The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The seminar evening is based on the three previous lectures by Roman Boos on “Phenomenological Social Science” from October 4, 5 and 6, 1920. The discussion will be opened.

Hermann Eichenberger: I would like to ask the speaker a question. If we strive to transform public life in the spirit of threefolding, then we have to consider in which area we can begin. So I would like to ask: Can one start with the transformation of public life in the political and legal sphere? More precisely: Is it correct to think of the legal leadership in such a way that people place their trust in a certain leadership - or not? It concerns the way the legislative body is elected, the electoral system. In the “Key Points” this is described as a fundamental issue.

Eugen Kolisko is of the opinion that it is necessary to ensure that there is a base in parliament from which one can work for threefolding. For example, an appeal has been circulated by Dr. Thomastik calling for Austria to be combined into a single constituency, albeit without reference to the threefolding idea. But it is not possible to keep quiet about threefolding.

Roman Boos shares Dr. Kolisko's view. Above all, a national educational program is needed on a large scale; lectures must be given so that the idea of threefolding pervades people's minds. The matter that Dr. Thomastik has raised is only a surrogate, no matter how beautifully conceived and well-intentioned it may be.

Hermann Eichenberger emphasized that Mr. Thomastik had shown courage; he had also given lectures on the threefold social order.

Rudolf Steiner: Dearly beloved! I do not have much to say about this matter, after what I have heard about it. You can imagine from my previous work that at the moment I stood up for the threefold social organism, I considered it a necessity to introduce this threefold social organism into the public life of modern civilization first. And since then, I have repeatedly stated on a wide variety of occasions that, after a thorough examination of the conditions of modern life, the situation is as follows: either we manage to make the impulse of threefolding truly popular, so that it comes to life – it is not utopian, it must come to life – or we will not make any progress at all. You can read about this again in my collected essays on the threefold social order, which have just been published by the Stuttgart publishing house of Kommenden Tages; the book is called “In Ausführung der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus”.

And so perhaps I may say that every such comment, that one should present the threefold order in a disguised way, reminds me of what I have experienced with anthroposophy for 20 years, namely that very clever people have come again and again and said: Yes, somehow presenting anthroposophy, we can't do that, we first have to somehow make it more palatable in some other way and the like. I myself have never chosen any other path than to present Anthroposophy to the world in an absolutely true and unadorned way, and I have always rejected everything that did not openly advocate for Anthroposophy, thereby incurring sufficient enmity, which is of no concern to me in essence. And so I can only say, my dear assembled guests, that when it comes to seeking the most direct and rapid way to work for the threefold social order, I am quite happy to speak wherever I am invited. If people want to come up with all kinds of secondary proposals, for example, with proposals for modifications to this or that electoral law, which would only be considered if we were in the process of implementing the threefold social order and had political-legal link had been crystallized out of the social organism. When people come up with such things, I have to say that they seem to me – and I say this entirely without emotion – like a renewal of old political wheeling and dealing, and I am not interested in that. I am not interested in it! Now the question is being asked:

I would like to ask Dr. Steiner about how one should imagine the organization of a free spiritual life. Experience shows that artists, scientists and other intellectual workers are the hardest to bring to reasonable cooperation. How can one think of such an organization? Can it even be an organization in the usual sense?

Dear attendees, I would like to start by emphasizing one thing in response to this question: The threefold order of the social organism, as presented in my Key Points of the Social Question and elsewhere, is very often spoken of as if it were some kind of utopia, whereas everything that is presented in it comes from a thoroughly practical way of thinking and also pursues the goal of being taken up in a practical way. On the other hand, however, the character of utopianism, of utopia, is being stamped on this threefold social order movement through numerous questions, even from well-meaning people. It really cannot be a matter of taking the fifth and sixth steps today if one wants to be a practical person without first taking the first step. Now, however, this question points to a difficulty in taking the first step. In the case of the life of the spirit, which in the direction of the impulse of threefolding must be a free life of the spirit, one can of course least of all expect that it can somehow be reorganized overnight. But one could realize threefolding overnight, realize it immediately. One can really do it. One would have to do nothing else but realize it in the same way as the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. And I must, if only to bring the whole discussion down from the abstract heights at which it has been conducted today, to something more concrete, point to this concrete manifestation of the Waldorf School, which has now been in existence for a year.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, when a number of people sit down to make decisions based on principle, for example, regulations for the school system with regard to curricula and teaching times, then – and I mean this quite seriously – these people are basically always very clever, of course. And if you put it together, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 can be made in such a way that you say: the teacher should teach in a certain way, this or that subject must be taught according to these or those principles, and so on. And I am convinced that, in their abstract content, these dozens of paragraphs could contain something extraordinarily beautiful and powerful, but only in abstract form. Whether they can be applied depends entirely on whether the people are available to do so. Let us assume the most extreme case: let us assume that in a particular age and territory, due to some conditions, we only have people who cannot rise above a certain level of education because, in a particular territory and in a particular period of time, no geniuses are born, only 200 people of average intelligence. Now, one can be quite convinced – if one has real thinking, one sees this immediately – that even then these moderately clever people will elect their best representatives, and when these meet, that they will still make their best paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and so on, for example, that teachers should teach in this or that subject in this or that way. But all that is not what matters in the world at all. If we really want to take account of the available forces, then it is first of all important to bring together those who are considered capable from among the people.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is what has been attempted, for example, at the Waldorf School. And no paragraphs have been drawn up; at most, I have given a lecture course and held seminars before we opened the school. We also had many discussions together during the school year. I have also held a short seminar course again before the opening of the second school year. But everything that is done in the Waldorf School is done by the community of those personalities who are there, that is, out of their abilities, out of their strengths; without any [paragraphs] being put in place, everyone does their best according to their abilities. And there we have a small circle of what you will now call it, an organization of the free spiritual life, there you have a small circle that is completely self-sufficient, that works entirely from its own abilities and intentions. At some point, something like a section had to be taken out of the other states. It was possible in Württemberg because there was still a gap in the school law, and this gap could be used to bring in this Waldorf school. Here in the canton of Solothurn, it could not be done, as is well known. The thing is, therefore, not to go to abstractions, but to people and let people do what they can really do. Now, however, a difficulty is indicated here. It would, of course, be possible if the impulse of threefolding were properly understood, that the representatives of intellectual life would simply find themselves in some territories, which have already been given from previous history, in a wide circle, wanting nothing more than to understand the to understand the self-sufficiency of intellectual life; that is to say, that these representatives of intellectual life – the majority will, after all, consist of the various teachers of the various institutions – that these various representatives of intellectual life would really find the courage to stand on their own.

We have begun in Stuttgart to found a so-called cultural council – I have already pointed this out here on another occasion – and of course we first had to approach those who are concerned. Now, my dear attendees, you cannot suddenly want to place other people in the cultural life than are already there. It is self-evident that anyone who thinks practically will first say to themselves: We want to realize the threefold social order, not create some utopia in a cloud cuckoo land. - So, of course, the first step is to take into account those workers in the spiritual life who are already there. And it is important to realize that this intellectual life is now on its own, that it has detached itself from the unified state. Just by doing that, something is really happening. But it was not very well received, because the university professors in particular said: Well, if the universities were to administer themselves, then my colleague would be the one to help administer it - no, I still prefer to have a minister on the outside. - Because no colleague actually trusts the other. Of course, this is something that must be overcome. But when it comes to real thinking, the situation is as follows: No matter how many artists, scientists and intellectual workers want to go their own way for my sake, the decisive thing is that the spiritual life is self-contained, so that in education and teaching, from the lowest school class to the university professor, nothing but the voice of those who are actively involved in this spiritual life is decisive. Whatever needs to be decided within the spiritual life must be decided on the grand scale, as it is decided in our Waldorf school, that is, only by those who are involved in this spiritual life, not by some parliament or the like or by some ministry that is outside, or at most by a consultant who, because he has grown too old for the teaching profession, has to take care of the department in the Ministry of Education afterwards.

What is important everywhere is that the idea of the threefold social order enters people's minds in its true form. Then it will be seen that it is not a matter of reflecting on these details, but of ensuring that spiritual life is truly externalized simply by the representatives of this spiritual life feeling that they are on their own, and of course being on their own, in that no state can do anything about it. When they feel they have to rely on themselves, a completely different kind of work will be done in this spiritual life. And then, out of this spiritual life, there will arise that which is progress in the sense of the threefold social order and of a true humanity. So it is a matter of not thinking that you have to line up and do something, like lining up lead soldiers in columns, but you have to take life as it is and just bring threefolding into it, and of course you have to take the people who are there now. But it is also a matter of nothing more than these people understanding what is really in the idea of threefolding. So this can be said in answer to such a question.

Yes, my dear audience, there is an organization in spiritual life, things are organized: primary schools are there, and secondary schools and universities are there; an organization, a certain fabric of spiritual life is there. It is not a matter of remelting it all, but of freeing the spiritual life and then letting things happen - and a great deal will certainly happen when the spiritual life is free and left to its own devices. Then those who are fools outside will not be heard. We have a great many complaints about our Waldorf School; we have a great many complaints, in all areas, including here in Dornach, that no one gives us money; but we really have no complaints that the Waldorf School is not heard. They are very gladly heard, one would like to hear the teachers everywhere, they cannot do enough and they are almost torn apart. Those who have something to say will be heard. But that is what it is about; I will also talk about it.

Now the second question:

How does the association present itself in comparison to corporate organizations?

Well, my dear attendees, I would like to tell you, again starting from something concrete: in economic life, too, it is important, as I said on another evening, to really think economically, that is to say, one can think economically in economic life and not think economically in the sense of legal or in the sense of how one has to think in the spiritual organism, but one can really think economically in economic life. Of course, difficulties still arise today; but that is not the point, because these difficulties could gradually be overcome in a very specific way, which I will indicate in a moment. But the point is not to see how the difficulties arise, but rather that one should first of all really take up the associative impulse.

Now, what did we do in Stuttgart after we started working there in April of last year? You see, we didn't just make some kind of abstract attempt and then declaim how the associations should be formed, for example among shoemakers. Instead, we took up a thought that was popular at the time. At the time we took it up, it was not only popular in the proletariat, but was even popular in the business world: the concept of works councils. But we wanted to have the concept of works councils, the institution of works councils, in the sense of threefolding. What did we do? We tried to make the following point to those people who were interested in it – and there were a great many of them at a certain point in time: if the institution of works councils is introduced in an economic area, then it is, of course, foolish to impose legislation in the factories, whereby works councils are introduced in the individual factories, which work there, supervise and the like – that is not the point. That this cannot be the case was most clearly demonstrated when the Soviet Republic was introduced in Hungary – please read the extremely interesting book by Varga, who, I might add, was at the cradle, where he was People's Commissar for Economic Affairs and President of the Supreme Economic Council.

The aim is not to introduce works councils in the way that has now been done in the completely absurd German laws, but to form a works council from the economic life and its individual situations itself. And the idea of allowing a council to emerge from the various branches of economic life, be they branches that are more oriented towards consumption or production, be they members of this or that class, in short, to allow the council members to emerge from economic life, this idea was also popularized among the proletarians. The electoral procedure would have been worked out, once it had been established that business personalities should emerge, who would then come together to form a kind of economic constituent assembly, which would have been a body to be formed across a closed economic area and which would have worked first of all. This was always my message at every discussion evening with the Stuttgart workers' committees, at which this matter was discussed – which had actually progressed quite a bit before it was made impossible. The next thing to be done is for the proletarian to stop talking out of habit in empty phrases and thinking he knows everything. This has been emphasized over and over again.

Now I will give an example, one I have always liked to give to proletarians: After the threefold social order had been discussed, a man stood up for discussion who spoke from a communist point of view and declared that he could say better than anyone else everything that was said about the threefold social order. And so he rattled off a few Communist phrases, and then he said that he was only a cobbler. Now, of course, there was no need to hold that against him, because it is truly not a matter of whether someone is a cobbler or something else. He meant that as a cobbler he could not be a civil servant, but he implied that he could very well be a minister, for example. Well, you see, above all, it was made clear to the people of us that it would be about working; and anyone who thinks practically knows that, through the community, if things are managed properly, a higher level can actually be achieved, at least a higher level than that which each individual, even the most ingenious in the community, has; more can be achieved in the community. The first task of this association of workers' councils as a community should be explained.

So what is the first step towards this association? Not asking all kinds of detailed questions before we have even taken the first step, before we have properly examined life and then, on the basis of this examination, formed an idea of how we can come to associations. But this is possible for everyone, at whatever point in life they are, if they are truly immersed in life, if life strikes them, they can in some way see how they can come together with those closest to them in an associative way – as long as they are not a mere rentier who is not immersed in real life, namely not in [real] economic life. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what must be considered the first step in economic life: that one must come to associations at all – just as in the spiritual realm, the main thing is that people understand what it means to become independent within the spiritual realm. That is what needs to be said about these two areas for the time being. And when these two areas now understand how to stand on the ground that must be recognized by their own essence as theirs, then the political and legal area remains in the end. Then this will already be found, because the first thing to do is to properly form these two wings: intellectual life and economic life. The other thing remains. That will only be found when order has been created in these two wings. That is what must be said about the political and legal life from the idea of threefolding.

Now to an objection:

In Mr. Ith's lecture, it was said that the relationship between the price of goods and the individual production costs should be regulated by the legal system.

Now, if that had really been said, it would of course be a mistake, because the legal field has nothing to do with the price of goods. The price of goods can essentially only arise from that which is determined by the associations as the mutual value according to the principle of the economic primal cell, which has already been mentioned here.

It has not been clearly stated that these relationships are not established in the legal sphere, but only in the economic sphere.

Now, the essential thing is this: that both the distribution of what is produced in the product of labor, which is of course a matter for the economic sphere, and the other thing, [prices], that is quite clear.

Another question:

Will the price of goods have to be fixed?

Dear attendees, if you think in real terms, then it cannot be a matter of setting the price of goods, and it is precisely the threefold social order that must be thought of in real terms and not in abstract terms. If you think in real terms, then you will come to the conclusion that the price of goods is something that arises simply in a particular territory due to the fact that a certain number of people within that territory need certain things in a certain quantity. And it will be necessary to know: only if this price cannot be maintained at a certain level, if the price becomes too high and if this is noticed, then it is necessary that the associations ensure that this product is not produced too little. After all, the aim is to organize economic life in such a way that a price that results from needs can really be maintained at its level. This cannot be achieved by setting a price, because it is clear that if the price of any product is too low, then too much of that product will be produced. And then it is a matter of regulating this production by redirecting the workers who work on it to another area. But if a price that is too high is paid for it, the opposite is the case.

It is not a matter of making laws. The associations will not have the power to make laws; the associations will have to work continuously to ensure that, firstly, unnecessary work is not actually done, with much being wasted, as I have already described here, and, secondly, that everyone is actually placed in the position where they can work best, but in the interest of the whole. These associations will have to work in just such a way as to give economic life its appropriate configuration. So it will be a matter of thinking about the first step first, about the formation of the associations, and then simply getting these associations started; they can simply start working as soon as they are in place. Then there is another question:

Is the distribution of the profit share determined only within the company?

This cannot be the issue at all. Rather, the question of the needs of the individual in an economic area will depend on the entire economic area. And this fact, which is being looked at here – the distribution of the profit share within the company – does not actually become a real fact at all, because it simply has to be brought out of the associative realm. Whoever works this or that must receive this or that for his product of labor. It cannot be a matter of determining one's share of the profits within the enterprise; rather, it is inherent in the whole structure of economic life that one must receive one's corresponding share of the profits.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to summarize, because it is already half past ten and we cannot go on talking until midnight. I would have liked to say a lot more; of course, one always arrives a little late at the actual specific questions. I would like to summarize by saying the following: You see, the impulse of the threefold social order has been brought into the world on condition that people are found to take it up.

What do we need today? We do not need quackery, such as how to best arrange this or that, for example, lesson plans. Oh, I am convinced that even people who are not very talented, when they sit down and work out beautiful lesson plans for themselves, the lesson plans will be very beautiful. I do not mean that humorously at all, but quite seriously. The point is to have an understanding of reality so that you know what you can do with reality.

Now, of course, you can say: You tackled the cultural council, you tackled the works council, nothing came of it. — But things failed precisely because people got carried away and asked: Yes, what will become of my sewing machine in the tripartite social organism? My dear ladies and gentlemen, that is only a detail, a detail that has actually occurred; I could give you thousands of such examples. It should be clear that one should first understand the threefold nature of the social organism in much the same way that one understands the Pythagorean theorem in mathematics. Do you think that someone understands the Pythagorean theorem by approaching all right-angled triangles and trying out whether the theorem is correct? No, he knows that once he has understood it, it is only a matter of applying it in the right way in practice in each individual case. And so it is also a matter of seeing through the things of the “key points of the social question” in themselves. One must know that they can be applied in reality if one only acquires the practical hand and the practical attitude. That is what matters. The fact that things were not carried out was due to something that I do not want to discuss now, my dear audience. But I am not afraid to say what I have tried to do, and it will be the same with another step: you just have to keep trying until the matter is understood. You will just have to try everything – I know that the matter is still subject to misunderstandings and ambiguities – you will just have to try everything as long as this matter is not understood. And it has not been understood so far.

When I saw that I could not make headway with the illustrious representatives of intellectual life, that I could not make headway with the proletariat, which is turning to a belief in authority that is much worse than was ever the belief in authority in the Catholic Church. When it became clear that nothing could be done with the representatives of intellectual life and the proletariat, the question was not to discuss it, but to do something real. And so I thought that one should at least see if, in the wide area of Central Europe, which is truly suffering enough from misery and hardship, fifty people could be found who could simply be summoned to Stuttgart and taught the real foundations for working in public life. For today, most people in public life speak without any basis, without knowing anything about what has happened and is still happening, otherwise there could never have been a National Assembly like the one that met in Weimar; they speak out of some emotions that they form from experiences that are not even the very latest, but which are the expression of old historical and old political views. That is the essential feature of our present-day parties: what is represented within a present-day party has no objectivity at all, it is only a shadow of what once existed. The point was to find these fifty people so that we could initially develop real public activity in this way. They did not find each other, my dear attendees, these fifty people did not find each other!

What we are dealing with today is not that we are discussing election laws in an abstract way and whether an association can be compared to a corporation and so on, but what we are dealing with today is that we get as many people as possible with initiative, because today it is not about how we vote, but about the right people getting into the right places. And today, too, those who are inwardly imbued with understanding, imbued with insight, imbued with the practical sense of the threefold social organism, will, if there are only a sufficient number of them (you can't do anything with a small number), these people with initiative, they will work. They will be elected to the right places, no matter what the electoral laws, and what is to be will come about. Therefore, it is of primary importance that we have a sufficient number of people with insight into the necessities of the time and with the necessary initiative. If we were able to follow those who have led the world into ruin because they at least developed some learned initiative, we will certainly also follow those who develop healthy initiative. That is why we need people with initiative and insight today. And if we succeed in winning people with initiative and insight, then the threefold social order will march forward, which it did not do before. But we must work towards this goal openly and honestly, without masks or embellishment.

Rudolf Steiner's request to speak at a teachers' conference, Protocol Record

If the Cultural Council worked properly, it would replace these terrible establishments with reason, and everything would be better. Then you could also teach sensible astronomy. But you cannot stand up to brutal power. The Cultural Council could do what should have been done from the beginning: really take up its program and work towards taking over the entire school system. The Waldorf School is set up as a prime example. But it can't do anything about the brutal power. The cultural council would have the task of transforming the entire education system. If we had ten million, we could expand the Waldorf School. These are just “small obstacles,” this lack of ten million.

Rudolf Steiner's notebook entry, between December 26 and 29, 1919.

Cultural Council = members do not attend.

