The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Have you found something you want to ask, gentlemen?

Question: How are the sun's rays created? Are they a substance? And how is it that they fall on the earth in an arc?

Dr. Steiner: You don't mean that the sun's rays are a reality, do you? And why you think that they fall in an arc, you can perhaps explain something else.

The questioner says that he has heard that they do not fall straight down onto the earth, but in an arc.

Dr. Steiner: The thing is this: the sun's rays, as we see them, are not actually reality; rather, when we look at the sun as such, it is not actually a physical substance, it is actually spiritual and consists of a hollow space in space.

Now, you just have to imagine what such a hollow in space means. If you have a bottle of Selters water, as I have used the comparison before, then the bottle is filled with water, and you can hardly see the water; you know that there is water in it, but you can see very clearly the bubbles that are in there. But you know that if you pour out the water, the bubbles will disappear; they are actually air. As air, they are thinner than water. You don't see something that is denser than water, but you see the thinner part of the air in it. It is the same with the sun above. Everything around the sun is actually denser than the sun, and the sun is thinner than what is around the sun; that's why you see the sun. So it is an illusion to believe that the sun is something in space, so to speak. There is actually nothing there; there is a big hole, just as there is a hole in the seltzer water wherever there is a pearl, wherever there is air.

From this you can already see: It cannot be that rays emanate from the hole. The rays arise in a completely different way. You can visualize this in the following way. Suppose you have a street lamp; there is light inside this street lamp. If you are walking on the street and looking at this lantern, and it is a fairly bright evening, you will see the lantern with a firm, beautiful shine. But consider this: if it is a foggy evening, with fog all around, it will seem as if rays are emanating from the lantern, from the light! So you see the rays inside. You just don't see the rays from the light, otherwise you would also have to see the rays on a really good evening. But they come from what is all around; and the more fog there is, the more you see the rays. That is why you do not see the sun's rays as reality, but as something where you look through a fog at something less dense, into an emptiness. Do you understand?

But now further: When one looks through a mist into the distance, then the object that one sees always appears at a different location than where it actually is. If you are standing here on earth and you look through the air at the sun, which is actually empty, then, as you look, the sun will appear to be lower than where it actually is – then it will appear to be lower in the emptiness of space. As a result, something that has no reality anyway appears as if it were bent out of shape. So it is actually only because you are looking through the fog. That is the reality in this case. One must always marvel anew that today's physicists depict things as if there were a sun and rays emanating from it, while neither the sun nor the rays have any external physical reality. And in the space that is empty, there is indeed spiritual substance. And that is what must always be taken into account. That is what I can say in relation to this question.

Perhaps someone can think of something else.

Question: Could we hear something about Freemasonry and its purpose?

Dr. Steiner: Well, you see, gentlemen, today's Freemasonry is actually, one could say, only a shadow of what it once was. I have also spoken here on various occasions about the fact that in the very early days of human development there were no schools like those of today, nor churches like those of today, nor art institutions like those of today, but all of this was one. In the ancient mysteries, as they were called, there was the school, the art institution and the religion at the same time. This only diverged later. So that it actually became so for our Central European regions, one could even say, only in the 11th, 12th century; in former times the monasteries were, I would say, a memory of the old times. But in very ancient times, school, church and art institutions were one and the same thing. It was the case, however, that in the mysteries everything that was done there was taken much more seriously than it is taken today, for example, in our schools and also in our churches.

The situation in those days was that one had to prepare for a long time before one was allowed to learn. Today, basically, whether one can learn something or not is decided by a principle that has nothing to do with learning. Isn't it true that today the only thing that really matters is whether the person in question can afford to learn or not! Of course, this is something that has nothing to do with the abilities of the person concerned. And the situation was quite different in ancient times. Among all of humanity, those who were the most capable were selected – and people had a better eye for this than they do today. Of course, the system fell into decline almost everywhere because people are selfish by nature, but originally the principle was to select those who had abilities. And only then were they entitled to learn spiritually – not simply through drilling and training and elements, as taught today, but they were able to learn spiritually.

But this spiritual learning is linked to the fact that in preparation, one learns to develop very specific abilities. You just have to bear in mind that in ordinary life, when you touch something, you actually have a rough sensation of it; and the most that people achieve today is that they can sometimes distinguish substances from one another in their sensation, that they feel things in this way and distinguish something in their sensation. But people today are actually quite rough in their perception - I mean, in their purely physical perception; they distinguish between warmth and cold. At most, people who depend on it can develop a more refined sense of perception. The blind, for example. There are blind people who learn to feel the letterforms when they run their fingers over the paper. Each letter is, after all, engraved a little into the paper. If the feeling in the fingers is developed finely, one can already feel the letters a little. These are the only people who today learn to feel and sense more subtly. As a rule, the feeling is not developed at all, but one learns an enormous amount if one develops the feeling, and especially the feeling in the fingertips and in the fingers, very finely. Today, people do not just distinguish between warmth and cold through feeling. Yes, he can, because he can read the thermometer; the subtle differences in heat and cold become visible to him. But the thermometer was only invented over time. Before that, people only had their feelings. In the Mystery preparations, feelings were particularly developed at the beginning, especially in the fingers and fingertips. And it was the case that one learned to feel in the finest way.

So who was it in the mysteries who was the first to be prepared to feel very finely? Well, the other people could not feel so finely. Now suppose there was a mystery somewhere else. People traveled a lot in ancient times; they traveled almost as much as we do, and sometimes we are amazed at how fast they traveled. They didn't have a railroad; but they traveled because they were nimble, could walk faster, got less tired, walked a little better, and so on. And now they met on the way, such people. Yes, when two such people, who could feel subtly, shook hands, they recognized each other by that, and it was said: They recognize each other by their subtler feeling. That is what is called the grip - the grip when one gripped the other in ancient times and one recognized that he had a subtler feeling.

Now, gentlemen, consider the second point: once it was recognized that someone had a fine perception, then one went further, because one learned even more. In ancient times, people did not write as much as they do today; they actually only rarely wrote down the most important things. However, there was already a kind of correspondence in ancient times; but this correspondence was also more in all sorts of signs. And so many signs came into being for all sorts of things. It was also the case that people who did not belong to the mysteries, who were not the wise men, as they were called, only traveled in a smaller area when they traveled; they did not get very far. But the scholars, the wise men, traveled a great deal. They should have known not only all languages, but also all dialects. Of course, it is difficult even for a North German to speak Swiss German. But for these people, in addition to the language they spoke, there were certain signs for all the things that interested them in the mysteries. They made signs. For example, let's say that the usual gesture that one already has in one's mind was further developed: I understand –; or: That's not what you're telling me –; or: We understand each other well. – You drew the cross inside. So that there was a fully developed sign language precisely among the ancient sages, and everything that was known was contained in such signs. So you can see: All the people who were in the high schools of the time, in the mysteries, had certain signs for everything. Let's say, for example, that they wanted to record these signs. Then they painted them on. This is how the painted signs came about.

It is interesting that there are still certain writings today that clearly show that they originated from signs. This is, for example, the old script of the Indians, the Sanskrit script. In this script, you can see everywhere that everything has emerged from the curved and the straight line. Curved lines: dissatisfaction with something, antipathy; straight lines: sympathy. Just think about it: someone knows that straight lines mean sympathy and crooked lines mean antipathy. Now I want to tell him something. I also have my sign for that. He wants to tell me something; that can go well at the beginning, but later it can go badly. You see, it's still going well; later he draws a wavy line: then it can go badly. And so they had certain signs for everything. Those who were initiated into the mysteries would use these signs to communicate with each other. So the sign was used to access the handle.

Now, something very special was seen in the words in the past. You see, when a person speaks words today, he actually has no idea what the words are. But you can still feel something that is already contained in the sounds. You will easily be able to feel when someone is in a certain situation and he starts: A - that has something to do with amazement. A - the letter A is wonder. Now take the letter R: in it lies rolling, radiance: R = radiance. A = wonder, R = rolling, radiance.

Now, however, we know what we just said about the sun's rays. But even if the sun's rays are apparent, if they are not reality, it looks as if they are flowing. Now imagine someone wants to say: There is something up there that throws something at me here on earth, which, when it appears to me in the morning, causes amazement. He expresses the amazement with A, but that it comes from above, with R; he expresses that with: RA. Yes, that is what the ancient Egyptians called the sun god: Ra! Each of these letters contains a feeling, and we have put the letters together to form words. So there was a very broad sense to it. This has long been forgotten today. You can feel something like that in different things. Take, for example, I. This is something like a quiet joy; you come to terms with what you experience and perceive: I. That is why laughter is also expressed with hihi. That is a quiet joy. So each letter has something specific in it. And there is a knowledge through which you can almost form the words if you have an understanding of the sounds that are within the words.

Now you will say one thing, gentlemen: Yes, then, if that were the case, there could actually only be one language! Originally there was also one language among humanity; when one still had a feeling for these sounds, these letters, there was only one language. The languages then became different when people dispersed. But originally people sensed this, and in the mysteries it was taught correctly how to sense sounds, letters, and how to make words out of them. Therefore there was a language of its own in the mysteries. This language, everyone spoke among themselves. They did not speak the dialects among themselves, but this language everyone understood. If one said Ra, the other knew that this is the sun. If someone says, for example, E - just feel it: I recoil from something, it doesn't suit me; E = I have a slight fear, something like dread! Now take L: that is how something disappears, how something flows, and EL, yes, that is something that flows towards you and makes you recoil, makes you afraid. Thus in Babylon El = God was called. Thus everything was designated according to this principle. Or take the Bible: when you say: O - that is a sudden amazement, a sudden amazement that you cannot overcome. With the A - there you have a feeling that you like, an amazement that you like; O - there you want to step back; H, Ch is the breath. So that one can say: O = recoiling amazement; H = breath; I = one points to it, one is pleased about it, it is quiet joy = I. And M, that is: one wants to go into it oneself. You feel when you pronounce M: M - the breath goes out, and one feels that one is literally running after the breath; M is therefore: going away. Now let's put this together: El, we have already seen that, is the spirit coming from the wind; O = that is the recoiling amazement, H = the breath; so that is already the finer spirit that works as breath; I is the quiet joy; M is the going. There you have Elohim, with which the Bible begins; there you have these sounds in it. So that one can say: What are the Elohim? – The Elohim are beings in the wind that one is somewhat afraid of, that one shies away from a little, but that through breathing bring joy to people, and in turning towards people bring joy: Elohim. And so originally one studies in the words according to the sounds, according to the letters, what the words actually mean. Today people no longer sense what it is actually like.

What is the plural of “carriage” here in Switzerland? Do we say “carriage” here too, or do we say “carriages”? (Answer: “Carriages”! This answer is wrong. The Swiss German is “Wäge”, as Dr. Steiner suspected.) - We still say “carriage”. So there it is already confused; the original would be: “the carriage”, “the carriages”! We have a wide variety of plurals, for example, der Bruder, die Brüder. But that's the same in Switzerland! You don't say “the brothers,” do you? So it's: der Bruder, die Brüder. Or we say: das Holz, die Hölzer. You don't say “the woodworkers,” do you? It's: das Holz, die Hölzer. You see, gentlemen, when the plural is formed, the umlaut is formed: ainä, uinü, oinö. Why does that happen? Yes, the umlaut expresses that the thing becomes unclear! When I see one brother, he is clearly there as a person; when I see several brothers, it becomes unclear, and I have to distinguish one from the other, and if I cannot do that, it becomes unclear. You have to look at one after the other. The lack of clarity is indicated everywhere by the umlaut. So wherever there is an umlaut in a word, something is unclear.

There is something in language by which you can actually recognize the whole person; there is the whole person. And so people also expressed how certain meanings already lay within the letters that were written down, within these signs. A was always astonishment. When the old Jew wrote down x like this, he said to himself: Who is astonished in the world? The animals are not really surprised, only man. That is why he called man in general: amazement. When he wrote down his Aleph, the x, the Hebrew A, it also meant man.

And so it was that each letter also meant a specific thing or being. All this was known to the people who were initiated into the mysteries. So if someone travelled and met another, and they had the same knowledge, they recognized each other by the word. So you can say: In the old days, it was so that people who had studied something, who knew a lot, recognized each other by touch, sign and word. Yes, but, gentlemen, there was something in it! All learning was really contained in these signs, gestures and words. Because by learning to feel, one learned to distinguish objects. By having the signs, one had an imitation of all that was a natural secret. And in the word, one came to know the inner human being. So you can say: in the grip you had perception; in the sign you had nature, and in the word you had the human being, his inner wonder or his recoil, his joy and so on. So you had nature and man and you reproduced it in signs, grips and words.

Now, in the course of human development, what emerged on the one hand was divided into the university and later into schools, and on the other hand into the church and into art. None of the three understood what was originally present; and grip, sign and word were completely lost. Only those who had then realized: Gosh, those old sages, they had a certain power because they knew that! It is a justified power that a person has when he knows something, because it benefits his fellow human beings; if no one knew how to make a locomotive, humanity would never have one! So when someone knows something, it benefits people; that is a justified power. But later on people simply appropriated the power by copying the outward signs. Just as these or those signs once meant something in the past and later on the meaning was lost, so all that has lost its meaning. And then, I might say, by imitating the old mysteries, all sorts of things were formed in which you only have the outward form. What did people do? They no longer had the subtle perception, but they agreed on a sign by which they would recognize each other. They shake hands in a certain way, by which one knows: he belongs to this association. They recognized each other by the handshake. Then they make another sign in some way. The sign and the handshake are different, depending on whether one is in the first, second or third degree. That is how people recognize each other. But it is nothing more than just a sign of recognition. And in the same way, they have certain words for each degree, which they can pronounce in certain Masonic lodges; let us say, for the first degree, for example, if you want to know: what is the word? - [the password] Jachin. We know that he learned the word Jachin in the Masonic lodge, otherwise he would not have been initiated into the first degree. It is only a password. And then he also makes the sign and so on.

Now, actually, this kind of Freemasonry has only developed when everything else from the mysteries was forgotten; and some of the old things that were no longer understood were imitated. So that what Freemasonry has adopted of the cult is mostly no longer understood by Freemasons today; they also do not understand the sign, grip and word because they do not know what it is all about. They do not know, for example, that when they speak the word of the second degree from Table 21: Boaz, that the B is as much as a house; O is, as I told you, this restrained wonder; A: that is the pleasant amazement; $ is the sign for the snake. With that you have expressed: We recognize the world as that which is a great house, built by the great architect of the world, at which one must marvel both anxiously and comfortably, and in which there is also evil, the snake. Yes, people knew about such things in ancient times; they looked at nature and saw these things, looked at people and saw these things. Today, in certain Masonic orders, those who have completed the second degree pronounce the word 'Boaz' without realizing its significance. Similarly, if in the third degree people put their fingers on the pulse, it really meant that they had recognized that the person had a fine intuitive perception. You could tell by the way the finger was placed on the pulse. Later, this became the third degree. Today, people just know when someone comes and takes their hand like that: that's a Freemason. So in these things there is actually something old, venerable, great, something in which all earlier learning lay; now this has been completely reduced to formulaic emptiness. So that today the Freemasons have such things; they also have ceremonies, a cult: that is still from the times when everything was also shown in a cult, in ceremonies, so that it was more forceful for people. The Freemasons still do that today. So that in this inward relationship the Masonic order really no longer has any significance.

But for many people, going through with such covenants when they were established was terribly boring, because it actually degenerated into a kind of gimmick. So something was needed that could be poured into Freemasonry. And that's why the Freemasons became more or less political, or again more or less spread religious enlightenment teachings. The unenlightened Roman doctrine was administered by Rome. The doctrine that opposed Rome was then spread by Freemasonry. Therefore, Rome, the Roman cult and Freemasonry are the very greatest opponents. This is no longer connected with what the cult, sign, grip and word were in the Freemasons, but that just came in between. In France, the union was not called a union, but “Orient de France”, because everything was taken from the Orient - “Grand Orient de France”, that is the great French Masonic union. The other things, the signs, the grips and the words, are only there to keep the people together, they are the means by which they recognize each other. The joint worship is where they come together under particularly solemn circumstances; just as others come together in the church, so these Freemasons come together under ceremonies that come from the ancient mysteries. That is what keeps the people together.

It was also common, especially in Italy at certain times, when political secret societies were formed, to recognize and come together through certain ceremonies, signs and grips. Political alliances and political associations have always been linked to this ancient mystery knowledge. And today, once again, it is quite remarkable: if you go to certain Polish and Austrian areas today, you will find posters; on these posters are strange signs and strange letters that then combine into words; at first you not know what the poster means at first – but such a poster, which is everywhere in Polish and Austrian areas today, is the outward sign of an alliance formed by certain nationalist sides among the youth. The same things are being done there. It is actually widespread, and people know very well that the sign also has a certain strong power. There are associations, the German-Volkish, for example, they have an old Indian sign: two snakes entwined, or also, if you will, a wheel, which then transformed into the swastika. They have it today as a badge. And you will often hear that the swastika is adopted as a sign for certain chauvinistic nationalistic circles. This is because of the tradition that the ancients expressed their rule through such signs. And so it has always been on a large scale in the Freemasons' Association. The Freemasons' Association actually exists to keep certain people together, and it does this through ceremonies, signs, grips and words. And then it pursues secret aims by keeping certain secrets among all those who are connected under these ceremonies, signs, grip and word. Of course, secret aims can only be pursued if they do not all know; and so it is with the Masonic federations that they often pursue political or cultural and similar aims.

But now you can say one more thing, gentlemen. You see, the people who are connected in Masonic associations are by no means to be challenged because of that, but sometimes they have the very best and noblest intentions; they are only of the opinion that you cannot win people over to something other than through such alliances, and therefore most Masonic associations also have the purpose of practicing charity on a large scale. That is all well and good, to practice charity and humanity. This is also something that is practiced on a large scale by these associations. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Freemason can always point out that an awful lot of extraordinary humanitarian and charitable work is founded and established precisely by the Masonic associations. You just have to say to yourself: in this day and age, all such things are actually no longer in keeping with the times. Because, right, what do we have to reject most today in such things? We have to reject isolation. This also leads to the emergence of a spiritual aristocracy, which should not exist. And the democratic principle, which must be applied more and more, is actually completely opposed to the Masonic alliance as well as to the closed priesthoods. So that one can say: It is already the case that anyone who is still able to understand today what is contained in some Masonic ceremonies for the first, second and third degrees, can recognize in what the Freemasons themselves often do not understand that they often go back to very ancient wisdom; but this is not the main significance. The great significance is that today many Masonic associations, alliances, are actually home to many political or other social charitable endeavors. But the Catholic Church and the Freemasons fight each other tooth and nail. However, this has only developed over time.

Now, of course, it is very easy to mistake such things. And it has also occurred: the Freemasons have a certain clothing for their ceremonies; for example, they have a lambskin apron. Some have said: Freemasonry is nothing more than a game with the masonry trade because the mason has a lambskin apron. But that is not true. And the apron that is there is there to show – and it has always originally been made of lambskin – that the one who is in such covenants should not be a raging fellow in terms of the passions; so the genitals are to be covered with his apron, and that is the sign of it. So it was something that expressed the human character in signs. And so it is with very many signs that also lie in clothing.

Then there are also higher degrees where a garment similar to a priest's is worn; there every single detail has a meaning. For example, I have told you that man, in addition to the physical body, also has an etheric body. And just as the priest has a white linen garment, a shirt-like robe, to express the etheric body, so too certain high degrees of the Freemasons have such a garment, and for the astral body - it is colored - there is a toga, an outer garment; all this expresses it. And the mantle, which was then associated with the helmet, expressed the power of the ego.

All these things lead back to old, very ingenious, significant customs that have lost their meaning today. If someone likes Freemasonry, they should not take what I have said as a disparaging comment. I just wanted to explain how things are. Of course, there may be an order of Freemasons that brings together exceptionally good people and so on. And in today's world, something like that can be particularly important. Really, what most people learn today when they become doctors or lawyers – yes, that does not capture their hearts. And that is why many lawyers and doctors still become Freemasons, because at least they then have the solemnity of the old ceremonies and something that no longer allows them much to think about, but which is still something: sign, grip and word, but which indicates that man does not live only in the external material.

That is what I wanted to tell you. Do you have anything else you would like to ask?

Question: In America there is something called the Ku Klux Klan. What about it? Can we hear from Dr. Steiner about what it means? You read about it all the time.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, you see, the Ku-Klux-Klan is one of the newest inventions in this area, and it is an invention that should be taken more seriously than it is usually taken. You know, gentlemen, that only a few decades ago there was actually enthusiasm for a certain cosmopolitanism. Today it is still there, of course, among the working class, among social democracy - these are an international element - but in bourgeois circles and in other circles, nationalism is getting terribly out of hand, and the mood for nationalism is certainly strong. And you will also remember that those people who stood behind Woodrow Wilson – he himself was only a kind of front man – actually counted on this nationalism, wanted to have national states everywhere, wanted to incite nationalism everywhere, and so on. Yes, one can have one's own views about that! But now there are people everywhere who are developing the tendency to take nationalism to the extreme. And it was precisely in this endeavor to take nationalism to the extreme that the Ku Klux Klan was formed in America. It now works with methods such as signs, in the sense I have described.

If you are considering such connections, then you have to know that signs also have a certain hypnotic power. You know, if you have a chicken (it is drawn), if you let the chicken poke the ground with its beak, and you draw a chalk line from there, the chicken will follow the chalk line! It is hypnotized, it follows the line! You just have to poke the beak at the beginning, then it will follow the chalk line because it is hypnotized by the line. So every sign has a meaning, not only the straight line for the chicken, a certain soporific meaning, if you look for it. And that is used by certain secret societies to choose just such signs, through which they beguile the other person, put him to sleep, so that he does not assert his own judgment. And such means are used by such secret societies in particular. In America, the Ku-Klux-Klan belongs to this group. Now the Ku Klux Klan is dangerous because such associations do not just target one nation, but they want to have the nationalist principle everywhere. No one can say: the Ku Klux Klan need only remain an American institution because it particularly wants to promote American nationalism. The Ku Klux Klan supporter does not say that; instead, he says: nationalism should be promoted in general, so in Hungary, in Germany, in France. - Very well! He is not concerned with Americanism; he is not a patriot, but he sees in this insistence of people on nationalism something which, when it then interacts with the most diverse nations, then achieves what he wants to achieve: namely, to bring people absolutely into chaos. That is what he wants: he wants to bring everything into chaos! There is pure destructive rage in it. And so the Ku Klux Klan is particularly dangerous because it can spread in all countries. And you cannot say that if it wants to spread here in Switzerland, it is an American institution, but rather it is a national Swiss institution.

And so were basically the Masonic alliances; they were international, but for the individual countries always nationalist. But they did not pay much attention to that, but they did it more to the outside world, that they joined in with what was going on in the outside world. And now one can say: But are not such people actually insane, who want to stir up something like an absolutely nationalist principle, and who want to destroy everything there? You can't really say that either. Of course, when you ask, it is said: Of course you don't do such things. But people say to themselves: It's all so corrupt today – the leaders say this to the others who follow – it's all the same to the others, so it makes no sense to cultivate the things that are there today. You first have to treat humanity like a confused mass. Then people will come to their senses again, and then they will learn something proper. People do have an idea, namely the Ku Klux Klan has an idea in this regard.

You mean: not?

The questioner: Yes! But that's strange!

Dr. Steiner: You see, many things in cultural life are strange, and we have already mentioned things that looked strange. But the strange is sometimes quite dangerous. It seems strange to you, but sometimes it is extraordinarily dangerous.

Well, gentlemen, tomorrow during the day I have to travel again – to Breslau. I will then say when we will have the next lesson.

Vielleicht fällt jemandem noch etwas anderes ein?

Frage: Könnte man etwas hören über die Freimaurerei und ihren Zweck?

Dr. Steiner: Nun, sehen Sie, meine Herren, die heutige Freimaurerei, die ist eigentlich, man könnte sagen, nur der Schatten dessen, was sie einmal war. Ich habe hier auch schon verschiedentlich davon geredet, daß es in sehr alten Zeiten der Menschheitsentwickelung nicht solche Schulen gab wie heute, auch nicht solche Kirchen und auch nicht solche Kunstanstalten, sondern das war alles eins. In den alten Mysterien, wie man es nannte, war zugleich die Schule, die Kunstanstalt und die Religion. Das ist erst später auseinandergegangen. So daß es eigentlich für unsere mitteleuropäischen Gegenden, man könnte sogar sagen, erst im 11., 12. Jahrhundert so geworden ist; früher waren die Klöster, ich möchte sagen, ein Andenken an die alte Zeit. Aber in ganz alten Zeiten war das so, daß Schule, Kirche und Kunstanstalten eines waren. Es war aber so, daß in den Mysterien alles das, was da getrieben wurde, viel ernster genommen worden ist als heute zum Beispiel in unseren Schulen und auch in unseren Kirchen die Sachen genommen werden.

Die Sache ist nämlich damals so gewesen, daß man lange Zeit hat vorbereitet werden müssen, bis man hat lernen dürfen. Heute entscheidet ja im Grunde genommen, ob man etwas lernen kann oder nicht, wirklich ein Prinzip, das gar nichts zu tun hat mit dem Lernen. Nicht wahr, heute entscheidet eigentlich nur das, ob für den Betreffenden, der lernen soll, das Geld aufgebracht werden kann oder nicht aufgebracht werden kann! Das ist natürlich etwas, was gar nichts zu tun hat mit den Fähigkeiten, die der Betreffende hat. Und ganz anders nun war die Sache in alten Zeiten. Da hat man unter der ganzen Menschheit diejenigen ausgesucht - man hat einen besseren Blick auch dafür gehabt als heute -, die etwa die Fähigsten waren. Natürlich ist die Sache dann fast überall, weil die Menschen schon einmal egoistisch sind, in Verfall geraten; aber das Prinzip war ursprünglich dies, daß man diejenigen aussuchte, die Fähigkeiten hatten. Und die wurden dann erst dazu berechtigt, daß sie geistig lernen konnten - nicht einfach durch Drill und durch Dressur und durch Elemente, wie heute gelehrt wird, sondern die konnten geistig lernen.

Dieses geistige Lernen, das ist nun aber damit verknüpft, daß man in der Vorbereitung lernt, ganz bestimmte Fähigkeiten auszubilden. Sie müssen nur bedenken, wenn man im gewöhnlichen Leben irgend etwas angreift, so hat man eigentlich eine grobe Empfindung davon; und das Äußerste, was heute die Menschen erreichen, ist, daß sie in der Empfindung manchmal Stoffe voneinander unterscheiden können, daß sie die Dinge so befühlen und etwas in der Empfindung unterscheiden. Aber die Menschen sind in ihrer Empfindung - ich meine, in der rein physischen Empfindung - heute eigentlich recht grob; sie unterscheiden Wärme und Kälte. Höchstens daß es die Leute, die darauf angewiesen sind, zu einer feineren Empfindung bringen. Das sind zum Beispiel die Blinden. Es gibt ja Blinde, die lernen, wenn sie das Papier überfahren, die Buchstabenformen befühlen. Jeder Buchstabe ist ja ein bißchen eingegraben ins Papier. Wenn das Gefühl in den Fingern fein ausgebildet wird, kann man schon die Buchstaben etwas befühlen. Das sind die einzigen Leute, die heute lernen, feiner etwas fühlen, feiner etwas empfinden. In der Regel wird die Empfindung gar nicht ausgebildet, aber man lernt ungeheuer viel, wenn man das Gefühl, und namentlich das Gefühl in den Fingerspitzen und in den Fingern ganz fein ausbildet. Heute unterscheidet der Mensch Wärme und Kälte nicht bloß durch das Gefühl. Ja, das kann er auch heute, deshalb, weil er das Thermometer lesen kann; da werden ihm die feinen Unterschiede in Wärme und Kälte sichtbar. Aber das Thermometer ist ja auch erst im Laufe der Zeit erfunden worden. Vorher hatten die Leute nur ihr Gefühl. Da wurden in den Mysterienvorbereitungen anfangs nämlich die Gefühle, besonders in den Fingern und Fingerspitzen, ganz besonders ausgebildet. Und es war so, daß man in feinster Weise empfinden lernte.

Wer war also eigentlich in den Mysterien derjenige, der zuerst vorbereitet worden war, ganz fein zu empfinden? Nun, die anderen Menschen konnten nicht so fein empfinden. Nehmen Sie nun an, irgendwo, an einem andern Orte, war ein Mysterium. Die Leute reisten ja viel im Altertum; sie reisten fast ebensoviel wie wir, und manchmal ist man erstaunt, wie schnell sie reisten. Sie hatten keine Eisenbahn; aber sie reisten, weil sie flinker waren, weil sie schneller gehen konnten, weniger müde wurden, auch etwas besser gingen und so weiter. Und nun trafen sie sich auf dem Wege, solche Leute. Ja, wenn sich zwei solche Leute, die fein empfinden konnten, die Hand gaben, so merkten sie das aneinander, und man sagte dann: Die erkennen sich an ihrer feineren Empfindung. Das ist dasjenige, was man den Griff nennt - den Griff, wenn man den anderen angriff in alten Zeiten und man merkte, der hat eine feinere Empfindung.

Nun weiter, meine Herren, bedenken Sie einmal das zweite: Wenn erkannt wurde, daß einer eine feine Empfindung hatte, dann ging man weiter, denn man lernte noch mehr. In alten Zeiten schrieb man ja nicht so viel wie heute; man schrieb eigentlich nur sehr selten und das Allerallerheiligste auf. Allerdings, es gibt im Altertum auch schon eine Art von Korrespondenz; aber auch diese Korrespondenz war mehr in allerlei Zeichen. Und so entstanden viele Zeichen für alles mögliche. Es war ja auch so, daß die Leute, die nicht zu den Mysterien gehörten, die also nicht die Weisen, wie man sie nannte, waren, wenn sie reisten, nur in kleinerem Umkreis reisten; die kamen nicht sehr weit. Aber die Gelehrten, die Weisen, die reisten sehr viel. Da hätten sie eigentlich nicht nur alle Sprachen, sondern alle Dialekte kennen müssen. Es ist ja natürlich schwer, schon wenn man Norddeutscher ist, den Schweizer Dialekt zu können. Nun aber gab es für diese Leute in den Mysterien außer der Sprache, die sie sprachen, für alle Dinge, die sie interessierten, gewisse Zeichen. Sie machten Zeichen. So zum Beispiel, sagen wir, es wurde die gewöhnliche Gebärde, die man schon in der Empfindung hat, weiter ausgebildet: Ich begreife -; oder: Das ist nichts, was du mir sagst -; oder: Wir verstehen uns gut miteinander. - Man zeichnete das Kreuz hinein. So daß es eine voll ausgebildete Zeichensprache gerade unter den alten Weisen gab, und man legte alles, was man wußte, in solche Zeichen hinein. So daß Sie einsehen können: Alle die Leute, die in den damaligen hohen Schulen, in den Mysterien, waren, hatten für alles gewisse Zeichen. Sagen wir zum Beispiel, sie wollten nun diese Zeichen festhalten. Dann erst malten sie sie auf. So entstanden die aufgemalten Zeichen.

Es ist schon interessant, daß es heute noch gewisse Schriften gibt, welche deutlich erkennen lassen, daß sie aus Zeichen hervorgegangen sind. Das ist zum Beispiel die alte Schrift der Inder, die Sanskritschrift. Bei ihr sieht man überall, daß alles aus der krummen und aus der geraden Linie hervorgegangen ist. Krumme Linien: Unzufriedenheit mit etwas, Antipathie; gerade Linien: Sympathie. Bedenken Sie einmal: Es weiß einer, die geraden Linien bedeuten Sympathie, die krummen Linien bedeuten Antipathie. Jetzt will ich ihm etwas mitteilen. Dafür habe ich auch mein Zeichen. Er will mir etwas sagen; das kann ja anfangs gut gehen, später aber kann die Geschichte schlecht werden. Sehen Sie, da geht es noch gut; später zeichnet er eine Schlangenlinie: da kann es schlecht gehen. Und so hatte man für alles bestimmte Zeichen. An diesen Zeichen oder mit diesen Zeichen verständigten sich diejenigen wieder, die in den Mysterien waren. So daß man zum Griff dazu hatte das Zeichen.

Nun, etwas ganz Besonderes sah man früher in den Worten. Sehen Sie, wenn heute der Mensch Worte spricht, so hat er eigentlich gar keine Ahnung mehr, was es mit den Worten ist. Aber man kann doch noch etwas empfinden, was in den Lauten schon drinnen liegt. Sie werden leicht empfinden können, wenn einer irgendwie in einer Lebenslage ist und er fängt an: A - da hat das irgend etwas mit Verwunderung zu tun. A - der Buchstabe A ist Verwunderung. Nun nehmen Sie dazu den Buchstaben R: dadrinnen liegt das Hinrollen, Strahlen: R = Ausstrahlen. A = Verwunderung, R = Rollen, Ausstrahlen.

