against that with all our might! – Then the Fechner said: Well, the dispute will remain between us men, but we also have women. – You see, that was still in earlier times. When the two university professors lived in Leipzig, the university professors' wives still had an old custom in the city. They put their troughs, their vats, in the rain to get water to wash in. They collected it because water was not easy to come by in old Leipzig. There were no water pipes back then. So Professor Fechner said: Yes, our wives should sort this out. Professor Schleiden and Professor Fechner should do it this way: so that they always get the same amount of rainwater, Professor Schleiden can put out her troughs at the new moon, and my wife can put out her troughs at the full moon! — He said to himself: according to my calculations, she will then get the most rainwater.

Well, you see, the women didn't go along with it. They didn't want to go along with their husbands' science. They couldn't be convinced at all. So it came about in a curious way that a person, even when science is in the form of a man, does not believe in it, like Mrs. Schleiden, and does not say to herself: I get just as much water at the new moon as at the full moon. Instead, she wanted to put out her watering troughs even at the full moon, despite her husband's terrible ranting against Fechner.

That is something that proves nothing. But, you see, it is strange that even today, high and low tides are still connected with the sun and moon. So that one can say: tides occur quite differently during one quarter of the moon than during any other quarter of the moon. That is connected. But, gentlemen, it does not happen because the moon shines on the sea somewhere and that causes a flood, but that is an old story.

When the moon was still inside the earth, it developed its powers and caused the tides. And the earth still has these remnants of the forces themselves, through which the tide arises. No wonder, the earth is already doing it independently. Today it is a superstition to believe that the moon has an effect on the earth. But it once had an effect on the earth when it was still inside, when everything still had an effect on the earth; and the earth is still in this context inside. That is why it determines the tides. But that is only seemingly the case. Just as I look at my watch, I also say: it throws me out at ten o'clock to the hall. — So today the phases of the moon coincide with the tides, because once they were interdependent.

And so it is with the reproductive powers, insofar as they depend on the moon, insofar as they are feminine. And so it is with the reproductive powers, insofar as they depend on the sun, that is, they come from the solar power that is inside the earth.

But all the animals that reproduce so prolifically, up to the trillions, that is, those that can use these solar forces stored up by the sun through the earth, are lower animals. The higher animals and humans have these reproductive powers protected within. Some of the solar power still comes in and constantly refreshes these powers. Without this refreshment, they would not be there either. But from what solar power is inside the earth today, they would not be able to have their reproductive powers properly.

The plant can have them because it carries what lives in the earth from winter into summer through its own body. The plant has the reproductive power from the previous year.

But the elephant cannot have them from the previous year. It has it from a time millions of years ago, and it has it in its reproductive seed, which it in turn inherits from the elephant father to the elephant son. There it is inside. But from what time does it have it inside! Well, just as the plant has the reproductive power of the previous year within it, so the elephant has the reproductive power of millions of years within it. That is why the plant and the lower animals can reproduce from it, because they can still use the power stored up by the earth. These are tremendously strong reproductive powers. Those animals that depend on storing very ancient forces within themselves can only reproduce weakly.

But let us now go back to the time when there were such giant oysters: No sooner had such an oyster reached the point of being illuminated by the sun than it lost its inner strength and could only use the one that came from the earth. But it could still use it because the oyster was open at the bottom. When this oyster was as large as present-day France, it was open at the bottom and could absorb the earth forces that came from the sun. When these animals had then transformed themselves into megatheriums, into ichthyosaurs, when the sun shone on them from above, and they were no longer open from below, they were dependent on the reproductive power that they had within themselves, which was at most refreshed by the sun.

Yes, gentlemen, there must have been a time when animals acquired reproductive powers that they could not get when the sun shines from outside. There must have been a time when the sun was inside the earth, when not just a little of the sun's energy came into the earth, which remains in the earth in winter, for example, for the potatoes; but there was a time when the whole sun was inside the earth.

Now you will say: But the physicists say that the sun is so terribly hot, and if the sun were inside the earth, it would have burned everything. — Yes, gentlemen, you only know that from the physicists. But the physicists would be extremely astonished if they could see what the sun really looks like. If they could build a balloon and go up there, they would not find that the sun is so hot, but the sun is full of life forces, and it develops heat as the sun's rays pass through air and everything. That's where it develops heat first. So when the sun was once inside the earth, it was full of life forces. It could not only give the little life force that it can give today, but when the sun was once inside the earth, these living beings, animals and plants that were there at the time, could get enough of what the sun gave them, because the sun was inside the earth itself. But then these oysters did not develop any shells either, but were just slime.

And now imagine: there was the Earth, the Moon in it, the Sun was inside the Earth, oysters developed that had no shells, but were slime. Mucus formed; it smeared off, separated, and an oyster formed again, and again an oyster formed, and so on. But they were so huge that they could not be distinguished from each other. They were adjacent to each other. What must the earth have looked like back then? It was similar to our brain, where the cells also lie next to each other. There, too, one cell lies next to the other; only that they die, whereas in the past, when the sun was inside the earth, oyster cells, huge cells, were one next to the other, and the sun developed its powers, which it was constantly developing because it was inside the earth. Yes, gentlemen, now consider this: there was the earth (see drawing), here a giant oyster, there another giant oyster, again one, all such giant slime balls next to each other, and they were always reproducing. And today's oysters reproduce so quickly that they can have a million offspring in a short time; the oysters of that time reproduced even more quickly. Gosh, no sooner had the old oyster arrived than the young were already there, and they had young of their own and so on. The old ones had to dissolve again. If someone had looked at it from the outside, how this huge lump of earth was there like a big brain, of course much softer, much slimier than a brain today, how a giant oyster reproduced so quickly - but each one could have had a million offspring again - he would have seen: everyone had to defend themselves against the others because they bumped into each other. And if someone had come, an especially curious one, and had watched from a foreign star, he would have seen: There below, floating in space, is a giant body, but it is all life, constantly producing life, not just consisting of millions of nested oysters, but constantly reproducing. And what would he have seen? Exactly the same thing – only on a gigantic scale – as can be seen today when a human being's tiny egg is examined in the early stages! There, too, it is only a very small-scale process. There are also these small cell mucus vesicles that multiply rapidly.

166 otherwise the human being would not be able to reach his size in the first few weeks in which he is carried. The cells are so small that they have to multiply very quickly. If you had looked at the earth at that time, you would have seen the image of the earth: a giant animal, and within it the forces of the sun and the moon, in the whole earth inside.

You see, I have now shown you how to go back to the time of the earth's development when the earth, sun and moon were still one body. But, gentlemen, I would like to say: in Faust, if you have read or ever read it, Gretchen, who is sixteen years old, says to Faust when he is explaining his religion: “The pastor also says something like that; but it is a little different.” So you could also say: “Yes, the professors also say something like that, but it is a little different.” You say: “Once the sun was one body with the earth and the moon.” — That's what they say; because they say, isn't it: This sun, it was a giant body; then it turned, and then the earth split off as it turned. Then the earth turned further, and then the moon split off again. —- So basically, they also say that all three were once one body.

Then people come and say: That can be proved; it is already being proved to schoolchildren. It can be demonstrated terribly nicely. You take a small drop of oil – which floats on water – and then you take a sheet of card and cut out a small circle, push a pin through the top; afterwards you put it into the water and turn the head of the pin. The little oltröpfelchen split off and go around like that. There you have it, they say, there you see it: that happened once in the world! There was a huge gas ball in the world, just gas; but the story turned, and it was mobile. And then the outer things were just split off, our earth from the sun, just as these oltröpfchen were split off. They can prove that in school. And the children, who believe in authority, say: It happened quite naturally; there was once a huge ball of gas that was rotating, and that's how the planets were split off. We saw it ourselves, how the droplets were split off.

But now you must also ask the children: Did you see the schoolmaster up there turning the pinhead? So you have to imagine a giant schoolmaster who turned the gas ball at that time, otherwise the planets would not have been able to split off! — The giant schoolmaster - in the Middle Ages he was depicted: that was the Lord God with the long beard. That was the giant schoolmaster, and these people forget him.

But it is no explanation to assume a giant gas ball that rotates, and that could only rotate if a giant world schoolmaster had once existed. That is no explanation. But, gentlemen, it is an explanation when you come to the conclusion that the sun and the moon were connected to the earth and that it moved itself. That could move. A ball of gas cannot move by itself. But what I have explained to you here could move. In those days it did not need a world school master, but it was alive in itself. The Earth was once a living being, and indeed one such as a seed is today, and it contained the Sun and the Moon. The Sun and the Moon emerged from the Earth, leaving their inheritance behind, so that today the germinating power, protected in the maternal and paternal bodies of the human being, these powers, which once could come directly from the Sun, still reproduce and today develop the animals, the seeds and eggs in themselves, carry the ancient solar power in their egg and seminal fluids, carry it within themselves as an inheritance from ancient times, from the times when the earth itself still had the sun and moon within it.

You see, that is a real explanation, and only if you understand it that way can you really understand. Then you realize that there was once a time when the moon flew out and the earth flew out of the sun with the moon. We will discuss this matter further next Saturday at nine o'clock. It will still be a bit difficult, but nevertheless I believe that history looks like this so that you can understand it.

Question: I was very surprised by the idea that the sun was inside the earth; I have never heard of anything like that before. As I understood the last lectures, the earth was nothing more than the human being, and that animals actually descended from all this. How do you explain this in contrast to the idea that humans descend from apes?

Dr. Steiner: I am very pleased that you asked this question, because we can make a lot of progress by answering it.

If you take today's human head as it is, what do you find about this human head? First of all, from the outside inwards, you will find this human head covered from top to bottom by a fairly hard, bony shell. Yes, gentlemen, if you take this bony shell, which is thin in relation to the whole head, and compare it with what you find, for example, when you go into the Jura mountains, you will find a very remarkable similarity. You see, the bony skullcap is essentially made of very similar components to the calcium deposits, the calcium crust that you find when you go into the Jura Mountains.

Now, you generally find such deposits on the earth's surface. Of course, in these limestone deposits, you couldn't exactly grow fruit very well. But that can be done in a layer that doesn't consist of limestone, but rather of arable soil, and that is laid over the limestone soil.

Now, gentlemen, you will have already realized: When one speaks of nature, one must touch on everything. And you know, of course, that the human head, at least on the outside, is also covered with a skin that even sheds scales, so that the skin lies over the calcareous skullcap, over the external skull. If one studies this skin in turn, it bears a great similarity to what field soil is. The hair grows in the scalp. The hair, in turn, bears a great similarity to what grows as plants out of the soil. If you draw it schematically, pictorially, we can actually say: at certain points on the earth, there is a lime deposit on top; above that is the soil, and plants grow out of the soil. In humans, we have this calcareous shell on the outside, with skin over it, and hair grows out of the skin.

Now you remember something else. So, curiously enough, I can draw something similar when I draw the earth or the human head. But now you remember that I told you something else. I told you that if you go deeper into the earth and study what is there deeper in the earth, you will find remains of ancient creatures, of ancient animals and plants in the earth. I have told you what these animals and plants used to look like. Ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and so on, were quite large creatures. But if we now go into the inside of the human head, what did I tell you? I told you: the white blood corpuscles swim in the blood, and these are actually also small animals. Inside the human head, these small animals are constantly dying, are, so to speak, half dead, and are only brought back to life at night, but they are on the way to dying. And the further you get into the head, the more the head dies. Under the skullcap, between the brain and the outer bone, is a kind of dead skin. So that when you go into the head, you also find something that is dying.

So we can say: When a person dies, and you take his head apart afterward – which is what science does, of course, since it doesn't like to deal with living people, but rather with dead people on the dissection table – yes, gentlemen, there you have these dead brain cells, which are actually fossilized blood cells, and on the outside the hard shell. In this respect, the story is very similar to the earth. So we cannot say anything other than: when we enter the actual brain through this hard cerebral membrane - it is even called the 'hard cerebral membrane' because it is already completely dead - we see petrification all the time. On earth, these petrifications can be found everywhere. If we look at the earth today, we can see that it resembles a dead human head. It is, of course, only smaller. The earth is larger, so everything looks different. The earth resembles a dead human head. So anyone who studies the earth today must actually say to themselves: the earth is an enormous human skull, and one that has died.

Now, gentlemen, you will never be able to imagine that something can have died if it has not previously lived. That is not true. Only science claims that. But I think you would consider yourself stupid if you found a dead human head somewhere and said: It just formed out of matter. You will never say that, but you will say: This thing that looks like this must once have belonged to a living person, it must once have been alive; because what is dead must once have been alive. So that if someone reflects on it rationally, if he studies the earth today and finds a dead human head, he must naturally imagine – otherwise he would simply be, I would say, stupid – that it once lived, that the earth was once a living human head, that it lived in the universe, as man lives on earth today.

Now, the human head, it could not live, could not possibly live if it did not get its blood from the human body. The human head alone, it can only be shown for fun. When I was a little boy and lived in the village, sometimes such wandering troupes would set up and put up a booth. When you walked by, someone would always come out: Ladies and gentlemen, please enter, the show is about to begin! Here you can see a living, talking human head!” They showed a living, talking human head. You know, that's done with all kinds of mirrors so that you don't see the body, only the head. But otherwise, of course, there is not only the head, but it must receive its blood and everything that nourishes it from the human body. So the earth must once have been such that it could have nourished itself from outer space. Yes, could one also give reasons for the earth really having once been something like a human being and being able to nourish itself from outer space?

Much thought has been given to how it actually came about that the sun - I showed this recently - was once connected to the earth. But that was a long time ago. Since that time, the sun has been outside the earth and gives the earth light and warmth. Even the warmth that is inside the earth itself comes from the sun, it just remains stored in the winter. Now we can calculate exactly how much heat the sun gives off each year. It is a great deal, and physicists have done just such calculations. There are millions and millions of calories. But, gentlemen, when doing this calculation, the physicists were really frightened, because although they found out how much heat the sun emits each year, they also found out that if this were correct, the sun would have cooled down long ago and we would all have frozen to death. So the calculation is done correctly, but it is still wrong. That happens. You can calculate, something can be calculated in the most beautiful way, but the calculation is still wrong, precisely because it is so beautiful.

Now there was a physicist, a Swabian, named Julius Robert Mayer, who actually had some very interesting ideas in the mid-19th century. This Julius Robert Mayer, who lived in Heilbronn in Württemberg, was a doctor and made his discoveries in a similar way to Darwin on his trip around the world, namely by making very interesting observations during a trip to southern Asia, on the islands there, how human blood looks different due to the influence of heat than in somewhat colder areas, and he came to interesting facts through these observations. He then summarized these observations and wrote them down in a very short essay. He sent it to the most important German scientific journal of the time. That was in 1841. And this scientific journal sent the essay back to him because the people said: This is all insignificant stuff, amateurish, stupid. Today, the same people, that is, their successors, of course, see it as one of the greatest discoveries of the 19th century!

But the editors of the “Annalen für Physik und Chemie” (Poggendorff's “Annals of Physics and Chemistry”), which was the most famous German scientific journal at the time, not only sent this essay back to Julius Robert Mayer, but they also locked him up in an insane asylum! Because he was really very enthusiastic about his science - it's not quite right, but he was very enthusiastic about his science - he behaved a little differently than other people - after all, they didn't exactly know the same things as he did - and his fellow doctors and other doctors noticed this, and that's why he was put in an insane asylum! So you come up with a scientific discovery that comes from a person who was locked up in an insane asylum for it. If you come to Heilbronn in Swabia today, you will find a monument to Julius Robert Mayer on the most important square there. But that was done afterwards! It's just an example of how people deal with people who have such thoughts in their heads.

Now, you see, this Julius Robert Mayer, who thought about this influence that he knew from heat on the blood, also thought about how the sun can produce heat. The others just calculate how much it gives off. But Julius Robert Mayer also asked himself: Yes, where does it all come from? — What does physics do? One would like to say that physics calculates in the same way as one would calculate with a human being: he once ate and now he is full, but in addition, something is stored in his own fat and muscles. If he can't eat anymore, he takes it from his fat and muscles. And he can live like that for forty or sixty days, but afterwards he dies if he doesn't get anything to eat. The physicists have also calculated what the sun produces every day after it has miraculously generated this heat. How it ate at that time was not considered, but in any case, it was calculated how much it produces.

But where it gets that from, that was asked by Julius Robert Mayer. And he found out that every year so many celestial bodies fly into the sun that are like comets. You see, that is the food of the sun. But if we look up at the sun today, we can see that it has a good stomach, it eats an enormous number of comets every year. Just as we consume our Mitrag's meal and thereby develop our warmth, so the sun develops warmth by eating comets into its good stomach.

Now, gentlemen, that means: When the comets have already been completely fragmented and are falling down, they are indeed hard iron cores, but only the iron falls down. Man also has iron in his blood. If a man were to dissolve somewhere and only the iron were to fall down, people would probably say: There is something up there that has been glowing, and it is made of iron. Because the meteorites into which comets disintegrate consist of iron, it is said that comets are made of iron. But that is nonsense, just as it would be nonsense to believe that a person is made of iron because they have iron in their blood and you would find a very small lump of iron there. That is just how meteorites are found; they are disintegrated comets. Comets are something quite different; comets are alive! And the sun is alive too, it has a stomach, and not only eats comets but feeds itself just as we do. There is iron in our stomachs too. When you eat spinach, you don't realize that it contains a lot of iron, in general, of course. Nevertheless, it is good to advise people with anemia to eat a lot of spinach, because it helps their blood absorb iron much better than if you simply put iron into their stomachs, which usually passes through the intestines.

If the comets were only made of iron and fell into the sun, you should just see how it all comes out again! You would see a completely different process. You would probably have to build a giant toilet in space if that were the case! Of course, the situation is quite different. Comets are only made up of a small percentage of iron; but the sun eats them.

Now think back to the time when the Earth itself once had the Sun inside it. Then the Sun did the same as it does now, alone; then it also devoured comets. And now you have the reason why this giant head, which is the Earth, was able to live: because the Sun provided its nourishment. As long as the Sun was with the Earth, the Earth fed from the Universe through the Sun, just as we now feed from the Earth through our nourishment system.

So it was already taken care of that the earth, when the sun was still with her, could feed herself. Of course, you have to imagine that the sun is much bigger than the earth, and that therefore the sun, while it was inside the earth, was actually not inside the earth, but the earth was inside the sun. So you have to imagine it like this (see diagram $. 176), that at that time the sun was here, the earth was inside it and inside the earth, in turn, was the moon. So: sun, in the sun the earth and in the earth the moon. In a sense, it was the other way around than with humans. But with humans it only appears that they have a small stomach; the small stomach alone could not do much. The small stomach that man has – we will talk about this later – is related to the outside world everywhere. Actually, man is inside the earth, just as the earth was once inside the sun. And the actual earth's stomach was then the center of the sun. If that is the sun (see drawing), that is the earth, then the stomach was here (in the middle), and the sun just pulled these comets in from everywhere and then handed them over to the stomach, so that the digestion of the earth did happen inside the earth after all.

Now you can say again: This is contradicted by the fact that the human head does not digest itself. — That is quite right. But history has also changed. The human head does digest a little, after all. You see, I have described to you: When we eat food, it first comes to the tongue, to the palate. There they are first mixed with saliva containing ptyalin, and then they go down the gullet. But not all food goes down the gullet, for basically the human being is a column of water — everything is soft, only the solid parts are stored away — so that some of the food is absorbed in the mouth in the head. Direct nourishment goes from the palate into the head. That is how it is. You can see that things are not as crude as one usually believes, you can see that simply by comparing. You cannot expose a human egg to the air to hatch it externally. You can do that with a bird's egg. It is exposed to the air and first hatched on the outside. It is the same, of course, with the human head, in a similar way. The human head today could not nourish itself from the little nourishment it gets from the palate. But the earth was organized differently. It had a stomach within it, which was also a mouth, and it nourished itself entirely from this mouth. So we can say: As long as the sun was connected to the earth, this huge being had the possibility to nourish itself from the universe.

But now I have told you: if you study the earth today, it is like a dead human head. Yes, a dead human head, but it must have lived once. So the earth must have lived once. It nourished itself through the sun.

Now, gentlemen, I will tell you something else. You see, if you look at the human germ in the womb at a certain time, that is, after fertilization, I mean two, three, four weeks after fertilization, this human germ looks extraordinarily interesting. First of all, in the mother's body, all around the mother's body, which is called the uterus, there is a membrane that has many blood vessels. And the blood vessels that are inside the mother's body are not there, of course, when a child is not being carried. These blood vessels are connected to the other blood vessels that the mother has. They go into the blood vessels everywhere. So the mother has connected this sphere to her own blood system (see drawing) and while the blood usually circulates in the body, the blood also flows into this sphere, only into the outer sphere.

Now, gentlemen, inside this sphere you will find all the organs. For example, there is an organ that looks like a sack, and next to it there is another one that is a smaller sack. These blood vessels also continue into these sacks, which are not there at all when the mother is not carrying a child, because the whole sphere is then missing; these veins also continue into it. So we can say: These veins go in everywhere and everything I have drawn for you so far is there when the child develops in the first few weeks; it is there and the child hangs on to it very small, tiny, here. It hangs on to it very tiny!

