Your search for the keywords returned 29 hits:
Results 1 through 10:
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1958) — Lecture VII |
---|
My dear friends, In the remainder of the time at our disposal, I wish to say something about farm animals, orchards and vegetable gardening. We have not much time left; but in these branches of farming, too, we can have no fruitful starting-point unless we first bring about an insight into the underlying facts and conditions. We shall do this to-day, and pass on tomorrow to the more practical hints and applications. |
Moreover, we must learn to look with understanding at the birds. Modern humanity has no idea how greatly farming and forestry are affected by the, owing to the modern conditions of life, of certain kinds of birds from certain districts. Light must be thrown upon these things once more by that macrocosmic method which Spiritual Science is pursuing — for we may truly call it macrocosmic. |
I mean the inner kinship of the mammals to all that does not become tree and yet does not remain as a small plant — in other words, to the shrubs and bushes — the haze-lnut, for instance. To improve our stock of mammals in a farm or in a farming district, we shall often do well to plant in the landscape bushes or shrub-like growths. By their mere presence they have a beneficial effect. All things in Nature are in mutual interaction, once again. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1958) — Lecture VII |
---|
My dear friends, In the remainder of the time at our disposal, I wish to say something about farm animals, orchards and vegetable gardening. We have not much time left; but in these branches of farming, too, we can have no fruitful starting-point unless we first bring about an insight into the underlying facts and conditions. We shall do this to-day, and pass on tomorrow to the more practical hints and applications. To-day I must ask you to follow me in matters which lie yet a little farther afield from present-day points of view. Time was, indeed, when they were thoroughly familiar to the more instinctive insight of the farmer; to-day they are to all intents and purposes terra incognita. The entities occurring in Nature (minerals, plants, animals — we will leave man out for the moment) are frequently studied as though they stood there all alone. Nowadays, one generally considers a single plant by itself. Then, from the single plant, one proceeds to consider a plant-species by itself; and other plant-species beside it. So it is all prettily pigeonholed into species and genera, and all the rest that we are then supposed to know. Yet in Nature it is not so at all. In Nature — and, indeed, throughout the Universal being — all things are in mutual interaction; the one is always working on the other. In our materialistic age, scientists only follow up the coarser effects of one upon the other—as for instance when one creature is eaten or digested by another, or when the dung of the animals comes on to the fields. Only these coarse interactions are traced. But in addition to these coarse interactions, finer ones, too, are constantly taking place — effects transmitted by finer forces and finer substances too—by warmth, by the chemical-ether principle that is for ever working in the atmosphere, and by the life-ether. We must take these finer interactions into account. Otherwise we shall make no progress in certain domains of our farm-work. Notably we must observe these more intimate relationships of Nature when we are dealing with the life, together on the farm, of plant and animal. Here again, we must not only consider those animals which are undoubtedly very near to us—like cattle, horses, sheep and so on. We must also observe with intelligence, let us say, the many coloured world of insects, hovering around the plant-world during a certain reason of the year. Moreover, we must learn to look with understanding at the birds. Modern humanity has no idea how greatly farming and forestry are affected by the, owing to the modern conditions of life, of certain kinds of birds from certain districts. Light must be thrown upon these things once more by that macrocosmic method which Spiritual Science is pursuing — for we may truly call it macrocosmic. Here we can apply some of the ideal we have already let work upon us; we shall thus gain further insight. Look at a fruit-tree — a pear-tree, apple-tree or plum-tree. Outwardly Seen, to begin with, it is quite different from a herbaceous plant or cereal. Indeed, this would apply to any tree — it is quite different. But we must learn to perceive in what way the tree is different; otherwise we shall never understand the function of fruit in Nature's household (I am speaking now of such fruit as grows on trees). Let us consider the tree. What is it in the household of Nature? If we look at it with understanding, we must include in the plant-nature of the tree any more than grows out of it in the thin stalks — in the green leaf-bearing stalks — and in the flowers and fruit. All this grows out of the tree, as the herbaceous plant grows out of the earth. The tree is really “earth” for that which grows upon its boughs and branches. It is the earth, grown up like a hillock; shaped — it is rate—in a rather more living way than the earth out of which our herbaceous plants and cereals spring forth. To understand the free, we must say: There is the thick tree trunk (and in a sense the boughs and branches still belong to this). Out of all this the real plant grows forth. Leaves, flowers and fruit grow out of this; they are the real plant—rooted in the trunk and branches of the tree, as the herbaceous plants and cereals are rooted in the Earth. Here the question will at once arise: Is this “plant” which grows on the tree — and which is therefore describable as a parasitic growth, more or less — is it actually rooted? An actual root is not to be found in the tree. To understand the matter rightly, we must say: This plant which grows on the tree — unfolding up there its flowers and leaves and Stems — has lost its roots. But a plant is not whole if it has no roots. It must have a root. Therefore we must ask ourselves: Where is the root of this plant? The point is simply that the root is invisible to crude external observation. In this case we must not merely want to see a root we must understand what a root is. A true comparison will help us forward here. Suppose I were to plant in the soil a whole number of herbaceous plants, very near together, so that their roots intertwined, and merged with one another — the one root winding round the other, until it all become a regular mush of roots, merging one into another. As you can well imagine, such a complex of roots would not allow itself to remain a mere tangle; it would grow organised into a single entity. Down there in the soil the saps and fluids would flow into one another. There would be an organised root-complex — roots flowing into one another. We could not distinguish where the several roots began or ended. A common root-being would arise for these plants (Diagram 15). So it would be. No such thing need exist in reality, but this illustration will enable us to understand. Here is the soil of the earth: here I insert all my plants. Down there, all the roots coalesce, until they form a regular surface — a continuous root-stratum. Once more, you would not know where the one root begins and the other ends. Now the very thing I have here sketched as an hypothesis is actually present in the tree. The plant which grows on the free has lost its root. Relatively speaking, it is even separated from its root — only it is united with it, as it were, in a more ethereal way. What I have hypothetically sketched on the board is actually there in the tree, as the cambium layer — the cambium. That is how we must regard the roots of these plants that grow out of the tree: they are replaced by the cambium. Although the cambium does not look like roots, it is the living, growing layer, constantly forming new cells, so that the plant-life of the free grows out of it, just as the life of a herbaceous plant grows up above out of the root below. Here, then, is the free with its cambium layer, the growing formative layer, which is able to create plant-cells. (The other layers in the free would not be able to create fresh cells). Now you can thoroughly see the point. In the tree with its cambium or formative layer, the earth-realm itself is actually bulged out; it has grown outward into the airy regions. And having thus grown outward into the air, it needs more inwardness, more intensity of life, than the earth otherwise has, i.e. than it has where the ordinary root is in it. Now we begin to understand the free. In the First place, we understand it as a strange entity whose function is to separate the plants that grow upon it — stem, blossom and fruit — from their roots, uniting them only through the Spirit, that is, through the ethereal. We must learn to look with macrocosmic intelligence into the mysteries of growth. But it goes still further. For I now beg you observe: What happens through the fact that a free comes into being? It is as follows: That which encompasses the free has a different plant-nature in the air and outer warmth than that which grows in air and warmth immediately on the soil, unfolding the herbaceous plant that springs out of the earth directly (Diagram 16). Once more, it is a different plant-world. For it is far more intimately related to the surrounding astrality. Down here, the astrality in air and warmth is expelled, so that the air and warmth may become mineral for the Bake of man and animal. Look at a plant growing directly out of the soil. True, it is hovered-around, enshrouded in an astral cloud. Up there, however, round about the free, the astrality is far denser. Once more, it is far denser. Our trees are gatherings of astral substance; quite clearly, they are gatherers of astral substance. In this realm it is easiest of all for one to attain to a certain higher development. If you make the necessary effort, you can easily become esoteric in these spheres. I do not say clairvoyant, but you can easily become clair-sentient with respect to the sense of smell, especially if you acquire a certain sensitiveness to the diverse aromas that proceed from plants growing on the soil, and on the other hand from fruit-tree plantations — even if only in the blossoming stage — and from the woods and forests! Then you will feel the difference between a plant-atmosphere poor in astrality, such as you can smell among the herbaceous plants growing on the earth, and a plant-world rich in astrality such as you have in your nostrils when you sniff what is so beautifully wafted from the treetops. Accustom yourself to specialise your sense of smell — to distinguish, to differentiate, to individualise, as between the scent of earthly plants and the scent of trees. Then, in the former case you will become clair-sentient to a thinner astrality, and in the latter case to a denser astrality. You see, the farmer can easily become clair-sentient. Only in recent times he has male less use of this than in the time of the old clairvoyance. The countryman, as I said, can become clair-sentient with regard to the sense of smell. Let us observe where this will lead us. We must now ask: What of the polar opposite, the counterpart of that richer astrality which the plant — parasitically growing on the tree — brings about in the neighbourhood of the tree? In other words, what happens by means of the cambium? What does the cambium itself do? Far, far around, the free makes the spiritual atmosphere inherently richer in astrality. What happens, then, when the herbaceous life grows out of the free up yonder? The tree has a certain inner vitality or ethericity; it has a certain intensity of life. Now the cambium damps down this life a little more, so that it becomes slightly more mineral. While, up above, a rich astrality arises all around the tree, the cambium works in such a way that, there within, the ethericity is poorer. Within the tree arises poverty of ether as compared to the plant. Once more, here within, it will be somewhat poorer in ether. And as, through the cambium, a relative poverty of ether is engendered in the tree, the root in its turn will be influenced. The roots of the tree become mineral — far more so than the roots of herbaceous plants. And the root, being more mineral, deprives the earthly soil — observe, we still remain within the realms of life — of some of its ethericity. This makes the earthly soil rather more dead in the environment of the free than it would be in the environment of a herbaceous plant. All this you must clearly envisage. Now whatever arises in this way will always involve something of deep significance in the household of Nature as a whole. Let us then enquire: what is the inner significance, for Nature, of the astral richness in the tree's environment above, and the etheric poverty in the realm of the free-roots? We only need Look about us, and we can find how these things work themselves out in Nature's household. The fully developed insect, in effect, lives and moves by virtue of this rich astrality which is wafted through the tree-tops. Take, on the other hand, what becomes poorer in ether, down below in the soil. (This poverty of ether extends, of course, throughout the tree, for the Spiritual always works through the whole, as I explained yesterday when speaking of human Karma). That which is poorer in ether, down below, works through the larvae. Thus, if the earth had no trees, there would be no insects on the earth. The trees make it possible for the insects to be. The insects fluttering around the parts of the tree which are above the earth — fluttering around the woods and forests as a whole — they have their very life through the existence of the woods. Their larvae, too, live by the very existence of the woods. Here you have a further indication of the inner relationship between the root-nature and the sub-terrestrial animal world. From the tree we can best learn what I have now explained; here it becomes most evident. But the fast is: What becomes very evident in the tree is present in a more delicate way throughout the whole plant-world. In every plant there is a certain tendency to become tree-like. In every plant, the root with its environment strives to let go the ether; while that which grows upward tends to draw in the astral more densely. The free-becoming tendency is there is every plant. Hence, too, in every plant the same relationship to the insect world emerges, which I described for the special case of the tree. But that is not all. This relation to the insect-world expands into a relation to the whole animal kingdom. Take, for example, the insect larvae: truly, they only live upon the earth by virtue of the tree-roots being there. However, in times gone by, such larvae have also evolved into other kinds of animals, similar to them, but undergoing the whole of their animal life in a more or less larval condition. These creatures then emancipate themselves, so to speak, from the tree-root-nature, and live more near to the rest of the root-world — that is, they become associated with the root-nature of herbaceous plants. A wonderful fast emerges here: Certain of these sub-terrestrial creatures (which, it is true, are already somewhat removed from the larval nature) develop the faculty to regulate the ethereal vitality within the soil whenever it becomes too great. If the soil is tending to become too strongly living — if ever its livingness grows rampant — these subterranean animals see to it that the over-intense vitality is released. Thus they become wonderful regulators, safety-valves for the vitality inside the Earth. These golden creatures — for they are of the greatest value to the earth — are none other than the earth-worms. Study the earth-worm — how it lives together with the soil. These worms are wonderful creatures: they leave to the earth precisely as much ethericity as it needs for plant-growth. There under the earth you have the earth-worms and similar creatures distantly reminiscent of the larva. Indeed, in certain soils — which you can easily tell — we ought to take special care to allow for the due breeding of earth-worms. We should soon see how beneficially such a control of the animal world beneath the earth would react on the vegetation, and thus in turn upon the animal world in general, of which we shall speak in a moment. Now there is again a distant similarity between certain animals and the fully evolved, i.e. the winged, insect-world. These animals are the birds. In course of evolution a wonderful thing has taken place as between the insects and the birds. I will describe it in a picture. The insects said, one day: We do not feel quite strong enough to work the astrality which sparkles and Sprays around the trees. We therefore, for our part, will use the treeing tendency of other plants; there we will flutter about, and to you birds we will leave the astrality that surrounds the trees. So there came about a regular division of labour between the bird-world and the butterfly-world, and now the two together work most wonderfully. These winged creatures, each and all, provide for a proper distribution of astrality, wherever it is needed on the surface of the Earth or in the air. Remove these winged creatures, and the astrality would fail of its true service; and you would soon detect it in a kind of stunting of the vegetation. For the two things belong together: the winged animals, and that which grows out of the Earth into the air. Fundamentally, the one is unthinkable without the other. Hence the farmer should also be careful to let the insects and birds flutter around in the right way. The farmer himself should have some understanding of the rare of birds and insects. For in great Nature — again and again I must say it — everything, everything is connected. These things are most important for a true insight: therefore let us place them before our souls most clearly. Through the flying world of insects, we may say, the right astralisation is brought about in the air. Now this astralisation of the air is always in mutual relation to the woods or forests, which guide the astrality in the right way just as the blood in our body is guided by certain forces. What the wood does—not only for its immediate vicinity but far and away around it (for these things work over wide areas) — what the wood does in this direction has to be done by quite other things in unwooded districts. This we should learn to understand. The growth of the soil is subject to quite other laws in districts where forest, Field and meadow alternate, than in wide, unwooded stretches of country. There are districts of the Earth where we can tell at a glance that they became rich in forests long before man did anything—for in certain matters Nature is wiser than man, even to this day. And we may well assume, if there is forest by Nature in a given district, it has its good use for the surrounding farmlands — for the herbaceous and graminaceous vegetation. We should have sufficient insight, on no account to exterminate the forest in such districts, but to preserve it well. Moreover, the Earth by and by changes, through manifold cosmic and climatic influences. Therefore we should have the heart — when we see that the vegetation is becoming stunted, not merely to make experiments for the fields or on the fields alone, but to increase the wooded areas a little. Or if we notice that the plants are growing rampant and have not enough seeding-force, then we should set to work and make some clearings in the forest — take certain surfaces of wooded land away: In districts which are predestined to be wooded, the regulation of woods and forests is an essential part of agriculture, and should indeed be thought of from the spiritual side. It is of a far-reaching significance. Moreover, we may say: the world of worms, and larvae too, is related to the limestone — that is, to the mineral nature of the earth; while the world of insects and birds — all that flutters and flies stands in relation to the astral. That which is there under the surface of the earth — the world of worms and larvae — is related to the mineral, especially the chalky, limestone nature, whereby the ethereal is duly conducted away, as I told you a few days ago from another standpoint. This is the task of the limestone — and it fulfils its task in mutual interaction with the larva- and insect-world. Thus you will see, as we begin to specialise what I have given, ever new things will dawn on us — things which were undoubtedly recognised with true feeling in the old time of instinctive clairvoyance. (I should not trust myself to expound them with equal certainty.) The old instincts have been lost. Intellect has lost all the old instincts — nay, has exterminated them. That is the trouble with materialism — men have become so intellectual, so clever. When they were less intellectual, though they were not so clever, they were far wiser; out of their feeling they knew how to treat things, even as we must learn to do once more, for in a conscious way we must learn once more to approach the Wisdom that prevails in all things. We shall learn it by something which is not clever at all, namely, by Spiritual Science. Spiritual Science is not clever: it strives rather for Wisdom. Nor can we rest content with the abstract repetition of words: “Man consists of physical body, etheric body,” etc., etc., which one can learn off by heart like any cookery-book. The point is for us to introduce the knowledge of these things in all domains — to see it inherent everywhere. Then we are presently guided to distinguish how things are in Nature, especially if we become clairvoyant in the way I explained. Then we discover that the bird world becomes harmful if it has not the “needle-wood” or coniferous forests beside it, to transform what it brings about into good use and benefit. Thereupon our vision is still further sharpened, and a fresh relationship emerges. When we have recognised this peculiar relation of the birds to the coniferous forests, then we perceive another kinship. It emerges clearly. To begin with, it is a fine and intimate kinship — fine as are those which I have mentioned now. But it can readily be changed into a stronger, more robust relationship. I mean the inner kinship of the mammals to all that does not become tree and yet does not remain as a small plant — in other words, to the shrubs and bushes — the haze-lnut, for instance. To improve our stock of mammals in a farm or in a farming district, we shall often do well to plant in the landscape bushes or shrub-like growths. By their mere presence they have a beneficial effect. All things in Nature are in mutual interaction, once again. But we can go farther. The animals are not so foolish as men are; they very quickly “tumble to it” that there is this kinship. See how they love the shrubs and bushes. This love is absolutely inborn in them, and so they like to get at the shrubs to eat them. They soon begin to take what they need, which has a wonderfully regulating effect on their remaining fodder. Moreover, when we trace these intimate relationships in Nature, we gain a new insight into the essence of what is harmful. For just as the coniferous forests are intimately related to the birds and the bushes to the mammals, so again all that is mushroom — or fungus-like— has an intimate relation to the lower animal world — to the bacteria and such-like creatures, and notably the harmful parasites. The harmful parasites go together with the mushroom or fungus-nature; indeed they develop wherever the fungus-nature appears scattered and dispersed. Thus there arise the well-known plant-diseases and harmful growths on a coarser and larger scale. If now we have not only woods but meadows in the neighbourhood of the farm, these meadows will be very useful, inasmuch as they provide good soil for mushrooms and toadstools; and we should see to it that the soil of the meadow is well-planted with such growths. If there is near the farm a meadow rich in mushrooms — it need not even be very large — the mushrooms, being akin to the bacteria and other parasitic creatures, will keep them away from the rest. For the mushrooms and toadstools, more than the other plants, tend to hold together with these creatures. In addition to the methods I have indicated for the destruction of these pests, it is possible on a larger scale to keep the harmful microscopic creatures away from the farm by a proper distribution of meadows. So we must look for a due distribution of wood and forest, orchard and shrubbery, and meadow-lands with their natural growth of mushrooms. This is the very essence of good farming, and we shall attain far more by such means, even if we reduce to some extent the surface available for tillage. It is no true economy to exploit the surface of the earth to such an extent as to rid ourselves of all the things I have here mentioned in the hope of increasing our crops. Your large plantations will become worse in quality, and this will more than outweigh the extra amount you gain by increasing your tilled acreage at the cost of these other things. You cannot truly engage in a pursuit so intimately connected with Nature as farming is, unless you have insight into these mutual relationships of Nature's husbandry. The time has come for us to bring home to ourselves those wider aspects which will reveal, quite generally speaking, the relation of plant to animal-nature, and vice versa, of animal to plant-nature. What is an animal? What is the world of plants? (for the world of plants we must speak rather of a totality — the plant-world as a whole.) Once more, what is an animal, and what is the world of plants? We must discover what the essential relation is; only so shall we understand how to feed our animals. We shall not feed them properly unless we see the true relationship of plant and animal. What are the animals? Well may you look at their outer forms! You can dissect them, if you will, till you get down to the skeleton, in the forms of which you may well take delight; you may even study them in the way I have described. Theo you may study the musculature, the nerves and so forth. All this, however, will not lead you to perceive what the animals really are in the whole household of Nature. You will only perceive it if you observe what it is in the environment to which the animal is directly and intimately related. What the animal receives from its environment and assimilates directly in its nerves-and-senses system and in a portion of its breathing system, is in effect all that which passes first through air and warmth. Essentially, in its own proper being, the animal is a direct assimilator of air and warmth — through the nerves-and-senses system. Diagrammatically, we can draw the animal in this way: In all that is there in its periphery, in its environment — in the nerves-and-senses system and in a portion of the breathing system — the animal is itself. In its own essence, it is a creature that lives directly in the air and warmth. It has an absolutely direct relation to the air and warmth (Diagram 17). Notably out of the warmth its bony system is formed — where the Moon- and Sun-influences are especially transmitted through the warmth. Out of the air, its muscular system is formed. Here again, the forces of Sun and Moon are working through the air. But the animal cannot relate itself thus directly to the earthy and watery elements. It cannot assimilate water and earth thus directly. It must indeed receive the earth and water into its inward parts; it must therefore have the digestive tract, passing inward from outside. With all that it has become through the warmth and air, it then assimilates the water and the earth inside it — by means of its metabolic and a portion of its breathing system.The breathing system passes over into the metabolic system. With a portion of the breathing and a portion of the metabolic system, the animal assimilates “earth” and “water” In effect, before it can assimilate earth and water, the animal itself must be there by virtue of the air and warmth. That is how the animal lives in the domain of earth and water. (The assimilation-process is of course, as I have often indicated, an assimilation more of forces than of substances). Now let us ask, in face of the above, what is a plant? The answer is: the plant has an immediate relation to earth and water, just as the animal has to air and warmth. The plant—also through a kind of breathing and through something remotely akin to the sense system — absorbs into itself directly all that is earth and water; just as the animal absorbs the air and warmth. The plant lives directly with the earth and water. Now you may say: Having recognised that the plant lives directly with earth and water, just as the animal does with air and warmth, may we not also conclude that the plant assimilates the air and the warmth internally, even as the animal assimilates the earth and water? Ne, it is not so. To find the spiritual truths, we cannot merely conclude by analogy from what we know. The fact is this: Whereas the animal consumes the earthy and watery material and assimilates them internally, the plant does not consume but, on the contrary, secretes — gives off —the air and warmth, which it experiences in conjunction with the earthy soil. Air and warmth, therefore, do not go in — at least, they do not go in at all far. On the contrary they go out; instead of being consumed by the plant, they are given off, excreted, and this excretion-process is the important point. Organically speaking, the plant is in all respects an inverse of the animal — a true inverse. The excretion of air and warmth has for the plant the same importance as the consumption of food for the animal. In the same sense in which the animal lives by absorption of food, the plant lives by excretion of air and warmth. This, I would say, is the virginal quality of the plant. By nature, it does not want to consume things greedily for itself, but, on the contrary, it gives away what the animal takes from the world, and lives thereby. Thus the plant gives, and lives by giving. Observe this give and take, and you perceive once more what played so great a part in the old instinctive knowledge of these things. The saying I have here derived from anthroposophical study: “The plant in the household of Nature gives, and the animal takes,” was universal in an old instinctive and clairvoyant insight into Nature. In human beings who were sensitive to these things, some of this insight survived into later times. In Goethe you will often find this saying: Everything in Nature lives by give and take. Look through Goethe's works and you will soon find it. He did not fully understand it any longer, but he revived it from old usage and tradition; he felt that this proverb describes something very true in Nature. Those who came after him no longer understood it. To this day they do not understand what Goethe meant when he spoke of “give and take.” Even in relation to the breathing process — its interplay with the metabolism — Goethe speaks of “give and take.” Clearly-unclearly, he uses this word. Thus we have seen that forest and orchard, shrubbery and bush are in a certain way regulators to give the right form and development to the growth of plants over the earth's surface. Meanwhile beneath the earth the lower animals — larvae and worm-like creatures and the like, in their unison with limestone — act as a regulator likewise. So must we regard the relation of tilled fields, orchards and cattle-breeding in our farming work. In the remaining hour that is still at our disposal, we shall indicate the practical applications, enough for the good Experimental Circle to work out and develop. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1938) — Introductory Lecture |