Nun wissen wir jetzt allerdings das, was wir eben über die Sonnenstrahlen gesagt haben. Aber auch wenn die Sonnenstrahlen scheinbar sind, wenn sie keine Wirklichkeit sind: es sieht so aus, wie wenn sie hinströmen würden. Nun denken Sie sich, es will einer sagen: Da oben ist etwas, das wirft mir hier auf der Erde etwas zu, was, wenn es mir am Morgen erscheint, Verwunderung hervorruft. Die Verwunderung drückt er aus durch A, aber daß es von oben kommt, mit R; das drückt er also aus mit: RA. Ja, so haben die alten Ägypter den Sonnengott genannt: Ra! In jedem von diesen Buchstaben liegt eben ein Empfinden darinnen, und wir haben die Buchstaben zu Worten zusammengesetzt. Es war also eine ganz ausgebreitete Empfindung drinnen. Das ist heute längst vergessen. So etwas kann man an verschiedenen Dingen spüren. Nehmen Sie zum Beispiel: I. Das ist so etwas wie eine leise Freude; man findet sich ab mit dem, was man erfährt, wahrnimmt: I. Daher wird auch das Lachen ausgedrückt mit: hihi. Das ist eine leise Freude. So hat jeder Buchstabe etwas Bestimmtes in sich. Und es gibt eine Kenntnis, durch die man geradezu die Worte bilden kann, wenn man Verständnis hat für die Laute, die in den Worten drinnen sind.

Nun werden Sie eines sagen, meine Herren: Ja, dann könnte es eigentlich, wenn das so wäre, nur eine einzige Sprache geben! - Ursprünglich hat es unter der Menschheit auch eine einzige Sprache gegeben; als man noch ein Empfinden hatte für diese Laute, diese Buchstaben, hat es nur eine einzige Sprache gegeben. Die Sprachen sind dann verschieden geworden, als sich die Menschen zerstreut haben. Aber ursprünglich haben die Menschen das empfunden, und in den Mysterien wurde das richtig gelehrt, wie man Laute, Buchstaben empfindet und zu Worten macht. Daher gab es eine eigene Sprache in den Mysterien. Diese Sprache, die sprachen alle untereinander. Sie sprachen untereinander nicht die Dialekte, aber diese Sprache, die verstanden alle. Wenn einer Ra sagte, wußte der andere, daß das die Sonne ist. Wenn einer zum Beispiel sagt: E - fühlen Sie nur: Ich schrecke etwas zurück, das paßt mir nicht; E = ich habe eine leise Furcht, so etwas wie Furcht! Nun, nehmen Sie L: Das ist so, wiewenn etwas hinschwindend ist, wie wenn etwas fließt, und EL, ja, das ist etwas, das hinfließt und wodurch man zurückschreckt, wodurch man sich fürchtet. So hat in Babylon El = Gott geheißen. So wurde alles nach diesem Prinzip bezeichnet. Oder nehmen Sie die Bibel: Wenn Sie sagen: O - das ist eine Verwunderung, eine plötzliche Verwunderung, gegen die man nicht aufkommt. Beim A - da hat man eine Empfindung, welche man gern hat, eine Verwunderung, die man gern hat; O - da will man zurück weichen; H, Ch ist der Atem. So daß man sagen kann: O = zurückweichende Verwunderung; H = Atem; I = da zeigt man hin darauf, man freut sich darüber, es ist leise Freude = I. Und M, das ist: Man will selber hineingehen. Sie spüren, wenn Sie M aussprechen: M - da geht der Atem hinaus, und man fühlt, man läuft förmlich nach dem Atem; M ist also: hinweggehen. Jetzt setzen wir das zusammen: El, das haben wir schon gesehen, ist der im Winde herkommende Geist, El; O = das ist die zurückweichende Verwunderung, H = der Atem; das ist also schon der feinere Geist, der als Atem wirkt; I ist die leise Freude; M ist das Hingehen. Da haben Sie Elohim, womit die Bibel beginnt; da haben Sie diese Laute drinnen. So daß man sagen kann: Was sind die Elohim? - Die Elohim sind im Winde Wesen, vor denen man etwas Angst hat, vor denen man etwas zurückweicht, die aber durch den Atem zur Freude der Menschen, im Hingehen zu den Menschen Freude haben: Elohim. Und so ist ursprünglich in den Worten nach den Lauten, nach den Buchstaben zu studieren, was die Worte eigentlich bedeuten. Die Menschen spüren heute gar nicht mehr, wie das eigentlich ist.

Wie heißt hier in der Schweiz die Mehrzahl von Wagen? Heißt es auch hier: Wagen, oder heißt es die Wägen ? (Antwort: Die Wagen! Diese Antwort ist falsch. Es heißt im Schweizerdeutsch «Wäge», wie Dr. Steiner vermutet hat.) - Die Wagen heißt es noch. Da ist es also schon verwuschelt; das Ursprüngliche wäre: der Wagen, die Wägen! Bei der Mehrzahl haben wir das in der verschiedensten Weise; zum Beispiel haben wir: der Bruder, die Brüder. Das ist aber doch wohl auch so in der Schweiz! Sie sagen doch nicht: die Bruder? Also: der Bruder, die Brüder. Oder sagen wir: das Holz, die Hölzer. Man sagt ja wohl auch hier nicht: die Holzer. Das Holz, die Hölzer. Sie sehen, meine Herren, wenn die Mehrzahl gebildet wird, da wird der Umlaut gebildet: ainä, uinü, oinö. Warum geschieht das? Ja, der Umlaut, der drückt aus, daß die Sache undeutlich wird! Wenn ich einen Bruder sehe, dann ist er deutlich da als eine Person; wenn ich mehrere Brüder sehe, dann wird es undeutlich, da muß ich schon einen von dem andern unterscheiden, und wenn ich das nicht kann, wird es undeutlich. Man muß einen um den andern anschauen. Das Undeutlichwerden wird überall durch den Umlaut angedeutet. Wo also ein Umlaut irgendwo in einem Worte ist, da ist irgend etwas undeutlich.

In der Sprache liegt also etwas, woran man eigentlich den ganzen Menschen erkennen kann; da ist der ganze Mensch. Und so drückten die Leute auch aus, wie schon in den Buchstaben, die man aufschrieb, in diesen Zeichen gewisse Bedeutungen drinnen liegen. A war immer Verwunderung. Wenn nun der alte Jude so x aufgeschrieben hat, so sagte er sich: Wer verwundert sich in der Erdenwelt? Die Tiere verwundern sich eigentlich nicht, nur der Mensch. Daher nannte er den Menschen überhaupt: die Verwunderung. Wenn er sein Aleph aufschrieb, das x , das hebräische A, dann bedeutete das aber auch den Menschen.

Und so war es, daß jeder Buchstabe zugleich ein bestimmtes Ding oder Wesen bedeutete. Das alles kannten wiederum die Leute, die in den Mysterien waren. Wenn also einer reiste und traf einen anderen, und sie hatten die gemeinsame Kenntnis, so erkannten sie sich am Wort. So daß man sagen kann: In den alten Zeiten war es so, daß die Leute, die etwas gelernt haben, die also viel wußten, einander erkannten an Griff, Zeichen und Wort. Ja, aber, meine Herren, da war etwas darinnen! Da war wirklich zugleich die ganze Gelehrsamkeit drinnen in diesen Zeichen, Griff und Wort. Denn dadurch, daß man fühlen lernte, lernte man die Gegenstände unterscheiden. Dadurch, daß man die Zeichen hatte, hatte man ein Nachahmen alles desjenigen, was Naturgeheimnisse waren. Und im Worte lernte man den inneren Menschen kennen. So daß man also sagen kann: Im Griff hatte man die Wahrnehmung; im Zeichen hatte man die Natur, und im Wort hatte man den Menschen, seine innere Verwunderung oder sein Zurückbeben, seine Freude und so weiter. Man hatte also Natur und Mensch und hat sie wiedergegeben in Zeichen, Griff und Wort.

Nun, im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung ist dann dasjenige entstanden, was sich auf der einen Seite trennte in die Universität und später in die Schulen, und auf der anderen Seite in die Kirche und in die Kunst. Alle drei haben nicht mehr verstanden, was ursprünglich vorhanden war; und ganz verloren ging Griff, Zeichen und Wort. Nur diejenigen haben es verstanden, die dann bemerkt hatten: Donnerwetter, diese alten Weisen, die hatten ja dadurch eine gewisse Macht, daß sie das wußten! Das ist eine gerechtfertigte Macht, dieein Mensch hat, wenn er etwas weiß, denn dadurch kommt es seinen Mitmenschen zugute; wenn keiner eine Lokomotive zu machen verstünde, so würde die Menschheit eben niemals eine Lokomotive haben! Also wenn einer etwas weiß, so kommt es den Menschen zugute; das ist eine gerechtfertigte Macht. Später aber haben sich die Leute einfach die Macht angeeignet, indem sie abgeguckt haben die äußeren Zeichen. Gerade wie diese oder jene Zeichen früher einmal etwas bedeutet haben und man später die Bedeutung verloren hat, so hat alles das die Bedeutung verloren. Und es bildete sich dann, ich möchte sagen, durch Nachäffung von den alten Mysterien, allerlei aus, in dem Sie nur äußerlich die Sache haben. Was haben die Leute getan? Die hatten die feine Empfindung nicht mehr, aber sie verabredeten ein Zeichen, an dem sie sich erkennen. Sie geben sich die Hand in einer bestimmten Weise, wodurch einer weiß: der gehört zu diesem Bund. Da haben sie sich erkannt am Griff. Dann machen sie noch in irgendeiner Weise ein Zeichen. Das Zeichen und der Griff sind verschieden, je nachdem der eine im ersten oder zweiten oder dritten Grad ist. Daran erkennen sich dann die Leute. Aber es ist nicht mehr darinnen als nur ein Erkennungszeichen. Und ebenso haben sie für jeden Grad bestimmte Worte, die sie aussprechen können in gewissen freimaurerischen Bünden; sie haben, sagen wir, für den ersten Grad zum Beispiel, wenn man wissen will: Was ist das Wort? - [das Losungswort] Jachin. Man weiß, er hat das Wort Jachin in der Freimaurerloge gelernt, sonst wäre er nicht im ersten Grad drin. Das ist nur noch ein Losungswort. Und ebenso macht er dann das Zeichen und so weiter.

Nun, eigentlich hat diese Art der Freimaurerei sich erst entwickelt, als alles übrige aus den Mysterien vergessen war; und es wurden einzelne von den alten Dingen, die man nicht mehr verstand, nachgeahmt. So daß dasjenige, was die Freimaurerei an Kultus übernommen hat, meistens heute von den Freimaurern nicht mehr verstanden wird; auch Zeichen, Griff und Wort verstehen sie nicht, weil sie all das nicht wissen, um was es sich da handelt. Sie wissen zum Beispiel nicht, daß, wenn sie das Wort des zweiten Grades aus Tafel 21 sprechen: Boas, daß das B so viel ist wie ein Haus; O ist, wie ich Ihnen gesagt habe, diese zurückhaltende Verwunderung; A: das ist die angenehme Verwunderung; $ ist das Zeichen für die Schlange. Damit haben Sie ausgedrückt: Wir erkennen die Welt als dasjenige an, was ein großes Haus ist, das der große Baumeister der Welt gebaut hat, über das man sich sowohl ängstlich als auch behaglich verwundern muß und in dem es auch das Böse gibt, die Schlange. - Ja, so etwas hat man gewußt in alten Zeiten; da hat man die Natur angeschaut nach diesen Dingen, den Menschen angeschaut nach diesen Dingen. Heute sprechen ahnungslos in gewissen Freimaurerbünden diejenigen, die den zweiten Grad haben, das Wort «Boas» aus. Ebenso, nicht wahr, wenn beim dritten Grad die Leute die Finger gelegt haben auf die Pulsader, dann war das wirklich eine Erkenntnis, daß der Betreffende eine feine Empfindung hat. Das merkte man an der Art und Weise, wie der Finger lag an der Pulsader. Das ist später geworden der Griff für den dritten Grad. Die Leute wissen heute nur noch, wenn einer kommt und so die Hand nimmt: das ist ein Freimaurer. Also in diesen Dingen ist eigentlich etwas Altes, Ehrwürdiges, Großes, etwas, worin alle frühere Gelehrsamkeit gelegen ist; das ist jetzt also ganz ins Formelhafte übertragen, ins Nichtige ausgegangen. So daß heute der Freimaurerbund solche Dinge hat; er hat auch Zeremonien, einen Kultus: das ist noch aus den Zeiten, wo man alles auch in einem Kultus, in Zeremonien gezeigt hat, damit es den Leuten mehr eindringlich war. Die Freimaurer machen das auch heute noch. So daß in dieser innerlichen Beziehung wirklich der Freimaurerorden keine Bedeutung mehr hat.

Aber es ist doch so furchtbar langweilig für viele Leute gewesen, wenn solche Bündnisse eingerichtet worden sind, da die Sachen mitzumachen; denn eigentlich artete es aus in eine Art Spielerei. Es brauchte also etwas, was man wiederum hineinschüttete, hineingoß in die Freimaurerei. Und dadurch entstand das, daß dann die Freimaurer mehr oder weniger politisch wurden, oder wiederum mehr oder weniger religiöse Aufklärungslehren verbreiteten. Die unaufgeklärte römische Lehre wurde von Rom verwaltet. Diejenige Lehre, die Rom gegenüberstand, wurde dann von der Freimaurerei verbreitet. Daher sind Rom, der römische Kultus und die Freimaurerei die allergrößten Gegner. Das hängt gar nicht mehr zusammen mit dem, was nun der Kultus, Zeichen, Griff und Wort, bei den Freimaurern war, sondern das ist eben dazwischen gekommen. In Frankreich nannte man den Bund nicht Bund, sondern «Orient de France», weil alles von dem Orient genommen ist - «Grand Orient de France», das ist der große französische Freimaurerbund. Das andere, Zeichen, Griff und Wort, das ist nur noch, damit die Leute zusammenhalten, das ist das, woran sie sich erkennen. Der gemeinschaftliche Kultus ist das, wo sie zusammenkommen unter besonders feierlichen Umständen; so wie die anderen in der Kirche zusammenkommen, so kommen diese Freimaurer unter Zeremonien, die von alten Mysterien herrühren, zusammen. Das hält die Leute zusammen.

Es war ja auch besonders in Italien zu gewissen Zeiten, als politische Geheimbünde sich bildeten, Sitte, unter gewissen Zeremonien, Zeichen und Griff, sich zu erkennen und zusammenzukommen. Politische Bünde, politische Vereinigungen haben immer angeknüpft an dieses alte Mysterienwissen. Und es ist heute ja wiederum ganz merkwürdig: Wenn Sie heute zum Beispiel in gewisse polnische und österreichische Gegenden gehen, finden Sie Plakate; auf diesen Plakaten sind sonderbare Zeichen und sonderbare Buchstaben, die sich dann zu Worten verbinden; man weiß zunächst nicht, was dieses Plakat bedeutet - aber solch ein Plakat, das heute in polnischen und österreichischen Gegenden überall angeschlagen ist, das ist das äußere Zeichen für einen Bund, der von gewissen nationalistischen Seiten unter der Jugend gebildet wird. Da wird mit denselben Dingen vorgegangen. Es ist das eigentlich weit, weit verbreitet, und die Leute wissen ganz gut, daß das Zeichen auch eine gewisse starke Kraft hat. Es gibt Verbände, die Deutschvölkischen zum Beispiel, die haben ein altes indisches Zeichen: zwei ineinandergeschlungene Schlangen, oder auch, wenn Sie wollen, ein Rad, das sich dann so umgebildet hat zum Hakenkreuz. Die haben das heute als Abzeichen. Und Sie werden vielfach hören, daß das Hakenkreuz wiederum als ein Zeichen angenommen wird für gewisse chauvinistische völkische Kreise. Das ist aus dem Grunde, weil man die Überlieferung hat: durch solche Zeichen haben die Alten ihre Herrschaft ausgedrückt. Und so ist es im großen Maßstabe immer gewesen beim Freimaurerbund. Der Freimaurerbund ist eigentlich dazu da, um gewisse Leute zusammenzuhalten, und das tut er durch Zeremonien, durch Zeichen, Griff und Wort. Und dann verfolgt er geheime Ziele, indem er unter all denen, die unter diesen Zeremonien, Zeichen, Griff und Wort, verbunden sind, gewisse Geheimnisse bewahrt. Natürlich, geheime Ziele kann man nur verfolgen, wenn sie nicht alle wissen; und so ist es bei den Freimaurerbünden, daß sie vielfach politische oder kulturelle und dergleichen Ziele verfolgen.

Nun können Sie aber noch eines sagen, meine Herren. Sehen Sie, die Leute, die in Freimaurerbünden verbunden sind, sind keineswegs deshalb anzufechten, weil sie das tun, sondern manchmal haben sie die allerbesten und edelsten Absichten; sie sind nur der Ansicht: Man kann die Menschen nicht auf eine andere Weise als durch solche Bündnisse für so etwas gewinnen, und daher haben die meisten Freimaurerbünde auch wiederum den Zweck, Wohltätigkeit im großen zu üben. Das ist schön, Wohltätigkeit und Humanität zu üben. Das ist nun auch etwas, was von diesen Bünden in großem Maßstabe ausgeübt wird. Daher ist es kein Wunder, wenn der Freimaurer immer darauf hinweisen kann, daß furchtbar vieles außerordentlich Humanes und Wohltätiges gerade von den Freimaurerbünden gestiftet und begründet wird. Man muß nur eben sich sagen: In der heutigen Zeit sind eigentlich alle solche Dinge nicht mehr zeitgemäß. Denn, nicht wahr, was müssen wir denn heute an solchen Dingen hauptsächlich ablehnen? Wir müssen die Absonderung ablehnen. Es entsteht dadurch auch bald eine geistige Aristokratie, die es nicht geben soll. Und das demokratische Prinzip, das immer mehr und mehr zur Geltung kommen muß, das widerstrebt eigentlich durchaus dem Freimaurerbund ebenso wie den geschlossenen Priesterschaften. So daß man also sagen kann: Es ist schon einmal so, daß derjenige, der noch heute verstehen kann, was in manchen freimaurerischen Zeremonien für den ersten, zweiten und dritten Grad enthalten ist, in dem, was die Freimaurer selber oft nicht verstehen, erkennen kann, daß sie oftmals zurückreichen auf ganz alte Weisheit; aber dieses hat nicht die große Bedeutung. Die große Bedeutung hat dieses, daß eigentlich heute bei vielen freimaurerischen Verbänden, Bündnissen, eben viele politische oder sonstige soziale Wohltätigkeitsbestrebungen leben. Aber bis aufs Messer bekämpfen sich die katholische Kirche und die Freimaurer. Das hat sich aber auch im Laufe der Zeit erst herausgebildet.

Nun, solche Dinge kann man natürlich sehr leicht verkennen. Und es ist auch das aufgetreten: Die Freimaurer haben eine bestimmte Bekleidung bei ihren Zeremonien; sie haben zum Beispiel ein Schurzfell aus Lamm, das Lammschurzfell. Da haben manche gesagt: Die Freimaurerei ist überhaupt nichts anderes als eine Spielerei mit dem Maurerhandwerk, weil der Maurer ein Schurzfell hat. Aber das ist nicht wahr. Und das Schurzfell, das da ist, das ist durchaus dazu da - und es ist immer ursprünglich aus Lammleder gewesen -, um zu zeigen, daß derjenige, der in solchen Bündnissen ist, nicht ein wütender Kerl sein soll in bezug auf die Leidenschaften; es sollen also die Geschlechtsteile bedeckt werden mit seinem Schurz, und das ist das Zeichen dafür. Also es handelte sich da doch um etwas, was in Zeichen ausdrückte den menschlichen Charakter. Und so ist es mit sehr vielen Zeichen, die auch in der Bekleidung liegen.

Man hat dann auch höhere Grade, wo ein ganz priesterähnliches Kleid getragen wird; da bedeutet alles einzelne etwas. Zum Beispiel habe ich Ihnen gesagt, daß der Mensch ja außer dem physischen Leib noch einen Ätherleib hat. Und geradeso wie der Priester ein weißes Linnenkleid, ein hemdartiges Gewand hat, um den Ätherleib auszudrücken, so haben auch gewisse hohe Grade der Freimaurer ein solches Gewand, und für den Astralleib - er ist farbig -, da hat man eine Toga, ein Übergewand; das drückt alles das aus. Und der Mantel, der dann verbunden war mit dem Helm, der drückte aus die Macht des Ich.

Alle diese Dinge führen eben zurück auf alte, sehr sinnreiche, bedeutsame Gebräuche, die heute ihre Bedeutung verloren haben. Wenn jemand die Freimaurerei gern hat, so soll er das nicht als etwas Abschätziges behandeln, was ich gesagt habe. Ich wollte nur auseinandersetzen, wie das ist. Es kann natürlich ein Freimaurerorden bestehen, der außerordentlich gute Menschen in sich vereinigt und so weiter. Und in der heutigen Zeit kann so etwas besonders wichtig werden. Wirklich, was heute meistens der Mensch lernt, wenn er Arzt oder Jurist wird - ja, das ergreift sein Herz nicht. Und deshalb werden noch viele Juristen und Ärzte Freimaurer, weil sie dann wenigstens die Feierlichkeit der alten Zeremonien haben und etwas, wobei sie sich nicht mehr viel denken können, was aber immerhin noch etwas ist: Zeichen, Griff und Wort, was aber hinweist darauf, daß der Mensch nicht bloß im äußeren Materiellen lebt.

Das ist das, was ich Ihnen sagen wollte. Haben Sie sonst noch irgend etwas, was Sie gerne fragen wollten?

Frage: In Amerika gibt es etwas, das «Ku-Klux-Klan» genannt wird. Wie ist es damit? Können wir von Herrn Doktor etwas darüber hören, was das bedeutet? Man liest immer wieder darüber.

Dr. Steiner: Ja, sehen Sie, der Ku-Klux-Klan, der ist eine der neuesten Erfindungen auf diesem Gebiet, und zwar eine solche Erfindung, die schon wichtiger genommen werden sollte als man sie gewöhnlich nimmt. Sie wissen ja, meine Herren, daß eigentlich eine Begeisterung für einen gewissen Kosmopolitismus nur war vor einigen Jahrzehnten. Heute ist er zwar noch da, selbstverständlich, unter der Arbeiterschaft, unter dem Sozialdemokratismus - diese sind ein internationales Element -, aber in den bürgerlichen Kreisen und in anderen Kreisen, da nimmt der Nationalismus furchtbar überhand, und die Stimmung für den Nationalismus ist ja stark da. Und Sie werden sich auch erinnern, daß diejenigen Menschen, die hinter Woodrow Wilson standen - er selber war ja nur eine Art Strrohmann -, eigentlich gerechnet haben mit diesem Nationalismus, überall nationale Staaten haben wollten, überall den Nationalismus aufstacheln wollten und so weiter. Ja, darüber kann man so seine Ansichten haben! Aber nun gibt es eben Menschen, die entwickeln heute überall die Tendenz, den Nationalismus bis auf die Spitze zu treiben. Und in diesem Bestreben, den Nationalismus bis auf die Spitze zu treiben, ist eben in Amerika diese Verbindung Ku-Klux-Klan entstanden. Der arbeitet nun eben durchaus mit solchen Mitteln, wie zum Beispiel Zeichen sind, in dem Sinne, wie ich es gesagt habe.

Wenn man nun gerade wiederum solche Verbindungen ins Auge faßt, dann muß man wissen, daß Zeichen schon auch eine gewisse hypnotisierende Kraft haben. Sie wissen ja, wenn Sie ein Huhn haben (es wird gezeichnet), dieses Huhn mit dem Schnabel auf die Erde aufstoßen lassen, und Sie zeichnen von da aus einen Kreidestrich, läuft das Huhn dem Kreidestrich nach! Es ist hypnotisiert, es läuft dem Strich nach! Sie müssen nur erst den Schnabel aufstoßen auf den Anfang, dann läuft es dem Kreidestrich nach, weil es hypnotisiert ist von dem Strich. So hat jedes Zeichen - nicht nur für das Huhn die gerade Linie - eine Bedeutung, eine bestimmte einschläfernde Bedeutung, wenn man es darauf anlegt. Und das benützen nun wiederum gewisse Geheimverbindungen, um gerade solche Zeichen zu wählen, durch die sie den anderen Menschen betören, einschläfern, so daß er seine eigene Urteilskraft nicht geltend macht. Und mit solchen Mitteln arbeiten extrem namentlich solche Geheimverbindungen. Dazu gehört in Amerika wiederum der KuKlux-Klan. Nun ist der Ku-Klux-Klan aus dem Grunde gefährlich, weil solche Verbindungen nicht nur auf das eine Volk ausgehen, sondern sie wollen das nationalistische Prinzip überall haben. Es kann niemand sagen: Der Ku-Klux-Klan braucht bloß eine amerikanische Einrichtung zu bleiben, weil er den amerikanischen Nationalismus besonders befördern will. - So sagt der Anhänger des KuKlux-Klan nicht; sondern er sagt: Man soll überhaupt den Nationalismus befördern, also den in Ungarn, den in Deutschland, den in Frankreich. - Sehr schön! Nicht auf den Amerikanismus kommt es ihm an, er ist nicht ein Patriot, sondern er sieht in diesem Pochen der Menschen auf den Nationalismus etwas, was, wenn es dann zusammenwirkt bei den verschiedensten Nationen, dann bewirkt, was er erreichen will: nämlich die Menschen absolut ins Chaos hineinbringen. Das will er: Er will alles ins Chaos hineinbringen! Es ist die reine Zerstörungswut darinnen. Und so ist der Ku-Klux-Klan besonders aus dem Grund gefährlich, weil er sich in allen Ländern ausbreiten kann. Und Sie können nicht sagen, wenn er sich einmal ausbreiten will hier in der Schweiz, das sei eine amerikanische Einrichtung, sondern es ist dann eine nationale schweizerische Einrichtung.

Und so waren im Grunde auch die freimaurerischen Bündnisse; sie waren international, aber für die einzelnen Länder immer nationalistisch. Aber darauf gaben sie nicht viel, sondern sie haben es mehr der Außenwelt gegenüber getan, daß sie mitmachten, was in der Außenwelt war. Und man kann nun sagen: Aber sind denn solche Menschen nicht eigentlich wahnsinnig, die aufrütteln wollen so etwas wie ein absolut nationalistisches Prinzip, und die da alles zerstören wollen? Das kann man eigentlich auch nicht sagen. Natürlich, wenn man frägt, heißt es: Selbstverständlich macht man solche Sachen nicht mit. - Aber die Leute sagen sich: Es ist alles so verdorben heute - die Führenden sagen sich das bei den anderen, die nachlaufen -, das ist ja den anderen ganz einerlei, so daß es gar keinen Sinn hat, die Dinge zu pflegen, die heute da sind. Man muß erst die Menschheit wie eine wirre Masse behandeln. Dann werden die Menschen wieder zu sich kommen, und dann werden sie wiederum etwas Ordentliches lernen. Also eine Idee haben die Leute schon, und namentlich der Ku-Klux-Klan hat eine Idee in dieser Beziehung.

Sie meinen: nicht?

Der Fragesteller: Doch! Aber das ist komisch!

Dr. Steiner: Sehen Sie, viele Dinge sind im Kulturleben komisch, und wir haben ja auch schon Dinge erwähnt, die komisch aussahen. Aber das Komische ist manchmal recht gefährlich. Es scheint einem komisch, aber es ist manchmal außerordentlich gefährlich.

Nun, meine Herren, muß ich morgen im Laufe des Tages wiederum - nach Breslau - verreisen. Ich werde dann sagen, wann wir die nächste Stunde haben werden.

Good morning, gentlemen! Perhaps you have thought of something during the slightly longer time - a special question?

Question about the nature of the various hierarchies and their influence on humanity.

Dr. Steiner: I think this is a subject that will be somewhat difficult and incomprehensible for those gentlemen who are here for the first time today, because one should know something of what has already been presented in the lectures that have been given. But I will still address the matter and try to make it as understandable as possible.

You see, when you look at a person standing and walking on the earth, that person actually has all the kingdoms of nature within them. Man has, first of all, the animal kingdom within him; in a certain sense, he is also organized like an animal. You can see this from the fact that man has, let us say, for example, thighbones and humerus, which are also found in a similar way in higher animals; but if you can see the matter clearly, you will also find that it is related to the lower animals, or at least shaped similarly. And if you look at fish, you can see roughly what corresponds to a human bone in fish. The same thing that can be said for the bone system can also be said for the muscle system and for the internal organs. We find a stomach in humans – and in a corresponding way, we also find a stomach in animals. In short, we find what is in the animal kingdom in the human body as well.

This has led to the materialistic view that humans are nothing more than highly developed animals. But that is not the case; rather, humans develop three things that animals cannot develop from their own organism. One is that humans learn to walk upright. Just look at the animals that learn to walk more or less upright, and you will see the considerable difference between them and humans. In the case of animals that walk upright, for example the kangaroo, you will see how the front limbs, which it does not use for walking, remain atrophied. The front limbs of the kangaroo are not designed for free use. And as for the ape, we certainly cannot say that it is human-like in this respect; because when it climbs a tree, it is not walking, but climbing. It actually has four hands, not two feet and two hands. Its feet are hand-like; it climbs. So the upright walk is the first thing that distinguishes humans from animals.

The second thing that distinguishes humans from animals is the ability to speak. And the ability to speak is connected with the upright posture. Therefore you will find that where an animal has something similar to the ability to speak – the dog, which is relatively a very intelligent animal, does not have it, but the parrot, which is somewhat upright, has it – you will find that the animal is then upright. Speech is entirely connected with this upright posture.

And the third is free will, which the animal also cannot acquire, but the animal is dependent on its inner processes. These are things that make up the whole inner organization of the human being and shape it humanely.

But the human being still carries animality within him. He has this animal realm within him.

The second thing that man carries within him is the plant kingdom. What can man do because he carries the animal kingdom within him? You see, the animal feels - so does man; the plant does not feel. On the other hand, a strange science of the present day - I have mentioned this here before - has the view that a plant can also feel because there is a plant, the so-called Venus flytrap, for example: When an insect comes near, as soon as the insect has flown up, this Venus flytrap closes its leaves and devours the insect. This is a very interesting phenomenon. But if someone says: This plant, the Venus flytrap, must sense the insect, that is, perceive it when it comes near – that is just as much nonsense as if someone were to say: A little thing that I make so that it snaps shut when a mouse comes near – a mousetrap would also have a sensation that the mouse is coming in! So such scientific opinions are not very far-reaching; they are just plain nonsense. Plants do not feel. Nor do plants move freely.

So what is common to humans and animals is the sensation and movement; in this, he bears animality within him. Only when he can think rationally - which the animal cannot - is he human as a result. Furthermore, the human being bears the plant kingdom, the whole plant kingdom, within him. The plants do not move, but they grow. The plants do not feel, but they feed themselves. The human being also grows and feeds himself. The plant kingdom does this in him. Man also bears this plant power within him. He also bears it within him when he sleeps. He sheds his animality when he sleeps, because he does not feel or move unless he is a night walker, and that is based on abnormal development; then he does not completely lose his movement, then he is ill. But in a normal state, a person does not walk around in his sleep and is not aware of anything. If he is supposed to be aware, he wakes up. He cannot be aware while sleeping. During sleep, the human being also carries the plant essence within himself.

And the mineral essence, gentlemen, we also carry that within us; it is contained, for example, in our bones. They are somewhat alive, but they contain the inanimate carbonic lime. We carry the mineral kingdom within us. We even have brain sand in our brains. That is mineral. We also carry the mineral kingdom within us. So we carry the animal kingdom, we carry the plant kingdom, we carry the mineral kingdom within us.

But that is not all for the human being. If the human being were merely a mineral, plant and animal, he would be like an animal, he would walk like an animal, because the animal also carries mineral, plant and animal within itself. Of course, the human being is not only related to these three kingdoms of nature that are visible, but he is also related to other kingdoms.