And strangely enough, if I were to draw you a large picture of the child now, as it is in the near future, I would have to draw it like this: the child is almost just a head, with the rest of it tiny. You can see that I have drawn two little stumps like that, which will later become the arms. The legs are almost non-existent. But instead, these two pockets that I have drawn sit on the child, and the blood vessels go into these two pockets. And these blood vessels bring nourishment, and the head is nourished. A stomach is not there yet, and neither is a heart. The child does not have its own blood circulation in the first few weeks. The child is just a head. And that grows and grows gradually so that it becomes human-like in the second or third month, that the other organs are added. But the child is still nourished from the outside, from that which is there as pockets. And then food is stored all around (it is drawn). But blood is supplied. The child cannot breathe yet, it only gets air indirectly through the mother. The child is actually a human head, and the other organs are not yet of much use to it. It cannot do anything with the lungs. It cannot do anything with the stomach. It cannot eat yet; so it must get all its nourishment only in such a way that its head is nourished. It cannot breathe yet. It does not yet have a nose either. The organs are developing, but it cannot use them yet. So the child in the mother's womb is a head; only everything is soft. The later brain is terribly soft in here, very soft and terribly alive, very much alive. And if you could take a giant microscope and look straight at a child's head, which for all I care is from the second or third week after fertilization, it would look quite similar to what I told you about the earth as it once was, when the ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs and so on waddled around. It would look very similar, only different in size.

So that one can say: Where can we find a picture of the Earth as it once was, today? In the human head, when the human head is still unborn and exists as a germ. This human head is namely a clear image of the Earth.

And everything that needs to be there, these pockets on the body, what is around it, is thrown off as the so-called afterbirth after it has become very brittle, and the person remains, is born. So from what is thrown off as the afterbirth, you actually get the nourishment as a child in the womb – the afterbirth consists of the shredded blood vessels. These so-called allantois and amnion – these shredded organs – are extremely important to us while we are in our mother's womb, because they replace the stomach and respiratory organs. But when we no longer need them, when we are born, can breathe and eat for ourselves, they are thrown off as afterbirth.

Now, gentlemen, when you look at something like the one I have drawn for you, all you have to do is imagine: There would be the universe, here would be the Earth, and in there the human head and all around, very fine, the sun (see drawing $. 177). And now comes birth, that is, what was once there ceases. The sun and the moon fly out, and the birth of the Earth is there. The Earth must help itself.

There are two things that can be described. First of all, I could describe to you the earth as it once looked like – there were ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and so on. But now I could just as easily describe the human germ. Everything is smaller, but I would have to say the same thing. So today you could say: the earth was once the germ of a giant human.

It is extremely interesting that in earlier times people knew more than later people in a remarkable way - we will talk about that later. The later people have mostly learned from the misunderstood Hebrew document, from the misunderstood Old Testament, and they imagined, not true: there was the earth and somewhere the paradise, and there is the finished Adam in the paradise as a little nipper. This idea that people have formed from the misunderstood Old Testament is about as accurate as if someone today were to imagine: Man does not come from the little thing that is there from the allantois and amnion sacs, from this skin and so on - man does not come from that, but all that is a thing in itself; but in the mother's womb there is a tiny flea, and from this little flea comes man. That's about it when you imagine: The Earth was there, Adam and Eve lived on it like fleas, and afterwards the human race. This is precisely what has arisen from a misunderstanding of the Old Testament, whereas those who knew something in ancient times did not speak of Adam, but of Adam Kadmon. And Adam Kadmon is something other than Adam. He is this giant head that the Earth once was. And that is a natural conception. This Adam Kadmon only became an earth flea when people could no longer imagine that a human head could become as large as the earth, when they no longer believed in it, and so they formed the abnormal conception, as if it were there for fun, that the whole nine months in the mother's body go by, and that the human being is born from this motherly sphere.

In reality, we have to imagine that man was once the whole earth – the whole earth. And the Earth was much more alive. But, gentlemen, it is no different; you see, if I draw you the Earth today, it is a dead being, just as the human head is dying, and if we go back to this human head, which is in the mother's womb, it is alive through and through. It is as the Earth once was. And the Earth died today. But once it was alive through and through.

You see, if people could hold everything that science provides together, they would come up with many things. Science is all right, but the people who administer today's science cannot do much with science. If someone looks at the earth's surface today, they have to say: It's like a dead human head. We are actually walking on a dead body that must have lived once. I have told you that; but I will also tell you everything that follows from it.

Now, during my youth in Vienna, there was a very famous geologist, that is, a student of the earth. He wrote a great book: “The Face of the Earth.” It says that today, when we walk over the soil of Bohemia or Westphalia, we walk over dead things. That was once alive. - Science already suspects the details, but it cannot put the things together. What I am telling you does not contradict science anywhere. You can find confirmation of it everywhere if you follow the scientific evidence. But the scientists themselves cannot get out of it, which follows from the facts.

So we really come to say: the Earth was once a giant human. That's what it was. And it died, and today we walk around on the dead Earth.

Now, you see, there are important questions left over, two important questions raised by Mr. Burle's question. One is this: if we go back, we see that the Earth was a giant. Where did the animals come from? And the second question is: the Earth was a giant. How did it come about that man is now such a small flea on the Earth? How did it come about that he became so small? These two questions are indeed important questions.

The first one is actually not that difficult to answer; you just have to answer it not out of all kinds of fantastic gimmicks, but you have to answer it out of the facts.

Yes, gentlemen, just imagine that the Earth was once a human head like this in outer space and died. Are you surprised that all kinds of creatures came out of it? They still do today. If you take that into consideration, you have the origin of animals. You can still observe that today.

That is the one question. We will talk more about how the individual animal forms came about. But in principle, you have to assume that the animals must be there. I can only touch on this question today; I will answer it in detail later.

Now the other question remains: Why is man such a little shrimp today? Well, there you have to take everything you can know. First, you can ask: Yes, but once a human being lived in space, who died and is now Earth. Did he not give birth? Did he not reproduce? — There is no need to go into this question any further; if it did multiply, then the others in space were called to do so at that time. So we need not be interested until a certain point of multiplication occurs.

Yes, gentlemen, if you still follow how a small cell multiplies today, it is like this at first (see drawing), then it is like this, then two come from it. Then each becomes two; that's already four. And so the whole human body is built up, so that in the end it consists of nothing but small individual critters living in the blood and dead in the head, all coming from a single cell. Thus, from a part of the original earth, just as today man is not only born out of a whole human being, but out of a part of a human being - today's earth came into being. The only question is: why can't they get out anymore? Because the Earth is no longer connected to the universe in the same way as it was when the Sun was inside it. Now all these beings remain inside. They were illuminated from the outside by the Sun when the Sun went out, whereas before it was inside. — You have to take everything you can know.

Gentlemen, but perhaps you know that dogs, which generally speaking are a certain size, below which they do not go, but can be bred to be so small that they are sometimes almost no larger than large rats. If you give the dogs alcohol to drink, for example, they stay small – it depends on what affects the being and how big it becomes –; however, these dogs become terribly nervous.

It was really the case – even if the whole world was not full of alcohol – that the effects of the substances had become quite different when the sun had left the earth. When it was still in the earth, there was a completely different effect than later, when the sun was out. And while man was at first as big as the earth itself, he became small through this huge effect. But that was fortunate for him, because when he was still as big as the earth, all the others who were born had to fly out into space. We will hear later what happened to them. Now they could stay inside the earth because they can walk around on the earth together. And now, instead of one person, the human race came into being because people remained small.

Yes, gentlemen, it is true: we all descend from one man! That is, after all, understandable, isn't it. But this one man was not a little earth flea, as people are now, but he was the earth itself. When the sun came out, the earth died on one side, and the animals crept out, as they still do when something dies. And on the other side, the forces remained. Only now they were not stimulated from within by the sun, but from without, and man became small and could become many people.

So the fact that the sun works from the outside makes people small. You can easily understand that. Just imagine that the Earth is this small (I will draw the Earth very small now) and in the past the Sun was where the Earth was inside, so all the forces radiated out from there, and when the Earth moved, the Sun always moved with it; they were one and the same (see illustration on the left). Now that the sun is outside, the story is like this: there is the sun and there is the earth, which goes around the sun. When the earth is there, it receives these rays; when it is there, it receives those rays (drawing on the right). They only ever see a small section of rays on plate 9. When the sun is outside, the earth receives only a few rays. When the sun was still inside the earth, the whole effect of the sun still came from within. No wonder that when the sun orbits in this way, it can illuminate a person at every single point on the earth, whereas before, when it was inside and had to radiate from the center, it could only illuminate one person. When the sun began to work from the periphery, it reduced the size of the human being.

It is really interesting that not only the Asian scholars, when the Old Testament had long been misunderstood and interpreted as it was later interpreted, still spoke of the Adam Kadmon, who is actually a human being who is the whole earth, but the ancestors of the present-day Central European people, who are everywhere, in Switzerland, in Germany, they had a legend that said: The Earth was once a giant human, the giant Ymir. And the Earth was fertilized.

So they talked about the earth in the same way that we have to talk about a human being today. And of course this was no longer understood later on, because the place of these indeed pictorial, correct images from legends – they are terribly true – because the place of these true images was taken by the false Latin interpretation of the Old Testament. So the ancient Germans here in Europe – it was figurative, as if they had dreamt, but the dream was much more correct than later, when the Old Testament was misunderstood and instead of speaking of the whole earth, of the Adam Kadmon, one spoke of the little Adam – still had an old, albeit merely dream-like, figurative science.

Yes, you get a huge respect for what has been eradicated, old, but only dream-like pictorial science. But it was there, and it has been eradicated. It does not need to be surprised. In a certain time this general extermination just came. And if I were to tell you what once existed, for example, in Asia Minor, in the Near East, in North Africa, in Southern Europe, in Greece, Italy – yes, gentlemen, in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century, when Christianity already existed, you could find strange statues everywhere in Asia or Africa when you walked in the fields; they were everywhere. And in these statues, people who could not yet read or write expressed what it once was like on Earth. From these statues one could have studied what it once was like on Earth. It was in the form, as expressed in the sculpture, that the Earth was once a living being.

And then people just got this rage, this anger, and in a short time everything that was present in such statues was simply taken away. A huge amount was destroyed, from which a huge amount could have been taken. What is still found today of ancient monuments is the least important, because in the first centuries, people knew well which was the more important. That was shaved off.

So it is true that humanity once had wonderful knowledge; but they just dreamt it, these people. And you see, it is an extraordinarily interesting fact that people once actually dreamt on Earth instead of reflecting, as they have to do today. They actually did it more at night than during the day. Because everything you learn from the older wisdom of people is interspersed with the fact that you can see that these people observed a lot at night. The shepherds in the fields observed a lot at night. And this old wisdom was present among the Germans, among the Germanic peoples, in that they spoke of a giant human. And later there was still a giant human. Man really did not suddenly become smaller. And in the end he became just as people are now.

From this point, gentlemen, we will continue our discussion when I am able to visit you again. Such a question always provides the stimulus to talk about a great deal. I must now travel to Germany again, to Stuttgart. After that, we can continue our discussion. In the meantime, prepare some very nice questions. I will then tell you when the next hour will be.

Good morning, gentlemen. Today we will add to what we have heard on previous occasions so that we will be better able to understand the full dignity of the human being.

I have explained roughly how nutrition and breathing work in human beings. We also talked about how closely connected nutrition is with our life and that it is essentially a process of taking in substances that are then lifeless in our intestines. These substances are then re-enlivened by the lymph vessels, and in the process they are transmitted into the blood. There this living nourishment encounters the oxygen of the air. We take in air. The blood changes. This process occurs in the chest, and it is this process that gives us our feelings.

Thus, life actually originates between the processes in the intestines and those in the blood. In turn, in the blood processes, that is, between the activities of the blood and the air, our feelings come about. Now we have to deal with the human mind as well and try to understand how it developed.

You see, understanding the external aspect of the mind has become possible only in the last sixty years. Last year, in 1921, we could have celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of this possibility. We did not, because in our time people are not very interested in celebrating purely scientific anniversaries. The discovery made in 1861 we could have celebrated sixty years later, was an important scientific discovery. It is only in the last fifty or sixty years that this matter can really be talked about. I remember it because it is just as old as I am. The discovery I am speaking of is the following.

I told you the other day how we can observe human beings. We do not need to experiment; all we need to do is pay attention to how nature experiments with people whenever they have any kind of illness. If we know how to look at what happens to the physical body when a person becomes ill in any way, we discover that nature herself arranged such an experiment for us and that we can gain insights from it.

Well, in 1861, when Broca dissected brains of deceased people who had speech impairments, he discovered that they had had an injury in the third convolution on the left side of the brain.

You know, don't you, that when we remove the top of the skull, we can see the brain? This brain has convolutions. We call one of them the temple convolution because it is located near the temple. Well now, in every person suffering from speech impediments or. muteness, there is some damage in this left convolution of the brain. This injury happens when someone has a so-called brain stroke. What happens in that case? The blood, which normally flows only through the vessels, is forced out through their walls and enters the tissue surrounding the vessels, where it should not be. Such a hemorrhage produces the stroke, the paralysis. In other words, whenever blood flows into the wrong place, into this convolution of the brain, it ultimately disables this temple convolution completely and prevents the person from speaking.

This is an interesting connection: Human beings can speak because they have a healthy left convolution of the brain. We must now understand what it means when a person has a healthy left convolution of the brain. But in order to grasp this, we need to look at something else first.

When we examine this same area of the brain in small children who have passed away, we find that this portion constitutes a fairly uniform, mushlike substance, especially at the time before the child has learned to speak. As the infant gradually learns to speak, more and more small whorls develop here. They continue to form in an artful way. In other words, the left cerebral convolutions in the child who has learned to speak or in a fully grown adult are artfully structured.

Clearly, this means that something happened to the brain while the child learned to speak. And we should not think about this any differently than we think in ordinary life. You see, if I move a table from there to here, nobody would say the table moved itself this way. It would be just as wrong for me to say that the brain has formed these convolutions by itself. Instead, I must think about what has actually taken place and what caused it. In other words, I must ask why the left temple convolution developed this way.

You see, when children learn to speak, they move their body. In particular, they move their speech organs. Before that, when they could not yet talk, they were merely fidgety, cried, and so forth. As long as the child is only able to cry, its left convolution of the brain is still a “mush,” as I described it. The more the child learns not merely to cry but also to turn this crying into individual sounds, the more this convolution receives definite shape. As long as the infant simply cries, there is only brain mush in this area. When the child begins to utter sounds, this uniform mush is transformed into the artfully structured left portion of the brain we can see in healthy adults.

Now, gentlemen, the matter stands like this: When children cry, the sounds they utter are mainly vowels such as A (as in “father”) or E (as in “gate”). When they merely cry like this, they do not need a developed left cerebral convolution; the children utter these sounds out of themselves, without having anything artful developed in the brain. If we pay some attention, we will discover that children initially make A sounds; later on they add those of U (as in “shoe”) and I (“bee”). Gradually, as you know, they also learn to utter consonants. First they form the sound A; then they add M or W and say MA or WA. In other words, out of their crying children gradually manage to form words by adding consonants to the vowels.

And how do they form these consonants? All you need to do is to pay attention to how you pronounce, for example, an M. You'll see that you must move your lips. When you were a child, you had to learn this through imitation. If you say L, you must move your tongue. Thus, you must always move some organs. From mere fidgeting the child must progress to regular movements, carried out by the speech organs in imitation. The more the child moves beyond the vowels formed in mere crying and utters consonants such as L, M; N, R, the more the left cerebral convolution is structured in an artful way.

Now we could ask how children initially learn to speak. They learn to speak only through imitation. They learn to speak, to move their lips, by imitating out of their feelings the way other people move their lips. All of this is imitation. This means that children take in, see, perceive what happens around them. And this perceiving, this mental activity, forms the brain. Just as a carver shapes a piece of wood or a sculptor works on marble and bronze, so the child's movements “sculpt” the brain. The organs the child moves carry their movements right into the brain.

If I want to pronounce L, I have to use my tongue. The tongue is connected with the brain through nerves and through other organs. This L penetrates into my left cerebral convolution and produces a structure there. In other words, the L produces forms in which one section joins the next, resembling the intestines. The M produces spherical convolutions. So you see, these sounds work on the brain.

The movements of the organs the child activates through observation are at work here in the brain. It is very interesting that since it became known that a brain stroke damages the left cerebral convolution, thus destroying the ability to speak, it became possible to know that the formation of vowels and consonants by the child continuously works on this convolution. This in turn is based on the fact that the eyes and other sense organs perceive what takes place in the world around us.

And what happens in the world around us? Well, you see, whenever we speak we are also breathing. We breathe continuously. And in this process, every breath first enters the human body, moves up the spinal column and enters the brain. This means that even while the child is crying—though as yet unable to pronounce consonants—this breath moves up and enters the brain.

What is actually entering the brain in this process? Well, blood, of course. As I explained to you in the last few days, blood flows everywhere. Through our breathing, blood is constantly being pushed into the brain. This activity begins the very moment we are born and even before, except then it occurs in a different manner. Anyhow, when we are born, we begin to breathe. This intake of air begins, which then pushes blood into the brain.

Thus we can say that as long as the baby's breathing merely pushes blood into the brain, it can only cry. Children begin to speak when not only blood is forced into the brain, but when they also perceive something through their eyes or any other organ, especially the ears. In other words, whenever they see another person move, children inwardly repeat this movement. At this moment not only the bloodstream goes up to the head, but another stream goes there as well, for instance, from the ears—the stream of the nerves.

In the left cerebral convolution, like everywhere else in the human body, blood vessels and nerve fibers meet. The latter are affected by what we observe and perceive. The child's movements in uttering consonants reach the left convolution, that of speech, via the nerves. This area is structured by the combined effect of the breathing, which is carried there by the blood, and of whatever activity comes in through the ears and the eyes. In other words, blood and nerves together structure this brain mush beautifully. Thus we see that, at least in this particular region (and it will later be found to be the same way in others), our brain is actually structured through the combined activity of perception (via the nerves) and of the constant intake of breath, which pushes the blood into the brain.

At this point, we need to understand also that this is how the child learns to speak, that is, by developing the left cerebral convolution. But, gentlemen, when you dissect a corpse, you will find that the right convolution of the brain, though symmetrically placed, shows relatively little structuring. On the one hand, we have the left convolution, which is beautifully formed, as I said before. On the other, we have the right one, which throughout life usually remains the way it was in the young child, that is, unstructured. I could say, if we had only the right convolution, we would only be able to cry. It is only because we so artfully structure the left convolution that we are able to speak.

You see, it is only when a person is left-handed and habitually tends to do most of his work with the left hand that, strangely enough, he will not lose his capacity for speech even when his left side is affected by a stroke. Dissection will reveal that in the case of this left-handed person, the right convolution of the brain was structured in the same way as the left convolution of right-handed people normally is. Movements of arms and hands, then, have a strong bearing on the formation of the brain.

Why is that so? You see, this comes about because when a person is used to doing a lot of things with his right hand, he does not merely do them with this hand, but he also gets into the habit of breathing a bit more strongly on the right side, of exerting more of an effort there. He also gets into the habit of hearing more clearly on the right side, and so forth. All of this merely points to the fact that the person in the habit of using his right hand develops the tendency to be more active on that side than on the left.

When a person is right-handed, the left convolution of the brain is structured; when he is left-handed, the right convolution is structured. What is the reason for this? Well, gentlemen, when you look at the right arm and hand and the head and the left cerebral convolution and then examine where the nerves are, you will find that there are nerves everywhere in the human body. If you did not have nerves everywhere, you could not feel warm or cold. These sensations have to do with the nerves. You have nerves everywhere in your body.

They go up the spine and reach right into the brain. But the remarkable thing is that the nerves coming from the right hand lead into the left portion of the brain, and the ones in the other hand are connected with the right side of the brain. This is because the nerves cross. Yes, the nerves cross in the brain. For instance, if I do a gymnastics exercise or a eurythmic movement with my right hand or the right arm, I sense the activity through this nerve, but I become aware of it in the left half of the brain because the nerves cross.

Let us now imagine that a child prefers to do everything with the right hand. Then the child will also breathe a bit more strongly on the right side and will also hear and see a bit better on that side. The person will make greater efforts on that side and through his movements develop something that reaches into the left side of the brain. Now you only need to imagine that we have the habit of making certain gestures while speaking, such as Ah! (corresponding gesture); or if we reject something: Eh! These gestures are perceived by our nerves. Now, the movements we make with the right hand while speaking are experienced by the left side of the brain.

By the same token, those of us who are right-handed have the tendency of pronouncing vowels and consonants more strongly with the right half of the larynx. Again these activities are taken in more vividly with the left side of the brain. This is why the brain, originally more like mush, is now a lot more structured. In contrast, we use the left side of our body much less, and that is why the right half of the brain is less developed and remains mush. However, when someone is left-handed, the opposite process takes place.