---|
Between the 7th and 16th of June I was able to find the time to fulfil this wish. Koberwitz near Dresden, where Count Keyserlingk is running a big farming estate in an exemplary manner, was a good place for such a course. It was natural to speak of agriculture in surroundings where the audience could have around them the things and processes to which the lectures referred. |
But whoever grasps that to begin with, our whole attitude to the natural kingdom needs a new orientation, since science hitherto with its materialistic-mechanistic methods had to stop short before the life phen and whoever is prepared to adopt this new attitude, will feel compelled to make a change in many important points of his farming, but he will find also that the new orientation is indispensable and — if properly carried out — yields practical success. No doubt that the changeover of the estates to the new methods must be done slowly, systematically and in organic connection, and many primary indications given in this course need practical elaborations and modifications according to the individual farm and its geographical and cultural peculiarities — but this is the case with every method. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1938) — Introductory Lecture |
---|
Since Rudolf Steiner had given so many new impulses brought forth by his Spiritual Science (Anthroposophy) and bearing upon every field of knowledge and practical activity of life, he was also approached by farmers who asked him for, help with spiritual insight and practical advice concerning the difficulties, unsolved questions and problems of agriculture. So, for instance, it was many years ago when Herr Ernst Stegemann and Count Lerchenfeld as practical farmers had received new points of view for an agriculture founded on spiritual knowledge; and afterwards in Dornach at the Goetheanum I had the privilege, together with Herr E. Pfeiffer, to carry out several experiments under the personal guidance of Dr. Steiner. We were the first to produce some of the preparations later on mentioned in this, lecture course, we exposed them to the influence of the rhythms of the seasons; and R. Steiner in spite of his tremendous overburdening did, not refuse to come to the piece of land lying far off and to test the first preparations which had become ready; he then gave help and advice for the further development of the preparing methods and their application and took things in hand himself. An increasing number of agriculturists longed for a systematic laying down of the new principles and eventually in Spring 1924 Count Alexander Keyserlingk who had been sent by his father Count Karl Keyserlingk to Dornach succeeded in securing Dr. Steiner's promise to give a lecture course on agriculture at Koberwitz Castle (Silesia, Germany). Dr. Steiner wrote in the Members News Sheet of 22nd June, 1927, “It has been a long cherished wish of a number of Anthroposophists working in the agricultural field to have from me a lecture course which should contain all that can be said about agriculture from the point of view of Anthroposophy. Between the 7th and 16th of June I was able to find the time to fulfil this wish. Koberwitz near Dresden, where Count Keyserlingk is running a big farming estate in an exemplary manner, was a good place for such a course. It was natural to speak of agriculture in surroundings where the audience could have around them the things and processes to which the lectures referred. It is thus that meetings of this sort receive their mood and colouring. As my subject I took the nature of the produce of agriculture and the conditions under which this can arise. The considerations aimed at practical points of view for agriculture, which should add to the results of modern practical and scientific experience the results of a study along spiritual scientific lines. Our friend, Herr Hegemann, began right from the start of the meeting to speak of the things which he connected with conversations on agriculture which I had had with him some time ago. He had as a matter of fact carried out on his farm practical experiments on that basis. He put before the audience his results and wishes. His speech was followed by a proposal of Count Keyserlingk to begin with immediate experiment according to what was to be given in the course. This aim he proposed to be to a group of professional agriculturists. Such a group was actually formed at a subsequent meeting of the farmers present. It was agreed to fake the contents of the course for the time being as hints which will not be discussed outside the circle of those attending the course; but to use these hints as the basis of experiments which are to bring the material into a form in which it can be published. This circle (community) ... was declared to be a group of members which form part of the Natural Science Section at the Goetheanum. This Section will continually indicate the direction and aims of the experimental work.” With the impulses of this course which open unbounded prospects for the future the attending members returned to their work, strengthened with new insight, with new hopes and forces. And many a practical farmer who — through the de-spiritualising materialistic tendencies in industry had felt his profession to be a burden, could see again the deep spiritual background of just this profession and with wholly transformed view and with new love resumed his work upon animal, plant and soil. The problems of agriculture through the influence of nourishment upon the life of each individual and that of the community have become the most central problems of our time, much more so since numerous farmers in the civilized countries have come to the conviction that the methods hitherto applied materialistically and only based upon observation of mere matter have led into a blind alley and have brought all civilized material into decay. A new foundation for agriculture is certainly a turning point important for all human history. This is what Rudolf Steiner himself felt. I shall never forget how he in his modest manner said to me on the journey back from this course; “Now we have gone another great step forward.” Whoever expects this course to give a list of easily manufactured preparations whose application will pay in very short time, will not have any understanding of what this course means and will better put it aside without reading it. But whoever grasps that to begin with, our whole attitude to the natural kingdom needs a new orientation, since science hitherto with its materialistic-mechanistic methods had to stop short before the life phen and whoever is prepared to adopt this new attitude, will feel compelled to make a change in many important points of his farming, but he will find also that the new orientation is indispensable and — if properly carried out — yields practical success. No doubt that the changeover of the estates to the new methods must be done slowly, systematically and in organic connection, and many primary indications given in this course need practical elaborations and modifications according to the individual farm and its geographical and cultural peculiarities — but this is the case with every method. Rudolf Steiner emphasised this point often very seriously. Whoever enters into the living experience of the whole teaching will find soon what those who began as the first have already seen in all details that in reasonable and careful carrying out the most valuable practical result will be achieved. Rudolf Steiner's wish to see Experimental Circles arise could already be fulfilled in several European countries? and in many non-European countries and continents centres have been formed where the principles of this renewed agriculture are practically applied. In order to transmit to beginners in these methods the experiences of those who have worked for years with them and in order to secure a final success through exchange of views and ideas, to avoid unnecessary mistake and to broadcast supplementary discoveries and improvements of the “Bio-Dynamic methods of Agriculture,” the Natural Science Section at the Goetheanum and the Experimental Circles in the different countries holds meetings and informative courses*). I have to thank those who have helped to produce this second (German) editions Herr E. Pfeiffer for his essential help in revision and correction, Frau L. Kolisko for lending her shorthand report which gave important corrections of the text and supplements of the first edition, Herr E. Vojeh for working out the index, and Fräulein E. Riese for copying the diagrams. This new edition has been supplemented by an Appendix with the summary of some agricultural conversations which Dr. Steiner had with several personalities. Dornach, Switzerland. November, 1929. On behalf of the Natural Science |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1938) — Lecture VII |
---|
Indeed, we must learn to look with understanding at bird-life too. Humanity to-day is very far from realising how much farming and forestry are affected by the expulsion from certain districts of certain kinds of birds as a result of modern conditions. Here again light can be thrown on the subject by conceptions given by Spiritual Science. |
The two things are connected; the world of winged animals and all that grows out of the soil into the air. The one is unthinkable without the other. In farming, therefore, we must see to it that birds and insects fly about as they were meant to do; and the farmer should know something about the breeding and rearing of birds and insects. For in Nature — I must repeat this again and again — everything, everything is connected. |
The extension of the tilled area is counterbalanced by a lowering in the quality of the produce because the increase in the cultivated area is made at the cost of the other factors. One cannot be engaged in a thing like farming where Nature is the “manager,” without realising the inter-connections and inter — actions which exist between all her processes. Now let us look at something which will make clear to us the relation of plant to animal and, conversely, of animal to plant. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1938) — Lecture VII |
---|
I propose to devote the time that remains at our disposal to the consideration of the rearing of live-stock and the cultivation of fruit and vegetables. Naturally there will not be time to treat the subject at very great length, but in order to obtain a fruitful starting point, we must gain insight into all the factors which come into consideration. We shall do this to-day, and tomorrow we shall pass on to the more practical aspect of the subject. I shall ask you to-day to join me in the consideration of rather more recondite matters, to follow me into what is nowadays an almost unknown territory, although the instinctive husbandry of the past was thoroughly conversant with it. The beings in Nature — minerals, plants, animals — we will disregard man for the moment — are often regarded as though, they existed in completely separate realms. It is the custom to-day to look at a plant as though it existed by and for itself, and similarly one species of plant is also regarded as being isolated from other plant species. So these things are neatly sorted and fitted into genera and species, as though they were being put into boxes. But things are not like this in Nature. In Nature — nay, in the world — being as a whole, all things are in mutual interaction. One thing is always being affected by another. In these materialistic days, only the more palpable effects of this interaction are noted, such as when one thing is eaten or digested by another, or when the dung of animals is used for the soil. In addition to these, however, finer interactions amongst more delicate forces and substances are continually taking place: through warmth, through the chemical-etheric element which is continually at work in the atmosphere, and through the life-ether. Unless we take account of these more delicate interactions, we shall make no progress, at any rate in certain departments of Agriculture. In particular we must look to those more intimate interactions which take place in Nature when we have to deal with the life together of plant and animal on the farm. We must look with understanding not only upon those animals which undoubtedly stand close to us, such as cattle, horses, sheep, etc., but also, for example, upon the manifold insect world, which during a certain period of the year hovers around the plants. Indeed, we must learn to look with understanding at bird-life too. Humanity to-day is very far from realising how much farming and forestry are affected by the expulsion from certain districts of certain kinds of birds as a result of modern conditions. Here again light can be thrown on the subject by conceptions given by Spiritual Science. Let us therefore extend some of these ideas which have been working upon us and come by their help to a yet wider vision. A fruit tree — apple, pear or plum — is something completely different in kind from a herbaceous or cereal plant as any kind of tree outwardly is indeed. But, putting aside any preconceived notions, we must find out wherein the peculiarity of the tree lies. Otherwise we shall never understand the function fulfilled by fruits in the economy of Nature. I am speaking, of course, of the fruit that grows on trees. If we look at a tree with understanding we shall find that the only parts of it which can really be reckoned as plant are the tender twigs, the green leaves and their stalks, the blossoms, the fruits. These grow out of the tree just as herbaceous plants grow out of the soil, the tree being in fact “earth” in relation to the parts that grow out of it. It is as though the soil were heaped up — but a somewhat more quickened soil than the ordinary soil in which our herbaceous and cereal plants grow. If, therefore, we want to understand the nature of a tree, we must observe that it consists of the thick trunk, to which are attached the branches and boughs. On this ground the specifically plant-like parts grow, viz. leaves and blossoms, which are as much rooted in the trunk and branches as cereal and herbaceous plants are rooted in the earth. The question therefore arises: is this plant this plant-like part — which may be regarded as more or less parasitical, really rooted in the tree? We cannot discover an actual root on the trees. We conclude, therefore, that this plant, which develops its leaves and blossoms and twigs up aloft, must have lost its roots in growing on the tree. But no plant is complete without its root. It must have a root. Where, then, does the actual root of this plant reside? II">Now, the root is only invisible for our limited outer vision. In this case one does not see it, but has to understand where it is. What do we mean by this? The following concrete comparison may help. Suppose I planted a large number of herbaceous plants so closely together that their roots were intertwined and grew into each other, forming a completely matted mass or pap of roots. You can well imagine that this pap does not remain chaotic, but that it organises itself into a unity so that the sap-bearing vessels unite with each other. In this organised root-pap, it would not be possible to distinguish where one root finished. and the other began, and a common root-organ would arise (See Diag. No. 12). A thing like that does not, of course, exist in the soil, but such a root-formation is actually present in the The plants that grow on the tree have lost their root, have become relatively separated from it and are only, as it were, etherically connected with it. What I have drawn hypothetic ally is really the layer of cambium (a layer of living cells lying between the last-formed wood and the outer bark) in the tree and we cannot regard the roots of these plants otherwise than as having been replaced by the cambium. From this tissue, which is always forming new cells, these plants unfold themselves just as from the root below an herbaceous plant unfolds above the soil. We can now begin to understand what the tree really is. The tree with its cambium — which is the only cell-producing layer in the tree, is actually heaped-up earth, which has grown upwards into the air element and therefore requires a more interiorised form of life than is present in the ordinary soil which contains the root. Thus, we must regard the tree as a very curious entity, whose function it is to separate the “plants” growing on it (twigs, blossoms, fruit; from their roots; an entity which places between them and their roots a distance which is bridged only by spirit — or more strictly by the Etheric. It is in this way we need to look, with a macro-cosmic understanding, into the facts of growth. But the matter goes much farther. What results arise from the existence of a tree? That which is around the tree in the air and outer warmth is of a different plant-nature from that which grows up from the soil in the air and warmth and forms the herbaceous plant. It is a plant-world of a different order, possessing a far more intimate relation with the surrounding astral element. Lower down that element is eliminated from the air and warmth in order to make them mineral-like, so that they can be used by man and beast. [See Lecture II. They become “dead” air and warmth.] It is true, as I have said, that the plant we see rowing upon the ground is surrounded, as with a cloud. v the astral element. But around the tree, the astral element is far denser. So much so, that we may say: Our trees are definitely collectors of astral substance. Here one might say it is quite easy to reach a higher development and become “esoteric” — I do not mean clairvoyant but clair-sentient as to the sense of smell. One has only to acquire the capacity for distinguishing between the scent of plants growing in the ground, the peculiar smell of orchards, especially in the spring when they are in flower, and the aroma of forests. Then one is able to tell the difference between a plant atmosphere poor in astral elements, such as that of herbaceous plants growing in the soil and an atmosphere such as we sniff with such pleasure when the scent of trees is wafted in our direction. And if you train your sense of smell to distinguish between the scent of soil-grown (herbaceous) plants and the scent of trees, you will have developed “clear-smelling” for the thinner and for the denser forms of the astral element. The countryman, as you see, can very easily acquire this “clear-smelling” though this faculty, common in the old days of instinctive clairvoyance, has been much neglected in recent times. If, now, we realise the consequences to which this may lead the question will arise: What is happening in that part of the tree which may be regarded as the opposite pole from the “parasitical” plants on the tree which collect this astral element. What is happening through the cambium? Now. the tree makes the atmosphere far and wide around it richer in astral element. What happens while the “parasite” growth goes on above in the tree? The tree here has a certain inner vitality, a powerful etheric life in it. The cambium tones down this vitality, making it more mineral in nature. “While about the upper part of the tree an enrichment of the astral substance is going on, the cambium causes an impoverishment of the etheric life in the tree. The tree within is deprived of etheric life as compared with the herbaceous plant. In consequence, this produces a change in the root. The root of the tree becomes more mineral, far more mineral than the roots of the herbaceous plants. But by becoming more mineral, the tree-root withdraws some of the etheric life from the soil; it makes the soil around the tree slightly more dead than it would be around a herbaceous plant. This must be fully borne in mind, for these natural processes always have a great significance in the economy of Nature. We must therefore seek to understand the significance of the astral wealth in the atmosphere around the tree and of the etheric poverty in the region of the roots. If we look around us, we can find the further connection. It is the fully developed insect which lives on and weaves in this enriched astral element which wafts through the trees; whereas the impoverished etheric element beneath, spreading in the soil and throughout the whole tree (for, as I pointed out yesterday in connection with human Karma, a spiritual element always works throughout the whole being) is that which harbours the' larvae or grubs. Thus, if there were no trees on the earth there would be no insects. The insects that flutter around the upper parts of the trees and through the forests depend for their life upon the presence of the trees; and exactly the same thing is true of the grubs. Here we have yet another indication of the inner connection between all roots and animal life beneath the soil. This is especially evident in the case of the trees. But this same principle which is so striking in the case of the trees is present in a modified form throughout the whole of the vegetable world, for in every plant there lives something that tends to become a tree. In every plant the root and what is around it tends to throw off the etheric life whereas the upper growth strives to attract the astral element more closely to itself. For this reason, there arises in every plant that kinship with the insect world which I have specially characterised in the case of the tree. This relation, however, to the insect world in fact extends so as to comprise the whole of the animal world. In former times insect grubs, which can only live upon the earth because of the presence of tree roots, transformed themselves into other kinds of animals, similar to larvae and remaining at the larva stage throughout their lives. These animals then emancipated themselves to a certain extent from the tree-root nature and adopted a life which extends also to the root region of herbaceous plants. And now we find the curious fact that certain of these sub-terrestrial animals, though far removed from being larvae, yet have the ability to regulate the amount of etheric life in the soil if this amount becomes excessive. When the soil becomes, as it were, too much alive and the sprouting etheric life too strong, these animals of the soil see to it that this excess is reduced. They are thus wonderful vents which regulate the vitality in the soil. These lovely creatures, for they are of the greatest value to the earth are no other than the common earthworms. One ought to study the life of earth-worms in relation to the soil, for these wonderful animals allow just that amount of etheric life to remain in the soil as is needed for the growth of plants. Thus, in the soil we have these creatures, earth-worms and their like, distantly resembling larvae. One ought in fact to see to it that certain soils which require it, are supplied with a healthful stock of worms. We should soon see how beneficent such a control over this animal-world in. the soil can be, not only for vegetation but also thereby for the rest of the animal kingdom, as we shall show later. Now there are certain animals which bear a distant resemblance to the insect world, to that part of it which is fully developed and winged, I mean the birds. It is well known that in the course of the development of the earth something very wonderful took place between the birds and the insects. It is as though, to put it figuratively, the insects had one day said: “We do not feel strong enough to ‘work-up’ the astrality sparkling around the trees, we shall therefore use the ‘desire-to-be-a-tree’ of other plants. We shall flutter around these, and leave largely to you birds the astral life that surrounds the trees.” Thus, there arose in Nature a proper “division of labour” between the birds and the butterflies; and this co-operation in the winged world brought about in a wonderful manner the right distribution of astral life wherever it was required on the surface of the earth. If these winged creatures are removed, the astral life will fail to accomplish its proper function, and this will be noticeable in the stunted condition of the vegetation. The two things are connected; the world of winged animals and all that grows out of the soil into the air. The one is unthinkable without the other. In farming, therefore, we must see to it that birds and insects fly about as they were meant to do; and the farmer should know something about the breeding and rearing of birds and insects. For in Nature — I must repeat this again and again — everything, everything is connected. These considerations are of the utmost importance for a right understanding of the questions before us and we must therefore hold them very clearly in our minds. The winged world of insects brings about the proper distribution of astrality in the air. The astrality in the air has a mutual relationship with the forest which directs it in the proper way, much as in the human body the blood is directed by certain forces. And this activity of the forest, which is effective over a very wide area, will have to be undertaken by something quite different in a district where there is no forest. Indeed, in districts where woods alternate with arable land and meadows that which grows in the soil comes under quite different laws from those which rule in completely unwooded districts. There are certain parts of the earth which were obviously wooded areas long before man took a hand. In certain matters, Nature is cleverer than we are. and it may safely be assumed that if a forest grows naturally in a certain district it will have its uses for the neighbouring fields and for the herbaceous and cereal vegetation round about. In such districts one ought therefore to have the intelligence not to uproot the woods but to cultivate them. Ana as the earth is gradually changing through climatic and cosmic influences of all kinds, one should have the courage, when the vegetation becomes poor, not merely to indulge in all sorts of experiments in the fields and for the fields, but to increase the area of woods in the neighbourhood. And when plants run to leaf, lacking the power to produce seed, one should take bites out of the neighbouring woods. The regulation of woods in districts which Nature intended to De wooded is an integral part of agriculture, and must be examined with all its consequences from a spiritual point of view. Again, the world of grubs and worms may be said to stand in a mutual relationship to the lime, i.e. to the mineral part of the earth; while the world of birds and insects, of all that flies and flutters about, has a similar relationship to the astral element. The relation between the worm and grub world and lime brings about the drawing off of the etheric element, as I explained a few days ago, from a different point of view. This is the function of lime, but it performs this function in cooperation with the world of worms and grubs. If these ideas are carried out in more detail, they will lead to other things which — and that is why I have expounded them with such confidence — were applied, in the days of instinctive clairvoyance, in the right way. But this instinct has been lost, rooted out by the intelligence, as have been all such instincts. Materialism is to blame for men's having become so clever and intellectual. In the days when they were not intellectual, they were not so clever, but they were far wiser and learned through their feelings how to go about things; and we must learn to act with wisdom once again through Anthroposophy, but this time the wisdom will be conscious. For Anthroposophy is by no means something clever and intellectual — it strives for wisdom. And we must try to draw near to wisdom in all things and not be content merely to learn by rote an abstract jingle of words, such as “Man consists of a physical body, etc.” The main point is that we should introduce this knowledge into everything; then one finds the way to discriminate — especially if one really becomes clairvoyant in the sense that I have explained to you — and to see things in Nature as they really are. We shall discover, for example, that birds can become harmful if they are not in the neighbourhood of a wood of conifers which can turn what they do into something useful. Our vision is then further sharpened and we begin to discern the presence of yet another relationship. It is a very delicate relationship, similar to those I have been dealing with, but which can appear in a more tangible form. All growing things that are neither trees nor small plants, i.e. all shrubs such as the hazel bush have, an intimate relationship with mammals. If, therefore, we wish to improve the mammals on our farm, we shall do well to plant such bush-like growths. The mere presence of the bushes has a beneficent influence, for in Nature all things stand in constant reciprocal relationship. But let us go a step further. Animals are not so foolish as human beings. They very soon notice the presence of this relationship. They