Dr. Steiner's work in the Threefold Commonwealth, from the first Workmen's Lecture in April 1919 up to the foundation of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart in September of the same year, reached an important climax in the giving of the lectures here published. We can only understand these lectures rightly by reminding ourselves of the stress laid on the spiritual aspect in this "threefold" work, and of the way in which the finer overtones to be found in it echo the conditions of that time. For a while in Central Europe the gates, we may say, stood open wide. Questions were being asked which went right to the root of things, and answers were sought which should truly probe the problems to their very depths. Everything seemed possible. For just as it appeared as though, from the spiritual aspect, the war had lasted not for four or five years but for a whole century, so now a vista was opened before men's eyes which seemed to stretch even far beyond the present century.

Such are the fundamental thoughts which Rudolf Steiner develops in these lectures; they are, of course, colored by the events of the time in which they were given, but they reach far into the future. They are more comprehensive ±han anything which up to this time could be accomplished in the Waldorf Schools and Rudolf Steiner Schools. In the light of the content of these lectures on "A Social Basis for Primary and Secondary Education" the Waldorf school education appears as only one of the many possible forms of social education which can be developed in the future.

I do not wish to enter into details, but I would stress one fundamental thought which runs through these lectures. This is the thought that we need to rediscover how to learn. For Rudolf Steiner the act of learning was not the imprinting of more or less important details into the head of the learner, but rather he looked upon learning as a process which involves the whole man, awakening forces in every source and spring of his being in such a way that once aroused they will never cease to flow. Learning will then become a constant living and growing of the spirit of man. Of the plant we may say that as long as it grows, it lives, and as long as it lives, it grows. Of man we may say that in his spirit he only grows and lives as long a he learns. In this connection I should like to mention two past experiences of mine which seem to bear a close connection with each other.

In April 1910 I had a talk with the famous Russian author, Maxim Gorki, on the island of Capri in Italy. Gorki was living there at that time in a kind of exile. At the end of the conversation I asked him if he would not like to send a greeting to young students of his land. He thought for a moment and then said: "you see, a Russian peasant is accustomed to hard work. With great industry and self-denial he wrestles with the earth for the production of her fruits. He has learnt to work. But the unfortunate thing is that the Russian intellectuals have not learnt to work. Over a glass of tea and cigarettes they spend night after night in endless discussions. They have not learnt how to learn. Give them this as my greeting: "Learn to work as the peasant works when he tills the ground; learn how to learn.' "

I had half forgotten these words when on a later occasion they suddenly flashed into my consciousness almost like a streak of lightning, together with an image of the setting in which they had been said. This occasion was in the year 1919, at the time when these lectures on "A Social Basis for Primary and Secondary Education" were being given. Rudolf Steiner said the following words: "through the catastrophe of the World War which now, outwardly at least, lies behind us, history has wished to teach us a lesson. There would have been innumerable things to learn. But the great misfortune of the present time is that men have lost the capacity to learn. So, with the ear of the spirit we may now hear resound through the world like a battle-cry this word: Learn how to learn!"

I am fully aware that in contrast to Gorki learning in Rudolf Steiner' s sense rests upon a very different basis; nevertheless the significant fact remains that two outstanding men of the twentieth century used the same words to express a great and inspiring thought in the history of social pedagogy.

What lay behind Gorki's words—presumably even against his will—has been caught up by the whirlpool which engulfed the history of Eastern Europe. But the words of Rudolf Steiner, founded as they are upon the spirit, are seeds which even still today are healthy and capable of growth. They wait expectantly for men who can provide them with the soil and ground that is needed for their development.

To those therefore who can bear within their hearts the words "Learn how to learn!" with thoughts rooted deeply in the spirit and reaching out to all mankind—to such men it will be given to read these lectures aright.

Herbert Hahn

Dear attendees,

Those who speak about a topic such as the one that is to be the subject of tonight's evening reflection must be seriously aware that there are numerous human souls in the present who, both out of the currents of knowledge of the present and out of the practical social directions of this present, long for a re-creation of things, for a re-creation of the world view, souls that feel that in a certain respect, with the ideas, with the feelings and also with the will impulses that have come down to people from the last centuries and in which we have been educated, it is no longer easy to continue in spiritual and social life.

We, as humanity in the civilized world, have experienced, on the one hand, the great, the tremendous progress of the natural scientific worldview and, on the other hand, we have experienced the tremendous results of this natural scientific worldview in the field of technology, in the field of practical life, which we encounter at every turn, so to speak, from morning till night. But we have also been influenced by the tremendous scientific results, by the practical consequences of these scientific discoveries in social life. Today, people can – and this is the case in every field, if they allow themselves to be influenced by scientific knowledge in one form or another, through their usual reading, through everyday life, through everything that otherwise brings us together with existence, from morning to evening – they cannot help but ask the eternal questions of the human soul and spirit, the questions about the immortal essence of the human soul, about the meaning of the whole world, about the meaning of human action itself; he cannot help but ask these questions, the answers to which have been given to him earlier through religious beliefs. He cannot help but is still so devoted to religious creeds, when he absorbs modern education, than to think and feel about these questions, to consider what the impulses for his actions are, and to link them to what science has been saying for three to four centuries, which has not spoken to people of earlier centuries in this way. And this modern human being cannot do otherwise than, by standing inside of life that has become so complicated, the tone of which depends entirely on modern technology, by being harnessed to it through this modern technology, he cannot do otherwise than look at how his life is dependent on this technology. And he cannot help saying to himself: Fundamentally, people have become quite different from the old, simpler conditions throughout the whole civilized world. And he must then become fully aware of it, he must sense that in this social relationship, in relation to the coexistence of people with one another, many things must be resolved as a question.

Yes, we can even say the following in a certain respect; we can say: scientific knowledge compels us to reckon with it. The practical technical results that our modern life has brought about, they compel us to live with them. But neither of these actually answers the big questions of human existence; basically, they raise new questions. For anyone who delves with an unbiased mind into everything that science has to say in such a great and significant way about man, his organization, his form of life on earth, and so on, anyone who deals with all this, who really delves into these things, does not receive answers about the eternal nature of man, about the meaning of the world and existence; on the contrary, he receives deeper, more meaningful questions. And he must ask himself: Where now are the answers to these questions, which have become deeper and more urgent through the newer life? For from the side of knowledge, we have not actually received solutions to the great riddles of the world through the achievements of science, but rather new questions, new riddles.

And what about practical life? Well, we have been placed in this practical social life, with the means of our powerful, extensive industry, the means of our widespread world trade, and so on. But it is precisely this practical life that presents us with ethical, moral, spiritual questions about the way people interact with each other. And precisely the riddle that presents itself to us in the interaction between people is what is stirring minds today as a social question, and what often appears before people who think seriously and take life seriously in an alarming way. So it is also the practical side of life that presents man with a riddle.

These riddles, which approach the human soul from two sides, are now confronted by what the speaker calls “anthroposophically oriented spiritual science”. It seeks to find those sources of human nature, starting from the foundations of knowledge and then from the foundations of practical life, which can lead to at least a partial solution to this riddle; to that solution of these riddles that is possible for man, but also necessary; necessary because it is obvious to anyone who is unbiased that life continues in this way, when souls face the pressing questions in this way and become inwardly desolate, if new impulses for social life are not found from the depths of the human soul, we as humanity will go into decline and will not be able to rise in relation to the great civilizational issues of the present.

The goal of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is not directed against scientific knowledge. Anything that was directed against the scientific knowledge that has brought humanity so much good would be completely amateurish and doomed to superficiality. But precisely because anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is completely serious about what natural science has really achieved for modern humanity, that is precisely why it comes to different conclusions than those that are still being achieved today by scientific investigations or the like, which are carried out everywhere in ordinary life.

The same path is followed in the field of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, but it continues in a certain way. And I would like to use a comparison to illustrate and make clear how anthroposophical spiritual science relates to scientific research. I am certainly not using it immodestly to pin what anthroposophy has been able to achieve so far to a world-historical event and to try to explain it in a similar way. It is just a comparison, and I can certainly leave it to those who want to scoff to scoff at such a comparison. When Columbus set out across the ocean, it was by no means clear where he would end up. In those days, the problem of world trade, which Columbus then introduced into civilization, was either met either by ignoring the great unknown that lay across the ocean, or by remaining with what one already had as a home place; or one faced it in such a way that one ventured out onto the wide ocean, like Columbus and his men, but even then one did not yet hope that one would discover an America or the like. One only wanted to find another way to India, from the other side. One wanted to reach what was already known. In this way, I would like to say, as it was with Columbus, who wanted to reach something already known from the other side, but then found something completely different along the way, found something new, so it is with the spiritual scientist who seriously engages in scientific research. Usually, when people engage with scientific research at home, they stick to what they already have, to the observation of sensory phenomena and the rational combination of what the sensory phenomena present. Or, when one is armed with the instruments, the tools that serve observation, with the telescope, the microscope, the spectroscope, the X-ray machine, and then, armed with the conscientious, excellent method of thought of the newer sciences – when one ventures out with all of this into the sea of research, then on the other side one only wants to find something familiar, which is similar, but only similar to what one already has: atoms, molecules with complicated movements, a world, then, behind the curtain that is spread out as the sense world; a world that one describes as small movements, small bodies and the like, but which is basically similar to what one already has here and sees with one's eyes, touches with one's hands and the like. For that is what then underlies this supersensible world of the natural scientist.

But the person who, with the same seriousness, but only going further into this sea of research, sets out on this journey with anthroposophical spiritual science, comes to something else. He does not encounter the familiar atoms and molecules along the way, but by becoming aware of: What are you actually doing by investigating nature in the way that the more recent centuries have done? What happens in you during the research? What does your soul accomplish at the observatory, researching in the clinic? Your soul – as someone who combines a little introspection with what he is doing would say to himself – your soul works entirely spiritually, but it works by trying to explore the development of animals up to the human being, by trying to penetrate the course of the stars, in a way that people did not work in the past. But then, humanity did not always observe it that way. They did not always say to themselves: By exploring nature, it is the spirit, the soul, that is actually working in me, and I must recognize this spirit, this soul.

Dear attendees, what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science presents as its results has actually been gained through the path of natural science. It is won, as was found by Columbus as an unknown America. But that which is carried out, that which becomes conscious as spirit, as soul, in the truly searching mind, can then be further developed, further cultivated. In this way one attains a real knowledge of what spirit is in the human soul. And the methods of developing what I have just hinted at, what is thoroughly active in the human soul in the modern natural scientist, these methods of developing that, that is the task of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science meant here. But a very specific starting point must be chosen for this spiritual science. One must start from what one could call “intellectual modesty”.

Indeed, one must have this intellectual modesty to such an extent that the comparison, which I will now use only as a comparison, is entirely justified. One must say to oneself: If, for example, you give a five-year-old child a volume of Shakespeare, what will the child do with it? He will tear it up or play with it in some other way. If the child has progressed in his development by ten to fifteen years, he will no longer tear up the volume of Shakespeare, but will do with it what is appropriate for the volume of Shakespeare. The child already had certain abilities in his soul as a five-year-old child, which could be brought out of this soul and developed, and through the development of these abilities the child has actually become a different person than he used to be. Is it possible for an adult human being – a person who has already achieved the usual development of everyday life and ordinary science – to summon up the intellectual humility to say to himself: when faced with the secrets of nature, I am basically in the same position as the five-year-old child in front of the volume of Shakespeare. There are still abilities in me that are hidden, that I can bring out, that I can develop and unfold from my soul, and I must further my soul life through self-education, then I will be able to face all of nature anew in a similar way to how the child, in relation to its five-year-old state, faces the Shakespeare volume when it has reached fifteen or twenty years of age. And I have to talk to you about the methods by which such powers, lying in every human soul, can be developed out of this human soul. For by developing these methods, we do indeed gain a completely new insight into nature and into human existence. These methods, the modern, seeking human soul senses in a certain way, but one does not get beyond these intuitions in the broadest circles until now.

You see, it is still the case that there are many people among us who say to themselves: When we look back to ancient times or when we look across to the Orient, for example, where the remains, albeit the decadent remains, of an ancient wisdom, there is still something of the knowledge, of that which is called science, at the same time takes on a religious character, where one can bring the human soul to a certain satisfaction about the world and one's own existence. And because one sees such, because also the outer anthropological science has brought up realizations of very deep nature over old human world views within our civilized life, therefore many people long back to those earlier soul conditions. They want to bring ancient wisdom back to life, and they want to spread what has been preserved of such ancient wisdom in the East to our Western world, according to the saying “Ex oriente lux”. Such people, who long for a knowledge that is not that of our age, do not understand the meaning of human development. For every age has its special tasks for humanity in relation to all areas of life. We cannot today fill our souls with the same treasures of wisdom that our ancestors filled theirs with centuries or millennia ago. But we can orient ourselves in a certain way to how they did it, these ancestors, and then we can seek a path in our own way into the supersensible. For the human soul does sense that in the depths of its being it is connected not with the natural world, to which the body is connected, but with a supersensible nature, to which the soul's eternal nature and the eternal destiny of this soul are connected.

Now, in earlier centuries or millennia, our ancestors had a very definite view of man's relationship to that world to which man belongs outside of birth and death. These were very definite ideas that filled the soul with deep feelings and emotions, which were linked to entering this path into the supersensible world, to supersensible knowledge. And there is one idea in particular that filled those who heard it resounding in all its depth from ancient times with shivers. It is the idea of the Guardian of the Threshold, of the threshold that one must cross if one wants to ascend from ordinary knowledge, which guides us in everyday life and in ordinary science, to the actual knowledge of the spirit and soul. People in ancient times sensed: There is an abyss between ordinary knowledge and that which actually provides insights into the nature of the soul. And it was a very real feeling for these people that something stood at this threshold, a being not of human kind, a being of spiritual kind, that guarded them from crossing this threshold before they were sufficiently prepared. The leaders of the old wisdom schools, which are also called mysteries, did not allow anyone to cross this threshold who had not first been properly prepared, namely through a certain discipline of will. We can understand why this was so by looking at a very simple example.

Today, we as human beings are quite proud of the fact that for centuries we have had a different external view of our planetary system and the rest of the starry world than the Middle Ages had, or than, in our view, ancient times had. We are proud of the Copernican worldview, and rightly so from a certain point of view. We say: We have the heliocentric world view in contrast to the geocentric world view of the Middle Ages and ancient times, when it was imagined that the Earth was at rest and that the Sun and the stars moved around the Earth. Today we know that the Earth orbits the Sun at a tremendous speed, and we then calculate from the observations that arise in connection with this what we then have as a world view of our solar or planetary system. And we look back to the Middle Ages and know that they had a world view that can be said to be childlike in a certain way in relation to this heliocentric system. But if we go further back, for example even to a few centuries before the birth of Christ, we find that in ancient Greece, for example with Aristarchus of Samos, a heliocentric world view was given; Plutarch tells us about it. This world view of Aristarchus of Samos does not differ at all in its main features from what everyone learns as the right thing in primary schools today. But in those days, Aristarchus of Samos only revealed it to a wider circle; otherwise it was only taught in the narrower circles of the mysteries. It was only brought to people who had first been prepared by the leaders of the wisdom schools. It was said: Man with his ordinary consciousness is not suited to receive such a world picture; between him and this world picture the threshold to the spiritual world must be erected; he must be guarded by the Guardian of the Threshold of the Threshold, from experiencing unprepared something like the heliocentric system or many other things that are known today by all educated people, but which were withheld from the ancients if they were not sufficiently prepared.

Why were people kept in the dark about these things back then? Well, our historical knowledge does not usually extend to the depths of human soul development. In this science of history, which is common practice today, people are not told how the souls of human beings have changed in their constitution over the course of centuries and millennia. In Greek and Roman times, and even in the early Middle Ages, people's souls were in a completely different state than they are today. People had a world consciousness, a world knowledge, that arose from their instincts, from very vague, half-dreamy states of soul. Today we cannot even begin to imagine this knowledge of the world. When we look at the works of that time that could be called scientific, we may think of them as we will. We may call them superstitious, and in terms of today's education we would be quite right to do so. But the peculiar character of these works was that people had never before looked at minerals, plants, and animals, at rivers and clouds, or watched the stars rise and set with such dryness and sobriety, and with such an emptiness of spirit. They perceived the spiritual soul in every stone, in every plant, in every animal, in the movement of the clouds, in all of nature. Man felt the spiritual soul within himself and what he felt within himself was also spread out for him in the outer world. He did not yet feel as separate from the outer world as man feels today. But his self-confidence was also weaker for that. And in the old days of human development, one could rightly say to oneself: If you told a person something of the nature of the heliocentric system, as it was communicated to the wise, as it were, if you told him that the Earth orbits through space at a tremendous speed, he would fall into a mental faint.

Yes, my dear attendees, this is an historical truth. It is just as much an historical truth as the historical truths we learn at school about Alcibiades and the Peloponnesian and the Persian Wars. But it is a truth that we usually do not learn, that the Greek soul was different from the human soul today. It was duller in relation to the powers of inner self-awareness. The wise leaders of the mysteries would have been right to fear that these souls, if led unprepared into supersensible knowledge, or even into the knowledge that is common to all educated people today, would have fallen into spiritual fainting. Therefore, it was said, the souls of men must first be made strong and courageous by a discipline of the will, so that they can endure when their self-consciousness is led into a very different world from the ordinary. And the souls must be made fearless in the face of the unknown into which they were to enter. Fearlessness in the face of the unknown, a courageous grasp of that which, according to the view of the ancients, literally causes one to lose the ground beneath one's feet — because when one is no longer standing on the resting earth, one the ground under your feet —, it was a courageous state of mind and fearlessness and many other qualities that prepared the students of the wisdom schools to cross the abyss into the spiritual, supersensible world.

And what did they learn then? They learned – and this is the surprising, the paradoxical – they learned what we [all] learn today in elementary school, what is considered to be an insight that is common to all educated people. This was what the ancients were actually afraid of, and they had to be courageously educated to it first. Thus, the human soul has developed over the centuries that it is now in a completely different state; that what could only be given to the ancients after difficult preparation is already given to us today in elementary school. Basically, we are well beyond the threshold that the ancients were only allowed to cross after long preparation. But we also have to bear the consequences of crossing this threshold. We stand before that which our ancestors feared, and for which they first had to train themselves to gain courage; but we have also lost something. What we have lost within our modern civilization is told to us, on the one hand, by those who, precisely as the serious researchers of our contemporary science, dwell on that which we cannot know. And why this is so, that must basically be explained to those who, from a serious spiritual science, confront such facts as I have just described to you.

Since the time of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler, we have acquired a completely different self-awareness. We have progressed to abstract thinking. We develop intellectuality in such a strong way that the ancients did not develop it in their dull consciousness. That is why we have such a strong self-confidence that we can place ourselves in the world in which the ancients could only place themselves after preparation. But we enter this world, as shown by the most unbiased researchers, who speak of ignorabimus, of the limits of knowledge, and so on, by having a strongly developed self-confidence, a self-confidence that is strongly developed through thinking, through intellectuality, which the ancients did not have, but we lack the connection with the deeper reasons of the world in this strong self-confidence. We have acquired an insistence on ourselves, a strengthening of self-awareness; but knowledge of the world, we have lost that. We no longer gain such a connection from instinct as people could still achieve in the tenth or twelfth century. We must therefore speak of a new threshold into the spiritual world. We must in turn develop something through our increased self-awareness that will lead us into the spiritual, into the supersensible world, into which we cannot enter instinctively as the ancients [still] could. Just as the ancients developed self-awareness through self-discipline in order to endure in the world into which we come unprepared, we must prepare ourselves for something else. We must also prepare ourselves to develop the forces slumbering in our soul, which we become aware of through intellectual modesty.

