The Human Being as a Spirit and Soul Being
GA 71b — 29 May 1918, Vienna
The History of Mankind in the Light of Supersensible Reality Research
Dear attendees! The day before yesterday, I took the liberty of speaking here about the spiritual-scientific approach to how it should lead to true reality. On the basis of these discussions, I would like to give some applications of this spiritual-scientific view of reality today, some applications in the field of human life, which, it seems to me, are of great importance for life practice, especially in our time, and certainly even more so in the future , not so much because I believe it is necessary to talk about the historical way of thinking in a larger circle, but because I think it is important to present such historical considerations for the practice of life.
The great poet and writer Goethe believed he could judge the value of the historical perspective as it was particularly evident in his time in a way that he expressed in the following words: “The best thing about history is the enthusiasm it arouses in us.” One could be forgiven for thinking that Goethe was dismissing all the possibilities that people otherwise see in historical observation when they seek to answer the recurring question of what one's presence in life is for and what one can learn from the history and behavior of people for one's practical life by observing human life.
Now, however, it must be said that the more one immerses oneself in the historical way of thinking, the more one comes to the conclusion that it can indeed, as perhaps this Goethean saying also means, be a summary of a rich life experience, a rich life wisdom. Especially in our time, one is very often led to a strange impression by the question: What can one gain from history for life? Our catastrophic present must repeatedly suggest to us that significant forces of human life are at work across the whole earth, that experiences are taking place from which we can learn an enormous amount for our lives in relation to the present. And it must also be said that some things are happening today that could give us cause for concern in relation to these questions.
Of the hundreds of cases that could be cited in this regard, I would like to highlight just one that has a certain significance with regard to the present suffering. In August, September and October of 1914, one could very often hear from people who are quite astute, who certainly have a sound judgment in the sense that one can have today – I repeat: in the sense that one today and as it has been formed from the historical and practical-historical point of view - one could therefore hear from these people at the time that this war would certainly not last longer than four, at most six months, given the prevailing conditions.
It must be said that at the time there was no reason to smile or be ironic about such a statement. It was precisely those people who had keenly followed the latest historical events in some area or other, whether economic, socio-political or otherwise, who made such statements, and these were by no means unfounded according to the results of the historical perspective. But today the anxious question arises before us: What have we had to experience in reality itself in the face of such a historically based view? And the further question may follow: What could reality still bring in terms of our lives? - One simply comes to the question: Is there a way to look at our usual way of understanding history in such a way that we can draw conclusions about the present from our immediate life practice?
I would like to give an example from a time long past, the example of a man whose name vouches for the fact that he did not make a judgment out of carelessness and unreason, the judgment of a man whose importance you will immediately recognize when I name, who in 1789 took up his professorship of history at a German university and wanted to discuss what had emerged as the conclusion that he had to draw from the historical consideration that he now had to present to his students. He said: “Perhaps the various European states have worked their way to the point where they resemble the members of a large family, who may still fight among themselves in the future, but who will never be able to tear each other apart again.”
This judgment of a mind, which he expressed in his inaugural address from the depths of his historical research on the eve of the French Revolution, certainly contains an insight from which one can say that reality is quite different from what even the most profound historian could have suspected. For when we consider what followed in Europe, we cannot say that the members of the European family can feud with each other, but not tear each other apart. And yet, Friedrich Schiller, who made this judgment, was right when he took up his professorship of history in Jena.
We see that one does not need to be short-sighted to err when it comes to applying the historical way of thinking to the practice of life. Because the way the question is formulated and the way we have been forced to apply the historical perspective and the historical way of looking at things so far, which has led to this or that result, was probably not suitable for reaching into reality with the right judgment so that this reality can be mastered in such a way that one would also come out of the historical consideration to an appropriate application of one's will in relation to reality.
Today, it cannot truly be said that this question is not extremely important, because today, when it comes to human life in human community, we can no longer embrace only a small perspective. We are in the midst of catastrophic events that have gradually taken hold of the entire earth, and the challenge is to people to not remain within the narrow confines of their own considerations, but to try to get an impulse from historical observation that could extend across the whole earth, at least in a certain direction. There is a feeling, at least in certain circles, that the old way of looking at history – I will pick out just one example, the one by Ranke – would no longer suffice for the demands of the new life.