find that they like these shrubs; this liking is inborn in them, and they enjoy eating them. They begin to eat what they need of the shrubs, and this has a wonderfully regulating effect upon the rest of their diet. But this insight into the intimate relations in Nature will also throw light upon the nature of harmful influences. Just as conifer woods stand in intimate relationship to birds and shrubs to mammals? so do all kinds of fungi stand in a relation similarly intimate to the lower animals, to bacteria and the like, viz. to parasites. Harmful parasites are closely connected with fungi. They develop where fungus-life is dispersed. In this way, there arise plant diseases and other greater ills in plants. If, however, we can contrive to nave not only woods, but also well-watered meadows suitably situated in the neighbourhood of cultivated lands, these will be useful in forming a good breeding ground for fungi. One should see to it that the moist meadows are well-planted with such growths. We then make the following remarkable discovery, that if a meadow, not necessarily very large, but rich in fungi (e.g. mushrooms) is situated near cultivated land then the fungi, because of their kinship with bacteria and other parasites, will keep these creatures away from the farming-land. For mushrooms “hang together” with these little creatures more than do other plants. Thus, in addition to the other methods I have advocated for combating plant pests there is also the possibility of keeping these tiny creatures, these vermin away from cultivated land by converting land in its vicinity into meadows. It is so important for success in agriculture that the right amount of acreage should be assigned respectively to woods, orchards, shrubberies and meadows with a natural growth of fungi, that one often gets better results-even if one reduces the extent of tilled land accordingly. Generally speaking, to cultivate the whole of the acreage at one's disposal, leaving no room for the other factors of which I have spoken, and to count in consequence upon larger crops is certainly no real economy. The extension of the tilled area is counterbalanced by a lowering in the quality of the produce because the increase in the cultivated area is made at the cost of the other factors. One cannot be engaged in a thing like farming where Nature is the “manager,” without realising the inter-connections and inter — actions which exist between all her processes. Now let us look at something which will make clear to us the relation of plant to animal and, conversely, of animal to plant. What is an animal in reality, and what is the plant-world? (In the case of plants it is better to speak of the whole of the plant-world). We must look for the relationship between the two because only by this means can we come to understand the feeding of animals. For feeding is only properly done if it is done in accord with the true relationship between plant and animal. What are animals? We examine them, we even dissect them, study their muscles and nerves and admire the forms of their skeleton. But this does not tell us what an animal is in the whole economy of Nature. We shall only get at this if we grasp what it is with which the animal is most intimately connected in its environment. Now with its system of nerves and senses and with part of its breathing system, the animal “works-up” all that which comes through the air and warmth. The animal does this to the extent that it is a separate being. (See Diag. No. 14). We may make a schematic drawing to indicate this. With regard to everything lying in its periphery, the animal lives with its nerves and sense system and part of its breathing system immediately in air and warmth. The animal has an immediate connection with air and warmth, its bony system being actually formed from the warmth which in particular mediates the influences of the sun and the moon. Its muscular system is formed from the air, which again works as a mediator of the forces of sun and moon. But as regards its relation to earth and water, the animal is not able directly to assimilate. It must first absorb them into its digestive tract and then work on them with what it has itself become through air and warmth; it works upon earth and water with its metabolic system and with a part of its breathing system, which passes over into the metabolic system. The animal must therefore have already come into existence by virtue of air and warmth if it is to be able to “work up” earth and water. This, therefore, is the animal's way of living in the sphere of earth and water. The process of transformation which I have described takes place, of course, by means of forces (dynamically) rather than by means of substances (materially). Let us now try to answer the question: What is a plant? The plant stands in an immediate relation to earth and water just as the animal does to air and warmth. The plant, therefore? through a kind of breathing and through something very distantly resembling a sense system absorbs earth and water in the same direct manner as the animal absorbs air and warmth. Thus, the plant and earth and water live directly together. And now? of course, you will say: If the plant lives in immediate contact with earth and water as the animal does with air and warmth, then no doubt the plant “works up” air and warmth inside itself just as the animal “works up” earth and water? But this is not the case. We cannot reach spiritual truths merely by analogy. The fact is that whereas the animal absorbs earth and water into itself, the plant actually gives off the air and warmth which it experiences dimly through its connection with the soil. Thus, air and warmth do not go into the plant, or at any rate do not enter deeply into it; instead of being devoured by the plant, air and warmth are given off by it. And this process of elimination is the important thing. Organically the plant stands in inverse relation to the animal. That which in the animal is important as a process of nutrition becomes in the plant an elimination of air and warmth, and as in that sense we can say that the animal lives by absorbing food, in the same sense does the plant live by giving off air and warmth. And in virtue of that quality it may be said that the plant is virginal. Its character is not to absorb greedily but actually to give out that which the animal takes from the world in order to live. Thus, the plant lives by giving. In this giving and taking, we can recognise something which played a very important part in the old instinctive knowledge of these matters. “In Nature's economy, the plant gives and the animal takes.” What is contained in this saying garnered from Anthroposophy was once common property in times of instinctive clairvoyance into Nature. Even m later days, much of this knowledge has remained among' those gifted with a peculiar sensitiveness in these matters, and in the works of Goethe you will sometimes come across the phrase: “In Nature everything lives through giving and taking.” Goethe did not fully understand the phrase, but he adopted it from ancient customs and traditions and he felt that it pointed to something in Nature which was true. Those who came after him understood nothing of this, and so did not understand what he meant when he spoke of taking and giving. Goethe also speaks of taking and giving in connection with breathing, in so far as breathing inter-acts with metabolism. He uses the words “taking and giving” in a fashion, semi-clear. To sum up, I have shown you that in a certain sense the woods, orchards and shrubberies on the earth act as regulators in producing the right kind of plant-growth, and that under the soil grubs and other worm-like creatures act similarly in conjunction with lime. This is how we should envisage the relationship between the cultivation of fields, of fruit and of cattle, and then proceed to put our knowledge into practice. We shall endeavour to do this in the last hour that remains at our disposal, so that our Experimental Circle may work out these things more fully in the future. |
GA 340. World Economy — Lecture VII |
---|
Thus, the sequence governing this tendency for prices to rise above or to sink below their true level is as follows: First, forestry, then farming, then handicraft and, lastly, the entirely free spiritual work. These are the lines along which we should approach the problem of price-formation in the economic process. There is a tendency, an inherent tendency, in the economic process to create rent. |
This tendency is called forth through the fact that what I had to repeat twice over a few days ago, to the bewilderment of a large number of the audience (namely that the man who provides for himself lives more expensively and for that reason must take more for his products, must estimate them at a higher value than one who gets his products in free commercial dealing from others), that this simply does not come in in the case of farming. In relation to the various branches of industry, ladies and gentlemen, this has a very real meaning, albeit you may have to think a very long time to find your way to that meaning. But in respect to agriculture and forestry it has no meaning. |
There is also another reason from which you will see that industrial Capital must inevitably go down. We said just now that in farming one cannot help providing for oneself. It is just by this self-provision that the rise in the value of farm-products is brought about. At the same time you will see that in the case of industrial Capital, where the loan principle predominates, one cannot provide for oneself; one cannot provide for oneself with Capital. |
GA 340. World Economy — Lecture VII |
---|
Ladies and Gentlemen, We have now seen how the economic system as a whole takes its course; we have seen how purchase or sale, loan and gift act as impelling factors, motive factors, within this system. Let us realise at once that there can be no economic system without this interplay of loan, gift and purchase. The influences, which create the economic values (of which we have already spoken from one aspect) and lead to the forming of price, will therefore proceed from these three factors: purchase, loan and gift. The important thing is to understand how the three factors work in the forming of price. Only by perceiving this, shall we succeed in any degree in formulating the price problem. It is very necessary that we should have a distinct view of the real nature of separate economic problems. In this respect our present Economic Science is full of unclear ideas — ideas which, as I have often explained, become confused mainly because they try to grasp at rest what is in constant movement. Granting then that gift, purchase and loan are inherent in economic movement, let us consider what in our present-day economy are — if I may so call them — the principal factors of rest. Let us turn for a moment to what is perhaps one of the commonest topics nowadays and a principal source of the errors that find their way into Political Economy. People talk of “Wages,” and they talk of them in such a way as to make them look like the price of Labour. If the so-called wage-earner has to be paid more, they say: “The price of Labour has gone up.” If he has to be paid less, they say: “Labour is cheaper.” Thus they actually speak as though a kind of sale and purchase took place between the wage-earner who sells his Labour and the man who buys it from him. But this sale and purchase is fictitious. It does not in reality take place. That is the trouble in our present economic conditions. On all hands we have hidden or masked relationships — relationships which develop in a way not in accordance with what in a deeper sense they really are. I have spoken of this before. Value in the economic system, as we have already seen, can only arise in the exchange of products — in the exchange of commodities or — more generally — of economic products. It cannot arise in any other way. But what follows? If value can only arise in this way, and if moreover the price of the value is to be arrived at along the lines laid down yesterday (that is, by seeing that the producer of a given product receives, as its counter-value, what he will require to satisfy his needs during the production of another like product) — if this is to be possible, the various products must, as it were, reciprocally determine one another's value. And, after all, it is not difficult to see that this is what actually happens in the economic process. Only it is masked by the fact that money steps in between the objects exchanged. But the money is not the important thing. We should not take the slightest interest in money if it did not foster the exchange of products, making the process not only more convenient but less expensive. We should have no need of money if it were not for the fact that when a man brings a product to the market — under the influence of the division of Labour — he cannot be bothered to fetch what he needs from wherever it may happen to be; instead, he takes money for it, so that he may supply his needs later on at his own convenience. In fine we may say: It is the mutual tension, arising between the various products in the economic process, which must be concerned in the forming of prices. Let us consider from this point of view the so-called wage-nexus, that is, the Labour-nexus. We cannot really exchange Labour for anything; since, as between Labour and anything else, there is no possibility of reciprocal determination of value. We may fancy that we are paying for Labour, we may even actualise this fancy by letting in the wage-nexus. But we do not really do anything of the sort. In reality, even in the Labour or wage-nexus, it is values which are exchanged. The worker produces something directly; he delivers a product, and it is this product which the enterpriser [Unternehmer] really buys from him. In actual fact, down to the last farthing, the enterpriser pays for the products which the workers deliver to him. It is time we began to see these things in their right light. The enterpriser buys products from the worker; and after he has bought them it is his business to impart to them a higher value, by making use of the conditions present in the social organism and by his own enterprising or “undertaking ” spirit. It is really this which gives him his profit. He gains on the transaction because, having bought the commodities from his workers, he is able by his “knowledge of the market” (we must not shirk unpleasant expressions) to enhance their value. Thus, in the Labour-nexus we are dealing with a true purchase. And, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot speak of a surplus value arising through the Labour-nexus as such. All we can say is that in such and such circumstances the price which the enterpriser pays is not according to the true price, of which we spoke yesterday; and this is a thing we shall often find in the economic process — that, although the products reciprocally determine one another's values, although they have their real values, these values are not actually paid for in the course of commercial dealing. It is easy enough to see that all values are not really paid for. Take the case of a manufacturer on a small scale, who suddenly inherits a large legacy. Tired of the whole factory business, he decides to sell his stock-in-trade, and does so at an absurdly low price. That does not mean that the commodities decrease in value; it only means that the true price is not paid. Thus in actual economic intercourse prices are constantly being falsified. We must not forget this. In the course of commercial dealing prices may often be falsified. But there is, nevertheless, a true price. The commodities sold by the man in the above example are worth just as much as the same commodities produced by someone else. Now that we have tried to make it clear that the wage-nexus does really involve a purchase, let us consider what is involved by rent — by the price of land. You see, the conditions under which the price of land originates are not those of a mature economy. To take an extreme instance, we may consider how a piece of land may have come under the control of particular persons by conquest, that is, by the exercise of force. Even here, no doubt, the element of exchange will enter in to some extent; the invader will have granted certain portions of the conquered territory to those who helped him to victory. Here, then, at the starting-point of an economic process we have something that is not properly economic. The process is not really economic; it is a process to which we can only apply the word “power” or “right.” By means of power, rights are gained — rights, in this case, over land. Thus we have the economic domain bordering on the one hand on these relationships of right and power. But what is it that takes place under the influence of such relationships of right and power? This is what happens continually: The man who has the free right of disposal over land looks after himself better than those others whom he attaches to himself as labourers — who deliver the products to him by their Labour. I am speaking now not of the Labour, but of the products of the Labour; it is the products of Labour with which we are concerned. The others have to deliver more to him than he delivers to them. This, indeed, is only the prolongation of his relationship to them of conquest or right. Now, what is this excess of what they give him over what he gives them? What is it, in other words, that falsifies the price relationship in this case? It is none other than compulsory gift! Here, then, the relation of giving comes in, with the sole difference that the man who is to make the gift does so not of his own free will, but by compulsion; it is in fact a compulsory gift. That is what happens in relation to the land. Through the compulsory gift, the price which farm-products really ought to have in terms of other products is actually raised. Thus the price of all things capable of subjection to such relationships of “right” has an inherent tendency to rise above its true level. So, for instance, if foresters or huntsmen are living with farmers, the foresters and huntsmen will come off better than the farmers. Farmers, among forest people, have to pay higher prices to the foresters for what they give them — higher prices, that is to say, than the true exchange prices as between their respective products, for the simple reason that in forestry, more than anywhere else, it is as a pure matter of right that the owner has the thing at his disposal and determines prices. Farming requires some real Labour; but in forestry, hunting and the like, we come very near to the pure “Labour-less” valuation — a valuation proceeding solely from relationships of right and power. Again, if handicraftsmen are living among farmers, the prices once again will tend to rise above their true level on the farmer's side; while on the other hand they will sink beneath the true level as against handicraft. Life is dearer for handicraftsmen among farmers; life is comparatively cheaper for farmers among handicraftsmen (assuming there are enough of them to make any appreciable difference). Handicraftsmen among farmers will find life comparatively dearer. Thus, the sequence governing this tendency for prices to rise above or to sink below their true level is as follows: First, forestry, then farming, then handicraft and, lastly, the entirely free spiritual work. These are the lines along which we should approach the problem of price-formation in the economic process. There is a tendency, an inherent tendency, in the economic process to create rent. The economic process tends, as it were, of its own accord, to submit itself to this necessity of paying more dearly for farm products than for other things. This tendency obtains where there is division of Labour — and all our remarks have reference to a social organism in which there is division of Labour. This tendency is called forth through the fact that what I had to repeat twice over a few days ago, to the bewilderment of a large number of the audience (namely that the man who provides for himself lives more expensively and for that reason must take more for his products, must estimate them at a higher value than one who gets his products in free commercial dealing from others), that this simply does not come in in the case of farming. In relation to the various branches of industry, ladies and gentlemen, this has a very real meaning, albeit you may have to think a very long time to find your way to that meaning. But in respect to agriculture and forestry it has no meaning. We must never forget that, when we are dealing with realities, the various concepts only hold good for certain regions; they change for other regions. This is equally true in other walks of life. What is a means of healing for the head, is pernicious — is a means to disease — for the stomach; and vice versa. And so it is in the economic organism. For example, if it were at all possible for the farmer not to provide for himself, the rules we apply for the general circulation of commodities would be right in his case, too. But the fact is, he can do no other than provide for himself; for within the economic process the entire agriculture of a social organism forms of its own nature a single entity, however many individual landowners there may be. Accordingly, the farmer must in every case keep back, from the totality of his products, what he has to provide for himself. Even if he gets it from another farmer, in reality he is still keeping it back. The farmer is essentially a man who provides for himself. Hence he is obliged to value his goods more expensively. The consequence is that prices must rise on his side. It follows that there is an inherent tendency to create rents in the economic process. The only question will now be: How to make these rents harmless in the economic life? But in the first, place we must know that this tendency to create rent exists. If you abolish rents, in one form or another they will be created again, for the simple reason which I have just explained. You see, for the same reason which underlies the tendency in the economic process to create rent, there arises, on the other hand, the tendency of the industrialists to devalue Capital, to make Capital cheaper and cheaper. We shall best understand this tendency if we get it clear to begin with that Capital cannot really be bought, True, there are dealings in Capital; people “buy” Capital. But every such purchase of Capital is once again merely a masked relationship; in reality we do not buy Capital, we only borrow it. Yet, in the end, even if the relationship is apparently other, you will always be able to unmask it and expose the loan character of industrial Capital. I say expressly, of industrial Capital, for if you extend the principle to rents it is no longer the case. But it is certainly the case with industrial Capital, for the simple reason that there is a constant tendency to undervalue, as compared with other things, that which depends on the human Will — that is to say, handicraft or manufacture and entirely free activity (at this point in the diagram). Industrial Capital is altogether implicated in the free activity of the Spirit; hence it is constantly being devalued; and we may say, on this side (Diagram 4), there is inherent in the economic process a tendency, while we create rents, to lower industrial Capital, to make it lower and lower in value. Just as things become more and more expensive on the one side, on the side of ground-rent, so do they become cheaper and cheaper on the other side, on the side of Capital. Capital has a permanent tendency to go down in its economic value, or rather in its economic price. Rents have a permanent tendency to rise in price. There is also another reason from which you will see that industrial Capital must inevitably go down. We said just now that in farming one cannot help providing for oneself. It is just by this self-provision that the rise in the value of farm-products is brought about. At the same time you will see that in the case of industrial Capital, where the loan principle predominates, one cannot provide for oneself; one cannot provide for oneself with Capital. What one does provide for oneself must be included in the balance sheet nowadays in precisely the same way as what one borrows — if the balance sheet is to be correct. Since, therefore, at this point (Diagram 4) one cannot provide for oneself, it follows that the opposite tendency obtains — the tendency towards lower prices. Everything depends on our seeing clearly through these relationships in the economic process. For then we shall see that it is by no means easy to establish true prices. The true price is constantly being upset by the fact that, on the one hand, there are things appearing on the market which tend to be too high in price, while, on the other hand, there are things appearing which tend to be too low in price. And since the price is settled by exchange, being in the middle, between the two, it is continually exposed to these influences. You can observe this very clearly in the economic process. In the same measure in which the products of forestry and agriculture grow more expensive, those produced by free human activity grow cheaper. Thus there arise those relationships of tension which give rise to social unrest and discontents. This, therefore, is the most important question in relation to the formation of price: How can we deal with the natural tension which exists in the creation of prices, as between the values accruing to goods arising out of the free will of man, and the values accruing to those goods in the production of which Nature participates? How can we get at this tension? How can we equate the one, the downward, tendency with the other, upward tendency? Through division of Labour, more and more highly differentiated products arise. You need only remember how simple are the products arising, let us say, among a hunting or forest community. Here the price difficulty scarcely comes into question; but as soon as agriculture is added to forestry, the difficulty begins. In effect, the difficulty lies in the differentiation; the further the division of Labour extends, and new needs arise in the process, the more does the differentiation of products increase, and the difficulties connected with price-formation accumulate. The more varied are the products, the more difficult does it become to bring about their reciprocal valuation — and the valuation can only be reciprocal. This may be seen from the following comparison: There is a reciprocal valuation even in the case of products only slightly differentiated one from another — say, for instance, wheat and rye and other agricultural products. But follow the thing out over a long period of time and you will find the relationship of reciprocal valuation as between wheat, rye and other cereals remains fairly stable. If wheat goes up, the other cereals go up; if wheat goes down, the other cereals go down with it. This is due to the fact that there is comparatively little differentiation between these products; as soon as the differentiation becomes greater, this constancy no longer obtains. For it may well happen, through various events in the social organism, that some product which someone has been accustomed to exchange for another suddenly shoots up in price, while the other may go down at the same time. Think what revolutions are thus brought about in economic relationships. Altogether the things that happen in the economic world depend far more on the relative risings and fallings in price than on any other circumstance. It is by the relative rise and fall in prices that the difficulties of life itself are introduced into the economic sphere. As to whether the products as a whole rise or fall — if they all rose or fell uniformly, it would concern us very little. What interests people is that the different products rise or fall to a different extent. This fact is emerging in a very tragic way just now, under the present economic conditions. Products rise and fall in varying measure. Money-values especially are rising and falling, but in the money-values we simply have stored up what were once upon a time real values. By this rising and falling, an entire mingling and confusion is now being brought about in society. From this we can see that there is another way, too, in which we must look at the factors operative in the economic organism. We took our start from the several factors which are enumerated by orthodox Economics, but we saw that the mere enumeration of Nature, Capital and Labour leads us no farther. Precisely when you add what we have said today to what has been said before, you will see that the pricing or valuing of Nature-products does not come about through purely economic relationships, but also through relationships of right or title; while, on the other hand, the valuing of industrial Capital is influenced by the free human Will with all that it unfolds when it is active in public life. Consider all that is necessary in order to collect a sum of Capital for a given purpose. Here the free human will comes in. Where lending is concerned, free human will has a very great part to play — indirectly perhaps, for the man who wants to keep savings is naturally going to invest those savings; but whether he ever saves at all, or not, is an expression of his Will. Here, then, the free human Will plays a real part. Now, if we take this into account, we shall find yet another classification of the economic factors beside the one which we have been considering hitherto. Up to now I have given you a diagrammatic classification. I showed: There is Nature, but value only arises through Nature elaborated, that is to say, it only arises when Nature moves in the direction of human Labour; and again, value will only arise through human Labour when it moves on towards Capital, i.e., towards the Spirit. In this way the tendency arises to return again to Nature. This, as we saw, can be prevented by leading over the excess Capital, not into the land, where it would become fixed, but into free spiritual undertakings where it vanishes, save for the remnant which must continue as a kind of seed, by which the economic process may be fertilised and maintained. Now, in addition to this movement which begins from left to right (see (Diagram 5) there is another movement. The