You see, one starts from two well-known powers in the human soul, not from some obscure things or the like in the human soul. In serious spiritual science, one starts from two powers that are absolutely necessary in human life, but one develops them further. You say to yourself: they are only at the beginning of their development in ordinary life, you continue this development through your own work on yourself. One of the forces that is further developed in this way is what is called the human ability to remember. It is through this ability to remember that we are actually a self. It is through this ability to remember that we have ordinary self-awareness. We look back to a certain year in our childhood, and the experiences we have had emerge in memory images, more or less faded and shadowed, but they do emerge. And we know from ordinary medical literature – everyone can see for themselves that this is the case – we know what it means when an area of our lives is erased, when we cannot remember anything in the course of our lives. We are then mentally ill. Such an illness is one of the most severe mental illnesses. But this ability to remember, which is so necessary for ordinary life, is in this ordinary life quite bound to the body, to the body of the human being, as everyone feels. And those who are more materialistically minded point out how this dependence shows itself, how certain organs or organ members need only be injured, and the memory is also injured, interrupted, destroyed. But this faculty of remembrance can become the starting-point for developing out of him a new and higher soul power, and that happens in the way I have described in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds,” in my “Occult Science” and in other writings. There I have shown how, through what I call meditation, what I call in the technical sense concentration on certain worlds of thought, of feeling, and of will impulses, the power of remembrance can be trained to something higher.

What is then the peculiarity of memory images? Otherwise we form our images and thoughts from the external world; they flit past like the external world flits past us. Through memory we constantly relive what we have experienced. Even years later we can still draw from the very depths what we have experienced. Through memory, images are constantly forming within us. We use this in meditation and in concentration when we want to become spiritual researchers. We form — or we let ourselves be advised by those who know about these things — easily comprehensible ideas; such ideas that cannot come from the subconscious, that cannot be reminiscences of life either, ideas that we can understand as precisely as we can understand mathematical or geometric ideas. Then we rest with our soul on these images. Training these methods is truly no easier than clinical research, research in a physics or chemistry institute or at the observatory. It is certainly an inner work of the soul, but it is a very serious work for this soul. It can take years, for some it can also take less time, depending on the inner destiny of the person, but it always takes some time until this repeatedly evoked resting on certain ideas can lead to something. Of course, the rest of life must not be disturbed by these exercises; one remains a reasonable, capable person, because these exercises only take up a short time. But they must be practised for a long time, then they will achieve what one might call a higher development of the power of recollection. We then become aware of something in our soul that lives like the thoughts of the experiences we have gone through. Only we know that what now lives in our soul does not refer to anything we have gone through in life since birth; but just as we otherwise have the images of such experiences, so we now have other images. I called them 'imaginations' in my writings. We have images as vivid as the memory images, but not linked to what we have gone through in our ordinary lives. Instead, we become aware that these imaginations do not relate to anything we have gone through in our ordinary lives, but to something outside of us, in the spiritual world.

And we learn to recognize what it means to live outside of the human body. With the ability to remember, we cling to our body. With this developed, trained ability to remember, we no longer cling to the body, and something occurs that we can call similar and yet quite different from the state that a person goes through from falling asleep to waking up. There he is usually unconscious, there is the consciousness extinguished, in this time from falling asleep to waking up, because man does not see with his eyes or hear with his ears. In this state one is when one uses the developed ability to remember. One does not perceive with eyes and ears, one does not even perceive the warmth in one's surroundings, but one does not live unconsciously as in sleep, but one lives in a world of perceptions, in a world of perceptions. One now perceives a spiritual world. It is really as if one were beginning to fall asleep, but not passing into the dullness of unconsciousness, but into another world. This other world is perceived through the developed ability to remember. And one now learns to recognize, as a first view, what I would like to call the 'memory tableau', but the developed memory tableau of this life up to the birth. That is, in a sense, the first supersensible perception.

Otherwise, one has memories of one's life, one lets images arise, memory images, from the stream of life. It is not the same when one looks at life through this supernaturally developed ability to remember. The whole stream of life is combined in a single moment — like something spatial — into a comprehensible image. What otherwise only emerges as individual memory fragments in the course of time becomes a coherent stream when we achieve this independence from our body. Then, once we have become accustomed to imagining independently of the body, just as a sleeping person would imagine if they could, what can be called a real contemplation of what it is to fall asleep, to wake up, and what it is to sleep in general develops. One learns to recognize how that which is in the human being spiritually and soulfully really comes out – not spatially, but dynamically. It is correct to say that it usually remains unconscious, but that the human being can develop his consciousness outside of the body and how consciousness consists of the spiritual and soulful re-immersing itself in the body. And once this has been developed, one can gradually ascend to further perceptions.

If you can imagine what a person is like when asleep as a living spiritual-soul entity, then you will also come to recognize how the spiritual-soul has lived in a purely spiritual world before descending into the physical world through birth or conception, if you keep working with the developed memory in the manner described. You learn to distinguish between: The sleeping person has a sensual and supersensory desire to return to the physical body lying in bed and to revive it spiritually and mentally. But this power is also known as a strong power in the soul, which first waits to be received by a physical body that comes from father and mother in the physical inheritance current, but one learns to recognize how this soul rises from the spiritual-soul world and permeates the body. One acquires knowledge of how our soul lives spiritually before birth. One gets to know the eternal in the human soul. It is no longer a belief that one clings to this eternal in the human soul, but a knowledge that is acquired through supersensible vision. And one also acquires knowledge of the great falling asleep that the human being experiences when he passes through the gate of death. Just as consciousness is only dulled, not lost, in sleep, so it is with the human soul as it passes through the gateway of death, only it is the other way around: while a person, when he falls asleep and wants to return to the body, clings to the body and thus, in ordinary sleep, his consciousness is dulled, when he passes through the gate of death, his consciousness is awakened because he has no desire for the body. Only after he has lived in the spiritual world for a long time does something occur that could be compared to the age of the physical body, which is reached in the 35th year of life. When the soul has lived for a time after death, a longing arises again to return to the body, and a transition to a new life on earth occurs. I have repeatedly described these experiences of a person between death and a new birth in more detail. When these things are described, they are still widely ridiculed and mocked by people today, seen as fantastic. But those people who consider what is gained in this way to be fantastic should at the same time consider mathematical concepts to be fantastic, because what is gained in this way is just as real as what is found through true and earnest natural research.

And a powerful and significant image appears. It is not the case that when we have a memory image, we actually have something that we experienced years before in front of our soul. We have that before us as an image that we have experienced. When we have that before us, which we do not have through ordinary memory, but through the developed ability to remember, we have that spiritual world before us in which we are as a sleeping person, but in which we are also before we descend to earthly life. We have that which does not appear to the senses in the external world around us, but which appears to the spiritual eye, the soul eye. We have the spiritual foundations, the world's width before us. We ascend again, past a new guardian of the threshold, over a new threshold, into the supersensible world, to the spiritual background of natural existence, to which we belong. There it emerges like a mighty memory of stone and clouds and of all that is in the realms of nature. This is what a stone looks like to the eye, a cloud. To the spiritual eye, something appears to which we are related because we have lived in it before our birth or conception. There is the great memory of the world. And as this world memory of our own superphysical existence before our birth arises, as our eternal self appears to us from the outer world before the spirit eye, we simultaneously receive a tableau of the spirit that is spread out in the world around us. We attain real spiritual knowledge of the world.

Spiritual science must speak of these things, because this is something that must enter into modern civilization, just as the Copernican worldview entered a few centuries ago, just as Galileo's worldview entered. Just as these things were rejected in those days, just as they were seen as paradoxical, as fantastic, so too is spiritual science seen as fantasy today. But these things will be taken up into the human soul and will have, as I will mention in a moment, an effect on the outer, social, and whole existence of man. But first I must point out that for full spiritual knowledge, another power of knowledge must be developed.

People will still admit that one can develop the power of memory into a cognitive faculty. But perhaps the strict scientists in particular will not accept the second power that I have to mention as a cognitive faculty, and yet it is, although not as it occurs in life, but when it is developed, a real cognitive faculty: it is the power of love.

In ordinary life, love is tied to human instincts and the human libido, but just as the ability to remember can be extracted from ordinary life, so too can this love. In terms of love, one can also become independent of the human body. The power of love can be developed by using it to achieve real objectivity. While in ordinary life one loves because the inner being of man encourages this love, one can develop this love by immersing oneself in external objects, by becoming one with the external object, forgetting oneself. When you perform an action not out of inner impulses that come from the drives, the instincts, but when you act out of love for external events, then that is the love that is at the same time the power of human freedom. That is why I already said in the book I published in 1893 under the title “Philosophy of Freedom” that in the higher sense the saying that love is blind is not true, but that love is precisely what enables us to see. And the one who finds himself in the world through love truly makes himself free, for he makes himself independent of the inner instincts and drives that enslave him; he knows how to become absorbed in the world of external facts and events and to let the world dictate his actions; but then he can act as a free human being in the sense of what should happen, no longer carried and led by what his instincts and drives are. Just as I wanted to provide a basis for a free social feeling within modern civilization in my Philosophy of Freedom, for that which can truly found a social life from the depths of the human being, so it must also be said that this love must be developed as a power of knowledge, for example, when one develops a keen power of observation for that which one becomes anew with each passing day.

Let us be honest, honored attendees, honest with ourselves: Are we not fundamentally different every day? Life drives us; what we experience in other people and what we experience in them, everything drives us. If we think back to how we were ten years ago, we will admit to ourselves: We were quite different from what we have become today and basically we are something different with each passing day. But we drift in our ordinary lives. This is what the spiritual researcher must do as a discipline of the will, that he must take this development of the will into his own hands, so to speak, observing himself: What have you been influenced by today? What has changed your inner life today? What has changed your inner life in the last ten or twenty years? What has occurred in you? On the one hand, you have to do this, but on the other hand, you have to do something else. You have to give yourself very specific impulses and drives so that you not only live in such a way that you are changed from the outside, that life is changed from the outside, but you also have to stand next to yourself as your own spectator, so to speak, and watch your will and your actions. If you do that, then you simply develop that higher love, which is completely absorbed in the objects, in a lawful way.

And when we develop these two soul powers: on the one hand, the memory that is freed from the body, on the other hand, the power of love, which actually makes us one with our true spiritual being and brings us to a higher self-awareness, then we cross the threshold to a spiritual world. Then the external knowledge of nature complements each other in such a way that we can fertilize all the individual sciences through this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

I have experienced it, how at a famous medical school, the great medical authorities were talking about medical nihilism. They spoke of medical nihilism because they had gradually come to the conclusion that, basically, no remedies can be found for typical illnesses. In more recent scientific life, the connection with nature has been lost; it is not understood. At most, one tries out this or that substance to see if it has a healing relationship to this or that disease, but one does not see the bigger picture. Through spiritual science, one sees through plant life, the individual plants, the great differences that exist between the root life, the leaf life, the flower life, and one sees through the relationships of the spiritual being that is behind it, behind the root life, the leaf life, the flower life, the herb life of plants. Knowledge is gained about how this relates to the human being, who, as a whole human being, has grown out of this nature. One gains an insight into the relationships of animals, plants, minerals to man, and one thereby gains a rational therapy. Medicine can be fertilized in this way. Last spring I myself gave a course for doctors, medical practitioners and medical students, in which I showed how spiritual knowledge can be used to enrich the study of remedies, but also pathology, the study of diseases.

And so all the individual sciences can be enriched by spiritual knowledge. By attaining this spiritual knowledge, by truly growing together with what we were, with the spiritual and soul life, but which now works in our physical body, we acquire a completely different knowledge of human nature than through ordinary science. This ordinary science only wants to have logical, abstract, and delimited concepts about nature and human existence, and it is said that it is not a true science where such abstract laws cannot be derived. Yes, my dear audience, if nature does not work according to such abstract laws, then we humans can declaim about such laws for a long time; we only limit our knowledge if we only want to proceed logically and abstractly in science, if we can only indulge in abstract experiments. Then nature could easily say: Under such circumstances, I will not provide any insights into humans.

By approaching the subject with spiritual science, we learn to recognize that nature does not create according to laws, but according to principles that can only be attained through artistic observation, through real imaginations. We cannot fathom the wonderful secret of the human form, of the entire human organization, through abstract laws or through observation as it is done in ordinary science. We have to develop and grow into that which we gain in elementary knowledge for imaginative observation. Then true human nature is revealed, and thus an artistic view of the human being springs forth out of spiritual knowledge.

This is how the bridge is built from spiritual knowledge to art. For anyone who devotes themselves to knowledge in the sense of the anthroposophical spiritual science referred to here, knowledge is not something external. And if he is an artist, he does not create dry symbols, didactic theories or the like, but he sees forms in spiritual life and can impress them on the material. In this way, a renewal of art is created at the same time. We can experience it if we are open-minded. The old artists created great and powerful things. How did they create? In the past centuries, they first looked with their senses at external matter. Take Rembrandt or Raphael, they looked at the external matter in their age; they knew how to grasp the spiritual from the external sensual reality and depict it. The essence of their art consisted in the idealization of reality. The person who looks at this art with an open mind and sees how it has developed knows that the hour of this art has passed and that nothing new can be created along these lines. Spiritual science leads to spiritual insight. Spiritual forms are seen in spiritual and soul-like vitality. And with the same reality, with the same sense of reality, as was previously created artistically, where reality was idealized, artistic creation is now beginning through the realization of the spiritual and the spiritual. In the past, the artist extracted the spirit from matter; now the spirit is being carried into matter. But not in an allegorical or symbolic way. Only those believe this who cannot imagine how immediately real that can be which can be created as new art.

Thus we see how this spiritual science actually leads to real art. But it also leads to a real religious life. It is remarkable that today there are critics of this spiritual science who say: spiritual science wants to bring down into everyday life that which should only be felt at lofty heights as the divine world. Yes, that is what this spiritual science wants. It wants man to be so imbued with spiritual and soul existence through the knowledge of the supersensible worlds that the spirit is not only grasped in a mystical fog, experienced in an asceticism alien to life, but that this spirit can be carried into every practical existence. People believe that they have already achieved a great deal if they have given the other person an education. So that when they close the factory gate behind them, they are finished with their work; that they can then have all kinds of beautiful ideas outside. But a person cannot yet feel fully human if they first have to close the factory gate behind them in order to then devote themselves to elevating their soul. No, if we want to solve the great problems of civilization to some extent, we must proceed to carry the spirit into the factory when we enter the factory through the factory gate, by permeating with the spirit what we work with in our daily lives. This is what deserts life, this is what the catastrophic time has finally brought about, that we have created an external spiritless life, a mere mechanism of life.

Spiritual science fulfills the full human being. It will be able to carry the spirit from within the human being into the most practical, seemingly sober areas of life. And so everyday life - where we work for others, where we stand at the machine, where we participate in the totality through the division of labor - will become spiritualized when spiritual science, which can be knowledge and religious fervor at the same time, enters into life. It will be a social force in itself. It will stand by people as they work. Economic life, practical life in the outer world, will be seized by a science that has not only an abstract spirit in concepts and ideas, but a living spirit, and that can therefore also fill life with this living spirit.

My dear attendees, what only wants to reshape external institutions cannot lead us to a solution of the social question. We live in an age in which social demands are being made. But we also live in an age in which people are highly unsocial. A realization as I have described it will also bring social impulses among people that can solve the great riddles of life in a different way than the abstract way of thinking, which appears as Marxism and the like, which can only destroy because it arises from the abstract, because it kills the spirit, but because only the spirit can make life come alive. This is what spiritual science promises in a certain sense, that it can not only give satisfaction to the soul in its connection with the eternal, but that it can also infuse forces into social life.

This has led to the fact that one did not want to remain in spiritual science with mere mystical views. We do not have abstract mysticism. We have that which does not shy away from crossing the threshold into the spiritual world and leading people into the supersensible world in a new way. But at the same time we bring down into the physical, sensory world what we gain in this way. This has led to the practical view of life that is set forth in my book 'The Core of the Social Question' and in other writings, and that is represented by the 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism'. There are still some people who say that spiritual science leads away from the old religion; for example, that it is anti-Christian. But anyone who takes a closer look at this spiritual science will find that it is precisely suited to present the Mystery of Golgotha and the true meaning of Christianity to people once again. For under the influence of the modern, naturalistic world view, what has become of the Christ, who must surely be a supersensible being drawn into a human body, who has given the earth a new meaning? The simple man of Nazareth; a mere human being, albeit the most outstanding human being in world history. Once again, supersensible knowledge is needed to understand Christianity in a way that is absolutely necessary for modern humanity. And through this spiritual science one will be able to arrive at an understanding of Christianity that is appropriate for the modern human being. Those who speak of a hostility of spiritual science against Christianity, even if they are often the official representatives of Christianity, seem to me to be fainthearted, not as true understanders of Christianity. When I hear such faint-hearted representatives of Christianity, I always have to remember a Christian Catholic theologian, a friend of mine, who, in a speech about Galileo, as a professor of Christian said: No scientific knowledge can ever belittle Christianity, but the knowledge of the divine can only win if the knowledge of the world continues to progress and presents this divine in ever higher glory. Therefore, one should think highly of Christianity and say: It is so well founded that extra-spiritual and spiritual knowledge will enter humanity by the thousands. But we need a Christianity that intervenes in life, that does not limit itself to saying, “Lord, Lord!” but that lives out the power of the spiritual in outward action. And such a practical Christianity should live in that which is striven for through the threefold social organism.

The person who introduced what I had to say today with a few words said that I had already spoken in Holland in 1908 and 1913. At that time I could only speak of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science as something that wants to come from one or more human souls to solve the questions of modern civilization.

But since that time, despite the bitter war years in between, a great deal has happened: since 1913, when we laid the foundation stone, the Free University for Spiritual Science, the Goetheanum, has been built in Dornach near Basel. This School of Spiritual Science is intended not only to serve abstract spiritual science, but also to fertilize all sciences through spiritual science. That is why, last fall, despite the fact that the Goetheanum is not yet finished and still needs a great deal before it is finished, we held the first course, and we will also hold a second course at Easter, which will be shorter. During the autumn courses, thirty prominent individuals have spoken, some of whom are scholars in their respective fields: mathematics, astronomy, physiology, biology, history, sociology, and jurisprudence. But practical people of life have spoken as well, people who are industrialists, people who are merchants; artists have spoken. As I said, thirty personalities have spoken, who have shown that what can be gained as spiritual knowledge can be carried into the individual sciences. It could be shown that this science does not thereby acquire a superstitious character, but rather a rational, an inner, spiritual character and thereby a true character of reality. And so we will try to work in this Goetheanum. This Goetheanum, when you will see it one day, is built in a new art form, a new art style. In the past, if a scientific centre was to be built, negotiations would have taken place with this or that architect as to whether it should be built in Greek, Gothic or Renaissance style. This could not be done by spiritual science, because it shapes out of itself what it recognizes as reality, not only in ideas, not only in laws of nature and of the spirit, but also in artistic form.

One would simply have committed a sin against one's own spiritual life if one had applied a foreign style, not the style that flows artistically from spiritual science itself, to this building. And so you see the attempt at a new architectural style embodied in Dornach, so that you can say to yourself when you enter the building: every column, every arch, every painting speaks to you the same spirit. Whether I stand at the podium and express the content of this spiritual science, or let the columns, the capitals or something else speak for me, they are different languages, but it is the same spirit that is to be expressed in all of this.

This is the answer that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to give to the great civilization questions of humanity. For the first of these civilization issues is the question of a real self-knowledge appropriate to the new times. This is gained by crossing the threshold in a new way, as I have described it, by gaining powers of knowledge through the developed ability to remember and the developed power of love to behold the eternal in human nature. And in this way one arrives at a new sense of what the human being actually is, one that is worthy of the human being. One approaches one's fellow human being in such a way that one respects in him that which is born of the spiritual world, that one sees in him a piece of this spiritual world. In this way, human life is ennobled anew in a moral sense, human interaction is ennobled by the spirit. This is the answer to the second question, the question of social interaction.