What has emerged in this respect becomes interesting when one broadens one's perspective, and especially when the observer of history pauses and asks himself: What emerges in the life of the whole person when one looks at the way in which human history is viewed? I will select a characteristic example that can illustrate many things for us today. I will first disregard the fact that the German historian Karl Lamprecht felt how inadequate Ranke's way of thinking is, and that he has made the attempt to motivate historical events in a more inward way, to set the impulses instead of the people, and thus to consider and examine historically more, how the impulses have given rise to events over time.
Of the many things that could be considered in the case of Lamprecht, a summary is to be considered, which he gave when he gave lectures at the beginning of this century in some places in America about his way of understanding the history of his people. I know very well that today there are numerous opponents who consider Lamprecht's way perhaps mistaken, perhaps even enthusiastic. But you must admit that Lamprecht is trying to proceed in the right way by attempting to bring the inner motives and forces in human life into line with the concept of history. His intention in doing so can be seen from the lecture he has given, in which he wanted to show how he conceives the course of German history according to his way of thinking.
Lamprecht also has a special way of explaining the historical development of a people. I will only very briefly point out what Karl Lamprecht came to in the course of his long life. He says: If we look back to the first period of the historical development of the Germans, up to the third century after Christ, we find that all the soul-forces out of which the historical life and the historical interrelations of men arise are based on a certain soul-condition of our ancestors in those ancient times. This soul-condition Karl Lamprecht characterizes as the symbolizing soul-condition. From this state of mind, that social structure then arose through which life itself takes on the character of a symbol, and not only that life becomes a symbolic representation, but also when a leading personality appears, she appears with such a state of mind that one could say this personality is a symbol for the whole tribe.
This is what Karl Lamprecht found from the third to the tenth century; but then it is a completely different state of mind that emerges and makes history. It is now the subjective-typical way in which no longer the symbol is represented, no longer the personality in the symbol, but the type, the representative of the tribe and the tribal nature becomes. Customary rights now become established, and people interact in such a way that they reveal the typical aspects of these circumstances and shape them into a certain social structure.
From the eleventh to the mid-fifteenth century, in the history of mankind, according to Karl Lamprecht's way of presenting it, what he calls the conventional age occurs. No longer does something emerge from the soul and lead to a symbol or type, but individual people, out of tradition or reason, determine the leading persons or leading circles of what should regulate the whole mutual context. This leads to certain conventions and certain judgments. This is the age of knighthood, the age in which the social structure is formed through which the conventions can particularly take hold.
Now it is very strange that Karl Lamprecht places the most significant point in history in the middle of the fifteenth century, because the historical impulse begins with the fifteenth century. Lamprecht says: In the middle of the fifteenth century, the development of German history begins - and he believes that such a course can be applied to the historical development of the entire tribe, that people now no longer appear as a type or conventionally, but that people are now individuals and as such are part of the historical process and the social order. According to Karl Lamprecht, this [individual] age lasted until the eighteenth century, and then the age in which we live began, the [subjective] age, in which more and more is introduced into historical life that people experience and that does not determine them from the outside, but that touches them within. Thus more understandable elements enter into the course of historical knowledge, the educated public begins to play a role, whereas in the symbolic and conventional age one had to deal more with elementary forces that, coming instinctively from within man, influenced the will and the social structure.
From this it can be seen what Karl Lamprecht is striving for; he strives to bring into human history that which conditions the course and development of events in the human soul. He seeks to penetrate deeply into the picture of human society and believes that intensive historical research should only be a preparation for what it is all about. But it should endeavor to penetrate into the human soul in order to show how history is created from the human soul.
If we look at these attempts to observe historical developments in a certain strict way, we will find, when we follow the individual types, that they leave us highly unsatisfied in many respects, especially when we go through the individual epochs as described by Karl Lamprecht. One finds that the same concepts keep cropping up, and while he thinks that the epochs are different, he cannot grasp what he wants to grasp because he is unable to delve into reality itself. Nevertheless, this attempt is interesting because Karl Lamprecht shows us that a way must be sought to an inner consideration of history, to a spiritualization of historical research. And it is very interesting, from this point of view, to compare what another man has presented here on the basis of serious historical endeavor, who seeks to compare the history of his own people with the history of another and does so with a different kind of historical research. From this it will be possible to see how two personalities, one belonging to a particular area of human life and the second to a completely different one, relate to historical reflection.