former movement, as we have seen, gives rise to elaborated Nature, organised or articulated Labour, and emancipated Capital — Capital, that is to say, which figures only within undertakings dependent on mind or Spirit — active Capital. The other movement does not lead to the creation of values in this way, the preceding element always being taken on by the next, but goes in the opposite direction; the first movement runs counter-clockwise, the second clockwise. Here, in the first movement, something arises through the former member always working on into the next; in the other movement something arises through the fact that that which flows in one direction receives, as it were, what is flowing in the other direction and embraces it. You will see what I mean directly. Remember that Capital is, properly speaking, Spirit realised in the economic process; so that I can write at this point “Spirit” — which gives us Nature, Labour and Spirit. Now when the Spirit absorbs and receives the elaborated Nature (Nature transformed by Labour) — when it does not merely lead it on into the economic process in the continued counter-clockwise movement, but absorbs it — Means of Production arise. What we call means of production is something different — it is in quite an opposite process of movement — from a Nature-product which has been elaborated for consumption. It is a Nature-product taken in charge by the Spirit — a Nature-product which the Spirit needs. From the pen which I possess as my means of production to the most complicated machinery in a factory, means of production are, as it were, Nature grasped by the Spirit. Nature can be elaborated and sent on in this direction, in which case it becomes Capital; or it can be sent in the other direction, in which case it becomes means of production. And now, what arises at this point with the help of means of production can move on and be taken in charge in turn by human Labour. Just as Nature is here received by the Spirit, so can the means of production (in the widest sense of the term) be received in turn by Labour. What have we then, when Labour receives the means of production — when means of production and Labour are united? It is Industrial Capital, for in effect industrial Capital consists in this very union. Thus if you follow the process out, you get a movement whereby means of production and industrial Capital coalesce. And if this movement be now continued, so that Nature (albeit another portion of Nature) from time to time receives what has been produced with the help of means of production a and industrial Capital, then and then only does there arise in the economic process what we may call Commodity in the proper sense. For the commodity is at once taken over by the process of Nature. Either it is eaten, in which case it is taken up very decidedly by Nature; or it is used or otherwise destroyed. In short, a thing becomes a commodity by the very fact that it returns to Nature. So that you may say: We have now traced out the movement, which is inherent in the whole economic process and which contains the three factors: Means of Production, Industrial Capital and Commodity. Here, at this third point in the diagram, the distinction becomes unusually difficult; for when the thing we are seeking is shifting to and fro in the process of exchange proper — that is, in purchase and sale — it is extraordinarily difficult to distinguish whether it is moving in this direction or in that — whether it is a commodity or something that cannot be called a “commodity” in the true sense of the word. How does a piece of goods become a “commodity”? In describing this counter-clockwise movement, to make the nomenclature quite exact, I ought really to write “goods” instead of “commodities” and in the opposite movement I ought to write “commodity”; for a “commodity” may be defined as a piece of goods in the hands of the tradesman, the merchant who offers it for sale and does not use it himself. Today my main purpose was that we should acquire such concepts as point to the true relationships in the economic process. These true relationships are again and again being diverted, by falsified processes, into a mode of operation which introduces constant disturbances into the economic process. Continually to smooth out and compensate for the disturbances is one of the essential tasks of Economics. People keep on saying that we ought to get rid of the evils of economic life; and they are inclined to have at the back of their minds the notion: “Then everything will be all right and the earthly paradise will begin.” But that is just as though you were to say: “I should like, once and for all, to eat so much that I need never eat any more.” I cannot do that; for I am a living organism wherein ascending and descending processes must constantly be taking place. Such ascending and descending processes must equally be present in the economic life; there must be the tendency on the one hand to falsify prices by the forming of rent, and on the other hand the tendency to lower prices on the side of industrial Capital. These tendencies are present all the time, and we must understand them in order to obtain, as far as possible, those prices which represent a minimum of falsification. To this end it is necessary, by direct human experience, to take hold of the economic process as it were in the nascent state — to be within it all the time. The individual can never do this; nor can a society above a certain size. (A society, for example, such as the State). It can only be done by Associations growing out of the economic life itself, and able therefore to work out of the immediate reality of the economic life. The greater the technical accuracy with which we study the economic process, the more are we led to recognise that the required institutions must grow out of the economic life itself. Then, they will be able to observe the kind of tendencies that are at work and how these can be counteracted. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1938) — Lecture IV |
---|
You must remember what a really small amount of work is entailed in this. Besides I can very well imagine that some of the less occupied members of a farming community would derive particular pleasure from stirring manure, at any rate to begin with. It would be splendid work for the son or daughter of the house, for it is a very agreeable experience to find that a faint scent develops from what is at first completely odourless. |
The principles are drawn from out of the whole. That is why the particular indications have a decisive bearing upon the whole. If farming is practised in this way, it cannot but result in giving the best both to man and beast. Indeed, as everywhere in Spiritual Science, the study of man is the starting-point; man is taken as the basis. |
In seed-formation, for instance, machines cannot help much as this is done by Nature itself. One cannot, of course, do without machines today, but I would point out that in farming there is no need to become “machine mad” and always get the latest machinery. Anyone who does so will probably be far less successful in his farming than if he had gone on using his old machine until it was no longer of any use. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1938) — Lecture IV |
---|
As you have seen, the methods of Spiritual Science seek in agricultural as in other matters for a comprehensive vision over a wide range, of the character and activity of spirit in Nature whereas a materialistically inclined science has entered more and more into small units and restricted spheres. Even if in agriculture the units concerned are not always of microscopic order as in some of the other sciences, yet agriculture usually concerns itself with the workings within restricted spheres and with what can be inferred from these limited observations, but the world in which man and other earthly creatures live can by no means be judged from a narrow standpoint. To adopt this standpoint as is done by contemporary science in relation to agriculture is, in view of the real facts of the case, rather like attempting to gain knowledge of the whole being of man by observing his little finger and the tip of his ear, and trying to reconstruct the whole from these two features. We must oppose to this — and never was the task more necessary than today — a real science which will go out in search of the wide range of cosmic relationships. How greatly the scientific ideas current today or, at any rate, a few years ago, stand in need of correction, can be seen from the absurdities which not so very long ago prevailed in the matter of human nutrition. Everything was very scientific — it was all scientifically proved and no objection could be taken to any of the facts adduced. It was taken as scientifically proved that a man weighing from 70 to 75 kilograms required about 120 grammes of protein a day. This was regarded as scientifically established. Today no man of science would give credence to such a proposition. Everyone knows nowadays that 120 grammes of protein are not only not necessary but would actually be harmful, and that man is at his healthiest when he is taking about 50 grammes a day. In this case, science has corrected itself. It is known today that if too much albumen or protein is consumed, it produces poisonous by-products in the intestines. If we examine not only the particular periods in the man's life when albumen is administered to him but his life as a whole, It will be found that the hardening of the arteries (arterio-sclerosis) which takes place in old age can be attributed primarily to the poisonous effects of overdoses of albumen. Scientific investigations of man, for example, often go wrong because they only take account of the moment. A normal human life lasts longer than ten years and the harmful effects of the seemingly beneficial causes which they seek to promote often do not emerge for a long time. Spiritual Science is less likely to fall into such an error. It is true, I do not wish to echo the facile criticism so often levelled at science today on account of such rectifications as I have just exemplified. I can see quite well that this rectification was necessary. But on the other hand, it is equally facile to fall upon Spiritual Science when it seeks to enter practical life, because it is obliged to lay stress upon the larger connections of life, and because its eyes are open to those more attenuated forces and substances which play into the spiritual, and not merely to the coarser forces and substances of matter. This applies in every respect to agriculture and particularly to the question of manuring. Now the very phrases used by scientists in dealing with this question show how little they understand of the significance of manure in the economy of Nature. A phrase very often used is: “The manure contains the nourishment for the plant.” I mentioned the subject of nutrition earlier just to show you how science has of late been obliged to review its own position on the subject of human nutrition. Science had to correct its own errors because it started with an erroneous view of the nutrition of anything living. The old view was, if I may express myself quite freely — I hope you will not be offended — that the most important thing about nutrition was what one ate every day. It is quite true that what one eats is important, but the greater part of it is not there for the purpose of being taken into the body and deposited there as substance. This greater part has to give over to the body the forces which it contains in itself and thus stimulate the body into activity. The greater part of what is taken up as substance in this way is eliminated again from the body. What matters, therefore, is not whether a certain weight of matter in certain proportions undergoes digestion, but whether we are able to take up in the right way, with the food we eat, the active forces therein. For we need these active forces when we walk or work, or even more when we use our arms. On the other hand, that which the body needs in order to fill up, to enrich itself, as it were, with substance (the substance being continually discarded and renewed during the course of every seven or eight years) is absorbed for the most part through the sense-organs, the skin and the breathing in a highly-attenuated state and only becomes densified in the organism. The body absorbs it from the atmosphere, densifies and hardens it, so that for instance it can be cut off as hair and nails. The schematic formulation: “Food taken in, passage through the body, wearing away of the nails, peeling of the skin, etc.” is quite wrong. It should run: “Breathing, highly-rarefied absorption through the sense-organs (even through the eyes), passage through the organism, excretion.” What is absorbed through the digestion on the other hand becomes important because its “inner mobility” (Regsamkeit) is set free, just as when fuel is burned. It introduces into the body those forces which open the way for the will to act in the body. Now it really makes one despair when, in face of this truth, which is the simple outcome of spiritual investigation, one sees the attitude adopted by modern science which maintains precisely the opposite view. One is tempted to despair because it makes one see how difficult it is to find any meeting-ground whatsoever with modern science on all the most important subjects. Yet such an understanding will have to come, otherwise where its views were applied to practical life science would simply lead us into a blind alley. For science is unable to understand certain things even when they are under its very nose. I am not speaking of the experimental side of science. What science says here is, as a rule, true. The experiments have a definite value, it is the theorising about them which is bad. And it is unfortunately on these theories that suggestions for practical application are based. All this makes one realise the difficulty of finding a meeting-ground. However, an understanding will have to be reached and in the most practical spheres of life, among which we must reckon Agriculture. If these things are to be rightly handled, it is necessary to gain insight into the mode of activity of substances, and forces, the dynamic and of the spiritual too in every part of agriculture. A child who does not know what a comb is for will bite into it or otherwise misuse it. In the same way, we shall make quite a wrong use of things if we do not understand their essential being and their specific functions. To make the matter clearer, let us take the case of a tree. A tree is different from an ordinary annual plant which remains at the merely herbaceous stage. It surrounds itself with rind and bark, etc. What then is the fundamental nature of the tree as opposed to that of an annual plant? In order to answer this question, let us compare the tree to a mound of soil which has been piled up and is exceptionally rich in humus, i.e. which contains an exceptionally large quantity of more or less decomposed vegetable matter, and includes perhaps some decomposing animal matter as well (See Diagram No.7). Let us assume that this is the mound of soil, rich in humus, and I will make in it a crater-like depression; and let us take this (indicated in the second part of the drawing) as the tree, the more or less solid part being outside, while inside grows that which goes to build up the tree as a whole. It may strike you as strange that I should place these two things side by side, but they are more closely related than you may perhaps think. The reason is that soil such as I have described, soil containing plenty of humus, i.e. substances in course of decomposition, bears etheric life within it. And this is the point. When soil is so constituted as to have etheric life within it, it is on its way to becoming the outside covering of the plant, but does not in fact develop so far as to become bark. Now imagine (although, of course, this does not happen in Nature) that such a mound of soil, with its humus content has, by means of its etheric life, raised itself to a higher form of development and wrapped itself round the plant. For if any part of the earth is raised above the general level, if the outer separates itself from the inner, then that which is raised above the normal level will show a definite tendency to life, a distinct tendency to be penetrated with etheric life. This is why, if you want to make inorganic soil more-fertile by mixing it with humus-like substance or with any sort of decomposing refuse, you will find it easier to do so successfully if the soil is heaped up into mounds. For then the soil itself will have the tendency to become inwardly alive and plant-like. The same process takes place in the formation of a tree. The soil bulges upwards, as it were, and surrounds the plant with its own etheric life. Why do I say this? The reason is that I wish to waken your consciousness to the fact that there is an intimate kinship between what is enclosed within the contours of the plant and that which comprises the soil round the plant. It is untrue that the life of the plant stops short at its outer sphere. The actual life is continued, particularly from the roots, into the soil and in many cases, there is no sharp boundary between the life within the plant and that in its immediate environment. In order to have a fundamental understanding of a soil which is manured or similarly treated, one must know that manuring consists in a vivifying of the soil so that the plant may not be planted in dead soil. A plant will more easily develop from its own vitality what is necessary for fruit formation if it is planted in something already alive. Fundamentally all plant growth is slightly parasitic in character; it grows like a parasite on the living earth. And it must be so. In many parts of the earth we cannot rely on Nature herself to supply a sufficient quantity of waste organic matter to enable the soil adequately to revivify itself by decomposition of such matter. In those places, therefore, we must assist the growth of plants with manure. This necessity, however, arises least of all in districts containing so-called “black soil,” for here Nature herself has seen to it that the soil is sufficiently alive. You will see from all this what is really happening; but there is something further which must “be understood. One must learn — and this may not always be pleasant — to enter into a personal relationship with everything that comes within the sphere of Agriculture, and particularly with the work connected with manure and manuring. The job may seem to be an unpleasant one, but you cannot do without this personal relationship. Why? Well, if you consider the nature of any living being, you will find the reason. Every living being always has an inner and an outer aide. The inner side is inside some kind of skin, the outer side is outside that skin. Let us begin with the inner side. The inner side of every living thing has. not only streams of force which go outwards in the direction shown by these lines (see Diagram 8) but it also has streams of force which go inwards from the skin, which are pressed back. Now an organism is surrounded on the outside by streams of all kinds of forces. There is something which expresses very exactly although in a “personal” way the relationship which must be established by the organism between its inner and outer side. All the forces working inside the skin, all that stimulates and maintains life, must — pardon the phrase — inwardly smell, must have an inward stench. Taken as a whole, life itself consists in this that what is generally diffused as a scent is instead held together so that the scent is kept inside and does not stream outwards too strongly. An organism must therefore allow as little as possible of its scent-producing life to escape outwards through its skin. Indeed, one might say that the healthier an organism, the more it will smell inwardly and the less it will smell outwardly. A living organism and particularly the plant organism (apart from the flower) is designed not to give out scent but to take it in. And if we consider the beneficial influences on a meadow full of fragrant aromatic flowers, we shall begin to notice how living things mutually support one another in Nature. This fragrance of flowers which is diffused and which is something different from the odour of mere life, issues from sources of which we shall become aware later, and it acts on the plants from outside. One must enter into a personal, living relation to all these things, only then are we really one with Nature. Now the main thing to understand is that manuring and the like must consist not only in conveying a certain degree of aliveness to the soil, but also in enabling the nitrogen to spread through it, in such a way that with its help the life is carried along certain lines of force as I showed yesterday. In manuring, therefore, we must bring sufficient nitrogen into the soil to enable the life to be borne into the organic structure of the soil which is to bear the plant. This is the task, but it must be carried out exactly and properly. Now here is a very significant hint: when purely mineral matter is used for manure, it never reaches the earth element, but at best only the water element in the soil. You can produce with mineral manures an effect in the watery part of the earth, but you will not achieve a vivification of the earth element itself. Plants, therefore, which are under the influence of any sort of mineral manure will exhibit a type of growth which betrays that it comes from water which has been activated, not from the solid element which has been vivified. The best way to approach these things will be to take the most unassuming and often despised kind of manure, viz. compost. Here we have a means of vivifying the soil. We include in compost all kinds of neglected refuse from farm or garden, mown grass, fallen leaves, and the like, nay, even to the remains of dead beasts, etc. These things should by no means be despised, for they retain something not only of the. etheric but even of the astral elements. And that is important. In a compost heap, all contained in it is actually pervaded not only by living and etheric but also by astral elements. These are present to a lesser degree in solid or liquid animal manure, but they are more stable, more settled — especially the astral element only we must make use of this stable or settled character in the right way. The action of the astral element upon nitrogen is hindered wherever the etheric element is too ebullient. A too powerful sprouting of the etheric life hampers the astral element in the compost heap from doing its work. Now there is in Nature a substance which I have already mentioned from varied angles which is extremely useful in this respect, and that is the chalky or limestone element. If, therefore, some of this — preferably in the form of quicklime — is introduced into the compost heap, we get the following special result: without causing the astral element to “volatilise” as it were too much, the etheric element is taken up by the quick-lime and the oxygen is absorbed as well. In this way, the astral element is brought to a Wonderful activity. This leads to a very definite result: in manuring the soil with compost, we are giving over to it something which has the tendency to carry the astral element directly into the solid element without the detour through the etheric element. In this way, therefore, the earthly element is thoroughly “astralised” and thereby becomes penetrated with nitrogen. This result, indeed, very much resembles a certain process in the human organism — a plant-like process — so plant-like in fact that it does not proceed to fruit formation, but stops at the stage of leaf and stem formation. What we give over to the soil in the compost has its parallel in that process which brings about in the food we eat that “mobility” of which I spoke before (see Page 24). We bring about a similar activity in the soil when we treat it in the manner described. Soil prepared in this way will be especially suitable for producing plants which, when they are eaten by animals, will continue to bring about a similar activity in their organisms. In other words, we shall do well to manure our meadows and pasture lands with this compost, and if we carry through the process carefully, with strict regard for the other proceedings and ingredients, we shall succeed in obtaining good fodder, which, when mown and dried, preserves its quality. I should like to remind you that to take the right steps, one must look into the nature of the whole process, and finding the right thing to do in any particular case will, of course, depend to a great extent upon having the right feeling. This feeling, however, develops, when we look into the whole nature of this compost process. For instance, if the compost heap is left alone the astral element in it will begin to spread in all directions. It will then be a question of developing the right personal relation to the heap in order to find out how it can be made to retain its smell within it. This can easily be done by putting down a thin layer of the compost material and covering it with peat moss, then adding another layer and so on. In this way, we hold together that which would otherwise “volatilise” itself as smell. Nitrogen, indeed, is a substance which in all its modifications is eager to spread out into all directions. And now it is held back. By this I wish to indicate how necessary it is to treat the whole “agricultural-individuality” in the light of the conviction that etheric life and even the astral principle must everywhere be poured out over it to make our work effective. Now following this trend, we can take a further step. Have you ever wondered why it is that cows have horns, while certain other animals have antlers? It is a very important question. Yet what science has to say about it is quite one-sided and based on externals. Let us consider why cows have horns. I said that the forces within a living organism need not always be directed outwards, but can also be directed inwards. Now imagine an organic entity possessing these two sets of forces, but which is unformed and lumpish in build. The result would be an irregular, ungainly being. We should have curious-looking cows if this were the case. They would all be lumpish and unformed, with rudimentary limbs as at an early embryonic stage. But this is not how a cow is constructed. A cow has horns and hoofs. Now what happens at the points where horns and hoofs grow? At these points an area is formed from which the organic formative forces are reflected inwards in a particularly powerful way. There is no communication with the outside as in the case of the skin or hair; the horny substance blocks the way for these forces to the outside. This is why the growth of horns and claws has such a bearing upon the whole form of the animal. Things are quite different in the case of antlers. Here the streams of forces are not led back into the organism, but certain of them are guided for a short distance out of the organism! there must be valves, as it were, through which the streams localised in the antlers (we can speak of streams of force, just as we can speak of streams of air or liquid) can be discharged. A stag is beautiful because it stands in intense communication with its environment by reason of its sending outwards streams of certain of its forces; by this it lives within its environment and takes up from it everything which works organically in its nerves and senses. Hence the nervous nature of the stag. In a certain respect, all animals which have antlers are suffused with a gentle nervousness. This is clearly to be seen in their eyes. The cow has horns in order to reflect inwards the astral and etheric formative forces, which then penetrate right into the metabolic system so that increased activity in the digestive organism arises by reason of this radiation from horns and hoofs. If one wants to understand Foot-and-Mouth disease, i.e. the retro-action from the periphery to the digestive tract, one must know of this connection. Our remedy for Foot-and-Mouth disease is based on the recognition of this. In the horn, therefore, we have something which by its inherent nature is fitted to reflect the living etheric and astral streams into the inner life organs. The horn is something which radiates etheric life and even the astral element. Indeed, if you were able to enter into the cow's belly, you would smell the current of etheric-astral life which streams inwards from the horns: and the same thing is true of the hoofs. Now this gives us a hint as to the measures we may recommend for increasing the effectiveness of ordinary stable manure. What is ordinary stable manure really? It is foodstuff which the animal has taken in and which up to a certain point has been assimilated by its organism, thereby stirring into activity certain dynamic forces in the organism. Its main use has not been to increase the amount of substance in the organism, for after having had its effect, it is excreted. It has become permeated with astral and etheric elements. The astral element has filled it with nitrogen-bearing forces and the etheric element with oxygen-bearing forces. The substance which emerges as dung is permeated with these forces. Imagine now: we take this substance and pass it into the soil in some form or other (the details will be dealt with later). Thus, we add to the soil an etheric-astral element whose proper place is in the belly of the animal, where it produces forces of a plant-like nature. For the forces which we produce in our digestive tract are of a plant-like nature. We should be extremely thankful that we get such a residue as dung, for it carries etheric and astral forces from the interior of the organism out into the open. These forces remain with it, and it is for us to keep them there. In this way, the dung will act in a life-giving and also astralising way on the soil, not only on the water element in it, but especially on the solid (earthly) element. It has the power to overcome what is inorganic in the earthly element. Now what is passed over to the soil will necessarily, of course, lose the form it originally had when taken in as food, for it has to go through an inner organic process in the metabolic system. There it enters upon a phase of decomposition and dissolution. But it is at its best just at