These facts lead to important conclusions for education. Just think, when you have left-handed children (you will have a few of them), you must tell yourself that whereas all the others have a very artfully developed left convolution of the brain, in the left-handed children the right convolution is structured. When I teach writing, I use my right hand. In this activity, the right-handed children will merely reinforce what they have begun to develop in their left brain convolution when they began learning to speak. However, if I now force the left-handed children to write with their right hand, I will destroy the development that learning to speak has produced in their right cerebral convolution. Yes, this development will be destroyed.

Since left-handed children are not supposed to write with their left hand, my task is now to gradually direct everything previously carried out by the left hand to the right one. This way they will initially learn to do simple things with the right hand and get into writing much more slowly than the other children. But it does not matter if they learn to write a bit later. If I simply were to make left-handed children write as fast as the right-handed ones, I would make them less intelligent because I would ruin the development that has taken place in the right side of the brain. Therefore, I must make sure to treat left-handed children differently from right-handed ones when I teach them to write. This approach will not make them less intelligent in later life, but more so, because I gradually transform their left-handedness into right-handedness, instead of merely getting their entire brain confused through making them write with the right hand immediately. If you want to affect the entire human being through writing and force this change to the right hand, pedagogically speaking, you would achieve the very opposite of what you are striving for.

Nowadays we find a widespread tendency of teaching people to do everything with both hands. This is how we really get their brains mixed up. This tendency of making people do the same thing both with the right and the left hand merely proves how little we know. Mind you, we can strive for such an ideal, but before we could realize it, we would have to change something. Gentlemen, we would first have to change the entire human being! We would slowly have to shift activities from the left side to the right and then gradually reduce them on the right. What would happen then? You see, what would happen is that, below the surface, the left cerebral convolution would be more artfully formed; but on the outside, it would remain mush. The same would happen to the right convolution. Instead of distributing two activities between the left and the right sides, we would develop each convolution into an outer and an inner half.

The inner portion would be more suitable for speech; the outer one would exist merely in order to add the vowels and consonants in crying. However, speech is a combination of what happens in crying and in articulating. This remains the same throughout life.

You see, we cannot just tinker with human beings and their development. In education, even in the lower grades, we need an understanding of the entire human being. For with everything we do we change the human being. The really criminal thing is that nowadays people monkey around considering only superficial things and ignore the inner effects of what they do.

Actually, very few people have both sides of the brain fully developed. Usually the right convolution contains more blood vessels, whereas the left one has fewer and instead is more permeated with nerves. This holds true for the human brain generally; the right side carries more blood, and the left is more used for perceiving.

Once we realize that the brain is shaped under external influences, we can appreciate how important these influences from the outside are. We see that they are tremendously significant once we understand that they affect everything that takes place in the brain. Also, out of the understanding of what occurs in the brain when we speak, we can get an idea of how the human brain works.

You see, when we examine it further, we discover that there are always more blood vessels on the outside wall of the brain than inside it. Thus we can say that the exterior part of the brain contains more blood and the interior more nerves.

Let us now consider a child learning to speak in the ordinary way, a right-handed child. How is the brain of such a child being formed? First of all, the brain of a young child is surrounded by a layer or coat, so to speak, of blood vessels. Then nerve tracts begin to form. Because of this, gentlemen, because of these nerve tracts in there, the inner brain substance appears whitish when you take it out and look at it. However, when you take out the brain matter surrounding it, it looks reddish-grey because it contains so many blood vessels.

Now what happens in this region when the child learns to speak and consequently the left cerebral convolution is structured accordingly? What takes place, you see, is that the nerve bundles, as it were, gradually extend more toward the inside and less in the area where the blood system expands. In other words, in children who develop normally the inner part of the brain shifts more to the left and the remaining portion follows. The brain thus moves to the left side, where it turns ever more whitish. It shifts that way. All of human development is based on such artful details.

Now let us talk some more about speech. You see, there are languages that have many consonants and others that contain many vowels such as A, E, I and so forth. In some languages people squeeze out the sounds, like S, W, so that one barely hears the vowels. What lies behind all this?

We know that languages differ in different regions of the earth. What does it mean when someone lives in a certain area where people focus more on the consonants? It means that he or she experiences the outer world more, for the consonants are formed in the experience of the surroundings. Therefore, in people living more in the physical world the white portion of the brain shifts more to the left. In people experiencing life more inwardly, people living in a region where things are experienced more inwardly, the white brain matter does not move quite so far to the left. These people will tend to utter melodious vowels. This varies with the regions of the earth.

Let us now assume the following, gentlemen: Let's imagine the earth and people standing at various points on the earth. And one person, let us say, is given a language rich in vowels and another one a language rich in consonants. What must have happened in their respective regions? A lot may have happened, quite a lot, but I want to focus on one thing that may have taken place. Imagine that we have high mountains and a level area, a plain. Picture then steep mountains on one side and a plain on the other. Now, wherever there are flat regions, we perceive that the language people speak there is richer in vowels. Wherever there are steep mountains, the local language tends to be richer in consonants.

But you see, this matter is not so simple after all, because we must ask how the mountains and the plains came about. This is the way it is: We have the earth, and the sun shines upon it. At one time our entire earth was unformed mush. The mountains first had to be pulled out of this mush. All right then, the earth was basically mush and the mountains were pulled up out of this mush.

Well, gentlemen, what was it that pulled the mountains up? The cosmic forces that work out there did. We can say that there are certain forces of a cosmic nature that pulled up these mountains. In some places the forces were strong and developed mountains; in other places there were weaker forces coming in out of the universe that did not produce mountains. In this latter area the earth crust was not pulled up so strongly in primeval times. And the people born on those parts of the earth crust less affected by these cosmic forces use more vowels. Persons born in areas more strongly influenced by the cosmic forces use more consonants. We see now that the differences between languages are connected with the forces of the entire universe.

Now how can we support such a claim? Well, gentlemen, what we have claimed here must be considered in the same way we look at clocks to check the time. We look at the clock to see if we must start working or if it is time to leave. But we never say, “Now this is too much! This awful minute hand is a terrible fellow who whips me on to work.” We wouldn't dream of saying that. All the clock does is tell us when we have to go to work, and so we cannot blame it for having to work, can we? In this case, the clock is completely innocent.

Similarly, we can look up to the sun and say that when we stand here at a certain moment, the sun is between us and the constellation of Aries. That is the direction where these strong cosmic forces work from. It is not Aries itself, of course. This constellation merely indicates the direction where the strong forces come from. If a person is standing in a different place at that same time, he or she is affected as follows: When the sun has moved to that place, it is in Virgo, let us say. The forces coming from this direction are weaker. Instead of going through the entire process now, I can therefore say that when someone is born in an area where at a certain time, let's say at his birth, the sun is in Aries, that person will tend to use more consonants. However, when someone is born with the sun in Virgo, he will tend to use more vowels.

You see, I can read the entire zodiac like a clock from which I can see what happens on earth. But I must always keep in mind that it is not the constellations that cause these events; they are only indicators. From this you can see that the zodiac can tell us a lot, even about the reasons why the languages on earth differ.

Now, let us look at the earth and imagine that we put a chair out there into space and look back at the earth. Of course, this is only possible in our imagination and not in reality. When we look from our chair in space at the various languages on earth, as in a sort of language map, then we get a certain picture. When we then turn the chair around and look out into the universe, we get a picture of the stars. And the two pictures match.

If we study the Southern Hemisphere and the languages there and then turn the chair around and examine the southern firmament, our experience is entirely different from the one we would have if we did the same thing in the Northern Hemisphere. This means that we could draw a map of the starry skies above us, and from our study of the connection between the stars and language we would then be able to tell which language is spoken under a particular constellation.

You see now that as soon as we begin to observe human spiritual life, for example, the formation of our minds through speech, we must look up to the stars in order to understand anything. The earth alone does not give us an answer; you can think about why languages are different as long as you like, but based on the earth alone you won't find an explanation.

If you want to know what takes place in your stomach, you must examine the earth, the soil below. If a region grows mainly cabbages, you will understand that people there must constantly re-enliven in their metabolism the heads of cabbage pulled out of the soil. In other words, if you want to know what people in a certain area eat, you must examine the soil. If you are interested in how people breathe in a particular region, you have to study the atmosphere. And if you want to know what happens inside the skull, in this brain of ours, you must look at the position of the stars. You always have to see the human being as an integrated part of the entire universe.

You see now that it is indeed mere superstition to say, “Whenever the sun is in Aries, such and such takes place.” This kind of statement is not worth anything. However, if you understand the full context, the matter ceases to be superstition and becomes science instead. And that will lead us from understanding the transformation of substances to an understanding of what is really happening and its connection to the vast universe out there.

Dr. Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Have any of you thought of something you would like to ask me?

Question: Concerning the political situation, is Britain sincere in its dealings with Germany, or is it actually conspiring with France to destroy her? On the one side stand the French trying to suppress Germany with reparations, and on the other stand the big capitalists. It is the same with Russia. We know that Germany has made a trade agreement with her, but now we learn that France, too, has made one. Was this done to sabotage the German agreement? Are you perhaps in a position to make a few remarks on these and other German affairs?

Dr. Steiner. Well, gentlemen, perhaps this is the reason why lately we have been more inclined to speak about scientific matters than to discuss political problems. It is much wiser to do so for the simple reason that all these affairs you have touched upon lead to absolutely nothing. In reality, nothing at all can come of them. Just look at the present situation. Basically, none of the protagonists know where they're heading; everything they do is done from fear, is really a product of fear.

Other things are much more important than all these matters that are based, for example, on England's not knowing how to act. England cannot turn her back on France because in England the opinion prevails that promises must be kept. It is the general attitude over there that a person is obliged to keep his promises. But to what extent this notion is sincere—well, that's something that has nothing to do with the actual conditions. Sincerity pertains only to individual human beings. In regard to public life the most we can say is that a kind of basic principle is acknowledged: “Promises must be kept.” One must play the game by the rules of fair play. Therefore, England quite naturally takes the position that she cannot desert the old Entente, but this stand contradicts the whole purpose of the war. That whole undertaking was calculated to shift industrial production toward the West and to suppress the economies of Eastern and Central Europe, to turn these areas into markets. This was, in fact, the original intention. The economy of Central Europe—and the same would have eventually held true of Eastern Europe as well—was much too prosperous to suit people in the West; they simply didn't want things that way.

Now, this opinion in England exists side by side with another. If Germany is totally suppressed, a needed export market is lost. On the other hand, the French, above all else, feel their lack of money and purchasing power. Their only objective is to squeeze profits out of Germany by hook or by crook. You can understand now that the English sit between two chairs and, as a result, don't accomplish much of anything. If one thinks that Germany at some point has been hurt too much, then a little something is done here or there to brighten the general outlook a bit.

In the affairs of the Middle East, England and France are right now in sharp confrontation. England must push back the Turks because she wants to dominate the world. Granted, the English are protecting the Christians, but the sincerity of their motives is something we needn't consider. At the moment, France is not interested in that cause. First and foremost, the French want an influx of money, and for this reason they support the Turks. In the Middle East, then, these two powers are squared off. Basically, world politics everywhere are in a state of chaos today.

Added to all this is something else especially evident in England just now. With this we come to an important issue, and many people should realize its importance. Incidentally, all the things said over there carry no weight whatsoever. What Lloyd George or anybody else says, matters not in the least; it is all at variance with the facts. Of course, it isn't done consciously; people imagine they are talking about the issues, but in fact they are by-passing them. Another matter, however, is of much greater significance. In England, Lloyd George is the centre of a controversy. Should he or should he not remain in office? Now, why is the position of such a man, who can express himself most eloquently in public, so precarious? Quite simply, he no longer has strong party support; his backing is minimal. Yet, what would happen if Lloyd George were replaced? The minister taking his position would himself soon be ousted. Lloyd George has to be retained solely because he has no qualified successors. The crux of the matter is that everywhere we must settle for individuals whose past performances are a matter of public knowledge, because people can no longer discern whether or not candidates are competent and have a real grasp of the issues.

Not even the Social Democratic Party can find capable men anymore. It just continues to support the old guard and shuts the door against aspiring younger members. Because everywhere people cannot recognize human ability, graybeards, who have lost the faculty to comprehend the present situation, are being kept in office. This is why nothing is accomplished anywhere! So today it doesn't matter what party a person joins to receive this or that position; what matters is that we bring about an environment from which individuals arise who have insight into existing conditions and whose speech and actions are based only on facts. Men's awareness for what is required diminishes daily. Comments like, “Well, it would be better if the English did this, the French that, and the Germans and the Turks thus and so,” are so much idle chatter. Whatever is done merely from the standpoint of the past cannot succeed.

Take an issue of the last few days. You'll agree that Germany has suffered greatly from speculation in foreign currency. Even schoolboys have bought foreign money and have “made it” in foreign exchange. Somebody with 50 marks one day could buy foreign currency and have 75 the next. Huge sums of money could be made from speculation. So what does the German government do? As you know, it passed an emergency law controlling speculation in foreign currency. Now, let's assume that the government agencies are so clever that they themselves can succeed in speculation. I don't believe they are, but let's assume so. In the next few weeks there would then be less private trading in foreign currencies in Germany. It is no exaggeration that boys thirteen and fourteen years old were trading in foreign money. What would happen if all this were stopped for a few weeks? A huge gap would arise between the price of necessities like groceries and the amount of money people could afford to spend on them. For example, in Germany today one cigarette costs seven marks. Well, people will pay that amount. Why? Because of the speculation in foreign money. You know that today old men can't afford seven marks for a cigarette, but young people who have made all kinds of money speculating can. Now, if this source of income is cut off, soon no one will be able to buy a good cigarette. This is just one aspect of the matter; another is that wages would have to be lowered in the cigarette industry. Then you would have the discrepancy of consumer goods being kept at their former prices and consumers unable to afford them. A new crisis would arise, and this is, in fact, the next to come.

Everything is done on the spur of the moment, which insures that one crisis follows another—and all this because people see only what is closest at hand. No results can be achieved in this manner. The only way to get out of the present chaotic situation is to have competent men in office again. To achieve anything, we must have men who know what they're doing, but present conditions indicate that nowhere are capable persons being consulted. So we must see to it that qualified people are again elected. Things won't progress by the clichés and vacuities people utter; all this is worthless. Just look at any newspaper. You may even happen to like one because it represents your party, but regardless of their political persuasions the facts they publish are worthless and lead to nothing. For this reason, it's almost a waste of time to occupy oneself with world politics; the field is barren. The only thing that needs to be considered is that once again education should produce competent people. Competence is what we should aim for because today nobody knows anything.

Those powers confronting the Europeans know the most. The Turks, for example, know exactly what they want, as do the Japanese. They want to further their own cultures, solely their own. Strangely enough, Europeans are indifferent about theirs. You can see now why one is reticent to talk about politics. It's like going to a party and discovering that everyone is indulging in platitudes; you will then not want to participate. That's pretty much the situation in politics these days.

Not long ago, Lloyd George delivered a speech. If you want to give a figurative description of it and you said it resembled a pile of chaff in which a few grains of wheat yet remained, then this comparison would not be quite rate. You should say, rather, that no wheat was left, that every last grain had been flailed out. Only then would we have a true picture of the speech Lloyd George gave a few days ago. Yet, I can say without a moment's hesitation that it was the most significant address delivered by a statesman in recent weeks. You see, even though his speech was vapid, he did have his fist in it. He did not actually do so, but one can imagine his having pounded the table every so often. That's one thing he can do. His words are empty, but there is something in his fist.

It's this way everywhere. I've stopped reading the speeches of Wirth, because the few lines that appear on the front page of the Basel newspaper tell me enough. It's then quite apparent that his whole speech amounts to nothing. The situation is absolutely pathetic, and it's pointless to become elated or depressed over any part of it. The thing is, anyone who is really sincere in his regard for humanity must say to himself that everything hinges on our finding competent men who can understand something of the world's problems and who can think, truly think.

For if one considers the remarks of Lloyd George—and perhaps he is actually the most capable of all these politicians—one discovers that he has never had an original thought. He can hold on to his position just because he has no thoughts. Thus, he can vacillate in one or the other direction and what he says is really trite. Were he ever to utter a thought, were the Union Party, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party to discover how they all stood with him, he would, of course, be thrown out of office. His whole skill consists in speaking in such a way that the others can't discern how they fare with him. If somebody's speech is continually inane, no one knows what to make of it. His great asset is his lack of thoughts, and he can use it because he himself does not know where he stands.

These are the conditions today, but this wasn't the case a few years ago. Two or three years ago one always had to say, “Something must be done before it's too late,” but today it is too late. Nothing can be suggested because now it is too late; it's simply too late. The most I can say is that things will improve only when qualified men again enter public life. Germany and Russia can sign as many treaties as they want but nothing will come of them. It isn't a question of signing treaties but of unfolding a healthy economic life.

The Stinnes conglomerate is a good example. Do you think for a moment that Mr. Stinnes could accomplish anything within the German labour force? Of course not; that's impossible. Stinnes is an industrialist who has advanced through skilful manipulation of foreign currency. But that is all he knows, how to advance himself, nothing else. Many people today have noticed that the government is getting nowhere, that all its treaties have had no effect on the economy. Since Stinnes acts independently of the government, the results are probably better, some say, but in any event his ideas are based solely on the manipulation of his interests in Germany and France. This is their only basis. Look at the Stinnes agreements and you'll see what heavy financing they would require. What Stinnes intends to do must be financed. Things are at such a pass, however, that to finance such ventures would just about deplete one's resources, would “raze all the woods in Austria.”

Naturally, a person can talk about all the things he would like to do when in reality none of them can succeed. As soon as he tries to carry one out, it won't work. People have seen that government treaties lead nowhere, no economic growth results from them. Stinnes's ventures are independent of government help so it is hoped that they will produce results. But it won't work. It doesn't matter that he naturally works arm in arm with other big capitalists. His plans cannot be realized because even he will not be able to finance them. Hence, Stinnes offers no solution.

Journalists are fascinated by the columns of figures he manipulates, and you see, gentlemen, when they write their editorials or feature sections, they are under no obligation; they can say whatever they please. You probably haven't saved them, but if you compare the articles written in 1912 with those written today in the same paper, you will discover a curious thing. After all, newspaper articles are ephemeral, no one gives them a second thought, and so journalists can make them as interesting as they like. Anyone who feels responsible for his statements, however, and does not fabricate articles at random knows that all of them are nothing but rubbish. This is the situation everywhere. Because people have no original ideas things have become desperate. Above all else we need original thoughts, new ideas; without these everything will go to ruin.

In Germany today, it takes 215 marks to buy a toothbrush. But what are 215 marks? Not even one franc! This sounds cheap to us here, but where does a German get 215 marks? Other consumer goods are proportionately more expensive. Today no one can afford an umbrella, but it can't be helped. When I was in Vienna I once went by taxi because I was in a hurry and it happened to be a holiday. The distance was one half mile, no more. The fare, gentlemen, was 3600 kronen! Today it would be ten times that. The same ride would cost 36,000 kronen. This is obviously absurd, but other things are equally so, even if people don't know it. For what is done to remedy this situation? If a short taxi ride costs 36,000 kronen, 500,000 kronen notes will be printed, and if it costs 360,000 kronen, one million notes will be issued. But such measures have no effect on economic life. Nothing is altered except that those who have a little money in their pockets today have nothing tomorrow, and those who speculate cleverly have double their former amount. But speculation with currency accomplishes nothing as far as

the mint par of exchange is concerned. It merely enables some people to make money without thought or effort, and when work comes to a halt in the world, hampered by usurious speculation, then things will have indeed reached a breaking point. So it accomplishes nothing at all. People simply have to realize that capable persons with insight into the affairs of the world must again take things in hand; there is no other way out.

To accomplish this, we must start with the right kind of education. Today people must begin to learn in school to comprehend the world. The other day I was reading a textbook that recommended a certain problem in arithmetic, and when I describe it you'll say, “So what?” But the arithmetic problem posed in this textbook is indicative of the most important thing in the world. It goes like this:

One person is 5 1/2 year old
Another is 18 7/12 years old
Another is 36 4/12 years old
Another is 35 5/12 years old

What is the total number of years of these four persons?

The children are asked to add all this together; this is what the textbook recommends. Of course, they will do so and arrive at the total of 173 6/12 years. Now I ask you, gentlemen, what bearing has this sum to reality? When would you ever need to figure out something like this? For the problem to have any meaning at all, it would have to be posed so that the first person happened to die just when the second was born, and the third died when the last was born. How many years elapsed from the birth of the first person to the death of the last? The former problem is unrealistic; no one will ever have to figure it out in actuality. Giving children problems like this amounts to giving them the most abstract arithmetic imaginable. Children are required to use their good sense to compute real nonsense.