Now I will sketch this out for you schematically. Imagine that this is the human being (see drawing); now he is related to the mineral kingdom, to the plant kingdom, to the animal kingdom. But he is a human being. You can say: Well, animals can be tamed. That's all right; but have you ever seen an ox being tamed by an ox? Or a horse by a horse? Animals, even if they can be tamed, thus acquiring certain abilities that can be remotely compared to human abilities, must be tamed by humans! Right, a dog school, where the dogs teach themselves and make tame dogs out of wild dogs, does not exist; humans have to intervene. And even if one thought one could admit to the materialists everything they wanted, one would just have to follow their own train of thought – one can admit everything to them, for my part one can say: man, as he is now, was originally an animal and was tamed – but the animal he originally was could not have tamed itself! That is not possible, because otherwise a dog could also tame a dog. So there must have been original beings - they may be elsewhere now - but nevertheless there must have been original beings who brought man to his present height. And these beings cannot belong to the three realms of nature. Because if you now imagine that you would ever be tamed by a giraffe, made into a human being, when you are still like a small animal in childhood, just as little as this would be possible, you could just as little be tamed by an oak tree. At most, the German-nationalists believe this, who assume that the oak, the sacred oak, has tamed people. And, you see, the minerals even less so; rock crystal is beautiful, but it certainly cannot tame people. There must have been other beings, other realms.

Now, everything in man is really called up into the higher. The animal has the possibility of having ideas, but it does not think. The ideas form in the animals. But the animal does not have this activity of thinking. Man has this activity of thinking. And so man can indeed have his blood circulation from the animal kingdom, but he cannot have his organ of thinking from the animal kingdom. So that one can say: Man thinks, feels and wills. All these things are done freely. And all this is changed by the fact that man is an upright and articulate creature.

Imagine how you would have to want differently, how all wanting would be different, if you were always crawling around on all fours like you were in your first year; after all, all human wanting would really be different. And you would not even have time to think. And just as the things we carry in our physical body connect us with the three realms of nature, so do our thinking, feeling and willing connect us with three other realms, with supersensible, invisible realms. We have to have names for everything. Just as we call the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms the kingdoms of nature, so we call the kingdoms that effect thinking, feeling and willing in the human being, so that they are free, precisely hierarchies. So here we have: natural kingdoms, through which man reaches into nature; and here we have: hierarchies. You see, just as the human being reaches into three natural kingdoms, he also reaches into three spiritual kingdoms. With his thinking, he reaches into the hierarchy - well, you see, there is no name for it yet. Because materialism takes no account of this, there is no name for it; so we have to call it by the old name: Angeloi, angels. But you are immediately branded as superstitious. Of course, we no longer have the ability to find names in language because people have lost the ability to feel with sounds; but languages could only be formed as long as people still felt something with sounds. Today everyone speaks of ball, of fall, of strength; there is an A in everything, an A in each of these words. But what is an A? An “A” is the expression of feeling! Imagine if you suddenly saw someone opening the window from the outside and looking in. You would be amazed because that is not supposed to happen; a large part of you would probably express your amazement with an “Ah!” if you were not embarrassed to do so. A is always the expression of astonishment. So with each letter there is some expression of something. And when I say “ball,” I need the A because I am amazed when I throw the ball, how it behaves strangely; or if it means a dance ball, I am also amazed at how it swirls around! It just so happened that people gradually got used to it, so that they are no longer amazed; you could also call it a bull or a bill, but certainly no longer a ball. - Let's take “fall.” When someone plops down somewhere, you can also say: Ah! - And the other thing that is significant is precisely in the F inside. “Force": when someone applies a force that pushes him; Ah: wherever astonishment occurs, the A is there.

And consider: you are of the opinion that thinking sits in your head. But if you were to suddenly realize that spiritual beings are just as much a part of your thinking as animals must be on earth for your sensing and feeling, so that you can have animality within you, then you would also be amazed, and so, if you express this amazement, you would have to have a word that contains the A. So you would be able to name these thinking beings, who were once called angels, with an A, and you would name the fact that you have the power of thought with the letter that expresses power in a certain way: L; and the power that works you might perhaps call B. The word 'alb', which has already been used for something spiritual, could just as well be used for these beings that have to do with thinking, if it were not used only for nightmare, which is pathological. So the hierarchies are realms that man reaches into, that he carries within himself, just as he carries the realms of nature within himself; and these beings, which have been called demons or angels, are the ones that have to do with thinking.

On the other hand, animal beings are involved in the feeling in man. What, animal beings? Now, you see, if you are a little attentive, if you don't go wild from the outset when it comes to the spiritual, but if you just allow yourself to be open to the fact that it can be about the spiritual, then you will come across many things – even if you cannot yet proceed with spiritual research, as is the case with anthroposophy. Just imagine that if you want to feel, you have to have a certain warmth within you! The frog feels much less vividly than man because it does not have such warm blood; you really have to have warmth within you if you feel. But the warmth that you have within you comes from the sun! And so you can say: Feeling is also connected with the sun - only spiritually. Physical warmth is connected with the physical sun, and feeling, which is connected with physical warmth, is connected with the spiritual sun. This second hierarchy, which has to do with feeling, thus dwells in the sun. Anyone who is not completely brain-dead, as so many are today - especially scientists - can come up with it: the second hierarchy is the solar beings. And because the sun reveals itself only outwardly in light and warmth (no one knows the interior of the sun, for if physicists really came up with the sun, they would be extremely astonished to find that the sun does not look at all as they usually think it does! They think to themselves, the sun is a glowing ball of gas. That is not what it is at all; it actually consists of nothing but sucking forces; it is hollow, not even empty, but sucking. We can say that outwardly it reveals itself as light, as warmth; the beings that are within were called in Greek “beings of revelation”. Where there was still some knowledge of these things – for the old instinctive science was much more intelligent than today's – these beings, which reveal themselves from the sun, were called exusiai; we can also say: sun beings. We only need to know that when we speak of feeling, we enter the realm of the sun beings. Just as when I say: Man has in himself forces of growth and nutrition, thus the plant kingdom in himself, so I must say: Man has in himself the forces of feeling, thus forces of the spiritual sun kingdom, the second hierarchy. And the third is the first hierarchy, which has to do with the human will, where man becomes most powerful, where he does not merely move, where he expresses his deeds. This is connected with those beings who are spiritually out in the whole world and who are actually the highest spiritual beings we can get to know. We call them again by Greek or Hebrew names, because we do not yet have German ones, or we do not yet have the expressions in language at all: Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim. That is the highest realm.

So there are three spiritual realms, just as there are three natural realms. Just as humans deal with the three natural realms, they also deal with the three spiritual realms.

Now you will say: Yes, but I can believe that or not, because these three realms are not visible, not perceptible. Yes, but, gentlemen, I have met people who were supposed to be made to understand that there is air! He didn't believe that there was air. When I say to him: There is a board - he believes that, because when he goes there, he bumps into the board, or when he looks with his eyes, he sees the board, but he does not bump into the air. He looks and says: There is nothing there. Nevertheless, today everyone admits the air. It is just there. And so it will also come about that people will admit the spiritual. Today people still say: Well, the spiritual is just not there – as the farmers used to say: The air is not there. – In my homeland, the farmers still said: The air is not there at all – only the bigwigs in the city say that, who want to be so clever; you can walk through it, there is nothing there to walk through! But that was a long time ago. Today, even the farmers know that there is air. Today, however, the cleverest people do not yet know that spiritual beings are everywhere! But in time they will admit this, because there are certain things they cannot explain otherwise, and these things also need to be explained.

If someone were to say today: In all that exists as nature, there is no spirit in it; for everything that science knows about nature is in it, nothing else is in nature – yes, anyone who says that says that, gentlemen, he is just as if a dead person were lying there, a corpse, and I come and say: You rotten guy, why don't you get up and go! I try to make him understand that he shouldn't be so lazy and get up. Yes, I am foolish because I believe that the living person is inside. And so it is: everything that the natural scientist can find in there, he does not find in the living, he finds in the dead. He also finds the dead everywhere outside in nature, but he does not find that which is alive. He does not find that which is spiritual in this way, but that is why it is there.

That is what I wanted to say in response to this question, which was asked in connection with the hierarchies.

Mr. Burle: In earlier lectures, Dr. Steiner spoke about the knowledge of spiritual science of ancient peoples. Today, this has been lost to humanity. Could Dr. Steiner explain to us why this has happened? Was materialism solely to blame?

Dr. Steiner: Why the old knowledge has been lost? Yes, you see, gentlemen, that is a very strange fact. Not in the way we have knowledge today, but in an artistic, poetic form, in a poetic form, the ancients, our ancestors, had great knowledge in primeval times, and this knowledge, as Mr. Burle quite rightly says, has been lost to humanity. Now we can ask ourselves how this knowledge was lost. Of course we cannot say that materialism alone is to blame for this, because if all people still had the old knowledge, materialism would not have come into being. It is precisely because the old knowledge was lost and people became spiritually crippled that they invented materialism. So materialism comes from the loss of ancient knowledge – not that one can say that the loss of ancient knowledge comes because materialism has spread. So what does the loss of ancient knowledge really come from?

Yes, gentlemen, it comes from the fact that humanity is undergoing a development. Of course, you can dissect the human being who is here now; when he dies, you can dissect him. In this way you can gain knowledge about the way in which man is put together in the present. From ancient times, the only things that are available are, well, the mummies in Egypt, which we talked about the other day; but they are embalmed through and through, so you can't really dissect them anymore. So how man looked in earlier times, especially in the time when he was built finer, of that people now can't get any scientific idea through mere external research; one must also penetrate with spiritual research. And then one comes to the conclusion that man in ancient times was not at all as he is today.

There was a time on earth when people did not have such firm bones as we have today; then people had bones like those of today's rachitic children, who have weak bones that cause bowlegs or knock-knees and are weak in general. You can see that such weak bones can exist because they are still present in cartilaginous fish today. Their bones are as soft as cartilage. Human beings once had such bones, because the human skeleton was once soft. Now you will say: But then people must all have walked around with knock-knees or bowlegs, and everything would have been crooked if the bones were soft!

Of course, that would have been the case if the air on our earth had always been the same as it is today. But it wasn't; the air was much thicker in the old days. It has become much thinner. And the air contained much more water in the old days than it does today. The air also contained much more carbon dioxide. All the air was thicker. Now you must realize that people in those days were also able to live with their soft bones; because we have our present-day bones only because the air no longer supports us. A thicker air supports people. Walking in those ancient times was much more like swimming than it is today. Today's walking is something terribly mechanical: we put one leg on - that has to stand properly like a pillar - we put the second leg on. People in prehistoric times did not walk like that, but they felt, just as one lets oneself be carried in the water, the watery air; that's where they could have their soft bones. But when the air became thinner there – and this can be known with external science, that the air became thinner there – only then did the hard bones make sense; only then did the hard bones arise. Of course, in the past the carbonic acid was outside, the air contained it; today we carry the carbonate of lime within us; that is how the bones became hard. That is how things are connected.

But when the bones become hard, the other things in the human being also become hard, so that the human being, who had softer bones, also had a significantly softer brain matter. In general, the skull, the human head, was also shaped quite differently in ancient times. You see, it was shaped more like the shape of hydrocephalic skulls today; that was beautiful back then, but is no longer beautiful today. And so, like the very small child still has in the womb, he retained his head because he had a soft brain mass, and the soft brain discharges into the front skull. Everything was softer in humans.

Now, gentlemen, if man was softer, then his mental abilities were also different. With a soft brain, one can think much more spiritually than with a hard brain. The ancients still felt this; they called a person who can only ever think the same thing and accepts little and therefore stubbornly always remains with the one idea, a mule. This feeling already implies that one can actually think better and have better ideas if one has a hard brain. Prehistoric men had such a hard brain.

But these primitive people had something else. We can really say: when a child is born, its skull with its soft brain and even the soft bones are still similar - the bones are no longer so strong, but the brain is very similar to that of primitive people. But put a small child down: it cannot move from the spot, cannot feed itself and the like, it cannot do anything! For this, higher beings had to take care of them when humans still had this soft brain. And the consequence of this was that people in those days had no freedom, had no free will. These people had great wisdom, but no free will at all. But in human evolution, free will gradually emerges. For this, the bones and the brain must harden. But with this hardening, the old knowledge takes its downfall. We would not have become free human beings if we had not become stubborn, hard-skulled, and had skulls with hard brains. But we owe our freedom to that. And so the downfall of the old knowledge comes with freedom. That's it. Is it understandable? (Answer: Yes) It comes with freedom!

But now, while humans have gained freedom on the one hand, they have lost the old knowledge and fallen prey to materialism. But materialism is not the truth. Therefore, we must come to spiritual knowledge again, even though we have a denser brain today than primitive people did. We can only do this through anthroposophical spiritual science, which comes to knowledge that is independent of the body, that is recognized by the soul alone. The ancient people had their knowledge because their brain was softer, that is, more similar to the soul; and we have our materialism because our brain has become hard and no longer absorbs the soul. Now we have to gain spiritual knowledge with the soul alone, which is not absorbed by the brain. This is what spiritual science does. One comes back to spiritual knowledge. But we are now living in the age in which humanity has bought its freedom through materialism. Therefore, one cannot say that materialism, even if it is untrue, is something bad. Materialism, if it is not exaggerated, is not bad, but through materialism, humanity has come to know a great deal that it did not know before. That is it.

Now, one question has already been asked in writing:

I read the sentence in your “Philosophy of Freedom”: “Only when we have made the content of the world our own thought content, only then do we rediscover the context from which we have detached ourselves.”

So that is what the gentleman read in the Philosophy of Freedom. He now poses the question: What belongs to this world content, since everything we see is only there to the extent that it is thought? And then he says: Kan explains that the mind is incapable of grasping that which the appearing world of causes is prior to the world of experience.

Well, you see, gentlemen, it is like this: when we are born and are still small children, we have eyes and ears, we see and hear, that is, we perceive the things that are outside of us. The chair that is standing there is not yet thought by the child, but it is perceived. It looks the same to the child as it does to an adult, only the child does not yet think the chair. Let us assume that, through some artificial means, the very young child, who has no thoughts yet, could already talk; then the child would be inclined to criticize everything, which is something we are accustomed to today, where even the thoughtless people criticize the most. I am even convinced that if very young children, who cannot yet think, could already talk a lot, they would become the strongest critics. Not true, even in ancient India, only those who were already sixty years old were allowed to criticize and judge; the others were not allowed to judge because it was said that they had no experience of the world. Well, I don't want to defend that, nor criticize it myself, but I just want to tell you that it was like that. Today, of course, anyone who has turned twenty would be laughed at if you wanted to tell him that he should wait to be judged until he was sixty! Today's young people don't do that; they don't wait at all, but as soon as they can hold a pen, they start writing for newspapers and judging everything. In this respect, we have come a long way today. But I am convinced that if very young children could speak, they would be strict critics! A two-year-old, my goodness, would criticize so many of our actions if he could be made to speak!

Kant – I mentioned him the other day – made the biggest mistake by believing that what the child does not yet perceive and what one only perceives later, namely the content of thought, is something that the human being first puts into things. So Kant actually says: When the chair is there – the chair has colors, the chair rattles. But when I say the chair is heavy, that is not a property of the chair, but I give it to it by thinking it heavy. The chair has firmness, but it does not have that in itself, I give it to it by thinking it firm. Yes, gentlemen, this is considered a great science, this Kantian doctrine, as I told you some time ago; but in reality it is a great nonsense. It is just that, due to the peculiar development of humanity, a great nonsense is regarded as a great science, as the highest philosophy, and Kant is always called the all-devourer, the all-destroyer. I have always seen in him only a destroyer; even as a very small boy I studied Kant over and over again. But otherwise I have not noticed that the one who destroys the soup plates establishes the greatest and that he is greater than the one who makes them. It always seemed to me that the one who makes them is greater! Kant always destroyed everything in reality. So these objections of Kant's should not trouble us at all. But the thing is that when we are born, we are detached from things because we have no connection with them at all. We only grow into things again by forming concepts. Therefore, the question that is asked here must be answered as follows: What belongs to the content of the world? I say in my Philosophy of Freedom: Only when we have made the content of the world our own content of thought do we rediscover the connection from which we detached ourselves as a child. As a child, we do not have the content of the world; we only have the sensual part of the content of the world. But the content of thought is really contained in the content of the world. So that as a child we only have half the content of the world, and only later, when we grow up to our thoughts, do we not only have the content of thought within us, but we know that it is within things, we also treat our thoughts in such a way that we know that they are within things, and there we restore the connection with things.

You see, it was very difficult in the 1980s, when everything had been Kantianized, when everyone spoke in such a way that Kantian philosophy was regarded as the highest and no one yet dared to say anything against it – it was very difficult when I appeared on the scene back then and declared that Kantian philosophy is actually nonsense. But I had to explain that from the very beginning. Because of course, when someone like Kant thinks that we actually have to add the content of thought to things, then he can no longer come to the simple content, then in the soul there are just thoughts about external things, and it is quite definitely materialism. Kant is largely to blame for the fact that people have not come out of materialism. Kant is to blame for a great deal in general. I told you about this at the time, when I was asked about Kant from a different angle. The others, because they could not think otherwise, made materialism. But Kant said: We cannot know anything about the spiritual world, we can only believe. - With this he actually said: We can only know something about the sensual world, because we can only drag thoughts into the sensual world.

And now people who wanted to become materialistic felt more and more justified in referring to Kant. But humanity must also get rid of this prejudice - that is, part of humanity, very few people know about Kant - they must get rid of always referring to Kant, and then referring to Kant when they want to say: you can't really know anything about the spiritual world. So: the content of the world is the content of the senses and the content of the spirit. But one only comes to the spiritual content in the course of life, when one develops thoughts. Then one re-establishes the connection between nature and spirit, whereas at the beginning, as a child, one only has nature before one, and the spirit only gradually develops out of one's own nature.

Does anyone have a very small question?

Mr. Burle asks about human hair and says: Today, so many girls have their hair cut. Can the doctor say whether this is beneficial to health? My little daughter also wanted to cut her hair, but I didn't allow it. I want to know if it would be harmful or not.

Dr. Steiner: No, the thing is this: hair growth is so little connected to the whole organism that it does not matter so much whether you let your hair grow long or cut it. The damage is not so great as to be noticeable. But there is a difference between men and women in this respect. It used to be the case for a while – but it's no longer true – that you would often see anthroposophists together, men and women: the man would not cut his hair, he would just have long curls, and the women would cut their hair short! Of course, people also said: This anthroposophy brings the world upside down; among anthroposophists, the ladies cut their hair off and the men let it grow. - Now that is no longer the case, at least not so noticeable. But one can also ask how it is with the difference between the sexes when cutting hair.

In general, however, it is the case that for men, abundant hair growth is somewhat superfluous; for women, it is somewhat necessary. The hair always contains sulfur, iron, silica and a few other substances. These substances are also needed by the organism. For example, silicic acid is very much needed by men because, by becoming male in the womb, they lose the ability to produce silicic acid themselves. Through the cut hair – whenever the hair is freshly cut, it absorbs the silicic acid that is in the air – the man absorbs silicic acid from the air. So cutting your hair is not a problem. It is only bad when they run out, because then they cannot absorb anything. Therefore, going bald early, which is somewhat connected to a person's lifestyle, is not exactly a good thing for a man.

Now, for women, cutting their hair is not entirely good, because women have the ability to produce more silicic acid in their organism, and so they should not cut their hair too short too often; because then the hair absorbs the silicic acid that the woman already has in her from the air and drives it back into the organism. The woman becomes hairy and prickly on the inside; she then gets “hair on her teeth”. This is not so noticeable; one must be a little sensitive to notice it, but it is there. The whole manner also becomes prickly, she becomes hairy and prickly inside; and cutting it off, especially if it happens in adolescence, also has an influence.

But it could also be the other way around, gentlemen. It could be that today's young people are coming into an environment – after all, children today are all different from how we were in our youth – where their inner silica is no longer enough for them, because they want to be prickly. They want to be a little prickly, scratchy. So they get the instinct to cut their hair. This then becomes fashionable: one person imitates another, and here the story is reversed, with children wanting to become prickly and getting their hair cut. If you can manage to get this fashion to be combated a little, then it can't be all that bad if you have exaggerated this fashion a little. After all, it comes down to this, doesn't it: one likes a soft one, the other a spiky one; that's where it can change a bit in the judgment of taste. But it can't have that much of an influence. Only if someone has a daughter who, precisely because of the circumstances, wants to or should choose a man who loves a spiky one, should she have her hair cut. Of course, she won't get a man who is sensitive to mildness; that might happen. - So the story reaches more into the fringes of life.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Has someone thought of a question during the last weeks?

Question: Sir, I would like to ask about various foods—beans and carrots, for instance: what effect they have on the body. You have already spoken about potatoes; perhaps we could hear something about other foodstuffs. Some vegetarians won't eat things that have hung in the air, like beans or peas. And when one looks at a field of grain, one wonders how the various grains differ—for apparently all the peoples of the earth cultivate some grain or other.

Dr. Steiner: So—the question is about the relation of various foods to the human body. Well, first of all we should gain a clear idea of nutrition itself. One's immediate thought of nutrition is that when we eat something, it goes through the mouth down into the stomach, then it is deposited farther in the body and finally we get rid of it; then we must eat again, and so on. But the process is not as simple as that. It is much more complicated. And if one wants to understand how the human being is really related to various foods, one must first be clear about the kinds of food one definitely needs.

Now the very first thing one needs, the substance one must have without fail, is protein. Let us write all this on the board, so that we have it complete. So, protein, as it is in a hen's egg, for instance—but not just in eggs; protein is in all foods. One needs protein without fail. The second thing one needs is fats. These too are in all foods. Fats are even in plants. The third thing has a name that will be less familiar to you, but one needs to know it: carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are found particularly in potatoes, but they are also found in large quantity in all other plants. The important fact about carbohydrates is that when we eat them, they are slowly turned into starch by the saliva in our mouth and the secretions in our stomach. Starch is something we need without fail, but we don't eat starch; we eat foods that contain carbohydrates, and the carbohydrates are turned into starch inside us. Then they are converted once again, in the further process of digestion, into sugar. And we need sugar. So you see, we get the sugar we need from the carbohydrates. But we still need something else: minerals. We get them partly by adding them to our food, for example in the form of salt, and partly they are already contained in all our foodstuffs.

Now when we consider protein, we must realize how greatly it differs in animals and human beings from what it is in plants. Plants contain protein too, but they don't eat it, so where do they get it from? They get it out of the ground and out of the air, From the mineral world; they can take their protein from lifeless, mineral sources. Neither animal nor man can do that. A human being cannot use the protein that is to be got from lifeless elements—he would then only be a plant—he must get his protein as it is already prepared in plants or animals.

Actually, to be able to live on this earth the human being needs the plants. But now this is the amazing fact: the plants could not live on the earth either if human beings were not here! So, gentlemen, we reach the interesting fact—and we must grasp it quite clearly: that of all things the two most essential for human life are the green sap in the green leaves and blood. The green in the sap of a plant is called chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is contained in the green leaf. And the one other essential thing is blood.

Now this brings us to something very remarkable. Think how you breathe: that is also a way of taking in nourishment. You take oxygen in from the air; you breathe it in. But there is carbon spread through your entire body. If you go down into the earth where there are coal deposits, you've got black coal. When you sharpen a pencil, you've got graphite. Coal and graphite: they're both carbon. Your whole body is made of carbon (as well as other substances). Carbon is formed in the human body. You could say, a man is just a heap of black coal! But you could also say some thing else. Because—remember the most expensive thing in the world? a diamond—and that's made of carbon; it just has a different form. And so, if you like the sound of it better, you could say you're made of glittering diamonds. The black carbon, that graphite in the pencil, and the diamonds: they are all the same substance. If someday the coal that is dug out of the earth can by some process be made transparent, you'll have diamonds. So we have diamonds hidden in our body. Or we are a coal field! But now when oxygen combines with carbon in the blood, you have carbon dioxide. And you know carbon dioxide quite well: you only have to think of Seltzer water with the bubbles in it: they are the carbon dioxide. It is a gas. So one can have this picture: A human being inhales oxygen from the air, the oxygen spreads all through his blood; in his blood he has carbon, and he exhales carbon dioxide. You breathe oxygen in, you breathe carbon dioxide out.

In the course of the earth's evolution, gentlemen, which I have recently been describing to you, everything would long ago have been poisoned by the carbon dioxide coming from the human beings and animals. For this evolution has been going on for a long time. As you can see, since long, long ago there could have been no human kingdom or animal kingdom alive on the earth unless plants had had a very different character from those kingdoms. Plants do not take in oxygen: they take in the carbon dioxide that human beings and animals exhale. Plants are just as greedy for the carbon dioxide as human beings are for oxygen.

Now if we look at a plant [see drawing]—root, stem, leaves, blossoms: the plant absorbs carbon dioxide in every part of it. And now the carbon in the carbon dioxide is deposited in the plant, and the oxygen is breathed out by the plant. Human beings and animals get it back again. Man gives carbon dioxide out and kills everything; the plant keeps back the carbon, releases the oxygen and brings everything to life again. And the plant could do nothing with the carbon dioxide if it did not have its green sap, the chlorophyll. This green sap of the plant, gentlemen, is a magician. It holds the carbon back inside the plant and lets the oxygen go free. Our blood combines oxygen with carbon; the green plant-sap separates the carbon again from the carbon dioxide and sets the oxygen free. Think what an excellent arrangement nature has made, that plants and animals and human beings should complement one another in this way! They complement one another perfectly.

But we must go on. The human being not only needs the oxygen that the plant gives him, but he needs the entire plant. With the exception of poisonous plants and certain plants which contain very little of these substances, the human being needs all plants not only for his breathing but also for food. And that brings us to another remarkable connection. A plant consists of root, if it is an annual plane (we won't consider the trees at this moment)—of root, leaf and stem, blossom and fruit. Now look at the root for a moment. It is in the earth. It contains many minerals, because minerals are in the earth and the root clings to the earth with its tiny fine rootlets, so it is constantly absorbing those minerals. So the root of the plant has a special relation to the mineral realm of the earth.

And now look here, gentlemen! The part of the human being that is related to the whole earth is the head. Not the feet, but actually the head. When the human being starts to be an earth-man in the womb, he has at first almost nothing but a head. He begins with his head. His head takes the shape of the whole cosmos and the shape of the earth. And the head particularly needs minerals. For it is from the head that the forces go out that fill the human body with bones, for instance. Everything that makes a human being solid is the result of the way the head has been formed. While the head itself is still soft, as in the womb, it cannot form bones properly. But as it becomes harder and harder itself, it gives over to the body the forces by which both man and animal are able to form their solid parts, particularly their bones. You can see from this that we need roots. They are related to the earth and contain minerals. We need the minerals for bone-building. Bones consist of calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate; those are minerals. So you can see that the human being needs roots in order to strengthen his head.

And so, gentlemen, if—for instance—a child is becoming weak in his head—inattentive, hyperactive—he will usually have a corresponding symptom: worms in his intestines. Worms develop easily in the intestines if the head forces are too weak, because the head does not then work down strongly enough into the rest of the body. Worms find no lodging in a human body if the head forces are working down strongly into the intestines. You can see how magnificently the human body is arranged!—everything is related. And if one's child has worms, one should realize the child has become weak in his head. Also—whoever wants to be a teacher has to know these things—if there are persons who at a later age are weak-minded, one can be sure they have had worms when they were young.

And so what must one do if one observes this in the child? The simplest remedy is to give him carrots to eat for a while—with his other food, of course; naturally, one couldn't just feed him on carrots alone. Carrots are the root of the plant. They grow down in the earth and have a large quantity of minerals. They have the forces of the earth in them, and when they are taken into the stomach, they are able to work up through the blood into the head. Only substances rich in minerals are able to reach the head. Substances rich in minerals, root substances, give strength to a human being by way of the head. That is extraordinarily important. It is through carrots that the uppermost parts of the head become strong—which is precisely what the human being needs in order to be inwardly firm and vigorous, not soft.

If you look at the carrot plant, you can't help seeing that its strength has gone particularly into the root. It is almost entirely root. The only part of the plant one is interested in is the root. The rest of it, the green part, is of no importance, it just sits there up above. So the carrot is particularly good as a food substance to maintain the human head. And if sometimes you yourselves feel empty-headed, dull, can't think properly, then it's fine if you too will eat carrots for a while! Naturally, they will help children the most.

But now if we compare a potato to a carrot—well, first of all it looks quite different. Of course, the potato plant has a green part. And then it has the part we eat, what we call the tubers, deep down in the earth. Now if we would think superficially, we could say those tubers are the roots. But that is not correct; the tubers are not roots. If you look carefully down into the soil, you can see the real roots hanging on the tubers. The real roots are tiny rootlets, root hairs, that hang on the tubers. They fall away easily. When you gather up the potatoes, the hairs have already fallen away. Only in the first moment when you are lifting a potato loose from the soil, the hairs are still all over it. When we eat a potato, we are really eating a piece of swollen, enlarged stem. It only appears to be a root; in reality it is stem. The leaves are metamorphosed. The potato is something down there between the root and the stem. Therefore it does not have as much mineral content as the carrot; it is not as earthy. It grows in the earth, but it is not so strongly related to the earth. And it contains particularly carbohydrates; not so many minerals, but carbohydrates.

So now, gentlemen, you can say to yourselves: When I eat carrots, my body can really take it easy, for all it needs is saliva to soften the carrot. All it needs is saliva and stomach secretions, pepsin and so forth for all the important substance of the carrot to reach the head. We need minerals, and minerals are furnished by any kind of root, but in greatest amounts by such a root as the carrot.

But now, when we eat potatoes, first they go into the mouth and stomach. There the body has to exert strength to derive starch from them. Then the digestive process goes further in the intestines. In order that something can go into the blood and also reach the head, there must be more exertion still, because sugar has to be derived from the starch. Only then can it go to the head. So one has to use still greater forces. Now think of this, gentlemen: when I exert my strength upon some external thing, I become weak. This is really a secret of human physiology: that if I chop wood, if I use my external bodily strength, I become weak; but if I exert an inner strength, transforming carbohydrates into starch and starch into sugar, I become strong. Precisely through the fact that I permeate myself with sugar by eating potatoes, I become strong. When I use my strength externally, I become weak; if I use it internally, I become strong. So it is not a matter of simply filling oneself up with food, but of the food generating strength in our body.

And so one can say: food from roots—and all roots have the same effect as carrots although not to the same degree: they all work particularly on the head—so, food from roots gives the body what it needs for itself. Foods that lean toward the green of the plant and contain carbohydrates provide the body with strength it needs for work, for movement.

I have already spoken about the potato. While it requires a terribly large expenditure of strength, it leaves a man weak afterwards, and does not provide him with any continuing strength. But the principle I have just given you holds good even for the potato.

Now to the same extent that the potato is a rather poor foodstuff, all the grains—wheat, rye, and so on—are good foodstuffs. The grains also contain carbohydrates, and of such a nature that the human being forms starch and sugar in the healthiest possible way. Actually, the carbohydrates of the grains can make him stronger than he can make himself by any other means. Only think for a moment how strong people are who live on farms, simply through the fact that they eat large quantities of their own homemade bread which contains the grain from their fields! They only need to have healthy bodies to start with, then if they can digest the rather coarse bread, it is really the healthiest food for them. They must first have healthy bodies, but then they become quite especially strong through the process of making starch and sugar.

Now a question might be raised. You see, human beings have come in the course of their evolution—shall I say, quite of their own accord—to eating the grains differently from the way animals eat them. A horse eats his oats almost as they grow. Animals eat their kernels of grain raw, just as they come from the plant. The birds would have a hard time getting their seed if they had to depend upon someone cooking it for them first! But human beings have come of themselves to cooking the grains. And now, gentlemen, what happens when we cook the grain? Well, when we cook the grain, we don't eat it cold, we eat it warm. And it's a fact, that to digest our food we need inner warmth. Unless there is warmth we can't transform our carbohydrates into starch and the starch into sugar: that requires inner heat.

So if we first apply external heat to the foodstuffs, we help the body: it does not have to provide all the warmth itself. By being cooked first, the foods have already begun the fire process, the warmth process. That's the first result. The second is, that they have been entirely changed. Think what happens to the grain when I make flour into bread. It becomes something quite different. And how has it become different? Well, first I have ground the seeds. What does that mean? I have crushed them into tiny, tiny pieces. And you see. what I do there with the seeds, grinding them, making them fine, I'd otherwise have to do later within my own body! Everything I do externally, I'd otherwise have to do internally, inside my body; so by doing those things, I relieve my body. And the same with the baking itself: all the things I do in cooking, I save my body from doing. I bring the foods to a condition in which my body can more easily digest them.

You have only to think of the difference if someone would eat raw potatoes instead of cooked ones. If someone were to eat his potatoes raw, his stomach would have to provide a tremendous amount of warmth to transform those raw potatoes—which are almost starch already. And the extent to which it could transform them would not be sufficient. So then the potatoes would reach the intestines and the intestines would also have to use a great amount of energy. Then the potatoes would just stay put in the intestines, for the subsequent forces would not be able to carry them farther into the body. So if one eats raw potatoes, either one just loads one's stomach with them and the intestines can't even get started on them, or one fills up the intestines; in either case there is no further digestion. But if the potatoes undergo a preparatory stage through cooking or some other means, then the stomach does not have so much to do, or the intestines either, and the potatoes go over properly into the blood and right up into the head. So you see, by cooking our foods, especially those that are counted among the carbohydrates, we are able to help our nutrition.