the point where it begins to dissolve through the workings of its own astral and etheric elements. It is then that the parasites, the micro-organisms make their appearance. They find a good feeding-ground in which to develop. This is why the theory arose that these parasites are themselves responsible for the virtues in the manure. But they are only indications of the condition of the manure. If we think that by inoculating the manure with these bacteria we shall radically improve its quality, we are making a complete mistake. Externally there may seem at first to be an improvement, but in reality, there is none. I shall deal with this point later. For the moment, let us continue with the matter in hand. Let us put manure just as it comes to hand into a cow-horn, pressing it full, and bury it at a certain depth — say 1½ to 2½ feet deep according to the soil, which should not be too sandy or clayey. We can choose any spot where the soil is in good heart. Now by thus burying it with its filling of manure, we preserve in the horn that function which it would normally exercise in the cow's body, that is the reflecting of the life-giving and astral elements. Through the fact of its being surrounded with earth, all the currents of etheric and astral forces stream into its interior. These forces attract all the astral and etheric elements from the surrounding soil, and the manure contained in the horn becomes inwardly quickened with these forces in the course of the winter season when the earth itself is most alive. ®or the earth is most inwardly alive during the winter. All these living forces are preserved in the manure and thus there is a highly concentrated, life-giving manuring force in the contents of the horn. Then (in spring) the horn can be dug up and its contents removed. Those of you who were present at Dornach when last we made this experiment will remember that you were able to convince yourselves of the fact that when the manure was removed it was completely odourless. It was quite striking. The manure no longer smelt at all, though naturally it began to do so a little when it was mixed with water. This shows that all its odour had been concentrated and worked up within it. You have here a tremendous astral and etheric power which you can utilise by taking the content of the cow horn after its period of hibernation and diluting it with water which perhaps should be slightly warmed. As regards quantities and dilution, I have ascertained by repeated observation that an area of about 1500 square yards (near one-third of an acre) can be served with the contents of such a cow horn, diluted in about half a bucket full of water. The whole of the contents of the horn must be thoroughly united with the water. You must begin to stir it briskly round the edge of the bucket, until a crater is formed, in the middle reaching almost down to the bottom. At this point, suddenly reverse the movement thus causing the liquid to swirl round in the opposite direction. If you do this for an hour, the ingredients will become thoroughly mixed. You must remember what a really small amount of work is entailed in this. Besides I can very well imagine that some of the less occupied members of a farming community would derive particular pleasure from stirring manure, at any rate to begin with. It would be splendid work for the son or daughter of the house, for it is a very agreeable experience to find that a faint scent develops from what is at first completely odourless. It is extremely beneficial for a man thus to establish a relationship with the work he is doing, instead of studying Mature in a large way as it were with the help of a Baedeker. The next thing to do is to spray the mixture over tilled land so that it can get thoroughly into the soil. Small areas can be treated with an ordinary syringe, larger areas will naturally call for the employment of specially constructed machines. But once we have learned to combine this kind of “spiritual dung” with ordinary manure it will be found that very great fertility will be produced. In particular, it will be found that these things are capable of still further development, for in addition to the measures I have gust indicated, we can proceed as follows: Again, we take a cow-horn and fill it in the same way, not with manure this time, but with quartz or flint or even orthoclase or feldspar that has been ground to powder and mixed with water so as to form a thin paste. Then instead of leaving the horn in the ground throughout the winter, we leave it there over the summer, take it out in late autumn and keep it till the following spring. Its contents, which have been exposed to the. summer-life of the earth, are then emptied out and treated in the same way as has been described in connection with the dry manure, except that much smaller quantities are required. Thus, a pinch of the contents of the horn about the size of a pea or even of a pin's head can be diluted in a bucket of water; the main thing is that it must be stirred for an hour, as before. And if you use this mixture for spraying the plants (not pouring it on to them but finely sprinkling it) you will see, particularly in the case of vegetables and the like, that this has the effect of supplementing and reinforcing that which works out of the soil through the cow horn manure. And if, as would not be amiss, the practice was extended to whole fields — it would be easy enough to devise machines which would sprinkle the liquid over whole fields — then you would see how the cow-horn manure was pressing up from below, the other drawing from above, neither too weakly nor too strongly. And this could have a wonderful effect, particularly on cereals. Now these things are derived from a wider range of experience than those which result from the point “of view which would seek to construct a whole human being theoretically from his little finger. Let us not underrate the results obtained. For to tell the truth what is generally meant by making a farm productive is to make it as paying a proposition as possible. Nothing else matters very much. Unconsciously at any rate the farmer is always pleased when by some method or other he has achieved big results — big potatoes, outsizes, something inflated and swollen. His research goes no further than this. And yet this is not what matters most. What matters most is that the food which is put before man should be that which is most beneficial to him. You may grow the most splendid looking fruit in field or orchard, but it may only fill a man's stomach and not really benefit his inner organic existence. Modern science simply has not found the way to supply man with the food which will support the life of his organism. You will see that what Spiritual Science has to say on the subject is very different, for it has for its background the whole economy of Nature. The principles are drawn from out of the whole. That is why the particular indications have a decisive bearing upon the whole. If farming is practised in this way, it cannot but result in giving the best both to man and beast. Indeed, as everywhere in Spiritual Science, the study of man is the starting-point; man is taken as the basis. Thus, practical hints can be given as to how man may best sustain his human nature. This is what distinguishes our way of looking at things from those usual to-day. DiscussionQUESTION: Should the dilution be continued in arithmetical progression? ANSWER: Certain experiments must be made in this connection. The probability is that as the area increases, larger quantities of water and proportionately fewer cow-horns will be required. So that with a comparatively small number of the latter it is possible to fertilise large areas. We had twenty-five cow-horns and these served for a fairly large garden. We took one horn to half a bucket of water. Then we began again with a whole bucket to two horns. For the remaining area, which was somewhat larger we took seven horns to seven buckets. QUESTION: In stirring the manure for large areas can one use a mechanical stirrer or is this not permitted? ANSWER: Here, of course, it is a question either of adhering strictly to stirring by hand? or else of gradually slipping into all kinds of substitutes. There is no doubt that stirring by hand is something quite different from mechanical stirring. Prom a mechanistic point of view this would not be conceded, but just consider all the delicate movements, even the sensations that are imparted by the hand, and ask yourselves whether this could be conveyed into the mixture by a mere machine. Not many people believe in this difference, and yet it has been noted in medicine. Believe me, it is not — immaterial whether a medical remedy has been prepared by hand or not. Man imparts something to the things he handles and works upon. I hold this to be particularly true of the Ritter remedies with which some of you are acquainted. As you know, some people are loud in their praises of these remedies while others declare that they have no particular effect. They certainly do produce an effect, but I am firmly convinced that if these medicines were marketed generally in the usual way they would lose something essential from their effect, because it matters very much that the doctor should be in possession of them and hand them directly to the patient. When the act of giving the medicine takes place within this limited circle, the doctor brings to it a certain enthusiasm. Now, you will tell me that enthusiasm carries no weight. True it cannot be weighed. But it vibrates into the remedy. Light acts strongly upon these remedies. Why should not enthusiasm work upon them? The Ritter remedies are particularly powerful in this way. Enthusiasm can do wonders. If. however, the thing is done merely then the effect will gradually wear off. This is the difference “between what emanates from the human hand (and a very great deal emanates from the human hand) and what comes out of a machine. Besides, one could come to find so much enjoyment in stirring this cow horn mixture that after a time one would cease to think about machines for mixing. It should come to be a light and pleasant job for a Sunday afternoon instead of dessert and if you have invited plenty of friends you will get the most splendid results. QUESTION: The distribution of half a bucket of water over an area of a third of an acre will surely be a little difficult. If the number of cow-horns is increased, the difficulty of handling will be increased not in the same ratio but at a greater rate. This will make the distribution more difficult. Is it permitted to add more water or should the ratio of half a bucket to each cow-horn be retained? Must you take half a bucketful for an area of a third of an acre? ANSWER: It is possible to do this. But then I think the method of stirring would have to be changed. After stirring one cow-horn in half a bucket of water, you can dilute the mixture with more water, but then you must stir again. I think, however, it would be better to calculate how much less than one cow-hornful is needed for half a bucket of water. The great thing is that the ingredients should be thoroughly mixed, and for this it is not enough simply to pour the mixture into more water. If the mixture is still thick and has not been thoroughly stirred into the water, no real interpenetration can take place. In the case you mention I think it would be better to mix the half bucket of water with less than one cow-hornful. QUESTION: If the liquid still contains solid parts, could it be strained so as to be more readily distributed with a spray? ANSWER: I do not think that will be found to be necessary. If properly stirred the mixture will be more or less milky and there will be no need to trouble about the presence in it of any solid particle. It can easily be sprayed. Plain cow manure is the best but I do not /' think one need bother to strain it. The chances are that solid particles that may be present will do no harm and may even do good, since as the result of the concentration and subsequent dilution what works is not the substance itself, but its dynamic radiation. You need not fear that because of a solid particle in the mixture your potato plants will bear long halms with nothing on them. QUESTION: I was only thinking about the use of the spraying apparatus. ANSWER: Yes, it can be strained. It will do no harm. One could contrive a filter on the spray. QUESTION: Should the substance taken from the horn be weighed in order to get at the right proportion? Is the bucket you speak of a Swiss pail [i.e. approximately 9 litres — 2 gallons.]) or a litre measure? ANSWER: I took a Swiss milking-pail. The whole experiment was carried out with just whatever one had before one at the moment. It should now be worked out in relation to weights and measures. QUESTION: Can the horns be used several times, or must they always come from freshly slaughtered animals? ANSWER: We did not put this to the test, but my impression is that they could be used three or four times in succession, but that after that they would not work so well. It-is just possible that under certain circumstances if the horns, after being used for three or four years, were placed for a time in a cow-stable they might serve for another year. But I do not know, however, how many cow-horns one may have at one's disposal on a farm, so I can make no definite pronouncement on the question. QUESTION: Where can one procure the cow-horns? Should they come from districts in Eastern or in Central Europe? ANSWER: It does not matter where they come from so long as they are fresh and are not taken from the waste dump. The curious fact remains, however, that — paradoxical though it may sound — life on the western part of the globe is quite different from life on the Eastern part. Life in Europe, Africa and Asia is not the same as life in America. It may therefore be that in certain circumstances, the horns of American cattle need different treatment in order to be effective. The mixture made in these horns might have to be somewhat thicker, more condensed. The best of all is to take horns from the district in which one is working. There is a powerful relation between the forces in the horns taken from a district and the other forces at work in this district. The forces of foreign horns might work against the things in the home soil. It must also be borne in mind that cows which supply the horns very often do not originally come from the district in question. But this difficulty can be got over. If the cow has fed on a particular soil for three or four years, i.e. has lived in it, it belongs to that soil unless it originally came from the West. QUESTION: How old should the horns be? Should they come from an old or from a young animal? ANSWER: This is a matter which will have to be ^tested, but my impression is that the best horns are those taken from an animal midway between youth and old age. QUESTION: How big should the horns be? ANSWER: (Dr. Steiner drew the size on the blackboard.) About 12 to 16 inches, i.e. the usual size in cattle from the Allgäu district. QUESTION: Does it matter whether the horn is taken from a castrated ox (bullock) or from a male or female animal? ANSWER: It is highly probable that with an ox's horn the method would not work at all and that with a bull the effect would be relatively weak. That is why I have always spoken of cows' horns and a cow is generally a female! QUESTION: What is the best time for sowing cereals? ANSWER: The answer to this question will come out when I come to the sowing of crops. The time of sowing, of course, plays a very important part, and very different results are obtained according as to whether it takes place at a lesser or a greater distance of time from the winter months. If you sow at a short period of time from the winter months you will get crops with great powers of reproduction, if at a longer distance, you will get crops rich in nutritive value. QUESTION: Can the cow-horn manure be distributed with sand? Has rain any significance in this connection? ANSWER: One can certainly use sand. We did not try it, but there is no reason against using it. With regard to the effect of rain, this is something which only further research can establish. We may assume,1 however, that rain produces no change and may even strengthen the effect of the manure. On the other hand, the forces in the preparations are so highly, concentrated that one might easily imagine the impact of a falling rain-drop causing them to be dissipated. The action in question is a very delicate one and all this must be taken into account. There is no objection to spreading the cow-manure with the help of sand. QUESTION: In storing the cow-horns and their contents, how are harmful influences to be kept away? ANSWER: As a general rule more harm is done by trying to keep harmful influences away than by leaving them alone. Take for instance the modern craze for disinfecting, which in all spheres has been carried much too far. In the case of our own medical remedies, for example, it was found that if every possibility of their becoming mildewed were to be averted, methods had to be employed which actually reduced the healing power of the remedies. Now I do not pay much regard to these tiny crusts which people consider harmful. They do not do so very much harm. Instead of combating them with methods of drastic cleanliness, it is much better to leave them alone. We used to cover up the horns with pigs' bladders to prevent the earth from getting into them. I do not recommend any special cleaning of the horns. We must, remember that dirt is not always “dirt.” If you cover your face with a fine coating of gold, the gold will be “dirt.” Real dirt on the other hand can sometimes act as a preservative. QUESTION: Should we take any special measures to strengthen the tendency of the seed to be “driven into chaos?” ANSWER: One can strengthen it but there is no need to do so, because if seed-formation comes about at all then there is always a maximum of “chaos.” It therefore does not need to be strengthened. Any necessary strengthening must be done to the manure; but it is not necessary for the seed formation. We could, of course, do something by making the soil more siliceous. For it is through silica that the cosmic forces work which have been absorbed into the earth. One could do it in this way, but I do not think that it is necessary. QUESTION: How large should the areas be on which the experiment is made? Would it be necessary to do something to preserve the cosmic forces until the new plant comes forth? ANSWER: For these experiments, it is relatively easier to lay down the broad lines to be followed. The actual proportions will have to be worked out in individual cases. In answer to this question I suggest the following experiment. Let us plant two experimental beds with wheat and sainfoin respectively. Then, if silica has been added to the soil, you will be able to observe that the wheat (a plant whose natural and permanent tendency it is to produce seed) is being hampered in its seed formation. In the case of the sainfoin you will also see that the seed formation is either completely suppressed or is retarded. In such “experiments you can always take the effects on the cereal as the basis for comparison with the corresponding effects on sainfoin as representing leguminous plants. In this way, very interesting experiments can be made in seed-formation. QUESTION: Does it matter how soon the diluted substance is used on the fields? ANSWER: Indeed it does. The cow-horns can usually be left in the ground till they are wanted, even if this means leaving them all the winter. If, however, they have to be kept on into a part of the summer after they have been there all the winter, we should have to put them into a wooden box padded with peat-moss so as to retain the strong concentration of the substance. But in no circumstances should any dilution of the preparation be kept in hand. The stirring must take place not very long before it is used. QUESTION: In dealing with winter crops should one use the horns three months after they have been taken out of the ground? ANSWER: On the whole, it is best to leave them in the ground until one uses them. If they are to be used in early Autumn, they should be left in the ground till the moment when they are wanted. The. manure will not suffer through this. QUESTION: Is there no danger that in using a very fine spray the atomising of the liquid will cause the loss of the etheric and astral forces? ANSWER: By no means. These forces are very closely bound up with tne liquid and in general it may be said that there is less danger of the spiritual escaping from us than the material. QUESTION: How should the cow-horns containing the mineral preparation be treated when they have been in the ground all through the summer? ANSWER: It will not hurt them to take them out and keep them wherever you like. So long as they have “summered” in the ground, you can even throw them out in a heap anywhere you like, and even let the sun shine on them. This may even do them good. QUESTION: Should the horns be buried at the spot which is later on to be manured, or can they be buried all together in any other spot? ANSWER: It will make so little difference that it is not worth considering. The best way is to choose a spot where the soil is fairly good, i.e. not too mineral in content but having some humus, and bury in one place all the horns that will be needed. QUESTION: What is your opinion of' the use of machines in farming? Some people say that machines should not be used. ANSWER: This is a question which cannot be answered from a purely agricultural standpoint. There can be no doubt that in our present social life, conditions being what they are, to ask whether one should use machines is rather out of date. No farmer nowadays can dispense with machines. Of course, not all the activities on a farm are as akin to the most intimate processes of Nature as is the act of stirring which we have been discussing. And just as it would be impossible to obtain this intimate contact by purely mechanical means, so in other matters too Nature sees to it that where machines are unsuitable, one cannot achieve much with them. In seed-formation, for instance, machines cannot help much as this is done by Nature itself. One cannot, of course, do without machines today, but I would point out that in farming there is no need to become “machine mad” and always get the latest machinery. Anyone who does so will probably be far less successful in his farming than if he had gone on using his old machine until it was no longer of any use. These, however, are questions that do not strictly belong only to agriculture. QUESTION: Can the given quantity of cow horn manure diluted with water be used for half the area for which it was intended? ANSWER: In that case, you will get a growth which is luxuriant, i.e. the same result which I mentioned before in another connection. In the case of potatoes, for example, the growth would become rank, the stems would spread too far and the tubers would remain small; there would be what are generally known as “rank patches,” if you apply too much of the substance. QUESTION: What about plants intended for food where a luxuriant growth is wanted, e.g. spinach? ANSWER: Even in this case I think we should only use the half bucket of water to one cow-horn. We did so for an area which, as it happened, was used as a vegetable garden. This is the optimum. Where larger areas are put under one plant a much smaller proportion (of horn to water) will be required. QUESTION: Is it immaterial which sort of manure is used, whether from cows, horses or sheep? ANSWER: For this particular procedure cow-dung is undoubtedly the best. But it is worth enquiring into the question of the use of horse-dung. If one did use horse-dung one would have to wind some hair from the horse's mane around the horns. The horse has no horns, but the force that resides in its mane could be brought into activity in this way. QUESTION: Should the spraying be carried out before or after the seed is sown? ANSWER: The right way is to do it before the sowing of the seed. Actually, we are waiting to see what difference it makes, because this year we started rather late and a certain amount was done after the sowing. We shall see, therefore, whether this has any ill-effects. But the obvious thing is to do it before the seed is sown, so as to reach the soil first. QUESTION: Can the cow-horns used for manure also be used for the mineral preparation? ANSWER: They can, but not more than three or four times. After that they lose their power. QUESTION: Does it matter what persons carry out this work, or can it be done by anybody? ANSWER: That, of course, is a question, though one which will nowadays bring a smile to the lips of many who hear it asked. Let me remind you of the fact that flowers in window-boxes will flourish under the care of some people while with others they wither and die. These are simple facts. These things that are seen to be due to human influence, though they are outwardly inexplicable are yet inwardly clear and transparent. Moreover, they will come about as a result of Meditation — when the human being prepares himself through his meditative life as I explained yesterday. When we meditate we enter into a new relationship with the nitrogen, the substance which contains the “Imaginations.” We enter upon a state in which such things can become operative; upon a state in which we confront quite differently the whole world of plant-growth. Such effects are not so obvious today as they were in the past when these things were recognised. For there were times when people knew that by a certain inner attitude they actually fitted themselves for the care of the growth of plants. Nowadays these delicate and subtle influences are overlooked, the presence of other people disturbs them, as is bound to happen when one is constantly moving about among people who disregard such things. This is why it is so easy to refute their existence. I therefore hesitate to talk freely of such. thing's before a large audience, because they can so easily be refuted on the basis of the present conditions of daily life. A particularly ticklish question was raised in the discussion we had the other day as to whether parasites could be combated in this way, i.e. by methods of mental concentration and the like. There is no doubt that if one sets about it in the right way one can do such things. The period lying between the middle of January and the middle of February is that in which the forces which have been concentrated inside the earth are most powerfully unfolded. If we were to set this period aside as it were as a festal season and undertook these acts of concentration, then we should be able to bring about' such effects. As I said, it is a ticklish question, but a question which does admit of a positive answer. But thi3 activity must be undertaken in harmony with the whole of Nature. One must realise that it makes all the difference whether an exercise of concentration is carried out in mid-winter or in midsummer. We get hints of this in many popular sayings. Among the many things, which, as a young man, I proposed to do in my present incarnation, was the writing of a so-called “Peasant Philosophy,” which would describe the conception the peasants have or all the things that touch their lives. Such a book could have been a very beautiful work, and could have refuted the charge of stupidity often levelled against the peasant. A wonderful and subtle wisdom would have emerged, a sublime philosophy which, even in the words that it has coined, would “bear witness to the most intimate contact with the life of Nature. One is amazed to find how much the peasant knows of what is actually going on in Nature. It is no longer possible today to write such a “Peasant Philosophy” — too much of the real thing has been lost. Forty or fifty years ago this was not so, for in those days there was far more to be learned from the peasantry than from the Universities. Things were different then; one lived with the peasants on the land, and if those who wore broad-brimmed hats, who introduced the present socialistic movement, did come along, they were looked upon as oddities. The younger members of my audience can have no conception of how greatly the world has changed during the last thirty or forty years. So much has been lost of the beautiful folk dialects, and even of the genuine peasant philosophy, which was m a sense a cultural philosophy. Even in the peasants* calendars there were things which one can no longer find in them. Moreover, they looked different; there was something homely about them, I remember one, printed on very poor paper but with the signs of the planets done in colours and with a small sweet stuck on the cover, which the owner could lick before he opened the book. This made the book tasty and of course the people used it after one another. QUESTION: Where large areas are to be manured should one simply go by one's feelings in judging of the number of cow-horns to be used. ANSWER: I would not recommend this. In such cases one must use one's common sense. My advice would be this. First go by your feelings, and once you have obtained satisfactory results begin to tabulate them in figures which can then be used by other people. I would also advise anyone who has a natural gift for judging by his feelings to do so. but when talking to other people he should not decry the value of the figures he has tabulated. As a matter of fact all these things should be translated into exact calculations. This is really necessary nowadays. We need cow-horns to carry out this work but not “bull-headed” people to advocate the methods. This is just what may easily bring us up against a certain amount of opposition, and I would therefore advise you in this case to adjust yourselves to current thought. QUESTION: Can quick-lime be used in a compost heap in the proportions usually prescribed? ANSWER: The old method will have very good results, but requires the following qualification. In sandy soil one needs rather less quick-lime, in marshy ground rather more because of the formation of oxygen. QUESTION: What about digging up and turning over the compost heap? ANSWER: This will certainly do it no harm. But, of course, after doing so you must cover it up again with a layer of earth. Peat or peat-mould is particularly good as a protection. QUESTION: What kind of potash is it which can be used during the transition from old methods to the new? ANSWER: Potash of magnesium (Kali magnesia). QUESTION: What is the best use which can be made of the manure which is left over after the horns have been filled? Should it be put on the fields in the autumn so as to be there to go through the “winter-experience,” or should it be kept till the spring? ANSWER: I must make it clear that this method of manuring with cow-horns is not a complete substitute for ordinary manuring. It must be regarded as an extra which enhances the action of the ordinary manure, which continues to be used as before. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1958) — Lecture V |