And the third great question of civilization in the present time is this: Man can know that in his deeds and actions here on earth, he is not merely the being that stands there and whose actions have a meaning only between birth and death. Rather, what I do on earth has a world significance; it is integrated into the whole world. By developing moral ideals in me, I develop something that has world significance.

Let me summarize: modern natural science separates the outer nature from the inner life of man. It sees in the development of the earth and the whole planetary system something that has emerged from a kind of primeval nebula. Man was also produced. But then, after some time, man will disappear. The earth will sink back into the sun as slag. A field of corpses will spread out. This is what natural science must say when it only looks at its own field. But from the human soul arise moral ideals. They are that which is most valuable in the human soul. The school of thought that has brought it to such a high level of sophistication knows no place for ideals. The ideals will disappear like smoke. Therefore, what is called the ideological world view has already taken shape in millions and millions of people. The modern proletariat speaks of custom, law, religion, and science and art as an ideology because the sense of the living spirit has been lost. If we come to recognize this living spirit, we will know that what lives in the human soul as moral ideals, as spiritual, is related to what is the germ in the plant. When what is a plant this year falls away, a new plant develops from the germ.

Thus, we know from spiritual scientific knowledge: the clouds, stars, mountains, springs, stones, plants, animals and the physical human being too, will disappear as the withered leaves fall off and decay from the plant. But just as a new germ comes out of the plant, so too, and not only for the next year but for an eternal future, that which rests as a germ in the human soul will come to life as moral ideals. And we can repeat the wonderful words of Christ:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words” — that which we develop in the human soul as spiritual knowledge — “it will not pass away”.

We can speak of the fact that, once again, a unity stands before us: the passing physical world, the arising spiritual world. Man acquires world significance through this. His social life also acquires weight. And the empty solutions that so torment humanity today, that carry such heavy social storm clouds in the East, will disappear when the social question is made a world view question; when one tries to find the impulses for solving this social question also in what the human being can fathom within himself as a living spirit.

In this way, the modern questions of civilization will receive their impulses from spiritual science. We have already made educational attempts in this direction. In Stuttgart, Emil Molt founded the Freie Waldorfschule, which I run. It seeks to develop and bring to children, in an educational and artistic way, that which can be derived from living spiritual science.

In short, my dear audience, the task of reconciling religion, art and science, of introducing real science, real religion and real art into the most practical of lives, is what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science feels called to do. The Goetheanum in Dornach was built for this purpose, to be a first place where such a science can be cultivated in free scientific, free spiritual life. In the beginning and up to the present stage, people willing to make sacrifices have ensured that the Goetheanum could be built; but as I said earlier, the Goetheanum is not yet finished. Its completion will depend on whether there are already enough people who understand the need for progress in this world; whether the Goetheanum remains a torso and humanity says: we do not want to reawaken the spirit, or whether, through understanding of the living spirit, its first home can be completed. Then others will follow. For this much is certain: in the long run, the cultivation of a knowledge of the living spirit will be necessary in modern civilization. For it is certain that even those people who hate the spirit as such, who regard spiritual research as something fantastic, even they need the spirit. The seeking souls need the spirit, and those who do not seek need it even more. And this fact cannot be eliminated. One will seek the spirit because, if one truly wants to be human, one needs the spirit.

Answering Questions

Question: Is it your intention to establish schools in different countries based on the model of the Waldorf School or should the Waldorf School remain as one?

Rudolf Steiner: Well, we would not be able to muster the necessary strength to establish the Waldorf School if we did not actually want such a school to be established wherever there are schools. Because the Waldorf school is not based on some quirk or personal agenda, but on what can be gained as the right pedagogical art from the knowledge of man, also the knowledge of the developing human being, the child, which can be gained through spiritual science. This means that an attempt has been made to fathom what one has to do with the child until it is an adult, so that body, soul and spirit develop in equal measure. Of course, I cannot develop the art and science of education on which the Waldorf school is based in a few words here; I will do that in other places in Holland, where I will speak about practical education and the art of living from the point of view of spiritual science. But if one is of course convinced that true, all-round educational theory can be found in this way, and if one has based the Waldorf School on this, then one cannot but intend to do at least as much as one can for the establishment of such schools. Now, of course, we are not yet allowed to do very much, because for the Waldorf School it is enough for the time being, but it is not enough for any other schools. And what is not enough, I may perhaps pose as a puzzle question this evening. You can easily imagine what is not enough at the moment. However, something else is not enough at the moment. When the Waldorf School was founded, it was necessary for me to hold a pedagogical seminar for the Waldorf teachers first. And so, in turn, the pedagogical must first be worked out from the spiritual scientific. All this could happen in the broadest circles throughout the civilized world, because the pedagogical question is primarily a question of civilization in the present day. If the civilized world were to come to the conclusion that something must be done for the education of the child.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, I said that we live in a world in which great social demands are made, but in which people's inner impulses and instincts are not particularly socially minded. We have to rely on the coming generation in many ways. And this coming generation, we must educate differently in a certain way, unlike the people who have led the world into the current catastrophes. We need a new education and, above all, we need to recognize that social people must be educated, that the general humanity of human nature must be brought out in the child.

If I may mention just one detail: in ordinary schools – and I am sure the Netherlands is no different in this respect – we find the examination system to be very strange. The Waldorf School has only existed for a year. We have thoroughly implemented it in the Waldorf School: we do not need exams, we have achieved something different. We have held conferences throughout the year that have had real psychological content. In a sense, each individual child became an object of study. We were able to study the largest classes. Strange things came to light. For example, it became clear what imponderables are at work. It was shown that a class looks quite different due to imponderable forces, where there are more girls than boys, than a class where the number of girls and boys is the same or where the majority are boys. All these things must be carefully studied. The old educators say that one should bring out what is right in the individuality of the child. But it is only through spiritual science that one will be able to recognize the individuality of the child. This changes from year to year, from month to month. One must become a careful observer of human beings. And instead of the certificates saying “almost satisfactory”, “almost sufficient”, which means nothing if you can't bring these things into concordance with the real individuality, instead of that we gave each child a real description of his or her nature, which can also be used, and a saying that was entirely from the soul of each individual child, which is a power saying, a motto for the child for the whole of the following school year. The child has a kind of mirror. And the children who receive these reports are most intensely happy about them, even if they have been criticized.

And we have experienced many things. When I repeatedly come to the school for inspections, not as a cliché but because it is part of a vibrant life, I quiz the children, and sometimes I ask them: Children, do you love your teachers? And you should see how, not as something learned, but wholeheartedly from the soul, the children answer with their “Yes”, even though they are not educated in a philistine way in some special philistine discipline, they are honest, so that they fully understand: You can only be educated in love. And so, for example, we achieved that the children, although they liked going on vacation, longed to be back at school. We were able to observe many interesting details. A boy who used to be a grumpy urchin and never wanted to kiss his mother gave his mother his first voluntary kiss on the day he was able to go back to school after the holidays, he was so happy. This shines a light into the whole imponderable life. We need something like this from the living spirit. Therefore, it seems to me to be a necessity that the ideas of the Waldorf school be understood in the broadest circles. If a world school association could be established, which consists almost entirely of consumers – that is, of those people who have children, and also those who have an interest in the development of future generations, because all people are actually interested in that – then such a world school association, which could be completely international, could establish such schools wherever possible. And that is actually the idea of the Waldorf school: to be a germ cell radiating forces of growth in all directions. The Waldorf school should be a model, although we should not try to make it as perfect as possible; things only reveal their true perfection when they are spread further. That is why I say: certainly, the Waldorf school should not be isolated; it does not arise from a single ideal, but from general world ideals. Therefore, the World School Association should establish as many schools as possible in the shortest time, even if we have to struggle with many old traditions.

My dear friends! Yesterday I tried to lead up to the consciousness of the present time by means of a kind of historical consideration, which, however, was intended to have a spiritual-Christian content. The reflections that will now follow in this direction can be inserted into what we still have to discuss. I wanted to get that far yesterday so that today I could speak of something very specific that relates to contemporary consciousness. But I must first make a necessary preliminary remark.

You see, what the anthroposophical movement, as far as I consider it my duty to represent it, can do is never anything other than to bring into the world what is already clearly recognizable as a demand of the world, that is, what is in some sense demanded from some quarter or other; after all, the demand does not always have to consist of clearly articulated words. But it must be regarded as something that I consider necessary for the anthroposophical movement, that it does not in any way appear in the sense that one calls agitatorisch. Today, of course, all words are misunderstood, and so, if one wants to misunderstand – if one wants to cast an evil eye in the sense of yesterday's very grateful lecture [by Pastor Geyer] – one can define what is happening from the anthroposophical side as agitational. On the other hand, it can be said quite honestly and truthfully that I myself do not engage in any agitation. Giving public lectures cannot be agitation, because it is a matter of the sense in which one gives them and to what extent one can take them from the whole configuration of contemporary spiritual life to the best of one's knowledge; it is a matter of them being demanded by the times themselves. Anyone can go away after a public lecture and say, “I want nothing to do with that.” Well, in this sense, everything is held. Therefore, when I speak of the things I will speak of today, I ask you to bear in mind that these things are held in such a way that they have been directly demanded by the circumstances.

I had to say this in advance because I now want to discuss the following. When we founded the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, the intention was that the Waldorf School should absolutely not be a school of world view, but rather that it should be a school in which the teaching of what could come from anthroposophy, the institution was made so that the actual religious, in this sense the world view, was transferred to the pastors of the respective denominations. So the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic children was entrusted to the Roman Catholic chaplain, and the religious instruction of the Protestant children to the Protestant chaplains, who were mainly concerned that as many as possible should attend, so that the individual had to do as little as possible. Incidentally, we also had this experience with Catholic pastors; it took us a long time to find someone who had the courage to enter this “den of iniquity.” So this is the principle of assigning the pastoral care to the pastoral workers concerned. Of course, the children of dissidents and their parents should also be allowed to receive religious instruction in their own way; and it soon became apparent that a not inconsiderable number of them wanted religious instruction, which now flows entirely from the anthroposophical movement, to be given specifically to the children of dissidents. You have to bear in mind that this is in fact already a considerable step forward in terms of religious sentiment, because the Waldorf School was initially founded for the children of the workers at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory, so in the vast majority of cases for children of proletarian-Social Democratic parents, and it was the dissident sentiment that was actually predominantly represented. If these children had been sent to a regular school, they would not have taken part in any religious instruction at all; they would not have been forced to do so – after all, coercion would actually have contradicted the religious belief. In our case, religious instruction was specifically requested for these children, so the religious need arose out of complete freedom. In my opinion, this represents progress in religious belief. We were forced, as it were, to set up religious instruction in the sense of the anthroposophical worldview, and I sought to do so in such a way that it was actually separated in principle from the management of the school, which was to remain absolutely neutral on these matters and consider it only its task to work in an educational and didactic way. I consider it an important matter of principle that the school management and everything that flows into the school management has nothing to do with this religious education, so that the representatives of this religious education are placed in the school in the same way as the Roman Catholic and the various Protestant religion teachers. There were no Old Catholics, otherwise they would have been taken care of.

Thus Anthroposophical religious education, as it was often called – I myself don't think much of names – was inaugurated and began in the way that Anthroposophy believes it should be taught, namely by placing it as much as possible in life, and so that, in a sense, knowledge of the Bible and especially knowledge of the Gospels emerges as the crowning glory of all religious education. Now, I say that the Gospel is considered the crowning glory, so that this religious education, in which all kinds of children are mixed together, that is, children who have grown out of Catholic, Protestant or Jewish backgrounds, is definitely given in a Christian sense, and this is of course connected with the fact that the whole of the Waldorf School has an absolutely Christian character in terms of its imponderables. Those who have a feeling for such things would notice this very quickly if they were to enter a Waldorf school.

What then became necessary – not on our part, because we want to accommodate, not agitate – was seen very quickly: the children who receive our anthroposophical religious education need what has become a Sunday act. At first there was a very lively desire to have such a Sunday event, that is, to gather the children who receive anthroposophical religious education for a kind of ceremony on Sunday. And for reasons connected with the whole basic attitude of the Waldorf School towards the public, which is not very favorable to us, we have to carry out this Sunday ceremony in front of the children in the presence of the parents, or, if they are foster parents, we say, in the case of children who are educated in Stuttgart but whose parents are far away from Stuttgart, in the presence of the foster parents who are present in Stuttgart. Those who have no business being there, who want to go to this Sunday event for the sake of mere sensation, will not be admitted, but those who are responsible for the children will be allowed to attend the Sunday event with the children.

Now it was a matter of finding a ritual for this Sunday activity. I will discuss this ritual with you a little now and would like to make the following comment: In the next few days, I will have a lot to say about the ritual itself, about devices and the like, but we are definitely in the process of becoming, so that these things, which will also come into consideration for us, are even less likely to be considered in the Waldorf school. So it is important that you see the matter as an evolving one, that you see it in such a way that only that which can be imbued with full life can be done at first. But I believe that we will be able to communicate well precisely because you will receive a report not about something lifeless, but about something alive, and we will then be able to move up all the more easily to what – if I may use a prosaic expression – has to be planned in terms of ritual, ceremony, sacrament, worship and so on. In the whole cult, for example, the garment of the celebrant is not a trivial matter, but something important; but I will speak about that later.

Please do not misunderstand the expression. When a ritual is conceived, it is really not a matter of intellectually constructing something in the ritual, but rather that this ritual is conceived from the spiritual world. The problem with the ritual is that there is still an extraordinary difficulty at present; if you look at it realistically, the difficulty is that if you were to go about it radically, communion would be necessary for such a Sunday action. Now, given the circumstances, it is not possible to go to communion for the children of the Waldorf School in such a ritual today; it cannot be done. Therefore, it was necessary to emphasize that which is to be carried out in the communion later, and to handle it more spiritually. You will see that with the gradual introduction of rituals, you will have to go from the word, I would say, from the word that potentially contains the action, to the actual execution of the action. This will be a path that you will simply have to go through. You will not be able to come straight out with it, but you will have to go through the path from the action suggested by the word, whereby you must be aware that this is a beginning to the fully completed action.

But a ritual must never be composed merely intellectually; it must live in the living world process. For this, my dear friends, one thing is necessary: It is absolutely necessary to pay strict attention to the requirements of a ritual. My dear friends, when we speak from person to person, we must be clear about the fact that our speech must always be based on the only thing that lies solely in the convincing power of the content of our speech. If we understand the present time correctly in a religious sense, we must realize that we have no other work to do through the speech we address to people or to a gathering of people than that which can flow from the speaker out of his own conviction and the power of his own personality. Speeches that contain a moment of suggestion – as we use the word in Central Europe, not as it is used in Western Europe – would be absolutely reprehensible in the context of today's world, because we have come to the point in the development of humanity that, when we can use the word in a free way, we must put into the word that which is our own personal free conviction. If spiritual life is to be taken in full reality, nothing that is suggestive may be imposed on this personal free conviction, but one must behave in such a way that the consent of the other person comes out of complete freedom. This is the prerequisite for every future religious or spiritual-scientific or other work. If anyone were to misuse speech for magic, then this would be in the most extreme sense irreligious, even ungodly, in the strict sense that Anthroposophy must understand it, it would be a sin against the Holy Spirit, and this is what Anthroposophy must represent. For the speech may only be imbued with that sanctification which may be called sanctification through the Holy Spirit, and must observe in man absolutely the principle of directly and completely free conviction, which could not have existed in the evolution of mankind before the Mystery of Golgotha, because the word would have been repulsed by the human being altogether if the word had only had the power that it alone may have had today. At that time it had to work suggestively because the human organization was designed for it. That is why there also had to be chosen leaders, as I said yesterday, and it was also allowed at that time to work through the word in a sense that only happens in the spirit, by becoming aware, one spoke in the spirit, not out of one's own power, but out of the power of the God living in one, the Nous or the Logos. One must realize that this is impossible today, and that today one may only speak out of the Holy Spirit; but that is the word to which alone the free conviction of the one who hears the word answers. Therefore, all instruction today must be given under the sign of the Holy Spirit. We must be very clear about the fact that everything that flows from words into action can only be carried out in the Christian sense if the person carrying it out has the Paul consciousness: Not I, but the Christ in me! — Nothing in an act that is carried out in this way may be done without the consciousness that the act is performed as an inward divine commandment, as that which is performed in the spirit of the Christ-commandment itself.

We must realize that we are only the instrument through which the Christ can speak to people. This is especially difficult with children, because what I have explained applies to a limited extent to children only, and not to fully developed, mature people. Therefore, we must also make a distinction in what we do towards the person who is already considered worthy of the sacrament of the altar and towards the one we consider still too childlike to receive the sacrament of the altar. What I have now discussed must be evident in every action. Without this underlying principle, the action would be absolutely impossible.

The task is to find the Sunday activity from this point of view, and I ask that, as I describe it to you, you consider it only from this point of view. In doing so, we must today still leave out some things in the discussion that have a future value, but which we do not yet need to get into today. Of course, in the future we would actually need not only the spoken word, but also what in the older sense was also part of the cult: the recitative. But this is something that cannot be done today either, because recitative would still have too suggestive an effect on people today; we would make them unfree. Therefore, the ceremonies must not be performed in any other way than as initial ceremonies, initial cults, which I will now talk to you about.

The Sunday ritual is performed in such a way that the children are to gather in front of the entrance door to the room where the Sunday ritual is performed. There is someone standing at the door who first has to make the child aware that he or she must enter this room in a very special mood. Therefore, as the child enters the room, he or she is taken by the hand and told:

You know you are going to the act that
is to uplift your soul to the spirit of the world.

I will begin by telling you. I will speak later about how the matter can be carried out in a completely Christian sense, not in an anthroposophical sense, which must shape the matter differently, but which shapes it in such a way that it is led to the Christian. I would like to point out that what is being explained here is being done precisely because an anthroposophical religious education has been requested, which can only emerge from what anthroposophy already is and is allowed to be.

So the child is received with the words, by being greeted with the touch of the hand:

You know you are going to the act that
is to uplift your soul to the spirit of the world.

Then the child enters the room, which is relatively extraordinarily simple at first. It has a kind of altar at one wall, with seven candles on it. We shall have more to say about these seven candles in this context. Above the altar there must be a picture of Christ. Since I have not yet been able to get hold of a better one, the Stuttgart Waldorf School uses the one painted by Leonardo da Vinci as the image of the youthful Christ. But that is still an imperfection, but one can only do what is possible under the real circumstances.

Now the person who is facing the altar, with his back to the children as they enter, turns around and faces the children. He now speaks words to the children that are thoroughly ritualistic, in which the formulation of the sentences is such that the sequence of words moves in an element where the person cannot say that he speaks, but rather that he expresses what the Christ has to say within him. So the person says:

We now raise our thoughts and feelings to the spirit,
To the spirit that lives and works
In stone, plants and animals;
That lives and works in human thoughts and deeds, That works in everything that works,
That lives in everything that lives,
He who leads the living into death, so that it may live anew,
He who leads the dead into the living, so that it may behold the spirit.

Every word has been weighed, not only so that it stands as a word, but also so that each word stands in its right place and in the right relationship to the other words. After the one who is speaking has spoken this, he turns to the Christ-Image and speaks with arms raised to the Christ-Image the following words:

He who works as a spirit in the universe took on body in him.
Christ died.
He came to life in the being of human beings
Who gave him a home in their hearts.
Let our heart turn to him too.
Let it be imbued with his power
So that he may work in it
So that he may permeate
our thinking, feeling and willing.