Well, the person who devised this problem once learned that things could be added up. Now let's consider this case. Someone was born on a certain date, went to school until he was 14½ years old and then served as an apprentice for 5½ years. Following that, he worked under various masters for 3 years and then got married. Four years later he had a son, and when the son was 22, the father died. By adding up the years we arrive at the man's age, which is 49. This is something concrete, something real. Children are led out into real life when they are given problems like this and this applies to all situations. Otherwise, they sit for an hour over something that never occurs in actuality, but no one is shocked by this. If you point this out to people, they reply, “It doesn't matter how children learn arithmetic.” They don't think it's terribly important. But it happens to be of prime importance, for the people who read rubbish in textbooks as children will eventually spout it as adults; they'll talk nonsense, nothing but nonsense.

From all this you can understand the need for a renewal in education. The educational method I have spoken of bases everything on reality; from the very beginning it leads the human being into reality. This is what actually counts, and this is also why conditions will invariably worsen if people do things as they have in the past. You can start as many newspapers as you like, but if they are written in the same tired spirit, the same chaos will remain. This is why it is so important today for us to occupy ourselves with matters that will turn people into thinking human beings. For this to happen, however, we must see to it that teachers and textbooks do not present arithmetic problems like the one cited but only those that apply to life. Unfortunately, children are also learning languages, science and social studies in that unrealistic way. Everything is divorced from reality.

I've told you that in England it is customary to give those who receive a Master of Arts degree a medieval gown. This had meaning a few hundred years ago and was a reality. Today, it's different. Today someone can be a consultant to the government or something else and it means absolutely nothing. Things are just the same in those countries that underwent revolutions. You must realize that a complete change in education is called for; everything depends on that.

Does anybody else have a question that concerns you?

Question: It is claimed that the appendix may be removed without harm to the patient. We know that frequently this and other organs are taken out in operations. Earlier, we discussed the significance of the internal organs, and I would like to know what effect it has on a person if he is missing any.

Dr. Steiner. I shall answer this question after we have considered something else first, which I shall gladly do now.

Question: In recent lectures we have discussed the influence of the planets on man; I am interested in hearing more about this.

Dr. Steiner: What I have to say now will have a bearing on it. I shall answer these questions today and see how far we get. But first I would like to tell you a story to demonstrate the kind of knowledge we will be pursuing from now on.

In the early 'nineties of the last century, about thirty or thirty-one years ago, an official North American Trading and Transport Company held a convention. Invited to this meeting was a prominent financier named William Windom. By the standards of those gathered there he was a brilliant man, a person whom one immediately recognized as an authority. He was expected to give an address at this convention, and indeed he did so.

Windom began his speech by saying, “We need to reform our whole trade and transport system, for as they are today they contain something unhealthy.” He then went on to explain what money is; in his fairly short speech he touched on the significance of money. He said, “Well, gentlemen, I have now analysed national economic matters for you. But the point is that one realizes that the whole thing does not work. However much the currency circulates due to commerce and passes from hand to hand, that does not determine what in fact makes a national industry a sound one. What does make an industry sound are the moral concepts that people have. Unless moral concepts also flow through commerce, and money circulates in such a way that moral concepts are tied in with it, we get no further.” That is what he said.

Windom said that immoral conceptions in the commercial and industrial life is like having poison in the human blood stream. If immoral concepts accompany the circulation of money in transportation and industry, it is as if poison were to contaminate the blood in the arteries. Just as a man becomes ill on account of poison in his system, so does the economic body become unhealthy when poison—that is, immoral concepts—runs through its network.

Now it struck his listeners that Mr. Windom became a bit gray as he spoke of arteries in the context of economic life. They were surprised that someone who had previously spoken only of matters pertaining to economy and finance, who had in fact begun his speech on these subjects, should suddenly use this rather apt analogy and even elaborate on it. He described in detail how poison penetrates the blood and referred to moral concepts. This was indeed a change of subject, and when he uttered the words, “It is like this in economic life that immoral concepts go like poison through the arteries of industrial commerce,” he collapsed. He had a stroke and died on the spot.

Here you have an example of the phenomena I have often mentioned and from which we may learn a great deal. It is quite obvious what happened here. The man certainly did not die from the speech because he was not even excited at the time. He would have had a stroke even if he had been doing something completely different; the conditions for it were simply present in his system. By no means was the stroke brought on by the speech, although it conceivably hastened it by an hour. In any event, his system had been predisposed to a stroke for a long time, and he would have had it anywhere else as well.

The other point to be observed here is that he suddenly left his topic and began to describe his own inner condition. This he did quite logically and within the boundaries of his talk. Imagine, the man stands before his audience and speaks to them about something thoroughly economic; suddenly the course of this thought changes as he turns rather gray. He keeps to the theme of his address, but what he describes now is his own condition before death. This is what he turned to; his speech took this direction on account of his own inner condition. Much can be learned from this, which also happens in other, less drastic forms.

Let us suppose a speaker loses his train of thought. This is something I have witnessed more than once. Usually, whereas at first the speaker confidently faced his audience, having lost his train of thought, he would now make a slight movement and glimpse downward. He had placed his top hat in front of him, and his speech was under it! After he found his thread of thought he could resume talking. Something like that can happen. I once saw a mayor who got stuck after the first ten words pick up his hat and bravely proceed to read the speech right off. The mayor could read, but if he had continued to talk without his notes, if he had spoken impromptu, well, nothing but twaddle would have come out. He could read; otherwise, his speech would have amounted to nothing.

How would William Windom have fared? The conditions for the imminent stroke were in his system, and if we consider man's whole constitution, it makes little difference whether we are in the situation of William Windom or of the mayor. The mayor could read, as we saw, and so could the man who suffered the stroke. But where did William Windom read? He read what was happening in his own body; he simply read that off. From this you may see that what spiritual science has discovered is correct. Whenever we talk we are actually always reading something that is going on within us. Naturally, what we say is based upon our external experiences, but that mingles with what goes on in our bodies. Our utterances are actually read off from our inner processes, which, of course, do not always have such sad consequences for us as a stroke. Every time you say something, even if it's only five words, you read it from within your body. If you jot something down, five days later you can read it in your notebook; and if you commit it to memory, then it becomes part of the script within you and you can read it from within. It is the same process as reading from a book. The act of reading is the same whether done from without or within; only the direction in which we look is different. It doesn't matter if you have noted “five nails, seven hooks” on paper or in your brain. If you have noted it in a book you can read it off from the page where it was recorded; if you have made a mental note of it, a brain cell imprinted with “five” has linked itself with others carrying the messages “seven,” “nails” and “hooks.” A whole loop has come into being in your brain, and, without being aware of it, you look at these loops within yourself and read off the mental notations. This is what we are led to realize from examining such a drastic case as William Windom's.

I have mentioned another example that we may briefly recall now. This incident concerns Karl Ludwig Schleich, a well-known doctor, and was reported by him. A man came rushing to him and said, “I've just pricked myself with this pen; look, there is still ink on me. You must amputate my right arm or I'll die of blood poisoning!”

Schleich, whom I knew well—he died just recently—told me this himself. He said to the man, “What's the matter with you? As a surgeon I cannot take the responsibility of amputating your arm! The ink just needs to be sucked out. It's really nothing, and it would be nonsensical to cut off your arm!”

The person replied, “All right, but then I will die! You absolutely must take off my arm.”

Dr. Schleich said to him, “I won't do it; I can't cut off an arm for no reason whatsoever.”

“Well,” said the patient, “then I will die.”

When Schleich let him go, the man rushed to a second doctor to ask him to amputate. Naturally, he also refused the request, and the fellow kept running around the whole evening saying, as he had to Dr. Schleich, that he would die in the night.

Schleich was quite concerned about the man. Of course, there were no grounds for amputating his arm, but the first thing the following morning Schleich inquired about him. He had easily sucked the ink out of the man's small wound, since pricking yourself with a pen is a minor matter. But when Schleich arrived at the man's house the next morning he found him dead; he had indeed died! Now, what did Schleich say? He said that the man had died of auto-suggestion, that he had talked himself into dying and that his own thoughts had killed him. It's true that in a case like this, one speaks of auto-suggestion, but I told Schleich that even though all kinds of things happen through auto-suggestion, it cannot account for a death like this. To say so is nonsense. Schleich did not believe me.

What really happened? Only one who sees completely through the human being can discover what really occurred in this case. The doctors performed an autopsy and found no trace of blood poisoning. There was no sign of anything amiss, and so they were satisfied with the conclusion that death had been caused by auto-suggestion. But here, too, the real cause was a stroke that would have been difficult to diagnose and, as you can imagine, had been building up for several days. The conditions for the stroke had been mounting in the delicate organs for days. The man dimly saw this happening within himself, just as Windom sensed that poison was penetrating his arteries moments before he was stricken. He felt that his body was about to succumb on account of the negative substances introduced into his system by some food. One can carry on for a long time without any apparent change on the surface while within, the conditions of death are maturing. The man in question somehow sensed this, became nervous and pricked his hand. He would not have done so otherwise. Up until this moment he was not aware of what was occurring within him and what was going to happen, but when he pricked himself, he said what he could not have said before, “I shall die from the pen prick!” Nobody says, “I feel death approaching me” if he feels perfectly healthy otherwise, but now he could ascribe his imminent death to the pen prick, even though it was the wrong cause. There was no auto-suggestion here; the man would have died the following night in any event. But he became nervous, and when he pricked his hand with a pen, the thought of imminent death arose in him in a completely erroneous form. He consulted doctors, but even Ludwig Schleich, who was a brilliant man, did not believe him. He thought that this was just a case of auto-suggestion and was convinced that the man had talked himself into dying. But this is nonsense. In fact, the cause of death already existed and the pen prick was but the result of apprehension.

From this you may see that much is happening within ourselves, and if these matters are not properly studied we simply cannot cope with them. Our starting point must be the origin of man. We must know in what form he existed when the ichthyosauria, the plesiosauria and the megatheria swam about in a thick fluid on what was then the earth. We cannot discover the interconnections of things without reference to and study of the human being.

There are many other aspects to be considered as well. At what age do people die most frequently? We know that infants die most often within the first few months after birth. Afterward, the mortality rate slowly decreases. Children have their childhood diseases up to the time of their change of teeth, and if they took better care of themselves by sitting up properly and the like, they would have fewer illnesses during their school years. Even so, the fewest illnesses occur between the ages of seven and fourteen. Then it starts up again. There is a great difference, however, between the diseases of infancy and those of puberty.

If we look at the illnesses that children die from during the earliest periods of life, we always find a quite definite form of blood suppuration. The blood becomes purulent. The child has a delicate constitution at that age and can succumb without it being established what develops from this suppuration. In fact, the child would develop jaundice. When an adult has suppuration of the blood, the condition progresses to the stage of jaundice, which generally can be cured quickly. The infant, however, dies before reaching this stage.

Many children get diarrhoea, which cannot be cured by the means one uses with adults. External remedies such as enemas or compresses must be used, but it's worthless to give a child medication. Children also get thrush, blisters that spring up mainly on the tongue, and all the other childhood diseases that sprout up from within—scarlet fever, measles and the like—as though the whole internal constitution were blooming. Adults can also get these illnesses, of course, but they belong essentially to childhood. They predominate during the early ages and then decline after the child gets his second teeth. These illnesses, which call for a careful diet and preferably external treatment, do not occur in this form after the second teeth. It is difficult to discover what causes purulent blood in a child. It arises from deep within the system. Convulsions, so-called childhood spasms, also frequently afflict children.

The illnesses that human beings contract during puberty are completely different. You need only consider the complaints of young girls. They develop anaemia, a problem caused by the body not properly nourishing the blood. When a child has blood suppuration, something else within the constitution contaminates the blood stream; when a girl has anaemia, the blood itself becomes ill. It is one problem if something within the system is infecting the blood and quite another if the blood becomes diseased. It is quite a different problem if the blood becomes sluggish, as it may, for example, in a boy or girl, a condition that then leads to haemorrhoids.

Thus, it is that in two periods of his life man is particularly prone to illness: up to the age of seven and between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one. In the intervening period he is predisposed to health. It is important to understand that the human being is not at all times equally prone to illness, that the times vary and that the illnesses have a completely different character at these various times. A study of this can lead us ever deeper into the human organization, and in this way we can begin to understand the functions of the inner organs.

You see, on the one hand you have the case of Mr. William Windom, who suddenly starts to speak of his organs as death approaches; on the other, you have the appearance of diseases in early childhood and the 'teens, which tell us that different processes occur during the successive stages of life. We must learn to decipher what occurs in man; we must learn to read these processes. When a child gets thrush or red patches on the body, for example, we must understand what is happening internally. Only when we have learned to read his inner processes can we arrive at a real knowledge of man.

If you merely put a dead human being on the dissecting table and only examine an individual organ, the removal of which causes no special effect, you won't discover anything pertinent. A diseased spleen, for example, can be surgically removed, and the operation can benefit the patient. He will be in better health for a period of time than if the spleen had remained in his body in its diseased condition. If you simply look at a spleen that has been surgically removed, you won't see what distinguishes it from, say, the stomach. Yet, if the whole stomach is removed, the patient has a difficult time. This is risky and in the long run someone with an artificial stomach cannot expect to have good health. There are organs that simply cannot be taken out: both lungs, for instance, and least of all, the brain. If a certain spot in the brain is hit with a mere needle, the person will die immediately. The elephant also has this spot in his brain. If you make a puncture there and hit it precisely—it need not even be cut out—this huge beast will be instantly killed. You may remove its spleen, however, and the animal will live on for many years. Thus, you see, it makes a difference which organ is removed from the body—a spleen, an appendix or something else.

To grasp this fact, we must thoroughly study the human being. Remember what I have said about these little brain creatures, these cells representing recollection that I have sketched here. They are still soft and alive in the small child and only gradually harden. Only when a child reaches his seventh year and has gone through the change of teeth have they hardened sufficiently. Then, at the onset of puberty, other cells called leucocytes start to move about more freely in the blood. They go through the whole blood stream and become more active at puberty. Before that time, they move about sluggishly. There are two periods in our lives when conditions arise that make us prone to illness. The first occurs from infancy to age seven, when the organism—or actually, the soul within the physical organism—must exert itself to mould and harden the brain cells. The second falls at puberty, when the soul must take pains to give mobility to the leucocytes, those little creatures contained in the blood.

To use an analogy, if you are building a house you must use mortar that will properly harden; otherwise, you will not succeed. So it is with the brain cells; they must harden sufficiently. When they do not, children become victims of this or that disease. We shall go further into the causes of these various illnesses next time. After puberty one is dealing with millions upon millions of white blood corpuscles. Until then, they are sluggish, and if they were a herd, it would take a great many shepherds to get them going. If this goading impulse is absent, anaemia results. So we see it depends on these aspects that in the early years of childhood and again at puberty certain illnesses may appear.

If the human being is studied like this, we can gradually comprehend all the interconnections. Indeed, we cannot accomplish anything in social life either unless we know these facts of natural science.

Gentlemen, at our last session I started to answer your question about the inner organs of man. Of course, this subject must be seen from a broad perspective and treated from its foundations. We saw how William Windom, who died while delivering a speech, expressed his own inner condition by reading it off, as it were, from his body. After citing another case, we found in examining certain facts about the course of human life that the mortality rate is highest in man's infancy, that human beings die most frequently in their early years. In the period from birth up to the change of teeth at age seven, the mortality rate is at its peak, though it diminishes with the third, fourth and fifth years.

The human being is healthiest from the time of his change of teeth to puberty. This is indeed so, and if we ourselves are careful to prevent the causes of ill health, such as bad posture, which can lead to curvatures, and foul air, which can afflict the internal organs, we can count on children to be healthiest during their school years. The illnesses that do befall them then are for the most part due to external causes. Not until the teens does the danger again arise when man can fall ill from processes arising within his own constitution.

These illnesses, however, are quite different from those of early childhood.

I have mentioned that infants are highly susceptible to suppuration of the blood. It can become so purulent that symptoms of jaundice appear. In children, irregular digestion frequently results in diarrhoea. They also get thrush—those little white pustules in various places—and another, completely different kind of illness, so-called infantile convulsions. A childhood disease that is particularly prevalent these days is infantile paralysis, which can also affect adults. It is extremely damaging; the children cannot move their legs and become quite paralyzed. This disease is increasing rapidly. Perhaps you have read that schools have had to be closed in the province of Thüringen because of an epidemic there.

Thus, we can see that childhood illnesses have a distinctive character; they are quite different from the diseases man gets in later life. Scarlet fever and measles are specifically childhood illnesses, though adults, too, can contract the latter. But we must now ask ourselves why children are particularly susceptible to all these illnesses.

We can explain this susceptibility only if we know how forces work in the human body. When we examine the human embryo in the first, second or third months of pregnancy, we see that it is utterly different form what the human being later becomes. In the first and second months the child is all head; the other organs are only appendages to the head. What later turn into limbs, hands and feet are little stumps, and the actual lung and abdominal region are not yet functioning.

You see, if you take the human embryo (a sketch is drawn here) it looks like this. It is enclosed in a kind of sack, to which are attached blood vessels from the body of the mother. These blood vessels penetrate throughout the embryo, which the mother supplies with blood and nourishment. The other matter is supplementary and is later discarded. In comparison to the rest of the body the embryo's head is huge. See (pointing to the drawing), this is the head; the rest consists of appendages not yet functioning. This part will later become the heart and digestive system. The blood circulation is provided from outside, from the mother. These little stumps will develop into hands and feet. So we can say that the embryo is all head. Its other organs are insignificant because the mother's system provides all the nourishment and air. Hence, during the first few months, the embryo consists primarily of a head.

People are surprised that mental illnesses are hereditary. In fact, mental illnesses are always based on physical ailments; they arise from a malfunctioning of the body. Neither the spirit nor the soul can fall ill. Though mental illnesses are always rooted in physical problems, people wonder how they can occur through heredity, which indeed they can do. If a parent, particularly the mother, suffers from tuberculosis or another disease like arteriosclerosis, which admittedly occurs rarely in younger persons, the children do not necessarily become afflicted with these illnesses but instead can suffer from mental deficiencies. People are surprised about this, but need it puzzle us, gentlemen? Whatever the child can inherit must be inherited first of all from its head. Therefore, if the mother is consumptive, one need not be surprised that her condition is not passed on to the lungs of the unborn child, which, after all, are not even functioning yet. The condition is rather carried over into the head and comes to expression in the brain. Thus, nobody should be surprised that the disease inherited is quite different from that of the parent. Venereal disease, for example, can appear in children as an eye disease. It is no wonder, for when the child's head is developing, its eyes are exposed to what afflicts the parents; its eyes are in an environment that's venereally diseased! So it is not at all surprising.

When the child is born, everyone knows that the most completely formed part of it is its head. In the succeeding years it is the rest of the body that grows the most; the head has much less growing to do than the other organs. This fact tells us how, in reality, the inner organs of man function. Materialistic science cannot form an accurate conception of this because it fails to realize that all growth proceeds from the head. In the child everything is regulated from the head. We can see this most clearly in the embryo, which is nothing more than a head. But even after birth all inner processes are regulated from this part of the body. The digestion, the blood circulation and all other activities in human organization are directed by the head.

Suppose that a child is born whose blood circulation is too slow. For some reason, through some hereditary factor, it can happen that the child's blood circulation is too slow. Let us imagine this case. (See drawing.) Here is the child's heart, and here, its arteries; through both the blood is travelling too slowly. The heart is being formed from the head, but even when the head functions perfectly, the circulation can still be too slow. Thus, even though the heart is properly developed, the blood doesn't flow into it correctly. This is often the case in earliest infancy. The head is perfectly developed, but the blood flows too slowly into the heart. Poor circulation may result simply from keeping the child in stifling air. It cannot breathe properly, and its circulation slows down. The blood circulation may slacken also if the baby is not properly nourished. Then its blood cannot thoroughly penetrate the body. The head may be in excellent shape and try to form the heart aright, but the blood circulation remains sluggish. What happens in such instances is that, because the blood is not circulating well enough, certain substances that normally would be pushed down from the heart into the kidneys and expelled remain in the body; they stay in the blood. When these substances that should have been discharged stay in the system, the blood suppurates.

In the seventh, eighth or ninth years, this danger is not so acute as it is in the earliest years of childhood. You see, the fact that a child has its second set of teeth shows that its body is sufficiently strong; if it were not, the teeth would not come in properly. Why? Well, you must understand that what is contained in a tooth comes out of the whole body. The second teeth emerge from within the whole system; they are the product not just of something in the jaw but of the whole body. This is true only of the second teeth, however, for the first teeth, the so-called milk teeth, are completely different. They are the result of heredity, of the fact that the child's mother and father have teeth. Only after the milk teeth are expelled in the course of the first seven years does the child get its own teeth. The body must make the second teeth for itself.