---|
Question: As to the cultivation of the plants you mentioned yarrow, camomile, the stinging nettle — could they be introduced into a district by scattering the seed, if they did not happen to be growing there already? In cattle-farming we have generally assumed that yarrow and dandelion too are dangerous for cattle. We therefore wanted to exterminate these plants as far as possible — likewise the thistle. Indeed we are now engaged in doing so. |
It must be a very fine meal, and that is not easy to attain with quartz. Question: Farming experience shows that a well-nourished head of cattle puts on substance which was lacking. There must therefore be a relation between the actual feeding and the absorption of nutritive substance from the atmosphere? |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1958) — Lecture V |
---|
Question: When you speak of the bladder of the stag, are you referring to the male animal? Answer: Yes. Question: Do you mean the annual or the perennial nettle? Answer: Urtica dioica. Question: Is it right to roof in the manure-pit in districts where there is much rain? Answer: The manure ought to be able to stand any ordinary amount of rain. It is not good for it to get no rain-water at all. On the other hand, it should not be thoroughly washed out with rain; that, of course, would harm it. You cannot decide by hard-and-fast rules. Generally speaking, rain-water is good for manure. Question: Should not the place where the manure is stored be walled-in and covered over to prevent the loss of the manure-juice? Answer: In a certain sense, the manure needs rain-water. The only thing is, it might sometimes be well to keep the rain off a little by spreading granulated peat over the top. There is no purpose in keeping the rain away altogether by roofing it in. That would undoubtedly deteriorate the manure. Question: If plant-growth is stimulated to such an extent by the manuring methods you have indicated, are cultivated plants and so-called weeds equally stimulated? Must any special methods be adopted to destroy the weeds? Answer: In the first place the question is justified, needless to say, and I shall speak of the combatting of weeds in the next few days. What I have given you so far is favourable to plant-growth in general; you would not thereby put an end to the growth of weeds. On the other hand, it will make the plants far more secure against any parasitic pests that might occur. Here you have already the remedy against such parasitic pests as may occur in the plant kingdom. The combatting of weeds, on the other hand, does not arise out of the principles which we have hitherto discussed. The weed naturally shares in the general plant-growth. We shall yet have to speak on this subject. The whole thing is so intimately connected that it would not be well to pick out any special aspect now. Question: What do you hold of the method of Captain Krantz? By piling it up in loose layers, and taking advantage of the spontaneous generation of warmth, the manure is also made odourless. Answer: I have purposely refrained from speaking of what is already being done on rational lines. I wanted to give the inspirations which can come from Spiritual Science for the improvement of every such method. The one you refer to has many advantages, no doubt, but I believe it is comparatively new; it is not a very old method. And it may be this is also one of the methods which appear a dazzling success to begin with, but do not prove quite so practical in course of time. When the soil has its tradition, so to speak, everything will in a way refresh it; but when you apply the same method for a longer time, it is often as it is in medicine. When a medicament comes into the body for the first time, why, the most unbelievable medicaments are helpful the first time you take them! But then the curative effect is at an end. Here too it always takes some time before you recognise that it is not as you were first led to believe. The one thing of importance is the spontaneous generation of warmth. The activity that must come into play for the generation of this warmth is exceedingly good for the manure; of that there can be no doubt. This activity cannot but lead to good results. Possible disadvantages might arise from the manure being piled up loosely; nor do I know if it is quite literally true, as you suggest, that it becomes quite odourless. If you do really get it odourless, it would indicate that the method is really good and beneficial. I believe it has not been tried for many years. Question: Is it not better to pile up the manure above the earth than to sink it in a pit below the level of the ground? Answer: In principle it is generally right to put it as high as possible. You should not, however, put it too high; you must still keep it in proper relation to the forces that are there beneath the earth. You cannot actually put it on a hillock, but you can build it up from the normal level of the ground; that will give you the most favourable height. Question: Can the same compost methods be applied to the vine which has suffered so much in recent times? Answer: Yes, but with modifications. I shall mention some modifications when I come to speak of fruit- and vine-growing. Generally speaking, what I have given to-day applies to the improvement of every kind of manure. I have indicated what will improve manure in general. The specific modifications of these methods for meadow- and pasture-land, cereal crops, orchards and vineyards still remain to be dealt with. Question: Is it right to have the manure-ground paved or plastered? Answer: From all that one can know of the whole structure of the earth and its relation to the manure, it would be utterly wrong. I cannot see why it should be paved. If your manure-ground is paved or plastered, you should hollow out a space all around so as to leave room for the interplay of the manure with the earth. Why deteriorate the manure by separating it from the earth? Question: Has the ground beneath it any influence — whether, for instance, it he sandy or clayey? Sometimes the ground layer of the place where the manure is to be kept is covered with clay so as to make it impervious. Answer: Undoubtedly the different kinds of earth will have their influence, according to their specific properties as kinds of earth. If there is sandy ground where you want to store the manure, it will be necessary to fill it in with a little clay. For the sand is pervious and will suck in the water. If, on the other hand, you have a very clayey soil, you should loosen it a little, and sprinkle in some sand. For a medium effect, always take a layer of sand and a layer of clay. Then you have both — the inner consistency of the earth kingdom and also the watery influences. Otherwise the water will trickle away. A mixture of the two kinds of earth will be the best. For the same reason you should not choose a ground of “Loess” to pile up your manure-heap — not if you can avoid it. “Loess,” or the like, will not be very helpful. In such a case it will be better to create in course of time an artificial ground for your manure-heap. Question: As to the cultivation of the plants you mentioned yarrow, camomile, the stinging nettle — could they be introduced into a district by scattering the seed, if they did not happen to be growing there already? In cattle-farming we have generally assumed that yarrow and dandelion too are dangerous for cattle. We therefore wanted to exterminate these plants as far as possible — likewise the thistle. Indeed we are now engaged in doing so. I presume we should now have to sow them again along the edges of the fields, but not in the meadows and pastures? Question by Dr. Steiner: But how should they be harmful as animal food? Count Keyserlingk: Yarrow is said to contain poisonous substances. Dandelion is said to be not good for cattle. Dr. Steiner: You should watch it carefully. On the open field, an animal will not eat it if it is really harmful. Count Lerchenfeld: We in our district do the very opposite. We treat the dandelion as good fodder for milk cattle. Dr. Steiner: These are sometimes mere prevalent opinions; nobody knows if they have ever been tested. It is possible, no doubt, that in the hay ... — it would have to be tested — I think, if it were harmful, an animal would leave the hay untouched. An animal will not eat what is not good for it. Question: Has not yarrow largely been removed by the large doses of lime? Yarrow surely needs a moist and acid soil? Answer: If you use wild yarrow, a very small quantity will suffice, even for a large estate. It has a peculiar, homoeopathic effect. If you had some yarrow in the garden here, it would be enough for the whole estate. Question: I for my part have observed that the young dandelion, shortly before flowering, is very gladly eaten by all cattle. Afterwards, however, when it has begun to blossom, the cattle will no longer take it. Answer: You must always remember the following: this, at least, is the general rule. An animal will not eat dandelion if it is harmful. An animal's feeding instinct is excellent. You must also bear this in mind. We too, when we wish to stimulate something that depends on a living process, will almost always use what we should not use by itself. For instance, no one would eat yeast as his daily food; yet it is used in baking bread. A thing that even can act as a poison when consumed in large doses will, under other conditions, have the most beneficial effects. After all, medicines are generally poisonous. The process — not the substance — is important. Thus I believe you can well get over your misgivings about the dandelions doing harm to your animals. So many strange ideas are prevalent. It is curious: here, on the one hand, the harmfulness of the dandelion is emphasised by Count Keyserlingk, while on the other hand, Count Lerchenfeld describes it as the best of milch-fodder. The effects cannot possibly be so different in two such neighbouring countries; one or another of the two opinions must be wrong. Question: Perhaps it is a question of the underlying basis? My statement was founded on veterinary opinions. Ought we then purposely to plant yarrow and dandelion on our pasture and meadowland? Answer: Quite a small surface will suffice. Question: Does it depend on how long the preparations are kept with the manure, after taking them out of the earth? Answer: Once they are mixed with the manure it is meaningless to ask how long they should be kept in it. But it should all have been done before the manure is spread over the fields. Question: Should the manure-preparations be put into the earth all together, or each one separately. Answer: That is of some importance. While the interaction is going on, the one preparation should not be allowed to disturb the other. Therefore it is well to dig them in some distance apart. If I had to do it on a small estate, I should dig them in as far as possibly from one another, so as to prevent their interfering with each other. I should look for the most distant parts around the edge of the estate. On a large estate you can choose the distances as you will. Question: Does it matter if the earth above the preparations is overgrown, once they are buried? Answer: The earth can do as it likes. It is quite good if it is grown over. It may even be overgrown with cultivated plants. Question: How should the preparations be dealt with in the manure-heap? Answer: I should advise the following procedure. Prick a hole about a foot deep, or a little deeper, in a large pile of manure, so that the manure can (lose up again around the stuff. You need not make it as deep as a metre, but the manure ought to be able to (lose up again round the preparations. For it is like this (Diagram 10): If this is the pile of manure, and you have here a little of the preparation ... it all depends on the radiations. The rays go out like this; it is not well if the stuff is too near the surface. The radiation is thrown back from the surface; it returns in a definite curve. It does not go outside, provided the manure closes up around the substance. Half a metre (about 18 inches) will suffice. If it is too near the surface, a considerable portion of the rays of force will be lost. Question: Is it enough if you only make a very few holes, or should the preparations be distributed as widely as possible? Answer: It is better to distribute them — not to make all the holes in one place. Otherwise the radiations may interfere with each other. Question: Should all the preparations be put into the manure at the same time? Answer: When you are putting the preparations in the manure heap, you can put in the one beside the other. They do not influence each other; they only influence the manure as such. Question: Can the preparations all be put into one hole? Answer: Theoretically, even if all the preparations were put into one hole, one might presume that they would not disturb each other; but I should not like to make this statement a priori. You can put them in fairly close together, but they might alter all interfere with each other, if you mixed them all up in a single hole. Question: What kind of oak did you mean? Answer: Quercus robur. Question: Must the bark be taken from a living tree, or will a felled tree do? Answer: As far as possible from a living tree; nay, more, from a tree in which you may presume that the “oak resin” is still pretty active. Question: Is it the whole of the bark? Answer: No, only the surface — the outermost layer of bark which crumbles off of its own accord when you loosen it. Question: In burying the manure preparations, is it absolutely necessary to go no deeper than the fertile layer? Or could one bury the cow-horns even deeper? Answer: It is better to leave them in the fertile layer. Indeed it may be presumed that in the subsoil underneath the fertile layer they would no longer provide fruitful material. You should, however, consider that the best possible condition would be provided by a layer of fertile soil as deep as you can find. Look for a place where the fertile layer is deepest — that will undoubtedly be the best. Beneath the fertile layer you will get no beneficial effect. Question: Within the fertile layer they will always be exposed to the frost. Will that do no harm? Answer: If exposed to the frost, they come into the very time when the earth, by virtue of the frost, is most intensely exposed to cosmic influences. Question: How should you grind down the quartz or the silica? In a small grinding-mill, or in a mortar? Answer: In this case the best thing will be to do it first in a mortar; and you will need an iron pestle. Grind it down in the mortar to a fine, mealy consistency. If it is quartz, having ground it down as far as possible in this way, you will even need to continue grinding it afterwards on a glass surface. It must be a very fine meal, and that is not easy to attain with quartz. Question: Farming experience shows that a well-nourished head of cattle puts on substance which was lacking. There must therefore be a relation between the actual feeding and the absorption of nutritive substance from the atmosphere? Answer: You need only observe what I said. In the absorption of food, the forces developed by the body are the essential thing. Thus it depends on the receiving of proper food, whether or no the animal develops sufficient forces to be able to receive and assimilate the substances from the atmosphere. You may compare it with this: If you have a very close-fitting glove to put on, you cannot do it by sheer force. You wedge the glove out with a wooden instrument; you thus extend and stretch it. So too in this case; the forces have to be made pliant and supple. Such forces must first be there, for the creature to receive from the atmosphere what it does not get from the actual food. The food is there to stretch the organism, so to speak, thus enabling it to receive all the more from the atmosphere. This may even lead to hypertrophy if too much is taken, and you would pay for it by the shorter duration of the creature's life. There is a happy mean here, too, between the maximum and minimum. |
GA 80c. Man as a Being of Spirit and Soul — The Science of the Spirit and Modern Questions |
---|
Among the many activities springing from the work of Rudolf Steiner are the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association which aims at improved nutrition resulting from methods of agriculture outlined by Rudolf Steiner; the art of Eurythmy, created and described by him as “visible speech and visible song;” the medical and pharmaceutical work carried out by the Clinical and Therapeutical Institute at Arlesheim, Switzerland, with related institutions in other countries; the Homes for the education and care of mentally retarded children; and new directions for work in such fields as Mathematics, Physics, Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Music, Drama, Speech Formation, Social Studies, Astronomy, Economics and Psychology. |
GA 80c. Man as a Being of Spirit and Soul — The Science of the Spirit and Modern Questions |
---|
Born in Austria in 1861, Rudolf Steiner received recognition as a scholar when he was invited to edit the Kürschner edition of the natural scientific writings of Goethe. In 1891 Steiner received his Ph.D. at the University of Rostock. He then began his work as a lecturer. From the turn of the century until his death in 1925, he delivered well over 6000 lectures on the Science of Spirit, or Anthroposophy. The lectures of Rudolf Steiner dealt with such fundamental matters as the being of man, the nature and purpose of freedom, the meaning of evolution, man's relation to nature, and the life after death and before birth. On these and similar subjects, Steiner had unexpectedly new, inspiring and thought-provoking things to say. Through a study of the transcripts of lectures like those contained in this book, one can come to a clear, reasonable, comprehensive understanding of the human being and his place in the universe. In all his years of writing and lecturing, Steiner made no appeal to emotionalism or sectarianism in his readers or hearers. His profound respect for the freedom of every man shines through everything he produced. The slightest compulsion or persuasion he considered an affront to the dignity and ability of the human being. Therefore he confined himself to objective statements in his writing and speaking, leaving his readers and hearers entirely free to reject or accept his words. He addressed the healthy, sound judgment and good will in each person, confident of the response in those who come to meet his ideas with the willingness to understand them. Among the many activities springing from the work of Rudolf Steiner are the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association which aims at improved nutrition resulting from methods of agriculture outlined by Rudolf Steiner; the art of Eurythmy, created and described by him as “visible speech and visible song;” the medical and pharmaceutical work carried out by the Clinical and Therapeutical Institute at Arlesheim, Switzerland, with related institutions in other countries; the Homes for the education and care of mentally retarded children; and new directions for work in such fields as Mathematics, Physics, Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Music, Drama, Speech Formation, Social Studies, Astronomy, Economics and Psychology. The success of Rudolf Steiner Education (sometimes referred to as Waldorf Education) has proven the correctness of Steiner's concept of the way to prepare the child for his or her eventual role as a resourceful, creative, responsible member of modern adult society. The transcripts of Rudolf Steiner's many lectures on a wide variety of subjects are a storehouse of spiritual knowledge as it can become fruitful in many fields of modern life. However, Steiner himself stressed that his lectures were not intended for print, and are not a substitute for what he expressed in his written works on the Science of Spirit or Anthroposophy. Therefore, if the reader finds the following lectures of interest, or if they arouse questions and points upon which he wishes further clarification, he is certain to find the latter in the fundamental books included in the series of Major Writings of Rudolf Steiner listed at the end of the present volume. — The Publishers |
GA 80a. Reincarnation and Immortality — The Essence of Anthroposophy |
---|
Among the many activities springing from the work of Rudolf Steiner are the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association which aims at improved nutrition resulting from methods of agriculture outlined by Rudolf Steiner; the art of Eurythmy, created and described by him as “visible speech and visible song;” the medical and pharmaceutical work carried out by the Clinical and Therapeutical Institute of Arlesheim, Switzerland, with related institutions in other countries; the Homes for the education and care of mentally retarded children; and new directions for work in such fields as Mathematics, Physics, Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Music, Drama, Speech Formation, Social Studies, Astronomy, Economics and Psychology. |
GA 80a. Reincarnation and Immortality — The Essence of Anthroposophy |
---|
Born in Austria in 1861, Rudolf Steiner received recognition as a scholar when he was invited to edit the Kürschner edition of the natural scientific writings of Goethe. In 1891 Steiner received his Ph.D. at the University of Rostock. He then began his work as a lecturer. From the turn of the century until his death in 1925, he delivered well over 6000 lectures on the Science of Spirit, or Anthroposophy. The lectures of Rudolf Steiner dealt with such fundamental matters as the being of man, the nature and purpose of freedom, the meaning of evolution, man's relation to nature, and the life after death and before birth. On these and similar subjects, Steiner had unexpectedly new, inspiring and thought-provoking things to say. Through a study of the transcripts of lectures like those contained in this book, one can come to a clear, reasonable, comprehensive understanding of the human being and his place in the universe. In all his years of writing and lecturing, Steiner made no appeal to emotionalism or sectarianism in his readers or hearers. His profound respect for the freedom of every man shines through everything he produced. The slightest compulsion or persuasion he considered an affront to the dignity and ability of the human being. Therefore he confined himself to objective statements in his writing and speaking, leaving his readers and hearers entirely free to reject or accept his words. He addressed the healthy, sound judgment and good will in each person, confident of the response in those who come to meet his ideas with the willingness to understand them. Among the many activities springing from the work of Rudolf Steiner are the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association which aims at improved nutrition resulting from methods of agriculture outlined by Rudolf Steiner; the art of Eurythmy, created and described by him as “visible speech and visible song;” the medical and pharmaceutical work carried out by the Clinical and Therapeutical Institute of Arlesheim, Switzerland, with related institutions in other countries; the Homes for the education and care of mentally retarded children; and new directions for work in such fields as Mathematics, Physics, Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Music, Drama, Speech Formation, Social Studies, Astronomy, Economics and Psychology. The success of Rudolf Steiner Education (sometimes referred to as Waldorf Education) has proven the correctness of Steiner's concept of the way to prepare the child for his or her eventual role as a resourceful, creative, responsible member of modern adult society. The transcripts of Rudolf Steiner's many lectures on a wide variety of subjects are a storehouse of spiritual knowledge as it can become fruitful in many fields of modern life. However, Steiner himself stressed that his lectures were not intended for print, and are not a substitute for what he expressed in his written works on the Science of Spirit or Anthroposophy. Therefore, if the reader finds the following lectures of interest, or if they arouse questions and points upon which he wishes further clarification, he is certain to find the latter in the fundamental books included in the series of Major Writings of Rudolf Steiner listed at the end of the present volume. The Publishers |
GA 351. Nine Lectures on Bees — Lecture VIII |
---|
Everything they cannot make use of they throw out. After all, we men do very much the same. These farming ants manage to provide themselves with all they need in a very fine way! One has really to ask oneself: what is actually happening here? Actually, an entirely new kind of grass is brought into existence. |
Well may one say that wonder is awakened at the activity of the spirit in all things, but when one can approach it more nearly, then one realises it has immense significance. Let us look once more at those farming ants which cultivate their little field, and change the character of the plants they grow there. Truly, gentlemen, a man could not nourish himself with what grows there, for if a man were to eat those little rice grains that are as hard as silica, he would first get strange illnesses because he would have too much formic acid inside him, and in addition to this, so injure his teeth that for a time the dentists would be kept busy. |
Let us therefore, select the plants which we can cultivate so that they get quite hard, stony hard, and then we can get plenty of formic acid from this hardness. So these farming ants do this that they may get the greatest possible amount of formic acid. It is these ants again that give back so much formic acid to the earth. That is the connection. From this you can see that poisons when they cause inflammation, or the like, are also perpetual remedies for the holding back of the processes of death. |
GA 351. Nine Lectures on Bees — Lecture VIII |
---|