You are certainly acquainted with all the new kinds of foolishness in connection with nutrition—for instance, the raw food faddists, who are not going to cook anything anymore, they're going to eat everything raw. How does this come about? It's because people no longer know what's what from a materialistic science, and they shy away from a spiritual science, so they think a few things out on their own. The whole raw food fad is a fantasy. For a time someone living on raw food can whip the body along—in this situation the body has to be using very strong forces, so it has to be whipped—but then it will collapse all the more completely.

But now, gentlemen, let us come to the fats. Plants, almost all of them, contain fats which they derive from the minerals. Now fats do not enter the human body so easily as carbohydrates and minerals. Minerals are not even changed. For example, when you shake salt into your soup, that salt goes almost unchanged up into your head. You get it as salt in your head. But when you eat potatoes, you don't get potatoes in your head, you get sugar. The conversion takes place as I described to you. With the fats, however, whether they're plant fats or animal fats, it's not such a simple matter. When fats are eaten, they are almost entirely eaten up by the saliva, by the gastric secretions, by the intestinal secretions, and they become something quite different that then goes over into the blood. The animal and the human being must form their own fats in their intestines and in their blood, with forces which the fats they eat call forth.

You see, that is the difference between fats and sugar or minerals. The human being still takes his salt and his sugar from nature. He has to derive the sugar from the potato and the rye and so on, but there is still something of nature in it. But with the fats that man or animal have in them, there is nothing anymore of nature. They have formed them themselves. The human being would have no strength if he did not eat; his intestines and blood need fats. So we can say: Man himself cannot form minerals. If he did not take in minerals, his body would never be able to build them by itself. If he did not take in carbohydrates, if he did not eat bread or something similar from which he gets carbohydrates, he would never be able to form sugar by himself. And if he could not form sugar, he would be a weakling forever. So be grateful for the sugar, gentlemen! Because you are chock-full of sweetness, you have strength. The moment you would no longer be full to the brim with your own sweetness, you would have no strength, you would collapse.

And you know, that holds good even in connection with the various peoples. There are certain peoples who consume very little sugar or foodstuffs that produce sugar. These peoples have weak physical forces. Then there are certain peoples who eat many carbohydrates that form sugar, and they are strong.

But the human being doesn't have it so easy with the fats. If someone has fats in him (and this is true also of the animals), that is his own accomplishment, the accomplishment of his body. Fats are entirely his own production. The human being destroys whatever fats he takes in, plant fats or animal fats, and through their destruction he develops strength. With potatoes, rye, wheat, he develops strength by converting the substances. With the fats that he eats, he develops strength by destroying the substances.

If I destroy something outside of myself, I become tired and exhausted. And if I have had a big fat beefsteak and destroy that inside myself, I become weak in the same way; but my destruction of the fat beefsteak or of the plant fat gives me strength again, so that I can produce my own fat if my body is predisposed to it. So you see, the consumption of fat works very differently in the human body from the consumption of carbohydrates. The human body, gentlemen, is exceedingly complicated, and what I have been describing to you is tremendous work. Much must take place in the human body for it to be able to destroy those plant fats.

But now let us think how it is when someone eats green stuff, the stems and leaves of a plant. When he eats green stuff he is getting fats from the plants. Why is it that sometimes a stem is so hard? Because it then gives its forces to leaves that are going to be rich in carbohydrates. And if the leaves stay green—the greener they are, the more fats they have in them. So when someone eats bread, for instance, he can't take in many fats from the bread. He takes in more, for example, from watercress—that tiny plant with the very tiny leaves—more fats than when he eats bread. That's how the custom came about of putting butter on our bread, some kind of fat. It wasn't lust for the taste. And why country people want bacon with their bread. There again is fat, and that also is eaten for two reasons.

When I eat bread, the bread works upon my head because the root elements of a plant work up into the stem. The stem, even though it is stem and grows above the ground in the air, still has root forces in it. The question is not whether something is above in the air, but whether it has any root forces. Now the leaf, the green leaf, does not have root forces. No green leaf ever appears down in the earth. In late summer and autumn, when the sun forces are no longer working so strongly, the stem can mature. But the leaf needs the strongest sun forces for it to unfold; it grows toward the sun. So we can say, the green part of the plant works particularly on heart and lungs, while the root strengthens the head. The potato also is able to work into the head. When we eat greens, they give us particularly plant fats; they strengthen our heart and lungs, the middle man, the chest man.

That, I would say, is the secret of human nutrition: that if I want to work upon my head, I have roots or stems for dinner. If I want to work upon my heart or my lungs, I make myself a green salad. And in this case, because these substances are destroyed in the intestines and only their forces proceed to work, cooking is not so necessary. That's why leaves can be eaten raw as salad. Whatever is to work on the head cannot be eaten raw; it must be cooked. Cooked foods work particularly on the head. Lettuce and similar things work particularly on heart and lungs, building them up, nourishing them through the fats.

But now, gentlemen, the human being must not only nurture the head and the middle body, the breast region, but he must nurture the digestive organs themselves. He needs a stomach, intestines, kidneys, and a liver, and he must build up these digestive organs himself. Now the interesting fact is this: to build up his digestive organs he needs protein for food, the protein that is in plants, particularly as contained in their blossoms, and most particularly in their fruit. So we can say: the root nourishes the head particularly [see drawing above]; the middle of the plant, stem and leaves, nourishes the chest particularly; and fruit nourishes the lower body.

When we look out at our grain fields we can say, Good that they are there! for that nourishes our head. When we look down at the lettuce we've planted, all those leaves that we eat without cooking because they are easily digested in the intestines—and it's their forces that we want—there we get everything that maintains our chest organs. But cast an eye up at the plum and apples, at the fruits growing on the trees—ah! those we don't have to bother to cook much, for they've been cooked by the sun itself during the whole summer! There an inner ripening has already been happening, so that they are something quite different from the roots, or from stalks and stems (which are not ripened but actually dried up by the sun). The fruits, as I said, we don't have to cook much—unless we have a weak organism, in which case the intestines cannot destroy the fruits. Then we must cook them; we must have stewed fruit and the like. If someone has intestinal illnesses, he must be careful to take his fruit in some cooked form—sauce, jam, and so forth. If one has a perfectly healthy digestive system, a perfectly healthy intestinal system, then fruits are the right thing to nourish the lower body, through the protein they contain. Protein from any of the fruits nourishes your stomach for you, nourishes all your digestive organs in your lower body.

You can see what a good instinct human beings have had for these things! Naturally, they have not known in concepts all that I've been telling you, but they have known it instinctively. They have always prepared a mixed diet of roots, greens and fruit; they have eaten all of them, and even the comparative amounts that one should have of these three different foods have been properly determined by their instinct.

But now, as you know, people not only eat plants, they eat animals too, the flesh of animals, animal fat and so on.

Certainly it is not for anthroposophy ever to assume a fanatical or a sectarian attitude. Its task is only to tell how things are. One simply cannot say that people should eat only plants, or that they should also eat animals, and so on. One can only say that some people with the forces they have from heredity are simply not strong enough to perform within their bodies all the work necessary to destroy plant fats, to destroy them so completely that then forces will develop in their bodies for producing their own fat. You see, a person who eats only plant fats—well, either he's renounced the idea of becoming an imposing, portly fellow, or else he must have an awfully good digestive system, so healthy that it is easy for him to destroy the plant fats and in this way get forces to build his own fat. Most people are really unable to produce their own fat if they have only plant fats to destroy. When one eats animal fat in meat, that is not entirely destroyed. Plant fats don't go out beyond the intestines, they are destroyed in the intestines. But the fat contained in meat does go beyond, it goes over into the human being. And the person may be weaker than if he were on a diet of just plant fats.

Therefore, we must distinguish between two kinds of bodies. First there are the bodies that do not like fat, they don't enjoy eating bacon, they just don't like to eat fatty foods. Those are bodies that destroy plant fats comparatively easily and want in that way to form their own fat. They say: “Whatever fat I carry around, I want to make myself; I want my very own fat.” But if someone heaps his table with fatty foods, then he's not saying, “I want to make my own fat”; he's saying, “The world has to give me my fat.” For animal fat goes over into the body, making the work of nutrition easier.

When a child sucks a candy, he's not doing that for nourishment. There is, to be sure, something nutritious in it, but the child doesn't suck it for that; he sucks it for the sweet taste. The sweetness is the object of his consciousness. But if an adult eats beef fat, or pork fat, or the like, well, that goes over into his body. It satisfies his craving just as the candy satisfies the child's craving. But it is not quite the same, for the adult feels this craving inside him. The adult needs this inner craving in order to respond to his inner being. That is why he loves meat. He eats it because his body loves it.

But it is no use being fanatic about these things. There are people who simply cannot live if they don't have meat. A person must consider carefully whether he really will be able to get on without it. If he does decide he can do without it and changes over from a meat to a vegetarian diet, he will feel stronger than he was before. That's sometimes a difficulty, obviously: some people can't bear the thought of living without meat. If, however, one does become a vegetarian, he feels stronger—because he is no longer obliged to deposit alien fat in his body; he makes his own fat, and this makes him feel stronger.

I know this from my own experience. I could not otherwise have endured the strenuous exertion of these last twenty-four years! I never could have traveled entire nights, for instance, and then given a lecture the next morning. For it is a fact, that if one is a vegetarian one carries out a certain activity within one that is spared the non-vegetarian, who has it done first by an animal. That's the important difference.

But now don't get the idea that I would ever agitate for vegetarianism! It must always be first established whether a person is able to become a vegetarian or not; it is an individual matter.

You see, this is especially important in connection with protein. One can digest protein if one is able to eat plant protein and break it down in the intestines. And then one gets the forces from it. But the moment the intestines are weak, one must get the protein externally, which means one must eat the right kind of protein, which will be animal protein. Hens that lay eggs are also animals! So protein is something that is really judged quite falsely unless it is considered from an anthroposophical point of view.

When I eat roots, their minerals go up into my head. When I eat salad greens, their forces go to my chest, lungs, and heart—not their fats, but the forces from their fats. When I eat fruit, the protein from the fruit stays in the intestines. And the protein from animal substances goes beyond the intestines into the body; animal protein spreads out. One might think, therefore, that if a person eats plenty of protein, he will be a well-nourished individual. This has led to the fact in this materialistic age that people who had studied medicine were recommending excessive amounts of protein for the average diet: they maintained that one hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty grams of protein were necessary—which was ridiculous. Today it is known that only a quarter of that amount is necessary. And actually, if a person does eat such enormous and unnecessary amounts of protein—well, then something happens as it once did with a certain professor and his assistant.

They had a man suffering from malnutrition and they wanted to build him up with protein. Now it is generally recognized that when someone is consuming large amounts of protein—it is, of course, converted in him—his urine will show that he has had it in his diet. So now it happened with these two that the man's urine showed no sign of the protein being present in his body. It didn't occur to them that it had already passed through the intestines. The professor was in a terrible state. And the assistant was shaking in his boots as he said timidly: “Sir—Professor—perhaps—through the intestines?” Of course!

What had happened? They had stuffed the man with protein and it was of no use to him, for it had gone from the stomach into the intestines and then out behind. It had not spread into the body at all. If one gulps down too much protein, it doesn't go over into the body at all, but into the fecal waste matter. Even so, the body does get something from it: before it passes out, it lies there in the intestines and becomes poisonous and poisons the whole body. That's what can happen from too much protein. And from this poisoning comes then very frequently arteriosclerosis—so that many people get arteriosclerosis too early, simply from stuffing themselves with too much protein.

It is important, as I have tried to show you, to know these things about nutrition. For most people are thoroughly convinced that the more they eat, the better they are nourished. Of course it is not true. One is often much better nourished if one eats less, because then one does not poison oneself.

The point is really that one must know how the various substances work. One must know that minerals work particularly on the head; carbohydrates—just as they are to be found in our most common foods, bread and potatoes, for instance—work more on the lung system and throat system (lungs, throat, palate and so on). Fats work particularly on heart and blood vessels, arteries and veins, and protein particularly on the abdominal organs. The head has no special amount of protein. What protein it does have—naturally, it also has to be nourished with protein, for after all, it consists of living substances—that protein man has to form himself. And if one over-eats, it's no use believing that in that way one is getting a healthy brain, for just the opposite is happening: one is getting a poisoned brain.

 Protein: abdominal organs Fats: heart and blood vessels Carbohydrates: lungs, throat, palate Minerals: head 

Perhaps we should devote another session to nutrition! That would be good, because these questions are very important. So then, Saturday at nine o'clock.

Rudolf Steiner: Today I would like to add a little more in answer to Herr Burle's question last Thursday. You remember that I spoke of the four substances necessary to human nutrition: minerals, carbohydrates, which are to be found in potatoes, but especially in our held grains and legumes, then fats, and protein. I pointed out how different our nutrition is with regard to protein as compared, for instance, to salt. A man takes salt into his body and it travels all the way to his head, in such a way that the salt remains salt. It is really not changed except that it is dissolved. It keeps its forces as salt all the way to the human head. In contrast to this, protein—the protein in ordinary hens' eggs, for instance, but also the protein from plants—this protein is at once broken down in the human body, while it is still in the stomach and intestines; it does not remain protein. The human being possesses forces by which he is able to break down this protein. He also has the forces to build something up again, to make his own protein. He would not be able to do this if he had not already broken down other protein.

Now think how it is, gentlemen, with this protein. Imagine that you have become an exceptionally clever person, so clever that you are confident you can make a watch. But you've never seen a watch except from the outside, so you cannot right off make a watch. But if you take a chance and you take some watch to pieces, take it all apart and lay out the single pieces in such a way that you observe just how the parts relate to one another, then you know how you are going to put them all together again. That's what the human body does with protein. It must take in protein and take it all apart.

Protein consists of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulphur. Those are its most important components. And now the protein is completely separated into its parts, so that when it all reaches the intestines, man does not have protein in him, but he has carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulphur. You see how it is?—now the man has the protein all laid out in its parts as you had the watch all laid out on the table. So now you will say, Sure! when I took that watch apart, I observed it very carefully, and now I can make watches. Likewise I only need to eat protein once; after that, I can make it myself. But it doesn't happen that way, gentlemen. A human being has his memory as a complete human entity; his body by itself does not have the kind of memory that can take note of something, it uses its “memory” forces just for building itself up. So one must always be eating new protein in order to be able to make a protein.

The fact is, the human being is involved in a very, very complicated activity when he manufactures his own protein. First he divides the protein he has eaten into its separate parts and puts the carbon from it into his body everywhere. Now you already know that we inhale oxygen from the air and that this oxygen combines with the carbon we have in us from proteins and other food elements. And we exhale carbon in carbon dioxide, keeping a part of it back. So now we have that carbon and oxygen together in our body. We do not retain and use the oxygen that was in the protein; we use the oxygen we have inhaled to combine with the carbon. Thus we do not make our own protein as the materialists describe it: namely, that we eat a great many eggs which then are deposited throughout our body so that eggs we have eaten are spread over our whole body. That is not true.

Actually, we are saved by the organization of our body so that when we eat eggs, we don't all turn into crazy hens! It's a fact. We don't become crazy hens because we break the protein down in our intestines and instead of using the oxygen that was in the protein, we use oxygen coming out of the air. Also, as we breathe oxygen in we breathe nitrogen in too; nitrogen is always in the air. Again, we don't use the nitrogen that comes to us in the hens' eggs; we use the nitrogen we breathe in from the air. And the hydrogen we've eaten in eggs, we don't use that either, not at all. We use the hydrogen we take in through our nose and our ears, through all our senses; that's the hydrogen we use to make our protein. Sulphur too—we receive that continually from the air. Hydrogen and sulphur we get from the air. From the protein we eat, we keep and use only the carbon. The other substances, we take from the air. So you see how it is with protein.

There is a similar situation with fat. We make our own protein, using only the carbon from the external protein. And we also make our own fat. For the fats too, we use very little nitrogen from our food. So you see, we produce our own protein and fat. Only what we consume in potatoes, legumes, and grains goes over into our body. In fact, even these things do not go fully into our body, but only to the lower part of our head. The minerals we consume go up into the entire head; from them we have what we need to build up our bones.

Therefore you see, gentlemen, we must take care to bring healthy plain protein into our body. Healthy plant protein! That is what our body needs in large quantity. When we take in protein from eggs, our body can be rather lazy; it can easily break the protein down, because that protein is easily broken down. But plant protein, which we get from fruit—it is chiefly in that part of the plant, as I told you on Thursday—that is especially valuable to us. If a person wants to keep himself healthy, it is really necessary to include fruit in his diet. Cooked or raw, but fruit he must have. If he neglects to eat fruit, he will gradually condemn his body to a very sluggish digestion.

You can see that it is also a question of giving proper nourishment to the plants themselves. And that means, we must realize that plants are living things; they are not minerals, they are something alive. A plant comes to us out of the seed we put in the ground. The plant cannot flourish unless the soil itself is to some degree alive. And how do we make the soil alive? By manuring it properly. Yes, proper manuring is what will give us really good plant protein.

We must remember that for long, long ages men have known that the right manure is what comes out of the horses' stalls, out of the cow-barn and so on; the right manure is what comes off the farm itself. In recent times when everything has become materialistic, people have been saying: Look here! we can do it much more easily by finding out what substances are in the manure and then taking them out of the mineral kingdom: mineral fertilizer!

And you can see, gentlemen, when one uses mineral fertilizer, it is as if one just put minerals into the ground; then only the root becomes strong. Then we get from the plants the substance that helps to build up our bones. But we don't get a proper protein from the plants. And the plants, our field grains have suffered from the lack of protein for a long time. And the lack will become greater and greater unless people return to proper manuring.

There have already been agricultural conferences in which the farmers have said: Yes, the fruit gets worse and worse! And it is true. But naturally the farmers haven't known the reason. Every older person knows that when he was a young fellow, everything that came out of the fields was really better. It's no use thinking that one can make fertilizer simply by combining substances that are present in cow manure. One must see clearly that cow manure does not come out of a chemist's laboratory but out of a laboratory that is far more scientific—it comes from the far, far more scientific laboratory inside the cow. And for this reason cow manure is the stuff that not only makes the roots of plants strong, but that works up powerfully into the fruits and produces good, proper protein in the plants which makes man vigorous.

If there is to be nothing but the mineral fertilizer that has now become so popular, or just nitrogen from the air—well, gentlemen, your children, more particularly, your grandchildren will have very pale faces. You will no longer see a difference between their faces and their white hands. Human beings have a lively, healthy color when the farmlands are properly manured.

So you see, when one speaks of nutrition one has to consider how the foodstuffs are being obtained. It is tremendously important. You can see from various circumstances that the human body itself craves what it needs. Here's just one example: people who are in jail for years at a stretch, usually get food that contains very little fat, so they develop an enormous craving for fat; and when sometimes a drop of wax falls on the floor from the candle that the guard carries into a cell, the prisoner jumps down at once to lick up the fat. The human body feels the lack so strongly if it is missing some necessary substance. We don't notice this if we eat properly and regularly from day to day; then it never happens that our body is missing some essential element. But if something is lacking in the diet steadily for weeks, then the body becomes exceedingly hungry. That is also something that must be carefully noticed.

I have already pointed out that many other things are connected with fertilizing. For instance, our European forefathers in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, or still earlier, were different from ourselves in many ways. One doesn't usually pay any attention to that fact. Among other things, they had no potatoes! Potatoes were not introduced until later. The potato diet has exercised a strong influence. When grains are eaten, the heart and lungs become particularly strong. Grains strengthen heart and lungs. A man then develops a healthy chest and he is in fine health. He is not so keen on thinking as on breathing, perhaps; but he can endure very much when he has good breathing. And let me say right here: don't think that someone has strong lungs if he's always opening the window and crying, “Let's get some fresh air in here!” No! a person has strong lungs if he is so conditioned that he can endure any kind of air. The toughened-up person is not the one who can't bear anything but the one who can!

In these days there is much talk about being hardy. Think how the children are “hardened”! Nowadays (in wealthy homes, of course, but then other people quickly follow suit) the children are dressed—well, when we were children, we wore long breeches and were well covered—at the most, we went barefoot—now, the clothes only go down to the knee or are still shorter. If parents knew that this is the best preparation for later attacks of appendicitis, they would be more thoughtful. But fashion is a tyrant!—no thought is given to the matter, and the children are dressed so that their little dresses only reach to the knee, or less. Someday they will only reach to the stomach—that will be the fashion! Fashion has a strong influence.

But what is really at stake? People pay no attention to it. It is this: A human being is constituted throughout his organism so that he is truly capable of doing inner work on all the food he consumes. And in this connection it is especially important to know that a man becomes strong when he works properly on the foods he eats. Children are not made stronger by the treatment I have just mentioned. They are so “hardened” that later in their life—just watch them!—when they have to cross an empty square with the hot sun beating down on them, they drip with perspiration and they can't make it. Someone has not become toughened up when he is not able to stand anything; the person who can endure all possible hardships is the one who has been toughened up. So, in earlier days people were not toughened up; yet they had healthy lungs, healthy hearts, and so on.

And then came the potato diet! The potato takes little care of lung and heart. It reaches the head, but only, as I said, the lower head, not the upper head. It does go into the lower head, where one thinks and exercises critical faculties. Therefore, you can see, in earlier times there were fewer journalists. There was no printing industry yet. Think of the amount of thought expended daily in this world in our time, just to bring the newspapers out! All that thinking, it is much too much, it is not at all necessary—and we have to thank the potato diet for that! Because a person who eats potatoes is constantly stimulated to think. He can't do anything but think. That's why his lungs and his heart become weak. Tuberculosis, lung tuberculosis, did not become widespread until the potato diet was introduced. And the weakest human beings are those living in regions where almost nothing else is grown but potatoes, where the people live on potatoes.

It is spiritual science that is able to know these material facts. (I have said this often.) Materialistic science knows nothing about nutrition; it has no idea what is healthy food for humanity. That is precisely the characteristic of materialism, that it thinks and thinks and thinks—and knows nothing. The truth is finally this: that if one really wants to participate in life, above all one has to know something! Those are the things I wanted to say about nutrition.

And now perhaps you may still like to ask some individual questions?

Question: Dr. Steiner, in your last talk you mentioned arteriosclerosis. It is generally thought that this illness comes from eating a great deal of meat and eggs and the like. I know someone in whom the illness began when he was fifty; he had become quite stiff by the time he was seventy. But now he is eighty-five or eighty-six, and he is much more active than he was in his fifties and sixties. Has the arteriosclerosis receded! Is that possible? Or is there some other reason, Perhaps I should mention that this person has never smoked and has drunk very little alcohol; he has lived a really decent life. But in his earlier years he did eat rather a lot of meat. At seventy he could do very little work, but now at eighty-five he is continually active.

Dr. Steiner: So—I understand you to say that this person became afflicted with arteriosclerosis when he was fifty, that he became stiff and could do very little work. You did not say whether his memory deteriorated; perhaps you did not notice. His condition continued into his seventies; then he became active again, and he is still living. Does he still have any symptom of his earlier arteriosclerosis or is he completely mobile and active?

Questioner: Today he is completely active and more mobile than when he was sixty-five or seventy. He is my father.

Dr. Steiner: Well, first of all we should establish the exact nature of his earlier arteriosclerosis. Usually arteriosclerosis takes hold of a person in such a way that his arteries in general become sclerotic. Now if a man's arteries in general are sclerotic, he naturally becomes unable to control his body with his soul and spirit, and the body becomes rigid. Now it can also happen that someone has arteriosclerosis but not in his whole body; the disease, for instance, could have spared his brain. Then the following is the case. You see, I am somewhat acquainted with your own condition of health. I don't know your father, but perhaps we can discover something about your father's health from your own. For instance, you suffer somewhat, or have suffered (I hope it will be completely cured), from hay fever. That means that you carry in you something that the body can develop only if there is no tendency to arteriosclerosis in the head, but only outside the head. No one who is predisposed to arteriosclerosis in his entire body can possibly suffer an attack of hay fever. For hay fever is the exact opposite of arteriosclerosis. Now you suffer from hay fever. That shows that your hay fever—of course it is not pleasant to have hay fever, it's much better to have it cured; but we are talking of the tendency to have it—your hay fever is a kind of safety valve against arteriosclerosis.

But everyone gets arteriosclerosis to a small degree. One can't grow old without having it. If one gets it in the entire body, that's different: then one can't help oneself, one becomes rigid through one's whole body. But if one gets arteriosclerosis in the head and not in the rest of the body, then—well, if one is growing old properly, the etheric body is growing stronger and stronger (I've spoken of this before), and it no longer has such great need of the brain, and so the brain can now become old and stiff. The etheric body can control this slight sclerotic condition—which in earlier years made one old and stiff altogether; now the etheric body can control it very cleverly so that it is no longer so severe.

Your father, for example, does not need to have had hay fever himself; he can just have had the tendency to it. And you see, just this tendency to it has been of benefit to him. One can even say—it may seem a little farfetched, but a person who has a tendency to hay fever can even say, Thank God I have this tendency! The hay fever isn't bothering me now, and it gives me permanently the predisposition to a softening of the vessels. Even if the hay fever doesn't come out, it is protecting him from arteriosclerosis. And if he has a son, the son can have the hay fever externally. A son can suffer externally from some disease that in the father was pushed inward.

Indeed, that is one of the secrets of heredity: that many things become diseases in the descendants which in the forefathers were aspects of health. Diseases are classified as arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cirrhosis, dyspepsia, and so forth. This can be written up very attractively in a book; one can describe just how these illnesses progress. But one hasn't obtained much from it, for the simple reason that arteriosclerosis, for instance, is different in every single person. No two persons have arteriosclerosis alike; everyone becomes afflicted in a different way. That is really so, gentlemen. And it shouldn't surprise anyone.

There were two professors at Berlin University. One was seventy years old, the other ninety-two. The younger one was quite well-known; he had written many books. But he was a man who lived with his philosophy entirely within materialism; he only had thoughts that were stuck deep in materialism. Now such thoughts also contribute to arteriosclerosis. And he got arteriosclerosis. When he reached seventy, he was obliged to retire. The colleague who was over ninety was not a materialist; he had stayed a child through most of his life, and was still teaching with tremendous liveliness. He said, “Yes, that colleague of mine, that young boy! I don't understand him. I don't want to retire yet, I still feel so young.” The other one, the “boy,” was disrobed, could no longer teach. Of course the ninety-two-year-old had also become sclerotic with his years, his arteries were completely sclerotic, but because of his mobility of soul he could still do something with those arteries. The other man had no such possibility.

And now something more in answer to Herr Burle's question about carrots. Herr Burle said, “The human body craves instinctively what it needs. Children often take a carrot up in their hands. Children, grownups too, are sometimes forced to eat food that is not good for them. I think this is a mistake when someone has a loathing for some food. I have a boy who won't eat potatoes.”

Gentlemen, you need only think of this one thing: if animals did not have an instinct for what was good for them, and what was bad for them, they would all long since have perished. For animals in a pasture come upon poisonous plants too—all of them—and if they did not know instinctively that they could not eat poisonous plants, they would certainly eat them. But they always pass them by.

But there is something more. Animals choose with care what is good for them. Have you sometimes fattened geese, crammed them with food? Do you think the geese would ever do that themselves? It is only humans who force the geese to eat so much. With pigs it is different; but how thin do you think our pigs might be if we did not encourage them to eat so much? In any case, with pigs it is a little different. They have acquired their characteristics through inheritance; their ancestors had to become accustomed to all the foods that produce fat. These things were taken up in their food in earlier times. But the primeval pigs had to be forced to eat it! No animal ever eats of its own accord what is not right for it.

But now, gentlemen, what has materialism brought about? It no longer believes in such an instinct.

I had a friend in my youth with whom I ate meals very often. We were fairly sensible about our food and would order what we were in the habit of thinking was good for us. Later, as it happens in life, we lost track of each other, and after some years I came to the city where he was living, and was invited to have dinner with him. And what did I see? Scales beside his plate! I said, “What are you doing with those scales?” I knew, of course, but I wanted to hear what he would say. He said, “I weigh the meat they bring me, to eat the right amount—the salad too.” There he was, weighing everything he should put on his plate, because science told him to. And what had happened to him? He had weaned himself completely from a healthy instinct for what he should eat and finally no longer knew! And you remember?—it used to be in the book: “a person needs from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty grams of protein”; that, he had conscientiously weighed out. Today the proper amount is estimated to be fifty grams, so his amount was incorrect.

Of course, gentlemen, when a person has diabetes, that is obviously a different situation. The sugar illness, diabetes, shows that a person has lost his instinct for nutrition.

There you have the gist of the matter. If a child has a tendency to worms, even the slightest tendency, he will do everything possible to prevent them. You'll be astonished sometimes to see such a child hunting for a garden where there are carrots growing, and then you'll find him there eating carrots. And if the garden is far off that doesn't matter, the child trudges off to it anyway and finds the carrots—because a child who has a tendency to worms longs for carrots.

And so, gentlemen, the most useful thing you can possibly do is this: observe a child when he is weaned, when he no longer has milk, observe what he begins to like to eat and not like to eat. The moment a child begins to take external nourishment, one can learn from him what one should give him. The moment one begins to urge him to eat what one thinks he should eat, at that moment his instinct is spoilt. One should give him the things for which he shows an instinctive liking. Naturally, if a fondness for something threatens to go too far, one has to dam it up—but then one must carefully observe what it is that one is damming up.

For instance, perhaps in your own opinion you are giving a child every nice thing, and yet the moment that child comes to the table he cannot help jumping up on his chair and leaning over the table to sneak a lump of sugar! That's something that must be regarded in the right way. For a child who jumps up on his chair to sneak a lump of sugar obviously has something the matter with his liver. Just the simple fact that he must sneak a bit of sugar, is a sign that his liver is not in order. Only those children sneak sugar who have something wrong with their livers—it is then actually cured by the sugar. The others are not interested in sugar; they ignore it. Naturally, such a performance can't be allowed to become a habit; but one must have understanding for it. And one can understand it in two directions.

You see, if a child is watching all the time and thinking, when will Father or Mother not be looking, so that I can take that sugar: then later he will sneak other things. If you satisfy the child, if you give him what he needs, then he doesn't become a thief. It is of great importance from a moral point of view whether one observes such things or not. It is very important, gentlemen.

And so the question that was asked just now must be answered in this way: One should observe carefully what a child likes and what he loathes, and not force him to eat what he does not like. If it happens, for instance, as it does with very many children, that he doesn't want to eat meat, then the fact is that the child gets intestinal toxins from meat and wants to avoid them. His instinct is right. Any child who can sit at a table where everyone else is eating meat and can refuse it has certainly the tendency to develop intestinal toxins from meat. These things must be considered.

You can see that science must become more refined. Science must become much more refined! Today it is far too crude. With those scales, with everything that is carried on in the laboratories, one can't really pursue pure science.

With nutrition, which is the thing particularly interesting us at this moment, it is really so, that one must acquire a proper understanding for the way it relates to the spirit. When people inquire in that direction, I often offer two examples. Think, gentlemen, of a journalist: how he has to think so much—and so much of it isn't even necessary. The man must think a great deal, he must think so many logical thoughts; it is almost impossible for any human being to have so many logical thoughts. And so you find that the journalist—or any other person who writes for a profession—loves coffee, quite instinctively. He sits in the coffee shop and drinks one cup after another, and gnaws at his pen so that something will come out that he can write down. Gnawing at his pen doesn't help him, but the coffee does, so that one thought comes out of another, one thought joins on to another.

And then look at the diplomats. If one thought joins on to another, if one thought comes out of another, that's bad for them! When diplomats are logical, they're boring. They must be entertaining. In society people don't like to be wearied by logical reasoning—“in the first place—secondly—thirdly”—and if the first and second were not there, the third and fourth would, of course, not have to be thought of! A journalist can't deal with anything but finance in a finance article. But if you're a diplomat you can be talking about night clubs at the same time that you're talking about the economy of country X, then you can comment on the cream-puffs of Lady So-and-So, then you can jump to the rich soil of the colonies, after that, where the best horses are being bred, and so on. With a diplomat one thought must leap over into another. So anyone who is obliged to be a charming conversationalist follows his instinct and drinks lots of tea.

Tea scatters thoughts; it lets one jump into them. Coffee brings one thought next to another. If you must leap from one thought to another, then you must drink tea. And one even calls them “diplomat teas”!—while there sits the journalist in the coffee shop, drinking one cup of coffee after another. You can see what an influence a particular food or drink can have on our whole thinking process. It is so, of course, not just with those two beverages, coffee and tea; one might say, those are extreme examples. But precisely from those examples I think you can see that one must consider these things seriously. It is very important, gentlemen.