This other personality is Woodrow Wilson, who, at the very time when Karl Lamprecht was speaking to the Americans about the history of his people, was making an attempt that led to the conclusion that he had reached from a completely different point of view, as he observed the history of his American people. Something very peculiar emerges here. It is of particular interest for everyone to observe a personality who is very distant from us in the same field as Karl Lamprecht. But with Wilson, we encounter a great peculiarity. He looks at the history of his American people, which is quite easy to overlook. But with this short period of American history, Wilson and Lamprecht are – it must be said – in a strange contrast, whereby one feels what is important to both of them.
Wilson wants to grasp what he is supposed to represent and what is characteristic for the development of the American people, and one sees how he, by continuing from one point to the next, actually manages to present the whole history of his people in an extremely plausible way. He shows how wrong all those are who apply a historical way of thinking to America according to the pattern of the way of thinking that comes from England and that they want to apply to American life, without realizing that America has shaped its life under special preconditions. Wilson wants to create pure Americanism in his own way; he points out that it is a striking phenomenon precisely in America that culture in America gradually moved from the east to the west, where it was only fully developed in later times. From the east to the west, people have moved, overcoming the wilderness, and he shows how the development of American history lies in this struggle against the wilderness, how everything that Americans have done in life has come about because the west had to be conquered from the east. American history was not made by politicians or diplomats, but by hunters who felled the trees, and by farmers who moved into the wilderness and cultivated the fields. These were also the most important questions for Americans: questions of agriculture and farming. Wilson views American history from this perspective and comes to a [plausible] solution to these questions by showing how these questions arose and why it has become necessary for this advance to move from east to west.
One has to say that one gets the impression that Wilson, in his own way, describes the history of the American people quite correctly, he knows the relationship between the things he describes and presents. You can feel how he puts something very remarkable into it by seeking to find the salient points in American history; and when he says that it is a characteristic of the American, his mobile eye, his passion to seek adventure, to situations quickly and to carry out something quickly, to do his part for his country, that all these plans should be quickly conceived and executed, then one feels with everything that is in it: He knows where the salient points are.
Woodrow Wilson also spoke about [the method] of his historical presentation in a rather interesting lecture; and I must say that I find something extraordinarily characteristic in this lecture in particular. I should also like to take this opportunity to say that, although I have now told you how Wilson describes the history of his people, Woodrow Wilson is not a personality that one could call sympathetic in any way, and not for subjective reasons, but because I believe that such a way of looking at things as Wilson uses it cannot be fruitful in our parts, even though I have to describe it as I have done today. We will come back to this later. But I don't think that anyone who has heard me speak more than once can accuse me of having formed my opinion of Wilson for some kind of jingoistic reasons, as opposed to the opinion that people here have of him. I have long since formed my opinion of Wilson from “literature” and from his advocacy of American freedom, and in a lecture in Helsingfors I also expressed this opinion in the same way as I have done today. So the war has not changed that at all. This can be proved by documents, and therefore I may well speak about his personality as I have done today.
What struck me as strange about Wilson's historical perspective is contrasted when I compare what he himself said about this historical perspective with some very dear and sympathetic explanations of a personality who was only active in a specific field of historical perspective, but who is infinitely sympathetic to me because of the special impulses that could come from her. This is the great master Herman Grimm, who long ago delivered his verdict on how history should be viewed. It is remarkable that one can take individual sentences from Grimm and insert them into Wilson's presentation without interrupting the train of thought. And that one can again insert sentences from Wilson into Grimm's essays; and one then sees that they correspond to what Wilson said.
This experiment can be done, and I consider it to be tremendously significant for the thinking of a certain type of world view and for the way of thinking of the present. It [calls itself practical] believes that it can immerse itself everywhere in all practical realities and in all concepts and is proud of how far it has come in terms of the practical view of life. And yet the present is thoroughly theoretical and stuffed full of intellectual concepts. If someone today listens to an argument from any side, he pays attention only to the content, he follows only the pure wording; this is particularly evident in the present and is very important with regard to what has been said, because everyone must realize that two people can say the same thing according to the wording, but it is quite different in terms of meaning. Theory does not yet account for everything in life, nor does mere intellectual content. But there is something in the way a personality engages with social life that is more than the content of its sentences, that is, the theory; it is how the personality in question speaks, the way it comes out of life and how it comes out, what the personality in question has to say.