Good morning, Gentlemen! Today I shall continue the subject dealt with last time in answer to Herr Dollinger's question. Should anything else arise, we can consider this also. In my answer to this question of Herr Dollinger, I spoke of the ants, and how these creatures, bees, wasps and ants are related to one another, though their modes of life are totally different. Taking our starting point from this fact, we can really learn a very great deal about the whole household of Nature, for the more one learns to understand these small creatures and their ways, the more one realises how wisely regulated their work is, and all they are able to accomplish in the realm of Nature. Last time, I told you how the ants make their nests, how they either build up mounds of the soil itself, or gather together minute particles of decaying wood, or of wood which has become quite hard, and is no longer living; also from various other substances which they mix together. Within these ant-hills are innumerable passages, along which the ants move in procession, whole hosts of them. One sees them coming out at the entrances, searching their surroundings, and collecting what they need. Sometimes however, it happens that these creatures do nct first build up a mound, but make use of something suitable they find there already. Perhaps, for instance, a tree has been cut down and the stump has been left standing; an ant colony comes along and makes a little chamber inside it, hollows it out, and makes all kind of passages with their exits. Then perhaps, they heap up a little earth, make one passage, then another, then a third and so on, and within these passages are all inter-connected. You see, to say of all this that it is due to the instinct of the creatures may be all very well, but nothing very much has then been said, for when the creature cannot make use of a tree stump, it builds up a sand heap; when it finds a suitable tree stump, then it so arranges the matter that it saves the labour that would be needed to heap up a hillock. The small creature adjusts itself to the individual situation, and it becomes very difficult to state that this is due to instinct. This would only enable the creature to do everything in accordance with instinct; but it actually adjusts itself to the external circumstances. That is the important point. Here, in our country, it does not frequently happen, but the further one goes south the greater nuisance do the ants become. Imagine a house, and in one corner of it, without the owner having noticed anything, the ants have gathered; they have carried in all sorts of things, particles of earth, minute fragments of wood, and in some corner that has been overlooked in cleaning, have made a small dwelling place which no one notices. From here they make passages into the kitchen, into the pantry, following the most complicated ways, and bring back all they require for food or other purposes, from the kitchen or pantry. This can happen in southern countries, and the house may be quite pervaded by a colony of ants without anyone living there knowing they are mere fellow inhabitants of the ants, until they discover by chance, or by sight, that something in the store cupboard has been nibbled, and the real source only comes to light when the passages are traced. Here again, one cannot get very far by speaking of mere instinct, for you would then have to say that Nature has given these creatures an instinct to take up their abode precisely in this very house; what they build there must be so constructed that it is adapted to this particular house. But you see, these creatures do not work out of mere instinct; there is wisdom in what they do. If you test some individual ant, you would certainly not arrive at the conclusion that it was especially wise, for what it does when separated from the colony, or what it may be forced to do, does not reveal any special wisdom. One then begins to realise that it is not the individual ant that can reason, but the entire colony of ants as a unity; the colony of bees, for example, is wise in this sense. The separate ants of the colony have no individual intelligence, and for this reason the work is carried on by the whole colony in an extremely interesting way. There are, moreover, many other more interesting happenings within these ant-hills. There is, for instance, a kind of ant which does as follows: somewhere or other it builds on the ground a kind of wall (drawing on the board); here it is raised; here, it forms a circle on the surrounding earth, there, digs a hole. Within are the ants. Sometimes the hole is at the top, like the crater of a volcano; within are the many passages with their outlets. Now these ants do something very peculiar. They destroy all the grasses and plants which grow round about, with the exception of one particular kind of grass. All other grasses are destroyed, even at times, all other plants. Thus, in the centre we have a kind of hillock, and all round it looks as though the ground had been very finely paved. Through the ants biting away everything, the soil has become very compact, and is very firm. There is the ant-hill, and all round it a smooth pavement, almost like asphalt, but rather lighter in colour. The ants then search all round about and collect a certain kind of grass which they then begin to cultivate. As soon as the wind brings other seeds, they bite off the new plants the moment they begin to grow; they will not have them in the place they have made so smooth, and in all the surrounding area nothing else is permitted to grow but just this one special kind of grass. The ants have established a little property of their own, as it were, and regularly cultivate the kind of grass that best suits them; nothing else is allowed to grow there; all other plants are bitten away. The grass which is allowed to grow becomes quite different in character from the same grass where it grows further away, where, for instance, it is growing in loose soil. In the hardened soil made by the ants, the cultivated grass has quite hard seeds, as hard as stone. One can find these ant-hills. Round about them there is a regular little farm, 'and the ants are engaged in agriculture. Darwin, who especially observed these things, calls it so. One finds in the soil very hard seeds somewhat like small grains of maize, and when all is ready, the ants come out, bite off the tops, and carry them into their dwelling. For a while they stay inside; one does not see them, but they are very busy inside there. Whatever they have no use for, like the little stalks that were still attached to the hard seeds, they bite off, and after a time they come out again and run all about, and throw away all they do not want, keeping in their ant-hill only the hard silica-like seeds. These they partly use as food, biting them with their very hard teeth, or they use them for their building. Everything they cannot make use of they throw out. After all, we men do very much the same. These farming ants manage to provide themselves with all they need in a very fine way! One has really to ask oneself: what is actually happening here? Actually, an entirely new kind of grass is brought into existence. These silica-hard seeds cannot be found anywhere else. They are only produced by the ants, and the ants work further upon them. What then is really happening here? Before considering this, we will approach the question from another side. Let us go back to the wasps, among which I told you, we find creatures that deposit their eggs on the leaves, and in the bark of trees; gall-nuts are then formed out of which the young wasps emerge. But quite other things can also happen. There are certain caterpillars which look like this (drawing on the blackboard). You all know them; these caterpillars are covered with woolly hairs, with quite prickly-woolly hairs. The following can happen to these caterpillars. One or more wasps of a special kind simply insert their eggs into the caterpillar, and when the eggs mature the grubs creep out of them. Bees, and other insects of this kind, all make their first appearance as grubs, also the ants. You know how, when one clears away an ant-heap, one finds the white, so-called ants' eggs, which are given to caged birds. They are however, not eggs, but the larvae that have crept out of the eggs. It is not correct to call them eggs. Now when the wasp lays its eggs into the caterpillar, it is really very remarkable. As I have already told you, these grubs when they first emerge are very hungry, and there are a great number of them in the caterpillar. It is really remarkable, for if one of these grubs were to begin to eat the caterpillar's stomach, the whole affair of the wasp's development would come to an end, for the caterpillar could not live if any organ, an eye, or to do with the heart or with the digestion, were eaten into. The thing would then come to an end. But these minute wasp grubs show their intelligence by not biting into, or feeding upon any vital organ, but by eating only those organs which can be injured for quite a long time. The caterpillar does not die, it is ill; but the wasp grubs can still go on devouring it. It is most wisely arranged that the wasp grubs do not bite into anything that would fatally injure the caterpillar. Possibly, you may have seen how these larvæ emerge from inside the caterpillar when they are mature? The caterpillar has been their foster-mother, nourishing the whole brood with her own body. Now they creep out, develop further, and seek their food from the plants. When they are fully developed, the eggs are once more deposited in a similar caterpillar, You might well say that there is something extremely clever in all this, and indeed, as I have already said, the more one observes such things, the more do they arouse one's deepest admiration. It cannot be otherwise; wonder is kindled, and one asks oneself the meaning of such things. If one would discover their meaning, one must first say; we have the plants growing out of the earth; we have the caterpillars. Then these insects appear, and eat their fill from the flowers, and caterpillars, and then reproduce themselves. So it goes on, over and over again. To us men it seems as though the whole insect world might just as well not exist at all. Naturally, as human beings, when we see the bee, we say; the bees give us honey, therefore bee-keeping is of use to us. Very good; but this is from the point of view of man. If the bees are robbers, and merely take away the nectar from the flowers, and we men then use the honey for our food, or as a remedy, then this is all to our advantage. But from the point of view of the flowers, it looks like a mere robbery in which we, as men, take part. The question therefore, is whether from the point of view of the flowers they would say, as it were; out there are those robbers, the bees, wasps and ants who rob us of our saps; we should thrive much better if they did not take away our saps. You see, gentlemen, this is a point of view that a man usually takes as regards the flowers. But it is not so; it is absolutely not so. The matter is entirely different. When one is looking at some flower, and an insect, let us say a bee, is sucking the juices of the flower, or from the willow blossom, one must say to oneself: how would it be for the plant if the bee, or the wasp or some other insect, did not come to suck out this nectar? Now would it be then? This is naturally a question far more difficult to answer than that of a mere robbery, for one must look deeply into the whole household of Nature. It is not possible to reach the right conclusion unless one is able to look back into the earlier stages of the earth's evolution. You see, the earth was not always the same as it is today. If the earth had always been as it is today, when we find the dead lime-stone, the dead quartz or gneiss, or mica-schist, and so on; when we find growing out of the present-day seeds, the plants, when we find the animals. If the earth had always been like this, the whole of what we see today could not exist, could not be there at all! Those who begin their science only at the point of what exists today, give themselves up to complete illusion. He who would seek all the mysteries, all the laws of the earth in that alone wherein modern science seeks them, is as if a dweller in Mars should come down to the earth, who had no idea of living men, who only went to a mortuary and saw there the dead men. The dead could not be there at all if they had not first been living men. The inhabitant of Mars who had never seen living men, and saw only the dead, would first have to be guided to living men; then he would be able to say — “Yes, now I understand why the dead have these forms; before I did not understand this, because I did not know the living form that preceded the dead one.” Thus, one must go back to earlier conditions if one would know the laws of the earth evolution. The earth had long ago a very different form; I have spoken of it as the Moon-condition, and in my book, “An Outline of Occult Science,” it is also called the Moon-condition, because the present Moon is a remnant of this ancient earth. Other stages of evolution in their turn preceded this one of the Moon. The earth has transformed itself; it was originally altogether different. Now the earth was once at such a stage that plants and insects such as we have today, did not exist at all. The matter, gentlemen, was thus; there was, let us say, something that can be compared with the earth of today. Out of this grew plant-like forms, but plant-like forms that were continually changing, that continually assumed different forms, as the clouds do, for instance. There were then such clouds in the environment of the earth, but they were not clouds like the clouds we see today, which are dead, or at least seem to be dead; they were living clouds, as living as the flowers of today. If you can imagine to yourselves that our clouds could become alive and turn a greenish colour, then you would have a picture of the plant kingdom of that time. The scientific gentlemen of today have very strange ideas on such matters. There was recently a most ludicrous article in the newspaper. Once more a new scientific discovery had been made, quite in the modern way. It was really absurd! It was stated that if prepared in a certain way, milk was a good remedy for scurvy, a very ugly disease. Well, gentlemen, what does the scientist of today do? I have already referred to this. He analyses the milk. Then he finds that milk contains such and such chemical components. But I have also told you that one can feed mice with the chemical substances in the milk, but if one gives them these only, the mice die within a few days. Bunge's pupils confirmed this, (see previously mentioned article in the “Schweizerische Bienenzeitung”) and merely said; “Well, yes, there is a life-substance in the milk, as also in honey, Vitamin.” You remember, as I said before, one might just as well say “poverty comes from being poor,” as say what is said here, “there is Vitamin in it.” Well gentlemen, an important discovery has been made, there are various substances in milk, that have very complicated names and milk when prepared in a special way, is a remedy for scurvy. Then in a truly learned way investigations were made to see whether the scurvy could be cured if one gave the scurvy patients only all the things with the learned names that were contained in the milk. They were not in the least cured by any of the component substances. But when all of these were present (in the specially prepared milk) then the scurvy was cured. No single component by itself cured, only the whole together. Well says the scientist to himself; what remains over when one subtracts all the components? What then remains over? For now he eliminates them all. He does not admit that these components have an etheric body, he reckons them all out, and what remains? The “Vitamin!” The vitamin which must be what cures the scurvy is not to be found among the component parts. Where then is it? So now they make this fine tale — it must be in the water of the milk! Therefore, the remedy for scurvy is the water! This is really absurd, but it is a learned affair today. For if water is to contain vitamin, then with our learning we should arrive up there in the clouds. We should have to look around us and say: “Water is everywhere and vitamin is in the water.” But then we would be at the stage at which the earth once was. Only today, it is no longer so. Plant-life was there, a living plant covering, and this living covering of plants was fertilised from all directions from the environment. There were then no separate animals, no wasps for instance, but from the surrounding regions there came a substance which had an animal-like nature. Our earth was once in a condition of which one could say that it was surrounded by clouds that had plant-life within them; from the periphery, other clouds approached and fertilised them; these clouds had an animal nature. From cosmic spaces came the animal nature; from the earth the essence of plant-being rose upwards. All this has changed. The plants have become our clearly outlined flowers which grow out of the earth, no longer forming great clouds. But within the plants there remains a longing to receive an influence from without. Here we have a rose growing out of the earth; here a rose petal, here another, then a third and so on. Now comes a wasp. This wasp immediately bites a piece out of the rose petal, carries it off to its nest, and uses it for building, or gives it as food to its young. A piece of the rose petal is simply bitten out by the wasp, and carried there, Well, as I said before, our rose bushes are no longer clouds: they have become sharply defined things. But what once lived within them, what was once united with all that entered in as the essence of animal life, this has remained behind within the rose leaves and blossoms. It is there within them. In every rose leaf is something which must of necessity be in some way fertilised from without, from the whole environment. You see, gentlemen, what the flowers need, what they actually need, is a substance that also plays an important part in the human body. When you study the human body the most diverse substances are found in it. But everywhere within the human body these substances are transformed into something which, in certain quantities, is always present within the human body which has need of it. This substance is formic acid. If you go to an ant-hillock, and collect some ants and squeeze them, you get a juice. This juice contains formic acid and a little alcohol. It is inside the ants. But this juice is also very finely distributed over your body. Whatever you eat during your life time is always transformed into formic acid, not of course, exclusively, for there are other substances also, but in small quantities. This formic acid permeates your whole body. When you are ill, and have not sufficient formic acid within you, it is a serious matter for your body, for it then has a tendency, just because you have not enough formic acid within you, (and here I come once more to Herr Müller's question, in answer to it) your body has a tendency to become gouty, or rheumatic. It develops too much uric acid, and too little formic acid. The ants also have in their bodies this substance that the human body needs. This formic acid, gentlemen, is indeed something that is made use of throughout nature, You actually cannot find any bark of any tree that does not contain some formic acid. Formic acid is everywhere in the tree, just as it is in the human body. In every leaf, everywhere there must be formic acid. But not only formic acid must be there, but also what is closely akin to it, and later becomes the bee poison. All these insects contain a certain substance within them which is poisonous. If one is stung by a bee, one gets inflammation; if one is stung by a wasp, it is sometimes even worse. This business of wasp stings can be pretty bad. Brehm describes how these insects can play bad tricks on men and animals. It happened that a young cow-herd had taken a large number of cows out to graze, and the pasture was full of wasp nests. The cow-herd's dog ran about; suddenly the cow-herd's dog goes mad, rushes round like a mad dog, and no one knows what has happened. As fast into it can the dog rushes to a neighbouring stream, flings itself into the water, and shakes and shakes itself. The lad was much disturbed by this, and goes to the rescue of the dog. He does not jump into the water, but tries to help it from the bank. Most unluckily he steps on a nest, as the dog had probably done before, and the wasps sting him too, and he begins to rush about like a madman, and finally jumps into the water. And now, because the dog has vanished, and the cow-herd has vanished, confusion arises in the herd of cows. The cows which tread on nests also get stung, and behave as though mad. Finally, most of the herd are in the stream also — as if they were all mad. You see, insect stings can do one a very bad turn. All these creatures have poisons in them; even an ant stings one, and causes a little inflammation because it injects some formic acid into the wound. This formic acid, moreover, is present in all living things in a right dilution. If there were no ants, bees and wasps, which are the preparers of these poisons, what would happen? Truly, gentleman, the same thing would happen that would also come to pass in the propagation of the human race if all the men were beheaded, and only women were left on the earth. Humanity could not then continue to exist, for the male semen would no longer be there. Well, these creatures all have the semen in addition, but they none-the-less need what comes from these poisons for their existence, for these poisons have remained over from what was once in the whole environment. In the finest state of dilution, bee poison, wasp poison, ant poison, once descended upon the plants from cosmic spaces, and the remnants are still present today. So when you see a bee sitting on some willow-tree or on some flower, you must not say: the insect only wants to rob the flower of something; rather must you say: when the little bee sits there and sucks, the flower is so content that it lets its sap flow to the spot where the bee sucks. While the bee is taking something from the flower, bee or wasp poison flows from the bee to the flower. From the wasp, the wasp poison flows, and more especially when the ant attacks the tree stump which no longer has life, formic acid flows in. If the ant visits a flower, then the sap of the flower unites with the formic acid. This is necessary. If these things did not happen, if bees, wasps and ants did not exist and continually attack the plants and bite into them, then the necessary formic acid, the necessary poisons, would not flow into the flowers, and the plants would in time die out. You see, substances such as are usually called life-substances, are highly valued by man; yet it is precisely only these substances that are truly life-substances. If one has deadly nightshade, within it is a poison, a very powerful one. But what is the deadly nightshade? It collects spirituality from the world's environment. Poisons are gatherers of what is spiritual; for this reason they are healing remedies. Fundamentally speaking, the flowers sicken through the life-substances, and the little bees, and wasps and ants, work continually as small physicians bringing to the flowers the formic acid they need, and at the same moment, healing their sickness. Thus all is once more healed. The bees, wasps and ants are not mere robbers, for in the same moment they bring life to the plants. It is even the same with the caterpillars which would also die out, and none would remain after a time. You will probably say no great harm would be done if all the caterpillars were to disappear; but in their turn the birds feed on them. Throughout the whole of Nature there are these inner relationships. When we see, for example, how the ants permeate everything with their formic acid, we look into the whole household of Nature and its splendour. Everywhere things happen that are essential for the maintenance of life, and of the world. You see, here is a tree, and the tree has bark. The bark decays when I cut down the tree; then it moulders. People say: “Well, let it rot away.” Just try to imagine all that moulders away in the forests, fallen leaves and so on, within the course of the year! Men are willing to let it all rot away, but Nature orders it otherwise. Everywhere there are ant-heaps, and from these ant-heaps formic acid enters into the soil of the forest. When you have both forest soil and an ant-heap, it is the same as if you take a glass of water and add a drop of something else to it; the whole contents are at once affected. If you put in salt, all the water is at once made salty. If you have an ant-heap then the formic acid goes in the same moment into the forest soil, and all the soil which is already decaying is saturated with this formic acid. It is not only into the inner parts of the living plants, and into the still living caterpillars that formic acid penetrates when the bee sits on the flower, and the flower absorbs what it receives from the bee. All these things can only be learned by means of spiritual science; the other kind of science is only concerned with what the bee takes away from the flowers. But the bees would never have been able to sit for thousands of years on the flowers had they not fostered them in the act of biting into them. So it is also with the lifeless substances of the woods. Even physical science as it is today, concludes that the earth will one day be quite dead. It would indeed be so, for a state of things would eventually come about when decay would prevail, when the earth would be dead. That this will not be so, is because wherever the earth decays it is in the same moment penetrated by all that is yielded up by the bees, wasps and ants. The bees, it is true, give it only to the living flowers, the wasps for the most part also to the living plants. But the ants give what they hand over in the formic acid directly to what is mouldering and dead; in a certain degree they rouse it to life, in this way doing their part that the earth in its decaying substances shall still retain life. Well may one say that wonder is awakened at the activity of the spirit in all things, but when one can approach it more nearly, then one realises it has immense significance. Let us look once more at those farming ants which cultivate their little field, and change the character of the plants they grow there. Truly, gentlemen, a man could not nourish himself with what grows there, for if a man were to eat those little rice grains that are as hard as silica, he would first get strange illnesses because he would have too much formic acid inside him, and in addition to this, so injure his teeth that for a time the dentists would be kept busy. At last, he would die wretchedly, because of these silica-hard rice-grains which had been thus developed. But the ant-heap would say: when we ants go out into nature and suck that out of the plants which is everywhere there, then we get far too little formic acid, and can give far too little formic acid to the earth. Let us therefore, select the plants which we can cultivate so that they get quite hard, stony hard, and then we can get plenty of formic acid from this hardness. So these farming ants do this that they may get the greatest possible amount of formic acid. It is these ants again that give back so much formic acid to the earth. That is the connection. From this you can see that poisons when they cause inflammation, or the like, are also perpetual remedies for the holding back of the processes of death. One can say, it is precisely the bee that is of great importance in this regard, that all may be preserved within the flowers; there is a great affinity between the bees and the flowers. This preservation actually shows that every time the insects are developing their activities on the earth, the earth is, as it were, quickened by their poison. This is the spiritual relationship. If anyone asks what are the spiritual relationships, I never like merely to say they are so and so; I give the facts, and from the facts you can judge for yourselves whether they have significance or no. The facts are such that one sees significance everywhere. But the people who call themselves scientists today, do not tell one so. In life this has certain effects. In our country this is perhaps less taken into account, but when you go further south, the simple folk, the peasants, will often say out of a kind of instinctive knowledge; one must not destroy these ant-heaps, for they prevent the mould from becoming harmful. Those who are still wiser, will say something quite different if you walk with them through the forest, and especially where trees have been cut down and young trees are growing up. Then these people who are wise in their noses, not in their top-story (one can be wise also in one's nose) when these people go where the trees have been felled and young trees are being cared for, they will say: “Here, it will all go well; it does not smell so mouldy as it often does; there must be an ant-heap near, and it is proving its usefulness.” These people smell this; they are clever with their noses. Much homely and useful knowledge is derived from a clever nose! Unfortunately, modern civilisation only regards the cultivation of the brain, and rejects all that is instinctive; instinct has become merely a word. Creatures like the bees know all this collectively, as a colony, as an ant-heap; it comes about by a kind of sense of smell. As I said before, much that is instinctive knowledge may come from a cleverness of the nose. Well, gentlemen, we shall continue the subject next week Today, I wished to say that the bees, wasps and ants do not only rob Nature, but help to make it possible for Nature to live and thrive. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1958) — Lecture I |
---|
Whatever comes to light in the realms of Anthroposophia, we also need to live in it with our feelings — in the necessary atmosphere. And for our Course on Farming this condition will most certainly be fulfilled at Koberwitz. All this impels me to express our deeply felt thanks to Count Keyserlingk and to his house. In this I am sure Frau Doctor Steiner will join me. |
Was it not Count Keyserlingk who helped us from the very outset with his advice and his devoted work, in the farming activities we undertook at Stuttgart under the Kommende Tag Company? His spirit, trained by his deep and intimate Union with Agriculture, was prevalent in all that we were able to do in this direction. |
For it should go without saying, and every man should recognise the fact: One cannot speak of Agriculture, not even of the social forms it should assume, unless one first possesses as a foundation a practical acquaintance with the farming job itself. That is to say, unless one really knows what it means to grow mangolds, potatoes and corn! Without this foundation one cannot even speak of the general economic principles which are involved. |
GA 327. The Agriculture Course (1958) — Lecture I |
---|