Actually, a child nine or ten years old already has its second body. It has already completely discarded the one it had inherited, and comes into possession of its own body only around the age of seven. During these first seven years it demonstrates that it was born with enough resistance to tolerate air and nourishment. After it has built up its body and produced its second teeth, the danger of falling ill is no longer so acute. The danger is most acute in earliest infancy while it is learning to cope for itself in breathing, eating, that is, everything that once was done for it within the protection of the mother's womb. In these early years the head is actually in good shape; only with age does it become less perfect. In old age the head doesn't work as well as it did in infancy. It must think and occupy itself with the surroundings and so something often goes amiss. But the infant does not yet need to learn anything, go to school or possess skills. The head works only on the child's own body, and in most cases it does this quite well. During these tender years, however, when the human being is just becoming used to the world, the rest of the body is quite vulnerable. Modern science also has described these matters but not quite as I have, for what I tell you is exact. Popular science does not really comprehend the whole process and cannot explain why the human being is most vulnerable in its earliest years. It cannot come to terms with this fact because it explains away the soul and spirit.

In reality, soul-spiritual elements are united with the child, mainly with the head, while it is still in the mother's womb and after birth. The forces that work on the child from within the head are invisible soul-spiritual forces. Should any of you think that this is merely an arbitrary opinion, you would be committing the same error as one of the following men. Suppose one man says, “Here is a piece of iron,” and the other says, “Fine! I'll shoe my horse with it.” The first man then says, “No, it would be stupid to shoe your horse with this. It's a magnet, and it has a hidden force. Magnets are used for quite other things than for shoeing horses!” The one man thinks the piece of iron should be used for a horseshoe, while the other knows that it is a magnet containing an invisible force. Well, the person who says, in accordance with materialistic science, “The head is nothing but a bit of bones and brains,” is just like the fellow who says of the magnet, “This is a horseshoe.” Indeed, it is not a horseshoe, nor is the head of the infant just flesh and bone. Within it invisible forces are working like a sculptor to build up the whole organism. The human form is among those things the child keeps as an inheritance, but the forces that, during the first seven years, tirelessly build up this form from the head are brought into the world not from the parents but from quite another source.

Suppose a man received these forces from his parents. Well, gentlemen, if a parent is a genius, does that make the child a genius as well? Or if a child is a genius, does that mean the parents were also highly gifted? Not at all! Goethe, for example, was certainly a genius, but his father was a dreadful philistine, and his mother was a kind and pleasant woman who could tell a good story but surely was no genius. Goethe's son was rather stupid; he was no genius either. Whatever pertains to the soul and spirit is not hereditary; it is brought into this world from quite other realms and then is united with the part that is inherited. Aside from the time he spends in his mother's womb, man lives before birth as a being of soul and spirit.

The only reason people disavow this today is that all through the Middle Ages the Catholic Church forbade anyone to ascribe to man a life of soul and spirit before birth. It assumed that the soul was created at birth by a God whose nature was also assumed. So throughout the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church forbade the concept of pre-existence, as it was called, meaning “existence before, prior to birth.” Modern materialistic science has merely followed suit and then congratulated itself on its cleverness. Now people think they are extraordinarily clever to hold this opinion; unfortunately, they fail to realize how they were conditioned to do so.

In truth, man not only inherits a physical existence from his parents and forebears but also brings into the world a soul-spiritual element that works within him. If one does not acknowledge that the soul-spiritual aspect is present before birth, one cannot see that the same soul and spirit remain after death; at most, one can believe it. Knowledge of the immortality of the soul is dependent on knowledge of its existence before birth. If one maintains that the soul came into being with the creation of the body, then, of course, a divine creator would have the privilege of letting the soul disappear upon the body's dissolution. If, however, it is the soul that builds up the body in the first place, then it certainly remains unaffected when the body dies.

Thus, the existence of the human soul follows readily from all the aspects that one can correctly observe. Indeed, how could the soul die, since it is the soul itself that builds up the physical body! One would have to investigate far different regions to discover whether or not the soul can perish. In future lectures we shall consider this question and find that it cannot die in these realms either. It obviously cannot die with the body because it is the soul that built it up.

We have now become acquainted with illnesses that originate because the soul-spiritual element works out of the head, and the body is malfunctioning. But the blood circulation can also be too slow. Stagnation sets in and the blood then suppurates. Still, something entirely different can happen, too. The infant may be too weak to absorb nourishment through its intestines into its blood. Because the body is too weak, nourishment does not pass through the villi and the child becomes afflicted with diarrhoea. What should have been absorbed to remain longer in the body is expelled. Because the food was not properly digested, diarrhoea results, and the substance is discharged unchanged. This is connected with something else. Obviously, a child can get diarrhoea in different degrees, and it may even get summer cholera. Whatever the degree, however, it is only the first stage. If the child cannot digest its food for a considerable length of time, its inner organs cannot be built up properly. The head constantly wants to work on them, but the inner organs cannot be correctly constructed because the necessary substances are lacking. Say you were working on a statue and ran out of clay but continued to make empty-handed motions in the air. In a like manner the head starts to move and fidget around when the child lacks the substance from which its organs can be built. It wants to form the heart or stomach but can only aimlessly fidget about because the substances the head should have received have been eliminated causing diarrhoea.

The educated but materialistic scientist faces a complete puzzle here. He examines the child, discovers diarrhoea and prescribes some medication to stop it. As a result, food will merely accumulate in the intestines because they cannot be absorbed, and the child will get nothing more than a swollen stomach. If one were to examine the organism further, one would discover that the heart is malformed, that it is an empty pouch, or that the lungs are empty sacks. They want to be formed but lack the necessary substances. The forces originating from the head that penetrate into the lungs, which may now be empty sacks, need something to grasp and work with. I can grasp this chair and shake it or, without having taken hold of it, I can merely fidget about like an idiot. But what happens when the head forces fidget about in the lungs? Convulsions occur. A rational explanation of convulsions must acknowledge that the head is fidgeting around and finds no support. Diarrhoea may be explained materialistically but convulsions can no longer be accounted for along these lines.

All this demonstrates that in the infant the soul-spiritual processes are at their height of activity. Later, this activity subsides. Up to the child's sixth or seventh years, however, these spiritual forces are so active that they can separate minute amounts of matter from food that will constitute the second teeth. Imagine having to do that yourself! You would have to be clever enough to distinguish the magnesium salts and carbonates contained in the food. Even if you could do that you would first have to analyse the teeth chemically and learn from them themselves. The teeth made artificially today are not living teeth; no one really knows how teeth are produced. Yet minute portions of the nourishment the child receives up to its seventh year are withdrawn to make the second teeth. Furthermore, to correctly separate the various substances you would need to know not only the chemical composition of food and teeth but also the activity in the stomach. What happens to the minute particles secreted in the second or third years? How do you retain them long enough in the blood stream so that, at just the right time, during the sixth and seventh years, they will penetrate the jaws to build up the teeth? All this that must be accomplished is done unconsciously by the child's soul and spirit. No one here would feel insulted if I said that you cannot produce or make one hair grow on your head. But a child can. It drives the proper substances to the spot where the hair takes root and then offers them to the light, for hair grows under the influence of light. All this occurs in the child, but modern science is unwilling to consider these aspects. It leaves people in the dark by refusing to acknowledge that soul-spiritual forces work within the organism that originate, not from the parents, but from the spiritual world.

Let us return to this matter of hair. Man normally grows hair only on certain parts of his body, but once, ages ago, he was covered completely with a shaggy growth of hair. Why did he lose it? I will not give you a theory, which anyone can dream up, but merely point out some facts. Consider another creature, the pig. When pigs are free in nature, they are covered with hair, but domesticated pigs lose it. In their natural habitat wild boars grow thick coats of fur; when they are domesticated and in surroundings not originally their own, they lose it. Man, like the domesticated animals, did not originally live under today's conditions. But there was a time when, under the influence of light and warmth, he grew hair all over his body, and we may witness this fact today in an embryo a few months old. During the first months of pregnancy the whole embryo, insofar as it is only a head, is covered with hair. Later, the hair disappears. I have already explained how plants in their first stage of growth utilize light and warmth from the previous year. Likewise, the child has hair on account of the light and warmth emanating from the mother. Only later is it lost. So a consideration of hair, too, can show us how forces of soul and spirit work on the body.

I have said that the human being is most healthy during the school years, between the ages of seven and fourteen. Why is this so? Only those children who can develop those strong forces that produce the second teeth survive. During that period, the child unfolds vigorous forces, but they must first be acquired in the earliest years through radical adaptation. Everything that the head accomplishes within the organism is most pronounced during those early years. Though the child is unaware of its activity, the head must really exert itself and be a great artisan. It has to overcome the body's constant resistance all by itself because it gets no support in its continual and taxing efforts during the first seven years. This tremendous strain causes all those illnesses I have told you about.

Let us now suppose that the circulation of the blood is malfunctioning, not on account of its absorbing too little nourishment, but because it absorbs too much. This can also happen. Indeed, the parents, who often think it is best to stuff the baby with food, may not be as wise as the organism. They can hardly be reproached for this practice, though, because it is usually quite difficult to tell when the child has had enough. Children know their limits, as a rule, through their own inherent wisdom and instinct. If the mother produces too much milk, however, and it is fed to the child, its instinct will become uncertain through eating too much. Now, if too much food is absorbed by the system, the head cannot keep up; it cannot handle too large an amount and will try to eliminate the surplus. The food has already been absorbed into the blood through the intestines, however, so the head cannot eliminate the surplus in the normal way. What does it do then? It discharges the superfluous substances through the skin. Measles and scarlet fever are the result.

These illnesses differ completely from diarrhoea and convulsions. A child gets the latter because it does not receive enough food and its forces fidget around aimlessly within the body. When too much food is absorbed, however, it must somehow be eliminated, occasionally even through the lungs. Diphtheria and pneumonia are the body's defence measures used to rid itself of substances it cannot otherwise eliminate through the skin. When one understands the human being and the processes that occur in the body, one finds it quite natural that an infant is susceptible to these illnesses.

A child can be afflicted with yet other diseases. Take the case of a child who is too weak to produce his second teeth. His milk teeth were inherited and required no effort from his system. Now, it can happen that the forces unable to produce the new teeth are diverted into the lungs. The lungs become inflamed and the child gets pneumonia. You see, the human body is extremely complicated, and when a child falls ill with pneumonia the doctor should examine the condition not only of the lungs but also of the kidneys, stomach, etc. When an illness arises, one must always examine the whole body and not just the part immediately affected.

When a child has reached the age of seven, however, its breathing processes have become sufficiently developed to function without the intervention of the head. In the infant the head must constantly regulate the breathing. It must not only build up the teeth but also care for the organs of breathing. When the head has been relieved of these tasks at age seven or eight, the child is now in a position to breathe properly. It is of utmost importance to realize that with the second teeth the child can bring order into its breathing, and can receive its second lungs and bronchi, as it were, which have by now been built up. The child no longer breathes with a weak inherited organism but with the new one that has been built up. Now it is in quite a different situation; now it has support. It is one thing if the child has inherited from, say, a weak mother and father, a breathing apparatus that must be directed from a head that is too weak, and it is quite another thing if it has properly built up a second apparatus suited to its needs. A head that is too weak simply cannot build up the lungs properly. Thus, because from age seven to fourteen the organs of breathing are in such fine shape, the individual is then at his healthiest. The positive aspect of these years is that the breathing process is at its best. With the onset of puberty, however, some of the nourishment is now diverted to this development. In the younger child substances are not yet absorbed through the later processes of puberty, but now digestion must take a completely new form. The reason is easily understood, for something completely new has come into play and its food is diverted in a new direction. From the age of puberty onward the mature organs of breathing cause the digestive organs to readjust so that the right counter-pressure is exerted from the stomach and intestines, since some of what earlier constituted the overall pressure was diverted. Now, the proper counter-pressure must come about. No wonder that anaemia and other illnesses afflict girls of this age since the organism must take time to adjust.

From age seven to fourteen the child enjoys its greatest protection from illness. In earlier years the head must make a tremendous effort to work into the rest of the organism and it must adjust to this task. Then, during the school years, the child is at its healthiest. The second breathing system is unhindered and can freely distribute the oxygen to the benefit of both the brain and the digestion. As I have mentioned before, things can be upset only through outside causes—activities in school and the like.

But now the child reaches puberty. Look at a boy. Up to this point he has perfected his body and is as healthy as a human being can be. He has successfully renewed his organism and everything has gone smoothly. But with the onset of puberty his metabolism begins to affect his whole body. The processes of digestion begin to work upward into his breathing system and, as a result, his voice changes. At the age when he must again reform his organism, the metabolic system becomes influential. This is expressed in a deepening of the voice. He must make new exertions and again illnesses threaten.

You see, only when we observe the human being in this manner are we able to answer the question one of you gentlemen posed last time. Otherwise, we cannot even think about it, let alone learn anything. But knowing now that it is the head that works the most during the first seven years, what conclusion may we reach? You must understand that, while the head is developed in the mother's organism, it is not merely formed by conception and substance but by the whole universe. The mother's substances represent only the foundation on which the form occurs. The head is a representation, an image of the universe. Its roundness indicates the working of the whole universe, and it is no idle fancy that the starry heavens work upon the skull, which is sometimes covered by a stupid looking hat. It is as true as this fact that I've mentioned to you before. Suppose we have a compass; the magnetic needle always points north, not just anywhere. Now, no one thinks that the needle contains the forces that determine its position. Everyone agrees that it is the magnetic forces of the earth, and that the needle takes its direction from these earthly forces. Everyone comprehends that. Yet, in regard to human embryonic development, men falsely think it all arises from conception. It would be just as clever to think that the direction pointed to by the magnetic needle was determined by its own forces.

The human head represents the whole cosmos, and this it is that has worked upon it. In addition, these forces bestowed by the universe continue to work within the child through its head. To build up the lungs, for example, the head must receive the right forces from the universe. To perfect the kidneys, forces must be received from far-off regions, from Jupiter, for instance. This is no idle fancy. It can be investigated just as other, physical matters can be investigated. Thus, when a child is born, it carries within its head all the forces of the universe.

Of course, it is nonsense to say that the moon, sun or Jupiter have an influence on an organ, or to cast a horoscope thinking the planet Jupiter, for example, is dominant. The head is formed from the whole universe, and the forces that work on the human being during the first seven years have been given to the head from the cosmos. During the next seven years, man becomes increasingly accustomed to the earth's atmosphere, so that whereas before he was influenced by the stars, he is now influenced by the air.

After this period the substances of digestion and the metabolic system play such an important part that they can even affect the voice. What does this mean? It is all a result of what we absorb through digestion from the earth. I have already explained to you this process of how, for example, substances from the earth must first be made lifeless within the intestines. This becomes man's main task when he reaches puberty. At that time he becomes dependent on the earth. As males we owe our voices first of all to the air, but the deepening results from the action of earthly substances. We can be born on earth because originally we were beings of the stars. After birth we let the forces we have brought with us from the starry worlds echo within our organisms. Then we become beings of the air. Only at puberty are we assigned to the earth to become its beings. Only then do we become attached to those things that fetter us to this planet. Thus, you see the course of man's descent to the earth from the cosmos.

Often materialists blindly fantasize about human development. They do not realize that man gradually accustoms himself to the earth and then, in old age, grows away from it. For what happens in old age? The forces we possess in advanced age we also possessed in youth. They hardened the bones while the other parts stayed pliable. But in old age the forces contained in the bones pass into the rest of the body, and the initial result is arteriosclerosis. The arteries harden, and the brain can calcify. Actually, the brain must always contain a minute amount of what arises through calcification. The child would be dull if its brain lacked these minute traces of calcium secreted by the pineal gland. The soul could not act; it would not have the substances in which to work. But if later in old age too much calcium is secreted and calcification occurs, the soul again cannot direct matters because it encounters too much resistance. This can result in paralysis or apoplexy or some other kinds of stroke. One can also become senile, since one can no longer take hold of and use the brain. Calcification in other parts of the body has the same effect, lifting one out of the region of the earthly forces. Thus we can see how man, up to the end of puberty, grows into the forces of the earth and how, later, when the secreted deposits become increasingly resistant and the soul's activity is impeded, he grows away from the earth.

So you see that it is, in fact, possible to discover what man has received and brought down from the universe. But one must not fall for superstitions such as a certain star is influencing the lung of a thirty-five year old man even though the lung has indeed been built up by the forces that initially descended from the stars into the head of the infant.

By examining such things scientifically, one arrives at a real science of the spirit. A spiritual science exists, and it can be studied just like any other science. We can belittle ancient times as much as we like, but in those days people did know something. Granted, we cannot bring back the past; what was right for people then is not so for us today. But if once again we have men who understand the world and man, men who know that the human head is not just produced in the mother's womb as a kind of pinhead, then we shall also have better politicians. You see, gentlemen, a person who knows nothing of these matters and of the nature of the human being cannot be a good politician simply because he will not know what people need. It is absolutely essential that once more there be men who really know something about the world. This is what we must strive for.

Schools must again teach people something of value. Today, much importance is placed on learning the skills required for making machines. Nothing can be said against this from the standpoint of spiritual science because it is quite worthwhile. But the skills needed to cope among human beings are neglected. An abstract social science, ignorant of man's needs, was invented and this is taught instead. Above all, one must study man as we have done here, but unhappily what I told you is not taught. Look back on your own school days! Where is something like this taught today? That is what our age lacks. Teaching men the things they learn today is about as good for them as feeding them rocks instead of bread. Maybe the stomach of a goose can take rocks but that of a human being cannot! To do so would ruin the digestive system, and when you teach men what is being taught today, you actually ruin their heads. You know that the arm becomes weak if it is unused, and the head also becomes weak if it is not used in the right way. While the head was developing in the mother, it received forces from the stars. If it is told nothing about them, if it entertains no thoughts of them, it grows weak, just as muscles do when they are not exercised. If the child learns nothing of the real world, it remains weak. The worst thing about conditions today is that people have weak heads and do not understand anything about one another. They separate themselves according to social standing and do not speak to those of other classes. This is like training a man to become an athlete while neglecting his biceps. If, in educating men, I leave their heads weak, they will not know the very thing that matters most. This is how things stand.

When children have finished building up their organisms with inherent, unconscious wisdom and have received their second teeth, it is of utmost importance to impart to them something that they have previously employed unconsciously. Then do they become proper human beings, people who can direct their thoughts properly and conceive of spiritual science in the right way. Once social thinking is ruined, nothing rational can be achieved. But if we make use of a genuine science of the spirit, much can be improved in that respect.

A question was asked about the design that appeared on the cover of the Austrian journal, Anthroposophy, showing the heads of an eagle, a lion, a bull and a man.

Dr. Steiner. Gentlemen, I think we should first bring to a conclusion our explanation of the human being, and then next time consider the aspects of man that these four symbols—the eagle, lion, bull and man—represent. Before we can say anything about them we must build a foundation, and this is something I shall try to do before the end of today's lecture. These four creatures, including man, spring from an ancient knowledge of the human being. They cannot be explained as the ancient Egyptians, for instance, would have done, but today they must be explained differently. One can interpret them correctly, of course, but nowadays one must begin from slightly different suppositions.

I would like now to direct your attention again to the way the human being evolves from his embryonic stage. I would like you to look once more at the very first stage, the earliest period. Conception has occurred, and the embryo is developing in the mother's womb. At first, it is just one microscopic cell containing proteinaceous substance and a nucleus. This single cell, the fertilized egg, actually marks the beginning of man's physical life.

Let us look then at the processes that immediately follow. What does this tiny egg, placed within the body of the mother, do? It divides. The one cell becomes two, and each of these cells divides in turn, thus creating more and more cells like the first. Eventually, our whole body is made up of such cells. They do not remain completely round but assume all manner of shapes and forms.

We must now take into account something I have mentioned before, which is the fact that the whole universe acts upon this minute cell in the mother's body. Nowadays, of course, such matters generally cannot be met with the necessary understanding, but it is nonetheless true that the whole cosmos works upon this cell. It is not at all the same if the ovum divides when, say, the moon stands in front of, or at a distance from, the sun. The whole starry heavens shed an influence on this cell, whose interior forms itself accordingly.

I have said before that during the first few months only the head of the unborn child is developed. (Referring to a drawing.) The head is already formed to this extent, and the rest of the body is really only an appendage. There are tiny little stubs, the hands, and other small protrusions, the legs. As it develops, the human being will transform its little appendages into hands, arms and feet.

How does this come about? How does it occur? The reason lies in the fact that in the earlier embryonic stages the influence of the starry heavens is greater. As the embryo develops and grows during those months in the mother's womb, it becomes increasingly subject to the gravity of the earth. When the world of the stars acts upon man, the emphasis is always on the head. It is gravity that, in time, draws out the other parts. The farther back we go, examining the second or first months of pregnancy, the more do we find these cells exposed to the influence of the stars. As more and more cells appear and millions gradually develop, they become increasingly subject to the forces of the earth.

Here is convincing evidence that the human body is magnificently organized. I would like to make this evident by considering one of the sense organs. I could just as easily take the example of the eye, but today I shall speak about the ear. You see, one of these cells develops into the ear. The ear is set into one of the cavities of the skull bones, and if you examine it properly, you will find that it is quite a remarkable structure. I shall explain the ear so that you can get some idea of it. You will see how such a cell moulds itself while it is still partially under the influence of the stars and partially under the influence of the earth. The ear is formed in such a marvellous way so that man can actually make use of it.