So this is the direction towards the Christ-spirit of the world. Now the person who is doing the work speaks, turning to the children and with hands that bless. The gesture for blessing consists of taking two fingers together and spreading the hands out in this way. [The gesture is demonstrated.] Now the point is that the moment has come when Communion should be administered or something similar. So it is the case that the officiant turns to the children. After saying the words that I have expressed, the person turns to the children and speaks, preparing them, as it were, for what is to be said as a substitute for receiving Communion:

My dear ones! We learn to understand the world.
We learn to work in the world.
Love among people revives all human endeavor
Without love, being human becomes bleak and empty.
Christ is the teacher of human love.

The person who is acting speaks to the children about the relationship between Christ and them. This is followed by the common prayer, which is spoken in unison:

We lift up all our feeling and thinking to the Spirit of God.
We honor the Spirit of God. We love the Spirit of God.
We will remember the Spirit of God
When we are alone,
And also when we are with people.
Then He will be with us.

You must pay attention to all the details. In particular, you must pay attention to the fact that this turning to the Spirit of God is required “when we are alone and also when we are with people”.

Now follows what must first be introduced as a kind of surrogate for Communion, which can take on different forms, insofar as it can be given to children or an indicative substitute for it can be given to them. We cannot do more than the officiant approaches each individual child and speaks, laying his hand on the child's head or extending his hand – so it is spoken to each individual child, going through the whole row [of children]; before, it was only spoken to them as a group:

The spirit of God will be with you if you seek it.

The child answers:

I will seek it.

So you don't have to take this as a lecture, but as a ceremony.

Now the officiant returns to the altar and, with hands blessing, says:

I call upon the spirit of God
to be with you when you seek it.

After this, the Gospel chapter is read, which must be read in the correct manner at the appropriate time. We will have more to say about the distribution of the Gospel chapters throughout the year. Then the children sing a hymn that is relevant to the whole service, and finally the officiant says:

Dear children! I now dismiss you,

But keep in good thoughts

What you have heard, felt and thought here.

Then appropriate music follows. The children then leave the hall after the officiant has stepped back from the image of Christ.

The person performing the act can prepare himself by saying to himself before the act:

Through Your power, O Spirit of God,
I shall direct to You
the souls entrusted to me.
Let Your light illuminate the sphere of my thinking,
Your warmth of life permeates the center of my feeling, Your soul power permeates the radiant body of my will, Be in the service I want to do for you.

With these words, which he speaks to himself in thought, the doer prepares himself before the children are admitted.

I would like to make it clear that you should understand this as a ritual; you should not interpret it as a teaching instruction. This is counteracted by the fact that religious instruction is given in the corresponding religious education lessons. There is teaching, there is no cult.

The ritual that is performed, my dear friends, works, if it is performed in the right way and with the right attitude, precisely not as teaching for humanity. This must be borne in mind. And only in this way will you be able to understand how carefully the whole matter at hand is being handled. It can only be handled in such a way that the whole spirit of the matter is only gradually advanced, and we are actually coming to the development of the matter very slowly, because we can only respond, so to speak, to the signs of the times that we seek to understand.

Now, of course, it is important that the special times of the year also be made known to the child in the way he or she must be Christian, likewise through ritual. And so I would like to give you as an example the Christmas ritual first – we will talk about others later – which is added as a special one to the Sunday rituals, or would be performed on a Sunday if the birthday of Christ Jesus fell on a Sunday. So it is for the time being. I cannot say how things will turn out in the further development. So it is for the time being, according to our ability.

This Christmas action occurs in the same way as the Sunday actions. When the children have gathered, the person performing the action turns to them and says:

Dear children,

We live in the beginning of winter.
Our eyes see little of the outer sun.
It appears late and disappears early.
But within, our soul's eye beholds
In winter's cold and winter's darkness:
The bright shining spiritual sun of Christ,
Which has appeared through Jesus to humanity
From divine realms.

In the humble soul of the shepherd
Was heard the word of heaven:
God's spirit reveals itself in heights,
And he brings peace to the people of the earth,
In whose hearts dwells good will.
And the shepherds were led
By the lofty word of heaven,
And they sought the Spirit of God
After the proclamation on earth.
At the place of poverty they found
The child Jesus, who then became
The Christ.

It was the first Christmas in the world
When the humble shepherds
With a praying heart kneeled
At the poverty site before Jesus, the infant,
Through the light of the spirit
He appeared to the people of the earth.

Through the Christ
Who is the spirit sun, we will find
The way to spiritual heights,
And so become
First true people.
So the humble shepherds thought
In their intuitive souls,
When they saw the light,
That shone from the child's eyes
In the first Christmas of the world.

And as if they saw the light
The humble shepherds
There was a new beginning of the world:
The Christmas of mankind began.
And it can be light ever since
In the hearts of men,
Who learn to love
To say: behold, it is the Christ
Through whom the soul finds
The way into the spirit's
Sunshine-bright kingdom.

And it will remain bright
In the hearts of men,
Who lovingly feel
In their deepest innermost being
The light that shines there
On the way to the Christ
Sunshine-bright kingdom.

In the hearts of men
The dark night of winter
Becomes a bright spiritual day
When the soul consecrates itself
To the light that shines through Jesus
In earthly life.

The person carrying out the action goes to each child as usual and speaks to them:

Raise your thoughts and feelings
to the Christ-Spirit.

Then, after going back to the front of the line, he speaks to the children:

You shall raise your thoughts and feelings
to the Christ-Spirit,
He is the light
That shines in the hearts of men
So that they may find
The way to the Kingdom of God.

Now a piece of music suitable for Christmas should be played, and then the person carrying out the action continues:

Through the power of the Spirit's salvation,
In the consecration of the world,
Soul light awakens,
Human strength awakens,
Courage of the heart awakens,
After it once awakened
From times of Christmas
To eternal healing power.

Man fulfills himself
With true soul meaning,
When at Christmas time
He turns within
In strong thinking
In heartfelt feeling
To the power of Christ
Man strengthens himself
Through true spiritual power
When at Christmas time
He turns within
In bright thinking
In warm feeling
To the light of Christ.

Dear children:
Hold all this in your hearts,
and bring it from the holy Christmas season
into the life of the whole year.

This can, of course, be followed, in the sense that we will have to discuss it later, by a reading from the corresponding gospel.

Since we have accepted children of all age groups into the Waldorf School, we were soon obliged to also celebrate a youth festival with the children who had completed elementary school and were about to go out into life. This youth festival will be the basis for a confirmation or confirmation ritual. The text for this youth festival is the following: Upon entering, which is done in the same way as usual, the child is said, each one individually, for each one is admitted separately:

Consider the importance of this moment in your life.

Now the children are admitted, the person performing the act turns to the children and says:

Dear children, remember the importance of this moment in your life. You are entering a new age. You are rising from childhood to youth. Your teachers have guided you. Their concern was that the Spirit of God

shine in your thinking
be powerful in your feeling
be effective in your will.

Your teachers wanted to show you the Christ who died so that human souls could live, so that He might be:

the light in your soul
the guide on your path through life
the giver of the joys of existence
the comforter in the suffering of existence.

The man turns around and raises his arms, as I showed earlier, to the image of Christ, and says:

You light of souls
You guide on our paths of life
You giver of the joys of existence
You comforter in the suffering of existence
I spoke to you with beseeching words, imploring light for these children's thoughts, longing for strength for these children's feelings, seeking the blessing of action for these children's will. So send your light, bestow your strength, let your blessings flow in this hour
upon those who were entrusted to us
and whom we now hand over to life
so that they may
think through your light
feel through your strength
work through your blessing
in all their earthly lives
until in the moment of death
you lead them into the existence of the soul.
For you have spoken:

Now follows the reading of the high-priestly prayer from the Gospel of John. The person conducting the service then goes to each individual child, takes them by the hand and speaks to them:

Through the spirit of Christ
Who conquered death
So that the soul of man
Was saved in life
You were led
Here in this school for children:
So may the spirit of Christ guide
Your life forces
Your soul powers
Your spiritual goals
Through the great school of life.

The person who is doing this returns to his or her place and speaks about Easter in a speech that has something like the following content – here he is given complete freedom, and what I will now read as a speech to the children is to be understood only as an appeal:

Dear Children,

It was in spring, when the earth finds new life in its plants, that Christ went through death on Golgotha. He died. But he overcame death. As victor over death, he lives with people: he lives in people who seek him, seek him with all their thinking, feeling and willing. And every time spring brings the high Easter festival, then man, when he sees the new life of the earth, should remember death and the resurrection of Christ.

— The youth celebration is intended for Easter. —

Dear Children, each year at this Easter time, remember the feast we celebrate with you today and celebrate it anew each year, so that the thought of the death, resurrection and indwelling of Christ in the souls of those who seek him may be revived in you.

Then a hymn follows, as in the Sunday celebrations, prepared in the appropriate way for this festival. Finally, the following is spoken again:

Dear children, every Sunday I have
released you, asking you to remember
what you have experienced here;
now I dismiss you
with a sorrowful soul
into life.
The Spirit of Christ be with you
Seek Him
and you shall find Him:
As your light
As your strength
As your guide
As your comforter.

Each child is dismissed individually, taken by the hand and spoken to:

Remember the importance of this moment in your life. Never forget it, not in joy, not in sorrow.

Then the child is dismissed, at first from the action. The rest would be instruction, would no longer belong to the actual ritual.

I have given you here some examples of how this must be grasped in a living way in religious life, how it can flow into a cult that is now also sought in a completely living way out of that which can be a renewed religious life. Everything, my dear friends, is imperfect in the beginning, and of course many, many objections can be raised against any beginning. Accept this as a beginning, and know that where there is a sincere desire for such a beginning, the strength to improve what can be given in such a beginning will also be found. I believe, my dear friends, that it is not a matter of stifling such a child in its beginning, but rather of working on what is wanted. Of course, where the living and not the dogmatic is desired, every objection can only be welcome. But it should be clear to you from this example that, wherever the living is sought, the cultic must be sought. I have already been able to draw your attention to the prayerful character of what the person performing the action can have as a preparatory prayer. In a similar way, we begin each teaching morning, of course in a correspondingly simple way. This, of course, goes beyond the principle if the principle is only grasped in a completely abstract way. If the principle were grasped in a completely abstract way, we would not be allowed to place anything at the beginning of the teaching morning at all, but would have to start [with the teaching] straight away. But that would be quite impossible, because after all, all teaching must have a mood to it, and ultimately the Christian mood cannot be something that hovers above everything as an abstraction, but must be incorporated into every detail. There can be no principle in the life of the world, only that which changes in life. This should not be seen as an inconsistency, but as a requirement of life itself.

But you also see that, in accordance with what can only be use today, we must remain with the word as much as possible, and only the word itself can be transformed into action, because action is already inherent in the word, especially when the word occurs in the context of life itself. It is absolutely the case that in such a youth celebration, not only is something discussed, but something happens, something happens to the souls, not with, but to the souls of the children.

Just compare this, my dear friends, with how strong the belief was that the main thing had to be put into the teaching material that was being taught. Basically, this is still the case today in all religious denominations and in all forms of religion; too much emphasis is placed on the teaching material as such, on its dogmatic or other content. One must gradually come out of the merely human word and, by detour, by being aware that one draws the word from the spiritual worlds for the ceremony, penetrate to the immersion of the whole ceremonial in an atmosphere where acts of worship can take place without sacrificial acts.

But in the course of time, another problem arose: the children of the dissidents also wanted to be baptized. Until now, of course, I could only help myself, at least in the main, by teaching our friends who are priests and who were also imbued with the idea of breathing new life into their profession a baptismal ritual that could only be in keeping with the spirit of the times. But, my dear friends, before I proceed to this baptismal ritual tomorrow, I must make a few remarks, without which this baptismal ritual could not be understood. You see, a baptismal ritual would be impossible to create if one did not inspire one's understanding of the world and of God through that which in earlier times, when such things still lived atavistically, flowed into a ritual at all. I have pointed out to you times when no alchemical operation (that is, in those days, chemical operation) was carried out without the alchemist (that is, in our language, the chemist) having the Book of the Gospels in front of him in his alchemical laboratory. People at that time said that one would not have considered oneself authorized to carry out an alchemical process in the true sense of the word with the right attitude without the Gospel. You must always bear in mind how far a modern chemist is from such a thing, and how a modern chemist would fare if he were expected not to act with his retorts and his heating apparatus and with all that he does if he did not have the gospel book at his laboratory table. One must penetrate something like this if one seriously wants to see through what it is all about. One must also understand the concern that was present precisely in those who had the good eye in the times when modern science was emerging and one could see that, abandoned by the Spirit of God, actions were being carried out in accordance with the external laws of nature and external natural forces. One must put oneself in the shoes of such people, who were seized by a terrible fear when they heard that Agrippa von Nettesheim or his teacher, the Sponheimer, were performing something that had to do with new powers. They were extremely concerned that this should not have anything to do with divine powers. And so one must put oneself in the frame of mind that consecrating religious services, performing ceremonies, celebrating was nothing other than the highest stage of that which one also performed in alchemy. Therefore, one must really be imbued with the realization that not only external signs were present in those things that were used in a cultic act, but that the view that was held at that time of the substantial that served one in a cultic act was present. It was not, as would be the case today, decided to devise this or that symbol for this or that, whereby human arbitrariness plays an enormous role and with which one actually has to struggle continuously today. Isn't it true that in all these things it really depends on the how. And so it is just as necessary that in order to understand rituals it is also recognized that there is nothing arbitrary in the ritual, but a deeper knowledge of the substantiality of the world than can be admitted at present in science at all.

You see, a few years ago, for example, I read in a book written with good intentions that dealt with the history of alchemy how an alchemist's recipe from around the time of Basilius Valentinus's work was cited. The recipe was presented as it could be described from the works of Basilius Valentinus, which are largely forgeries. Then the excellent chemist who had to judge it wrote his verdict and said: This is complete nonsense, it is all nonsense; today's chemist cannot imagine what it means, it is complete nonsense. — Not a single word that the historian wrote down is wrong. The man could only not imagine anything because the recipe combined words that had to be learned in their terminological meaning, of which one would first have to know how they were used. There was talk of processes that are again expressed according to the words today, of dissolution, of heating and so on. Yes, if one reads the word “loosening” as today's chemists do, it is nonsense. If you read the word 'gold' as today's chemist does, it is nonsense, and if you read the word 'mercury', today's chemist cannot imagine what it is at all; because he understands mercury to mean the mercury that we also have in thermometer tubes, for example. If we approach the formulas of the 13th and 12th centuries with this terminology, they are complete nonsense today, and it would be much better if people admitted to themselves that they appear to be nonsense than if people today , which is what is really happening, they run to the antiquarian bookshops and buy works by Basilius Valentinus, which are forgeries – but which sometimes contain correct things that are just not understood today – or they buy all kinds of works by Paracelsus. They read it and think they understand it, while it would be more honest to just say to themselves: That is the height of madness from the point of view of today. That is just what must be taken into account; in this respect people today have, I might say, basically strayed from the honest sense of truth; they write and prattle on in words and are satisfied if the words are only moved into a slightly different atmosphere from the one they are accustomed to hearing today, even if they do not understand the words. Today, because all these things are taught in school, there is definitely an atmosphere in which people say to themselves: Yes, one hears about water, salt, phosphorus, mercury; one can understand all that, one understands it if one picks up the very first chemistry textbook today. But [they think], that which one understands cannot be of any value, that is knowledge that is of no value from the outset. Now they take a work by Paracelsus or a work by Basilius Valentinus. There they find the same words, but because they cannot understand it in the context, they believe that they are now in mystical depths because they do not understand anything, but they want to believe that they are experiencing something. That is where we have to be honest. Even if we only go back that far, we still have to search a little for the key. We have to learn to read these things, because today it is extremely difficult to even get a correct idea of what the spirit, what the supernatural actually is. It helps a great deal if one prepares oneself by delving into times when the spirit was still alive in the material world, by going back to such times and asking oneself: What did people in the 12th or 13th century understand when they talked about salt, water, ash? Not at all what people understand today. What did they understand when they spoke of salt, water, ash?

This is what I wanted to point out to you first, and I will start on it tomorrow when I have more to say about ritualism.

Today I would like to present you with something specific from the whole sequence of ideas on which the considerations presented here are based, in order to expand on it tomorrow from a more general point of view. You have gathered from the reflections that we have been cultivating here for some time that, in order to revive the declining culture of the West, it is necessary to develop a true knowledge of the human being based on spiritual science. This knowledge of the human being has been prevented for a long time. In the form in which it is needed for the future development of humanity, it has been prevented, first of all, by the kind of intellectual life that emerged in the 13th and 14th centuries of the Middle Ages, and then, again, by the intellectual trend of the time from the middle of the 15th century to the present, which has moved more and more towards materialism. On the one hand, we have seen the development of a detached, unworldly, religiously colored way of looking at things, which separated the spiritual from the world, did not allow it to approach the human being and therefore left the human being unexplained in terms of his essence. One might say: In the last centuries of the fourth post-Atlantean period, in the last centuries of the Greek-Latin development up to the middle of the 15th century, humanity increasingly began to look up to a completely unworldly divine-spiritual and lost the opportunity to get to know the human itself in its divine origin. Then came the time when mankind directed its gaze to the subhuman, to what nature principles are, but which only explained everything in the world that is not human, the mineral, the vegetable, the animal , and in this way again left man unexplained, so that in a certain sense in an older time there was a looking up to a foreign spiritual, from the later time to our days a looking at a subhuman material. Man fell through in between. To consider the human being in his entirety, spiritually and soulfully, is the task of our time, and to this end we have tried to bring more and more elements into anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

Today I would like to talk about how the human being initially finds himself in the world between two extremes in his inner experience. Let us dwell first on the inner experience of the human being. On the one hand, the human being experiences the world of ideas, but he experiences it in such a way that the more he immerses himself in this world of ideas, the more abstract and cold it appears to him. When man rises to the level of ideas, he feels that he cannot become inwardly warm. But he feels something quite different. He feels that in these ideas, which are then also expanded into natural laws, into world laws, he has something that, as an idea, does not include a reality, that as an idea is basically merely an image. Therefore, when faced with the world of ideas, the human being does not feel, let us say, that he wants to somehow implant his own existence in this world of ideas in a cognitive way. No matter how much the human being likes to reflect, he gradually retains the feeling, even with the most perfectly spun philosophy, that he cannot find proof of his real existence in the universe in the world of ideas. The ideas have something, as it were, rootless about them, as they are experienced in ordinary life between birth and death. That is the one, so to speak, the one pole of outer experience in ordinary existence: the abstract, sober, cold ideas, in which one cannot anchor, nor would one want to anchor, the reality of the actual human being. And finally, modern humanity has not warmed to Descartes' maxim: “I think, therefore I am” (cogito, ergo sum), because no matter how much people think, they also feel: there is no getting out of thinking for the time being.

The other pole of inner experience is memory. Anyone who really practices psychology, not the art of words that is often practiced as psychology at universities today, knows that these memories we have are substantially exactly the same as the fantasies we create by working at them, so to speak, only that we use the same power we apply in weaving the fantasy differently when remembering. By remembering, by cultivating our memory, we ultimately live in the same element as in the creative process, only that we build on what we have experienced through the senses or through life in general and thus shape the “phantasms” in memory in a logical way, while in the imagination we let them roam freely. This is the other pole in our inner experience.

In the world of ideas, which we then also develop into laws of nature, we have the decisive awareness that our will cannot actually achieve anything through itself in the shaping of the world of ideas; it must submit to the inner logic, to the fabric of reality of the ideas. If we want to grasp reality, we cannot use our will to string one idea to another; we must adapt to the inner laws of this world of ideas, which is only pictorial and does not directly support any being. At the other pole, in phantasms, which also live in memory, we recognize very well: our will rules there – and our will is also quite appropriately there, and we notice in two respects that these phantasms, insofar as they shape memory, very much have to do with our ego, with our personality, with what our reality is. No matter how much we rail against mere fantasy or phantasmagoria, by sensing that our ego is at work in it according to its own arbitrariness, we feel at the same time that our ego, our personality, is contained in these phantasms. That is one thing.