So, we'll meet again next Wednesday at nine o'clock.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Has anyone thought of a question?

Herr Dollinger: I would like to ask if Dr. Steiner would speak again about the creation of the world and man. There are many newcomers here who have not yet heard it.

Dr. Steiner: It is asked if I could speak again about the creation of the world and of humanity, since many new workers are here. I will do this by first describing the original conditions on the earth, which have led on the one hand to all that we see around us and on the other hand to man.

Now man is really a very, very complicated being. If people think they will be able to understand him by dissecting a human corpse, they are mistaken, for naturally they will not arrive at a real understanding. Just as little can they understand the world around us if all they do is collect stones and plants and look at the individual items. We must be able to realize that what we examine does not show at first sight what it actually is.

You see, if we look at a corpse, perhaps soon after the man has died—he still has the same form, if perhaps a little paler—we can see that death has seized him, but he still has the same form that he had when alive. But now think: how does this corpse look eventually if we do not cremate it but let it decay? It is destroyed; there is no longer anything at work in it that could build it up again; it is definitely destroyed.

The beginning of the Bible is very much smiled at, and indeed justifiably, when it is understood to say that once upon a time some god formed a man out of a clod of earth. People regard that as impossible and naturally they are right. No god can come along and make a human being out of a lump of earth; it would be no more a man than a statue is, however similar the form might be—no more than the mannequin children make can actually walk. So people smile rightly when some divinity is supposed to have made man out of a lump of earth.

That corpse that we were looking at is, in fact, after a certain time just such a clod of earth as it becomes in the grave somewhat decomposed, dissolved. So to believe that a human being can be made out of what we then have before us is really just as great a folly.

You see, on the one hand it is asserted today that it is incorrect to suppose that man could be formed from a lump of earth; on the other hand one is allowed to suppose that he consists of earth alone. If one wants to be logical, then the one is no better than the other. One must be clear that while the man lived there was something in him that gave him his shape and form, and when it is no longer in him he can no longer keep his form. Nature forces do not give him this form; nature forces merely break it apart, they do not make it grow. So we must go back to the soul and spirit of the man, which were really in control as long as he was living.

Now when we look at the lifeless stone outside, if we imagine that it has always been the same as it is today, that is just as if we would say of the corpse that it had always been like that even while the man was living. The stones that we see today in the world outside, the rocks, the mountains, are just the same as a corpse; in fact, they are a corpse! They were not always as they are today. Just as a human corpse was not always what it is now that the soul and spirit have gone, so what we see outside has not always been in its present condition. The fact that plants grow on the lifeless corpse, that is, on the rocks, need not surprise us; for when a human corpse decays, all sorts of tiny plants and tiny animals grow out of it.

Of course, what is outside in nature seems beautiful, and what we see on a corpse when all sorts of parasitic plants are growing out of it does not seem beautiful. But that is only because the one is gigantic in size and the other is small. If we were not human beings but were tiny beetles crawling about on a decaying corpse and could think like human beings, we would regard the bones of the corpse as rocks. We would consider what was decayed as rubble and stones; we would-since we were tiny beetles-see great forests in what was growing on the corpse; we would have a whole world to admire and not think it revolting as we do now.

Just as we must go back to what the man was before he died, so, in the case of the earth and our surroundings, we must go back to what once lived in all that today is lifeless, before indeed the earth as a whole died. Unless the earth as a whole had died there could be no human being. Human beings are parasites, as it were, on the present earth. The whole earth was once alive; it could think as you and I now think. But only when it became a corpse could it produce the human race. This is something really everyone can realize if he will just think. But people today do not want to think. Yet one must think if one would come to the truth.

We have, therefore, to imagine that what is today solid rock with plants growing, and so on, was originally entirely different. Originally there was a living, thinking, cosmic body-a living, thinking, cosmic body!

I have often said here: What do people today imagine? They imagine that originally there was a gigantic mist, that this primeval mist came into rotation, that the planets then split off, that the sun became the center. This is taught to children quite early, and a little experiment is made to show that everything really did start in that way. A few drops of oil are put in a glass of water; one lets the oil swim on the water. A piece of cardboard has a pin stuck through it; then with the pin one makes the cardboard revolve; little oil-drops split off, go on revolving, and a tiny planetary system actually forms with the sun in the center.¹

Well now, it is usually quite a virtue if one can forget oneself, but in this case the teacher should not! When he makes the experiment, he ought then to say to the children: Out there in the universe is a giant schoolteacher who did the rotating!

What it amounts to is thoughtlessness—not because the facts oblige one to be thoughtless, but because one wants to be. But in that way one doesn't arrive at the truth.

We must therefore imagine not that a gigantic schoolteacher was there who rotated the world mist, but that there was something in the world mist itself that was able to move and so on. But there we come back to the living. If we want to rotate, we don't need a pin stuck through us with which a teacher rotates us. That's not for us; we can rotate ourselves. This schoolroom variety of primeval mist would have to be rotated by a schoolteacher. But if it is living and can feel and think, then it needs no cosmic schoolteacher; it can cause the rotation itself.

So we must picture that what today is lifeless around us was once alive, was sensitive, was a cosmic being. If we look further, there was even a great number of cosmic beings animating the whole. The original conditions of the world are therefore due to the fact that there was Spirit within the substance.

Now what is it that underlies everything material? Imagine that I have a lump of lead in my hand, that is, solid matter, thoroughly solid matter. Now if I put this lead on red-hot iron or on anything red-hot, on fire, it turns to fluid. If I work on it still further with fire, the whole lead vanishes; it evaporates, and I see nothing more of it. It is the same with all substances. On what does it depend then that a substance is solid? It depends upon what warmth is in it. The appearance of a substance depends only upon how much warmth is in it.

You know, today one can make the air liquid, then one has liquid air. The air we have in our surroundings is only airy, gaseous, as long as it contains a definite amount of warmth. And water—water is fluid, but it can also become ice and therefore solid. If there were a certain cold temperature on our earth there would be no water, but only ice. Now let us go into our mountains: there we find the solid granite or other solid rock. But if it were immensely hot there, there would be no solid granite; it would be fluid and flow away like the water in our brooks.

What then is actually the original element that makes things solid or fluid or gaseous? It is heat! And unless heat is there in the first place, nothing at all can be solid or fluid. So we can say that heat or fire is what is underlying everything in the beginning.

That is also shown by the research of spiritual science or anthroposophy. Spiritual science shows that originally there was not a primeval mist, a lifeless mist, but that living warmth was there at the beginning, simple living warmth. Thus I will assume an original cosmic body that was living warmth. [See drawing – red.] In my Occult Science I have called this original warmth condition the “Saturn condition”; it has been called this from ancient times, and though one must have a name, it is not the name that matters. It has, in fact, something to do with the cosmic body Saturn, but we will not go into that now.

In this original condition there were as yet no solid bodies and no air, only warmth; but the warmth was living. When you freeze today, it's your ego that freezes; when you sweat today, it's your ego that sweats, that becomes thoroughly hot. You are always in warmth, sometimes heat, sometimes cold, but always in some kind of warmth. In fact, we can still see today that man lives in warmth. The human being lives absolutely in warmth.

When modern science says that originally there was great heat, in a certain sense it is right; but when it thinks that this great heat was dead, then it is wrong. There was a living cosmic being, a thoroughly living cosmic being.

Now the first thing to come about in connection with this warmth-being was a cooling down. Things cool down continually. And what happens when what has been nothing but warmth now cools down? Air arises, air, the gaseous state. For when we go on heating a solid object, gas is formed in the warmth; but when something not yet substance cools down from above downwards, air is formed at first. So we can say that the second condition to come about was gaseous, definitely airy. [See drawing-green.]

In what has been formed, in a certain sense, as a second cosmic body everything is air. There is as yet no water, nothing solid within it; it consists entirely of air.

So now we have the second condition that formed itself in the course of time. You see, in this second condition something else developed along with what was already there. I have called this second condition “Sun” in my Occult Science; it was not the present sun, but a kind of Sun condition, a warm air-mist. The present sun, as I have told you, is not that, nor is it what was originally this second cosmic body. Thus we get a second cosmic body formed out of the first; the first was pure warmth, the second was of an air-nature.

Now man can live in warmth as soul. Warmth gives the soul sensitive feeling and does not destroy it. It destroys the body, however; if I were thrown into the fire my body would be destroyed but not my soul. (We will speak of this more exactly later, for naturally the question needs to be considered in detail.) For this reason the human being could already live as soul during the first, the Saturn, condition. But although man could live then, the animal could not, for in the case of the animal when the body is destroyed the soul element is injured too. Fire has an influence on the soul element of the animal. In the first condition, therefore, we have man already present but not the animal.

When the transformation had taken place to the Sun condition [see drawing], both human being and animal were there. That is the important fact. It is not true that the animals were there originally and that man developed out of them. Man was there originally and afterwards the animals evolved out of what could not become man. Naturally the human being was not going about on two feet when there was only warmth—obviously not. He lived in the warmth and was a floating being; he had only a condition of warmth. Then as that was metamorphosed into an air-warmth-body, the animals were formed and appeared beside man. Thus the animals are indeed related to man, but they developed only later in the course of world evolution.

Now what more happened? The warmth decreased, and as it gradually decreased, not only was air formed but also water. Thus we have a third cosmic body. [See drawing—yellow.] I have called it “Moon” because it was slightly similar to our present moon, although it was not our present moon. It was a watery, a thoroughly watery body. Air and warmth naturally remained, but now water appeared which had not been present in the second condition. After the appearance of water there could be man, who was already there, animals, and, pushing up out of the water, plants. Plants originally grew in water, not in earth. So we have man, animal, plant.

You see, plants seem to grow out of the earth, but if the earth contained no water, no plants would grow; they need water for their growth. There are also as you know, aquatic plants, and you can think of the original plants as being similar to these; the original plants swam in the water. The animals too you must picture as swimming animals and in the former, second condition, even as flying animals.

Something still actually remains of all that was there originally. During the Sun condition, when only man and animal were in existence, everything had to fly, and since the air has remained and still exists, those flying creatures have their descendants. Our present birds are the descendants of the original animals that developed during the Sun condition. However, at that time they were not as they are today. Those animal creatures consisted purely of air; they were airy clouds. Here, later [Moon condition], they had water in them. Today—let us look at a bird. Usually a bird is observed very thoughtlessly. If we are to picture the animals as they existed during the Sun condition, we must say that they consisted only of air; they were hovering air-clouds. When we look at a bird today, we should realize that it has hollow bones filled with air. It is very interesting to see that in the present bird. There is air everywhere in this bird, in the bones, everywhere! Think away whatever is not air and you get an air-being—the bird. If it did not have this air, it could not fly at all. It has hollow bones; within, it is an air-bird, reminding us of former conditions. The rest of the body was built around it in later times. The birds are really the descendants of the Sun condition.

Look at modern man: He can live in the air, but he can't fly; he is too heavy to fly. He has not formed hollow bones for himself like the bird, or else he too could fly. Then he would not just have shoulder blades, but his shoulder blades would stretch out into wings. The human being still has the rudiments of wings up there in his shoulder blades; if these were to grow out, he would be able to fly.

Thus man lives in the air surrounding him. But this air must contain vapor. Man cannot live in purely dry air; he needs fluids.

There is a condition, however, in which the human being cannot live in the air: that is the very earliest human state, the embryo. One must look at these things rightly. During the embryonic time the human germ or embryo obtains air and all that it needs from the body of the mother. It must be in something living.

You see, it is like this: If the human embryo is removed by operation from the body of the mother, it cannot yet live in the air. During the embryonic condition the human being needs to have live surroundings. At the time when man, animal, and plant existed, but as yet no stones or minerals as we have them today, everything was alive and man lived surrounded by what was alive just as now he lives as embryo in the mother's body. Naturally he grew bigger. Think of this: If we did not have to be born and live in the air and breathe on our own, then our span of life would end with our birth. As embryo we could all live only ten moon-months. As a matter of fact, there are such creatures that live only ten months; these do not come to the outer air but get air from within a living environment. So it was with man a long time ago. He certainly grew older, but he never came out of the living element. He lived in that state all the time. He did not advance to birth; he lived as embryo. At that time there were as yet no minerals, no rocks.

If the body of a human being is dissected today, the same carbonate of lime will be found in his bones as you find here in the Jura Mountains. There is now a mineral substance inside the body that was not present in the earlier condition. In the embryo too, particularly in the first months, there is no deposit of mineral; everything is still fluid, only slightly thickened. And so it was during this earlier condition; man was not yet bony, having, at most, cartilage. Of such a human being we are reminded today only by the human embryo. Why cannot the human embryo come immediately out of the mother's body? Because the world today is a different world. As long as the Old Moon lasted—I will now call it the Old Moon, as it is not the present moon but the former state of the earth—as long as the Old Moon period lasted, the whole earth was a womb, inwardly alive, a real womb. There was nothing yet of stone or mineral. It was all a gigantic womb, and we can say that our present earth came forth from this gigantic womb.

Earlier this immense womb did not exist at all. What was it then? Well, in fact, earlier there was something else in existence. Let us just consider what came before. You see, if a human being is to develop in the mother's body, if he is to be an embryo, he must first be conceived. The conception takes place. But does nothing precede conception? What precedes conception is the monthly period in the woman; that is what precedes. A very special process takes place in the female organism that is connected with the expulsion of blood. But that is not the only thing; that is only the physical aspect. Every time the blood is expelled something of a spiritual-soul nature is born at the same time, and this remains. It does not become physical, because no conception has taken place. The spiritual-soul element remains without becoming a physical human body. What for a human being must be there before conception was also there during the cosmic Sun condition! The whole Sun was a cosmic being that from time to time expelled something spiritual. So man and animal lived in the air-like condition, thrust out, expelled by this whole body. Between one condition (Sun) and the other (Moon), it came about that the human being became a physical being in water. Formerly he was a physical being only in air. During this Moon condition we have something similar to conception, but not yet anything similar to birth. What was the nature of this conception during the ancient Moon condition?

The Moon was there, an entirely female being, and confronting it was not a male being, but all that was still outside its cosmic body at that time. Outside it were many other cosmic bodies that exerted an influence. Now comes the drawing which I have already made here.

So this cosmic body was there and around it the other cosmic bodies, exerting their influence in the most varied ways. Seeds came in from outside and fructified the whole Moon-Earth. And if you could have lived at that time and set foot on this primeval cosmic body, you would not have said when you saw all sorts of drops coming in “It is raining,” as one says today. At that time you would have said, “Earth is being fructified.” There were seasons when the fructifying seeds came in from all directions, and other seasons when they matured and no more came in. Thus at that time there was a cosmic fructification. But the human being was not born, only fructified; he was only called forth by conception. The human being came out of the entire Earth-body, or Moon-body, as it was then. In the same way fructification came from the whole cosmic surroundings for animal and plant.

Now later through further cooling there came about a hardening of all that lived then as man, animal, and plant. There, in the Moon condition we still have to do with water, at most, a hardening through the cooling. Here on the earth the solid, the mineral appears. So now we have a fourth condition [see drawing]: this is our earth as we have it today, and it contains man, animal, plant, mineral.

Let us just look at what the bird, for instance, has become on the earth. During this time (Sun condition) the bird was still a sort of air-sack, it consisted of nothing but air, a mass of air floating along. Then during this time (Moon condition) it became watery, a thickened watery thing, and it hovered as a kind of cloud—only not like our clouds but already containing a form. What for us are only formless water structures were at that time forms. There was a skeleton form, but it was fluid. But now came the mineral element, and this was incorporated into what was only water structure. Carbonate of lime, phosphatic lime and so on went the length of the skeleton, forming solid bones. So at first we have the air-bird, then the water-bird, and at last the solid earth-bird.

This could not be the same in the case of man. Man could not simply incorporate into himself what only arose as mineral during his embryonic period. The bird could do this—and why? You see, the bird acquired its air form here (Sun condition); it then lived through the water condition. It is essential for it not to let the mineral come too close to it during its germinal state. If the mineral came to it too soon, then it would just become a mineral and harden. The bird while it is developing is still somewhat watery and fluid; the mineral, however, wants to approach. What does the bird do? Well, it pushes it off, it makes something around itself, it makes the eggshell around itself! That is the mineral element. The eggshell remains as long as the bird must protect itself inwardly from the mineral; that is, as long as it must stay fluid. The reason for this is that the bird originated only during the second condition of the earth. If it had been there during the first condition, it would now be much more sensitive to warmth than it actually is. Since it was not there at that time, it can now form the hard eggshell around itself.

Man was already present during the first condition of the earth, the warmth condition, and therefore he cannot now hold off the mineral while he is in the embryonic stage. He can't build an eggshell; he must be organized differently. He must take up the mineral element from the womb, and so we have mineral formation already in the embryo at the end of its development. Man must absorb some mineral from the womb; therefore, the womb must first possess the mineral that is to be absorbed. So in the case of man the mineral element is incorporated quite differently. The bird has air-filled bones; we human beings have marrow-filled bones, very different from the bones of the bird. Through the fact of our having this marrow a human mother is able to provide mineral substance to the embryo within her. But once the mineral element is provided, the human being is no longer able to live in the womb environment and must gradually be born. He must first have acquired mineral constituents. With the bird it is not a matter of being born, but of creeping out of the eggshell; man is born without an eggshell. Why? Because man originated earlier and therefore everything can be done through warmth and not through air.

From this you can understand the differences that still exist and that can be observed today. The difference between an “egg-animal” and such a being as man, and also the higher mammals, lies in the fact that man is far older than, for instance, the bird species, far older than the minerals. Therefore, when he is quite young, during the embryonic stage in the womb, he must be protected from the mineral nature and may only be given the prepared mineral that comes from the mother. In fact, the mineral element prepared in the mother's body must even for a certain time after birth still be given to him in the mother's milk! While the bird can be fed at once with external substances, man and the higher animals can only be nourished by what the mother's body provides.

What the human being has today in our present Earth condition from the mother's body he had during the previous cosmic condition from the air, from the environment. What he had around him during his whole life was of a milk nature. Our air today contains oxygen and nitrogen but relatively little carbon and hydrogen and particularly very, very little sulphur. They have gone. During the Moon condition it was different; in the surrounding air there were not only oxygen and nitrogen but also hydrogen, carbon, sulphur. That made a sort of milky pap around the Moon, a quite thin milk-pap in which life existed. Today man still lives in a thin milk-pap before he is born! For it is only after his birth that the milk goes into the breast; before birth it is in those parts of the female body where the human embryo is lying. That is an amazing thing, that processes in the mother's organism that belong to the uterus before birth afterwards go to the breast. And so the Moon condition is still preserved in man before he is born, and the actual Earth condition only comes at the moment of birth with the Moon-nature still present in the breast milk.

This is how things connected with the origin of the earth and mankind must be explained. If people do not press forward to a spiritual science, they simply cannot solve the mystery of why a bird slips out of an egg and can at once be nourished with external substances, while a human being cannot slip out of an egg and must come out of the womb to be nourished by mother's milk. Why is it? It is because the bird originated later and is thus an external being. Man originated earlier, and when he was undergoing the Moon-condition, he was not yet as hardened as the bird. Hence today too he is not yet so hardened; he must still be more protected, for he has within him much more of the original conditions.

Since people today on the whole can no longer think properly, they misunderstand what exists on earth as plant, animal, and man. Thus materialistic Darwinism arose, which believed that the animals were there first and that man simply developed out of the animals. It is true that in his external form man is related to the animals, but he existed earlier, and the animals really developed later after the world had gone through a transformation. And so we can say that the animals we see now present a later stage of an earlier condition when they were indeed more closely related to man. But we must never allow ourselves to imagine that out of the present animals a human being could arise. That is a thoroughly false idea.

Now let us look not at the bird species but at the fishes. The bird species developed for the air, the fish species for the water. Not until what we call the Moon condition were certain earlier air-like bird-beings transformed in such a way as to become fishlike—because of the water. To the bird-like beings were added the fish. One could say that the fish are birds that have become watery, birds received by the water. You can gather from this that the fish appeared later than the birds; they appeared when the watery element was there, that is, during the Old Moon period.

And now you will no longer be astonished that everything swimming about in a watery state during the Old Moon time looked fish-like. The birds looked fish-like in spite of flying in the air and being lighter. Everything was fish-like. Now this is interesting: if we look today at a human embryo on about the 21st or 22nd day after conception, what is its appearance? There it swims in a fluid element in the mother's body, and it looks really like a tiny fish! The human being actually had this form during the ancient Moon period and he has it still in the third week of pregnancy; he has preserved it.

You can say, then, that man worked himself out of this Old Moon form, and we can still see by the fish form he has in the embryo how he has worked himself out. When we observe the present world, everywhere we can see how formerly it all had life, just as we know of a corpse that it had life earlier. So today I have described to you the earlier condition of what we now have on earth as mineral. We look at a corpse and say that he can no longer move his legs, his hands, no longer open his mouth or his eyes—everything has become immobile; yet that leads us back to a human state when everything could be moved—legs, arms, hands—when the eyes could be opened. In just the same way we look around us at the corpse of the earth, the remains of a living body, in which man and animal still wander about, and we look back to the time when the entire earth was once alive.

But there is something more. I said that with conception the potentiality of the physical human being is there, and gradually the embryo develops. I also described what happens earlier, the processes in the female organism, what is pushed out in the monthly periods, and how a spiritual element is pushed out too. Now in this process there is always something of the nature of fever, even in a perfectly normal, healthy woman. This is because there is a warmth condition; it is the warmth condition that has been preserved from the ancient first condition that I have in the drawing called Saturn. This fever condition still endures.

One can say that the whole of our evolution proceeded from a kind of fever condition of our earth, which the cooling down finally brought to an end. Most people today are no longer feverish but thoroughly dry and matter-of-fact. Yet even now, when there is something not caused by outside warmth but appearing inwardly as warmth, giving us something of an inward life, now too we have a condition of fever.

So it is, gentlemen: One sees everywhere in the conditions of present mankind how they can be traced back to conditions of the past. Today I have told you how man, animal, plant, and mineral gradually evolved as the entire cosmic body with which all are connected grew more and more solid.

We will speak further of all this—today is Monday—on Wednesday at nine o'clock.²

• 1. “The little Plateau experiment,” worked out by the physicist J.A.E Plateau, 1801 – 1883. Compare the description by Vincent Knauer in his lectures, “The Main Problem of Philosophy,” Vienna and Leipzig 1892: “One of the nicest experiments is the Plateau experiment. A mixture of water and alcohol is prepared, having the exact weight of pure olive oil. Into this is poured a rather large drop of oil. This does not float on top of the liquid but sinks to the middle of it, in the form of a ball. A small disc of cardboard is then perforated in the center by a long needle and lowered carefully into the middle of the ball of oil, so that the edge of the cardboard becomes the ‘equator’ of the ball. The disc is now set into motion, at first slowly, then faster and faster. Naturally the movement is imparted to the ball of oil, and as a result of the strength of the movement, parts of the oil drop away and continue the movement separately for some time, first in circles, then revolving as tiny balls. In this way there arises something surprisingly similar to our planetary system: in the center the largest globe, like our sun, and moving around it smaller balls and rings, like our planets with their moons.”
• 2. This lecture was postponed to Thursday, July 3rd.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Today I would like to speak further about the creation of the earth and the origin of man. It has surely become clear from what I have already said that the earth was originally not what it is today, but was a kind of living being.

I described the condition that existed before our actual Earth condition by saying that warmth, air, and water were there but as yet no really solid mineral structures. Now you must not imagine that the water existing at that time looked like the present water. Our present water has become what it is by the separation of certain substances which were formerly dissolved in it. If you take a glass of ordinary water and put some salt in it, the salt dissolves in the water and you get a fluid-a salt solution, as one calls it-which is denser than the original water. If you put your fingers in it, it feels much denser than water. Now dissolved salt is relatively thin; with certain other substances one gets quite a thickish liquid.

The fluid condition, the water condition which existed in earlier ages of our earth was therefore not that of today's water. That did not exist, for substances were dissolved in the water everywhere. All the substances that you have today-the Jura limestone mountains, for instance-were dissolved; harder rocks that you can't scratch with a knife (limestone can always be scratched) were also dissolved in the water. During this Old Moon stage, therefore, one has to do with a thickish fluid that contained in solution all the substances which today are solid.

The thin water of today, which consists essentially of hydrogen and oxygen, was separated off later; it has developed only during the earth period itself. Thus we have as an original condition of the earth a densified fluid, and round about it a kind of air. But this was not the air of today; just as the water was not like our present water, so the air was not the same as our present air. Our present air contains essentially oxygen and nitrogen; the other substances which it still contains are present to a very slight degree. There are even metals still present in the air, but in exceedingly small quantities. For instance, there is one metal, sodium, that is everywhere in the air. Just think what that means—that sodium is everywhere, that a substance which is in the salt on your table is present everywhere in tiny quantities.

There are two substances—one is the sodium which I have just mentioned, which is present in small quantities in the air; then there is a substance of a gaseous nature which plays a great role when you bleach your laundry: chlorine. It causes the bleaching. Now the salt on your table is composed of sodium and chlorine, a combination of the two. Such things come about in nature.

You can ask how one knows that sodium is everywhere. It is possible today to tell from a flame what sort of substance is being burnt in it. For instance, you can get sodium in a metallic form and pulverize it and hold it in a flame. You can then find with an instrument called a spectroscope that there is a yellow line in it. There is another metal, for example, called lithium; if you hold that in the flame, you get a red line; the yellow is now not there, but there is a red line. One can prove with the spectroscope what substance is present.

But you get the yellow sodium line in almost every flame whenever you light one, without having put the sodium in yourself. Thus sodium is still in the air today. In earlier times immense quantities of metals and even of sulphur were present in the air. The air was quite saturated with sulphur. So there was a thickish water—if one had not been especially heavy one could have gone for a walk on it; it was like running tar—and there was a dense air, so dense that one could not have breathed in it with our present lungs. These were only formed later. The mode of life of the creatures that existed at that time was utterly different.

Now you must picture to yourselves that the earth once looked like this. (See drawing.) Had you found yourself there with your present eyes, you would not have discovered the stars and sun and moon out there, for you would have looked out into a vague ocean of air which reached an end eventually. If one could have lived then with the present sense organs, one would have seemed to be inside a world-egg beyond which one could see nothing. And you can imagine how different the earth looked at that time, like a kind of giant egg yolk, a thick fluid, and a thick air environment corresponding to the white of the present-day egg.

If you picture concretely what I have described, you will have to say: Well, beings such as we have today could not have lived at that time. Naturally, creatures like the elephant, and even human beings in their present form, would have sunk—nor could they have breathed. And because they could not have breathed, there were also no lungs as we know them now. Organs are formed entirely according to the function they are needed for. It is very interesting that an organ is simply not there if it is not needed. And so lungs only developed when the air was no longer so full of sulphur and metals as it had been in those ancient times.

Now to get an idea of what sort of creatures lived at that time, we must first look for those that lived in the thickish water. Creatures lived in that dense water that no longer exist today. Our present fish have their form because the water is thin. Even sea-water is comparatively thin; it contains much salt in solution, yet it is comparatively thin. But in that early time every possible substance was dissolved in the dense fluid, the dense ocean, of which, in fact, the whole earth, the Moon-sack consisted.

The creatures that were in it could not swim in our sense, because the water was too thick; nor could they walk, for one needs firm ground for walking. You can imagine that these creatures had a bodily structure somewhere between what one needs for swimming-fins—and what one needs for walking—feet. You know, of course, what a fin looks like—it has quite fine, spiky bones and the flesh in between is dried-up. So that we have a fin with practically no flesh on it and prickly bones transformed to spikes: that is a fin. Limbs that are suitable for moving forward on firm ground, that is, for walking or crawling, have their bones set into the interior and the outer bulk of flesh covers them. We can conceive of such limbs that have the flesh outside and the bones inside; there the bulk of flesh is the main thing. That belongs to walking, or swimming.

But at that time there was neither walking nor swimming, but something in between. These creatures therefore had limbs in which there was something of a thorn-like, nature, but also something like joints. They were really quite ingenious joints, and in between, the flesh mass was stretched out like an umbrella. You still see many swimming creatures today with a “swim skin”—a web—between the bones, and they are the last relics of what once existed in vast numbers. Creatures existed which stretched out their limbs so that the spreading flesh mass was supported by the dense fluid. And they had joints in their limbs—the fishes today have none—and with these they could direct their half-swimming, half-walking.

So we are made aware of animals which particularly needed such limbs. Today the limbs would look immensely coarse and clumsy; they were not fins, not feet, not hands, but clumsy appendages on the body, thoroughly appropriate for living in that thick fluid. This was one kind of animal. If we want to describe them further, we must say: They were especially organized in the parts of the body where these immense limbs could arise. All the rest of them was poorly developed. If you look at the toads and similar creatures existing today which sort of swim in the thick fluid of boggy marshes, then you have a feeble, shrunken reminder of the gigantic animals which lived once upon a time, which were heavy and clumsy but had diminutive heads like turtles.

Other creatures lived in the dense air. Our present birds have had to acquire what they need to live in our thin air; they have had to develop something of a lung nature. But the creatures that lived at that time in the air had no lungs; in that dense sulphurous air it would not have been possible to breathe with lungs. They absorbed the air as a kind of food. They could not have eaten in the present way, for it would all have remained lying in the stomach. Nor was there anything solid there to eat. All that they took in as food they took in out of the densified air. Into what did they take it? Well, they took it into what developed in them especially.

Now the flesh masses that existed in those so to say, gliding creatures (for they were not really walking and not really swimming), could not be used by the air-creatures, for these had to support themselves in the air, not swim in the dense fluid. It came about then that the flesh masses which had developed in the gliding, half-swimming creatures became adapted to the sulphurous condition of the air. The sulphur dried up these flesh masses and made them into what you see today as the birds' feathers. With this flesh mass or dried-up tissue the creatures could form the limbs they needed. They were not wings in the present sense, but they supported them in the air, and were something similar to the wings of today. They were very, very different in one respect: there is only one thing remaining from these wing-like structures, and that is moulting, when our present birds lose their feathers. These former creatures supported themselves in the dense air with the structures that were not yet feathers but rather dried-up tissue.

Moreover, these structures were actually half for breathing and half for taking in nourishment. What existed in the air environment was absorbed. These organs were not used for flying; these rudimentary “wings” were for absorbing the air and pushing it away. Today only moulting is left of this process. At that time, these structures served for taking in nourishment, that is, the bird puffed up its tissue with what it absorbed from the air and then gave out again what it did not need. So such a bird had a very remarkable structure indeed!

And so at that time there lived those terribly clumsy creatures below in the water-element—our present turtles are indeed fine princes by comparison! And above were these remarkable creatures. And whereas our present birds sometimes behave in the air unmannerly (which we take very much amiss), these bird-like creatures in the air of that time excreted continuously. What came from them rained down, and rained down especially at certain times. The creatures below did not yet have the attitude which we have. We are indignant if sometimes a bird behaves in an unseemly way. But those creatures below in the fluid element were not displeased; they sucked up into their own bodies what fell down from above. That was the fructifying process at that time. That was the only way in which these creatures which had originated there could continue to live. In those ages there was no definite coming forth of one animal from another, as we have now. One might say that actually these creatures lived a long time; they kept renewing themselves. One could call it a sort of world-moulting; the animals down below kept rejuvenating themselves again and again.

On the other hand, to the creatures above came what was developed by those below and this again was a fructification. Reproduction was at that time of a very different nature; it went on in the whole earth-body. The upper world fructified the lower, the lower world fructified the upper. The whole earth-body was alive. One could say that the creatures below and the creatures above were like maggots in a body-where the whole body is alive and the maggots in it are alive too. It was one life, and the various beings lived in a completely living body.

But later something occurred of very special importance. The condition I have described could have gone on for a long time; all could have remained as it was without becoming our present earth. The heavy, clumsy creatures could have continued to inhabit the living earth together with the creatures able to live in the air. But one day something happened. It happened that one day from this living earth, let me say, a young one, an offspring, was formed and went out into cosmic space. It came about in this way: a small protuberance developed, which wore away (see drawing) and at last split off. And a body was now out in the universe which had, instead of the earlier conditions, the surrounding air inside and the thick fluid outside. Thus an inverted body was separated off. Whereas the Moon-earth remained with thick fluid for its inner nucleus and thickish air outside, a body split off which now had the thicker substance outside and the thinner inside. And if one investigates the matter without prejudice, in honest research, one can recognize in this body the present moon. Today just as one can find sodium in the air, one can also learn the exact constituents of the moon, and so one can know that the moon was once in the earth. What circles round us out there was formerly within the earth, then separated off and went out into the cosmos.