Let us proceed from the outside inward. To begin with, each of you can take hold of your auricle, the outer ear. We have sketched it as seen from the side (1). It consists of gristle and is covered with skin. It is designed to receive the maximum amount of sound. If we had only a hole there, the ear would capture much less sound. You can feel the passage into your ear; it goes into the interior of the so-called tympanic cavity, the interior of the head's bony system. This passage or canal is closed off inside by the eardrum, the tympanic membrane. There is really a thin, delicate, tiny skin attached to this canal, which might be likened to that of a drumhead. The ear, then, is closed off on the inside by the eardrum (2).

I'll continue by drawing the cavity that one observes in a skeleton (3). Here are the skull bones; here are the bones going to the jaw. Inside is a cavity into which this canal leads that is closed off by the eardrum. Behind the outer ear, the auricle, you have a hollow space, which I shall now tell you about. Not only does this canal, this outer passage that you can put your little finger into, lead into the head cavity, but another canal also leads into this cavity from the mouth. In other words, two passages lead into this cavity: one from the exterior that extends inward to the eardrum, and one from the mouth that enters behind the eardrum, which is called the Eustachian tube, though the name does not matter.

Now we come to a strange-looking thing—a veritable snail shell, the cochlea. It consists of two parts. Here is a membrane, and here is a space, the vestibule. Over here is another space, the tympanic cavity. The whole thing is filled with fluid, a living fluid, which I have described to you in another lecture. So within all this fluid is something made of skin that looks like a snail shell. Inside this snail shell, called the cochlea, are myriad little fibres that make up the basilar membrane. This is quite interesting. If you could penetrate the eardrum and look beyond it, you would find this soft snail shell, which is covered on the inside with minute, protruding hair-like fringes.

What, actually, is inside the cochlea? When one approaches the question truly scientifically, one notices that this is really a small piece of intestine that has somehow been placed within the ear. Just as we have the intestines within our abdomen, so do we have a tiny piece of intestine-like skin within our ear. The ear's configuration, then, is such that it contains a little intestine, just as in another part of the body we have a larger intestine. The cochlear duct, which is surrounded by a living fluid called the endolymph, is filled with another called the perilymph. All this is extremely interesting. The cochlea is closed off here by a tiny membrane shaped like an oval window, and here, again, by another little membrane that looks like a round window. Just as we can beat on a drum and make it vibrate, so do the sound waves, coming in from both sides, set into motion this little membrane, the oval window.

The oval window is a membrane set in the middle of the cochlea, and it closes off the inside of the little snail shell, which is filled with the slightly thicker fluid, the perilymph. The fluid on the outside is thinner. Below the oval window is another little membrane called the round window. Here we now approach something marvellous. Two tiny delicate bones sit on the membrane of the oval window. They look like a stirrup and are called the stapes. People also refer to them as the stirrup. So the stirrup sits on the little membrane, protruding in such a way as to resemble an upper and a lower arm on the membrane. Picture such an upper and lower arm of the stirrup and then here, strangely enough, another independent bone, the incus or anvil. The first two bones of the stirrup are connected by a joint; the incus is independent. These tiny bones are all in the ear, and since materialistic science looks at everything superficially, it calls the bone that sits directly on the eardrum, the hammer, this other bit of bone in the middle, the anvil, and this other, the stirrup—or malleus, incus and stapes.

Ordinary science, however, doesn't really know what these bones are. What is found here in the two arms of the stirrup is only a little different from an arm bent at the elbow. See, an elbow joint is the same as this joint of the stirrup above the membrane. And there is a kind of hand, on which sits an independent bone. We don't have such a bone in our hand, but it is comparable to our kneecap. So we can rightfully say that this is also like a leg, a foot; then that would be the thigh, that the knee (sketching), there the foot stands on the membrane, and there is the kneecap.

You see, it is most interesting that in the cavity of the ear we have first a kind of intestine and then a real hand, arm or foot. What is the purpose of all this? Well, imagine that a sound strikes the eardrum and everything in there begins to vibrate. Without being aware of it, the person is determining within the ear what kind of vibration it is. Now think of this, which you may have experienced at some time. You are standing somewhere on a street when something explodes behind you. You feel the explosion inwardly and may feel sick to your stomach from the shock. But this delicate shock that vibrates through the cochlea's “intestine” is felt by the fluid within, which conveys the vibrations that are imparted by the “touching” of the eardrum with a “hand,” as it were.

Now I would like to point out something else to you. What is the purpose of this Eustachian tube leading from the mouth to the inner ear? If sounds simply passed into the ear from the auricle, we would not need it, but to comprehend another's speech we must first have learned to speak ourselves. When we listen to someone else and wish to comprehend him, the sounds we have learned to speak pass through the Eustachian tube. When another person is speaking to us, the sounds come in through the auricle and make the fluid vibrate. Because the air passes into the ear from the outside, and since we know how to set this air in motion with our own speech, we can understand the other person. In the ear, the element of our own speech that we are accustomed to meets the element of what the other person says; there the two meet.

You see, when I say, “house,” I am accustomed to having certain vibrations occur in my Eustachian tube; when I say, “powder,” I experience other vibrations. I am familiar with these vibrations. When I hear the word “house,” the vibration comes from outside, and because I am used to identifying this vibration when I say the word myself, and since my comprehension and the vibration from outside encounter each other in the ear, I am able to recognize its meaning. The tube that leads from the mouth into the ear was there when as a child I learned to speak. Thus, we learned to understand the other person simultaneously as we learned to talk. These matters are most interesting.

Now, things are really like this. Imagine that nothing but what I have just sketched here existed in the ear. Then you could at least understand another person's words and also listen to a piece of music, but you would not be able to remember what you had heard. You would have no memory for speech and sound if the ear had nothing more than these parts. There is another amazing structure in the ear that enables you to retain what you have heard. These are three hollow arches, which look like this (sketching). The second is vertical to the first, and the third, vertical to the second. Thus, they are vertical to each other in three dimensions. These so-called semi-circular canals are hollow and are also filled with a living, delicate fluid. The remarkable thing about it is that infinitely small crystals are constantly forming from it. If you hear the word, “house,” for example, or the tone C, tiny crystals are formed in there as a result. If you hear a different word—“man,” for instance—slightly different crystals are formed. In these three little canals, microscopically small crystals take shape, and these minute crystals enable us not only to understand but also to retain in our memory what we have comprehended. For what does the human being do unconsciously?

Imagine that you have heard someone say, “Five francs.” You want to remember what has been said, so with a pencil you write it into your notebook. What you have written with lead in your notebook has nothing to do with live francs except as a means of remembering them. Likewise, what one hears is inscribed into these delicate canals with the minute crystals that do, in fact, resemble letters, and a subconscious intelligence in us reads them whenever we need to recall something. So, indeed, we can say that the memory for tone and sound is located within these three semi-circular canals. Here where this arm is located is comprehension, intelligence. Here, within the cochlea is a portion of man's feeling. We feel the sounds in this part of the labyrinth, in the fluid within the little snail shell; there we feel the sounds. When we speak and produce the sounds ourselves, our will passes through the Eustachian tube. The whole configuration of the human soul is contained in the ear. In the Eustachian tube lives the will; here in the cochlea is feeling; intelligence is in the auditory ossicles, those little bones that look like an arm or leg; memory resides in the semi-circular canals. So that man can become aware of the complete process, a nerve passes from here (drawing) through this cavity and spreads out everywhere, penetrates everywhere. Through this auditory nerve, all these processes are brought to consciousness in our brain.

You see, gentlemen, this is something quite remarkable. Here in our skull we have a cavity. One enters the inner ear cavity by passing from the auricle through the auditory canal and eardrum. Everything I have described to you is contained therein. First, we stretch out the “hand” and touch the incoming tones to comprehend them. Then we transfer this sensation to the living fluid of the cochlea, where we feel the tone. We penetrate the Eustachian tube with our will, and because of the tiny crystal letters formed in the semi-circular canals, we can recall what has been said or sung, or whatever else has come to us as sound.

So we can say that within the ear we bear something like a little human being, because this little being has will, comprehension, feeling and memory. In this small cavity we carry a tiny man around with us. We really consist of many such minute human beings. The large human being is actually the sum of many little human beings. Later, I'll show you that the eye is also such a miniature man. The nose, too, is a little human being. All these “little men” that make up the total human being are held together by the nervous system.

These miniature men are created while man is still an embryo in the mother's body. All that is being formed and developed there is still under the influence of the stars. After all, these marvellous configurations—the canals that produce the crystals, the little auditory bones—cannot be moulded by the gravity and forces of the earth. They are organized in the womb of the mother by forces that descend from the stars. The cochlea and Eustachian tube are parts that belong to man as a being of earth and are developed later. They are shaped by the forces that originate from the earth, from the gravity that gives us our form and that enables the child to stand upright long after it is born.

You see, if initially one knows how the whole human being originates from one small cell, and how one cell is transformed into an eye while another becomes an ear and a third the nose, one understands how man is gradually built up. Actually, there are ten groups of cells that transform themselves, not just one, but we may still imagine there to be one cell in the beginning. So, at first, just one cell exists. This produces a second, which by being placed in a slightly different position comes under a different influence and develops into the ear. Another develops into the nose, a third into the eye, and so on. None of this proceeds from any influence of the earth. The forces of the earth can mould only those parts that are mostly round, just as in the abdomen the earth organizes the intestinal system. Everything else is formed by the influence of the stars.

We know of these matters today because we have microscopes. After all, the auditory bones are minute. Remarkably enough, these things were also known by men in ancient times, though the source of their knowledge was completely different from that of today. For example, 3,000 years ago the ancient Egyptians were also occupied with a knowledge of man's organization and knew in their way just how remarkable the inner functions of the human ear are. They said to themselves that man has ears, eyes and other organs belonging to the head. If we wish to explain them, we must ask how the ear, for instance, was moulded so differently from the other organs. The ancients said that those organs that are part of the head developed primarily from what comes down to the earth from above. They said, “High up in the air the eagle develops and matures. One must look up into that region if one wishes to observe the forces that form the organs in the human head.” So, these ancient people drew an eagle in place of the head when they were depicting the human being.

When we observe the heart or lungs, we find that they look completely different from the ear or eye. When we look at the lungs, we cannot turn to the stars, nor can we do so in the case of the heart. The force of the stars works strongly in the heart, but we cannot deduce the heart's configuration solely from the stars. The ancient Egyptians knew this; they knew that these organs could not be as closely linked to the stars as those of the head. They pondered these aspects and asked themselves which animal's constitution emphasized the organs similar to the human heart and lungs. The eagle particularly develops those organs that man has in his head.

The ancients thought that the animal that primarily develops the heart, that is all heart and therefore the most courageous, is the lion. So they named the section of man that contains the heart and lungs “lion.” For the head, they said “eagle,” and for the midsection, “lion.”

They realized that man's intestines were again organs of a different kind. You see, the lion has quite short intestines; their development is curtailed. The minute “intestine” in the human ear is formed most delicately, but man's abdominal intestines are by no means shaped so finely. In observing the intestines, you can compare their formation only with the nature of those animals that are mainly under their influence. The lion is under the influence of the heart, and the eagle is under the sway of the upper forces. When you observe cows after they have been grazing, you can sense how they and their kind are completely governed by their intestines. When they are digesting, they experience great well-being, so the ancients called the section of man that constitutes the digestive system, “bull.” That gives us the three members of human nature: Eagle—head; lion—breast; bull—abdomen.

Of course, the ancients knew when they studied the head that it was not an actual eagle, nor the midsection a lion, nor the lower part a bull. They knew that, and they said that if there were no other influence, we would all go about with something like an eagle for our head above, a lion in our chest region and a bull down below; we would all walk around like that. But something else comes into play that transforms what is above and moulds it into a human head, and likewise with the other parts. This agent is man himself; man combines these three aspects.

It is most remarkable how these ancient people expressed, in such symbols, certain truths that we acknowledge again today. Of course, they could form these images easier than we because, though we modern people may learn many things, the thoughts we normally acquire in school do not touch our hearts too deeply. It was quite different in the case of these ancient people. They were seized by the feeling emanating from thoughts and therefore dreamed of them. These people dreamed true dreams. The whole human being appeared as an image to them, and from his forehead they saw an eagle looking out, from the heart, a lion, and from the abdomen, a bull. They combined this into the beautiful image of the whole human being. One can truly say that long-ago people composed their concept of the human being from the elements of man, bull, eagle and lion.

This outlook continued in the description of the Gospels. One frequently proceeded from this point of view. One said that in the Gospel of Matthew the humanity of Jesus is truly described; hence, its author was called “man.” Then take the case of John, who depicts Jesus as if He hovered or flew over the earth. John actually describes what happens in the region of the head; he is the “eagle.” When one examines the Gospel of Mark, one will find that he presents Jesus as a fighter, the valiant one; hence, the “lion.” Mark writes like one who represents primarily those organs of man situated in the chest. How does Luke write? Luke is presented as a physician, as a man whose main goal is therapeutic, and the healing element can be recognized in his Gospel. Healing is accomplished by bringing remedial forces into the digestive organs. Consequently, Luke describes Jesus as the one who brings a healing element into the lower nature of man. Luke, then, is the “bull.” So one can picture the four Gospels like this: Matthew—man; Mark—lion; Luke—bull; John—eagle.

As for the journal whose cover depicts the four figures that you asked about, its purpose is to present something of value that can be communicated from one human spirit to another. So the true human being should be depicted in it. In rendering this drawing, the eagle is represented above, then the lion and bull, with man encompassing them all. This was done to show that the journal represents a serious concern with man. This is its aim. Not much of the human element is present in the bulk of what newspapers print these days. Here attention was to be drawn to the fact that this newspaper or journal could afford man the opportunity to express himself fully. What he says must not be stupid: the eagle. He must not be a coward: the lion. Nor should he lose himself in fanciful flights of thought but rather stand firmly on earth and be practical: the bull. The final result should be “man,” and it should speak to man. This is what one would like to see happen, that everything passed on from man to man be conducted on a human level.

Well, I did have time after all to get to your question after looking at those subjects I started with. I hope my answer was comprehensible. Were you interested in the description of the ear? One should know these things; one should be familiar with what is contained in the various organs that one carries around within the body.

Question: Is there time to say something about the “lotus flowers” that are sometimes mentioned?

Dr. Steiner: I'll get to that when I describe the individual organs to you.

The chairman, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting. He then announces that it is intended to introduce study evenings at which explanations of the idea of the threefold social order are to be given and at which, in particular, the book “The Core Issues of the Social Question” is to be thoroughly discussed. The first study evening is to take place in the coming week. He then reports that the shoe industry has made progress with regard to the works council issue. They have already come so far that the works councils in the leather industry have joined together to form an action committee that intends to become active within the shoe industry in the near future.

Opening words

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees, As on the previous evenings, I will also give only a brief introduction today, so that we can then discuss one or the other specific question in detail. But in view of the waning interest in the works council issue, it may be advisable to make some more general comments at the beginning of this evening.

You see, on the part of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism”, the aim has been to take the first really practical step in the direction that has been outlined by the social movement for more than half a century, by creating a works council. This movement is, after all, like an outcry of the proletariat against its oppression. But this outcry is basically nothing more than a kind of world-historical critique of the capitalist economic order. Due to the world war catastrophe, conditions have now emerged that make it necessary to replace the critique to which the parties of the socialist movement have become accustomed with something else. When people within this movement began to find ways to achieve social renewal, there was hope that, especially among the broad masses of the working class, firstly from their experiences within the capitalist social order, and secondly from the undergrounds that arise because the working class is really much more politically educated than the bourgeoisie as a result of its experiences, an understanding would develop for what should replace the previously merely social criticism of the social order. After the so-called collapse of the German Reich, one could basically only hope for something really decisive from this side, because those who were completely tied to the old state and economic order had nothing to offer that could really lead to a new structure, despite the experiences of the world war catastrophe and its consequences.

One gets quite gloomy thoughts today when, on the one hand, one realizes that the intelligentsia is necessary for a new beginning, and when, on the other hand, one considers the mental and political state of this intelligentsia in today's Central Europe, especially the intelligentsia of those who belong to the leading personalities. From all that has been said here so far, those of you who have been here often will have seen that if we really want to make progress, a new social order must also be found from a new spirit. This applies in particular to the present moment, which clearly shows that Central Europe is in the process of collapse. That nothing can be hoped for from certain circles is illustrated by the following example.

You see, when one speaks of a new spirit with which the future is to be shaped, then one must first ask oneself: where are the manifestations of this new spirit? Now, the political spirit that dominates today, especially the leading classes, I would like to illustrate with an example that could be multiplied a thousandfold. The following words were spoken in Berlin. Please listen carefully, for today it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the spirit of the people. So listen carefully:

"The fact that before the revolution we were generally able to trust in the honest and objective reliability of our government, that in the excellent Prussian civil service we could spare ourselves the need to have a say, is not the least of the reasons for the intellectual superiority that Germany in general, and especially in its scientific and technical development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century. You cannot serve two masters at the same time. The general politicization is necessarily an enemy of strict concentration and immersion in creative work. May the German mind develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to that glorious state of trust that Prussia gave us in the form of the Hohenzollerns!"

[Interjection: Is that the Oldenburg Januschau?]

Yes, that's what you think, that it's the Oldenburg Januschau! It would be comforting if it were at least him. But you see, these words were spoken by the leading professor of German language and literature at Berlin University. That is the crucial point! These words, spoken by the representative of German language and literature, the leading representative of this subject at the leading German university, are indeed somewhat indicative of the spirit that prevails among those who today have to inspire our youth for what humanity can expect from the future. Is it any wonder that gloomy thoughts arise when one thinks of this future? Basically, this is mentioned as a characteristic because, after all, those people who are leading the way in journalism today, especially in the journalism of the parties, have learned a great deal from these people in terms of their overall thinking, even if they have adopted individual program points. Above all, they have learned to be short-sighted, not to say dull-witted.

In the face of this, it must be emphasized again and again: Unless people can muster the strength to develop a truly new spirit, a comprehensive spirit, things cannot fundamentally improve. That is why it is so regrettable that the idea of founding a works council was drawn from a truly new spirit, that this idea of a works council, which is a truly practical idea, has found so little favor with the masses. Of course, things can move slowly at first, and that wouldn't even be the worst thing, but the way things have happened must be counted among the worst things.

We started our work here with the threefold social order in mind. At first, as I have already mentioned, the people who are always listened to said: Well, that's just a little folly, we'll let it go. But then this folly turned out to have found a following of thousands in Stuttgart and the surrounding area. That made people extremely uncomfortable. Then the practical idea of workers' councils emerged in a truly practical form. Then people became even more uncomfortable, and then this strange fact arose, which must be recorded again and again: that the parties are now raising objections to the threefold social order in general and to the works council issue in particular. On the one hand, we hear: Yes, the threefold order is all right. When our friends Gönnewein and Roser spoke at a public meeting in the Dinkelacker Hall recently, for example, one of the various speakers, most of whom were opposed to us, said: Yes, the threefold social order is all very well; it must ultimately prevail, but we are fighting against it! — Well, it is good and must ultimately be realized, but it is being fought against. - We want something completely different to start with, and then, when we have realized this completely different thing, then the threefold social order will come about by itself.

Now, there can be no question of the threefold order ever arising by itself; rather, it must be worked hard for. It is, I have to say the word, the biggest swindle when people repeat the old word over and over again: We only need to do this or that, it only needs this or that class to gain power, and then a properly ordered social being will arise by itself. No, the properly ordered social organism must first be recognized and then worked out. And it is characteristic that they keep saying: the threefold social organism is all very well, but that is how a social order must be, as the threefold social organism says, but we are fighting it. But if people are to say what they want, then one hears nothing but slogans and

The only thing I found within the Communist Party with regard to its fight against the threefold order is that they agree – as far as one is confronted with it – that the threefold order is quite good, but that it must be fought. In that they agree. And from the other side it has been shown — do not think that I care about anything, but when it comes to fighting for something, then such things must be looked at — that on the occasion of the publication of the first number of our weekly magazine 'Threefolding of the Social Organism', not a single one of the thoughts contained in this magazine was addressed, but it was all just scathing abuse. This is the result of dullness, of the inability to produce even one real thought of one's own. Therefore one can do nothing but rant. Much has also been said from third and fourth parties that aims in a similar direction. Things were always treated in such a way that it soon became clear that all these critics do not raise any real objections. On the one hand, this reveals an inability, an impotence; on the other hand, it reveals stupidity, in that one says again and again that threefolding is good in itself, but must be fought. Now, if these things are not looked at, if the cancerous damage resulting from party activity is not seen, then nothing healing can come out of the struggle in which we find ourselves.