And in this example, something very remarkable emerges. When I look at Lamprecht's way of speaking, and I am not speaking from a national point of view, but only from the point of view of objective science – when I look at Lamprecht's view of history, then, despite all the mistakes, I see how people struggle hard, how they struggle hard to achieve what they want to achieve. Perhaps he has fewer concepts than Wilson, but he fights, and you can tell from the way he speaks that the struggling soul acquires from sentence to sentence what it perhaps presents as a false view, but what it has gained through experience. And this is particularly the case with Herman Grimm's brilliant treatment [in the field of art]. And I say to myself, despite all objective appearances: The statements that are dear to me and that I find in Lamprecht as well as in Grimm make a completely different impression in Wilson. I ask myself, and dare to answer: everything that comes out in Wilson is as if he were instinctively driven to the right thing, but it never gives the impression that it is his experience, his striving and It only gives the impression that, although it is directed towards practical reality, it does not emerge from the depths of the soul, but as if what Wilson expresses were a self-suggestion, a kind of subconscious. I believe I acquired the right to use that expression here yesterday. Wilson does not present himself in the same way [in his view of history], as if he were fathoming the soul bit by bit, but it gives the impression as if he were receiving revelations from the depths of his soul, as if he were possessed by his teachings, as if his inner self were suggesting them to him.
It is very strange to see two personalities in historical life who are so different in this way, like Lamprecht and Grimm on the one hand and Wilson on the other. Furthermore, it is also interesting to look at other perspectives. You can't really call them historical, but you can summarize them under the historical considerations.
One could also cite other, Asian observers of life; I will just mention Rabindranath Tagore, who, among other things, has provided a comprehensive account of the spirit of Asia. He also spoke about the spirit of Japan, but something quite different emerges from his account. It emerges that this man, who, just as Lamprecht and Grimm in German and Wilson in American life, is steeped in Asian life, must be seen as an educated representative of Asian culture. If you look at this man's life, you get the impression that he wants to explore the content, the original source of Indian and Japanese life, placing less emphasis on what Japan and India have experienced in modern times and instead investigating what the actual sources are. He has a unique way of admiring human culture; Rabindranath Tagore says that there should not really be any history for his people, the human soul should remain untouched in its inner life by what moves people in the immediate present. Its mode of expression extends across the whole earth, and those who look more deeply know that our great catastrophe depends, more than one might think, not on the things on which it is believed to depend so much today, but on the spiritual impulses of the peoples dwelling across the whole earth.
This is symptomatically evident in the way in which it is presented, which seeks to stand out from the generality and to present what must apply in the life of the generality. And if we look at what is closest to us, the historical conception of Karl Lamprecht, we find that almost every chapter is characterized in the same way and in the same terms. We find that the concepts do not descend into reality. But why is that so? The answer to this question is extremely important. Lamprecht wants to observe the human soul and wants to explore how history is made out of the impulses of the human soul. To do this, he needs to understand the laws of the human soul that show us how the human soul manifests itself in social life. And there he describes the actions in such a way that it is impossible to apply them to other areas of observation that are directly related to life and to come to a correct conclusion; in a word, one finds: you don't get anywhere!
And so the question may well be raised: what it would be like if those researchers of reality, of whom we spoke the day before yesterday, whose knowledge is built up in a completely different way from natural science and mysticism, and which must first be acquired by the soul when the soul is in such a state of consciousness that it is as opposed to the ordinary state of consciousness as day consciousness is to dream consciousness – if those researchers of reality look at history from their insights? In this short time I can only give the results, but they are found through the method I described here the day before yesterday; and the following can be said first: to the superficial observer, human life proceeds in two states, sleeping and waking, and by studying the two states, sleeping and waking, one seeks to understand the entire course of human life.
But things are not that simple, and much harm has been done to the present worldview by the idea that things are much simpler than they really are. In reality, things are quite different, and even what we call the state of sleep, in which our consciousness is dulled, is quite different. Because this sleeping consciousness does not completely disappear during daytime life; it is not only present from falling asleep to waking up, but it also shows itself to the serious soul researcher in real daylight, because we are only awake for part of our soul life. We are awake for our perceptual life and for our imaginative life, but we are not awake for our emotional life and for our will life. The one who seriously studies the most important state, from waking up to falling asleep, will find that the clarity of consciousness, the strength of consciousness, that is present in relation to the life of imagination, is not present in relation to the life of feeling and is especially not present in relation to the life of will.