My dear friends, With profound thanks I look back on the words which Count Keyserlingk has just spoken. For the feeling of thanks is not only justified on the part of those who are able to receive from Anthroposophical Science. One can also feel deeply what I may call the thanks of Anthroposophia itself — thanks which in these hard times are due to all who share in anthrosposophical interests. Out of the spirit of Anthroposophia, therefore, I would thank you most heartily for the words you have just spoken. Indeed, it is deeply gratifying that we are able to hold this Agriculture Course here in the house of Count and Countess Keyserlingk. I know from my former visits what a beautiful atmosphere there is in Koberwitz — I mean also the spiritual atmosphere. I know that the atmosphere of soul and spirit which is living here is the best possible premiss for what must be said during this Course. Count Keyserlingk has told us that there may be some discomforts for one or another among us. He was speaking especially of the eurhythmists; though it may be the “discomforts” are shared by some of our other visitors from a distance. Yet on the other hand, considering the purpose of our present gathering, it seems to me we could scarcely be accommodated better for this Lecture Course than here, in a farm so excellent and so exemplary. Whatever comes to light in the realms of Anthroposophia, we also need to live in it with our feelings — in the necessary atmosphere. And for our Course on Farming this condition will most certainly be fulfilled at Koberwitz. All this impels me to express our deeply felt thanks to Count Keyserlingk and to his house. In this I am sure Frau Doctor Steiner will join me. We are thankful that we may spend these festive days — I trust they will also be days of real good work — here in this house. I cannot but believe: inasmuch as we are gathered here in Koberwitz, there will prevail throughout these days an agricultural spirit which is already deeply united with the Anthroposophical Movement. Was it not Count Keyserlingk who helped us from the very outset with his advice and his devoted work, in the farming activities we undertook at Stuttgart under the Kommende Tag Company? His spirit, trained by his deep and intimate Union with Agriculture, was prevalent in all that we were able to do in this direction. And I would say, forces were there prevailing which came from the innermost heart of our Movement and which drew us hither, quite as a matter of course, the moment the Count desired us to come to Koberwitz. Hence I can well believe that every single one of us has come here gladly for this Agriculture Course. We who have come here can express our thanks just as deeply and sincerely, that your House has been ready to receive us with our intentions for these days. For my part, these thanks are felt most deeply, and I beg Count Keyserlingk and his whole house to receive them especially from me. I know what it means to give hospitality to so many visitors and for so many days, in the way in which I feel it will be done here. Therefore I think I can also give the right colouring to these words of thanks, and I beg you to receive them, understanding that I am well aware of the many difficulties which such a gathering may involve in a house remote from the City. Whatever may be the inconveniences of which the Count has spoken — representing, needless to say, not the “Home Office” but the “Foreign Office” — whatever they may be, I am quite sure that every single one of us will go away fully satisfied with your kind hospitality. Whether you will go away equally satisfied with the Lecture-Course itself, is doubtless a more open question, though we will do our utmost, in the discussions during the succeeding days, to come to a right understanding on all that is here said. You must not forget: though the desire for it has been cherished in many quarters for a long time past, this is the first time I have been able to undertake such a Course out of the heart of our anthroposophical striving. It pre-supposes many things. The Course itself will show us how intimately the interests of Agriculture are bound up, in all directions, with the widest spheres of life. Indeed there is scarcely a realm of human life which lies outside our subject. From one aspect or another, all interests of human life belong to Agriculture. Here, needless to say, we can only touch upon the central domain of Agriculture itself, albeit this of its own accord will lead us along many different side tracks — necessarily so, for the very reason that what is here said will grow out of the soil of Anthroposophia itself. In particular, you must forgive me if my introductory words to-day appear — inevitably — a little far remote. Not everyone, perhaps, will see at once what the connection is between this introduction and our special subject. Nevertheless, we shall have to build upon what is said to-day, however remote it may seem at first sight. For Agriculture especially is sadly hit by the whole trend of modern spiritual life. You see, this modern spiritual life has taken on a very destructive form especially as regards the economic realm, though its destructiveness is scarcely yet divined by many. Our real underlying intentions, in the economic undertakings which grew out of the Anthroposophical Movement, were meant to counteract these things. These undertakings were created by industrialists, business men, but they were unable to realise in all directions what lay in their original intentions, if only for the reason that the opposing forces in our time are all too numerous, preventing one from calling forth a proper understanding for such efforts. Over against the “powers that be,” the individual is often powerless. Hitherto, not even the most original and fundamental aspects of these industrial and economic efforts, which grew out of the heart of the Anthroposophical Movement, have been realised. Nay, they have not even reached the plane of discussion. What was the real, practical point? I will explain it in the case of Agriculture, so that we may not be speaking in vague and general, but in concrete terms. We have all manner of books and lecture courses on Economics, containing, among other things, chapters on the economic aspects of Agriculture. Economists consider, how Agriculture should be carried on in the light of social-economic principles. There are many books and pamphlets on this subject: how Agriculture should be shaped, in the light of social and economic ideas. Yet the whole of this — the giving of economic lectures an the subject and the writing of such books — is manifest nonsense. Palpable nonsense, I say, albeit that is practised nowadays in the widest circles. For it should go without saying, and every man should recognise the fact: One cannot speak of Agriculture, not even of the social forms it should assume, unless one first possesses as a foundation a practical acquaintance with the farming job itself. That is to say, unless one really knows what it means to grow mangolds, potatoes and corn! Without this foundation one cannot even speak of the general economic principles which are involved. Such things must be determined out of the thing itself, not by all manner of theoretic considerations. Nowadays, such a statement seems absurd to those who have heard University lectures on the economics of Agriculture. The whole thing seems to them so well established. But it is not so. No one can judge of Agriculture who does not derive his judgment from field and forest and the breeding of cattle. All talk of Economics which is not derived from the job itself should really cease. So long as people do not recognise that all talk of Economics — hovering airily over the realities — is mere empty talk, we shall not reach a hopeful prospect, neither in Agriculture nor in any other sphere. Why is it that people think they can talk of a thing from theoretic points of view, when they do not understand it? The reason is, that even within their several domains they are no longer able to go back to the real foundations. They look at a beetroot as a beetroot. No doubt it has this or that appearance; it can be cut more or less easily, it has such and such a colour, such and such constituents. All these things can no doubt be said. Yet therewithal you are still far from understanding the beetroot. Above all, you do not yet understand the living-together of the beetroot with the soil, with the field, the season of the year in which it ripens, and so forth. You must be clear as to the following (I have often used this comparison for other spheres of life): You see a magnetic needle. You discern that it always points with one end approximately to the North, and with the other to the South. You think, why is it so? You look for the cause, not in the magnetic needle, but in the whole Earth, inasmuch as you assign to the one end of the Earth the magnetic North Pole, and to the other the magnetic South. Anyone who looked in the magnet-needle itself for the cause of the peculiar position it takes up, would be talking nonsense. You can only understand the direction of the magnet-needle if you know how it is related to the whole Earth. Yet the same nonsense (as applied to the magnetic needle) is considered good sense by the men of to-day when applied to other things. There, for example, is the beetroot growing in the earth. To take it just for what it is within its narrow limits, is nonsense if in reality its growth depends on countless conditions, not even only of the Earth as a whole, but of the cosmic environment. The men of to-day say and do many things in life and practice as though they were dealing only with narrow, limited objects, not with effects and influences from the whole Universe. The several spheres of modern life have suffered terribly from this, and the effects would be even more evident were it not for the fact that in spite of all the modern science a certain instinct still remains over from the times when men were used to work by instinct and not by scientific theory. To take another sphere of life: I am always glad to think that those whose doctors have prescribed how many ounces of meat they are to eat, and how much cabbage (some of them even have a balance beside them at the table and carefully weigh out everything that comes on to their plate) — it is all very nice; needless to say, one ought to know such things — but I am always glad to think how good it is that the poor fellow still feels hungry, if, after all, he has not had enough to eat! At least there is still this instinct to tell him so. Such instincts really underlay all that men had to do before a “science” of these things existed. And the instincts frequently worked with great certainty. Even to-day one is astonished again and again to read the rules in the old “Peasants' Calendars.” How infinitely wise and intelligent is that which they express! Moreover, the man of pure instincts is well able to avoid superstition in these matters: and in these Calendars, beside the proverbs full of deep meaning for the sowing and the reaping, we find all manner of quips, intended to set aside nonsensical pretentions. This for example: —
So the needful dose of humour is mingled with the instinctive wisdom in order to ward off mere superstition. We, however, speaking from the point of view of Anthroposophical Science, do not desire to return to the old instincts. We want to find, out of a deeper spiritual insight, what the old instincts — as they are growing insecure — are less and less able to provide. To this end we must include a far wider horizon in our studies of the life of plant and animal, and of the Earth itself. We must extend our view to the whole Cosmos. From one aspect, no doubt, it is quite right that we should not superficially connect the rain with the phases of the Moon. Yet on the other hand there is a true foundation to the story I have often told in other circles. In Leipzig there were two professors. One of them, Gustav Theodor Fechner, often evinced a keen and sure insight into spiritual matters. Not altogether superstitiously, from pure external observations he could see that certain periods of rain or of no rain were connected, after all, with the Moon and with its coursing round the earth. He drew this as a necessary conclusion from the statistical results. That however was a time when orthodox science already wanted to overlook such matters, and his colleague, the famous Professor Schleiden, poured scorn on the idea “for scientific reasons.” Now these two professors of the University of Leipzig also had wives. Gustav Theodor Fechner, who was a man not without humour, said: “Well, let our wives decide.” In Leipzig at that time the water they needed for washing clothes was not easy to obtain, and a certain custom still prevailed. You had to fetch your water from a long distance. Hence they were wont to put out pails and barrels to catch the rain water. This was Frau Prof. Schleiden's custom as well as Frau Prof. Fechner's. But they had not room enough to put out their barrels in the yard at the same time. So Prof. Fechner said: “If my honoured colleague is right, if it makes no difference, then let Frau Prof. Schleiden put out her barrel when by my indications, according to the phases of the Moon, there will be less rain. If it is all nonsense, Frau Prof. Schleiden will surely be glad to do so.” But, lo and behold, Frau Prof. Schleiden rebelled. She preferred the indications of Prof. Fechner to those of her own husband. And so indeed it is. Science may be perfectly correct. Real life, however, often cannot afford to take its cue from the “correctness” of science! But we do not wish to speak only in this way. We are in real earnest about it. I only wanted to point out the need to look a little farther afield than is customary nowadays. We must do so in studying that which alone makes possible the physical life of man on Earth — and that, after all, is Agriculture. I do not know whether the things which can be said at this stage out of Anthroposophical Science will satisfy you in all directions, but I will do my best to explain what Anthroposophical Science can give for Agriculture. To-day, by way of introduction, I will indicate what is most important for Agriculture in the life of the Earth. Nowadays we are wont to attach the greatest importance to the physical and chemical constituents. To-day, however, we will not take our Start from these; we will take our start from something which lies behind the physical and chemical constituents and is nevertheless of great importance for the life of plant and animal. Studying the life of man (and to a certain extent it applies to animal life also), we observe a high degree of emancipation of human and animal life from the outer Universe. The nearer we come to man, the greater this emancipation grows. In human and animal life we find phenomena appearing — to begin with — quite independent not only of the influences from beyond the Earth, but also of the atmospheric and other influences of the Earth's immediate environment. Moreover, this not only appears so; it is to a high degree correct for many things in human life. True, it is well-known that the pains of certain illnesses are intensified by atmospheric influences. There is, however, another fact of which the people of to-day are not so well aware. Certain illnesses and other phenomena of human life take their course in such a way that in their time-relationships they copy the external processes of Nature. Yet in their beginning and end they do not coincide with these Nature-processes. We need only call to mind one of the most important phenomena of all, that of female menstruation. The periods, in their temporal course, imitate the course of the lunar phases, but they do not coincide with the latter in their beginning and ending. And there are many other, less evident phenomena, both in the male and in the female organism, representing imitations of rhythms in outer Nature. If these things were studied more intimately, we should for example have a better understanding of many things that happen in the social life by observing the periodicity of the Sun-spots. People only fail to observe these things because that in human life which corresponds to the periodicity of the Sun-spots does not begin when they begin, nor does it cease when they cease. It has emancipated itself. It shows the same periodicity, the identical rhythm, but its phases do not coincide in time. While inwardly maintaining the rhythm and periodicity, it makes them independent — it emancipates itself. Anyone, of course, to whom we say that human life is a microcosm and imitates the macrocosm, is at liberty to reply. That is all nonsense! If we declare that certain illnesses show a seven day's fever period, one may object: Why then, when certain outer phenomena appear, does not the fever too make its appearance and run parallel, and cease with the external phenomena? It is true that the fever does not; but, though its temporal beginning and ending do not coincide with the outer phenomena, it still maintains their inner rhythm. This emancipation in the Cosmos is almost complete for human life; for animal life it is less so; plant life, an the other hand, is still to a high degree immersed in the general life of Nature, including the outer earthly world. Hence we shall never understand plant life unless we bear in mind that everything which happens on the Earth is but a reflection of what is taking place in the Cosmos. For man this fact is only masked because he has emancipated himself; he only bears the inner rhythms in himself. To the plant world, however, it applies in the highest degree. That is what I should like to point out in this introductory lecture. The Earth is surrounded in the heavenly spaces, first by the Moon and then by the other planets of our planetary system. In an old instinctive science wherein the Sun was reckoned among the planets, they had this sequence: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Without astronomical explanations I will now speak of this planetary life, and of that in the planetary life which is connected with the earthly world. Turning our attention to the earthly life on a large scale, the first fact for us to take into account is this. The greatest imaginable part is played in this earthly life (considered once more on a Large scale, and as a whole) by all that which we may call the life of the silicious substance in the world. You will find silicious substance for example, in the beautiful mineral quartz, enclosed in the form of a prism and pyramid; you will find the silicious substance, combined with oxygen, in the crystals of quartz. Imagine the oxygen removed (which in the quartz is combined with silicious substance) and you have so-called silicon. This substance is included by modern chemistry among the “elements,” oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, sulphur, etc. Silicon therefore, which is here combined with oxygen, is a “chemical element.” Now we must not forget that the silicon which lives thus in the mineral quartz is spread over the Earth so as to constitute 27-28% of our Earth's crust. All other substances are present in lesser quantities, save oxygen, which constitutes 47-48%. Thus an enormous quantity of silicon is present. Now, it is true this silicon, occurring as it does in rocks like quartz, appears in such a form that it does not seem very important when we are considering the outer, material aspect of the Earth with its plant-growth. (The plant-growth is frequently forgotten). Quartz is insoluble in water — the water trickles through it. It therefore seems — at first sight — to have very little to do with the ordinary, obvious conditions of life. But once again, you need only remember the horse-tail — equisetum — which contains 90% of silica — the same substance that is in quartz — very finely distributed. From all this you can see what an immense significance silicon must have. Well-nigh half of what we meet on the Earth consists of silica. But the peculiar thing is how very little notice is taken of it. It is practically excluded to-day even from those domains of life where it could work most beneficially. In the Medicine that proceeds from Anthroposophical Science, silicious substances are an essential constituent of numerous medicaments. A large class of illnesses are treated with silicic acid taken internally, or outwardly as baths. In effect, practically everything that shows itself in abnormal conditions of the senses is influenced in a peculiar way by silicon. (I do not say what lies in the senses themselves, but that which shows itself in the senses, including the inner senses — calling forth pains here or there in the organs of the body). Not only so; throughout the “household of Nature,” as we have grown accustomed to call it, silicon plays the greatest imaginable part, for it not only exists where we discover it in quartz or other rocks, but in an extremely fine state of distribution it is present in the atmosphere. Indeed, it is everywhere. Half of the Earth that is at our disposal is of silica. Now what does this silicon do? In a hypothetical form, let us ask ourselves this question. Let us assume that we only had half as much silicon in our earthly environment. In that case our plants would all have more or less pyramidal forms. The flowers would all be stunted. Practically all plants would have the form of the cactus, which strikes us as abnormal. The cereals would look very queer indeed. Their stems would grow thick, even fleshy, as you went downward; the ears would be quite stunted — they would have no full ears at all. That on the one hand. On the other hand we find another kind of substance, which must occur everywhere throughout the Earth, albeit it is not so widespread as the silicious element. I mean the chalk or limestone substances and all that is akin to these — limestone, potash, sodium substances. Once more, if these were present to a less extent, we should have plants with very thin stems — plants, to a large extent, with twining stems; they would all become like creepers. The flowers would expand, it is true, but they would be useless: they would provide practically no nourishment. Plant-life in the form in which we see it to-day can only thrive in the equilibrium and co-operation of the two forces — or, to choose two typical substances, in the co-operation of the limestone and silicious substances respectively. Now we can go still farther. Everything that lives in the silicious nature contains forces which comes not from the Earth but from the so-called distant planets, the planets beyond the Sun — Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. That which proceeds from these distant plants influences the life of plants via the silicious and kindred substances into the plant and also into the animal life of the Earth. On the other hand, from all that is represented by the planets near the Earth — Moon, Mercury and Venus — forces work via the limestone and kindred substances. Thus we may say, for every tilled field: Therein are working the silicious and the limestone natures; in the former, Saturn, Jupiter and Mars; and in the latter, Moon, Venus and Mercury. In this connection let us now look at the plants themselves. Two things we must observe in the plant life. The first thing is that the entire plant-world, and every single species, is able to maintain itself — that is to say, it evolves the power of reproduction. The plant is able to bring forth its kind, and so on. That is the one thing. The other is, that as a creature of a comparatively lower kingdom of Nature, the plant can serve as nourishment for those of the higher kingdoms. At first sight, these two currents in the life and evolution of the plant have little to do with one another. For the process of development from the mother plant to the daughter plant, the granddaughter plant and so on, it may well seem a matter of complete indifference to the formative forces of Nature, whether or no we eat the plant and nourish ourselves thereby. Two very different sets of interests are manifested here. Yet in the whole nexus of Nature's forces, it works in this way:— Everything connected with the inner forte of reproduction and growth — everything that contributes to the sequence of generation after generation in the plants — works through those forces which come down from the Cosmos to the Earth: from Moon, Venus and Mercury, via the limestone nature. Suppose we were merely considering what emerges in plants such as we do not eat — plants that simply renew themselves again and again. We look at them as though the cosmic influences from the forces of Venus, Mercury and Moon did not interest us. For these are the forces involved in all that reproduces itself in the plant-nature of the Earth. On the other hand, when plants become foodstuffs to a large extent — when they evolve in such a way that the substances in them become foodstuffs for animal and man, then Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, working via the silicious nature, are concerned in the process. The silicious nature opens the plant-being to the wide spaces of the Universe and awakens the senses of the plant-being in such a way as to receive from all quarters of the Universe the forces which are moulded by these distant planets. Whenever this occurs, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are playing their part. From the sphere of the Moon, Venus and Mercury, on the other hand, is received all that which makes the plant capable of reproduction. To begin with, no doubt this appears as a simple piece of information. But truths like this, derived from a somewhat wider horizon, lead of their own accord from knowledge into practice. For we must ask ourselves: If forces come into the Earth from Moon, Venus and Mercury and become effective in the life of plants, by what means can the process be more or lese quickened or restrained? By what means can the influences of Moon or Saturn on the life of plants be hindered, and by what means assisted? Observe the course of the year. It takes its course in such a way that there are days of rain and days without rain. As to the rain, the modern physicist investigates practically no more than the mere fact that when it rains, more water falls upon the Earth than when it does not rain. For him, the water is an abstract substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen. True, if you decompose water by electrolysis, it will fall into two substances, of which the one behaves in such and such a way, and the other in another way. But that does not yet tell us anything complete about water itself. Water contains far, far more than what emerges from it chemically, in this process, as oxygen and hydrogen. Water, in effect, is eminently suited to prepare the ways within the earthly domain for those forces which come, for instance, from the Moon. Water brings about the distribution of the lunar forces in the earthly realm. There is a definite connection between the Moon and the water in the Earth. Let us therefore assume that there have just been rainy days and that these are followed by a full Moon. In deed and in truth, with the forces that come from the Moon on days of the full Moon, something colossal is taking place on Earth. These forces spring up and shoot into all the growth of plants, but they are unable to do so unless rainy days have gone before. We shall therefore have to consider the question: Is it not of some significance, whether we sow the seed in a certain relation to the rainfall and the subsequent light of the full Moon, or whether we sow it thoughtlessly at any time? Something, no doubt, will come of it even then. Nevertheless, we have to raise this question: How should we best consider the rainfall and the full Moon in choosing the time to sow the seed? For in certain plants, what the full Moon has to do will thrive intensely after rainy days and will take place but feebly and sparingly after days of sunshine. Such things lay hidden in the old farmers' rules; they quoted a certain verse or proverb and knew what they must do. The proverbs to-day are outworn superstitions, and a science of these things does not yet exist; people are not yet willing enough to set to work and find it. Furthermore, around our Earth is the atmosphere. Now the atmosphere above all — beside the obvious fact that it is airy — has the peculiarity that it is sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler. At certain times it shows a considerable accumulation of warmth, which, when the tension grows too strong, may even find relief in thunderstorms. How is it then with the warmth? Spiritual observation shows that whereas the water has no relation to silica, this warmth has an exceedingly strong relation to it. The warmth brings out and makes effective precisely those forces which can work through the silicious nature, namely, the forces that proceed from Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. These forces must be regarded in quite a different way than the forces from the Moon. For we must not forget that Saturn takes thirty years to revolve round the Sun, whereas the Moon with its phases takes only thirty or twenty-eight days. Saturn is only visible for fifteen years. It must therefore be connected with the growth of plants in quite a different way, albeit, I need hardly say, it is not only working when it shines down upon the Earth; it is also effective when its rays have to pass upward through the Earth. Saturn goes slowly round, in thirty years. Let us draw it thus (Diagram 1): here is the course of Saturn. Sometimes it shines directly on to a given spot of the Earth. But it can also work through the Earth upon this portion of the Earth's surface. In either case the intensity with which the Saturn-forces are able to approach the plant life of the Earth is dependent on the warmth-conditions of the air. When the air is cold, they cannot approach; when the air is warm, they can. And where do we see the working of these forces in the plant's life? We see it, not so much where annual plants arise, coming and going in a season and only leaving seeds behind. We see what Saturn does with the help of the warmth-forces of our Earth, whenever the perennial plants arise. The effects of these forces, which pass into the plant-nature via the warmth, are visible to us in the rind and bark of trees, and in all that makes the plants, perennial. This is due to the simple fact that the annual life of the plant — its limitation to a short length of life — is connected with those planets whose period of revolution is short. That, on the other hand, which frees itself from the transitory nature — that which surrounds the trees with bark and rind, and makes them permanent — is connected with the planetary forces which work via the forces of warmth and cold and have a long period of revolution, as in the case of Saturn: thirty years; or Jupiter: twelve years. If someone wishes to plant an oak, it is of no little importance whether or no he has a good knowledge of the periods of Mars; for an oak, rightly planted in the proper Mars-period, will thrive differently from one that is planted in the Earth thoughtlessly, just when it happens to suit. Or, if you wish to plant coniferous forests, where the Saturn-forces play so great a part, the result will be different if you plant the forest in a so-called ascending period of Saturn, or in some other Saturn period. One who understands can tell precisely, from the things that will grow or will not grow, whether or no they have been planted with an understanding of the connections of these forces. That which does not appear obvious to the external eye, appears very clearly, none the less, in the more intimate relationships of life. Assume for instance that we take, as firewood, wood that is derived from trees which were planted in the Earth without understanding of the cosmic rhythms. It will not provide the same health-giving warmth as firewood from trees that were planted intelligently. These things enter especially into the more intimate relationships of daily life, and here they show their great significance. Alas! the life of people has become almost entirely thoughtless nowadays. They are only too glad if they do not need to think of such things. They think it must all go on just like any machine. You have all the necessary contrivances; turn on the switch, and it goes. So do they conceive, materialistically, the working of all Nature. Along these lines we are eventually led to the most alarming results in practical life. Then the great riddles arise. Why, for example, is it impossible to-day to eat such potatoes as I ate in my youth? It is so; I have tried it everywhere. Not even in the country districts where I ate them then, can one now eat such potatoes. Many things have declined in their inherent food-values, notably during the last decades. The more intimate influences which are at work in the whole Universe are no longer understood. These must be looked for again along such lines as I have hinted at to-day. I have only introduced the subject; I have only tried to show where the questions arise — questions which go far beyond the customary points of view. We shall continue and go deeper in this way, and then apply, what we have found, in practice. |