With this a complete change took place, not only in what separated itself off but also in the earth itself. Above all, the earth lost certain substances, and for the first time the mineral element could be formed in the earth. If the moon-substances had remained in the earth, minerals could never have been formed, and there would always have been a state of moving fluid. The departure of the moon brought death for the first time to the earth and with it the dead mineral kingdom. But with this came also the possibility for the present plants, present animals and man in his present form to develop.

We can say, therefore, that out of the Old Moon arose the present earth together with the mineral kingdom. And now all forms had to alter. For with the departure of the moon the air became less sulphurous, approaching nearer to the present condition, and what had been dissolved in the fluid was now thrown out, forming mountain-like masses. The water grew more and more like our present water. On the other hand the moon, which has around it what we have in the interior of the earth, produced a thickish, horny mass on the outside. This is what we see when we look up. It is not like our mineral kingdom, but it is as if our mineral kingdom had become horn-like and turned into glass. It is extraordinarily hard, harder than anything horn-like that we have on earth, but it is not quite mineral. Hence the peculiar shape of the moon mountains; they actually all look like horns that have been fastened on. They are formed in such a way that one can even perceive what had been organic in them, what had once been a part of life.

Beginning with the separation of the moon, our present minerals were gradually deposited from the former dense fluid. Particularly active was a substance that in those ancient times existed in great amounts and consisted of silica and oxygen—we call it silicic acid. One has the idea that an acid must be fluid, because that is the form in which it is used today. But the acid which I mean here and which is a genuine acid is extremely hard and firm. It is, in fact, quartz! The quartz which you find in the high mountains is silicic acid. And when it is whitish and like glass it is pure silicic acid. If it contains other substances you get the quartz—or flint—that looks violet, and so on. That comes from the substances contained in it.

But the quartz which is so hard today that you can't scratch it with a knife, and if you hit your head on it, it would make a real hole in your head—this same quartz was dissolved in those ancient times, either in the thick fluid or in the finer surroundings of dense air. In addition to the sulphur there was an immense amount of dissolved quartz in the thick air around the earth. You can get an idea of the strong influence this dissolved silicic acid had at that time if you reflect on the composition of the earth today just here where we live. Of course you can say: There must be a great deal of oxygen, because we need it for breathing. Yes, there is a good deal of oxygen: 28 to 29% of the whole mass of the earth. But you must count everything. Oxygen is in the air and in many solid substances on the earth too; it is in the plants and animals. And if you put all this together it is 28% of the whole.

But silica, which when united with oxygen in the quartz gives silicic acid, is 48 to 49%! Think what that means: half of all that surrounds us and that we need, almost half of that is silica! When everything was fluid, when the air was almost fluid before it thickened—yes, then this silica played an enormous role, it was very important in that original condition. Nowadays these things are not understood rightly because concerning man's finer organization, people no longer have the right idea. They think today in a casual, crude way: Well, we're humans and we have to breathe. We breathe oxygen in and we breathe carbon dioxide out. We can't live if we don't breathe like this. But silica is still always contained in the air we inhale, genuine silica, tiny quantities of silica. Plenty is available, for 48 to 49% of our surroundings are made up of silica.

When we breathe, the oxygen goes down to the metabolism and unites with carbon, but at the same time it also goes up to the senses and the brain, to the nervous system: it goes everywhere. There it unites with the silica and forms silicic acid in us. If we look at a human being we see he has lungs and is inhaling air, that means, he is taking in oxygen. Below, the oxygen unites with carbon and forms carbon dioxide which he then exhales. But above, the silica is united in us with the oxygen and goes up into our head, as silicic acid—however, it does not become as solid up there as quartz. That, of course, would be a bad business if pure quartz crystals showed up inside your head—then instead of hair you would have quartz crystals, which perhaps would be quite beautiful and amusing! Still, that is not entirely fantasy—for there is a good deal of silicic acid in our hair, only it is still fluid, not crystallized. In fact, not only hair but practically everything in the nerves and senses contains silicic acid.

One discovers this when one first gets to know the beneficial, healing effects of silicic acid; it is tremendously helpful as a remedy. You must realize that the food received through the mouth into the stomach must pass through all manner of intermediate things before it comes up into the head, the eye, the ear, and so forth. That is a long way for the nourishment to go, and it needs helping forces to enable it to come up at all. It might be—in fact, it happens often—that a person has not enough helping forces and the foods do not work up properly into the head; then one must prescribe silicic acid which assists the nourishment to rise to the head and the senses. As soon as one sees that a patient is normal as regards stomach and intestines, but that the digestion does not go all the way to the sense organs, the head, or the skin, one must administer a silicic acid preparation as remedy. There one sees, in fact, what a very great role silicic acid still plays today in the human organism.

In that ancient condition of the earth, the silicic acid was not yet inhaled but was absorbed. The bird-like creatures in particular took it in. They absorbed it as they absorbed the sulphur, with the consequence that they became almost entirely sense organs. Just as we have silicic acid to thank for our sense organs, so at that time the earth as a whole owed its bird-like species to the working of the silicic acid that was present everywhere. Since, however, this did not come in the same way to those other creatures with the clumsy limbs, since the silicic acid reached those creatures less as they glided along in the dense fluid, they became in the main stomach- and digestion-creatures. There above in those days were terribly nervous creatures, aware of everything with a fine nervous sensitivity. On the other hand, those below in the thick fluid were of immense sagacity, but also of immense phlegmatism. They felt nothing of it; they were mere feeding-creatures, were really only an abdomen with clumsy limbs. The birds above were finely organized, were almost entirely sense organs. And indeed they were sense organs for the earth itself, so that it was not only filled with life but it perceived everything through these sense organs that were in the air, the fore-runners of our birds.

I tell you all this so that you may see how different everything once looked on the earth. All that was dissolved at that time became deposits later in the solid mineral mountains, the rock masses, and formed a kind of bony scaffolding. Only then was it possible for man and animal to form solid bones. For when externally the bony framework of the earth was formed, then bones began to form also inside the higher animals and man. What I have spoken of before was not yet firm, hard bone as we have today, but flexible, horn-like cartilage as it has still remained in the fish. All these things have in a certain way remained behind and atrophied, for in the earlier ages which I have described the life-conditions for them were there, but today the necessary life-conditions are no longer present.

We can say, therefore: In our modern birds we have the successors of the bird-like species which existed above in the dense air full of sulphur and silicic acid but now transformed and adapted to the present air. And in the amphibians of today, the crawling creatures, in the frogs and toads, but also in the chameleon, the snake, and so forth, we have the successors of the creatures that were swimming at that time in the dense fluid. The higher mammals and man in his present form came later.

Now this makes an apparent contradiction: I said to you last time that man was there first. But he lived in the warmth purely as soul and spirit; he was indeed already present in all that I have described, but not as a physical being. He was there in a very fine body in which he could support himself equally in the air and in the dense fluid. And neither he nor the higher mammals were visible as yet; only the heavy creatures and the bird-like air-creatures were visible. That is what must be distinguished when one says that man was already there. He was first of all, before even the air was there, but he was invisible, and he was still in an invisible state when the earth looked as I have now described. The moon had first to separate from the earth, then man could deposit mineral elements in himself, could form a mineral bony system, could develop such substances as protein, and so forth, in his muscles. At that time such substances did not as yet exist. Nevertheless, man has completely preserved in his present corporeal nature the legacy of those earlier times.

For the human being cannot now come into existence without the moon influence, coming now only from outside. Reproduction is connected with the moon, though no longer directly. It can therefore be seen that what is connected with reproduction—the woman's monthly periods—take their course in the same rhythmical periods as the phases of the moon, only they no longer coincide; they have freed themselves. But the moon influence has remained active in human reproduction.

We have found reproduction accomplished between the beings of the dense air and those of the dense fluid, between the bird-like race and the ancient giant amphibians. They mutually fructified one another because the moon was still within the earth. As soon as the moon was outside, fructification had to come from outside, because the fructifying principle lies in the moon.

We will continue from this point on Saturday³ at nine o'clock—if we can have that hour. The question put by Herr Dollinger is one that must be answered in detail, and if you have patience you will see how present-day life emerges from all the gradual preparatory conditions. The whole subject is indeed difficult to understand. But I believe one can understand if one looks at things in the way we have been looking.

• 3. This lecture was postponed to Monday, July 7th

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! You will have realized from all we've said that our earth in its present form is only the last remains of what was once essentially different. If we want to compare its earlier condition with anything, we can only compare it really—as you have seen—with what one has in an egg cell. Our earth today has a solid kernel of all sorts of minerals and metals. And we have the air around us, and in the air two substances which especially affect us-we could not live without them: oxygen and nitrogen. We can say therefore that in the earth we have a hard kernel of all kinds of substances, seventy to eighty of them, and around us the air-envelope containing mainly nitrogen and oxygen.

Nitrogen and oxygen, however, are only the main constituents. The air always contains other substances, though in very small quantities, such as carbon, hydrogen, sulphur, among others. But these are also the substances contained in the white of an egg, in the white of a hen's egg. Oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon and sulphur! The difference is merely that in the egg white the sulphur, hydrogen and carbon are closely combined with the oxygen and nitrogen, while in the outer air they are present in a much looser way. So the same substances are in the air that are in the hen's egg. The same substances are present in a much smaller amount in the yolk, and we can therefore say that when it hardens, densifies, it becomes what the earth is. One must observe such things if one wants to know what the earth once looked like.

Today, however, things are done in quite a different way, and in order that your judgment of what I am telling you here may not be confused by what is commonly accepted, I would like to give you a small view of this general knowledge. It agrees perfectly with what I say if only one considers it in the right way.

People today do not think about things as we have done here in the last two lectures. They say: Here is the earth; it is made of mineral substance. This mineral earth is convenient to investigate, so let us examine first what lies on top, what we walk on. Then if we make quarries, if we make railway cuttings and open up the ground, we find there are certain layers or strata of earth. The uppermost layer is the one on which we walk. If we go somewhere or other into the depths, we find deeper-lying strata. But these strata are not always lying so nicely above one another that we can say: the one is always above the other.

When you really examine the earth, here you have one stratum [See drawing-red], it is curved over, not level; another stratum below is also curved [green]. And above them comes the stratum on which we walk [white]. Now, as long as we remain on foot on this side of a hill we find an upper layer that could become good arable land if we would use the right manuring methods and so on. But if we are building a railway we may have to remove certain strata and by making these cuttings we come into the depths of the earth. That has led to the discovery that strata are superimposed on one another, not level, but they have been jumbled up in all sorts of ways.

But these strata are sometimes very remarkable. People have asked how one can determine the age of the strata—which layer is older. Of course the most obvious answer is this: When the strata lie above one another, then the lowest is the oldest, the next above, younger, and the one at the very top the youngest of all. But, you see, that is not always the case. In some places it is so, but not everywhere. And one can show in the following way why it is not the case everywhere.

We are accustomed, as you know, in our civilized lands to bury our domestic animals when they die, so that they may not be injurious to people. But if the human race were not so far evolved, what would happen with the animals then? Wherever the animal died, there it would lie. Now at first it remains on the surface. But, as you know, when it rains the soil gets washed up and after a time part of the decaying creature is mingled with the soil thrown up by the rain. There it will remain, and after some time the whole animal is penetrated with earth by the rain or by water that flows down over a slope and then the rest of the earth goes over the animal. Now someone can come along and say: Heavens! The earth looks so uneven there, I must dig and have a look! He need not dig very far, just a little, and then he finds what is left of the skeleton, let us say, of a wild horse. Then he says: Well, now I'm walking on a stratum that only appeared later, the one below was formed when there were wild horses like that. And one can know that that is the next stratum, that the age in which this man lives was preceded by an age in which these horses lived.

You see, what that man does is what the geologists have been doing with all the strata of the earth, ever since the time when they could be reached by quarries, railway cuttings, excavations, and so on. One learns in geology to investigate quarries everywhere, with a hammer or some other instrument, in order to record what is exposed in the mountains through landslides or something similar. One goes hammering everywhere, makes various statements and then one finds in some stratum the so-called fossils. Then one can say: There are strata beneath the ground that contain animals quite different from those of today. Then one discovers in excavating the earth's strata what the animals were like that existed in other ages.

This is nothing so very special, for people often underestimate the time it takes for something like this to happen. People find today in southern regions churches or other buildings just standing there. The people come along, do some digging for some reason or other, and Heavens! there's something under this church that is hard; that's not earth. They dig down and find a pagan temple underneath! What had happened? A relatively short time ago this surface layer on which the church or building stands was not there at all. It was pushed up by man, perhaps with the help of nature-forces, and underneath there is the pagan temple. What was once above, is now below. Layer upon layer has in fact been piled up in the earth. And one must find out, not from the way the strata lie, but from the nature of the fossils, how these animals and the various plants have come into the strata.

Then, however, the following comes about: You find one layer of the earth [See drawing below, yellow], you find another [green]; you are able for some reason or other to excavate [arrow], and if you look merely at the stratification, then it seems as if what I have marked green were the lower layer and what I have marked yellow were the upper layer. You cannot get in here at all, you cannot excavate, there is no railway, no tunnel nor anything else by which one can get in. You make a note that the yellow is the upper stratum, the green the lower. But you must not decide immediately, you must first look for fossils.

Now one very frequently finds fossils in the upper stratum which are earlier, of fish, for example, strange fish-skeletons which are earlier. And perhaps below, one finds interesting mammal skeletons which are more recent. Now the fossils contradict the strata, up above appear the older, the earlier; below, the more recent, the younger. One must realize how that has happened. You see, it is because some sort of earthquake, some inner movement has flung what was below up above the top layer. It is the same as if I were to lay a chair on the table and the original position would be: here the chair-back and here the table-top, and then through an earthquake the table would be turned over the chair.

One can perceive in the most varied instances that there has been an inversion, a turning upside down. And one can come to the following conclusions as to when the inversion took place: It must have happened later than when all the animals were alive, it must have happened after the fossils were formed, otherwise they would lie differently.

One comes in this way not to judge the strata simply as they lie one above the other, but one must be able to see how they have changed their positions. The Alps, this mighty chain of mountains stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the region of the Danube, this main mountain range in Switzerland, is not to be understood at all unless one can go into such things. For all the strata that were built up in the Alps have later been thoroughly jumbled up. There what was lowest often lies at the top, and what was at the top is lowest of all. One must first find out how all these shifts have taken place.

It is only when all this is taken into account that one can tell which are the oldest strata and which are the newest. Modern natural science, only going by the externals of research, then naturally says: Those strata are the oldest in which the remains of the very simplest animals and plants are found. Later on, animals and plants grew more complicated, and so we find the most complicated remains in the latest strata. In the oldest strata one finds fossils because the calcium or quartz structure of the animal has been preserved, while everything else has been dissolved. When one comes to the later strata the skeleton has been preserved.

Now there is another remarkable way in which fossils are formed. Sometimes this is very interesting. Picture that there once existed some simple type of ancient creature; it had a body, perhaps with tentacles in front. I am drawing it rather large; in the strata known to geology it will as a rule be smaller. Now this creature perishes lying on this piece of ground, and this particular soil does not penetrate and permeate the creature; it avoids, so to say, the acids in the body. Then something very remarkable occurs: the earth in which the animal lies approaches it from all sides and envelops it, and a hollow space is made in the shape of the animal. That has happened very frequently; such hollow spaces are formed, earth is shaped around the animal. But there is nothing inside; the soil has not been absorbed by the body, but round about, because the animal was scaly, a hollow space is formed. Later, the scales are dissolved and still later a brook winds through.

This then fills the hollow space with stony gravel, [green] and there within, a cast of the animal is finely modeled, by a quite different material. Such casts are particularly interesting, for there we don't have the animals themselves, but their casts.

However, you must not imagine that things are always so easy. Of present man, for instance, with his organism of soft substance, there is extraordinarily little left—nor of the higher animals. There are animals of which only the casts of their teeth have remained. One finds casts of the teeth of a kind of primeval shark which were formed in this way. One comes to realize that every animal has its own form of teeth and man has a different form. The dental formation is always in keeping with the whole structure of the creature. One must have the talent to imagine the appearance of the whole animal from the form of its teeth. So things are by no means simple.

But as one studies these strata one finds out how things really developed. And then it simply becomes clear that there was a time when such animals as we have now did not exist, when there were much, much simpler creatures, somewhat like our snails, mussels, and so on. But one has to know how much has remained of them. Let us imagine that the following could happen. Just suppose that a small boy who did not like to eat crab sneaked a crab from his parents' dinner-table and played with it. He is not caught and buries it in the garden. Now there is earth over it and the whole business is forgotten. Later the garden belongs to new owners; they dig about and in one place they see some funny little things looking like lime-shells. (You know about the so-called crab's eyes which are not eyes, but little lime-shells in the body of the crab.) Those are the only traces left.

Now one cannot say that those are fossils of some kind of animal; they are fossils of only part of the creature. Similarly in older strata, especially in the Alps, one finds some sort of fossil having that shell-like appearance. That is how they look; they no longer exist today but are found in the earlier strata. One must not suppose, however, that this had been the whole creature. One must assume that there was something around it that dissolved, and only a small piece of the animal is left.

Modern science goes into this very little. Why? Well, it simply says that in this mighty Alpine mass the layers have been mixed with one another, the lowest flung to the top, the uppermost to the lowest—that the strata show it. But can you imagine, gentlemen, that with the present earth-forces such massive mountains could be flung up in that way? The little that happens now on earth is by comparison a dancing through, one fleck lightly tossed on another—today that is all, a sort of dancing through!

If a man lived 720 years instead of seventy-two, he would experience in his old age that he was walking on ground a little higher than before. But we live too short a life. Just think if a fly that only lives from morning till evening were to relate what it experiences! Since it lives only in the summer, it would tell us of nothing but flowers, that there were always flowers. It would have no idea of what goes on in the winter; it would believe that each summer joined on to the one before. We human beings are certainly a little longer-lived than a one-day fly, but still we have a little of the fly nature with our seventy to seventy-two years! We see indeed little of what goes on. Even with the scanty forces prevailing today, there is no doubt that more happens than man usually sees. Yet, comparatively speaking, all that happens is that rivers flow along to the sea and leave alluvial soil behind. So a little soil is deposited, and this then reaches beyond the shores and the fields get a new stratum. That is comparatively little. When one considers how something like this great mountain mass of the Alps has been jolted and shaken through and through, it is obvious that the forces which are active today were active in quite a different way in earlier times.

But now we must try to picture how such a thing can happen. Take, for instance, an egg cell from some mammal. It looks at first quite simple, a nucleus in the center with an albuminous mass all around. Now suppose that the egg is fructified. When it is fructified, the nucleus changes into all sorts of little forms; it develops very strangely into a number of spirals that go up like tails. And then the moment these little coils arise, star-formed structures develop out of the mass. The whole mass comes into formation because there is life in it. What goes on there is very different from what goes on in our earth today. The upheavals and over-turnings that are taking place in the egg cell are the same as what once took place in the massive Alps!

What then is more natural than to say: Well, then the earth must once have been alive, or these convulsions of inverting and overthrusting could not possibly have occurred! The present form of the earth does in fact show us that in past ages when neither man nor higher animal existed, the earth itself was alive. This obliges us to say that the present dead earth has come forth from a living earth. Yet animals can only live on this present dead earth! Just think if the oxygen and nitrogen in the air had not separated off and had not condemned hydrogen, carbon and sulphur to an almost complete passivity: we would then have to breathe in something like egg white—for that was what surrounded the earth.

Now we could imagine—for anything can happen in this world!—that instead of our lungs, we had developed organs able to draw in an albuminous atmosphere like that. Today, of course, we can take it in as food through the mouth. Why could not a sort of lung-organ have evolved, up nearer to the mouth? Anything can originate in this world; any possible thing might come about—even though we would never guess at such changes from observing man's present body. But think, gentlemen—we look today into lifeless air. It has died. Formerly the albumen was living. The air has died because the sulphur, hydrogen and carbon have gone and the nitrogen and oxygen have therefore also perished. We gaze into light-filled air that has died, but this has allowed our eyes to be physical, as they are indeed physical. If everything in our surroundings were living, then our eyes would have to be living too. But if they were living, we would be unable to see with them, and we would always be in a state of unconsciousness: just as a person becomes unconscious when there begins to be too much life in his head, when instead of the regularly developed organs he has all sorts of growths. He is then unconscious intermittently, and later it becomes so severe that he lies there as if he were dead. Likewise in our original condition on the earth, as it was then, we could not have lived consciously. The human being could only awake to consciousness as the earth gradually died. And so mankind evolves on an earth that is dead.

So it is, gentlemen! And this is true not only of nature but also of civilization. If you think back to what I said just now—that below the earth there could be pagan temples and above Christian churches—you will see that the Christian churches are related to the pagan temples just as the upper strata to the lower, only that in one case we have to do with nature, in the other with culture. But one will not understand how the Christian element evolved if one does not observe that it evolved out of paganism as its foundation. In culture too we have to consider these strata.

Now I have said that the human being has actually been there all the time, but as a spiritual being, not a physical being. And that again leads us to look for the real reason why man did not evolve as a physical being earlier. We have said that in the air today there are nitrogen and oxygen, with carbon, hydrogen and sulphur to a lesser degree. In our breathing we ourselves unite the carbon that is in us with the oxygen we inhale and exhale the two together as carbon dioxide. In our human existence we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide; our life consists of that. We would long, long ago have filled the earth and the air of the earth with carbon dioxide had there not been something else on the earth: the plants. They have the same hunger for carbon that we have for oxygen. They take up the carbon dioxide eagerly, hold on to the carbon and give out the oxygen again.

You see, gentlemen, how wonderfully these things complement each other! We human beings need the oxygen out of the air, we inhale it, unite it with the carbon we have within us and exhale carbon and oxygen together as carbon dioxide. The plants breathe this in and breathe the oxygen out again, and so there is always oxygen in the air.

Well, this is true today but in human evolution on the earth it was not always like that. When we find the fossilized creatures that lived long ago, we realize that they could not have been like our modern animals and plants, particularly not like our present plants. All the primeval plants must have been much more like our sponges, mushrooms, algae. There is a difference between our mushrooms and our other present plants. The latter take in the carbon and form their body from it. When they sink into the ground, their body remains as coal. The coal we mine today is the remains of plants.

All the research we are able to pursue into the kinds of plants that originally existed tells us the following: Our present plants, including the plants which are now providing us with coal, are built up from carbon. But much earlier plants were formed not from carbon but from nitrogen. That was possible because just as carbon dioxide is exhaled today by animal and man, in ancient times a combination of carbon and nitrogen was exhaled. That is prussic acid, the terribly poisonous hydrocyanic acid fatal to all life today. This poisonous prussic acid was once exhaled, and nothing that exists today could then have arisen. The early mushroom-like plants took in the nitrogen and formed their body from it. The creatures about which I spoke last time, the bird-like beings and the heavy, coarse animal-beings, breathed out this poisonous acid, and the plants around them took the nitrogen to form their plant-body. Here, too, we can see that substances still existing today were used in quite a different way in ancient times.

I spoke of this once before to those of you who have been here for some time. I related how in 1906 I had to give some lectures in Paris⁴ on the evolution of the earth, the origin of man, and so forth. The subject led me to say: Can anything in this world show that carbon and oxygen have not always had the role they play today, that nitrogen once had that role, and that once the atmosphere consisted of prussic acid, of hydrocyanic acid?

Now you know that there are old people and young children. Well, if a man of seventy stands here and a child of two next to him, they are both human beings; they stand beside each other, and the one who is now seventy was like the two-year-old sixty-eight years ago. Things of different ages stand side by side. And it is the same in the universe; there, too, the older and the younger are side by side. Our earth, from what I have just now described and what you can still see today, our earth is a greybeard, an ancient fellow, almost dead already-if one does not count the life newly sprung up, one can call it almost dead. But at its side in the universe there are again younger forms which will only later become what our present life is. For instance, we must regard the comets as one of these. We can know, therefore, that since the comets are younger, they must still have conditions that belong to a younger age. The comets are to the earth what the child is to the old man. And if the earth once had prussic acid, the comets must now have it, they must have hydrocyanic acid! If with today's body one were to touch a comet, one would instantly die. It is diluted prussic acid that is in them.

I said in Paris in 1906 that this follows from the premises of spiritual science. Those who acknowledge spiritual science accepted my statement even though it astonished them. Then later, a fairly long time afterward, a comet made its appearance. By that time people had got the necessary instruments and it was then found by ordinary scientific methods that comets do have cyanide, prussic acid, as I had said in Paris in 1906. So it was confirmed.

Naturally, when people hear of this, they call it a coincidence: Oh sure, Steiner made that statement in Paris, and then there was the discovery—just a coincidence. They say this because they know nothing else. But I have now told you why one must take it for granted that there is prussic acid in the comets. It was no accident, it was genuine science by which one first reached this knowledge. Physical research only confirmed it later. People realize now that this is true for all that anthroposophy sets forth; for everything is confirmed later. Quite a number of things will be discovered today outside the Anthroposophical Movement that were already given out many years ago by anthroposophy in a rather different way.

Yes, there are many other things that could be carefully investigated today by science. I am always saying that if people could really travel to a star, they would be amazed to find it different from the modern ideas about it determined by their life on earth. They imagine that it contains a glowing gas. But that is not at all what is found out there. Actually, where the star is, there is empty space, empty space that would immediately suck one up. Suction forces are there. They would suck you up instantly, split you to pieces. If people would work with the same consistent research and the same unprejudiced thinking as we do here, they would also come to see with intricate spectroscopes that there are not gases out there, but negative suctional space.

Some time ago I gave certain individuals the task of investigating the sun and stars with the spectroscope, simply in order to prove by external methods that the stars are hollow spaces, not glowing gases. That can be proved. The persons to whom I gave this task were tremendously enthusiastic when they started: “Oh! then we shall get somewhere!” But sometimes enthusiasm fades away; they delayed too long. And then a year-and-a-half ago news came from America that people were starting to investigate the stars and were gradually finding out that they were not glowing gases but hollowed-out space! It is no disaster, of course, for such a thing to happen. But naturally, it would have been more useful to us – externally—if we had done it. But it doesn't matter, as long as truth comes to light.

On the other hand, however, it can be seen through just such things that anthroposophy really wants to work in collaboration with ordinary science. So it would also like to work with ordinary science on the strata of the earth. One thoroughly accepts what science has to say about the upheavals and overturnings in the Alps. But one cannot go along with the scientists when they assume that these upheavals were caused by forces that are still existing today. The fact is that there were life-forces there then; only life-forces could have flung and tossed these strata of living substance through one another. Anthroposophy already incorporates ordinary science and extends far beyond it, but science always wants to stop whenever it is too lazy to approach things more closely.

So—we will continue on Wednesday at nine o'clock.

• 4. Paris, May 25-June 16, 1906: L'Esotérisme chrétien / Esquisse d'une cosmogonie psychologique, Paris 1957.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Perhaps today we can finish what we began last time.

I explained to you that we must form a mental picture of how the earth has gradually evolved and how man was always present spiritually. Physically—that is, in a body—man first appeared, as we have seen, when the earth had become dead, when the earth itself had lost its life. As I told you last time, it was only a short while ago that people thought of the earth in such a way that they looked for the fossils in it in order to determine the age of its strata. Conceptions such as are now held by science have been formed only comparatively recently, and we have seen to what an extent these conceptions are really false and cannot stand up in face of the facts.

Now you must realize that when people dig and burrow into the earth as I described to you, when they examine something like the Alpine range with its jumbled strata, they then find quite distinct fossilized plants and animals in every single layer. And the plants and animals that fill the earth today, have appeared only recently. Earlier plant and animal forms were different from the plants and animals of the present day.

That the earth has not evolved simply and gradually, with one stratum slowly piling up over another until the earth was finally formed, can be seen not only from the fact that the Alps are jumbled together but also from the following: There were once animals similar to our elephants but larger. Our elephant is certainly large enough, but these animals were still more powerful, with still thicker skins. Still heavier pachyderms once lived. This is acknowledged because they have been found in northern Siberia where Russia stretches over into Asia. All these remarkable animals, these mammoths, have been found as complete animals with their flesh in perfect condition.

You see, one can keep animals with their flesh still well-preserved if one puts them into ice. And these animals were actually in ice! Near the Arctic Ocean where Siberia approaches the North Pole, there were these animals; they are still there today, as fresh as if they had been caught yesterday by giants and put in ice to be preserved! Yet we must say, such animals do not live today, these are primeval animals. Also they cannot possibly have perished slowly; today they are still there as complete animals. The only explanation can be that when they were alive, suddenly a mighty water catastrophe occurred, and the water froze in the region of the North Pole and immediately overwhelmed them.

We see from this that in earlier times there were quite extraordinary happenings on the earth which cannot be compared to present-day situations. And if we look at the Alps, we have to think that these happenings cannot have gone on through millions of years but must have taken place in a comparatively short time-that everything in the earth must have bubbled up and been alive as it is in one's stomach after one has eaten and begins to digest. But that can only take place in something living. The earth must have been living. And the forces that were in the earth have been left behind. There were then large, heavy animals. Our slighter, more supple animals were formed after the earth itself had died and was itself no longer a living being. These large elephants, these mammoths, were, so to speak, like lice on the old body of the earth and were destroyed by a single wave that turned to ice.

You can understand how well this agrees with what I have said about our present earth being a kind of world-corpse. And man could develop only when the latest conditions came about on the earth.

I would now like to speak of something that will show you how the earth has altered—and altered comparatively recently. If we think of the earth, on the one hand we have America; on the other hand we have Europe: Norway, Scotland, England, Ireland, and also France and Spain, and Italy and Germany up to the Baltic Sea. Now if we travel today, let us say, from Liverpool to America, first we pass over a stretch of land, then we travel over the Atlantic Ocean. Now I want to tell you something. Over there (Africa is here below) certain plants and certain animals are everywhere (and, of course, we must include small animal life); here are also plants and animals. If today we look at the plants and animals living on the western coasts of Europe and Africa, and then look at the other side, the eastern coast of America, we discover that these plants and animals are in some way related to one another. They are different, but they are related. Why? They are related because ... well, today it is like this: down below is the floor of the ocean, above is the water of the Atlantic, then here is Africa. How the plants and animals came to be here and how they came to be there can only be explained if once there was land here everywhere, high land, where the animals could cross over and the plants scatter their seeds, not over an ocean, but over land. Thus where today there is an immense sea, an immense ocean, between Europe and America, there was once land. The ground has sunk. Everywhere where ground sinks, water appears immediately. If you dig down to a certain depth anywhere in the earth, water immediately appears.

So we must assume that the land there has sunk. For instance, this is interesting: here is Italy, here is Ravenna—now if one walks from the city of Ravenna to the sea it takes more than an hour, but while walking from Ravenna to the sea one finds everywhere mussels and sea shells on the ground. That is proof that the sea was once there. And Ravenna, now an hour from the sea, was once right on it!—the sea was its border. But there the land rose, was raised up, and the water flowed away from it. If land is raised especially high, it becomes desolate; then it becomes cold, as happens in the mountains. One such region that has become cold is the region of Siberia. Siberia shows through all its plant growth and so forth that at one time its land was much lower, that it has risen tremendously.

And so you can see the land continually rises and sinks in certain parts of the earth: it rises ... sinks ... and we see that land and water on the earth are distributed at different times in the most varied ways. If one looks at the rocks of the British Isles, of England, Scotland and Ireland, looking at the layers themselves one finds that England has risen and sunk four times in the course of its existence! When it was above, certain plants grew until it sank. Naturally when it rose again, it was barren waste. It covered itself with quite different plants and animals, and today one can still see that it has risen and sunk four times.

Thus the earth is in continual movement. In very ancient times it was much greater, much more powerful movement. If today everything were in movement as it was in those times, it would be really sinister for mankind. The last accounts of mighty earth movements are those of the Flood, and those have come down to humanity only in legendary form. But the Flood was only a small matter compared with the gigantic upheavals that once took place on the earth.

Therefore, gentlemen, the question surely arises: How then did human beings ever arrive on this earth at all?

How did man ever appear? And as to that, there have been the most diverse ideas. The most convenient opinion people have formed is this, that there were once ape-like animals which gradually perfected themselves and became human beings. That is the view science held in the nineteenth century. It no longer holds that view; but the general public, who always straggle along after science, still, of course, believe it. Now the matter is like this: How could anyone imagine that man, physical man as he now is on the physical earth, could have fashioned himself? There was, so to speak, a great fuss and tremendous enthusiasm when at the end of the nineteenth century a learned traveler, Dubois,⁵ discovered parts of a skeleton in East Asia, in strata of the earth where up to that time it had been thought that man could not have lived. There were parts of a skeleton believed to be a human skeleton: the upper part of a thigh, a few teeth and pieces of the upper part of a skull. That is what Dubois found over there in Asia. Such a thing must, of course, have a suitable name, so he called these remains Pithecanthropus erectus.