The way I mean it here has also been noted by other spiritual researchers and by many other thinkers who have wrestled with reality. For example, the Swabian researcher Friedrich Theodor Vischer pointed out how closely all passions, the emotional life, all affects of life in waking consciousness are related to the dream life, and we may say: our feelings are not present in the brightness of consciousness during waking life in consciousness as perceptions or thoughts, but they are only present as feelings, like the images of dreams in the sleeping consciousness; and during sleep consciousness, we remember the images when we are awake. Then the dream image lies in our waking consciousness.
Nothing of the emotional life of the dream comes through clearly to us either; we only have the idea of it in us, but what has actually penetrated into us is not the feeling that we have dreamt; for this gives rise to the illusion in us as if we had the feeling in our soul consciousness, but we do not have it, but it extends from the twilight into the light and evokes the idea, so that we often confuse what we have experienced with what we have dreamed. We also believe that it is the same with the life of the will, but in reality it is this: what protrudes from the actual volitional processes into our world of imagination is that we can form concepts and thoughts about what we do, but what is actually connected with our organization and our soul life eludes consciousness. The actual content of the will, the way it is carried out, from the beginning to the effect (to the movement of the hand, to the grasping of an object), is a thoroughly unconscious process, just as the unconscious processes are in sleep. Therefore, we must say: our waking life is not just a waking life, but also a state of the subconscious, a kind of dream life that extends into our ordinary waking consciousness.
What I have now discussed arises from truly conscientious and serious observation of the soul, at least to a certain extent in the case of ordinary psychology, of which I spoke here the day before yesterday. When the soul succeeds in penetrating into another consciousness that looks into another life, then this consciousness succeeds in arriving at a different observation of the soul. Then, in the depths of the soul, in the form of imaginations [which, however, are not our abstract ideas and thoughts, but which penetrate into life], the feeling that is coming to life awakens, then one knows that what one is brightening up is not present in full reality in the ordinary consciousness, but only in the sleeping consciousness. One must look with intense strength of feeling through this mode of cognition if one wants to bring this feeling and the subconscious of the soul before the ordinary consciousness, and one must make even greater efforts to bring up the act of will as such.
It follows that what we feel and want in everyday life, what forms the impulses for us and the soul content of all individual people, is connected and wells up in the life that unfolds between birth and death, and that these impulses carry us through life, from person to person, and we experience them in dreams or in sleep. But these are also the historical impulses, and it will be a significant insight for the historian of the future when one will recognize the character of these forces living in the people, when one will no longer believe that what occurs in history can be understood in the same way as in ordinary life, for it takes place as if in a dream, as if in the subconscious, so that it does not come to the full and clear consciousness of the human being; he simply does not know it in ordinary life.
This view, which will have to penetrate from spiritual scientific research into historical observation, and only then will historical observation be infallible, only then will it be effective and in accordance with reality. For he who wants to research history today does not think about the fact that history cannot be researched in the old way. The science of history has only emerged in the last century, during which the foundations of scientific knowledge have been developed and the method by which natural science has led to such brilliant results, by bringing humanity so far in terms of external life practice, has been developed. Historical observation has been grasped and developed according to the model that is common, correct and justified in natural science. It is regarded as a kind of ideal natural science and attempts are made to extend this way of looking at things to history as well. Lamprecht had something like this in mind in the background; he said that a way of thinking that is not intended for history is decisive for it, but that it has only emerged from the natural scientific way of looking at things.
The one who has this knowledge, which I have developed, who has recognized that this knowledge relates to daytime consciousness as daytime consciousness relates to sleep consciousness, the one who, from this point of view, looks at the course of historical activity and penetrates into the course of of historical wisdom, it becomes clear that this behavior of our soul is fully justified in relation to nature, in relation to the thought with which we gain knowledge of nature, but that this old way of looking at things is not suitable for judging the course of human life as history. But this approach to the course of historical events is also characteristic of the whole nineteenth-century way of looking at things: people do not realize that the impulses are rooted in the unconscious course of life and that they cannot be grasped with the ordinary mind. If one bears this in mind, then one comes to wonder: what must take the place of what is today?