Dear attendees! Today is truly not the time to get lost in such party squabbling, because today we are close to the point where people with the kind of attitude of Professor Gustav Roethe of the University of Berlin, which I have read to you, are gaining the upper hand again in capitalist circles as well. You don't have to be a friend of these ideas, which are only half or quarter ideas and, on top of that, quite impractical, and you don't have to be a friend of Wissell and Moellendorff, but you have to say that from a certain side they had the power to suppress them. If they had been ousted from another side, it would not have been a particular problem, but the fact that they were ousted from that side proves the current seriousness of the situation in Central Europe. It proves that certain circles feel safe again, circles that felt very unsafe relatively recently.

A few weeks ago, just as I was coming from Switzerland, from Dornach, to Stuttgart and we were beginning our work, it was still the case that the business community, indeed the leading circles in general, felt insecure in a certain sense. There was still a very strange mood prevailing in these circles. And so one could certainly have the impression that something can be achieved if a vigorous movement with content and meaning comes along. At that time, those who abhorred the planned economy and the framework laws of Moellendorff did not yet have the courage to come forward as boldly as they do today. But because it was possible to foresee how things would turn out, one idea was put forward again and again here and in other meetings at which I spoke, probably to the point of tedium for many, namely: Action should be taken on the idea of works councils before it is too late.

In connection with the farewell of Moellendorff and Wissell, it should be noted that the Works Council Constitution Act has now been reintroduced to the National Assembly. You can take all these symptoms together, and you will not find it incredible if today someone who has some insight into these things tells you: all this is the systematic work of the other side, the systematic work of former entrepreneurs who had already felt very close to the abyss and who are now gradually paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. From this side, no means are spared, including going into partnership with the Entente, if it means paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. If the ideas of those people who are at work today are fulfilled, and that is no exaggeration, then it is the case that all social striving, as you feel it, is an impossibility for many years. Because then it is not a question of how strong capitalism is in Central Europe, but of how strong Entente capitalism is.

That is how things are on the one hand. On the other hand, we have the most savage party infighting, which would have to be swept away in order to arrive at an objective striving. What does this party infighting reveal? Above all, it reveals the necessity for the threefold social organism. In this threefold order, spiritual life should have an independent administration, on the other hand, state or legal life should have its own administration, and on the third hand, economic life. Within economic life, as a purely economic institution, we want to develop the works councils. This works council system would mark the beginning of a real socialization by separating economic administration from spiritual and political life. What would be the safest way to keep economic life at the mercy of capitalism? By continuing to mix economic life with political life! And what is it that squeals out of the foolish party squabbling? It is the wild mixing and merging of economic points of view and political points of view. These modern parties are so harmful because they are based entirely on what has survived as a fusion of political and economic life. That is why we keep hearing from people who understand absolutely nothing about the structure of the social order that you first have to have political power and then economic power. Then they turn it around and so on. All these things show the most chaotic amateurism. The fact that such views are appearing within the parties shows how necessary the threefold social organism is. And in our day, I would say, we should really, as the twelfth hour approaches, consult with ourselves and ask ourselves: Do we really want to be the fools of the rising reaction by blindly following the party slogans more than ever the seemingly well-meaning Catholics follow them? Don't you want to rely on your own judgment? If you had relied on your own sound judgment, then the works council would have been established already. Just think what it would mean if the works council were already a reality and if the economic demands of the proletariat were taken up by the works councils and were to be heard in all that is now happening within the newly strengthened capitalism and entrepreneurship, in what is being driven on the part of the ore mining industry, which is much more damaging than one might think, and in what is connected with the peace treaty. People have repeatedly emphasized that the main thing is to conquer political power.

Oh, my dear audience, nothing strikes me as more ridiculous than such phrases. Of course, you can say such phrases, that you first have to have political power. But when the first step should be taken to gain power at all, as it could have happened through the election of the works councils, then this first step is not taken. It is not taken because people love to speak in grand words and phrases. But they do not love to approach the issue in a truly appropriate way.

The previous draft of the Works Councils Act has turned out to be impractical and unacceptable. Now a new draft is being presented to the National Assembly, after the timid attempt by Moellendorff and Wissell, which also contained rudiments of a planned economy, was thrown into the underworld, along with the two personalities. All this shows the kind of nonsense being perpetrated by a certain faction, which ultimately will lead nowhere. Imagine if our works councils in Württemberg had been in session for the last fourteen days and had sent tangible proposals for real socialization into the world every day! If that were the case, then one could say: the new spirit necessary for a new beginning arises from this proletariat. If there were a thousand works councils here instead of just a few, then we could say: We laugh at what the big industrialist said after the start of the November Revolution and the outbreak of the strike: “We just have to wait!” Because the time will come when the workers will come whining and begging to our establishment and will be satisfied if they are allowed to work a quarter of what they are asking for now. Well, but today we are not yet in a position to look at things with the necessary seriousness. But it is not enough to express this seriousness only in words; it is important that it is also reflected in actions. If we consider that the Central European industrialists will receive support from the Entente in terms of their power, then we must come to the conclusion that this works council system must be created before it is too late. I am not saying that nothing can be done now. Of course, we must continue to work in the direction we have begun, but it would be playing blind man's bluff to close our eyes to the general world situation. We are in it now, and actually we should not have got into it at all without already having works councils.

You see, in times of such upheaval as the ones we are living through, it is of the utmost importance to recognize and seize the right moment. You can't afford to wait four to six weeks for the right thing to happen. Today, many people know that with the great French Revolution at the end of the 18th century and with the following revolutions in the 19th century, only a kind of emancipation of the human being as a citizen was actually achieved. But the fact that individual people have become freer to a certain extent is meaningless for the broad masses of the proletariat. Why? Because those who rose up against the old feudal order may have seized state power, but they failed to remove the economic straitjacket from the workers, even though they were now personally free. Today it is time to realize that merely seizing state power is not enough. As a result of the revolutions, other people came to power, but nothing really new was created. The old framework of the state was retained. And so they continued to work until the catastrophe of the world wars. They squeezed everything into the framework of the old unitary state. Today the time has come to recognize that the proletariat cannot simply imitate the bourgeoisie, which only wanted to conquer state power. The proletariat must develop something new and not cling to the old unitary state. The proletariat must develop the tripartite social organism. Either we understand this tripartite structure or we will end up with an impossible construct like the state of the 19th and early 20th century. It is not enough to keep saying that we want to overthrow the old institutions and replace capitalism with new social forms! One must also know what these new forms should consist of! That is why an attempt has also been made with my book 'The Crux of the Social Question' to present to people something that really gives the longed-for social community an organic structure. It shows how this social community can become possible and how it can develop. What use is it to always say: things must come from themselves!

Well, I could imagine that such fanatics of self-origin still believe that the social order came by itself, even when it actually had to be fought for hard. You see, if the cockerel on the dung heap crows before sunrise, when it is still dark, and then the sun rises, the cockerel can imagine that it was his crowing that made the sun rise. It is quite certain that a new social order will not come about just by crowing about socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It will only come about if a sufficiently large number of people think: we have to work to bring about this new social order. We must choose from among ourselves those in whom we have confidence, so that, on the basis of existing economic experience, something beneficial for economic life may come about, which can then eclipse all the bureaucratic proposals for laws and the like that are being sought from other quarters. I ask you: Are you afraid of such work, or why do you refrain from creating such a works council, which would really be a power factor because it would be supported by the trust of the workers? At the moment, you can be sure of that, when such a works council produces new fruitful ideas, in that moment the works council is the greatest power in certain areas. It is not the crowing of a cockerel on the dung heap, who believes that the sun rises because of his crowing. It is a call to action, but to an action that is known to be the right one.

You see, I believe that the new spirit could flourish out of such a feeling alone. But as long as this new spirit does not live in people's minds, nothing good will come of it. And the current economic situation is such that, above all, we have to think about how we can get our economic life in Central Europe back on its feet to some extent. Thus, new sources of raw materials of the most diverse kinds will have to be tapped, especially in the East. There will be many a necessity that Central European entrepreneurship has not yet tackled. However, sources of raw materials in Siberia can no longer be tapped, because the course of the world does not allow this today; the Americans and the Japanese no longer allow it. Where we can be effective is in the entire European East. But there it will be a matter of finding the right tone to go along with the Russian national soul. That was precisely the worst thing about the industrial circles that have been leading up to now, that they never found the tone to enter into a corresponding connection with other national souls. That is another reason why a new spirit must enter into our economic life. Otherwise the East will slam the door on us, especially if we come with the spirit that our leading circles have developed so far. Above all, we are dependent on developing a brotherhood, an economic brotherhood, with the East, otherwise we will never get out of the situation we have gotten into.

A new spirit is needed in a wide variety of directions! This new spirit may flourish in hearts and minds, for we need it. You will not find the new spirit in what I read to you at the beginning, because it says that “before the revolution, we were generally able to trust in the honest and objective reliability of our government, that we excellent Prussian civil service state, we could spare the need to have a say in it, and it is not least in this that the intellectual superiority that Germany in general, especially in its scientific and technical development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century, is rooted. ... May the German spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to the glorious state of trust that Prussia's Hohenzollern gave us.

You will understand that one cannot speak in this way today. But, ladies and gentlemen, I will now translate these words into another language and then ask you whether one can speak in this way today: the fact that before the revolution we were able to place our complete trust in the honest and objective reliability of our party leaders, that we the excellent Party bureaucratism we could spare ourselves the need to have a say, and it is not least in this that the intellectual superiority is rooted, which Germany in general, but not in its social-democratic and socialist development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century. One cannot serve two masters, the Party bureaucrats and the tripartite division. The general politicization is necessarily an enemy of strict concentration and immersion in devotion, in loyalty, in party bonze-hood. May the social spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to that glorious party system of trust, as the party bigwigs have given it to us Social Democrats. You see, you have applied the same thought forms to something else. Whether you are Professor Roethe and speak about the Hohenzollern in this way or whether you are just an honest party man and speak about the party bigwigs in this way, both are based on the same mental perceptions. It does not make a person freer if he simply worships other idols! One becomes free by relying on one's own judgment, on one's own reason and on one's own perception. It is to this inner perception that we have appealed. I hope that it will yet be shown that we have not appealed in vain, for if we had appealed in vain, then the situation of the proletariat would be dire.

Discussion

Mr. Huch: The speaker fully agrees with Dr. Steiner's remarks and expresses his regret that the idea of the threefold social order is not taken up as it should be. He sees the fault largely with the trade unions. As a member of a workers' committee, he also notes that the business community today is again acting quite differently than it did six to eight weeks ago.

Mr. Fischer: He introduces himself as a trade union leader and defends the work of the trade unions against the previous speaker. He explains that it is the fault of the workers themselves if the union does not proceed correctly. — The poor attendance at today's meeting is probably also due to the fact that the workers are suspicious of everything that comes from philosophers, theosophists and commercial counselors. Regarding the works councils, Mr. Fischer criticizes the fact that the works councils in Germany are also fragmented. If there is now competition between works councils in different cities, independently of each other and based on different industries, then that is a big mistake. The speaker professes himself to be a supporter of the works councils. At the moment when the parties and the trade unions have outlived themselves, they must of course be swept away; the only question is what we put in their place. It must be clear that you can't just throw away the organizations that have had the trust of the masses so far. The speaker cannot imagine how unity can prevail in a works council when people with different economic and political views are represented there. If practical socialization is to be pursued, then one must begin by taking the means of production and land out of the hands of the exploiters and transferring them into the ownership of society, because the power of the capitalists is based on the ownership of these means. The speaker asks Dr. Steiner to indicate how the works councils can accomplish this task. Furthermore, Dr. Steiner is asked to provide information on how, in his opinion, the works councils can be put in a position to determine demand. Because as long as the worker has to ask, “Do I have enough to live on?” he will not concern himself with lofty spiritual problems. The starving masses crave bread, not spiritual ideals. Only when food is available again will there also be mental resilience. The masses will certainly not grovel and beg for work, but will throw society overboard. The proletariat's confrontation with the capitalists will not take the form of fine speeches, but of violence.

Another speaker: Dr. Steiner's idea that we must orient ourselves towards the East coincides with what I also said at a meeting. I also said that the new comes from the East; a new form of society has emerged there, perhaps not yet as it should be, but the new comes from there and we must orient ourselves towards it. What do we experience? Our government has known nothing but to look anxiously to the West and to make sure that nothing happens that the Entente does not like. That is the whole evil we are facing today. German capitalism has simply been replaced by Entente capitalism, and we will have to fight very hard battles if we want to eliminate this Entente capitalism from the world. No one has yet succeeded in pointing the way. If Dr. Steiner succeeds, the workers will follow him.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to make a few remarks before I return to the words of the previous speaker.

First of all, it was said that the working class is strongly opposed to the threefold social order because it is based on philosophers, commercial counsellors and the like. This is not true at all; in fact, the working class was not very prejudiced at the beginning of our work. On the contrary, it turned out that we found thousands and thousands of supporters for what we were spreading, not as a utopian idea, but as something that is directly the germ of action, as I called it at the time. The workers at that time didn't give a damn whether these thoughts came from philosophers or commercial counselors, but they relied on their common sense and listened. And those who were prejudiced whistled from a completely different direction. And they have managed to ensure that this prejudice has only gradually emerged. So the matter is quite different.

Although the previous speaker has correctly characterized the movement of commercial employees, which is showing some better traits and deserves to be studied in more detail by the rest of the working class, his words nevertheless show that he is completely unaware of what threefolding is in general and what it specifically seeks to achieve with the founding of a works council. For this is precisely what must be most vigorously combated by the threefolding of the social organism, namely, that this fragmentation occurs. It has never been our aim merely to create works councils for any industry or to individualize within the works council. How often has it been said: If works councils are created for the individual industries, this is the opposite of what must be aimed for in the context of a real socialization. We have always striven for a works council that extends uniformly over a larger, self-contained economic area. And only from such a works council should everything necessary for individualization then emerge. The fact that the matter has taken on the form that more zeal is shown in individual sectors than in others has nothing to do with the works council as it should have arisen from the idea of threefolding.

Yes, and then the previous speaker brought up the argument that one would have to start by transferring the means of production and land into the ownership of society. Just try to think through what is actually meant by this nebulous sentence to its logical conclusion! Consider what such a demand means in practice! I would like to take this up again. I once spoke about these things in a town, I think it was Göppingen, and after me spoke a man who actually spoke quite well from a certain point of view. He was probably a communist. He said he was a cobbler. At first he spoke very well, but then something strange happened: he said, “Yes, I already know that since I have not learned a trade, I cannot become a registrar, for that you need intelligence.” Well, excuse me, but that doesn't require much understanding. But a great deal of understanding and insight is needed for what this man wanted to know about the conquest of political power and the like. These things must be faced.

Now, the specific question is how to implement the fundamentally correct demand to transfer the means of production and land into the public domain. Of course, there must also be people available who can properly manage the means of production and land. The thing is this: what has been the capitalist form of production up to now has a very specific configuration; a very specific way of handling it was necessary for that. This must be transformed into a different way of handling it, and this must first be created. Today, before you have any concrete ideas about how to manage the means of production and the land, you cannot simply demand that the means of production and so on be transferred into the public domain! That is precisely what the workers' councils are supposed to do in practice. You cannot revolutionize anything with phrases and theories; you can only do it with people, and these people should have been the workers' councils, and I mean the unified workers' councils, not the fragmented ones. That is what it is all about. We shall make no headway if we keep on saying that the proposals of the philosophers and commercial counsellors come from the clouds, and then contrast them with a so-called practice that has arisen from even more nebulous regions, because then it becomes apparent that it is impossible to say how such things can actually be implemented. But it is precisely this “how” that is at issue. This “how” is explained in my book The Essential Points of the Social Question; it is only necessary to understand it, that is what it is about.

Yes, and then it has been said repeatedly that we must first change the economic order. The spiritual will then arise by itself. — It will not. We already need this new spirit to change the economic system. And it is precisely then that one speaks impractically and nebulously when one says again and again: We change the economic system, then the new spirit will come by itself. No, you need the new spirit to change the economic system. That is why I say to you: For my sake, you can chase the whole of society away with the words of the esteemed previous speaker – but then also be clear about what you have to do when you have chased away the old society. Do you know what you want to do then? You can't do the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't need to chase them away. If you centralize the entire economy and put super-bonze above super-bonze, do you think that will improve anything? I would like to see if something would be better for the working masses if you were to put the highest-ranking union bonze in the top positions instead of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. That is what you should think about. That is what emerged from practical considerations, however much I liked the tone of the previous speaker's comments. But it has not yet been understood what it is really about, because everything that is happening in the optical industry, in the automotive industry and the like is the opposite of what is being propagated here. And so it is not enough just to point out ways; there must be a real understanding among the broad masses of workers, and then these ways must be developed in concrete practice. That is why I feel I must say, when I hear it said, “Steiner shows us the ways,” Steiner shows us the way – that it will be of no use if I show these ways, as long as large masses are repeatedly kept from understanding by the fact that people keep coming who have not yet understood this way and then speak of the opposite, as has just happened again, and then say: If we are shown the way, we will follow it; I am happy to be taught. – But when something is shown, the objection is that it is nothing. No, as long as this is the case, we will not make any progress. We will only make progress if we develop an instinct for what is right. And that is what we lack from the “Federation for the Threefold Social Order”. At first we found a certain healthy mass instinct, but then we had to learn that there is still a great deal of obedience to the old leaders. I will not doubt the emergence of a healthy instinct, but it will only emerge when those speakers no longer appear before the masses who, without sufficiently penetrating the matter, simply talk and prevent the masses from from taking further steps, but on the contrary, lead them back to their old obedience and to dubious ideas, by saying again and again: “Go ahead and form works councils; they will only fragment again.

If what we have been striving for had really been achieved, we would not have fragmentation, but a unified organization of economic concerns within the works council into the future, at least for Württemberg. This would then have a motivating effect on others and could have an impact beyond this economic area.

Mr. Fischer: He states that his criticism of the works councils was not directed against Dr. Steiner, but against the remarks made by the chairman at the beginning... I said: I am convinced that the ideas that Dr. Steiner developed and carried to the masses were different. But something different was propagated than was shown in practice. Dr. Steiner said that the socialization of the means of production is a phrase and that afterwards there would be no one left who would know how to manage the means of production. It would be sad if the workers and employees who have done the work since then did not know what to do with the means of production! What I mean is that the shareholders should be eliminated and it should be said: the shares are no longer valid. The property should become the property of the general public and be administered by the general public. Dr. Steiner puts spiritual ideas above everything. But the workers today only want bread because they are physically exhausted and unable to accept spiritual ideas. I ask Dr. Steiner to address this and show how these ideas can be made accessible to the masses with hungry stomachs.

Rudolf Steiner: That is a snake that bites its own tail. Do you think it is said on the one hand: We can transfer the means of production into the general public. Well, a really concrete body that would represent this generality would be the works councils. But such a body must first be created, it is not there! Certainly, the great mass is weakened by hunger. But should we wait for manna to fall from heaven so that bread can be socialized? This is a snake that bites its own tail. We must, of course, strive for both at the same time, and we will achieve nothing if we do not all work together, because the manna will not just fall from the sky. There is work to be done! We will all have to work, but we will only really want to work if we see what comes out of that work. We will work even with weakened muscles, with hungry stomachs, when we know that tomorrow our work will lead to a result. – But if we are always told that it should be socialized, then we will not be able to work even with an empty stomach, because we know that we will not be full tomorrow if we do not work with practical ideas.

So today it is important that we engage with this and also say: Well, the old society was chased away in droves on November 9 [...] The previous speaker, who said very good things in general, then described very well what happened then. I do not want to examine now how much of what happened there can be attributed to incompetence. I attribute more to the incompetence of those in power today than to their ill will. Because of this incompetence, what should actually be overcome keeps coming to the fore. This must be avoided. Whether or not this society, which was discussed today, is chased away with or without violence, is another question. But those who take its place must know what they want. That alone is practical. And that is the aim of the 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism': to ensure that November 9th is not repeated and that in a few months' time we do not have to say: 'Now you see, now we have a different regime in economic life, but it is doing exactly the same thing as the previous one'. This must be prevented. But it can only be prevented by setting up a works council and then showing that things are done differently under the new regime. Of course, if no people can be found among the working population, among the employees, who really know how to work, then one would indeed have to despair. But that is not the only thing. It is essential that new forms of socialization then become visible. After all, people are all accustomed to working in some way under the old regime. Therefore, now that power has been gained, those who have gained it must really recognize how to deal with that power. So, it's a matter of really taking a practical approach for once. And the sad thing is that there is no understanding of such a practical approach today, and people keep coming up with old phrases. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that the transfer of the means of production and the land into the community is a phrase as such. That is not what I said. But a phrase, what is a phrase? Something is a phrase for one person because he cannot see anything special behind the words, while for another it is a deep golden truth because he sees something concrete behind it. When, for example, Bethmann-Hohlkopf, I mean Bethmann-Hollweg, says, “Free rein to the efficient!” it is a mere phrase, because he may understand it to mean that, for example, his nephew or someone else is the most efficient. But when someone who has real social insight and a real sense of humanity says, “Free rein to the efficient!” it is not a mere phrase, it is real. If someone simply repeats the old party line about the socialization of the means of production, then it can be a mere catchphrase. But when someone characterizes it as it is in my book, then it is not a catchphrase, then it is an expression of a reality. Therefore, you do not have to believe that when I call something a phrase, it is meant to be absolute. I mean, it is a phrase when there is not the necessary reality behind what has been said. That is what I wanted to say.