The other is: in the moment when, due to some illness, our memory continuity is disturbed, when the thread of our memory breaks somewhere, so that we cannot remember a piece of our life, in this moment the real solidity of our inner I-experience is also disturbed. So, on the one hand, our sense of self is not directly connected to our world of ideas. On the other hand, we feel that this sense of self is part of what we call our world of phantasms, although we cannot rely on this world of phantasms and, in a sense, in this phantasmal world, although we know that it is active in it, and that it cannot properly live in our consciousness if this memory is not in contact with it.

The deepest riddles of life are contained in what I have now more or less abstractly discussed, and we can approach these riddles by taking together various aspects of what is scattered in our anthroposophical considerations today. The world of ideas appears abstract to us, pictorial to us! Where do we use it first? We use it when we think through what affects our senses from the outside world – colors, sounds, warmth and cold. We think through our perceptions. You will find more precise details in my books 'Truth and Science' and 'Philosophy of Freedom'. When we penetrate our perceptions with thinking, we use this world of ideas to imprint it, as it were, on our spiritual and psychological experience, on what we have as a world of perception. But we need to look a little more closely at what is actually happening. And this can be done by directing one's own soul abilities through spiritual scientific methods, as described in my books. One can actually raise the question: What would it be like if our sensory perceptions only penetrated us from the outside, if only what penetrates our eye as color, our ear as sound, our sense of warmth as heat, and so on, from the light, what would happen to us then?

Let us be clear about this: when we are awake, we never let this world flow into us alone. Even if we develop only a little active thinking in ideas, we nevertheless bring, as it were, from within ourselves, to meet these sounds, colors, smells, tastes, and all sensory qualities that are rushing towards us, the counter-attack of the world of ideas that rises from within us. And anyone who does not think according to the abstract psychology of words of the present time, but who has really learned to observe, can ask themselves: How do the contents of perception that rush in from outside and the counterattack from within, the world of ideas, meet in our sense organs? If we were merely given over to the world of perceptions, then we would actually live as human beings in our etheric body and with our etheric body in an etheric world. Just imagine how you, surrendered through your eyes to the world of colors, would live in a surging, ethereally surging world of colors, how you, surrendered through your ears to the sounding world, would live in a surging sea of sound. This is not ethereal at first, but it would be ethereal if you did not provide the counterblow through ideas. The way in which sounds are for us human beings is the way they are in the etheric. We swim in the ocean of air and thus in the condensed etheric. It is therefore aetheric that is only condensed materially up to the air; the tones are only the air-shaped material expression of the etheric. And so it is with the warmth qualities, with the taste qualities, with the smell qualities, with all sensory qualities. So, imagine the counterattack of the world of ideas from within. Imagine that you live in an ethereal sea as an ethereal being. You would never come to that human consistency with which you actually stand in the world between birth and death. How can you come to this consistency? By being organized to kill this ethereal, to paralyze it. And how do we paralyze it? How do we kill it? Through the counter-attack of ideas! It is really so: the world of the content of perception in living ethericity (red) would come from outside, so to speak — if I am to draw schematically — and we would swim as etheric beings in living etheric substance, if we did not send out from within the counter-impact of the world of ideas (blue), which, as it is the world of ideas between birth and death, kills the etheric substance and allows us to perceive the world as a physical world. We would have an etheric world around us if we did not kill this etheric substance through the world of ideas, bringing it down to physical form. The world of ideas, as we have it as human beings, connects with the sensory qualities in our organs, paralyzing these sensory qualities and bringing them down to what we experience as the physical world.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

That is the fact of the matter. You can see from Dr. Stein's short paper, from his dissertation, how close he has come to this, through a spirited interpretation of what can be gained in the field of anthroposophy, of the character of the world of perception. In fact, there is nothing in the current physiological literature as good as this little book by Dr. Stein regarding the physiology of the senses.

So on the one hand we have this fact: that through the world of ideas we dampen the etheric surge of the sense qualities. What is the broader context of this? It is connected with the fact that the world of ideas that we experience as human beings between birth and death, as rising up from within, does not appear in its true form. People cannot see through this, that the ideas as they are experienced by them as human beings in the physical body do not have the true form of these ideas. People are still so crudely organized in present-day civilization that they would never think of saying to themselves, for example: You wake up from sleep, you have experienced a whole dream that has symbolically expressed to you what is screaming “Fire!” outside on the street. One experiences symbolically something that is quite different outside. What we have in ideas is very different from the way an external event is formed in the dream fantasy; but in the world of ideas we nevertheless also have something that is nothing other than the reflection of a completely different world. And what world is it? We have often spoken of this. It is the world that the human being has gone through before birth, or let us say before conception. This is what is shadowed here in life, up to the abstract world of ideas, experienced in a concrete way. Between death and a new birth, we live in the reality of what is only present here in the world of ideas in these shadow images of concepts, perceptions and ideas. Just as the outer world shines into the dream, so the prenatal world shines into our world between birth and death, by having an effect on the formation of ideas. But while everything is alive in what the ideas are between death and a new birth, while what is real in the world of ideas touches our own being, while we touch our own substantial being by touching ourselves, as we now touch our physical body, only that which we do not even know is cast into this earthly life from the world of ideas. But we use this shadow of our spiritual existence to make our very existence on earth possible. What do the gods give us when they send us into this world through birth? They give us the shadow image of the existence we have between death and a new birth. These shadows are the ideas, and these ideas serve us here to become physical human beings at all, otherwise we would swim as ethereal beings in the ethereal sea. We kill off the etheric life with the shadow images of our life between death and a new birth.

In this way, we place the human being in the whole universe, in the cosmos. This is another point where we gain real human insight. Here we connect what we have in our present experience with eternal experience. Here we say: When you think, when you look at the outer world through your senses and dull the etheric life that takes place in your eyes and ears with your ideas so that you can bear it and be human, then you do so with the inheritance, with the after-effect of your eternal human being, as you have developed it between death and a new birth.

Thus expanding human consciousness, thus pouring into the human being some of the knowledge that connects us with the whole universe — that is a need of the present. And all outer science will wither away, all outer culture will lead to decline. The death of the West will occur when people do not decide to acquire such a knowledge of the human being that, by observing the external conditions of life, reconnects the human being to the cosmos and thus reconnects the human being to the cosmos in such a way that the human being, by experiencing the world of ideas here, becomes aware of the eternal. It is precisely for this reason that this world of ideas is something so sober and abstract, because it is only the shadow image of the eternal and because it is basically intended to deadening the sense life that otherwise floods us ethereally.

Thus we are connected with our life with the prenatal. The traditional religious denominations do not like to point to this prenatal, indeed they even decisively reject it. I have already touched on the fact that it is precisely the peculiarity of the present traditional religious denominations that they speak only of the after-death, not of the prenatal, of the pre-existence. They do not want to speak of this because then one cannot appeal to man's egoism, to which one appeals when one preaches to man only about the life after death; for man wants to enjoy the knowledge of the life after death between birth and death. That which imposes obligations on them for this life, because the gods have released them from the spiritual world to fulfill their mission, does not appeal to human selfishness, it appeals to human responsibility and human obligation. That is why one finds little agreement when one speaks of this prenatal life. And these religious beliefs have managed to make people sleep so much about this prenatal life that we may well have a word 'immortality', that is, we negate mortality, but we have no word 'unbirth', which would be equally justified. For just as little as we die with our spiritual-mental, just as little are we born with our spiritual-mental. We should have a word in the language that suggests this. Yes, the German language needs the word unbirthlich (unborn) as much as it needs unsterblich (immortal), for man recognizes only half of himself if he can only say the word unsterblich but not the word unbirthlich. From the inability of language we can recognize the inability to rise to spiritual heights in this realm.

If we now look at the other pole, we see that man has in the phantasms, from which he also forms his memory images, something in which his I surges and surges, but often surges and surges in a chaotic way. Although man knows that his I lives in it, he does not rely on letting himself be told something about the nature of this I from the phantasms. If we look at the facts — and you can see this in the most diverse passages of our anthroposophical literature —, we have to ask ourselves: What exactly is it that develops from within us as the sum of our memory images, or, for that matter, as the sum of our imaginative images? It is nothing other than the transformation of that which, before it is metamorphosed into the power of memory or the power of imagination, lives in us as a growth force. What lives in the body as a growth force, when it emancipates itself from the physical, becomes the soul-spiritual power of memory. You know that up to the age of seven, when the change of teeth occurs, the same force appears in the human being that later forms well-contoured memories in the soul memory; it works on the body, shaping it. What ultimately drives out the teeth is the same force that lives in us as the power of imagination. In short, in what lives in us as phantasms, we have the same power that actually makes us grow, that underlies our becoming organic. We emancipate it from the organism. What does that mean?

There is another significant life riddle hidden there; it says: We are, so to speak, tearing this phantasmagorical power out of our organism. If we think that we leave it inside, how would we stand in the world? Imagine that everything you detach from your organism, so to speak, so that you can control it at will with your ego, with your personality, everything would surge in your organism. You would not say: I will – but you would feel the surging of your blood that drives you to your movements; you would not say: I take up the pen – but you would feel the mechanism of your arm muscles. You would feel yourself inside, losing yourself in the world, if you did not tear the world of phantasms away from your organism. Your independence would disappear. What moves within you, what lives within you, would be only a continuation within your skin of what is outside. Man must therefore say to himself: the grass grows out of certain forces outside my skin, within my skin my spleen grows, my liver; but I would not feel any difference if I could not tear my phantasms away from what organizes within me. Out there, I do not tear something away; I take the entity in its totality. Within my skin, I tear away the world of my phantasms. In this way I come to my independence. This is how we can find the bed, the substrate for the 'I'-ness in man. That is the other pole of inner experience.

While we have to kill our sensory experience through the world of ideas so that we can place ourselves in the physical world, for otherwise we would flood as spectra in the etheric sea, we have to tear away the world of phantasms from our organic events, otherwise we would simply be a link in nature like the growing tree. We would not stand there as an independent entity, emancipated from the rest of the world.

In this way, we recognize ourselves as human beings in our essence within the human being. And if we look further, we say to ourselves: This personal life between birth and death is what makes us experience the ego here between birth and death. But we do not experience the whole of our inner life, that which lies within our skin; this remains a shadow of that which constitutes our being after death. Just as we are connected to the pre-birth through the pole of ideas, we are connected to the after-death through the pole of phantasms, in which the will lives. We are attached to our unborn through our world of ideas, and to our immortal through our world of phantasms, which is now a world of phantasms, so that when we pass through the gate of death, it is shaped into a regular cosmos in which we then weave, live and are after death.

This is the effect of a true knowledge of the human being, of a spiritual realization of one's place in the cosmos. By answering these questions in terms of what he really recognizes in himself, in terms of what has entered from the cosmos into our inner being, the human being knows where he comes from, where he stands, and where he is going. Such knowledge is not like the knowledge that has gradually destroyed the culture of the West. Such knowledge has a different significance. This culture of the West has really been destroyed by its knowledge. Look back at the knowledge that people had until the middle of the 15th century. People today scoff at this knowledge. They consider it the childish knowledge of a childish humanity. They say to themselves: We have come so gloriously far in the present; only now do we have real chemistry, real physics, real biology, and so on. But there is a significant difference between the old knowledge, when it can only be properly understood in its truth and the rootless knowledge of the present. If you look into the old knowledge, as it existed until the middle of the 15th century, you will see: by appropriating elements of knowledge from the world, the human being always took something with him, through which he was connected to the world. Just consider: however cleverly you reflect on a tree and however much conceptual content you absorb into your soul about the tree, you are still aware that more lives in the tree than you can absorb with your ideas; the same applies to a flower and even to a crystal. If you look at the modern world, which has gradually become machine-like, then the human being is, I would say, standing in front of the object that has become completely transparent in terms of ideas. The machine we build, the mechanism we construct, we see through it. We know: the machine is built from these forces, in this and that combination. - Following the pattern of what man has built in technology, he has then also formed a world view and he now also imagines the universe as a large machine.

Because we have lost reverence for the enigma in the mechanical cultural order, because the machine has become ideationally transparent to us, we need to reconnect with the human being today in order to rediscover spirituality. People who could still seek spirituality by looking for it in natural objects did not need knowledge that was brought forth from the human being as we need it. We, who have gradually torn ourselves away from the world to the point of mechanically grasping it, to the point of building a mechanized technology, need the living spiritual science in contrast to dead technology, which also impacts our thinking life. This spiritual science connects human beings to the spiritual universe, to the spiritual cosmos, in the way we have again indicated today. But we must achieve this connection in the present by truly transforming our inner being before we go to the outside world. This transformation is taken into account by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wherever it occurs in practice.

We founded the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. Little by little, people come to observe in the Waldorf School. This is what people of the modern age do; when something interests them here or there, they go and see it, then they “know” it, and under certain circumstances they can also set something like that up. That is how our lives have gradually become. But that is not what the Waldorf School is about. What it is about is the fact that, above all, one can delve into the inner life that has been introduced into the didactics and pedagogy at the Waldorf School. It is about the fact that one can grasp the relationship between the human being and the world in a completely new way. In terms of the world of ideas, people are indeed generous. Man does not want to keep his world of ideas to himself. He would like everyone to have the same ideas, that is, he would like to give his ideas to all people. Man is not so generous with regard to other goods; he prefers to keep them to himself. He is happy to give everyone his ideas. This is precisely what makes the radical difference between the spiritual world on the one hand and the economic world on the other. This difference is radically present if one only wants to look at it, and basically, if someone under the old system tends to be a teacher, it only consists of generosity with regard to the world of ideas. This is because children are even better at accepting gifts than adults, who may encounter you with criticism and resistance. It is even easier to give gifts of knowledge to children.

Of course, these instincts must also be taken into account in Waldorf schools and by Waldorf teachers. But a new element is introduced that can only come from the spirit of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. That is, to what was always traditional in the earlier confessions, to the afterlife, is added the decisive view of the prenatal, so that we are clear that in the child that grows up, what comes down from the spiritual worlds is gradually revealed. We came down from the spiritual worlds at a certain time. The gods sent us into this world, and we carry out what the gods have placed in us. The children come down later; they have been in the spiritual world longer. We look to what shines out of the children's souls. They carry messages from the spiritual worlds, where they were longer than we were. A feeling that something is coming down from the spiritual world into the present, that falls into the children, that the teacher first has to unravel, that a giving, which one so gladly does, is joined by a taking - that can only come from the spirit of true spiritual science, when the idea of pre-existence is joined by the idea of post-existence in living feeling.

What is new and what is poured into the pedagogy and didactics of the Waldorf school is what matters; that is to say, basically only someone who has taken up anthroposophically oriented spiritual science into his own heart and soul can understand the Waldorf school. And only then should he sit in on classes, otherwise the few hours he has sat in on classes at the Waldorf school will show him nothing but writing on the board or speaking to the children and so on. But it is so inconvenient for people in the present day to really find their way into spirituality. Basically, why should we want to find the cause of this? If we take such works, which are truly born out of a current of the old, into our hands, we can ask: What is thought about the acquisition of spirituality by the human being?

I have laid out in front of me the “Textbook of Philosophy on an Aristotelian-Scholastic Basis for Use in Higher Educational Institutions and for Self-Teaching” by Alfons Lehmen, a Jesuit priest, fourth expanded and improved edition, published by Peter Beck, a Jesuit priest. The work was first published in 1899 and the fourth edition was published in 1917. I would like to read to you what is written on page 8 of the introduction about the spirit of this philosophy, which is thus genuinely Catholic philosophy. We will see in a moment that we are dealing with genuine Catholic philosophy. It says:

"From what has been said, it is not difficult to see what is to be thought of the principle of the ‘absolute freedom of science’. This principle grants every individual the right to form and advocate any opinion they choose, without fear of any doctrinal authority objecting to it. But freedom is not boundless. The Church's teaching authority has the right to condemn a philosophical opinion if it contradicts a revealed teaching or logically leads to such a contradiction. We assume here that an ecclesiastical teaching authority has been established by God with the task of protecting and interpreting divine revelation. With this mandate, the right in question is directly established. For the execution of the mandate given to it, the teaching office of the Church must be able to explain the true meaning of the word of God and to designate false interpretations as false. Hence, when the opinion of a philosopher or of a school of philosophy directly or indirectly challenges the true meaning of the content of revelation, the teaching authority of the Church has the power to judge the error as such and the authority to condemn it before the public.

This is quoted as the preface to a textbook on philosophy! Now, if you take the whole spirit of such a controversy, as is also the case today, what does it reveal? It reflects the whole Christian spirit that Paul meant when he spoke the word: “Not I, but the Christ in me.” As the Christ lives in us, He awakens the spiritual element in us, and it is precisely through this Christ-ization that we become able to connect man to the spiritual cosmos. We have often spoken about this meaning of the Mystery of Golgotha and we will speak about it again in more detail tomorrow. But there is one thing the Christ had to make clear to people, in order to show people how man has to gain his truth from the spirit, from the divine spirit. One need only recall another saying of Christ Jesus, and everything in this direction is given: “My kingdom is not of this world”; that is, the kingdom that the Christ wants to ignite in man must not be established in this world. It must be established by man's finding the way out of this sensual world and into the supersensible world.

My kingdom is of that other world, which is not this sensual world. Who has sinned most against this Word of Christ? The one who claims that a kingdom founded on this world, a kingdom that has its center in Rome, in physical Rome, a kingdom that works with physical advice and counsel, such a physical kingdom that is entirely of this world, is the kingdom that can somehow spread the Christian truth. Since the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, it is certainly not of Rome. We are thus pointing out that in the present time, all that is of this world, all that wants to stamp even the truth so strongly with the character of this world that it says: ” The teaching authority of the Church has the right to condemn a philosophical opinion when it is in contradiction to a revealed doctrine or when it leads consistently to such a contradiction,” that is, insofar as the Church decrees it! Therefore, such books do not appear as books, for example, by anthroposophists, that one enters with one's whole personality and only with this and says: What I have to represent, I represent out of my connection with the spirit of Truth” — but here is the title: ‘Textbook of Philosophy on an Aristotelian-Scholastic Basis’, by Alfons Lehmen S. J., fourth edition 1917. If you turn the pages, you will find: Imprimatur Friburg, Thomas, Archbishop. That is, here not a personality represents what she has to represent as a personality, but a worldly body, from which everyone who wants to publish something that is to be recognized must get the imprimatur. Here a body, which is of this world and stamps truth from this world, represents that which is established as truth!

Today, we must not be cowardly, but look courageously at what true Christianity is and what alleged Christianity is. We are living in a time that has led to this catastrophe because people have been cowardly enough not to live outwards what they have more or less recognized inwardly. Our catastrophe is, in its origin, a spiritual catastrophe – as we have often said – and we will not emerge from this catastrophe until we turn to the Spirit of Truth, which, in spiritual vision, seeks that power which gives it the “Imprimatur”, not an ecclesiastical authority established by a worldly organization.

Dr. Steiner: We have received a request from Dr. Karutz regarding the next parent evening; it requires a thorough discussion in the faculty before any public discussion of it. We need to discuss this proposal and, at least within the faculty, we need to arrive at a common perspective. For that reason, I have asked Dr. Karutz to spend the first hour of our meeting with us, so he can give us more information on what he wrote in his letter, and so that we can clearly understanding his request. (The letter is read aloud.)

Now that we have all heard the letter, we can see this is a question we must discuss in regard to basic principles. It would certainly be difficult to carry on a considered and objective discussion during the parent evening, and, since I cannot attend, I would like to discuss the question here. I would like to ask you to say what you would like to say first.

Dr. Karutz says his proposal has a cultural, not a political, intention. His objective is that the parents make a unanimous decision that the French language should no longer be required. He proposes Russian as a replacement.