Herman Grimm made some very correct remarks about this and he understood many things very correctly in relation to the history of mankind and felt very clearly how the spirit of science can emerge again. He thought - and he discussed this subject very thoroughly with me - that his ideal would be to look at human history in such a way that the impulses present themselves as a world-effective imagination. It is not correct that the impulses present themselves in this way, but nevertheless Grimm has instinctively come up with a very curious fact. He first asks himself: What, for example, is Gibbon's way of presenting history? Gibbon wrote the history of the decline of the Roman Empire, and his way of looking at it can be compared to the [scientific] way of knowing of the present day [it is the application of knowledge of nature to history]. Gibbon describes the decline of the Roman Empire and all the forces that worked to bring about its downfall. He does not grasp what was an emerging impulse at the time, because he cannot grasp emerging impulses with the intellect and the scientific way of looking at things. Thus he can grasp only that which does not make historical life, but only that which has arisen when historical impulses have already expired.
But history is not written in this way; historical life is transformed into a corpse, because first the impulses on which it is based must be awakened and discovered. If history is to be understood as something living, then it cannot be grasped in terms of natural history. But Gibbon never succeeded in grasping something correctly like the rising forces of Christianity, which, as living forces, extend into the history of that time. Therefore, we must be clear about how to grasp real historical forces, and we see that we have to go back to what is subconscious in human life, what plays into the mind and will in the way I have presented it. Therefore, one can never grasp [what is fruitful in history] with the usual scientific method, nor the forces that lead to the practice of life, with which one can face life and with which one can judge: life has taught us this and this.
Only the observing consciousness, in which the new kind of knowledge is immersed, is what we call the only real way of looking at history, which will no longer say that different new states will be founded that may feud with each other but can no longer tear each other apart. This is also a prerequisite for history to provide a real basis for life. It must become so, because only in this way does history flow into our lives, the historical view flows into us. We see what really was through a real historical perspective, even if it is initially as inadequate as I have described it. One can grasp the spirit only by plunging into its depths, by seizing with clear light that which otherwise remains in the subconscious; otherwise one does not touch anything with the theory, as it is imitated by the natural-historical approach; with theory one does not penetrate into real life.
One can easily test the correctness of this assertion; just try it: put a pure theorist, an astute person who can think quite well about nature and the course of human knowledge, who is a good economist and social theorist, into life, and this is the best method to destroy what is good. This can be done with a theorist in social and ethical life and it will be seen: such theoretical minds work as destructive forces; they are capable of surveying life, but never of working fruitfully because their way of looking at things is not based on a correct view of history. And Lamprecht's view of history also confirms this view.
But how the type of knowledge meant here is submerged in the real impulses, I would like to show with an example. I know that it sounds extremely paradoxical when I say this, but I have said before: what Copernicus set out in his world view was also regarded as paradoxical and ridiculous. The world view reaches into those impulses that otherwise remain unconscious. For years I have pursued this idea in lectures and said that one would then come to a fruitful practical conception of history. But I will only hint at something in principle with two examples, which should lead a little further and which also reach into everyday life.
For those who look at history, the historical epoch that extends to the middle of the fifteenth century, but begins with the seventh or eighth century BC, is offered. It is remarkable that there is a similarity in the way the human soul is formed, how the human soul becomes social through mental powers that remain essentially the same from the seventh century BC to the mid-fifteenth century AD. Only then does a rapid change occur, but we do not notice it today because our attention is not focused on it and because some people live by the saying: Just as nature does not make leaps, so too does life. But that is not true, nature and life make leaps everywhere, we just do not notice how enormous they are, and we do not focus our attention on the great turning points of life.
If you do not penetrate into the great transformation, if you cannot see it, which occurred in the middle of the fifteenth century, then you also do not see the most important thing, you do not see the difference between these two ages, one of which is the one in which we are fully immersed and which will perhaps last another hundred years. The whole of human life between the seventh and eighth centuries BC and the fifteenth century AD is such that souls develop differently than in later times. I would like to say: in that older age, the human mind is developed much more instinctively, it therefore works more correctly, as a review of that time proves, and how everything was developed then, for example Roman law, which is still of great importance today.
Only if one knows which individual ideas emerged from Roman law, from the uniquely instinctive mind, will one also understand that at that time the mind worked in the soul [like a sense]. The social structure is also highly developed in Roman life with all its characters, and instinctive mind also worked during the decline of the Roman Empire.
It was only in the middle of the fifteenth century that reason began to operate in a different sense, that consciousness of reason began to operate in its own way. This age not only begins to carry a new psychic organization within itself, but it also develops it further, and thoughts are set with full awareness of the things.
We no longer understand anything of the inner impulses of those who lived at that time because we do not consider how the laws, state institutions and state formations of that time came about. It is therefore assumed that educated humanity, which is relevant for cultural development, no longer came to these institutions through the instinctive workings of the mind. But it is precisely when we consider this picture that the depth from which human activity arises becomes apparent, and when we follow the historical documents to study the human development of peoples and the laws they have created, then we can apply the conclusion to ourselves.