People had the idea that this creature was representative of an ape-like species from which mankind then gradually evolved. And then people developed various ideas of how man did evolve in this way. Some say that an ape-like race had come into such conditions that it had been forced to work, and so the feet, the ape-like climbing feet, were transformed into straight feet, and the climbing forefeet into human hands ... and so it became completely changed. On the other hand, some people say: No, that cannot be, for if this ape-man had come into such unfavorable conditions, he would simply have died, then he could not have transformed himself. Rather this ape-man must have lived in a kind of paradise where he was able to maintain himself and develop quite freely, where he was protected. You see how far apart the views are! But none of this holds good when we undertake a real examination of the facts of which we have spoken.

Let us go back to them again. There was once a large expanse of land where today there is the Atlantic Ocean over which one travels when going from Europe to America-large areas of land. But you see, if we investigate the fossils found here under the earth, and from them deduce what the earlier forms and species were-of both plants and animals-we discover: There it cannot have been like this! The earth between our present Europe and America must have been much softer, not solid mineral as it is today, and the air must have been much denser, always misty, containing much water and other substances. Thus there was much softer ground and much denser air. In such a region, if today there could be one on earth, we could not live for a week, we would die at once. But as it cannot have been so very long ago, 10,000 to 15,000 years, human beings must, of course, have lived at that time. So they cannot have been like today's human beings.

Present-day man has his solid bone structure only because there are hard minerals outside. To our calcareous bones belong also the calcareous mountains with which we continually exchange lime; we drink it in our water, and so forth. In that earlier time there was not yet such a solid bony skeleton. Human beings could have had only soft cartilage, like sharks. Also they could not have breathed through lungs as we do today. At that time they had to have a kind of swimming bladder and a kind of gills, so that the human being who lived then was in his external form half man and half fish. We cannot escape the fact that man then looked quite different-half man and half fish. And if we go back to still earlier times we find that man was much, much softer. If we go still further back he was watery, quite fluid. So naturally no fossils were formed then; man was just absorbed into the rest of the earth's fluids. So that is the way we have grown into what we are today. When we are still in our mother's womb, we are a little bag of fluid. But that is something very small. In those times we were huge, great fluid or jelly-like beings. And the further we go back in earth evolution, the more liquid man becomes and the more he is really a soft jelly-like mass—not formed out of present-day water, for out of that, naturally, no man could be made—but out of a substance somewhat like albumen. Out of such a substance it was possible for man to be formed.

So we go back to an age when there was neither the present human form, nor the present elephants, nor rhinoceroses, nor lions, nor cows, nor oxen, nor bulls, nor kangaroos—none of these were yet there. On the other hand we can say there were fish-like creatures-not like present-day fish, but already man-like—beings half man, half fish, that one could—after all—call man. There were all these. But there were still none of the animal forms of today.

Then the earth gradually changed into the form it has today. The floor of the Atlantic Ocean sank ever more and more; the boggy, slimy, albumen-like condition gradually changed into the present water and gradually brought about a change in these fish-men. But the most diverse forms arose. The more imperfect of these fish-men became kangaroos, those a little more advanced became deer and cattle, and the most perfect became apes or men. You see from this that man did not descend from apes: man was there, and all the mammals really descended from him, from these human forms in which man remained imperfect. So we must say that the ape descended from man, not that man descended from the ape. That is so, and we must be quite clear about it.

You see, you could make it clear to yourselves through the following: Imagine a really clever man who has a small son. This son suffers from hydrocephalus and is very stupid. Let us say that the clever man is about forty-five and the small son seven or eight. The boy turns out to be stupid. Now could anyone say, that because the boy is a small, imperfect human being the mature man, the clever, perfect person is descended from the small, imperfect person? It would be nonsense! The fact is that the small, imperfect being is descended from the clever one; the other assertion would be a mistake. This mistake was made when it was thought that apes, the man-like beings who were left behind, are man's ancestors. They are the men left behind, so to speak, the imperfect specimens of mankind left behind. We might say that in this matter science pursued a path that led it deeply into error, and simple men could not accept it. We need only remember the story of the small schoolboy. The teacher, caught in modern science, announced: “Men are descended from monkeys.” The boy came home with this piece of wisdom. The father said: “You silly! Perhaps you did, but I didn't!” You see, there was the naive man versus Darwinism. Science is often not as clever as a naive man. We must admit that.

And so we may say: All that lives out in the world as animal is descended from the primeval being that was neither animal nor man but something between. The one remained imperfect, the other became more perfect, became man. Of course now people come along and say: Yes, but earlier human beings were far less perfect than they are today; in earlier times they had a skull with a lower forehead, a nose like this—the Neanderthal man, or the humans found in Yugoslavia. (They are seldom found and we must not think that such skeletons lie around everywhere; only a few have been found.) Contemporary man usually has a lofty forehead and looks different. Now people say: Those primitive men with the low foreheads were naturally stupid, for the forehead is the seat of the intellect, and only men who attain to high foreheads have proper intelligence—therefore primitive men were without intelligence, and of course those who came later with prominent foreheads had a proper mind.

You see, if we had looked at the men of Atlantis, those men who lived before the floor of the Atlantic Ocean sank and the sea rose, we would have found that they had quite a thin skin, a little soft cartilage—like a net—as covering for the head, and all the rest of them was water. If you look today at someone with hydrocephalus, he does not have a backward sloping forehead, but a high, prominent one, so the Atlantean head was much more like the hydrocephalic head. Imagine that the Atlantean had this head, but watery, such as we see today in an embryo. Think of the earth and of how the ground sank where the Atlantic Ocean is now, and thus the Atlantic Ocean came into being. Europe and Asia rose more and more; there everything rose. In America the earth rose also, while in between it sank. The earth changed. Men acquired harder bones. So when we go back into earlier times when the area of the Atlantic Ocean was still solid land, men had soft bones, just cartilage; there was still water in them. And man could also think with the water. Now you will say: For heaven's sake! now he expects us to believe that people of that time did their thinking not with a solid brain, but a watery one! But indeed, gentlemen, none of you think with your solid brain! You all think with the water in which your brain floats; it is superstitious to imagine that you think with your solid brain. Not even the obstinate thickheads who can grasp nothing but their own ideas—ideas which they accepted in early youth—not even they think with their solid brain; they also think with the brain water, although with the denser parts of it!

But then came the time when this kind of water, this slimy, albuminous water, disappeared. Men could no longer think with it; the bones were stunted, and that low skull appeared. It was only later—in Europe and over in America—that this grew out again to a high forehead. So we must say, the old Atlanteans had very high foreheads in their watery heads. Then, as I said, when the water disappeared, low foreheads appeared at first, and then they gradually grew out again into high foreheads. It was just in a transitional age that men looked like the Neanderthal man, or like the remains found in the south of France or in Sicily. They belonged to a transitional human being who lived in the coast areas where the ground gradually sank. The humans we dig up today in the south of France are not the primitive men but the later men. They are ancestors but of a later period.

And it is interesting that, belonging to the same period in which these men with a flat, low forehead must have lived, we find caves where there are things from which we can assume that the men of that time did not live in houses, but in places in the earth where they dug themselves in. But for that the earth must first have become hard. So at the time when the earth was not yet quite so hard as it is today, or at least somewhat less hard, people burrowed into the earth to make their dwelling-places, and these we still find today. And the most remarkable things we find in them are paintings and drawings, which are comparatively simple but which reproduce quite skillfully animals living at that time. Today people are really astonished that those men with flat foreheads, with undeveloped heads, could have made those drawings. The drawings are clever in one respect and crude in another. How can we explain this? It is because men had once lived with high, still fluid foreheads and had already had art; perhaps they were able to do much more than we can; this art then atrophied. And what we find in the caves are just the last remnants of what men were still able to do. So we can see that once men did not live merely as animals, gradually perfecting themselves to their present condition, but that before the present human race was here on earth with its solid bones, there was another human race with more cartilage, a race that already possessed a high culture and civilization.

I have told you that birds were also different in ancient times from what they are now. Birds once consisted entirely of air; later, they built a body around this. Hence their bones are filled with air. The birds were once creatures consisting only of air, but of dense air. And the present birds formed their feathers and so on when our kind of air originated. Just think: if our birds had schools and a culture (they do not, of course, have them, but we can use our imagination), these would have to look different from ours! Take, for instance, the houses we build. These constitute a large part of our civilization. But birds can't build houses—they would fall down; neither can birds become sculptors. They can't even sew—that also belongs to civilization—for if they let go of the needle, it would fall right down. If birds had a civilization and a culture, what would it be like? It would have to be above in the air. But it could not include anything solid; they couldn't have a writing desk, or anything else. At most, they could make signs that would be gone the moment they made them. But if the others understood the signs—well, that would be a culture.

Now imagine an eagle that was a very clever creature, an eagle able to make a statue of an owl—yet he would have to make it in the air only; nothing of it would be there if one looked for it. Now supposing the owl came—a particularly vain owl—and ordered the eagle to make an owl-statue of itself. He would make it very beautifully, very beautifully. Perhaps he would make it just when there was a little cloud, so that he had some denser air—even so, it would disappear at once. Other birds could fly to see it, other owls also, and admire it. Birds can't do that today! You may be quite certain that the eagle will not be making a statue of an owl! But the beings who were once men with a soft structure, soft bodies, had a culture and civilization like that. When, for instance, there was land where the Atlantic Ocean is now, then things could be more or less firm, although the land always sank again, but it was already denser. This was preceded by a thinner condition when there was only a culture and civilization that men made in signs that disappeared at once. So we must imagine that these men shaped everything once upon a time, but nothing lasted; it was there in very delicate matter. And when later they began to shape things that were more coarse, these were clumsy. Even today it is easier to shape something in soft wax than in harder clay. And when men had their whole culture and civilization in only a sort of dense air, they had joy in making something even if it vanished at once.

But now, gentlemen, you can see that we have gone very far back and have found human beings who really consisted only of dense air. Imagine it like this: there is a man of dense air, who has the appearance of a cloud, only not so irregularly formed, for he has what definitely looks like a face, a head, and limbs. But it is something very spiritual; it is almost a ghost! If you met something like it today, you would take it for a ghost, and indeed a very peculiar ghost. It would look somewhat like a fish—and then again somewhat like a man. We were once like that. So now we have already arrived at a stage when man was really quite spiritual. And the farther we go back, the more we find that man as spirit dominates matter. We present human beings can do this only with the softest elements of matter. If we take a piece of bread into our mouth, we can bite it and make it liquid—for all food has to become liquid if it is to pass into the human body. Just think! You make bread liquid; it goes into the esophagus, into the stomach, spreads out into the blood. What really becomes of that piece of bread? Now that is a remarkable story.

Suppose you have a man before you, the human form, with stomach and esophagus, reaching up to the mouth. Now the man eats a piece of bread. He takes it into his mouth; there it gradually becomes liquid; here in the stomach it is made still more liquid, now it spreads out into the blood, it goes everywhere, becomes thin, thinner, and is dispersed.

And so I have a piece of bread in my hand. I eat it; after a while what does it look like? After three hours when it has spread out into the blood, into the whole body, it is like this: That piece of bread has itself become a man. Thus everything you eat as food is transformed into man, only you do not notice it. You do not notice that really everything you take into yourself continually becomes yourself. You could not be a human being if you did not continually make yourself anew. For what you eat today, the ninth of July, becomes an extremely rarefied human being; something of it remains, the rest passes away. And so it is the next day, and the next; in this way your body is renewed. Every seven years it is completely renewed.

Gentlemen, today we need this solid body so that we can continually make this new man. But earlier men did not have this solid body. They could do this out of their souls; what they took in they could so shape that it looked like the man of that time. You have to imagine that they had no need of muscles and bones, but by means of the soul they could so transform their food that it became man-like. So it was, truly. Man through his spirit governed matter, substance, and shaped his own form, although it was much more delicate. But there he was: a man-like hovering cloud. This form is still in us today, but we have a frame for it: bones and muscles. They must be there as the frame. And in reality when we take food, we still today make this human form. Once upon a time man was as tenuous, as rarefied as the form we create in ourselves today when we eat.

We also breathe air. First it is outside; then it is in us. And the air too spreads out everywhere through our blood. A man of air is formed today throughout the entire human being. The man of air comes into being. So if I tell you that man was once aeriform before he became densified and crystallized through his bones, I am not telling you something that does not still occur today. Every time you take a breath you still form this man of air. In earlier times he alone existed; only later were his solid, thick, earthly parts built in. So we come back to the fact that what we see today as firm, solid matter was once spiritual through and through. Therefore it is nonsense to say that once the earth consisted only of gas, and that this gas through its own forces formed itself into the human beings and animals of today. Instead we can see that men and animals and everything existing now were themselves once gaseous and aeriform and have undergone a metamorphosis.

So we find a condition of our earth that must once have been like this: You see, there was this island where water is today. Where we now travel over water there was once land. At that time the land that is now Europe was deeply submerged; it rose only later; only in isolated places was it above the surface. Now we come to Europe. There we now have ground that earlier was deeply submerged, the top of which was covered with boggy water. We come to Asia, which was completely covered with swamps. Over in America there were also swamps. Those regions which today are solid earth were then sea, and where there is sea today there was land. The human beings who lived there looked quite different from present-day man; they were thin, delicate. Only when the present lands rose out of the water and the earlier lands sank and became sea—only then did the present human race appear and the present-day animals in the form they now bear. This is connected with the inner life of the earth.

Today it all happens more subtly. Today the lands no longer rise and sink so violently, but they still continue slightly to rise and sink. Anyone who at the present time studies maps—even of Switzerland—maps which are only a few centuries old, sees a lake somewhere and today some place may be quite far from that lake, but we know that just as Ravenna was once on the sea, so this place must once have been on the lake. Lakes dry up and become smaller, even today-only the process is slower than it used to be. But because the land surfaces and the sea floors rise and fall, men and animals are continually changing, continually transforming. But this proceeds more slowly than it used to do.

That is what I wanted to tell you. You see now how the present human race has developed. Next time we will add something historical, because once the human race was on earth in its present form, history began. Only when they were obliged to be hunters, farmers, shepherds did human beings develop history. That is where we can still add a piece of history to what we have been able to say today about the origin of the world and man. It is good that Herr Dollinger raised the question. We have been able to speak about it in detail and, as I have said, next time we will add a little history.

• 5. Eugen Dubois, 1858–1940, Dutch military doctor and geologist. Discovered remains of Java man, a creature intermediate between ape and man. See his publication Pithecanthropus erectus, eine menschenähnliche Übergangsform auf Java, Batavia, 1894.

Rudolf Steiner: Gentlemen! I mentioned our wish to look further into the history that is connected with our present study of the world. You have seen how the human race gradually built itself up out of the rest of mighty Nature. It was only when conditions on the earth were such that men were able to live upon it—when the earth had died, when it no longer had its own life—that human and animal life could develop in the way I have pictured.

Now we have also seen that in the beginning, human life was actually quite different from what it is today, and had its field of action where the Atlantic Ocean is now. We have to imagine that where the Atlantic Ocean is today, there was formerly solid ground. Today we have Asia on the one hand; there is the Black Sea, below it is Africa, then there is Russia and also Asia. On the other hand, there is England, Ireland, and over there also America. Formerly all this in between was land, and here very little land; over here in Europe at that time there was actually a really huge sea. These countries were all in the sea, and when we come up to the north, Siberia was sea too; it was still all sea. Below where India is today, the land was appearing a little above the sea. Thus we actually have some land there, and on the other side again land. Where today we find the Asian peoples, the inhabitants of the Near East and those of Europe, there was sea—the land only rising up later. The land, however, went much farther, continuing right on to the Pacific Ocean where today there are so many islands, Java, Sumatra, and so on; they were all part of the continent formerly there—all this archipelago. Thus, where now the Pacific Ocean is, there was a great deal of land with sea between the two land masses.

Now the first peoples we are able to investigate have remained in this region, here, where the land has been preserved. When we took around us in Europe we can really say: Ten, twelve or fifteen thousand years ago the earth, the ground, became sufficiently firm for men to dwell upon it. Before that, only marine animals were there which developed out of the sea, and so on. If at that time you had looked for man, he would have been where the Atlantic Ocean is today. But over there in Asia, in eastern Asia, there were also men earlier than ten thousand years ago. These men naturally left descendants, and the descendants are very interesting on account of their culture, the most ancient on earth. Today these are the peoples called the Japanese and Chinese. They are very interesting because they are the last traces, so to say, of the oldest inhabitants of the earth.

As you have heard, there was, of course, a much older population on earth that was entirely wiped out. That was the humanity who lived in ancient Atlantis, of whom nothing remains. For even if remains did exist, we would have to dig down into the bed of the Atlantic Ocean to find them. We would have to get down to that bed—a more difficult procedure than people think—and dig there, and in all probability find nothing. For, as I have said, those people had soft bodies. The culture which they created with gestures was something that one cannot dig out of the ground-because there was nothing that endured! Thus, what was there long before the Japanese and Chinese is not accessible to ordinary science; one must have some knowledge of spiritual science if one wants to make such discoveries.

However, what has remained of the Chinese and Japanese peoples is very interesting. You see, the Chinese and the older Japanese—not those of today (about whom I am just going to speak)—the Chinese and Japanese had a culture quite different from ours. We would have a much better idea of it if our good Europeans had not in recent centuries extended their domination over those spheres, bringing about a complete change. In the case of Japan this change has been very effective. Although Japan has kept its name, it has been entirely Europeanized. Its people have gradually absorbed everything from the Europeans, and what remains of their ancient culture is merely its outward form. The Chinese have preserved their identity better, but now they can no longer hold out. It is true that the European dominion is not actively established there, but in those regions what the Europeans think is becoming all-prevailing, and what once existed there has disappeared. This is no cause for regret; it is in the nature of human evolution. It must, however, be mentioned.

Now if we observe the Chinese—among them, things can be seen in a less adulterated form—we find a culture distinct from all others, for the Chinese in their old culture did not include anything that can be called religion. The Chinese culture was devoid of religion.

You must picture to yourselves, gentlemen, what is meant by a “culture without religion”. When you consider the cultures that have religion you find everywhere—in the old Indian culture, for instance—veneration for beings who are invisible but who seem to resemble human beings on earth. It is the peculiar feature of all later religions that they represent their invisible beings as manlike.

Anthroposophy does not do this. Anthroposophy does not represent the super-sensible world anthropomorphically but as it actually is. Further, it sees in the stars the expression of the super-sensible. The remarkable thing is that the Chinese have had something of the same kind. The Chinese do not venerate invisible gods. They say: What is here on earth differs according to climate, according to the nature of the soil where one lives. You see, China in the most ancient times was already a large country and is still today larger than Europe; it is a gigantic country, has always been gigantic, and has had a tremendously large, vigorous population. Now, the idea that the population of the earth increases is just superstition on the part of modern science, which always makes its calculations from data to suit itself. The truth is that even in the most ancient times there was a vast population in China, also in South America and North America. There too in those ancient times the land reached out to the Pacific Ocean. If that is taken into account the population of the earth cannot be said to have grown.

So, gentlemen, we find a culture there that is quite ancient, and today this culture can still be observed as it actually existed ten thousand, eight thousand years ago. The Chinese said: Above in the north the climate is different, the soil is different, from what they are farther south; everything is different there. The growth of the plants is different and human beings have to live in a different way. But the sun is all-pervading. The sun shines in the north and in the south; it goes on its way and moves from warm regions to cold regions. They said: On earth diversity prevails, but the sun makes everything equal. They saw in the sun a fructifying, leveling force. They went on to say, therefore: If we are to have a ruler, our ruler must be like that; individual men differ, but he must rule over them like the sun. For this reason they gave him the name “Son of the Sun.” His task was to rule on earth as the sun rules in the universe. The individual planets, Venus, Jupiter, and so on, act in their various ways; the sun as ruler over the planets makes everything equal. Thus the Chinese pictured their ruler as a son of the Sun. For they took the word “son” essentially to imply “belonging to something.”

Everything was then so arranged that the people said: The Son of the Sun is our most important man. The others are his helpers, just as the planets are the helpers of the sun. They organized everything on the earth in accordance with what appeared above in the stars. All this was done without prayer, for they did not know the meaning of prayer. It was actually all done without their having what later would constitute a cult. What might be called their kingdom was organized so as to be an image of the heavens. It could not yet be called a state. (That is a mischief that modern men perpetrate.) But they arranged their earthly affairs to be an image of what appeared to them in the stars above.

Now something came about through this circumstance that was naturally quite different from what happened later: a man became the citizen of a kingdom. He had no creed to profess; he simply felt himself to be a member of a kingdom. Originally the Chinese had no gods of any kind; when later they did have them, they were gods taken over from the Indians. Originally they had no gods, but their connection with the super-sensible worlds was expressed by the essential nature of their kingdom and its institutions. Their institutions had a family quality. The Son of the Sun was at the same time father to all the other Chinese and these served him. Although it was a kingdom, it partook of the nature of a family.

All this was only possible for men whose thinking had as yet no resemblance to that of later humanity. The thinking of the Chinese at that time was not at all like that of later men. What we think today would have been quite foreign to the Chinese. We think, for example, “animal”; we think “man”; we think “vase” or “table”. The Chinese did not think in this way, but they knew: there is a lion, there a tiger, a dog, there's a bear—not, there is an animal. They knew: my neighbor has a table with corners; someone else has a table that is rounder. They gave names to single things, but what “a table” is, never entered their head; “table” as such—of that they had no knowledge. They were aware: there stands a man with a bigger head and longer legs, there one with a smaller head, with shorter legs, and so on; there is a smaller man, here a bigger man, but “man” in general was to them an unknown factor. They thought in quite a different way, in a way impossible for man today. They had need, therefore, of other concepts. Now if you think “table,” “man,” “animal,” you can extend this to legal matters, for Jurisprudence consists solely of such concepts. But the Chinese were unable to think out any legal system; with them everything was organized as in a family. Within a family, when a son or daughter wants to do something, there is no thought of such a thing as a legal contract. But today, if someone here in Switzerland wants to do something, he consults liability laws, marriage laws, and so on. There one finds all that is needed, and the laws then have to be applied to individual cases.

Inasmuch as human beings still retain something of the Chinese in them—and there always remains a little—they don't really feel comfortable about laws and must always have recourse to a lawyer. They are even at sea sometimes with general concepts. As for the Chinese, they never had a legal code; they had nothing at all of what later took on the nature of a state. All they had was what each individual could judge in his individual situation.

So, to continue. The whole Chinese language was influenced by this fact. When we say “table,” we at once picture a flat surface with one, two or three legs, and so on, but it must be something that can stand up like a table. If anyone were to tell me a chair is a table, I would say: A table? You stupid! that's not a table, that's a chair. And if someone else came along and called the blackboard a table, I'd call him something even stronger, for it's not a table at all but a blackboard. With our language we have to call each thing by its own special name.

That is not so with Chinese. I will put this to you hypothetically; it will not be a precise picture, but you will get the idea from it. Say, then, that Chinese has the sounds OA, IOA, TAO, for instance.

It has then a certain sound for table, but this same sound signifies many other things too. Thus, let us say, such a sound might mean tree, brook, also perhaps pebble. Then it has another sound, let's say, that can mean star, as well as blackboard, and—for instance—bench. (These meanings may not be correct in detail; I mean only to show the way the Chinese language is built up.) And now the Chinese person knows: there are two sounds here, say LAO and BAO, each meaning things that are quite different but also both meaning brook. So he puts them together: BAOLAO. In this way he builds up his language. He does not build it up from names given to single things, but according to the various meanings of the various sounds. A sound may mean tree but it may also mean brook. When, therefore, he combines two sounds, both of which—beside many other things—mean brook, the other man knows that he means brook. But when he utters only one sound, no one knows what he means. In writing there are the same complications. So the Chinese have an extraordinarily complicated language and an extraordinarily complicated script.

And indeed, gentlemen, a great deal follows from this. It follows that for them it is not so easy to learn to read and write as it is for us-nor even to speak. With us, reading and writing can really be called simple; indeed, we are unhappy when our children don't learn quickly to read and write—we think it is “mere child's play.” With the Chinese this is not so; in China one grows quite old before one can write or in any way master the language. So you can easily imagine that the ordinary people are not at all able to do it, that only those who can go on learning up to a great age can at last become proficient. In China, therefore, noble rank is conferred as a matter of course from a spiritual basis on those who are cultured, and this spiritually high rank is called into being by the nature of the language and script. Here again it is not the same as in the West, where various degrees of nobility can be conferred and then passed on from one generation to another. In China rank can be attained only through education and scholarship.

It is interesting, gentlemen, is it not, that if we judge superficially we would surely say: then we don't want to be Chinese. But please don't assume that I am saying we ought to become Chinese, or even particularly to admire China. That is what some people may easily say about it. Two years ago when we had a Congress in Vienna,⁶ someone spoke of how some things in China were managed even today more wisely than we manage them—and immediately the newspapers reported that we wanted Chinese culture in Europe! That is not what was meant. In describing the Chinese culture, praise must be given in a certain way—but only in a certain way—for what it has of spiritual content. But it is a primitive culture, of a kind that can no longer be adopted by us. So you must not think I am agitating for another China in Europe! I simply wish to describe this most ancient of human cultures as it actually existed.

Now—to continue. What I have been saying is related to the whole manner of Chinese thinking and feeling. Indeed, the Chinese (and also the Japanese of more ancient times) occupied themselves a great deal, a very great deal, with art—with their kind of art. They painted, for instance. Now when we paint, it is quite a different affair from the Chinese painting. You see, when we paint (I will make this as simple as possible), when we paint a ball, for example, if the light falls on it, then the ball is bright in one part and dark over in the other, for it is in shadow; the light is falling beyond it. There again, on the light side, the ball is rather bright because there the light is reflected. Then we say: that side is in shadow, for the light is reflected on the other side; and then we have to paint also the shadow the ball throws on the ground. This is one of the characteristics of our painting: we must have light and shade on the objects. When we paint a face, we paint it bright where the light falls, and on the other side we make it dark. When we paint the whole man, if we paint properly, we put shadow in the same way falling on the ground.

But beside this we must pay attention to something else in our picture. Suppose I am standing here and want to paint. I see Herr Aisenpreis sitting in front; there behind, I see Herr Meier, and the two gentlemen at the back quite small. Were I to photograph them, in the photograph also they would come out quite small. When I paint, I paint in such a way that the gentlemen sitting in the front row are quite big, the next behind smaller, the next again still smaller and the one sitting right at the back has a really small head, a really small face. You see, when we paint we take perspective into account. We have to do it that way. We have to show light and shade and also perspective. This is inherent in the way we think.

Now the Chinese in their painting did not recognize light and shade, nor did they allow for perspective, because they did not see as we see. They took no notice of light and shade and no notice of perspective. This is what they would have said: Aisenpreis is certainly not a giant, any more than Meier is a dwarf. We can't put them together in a picture as if one were a giant and the other a dwarf, for that would be a lie, it is not the truth! That's the way they thought about things, and they painted as they thought. When the Chinese and the Japanese learn painting in their way, they do not look at objects from the outside, they think themselves right into the objects. They paint everything from within outwards as they imagine things for themselves. This, gentlemen, constitutes the very nature of Chinese and Japanese painting.

You will realize, therefore, that learning to see came only later to mankind. Human beings in that early China thought only in pictures, they did not form general concepts like “table” and so on, but what they saw they apprehended inwardly. This is not to be wondered at, for the Chinese descended from a culture during which seeing was different. Today we see as we do because there is air between us and the object. This air was simply not there in the regions where the Chinese were first established. In the times from which the Chinese have come down, people did not see in our way. In those ancient times it would have been nonsense to speak of light and shade, for there was not yet any such thing in the density the air then had. And so the Chinese still have no light and shade in their painting, and still no perspective. That came only later. From this you can see the Chinese think in quite a different way; they do not think as men do who came later.

However, this did not in the least hinder the Chinese from going very far in outer cleverness. When I was young—it is rather different now—we learned in school that Berthold Schwarz⁷ invented gunpowder, and this was told us as if there had never been gunpowder before. So Berthold Schwarz, while he was doing alchemistic experiments, produced gunpowder out of sulphur, nitre and carbon. But—the Chinese had made gunpowder thousands of years earlier!

Also we learned in school that Gutenberg⁸ invented the art of printing. We did learn many things that were correct, but in this case it looked to us as if there had formerly been no knowledge of printing. Actually, the Chinese already possessed this knowledge thousands of years earlier. They also had the art of woodcarving; they could cut the most wonderful things out of wood. In such external things the Chinese have had an advanced culture. This was in its turn the last remnant of a former culture still more advanced, for one recognizes that this Chinese art goes back to something even higher.

Thus it is characteristic of the Chinese to think not in concepts but in pictures, and to project themselves right into things. They have been able to make all those things which depend upon outer invention (except when it's a matter of steam-engines or something similar). So the present condition of the Chinese, which we may say is degenerate and uncultivated, has actually come about from centuries of ill-treatment at the hands of the Europeans.

You see that here is a culture that is really spiritual in a certain sense—and really ancient, that goes back to ten thousand years before our time. Much later, in the millennium preceding Christianity, individuals like Lao Tse⁹ and Confucius¹⁰ made the first written record of the knowledge possessed by the Chinese. Those masters simply wrote down what had arisen out of the intercourse among families in this old kingdom. They were not conscious of inventing rules of a moral or ethical nature; they were simply recording their experience of Chinese conduct. Previously, this had been done by word of mouth. Thus everything at that time was basically different. That is what can still be perceived today in the Chinese.

In contrast to this, it is hardly possible to see any longer the old culture of the Japanese people, because they have been entirely Europeanized. They follow European culture in everything. That they did not develop this culture out of themselves can be seen from their inability to discover on their own initiative what is purely European. The following, for example, really happened. The Japanese were to have steamships and saw no reason why they should not be able to manage them perfectly well themselves. They watched how to turn the ship, for instance, how to open the screw, and so on. Their instructors, the Europeans, worked with them for a time, and finally one day the Japanese said proudly: Now we can manage by ourselves, and we will appoint our own captain! So the European instructors were put ashore and off steamed the Japanese to the high seas. When they were ready to turn back, they turned the screw, and the ship turned round beautifully—but no one knew how to close the screw, and there was the ship whirling round and round on the sea, just turning and turning! The European instructors watching from the shore had to take a boat and bring the revolving ship to a standstill.

Perhaps you remember Goethe's poem, “The Magician's Apprentice” where the apprentice watches the spells of the old master-magician? And then, to save himself the trouble of fetching water, he learns a magic verse by which he will be able to make a broom into a water-carrier. One day when the old magician is out, the apprentice begins to put this magic into practice, and recites the words to start the broom working. The broom gets really down to business, and fetches water, and more water, and always more water. But the apprentice forgets how to stop it. Just imagine if you had your room flooded, and your broom went on fetching more and more water. In his desperation the apprentice chops the broom in two—then there are two water-carriers! When everything is drowned in water, the old master returns and says the right words for the broom to become a broom again.

As you know, the poem has been done in eurythmy recently, and the audience enjoyed it immensely. Well, the same kind of thing happened with the Japanese: they didn't know how to turn back the screw, and so the ship continued to go round and round. A regular ship's dance went on out there until the instructors on land could get a boat and come to the rescue.

Surely it is clear from all this that the European sort of invention is impossible for either the Chinese or the Japanese. But as to older inventions such as gunpowder, printing and so forth, they had already gone that far in much more ancient times than the Europeans. You see, the Chinese are much more interested in the world at large, in the world of the stars, in the universe as a whole.

Another people who point back to ancient days are the Indians. They do not go so far back as the Chinese, but they too have an old culture. Their culture may be said to have arisen from the sea later than the Chinese. The people who were the later Indian people came more from the north, settling down in what is now India as the land became free of water.

Now whereas the Chinese were more interested in the world outside, could project themselves into anything, the Indian people brooded more within themselves. The Chinese reflected more about the world—in their own way, but about the world; the Indians reflected chiefly about themselves, about man himself. Hence the culture that arose in India was more spiritualized. In the most remote times Indian culture was still free of religion; only later did religion enter into it. Man was their principal object of study, but their study was of an inward kind.

This too I can best make clear by describing the way the Indians used to draw and paint. The Chinese, looking at a man, painted him simply by entering into him with their thinking—without light and shade or perspective. That is really the way they painted him. Thus, if a Chinese had wanted to paint Herr Burle, he would have thought his way into him; he would not have made him dark there and light here, as we would do today, he would not have painted light and shadow, for they did not yet exist for the Chinese. Nor would he have made the hands bigger by comparison because of their being in front. But if the Chinese had painted Herr Burle, then Herr Burle would really have been there in the picture!