Dr. Steiner: This question has a number of different aspects. The first is on the cultural side, and any serious pedagogical system must take that into account.

We see in the current activities of the French something that fundamentally cannot be explained from the outside. It is inexplicable because anyone should be able to see, even from the French perspective, that France will not reach its own goals by what it undertook today. We should not view this merely from a cursory political standpoint, but from a historical political perspective. What France is doing today is something like death throes—of course in history such things last a longer time—the death throes of a people in decline and in the process of disappearing from earthly development. Such views arise, of course, from spiritual observation of European history. The French nature is, in a sense, an initial wave of the demise of Romanism—the demise of the Romantic peoples of Europe. Naturally, the Spanish and Italian portions have somewhat more life than the French, who have the least life among the Romantic population.

We can clearly see the decadence of French culture in the language. Among the common languages of Europe, French is the language that, in a sense, most forces the human soul to the surface. It is the language in which it is possible (and this is a paradox) to lie in the most honest way. In that language, it is easiest to lie in the most naïve and honest way, because it lacks any real connection with the inner human being. French is spoken entirely at the surface of the human being.

Consequently, the French language, and thus the French nature, has a certain attitude of the soul. The attitude of the French soul is directed by the French language, whereas in German, the soul controls the inner configuration of the language, the mobility of the language. The French language is currently something that paralyzes—it directs the soul. It rapes the soul, and thus makes the soul hollow, so that French culture is hollowed out under the influence of the French language. Those who have a feeling for such things can see that the soul does not speak in French culture, only a petrified formalism has a voice. The difference is that, in speaking French, the language rules the speaker. The infinite freedom possible in German, and that we should use more than we normally do, that enables you, for instance, to put the subject in any position, depending upon your inner life, does not exist in French.

The reason Germany has brought French into education is not due to pedagogy; we do not teach French in our schools for any pedagogical reasons. We teach it because what was considered useful for a certain group of young people was modified and masked when the old college preparatory high school system was replaced by a number of modern institutions. It is significant that people believed what was available in the old system through Latin could be found in French. People had assumed French had a pedagogical effectiveness similar to that of Latin. That is, however, not true. Latin has a kind of inner logic and brings logic to people instinctively. That is not true of French, which has slipped into clichés and is no longer based on logic. It is only clichés—such things must be stated in a radical way—so that learning French brings a great deal to the surface in children, and that is why a desire to remove French from education has gradually arisen. It is obvious that French will disappear from education in the future.

In the Waldorf School, which exists to make a radical new beginning, we have a different perspective. The school can make a beginning only through the understanding our teachers have for the character of the French language, in that they teach it with an awareness that they are actually teaching something decadent. You do not have to tell that to the children, but we certainly should be clear about it. We are clear about it, but from a different perspective, it is completely out of the question that we here at the Waldorf School begin by fighting to remove French from the curriculum. We cannot do that for purely external reasons. We do not yet have an independent cultural life. We have, of course, a Waldorf School pedagogy based upon the idea of an independent cultural life, but that is only an ideal that we cannot completely implement under the present conditions.

For that reason, we had to sign a declaration when we founded the Waldorf School in which we agreed we would always meet the learning goals of the public schools at appropriate stages. For instance, we have to insure that our nine-year-old children meet the learning goals of the public third grades. We are pedagogically free for periods of three years. In general, we would place ourselves in an impossible position if we did not fulfill these responsibilities. We cannot keep our children from being able to transfer to another educational institution through testing. If we did that, we would rob our children of the possibility of finding their own path in life. There is, therefore, nothing we can do other than attempt to bring as much of the ideal Waldorf pedagogy as possible into the school. We cannot go further than the possibilities allow. If the building in Dornach had not burned down, we would still have been far from obtaining accreditation for the Dornach University. We could not have given doctoral diplomas. Since we must take into account that those children who complete our school may transfer into other learning institutions and universities, we have to allow them to meet learning goals at a particular age.

All this assumes that we teach foreign languages the way we do for inner pedagogical and psychological reasons. Seen from outside, people could say we do not need to begin teaching foreign languages as early as we do. If, however, we are to achieve in a pedagogical way what eighteen-year-old boys and girls need of foreign languages for their final examinations, there is nothing else we can do. Under the assumption that it is justifiable that our children achieve a certain level of education, we must form foreign language instruction as we have. We must swallow the bitter pill of French until we can do something else.

That brings me to what is of primary importance for the work of our movement. You see, well-intended people are always asking our movement to undertake this or that remedy. In the area of medicine, people make all kinds of demands. We need to take the position that we cannot do such things individually, but only through major movements. We have begun to develop medicine in the light of an independent cultural life. Thus, in such a question where we can best find the pedagogical basis through the practical experiences of the Waldorf School, a major movement would need to begin. A single private school, where the light of life could be instantly snuffed out if it undertook such things, cannot do it.

Aside from that, we could not accomplish much. Whether or not our students learned French would make little difference in the cultural status of the German empire. In contrast, a major cultural deed could occur if people overcame all the things connected with the false valuing of French in Middle Europe through a genuine understanding of the things I mentioned and Dr. Karutz also indicated. If people saw that and it became part of their flesh and blood, and if, therefore, the French language disappeared from the schools in a healthy way, then that would be a path toward a major cultural deed. A cultural movement directed toward removing French from the schools could begin that in a proper way while retaining a proper appreciation of French itself. Today, it is no longer valid to teach French for practical reasons. I do not believe that was true even before the war. In countries outside France, people respected French and valued it in teaching, not because of its commercial significance, but because it was used as the language of diplomacy, and because it was used in conversation in the salons of the so-called better circles in society. That, too, came from using French in diplomacy. If this was done with the necessary force and motivation, it could kill two birds with one stone by hitting the decadence of both French and diplomacy. It could show that diplomacy is just as decadent, because it is necessary to lie when being diplomatic. In war, success results in surrounding the opposing forces. The technique of winning a war is to mislead the opponent. Diplomacy is well described by a peculiar statement, namely, “War is the continuation of policies by other means,” something as insightful as “Divorce is a continuation of marriage by other means.” Diplomacy consists of using the same means, but at a different level, as those used to mislead the opponent in war. In this case, a language that can mislead others is required. Nietzsche made a major error when he spoke of the German language as the language of deception. The French language is not the language of deception, but the language of stupefaction that actually brings people outside themselves. Someone who is enthusiastic about speaking French seems like someone who is not quite in control of themselves. That is, of course, expressed in an extreme way. You need to look at things that way, otherwise you will not come to the subtle feelings you need to present in teaching French.

The parents of the Waldorf children can be very sure that we will contribute nothing to the false estimation of the French language. However, we do live under the compulsion of the state and, for that reason, cannot include anything in the constitution of our Waldorf School that would do anything against the French language. We depend upon the creation of a major cultural movement in this regard, one that is objective, one that at some time can also present these views and that values spirituality. If we were to once begin such an action, then we would see that a much different culture would replace today’s. It is important to put forward the differences in evaluation of the languages. We would win some trust and strength from certain people for the mission the German language still has in Western civilization. However, people would still need a feeling for what is declining or rising in the language. In the German language, many elements are still positively developing, although, since High German entered, there is much that can no longer develop. We still have the inner strength to transform words. Under certain circumstances, we can still transform words that have petrified in the substantive into verbs. I have used the word kraften as a verbal form of kraft. And we may also do similar things. People understand them. German still has a lot of inner strength. French no longer has that. Everything is prescribed. When language takes over everything, it corrupts the human soul.

That is what I have to say, Dr. Karutz. You see, we understand your request, but our hands are tied. At the moment, we cannot really discuss the question.

A teacher: The public schools in Bavaria no longer require French.

Dr. Steiner: We will have to wait until Württemberg does something. Since things can quickly change from one day to the next, we will have to make our decisions accordingly. I am not sure that, if French were removed today, it would not be included again later if something did not take hold of human souls at a deeper level.

A teacher: The decision in Bavaria occurred several years ago.

Dr. Steiner: It occurred only now. We will certainly shed no tears about the French language if it comes to that here. Perhaps some of the teachers would like to say something about French.

A teacher: It would not be so easy to do here.

Dr. Steiner: We will address these questions when they become more pressing.

A teacher: I thought it was easier to comprehend the spirit of a language when it is in the process of dying.

Dr. Steiner: That is the case with human beings, but not with languages. The French language is now more dead than Latin was in the Middle Ages when it was already a dead language. There was more spirit living in Latin when it was clergy- and kitchen-Latin than lives in the French language now. What keeps the French language going is the furor, the blood, of the French. The language is actually dead, but the corpse continues to be spoken. This is something that is most apparent in French nineteenth- century poetry. The use of the French language quite certainly corrupts the soul. The soul acquires nothing more than the possibility of clichés. Those who enthusiastically speak French transfer that to other languages. The French are also ruining what maintains their dead language, namely, their blood. The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an enormous affect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting.

Marie Steiner: You can notice the superficiality and hollowness of the language when you compare it with Italian. In Italian you can still present the spirituality of the content. That is often lacking in French, the depth disappears.

Dr. Steiner: We had the strangest experiences. Mrs. Steiner translated two major works by Schuré. At the time, there were some reasons for the translation, but we always had a feeling that only through the translation was the actual content of these two works apparent. The reason for that was Schuré’s own development. His first work was L’histoire du Lied, in other words, a history of German lyrics written in French. He was thinking in German but wrote in French. He thinks substantially in German, and had his first cultural impressions from the Wagnerian school. I still remember Mrs. Schuré’s genuinely French fury when she told me that as a student he had sold his gold watch in order to be able to go to Tristan. You can see how the translations of these two works appears as though they were translations into the original language, that is, as though they had originally been written in German. They are thought in German, and the French can feel that in Schuré’s work.

A teacher mentions that German style was transformed by Heine and anti-romantic journalism.

Dr. Steiner: The effects of Heine and Börne have been very colorfully described by Treitschke. There is a wonderful chapter in one of Treitschke’s books on history about the rise of journalism. In it you can see all of Treitschke’s fury. He could be very radical and was often not very tactful.

We once both received an invitation in Weimar, where he saw me for the first time. He couldn’t hear, and you had to write everything for him. He always asked where people came from, and he said that the Austrians are either very clever people or scoundrels.

A teacher: I would like to say how it is for me when I teach French. I overdo it. I get right into it, but nothing is so strenuous as teaching French.

Dr. Steiner: If you meant that in a good sense, I would advise you to overdo yourself in other things more.

Marie Steiner: It is very funny how that affects Rostand in Chantecler. It is a real mess.

Dr. Steiner: The conclusion we should draw is that as long as we have French, we should teach it with the proper attitude and under the proper estimation of its pedagogical value. The remainder we must leave to the future.

Dr. Karutz leaves.

Dr. Steiner: We needed to take care of this matter or it would have come up at the next parent meeting, and I must admit it does not seem right to me to broach the question at this quasi-public occasion. We may not expose ourselves too much in regard to such current questions. This is not a question where we can make compromises. The fact is, we can only maintain our general direction and path if we do not put hurdles in our own way and do not allow ourselves to be drawn into such current questions about pedagogy. If we do, the light of our lives will be snuffed out. We must take this position also regarding less significant questions. Today’s questions about elementary schools will find their answer the moment there is support for the Waldorf School method. Discussions over such things really become quite trivial. When such problems come up, we can certainly participate in the discussion, but we must maintain our position.

Is there anything else to discuss? There is not enough time for a lecture on medicine. Perhaps you could bring some current problems for discussion in the time remaining.

They discuss the many children who are absent from school.

Dr. Steiner: That is certainly something to be concerned about. In the first grade, I found only nine of twenty-seven children. That is really terrible. How is it in the other classes?

A teacher: In the 1b class, I had only half the children.

Dr. Steiner: These things are connected with the general state of nutrition. We should be aware that such things appear as illnesses about three and a half years later, that is, malnutrition then appears as an illness. That is something reasonable physicians were aware of at the beginning of the war. Only Abderhalden claimed that hunger during the war had no effects, though he was sometimes reasonable about other questions.

The school doctor: The children’s health is getting continually worse. Of six hundred and fifty children, about one hundred and eighty are severely undernourished.

Dr. Steiner: When we think about the physiological corruption of the children’s organism, we now need to try to make those forces that support the necessary functions of the human organism more effective. We need to make those forces more effective. We need to be aware that the correct view of the human organism views human nutritional and growth forces as located in a kind of reservoir. The way we should imagine that reservoir is a question that leads deeply into occult physiology. Actually, you need to think of a created reservoir out of which the forces for nutrition and digestion and rhythmical processes arise.

Perhaps you can best understand that if I draw your attention to the difference between vegetarian and meat nutrition. If you look at a plant, you will see that the plant completes the mineral and vegetable processes to a certain point, so that as a human being we have to work further upon what the plant has made of earthly substances. We must further transform the substances into the form they should have in the human body. Thus, when I eat plants, I must further transform the final stages of plant existence into what is necessary for human existence. These forces are available in various ways in the human organism, that is, there are forces that create sugar, transform fat or protein. The salts are used in a certain almost physical-chemical way in the organism. These forces exist.

If I eat meat, the mineral and vegetable processes have been continued beyond the stage reached by the plant to that of the animal, and I do not need to change the meat in the same way I need to change plants, because that has already happened in the animal. The animal has already made the changes I should undertake. Thus, if I eat, say, some grass or something like that, I would have to do what a cow would otherwise do. But, if I eat some beef, the cow has relieved me of this inner work. In a sense, I thereby leave the work of the cow in my reservoir of forces. Thus, I fill myself with unused forces. I leave those unused forces within me. Actually, I carry them with me.

That was not meant as some sort of fanaticism for vegetarianism. This can definitely have to do with heredity. Nevertheless, it is correct that when people eat meat, they do not fully use their inner functions. They sentence themselves more easily to gout than when they train their inner functions so that they become vegetarians.

Under some circumstances, the work required with fruit is even greater because it has to be transformed backwards. If you can perform this reverse transformation, you awaken even more forces within your organism. You should, however, not believe that awakening such forces is tiring. Under some circumstances, allowing forces to lie fallow is much more tiring because those forces collect. Thus, you can see that we either fully use the forces in that reservoir, or we leave them unused. I have mentioned all this only as a kind of discussion of how forces act in the organism. All the aspects of human nature, the I, the astral, etheric, and physical bodies, participate in using those forces. The situation in the human being is such that, in general, the development of forces acts in what we might call a centrifugal manner, that is, from within, outward, and from below, upward, depending upon the various parts of the physical body. In general, the development of those forces follows the path of the blood, and it is their responsibility to carry what lies in the blood’s path.

There exists another force counter to those forces, one that goes parallel to the paths of the nerves and is particularly important for the child’s organism,. Everywhere within the human being you will find these two extremes. For example, the blood moves from within toward the outside in the eye, whereas you observe the nerves properly only when you consider that they go from outside, inward. The centripetal forces go parallel to the nerve pathways. These two forces achieve their general harmony through the breathing and circulatory systems and are the two poles of the human threefold organism. The nerves act centripetally. The metabolic- limb system works centrifugally, parallel to the path of the blood. What is important is that the liveliness of all inner functions depends upon the proper interaction of these two systems, and thus these two forces. The centrifugal and centripetal forces need to be properly activated in each individual organ.

Malnutrition during and after the war caused what I saw yesterday in a little child in the first grade. The centrifugal forces in that child have developed only to a dangerously weak point, so that those forces need to be enlivened by support from the outside. That was why I advised giving the child those baths, since they support the centrifugal forces from outside. Those are things that are important when dealing with such acute cases, but of course, they must be applied very individually.

On the other hand, it is necessary to work on improving general nutrition in Germany and Austria. There we can enliven both sides, namely, the centrifugal and centripetal forces. We can enliven the centripetal forces, so that they support the blood stream, primarily through dietary means or through providing medications based upon calcium phosphate. In the reverse situation, we can enliven the centrifugal forces by using calcium carbonate. I said in the reverse situation because calcium carbonate enlivens the nerve system and enlivening the nerves achieves a greater activity in the centrifugal forces. Calcium phosphate enlivens the centrifugal forces, the blood, and thus has a reverse effect upon the nerves.

The effect of the carbon is to enliven the centrifugal forces through the nerves. You can see this enlivening in a coarse way when you simply drink some carbonated water. There, it is the carbon that has the effect. Since we are using a calcium compound, people will have to work with things right into their bones. You can see quite clearly that the bones are included, and that is why this compound should be used, so that people can work right into their bones. This may seem like a strange statement, but physiologically it is correct to say that the bones are the final extension of the nerve system. The nerves are bones at the lowest level of development. They are bones that have been stopped from developing into bones. Nerves tend to become bone-like, only they have been stopped at a very early stage. For that reason, calcium carbonate enlivens the nervous system right into the bones. In contrast, calcium phosphate enables the bones to participate in distributing the blood. The bones play a role in the formation of red blood cells, and that can be increased through calcium phosphate. Oyster shells are an empirical proof of that. Oysters have no blood, which is why we find only calcium carbonate in them.

What you can see from all this is that if you properly combine calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate, you can enliven the organic functions and thus strengthen the organism when it is too weak to digest what comes into the stomach.

That is the cause of modern malnutrition. The problem is not that there is no food, but that the food is not used beyond the intestine because the organism is so weak. The body actually takes in only a little bit of the chyme. That could be improved if we strengthened those forces related to organic forces.

This needs to be done alternately, so that the calcium carbonate is taken at the night and the calcium phosphate is taken in the morning so that it is effective during the day. Thus, the calcium phosphate would be connected with the activity of the nervous system, and the calcium carbonate active during the night will strengthen the blood system.

I think that a sufficient dose of calcium carbonate would be 5% and of calcium phosphate, .5% at a potency of 5X or 6X. In connection with calcium phosphate, the higher the potency, the better, but calcium carbonate is allopathic.

What we actually have here is a genuine illness that we should, therefore, heal. No one should complain that we want to give all the children some medicine. Since we actually have an epidemic, we should undertake mass treatment. That is a commandment of genuine love of humanity.

A teacher: We would have to discuss that with the parents.

Dr. Steiner: That is something we cannot easily do in a parent evening, although I think it would be basically proper. Nevertheless, we should not become too prominent, so you should speak with the parents individually.

The school doctor: If we did that on a broad scale, we could discuss it with the parents. There are some financial difficulties, and we would also be entering the realm of the local doctors.

Dr. Steiner: We can expect the support from the Clinical Therapeutic Institute. The other thing is, it is advisable not to treat such things as medicine at all. Nevertheless, some of these things lie right at the limits of diet, so we do not really have to consider this a question for physicians. To restate it, first, Palmer at the institute could give us some support, and second, we do not need to see this as medicine. It is a dietary question and therefore we do not need any medical justification. The third thing is that the parents would pay nothing for it. Doctors start to get nasty if you require payment. I think it would be difficult to use genuine medications. In connection with calcium phosphate and calcium carbonate, we could take the position that they are simply dietary supplements. We could even extend this and make it into a kind of popular movement, so that people simply received a dietary supplement through one of these preparations at the table, just as we might put salt on the table. You certainly do not need a doctor for that. Today, I wanted to handle only the general question. This is how we would have to take care of it if we are to handle public questions with the slightest bit of reason.

A teacher presents the request of a mother who wants to have her son put in a parallel fourth-grade class.

Dr. Steiner: The lady told me she believes that her child cannot work in the present class, and the class teacher also wants the child to leave. She is not bothered by that, but now she is asking that he be put in a parallel class. I have nothing against that if it is best for the child. My only question is whether Mr. K. would take him. He is one of the few boys who does not want to be taught by a female teacher. If the parallel class were also taught by a woman, he would have no interest in it. Now that we have the request, and you don’t have anything against it, perhaps it is best to do it. Is there anything else we need to do?