I will give another example, which covers an even longer period of time. It may also seem paradoxical, especially if I could give the details in question. But there is not enough time to point out what would result from research in spiritual science, and I can only briefly mention the results in general. The age that I have just described, which is still in contemporary history, is followed, going back from the seventh and eighth centuries, by another one in which the soul was in a completely different state, but which, according to research using the methods of spiritual science, covers a much longer period of time than can be documented by our records. We come to a different epoch from the one I have just characterized, which begins with the seventh and eighth centuries BC and ends in the middle of the fifteenth century. If we look at the events of this earlier epoch from a spiritual scientific point of view, as far back as we can trace the time with our eyes and with a seeing consciousness, we come to a time that was very significant in many respects.
Today, in the sense of the old method of developmental theory, research is being conducted into historical application, which is expressed in the attempt to create an analogue. One looks at the progress of historical development, the progress of humanity [as an organism], one compares what took place in prehistoric times with infancy, later times with adolescence, and then, when you apply it from the earlier time to the present time, you come to say how we have “come so gloriously far” and how we have developed our minds compared to our ancestors. But all these analogies fall apart when we look at them through the lens of spiritual science. For then it becomes clear that people in the earlier periods of human development faced life in a completely different way than they do today.
Scientific theory has brought with it many errors and, above all, has created a certain prejudice with regard to the historical development of humanity. And no attention is paid to how the human soul has changed over time, how it has taken on a different form over the centuries. What people had in earlier times is regarded as if it all came from soul impulses that are always the same. If you believe this, you don't know how the human soul has changed, which was connected to human life in a completely different way back then. Today we only know of such a connection in the youth and childhood of a person. We know how the soul is closely connected with the development of life and how what is called spiritual development often depends on the historical course of life. But by the twentieth year this ceases for the human being; the close connection that can be scientifically traced [of the spiritual-soul with the development of the physical-bodily] ceases, and the spirit begins to develop, and this period then comes to an end by the twentieth year.
It was quite different in the early days of humanity. There were times in the history of humanity, which I have already mentioned, when the human soul remained spiritually connected to the body, quite unlike today. One result of spiritual research is that, during their lifetime, people remained dependent on bodily consciousness, except for the way they experience bodily processes, and today we are discovering certain events in human history from which we can still see today that certain ideas, which have not been examined in literary history, but which resonate in some old sages, have retained their old originality.
Then comes the second age, which can be compared with the age of man up to the age of forty, but this is already the age which has already adopted a definite culture and of which we know that the people of that time were already dependent on many conditions of life, which penetrate into their lives as ideas. And here we come to the human age, which begins with the seventh to eighth century BC; people experience the forces of the body until the age of forty, which now already allows our individuality to decline from the age of 35 onwards. If this [Greco-Roman] period is not only considered from an external point of view, but is studied in depth, we find that it is based on the fact that man experiences life with his consciousness, whether this occurs in the course of history or in the life of an individual, up to the age of forty, when external circumstances influence the spiritual life. Today, we no longer achieve this; we only experience fully up to the age of 27 or 28.
Thus history, if we follow the historical life, shows us, one might say in a few words, that humanity as such is becoming ever younger. But this means a great deal for a correct understanding of the life of humanity. At first, humanity became so old that it, as peoples, experienced in common what happens in human life up to the age of thirty, and only then came the younger age. Today, humanity lives a much younger age throughout life than in the past, and therein lies the real power that seems incomprehensible, and also the processes of human history, which seem to want to be incomprehensible to us, such as Roman law or the Greek world view, art and the social life of that time, which correspond to a much older age.
We find it understandable, however, when we know that the human experience in his soul was quite different then and that man today can no longer experience the same. Today, man is dependent on grasping with his soul that which life no longer gives him, and since the middle of the fifteenth century, man has been confronted with the necessity of grasping with the consciousness of the intellect that which life no longer gives man and which cannot be found through the inner impulses of the soul. That is why we only now understand how we have to reach into the reality of the soul's life in order to grasp the connections.