It was quite different with the Indians. Now just imagine the Indians were going to paint a picture: they would have started by painting a head. They too had no such thing as perspective. But they would at once have had the idea that a head could often be different, so they would make another, then a third again different, and a fourth, a fifth would have occurred to them. In this way they would gradually have had twenty or thirty heads side-by-side! These would all have been suggested to them by the one head. Or if they were painting a plant, they imagined at once that this could be different, and then there arose a number of young plants growing out of the older one. This is how it was in the case of the Indians in those very ancient times. They had tremendous powers of imagination. The Chinese had none at all and drew only the single thing, but made their way into this in thought. The Indians had a powerful imagination.

Now you see, gentlemen, those heads are not there. Really, if you look at Herr Burle, you see only one head. If you're drawing him here on the board, you can draw only one head. You are therefore not painting what is outwardly real if you paint twenty or thirty heads; you are painting something thought-out in your mind. The whole Indian culture took on that character; it was an inner culture of the mind, of the spirit. Hence when you see spiritual beings as the Indians thought of them, you see them represented with numbers of heads, numbers of arms, or in such a way that the animal nature of the body is made manifest.

You see, the Indians are quite different people from the Chinese. The Chinese lack imagination whereas the Indians have been full of it from the beginning. Hence the Indians were predisposed to turn their culture gradually into a religious one—which up to this day the Chinese have never done: there is no religion in China. Europeans, who are not given to making fine distinctions, speak of a Chinese religion, but the Chinese themselves do not acknowledge such a thing. They say: you people in Europe have a religion, the Indians have a religion, but we have nothing resembling a religion. This predisposition to religion was possible in the Indians only because they had a particular knowledge of something of which the Chinese were ignorant, namely, of the human body. The Chinese knew very well how to put themselves into something external to them. Now when there are vinegar and salt and pepper on our dinner table and we want to know how they taste, we first have to sample them on our tongue. For the Chinese in ancient times this was not necessary. They already tasted things that were still outside them. They could really feel their way into things and were quite familiar with what was external. Hence they had certain expressions showing that they took part in the outside world. We no longer have such expressions, or they signify at most something of a figurative nature. For the Chinese they signified reality. When I am becoming acquainted with someone and say of him: What a sour fellow he is!—I mean it figuratively; we do not imagine him to be really sour as vinegar is sour. But for the Chinese this meant that the man actually evoked in them a sour taste.

It was not so with the Indians; they could go much more deeply into their own bodies. If we go deeply into our own bodies, it is only when certain conditions are present—then we feel something there. Whenever we've had a meal and it remains in our stomach without being properly digested, we feel pain in our stomach. If our liver is out of order and cannot secrete sufficient bile, we feel pain on the right side of our body—then we are getting a liver complaint. When our lungs secrete too freely so that they are more full of mucus than they should be, then we feel there is something wrong with our lungs, that they are out of order. Today human beings are conscious of their bodies only in those organs that are sick. Those Indians of ancient times were conscious even of their healthy organs; they knew how the stomach, how the liver felt. When anyone wants to know this today, he has to take a corpse and dissect it; then he can examine the condition of the individual organs inside. No one today knows what a liver looks like unless they dissect it; it is only spiritual science that is able to describe it. The Indians could think of inner man; they would have been able to draw all his organs. With an Indian, however, if you had asked him to feel his liver and draw what he felt, he would have said: Liver?—well, here is one liver, here's another, and here's another, and he would have drawn twenty or thirty livers side-by-side.

So, gentlemen, you have there a different story. If I draw a complete man and give him twenty heads, I have a fanciful picture. But if I draw a human liver with twenty or thirty others beside it, I am drawing something not wholly fantastic; it would have been possible for these twenty or thirty livers really to have come into being! Every man has his distinctive form of liver, but there is no absolute necessity for that form; it could very well be different. This possibility of difference, this spiritual aspect of the matter, was far better understood by the Indians than by those who came later. The Indians said: When we draw a single object, it is not the whole truth; we have to conceive the matter spiritually. So the Indians have had a lofty spiritual culture. They have never set great store by the outer world but have had a spiritual conception of everything.

Now the Indians took it for granted that learning should be acquired in accordance with this attitude; therefore, to become an educated man was a lengthy affair. For, as you can imagine, with them it was not just a matter of going deeply into oneself and then being capable all at once of knowing everything. When we are responsible for the instruction of young people, we have first to teach them to read and write, imparting to them in this way something from outside. But this was not so in the case of the ancient Indians. When they wanted to teach someone, they showed him how to withdraw into his inner depths; he was to turn his attention away from the world entirely and to focus it upon his inner being.

Now if anyone sits and looks outwards, he sees you all sitting there and his attention is directed to the outer world. This would have been the way with the Chinese; they directed their attention outwards. The Indians taught otherwise. They said: You must learn to gaze at the tip of your nose. Then the student had to keep his eyes fixed so that he saw nothing but the tip of his nose, nothing else for hours at a time, without even moving his eyes.

Yes indeed, gentlemen, the European will say: How terrible to train people always to be contemplating the tip of their nose! True! for the European there is something terrible in it; it would be impossible for him to do such a thing. But in ancient India that was the custom. In order to learn anything an Indian did not have to write with his fingers, he had to look at the tip of his nose. But this sitting for hours gazing at the tip of his nose led him into his own inner being, led him to know his lungs, his liver, and so forth. For the tip of the nose is the same in the second hour as it is in the first; nothing special is to be seen there. From the tip of his nose, however, the student was able to behold more and more of what was within him; within him everything became brighter and brighter. That is why he had to carry out the exercise.

Now, as you know, when we walk about, we are accustomed to do so on our feet and this going about on our feet has an effect upon us. We experience ourselves as upright human beings when we walk on our feet. This was discouraged for those in India who had to learn something. While learning they had to have one leg like this and sit on it, while the other leg was in this position. Thus they sat, gazing fixedly at the tip of their nose, so that they became quite unused to standing; they had the feeling they were not upright men but crumpled up like an embryo in a mother's womb. You can see the Buddha portrayed in this way. It was thus that the Indians had to learn. Gradually they began to look within themselves, learned to know what is within man, came to have knowledge of the human physical body in an entirely spiritual way.

When we look within ourselves, we are conscious of our paltry thinking; we are slightly aware of our feeling but almost not at all of our willing. The Indians felt a whole world in the human being. You can imagine what different men they were from those who came later. They developed, as you know, a tremendous fantasy, expressed poetically in their books of wisdom—later in the Vedas and in the Vedantic philosophy, which still fill us with awe. It figured in their legends concerning super-sensible things, which still today amaze us.

And look at the contrast! Here were the Indians, there were the Chinese over there, and the Chinese were a prosaic people interested in the outer world, a people who did not live from within. The Indians were a people who looked entirely inward, contemplating within them the spiritual nature of the physical body.

So—I have begun to tell you about the most ancient inhabitants of the earth. Next time I will carry it further, so that we will finally arrive at the time we live in now.

Please continue to bring your questions. There may be details that you would like me to enlarge upon, and I can always at some following meeting answer the questions they have raised. But I can't tell you when the next session will be, because now I must go to Holland. I will send you word in ten days or so.

• 6. The Second International Congress, Vienna, June 1–12, 1922. See The Tension Between East and West.
• 7. Berthold Schwarz, Franciscan monk, Freiburg, around 1300.
• 8. Johann Gutenberg, 1394–1468.
• 9. Lao Tse, Chinese philosopher, 6th century B.C.
• 10. Confucius, 531–478 BC., Chinese ethical teacher.

Rudolf Steiner: Good morning, gentlemen! Has someone thought of a question during the last weeks?

Question: Sir, I would like to ask about various foods—beans and carrots, for instance: what effect they have on the body. You have already spoken about potatoes; perhaps we could hear something about other foodstuffs. Some vegetarians won't eat things that have hung in the air, like beans or peas. And when one looks at a field of grain, one wonders how the various grains differ—for apparently all the peoples of the earth cultivate some grain or other.

Dr. Steiner: So—the question is about the relation of various foods to the human body. Well, first of all we should gain a clear idea of nutrition itself. One's immediate thought of nutrition is that when we eat something, it goes through the mouth down into the stomach, then it is deposited farther in the body and finally we get rid of it; then we must eat again, and so on. But the process is not as simple as that. It is much more complicated. And if one wants to understand how the human being is really related to various foods, one must first be clear about the kinds of food one definitely needs.

Now the very first thing one needs, the substance one must have without fail, is protein. Let us write all this on the board, so that we have it complete. So, protein, as it is in a hen's egg, for instance—but not just in eggs; protein is in all foods. One needs protein without fail. The second thing one needs is fats. These too are in all foods. Fats are even in plants. The third thing has a name that will be less familiar to you, but one needs to know it: carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are found particularly in potatoes, but they are also found in large quantity in all other plants. The important fact about carbohydrates is that when we eat them, they are slowly turned into starch by the saliva in our mouth and the secretions in our stomach. Starch is something we need without fail, but we don't eat starch; we eat foods that contain carbohydrates, and the carbohydrates are turned into starch inside us. Then they are converted once again, in the further process of digestion, into sugar. And we need sugar. So you see, we get the sugar we need from the carbohydrates. But we still need something else: minerals. We get them partly by adding them to our food, for example in the form of salt, and partly they are already contained in all our foodstuffs.

Now when we consider protein, we must realize how greatly it differs in animals and human beings from what it is in plants. Plants contain protein too, but they don't eat it, so where do they get it from? They get it out of the ground and out of the air, from the mineral world; they can take their protein from lifeless, mineral sources. Neither animal nor man can do that. A human being cannot use the protein that is to be got from lifeless elements—he would then only be a plant—he must get his protein as it is already prepared in plants or animals.

Actually, to be able to live on this earth the human being needs the plants. But now this is the amazing fact: the plants could not live on the earth either if human beings were not here! So, gentlemen, we reach the interesting fact—and we must grasp it quite clearly: that of all things the two most essential for human life are the green sap in the green leaves and blood. The green in the sap of a plant is called chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is contained in the green leaf. And the one other essential thing is blood.

Now this brings us to something very remarkable.

Think how you breathe: that is also a way of taking in nourishment. You take oxygen in from the air; you breathe it in. But there is carbon spread through your entire body. If you go down into the earth where there are coal deposits, you've got black coal. When you sharpen a pencil, you've got graphite. Coal and graphite: they're both carbon. Your whole body is made of carbon (as well as other substances). Carbon is formed in the human body. You could say, a man is just a heap of black coal! But you could also say something else. Because—remember the most expensive thing in the world? a diamond—and that's made of carbon; it just has a different form. And so, if you like the sound of it better, you could say you're made of glittering diamonds. The black carbon, that graphite in the pencil, and the diamonds: they are all the same substance. If someday the coal that is dug out of the earth can by some process be made transparent, you'll have diamonds. So we have diamonds hidden in our body. Or we are a coal field! But now when oxygen combines with carbon in the blood, you have carbon dioxide. And you know carbon dioxide quite well: you only have to think of Seltzer water with the bubbles in it: they are the carbon dioxide. It is a gas. So one can have this picture: A human being inhales oxygen from the air, the oxygen spreads all through his blood; in his blood he has carbon, and he exhales carbon dioxide. You breathe oxygen in, you breathe carbon dioxide out.

In the course of the earth's evolution, gentlemen, which I have recently been describing to you, everything would long ago have been poisoned by the carbon dioxide coming from the human beings and animals. For this evolution has been going on for a long time. As you can see, since long, long ago there could have been no human kingdom or animal kingdom alive on the earth unless plants had had a very different character from those kingdoms. Plants do not take in oxygen: they take in the carbon dioxide that human beings and animals exhale. Plants are just as greedy for the carbon dioxide as human beings are for oxygen.

Now if we look at a plant [see drawing]—root, stem, leaves, blossoms: the plant absorbs carbon dioxide in every part of it. And now the carbon in the carbon dioxide is deposited in the plant, and the oxygen is breathed out by the plant. Human beings and animals get it back again. Man gives carbon dioxide out and kills everything; the plant keeps back the carbon, releases the oxygen and brings everything to life again. And the plant could do nothing with the carbon dioxide if it did not have its green sap, the chlorophyll. This green sap of the plant, gentlemen, is a magician. It holds the carbon back inside the plant and lets the oxygen go free. Our blood combines oxygen with carbon; the green plant-sap separates the carbon again from the carbon dioxide and sets the oxygen free. Think what an excellent arrangement nature has made, that plants and animals and human beings should complement one another in this way! They complement one another perfectly.

But we must go on. The human being not only needs the oxygen that the plant gives him, but he needs the entire plant. With the exception of poisonous plants and certain plants which contain very little of these substances, the human being needs all plants not only for his breathing but also for food. And that brings us to another remarkable connection. A plant consists of root, if it is an annual plant (we won't consider the trees at this moment)—of root, leaf and stem, blossom and fruit. Now look at the root for a moment. It is in the earth. It contains many minerals, because minerals are in the earth and the root clings to the earth with its tiny fine rootlets, so it is constantly absorbing those minerals. So the root of the plant has a special relation to the mineral realm of the earth.

And now look here, gentlemen! The part of the human being that is related to the whole earth is the head. Not the feet, but actually the head. When the human being starts to be an earth-man in the womb, he has at first almost nothing but a head. He begins with his head. His head takes the shape of the whole cosmos and the shape of the earth. And the head particularly needs minerals. For it is from the head that the forces go out that fill the human body with bones, for instance. Everything that makes a human being solid is the result of the way the head has been formed. While the head itself is still soft, as in the womb, it cannot form bones properly. But as it becomes harder and harder itself, it gives over to the body the forces by which both man and animal are able to form their solid parts, particularly their bones. You can see from this that we need roots. They are related to the earth and contain minerals. We need the minerals for bone-building. Bones consist of calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate; those are minerals. So you can see that the human being needs roots in order to strengthen his head.

And so, gentlemen, if—for instances—a child is becoming weak in his head—inattentive, hyperactive—he will usually have a corresponding symptom: worms in his intestines. Worms develop easily in the intestines if the head forces are too weak, because the head does not then work down strongly enough into the rest of the body. Worms find no lodging in a human body if the head forces are working down strongly into the intestines. You can see how magnificently the human body is arranged!—everything is related. And if one's child has worms, one should realize the child has become weak in his head. Also—whoever wants to be a teacher has to know these things—if there are persons who at a later age are weak-minded, one can be sure they have had worms when they were young.

And so what must one do if one observes this in the child? The simplest remedy is to give him carrots to eat for a while—with his other food, of course; naturally, one couldn't just feed him on carrots alone. Carrots are the root of the plant. They grow down in the earth and have a large quantity of minerals. They have the forces of the earth in them, and when they are taken into the stomach, they are able to work up through the blood into the head. Only substances rich in minerals are able to reach the head. Substances rich in minerals, root substances, give strength to a human being by way of the head. That is extraordinarily important. It is through carrots that the uppermost parts of the head become strong—which is precisely what the human being needs in order to be inwardly firm and vigorous, not soft.

If you look at the carrot plant, you can't help seeing that its strength has gone particularly into the root. It is almost entirely root. The only part of the plant one is interested in is the root. The rest of it, the green part, is of no importance, it just sits there up above. So the carrot is particularly good as a food substance to maintain the human head. And if sometimes you yourselves feel empty-headed, dull, can't think properly, then it's fine if you too will eat carrots for a while! Naturally, they will help children the most.

But now if we compare a potato to a carrot—well, first of all it looks quite different. Of course, the potato plant has a green part. And then it has the part we eat, what we call the tubers, deep down in the earth. Now if we would think superficially, we could say those tubers are the roots. But that is not correct; the tubers are not roots. If you look carefully down into the soil, you can see the real roots hanging on the tubers. The real roots are tiny rootlets, root hairs, that hang on the tubers. They fall away easily. When you gather up the potatoes, the hairs have already fallen away. Only in the first moment when you are lifting a potato loose from the soil, the hairs are still all over it. When we eat a potato, we are really eating a piece of swollen, enlarged stem. It only appears to be a root; in reality it is stem. The leaves are metamorphosed. The potato is something down there between the root and the stem. Therefore it does not have as much mineral content as the carrot; it is not as earthy. It grows in the earth, but it is not so strongly related to the earth. And it contains particularly carbohydrates; not so many minerals, but carbohydrates.

So now, gentlemen, you can say to yourselves: When I eat carrots, my body can really take it easy, for all it needs is saliva to soften the carrot. All it needs is saliva and stomach secretions, pepsin and so forth for all the important substance of the carrot to reach the head. We need minerals, and minerals are furnished by any kind of root, but in greatest amounts by such a root as the carrot.

But now, when we eat potatoes, first they go into the mouth and stomach. There the body has to exert strength to derive starch from them. Then the digestive process goes further in the intestines. In order that something can go into the blood and also reach the head, there must be more exertion still, because sugar has to be derived from the starch. Only then can it go to the head. So one has to use still greater forces. Now think of this, gentlemen: when I exert my strength upon some external thing, I become weak. This is really a secret of human physiology: that if I chop wood, if I use my external bodily strength, I become weak; but if I exert an inner strength, transforming carbohydrates into starch and starch into sugar, I become strong. Precisely through the fact that I permeate myself with sugar by eating potatoes, I become strong. When I use my strength externally, I become weak; if I use it internally, I become strong. So it is not a matter of simply filling oneself up with food, but of the food generating strength in our body.

And so one can say: food from roots—and all roots have the same effect as carrots although not to the same degree: they all work particularly on the head—so, food from roots gives the body what it needs for itself. Foods that lean toward the green of the plant and contain carbohydrates provide the body with strength it needs for work, for movement.

I have already spoken about the potato. While it requires a terribly large expenditure of strength, it leaves a man weak afterwards, and does not provide him with any continuing strength. But the principle I have just given you holds good even for the potato.

Now to the same extent that the potato is a rather poor foodstuff, all the grains—wheat, rye, and so on—are good foodstuffs. The grains also contain carbohydrates, and of such a nature that the human being forms starch and sugar in the healthiest possible way. Actually, the carbohydrates of the grains can make him stronger than he can make himself by any other means. Only think for a moment how strong people are who live on farms, simply through the fact that they eat large quantities of their own homemade bread which contains the grain from their fields! They only need to have healthy bodies to start with, then if they can digest the rather coarse bread, it is really the healthiest food for them. They must first have healthy bodies, but then they become quite especially strong through the process of making starch and sugar.

Now a question might be raised. You see, human beings have come in the course of their evolution—shall I say, quite of their own accord—to eating the grains differently from the way animals eat them. A horse eats his oats almost as they grow. Animals eat their kernels of grain raw, just as they come from the plant. The birds would have a hard time getting their seed if they had to depend upon someone cooking it for them first! But human beings have come of themselves to cooking the grains. And now, gentlemen, what happens when we cook the grain? Well, when we cook the grain, we don't eat it cold, we eat it warm. And it's a fact, that to digest our food we need inner warmth. Unless there is warmth we can't transform our carbohydrates into starch and the starch into sugar: that requires inner heat.

So if we first apply external heat to the foodstuffs, we help the body: it does not have to provide all the warmth itself. By being cooked first, the foods have already begun the fire process, the warmth process. That's the first result. The second is, that they have been entirely changed. Think what happens to the grain when I make flour into bread. It becomes something quite different. And how has it become different? Well, first I have ground the seeds. What does that mean? I have crushed them into tiny, tiny pieces. And you see, what I do there with the seeds, grinding them, making them fine, I'd otherwise have to do later within my own body! Everything I do externally, I'd otherwise have to do internally, inside my body; so by doing those things, I relieve my body. And the same with the baking itself: all the things I do in cooking, I save my body from doing. I bring the foods to a condition in which my body can more easily digest them.

You have only to think of the difference if someone would eat raw potatoes instead of cooked ones. If someone were to eat his potatoes raw, his stomach would have to provide a tremendous amount of warmth to transform those raw potatoes—which are almost starch already. And the extent to which it could transform them would not be sufficient. So then the potatoes would reach the intestines and the intestines would also have to use a great amount of energy. Then the potatoes would just stay put in the intestines, for the subsequent forces would not be able to carry them farther into the body. So if one eats raw potatoes, either one just loads one's stomach with them and the intestines can't even get started on them, or one fills up the intestines; in either case there is no further digestion. But if the potatoes undergo a preparatory stage through cooking or some other means, then the stomach does not have so much to do, or the intestines either, and the potatoes go over properly into the blood and right up into the head. So you see, by cooking our foods, especially those that are counted among the carbohydrates, we are able to help our nutrition.

You are certainly acquainted with all the new kinds of foolishness in connection with nutrition—for instance, the raw food faddists, who are not going to cook anything anymore, they're going to eat everything raw. How does this come about? It's because people no longer know what's what from a materialistic science, and they shy away from a spiritual science, so they think a few things out on their own. The whole raw food fad is a fantasy. For a time someone living on raw food can whip the body along—in this situation the body has to be using very strong forces, so it has to be whipped—but then it will collapse all the more completely.

But now, gentlemen, let us come to the fats. Plants, almost all of them, contain fats which they derive from the minerals. Now fats do not enter the human body so easily as carbohydrates and minerals. Minerals are not even changed. For example, when you shake salt into your soup, that salt goes almost unchanged up into your head. You get it as salt in your head. But when you eat potatoes, you don't get potatoes in your head, you get sugar. The conversion takes place as I described to you. With the fats, however, whether they're plant fats or animal fats, it's not such a simple matter. When fats are eaten, they are almost entirely eaten up by the saliva, by the gastric secretions, by the intestinal secretions, and they become something quite different that then goes over into the blood. The animal and the human being must form their own fats in their intestines and in their blood, with forces which the fats they eat call forth.

You see, that is the difference between fats and sugar or minerals. The human being still takes his salt and his sugar from nature. He has to derive the sugar from the potato and the rye and so on, but there is still something of nature in it. But with the fats that man or animal have in them, there is nothing anymore of nature. They have formed them themselves. The human being would have no strength if he did not eat; his intestines and blood need fats. So we can say: Man himself cannot form minerals. If he did not take in minerals, his body would never be able to build them by itself. If he did not take in carbohydrates, if he did not eat bread or something similar from which he gets carbohydrates, he would never be able to form sugar by himself. And if he could not form sugar, he would be a weakling forever. So be grateful for the sugar, gentlemen! Because you are chock-full of sweetness, you have strength. The moment you would no longer be full to the brim with your own sweetness, you would have no strength, you would collapse.

And you know, that holds good even in connection with the various peoples. There are certain peoples who consume very little sugar or foodstuffs that produce sugar. These peoples have weak physical forces. Then there are certain peoples who eat many carbohydrates that form sugar, and they are strong.

But the human being doesn't have it so easy with the fats. If someone has fats in him (and this is true also of the animals), that is his own accomplishment, the accomplishment of his body. Fats are entirely his own production. The human being destroys whatever fats he takes in, plant fats or animal fats, and through their destruction he develops strength. With potatoes, rye, wheat, he develops strength by converting the substances. With the fats that he eats, he develops strength by destroying the substances.

If I destroy something outside of myself, I become tired and exhausted. And if I have had a big fat beefsteak and destroy that inside myself, I become weak in the same way; but my destruction of the fat beefsteak or of the plant fat gives me strength again, so that I can produce my own fat if my body is predisposed to it. So you see, the consumption of fat works very differently in the human body from the consumption of carbohydrates. The human body, gentlemen, is exceedingly complicated, and what I have been describing to you is tremendous work. Much must take place in the human body for it to be able to destroy those plant fats.

But now let us think how it is when someone eats green stuff, the stems and leaves of a plant. When he eats green stuff, he is getting fats from the plants. Why is it that sometimes a stem is so hard? Because it then gives its forces to leaves that are going to be rich in carbohydrates. And if the leaves stay green—the greener they are, the more fats they have in them. So when someone eats bread, for instance, he can't take in many fats from the bread. He takes in more, for example, from watercress—that tiny plant with the very tiny leaves—more fats than when he eats bread. That's how the custom came about of putting butter on our bread, some kind of fat. It wasn't just for the taste. And why country people want bacon with their bread. There again is fat, and that also is eaten for two reasons.

When I eat bread, the bread works upon my head because the root elements of a plant work up into the stem. The stem, even though it is stem and grows above the ground in the air, still has root forces in it. The question is not whether something is above in the air, but whether it has any root forces. Now the leaf, the green leaf, does not have root forces. No green leaf ever appears down in the earth. In late summer and autumn, when the sun forces are no longer working so strongly, the stem can mature. But the leaf needs the strongest sun forces for it to unfold; it grows toward the sun. So we can say, the green part of the plant works particularly on heart and lungs, while the root strengthens the head. The potato also is able to work into the head. When we eat greens, they give us particularly plant fats; they strengthen our heart and lungs, the middle man, the chest man.

That, I would say, is the secret of human nutrition: that if I want to work upon my head, I have roots or stems for dinner. If I want to work upon my heart or my lungs, I make myself a green salad. And in this case, because these substances are destroyed in the intestines and only their forces proceed to work, cooking is not so necessary. That's why leaves can be eaten raw as salad. Whatever is to work on the head cannot be eaten raw; it must be cooked. Cooked foods work particularly on the head. Lettuce and similar things work particularly on heart and lungs, building them up, nourishing them through the fats.

But now, gentlemen, the human being must not only nurture the head and the middle body, the breast region, but he must nurture the digestive organs themselves. He needs a stomach, intestines, kidneys, and a liver, and he must build up these digestive organs himself. Now the interesting fact is this: to build up his digestive organs he needs protein for food, the protein that is in plants, particularly as contained in their blossoms, and most particularly in their fruit. So we can say: the root nourishes the head particularly [see drawing earlier]; the middle of the plant, stem and leaves, nourishes the chest particularly; and fruit nourishes the lower body.

When we look out at our grain fields we can say, Good that they are there! for that nourishes our head. When we look down at the lettuce we've planted, all those leaves that we eat without cooking because they are easily digested in the intestines—and it's their forces that we want—there we get everything that maintains our chest organs. But cast an eye up at the plums and apples, at the fruits growing on the trees—ah! those we don't have to bother to cook much, for they've been cooked by the sun itself during the whole summer! There an inner ripening has already been happening, so that they are something quite different from the roots, or from stalks and stems (which are not ripened but actually dried up by the sun). The fruits, as I said, we don't have to cook much—unless we have a weak organism, in which case the intestines cannot destroy the fruits. Then we must cook them; we must have stewed fruit and the like. If someone has intestinal illnesses, he must be careful to take his fruit in some cooked form—sauce, jam, and so forth. If one has a perfectly healthy digestive system, a perfectly healthy intestinal system, then fruits are the right thing to nourish the lower body, through the protein they contain. Protein from any of the fruits nourishes your stomach for you, nourishes all your digestive organs in your lower body.

You can see what a good instinct human beings have had for these things! Naturally, they have not known in concepts all that I've been telling you, but they have known it instinctively. They have always prepared a mixed diet of roots, greens and fruit; they have eaten all of them, and even the comparative amounts that one should have of these three different foods have been properly determined by their instinct.

But now, as you know, people not only eat plants, they eat animals too, the flesh of animals, animal fat and so on.

Certainly it is not for anthroposophy ever to assume a fanatical or a sectarian attitude. Its task is only to tell how things are. One simply cannot say that people should eat only plants, or that they should also eat animals, and so on. One can only say that some people with the forces they have from heredity are simply not strong enough to perform within their bodies all the work necessary to destroy plant fats, to destroy them so completely that then forces will develop in their bodies for producing their own fat. You see, a person who eats only plant fats—well, either he's renounced the idea of becoming an imposing, portly fellow, or else he must have an awfully good digestive system, so healthy that it is easy for him to destroy the plant fats and in this way get forces to build his own fat. Most people are really unable to produce their own fat if they have only plant fats to destroy. When one eats animal fat in meat, that is not entirely destroyed. Plant fats don't go out beyond the intestines, they are destroyed in the intestines. But the fat contained in meat does go beyond, it goes over into the human being. And the person may be weaker than if he were on a diet of just plant fats.

Therefore, we must distinguish between two kinds of bodies. First there are the bodies that do not like fat, they don't enjoy eating bacon, they just don't like to eat fatty foods. Those are bodies that destroy plant fats comparatively easily and want in that way to form their own fat. They say: “Whatever fat I carry around, I want to make myself; I want my very own fat.” But if someone heaps his table with fatty foods, then he's not saying, “I want to make my own fat”; he's saying, “The world has to give me my fat.” For animal fat goes over into the body, making the work of nutrition easier.

When a child sucks a candy, he's not doing that for nourishment. There is, to be sure, something nutritious in it, but the child doesn't suck it for that; he sucks it for the sweet taste. The sweetness is the object of his consciousness. But if an adult eats beef fat, or pork fat, or the like, well, that goes over into his body. It satisfies his craving just as the candy satisfies the child's craving. But it is not quite the same, for the adult feels this craving inside him. The adult needs this inner craving in order to respond to his inner being. That is why he loves meat. He eats it because his body loves it.

But it is no use being fanatic about these things. There are people who simply cannot live if they don't have meat. A person must consider carefully whether he really will be able to get on without it. If he does decide he can do without it and changes over from a meat to a vegetarian diet, he will feel stronger than he was before. That's sometimes a difficulty, obviously: some people can't bear the thought of living without meat. If, however, one does become a vegetarian, he feels stronger—because he is no longer obliged to deposit alien fat in his body; he makes his own fat, and this makes him feel stronger.

I know this from my own experience. I could not otherwise have endured the strenuous exertion of these last twenty-four years! I never could have traveled entire nights, for instance, and then given a lecture the next morning. For it is a fact, that if one is a vegetarian one carries out a certain activity within one that is spared the non-vegetarian, who has it done first by an animal. That's the important difference.

But now don't get the idea that I would ever agitate for vegetarianism! It must always be first established whether a person is able to become a vegetarian or not; it is an individual matter.

You see, this is especially important in connection with protein. One can digest protein if one is able to eat plant protein and break it down in the intestines. And then one gets the forces from it. But the moment the intestines are weak, one must get the protein externally, which means one must eat the right kind of protein, which will be animal protein. Hens that lay eggs are also animals! So protein is something that is really judged quite falsely unless it is considered from an anthroposophical point of view.

When I eat roots, their minerals go up into my head. When I eat salad greens, their forces go to my chest, lungs, and heart—not their fats, but the forces from their fats. When I eat fruit, the protein from the fruit stays in the intestines. And the protein from animal substances goes beyond the intestines into the body; animal protein spreads out. One might think, therefore, that if a person eats plenty of protein, he will be a well-nourished individual. This has led to the fact in this materialistic age that people who had studied medicine were recommending excessive amounts of protein for the average diet: they maintained that one hundred and twenty to one hundred and fifty grams of protein were necessary-which was ridiculous. Today it is known that only a quarter of that amount is necessary. And actually, if a person does eat such enormous and unnecessary amounts of protein—well, then something happens as it once did with a certain professor and his assistant.

They had a man suffering from malnutrition and they wanted to build him up with protein. Now it is generally recognized that when someone is consuming large amounts of protein—it is, of course, converted in him—his urine will show that he has had it in his diet. So now it happened with these two that the man's urine showed no sign of the protein being present in his body. It didn't occur to them that it had already passed through the intestines. The professor was in a terrible state. And the assistant was shaking in his boots as he said timidly: “Sir – Professor—perhaps—through the intestines?” Of course!

What had happened? They had stuffed the man with protein and it was of no use to him, for it had gone from the stomach into the intestines and then out behind. It had not spread into the body at all. If one gulps down too much protein, it doesn't go over into the body at all, but into the fecal waste matter. Even so, the body does get something from it: before it passes out, it lies there in the intestines and becomes poisonous and poisons the whole body. That's what can happen from too much protein. And from this poisoning comes then very frequently arteriosclerosis-so that many people get arteriosclerosis too early, simply from stuffing themselves with too much protein.

It is important, as I have tried to show you, to know these things about nutrition. For most people are thoroughly convinced that the more they eat, the better they are nourished. Of course it is not true. One is often much better nourished if one eats less, because then one does not poison oneself.

The point is really that one must know how the various substances work. One must know that minerals work particularly on the head; carbohydrates—just as they are to be found in our most common foods, bread and potatoes, for instance—work more on the lung system and throat system (lungs, throat, palate and so on). Fats work particularly on heart and blood vessels, arteries and veins, and protein particularly on the abdominal organs. The head has no special amount of protein. What protein it does have—naturally, it also has to be nourished with protein, for after all, it consists of living substances—that protein man has to form himself. And if one overeats, it's no use believing that in that way one is getting a healthy brain, for just the opposite is happening: one is getting a poisoned brain.

Protein: abdominal organs
Fats: heart and blood vessels
Carbohydrates: lungs, throat, palate
Minerals: head

Perhaps we should devote another session to nutrition? That would be good, because these questions are very important. So then, Saturday at nine o'clock.