Mr. Roser: The previous speaker is mistaken if he thinks that I welcomed the works councils in the shoe industry because they formed separately. I just wanted to state that the leather industry has grasped the tripartite structure of the social organism. I must note that the works councils in the footwear industry have been firmly established on the basis of the tripartite division; only for this reason did I welcome the matter. A start has to be made at some point.

Mrs. Bühl: I would like to tell Mr. Fischer that the union secretary said: Without a law, there can be no works councils; the law must first be created. The main reason why we still have no workers' councils is the fault of the parties. It's a disgrace that when you go to a meeting and express your convictions, people immediately say, “Ah, one of Dr. Steiner's people.” Why can't we express our convictions? And then they always come to us with the “Kommerzienräte”! Why do you always speak in the plural? I only know of one Kommerzienrat in our family, and it wouldn't be a mistake if we had a couple of dozen of them. Just think of all the things that one Kommerzienrat has achieved! First of all, the free school. It's a shame when you hear how the matter is judged. It's good when Kommerzienrats do it that way. I couldn't open a school. It's the stupid mistrust among the workers and the parties. [Shout: Where does he get the money from?] One opens his wallet, the other doesn't; that's the difference. If a person thinks socially and has a feeling for his workers, that's the main thing!

Mr. Huth: Mr. Fischer's comments call me to the scene. First of all, I would like to confirm to him, because I know him, that he is not one of those union bigwigs who move in the spirit of a Legien, but one of those who are active in the spirit of a truly revolutionary working class. But when he criticizes the fact that works councils have been formed and united in the shoe industry, and when he wants to use this to assert that a fragmentation would take place because other occupational branches also have works councils, then I have to correct him. In the shoe industry, when we elected our works councils, we waited quite a long time for the metal industry here to start electing its works councils as well, so that we could form a works council in the sense of the tripartite division together with them. But as time passed, and this was due to the fault of the proletarian parties, and in the other occupations the matter has not yet progressed as far as in the shoe industry, we had to say to ourselves: There is no point in not getting together and doing practical work ourselves. We have to form a works council, no matter how small, and then spread the idea of the works council to the circles of those workers who have not yet taken any action in this direction.

We cannot wait for some government to bring us socialization. The liberation of the proletariat must come from the proletariat itself, and if it is on a path that a philosopher has shown, if the path is good. It has been pointed out that the old slogan: We must first conquer political power - is repeatedly haunting people's minds. This is hammered into the proletarians again and again. This word is actually a phrase, a dishonest phrase of the parties that call themselves proletarian today, but do not know what to do in the given hour. Because they do not know, they always put off the proletariat to the great Kladderadatsch, until we get reinforcements from the West that will give us political power. We had the power, but what did we do with it? We let it slip out of our hands again because we didn't know what to do with it. We must start by conquering not political power, but economic power through the works councils. Then the power will no longer be able to slip out of our hands. The factory councils, which are to be only economic instruments, will then be supplemented by political councils, by a legal organization. But if we do not also associate the spiritual organization with these two organizations, then we will not arrive at a healthy state, as Russia shows. The leaders of the USP have already risen to a two-fold structure. But the cultural part must not be forgotten either!

When I read Däumig or Müller, I have to say to myself: Put into practice, this will lead to a threefold structure, because they have actually only forgotten the cultural part. — I am a member of the USP, but I am not afraid to tell the parties that they do not know what to do. As proletarians, we have to say: if you don't understand how to lead us, then you have to leave the field. Every movement has the leaders it deserves; so do we. The proletariat as a whole has not yet mustered the courage to tell its leaders who they are. Even if it is already quite late, we must nevertheless take up the question of the works councils with renewed energy. Mr. Molt: The person speaking to you this evening has repeatedly mentioned, if I may say so, the old council system. Mr. Fischer, whom I have the pleasure of meeting again, asked me the specific question of where the money I have actually comes from. This money comes from exactly the same capitalism from which Mr. Fischer also draws his money, that is, from the capitalist economic cycle. And the question is only whether one keeps the money that one acquires on capitalist ground to oneself or whether one gives it back to the general public. By their deeds you shall know them! – In the past, it was said: By their fruits. If you found a school to implement true socialism, if you used the money you had saved through hard work – really through work, not through capitalism – to educate the rising generation in ways other than what we were taught, I would call that the practical fruit of a good idea. If it only came about because I was able to fill my stomach a little better during the war and therefore had a good idea, then it's good that at least that's there. The idea seems to be there for real. And if there aren't good ideas everywhere, then at least we can be glad that there are still people who have ideas, and the main thing is that they are carried out.

You see, the question of the works councils, which Mr. Fischer has so thoroughly misunderstood, has really reached a much more serious stage than has been expressed here tonight. It is truly a matter of life or death! Either we create the works councils, and then we have socialism, or we perish at the hands of Entente capitalism, not only the manual laborers, but also the intellectual workers. And this fact, together with a true idea of socialism, can already warm our hearts for the cause, so that we make the works councils a reality and even put ourselves at the service of this cause as a commercial councilor, and we do so because we really mean it. And the fact that one means it honestly is proved by the wonderful fact that even proletarian assemblies want this strange commercial councillor to give them lectures on works councils, not to the detriment of this assembly. That is why I conscientiously stand on the side of the works councils as well as on the side of the threefold social order. These works councils are different from those in the automotive and optical industries, because they are nothing more than political means to strengthen the parties; they are not there to thoroughly socialize economic life on a large and true scale. That is why we at the “Bund für Dreigliederung” are so strongly opposed to the fact that the works councils that come from the parties are mixed up with the ones we want.

You have probably already read in a daily newspaper that this works council law has again been submitted to the government. We are clear about the fact that the works councils cannot be standardized because every company is different. Economic life cannot be regulated by political power or by laws, but can only regulate itself. Once the law is there, it is difficult to oppose it; you have to be a revolutionary. But if they do not even take a serious stand against the drafts, how much less will it be possible once the law is there? Only a few weeks separate us from this law. This time must be used. If it is not used, it will simply be too late for the works councils and for socialization. That is why one so fervently hopes that the working class will finally wake up. It is not right to think that the workers are prejudiced against 'philosophers and commercial counsellors'. The matter is different. Anyone who has read the newspaper and has read what the “Social Democrat” said about this Waldorf school - he says: “The school is nice, but it comes from factory owners, so it is nothing at all” - must say to himself: These are the people who are hindering true socialism and true progress. The party bigwigs of all stripes are to blame for the fact that our honest efforts and the works councils have so far achieved nothing. But the proletariat itself will soon see how it is driven into misery and hardship if it does not pull itself together in time.

This appeal should be addressed to you again today. There is no time to lose! We only have three to four weeks left. If we lose these, it will be over for good. To show you how serious the situation is, I would like to read you a few lines from a letter that I received just today. This letter was written by a German diplomat who is the first to go abroad, and you should hear how the German situation is characterized from that side: “The situation at home is getting worse and worse, and I fear that the catastrophe that was to be avoided by accepting the peace has only been postponed in order to break over us all the more powerfully. What is now called the government in Germany is really just a caricature of one, wavering between party doctrine and fear of the revolution from left to right. The people's morale is completely collapsing. The speed with which our reputation abroad is declining cannot be described; it is impossible to salvage anything.

This is a letter that arrived today from a German diplomat, who is familiar with the situation and knows how things stand, how we are viewed abroad. But things can truly only change if people in working-class circles do not fall asleep and fail to realize that we are only now approaching real misery, and if they pull themselves together in the last hour to arrive at a state of affairs in which our economic life, which is on the brink of the abyss, can be lifted again. And that can only happen if we ourselves lend a hand, if we ourselves want to see an upward turn in our economy through the introduction of works councils. I wanted to make this appeal to you again, so that we do not have to say in three to four weeks: 'Now it is too late.' There is still time, but it is the twelfth hour. It is up to you, not us.

Mr. Jansen: When Dr. Steiner began his lectures eight to ten weeks ago, there was really great enthusiasm for the idea of the threefold social order. But the moment Dr. Steiner and the Federation for the Tripartite Social Order moved on to the practical, and passed over from thought to reality, the moment work and effort were demanded of those who had previously only been allowed to applaud and clap, some of the enthusiasm already waned. The cool attitude of the workers was also to blame for the fact that the enthusiasm for Dr. Steiner's ideas did not go so far as to be able to fight against the leaders. All of us who were involved in the agitation know what it is to speak out against this apathy. Dr. Steiner also experiences the apathy of the masses. The idea of workers' councils, in the face of capitalism, which was not all that secure a quarter of a year ago, has evoked the last dormant forces within him. He has tried to kill off these workers' councils by denying their validity and feasibility. And the so-called educated caste of our present-day society and the even more vulgar press of all shades have managed to drag the true idea of the threefold social organism and the works councils as it is in the newspapers. |

Half a century has passed since Karl Marx died of starvation, and today people are arguing about how to implement socialization. And it has been more than half a year since the Jena of the German workers, the November Revolution, broke out, and still no one knows how to implement socialization. We should be grateful to a man who has taken the trouble to seek out a practical way, a way by which socialism can be introduced in a relatively short time. The opposite is true! It can be put down to jealousy on the one hand and stupidity on the other. I have already illustrated this a few weeks ago with an example: People talk about killing the lion, capitalism, but they are afraid of the little mouse, the representative of the factories, the director, and of the union and party officials and the like.

Mr. Fischer spoke of commercial counselors, professors, doctors who support the idea of threefolding. Don't we also have professors and doctors in the parties? Do we also say that their ideas are therefore worthless? And if they weren't in the party, the stupidity of the masses would have long since destroyed the parties. One more peculiar little chapter: Mr. Molt, whom I welcome as a colleague and whom we have asked to speak in an informative way at our meeting tomorrow about works councils, this gentleman has money. We have a great many people in the party who also have money, who had it earlier or who have made money through their work in the party. These men, who call themselves party comrades, party leaders, keep their money to themselves. They do not make it available to the party! They buy themselves villas and settle up there nicely. Therefore, let's not be too quick to reproach them: “The man has money.” We have to see what the people below us do with their money. It has been said: “Hunger must be eliminated first so that people are even open to spiritual food.” A communist recently said: Hunger is the worst revolutionary. Once hunger is raging, there is no stopping it, and what has been suppressed for so long breaks through. What are strikes if not hunger revolts? And because hunger is a good incentive, it would not be good to eliminate hunger today. Let us ensure that we abolish mass hunger by abolishing mass exploitation. Socialism is the way to do this! Hunger is an incentive to finally implement socialization.

Mr. Kühn: As managing director of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism,” I would like to say a few words about what has been asked. We intend to call the works councils together for their first meeting next week. We will also begin the study evenings next week. Mr. Roser has already spoken about this. Perhaps I may say a few words about the discussion that took place with Mr. Fischer this evening. Unfortunately, Mr. Fischer has already left. I wanted to tell him in front of the meeting that I definitely know that he has never, neither here nor anywhere else, attended lectures by Dr. Steiner. The only time I met him was at a meeting to discuss the question of the works council, which was convened by employees and where he heard something about threefolding from some speakers. Dr. Steiner was not present. That is how people who know nothing about the matter judge it; they imagine all sorts of things and want to dismiss the matter out of hand. However, Mr. Fischer told me this evening that his union or association wants to hold meetings in the near future to discuss works councils and to set up trial works councils in the factories. You see, people come along when they have heard something here and there and make something out of it. That is what we want to avoid and what we must fight against. We must not make common cause with those who do not want to know about the threefold social organism and do not work towards it. Works councils that are not created on the basis of the idea of the threefold social organism will never be able to realize socialism. The works councils we wanted to introduce would have been the first step towards socialization in the sense of the threefold order. We must reject everything else. It is a pity that Mr. Fischer has left and can no longer discuss the threefold order with us.

Time and again, objections to the threefold order come from people who know nothing about it, but also from people who have already heard many lectures on the threefold order. I would like to tell you an example. There is a communist leader who has a fairly great gift as a speaker and captivates large crowds. He appears at almost every meeting. This man has heard a lot about the threefold social order, but has not grasped any of it. For example, he says: Yes, the threefold social order leads to a three-class system, because if you create three parts, then there is a class in each part, and so we get even worse conditions than today; today we only have two classes. If one wanted to draw conclusions about classes from the organizations, then one would have to say: Today we have a unified state, so there is only one class. So today there should only be one class! This man does not understand such things and comes to such a prejudice. We want to put the social organism on a healthy footing precisely in order to eliminate class rule. There is no question of a three-way division of the classes. The same man also asserts the same thing that Mr. Fischer asserted, namely that the threefold order protects employers. Anyone who has read Dr. Steiner's book knows that today's type of entrepreneur will disappear altogether. But the most beautiful objection of this communist leader was that he said: You cannot separate the economy from politics. You see it all the time in the Reichstag or in the National Assembly, how people represent their economic interests; just think of the industrialists in heavy industry! They cannot help but represent their economic interests. So people cling to the old, to this idol of a unified state, because they do not see that this is precisely what we want to fight, what we want to abolish. It is economic policy that has driven us into this disastrous catastrophe. People readily admit this in private, but they are unable to muster the strength to take measures that would no longer make such economic policy possible. There are the party leaders, above all, who have ruined the works council system for us. We must get rid of these people. The proletariat cannot see socialism realized before that.

We have also encountered an incredible prejudice among the employees, whom we have also called upon. I would like to give an example of this: a person whom I respect very much, who is a leading employee in a factory, said to me: I don't yet know whether capitalism is so wrong. In any case, I insist that it is better today than it will be. I will stick to my views and go down with them rather than introduce something new. I know that I am alone in this and that I may soon be out on the street, but I would rather it be so. I will remain honest and consistent. I have been told that this man has a heart for the proletariat, and that is why he speaks in this conservative way. When I told him he was conservative, he got terribly angry. He said it was just honest. I told him: It's just the same as when you take a train. At one station, the train driver comes in and says the train will derail at the next station, and you then say: I'll stay on the train anyway; I'd rather be injured than get off. I said: I would get off as quickly as possible and see if the train could be moved to another track where it would not derail. — So we have to pull ourselves together at the last moment and do everything we can to get the works councils together. We must present and defend the approach that we see as practical, and not be afraid of being too strongly attacked by the party bigwigs. Actually, word of mouth should teach people again and open their eyes to the philistinism of their party leaders.

Rudolf Steiner: The question has been raised: How can what is healthy in syndicalism be related to the threefold social organism? - Well, it would of course be taking us very far if we were to talk about the essence of syndicalism today at this late hour. But I would like to say that there is much that is genuinely healthy in syndicalism, as there is in other contemporary endeavors. Above all, the healthy aspect of syndicalism is that many syndicalists are dominated by the idea that, regardless of the eternal insistence on the rule of law in the state, economic gains for the broad masses of the working population must be achieved in direct competition with entrepreneurship. The idea that something for the future can arise out of economic life itself through a kind of federal structure lives as a healthy thought within syndicalism. Syndicalism has emerged particularly in recent times within the French labor movement, and it is somehow significant that it has emerged most strongly there. The French have a very strong sense of state. But just at the moment when people in France who were well-disposed towards the state wanted to found a particular labor movement, they came to the conclusion that this could only be useful if it operated exclusively on an economic basis. The federative structure of economic life, as envisaged by syndicalism, even shows certain similarities to what is sought through the associations based on the idea of threefolding.

You see, in the threefold social organism we have an independent spiritual life, then an independent state or legal life, and further an independent economic life. This independent economic life, as I have often said, will have to be built on corporate cooperative foundations, that is to say, associations will be formed on the one hand from the various occupational groups and on the other hand from certain connections between production and consumption. One of the objections raised, for example, by Professor Heck in the Tribüne is based on the fact that he says: Yes, but how will it be possible, for example, for craftsmen and small traders to be knowledgeable about the concerns of big industry if economic life is to be structured in the future as Dr. Steiner wants? Well, this shows that Professor Heck has not understood what is meant either. Of course, one cannot be knowledgeable in all fields, nor is it necessary, because if a federal structure is really established and the individual associations work together intensively, something fruitful for economic life will come of it. It is simply not possible for everything that must develop on a purely democratic basis, such as labor law, to be represented or administered in the same way as purely economic matters. This view is also encountered, at least to some extent, in syndicalism. In the Anglo-American labor movement, the principle of Anglo-American parliamentarism still prevails very strongly. Since this is based on a certain system of counterweights, namely power against power, the Anglo-American labor organizations are also aligned according to the same principle, namely, labor power against corporate power is played off against each other, just as the liberal and conservative parties face each other in parliament. We encounter a different form within the labor organizations in Germany. There is a certain centralism, I might even say a certain military system, based on command and obedience. I don't know if you will entirely agree with this, but I can assure you that I have attended several trade union meetings and that I was always unpleasantly affected by the fact that whenever different opinions arose, the chairman of the meeting stood up and said: Children, it's no use! — So, this centralized-military system is the second; and the third is what is meant by the federal structure, by the structure of independent bodies, in which there will be no majorization or centralization, but objective negotiation. In syndicalism, this appears as a good impulse, but here too a further step is necessary, as is aimed at with the idea of the threefold social organism, namely that the progressive factors that have yet to enter into the thinking of contemporary humanity are actually taken into account. And here I believe that an understanding of this may perhaps develop from syndicalism itself. But this should not be understood as if I were only singing the praises of syndicalism. However, I do believe that threefolding can be better understood from this side than from any of the other directions.

Now, I have little to add to what the last speakers have said. I would just like to make one comment, namely that I and the friends of threefolding have recently become very aware of what one speaker said about the apathy of the masses. Yes, in the place of the phlegm, one would need fire, because if we really want to make progress in this day and age, we need not only insight – this, of course, in the first place – but also fire. You see, when it is constantly being said that the spirit is not really needed, that it will come with economic transformation, then I ask you: Yes, the possibility of moving forward was there to a certain extent. On November 9, the National Assembly was elected. But is there any sign of a new spirit in this National Assembly? There was now a whole new group of voters who had not previously been entitled to vote: women. But it is strange that the spirit has obviously not yet descended on these women either, because the National Assembly shows absolutely nothing of what we really need for the future. But for that, enthusiasm and fire will be needed.

In this context, I ask you whether it is not rather short-sighted to refuse to see that a certain socialization has already begun – and this before the official socialization? Do we want socialization only on paper? Is that what it takes to satisfy you? Imagine if the commercial counsellor who devoted himself to the threefold order had done so like the other commercial counsellors. Then it would have come about that at the moment when socialization was to take place, there would have been no commercial counsellor at all! It would have come about that at some point this Kommerzienrat would have been expropriated like other Kommerzienräte, and then there would have been no more money for real socialization or better schools and the like. And now I ask you: Is it a great sin for someone to take money from another before humanity is ready, to give his money for socialization? Is it a sin if someone does not always trumpet the message that the means of production must be handed over to the general public, but does it of his own accord? I fear that those who always trumpet the phrase that the means of production must be put at the service of the general public will not apply it as sensibly as those who do something out of their own insight beforehand. This is socialization before the official socialization. This is worked out from the spirit that we are currently longing for as the social spirit of the future. And to raise the accusation that someone has the social spirit before, that is, before he is in any constitution, means not being able at all to penetrate into the spirit that can only save humanity, but only shows the longing for the written word. The law you give, you can confidently carry home. We need the spirit out of which socialization is done. Therefore, one should not fall into the trap of saying: The Waldorf School is nice, but it is done by a commercial counselor; we don't want to know anything about that! It would be wiser to say: Take him as an example, and as socializers in the future become like him, then it will be good. The things that are constantly being said from this corner against titles and the like only testify that, despite everything, one clings to words and phrases more than to action. And until we can bring ourselves to act and to acknowledge the deed, no matter where it comes from, we will not move forward; we must be convinced of this. And when we are convinced of this, then we will look only at whether someone is a reasonable person inspired by social feelings, and we will not ask about anything else. As long as we ask about something else, we will not move forward. If this does not become clear, all talk is in vain. Because the beginning must be made by those people who understand something of what is to happen, regardless of whether they play this or that role in the present order. All of us who live today, whether capitalists or laborers, naturally have what we live on out of capitalism. And we cannot change anything if we do not look to what lives in the spirit and must come about out of the spirit. We must finally overcome the phrase, we must move on to what can really become action.

Mr. Roser: As chairman, he thanks Dr. Steiner for his presentation and draws attention once again to the next event. He asks those present once again to study the book “The Core Points of the Social Question” so that they are able to talk about the book and the threefold social order in the circles in which they move.