I have only characterized the general aspects in general; one can also pick out only the everyday events and then see the individual events in this light. But the picture of what is spreading around us and what I have characterized also emerges in a very strange way. We look to the Asian East, to Rabindranath Tagore, how he understands the spirit and how he views the history of the Indians and the Japanese people. He wants the old roots to remain, and does not want the foreign spirit to enter, which is different from the old spirit and enters after the period that ends with the age from the seventh to the eighth century. Nevertheless, he is a fine spiritual man of the Orient, and despite the fact that he has absorbed everything that the object itself can offer, with all its sympathies and impulses, he has his own point of view in his understanding of tradition.
If we look more closely, we see that life today has forged a common bond across the whole earth, despite the different worldviews that often clash and interfere with each other. We also see minds like Lamprecht and Grimm wrestling with what has been developing as individuals since the fifteenth century and seems more and more alive from year to year. These are the driving impulses for our spiritual and moral approach. The humanities scholar does not need to create new concepts; he finds the concepts that can be applied to the age in which we live. He is also not looking for new ideals, for fantasies; he is only seeking to grasp that in which he can truly immerse himself, and he knows that human coexistence must develop. But we say to ourselves with regard to the Orient: there is something at work that we are not allowed to participate in, because we would not get along if we thought we could imitate it in Central Europe. What occurs in the Orient and in our regions is quite different, and one understands it only if one can grasp it in the way described. But then one must say: it is as if someone develops from childhood to the age of thirty. And only from this point of view can one understand it if one wants to face these realities.
But what we encounter in America is a kind of anticipation of a state, as if a child were senile, that is, a state that is quite good for later in life but not in youth, when it is an unhealthy state; and therefore, what works in the sense of this perspective will only be conscious in his head, to which life is not actually connected. Wilson's restless eye can be compared to the calm gaze of Herman Grimm, in which the calmness of the soul is expressed, emerging from within, moving from experience to experience and connecting everything with its own breath. When a person is possessed by his inner being, then the eye does not become calm, then everything he says becomes apt, forceful. What is to be developed out of the spirit is developed out of the body. We must pay attention to this difference, we must see it if we want to understand our soul and ethical and historical work, especially in today's difficult times, when we shape through direct experiences of other soul impressions on the historical ground and create social connections. We certainly cannot accept what is Asian, nor what is American, even though it must be understood.
The European nations could also be characterized, but one must delve below the surface, and then only can one extract what are the historical impulses from those forces that otherwise work unconsciously. But if one recognizes this, then one will also have real historical considerations that give people maturity for life. And when that happens, then such discussions will no longer be considered paradoxical, and one will really have something from history that can work in one's life. Placed in life, one will be able to say that one has grown to meet the demands of one's position by being able to see life from true and full reality and not just from the surface.
It is remarkable that Goethe was the first to coin the phrase about the value of history in awakening enthusiasm. But he only wanted to describe the concept with it, because the soul concepts are not given from history, but are brought forth from the unconscious depths. However, since they are instinctive, they enter the emotional life only to sink back down into feelings and impulses; and enthusiasm will again be able to arise from that which has been seen through a true historical method of observation, and then, through feeling enthusiasm and through a true historical method of observation, we will face life for the first time. I know that today this way of looking at history sounds highly paradoxical to many, and that most people do not agree with the conclusion that correct social thinking and ethical action can arise from such a consideration, which is based on the historical consideration of the seeing consciousness. I know that today we are seen as fantasists, whose way of thinking cannot yet be easily grasped.
But I would like to ask a question: how many people before the fourteenth century could have imagined, based on the concepts of the time, that our Earth would experience such a movement as we know today? No one who lived at that time knew. We now look at many things differently, since we can see the big picture, and in the near future we will be able to see much more. This will happen often in human life, and our view of things will broaden. We will have to take into account our old sympathies and antipathies and we will see that everything that has befallen humanity will be balanced out when we understand what humanity wants, and that this cannot be linked to the way we have thought up to now.
It is important that people learn this so that humanity can develop forward. People must learn new perceptions, ideas and concepts, especially new thinking, which balances out with the earlier concepts and ideas. The former may already be the only decisive thing for some people today, but the latter will be the important thing, because it will reach into the future and be fundamental for life and it will found our life for the future. Therefore, I believe that actions will arise from such considerations and that some may still come to ideas and feelings that are still considered paradoxical, perhaps even strange, today, but which will later, albeit reluctantly, be recognized. People will come to the conclusion that we have to learn anew from one day to the next and have to familiarize ourselves with a new way of thinking, feeling and willing for the near future, in order to be able to settle into this time.