A teacher: S.R. does not want to participate in shop because of his music instruction.

Dr. Steiner: If such things come up often, then we will have to create a category of special students who can have such changes, and whose parents are ready to be responsible for the student not meeting the goals of our teaching. We would have to handle each case that way. We would have to treat him as a special student.

A teacher: The children often ask what is the deeper meaning of learning to spin yarn.

Dr. Steiner: It is something that enhances the life of their souls, and they also learn something about genuinely practical life through spinning. You cannot really learn anything about practical life by just watching how something is done, only by doing it the way it is really done. The children should also notice that you can learn to make a pair of shoes in a week, but a shoemaker’s apprenticeship lasts three years.

A teacher asks how to present The Song of the Niebelungs in the tenth grade.

Dr. Steiner: You have already done that, haven’t you? You need to first teach the children about the whole context of The Song of the Niebelungs, so that they understand how it fits into the historical perspective. You should do that as pictorially as possible, similar to the way I did Parzival and Christianity in Dr. Stein’s class. It took place during the time of the Great Migrations. Present it in a very lively way and then give the children some examples. Teach it so that the children first have a complete picture, not with boring lectures, but in an exciting, pictorial way. Give them a picture of what you will read to them as an example. Above all, see to it that you are not the only one who reads. The children should also read in a way that is not boring, through the way you gave them a proper picture. It is not possible to read in a boring way if you have given them the proper picture. Stop for a moment at some of the interesting passages where you can say something about the beautiful words. It is possible to create some real excitement and illuminate the whole scene from some individual words or phrases. If you do that, you will have given the children enough.

A teacher: What could I use as a historical source?

Dr. Steiner: You can use any book on the history of the Middle Ages. The history has been so worked over that any fool could do it in the same way. A person would not need to be particularly insightful. Those history books are all the same.

A teacher asks whether a book on mathematics should be written for the use of the teachers.

Dr. Steiner: A teaching guide for mathematics and geometry in the upper grades would be good. You would need to write it so that the material is presented in a very clear way, so the reader does not drown in the amount of material and important things are not missing. All textbooks are really unusable. They are not very helpful. It should be a text without any remarks or figures that you can read like a novel.

As a boy of about fourteen or fifteen, I once wrote one myself, because all of the geometry books were so boring. It is too bad I no longer have it. It was not bad, you could read it like a novel. It might be interesting if you put it together as connected text that reads like a novel. It does not need to be as voluminous as things are today, and we could even have one edition for teachers and a still shorter edition for children, like a short story. Children would be very thankful if every day in class they could read a page or two about geometry written in a readable form. There are no good books anymore. The books on geography are horribly written. The grammar books are terrible. This is something that The Coming Day publishing company could do.

A teacher asks about speech exercises for a child in the first grade who has a very soft voice.

Dr. Steiner: I would have to see and hear him. Perhaps you could show him to me when I am here for the delegates’ conference.

Dr. Steiner: I would like to share some of my thoughts about my visit to the school, specifically, about the walls. Now that everything here is so new, it is more apparent than before that it is not good for a school to merely have a somewhat lost and not particularly good picture hanging here and there. It is significant that our school does not make a particularly impressive artistic impression.

Of course, we cannot completely fulfill the ideal at this stage, but it seems to me that it would be good to at least have that ideal before us so that we could move toward it, at least in our thoughts, and that in the end we would do something in that direction. I would ask you not to understand what I have to say the way many things have been understood. For instance, when I said that this or that is a difference between eating meat or vegetables and people immediately began to promote vegetarianism as a result.

Accept it as an ideal. Out of our pedagogy itself, what should be the artistic form in our classrooms? We could perhaps extend this from what we find in the schoolrooms to what we find near the schoolrooms on the walls.

There is no doubt that we need some pictures to decorate the schoolrooms. I say this not because I think we need to do this tomorrow morning, but because our guiding principle needs to be what is needed by our pedagogy.

First, we have the lower grades. There, we need a more physical presentation of what we give the children pictorially. That can gradually move into the more artistic, on the one hand, and to more practical activities in life, on the other. Today, I only want to mention some of the main things that we can deepen in the course of time. It is important that where the subjects themselves play the main role in artistic decoration, we have no mechanically created or barren illustrations, but that things be artistically formed. These artistic creations should not be such that they emphasize special opinions or special styles, but more in the direction of what seems to genuinely human.

If we look at the first grade, the main thing would be to decorate the walls with pictures from fairy tales, and when possible, to have them in color. I need to emphasize that if it is not possible to do everything in color, we will need to use some black-and-white reproductions. It is better to have a technically good reproduction than to have some poorly done copy of something. In the first grade we need to have pictures of fairy tales, and in the second, of legends. That is something we need to strictly maintain.

You can imagine the continuous and proper effect that will have upon the children’s feelings. The only thing is that we cannot just take the pictures from picture books. They should be artistically done. It would be beneficial to set this as a task, not in some one-sided painting style, but such that everything has a general human feeling to it.

When we come to the third grade, we must take into account the state of the soul. What we hang on the walls should be what is normally called “still life” pictures of plants and of flowers. Of course, these should not be normal still lifes, but genuine representations of what is living, but not yet feeling. If we bring the children so far that they live into them with their souls, that will be good. We should save representations of the feeling of animals for the next grade because then the child’s soul begins to relate to a portrayal of feeling. Only from that time on do children have a sense that they have feeling in themselves, even though that feeling may be quite dull. Pictures of animals that the children saw earlier in children’s books have an effect such that the child cannot differentiate whether it is a picture of a real cow or a cow made of wood. Before about the age of nine or ten, children cannot differentiate in an inner living way between the picture of a real cow and a cow made of wood. However, at about that age, this capacity to differentiate begins.

In the fifth grade, when the children are ten or eleven years old, what is important is to choose pictures that show groups of people of differing ages, for instance, dancing groups, or, say, a street where people meet one another, so that you can say something to the children about it. You need groups of people so you can talk with the children about what occurs between those people.

We now come to the sixth grade. There, we should have individual human beings. You could have pictures of heads or of the whole person, for example, a person standing in nature, where nature comes to that person’s aid. You could then draw the children’s attention to what a sunny landscape is, or to one in the rain, but there should be a person in it such that the individual person is important. Perhaps a picture of a small lake where someone is rowing.

We have now come to the point where the material itself is less important and where the pictures should move more into the artistic. Here, we need to begin with the most artistic things. We must, of course, recall that if you cannot obtain good copies, then we should have black-and-white pictures. For the age of the children in the seventh grade, it would be good to have Raphael and Leonardo, things that can also remain in the eighth grade. You could divide these between the classes in both grades. What is important is that the children have these pictures in front of them. You should not believe that the proper thing to do is to choose the pictures so that they go in parallel to what is being taught. It is actually quite important that the children have the pictures before they are spoken of in art class. You should speak occasionally about the pictures, but, in general, the child’s eyes should simply be occupied with the artistic aspect of the pictures. Children should first receive only a pure sense impression and know that we consider these pictures particularly beautiful. They have already been properly prepared since they knew that previously the pictures hanging on the walls were primarily important because of their content.

In the following classes, what is important is that you tactfully connect what is artistic with the practicalities of life, so that the children have both perspectives continually in front of themselves. Thus, in the ninth grade, you might have pictures from Giotto or similar things, and in the same class, pictures of other things, more technical, for instance, a meadow or a willow tree, a pine forest, and so forth, but not done artistically, rather, technically. Purely as examples, in the way that you might draw a plan. You could put those on one wall and hang other things on the back wall, for instance, paintings by Giotto. You could also have a star chart in the ninth grade where the various constellations are connected with some figure, with stylized figures of the heavens, as used to be done in star charts.

In the tenth grade, where you are dealing with fifteen and sixteen year olds, you should have pictures by Holbein and Dürer on the artistic side, and on the technical-scientific side, you could have—other things would be possible—a drawing of everything in the sea, all the animals, and so forth. That would have to be drawn appropriately so that it was intellectually instructive, but also had an artistic effect upon the children.

Holbein and Dürer would remain for the eleventh grade, with perhaps the addition of Rembrandt. That would also continue in the following grades. You might also include some older paintings. At that age instruction can go in parallel. Thus, for the eleventh and twelfth grades, Holbein, Rembrandt, and Dürer.

On the technical side in the eleventh grade, you should hang something like a cross-section of the Earth or geological cross-sections or perhaps elevation charts and similar things. Only in the twelfth grade would you have physiological pictures, anatomic charts in addition to Holbein, Dürer, Rembrandt.

That is what we need as an ideal. Things look terrible now, but if you have an ideal before you, at least under some circumstances, you can work in that direction, even if it takes a century. It is better to have a good woodcut than much of what is hanging now. This is what I wanted to say to you about pedagogy. It is certainly necessary that we attend to an exceptionally good treatment of art in our pedagogy, since that definitely belongs to the total picture of the anthroposophical treatment of human progress.

We can say that until the sixteenth century, there was not a sharp contrast between an intellectual and an artistic comprehension of the world. You should remember something that is no longer considered; the Scholastics created their books with a certain architectural art, very consciously, apart from the illuminations. Until the tenth century, there was absolutely no real difference between art and knowledge. Now, children in even the earliest grades are poisoned with purely intellectual material. There is an effect here in our school of something we cannot yet do differently: when teachers use reference books, not only by giving them to the children, but also for their own preparation, the intellectual tendency of such references enters the teacher. The teacher thus becomes a distorted picture of intellectualism.

You could ask, then, how should teachers prepare themselves? When the teacher wants to teach something to the children, he or she learns the material from modern presentations. When I see where teachers get their material for preparation, I would like to put another book alongside the one the teacher is using, a book that is perhaps a century older than the teacher’s. It is not possible to use only books that are centuries old, but it would certainly help in many areas to use books that are a hundred years old along with more modern books on the same subject. Now, if people are teachers, they know what someone like Goethe or some other exemplary person wrote about one work of art or another, or about something in nature. The problem is that no one looks at what people two or three generations ago, at Goethe’s time, wrote about art, but these, along with more modern works, are certainly important. Even today, when we have so many outstanding things, you can gain something by using books that are a century or so old that treat subjects similar to the subjects of more modern works. That is very important. I have often mentioned that, for example, editions of Greek and Latin from the first half of the nineteenth century are like gold in contrast to the brass printed today. The grammar texts that are thirty or forty years old are much better than the modern presentations.

I think we need to take into account that our pedagogy must everywhere counter with a thoroughly artistic activity the rule of intellectualism present throughout modern thinking. We should avoid allowing modern systematic books to affect our teaching. The systematic presentation in modern books is narrow-minded and inartistic. People are ashamed to speak of anything artistic. Modern academics are ashamed to develop their own artistic style or to artistically divide things into chapters. We need to take these things into account in our own preparations.

I would like to take this opportunity, which has arisen from a number of circumstances, to ask you all the following question. During a meeting last night, I again had the feeling that you think preparing is very difficult. Someone said that Waldorf teachers normally sleep only from 5:30 until 7:30 in the morning. Everyone needs to recognize that is much too little. People need to understand that a really enormous amount of time is used to prepare for school. From that, it seems that preparation is difficult. I would like to ask in that regard if it is true that for one reason or another you can go to sleep only at 5:30. I would also like to know if the difficulty lies in the preparation, if it is really so difficult and requires so much time. Of course, that is subjective; nevertheless, I would like to pose this question now, at the beginning of our discussions, and ask you to tell me about it so we can talk about this today or at our next meeting.

Some teachers report about it.

Dr. Steiner: Are there any specific questions about preparation?

A teacher: I usually need a long time. I used Carus for teaching about the skeleton.

Dr. Steiner: The bones of the human being have not changed. You used a book that is a hundred years old, but it is important that you use the easiest sources. This is a case where much help could have been given. The teacher of one class could help the teacher of the following class.

An upper-grades teacher: I do not actually prepare for a specific class. Instead, I read a book about the whole subject I will be teaching. Then, I read an anthroposophical book connected with it, for example, The Riddles of Philosophy, for background on the development of consciousness within the period. I read something that brings me into a mood of that time. For the specific class period, I look for something, perhaps even a small detail, from which I can form the instruction.

Dr. Steiner: That is a very good method, to begin with something you are strongly interested in yourself that brings your soul into movement, so that you make some small discovery. In that way, you will get an idea during the class. You will notice that while you are with the children, things come to you more easily than when you sit and brood by yourself. That will not happen in history and geography until you have taught for a few years. It is particularly important when you are beginning a new period that you really try to form a comprehensive picture of what occurs during the entire period, possibly only in broad outlines, so that you know what is important in that period.

The same teacher later gave Dr. Steiner some additional information when he was visiting the teacher’s class. Dr. Steiner told the teacher that while using that method he actually thought of too many things. He needed to be careful not to overload the students with what he was interested in at the moment.

A teacher: In Latin grammar, I have the feeling it could be organized according to thinking, feeling, and willing, but it falls apart when I do it.

Dr. Steiner: To orient yourself, it would be a good idea, when you have three weeks free, to simply take one author, for instance, Livius, and select some sentences, then study the sentence structure empirically. Someone should do that.

I would like you to pay more attention to developing a certain feeling regarding the Socratic method. I would like you to try to develop a feeling so that you differentiate between what the children can simply repeat and what you should ask them. It is more exciting for the children when you tell them something than when you ask them something they cannot answer. You should not believe you can get the children to say something they cannot know. You should not overdo the Socratic method because you will tire the children too much. You need to develop a feeling for what you can ask, and what you need to say. You need to develop a certain tactfulness. I would now like to hear questions about what is currently going on.

A teacher asks about the school administration. Many things within the administration need to be done by everyone.

Dr. Steiner: This is an awkward problem, but I have given it a great deal of thought. This is so difficult and we can accomplish our intentions only when we carry it out with the general support of the entire faculty, or at least the vast majority of the faculty. On the other hand, the way it is accepted necessarily affects the way it is organized.

First of all, I would ask you to consider what should be included in this new area of organization. There are a large number of operations the person in the school house needs to do. We need to exclude these things since they are connected with the person in the house. Concerning everything in the administration that represents the school to the outside, I would recommend that a small group of three or four people from the faculty take up that work in the future. This group can only work in an alternating fashion, so that they work one after another as individuals, and they should meet with one another only in those cases where a common decision is valuable. In order not to violate our republican constitution, it should be a group. I would ask you to speak your thoughts about this freely and openly, even though you might think what you have to say may contradict this in the broadest sense. I would still ask you to say what you think.

A teacher: There are some things we all know only Y. can do, and other things for which other people are better suited.

Dr. Steiner: I thought that such a small group would always represent the faculty since members would alternate, particularly for limited tasks. This group could do what you just said from case to case, namely, designate one person as capable of one task or another. Nevertheless, there will still be differences of opinion.

A teacher: I think regulating the situation would be a help. It could be very useful for the school.

Dr. Steiner: We could think still further. We would form such a group and the entire faculty would declare itself in agreement when the group decides some member of the faculty should be designated for a particular task. That is what should happen. Preparation for faculty meetings and setting the agenda could also be part of the duties of the head of the administration, but that would make the job rather difficult. It is possible that preparation for the faculty meeting could be one of the tasks of the committee member who has the task of administering the school at the time. It is important to do this in complete harmony with the whole faculty.

A committee of seven teachers had formed concerned with questions of the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: Of course, I now need to ask what the faculty thinks of this committee that formed itself. It is important to find a way of reaching a final resolution of this problem. That committee seems very active, and we could make an assumption that through its efforts to reorganize the Anthroposophical Society, it wanted to prepare itself for administering the school. Of course, if that committee has the complete trust of the faculty, the question can be easily answered.

A teacher proposes expanding the committee.

Dr. Steiner: I only thought that if a group of people was already working with this question, it would be best if that group continued its work because it would save time.

A teacher makes a remark.

Dr. Steiner: You are mixing up two questions. I only wanted to ask who is in that group because I know such a group exists. Apparently that group has worked with these questions and—I must emphasize from the outset that we must do the whole thing harmoniously—the first question I wanted to ask is whether that group has the complete trust of the faculty, so that it can make proposals for a final form. It would be difficult for us to begin from zero today. It would be better, since I will probably be here again soon, if we could answer the question of whether that or an extended group has the full trust of the faculty, so that the group could prepare a proposal for a final resolution of the question for the next meeting. That is the question we need to answer today. I would like to hear what you have to say about this question of trust.

A teacher: This makes an impression that there are first- and second- class Waldorf teachers, but perhaps that feeling is based upon a false assumption.

Dr. Steiner: The fact that a group has formed is their business. Since, however, it has worked with these questions, we could, in the event there is trust in that group, think we could trust them with working out such a proposal. It is more complicated to consider this question in the faculty as a whole than it would be to have a group that has the trust of the faculty consider it. Some teachers agree.

A teacher: I have an awkward feeling about the formation of that group. The people who formed the group are the same ones who are so distracting for the administration.

A teacher: I have noticed that certain groups get together, and when you go by, you hear parts of important conversations. I became uncomfortable with that, and I went to a colleague and said that it was creating cliques. I was quite fearful that the faculty was dividing into those who were more or less active.

Dr. Steiner: That is certainly a problem. The Waldorf School can prosper only if the faculty is in harmony. It is not possible for everyone to find everyone else sympathetic, but that is a personal question and does not belong in the faculty. To the extent that the faculty represents the entire Waldorf School, the prosperity of this school depends upon the inner harmony of the faculty. There is a major difference in whether someone says to someone outside, “You are getting on my nerves,” and when that is said here in the faculty meeting. Here in our meetings and in the administration of the Waldorf School there are only teachers from the Waldorf School, and the difficulties arise due solely to the more democratic constitution of the school. Of course, difficulties do arise. I am certainly against using the terms “first- and second-class” here in the faculty. That would certainly be the beginning of very bad things if something like a first- and second-class of faculty and faculty cliques played a role in our discussions. These are things we must strictly keep out.

Basically, when such a group forms, we need to accept the fact that the group exists and not use it as an occasion to say bad things about it. If there were reason to do that, it would be the start of difficult times in the faculty. As long as the group has formed and exists as such, I would like to again ask to what extent we need to take that group into account. It is perhaps not at all necessary to say anything about that. The question has been posed because it has received an official duty and that group should work on proposals. Barring some misdeed, I do not see that it should have any significance whether it is that group or a completely different small group. The only thing that is important is the usefulness of the group, since the proposal will be presented to the whole faculty and discussed. The only question is one of trust, that is, whether you consider that group capable of making the proposals. When such remarks are made, it is difficult to see that there is even the slightest movement toward forming a faculty. That is something that must not happen. Here we must have only harmony.

A teacher: I have complete trust in the group, but I did want to bring out that there may be colleagues who do not.

Dr. Steiner: When I use the expression, “getting on my nerves,” I mean that one person makes another person nervous. The subject of the group’s work would be how to organize the administration. Thus, you would make them nervous.

A teacher: I do not distrust the group.

Another teacher: I do not feel there is a faculty within the faculty. I think all of my colleagues could agree to this group.

Dr. Steiner: Some things have been said that were not taken back, so we can assume we cannot do this in the way it was originally intended. I could just as well think that according to the impulses out of which the school and the faculty arose, I could create such a group. I am not doing this because suspicions have arisen. I would like to wait until things have become clearer. Some antagonisms are apparent.

The committee that works upon these questions needs to study such things in order to make proposals for the administration. I think six people would be enough.

Dr. Steiner has the faculty vote by secret ballot for a preparatory committee of six members.

Dr. Steiner: I would like to have the committee propose people who can do things.

A teacher asks about an educational conference in England.

Dr. Steiner: There is a possibility of another conference in England. I need to try to put these two things together. Perhaps we could agree to it in principle.

A teacher: The English people want to know if you would agree to inviting Waldorf teachers who can speak English.

Dr. Steiner: Of course, they can do that.